Procedural Archives - Page 11 of 19

July 12, 2022July 31, 2022

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

June 1, 2022July 31, 2022

Action4Canada Finally Has Hearing Over Application To Strike

May 31, 2022: Action4Canada finally had a hearing over its August 17, 2021 lawsuit against the B.C. Government, Canadian Government, and various other named and unnamed parties. The decision is reserved, and will be issued sometime in the future.

This session was based on multiple applications filed by Defendants to strike the pleadings as being frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and otherwise an abuse of process.

Striking differs from dismissing in that the Court is not being asked to make a determination on the merits. Instead, the documents themselves are challenged. In this case, it was argued that the 391 page Statement of Claim was so convoluted and poorly written, that it was impossible to determine what the case was.

As painful as this is to admit, they’re not wrong about this.

Without completely rehashing the original assessment, here are the major parts of the civil procedure that are worth noting:

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 — 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.

This isn’t hard. Broadly speaking, a lawsuit must do 3 things:
[1] Briefly set out the facts as alleged
[2] Set out what remedies are being sought
[3] Briefly list what important laws will be relied on

Instead of following these simple rules, a 391 page mess was dropped on the Courts last year. Even someone researching for the last 2 years would have considerable difficulty following along.

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.

In short, the Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs failed to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading, as laid out in Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for B.C. The remedy sought was to strike the case, as outlined in Rule 9-5.

There is considerable vindication for the previous critique of this lawsuit, for what it’s worth. One doesn’t have to be lawyer to see how plain and obvious the defects are.

Yes, there was a considerable amount of truth in the Statement of Claim. However, it was such an incomprehensible mess that it would be next to impossible to sift through. While a bitter pill to swallow, the various Defendants had valid reasons to try to strike it. That’s what any sensible person would have done in that position.

At the hearing, the Government lawyers essentially argued the points in the Notices of Application, outlining why this Claim was so poorly written.

The issues with the Claim:

It is 391 pages long
It has over 1300 paragraphs and subparagraphs
It seeks over 200 declarations
Its rambling and disjointed nature makes it difficult to follow along
It’s impossible to separate fact from speculation or conjecture
It contains mostly irrelevant or redundant material
It goes on at length about non-parties
It seeks criminal remedies (improper for a civil case)
It seeks the kind of international relief a B.C. Judge can’t provide
Its tone comes across as unhinged and ranting

The Claim contains many footnotes from various media sources, which is improper to include in a lawsuit. While the content is interesting, that alone could lead to the Claim being struck.

The Governments also argued that the case was brought for improper purposes, such as causing harassment to various Officials. As proof, they introduced the Notices of Liability that had been downloaded from the Action4Canada website.

It was confirmed that Action4Canada had raised in excess of $750,000 for this case. It was pointed out that despite this amount of money, there was no activity besides the convoluted Statement of Claim.

Action4Canada accepts no responsibility or liability for any harms or losses that occur as result of delivering this notice. If you do not agree to these terms then please do not use this notice. We do not make any representations or warranties about the potential consequences of delivering this Notice of Exemption/Non-Consent (eg. removal of child from a private school). A parent/legal guardian must decide what is in the best interest of their child.

It’s darkly amusing that there is a portion on the website that explicitly states Action4Canada assumes no responsibility or liability for using their forms.

The Responding Parties (Plaintiffs) essentially had one main argument: a case shouldn’t be thrown out just because it’s complicated or difficult. People reading this article should see the Claim itself, and come to their own conclusions.

The Plaintiff’s arguments for the Application (overall) actually weren’t that bad. However, considering how shoddily the Claim was written, there’s likely no saving it.

The Application was supposed to have been heard on February 3rd, 2022, but an alleged illness from the Plaintiff’s lawyer pushed that back until April 5th. That was again delayed for medical reasons. Interestingly, it was admitted that the only reason it was heard on May 31st was that the Defendants’ lawyers refused to consent to further extensions of time. Perhaps they thought a 4 month delay was long enough.

It’s still unclear why co-counsel Lawrence Wong couldn’t have taken the case. He is a B.C. lawyer with 35 years experience, and was called to the Bar in 1987.

One has to wonder what’s even the point at this stage. Even on the remote chance this suit were successful, what good comes from it? It’s been 2 years, and some 90% or so of the country has taken the shots (for a non-existent virus). Was the goal to run out the clock?

Do the Plaintiffs not know that they will be on the hook for very substantial Court costs once this case is thrown out?

It was interesting that the B.C. Government referenced the recent defamation case of Kulvinder Gill. This was a $12.75 million lawsuit filed in late 2020. It was found to be completely baseless, and dismissed as a SLAPP, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Side note on that case: despite the suit being thrown out as having no merit, a Notice of Appeal was filed. However, it seems that the Appeal Books themselves never arrived. On May 12, 2022, the Registrar’s Office issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay. The new deadline was May 31. The Respondents/Defendants say they still received nothing, so, presumably that Appeal is over as well. It’s alleged that getting the original SLAPP decision cost over $1.3 million, or about $55,000 for each Defendant. If this is true, Gill and Lamba will have to dig deep.

As for the Vaccine Choice Canada suit from July 6th, 2020, that’s going nowhere as well. It’s been left to sit for 2 years, and can be dismissed for delay at any time. No Default Judgement was ever sought. This is in addition to many other serious defects. The Police On Guard and schools cases could probably also be dismissed for delay, as they’ve each sat dormant for over a year.

The B.C. Court has reserved the decision (deferred it), and this is pretty typical. It’s unknown when the ruling will be handed down for Action4Canada, and the other Plaintiffs.

Prediction: the Action4Canada case will be struck in its entirety, without leave (permission) to amend. We can expect appeals after that, though it would be far more productive to have just done a proper Claim from the beginning.

It’s disheartening to have to cover content like this. That said, far too few people do any due diligence before handing over money. And many don’t seem to care even when the facts are laid bare.

It’s curious that none of the “freedom lawyers” will call out the nonsense that others put out, no matter how poorly written. What, is there some gentlemen’s agreement in place?

Of course, the requests for donations are still ongoing, which isn’t surprising. Despite the fact that this case is supposedly 100% funded, Action4Canada continues to ask for money. And when the Claim is struck, there will probably be more requests for help to finance appeals.

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
(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

OTHER
(11) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/delay-prevents-action4canada-case-from-being-immediately-thrown-out/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-case-to-be-put-off-indefinitely/
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-of-Appeal-and-Appellants-Certificate-Gill.pdf
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Gill-and-Lamba-Appeal-Notice-of-Intention-to-Dismiss-Appeal-for-Delay.pdf
(18) https://action4canada.com/covid-liability-notices/
(19) https://action4canada.com/court-update-may-31-2022/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/

April 8, 2022July 31, 2022

Action4Canada Case To Be Put Off Indefinitely

This is a follow-up to the Action4Canada lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, back in August 2021. This comes after a year of begging and panhandling for money.

So, did the donors get their money’s worth? Not at all.

Far from being the work of legal experts, the final product was nearly 400 pages and extremely disjointed. It demanded millions of dollars, cited non-Canadian laws, demanded international remedies, went on tirades against non-parties, and was mostly comprised of irrelevant material. This Claim wasn’t just poorly done, but must have taken considerable effort to mangle in such a way. See the earlier review on exactly what was wrong with it.

As an extra layer of absurdity, the lawyers who wrote this piece of work have about 70 years of combined experience between them. This wasn’t done by Articling students or interns.

In a move that was entirely foreseeable, the Defendants filed Applications to strike out the Statement of Claim in its entirety. It’s also alleged that the Notices of Liability available to download were being used to harass public officials, and drive up donations.

The hearing was supposed to take place on February 3rd, concerning those Applications. It was expected to last most of a day.

That got pushed back to April 5th, due to an alleged serious illness from counsel.

However, that April 5th hearing never happened. According to the Court staff, the hearing has been postponed indefinitely. There is currently no date set down to review the Application. There’s also no indication or tentative date as to when things will progress.

It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong can’t represent the Plaintiffs for the Application. He is a B.C. lawyer, and was called to the Bar in 1987. Presumably he’s capable of handling this.

To avoid confusion here: this is just an attempt by the Attorney General and others to get the case tossed. It’s not a Trial, or any real progress in anti-lockdown challenges.

Also, striking pleadings is not the same as dismissing a case. Dismissing means terminating a case on its merits, while striking refers to serious defects with the documents themselves. Quite simply, the Attorney General’s argument is that the case is so convoluted, confusing, and incoherent, that it would be a waste of everyone’s time to go any further.

And they’re not wrong.

Is it difficult to meet the minimum threshold? Not really, as long as a few Rules of Civil Procedure are followed for all B.C. cases.

Instead of following these simple rules, a 391 page mess was dropped on the Courts last year. Even someone researching for the last 2 years would have considerable difficulty following along.

Considering how badly this dumpster fire of a “Claim” was done, the response from the Defendants was inevitable. Why litigate a case when they can just get it struck out?

This concept isn’t unique to B.C. Ontario has similar provisions with Rule 21 and 25.11, while the Federal Courts have Rule 221. They all amount to essentially the same thing.

And for clarity, the Government isn’t asking the case be thrown out because there are typos, mistakes, or that it’s sloppy overall. These kinds of cases are sent ahead all the time. No, the Application says that the Claim is so incomprehensible, rambling and scattered that it’s impossible to determine the case that must be made. They also allege that the Claim contains many, many pages which are completely irrelevant.

Again, they’re not wrong.

A cynic may wonder at this point if the goal is just to endlessly ask for extensions. That way, the Application to strike will never be heard, and the case will technically remain open. The donations can keep flowing in.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: this suit has no possibility of ever making it to Trial. There’s no amount of amendments or rewrites that will fix what’s wrong with it.

There have been rumours circulating since last Summer about Affidavits of evidence. Supposedly, these are several thousands of pages in length. This isn’t true at all. However, the statements may have been spread in order to placate nervous donors.

Any member of the public can call any Canadian Court — during business hours — and ask to see what documents are in a case. These Affidavits haven’t been filed for any of these suits, and it seems doubtful they exist at all.

Also: remember that July 6, 2020 case with Vaccine Choice Canada? This is the one where no Defences were ever filed, but no one ever sought Default Judgement. You don’t hear about that anymore, nor the one from October 2019. You don’t hear about the Police On Guard case either.

In other news, there has been an update with regards to Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. These are the doctors who tried to bankrupt 2 dozen people, mostly over mean words on Twitter. After their case was (predictably) dismissed as a SLAPP, the Defendants are alleging that they spent some $1.3 million obtaining that Judgement. While that sounds high, it works out to about $55,000 each, which is plausible. Anyhow, Notice of Appeal has been served, and it looks just as frivolous as the original Claim.

Interesting priorities. The Gill/Lamba case is being appealed, despite it being a matter between private parties, and having no outcome on the public. Meanwhile, anti-lockdown cases are dormant.

(9) Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate – Gill
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html

REVIEW
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/delay-prevents-action4canada-case-from-being-immediately-thrown-out/
(C) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-lawsuit-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/another-toronto-court-challenge-but-will-this-one-actually-go-anywhere/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/vcc-soc-ontario-redacted-october-24-2019.pdf

March 26, 2022January 24, 2023

Reiner Fuellmich Concludes Bogus Hearings, Starts “Crimes Against Humanity” Tour

Pretty strange that a lawyer who claims to be taking Governments to court isn’t at all concerned whether this “virus” has ever been isolated and proven to exist. Then again, considering he’s not actually going to trial over this. (12:45 in this video)

There is a reason [we] the group of international lawyers, who are conducting this grand jury investigation, did this outside the existing system: because the system is completely and totally corrupt.
.
But its true effort is to show the people what’s going on, and then empower them by showing that they can’t trust the system. Empowering them, for them to understand that they have to get up and do something. Force their own judiciaries (if they’re still functioning) to do their job.
.
— Reiner Fuellmich

There never was any lawsuit.

In other words, Fuellmich didn’t actually take his “case” to court. This wasn’t the “Nuremberg 2.0” that it had long been hailed as. These people took large sums of donor money for a case they had no intention to try. His so-called grand jury investigation has no legal standing, no power, and the outcome will mean absolutely nothing.

And why should Reiner be “inspiring others to take action”? After all, he solicited donations for a long time, under the pretense that HE would be doing something on behalf of others. This comes across as a complete fraud.

Now, after ripping off donors for nearly 2 years, Fuellmich and his cronies are going on a speaking tour across the United States. If you want to attend, tickets fall in the $100 to $300 range.

Don’t forget to donate, suckers!

Rather than pursuing an international case, as Fuellmich had been promising the entire time, he used the platform — and donations — to raise his own stature. He never brought any case, and it looks like he never intended to do so. Now, he’s ready to make even more money, duping those same people into hearing him speak live.

Beyond that, Fuellmich comes across as intellectually lazy and dishonest for propping up the bogus narrative that there is a virus to deal with. Since these “hearings” have no effect, at least have some truth as to the germ theory hoax.

Of course, Fuellmich is hardly the first lawyer to pretend to be taking the Government to court. He certainly won’t be the last either. One always has to wonder when some superstar lawyer spends all his time giving media appearance, but has no actual progress to report.

Just another subversion agent and grifter.

(1) https://crimesagainsthumanitytour.com/
(2) https://crimesagainsthumanitytour.com/tickets-usa/
(3) https://crimesagainsthumanitytour.com/tickets/usa-2022/fort-myers-fl/
(4) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/Kaufman-Fuellmich:b
(5) https://www.bitchute.com/video/njewuY3Wt7Eo/
(6) https://www.bitchute.com/video/d8Ks20Z74yKl/
(7) https://www.fuellmich.com/

March 1, 2022June 22, 2023

Kulvinder Gill’s Frivolous And Vexatious Claim Dismissed As A SLAPP

“[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out. ”

“[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.” – Justice Stewart

A $12.75 million defamation lawsuit filed in December 2020 has been ended. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it fully met the criteria for being classified as a SLAPP, and was dismissed. Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba demanded millions in damages from online words. They literally tried to bankrupt people they disagreed with on platforms like Twitter.

Perhaps bragging about it in the national papers wasn’t the best idea.

The substance of this came from online postings related to restricting people’s freedoms, and what pharmaceuticals were best during a “pandemic”. (It’s fake, but that’s a discussion for another time).

In a 51 page ruling, Justice Elizabeth Stewart said that it was exactly the sort of case which anti-SLAPP laws were designed for. The sheer number of Defendants, 23, and the amount of money sought was staggering. Despite this, the Plaintiffs never produced any real evidence of damages to justify the millions they demanded.

To be blunt, this case appears to be frivolous and vexatious.

Considering how this came about, and all of the racism accusations leveled in the Statement of Claim, Gill and Lamba are very lucky they weren’t countersued for defamation. The Defendants would have had a much stronger case. Nonetheless, this lawsuit never stood a chance, if it even made it to trial.

A Quick Introduction To Civil Procedure

There are several sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario which permit cases to be ended early. Truly meritless Claims and Applications clog up the system, and deserve to be removed.

Rule 2.1.01(6) this allows the Registrar to 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
Rule 20: this covers Summary Judgement Applications. Either side can file for one, if it appears that either there is no case, or no valid defense. Appropriate when there are no major issues to resolve
Rule 21.01: in order to expedite a case, permits: (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 defense
Rule 24: if Plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings, and this can happen in different stages, the Court has the discretion to dismiss it
Rule 25.11: an option to strike the pleadings — which does not amount to trying the case — if a pleading is frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process

Rule 2.1.01(6) is meant for a Registrar, or low-level official. This is restricted to the very obvious cases. The others involve higher standards, and are meant for Justices, Judges or Associate Judges.

In the case of defamation lawsuits, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act provides another remedy. If a Plaintiff is using the Courts as a weapon to silence discourse on an important public issue, this can be stopped by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion.

SLAPP Means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

This isn’t unique to Ontario. There are other Provinces and U.S. States which have very similar laws on the books, and the principles are much the same.

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.

Once a SLAPP Motion is brought forward, it freezes everything else. Nothing can happen until this is resolved, which includes possible appeals to the higher Court(s).

It’s important to note that anti-SLAPP applies to speech that’s of a public interest matter. It doesn’t apply to disputes over private issues. Once the Defendant(s) satisfy the Court that the speech is of a public matter, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s). To prevent dismissal, Judge or Justice must be convinced there are grounds to believe that:

the proceeding has substantial merit, and
the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

If the Plaintiff cannot meet all 3 parts of this test, then the case qualifies as a SLAPP. Here, the Court found that they didn’t meet even a single prong of the test. As such, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case. And as the Justice stated, the laws were designed for cases like this.

The Ontario Libel & Slander Act has built in provisions which allow for the protection of certain categories of speech. These include fair comment and qualified privilege, which were heavily referenced in the Decision.

Justification
.
22 In an action for libel or slander for words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges

Fair comment
.
23 In an action for libel or slander for words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.

Fair comment
.
24 Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.

Communications on Public Interest Matters
Application of qualified privilege
.
25 Any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons.

It’s important to know that there are safeguards written into the Act. These are just some of them. A free society can’t function properly if speech is weaponized like this.

Could This Dismissal Be Appealed?

In theory, yes. Rule 61.04 allows 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal. However, given how badly the case went, Gill and Lamba would have to be pretty dense to even try. It’s a high burden.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002, sets out the standard for review of a decision. Broadly speaking, Appeals are heard because of an alleged error of fact or law.
(i) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.
(ii) By contrast, a possible error of law is treated “de novo”, and looked at as if hadn’t been ruled on before. It might be viewed as a lower standard.

The reasoning behind “giving deference” to the factual findings is that the Judge is there, and more able to assess what’s going on. Also, there has to be some presumption of competence.

The Justice stated that there was no evidence of damages, the tweets were about public interest matters, and not defamatory. These are findings of fact, and unless something obvious is missed, not easy to challenge. In short, a hypothetical appeal would go absolutely nowhere.

What About Costs For The Defendants?

In the ruling, the Justice gave the Defendants 30 days to make submissions for costs. And here’s where things get more interesting.

There are 19 lawyers listed for the Defendants in the REASONS FOR DECISION. While it’s unclear how much the total fees are, it’s likely a lot. This case involved depositions, and a SLAPP Motion. Both of these are expensive and time consuming. Estimating an average $30,000 each — which may be at the low end — this case would have cost them over half a million to defend.

It’s quite possible that the Plaintiffs could each be on the hook for well over $100,000. Although most allegations didn’t involve Ashvinder Lamba, she clearly participated in the suit.

The final ruling made it clear that there was no evidence of damages, and that the issues addressed were public matters. Despite the tone in some of the messages, they were protected speech. The suit was frivolous and vexatious, so a stiff award can be expected.

What Exactly Started All Of This?

In the case of Gill and Lamba, this case arose largely over Twitter spats. The Plaintiffs (primarily Gill), got into arguments with people on Twitter, which later ended with her blocking them. I guess there’s a little Rempel in all of us.

These other people — who they later sued — were promoting vaccines and martial law measures, for a non-existent virus. Gill, to her credit, opposed these restrictions, but promoted alternative medicines, again for a non-existent virus. However, this was Twitter nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Instead of ignoring people if there was such a disagreement, Gill, Lamba, and their representative were documenting and archiving social media posts. To a casual observer, it appears as these may have been planned as a way of generating evidence. In the end, Gill and Lamba sued 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets, over relatively harmless comments.

One has to wonder if this was just an overreaction, or a calculated way to silence differing views. Most people supporting freedom want more speech available, not less.

Even on the miniscule chance that this lawsuit had been successful, what was the goal? Suing private parties doesn’t result in changes to public policy. There’s no way that any money (besides a nominal amount) would ever have been awarded. If anything, it makes lockdown objectors appear unprincipled, despite claiming to support freedom.

After the costs are paid, this won’t really be the end. Expect this decision to be a standard for dismissing meritless defamation claims. We now have a precedent of lockdown opponents trying — and failing — to silence and bankrupt their critics. Gill and Lamba will become very well known by lawyers, but for all the wrong reasons.

This isn’t to defend people like Abdu Sharkawy, and the quackery promoted. This site has exposed many of the hacks, and media payoffs. Nonetheless, this lawsuit did an enormous disservice to real resistance in Canada. The Plaintiffs can honestly say that they fought, and won, a baseless lawsuit.

If there is something positive in all of this, it’s that the Ontario Superior Court did throw out an abusive case because of the chilling effect it would have on public discourse. Read both the Statement of Claim, and Decision for more context. As absurd as these “health measures” are, throwing the suit out really was the right decision.

(1) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(2) Gill & Lamba Defamation Lawsuit
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-lawsuit-thrown-out-after-anti-vaccine-doctors-sue-over-challenges-to/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
(8) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/doctor-who-said-canada-doesnt-need-covid-vaccine-calls-online-critics-hyenas-in-6-8m-libel-suit

December 19, 2021February 10, 2023

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.

Description:
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:

LAWYER/LAW FIRM	DATE	AMOUNT
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:

DATE	AMOUNT	DESCRIPTION
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.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2021/12/canada-summer-jobs-2022.html
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/dfatd-maecd,064-2021-2022-Q2-040,current
(4) https://www.samaracanada.com/samarablog/blog-post/samara-main-blog/2015/07/23/2015-epcitizen-nominee-jasmine-akbarali
(5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/judicial-appointments-dominic-leblanc-family-friends-political-patronage-1.5191054
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/law-firms-bar-associations-receiving-canada-emergency-wage-subsidy-cews/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/catherine-mckenna-co-founder-of-ngo-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(9) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(10) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en

Category: Procedural

Action4Canada Finally Has Hearing Over Application To Strike

Like this:

Action4Canada Case To Be Put Off Indefinitely

Like this:

Reiner Fuellmich Concludes Bogus Hearings, Starts “Crimes Against Humanity” Tour

Like this:

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

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: