Action4Canada is soliciting more money for lawsuits they have yet to file. See archive. These cases haven’t been filed, and they refuse to provide any information, including who the Defendants are, estimated timelines, or even what they’re about. This is done apparently to “not alert the opposition”.
It’s hard to make the original text look worse than it is. Quoting it directly is probably the best option here.
I believe we can agree that Action4Canada is definitely on the right track and that Rocco’s expertise in drafting the NOCC and the content within it, is of great concern to the defendants who do not want to see Rocco have his day in court. We have top expert witnesses and their testimonies and affidavits are signed and ready to go. We are prayerful that when we get our day in court, justice will be served.
On February 7, 2024 Ted Kuntz from Vaccine Choice Canada joined Tanya Gaw, founder of Action4Canada, on the Empower Hour to provide a special investigative report that exposed individuals who claim to be part of the freedom movement but who have actually been working to get our lawyer disbarred, undermine our legal actions, and interfere with our financial support. One of the parties involved in these campaigns has reported ties to the World Economic Forum. Understandably, this has called into question their true motives, and raised concerns about whether they are secretly aligned with the government.
It has become apparent that the attacks against Rocco, A4C and VCC are all part of a deliberate, highly resourced and orchestrated smear campaign against individuals who have steadfastly sought to reveal the truth to Canadians. As more evidence of government corruption, negligence and conspiracy surfaces Canadians are looking for an explanation and people are demanding answers and accountability. The A4C and VCC cases are public documents that provide answers and explain the true motives and objectives of the COVID mandates, which in and of themselves are just a small piece of the bigger picture and a longer story. It is the bigger picture and story that the detractors don’t want Canadians to see or read.
Delusional doesn’t even begin to cover it.
The irony (or hypocrisy) is that this site was sued for exposing the truth about just how poorly written many of these anti-lockdown cases are.
Pursuing freedom was never the issue, and that was repeatedly made clear. Instead, the absurdly long delays, and incoherent pleadings were the subject of the criticisms. These are public interest litigation, not some private disputes.
It also doesn’t seem to register how bad it looks to call people “paid agitators” for critiquing their work, while making accusations which are arguably much more defamatory.
Nor does it occur to them that since these SLAPPs are still open cases, they could — in theory — be forced to testify. It’s not too bright to splash this kind of evidence around.
The British Columbia and Federal Governments don’t fear facing these people in Court. Instead, this would probably be viewed as comic relief.
Now, we get to the demands for more money:
We also want to request that you continue to financially partner with us. We are so thankful to everyone who helped raise the original funds for this Constitutional challenge and we hope that this recent win in court provides encouragement and reflects our integrity and commitment to the legal challenges and representing all Canadians. We would like to further inform you that Action4Canada is taking on additional legal challenges that are of equal importance and of public concern. However, we are not yet ready to disclose the details as we do not want to alert the opposition, but we can assure you that in our preliminary work we have already achieved very positive results.
Action4Canada wants more money to start additional lawsuits, but won’t say who they are against, or even what the objectives are. That sounds sketchy.
Even worse, the misrepresentation that the Court of Appeal gave them a “win” is used to bolster the requests for more money. It’s wasn’t a win at all. The Appeal was DISMISSED. In a similar vein, the original NOCC was STRUCK IN ITS ENTIRETY, not declared to be valid.
Assuming these new lawsuits ever materialize, what’s their purpose? Will it be used to fight Government overreach? Or will more of their critics be sued?
As for their main case:
(1) Despite fundraising since the Summer of 2020, nothing was actually filed until August 2021, nearly a year later. What finally came was a 391 page convoluted mess.
(2) August 2021: This critique was published. It quoted Rules 3-1, 3-7 and 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia. In short, it failed to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading. The site was sued a week later over it, after it allegedly caused donations to plummet.
(3) October 2021: The Defendants start issuing responses to the 391 page Claim.
(4) January 2022: Defendants being filing Applications to Strike the Claim, given how incoherent it is, and impossible to follow. This wasn’t a determination on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The reasons cited include many that the Canuck Law article had published.
(5) May 2022: The Application to Strike is finally heard. It’s worth hearing what it was about. The Claim was so long, confusing and convoluted, that it was impossible to respond to it in any meaningful way.
(6) August 2022: The Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. It was officially struck for being prolix and confusing, although many errors were outlined. However, Justice Ross did allow it to be rewritten, saying there was a prospect that a valid Claim could be filed.
(7) September 2022: Even though the decision was a humiliation, Gaw took to the alternative media to proclaim that it was “really a win”, and that Justice Ross had accepted the case as valid. This was a gross distortion of reality.
(8) September 2022: Instead of simply rewriting an amended Notice of Civil Claim, the case was appealed. No real explanation of that was ever given.
(9) February 2023: The Law Society of British Columbia includes the Action4Canada pleading in their Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC). This is one of the courses that prospective lawyers are required to take before letting licensed. This case is actually used as a teaching exercise in how not to draft documents.
(10) February 2023: The Federal (Adelberg) case is struck as “bad beyond argument”. Justice Fothergill references the Action4Canada case, and concludes it has many of the same defects.
(11) October 2023: No serious attempt had been made to book the actual hearing, which is why the Appeal became classified as “inactive”. If the date isn’t booked within 12 months after filing the Notice of Appeal, this is done automatically.
(12) October 2023: Just days after bring criticized for the lack of a hearing, A4C books the date for February. It seems that public scrutiny forced them to move ahead. Perhaps the goal was to just let the Appeal get thrown out as “abandoned”.
(13) February 2024: The LSBC posts their latest edition of the Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC), and the Action4Canada case is still in it. The overall text has been updated (from 140 pages to 147), but the editors still thought it was worth keeping in.
(14) February 2024: The Action4Canada Appeal is heard, and promptly dismissed.
(15) February 2024: Despite being laughed out of the Court of Appeal, Action4Canada insists that it was really a win, and that things are moving along.
Now, despite what a clown show the case against Bonnie Henry has been, Action4Canada is asking for money for other legal actions, but refuses to specify any details.
Are there more cases in the works?
Against who?
Or, is this just another bottomless pit for gullible people to throw away their money? Guess we’ll have to see what becomes of it.
ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal
ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)
OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10
ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022
MORE PANHANDLING, “PAID AGITATORS”
() https://action4canada.com/legal-update-we-were-successful-in-the-court-of-appeal-and-are-moving-forward-with-filing-the-new-nocc/
() Wayback Machine Archive
() Legal Update_ We Were Successful in the Court of Appeal
here’s what I sent ’round to my email list of about 200 folks who have been paying attention to the Action 4 Canada thing, since 2020.
………………………………
worth reading what Ronnie Lempert has to say at Canucklaw re : Action 4 Canada’s latest slice of INsanity
https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-begging-for-more-money/
Tanya Gaw’s take on the recent disgrace … her lawyer getting booted out of the BC Court of Appeal ‘with his ass in a sling’ for the 3rd time ! … is a textbook example of what psychologists term “DENIAL”. Worse : she’s deteriorated to the next stage of that malady … blaming others for the spectacular failures of her much-vaunted legal counsel
one of the worst of the outright lies she presents, is : that the Action 4 Canada lawsuit in Supreme Court of B. C. included a constitutional challenge. Having done 3 Constitutional Questions in my own cases, I know what one looks like. Although he did sign his name to the purported CLAIM, nowhere in 300 pages of blather, did Rocco Galati set out a proper challenge to the “vires” of the Covid Mandates. as she continues to solicit fund$s, for imaginary lawsuits, Miss Gaw is very close to perpetrating FRAUD. Apparently she actually is that stupid about how it goes in His Majesty’s Courts in British Columbia. But her legal counsel cannot get away with that excuse. Wittingly or not > she’s publishing false advertising for his business. If he’s aware of it = which he undoubtedly is = then Rocco Galati is compounding the FRAUD he visited on every one who tossed a Bank of Canada note in to her collection box.
whereas the latest Action 4 Canada newsletter uses the word “evidence” several times, stating they have “signed Affidavits” ready to go in, I don’t believe it. If they do have Affidavits, such would have been filed with the Registry long before now
I’m quite disgusted with what Miss Gaw and shyster Galati have done – bilked serious amounts of fund$s from supporters of the Freedom Movement while perverting the legal system for personal gain. One of his lawsuits for Defamation backfired on him, bigtime. Being rebuked by a Judge, Mr Galati is now court-certified as the stereotypical greasy little Italian shyster whyngning like Rodney Dangerfield “I don’t get no respect!”
…
enough of that for now. The best remedy for the damage done by Rocco Galati, is : perfect my complaint to the Law Society of Ontariario about him, then publish it on the internet. Coming to the point that the Law Society can compel him to dis-gorge his ill-gotten gains.
The Queen of Denial is going to rue the day she used the word “accountability”. Beyond doubt, her federally-incorporated non-profit will be audited.
Gordon S Watson
Justice Critic
Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians
I have read several of the articles and watched several of the videos by Action4Canada and for the most part, they have done excellent work bringing to the fore issues that need airing.
However, how such bright minds could possibly get involved with the ‘bad beyond argument’ lawyers and then defend them when the problems with those lawyers’ work is there for all to see, is truly mindboggling.
Sometimes it is necessary to step back and really look at who/what one is defending and admit the error in judgment. They were doing their best, I believe, to fight against the tryanny we all face, but once Action4Canada lost their objectivity and could not see they needed to get back into their ‘lane’ and stay away from the lawyers and courts, they started to lose the day and support.
The way I see it, nobody would have faulted them at all if they had just admitted that the legal route did not go as planned, they could not possibly know what the work product would be like and they will be more careful in the future. People are very forgiving; it all would have gone away.
But doubling down like this is ‘bad beyond argument’ and I hope Tanya Gaw really stops to analyze what she is doing. She works hard and her intentions are good from what I can see of her work. But sometimes, I think she does not realize she is being misled.