Category: Procedural

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

Posted on

Appeal Of “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Ruling Accuses Judge Of Bias

It’s probably not a good idea to throw the term “bias” around like this.

Readers of this site will likely remember the February 21, 2023 Ruling in the Federal Court that was covered here. This was a challenge to the Fall 2021 dictate for vaccine passports at the Federal level, launched by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati. A case involving some 600 Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety as being “bad beyond argument”, among other issues. Justice Simon Fothergill was extremely critical of the case.

That February Decision is now being appealed.

To understand the Appeal, here is a brief review of what happened:

Approximately 2/3 of the Plaintiffs were permanently barred from using the Court as a remedy. As members of the Federal Government, Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, requires that they seek alternate remedies for employment matters.

The other 1/3 of the Plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended lawsuit, but with other restrictions. These were either members of Crown Corporations, or employees of Federally regulated industries.

There was also the problem that the wrong paperwork had been filed. When challenging a Decision from a Federal Board, Commission or Tribunal, Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act require that a Notice of Application be filed, and not a Statement of Claim.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

As was mentioned during the January 2023 hearing, if all that the Plaintiffs were seeking was damages, then a Statement of Claim was fine.

The Decision referenced the specific portions of the Federal Court Rules that were not followed. The Rules outline the basics of how pleadings are supposed to be drafted. These were the most notable errors here as well.

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

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

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

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

This is very common with Galati: he makes plenty of accusations, but doesn’t plead any factual basis. Consequently, the Defendants are often left with so little information that they can’t respond meaningfully. This is partly why so many of his cases get thrown out.

Simply stating: “and the fact is” doesn’t make something a fact.

As outlined in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules. Justice Fothergill apparently didn’t find it worthwhile to go through it point by point to outline the deficiencies. This has been extensively detailed by Justice Ross in Vancouver, for the Action4Canada case, and the parallels are striking.

Pleadings in the Courts of British Columbia and Ontario were plagued by the same deficiencies. Regardless of jurisdiction, there are minimum levels of organization and quality that have to be followed.

Anyhow, the Federal Decision has been appealed, and is it ever interesting. The Notice of Appeal makes a number of statements that appear to accuse (or at least imply) that Justice Fothergill sabotaged the case intentionally.

This is not a wise thing to do without evidence.

(a) It’s alleged that Justice Fothergill “blatantly ignored” Plaintiffs’ submissions regarding the standards which employment terms could be reviewed by a Court.

(b) It’s alleged that he “biasedly ignored” and “refused to address” submissions regarding the tort of public malfeasance, with respect to collective bargaining.

(c) It’s alleged that the finding of “deficient” and “bad beyond argument” was blindly applied from an unrelated case, and was completely inappropriate.

(d) It’s alleged that there was “clear (reasonable apprehension of) bias”. Really, it’s a repeat of the bias accusation, but is worded in a way to water it down.

It’s unclear who actually wrote the Notice of Appeal, but it’s already off to a bad start. Accusing a Federal Judge of bias and ignoring his responsibilities is not going to sit well. There has to be something pretty damning for this to hold water.

Granted, the Action4Canada Appeal of September 2022 is baseless, and doomed to fail, but at least BCSC Justice Alan Ross never received that kind of backlash.

The Notice of Appeal doesn’t specify what Justice Fothergill’s bias supposedly is. Is this to imply that he has certain personal views that are not appropriate? Should we interpret this to mean that he threw the case intentionally, and that the outcome was rigged?

This suggestion has been made before.

This also isn’t the only time Galati has recently claimed (or at least implied) that a Judge ruling in one of his cases was biased. Supposedly, Justice Elizabeth Stewart appeared biased when she dismissed Kulvinder Gill’s and Ashvinder Lamba’s defamation case as a SLAPP. This of course is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Clearly, we’ll have to wait and see what other documents are coming for the Federal Appeal. However, this is a dangerous path to take, and can have professional consequences.

A source told this site claimed that Galati and his staff are already soliciting more money for this “unexpected” trip to the Federal Court of Appeals. Apparently, they are at least mentally preparing to attempt to get into the Supreme Court of Canada.

It’s estimated that $400 to $700 more will be sought from each of the 600+ Plaintiffs. In total, that could bring in close to half a million more. The stated reason is that the $1,000 retainer was set aside for Trial.

This seems plausible, especially in light of the fact that Action4Canada is also asking for money, despite their case being “fully funded”.

Could the Federal ruling be successfully appealed? It seems doubtful. While a competent attorney might be able to make the case that malfeasance is grounds to bypass Section 236 FPSLRA, the entire Claim needs to be rewritten.

And this copy/pasting of pleadings from case to case deprives clients of the services that they’re paying for.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book (UPDATED)
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL (UPDATED)
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL (UPDATED)

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

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

Posted on

Action4Canada Roasted By B.C. Law Society Over Horrendous Galati Filing

The Law Society of British Columbia is the organization that’s responsible for licensing lawyers in that Province. Unsurprisingly, lawyers are expected to have a certain level of competence in order to practice. This is to ensure that members of the public don’t end up with a complete moron representing them, costing lots of money.

In any event, the “Professional Legal Training Course 2023” is now available online. This is aimed primarily at articling students who want to take the last steps to be licensed.

The course is explained as follows:

“The Law Society’s PLTC has earned international recognition and has served as a model for Bar admission programs all over the world. It emphasizes practical skills training, ethics, practice management and practice and procedure to help new lawyers bridge the gap between law school and practice.”

“PLTC is a full-time, 10-week course. Classes are held three times a year at the Law Society offices in Vancouver, and once a year at Camosun College in Victoria and at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Classes are taught by full-time faculty with many years of teaching and practice experience and by practising lawyers who volunteer to share their expertise.”

Makes sense. Prospective lawyers need to prove a high degree of skill. Now, here’s where things really start to get interesting.

On page #15, (or the 27th page of the pdf), we see a new entry:

Action4Canada

Yes, that infamous dumpster fire that was struck by Justice Alan Ross is now being used as a “teaching exercise” by the Law Society of B.C. to demonstrate how pleadings shouldn’t be done.

If pleadings are inadequate the matter will typically not get as far as trial. In a recent example of wholly inadequate pleadings the plaintiff filed a 391-page notice of civil claim that was struck (see §2.06(3) below on striking pleadings) as being “prolix” and “bad beyond argument.” In Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507, the plaintiffs sued a host of politicians and crown corporations over pandemic-related measures they said were not based in science, exceeded the defendants’ authority, and breached Charter rights. The notice of civil claim was struck in its entirety. The judge said (at para. 51) it is counsel’s job to draft pleadings that do not offend the Rules. The judge also said the claim was too prolix for the defendants to be able to respond, and it was not the court’s job to interpret the claim:

To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

It turns out that the NOCC (Notice of Civil Claim) from Action4Canada was so inadequate that it never stood a chance of going to Trial. If only someone could have warned Tanya about that either in advance, or shortly after the fact. It was pretty obvious.

And what were the thanks received? A $7,000,000 defamation lawsuit.

Have to wonder if the Law Society of B.C. will now be sued as well for publishing Action4Canada’s decision in their training manual. After all, Galati sued the Law Society of Ontario for $500,000 for daring to forward complaints by the public to him for comment.

Why are all the topics mandatory?
.
When you are licensed to practise law in British Columbia, you are licensed as both a barrister and solicitor and permitted to practise in any area of the law. PLTC has therefore identified core practice areas that represent typical areas of practice for articled students and newly called lawyers. By requiring you to demonstrate entry-level competence in each of these practice areas, PLTC supports the Law Society’s mandate to set standards for lawyers and to protect the public interest.

Unsurprisingly, there is an FAQ section. It’s explained that it’s in the public interest to ensure that licensed lawyers have a basic level of competence in certain areas.

Keep in mind, this is geared towards new lawyers. Constitutional lawyers with decades of experience should probably have a handle on this sort of thing already.

And again, the Action4Canada case is being used as an example of what not to do, as it’s liable to waste large amounts of time and money, by getting it struck.

The B.C. Law Society also publishes a practice manual specifically for civil, and it’s quite informative. On page #13, (or the 25th page of the pdf), we get to the sections on pleading documents.

The fundamental purpose of pleadings is to define the issues to be tried with clarity and precision, to give the opposing parties fair notice of the case to be met, and to enable all parties to take effective steps for pre-trial preparation: Mayer v. Mayer, 2012 BCCA 77 at para. 215.

Proper Pleadings are Good Advocacy
In practice, pleading the case properly is critical. Pleadings come at an early stage of the litigation, often before all the facts are known. Some counsel fail to craft pleadings carefully, perhaps expecting to clean them up later, if necessary, through amendments. This is poor practice: pleadings are the foundation upon which a case is constructed. If you take care and exercise diligence in framing the pleadings, the rest of the case will fall into line. The pleadings also determine what is relevant at the discovery stage, so proper pleadings will ensure relevant documents are produced and examinations for discovery canvas relevant issues.

And this last part sums up the Action4Canada case well.

Good pleading will not, in my opinion, give a litigant with a bad case a victory. But bad pleading
may very well deprive a litigant with a good case of a victory that ought to be his.

This perfectly outlines what happened with the NOCC. While there certainly were valid causes of action, the NOCC was drafted so poorly that the entire document had to be struck out. While a rewrite was allowed, this was a huge waste of time and money.

And once again: these documents from the B.C. Law Society are aimed at prospective lawyers. This is designed for newbies. And the Action4Canada case is now teaching material for what not to do.

Action4Canada’s suit was struck in its entirety on August 29, 2022, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Instead of simply doing the Claim properly, it was appealed instead.

It would be interesting to see the Professional Legal Training Course in a few years. Perhaps it will updated again to include Action4Canada in how not to appeal a case. See critique.

Although their case is “fully funded”, Action4Canada is once again asking for money. Apparently, the extra costs of filing an appeal weren’t factored in. Despite promises to submit an amended Claim, it hasn’t happened in over 6 months.

Remember to donate, suckers!

LAW SOCIETY OF BC:
(1) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/
(3) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/faq-pltc/

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

Posted on

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

The grifting never ends, does it?

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

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

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

As for some recent decisions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, their lawyer should know this, right?

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

2. Challenge Should Probably Be Done As Judicial Review

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

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

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

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

Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Many Claims Outside Jurisdiction Of Civil Court

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

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

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

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

5. Ontario EMS Literally A Clone Of Federal Lawsuit

Page 26 of Ontario EMS, Page 32 of Federal:

First paragraph in both versions:

Vaccines are apparently not really vaccines:

The tort of conspiracy:

Tort of intimidation:

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

6. Plaintiffs Being Recycled In This Suit?

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

  • Matthew Blacklaws
  • Sgt. Julie Evans
  • Len Faul

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

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

7. Sheer Number Of Parties Sued A Problem

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

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

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

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

8. Similar Retainer Requirements For Both Cases

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

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

9. Some Final Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Federal Court Ruling Confirms Lack Of Jurisdiction In Most Employment Matters

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

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

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

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

From the ruling:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surprisingly, things still go downhill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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