Conflicting Out? It’s Not Just CEWS That The Lawyers Are Receiving….

Apparently, Canada doesn’t have nearly enough lawyers, and their employment has to be subsidized via the CSJ Program. This stands for “Canada Summer Jobs“, and results in taxpayers covering part of the wages. While there are legitimate sectors where this could help, most would agree that law firms shouldn’t be getting handouts to prop up their summer hires. The grants made in April 2021 and Summer 2020 related to CSJ.

Through the application of national and local priorities, the CSJ program seeks to provide youth, particularly those who face barriers to employment with access to work opportunities. Funded employers must demonstrate that they are providing quality work experiences for youth that provide opportunities to develop and improve their skills.

Note: this is separate from CEWS, which hundreds of law firms are also getting.

Something that has come up many times is the question: “Where are the lawyers?” Given this fake pandemic has eroded basic liberties and resulted in martial law, that’s a fair question. Do none of them have any interest in looking out for their own interests, or those of their families?

Others have complained they can’t find a lawyer willing to take their case, such as for challenging vaccine passports in their employment. Again, this seems very odd.

A previous article outlined how hundreds of lawyers and their firms were receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, or CEWS. A reader commented that it’s quite possible that many firms were “conflicted out”, or retained in some fashion, something mused about here. This would prevent them from acting against their donors — the Federal Government — in other areas.

As it turns out, there may be something to the speculation that Ottawa has all the law firms on their payroll. At least, that’s how it looks.

If we search “law corporation”, or “law firm”, or “barrister”, or related headings, we can see that the Federal Government has been giving out small contributions as of late. In other words, these firms have an ongoing or at least recent business relationship with Ottawa, and likely wouldn’t be able to pursue cases against them. A serious question: would handing out grants in this manner be enough to establish a relationship, at least for this purpose?

Obviously, this is in reference to the medical martial law measures enacted upon the citizens over the last 2 years. Where are the lawyers? How strange that none of these honourable members have any interest in flexing their muscles. Take a look:

Abi Singam Law Professional Corporation Jun. 8, 2020 $23,520
Agozzino Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,138
Alison Lester, Barrister & Solicitor May 10, 2021 $2,994
Andrea Parliament Law Professional Corporation Jun. 22, 2020 $7,840
Axess Law Professional Corporation Jun. 1, 2020 $175,000
Ben-zvi Barrister & Solicitor P.C. Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Bradley Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Brenda Leigh Bell Law Offices Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $5,987
Chris Carta Law Corporation Jul. 27, 2020 $57,000
Chugh Law Professional Corporation Jun. 22, 2020 $7,840
Chugh Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $7,483
Cobbett & Cotton Law Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $3,192
Cody Reedman Law Corporation Jun. 11, 2020 $60,000
Conron Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $3,742
Corporation of the County of Middlesex Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Costa Law Firm Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $4,490
David Gorman,Barrister & Solicitor Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Denise Badley, Barrister & Solicitor Apr. 26, 2021 $6,842
Devadas Law Professional Corporation Jul. 13, 2020 $3,920
Devadas Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $3,742
DH Professional Corporation, Barristers & Solicitors May 19, 2020 $3,920
DH Professional Corporation, Barristers & Solicitors Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Elliott Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,887
Gobran Law Firm Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $8,980
Grinhaus law firm professional corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Harmony Collaborative Law Corporation Nov. 18, 2020 $32,368
Henry Business Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,940
Holder Professional Law Corporation Dec. 2, 2020 $34,157
Hugh G Mclean Mclean & Associates Barrister Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
John McLellan Jun. 22, 2020 $3,920
Keystone Law Group Law Corporation Jun. 12, 2020 $4,088
Keystone Law Group Law Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $6,840
Keyvan Shojania Law Corporation Aug. 11, 2020 $60,000
KN Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,887
Lakin Afolabi Law Professional Corporation May 19, 2020 $3,920
Lavigueur Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Law Office of Washim Ahmed, Barristers & Solicitors Apr. 26, 2021 $7,483
Lazin Professional Law Corporation Jun. 14, 2020 $60,000
LeBlond, Barrister & Solicitor Jun. 12, 2020 $4,088
McLean Law Professional Corporation Jul. 13, 2020 $3,920
Melanson Barrister & Solicitor Inc. Apr. 26, 2021 $2,719
Momentum Business Law Professional Corporation Jun. 22, 2020 $3,920
Momentum Business Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $11,973
Open Door (Granville) Law Corporation Jul. 3, 2020 $12,264
Pabani Law Corporation Jun. 10, 2020 $60,000
Pearson Law Professional Corporation Jun. 12, 2020 $3,170
Penner Law Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $3,591
Primeau Law Professional Corporation May 25, 2020 $3,920
Primeau Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Rabideau Law Professional Corporation May 19, 2020 $7,840
Rabideau Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,994
Racine Law Professional Corporation May 10, 2021 $2,994
Ramachandran Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $22,449
Ramsay Law Office Professional Corporation May 19, 2020 $3,920
Ramsay Law Office Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,807
Rupinder Garcha Barrister & Solicitor May 25, 2020 $3,920
Ryan Green Law Office Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $3,742
Sari Rose Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $5,987
Saroha Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $5,987
Shawan Das Law Corporation Jun. 21, 2021 $40,000
Simoes Law Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $3,192
Sukh Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $7,483
Sullivan Law Professional Corporation May 19, 2020 $7,840
Sullivan Law Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $17,960
Tomi Olutunfese Law Office, Professional Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $2,346
Walker Law Professional Corporation Jun. 6, 2021 $16,500
Winright Law Corporation Apr. 26, 2021 $9,576

A lot of these grants are for very small amounts, such as a few thousand dollars. Still, it appears that it would establish a connection and at least prevent these parties from moving against the Government. The above list is not exhaustive, and only covers some Federal grants. Any from the Provinces wouldn’t be included here.

Even if it doesn’t prohibit firms from taking such cases, how many lawyers are going to bite the hands that feed them?

The Summer Jobs Program is supposed to provide work for youth with barriers to employment. It seems bizarre that law firms would be accepting a pittance to help people out. Not that there’s anything wrong with helping people get work, but why them?

To add the disclaimer: yes, these grants could be completely legitimate. It could be that it changes nothing in the big picture. That being said, it seems absurd to hand out such small amounts to so many firms for a program that doesn’t seem to require them. Moving on….

There’s also a small section on “Lawyers Without Borders”. Looking a bit more deeply into that, we come to this information:

May 22, 2015 $4,572,363 ?
Oct. 27, 2015 $857,003 ?
Mar. 31, 2017 $4,640,253 Peace In Columbia
Aug. 30, 2019 $2,231,269 Stabilization In Mali
Feb. 23, 2021 $1,104,110 Victims’ Rights In Columbia
Mar. 16, 2021 $2,500,000 Human Rights In Guatemala
Jun. 1, 2021 $15,895,955 Peace/Justice In Mali

This is interesting as it creates the possibilities of many more lawyers being entangled in conflicts of interest. There’s also little to no accounting for where the money goes.

Lawyers Without Borders has also partnered with Doctors of the World, in order to bring sexual weirdness and abortion to the 3rd World. What a great use of your tax dollars.

Complicating things even more, Catherine McKenna started “Canadian Lawyers Abroad“, before getting into office. This is an NGO designed to get new graduates international experience. This could create many more conflicts, depending on where members end up working later on. She’s also apparently buddies with Justice Jasmine Akbarali, who’s ruled on several lockdown cases already.

Dominic LeBlanc’s choices of judicial appointments come across as nepotism, but hey, who needs independence anyway? His support for free speech doesn’t seem all that strong either.

This isn’t a complete list, but it’s clear there are a lot of firms that have some connections or interests that would prevent them from challenging these anti-freedom dictates. It’s more than just the emergency wage subsidies, although those factor in. And one has to wonder how much of this was planned in advance.

There are also legitimate concerns about how fair hearings are on this subject.

Finally, it’s worth a reminder that there’s no real opposition in Ottawa because Trudeau’s “opponents” are subsidized by him, and support vaccine passports. Before getting into politics, Erin O’Toole worked at Heenan Blaikie, the law firm where Chretien and Trudeau Sr. were partners. Democracy is also non-existent in B.C.

As for an independent media…. check the links below.


(L) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Partners, Funding


Ontario Divisional Court Rules Requirement For Teachers To Be Proficient In Math Is Unconstitutional

There is a group that’s asking for handouts in order to water down the standards required to teach in Ontario. Unfortunately, it seems that they’ve had success.

The Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council is an NGO that claims to advocate on behalf of (potential) teachers looking to get certified in Ontario. The group states that it was created largely in response to the new requirement that new teachers have a certain level of proficiency prior to getting to teach students. The online begging started quickly.

Is this really in the best interests of students? Is eliminating a pretty reasonable requirement in the name of “diversity and equity” the way to go about this? It’s pretty alarming that (apparently) large numbers of people can obtain and undergraduate degree, and a bachelor of education, and have a limited grasp of mathematics.

This also highlights a serious flaw with the legal system in Canada. NGOs can commence lawsuits claiming they have a “public interest standing”, and try to get the laws changed to suit their political ideologies. Providing the papers are worded properly, this is routinely down. Courts often grant such standing.

The Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council was founded in early October [2019] largely in response to the Math Proficiency test which was made a mandatory requirement for the qualification of new teachers. According to the OCT, “On August 20, 2019 two regulations were filed: Regulation 271/19, Proficiency in Mathematics, under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and Regulation 272/19, Objects of the Office under the Education Quality and Accountability Office Act, 1996. As a result certification requirements were updated to ensure that Ontario teachers are prepared for the modern demands of a changing society and increasingly dynamic learning environment.”

We believe that this test is not equitable, fair, justified or backed by data. The EQAO office has been rushed into creating a massive test in just months. In the past, EQAO has taken 3 years to roll out new tests. There is no definitive evidence which suggests that new teachers will become more effective math instructors as a result of this test, nor that students will perform better in math as a result of this. The last government-implemented test for teachers cost taxpayers $22 million and the results were mostly abandoned. This new legislation is costing tens-of-millions of dollars for a test which decides the futures of thousands of Ontarians. This new legislation comes to teacher candidates who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on their education and carefully planned the steps they would need to take to reach their goals. These thousands of jobs deeply affect the economy and future of our great province. Read our Email Templates on the Newsletter page to see our questions and arguments regarding this test. Help us, the people, even if our government will not.

It’s interesting that this group claims there’s no evidence that such requirements help. From the looks of their members, most probably couldn’t pass an introductory statistics course.

In February 2020, there was a podcast for “Education Is A Right“. Apparently, the right to a QUALITY education isn’t that important. If this really was about the students, there would be efforts to attract, retain, and upgrade the best teachers available. Instead, this group takes the opposite approach.

This isn’t something that anyone should be proud of. The Ontario Divisional Court essentially says that pandering to the anti-white diversity crowd is more important than providing quality education. Quite simply, whites passing at too high a rate implies systemic racism.

Parents would be up in arms if they were made aware of this. That said, it seems doubtful that there has been any publicity within those circles. At least the College of Teachers had enough sense to reject this idiocy.

One would think that this group would want to do what they can to ensure people of all groups are able to pass basic proficiency testing in math. However, that’s not the way they go. Turning to the ruling:

Significant Disparities in Success Rates
[32] The EQAO collected demographic information about Field Test takers through the voluntary demographic questionnaire which revealed significant disparities in success rates based on test-takers’ race, language and disabilities.

[33] In particular, the Field Test demographic data showed that non-White candidates writing in French were only successful 55 percent of the time, whereas White candidates writing in French were successful 84 percent of the time. Candidates who identified as belonging to non-White ethno-racial groups (such as African, Indigenous, Latino and Middle Eastern) failed at a significantly higher rate than White candidates. Candidates who indicated they had a cognitive disability failed the Field Test at over twice the rate of candidates without a disability.

Apparently there are differences in the average cognitive abilities between groups. The solution is obviously to reduce (or eliminate) standards, to ensure there is no difference.

Also, let’s not mince words. This isn’t just an effort to dumb down the teaching profession. This is an attempt to reduce the number of whites, and replace them with non-whites.

What Is the Appropriate Remedy?
[161] A declaration will issue that the Mathematics Proficiency Test and the legislative provisions that create it infringe s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the infringement cannot be justified under s. 1. Specifically, the Proficiency in Mathematics regulation (O. Reg 271/19), as amended, and s. 18(1)(c) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12 are of no force or effect.

[162] A declaration will issue that the Ontario College of Teachers shall grant certification to teacher candidates who have not passed the Mathematics Proficiency Test (or shall grant full certification in the case of teacher candidates whose certification is conditional on passing the Mathematics Proficiency Test) but have otherwise met all other certification requirements.

[167] The application for judicial review is granted. The following relief is ordered:
(a) The Mathematics Proficiency Test violates s. 15(1) of the Charter, is not justified under s. 1, and is unconstitutional;
(b) O. Reg. 271/19, Proficiency in Mathematics, as amended, under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12 is unconstitutional and of no force and effect;
(c) Paragraph s. 18(1)(c) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c.12 is unconstitutional and of no force or effect;
(d) The Ontario College of Teachers shall grant certification to teacher candidates who have not passed the Mathematics Proficiency Test (or shall grant full certification in the case of teacher candidates whose certification is conditional on passing the Mathematics Proficiency Test) but who have otherwise met all other certification requirements; and
(e) The Respondent shall pay the Applicants $90,000 in costs of the application.

Basically, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that it was discriminatory in order to force all teachers to have a certain mathematical background.

And on top of it, a $90,000 costs award was also handed down. Now, will the donors get a refund for their contributions, or will the group owners just pocket it?

Bella Lewkowicz is a French teacher with Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. The group itself boasts some pretty impressive educational credentials. It’s baffling then why they would work like this to dumb down the teaching profession. Is it guilt? Self-hatred? Or is this some more destructive impulse?

(3) Home _ Ontario Teacher Candidates’ Council
(9) Court Ruling Divisional Court 2021.12.16 OTCC v Ontario FINAL signed by all

Law Firms & Bar Associations Receiving Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)

Don’t you find it strange that there are no lawyers posing any serious challenge to the tyranny of Trudeau, Ford, Legault, Kenney, Horgan and the others? Ever wonder why people who (theoretically) are best placed to challenge this are sitting on the sidelines? Perhaps, this may explain some of them.

Note: several duplicate and irrelevant entries were omitted.

  • 0914819 B.C. LTD. ( Magellan Real Estate Lawyers)
  • Aasara Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • AGB Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Alam Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Alberta Lawyers’ Assistance Society (The Assist Program)
  • Alpert Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Andre J. Boudon Professional Corporation
  • Antoine Mailloux Avocat Inc.
  • Armoured Suits Professional Corporation
  • Aulis Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Avocats Cragmore Inc.
  • Avocats sans frontières Québec / Lawyers without borders Quebec
  • Ayoub A. Ali Professional Corporation
  • Bakshi Law Firm Firm Professional Corporation
  • Barapp Law
  • Barteaux Labour And Employment Lawyers Inc.
  • Benoit Roussy, Avocat Inc.
  • Blacklock Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Blouin Avocat S.A. Blouin Lawyer Corp
  • Borders Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Brooks Professional Corporation
  • Brown Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Brunet Avocats Inc. / Brunet Lawyers Inc.
  • Bryshun Mace Law Corporation
  • BSS Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Burrows Professional Corporation
  • Buzaker Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Cabinet d’avocats NOVAlex Inc. / NOVAlex Law Firm Inc.
  • Canadian Defence Lawyers Association
  • Capelle Kane Immigration Lawyers Professional Corp.
  • Charney Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Charthouse Law Corporation
  • Chinneck Law Professional Corporation
  • Cizan Suliman Professional Corporation
  • Corporate Immigration Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Costa Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Counter Tax Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Cubicle Fugitive Inc.
  • D3B Avocats Inc.
  • D’Alessio Romero Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • David M. Piccolo Professional Corporation
  • Derstine Penman Professional Corporation
  • Di Stasio Avocats Inc.
  • Dietrich Professional Corporation
  • Disability Lawyers of Ontario
  • Douglas J. Lord Professional Corporation
  • DPJP Professional Corporation
  • Drayton Law Firm Law Corporation
  • Dube Latreille Avocats Inc.
  • Duford, Dion Avocats Inc.
  • Duncan F. Smith Law Corporation
  • Elkouby avocats inc. Elkouby lawyers Inc.
  • Étude légale N. Touma inc./ N. Touma law firm Inc.
  • Farley Avocats Inc.
  • Fife Cameron Trial Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Foundation Law Corporation
  • Frank MacDonald Lawyer Inc.
  • Fresh Life Canada, Immigration Lawyers Inc.
  • Friedman Law Professional Corporation
  • Gary R. Armworthy, Lawyer Incorporated
  • Girones Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • GKS Law Corporation
  • Gladysz Camet Avocats Fiscalistes Inc.
  • Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Gobran Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Goldfinger Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Gosselin Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Grandmaitre Virgo Evans Professional Corporation
  • Grinhaus Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Gupta Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Guzun And Associates, Lawyers Inc.
  • H. Zhang Professional Corporation
  • Haber & Associates Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Hadayt Nazami Professional Corporation
  • Hagel Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Harris Law, Personal Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Holmberg Watson Professional Corporation
  • Home & Castle law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Hum Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
  • Iacobelli Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Jae Park Law Professional Corporation
  • James Bennett Law Firm PLC Inc.
  • Jane Poproski Professional Corporation
  • Jay G. Meunier Professional Corporation
  • JFB Avocats Criminalistes Inc.
  • John A De Bakker Professional Corporation
  • John M. Richter Law Corporation
  • Jonathon Kahane-Rapport Professional Corporation
  • Joseph T. Santoro Professional Corporation
  • JP Mann Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Justin James Walsh Law Professional Corporation
  • Kapoor Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Kelly D. Jordan Professional Corporation
  • Kelly + Kelly Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Kennedy Schofield Lutz Lawyers Inc.
  • Kenneth Peacocke Professional Corporation
  • Kinder Law Professional Corporation
  • KMH Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • KPA Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • KRB Avocats Inc. / KRB Lawyers Inc.
  • Kruse Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Lak Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • LaLande Law Professional Corporation
  • Lamoureux, Avocat & Fiscaliste Inc.
  • Lang Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Larson Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Lauze, Avocate Inc.
  • Law Firm Of Shikha Sharda, Professional Corporation
  • Inc.
  • Liang Tax Law Corporation
  • Lisa C. Gilvesy Professional Corporation
  • Lomax Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Longo Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • M. Chuchla Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Mack Professional Corporation
  • Mauro Palumbo Law Corporation
  • Mayes Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Melville, Krotz Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Millars Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Minkin & Associates Professional Corporation
  • Mirian Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation
  • MPH Avocats Inc.
  • Mulligan Defence Lawyers Law Corporation
  • N3 INC.
  • Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers
  • Nanda & Associate Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Natalie L. Hebert Law Corporation
  • Nimegeeers, Schuck, Wormsbecker & Bobbitt
  • NLCI Your Real Estate Lawyer Professional Corporation
  • NSWB Law Firm P.S. Inc.
  • Oldham Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
  • Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
  • Pace Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Pappas Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Peter Yi Law Corporation
  • Petitt Schwarz Professional Corporation
  • Philip J. Gerler Professional Corporation
  • Pilkington Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Pranzitelli Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • R C Di Bella Law Corporation
  • R. Farhat, Professional Corporation
  • R.W.J. Professional Corporation
  • R.Z. Skibinski Professional Corporation
  • Rajdeep Singh Deol Law Corporation
  • Rar Litigation Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • Renaud Lebuis Avocat d’Affaires Inc. Renaud Lebuis Business Lawyer Inc.
  • RH Law Professional Corporation
  • Roadlawyers Inc.
  • Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Roger J. Baker Professional Corporation
  • Ronald S. Williams Lawyer Professional Corporation
  • Rui Zhen Feng Law Corporation
  • Salina Chagpar Professional Corporation
  • Seif Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Shaikh Law Professional Corporation
  • Sultan Lawyers Professional Corporation
  • The Kahler Personal Injury Law Firm, Professional Corporation
  • Top Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Verraich Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Wennie Lee Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • WN Law Firm Inc.
  • Y.L. Law Professional Corporation
  • Y. Liu Law Firm
  • Yixi Legal Firm Corporation
  • YuSheng Immigration Law Firm
  • Zafar Law Firm Professional Corporation
  • Zayouna Law Firm, Professional Corporation

Note: if you search under the heading “LEGAL”, another 300 names come up. These are not exclusively law firms, but include other companies who are involved in the industry. Looking up “BARRISTER” results in 68 more matches in the CEWS database.

Of course, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy is just one program. There’s also the rental subsidy, which countless businesses applied for. Given how these programs keep getting different names, it can be difficult to track exactly who’s getting what.

While this certainly doesn’t include every firm, it’s still a lot of them.

Considering that the industry never shut down, it’s unclear what money was lost. Sure, there was a delay in 2020, but everything seems to run virtually now. In fact, since law can be done online, it probably led to a significant decline in expenses.

Wild idea, but perhaps not everyone wants to see the gravy train end.

There have also been claims (though it’s hard to grasp the magnitude) of lawyers and law firms being retained by the Government as ghost representatives. This would be done for the sole purpose of taking them out of the game. If such a person or company takes money in this manner, they’d be prohibited from taking on cases against Trudeau or his ilk. This would apply even if the lawyers never do anything to earn that original amount.

It’s been covered ad nauseum about how the media is being subsidized to dupe and mislead Canadians into going along with the psychological warfare. Maybe that’s not the only industry that can be bought off. And on the subject:

The Canadian Bar Association, as well as its counterparts in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec have all been receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, it’s quite likely they’ve received funds under different programs as well.

There’s no real urgency within the legal community to end these martial law dictates. Strange, since few lawyers will pass up on the opportunity to grandstand. But perhaps there are other factors. No accusations are being made, just some curious observations.

Do you get it now, stupid lemmings? They’re all in it together, or, at least that’s how it looks on the surface.


(L) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Partners, Funding


Indemnified Manufacturers: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

This will be a short article, and briefly cover one case: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII). It dealt with a lawsuit against drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and whether they were liable for their products. The point is that the ruling very closely parallels what’s happening now.

To sum it up: no one is responsible for maiming or killing people with experimental drugs. The buck gets passed and passed, so no one has to face it.

Of course, this is of no comfort to people who have lost loved ones. It’s sickening to see that the rules are stacked against the average person.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

The point of this: GlaxoSmithKline was indemnified from any liabilities that their “interim authorized” vaccines might have led to. Guess they don’t really stand behind their work. Does any of this sound familiar?

Does the lack of transparency also sound familiar?

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

[39] Ms. Hyacenth says that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit did not advise her of these risks. Although Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit was originally a defendant in the action, the plaintiffs released her from the action after being unable to find an expert who would opine that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit breached her standard of care in administering the vaccine.

It gets interesting since there is in fact no agreement between the drug manufacturer and the patient. By this logic, GlaxoSmithKline wouldn’t be liable even without the indemnification agreement.

Even worse, the “learned intermediary”, the physician, isn’t really responsible either, since they were just following the advice of Health Canada. Remember, it doesn’t matter what your doctors are saying, because they are not responsible for whatever happens to you.

As for Government Officials (such as the Health Minister), they aren’t responsible either. As long as they claim these decisions are made for the good of society, they are pretty much untouchable as well.

Read the entire decision. The case is enlightening, for a few different reasons. If you think you have recourse if a loved one dies or gets seriously injured, think again.

(2) Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019 ONSC 7066

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

Although it’s unclear who was served, Rule 24 could apply for a variety of different reasons. It’s also worth noting that Rule 14.08 specifies that a Statement of Claim must be served within 6 months of being filed.

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.

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.

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.

8. Dismissal For Unnecessary Delay, Failure To Serve

Where Available
24.01 (1) A defendant who is not in default under these rules or an order of the court may move to have an action dismissed for delay where the plaintiff has failed,
(a) to serve the statement of claim on all the defendants within the prescribed time;
(b) to have noted in default any defendant who has failed to deliver a statement of defence, within thirty days after the default;
(c) to set the action down for trial within six months after the close of pleadings; or
(d) Revoked:
(e) to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial list, within thirty days after the action was struck off.

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.

In reality, the Defendants could file a motion to dismiss this case at any point.

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.


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.

(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim