CMHC’s 2023 Report, And Housing Options Depleting Over Demographic Shifts

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) released their annual report in January, and the results aren’t all that surprising.

Growth in demand outpaced strong growth in supply, pushing the vacancy rate for purpose-built rental apartments down from 3.1% to 1.9%. This was the vacancy rate’s lowest level since 2001. Rent growth, for its part, reached a new high.
Rental demand surged across the country. This was a reflection of higher net migration and the return of students to on-campus learning. Another factor was higher mortgage rates, which drove up already-elevated costs of homeownership.
Despite higher overall supply, the share of rental units that are affordable for the lowest-income renters is, in most markets, in the low single digits or too low to report. This is especially true in Ontario and British Columbia (B.C.).
New data: Average rent growth for 2-bedroom units that turned over to a new tenant was well above average rent growth for units without turnover (18.2% vs. 2.8%). This increased affordability challenges

The report was critiqued by RBC a few days ago, and CTV News.

The CMHC report quite openly states that higher immigration rates — which are only expected to climb — are contributing greatly to the increase in pricing, and the decline in availability.

Page 20 had an interesting statistic from Victoria, BC: “As an example, a turnover 2-bedroom apartment was rented at a 33% higher rent, on average, than an occupied unit in the same building”. Given B.C.’s strict rent control laws, the only way to get a significant increase was for existing tenants to leave.

Page 36 addressed low income renters in the Calgary area. Less than 5% of the rental housing in the area would be considered affordable for people making less than $36,000 per year. These would be limited primarily to bachelors and 1 bedroom apartments.

Regina wasn’t much — if any — better than Calgary in terms of affordability. It’s estimated (page 46), that less than 8% of housing would be available to households making under $32,000 annually. That was quite the surprise, as Saskatchewan is commonly thought to have a lower cost of living.

Winnipeg attributed a fair portion of its drop in vacancies to the return of in-person schooling, a sentiment that is echoed elsewhere.

The CMHC report covers data on many major and medium sized cities in Canada. Though the numbers differ, the patterns are the same: rapidly increasing population is driving up prices, and reducing options for people looking to rent or own.

The report also talked about the high levels of office vacancies over the last few years, as more businesses were pushed to go remote, or semi-remote. And that has had an interesting effect.

During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party included a promise to accelerate efforts to convert office and retail space into housing. This had been going on for a while. The CBC has also promoted this concept recently.

A cynic may wonder if the various shut downs starting in 2020 were designed — at least in part — to “free up” commercial property that could then be converted into residential.

Another possibility is that this might make the “15 minute cities” more of a reality. If residential and commercial areas became blended, there’d be less need to leave.

An alternative way to slow down a housing shortage would be to restrict the number of people coming in. But that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. This is despite even StatsCan admitting that over 1 million people came to Canada in 2022. The official numbers rarely reflect all the categories.

The result of all this is a population boom where more housing would be necessary in order to function. Problem. Reaction. Solution.

Of course, more undeveloped land will need to be converted as well. But the environmental activists are usually silent about this.


Changes To Safe Third Country Agreement Won’t Close All Loopholes

Starting on March 25th, people illegally entering Canada from the United States to claim asylum will no longer be able to bypass immediate deportation simply by crossing between ports. A new change is expected to apply the same standard regardless of where they cross.

However, it’s not anywhere near the “fix” that it’s being made out to be.

Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, spread the notice on Friday.

To address irregular migration, we are expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply not only at designated ports of entry, but across the entire land border, including internal waterways, ensuring fairness and more orderly migration between our two countries. This change will come into effect at 12:01 A.M (EDT) on Saturday, March 25, 2023. Canada also announced we will welcome 15,000 migrants on a humanitarian basis from the Western Hemisphere over the course of the year, with a path to economic opportunities to address forced displacement, as an alternative to irregular migration.

Even if this were to be applied, and Roxham Road effectively closed, the Safe Third Country Agreement has a number of other loopholes built into it to ensure a steady stream of crossers. This applies to “refugees” fleeing from the United States. More on that later in the article.

And what are the numbers on people illegally crossing into Canada over the last several years? Keep in mind, these are just official statistics.

