6 Months In, No Progress Whatsoever In High Profile Toronto Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaxx Lawsuit

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988
https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/

On August 13, 2020, the CBC published an article covering the July 6 lawsuit against them. Included was the line: “CBC RECENTLY OBTAINED UNREDACTED COPY”. This implies that they were never properly served with the Complaint. Is that the case, or is CBC twisting the facts?

This is a follow-up to an article covering the lack of progress in a well-known Toronto lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court on July 6, 2020, (CV-20-006434510000). It seems even now, no movement is happening.

Keep in mind, this was sold as an urgent matter. Lockdowns (or martial law), were destroying businesses, masks were making people sick, and basic rights were being denied. Now, the vaccines are here, and have been administered over the last few weeks.

1. Searching Ontario Court Records

One of the few benefits in this is that in Ontario, it’s now easier to SEARCH for court filings. Looking for a particular case, we find no apparent action taking place.

Windsor-Essex County and their Medical Officer, Wajid Ahmed, are represented by John-Pierre Karam. There is no listing of representation for any other Defendant. It doesn’t appear that there are any hearings scheduled, nor defenses filed.

The question has to be asked: has everyone been served?

Be aware, this is not minor. The suit asks for $11 million in damages plus costs. Presumably, the Parties being sued would take this very seriously.

2. Contacting The Ontario Court Directly

In reaching out to the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division in Toronto), some very interesting information was learned.

There was a single Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual defense), filed on September 30, 2020, on behalf of Wajid Ahmed and Windsor-Essex County. Those are the only 2 Parties named. There is nothing else filed with the Court related to that case.

To play devil’s advocate: it’s theoretically possible that all Parties might stand behind a single one, who would then file all the paperwork. But if that’s the case, this is a strange choice. The Windsor-Essex County Medical Officer is small potatoes in the scheme of things. A far more logical choice would be the Attorney General of Canada and/or Ontario, who are required to be named anyway.

3. Question Of Royal Prerogative

This might be nitpicking, but page 4 of the Claim lists Trudeau and the Federal Crown as “dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”. Isn’t that the Governor General who exercises Royal Prerogative?

4. Most Service Addresses Missing

This isn’t selective editing. These are all the addresses for service listed on the Statement of Claim. They are for:
(A) Attorney General of Canada
(B) Attorney General of Ontario
(C) John Tory and City of Toronto
(D) Dr. Wajid Ahmed
(E) Dr. Nicola Mercer

It isn’t that just 1 or 2 are omitted. That could easily be dismissed as a careless error. Instead, it’s just these, and a strange group at that.

The Wajid Ahmed (of Windsor-Essex County) is the same one who filed a Notice of Intent to Defend with regards to this case. There are no service addresses for:
(a) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
(b) Federal Health Minister Patty Hajdu
(c) Transport Minister Marc Garneau
(d) PHOC Theresa Tam
(e) Ontario Premier Doug Ford
(f) Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott
(g) Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce
(h) Ontario Chief Medical Officer David Williams
(i) Toronto Chief Medical Officer Eileen De Villa
(j) The CBC

There are also no specific service addresses listed for the following Defendants. In fairness, however, they could be sent to the same addresses as others listed:
(k) Her Majesty in Right of Canada
(l) Her Majesty in Right of Ontario
(m) Windsor-Essex County
(n) County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph

Yes, there are a lot of Defendants, however, it is standard practice to list an address for everyone named in the Complaint.

5. CBC Responds To Vaccine Choice Lawsuit

The second line is telling: “Aylmer, Ont.-based anti-vaccination group filed suit in July, but CBC recently obtained unredacted copy”.

Obtained an unredacted copy? Does this imply they were never served? Isn’t this something they should have received when served by a process server? Did that ever happen?

More from the CBC:

Other claims made in the lawsuit are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic.

“Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report the development of a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history by using smartphone-readable nano crystals called ‘quantum dots,’ embedded in the skin using micro-needles. In short, a vaccine chip embedded in the body. This work and research are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” the lawsuit said.

The statement of claim includes a timeline that begins in the year 2000 when Bill Gates steps down as the head of Microsoft to start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It also states Gates expects a “‘twenty-fold’ return on his $10 billion vaccine investment within the next few decades.”

Included in the timeline are references to the Chinese military, 5G networks, international vaccine programs and the Rockefeller Foundation as relevant to the creation and spread of the coronavirus, but the lawsuit isn’t clear on how.

Shelley said including such references in the statement of claim without providing supporting scientific evidence could ultimately be what gets the suit dismissed before it goes to trial under Ontario’s rules of civil procedure.

This is actually a very valid point. While challenging the validity of various measures is one thing, proving a global conspiracy in Court is quite another.

While there is certainly collusion — this site covered it extensively — proving such a thing would be a Herculean task. A frank discussion on how that might happen would be very nice. Proving in court is quite different than proving in the media.

Also from the CBC article:

CBC News reached out multiple times to Galati, who is listed as the spokesperson for the lawsuit in a press release issued by Vaccine Choice Canada. He spoke with a reporter last Wednesday but did not agree to an on-the-record interview.

Galati told CBC News he would be available last Thursday for a recorded interview but did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday or the following Monday.

The CBC has also been named as a defendant in the lawsuit for allegedly propagating misinformation and “false news” about the coronavirus crisis.

Vaccine Choice Canada has also issued an intent to sue the CBC over other coverage relating to the anti-vaccination and anti-mask movements.

The CBC claims they reached out for an on-the-record interview, multiple times. Instead, they were offered a press release. Seems bizarre, since lack of media coverage is an issue that Vaccine Choice routinely complains about.

The CBC also alleges they were threatened with other legal action over how they cover the anti-vaxx/anti-mask movements. Presumably this is a Section 5 Libel Notice?! Perhaps this is why the CBC refuses to further cover this case.

And to reiterate from earlier: “CBC OBTAINED a copy”? Were they not served one, being a Defendant in this case? Come to think of it, who actually has been served?

Now, the CBC could be lying, or distorting what was said. However, they are putting it out there. They imply they were never served, and offered to do a public interview, which was declined.

6. Rancourt An Expert And Plaintiff?!

Denis Rancourt is a Plaintiff, but his listed credentials imply that he is being set up to be an Expert as well. If this gets to trial, will Rancourt be called as one?

On page 41 of the Statement of Claim, it’s cited (and most likely true), that YouTube took down 3 of his videos. This is frustrating, and an act of censorship. However, this isn’t relevant to the case unless they plan to sue Google as well, or connect it to the other Defendants.

On page 42, it’s alleged that CBC refused to give Rancourt airtime, or to share the views of any other dissenting expert.

Interesting, in that after CBC “obtained a copy” of the lawsuit, they claim that they were willing to have an on the record interview about the case. Or was it just with the lawyer?

7. Resumption Of Court Time Limits

In early December, Vaccine Choice posted an update on their website, offering an explanation why nothing had happened so far in their case.

Note: The Superior Court of Justice suspended all regular operations effective March 17, 2020. Some operations of the court were resumed on September 14, 2020. Due to the suspension of operations, the period of time for the defendants to file a statement of defence was also suspended.

However, the Ontario Superior Court seems to say something different. It says that limitation periods (deadlines to file), that had been previously suspended had now resumed. Even with that factored in, some kind of reply should have come in by early October.

The Ontario government has announced that, on September 14, 2020, any limitation and time periods suspended under Ontario Regulation 73/20 will resume. For further information, please consult the government’s news release and Ontario Regulation 457/20.

And one was (sort of). This was the Notice of Intent from Windsor-Essex County and their Chief Medical Officer, but no one else, and no other documents.

Limitation periods aside, an obvious question must be asked: why was no Notice of Application for injunctive relief ever filed? This could have been done at any time.

8. Others Have Gotten Into Court Quickly

Canadian Appliance Source LP v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONSC 7665 (CanLII)
Hudson’s Bay Company ULC v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONSC 8046 (CanLII)

Canadian Appliance Source and HBC both got hearings within days of Applications being filed. Both were ultimately denied, but they were able to get their day in Court quickly.

These 2 companies were not the only ones who attempted to get their livelihoods back, but they are Ontario cases, and done recently.

So why hasn’t Vaccine Choice Canada filed for injunctive relief? Keep in mind, injunctive relief (masks, vaccines, shutdowns, social distancing….) was specifically included in the Statement of Claim, in addition to declarative relief. Presumably, getting an Application (or more than 1), was always part of the plan.

Worth pointing out, this isn’t their first rodeo. A challenge was brought in October 2019, against forced vaccines for Ontario students, (CV-19-00629810-0000). That case also seems to have stalled.

9. More Questions Than Answers In Case

This case made headlines in July, especially among alternative media circles. Donations have poured in, and are rumoured to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That being said, there are many hard questions that need to be asked:

Have all the Defendants been served in this case? When? Why did CBC talk about “obtaining an unredacted copy”, rather than being served?

Do other Defendants have any interest in filing a response?
Do any other Defendants have lawyers?

Why has no Defense, or Motion to Strike been filed? It stretches the mind to think they would potentially want a Default Judgement.

Hypothetically, if the Statement of Claim does get struck, will a rewrite be done? An appeal? Or will that be the end of the matter?

Did CBC offer in good faith a public interview?
If so, how come it never happened?
Were threats of other lawsuits were levied against the CBC?

Were threats of lawsuits levied against others?

Why has there been no masking injunction attempt?
How come HBC and CAS were able to get in so quickly?

Are there any talks going on behind the scenes?

Is there a realistic prospect of proving the allegations in Court? Even the more “conspiracy” minded claims cited?

Why does there appear to be no urgency?

How much money has been raised by Vaccine Choice Canada?
What will happen to the donations?

An Apology/Retraction To Constitutional Rights Centre, Mr. Galati

A few articles have been retracted that concerned Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, as they are inappropriate and demeaning. About the specifics that need to be corrected:

Apologies for suggesting that lawyers are scum. In reality, the profession is entirely noble and honourable, and comments to the contrary are based on ignorance and/or malice.

Apologies for any potential inference that could be drawn between a lawyer and their clientele. Lawyers who represent terrorists should not be labelled “terrorist lawyers”. Likewise, lawyers who take mafia cases should not be called “mob lawyers”, and lawyers who take criminal cases should not be called “criminal lawyers”, etc….

Apologies for using the term “agitator” to describe a person’s record. Surely, the cases they take on do not necessarily reflect any privately held beliefs and opinions. Work is work, and personal is personal.

Apologies for any suggestion that fighting for terrorists to keep their citizenship, or challenging judicial appointments somehow amounted to subversion or lawfare. There are people who believe these to be legitimate causes.

Apologies for suggesting that serious criminal charges, convictions and/or security risks should be grounds for stripping someone of their citizenship. Despite this being practice in many countries, it’s wrong, xenophobic, and racist to treat people like that. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Apologies for making any distinction between naturalized and born citizens, or implying that people simply aren’t Canadians. This was uncalled for. As the Charter and Citizenship Act view them as the same, so there is no debate on the issue.

Apologies for suggesting that citizenship was anything beyond obtaining the required paperwork, and that place of birth should be an issue at all. After all, having the status means loyalty to the adopted country.

Apologies for criticizing the current refugee pathways as abusive, and in particular, people fleeing from the United States. Surely, this is shortsighted with regards to the big picture, and everyone, no matter the situation, deserves a fair hearing.

Apologies for suggesting borders should exist at all. After all, if a person’s lineage in Canada doesn’t trace back thousands of years, they are in no position to keep anyone else out today. Such a stance is racist.

Apologies for suggesting certain ideologies are incompatible with the West. After all, diversity is our strength, and no sensible person would disagree.

Apologies for wondering and questioning why urgent cases sit dormant for months, even as vaccines arrive and are being administered. Certainly, there are valid explanations for these delays, and ulterior motives must never be assumed.

Apologies for watching a video and thinking it meant forms being sold, instead of a pleadings package. More due diligence should have been done in advance. And yes, if people wish to purchase the products, that is absolutely their right to do so.

Apologies for suggesting the Federal Government may have influenced or rigged the Bank of Canada case. The rulings they handed down may seem suspicious to the casual observer.

The articles in question have now removed. Nothing here should be interpreted as to detract from the reputation of Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, in the opinions of fair minded people. They are committed to upholding the freedoms we hold dear (including, but not limited to), free speech, free association, viewpoint diversity. More than ever, controversial views must be protected from tyrants who would silence dissent and/or shut down media outlets.

Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.

Freedom Of Information Requests By Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

A site worth checking out is https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/. They have compiled considerable research on fluoridation, and have filed a small mountain of requests for documentation on the isolation of this “virus”.

1. Mass Filings Of FOI Requests

Beyond this single article, there is a larger issue to consider: filing freedom-of-information requests (also called access-to-information requests). These can be beneficial for research, or other reasons. True, Governments can, and often will, redact information, but they will often give something. Or in this case, it’s what they admit they don’t have that is of considerable interest.

2. Results Of Those FOI Requests

Of course, this nowhere near all of the responses or requests. Still, it’s pretty strange to have a test for such a virus. Even more absurd to be working on dozens of vaccines to cure it.

3. Comment By Christine Massey Of FFP

The public needs to understand that worldwide belief in “COVID-19” is based on fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses, not the scientific method.
.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to a Kingston Councillor recently:
.
Investigation is needed to determine whether a new virus is causing disease. Public health figures don’t simply “know” these things. There are well -established, logic-based steps (known as Koch’s Postulates) that have been taught in universities for decades as the accepted means of determining the existence of a new contagious pathogen. They were modified slightly years ago for use with a suspected virus.
.
Step 1 is isolation/purification – separate the thing from the host and everything else; then do experiments with it to see if it can replicate in healthy host cells, cause the disease question, etc. Instead, in practice, virologists have been doing the exact opposite – adulterating a patient sample with genetic material and toxic drugs and irrationally blaming observed effects to a cell line on “the virus” that no one even tried to find in the patient sample. They perform completely meaningless PCR tests that are utterly incapable of determining the presence of an intact virus (let alone disease caused by a virus), they make meaningless comparisons with fabricated (not discovered) “SARS-COV-2 genomes” and call that “isolation”.
.
That is not science, it’s wild speculation/fantasy and it’s blatantly fraudulent.

Here is their most recent publication, which compiles the results of some 34 requests for information. Quite the effort. A thank you is extended to everyone at Fluoride Free Peel for putting all of this together.

4. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

5. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals, (such as FOI requests, taping and documenting), should be worth serious consideration.

Serious Proposal: Mass Filings Of Complaints To Get Public Health Officers’ Licenses Revoked

It’s past time to fight back. Here is an idea that is worth consideration: mass filings of complaints against Chief Medical Officers in various Provinces in Territories. Go after local Health Officers if they have done something. Go after Deputy Medical Officers. The complaints are free to file, and they have to responded to. It’s not optional.

1. Colleges Which License Canadian Doctors

Alberta College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Deena Hinshaw

BC College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Bonnie Henry

Manitoba College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Brent Roussin

New Brunswick College Of Nurses And Physicians
Jennifer Wylie-Russell

Newfoundland College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Janice Fitzgerald

Northwest Territories Physicians
Kami Kandola

Nova Scotia College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Robert Strang

Nunavit Physicians
Michael Patterson

Ontario College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Theresa Tam
Barbara Yaffe
David Williams

Quebec College Des Medecins
Horacio Arruda

PEI College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Heather Morrison

Saskatchewan College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Saqib Shahab

Yukon Medical Council – Physician Licensing
Brendan Hanley

2. Why Even Attempt This Action?

Given the “restrictions” that various so-called medical experts have imposed, and based on this pseudo-science, it is past time to get rid of them. By get rid of, this doesn’t just mean remove them from the position of Public Health Officer. It means ending their medical careers altogether.

What These Dictates Lead To
-Causing mass panic over a virus that in all honesty, probably hasn’t even been isolated
-Arbitrarily closing down so-called “non-essential” businesses
-Causing mass bankruptcies and foreclosures
-Causing depressions and suicides
-Closing down religious services while booze and abortion remain open
-Limiting access to preventative care
-Limiting the gathering sizes of people
-Limiting rights to peacefully assemble and protest
-Sabotaging the education of children
-Compliant media giving glowing reviews
-Putting travel restrictions in place
-Handing out tickets, threatening arrests
-Pushing masks KNOWING that they do nothing
-Demanding establishments keep customer information
-Pushing the “Great Reset” the entire time

Take your pick. The list of civil rights abuses by these so-called experts is a long one. Now, this isn’t to let politicians off the hook. They WILLINGLY abdicated their duties to govern and allow unelected bureaucrats to rule by decree.

Will any of them get lose their licenses? Who knows, but a deluge of complaints might help. At a bare minimum, it would force the various Colleges to put (in writing) what their positions are.

Health care (for the most part), is a Provincial matter, and Public Health Officers are doctors who are licensed by their Province, (and possible other ones). File complaints, and get formal investigations opened.

File Federally.
File Provincially.
File Municipally.

3. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

4. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.

Serious Suggestion For Gaining Entry To Stores Despite Mask Demands

Do you want to go shopping but cringe at the new mask requirements? Well, here are some suggestions that should help in most cases.

1. Human Rights In Canada, By Province

Alberta Human Rights Commission
British Columbia Human Rights Code
Manitoba Human Rights Commission
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
Newfoundland & Labrador Human Rights
Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission
Nova Scotia And Human Rights
Ontario Human Rights Code
PEI Human Rights Commission
Quebec Human Rights And Freedoms
Saskatchewan Human Rights Code
Yukon Human Rights Commission

2. A Few Cautionary Warnings

This should go without saying, but will be said anyway: DO NOT be belligerent, threatening, aggressive, or swearing when attempting this. Don’t be intoxicated in any way either. Business owners might look for any reason to ban you from the premises, and such behaviour may give them legitimate grounds.

The above warning applies even more so to large men talking to women working in the store. Yes, this is sexist, but play along anyway. You do not want to provide any excuse to boot you out.

Another bit of advice: if you concerned about getting kicked out for life, or burning bridges, start with someplace you don’t normally go. Even better if it is quite a ways away. Again, this is just to be careful.

3. Read Up On The Law In Advance

First, you will want to read up on the Human Rights Legislation in your province. From the British Columbia Human Rights Code, we see the following passages:

Discrimination and intent
2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
.
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
.
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
.
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.
.
(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating
.
(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or
.
(b) on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.

Using the BC Human Rights Code as an example, it is abundantly clear that a shop or store owner cannot discriminate against people based on any “physical or mental disability”. If wearing a mask makes breathing difficult, than that alone is enough to satisfy the requirement.

Businesses are required to make accommodations to people with disabilities. It isn’t optional.

Note: stores, shops and service providers are not allowed to pry into the specifics of what that disability may be. They are prohibited from trying to get that information.

An observant reader will notice Section 2. This states that no intent is required on the part of anyone to be discriminatory. While that (in many cases), may be open to abuse, it would be very helpful here.

4. Document Your Encounter With A Cellphone

A possible encounter might go something like this. Head to the establishment, and walk into the building as normal.

[A] If stopped by an employee telling you to wear a mask or leave, pull out your cellphone (or other such recording device). Audio is fine, and video may be off-putting.

[B] State the time, date, and location into your phone, and ask the employee to repeat him or herself. If you are asked if you are recording, admit it, and state that it’s legal under Canadian law.

[C] Inform the employee that you have a condition — but do not specify — which impedes your ability to wear a mask

[D] Inform the employee that the (specify) Human Rights Code requires employees in services available to the public to make accommodations.

[E] Inform the employee that there are always exemptions — regardless of whether it is a municipal bylaw, a provincial law, or simply store policy. Ask why those exemptions are not publicly displayed.

[F] If asked for details, inform the employee that it is private medical information, and they have no legal right to demand it in return for entry.

[G] If pressed, repeat to the employee that they have no right to demand this information.

[H] Reiterate that the (specify) Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination. Give the specific section number. If applicable, state that (other section) doesn’t require intent for there to be discrimination.

[I] If still not granted entry, ask the employee this question very deliberately: “Am I being refused entry because of my condition?”

[J] Feel free to ask a second time, just so there is no misunderstanding. Also, feel free to ask for the full name.

This is the critical point. The person will either: (a) admit you entry; or (b) knowingly state on tape that you are being refused because of your disability. It would take nerves of steel to tell a person “no” when pressed like this. However, if it does happen, you have a taped, documented case of discrimination.

Remember, this is not about picking a fight, but in enforcing your human rights to patronize businesses that you need to. If you are allowed in without a mask, accept the victory and move on.

Keep in mind, that many employees are stressed out, and don’t want a fight. If it becomes clear that you are prepared, and know the law, many (most?) will back down and let you go through. Try to understand their perspective.

If pushing the disability angle doesn’t suit you, bear in mind that human rights codes also allow for exemptions based on religion. Apparently, the virus doesn’t attack devout followers.

And again, see Part 2 about behaviour to not engage in.

Now, as for more information about the “planned-emic”, and other constructive suggestions (on various topics), see the sections below.

5. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

6. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.