Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
.
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/supreme-civil/1-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/civil_numerically.pdf
(4) https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/21.08.17-FILED-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-Action4Canada.pdf
(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-action4canada-want-more-money-for-cases-still-not-happening/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWV-xD5sfA&

23 Replies to “Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial”

  1. Excellent work Ronnie! I agree with you. Rocco’s controlled opposition.
    Thanks for exposing the unfruitful works of darkness again.

    1. I knew it all along. They are SWINDLERS – Tanya Gaw, Rocco Galati and their ‘Jane Doe,’ LL friends.

    1. hold on a minute : Tanya Gaw, Ted Kuntz, Linda Morken and others are NOT “dishonest”. They are babes-in-the-woods who have no idea about how it goes in the legal racket.
      Mr Galati, though, is another story. No halfway competent lawyer would put his name on this piece of garbage. He has taken a third of a million $$s – so far! – for what amounts to a circus act.

      worse : the Plaintiffs have put demselves in jeopardy of being tagged with Costs if/ when this thing gets dismissed. Not bloody likely those Costs will come out of Rocco Galati’s hide, nor the pocket of Larry Wong

      it would be laughable, but = there is no other, more logical reason this monstrosity is being promoted, but that it’s CONTRIVED to dis-grace the authentic populist movement to END THE GOD DAMNED LOCKDOWN

  2. Your work / research is outstanding. I can’t praise you enough for your efforts in trying to help educate others and with any luck STOP what is about to unfold on the world. My sincere thanks to you and everything you stand for!

    1. It means the Statement of Claim has no chance whatsoever of making it to Trial. There are serious, fundamental issues and violations of the Rules of Civil Procedure for B.C. Supreme Court. If it’s ever challenged, it will be thrown out. Aside from its length, it’s incredibly poorly done. Now, this could just be shoddy work, but I suspect it’s deliberate.

  3. Im still lost. If its poorly done is there still away to fix it because I feel that our charter of rights and freedoms needs to be enforced. We are being forced to put experimental vaccinations in our body and I think it is completely wrong.

    1. There is a way.

      Discontinue this one, draft a proper SoC, then refile.

      The point was that this version was written so badly (with all the reasons listed), that it would never make it to trial as is. It’s too far gone to simply fix with amendments. Then again, it takes a lot of effort to make a mess like this. It’s not the work of someone serious about taking down Trudeau, Horgan, Dix, Farnworth and Henry.

  4. I read the first two paragraphs of the statement of claim and could see straight away this was useless. at first I thought it was compiled by some ‘sovereign’ group or similar, but it’s been done by a lawyer FFS!

    Here in Australia there are two cases being instituted against the NSW govt for primarily similar issues, but I fear they are probably doing the same thing – using it as a tactic to make money.

    No court case I have seen has bothered or is bothering to challenge the science govts are using (which would require expert testimonials) which means the courts will be compelled to assume the science is sound and will rule against any challenge on grounds of public health safety.

    Now I would pose to serious lawyers who claim to be worth their salt, that if you claim that it will be too costly to bring in expert scientists who can demonstrate the govts science is faulty, remember that most of these scientists who have been talking out about this stuff have everything to lose and nothing to gain by publicly calming the govt science is wrong – therefore, I do not think the claim that they will be too expensive to testify in court is very sound, particularly in todays climate where everyone zooms and I see no reason why this can’t be the case in a court setting

  5. “AFL SOLICITORS seek “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF” restraining Minister Brad Hazzard and Dr Kerry Chant from making any further Orders under section 7 of The Public Health Act 2010 (NSW)”

    This filed by Ashley Francina Leonard & Associates.

  6. Yes, keen analytical perception. Remarkable in magnitude of “defective by design” as the saying goes.

    As for being the top constitutional lawyer, this is easily challenged, as not being aware that the 1982 Constitution is illegal, with the corresponding illegal transfer of power, the bogus Queen and the violation of changing the form of government are only some of the things oblivious to perception, awareness and acknowledgement.

    The Bank of Canada fiasco, was another coup d’etat by anti nation state enemies, collaborateurs, traitors, and not so evidently is who is in the courts, with the illegal transfer of power with no recourse to such things as a medical fascist tyranny or treasury bond electronic debt, compound interest.

    People do not realize it is not a pandemic but enforced genocide by bio-weapons aka vaccines, which are technically not vaccines, additionally, the understanding that supra national governments or arbitrary proxy and asymmetrical warfare scenarios are fully engaged in all out war.

