Subversion Archives - Page 3 of 20

April 24, 2024April 25, 2024

B.C. Bill 12 (Online Harms) Deferred: Another Case Of Problem, Reaction, Solution

The C.B.C. recently reported that British Columbia Bill 12 (the Online Harms Act) is being paused for now. This is titled the Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act. The stated reason is that social media companies like Facebook and X/Twitter have come to the table to implement their own protections.

But B.C. Premier David Eby made it clear that this may go ahead anyway, if an agreement cannot be worked out.

Other recent B.C. specific legislation includes:
Bill 23, the (Anti-White) Anti-Racism Act, and
Bill 31, domestic implementation of U.N. Sendai Framework

The stated purpose is to hold companies — such as social media outlets — accountable for medical and health care costs that arise from content they put out. An example cited is Carson Cleland, the 12 year old from Prince George, who committed suicide last October after online sextortion. It’s claimed that if platformed were properly regulated, this wouldn’t have happened.

However, it appears more likely that this is a pretext to be able to swiftly remove content the Government deems “harmful”, for whatever reason. And this is being achieved in the standard way.

Problem
Reaction
Solution

The PROBLEM is that Bill 12 is crafted in such a way as to impose financially crippling penalties. No Government wants to be seen as being overtly anti-free speech. So this must be framed in a manner that appeals to public safety.

The REACTION is that companies get nervous about the fines and other costs they could be on the hook for, even if they weren’t complicit in generating the material.

The SOLUTION is that social media firms agree to “voluntarily” implement their own measures, which means complying with what the Government wanted anyway.

Now, what’s in this Bill?

Direct action by government
2 (1) The government has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Direct action by the government of Canada
3 (1) The government of Canada has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.
.
(2) For certainty,
(a) subsection (1) does not establish a right of action for any other person, and
(b) the cost of health care benefits recoverable under subsection (1) includes the cost of health care benefits in relation to the risk of disease, injury or illness.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill specify that the B.C. (and oddly, Canadian) Governments are able to take legal action against people for health care costs in relation to “disease, injury or illness”.

Interestingly, both Sections 2 and 3 specify that the right of action — or ability to sue — is for Governments only. Private people apparently don’t have that right. Then there’s 2(6) and 3(6)

(6) If the government [of Canada seeks] in an action under subsection (1) to recover the cost of health care benefits on an aggregate basis,

(a) it is not necessary
(i) to identify particular individual benefit recipients,
(ii) to prove the cause of disease, injury or illness in any particular individual benefit recipient, or
(iii) to prove the cost of health care benefits for any particular individual benefit recipient

What this means is that while both the B.C. and Federal Governments have the right to sue to recoup health care costs, private citizens don’t. It’s also not required that they identify: (a) beneficiaries; (b) causation; or (c) analysis of health care benefits.

Apparently, companies aren’t limited to being sued once, either.

Private parties and proceedings
6 (1) It is not a defence to an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), that a claim for a benefit recipient’s damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, has been adjudicated or settled.

6 (2) It is not a defence to an action commenced in respect of a benefit recipient’s claim for damages, alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong, that an action commenced by the government under section 2 (1), or by the government of Canada under section 3 (1), has been adjudicated or settled.

It’s a commonly accepted principle that once a dispute is resolved, that it not be rehashed in a different forum. This applies to things like union grievances and human rights complaints. But here, it’s explicitly stated that “adjudicated or settled” won’t protect from future litigation.

Section 8 gets into what evidence will be allowed. This will include “statistical information and information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies, including information derived from sampling”. In other words, modelling will be allowed as evidence. Remember how that was used back in 2020/2021?

Section 10 states that the Statute of Limitations both for the B.C. and Federal Governments will be 15 years. This goes well above the 2 year limit that typically applies.

In any event, it’s not hard to see what social media companies are nervous about Bill 12 going ahead. It exposes them to all kinds of risks, but without really defining their responsibilities. It’s no surprise that they’re now willing to work something out to prevent this legislation from going ahead.

Another area the CBC article omitted was any explanation of who was responsible for social media companies capitulating. For that, we turn to the B.C. Lobbying Registry.

Jean-Marc Prevost is one of the people lobbying on behalf of Facebook. He’s a former staffer for BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and helped her push the injections back in 2021. To give context, he was a part of this same NDP Government, leaves, and then promptly lobbies that same Government. See Archive.

And the conflict of interest doesn’t end there. Prevost lobbied for the company Emergent BioSolutions Inc., a few years back. This is the actual manufacturer of the AstraZeneca vaccines. He had the ear of the right people at the time.

Bradley Lavigne works at Counsel Public Affairs, same as Prevost. In March, he also lobbied on behalf of Facebook. And similar to Prevost. Lavigne pushed for vaccines on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions back in 2021. He has been a CBC commentator for about 20 years, meaning he pitches his clients’ goals directly to the public. See archive. He has also been in the inside of the Federal NDP party structure going back to the days of Jack Layton.

As should be obvious: a lot of these “commentators” and “pundits” are really just paid actors, playing the role of experts. And although these actors are supposedly from different political parties, their respective firms have people on staff across the spectrum.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, or pharma lobbying more broadly, there are many rabbit holes to go down. These examples are hardly exhaustive.

Rachel Curran also lobbied on behalf of Meta. This is important since she spent over 3 years as part of the B.C. Government, and more than 6 more working for Harper Federally. See archive. Additionally, she lists herself as a CBC commentator from 2016 to 2020. This isn’t simply a left or right issue, but one where all parties do much the same things.

Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Curren is also involved in CIVIX, which is an online “disinformation prevention” group funded by taxpayers. In fact, there are several such organizations in Canada. Some are registered as charities, receiving large tax benefits.

The name Peter Donolo should also ring a bell. He was Jean Chretien’s Chieff of Staff in the 1990s, and helped get him elected. He also worked with Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau.

It’s interesting that groups that are supposed to stop disinformation also are filled with operatives from the same Governments who are impacted.

The B.C. Government was lobbied on behalf of X (formerly Twitter) with regards to Bill 12. Fernando Minna works for Capital Hill Group, and has for the past 3 years. See archive.

Capitol Hill Group is run by David Angus, who worked for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and former Ontario Premier Bill Davis.

Sabrina Geremia of Google lobbied the B.C. Government as well. While she doesn’t list political involvement in her profile, at least 3 colleagues do: Lindsay Doyle, Jeanette Patell, and Semhar Tekeste.

Erin O’Toole, former CPC Leader, gets an honourable mention. Before getting into politics, he lobbied on behalf of Facebook. He worked for Heenan Blaikie, same law firm as Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau.

Why cover all of this?

Bill 12 seems designed to force social media companies into compliance or face crippling financial penalties. Virtually anything can “cause public health harm”, depending on how it’s worded. This legislation is written in such a way that either Victoria or Ottawa can inflict damage. But these groups are very willing to negotiate, and the lobbyists have connections to those same Governments.

If the goal all along was to compel these outlets into being willing to censor, it’s more effective to get them to do it themselves. And remember, it’s all voluntary here. Technically, no one has been forced.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-online-harms-bill-paused-1.7182392
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/
(3) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(4) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/
(5) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5501&regId=56572920
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4186&regId=56566730
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-marc-prevost-04830598/
(8) Jean-Marc Prevost LinkedIn Profile
(9) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34073
(10) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=1334&regId=56559236&blnk=1
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-lavigne-a0927a39/
(12) Brad Lavigne LinkedIn Profile
(13) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=34055
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/details/experience/
(15) Rachel Curran LinkedIn Profile
(16) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5460&regId=56572569&blnk=1
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernandominna/
(18) Fernando Minna LinkedIn Profile
(19) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3536&regId=56568880
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sabrina-geremia-028644/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16607&regId=948142
(22) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=288445&regId=668908

April 19, 2024April 20, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 3: R.O.A. Challenge Finally To Be Heard?

Starting on October 1st, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court will finally hear a long delayed challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act, or R.O.A. Of course, this assumes that there are no more setbacks. Given how things have played out so far, there are no guarantees.

This Application is from William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly), and stems from his refusal to bend the knee to Doug Ford back in 2020.

Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions
Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

Due to Michael Swinwood — the former lawyer — screwing up the case in 2021, and then walking away, the matter has been unnecessarily delayed for years. This is in spite of getting several expert witnesses ready to appear.

Byram Bridle
Douglas Allen
Gilbert Berdine
Harvey Risch
Joel Kettner
William Briggs

There are, of course, differences in the reports that have been submitted. However, what they all argue is that this “global pandemic” is vastly overblown. Lockdown measures weren’t needed, nor was there any benefit to society from implementing them.

Now, in the year 2024, why does this still matter? While the so-called “pandemic” may be over, the Reopening Ontario Act is still in effect, even if there aren’t any shutdowns going on.

Here are the provisions being challenged:

Orders continued
2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the order filed as Ontario Regulation 106/20 (Order Made Under the Act — Extensions and Renewals of Orders).
.
Clarification
(3) For greater certainty, an order that is in force is continued under subsection (1) even if, on the day that subsection comes into force, the order does not apply to any area of the Province.

Power to amend orders
4 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order,
.
(a) subject to subsections (2) and (5), amend a continued section 7.0.2 order in a way that would have been authorized under section 7.0.2 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act if the COVID-19 declared emergency were still in effect and references in that section to the emergency were references to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects;
.
(b) amend an order continued under section 2 to address transitional matters relating to the termination of the COVID-19 declared emergency, the enactment of this Act or the continuation of orders under section 2.

Provisions applying with respect to orders
7 (1) Subsections 7.2 (3) to (8) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to orders continued under section 2, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Same
(2) Subsections 7.0.2 (6) to (9) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications and the modifications specified in subsection (3), with respect to continued section 7.0.2 orders, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Modifications
(3) The modifications referred to in subsection (2) are the following:
.
1. The reference, in paragraph 1 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to the emergency is deemed to be a reference to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects.
.
2. The reference, in paragraph 2 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to when the declared emergency is terminated is deemed to be a reference to when the order in relation to which that paragraph applies is revoked or ceases to apply.

Temporary closure by police, etc.
9.1 (1) A police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable may order that premises be temporarily closed if the police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an organized public event or other gathering is occurring at the premises and that the number of people in attendance exceeds the number permitted under a continued section 7.0.2 order.

Offences
10 (1) Every person who fails to comply with subsection 9.1 (2) or (3) or with a continued section 7.0.2 order or who interferes with or obstructs any person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred by such an order is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction,
.
(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;
.
(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and
.
(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.
.
Separate offence
(2) A person is guilty of a separate offence on each day that an offence under subsection (1) occurs or continues.
.
Increased penalty
(3) Despite the maximum fines set out in subsection (1), the court that convicts a person of an offence may increase a fine imposed on the person by an amount equal to the financial benefit that was acquired by or that accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence.

The Reopening Ontario Act may be seen as “sleeper” legislation. While there may be no obvious harm now, it can be used at any time, and under almost any pretense. We have seen this elsewhere, and the public is lulled into a false sense of security, believing the threat to be over.

But that’s not all. The Health Protection and Promotion Act is also facing a challenge given the heavy handed and unconstitutional manner which it was employed.

Interpretation
Directions by M.O.H.
24 (1) A medical officer of health, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) to the persons whose services are engaged by or to agents of the board of health of the health unit served by the medical officer of health. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 24 (1).
.
When M.O.H. may give directions
(2) A medical officer of health may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) where the medical officer of health is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that a communicable disease exists in the health unit and the person to whom an order is or would be directed under section 22,
(a) has refused to or is not complying with the order;
(b) is not likely to comply with the order promptly;
(c) cannot be readily identified or located and as a result the order would not be carried out promptly; or
(d) requests the assistance of the medical officer of health in eliminating or decreasing the risk to health presented by the communicable disease.

This is a bit of rabbit hole, but the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act is part of a much larger picture. The source material is extensive, but an informative read. To sum it all up:

Canada signed on to the WHO’s legally binding Constitution in 1946
The International Sanitation Regulations came into effect in 1951
The International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) came into effect in 1969
The International Health Regulations (2nd Ed.) came into effect in 1995
The International Health Regulations (3rd Ed.) came into effect in 2005
Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act, is Canada’s domestic implementation of WHO-IHR 3rd Ed.
The Provinces implemented their own version of the Quarantine Act, such as HPPA
The HPPA (really) came from the WHO

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the Canuck Law site.

Now, with all of this in mind, it seems pretty obvious that the Reopening Ontario Act didn’t just happen. It was brought in to compliment and help enforce existing public health measures. Our politicians are actors, reading scripts. They weren’t responsible for drafting any of this, but they did pass it.

The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting this case together, and the documents are readily available. Given that the hearing isn’t for several months, there will certainly be updates.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023

2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – 2021 Motion Responding Factum
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report

April 17, 2024April 20, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

This is the second part on William Adamson Skelly, (a.k.a Adam Skelly). He made national headlines back in 2020, for refusing to capitulate to Doug Ford and Christine Elliott. A restraining order was granted against him in December, but a “come-back Motion” was allowed to go ahead to challenge it in an ad-hoc manner.

For background information on this, see Part 1. It outlines many of the major events that led up to this moment. This is hardly exhaustive of what happened.

Anyhow, his highly anticipated challenge was derailed due to the gross incompetence of then lawyer Michael Swinwood. Despite all of the time, money and effort that had gone into the challenge, it didn’t follow the basics of procedure.

Specifically, the purpose of the come-back Motion was to challenge the December order. Instead, Swinwood filed a Motion for damages, something that wouldn’t have been allowed at this stage anyway. Justice Akbarali ruled that there was no jurisdiction to hear it, but gave permission to refile the papers correctly.

When a litigant wants to make changes to their Notice of Motion, the correct method is to serve an AMENDED Notice of Motion. Instead, a second Notice was issued, and it wasn’t clear which the Court was supposed to consider.

Neither Notice set out that the point of the Motion was to challenge the December order, and any basis for issuing it. That was brought up afterwards. And it’s pretty common knowledge that a Notice has to spell out what is being asked for.

Apparently, there was no Notice placed in the Motion Record (a book of documents), which is a pretty basic oversight.

Despite this being a Motion, Skelly was listed as an Applicant on Court documents. He should have been referred to as a Moving Party. Just because a Notice of Constitutional Question is included, it doesn’t change this reality. Again, this is amateurish.

If damages were sought, then an “originating process” such as a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Application would have to have been filed. This Motion was not the way to do it. Still Justice Akbarali allowed another attempt to fix things.

However, that never happened. So, what did Skelly do?

He sued his lawyer for negligence and professional malpractice, demanding $200,000. It’s always interesting to hear when such a thing happens. From the Statement of Claim:

22. In late 2020 or early 2021, Mr. Skelly learned about Mr. Swinwood and retained him to pursue a constitutional challenge against the public health measures.

23. Mr. Skelly was under the impression that Mr. Swinwood was not only a reasonably competent lawyer but also one who had significant experience in constitutional and civil matters.

24. Throughout the duration of his retainer, Mr. Swinwood representing Mr. Skelly, acted with complete disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure and in a manner that can only be described as completely incompetent and negligible.

25. In an Endorsement of the Honourable Justice Myers dated February 26, 2021, His Honour reprimanded Mr. Swinwood for sending an unsolicited letter to Justice Kimmel asking that she remain seized of the matter. Justice Myers highlighted that she was never seized of the matter to begin with and explicitly ordered that “Mr. Swinwood is to comply with Rule 1.09 in any future communication with the Court.”

26. In Her Honour’s Direction dated March 9, 2021, the Honourable Justice Akrabali set out a timetable for the hearing of the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Skelly, with the hearing to take place on June 28 and 29, 2021 (the “June Hearing”).

27. In the Direction, Justice Akrabali made a point to tell Mr. Swinwood to make sure he files his materials with the proper style of cause as the materials he submitted failed to do so. A hearing for the come-back motion contemplated by Justice Kimmel and Mr. Skelly’s constitutional challenge was scheduled for June 28 and 29th, 2021.

31. In her Endorsement dated June 28, 2021, Justice Akrabali pointed out various flaws in the
steps taken by Mr. Swinwood resulting in the court not having the issues properly raised before it (the “June Endorsement”). These flaws are listed below:
i. Not seeking to vary or set aside the Order of Justice Kimmel based on unconstitutionality in the Notices of Motion making it deficient rendering the proceeding procedurally unfair;
ii. Not properly placing the February Notice of Motion before Her Honour;
iii. Not having the February Notice of Motion initially placed in the respondent’s Motion Record and adding it only after the applicant brought up the issue in an attempt to fix the defect;
iv. The relief in the February Notice of Motion is not based on any Notice of Constitutional Question;
v. Having two Notices of Motion for the same motion instead of amending the document;
vi. Not making it clear to Ontario which Notice of Motion the hearing was to proceed on;
vii. Not giving appropriate notice of the relief sought in the Notice of Motion;
viii. The Notice of Constitutional Question did not raise the issue of setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality until its third iteration on June 8, 2021, which was well after the date of cross-examinations and the finalization of the evidentiary record;
ix. Neither Notice of Motion sought an Order setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality;
x. Failing to put before Her Honour the Affidavits of Service for Mr. Swinwood’s June 24, 2021, Motion Record; and,
xi. No originating process for the damages or declaration of invalidity sought.

32. At paragraph 44 of Justice Akrabali’s June Endorsement she states the following: “This is not a case where the respondents are self-represented parties. They were represented at the hearing by two counsel, at least one of whom has been practicing for many years. Earlier in the proceedings, when the Notices of Motion were being prepared, the respondents were represented by four counsel. I cannot explain why none of them considered these very basic issues, or if they did, why they did not address the deficiencies in the proceeding which could have been done easily and efficiently in February or March 2021…”

38. In the six months that passed Mr. Skelly obtained new counsel to issue the correct originating process Mr. Swinwood failed to issue and to bring Mr. Skelly’s challenge back for a hearing on the merits.

39. During this time, neither Mr. Skelly nor his new counsel received any correspondence regarding the desire of Ontario to receive the December Costs

It’s hard to imagine that a veteran lawyer could repeatedly make such basic errors unless done intentionally. Not only did Swinwood mess up, he never went ahead with another attempt. He effectively let the case die. Even with the trouble and expense of having 6 expert witnesses, Swinwood didn’t try again.

The Notice of Constitutional Question (all iterations of it) were also very poorly written. Instead of briefly outlining the issues, Swinwood appears to try to turn it into a Factum and make full arguments. 27+ pages was excessive.

All sorts of theories were floated, including that Swinwood had been bribed and/or threatened. However, without proof, those are just theories.

To date, there has been no activity in this malpractice suit other than the Claim itself being issued.

Now, there is a new Application scheduled to go ahead in October 2024. The 1st, 2nd and 7th are set aside for it. The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting that together. Mootness may be an issue — or at least the Province will argue it — given how much time has passed, but we’ll have to see. The R.O.A. hasn’t been formally rescinded.

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report

April 7, 2024April 7, 2024

Illegal Crossings Into Canada For 2023: Quebec Way Down, B.C. Rising

In the first few months of 2023, there were over 4,000 people crossing into Canada illegally. But after changes were announced to apply the Safe Third Country Agreement to the entire Canada/U.S. border, it dropped to an average of about 100.

This of course confirms what many had said all along: the Government could have stopped people from entering illegally at any time if it wanted to. However, politicians simply pretended to be helpless to stop this from happening.

Since January 2017, there have been almost 113,000 illegal crossings into Canada from the U.S. The top 5 source countries have been:

(a) Haiti
(b) Nigeria
(c) Columbia
(d) Turkey
(e) Pakistan

Of course, there is a major disclaimer. This data only are what’s being reported, and doesn’t include anyone who’s slipped across the border unnoticed. The numbers could always be — and likely is — much higher than this.

PROVINCE/TERRITORY	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Newfoundland	0	0	0	0	0	0
Prince Edward Island	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nova Scotia	0	0	0	0	0	0
New Brunswick	10	5	5	?	?	25
Quebec	1,335	1,295	785	875	1,035	2,595
Ontario	2,660	2,340	1,995	2,630	2,790	3,7935
Manitoba	20	15	25	10	225	505
Saskatchewan	?	?	?	?	?	30
Alberta	35	40	35	65	70	120
British Columbia	125	85	110	130	170	220
Yukon	0	0	0	0	0	5
Northwest Territories	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nunavut	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOTALS	4,185	3,770	2,955	3,715	4,290	7,365

Illegals were still coming into Canada via land border crossings during the Harper years. Interestingly though, it only receives major attention when Liberals are in power. A cynic may wonder why.

YEAR: 2017
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	245	19	46	5	315
February	452	142	84	0	678
March	654	170	71	2	897
April	672	146	32	9	859
May	576	106	60	0	742
June	781	63	39	1	884
July	2,996	87	51	0	3,314
August	5,530	80	102	0	5,712
September	1,720	78	79	4	1,881
October	1,755	67	68	8	1,890
November	1,539	38	46	0	1,623
December	1,916	22	40	0	1,978
TOTAL	18,836	1,018	718	22	20,593

YEAR: 2018
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	1,458	18	41	0	1,517
February	1,486	31	48	0	1,565
March	1,884	53	33	0	1,970
April	2,479	50	31	0	2,560
May	1,775	36	53	0	1,869
June	1,179	31	53	0	1,263
July	1,552	51	31	0	1,634
August	1,666	39	39	3	1,747
September	1,485	44	68	4	1,601
October	1,334	23	37	0	1,394
November	978	23	18	0	1,019
December	1,242	11	27	0	1,280
TOTAL	18,518	410	479	7	19,419

YEAR: 2019
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	871	1	16	1	888
February	800	1	6	2	808
March	967	13	22	0	1,002
April	1,206	15	25	0	1,246
May	1,149	27	20	0	1,196
June	1,536	26	5	0	1,567
July	1,835	23	15	1	1,874
August	1,712	26	22	2	1,762
September	1,706	19	17	0	1,737
October	1,595	18	8	1	1,622
November	1,118	9	21	0	1,148
December	1,646	2	5	2	1,653
TOTAL	16,136	180	182	9	16,503

YEAR: 2020
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	1,086	7	7	0	1,100
February	976	2	2	0	980
March	930	7	18	0	955
April	1	0	5	0	6
May	17	0	4	0	21
June	28	1	3	1	33
July	29	2	17	0	48
August	15	3	0	0	18
September	30	4	7	0	41
October	27	0	4	0	31
November	24	0	8	0	32
December	26	2	8	0	36
TOTAL	3,189	28	84	1	3,302

YEAR: 2021
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	28	1	10	0	39
February	39	0	1	0	40
March	29	5	2	0	36
April	29	2	2	0	33
May	12	3	13	0	28
June	11	0	6	0	17
July	28	5	6	0	39
August	63	2	11	0	76
September	150	0	19	0	169
October	96	0	17	0	113
November	832	1	12	0	845
December	2,778	0	33	0	2,811
TOTAL	4,095	19	132	0	4,246

YEAR: 2022
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	2,367	0	16	0	2,383
February	2,154	1	9	0	2,164
March	2,492	2	8	0	2,502
April	2,791	3	8	3	2,805
May	3,449	3	40	1	3,493
June	3,066	3	14	3	3,086
July	3,645	3	29	0	3,677
August	3,234	5	10	0	3,249
September	3,650	10	0	0	3,660
October	3,901	16	34	0	3,951
November	3,731	23	34	0	3,788
December	4,689	3	52	1	4,745
TOTALS	39,171	72	289	7	39,540

YEAR: 2023
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	4,875	19	100	0	4,994
February	4,517	5	59	0	4,581
March	4,087	15	71	0	4,173
April	69	9	26	0	104
May	46	3	30	0	79
June	30	1	27	2	60
July	42	8	33	0	83
August	53	3	40	1	97
September	59	2	25	2	88
October	36	7	29	3	75
November	58	0	37	0	95
December	90	5	131	0	226
TOTAL	13,962	77	616	8	14,663

YEAR: 2024
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	79	16	91	5	191
February	75	8	94	1	178

Interestingly, the numbers in British Columbia are actually rising lately. While it’s nowhere near the levels of Roxham Road, it could indicate that people are looking at other alternatives.

Some other useful information:

First, in 2019, something happened that wasn’t really reported on. It was that the Canadian Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin policy. This stopped people from 42 countries (mainly in Europe) from being able to abuse the refugee system with bogus claims.

Second, as for the Safe Third Country Agreement, people are still allowed to enter, and it’s still being gamed by human smugglers and traffickers. Few people know this, but the Treaty is actually a 3-way arrangement with the UNHCR acting as a sort of facilitator. True, the amended agreement has cut the number of interceptions, but is that really the whole story?

Third, the United Nations — a party to U.S/Canada border security — distributes information packages on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement. While claiming to care about the integrity of countries, they publish materials to do exactly the opposite.

Fourth, the U.N. has extensively studied the connection between lack of border enforcement, and the facilitation of human smuggling and trafficking. It isn’t a surprise that open borders lead to increases in illegal crossings. They know exactly what’s going on.

True, changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement seem to have resulted in fewer people entering illegally. That’s certainly positive. However, this pales in comparison to the vast numbers that are entering legally through various channels. But that’s a story for another time.

And while these are the official numbers that get reported, it would be helpful to know how many people come in that are either undetected, or simply aren’t documented.

March 24, 2024March 24, 2024

Egale Canada, Registered Charity Getting Public Money

This is a follow up on Egale Canada. For the earlier critique of their work, see this piece. This time, we get a bit heavier into the financial side of things, and see how big things really are. Remember, your tax dollars are helping to finance this, regardless of personal views.

As an aside, Egale received $513,801 from CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, back in 2020. It got another $35,779 in 2021. Interesting priorities.

From its publicly available filings, it’s clear that after 2012, Canadian taxpayers are financing this organization to a great degree. And that doesn’t even factor in the rebates that private donors receive from Revenue Canada.

YEAR	TOTAL $	GOV’T	OTHER	% GOV’T	EXPENSES
2006	$40,123	$2,507	$37,616	6.2 %	$15,193
2007	$24,644	$0	$24,644	0.0 %	$18,777
2008	$53,154	$6,578	$46,576	12.4 %	$61,661
2009	$106,471	$0	$106,471	0.0 %	$104,518
2010	$259,365	$0	$259,365	0.0 %	$209,962
2011	$464,975	$0	$464,975	0.0 %	$408,782
2012	$707,761	$345,963	$361,798	48.9%	$690,912
2013	$1,801,607	$1,290,184	$511,423	71.6 %	$1,808,589
2014	$1,704,083	$910,500	$793,583	46.6 %	$1,728,727
2015	$2,014,901	$887,075	$1,127,826	44.0 %	$2,013,484
2016	$2,798,237	$1,154,301	$1,643,936	41.3 %	$2,311,837
2017	$3,851,872	$1,132,350	$2,719,522	29.4 %	$3,578,714
2018	$3,704,557	$3,524,832	$179,725	95.1 %	$3,916,554
2019	$4,095,433	$3,831,557	$263,876	93.6 %	$4,043,359
2020	$2,833,582	$2,637,412	$196,170	93.1 %	$2,754,446
2021	$3,635,394	$1,891,479	$1,743,915	52.0 %	$3,595,380
2022	$4,763,496	$3,163,263	$1,600193	66.4 %	$4,615,041

There are some discrepancies with the data copied from the C.R.A. website, as it appears that not all of the same categories are listed in the “short version”. Notably, CEWS isn’t included. The categories also aren’t consistent across the years, so we’ll do our best.

Note: the form for 2007 is incomplete. However, the assets listed in 2006 were totaled at $50,783. In 2007, it was given at $56,650. From that, we will assume that the change will be the difference in revenue and expenses for that year.

Equity (worth) = assets – liabilities
$56,650 – $50,783 = new revenue – $18,777
From this, assume 2007 revenue was ~ $24,644

For the years 2018 and 2019, the itemized lists lump various Government and private funding grants together, in terms of the source. However, the overall totals are the same.

Egale is raising in revenue about 100 times that rate it did less than 20 years ago. In fairness, increases in Government (or taxpayer) money has helped a lot. Assuming these records are fairly accurate, this organization has certainly been growing.

Although it would be nice to blame this on Trudeau, the growth long predates him. And the majority of Government funding appears to have been from Ontario (which is Provincial) anyway.

While Government funding costs a straight 100%, donations from private groups and individuals aren’t free either. Specifically, they are eligible for rebates from the C.R.A. of around 40 to 45 cents on the dollar.

Considering the kinds of causes that Egale takes on, is this a prudent use of public money?

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-22: (Raising Age Of Consent From 14 To 16)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=1736719
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=107655
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/JUST/meeting-57/evidence
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/391/JUST/Evidence/EV2805304/JUSTEV57-E.PDF
(5) Egale Canada Opposes Raising Age Of Consent

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-75: (Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-108/evidence
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20180925/-1/30041?Language=English&Stream=Video
(5) Egale Canada Human Rights Trust Bill C-75

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-6: (Conversion Therapy)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10980515
(2) https://egale.ca/newsletter-open-letter-c6/
(3) https://egale.ca/awareness/open-letter-bill-c6/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cb124b36-46bf-4cab-b648-a3c75f571873

HIV NON-DISCLOSURE: (Hiding Positive Status From Partners)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Brief/BR10044994/br-external/EgaleCanadaHumanRightsTrust-e.pdf
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10485413
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248803
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-149/evidence
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-28/
(6) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/hiv-vih/nd.html
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-28/page-24

ONLINE HATE: (Censorship)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Reports/RP10581008/justrp29/justrp29-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-150/evidence#Int-10636774
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=10625547

INTERFERING WITH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
(1) https://egale.ca/awareness/supreme-court-of-canada-decision-affirms-trans-rights-protective-counter-speech/

PARTNERS:
(1) https://egale.ca/our-partners/

POLICIES:
(1) https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Discriminatory-and-Unworkable-FINAs-Policy-1.pdf
(2) https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/msm-blood-ban/

RACHEL GILMORE TWEET:
(1) https://twitter.com/atRachelGilmore/status/1737207763640402361

March 9, 2024March 9, 2024

Action4Canada Case Remains In 2024 LSBC Professional Legal Training Course

The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has released the 2024 edition of their Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC). The infamous Action4Canada suit, led by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, makes another appearance. The Notice of Civil Claim, NOCC, had been struck in its entirety. This was in the 2023, and was kept in this edition as an “educational exercise”.

Instead of rewriting the NOCC, as was permitted, the case was appealed. Recently, the B.C. Court of Appeal laughed Action4Canada out of there, stating they didn’t understand what was being challenged.

For more background information, here’s the earlier piece. In short, the LSBC is responsible for licensing lawyers (both new and old) in this Province. One of the requirements is that prospective lawyers — articling students — demonstrate a minimum competency in the law.

There are reasons for doing this. It’s in the public’s benefit that members of a “regulated profession” prove themselves to be intelligent and competent in their field. It hurts clients when they retain lawyers or paralegals who have no clue what’s going on. It also can clog the Courts when countless Appeals are launched on the basis of “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

Here’s a brief timeline of events in the Action4Canada case

(1) Despite fundraising since the Summer of 2020, nothing was actually filed until August 2021, nearly a year later. What finally came was a 391 page convoluted mess.

(2) August 2021: This critique was published. It quoted Rules 3-1, 3-7 and 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia. In short, it failed to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading. The site was sued a week later over it, after it allegedly caused donations to plummet.

(3) October 2021: The Defendants start issuing responses to the 391 page Claim.

(4) January 2022: Defendants being filing Applications to Strike the Claim, given how incoherent it is, and impossible to follow. This wasn’t a determination on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The reasons cited include many that the Canuck Law article had published.

(5) May 2022: The Application to Strike is finally heard. It’s worth hearing what it was about. The Claim was so long, confusing and convoluted, that it was impossible to respond to it in any meaningful way.

(6) August 2022: The Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. It was officially struck for being prolix and confusing, although many errors were outlined. However, Justice Ross did allow it to be rewritten, saying there was a prospect that a valid Claim could be filed.

(7) September 2022: Even though the decision was a humiliation, Gaw took to the alternative media to proclaim that it was “really a win”, and that Justice Ross had accepted the case as valid. This was a gross distortion of reality.

(8) September 2022: Instead of simply rewriting an amended Notice of Civil Claim, the case was appealed. No real explanation of that was ever given.

(9) February 2023: The Law Society of British Columbia includes the Action4Canada pleading in their Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC). This is one of the courses that prospective lawyers are required to take before letting licensed. This case is actually used as a teaching exercise in how not to draft documents.

(10) February 2023: The Federal (Adelberg) case is struck as “bad beyond argument”. Justice Fothergill references the Action4Canada case, and concludes it has many of the same defects.

(11) October 2023: No serious attempt had been made to book the actual hearing, which is why the Appeal became classified as “inactive”. If the date isn’t booked within 12 months after filing the Notice of Appeal, this is done automatically.

(12) October 2023: Just days after bring criticized for the lack of a hearing, A4C books the date for February. It seems that public scrutiny forced them to move ahead. Perhaps the goal was to just let the Appeal get thrown out as “abandoned”.

(13) February 2024: The LSBC posts their latest edition of the Professional Legal Training Course (PLTC), and the Action4Canada case is still in it. The overall text has been updated (from 140 pages to 147), but the editors still thought it was worth keeping in.

(14) February 2024: The Action4Canada Appeal is heard, and promptly dismissed.

(15) February 2024: Despite being laughed out of the Court of Appeal, Action4Canada insists that it was really a win, and that things are moving along.

On their website, Action4Canada called it a victory, being able to rewrite the NOCC. It didn’t seem to matter that the Claim had been struck in its entirety.

The Appeal was also thrown out, which was called a “successful outcome”.

This is some pretty delusional stuff.

What does the Professional Legal Training Course say about this?

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.

On those few pages, starting at #15, the Law Society not only roasts Action4Canada, but goes on to explain how pleadings should be drafted. Again, this is written for articling students working towards a license. It’s not designed for 30+ year veterans of the profession.

Bonnie Henry, John Horgan, David Eby, Adrian Dix, and all the others are not scared by this lawsuit. In fact, if any of them are aware of it, they’re probably having a good laugh. How could anyone be gullible enough to donate, or to be a client?

5. Pleading the Facts
Plead a “concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim”: SCCR 3-1(2)(a).

The “material facts” are those facts that are essential to forming a complete cause of action or defence, as the case may be: Young v. Borzoni, 2007 BCCA 16 at para. 20. The evidence that tends to prove those facts should not be pleaded (SCCR3-7(1)). Suppose the issue is whether X has authority to make a certain contract on behalf of the defendant. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to plead that “the defendant employed X as agent to make the contract on his behalf” or that “the defendant held out X as having authority to make the contract on his behalf.” It will be unnecessary and improper to plead that “X has been employed by the defendant for many years to execute contracts of this type on his behalf” or that “the defendant informed the plaintiff that X was the defendant’s agent.”

The material facts part of the pleadings should not include matters of law. However, if a particular statute is relied upon as the foundation of a claim or defence, you must plead the facts necessary to bring the case within the statute.

When pleading the material facts, be clear and brief. There should be no ambiguity in the allegations. Set out each separate allegation of fact in a separate paragraph, so that the defence, in responding to the pleading, will admit or deny each fact separately. The danger in combining facts in a larger paragraph is that defence counsel, in seeking to deny any part of that paragraph, would deny it all. That would put plaintiff’s counsel to the burden of proving facts that might not really be in dispute.

In drafting allegations of fact, avoid colouring them, as that might force the other side to deny what would otherwise be basic facts. For example, in a motor vehicle action, it is good practice for the plaintiff’s counsel to set out the fact of a collision (which likely will be admitted) and then in a separate paragraph set out the allegations of negligence of the defendant (which will be denied). Avoid, for example, combining the facts and allegations of lawful right or fault. If the pleadings state, for example, that the plaintiff was “driving in a lawful manner south on Granville Street,” then defence counsel will deny the entire allegation.

When drafting pleadings, it is often helpful to refer to a precedent as a guideline. However, never follow a precedent blindly. You should know what context it was created for, and how you should adapt or modify it. For example, some plaintiffs’ counsel make it their practice to allege in every case that the defendant driver’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug. If the plaintiff is a passenger in the defendant’s motor vehicle, such a pleading opens the door to the defence to plead that the plaintiff was contributory negligent or accepted the risk of riding with an impaired driver. Furthermore, if the defendant was impaired, that fact might affect their insurance coverage. You should consider precedents carefully and modify them as needed.

6. Pleading the Relief Sought
The plaintiff must set out the relief sought against each named defendant: SCCR 3-1(2)(b). Tell the court what your client wants: for example, an injunction, a declaration, or damages.

Consider carefully any declarations you may be able to obtain from the court. When a court makes a declaration, it “declares” what the law or a fact is. It is not making an order. Declarations can establish a party’s standing and legal rights, which can significantly determine the outcome of a proceeding.

Having a role in this book both in 2023 and 2024 is hardly something to be proud of. This is an educational book for articling students, who haven’t even passed the bar. It’s not just the the NOCC was bad, it’s that the LSBC thinks it’s worth using as an example.

The Action4Canada case could have been so much better if this section had been observed when drafting the NOCC.

There should have been short, concise paragraphs, each alleging a single fact. Instead, many paragraphs were between a half and full page each, containing many unrelated allegations. This made it simpler for Defendants to simply deny everything.
By not having clear and concise facts — many of which may have been admitted — the Plaintiffs would now be put through the time and expense of having to prove everything.
The allegations weren’t clear and ambiguous at all. The who, what, where, when, why and how were typically missing, or contained in hundreds of footnotes.
Counsel didn’t make the allegations plain and neutral. There were all kinds of inflammatory accusations thrown in, but without the specific detail to back them up.
Legal arguments should not be made within the facts being pleaded. While it’s true that enough facts have to be alleged to support the law being cited, this is not the place for argument.
It wasn’t clear what relief was sought. That section was 45 pages, and very repetitive.
Despite being 45 pages, it wasn’t clear which Defendants were being asked to pay what money to which Plaintiffs. People should not be left guessing.

Will Action4Canada Appeal be in the 2025 edition?

The PLTC doesn’t really get into Appeals in great detail. However, there are 2 parts about the A4C Appeal that make it a good contender for another honourable mention.

(1) Page 101 addresses in a fair amount of detail the concept of costs. These are to partially compensate successful parties. They’re also almost entirely discretionary, and an Appellate Court will typically not interfere with them.

(2) Page 99 does briefly address some of the principles in appealing. It’s possible that the LSBC will find it necessary to explain the difference between “orders” and “reasons”. Hopefully, this means that other lawyers don’t waste time filing frivolous Appeals.

Once again, these books are aimed at aspiring lawyers, not established veterans with decades of experience.

It’s comical that at least 2 defamation lawsuits were filed for criticizing the quality of such work. The people responsible for those also make far worse accusations about being “paid agitators”. Will any more of these cases follow?

LSBC TRAINING MANUAL
(1) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/faq-pltc/
(3) LSBC Civil Instruction Manual 2023
(4) LSBC Civil Instruction Manual 2024

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

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 – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

Category: Subversion

Adam Skelly, Part 3: R.O.A. Challenge Finally To Be Heard?

Like this:

Adam Skelly, Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

Like this:

Illegal Crossings Into Canada For 2023: Quebec Way Down, B.C. Rising

Like this:

Egale Canada, Registered Charity Getting Public Money

Like this:

Action4Canada Case Remains In 2024 LSBC Professional Legal Training Course

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: