Category: Canadian Decisions

Posted on

Four Applications To Federal Travel Mandates All Struck As “Moot”

The other day, the Federal Court released its reasons for dismissing various Applications challenging air and train vaccination mandates. The ruling came from Associate Chief Justice Gagné (2022 FC 1463). The specific challenges were:

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

All of these challenges were heard together, since they cover essentially the same issues. This isn’t surprising, as it can theoretically free up other courts.

To be clear, the cases weren’t struck or dismissed based on the merits, evidence, or arguments of the case. Instead, they were struck since the orders themselves had expired. The Judge decided it wasn’t worth hearing anyway, to ward off any potential return of these restrictions.

In the ruling, it came down to 2 questions: (a) are the cases moot; and (b) if so, should they be heard anyway?

[14] The Applicants and the Respondent both agree that the applicable test on a motion for mootness is the one articulated by Justice Sopinka in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), 1989 1 SCR 342. Unsurprisingly, they take very opposite positions on both of the two key stages as set forth in Borowski. Namely, they disagree on i) whether the issue is moot, and on ii) whether the Court should exercise its discretion to nonetheless hear the case, if it is found moot.

[15] The Respondent’s motion therefore raises the following issues:
(a) Are the issues raised by these Applications for judicial review moot; is there a live controversy?
(b) If the issues are moot, should the Court nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the merits?

“Mootness” in the legal context means that the underlying issues have already been resolved in some way, or the circumstances have changed in a way that makes it impossible to determine. In this instance, the Federal Government argued that since the travel mandates had expired, there was no remedy to seek.

The Applicants, however, were concerned that these measures — or very similar ones — could be brought back, and it could happen at any time. They wanted this issue dealt with once and for all.

In their eyes, travel mandates were hardly “theoretical”, as they had already happened. Should the Court refuse to intervene, Ottawa would be able to reimpose them at a later date.

[20] The Applicants argue that there remains a live controversy because of statements by the Government of Canada that travel restrictions have only been “suspended”, suggesting that they may be re-implemented at any time if the COVID-19 public health situation worsens. In that sense, the Respondent’s motions would be premature. The Applicants rely on a press release issued by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, statements made by Ministers at a June 14, 2022 press conference, and in an interview that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave to the CBC shortly afterwards.

[21] Firstly, the hearing of these Applications for judicial review is set for five days commencing on October 31, 2022. Since the hearing of this Motion, Transport Canada has removed the requirement to wear a mask on planes and trains and repealed the last remaining IO. In my view, the situation is as likely to improve as it is to worsen by the time the hearing of these Applications on their merits is over. The Applicants’ argument is highly speculative and does not support their position that the controversy is still ongoing.

[22] Secondly, a comment made by a Minister to a journalist, taken outside its context, does not amount to a decision by that Minister and it is no more an indication of a live controversy. Even if the Minister called what occurred in June 2022 a suspension, the reality is that all IOs/MO that had contained a vaccination mandate have legally expired and none that contain such a mandate have been reissued since June.

The ruling goes on some more, with the Judge explaining why this wasn’t worth continuing, since the orders had all lapsed.

The case was ultimately thrown out for “mootness”. The Judge declined to hear the merits anyway.

And therein lies another problem with this Court. Is there really justice when a Judge can simply pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and which ones they can decline? What exactly was the remedy that they should have sought? And where?

[48] For the above reasons, these Applications will be struck as moot. The air and rail passenger vaccine mandates were repealed, as have other related public health measures. The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate.

[49] There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.

[50] Finally, it is not the role of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions. If the air and rail vaccine mandates are re-introduced in the future, they can be properly challenged and should be weighed against the reality in which they are implemented.

Apparently, the inability of millions of people to fly and exercise their Section 6 Charter rights (mobility) isn’t a concern for the Court. After all, the mandates are gone — for now. If this isn’t worth spending judicial resources on, what exactly is?

Interestingly, the Judge says it’s not the place of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions, but suggests that the cases can be brought back again if travel mandates are reinstated.

Suppose that does happen — and that the vaccine passport does return — what’s to stop Ottawa from temporarily pulling it (again) to ward off another challenge? Perhaps this is old fashioned, but it would be nice to see the issue resolved once and for all.

The Applicants who initiated these suits are now on the hook for the costs of losing this motion. While their initial filings were compelling, letting the orders expire then doing this was a dirty trick. It’s unclear what cost scale would be used, but the parties could very well settle it on their own.

Had a Prothonotary issued this ruling, it could be reviewed under Rule 51. But this came from a Justice, so the next step would be challenging this at the Federal Court of Appeals. There has been talk of doing this, especially in light of the Associate Chief Justice refusing to hear it altogether. We will have to see if that happens in the next few weeks. There is a 30 day time limit to file notice.

For reference, the standard for review is also available online. It addresses findings of fact, law, and mixed fact and law.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.pdf
(3) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/522361/1/document.do
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html

Posted on

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Baseless, Seems Designed To Waste Time & Money

There are times when people really need to cut their losses. However, it seems that not everyone is taking that advice.

With the specific case at hand, it appears that Justice Ross’ quite reasonable decision has not been heeded. Instead of fixing the defects in the previous pleadings, the Plaintiffs are going to appeal.

It’s not clear to what extent there has been collaboration among all the parties. Was this a joint decision, or a unilateral one? Still, this is a very bad move, and we’ll get into why.

This site long ago predicted NOCC would get struck out

August 17th, 2021, the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) was filed.

August 31st, 2021, this site wrote that the NOCC was fatally defective, riddled with serious and basic errors, didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, and would never make it to Trial.

September 7th, 2021, Rocco Galati sued this site, and everyone “directly or indirectly associated” for $7 million. He also demanded that anyone “directly or indirectly associated” be banned from posting on the internet again, presumably on any subject. Although there were allegations of racism and anti-Semitism, the main issue was the harsh and detailed critiques and reviews of his various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Guess the truth hurts.

May 31st, 2022, the Application to Strike was finally heard. The Defendants attempted to get the case thrown out without leave to amend. This was on the grounds that the NOCC was so incomprehensible, that it was impossible to answer it.

August 29th, 2022, Justice Ross strikes the NOCC in its entirety, for a litany of defects. Being too long (prolix) was just one issue. However, the Court did allow for the NOCC to be amended and refiled, if it were done properly.

September 28th, 2022, a Notice of Appeal is served, challenging portions of the August ruling. Instead of properly drafting the NOCC, it appears the next move is to just appeal.

Plaintiffs are bailing, as they see the writing on the wall

An observant person will notice there are less Appellants than what might be expected. People are catching on. Amy Muranetz and Federico Fuoco both filed Notices of Discontinuance. And they’re not alone. In fact, several names are missing from the Notice of Appeal.

Appellants listed:

  • Action4Canada
  • Linda Morken
  • Gary Morken
  • Jane Doe #1
  • Brian Edgar
  • Jane Doe #2
  • Ilona Zink
  • Valerie Ann Foley
  • Pastor Randy Beatty
  • Michael Martinz
  • Melissa Anne Neubauer
  • Jane Doe #3

Plaintiffs who have since left:

  • Kimberly Woolman
  • The Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
  • Amy Muranetz
  • Federico Fuoco
  • Fire Productions Limited
  • F2 Productions Incorporated
  • Makhan S. Parhar
  • North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited

In fairness, one of the Plaintiffs had passed away prior to the May 31st hearing. Still, it’s not a sign of confidence that this will go ahead.

People are realizing that the NOCC, filed in August 2021, was complete garbage. There’s no way to spin this as some sort of victory, hard as they try. Consequently, many don’t want to face financial devastation with the cost awards that are coming.

Notice of Appeal asks for things Appellate Court can’t grant

These are the grounds of appeal that are listed:

The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(a) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, and jurisprudence with respect to Justice Ross’ ruling on declaratory and other relief at paragraphs 52 to 55 and Declarations at paragraph 56 to 58;
(b) That the Learned judge erred, in law, contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the test to be applied on a motion to dismiss/strike;
(c) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in ruling sufficient facts were not pleaded to support the causes of action advanced;
(d) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in usurping the function of the trial judge, and making determinations of fact, mixed fact and law, on the basis of bare pleading(s);
(e) The award of costs to the Defendants in circumstances where no costs should have been awarded, or an order of costs in the cause should have been awarded in that the results of the motion were split;
(f) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit

To start with the obvious one, the Notice alleges that Justice Ross erred in determining that certain topics were outside of his authority. Sounds reasonable, until you see what this actually refers to.

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

Among the improper claims, the NOCC had wanted a CIVIL Court Judge to make adjudications on criminal conduct, crimes against humanity, the Helsinki Declaration, the Nuremberg Code, and to determine what “the science” shall be.

The plain fact is that the B.C. Supreme Court has no authority to do any of this, so this had to be struck. The B.C. Court of Appeal isn’t going to reverse this. It’s time to face reality.

Additionally, these things appear repeatedly in the various Actions and Applications launched by the Constitutional Rights Centre. It would make all of them vulnerable to being struck.

Also worth mentioning: costs are largely discretionary. The Court of Appeals won’t (except in extremely rare cases) interfere with the decision. Considering there is no award yet — just the entitlement to one — it would be hard to challenge it.

BCCA isn’t going to overturn decision to strike NOCC

Keep in mind: Justice Ross didn’t throw the case out completely. Instead, he did something better. He told the Plaintiffs they could refile, if the NOCC were drafted properly. In other words, he gave the opportunity to fix it.

The NOCC was disorganized, cluttered, and contained plenty of irrelevant information. It went on lengthy tirades about non-parties such as Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab. None of this is appropriate, and it fell far short of what should be expected of veteran lawyers.

Granted, it will be a huge headache to rewrite a 400 page document. However, in the Application to Strike, one of the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs was the ability to rewrite the NOCC. The Court allowed it. Pretty hard to challenge an outcome that one sought.

Is Lawrence Wong actually involved in this case?

A bit off topic, but worth asking once again: is Lawrence Wong a part of this lawsuit? Or is his name listed just so there is a B.C. lawyer “on file”? Would be nice to know.

Will a Cross-Appeal be filed by the Respondents?

Most people have heard of an Appeal, but far fewer know what a Cross-Appeal is. Essentially, it’s like a counterclaim, but at the higher level.

Consider this: the Application to Strike was brought (largely) on the grounds that the NOCC was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Defense lawyers asked that the case be struck without leave (or permission) to amend. However, the Court did allow an amended version to be filed.

Yes, this is speculation, but what if that provision were to get overturned by the BCCA? What if the BCCA decided that the Appeal was frivolous and abusive, and decided to not allow a rewrite of the original NOCC? A Panel could very easily rule that this entire matter isn’t being done for legitimate reasons, and block it altogether.

If Witten, Wedge and the other lawyers are going to be in front of the BCCA anyway, there’s really nothing to stop them from attempting such a tactic.

Consider Kulvinder Gill, Ashvinder Lamba as cautionary tale

Yes, this is a different case, but there are some striking parallels that need to be pointed out. It’s also a decision from 2022, so very recent.

One question that potential litigants always need to ask: what happens if I start a messy, prolonged, or expensive suit, and ultimately lose?

Regular readers will know that Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba tried to sue 23 individuals and media outlets over mean words on Twitter. They sought $12.75 million in damages over juvenile comments. Predictably, the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

That ruling was inexplicably appealed. Shortly afterwards, Galati left, claiming to have a prolonged illness that made his participation impossible. Gill and Lamba apparently are still going ahead with this, and have retained new lawyers. They’ll have to face additional costs when the Appeal is ultimately dismissed, and it’s likely it will be. This could very well push the total bill over $1.5 million.

Gill also has another suit pending against the University of Ottawa. She sued the school, and one of their professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million over 2 rude tweets. If they ever decide to file an anti-SLAPP Motion, Gill will be the hook for that as well.

Absurdly, many in the “freedom community” cheered at these efforts to forcibly shut down the free speech of people they disagreed with.

When successful with an anti-SLAPP Motion, Defendants are typically given costs on a full indemnity (or 100%) scale. Gill and Lamba are staring down $1.2 million at least. Given the damage they sought to inflict, the Defendants are expected to show no mercy. These 2 are facing bankruptcy, or at least being put on payment plans for the rest of their lives.

In an interesting turn of events, Gill and Lamba have since sued Galati and Samantha Coomara (his assistant). It would be nice to know how that turns eventually out.

If the Action4Canada Plaintiffs don’t want to go down this same path, consider getting out. Remember, it’s not the lawyers who are stuck with the 6 and 7 figure bills. It’s the clients.

What exactly is the point of this Appeal?

The obvious question has to be asked: why is this happening?

The BCCA isn’t going to rule that the B.C. Supreme Court should preside over criminal matters, or crimes against humanity. It’s not going to rule that a disorganized and confusing case shouldn’t be rewritten. It’s not going to rule that a Judge can’t award a successful party costs.

Instead of drafting a proper NOCC, the decision is to file a baseless Appeal with zero prospect of success. The result will be (about) another year wasted, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent. None of this will get the Plaintiffs closer to the relief they seek.

And to address comments from Action4Canada, (archive here):

For some reason Canuck Law, The Western Standard and Castanet are consistently working to put the worst possible spin on the facts of A4C’s case and to disparage Rocco, Tanya Gaw and Action4Canada. It appears they are on a mission to create doubt and distrust in the public’s eye by providing twisted versions of the truth and claiming that Action4Canada lacks integrity and transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is also interesting that none of these “Independent” media outlets have ever reported on Action4Canada’s campaigns and tireless work in providing Canadians, at no charge, with resources that are effectively protecting their children, their jobs, their right to travel, their bodily autonomy and so much more.

Their style of reporting doesn’t serve anybody well and brings into question whose side they are really on.

Real independents are on no one’s side.

A journalist or reporter should have one commitment: to show the truth. Anything less than that means that they are shilling for a particular group.

And the truth is that this case (and many related ones) are written so poorly that they have zero prospect of ever getting to Trial. They have been covered in extensive detail, with specific references to the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario, B.C. and Federally.

Does revealing this information cut into the money that donors are willing to pay? Absolutely it does. But then, how “independent” are journalists who gloss over or ignore these obvious defects?

If someone chooses to sue another in their private lives, that is their business. However, the moment that public donations are sought, it becomes a reportable case. Considering that Action4Canada is still asking for money, it’s fair game.

When someone tries to destroy this site (or anyone, really) for simply telling the truth, don’t expect any sympathy or favourable coverage of the ongoing grifting.

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)
(24) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

(A) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(B) Gill & Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(C) Gill & Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay

Posted on

University Of Western Ontario’s Vaccine Passport System Upheld

An Ontario Superior Court recently ruled that the University of Western Ontario has the right to implement its “vaccine passport” system, and to collect such information. The Judge (to summarize) said that it’s not coercion, but just a choice that people make.

[69] In seeking to justify their request for a permanent injunction, the applicants emphasize what they characterize as the “coercive” nature of the Policy in forcing disclosure of their otherwise private health information. They raise concerns about the danger of losing their academic year if they do not provide their private information by way of proof of vaccination. They raise additional concerns of the fairness of this coercion, given the late timing of Western’s announcement of the continuation of the Policy, after tuition was due and the students had made living arrangements and other financial commitments for the year.

[70] I acknowledge the applicants’ frustration; however, observe that the previous version of the Policy that applied to the 2021-2022 academic terms did notify the university community that the Policy was set to expire on September 7, 2022, and that it would be reviewed by no later than September 1, 2022. There was, in fact, a vaccine mandate and personal information collection policy in place before the ostensible “surprise” of Western’s announcement of the revised Policy on August 22, 2022.

[71] I do not agree with the applicants’ characterization of the Policy as being “coercive” in nature. I do not accept the Policy will “force” members of the university community to disclose their personal information. The Policy forces individuals to choose between two alternatives, even if they like neither option. The choice is the individual’s to make. Each choice comes with its own consequences. That is the nature of choices: Seneca College, at para. 75; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 et a. v. Toronto Transit Commission and National Organized Workers Union v. Sinai Health System, 2021 ONCA 7658 at para. 77.

[72] I am also not persuaded that a disposal order is warranted in the circumstances. Again, the relief sought is broad. The applicants did not provide any authority in support of this relief. The applicants confirmed on the hearing of the application that they want all proof of vaccine information collected by Western to be destroyed. The court does not comprehend any reasonable basis for such a broad order. Among other issues, proof of vaccine information in the 2021-2022 year was collected pursuant to the province’s mandate.

Seriously, why do people bother? Why not just leave the schools altogether? Are the tens of thousands in non-dischargeable student loan debt really worth it?

A curious bit of information about the Judge Kelly Tranquilli: apparently she’s donated to the Liberal Party of Canada several times in recent years. Or, at least there is someone in London with that same name. It’s not much, only about $1,400 in total. Still, worth a look.

As for UWO receiving money, there are many sources, including several millions in “foreign” contributions. This is according to the Federal Lobby Registry. Interesting details shown.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION AMOUNT MORE COMING?

Canada Foundation for Innovation $7,581,000.00 YES
Canada Research Chairs $7,339,000.00 YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) $28,885,000.00 YES
City of London $28,885,000.00 NO
Foreign $4,209,000.00 YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) $29,038,000.00 YES
Other Federal $35,699,000.00 YES
Other Provinces $35,699,000.00 YES
Province of Ontario $318,799,000.00 YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) $9,292,000.00 YES

UWO gets financial contributions from all areas of government. Also, there are other areas which this institution is able to profit.

Revenue Until April 2021
Receipted donations $23,391,977.00 (1.74%)
Non-receipted donations $7,913,117.00 (0.59%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,860,861.00 (0.66%)
Government funding $458,914,000.00 (34.17%)
All other revenue $844,026,000.00 (62.84%)
Total revenue: $1,343,105,955.00

Expenses Until April 2021
Charitable programs $1,068,203,541.00 (96.31%)
Management and administration $30,830,509.00 (2.78%)
Fundraising $10,090,630.00 (0.91%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,109,124,680.00

Revenue Until April 2020
Receipted donations $5,737,520.00 (0.47%)
Non-receipted donations $29,464,401.00 (2.44%)
Gifts from other registered charities $4,705,436.00 (0.39%)
Government funding $436,669,000.00 (36.14%)
All other revenue $731,737,519.00 (60.56%)
Total revenue: $1,208,313,876.00

Revenue Until April 2019
Receipted donations $11,119,427.00 (0.87%)
Non-receipted donations $17,837,610.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $5,854,513.00 (0.46%)
Government funding $467,184,000.00 (36.63%)
All other revenue $773,266,199.00 (60.64%)
Total revenue: $1,275,261,749.00

Worth pointing out: the top 10 highest paid employees receive in excess of $300,000 each. Good to know tuition dollars are being well spent.

The University of Western Ontario is also a registered charity, meaning it’s receiving all sorts of tax benefits at the expense of the public. Regular readers of this site won’t be surprised in the least.

As for CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, at least 2 groups within UWP received the benefit. Perhaps why there was little interest in protecting students from vaccine mandates. And being a “registered charity”, UWO would also have been eligible for lockdown and rental subsidies.

Things are never quite as they seem.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5243/2022onsc5243.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5243/2022onsc5243.pdf
(3) https://elections.ca
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=6219&regId=923198&blnk=1
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+western+ontario&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108162587RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

Posted on

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

An Alberta Judge has dismissed an Application on the grounds that the issue is “moot”, and there’s no relief that can be realistically granted.

The hearing itself took place on May 5th and 6th, with the ruling just coming out. Of course, these mandates were still in place when the Application itself was originally filed.

The case involves a challenge to the “vaccine passport” system that had been in place, and the denial of a religious exemption. The school argued that since the policy has been rescinded, there’s no issue left to be decided.

Is The Application Moot?
[7] The Respondent argues that there is no longer a tangible or concrete dispute between the parties. The vaccination program which is the subject matter of this application was repealed after being in place approximately four months. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that any decision made by this Court as to the impact of the program on the Applicant’s Charter or other rights will have no practical effect on her ability to attend the University.

[8] The leading case regarding the principles of mootness remains Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [Borowski]. The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of the general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The matter will therefore not be heard unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from that general policy: Borowski, at para 15.

[9] To determine whether an application is moot, a two-step analysis must be undertaken: first, to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case: Borowski, at para 16.

[10] With respect to the first stage of the analysis, there must be a consideration of whether there remains a live controversy between the parties. A live controversy, in this context, involves whether there exists, on an objective assessment, a dispute between the parties the resolution of which will actually affect the parties’ rights or interests: The Alberta Teachers’ Association v Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No 28, 2022 ABCA 13, at para 34.

[11] It may well be, from a practical perspective, that there is no remedy that can be granted by the Court to rectify or ameliorate the impact of the alleged breaches of the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant is not seeking damages or other compensatory relief. Nor can the court provide any relief from future potential harm the vaccination policy may cause Ms. Nassichuk-Dean, as that policy is no longer in place and hasn’t been since March. Again, Ms. Nassichuk-Dean is not seeking injunctive or other relief for any anticipated rights breaches against her.

[12] Rather, the Applicant is seeking declarations that the application of the University’s COVID-19 policy violated her s. 7 Charter rights, and that the rejection of her application for a religious exemption from the policy breached her rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Had the Applicant been asking for money, or some additional form of relief, it’s entirely possible the case would have kept going. But since the only issue was challenging the policy itself, it was determined that there’s no longer any issue to be heard.

Of course, what’s to stop the University of Lethbridge (or any school) from re-implementing such mandates in the future? There’s no assurance they won’t at some point.

On a side note: the University of Lethbridge, like other Canadian schools, is a registered charity. This means that it receives the benefits of many tax breaks ordinary citizens cannot get.

The school receives handouts from all levels of Government, so it’s unlikely that it will do anything to rock the boat. No college or university in Canada did anything to challenge or push back on vaccine or mask mandates. As with everything, follow the money.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.pdf
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5301&regId=924907
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=lethbridge+university&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=119279248RR0001&dsrdPg=1

Posted on

B.C. Supreme Court Throws Out 4 Cases Involving Vaccine Passports

The British Columbia Supreme Court handed down 4 related rulings this week, each against freedom and bodily autonomy in the Province. All had to do with the so-called “vaccine passports” that were brought here in September 2021.

The decisions all came from Chief Justice Hinkson. The impression one can get is that there was little interest in preserving the rights of the petitioners. It’s pretty scary how the “trust the experts” mantra can trump actual rights. There was apparently no real issue with limiting people’s personal and social lives in order to coerce them into taking an unknown concoction.

The Vancouver Sun did a decent job of covering the rulings.

Kassian v. British Columbia, the Canadian Constitution Foundation was granted public interest standing. The petitioners were seeking exemptions to the vaccine passport system. However, the petitioners undercut their own arguments (paragraph 52), since they support the passes in general, but simply want proper exemptions to be built in. The Court said these proceedings were premature, as not all options had been exhausted.

Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), was primarily aimed at the Food and Liquor Serving Premises Order” and “the Gatherings and Events Order. It was noted that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. gave guidelines to strictly limit exemptions. Ultimately, it was decided that there were other remedies available (such as seeking exemptions), and that going to Court shouldn’t be the first option.

Maddock v. British Columbia, challenged the Food and Liquor Serving Premises (December 22, 2021), and the Gatherings and Events & Food and Liquor Serving Premises Orders. Apparently it wasn’t enough to simply refuse a vaccine or not to be interested in it. The Judge decided that Bonnie Henry acted within her authority, and declined to vary the Orders.

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. British Columbia, the court found that refusing to let people participate in “discretionary activities”, and didn’t violate human rights. Specifically, this referred to the Food and Liquor Serving Premises Order (“FLSP Order”) and the Gathering and Events Order (“G&E Order”). Bonnie Henry, the unelected BCPHO, was within her rights making such orders. CSASPP was denied public interest standing, while its Executive Director, Kipling Warner, was granted private interest standing.

Do read the decisions above. The commentary provided doesn’t really do justice, given how long the reasons are.

On the bright side, these petitioners at least got their day in court. Some constitutional rights lawyers struggle to form coherent sentences and arguments.

In each of these challenges, the Government tried to use “mootness” as a defense. In other words, it was argued that since the orders were expired, the judge should not consider them.

Interestingly, none of these cases involve challenges to the Public Health Act itself. It’s been covered here before many times how the 2005 Quarantine Act is really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations. Also, the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, is a de-facto branch of the World Health Organization. The W.H.O. Constitution is something else that erodes national sovereignty.

In fairness, these reviews are limited in scope. But it would be nice to have these issues brought up at least once. Unfortunately, the depth of this scam, including lack of proof a virus exists, seems off limits to most challengers.

(1) https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/recent_judgments.aspx
(2) Kassian v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1603
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1603.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1603/2022bcsc1603.html
(3) Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1604
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1604.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1604/2022bcsc1604.html
(4) Maddock v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1605
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1605.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1605/2022bcsc1605.html
(5) CSASPP v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1606
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/16/2022BCSC1606.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1606/2022bcsc1606.html
(6) https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-chief-judge-dismisses-four-challenges-to-covid-health-orders
(7) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

OLDER RULING
(A) Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 248, BCSC 248
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/02/2021BCSC0248.htm
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2021/2021bcsc512/2021bcsc512.html

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress