Category: Canada

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI: Can’t Be Bothered With Pfizer Documents, Or Meaningful Math

With the release of the Pfizer documents (a.k.a. the document dump), it’s fair to ask how seriously Governments are taking it. One resident in Nova Scotia decided to probe exactly that subject. Here is the result that another freedom of information request revealed.

In early January 2022, a US Federal Judge, Mark Pittman ordered Pfizer to release 55,000 pages per month on the vaccine safety data in a response to a FOI request filed on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. The List of Adverse Events of Special Interest totals over eight pages in length that includes neonatal death and sudden unexplained death. I would like to request all records and correspondence that the Premier’s office has on the topic of Pfizer’s safety data that has been released since January 10, 2022. Attached is an example of Pfizer’s Safety Data. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/09/2022 To 09/06/2022)

The request is pretty straightforward. This resident wants to see all correspondence and records that have been generated as a result of this revelation.

However, there aren’t any records.

After a file search, we have located no records responsive to your application. Therefore, it is my understanding, pursuant to clause 7(2)(b) of the Act, that the Office of the Premier does not have custody or control of records which would respond to your application.
I am unaware of a department or agency which would hold such records.

Either Nova Scotia is completely unaware that Pfizer was ordered to turn over these documents (possible), or they just ignored it altogether. Both are bad options.

That same resident also asked how explanations and documents are calculated. How exactly is the math done to come to these dire predictions and warnings? A response package did come, although the answers are pretty confusing and convoluted.

Even if these numbers were to be taken at face value, there are still several serious cracks that appear in the logic:

  • The categories are “0”, “2”, and “3” doses. This means that anyone who hasn’t has at least 2 shots (with the exception of Johnson & Johnson), would be viewed as unvaccinated. What about people who took a single shot and then realized their mistake?
  • The counter doesn’t move until 14 days after a shot. Therefore, people who were injured (or died) in less than 2 weeks after that second shot would still be viewed as unvaccinated.
  • They do “age adjusting”, on the grounds that older people would be at a higher risk. However, older people are at a higher risk of dying REGARDLESS of these shots, or fake virus.
  • The BCCDC admitted in April 2020 that PCR tests can’t actually determine if someone has an infection. As such, these are useless. (See archive).
  • There’s no proof this virus exists.
  • The definition of a “Covid death” is completely fraudulent, as addressed earlier.

Given how subjective the definitions are, the data is essentially meaningless. This has been brought up a number of times.

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this is for real. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. (See archive here). Odd that the heavily subsidized mainstream press hasn’t been asking questions about that.

The “case definition” is also pretty sketchy. There’s no requirement at all that any actual virus be isolated or demonstrated to exist. WHO’s March 2020 (Page 3), and September 2020 (Page 8) explicitly state that routine virus isolation is not recommended for diagnostic testing.

Concerning, isn’t it? The Government keeps detailed statistics concerning hospitalizations and deaths, but tweaks the values to make them more frightening. There’s apparently no interest in the data that Pfizer only gave up under a Court order. Also, the Strang Regime seems not to case about cases and deaths in any meaningful way.

One might think that the Nova Scotia authorities don’t really have the public’s best interests at heart. Strange, considering it’s a registered charity.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

DOCUMENTS
(1) 2022-01410-PRE Decision Letter signed
(2) 2022-01337-HEA Decision Letter
(3) 2022-01337-HEA Applicant Package

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-more-deaths-as-vaccination-numbers-climb/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-govt-data-on-deaths-by-age-vaxx-status/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-another-data-dump-on-cases-vaxx-rates/
(L) https://canucklaw.ca/freedom-of-information-requests-canuck-law/

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

Hearing On Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”

Canadians have filed several court challenges related to travel restrictions going on since 2020. It appears that 4 cases were consolidated, given their related and overlapping issues. The primary issues revolved around Section 6 of the Charter, Mobility Rights.

  • T-1991-21: Karl Harrison/Shaun Rickard
  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford et al.
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier

Although the circumstances of each challenge differ, all of them are concerned with Canadians being able to travel and move freely within the country.

Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
.
Marginal note: Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

However, Section 1 of the Charter has shown just how worthless this document really is. Far from the requirement that limitations be demonstrably justified, Judges have seen fit to uphold these violations based on the flimsiest of justifications.

Instead, it’s been replaced with blindly trusting the experts.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That being said, the Feds probably aren’t interested in having to justify these restrictions in court, so they came up with another option. Their lawyers filed a motion to strike the case for “mootness”. Plainly put, the argument is that since the restrictions have been lifted (as in, the orders expired), there’s nothing for a Judge to look at.

This is disingenuous for a few reasons. First, even if there are no active restrictions, it doesn’t erase any harm or violation of Constitutional rights. This comes across as a cop-out to avoid taking any responsibilities.

Second, various officials have made it clear they “won’t hesitate to bring back” various restrictions and martial law measures. So, while these may be “suspended” for the time being, it doesn’t mean that they won’t come back in some form.

We’ll have to see what comes of this, but it would be unfortunate to allow this kind of stunt to circumvent people getting their day in court.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(3) T-1991-21 Doc 51 MOTION RECORD in response to Motion Doc. No. 44
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html

Posted on

Federal Vaxx Pass Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Get To Trial

A challenge to vaccine passports (see archive) by Federal workers has been filed (T-1089-22). It was launched on May 30, 2022, and has little activity to show so far. It appears that after being idle for 3 months, the Defense has sent a letter requesting case management.

A source told this site that potential Plaintiffs were being asked to put up $1,000 each to offset costs for this lawsuit. However, it hasn’t been verified, so it’s just an allegation for now. Update: the claim of this retainer has since been confirmed.

But that is the least of it. This Statement of Claim appears to be so poorly crafted that it will never survive in its current form. Most likely, it will be struck. This is a pattern that comes up again and again.

Keep in mind: the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada cases were critiqued as well. The former went down in flames, while the latter remains dormant. While the Federal case isn’t (quite) the dumpster fire that the others were, the drafting is still very bad.

Since the Action4Canada case was struck, Plaintiffs have (quite sensibly) started bailing. See here and here. They realize that this isn’t what they signed up for.

Side note: the Federal Court of Canada allows the public to search the progress of the case, both in terms of documents filed, but status updates. Documents can also be requested by giving staff the file # and the document #. It’s quite convenient.

1. Claim Contains Content Court Can’t Preside Over

The Statement of Claim is filled with allegations and issues that cannot be resolved in a Civil Court. That alone would get the case struck. It’s also worth noting that the numbering system is inconsistent and confusing, much like the A4C and VCC Claims.

  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) crimes against humanity
  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity Act
  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) Criminal Code of Canada
  • (Page 20, Para 1(d)(1)) Magna Carta
  • (Page 28, Para 34(d)) allegations of eugenics
  • (Page 30, Para 47) allegations of crimes against humanity
  • (Page 30, Para 47) allegations Nazi experimentation
  • (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Nuremberg Code
  • (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Helsinki Declaration
  • (Page 32, Para 52(a)(v)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada
  • (Page 35, Para 55(g)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada

This played a role in getting the Action4Canada case struck out a few weeks ago. None of this belongs in a Civil Claim, and could easily be used in a Motion to Strike.

2. Claim Paragraphs Not Set Out In Organized Manner

Form of pleadings
173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

This Rule has to do with the organization of the Claim itself. Considering that the Defendant(s) has to respond to the allegations, it has to be easy for them to either “admit” or “deny” paragraphs, or to state that certain ones are unknown. Because this lawsuit is so shoddily crafted, it’s impractical, and near impossible to address the document in any meaningful way.

3. Claim Lacks Concise Statement Of Material Facts

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

This is a no-brainer. If someone is to be sued, then there must be a concise (relatively short) set of facts laid out in the Statement of Claim. This document is filled with accusations and demands, but is quite limited on the facts to be pleaded.

[British Columbia Rules]
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

[Ontario Rules]
Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

The Federal Rules are the same in this regard as the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 3-1(2)(a) calls for Notices of Civil Claim to have a concise statement of material facts. In Ontario it’s Rule 25.06(1). There are similar provisions in other Provincial Courts as well.

4. Claim Lacks Necessary Particulars To Go Ahead

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.
.
(2) On motion, the Court may order a party to serve and file further and better particulars of any allegation in its pleading

This is based on Rule 181 of the Federal Court Rules. When the term “particulars” is used here, it means specifics. The allegations must contain enough detailed information so that Defendants may address them.

Here, there are plenty of allegations thrown around, but the document is sorely lacking in specifics. It’s not enough make accusations, but the factual basis must be laid out as well. Ontario Rules 25.06(8) and (10) also lay out this requirement.

This (may) not get the lawsuit thrown out by itself. However, it’s enough that a Judge or Prothonotary would either strike it, or issue an Order for a rewrite.

5. Nature Of Damages Isn’t Really Specified

Claims to be specified
182 Every statement of claim, counterclaim and third party claim shall specify
(a) the nature of any damages claimed;
(b) where monetary relief is claimed, whether the amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50,000;
(c) the value of any property sought to be recovered;
(d) any other specific relief being claimed, other than costs; and
(e) whether the action is being proceeded with as a simplified action.

This should be common sense. Parties seeking damages need to spell out the exact relief they are seeking. That said, the Claim is so rambling and disjointed that it isn’t all that clear. At a bare minimum, this needs to be redone.

6. Entire Claim Could Be Struck Under Rule 221

Motion to strike
221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant,
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
.
and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.

This is very similar to Rule 9-5 of the British Columbia Rules of Civil Procedure. It allows for pleadings that are convoluted, confusing, or otherwise an abuse of process to be struck out. Even someone well versed in the content would be hard pressed to follow along with the Claim.

The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.11, has this wording as well. It allows Judges to throw out (or at least strike) suits that are abusive in nature.

Having read through the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits, it appears that entire sections are just cut-and-pasted for this one. Doesn’t speak highly for the work involved.

There are also approximately 100 “John Does” and “Jane Does” in the Statement of Claim. This is going to make things confusing, since Defendants have the right to confront their accusers.

Keep in mind, this is a very rudimentary look at the Statement of Claim. It’s entirely possible that there are more defects that can lead to it getting thrown out.

So, why keep drafting such garbage?

Who benefits from cases that either remain inactive for months, or years? Who benefits from cases that are so poorly drafted that they get thrown out on a preliminary challenge? It doesn’t appear that any of these cases were ever intended to move ahead.

Keep in mind, that hundreds of law firms have received CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Others have received cash from the Summer Grants Program. Pretty hard to oppose Trudeau when his programs are paying one’s salaries.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.

Well meaning people have paid good money, in the hopes that worthwhile litigation would be undertaken. It’s pretty pathetic that this site is a far more reliable source for updates than the lawyers running the show. Then again, considering the complete lack of progress, it’s not unexpected.

Putting things in perspective….

This website was sued last year for $7,000,000, for exposing what was really happening with the various “anti-lockdown” cases. It speaks volumes when more effort is spent trying to silence critics than to take on Trudeau, Ford, or Horgan. Any any event, that case is stayed, pending an anti-SLAPP Motion.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(6) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit 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
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

GILL/LAMBA CASES:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill/Lamba Dismissed As A SLAPP

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

ONTARIO STUDENTS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

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

Posted on

A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress