Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Action4Canada Case Struck As “Prolix”, Improperly Pleaded, And “Bad Beyond Argument”

In a decision that was long anticipated, Action4Canada’s 391 page Notice of Civil Claim against lockdown measures has been struck in its entirety.

It was predicted on this site a full year ago that this Claim would go absolutely nowhere. In fact, a detailed outline of the defects was published.

One difference however, is that this Judge is allowing the NOCC to be rewritten, if the Plaintiffs are willing to. Given the length of it, that will be no easy task.

The ruling from Justice Ross outlines just how poorly drafted the suit was. It failed to even meet the bare minimum for a case to go ahead. Keep in mind, at this stage, Judges are required to accept allegations as fact (for argument’s sake), and just look at the pleadings. The ruling is to the point, and doesn’t really need much in the way of commentary, or explanation.

For reference: NOCC means Notice of Civil Claim.

[20] The description of “THE FACTS” in the NOCC comprises 316 paragraphs set out over 226 pages. This section of the NOCC also includes 399 footnotes, the majority of which contain links to websites.

[21] I note, for the clarity of anyone reading the pleadings, that the numbering of the paragraphs in the NOCC leads to further confusion. First, there are two paragraphs numbered “12”. More problematic, the paragraphs proceed from 1-331 followed, for no reason, by paragraphs 255-363. As a result, the section labelled “THE FACTS” appears to comprise only 240 paragraphs (44-284), when it actually consists of 316 paragraphs. It follows that the reader must be careful to address either the first, or the second, paragraph 255 etc. I return to this issue below when discussing the second paragraph 289

This is a (somewhat minor) point, but good for a chuckle. The paragraphs in the NOCC weren’t numbered correctly or consistently, making it unclear what was being referenced at times.

[22] The “RELIEF SOUGHT” section of the NOCC comprises 40 paragraphs, most with multiple subparagraphs, set out over 43 pages.

This is absurd to the point of comedy. It takes 43 pages for the Plaintiffs to spell out the relief, or what they are asking the Court to grant.

[35] The defendants submit that, more important than the length of the NOCC is the unlimited scope of the document. It is not a piece of legal drafting that complies with the Rules, or basic tenets, of pleading. It is not a document that can be properly answered in a response to civil claim. The defendants submit that those problems arise, in part, because there are multiple allegations against the defendants individually and jointly. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular allegation. Were the action to proceed in its current form, individual defendants would not be in a position to know whether they were tasked with a burden of disproving or countering the myriad allegations. They would not know what case they were required to meet.

Where are they wrong? The NOCC is written in such a way that it’s pretty much impossible to know exactly what the allegations are to be addressed. This can’t be dealt with in any meaningful way.

[45] On the first issue, whether the NOCC is prolix, I agree with the defendants’ submission: the NOCC, in its current form, is not a pleading that can properly be answered by a responsive pleading. It describes wide-ranging global conspiracies that may, or may not, have influenced either the federal or the provincial governments. It seeks rulings of the court on issues of science. In addition, it includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and “crimes against humanity”. In my opinion, it is “bad beyond argument”.

[46] I further find that it is not a document that the court can mend by striking portions. I find that this NOCC is analogous to the Statement of Claim considered by Justice K. Smith (as he then was) in Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia (1998), 1998 CanLII 6658 (BC SC), 25 C.P.C. (4th) 107 (B.C.S.C.) [Homalco]. He wrote:
.
[11] In my view, the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial. Any attempt to reform it by striking out portions and by amending other portions is likely to result in more confusion as to the real issues.

The Judge concludes that it’s far more than just errors or inconsistencies in this pleading. The NOCC was written in such a manner that it’s impossible to properly respond to. In other words, while there may be a case for the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants are justified in attempting to strike it.

Moreover, the document is horrible through its entirety. This isn’t an instance where a few bad paragraphs or pages can be removed. These defects plague the entire paper. That’s right, it’s not worth saving, at least not in its current form.

[51] To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:
.
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

Quite simply: this does not belong in a civil claim. It’s mind boggling to think that the lawyers who (allegedly) wrote this have a combined 70 years of experience between them. Seriously, how is a civil court — even with a very experienced Judge — supposed to rule on such things?

And where exactly is Lawrence Wong anyway?

Summary and Conclusion
[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

Do read the entire decision. It’s very revealing.

The part of the decision that came as a surprise was that the Judge allowed for the NOCC to be rewritten. More on that in a bit. There were sections worth salvaging, and that allowed some reprieve.

However, this forces the next decision onto the Plaintiffs. Do they undertake the massive effort needed to make almost 400 pages compatible with the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure? Or do they simply walk away with this?

In any event, very steep costs are almost a given at this point. This is something the individual Plaintiffs were likely not fully aware of. If a case like this is thrown out, they’re on the hook for at least some of the costs that would be ordered.

According to the Western Standard, Tanya Gaw, the head of Action4Canada, was asked if individual Plaintiffs would be indemnified against such an order. In essence, would the organization ensure no one was stuck with a huge bill? The refusal to give a definitive answer was not encouraging.

It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 hearing that over $750,000 had been raised for this lawsuit. In the interests of fairness, protecting the individual Plaintiffs should be a no-brainer.

That said, the Court declined to completely throw the case out.

[59] The defendants urge upon me that the problems with the NOCC are sufficient grounds for me to conclude that this entire action is an abuse of process and should be dismissed on the basis that it is clearly frivolous and vexatious.

[60] I do not accept that submission on behalf of the defendants. For the reasons set out below, I decline to dismiss the action.

Yes, the pleadings were horrible, but that didn’t make the issues themselves frivolous.

The next several paragraphs go on to outline serious concerns including Charter protections and due process. In other words, there were legitimate issues raised. However, this NOCC was such a mess that it was impossible to sort out the issues in any reasonable manner.

[71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. Hence, in this case, there is a prospect that the plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain of the COVID-based health restrictions instituted by the Federal or Provincial governments infringed their Charter rights. In addition, it is possible that other valid claims may exist. It will be for the plaintiff to plead those causes of action in accordance with the Rules. Such claims need to be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the defendants to know the case they have to meet. It must also confine itself to matters that are capable of adjudication by this court and relief this court is capable of granting.

Yes, there are issues that are worth looking into. However, the NOCC needs to be drafted properly, and not like it has been done here. It came down to the quality and organization of the pleadings themselves, not necessarily the topics that to be examined.

Will the 400 page NOCC be fixed up and refiled — as time consuming as that will be — or is this the end of the road for the Action4Canada case? Even though a rewrite is allowed, this likely won’t sit well with many. Had it been properly written in the first place, it may very well have survived intact.

We’ll have to see what happens next, but what a waste of time, energy and money.

Another prediction: the next one to get challenged will be the July 6, 2020 case with Vaccine Choice Canada. The Ontario Attorney General can now use this ruling.

DECISION
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.pdf
(3) https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/15/2022BCSC1507.htm
(4) https://www.westernstandard.news/bc/bcs-unvaccinated-doctors-want-to-get-back-to-work-and-they-hope-a-billboard-helps/article_6ac058b4-24e1-11ed-9d74-67b04bfc88ce.html

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI: Another Data Dump On Cases/Vaxx Rates

More information is coming out of Nova Scotia, thanks to a few dedicated researchers. First, we will get into the correlation between vaxx status and cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths. The data is actually pretty interesting, and can be presented with little comment.

Of course, there is no virus, but that’s another issue.

COVID CASES BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED PUREBLOODS 1 DOSE <14 DAYS 1 DOSE >14 DAYS 2+ DOSES
January 2022 341 43 149 2,649
February 2022 281 18 154 1,475
March 2022 244 3 106 1,363
April 2022 338 1 110 1,231
HOSPITALIZATIONS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED PUREBLOODS 1 DOSE <14 DAYS 1 DOSE >14 DAYS 2+ DOSES
August 2021 1 0 0 0
September 2021 16 2 10 5
October 2021 3 1 6 8
November 2021 13 1 7 9
December 2021 5 0 2 34
January 2022 32 5 10 110
February 2022 36 1 5 58
March 2022 23 0 2 16
April 2022 30 0 4 28
ICU ADMISSIONS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED PUREBLOODS 1 DOSE <14 DAYS 1 DOSE >14 DAYS 2+ DOSES
August 2021 0 0 0 0
September 2021 2 0 2 2
October 2021 2 1 1 0
November 2021 3 1 4 5
December 2021 2 0 1 5
January 2022 6 4 1 21
February 2022 9 0 2 12
March 2022 7 0 1 2
April 2022 6 0 1 9
DEATHS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED PUREBLOODS 1 DOSE <14 DAYS 1 DOSE >14 DAYS 2+ DOSES
August 2021 0 0 0 0
September 2021 2 0 0 3
October 2021 2 0 0 1
November 2021 2 0 1 7
December 2021 1 0 1 7
January 2022 15 0 1 51
February 2022 17 2 4 21
March 2022 9 0 2 18
April 2022 17 0 1 17
ADVERSE REACTIONS
MONTH REPORTED SERIOUS NON-SERIOUS TOTAL
August 2021 57 5 62
September 2021 23 6 29
October 2021 39 8 47
November 2021 28 11 39
December 2021 26 5 31
January 2022 27 3 30
February 2022 24 27 51
March 2022 36 8 44
April 2022 65 14 79

And how many people typically die in a year in Nova Scotia? Keep in mind, it’s around 1,000,000 people, so several thousands should be expected annually. Keep in mind, this encompasses all causes of death.

TOTAL DEATHS
MONTH Y2019 Y2020 Y2021 Y2022
January 920 888 862 873
February 804 821 812 230*
March 936 888 850 –
April 807 865 759 –
May 783 847 874 –
June 774 716 790 –
July 767 805 776
August 791 757 816 –
September 701 802 837 –
October 807 813 881 –
November 818 883 907 –
December 864 879 908 –
Total 9,772 9,964 10,072 1,103*

Here’s another document, almost 60 pages, that is worth a quick look. There’s too much to properly address everything in this one article. Also, yet one more is available. Now, for some disclaimers that everyone should be familiar with:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

Confirmed case
.
A person with confirmation of infection with SARS-CoV-2 documented by:
.
• The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) assay (e.g., real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequendng) performed at a community, hospital, or reference laboratory (the National Microbiology Laboratory or a provincial public health laboratory)
or
• The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated point-of-care {POC) NAAT that has been deemed acceptable to provide a final result (i.e., does not require confirmatory testing)
or
• Seroconversion or diagnostic rise (at least 4-fold or greater from baseline) in viral specific antibody titre in serum or plasma using a validated laboratory-based serological assay for SARS-CoV-2

In fact, given the testing “requirements” provided, it doesn’t appear that any proof of a virus is required in any stage.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

(1) 2022-00626-HEA Response Package
(2) 2022-00445-HEA Response Package Test Results Nova Scotia Redacted
(3) Decision – 2022-00455-Long Redacted

OTHER IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf (Original)
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying-masks-in-schools/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic-spreading-even-exists/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-more-deaths-as-vaccination-numbers-climb/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-govt-data-on-deaths-by-age-vaxx-status/

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

People in Nova Scotia continue to dig for information about this so-called pandemic. The full listings to date are below. This piece involves official death statistics in that area.

The demographic and place of residence data for Nova Scotians who died from COVID-19 since January 1, 2022. Date of death. Vaccination status.

Before getting into the statistics, a few disclaimers are needed. The most obvious of which is that no virus has ever been proven to exist.

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

It’s also interesting that a “Medical Officer of Health”, who doesn’t even practice, is able to overrule local authorities in determining the cause of death. These deaths can also be attributed to “Covid” as long as there is believed to be some contributing factor. Pretty subjective.

Now, onto the data provided by Nova Scotia:

MONTH DEATH TOTAL
January 1 -31, 2022 67
February 1 – 28, 2022 61
March 1 – 31, 2022 44
April 1 – 30, 2022 85
May 1 – 31, 2022 65
June 1 – 20, 2022 13
TOTALS 335
# OF SHOTS DEATH TOTAL
0 (Purebloods) 58
1 9
2 96
3 or more 172
TOTALS 335

The FOI response adds in a disclaimer that no real conclusion can be drawn between vaccine efficacy and other factors. One would think that they don’t want people thinking these shots are useless (at best) or harmful (at worst).

SEX DEATH TOTAL
Male 189
Female 146
Combined 335

Seems that none of the other 167 genders have fatalities to report in this deadly pandemic. What a strange observation we have here.

AGE GROUP DEATH TOTAL
0 – 9 0
10 – 19 Less Than 5
20 – 29 0
30 – 39 Less Than 5
40 – 49 7
50 – 59 13
60 – 69 33
70 – 79 86
80 – 89 125
Over 90 69

The overwhelming majority of deaths are people who have had at least 2 shots. The majority are also seniors 70 years of age and older. Keep in mind, Nova Scotia has a population of approximately 1,000,000 people. Even if 1,000 people were to have died (with a direct causal link), it would be only 0.1% of the population. And we see just how flexible these people are with their definitions.

It’s almost as if there’s no virus, and that there’s no discernible health benefit to taking these experimental vaccines.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

(1) 2022-00956-HEA_PublicPackage Nova Scotia
(2) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(4) “https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(5) https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/
(6) https://stormhaven.blog/
(7) https://www.whatsupcanada.org/

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying-masks-in-schools/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic-spreading-even-exists/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-more-deaths-as-vaccination-numbers-climb/

Posted on

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Here is the latest on the (second) Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, filed July 6, 2020.

This website has been about the only media outlet that has fully and truthfully reported on a number of high profile “anti-lockdown” lawsuits. Despite the hype surrounding them — and the endless requests for donations — there is stunningly little to report.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that nothing has been happening. According to the Ontario Court, these are all the documents that are available as of today, August 24, 2022.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

After more than 2 years, all that has happened is that: (a) there was a Notice of Discontinuance against the CBC (removing them from the case); and (b) Nicola Mercer, MOH for the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, filed a Statement of Defense.

CBC implied in August 2020 that they were never served. They said they “obtained an unredacted copy”, which implies they contacted the Court directly. This is not proper service, and doesn’t start the 20 day time limit. Now, they threaten to bring a SLAPP Motion?! When were they served?

Interestingly, the Affidavit of Service came from Nicola Mercer’s lawyer when serving the Statement of Defense. There doesn’t appear to be any Affidavits of Service from the Plaintiffs for the Statement of Claim. Therefore, it’s a fair question to ask who has actually been served.

Considering the Claim is missing most service addresses, that alone may open it up to procedural challenges.

Here are a few points from Mercer’s Statement of Defense:

  • A “good faith” defense is raised with respect to issuing orders
  • There are statutory provisions to allow for such orders
  • Mercer was following the so-called scientific consensus
  • Mercer relies on a provision granting immunity
  • Paragraphs 25 and 26 say that all orders have expired, and that the issue is moot.

That last point is of particular concern. By doing nothing for 2 years, the Defendants, or at least this one, can now say there’s no issue, as the orders are over. “Moot” in the legal sense refers to something that has already been resolved, and thus, there’s no reason to bring to Court.

In essence, Mercer claims (as one defense) that so much time has elapsed, the issue of the various orders is no longer relevant.

This site covered the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits. It was described in great detail how both Claims were horribly defective, and likely to be thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

This wasn’t designed to smear or defame anyone. Instead, these critiques were meant to be brutally honest reviews about what was wrong with the pleadings. They were drafted so poorly that it was difficult to view this as anything other than intentional.

This is from a recent stream. Don’t worry, more is available:

The above clips are from Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 13, 2022 livestream. Quotes from these are very revealing as to what’s really been going on.

  • “Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides…. There’s [more to] the impact of your legal proceedings than simply what happens within the Court.”
  • “It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds.”
  • “We brought awareness to a dynamic that was hidden from the public.”
  • “I would suggest that maybe this was the most important impact we had to date.”
  • “The VCC case was initiated as a shot across the bow.”
  • “It was aimed at [mandatory vaccines and mask exemptions]”.
  • “As soon as we filed, they quickly back-peddled in Ontario and put in regulations that allowed for masking exemptions, in the wording we were advocating for.”
  • “This is not Hollywood. Constitutional issues are not always resolved in the Courtroom.”
  • “They’re resolved by pre-emptive action that makes the Government have a sober second thought.”
  • “It’s not as if the VCC challenge has had no effect, particularly in Ontario.”
  • “A lot of the issues being raised in the umbrella challenge are not being pursued [within other challenges].”

These video clips are essentially admissions that the July 6, 2020 lawsuit was brought for reasons other than to diligently pursue a Trial. Pretty moronic. It’s obvious from the total lack of progress that there was never any urgency in bringing this forward.

Yes, other people have filed lawsuits with ulterior motives in the past. Others will do so in the future. But few are dumb enough to brag on a livestream that this is what was really happening.

It takes a special kind of stupid to admit this. While the Ontario Attorney General could always file a Motion to strike (for a variety of reasons), this makes it much easier. Beyond that, filing lawsuits with no intention to pursue them could lead to serious issues with the Law Society of Ontario, or whichever Province one practices in.

It’s unclear how this July 6, 2020 case was used to “leverage” anything out of the Ford Regime. It was written in such a disjointed manner, and contained so much irrelevant information, it would have been easy to get struck. This isn’t a document that would shake and scare the A.G.’s Office. It’s the kind of rant that would make most lawyers laugh.

Supposedly, there is some larger “litigation strategy” that Vaccine Choice refuses to disclose. This is a massive bait-and-switch. In the Summer of 2020, there was a fundraising blitz undertaken to raise cash for this ground breaking suit. This comes across as extremely unethical.

Many people donated in good faith to these lawsuits, believing that proceeding to Trial was the ultimate goal. But that apparently isn’t the case.

In the Summer of 2021, new talking points emerged about there being “Affidavits of evidence” that totaled in the thousands of pages. However, they haven’t been filed anywhere, if they even exist. A likely explanation is that this was done to quell concerns about the complete lack of activity.

And now that the various orders are (for now, at least) gone, it wouldn’t take much to get the case tossed for mootness. This 2 year delay made this possible.

Also, consider the Action4Canada case as a reference point. Brief responses were filed by the Defendants, followed by Applications to Strike. The B.C. Attorney General’s Office argued that the the long delays were used to drive up donations, while making no real progress. It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 session that over $750,000 had been raised. Currently, Judgement is reserved on various Applications to strike that suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

All of this was laid out last August.
Vindication is bittersweet.

It’s not a stretch to see the Vaccine Choice Canada case going down that same path. The much longer delay is curious, and again raises questions of when Defendants were actually served.

The admissions that the July 6 case was a “shot across the bow”, or done “as pre-emptive action”, or done “to educate the public”, make it clear there were other agendas at play.

Donors should demand their money back, and Vaccine Choice really needs to open up the books for public inspection.

Now, about those rumours….

It’s not really a secret that this website (and anyone directly or indirectly associated) was sued last year for $7,000,000. The main issue was reporting the observation that it didn’t appear these anti-lockdown suits were ever meant to go to Trial. The problems, including defects with the pleadings themselves, were covered in great detail. More on that another time.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

Posted on

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

Decriminalization
B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

  • Decriminalization
  • Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
  • Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
  • Lifeguard App
  • Take-home naloxone kits
  • New beds for addictions and recovery care
  • Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
  • Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Champions
Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Julie Glover
  • Pfizer Canada Inc.
  • Unbounded Canada Foundation
  • Vancouver Foundation

Ambassadors
$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

  • British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
  • Merck Canada Inc.
  • Pacific Blue Cross
  • Teradici Corp

Allies
$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

  • AbbVie Canada Corp.
  • Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
  • BC Teachers’ Federation
  • Ben and Lilac Milne
  • BlueSky Properties
  • Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
  • Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
  • Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
  • Imperial Medical Group Inc.
  • Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
  • LifeLabs
  • London Drugs Limited
  • Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
  • Sanofi
  • Vancouver Dispensary Society
  • Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.

(1) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1559588217208184832
(2) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1294762295348715520
(3) https://goodtimes.gov.bc.ca/
(4) https://archive.ph/naVsZ
(5) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/priority-populations/people-who-use-substances
(6) https://archive.ph/AVbNY
(7) https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/escalated-drug-poisoning-response-actions-1
(8) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/substance-use-harm-reduction-dashboard
(9) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports
(10) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug-type.pdf
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(12) https://bccdcfoundation.org/our-donors/
(13) https://archive.ph/bg8cd
(14) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0044-001031

Posted on

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

An Ontario Superior Court Judge dismissed an application to essentially force a minor to get a shot against her will.

Parents were in the midst of divorce and custody issues, and the topic of the “vaccines” came up. The father was insistent that the daughter get it, while the mother said she would respect the girl’s own choices. The girl, who is 12 years old, has outright refused to get it.

Throughout the decision, the term “taken judicial notice” comes up again and again. What this means is that a court will not look into an issue, simply because some other court or adjudication body has already done so. While there is a certain logic to it, garbage rulings can also simply be accepted on this basis.

[1] The respondent father brings this motion seeking an order directing that the applicant mother ensure that their daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19 and that she receives any further and additional scheduled vaccinations in accordance with provincial recommendations, failing which the father shall be permitted to return this matter to seek sole decision-making authority over all aspects of the child’s medical care.

[11] Unfortunately, Mr. Tonge was not able to provide the opinion requested. By letter to the parties dated February 22, 2022, Mr. Tonge stated that he understood he was requested and agreed to assist S. in reconnecting with her father and not to undertake an assessment of parental influence. He was unaware of the vaccination issue until it was raised by S.. Mr. Tonge could not comment on the “presence or absence of parental influence and the understanding, capacity and maturity of this child to make a decision” as he was not asked to, nor did he agree to conduct such an assessment.

[15] The respondent father’s position is that it is presumptively in S.’s best interest that she be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and mother has provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The apparent objections of S. do not stem from any sound medical evidence or opinion. Mother has improperly left the decision up to S. who is not old enough, mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to make such a major health decision. Thus, it falls on this court to step in and protect the child’s best interests, to make sure that she receives her COVID-19 vaccination to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbours, and family.

[37] The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is “fake science”, but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof. This issue was recently addressed by Breithaupt Smith J. in R.S.P. v. H.L.C. 2021 ONSC 8362 in which she provided what has been described as a timely warning (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 at para 65):

[42] I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

[43] Even if I were to take judicial notice of the “safety” and “efficacy” of the vaccine, I still have no basis for assessing what that means for this child. I must still determine how safe, how efficacious the vaccine is for this child. Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms? As with informed consent, there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.

[58] I am mindful in considering S’s best interests that an order that mother ensure she is vaccinated would have irreversible consequences, if S. was vaccinated as a result. One cannot be unvaccinated. In that respect, it is a final order.

[59] Finally, I am satisfied that S. is a “mature minor” as explained by Abella J. in A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 at para 47. S. is capable with respect to treatment pursuant to s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 2, Sch A. She is mature enough to accept or refuse treatment.

There is a certain logic to it. If young children are “mature” enough to get the shot, then they should be mature enough to make the decision to refuse it.

The court also makes the observation that a person cannot ever be “unvaccinated”. That alone should be enough to give pause before pushing these injections. It was also noted that the “evidence” seems to keep changing, which is another reason to not take the matter as settled.

This adolescent girl seems to have more sense than either of her parents, but at least the mother was willing to respect her personal choices.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.pdf

M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580