    Fake news, fake litigation, fake lawyers (with allegiance to a foreign criminal agency and entity) fake mass media publicity and hype (the star saviour, star lawyer, the plan) are bogus and detrimental for an individual to be pro-active and accept personal responsibility in addition to the eventually that all out war must be met with a do or die all multiple choice points in the time line of empowerment.

    getting bogged down with technicalities and lawyers in a social engineering experiment involving total war and genocide in a theatre or environment that real law and civilized behaviour is not par for the course, can only be met with pure justice…

    of course, some interesting reading is found at : modernfathers1867.wordpress.com and associated sites….

    the idea that the penalty of treason is death and that the penalty of high treason is death was normal, traditional, effective….

    the knights of the round table church members have no problem, any weapon can be a ceremonial weapon….

    forced vaccinations are illegal and represent genocide and war, anyone doing that is an enemy combatant, engaged in acts of aggression, wars of aggression, they are enemies foreign and domestic along with mass media that is owned, controlled, voted, edited and censored by the enemies of nation state sovereignty, our enemies who are at war with us…

    now what are you going to do with the sociopath, homicide, genocide maniac, serial killer terrorist with a bio-weapon? Are you afraid of hate speech now? are you ready to lay down your life and die, perhaps to some satanic child sacrifice mass murderer with bogus id hiding behind a fake name, fake character with no morals, values, character, someone that hates you and all life and has zero reservations or guilt with medical assault with a dangerous weapon, a bio-weapon? Hmmmm

  7. So many here ripping this SoC apart… yet none of these legal geniuses are offering up a better solution as our freedoms and rights are being wrenched away from us. C’mon big talkers, let’s see your legal prowess!!! I’m guessing I wont see it though, because more than likely, you’re “all talk, no action”.

    At least Tanya and Rocco are TRYING to do something… even if it doesn’t meet your platinum standard.

  8. It is not clear to me who this expert is that is tossing around these accusations. Why aren’t they providing their name and photo and track record. I suspect if they do that Rocco will have them for breakfast. They appear to be controlled opposition to me. Identify yourself.

  9. I emailed a constitutional lawyer of 30 yrs an asked him why there are so few court cases being filed when there is so much conjecture going around, and why those that have been filed are going nowhere. I highlighted the one exception wherein the Spanish Supreme Court recently ruled against mandatory vaccine passports. Here was his response (suffice to say, all the cases close to me in Australia which have all been failing are failing for the same reasons it appears).

    “Court cases on complex subjects are difficult to plan, which requires attorneys with a great deal of practical experience. When scientific questions are involved, expert testimony is necessary–which requires attorneys with a sufficient background in the subject-matter to know how best to use the available experts. All of this costs a great deal (unless the attorneys and experts can afford to work pro bono publico). Cases of this type can be “cost effective” when large awards of damages and attorneys’ fees can be obtained; otherwise, not. I could give you other reasons, too; but these are enough to explain why few cases have been brought so far–and the few which have show little sign of success so far.”

    So this is essentially the problem. In Australia, all the major cases that have not gone anywhere in recent times were all ruled in favour of govt on grounds of public health and safety, because, none of these cases challenged the govts science, and until such a challenge is mounted, the courts are compelled to assume the govts science is sound. You must demonstrate there is science to the contrary and you need experts to do this.

    As for costs, I challenged the lawyer on this. I said (to which I have not had a reply), all the experts who claim the science the govt is relying on is faulty are coming out at high risk of losing their licenses, for being banned, censored, persecuted, and yet they still come out wherever they can. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain which suggests to me, we shouldn’t just assume they wont be more than happy to testify in court to their science. Further, with the use of Zoom etc, this should be made even easier. If they are prepared to be interviewed on alternative media, then they should be more than happy to testify in court.

    What is frustrating is that in recent days several cases in Aust have been launched, one was denied, the other I feel is also going to be denied because they are not going to challenge the science. I have repeatedly asked them if they plan to challenge the science and I get no response.

  10. You ‘re a bloody idiot… You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about Moron.. Do you honestly think a 31 year Constitutional lawyer whose successfully sued politicians in the past is not going to do his friggin homework, you fucking idiot? Do you think for a moment, that Gelati would put his impressive career and reputation on the line and represent this civil suit if he didn’t know what the fuck he was doing you bloody moron? Go back to whatever the hell you were doing before you got into Law.. Just goes to show you, People can take up training, education etc and still not have a bloody clue about anything..

  11. Gee, this is one popular post Ronnie – I think you struck a few nerves.
    Keep up the great reporting. I think most know by now that Galati (not Gelati as mentioned in previous comment) is a big time fraud. Time will tell of course, but after all this time and nothing to show for it, you would think there would be some serious critical thinking going on. Oh well, the sheep will wait for others to save them – they will be waiting a very long time.

  12. The matter is quite simple. The weak link in the chain is Bonnie Henry. As Chief Medical Officer for the province of B.C. she has failed to carry out her duties as described in the Act that governs her conduct. Have a lawyer send her a registered letter demanding she exercise her responsibilities to the B.C. public. If she fails to do so file in the courts and and seek an order that she act according to her Legislative mandate. If she does not proceed accordingly she is certainly guilty of acting illegally and her removal can be sought.

Leave a Reply