PROVINCE/TERRITORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Newfoundland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prince Edward Island 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nova Scotia 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Brunswick 10 5 5 ? ? 25
Quebec 1,335 1,295 785 875 1,035 2,595
Ontario 2,660 2,340 1,995 2,630 2,790 3,7935
Manitoba 20 15 25 10 225 505
Saskatchewan ? ? ? ? ? 30
Alberta 35 40 35 65 70 120
British Columbia 125 85 110 130 170 220
Yukon 0 0 0 0 0 5
Northwest Territories 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nunavut 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 4,185 3,770 2,955 3,715 4,290 7,365

Illegals were still coming into Canada via land border crossings during the Harper years. Interestingly though, it only receives major attention when Liberals are in power. A cynic may wonder why.

YEAR: 2017
January 245 19 46 5 315
February 452 142 84 0 678
March 654 170 71 2 897
April 672 146 32 9 859
May 576 106 60 0 742
June 781 63 39 1 884
July 2,996 87 51 0 3,314
August 5,530 80 102 0 5,712
September 1,720 78 79 4 1,881
October 1,755 67 68 8 1,890
November 1,539 38 46 0 1,623
December 1,916 22 40 0 1,978
TOTAL 18,836 1,018 718 22 20,593
YEAR: 2018
January 1,458 18 41 0 1,517
February 1,486 31 48 0 1,565
March 1,884 53 33 0 1,970
April 2,479 50 31 0 2,560
May 1,775 36 53 0 1,869
June 1,179 31 53 0 1,263
July 1,552 51 31 0 1,634
August 1,666 39 39 3 1,747
September 1,485 44 68 4 1,601
October 1,334 23 37 0 1,394
November 978 23 18 0 1,019
December 1,242 11 27 0 1,280
TOTAL 18,518 410 479 7 19,419
YEAR: 2019
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246
YEAR: 2022
January 2,367 0 16 0 2,383
February 2,154 1 9 0 2,164
March 2,492 2 8 0 2,502
April 2,791 3 8 3 2,805
May 3,449 3 40 1 3,493
June 3,066 3 14 3 3,086
July 3,645 3 29 0 3,677
August 3,234 5 10 0 3,249
September 3,650 10 0 0 3,660
October 3,901 16 34 0 3,951
November 3,731 23 34 0 3,788
December 4,689 3 52 1 4,745
TOTALS 39,171 72 289 7 39,540

And of course, this has continued into 2023. This is because…. reasons.

YEAR: 2023
January 4,875 19 100 0 4,994
February 4,517 5 53 0 4,575
TOTALS 9,392 24 153 0 9,569

Keep in mind, there are a number of “exceptions” that will let people enter from the United States anyway. These include:

(1) Family member exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

  • is a Canadian citizen
  • is a permanent resident of Canada
  • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
  • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
  • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
  • holds a valid Canadian work permit
  • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
  • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

(2) Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:

  • are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
  • have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
  • do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

(3) Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:

  • hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
  • hold a valid work permit
  • hold a valid study permit
  • hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
  • are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

(4) Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:

  • they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

Even if a ride through the Quebec crossing isn’t an option for everyone, there are enough exceptions that a lot of people will still qualify. A cynic may wonder if this is being done in an effort to help obscure the true numbers of how many are entering Canada.

In any event, why this sudden announcement? It could be over recent revelations that New York City was paying for tickets to ship illegals to Canada. The “solution” to Quebec’s problem has been to start relocating illegals elsewhere in Canada, which left a bad taste.

Even so-called “based” U.S. State Governors like Ron DeSantis (Florida), and Greg Abbott (Texas) are doing the same thing. Of course, no one ever voted for any of this.

But this recent announcement is at least a step in the right direction.

1. The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
2. These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
3. The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

As mentioned many times, the UNHCR is actually a party to this border agreement. This means that the decisions really aren’t strictly between Canada and the U.S. This detail isn’t reported by any mainstream outlet in Canada.

The UNCHR also publishes instructional guides on how to circumvent border controls. They should be a decision maker…. why exactly?

Thanks to a 2019 change, Canada scrapped the Designated Country of Origin practice. This had labelled dozens of countries (mainly in Europe) as “safe”, and led to an expedited deportation process for those apply from there.

While it’s nice to close the loophole that exists in between official border ports, the issues are much larger than that.


StatsCan: Canada Added 1 Million People In 2022

Statistics Canada has finally shown what’s been obvious for a long time: the actual numbers of people coming in are a lot higher than what’s publicly talked about. Specifically, over 1 million people came to Canada on some kind of visa.

The usual disclaimer needs to be added: this is just the official numbers, and they are estimates. It’s difficult to get information on how many people have left, or died.

StatsCan explains it as “Net international migration refers to the total number of moves between Canada and abroad that result in a change in the usual place of residence. It is calculated by adding immigrants, returning emigrants and net non-permanent residents, then subtracting emigrants and net temporary emigration.”

One source that’s expected to grow is from Ukraine.

Of the 943,730 applications for CUETAs, Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, 616,429 have already been approved. That’s about two thirds. Some 133,323 have already arrived, according to Government statistics.

Temporary immigration is the leading contributor to Canada’s growth

Nice to finally see this admitted.

It’s been frustrating to see how limited the Overton window is. Typically, the only number that gets talked about is the 300,000 or 400,000 that obtain permanent residency. There’s a much bigger picture to look at than just this.

Canada is exploding in size, but not because there is some baby-boom happening locally. Instead, the options available to come keep growing.

In 2022, the reason behind Canada’s record-high population growth was somewhat different, since international migration accounted for nearly all growth recorded (95.9%).

What else does Ottawa have to say about this?

For the year 2022, Canada welcomed 437,180 immigrants and saw a net increase of the number of non-permanent residents estimated at 607,782. Both of these numbers represent the highest levels on record, reflecting higher immigration targets and a record-breaking year for the processing of immigration applications at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The estimated gains in non-permanent residents recorded for 2022 are the highest for a single calendar year for which comparable data are available. Furthermore, it is the first time these gains are superior to those from immigrants over the same period.

All provinces and territories saw a year-over-year increase in the net estimated number of non-permanent residents in 2022, with work and study permits, in addition to the number of asylum claimants, up across the country. This increase is because of a combination of factors, including the aforementioned intent to leverage international migration to help fulfill employment needs across the country and the program created to welcome people fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This is something that has been talked about here for several years: by omitting various temporary categories from public discussion, it paints a very distorted picture about how many people are actually entering each year.

It’s an issue that many so-called “truthers” and “dissidents” have been unwilling to address. Sure, they’ll go on about Roxham Road, but not this.

The most recent Annual Report to Parliament is 2022 (which covers the year 2021). It’s a bit frustrating as these reports used “new visas” and “total visas” almost interchangeably at times. I believe these are actually new visas issued.

And over the last few decades:

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program

A few problems with this data: either the Feds don’t know how many people leave afterwards, or they just don’t make it easy to find.

For international students graduating, there is the PGWP, the Post Graduate Work Permit. While that was once limited to a single year, it eventually became 3. Now, there is an 18 month extension available, pushing it to 4 1/2 years.

Then we get things like this:

Right now, in cities across the country, it is too hard to build the housing we need, particularly affordable housing. Housing policies are often barriers to producing results and many Canadians – from young families, to seniors, to newcomers – are finding it harder to find an affordable place to call home. It is clear that we need to accelerate change so the system works for all Canadians.

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was in Guelph, Ontario today to launch the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), a $4 billion initiative that will provide funding for local governments to fast track the creation of 100,000 new homes across Canada. Local governments are now invited to develop innovative action plans, in line with the flexible criteria, to remove barriers to building more homes, faster.

The Fund will help cities, towns, and Indigenous governments unlock new housing supply by speeding up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density, or incentivizing development close to public transit. Local governments are encouraged to think big and be innovative in their approaches. They could be accelerating project timelines, allowing increased housing density, encouraging affordable housing units, and more. The Fund will provide upfront funding to support implementation, as well as additional funds upon delivering results.

This was an initiative announced recently: $4 billion to build 100,000 new homes, or a subsidy of about $40,000 each.

It’s a frequent complaint that cities are too congested, and that housing is unaffordable. Additionally, accommodating more people requires extra space to be developed. The Green Belt in Ontario comes to mind. Logically, wouldn’t reducing immigration rates, if not imposing an outright moratorium, be beneficial?

A few observations:

[1] Advocates for affordable housing are typically silent on immigration, and the concept of supply and demand. More people vying for the same number of spots drives prices up.

[2] Advocates for “the living wage” are typically silent on immigration, and the impact on salaries. Having more people compete for the same amount of employment tends to drive wages down, as demand for workers is pushed down.

[3] Environmental advocates are typically silent on the topic of immigration. Yes, they will oppose the development of undisturbed lands, but few will publicly make the obvious connection.

Of course, there is the issue of culture clash, but that’s a discussion for another time.

In any event, get ready for more changes. This trend isn’t likely to be reversed anytime soon, as there are too many with vested interests in seeing it continue. Think the small towns or rural areas will be spared?

(2) Wayback Machine

Annual Reports To Parliament:

Vaccine Choice Canada’s OTHER Lawsuit: Dormant After 3 1/2 Years

Often in court cases, the information being eventually drops off. As a result, many lose track of interesting claims that they were otherwise interested in. An October 2019 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada is one such case. This is case #CV-19-00629810-0000, filed in Ontario Superior Court, in Toronto.

This isn’t to be confused with the high profile suit of July 2020. This was filed to challenge lockdown measures imposed (primarily) by the Ford Regime in Ontario. These are quite different. The 2019 suit covered vaccination policies in schools.

While there are 2 different cases, they have something in common: both have sat idly for years, without any activity to show for it.

Thankfully, we’re in an age where case status can be SEARCHED online, and documents can often be obtained for free. As there had been no announcements since 2019, an update is long overdue. And as it turns out, there’s nothing to report. Nothing has happened since the pleadings in later 2019/early 2020.

Nor does it seem like the 2019 case has had a single hearing.

So, what happened with all the donations?

And that’s interesting, considering some of the problems with the drafting.

1. Should Have Been An Application, Not A Statement Of Claim

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act lays out some circumstances which cases need to be brought as an Application for Judicial Review, as opposed to having more discretion to file a Statement of Claim.

Page 6 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that both a Mandamus (requirement to perform a duty) and a Prohibition (a restriction) are being sought. As a result, it looks like the wrong paperwork was filed to get this going.

2. Suit Should Probably Have Been Filed In Divisional Court

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.

Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

Section 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act states that an Application for Judicial Review must be brought in Divisional Court. Now, it’s possible to get permission to file in Superior Court, but it doesn’t look like that ever happened. Nor does it appear that it was attempted.

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

This is a common criticism. The Rules of Civil Procedure need to be followed when drafting lawsuits. The people being sued need to have enough specific information to understand the allegations against them. It also has to be written in a way that’s understandable.

The Ontario Government also claims that the Sections 2 and 7 Charter challenges are so vague and non-specific that they are impossible to respond to.

4. VCC Has To Plead For Public Interest Standing

Starting on page 10, the Statement of Defence argues that there is no standing here, as the organization is not a person, and not directly impacted. This is funny.

There is a way for organizations to do this, and they have to convince the Court that they meet a 3 part test. That’s how standing is granted.

(1) Does the Application raise a serious justiciable issue?
(2) Do the Organizations have a real stake or genuine interest in that issue?
(3) Is the participation of the Organizations a reasonable and effective way to litigate?

Granted, a well written document could probably have gotten them standing, but it still needs to be covered.

Then again, if the case was never intended to go forward, then maybe it’s not necessary to write a Claim or Application properly.

5. Why No Attempt To Get Claim Thrown Out?

Why keep covering these grifts? Because the truth matters.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t real issues to bring to Court. Obviously, there were, and they deserve considerable media attention. However, the case has just sat idly for years now.

A question worth asking is why the Ford Government has made no attempt to get this case thrown out (struck) since it was filed in October 2019. No action has been taken to bring it forward either. Was there collusion to keep everything in limbo?

It appears that the wrong paperwork was filed, and submitted to the wrong Court. The quality of the Statement of Claim is very poor as well. So, why just let it sit?

Keep in mind, Ford also let the July 6, 2020 Claim sit unchallenged for the first 2 1/2 years as well. Vaccine Choice didn’t have their first Court appearance until January 17, 2023. And that was just to set down Motion dates.

Are these just “placeholders”? Is the goal to keep them on the books as long as possible, in order to give the appearance that something is being done? Is this a way to enrich the Directors?

Remember to donate, suckers!


(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

Appeal Of “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Ruling Accuses Judge Of Bias

It’s probably not a good idea to throw the term “bias” around like this.

Readers of this site will likely remember the February 21, 2023 Ruling in the Federal Court that was covered here. This was a challenge to the Fall 2021 dictate for vaccine passports at the Federal level, launched by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati. A case involving some 600 Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety as being “bad beyond argument”, among other issues. Justice Simon Fothergill was extremely critical of the case.

That February Decision is now being appealed.

To understand the Appeal, here is a brief review of what happened:

Approximately 2/3 of the Plaintiffs were permanently barred from using the Court as a remedy. As members of the Federal Government, Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, requires that they seek alternate remedies for employment matters.

The other 1/3 of the Plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended lawsuit, but with other restrictions. These were either members of Crown Corporations, or employees of Federally regulated industries.

There was also the problem that the wrong paperwork had been filed. When challenging a Decision from a Federal Board, Commission or Tribunal, Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act require that a Notice of Application be filed, and not a Statement of Claim.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

As was mentioned during the January 2023 hearing, if all that the Plaintiffs were seeking was damages, then a Statement of Claim was fine.

The Decision referenced the specific portions of the Federal Court Rules that were not followed. The Rules outline the basics of how pleadings are supposed to be drafted. These were the most notable errors here as well.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

This is very common with Galati: he makes plenty of accusations, but doesn’t plead any factual basis. Consequently, the Defendants are often left with so little information that they can’t respond meaningfully. This is partly why so many of his cases get thrown out.

Simply stating: “and the fact is” doesn’t make something a fact.

As outlined in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules. Justice Fothergill apparently didn’t find it worthwhile to go through it point by point to outline the deficiencies. This has been extensively detailed by Justice Ross in Vancouver, for the Action4Canada case, and the parallels are striking.

Pleadings in the Courts of British Columbia and Ontario were plagued by the same deficiencies. Regardless of jurisdiction, there are minimum levels of organization and quality that have to be followed.

Anyhow, the Federal Decision has been appealed, and is it ever interesting. The Notice of Appeal makes a number of statements that appear to accuse (or at least imply) that Justice Fothergill sabotaged the case intentionally.

This is not a wise thing to do without evidence.

(a) It’s alleged that Justice Fothergill “blatantly ignored” Plaintiffs’ submissions regarding the standards which employment terms could be reviewed by a Court.

(b) It’s alleged that he “biasedly ignored” and “refused to address” submissions regarding the tort of public malfeasance, with respect to collective bargaining.

(c) It’s alleged that the finding of “deficient” and “bad beyond argument” was blindly applied from an unrelated case, and was completely inappropriate.

(d) It’s alleged that there was “clear (reasonable apprehension of) bias”. Really, it’s a repeat of the bias accusation, but is worded in a way to water it down.

It’s unclear who actually wrote the Notice of Appeal, but it’s already off to a bad start. Accusing a Federal Judge of bias and ignoring his responsibilities is not going to sit well. There has to be something pretty damning for this to hold water.

Granted, the Action4Canada Appeal of September 2022 is baseless, and doomed to fail, but at least BCSC Justice Alan Ross never received that kind of backlash.

The Notice of Appeal doesn’t specify what Justice Fothergill’s bias supposedly is. Is this to imply that he has certain personal views that are not appropriate? Should we interpret this to mean that he threw the case intentionally, and that the outcome was rigged?

This suggestion has been made before.

This also isn’t the only time Galati has recently claimed (or at least implied) that a Judge ruling in one of his cases was biased. Supposedly, Justice Elizabeth Stewart appeared biased when she dismissed Kulvinder Gill’s and Ashvinder Lamba’s defamation case as a SLAPP. This of course is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Clearly, we’ll have to wait and see what other documents are coming for the Federal Appeal. However, this is a dangerous path to take, and can have professional consequences.

A source told this site claimed that Galati and his staff are already soliciting more money for this “unexpected” trip to the Federal Court of Appeals. Apparently, they are at least mentally preparing to attempt to get into the Supreme Court of Canada.

It’s estimated that $400 to $700 more will be sought from each of the 600+ Plaintiffs. In total, that could bring in close to half a million more. The stated reason is that the $1,000 retainer was set aside for Trial.

This seems plausible, especially in light of the fact that Action4Canada is also asking for money, despite their case being “fully funded”.

Could the Federal ruling be successfully appealed? It seems doubtful. While a competent attorney might be able to make the case that malfeasance is grounds to bypass Section 236 FPSLRA, the entire Claim needs to be rewritten.

And this copy/pasting of pleadings from case to case deprives clients of the services that they’re paying for.

(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal

(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

Chief Justice Hinkson, The Vancouver Foundation, And Many Unanswered Questions

It was recently revealed that the Justice who presided over several anti-lockdown cases in British Columbia runs a group called the Vancouver Foundation. Looking into the details of this charity a bit more, this creates — at a minimum — the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. (See archive.)

The group describes itself in this way:

“Vancouver Foundation grants to hundreds of charities and non-profits in BC every year. Our vision is to create healthy, vibrant, and livable communities, and we focus on supporting projects that address the root causes of important issues. Our funding comes from generous gifts from the community, as well as from managing endowment funds for people, charities, and businesses.”

The Vancouver Foundation is involved in many different areas, and has undoubtedly has done a lot of good work. However, some things need to be questioned.

Anyhow, this is quite the rabbit hole, so let’s jump in.

The Vancouver Foundation Act is what governs the organization. This isn’t a traditional group, but one that was created in 1943 by an Act of Parliament.

Board of directors
5 (1) The board of directors of the foundation is to consist of at least 10 and not more than 18 persons, with the directors determining the number of directors from time to time in the bylaws of the foundation.
(1.1) If the number of directors is below the minimum number set out in subsection (1) or in the bylaws, as applicable, the board continues to have the authority to carry out its duties and exercise its powers until all vacancies are filled.
(1.2) Subject to section 6, the board consists of the following members:
(a) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia or, if applicable, the judge appointed by the Chief Justice under that section;
(b) a member of the Law Society of British Columbia who has been nominated by the Law Society of British Columbia in accordance with the bylaws of the foundation and whose nomination has been accepted by the board;

Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson is a Director at the Vancouver Foundation, by virtue of his position on the Court. Far from being just a name on paper, he’s prominently listed as a Director (see margin on page 3). He also made the following rulings:


(A) Kassian v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1603
(Refusal for exemption to vaccine passport)

(B) Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1604
(Refusal for charter rights to travel, s.6 of Charter)

(C) Maddock v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1605
(Refusal for compensation due to injury)

(D) CSASPP v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1606
(Refusal to allow health care workers to opt out)

(E) Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 248, BCSC 248
(Refusal to allow a church to remain open)

True, one might get the impression that he simply called these cases as he saw fit. But there is more to things than meet the eye.

Kate Hammer is the Vice President for Engagement, was previously a Senior Policy Advisor for the Minister of Education (Ontario), and also worked in the Office of the Premier under Kathleen Wynne. Sure, that’s Ontario, but people in political circles have very deep networks of connections, and it’s rarely limited to a region. (See archive.)

She’s also now lobbying the B.C Government on behalf of the Vancouver Foundation. Things get even more convoluted. Why? Because the B.C. Lobbying Registry shows exactly what subject matters are being discussed.

The Vancouver Foundation is trying to get more access and influence from the B.C. Government. This can cause a problem.

  • Activities to support an amendment to Vancouver Foundation Act related to definition of “reserve amount”
  • Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options and opportunities for ensuring legislation and regulations related to lobbyists transparency do not limit charities and non-profits from participating in vital conversations about government policies and priorities.
  • Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options and opportunities for the charitable sector to play a key role in pandemic recovery
  • Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options for expanding the Unclaimed Property Act’s ability to use dormant assets to boost investment in community initiatives and organizations.

Let’s think about this one. Chief Justice Hinkson, a Director at the Vancouver Foundation, is making key Court rulings relating to “pandemic measures”. Meanwhile, his organization is lobbying the B.C. Government for greater influence in exactly those areas.

And what taxpayer sources is the Vancouver Foundation getting money from?

Provincial Employees Community Services Fund 2022-09-08 $68.00
City of Surrey 2022-08-26 $3,000.00
City of Surrey 2022-06-22 $48.13
Advanced Education and Skills Training 2022-04-07 $250,000.00
Children and Family Development 2022-04-05 $2,760,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction 2022-04-01 $1,350,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction 2022-04-01 $30,000,000.00
Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2022-03-21 $1,005,258.00
City of Vancouver 2022-03-11 $45,000.00
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, and Rural Development 2022-02-24 $5,000,000.00
City of Surrey 2020-10-08 $45.00
BC Arts Council 2020-04-02 $200,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction 2020-04-02 $590,000.00
Advanced Education, Skills and Training 2020-03-31 $250,000.00
Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2020-03-16 $955,718.00
Provincial Employees Community Services Fund 2020-03-13 to 2020-09-10 $59.80
City of Vancouver 2020-03-13 $22,500.00

The Vancouver Foundation has received several millions of taxpayer money in the last few years.

Glenn Wald gets an honourable mention. He was the Director of Communications at Vancouver Foundation from November 2017 until October 2022. He has also been involved with both the Federal and British Columbia Governments. (See archive.)

Joe Gallagher, Vice President Indigenous Health & Cultural Safety at Provincial Health Services Authority, is also worth listing. He was a Board Member at the Vancouver Foundation until July 2022, so very recent. (See archive.)

Dara Parker is formerly a Program Manager for the United Nations Association in Canada, and an advisor for the U.N. Human Resettlements Programme. (See archive.)

As covered previously, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) Foundation is in fact a registered charity that contributes substantial amounts annually to up to 4 “qualified donees”. These are:

  • B.C. Centre for Disease Control
  • Community-Based Research Centre Society (also a charity)
  • Provincial Health Services Authority (also a charity)
  • University of British Columbia (also a charity)

The BCCDC Foundation used to have a scroller to cycle through their major donor list. It’s since been removed, but thankfully saved in an earlier article:

The BCCDC Foundation proudly lists the Vancouver Foundation as a donor, as well as companies like Pfizer. The BCCDC-F also admits that a significant portion of its funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. Is it any wonder why the B.C. Government is so pro-pharma?

In terms of following the money, the next sections are from CSASPP’s March 12, 2023 summary for the Vancouver Foundation’s financials. As a registered charity, it’s required to disclose a fair amount of information publicly. Rather than reinvent the wheel, here are the highlights:

Based on the T3010 Registered Charity Information Return filed with the Canada Revenue Agency, several years of reporting periods are available. The records are copious with thousands of donees. We will save you the trouble of sifting through them. The following is a summary of our provisional material findings.

In fiscal year 2021 the Vancouver Foundation donated to the Public Health Association of British Columbia $193,072 and to Fraser Health Authority $93,434. The year prior of 2020 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority received $100,000 from the Foundation. A charity setup by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control to receive donations, the BCCDC Foundation for Population and Public Health, received $13,000.

During the onset to the alleged pandemic in 2019, many of you will recall the traditional intellectual safeguards were largely mute. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association received $151,718.

Other recipients during that fiscal year include the BCCDC’s Foundation at $57,667, Fraser Health Authority at $41,055, the Registered Nurses Foundation of BC at $4,276, and a charity setup by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at a $1,000.

The previous fiscal year of 2018 the BCCDC Foundation again received $57,667, Fraser Health Authority $41,472, the BC Civil Liberties Association $36,104, and the CBC’s charity $1,000.

From the voluminous records we were able to analyze in the time invested, this is where money directly went. The question of where money went after the Vancouver Foundation donated it to the BCCDC Foundation is also worth commenting on.

Unlike the Vancouver Foundation, the BCCDC’s Foundation does not donate to thousands of donees. Based on its own T3010 filing, from fiscal years 2017 to 2021, it donates to only one to four donees a year. A sophisticated organization, such as the Vancouver Foundation, cannot reasonably be said to not know where the aforementioned benefactor receiving a donation would subsequently direct it to.

In every filing we uncovered problematic benefactors. In fiscal year 2021 the BCCDC Foundation donated to the Provincial Health Services Authority $140,247. The year prior of 2020 an amount of $487,689 was donated to the PHSA. In 2019 they received $588,553. In 2018 they received $290,267. In 2017 they received $426,016. The BCCDC Foundation then in 2017 donated to the BCCDC itself $15,300.

Recall that the PHSA is Dr. Henry’s employer, a defendant named in all of our litigation – including the petition in which the Chief Justice presided over. It is impossible for any reasonable person to characterize the movement of substantial sums of money in this manner under the direction of the Chief Justice as, at the very least, not carrying the perception of a conflict of interest.

What is the result of all of this? We get a situation where there really is no separation between the judiciary, the legislature, and N.G.O.s with financial interests. Everything seems to blend together.

Was there anything to those anti-lockdown rulings in B.C.? Impossible to say for sure, but the connections of the Vancouver Foundation do raise a lot of questions.


(A) BCCDC Foundation Charity Page
(B) University Of British Columbia Charity Page
(C) Provincial Health Services Authority Charity Page
(D) Community-Based Research Centre Society Charity Page
(E) Vancouver Foundation Charity Page

%d bloggers like this: