Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Citizens Alliance Nova Scotia Has Case Dismissed For Mootness

CANS, the Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia, has had their Application for Judicial Review dismissed for “mootness” by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. This concerns a 2021 case filed to challenge the dictates issued by Robert Strang, Nova Scotia’s “Medical Officer of Health”. He had banned gatherings and public assemblies (among other things) under the guise of safety.

For context, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal had previously found that the basic freedoms of residents had been infringed.

Quite simply, it’s apparently not worth the time or expense to hear the case. Since none of the related orders are currently in force, Justice John A. Keith won’t hear a challenge to their legality.

The Judge heard arguments for the Motion in December, 2024, and took over a year to render a decision. He also took several months before ruling on public interest standing. On the bright side, at least costs were not ordered.

This ruling gives off some serious “CSASPP vibes”, where litigants were kept waiting far longer than necessary.

2 Separate Motions: Public Interest Standing & Mootness

In early 2024, CANS sought public interest standing in their case, which would have enabled them to seek far greater remedies. It was denied.

[35] I will deal first, and separately, with CANS’ request for an Order prospectively banning any attempt by a future provincial government (or its representative) to legislatively impose “anything but a voluntary immunization program at any time”.

[36] I do not find that this aspect of the claim raises a serious justiciable issue. The Court does not address challenges based on hypotheticals or conjectural scenarios that may or may not come to pass. The Courts determine disputes involving real people and real facts as demonstrated through existing evidence. They do not stray into decisions based on what might happen in the future but has not yet occurred. The claims and complaints of a litigant must almost always be anchored in existing facts to help ensure that “… the issue will be presented in a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual setting” (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers at para. 51. See also Alberta Union of Public Employees v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABCA 416 at paras. 27 – 30).

Justice Keith didn’t see it as worthwhile to prevent Strang (or his successor) from attempting something similar in the future. He stated that it was “speculative” or “predictive” to pursue litigation based on what someone may do. Of course, that sidesteps the concern that these things had already been done.

He also referred to CANS as “…a fledging organization which materialized recently and in response to certain actions taken by the government (or its representatives) during the pandemic”.

After that, the Government filed a Motion to get the case thrown out for “mootness”. The stated rationale is that these measures no longer exist, and it’s not worthwhile to hear the case. It was granted. The usual reasons were given, such as there being a limited amount of resources for the Court to use.

CANS wasn’t after money, just assurances that the rights of citizens would be protected from similar conduct in the future.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

October 27th, 2021: Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia files Application for Judicial Review in Yarmouth County.

March 24th, 2022: The minor co-Applicant JM (full name redacted) through his litigation guardian KM joined in the Application for review.

Due to a number of delays resulting from CANS’ former counsel, activity was repeated pushed back. They eventually ended up representing themselves.

August 25th, 2023: CANS files to obtain public interest standing.

January 24th, 2024: Motion on public interest standing is argued in Supreme Court.

February 1st, 2024: Final submissions are made on public interest standing.

August 8th, 2024: Public interest standing is refused.

December 6th, 2024: Mootness Motion is argued in Court.

July 19th, 2025: Additional submissions are filed with the Court on mootness.

January 20th, 2026: Case is thrown out for “mootness”.

Refiling As A Claim For Damages?

Apparently, group members have discussed the possibility of appealing. But there is something else. From the Motion on public interest standing, there was an interesting section from the Judge:

[74]
I note:
1. All parties recognize that CANS and J.M. have standing as a private entity to pursue at least aspects of the claim. Thus, there is no dispute that both CANS and J.M. have private litigant standing to assert that the Impugned Orders are ultra vires. In addition, while the Respondents appears to dispute whether the allegations of additional bad faith are sustainable, these reasons should not be interpreted as saying that either CANS or J.M. lack private litigant standing to proceed on that aspect of the claim. The only matter before me is CANS application for public interest standing. This decision is limited solely to the unique considerations which bear upon that issue and should not be used or interpreted for any other purpose. Those issues may come forward at another time. For present purposes, the point is that this decision on public interest standing will not determine whether the proceeding moves forward or fails entirely. Neither CANS nor J.M. will be shut out entirely or precluded from advancing their specific, personal interests;

Although public interest standing, and the Application overall, are dead in the water, there is another possibility. Claims for damage could be filed. Of course, given how long it takes to get a response, how long would that take.

It’s frustrating to see another case that won’t be heard on the merits — at least in its current form. The self-represented members of CANS clearly put a lot of work into their documents.

COURT DOCUMENTS (MOOTNESS MOTION):
(1) CANS Walsh Affidavit Mootness Motion
(2) CANS Milburn Affidavit Mootness Motion
(3) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion
(4) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion More Attachments
(5) CANS Government Arguments Mootness Motion
(6) CANS Applicants Arguments Mootness Motion
(7) CANS Government REPLY Arguments Mootness Motion
(8) CANS Decision On Mootness
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2026/2026nssc21/2026nssc21.html

COURT DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING):
(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2024/2024nssc253/2024nssc253.html

Posted on

Getting Started With Finding Court Files

A topic that frequently comes up is fundraising for public interest litigation. Individuals and groups solicit money for a variety of causes, and they ask others to donate. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with doing that.

But instead of being told which cases are potentially worthwhile, let’s look at ways people can determine for themselves if something has merit. These principles apply regardless of the issue being litigated, whether it’s vaccine passports, climate, free speech, gender nonsense, victim compensation, etc… But for simplicity, it will only address civil matters.

When asking others for money, many will describe their case in glowing terms. They’ll pitch the cause, as well as the progress that’s being made.

Look at this from a consumer protection point of view. If you are being asked to contribute to a cause, how do you know that your money will be wisely spent? Simple, you do your own research.

I’m Busy, How Long Will This Take?

That depends on how much effort one is willing to put into this. Phoning a Court or sending an email can take a few minutes. Reading some of the papers (depending on what’s there) can be a few hours, or more. Like with any potential investment, the proposal needs to be examined carefully.

It’s true that decisions already released can be found within seconds. But that is of no help to an ongoing case, unless any procedural rulings are posted, which is rare.

However, if someone has enough money that this does not matter, then donate away!

First, Get Whatever Documents Are Published Or Available

Before doing any court searches, see what’s already in the open. This likely means contacting whoever is seeking money, and they should provide something.

Usually, a Statement of Claim or similar document will be readily available. This makes further searching easier, if necessary. You will have the file number at this point.

Unless Restricted By Order Or Some Law, Files Are Public

Rather than simply take someone’s word on what’s happening within a case, look for yourself. Court documents are surprisingly easy to get ahold of.

The Federal Court offers the best system for accessing files. With just a party name or file number, anyone can look up the entire progress of the case. Specific documents can are usually provided with a simple email request. Note: to cut down on the size of the request, focusing on pleadings or motion records is usually best.

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench is likely the worst. It costs $25 (up from $10) to pull all of the documents, if you have the case information. If not, you may have to issue a general search first, going in blind, and pay another $25.

The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench allows file history to be instantly searched, much like with Federal Court. However, there is a charge of 50 cents per page to have them sent.

The British Columbia Supreme Court has instant, but paywalled access, unless you live in the Province, and use a Law Library. It costs $6 to access a file, and another $6 to download documents, although many are not available online.

The Ontario Superior Court recently modified its online system. Civil cases in Toronto generally list major filings and updates, while other regions show only basic information and upcoming appearances. Courts will often send documents that were filed electronically for free, but charge for paper copies.

While the methods (and costs) vary by Province, the point is that these filings are available to the public, expect in rare circumstances. Pulling these records may seem excessive. But if someone is asking for money to help finance a case, isn’t this just researching an investment?

Of course, a quick update can be obtained by calling the Court directly, if anyone answers. The clerks typically provide general information upon request.

Now, if this is too much effort to bother with, the question must be asked: does it really matter what’s going on with this case?

Assess For Yourself If This Case Is Worth Your Money

Now that the necessary documents are available, read them, or at least some. Then decide.

***People will probably interject at this point, saying they are not lawyers. For this, they don’t have to be.

A Statement of Claim is supposed to have 3 main parts:
(a) Facts alleged – the who, what, where, when that supposedly happened
(b) Relief sought – what remedies are being sought
(c) Laws relied on – what is the legal basis for the suit

A Statement of Claim should be well written, organized, and clearly explain the events that happened. The sections of relief and laws are typically very short.

Warning signs include: extremely long pleadings, lots of irrelevant details added, necessary information missing, caselaw being argued, opinions being inserted, or a generally convoluted structure. Keep in mind, the Judge hearing the case knows nothing at the start.

Preliminary challenges are common, especially when the Government is the Defendant. They would prefer to get the case thrown out immediate on a Motion to Strike. If one is filed, read the arguments. It may be baseless, but at least their objections should be clear.

These challenges often raise issues such as: jurisdiction, time limits (normally 2 years), or missing information. Again, read what they’re filing.

What has happened since? While it’s true that not everything gets filed, there should be some progression as time passes. If nothing is obvious, contact the Court, or ask the people who want your money.

***For busy people, focus on a few key documents: Statement of Claim; Statement of Defence; and any written submissions for Motions. The main ideas should be clear from those.

Yes, this takes time, but consider the donation as an investment. Due diligence is usually helpful before making a decision.

This Is How Court Cases Are Evaluated On Canuck Law

Court documents are routinely pulled, and scrutinized for their content. If a case looks well organized, strong, and is making progress, then it’s worth keeping an eye on. Although nothing is guaranteed, there’s a better chance of getting to trial.

And if there are serious problems, then the public should know about them. If there seems to be an absurdly large amount of paperwork being filed, why is that happening? And when there’s no apparent activity for years, what is the hold up?

Although this is done for reporting, the same techniques apply for prospective donors.

The more people look into litigation and legislative matters, the better. Other postings here have included: (a) general tips; (b) ATIP, or access to information; (c) CanLII searches; (d) lobbying registries; and (e) charity lookups.

People can ask for recommendations on which cases are worthwhile to invest in. And they may very well get good advice. But they may not.

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 5: The De Villa Transcript

It’s been over 5 years since Toronto Police showed up in force to close down Adam Skelly’s restaurant in Etobicoke. And it has been ongoing ever since.

He is awaiting sentencing on criminal charges that are stayed pending the outcome of this Application. If he wins here, the charges presumably get thrown out. If this Application fails, then the stay is lifted.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background information.

Skelly is taking both the Ontario Government and the City of Toronto to Court, and is directly challenging sections of the Reopening Ontario Act (R.O.A.) which made these shutdowns possible. Adamson Barbeque itself had been named as an Applicant, but has since gone bankrupt.

Finally, we get to hear from Eileen De Villa, who was at the time, the Toronto Medical Officer of Health. She has left the position and claims to be “living her life”.

Currently, the hearing is set for 3 days at the end of February.

Also, the Factum is available, and is an interesting read. Other documents include Skelly’s transcript, and that of Matthew Hodge.

Toronto Health Officials Barred From Revealing Advice To Ford

From pages 95-96: The subject of a November 16th, 2020 publication came up. When asked about whether or not health officials had signed non-disclosure agreements, De Villa’s lawyer refused to answer. A request to see the NDA itself was also refused.

On page 98, her lawyer refused to answer whether or not the topic of Constitutional or Charter Rights had been discussed.

De Villa Admits No Authority To Issue Notice To Trespass

Starting at page 168, De Villa admits she had no actual authority to issue a “Notice To Trespass”. However, it didn’t stop her from issuing orders that effectively did just that. On page 181, her lawyer refuses a request to produce any other related orders she had issued.

Other Interesting Developments

De Villa frequently claims to not remember specific details. It’s unclear whether this is true, as so much time as passed, or if she’s being evasive.

At page 45, De Villa confirmed that she had sought legal advice to determine whether or not she actually had the authority to implement certain measures. A request to get information on that advice was refused.

Page 66, De Villa refused a request to release all data and evidence that had been shared with David Williams, who was the Provincial Medical Officer of Health. This was in response to an October 2nd, 2020 letter. She also refused to answer whether or not her orders were controversial, or had a political impact.

Page 76, De Villa refuses to answer whether or not she had sough input from members of the restaurant or entertainment industry before closing indoor dining. She claims it wasn’t her intention to “decimate” them, but apparently didn’t consult anyone.

Page 81, De Villa is asked about the assertion that 44% of cases from September 20th to 26th had been in restaurants, bars and entertainment venues. She couldn’t answer the source of that information.

Page 99, De Villa refused to discuss what evidence had been shared with the City of Toronto in order to justify various restrictions.

At page 182, De Villa’s lawyer says that she was allowed to issue trespass notices, but will come up with a reason as to why it’s justified.

At page 196, De Villa admits that when the Toronto Public Health Unit filed a lawsuit against Skelly to recoup their funds, he filed a 3rd-Party Claim against her.

At page 197, De Villa refused to answer whether it would be considered a conflict of interest if her husband, Richard Choi, had financial interests in Astra Zeneca.

Overall, it seems pretty clear that De Villa’s counsel was trying to avoid having her answer as many questions as possible. She objected to virtually everything. However, we’ll have to see what the judge decides.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023

2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – DeVilla Transcript
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al
(7) Skelly – Justice Akazaki Deferral Of Case
(8) Skelly – Transcript De Villa
(9) Skelly – Transcript Hodge
(10) Skelly – Transcript Skelly
(11) Skelly – Factum 2026 Hearing

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report

Posted on

The Hartman Appeal, Part 2: The Hearing Approaches

The much anticipated Appeal between Dan Hartman and the Government of Canada is set to be heard on Monday, January 26th. There is a separate lawsuit against Pfizer itself, which has been delayed.

Broadly speaking, the case argued 2 alternative torts: (a) negligence; and (b) malfeasance of public office. Either Ottawa was not careful in how the vaccine policies were laid out, or people intentionally acted in ways that were contrary to their duties.

Back on March 24th, 2025 Justice Antoniani threw the case out entirely, with no option to amend the pleading.

Part of the reason for contesting this is the practice that Plaintiffs are typically given the chance to fix any defects. It’s understood that parties are supposed to “get their day in Court” whenever possible, and not have things derailed over procedural concerns.

Regarding negligence, it was ruled that there was no “duty of care” to the Hartman Family, and thus the tort could not succeed. Ottawa had acted towards the public at large, not a specific group. These actions were considered “core policy decisions”, and immune from liability.

As for malfeasance, the Judge said that the pleadings were inadequate in terms of addressing the likelihood of causing harm. Rather than allow for the Claim to be amended, it was refused.

Questions To Be Asked In Appeal

  • Did the learned motion judge err in law by misapplying the “plain and obvious” test for striking a pleading and failing to read the claim generously, thereby prematurely dismissing arguable claims?
  • Did the learned motion judge err in law in his application of the Anns/Cooper test by finding it was plain and obvious that the Respondents owed no private law duty of care to Sean Hartman?
  • Did the learned motion judge err in law by classifying all the impugned government conduct as immune “core policy,” thereby failing to distinguish between policy and operational acts?
  • Did the learned motion judge err in law by striking the claim for misfeasance in public office where the necessary elements of the tort were pleaded?
  • Did the learned motion judge err in principle by refusing to grant leave to amend the Statement of Claim?

Put simply, the Appeal will argue that the Judge jumped the gun in striking the case, and that it should have been heard on at least 1 of the 2 torts alleged. The Factum goes into the arguments that will be heard. The Appeal Book contains other important documents.

Unsurprisingly, the Attorney General says that the right decision was made.

Hopefully, the Court of Appeal will allow the case to proceed, even if portions of the pleading need to be rewritten. But with many of the recent decisions, who knows what will happen?

AGC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman AGC Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman AGC Reasons For Decision (March, 2025)
(3) Hartman AGC Notice Of Appeal (April, 2025)
(4) Hartman AGC Appellants Factum
(5) Hartman AGC Appeal Book And Compendium (July, 2025)

PFIZER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman Pfizer Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman Pfizer Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2025)

Posted on

Deadline Looms To Implement Anti-SLAPP Laws Across Europe

To start the new year off on a positive note, let’s look at what’s happening in the European Union. Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the EU Parliament is approaching the 2 year anniversary, which is the deadline. Denmark has already opted out, but the other EU countries have until May 7th, 2026.

It’s encouraging sign to see more efforts to free speech from civil lawsuits. If Brussels can get this passed, can Ottawa as well?

What Are The Important Parts In The Directive?

Article 2
Scope
This Directive shall apply to matters of a civil or commercial nature with cross-border implications brought in civil proceedings, including procedures for interim and precautionary measures and counteractions, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or the liability of the state for acts and omissions in the exercise of state authority (acta iure imperii). This Directive shall not apply to criminal matters or arbitration and shall be without prejudice to criminal procedural law.

Article 3
Minimum requirements
1. Member States may introduce or maintain provisions that are more favourable to protect persons engaged in public participation against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings against public participation in civil matters, including national provisions that establish more effective procedural safeguards relating to the right to freedom of expression and information.
.
2. The implementation of this Directive shall in no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of safeguards already afforded by Member States in the matters covered by this Directive.

Article 4
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:
(2) ‘matter of public interest’ means any matter which affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it, in areas such as:
(a) fundamental rights, public health, safety, the environment or the climate;
(b) activities of a natural or legal person that is a public figure in the public or private sector;
(c) matters under consideration by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceedings;
(d) allegations of corruption, fraud, or of any other criminal offence, or of administrative offences in relation to such matters;
(e) activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, including the protection of democratic processes against undue interference, in particular by fighting disinformation;

Article 10
Security
Member States shall ensure that in court proceedings brought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation, the court or tribunal seised may require, without prejudice to the right of access to justice, that the claimant provide security for the estimated costs of the proceedings, which may include the costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant, and, if provided for in national law, damages.

Article 12
Burden of proof and substantiation of claims
1. The burden of proving that the claim is well founded rests on the claimant who brings the action.
2. Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to substantiate the claim in order to enable the court to assess whether it is not manifestly unfounded.

Article 13
Appeal
Member States shall ensure that a decision granting early dismissal pursuant to Article 11 is subject to an appeal.

Article 14
Award of costs
1. Member States shall ensure that a claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public participation can be ordered to bear all types of costs of the proceedings that can be awarded under national law, including the full costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant unless such costs are excessive.
2. Where national law does not guarantee the award in full of the costs of legal representation beyond what is set out in statutory fee tables, Member States shall ensure that such costs are fully covered, unless they are excessive, by other means available under national law.

Article 15
Penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures
Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals seized of abusive court proceedings against public participation may impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures, including the payment of compensation for damage or the publication of the court decision, where provided for in national law, on the party who brought those proceedings.

Some key takeaways from this include:

  • “Matter of public interest” is defined very broadly
  • Presumptive full indemnity (100% of costs) to Defendants
  • Damages can be awarded to Defendants
  • Plaintiff has the burden in showing why the case should continue
  • Plaintiff can be ordered to put up a security deposit in order to continue
  • Rulings can be appealed
  • Applies to civil cases, not criminal
  • Countries can implement stronger protections if they want

Keep in mind, this is just the framework. Individual countries will come up with their own versions. At least some of this should be familiar, given the cases covered here.

Sign Of Things To Come Locally?

So, why should Canadians care? Because there’s the possibility to build on existing laws here. A national framework could be implemented here, or at least some could implement their own versions.

  • Quebec — Provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (2009)
  • Ontario — Section 137.1 in the Courts of Justice Act (2015)
  • British Columbia — Protection of Public Participation Act (2019)

Interestingly, the more “communist” provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, while the more “conservative” provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan do not. Whatever the country ends up as, or if any provinces leave, these protections are still important.

The EU Directive, much like the Canadian laws, is extremely broad in what “matters of public interest” can include. Otherwise, what would be the point? And there’s always the possibility of including topics not previously considered.

Anti-SLAPP exists in most, though not all, of the U.S. as well.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already weighed in several times in anti-SLAPP appeals, so it’s unlikely that including new provinces will contribute much in terms of precedent. Still, perhaps a visit to the local M.P. might be helpful.

(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj

Posted on

Making Some Changes….

Some significant changes will be coming in terms of content in the new year.

For context, this site started in the Spring of 2018, which was 7 1/2 years ago. It’s quite something to realize that it’s been creeping towards a decade. The question needs to be addressed: what next? Retire, or change direction?

The general sentiment is one of “returning to the roots”, or refocusing on topics that made the series stand out in the first place. A short list is included, though it’s more aspiration than a promise. Time and energy are real constraints lately.

1. Deep Dives Into Various Government Institutions

One of the most viewed articles to date remains this piece on how the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is in fact a de-facto branch of the World Health Organization. It gets into the creation of it, and the ad-hoc attempts to legitimate it.

A related pitch would be to cover historical revisions of various laws they enact. Firearm rights are always a contentious issue.

2. International Banking And Climate Change

A pair of schemes that are very much intertwined are banking and climate change. Although things seem to be on the wane, enormous sums of money have been stolen from the public and sent off, with no accountability. This has been covered to a degree, but there’s so much more exploitation to get into.

3. Back To Focusing On Open Border Agenda

Prior to 2020, the bulk of the content centered around open borders, and the true scale which things were happening at. There was a real disconnect to what information the public is fed, versus what is really going on. When this site originally reported in 2019 that about a million people annually were entering, it was laughed at. Now, it’s accepted wisdom.

With immigration, comes a host of new concerns. These include human smuggling and exploitation, importing foreign conflicts, groups demanding special treatment, and censorship.

As an aside, the floodgates didn’t “just open” in 2022. Statistics Canada finally decided to be more transparent in how they calculated the numbers.

4. Land Grabs Via The Courts

The Cowichan case made national news in August 2025, ruling that a large part of Richmond, B.C., belonged to a tribe living in the area. As has now been made public, significant parts of Canada are now being contested. Property rights as a concept is now in limbo for many people.

5. Delving Into The Limitations Of Modelling

This may be reaching, but there has been a desire to tackle directly the idea of computer modelling. This is where so-called experts plug a bunch of numbers into a computer, make assumptions, and spit out predictions. Those results — shoddy as they may be — are treated as fact. A lot of problems in the world would end if this junk science simply died off.

There are some other ideas on the backburner in terms of new content, subject to time limitations. One was getting back into the privacy/surveillance topic, but it may difficult to contribute without sounding crazy.

Separating Data And Articles More Formally

The details are still in the works, but the goal is to more completely separate source material from content which critiques it. The goal is better organization.

Creative Commons Licencing

The site is looking into licencing, which will still allow use, even in full without restriction. The only condition had been credit where it’s due. This is a bit of a formality, as the goal had always been to get the material out. And “Fair Dealing” is typically allowed for it to be reused in transformative ways.

Court filings and legislative documents are open to the public anyway.

Converting More Content Into Video Format

People have suggested over the years to turn more of the publications here into short videos, in order to reach a wider audience. This is a valid point, and worth consideration.

Retiring: Scam Lawsuits Series

Probably the most definable topic since 2021 has been the “scam lawsuits” series that shocked much of the Freedom Movement. To sum up: millions of dollars have been wasted, while thousands of litigants saw their cases (most, if not all, valid) tossed out because of shoddy lawyering.

This is of course not to say that all of them were grifts, but a lot of questions need to be asked about some of them. Hopefully, that point has been driven home.

Lockdown measures began in 2020, and largely went away in early 2022. If people are still fundraising in 2026 or 2027 to file a Statement of Claim, perhaps their cases require a closer look.

It’s also frustrating to put up with threats of lawsuits, actual lawsuits, swatting threats, and threats to get the site shut down. All of these have happened. It seems easier to go after critics than to zealously advance interests of clients and donors.

Retiring: “HateGate” Hoax

This is the nonsense about the Emergencies Act being invoked over a meme. The flaws in this were reported extensively. While the broader topic of government run operations is a good one, this specific psy-op has run its course.

Primary Sources Is The Path Forward

An interesting perspective relayed is that there’s more to covering court cases than simply going through the documents. This is certainly true, and there’s always room for nuance and discussion. But for that to happen, we need to at least agree on what has happened so far. We can always figure out the solution afterward.

The original documents are the primary sources, and everything afterwards is secondary, or lower. In every iteration of a subject being shared, information is lost.

Going to original documents also (largely) negates the need to discuss with a lawyer or client. Sorry, not sorry. If you have all the filings, that’s what should be the focus.

Where Do Things Go From Here?

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. Oddly, a similar sentiment can be shared when it comes to various outlets reporting on stories.

Back in 2021-22, it was quite revealing to see the reactions to covering the Gill-Lamba defamation case. People who identified as “freedom fighters” were angry at the lack of support they received here. It seemed that just because they spoke out against lockdowns, they should get a free pass trying to silence their critics.

A more recent example involved the situation with Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C. Interestingly, despite the near constant coverage received from “alternative” media outlets, court documents were rarely discussed. While there were cries of “an attack on the food supply”, the filings told a very different story. Had there been more honest and transparent reporting, this would never have gotten off the ground.

This has led (once again) to the conclusion that there can be no sides in reporting: either truth matters, or it doesn’t.

A question that commonly comes up is who someone should be following. In a perfect world, the answer is no one. Ideally, people should be driven to seek out truth and information on their own. Information has been provided on: (a) general searching; (b) FOIA requests; (c) CanLII searches; (d) Lobbying registries; and (e) Charity lookups to get started.

Perhaps this is a better answer: follow people who make it easier to do the fact checking yourself.

***It’s not necessary to become a publisher, but it doesn’t mean that one can’t at least look up things on their own. Here’s what one person did.

The hope here is to inspire people to get into their own deep dives. Is it tedious? It can be. But what can result from it?

(a) Untold truth about court cases finally gets covered
(b) Lobbyists and special interests behind legislation get exposed
(c) Money thought to have disappeared gets tracked
(d) “Organic” movements exposed as either initiated by, or infiltrated by authorities
(e) More complete stories are told about what’s happening in the world

It’s easy to get frustrated or burned out, and to want to give up. And there’s often the comment that “nothing will ever come of it”. Until and unless something is tried, it will always be nothing. Hopefully, this will be inspiring to some.

As always, feedback is encouraged.

Happy new year to all!

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress