Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Delay Prevents Action4Canada Case From Being Immediately Thrown Out

Action4Canada and other Plaintiffs were supposed to be in Court on February 3rd, in order to address 2 Applications (here and here) filed back in January. But due to an extremely convenient medical illness, this has been pushed back until April 5th. It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong didn’t simply step up, as he’s been a B.C. lawyer since 1987.

Private matters generally aren’t worth covering. However, their August 2021 lawsuit is a very public case, and has involved soliciting public donations since 2020. It’s fair that people know its true status: that it’s on the verge of being struck.

For all the money that was sunk into getting this lawsuit off the ground, it never stood a chance.

It feels odd to have a previous piece age so well. Back in August 2021, this site critiqued the 391 page lawsuit filed by Action4Canada in Vancouver. The basic premise was that the Notice of Civil Claim was drafted so poorly, it didn’t stand a chance in hell of making it to trial.

To be more specific, the Notice of Claim didn’t follow (at all) Rules 3-1, and 3-7 of BC Civil Procedure. These outline how pleadings are to be drafted. The logical remedy — from the Defendants’ position — would be to file a Motion or Application to strike based on Rule 9-5. This rule allows cases to be struck for a number of reasons, including for being “frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”. Pleadings can also be struck if they don’t disclose a reasonable cause of action.

To make a distinction here: dismissing and striking are not the same thing. Dismissing a case usually means a Judge has made a determination about the merits of the case. By contrast, striking means attacking the pleadings themselves.

For those wondering what “struck without leave to amend” means, here’s an explanation. Sometimes, the Court will “give leave” or permission, to make changes to the pleadings (allowing content to be added or deleted). This is typically meant for very minor issues. For serious problems, such as with this lawsuit, the defects are so extensive that the Court won’t allow it.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil procedure would have looked at Action4Canada’s case and saw where this was going.

Now the other shoe has dropped, and at least 2 Applications have been filed. The first is from the various Provincial Defendants, and the other from Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care. They are trying to strike the case for essentially the same reasons outlined on this site back in August, 2021.

To state the obvious: this doesn’t mean supporting or advocating for the medical martial law measures that have gone on in the last 2 years.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty difficult to argue with the premise of the Application. Specifically, Defendants are trying to get the case struck as being “frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and an abuse of process”. This isn’t just written in a shoddy manner, but it’s over-the-top ridiculous.

The Claim contains many pages of completely irrelevant material, seeks remedies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and makes allegations against people who aren’t parties (and presumably haven’t been subpoenaed). It’s also extremely disjointed and difficult to follow along with.

It’s hard to believe that 2 very senior, very experienced lawyers could draft this garbage. Combined, they have nearly 70 years of legal work completed. While the Claim does contain a fair amount of truthful information, it’s written so badly that no Judge will ever consider it.

By contrast, the Notices of Application were extremely well written, to the point, and raised many fatal defects in the Notice of Civil Claim. Again, this isn’t to defend the Horgan/Henry regime, but their lawyers make a compelling case as to why this should be thrown out. Although there are 2 Applications, the content is very similar.

3. The Claim is a prolix and convoluted document that is replete with groundless accusations against public officials, inflammatory language, and conspiracy theories.

6. The Plaintiffs’ Claim is deficient in form and substance. It is a scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious pleading that fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings and is an abuse of the Court’s process. The Claim should be struck in accordance with Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, without leave to amend.

Pleadings Generally
7. Supreme Court Civil Rule (the “Rules”) 3-1 provides, in part:
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the Plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
…
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. [emphasis added]

8. Rule 3-7 provides, in part:
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.
…
Pleading conclusions of law
(9) Conclusions of law must not be pleaded unless the material facts supporting them are pleaded.
…
General damages must not be pleaded
(14) If general damages are claimed, the amount of the general damages claimed must not be stated in any pleading. …

9. The function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined by the court. The plaintiff must state, for each cause of action, the material facts. Material facts are those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating the cause of action. The defendant then sees the case to be met and may respond to the plaintiff’s allegations in such a way that the court will understand from the pleadings what issues of fact and law it will be called upon to decide.
.
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 (S.C.), para. 5

10. As the Court of Appeal recently held in Mercantile Office Systems Private Ltd. v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362, para 44:
None of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the drafting party to “concisely” set out the “material facts” that give rise to the claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim.
None of these pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.

Application to Strike
11. Rule 9-5(1) provides:
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
…
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court …

12. A pleading may be struck under Rule 9-5(1) if it is plain and obvious that the pleading contravenes any of Rule 9-5(l)(a) through (d).
.
Knight V. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para. 17

Rule – 9-5(l)(a)-The Notice of Civil Claim Discloses No Reasonable Claim
14. The Claim is premised upon non-justiciable questions and relies heavily upon international treaties, Criminal Code provisions, and unknown causes of action that are incapable of disclosing a reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Rule 9-5(1)(a).

16. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations (and non-violations) of the Criminal Code that are not properly raised in a civil action (Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924, para. 45); including:

17. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of international legal instruments, unwritten constitutional principles, and causes of action unknown to law that are not actionable in Canadian courts (Li v. British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 256, paras. 107-109; Toronto v. Ontario, 2021 SCC 34, para. 5), including the following:

19. The general rule that facts pleaded should be accepted as true for the purposes of a strike application does not apply in a “case like this where the notice of civil claim is replete with assumptions, speculation, and in some instances, outrageous allegations. The law is clear that allegations based on assumption and speculation need not be taken as true.”
.
Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, para. 19
See, also, Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924 [“Simon”], para. 54

20. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead the concise statement of material facts that is necessary to support any complete cause of action. The Charter claims are inextricably bound up in a prolix, argumentative, and wildly speculative narrative of grand conspiracy that is incapable of supporting a viable cause of action. It is impossible to separate the material from the immaterial, the fabric of one potential cause of action or claim from another, or conjecture and conspiracy from asserted facts.
.
Fowler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 367, para. 54
Simon, supra, paras 54-59

9-5(l)(b) The Notice of Civil Claim is Scandalous, Frivolous and Vexatious
Scandalous and Embarrassing
22. A pleading is scandalous if it does not state the real issue in an intelligible form and would require the parties to undertake useless expense to litigate matters irrelevant to the claim.
.
Gill v. Canada, 2013 BCSC 1703 [“Gill”], para. 9

23. A claim is also scandalous or embarrassing if it is prolix, includes irrelevant facts, argument or evidence, such that it is nearly impossible for the defendant to reply to the pleading and know the case to meet. Pleadings that are so prolix and confusing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the case to be met, should be struck.
.
Gill, supra para. 9
Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473, at para. 36
Kuhn v. American Credit Indemnity Co., [1992] B.C.J. No. 953 (S.C.)

24. The Claim is a scandalous pleading because it is prolix, confusing, and nearly impossible to respond to:
a. The 391 page Claim attempts to plead dozens of causes of action and Charter breaches and seeks over 200 declarations. It is, as a result, nearly impossible to know the case to be met.
b. The Claim contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information, including:

Rule 9-5(l)(a) and (d) – The Claim is Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
28. Little distinction exists between a vexatious action and one that is an abuse of process as the two concepts have strikingly similar features.
.
Dixon v. Stork Craft Mamifacturing Inc., 2013 BCSC 1117

29. Abuse of process is not limited to cases where a claim or an issue has already been decided in other litigation, but is a flexible doctrine applied by the court to values fundamental to the court system. In Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (CUPE), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, the court stated at para. 37:
.
Canadian courts have applied the doctrine of abuse of process to preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel (typically the privity/mutuality requirements) are not met, but where allowing the litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.

30. Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights. Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious.
.
Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No. 355 [“Lang Michener”], at para. 19

33. The Applicants submit the Claim has been brought for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffs and their counsel must know, or ought to know, that a 391 page Claim seeking over 200 declarations concerning alleged criminal conduct and the efficacy of public health measures “cannot succeed … [and] would lead to no possible good”: Lang Michener, supra.

34. The Claim is intended, at least in part, to intimidate and harass health authorities, public officials and politicians, including the Provincial Health Officer, by advancing spurious, public allegations of criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, and ulterior motives. This intention is further corroborated by the Plaintiff Action4Canada’s simultaneous campaign to encourage individuals to serve government officials and politicians with “Notices of Liability” for their actions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. G, I).

35. The Claim is also intended, at least in part, to consolidate, publicize, and amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Claim is a book-length tirade against the entirety of British Columbia’s response to the pandemic, with dozens of quotes from, and hundreds of footnotes to, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-vaccine resources. Both Action4Canada and its counsel have promoted the Claim online and on social media
.
(Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. D, K).

36. These are improper purposes to file and prosecute a civil action. There can be no question that the Claim is an abuse of process. Permitting this litigation to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The above quotes came from the January 17 Notice of Application. Re-read the original Notice of Civil Claim and ask: what are they wrong about?

The Applications get into allegations that Action4Canada is causing harassment of Government Officials as a result of their behaviour. This is where things get more interesting:

This Application also contains an Affidavit from Rebecca Hill. She apparently works for Mark Witten, the lawyer for the B.C Defendants. She’s alleging that the “Notices of Liability” that Action4Canada provides have led to the bombardment of Government Officials. From the information provided, it’s strongly implied that this is done in order to drive up the donations.

By extension, it wouldn’t take much to argue that the entire Notice of Claim was a stunt to get more people handing out money.

Remember those notices you downloaded, filled out, and submitted? Guess what? Many of them, and the emails, are now saved as evidence by the B.C. Government.

Author’s note: since the Vancouver Court has apparently not scanned the entire Affidavit, the attachments are not available. That may be for the best, as there is contact information.

It’s also worth pointing out: the Defendants are asking for costs as well. This is pretty much inevitable, once the case is thrown out. It seems unlikely that any Plaintiff has given this serious thought. For a reference point, Adam Skelly was hit with a $15,000 cost award, just for trying to open his restaurant. Given the size and vexatious nature of the Action4Canada case, it’s quite possible for everyone to be on the hook for several thousand dollars each. Keep in mind, court costs aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Once more, this isn’t an attempt to defend the B.C. Government. That said, the Claim was written in such a convoluted way, it never stood a chance. One has to ask why it really happened.

Back in October, Action4Canada posted a reply to the response they received from the B.C. Government. It’s amusing that they act indignant that Rule 9-5 was quoted verbatim. Spoiler: if you want a Court to toss a case, you have to cite the law that allows it.

Whether this case is decided on April 5, or is set back again, the ultimate result is the same. Once a Judge sits down with the lawsuit, it’s getting struck without leave to amend.

It’s not just the B.C. case that will be struck. The Ontario ones will be soon as well. Many will remember this filing from July 6, 2020. More than a year and a half later, there are still no defenses filed, no motions, no applications, no scheduled appearances.

In fact, under Rules 14 and 24 of civil procedure in Ontario, all of these idling cases could probably be dismissed at any time for unnecessary delay.

One other thing to consider is the Statute of Limitations. For most things in Ontario and B.C., a person has 2 years to commence legal action. Now, if a case is filed, but sits for years and is simply dismissed, it may be too late to start another. This doesn’t stop the clock. Something to think about.

Prediction: once the B.C. case is struck (for the reasons listed above), the Ford regime will then make similar Applications for the Ontario cases.

Other than wasting a lot of time and money, what has this actually accomplished?

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
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19

Posted on

Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures

Health Canada has had several names since its inception in 1919. Despite how innocuous its name and mandate sounds, this organization had an initial purpose: population control. It’s been previously covered how PHAC was an artificial creation from the World Health Organization to serve a global order.

Few people know this, but the Department of Health was formed with the same goal in mind.

In January 2004, the WHO put out an edict that all Member States were to create an “outpost” for public health. Consequently, the Government of Paul Martin created PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, out of nothing in that year. In late 2004 and into 2005, hearings went on for Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act. This was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations. The Provinces have their own laws which are based on this. The PHAC Act was introduced in 2006 by Stephen Harper shortly after taking power.

(a) International Health Regulations are legally binding on Member States.
(b) 2005 Quarantine Act was, in reality, written by WHO
(c) Public Health Agency Of Canada is a branch of WHO, and not Canadian

Again, this should be a review for most readers, but it’s still worth bringing up. The bigger picture is quite scary when it’s all laid out.

PHAC’s purpose is to use the pretense of public health as a means to control the local populations. Thing is: Health Canada (in its previous iterations) was formed for the same purpose.

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

  • 1837: William White publishes book — Evils Of Quarantine Laws
  • 1851: First International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1859: Second International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1866: Third International Sanitary Conference, Constantinople
  • 1874: Fourth International Sanitary Conference, Vienna
  • 1881: Fifth International Sanitary Conference, Washington
  • 1885: Sixth International Sanitary Conference, Rome
  • 1892: Seventh International Sanitary Conference, Venice
  • 1983: Eighth International Sanitary Conference, Dresden
  • 1894: Ninth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1897: Tenth International Sanitary Conference, Venice
  • 1903: Eleventh International Sanitary Conference : Paris, 1903
  • 1906: Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906 Publication
  • 1907: Founding of the Office international d’Hygiene publique
  • 1911-1912: Twelfth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1912: Canadian Public Health Association Incorporated
  • 1919: Bill 37, Canada forms the Department of Health
  • 1926: Thirteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1928: Bill 205, Canada’s DOH becomes Department of Pensions and National Health
  • 1938: Fourteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1944: Bill C-149, Canada’s DPNH becomes Department of National Health and Welfare
  • 1946: Canada joins World Health Organization, agrees to Constitution
  • 1951: International Sanitation Regulations take effect from WHO
  • 1959: “Privileges And Immunities” granted to all WHO Officials
  • 1969: International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) replace Sanitation Regulations
  • 1984: Bill C-3, Health Canada Act passed
  • 1993: Department of National Health and Welfare becomes Health Canada
  • 1995: 2nd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
  • 2001: DARK WINTER pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2004: WHO issues edict all Members to have “public health outpost”
  • 2004: PHAC, Public Health Agency of Canada, created by Order In Council
  • 2004: Bill C-12, hearings on Quarantine Act in Parliament
  • 2005: 3rd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
  • 2005: ATLANTIC STORM pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2006: PHAC Act introduced by Harper Government
  • 2010: Rockefeller paper released, includes infamous LOCKSTEP SCENARIO
  • 2010: Theresa Tam stars in movie about fictional outbreak
  • 2017: SPARS Pandemic Scenario plays out
  • 2018: CLADE X pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2019: EVENT 201 pandemic simulation plays out

A book by William White titled “The Evils of Quarantine Laws” is still available today. In fact, it can be purchased on Amazon. In that book, White pushed his case that contagions did not actually exist, and that these quarantine laws were pushed for other purposes.

The pdf version is nearly 200 pages, but it’s well worth a read. It goes into considerable depth about how a pseudo-science is pushed on the public under the guises of protection.

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

Going back to 1851, there were over a dozen International Sanitary Conferences held in the West. Canada (then a British Colony) would have been subjected to whatever measures the U.K. wanted. The measures sounded innocuous enough, and claimed the purpose of trying to prevent international spread of disease. The archive is also available.

The stated reasons including establishing global standards of health in order to prevent the transmission and spreading of cholera, among other diseases. Sounds pretty familiar with what’s going on now, doesn’t it?

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

Even back in 1906, Canada had a Quarantine Act on the books. Although heavily promoted as a way to manage international trade and immigration, those same principles can be used to restrict people domestically.

What’s going on today globally isn’t anything new, at least conceptually. Instead, it’s the scale of which that is novel.

The Medical Officer of Health isn’t a new concept either. Ages ago, there were still “experts” who had almost dictatorial powers to implement laws and regulations. After all, if Kings didn’t know what was going on, they would have to trust the thinking to other people.

4. Founding of the Office International d’Hygiene Publique In 1907

The Welcome Collection in the U.K. published the document for the creation of an International Office of Public Health. As a Colony at the time, Canada would presumably have been subjected to the same laws and regulations.

That said, the information is still available on the Canadian Government’s site. Over a century ago, our “leaders” signed us up to be regulated and controlled by public health experts.

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

Ongoing programs:
.
Providing an effective liaison and network both nationally and internationally in collaboration with various disciplines, agencies and organizations; Encouraging and facilitating measures for disease prevention, health promotion and protection and healthy public policy; Initiating, encouraging and participating in research directed at the fields of disease prevention, health promotion and healthy public policy; Providing an effective liaison and partnership with CPHA’s Provincial and Territorial Public Health Associations; Acting in partnership with a range of disciplines including health, environment, agriculture, transportation, other health-oriented groups and individuals in developing and expressing a public health viewpoint on personal and community health issues; Designing, developing and implementing public health policies, programs and activities; Facilitating the development of public health goals for Canada; Identifying public health issues and advocating for policy change; Identifying literacy as a major factor in achieving equitable access to health services.

The Canadian Public Health Association was created in 1910, and incorporated in 1912. It became a charity in 1975. In its most recent C.R.A. filings, approximately 60% of the CPHA’s financing came from the Government.

Although the page has since been altered, the main financial support of the CPHA comes from drug companies like Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. That shouldn’t be the least bit surprising to anyone at this point.

CPHA is involved in advocating for national and international health policies, including the restriction of people’s movements. It presumably is quite influential regarding Health Canada. At the time of writing this, there are several Provincial counterparts, all advocating for much the same thing. More on that in later pieces.

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

[Section 4a]
Cooperation with the provincial, territorial and other health authorities with a view towards to coordination of the efforts proposed or being made for preserving and improving public health

Section 4f referred to enforcement of rules made by the International Joint Committee.

Bill 37 came into effect in 1919, after the First World War. Supposedly, the driving force behind this was the Spanish influenza, and the need to protect global public health.

Interestingly, it references the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Volume 2. Even back then, there were Quarantine Acts on the books in order to restrict the movement of people. Of course, these were “supposed” to only apply to sick people.

Worth noting is that the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations, also placed a heavy focus on public health. Many associate it with attempts to prevent wars between countries. In reality, there was a lot more to it.

7. Department of Pensions and National Health, 1928, Bill 205

In 1928, there was a change in name to the Department of Pensions and National Health. This came with the introduction of Bill 205. However, the purposes regarding public health remained much the same.

8. Department of National Health and Welfare Created In 1944, Bill 149

There was another change of name in 1994, courtesy of Bill 149. This time it became the Department of National Health and Welfare. Keep in mind, this was in the latter stages of the Second World War, and the beginnings of the new world order forming. The groundwork for the United Nations and World Health Organization had already been laid out.

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

After the defeat of the Axis powers, the World was supposed to embrace freedom and human rights, but then this happened.

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.

In 1946, Canada signed a Treaty endorsing the Constitution of the World Health Organization, and agreeing to be bound by it.

Article 21(a) of the WHO’s Constitution explicitly gives it authority over Member States over issues such as quarantine, or medical martial law. WHO also (largely) gets to decide what diagnostic standards and equipment are considered suitable.

Since Canada never opted out, Article 22 means that we must live with this.

In 1951, the International Sanitation Regulations came into effect, which was really the first agreement which gave the World Health Organization power to dictate Member actions under the guise of “public health”. But at least people would be held responsible if something happened, right?

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

The International Sanitation Regulations were replaced by the International Health Regulations (first edition) in 1969. Canada signed on and it became binding in 1971. The second version of WHO-IHR came out in 1995, and the third was released in 2005.

The information from this point on has been extensively covered on this site.

Most people are aware that the scope of Health Canada has grown considerably in recent decades. It has encompassed more and more things, resulting in less of a focus on public health measures. PHAC would soon pick up the slack.

11. Public Health Groups Are Registered “Charities” In Canada

Think the problem of drug money is limited to Health Canada, or the Public Health Agency of Canada? It’s not, and we will get more into the finances later. The list of “charities” includes groups that have the power to impose medical tyranny.

  • Alberta Health Services (AB)
  • Central Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Fraser Health Authority (BC)
  • Hay River Health & Social Services Authority (NT)
  • Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority (MB)
  • Interior Health Authority (BC)
  • Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Nisga’a Valley Health Authority (BC)
  • Northern Regional Health Authority (MB)
  • Northern Regional Health Authority (BC)
  • Nova Scotia Health Authority (NS)
  • Provincial Health Services Authority (BC)
  • Regional Health Authority A (NB)
  • Regional Health Authority B (NB)
  • Saskatchewan Health Authority (SK)
  • Souris Health Auxiliary of Assinibione Regional Health Authority Inc. (MB)
  • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (BC)
  • Vancouver Island Health Authority (BC)
  • Weeneebayko Area Health Authority (ON)
  • Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (MB)

However, there are also a number of other suspicious groups that need to be looked at. Although they may not have the power to mandate martial law, they do influence policies. Now, who would donate to such groups, unless it’s done for the purposes of writing the laws? Or to ensure that solutions involve pharmaceuticals?

  • Alberta Public Health Association
  • BCCDC Foundation For Population And Public Health
  • Canadian Foundation For Pharmacy
  • Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation
  • Canadian Public Health Association
  • Ontario Public Health Association
  • Pharmacists Without Borders Canada
  • Public Health Association of British Columbia
  • Seenso Institute for Public Health
  • Shoppers Drug Mart Life Foundation

This is just some of the groups that are registered as charities. Why be structured this way? Probably since it means that private donations are subsidized by the public via tax refunds.

A serious question: given all of the “health organizations” (and this is just a partial list), accepting private donations, does this likely impact how Health Canada does business?

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

This was addressed in March 2021. Countries across the world are world are apparently open to the idea of a legally binding globally authority to manage alleged crises. Essentially, national sovereignty would be secondary to the International Health Regulations.

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

The Department of Health (1919) was founded under the guise of managing the Spanish flu through restrictive measures. It’s original creation isn’t at all what many believe. But over time, the organization came to encompass many more functions.

The reality is that countries don’t have sovereignty over their own affairs. Using the cloak of “infection control”, people have their rights and freedoms stripped away all the time. Many so-called Health Authorities are actually structured as charities and receive private donations.

What companies would donate to health authorities which are implementing mandatory vaccination policies? Wild idea, but perhaps businesses that would profit from these dicatates are contributing.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has essentially taken over that role since it came into existence in 2004. However, Health Canada does still advocate for much the same policies. The International Health Regulations (and prior Sanitation Regulations) are legally binding on Member States.

Now, the influence and money from the pharmaceutical industry cannot be ignored. The cash is rampant, and will be the subject of a Part II, coming later.

(1) https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/clmhc-hsmbc/res/information-backgrounder/espagnole-spanish
(2) Evils Of Quarantine Laws
(3) https://www.amazon.com/-/es/William-White/dp/1231197994
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/20021231/P1TT3xt3.html
(5) https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/health-canada
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(11) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41975722
(12) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/13-2
(13) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1302_1/554?r=0&s=1
(14) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/16-2
(15) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(16) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/7?r=0&s=1
(17) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/542?r=0&s=1
(18) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_32_2_C2_C9/427?r=0&s=1
(19) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(20) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/62873/14549_eng.pdf
(21) The scientific background Of International Sanitary Conferences
(22) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/128165/EB9_35_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(23) 1951 International Sanitation Regulations
(24) https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/pdf/b22419743
(25) 1907 Creation Of International Public Health
(26) https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
(27) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(28) ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges
(29) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(30) https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture

Posted on

Reminder: Immigration Is Largely A Provincial Matter

The open borders into Canada is an issue that doesn’t get addressed nearly enough. A specific detail within that subject is who’s actually responsible for it. Yes, there are plenty of NGOs and special interest groups, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Trudeau (rightly) gets a lot of flack for promoting the replacement agenda. Harper and Mulroney, although more polished, were doing much the same thing. While they definitely deserve condemnation, this doesn’t tell the complete story.

What’s very rarely mentioned is the fact that Ottawa has Treaties with all 13 Provinces and Territories over immigration rates and categories. The terms differ somewhat. However, the basic principle is that they are agreements based on estimates of how many people they wish to import.

There are also efforts underway to enact Municipal Nominee Programs to let individual cities determine how many people come into the country.

As an analogy: consider a worker who grabs takeout food for 10 of his colleagues on a lunch break. While the cashier may have dealt only with him, the overall order was placed on behalf of everyone. The food that he brings back to the office will (largely) be what his co-workers asked for.

According to Section 95 of the Constitution, the Provinces have the authority to make their own laws with respect to immigration. By contrast, it says that Ottawa may “from time to time” make their own laws. This suggests that the true power over mass entry into Canada really lies with the Provinces.

Agriculture and Immigration
Marginal note: Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
.
95 In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

It’s not facetious to look at the Federal immigration policy as merely a compilation of the 13 Treaties that have been signed with the Provinces and Territories. They inform Ottawa what they want, and Ottawa puts together a policy. Yes, this Ministry is managed Federally, and legal challenges go to the Federal Court, but the policy details are hammered out with the lower levels of Government.

Even if the Federal Government (in theory) were to challenge a Provincial immigration rule, the broad scope of Section 92 (Provincial jurisdiction) would make it difficult. A Judge could very well throw out any challenge as being ultra vires, or outside Ottawa’s scope.

Much of the political class, and many of the pundits don’t seem to have any understanding about how this works. That includes writers who do this professionally.

The Provinces have their own Nominee Programs, and others, such as Agricultural or Regional. They hold tremendous influence in determining the number of people who enter Canada on visas.

Keep in mind, the additional strain on social services like schools and hospitals must also be taken into account when these Treaties are made and renewed. These services are, of course, run by the Provinces.

While it would be nice to blame the Trudeau Liberals (and successive “Conservative” administrations), it’s misplaced to dump it all on them. Who’s demanding to bring in more people lately? Well, it’s Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and New Brunswick. All of those Premiers claim to be conservatives. Yes, the Feds do compile the Annual Reports to Parliament, but the contents are drafted in collaboration with the Provinces and Territories.

Have you ever heard Jason Kenney, Scott Moe, or Doug Ford asking to put the brakes on immigration?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/federal-provincial-territorial.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/consultations/2020-consultations-immigration-levels-and-municipal-nominee-program/discussion-guide.html
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-3.html#h-24
(4) https://spencerfernando.com/2021/01/21/why-the-conservatives-should-make-decentralization-their-core-idea/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/immigration-annual-reports-to-parliament/

Posted on

Digital ID & Authentication Council Of Canada (DIACC), Pan-Canadian Trust Framework

Remember voting for either of the Digital ID & Authentication Council Of Canada (DIACC), or the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework? Recall any public discussion or debate on these issues? If not, you probably aren’t alone.

This campaign is a private-public partnership, and done without any real consultation. Interestingly, it started in 2016, which is when GAVI, Microsoft and Rockefeller launched ID2020.

Now, what is it that DIACC is looking to do? Here’s why they are in consultations with the Canadian Government.

According to their “strategic goals” section, the plan is to:

  • Create, publish, and evolve the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework and identify the legislative needs to support the vision.
  • Accelerate interoperability by securing adoption of the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework by businesses and governments.
  • Design, develop, launch a certification program aligned with market needs.
  • Raise profile of Canada’s digital identity innovation via the DIACC as Canada’s digital identity forum.
  • Create Canadian expertise and intellectual property for excellence in digital identity.

It isn’t really explained how any of this would actually be accomplished, nor does it seem very reassuring that the data couldn’t be hacked, sold, or traded. Other than data-mining or research, it’s hard to see what economic benefits are expected.

And while there are vague references to economic benefits, there’s little mention of what Canadians think. That could be because there weren’t consultation.

Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
–Budget 2022 as it relates to the Pan-Canadian Trust Framework and digital identification
-The government’s Digital Charter Implementation Act as it relates to prioritizing digital identification and public sector data

Policies or Programs
-Collaborate with policy makers to develop policies and programs that support the pan-canadian digital ID and authentication framework and the incorporation of digital ID and authentication considerations into government -programs and initiatives.
-Raising awareness on the need to implement a digital identity system that empowers Canadians to control their data that is held by the federal government.

The part about “raising awareness on the need to implement a digital identity system” comes across as a call to engage in propaganda efforts, to ensure Canadians don’t understand what’s really happening.

GOVERNMENT BRANCH DATE AMOUNT
Canada Post Corporation (CPC) 2021-08-31 $50,000
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) 2020-08-31 $2,750
City of Toronto 2021-08-31 $10,000
Gouvernement du Quebec 2021-08-31 $50,000
Government Chief Information Officer, Province of BC 2021-08-31 $50,000
Land and Title Authority of British Columbia 2021-08-31 $10,000
Ministry of Government Services, Province of Ontario 2021-08-31 $50,000
Service New Brunswick, Province of New Brunswick 2021-08-31 $50,000
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS) 2020-08-31 $50,000
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS) 2021-08-31 $50,000

The Federal Lobbying Registry sheds some light on the grants that DIACC has been getting in the last few years. DIACC isn’t also listed on the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy page, but perhaps the rental subsidy is the $2,750 they received from the CRA.

The lobbyist pushing this, at least in Ottawa, is Jacqueline LaRocque. She has been involved in the Government from 1994 to 2004, which aligns with the years of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. Her Linkedin profile is even more interesting, as she reveals having been a lobbyist for GlaxoSmithKine — the drug manufacturer — for 4 years after leaving government.

Keep in mind, in 1993 to 2006, Canada was run by the Liberals. They are once again. Many of the same partisan operatives from those days are still around now. Granted, there’s little difference between the parties, but that’s a discussion for another time.

What makes this even more settling is that there are a few Directors of DIACC who are currently involved in Government affairs. This includes the Canadian, Ontario, New Brunswick and B.C. Governments.

What we have here is sitting members of various Governments running a group to implement digital identification across Canada, partnered with private interests who stand to benefit from this. Again, no one ever voted for any of this, and it’s unlikely there were ever any widespread consultations.

Many directors at DIACC also have past and present connections to financial institutions. We have to ask what is the real motivation driving this digital ID push?

Perhaps the most interesting member is Neil Butters. He has worked on these kind of systems in the United States, and helped develop a smart card system for border crossings for Israel. Now, given the rampant surveillance undertaken in the U.S. and Israel, do Canadians have to worry about these digital systems being backdoored? Given the power that this kind of information has, can it really been dismissed out of hand?

Canadian Finance Minister Flaherty appointed the Task Force for the Payments System Review in 2010, made up of representatives from the public and private sectors, privacy commissioners offices, and consumer advocates. One of the key outcomes was recognition that digital ID and authentication are integral to the success of digital payments and to Canada’s digital economy.

The DIACC was created in 2012 to continue the activities of the Electronic Payments Task Force and achieve their vision for a robust, secure, scalable, and privacy-enhancing structure for transacting online.

As a self-governing and not-for-profit council, the DIACC brings together public and private sector members to collaborate and advance Canada’s digital identification and authentication ecosystem. This is accomplished by delivering a digital trust framework that will unlock digital economy opportunities for every Canadian.

DIACC establishes Expert Committees (ECs) to move high-impact projects forward. Chaired by members of the council, the committees run strategic projects and create valuable resources.

In its “principles” section, it explains that the Task Force for the Payments System Review was created in 2010 by then Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty. So this was actually started with the Conservatives were in power, and the Liberals seem to have carried on as normal. DIACC was launched in 2012 as a continuation.

Worth noting: while Jim Flaherty helped push digital identity (Federally) a decade ago, his wife, Christine Elliott, is now the Health Minister of Ontario. That Province is expected to fully adopt digital identity.

In their lobbying section, DIACC referenced the old Bill C-11, which died when the last election was called. For some extra information, Bill C-11 had concerns about facial recognition technology being used, and the safety of medical data. This isn’t addressed, at least not on their site.

For people concerned about their information, and who has access, the lack of specific detail is concerning. How will this be used, and what safeguards will be put in place? What remedies are available when the inevitable data breaches occur?

(1) https://diacc.ca/
(2) https://diacc.ca/trust-framework/
(3) https://diacc.ca/the-diacc/strategic-goals/
(4) https://diacc.ca/the-diacc/principles/
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368714&regId=917592#regStart
(6) https://id2020.org/alliance
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonibrennan/
(8) Joni Brennan _ LinkedIn
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacqueline-jacquie-larocque-57816713/details/experience/
(10) Experience _ Jacqueline (Jacquie) LaRocque _ LinkedIn
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-devries-165b721/
(12) Robert Devries _ LinkedIn
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-nikolejsin-b4b1273/
(14) Dave Nikolejsin _ LinkedIn
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/cjritchie/
(16) CJ Ritchie _ LinkedIn
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbrouillard/
(18) Marc Brouillard _ LinkedIn
(19) https://www.linkedin.com/in/colleen-boldon-47732a12/
(20) Colleen Boldon _ LinkedIn
(21) https://www.linkedin.com/in/neilbutters/
(22) Neil Butters _ LinkedIn

Posted on

Canadian Trucking Alliance Raising Lots Of Questions Lately

Underway right now a very, VERY large group of truck drivers is heading to Ottawa to protest mandatory vaccinations and to demand that policy be rescinded. Now, do their associations have their backs? Not in the slightest.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance made waves recently when they condemned the planned “convoy to Ottawa”. From their own statement:

The vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nation’s hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function.

The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) does not support and strongly disapproves of any protests on public roadways, highways, and bridges. CTA believes such actions – especially those that interfere with public safety – are not how disagreements with government policies should be expressed. Members of the trucking industry who want to publicly express displeasure over government policies can choose to hold an organized, lawful event on Parliament Hill or contact their local MP. What is not acceptable is disrupting the motoring public on highways and commerce at the border.

“The Government of Canada and the United States have now made being vaccinated a requirement to cross the border. This regulation is not changing so, as an industry, we must adapt and comply with this mandate,” said CTA president Stephen Laskowski. “The only way to cross the border, in a commercial truck or any other vehicle, is to get vaccinated.”

Instead of supporting the people who pay their salaries, the C.T.A. makes the suggestion to “call your Member of Parliament”. That’s interesting, considering that all parties are pretty much on board with the same thing. Like so many unions and association groups before, the C.T.A. seems content to throw the workers under the bus. On the surface this is alarming.

The C.T.A does not exist in isolation. Provincial counterparts make up this group, giving it more political power, and ability to influence policy.

Another red flag is that several of the groups that make up the Canadian Trucking Alliance have been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. This includes British Columbia, Alberta, and the Atlantic Provinces. Right there, loyalty to the members is tested against the best interests of their employees.

Yes, this is beating a dead horse, but plenty of industries are taking the blood money. This includes: restaurants and hotels, political parties, law firms, more law firms, and churches, to name a few.

In November 2020, the Manitoba Trucking Association received a $125,000 grant from the Western Economic Diversification Program. The stated goal was helping companies adapt to the “pandemic” circumstances in their businesses. Previously, they had taken $268,000 back in 2014. The Atlantic Provinces Trucking Associaton received $37,500 back in 2013 from the Federal Government.

In a move that should surprise no one, the C.T.A. regularly lobbies the Federal Government on a number of issues. Readers of this site should expect this. One item to note is immigration:

“Immigration – related to temporary foreign worker program and support for demand driven immigration allowances specific to assisting shortage of qualified truck drivers.”

While the C.T.A. is putting the screws to its own people, and supporting vaccine mandates, they are also calling on Ottawa to make it easier to import a replacement workforce. Presumably, the people coming into the country will only be able to as a condition of taking the shots (2 or 3 so far). The Saskatchewan Trucking Association — a member group — is also pushing to have an increase in immigration to import more truck drivers. So did their Ontario counterpart in 2019. What sort of picture are we getting here?

[1] Force Canadians out, or to retire, with mandatory medical procedure.
[2] Import new truckers who would be willing to work for less, and take the shots.

Unfortunately, this is hardly the only industry where this is happening.

If you think the trucking groups are only lobbying Federally, you would be very much mistaken. It continues on:

TIME GOVERNMENT BRANCH AMOUNT
2018 WorkSafeBC $1,826,134
2019 Employment and Social Development Canada $22,000
2019 Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure $1,400,000
2019 Natural Resources Canada $20,000
2019 WorkSafeBC $1,393,716
2020-01-15 to 2021-12-31 WorkSafeBC $4,641,567
2020-03-31 to 2021-03-31 Transportation and Infrastructure $1,540,000

The British Columbia Trucking Association (which is part of C.T.A.) has regularly been receiving money both Provincial and Federal Governments. That may explain why there is no real opposition to forcing the truckers to take the experimental shots. In fact, C.T.A. put out a joint statement with Ottawa on the topic of vaccinating workers.

Why does the Canadian Trucking Alliance support mandatory vaccines, and object to the protests in Ottawa? Maybe, just maybe, their interests aren’t with the individual truckers. Perhaps, money does influence policy positions.

Taking a quick look through CEWS and other Federal grants, there are plenty of trucking companies who are receiving handouts as well. This would explain why so many are on board with vaccine mandates.

Instead of looking out for workers, the C.T.A. touts the advantage of a projected driver shortage claiming it will ultimately drive up wages. Sure, except for the people who were let go.

(1) https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/advncdSrch
(3) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/wd-deo,GC-WD-DEO-2020-2021-Q3-1103,current
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/wd-deo,GC-WD-DEO-2013-2014-Q4-00142,current
(6) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/acoa-apeca,276-2013-2014-Q1-00004,current
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=622&regId=916231#regStart
(8) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=596&regId=56562530
(9) https://www.sasklobbyistregistry.ca/search-the-registry/registration-details/?id=a541fccd-1c72
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2022/01/declaration-commune-des-ministresalghabra-oregan-et-qualtrough-et-du-president-de-lalliance-canadienne-du-camionnage.html
(11) https://cantruck.ca/vaccine-mandate-leading-to-better-driver-pay-carrier/
(12) https://ctacanada.com/quality-service/

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-and-govt-financing/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/media-controlled-opposition/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/groups-calling-for-vaccine-passports-heavily-subsidized-by-government/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/trudeau-using-taxpayer-money-to-subsidize-opposition-parties-liberals-too/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/law-firms-bar-associations-receiving-canada-emergency-wage-subsidy-cews/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/conflicting-out-its-not-just-cews-that-the-lawyers-are-receiving/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/following-the-money-why-are-churches-really-pushing-the-vaxx-agenda

Posted on

Who Needs Science When We Have “Judicial Notice”? From The Federal Court….

This case was recently brought to the attention of Canuck Law, and it’s worth a read. This isn’t because of some great legal skill or revolutionary insight. It’s because legitimate issues and cases can simply be tossed aside if there is “judicial notice”.

Specifically, this was a Notice of Application brought to challenge the vaccine mandates of the Federal Government. Finally, we see mention in court that this “virus” may not even exist. However, it doesn’t seem to matter, since the Attorney General can ask the Court to “take judicial notice”.

You’d think that the Babylon Beaver wrote the decision, but it’s apparently for real. It’s very disturbing how cases can just be swept aside.

[1] Mr. Khodeir seeks judicial review of the federal government’s requirement that all its employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. He asserts that this requirement is unreasonable, because he believes that the virus that causes the disease does not exist.

[2] The Attorney General is asking me to strike Mr. Khodeir’s application at the preliminary stage. He says that I should take judicial notice of the existence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. As a consequence, Mr. Khodeir will be unable to prove the central premise of his application, which is thus bound to fail.

[6] The Attorney General responded to Mr. Khodeir’s application by bringing a motion to strike, pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. He asserts that Mr. Khodeir’s application is bereft of any possibility of success, because the Court can take judicial notice of the existence of SARS-CoV-2. He also asserts that Mr. Khodeir has no standing to bring the application, because he is not an employee of the core public administration and cannot claim public interest standing in the circumstances.

[16] I accept the Attorney General’s invitation to take judicial notice of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. To explain why, I must begin by outlining the contours of the concept of judicial notice. I then show that the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is beyond reasonable debate and that Mr. Khodeir’s submissions to the contrary are without merit.

[17] Courts make decisions based on evidence brought in each particular case. Some facts, however, are so obvious that courts assume their existence and no evidence of them is required. This is called judicial notice: Jean-Claude Royer, La preuve civile (6th ed by Catherine Piché, Cowansville, Yvon Blais, 2020) at paragraphs 139-147 [Piché, La preuve]; Léo Ducharme, Précis de la preuve (6th ed, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2005) at paragraphs 74-92 [Ducharme, Précis]; Sidney N Lederman, Alan W Bryant and Michelle K Fuerst, Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (5th ed, Toronto, LexisNexis Canada, 2018) at paragraphs 19.16-19.63 [Sopinka, Law of Evidence]; David M Paciocco, Palma Paciocco and Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence (8th ed, Toronto, Irwin Law, 2020) at 573-583 [Paciocco and Stuesser, Law of Evidence].

CHAPTER II
[Quebec Civil Code]
JUDICIAL NOTICE
2806. No proof is required of a matter of which judicial notice shall be taken.

2808. Judicial notice shall be taken of any fact that is so generally known that it cannot reasonably be questioned.

[23] Facts may be notorious even where the decision-maker cannot ascertain them personally. For example, in R v Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69 at paragraph 99, [2012] 3 SCR 555 [Khawaja], the Supreme Court of Canada took judicial notice of the war in Afghanistan, even though it is highly unlikely that its members, like most Canadians, travelled there to witness the hostilities. The existence of the war is nevertheless notorious because over the years, trusted sources of information have repeatedly mentioned it. Thus, reasonable persons would not doubt that there was a war in that distant country.

[36] Over the last two years, most people on this planet have been affected in various ways by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has become common knowledge that COVID-19 is caused by a virus called SARS-CoV-2. Numerous trusted sources of information have repeated this fact, to the point that it is now beyond reasonable dispute. There is a lack of debate on this issue in scientific circles.

[37] A fact, however, does not become indisputable by mere repetition. One must consider channels through which the information is conveyed, scrutinized and exposed to criticism, and the fact that these channels operate in a society based on freedom of discussion. This is particularly important in this case because, over the last two years, the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health measures deployed to fight it have been one of the most significant topics of public debate. Scientific knowledge about COVID-19 has developed under intense public scrutiny. The existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the fact that it causes COVID-19 are at the root of the matter. As matters related to the pandemic have been debated so thoroughly, it is unimaginable that any actual scientific debate about these basic facts would have escaped public attention. Moreover, if there was any evidence incompatible with the existence of the virus, one would have expected Mr. Khodeir to provide it to the Court. As we will see later, he utterly failed in this regard.

[62] In summary, the fact that COVID-19 is caused by a virus called SARS-CoV-2 is so notorious that it is beyond reasonable dispute. Like many other judges across Canada, I am taking judicial notice of this fact. Despite having had the opportunity to present evidence and submissions, Mr. Khodeir failed to put forward any cogent reason for concluding otherwise.

What it really comes down to: the debate is over.

The Court, which is supposed to be a trier of facts, is unwilling to try facts, simply because other Courts have declared the issue to be over. The problem with precedent (rulings based on previous rulings) is that nonsense decisions become very difficult to overturn, as they are now the standard

We can’t try or examine serious issues since another Court has already determined it to be settled. If you have any faith in the Canadian Judiciary, it’s probably best to rip that bandaid off.

Read the entire decision to make sure no context is missing.

(1) https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/employment/articles/32863/sars-cov-2-virus-is-real-federal-court-judge-tells-challenger-to-federal-vaccine-mandate
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc44/2022fc44.html
(3) Federal Court Virus Never Proven To Exist Who Cares
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-ccq-1991/latest/cqlr-c-ccq-1991.html
(5) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/decision-T-1690-21_E.pdf
(6) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/