Category: Procedural

Posted on

Will The VCC July 6, 2020 Suit Be Targeted Next?

As covered recently, Action4Canada’s rambling and incoherent suit was struck in its entirety by the B.C. Supreme Court. This was entirely predictable, as outlined here a year ago.

In a bit of a twist, the Judge didn’t completely throw the case out. He said that there were potentially valid issues. Instead, the pleadings were so shoddy that they had to be redone throughout.

Now, there’s another question to ask: will the July 6, 2020 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada be attacked next? It contains essentially the same serious defects as its counterpart. The Ontario Attorney General could make use of the A4C ruling to bolster a coming Motion to Strike.

Even back in November 2020, it was obvious that nothing was going to happen.

In addition to the above concerns, there are some others to look at:

1. Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute

In this context “failure to prosecute” means a failure to advance the case. The person(s) or group that initiates proceedings (Plaintiff, Applicant, Moving Party, Appellant, etc…) have an obligation to keep the case moving and active. With Vaccine Choice specifically, the suit was filed on July 6, 2020, and sat inactive for more than 2 years. True, CBC has been released as a Defendant, and Nicola Mercer has filed a Statement of Defense. However, others could try to get a dismissal for inactivity.

Rule 24 of Civil Procedure outlines a number of reasons to dismiss for delay, and gives a guideline of 6 months. It’s unclear though how strongly this is enforced.

It has to be asked why there was no attempt to secure a Default Judgement if other other side wasn’t responding. Had they not all been served? CBC claims — or at least implies — they weren’t.

2. Motion To Dismiss For “Mootness” Of Issues

According to Nicola Mercer’s SoD, paragraphs 25 and 26, the issue of various Orders is “moot” because they have long since expired. In the legal world, mootness means irrelevance, as these are issues that the Court can no longer try.

Think of it this way: would it make sense to go to Family Court for child custody once they are adults? Probably not.

Granted, the Plaintiffs can always ask for an injunction to prevent similar Orders in the future. However, it speaks volumes that the case was allowed to sit for years. Obviously, there was no real effort or urgency in getting them thrown out. The suit may well get tossed (at least in part) for this.

3. Dismissal Under Statute Of Limitations

Typically, there are time limits regarding how long a person can go to Court to seek a remedy. The reasoning goes that it isn’t beneficial to litigate ancient wrongs after a certain point. While there are exceptions, the Ontario Limitations Act, Section 4, specifies 2 years for most things. This is referred to as the “Basic Limitation Period“.

Why does this matter? Because the Statute of Limitations is typically an absolute bar to proceedings. The Vaccine Choice Canada case clearly isn’t going anywhere. If any of the Plaintiffs were to discontinue, and then refile elsewhere, they would be prevented from bringing issues over 2 years old.

In essence, this has been a great way to run out the clock.

4. Dismissal As Suit Brought For Improper Purposes

This should be obvious, but the only reason someone is allowed to file a lawsuit is to take it to Trial. The person(s) has to believe that there is a strong case, and that it can be won on the merits.

By contrast, the July 13, 2022 livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada suggests other motivations at play. Justifications such as “taking a shot across the bow” or of “educating the public”, or of “getting a response” are offered up. Problem is: all of this is illegal. None of these are valid reasons to sue. It’s entirely possible the lawsuit could be thrown out just based on these statements.

In that livestream, it’s asserted that Summary Judgement will be sought against the Defendants. That’s funny. This is when a Judge determines that either there’s not valid defense, or a valid case. If anything, this would be used in favour of throwing out the suit.

There has been boasting that this suit was “leverage” to implement mask exemptions. Action4Canada makes similar statements with respect to their suit. It’s hard to see how, given how poorly the Claims were written. Even if true, it’s not a valid reason to file.

5. Dismissal Over Potential Conflict Of Interest

An observant person might notice a few other things.

(Page 24) April 20, 2021 Application Of Various Police Officers
(Page 20) April 20, 2021 Application Against Masks On School Children

This is potentially a serious problem. Denis Rancourt is listed as an expert witness in 2 Applications filed in 2021. He’s also a Plaintiff in the above Vaccine Choice suit. A Judge likely wouldn’t view him as an impartial expert witness if he has an interest in a related matter. Yes, his background is impressive, but this still wouldn’t sit well.

Worth noting, both Applications above could probably be dismissed as well for delay, mootness, and failure to prosecute. They’ve been inactive since April 2021.

Would it be nice to see the Courts completely and permanently block these medical martial law measures? Absolutely it would. However, these are clearly not the cases that will do that. These are nothing more than money pits.

