Kulvinder Gill’s Frivolous And Vexatious Claim Dismissed As A SLAPP

“[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out. ”

“[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.” – Justice Stewart

A $12.75 million defamation lawsuit filed in December 2020 has been ended. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it fully met the criteria for being classified as a SLAPP, and was dismissed. Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba demanded millions in damages from online words. They literally tried to bankrupt people they disagreed with on platforms like Twitter.

Perhaps bragging about it in the national papers wasn’t the best idea.

The substance of this came from online postings related to restricting people’s freedoms, and what pharmaceuticals were best during a “pandemic”. (It’s fake, but that’s a discussion for another time).

In a 51 page ruling, Justice Elizabeth Stewart said that it was exactly the sort of case which anti-SLAPP laws were designed for. The sheer number of Defendants, 23, and the amount of money sought was staggering. Despite this, the Plaintiffs never produced any real evidence of damages to justify the millions they demanded.

To be blunt, this case appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

Considering how this came about, and all of the racism accusations leveled in the Statement of Claim, Gill and Lamba are very lucky they weren’t countersued for defamation. The Defendants would have had a much stronger case. Nonetheless, this lawsuit never stood a chance, if it even made it to trial.

A Quick Introduction To Civil Procedure

There are several sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario which permit cases to be ended early. Truly meritless Claims and Applications clog up the system, and deserve to be removed.

  • Rule 2.1.01(6) this allows the Registrar to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
  • Rule 20: this covers Summary Judgement Applications. Either side can file for one, if it appears that either there is no case, or no valid defense. Appropriate when there are no major issues to resolve
  • Rule 21.01: in order to expedite a case, permits: (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defense
  • Rule 24: if Plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings, and this can happen in different stages, the Court has the discretion to dismiss it
  • Rule 25.11: an option to strike the pleadings — which does not amount to trying the case — if a pleading is frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process

Rule 2.1.01(6) is meant for a Registrar, or low-level official. This is restricted to the very obvious cases. The others involve higher standards, and are meant for Justices, Judges or Associate Judges.

In the case of defamation lawsuits, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act provides another remedy. If a Plaintiff is using the Courts as a weapon to silence discourse on an important public issue, this can be stopped by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion.

SLAPP Means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

This isn’t unique to Ontario. There are other Provinces and U.S. States which have very similar laws on the books, and the principles are much the same.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Once a SLAPP Motion is brought forward, it freezes everything else. Nothing can happen until this is resolved, which includes possible appeals to the higher Court(s).

It’s important to note that anti-SLAPP applies to speech that’s of a public interest matter. It doesn’t apply to disputes over private issues. Once the Defendant(s) satisfy the Court that the speech is of a public matter, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s). To prevent dismissal, Judge or Justice must be convinced there are grounds to believe that:

  1. the proceeding has substantial merit, and
  2. the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
  3. the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

If the Plaintiff cannot meet all 3 parts of this test, then the case qualifies as a SLAPP. Here, the Court found that they didn’t meet even a single prong of the test. As such, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case. And as the Justice stated, the laws were designed for cases like this.

The Ontario Libel & Slander Act has built in provisions which allow for the protection of certain categories of speech. These include fair comment and qualified privilege, which were heavily referenced in the Decision.

22 In an action for libel or slander for words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges

Fair comment
23 In an action for libel or slander for words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

Fair comment
24 Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.

Communications on Public Interest Matters
Application of qualified privilege
25 Any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons.

It’s important to know that there are safeguards written into the Act. These are just some of them. A free society can’t function properly if speech is weaponized like this.

Could This Dismissal Be Appealed?

In theory, yes. Rule 61.04 allows 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal. However, given how badly the case went, Gill and Lamba would have to be pretty dense to even try. It’s a high burden.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002, sets out the standard for review of a decision. Broadly speaking, Appeals are heard because of an alleged error of fact or law.
(i) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.
(ii) By contrast, a possible error of law is treated “de novo”, and looked at as if hadn’t been ruled on before. It might be viewed as a lower standard.

The reasoning behind “giving deference” to the factual findings is that the Judge is there, and more able to assess what’s going on. Also, there has to be some presumption of competence.

The Justice stated that there was no evidence of damages, the tweets were about public interest matters, and not defamatory. These are findings of fact, and unless something obvious is missed, not easy to challenge. In short, a hypothetical appeal would go absolutely nowhere.

What About Costs For The Defendants?

In the ruling, the Justice gave the Defendants 30 days to make submissions for costs. And here’s where things get more interesting.

There are 19 lawyers listed for the Defendants in the REASONS FOR DECISION. While it’s unclear how much the total fees are, it’s likely a lot. This case involved depositions, and a SLAPP Motion. Both of these are expensive and time consuming. Estimating an average $30,000 each — which may be at the low end — this case would have cost them over half a million to defend.

It’s quite possible that the Plaintiffs could each be on the hook for well over $100,000. Although most allegations didn’t involve Ashvinder Lamba, she clearly participated in the suit.

The final ruling made it clear that there was no evidence of damages, and that the issues addressed were public matters. Despite the tone in some of the messages, they were protected speech. The suit was frivolous and vexatious, so a stiff award can be expected.

What Exactly Started All Of This?

In the case of Gill and Lamba, this case arose largely over Twitter spats. The Plaintiffs (primarily Gill), got into arguments with people on Twitter, which later ended with her blocking them. I guess there’s a little Rempel in all of us.

These other people — who they later sued — were promoting vaccines and martial law measures, for a non-existent virus. Gill, to her credit, opposed these restrictions, but promoted alternative medicines, again for a non-existent virus. However, this was Twitter nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Instead of ignoring people if there was such a disagreement, Gill, Lamba, and their representative were documenting and archiving social media posts. To a casual observer, it appears as these may have been planned as a way of generating evidence. In the end, Gill and Lamba sued 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets, over relatively harmless comments.

One has to wonder if this was just an overreaction, or a calculated way to silence differing views. Most people supporting freedom want more speech available, not less.

Even on the miniscule chance that this lawsuit had been successful, what was the goal? Suing private parties doesn’t result in changes to public policy. There’s no way that any money (besides a nominal amount) would ever have been awarded. If anything, it makes lockdown objectors appear unprincipled, despite claiming to support freedom.

After the costs are paid, this won’t really be the end. Expect this decision to be a standard for dismissing meritless defamation claims. We now have a precedent of lockdown opponents trying — and failing — to silence and bankrupt their critics. Gill and Lamba will become very well known by lawyers, but for all the wrong reasons.

This isn’t to defend people like Abdu Sharkawy, and the quackery promoted. This site has exposed many of the hacks, and media payoffs. Nonetheless, this lawsuit did an enormous disservice to real resistance in Canada. The Plaintiffs can honestly say that they fought, and won, a baseless lawsuit.

If there is something positive in all of this, it’s that the Ontario Superior Court did throw out an abusive case because of the chilling effect it would have on public discourse. Read both the Statement of Claim, and Decision for more context. As absurd as these “health measures” are, throwing the suit out really was the right decision.

(1) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(2) Gill & Lamba Defamation Lawsuit
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-lawsuit-thrown-out-after-anti-vaccine-doctors-sue-over-challenges-to/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
(8) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/doctor-who-said-canada-doesnt-need-covid-vaccine-calls-online-critics-hyenas-in-6-8m-libel-suit

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].

[Quebec Civil Code]
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/

Ontario Divisional Court Rules Requirement For Teachers To Be Proficient In Math Is Unconstitutional

There is a group that’s asking for handouts in order to water down the standards required to teach in Ontario. Unfortunately, it seems that they’ve had success.

The Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council is an NGO that claims to advocate on behalf of (potential) teachers looking to get certified in Ontario. The group states that it was created largely in response to the new requirement that new teachers have a certain level of proficiency prior to getting to teach students. The online begging started quickly.

Is this really in the best interests of students? Is eliminating a pretty reasonable requirement in the name of “diversity and equity” the way to go about this? It’s pretty alarming that (apparently) large numbers of people can obtain and undergraduate degree, and a bachelor of education, and have a limited grasp of mathematics.

This also highlights a serious flaw with the legal system in Canada. NGOs can commence lawsuits claiming they have a “public interest standing”, and try to get the laws changed to suit their political ideologies. Providing the papers are worded properly, this is routinely down. Courts often grant such standing.

The Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council was founded in early October [2019] largely in response to the Math Proficiency test which was made a mandatory requirement for the qualification of new teachers. According to the OCT, “On August 20, 2019 two regulations were filed: Regulation 271/19, Proficiency in Mathematics, under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and Regulation 272/19, Objects of the Office under the Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1996. As a result certification requirements were updated to ensure that Ontario teachers are prepared for the modern demands of a changing society and increasingly dynamic learning environment.”

We believe that this test is not equitable, fair, justified or backed by data. The EQAO office has been rushed into creating a massive test in just months. In the past, EQAO has taken 3 years to roll out new tests. There is no definitive evidence which suggests that new teachers will become more effective math instructors as a result of this test, nor that students will perform better in math as a result of this. The last government-implemented test for teachers cost taxpayers $22 million and the results were mostly abandoned. This new legislation is costing tens-of-millions of dollars for a test which decides the futures of thousands of Ontarians. This new legislation comes to teacher candidates who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on their education and carefully planned the steps they would need to take to reach their goals. These thousands of jobs deeply affect the economy and future of our great province. Read our Email Templates on the Newsletter page to see our questions and arguments regarding this test. Help us, the people, even if our government will not.

It’s interesting that this group claims there’s no evidence that such requirements help. From the looks of their members, most probably couldn’t pass an introductory statistics course.

In February 2020, there was a podcast for “Education Is A Right“. Apparently, the right to a QUALITY education isn’t that important. If this really was about the students, there would be efforts to attract, retain, and upgrade the best teachers available. Instead, this group takes the opposite approach.

This isn’t something that anyone should be proud of. The Ontario Divisional Court essentially says that pandering to the anti-white diversity crowd is more important than providing quality education. Quite simply, whites passing at too high a rate implies systemic racism.

Parents would be up in arms if they were made aware of this. That said, it seems doubtful that there has been any publicity within those circles. At least the College of Teachers had enough sense to reject this idiocy.

One would think that this group would want to do what they can to ensure people of all groups are able to pass basic proficiency testing in math. However, that’s not the way they go. Turning to the ruling:

Significant Disparities in Success Rates
[32] The EQAO collected demographic information about Field Test takers through the voluntary demographic questionnaire which revealed significant disparities in success rates based on test-takers’ race, language and disabilities.

[33] In particular, the Field Test demographic data showed that non-White candidates writing in French were only successful 55 percent of the time, whereas White candidates writing in French were successful 84 percent of the time. Candidates who identified as belonging to non-White ethno-racial groups (such as African, Indigenous, Latino and Middle Eastern) failed at a significantly higher rate than White candidates. Candidates who indicated they had a cognitive disability failed the Field Test at over twice the rate of candidates without a disability.

Apparently there are differences in the average cognitive abilities between groups. The solution is obviously to reduce (or eliminate) standards, to ensure there is no difference.

Also, let’s not mince words. This isn’t just an effort to dumb down the teaching profession. This is an attempt to reduce the number of whites, and replace them with non-whites.

What Is the Appropriate Remedy?
[161] A declaration will issue that the Mathematics Proficiency Test and the legislative provisions that create it infringe s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the infringement cannot be justified under s. 1. Specifically, the Proficiency in Mathematics regulation (O. Reg 271/19), as amended, and s. 18(1)(c) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12 are of no force or effect.

[162] A declaration will issue that the Ontario College of Teachers shall grant certification to teacher candidates who have not passed the Mathematics Proficiency Test (or shall grant full certification in the case of teacher candidates whose certification is conditional on passing the Mathematics Proficiency Test) but have otherwise met all other certification requirements.

[167] The application for judicial review is granted. The following relief is ordered:
(a) The Mathematics Proficiency Test violates s. 15(1) of the Charter, is not justified under s. 1, and is unconstitutional;
(b) O. Reg. 271/19, Proficiency in Mathematics, as amended, under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12 is unconstitutional and of no force and effect;
(c) Paragraph s. 18(1)(c) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12 is unconstitutional and of no force or effect;
(d) The Ontario College of Teachers shall grant certification to teacher candidates who have not passed the Mathematics Proficiency Test (or shall grant full certification in the case of teacher candidates whose certification is conditional on passing the Mathematics Proficiency Test) but who have otherwise met all other certification requirements; and
(e) The Respondent shall pay the Applicants $90,000 in costs of the application.

Basically, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that it was discriminatory in order to force all teachers to have a certain mathematical background.

And on top of it, a $90,000 costs award was also handed down. Now, will the donors get a refund for their contributions, or will the group owners just pocket it?

Bella Lewkowicz is a French teacher with Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. The group itself boasts some pretty impressive educational credentials. It’s baffling then why they would work like this to dumb down the teaching profession. Is it guilt? Self-hatred? Or is this some more destructive impulse?

(1) https://www.otcc.ca/
(2) https://www.otcc.ca/get-involved
(3) Home _ Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council
(4) https://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/news/ontario-court-declares-that-the-ontario-math-proficiency-test-is-unconstitutional/
(5) https://twitter.com/OTCC19
(6) https://www.gofundme.com/f/otcc-legal-fund?utm_campaign=p_cp_url&utm_medium=os&utm_source=customer
(7) https://twitter.com/otffeo/status/1471940285210968070
(8) https://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/12/2021-12-16-OTCC-v-Ontario-FINAL-signed-by-all.pdf
(9) Court Ruling Divisional Court 2021.12.16 OTCC v Ontario FINAL signed by all
(10) http://edisaright.ca/episode-31-student-teachers-challenge-new-math-test-in-ontario
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/bella-lewkowicz-5232951/

Getting Started With CanLII, Other Court Records Searches

CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, is probably the most commonly searched index of court cases in Canada. According to its biography: “CanLII was founded and is paid for by the lawyers and notaries who are members of Canada’s provincial and territorial law societies, which comprise the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. We have also gratefully received funding for particular projects from provincial and territorial law foundations and other organizations.”

One disclaimer to add in: in certain instances records are sealed, or there may be a prohibition on publishing certain names. This is often done in sexual assault cases, young offenders cases, very high profile cases, or cases of national security. If the Judge has banned disclosing the names publicly, it’s best to honour that.

There are a few ways to search for cases. You can search by key words, or by a case citation, or you can scroll through the cases of a particular court. Beyond court files, there are also many listings of legislation across Canada, and plenty of commentary as well.

In searching through the cases, related documents and rulings cited will often come up. These can be clicked on for more information. Overall, CanLII operates as a mixture of Google and Wikipedia combined (although only a select few people can edit information).

A limitation of this site: not everything is listed. Minor issues (such as small claims), and decisions that are delivered orally are typically not posted. Nonetheless, it’s a great place to start looking for anyone. There are also Court Martial decisions, Court Martial Appeals, and tax cases available.

For the most part, CanLII is pretty thorough with its postings. Now, while it broadly covers cases across Canada, there are other databases that cover their own respective decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has its own database, covering rulings of the Top Court. The Federal Court also posts rulings for both the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

With these courts (and others) people can also contact the court directly to ask for documents. Generally speaking, if the documents are in digital form, the clerks will email them for free. If not, there will likely be fees to make copies.

As for some Provincial examples, Nova Scotia posts its own decisions. It covers all levels of proceedings over there.

In Ontario, any member of the public can search online for a particular case. If the parties are known, or if they have a file number, the status and representations can be checked. If a lawyer claims to be pursuing a case — but isn’t — that will be easy to check. As for searching for decisions, Ontario links a CanLII style page, and the same search options apply.

British Columbia allows members of the public to search for cases Provincially. There is also the option to search ongoing cases, and access documents (although B.C. typically charges a fee for them).

This doesn’t cover all databases, of course. However, the point is that anyone with internet access and/or a phone can search for court cases, and Court rulings. If the person is local, they can visit the building in person. This isn’t some secret repository, and proceedings are open to the public.

One other benefit: if someone starts reporting about Court decisions (that no one has heard of), claiming that major verdicts have been reached, it’s easy to verify or refute. Unfortunately, there’s too much misinformation — either intentional or inadvertent — being spread around. Videos like this talk about secret rulings which gave everyone back their freedom. Spoiler: they don’t exist.

If the Supreme Court really handed down such a ruling as referenced above, it would be pretty easy to check. Also, wouldn’t more people have heard about it? However, far too many will accept such outlandish statements at face value.

Instead of having to just take people’s word that a certain thing happened, why not look for yourself? Find out what happened, and what was really said.

Don’t be duped.
Check things out for yourself.

Note: this isn’t meant to be an all-inclusive course on how searches work. Instead, it’s just an introduction for people curious about this sort of thing.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/info/about.html
(3) https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx/
(4) https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/nav_date.do
(5) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/home/
(6) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/en/d/s/index.do?col=54
(7) https://courts.ns.ca/
(8) https://decisia.lexum.com/nsc/en/ann.do
(9) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/OneKey/login.xhtml?lang=EN
(10) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/search-canlii/ocj-en.htm
(11) https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx
(12) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do
(13) https://twitter.com/CanLII
(14) https://twitter.com/CanLIIConnects
(15) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZeOQnjHAXYmn/

Next Iteration Of Q-Anon? Trust The Lawyers, It’s All Being Taken Care Of

Remember “Operation Trust”? It was a 1920s scheme to get people not to overthrow the Bolsheviks, by claiming a military operation was already underway. Remember Q-Anon? It was a way to get people to passively wait while Trump drained the swamp and jailed the deep state. Of course, neither were real.

Canadians are constantly being told that there are a committed group of people fighting Trudeau, Ford, Horgan and their ilk. This isn’t about infighting. There are serious questions about what’s going on.

A recent video floating around on the internet is from a group called “Awake Canada”. It claims that all emergency measures have been struck down by the courts. However, neither links to any rulings, nor specific details are provided. Start at 0:45 in the video.

Now, it is true that British Columbia ended their state of emergency on June 30, 2021. It’s also true Ontario‘s lapsed, although it seems to be operating under new laws.

And suing in multiple provinces? All of Galati’s cases on the site are from Ontario.

The video takes some truth (such as ON and BC stopping their orders) but then goes on to claim that these mysterious court decisions have been responsible for it.

If Canada’s High Court (presumably the Supreme Court of Canada), had really ruled on this, then shouldn’t it be listed in their decisions? Or available on CanLII?

Also, why would the Supreme Court make such a ruling? It’s an appeals court, not a trial court. Even then, it only hears cases that have already been appealed at least once. Their job is to confirm, set aside, or modify lower court rulings. Aside from constitutional questions (which is something else), they aren’t a place to initiate proceedings.

True, the JCCF has managed some low level victories in some provinces, but they seem to be challenging details within the orders, not the overall agenda. On the whole, the courts have been upholding these measures as “necessary for public health”.

However, there haven’t been any court rulings striking the state of emergency. Isn’t it interesting that there is:
-No ruling available
-No court file number
-No judge(s) named
-No date of ruling
-No specific court

Strange how there’s no information about such a case, or cases, as is implied in the video. Keep in mind, that Ontario court cases can be searched by anyone at anytime. This is also true in many other jurisdictions. Yet too few people care enough to look.

The fact that such an claim is pushed when it’s so easy to check makes it difficult to believe this is accidental. Is this a disinfo campaign?

In Ontario, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines, but that ended September 14, 2020.

As for that infamous case filed July 6, 2020 by Vaccine Choice Canada (Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000), there’s nothing happening. This was the one to end all measures in Canada. No defenses have even been filed. Yes, in a year, no defenses. Now, one might expect an application for default judgement to have been sent a long time ago, but it seems not. True, a notice of intent to defend was filed by Windsor-Essex County and their doctor, but that was September 30, 2020.

In a similar vein, nothing has happened with an earlier VCC case (Ontario Superior Court #CV-19-00629801-0000). This was filed in October 2019, to stop mandatory vaccination of Ontario students. Sure, a defense was filed in December 2019, and a reply in March 2020, but nothing since. And children are getting the experimental vaxx right now.

While the July 2020 case involved serious human rights abuses, and was worth $11 million, it appears that mean words on Twitter is worth $12.75 million. Seems a bit odd. (Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000)

Sure, a few more cases have been filed recently. Guess we’ll have to see if anything comes from any of them.

If a lawyer wanted to get into court quickly, it can be done in days. Just ask Canadian Appliance Source, or Hudson’s Bay Company.

I guess this offer is no longer available. There used to be an option to purchase (for just $90) half filled forms with pleading arguments written into them. They were sold in Ontario for a time. Of course, buying these forms with a waiver of liability is a bit unsettling. This is just speculation, but perhaps these forms were pulled as they might be considered providing legal advice, regardless of whatever waiver was issued.

Action4Canada is based out of B.C. They claim to have been fundraising for a lawsuit for almost a year now. In January 2021, they reported having reached 45% of the goal to sue the B.C. Government. Now, they state they have 83% of the way there. Strangely, there’s no mention of the amount of money needed, as it’s just given as a percent. Back in September 2020, they claimed to have raised over $30,000. Strange how no one asks to see where their donations went.

What an offer. If you donate to Odessa Orlewicz, she’ll give 50% to Tanya at Action4Canada for the lawsuit they aren’t filing. 25% will go to Galati’s cases which are going nowhere. And she’ll keep 25%. Great deal!

And what is this federal case Odessa mentions?

Fight The Fines was started up by Ezra Levant and Rebel Media. This outlet acts as a middleman, taking public donations and hiring lawyers to fight (some) tickets. Just a thought, but that’s addressing a symptom and not the disease.

While not lawyers, Hugs Over Masks, The Line and Chris (Sky) Saccoccia deserve an honourable mention for all the great work they do helping us out.

On the American scene, we have Robert Kennedy Jr. and Del Big Tree leading the opposition. They’re not against vaccines altogether. They just support “safe” vaccines.

Elsewhere, Reiner Fuellmich routinely gives interviews about these international efforts. However, he never has any concrete progress to report.

As Vladimir Lenin famously stated, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Trust the plan, everyone!

Note: in the interest of fairness, some challenges in American courts have been successful. See below. That could be because those lawyers take their work more seriously.

(1) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZeOQnjHAXYmn/
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-291-21/latest/o-reg-291-21.html
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/mo/mo/m0275_2021
(4) https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/nav_date.do
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/
(6) https://archive.is/m4tDm
(7) https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/crc-cases/
(8) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc7665/2020onsc7665.html
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2020/2020onsc8046/2020onsc8046.html
(11) https://action4canada.com/
(12) https://action4canada.com/lawyer/
(13) https://archive.is/lAG8D
(14) https://archive.is/uWNnP
(15) https://archive.is/em2dm
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Michigan-Supreme-Court-Rules-Against-Whitmer.pdf
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/pennsylvania.covid_.measures.illegal.pdf
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/wisconson.may_.2020.coronavirus.order_.overturned.pdf
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Oregon-SHIRTCLIFFORDER.pdf

CV #10(D): Nova Scotia Pharma Lobbying; MOH Robert Strang An Anti-Democratic Tyrant

Just to get it out of the way, it’s disturbing how someone who looks this unhealthy could be a Medical Officer of Health, as he is for the Province of Nova Scotia. Supposedly he was a rugby player, although it’s hard to tell. For some inexplicable reason, the media treats people like this as rock stars.

Anyhow, Strang is a huge proponent of endless lockdowns, and pushing the big pharma agenda. However, even when the consequences of this are becoming obvious, he won’t admit any responsibility. See the above video, and the following quote:

Nova Scotia will pause the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine as the first dose effective today, May 12.
The decision is based on an abundance of caution due to an observed increase in the rare blood clotting condition linked to this vaccine and because Nova Scotia has enough mRNA vaccine to immunize people age 40 and older.
Anyone who is scheduled to receive their first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine will receive an email canceling that appointment and asking them to book a new appointment for either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
A decision on second doses will be made once more information is received from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Nova Scotia’s vaccine plan will be adjusted based on this guidance.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has been linked to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, in other provinces.
Anyone with any of the following symptoms after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should seek medical help right away or call 911 and say they have received the vaccine:
-shortness of breath
-chest pain
-stomach pain that will not go away
-leg swelling
-a sudden and severe headache
-a headache that will not go away and is getting worse
-blurred vision
-skin bruising (other than the area vaccinated), reddish or purplish spots, or blood blisters under the skin
The above symptoms are most likely to occur between days four and 14 after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Have to love the mental gymnastics here. Even as Robert Strang tells Nova Scotia that getting the vaccines was the right decision, it’s pulled from use (probably forever), and people are urged to seek medical attention for a variety of symptoms.

The message is touted nationally as well. Even though this “vaccine” is being pulled for health reasons, Canadians should take pride in the decision to get a first (or second) dose. It’s mind blowing that people could actually take this seriously.

Strang has taken it upon himself to decide what’s true and what’s not, and to condemn “misinformation“.

Interesting side note: Strang took some flak for opting out of AstraZeneca himself. Perhaps he doesn’t really believe what he preaches.

So, why is Nova Scotia so hesitant (pardon the pun) to completely throw AstraZeneca under the bus?

Wild idea, but perhaps AstraZeneca having 15 people currently registered (as in right now) as lobbyists with the Nova Scotia Government played some role in not completely bashing their product. And no, this is not limited to a single company.

The Canadian Medical Association, which is on record as supporting Ontario’s stay-at-home order (or 24 hour curfew) also has plenty of lobbyists registered with Nova Scotia.

The Doctors of Nova Scotia doesn’t seem to raise too many red flags. However, having a lobbyist from GlaxSmithKline is an interesting bit. Likewise with Innovative Medicines, Merck, and the Pharmacy Association of Canada. It’s almost as if there was some pattern to the types of organization that are lobbying in Nova Scotia.

Keep in mind, these are only the registrations that are documented. It’s quite likely that other things have gone on behind the scene for which records aren’t posted.

Strang worked with Theresa Tam on the Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses Regarding Updated Data on Canada’s Opioid Crisis in 2018. Interesting. Now he pushes for Nova Scotians to take “vaccines” that are not approved, but only have interim authorization, based on low standards.

On Wednesday May 12, 2021, an application for injunction was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court. It was granted on Friday based on 2 Affidavits, one from Robert Strang. This was done “ex parte”, meaning that there was no opposing side to challenge it.

At a minimum, it would have been nice to see what was in those Affidavits.

The result is that public gatherings, including gatherings to these illegal measures have been effectively banned. The ban (unless thrown out) would remain in place as long as the Government decides there is a public health emergency.

In participating in this, Strang demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a thug. He convinced a judge to strip away Nova Scotia’s right to assemble, something that could never have been accomplished legislatively.

(1) https://twitter.com/Doctors_NS
(2) https://twitter.com/nsgov/status/1393286842737434626
(3) https://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20210512006
(4) https://globalnews.ca/news/6716932/coronavirus-canada-medical-officers/
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-provinces-pause-regrets-1.6024004
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/covid-19-nova-scotia-march-31-2020-1.5516108
(7) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/organization/confirmation.asp
(8) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/undertaking/undertaking_VD.asp?key=748&a=view
(9) https://www.cma.ca/
(10) https://doctorsns.com/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-strang-9044ab43/
(12) https://www.pharmiweb.com/press-release/2018-09-18/statement-from-the-co-chairs-of-the-special-advisory-committee-on-the-epidemic-of-opioid-overdoses-r
(13) https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/docs/court-of-nova-scotia-injunction-order-14-may-2021.pdf
(14) Nova Scotia Supreme Court Protest Injunction May 14

%d bloggers like this: