Category: Grifters

Posted on

Ottawa Files Motion To Strike Federal Vaccine Passport Suit From Galati

Another prediction seems to be playing out.

Late in 2021, Ottawa imposed “vaccine” requirements on nearly all Federal workers. In short, employees needed to have at least 2 shots of the (who-knows-what) injections to keep their jobs. Many retired, others quit, and some forced their bosses to let them go.

May 30, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court by a man who supposedly is Canada’s top Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati. But you wouldn’t know that from the quality of his work.

The Federal Government has filed a Motion to throw out the Claim brought by 600 former members of the civil service. It alleges a number of serious defects, including: mootness, irrelevant issues, defects in the pleading, lack of jurisdiction, lack of factual basis, an improper filing, among other things.

A source told this site (now confirmed) at the end of 2021 that such a suit was in the works. Allegedly, it would involve 500-600 individual Plaintiffs, with each paying $1,000 towards the proceedings. For that kind of money, one would expect a serious case to go forward.

Unfortunately, this review from September has aged very well. It contained an outline of several errors that would lead to the Statement of Claim getting struck.

The Action4Canada (BC) and Vaccine Choice Canada (ON) suits were covered in detail last year. Both were written without any consideration of the Rules of Civil Procedure in their respective Provinces. This Federal case contains most of the same errors. In many instances, it appears to be a direct cut and paste from the earlier ones.

Note: this isn’t to justify coercing people to take injections. However, it’s pretty much undeniable that this lawsuit never stood a chance. Painful as it is to admit, the Defense does have valid criticisms about the shoddy drafting. Here are some errors cited before:

  • Rule 173: Allegations aren’t set out in clearly numbered and organized paragraphs
  • Rule 174: No concise statement of material facts provided
  • Rule 181(1): Claim lacks the particulars (specifics) needed to go ahead
  • Rule 182: Nature of damages not clearly specified
  • Approximately 100 unidentified “John Does” and “Jane Does”
  • Claim contains issues that cannot be presided over: Nuremberg Code’ Helsinki Declaration; Criminal Code violations; and crimes against humanity

It was also predicted that the Defendants would file a Rule 221 Motion to Strike, for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The Federal Court Rules outline how this is done. And in an unsurprisingly turn of events, that’s what happened.

Ottawa is citing “mootness” as a ground to strike the Claim, and is using the recent decisions against Peckford, Rickards, and the other Applicants. It wouldn’t be fair to blame any Applicant for the Government pulling this stunt, but it comes up again.

There are a few other major issues that need to be addressed in the Motion.

Should This Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

On the surface, this appears to be a valid point. If one is to challenge the decision of Federal bodies — namely, the requirement of the “vaccine” for employment — this might have been the way to go.

Seriously, was the wrong paperwork filled out in order to get this suit started? It seems that this would be pretty basic for expert lawyers.

Granted, there are portions of the Claim that still could proceed as a Claim, such as asking for damages. That said, challenging an order is a different procedure.

Could an extension of time be applied for to fill out the correct forms? Sure, it can be attempted, but what a waste of time this has been.

Not off to a good start.

Are The Plaintiffs Barred From Bringing Legal Action At All?

Is jurisdiction a fatal error in this case?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone.

That’s one of the major arguments being advanced: that the hundreds of Plaintiffs have no right to sue at all — regardless of form — since legislation provides for other remedies.

Granted, there are allegations of acting in bad faith. That said, the Defendants argue (correctly) that there’s a lack of factual basis pleaded to support most of the conclusions. This will be a tough sell.

Action4Canada Trainwreck Is Cited In Latest Motion

The written arguments (see page 269) reference the recent Action4Canada case. It has been covered on this site before, and is making a comeback.

In August 2021, this site outlined the serious defects in the 391 page filing in Vancouver. It predicted that the case would be struck in its entirety for failing to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading. Although a rewrite was permitted, that’s exactly what ultimately happened.

In order to ward off criticism, and presumably to keep the donations coming in, a frivolous Appeal was filed. It will go nowhere as well.

The litany of defects in that B.C. case will very likely be used to support striking the Federal one. Thanks to Justice Ross in Vancouver, the precedent has been set.

These Suits Actually Harm Genuine Truth Movements

A common criticism in the Motion to Strike is that the suit makes plenty of bald assertions, without ever laying a factual foundation. In short, it makes accusations, but doesn’t provide enough detail so that a Court can seriously consider them.

Many of the allegations pleaded in the Statement of Claim are in fact true. However, without pleading a factual basis for making these claims, it just makes people look insane.

As awful as the actions of the Federal (and Provincial) Governments are, they do make a valid point: these cases are written so poorly that it’s impossible to know what the cases are that the Defendants are supposed to respond to.

Looking through the filings of Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre (see below), none of them are good. They aren’t even decent. Instead, the quality of the drafting ranges from mediocre to downright comical.

Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed $12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.

Gill and Lamba bizarrely decided to appeal that dismissal. Given how baseless the original defamation suit was, this will just lead to much larger cost awards when it’s finally thrown out. There had been talk of a second Appeal, one specific to the cost Order.

Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another SLAPP Motion.

Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will waste time and money.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served.

Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was 2 1/2 years ago.

Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021, more than 18 months ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.

Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021. It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant.

These are all his cases. This is what the last 2 1/2 years or so of “fighting” in the Courts has led to.

None of these cases have gone anywhere. Either:

  • They remain idle for months or years, or
  • They are thrown out in preliminary stages

To address a concern that comes up: these are public matters.

If a person wishes to sue someone else in their private life, that is their business. However, the moment donations are asked for, it becomes a reportable case. This is especially true, given the public nature of the issues.

This site has been heavily criticized — and even sued — for reporting the truth about these “anti-lockdown” cases. They’re garbage, and none of them have any chance of getting to Trial. It’s not a matter of cheerleading for a certain side, but giving honest reviews.

On a positive note — if it can be called that — the Federal Government is only asking for $5,000 for costs to have this Claim thrown out. Certainly, it’s far cheaper than in Ontario or British Columbia.

Considering that people actually have paid money for this type of representation, it comes across as a rip off. Victims should be demanding refunds and/or talking to the Law Society of Ontario.

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(14) A4C Dismissal Order As Entered By BCSC

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

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

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(3) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(4) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(5) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(6) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(7) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

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

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

Four Applications To Federal Travel Mandates All Struck As “Moot”

The other day, the Federal Court released its reasons for dismissing various Applications challenging air and train vaccination mandates. The ruling came from Associate Chief Justice Gagné (2022 FC 1463). The specific challenges were:

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

All of these challenges were heard together, since they cover essentially the same issues. This isn’t surprising, as it can theoretically free up other courts.

To be clear, the cases weren’t struck or dismissed based on the merits, evidence, or arguments of the case. Instead, they were struck since the orders themselves had expired. The Judge decided it wasn’t worth hearing anyway, to ward off any potential return of these restrictions.

In the ruling, it came down to 2 questions: (a) are the cases moot; and (b) if so, should they be heard anyway?

[14] The Applicants and the Respondent both agree that the applicable test on a motion for mootness is the one articulated by Justice Sopinka in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), 1989 1 SCR 342. Unsurprisingly, they take very opposite positions on both of the two key stages as set forth in Borowski. Namely, they disagree on i) whether the issue is moot, and on ii) whether the Court should exercise its discretion to nonetheless hear the case, if it is found moot.

[15] The Respondent’s motion therefore raises the following issues:
(a) Are the issues raised by these Applications for judicial review moot; is there a live controversy?
(b) If the issues are moot, should the Court nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the merits?

“Mootness” in the legal context means that the underlying issues have already been resolved in some way, or the circumstances have changed in a way that makes it impossible to determine. In this instance, the Federal Government argued that since the travel mandates had expired, there was no remedy to seek.

The Applicants, however, were concerned that these measures — or very similar ones — could be brought back, and it could happen at any time. They wanted this issue dealt with once and for all.

In their eyes, travel mandates were hardly “theoretical”, as they had already happened. Should the Court refuse to intervene, Ottawa would be able to reimpose them at a later date.

[20] The Applicants argue that there remains a live controversy because of statements by the Government of Canada that travel restrictions have only been “suspended”, suggesting that they may be re-implemented at any time if the COVID-19 public health situation worsens. In that sense, the Respondent’s motions would be premature. The Applicants rely on a press release issued by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, statements made by Ministers at a June 14, 2022 press conference, and in an interview that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave to the CBC shortly afterwards.

[21] Firstly, the hearing of these Applications for judicial review is set for five days commencing on October 31, 2022. Since the hearing of this Motion, Transport Canada has removed the requirement to wear a mask on planes and trains and repealed the last remaining IO. In my view, the situation is as likely to improve as it is to worsen by the time the hearing of these Applications on their merits is over. The Applicants’ argument is highly speculative and does not support their position that the controversy is still ongoing.

[22] Secondly, a comment made by a Minister to a journalist, taken outside its context, does not amount to a decision by that Minister and it is no more an indication of a live controversy. Even if the Minister called what occurred in June 2022 a suspension, the reality is that all IOs/MO that had contained a vaccination mandate have legally expired and none that contain such a mandate have been reissued since June.

The ruling goes on some more, with the Judge explaining why this wasn’t worth continuing, since the orders had all lapsed.

The case was ultimately thrown out for “mootness”. The Judge declined to hear the merits anyway.

And therein lies another problem with this Court. Is there really justice when a Judge can simply pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and which ones they can decline? What exactly was the remedy that they should have sought? And where?

[48] For the above reasons, these Applications will be struck as moot. The air and rail passenger vaccine mandates were repealed, as have other related public health measures. The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate.

[49] There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.

[50] Finally, it is not the role of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions. If the air and rail vaccine mandates are re-introduced in the future, they can be properly challenged and should be weighed against the reality in which they are implemented.

Apparently, the inability of millions of people to fly and exercise their Section 6 Charter rights (mobility) isn’t a concern for the Court. After all, the mandates are gone — for now. If this isn’t worth spending judicial resources on, what exactly is?

Interestingly, the Judge says it’s not the place of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions, but suggests that the cases can be brought back again if travel mandates are reinstated.

Suppose that does happen — and that the vaccine passport does return — what’s to stop Ottawa from temporarily pulling it (again) to ward off another challenge? Perhaps this is old fashioned, but it would be nice to see the issue resolved once and for all.

The Applicants who initiated these suits are now on the hook for the costs of losing this motion. While their initial filings were compelling, letting the orders expire then doing this was a dirty trick. It’s unclear what cost scale would be used, but the parties could very well settle it on their own.

Had a Prothonotary issued this ruling, it could be reviewed under Rule 51. But this came from a Justice, so the next step would be challenging this at the Federal Court of Appeals. There has been talk of doing this, especially in light of the Associate Chief Justice refusing to hear it altogether. We will have to see if that happens in the next few weeks. There is a 30 day time limit to file notice.

For reference, the standard for review is also available online. It addresses findings of fact, law, and mixed fact and law.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.pdf
(3) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/522361/1/document.do
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html

Posted on

Children’s Health Defense (Canada): Just Another Fundraising Arm?

Sounds great, doesn’t it? The challenge has been filed! Problem is, too few people follow up to see what has happened since. All of this can be found online. It’s an issue that comes up far too often: individuals and groups ask for money for a lawsuit. Then, either no suit emerges, or one does that is so poorly written that it has no chance of advancing.

This isn’t hyperbole. The Action4Canada case is a perfect example of a suit designed to fail. Stunningly, it has since been appealed, and that will be thrown out as well.

Now, this particular case has been addressed here before. This case was filed in April 2021, (a year and a half ago), and is no closer to being heard than it was back then.

It appears that the Children’s Health Defense Canada, a branch of its American head, has been trying to push itself as a force against the Ford regime.

Of course, don’t forget to donate!

A Notice of Application from April 20, 2021 is listed here, along with information that would indicate this is a serious case.

Problem is: when one SEARCHES ONLINE, becomes obvious that this case has sat dormant over the last 18 months. There are no hearings booked, nor does it appear that any evidence has been sworn.

There are a new Notices of Appearance from last Spring, see here and here, but nothing since. Just another high profile lawsuit that never went anywhere.

Yes, there was a Rule 2.1.01(6) attempt to get the case thrown out — that failed. However, it’s unclear why it was used, since it’s not really appropriate here.

Children’s Health Defense (Canada) is listed as an Applicant, but it doesn’t seem that any effort — beyond collecting donations — has been made. In a similar vein, Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada were listed as Plaintiffs in their respective suits, and we know how those turned out.

Thing is: the names listed on the CHD Canada website don’t match the names filed with Corporations Canada. A quick search revealed who is really in charge of this organization. And the addresses for all Directors is a law firm on College Street, in Toronto.

The suit was promoted on Wholehearted Media. This is an interesting choice, considering the real owner isn’t mentioned in the video.

Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

While Protonmail is fine for personal use, it seems strange to use it for an organization, especially one that seems to be part of a much larger group.

OTHER DEAD-END LAWSUITS:

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.
  • Federal challenge to vaccine passport. Filed May 2022 on behalf of dozens of people. Federal Court File #T-1089-22. No activity since initial filing.

As an honourable mention, a 9 month suspension was agreed to regarding Dr. Jeffrey Matheson. A joint submission. Perhaps fighting for the client was too much work.

Just another lawsuit that collects dust, while the people responsible are still asking for handouts. These grifts need to be called out. Please stop donating. None of these cases will ever get into court — other than to be thrown out.

It’s both heart breaking and infuriating to see this kind of thing go on. Well meaning people open up their wallets for what they believe are good causes. Being betrayed by an ally stings far worse than what an open enemy can do.

LINKS:
(1) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/
(2) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/legalcase/
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12951126&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=children%20health%20defense&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(5) https://rumble.com/vkt3z4-replay-childrens-health-defense-canada-experts-live-event.html

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

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

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Baseless, Seems Designed To Waste Time & Money

There are times when people really need to cut their losses. However, it seems that not everyone is taking that advice.

With the specific case at hand, it appears that Justice Ross’ quite reasonable decision has not been heeded. Instead of fixing the defects in the previous pleadings, the Plaintiffs are going to appeal.

It’s not clear to what extent there has been collaboration among all the parties. Was this a joint decision, or a unilateral one? Still, this is a very bad move, and we’ll get into why.

This site long ago predicted NOCC would get struck out

August 17th, 2021, the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) was filed.

August 31st, 2021, this site wrote that the NOCC was fatally defective, riddled with serious and basic errors, didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, and would never make it to Trial.

September 7th, 2021, Rocco Galati sued this site, and everyone “directly or indirectly associated” for $7 million. He also demanded that anyone “directly or indirectly associated” be banned from posting on the internet again, presumably on any subject. Although there were allegations of racism and anti-Semitism, the main issue was the harsh and detailed critiques and reviews of his various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Guess the truth hurts.

May 31st, 2022, the Application to Strike was finally heard. The Defendants attempted to get the case thrown out without leave to amend. This was on the grounds that the NOCC was so incomprehensible, that it was impossible to answer it.

August 29th, 2022, Justice Ross strikes the NOCC in its entirety, for a litany of defects. Being too long (prolix) was just one issue. However, the Court did allow for the NOCC to be amended and refiled, if it were done properly.

September 28th, 2022, a Notice of Appeal is served, challenging portions of the August ruling. Instead of properly drafting the NOCC, it appears the next move is to just appeal.

Plaintiffs are bailing, as they see the writing on the wall

An observant person will notice there are less Appellants than what might be expected. People are catching on. Amy Muranetz and Federico Fuoco both filed Notices of Discontinuance. And they’re not alone. In fact, several names are missing from the Notice of Appeal.

Appellants listed:

  • Action4Canada
  • Linda Morken
  • Gary Morken
  • Jane Doe #1
  • Brian Edgar
  • Jane Doe #2
  • Ilona Zink
  • Valerie Ann Foley
  • Pastor Randy Beatty
  • Michael Martinz
  • Melissa Anne Neubauer
  • Jane Doe #3

Plaintiffs who have since left:

  • Kimberly Woolman
  • The Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
  • Amy Muranetz
  • Federico Fuoco
  • Fire Productions Limited
  • F2 Productions Incorporated
  • Makhan S. Parhar
  • North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited

In fairness, one of the Plaintiffs had passed away prior to the May 31st hearing. Still, it’s not a sign of confidence that this will go ahead.

People are realizing that the NOCC, filed in August 2021, was complete garbage. There’s no way to spin this as some sort of victory, hard as they try. Consequently, many don’t want to face financial devastation with the cost awards that are coming.

Notice of Appeal asks for things Appellate Court can’t grant

These are the grounds of appeal that are listed:

The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(a) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, and jurisprudence with respect to Justice Ross’ ruling on declaratory and other relief at paragraphs 52 to 55 and Declarations at paragraph 56 to 58;
(b) That the Learned judge erred, in law, contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the test to be applied on a motion to dismiss/strike;
(c) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in ruling sufficient facts were not pleaded to support the causes of action advanced;
(d) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in usurping the function of the trial judge, and making determinations of fact, mixed fact and law, on the basis of bare pleading(s);
(e) The award of costs to the Defendants in circumstances where no costs should have been awarded, or an order of costs in the cause should have been awarded in that the results of the motion were split;
(f) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit

To start with the obvious one, the Notice alleges that Justice Ross erred in determining that certain topics were outside of his authority. Sounds reasonable, until you see what this actually refers to.

[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.

Among the improper claims, the NOCC had wanted a CIVIL Court Judge to make adjudications on criminal conduct, crimes against humanity, the Helsinki Declaration, the Nuremberg Code, and to determine what “the science” shall be.

The plain fact is that the B.C. Supreme Court has no authority to do any of this, so this had to be struck. The B.C. Court of Appeal isn’t going to reverse this. It’s time to face reality.

Additionally, these things appear repeatedly in the various Actions and Applications launched by the Constitutional Rights Centre. It would make all of them vulnerable to being struck.

Also worth mentioning: costs are largely discretionary. The Court of Appeals won’t (except in extremely rare cases) interfere with the decision. Considering there is no award yet — just the entitlement to one — it would be hard to challenge it.

BCCA isn’t going to overturn decision to strike NOCC

Keep in mind: Justice Ross didn’t throw the case out completely. Instead, he did something better. He told the Plaintiffs they could refile, if the NOCC were drafted properly. In other words, he gave the opportunity to fix it.

The NOCC was disorganized, cluttered, and contained plenty of irrelevant information. It went on lengthy tirades about non-parties such as Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab. None of this is appropriate, and it fell far short of what should be expected of veteran lawyers.

Granted, it will be a huge headache to rewrite a 400 page document. However, in the Application to Strike, one of the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs was the ability to rewrite the NOCC. The Court allowed it. Pretty hard to challenge an outcome that one sought.

Is Lawrence Wong actually involved in this case?

A bit off topic, but worth asking once again: is Lawrence Wong a part of this lawsuit? Or is his name listed just so there is a B.C. lawyer “on file”? Would be nice to know.

Will a Cross-Appeal be filed by the Respondents?

Most people have heard of an Appeal, but far fewer know what a Cross-Appeal is. Essentially, it’s like a counterclaim, but at the higher level.

Consider this: the Application to Strike was brought (largely) on the grounds that the NOCC was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Defense lawyers asked that the case be struck without leave (or permission) to amend. However, the Court did allow an amended version to be filed.

Yes, this is speculation, but what if that provision were to get overturned by the BCCA? What if the BCCA decided that the Appeal was frivolous and abusive, and decided to not allow a rewrite of the original NOCC? A Panel could very easily rule that this entire matter isn’t being done for legitimate reasons, and block it altogether.

If Witten, Wedge and the other lawyers are going to be in front of the BCCA anyway, there’s really nothing to stop them from attempting such a tactic.

Consider Kulvinder Gill, Ashvinder Lamba as cautionary tale

Yes, this is a different case, but there are some striking parallels that need to be pointed out. It’s also a decision from 2022, so very recent.

One question that potential litigants always need to ask: what happens if I start a messy, prolonged, or expensive suit, and ultimately lose?

Regular readers will know that Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba tried to sue 23 individuals and media outlets over mean words on Twitter. They sought $12.75 million in damages over juvenile comments. Predictably, the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

That ruling was inexplicably appealed. Shortly afterwards, Galati left, claiming to have a prolonged illness that made his participation impossible. Gill and Lamba apparently are still going ahead with this, and have retained new lawyers. They’ll have to face additional costs when the Appeal is ultimately dismissed, and it’s likely it will be. This could very well push the total bill over $1.5 million.

Gill also has another suit pending against the University of Ottawa. She sued the school, and one of their professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million over 2 rude tweets. If they ever decide to file an anti-SLAPP Motion, Gill will be the hook for that as well.

Absurdly, many in the “freedom community” cheered at these efforts to forcibly shut down the free speech of people they disagreed with.

When successful with an anti-SLAPP Motion, Defendants are typically given costs on a full indemnity (or 100%) scale. Gill and Lamba are staring down $1.2 million at least. Given the damage they sought to inflict, the Defendants are expected to show no mercy. These 2 are facing bankruptcy, or at least being put on payment plans for the rest of their lives.

In an interesting turn of events, Gill and Lamba have since sued Galati and Samantha Coomara (his assistant). It would be nice to know how that turns eventually out.

If the Action4Canada Plaintiffs don’t want to go down this same path, consider getting out. Remember, it’s not the lawyers who are stuck with the 6 and 7 figure bills. It’s the clients.

What exactly is the point of this Appeal?

The obvious question has to be asked: why is this happening?

The BCCA isn’t going to rule that the B.C. Supreme Court should preside over criminal matters, or crimes against humanity. It’s not going to rule that a disorganized and confusing case shouldn’t be rewritten. It’s not going to rule that a Judge can’t award a successful party costs.

Instead of drafting a proper NOCC, the decision is to file a baseless Appeal with zero prospect of success. The result will be (about) another year wasted, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent. None of this will get the Plaintiffs closer to the relief they seek.

And to address comments from Action4Canada, (archive here):

For some reason Canuck Law, The Western Standard and Castanet are consistently working to put the worst possible spin on the facts of A4C’s case and to disparage Rocco, Tanya Gaw and Action4Canada. It appears they are on a mission to create doubt and distrust in the public’s eye by providing twisted versions of the truth and claiming that Action4Canada lacks integrity and transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is also interesting that none of these “Independent” media outlets have ever reported on Action4Canada’s campaigns and tireless work in providing Canadians, at no charge, with resources that are effectively protecting their children, their jobs, their right to travel, their bodily autonomy and so much more.

Their style of reporting doesn’t serve anybody well and brings into question whose side they are really on.

Real independents are on no one’s side.

A journalist or reporter should have one commitment: to show the truth. Anything less than that means that they are shilling for a particular group.

And the truth is that this case (and many related ones) are written so poorly that they have zero prospect of ever getting to Trial. They have been covered in extensive detail, with specific references to the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario, B.C. and Federally.

Does revealing this information cut into the money that donors are willing to pay? Absolutely it does. But then, how “independent” are journalists who gloss over or ignore these obvious defects?

If someone chooses to sue another in their private lives, that is their business. However, the moment that public donations are sought, it becomes a reportable case. Considering that Action4Canada is still asking for money, it’s fair game.

When someone tries to destroy this site (or anyone, really) for simply telling the truth, don’t expect any sympathy or favourable coverage of the ongoing grifting.

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 – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)
(24) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

(A) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(B) Gill & Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(C) Gill & Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Claim Contains Content Court Can’t Preside Over

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

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

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

2. Claim Paragraphs Not Set Out In Organized Manner

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

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

3. Claim Lacks Concise Statement Of Material Facts

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

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

[British Columbia Rules]
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a)set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim

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

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

4. Claim Lacks Necessary Particulars To Go Ahead

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

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

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

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

5. Nature Of Damages Isn’t Really Specified

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

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

6. Entire Claim Could Be Struck Under Rule 221

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, why keep drafting such garbage?

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

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

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

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

Putting things in perspective….

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

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

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_

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

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

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

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

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