O.H.R.T./O.C.T. Okay Pushing Gender Ideology On Young Children

A recent ruling from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has found that pushing gender ideology on children as young as 6 doesn’t amount to a violation of their rights.

It was also mentioned in the ruling that a complaint was filed with the O.C.T., who saw no issues in terms of professional standards of practice.

In some sense, this shouldn’t be a surprise. Considering that “human rights” now involve perpetuating this. Curiously, had the teacher said that there are only boys and girls, the H.R.T. would likely have taken that much more seriously.

Here are the events as described in the decision:

[16] P.B. described that in March 2018, on a Saturday morning at the breakfast table, when the family was having a conversation about family roles, N.B. told her parents that there were no such things as boys and girls. In response to her father’s statement that when she grew up she could be a mother, N.B. apparently said to her parents that she did not want to be a “mommy” when she grew up, and she wanted a dog instead. She apparently also told her parents that she knew that you can go to a doctor to change your body, if you don’t want to have a baby.

[17] In response to her parents’ query about these statements, N.B. told her parents that the statement about boys and girls, as well as about the role of a doctor in changing a person’s body was apparently made in her Grade 1 classroom in January, although N.B. did not mention it to her parents until March 2018.

[18] Also in March 2018, N.B. allegedly told her father on the way home from school one day that her teacher had said at some point that “there was no difference between boys and girls” and further that “boys can be girls and girls can be boys”.

[19] These statements regarding boys and girls, as cited by N.B.’s father J.B., as well as some of N.B.’s follow up comments about gender issues, coupled with her drawing of a gender spectrum on the white board in her bedroom, allegedly concerned P.B. sufficiently that she decided to “look into the matter and take some follow up action”.

Forget the “human rights” element for a moment. This shouldn’t be taught in schools at all, let alone to children who are barely out of kindergarten.

The document goes on a length about consistencies in the witnesses’ memories. However, this is beside the point, as the H.R.T. most likely would have thrown the case out regardless of how certain everyone was on their facts.

(Paragraph 105) The students are exposed to gender-spectrum-drawings, which was supposedly shocking and distressing by iteself.

(Paragraph 112) It was also admitted that complaints had been filed with the O.C.T., or Ontario College of Teachers. However, they were dismissed since none of this amounted to a failure of professional standards.

(Paragraph 133) the H.R.T. seems to play dumb with the claims of “cultural colonization” and a way of “reprogramming a child’s identity”. Apparently, confusing children doesn’t amount to violating their human rights in any way.

(Paragraph 139) There’s apparently a Gender Identity and Gender Expression Guide to Support Our Students. This document is based upon the Code, as well as the Human Rights Commission’s “Policy on preventing discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression”. In other words, the so-called human rights were used as a justification to push gender ideology in the first place.

(Paragraph 143) The Grade 1 teacher admits that there is the motivation of acceptance, in not teaching that there are in fact real differences between boys and girls.

The decision goes on at length about how “gender expression” is now entrenched as a human right. Interestingly, girls and boys who are content with reality are forced to put up with such things. There’s no right to be protected from this ideology.

Throughout the ruling — and likely many others — physical and biological reality is substituted for “identity”, and for “expression”. Genuine truths don’t seem to matter if someone gets offended over this.

Ultimately, the case was thrown out. Pushing gender fluidity on young children wasn’t against the Human Rights Code. Apparently, it doesn’t go against the College of Teachers’ professional standards either.

Incidents like that are why more and more parents are looking at homeschooling.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1044/2022hrto1044.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2022/2022hrto1044/2022hrto1044.pdf

Action4Canada Case Struck As “Prolix” And Improperly Pleaded

In a decision that was long anticipated, Action4Canada’s 391 page Notice of Civil Claim against lockdown measures has been struck in its entirety.

It was predicted on this site a full year ago that this Claim would go absolutely nowhere. In fact, a detailed outline of the defects was published.

One difference however, is that this Judge is allowing the NOCC to be rewritten, if the Plaintiffs are willing to. Given the length of it, that will be no easy task.

The ruling from Justice Ross outlines just how poorly drafted the suit was. It failed to even meet the bare minimum for a case to go ahead. Keep in mind, at this stage, Judges are required to accept allegations as fact (for argument’s sake), and just look at the pleadings. The ruling is to the point, and doesn’t really need much in the way of commentary, or explanation.

For reference: NOCC means Notice of Civil Claim.

[20] The description of “THE FACTS” in the NOCC comprises 316 paragraphs set out over 226 pages. This section of the NOCC also includes 399 footnotes, the majority of which contain links to websites.

[21] I note, for the clarity of anyone reading the pleadings, that the numbering of the paragraphs in the NOCC leads to further confusion. First, there are two paragraphs numbered “12”. More problematic, the paragraphs proceed from 1-331 followed, for no reason, by paragraphs 255-363. As a result, the section labelled “THE FACTS” appears to comprise only 240 paragraphs (44-284), when it actually consists of 316 paragraphs. It follows that the reader must be careful to address either the first, or the second, paragraph 255 etc. I return to this issue below when discussing the second paragraph 289

This is a (somewhat minor) point, but good for a chuckle. The paragraphs in the NOCC weren’t numbered correctly or consistently, making it unclear what was being referenced at times.

[22] The “RELIEF SOUGHT” section of the NOCC comprises 40 paragraphs, most with multiple subparagraphs, set out over 43 pages.

This is absurd to the point of comedy. It takes 43 pages for the Plaintiffs to spell out the relief, or what they are asking the Court to grant.

[35] The defendants submit that, more important than the length of the NOCC is the unlimited scope of the document. It is not a piece of legal drafting that complies with the Rules, or basic tenets, of pleading. It is not a document that can be properly answered in a response to civil claim. The defendants submit that those problems arise, in part, because there are multiple allegations against the defendants individually and jointly. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular allegation. Were the action to proceed in its current form, individual defendants would not be in a position to know whether they were tasked with a burden of disproving or countering the myriad allegations. They would not know what case they were required to meet.

Where are they wrong? The NOCC is written in such a way that it’s pretty much impossible to know exactly what the allegations are to be addressed. This can’t be dealt with in any meaningful way.

[45] On the first issue, whether the NOCC is prolix, I agree with the defendants’ submission: the NOCC, in its current form, is not a pleading that can properly be answered by a responsive pleading. It describes wide-ranging global conspiracies that may, or may not, have influenced either the federal or the provincial governments. It seeks rulings of the court on issues of science. In addition, it includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and “crimes against humanity”. In my opinion, it is “bad beyond argument”.

[46] I further find that it is not a document that the court can mend by striking portions. I find that this NOCC is analogous to the Statement of Claim considered by Justice K. Smith (as he then was) in Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia (1998), 1998 CanLII 6658 (BC SC), 25 C.P.C. (4th) 107 (B.C.S.C.) [Homalco]. He wrote:
[11] In my view, the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial. Any attempt to reform it by striking out portions and by amending other portions is likely to result in more confusion as to the real issues.

The Judge concludes that it’s far more than just errors or inconsistencies in this pleading. The NOCC was written in such a manner that it’s impossible to properly respond to. In other words, while there may be a case for the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants are justified in attempting to strike it.

Moreover, the document is horrible through its entirety. This isn’t an instance where a few bad paragraphs or pages can be removed. These defects plague the entire paper. That’s right, it’s not worth saving, at least not in its current form.

[51] To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

[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.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

Quite simply: this does not belong in a civil claim. It’s mind boggling to think that the lawyers who (allegedly) wrote this have a combined 70 years of experience between them. Seriously, how is a civil court — even with a very experienced Judge — supposed to rule on such things?

And where exactly is Lawrence Wong anyway?

Summary and Conclusion
[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

Do read the entire decision. It’s very revealing.

The part of the decision that came as a surprise was that the Judge allowed for the NOCC to be rewritten. More on that in a bit. There were sections worth salvaging, and that allowed some reprieve.

However, this forces the next decision onto the Plaintiffs. Do they undertake the massive effort needed to make almost 400 pages compatible with the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure? Or do they simply walk away with this?

In any event, very steep costs are almost a given at this point. This is something the individual Plaintiffs were likely not fully aware of. If a case like this is thrown out, they’re on the hook for at least some of the costs that would be ordered.

According to the Western Standard, Tanya Gaw, the head of Action4Canada, was asked if individual Plaintiffs would be indemnified against such an order. In essence, would the organization ensure no one was stuck with a huge bill? The refusal to give a definitive answer was not encouraging.

It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 hearing that over $750,000 had been raised for this lawsuit. In the interests of fairness, protecting the individual Plaintiffs should be a no-brainer.

That said, the Court declined to completely throw the case out.

[59] The defendants urge upon me that the problems with the NOCC are sufficient grounds for me to conclude that this entire action is an abuse of process and should be dismissed on the basis that it is clearly frivolous and vexatious.

[60] I do not accept that submission on behalf of the defendants. For the reasons set out below, I decline to dismiss the action.

Yes, the pleadings were horrible, but that didn’t make the issues themselves frivolous.

The next several paragraphs go on to outline serious concerns including Charter protections and due process. In other words, there were legitimate issues raised. However, this NOCC was such a mess that it was impossible to sort out the issues in any reasonable manner.

[71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. Hence, in this case, there is a prospect that the plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain of the COVID-based health restrictions instituted by the Federal or Provincial governments infringed their Charter rights. In addition, it is possible that other valid claims may exist. It will be for the plaintiff to plead those causes of action in accordance with the Rules. Such claims need to be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the defendants to know the case they have to meet. It must also confine itself to matters that are capable of adjudication by this court and relief this court is capable of granting.

Yes, there are issues that are worth looking into. However, the NOCC needs to be drafted properly, and not like it has been done here. It came down to the quality and organization of the pleadings themselves, not necessarily the topics that to be examined.

Will the 400 page NOCC be fixed up and refiled — as time consuming as that will be — or is this the end of the road for the Action4Canada case? Even though a rewrite is allowed, this likely won’t sit well with many. Had it been properly written in the first place, it may very well have survived intact.

We’ll have to see what happens next, but what a waste of time, energy and money.

Another prediction: the next one to get challenged will be the July 6, 2020 case with Vaccine Choice Canada. The Ontario Attorney General can now use this ruling.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.pdf
(3) https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/15/2022BCSC1507.htm
(4) https://www.westernstandard.news/bc/bcs-unvaccinated-doctors-want-to-get-back-to-work-and-they-hope-a-billboard-helps/article_6ac058b4-24e1-11ed-9d74-67b04bfc88ce.html

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

An Ontario Superior Court Judge dismissed an application to essentially force a minor to get a shot against her will.

Parents were in the midst of divorce and custody issues, and the topic of the “vaccines” came up. The father was insistent that the daughter get it, while the mother said she would respect the girl’s own choices. The girl, who is 12 years old, has outright refused to get it.

Throughout the decision, the term “taken judicial notice” comes up again and again. What this means is that a court will not look into an issue, simply because some other court or adjudication body has already done so. While there is a certain logic to it, garbage rulings can also simply be accepted on this basis.

[1] The respondent father brings this motion seeking an order directing that the applicant mother ensure that their daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19 and that she receives any further and additional scheduled vaccinations in accordance with provincial recommendations, failing which the father shall be permitted to return this matter to seek sole decision-making authority over all aspects of the child’s medical care.

[11] Unfortunately, Mr. Tonge was not able to provide the opinion requested. By letter to the parties dated February 22, 2022, Mr. Tonge stated that he understood he was requested and agreed to assist S. in reconnecting with her father and not to undertake an assessment of parental influence. He was unaware of the vaccination issue until it was raised by S.. Mr. Tonge could not comment on the “presence or absence of parental influence and the understanding, capacity and maturity of this child to make a decision” as he was not asked to, nor did he agree to conduct such an assessment.

[15] The respondent father’s position is that it is presumptively in S.’s best interest that she be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and mother has provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The apparent objections of S. do not stem from any sound medical evidence or opinion. Mother has improperly left the decision up to S. who is not old enough, mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to make such a major health decision. Thus, it falls on this court to step in and protect the child’s best interests, to make sure that she receives her COVID-19 vaccination to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbours, and family.

[37] The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is “fake science”, but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof. This issue was recently addressed by Breithaupt Smith J. in R.S.P. v. H.L.C. 2021 ONSC 8362 in which she provided what has been described as a timely warning (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 at para 65):

[42] I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

[43] Even if I were to take judicial notice of the “safety” and “efficacy” of the vaccine, I still have no basis for assessing what that means for this child. I must still determine how safe, how efficacious the vaccine is for this child. Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms? As with informed consent, there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.

[58] I am mindful in considering S’s best interests that an order that mother ensure she is vaccinated would have irreversible consequences, if S. was vaccinated as a result. One cannot be unvaccinated. In that respect, it is a final order.

[59] Finally, I am satisfied that S. is a “mature minor” as explained by Abella J. in A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 at para 47. S. is capable with respect to treatment pursuant to s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 2, Sch A. She is mature enough to accept or refuse treatment.

There is a certain logic to it. If young children are “mature” enough to get the shot, then they should be mature enough to make the decision to refuse it.

The court also makes the observation that a person cannot ever be “unvaccinated”. That alone should be enough to give pause before pushing these injections. It was also noted that the “evidence” seems to keep changing, which is another reason to not take the matter as settled.

This adolescent girl seems to have more sense than either of her parents, but at least the mother was willing to respect her personal choices.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.pdf

M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580

Canadian Bill Of Rights: Why Bother With The Charter?

The Canadian Charter of Rights is regularly mocked and ridiculed because of its built-in defects. For examples, there’s Section 1, which allows for the “reasonable limitations” on those rights. However, it’s a bit baffling why the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be the default laws to rely on in major court cases, when it comes to Constitutional matters.

It makes little sense to launch any challenge when not using the strongest laws available. Is the goal to lose on purpose?

Section 1, in principle, seems fine, as it’s governed by the Oakes Test:

The Government must established something is “pressing and substantial.” While this is often not difficult, there’s a 3 part test that follows.

  • The remedy sought must be RATIONALLY connected to the purpose
  • The remedy sought must create a LIMITED IMPAIRMENT to society
  • The remedy sought must be PROPORTIONATE, and not overreaching

Sounds fine in principle. However, the last few years have shown that Judges are all too willing to bend the rules for some abstract sense of the “greater good”. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have this.

In fairness, it’s rather naive to trust laws and politicians. However, switching to the Bill would remove an obvious weakness.

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Bill of Rights
Marginal note: Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.

2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to:
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
(b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

The above sections are similar to the Charter in regards to: fundamental freedoms (Section 2); security of the person (Section 7); unreasonable search and seizure (Section 8); arbitrary detention (Sections 9 & 10); rights in criminal proceedings (Section 11); and cruel and unusual punishment (Section 12). Again, there’s no loophole which allows a court to simply suspend those rights.

There’s also no Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause, to allow Parliament to simply legislate blatantly unconstitutional things into law. However, the start of Part 2 may be seen as one.

There is also this at the end: “(3) The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.” Therefore, it may not apply to Provincial matters.

An interesting video from last year, from a lawyer with a different opinion.

Just something to think about.

(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/download-order-charter-bill/canadian-charter-rights-freedoms-eng.pdf
(3) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spvrch5mmnc

Action4Canada Finally Has Hearing Over Application To Strike

May 31, 2022: Action4Canada finally had a hearing over its August 17, 2021 lawsuit against the B.C. Government, Canadian Government, and various other named and unnamed parties. The decision is reserved, and will be issued sometime in the future.

This session was based on multiple applications filed by Defendants to strike the pleadings as being frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and otherwise an abuse of process.

Striking differs from dismissing in that the Court is not being asked to make a determination on the merits. Instead, the documents themselves are challenged. In this case, it was argued that the 391 page Statement of Claim was so convoluted and poorly written, that it was impossible to determine what the case was.

As painful as this is to admit, they’re not wrong about this.

Without completely rehashing the original assessment, here are the major parts of the civil procedure that are worth noting:

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

This isn’t hard. Broadly speaking, a lawsuit must do 3 things:
[1] Briefly set out the facts as alleged
[2] Set out what remedies are being sought
[3] Briefly list what important laws will be relied on

Instead of following these simple rules, a 391 page mess was dropped on the Courts last year. Even someone researching for the last 2 years would have considerable difficulty following along.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.

In short, the Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading, as laid out in Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for B.C. The remedy sought was to strike the case, as outlined in Rule 9-5.

There is considerable vindication for the previous critique of this lawsuit, for what it’s worth. One doesn’t have to be lawyer to see how plain and obvious the defects are.

Yes, there was a considerable amount of truth in the Statement of Claim. However, it was such an incomprehensible mess that it would be next to impossible to sift through. While a bitter pill to swallow, the various Defendants had valid reasons to try to strike it. That’s what any sensible person would have done in that position.

At the hearing, the Government lawyers essentially argued the points in the Notices of Application, outlining why this Claim was so poorly written.

The issues with the Claim:

  • It is 391 pages long
  • It has over 1300 paragraphs and subparagraphs
  • It seeks over 200 declarations
  • Its rambling and disjointed nature makes it difficult to follow along
  • It’s impossible to separate fact from speculation or conjecture
  • It contains mostly irrelevant or redundant material
  • It goes on at length about non-parties
  • It seeks criminal remedies (improper for a civil case)
  • It seeks the kind of international relief a B.C. Judge can’t provide
  • Its tone comes across as unhinged and ranting

The Claim contains many footnotes from various media sources, which is improper to include in a lawsuit. While the content is interesting, that alone could lead to the Claim being struck.

The Governments also argued that the case was brought for improper purposes, such as causing harassment to various Officials. As proof, they introduced the Notices of Liability that had been downloaded from the Action4Canada website.

It was confirmed that Action4Canada had raised in excess of $750,000 for this case. It was pointed out that despite this amount of money, there was no activity besides the convoluted Statement of Claim.

Action4Canada accepts no responsibility or liability for any harms or losses that occur as result of delivering this notice. If you do not agree to these terms then please do not use this notice. We do not make any representations or warranties about the potential consequences of delivering this Notice of Exemption/Non-Consent (eg. removal of child from a private school). A parent/legal guardian must decide what is in the best interest of their child.

It’s darkly amusing that there is a portion on the website that explicitly states Action4Canada assumes no responsibility or liability for using their forms.

The Responding Parties (Plaintiffs) essentially had one main argument: a case shouldn’t be thrown out just because it’s complicated or difficult. People reading this article should see the Claim itself, and come to their own conclusions.

The Plaintiff’s arguments for the Application (overall) actually weren’t that bad. However, considering how shoddily the Claim was written, there’s likely no saving it.

The Application was supposed to have been heard on February 3rd, 2022, but an alleged illness from the Plaintiff’s lawyer pushed that back until April 5th. That was again delayed for medical reasons. Interestingly, it was admitted that the only reason it was heard on May 31st was that the Defendants’ lawyers refused to consent to further extensions of time. Perhaps they thought a 4 month delay was long enough.

It’s still unclear why co-counsel Lawrence Wong couldn’t have taken the case. He is a B.C. lawyer with 35 years experience, and was called to the Bar in 1987.

One has to wonder what’s even the point at this stage. Even on the remote chance this suit were successful, what good comes from it? It’s been 2 years, and some 90% or so of the country has taken the shots (for a non-existent virus). Was the goal to run out the clock?

Do the Plaintiffs not know that they will be on the hook for very substantial Court costs once this case is thrown out?

It was interesting that the B.C. Government referenced the recent defamation case of Kulvinder Gill. This was a $12.75 million lawsuit filed in late 2020. It was found to be completely baseless, and dismissed as a SLAPP, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Side note on that case: despite the suit being thrown out as having no merit, a Notice of Appeal was filed. However, it seems that the Appeal Books themselves never arrived. On May 12, 2022, the Registrar’s Office issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay. The new deadline was May 31. The Respondents/Defendants say they still received nothing, so, presumably that Appeal is over as well. It’s alleged that getting the original SLAPP decision cost over $1.3 million, or about $55,000 for each Defendant. If this is true, Gill and Lamba will have to dig deep.

As for the Vaccine Choice Canada suit from July 6th, 2020, that’s going nowhere as well. It’s been left to sit for 2 years, and can be dismissed for delay at any time. No Default Judgement was ever sought. This is in addition to many other serious defects. The Police On Guard and schools cases could probably also be dismissed for delay, as they’ve each sat dormant for over a year.

The B.C. Court has reserved the decision (deferred it), and this is pretty typical. It’s unknown when the ruling will be handed down for Action4Canada, and the other Plaintiffs.

Prediction: the Action4Canada case will be struck in its entirety, without leave (permission) to amend. We can expect appeals after that, though it would be far more productive to have just done a proper Claim from the beginning.

It’s disheartening to have to cover content like this. That said, far too few people do any due diligence before handing over money. And many don’t seem to care even when the facts are laid bare.

It’s curious that none of the “freedom lawyers” will call out the nonsense that others put out, no matter how poorly written. What, is there some gentlemen’s agreement in place?

Of course, the requests for donations are still ongoing, which isn’t surprising. Despite the fact that this case is supposedly 100% funded, Action4Canada continues to ask for money. And when the Claim is struck, there will probably be more requests for help to finance appeals.

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

(11) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/delay-prevents-action4canada-case-from-being-immediately-thrown-out/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-case-to-be-put-off-indefinitely/
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-of-Appeal-and-Appellants-Certificate-Gill.pdf
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Gill-and-Lamba-Appeal-Notice-of-Intention-to-Dismiss-Appeal-for-Delay.pdf
(18) https://action4canada.com/covid-liability-notices/
(19) https://action4canada.com/court-update-may-31-2022/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/

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

%d bloggers like this: