Ronnie, Author at Canuck Law

April 24, 2024April 25, 2024

B.C. Bill 12 (Online Harms) Deferred: Another Case Of Problem, Reaction, Solution

The C.B.C. recently reported that British Columbia Bill 12 (the Online Harms Act) is being paused for now. This is titled the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. The stated reason is that social media companies like Facebook and X/Twitter have come to the table to implement their own protections.

But B.C. Premier David Eby made it clear that this may go ahead anyway, if an agreement cannot be worked out.

Other recent B.C. specific legislation includes:
Bill 23, the (Anti-White) Anti-Racism Act, and
Bill 31, domestic implementation of U.N. Sendai Framework

The stated purpose is to hold companies — such as social media outlets — accountable for medical and health care costs that arise from content they put out. An example cited is Carson Cleland, the 12 year old from Prince George, who committed suicide last October after online sextortion. It’s claimed that if platformed were properly regulated, this wouldn’t have happened.

However, it appears more likely that this is a pretext to be able to swiftly remove content the Government deems “harmful”, for whatever reason. And this is being achieved in the standard way.

Problem
Reaction
Solution

The PROBLEM is that Bill 12 is crafted in such a way as to impose financially crippling penalties. No Government wants to be seen as being overtly anti-free speech. So this must be framed in a manner that appeals to public safety.

The REACTION is that companies get nervous about the fines and other costs they could be on the hook for, even if they weren’t complicit in generating the material.

The SOLUTION is that social media firms agree to “voluntarily” implement their own measures, which means complying with what the Government wanted anyway.

Now, what’s in this Bill?

Direct action by government
2 (1) The government has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Direct action by the government of Canada
3 (1) The government of Canada has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill specify that the B.C. (and oddly, Canadian) Governments are able to take legal action against people for health care costs in relation to “disease, injury or illness”.

Interestingly, both Sections 2 and 3 specify that the right of action — or ability to sue — is for Governments only. Private people apparently don’t have that right. Then there’s 2(6) and 3(6)

(6) If the government [of Canada seeks] in an action under subsection (1) to recover the cost of health care benefits on an aggregate basis,

(a) it is not necessary
(i) to identify particular individual benefit recipients,
(ii) to prove the cause of disease, injury or illness in any particular individual benefit recipient, or
(iii) to prove the cost of health care benefits for any particular individual benefit recipient

What this means is that while both the B.C. and Federal Governments have the right to sue to recoup health care costs, private citizens don’t. It’s also not required that they identify: (a) beneficiaries; (b) causation; or (c) analysis of health care benefits.

Apparently, companies aren’t limited to being sued once, either.

Private parties and proceedings
6 (1) It is not a defence to an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), that a claim for a benefit recipient’s damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, has been adjudicated or settled.

6 (2) It is not a defence to an action commenced in respect of a benefit recipient’s claim for damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, that an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), has been adjudicated or settled.

It’s a commonly accepted principle that once a dispute is resolved, that it not be rehashed in a different forum. This applies to things like union grievances and human rights complaints. But here, it’s explicitly stated that “adjudicated or settled” won’t protect from future litigation.

Section 8 gets into what evidence will be allowed. This will include “statistical information and information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies, including information derived from sampling”. In other words, modelling will be allowed as evidence. Remember how that was used back in 2020/2021?

Section 10 states that the Statute of Limitations both for the B.C. and Federal Governments will be 15 years. This goes well above the 2 year limit that typically applies.

In any event, it’s not hard to see what social media companies are nervous about Bill 12 going ahead. It exposes them to all kinds of risks, but without really defining their responsibilities. It’s no surprise that they’re now willing to work something out to prevent this legislation from going ahead.

Another area the CBC article omitted was any explanation of who was responsible for social media companies capitulating. For that, we turn to the B.C. Lobbying Registry.

Jean-Marc Prevost is one of the people lobbying on behalf of Facebook. He’s a former staffer for BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and helped her push the injections back in 2021. To give context, he was a part of this same NDP Government, leaves, and then promptly lobbies that same Government. See Archive.

And the conflict of interest doesn’t end there. Prevost lobbied for the company Emergent BioSolutions Inc., a few years back. This is the actual manufacturer of the AstraZeneca vaccines. He had the ear of the right people at the time.

Bradley Lavigne works at Counsel Public Affairs, same as Prevost. In March, he also lobbied on behalf of Facebook. And similar to Prevost. Lavigne pushed for vaccines on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions back in 2021. He has been a CBC commentator for about 20 years, meaning he pitches his clients’ goals directly to the public. See archive. He has also been in the inside of the Federal NDP party structure going back to the days of Jack Layton.

As should be obvious: a lot of these “commentators” and “pundits” are really just paid actors, playing the role of experts. And although these actors are supposedly from different political parties, their respective firms have people on staff across the spectrum.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, or pharma lobbying more broadly, there are many rabbit holes to go down. These examples are hardly exhaustive.

Rachel Curran also lobbied on behalf of Meta. This is important since she spent over 3 years as part of the B.C. Government, and more than 6 more working for Harper Federally. See archive. Additionally, she lists herself as a CBC commentator from 2016 to 2020. This isn’t simply a left or right issue, but one where all parties do much the same things.

Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Curren is also involved in CIVIX, which is an online “disinformation prevention” group funded by taxpayers. In fact, there are several such organizations in Canada. Some are registered as charities, receiving large tax benefits.

The name Peter Donolo should also ring a bell. He was Jean Chretien’s Chieff of Staff in the 1990s, and helped get him elected. He also worked with Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau.

It’s interesting that groups that are supposed to stop disinformation also are filled with operatives from the same Governments who are impacted.

The B.C. Government was lobbied on behalf of X (formerly Twitter) with regards to Bill 12. Fernando Minna works for Capital Hill Group, and has for the past 3 years. See archive.

Capitol Hill Group is run by David Angus, who worked for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and former Ontario Premier Bill Davis.

Sabrina Geremia of Google lobbied the B.C. Government as well. While she doesn’t list political involvement in her profile, at least 3 colleagues do: Lindsay Doyle, Jeanette Patell, and Semhar Tekeste.

Erin O’Toole, former CPC Leader, gets an honourable mention. Before getting into politics, he lobbied on behalf of Facebook. He worked for Heenan Blaikie, same law firm as Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.

Why cover all of this?

Bill 12 seems designed to force social media companies into compliance or face crippling financial penalties. Virtually anything can “cause public health harm”, depending on how it’s worded. This legislation is written in such a way that either Victoria or Ottawa can inflict damage. But these groups are very willing to negotiate, and the lobbyists have connections to those same Governments.

If the goal all along was to compel these outlets into being willing to censor, it’s more effective to get them to do it themselves. And remember, it’s all voluntary here. Technically, no one has been forced.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-online-harms-bill-paused-1.7182392
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(4) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5501&regId=56572920
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4186&regId=56566730
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-marc-prevost-04830598/
(8) Jean-Marc Prevost LinkedIn Profile
(9) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34073
(10) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=1334&regId=56559236&blnk=1
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-lavigne-a0927a39/
(12) Brad Lavigne LinkedIn Profile
(13) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34055
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/details/experience/
(15) Rachel Curran LinkedIn Profile
(16) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5460&regId=56572569&blnk=1
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernandominna/
(18) Fernando Minna LinkedIn Profile
(19) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3536&regId=56568880
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sabrina-geremia-028644/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16607&regId=948142
(22) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=288445&regId=668908

April 21, 2024April 21, 2024

Private Member’s Bill C-373: (Again) Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

On February 5th, 2024, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois in Lac-Saint-Jean, introduced Private Member’s Bill C-373. The goal is to remove religious exemptions for the hate crime of antisemitism.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-367, which was introduced by Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois on November 28th, 2023.

Both Bills C-367 and C-373 would repeal Sections 319(3)‍(b) and 319(3.‍1)‍(b) of the Criminal Code. These would provide defences in Court if the expression were based on religious beliefs. Interestingly, neither Bill lists what faith(s) this would apply to, although Christianity is an obvious suspect.

Defences
.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)
.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

Some clarity would be nice. These Bills (C-367 and C-373) didn’t just happen. There are obviously some written texts which are apparently offensive.

Brunel-Duceppe is also involved in foreign affairs. He and Blanchet are both part of CAIL, the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group.

(CAAF) Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association
(CACN Canada-China Legislative Association
(CADE) Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group
(CAEU) Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
(CAFR) Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association
(CAIE) Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group
(CAIL) Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group
(CAIT) Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group
(CAJP) Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
(CANA) Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
(CAPF) Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
(CCOM)Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
(CEUS) Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
(CPAM) Canadian Section of ParlAmericas
(RUUK) Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association
(SECOC) anadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
(UIPU) Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Here’s where the story take a turn, as it usually does. Brunelle-Duceppe didn’t come up with this on his own. It looks as if he has been meeting with CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Brunelle-Duceppe appears to have been contacted by the Israeli Lobby about this. There’s a meeting which took place on January 19th, 2024. Just 2 weeks later, he’s introducing this Bill. That seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

CIJA is very involved in Canadian politics, and has regularly lobbied politicians for decades. A large part of their agenda focuses on amending the Criminal Code and Human Rights Codes to combat what they call hate speech and antisemitism.

Bills C-367 and C-373 are hardly the only ones introduced in recent times to limit Canadians’ expression and speech. Here are some others.

Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act) was recently introduced. This would impose strict criminal penalties for people suspected — not even charged or convicted — of causing harms. Like so many pieces of legislation, it’s both vague, and has real consequences.

Bill C-229 sought to ban “symbols of hate”, but without defining what the criteria would be. It can be difficult to distinguish between hate, history, and simple expression.

Bill C-250 would have put Holocaust deniers in prison for up to 2 years. This came from a “Conservative” MP named Kevin Waugh. The Bill is moot at this point, since the equivalent provisions were slipped into Bill C-19, a budget that passed.

Bill C-261 would create “red flag laws” for hate speech, but without defining what it is. Without a person even being charged or convicted, a Judge could order them to be subjected to the kinds of restrictions that felons on probation or parole would face. This is virtually identical to Bill C-36, which was introduced, but didn’t pass in the previous session.

Who can forget Iqra Khalid’s M-103 (Islamophobia Motion), or Bills C-6 and later C-4 (to criminalize anything that would be considered conversion therapy?

British Columbia Bill 23 gets an honourable mention. This would establish a Provincial Committee to establish and advance an “anti-racism” agenda, and embed it in everything. Whites are specifically excluded from being on having any leadership role.

Not only do these Bills erode freedom, and particularly freedom of speech, the details are always worked out behind closed doors. It’s typically an NGO, often a foreign one, who has elected officials try to implement them. This shouldn’t be allowed, regardless of who’s behind it.

But you won’t hear either the mainstream or alternative media talk about this.

One other point of interest is this: Blanchet’s Bill C-367 was introduced at the end of November, 2023. Brunelle-Duceppe’s Bill C-373 was in early February, 2024. This was just a few months later. Why was this introduced twice?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-373
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alexis-brunelle-duceppe(104786)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-373/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=592585

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(N) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(O) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(P) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(Q) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

April 20, 2024April 20, 2024

B.C. Bill 23: Whites Prohibited From Serving On “Anti-Racism” Committee

A few days ago, Bill 23 was introduced in the British Columbia Legislature. This is the so-called “Anti-Racism Act”, and it’s every bit as bad as can be expected.

It was introduced by Josie Osborne, who is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. It’s unclear why she would be doing this, as it appears to have nothing to do with her portfolio.

What are the goals of this Act?

2 This Act must be administered and interpreted in accordance with the following principles:
.
(a) systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and racial inequity are harming individuals and communities in British Columbia and require urgent action;
.
(b) actions to identify and eliminate systemic racism and systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, and advance racial equity, in programs, services, policies and laws should be informed by data;
.
(c) in taking action to identify and eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity, consideration must be given to the ways in which an individual’s intersecting identities, including, without limitation, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, sex or religion, or an individual’s physical or mental disability, result in unique experiences of, or an increased risk of experiencing, systemic racism and racial inequity;
.
(d) consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, acknowledging the rights, interests, priorities and concerns that are specific to First Nations peoples, Métis peoples and Inuit peoples, based on distinctions among them, is essential to the identification and elimination of systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and the advancement of racial equity and the implementation of this Act;
.
(e) engagement with racialized communities in British Columbia is essential to the identification and elimination of systemic racism and the advancement of racial equity and the implementation of this Act;
.
(f) investment in programs and services is needed to support healing for individuals and communities harmed by systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples and racial inequity.

Even though “racial equity” is listed throughout the Bill’s principles, it isn’t actually defined. Best guess, it’s a push for some sort of affirmative action or quota system.

This sort of practice has long existed in employment and post secondary education. In theory, it could easily extend to other areas.

Section 5 of the Bill gets into the makeup of the Committee that will be reporting back to the Legislature. And it immediately becomes clear who isn’t welcome here.

Provincial Committee on Anti-Racism
5 (1) The minister must establish a Provincial Committee on Anti-Racism.
(2) The minister must appoint at least 7 and not more than 11 members to the committee.

(3) All members must be individuals who
(a) are racialized, and
(b) have expertise in working to eliminate systemic racism and advance racial equity.

(4) The committee must include the following as members:
(a) at least 2 individuals who represent organizations that support racialized individuals or communities;
(b) at least 2 individuals who have expertise in systems thinking theory and practice;
(c) at least 2 individuals who have expertise in the development and delivery of anti-racism training curricula.

Clause 5(3)(a) is very telling. In a Bill that claims to be fighting racism, the official policy is “whites need not apply”. Have to say, that sounds rather…. racist.

Clause 5(4)(b) is another one to wonder about. What are the “systems” that need to be implemented or changed? Will we be heading towards South Africa style apartheid?

It’s hard to tell at this point whether this will largely just result in slush funds being handed out to certain groups, or if it will be much worse.

Like many (or most) pieces of legislation in Canada, the B.C. Anti-Racism Act is backdoored with “regulations”. In practice, it means that major changes can be made without having to go back to the Legislature.

Regulations
31 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 [powers to make regulations] of the Interpretation Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:
(a) respecting accessible formats for documents published under this Act;
(b) respecting anti-racism assessments and the anti-racism assessment framework developed under section 9 (1) (a) [duties of government] or 15 (1) (a) [duties of committee], including, without limitation, respecting
(i) the form and content of anti-racism assessments, and
(ii) the frequency with which anti-racism assessments must be carried out;
(c) respecting anti-racism training curricula and anti-racism training and the standards, targets and indicators set by the government under section 9 (1) (b) and (c) or by the committee under section 15 (1) (b) and (c);
(d) for the purposes of section 11 (4) (b) [actions against Indigenous-specific systemic racism], establishing requirements in relation to the receipt and use of information referred to in section 11 (3) (e);
(e) for the purposes of section 17 (4) (b) [actions against systemic racism], establishing requirements in relation to the receipt and use of information referred to in section 17 (3) (f);
(f) respecting grants under section 29 [minister may provide grant], including, without limitation,
(i) restricting the purposes, amounts or recipients of those grants, and
(ii) respecting the terms and conditions on which the grants may or must be given.

(3) A regulation under this Act may do one or more of the following:
(a) delegate a matter to a person;
(b) confer a discretion on a person;
(c) establish or define groups or categories of public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters;
(d) make different regulations in relation to different public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters, or for different groups or categories of public bodies, persons, things, circumstances or other matters.

Not only are the terms vague and undefined, but the details will be worked out in secret. Assuming this Bill is passed, then only afterwards will it all come out.

The obvious questions include: What sort of regulations will be coming in the near future? Who will be deciding what regulatory changes happen? Will there be any mechanism to challenge such measures? What kind of “discretion” will be handed out to other people or groups?

Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC
The Immigrant Services Society of BC

In the B.C. Lobbying Registry, a few names get flagged when searching anti-racism. Unsurprisingly, both groups receive large amounts of money from taxpayers.

Considering the NDP has a majority in the Province, the legislation will likely pass. Then again, it’s not like the Liberals are much of an opposition party anyway.

(1) https://bcndpcaucus.ca/mla/josie-osborne/
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills
(4) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3739&regId=56571325
(7) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4629&regId=56572243

April 19, 2024April 20, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 3: R.O.A. Challenge Finally To Be Heard?

Starting on October 1st, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court will finally hear a long delayed challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act, or R.O.A. Of course, this assumes that there are no more setbacks. Given how things have played out so far, there are no guarantees.

This Application is from William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly), and stems from his refusal to bend the knee to Doug Ford back in 2020.

Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions
Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

Due to Michael Swinwood — the former lawyer — screwing up the case in 2021, and then walking away, the matter has been unnecessarily delayed for years. This is in spite of getting several expert witnesses ready to appear.

Byram Bridle
Douglas Allen
Gilbert Berdine
Harvey Risch
Joel Kettner
William Briggs

There are, of course, differences in the reports that have been submitted. However, what they all argue is that this “global pandemic” is vastly overblown. Lockdown measures weren’t needed, nor was there any benefit to society from implementing them.

Now, in the year 2024, why does this still matter? While the so-called “pandemic” may be over, the Reopening Ontario Act is still in effect, even if there aren’t any shutdowns going on.

Here are the provisions being challenged:

Orders continued
2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the order filed as Ontario Regulation 106/20 (Order Made Under the Act — Extensions and Renewals of Orders).
.
Clarification
(3) For greater certainty, an order that is in force is continued under subsection (1) even if, on the day that subsection comes into force, the order does not apply to any area of the Province.

Power to amend orders
4 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order,
.
(a) subject to subsections (2) and (5), amend a continued section 7.0.2 order in a way that would have been authorized under section 7.0.2 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act if the COVID-19 declared emergency were still in effect and references in that section to the emergency were references to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects;
.
(b) amend an order continued under section 2 to address transitional matters relating to the termination of the COVID-19 declared emergency, the enactment of this Act or the continuation of orders under section 2.

Provisions applying with respect to orders
7 (1) Subsections 7.2 (3) to (8) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to orders continued under section 2, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Same
(2) Subsections 7.0.2 (6) to (9) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications and the modifications specified in subsection (3), with respect to continued section 7.0.2 orders, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Modifications
(3) The modifications referred to in subsection (2) are the following:
.
1. The reference, in paragraph 1 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to the emergency is deemed to be a reference to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects.
.
2. The reference, in paragraph 2 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to when the declared emergency is terminated is deemed to be a reference to when the order in relation to which that paragraph applies is revoked or ceases to apply.

Temporary closure by police, etc.
9.1 (1) A police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable may order that premises be temporarily closed if the police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an organized public event or other gathering is occurring at the premises and that the number of people in attendance exceeds the number permitted under a continued section 7.0.2 order.

Offences
10 (1) Every person who fails to comply with subsection 9.1 (2) or (3) or with a continued section 7.0.2 order or who interferes with or obstructs any person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred by such an order is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction,
.
(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;
.
(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and
.
(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.
.
Separate offence
(2) A person is guilty of a separate offence on each day that an offence under subsection (1) occurs or continues.
.
Increased penalty
(3) Despite the maximum fines set out in subsection (1), the court that convicts a person of an offence may increase a fine imposed on the person by an amount equal to the financial benefit that was acquired by or that accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence.

The Reopening Ontario Act may be seen as “sleeper” legislation. While there may be no obvious harm now, it can be used at any time, and under almost any pretense. We have seen this elsewhere, and the public is lulled into a false sense of security, believing the threat to be over.

But that’s not all. The Health Protection and Promotion Act is also facing a challenge given the heavy handed and unconstitutional manner which it was employed.

Interpretation
Directions by M.O.H.
24 (1) A medical officer of health, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) to the persons whose services are engaged by or to agents of the board of health of the health unit served by the medical officer of health. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 24 (1).
.
When M.O.H. may give directions
(2) A medical officer of health may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) where the medical officer of health is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that a communicable disease exists in the health unit and the person to whom an order is or would be directed under section 22,
(a) has refused to or is not complying with the order;
(b) is not likely to comply with the order promptly;
(c) cannot be readily identified or located and as a result the order would not be carried out promptly; or
(d) requests the assistance of the medical officer of health in eliminating or decreasing the risk to health presented by the communicable disease.

This is a bit of rabbit hole, but the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act is part of a much larger picture. The source material is extensive, but an informative read. To sum it all up:

Canada signed on to the WHO’s legally binding Constitution in 1946
The International Sanitation Regulations came into effect in 1951
The International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) came into effect in 1969
The International Health Regulations (2nd Ed.) came into effect in 1995
The International Health Regulations (3rd Ed.) came into effect in 2005
Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act, is Canada’s domestic implementation of WHO-IHR 3rd Ed.
The Provinces implemented their own version of the Quarantine Act, such as HPPA
The HPPA (really) came from the WHO

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the Canuck Law site.

Now, with all of this in mind, it seems pretty obvious that the Reopening Ontario Act didn’t just happen. It was brought in to compliment and help enforce existing public health measures. Our politicians are actors, reading scripts. They weren’t responsible for drafting any of this, but they did pass it.

The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting this case together, and the documents are readily available. Given that the hearing isn’t for several months, there will certainly be updates.

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 – 2021 Motion Responding Factum
(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

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

April 17, 2024April 20, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

This is the second part on William Adamson Skelly, (a.k.a Adam Skelly). He made national headlines back in 2020, for refusing to capitulate to Doug Ford and Christine Elliott. A restraining order was granted against him in December, but a “come-back Motion” was allowed to go ahead to challenge it in an ad-hoc manner.

For background information on this, see Part 1. It outlines many of the major events that led up to this moment. This is hardly exhaustive of what happened.

Anyhow, his highly anticipated challenge was derailed due to the gross incompetence of then lawyer Michael Swinwood. Despite all of the time, money and effort that had gone into the challenge, it didn’t follow the basics of procedure.

Specifically, the purpose of the come-back Motion was to challenge the December order. Instead, Swinwood filed a Motion for damages, something that wouldn’t have been allowed at this stage anyway. Justice Akbarali ruled that there was no jurisdiction to hear it, but gave permission to refile the papers correctly.

When a litigant wants to make changes to their Notice of Motion, the correct method is to serve an AMENDED Notice of Motion. Instead, a second Notice was issued, and it wasn’t clear which the Court was supposed to consider.

Neither Notice set out that the point of the Motion was to challenge the December order, and any basis for issuing it. That was brought up afterwards. And it’s pretty common knowledge that a Notice has to spell out what is being asked for.

Apparently, there was no Notice placed in the Motion Record (a book of documents), which is a pretty basic oversight.

Despite this being a Motion, Skelly was listed as an Applicant on Court documents. He should have been referred to as a Moving Party. Just because a Notice of Constitutional Question is included, it doesn’t change this reality. Again, this is amateurish.

If damages were sought, then an “originating process” such as a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Application would have to have been filed. This Motion was not the way to do it. Still Justice Akbarali allowed another attempt to fix things.

However, that never happened. So, what did Skelly do?

He sued his lawyer for negligence and professional malpractice, demanding $200,000. It’s always interesting to hear when such a thing happens. From the Statement of Claim:

22. In late 2020 or early 2021, Mr. Skelly learned about Mr. Swinwood and retained him to pursue a constitutional challenge against the public health measures.

23. Mr. Skelly was under the impression that Mr. Swinwood was not only a reasonably competent lawyer but also one who had significant experience in constitutional and civil matters.

24. Throughout the duration of his retainer, Mr. Swinwood representing Mr. Skelly, acted with complete disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure and in a manner that can only be described as completely incompetent and negligible.

25. In an Endorsement of the Honourable Justice Myers dated February 26, 2021, His Honour reprimanded Mr. Swinwood for sending an unsolicited letter to Justice Kimmel asking that she remain seized of the matter. Justice Myers highlighted that she was never seized of the matter to begin with and explicitly ordered that “Mr. Swinwood is to comply with Rule 1.09 in any future communication with the Court.”

26. In Her Honour’s Direction dated March 9, 2021, the Honourable Justice Akrabali set out a timetable for the hearing of the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Skelly, with the hearing to take place on June 28 and 29, 2021 (the “June Hearing”).

27. In the Direction, Justice Akrabali made a point to tell Mr. Swinwood to make sure he files his materials with the proper style of cause as the materials he submitted failed to do so. A hearing for the come-back motion contemplated by Justice Kimmel and Mr. Skelly’s constitutional challenge was scheduled for June 28 and 29th, 2021.

31. In her Endorsement dated June 28, 2021, Justice Akrabali pointed out various flaws in the
steps taken by Mr. Swinwood resulting in the court not having the issues properly raised before it (the “June Endorsement”). These flaws are listed below:
i. Not seeking to vary or set aside the Order of Justice Kimmel based on unconstitutionality in the Notices of Motion making it deficient rendering the proceeding procedurally unfair;
ii. Not properly placing the February Notice of Motion before Her Honour;
iii. Not having the February Notice of Motion initially placed in the respondent’s Motion Record and adding it only after the applicant brought up the issue in an attempt to fix the defect;
iv. The relief in the February Notice of Motion is not based on any Notice of Constitutional Question;
v. Having two Notices of Motion for the same motion instead of amending the document;
vi. Not making it clear to Ontario which Notice of Motion the hearing was to proceed on;
vii. Not giving appropriate notice of the relief sought in the Notice of Motion;
viii. The Notice of Constitutional Question did not raise the issue of setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality until its third iteration on June 8, 2021, which was well after the date of cross-examinations and the finalization of the evidentiary record;
ix. Neither Notice of Motion sought an Order setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality;
x. Failing to put before Her Honour the Affidavits of Service for Mr. Swinwood’s June 24, 2021, Motion Record; and,
xi. No originating process for the damages or declaration of invalidity sought.

32. At paragraph 44 of Justice Akrabali’s June Endorsement she states the following: “This is not a case where the respondents are self-represented parties. They were represented at the hearing by two counsel, at least one of whom has been practicing for many years. Earlier in the proceedings, when the Notices of Motion were being prepared, the respondents were represented by four counsel. I cannot explain why none of them considered these very basic issues, or if they did, why they did not address the deficiencies in the proceeding which could have been done easily and efficiently in February or March 2021…”

38. In the six months that passed Mr. Skelly obtained new counsel to issue the correct originating process Mr. Swinwood failed to issue and to bring Mr. Skelly’s challenge back for a hearing on the merits.

39. During this time, neither Mr. Skelly nor his new counsel received any correspondence regarding the desire of Ontario to receive the December Costs

It’s hard to imagine that a veteran lawyer could repeatedly make such basic errors unless done intentionally. Not only did Swinwood mess up, he never went ahead with another attempt. He effectively let the case die. Even with the trouble and expense of having 6 expert witnesses, Swinwood didn’t try again.

The Notice of Constitutional Question (all iterations of it) were also very poorly written. Instead of briefly outlining the issues, Swinwood appears to try to turn it into a Factum and make full arguments. 27+ pages was excessive.

All sorts of theories were floated, including that Swinwood had been bribed and/or threatened. However, without proof, those are just theories.

To date, there has been no activity in this malpractice suit other than the Claim itself being issued.

Now, there is a new Application scheduled to go ahead in October 2024. The 1st, 2nd and 7th are set aside for it. The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting that together. Mootness may be an issue — or at least the Province will argue it — given how much time has passed, but we’ll have to see. The R.O.A. hasn’t been formally rescinded.

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

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

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

April 13, 2024April 19, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions

This is the first of a multi-part series on William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly). He made national news back in the Fall of 2020 for refusing to bend the knee to the dictates of Doug Ford. This led to both civil and criminal cases in the months to come. His comically bad legal representation also generated attention.

He has another Application, this one to be heard over 3 days in October 2024. This is being organized by the Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC. Since a lot of work was put together a few years ago, letting it go seemed like a major waste of time and money.

Now, the Government can — and most likely will — bring up the issue of mootness. Lawyers will claim that this is all old news, and that there are no orders in effect. Still, it would be nice to actually hear the case on its merits, especially as the Reopening Ontario Act wasn’t ever taken down.

To begin, here was his run in with Justice Jasmine Akbarali back in 2021.

To make a long story short: the Government was successful in bringing a restraining order against Skelly and his business in December 2020. They did it on an expedited basis, with no real chance to defend. However, the ruling allowed for a “come-back Motion” to be brought. This would be Skelly’s chance to show that he was in the right.

From Justice Kimmel’s ruling:

[46] The applicant asked for its costs. The Crown argued that this was not actually an ex parte motion because they had provided notice, even though the court, by an earlier endorsement, had permitted the respondents not to respond. The respondents did not oppose the relief sought (except to raise procedural objections). The Crown had an onus to meet, irrespective of any position of the respondents. If the Crown had proceeded ex parte, it concedes that it would not have been entitled to costs by virtue of Rule 57.03(3).

[47] Although the Crown did provide notice, the respondents’ participation has been deferred until the come-back motion. I have determined that any costs that might be recoverable by the applicant for this motion should be addressed in the context of that come-back motion if it proceeds.

[48] The court’s practice is to fix the costs of each step in a proceeding if possible. The applicant represented to the court that its bill of costs on a partial indemnity scale for the application amounted to $19,675.00. I can appreciate that there was a need for three counsel on a file such as this. This amount is within the realm of expected costs for an urgent application of this nature, although perhaps a little on the high side having regard to comparable cost awards that I was directed to in contested proceedings.

Since the Crown did (technically) provide notice, they were presumptively entitled to costs. However, Justice Kimmel decided — as an act of fairness — that Skelly should have the chance to make his case. Therefore, the option of a “come-back” Motion was granted. Sounds okay, right?

There were a number of problems that came up. First of all, the person(s) filing a Motion are referred to as the “Moving Parties”, not the “Applicants”. It seems that Skelly’s lawyer, Michael Swinwood, wasn’t even aware of what documents he was filing.

This is what Swinwood was filing.

By contrast, the Ontario Government listed that Skelly and his restaurant were in fact the Moving Parties. These are the titles that should have been shown. Just because a Notice of Constitutional Question is included, doesn’t mean that a Motion suddenly becomes an Application.

Look above. The first screenshot is from Swinwood, and the second from Ontario.

Had Skelly been initiating the entire proceeding by way of Judicial Review, then yes, he would have been considered an Applicant. Instead, he was filing a Motion to challenge an earlier ruling, but within the same case.

For Ontario Courts, Applications are governed by Rule 14.05. One can be started with any of Forms 14E, 14E.1, 68A or 73A. Motions are governed by Rule 37, and are initiated by Form 37-A. These are different forms, and completely different rules apply. Now, a Notice of Motion was filed, but it’s baffling why Skelly would be listed as an “Applicant”.

In June 2021, Justice Akbarali refused to hear the Motion, stating that she had no jurisdiction over the matter. She did, however, allow Skelly and his lawyer another attempt, if it were drafted properly.

Here is a very, very brief timeline of events.

November 28th, 2020: The Ontario Government files an emergency Application against Adam Skelly and his business in order to limit the amount and type of business that it can do. Although he is served with notice, this is done on such a short timeframe that there wasn’t really the chance to respond.

December 1st, 2020: The Ontario Government serves their Application Record.

December 2nd, 2020: The Ontario Court defers ruling on a decision on the status of Adamson Barbeque, until the following week.

December 11th, 2020: Justice Kimmel of the ONSC grants the Application from Ontario forcing the business to only operate (or not operate) within the parameters of the Reopening Ontario Act. While $15,000 in costs is awarded, it’s deferred pending an anticipated “Comeback Motion” to be filed.

January 22, 2021: A Criminal Court Judge issues and order restricting what Skelly can post online, including any incitement or encouragement that the Ontario “restriction measures” not be followed.

February 1st, 2021: The Notice of Motion is filed, along with the first iteration of the Notice of Constitutional Question.

February 17th, 2021: Swinwood files a 27 page Notice of Constitutional Question. Rather than simply listing the issues to be considered, it’s filled with argument, and reads more like a Factum.

March 9th, 2021: The Toronto Board of Health sues Skelly in an attempt to recoup the costs of paying over 100 police officers to enforce their mandates. There’s another suit filed on March 10th, and it looks like they went after him twice (CV-21-00658431-0000 and CV-21-00658546-0000).

April 12th, 2021: Skelly and the various expert witnesses have their Affidavits sworn. Note, the documents themselves are attached below. As an aside, it’s a bit disappointing that they all play along with the narrative that there is actually a virus.

May 25th, 2021: Matthew Hodge is cross examined on his Affidavit evidence. This would be the first of several days which he is questioned.

May 27th, 2021: Byram Bridle is cross examined on his Affidavit evidence.

May 31st, 2021: Skelly is cross examined on his Affidavit evidence.

June 8th, 2021: Swinwood amends the Notice of Constitutional Question.

June 11th, 2021: The Factum (arguments) are submitted on Skelly’s behalf.

June 14th, 2021: The Factum is amended.

June 18th, 2021: The Government sends their responding Factum.

June 22nd, 2021: Reply Factum is sent on Skelly’s behalf.

June 29, 2021: Justice Jasmine Akbarali declares that she has no jurisdiction to preside over the Motion brought by Skelly and Swinwood. It seems that Rules of Civil Procedure weren’t followed, but another chance is given to do it properly. Costs for this Motion are to be deferred for a few weeks.

July 13, 2021: Justice Akbarali hands down a $15,000 cost award against Skelly for this Motion not being able to be heard. However, the original $15,000 order from December 2020 is deferred for 6 months, pending the outcome of the original matter.

Theories were rampant as to what happened with the June Motion. Some had said Swinwood was grossly incompetent.

Others suggested that Justice Akbarali was biased, and that the case was rigged. Now Swinwood could have simply redone the paperwork, but he didn’t. However, without proof, this is all speculation.

October 2021: Despite the Toronto Board of Health suing Skelly and his business back in March, they don’t actually serve anything for several months.

February 1st, 2022: Michael Swinwood (Skelly’s lawyer), apparently still hasn’t properly prepared the paperwork to challenge the 2020 decision. He never made another attempt. At this point, the outstanding $15,000 is formally awarded against Skelly. Skelly wasn’t given the opportunity to defend himself personally at the hearing.

June 2nd, 2022: RBC wins a financially crippling default judgement against Adamson BBQ. However, it appears to be against the business itself, and not Adam personally.

June 17th, 2022: Another Application is brought (this time with Ian Perry as counsel) against the Ontario Government. It once again challenges the Reopening Ontario Act.

June 14th, 2023: Ontario files a Notice of Motion for security for costs. In these types of Motions, one side is concerned that another won’t (or can’t) meet its financial obligations. This is a way around that. Typically, this leads to money or property being given to the Court, pending the outcome of the dispute. Ontario argues that it’s necessary here.

June 28th, 2023: A $200,000 lawsuit for incompetence, negligence and malpractice is levied against Michael Swinwood, Skelly’s now “former” lawyer. It’s filed by Ian Perry.

August 11th, 2023: Ontario Government files Motion Record for security for costs Motion.

August 28th, 2023: Skelly files Responding Motion Record for security for costs Motion.

August 29th, 2023: Ontario Government files Factum for security for cost Motion.

September 6th, 2023: Reply Factum for security for costs Motion is filed.

September 8th, 2023: The hearing for the Motion for Security for costs takes place.

November 20th, 2023: Justice McAfee issues a $30,000 “security for costs” order against Adam Skelly. This means he’ll have to put up the money in advance, as a sort of “deposit” in order to continue the latest application.

October 1st, 2nd, 7th of 2024: The Challenge to the R.O.A. is scheduled to be heard.

Now, what was so wrong with the come-back Motion that Swinwood had filed back in 2021? Aside from naming the Parties incorrectly, there were issues with the relief sought. Justice Akbarali mentioned this in the June 2021 decision.

a. An order staying the within proceedings until the determination of the Notice of Constitutional Question, dated February 1, 2021;

b. A request for a further case conference to establish timelines for the production of materials leading to the determination of the constitutional challenge;

c. A suspension of the s. 9 order [Justice Kimmel’s order] due to the revocation of the EMCPA enunciated in s. 17 of the ROA;

d. Compensation for damages caused by the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under s. 24(1) of the Charter;

e. Such further or other order as may be requested and the court deems just and proper.

But what’s missing here? Skelly’s lawyer isn’t asking that the original restraining order be varied or set aside (terminated). That was the entire point of the come-back Motion is the first place.

From the Ontario Factum:

5. The Respondents’ Notice of Motion does not seek any relief varying or setting aside the restraining order granted by this Court on December 4, 2020 under s. 9 of ROA. Nor does the Notice of Motion seek any declaratory relief. Neither does the Respondents’ Amended Amended Notice of Constitutional Question dated June 8, 2021 make any reference to varying or setting aside this Court’s order of December 4, 2020 or to declaratory relief.

6. The only substantive relief sought in this motion is “An Order for compensation for damages caused by the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 24(1) of the Charter.” This relief is not available, with the result that the motion must be dismissed.

7. First, damages are not available as relief on an interlocutory motion in an application. A claim for damages requires pleadings such as a statement of claim and a statement of defence. There are no pleadings in this proceeding, and the only originating process is the Crown’s Notice of Application. Moreover, there has been no notice as required by s. 18 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019. Failure to give the required statutory notice renders this motion a nullity.

37. As set out above at paras. 4-6, the only substantive relief sought in the Respondents’ Notice of Motion is an order “for compensation for damages caused by the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 24(1) of the Charter.” To the extent that the Respondents purport to seek other or additional relief in their factum, the Court should not entertain such claims.

38. Rule 37.06 provides that every Notice of Motion shall “state the precise relief sought” and “the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on.” The Respondents’ Notice of Motion makes no reference to setting aside this Court’s order of December 4, 2020 or to any declaratory relief. Nor does it refer to any Rule or statutory provision apart from s. 24(1) of the Charter.

39. The purpose of Rule 37.06 is obvious. The Divisional Court has recently confirmed that it is an error of law to grant relief not sought in a Notice of Motion, that due process underlies Rule 37.06, and that “Parties should not have to guess, speculate or intuitively understand what the issues to be decided are on a motion. In an adversarial litigation system, it is imperative that the litigants are made clearly aware of the case they have to meet.” The Respondents should not be permitted to enlarge the legal issues or claim relief in their factum not sought in their Notice of Motion, particularly since the Respondents’ factum attempting to expand the issues was delivered after the evidence on the motion was adduced and the cross-examinations completed.

Justice Kimmel allowed a come-back Motion to be filed because it was anticipated that there would be significant challenges to the original order. Instead, there were requests for damages in the Notice of Motion. There’s also the issue that a Court can’t award damages on an intermittent (case is still ongoing) Motion.

Justice Kimmel permitted “Relief A”, and instead, Swinwood asked for “Relief B”.

How could Swinwood have screwed things up so badly?

And how come he never tried to fix it later?

Anyhow, more to come.