Category: Lawfare

Posted on

Action4Canada Case Remains In 2024 LSBC Professional Legal Training Course

The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has released the 2024 edition of their Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC). The infamous Action4Canada suit, led by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, makes another appearance. The Notice of Civil Claim, NOCC, had been struck in its entirety. This was in the 2023, and was kept in this edition as an “educational exercise”.

Instead of rewriting the NOCC, as was permitted, the case was appealed. Recently, the B.C. Court of Appeal laughed Action4Canada out of there, stating they didn’t understand what was being challenged.

For more background information, here’s the earlier piece. In short, the LSBC is responsible for licensing lawyers (both new and old) in this Province. One of the requirements is that prospective lawyers — articling students — demonstrate a minimum competency in the law.

There are reasons for doing this. It’s in the public’s benefit that members of a “regulated profession” prove themselves to be intelligent and competent in their field. It hurts clients when they retain lawyers or paralegals who have no clue what’s going on. It also can clog the Courts when countless Appeals are launched on the basis of “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

Here’s a brief timeline of events in the Action4Canada case

(1) Despite fundraising since the Summer of 2020, nothing was actually filed until August 2021, nearly a year later. What finally came was a 391 page convoluted mess.

(2) August 2021: This critique was published. It quoted Rules 3-1, 3-7 and 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia. In short, it failed to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading. The site was sued a week later over it, after it allegedly caused donations to plummet.

(3) October 2021: The Defendants start issuing responses to the 391 page Claim.

(4) January 2022: Defendants being filing Applications to Strike the Claim, given how incoherent it is, and impossible to follow. This wasn’t a determination on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The reasons cited include many that the Canuck Law article had published.

(5) May 2022: The Application to Strike is finally heard. It’s worth hearing what it was about. The Claim was so long, confusing and convoluted, that it was impossible to respond to it in any meaningful way.

(6) August 2022: The Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. It was officially struck for being prolix and confusing, although many errors were outlined. However, Justice Ross did allow it to be rewritten, saying there was a prospect that a valid Claim could be filed.

(7) September 2022: Even though the decision was a humiliation, Gaw took to the alternative media to proclaim that it was “really a win”, and that Justice Ross had accepted the case as valid. This was a gross distortion of reality.

(8) September 2022: Instead of simply rewriting an amended Notice of Civil Claim, the case was appealed. No real explanation of that was ever given.

(9) February 2023: The Law Society of British Columbia includes the Action4Canada pleading in their Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC). This is one of the courses that prospective lawyers are required to take before letting licensed. This case is actually used as a teaching exercise in how not to draft documents.

(10) February 2023: The Federal (Adelberg) case is struck as “bad beyond argument”. Justice Fothergill references the Action4Canada case, and concludes it has many of the same defects.

(11) October 2023: No serious attempt had been made to book the actual hearing, which is why the Appeal became classified as “inactive”. If the date isn’t booked within 12 months after filing the Notice of Appeal, this is done automatically.

(12) October 2023: Just days after bring criticized for the lack of a hearing, A4C books the date for February. It seems that public scrutiny forced them to move ahead. Perhaps the goal was to just let the Appeal get thrown out as “abandoned”.

(13) February 2024: The LSBC posts their latest edition of the Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC), and the Action4Canada case is still in it. The overall text has been updated (from 140 pages to 147), but the editors still thought it was worth keeping in.

(14) February 2024: The Action4Canada Appeal is heard, and promptly dismissed.

(15) February 2024: Despite being laughed out of the Court of Appeal, Action4Canada insists that it was really a win, and that things are moving along.

On their website, Action4Canada called it a victory, being able to rewrite the NOCC. It didn’t seem to matter that the Claim had been struck in its entirety.

The Appeal was also thrown out, which was called a “successful outcome”.

This is some pretty delusional stuff.

What does the Professional Legal Training Course say about this?

If pleadings are inadequate the matter will typically not get as far as trial. In a recent example of wholly inadequate pleadings, the plaintiff filed a 391-page notice of civil claim that was struck (see §2.06(3) below on striking pleadings) as being “prolix” and “bad beyond argument.” In Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507, the plaintiffs sued a host of politicians and crown corporations over pandemic-related measures they said were not based in science, exceeded the defendants’ authority, and breached Charter rights. The notice of civil claim was struck in its entirety. The judge said (at para. 51) it is counsel’s job to draft pleadings that do not offend the Rules. The judge also said the claim was too prolix for the defendants to be able to respond, and it was not the court’s job to interpret the claim:

To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

On those few pages, starting at #15, the Law Society not only roasts Action4Canada, but goes on to explain how pleadings should be drafted. Again, this is written for articling students working towards a license. It’s not designed for 30+ year veterans of the profession.

Bonnie Henry, John Horgan, David Eby, Adrian Dix, and all the others are not scared by this lawsuit. In fact, if any of them are aware of it, they’re probably having a good laugh. How could anyone be gullible enough to donate, or to be a client?

5. Pleading the Facts
Plead a “concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim”: SCCR 3-1(2)(a).

The “material facts” are those facts that are essential to forming a complete cause of action or defence, as the case may be: Young v. Borzoni, 2007 BCCA 16 at para. 20. The evidence that tends to prove those facts should not be pleaded (SCCR3-7(1)). Suppose the issue is whether X has authority to make a certain contract on behalf of the defendant. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to plead that “the defendant employed X as agent to make the contract on his behalf” or that “the defendant held out X as having authority to make the contract on his behalf.” It will be unnecessary and improper to plead that “X has been employed by the defendant for many years to execute contracts of this type on his behalf” or that “the defendant informed the plaintiff that X was the defendant’s agent.”

The material facts part of the pleadings should not include matters of law. However, if a particular statute is relied upon as the foundation of a claim or defence, you must plead the facts necessary to bring the case within the statute.

When pleading the material facts, be clear and brief. There should be no ambiguity in the allegations. Set out each separate allegation of fact in a separate paragraph, so that the defence, in responding to the pleading, will admit or deny each fact separately. The danger in combining facts in a larger paragraph is that defence counsel, in seeking to deny any part of that paragraph, would deny it all. That would put plaintiff’s counsel to the burden of proving facts that might not really be in dispute.

In drafting allegations of fact, avoid colouring them, as that might force the other side to deny what would otherwise be basic facts. For example, in a motor vehicle action, it is good practice for the plaintiff’s counsel to set out the fact of a collision (which likely will be admitted) and then in a separate paragraph set out the allegations of negligence of the defendant (which will be denied). Avoid, for example, combining the facts and allegations of lawful right or fault. If the pleadings state, for example, that the plaintiff was “driving in a lawful manner south on Granville Street,” then defence counsel will deny the entire allegation.

When drafting pleadings, it is often helpful to refer to a precedent as a guideline. However, never follow a precedent blindly. You should know what context it was created for, and how you should adapt or modify it. For example, some plaintiffs’ counsel make it their practice to allege in every case that the defendant driver’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug. If the plaintiff is a passenger in the defendant’s motor vehicle, such a pleading opens the door to the defence to plead that the plaintiff was contributory negligent or accepted the risk of riding with an impaired driver. Furthermore, if the defendant was impaired, that fact might affect their insurance coverage. You should consider precedents carefully and modify them as needed.

6. Pleading the Relief Sought
The plaintiff must set out the relief sought against each named defendant: SCCR 3-1(2)(b). Tell the court what your client wants: for example, an injunction, a declaration, or damages.

Consider carefully any declarations you may be able to obtain from the court. When a court makes a declaration, it “declares” what the law or a fact is. It is not making an order. Declarations can establish a party’s standing and legal rights, which can significantly determine the outcome of a proceeding.

Having a role in this book both in 2023 and 2024 is hardly something to be proud of. This is an educational book for articling students, who haven’t even passed the bar. It’s not just the the NOCC was bad, it’s that the LSBC thinks it’s worth using as an example.

The Action4Canada case could have been so much better if this section had been observed when drafting the NOCC.

  • There should have been short, concise paragraphs, each alleging a single fact. Instead, many paragraphs were between a half and full page each, containing many unrelated allegations. This made it simpler for Defendants to simply deny everything.
  • By not having clear and concise facts — many of which may have been admitted — the Plaintiffs would now be put through the time and expense of having to prove everything.
  • The allegations weren’t clear and ambiguous at all. The who, what, where, when, why and how were typically missing, or contained in hundreds of footnotes.
  • Counsel didn’t make the allegations plain and neutral. There were all kinds of inflammatory accusations thrown in, but without the specific detail to back them up.
  • Legal arguments should not be made within the facts being pleaded. While it’s true that enough facts have to be alleged to support the law being cited, this is not the place for argument.
  • It wasn’t clear what relief was sought. That section was 45 pages, and very repetitive.
  • Despite being 45 pages, it wasn’t clear which Defendants were being asked to pay what money to which Plaintiffs. People should not be left guessing.

Will Action4Canada Appeal be in the 2025 edition?

The PLTC doesn’t really get into Appeals in great detail. However, there are 2 parts about the A4C Appeal that make it a good contender for another honourable mention.

(1) Page 101 addresses in a fair amount of detail the concept of costs. These are to partially compensate successful parties. They’re also almost entirely discretionary, and an Appellate Court will typically not interfere with them.

(2) Page 99 does briefly address some of the principles in appealing. It’s possible that the LSBC will find it necessary to explain the difference between “orders” and “reasons”. Hopefully, this means that other lawyers don’t waste time filing frivolous Appeals.

Once again, these books are aimed at aspiring lawyers, not established veterans with decades of experience.

It’s comical that at least 2 defamation lawsuits were filed for criticizing the quality of such work. The people responsible for those also make far worse accusations about being “paid agitators”. Will any more of these cases follow?

LSBC TRAINING MANUAL
(1) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/faq-pltc/
(3) LSBC Civil Instruction Manual 2023
(4) LSBC Civil Instruction Manual 2024

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

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

Posted on

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

Posted on

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.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/arif-virani(88910)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1709098767406
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584229
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=594289
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362688&regId=941750
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=377298&regId=947241
(12) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=375749&regId=944913

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

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