Category: Health

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, looking briefly at the Ontario Lobbying Registry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the lack of transparency also sound familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

More FOI Requests From Nova Scotia, Trying To Get Answers On This “Pandemic”

Our friend in Nova Scotia is back at it again, digging up dirt and information about the tyranny of Robert Strang. Here are some of the latest finds. Previously, there was the hospitalization scam debunked, and the lack of data for masks in schools.

For a nearly 2,000 page compilation of documents (although a lot is redacted), have a good read through this file. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons (such as privilege or public policy), a lot is not disclosed.

Included in the disclosure is this little gem from CADTH and Health Canada. Worth a read.

Looking below at some of these definitions, these are identical to what is released by the World Health Organization. See page 3. Additionally, their “case definition” is certainly worth a look. This is Orwellian Newspeak, with very misleading usage. Also worth noting, if the vaccine kills you, but does so in under 14 days, you are considered “unvaccinated”.

Deceased case
 A probable or confirmed COVID-19 case whose death resulted from a clinically compatible illness, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose).
 A Medical Officer of Health, relevant public health authority, or coroner may use their discretion when determining if a death was due to COVID-19, and their judgement will supersede the above-mentioned criteria.
 A death due to COVID-19 may be attributed when COVID-19 is the cause of death or is a contributing factor.

Confirmed case
A person with confirmation of infection with SARS-CoV-2 documented by:
 The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing) performed at a community, hospital, or reference laboratory (the National Microbiology Laboratory or a provincial public health laboratory)
or
 The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated point-of-care (POC) NAAT that has been deemed acceptable to provide a final result (i.e. does not require confirmatory testing)
or
 Seroconversion or diagnostic rise (at least 4-fold or greater from baseline) in viral specific antibody titre in serum or plasma using a validated laboratory-based serological assay for SARSCoV-2

Notice that at no time do they ever say that they are testing for a virus.

According to other definitions:
Unvaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and having illness onset:
<14 days post first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine
After having received 0 doses of any COVID-19 vaccine
Partially vaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and have illness
onset:
≥14 days post first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine or <14 days post second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine Fully vaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and have illness onset: ≥14 days post second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine

Anyhow, thank you to the committed people who try to bring out the truth. Your work is sincerely appreciated, even by the silent masses. What’s disturbing is just how little truth is shared by our “leaders”.

If you think this issue is limited to Nova Scotia, please check out Ontario and Alberta.

And while you’re at it, go visit Fluoride Free Peel. This deadly virus has never been isolated, anywhere in the world. The narrative is built entirely on lies.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying-masks-in-schools/
(3) Nova Scotia Package Response Redacted
(4) CADTH Implementation Panel Jan 14 2021
(5) Nova Scotia FOI Document Dump_compressed
(6) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Case-Definition-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/1-year-later-media-silent-on-christine-elliotts-admission-deaths-with-covid-and-deaths-from-covid-conflated/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-43b-jason-kenney-shrugs-off-potential-90-error-rate-in-pcr-tests/
(10) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Posted on

Facedrive/Microsoft Partner For TraceSCAN Distribution (Wearable Contact Tracing Equipment)

A company called Facedrive has gotten together with the University of Waterloo to create a wearable device to aid in contact tracing. Now that it appears to be operational, it’s ready to sell in collaboration with Microsoft. You remember Microsoft, they helped launched ID2020 back in 2016. Their ex-CEO, Bill Gates, wants to vaccinate the planet.

[Facedrive] is pleased to announce that its contact-tracing platform TraceSCAN has achieved co-sell ready status on the Microsoft Partner Network. Achieving ‘co-sell ready’ status will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN with a significant scaling opportunity by gaining access to Microsoft global customer and partner base. Furthermore, ‘co-sell ready’ status will enable Facedrive and Microsoft teams to collaborate globally on promoting TraceSCAN as a holistic connected health solution powered by Microsoft Azure technology stack. Specifically, Microsoft sales and consulting teams will be able to offer TraceSCAN contact-tracing to their corporate customers as an integrated feature within the enterprise business applications powered by Microsoft products. The greater choice and flexibility provided by being part of the Microsoft Partner’s Network will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN customers with a richer set of options in implementing their contact tracing programs.

It seems that a business deal with Microsoft has been in the works for a while. Considering Gates’ many ties to globalism and this “pandemic”, associations with his former company are worth careful scrutiny.

July 2020, Microsoft announced that TraceSCAN wearables would be available, but distribution would be limited to partners only, for now. This was a sort of soft launch for the product. In September, commercial distribution of the the tracking units started.

December 2020, TraceSCAN received Federal certification from Innovation, Science and Economic Development of Canada (ISED). This used to be known as Industry Canada.

Facedrive appears to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (or AI) into its platform. The company claims that this will assist in forecasting the spread of COVID-19 and predicting any further outbreaks of the virus. In a sense, this device on your wrist would be used to help drive new modelling to make predictions for further lockdowns and martial law.

The AI algorithms will help detect of infected individuals that have not been in direct contact with a positive case but might have been a 2nd or 3rd-degree contact. As with everything, the devil’s in the details, and we would have to know what assumptions and calculations are being made.

The creepiness factor keeps going from there. TraceSCAN’s contact tracing wearables are also a means to track and trace children (even very young children) in their daily movements. Of course, this is being sold as safety and security.

Facedrive itself explains in broad strokes how their technology would work. This amounts to putting a GPS tracker on your wrist, and having your movements and medical conditions tracked. At the same time, this could be done to hundreds, or thousands of other people. This isn’t quite microchipping the cattle, but it’s getting pretty close.

What can this technology be used for? Facedrive gives a list of possibilities:

  • Secure access to facilities
  • Linking to existing services
  • Time tracking
  • Attendance notification
  • Immunization passport
  • Remote monitoring of health metrics

Have to admire how blunt this company is about being able to repurpose their product for more general purposes. At least they don’t lie like the politicians claiming that these trackers will only be limited to this so-called pandemic.

Even back in July 2020, the Ontario Government announced support for this company. As with most things in politics, the magic handshake is needed to get results. From the Provincial database, we are able to see who’s been pulling Ford’s strings this time.

With a quick visit to the Ontario Lobbying Registry, we can see that Facedrive has been active in recent months, using connected lobbyists to get the Government interested in their technology. And it may have helped this company secure a $2.5 million payment from Toronto.

It’s worth a reminder that Microsoft and the Ontario Ministry of Health are both part of the Vaccine Credential Initiative.

Description
VCI is working to enable individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 to access their vaccination records in a secure, verifiable and privacy-preserving way. The Coalition is developing a standard model for organizations administering COVID-19 vaccines to make credentials available in an accessible, interoperable, digital format. empower consumers to conveniently access, store, and share digital COVID-19 vaccination records

Ontario is working towards both a contact tracing system which far expands any legitimate use, and a universal vaccine certification. Anyone remember when this was just 2 weeks to flatten the curve?

Now, who were the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings of Doug Ford? It should surprise no one that the lobbyists involved have ties to the Conservatives both in Ontario, and Federally.

Stephanie Dunlop was involved in both of Erin O’Toole’s runs for the CPC leadership (2017 and 2020). She was also the Candidate Support Lead for the PC Party in 2018. This helped install Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario.

James Lin worked in the Government of Doug Ford, before going over to Hill + Knowlton. He was in the Ministry of Transportation, as a Policy Director. Additionally, he was an Advisor in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. He was also involved in the Toronto City Council when Rob and Doug Ford were there. February 2021, she lobbied the Manitoba Government of Brian Pallister over the same contact-tracing platform.

Laura Grossman spent 5 years working for the Government of Canada during the Harper reign.

Also worth noting, Natalie Sigalet, a Senior Account Director at the lobbying firm, Hill + Knowlton, has reached out to the Alberta Government of Jason Kenney. She worked in the Office of the Premier of Alberta when Allison Redford was in charge. Presumably, she’s still pretty connected.

Looking at the Federal Registry, Facedrive is listed there several times. Interestingly, in their 2020 registrations, they list no Government (taxpayer) funding in 2019. However, there is expected to be some coming up from Finance Canada and the Ontario Centre of Excellence. This appears to reference the $2.5 million secured from Ford.

In what should surprise no one, Facedrive has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Makes sense, as they are very much invested in promoting the pandemic narrative.

In the Azure Marketplace, Microsoft outlines the main goals of this product:
[1] Case Investigation
[2] Contact Tracing
[3] Contact Support
[4] Self Quarantine

Now all of this may sound harmless enough, especially since the self-quarantine is recommended. However, what happens when it becomes mandatory, and wearing this device isn’t a choice? Also, who will be monitoring this system, and what teeth will there be?

This system is just a few short steps away from becoming a Government run chipping and monitoring system. While this may sound hyperbolic, consider where we were even a year ago.

From the looks of things, Microsoft will be used as a hosting platform for which Facedrive is able to launch its product on a much larger scale. However, MS is also eligible to sell units of TraceSCAN under the terms of the arrangement with Facedrive. Of course, that leads to all kinds of privacy and security issues, including who will have access to this data.

And a serious question: what happens if the hosting or management of this system (or part of it) gets sold or outsourced to someone else? What privacy considerations will there be?

Just looking at the products and services offered by Azure, it includes: AI, analytics, blockchain and mixed reality. For people who value any semblance of bodily autonomy and privacy, this needs to be seriously looked into before ever signing on.

And no, this isn’t something new. Even in April 2020, the early days of this psy-op, Microsoft had partnered with the University of Washington. How strange that tracking people was their immediate response.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_vdNM33Ug&
(2) https://id2020.org/alliance
(3) https://health.facedrive.com/
(4) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-achieves-co-sell-ready-status-with-microsoft/
(5) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-wearables-app-now-available-on-microsoft-store-for-partners/
(6) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/tracescan-starts-shipping-wearable-devices/
(7) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrive-healths-contact-tracing-technology-tracescan-secures-federal-certification-from-innovation-science-and-economic-development-of-canada-ised/
(8) https://health.facedrive.com/how-it-works/
(9) https://health.facedrive.com/tracescan-ai-platform/
(10) https://health.facedrive.com/school-industry/
(11) https://twitter.com/FacedriveHealth
(12) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-covid-19-tracescan-app-receives-support-of-ontario-government/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(14) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/Default.aspx
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephdunlop/
(16) https://registry.lobbyistregistrar.mb.ca/lra/reporting/public/registrar/view.do?method=get&registrationId=414590
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslin16/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-grosman-7331a28b/
(19) Facedrive Registration Alberta Sheila Wisniewski
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/natalie-sigalet-83b5556a/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367466&regId=904875
(22) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(23) https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RWIzL5
(24) Azure Marketplace Facedrive TraceSCAN
(25) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/
(26) https://www.geekwire.com/2020/uw-microsoft-release-contact-tracing-app-aiming-battle-covid-19-preserving-privacy/

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULE 2.1 GENERAL POWERS TO STAY OR DISMISS IF VEXATIOUS, ETC.
STAY, DISMISSAL OF FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS, ABUSIVE PROCEEDING
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
.
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

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

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

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

RULE 19 DEFAULT PROCEEDINGS
NOTING DEFAULT
Where no Defence Delivered
.
19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3.

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

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

RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY
Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

Although it’s unclear who was served, Rule 24 could apply for a variety of different reasons. It’s also worth noting that Rule 14.08 specifies that a Statement of Claim must be served within 6 months of being filed.

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. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
.
Pleading Law
.
(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

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

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

4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim

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

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

5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Dismissal For Unnecessary Delay, Failure To Serve

RULE 24 DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR DELAY
Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

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

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

In reality, the Defendants could file a motion to dismiss this case at any point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI Result: Province Refuses To Turn Over Data/Studies Justifying Masks In Schools

Thank you to a concerned Nova Scotia resident who took the time to contact the NS Department of Health and Wellness regarding masks in schools. The same person also went through the efforts to contact the Government asking for data about ICU hospitalizations and capacity going back to 2015. This earlier result is well worth a read.

Note: when scrubbing details, a few pages at the end turned out a bit wonky. Hopefully, that doesn’t detract from the overall information.

The Department of Health and Wellness received your application for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) on June 22, 2021.
.
In your application, you requested a copy of the following records:
.
All scientific data, correspondence, studies, final briefing notes, risk-benefit analysis that justify and or support the government’s actions and decision-making that masking children in schools is necessary to reduce the spread of COVID-19 that are held by Dr. Strang Chief Medical Officer of Health. (Date Range for Record Search:
From 02/29/2020 To 06/21/2021)

This is a very reasonable request. If young children are going to be forced (or coerced) into wearing masks for 4 or 6 hours per day, then we need to see some justification for this. For all the rambling about following the science, let’s see some actual science.

You are entitled to part of the records requested. However, we have removed some of the information from the records according to subsection 5(2) of the Act. The severed information is exempt from disclosure under the Act for the following reasons:
• Section 14(1): The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice, recommendations or draft regulations developed by or for a public body.
• Section 20(1): The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The Province is redacting part of the information, claiming that it would force them to reveal regulations currently being drafted. They also allege some 3rd party invasion of privacy. It’s scant on details, so there’s really no way to verify this.

We are refusing access to a portion of the records for the following reason pursuant to subsection 4(2) of the Act:
• The Act does not apply to the following kinds of information in the custody or control of a public body: published information, material available for purchase and material that is a matter of public record.

As an additional ground, no information can be released, since apparently it’s already in the public domain. Now, there are links provided on the next page, but this doesn’t really help narrow down where exactly that information is.

Information that is not responsive to the scope of your requests has been removed from the
records package.

Dude, you haven’t provided any information. Does the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Nova Scotia not have any records related to the health of children in schools, and how masks would impact them?

Nova Scotia’s Covid -19 response actions have been based on national and international guidance from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). As the leading agencies for pandemic response nationally and internationally, both PHAC and WHO are continuously reviewing the evolving scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 and the effectiveness of various measures. These reviews are used to form their guidance, position statements, and other documents all of which are in the public domain.

This is the typical self-congratulations, that doesn’t really answer the question being asked. Now, there are another 10 pages attached, mostly redacted. The information provided is pretty useless. Now, if there truly was a scientific and medical basis for the decision to push masks on the public (and especially on kids) why not share it openly?

There has to be far more information that the pages (even the redacted ones) provided. This is a major decision, and not something that can be done on a whim. What are they really hiding?

And since we’re on FOIs, go visit Fluoride Free Peel. Amazing work done there by Christine Massey to expose the scam of this so-called virus. It’s never been isolated, anywhere, ever, by anyone in the world.

(1) Nova Scotia Masks At School FOI
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress