Category: Grifters

Posted on

Byram Bridle Lawsuit Dropped, Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Terminated

The high profile December 2022 Ontario lawsuit of Byram Bridle has come to an end. The Notice of Discontinuance was recently filed, along with the Consent form. The parties agreed to drop the case with no costs to anyone.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for more specifics on the case.

Bridle had previously discontinued with respect to David Fisman, but the new document applies to everyone else. The litigation is finished at this point.

While the details of the case remain disputed, at its core, Bridle brought a lawsuit against his employer, the University of Guelph. This was over issues of workplace bullying and harassment. This immediately causes problems, given the union agreement he was subject to.

Specifically, Bridle has the right to grieve and to arbitrate, but not to litigate.

University Of Guelph Faculty Covered By Collective Agreements

Article 40 of Guelph’s Collective Bargaining Agreement delves into dispute resolution. It lays out a process that everyone is expected to follow. In short, it goes: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration as a last resort. And the ruling of an Arbitrator is expected to be final.

However, Bridle didn’t go to arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved, including those who handled the initial investigation. He seemed to think that cloaking everything with allegations of “conspiracy” would somehow get around the lack of jurisdiction of the Courts. He must have had poor representation.

Another interesting detail: Bridle filed a police report in Peel over impersonation and identity theft, as a result of a website in his name. The report was filed with the Motion Records. It doesn’t seem like the site was meant to be taken seriously, but just to report on his views and statements. This fed into the “conspiracy” allegations.

The findings from that complaint were to be used to bolster this case, which seems to be a bad faith reason to call the police.

Bridle was also banned from the University after he refused to participate in an investigation alleging threats and possible violence. But this just ties into the narrative pushed by the Defence that the suit is fundamentally about a workplace dispute. It doesn’t somehow grant the Courts the right to hear such a case.

It gets even worse.

Lawsuit Framed (Largely) As Challenge Over Public Views

While the Courts would have no jurisdiction anyway, Bridle ended up framing his lawsuit (mainly) to indicate that he was attacked for his public views and policy positions on viruses and vaccines. This exposed him to an anti-SLAPP Motion, which is exactly what the University ended up doing.

Costs on dismissal
137.1(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.

Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws give “full indemnity”, or 100% of costs as the recommendation if lawsuits are dismissed. And given the mentioned lack of jurisdiction, there was already a built in defence to support such a Motion. Hard to believe counsel didn’t explain this to Bridle.

To sum up, Bridle’s poor choice to file such a Claim turned an arbitration hearing into a lawsuit with a full indemnity anti-SLAPP Motion, and no chance of success. Such rulings typically result in cost awards of well over $100,000.

It doesn’t end there.

Bridle apparently wasn’t satisfied filing such a case against his employer. He decided to include David Fisman (yes, that Fisman) over some online comments he made. This was justified by calling everything a “conspiracy”. Unsurprisingly, Fisman responded with an anti-SLAPP Motion of his own.

Suddenly, Bridle was staring down 2 anti-SLAPP Motions, with no real prospects of winning either. Going the distance could have easily set him back a quarter million ($250,000) or more.

The amount of paperwork for these Motion Records can be difficult to grasp. Fisman filed this, this and this. Guelph filed 3 volumes here, here and here. Bridle has a 2,000 page Motion Record of his own.

Ultimately, Bridle negotiated to have both Motions dropped without costs. Presumably, the Defendants’ insurers decided it wasn’t worth pouring more money into a case if Bridle would be unlikely or unable to pay. Hopefully, this doesn’t happen again.

But what’s the result here? Other than burning a lot of bridges, and airing out his dirty laundry, Bridle hasn’t accomplished much.

“Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s” Record On Covid Cases

The Bridle case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Here are some other well known cases that were filed in recent years, and all from the same lawyer. Very lackluster, to put it mildly.

  • Abandoned – Vaccine Choice Canada (1st case), Spring 2020
  • Abandoned – Sgt. Julie Evans (Police on Guard), around 2022?
  • Abandoned – Children’s Health Defense Canada, around 2022?
  • Abandoned – Kulvinder Gill/Ashvinder Lamba (right after Appeal launched), March 2022
  • Abandoned – Kulvinder Gill v. Attaran, March 2022
  • Abandoned – Action4Canada (no amended Claim ever filed), August 2022
  • Abandoned – Adelberg (Federal case, no amended Claim ever filed) February 2023
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (2nd case), May 2024
  • Discontinued – Byram Bridle v. David Fisman, June 2024
  • Discontinued – Katanik (Take Action Canada), July 2024
  • Discontinued – Byram Bridle v. University of Guelph, October 2024
  • Never Happened – B.C. Action for Provincial doctors
  • Never Happened – Injection pass case for up to 400 college students
  • Never Happened – Injection injury case for up to 600 Federal workers
  • Never Happened – Public inquiry for Government response

The category of “never happened” includes several causes for which money was raised, that don’t appear to have ever materialized.

  • Lost – Gill/Lamba case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, February 2022
  • Lost – Action4Canada case struck as “bad beyond argument”, August 2022
  • Lost – Adelberg (Federal case) struck as “bad beyond argument”, February 2023
  • Lost – Law Society of Ontario case struck for no Cause of Action, October 2023
  • Lost – CSASPP defamation case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, December 2023
  • Lost – Action4Canada Appeal dismissed, no reviewable error listed, February 2024
  • Lost – Adelberg Appeal (mostly) dismissed as employment claims still barred, June 2024

Both Action4Canada and Adelberg were struck by the Courts, (BCSC and Federal, respectively). Instead of pursuing amended versions — which was allowed — time and money were wasted with frivolous Appeals. This is why they’re classified as both “lost” and “abandoned”.

Guess they don’t make “top Constitutional lawyers” like they used to.

For a rough idea of how much money one lawyer can waste, see this previous compilation with estimates attached. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” has poured millions of dollars from donors and clients down the drain. Not one case ever got past a Motion to Strike.

The CSASPP Appeal will be heard in January 2025, and a case called Dorceus is under reserve, pending a Decision on the Motion to Strike. The Adelberg SCC Leave Application will be decided soon. All 3 are unlikely to go anywhere.

Many cases — including Bridle’s — make national news initially, and are never heard from again. They result in headlines, attention, and large donations. That’s because winning isn’t the goal, publicity is. Of course, that isn’t a legitimate reason to sue.

This specific lawsuit was reported in over 25 “alternative” media outlets in December 2022, but it doesn’t look like a single one ever followed up. The Statement of Claim was juicy enough, wasn’t it?

BRIDLE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim
(2) Byram Bridle Statement Of Defence
(3) Byram Bridle Statement Reply
(4) Byram Bridle Notice Of Motion Fisman
(5) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman 1 Of 2
(6) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman Supplemental
(7) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman Volume 1 Full
(8) Byram Bridle Motion Record Plaintiff Full
(9) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Fisman
(10) Byram Bridle Notice Of Motion Guelph
(11) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 1 Of 3
(12) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 2 Of 3
(13) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 3 Of 3
(14) Byram Bridle Affidavit Of Service MR
(15) Byram Bridle Peel Police Identity Theft
(16) Byram Bridle Consent Dismissal Of Claim
(17) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Guelph
(18) Byram Bridle Affidavit Of Service

EXTRA LINKS:
(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(3) University Of Guelph, Text Of Collective Bargaining Agreement

Posted on

Stale Dated: Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Passes 5 Year Mark, Still At Pleadings

Back in May 2024, Vaccine Choice Canada discontinued their 191 page claim filed in June 2020. While a Motion to Strike had been postponed, the end result was inevitable. The pleading was so poorly drafted that it would be thrown out by the first Judge to look at it.

But what about their earlier one? Hadn’t there been one filed in October 2019? Yes there was, supposedly under the pretense of challenging mandatory immunization of Ontario students. It has effectively been abandoned. This is what the above video addresses.

  • No Trial ever took place
  • No Trial date set down
  • No Depositions taken
  • No hearings
  • No Motions brought
  • No evidence sworn
  • No case management

Under Rule 48.14 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, the Court is to dismiss a case that hasn’t been set down for Trial within 5 years. True, it would almost certainly be extended if there was significant progress being made, but that’s not the case here. VCC’s case hasn’t proceeded past the pleadings in 5 years.

What do the Rules of Court Procedure have to say about this?

Rule 48.14 outlines the situation, and what can be done about it.

Dismissal of Action for Delay
48.14(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, the registrar shall dismiss an action for delay in either of the following circumstances, subject to subrules (4) to (8):
.
1. The action has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means by the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the action.
.
2. The action was struck off a trial list and has not been restored to a trial list or otherwise terminated by any means by the second anniversary of being struck off.

Status Hearing
48.14(5) If the parties do not consent to a timetable under subrule (4), any party may, before the expiry of the applicable period referred to in subrule (1), bring a motion for a status hearing

48.14(6) For the purposes of subrule (5), the hearing of the motion shall be convened as a status hearing.

48.14(7) At a status hearing, the plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay, and the court may,
(a) dismiss the action for delay; or
.
(b) if the court is satisfied that the action should proceed,
.
(i) set deadlines for the completion of the remaining steps necessary to have the action set down for trial or restored to a trial list, as the case may be, and order that it be set down for trial or restored to a trial list within a specified time,
(ii) adjourn the status hearing on such terms as are just,
(iii) if Rule 77 may apply to the action, assign the action for case management under that Rule, subject to the direction of the regional senior judge, or
(iv) make such other order as is just

In theory, a Motion could be brought for an extension of time, but there doesn’t seem to be any arguments that would support this.

It’s also interesting to wonder why the Ontario Government never brought any Motion to Strike this whole time. Given how poorly drafted it is, why not at least try? Perhaps there was collusion between the parties. This would allow the case to remain open, but not advance.

This method allows VCC and their counsel to appear to be challenging Doug Ford, while ensuring nothing ever happens.

So what happened? It’s quite simple.

Vaccine Choice Canada brought a high profile lawsuit in October 2019 that they never intended to advance. They never planned to do anything to fight for medical autonomy in Ontario schools. The organization, and their counsel, have been lying to donors the entire time.

Neither the 2019 or 2020 cases ever went anywhere, and that was intentional.

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

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

Remember, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-19-00629810-0000
Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

Posted on

New Proposed Grift Lawsuit Seeks $50,000 To Fight “Wokeness”

The newest grift has emerged within the “Freedom Movement”.

It’s a GiveSendGo page from Shaun Rickard, asking for $50,000 to commence legal action against the City of Pickering, Ontario. It states that residents are subjected to the “woke, tyrannical and censorial unlawfulness”, under the Mayor and City Council.

This would be considered public interest litigation. However, there are no specifics provided about what such a lawsuit involves. The remedies sought are not spelled out here.

Federal Lawsuit Against The City Of Pickering
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT LANDMARK FEDERAL LAWSUIT – On behalf of ALL Canadians residing in ALL municipalities across the country

No matter what municipality you live in across Canada, you are very likely experiencing & being subjected to the same woke, tyrannical and censorial unlawfulness that those who live in Pickering, Ontario are under their current Mayor and Council.

Providing that we are able to garner enough public support, this Federal lawsuit will set a precedent which would apply to ALL tyrannical overreaching municipal governments and city officials Canada-wide, especially those blatantly trampling on resident’s parental rights, charter rights and freedom of expression by way of sanctions and censoring their constituent’s voices and/or any form of public dissent.

It’s very important to remember that these city officials work for us, not the other way around as they would have us believe. They simply cannot be allowed to intimidate their constituents into silence. Their obligation is to the will and wishes of ALL the people, not just small groups of radicalized activists who support their woke policies and agendas in order to get their own way.

Help us take this fight to Federal Court, because by doing nothing we are complicit in their tyranny and providing them with free reign to arbitrarily rule over us however they see fit, nothing changes unless we all work together and take action. It’s time to put these petty tyrants back in their place!

We’ll do all the leg work and heavy lifting, but we need your help to pull this off. Donations to our legal fund can be made right here on our official GiveSendGo page. We are however well aware that times are tough right now, so if you are unable to help financially we totally understand, but if that’s the case, please at the very least share this lawsuit and message with as many Canadians and on as many SM platforms as you can.

Thank you for your support,
Shaun & Team

Even taking this fundraiser at face value, there are still many unanswered questions. At a minimum, there are 6 serious issues that should be addressed. Before anyone considers contributing, these need answers.

1. Rickard Doesn’t Seem To Understand Jurisdiction

One of the more astute observers on Twitter inquired why such a case would be pursued in Federal Court, when Municipalities are the responsibility of the Provinces.

The Federal Courts are very limited in the kinds of cases they accept, whereas the Provincial Courts will take almost anything. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution outline which powers and responsibilities are Federal, and which are Provincial. Section 92 refers to “Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures”. Ultra Vires is a fairly well known concept.

Section 92(8) of the Constitution lists: “Municipal Institutions in the Province”.

Section 92(13): “Property and Civil Rights in the Province”.

Section 92(14): “The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.”.

Section 92(16): “Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province”.

This isn’t an issue of the Federal Courts having higher power or more authority. Rather, they’re set up to take on different kinds of cases.

A quick search on the Federal Court of Canada website shows:

Federal Subject Matter

Unlike the Superior Courts established by the provinces, the Federal Court does not have inherent, general jurisdiction. In order for the Federal Court to have authority to hear a given subject matter:

1. that subject matter must be assigned to Parliament under the Constitution; and

2. there must be actual, existing and applicable federal law; and

3. the administration of that law must have been conferred upon the Federal Court.

More specifically, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is conferred by the Federal Courts Act and, at present, close to a hundred other applicable federal statutes. These give the Court authority to hear and decide cases in a number of broad categories:

  • Administrative Law
  • Aboriginal Law
  • Maritime and Admiralty Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • National Security
  • Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Law
  • Class Proceedings

Human rights is listed under Administrative Law, under jurisdiction of the Federal Court. But, it’s only in the context of reviewing “actions and decisions of most federal boards, commissions, and administrative tribunals”. This wouldn’t apply here.

Even a 10 second search of jurisdiction of the Federal Court would have come up with this. It’s unclear why such elementary research wasn’t done prior to starting this GiveSendGo.

Would a Federal Court Judge agree to hear such a case anyway? It seems pretty unlikely.

A cynic may wonder if this is a calculated ploy to get such a suit throw out for lack of jurisdiction. There would then be more requests for donations to finance an Appeal.

2. Rickard Doesn’t Spell Out What Potential Lawsuit Would Cover

The GiveSendGo page makes vauge statements about parental rights and freedom of expression. However, no specifics are provided. Prospective donors are then left to guess about what it will entail. This should be a huge warning sign. If these people were serious and genuine about fundraising for public interest litigation, they would have no problems spelling out what it was for.

From the comments of Vincent Gircys, it looks like such a suit is more of an abstraction that anything real. That’s not encouraging.

It doesn’t look like there is even a lawyer ready to go. And rest assured, should one be retained, he or she will bill far more than $50,000

3. Rickard Doesn’t Guarantee Any Lawsuit Will Actually Happen

The third paragraph starts with: “Providing that we are able to garner enough public support….” In other words, even if you take him at face value, he gives no assurances whatsoever that any lawsuit will ever be filed. Yes, the amount set on the GiveSendGo is $50,000, but who’s to say that it won’t suddenly become $100,000? Or $200,000? Or $500,000? The goalposts can always be shifted. And that leads to the next problem.

4. Rickard Doesn’t Give Any Idea When It Would Be Filed

There’s no information provided about a timeline. Yes, the outcome and path of litigation can be nearly impossible to predict. But there’s nothing here about when a Statement of Claim or Notice of Action will be filed. It could be within weeks. It could be months, or years. Or, as mentioned in the previous point, it may never happen at all.

5. Rickard Doesn’t Make Any Assurances Regarding Refunds

Nowhere in the GiveSendGo posting is there any information provided about refunds. Should the litigation never take place, or should it be thrown out on a preliminary challenge, what happens to the money raised? This needs to be addressed.

6. Rickard Currently Grifting With “Travel Mandates Challenge”

This was recently addressed. The Statement of Claim filed by Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison in 2023 is really just a private lawsuit for damages. People are mislead into thinking it’s a challenge to prevent the return of injection passports for planes and trains. It does nothing of the sort.

Given that they’re not being straightforward with that case, why would anyone believe that this time around will be any different?

After nearly 5 years of endless fundraising, and requests for donations, people should be wising up to this. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada were exposed (among others) and the “industry” hasn’t died. Already, $1,000 has been raised in just a few days.

At some point, it’s hard to feel bad for donors.

People need to do at least some due diligence before handing over money.

(1) https://www.givesendgo.com/CityOfPickeringLawsuit
(2) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1843669473506525371
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/jurisdiction
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/
(5) https://x.com/SandyHasCandy/status/1843746225738395956
(6) https://x.com/VGircys/status/1845169699253825856
(7) https://x.com/VGircys/status/1845137597535797695

Posted on

Action4Canada Again Lying To Donors, No Amended Claim Ever Filed

As many are aware, Courts typically make information available online for the public to look up. The Courts in British Columbia do this, and allow documents to be directly downloaded. It’s great for researchers and journalists.

This will likely be the last post on the subject, since there’s no realistic prospect of having new material to cover. Put simply: donors were lied to, and ripped off.

A few years ago, Action4Canada made national news with their nonsense lawsuit.

Fast forward to today. According to the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, no amended Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC) has been filed. A quick search with Court Services Online has confirmed that.

The 2023 activity seen above had to do with Action4Canada challenging the costs to be awarded to some of the Respondents. It had nothing to do with fixing the existing pleading.

Brief Timeline Of Events Leading To This

Summer 2020: Action4Canada solicits donations for a promised “Constitutional challenge”, but doesn’t actually deliver anything. Naive donors hand over large amounts of money.

August 2021: The Notice of Civil Claim is eventually filed. It’s a rambling, disjointed and incoherent 391 page document. It obviously doesn’t comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

August 2022: The Claim is struck as “bad beyond argument”. However, Justice Ross does allow for a rewrite, which is referred to as “Leave to Amend”.

September 2022: Instead of rewriting the NOCC, the decision is appealed.

February 2023: Action4Canada becomes the laughing stock of the legal profession in B.C. The Law Society of B.C. includes Justice Ross’ decision in their latest training manual for new lawyers. This proceeding is cited as an example of what not to do.

October 2023: After publicly getting called out for delay, Action4Canada does eventually arrange to have the hearing scheduled.

February 2024: The B.C. Court of Appeal hears the case. The Justices appear baffled, and cannot understand the purpose of the Appeal. After all, it was agreed the NOCC was “prolix” and had to be rewritten anyway.

February 2024: The B.C. Court of Appeal dismisses the Appeal. Justice Marchand writes that no “reviewable error” had been identified, and confirms the NOCC wasn’t written properly.

That was February, and this is October.

No Amended Notice Of Claim Was Ever Filed

Despite their Appeal being dismissed, Action4Canada went on to publish that it was somehow a “successful outcome”.

However, we are now into October 2024. Nearly 8 months have passed since the BCCA ruling. There’s no amended Claim on file, and in fact, no activity at all with the file.

Were a new NOCC be filed, it would of course face another Application to Strike. Counsel has repeatedly proven to be unable (or unwilling) to follow Civil Procedure when drafting documents. While Justice Ross did allow a rewrite last time, it won’t happen again, especially with the wasteful Appeal.

Even in the remote possibility that a new — and decent — NOCC is filed, the Statute of Limitations only gives 2 years. Any new allegations prior to October 2022 would likely be disallowed. This is one of the few deadlines that’s strictly enforced by the Courts.

With all of this information taken into account, it’s reasonable to conclude that Action4Canada NEVER intended to go ahead with their case. People were lied to since 2020 to get them to donate.

They call critics “paid agitators” but never meaningfully address the litany of valid criticisms about their litigation. See here, here, here, here and here.

So, that appears to be the end of this case, at least on this site.

Action4Canada lied about this lawsuit, supposedly to take down Bonnie Henry. They wasted hundreds of thousands in donor money, with nothing to show for it. The Claim and Appeal were clearly designed to go nowhere.

These people belong in prison, not given deference as “respected elders”.

Remember: The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves, and to sue our critics.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

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
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

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

Take Action Canada Case Discontinued Back In July 2024

The anti-lockdown group, Take Action Canada, has discontinued their case against the Ontario Government. This was the “Ontario First Responders” case broadly publicized. It challenged the injection pass mandate for about 100 Plaintiffs, primarily police and fire fighters.

For reasons that never made any sense, counsel decided to sue twenty (20) different Municipalities and Cities as well, and the specific employers. This resulted in a small army of lawyers being retained to defend the case. Unsurprisingly, it was to jack up the expenses as well.

The Statement of Claim was horribly deficient, being a replica of Action4Canada and Adelberg, both of which were found to be “bad beyond argument”. The amended version did little to fix those problems. Ontario, like other Provinces, has Rules of Civil Procedure which, among other things, outline how Claims are to be drafted.

There’s also the issue that most (if not all) of the Plaintiffs were either Government workers or unionized, which meant they would be government by a collective bargaining agreement. Such contracts typically outline a grievance process, which almost exclusively leads to arbitration. So jurisdiction was a serious concern.

For background on the case, see Parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The initial filing made national news. But there was never any follow-up, outside of this site. So many of these cases are simply allowed to die off once the cameras are gone. No refunds, naturally. Has this been reported anywhere else?

Realizing that costs would likely exceed initial fees, counsel tried to blackmail the Plaintiffs. Instead of the $1,500 each to pursue the entire case, another $4,500 was demanded. Sources have reported that this was voted down.

There was an aborted hearing back in January 2024. The dozens of lawyers bringing Summary Judgement Motions wanted to schedule dates for a hearing. However, it ended with nothing being determined. Presumably, the Plaintiffs needed time to assess their options.

Now the other shoe (and the case itself) drop. There won’t even be a Motion to Strike or Summary Judgement Motion heard. The case has simply been discontinued.

Good luck Canuck Law defending the legal action by Rocco!

Thing is: Take Action Canada was well aware in advance of the kinds of of problems they’d be having. Sandra Sable testified (against CSASPP) that criticism of counsel threatened the viability of the Claim. Prospective Plaintiffs kept bailing out, and demanding refunds. See original.

They threw clients to the wolves anyway.

Now for a productive suggestion: while Plaintiffs won’t ever get justice against the Ford regime, or their employers, there are other targets. In order to practice law, a lawyer MUST have malpractice insurance. This is not negotiable.

Ashvinder Lamba and Kulvinder Gill were very unhappy with the quality of their legal representation. They had no qualms about trying to take some of that insurance money. Perhaps former Plaintiffs here should consider their options.

Donors, and former clients, should have a serious discussion with Sandy and Vince about where their money has been going. Presumably, no one has received refunds.

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(3) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(4) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(6) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(7) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-Of-Application-Police-On-Guard.pdf
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Take-Action-Canada-Retainer-Essential-First
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52
(12) https://takeactioncanada.ca/tac911-legal-action-1st-responder-essential-workers-update-dec-survey/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/CSASPP-RG-Sable-Affidavit.pdf

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison “Travel Mandates Challenge” Really Just A PRIVATE Suit For Damages

When people are being asked to donate to public cases, a.k.a. public interest litigation, they are entitled to be fully informed about the nature of the suit. As a consumer, honesty and transparency in advertising are obviously important. This applies regardless of industry.

Plaintiffs in a high profile lawsuit filed last year are asking for money. However, it appears they are not being forthcoming about what is really going on. This is, of course, the latest “travel mandates challenge” filed in Federal Court.

Upon reading the Statement of Claim, and the Amended Claim, it appears simply to be a suit requesting damages. There’s no relief sought that would benefit Canadians as a whole. Even if the lawsuit were successful, there’s nothing for the public listed.

It doesn’t look like there’s much of an ideological issue with the injection pass anyway. Starting on paragraph 32, they argue that the Feds were neglient and incompetent in how it was set up. They also try to argue “negligence” and “bad faith” at the same time, despite them being contradictory.

There’s no order being challenged, nor any request that would prevent injection mandates from returning in the future. There’s no money or justice being sought for the “unvaccinated” as a group.

Rickard and Harrison were asked about this, but have refused to provide any answer, other than some insults. It will be interesting to see what happens now.

Brief History On The Proceedings In Federal Courts


The story actually has quite the convoluted history. There were originally 4 Applications filed in Federal Court and heard together. See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The Statement of Claim is the more well known way to start litigation. It typically involves requests for financial compensation, but other orders can be sought as well. By contrast, an Application for Judicial Review has to do with reviewing an existing order, and is meant to be streamlined.

JURISDICTION ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW STEPS TAKEN
Federal Statement Of Claim Application Motion
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application Motion
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition Application
  • December 2021: Rickard/Harrison (T-1991-21)
  • January 2022: Naoum (T-145-22)
  • January 2022: Peckford (T-168-22)
  • February 2022: Bernier (T-247-22)

The Applications were declared “moot” in 2022 by Justice Jocelyne Gagné, but with the caveat that remedies could still be pursued by way of an Action, with a Statement of Claim.

It turned out that none of the Applicants were actually asking for any sort of damages. They were just asking that the injection pass requirement disappear permanently.

[27] Of note, after the IOs/MO were repealed and the Respondent had given notice of its motion for mootness, the Applicants in file T-1991-21 filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to amend their Notice of Application to assert damages and indicating that their Application would proceed as an Action. On August 3, 2022, Associate Judge Tabib denied the motion, noting “it appears that one of the goals of the proposed amendments is to attempt to insulate the Applicants from the potential consequences of the Respondent’s motion to declare this application moot.” She considered the implications of a dismissal of the motion for mootness and concluded that “I am, accordingly, not satisfied that the dismissal of this application for mootness, if it is ordered, would substantially prejudice the Applicant’s ability to pursue a claim for damages by way of action. More importantly, I am not satisfied that the possibility of a future dismissal, with the resulting costs and inefficiency, justifies, at this time, the extraordinary remedy sought by the Applicants.”

[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.

[46] Additionally, the rail passenger vaccine mandate is also challenged for breaching sections 2(a), 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter in several actions in damages before this Court (files no. T-554-22 and T-533-22), and the air passenger vaccine mandate in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (file no. 2203 09246). It is true that none of these proceedings will test the IOs/MO against section 6 of the Charter but, as indicated above, considering that they are no longer in force, the proper vehicle would be an action in damages if the Applicants suffered any damages as a result of these temporary measures. The Court would then have the proper factual background to assess the Applicants’ Charter rights.

The Government lifted the mandates shortly before filing a Motion to declare the cases moot. Yes, this was a cynical ploy, but it was success in obtaining dismissals. The Judge declined to hear the challenges anyway, but gave an alternative path forward.

For reasons that were never made clear, at least not publicly, the Applicants all appealed. They APPEALED a ruling when they could have simply REFILED as an Action. The Federal Court of Appeal threw it out, noting the lawyers didn’t even understand the Standard For Review. (See here)

TYPE OF ERROR STANDARD FOR REVIEW
Error of Fact Overriding, Palpable Error
Error of Pure Law Correctness
Mixed Fact & Law Spectrum, Leaning To Overriding, Palpable Error
Discretionary Orders Overriding, Palpable Error

Justice Gagné’s decision of “mootness” could be challenged by arguing “overriding palpable error”. Granted, this is often harder than “correctness”. But this is very basic, and it’s baffling that senior, experienced lawyers don’t know this.

Then again, why are they appealing at all? Justice Gagné ruled that they could refile as an Action (with a Statement of Claim) if anyone had suffered any damages.

This is “bad beyond argument” level stupid.

[8] Two of the four groups of appellants do not address the standard of review at all in their memoranda of fact and law. The other two argue that the standard of review in these appeals is correctness. However, in oral submissions, the appellants now acknowledge that this Court must follow the appellate standards of review described in the previous paragraph.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum decided to APPEAL AGAIN, seeking Leave to file with the Supreme Court of Canada. Keep in mind, they still could have refiled their pleadings (as an Action) with the Federal Court. Quite predictably, all Leave Applications were denied.

To their credit, this time, Rickard and Harrison decided to file a Statement of Claim, as had been recommended earlier. However, their suit is so poorly drafted that it’s unlikely to ever go anywhere.

Now we get to the main point of this article.

Rickard/Harrison Claim Is A PRIVATE Lawsuit

1. The Plaintiffs claim the following:

a. Constitutional damages pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), in the amount of $1,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for breach of the Plaintiffs’ Section 6, 7 and 15 rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter as a result of government decision-making and action conduct that was rooted in negligence, bad faith and willfully blind to the lack absence of scientific evidence or disconfirming scientific evidence regarding the role, and, in particular, the unknown efficacy, of Covid-19 vaccination in reducing the risk of Covid-19 transmission and infection within the transportation sector;

b. Costs of this action in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106; and,

c. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honorable Court deem just.

Both the Statement of Claim and the Amended Claim are available. This is important because it doesn’t match with what’s being claimed. The content of this is quite clearly a private lawsuit for damages. It seeks monetary awards for themselves.

(a) Damages, interest, costs recovered
(b) Costs of the proceeding

While the original Applications were a direct challenge to injectin travel mandates, this case does no such thing. It’s a private lawsuit for money. Even if they were successful, there would be no impact on society at large, as none is being sought.

And by arguing “negligence”, Rickard and Harrison are opening the door for the Government to propose so-called better safeguards.

If Rickard and Harrison wanted donations to finance a lawsuit for their retirements, they can ask. However, they need to be transparent about the nature of the case.

Requests For Donations For “Travel Mandates Challenge”

In his pinned tweet, Rickard promotes this case as “seeking justice for 6-7 million ‘unvaccinated’ Canadians”. However, this is not the case.

The Claim (both original and amended versions) do not ask for any kind of remedy that would aid the public as a whole. There’s no remedy being sought that would benefit 6 or 7 million people. Rickard and Harrison are asking for money for themselves.

True, the original Applications challenged mandates, but this case doesn’t.

Reading the case as a whole, Rickard and Harrison aren’t really even challenging the idea of a “vaccine passport”. Instead, they go on and on about how the Trudeau Government was “negligent” and “reckless” in how it was implemented.

Potentially, a Judge could issue guidance on how to better administer such a system.

Interestingly, Rickard often provides screenshots of the front page of his suit. However, a link to the full document is rarely (if ever) included. A possible reason is that reading the Claim reveals instantly that the “challenge” being described doesn’t exist.

Donations To Be Funneled Through A “Charity”

Also in the pinned tweet, Rickard asks for money for this “historic and incredibly import lawsuit”, offering “charity receipts” to people donating. Now, this charity does exist, and can be found on the C.R.A. site.

Registration can also be found with Corporations Canada. Karl Harrison is listed as a director of the organization.

However, the concern comes in about what is being fundraised. Rickard and Harrison are pitching this lawsuit as public interest litigation, a challenge to the travel mandates.

In reality, it’s a private suit for money — for themselves.

Rickard whines (again, pinned tweet) that the mainstream press in Canada has effectively buried the story. Presumably, he’s not getting the money or attention because everyone’s in bed with Trudeau. It’s quite amusing to see.

Incidently, Rickard and Harrison were contacted about this. They were asked why they were only seeking money for themselves, if they were fundraising for a “travel mandates challenge”. Both have refused to answer.

If there is a legitimate explanation, it would be nice to know. However, it comes across as soliciting funds for a private case, disguised as public interest litigation.

They’re handing out tax receipts to cover donations to their private case, while telling prospective donors that it’s a challenge to injection travel mandates. Not a good look.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(11) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(12) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(13) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)