Category: Canada

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 4: Caselaw Makes It Surprisingly Easy To Do

This continues the series on the “meme group” Diagolon, and the threat that it poses to gun ownership in Canada. Part 1 focused on the ruling of Gary Schill, which saw his privileges suspended for 5 years. Part 2 and Part 3 covered the testimony given by Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael.

The short version is that an Ontario Judge decided it was in the public interest to suspend Schill’s licence because of what he might do. This wasn’t because of a criminal conviction, or ties to terrorism or sedition. He was an administrator of the Diagolon Telegrams, and his posting came to police attention.

Yes, he was arrested for assault, and it was dropped. But it was the content he had posted online, his associations, his views, and making ammunition at home which led to the ban.

The hearsay evidence of his then-wife was also considered at the hearing, despite her not testifying at all. She had told police that a militia was being formed.

Now, how easy is it to suspend or revoke gun rights (or privileges) in Canada? Looking at the cases cited in the Schill decision, it’s actually pretty straightforward. Cases cited are listed at the bottom of the article, although not all are available on CanLII.

Starting with the Supreme Court of Canada:

(1) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84 (CanLII), [2005] 3 SCR 895

[9] I agree with the Court of Appeal. Mr. Wiles has not established that the imposition of the mandatory weapons prohibition orders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As noted by the Court of Appeal, the prohibition has a legitimate connection to s. 7 offences. The mandatory prohibition relates to a recognized sentencing goal — the protection of the public, and in particular, the protection of police officers engaged in the enforcement of drug offences. The state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important. The sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the fact that possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege. It is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun-owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one. In Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31, this Court held that requiring the licensing and registration of firearms was a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. If Parliament can legitimately impose restrictions on the possession of firearms by general legislation that applies to all, it follows that it can prohibit their possession upon conviction of certain criminal offences where it deems it in the public interest to do so. It is sufficient that Mr. Wiles falls within a category of offenders targeted for the risk that they may pose. The sentencing judge’s insistence upon specific violence, actual or apprehended, in relation to the particular offence and the individual offender takes too narrow a view of the rationale underlying the mandatory weapons prohibition orders.

To state the obvious: the above case dealt with a mandatory prohibition following a criminal conviction, whereas Schill had his charge dropped. So there is a difference.

Nonetheless, there are strong parallels in the reasoning. The Supreme Court ruled that owning firearms is not a right, but a privilege. There’s a valid principle of public safety at stake, and Parliament has the right to regulate firearm use and possession. Now, many people would take issue with this, but that is what was said.

By stating the firearm ownership is a privilege and not a right, it means there will always be the possibility of having them seized.

(2) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1378

A police officer made application in provincial court, pursuant to s. 98(4) of the Criminal Code, for an order prohibiting respondent from possessing any firearms or ammunition or explosive substances. Prior to the calling of any evidence, counsel for the respondent requested a general ruling as to the admission of hearsay evidence. The “custom” in Manitoba provincial courts had been to permit hearsay testimony at hearings on applications for a firearm prohibition. When the judge ruled that evidence at a firearm prohibition hearing was to be limited to what would be admissible at a criminal trial, counsel for the Crown, who had intended to rely on hearsay evidence as to threats made by respondent, called no evidence and the application was dismissed. The ruling as to admissibility was upheld on appeal by the Crown, first by the Court of Queen’s Bench, and then by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

However, the Supreme Court would decide otherwise and allow the Appeal.

Hearsay evidence is admissible at a firearm prohibition hearing under s. 98(6) unless such a result is precluded by the words “all relevant evidence”. The provincial court judge’s role in such hearings is to confirm the existence of the reasonable grounds which led the peace officer to launch the application, as proved on a balance of probabilities. It was not intended that the provincial court judge strictly apply the rules of evidence.

The expression “all relevant evidence” means all facts which are logically probative of the issue. The rules of evidence as to admissibility signify that the fact is relevant and that it satisfies auxiliary tests and extrinsic policies. Parliament, by using the phrase “all relevant evidence”, required only that the evidence at the firearm prohibition hearing be relevant; it did not address the question of exclusionary rules. The effect of the exclusionary rules is left to the provincial court judge as part of the whole body of evidence on which the provincial court judge determines whether reasonable grounds exist. Frailties in the evidence are a matter of weight.

When an Application is filed to revoke someone’s guns and licence, the standards are nowhere near as stringent as in a criminal trial. Yes, the basis for the Application is based on the Criminal Code of Canada, but it follows different rules.

Specifically, the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” has been replaced by “on the balance of probabilities”, which would be the civil test. Additionally, hearsay evidence which would typically be excluded in criminal cases is permitted here, but with the Judge typically giving less weight to it.

This is a 1989 case, so it’s been around for a very long time.

(3) B.C. (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343 (CanLII)

[25] I read s. 5 differently. Section 5(1) creates a broad safety standard for eligibility to hold a firearms licence or to continue to hold one following a revocation inquiry. Section 5(2) requires a firearms officer or a Provincial Court judge on a reference to “have regard to” certain conduct by the applicant or licence holder. I do not read s. 5(2) as being exhaustive of the matters to be considered as affecting safety concerns under s. 5(1). There are many other things a firearms officer or a judge might consider that do not fit into s. 5(2) and that might logically and reasonably give rise to valid safety concerns. I agree with the appellant’s submission that there is no statutory obligation to decide the safety issue in favour of the applicant or licence holder when none of the criteria in s. 5(2) is present; and that there is no obligation to refuse a licence or order a revocation if one or more of those criteria are present. A plain reading of the section by itself evinces no such intention by Parliament. The firearms officer and the judge are entitled to consider anything about the background or conduct of the applicant or licence holder that is relevant to public safety.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia had held that the Firearms Officer and the Judge are allowed to consider anything about the licence holder. The only question is whether their decisions are seen as “reasonable”.

(4) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189 (CanLII)

[7] After reviewing these statutory provisions and the authorities cited on this appeal (other than Fahlman, which supports his reasoning and conclusion), the appeal court judge found (at paras. 35 – 37) that s. 111 of the Code does not “exclusively deal with behaviour that could be characterized as involving criminal conduct or acts of violence against others.” Nor do the three criteria set out in the Firearms Act operate as “exhaustive criteria” for the application of s. 5 of that Act. Thus, a provincial court judge conducting a hearing under s. 111 of the Code is not confined to a determination of whether the three criteria set out in s. 5(2) of the Firearms Act are met in order to impose a prohibition. He concluded that the provincial court judge had made no error “in holding that there can be a firearms prohibition without criminal conduct, a history of real or threatened violent behaviour or a documented mental disorder that leads to violence.”

This is also from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Firearms prohibitions can happen even without a history of violent behaviour or a documented mental disorder. It’s very subjective.

(5) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA)

[48] Applying that reasoning to this case, I am satisfied that when the words “not desirable”, which in my view simply mean “not advisable”, are read in context, they can hardly be described as so subjective, vague and amorphous that they fail to provide an adequate basis for legal debate. The fact that language may be open to judicial interpretation does not render it impermissibly vague. Flexibility and vagueness are not synonymous: see Reference re Criminal Code, Sections 193 & 195.1(1)(c), 1990 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 at p. 1156, 56 C.C.C. (3d) 65 at p. 89 and French Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 1998 CanLII 1771 (ON CA), 38 O.R. (3d) 347 at p. 361, 157 D.L.R. (4th) 144 (C.A.); application for leave to appeal dismissed, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 139). Moreover, because s. 117.04(1) is procedural and does not carry with it the threat of a criminal record or imprisonment, the need for precision is diminished: see French, supra, at p. 363 O.R. Finally, to the extent that the police or the issuing justice need a framework within which to assess the “non-desirability/public interest” component of s. 117.04(1), Parliament itself has provided guidance in ss. 5(1) and (2) of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. These provisions deal with the eligibility for holding a firearms licence and read as follows:

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that the language used was not unconstitutionally vague. The Court does go on to explain what examples are provided, but they are not exhaustive.

These are just a few of the cases that were used as a basis to have Schill’s guns taken away. The list is provided below, though some rulings aren’t published online. The short version of this is that it can happen for nearly any reason, hearsay evidence may be used, and it’s a low burden of proof.

Schill may be the first person to have his firearms taken away because of his “association” with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon. But he won’t be the last.

Next up: the Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) hearings.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

CASELAW ON REVOKING FIREARMS PERMITS:
(1) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] S.C.J. No. 50, at para 12, 16, 17, 18
(2) British Columbia (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343, at para 25.
(3) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189, at para 7.
(4) R. v. Bokhari, 2009 ONCJ 691, at para 10, relying on R. v. Day, [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Morgan, [1995] O.J. No. 18 (Ont.Ct.(Prov.Div.)).
(5) R. v. Peacock-McDonald, 2007 ONCA 128, at para 40
(6) R. v. Douglas, 2013 ONCJ 649, at paras 45, 57.
(7) R. v. Mourtzis, 2015 ONCJ 74, at para 25.
(8) R. v. Roman, 2018 ONCJ 344, at para 89.
(9) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2819, at para 48.
(10) R. v. Christiansen, supra, at para 7.
(11) Fahlman, supra, at para 25.
(12) R. v. Peacock-Macdonald, supra, at para 40.
(13) R. v. Roman, supra, at para 89.
(14) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 3: The Carmichael Testimony (Cont’d)

This continues the testimony of Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael. Both Day 1 and Day 2 of the hearings are available, along with the ruling itself.

Why does this matter? Because police were successful back in May 2024 for an Application to have Gary Schill’s firearms and licence suspended for 5 years. See Part 1 and Part 2 for more background information. It was largely (though not entirely) due to his association with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon.

Schill had faced a charge of assault causing bodily harm against his then wife, Jennifer McNeil. She was also charged with a lesser count against him. Both were eventually dropped. Nonetheless, the police were still able to get a firearms suspension for Schill.

It’s immediately obvious that the standards for an Application to suspend or revoke a gun permit are far lower than when someone faces a criminal charge. Speculation and hearsay are permitted a lot more. Instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the police must only demonstrate “on a balance of probabilities”. The Judge also has wide discretion to deem such a ban to be “in the public interest”.

Carmichael entered into evidence a document which he claims (or speculates) shows a plot to steal fuel during the trucker convoy. He says this is likely to circumvent the fuel shortages that had been intentionally imposed.

As for hearsay being admitted into the hearing, this is noteworthy:

Carmichael testifed that Jennifer McNeil, Schill’s wife at the time, provided other information to law enforcement during her victim statement. Specifically, she said that Schill was part of Diagolon, part of a militia, and targeting military and law enforcement members for recruitment.

Interestingly, McNeil herself didn’t testify at the hearing. Only Carmichael did. In a regular Court proceeding, her statements would have been considered “hearsay” and deemed inadmissible. The Judge allowed this in, and it doesn’t appear to have been challenged.

Carmichael continues (on page 8).

In the very beginning, we weren’t 100 percent sure. The Freedom Convoy was quite organic and it, it began in Western Canada and transitioned across the, the country to Ottawa. As we understood it, there was going to be a convergence of vehicles, large trucks, arriving in Ottawa. I was involved in the project team that monitored the number of vehicles who would be attending, what the dynamic of the crowd would be, and trying to get an intelligence assessment of what the Freedom Convoy would look like once it arrived in Ottawa. Of concern to us was the presence and interest of most of Diagolon. Most members, because our investigation actually started prior to the Freedom Convoy.

We had the benefit of, of monitoring a lot of the individuals we were interested in, leading up to the Freedom Convoy and, subsequently, their travel to Ottawa. Our concern was obviously Diagolon had made their ideology quite well-known, from our perspective. They were preparing for a civil war. They had an appetite to overthrow the government and force the government to change their policies relating to the COVID-19 response. So our concern was that what had the potential to be a peaceful protest in Ottawa could evolve into a violent confrontation because of the extremist elements we knew of that would also be attending.

We had, we had a lot of examples of conversations that was happening leading up to the Freedom Convoy. The organizers themselves stated that they intended to stay in Ottawa until the government changed their position on the COVID-19 response. MacKenzie himself has spoken of civil war and encouraged his members to prepare for it.

They use a phrase often, which is, “Gun or rope.” And this implies that when civil war occurs, it’s going to be a Diagolon versus everybody response. And Diagolon’s – the way they, they would treat their enemies during this uprising or civil war would be – they, they would be afforded the option to be executed by firing squad or hung. So that was what the, the, “Gun or rope,” phrase often referred to. So there was a lot of examples of, of rhetoric like that leading up to the Freedom Convoy that, that indicated to us that these individuals had an appetite to arm themselves, prepare themselves and had an appetite for violent confrontation. In fact, I, I believe I quoted yesterday, one of the Ticker Tape messages on Jeremy MacKenzie’s podcast where he says, “You want blood, come and get it,” and then it was the, “Fuck you, make me.”

Remember all of those edgy podcast jokes and memes? Guess what? They’re being entered into evidence as legitimate threats to public safety. The police are actually doing it, and the Judge is taking it all seriously.

Here’s a thought: maybe rampant fed-posting wasn’t such a good idea.

Carmichael testifies that it wasn’t necessary to conduct direct surveillance on Diagolon itself during the trucker convoy. This was because so many people simply posted photos, videos and details online, police could simply monitor it.

He then references a video which he calls a “Diagolon meet up”, which include Schill, MacKenzie and several others.

Carmichael eventually gets into the arrests at Coutts, Alberta. One of them was Chris Lysak. It was apparently a joke that he was the “Head of Security for Diagolon”, given his size.

One of the ballistic vests seized apparently had 2 Diagolon flags on them.

Carmichael then goes on about the various meet-ups that had been arranged, and how the information was obtained by monitoring Telegram channels. Now this:

In preparation for this hearing, the Crown was required to provide disclosure to Schill. Specifically, Carmichael’s Affidavit was sent to him. For some reason, MacKenzie published portions of it on his Substack. This was used to help establish a direct connection.

Interestingly, Carmichael testifies that the authorities weren’t willing to pay for a subscription to MacKenzie’s Substack, which would have allowed them to view everything. They consider him a public threat, and spend large amounts of money monitoring Diagolon, but wouldn’t pay this nominal fee?

Carmichael also explains that police wanted to know exactly who was posting on Telegram — since most accounts were anonymous. Yes, the servers aren’t located within Canada. However, it doesn’t seem any real effort was put in to try. Or perhaps they did get in, but don’t want to disclose that.

Carmichael concedes that he doesn’t believe that everyone associated with Diagolon is a terrorist or an extremist. He says that there is a broad range of people who are attached in some way.

Carmichael then goes on to speculate at length about how he believes Diagolon has simply “gone underground” given the attention they’ve received. Without really providing evidence or support, he claims that it’s still a threat to the public.

On cross-examination from Schill’s Amicus Counsel (starting at page 25) Carmichael reiterates that he’s been monitoring the Telegram chats constantly. Even on his off days he often listens to podcasts. In his notes, he states that he has listened to at least 38 episodes.

Of course, this doesn’t include what other members of intelligence or law enforcement have been listening to.

It’s fascinating how such a bad spin is put on these things. “Get offline and find your friends” is a legitimate goal, in that the online world doesn’t reflect reality. However, it’s being construed to mean the formation of militias for the purpose of causing violence and civil unrest.

In some sense, Schill’s Amicus Counsel actually seems to have done more harm than good. He gets Carmichael to explain new things — such as cutting down towers to stop 5G — that weren’t previously testified to.

Carmichael then goes on about the risk that “fed posting” causes. He says that Diagolon members fear being entrapped by someone saying overtly illegal things. This, he concludes, has caused them to go offline a lot more, and to be more guarded in their speech.

Carmichael admits that there’s no reference to “military style shooting” in the chats he’s reviewed. This implies that it was simply his interpretation. Nonetheless, this sort of this was allowed into evidence.

Carmichael also concedes that Schill himself didn’t participate in the conversations about bush craft of firearms tactics. Moreover, he concludes that he didn’t have grounds to support the conclusion that Schill was involved with terrorism or sedition.

Carmichael concedes that there’s no evidence Schill ever went to a so-called “Diagolon meet up”. He admits that no surveillance on Schill’s residence concluded otherwise.

The topic of the arrest for domestic violence is discussed. Again, the charge was dropped at the time of this hearing.

The Crown briefly reexamines Carmichael, who testifies that they found ammunition at Schill’s residence that wasn’t compatible with any of his legally obtained firearms.

Ultimately, Justice Robinson does grant the Application, and issues a 5 year prohibition for Schill. He refuses to allow any exemptions, including for a crossbow for hunting.

He cites the Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) Report from Paul Rouleau as well. It states that: “[l]aw enforcement and intelligence agencies view Diagolon as a militia-like extremist organization.”

Unfortunately, too many people post without having any understanding of what’s been going on. The Emergencies Act wasn’t invoked because of a meme, and the “Hate Gate” emails didn’t clear anyone. The PEOC Report was referenced in the decision to take Schill’s firearms and licence.

Even though Diagolon isn’t listed as a terrorist entity, and despite no evidence Schill was involved in terrorism or sedition, Schill’s firearms were taken away anyway. Yes, his assault charge had been dropped, but that wasn’t enough.

The standard for revoking or suspending firearms is actually quite low, and can be done for nearly any reason. This will be addressed in the next part.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 2: The Carmichael Testimony

This continues the series on “Diagolon”, and the consequences that have resulted from this group. The last article focused on the ruling of Justice Robinson, who suspended Gary Schill’s firearms licence and weapons for a period of 5 years. Schill was a former administrator of the Diagolon podcast.

This doesn’t just automatically happen. A police officer brings an Application under Section 111 of the Criminal Code to ask a Judge to suspend someone’s rights. This isn’t as formal as a Trial, and the proof standards aren’t anywhere near as high.

Now, what was said during the hearing?

Fortunately, a redacted version of the Day 1 and Day 2 transcripts were published. The redactions appear to have been done to remove the name of Schill’s ex-wife. Yes, it’s from Antihate, but still worth a read.

Schill was represented by an Amicus Curiae. This is someone who isn’t a party, but is allowed to assist and make submissions for parties. Think of them as “duty-counsel”. They can be common for self-represented litigants and accused persons.

Ernest Carmichael is a detective constable with York Regional Police Service. He testified that he had been with the Tactical Intelligence Unit for 5 years. He went on to explain what had he and his group had been doing lately.

He testified that there had been a complaint that a member of the York Regional Police had publicly associated himself with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon. That person is apparently no longer part of the force. It’s implied (though not explicitly stated) that the association cost him his position.

It paints a disturbing picture for many reasons.

First, the standard of proof needed to revoke a firearms licence is surprisingly low. Even though this is based in the Criminal Code, there’s no “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” needed. Far from it. “Balance of probabilities” is what’s important here.

Second, the rules of evidence are also much more lax, including hearsay evidence that should otherwise be prohibited. This included and Affidavit from Detective Constable Dimitri Kritsotakis, submitted, despite him not appearing. Carmichael is given wide latitude to speculate on matters.

Third, it’s explained here just how heavily surveilled podcasts and social media sites are. Without speaking to a single witness, this police officer was able to get a warrant to seize electronic devices.

Fourth, freedom of association — a protected right — seems meaningless when someone can lose their job because of who they interact with. Unfortunately, the circumstances here are not explained. The officer is not named, nor is his exact fate spelled out.

Fifth, it shows just how clueless and out-of-touch MacKenzie’s followers are with reality. They are oblivious to the basic facts. The Emergencies Act wasn’t declared because of a “meme”, and people weren’t exonerated due to some “Hate Gate emails”.

The above is from page 8. No actual interviews had to be conducted. The information obtained online was sufficient, which should really scare people.

Carmichael goes on to testify that he came across a video MacKenzie posted, just before receiving the formal complaint. He describes the “Raging Dissident persona” as this: He sells anger, really, on his podcast. He’s often vehemently anti-government, anti-authority. So by virtue of that, his following tends to be of the same vein.

Carmichael testifies that he had been monitoring “these channels” for the better part of 2 years. While it implies he refers to Diagolon channels, it could mean others as well. Then there’s this on page 14:

Yeah. The majority of the content was – especially considering the time, it was very anti-COVID, anti-vaccine, anti-government material. There was a lot of conspiracy theory material in that. There was a lot of what I would define as White nationalists, White supremacy ideology existing within that space. There was also a lot of what I would define as militia-type discussions. There was a lot of talk of acquiring weaponry, body armour, ammunition, planning meet-ups, organizing community events, and then also articulating the purpose of these events beyond simply….

This is getting to the heart of it. Carmichael alleges that there’s more than just racist and anti-authoritarian posting done here. Conversations also involved firearms, body armour and meet-ups.

“The Day Of The Rope” and “The Turner Diaries” are both cited as well.

Carmichael testifies that not only was he observing and documenting conversations about guns and meetings, but that meetings themselves were surveilled.

Carmichael does go on about the backstory of the name “Diagolon”. Specifically, that it was based on the idea of a fictional country made up of the more sane and stable Provinces and U.S. States. That detail is agreed on by everyone.

However, Carmichael states (or opines?) that it became more of a separatist movement.

Carmichael also explains how he identified Schill, and it’s pretty stupid. He used his real name, real photo, and dropped details about the region he was living in. From there, a simple background check from a prior arrest revealed everything else.

Yes. So Mr. Schill made a number of statements that caused concern for us. With these statements, he was also promoting the fact that he was a firearms fanatic; he was involved in reloading within his garage, which means taking – basically, building bullets himself rather than commercially purchasing them…

…and producing a large amount of ammunition in his private residence. So this, like, compounded with the rhetoric, plus what we already understood about Diagolon raised our concerns related to public safety.

So I’ll, I’ll expand on some of the conversation pieces that we observed, but as an example, for – some of the messaging that Jeremy MacKenzie provided his, his members, I can read some of the messaging that was included on his podcast that would have been re-shared in the Telegram channels. He stated – during a podcast, there was a ticker tape, similar to what you would see on maybe CP24 that would scroll across the screen. And the banner stated:

Mentally prepare yourself for the hardest decade of your life. Your children need you to reject the system in its entirety. It isn’t for you. It is for your enemy, and it seeks to subvert, subjugate, and destroy you. You either pro-human freedom or you are not. One of those choices makes you our mortal enemy. Death to Circulon. We all just wanted to be left alone. You want blood. We got what you want. Come and get it. Fuck you, make me.

So that was some of the rhetoric that Jeremy MacKenzie was, was pumping out to his followers, who would then re-share it on the Telegram channel. So on the heels of a statement like that his members would then begin organizing in-person meetings. They would discuss what the purpose of these meetings would be. It was almost always around planning. I can quote, “bush craft, survival training, firearms training.” In fact, I can recall a conversation that involved Mr. Schill where they were discussing shooting and firearm training, but then Mr. Schill had stated something to the effect of, “Well, I don’t want to just go shoot. I’d like smaller groups. And I want to shoot with a purpose.” I interpreted that to mean they didn’t want to just go target shooting on a range. They wanted to apply practical skills to their shooting, similar to what you’d see the military or law enforcement trained to do.

It would be interesting to know — though it’s not expanded on — is whether this is just conversations being recorded, or whether the police (or CSIS) have actually gone to these meets.

Carmichael goes on (page 29) about conversations that happened about body armour, and what some good choices were. This is largely opinion, but he implies that it was directed for non-civilian use.

Because when compounded with the information we’d already had, and now it was quite clear that they were starting to develop their in-person meetings to include shooting and what we had interpreted as militia-type training, our concern was strictly public safety and whether we had a private militia forming within the region.

Keep in mind, this is a hearing over a gun licence, not a criminal trial. While most of this testimony wouldn’t have been permitted in other settings, it is here.

Carmichael then gets into the topic of Schill’s arrest for assault causing bodily harm, along with the arrest of his (now) ex-wife. Electronic devices were seized during a search. Schill had 3 guns, all legally owned and safely stored. However, he had ammunition which didn’t appear to fit any of them.

The hearing continued the next day, and more on that.

If there is one takeaway here, it’s that the police are arguing that Diagolon is more than just edgy podcasting, racism, and memes. Carmichael is trying to convince the Judge that it’s an actual group and a threat to the public. He’s trying to show that this is an extremist group with a violent agenda.

People reading this transcript may — reasonably — think that it’s full of speculation, innuendo and hearsay. And they’d be right. However, this isn’t a criminal charge, and the standard is much, MUCH lower.

The Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) Report and Mosley decision have laid the groundwork for what’s coming. Followers of “Diagolon” really have no clue what’s been going on. This case is the first of what will likely be many gun seizures.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

Posted on

18 Reasons Massive Healthcare Workers Claim Is Defective

Here we go again.

On August 13th, 2024, a Motion to Strike will be heard in the Civil Branch of the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. This was over injection mandates dating back to 2021. Approximately 300 healthcare workers — working in many different settings — will see if their case is thrown out.

The original Claim was filed in 2022, and an amended one in 2023.

The main reason for this Motion is that the vast majority of Plaintiffs are likely ineligible to sue. Being part of a union typically means that there’s no right to go to Court. Collective agreements usually have a grievance process that ends with arbitration, but doesn’t allow for litigation.

Beyond that, the Statement of Claim is so poorly and incoherently written that it’s likely to be struck anyway. It doesn’t plead any of the necessary information required, and most of what it does include is irrelevant. It appears to have been written by someone with no understanding at all of Civil Procedure.

All that’s missing is a tirade about Bill Gates and microchipping.

This isn’t Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada or Take Action Canada. Nor is it the mess, Adelberg. This is yet another “bad beyond argument” pleading. The main defects are:

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

This is just a brief critique, but let’s get into it.

1. Failure To Establish Jurisdiction Of The Court

RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01
To Defendant
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
.
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

Rule 21.01(3)(a) of Civil Procedure states that a Defendant may move to to have a case stayed or dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction. Why does that matter here? Because the bulk of the Plaintiffs here are from unionized workplaces. Union workers are typically governed by a collective bargaining agreement, and it usually mandates arbitration as a means of settling disputes.

Plenty of cases have already been thrown out for this.

To even (theoretically) overcome this burden, Plaintiffs would have to plead details about what steps they took to resolve this internally. They would have to demonstrate that the process was corrupt or unworkable.

2. Failure To Seek Relief Within Jurisdiction Of The Court

The Relief sought section is downright goofy, and it’s startling to see that an experienced lawyer is including content such as this. It would be bad enough to see an articling student draft such garbage. And it’s not the first time.

  • Allegations of criminal conduct
  • Allegations of crimes against humanity
  • Allegations of eugenics (which would be criminal)
  • Allegations of violations of Nuremberg Code
  • Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration

Both the Action4Canada and Adelberg (Federal) cases were struck — in part — because they demanded remedies that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction over. Despite being criticized by multiple Courts over this, the same allegations appear here. Mostly likely, this is because this lawyer uses a template and simply cut and pastes from one case to the next.

3. Failure To Plead Concise Set Of Material Facts

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.

In every jurisdiction, Plaintiffs are required to plead the facts. This refers to the: who, what, where, when, and how that things occurred. It is describing a series of events in enough detail that the opposing side — and the Judge — can understand what’s going on.

But that hasn’t happened here. Not a single Plaintiff is described with any detail. Only 8 are even identified in the Claim.

They objected to the injections? What was each one’s specific one?
Who was fired, and who was simply suspended?
Who was required to take the shots, and who was allowed to take the testing?
All Plaintiffs were ineligible for EI? Who applied for it?

None of this is described, nor is the conduct of any Defendant. There are no facts pleaded at all which could possibly be responded to.

4. Failure To Keep Evidence Out Of Claim

The other part of Rule 25.06(1) is that evidence shouldn’t be in a Statement of Claim. The facts are. The facts are simply the sequence of events that each Plaintiff can attest to.

All of the “facts” about the validity of testing and expert views should really be considered expert evidence. That has a place later, but not in the initial pleading.

5. Failure To Remove Argument From Claim

Not only should evidence not be in a Claim, but argument shouldn’t either. The pleading is ripe full of argument, complete with various case citations. However, this is not a Factum, nor a final submission. The original pleading is just supposed to lay out the (alleged) series of events.

How does an experienced lawyer not know this?

6. Failure To Plead Facts To Support Conclusions Of Law

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Pleading Law
.
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Rule 25.06(2) of Civil Procedure requires that the necessary facts be pleaded in order to support any conclusions of draw that are raised. This makes sense, as there has to be enough meat on the bones to theoretically have the Judge rule favourably. However, there are no facts pleaded about individual Plaintiffs or Defendants, just sweeping declarations without background information.

7. Failure To Give Claim Particulars

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
.
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Rule 25.06(8) of Civil Procedure states that all pleadings shall have “full particulars”, which is also known as “particularizing a claim”. This is when fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged. What this means is that such accusations are made, Plaintiffs have the extra burden to spell out what has happened. All major details must be added.

Quite reasonably, Defendants cannot be left guessing what they have to respond to.

8. Failure To Specify Who Should Pay Damages

Starting on page 33, the money sought is outlined.

  • $50,000 for each Plaintiff for “intimidation”
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff for “conspiracy”
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff, by the Government Defendants, for Charter violations
  • $200,000 for each Plaintiff for infliction of mental distress and anguish
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff for “punitive damages”

This amounts to $550,000 per Plaintiff, but who exactly is supposed to pay it? It’s specified that the Province is to pay for the Charter violations, but that’s it. If money is to be sought, what is the proposed division? Never mind that none of the torts are properly pleaded, or pleaded at all.

9. Failure To Properly Plead S.2 (Fund. Freedoms) Charter Breaches

However, the Claim doesn’t plead any facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) that would support this. The Claim doesn’t describe how any Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of conscience or belief were violated, nor does it specify which grounds apply to which person.

10. Failure To Properly Plead S.6 (Mobility Rights) Charter Breaches

There are a few mentions — although not properly pleaded — that Plaintiffs had their mobility rights infringed. But there isn’t a single instance of this described. Nor would this be relevant since the travel mandates were Federal, and this case is exclusively Provincial. Most likely, it was cut and pasted from the Adelberg case, which is Federal.

11. Failure To Properly Plead S.7 (Security Of Person) Charter Breaches

Similar to the Section 2 breaches, here, there are no facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) pleaded which would support such allegations. Not a single Plaintiff describes their circumstances. Yes, we assume it to be true initially, but there’s nothing to work with.

12. Failure To Properly Plead S.15 (Equality) Charter Breaches

Section 15 of the Charter isn’t the savior that many think it is. Specifically, “equality” is limited to a fairly small number of groups. None of which apply here, as disappointing as that is.

Enumerated grounds, which are explicitly stated in the Charter, include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.

Analogous grounds, which are additional ones the Courts have endorsed, include: sexual orientation, marital status, off-reserve Aboriginal status and income.

Even if remaining injection-free were an enumerated or analogous ground, there are no facts pleaded which would support the Charter violations anyway. Again, not a single Plaintiff’s circumstances are described in any detail.

13. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Intimidation

Because this tort would cover “nature of act or condition of mind”, Rule 25.06(8) requires that full particulars be given, in addition to pleading facts that would support it.

Instead, the Statement of Claim simply states the test, then attempts to argue caselaw in support of it. There are no facts or particulars given — even assuming them to be true — that would support this. Argument is not permitted in this document, anyway.

14. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Conspiracy

As with the “intimidation” tort, there are no facts (Rule 26.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) provided that would support the claim. The document simply states the test and tries to argue.

15. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Malfeasance Of Public Office

There are broad, sweeping declarations that the Government Defendants have acted in ways which are contrary to holding public office. But without any facts or particulars, this tort will go nowhere.

The tort of “infliction of mental anguish” isn’t pleaded properly either.

16. Failure To State A Cause Of Action

RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(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 defence,

Rule 21.01(1)(b) of Civil Procedure allows Judges to strike a Claim if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. What this means, if there isn’t anything that can realistically be sought, the Court has the power to throw the case out completely, or to allow a rewrite (called granting Leave to Amend).

Here, there are no facts or particulars pleaded to support any of the allegations. The body of the text is argumentative and tries to plead evidence. None of the torts are properly pleaded. A Judge could reasonably conclude that there’s no case to try.

Of course, they tend to allow rewrites, no matter how poorly drafted a case is. Action4Canada was struck with Leave to Amend, which was quite surprising.

17. Failure To Appreciate Statute of Limitations

As many people know, there’s a time limit to file cases. This is commonly referred to as the Statute of Limitations. In Ontario, it’s 2 years for most things, although a number of exceptions exist. See the Ontario Limitations Act.

Even if these Plaintiffs were to hire a competent lawyer (and not withstanding the arbitration requirement), they’d likely be time barred. Since more than 2 years has passed, they wouldn’t be able to include additional claims beyond what’s already there.

18. Claim Just A Duplicate Of Other Cases

A major indicator that clients and donors are being ripped off is that they aren’t getting original work. Instead, it appears that counsel is using a “template” and simply duplicating cases.

Now, if these cases were successful, then it would be a good way to save time and money. But that isn’t at all the situation here.

They all kind of look the same, don’t they?
None of them properly pleaded, and none have ever gone anywhere.

How Many Victims Have Been Ripped Off?

A question that comes up often is how many victims there are of these scam lawsuits. For a partial answer, consider the following:

  • 600 – Adelberg (Federal)
  • 600 – Federal workers vaccine injury (apparently never filed)
  • 300 – Dorceus (this case)
  • 100 – Katanik (Take Action Canada’s “First Responders” suit)

These 4 cases alone amount to over 1,600 litigants who have gotten shoddy and mediocre representation. And all from the same lawyer. If one includes all of the donors, it’s no exaggeration to say that there have been several thousand victims who were taken advantage of.

Keep in mind, many, MANY cases have been filed since 2020.

What’s been disappointing is just how little the “independent” media has been speaking up about this. It’s not enough to simply be against lockdowns. Genuine reporters and journalists should be speaking up on behalf of victims who have been taken advantage of with these shoddy lawsuits. There are thousands of clients and donors whose goodwill and desperation have been exploited. They needed a voice.

Then of course, some asshole tried in June 2022 to bankrupt a former donor who simply wanted her money back. If this isn’t cause for concern, then what is?

True, it’s a little better now, but more should have been expected. While it’s great to support public interest litigation (overall), we shouldn’t lose track of the people who are really impacted by it.

As for Liberty Talk, perhaps the 25% commission in 2020 clouded her judgement.

(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim

Posted on

Defamation Lawsuit Discontinued Against David Fisman

A University of Guelph professor has formally discontinued his action against David Fisman, a so-called “expert” from recent years. The Statement of Claim, filed in late 2022, involved him, the University of Guelph, and several of their staff. This was the result of a lengthy dispute with Byram Bridle, a faculty member there.

The Notice was “with prejudice, on a no-cost basis”. With prejudice means that it can never again be refiled. Apparently, Fisman agreed to waive costs as well.

The Guelph Defendants filed a Statement of Defence, but Fisman didn’t. Instead, his lawyers opted to commence an anti-SLAPP Motion to have the allegations against him thrown out. The scheduled date was November 19th, 2024.

Keep in mind, under Ontario law, cases dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws are typically subject to “full indemnity” cost awards. This means that the Plaintiff(s) who loses will have to pay 100% of the Defendant(s) costs in addition to their own. This is done to deter people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence free speech.

Fisman doesn’t appear to have any real connection to Guelph. The suit against him has to do with some social media postings. There are (of course) allegations of a conspiracy, but none of it is properly pled. This is the sort of thing which led to Kulvinder Gill’s $1.1 million cost award nearly 2 years ago.

Back on February 28th, 2024, there was a case conference. The Guelph Defendants also commenced an anti-SLAPP Motion of their own.

At that point, Bridle was facing 2 anti-SLAPP Motions, both presumably with full-indemnity cost awards. His solution was to arrange to have one of them dropped.

True, a case is normally “stayed” (or frozen) once this is initiated, but it doesn’t prevent the parties from consenting to discontinue the matter.

While Fisman is no longer a party to this case, Guelph’s Motion is still set to be heard in 2025. Even if the Judge rules that anti-SLAPP laws (s.137.1 of Courts of Justice Act) don’t apply, it’s likely to be dismissed anyway. The reason: Bridle is a faculty member at the school. UGuelph employees are bound by a collective bargaining agreement. In particular, Article 40 outlines that arbitration — not litigation — is the expected path. See earlier review of this case. At its core, the allegations against the university itself (and its staff) amount to a workplace dispute.

Bridle dodged one bullet by dropping his case against Fisman. It remains to be seen if he’ll come to his senses regarding the University of Guelph.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim
(3) Byram Bridle Statement Of Defence
(4) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Fisman
(5) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(6) University Of Guelph, Text Of Collective Bargaining Agreement
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/second-anti-slapp-motion-commenced/

Posted on

End Of An Era: Vaccine Choice Canada Discontinuing Anti-Lockdown Case

Does anyone remember the hype in alternative media circles about Vaccine Choice Canada taking on Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford over martial law measures? It seemed to be the beginning of something grand. This would be the big case to stop the New World Order.

But in the end, nothing ever came of it. The case sat idly for years, even as more donations were solicited. The quality of the pleadings themselves was very questionable. There weren’t even service addresses for most Defendants, despite them being freely available. No attempt was made to push the case forward, or to obtain Default Judgement. Critics who publicly asked questions were threatened, and some sued.

Now, the other shoe drops. The case is being discontinued, and will never make it to Trial. Heck, it won’t even make it to the scheduled Motion to Strike.

The litigants themselves will never see their day in Court. Given the 2 year Statute of Limitations, they probably don’t have recourse with another lawyer. Donors who paid money in good faith were ripped off.

How long before the many interviews from the Summer of 2020 get scrubbed from the internet?

Thanks for the money, suckers!

Vaccine Choice Canada’s Email To Supporters

Dear Vaccine Choice Canada Community and Donors,

After much consultation and deliberation the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada have decided to file a ‘Notice of Discontinuance’ with regards to the legal action filed on July 6, 2020 (Court File No. CV-20-00643451-0000). Discontinuance means that a party, for its own reasons, has chosen not to continue the litigation. The decision to discontinue does not take away from the importance or merit of the case.

It is the position of the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada that to continue this legal matter at this time is not advisable. Our confidence in the independence and integrity of our Courts, and their willingness to properly consider the available facts and scientific evidence has been seriously eroded, past repair or hope. We are of the opinion that to participate in a fraudulent and illegitimate process is to give legitimacy to that process. 

Our decision is based on the following considerations:

1. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to properly consider the facts as they relate to COVID-19, the evidence and lack thereof of a pandemic; the extent of harm caused by the so called “vaccine”; the extent of harm caused by measures and mandates imposed by governments including masking, social distancing, lockdowns, injection of a genetic material; lack of proper safety testing; the violation of our Charter Rights and Freedoms, and other matters related to the government’s response to the COVID-19 event.

2. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to consider expert testimony that challenges the claims of Health Canada, the CDC, and statements made by various government officials, officers and agencies.

3. The Courts have clearly demonstrated a deference, not to facts, the scientific method, and scientific evidence, but rather to government authorities, regardless of the inability of such authorities to justify their measures and mandates.

4. The Courts have utilized “judicial notice”, “mootness”, and “motion to strike” as instruments to deny full debate and disclosure of the available evidence.

5. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by their requirement that those attending court be compelled to wear a face covering, despite compelling evidence of the ineffectiveness of coverings in preventing transmission, and the harm from prolonged use of face coverings. 

6. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court judges publicly declaring their compliance with vaccine mandates that violate bodily sovereignty and informed consent.

7. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court refusing to consider the appeal of lower court decisions that violate our fundamental rights and freedoms. 

8. Our Courts are no longer committed to “justice” as understood by Canadians. Rather, our Courts have become politicized such that they serve those in power rather than justice. Our Courts have become instruments of control and coercion rather than safeguards to ensure the upholding of the rule of law and our Charter rights and freedoms. 

9. We are also fully aware that the Courts have used the legal process to delay, defer and unnecessarily increase the cost of seeking justice. We are fully aware of the punitive costs awarded to those seeking justice which punishes those seeking justice and discourages future efforts to seek justice.

10. Our Courts have failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite it being the highest law of the land. They have refused to demand that governments “demonstrably justify” their clear and undisputed violations of our Charter rights and freedoms as required under Section 1. 

Given our current lack of confidence in the independence and commitment of the Courts to justice and to protecting our rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are of the opinion that to proceed under these circumstances would cause more harm than good, jeopardize future legal action by adding to defective case law, and further erode confidence in the integrity of our judicial system and government agents. (A brief summary of the failure of the Canadians courts to uphold our Charter rights and established rule of law is available here:

https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/news/are-courts-failing-to-protect-medical-freedom-for-children-and-youth)

We are also of the opinion that given the number of defendants included in this action, in the event of an unjust ruling where the plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs, this could present a significant financial burden. The awarding of punitive court costs would undoubtedly impair the ability of VCC to serve our mission with respect to defending informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right, responsibility and authority of parents to protect their children from harm.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/vcc-statement-of-claim-2020-redacted.pdf

We are confident that were the available facts to be properly considered, and the laws of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upheld, that our proceeding would have been successful. The failure of our law enforcement and Canadian judicial systems to properly respond to the harms caused by government measures and mandates, including permanent injury and death, and to the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms is deeply disturbing and reveals a significant betrayal that needs to be rectified if justice is to be served in Canada.

Vaccine Choice Canada will continue to inform and defend our right to informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right and responsibility of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Forced and coerced vaccination, and other purported medical treatments, have no place in an ethical medical system, and a free and democratic Nation. Given the present threats to our fundamental and inherent rights and freedoms, the work of Vaccine Choice Canada was never more important.

We know that justice will eventually be served, however, it would appear that this is not the time.

Sincerely,

Ted Kuntz, President
Board of Directors Vaccine Choice Canada
VaccineChoiceCanada.com

June 13, 2024

That appears to be it. 4 years later, Vaccine Choice is dropping their case, after making no effort whatsoever to push it through the Courts. Donors should be receiving refunds, at a bare minimum.

Vaccine Choice Lawsuit A Giant Bait-And-Switch

Re-read this passage from Kuntz’ email.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

Kuntz states that the Statement of Claim was written to “ensure that [people] were named, and their actions exposed”. He states that “we believe we have achieved our purpose”.

Why does this matter? Because he doesn’t say that going to Trial and having the Court hold people accountable would have achieved the purpose. In other words, this was for publicity. It was never about getting any sort of a ruling or decision.

Consider this quote from a July 13, 2022 livestream. Fuller video here.

“Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides. And what you’ve helped us to understand is that there’s more to educating the impact of your legal proceeding than simply what happens within the Court. It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds…. We brought awareness to a dynamic that had been hidden from the public. And I would suggest that maybe, this was the most important impact we’ve had to date.”

It’s actually illegal to commence proceedings like this. You can’t sue somebody to “make a point”, or to “fire a shot across the bow”, or any similar justification. The Courts refer to this sort of thing as bringing a suit “for improper purposes”. The only permitted reason is that the Plaintiff(s) believes that he or she has a strong case.

Does this sort of thing happen? Yes it does. But few are retarded enough to openly admit it on a public livestream. Anyone can be listening in. This alone would be grounds to throw the case out.

So, What Happened Over The Course Of 4 Years?

July 6th, 2020: Vaccine Choice Canada files a 191 page Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. In addition to its length, the Claim was incoherent, and failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure.

Summer 2020: There was a media blitz online soliciting donations for this lawsuit. It was supposed to be the great challenge to medical martial law in Canada. However, no one seems to be asking the important questions, such as what activity is going on.

September 2020: Counsel for Vaccine Choice Canada tells Rebel Media that he will do everything he can to ensure an Application for a mask injunction is heard before Christmas (2020). However, that never happens. To be clear, no Application is ever filed with the Court. It simply does not exist.

In fact, no activity whatsoever will happen with this case for a long time to come. But what does happen is lawfare directed against critics and ideological opponents.

December 2020: 23 people and organizations are sued for defamation by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, primarily over Twitter comments. It would be thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

January 2021: CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, is threatened with a defamation suit for an email to Dan Dicks (Press For Truth) from their Treasurer. The email tries to redirect attention and money to their case, and calls into question the abilities of counsel for Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice.

March 2021: Kulvinder Gill files another defamation lawsuit, this time against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. She demands $7,000,000 because he called her an “idiot” online. An anti-SLAPP Motion will be heard later this year.

Ted Kuntz later admitted that Vaccine Choice financed (or at a minimum, coordinated) the Gill defamation cases. See paragraph 20 in the main text, and Exhibit “C”, starting on page 20.

From that, it’s reasonable to suspect VCC funded other defamation lawsuits.

September 2021: This website is sued in large part for publicly questioning the horrible quality of the VCC and A4C pleadings, and for pointing out the lack of progress in any of these cases. Currently, there’s an open anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

June 2022: CSASPP is sued for the email mentioned above, and an FAQ that’s critical (in part) of the VCC case. The suit also goes after a woman named Donna Toews. She dared to contact the Law Society of Ontario, LSO, asking about money she had donated to Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada. It was thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

July 2022: The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) is sued for $500,000. The primary motivation appears to be an attempt to derail the complaint from Donna Toews, and to make sure it cannot be investigated. It was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action (a grievance the Court can theoretically remedy), and the incoherent pleadings.

Note: The LSO would be sued again in 2023, a virtual clone of the last one. The probable reason was to keep the Court activity going, in order to sabotage their investigative abilities.

July 2022: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed regarding the CBC, which removes them as a Defendant. Previously, the organization had threatened to file an anti-SLAPP Motion if the case against them wasn’t dropped. See cover letter.

August, 2022: A single Statement of Defence is filed, more than 2 years after the Claim is originally brought. It suggests a Motion to Strike will be coming.

December 2022: Lawsuit from Byram Bridle filed against the University of Guelph, employees, and non-employees. Currently on hold while 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions are pending.

***You’ll notice in this list so far that there’s no mention of Court activity, such as motions, hearings, witnesses testifying, or evidence being sworn. That’s because none ever took place. This case is a “paper challenge”, not going anywhere.***

January 2023: Vaccine Choice Canada had its first Court appearance. Yes, that is the correct date. It took 2 1/2 years for even this. And it was just a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session. Simply put, these are 5-10 minute hearings with a fairly full docket. What happened was that dates were set down for the Defendants to bring Motions to strike (throw out) the case.

  • June 30th, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28th, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31th, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17th, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8th, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22nd, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30th, February 1st, 2024 – 2 day Hearing

March 2023: For his work creating the article and video called “Nothing Burger Lawsuits”, Rick Thomas is threatened with a lawsuit. None have been filed yet, but anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason.

January 2024: The hearing briefly starts, headed by Justice Dow. However, he immediately recuses himself and adjourns the case. The reason being that he’s a former co-worker and personal friend of Health Minister Christine Elliott. This conflict of interest makes him unavailable to adjudicate the Motion. The hearing is rebooked — with a new Judge — for May 1st and 2nd of 2025.

February 2024: Ted Kuntz (VCC) and Tanya Gaw (A4C) host a livestream to “expose” people they call “paid agitators”. Basically, it’s just a hit piece on their critics.

June 2024: Vaccine Choice Canada announces that they’re dropping the case.

So much for being the ground-breaking challenge.

What About VCC’s 2019 Challenge For Vaxxing Students?

Few will remember this, but Vaccine Choice filed a challenge in October 2019 against Ontario’s policy of immunizing children as a requirement of attending class. In over 4 1/2 years, that case hasn’t gone past the pleadings.

Keep in mind — and this is written into the Statement of Claim forms — that a case will be dismissed for delay if it’s not resolved or set down for Trial within 5 years. Sure, it can be extended, but the Court will need to be convinced that there’s activity.

Should donors expect a refund for this case?

What About Those Thousands Of Pages Of Expert Evidence?

Once of the mantras endlessly repeated is that counsel for Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada has the best evidence from the top experts in the world.

We’ve all seen pictures or videos where all these expert reports are bandied about, attached as Affidavit evidence. Supposedly, it amounts to tens of thousands of pages. Problem is, they’ve never been filed in any Court. Any if these reports do exist, why delay cases with convoluted pleadings?

It seems more likely no such Affidavits exist, and that these are just images of stacks of blank paper. Or, they could just be random items printed from the internet. One explanation might be that it’s to divert attention from the lack of activity in the Courts. This would be done for the purpose of duping and deceiving donors and potential donors.

Why spend (presumably) hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions, on expert reports if there was never any intention to push the case forward?

It these thousands of pages of expert reports do exist, which seems unlikely, then a competent lawyer should have been responsible for drafting the pleadings.

Growing List Of Anti-Lockdown Cases Not Pursued

The Vaccine Choice cases don’t exist in isolation. Consider these:

  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (August 2021)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (by B.C. Court of Appeal)
  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg, Federal injection pass case (May 2022)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg (by Federal Court of Appeal)
  • Non-Existent?! – Federal workers vaccine injury lawsuit
  • Abandoned?! – Vaccine Choice Canada (October 2019)
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (July 2020)
  • Discontinued – Sgt. Julie Evans (April 2021), fundraised by Police On Guard
  • Discontinued – Children’s Health Defense Canada (April 2021), of which counsel was, at the time, a Director of the organization
  • Discontinued? – Take Action Canada (March 2023) is in an awkward spot. While it faces Motions to throw out the case as “bad beyond argument”, the group is openly considering dropping the case. More money is demanded. If only someone could have warned Sandy and Vincent that this was a bad idea

It’s worth mentioning that Action4Canada can probably be classified as “abandoned” at this point. 4 months after their nonsense Appeal was thrown out, there’s still no amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC).

Seriously: Is this a track record of good results?

Sadly, many of the “truther” media accounts promote these cases as if they’re legitimate, despite the abundance of information available. Liberty Talk is an obvious example, but hardly the only one.

Does it make sense why this website would spend so much time and effort tracking these bogus cases, and the endless money-pits that they’ve become? Does it make sense to question why millions of dollars have been funneled into this litigation? Shouldn’t everyone be held to account?

How much money has been raised? Here’s a starting point.

Okay, So What’s YOUR Solution?

A common thread most detractors have here is that the content is too negative. It’s too divisive. It needlessly weakens the Freedom Movement. No solutions are ever offered, despite endless criticism.

Well, there is a simple solution for donors at least. Demand full refunds, preferably with interest. If they say there’s no money available (since it was all spent on lawyers), start suing VCC for refunds. They’ll capitulate rather than face hundreds or thousands of angry people. Small Claims Court is dirt cheap, for example.

Deceit and/or misrepresentation would surely void any “no refunds” policy.

What About Potential Cost Consequences?

One question worth asking is how much VCC would be forced to pay for dropping the case. After all, the (successful) Defendants could ask for costs to offset the expenses incurred so far. True, the Motion to Strike wasn’t actually heard, but it had to be prepared.

This is certainly a valid point.

However, after thinking it over, it’s probably not a big deal. Government lawyers often agree to waive costs (or minimize them) if lawsuits are discontinued. This could have happened here. Or, the Defendants could have agreed to accept nominal costs (small amounts) as a symbolic victory.

Using Action4Canada as a reference, they paid out approximately $13,000 in costs after their Notice of Civil Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. True, Ontario has higher tariffs, but $50,000 or less would have been a reasonable order from a Judge against VCC. In any event, it would be a drop in the bucket considering the money that was fundraised.

Now that the Claim has been dropped, Kuntz, VCC, and their counsel are presumably free to spend the rest as they wish. There doesn’t appear to be a refund policy.

How long until Action4Canada announces they’re discontinuing their case?

As Trudeau would say: “Thank you for your donation.”

GRIFTERS MAIN PAGE

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs