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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULES OF PLEADING — APPLICABLE TO ALL PLEADINGS
Material Facts
.
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
.
Pleading Law
.
(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

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

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

4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim

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

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

5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
.
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

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

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/supreme-civil/1-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/civil_numerically.pdf
(4) https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/21.08.17-FILED-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-Action4Canada.pdf
(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-action4canada-want-more-money-for-cases-still-not-happening/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWV-xD5sfA&

Getting Started With Researching Registered Canadian Charities

In both Canada and the United States, registered charities are open to at least some degree of scrutiny by members of the public. This is of importance since a surprising number of NGOs who try to influence your life are actually charities. In addition to meddling, these groups are being subsidized with your tax money. The upside is that it makes it much easier to look into them.

Also in this series, we covered: (a) research, investigative journalism for beginners; (b) FOI/ATIP filings; (c) court record searches; and (d) lobbyist registrations. This is meant as introductory lessons, and not to include everything.

While the focus on this is Canadian charities, you should be aware that it’s possible to search the finances of American ones in much the same way. The information is made public by the Canada Revenue Agency, and Internal Revenue Service, respectively.

A disclaimer: it’s probably best to go into this with an open mind. Surely, the bulk of these groups operate in a completely transparent manner. That said, groups that few have heard of have a disproportionate impact on our lives. Be curious, but willing to have beliefs changed. Also, a great many of these organizations have revenue of just a few thousand or tens of thousands per year. They aren’t pulling too many strings.

Referring to the Canadian site: checking out if a company is registered as a charity is about as complicated as running a Google search. Simply type in the name, or part of a name. It is actually quite surprising the amount of places that are charities. This includes colleges, universities and many public health “authorities”.

Now, let’s try an example:

Searching with the term “public health“, we get 6 hits. The Public Health Association of British Columbia is one of those on that list, so let’s take a look at that.

Basic information about the PHABC (and other groups) are instantly available. Typically, the last 5 years of financial data will be available, although one can ask the CRA for filings from further back. They will also list the number of employees, and typically the salary ranges of the top 10 highest paid. Usually, these are executives. While this certainly does not include everything, it’s a great starting point when investigating charities.

(Anecdotally) it seems very common that a large part of the revenue is from “other” sources. It would be nice to know specifically what that involved. Perhaps some assets were sold off to make it happen?!

While non-profits are subject to many of the same laws, the financial information isn’t so readily available. Just a clarification here.

The CRA Charity Page works well in conjunction with Corporations Canada. From here, one can look up which groups are registered, and obtain many of their filings. These are free. If a corporation is set up provincially, the filings can be obtained that way, although some charge for copies.

When you know who the Directors are — either from the CRA or a corporate search — do a little digging. Have they sat in Government before? Have they held any public office? Do they have relatives, close friends, or business associates who are in a position to influence policies? While this approach may make some uncomfortable, realize that this is how things work in the real world. It’s not Bills or Motions, but secret handshakes that often determine how things go.

As for formal meetings, check the piece on getting started with lobbyist registries. It’s amazing how much information is out there.

Now, why would a corporation structure itself as a charity? The most obvious explanation is for the tax benefits. Since donations are tax deductible — almost 50% in most cases — it provides an incentive for donors, as the public will actually help finance it. Also, charities are taxes by the CRA in a more generous way than other businesses, or even non-profits. But, there is a trade off: more forced transparency.

Can a person call up a charity to ask for information? Yes, absolutely. In fact, depending on how easy going you are, you may learn about things that never crossed your mind.

This isn’t to suggest that all charities are run with some nefarious purpose. Far from it. However, it’s important to know what you are helping to fund, and if and how they are trying to influence public policy.

Then of course, we have “charities” like the Century Initiative who promote genocidal policies of population replacement with open borders initiatives. Ones like this are definitely worth a deep dive.

Now, if the entity being researched is not a registered charity, then this article will have no impact. That said, a stunning number of them are, so it’s at least worth a look.

One other thing to point out: programs run through the CRA — like the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and various sickness programs — post a lot of their data online. If nothing else, there’s a significant amount of information available.

Is this a lot of work? It can be, but with practice, it gets much easier. And this is what this series is trying to underscore: self reliance. Instead of depending on some blogger, or YouTuber, or podcast, “you” are your own most reliable source of information. Figure out what’s true and what’s not.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch
(2) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(3) https://ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html

PROGRAMS RUN BY THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
(A) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(B) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy.html
(C) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics.html
(D) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html
(E) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-benefit.html
(F) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-caregiving-benefit.html
(G) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-sickness-benefit.html

SURPRISING INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE “CHARITIES”
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-provincial-health-services-authority-is-a-private-corporation-charity/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/alberta-health-services-mostly-autonomous-corporation-charity/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/public-health-ontario-a-semi-autonomous-corporation-whose-leaders-sit-with-on-science-table/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/executives-of-public-health-charities-drawing-huge-salaries-to-lock-you-down/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-public-health-association-is-a-charity-funded-by-drug-companies/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-university-of-toronto-institute-for-pandemics-funded-by-millers-merck-run-by-ontario-science-table/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-mcmaster-university-bill-gates-future-of-canada-project-nexus-for-infectious-diseases/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/media-5-the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/

Getting Started With Searching Government Lobbying Registries

If you want to know what’s really going on in your Government, talking to you M.P. or M.P.P. or M.L.A. might be a waste of time. Instead, you should be looking at who that person actually answers to. In most cases, it is corporate lobbyists, or lobbyists pretending to be involved in politics.

We come to the 4th part in the series: how to search lobbying registries. Contrary to what one might think, these can be a gold mine of information. These include names, dates, clients, subject matter, and whether the lobbyist(s) have ever held public office.

Also in this series, we covered: (a) research, investigative journalism for beginners; (b) FOI/ATIP filings; and (c) court record searches. This is meant as introductory lessons, and not to include everything.

Broadly speaking, these registries work in much the same way. You can search for a number of different things, and see what results come up. You can limit the search to more recent entries (which is usually 1 year), or do an advanced search, which flags everything irrespective of time.

These Registries can be used to run a “background check” of sort on politicians, and prospective politicians. If they have been lobbied, or used to be lobbyists, that is important information to know. The cronyism never really goes away. A huge warning sign, as shown above, is Erin O’Toole. He used to be a lobbyist for Facebook, working for Heenan Blaikie (same law firm as Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau).

Why do you want to do this? Well, are you at all curious about who runs your Government, and who is engaged in influence peddling? Do you wish to know why your elected “leaders” act in ways that are often detrimental to your well being? This is a good place to start.

  • Key Words
  • Lobbyist
  • Lobbying Firm
  • Client
  • Subject (Health, Finance, Education, etc….)

Also, these Registries work very well in conjunction with placed like LinkedIn, and other personal websites. After all, once lobbyists have been identified, it’s time to learn about their many connections.

Of course, make sure to save your findings, just in case. Take screenshots, archive links, and download any pdfs that are available. Don’t want the evidence disappearing, or even getting moved innocuously.

If you have any doubts about the wealth of information that can be uncovered, just search any article on this site where such registries were checked. A few are here, here, here, and here.

Above is a recent example that shows when political handlers have interest on the side. Of course, this is not limited to just Doug Ford.

Pfizer was covered in a May 2021 article. It was shown that Loyalist Public Affairs had lobbied the Ontario Government 4 times in April of that year. 2 of the lobbyists, Dan Mader, and Chris Froggatt, claimed responsibility for installing Ford in June 2018. Both are longtime “Conservative” operatives. Mader also alleged to have helped put in Erin O’Toole as head of the CPC. This simple example shows how intertwined lobbying and politics really is.

By connecting the lobbyist to their political cronies and allies, you are able to show a clear (or at least very plausible) link for certain legislation or spending.

Another use for these Registries is they often list how much Government (or rather, taxpayer) money an organization has received. Chapters-Indigo is notorious for not honouring mask exemptions, however, they took the public for over $20 million in the last year.

In fairness, these databases don’t help if there is no formal record. Conversations and meetings that are “off the books” will not show up here. Still, this is a pretty valuable tool in seeing who is really pulling the strings.

A criticism that frequently comes up is the frustration with “who can we trust?” when it comes to reporting Government affairs. The answer is no one. Rather than relying on someone else, a more effective tool is to take the initiative, and factcheck things for yourself. If an article or posting comes with links or documents attached, then go through them, and come to your own conclusions.

There is a Federal database, Provincial/Territorial ones (except NWT and Nunavit), and a few Municipalities have them as well. Since your taxes already go towards funding these, why not take full advantage of these resources?

Federal Lobbying Registry
https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch

Alberta Lobbyist Registry
https://www.albertalobbyistregistry.ca/

British Columbia Office Of The Registrar of Lobbyists
https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/

Manitoba Lobbyist Registrar
http://www.lobbyistregistrar.mb.ca/index.php?lang=en

New Brunswick Office Of The Integrity Commissioner
https://oic-bci.ca/

Newfoundland & Labrador Registry Of Lobbyists
https://www.gov.nl.ca/dgsnl/registries/lobbyists/

Nova Scotia Registrar Of Lobbyists
https://novascotia.ca/sns/lobbyist/Default.asp

Ontario Lobbying Registry
http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/Default.aspx

Prince Edward Island Lobbyist Registry
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/feature/lobbyist-registry

Quebec Lobbyists Registry
https://www.commissairelobby.qc.ca/en/lobbyists-registry/

Saskatchewan Registrar Of Lobbyists
https://www.sasklobbyistregistry.ca/

Yukon Lobbyist Registry
https://yukonlobbyistregistry.ca/en

Toronto Lobbyist Registrar
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/accountability-officers/lobbyist-registrar/

Getting Started With CanLII, Other Court Records Searches

CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, is probably the most commonly searched index of court cases in Canada. According to its biography: “CanLII was founded and is paid for by the lawyers and notaries who are members of Canada’s provincial and territorial law societies, which comprise the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. We have also gratefully received funding for particular projects from provincial and territorial law foundations and other organizations.”

One disclaimer to add in: in certain instances records are sealed, or there may be a prohibition on publishing certain names. This is often done in sexual assault cases, young offenders cases, very high profile cases, or cases of national security. If the Judge has banned disclosing the names publicly, it’s best to honour that.

There are a few ways to search for cases. You can search by key words, or by a case citation, or you can scroll through the cases of a particular court. Beyond court files, there are also many listings of legislation across Canada, and plenty of commentary as well.

In searching through the cases, related documents and rulings cited will often come up. These can be clicked on for more information. Overall, CanLII operates as a mixture of Google and Wikipedia combined (although only a select few people can edit information).

A limitation of this site: not everything is listed. Minor issues (such as small claims), and decisions that are delivered orally are typically not posted. Nonetheless, it’s a great place to start looking for anyone. There are also Court Martial decisions, Court Martial Appeals, and tax cases available.

For the most part, CanLII is pretty thorough with its postings. Now, while it broadly covers cases across Canada, there are other databases that cover their own respective decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has its own database, covering rulings of the Top Court. The Federal Court also posts rulings for both the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

With these courts (and others) people can also contact the court directly to ask for documents. Generally speaking, if the documents are in digital form, the clerks will email them for free. If not, there will likely be fees to make copies.

As for some Provincial examples, Nova Scotia posts its own decisions. It covers all levels of proceedings over there.

In Ontario, any member of the public can search online for a particular case. If the parties are known, or if they have a file number, the status and representations can be checked. If a lawyer claims to be pursuing a case — but isn’t — that will be easy to check. As for searching for decisions, Ontario links a CanLII style page, and the same search options apply.

British Columbia allows members of the public to search for cases Provincially. There is also the option to search ongoing cases, and access documents (although B.C. typically charges a fee for them).

This doesn’t cover all databases, of course. However, the point is that anyone with internet access and/or a phone can search for court cases, and Court rulings. If the person is local, they can visit the building in person. This isn’t some secret repository, and proceedings are open to the public.

One other benefit: if someone starts reporting about Court decisions (that no one has heard of), claiming that major verdicts have been reached, it’s easy to verify or refute. Unfortunately, there’s too much misinformation — either intentional or inadvertent — being spread around. Videos like this talk about secret rulings which gave everyone back their freedom. Spoiler: they don’t exist.

If the Supreme Court really handed down such a ruling as referenced above, it would be pretty easy to check. Also, wouldn’t more people have heard about it? However, far too many will accept such outlandish statements at face value.

Instead of having to just take people’s word that a certain thing happened, why not look for yourself? Find out what happened, and what was really said.

Don’t be duped.
Check things out for yourself.

Note: this isn’t meant to be an all-inclusive course on how searches work. Instead, it’s just an introduction for people curious about this sort of thing.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/info/about.html
(3) https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx/
(4) https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/nav_date.do
(5) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/home/
(6) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/en/d/s/index.do?col=54
(7) https://courts.ns.ca/
(8) https://decisia.lexum.com/nsc/en/ann.do
(9) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/OneKey/login.xhtml?lang=EN
(10) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/search-canlii/ocj-en.htm
(11) https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx
(12) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/partySearch.do
(13) https://twitter.com/CanLII
(14) https://twitter.com/CanLIIConnects
(15) https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZeOQnjHAXYmn/

Getting Started With Your Own Freedom Of Information/Access To Information Requests

This article is going to be different. Instead of dropping a bunch of research, today we will get into conducting your own research. Specifically, how to go about filing freedom of information (or access to information) requests. FOI/ATI are essentially the same thing, a request for documents.

You don’t have to be a journalist, reporter, or researcher to file these requests. Anyone who is curious or concerned with what’s going on, or if they have a personal issue, can file one.

Now, this is just general information of filing such requests, and how it works. Take this article as a starting place, rather than as some gospel.

Depending on the jurisdiction and/or information sought, there may or may not be a fee. Also, the fee can go up if the the search is overly broad. As a general guideline: Government bodies will typically give a person their own information for free, but may charge for general information. Also, they typically won’t hand over SOMEONE ELSE’S private information without a signed waiver or agreement.

Depending on many factors, an FOI can take anywhere from a few days, to several months for a response. There’s no one answer for how long you will wait. Now, what will the agency you file with do?

In short, a few different outcomes can happen:
(a) Government body discloses records being sought
(b) Government body ignores or delays the request
(c) Government body admits that it has no such records
(d) Government body admits having records, but refuses to release them, for some reason. More on that later.

All 4 outcomes have happened to FOI requests from here. The success rate at getting meaningful data has (anecdotally) been about 50%. That being said, these are still a valuable tool for truth seekers. If nothing else, these are quite easy to file.

A tip for making FOI requests: write it up in such a way that it’s clear you are asking for records. You likely won’t get a helpful response if this involves open ended questions. As an example:

Instead of: “Has anyone studied the physical or psychological consequences of forcing young children to wear masks?”

Try this: “I request records of any studies involving the physical or psychological effects of forcing young children to wear masks”

This may sound nitpicky and silly, but the wording does make a difference. If records are sought on a controversial topic, this could be used as an excuse to deny it, or at least delay it.

What kinds of documents can be requested?

  • Records of meetings, minutes
  • Names of people involved in a committee, study, or research
  • Conflict of interest disclosures
  • Studies or research conducted
  • Amounts of money paid to people or groups
  • Sources of funding
  • Reports filed publicly

Now, this should be commonsense, but if you wish to post your findings, consider scrubbing — removing — your personal details beforehand. At a minimum, don’t have your address splashed all over the internet, but even your name is important.

It’s worth pointing out that filing a formal FOI request may not always be necessary. Sometimes, if the information is already posted (or easy to find), just calling or emailing the Ministry or group in question may be enough to get it sent to you.

Also, if you don’t want to pay fees, or just don’t want to wait for a formal reply, see if someone has already made a similar request. In some jurisdictions, FOI results get posted online, in order to avoid duplication. If you do find what you want (from someone else), use that data. If you’re going to publish it, go ahead. Now, their personal info shouldn’t be disclosed, however, if it is, removing it would be appreciated. Their earlier work did you a favour after all.

  • Section 12: Cabinet confidences
  • Section 13: Advice or recommendations
  • Section 14: Legal advice
  • Section 15: Harm to law enforcement
  • Section 16: Harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
  • Section 17: Harm to financial or economic interests of a public body
  • Section 18: Harm to conservation of heritage sites
  • Section 19: Harm to individual or public safety
  • Section 20: Information to be published or released within 60 days
  • Section 21: Harm to business interests of a third party
  • Section 22: Harm to personal privacy
  • Section 22.1: Information relating to abortion services

It’s worth mentioning that Governments can (and often do) either refuse to release records, or redact parts of it. Using the BC FOIPP Act as an example, many items have exclusions (at least partially). Now, just because it’s a reason stated, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

When you get the results of the FOI request back, this might not be the end. There will almost always be some wording at the bottom saying that you can appeal, or request a review. Take this opportunity — especially if you’ve paid money or waited a long time — and ask for clarification on anything not understood.

As a closing thought, any readers who get something worthwhile are always welcome to submit their findings to Canuck Law. Results will be posted, with personal info removed.

P.S. Go check out Fluoride Free Peel for an extreme case on how to use FOIs to disprove a scam sprung onto the public.

ALBERTA
(a) Contact FOIP TO See If Records Already Available
(b) Service Alberta: Making A FOIP Request
(c) Alberts eServices: Make FOIP Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

BRITISH COLUMBIA
(a) Previously Released FOI Responses
(b) Getting Started With FOI Requests
(c) Submit General FOI Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

MANITOBA
(a) Listings Of Previously Received FOI Requests
(b) Freedom Of Information Main Portal
(c) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

NEW BRUNSWICK
(a) Getting Started Searching For Information
(b) List Of Bodies Subject To FOI Requests
(c) Right To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NEWFOUNDLAND
(a) Previously Released ATIPP Results
(b) Filing Your Own Access To Information Requests
(c) ATIPP Coordinators
(d) Access To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
(a) ATIPP Reviews Posted
(b) ATIPP Main Page
(c) Access To Information request Forms
(d) Access To Information And Protection Act

NOVA SCOTIA
(a) Searching Previously Disclosed Access To Information Results
(b) Getting Started With Access To Information
(c) Guidelines For FOI And Privacy Requests
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NUNAVIT
(a) How To Place ATIPP Request

ONTARIO
(a) Directory Of Records
(b) Access To Information Forms
(c) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Provincial
(d) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Municial

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
(a) Making A Request Under FOIPP
(b) List Of Public Bodies Covered Under Act
(c) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

QUEBEC
(a) Previous ATIPP Disclosures — French Only
(b) How To Make An Access Request
(c) General Information On ATIPP
(d) Act Respecting Access to Documents Held By Public Bodies

SASKATCHEWAN
(a) Access To Information — Provincial And Municipal Acts

YUKON
(a) Searching Archives Of ATIPP Requests
(b) Access to Information Registry
(c) ATIPP Request For Access To Information
(d) ATIPP Coordinators

FEDERAL
(a) Search Existing Access To Information Requests
(b) Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request
(c) Complete List Of Institutions
(d) List Of ATIP Coordinators