Category: How To

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

Children’s Health Defense (Canada): Just Another Fundraising Arm?

Sounds great, doesn’t it? The challenge has been filed! Problem is, too few people follow up to see what has happened since. All of this can be found online. It’s an issue that comes up far too often: individuals and groups ask for money for a lawsuit. Then, either no suit emerges, or one does that is so poorly written that it has no chance of advancing.

This isn’t hyperbole. The Action4Canada case is a perfect example of a suit designed to fail. Stunningly, it has since been appealed, and that will be thrown out as well.

Now, this particular case has been addressed here before. This case was filed in April 2021, (a year and a half ago), and is no closer to being heard than it was back then.

It appears that the Children’s Health Defense Canada, a branch of its American head, has been trying to push itself as a force against the Ford regime.

Of course, don’t forget to donate!

A Notice of Application from April 20, 2021 is listed here, along with information that would indicate this is a serious case.

Problem is: when one SEARCHES ONLINE, becomes obvious that this case has sat dormant over the last 18 months. There are no hearings booked, nor does it appear that any evidence has been sworn.

There are a new Notices of Appearance from last Spring, see here and here, but nothing since. Just another high profile lawsuit that never went anywhere.

Yes, there was a Rule 2.1.01(6) attempt to get the case thrown out — that failed. However, it’s unclear why it was used, since it’s not really appropriate here.

Children’s Health Defense (Canada) is listed as an Applicant, but it doesn’t seem that any effort — beyond collecting donations — has been made. In a similar vein, Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada were listed as Plaintiffs in their respective suits, and we know how those turned out.

Thing is: the names listed on the CHD Canada website don’t match the names filed with Corporations Canada. A quick search revealed who is really in charge of this organization. And the addresses for all Directors is a law firm on College Street, in Toronto.

The suit was promoted on Wholehearted Media. This is an interesting choice, considering the real owner isn’t mentioned in the video.

Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

While Protonmail is fine for personal use, it seems strange to use it for an organization, especially one that seems to be part of a much larger group.

OTHER DEAD-END LAWSUITS:

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.
  • Federal challenge to vaccine passport. Filed May 2022 on behalf of dozens of people. Federal Court File #T-1089-22. No activity since initial filing.

As an honourable mention, a 9 month suspension was agreed to regarding Dr. Jeffrey Matheson. A joint submission. Perhaps fighting for the client was too much work.

Just another lawsuit that collects dust, while the people responsible are still asking for handouts. These grifts need to be called out. Please stop donating. None of these cases will ever get into court — other than to be thrown out.

It’s both heart breaking and infuriating to see this kind of thing go on. Well meaning people open up their wallets for what they believe are good causes. Being betrayed by an ally stings far worse than what an open enemy can do.

LINKS:
(1) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/
(2) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/legalcase/
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12951126&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=children%20health%20defense&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(5) https://rumble.com/vkt3z4-replay-childrens-health-defense-canada-experts-live-event.html

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

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest

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) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

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

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

GILL/LAMBA CASES:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill/Lamba Dismissed As A SLAPP

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

ONTARIO STUDENTS:
(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

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Baseless, Seems Designed To Waste Time & Money

There are times when people really need to cut their losses. However, it seems that not everyone is taking that advice.

With the specific case at hand, it appears that Justice Ross’ quite reasonable decision has not been heeded. Instead of fixing the defects in the previous pleadings, the Plaintiffs are going to appeal.

It’s not clear to what extent there has been collaboration among all the parties. Was this a joint decision, or a unilateral one? Still, this is a very bad move, and we’ll get into why.

This site long ago predicted NOCC would get struck out

August 17th, 2021, the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) was filed.

August 31st, 2021, this site wrote that the NOCC was fatally defective, riddled with serious and basic errors, didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, and would never make it to Trial.

September 7th, 2021, Rocco Galati sued this site, and everyone “directly or indirectly associated” for $7 million. He also demanded that anyone “directly or indirectly associated” be banned from posting on the internet again, presumably on any subject. Although there were allegations of racism and anti-Semitism, the main issue was the harsh and detailed critiques and reviews of his various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Guess the truth hurts.

May 31st, 2022, the Application to Strike was finally heard. The Defendants attempted to get the case thrown out without leave to amend. This was on the grounds that the NOCC was so incomprehensible, that it was impossible to answer it.

August 29th, 2022, Justice Ross strikes the NOCC in its entirety, for a litany of defects. Being too long (prolix) was just one issue. However, the Court did allow for the NOCC to be amended and refiled, if it were done properly.

September 28th, 2022, a Notice of Appeal is served, challenging portions of the August ruling. Instead of properly drafting the NOCC, it appears the next move is to just appeal.

Plaintiffs are bailing, as they see the writing on the wall

An observant person will notice there are less Appellants than what might be expected. People are catching on. Amy Muranetz and Federico Fuoco both filed Notices of Discontinuance. And they’re not alone. In fact, several names are missing from the Notice of Appeal.

Appellants listed:

  • Action4Canada
  • Linda Morken
  • Gary Morken
  • Jane Doe #1
  • Brian Edgar
  • Jane Doe #2
  • Ilona Zink
  • Valerie Ann Foley
  • Pastor Randy Beatty
  • Michael Martinz
  • Melissa Anne Neubauer
  • Jane Doe #3

Plaintiffs who have since left:

  • Kimberly Woolman
  • The Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
  • Amy Muranetz
  • Federico Fuoco
  • Fire Productions Limited
  • F2 Productions Incorporated
  • Makhan S. Parhar
  • North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited

In fairness, one of the Plaintiffs had passed away prior to the May 31st hearing. Still, it’s not a sign of confidence that this will go ahead.

People are realizing that the NOCC, filed in August 2021, was complete garbage. There’s no way to spin this as some sort of victory, hard as they try. Consequently, many don’t want to face financial devastation with the cost awards that are coming.

Notice of Appeal asks for things Appellate Court can’t grant

These are the grounds of appeal that are listed:

The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(a) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, and jurisprudence with respect to Justice Ross’ ruling on declaratory and other relief at paragraphs 52 to 55 and Declarations at paragraph 56 to 58;
(b) That the Learned judge erred, in law, contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the test to be applied on a motion to dismiss/strike;
(c) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in ruling sufficient facts were not pleaded to support the causes of action advanced;
(d) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in usurping the function of the trial judge, and making determinations of fact, mixed fact and law, on the basis of bare pleading(s);
(e) The award of costs to the Defendants in circumstances where no costs should have been awarded, or an order of costs in the cause should have been awarded in that the results of the motion were split;
(f) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit

To start with the obvious one, the Notice alleges that Justice Ross erred in determining that certain topics were outside of his authority. Sounds reasonable, until you see what this actually refers to.

[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.

Among the improper claims, the NOCC had wanted a CIVIL Court Judge to make adjudications on criminal conduct, crimes against humanity, the Helsinki Declaration, the Nuremberg Code, and to determine what “the science” shall be.

The plain fact is that the B.C. Supreme Court has no authority to do any of this, so this had to be struck. The B.C. Court of Appeal isn’t going to reverse this. It’s time to face reality.

Additionally, these things appear repeatedly in the various Actions and Applications launched by the Constitutional Rights Centre. It would make all of them vulnerable to being struck.

Also worth mentioning: costs are largely discretionary. The Court of Appeals won’t (except in extremely rare cases) interfere with the decision. Considering there is no award yet — just the entitlement to one — it would be hard to challenge it.

BCCA isn’t going to overturn decision to strike NOCC

Keep in mind: Justice Ross didn’t throw the case out completely. Instead, he did something better. He told the Plaintiffs they could refile, if the NOCC were drafted properly. In other words, he gave the opportunity to fix it.

The NOCC was disorganized, cluttered, and contained plenty of irrelevant information. It went on lengthy tirades about non-parties such as Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab. None of this is appropriate, and it fell far short of what should be expected of veteran lawyers.

Granted, it will be a huge headache to rewrite a 400 page document. However, in the Application to Strike, one of the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs was the ability to rewrite the NOCC. The Court allowed it. Pretty hard to challenge an outcome that one sought.

Is Lawrence Wong actually involved in this case?

A bit off topic, but worth asking once again: is Lawrence Wong a part of this lawsuit? Or is his name listed just so there is a B.C. lawyer “on file”? Would be nice to know.

Will a Cross-Appeal be filed by the Respondents?

Most people have heard of an Appeal, but far fewer know what a Cross-Appeal is. Essentially, it’s like a counterclaim, but at the higher level.

Consider this: the Application to Strike was brought (largely) on the grounds that the NOCC was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Defense lawyers asked that the case be struck without leave (or permission) to amend. However, the Court did allow an amended version to be filed.

Yes, this is speculation, but what if that provision were to get overturned by the BCCA? What if the BCCA decided that the Appeal was frivolous and abusive, and decided to not allow a rewrite of the original NOCC? A Panel could very easily rule that this entire matter isn’t being done for legitimate reasons, and block it altogether.

If Witten, Wedge and the other lawyers are going to be in front of the BCCA anyway, there’s really nothing to stop them from attempting such a tactic.

Consider Kulvinder Gill, Ashvinder Lamba as cautionary tale

Yes, this is a different case, but there are some striking parallels that need to be pointed out. It’s also a decision from 2022, so very recent.

One question that potential litigants always need to ask: what happens if I start a messy, prolonged, or expensive suit, and ultimately lose?

Regular readers will know that Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba tried to sue 23 individuals and media outlets over mean words on Twitter. They sought $12.75 million in damages over juvenile comments. Predictably, the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

That ruling was inexplicably appealed. Shortly afterwards, Galati left, claiming to have a prolonged illness that made his participation impossible. Gill and Lamba apparently are still going ahead with this, and have retained new lawyers. They’ll have to face additional costs when the Appeal is ultimately dismissed, and it’s likely it will be. This could very well push the total bill over $1.5 million.

Gill also has another suit pending against the University of Ottawa. She sued the school, and one of their professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million over 2 rude tweets. If they ever decide to file an anti-SLAPP Motion, Gill will be the hook for that as well.

Absurdly, many in the “freedom community” cheered at these efforts to forcibly shut down the free speech of people they disagreed with.

When successful with an anti-SLAPP Motion, Defendants are typically given costs on a full indemnity (or 100%) scale. Gill and Lamba are staring down $1.2 million at least. Given the damage they sought to inflict, the Defendants are expected to show no mercy. These 2 are facing bankruptcy, or at least being put on payment plans for the rest of their lives.

In an interesting turn of events, Gill and Lamba have since sued Galati and Samantha Coomara (his assistant). It would be nice to know how that turns eventually out.

If the Action4Canada Plaintiffs don’t want to go down this same path, consider getting out. Remember, it’s not the lawyers who are stuck with the 6 and 7 figure bills. It’s the clients.

What exactly is the point of this Appeal?

The obvious question has to be asked: why is this happening?

The BCCA isn’t going to rule that the B.C. Supreme Court should preside over criminal matters, or crimes against humanity. It’s not going to rule that a disorganized and confusing case shouldn’t be rewritten. It’s not going to rule that a Judge can’t award a successful party costs.

Instead of drafting a proper NOCC, the decision is to file a baseless Appeal with zero prospect of success. The result will be (about) another year wasted, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent. None of this will get the Plaintiffs closer to the relief they seek.

And to address comments from Action4Canada, (archive here):

For some reason Canuck Law, The Western Standard and Castanet are consistently working to put the worst possible spin on the facts of A4C’s case and to disparage Rocco, Tanya Gaw and Action4Canada. It appears they are on a mission to create doubt and distrust in the public’s eye by providing twisted versions of the truth and claiming that Action4Canada lacks integrity and transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is also interesting that none of these “Independent” media outlets have ever reported on Action4Canada’s campaigns and tireless work in providing Canadians, at no charge, with resources that are effectively protecting their children, their jobs, their right to travel, their bodily autonomy and so much more.

Their style of reporting doesn’t serve anybody well and brings into question whose side they are really on.

Real independents are on no one’s side.

A journalist or reporter should have one commitment: to show the truth. Anything less than that means that they are shilling for a particular group.

And the truth is that this case (and many related ones) are written so poorly that they have zero prospect of ever getting to Trial. They have been covered in extensive detail, with specific references to the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario, B.C. and Federally.

Does revealing this information cut into the money that donors are willing to pay? Absolutely it does. But then, how “independent” are journalists who gloss over or ignore these obvious defects?

If someone chooses to sue another in their private lives, that is their business. However, the moment that public donations are sought, it becomes a reportable case. Considering that Action4Canada is still asking for money, it’s fair game.

When someone tries to destroy this site (or anyone, really) for simply telling the truth, don’t expect any sympathy or favourable coverage of the ongoing grifting.

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.)
(24) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

(A) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(B) Gill & Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(C) Gill & Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay

Posted on

Federal Vaxx Pass Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Get To Trial

A challenge to vaccine passports (see archive) by Federal workers has been filed (T-1089-22). It was launched on May 30, 2022, and has little activity to show so far. It appears that after being idle for 3 months, the Defense has sent a letter requesting case management.

A source told this site that potential Plaintiffs were being asked to put up $1,000 each to offset costs for this lawsuit. However, it hasn’t been verified, so it’s just an allegation for now. Update: the claim of this retainer has since been confirmed.

But that is the least of it. This Statement of Claim appears to be so poorly crafted that it will never survive in its current form. Most likely, it will be struck. This is a pattern that comes up again and again.

Keep in mind: the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada cases were critiqued as well. The former went down in flames, while the latter remains dormant. While the Federal case isn’t (quite) the dumpster fire that the others were, the drafting is still very bad.

Since the Action4Canada case was struck, Plaintiffs have (quite sensibly) started bailing. See here and here. They realize that this isn’t what they signed up for.

Side note: the Federal Court of Canada allows the public to search the progress of the case, both in terms of documents filed, but status updates. Documents can also be requested by giving staff the file # and the document #. It’s quite convenient.

1. Claim Contains Content Court Can’t Preside Over

The Statement of Claim is filled with allegations and issues that cannot be resolved in a Civil Court. That alone would get the case struck. It’s also worth noting that the numbering system is inconsistent and confusing, much like the A4C and VCC Claims.

  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) crimes against humanity
  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity Act
  • (Page 16, Para 1(c)) Criminal Code of Canada
  • (Page 20, Para 1(d)(1)) Magna Carta
  • (Page 28, Para 34(d)) allegations of eugenics
  • (Page 30, Para 47) allegations of crimes against humanity
  • (Page 30, Para 47) allegations Nazi experimentation
  • (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Nuremberg Code
  • (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Helsinki Declaration
  • (Page 32, Para 52(a)(v)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada
  • (Page 35, Para 55(g)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada

This played a role in getting the Action4Canada case struck out a few weeks ago. None of this belongs in a Civil Claim, and could easily be used in a Motion to Strike.

2. Claim Paragraphs Not Set Out In Organized Manner

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

This Rule has to do with the organization of the Claim itself. Considering that the Defendant(s) has to respond to the allegations, it has to be easy for them to either “admit” or “deny” paragraphs, or to state that certain ones are unknown. Because this lawsuit is so shoddily crafted, it’s impractical, and near impossible to address the document in any meaningful way.

3. Claim Lacks Concise Statement Of Material Facts

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.

This is a no-brainer. If someone is to be sued, then there must be a concise (relatively short) set of facts laid out in the Statement of Claim. This document is filled with accusations and demands, but is quite limited on the facts to be pleaded.

[British Columbia Rules]
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

[Ontario Rules]
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.

The Federal Rules are the same in this regard as the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 3-1(2)(a) calls for Notices of Civil Claim to have a concise statement of material facts. In Ontario it’s Rule 25.06(1). There are similar provisions in other Provincial Courts as well.

4. Claim Lacks Necessary Particulars To Go Ahead

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.
.
(2) On motion, the Court may order a party to serve and file further and better particulars of any allegation in its pleading

This is based on Rule 181 of the Federal Court Rules. When the term “particulars” is used here, it means specifics. The allegations must contain enough detailed information so that Defendants may address them.

Here, there are plenty of allegations thrown around, but the document is sorely lacking in specifics. It’s not enough make accusations, but the factual basis must be laid out as well. Ontario Rules 25.06(8) and (10) also lay out this requirement.

This (may) not get the lawsuit thrown out by itself. However, it’s enough that a Judge or Prothonotary would either strike it, or issue an Order for a rewrite.

5. Nature Of Damages Isn’t Really Specified

Claims to be specified
182 Every statement of claim, counterclaim and third party claim shall specify
(a) the nature of any damages claimed;
(b) where monetary relief is claimed, whether the amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $50,000;
(c) the value of any property sought to be recovered;
(d) any other specific relief being claimed, other than costs; and
(e) whether the action is being proceeded with as a simplified action.

This should be common sense. Parties seeking damages need to spell out the exact relief they are seeking. That said, the Claim is so rambling and disjointed that it isn’t all that clear. At a bare minimum, this needs to be redone.

6. Entire Claim Could Be Struck Under Rule 221

Motion to strike
221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant,
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
.
and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.

This is very similar to Rule 9-5 of the British Columbia Rules of Civil Procedure. It allows for pleadings that are convoluted, confusing, or otherwise an abuse of process to be struck out. Even someone well versed in the content would be hard pressed to follow along with the Claim.

The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.11, has this wording as well. It allows Judges to throw out (or at least strike) suits that are abusive in nature.

Having read through the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits, it appears that entire sections are just cut-and-pasted for this one. Doesn’t speak highly for the work involved.

There are also approximately 100 “John Does” and “Jane Does” in the Statement of Claim. This is going to make things confusing, since Defendants have the right to confront their accusers.

Keep in mind, this is a very rudimentary look at the Statement of Claim. It’s entirely possible that there are more defects that can lead to it getting thrown out.

So, why keep drafting such garbage?

Who benefits from cases that either remain inactive for months, or years? Who benefits from cases that are so poorly drafted that they get thrown out on a preliminary challenge? It doesn’t appear that any of these cases were ever intended to move ahead.

Keep in mind, that hundreds of law firms have received CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Others have received cash from the Summer Grants Program. Pretty hard to oppose Trudeau when his programs are paying one’s salaries.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.

Well meaning people have paid good money, in the hopes that worthwhile litigation would be undertaken. It’s pretty pathetic that this site is a far more reliable source for updates than the lawyers running the show. Then again, considering the complete lack of progress, it’s not unexpected.

Putting things in perspective….

This website was sued last year for $7,000,000, for exposing what was really happening with the various “anti-lockdown” cases. It speaks volumes when more effort is spent trying to silence critics than to take on Trudeau, Ford, or Horgan. Any any event, that case is stayed, pending an anti-SLAPP Motion.

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) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(6) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest

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) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_

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

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

GILL/LAMBA CASES:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill/Lamba Dismissed As A SLAPP

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

ONTARIO STUDENTS:
(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

Posted on

A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html

Posted on

Canadian Bill Of Rights: Why Bother With The Charter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just something to think about.

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