Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Motion To Strike: When Concealing Lack Of Citizenship Matters

A Motion to Strike the Claim of Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison is to be heard in Federal Court later this month. The Government argues that there’s no valid Cause of Action (Issue the Court can rule in their favour on) outside of their s.6 (Mobility Rights) possibly being violated.

And to be clear, this is a private lawsuit for damages. The Plaintiffs aren’t asking for any sort of remedy that would benefit the public. They just want money for themselves. They solicit donations under the guise of “travel mandates challenge”, but it’s very misleading.

Citing significant defects in both the original Statement of Claim and the amended version, the Government has brought a Motion to Strike.

The Notice of Motion brings up a very interesting point: Rickard and Harrison don’t actually plead that they are Canadian citizens. This matters as only citizens are able to invoke s.6(1) Charter Rights. It seemed like a very basic error to make.

The Government also argues that the other Causes of Action (s.7 and s.15) have no basis, but were willing to concede that s.6 might, if properly pleaded.

Rickard and Harrison have brought their own Motion to further amend their Claim, including another version, and it has opened up a can of worms.

The Defendants point out in their response (see page 4) that Plaintiffs aren’t able to amend their pleadings when there is a Motion to Strike pending. Procedurally, this is not allowed. It would result in overlapping Motions if some errors are fixed along the way, or new ones made.

And the other shoe drops.

Rickard wasn’t a Canadian citizen at the time that the “travel mandates” were in effect. He was only a permanent resident. As such, he had no s.6 Charter right to “enter, remain in and leave Canada”. He had been concealing it from the Court, and presumably, donors for the entire time.

Why does this matter? It’s because the Claim is based on violations of 3 sections of the Charter:
-Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility Rights)
-Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
-Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)

The Section 6 path was probably the only one that stood a chance. In theory, Rickard could have argued Section 6(2), which is Interprovincial travel, and permanent residents have those protections. But he didn’t. Only s.6(1) is referred to.

In their Motion to further amend the pleadings, Plaintiffs allege 3 additional violations:
-Section 12 of the Charter (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
-Section 19(2) of IRPA (Immigration & Refugee Protection Act)
-Violations of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

However, these cause new problems. None of these new Causes of Action are properly pleaded, and would probably be barred by the Statute of Limitations. It’s also worth asking whether the last 2 weren’t used previously to hide Rickard’s true immigration status.

Why Shaun Rickard Was Ineligible To Invoke S.6 (Mobility) Rights

In the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim, see page 12, Rickard finally reveals the truth: he was a permanent resident of Canada at the time. He only became a citizen later.

An no, this isn’t some immigration bashing post. There are genuine consequences here.

Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

According to Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility Rights), every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Unlike most Charter issues, this one is specific to citizenship. Think about it. If anyone could enter, remain in and leave Canada, then there would be no borders at all.

Rickard should have been upfront about his status. But then, it would make it much harder to get anyone to donate. Even a quick glance at the Canadian Charter would have had people asking exactly these questions.

Why S.7 (Security) And S.15 (Equality) Claims Will Fail

This is unpopular to say, but neither Rickard nor Harrison was forced to take the injection. They chose not to, and the consequence was making their lives considerably more difficult. Does this amount to pressure and/or coercion? Yes it does, but various Courts have already refused this argument.

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
.
15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Enumerated Grounds:

  • Race
  • National or ethnic origin
  • Colour
  • Religion
  • Sex
  • Age
  • Mental or Physical Disability

So-called “enumerated grounds” are what’s listed in the Charter when it was originally framed. However, the Supreme Court has since recognized other protections, called “analogous grounds”.

Readers won’t want to hear it but “discrimination” based on vaccination status (and related arguments) have already been thrown out by the Courts. Rickard and Harrison offer nothing new.

Analogous Grounds:

  • Sexual Orientation
  • Marital Status
  • Off-Reserve Aboriginal Status
  • Citizenship
  • Income

Infuriating as it may be, “equality” the way the Charter is written doesn’t extend to medical treatment. It’s already been argued in Courts across Canada.

In their response to the Motion to Strike, Rickard and Harrison tacitly admit that some of these issues (such as Section 15 and equality) have been directly addressed by other Courts. See page 22. But their view is that the Federal Court shouldn’t be bound by it.

Section 6 (Mobility Rights) is still somewhat of a new ground, but again, s.6(1) only applies to citizens. Rickard finally admits he wasn’t one in 2021/2022. As such, he can’t claim damages for that, although Harrison still could.

Understanding Different Types Of Proceedings

This Statement of Claim only came about after 4 related Applications for Judicial Review were struck in 2022 for “mootness”. However, the Judge did allow Actions (Statements of Claim) to be filed for damages. Instead of refiling — as permitted — everyone appealed, and lost. 3 of the 4 (not Rickard and Harrison) sought Leave to Appeal with the Supreme Court, and lost.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the backstory.

TYPE ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW
1st Document Statement of Claim Application or Petition (BC)
Proceeding Type Can Be Very Complex Meant To Be Simplified
Purpose Damages, Various Orders Review Existing Order

The original challenges were in the form of Applications for Judicial Reviews, which are meant to be streamlined challenges to orders from the Government. Actions, on the other hand, can take almost any form.

This Is A PRIVATE Suit For Damages, Not A Mandates Challenge

The first, second and proposed third version of the Statement of Claim only ask for monetary damages for Rickard and Harrison. The documents are filed and publicly available.

Despite their misrepresentations, there’s no Relief Sought whatsoever that would prevent future injection mandates from coming back. This is a private lawsuit.

That doesn’t stop Harrison from offering tax receipts through his corporation, actually a “charity” to partially reimburse donors. That could cause real issues with the Canada Revenue Agency

According to the Government lawyers, they are only now finding out that Rickard wasn’t a citizen at the time, and hence ineligible to claim s.6(1) damages. That was concealed from everyone.

Most likely, Rickard will be struck as a Plaintiff, but Harrison would still be able to proceed with s.6 damages. They’ll probably then ask for more money to appeal.

As an aside, Rickard has another grift going on in Pickering, Ontario. He’s set up another fundraiser to file a lawsuit to “fight wokeness”. However, there are several shortfalls:

  • No content specified in potential suit
  • No lawyer named to pursue the Claim
  • No potential Plaintiff(s) named
  • No mention of specifically which Defendants would be named
  • No mention of obtaining public or private interest standing
  • No guarantee case will actually take place
  • No timeline or deadlines mentioned
  • No mention of refunds if the case doesn’t proceed

It’s still amazing how shameless people can be doing things like this.

Deport them both.

Revoke their citizenship and send them back to the UK.

And while we’re at it, deport the lawyer too, if possible.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(11) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(12) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(13) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

Constructive Dismissal, And Closing The File On Adelberg

Time to close the case on yet another one. The infamous 600+ Plaintiff suit, Adelberg, is before the Supreme Court of Canada with an Application for Leave. What this means is that the Applicants are asking for permission to have an Appeal heard. This will almost certainly be denied.

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 for complete coverage.

The main concern for litigants here is that they were forced out of their jobs back in 2021/2022, when the conditions of their work suddenly required multiple injections. These were the “vaccine passports” that became so notorious. Workers were rightfully angry that the rules were being retroactively changed.

What do the Courts call this? Constructive Dismissal.

By unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment, the Federal Government has effectively repudiated the employment contracts of their workers. They’re entitled to notice (at a minimum) and to be paid out fully in accordance with any other agreements they have.

As for third parties (Federally regulated employers) who’ve had to implement injection passports, they too have constructively dismissed their workers. The fact that Ottawa forced them to do it is irrelevant.

Instead of taking their problems to the appropriate forum — Arbitration for most — extremely incompetent counsel crashed all of this into the ground.

Contrary to the postings of “the marketing arms“, such as Police On Guard, this isn’t a complex case. A May 2022 lawsuit involving over 600 Plaintiffs was struck for a variety of reasons. The most embarrassing one was the completely shoddy and inadequate quality of the pleadings.

Justice Fothergill called it “bad beyond argument“.

There were a few passing mentions of Plaintiffs having their travel rights restricted, but at the heart of it, this was about employment.

To help make sense of these 600+ Plaintiffs, it’s important to note that the Court classified them into 2 groups for clarification. These are as follows.

Schedule “A” Plaintiffs, Employees Of Federal Government: These litigants had their employment claims struck in their entirety, without the chance to fix the lawsuit. The reason is that they were entitled to grieve employment claims, but not to litigate. This is explained by Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA. In essence, the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction. This comprised approximately 2/3 of them.

Schedule “B” Plaintiffs, Employees Of “Federally Regulated” Employers: These litigants at least in theory would be able to sue the Government. However, the Statement of Claim was so poorly drafted that it would have to be redone anyway. This was the other 1/3 of Plaintiffs.

Schedule “A” Plaintiffs: Employees Of Federal Government

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA, is the key to understanding why the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs are completely out of luck. Since they don’t have the right to sue, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear their case, even if it were competently pleaded.

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved (a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
236(1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

Counsel takes issue with the Federal Court (and later the Court of Appeal) not considering the employment contracts of the Schedule “A” workers prior to striking their claims. But this misses the point. Section 208 FPSLRA gives all Federal employees the right to grieve, and none of them the right to sue. This is regardless of any collective agreements in place. In this sense, the entire Federal Government acts as a giant union.

It’s unclear why counsel keeps citing Weber, the 1995 Supreme Court case, when it effectively shuts down the ability to bring cases to Court if alternative resolution mechanisms are available.

For their response, the Government reiterates that this case (at its heart) is about changes to the terms of their employment agreements. Really, this is constructive dismissal.

In theory, a case could still be brought if each of the Plaintiffs had diligently tried to exercise other options to resolve their case. It would involve overhauling the Statement of Claim, with each person describing what efforts they took. They’d have to provide specifics, and be prepared to submit Affidavit evidence when jurisdiction would inevitably be challenged. They’d have to convince a Judge that there was no other option than to sue. Even then, there are no guarantees, and it could still be tossed out.

Schedule “B” Plaintiffs: Employees Of “Federally Regulated” Industries

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.

Particulars
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.

Pleading facts refers to spelling out the who, what, where, when and how that events have transpired. There must be sufficient detail that Defendants are able to at least address the allegations.

Pleading particulars refers to detailing any acts of malice, bad faith, conspiracy, malfeasance, etc… The events must be described in enough detail that they can be responded to.

In spite of the Statement of Claim being 50 pages long, there is stunningly little material.

  • The first 15 pages are just the Style of Cause (naming Parties)
  • The next 9 pages are the Relief Sought (what is asked of the Court)
  • There are 2 pages of background information on the defendants
  • There are 5 pages of “facts”, which are actually potential expert evidence, and don’t belong at this stage of the proceeding
  • There are 6 pages of stating torts, but without pleading necessary facts or particulars
  • The Statement of Claim then just devolves into a Factum, arguing endlessly, but without providing the information needed to respond to by the Defendants

There’s no facts or background pleaded about the Plaintiffs, and only a handful are even named at all.

The Claim also makes allegations of: (a) Criminal Code of Canada violations; (b) breaches of the Nuremberg Code; (c) crimes against humanity; (d) violations of the Helsinki Declaration; and (e) reference the International Criminal Court in the Hague. All of this helped get the case struck, since there’s no jurisdiction for a Civil Court to hear any of it.

Remember, these defects also apply to the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs.

The Schedule “B” Plaintiffs might have had a fighting chance if counsel had argued that the injection mandates amounted to an inducement to breach, or interfere with their employment. That was one path forward. But that would require a competent lawyer.

Court Of Appeal Allows Travel Claims

In a strange turn of events, the Federal Court of Appeal did allow for travel claims to still be brought forward by all Plaintiffs. This applies to both Schedules “A” and “B”. However, these claims weren’t properly pleaded (as always) and are probably moot anyway.

Over $1.2 Million Wasted For Garbage Litigation

Each of the more than 600 Plaintiffs had to pay $1,000 retainer in order for the Statement of Claim to be filed in the first place. Then, when it was struck, counsel demanded another $1,000 from everyone. This totals well over a million dollars. And for what?

Plaintiffs Likely Barred By Statute Of Limitations

Regardless of what happens at the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs are likely out of luck anyway. It’s not just that the Statement of Claim itself has to be filed within 2 years. Any new allegations in an amended version — that occurred over 2 years ago — are typically barred as well. Since nothing was correctly pleaded in 2022, the time has run out to do it properly.

At least this time, the gross deficiencies of the pleadings themselves aren’t being questioned. This includes the lack of facts and particulars included.

While it may sound impressive to be at the Supreme Court, consider the context. This isn’t the conclusion of some long, complex case. It’s about appealing, once again, a Statement of Claim that was struck for lack of jurisdiction. It’s still at the initial stages, and we’re almost into 2025.

We’re close to the end of the “bad beyond argument” Covid cases. The only major one left is Dorceus, which is out on a Motion to Strike in Ontario. Here are 18 reasons that case will be thrown out.

FEDERAL LAXX PASS CHALLENGE (SCC LEAVE APPLICATION)
(1) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume 1
(2) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume 2
(3) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume 3
(4) Adelberg SCC Written Submissions Applicant
(5) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume Respondents
(6) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Reply Submissions

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(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
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1752/2023fc1752.html#par24
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc137/2024fc137.html#par44

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Posted on

Byram Bridle Lawsuit Dropped, Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Terminated

The high profile December 2022 Ontario lawsuit of Byram Bridle has come to an end. The Notice of Discontinuance was recently filed, along with the Consent form. The parties agreed to drop the case with no costs to anyone.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for more specifics on the case.

Bridle had previously discontinued with respect to David Fisman, but the new document applies to everyone else. The litigation is finished at this point.

While the details of the case remain disputed, at its core, Bridle brought a lawsuit against his employer, the University of Guelph. This was over issues of workplace bullying and harassment. This immediately causes problems, given the union agreement he was subject to.

Specifically, Bridle has the right to grieve and to arbitrate, but not to litigate.

University Of Guelph Faculty Covered By Collective Agreements

Article 40 of Guelph’s Collective Bargaining Agreement delves into dispute resolution. It lays out a process that everyone is expected to follow. In short, it goes: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration as a last resort. And the ruling of an Arbitrator is expected to be final.

However, Bridle didn’t go to arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved, including those who handled the initial investigation. He seemed to think that cloaking everything with allegations of “conspiracy” would somehow get around the lack of jurisdiction of the Courts. He must have had poor representation.

Another interesting detail: Bridle filed a police report in Peel over impersonation and identity theft, as a result of a website in his name. The report was filed with the Motion Records. It doesn’t seem like the site was meant to be taken seriously, but just to report on his views and statements. This fed into the “conspiracy” allegations.

The findings from that complaint were to be used to bolster this case, which seems to be a bad faith reason to call the police.

Bridle was also banned from the University after he refused to participate in an investigation alleging threats and possible violence. But this just ties into the narrative pushed by the Defence that the suit is fundamentally about a workplace dispute. It doesn’t somehow grant the Courts the right to hear such a case.

It gets even worse.

Lawsuit Framed (Largely) As Challenge Over Public Views

While the Courts would have no jurisdiction anyway, Bridle ended up framing his lawsuit (mainly) to indicate that he was attacked for his public views and policy positions on viruses and vaccines. This exposed him to an anti-SLAPP Motion, which is exactly what the University ended up doing.

Costs on dismissal
137.1(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.

Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws give “full indemnity”, or 100% of costs as the recommendation if lawsuits are dismissed. And given the mentioned lack of jurisdiction, there was already a built in defence to support such a Motion. Hard to believe counsel didn’t explain this to Bridle.

To sum up, Bridle’s poor choice to file such a Claim turned an arbitration hearing into a lawsuit with a full indemnity anti-SLAPP Motion, and no chance of success. Such rulings typically result in cost awards of well over $100,000.

It doesn’t end there.

Bridle apparently wasn’t satisfied filing such a case against his employer. He decided to include David Fisman (yes, that Fisman) over some online comments he made. This was justified by calling everything a “conspiracy”. Unsurprisingly, Fisman responded with an anti-SLAPP Motion of his own.

Suddenly, Bridle was staring down 2 anti-SLAPP Motions, with no real prospects of winning either. Going the distance could have easily set him back a quarter million ($250,000) or more.

The amount of paperwork for these Motion Records can be difficult to grasp. Fisman filed this, this and this. Guelph filed 3 volumes here, here and here. Bridle has a 2,000 page Motion Record of his own.

Ultimately, Bridle negotiated to have both Motions dropped without costs. Presumably, the Defendants’ insurers decided it wasn’t worth pouring more money into a case if Bridle would be unlikely or unable to pay. Hopefully, this doesn’t happen again.

But what’s the result here? Other than burning a lot of bridges, and airing out his dirty laundry, Bridle hasn’t accomplished much.

“Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s” Record On Covid Cases

The Bridle case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Here are some other well known cases that were filed in recent years, and all from the same lawyer. Very lackluster, to put it mildly.

  • Abandoned – Vaccine Choice Canada (1st case), Spring 2020
  • Abandoned – Sgt. Julie Evans (Police on Guard), around 2022?
  • Abandoned – Children’s Health Defense Canada, around 2022?
  • Abandoned – Kulvinder Gill/Ashvinder Lamba (right after Appeal launched), March 2022
  • Abandoned – Kulvinder Gill v. Attaran, March 2022
  • Abandoned – Action4Canada (no amended Claim ever filed), August 2022
  • Abandoned – Adelberg (Federal case, no amended Claim ever filed) February 2023
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (2nd case), May 2024
  • Discontinued – Byram Bridle v. David Fisman, June 2024
  • Discontinued – Katanik (Take Action Canada), July 2024
  • Discontinued – Byram Bridle v. University of Guelph, October 2024
  • Never Happened – B.C. Action for Provincial doctors
  • Never Happened – Injection pass case for up to 400 college students
  • Never Happened – Injection injury case for up to 600 Federal workers
  • Never Happened – Public inquiry for Government response

The category of “never happened” includes several causes for which money was raised, that don’t appear to have ever materialized.

  • Lost – Gill/Lamba case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, February 2022
  • Lost – Action4Canada case struck as “bad beyond argument”, August 2022
  • Lost – Adelberg (Federal case) struck as “bad beyond argument”, February 2023
  • Lost – Law Society of Ontario case struck for no Cause of Action, October 2023
  • Lost – CSASPP defamation case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, December 2023
  • Lost – Action4Canada Appeal dismissed, no reviewable error listed, February 2024
  • Lost – Adelberg Appeal (mostly) dismissed as employment claims still barred, June 2024

Both Action4Canada and Adelberg were struck by the Courts, (BCSC and Federal, respectively). Instead of pursuing amended versions — which was allowed — time and money were wasted with frivolous Appeals. This is why they’re classified as both “lost” and “abandoned”.

Guess they don’t make “top Constitutional lawyers” like they used to.

For a rough idea of how much money one lawyer can waste, see this previous compilation with estimates attached. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” has poured millions of dollars from donors and clients down the drain. Not one case ever got past a Motion to Strike.

The CSASPP Appeal will be heard in January 2025, and a case called Dorceus is under reserve, pending a Decision on the Motion to Strike. The Adelberg SCC Leave Application will be decided soon. All 3 are unlikely to go anywhere.

Many cases — including Bridle’s — make national news initially, and are never heard from again. They result in headlines, attention, and large donations. That’s because winning isn’t the goal, publicity is. Of course, that isn’t a legitimate reason to sue.

This specific lawsuit was reported in over 25 “alternative” media outlets in December 2022, but it doesn’t look like a single one ever followed up. The Statement of Claim was juicy enough, wasn’t it?

BRIDLE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim
(2) Byram Bridle Statement Of Defence
(3) Byram Bridle Statement Reply
(4) Byram Bridle Notice Of Motion Fisman
(5) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman 1 Of 2
(6) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman Supplemental
(7) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman Volume 1 Full
(8) Byram Bridle Motion Record Plaintiff Full
(9) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Fisman
(10) Byram Bridle Notice Of Motion Guelph
(11) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 1 Of 3
(12) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 2 Of 3
(13) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 3 Of 3
(14) Byram Bridle Affidavit Of Service MR
(15) Byram Bridle Peel Police Identity Theft
(16) Byram Bridle Consent Dismissal Of Claim
(17) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Guelph
(18) Byram Bridle Affidavit Of Service

EXTRA LINKS:
(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(3) University Of Guelph, Text Of Collective Bargaining Agreement

Posted on

Stale Dated: Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Passes 5 Year Mark, Still At Pleadings

Back in May 2024, Vaccine Choice Canada discontinued their 191 page claim filed in June 2020. While a Motion to Strike had been postponed, the end result was inevitable. The pleading was so poorly drafted that it would be thrown out by the first Judge to look at it.

But what about their earlier one? Hadn’t there been one filed in October 2019? Yes there was, supposedly under the pretense of challenging mandatory immunization of Ontario students. It has effectively been abandoned. This is what the above video addresses.

  • No Trial ever took place
  • No Trial date set down
  • No Depositions taken
  • No hearings
  • No Motions brought
  • No evidence sworn
  • No case management

Under Rule 48.14 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, the Court is to dismiss a case that hasn’t been set down for Trial within 5 years. True, it would almost certainly be extended if there was significant progress being made, but that’s not the case here. VCC’s case hasn’t proceeded past the pleadings in 5 years.

What do the Rules of Court Procedure have to say about this?

Rule 48.14 outlines the situation, and what can be done about it.

Dismissal of Action for Delay
48.14(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, the registrar shall dismiss an action for delay in either of the following circumstances, subject to subrules (4) to (8):
.
1. The action has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means by the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the action.
.
2. The action was struck off a trial list and has not been restored to a trial list or otherwise terminated by any means by the second anniversary of being struck off.

Status Hearing
48.14(5) If the parties do not consent to a timetable under subrule (4), any party may, before the expiry of the applicable period referred to in subrule (1), bring a motion for a status hearing

48.14(6) For the purposes of subrule (5), the hearing of the motion shall be convened as a status hearing.

48.14(7) At a status hearing, the plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay, and the court may,
(a) dismiss the action for delay; or
.
(b) if the court is satisfied that the action should proceed,
.
(i) set deadlines for the completion of the remaining steps necessary to have the action set down for trial or restored to a trial list, as the case may be, and order that it be set down for trial or restored to a trial list within a specified time,
(ii) adjourn the status hearing on such terms as are just,
(iii) if Rule 77 may apply to the action, assign the action for case management under that Rule, subject to the direction of the regional senior judge, or
(iv) make such other order as is just

In theory, a Motion could be brought for an extension of time, but there doesn’t seem to be any arguments that would support this.

It’s also interesting to wonder why the Ontario Government never brought any Motion to Strike this whole time. Given how poorly drafted it is, why not at least try? Perhaps there was collusion between the parties. This would allow the case to remain open, but not advance.

This method allows VCC and their counsel to appear to be challenging Doug Ford, while ensuring nothing ever happens.

So what happened? It’s quite simple.

Vaccine Choice Canada brought a high profile lawsuit in October 2019 that they never intended to advance. They never planned to do anything to fight for medical autonomy in Ontario schools. The organization, and their counsel, have been lying to donors the entire time.

Neither the 2019 or 2020 cases ever went anywhere, and that was intentional.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA (2019 CLAIM)
(1) VCC – October 2019 Statement Of Claim
(2) VCC – October 2019 Statement Of Defence
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs

Remember, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-19-00629810-0000
Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

Posted on

$7 Million Defamation Suit Against University Of Ottawa Dropped

Shortly before an anti-SLAPP Motion was to be heard in a Toronto Court, the Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to drop the case. The hearing had been scheduled for October 2nd, 2024.

In March 2021, Kulvinder Gill sued the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, over comments made on Twitter. The Statement of Claim demanded $7 million in addition to costs. And what did the tweets say?

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

That’s right. Gill sued for millions because she was called an “idiot” on Twitter, and she was apparently trolled about Russian intelligence. Given that Ontario has strong anti-SLAPP laws, the university filed a Motion to have the lawsuit thrown out.

This isn’t Gill’s first rodeo when it comes to suing people for defamation. In February 2022, a $12.75 million case she and Ashvinder Lamba filed was thrown out, with $1.1 million in costs ordered. An Appeal was dismissed as well. Gill and Lamba then (separately) sued their former counsel.

DETAIL FIRST SUIT SECOND SUIT
Filed December 2020 March 2021
Plaintiffs Gill & Lamba Gill only
Defendants 23 2
Value $12.75 million $7 million
Outcome Dismissed Dropped
Appealed? Yes, and lost N/A

Gill had new counsel for this case, who apparently advised her that she’d inevitably lose again if this anti-SLAPP Motion was heard.

Oddly though, Gill did file a 300 page Motion Record to defend against the ongoing Motion. It’s not clear why, as the content was almost entirely irrelevant. The issue wasn’t whether Gill’s views on public health were correct or not, but whether she can silence people who disagree with her. She still doesn’t seem to understand that.

Back in 2020, Gill was one of a limited number of people speaking up against medical martial law. For that, she does deserve respect. Most doctors simply “bent the knee” when they were told to. She didn’t, and it was commendable.

However, it’s squandered by using the legal system as a weapon to silence people who annoy her.

DOCUMENTS
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Counsel Abandons Plaintiff
(5) Gill-Attaran Plaintiff Responding Motion Record
(6) Gill-Attaran Full And Final Release

OTHER
(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/#sec137.1_smooth
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc6169/2022onsc6169.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-of-Appeal-and-Appellants-Certificate-Gill-2.pdf

Posted on

New Proposed Grift Lawsuit Seeks $50,000 To Fight “Wokeness”

The newest grift has emerged within the “Freedom Movement”.

It’s a GiveSendGo page from Shaun Rickard, asking for $50,000 to commence legal action against the City of Pickering, Ontario. It states that residents are subjected to the “woke, tyrannical and censorial unlawfulness”, under the Mayor and City Council.

This would be considered public interest litigation. However, there are no specifics provided about what such a lawsuit involves. The remedies sought are not spelled out here.

Federal Lawsuit Against The City Of Pickering
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT LANDMARK FEDERAL LAWSUIT – On behalf of ALL Canadians residing in ALL municipalities across the country

No matter what municipality you live in across Canada, you are very likely experiencing & being subjected to the same woke, tyrannical and censorial unlawfulness that those who live in Pickering, Ontario are under their current Mayor and Council.

Providing that we are able to garner enough public support, this Federal lawsuit will set a precedent which would apply to ALL tyrannical overreaching municipal governments and city officials Canada-wide, especially those blatantly trampling on resident’s parental rights, charter rights and freedom of expression by way of sanctions and censoring their constituent’s voices and/or any form of public dissent.

It’s very important to remember that these city officials work for us, not the other way around as they would have us believe. They simply cannot be allowed to intimidate their constituents into silence. Their obligation is to the will and wishes of ALL the people, not just small groups of radicalized activists who support their woke policies and agendas in order to get their own way.

Help us take this fight to Federal Court, because by doing nothing we are complicit in their tyranny and providing them with free reign to arbitrarily rule over us however they see fit, nothing changes unless we all work together and take action. It’s time to put these petty tyrants back in their place!

We’ll do all the leg work and heavy lifting, but we need your help to pull this off. Donations to our legal fund can be made right here on our official GiveSendGo page. We are however well aware that times are tough right now, so if you are unable to help financially we totally understand, but if that’s the case, please at the very least share this lawsuit and message with as many Canadians and on as many SM platforms as you can.

Thank you for your support,
Shaun & Team

Even taking this fundraiser at face value, there are still many unanswered questions. At a minimum, there are 6 serious issues that should be addressed. Before anyone considers contributing, these need answers.

1. Rickard Doesn’t Seem To Understand Jurisdiction

One of the more astute observers on Twitter inquired why such a case would be pursued in Federal Court, when Municipalities are the responsibility of the Provinces.

The Federal Courts are very limited in the kinds of cases they accept, whereas the Provincial Courts will take almost anything. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution outline which powers and responsibilities are Federal, and which are Provincial. Section 92 refers to “Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures”. Ultra Vires is a fairly well known concept.

Section 92(8) of the Constitution lists: “Municipal Institutions in the Province”.

Section 92(13): “Property and Civil Rights in the Province”.

Section 92(14): “The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.”.

Section 92(16): “Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province”.

This isn’t an issue of the Federal Courts having higher power or more authority. Rather, they’re set up to take on different kinds of cases.

A quick search on the Federal Court of Canada website shows:

Federal Subject Matter

Unlike the Superior Courts established by the provinces, the Federal Court does not have inherent, general jurisdiction. In order for the Federal Court to have authority to hear a given subject matter:

1. that subject matter must be assigned to Parliament under the Constitution; and

2. there must be actual, existing and applicable federal law; and

3. the administration of that law must have been conferred upon the Federal Court.

More specifically, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is conferred by the Federal Courts Act and, at present, close to a hundred other applicable federal statutes. These give the Court authority to hear and decide cases in a number of broad categories:

  • Administrative Law
  • Aboriginal Law
  • Maritime and Admiralty Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • National Security
  • Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Law
  • Class Proceedings

Human rights is listed under Administrative Law, under jurisdiction of the Federal Court. But, it’s only in the context of reviewing “actions and decisions of most federal boards, commissions, and administrative tribunals”. This wouldn’t apply here.

Even a 10 second search of jurisdiction of the Federal Court would have come up with this. It’s unclear why such elementary research wasn’t done prior to starting this GiveSendGo.

Would a Federal Court Judge agree to hear such a case anyway? It seems pretty unlikely.

A cynic may wonder if this is a calculated ploy to get such a suit throw out for lack of jurisdiction. There would then be more requests for donations to finance an Appeal.

2. Rickard Doesn’t Spell Out What Potential Lawsuit Would Cover

The GiveSendGo page makes vauge statements about parental rights and freedom of expression. However, no specifics are provided. Prospective donors are then left to guess about what it will entail. This should be a huge warning sign. If these people were serious and genuine about fundraising for public interest litigation, they would have no problems spelling out what it was for.

From the comments of Vincent Gircys, it looks like such a suit is more of an abstraction that anything real. That’s not encouraging.

It doesn’t look like there is even a lawyer ready to go. And rest assured, should one be retained, he or she will bill far more than $50,000

3. Rickard Doesn’t Guarantee Any Lawsuit Will Actually Happen

The third paragraph starts with: “Providing that we are able to garner enough public support….” In other words, even if you take him at face value, he gives no assurances whatsoever that any lawsuit will ever be filed. Yes, the amount set on the GiveSendGo is $50,000, but who’s to say that it won’t suddenly become $100,000? Or $200,000? Or $500,000? The goalposts can always be shifted. And that leads to the next problem.

4. Rickard Doesn’t Give Any Idea When It Would Be Filed

There’s no information provided about a timeline. Yes, the outcome and path of litigation can be nearly impossible to predict. But there’s nothing here about when a Statement of Claim or Notice of Action will be filed. It could be within weeks. It could be months, or years. Or, as mentioned in the previous point, it may never happen at all.

5. Rickard Doesn’t Make Any Assurances Regarding Refunds

Nowhere in the GiveSendGo posting is there any information provided about refunds. Should the litigation never take place, or should it be thrown out on a preliminary challenge, what happens to the money raised? This needs to be addressed.

6. Rickard Currently Grifting With “Travel Mandates Challenge”

This was recently addressed. The Statement of Claim filed by Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison in 2023 is really just a private lawsuit for damages. People are mislead into thinking it’s a challenge to prevent the return of injection passports for planes and trains. It does nothing of the sort.

Given that they’re not being straightforward with that case, why would anyone believe that this time around will be any different?

After nearly 5 years of endless fundraising, and requests for donations, people should be wising up to this. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada were exposed (among others) and the “industry” hasn’t died. Already, $1,000 has been raised in just a few days.

At some point, it’s hard to feel bad for donors.

People need to do at least some due diligence before handing over money.

(1) https://www.givesendgo.com/CityOfPickeringLawsuit
(2) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1843669473506525371
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/jurisdiction
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/
(5) https://x.com/SandyHasCandy/status/1843746225738395956
(6) https://x.com/VGircys/status/1845169699253825856
(7) https://x.com/VGircys/status/1845137597535797695