https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988
https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/
On August 13, 2020, the CBC published an article covering the July 6 lawsuit against them. Included was the line: “CBC RECENTLY OBTAINED UNREDACTED COPY”. This implies that they were never properly served with the Complaint. Is that the case, or is CBC twisting the facts?
This is a follow-up to an article covering the lack of progress in a well-known Toronto lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court on July 6, 2020, (CV-20-006434510000). It seems even now, no movement is happening.
Keep in mind, this was sold as an urgent matter. Lockdowns (or martial law), were destroying businesses, masks were making people sick, and basic rights were being denied. Now, the vaccines are here, and have been administered over the last few weeks.
1. Searching Ontario Court Records
One of the few benefits in this is that in Ontario, it’s now easier to SEARCH for court filings. Looking for a particular case, we find no apparent action taking place.
Windsor-Essex County and their Medical Officer, Wajid Ahmed, are represented by John-Pierre Karam. There is no listing of representation for any other Defendant. It doesn’t appear that there are any hearings scheduled, nor defenses filed.
The question has to be asked: has everyone been served?
Be aware, this is not minor. The suit asks for $11 million in damages plus costs. Presumably, the Parties being sued would take this very seriously.
2. Contacting The Ontario Court Directly
In reaching out to the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division in Toronto), some very interesting information was learned.
There was a single Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual defense), filed on September 30, 2020, on behalf of Wajid Ahmed and Windsor-Essex County. Those are the only 2 Parties named. There is nothing else filed with the Court related to that case.
To play devil’s advocate: it’s theoretically possible that all Parties might stand behind a single one, who would then file all the paperwork. But if that’s the case, this is a strange choice. The Windsor-Essex County Medical Officer is small potatoes in the scheme of things. A far more logical choice would be the Attorney General of Canada and/or Ontario, who are required to be named anyway.
3. Question Of Royal Prerogative
This might be nitpicking, but page 4 of the Claim lists Trudeau and the Federal Crown as “dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”. Isn’t that the Governor General who exercises Royal Prerogative?
4. Most Service Addresses Missing
This isn’t selective editing. These are all the addresses for service listed on the Statement of Claim. They are for:
(A) Attorney General of Canada
(B) Attorney General of Ontario
(C) John Tory and City of Toronto
(D) Dr. Wajid Ahmed
(E) Dr. Nicola Mercer
It isn’t that just 1 or 2 are omitted. That could easily be dismissed as a careless error. Instead, it’s just these, and a strange group at that.
The Wajid Ahmed (of Windsor-Essex County) is the same one who filed a Notice of Intent to Defend with regards to this case. There are no service addresses for:
(a) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
(b) Federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu
(c) Transport Minister Marc Garneau
(d) PHOC Theresa Tam
(e) Ontario Premier Doug Ford
(f) Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott
(g) Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce
(h) Ontario Chief Medical Officer David Williams
(i) Toronto Chief Medical Officer Eileen De Villa
(j) The CBC
There are also no specific service addresses listed for the following Defendants. In fairness, however, they could be sent to the same addresses as others listed:
(k) Her Majesty in Right of Canada
(l) Her Majesty in Right of Ontario
(m) Windsor-Essex County
(n) County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
Yes, there are a lot of Defendants, however, it is standard practice to list an address for everyone named in the Complaint.
5. CBC Responds To Vaccine Choice Lawsuit
The second line is telling: “Aylmer, Ont.-based anti-vaccination group filed suit in July, but CBC recently obtained unredacted copy”.
Obtained an unredacted copy? Does this imply they were never served? Isn’t this something they should have received when served by a process server? Did that ever happen?
More from the CBC:
Other claims made in the lawsuit are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic.
“Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report the development of a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history by using smartphone-readable nano crystals called ‘quantum dots,’ embedded in the skin using micro-needles. In short, a vaccine chip embedded in the body. This work and research are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” the lawsuit said.
The statement of claim includes a timeline that begins in the year 2000 when Bill Gates steps down as the head of Microsoft to start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It also states Gates expects a “‘twenty-fold’ return on his $10 billion vaccine investment within the next few decades.”
Included in the timeline are references to the Chinese military, 5G networks, international vaccine programs and the Rockefeller Foundation as relevant to the creation and spread of the coronavirus, but the lawsuit isn’t clear on how.
Shelley said including such references in the statement of claim without providing supporting scientific evidence could ultimately be what gets the suit dismissed before it goes to trial under Ontario’s rules of civil procedure.
This is actually a very valid point. While challenging the validity of various measures is one thing, proving a global conspiracy in Court is quite another.
While there is certainly collusion — this site covered it extensively — proving such a thing would be a Herculean task. A frank discussion on how that might happen would be very nice. Proving in court is quite different than proving in the media.
Also from the CBC article:
CBC News reached out multiple times to Galati, who is listed as the spokesperson for the lawsuit in a press release issued by Vaccine Choice Canada. He spoke with a reporter last Wednesday but did not agree to an on-the-record interview.
Galati told CBC News he would be available last Thursday for a recorded interview but did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday or the following Monday.
The CBC has also been named as a defendant in the lawsuit for allegedly propagating misinformation and “false news” about the coronavirus crisis.
Vaccine Choice Canada has also issued an intent to sue the CBC over other coverage relating to the anti-vaccination and anti-mask movements.
The CBC claims they reached out for an on-the-record interview, multiple times. Instead, they were offered a press release. Seems bizarre, since lack of media coverage is an issue that Vaccine Choice routinely complains about.
The CBC also alleges they were threatened with other legal action over how they cover the anti-vaxx/anti-mask movements. Presumably this is a Section 5 Libel Notice?! Perhaps this is why the CBC refuses to further cover this case.
And to reiterate from earlier: “CBC OBTAINED a copy”? Were they not served one, being a Defendant in this case? Come to think of it, who actually has been served?
Now, the CBC could be lying, or distorting what was said. However, they are putting it out there. They imply they were never served, and offered to do a public interview, which was declined.
6. Rancourt An Expert And Plaintiff?!
Denis Rancourt is a Plaintiff, but his listed credentials imply that he is being set up to be an Expert as well. If this gets to trial, will Rancourt be called as one?
On page 41 of the Statement of Claim, it’s cited (and most likely true), that YouTube took down 3 of his videos. This is frustrating, and an act of censorship. However, this isn’t relevant to the case unless they plan to sue Google as well, or connect it to the other Defendants.
On page 42, it’s alleged that CBC refused to give Rancourt airtime, or to share the views of any other dissenting expert.
Interesting, in that after CBC “obtained a copy” of the lawsuit, they claim that they were willing to have an on the record interview about the case. Or was it just with the lawyer?
7. Resumption Of Court Time Limits
In early December, Vaccine Choice posted an update on their website, offering an explanation why nothing had happened so far in their case.
Note: The Superior Court of Justice suspended all regular operations effective March 17, 2020. Some operations of the court were resumed on September 14, 2020. Due to the suspension of operations, the period of time for the defendants to file a statement of defence was also suspended.
However, the Ontario Superior Court seems to say something different. It says that limitation periods (deadlines to file), that had been previously suspended had now resumed. Even with that factored in, some kind of reply should have come in by early October.
The Ontario government has announced that, on September 14, 2020, any limitation and time periods suspended under Ontario Regulation 73/20 will resume. For further information, please consult the government’s news release and Ontario Regulation 457/20.
And one was (sort of). This was the Notice of Intent from Windsor-Essex County and their Chief Medical Officer, but no one else, and no other documents.
Limitation periods aside, an obvious question must be asked: why was no Notice of Application for injunctive relief ever filed? This could have been done at any time.
8. Others Have Gotten Into Court Quickly
Canadian Appliance Source LP v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONSC 7665 (CanLII)
Hudson’s Bay Company ULC v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONSC 8046 (CanLII)
Canadian Appliance Source and HBC both got hearings within days of Applications being filed. Both were ultimately denied, but they were able to get their day in Court quickly.
These 2 companies were not the only ones who attempted to get their livelihoods back, but they are Ontario cases, and done recently.
So why hasn’t Vaccine Choice Canada filed for injunctive relief? Keep in mind, injunctive relief (masks, vaccines, shutdowns, social distancing….) was specifically included in the Statement of Claim, in addition to declarative relief. Presumably, getting an Application (or more than 1), was always part of the plan.
Worth pointing out, this isn’t their first rodeo. A challenge was brought in October 2019, against forced vaccines for Ontario students, (CV-19-00629810-0000). That case also seems to have stalled.
9. More Questions Than Answers In Case
This case made headlines in July, especially among alternative media circles. Donations have poured in, and are rumoured to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That being said, there are many hard questions that need to be asked:
Have all the Defendants been served in this case? When? Why did CBC talk about “obtaining an unredacted copy”, rather than being served?
Do other Defendants have any interest in filing a response?
Do any other Defendants have lawyers?
Why has no Defense, or Motion to Strike been filed? It stretches the mind to think they would potentially want a Default Judgement.
Hypothetically, if the Statement of Claim does get struck, will a rewrite be done? An appeal? Or will that be the end of the matter?
Did CBC offer in good faith a public interview?
If so, how come it never happened?
Were threats of other lawsuits were levied against the CBC?
Were threats of lawsuits levied against others?
Why has there been no masking injunction attempt?
How come HBC and CAS were able to get in so quickly?
Are there any talks going on behind the scenes?
Is there a realistic prospect of proving the allegations in Court? Even the more “conspiracy” minded claims cited?
Why does there appear to be no urgency?
How much money has been raised by Vaccine Choice Canada?
What will happen to the donations?
Like this:
Like Loading...
