Kory Teneycke, Rubicon Strategy, And The Puppets That Are Ford, Kenney & Harper

Ever get the impression that all of the politicians belong to the same groups? Well, they do. They don’t even try to pretend anymore. If you want something done in government, your best bet is to write a cheque to the most connected lobbyists you can find.

This time, we will look at Kory Teneycke, and his lobbying firm, Rubicon Strategy. The article doesn’t really need much in the way of commentary. Their own profiles list the “leaders” whose strings they pull.

Our digital campaigns have elected Premiers in Ontario and Alberta. When you need to win online, we are ready. Whether it’s shaping public opinion, building blazing fast websites, or converting prospects into customers, we get the job done.

This is a quote directly from the Rubicon website. The Premiers they reference are most likely Jason Kenney (Alberta), and Doug Ford (Ontario). Of course, one has to ask what favours are expected from people like Ford and Kenney in return for taking power. Dance, puppets! Dance!

Kory Teneycke
Co-founder and CEO
If you’re in a tough fight, Kory is the guy you want on your side.
With two decades in public affairs, Kory has served as the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister of Canada, managed the cable news channel “Sun News”, and served as Executive Director of the Renewable Fuels Association. Kory was the manager of the 2018 campaign that saw Doug Ford become Premier of Ontario, and is now on a leave of absence to manage the 2022 campaign for the Ontario PC Party.

Jan O’Driscoll
Senior Vice President
When the game is on the line, you want Jan on your side.
With years of experience leading tactical communications and tough policy files, Jan is a straight shooter that gets the job done. He’s held senior leadership roles in the private sector as well as with several federal cabinet ministers in Harper’s government. Most recently, Jan served as Chief of Staff in several key ministries in Premier Ford’s government where he drove transformational initiatives to get wins for the people of Ontario.

Sarah Letersky
Vice President
Sarah knows government decision making.
As a war room operative she helped elect Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario. As a Chief of Staff in Premier Ford’s government, Sarah built an impressive network of peers, and successfully managed communications on a number of contentious files. If you need something at Queen’s Park, Sarah knows who to talk to and how to get it done.

Emrys Graefe
Vice President, Digital
Emrys is one of Canada’s foremost digital campaign strategy experts.
Obsessed with improving online performance, Emrys headed the digital campaign that made Doug Ford leader of the Ontario PC Party. His digital campaigns then won majority governments for the Ontario PCs in 2018 and Alberta’s United Conservative Party in 2019. In 2009 he started his career in federal politics inside Stephen Harper’s government, eventually becoming the Deputy Director of Political Operations of the Conservative Party of Canada. Emrys is an expert at influencing and leveraging public opinion.

Stephanie Delorme
Director of Operations
Stephanie is a strategic thinker and problem solver.
With extensive experience in the private and public sectors, in think tanks and politics, Stephanie’s range of experience gives her an innate understanding of a range of policy issues and creative approaches to solving them. Stephanie has worked in federal politics in the Opposition Leader’s office, on the provincial campaign in Ontario seeing Doug Ford elected as Premier, and in local politics in Ottawa.

Cole Hogan
Director of Creative
Others make content. Cole makes art.
Having played a leading role in the merging of Alberta’s Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, Cole is a highly talented communications professional. Cole is responsible for some of the most innovative advertisements seen in Canadian politics and played a key role in electing Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario and Jason Kenney as Premier of Alberta.

Christine Simundson
Senior Consultant
Christine wins campaigns.
Christine’s experience in the legal profession coupled with her experience in marketing and promotions gives her an edge when it comes to grassroots activism. Before joining Rubicon, Christine was active in the Ontario PC Party War Room during the 2018 Provincial election. Christine’s guidance elected 17 of the PC MPPs in Peel Region, Halton, Toronto and Northern Ontario. Christine was the PC Party Organizer for Peel Region and played a senior role in organizing the PC Leadership race of 2018.

Of course, have a read through the site to take it all in. Pretty sickening when corruption and cronyism is marketed as being “effective” in these roles.

And no, this isn’t being used to exclusively bash the conservatives. Here are 2 people from Rubicon who served in the Ontario Government when it was run by Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty. Another was involved with both the Federal and New Brunswick Liberals.

Very interesting. Another operative for Rubicon was Maxime Bernier’s old campaign manager when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2016/2017. Anyhow, the rampant ties shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point, as all parties have dirty hands.

Now, looking briefly at the Ontario Lobbying Registry:

Of course, this is just what’s on file in Ontario. Pretty obvious that they are involved in promoting big pharma and vaccinations.

As for Innovative Medicines Canada, it has quite the member list, including a lot of common names. It describes itself as “the national association representing the voice of Canada’s innovative pharmaceutical industry”. Thank you Karen for clarifying this in the comments.

I.M.C. states that it works “with governments, insurance companies, healthcare professionals and stakeholders to advance the field and enhance the wellbeing of Canadians. We are committed to being valued partners in Canada’s healthcare system.” It also claims to “form effective alliances, support policies…” to widen access to medicines across Canada.

The Vice-Chair is Cole Pinnow, of Pfizer Canada, who has been very busy lobbying both Federally and across Provinces. The Treasurer is a representative from Gilead.

Everywhere one looks, there are more and more connections between big pharma, and the political class who pushes for policies to promote this. Actual science, medicine, and honest discourse seems to fall by the wayside. Check this article from Real Reason for more information.

Of course, all of this is only what’s on paper. There is likely a lot that goes on behind the scenes.

It’s curious that Rubicon also pushes its ties to the defense industry. Really makes one wonder why Federal Conservatives claim that much more military spending is needed. Are they really concerned about the troops, or is this about generating more business for their handlers?

(1) https://rubiconstrategy.com/
(2) https://archive.is/8e3mT
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-balfour-6ab1027/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-coates-72983958/
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-harris-69348726/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/louise-mercier-8042271a/
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jan-o-driscoll-0981651a/
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-smitheman-a057b526/
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaron-gairdner-2b66aa155/
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/shae-mcglynn/
(11) https://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(12) http://innovativemedicines.ca/about/member-companies/
(13) https://realreason.ca/kory/

No, this isn’t just one rogue person, or one rogue firm that behaves like this. Conflicts of interest between politics and business are rampant. Below are some of the examples previously covered on this site. Take the plunge, if you dare.

Also consider: Rubicon, like other firms, has operatives in multiple parties in the same area. For specific examples: the firm has ties to the Ontario Liberals and Conservatives, as well as the Federal Liberals and Conservatives. Doesn’t really matter who wins the election.

Indemnified Manufacturers: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

This will be a short article, and briefly cover one case: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII). It dealt with a lawsuit against drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and whether they were liable for their products. The point is that the ruling very closely parallels what’s happening now.

To sum it up: no one is responsible for maiming or killing people with experimental drugs. The buck gets passed and passed, so no one has to face it.

Of course, this is of no comfort to people who have lost loved ones. It’s sickening to see that the rules are stacked against the average person.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

The point of this: GlaxoSmithKline was indemnified from any liabilities that their “interim authorized” vaccines might have led to. Guess they don’t really stand behind their work. Does any of this sound familiar?

Does the lack of transparency also sound familiar?

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

[39] Ms. Hyacenth says that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit did not advise her of these risks. Although Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit was originally a defendant in the action, the plaintiffs released her from the action after being unable to find an expert who would opine that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit breached her standard of care in administering the vaccine.

It gets interesting since there is in fact no agreement between the drug manufacturer and the patient. By this logic, GlaxoSmithKline wouldn’t be liable even without the indemnification agreement.

Even worse, the “learned intermediary”, the physician, isn’t really responsible either, since they were just following the advice of Health Canada. Remember, it doesn’t matter what your doctors are saying, because they are not responsible for whatever happens to you.

As for Government Officials (such as the Health Minister), they aren’t responsible either. As long as they claim these decisions are made for the good of society, they are pretty much untouchable as well.

Read the entire decision. The case is enlightening, for a few different reasons. If you think you have recourse if a loved one dies or gets seriously injured, think again.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc7066/2019onsc7066.html
(2) Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019 ONSC 7066

Updated Vaccine Product Inserts STILL Show Lack Of Critical Testing: Pregnancy; New Mothers; Children

The interim authorized (not approved) so-called “vaccines” in Canada have had some updates to their product inserts. However, the same concerns remain. Even though new side effects are being listed, the emergency authorization still allows these to be distributed.


Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

And it’s also worth a reminder that the manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. Therefore, if this screws up or kills people, the creators are off the hook complete.

1. AstraZeneca

2. Johnson & Johnson

3. Moderna

4. Pfizer

But don’t worry, these vaccines are safe and effective. The proper one for you, is the first one you are offered…. lab-rat.

Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

This article concerns a lawsuit from July 6, 2020, which had previously been talked about. This is the challenge from Vaccine Choice Canada and several individuals which was supposed to end all regulations and medical martial law in Canada.

Instead of that, this lawsuit is no closer to Trial than it was 14 months ago. There are still no defenses filed. In fact, other than Windsor-Essex Country and their MOH, Wajid Ahmed, no one else is even listed as having a lawyer. Rather than file an application for a default judgement, Vaccine Choice Canada has been content to let it sit forever, and just ask for donations. This is clearly designed to go nowhere, but that is never made clear to the people who get solicited for money.

And no, it’s not their only case. There is another filed on October 24, 2019, to challenge mandatory immunization of students. There has been no movement on that since March 2020, when the pleadings ended.

The shoddy work of the 2020 case had been critiqued before, however, it’s long time to take a look at the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario. Let’s see exactly why this is due to fail, assuming it were ever challenged. It’s not enough to say that a document is garbage. Instead, it must be explained “why” that is the case.

Recently, the suit from Action4Canada was critiqued, and much the same defects were noted. That will never get to Trial either.

As with the last review, the pleadings are so awful, that it’s difficult to believe this was done by accident. This doesn’t look like the work of a lawyer with 35-40 years of experience, but someone who is trying to ensure a case gets bogged down.

To be clear, this isn’t a defense of Trudeau, Ford, Tory, or any of their authoritarian operatives. That being said, it’s impossible to pretend that this lawsuit actually stands a chance in Court.

To start off, let’s look at a few parts of the Ontario Rules for Civil Procedure. This will list the specifics which are relevant here.

Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

18.01 Except as provided in rule 18.02 or subrule 19.01 (5) (late delivery of defence) or 27.04 (2) (counterclaim against plaintiff and non-party), a statement of defence (Form 18A) shall be delivered,
(a) within twenty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served in Ontario;
(b) within forty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; or
(c) within sixty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served anywhere else. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.01.

18.02 (1) A defendant who is served with a statement of claim and intends to defend the action may deliver a notice of intent to defend (Form 18B) within the time prescribed for delivery of a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (1).
(2) A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend within the prescribed time is entitled to ten days, in addition to the time prescribed by rule 18.01, within which to deliver a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (2).
(3) Subrules (1) and (2) apply, with necessary modifications, to,
(a) a defendant to a counterclaim who is not already a party to the main action and who has been served with a statement of defence and counterclaim; and
(b) a third party who has been served with a third party claim. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (3).

If a Defendant doesn’t file a defence after 20 days, the Plaintiff can go seek a default judgement. This essentially means (if granted) the case would effectively be over. Note: a Defendant can still file a notice of intent, which buys them an extra 10 days. It does not stop the proceedings entirely.

Where no Defence Delivered
19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3.

19.02 (1) A defendant who has been noted in default,
(a) is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the statement of claim; and
(b) shall not deliver a statement of defence or take any other step in the action, other than a motion to set aside the noting of default or any judgment obtained by reason of the default, except with leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiff. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.02 (1).

According to the Rules, if a Defendant never bothers to file any sort of response, the facts are considered to be admitted. However, an application for default judgement has to actually be submitted.

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. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
Pleading Law
(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. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (7).

In other words, the pleadings should not contain long quotes. References or short mentions are fine, but there isn’t supposed to be entire paragraphs or pages for this. These aren’t some abstract or archaic concepts, but are pretty basic in terms of drawing up documents.

Claim for Relief
25.06(9) Where a pleading contains a claim for relief, the nature of the relief claimed shall be specified and, where damages are claimed,
(a) the amount claimed for each claimant in respect of each claim shall be stated; and
(b) the amounts and particulars of special damages need only be pleaded to the extent that they are known at the date of the pleading, but notice of any further amounts and particulars shall be delivered forthwith after they become known and, in any event, not less than ten days before trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (9).

This should be commonsense, but if money is going to be demanded (and there are multiple Plaintiffs), one needs to specify who gets what. This avoids confusion and arguments later on.

25.10 Where a party demands particulars of an allegation in the pleading of an opposite party, and the opposite party fails to supply them within seven days, the court may order particulars to be delivered within a specified time. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.10.

A demand for particulars is what gets served when the claim or application is convoluted to understand. This would be another option here. The Defendants could quite reasonably reply with a request that it be made clear what the other side actually wants.

25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.

These Rules around pleadings are pretty similar to Rule 3-1 and 3-7 in the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure. There are minor differences, but the regulations around drafting and serving pleadings is much the same. Now, let’s get into some specific criticisms.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) states that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts. This is not at all concise. This 191 page filing is rambling, redundant, and contains bald allegations without underlying facts listed to support them.

As one example, look at page 21 and Cindy Campbell. Instead of briefly stating facts, this goes on and on about her story. These long, bloated paragraphs make it impossible for the other side to simply admit or deny allegations. This is done very poorly. It continues with Groza, Lepe, Spizzirri and Shepherd.

In fact, the bulk of the SoC doesn’t belong here, and would certainly be struck if challenged by the Defendants. More on that coming up.

2. Relief For Each Claimant Not Stated In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(9)(a) spells out that the amount for each Claimant (or person suing), must be stated clearly. On page 18, there is a request for $11 million, but it appears to be against CBC only. Moreover, it isn’t clear who exactly it’s supposed to go to.

Against the Crown and Municipal Defendants, no money is sought, only declarative and injunctive relief. That’s right, Trudeau, Tam, Ford, and co. aren’t being sued for a penny.

Apparently, brevity isn’t the name of the game here. The relief sought runs from page 4 to 18, and is incredibly repetitive and redundant.

3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) does demand that facts be pleaded, however, it also states that evidence MUST NOT be included. From pages 82 to 103, there are many quotes are references to other experts who have differing views. While that is fine in principle, this is not the place to do it. If they have value as experts, then they need to be called to give evidence at a later time. None of that should be in a SoC.

Also, throughout the document, media articles are often cited and included in the footnotes. That may be fine in other contexts, but Court pleadings is not one of them.

4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(7) instructs that the “effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material”. In short, we don’t need the entire story told here. Keep it brief.

As just one example, look at page 82. What follows are lengthy quotes from various experts. This goes on for several pages, and should not be included in an SoC. If they are relevant, then the people speaking those words need to be called as expert witnesses at a later date.

5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts

Rule 25.11 allows the court to strike out pleadings that:
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

Beginning at page 146, the SoC goes on to make sweeping declarations on a variety of subjects, despite having little to no foundation. While the bulk of the content is true, underlying facts haven’t been included. There are references to media articles, but again, that shouldn’t be there. The SoC is such a mess that the entire document would probably get thrown out if a motion were filed.

Despite a lot of the content being truthful, all allegations in the SoC will be open to challenge by opposing parties. Countless witnesses would have to be called to prove this, and much more. This is written up in such a way that it would be impossible to bring to trial in any reasonable amount of time — notwithstanding it just sitting for a year.

6. Issues With Denis Rancourt’s Pleadings In Statement Of Claim

Denis Rancourt’s introduction starts on page 39 of the SoC, and yes, he has quite the accomplished background as a researcher and academic.

However, it doesn’t look like any facts are pleaded that would implicate the Defendants. On page 40, it’s stated that Research Gate removed an article, and on page 41, YouTube removed his videos. But they aren’t being sued, so this is irrelevant. He also claims that CBC wouldn’t air his work, which is probably annoying, but doesn’t seem to give rise to a lawsuit.

Page 42 goes on to assert that Rancourt’s free speech and expression rights have been violated. But this appears to be making bald assertions or conclusions without pleading necessary facts.

On page 86, Rancourt is quoted as an expert, which may cause issues considering he’s a Plaintiff here. He’s also listed as a mask expert in the Police On Guard case.

7. Service Likely To Be Challenged (If It Ever Happened)

This may seem pretty basic, but the addresses for service have to be included in the SoC. All of them must be, even if multiple parties can be served at the same address. Only a handful are in this case (seen in page 2 and 3). Should the Defendants stop ignoring this case, it may become a real problem.

Then again, it’s an open question how many of these parties have been served at all. The only ones we can be sure of are Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor. The Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, replied to several inquiries that there was nothing filed beyond that notice of intent from WEC. No affidavits of service, even months later.

CBC News has obtained an unredacted copy of a lawsuit launched by an anti-vaccination advocacy group against the government response to the coronavirus crisis, the details of which can now be independently verified and publicly reported for the first time.
The lawsuit was filed July 6 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto by Aylmer, Ont.-based Vaccine Choice Canada and seven individuals. The legal action is a challenge under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the country’s pandemic response measures, including compulsory face masks, the closure of businesses and the enforcement of physical distancing.

In an August 2020 article, CBC claimed that they had “obtained an unredacted copy” of the lawsuit. They imply they were never served, and only got a copy of contacting the Court itself. Whether this is true or not is unclear, but pretty damning if it is. Interestingly, it’s mentioned how the case might get dismissed because it doesn’t comply with the rules, and doesn’t justify a lot of its allegations. CBC also says that Galati refused an on-the-record interview, but then threatened the network with how they cover the protests. All of this sounds surprisingly believable.

Granted, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines last year. But that ended on September 14, 2020. There’s no valid excuse for a response to have not been sent by now.

The items listed above are not minor errors, but could easily stop an action in its tracks. Hard to believe that all of this was due to sloppiness. This isn’t some rookie associate drafting the SoC.

The reality is that the vast majority of the content in the SoC doesn’t belong here. The originating document is supposed to be concise, brief, and outline the facts to be proven. The drafting was quite shoddy, and doesn’t seem like it was ever designed with a Trial in mind.

What we have is a situation where:
[1] The Government won’t try to strike defective pleadings.
[2] The Plaintiff won’t seek default judgement on a non-response.

Nothing has happened to this suit in a year. Outside of collusion or some kind of agreement, there’s no real explanation. But that hasn’t stopped Vaccine Choice Canada and their lawyer from doing a media blitz last summer. Even as donations flooded in, it was never disclosed that what the situation was. Well meaning people were led to believe that this case was being pursued diligently.

This case used to be prominently posted on the Vaccine Choice Canada website. It’s now not as easy to find, unless one knows where to look.

Now, there have been recent claims that these affidavits of evidence (in the thousands of pages) were being compiled to drop on the Government. Even if true, no Judge is going to read documents of that length. Additionally, it won’t help when the flawed SoC gets thrown out, for the reasons listed above.

If exposing Trudeau and Ford was important, just imagine what a SoC, properly drafted, could have done. Imagine all of the information and evidence that would have been flushed out during depositions and discovery. Instead, this has been a waste of time and money. In fact, it doesn’t seem like there’s any urgency to bring any of the Constitutional Rights Centre cases ahead.

Despots like Trudeau and Ford are despicable people, but at least we know they are enemies. It’s the people masquerading as allies who are harder to put up with.

To anyone still donating to these scams, think long and hard about it.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-unredacted-version.pdf
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(4) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(5) https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/media/press-release-legal-challenge-to-covid-19-measures-filed-in-ontario-superior-court/
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988

Canadian Public Health Association Is A Charity, Funded By Drug Companies

The Canadian Public Health Association, or CPHA, is an organization that tries to influence health policy within Canada and abroad. Also, check out the British Fertility Society, the U.S. Council on Patient Safety, the American College Health Foundation (ACHF), the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN), or the Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation (CPSF). All have similar ties.

But that seems harmless enough, right? Surely, these are all well meaning people. However, when one looks up who their major sponsors are, certain names stand out. This certainly is cause for concern, given how much money is known to influence the law and politics.

It’s a shame that this group doesn’t specify the amount that these “platinum” sponsors (or donors) contribute. That being said, this prominent list includes:

  • AstraZeneca
  • Medicago
  • Merck
  • Moderna
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Seqirus

Yes, this organization’s biggest private donors are drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Merck and Moderna, who have a significant financial interest in ensuring the Canadian Government keeps purchasing their vaccines. Things get even more interesting, since the CPHA is actually a charity, registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. Not only is big pharma financing the CPHA, but those grants are subsidized by the public in terms of tax rebates.

CPHA was incorporated in 1912, and it became a charity in 1975. Its CRA registration is 106865744 RR 0001. How the CPHA describes its activities is also very interesting. Corporate documents can also be ordered on the Federal site.

Ongoing programs:

The Canada Revenue Agency also provides a snapshot of the finances of all charities over the last 5 years. Looking through some of the data, we get this information:

2016 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $17,952.00 (0.61%)
Non-receipted donations $693,500.00 (23.43%)
Gifts from other registered charities $45,561.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $759,823.00 (25.67%)
All other revenue $1,443,165.00 (48.76%)
Total revenue: $2,960,001.00

Charitable programs $2,217,691.00 (75.52%)
Management and administration $478,049.00 (16.28%)
Fundraising $17,565.00 (0.60%)
Political activities $96,389.00 (3.28%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $126,791.00 (4.32%)
Total expenses: $2,936,485.00

2017 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $6,562.00 (0.23%)
Non-receipted donations $334,000.00 (11.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,979.00 (2.32%)
Government funding $1,485,693.00 (52.21%)
All other revenue $953,575.00 (33.51%)
Total revenue: $2,845,809.00

Charitable programs $2,275,825.00 (75.97%)
Management and administration $489,917.00 (16.35%)
Fundraising $9,128.00 (0.30%)
Political activities $98,965.00 (3.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,957.00 (4.07%)
Total expenses: $2,995,792.00

2018 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $3,404,797.00 (82.24%)
Management and administration $498,188.00 (12.03%)
Fundraising $9,405.00 (0.23%)
Political activities $101,965.00 (2.46%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $125,710.00 (3.04%)
Total expenses: $4,140,065.00

2019 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $2,609,623.00 (80.85%)
Management and administration $487,201.00 (15.09%)
Fundraising $9,554.00 (0.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,370.00 (3.76%)
Total expenses: $3,227,748.00

2020 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $2,736.00 (0.07%)
Non-receipted donations $397,000.00 (9.57%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,734.00 (0.21%)
Government funding $2,500,250.00 (60.29%)
All other revenue $1,238,324.00 (29.86%)
Total revenue: $4,147,044.00

Charitable programs $2,877,407.00 (82.79%)
Management and administration $552,487.00 (15.90%)
Fundraising $9,548.00 (0.27%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,475,665.00

It would be nice to know what “other revenue” means, considering it represents between a third and half of the money that this organization takes in.

Because of its status as a charity, donations to the CPHA only cost about half the amount given. Approximately 40% to 50% comes back in the form of tax rebates. That’s not the only subsidy this group gets. Oh, there are others indeed.

The CPHA is also receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing this organization for “pandemic relief”. That could be part of why this group never seems to oppose any measures that are brought in.

Considering that CEWS is intended for private businesses to cover their employees’ salaries, this would seem to imply that CPHA isn’t part of the Government.

CPHA is (surprisingly) not currently registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It hasn’t been for a while, and the last time they received money (according to their postings) is 2015.

CPHA has a number of projects on the go, and the climate change ones stand out. Of course, it’s not surprising that it would be intertwined with everything these days. Given this group’s connection to the pharmaceutical industry, it’s quite expected that they also promote the mass vaccination agenda. This from 2017:

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost effective public health interventions, saving countless number of lives through the reduction of morbidity and mortality caused by disease. Despite this, vaccine preventable diseases still persist in Canada, requiring high levels of immunization coverage for continued protection. To better understand the underlying causes and strategies to achieving optimal vaccine coverage and acceptance, a significant body of multifaceted and interdisciplinary research is being developed within the Canadian and international research community. The growing interest in identifying and addressing the challenges faced in improving vaccine acceptance and uptake has resulted in the development of relevant research data, tools, practices, procedures and strategies. However, not all evidence is made easily available and accessible to support health care professionals growing needs.

Following a report commissioned by the Communicable and Infectious Disease Steering Committee of the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Opens in a new window from the Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake Task Group, a number of recommendations to improving vaccine coverage were made. One of which included the establishment of an up-to-date inventory of relevant peer reviewed research and studies underlying the causes and potential solutions to vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

In July 2017, CPHA—funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada Opens in a new window through the Immunization Partnership Fund—launched the Creation of a Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. The project aims to offer access to the latest evidence-based products, resources and tools via the Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Opens in a new window. CANVax is an online database of curated resources to support immunization program planning and promotional activities to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, has been helping fund the Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. It stands to reason that companies like AstraZeneca and Moderna are as well. This is essentially market research, not much different than the Vaccine Confidence Project. Keep in mind, PHAC is actually a branch of the WHO, and not really Canadian.

Dec. 5, 2016 $136,782
Jul. 1, 2017 $15,795
Jul. 1, 2017 $180,418
Jul. 1, 2017 $3,582,970
Oct. 19, 2018 $896,893
Jan. 2, 2020 $3,122,867
May 25, 2020 $508,792

Through Open Search, we can see the donations PHAC has made to CPHA in recent years. That is quite a lot of money, considering that pushing drugs is one of its primary functions.

This is a group that advocates on behalf of certain health policies, including on widespread vaccination. It also receives taxpayer money (along with pharma money) to run its operations. But whose interests does it really serve?

(1) https://www.cpha.ca/
(2) https://www.cpha.ca/corporate-partners
(3) https://www.cpha.ca/projects
(4) https://www.cpha.ca/creation-canadian-immunization-resource-centre
(5) https://opengovca.com/corporation/959421
(6) Corporations Canada Search
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16210&regId=826615#regStart
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) CPHA 01 Continuance
(12) CPHA 02 Directors
(13) CPHA 03 Bylaws

B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996

With the looming vaccine passports in B.C. (and elsewhere), a good piece of legislation to know is the B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996. It doesn’t really require much commentary, as the quoted passages are pretty self explanatory.

Part 2 — Consent to Health Care
Consent rights
4 Every adult who is capable of giving or refusing consent to health care has
(a) the right to give consent or to refuse consent on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds, even if the refusal will result in death,
(b) the right to select a particular form of available health care on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds,
(c) the right to revoke consent,
(d) the right to expect that a decision to give, refuse or revoke consent will be respected, and
(e) the right to be involved to the greatest degree possible in all case planning and decision making.

General rule — consent needed
5 (1) A health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult without the adult’s consent except under sections 11 to 15.
(2) A health care provider must not seek a decision about whether to give or refuse substitute consent to health care under section 11, 14 or 15 unless he or she has made every reasonable effort to obtain a decision from the adult.

Elements of consent
6 An adult consents to health care if
(a) the consent relates to the proposed health care,
(b) the consent is given voluntarily,
(c) the consent is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation,
(d) the adult is capable of making a decision about whether to give or refuse consent to the proposed health care,
(e) the health care provider gives the adult the information a reasonable person would require to understand the proposed health care and to make a decision, including information about
(i) the condition for which the health care is proposed,
(ii) the nature of the proposed health care,
(iii) the risks and benefits of the proposed health care that a reasonable person would expect to be told about, and
(iv) alternative courses of health care, and
(f) the adult has an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers about the proposed health care.

How incapability is determined
7 When deciding whether an adult is incapable of giving, refusing or revoking consent to health care, a health care provider must base the decision on whether or not the adult demonstrates that he or she understands
(a) the information given by the health care provider under section 6 (e), and
(b) that the information applies to the situation of the adult for whom the health care is proposed.

No emergency health care contrary to wishes
12.1 A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care.

However, depending on how malicious the higher ups may be, there are sections that could be twisted and perverted to force certain types of health care. That being said, the whole issue of consent seems pretty clear cut.

Threatening someone’s livelihood, finances, or general freedoms in order to obtain consent amounts to coercion. And that is exactly what forced “vaccines” and tests do. And yes, this has been brought up many times, but these aren’t even approved by Health Canada. They have interim authorization. Considering the emergency declaration was cancelled in Ontario and B.C., this should actually be illegal.

Also check out the Ontario Health Care Consent Act of 1996. So-called medical professionals aren’t allowed to do anything to you if you don’t give voluntary and informed consent.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-health-care-consent-act-of-1996-fyi-for-vaccines-or-tests/
(3) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(4) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(7) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-9.html#docCont
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3