Category: Procedural

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide To Spotting Scam Lawsuits

Have you ever been asked to donate to a public interest lawsuit? Well, if you have any connection to the “freedom movement” in Canada, odds are that the answer is yes.

This piece is designed to offer a constructive suggestion: before donating to any case, it’s best to do some due diligence on what’s going on. Yes, that will involve some work, but life is like that.

To add the disclaimer: poorly written and handled litigation doesn’t always mean corruption. There are other explanations like carelessness and incompetence. But at some point, questions have to be asked.

The following is a list of interrelated ways a person can tell if a lawsuit is designed to fail, or at least is extremely likely to fail. While it’s written with “pandemic” measures in mind, there is cross-over with other issues. A single indicator doesn’t necessarily prove malintent, but these are definitely red flags.

1. The Lawsuit Is Filed In The Wrong Court

This should be obvious: Courts only have jurisdiction to hand out certain remedies. If a relief being sought is outside that jurisdiction, Judges have no power to grant it, regardless of how strong the evidence and/or witness testimony might be.

Action4Canada was called out for doing this. At paragraph 52:

[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.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

The case was struck (in part) because it demanded many remedies that a Civil Court in British Columbia had no jurisdiction to grant. Action4Canada is appealing, but that will go nowhere.

Earlier this year, a Federal case was thrown out (in part) for the same reason. It too has been appealed.

Another instance where jurisdiction is an issue concerns cases involving Government employees and/or employees of unionized organizations. In those cases, there’s typically a grievance process that leads to arbitration, and a restriction on litigation. There are limited ways around it, but that requires competent attorneys to argue.

It the lawyers managing cases don’t even know what areas the Court has jurisdiction over, then they probably shouldn’t be practicing.

2. The Wrong Paperwork Is Submitted

This is related to jurisdiction, but is a somewhat separate issue. If a person asks a Judge to do something, then the correct forms have to be filed.

A Statement of Claim, (or Notice of Civil Claim in B.C.), is what’s usually filed to start a lawsuit. However, other, more specific or limited remedies must use an Application or Petition.

In Ontario, a request for a: Prohibition (ban), Mandamus (order to compel); or Certiorari (review of lower decision) must be done by Application. If put in an Action, the case would probably be thrown out.

Also, in Ontario, a request for a Prohibition, Mandamus, or Certiorari must be filed in Divisional Court (not Superior), unless permission is granted otherwise. Vaccine Choice (2019 case), Police On Guard, and Children’s Health Defense would likely have their suits tossed just for this.

While it’s true that this can — often — be fixed later, it’s still a huge waste of time and money. At a minimum, it shows great incompetence.

3. There Are Never Any Status Updates Or Announcements

It seems logical that any legitimate person or organization would keep everyone posted as to what’s going on, good or bad. Documents should be posted, along with a “Coles Notes” summary of what has been happening. This not only reassures prospective and returning donors, but shows transparency with money being spent.

Obvious examples where this is not done include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada (both); (b) Police On Guard; and (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada. The only reason anyone knows about this is because it’s been reported here.

4. Basic Steps Take Unreasonably Long To Accomplish

The Notice of Civil Claim took nearly a year for Action4Canada to file. Instead of a short and straightforward pleading, it was a mish-mash of every conspiracy (true and false) crammed together. It didn’t follow the basics for drafting, and more on that later.

The NOCC was predictably struck in its entirety. Despite promises of a rewrite — and more requests for donations — an amended version hasn’t materialized in 8 months.

It shouldn’t take months or years to draft a NOCC.

5. The Statute Of Limitations Is Completely Ignored

Jurisdictions all over the world place time limits on how long potential litigants have to launch cases. For civil litigation in Canada and Canadian Provinces, that’s generally 2 years. There are exceptions, but 2 years is the most common.

If a lawyer takes forever to start a case, or just files something — and lets it sit — that places the client at risk. This is because if that person is forced to later get different help, he or she might find their grievances are time barred. Yes, this is a real thing.

Each Province is slightly different, but the Limitation Acts can all be looked up.

6. The Pleadings Are Incoherent And Hard To Follow

This doesn’t really require an explanation. Documents need to be written clearly, and in a way that people who aren’t familiar with the issues can at least understand what’s going on. And that ties in directly with the next point.

7. Basic Rules Of Civil Procedure Are Rarely Followed

Each Court has similar rules for how to draft a lawsuit. These include:

(a) Short, concise set of facts that are being alleged
(b) Don’t plead evidence, or long quotes. That comes later
(c) Clearly state the relief being sought, namely, what you’re asking for
(d) State what laws/regulations will support the suit
(e) Provide enough particulars, or specifics, so the other side can respond
(f) Outline how and why this Court has jurisdiction
(g) Make the pleading organized enough so that it can be understood.

Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it?

See Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada and the Federal case for examples. These were written so poorly that anyone would have considerable difficultly following along.

So far, 2 of those have been struck for essentially the reasons outlined. Vaccine Choice faces a similar hearing in early 2024.

8. The Case Accepts Far Too Much at Face Value

Considering that these martial law measures were based on false pretenses, it’s disheartening to see many lawyers (across Provinces) playing along with this. They rarely, if ever, challenge the fake science. Instead, it’s often just a simple plea for exemptions, or a slight rollback of the measures.

It’s also a source of irritation that few (if any) challenge the notion of a virus itself. If lockdowns, vaccine and mask mandates are all based on fraud, why assume that the virus is real?

9. Lawyers Spend More Time Soliciting Donations Than In Court

Another cause for concern. If there are endless requests for donations, and little progress to show in advancing a lawsuit, it could very well be a scam.

10. Lawyers Are Also Receiving Government Money

Who else are the lawyers getting money from?

CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, was just one program in operation over the last few years. Yes, it’s been inactive since late 2021, but there were an awful lot of lawyers and firms listed there. This includes some in the “freedom community”. Of course, that was just one program.

11. Gaslighting, Threatening And/Or Suing Of Critics

That has happened here, and will be addressed in much more detail at a later date. Exposing the grifts has certainly come with consequences.

Now for some questions that have come up before.

What should people be looking for?

This is certainly a reasonable thing to ask. Most people have better things to do with their lives than study law, so what should they be alert to?

One idea is to start with points #3 and #6. Check to see what kind of updates are available on the organization’s website. If it’s legitimate, there should be fairly regular postings. Also, are the documents filed straightforward and easy to understand, or do they seem convoluted and incomprehensible?

Ask as a lay person: does this appear legitimate?

Why keep focusing on this topic?

For a few reasons.

First, it’s an issue that few in the movement were willing to touch back in 2020 or 2021. However, the risk has largely gone away since it’s more openly talked about these days. And it’s still happening.

Second, it’s not purity spiraling to have standards. Yes, everyone wants freedom and hates martial law, but it’s predatory to take advantage of people in this manner. No one would tolerate this from Trudeau, Ford, or Horgan, but it’s okay when “freedom fighters” rip others off? They need to be cast out.

Third, see point #11.

Does this mean these cases are so-called “controlled opposition”?

In some sense, it’s irrelevant if a case is shoddy due to greed, incompetence, or corruption. The result is the same. Specifically: litigants who had potentially valid issues will never get their day in Court, due to serious errors made by their lawyer(s).

It’s impossible to know for sure without some inside knowledge. But for a lot of these cases, it seems to be the most plausible explanation.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en

Posted on

Statement Of Defence Filed In High Profile Bridle Lawsuit

Just before Christmas last year, a 73 page Statement of Claim was filed in Toronto, involving Byram Bridle and the University of Guelph. News of this development lit up the alternative media in Canada. It alleged a grand conspiracy to harass the Plaintiff and destroy his career. While an interesting read, it came across as being very difficult to prove.

It seemed very odd that Bridle was presented both as an expert developing Covid vaccines, and a conscientious objector fighting against Covid vaccine mandates. There’s also no virus, but that’s a discussion for another time.

And since then?

The Defendants responded with an 8 page Statement of Defence. It doesn’t really address the specific allegations, other than to issue a blanket denial. As an aside, it doesn’t appear that David Fisman is covered by this Statement.

To sum up the document in as few words as possible: “Oh yeah? Prove it.”

Several other defences are also raised:

  • The University of Guelph claims that the issues between Bridle, the school, and the various staff members are to be considered an employment dispute. As such, the Court would lack jurisdiction to hear the case, as it would likely be subjected to the collective bargaining rules, which mandate arbitration.
  • On a procedural note, the Defence points out that: (a) there isn’t a concise set of material facts provided; and (b) the Claim attempts to plead evidence.
  • It’s claimed that portions of the lawsuit would be barred by the Limitations Act. This sets time limits as to how long potential litigants have to file.
  • Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP), is raised concerning the online postings. While this would only apply to a portion of the case, everything would be put on hold until that’s resolved. That will take a year or 2.

Even if the Claim were struck because it’s poorly written — which is possible — that’s not a permanent solution. It can likely be redone.

The other defences, such as the Statute of Limitations and collective bargaining, can pose a much bigger problem. Those have the potential to get large portions of the Claim gutted.

Guelph and the other Defendants seem content to dig in, and force Bridle to actually prove his claims at Trial.

Now for the $3 million question: will anything happen to this case? Or will it remain in limbo for years, like so many dead-end lawsuits? We’ll have to see.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/

Posted on

Federal Court Streaming Challenges To 2020 Order In Council And Gun Grab

The Federal Court of Canada is hearing 6 challenges to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council, which instantly converted some 1,500 types of firearms to “prohibited”.

People wanting to attend virtually can. The registration link is available to all, but the usual broadcasting prohibitions apply.

(1) Cassandra Parker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-569-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(2) Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-577-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(3) John Hipwell v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-581-20
Filed May 27, 2020

(4) Michael John Doherty et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-677-20
Filed: June 29, 2020

(5) Christine Generoux et al. v. His Majesty The King et al.
Case Number:T-735-20
Filed: July 10, 2020

(6) Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-905-20
Filed: August 11, 2020

The hearings started on Tuesday, April 11th, and are expected to finish up next week. Given that these cases cover essentially the same material, they’ll all be decided together.

So far, the Applicants have been focusing on a few concepts: (a) definitions of words are vague or missing; and (b) the choices of which firearms to prohibit are not consistent or logical.

For anyone interesting in searching the case histories, or to order more documents, the information is available for Federal cases.

Expect and update soon with attached documents.

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar

Posted on

The Forgotten Grifts: Police On Guard & Children’s Health Defense Canada

Today, we’re going back to a few lesser known lawsuits against lockdown measures. Both were filed in April 2021 (a full 2 years ago), and neither have had a single Court appearance. These are: (a) a police challenge promoted by the group “Police On Guard”; and (b) a challenge for students led by Children’s Health Defense Canada.

Both groups are still soliciting donations, while giving the impression that they have cases actively moving through the system.

So, what are the problems?

1. POG/CHDC Cases Filed In Wrong Ontario Court

To understand just how deep this goes, let’s take a look into the issue of jurisdiction. Filing in the wrong one is typically fatal to a case.

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.
Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
.
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

According to Sections 2 and 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, litigation involving a mandamus (compulsion order), or a prohibition (ban), must be an Application for Judicial Review. It also needs to be filed in Divisional Court, unless leave (permission) is granted.

The Police On Guard case asks for a prohibition (page 13).

The Children’s Health Defense Canada case asks for a prohibition (page 14), and also for a mandamus (page 15).

It doesn’t appear that permission was ever obtained (or ever sought) in order to try these cases in Superior Court, as opposed to Divisional. Consequently, they would probably be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction if they were ever challenged.

Of course, it has to be asked why they haven’t yet been challenged. Perhaps there’s an agreement among the parties to just let these sit.

2. POG/CHDC Cases Haven’t Had Single Court Appearance

It’s easy to SEARCH ONLINE for the latest updates. Neither case has been in Court, and again, we must ask why. There has been no effort to advance either one.

There was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request to have the Children’s Health Defense Canada case thrown out. This is simply filing a letter asking for it to be done. Only in truly incoherent cases is this granted.

Instead, it was misrepresented in alt-media circles to mean that a formal Motion to Strike has been filed, and then dismissed. That didn’t happen. So, why hasn’t the Attorney General made any real effort to get either case tossed? Was there some kind of agreement?

3. POG/CHDC Cases Recycle Previously Struck Content

Both Applications are asking the Court to make declarations as to “what the science is”. These exact remedies have already been ruled as inappropriate both in the Action4Canada case, and the more recent Federal vaccine passport ruling. Both Judges said that these are not the types of questions that should be brought.

There’s also the problem that both Applications are pleaded very poorly, and would likely be struck for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See the Vaccine Choice critique, as the flaws are nearly identical.

Worth pointing out: the Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense pleadings are virtual clones. It’s as if one was directly cut and pasted to form the basis of the other.

4. Police On Guard Is A Lobbying/Fundraising Group

From their Certificate of Incorporation, it appears that one of the major purposes of Police on Guard is to convince officers to join the ongoing Court action. Yes, its function (at least in part), is to act as a recruitment and lobbying tool to drive potential applicants and donations.

It’s not a stretch to label Police on Guard as a fundraising arm.

5. CHD Canada Case Has Major Conflicts On Interest

Supposedly, Children’s Health Defense Canada is run by Amanda Forbes. That’s very interesting, considering that the documents from Corporations Canada don’t list her at all.

It gets weirder, as Galati, counsel for the CHD Canada lawsuit is listed as a Director. Considering that CHD Canada is listed as an Applicant, that would essentially make Galati a self-representing litigant. Was this ever disclosed?

Moreover, the addresses for all the Directors are that of his Toronto law office. So, is CHD Canada just a shell corporation?

Does Robert Kennedy know that his name and brand are being used for this?

Anyone can search and download Police On Guard and CHD Canada corporate documents.

There’s a public interest in knowing what’s going on. These lawsuits were filed 2 years ago, challenging various lockdown measures. They were publicly advertised, and public donations have been solicited. There’s nothing private about any of this.

Also, Court documents are public records, but the point has been made.

It’s past time to ask some hard questions, isn’t it?

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/category/police-on-guard-court-case/
(2) https://policeonguard.ca/donate/
(3) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/legalcase/
(4) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/donate/
(5) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/
(6) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=13140873&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=police%20on%20guard&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(7) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12951126&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=children%27s%20health&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(9) 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

Federal Court To Stream Several Challenges To Emergencies Act

The Federal Court of Canada is about to hear 4 related cases concerning the invocation of the Emergencies Act a year ago. Also, the proceedings will be available to watch virtually, for people who can’t attend in person.

The hearings are set for April 3rd to 5th, which is this coming Monday to Wednesday.

The cases are:

(1) Canadian Frontline Nurses et al v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-306-22
Filed: February 18, 2022

(2) Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-316-22
Filed: February 18, 2022

(3) Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-347-22
Filed: February 23, 2022

(4) Jerimiah Jost et al v. Governor In Council et al.
Case Number: T-382-22
Filed: February 24, 2022

Because of the overlap in issues raised, all 4 will be heard together. This isn’t unusual in major cases.

From the look of things, it seems that Ottawa will be challenging these cases over: (a) mootness; and (b) standing. Mootness means that the issues are no longer live, and can’t be litigated. Standing refers to a Party’s ability to bring a case in the first place, and whether or not they have a real interest in it.

Expect a follow-up with some file documents attached.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://twitter.com/cvangeyn/status/1641796100104376321
(5) https://theccf.ca/?case=emergencies-act-challenge
(6) https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/T-347-22-NOA.pdf
(7) https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/CCF-Factum-ea-challenge.pdf
(8) https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/emergencies-act/#materials
(9) https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-response-to-federal-government-announcement-of-emergencies-act-inquiry/
(10) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca/legal-battles

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada’s OTHER Lawsuit: Dormant After 3 1/2 Years

Often in court cases, the information being eventually drops off. As a result, many lose track of interesting claims that they were otherwise interested in. An October 2019 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada is one such case. This is case #CV-19-00629810-0000, filed in Ontario Superior Court, in Toronto.

This isn’t to be confused with the high profile suit of July 2020. This was filed to challenge lockdown measures imposed (primarily) by the Ford Regime in Ontario. These are quite different. The 2019 suit covered vaccination policies in schools.

While there are 2 different cases, they have something in common: both have sat idly for years, without any activity to show for it.

Thankfully, we’re in an age where case status can be SEARCHED online, and documents can often be obtained for free. As there had been no announcements since 2019, an update is long overdue. And as it turns out, there’s nothing to report. Nothing has happened since the pleadings in later 2019/early 2020.

Nor does it seem like the 2019 case has had a single hearing.

So, what happened with all the donations?

And that’s interesting, considering some of the problems with the drafting.

1. Should Have Been An Application, Not A Statement Of Claim

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act lays out some circumstances which cases need to be brought as an Application for Judicial Review, as opposed to having more discretion to file a Statement of Claim.

Page 6 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that both a Mandamus (requirement to perform a duty) and a Prohibition (a restriction) are being sought. As a result, it looks like the wrong paperwork was filed to get this going.

2. Suit Should Probably Have Been Filed In Divisional Court

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.

Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

Section 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act states that an Application for Judicial Review must be brought in Divisional Court. Now, it’s possible to get permission to file in Superior Court, but it doesn’t look like that ever happened. Nor does it appear that it was attempted.

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.

This is a common criticism. The Rules of Civil Procedure need to be followed when drafting lawsuits. The people being sued need to have enough specific information to understand the allegations against them. It also has to be written in a way that’s understandable.

The Ontario Government also claims that the Sections 2 and 7 Charter challenges are so vague and non-specific that they are impossible to respond to.

4. VCC Has To Plead For Public Interest Standing

Starting on page 10, the Statement of Defence argues that there is no standing here, as the organization is not a person, and not directly impacted. This is funny.

There is a way for organizations to do this, and they have to convince the Court that they meet a 3 part test. That’s how standing is granted.

(1) Does the Application raise a serious justiciable issue?
(2) Do the Organizations have a real stake or genuine interest in that issue?
(3) Is the participation of the Organizations a reasonable and effective way to litigate?

Granted, a well written document could probably have gotten them standing, but it still needs to be covered.

Then again, if the case was never intended to go forward, then maybe it’s not necessary to write a Claim or Application properly.

5. Why No Attempt To Get Claim Thrown Out?

Why keep covering these grifts? Because the truth matters.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t real issues to bring to Court. Obviously, there were, and they deserve considerable media attention. However, the case has just sat idly for years now.

A question worth asking is why the Ford Government has made no attempt to get this case thrown out (struck) since it was filed in October 2019. No action has been taken to bring it forward either. Was there collusion to keep everything in limbo?

It appears that the wrong paperwork was filed, and submitted to the wrong Court. The quality of the Statement of Claim is very poor as well. So, why just let it sit?

Keep in mind, Ford also let the July 6, 2020 Claim sit unchallenged for the first 2 1/2 years as well. Vaccine Choice didn’t have their first Court appearance until January 17, 2023. And that was just to set down Motion dates.

Are these just “placeholders”? Is the goal to keep them on the books as long as possible, in order to give the appearance that something is being done? Is this a way to enrich the Directors?

Remember to donate, suckers!

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(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