People really need to ask the hard questions, such as: (a) how much money has been raised; and (b) where has it gone?

Will the Ontario Attorney General go after the July 6, 2020 VCC case?

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

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

Posted on

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Here is the latest on the (second) Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, filed July 6, 2020.

This website has been about the only media outlet that has fully and truthfully reported on a number of high profile “anti-lockdown” lawsuits. Despite the hype surrounding them — and the endless requests for donations — there is stunningly little to report.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that nothing has been happening. According to the Ontario Court, these are all the documents that are available as of today, August 24, 2022.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

After more than 2 years, all that has happened is that: (a) there was a Notice of Discontinuance against the CBC (removing them from the case); and (b) Nicola Mercer, MOH for the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, filed a Statement of Defense.

CBC implied in August 2020 that they were never served. They said they “obtained an unredacted copy”, which implies they contacted the Court directly. This is not proper service, and doesn’t start the 20 day time limit. Now, they threaten to bring a SLAPP Motion?! When were they served?

Interestingly, the Affidavit of Service came from Nicola Mercer’s lawyer when serving the Statement of Defense. There doesn’t appear to be any Affidavits of Service from the Plaintiffs for the Statement of Claim. Therefore, it’s a fair question to ask who has actually been served.

Considering the Claim is missing most service addresses, that alone may open it up to procedural challenges.

Here are a few points from Mercer’s Statement of Defense:

  • A “good faith” defense is raised with respect to issuing orders
  • There are statutory provisions to allow for such orders
  • Mercer was following the so-called scientific consensus
  • Mercer relies on a provision granting immunity
  • Paragraphs 25 and 26 say that all orders have expired, and that the issue is moot.

That last point is of particular concern. By doing nothing for 2 years, the Defendants, or at least this one, can now say there’s no issue, as the orders are over. “Moot” in the legal sense refers to something that has already been resolved, and thus, there’s no reason to bring to Court.

In essence, Mercer claims (as one defense) that so much time has elapsed, the issue of the various orders is no longer relevant.

This site covered the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits. It was described in great detail how both Claims were horribly defective, and likely to be thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

This wasn’t designed to smear or defame anyone. Instead, these critiques were meant to be brutally honest reviews about what was wrong with the pleadings. They were drafted so poorly that it was difficult to view this as anything other than intentional.

This is from a recent stream. Don’t worry, more is available:

The above clips are from Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 13, 2022 livestream. Quotes from these are very revealing as to what’s really been going on.

  • “Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides…. There’s [more to] the impact of your legal proceedings than simply what happens within the Court.”
  • “It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds.”
  • “We brought awareness to a dynamic that was hidden from the public.”
  • “I would suggest that maybe this was the most important impact we had to date.”
  • “The VCC case was initiated as a shot across the bow.”
  • “It was aimed at [mandatory vaccines and mask exemptions]”.
  • “As soon as we filed, they quickly back-peddled in Ontario and put in regulations that allowed for masking exemptions, in the wording we were advocating for.”
  • “This is not Hollywood. Constitutional issues are not always resolved in the Courtroom.”
  • “They’re resolved by pre-emptive action that makes the Government have a sober second thought.”
  • “It’s not as if the VCC challenge has had no effect, particularly in Ontario.”
  • “A lot of the issues being raised in the umbrella challenge are not being pursued [within other challenges].”

These video clips are essentially admissions that the July 6, 2020 lawsuit was brought for reasons other than to diligently pursue a Trial. Pretty moronic. It’s obvious from the total lack of progress that there was never any urgency in bringing this forward.

Yes, other people have filed lawsuits with ulterior motives in the past. Others will do so in the future. But few are dumb enough to brag on a livestream that this is what was really happening.

It takes a special kind of stupid to admit this. While the Ontario Attorney General could always file a Motion to strike (for a variety of reasons), this makes it much easier. Beyond that, filing lawsuits with no intention to pursue them could lead to serious issues with the Law Society of Ontario, or whichever Province one practices in.

It’s unclear how this July 6, 2020 case was used to “leverage” anything out of the Ford Regime. It was written in such a disjointed manner, and contained so much irrelevant information, it would have been easy to get struck. This isn’t a document that would shake and scare the A.G.’s Office. It’s the kind of rant that would make most lawyers laugh.

Supposedly, there is some larger “litigation strategy” that Vaccine Choice refuses to disclose. This is a massive bait-and-switch. In the Summer of 2020, there was a fundraising blitz undertaken to raise cash for this ground breaking suit. This comes across as extremely unethical.

Many people donated in good faith to these lawsuits, believing that proceeding to Trial was the ultimate goal. But that apparently isn’t the case.

In the Summer of 2021, new talking points emerged about there being “Affidavits of evidence” that totaled in the thousands of pages. However, they haven’t been filed anywhere, if they even exist. A likely explanation is that this was done to quell concerns about the complete lack of activity.

And now that the various orders are (for now, at least) gone, it wouldn’t take much to get the case tossed for mootness. This 2 year delay made this possible.

Also, consider the Action4Canada case as a reference point. Brief responses were filed by the Defendants, followed by Applications to Strike. The B.C. Attorney General’s Office argued that the the long delays were used to drive up donations, while making no real progress. It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 session that over $750,000 had been raised. Currently, Judgement is reserved on various Applications to strike that suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

All of this was laid out last August.
Vindication is bittersweet.

It’s not a stretch to see the Vaccine Choice Canada case going down that same path. The much longer delay is curious, and again raises questions of when Defendants were actually served.

The admissions that the July 6 case was a “shot across the bow”, or done “as pre-emptive action”, or done “to educate the public”, make it clear there were other agendas at play.

Donors should demand their money back, and Vaccine Choice really needs to open up the books for public inspection.

Now, about those rumours….

It’s not really a secret that this website (and anyone directly or indirectly associated) was sued last year for $7,000,000. The main issue was reporting the observation that it didn’t appear these anti-lockdown suits were ever meant to go to Trial. The problems, including defects with the pleadings themselves, were covered in great detail. More on that another time.

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

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

Posted on

Kulvinder Gill’s Other Frivolous Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit

Regular readers of this site will likely remember a $12.75 million lawsuit brought in late 2020 by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. They attempted to bankrupt and destroy 23 people and media outlets, largely over mean words on Twitter. Thankfully, sanity prevailed, and the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. (Ruling here).

Yes, Twitter is a cesspool, but this was ridiculous.

As it turns out, however, this isn’t the only time Gill has tried something like this. In March 2021, she filed a $7 million lawsuit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa, over much the same things.

Note: although the court search shows $5 million as the total, a read through the Statement of Claim makes it clear that it’s actually $7 million being sought.

To avoid confusion, these are the 2 lawsuits:
Case #1: Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al (dismissed as SLAPP)
Case #2: Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa (open, but dormant)

The first case was for $12.75 million, and the second for another $7 million. It takes a serious ego trip to think that words on Twitter are worth around $20 million.

Now, what were the specific defamatory statements for the second case?

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

No joke. Those are the statements provided from Attaran. In terms of raw content, this is far, FAR weaker than the last case, which was thrown out.

Think this is worth $7 million?

This apparently came from Attaran, who is a faculty member at the University of Ottawa. So, by extension, the school itself must be on the hook as well. Yeah, that’s not an abuse of the legal system in any way.

The big case with Gill and Lamba suing 23 parties was thrown out as a SLAPP, and never made it to trial. Here’s a brief quote from the Courts of Justice Act of Ontario, explaining the rationale behind having this option for certain types of cases.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
.
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
.
Purposes
.
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
.
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

It should be noted that there’s no qualification as to what opinions are allowed in the public arena. Provided the statements relate to topics of a public interest, virtually anything can be given protections. It’s also a very low burden to qualify as being “of a public concern”.

Here’s a simplified explanation of SLAPP:

(1) Defendants file a motion, and they must meet the “threshold burden”. This is to convince a Judge that it relates to matters of public interest.

(2) Afterwards, the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs, who must meet 3 tests in order to keep the case alive. If even one branch is failed, the lawsuit is dismissed. They must demonstrate that:

(a) There is substantial merit to the case;
(b) There are no reasonable defenses available; and
(c) There is greater interest in reputation than protecting the expression, even if the case does meet the minimum requirements for defamation

SLAPP legislation is meant to prevent people from using the Courts as a weapon to forcibly silence discussion on public interest issues. Simple name calling or insults don’t qualify. In the previous case, the Plaintiffs couldn’t even meet a single part of that test.

This case with Attaran and the University of Ottawa would almost certainly be tossed for the same reasons. The Court won’t take a Twitter spat seriously for the purposes of handing out millions of dollars.

That being said, it appears that there are no real efforts underway to force that case to trial. Nothing has been filed since the Notice of Intent back in June 2021. The case has been dormant for over a year. It’s unclear what the purpose of filing it was, since there wasn’t even any publicity concerning it.

It’s also worth pointing out that “full indemnity” is the default result of a successful SLAPP motion. What this means is that if the case is dismissed, the Defendants are entitled to 100% of their costs. According to sources from the last case, it cost about $1.3 million to defend 23 Defendants. It’s unclear how much it would cost Attaran and the University of Ottawa to do the same thing.

This is just a hunch, but the University of Ottawa probably has insurance to cover such things. What a great use of student fees.

One more thing: this upcoming case with Attaran won’t go anywhere in the foreseeable future as Gill likely doesn’t have representation at this point. Court searching also showed that Gill and Lamba are taking action against their lawyers from the last case. The amount is $5,672.66, presumably what they are out of pocket already, or at least a portion of it.

Gill and Lamba are likely also outraged at being abandoned during their appeal of the February 2022 ruling. But it all fairness, it never had a chance. And when it’s eventually dismissed, it will just add to the costs from the Trial Court.

Granted, Gill and Lamba appear to have gotten horrible legal advice for the 2 lawsuits (Lamba was only involved in the first). Still, reasonable and well educated people shouldn’t be doing such things, so it’s difficult to have much sympathy for them.

Strange, even the “alternative” media doesn’t cover these things.

Now, this is just an opinion, but people who act this way probably shouldn’t be in positions of power or influence. If some mean words is enough to cause someone to attempt to destroy or bankrupt another, then they don’t have the temperament or self control needed.

In other news: members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE in Ontario as to the updates on such cases. British Columbia has COURT SEARCH ONLINE, but that’s behind a paywall. 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 numbers provided

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

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

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Notice of Intent filed September 2020. No movement at all since.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

Good thing there are people who will put in the effort to bring the real truth out to the public. Virtually no media outlets do that.

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

(4) https://canucklaw.ca/kulvinder-gills-frivolous-and-vexatious/
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(6) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(7) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do

Posted on

Canadian Bill Of Rights: Why Bother With The Charter?

The Canadian Charter of Rights is regularly mocked and ridiculed because of its built-in defects. For examples, there’s Section 1, which allows for the “reasonable limitations” on those rights. However, it’s a bit baffling why the Bill of Rights wouldn’t be the default laws to rely on in major court cases, when it comes to Constitutional matters.

It makes little sense to launch any challenge when not using the strongest laws available. Is the goal to lose on purpose?

Section 1, in principle, seems fine, as it’s governed by the Oakes Test:

The Government must established something is “pressing and substantial.” While this is often not difficult, there’s a 3 part test that follows.

  • The remedy sought must be RATIONALLY connected to the purpose
  • The remedy sought must create a LIMITED IMPAIRMENT to society
  • The remedy sought must be PROPORTIONATE, and not overreaching

Sounds fine in principle. However, the last few years have shown that Judges are all too willing to bend the rules for some abstract sense of the “greater good”. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have this.

In fairness, it’s rather naive to trust laws and politicians. However, switching to the Bill would remove an obvious weakness.

Preamble
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

PART I
Bill of Rights
Marginal note: Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
.
1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
.
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.

2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to:
.
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
(b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,
(ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or
(iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;
(d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

The above sections are similar to the Charter in regards to: fundamental freedoms (Section 2); security of the person (Section 7); unreasonable search and seizure (Section 8); arbitrary detention (Sections 9 & 10); rights in criminal proceedings (Section 11); and cruel and unusual punishment (Section 12). Again, there’s no loophole which allows a court to simply suspend those rights.

There’s also no Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause, to allow Parliament to simply legislate blatantly unconstitutional things into law. However, the start of Part 2 may be seen as one.

There is also this at the end: “(3) The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.” Therefore, it may not apply to Provincial matters.

An interesting video from last year, from a lawyer with a different opinion.

Just something to think about.

(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/download-order-charter-bill/canadian-charter-rights-freedoms-eng.pdf
(3) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spvrch5mmnc

Posted on

Police On Guard Case: Nothing Since Filing 15 Months Ago

You probably haven’t heard any concrete or specific updates from Notice Of Application concerning the lawsuit that was filed in April 2021. The most likely reason is that nothing has happened in the 15 months since the initial Notice of Application.

Why continue to follow up? A few reasons. First, knowing the truth about these publicly funded cases is important. After all, people have donated. Second, so that false hope isn’t attached to cases that will never go anywhere. Third, it’s not just the obvious people whose activities need to be monitored.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched.

Recently, a follow-up article showed that Vaccine Choice Canada’s lawsuits (both of them) had been dormant since 2020.

As for some detailed critiques of various challenges, see here and here for some of the more obvious flaws and defects. How does this happen, unless intentionally?

Another Notice Of Application was filed in April 2021, concerning masks on students in Ontario schools. The 2 documents are virtually identical, suggesting a cut-and-paste creation for the second. And likewise, there’s no activity going on, nor anything in the foreseeable future.

Again, 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# CV-20-00643451-0000

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

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

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. No movement at all since Statement of Claim filed.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

There had been claims floating around starting in 2021 about affidavits of evidence that totaled in the thousands of pages. Problem is: if they actually exist, they haven’t been filed anywhere. One possible explanation is that this was deliberate deception to soothe over the concerns of donors with the lack of record activity.

Apparently a new suit has been filed in Federal Court. (Archive is here). While not written well, it’s nowhere near as bad as some of the other Claims. It’s only been a month, so too soon to determine where that goes. However, if recent history is any indication, it will likely sit for months or years with no activity.

To readers who have donated to these “lawsuits”: you may want to seriously consider demanding a refund. It seems very unlikely that this is what you thought was really going on.

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada Suit: 2 Years Later, No Defenses Filed

Word is that Vaccine Choice Canada is supposed to have a live online meeting to discuss various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Presumably, their highly publicized case from July 6, 2020 will be covered. This is Ontario Superior Court (Toronto) #CV-20-00643451-0000. Word is trickling through social media right now about it.

Just a prediction, but there probably won’t be many (if any) specifics given about this case. The meeting will be bland. There’ll likely be vague statements about “making progress”, or the suit “working it’s way through the system”. So, let’s get into some specifics.

The problem is: this case has been sitting dormant for the last 2 years. There have been no defenses filed, no motions, applications, hearings, or anything else.

The above screenshots from the court search are from today. They aren’t old.

For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched. Other information can be found here.

Other than Windsor-Essex County and their Medical Officer of Health, none of the other defendants even have representation listed. CBC, for their part, claims they weren’t served, but just “obtained an unredacted copy”. This implies they got it from the Court itself.

According to the Toronto Court, the only other item on file is a Notice of Intent to Defend, from Windsor-Essex County. That was filed September 30, 2020.

Yes, there was a moratorium on filing deadlines. That expired on September 14, 2020, so there’s no reason not to have sent anything afterwards.

There are serious questions that need to be answered. Has everyone even been served? Why are most service addresses missing? How come no one filed a defense? How come none of the major parties even have representation? And why was it written so poorly?

Additionally, claims have been made that various affidavits of evidence have been filed, and they amount to the thousands of pages. Problem is, they likely don’t exist. One phone call to the Toronto Court confirmed that no such documents are on record.

Considering no one ever filed a defense, why was no effort to seek a default judgement ever undertaken? There’s nothing on file to indicate that any attempt was made. This is something that even self-represented litigants would know about.

Now, the argument has been made that no one besides parties to the case have the right to dig into this. This is disingenuous. Considering that the public is constantly on the receiving end of requests donations, it’s fair to inquire where the money has gone, and what’s been happening. Rumour has it that several million dollars has already been raised for this lawsuit.

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

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

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

And again, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE 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.

Since everything is filed online these days, the Court staff can send emails with pdf attachments of case documents (if originally sent electronically). It’s incredibly easy to get ahold of such information.

If this really is such an urgent case, why has nothing happened in 2 years?

Vaccine Choice Canada also has another suit from October 2019. This is Ontario Superior Court (Toronto) #CV-19-00629810-0000. It has to do with vaccinating students in Ontario schools. The pleadings closed in March 2020, and it seems nothing has happened since. It also appears to have been financed with public contributions.

Also, consider that according to Rule 24 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, a case can be dismissed for delay if everyone hasn’t been served within 6 months, or if it’s been stagnant for 6 months. Both of these lawsuits would qualify under that Rule.

Note: This was published November 2020 (4 months after the initial filing). It’s been followed up on several times since. Even back then it was apparent that this “groundbreaking” lawsuit would go nowhere.

People who donated money should be asking these questions. And those who took the funds really need to come clean on what’s been happening. Clearly, no lawsuit(s) is/are being advanced.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/
(3) https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/resources/vcc-live-calendar/
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-charter-challenge-1.5680988
(5) https://twitter.com/1dariuszj/status/1546901658436714496
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-unredacted-version.pdf
(8) https://twitter.com/VaccineChoiceCA/status/1546664225875152898