Ronnie – Page 54 – Canuck Law

August 5, 2022January 5, 2026

Ottawa To Ban Handgun Imports August 19th Using Regulatory Measure

The Canadian Government announced on August 5th that a national ban on the importation of handguns would take effect on the 19th, which is two weeks away. The full video is available from CPAC’s website.

There would supposedly be a small number of exceptions for the importation ban. However, it’s fair to assume that the retailers would no longer have access to new ones.

According to Ottawa, Bill C-21 would have 3 main effects:

National handgun “freeze”, meaning no more purchases, sales, or transfers
Red and yellow flag laws, to make seizures of firearms easier
“New tools” which apparently include stiffer sentences and new wiretapping powers

As with everything, the devil is in the details. For example, what new wiretapping powers would the police receive? They’re already allowed to apply for warrants to monitor suspected criminal activities.

Also, given this Administration’s pattern of reducing penalties for criminal offences, it seems unlikely that any changes here will be a deterrent against committing firearm offences.

Bill C-21 would be the so-called freeze on handgun movements, but apparently, the Federal Government doesn’t really want to wait for that. Banning imports would effectively shut down the market immediately. It’s troubling to see the democratic process subverted by just making an order.

Bill C-21 was introduced in the previous session, and died when the 2021 election was called. However, it’s been brought back, with some changes.

If handguns cannot be imported, sold, transferred, or gifted, how long until they are subjected to a mandatory buyback? After all, that’s what happening with what the Government calls “assault style” weapons.

(1) https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=38406422-ecdb-494b-8439-a1fbdeaf4e28
(2) https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/08/05/canada-temporary-ban-handgun-imports/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-ban-import-handguns-canada-1.6542492
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21

August 4, 2022August 4, 2022

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

This brief piece was inspired by a recent article that was forwarded here. Many are not aware of a growing divide within the larger movement of freedom supporters. Broadly speaking these can be classified as two factions:

(1) Those who are opposed to various medical martial law measures, including lockdowns, business closures, curfews, vaccine passports, masks, and other intrusions, but who otherwise support the concepts of viruses and vaccines; and

(2) Those who think that this virus — and viruses more broadly — are a work of fiction to push various social and political agendas.

Yes, there has been the argument that all of this is pointless, and distracts from the larger picture. However, it could also be said that demonstrating there’s no way to properly isolate a virus would by default render all freedom restrictions unnecessary.

This isn’t, of course, to suggest that everyone who believes in viruses (or a specific one) is a fraud or a shill. Many good people do.

That being said, the implications are huge if the second group turns out to be correct. Much of modern medicine would collapse if it was shown to be founded on false pretenses. Anyhow:

Without getting too much into the nitty gritty, tensions seem to be rising over efforts to debunk virology, and germ theory as a whole.

One of the more interesting items is “flaw #22” on the page, specifically the asymmetric burden of proof.

Asymmetrical burden of proof. Among other things, the bar for “proof” that they set for themselves is unreasonably low, while the bar that they set for everyone else is unreasonably high. And it appears that the only judges whom they will be willing to accept are themselves.

There’s more of course, but this is worth addressing. The argument seems to be that a thesis can only be debunked if a stronger and more credible one can take it’s place. That not how things work. Consider these examples:

In criminal court, a judge or jury never actually rules a defendant to be innocent. Either the prosecution has sufficiently proven culpability (guilty), or they they haven’t (not guilty). There’s no requirement for a defendant to prove someone else committed a crime, though it would certainly be beneficial.
When inspecting an automobile, it’s not really proven to be safe. Instead, the mechanic or other person searches for common sources of damage, or defective operation. If nothing is found, then the result comes back okay.
University students have likely seen hypothesis testing in statistics. The goal isn’t to prove what the mean or variance is, but rather to debunk the assumption. The methods may prove your belief (reject the asserted mean or variance), or there may be insufficient proof (fail to reject). That said, there’s no demand to provide alternative answers

In the linked article, Steve Kirsch laments there is a double standard. People wishing to argue the existence of a specific virus, or viruses in general, must provide concrete proof. However, someone who wants to debunk that only need to find sufficient errors, not formulate a better answer.

Common criticisms for virus isolation include: improper (or no) controls, lack of replicability, and adding things like monkey kidney cells or fetal bovine tissue.

A favourite on this site is the screwy definition of a “Covid death”, which stands any sense of honesty and integrity on its head. The rampant pharma connections are also difficult to ignore. Sometimes, it’s not science, but common sense that should cause people to second guess.

Yes, there is a double standard when it comes to the evidence required for “prove v.s. debunk”. And that’s quite okay.

(1) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/
(2) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/sam-baileys-very-disingenuous-settling
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/a-death-resulting-from-a-clinically-compatible-illness/

July 19, 2022July 19, 2022

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

You probably haven’t heard any concrete or specific updates from Notice Of Application concerning the lawsuit that was filed in April 2021. The most likely reason is that nothing has happened in the 15 months since the initial Notice of Application.

Why continue to follow up? A few reasons. First, knowing the truth about these publicly funded cases is important. After all, people have donated. Second, so that false hope isn’t attached to cases that will never go anywhere. Third, it’s not just the obvious people whose activities need to be monitored.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched.

Recently, a follow-up article showed that Vaccine Choice Canada’s lawsuits (both of them) had been dormant since 2020.

As for some detailed critiques of various challenges, see here and here for some of the more obvious flaws and defects. How does this happen, unless intentionally?

Another Notice Of Application was filed in April 2021, concerning masks on students in Ontario schools. The 2 documents are virtually identical, suggesting a cut-and-paste creation for the second. And likewise, there’s no activity going on, nor anything in the foreseeable future.

Again, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

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

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

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

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. No movement at all since Statement of Claim filed.
Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

There had been claims floating around starting in 2021 about affidavits of evidence that totaled in the thousands of pages. Problem is: if they actually exist, they haven’t been filed anywhere. One possible explanation is that this was deliberate deception to soothe over the concerns of donors with the lack of record activity.

Apparently a new suit has been filed in Federal Court. (Archive is here). While not written well, it’s nowhere near as bad as some of the other Claims. It’s only been a month, so too soon to determine where that goes. However, if recent history is any indication, it will likely sit for months or years with no activity.

To readers who have donated to these “lawsuits”: you may want to seriously consider demanding a refund. It seems very unlikely that this is what you thought was really going on.

July 17, 2022July 17, 2022

Quarantine Act V.S. Int’l Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages

An argument that doesn’t seem to be brought up (at least in Canadian circles) is lockdown measures are illegal for another reason: they violate the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. Now, there is a provision that makes this (largely) null and void, but it’s still interesting to think about.

Of course, this doesn’t seem to apply when the state is the one taking the hostages. There’s a weasel clause that makes state-sanctioned hostage taking okay. One would think that international bodies facilitating hostage taking would make it apply.

Anyhow, let’s take a brief look through the document:

Article 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking”) within the meaning of this Convention.
Any person who:
(a) attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
(b) participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.

One would think that detaining citizens at airports for refusing the nasal rape test (for a non-existent virus) counts. Does threatening people with financially crippling fines for not complying with arbitrary or inconsistent rules qualify?

What about forcibly sending people to quarantine camps? Or imposing de-facto house arrest for a period of time, as demanded by public health?

How about being threatened with the loss of one’s livelihood for not wanting to take an unknown experimental concoction?

Article 3
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the hostage is held by the offender shall take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release and, after his release, to facilitate, when relevant, his departure.
(2) If any object which the offender has obtained as a result of the taking of hostages comes into the custody of a State Party, that State Party shall return it as soon as possible to the hostage or the third party referred to in article 1, as the case may be, or to the appropriate authorities thereof.

A country has an obligation under this agreement to secure the release of foreigners held hostage in another one. However, that doesn’t apply to domestic hostages.

Article 4
States Parties shall co-operate in the prevention of the offences set forth in article 1, particularly by:
.
(a) taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those offences within or outside their territories, including measures to prohibit in their territories illegal activities of persons, groups and organizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of acts of taking of hostages;
(b) exchanging information and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those offences.

Based on this alone, the Public Health Agency of Canada should be shut down. It encourages, instigates, organizes and engages in acts of hostage taking via “public health orders”.

Article 7
The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall in accordance with its laws communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other States concerned and the international intergovernmental organizations concerned.

Article 8
(1) The State Party in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State.
(2) Any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connexion with any of the offences set forth in article 1 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings, including enjoyment of all the rights and guarantees provided by the law of the State in the territory of which he is present.

Considering that these measures are instigated by supra-national bodies, would we not be able to extradite members of W.H.O. here in order to prosecute for hostage taking?

Article 13
This Convention shall not apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the hostage and the alleged offender are nationals of that State and the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State.

The U.N. states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, but this only seems to apply across borders. Abusing rights domestically doesn’t qualify.

In other words, a foreigner in Canada — even illegally — would theoretically have some recourse here. However, a Canadian citizen would not.

Article 14
Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as justifying the violation of the territorial integrity or political independence of a State in contravention of the Charter of the United Nations.

Logically, a country wouldn’t be able to carry out hostage taking under the guise of political independence. But when it’s the U.N. or W.H.O. behind it, then perhaps the rules don’t matter. That being said, look at Article 13, at how that loophole makes the document worthless.

Of course, the Quarantine Act is really just domestic implementation of the W.H.O.’s International Health Regulations, PHAC is just a branch of WHO, and originally Health Canada was meant for population control measures.

In the end, we have foreign bodies writing laws which effectively hold us hostage. There’s a treaty against taking hostages, but it doesn’t apply if done domestically. And this loophole bypasses punishment by having Federal, Provincial, and some Municipal authorities do their bidding.

(1) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?lcid=1033&id=104001&t=637936622752983920
(3) https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/1979%20International%20Convention%20against%20the%20Taking%20of%20Hostages.pdf

July 16, 2022November 17, 2023

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

CHAPTER XIII – VOTING
Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

July 12, 2022July 31, 2022

Vaccine Choice Canada Suit: 2 Years Later, No Defenses Filed

Word is that Vaccine Choice Canada is supposed to have a live online meeting to discuss various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Presumably, their highly publicized case from July 6, 2020 will be covered. This is Ontario Superior Court (Toronto) #CV-20-00643451-0000. Word is trickling through social media right now about it.

Just a prediction, but there probably won’t be many (if any) specifics given about this case. The meeting will be bland. There’ll likely be vague statements about “making progress”, or the suit “working it’s way through the system”. So, let’s get into some specifics.

The problem is: this case has been sitting dormant for the last 2 years. There have been no defenses filed, no motions, applications, hearings, or anything else.

The above screenshots from the court search are from today. They aren’t old.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched. Other information can be found here.

Other than Windsor-Essex County and their Medical Officer of Health, none of the other defendants even have representation listed. CBC, for their part, claims they weren’t served, but just “obtained an unredacted copy”. This implies they got it from the Court itself.

According to the Toronto Court, the only other item on file is a Notice of Intent to Defend, from Windsor-Essex County. That was filed September 30, 2020.

Yes, there was a moratorium on filing deadlines. That expired on September 14, 2020, so there’s no reason not to have sent anything afterwards.

There are serious questions that need to be answered. Has everyone even been served? Why are most service addresses missing? How come no one filed a defense? How come none of the major parties even have representation? And why was it written so poorly?

Additionally, claims have been made that various affidavits of evidence have been filed, and they amount to the thousands of pages. Problem is, they likely don’t exist. One phone call to the Toronto Court confirmed that no such documents are on record.

Considering no one ever filed a defense, why was no effort to seek a default judgement ever undertaken? There’s nothing on file to indicate that any attempt was made. This is something that even self-represented litigants would know about.

Now, the argument has been made that no one besides parties to the case have the right to dig into this. This is disingenuous. Considering that the public is constantly on the receiving end of requests donations, it’s fair to inquire where the money has gone, and what’s been happening. Rumour has it that several million dollars has already been raised for this lawsuit.

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

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

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

And again, 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.

Since everything is filed online these days, the Court staff can send emails with pdf attachments of case documents (if originally sent electronically). It’s incredibly easy to get ahold of such information.

If this really is such an urgent case, why has nothing happened in 2 years?

Vaccine Choice Canada also has another suit from October 2019. This is Ontario Superior Court (Toronto) #CV-19-00629810-0000. It has to do with vaccinating students in Ontario schools. The pleadings closed in March 2020, and it seems nothing has happened since. It also appears to have been financed with public contributions.

Also, consider that according to Rule 24 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, a case can be dismissed for delay if everyone hasn’t been served within 6 months, or if it’s been stagnant for 6 months. Both of these lawsuits would qualify under that Rule.

Note: This was published November 2020 (4 months after the initial filing). It’s been followed up on several times since. Even back then it was apparent that this “groundbreaking” lawsuit would go nowhere.

People who donated money should be asking these questions. And those who took the funds really need to come clean on what’s been happening. Clearly, no lawsuit(s) is/are being advanced.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/
(3) https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/resources/vcc-live-calendar/
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988
(5) https://twitter.com/1dariuszj/status/1546901658436714496
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-unredacted-version.pdf
(8) https://twitter.com/VaccineChoiceCA/status/1546664225875152898

Author: Ronnie

Ottawa To Ban Handgun Imports August 19th Using Regulatory Measure

Like this:

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

Like this:

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

Like this:

Quarantine Act V.S. Int’l Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages

Like this:

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: