Category: Grifters

Posted on

600 Plaintiffs Appeal Federal “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling: A Look Inside

It’s been a while, but nice to be back!

Back in February, Federal Court Justice Simon Fothergill struck a lawsuit brought by over 600 Plaintiffs. This was over a 2021 requirement to take the experimental injection (a.k.a. get the vaccine passport) in order to keep their jobs.

Now, the ruling (see official version) was interesting, to be blunt.

Part of the ruling differed because of who the Plaintiffs worked for. Approximately 2/3 of them were employed by the Federal Government, while the other 1/3 were part of Federally regulated industries. This caused a split in the ruling, and they were listed as Schedules “A” and “B”.

  • Schedule “A” Plaintiffs were ones who were part of the core public administration, or members of some branch of the Government
  • Schedule “B” Plaintiffs weren’t with the Government, but instead were parts of industries — like banking, the railways, or aviation — that were regulated by Ottawa

The Claim for all Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety because it was so poorly written. The pleading failed to follow even the basics of civil procedure, and failed to lay out a basis for the suit.

From the Federal Court Rules:

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

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

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

Justice Fothergill found that the Statement of Claim was so poorly crafted that it was impossible for the Defendants to file any meaningful defence. It wasn’t thrown out on its merits. He even referenced the ruling against Action4Canada, which was also found to be “bad beyond argument”.

To clarify: neither the Federal case, nor the Action4Canada case in B.C. were struck on their merits. They were struck because they were confusing, convoluted, and impossible to decipher.

While the Federally regulated employees (Schedule “B”) at least had the chance to refile, former Government workers (Schedule “A”) were not so lucky. The Judge ruled that their claims were barred by a legislative requirement that they go through arbitration. Specifically, this is Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Now we get to the appeal.

The Notice of Appeal was filed in March. The Appeal Book (collection of documents) came next, followed by the Appellants‘ and Respondents‘ written arguments.

To sum up, there were 2 major areas to cover:

First, the decision to permanently bar the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs was challenged, on the grounds that their claims lay outside what arbitration and the grievance process could offer.

Second, it was claimed that it was inappropriate to rely on the precedent set by the Action4Canada case, and that they had nothing in common.

Anyhow, read the documents for yourselves.

In response, the Government replied that while there were opportunities to get around the grievance process, the Plaintiffs never explained why they had to, or what steps they took. Furthermore, while “malfeasance of public office” was alleged, the details were never laid out.

In other words, yes, this was at least a possibility, but the Claim didn’t address any of this.

As for the Action4Canada case, Justice Alan Ross laid out in great detail how the British Columbia case was a complete mess, incomprehensible, and sought a litany of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. There was also the problem that large sections were included about non-parties. While the Federal Claim was much shorter, the same problems persisted overall.

Justice Fothergill decided not to duplicate the entire ruling, but simply to refer to it.

A competent lawyer might be able to argue around the arbitration requirement. But in any event, the entire Statement of Claim would have to be rewritten anyway. This Appeal will likely go nowhere.

And the requests for money keep coming!

Familiar with the Wayback Machine? It’s a mainstream archiving site that captures websites at certain times, even if the content is no longer available. Some of the recent business ventures include:

There were even donations sought at one point to finance a public inquiry. It’s unclear how much money came in, or whatever became of that.

Also, donations were sought a few years back for a B.C. doctor’s case that doesn’t appear to have materialized. This isn’t the Action4Canada suit.

Curiously, both the Federal workers and Ontario first responders Plaintiffs were filling out retainer agreements ($1,000 and $1,500 respectively) while donations to finance the litigation were being sought online. The end results weren’t impressive.

People are being asked to donate to cases which clients are already paying a retainer?! That’s something, to say the least.

Then, we have this from the Federal case:

Hello everyone,  

Some of you have already heard but for those who haven’t, the Judge has rendered his decision in the Government’s motion to strike our claim. In a somewhat anticipated move, the claim was struck for 2/3 of the plaintiffs and remains open for 1/3 to amend the claim and resubmit. There is a letter attached from Rocco himself that goes into greater detail about the decision. Needless to say, the decision was an absolute pile of rubbish and the Panel has decided to appeal the decision.  

Now, as you will read in Rocco’s attached letter, there are additional fees associated with launching the appeal. The additional fees are minimal in comparison to the initial retainer but an explanation is required.  

As Rocco’s letter will clarify, the retainer fee was to cover all that was required to see this matter through a trial in the Federal Court. Now that an appeal is required, it is required to go through the Federal Court of Appeals and that alone will cost in excess of $100,000. Rocco budgeted the retainer fee on doing everything to see a trial through the Federal Court which did not include appeals.  

We feel it necessary at this juncture to apologize to each and every one of you. We misinterpreted the finer details of what the retainer fee covered due, no doubt, to our limited knowledge about how the civil court process works and a misunderstanding of the information Rocco provided to us. Some of you asked specifically what all would be covered with the retainer fee and were informed it would cover this entire matter all the way through no matter what action was required and for this, we apologize.  

We wish to reinforce with you that this was not done out of an attempt to deceive or act maliciously. We are going to be out the same amount as anyone else who desires to proceed and be a part of the appeal.  

To avoid repeating the same confusion, the panel asked Rocco to outline the cost implications for every step and all the way to the Supreme Court which Rocco now outlined in his letter. We hope this will better serve all of us and it is also our hopes that you will see this effort by the panel as a way to remain fully transparent on what transpired but also on what to expect going forward. We too, do not want to see other surprises but more importantly, we do agree with Rocco that we have a strong position for an appeal. We ultimately hope for our day in Court but sadly, we did not have our day in Court here as our lawsuit was wrongly struck down as evidently explained in Rocco’s letter. 

We are planning to host another info session with Rocco via Zoom within the next few weeks to answer questions you may have and to provide more information regarding how the appeal process will work. We are not going to attempt to solicit any money from anyone prior to this information session. Our intent is to allow you to consider whether each of you as individuals wish to proceed from this point.  

We understand many of you will have questions. We will do our best to answer them or have Rocco address them in the upcoming info session.  

We have also attached a link to the decision on the Federal Court website. 

Sincerely and most humbly,  

The Federal Employee Lawsuit Panel
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

Shortly after the decision, there was already a request for more money. Even though the Plaintiffs had paid $1,000 each (see agreement), more money was needed to appeal. See letter providing more details about the fees.

The above email was leaked by unhappy client(s), and it eventually made its way here. Unfortunately, it seems to be real.

Apparently, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs who had their pleadings struck as “bad beyond argument” should consider that a win, because at least they are allowed a rewrite.

For reference: the email and the attachment were both sent here shortly after the February ruling. Fair to say, some are unhappy with the services they’ve received.

It’s worth asking why the this isn’t being done for free, given the shoddy drafting of the Statement of Claim to begin with. And budgeting for a Trial? Does anyone seriously think this will get that far?

The Federal Court of Appeals will throw this case out, just like the B.C. Court of Appeals will throw out Action4Canada’s. And Vaccine Choice’s suit will get tossed in early 2024.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Posted on

A Look Into The Motion To Throw Out Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 2020 Lawsuit

The Ontario Government has filed its Notice of Motion, explaining exactly how and why it wants the July 6th, 2020 lawsuit thrown out. There are more papers to come, but here is the gist of it, according to the Attorney General:

  • The case is frivolous and vexatious
  • The Orders being challenged lapsed long ago
  • The pleadings are written so poorly, it’s impossible to respond to

For context, consider that the Claim was filed in July 2020, and then sat inactive for 2 1/2 years. The first Court appearance (of any kind) was on January 17th, 2023. This was a case conference to schedule dates for a Motion to Strike.

We are approaching the 3 year anniversary of the Statement of Claim being filed.

The case has been idle and inactive for so long that many of the issues it raises are moot, and no longer of relevance. This includes various emergency orders, which have long since expired. This site predicted last Summer that this would happen.

That’s right: the Government is trying to get the case tossed, at least in part, because the orders being challenged lapsed ages ago.

The Notice states that absent a new Declaration of Emergency, it’s impossible to issue more Orders such as under the Reopening Ontario Act.

The Statement of Claim, despite being 191 pages, is lacking in any details or specificity about the orders and regulations that are being challenged. In other words, it’s too vague for the Defendants to meaningfully respond to.

The Notice cites Rule 25.06(1) of Civil Procedure. This refers to the requirement that pleadings contain a concise set of material facts. The Claim certainly does not.

The Notice cites Rule 21.01(1)(b) of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Claim doesn’t disclose a reasonable Cause of Action. In other words, it’s not asking for things that the Ontario Superior Court (Civil) can realistically grant, even if the allegations were proven.

The Notice states: “The pleadings are replete with irrelevant, speculative and bare allegations,
including numerous allegations which are beyond belief or proof. The pleadings are filled with conspiracy theories, including allegations regarding Bill Gates, the World Health Organization, and “a declared agenda to impose global mandatory vaccination, ID chipping, testing and immunity certification on all citizens” that “has been in the works for decades.””

It’s worth mentioning that filling the Claim with non-justicible issues will very likely cause the pleadings to be struck for that reason alone. It happened with Action4Canada in August 2022, and with 600 Federal Plaintiffs in February 2023. In fact, it’s inevitable that those cases will be used as precedents here.

The Vaccine Choice lawsuit is similarly filled with issues that a Civil Court can’t preside over, and makes countless accusations against non-Parties.

Expect a Decision with the words “bad beyond argument” early in the new year.

As for sending a message to the CBC, that will never happen. The lawsuit was discontinued against them in July 2022, after they threatened to being an anti-SLAPP Motion.

Another ground for the Motion is that the Claim is scandalous (pleads evidence), frivolous and vexatious. The Government is claiming that the suit is a waste of everyone’s time, and is very poorly written. If only someone could have spoken up about that years ago.

The dates for various documents to be filed are outlined in this Requisition Form. It doesn’t appear that there will be any Affidavits or cross-examinations to be done, but those are listed anyway.

The undeniable reality is that there was never any attempt — serious or otherwise — to bring this case to Trial. This site has been warning about that since late 2020 and into 2021.

The Applications pushed by Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense Canada are apparently “moot” as well, and not being advanced. However, neither group makes that clear, and both are still soliciting donations. More on that another time.

The leadership at Vaccine Choice doesn’t deny that nothing has happened with this case. Instead, they offer nonsense justifications about why it’s no longer necessary to pursue. Probably the most common example are claims that simply filing this lawsuit led to exemptions for masks. Even if this were true, what about everything else that was alleged in the papers?

Action4Canada boasts of similar achievements, such as its filing resulting in mask exemptions on B.C. Ferries. Of course, no evidence is ever submitted.

The Motion with Vaccine Choice is scheduled to take place over 1 1/2 to 2 days. Currently, January 30th and February 1st, 2024 have been set aside. Watching via Zoom should be an option.

*A small disclaimer: this appears to have been only filed by the Ontario Defendants. It’s possible that other Notices will be coming as well. They have until June 30th. However, the issues raised will be similar, if not virtually identical.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(6) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal: Why Didn’t They Just Rewrite The Claim?

Note: Court documents are provided below. Help yourself!

August 2020 (or around then), a group called Action4Canada began soliciting donations for the promise of a lawsuit to challenge martial law measures in British Columbia. However, it would be about a year before anything would materialize.

August 17th, 2021, Action4Canada filed this 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim) in Vancouver. To put it very mildly, the lawsuit was a complete mess, and never stood any chance of making it to Trial.

August 31st, the Canuck Law site published this review of Action4Canada’s 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC). The gist of the article was that the document completely failed to meet the basics of the Rules of Civil Procedure for British Columbia, and would inevitably be struck.

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

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

That article gathered some real traction, and was spread throughout the alt-media and freedom community. However, it seemed that the people at Action4Canada were outraged, and alleged that it caused a drop in donations.

September 7th, the Canuck Law site was sued for defamation for $7,000,000, and that article was specifically included. It’s believed that the head of Action4Canada instigated the suit, in retaliation for increased scrutiny, and the loss in donations.

May 31st, 2022, an Application to Strike was heard in Vancouver to throw out Action4Canada’s case. This came after months of the Plaintiffs trying to delay matters.

August 29th, 2022, Justice Alan Ross struck the Action4Canada case in its entirety, although a rewrite was allowed. His ruling greatly paralleled the 2021 review that this site had been sued over. Even the B.C. Law Society piled on, using this case as an example of how not to draft pleadings. See page 15, (27 overall).It was a bittersweet vindication.

That said, Justice Ross did allow the NOCC to be rewritten, and that’s where things get interesting. The Plaintiffs could have just written it properly, but instead, the case was appealed.

Some Plaintiffs, such as Amy Muranetz and Federico Fuoco, saw the writing on the wall when the August ruling came. They realized that this wasn’t what they signed up for, and discontinued. But the Appeal is still going ahead with the majority of the parties.

The Appeal seeks to overturn several parts of Justice Ross’ decision, such as this:

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:

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

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

Yes, the Appellants are trying to get the B.C. Court of Appeals to decide that a Civil Court is able to make criminal rulings, determine scientific consensus, and make rulings with respect to the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration. Clearly, this will go nowhere.

The Appeal also states that costs should not have been awarded to the Defendants, despite the fact that the NOCC was incoherent. As costs are generally discretionary, this won’t make headway.

While claiming that the case was improperly struck, the Appellant’s Factum avoids the elephant in the room: the original Claim didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure at all.

Again, the case could simply have been rewritten.

It’s worth noting that Action4Canada is still soliciting donations, under the pretense that an amended NOCC will be filed anytime. It’s been 8 months since Justice Ross’ ruling, and still nothing. Also, considering the mess the lawyers made last time, shouldn’t they be replaced by more competent people?

And is Lawrence Wong part of this, or is his office just a mailing address?

Action4Canada’s main lawyer said in an Affidavit earlier this year (while he’s suing other people out West) that the amended NOCC was on hold. Meanwhile, this group is still asking for more money, for a NOCC that they know isn’t coming anytime soon.

In reality, Action4Canada has been fundraising since about the Summer of 2020. As no legitimate lawsuit has been filed in nearly 3 years, is this not a scam?

Reading through the Respondents’ Factums — and there are 5 of them — they all point to the same thing. Instead of appealing, the Claim could simply have been written in a clear and intelligible way. Justice Ross provided that option.

The Factum from Action4Canada ignores the elephant in the room. The case was struck (largely) because it was so convoluted and incomprehensible. That point is glossed over almost entirely. And what so the Defendants (Respondents) have to say about this?

Factum of Attorney General of Canada:

[Page 14, Paragraph 27] The chambers judge found those pleadings above to be improper. However he did not dismiss those or any parts of the action. He did not conduct an exhaustive review of the claim. He determined that he was unable to parse the claim to indicate whether paragraphs, categories, or claims should remain in or should be struck, stating: “[t]hat is not the proper role of this court.”

Factum of B.C. Ferries, Brittney Sylvester:

[Page 5, Paragraph 15] The chambers judge’s finding of prolixity is unimpeachable. At more than 390 pages, the NOCC is clearly prolix. But sheer length is not the only problem. The NOCC’s scope is sweeping and unconstrained: it makes wide-ranging allegations—even against non-parties—that have little or no connection to any justiciable question of law. It contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information and convoluted legal arguments. And as the chambers judge found, it is impenetrable: “[it] is not a pleading that can properly be answered by a responsive pleading”. As such, it was properly struck.

Factum of Provincial Defendants:

[Page 3, Paragraphs 11, 12] The NOCC is replete with wide-ranging and unconstrained allegations against both the defendants and non-parties. It alleges a vast narrative of global conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and corporate and non-governmental organization corruption. Non-parties against whom the appellants levy allegations include Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the World Health Organization.

The appellants seek declaratory relief on numerous non-justiciable issues pertaining to questions of science, public health, and conspiracy theories. The appellants also allege numerous offences under the Criminal Code and violations of international legal instruments—none of which are viable causes of action in a domestic civil action.

Factum of Peter Kwok, TransLink:

[Page 2, Paragraph 9] Justice Ross found that the NOCC “is not a document that the court can mend by striking portions”. He noted that the NOCC contained “multiple allegations against the defendants individually and jointly”, such that it “would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular allegation” . Justice Ross went on to find that the issues with the NOCC were so profound that it could not be saved by a piecemeal striking of the problematic portions, as doing so “would invite more confusion and greater expenditure of the resources of all concerned.”

Factum of Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care:

[Page 6] The appellants ignore that the notice of civil claim was struck due to its prolix and confusing nature, and focus on challenging the obiter of Justice Ross in respect of which claims are properly included in the notice of civil claim. Justice Ross did not specifically strike any of the claims in the notice of civil claim, but rather sought to provide guidance on which claims could be properly included in the next iteration of the appellants’ notice of civil claim. These issues are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Justice Ross’ order ought to be overturned. Rather, this appeal ought to address the serious defects in the notice of civil claim which render it prolix, scandalous, embarrassing, and confusing to the point where it is impossible to properly respond to.

As painful as this is to say, how are they wrong? These quotes explain quite well why the original NOCC was struck. And this leads to another point: Action4Canada frequently misrepresents why this happened at all. They admit it was prolix (too long), but downplay other issues.

Another common lie is that Justice Ross found the NOCC to be valid. He did no such thing. Instead, he said there were “potentially valid causes of action”, which is not same thing. There might be parts that theoretically could be litigated if the NOCC were written properly.

So, what happens when the B.C. Court of Appeals eventually throws this out? Will there be an Application for Leave (permission) to get the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this? If so, an amended NOCC may not be filed until 2025 or 2026.

Why wasn’t the original NOCC written properly?

Why appeal instead of just writing it according to the guidelines of Justice Ross?

Remember: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves!

On an unrelated, but humourous note: Action4Canada has apparently enraged gay rights groups to the point where some of their financial information was posted online. See General Ledger below. It seems that in late April 2022, page 10, there was a $200,000 transfer to pay for legal fees (and a corresponding transfer to cover the balance). It’s fair to assume that this “Action” has cost much more than half a million in total.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(3) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(4) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(5) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(6) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(7) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(8) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(9) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(10) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health

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

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide To Spotting Scam Lawsuits

Have you ever been asked to donate to a public interest lawsuit? Well, if you have any connection to the “freedom movement” in Canada, odds are that the answer is yes.

This piece is designed to offer a constructive suggestion: before donating to any case, it’s best to do some due diligence on what’s going on. Yes, that will involve some work, but life is like that.

To add the disclaimer: poorly written and handled litigation doesn’t always mean corruption. There are other explanations like carelessness and incompetence. But at some point, questions have to be asked.

The following is a list of interrelated ways a person can tell if a lawsuit is designed to fail, or at least is extremely likely to fail. While it’s written with “pandemic” measures in mind, there is cross-over with other issues. A single indicator doesn’t necessarily prove malintent, but these are definitely red flags.

1. The Lawsuit Is Filed In The Wrong Court

This should be obvious: Courts only have jurisdiction to hand out certain remedies. If a relief being sought is outside that jurisdiction, Judges have no power to grant it, regardless of how strong the evidence and/or witness testimony might be.

Action4Canada was called out for doing this. At paragraph 52:

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:

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

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

The case was struck (in part) because it demanded many remedies that a Civil Court in British Columbia had no jurisdiction to grant. Action4Canada is appealing, but that will go nowhere.

Earlier this year, a Federal case was thrown out (in part) for the same reason. It too has been appealed.

Another instance where jurisdiction is an issue concerns cases involving Government employees and/or employees of unionized organizations. In those cases, there’s typically a grievance process that leads to arbitration, and a restriction on litigation. There are limited ways around it, but that requires competent attorneys to argue.

It the lawyers managing cases don’t even know what areas the Court has jurisdiction over, then they probably shouldn’t be practicing.

2. The Wrong Paperwork Is Submitted

This is related to jurisdiction, but is a somewhat separate issue. If a person asks a Judge to do something, then the correct forms have to be filed.

A Statement of Claim, (or Notice of Civil Claim in B.C.), is what’s usually filed to start a lawsuit. However, other, more specific or limited remedies must use an Application or Petition.

In Ontario, a request for a: Prohibition (ban), Mandamus (order to compel); or Certiorari (review of lower decision) must be done by Application. If put in an Action, the case would probably be thrown out.

Also, in Ontario, a request for a Prohibition, Mandamus, or Certiorari must be filed in Divisional Court (not Superior), unless permission is granted otherwise. Vaccine Choice (2019 case), Police On Guard, and Children’s Health Defense would likely have their suits tossed just for this.

While it’s true that this can — often — be fixed later, it’s still a huge waste of time and money. At a minimum, it shows great incompetence.

3. There Are Never Any Status Updates Or Announcements

It seems logical that any legitimate person or organization would keep everyone posted as to what’s going on, good or bad. Documents should be posted, along with a “Coles Notes” summary of what has been happening. This not only reassures prospective and returning donors, but shows transparency with money being spent.

Obvious examples where this is not done include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada (both); (b) Police On Guard; and (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada. The only reason anyone knows about this is because it’s been reported here.

4. Basic Steps Take Unreasonably Long To Accomplish

The Notice of Civil Claim took nearly a year for Action4Canada to file. Instead of a short and straightforward pleading, it was a mish-mash of every conspiracy (true and false) crammed together. It didn’t follow the basics for drafting, and more on that later.

The NOCC was predictably struck in its entirety. Despite promises of a rewrite — and more requests for donations — an amended version hasn’t materialized in 8 months.

It shouldn’t take months or years to draft a NOCC.

5. The Statute Of Limitations Is Completely Ignored

Jurisdictions all over the world place time limits on how long potential litigants have to launch cases. For civil litigation in Canada and Canadian Provinces, that’s generally 2 years. There are exceptions, but 2 years is the most common.

If a lawyer takes forever to start a case, or just files something — and lets it sit — that places the client at risk. This is because if that person is forced to later get different help, he or she might find their grievances are time barred. Yes, this is a real thing.

Each Province is slightly different, but the Limitation Acts can all be looked up.

6. The Pleadings Are Incoherent And Hard To Follow

This doesn’t really require an explanation. Documents need to be written clearly, and in a way that people who aren’t familiar with the issues can at least understand what’s going on. And that ties in directly with the next point.

7. Basic Rules Of Civil Procedure Are Rarely Followed

Each Court has similar rules for how to draft a lawsuit. These include:

(a) Short, concise set of facts that are being alleged
(b) Don’t plead evidence, or long quotes. That comes later
(c) Clearly state the relief being sought, namely, what you’re asking for
(d) State what laws/regulations will support the suit
(e) Provide enough particulars, or specifics, so the other side can respond
(f) Outline how and why this Court has jurisdiction
(g) Make the pleading organized enough so that it can be understood.

Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it?

See Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada and the Federal case for examples. These were written so poorly that anyone would have considerable difficultly following along.

So far, 2 of those have been struck for essentially the reasons outlined. Vaccine Choice faces a similar hearing in early 2024.

8. The Case Accepts Far Too Much at Face Value

Considering that these martial law measures were based on false pretenses, it’s disheartening to see many lawyers (across Provinces) playing along with this. They rarely, if ever, challenge the fake science. Instead, it’s often just a simple plea for exemptions, or a slight rollback of the measures.

It’s also a source of irritation that few (if any) challenge the notion of a virus itself. If lockdowns, vaccine and mask mandates are all based on fraud, why assume that the virus is real?

9. Lawyers Spend More Time Soliciting Donations Than In Court

Another cause for concern. If there are endless requests for donations, and little progress to show in advancing a lawsuit, it could very well be a scam.

10. Lawyers Are Also Receiving Government Money

Who else are the lawyers getting money from?

CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, was just one program in operation over the last few years. Yes, it’s been inactive since late 2021, but there were an awful lot of lawyers and firms listed there. This includes some in the “freedom community”. Of course, that was just one program.

11. Gaslighting, Threatening And/Or Suing Of Critics

That has happened here, and will be addressed in much more detail at a later date. Exposing the grifts has certainly come with consequences.

Now for some questions that have come up before.

What should people be looking for?

This is certainly a reasonable thing to ask. Most people have better things to do with their lives than study law, so what should they be alert to?

One idea is to start with points #3 and #6. Check to see what kind of updates are available on the organization’s website. If it’s legitimate, there should be fairly regular postings. Also, are the documents filed straightforward and easy to understand, or do they seem convoluted and incomprehensible?

Ask as a lay person: does this appear legitimate?

Why keep focusing on this topic?

For a few reasons.

First, it’s an issue that few in the movement were willing to touch back in 2020 or 2021. However, the risk has largely gone away since it’s more openly talked about these days. And it’s still happening.

Second, it’s not purity spiraling to have standards. Yes, everyone wants freedom and hates martial law, but it’s predatory to take advantage of people in this manner. No one would tolerate this from Trudeau, Ford, or Horgan, but it’s okay when “freedom fighters” rip others off? They need to be cast out.

Third, see point #11.

Does this mean these cases are so-called “controlled opposition”?

In some sense, it’s irrelevant if a case is shoddy due to greed, incompetence, or corruption. The result is the same. Specifically: litigants who had potentially valid issues will never get their day in Court, due to serious errors made by their lawyer(s).

It’s impossible to know for sure without some inside knowledge. But for a lot of these cases, it seems to be the most plausible explanation.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en

Posted on

The Forgotten Grifts: Police On Guard & Children’s Health Defense Canada

Today, we’re going back to a few lesser known lawsuits against lockdown measures. Both were filed in April 2021 (a full 2 years ago), and neither have had a single Court appearance. These are: (a) a police challenge promoted by the group “Police On Guard”; and (b) a challenge for students led by Children’s Health Defense Canada.

Both groups are still soliciting donations, while giving the impression that they have cases actively moving through the system.

So, what are the problems?

1. POG/CHDC Cases Filed In Wrong Ontario Court

To understand just how deep this goes, let’s take a look into the issue of jurisdiction. Filing in the wrong one is typically fatal to a case.

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.
Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
.
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

According to Sections 2 and 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, litigation involving a mandamus (compulsion order), or a prohibition (ban), must be an Application for Judicial Review. It also needs to be filed in Divisional Court, unless leave (permission) is granted.

The Police On Guard case asks for a prohibition (page 13).

The Children’s Health Defense Canada case asks for a prohibition (page 14), and also for a mandamus (page 15).

It doesn’t appear that permission was ever obtained (or ever sought) in order to try these cases in Superior Court, as opposed to Divisional. Consequently, they would probably be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction if they were ever challenged.

Of course, it has to be asked why they haven’t yet been challenged. Perhaps there’s an agreement among the parties to just let these sit.

2. POG/CHDC Cases Haven’t Had Single Court Appearance

It’s easy to SEARCH ONLINE for the latest updates. Neither case has been in Court, and again, we must ask why. There has been no effort to advance either one.

There was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request to have the Children’s Health Defense Canada case thrown out. This is simply filing a letter asking for it to be done. Only in truly incoherent cases is this granted.

Instead, it was misrepresented in alt-media circles to mean that a formal Motion to Strike has been filed, and then dismissed. That didn’t happen. So, why hasn’t the Attorney General made any real effort to get either case tossed? Was there some kind of agreement?

3. POG/CHDC Cases Recycle Previously Struck Content

Both Applications are asking the Court to make declarations as to “what the science is”. These exact remedies have already been ruled as inappropriate both in the Action4Canada case, and the more recent Federal vaccine passport ruling. Both Judges said that these are not the types of questions that should be brought.

There’s also the problem that both Applications are pleaded very poorly, and would likely be struck for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See the Vaccine Choice critique, as the flaws are nearly identical.

Worth pointing out: the Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense pleadings are virtual clones. It’s as if one was directly cut and pasted to form the basis of the other.

4. Police On Guard Is A Lobbying/Fundraising Group

From their Certificate of Incorporation, it appears that one of the major purposes of Police on Guard is to convince officers to join the ongoing Court action. Yes, its function (at least in part), is to act as a recruitment and lobbying tool to drive potential applicants and donations.

It’s not a stretch to label Police on Guard as a fundraising arm.

5. CHD Canada Case Has Major Conflicts On Interest

Supposedly, Children’s Health Defense Canada is run by Amanda Forbes. That’s very interesting, considering that the documents from Corporations Canada don’t list her at all.

It gets weirder, as Galati, counsel for the CHD Canada lawsuit is listed as a Director. Considering that CHD Canada is listed as an Applicant, that would essentially make Galati a self-representing litigant. Was this ever disclosed?

Moreover, the addresses for all the Directors are that of his Toronto law office. So, is CHD Canada just a shell corporation?

Does Robert Kennedy know that his name and brand are being used for this?

Anyone can search and download Police On Guard and CHD Canada corporate documents.

There’s a public interest in knowing what’s going on. These lawsuits were filed 2 years ago, challenging various lockdown measures. They were publicly advertised, and public donations have been solicited. There’s nothing private about any of this.

Also, Court documents are public records, but the point has been made.

It’s past time to ask some hard questions, isn’t it?

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/category/police-on-guard-court-case/
(2) https://policeonguard.ca/donate/
(3) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/legalcase/
(4) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/donate/
(5) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/
(6) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=13140873&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=police%20on%20guard&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(7) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12951126&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=children%27s%20health&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(9) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

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

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

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

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada’s OTHER Lawsuit: Dormant After 3 1/2 Years

Often in court cases, the information being eventually drops off. As a result, many lose track of interesting claims that they were otherwise interested in. An October 2019 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada is one such case. This is case #CV-19-00629810-0000, filed in Ontario Superior Court, in Toronto.

This isn’t to be confused with the high profile suit of July 2020. This was filed to challenge lockdown measures imposed (primarily) by the Ford Regime in Ontario. These are quite different. The 2019 suit covered vaccination policies in schools.

While there are 2 different cases, they have something in common: both have sat idly for years, without any activity to show for it.

Thankfully, we’re in an age where case status can be SEARCHED online, and documents can often be obtained for free. As there had been no announcements since 2019, an update is long overdue. And as it turns out, there’s nothing to report. Nothing has happened since the pleadings in later 2019/early 2020.

Nor does it seem like the 2019 case has had a single hearing.

So, what happened with all the donations?

And that’s interesting, considering some of the problems with the drafting.

1. Should Have Been An Application, Not A Statement Of Claim

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act lays out some circumstances which cases need to be brought as an Application for Judicial Review, as opposed to having more discretion to file a Statement of Claim.

Page 6 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that both a Mandamus (requirement to perform a duty) and a Prohibition (a restriction) are being sought. As a result, it looks like the wrong paperwork was filed to get this going.

2. Suit Should Probably Have Been Filed In Divisional Court

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.

Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

Section 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act states that an Application for Judicial Review must be brought in Divisional Court. Now, it’s possible to get permission to file in Superior Court, but it doesn’t look like that ever happened. Nor does it appear that it was attempted.

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a common criticism. The Rules of Civil Procedure need to be followed when drafting lawsuits. The people being sued need to have enough specific information to understand the allegations against them. It also has to be written in a way that’s understandable.

The Ontario Government also claims that the Sections 2 and 7 Charter challenges are so vague and non-specific that they are impossible to respond to.

4. VCC Has To Plead For Public Interest Standing

Starting on page 10, the Statement of Defence argues that there is no standing here, as the organization is not a person, and not directly impacted. This is funny.

There is a way for organizations to do this, and they have to convince the Court that they meet a 3 part test. That’s how standing is granted.

(1) Does the Application raise a serious justiciable issue?
(2) Do the Organizations have a real stake or genuine interest in that issue?
(3) Is the participation of the Organizations a reasonable and effective way to litigate?

Granted, a well written document could probably have gotten them standing, but it still needs to be covered.

Then again, if the case was never intended to go forward, then maybe it’s not necessary to write a Claim or Application properly.

5. Why No Attempt To Get Claim Thrown Out?

Why keep covering these grifts? Because the truth matters.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t real issues to bring to Court. Obviously, there were, and they deserve considerable media attention. However, the case has just sat idly for years now.

A question worth asking is why the Ford Government has made no attempt to get this case thrown out (struck) since it was filed in October 2019. No action has been taken to bring it forward either. Was there collusion to keep everything in limbo?

It appears that the wrong paperwork was filed, and submitted to the wrong Court. The quality of the Statement of Claim is very poor as well. So, why just let it sit?

Keep in mind, Ford also let the July 6, 2020 Claim sit unchallenged for the first 2 1/2 years as well. Vaccine Choice didn’t have their first Court appearance until January 17, 2023. And that was just to set down Motion dates.

Are these just “placeholders”? Is the goal to keep them on the books as long as possible, in order to give the appearance that something is being done? Is this a way to enrich the Directors?

Remember to donate, suckers!

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html

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

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike