Category: Lawfare

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

Posted on

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

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(14) A4C Dismissal Order As Entered By BCSC

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(3) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(4) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(5) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(6) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(7) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Demographic Makeup Of People Entering Canada Illegally 2017-2021

Now for something that isn’t covered much by mainstream (or alternative) media. Who exactly is coming into Canada illegally, in between official border ports of entry? What are the numbers? Fortunately, the Immigration and Refugee Board has at least some information to share.

RANK COUNTRY INTAKE ACC REJ ABAN WD&O RESOLVED PENDING
n/a Total 60,544 25,802 18,010 1,059 3,404 49,000 11,544
1 Nigeria 16,374 4,739 7,279 189 1,785 13,992 2,382
2 Haiti 9,350 2,210 4,595 323 517 7,645 1,705
3 Colombia 3,565 1,629 486 57 117 2,289 1,276
4 Pakistan 2,406 1,184 670 21 115 1,990 416
5 DR Congo 2,165 479 416 36 145 1,076 1,089
6 Turkey 2,011 1,812 43 <20 <20 1,901 110
7 Sudan 1,694 1,372 123 25 77 1,597 97
8 Angola 1,486 420 381 <20 <20 865 621
9 Eritrea 1,224 1,004 <20 <20 105 1,178 46
10 U.S.A. 1,203 24 754 57 160 995 208
n/a All Others 19,066 10,929 3,205 308 305 15,472 3,594

ACC = Accepted
REJ = Rejected
ABAN = Abandoned
WD&O = Withdrawn And Other

**The IRB lists some totals as <20, and they claim that this is done for privacy reasons. The logic seems to be that if there were only a few who crossed, it would be easier to identify them.

The above totals are from February 2017 to December​​ 2021. The IRB claims that it didn’t have access to such information prior to this.

Isn’t this lovely, that the bulk of the people ILLEGALLY entering Canada are from the 3rd World? But let’s be fair, we don’t have nearly enough rocket scientists and brain surgeons here already. Keep in mind, these people have entered the United States — at some point — and decided to continue onwards. They’ve already passed on at least one safe country, one that gets hundreds of thousands of applications per year.

And again, this could be stopped very quickly. However, politicians (of all stripes) actively work against the interests of their own citizens.

(1) https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/irregular-border-crossers-countries.aspx
(2) https://archive.ph/x4T1i
(3) Wayback Machine

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI: More Deaths As Vaccination Numbers Climb

A reader to the site recently brought up a freedom of information request release related to “Covid deaths”. Nova Scotia is a province that releases their FOIs after they are sent off — with personal information redacted, of course.

There were zero (0) so-called “Covid deaths” in the period of November 1, 2020 until February 28, 2021.

By contrast, there were 105 so-called “Covid deaths” in the period of November 1, 2021 until February 28, 2022. This would be the period where vaccine passports were implemented.

Of course, this “virus” isn’t real, and germ theory is a hoax. That being said, it’s pretty interesting when Nova Scotia’s own data shows that there are more deaths resulting well after the vaccine release. Even their information would lead reasonable people to question the side effects of these shots.

The definition of a “Covid death” has also been covered on this site. It amounts to nothing less than medical and scientific fraud.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated.

(1) 2022-00335-HEA_PublicPackage.pdf Deaths by age ranges
(2) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic-spreading
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/

Posted on

Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures

Health Canada has had several names since its inception in 1919. Despite how innocuous its name and mandate sounds, this organization had an initial purpose: population control. It’s been previously covered how PHAC was an artificial creation from the World Health Organization to serve a global order.

Few people know this, but the Department of Health was formed with the same goal in mind.

In January 2004, the WHO put out an edict that all Member States were to create an “outpost” for public health. Consequently, the Government of Paul Martin created PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, out of nothing in that year. In late 2004 and into 2005, hearings went on for Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act. This was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations. The Provinces have their own laws which are based on this. The PHAC Act was introduced in 2006 by Stephen Harper shortly after taking power.

(a) International Health Regulations are legally binding on Member States.
(b) 2005 Quarantine Act was, in reality, written by WHO
(c) Public Health Agency Of Canada is a branch of WHO, and not Canadian

Again, this should be a review for most readers, but it’s still worth bringing up. The bigger picture is quite scary when it’s all laid out.

PHAC’s purpose is to use the pretense of public health as a means to control the local populations. Thing is: Health Canada (in its previous iterations) was formed for the same purpose.

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

  • 1837: William White publishes book — Evils Of Quarantine Laws
  • 1851: First International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1859: Second International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1866: Third International Sanitary Conference, Constantinople
  • 1874: Fourth International Sanitary Conference, Vienna
  • 1881: Fifth International Sanitary Conference, Washington
  • 1885: Sixth International Sanitary Conference, Rome
  • 1892: Seventh International Sanitary Conference, Venice
  • 1983: Eighth International Sanitary Conference, Dresden
  • 1894: Ninth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1897: Tenth International Sanitary Conference, Venice
  • 1903: Eleventh International Sanitary Conference : Paris, 1903
  • 1906: Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906 Publication
  • 1907: Founding of the Office international d’Hygiene publique
  • 1911-1912: Twelfth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1912: Canadian Public Health Association Incorporated
  • 1919: Bill 37, Canada forms the Department of Health
  • 1926: Thirteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1928: Bill 205, Canada’s DOH becomes Department of Pensions and National Health
  • 1938: Fourteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1944: Bill C-149, Canada’s DPNH becomes Department of National Health and Welfare
  • 1946: Canada joins World Health Organization, agrees to Constitution
  • 1951: International Sanitation Regulations take effect from WHO
  • 1959: “Privileges And Immunities” granted to all WHO Officials
  • 1969: International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) replace Sanitation Regulations
  • 1984: Bill C-3, Health Canada Act passed
  • 1993: Department of National Health and Welfare becomes Health Canada
  • 1995: 2nd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
  • 2001: DARK WINTER pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2004: WHO issues edict all Members to have “public health outpost”
  • 2004: PHAC, Public Health Agency of Canada, created by Order In Council
  • 2004: Bill C-12, hearings on Quarantine Act in Parliament
  • 2005: 3rd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
  • 2005: ATLANTIC STORM pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2006: PHAC Act introduced by Harper Government
  • 2010: Rockefeller paper released, includes infamous LOCKSTEP SCENARIO
  • 2010: Theresa Tam stars in movie about fictional outbreak
  • 2017: SPARS Pandemic Scenario plays out
  • 2018: CLADE X pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2019: EVENT 201 pandemic simulation plays out

A book by William White titled “The Evils of Quarantine Laws” is still available today. In fact, it can be purchased on Amazon. In that book, White pushed his case that contagions did not actually exist, and that these quarantine laws were pushed for other purposes.

The pdf version is nearly 200 pages, but it’s well worth a read. It goes into considerable depth about how a pseudo-science is pushed on the public under the guises of protection.

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

Going back to 1851, there were over a dozen International Sanitary Conferences held in the West. Canada (then a British Colony) would have been subjected to whatever measures the U.K. wanted. The measures sounded innocuous enough, and claimed the purpose of trying to prevent international spread of disease. The archive is also available.

The stated reasons including establishing global standards of health in order to prevent the transmission and spreading of cholera, among other diseases. Sounds pretty familiar with what’s going on now, doesn’t it?

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

Even back in 1906, Canada had a Quarantine Act on the books. Although heavily promoted as a way to manage international trade and immigration, those same principles can be used to restrict people domestically.

What’s going on today globally isn’t anything new, at least conceptually. Instead, it’s the scale of which that is novel.

The Medical Officer of Health isn’t a new concept either. Ages ago, there were still “experts” who had almost dictatorial powers to implement laws and regulations. After all, if Kings didn’t know what was going on, they would have to trust the thinking to other people.

4. Founding of the Office International d’Hygiene Publique In 1907

The Welcome Collection in the U.K. published the document for the creation of an International Office of Public Health. As a Colony at the time, Canada would presumably have been subjected to the same laws and regulations.

That said, the information is still available on the Canadian Government’s site. Over a century ago, our “leaders” signed us up to be regulated and controlled by public health experts.

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

Ongoing programs:
.
Providing an effective liaison and network both nationally and internationally in collaboration with various disciplines, agencies and organizations; Encouraging and facilitating measures for disease prevention, health promotion and protection and healthy public policy; Initiating, encouraging and participating in research directed at the fields of disease prevention, health promotion and healthy public policy; Providing an effective liaison and partnership with CPHA’s Provincial and Territorial Public Health Associations; Acting in partnership with a range of disciplines including health, environment, agriculture, transportation, other health-oriented groups and individuals in developing and expressing a public health viewpoint on personal and community health issues; Designing, developing and implementing public health policies, programs and activities; Facilitating the development of public health goals for Canada; Identifying public health issues and advocating for policy change; Identifying literacy as a major factor in achieving equitable access to health services.

The Canadian Public Health Association was created in 1910, and incorporated in 1912. It became a charity in 1975. In its most recent C.R.A. filings, approximately 60% of the CPHA’s financing came from the Government.

Although the page has since been altered, the main financial support of the CPHA comes from drug companies like Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. That shouldn’t be the least bit surprising to anyone at this point.

CPHA is involved in advocating for national and international health policies, including the restriction of people’s movements. It presumably is quite influential regarding Health Canada. At the time of writing this, there are several Provincial counterparts, all advocating for much the same thing. More on that in later pieces.

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

[Section 4a]
Cooperation with the provincial, territorial and other health authorities with a view towards to coordination of the efforts proposed or being made for preserving and improving public health

Section 4f referred to enforcement of rules made by the International Joint Committee.

Bill 37 came into effect in 1919, after the First World War. Supposedly, the driving force behind this was the Spanish influenza, and the need to protect global public health.

Interestingly, it references the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Volume 2. Even back then, there were Quarantine Acts on the books in order to restrict the movement of people. Of course, these were “supposed” to only apply to sick people.

Worth noting is that the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations, also placed a heavy focus on public health. Many associate it with attempts to prevent wars between countries. In reality, there was a lot more to it.

7. Department of Pensions and National Health, 1928, Bill 205

In 1928, there was a change in name to the Department of Pensions and National Health. This came with the introduction of Bill 205. However, the purposes regarding public health remained much the same.

8. Department of National Health and Welfare Created In 1944, Bill 149

There was another change of name in 1994, courtesy of Bill 149. This time it became the Department of National Health and Welfare. Keep in mind, this was in the latter stages of the Second World War, and the beginnings of the new world order forming. The groundwork for the United Nations and World Health Organization had already been laid out.

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

After the defeat of the Axis powers, the World was supposed to embrace freedom and human rights, but then this happened.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

In 1946, Canada signed a Treaty endorsing the Constitution of the World Health Organization, and agreeing to be bound by it.

Article 21(a) of the WHO’s Constitution explicitly gives it authority over Member States over issues such as quarantine, or medical martial law. WHO also (largely) gets to decide what diagnostic standards and equipment are considered suitable.

Since Canada never opted out, Article 22 means that we must live with this.

In 1951, the International Sanitation Regulations came into effect, which was really the first agreement which gave the World Health Organization power to dictate Member actions under the guise of “public health”. But at least people would be held responsible if something happened, right?

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

The International Sanitation Regulations were replaced by the International Health Regulations (first edition) in 1969. Canada signed on and it became binding in 1971. The second version of WHO-IHR came out in 1995, and the third was released in 2005.

The information from this point on has been extensively covered on this site.

Most people are aware that the scope of Health Canada has grown considerably in recent decades. It has encompassed more and more things, resulting in less of a focus on public health measures. PHAC would soon pick up the slack.

11. Public Health Groups Are Registered “Charities” In Canada

Think the problem of drug money is limited to Health Canada, or the Public Health Agency of Canada? It’s not, and we will get more into the finances later. The list of “charities” includes groups that have the power to impose medical tyranny.

  • Alberta Health Services (AB)
  • Central Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Fraser Health Authority (BC)
  • Hay River Health & Social Services Authority (NT)
  • Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority (MB)
  • Interior Health Authority (BC)
  • Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Nisga’a Valley Health Authority (BC)
  • Northern Regional Health Authority (MB)
  • Northern Regional Health Authority (BC)
  • Nova Scotia Health Authority (NS)
  • Provincial Health Services Authority (BC)
  • Regional Health Authority A (NB)
  • Regional Health Authority B (NB)
  • Saskatchewan Health Authority (SK)
  • Souris Health Auxiliary of Assinibione Regional Health Authority Inc. (MB)
  • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (BC)
  • Vancouver Island Health Authority (BC)
  • Weeneebayko Area Health Authority (ON)
  • Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (MB)

However, there are also a number of other suspicious groups that need to be looked at. Although they may not have the power to mandate martial law, they do influence policies. Now, who would donate to such groups, unless it’s done for the purposes of writing the laws? Or to ensure that solutions involve pharmaceuticals?

  • Alberta Public Health Association
  • BCCDC Foundation For Population And Public Health
  • Canadian Foundation For Pharmacy
  • Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation
  • Canadian Public Health Association
  • Ontario Public Health Association
  • Pharmacists Without Borders Canada
  • Public Health Association of British Columbia
  • Seenso Institute for Public Health
  • Shoppers Drug Mart Life Foundation

This is just some of the groups that are registered as charities. Why be structured this way? Probably since it means that private donations are subsidized by the public via tax refunds.

A serious question: given all of the “health organizations” (and this is just a partial list), accepting private donations, does this likely impact how Health Canada does business?

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

This was addressed in March 2021. Countries across the world are world are apparently open to the idea of a legally binding globally authority to manage alleged crises. Essentially, national sovereignty would be secondary to the International Health Regulations.

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

The Department of Health (1919) was founded under the guise of managing the Spanish flu through restrictive measures. It’s original creation isn’t at all what many believe. But over time, the organization came to encompass many more functions.

The reality is that countries don’t have sovereignty over their own affairs. Using the cloak of “infection control”, people have their rights and freedoms stripped away all the time. Many so-called Health Authorities are actually structured as charities and receive private donations.

What companies would donate to health authorities which are implementing mandatory vaccination policies? Wild idea, but perhaps businesses that would profit from these dicatates are contributing.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has essentially taken over that role since it came into existence in 2004. However, Health Canada does still advocate for much the same policies. The International Health Regulations (and prior Sanitation Regulations) are legally binding on Member States.

Now, the influence and money from the pharmaceutical industry cannot be ignored. The cash is rampant, and will be the subject of a Part II, coming later.

(1) https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/clmhc-hsmbc/res/information-backgrounder/espagnole-spanish
(2) Evils Of Quarantine Laws
(3) https://www.amazon.com/-/es/William-White/dp/1231197994
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/20021231/P1TT3xt3.html
(5) https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/health-canada
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(11) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41975722
(12) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/13-2
(13) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1302_1/554?r=0&s=1
(14) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/16-2
(15) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(16) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/7?r=0&s=1
(17) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/542?r=0&s=1
(18) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_32_2_C2_C9/427?r=0&s=1
(19) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(20) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/62873/14549_eng.pdf
(21) The scientific background Of International Sanitary Conferences
(22) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/128165/EB9_35_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(23) 1951 International Sanitation Regulations
(24) https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/pdf/b22419743
(25) 1907 Creation Of International Public Health
(26) https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
(27) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(28) ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges
(29) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(30) https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture