Category: Procedural

Posted on

Ontario EMS Workers Suit Recycled From Recent “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Case

The grifting never ends, does it?

Monday, March 1, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court, on behalf of over 100 Plaintiffs. It is essentially a cut-and-paste copy of a Claim that the Federal Court threw out just 2 weeks earlier.

Yes, a lawsuit that was struck for being “bad beyond argument” was simply repackaged and refiled to initiate another one. The lawyer involved was Rocco Galati, who works out of Toronto.

In fairness, CTV did announce this case, but let’s go into it in greater detail.

As for some recent decisions:

(1) Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation case for mean words on Twitter. After it was — predictably — thrown out in February 2022 as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), Gill and Lamba were stuck with over $1 million in costs.

(2) Action4Canada brought a 391 page, rambling, incoherent Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) to the B.C. Supreme Court. After it was struck in its entirety in August 2022 for being “bad beyond argument”, the Plaintiffs decided to appeal. This was in spite of the Judge allowing a rewrite.

(3) The Federal Court struck a case by over 600 Plaintiffs for being “bad beyond argument” in February 2023. The pleadings were impossible to follow, and heavily lifted from the Action4Canada case. Plaintiffs who were part of the Federal Government were permanently barred due to Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which mandated other forms of resolution. The other Plaintiffs can still theoretically bring an amended Claim. Apparently, appeals are in the works.

(4) Vaccine Choice Canada had their case sit idly for 2 1/2 years before making a first appearance in Court. The Attorney General wants it thrown out for: (a) disclosing no reasonable cause of action; and (b) being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Of course, this doesn’t include several others that just remain dormant for years with no activity. Those have been covered extensively on this site.

Now, turning to the Ontario EMS case, how does this parallel with the Federal case, and where will this end up? In short, this Ontario one will get struck in its entirety.

1. Most (All?) Workers Subjected To Arbitration Requirements

This case may be dead on arrival for a very simple reason: the Court may not be allowed to hear it at all, if there are other agreements in place.

To Any Party on a Question of Law
.
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or

[Rule 21.01(3)(a)]
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

As we saw in the recent Federal Court case, the majority of the Plaintiffs were actually subjected to Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Since it specifically barred litigation as a workplace solution, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their arguments.

Considering that the Plaintiffs here work for various Municipal Governments, and most are probably unionized, this lawsuit will likely get struck for the same reasons. Unions typically have a grievance process — such as arbitration — built into their collective bargaining agreements. Ontario Procedure Rules allow for cases to be dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction.

Of course, their lawyer should know this, right?

After all, this is why the majority of Plaintiffs in the Federal case were prevented from seeking remedies in Court. And that ruling was just 2 weeks ago.

2. Challenge Should Probably Be Done As Judicial Review

Another major issue with the Federal lawsuit was that the wrong paperwork was filed. If challenging a specific order, it’s routinely done by way of Application for Judicial Review, and not as a Statement of Claim. Again, their lawyer should be aware of this, correct?

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Pleading Law
25.06(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.

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.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure lay out how pleadings are to be done. Similar rules exist for all Courts, although the numbering differs.

A Claim has to plead the facts that are alleged in a case. It’s not enough to simply make accusations. Instead, the person drafting the document has to lay out how they know these things to be true. There must also be sufficient particulars (a.k.a. “specifics”) so that the opposing side can understand the case they must address.

However, Galati doesn’t do that in a lot of his cases. He’ll make plenty of allegations, but won’t provide the necessary information so that they can be addressed. This is (partly) why so many of his cases get struck by the Courts.

If a pleading can’t be written in a coherent and intelligible manner, the Court will either order it to be redone, or possibly throw it out altogether.

4. Many Claims Outside Jurisdiction Of Civil Court

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

Both the Action4Canada suit and the Federal case were struck in part because they sought remedies that no Civil Court can realistically grant. This includes rulings based on international agreements, criminal allegations, and scientific declarations.

It’s worth pointing out that the pending Motion to Strike in the Vaccine Choice Canada suit is being brought partially for the same reasons.

Instead of taking these rulings to heart, Galati is attempting to reargue them in this Ontario EMS workers case. He’s filing content that has specifically been tossed, and more than once. This Claim will be struck for the same reason.

5. Ontario EMS Literally A Clone Of Federal Lawsuit

Page 26 of Ontario EMS, Page 32 of Federal:

First paragraph in both versions:

Vaccines are apparently not really vaccines:

The tort of conspiracy:

Tort of intimidation:

From looking at the 2 Claims, a rough estimate would be that about 90% of the Federal worker case has been cut and pasted into the Ontario EMS one. Changes are minimal, and mostly cosmetic. Do clients know that they’re paying for second hand work? Do they know that Judges have already ruled on these issues?

6. Plaintiffs Being Recycled In This Suit?

Most people won’t remember that Police On Guard (POG) helped initiate an Application in Ontario back in April 2021. Like many of Galati’s cases, this has remained dormant since then. However, a few names stick out.

  • Matthew Blacklaws
  • Sgt. Julie Evans
  • Len Faul

These 3 are listed both in the stale-dated POG challenge, and in this Ontario EMS case. It’s unclear why this has happened.

Also, this more recent suit contains plenty of Plaintiffs listed simply as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”. As such, it’s often unclear who is a new litigant. This is a waste of everyone’s time. If you are coming to Court and asking for money, you need to identify yourself.

7. Sheer Number Of Parties Sued A Problem

To understand how much litigation would be involved, just consider how many parties have been sued. Granted, some can be represented by the same lawyer (such as a city and its Police Chief or Fire Chief). That said, there are going to be a lot of lawyers involved, and the costs will easily get into the 6 or 7 figures. Here is the list.

  1. HIS MAJESITY THE KING
  2. Solicitor General of Ontario
  3. Town of Ajax
  4. Town of Ajax Fire Department (Fire Chief Aaron Burridge) City of Cambridge
  5. City of Cambridge Fire Department (Fire Chief Brian Arnold)
  6. City of Greater Sudbury
  7. City of Guelph, City of Guelph Fire Department (Fire Chief Dave Elloway)
  8. City of Hamilton
  9. City of Hamilton Police
  10. City of Hamilton Police Chief (Frank Bergen)
  11. City of Hamilton Fire Department (Fire Chief David Cunliffe)
  12. City of Markham
  13. City of Markham Fire Department (Fire Chief Adam J. Grant)
  14. City of Mississauga
  15. City of Mississauga Fire Department (Fire Chief Deryn Rizzi)
  16. City of Ottawa
  17. City of Ottawa Police
  18. City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs)
  19. City of Ottawa Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Hutt)
  20. City of Pickering
  21. City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)
  22. City of Toronto
  23. City of Toronto Police
  24. City of Toronto Chief of Police (James Ramer)
  25. City of Toronto Fire Service (Fire Chief Matthew Pegg)
  26. Toronto District School Board
  27. Toronto Transit Commission
  28. Toronto Transit Commission Chair (Jon Burnside)
  29. City of Windsor
  30. City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)
  31. Town of Orangeville
  32. City of St. Catharines
  33. Regional Municipality of Durham
  34. York Region
  35. York Regional Police
  36. York Regional Police Chief (Jim MacSween)
  37. City of Niagara Falls
  38. Niagara Regional Police
  39. Niagara Regional Police Chief (Bryan MacCulloch)
  40. Town of Oakville
  41. Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault)
  42. Peel Region
  43. Peel Regional Police
  44. Peel Regional Police Chief (Nishan Duraiappah)
  45. Town of Whitby
  46. Town of Whitby Fire Department (Fire Chief Mike Hickey)
  47. Municipality of Leamington

For (somewhat) of a reference point, consider the $12.75 million defamation lawsuit that Galati brought on behalf of Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba against 23 parties. After it was dismissed as a SLAPP, they were ordered to pay over $1.1 million in costs. This suit could potentially top that.

It’s entirely possible that there will be 15-20 lawyers who show up to defend against this lawsuit. Plaintiffs need to know that cost awards can be very steep.

8. Similar Retainer Requirements For Both Cases

There was a $1,500 retainer fee to be represented in the Ontario EMS case, if this form is for real. Also, there’s a form available listing a $1,000 retainer for the Federal case.

A source who claimed to be friends with a Federal employee claimed that Plaintiffs were actually being charged $2,000 each to be represented. If this is true, then the 600+ employees would have handed over more than $1.2 million for fees.

9. Some Final Thoughts

This has been a rudimentary review of the most recent anti-lockdown suit. The pleadings are seriously defective, and it will never make it to Trial.

And again, it’s essentially a copy and paste version of the Federal Claim that was recently struck. Clients aren’t just paying for secondhand work. Instead, they’re paying for secondhand work that has already been thrown out by the Federal Court, and the B.C. Supreme Court.

Claims that are found to be “bad beyond argument” don’t suddenly become valid simply because they are refiled in another jurisdiction.

Anyhow, most readers are probably aware by now that this site has been sued for millions of dollars, simply for exposing the anti-lockdown grifts that are going on in Canadian Courts. For some strange reason, people seem to think that it’s a “private” matter to publicly solicit donations for these lawsuits. This article will likely lead to another suit because of “muh racism”, or something.

If the Ontario EMS case ever is heard in Court, updates will be provided.

ONTARIO EMS WORKERS:
(1) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

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

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

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

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Federal Court Ruling Confirms Lack Of Jurisdiction In Most Employment Matters

The Federal Court of Canada has confirmed a decision that Court lacks jurisdiction with many employment matters due to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA.

While this isn’t specifically related to vaccine passports, there is overlap with the reasons this case was thrown out.

Dreena Davis works for the RCMP Employee & Management Relations Office Workplace Responsibility Unit, as an Internal Conflict Management Practitioner. The problems go back to 2017, and the specifics are beyond the scope of this article.

As a side note: it’s always interesting to see someone self-representing, as was the case here. Just because lawyers are involved, it doesn’t mean they are worth the expense.

From the ruling:

[24] On January 14, 2022, the Defendant moved to strike the claim on the basis that: (i) the essential character of the Plaintiff’s claims are employment issues which are regulated by an exclusive labour relations regime, therefore pursuant to section 236 of the Act the Plaintiff has no right of action; (ii) the Plaintiff’s recourse is to grieve each of her employment-related allegations and proceed with those grievances until their final resolution, as to do otherwise would create a parallel system; (iii) if there are allegations relating to her dissatisfaction with administrative decisions then the proper remedy is judicial review of any final decision after proceeding through the complaints process; and (iv) the claim is an abuse of process as the Plaintiff is seeking to make a collateral attack on administrative findings.

[25] In response to the motion to strike, the Plaintiff submits that “Part 2 of the [Act] does not apply to the excluded and unrepresented employees due to the Legislative error.” She alleges that legislative error occurred in 2003 when Parliament attempted to import the excluded and unrepresented employees into the Act by changing the definition of an “employee”. She submits that the grounds of the Defendant’s motion relating to the complete code as comprised in the Act, including section 236, are therefore “moot” because the Act does not apply to unrepresented employees on the basis of this legislative error.

[26] The Plaintiff further submitted in response that “there is no grievance procedure for the unrepresented employee within the RCMP”. She requests that the Court use its residual discretion on the basis that harassment and systemic negligence constitute extraordinary circumstances. The Plaintiff alleges that the grievance process was a sham and corrupt, as was the grievance system generally. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requested that she be able to apply in the appropriate forum.

In fairness, there were issues with the drafting itself, but those can often be fixed by amendment, or by redrafting.

What’s odd is that the Plaintiff appeared to be following the right steps originally. She filed a harassment complaint with the RCMP in December 2018 (paras 11 and 12), but didn’t like the decision. Afterwards, she filed a grievance over the outcome in March 2020, which was escalated internally (paras 13 and 14). June 2021, the grievance was denied.

After that, she filed an Application for Judicial Review in July 2021, in order to quash the earlier findings. This would have been the correct step, if there were issues to look at.

Bizarrely, Davis discontinued the Notice of Application on September 3, 2021, and filed a Statement of Claim on the 9th. Perhaps she found the scope available from an Application was too narrow.

March 2022, there was a hearing, as the RCMP tried to have the case thrown out. While the Claim was “unfocused, argumentative, and convoluted” (para 32), the fatal error came when the Associate Judge ruled that Section 236 of the FPSLRA meant the Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Claim was struck.

A review was sought, and this week a Judge concluded that there was no reversible error. The Federal Court wasn’t able to hear the Claim because of Section 236 of the FPSLRA.

From the ruling, it’s clear that there was some grievance process in place, and that she did make use of it. But the Courts typically don’t get involved in such employment matters.

Davis had also questioned whether the Associate Judge had been accommodating enough to her as a self-represented litigant. The response was that she had been.

Again, this isn’t a vaccine passport case, but there are parallels with the issues. If there is legislation or a collective bargaining agreement in place, there can be virtually no access to the Courts. While she may not have been part of a union, there were other options available, and she used them, the Court found.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

And on the topic of lockdown measures, including vaxx passes….

RECENT LOCKDOWN CASES (LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE BY ANY MEANS)
(A) Ontario Court Rules 12 Year Old Cannot Be Forced To Take Vaxx
(B) Case Thrown Out When Judge “Takes Judicial Notice”
(C) BCSC Throws Out 4 Cases Involving Vaccine Passport
(D.1) Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”
(D.2) Federal Court Vaccine Passport Challenges All Struck As “Moot”
(E) University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Pass Challenge Thrown Out For “Mootness”
(F) NS Court Of Appeals On Strang’s Ban On Public Gatherings
(G) AB Court Of Appeals Confirms HCW Can Deny Care For Unvaxxed
(H) University Of Western Ontario, And Their Vaxx Pass Getting Upheld
(I) BCSC Throws Out Quesnel Case, Arbitration Mandated As Solution
(J.1) CSASPP Lawsuit Approaching Certification For Class Action Status
(J.2) CSASPP Certification Hearing Videos Now Available Online
(J.3) CSASPP Certification Hearings To Resume In April 2023

(K) UCalgary Prof Files CHRT Complaint To Bring Back Masks On Planes

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Pass Case Struck As “Embarrassing” And “Bad Beyond Argument” (Another Galati Special)

In a decision that should surprise no one, a Federal Court Judge has ruled that a lawsuit was so poorly written that it was impossible to answer. (See archive and CanLII).

Justice Simon Fothergill ruled “the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer.”

In short, the document was incoherent, filled with irrelevant material, and so disorganized that it was unreasonable to expect the Defendants to respond. But it gets much worse.

Approximately two thirds of the more than 600 Plaintiffs are permanently barred from taking legal action. The other third can still go ahead, but the case needs to be completely redone.

Broadly speaking, there are 2 different classes of Plaintiffs:
(1) Employees of the Federal Government, listed on Schedule A
(2) Employees of Federally regulated industries, listed on Schedule B

Federal employees are stopped by Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, workers employed by the Government are prohibited from filing lawsuits, and must seek other methods, such as arbitration.

Not only can they not turn to the Court, but it appears they passed on what few remedies were available, such as asking for exemptions, and going through the grievance process. And, if this retainer agreement is a valid document, it would mean they paid $1,000 each.

The Plaintiffs who are in Federally regulated industries can still theoretically proceed. But there are other significant problems.

Even if the case were allowed to proceed in its entirety, all Plaintiffs would have to be named properly. Close to 100 of them are “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”.

Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act state that litigants who want to challenge Government Orders and seek injunctive relief are required to do so by way of Application for Judicial Review. This lawsuit didn’t do that. Instead, a Statement of Claim was filed. That’s right, the wrong paperwork was filed to begin with.

There are a few possible remedies here. First, the Claim could be redone as an Application. Second, the portions pertaining to challenging the Order can be removed.

Beyond that, the challenge (regardless of format) would have to be completely rewritten. The Court found that it was seriously deficient, and pleaded so poorly that a response was impossible.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

As stated in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules.

This is a common problem is many of these cases. While there are accusations made everywhere, there are rarely (if ever) sufficient facts pled to allow a meaningful defence. Defendants are entitled to know what the case is that they must address.

As Justice Fothergill noted, it was “embarrassing” and “bad beyond argument”.

Surprisingly, things still go downhill.

In the Motion to Strike, the Defendants brought up the issue that large portions of this case were substantially similar (and sometimes identical) to the Action4Canada case that was thrown out last August. This includes:

  • allegations of criminal behaviour;
  • broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge;
  • and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity

Instead of Action4Canada accepting that certain remedies were beyond the scope of a Civil Court, the organization appealed. 6 months after that ruling (which allowed a rewrite), no amended Claim has been filed. It’s unclear if one ever will be.

Now the Action4Canada ruling has been used as a partial basis for throwing out the Federal case. Justice Fothergill also noted that the pleadings were just as bad here as with the other suit.

So, what will happen now? If the Action4Canada case is any indicator, there will be an Appeal filed with the Federal Court of Appeals. Nothing will never come of it, other than to waste time and money.

Do read the reasons given by Justice Fothergill. It’s mindboggling that such paperwork can be submitted and taken seriously. (See original Claim).

The outcome of this Federal case was predictable and it was far more than mere sloppiness. It takes considerable skill and effort to draft something this poorly.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaccine-passport-case-hears-motion-to-strike-claim/

Posted on

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearings To Resume In Late April

The Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy (CSASPP) has announced that the certification hearings for their Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government will pick up at the end of April.

CSASPP had been in Court from December 12-16, 2022, but things took much longer than expected. Consequently, all of the procedural issues had not been resolved by then.

As you may recall from watching our certification hearing footage we unfortunately ended up using more time than previously allocated within the five days of 12-16 December, 2022. The hearing therefore needed to be continued in the new year at the earliest that all parties’ calendars, including the Court’s, could be reconciled.

I am writing to advise you that the parties have made arrangements for the continuation of our certification hearing on 24 April, 2023, for five days before Justice Crerar again.

You will recall from the footage that there was some controversy over the nature of the relationship between the Public Health Officer and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The latter is an organization that the Deputy Provincial Health Officer has stated in the past under oath “is the scientific and operational arm of the PHO”.

Dr. Henry is now claiming that the BC CDC does not answer to her, but is in fact an independent program of the Provincial Health Services Authority. The PHSA is not named as a defendant in this proceeding. She needs this to be true because adding the BC CDC as a defendant would create additional delays and procedural obstacles that might mitigate the risk of accountability.

We will be making submissions upon resumption of our certification hearing that the relationship is as the Deputy Provincial Health Officer originally claimed, that the BC CDC is the scientific and operational arm of Dr. Henry.

In support of Dr. Henry’s position that they are apparently distinct her Deputy Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Brian Emerson, is now back peddling in a newly tendered affidavit asserting a material distinction. She will be relying upon this affidavit at the continuation of our certification hearing.

If Dr. Henry wishes to throw the BC CDC under the bus, she should seek leave from Justice Crerar to file a third party notice.

It appears that the plot is thickening, and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

The proceedings for the Certification Hearing thus far are available to watch by members of the public. It’s extremely rare for footage of Court hearings to be filmed, but this is an exceptional case. The public interest is huge.

Regarding the status update: it’s worth mentioning that the BCCDC Foundation is actually a registered charity that receives funding from big pharma. The B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority, or BCPHSA, is also a charity, and appears to be a private — or semi private — corporation. The structure of the Government is convoluted, to say the least.

In addition to advancing this lawsuit, many people want Bonnie Henry to be forced to take the witness stand. It’s one thing to give dictates at a press conference. It’s another to have to answer questions under oath. And she certainly has a lot to answer for.

Below are a significant portion of those documents. It’s not exhaustive, but should provide readers with much needed background information. These can be saved or duplicated at will.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2108/2022bcsc2108.html

Posted on

21 Months Later, No Progress In Police On Guard/ Children’s Health Defense Cases

It was reported back in July 2022 that 2 high profile anti-lockdown lawsuits in Canada hadn’t seemed to go anywhere in well over a year.

(a) bodily autonomy of police officers, organized by Police on Guard
(b) children’s rights and masks in Ontario schools, organized by Children’s Health Defense (Canada)

Both were filed in April 2021. After some initial hype in the alternative media, there were no updates to report. As we enter 2023, and approach the 2 year anniversary, it appears that there’s still nothing to write back about.

Even though (most) of the Respondents now are represented by lawyers, it looks like nothing has happened to the cases themselves. There have been no Motions, evidence sworn or hearings so far.

Interestingly, while no Motion to Strike has been brought, there was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request filed in May of 2021 for the CHDC case. That seems odd, as it isn’t really the best mechanism for getting such a case thrown out.

Both organizations are still asking for donations, and it’s implied that at least portions of those funds would be used towards these Court cases.

As is shown by the Court records, there are no previous Orders that have been handed down in either case. Nor are any hearings scheduled as of now.

Of course, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file#: (plug in the file number)

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

It’s worth noting that the POG Application and the CHDC Applications are almost identical. It’s as if one was cut-and-pasted into the other, with the facts and names changed.

Why keep reporting on this? Because they are public cases, and public donations are — still — being solicited. People have a right to know what’s happening, and what’s not happening.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

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

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

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

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

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada Makes First Court Appearance, 2 1/2 Years Later

Many had been wondering what had happened to that high profile case with Vaccine Choice Canada. After a highly publicized launch in 2020, and a fundraising blitz, details were scant. There was no progress shared with people because there was nothing to report.

Above is what shows now. Below is what it showed until recently.

Vaccine Choice Canada is finally in Court for its July 6, 2020 lawsuit. This is the case that generated nationwide attention across the alternative media. 2 1/2 years after it was filed, they were finally before a Judge. This was January 17, 2023. Many had been asking what the delay was about.

That’s right: 2 1/2 years to make a first appearance.

Of course, there’s Vaccine Choice’s other lawsuit that was filed in October of 2019. That’s been dormant for about 3 years, and hasn’t gone past the pleadings stage.

It wasn’t difficult to look for this. Anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE, by clicking the link to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Now for the bad news. This isn’t a Trial or anything. This wasn’t some major appearance, or famous international expert about to testify. It was an appearance to initiate a Motion to Strike (throw out) the pleadings as frivolous and vexatious.

For a more in-depth explanation of the pleading defects:
(a) Pleading Are Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial
(b) Was This Case Brought For Improper Purposes?
(c) Even More Errors In Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit

Why has this case sat dormant for years? That’s a great question, and something that the Plaintiffs have never given a meaningful answer to. They’ve never been able to explain any of the serious issues that are outlined above.

To be clear, this wasn’t the hearing that people might be expecting. Instead, this was a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session to set down dates. It took approximately 10 minutes. The real fun won’t happen for another year. There were 2 full days set aside: January 30 and February 1, 2024.

  • June 30, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30, February 1, 2024 – Hearing

In fairness, there may not be any cross examinations, since this Motion is supposed to just be questions of law. For these purposes, the allegations themselves may be largely irrelevant.

However, the sweeping accusations that fill the 191 page Claim may be a problem. Making such assertions without pleading a factual basis does tend to get cases struck. It was a major problem with Action4Canada.

On the topic of costs: when somebody sues a lot of people, often, a lot of lawyers will get involved. On January 17th, there were 5 of them representing various clients:

  1. Wajid Ahmed, Windsor-Essex County
  2. Nicola Mercer, County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
  3. City of Toronto, John Tory, Eileen De Villa
  4. Ontario Defendants
  5. Federal Defendants

For clarity, there were 5 lawyers at this appearance. There are many, MANY more names of the other paperwork. When this Claim is eventually struck, expect a stiff costs award.

The Motion is based on Rules 21.01 and 25 of Civil Procedure for Ontario. Quite simply, the Defendants want to throw the case out on a preemptive challenge.

Where Available
.
To Any Party on a Question of Law
.
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of Process
.
21.01 (1)(d) the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court

Striking out a Pleading or Other Document
.
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

That’s what this Motion is about: to throw the case out so that it never reaches Trial. And again, why has it taken 2 1/2 years to get to this point?

One possible explanation for this absurd delay is that many Parties may not have been served at the time, if they ever were at all. Looking at the Statement of Claim:

Those are all the service addresses listed. However, that’s not nearly all the people who were listed as Defendants. In fact, CBC claims that it wasn’t served, but only that they “obtained an unredacted copy” of the Statement of Claim. Now, CBC could be lying about that, but who knows?

Another question that frequently came up was why no effort to force Default Judgement ever took place. If the Defendants don’t respond, the Court can issue a ruling against them. At a minimum, it would force them to file replies in order to avoid such a decision.

Vaccine Choice Canada answers this (sort of) by claiming that they have an “undisclosed litigation strategy”, and that it’s not in their interest to release it. That comes across as extremely suspicious, to say the least.

Since July 6, 2020, all that’s happened is that Nicola Mercer filed a Statement of Defense, and that CBC was dropped as a Defendant when they threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion.

What’s the point of this anymore? Considering the overwhelming majority of the population has had the shots, and the damage of lockdowns is done, what’s to be accomplished?

Also, consider the ONTARIO LIMITATIONS ACT. Section 4 is the Basic Limitation Period. In short, people have 2 years to commence an Action, with some limited exceptions. Even if the Plaintiffs were to discontinue here, and file a new Claim — one that’s properly written — they may be barred by Statute. In short, they’ve run out the clock on themselves.

Let’s be blunt. The Vaccine Choice suits (actually, both of them) are so poorly drafted neither will ever get to Trial.

Remember Action4Canada, and their 391 page Notice of Civil Claim? It was struck in its entirety for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia. The same thing will happen here.

2 1/2 years, just to make a first appearance. Absurd.

Isn’t an explanation owed to members of the organization? What about to the various Plaintiffs? How about the donors who contributed in good faith?

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-24-sch-b/latest/so-2002-c-24-sch-b.html

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

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