Lawfare Archives - Page 2 of 11

February 29, 2024October 31, 2024

Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Commenced In University Of Guelph Lawsuit

Wednesday, February 28th, 2024, Byram Bridle, the high profile professor from the University of Guelph, was back in Court. This was a short hearing to set down another anti-SLAPP Motion to dismiss his December 2022 lawsuit.

Guelph has previously filed a Statement of Defence, on behalf of all their Defendants. But now, their lawyer, Lynn Turnbell, is asking that the case be thrown out altogether. Their stated reason is that the contents of the Claim are covered under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the anti-SLAPP provision.

Guelph further states that the subject matter should be tossed for a lack of jurisdiction. Bridle is a university employee, as are most Defendants. It’s argued that the matter should have gone to arbitration instead of litigation. And they’re not wrong.

The initial anti-SLAPP Motion was filed by Kate Costin, the lawyer for David Fisman. Yes, it’s that David Fisman. It’s unclear why his content (Twitter related) is being connected to this. That will be heard on November 19th, 2024.

Counsel for Bridle requested that everything be moved back to 2025. He stated that he will be taking his annual 2 month vacation to Turkey — for medical reasons.

However, Justice Dow refused that request. The Fisman anti-SLAPP Motion will still be heard in November 2024, and the Guelph Motion is now booked for October 16th, 2025.

University of Guelph Faculty covered by collective agreements

The University of Guelph publicly posts their collective bargaining agreements, which include ones with faculty members. This particular one took only seconds to find.

Article 40 of the agreement, beginning on page 131, makes it clear the steps that are to be taken in the event of a serious problem within the university.

Informal resolution
Formal grievance
Arbitration

This wasn’t difficult to find. Not only does Bridle presumably have a copy of this document, but it’s publicly available on the school’s website.

True, there may be the power of a Court to review the findings of an Arbitrator, depending on the rules that are set out. This would be analogous to filing an Appeal. However, what happened here was suing in Court instead of going to arbitration. These are not the same thing.

40.1 The Parties agree to attempt to resolve disputes arising from this Agreement amicably and promptly.

40.2 In order to ensure that Grievances of Members are remedied in a reasonable, just, and equitable manner, the University and the Association mutually agree that the procedure for submitting and dealing with Grievances shall be as indicated in the remainder of this Article.

Informal Resolution
40.9 The University and the Association mutually agree that it is the desire of the Parties that differences in the interpretation, application, administration, and alleged violations of this Agreement shall be dealt with as quickly as is reasonably possible. If a Member has a complaint or dispute that may give rise to a Grievance, they and/or an Association designate shall first discuss the matter at a meeting arranged for this purpose with the Dean, University Librarian, or, in the case of Veterinarians, Director, or designate, within twenty (20) days after the Member would reasonably be expected to have become aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint or dispute.

40.11 Failing informal resolution of the complaint or dispute and within ten (10) days following receipt of notification of the proposed resolution under the informal process, the Association has the right to present the written Formal Grievance to the Provost, or designate, pursuant to this Article.

Formal Grievance Procedure
40.14 Following receipt of a Formal Grievance, the Provost, or designate shall convene a meeting within ten (10) days with the Member and/or the Association designate. With reasonable notice to the other Party prior to the meeting, either Party may have others attend who have information relevant to the specific Grievance. The Provost (or designate) shall reply in writing within fifteen (15) days of that meeting.

40.19 Failing resolution of a Grievance, the University or the Association will provide notification that a matter shall be submitted to Arbitration. Such notification must be made in writing and addressed to the other party within fifteen (15) days of the date of receipt of the Formal Grievance decision.

40.22 The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties.

40.23 All arbitration expenses, including the remuneration of the Arbitrator, shall be shared equally by both Parties, subject to the award of costs by the Arbitrator as part of the remedy.

Looking at Article 40.22, it seems that the Arbitrator’s ruling is meant to be final. There’s no obvious way to challenge it further, unless the process is demonstrated to be corrupted. Since no arbitration took place, that would be difficult to prove.

The process outlined is pretty straightforward: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration, if needed. There’s no mention whatsoever about having an option to pursue litigation. This is typical in unionized and Government workplaces.

But according to the Statement of Claim, that’s not what happened.

After the grievance process went against Bridle, he didn’t pursue arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved. This included Nick Duley, and outside HR consultant, who was hired for an investigation. Also named is Laurie Arnott, Vice President of Faculty Relations. It’s alleged that there’s a grand conspiracy against him.

Paragraph 100, it’s stated that Guelph refused to investigate online harassment that happened outside of school grounds. It fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and hence, no ability to do anything. This comes across as reasonable.

Paragraph 136 of the Claim says that Bridle refused to participate in Duley’s investigation, calling it a “kangaroo court”. Duley is referred to as a “hired gun”. That won’t sit well without proof.

The content in the Claim comes across as being so over the top, it’s difficult to determine what’s factual, and what’s overblown.

Now, it’s possible that the Court may find that the grievance process was corrupted and unworkable, but that’s for the Plaintiff to establish. This is sometimes referred to as “residual jurisdiction”. While a major conspiracy is alleged, it seems that it would be very difficult to prove.

Contending with the anti-SLAPP Motions

Fisman appears to have nothing to do with the University of Guelph, so including him in this case seems unproductive. Even if he did interact with some of the online content, he’s not involved in essentially what is a workplace dispute at Guelph. Considering how hard it is to prove defamation, and to get damages, this will be a tough sell in November.

The Kulvinder Gill/Ashinder Lamba, Boraks and CSASPP cases are also good examples of how much bad lawyering can impact clients.

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279
Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169
Gill v. Maciver, 2023 ONCA 776
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 4294
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 6420
Galati v. Toews et al, 2023 ONSC 7508
Galati v. Toews et al, 2024 ONSC 935

There’s also this gem from March 2021, with a Motion scheduled for this Fall.

The trend in recent years is to implement mechanisms designed to screen out cases as abusive. For defamation type cases, these are called anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Again, it’s hard to tell from this Statement of Claim what’s real, and what’s hype and distortion. Hopefully, more will come out in the pending Motions.

To survive an anti-SLAPP Motion, the Plaintiff is required to prove at least some of the damages. This means submitting Affidavit evidence, and being cross examined on it. The Plaintiff must also establish that there are no reasonable defences that could be relied upon. Will this happen?

How will all of this end?

It’s possible that there will be a negotiated settlement to discontinue the case entirely. Although s.137.1(5) “stays” the case, the parties can always agree to drop it. This sort of thing has happened many times before.

If not, it’s going to be very expensive for Bridle. He’s facing full indemnity (100% of costs) on 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions. This could set him back $100,000 or more. Courts tend to be very harsh to Plaintiffs who bring lawsuits to silence public speech improperly.

An open question is why this case was even brought. Even a quick read through the collective bargaining agreement would have indicated that this was not the path to take. Should the Guelph Motion not succeed under anti-SLAPP provisions, it will likely still get dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reading through the Claim, it looks as though large parts of this are simply cut and pasted from earlier lawsuits. The same sorts of allegations come up over and over again. This isn’t original content.

It appears that Bridle was poorly advised both in employment law, and defamation law.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/
(5) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(6) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/system/files/UGFA_CA_2022_FinalPrint_Nov20_2023.pdf

February 27, 2024March 27, 2024

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act): Who’s Really Pushing This Agenda?

Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has been introduced in Parliament by Arif Virani, the Justice Minister. First Reading happened on February 26th, 2024. There’s a lot of it to go through

To begin with, there are actually some worthwhile provisions in the Bill, such as the mandatory reporting of child pornography. No sensible reason would reject that. And there are instances where being able to quickly remove certain content would be in the best interests of society.

Ottawa gives its own summary of the Bill.

However, Bill C-63 seems to blend together straightforward and legitimate issues with ones that are much more vague and impractical. Consequently, it’s harder to simply accept or reject.

There’s also the question of who has been influencing the drafting of this content. That will be addressed a bit later.

The Bill would create a Digital Safety Office of Canada, and an Ombudsman to oversee it. In essence, it would add a new layer of bureaucracy to specifically monitor “digital safety”.

Content that foments hatred is “defined” in this Bill, but is still vague. Additionally, it seeks to be able to attribute specific motivations to expression. What may be valid discourse to some will be considered hate speech to others.

There is a disclaimer that this wouldn’t apply to content solely because it expresses “disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends”. Sounds great, but that also is subjective as well, depending on the views of whoever is interpreting it.

Harmful content in fact lists 7 different categories, and all of them at least somewhat open to interpretation. What can easily happen is that these new laws will be selectively applied, depending on the politics of the people involved.

The Bill would create a new section of the Criminal Code. This is one which a person could lay an information on another, and with the Attorney General’s consent, it could be brought before a Judge. If ordered by that Judge a person may be forced to enter into a recognizance, if a Judge is convinced that hate crime may be committed.

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
.
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.‍1); or
(b) an offence under section 320.‍1001.

A person could be forced into this recognizance for up to 2 years, or would face 12 months in prison if they refuse. This is similar to being out on bail or on a peace bond, but with no actual crime committed.

Terms of the “recognizance” could include:

(a) Wearing an electronic monitoring device
(b) Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times, a.k.a. a curfew
(c) Abstaining from drugs and alcohol
(d) Submitting to drug and alcohol testing
(e) No contact orders
(f) Weapons prohibitions

The topper on this one is that a Judge isn’t required to give reasons for this, but is supposed to say why written reasons aren’t included. Again, this is for when some is suspected that they may commit a crime. No actual charges are necessary.

Other changes to the Criminal Code involve Section 318 and 319, which raise the potential imprisonment for incitement to hatred from 2 years to 5 years.

Advocating genocide will also expose a person to a potential life sentence.

The Canadian Human Rights Act would also be amended to include “communication of hate speech”, which is defined as: to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But it also is poorly defined, which will likely lead to it being applied in an uneven manner, depending on the politics of those involved.

Section 140 of the Online Harms Act is the “Regulations” part. This is where unnamed and unelected bureaucrats are able to change or interpret provisions of the legislation without any real oversight. Nearly all Acts have such a backdoor, which allows changes to be done behind the scenes.

There is more to Bill C-63, but those are some of the major points.

Now, where did this come from?

Lobbying is a reality in politics. Special interests groups lobby money to get certain agendas pushed, and to get money for their causes. This is hardly news. Searching the Federal Lobbyist Registry, the following names come up:

Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)
Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF)
YWCA Canada
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting

Are there others involved in this? Probably, but these are the names that come up, which appear to be relevant to regulating speech and expression.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, has been prolific in lobbying Ottawa for changes to the Human Rights Act, and to the Criminal Code. This group has pushed for stricter definitions around so-called hate crimes and antisemitism. Their recent efforts include making Holocaust denial punishable by prison time, and removing religious protections. See here and here.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, NCCM, specifically lists Section 13 of the Canadian Rights Act. They want laws against Islamophobia, and condemn “white supremacy”. Other efforts include anti-racism initiatives, such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, had pressured Ottawa to take action against online harassment and gendered violence. The recent lobbying specifically relates to new technologies used to do this.

YWCA Canada supports regulations against online hate, which is taken from a feminist and “gendered violence” perspective.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a bit of an outlier. It wants more financial support for smaller, independent media, while opposing the funding of the CBC. It also pushes for regulations around online hate. Presumably, this would lead to many (much smaller) anti-racist outlets.

And to search online hate more generally, click on this link.

While it’s always important to read upcoming legislation, this piece often gets left out. The groups pushing for changes need to be considered as well. This is especially true if our interests don’t align.

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(N) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(O) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(P) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(Q) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

April 15, 2023

Parliament Revisiting Amendments For Sweeping Bans On Rifles And Shotguns

Hearings are ongoing in Parliament over another gun grab, but first, some backstory:

Bill C-21 was reintroduced in November 2021. To a large extent, it was a rehash of its predecessor (also called Bill C-21), which died when the 2021 Federal election was called.

The new iteration of Bill C-21 would still create red-flag and yellow-flag laws, among other restrictions. It would go further, and ban transfers and sales of handguns outright.

Apparently, the Federal Government didn’t want to wait for Bill C-21 to pass, or take the chance it wouldn’t, so handgun transfers were banned by regulatory change back in October 2022. This was O.I.C. 2022-1144.

Keep in mind, this wasn’t the first gun grab in recent history. O.I.C. 2020-0298 banned over 1,500 models of firearms on May 1, 2020. That was done without any debate, nor regard to logic or consistency as to which types would qualify. It’s currently being challenged in Federal Court.

But this Bill didn’t go far enough. In late 2022, amendments to Bill C-21 were added on, without any real debate as they were done at the conclusion of Parliament’s hearings. From the Manitoba Lodges & Outfitters Association:

Amendment G-4 would change physical requirements of non-prohibited guns so that many more would qualify, including:

Projectiles (bullets) discharged with 10,000 Joules of energy or more
Bores with a diameter of 20 mm or greater
Rifles/shotguns capable of accepting magazines greater than 5 bullets, regardless of what the firearms were actually designed for

Amendment G-46 would have converted many more specific models of rifles and shotguns into “prohibited weapons”, meaning that they could never be sold or transferred again.

This didn’t sit well with the public. Both the wide range of models, and underhanded nature of doing this last minute seemed to circumvent the legislative process.

The amendments were dropped — at least for the time being — but the story doesn’t end there.

A group of 7 members of that Committee requested wanted to rehear witnesses over the G-4 amendments. The Committee sat on December 13, 2022.

Now we get to the current state of affairs.

Hearings continued in February and March of 2023. If the Government had wanted these changes, then they should have been debated in the Fall of 2022.

As of the time of writing this, no decision has been made about the fate of the G-4 and G-46 amendments.

Even if the amendments were to be reinstated, there is no guarantee that Bill C-21 would pass Third Reading in the House of Commons. This is especially true given recent election speculation. Beyond that, no one knows for sure what would happen in the Senate.

To restate the obvious: none of this does anything to prevent gun crime, which politicians constantly rail against. It just makes it harder for people to legally own firearms, and maybe disarmament is the goal.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-21-reintroduced-legislation-to-whittle-away-gun-rights/
(3) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/index.php?lang=en
(4) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=42706&lang=en
(5) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11814165
(7) https://mloa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/G-46-e.pdf
(8) https://mloa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/20221122-C-21-Amendment-G4.pdf
(9) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-54/notice
(10) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11988263
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SECU/meeting-54/evidence
(12) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12045393

March 13, 2023March 13, 2023

Chief Justice Hinkson, The Vancouver Foundation, And Many Unanswered Questions

It was recently revealed that the Justice who presided over several anti-lockdown cases in British Columbia runs a group called the Vancouver Foundation. Looking into the details of this charity a bit more, this creates — at a minimum — the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. (See archive.)

The group describes itself in this way:

“Vancouver Foundation grants to hundreds of charities and non-profits in BC every year. Our vision is to create healthy, vibrant, and livable communities, and we focus on supporting projects that address the root causes of important issues. Our funding comes from generous gifts from the community, as well as from managing endowment funds for people, charities, and businesses.”

The Vancouver Foundation is involved in many different areas, and has undoubtedly has done a lot of good work. However, some things need to be questioned.

Anyhow, this is quite the rabbit hole, so let’s jump in.

The Vancouver Foundation Act is what governs the organization. This isn’t a traditional group, but one that was created in 1943 by an Act of Parliament.

Board of directors
5 (1) The board of directors of the foundation is to consist of at least 10 and not more than 18 persons, with the directors determining the number of directors from time to time in the bylaws of the foundation.
(1.1) If the number of directors is below the minimum number set out in subsection (1) or in the bylaws, as applicable, the board continues to have the authority to carry out its duties and exercise its powers until all vacancies are filled.
(1.2) Subject to section 6, the board consists of the following members:
(a) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia or, if applicable, the judge appointed by the Chief Justice under that section;
(b) a member of the Law Society of British Columbia who has been nominated by the Law Society of British Columbia in accordance with the bylaws of the foundation and whose nomination has been accepted by the board;

Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson is a Director at the Vancouver Foundation, by virtue of his position on the Court. Far from being just a name on paper, he’s prominently listed as a Director (see margin on page 3). He also made the following rulings:

COURT CASES PRESIDED OVER BY CHIEF JUSTICE HINKSON

(A) Kassian v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1603
(Refusal for exemption to vaccine passport)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1603/2022bcsc1603.html

(B) Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1604
(Refusal for charter rights to travel, s.6 of Charter)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1604/2022bcsc1604.html

(C) Maddock v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1605
(Refusal for compensation due to injury)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1605/2022bcsc1605.html

(D) CSASPP v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1606
(Refusal to allow health care workers to opt out)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1606/2022bcsc1606.html

(E) Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 248, BCSC 248
(Refusal to allow a church to remain open)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2021/2021bcsc512/2021bcsc512.html

True, one might get the impression that he simply called these cases as he saw fit. But there is more to things than meet the eye.

Kate Hammer is the Vice President for Engagement, was previously a Senior Policy Advisor for the Minister of Education (Ontario), and also worked in the Office of the Premier under Kathleen Wynne. Sure, that’s Ontario, but people in political circles have very deep networks of connections, and it’s rarely limited to a region. (See archive.)

She’s also now lobbying the B.C Government on behalf of the Vancouver Foundation. Things get even more convoluted. Why? Because the B.C. Lobbying Registry shows exactly what subject matters are being discussed.

The Vancouver Foundation is trying to get more access and influence from the B.C. Government. This can cause a problem.

Activities to support an amendment to Vancouver Foundation Act related to definition of “reserve amount”
Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options and opportunities for ensuring legislation and regulations related to lobbyists transparency do not limit charities and non-profits from participating in vital conversations about government policies and priorities.
Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options and opportunities for the charitable sector to play a key role in pandemic recovery
Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options for expanding the Unclaimed Property Act’s ability to use dormant assets to boost investment in community initiatives and organizations.

Let’s think about this one. Chief Justice Hinkson, a Director at the Vancouver Foundation, is making key Court rulings relating to “pandemic measures”. Meanwhile, his organization is lobbying the B.C. Government for greater influence in exactly those areas.

And what taxpayer sources is the Vancouver Foundation getting money from?

SOURCE	DATE	AMOUNT
Provincial Employees Community Services Fund	2022-09-08	$68.00
City of Surrey	2022-08-26	$3,000.00
City of Surrey	2022-06-22	$48.13
Advanced Education and Skills Training	2022-04-07	$250,000.00
Children and Family Development	2022-04-05	$2,760,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction	2022-04-01	$1,350,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction	2022-04-01	$30,000,000.00
Canada Cultural Investment Fund	2022-03-21	$1,005,258.00
City of Vancouver	2022-03-11	$45,000.00
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, and Rural Development	2022-02-24	$5,000,000.00
City of Surrey	2020-10-08	$45.00
BC Arts Council	2020-04-02	$200,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction	2020-04-02	$590,000.00
Advanced Education, Skills and Training	2020-03-31	$250,000.00
Canada Cultural Investment Fund	2020-03-16	$955,718.00
Provincial Employees Community Services Fund	2020-03-13 to 2020-09-10	$59.80
City of Vancouver	2020-03-13	$22,500.00

The Vancouver Foundation has received several millions of taxpayer money in the last few years.

Glenn Wald gets an honourable mention. He was the Director of Communications at Vancouver Foundation from November 2017 until October 2022. He has also been involved with both the Federal and British Columbia Governments. (See archive.)

Joe Gallagher, Vice President Indigenous Health & Cultural Safety at Provincial Health Services Authority, is also worth listing. He was a Board Member at the Vancouver Foundation until July 2022, so very recent. (See archive.)

Dara Parker is formerly a Program Manager for the United Nations Association in Canada, and an advisor for the U.N. Human Resettlements Programme. (See archive.)

As covered previously, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) Foundation is in fact a registered charity that contributes substantial amounts annually to up to 4 “qualified donees”. These are:

B.C. Centre for Disease Control
Community-Based Research Centre Society (also a charity)
Provincial Health Services Authority (also a charity)
University of British Columbia (also a charity)

The BCCDC Foundation used to have a scroller to cycle through their major donor list. It’s since been removed, but thankfully saved in an earlier article:

The BCCDC Foundation proudly lists the Vancouver Foundation as a donor, as well as companies like Pfizer. The BCCDC-F also admits that a significant portion of its funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. Is it any wonder why the B.C. Government is so pro-pharma?

In terms of following the money, the next sections are from CSASPP’s March 12, 2023 summary for the Vancouver Foundation’s financials. As a registered charity, it’s required to disclose a fair amount of information publicly. Rather than reinvent the wheel, here are the highlights:

Based on the T3010 Registered Charity Information Return filed with the Canada Revenue Agency, several years of reporting periods are available. The records are copious with thousands of donees. We will save you the trouble of sifting through them. The following is a summary of our provisional material findings.

In fiscal year 2021 the Vancouver Foundation donated to the Public Health Association of British Columbia $193,072 and to Fraser Health Authority $93,434. The year prior of 2020 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority received $100,000 from the Foundation. A charity setup by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control to receive donations, the BCCDC Foundation for Population and Public Health, received $13,000.

During the onset to the alleged pandemic in 2019, many of you will recall the traditional intellectual safeguards were largely mute. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association received $151,718.

Other recipients during that fiscal year include the BCCDC’s Foundation at $57,667, Fraser Health Authority at $41,055, the Registered Nurses Foundation of BC at $4,276, and a charity setup by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at a $1,000.

The previous fiscal year of 2018 the BCCDC Foundation again received $57,667, Fraser Health Authority $41,472, the BC Civil Liberties Association $36,104, and the CBC’s charity $1,000.

From the voluminous records we were able to analyze in the time invested, this is where money directly went. The question of where money went after the Vancouver Foundation donated it to the BCCDC Foundation is also worth commenting on.

Unlike the Vancouver Foundation, the BCCDC’s Foundation does not donate to thousands of donees. Based on its own T3010 filing, from fiscal years 2017 to 2021, it donates to only one to four donees a year. A sophisticated organization, such as the Vancouver Foundation, cannot reasonably be said to not know where the aforementioned benefactor receiving a donation would subsequently direct it to.

In every filing we uncovered problematic benefactors. In fiscal year 2021 the BCCDC Foundation donated to the Provincial Health Services Authority $140,247. The year prior of 2020 an amount of $487,689 was donated to the PHSA. In 2019 they received $588,553. In 2018 they received $290,267. In 2017 they received $426,016. The BCCDC Foundation then in 2017 donated to the BCCDC itself $15,300.

Recall that the PHSA is Dr. Henry’s employer, a defendant named in all of our litigation – including the petition in which the Chief Justice presided over. It is impossible for any reasonable person to characterize the movement of substantial sums of money in this manner under the direction of the Chief Justice as, at the very least, not carrying the perception of a conflict of interest.

What is the result of all of this? We get a situation where there really is no separation between the judiciary, the legislature, and N.G.O.s with financial interests. Everything seems to blend together.

Was there anything to those anti-lockdown rulings in B.C.? Impossible to say for sure, but the connections of the Vancouver Foundation do raise a lot of questions.

SOURCES:
(1) https://www.vancouverfoundation.ca/detail/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson/
(2) https://archive.is/wPjZm
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/psl/00032_01
(4) https://www.vancouverfoundation.ca/about-us/our-people/our-team/
(5) http://2007.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/sites/default/files/publications/VF_Magazine_2020_web.pdf
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3770&regId=56555677
(7) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/reports/funding/received?cocId=3770&regId=56555677&extnl=true
(8) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3770&regId=56567332
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kate-hammer-5226a6a6
(10) https://archive.is/9RHmI
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/daraparker/details/experience/
(12) https://archive.is/cNFEY
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/glennewald/details/experience/
(14) https://archive.is/QFi7M
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-gallagher-1730a0b3/
(16) https://archive.is/SL24p
(17) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates

(A) BCCDC Foundation Charity Page
(B) University Of British Columbia Charity Page
(C) Provincial Health Services Authority Charity Page
(D) Community-Based Research Centre Society Charity Page
(E) Vancouver Foundation Charity Page

November 28, 2022November 29, 2022

Danielle Smith Betrays Supporters On Vaccine Passport Ban

In a move that was disappointing, but not surprising, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has backed off on a promise to enshrine “vaccination status” as a human right. This would effectively ban the passes that her predecessor, Jason Kenney, had brought in. The latest video was published on Global News, and involves Smith explaining why this isn’t going to happen. Apparently, the issue is too complex to be handled with a single piece of legislation.

However, the reasoning makes no sense. Jason Kenney brought in the passes by Ministerial Order. This was done without public consultation, a referendum, or any debate. If the Premier wields that kind of power, then surely Smith can ban the use of them in the same way. A Bill wouldn’t even be needed.

This comes despite public pressure for remaining business to drop their own requirements for patrons, clients and customers. In other words, Smith wants businesses to voluntarily do away with the QR codes, but isn’t willing to do it herself.

This was addressed in an earlier piece. If Smith were serious about protecting the freedoms of Albertans, she would come clean on exactly what is happening regarding “public health”.

Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.

1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.
2005: Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, is brought as domestic implementation of WHO-IHR.

It should be pointed out as well: the Quarantine Act was the basis for a lot of the content within the various Provincial Public Health Acts. Medical martial law is on the books, courtesy of policies that weren’t even written in Canada. That’s very undemocratic.

Of course, it’s possible that Smith knows nothing about any of this. If that’s the case, it’s scary how a person can wield this much power, without any awareness.

A cynic may wonder whether Smith never intended to introduce legislation in the first place. Perhaps this was a calculated plot to win the leadership race.

Another possibility is that this will come up again in the May 2023 election. Smith can facetiously campaign against the NDP, demanding she be elected, otherwise, face the return of QR codes. We’ll have to see what the next move is.

Just 6 weeks ago, Smith capitulated at the altar of political correctness. People were offended that she called the unvaccinated “the most discriminated group”. Instead of standing her ground, she apologized.

So, are the vaxx passes a human rights issue or not?

And when she says it’s important to have a “proper pandemic planning response for next time”, does she know something we don’t? Can we expect another psy-op like before?

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/9309856/danielle-smith-bill-protect-unvaccinated/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/what-danielle-smith-isnt-telling-her-supporters/
(3) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(4) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.convention.on_.immunities.privileges.pdf
(12) https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/publications/basic-documents-constitution-of-who179f0d3d-a613-4760-8801-811dfce250af.pdf?sfvrsn=e8fb384f_1&download=true
(13) WHO Constitution Full Document

November 14, 2022January 25, 2023

Ottawa Files Motion To Strike Federal Vaccine Passport Suit From Galati

Another prediction seems to be playing out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should This Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not off to a good start.

Are The Plaintiffs Barred From Bringing Legal Action At All?

Is jurisdiction a fatal error in this case?

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

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

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

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

Action4Canada Trainwreck Is Cited In Latest Motion

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

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

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

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

These Suits Actually Harm Genuine Truth Movements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of these cases have gone anywhere. Either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405