Federal Court Of Appeal Partially Overturns “Bad Beyond Argument” Injection Mandate Case

The Federal Court of Appeal partially overturned a 2023 ruling on injection mandates for over 600 Plaintiffs who had sued back in May 2022. This suit covered a broad range of employers, both part of the Government, and others regulated by Ottawa.

There were additional claims pleaded related to loss of mobility rights and freedom of travel. However, these seemed to be almost an afterthought. Primarily, this was a lawsuit over workers refusing to take the injections in the Fall of 2021.

Back in February 2023, Justice Fothergill struck the Claim for most (about 400) of the Plaintiffs without leave to amend. This meant that they wouldn’t be allowed to submit a new version. The other 200 or so saw their claims struck with permission to refile. A lump sum of $5,000 in costs was also awarded.

To explain this a little better: the Court created Schedules “A” and “B”, and lumped various employers into each. The “A” employers were part of the Federal Government. By contrast, The “B” employers weren’t part of the Government, but part of Federally regulated industries. The reason for this is that there’s a distinction in how their respective claims were to be handled.

Employees who fell into Group “A” were prohibited from going to Court at all over employment. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act allow the right to grieve, but not to sue.

Employees who fell into Group “B” were not necessarily restricted from going to going to Court. However, the pleadings were so horribly written that a new version would need to be created. The Court referred to it as “bad beyond argument”, and for “substantially the same reasons” as the Action4Canada case, it had to be struck. As with the Vaccine Choice Canada case, this one failed to follow the basics of civil procedure — once again.

That said, with this Appellate ruling, all Plaintiffs will be allowed to file something.

What this means is that everyone will be able to make claims for restrictions on their movements. That can still go ahead. However, the employment claims for all Schedule “A” litigants are still barred, with the possible exception of those employed by the RCMP. They’re governed by different provisions in the FPSLRA.

One of the problems with having so many Plaintiffs is that there’s no information pleaded about any of them specifically. Instead, generalizations are made, without reference to who it applies to. As for the travel restrictions, it’s unclear which litigants are alleging it.

Hopefully, these people will retain a competent lawyer this time.

Alternatively, maybe counsel will take a remedial refresher course on how to plead documents.

SCHEDULE “A”: PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

  • Canada Opportunities Agency
  • Canada Border Services Agency
  • Canada Revenue Agency
  • Canada School of Public Service
  • Canadian Coast Guard (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency*
  • Canadian Forestry Service (Department of Natural Resources)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research*
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission*
  • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  • Canada Revenue Agency*
  • Canadian Security Intelligence Service*
  • Core Public Service
  • Canadian Space Agency
  • Correctional Service of Canada
  • Courts Administration Service
  • Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
  • Department of Canadian Heritage
  • Department of Employment and Social Development
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  • Department of Justice
  • Department of National Defence
  • Department of Natural Resources
  • Department of Transport
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Elections Canada (“Office of the Chief Electoral Officer” and “The portion of the federal public administration in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer in which the employees referred to in section 509.3 of the Canada Elections Act occupy their positions”)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (Department of the Environment)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
  • Global Affairs Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development)
  • Government of Canada
  • Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration)
  • Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs)
  • Indigenous Services Canada (Department of Indigenous Services)
  • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
  • National Film Board of Canada (National Film Board)*
  • National Research Council Canada*
  • National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat)*
  • Office of the Auditor General of Canada*
  • Parks Canada*
  • Polar Knowledge Canada (Canadian High Arctic Research Station)*
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Safety Canada (Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
  • Public Services and Procurement Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police**
  • Service Canada (Department of Employment and Social Development)
  • Shared Services Canada
  • Staff of the Supreme Court
  • Statistics Canada
  • Treasury Board

NOTES:

All organizations are part of the core public administration as defined at s 11(1) of the Financial Administration Act (Schedules I and IV), except as noted.

  • Organizations that are portions of the federal public administration listed in Schedule V (Separate Agencies of the Financial Administration Act, whose employees have rights to grieve under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act).

** The RCMP is part of the core public administration and is listed in Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act; RCMP members have limited rights to grieve under s 238.24 the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, but have other grievance rights under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

SCHEDULE “B”: PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

  • Air Canada
  • Air Canada Jazz
  • Air Inuit
  • Bank of Canada
  • Bank of Montreal
  • BC Coast Pilots Ltd
  • BC Ferries
  • British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
  • Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions
  • Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
  • Canada Pension Plan
  • Canada Post
  • Canadian National Railway
  • Canadian Pacific Railway
  • City of Ottawa Garage Fed Regulated
  • DP World
  • Export Development Canada
  • Farm Credit Canada
  • G4S Airport Screening
  • Garda Security Screening Inc
  • Geotech Aviation
  • Global Container Terminals Canada
  • Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • House of Commons
  • Human Resources Branch, Innovation
  • Kelowna Airport Fire Fighters
  • National Arts Centre
  • NAV Canada
  • Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
  • Ontario Power Generation
  • Pacific Pilotage Authority
  • Parliamentary Protection Service
  • Public Sector Pension Investment Board
  • Purolator Inc
  • Questral Helicopters
  • RBC Royal Bank
  • Rise Air
  • Rogers Communications Inc
  • Royal Canadian Mint
  • Sasktel
  • Scotiabank
  • Seaspan Victoria Docks
  • Shaw
  • Skynorth Air Ltd
  • Telesat Canada
  • Via Rail Canada
  • Wasaya Airways
  • Waterfront Employers of British Columbia
  • Westjet
  • Westshore Terminals
  1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA?
  2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions?
  3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons?
  4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable?
  5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts?

1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA? YES

[42] On the first issue, I conclude that the Federal Court erred in finding that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA applies to the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP.

[43] It will be recalled that subsection 236(1) of the FPSLRA provides that the “right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute”.

[44] To recall, the relevant definition of what constitutes a grievance is set out in subsection 206(1) of the FPSLRA. That section states that a grievance is one that may be filed under either section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA. Thus, the bar in section 236 applies only to those who could seek redress via a grievance under section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA.

[45] Yet, section 238.4 of the FPSLRA applies only to grievances arising under a collective agreement applicable to RCMP members who meet the statutory definition of “employee” in the FPSLRA. Based on the materials that were before the Federal Court and that are now before this Court, it is impossible to ascertain whether any collective agreement has been negotiated for RCMP members. The National Police Federation was certified as the bargaining agent for RCMP members in 2019 by the FPSLREB in National Police Federation v. Treasury Board, 2019 FPSLREB 74. However, it is unclear if a collective agreement has been achieved and, if so, whether a challenge to the TB Policy could be the subject of a grievance under any such agreement. Given this lack of information, it is not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP possessed rights to grieve the TB Policy under a grievance to which section 238.24 of the FPSLRA pertains.

The RCMP Plaintiffs may still have their employment claims struck at some point. However, with the information available on this Motion, they couldn’t be now.

2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions? YES

[53] The Federal Court therefore erred in finding that the plaintiffs’ claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures could have been grieved or were subject to section 236 of the FPSLRA. While these claims suffer from the lack of proper pleadings and a failure to plead the necessary material facts that characterize the Statement of Claim generally, they should not have been struck without leave to amend. If properly pleaded, it may perhaps be possible for the plaintiffs to raise a claim that could come within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Without seeing an amended pleading, however, it is impossible to discern whether or not a valid claim might be advanced. The plaintiffs therefore should have been granted leave to amend the claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures on the same basis as the Federal Court allowed other claims to be amended.

All Plaintiffs should be given the right to have their travel-related claims heard.

In fairness to Justice Fothergill, it was unclear who exactly was pleading that their travel related rights were infringed. The Statement of Claim was so lacking in detail that it was impossible to tell.

3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons? NO

[54] On the third issue, I conclude that the Federal Court did not err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons, other than the RCMP. However, the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy.

[55] It is not disputed that the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than the RCMP could have filed grievances under section 208 of the FPSLRA challenging the TB Policy or its application to them. As noted, the TB Policy was a term and condition of employment and thus subject to grievance under section 208 of the FPSLRA, which allows the employees of the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons other than the RCMP to file grievances relating to their terms and conditions of employment. That said, the FPSLREB recently held in Rehibi v. Deputy Head (Department of Employment and Social Development, 2024 FPSLREB 47, that a grievance challenging the application of the TB Policy could not be referred to adjudication due to the fact that only a subset of matters that may be grieved under the FPSLRA may be referred to adjudication under subsection 209(1) of the FPSLRA.

[64] Since the defendants sought to strike the Statement of Claim based on the fact that a grievance process was available, it was incumbent on the defendants to establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. However, no evidence was tendered on this issue and the statutory scheme is not sufficiently clear to definitively establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. I therefore conclude that the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy without leave to amend. The plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP should have been granted leave to amend their claims related to the TB Policy on the same basis as the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than those listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons were granted leave to amend.

Since the RCMP are governed by a different part of the FPSLRA, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that their employment claims shouldn’t have been struck under s.236. That’s not to say that it may not happen anyway. That said, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs are out of luck.

This is a pattern that’s become more obvious: lawyers bringing cases to Court that involve Government and/or union workers. There’s almost always some legislation or collective bargaining agreement that gets these thrown out.

See below, under the “precedents” section. Since the 2023 decision, 5 more cases have been thrown out (4 in Federal Court, and 1 in B.C. Supreme Court) citing this Adelberg ruling as precedent.

4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable? NO

[65] I see no error in the Federal Court’s determination that allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity, are not justiciable in a civil action.

[66] As for the validity of the TB Policy and the Interim Order, it would appear that those issues may now well be moot. In addition, while it might have been possible to argue that the policies at issue were invalid in the context of a justiciable claim for relief on some other basis in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585, the Federal Court did not err in holding that an order setting aside the TB Policy and the Interim Order could only be obtained by way of an application for judicial review.

[67] I accordingly see no basis for setting aside any of the foregoing rulings made by the Federal Court.

This is comical and goofy. Experienced lawyers should know what Courts can and cannot adjudicate over. It reeks of incompetence that this keeps happening over and over again.

Bad beyond argument.

5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts? NO

[68] Finally, I see no error in the Federal Court’s finding that the Statement of Claim was improperly pleaded and lacked the necessary material facts. As noted in Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare) 2015 FCA 227, [2015] F.C.J. No. 1245 at para. 16, a plaintiff must plead, in summary form, but with sufficient detail, the constituent facts to support the relief sought. As the Federal Court rightly noted in this case, for the claims in respect of which leave to amend is granted, the plaintiffs must set out with sufficient particularity the facts they rely on in support of their claim, including details of how they were specifically impacted by the policies they impugn and the bases for and all material facts necessary to ground the claims advanced. The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is entirely devoid of these necessary material facts.

[69] I therefore see no reviewable error in the decision to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety. However, leave to amend it should be granted to all the plaintiffs in accordance with these reasons.

This is common sense, or at least it should be. If you want to sue someone, you have to spell out the allegations with enough specific detail that they can respond to it.

Here’s he TL, DR (too long, didn’t read) version of things:

(1) Members and former members of the RCMP may still be able to bring employment related claims around their refusal to take the injections.

(2) All Plaintiffs — both Schedules “A” and “B” — can make travel related claims

(3) Other than RCMP, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs have their employment claims barred

(4) The Statement of Claim is filled with issues a Civil Court can’t preside over

(5) The Statement of Claim fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and doesn’t plead the facts necessary to be properly responded to.

(6) The $5,000 cost award is set aside, and no costs were awarded here.

The “bad beyond argument” findings of Justice Fothergill (here), and Justice Ross (Action4Canada) have been upheld. Neither case was pleaded in a coherent manner. And both needed to be redone. It’s still mind boggling that veteran lawyers don’t understand how to draft documents.

While all Plaintiffs can now go ahead with something, a few questions:

(a) Since the Schedule “A” employment claims are still prohibited, will there be an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? That was promised after all.

(b) Since so much time has passed, will any new allegations be barred by the Statute of Limitations? For most things, there’s a 2 year time limit.

(c) Will any more of the litigants discontinue their case? Will others try to proceed, but with more “effective” counsel?

(d) Considering that Action4Canada never bothered to file an amended Notice of Civil Claim, even 4 months after “winning” their Appeal, will this happen here too? Will these Plaintiffs call their critics “paid agitators“?

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

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

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

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

B.C. Bill 21: Legal Professions Act, Gets Royal Assent, And Law Society Sues Over It

The Province of British Columbia recently passed Bill 12, the Legal Professions Act. In short, it would take away the ability of the Law Society of B.C., or the LSBC, to self-regulate, and put it under Government control.

Many professions in Canada are “self regulated”. These include: teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, social workers, to name a few. They typically report to some sort of college, which oversees their licencing and professional development. Bill 12 would reverse this, at least for B.C. lawyers.

The LSBC responded by suing the Government in Supreme Court. And this was fast. The Bill received Royal Assent on May 16th, 2024, and the Notice of Civil Claim was filed the following day.

In short, the LSBC argues that its independence will be damaged, and the public harmed, if lawyers are not allowed to regulate themselves. Furthermore, if Government has the power to issue and revoke licences, it will result it an unwillingness to bring lawsuits for deserving clients.

The LSBC also complains that they never had any meaningful consultation before Bill 12 was brought. However, they had known for more than 2 years that this was going to happen at some point.

In addition to losing their independence, it’s argued that Bill 12 will have an impact on the health and well being of lawyers. Brook Greenberg authored a piece critical of Bill 12, and it’s quite the attention grabber. Below are sections from it.

However, the most visceral objection I have to Bill 21 is the government’s decision to include stigmatizing and discriminatory provisions to compel legal professionals to undergo forced medical treatment.

Within the 317 sections of this poorly thought-out and badly drafted bill, are harmful provisions about “health,” including in the definition of what it means for a legal professional to behave “incompetently.”

Section 68 initially defines “incompetently” with a focus on conduct that fails to meet standards. However, it goes on to define competence with specific reference to “health conditions.”

In doing so, Bill 21 makes unwarranted assumptions and creates false and stigmatizing connections between lawyers experiencing health conditions and their competency. We know from the national study on the psychological health of Canadian legal professionals that up to 50 per cent of legal professionals in Canada experience moderate-to-severe mental-health and substance use issues, at times.

That means roughly 7,000 lawyers in B.C. have had such experiences. However, only single-digit numbers of lawyers have their competency called into question in a given year.

Making and emphasizing a connection between competency and health conditions, as the government has done, is unwarranted and will inflict great harm both on individuals, and systemically.

It’s a bizarre argument to make: lawyers should be allowed to control their own profession. Otherwise health issues that can legitimately impact their ability to practice will lead to them not being able to.

We know from the national study on the psychological health of Canadian legal professionals that up to 50 per cent of legal professionals in Canada experience moderate-to-severe mental-health and substance use issues

From this, are we to determine that a significant minority — almost half — of B.C. lawyers have substance abuse and mental health issues? Should we really be letting the alcoholics, drug addicts and mentally ill be regulating themselves? If anything, Greenberg’s article makes a strong argument in favour of not letting lawyers police themselves.

We’ll have to see what becomes of this.

Other recent B.C. specific legislation includes:

  • Bill 12, the Online Harms Act
  • Bill 23, the (Anti-White) Anti-Racism Act
  • Bill 31, domestic implementation of U.N. Sendai Framework

(1) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/law-society-of-bc-announces-legal-action-to-challenge-legal-professions-act/
(3) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/updates-and-timeline-single-legal-regulator-legislation/
(4) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/law-society-of-bc-announces-legal-action-to-challenge-legal-professions-act/
(5) https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/comment-bc-embeds-mental-health-stigma-and-discrimination-in-legal-regulation-8719567#google_vignette
(6) LSBC v HMTK and AG Notice of Civil Claim

Review Of 2023 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The 2023 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament came out a while back. And if people were hoping that the rates would be cut, there’s nothing here to indicate that.

One milestone: Canada has finally brought in over a million temporary workers and students. This isn’t just the number of people who’ve gotten permanent residence or citizenship. This is in addition to that. But if there’s a silver lining, it’s that more of the public is starting to catch on.

Voting “conservative” in the upcoming election doesn’t appear to be a solution to this. The plan can best be summed up as: More! Faster! Legally!

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

Immigration is essential for Canada, providing economic, social, and cultural benefits. Canada’s aging population means that the worker-to-retiree ratio is shifting, with an expected ratio of 2 to 1 by 2035, compared to the 7 to 1 ratio in 1975. Immigration accounts for almost 100% of labour force growth, and with continued immigration, it is projected to account for 100% of population growth by 2032. Though the labour market remains tight, it is easing and economic immigration will continue to be a Government of Canada priority to help address the persistent labour shortages resulting from the aging population and lower fertility rates, including in critical sectors such as healthcare where immigrants account for 1 out of every 4 workers.

On page 5 of the report, it’s stated that nearly all of the growth is coming from immigration. Within the next several years, 100% of the growth is expected to come from people brought in. To summarize, this is a replacement plan.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2005 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2006 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2007 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2008 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2009 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2010 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2011 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2012 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2013 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2014 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2015 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2016 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2017 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2018 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2019 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2021 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
2023 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The information in this article, and similar ones, comes directly from information provided by the Government of Canada in their annual reports. These numbers, while likely not truly accurate, are at least a good starting point.

3. Immigration Largely Controlled By Provinces

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.

Contrary to popular belief, immigration is largely set by the Provinces. This is laid out in Section 95 of the Constitution. While Ottawa may impose laws from time to time, the understanding seems to be that the Premiers will be mostly the decision makers. While it’s understandable to get angry at Trudeau, he’s far from the only deserving target.

Additionally, there are talks underway to launch a Municipal Nominee Program, which will allow cities to directly bring people in, and to sponsor their bids to become permanent residents. It’s unclear at this point how large it will ultimately be.

4. Key Highlights From The Year 2022

As stated before, it’s not entirely clear how many people are staying after some kind of temporary visa, v.s. how many leave. We also don’t have hard data on the “inadmissibles” who don’t leave, and on the visitors who overstay. Consequently, take this as a rough estimate:

437,539 new permanent residents
-124,970 temps transitioning to PR
= 312,569 new permanent residents brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
550,187 (Student Visas Issued)
+135,818 (Temporary Foreign Worker Program)
+470,033 (International Mobility Program)
= 1,156,038 (in the temporary classes)

13,899 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
119 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

2,866,545 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
+1,923,148 TRV (temporary resident visas)
4,789,693 combined eTAs and TRV

364,166 permanent residents became citizens in 2022. That’s interesting, considering it’s far lower than the number of people who got their PR. Perhaps the population of Canada is much larger than we think, with a huge number who remain as PR, and don’t officially become citizens.

How many people remained in Canada? Who knows?

Other immigration (PR pathway) plans to take note of:

  • 2 pathways for Hong Kong residents (June 1, 2021 to August 31, 2026)
  • PR for TRP holders and their families recently (May 6, 2021 to November 5, 2021)
  • Families of air crashes PS 752 and EA302 can get PR
  • 500 people (+families) amnesty for illegals to work in construction
  • “Refugees” willing to work in health care settings can get PR

The Government brags about expediting work permits for “essential workers”, even as Canada experienced record high unemployment. They even created a program for “refugees” to get accelerated permanent residence if they work in health care settings. This comes at a time when Canadian workers are being let go for refusing the experimental shots.

Foreign students (under a rule change) became exempt from the 20 hour/week work limit that their visas typically imposed. Supposedly, this was to enable them to provide essential services. Again, this seems screwed up given how many Canadians were forced out of work.

Foreign students also received emergency benefits designed for Canadians, although the full extent of this is not yet published.

In January 2020, the G.T.A./IIRC started their program to give out permanent residencies to 500 people — and their families — who had overstayed their initial visas. This could be interpreted as an amnesty-for-illegals program, and we’ll have to see how much it expands.

IIRC also extended the Interim Federal Health Program, or IFHP, which is a plan that also covers so-called asylum claimants. This applies also to people who’ve illegally entered from the United States. Some 14% of claimants in 2020 had entered the country illegally, primarily via Roxham Road.

There’s also an initiative underway to bring in large numbers of people from Hong Kong, who claim to be fleeing persecution. Interesting, as Canada doesn’t seem to be run much better these days.

The Rainbow Refugee Assistance Program is supposed to grow. This is to resettle people alleging they are persecuted because of their questionable behaviours.

Canada also will allow people (women primarily) fleeing domestic violence to get a temporary permit, with a the possibility of becoming a permanent resident. There isn’t any information given about whether the abuser will be deported.

New initiatives have been announced to fast-track Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians into Canada. Expect details (and numbers) in the next annual report.

There is, of course, the usual GBA+ nonsense in the document.

Those are just a few points worth mentioning in the report.

5. Continued Population Replacement

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2021 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 50 of the 2022 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 59 of the 2023 Annual Report to Parliament)

Ever get the sense that people are European descent are being replaced? It’s no coincidence. The plan for decades has been to bring in large numbers of people from the 3rd World (mostly Asia and Africa), to remake society.

The top 3 are: (a) India; (b) China; and (c) Afghanistan. No surprise that the enclaves in Canada are growing. More data from the recent census will be released later this year, and the results shouldn’t be a shock to anyone. India itself comprises nearly 1/3 of the total.

And keep in mind, these are just official statistics for Permanent Residents. This is by no means everyone who is coming into the country.

6. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233
2019 1,696,871 4,077,471 5,774,342
2020 257,330 648,789 906,119
2021 654,027 813,306 1,467,333
2022 1,923,148 2,866,545 4,789,693

2,866,545 eTAs (electronic Travel Authorizations)
1,923,148 TRV (Temporary Resident Visa)

Travelers entering Canada tripled in 2022, as compared to 2021. It’s nearing the levels it was back in 2019. Of course, we cannot be sure how many of these people actually left.

7. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA

YEAR TRP Issued Cumulative
2010 17 17
2011 53 70
2012 53 123
2013 280 403
2014 385 788
2015 1,063 1,851
2016 596 2,447
2017 555 3002
2018 669 3,671
2019 527 4,198
2020 115 4,313
2021 95 4,408
2022 119 4,527

From 2010 to 2022, a total of 4,527 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787
2018 7,132 205,919
2019 6,080 211,999
2020 2,044 214,043
2021 6,687 220,730
2022 13,899 234,629

From 2002 to 2022 (inclusive), a total of 234,629 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131
2019 6,080 2 0 3,202 546 2,139 175
2020 2,044 2 1 666 131 1,000 37
2021 6,687 1 2 602 134 1,552 48
2022 13,899 2 6 1,377 464 2,458 62

In 2022, some 13,899 people barred were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA. This is from page 58 of the report. That is double what it was in 2021. Most were classified as “other”, which doesn’t really help. Nevertheless, none of these people should be coming in.

Use of the negative discretion authority
In 2022 the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship did not use the negative discretion authority under subsection 22.1(1) of IRPA. This authority allows the Minister to make a declaration that, on the basis of public policy considerations, a foreign national may not become a temporary resident for a period of up to three years.

The Minister could have exercised discretion to refuse people entry under sections 24(1) and 25.1(2) of IRPA, but did not during the 2022 calendar year.

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

8. Students & Temporary Workers

After a steep decline in 2020, the number of student visas being issued has shot back up in 2021. It was over 550,000 for 2022, something that politicians have finally started to at least pay lip service to.

As for the “temporary” workers, the image here seems to imply that these are the total numbers of people with permits. However, it elsewhere states that these are the number issued in 2021. Of course, the International Mobility Visas (a.k.a. “working holiday”) are only 1-2 years in length.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

2022 550,187 135,818 470,033 1,156,038

Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program

“Permit holders refers to a count of permit holders by the year their permits became effective. This is the date the permit was signed by an authorized signing agent/officer of IRCC.”

Let’s do some quick math here:

550,187 (students) + 135,818 (IMP) + 470,033 (TFWP) = 1,156,038

More than 1.1 million people entered with a temporary work or student visa. Less than 20 years ago, it would have been about 10% of that.

About the apparent “split” of the TFWP into 2 programs: this had been addressed before. However, it’s worth a reminder. (See archive). In 2013/2014, the “Conservative” Government of Stephen Harper faced backlash for how many TFWs were coming into the Canada, and the effect of reducing wages. In 2014, following public backlash at the TFWP being abused, subsequent reports splits it off with the IMP, to help camouflage what was going on.

There are, of course, a number of pathways to remain in Canada longer and/or transition in permanent residence. Let’s not pretend that they’re all leaving afterwards. In fact, recent changes have allowed students to remain in their home countries while collecting time towards a PR designation here.

Other changes included:

  • lifting the 20-hour per week restriction on the number of hours international students may work off-campus from November 15, 2022 until December 31, 2023;
  • extending distance learning facilitation measures that were put in place during the pandemic, with a reduced scope, to allow international students to study online from abroad without it negatively impacting their
    eligibility for a post-graduation work permit or its duration until August 31, 2023; and
  • introducing new measures allowing eligible foreign nationals whose post-graduation work permit expired between September 20, 2021 and December 31, 2022 to work in Canada for an additional 18 months by either extending their work permit or applying for a new one

In 2022, IRCC also announced a new temporary public policy that provided an opportunity for foreign nationals with post-graduation work permits expiring between September 20, 2021 and December 31, 2022 to apply for an additional 18-month open work permit.

It would be nice to have more of a breakdown on the number of people who use more than 1 type of visa, but it doesn’t seem to be included here.

9. Refugee And Asylum Programs In Canada

IRCC launched a Temporary Public Policy in November 2022 to exempt refugee claimants in Canada from certain requirements for work permit issuance, which allows asylum claimants to obtain open work permits.

91,710 asylum claims were filed in 2022 under CUAET, the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel. This is in addition to 13,700 who were already in the country.

169 TRPs to victims of human trafficking and their dependents.

10. “Anti-Racism” Initiatives To Be Advanced In Canada

The agenda endorsed by the Federal Government is to be implemented into immigration policy as well. It’s quite openly anti-white, and gaslights objections as racism and oppressions.

  • That racism against Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups has persisted over time; it exists to support, reinforce and build upon supremacy of one group over many. In our society, this is the elevation of (the) white people (or settler groups) above everyone else in many areas of Canadian life. The inertia continues to be upheld by access, privilege and indifference.
  • That colonialism, through our immigration system, has had an impact on Indigenous Peoples.
  • That global events, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Asian communities, fuel the rise of hate crimes in Canada. This has a profound effect on the safety and mental health of our racialized clients and employees.
  • That the experiences of many Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups intersect with sexism, ethnocentrism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, such as those experienced by persons with visible and non-visible disabilities. These intersections exacerbate an already difficult and in some cases precarious existence.
  • That, despite efforts and some progress made, IRCC has not yet achieved a fully diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace. Black employees remain in entry-level positions, and Indigenous employees, as well as employees from racialized groups, are not sufficiently represented at the executive level.
  • That many of our staff, as expressed in town halls, focus groups, trust circles and surveys, experience racism in the workplace, feel it impacts their career advancement and lack trust in senior management to address this.
  • That our fight against racism happens in solidarity with our fight against all forms of inequity.
  • That our renewed focus on Anti-Racism today builds on the tireless efforts of many unsung heroes who have long contributed to the fight against racism and all forms of inequity.
  • That racism spans beyond hate; it includes unconscious and unintended actions.

Interestingly, the idea of colonialism via immigration is mentioned. Of course, it’s primarily non-whites who are coming these days, which should throw the narrative for a loop.

When they speak of making workplaces more diverse and equitable, they really mean that the goal is to make them less white.

Pretty strange that people continue to come to Canada in record numbers, if this place really is the racist hellhole that’s being displayed.

And if this report is any indication, expect Ukrainians to also be pouring in for the foreseeable future.

11. Illegals Entering Via U.S./Canada Border

Although the report focused primarily on LEGAL immigration into Canada, the illegal brand is still worth talking about, since so few actually do. The United Nations gives detailed instructions and guidance on how to go about circumventing the border. The result, quite predictably, is that people keep trying to cross over.

YEAR: 2019
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246
YEAR: 2022
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 2,367 0 16 0 2,383
February 2,154 1 9 0 2,164
March 2,492 2 8 0 2,502
April 2,791 3 8 3 2,805
May 3,449 3 40 1 3,493
June 3,066 3 14 3 3,086
July 3,645 3 29 0 3,677
August 3,234 5 10 0 3,249
September 3,650 10 0 0 3,660
October 3,901 16 34 0 3,951
November 3,731 23 34 0 3,788
December 4,689 3 52 1 4,745
TOTALS 39,171 72 289 7 39,540
YEAR: 2023
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 4,875 19 100 0 4,994
February 4,517 5 59 0 4,581
March 4,087 15 71 0 4,173
April 69 9 26 0 104
May 46 3 30 0 79
June 30 1 27 2 60
July 42 8 33 0 83
August 53 3 40 1 97
September 59 2 25 2 88
October 36 7 29 3 75
November 58 0 37 0 95
December 90 5 131 0 226
TOTAL 13,962 77 616 8 14,663

Although not listed in the Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, this is worth a mention. Illegal crossings from the U.S. did drop quite drastically in the Spring of 2020. It picked up in 2021, and much more so in 2022.

Keep in mind, the text of the Safe Third Country Agreement requires both Canada and the U.S. to consult with the UNHCR on refugees, and to get input from NGOs. We haven’t had meaningful borders in a long time. Yes, the Agreement was renegotiated in early 2023 to include the entire border, but people are still coming in.

As a reminder: the Trudeau Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin, back in 2019. This would allow for claims from “safe” countries to be denied much more quickly. However, with things the way they are, it seems nowhere is really safe. While the issue was very mainstream from 2017 to 2019, it seems to have disappeared.

In June 2020, a new policy kicked in to finally track who is leaving the country. Even more strange that a Trudeau would bring it in when he did. Probably to make it harder for people fleeing during lockdowns.

Overall, the replacement agenda slowed down in 2020, but it rebounded significantly in 2021 and 2022. Will this trend continue? Or will the public’s fatigue finally make a difference.

CSSEM Cases Thrown Out: $530,000 For Petitions That Don’t Actually Challenge Anything

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed 3 Petitions challenging a requirement that health care workers (HCW) still have to take the clot-shots to keep their jobs.

There was one small victory though. The Public Health Office is to review the requirement that remote workers have to get the shots. This would also apply to others who don’t come into any contact with patients, residents or clients. The reasons for that start on paragraph 210 of the ruling.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that remote workers or workers who don’t come into contact with others will be exempt from the injection orders. It simply means that it must be reconsidered.

[315] The petitions are dismissed, with the exception that, under JRPA s. 5(1), I remit to the PHO for reconsideration, in light of this decision, whether to consider requests under s. 43 of the PHA, for reconsideration of the vaccination requirement from healthcare workers able to perform their roles remotely, or in-person but without contact with patients, residents, clients or the frontline workers who care for them.

What percentage would this apply to?

These cases were financed by a group called CSSEM, the Canadian Society for Science & Ethics in Medicine. On their website, they take credit for raising $530,000 to date. There’s overlap with the people running this group, and those who had campaigned for Action4Canada.

Whether coincidental or by design, the name is strikingly similar to CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. Both groups have the same goals. Was this done to piggyback off of their fundraising?

Hsiang et al v. Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S224731

Hoogerbrug v. Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S224652

CSASPP et al v. Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the Province of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S2110229

Tatlock et al v. Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia et al.SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S22242

Previously, there were 4 Petitions to be heard together, but CSASPP discontinued, after advising that it would be the case.

From the looks of their website, CSSEM is still funding the other 3 cases. While they weren’t anywhere near the dumpster fire that the Action4Canada one is, there are several problems which led to them being dismissed anyway:

  1. Petitions don’t challenge the “emergency” declarations in any meaningful way
  2. Petitions don’t challenge the junk “science”
  3. Petitions don’t challenge the Public Health Act
  4. Petitions should probably have been done as Civil Claims

Instead, the Petitions largely focus on narrow exemptions under the Canadian Charter. It’s a “cookie-cutter” challenge that’s been seen many times — including from the JCCF — and never goes anywhere. Seriously, it cost over half a million dollars for this?

26. The Petitioners seek the following orders under sections 2(2) and 7 of the Judicial Review
Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241:
.
a. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order of the Provincial Health Officer, dated November 18, 2021, entitled “Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Services) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021” (“Order”), to the extent that it requires individuals to have received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in order to work in hospital and designated community settings;
b. A declaration that the decision to continue in effect, or the failure or refusal to rescind, the November 18 Order, at any time after November 18, 2021, in response to the Petitioner’s requests or otherwise, is unreasonable and ultra vires, as there is not presently a reasonable basis for the exercise of emergency powers under the Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c 28, and the vaccination mandate is not a reasonable or effective way to address the spread of SARS-CoV-2;
c. In addition or in the alternative, a declaration that there is no reasonable basis to refuse or decline or neglect to issue notice under section 59 of the Public Health Act “that the emergency has passed”, and to follow the specified steps required under section 60 of the Public Health Act, including rescission of the November 18 Order;
d. Such other relief as the Court deems warranted and just; and
e. Costs of the Petition.

This is the Relief sought in the Hsiang Petition. As is obvious, there’s no challenge to the Public Health Act, the legislative structure that allowed this in the first place. Nor does it ask for a declaration that there was never any emergency at all — just that there currently isn’t one.

The test on a Judicial Review typically is “reasonableness”. Since all major facts are conceded, there isn’t much to argue over. In the ruling, Justice Coval simply “defers” to the expertise of Bonnie Henry and the Public Health Office.

1. Petitions Don’t Challenge Emergency Declarations

Looking at the Hsiang, Morgan and Vandergugten Petition, there are already serious problems. The Petition argues that there currently isn’t an emergency, and that there is no longer a need for restrictions on people’s liberties and livelihoods.

Instead of that taking that there never was a need, and hence the measures were overblown, the document claims that it doesn’t apply now. It tacitly admits that such regulations may have been entirely reasonable and necessary at earlier dates.

This was certainly noticed by Justice Coval.

When the starting position is that there used to be a significant risk of spreading this (alleged) virus, you’ve already lost.

2. Petitions Don’t Challenge Junk Science

Apparently, the people challenging the injection mandate also “trust the science”. By this, there’s no effort to challenge any of the extensive lies and distortion that has come out the last few years. Admittedly, Petitions aren’t designed to be deep dives. However, these ones take almost everything the B.C. Government takes at face value.

Here’s an easy one: what’s the definition of a “Covid death“?

3. Petitions Don’t Challenge Public Health Act

This is yet another area that’s mind boggling. The Petitioners didn’t challenge any (or all) of the B.C. Public Health Act. This is the legislation that made all of this possible.

Instead, the lawyers are reduced to essentially arguing for exemptions within the framework of the PHA itself. This would have been a perfect time for a full attack on the PHA, but that didn’t happen.

(A) World Health Organization Constitution legally binding on member
(B) International Health Regulations are legally binding on WHO members
(C) Canada’s Bill C-12 (2005 Quarantine Act) was written by WHO
(D) Provincial Health Acts are extension of WHO-IHR
(E) Public Health Agency of Canada a de-facto branch of World Health Organization

There’s a wealth of information available on this. Instead of pursuing exemptions within the Charter, shouldn’t lawyers be asking by the World Health Organization is drafting our laws?

4. Petitions Should Have Been Filed As Civil Claims?

Although the names vary by jurisdiction, there are different ways a person can start a Court process. This matters as it appears the CSSEM chose the wrong one.

The most well known method is by “Action”. It’s starting by filing a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Civil Claim, as it’s called in B.C. It also has a few other names. These can be extremely simple, or they can be very complex, depending on the circumstances.

A lesser known method is by “Judicial Review”. This is when someone goes to Court to challenge an Order from some branch of Government, or Government Official, or Crown Corporation. These are meant to be a more streamlined process than Actions.

Petitions aren’t meant to be a deep dive into the science. They’re designed as reviews of whether or not decisions are reasonable. Considering what isn’t being challenged above, the outcome was inevitable.

JURISDICTION ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW
Federal Statement Of Claim Application
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition

On the surface, a Petition appears to be the correct method. After all, these were challenges to specific orders from Bonnie Henry. However, things like discovery aren’t permitted here. They’re meant for Actions. The Hsiang and Hoogerbrug Petitioners attempted to augment (add to) their evidence the following:

  • Any and all documents relating to the incidence of COVID infections, transmission and serious illness, as well as hospitalization and death attributable to COVID, broken down by vaccination status and number of doses and age, since the emergence of the Omicron variants.
  • Any and all documents that support the comments made by the PHO in a media conference on January 21, 2022, during which the PHO stated that the provincial government’s approach to the COVID virus has shifted to be “much like how we manage other respiratory illnesses – influenza, or RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or enteroviruses that cause the common cold”, including documents from January 2022 to September 12, 2022 that support this statement.
  • Any and all documents relating to the measures put in place to prevent infection and transmission of influenza and other respiratory illnesses, other than COVID, at hospitals and community health care facilities from 2009-2019.
  • Any and all documents relating to the relative effectiveness of the primary course of vaccination: In preventing people from contracting and transmitting COVID, since emergence of the Omicron variants; and compared to infection acquired immunity without vaccination with respect to preventing infection, transmission and serious illness, BC and other jurisdictions about vaccine mandates.
  • Any and all documents relating to the prevalence or estimated prevalence of infection and/or infection-acquired immunity in the provincial population.
  • All documents related to the consideration given to the two publicly available letters to UBC President & Vice-President Chancellor, Dr. Santa Ono, from the Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Patricia Daly et al, dated February 16, 2022, and the and the UBC Faculty professors Dr. David Patrick, Dr. Sarah (Sally) Otto, and Dr. Daniel Coombs, dated February 20, 2022
  • All documents relating to the decision to permit unvaccinated individuals with a medical exemption to continue working at hospitals and community health care facilities, but not extending the same opportunity to unvaccinated persons with valid religious reasons for not being vaccinated
  • All documents relating to the measures put in place for those working at hospitals and community health care facilities with a medical exemption
  • Any and all documents relating to the effectiveness of measures other than vaccination in preventing the transmission of COVID at hospitals and community health care facilities, including, but not limited to, measures such as the use of personal protective equipment, hygiene policies, and daily or less frequent testing
  • All documents relating to the transmission of COVID by registered health professionals at hospitals and community health care facilities to patients and vice versa, including by vaccination status
  • All documents relating to the transmission of COVID at hospitals and community health care facilities by persons who are not subject to the vaccination mandate

It would have taken weeks or months to get all of this information together.

In fairness, CSASPP also tried to add evidence to their existing record. However, it was nowhere near what’s been listed above. Petitions are designed to be simple and straightforward, not the fact finding mission that’s being requested here.

CSASPP discontinued their Petition in 2023. In their status updates here and here, they blame lawyer Peter Gall (Hsiang and Hoogerbrug Petitions) for endless delays. If done in bad faith — and who knows — it would amount to hijacking the other challenges. The protracted nature of these cases merits a piece all on its own.

The Attorney General’s Office wasn’t happy about attempts to greatly expand the scope of the Petitions.

This isn’t quite as absurd as Action4Canada appealing a decision to strike their Claim, as opposed to simply rewriting it. But it’s still pretty bad.

But in the end, what was really challenged?

The (remaining) Petitioners don’t seem to have an issue with: (a) an emergency being declared at all; (b) the completely fraudulent science going unchecked; and (c) the B.C. Public Health Act. All that’s left is whether or not health care workers still have to get the shots under the current order.

If these suits were supposed to involve many procedural steps, such as discovery, then they should have been Civil Claims, not Petitions.

An interesting Twitter thread covering this case came from Peyman Askari. He breaks down other parts of the ruling quite well.

Administrative staff who work remotely, or who have no contact with patients, may get a reprieve in all of this. That said, this is nowhere near all of the health care workers in the Province.

Now, there will very likely be an Appeal. But what exactly would they argue?

(1) https://www.cssem.org/
(2) https://www.cssem.org/donate
(3) CSSEM Petition To The Court
(4) CSSEM Notice Of Assignment Justice Coval Assigned
(5) CSSEM Memorandum Justice Coval Will Hear All Petitions Together
(6) CSSEM Affidavit #3 Of Sophie Harney
(7) CSSEM Affidavit #4 of Sophie Harney
(8) CSSEM Gall’s Requisition To Set JMC For 19 Oct 2022
(9) CSSEM Peter Gall Disputes Record With Crown
(10) CSSEM Peter Gall’s Cover Letter For His Application
(11) CSSEM Gall Writes AG Regarding Further Amended Petitions
(12) CSSEM AG Writes Peter Gall To Advise His Proposed Amendments Are Convoluted
(13) CSSEM CSASPP Petitioner Advises Of Discontinuance
(14) CSSEM CSASPP Notice Of Discontinuance
(15) CSSEM Peter Gall’s Written Submissions For CPC Regarding Another Adjournment
(16) CSSEM Corrected Reasons Dismissing Peter Gall’s Application To Augment Record
(17) CSSEM CanLII Version Reasons For Decision (Augmenting Record)
(18) CSSEM Reasons For Decision (Dismissal)

COURT SERVICES ONLINE UPDATES:
(1) CSSEM Procedural Updates 01
(2) CSSEM Procedural Updates 02
(3) CSSEM Procedural Updates 03
(4) CSSEM Procedural Updates 04

CSSEM DOCUMENTS:
(1) CSSEM Applicants For Incorporation
(2) CSSEM Certificate Of Incorporation
(3) CSSEM Constitution
(4) CSSEM Incorporation Application
(5) CSSEM Model Bylaws
(6) CSSEM Statement Of Directors And Registered Office

CSASPP STATUS UPDATES:
(1) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20221116
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20230301
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20230608

Jordan Peterson Quietly Drops Lawsuit Against Wilfrid Laurier University

The long anticipated anti-SLAPP Motion between Jordan Peterson and Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) will never be heard. Shortly before it was scheduled to go ahead, the parties quietly settled the case. Or to be more accurate, Peterson dropped the lawsuit and agreed to pay partial costs.

In their Motion Record, submitted back in 2022, Laurier includes correspondence with Peterson over the scheduling of Cross-Examinations. The school attempted many times to set dates. However, it appears that he repeatedly gave them the run around.

Put simply, if a party wants to put evidence into the file, the other side is entitled to ask them questions. This is commonly referred to as “testing the evidence”. Peterson can put anything he wants into an Affidavit, as long as he’s willing to be questioned about it.

For background on the case, see here and here.

Now, he won’t be on the hook for full indemnity, or 100% of costs. This is typical when defamation suits are dismissed under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for Ontario, or the anti-SLAPP laws. Instead, he’ll only have to pay a portion of those.

To be clear, Peterson never won anything. He just negotiated a lower rate in return for abandoning this lawsuit. He dragged out the case for 5 1/2 years just to leverage reduced costs.

From the April 15th, 2024 Civil Endorsement of Justice Akazaki:

The case conference was brought before me as the judge assigned to hear the anti-SLAPP motion on April 18, 2024. Before I began the conference, counsel confirmed that there was no objection to my hearing the motion due to my participation, prior to my appointment, in an on-campus debate organized by University of Toronto students touching on the plaintiff’s ideas. I have, separately, determined there are no grounds for recusal.

The grounds for the motion for adjournment was the need to join the two related actions. Subsection 137.1(5) does not provide for judicial discretion based on other steps that could be taken, because it specifically prohibits further steps. Once an anti-SLAPP motion has been brought, the plaintiff cannot even discontinue the action: Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555, at para. 35. Since the grounds for seeking the adjournment entail prohibited procedural steps, I saw no reason to grant the adjournment.

I discussed with counsel the nature of the second statement of claim as being less of a libel claim than a pleading of aggravation of the cause of action set out in the first statement of claim. Counsel for the University stated that she had no instructions to bring an anti-SLAPP motion in the first claim. Counsel appeared willing to discuss a resolution of the motion, possibly subject to argument regarding costs under subsections (7) and (8).

In the event the motion is resolved or the issues change as a result of that discussion, counsel should contact my judicial assistant to inform me same.

Few people know (or will remember) that Peterson actually sued Laurier twice. The first time was after the Shepherd audio got leaked. The second was when Laurier publicly responded to the first lawsuit. The whole thing smacks of lawfare.

At the first case conference, Peterson tried to join the 2 suit. But since invoking anti-SLAPP in the second lawsuit stays that proceeding, procedurally, this isn’t allowed to happen.

Apparently, the original lawsuit is still open. This is the one which Laurier filed a 3rd Party Claim against Lindsay Shepherd, arguing that she’s responsible for damages Peterson may have suffered.

From April 18th, 2024 AMENDED Civil Endorsement of Justice Akazaki:

On consent, this court hereby orders:

  1. The motion is granted, and this action is dismissed.
  2. The plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs of the motion and of the action on a partial indemnity basis, in an amount to be agreed by the parties or to be assessed.
  3. If the costs are to be assessed, the assessment may be commenced by either party in accordance with rule 58.
  4. The costs amount shall be payable within 30 days of the parties’ agreement on value or the date of assessment, as the case may be.

So, that appears to be the end of it. Peterson won’t have to face the consequences of his lawsuit, and Laurier will get (at least some) costs back. The original lawsuit, while still open, seems dead in the water. There’s no way to advance it without facing another anti-SLAPP Motion.

Considering that both defamation lawsuits were filed in 2018, this comes across as a weak way to end it. Peterson has been — for years — dodging attempts to move the anti-SLAPP Motion forward. Now, just before the hearing, he jumps ship.

Oddly, Peterson isn’t as media happy about it now as he was then.

(1) Wilfrid Laurier University Anti-SLAPP Motion Record
(2) Wilfrid Laurier University Endorsement Form
(3) Wilfrid Laurier University Amended Endorsement
(4) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/CaseLookup/CSLKUP001.xhtml
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNv4LFpGf4
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zLcMGCedA
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjQeLn0hyI
(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYuqrO8LLo
(10) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jordan-peterson-lawsuit-wilfrid-laurier?

Vote Harder! Poilievre Tells Corporate Canada To “Fire Your Lobbyist”

Recently, Pierre Poilievre, leader of the CPC and the Official Opposition of Canada, published an article in the National Post. The catchy title called on Corporate Canada to “fire your lobbyist”.

But apparently, the call is to stop lobbying other politicians. Poilievre himself seems quite content. In fact, the Lobbying Registry of Canada lists him meeting with special interest groups 329 times. Whether a person believes in the practice of political lobbying or not, this comes across as hypocritical.

Then there’s this:

At the most, the Chamber of Commerce, Business Council, and Canadian Federation of Independent Business hold pointless luncheons and meetings and write op-eds or record interviews that almost no one sees. As leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, I refuse to meet the aforementioned groups. They tell me what I already know.

Sounds lovely, doesn’t it? Fortunately for Poilievre, few will bother to fact check anything that he says. But there are always nerdy, autistic trolls that have too much time on their hands.

In the article, he claims that he refuses to meet with the groups: (a) Chamber of Commerce; (b) Business Council, and (c) Canadian Federation of Independent Business. However, records from the Lobbying Registry make it clear that he does meet with them. Not like any of this is difficult to find out.

There’s also apparently a Chamber of Marine Commerce that Poilievre has met with.

He’s also met 10 times with CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. There were 3 meetings with NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims. Both have lobbied for changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to ban “hate speech”.

There are countless other examples of Poilievre being lobbied by the sorts of people that he now rails against. He mentions Teck Resources in the National Post article, despite also having been lobbied by them.

Want to stop the latest tax hike? Or get bureaucracy out of the way to build homes, mines, factories, pipelines and more? Then cancel your lunch meeting at the Rideau Club. Fire your lobbyist. And go to the people.

Sounds catchy, just like so many of his soundbites. But apparently it’s still okay for him to meet with lobbyists. Presumably this attitude will change if and when he ever takes power.

Did Poilievre write this himself? Or did his handlers?

In any event, vote harder!

(1) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pierre-poilievre-corporate-lobbyists-keep-sucking-up-to-high-tax-anti-resource-liberals
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1715077407904
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=391128
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=354769
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=444749
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=487562
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=489399
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=498788
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=502584
(12) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584972
(13) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=519778
(14) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=591832
(15) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1715078569598