Some Thoughts On Why Flair Airlines Supports The Mandatory Vaccination Policy

It seems a bit counter-intuitive that a discount airline would be so enthusiastic about the policy of mandatory vaccines for travelers. Flair Airlines is one such company. Then again, looking a bit deeper, there may be other reasons for doing this.

Specifically, it appears the Flair Airlines LTD. has been getting CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, they are likely getting other subsidies as well.

After all, this company went from serious financial hurt, to being able to expand its operations across Canada. Such a sudden shift requires a lot of money.

A quick look through the Federal Lobbying Registry shows that Flair has been quite busy getting the attention of public office holders. The middlemen they send are also worthy of a closer look.

1. Saad Baig, StrategyCorp Inc

Saad Baig is a Director in StrategyCorp’s Public Affairs group and brings six years of experience advising senior cabinet ministers in the Government of Ontario.
Most recently, Saad was Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister of Finance where he was a pivotal part of the team that tabled Ontario’s first balanced budget in ten years. He served as the lead advisor to the Minister on matters relating to tax policy, economic policy and municipal finance. Saad led the development of the 2016 Fall Economic Statement and 2017 Ontario Budget in key areas including transportation, infrastructure, economic development and international trade.
Prior to joining the Ministry of Finance, Saad spent over three years as the lead advisor for infrastructure policy to several ministers where he participated in key negotiations on federal-provincial infrastructure matters, designed municipal funding programs, developed infrastructure planning legislation and coordinated policy and issues for two crown agencies.
Saad has been involved in numerous political campaigns at the municipal, provincial and federal levels including the 2014 central campaign for the Ontario Liberal Party.

This lobbyist for the discount airline spent 6 years in the Ontario Government, in a variety of roles, working for Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty.

2. Garry Keller, StrategyCorp Inc

Garry has served in several key leadership roles in Canadian politics, including as Chief of Staff to Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird; Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition Rona Ambrose, and chief Parliamentary advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He also served as a Chief of Staff to the Government House Leader and the Chief Government Whip, Director of Communications to the Minister of the Environment and Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the President of the Treasury Board. He also served as Acting Chief of Staff to the United Conservative Party Caucus in Alberta in 2017.
As the Chief of Staff to the Foreign Minister, Garry was required to deliver strategic, communication and political advice on both international and domestic matters. He has experience in dealing with regulatory and legal matters, national security matters, trade negotiations, as well as the promotion of Canadian interests and Canadian values on the world stage. He is also an experienced practitioner of the Access to Information Act.
Garry regularly provides commentary on domestic and international politics for CTV News Channel, TVO’s The Agenda and a variety of talk radio shows across Canada. His commentary has also appeared in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, and he has appeared on a number of panels for associations and other organizations on Canadian politics.

Keller spent many years as a Conservative Party of Canada operative, and handler for various politicians. He also moved on to Alberta politics.

3. Sébastien Labrecque, StrategyCorp Inc

Before pivoting to government relations, Sébastien worked in the federal government, which led him to develop a thorough understanding of the inner workings of policy and research development in the public service. Thanks to his experience at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Sébastien possesses an extensive knowledge of the policy and stakeholder ecosystems in the areas of housing finance and the digital economy.

Labrecque spent over a year and a half working for the Federal Government before he switched over and became a lobbyist.

4. Kristina Martin, Loyalist Public Affairs

Kristina is a seasoned strategic communications and government relations expert with over a decade of experience working in politics, government relations and the non-profit sector. Based in Ottawa, she knows the inner workings of Parliament Hill and is recognized as a connector and go-to advisor for corporate and nonprofit leaders to advance complex policy agendas.
Before joining Loyalist Kristina worked as Director of Communications and Public Affairs at Canada’s largest science and technology outreach organization, Actua. Prior to that she worked at a national government relations and strategic communication firm.
Kristina has also served as a communications and political advisor to federal elected officials.

Kristina Martin spent many years with the Federal Liberals when they were in opposition. Now that they are back in power, she’s in a position to wield some real influence.

5. Conal Slobodin, StrategyCorp Inc

Slobodin has since left StrategyCorp and gone to Walmart. However, he has held roles in the Federal Government, and is a former consultant for the Yukon Liberal Party. Small world.

6. Andrew Steele, StrategyCorp Inc

As a Vice President at StrategyCorp, Andrew emphasizes client service, creative solutions and professionalism. He provides counsel on management consulting projects, communications challenges and government relations files at the federal, provincial and municipal level.
Previously, Andrew served as Senior Advisor to the Premier of Ontario, as well as Chief of Staff in several Ministries. He has held senior campaign roles for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party.
Andrew was the founding CEO of the Pecaut Centre, a non-profit management consulting firm housed at the Boston Consulting Group. More recently, Andrew was essential to implementing the strategic transformation of public broadcaster TVO into the province’s partner for digital learning inside the classroom.
A director of the board of the Michael Garron Hospital, Andrew graduated with distinction from the MBA program at Ivey. He writes regularly on public policy as an opinion columnist for the Globe and Mail and others.

Steele, by his own admission, has held senior campaign roles for both the Ontario Liberals, and the Federal Liberals. The connection to Michael Garron Hospital is an interesting one. That’s where Michael Warner, the pro-lockdown doctor, Michael Warner works. Melissa Lantsman, MP-elect for Thornhill, is also a Director.

As for Kenzie McKeegan, Dan Mader and Chris Froggatt, check out this piece on their recent work as Pfizer lobbyists. Have to wonder what all of these political hacks arranged in order for Flair to get onboard with these passports.

There doesn’t seem to be an obvious mention of a bailout, but it’s the most likely thing to search for. And they are definitely getting CEWS from the taxpayers.


Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

This article concerns a lawsuit from July 6, 2020, which had previously been talked about. This is the challenge from Vaccine Choice Canada and several individuals which was supposed to end all regulations and medical martial law in Canada.

Instead of that, this lawsuit is no closer to Trial than it was 14 months ago. There are still no defenses filed. In fact, other than Windsor-Essex Country and their MOH, Wajid Ahmed, no one else is even listed as having a lawyer. Rather than file an application for a default judgement, Vaccine Choice Canada has been content to let it sit forever, and just ask for donations. This is clearly designed to go nowhere, but that is never made clear to the people who get solicited for money.

And no, it’s not their only case. There is another filed on October 24, 2019, to challenge mandatory immunization of students. There has been no movement on that since March 2020, when the pleadings ended.

The shoddy work of the 2020 case had been critiqued before, however, it’s long time to take a look at the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario. Let’s see exactly why this is due to fail, assuming it were ever challenged. It’s not enough to say that a document is garbage. Instead, it must be explained “why” that is the case.

Recently, the suit from Action4Canada was critiqued, and much the same defects were noted. That will never get to Trial either.

As with the last review, the pleadings are so awful, that it’s difficult to believe this was done by accident. This doesn’t look like the work of a lawyer with 35-40 years of experience, but someone who is trying to ensure a case gets bogged down.

To be clear, this isn’t a defense of Trudeau, Ford, Tory, or any of their authoritarian operatives. That being said, it’s impossible to pretend that this lawsuit actually stands a chance in Court.

To start off, let’s look at a few parts of the Ontario Rules for Civil Procedure. This will list the specifics which are relevant here.

Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

18.01 Except as provided in rule 18.02 or subrule 19.01 (5) (late delivery of defence) or 27.04 (2) (counterclaim against plaintiff and non-party), a statement of defence (Form 18A) shall be delivered,
(a) within twenty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served in Ontario;
(b) within forty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; or
(c) within sixty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served anywhere else. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.01.

18.02 (1) A defendant who is served with a statement of claim and intends to defend the action may deliver a notice of intent to defend (Form 18B) within the time prescribed for delivery of a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (1).
(2) A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend within the prescribed time is entitled to ten days, in addition to the time prescribed by rule 18.01, within which to deliver a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (2).
(3) Subrules (1) and (2) apply, with necessary modifications, to,
(a) a defendant to a counterclaim who is not already a party to the main action and who has been served with a statement of defence and counterclaim; and
(b) a third party who has been served with a third party claim. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (3).

If a Defendant doesn’t file a defence after 20 days, the Plaintiff can go seek a default judgement. This essentially means (if granted) the case would effectively be over. Note: a Defendant can still file a notice of intent, which buys them an extra 10 days. It does not stop the proceedings entirely.

Where no Defence Delivered
19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3.

19.02 (1) A defendant who has been noted in default,
(a) is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the statement of claim; and
(b) shall not deliver a statement of defence or take any other step in the action, other than a motion to set aside the noting of default or any judgment obtained by reason of the default, except with leave of the court or the consent of the plaintiff. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.02 (1).

According to the Rules, if a Defendant never bothers to file any sort of response, the facts are considered to be admitted. However, an application for default judgement has to actually be submitted.

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. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (1).
Pleading Law
(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (2).

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (7).

In other words, the pleadings should not contain long quotes. References or short mentions are fine, but there isn’t supposed to be entire paragraphs or pages for this. These aren’t some abstract or archaic concepts, but are pretty basic in terms of drawing up documents.

Claim for Relief
25.06(9) Where a pleading contains a claim for relief, the nature of the relief claimed shall be specified and, where damages are claimed,
(a) the amount claimed for each claimant in respect of each claim shall be stated; and
(b) the amounts and particulars of special damages need only be pleaded to the extent that they are known at the date of the pleading, but notice of any further amounts and particulars shall be delivered forthwith after they become known and, in any event, not less than ten days before trial. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.06 (9).

This should be commonsense, but if money is going to be demanded (and there are multiple Plaintiffs), one needs to specify who gets what. This avoids confusion and arguments later on.

25.10 Where a party demands particulars of an allegation in the pleading of an opposite party, and the opposite party fails to supply them within seven days, the court may order particulars to be delivered within a specified time. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.10.

A demand for particulars is what gets served when the claim or application is convoluted to understand. This would be another option here. The Defendants could quite reasonably reply with a request that it be made clear what the other side actually wants.

25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.

These Rules around pleadings are pretty similar to Rule 3-1 and 3-7 in the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure. There are minor differences, but the regulations around drafting and serving pleadings is much the same. Now, let’s get into some specific criticisms.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) states that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts. This is not at all concise. This 191 page filing is rambling, redundant, and contains bald allegations without underlying facts listed to support them.

As one example, look at page 21 and Cindy Campbell. Instead of briefly stating facts, this goes on and on about her story. These long, bloated paragraphs make it impossible for the other side to simply admit or deny allegations. This is done very poorly. It continues with Groza, Lepe, Spizzirri and Shepherd.

In fact, the bulk of the SoC doesn’t belong here, and would certainly be struck if challenged by the Defendants. More on that coming up.

2. Relief For Each Claimant Not Stated In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(9)(a) spells out that the amount for each Claimant (or person suing), must be stated clearly. On page 18, there is a request for $11 million, but it appears to be against CBC only. Moreover, it isn’t clear who exactly it’s supposed to go to.

Against the Crown and Municipal Defendants, no money is sought, only declarative and injunctive relief. That’s right, Trudeau, Tam, Ford, and co. aren’t being sued for a penny.

Apparently, brevity isn’t the name of the game here. The relief sought runs from page 4 to 18, and is incredibly repetitive and redundant.

3. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(1) does demand that facts be pleaded, however, it also states that evidence MUST NOT be included. From pages 82 to 103, there are many quotes are references to other experts who have differing views. While that is fine in principle, this is not the place to do it. If they have value as experts, then they need to be called to give evidence at a later time. None of that should be in a SoC.

Also, throughout the document, media articles are often cited and included in the footnotes. That may be fine in other contexts, but Court pleadings is not one of them.

4. Long Quotes Also Abundant In Statement Of Claim

Rule 25.06(7) instructs that the “effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material”. In short, we don’t need the entire story told here. Keep it brief.

As just one example, look at page 82. What follows are lengthy quotes from various experts. This goes on for several pages, and should not be included in an SoC. If they are relevant, then the people speaking those words need to be called as expert witnesses at a later date.

5. Making Conclusions Without Supporting Facts

Rule 25.11 allows the court to strike out pleadings that:
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.

Beginning at page 146, the SoC goes on to make sweeping declarations on a variety of subjects, despite having little to no foundation. While the bulk of the content is true, underlying facts haven’t been included. There are references to media articles, but again, that shouldn’t be there. The SoC is such a mess that the entire document would probably get thrown out if a motion were filed.

Despite a lot of the content being truthful, all allegations in the SoC will be open to challenge by opposing parties. Countless witnesses would have to be called to prove this, and much more. This is written up in such a way that it would be impossible to bring to trial in any reasonable amount of time — notwithstanding it just sitting for a year.

6. Issues With Denis Rancourt’s Pleadings In Statement Of Claim

Denis Rancourt’s introduction starts on page 39 of the SoC, and yes, he has quite the accomplished background as a researcher and academic.

However, it doesn’t look like any facts are pleaded that would implicate the Defendants. On page 40, it’s stated that Research Gate removed an article, and on page 41, YouTube removed his videos. But they aren’t being sued, so this is irrelevant. He also claims that CBC wouldn’t air his work, which is probably annoying, but doesn’t seem to give rise to a lawsuit.

Page 42 goes on to assert that Rancourt’s free speech and expression rights have been violated. But this appears to be making bald assertions or conclusions without pleading necessary facts.

On page 86, Rancourt is quoted as an expert, which may cause issues considering he’s a Plaintiff here. He’s also listed as a mask expert in the Police On Guard case.

7. Service Likely To Be Challenged (If It Ever Happened)

This may seem pretty basic, but the addresses for service have to be included in the SoC. All of them must be, even if multiple parties can be served at the same address. Only a handful are in this case (seen in page 2 and 3). Should the Defendants stop ignoring this case, it may become a real problem.

Then again, it’s an open question how many of these parties have been served at all. The only ones we can be sure of are Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor. The Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, replied to several inquiries that there was nothing filed beyond that notice of intent from WEC. No affidavits of service, even months later.

CBC News has obtained an unredacted copy of a lawsuit launched by an anti-vaccination advocacy group against the government response to the coronavirus crisis, the details of which can now be independently verified and publicly reported for the first time.
The lawsuit was filed July 6 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto by Aylmer, Ont.-based Vaccine Choice Canada and seven individuals. The legal action is a challenge under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the country’s pandemic response measures, including compulsory face masks, the closure of businesses and the enforcement of physical distancing.

In an August 2020 article, CBC claimed that they had “obtained an unredacted copy” of the lawsuit. They imply they were never served, and only got a copy of contacting the Court itself. Whether this is true or not is unclear, but pretty damning if it is. Interestingly, it’s mentioned how the case might get dismissed because it doesn’t comply with the rules, and doesn’t justify a lot of its allegations. CBC also says that Galati refused an on-the-record interview, but then threatened the network with how they cover the protests. All of this sounds surprisingly believable.

Granted, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines last year. But that ended on September 14, 2020. There’s no valid excuse for a response to have not been sent by now.

The items listed above are not minor errors, but could easily stop an action in its tracks. Hard to believe that all of this was due to sloppiness. This isn’t some rookie associate drafting the SoC.

The reality is that the vast majority of the content in the SoC doesn’t belong here. The originating document is supposed to be concise, brief, and outline the facts to be proven. The drafting was quite shoddy, and doesn’t seem like it was ever designed with a Trial in mind.

What we have is a situation where:
[1] The Government won’t try to strike defective pleadings.
[2] The Plaintiff won’t seek default judgement on a non-response.

Nothing has happened to this suit in a year. Outside of collusion or some kind of agreement, there’s no real explanation. But that hasn’t stopped Vaccine Choice Canada and their lawyer from doing a media blitz last summer. Even as donations flooded in, it was never disclosed that what the situation was. Well meaning people were led to believe that this case was being pursued diligently.

This case used to be prominently posted on the Vaccine Choice Canada website. It’s now not as easy to find, unless one knows where to look.

Now, there have been recent claims that these affidavits of evidence (in the thousands of pages) were being compiled to drop on the Government. Even if true, no Judge is going to read documents of that length. Additionally, it won’t help when the flawed SoC gets thrown out, for the reasons listed above.

If exposing Trudeau and Ford was important, just imagine what a SoC, properly drafted, could have done. Imagine all of the information and evidence that would have been flushed out during depositions and discovery. Instead, this has been a waste of time and money. In fact, it doesn’t seem like there’s any urgency to bring any of the Constitutional Rights Centre cases ahead.

Despots like Trudeau and Ford are despicable people, but at least we know they are enemies. It’s the people masquerading as allies who are harder to put up with.

To anyone still donating to these scams, think long and hard about it.


Nova Scotia FOI Result: Province Refuses To Turn Over Data/Studies Justifying Masks In Schools

Thank you to a concerned Nova Scotia resident who took the time to contact the NS Department of Health and Wellness regarding masks in schools. The same person also went through the efforts to contact the Government asking for data about ICU hospitalizations and capacity going back to 2015. This earlier result is well worth a read.

Note: when scrubbing details, a few pages at the end turned out a bit wonky. Hopefully, that doesn’t detract from the overall information.

The Department of Health and Wellness received your application for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) on June 22, 2021.
In your application, you requested a copy of the following records:
All scientific data, correspondence, studies, final briefing notes, risk-benefit analysis that justify and or support the government’s actions and decision-making that masking children in schools is necessary to reduce the spread of COVID-19 that are held by Dr. Strang Chief Medical Officer of Health. (Date Range for Record Search:
From 02/29/2020 To 06/21/2021)

This is a very reasonable request. If young children are going to be forced (or coerced) into wearing masks for 4 or 6 hours per day, then we need to see some justification for this. For all the rambling about following the science, let’s see some actual science.

You are entitled to part of the records requested. However, we have removed some of the information from the records according to subsection 5(2) of the Act. The severed information is exempt from disclosure under the Act for the following reasons:
• Section 14(1): The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice, recommendations or draft regulations developed by or for a public body.
• Section 20(1): The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The Province is redacting part of the information, claiming that it would force them to reveal regulations currently being drafted. They also allege some 3rd party invasion of privacy. It’s scant on details, so there’s really no way to verify this.

We are refusing access to a portion of the records for the following reason pursuant to subsection 4(2) of the Act:
• The Act does not apply to the following kinds of information in the custody or control of a public body: published information, material available for purchase and material that is a matter of public record.

As an additional ground, no information can be released, since apparently it’s already in the public domain. Now, there are links provided on the next page, but this doesn’t really help narrow down where exactly that information is.

Information that is not responsive to the scope of your requests has been removed from the
records package.

Dude, you haven’t provided any information. Does the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Nova Scotia not have any records related to the health of children in schools, and how masks would impact them?

Nova Scotia’s Covid -19 response actions have been based on national and international guidance from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). As the leading agencies for pandemic response nationally and internationally, both PHAC and WHO are continuously reviewing the evolving scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 and the effectiveness of various measures. These reviews are used to form their guidance, position statements, and other documents all of which are in the public domain.

This is the typical self-congratulations, that doesn’t really answer the question being asked. Now, there are another 10 pages attached, mostly redacted. The information provided is pretty useless. Now, if there truly was a scientific and medical basis for the decision to push masks on the public (and especially on kids) why not share it openly?

There has to be far more information that the pages (even the redacted ones) provided. This is a major decision, and not something that can be done on a whim. What are they really hiding?

And since we’re on FOIs, go visit Fluoride Free Peel. Amazing work done there to expose the scam of this so-called virus.

(1) Nova Scotia Masks At School FOI

LPC Platform Includes Provision To Provide Legal Cover To Businesses Implementing Vaccine Passports

Included in the Liberal Party of Canada election platform on page 2 is a promise to indemnify businesses that exclude people based on not taking those experimental “vaccines”. That’s right, not only are the businesses being offered the subsidies they need, but Government will also run interference to keep these requirements from becoming a liability.

But don’t worry. It’s not about tyranny and eliminating your basic human rights. This is done all in the name of safety and security. What could possibly go wrong?

[Page 2] Proof of Vaccination
Canadians want to finish the fight against COVID-19. Millions of Canadians have rolled up their sleeves and gotten their vaccine shots, doing so to protect themselves, and their community. Across the country, thousands of business owners have demonstrated leadership to support vaccine rollout, and now many want to go further. Whether they are managing a multinational or a small coffee shop, business owners should have no doubt that putting the safety of workers, customers, or clients first is the right thing to do.
Proof of vaccination systems give people the confidence of knowing that others around them are fully vaccinated. They also help drive increased vaccination rates and give Canadians confidence that it’s safe to go to restaurants,
shops, and out into their communities.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Launch a $1 billion COVID-19 Proof of Vaccination Fund to support provinces and territories who implement a requirement for proof of vaccine credentials in their jurisdiction for non-essential businesses and public spaces.
• Table legislation to ensure that every business and organization that decides to require a proof of vaccination from employees and customers can do so without fear of a legal challenge.

Not only would the Government be economically subsidizing these “passports”, but they’d be running interference to make sure there was no legal remedy for people concerned with basic liberties. Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population. At least in theory, there would be adequate long term testing to know what effects will happen years later.
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

If implemented, there would be no recourse for people who are denied entry (it doesn’t specify exemptions). Also, the indemnified manufacturers don’t seem to be an issue. Great way to implement medical segregation. The pressure to do this makes informed consent — REAL consent — a thing of the past. It seems that “my body, my choice” doesn’t extend to medical autonomy, unless it involves killing children.

One would think that there would be some real opposition to all of this Provincially and Municipally, but there isn’t. Even those who refuse vaccine passports only do so very tepidly.

Doug Ford is doing what he does best: stab the residents of Ontario in the back, again and again. He’s on board with all of this, as are these “conservative” Premiers.

Where are all the constitutional lawyers? Other than holding constant fundraisers, they don’t seem to actually be doing much.

Beyond physical and economic coercion, what else is in there? Since we are looking through the Liberal platform, this is hardly the only objectionable topic. A few points worth noting:

[Page 65] Protecting Canadians from Online Harms
Too many people in Canada are victims of hate speech, which is often amplified and spread on social media. Canadians want action and they want leadership that will put a stop to harmful online content and hold platforms
A re-elected Liberal Government will:
• Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.
• Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.

[Page 66] Black Canadians Justice Strategy
Anti-Black racism and discrimination are a reality in Canada, and they are acutely felt in Canada’s policing and
criminal justice system. Black Canadians are significantly overrepresented in the federal prison system, accounting for 7.3% of the prison population when they represent only 3.5% of the greater population. The work of grassroots organizations like Black Lives Matters have raised their voices to bring global attention to this issue. Systemic racism, discrimination, and violence against Black Canadians will persist as long as inequality is not called out and addressed.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Develop a Black Canadians Justice Strategy to address anti-black racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system.

[Page 70] Combatting Authoritarianism and Foreign Interference
With authoritarianism, geopolitical competition, and foreign interference on the rise, safeguarding Canada’s national and economic security requires strong action both at home and abroad. We will continue to implement domestic measures to protect Canadians and work closely with our friends, allies, and partners to respond to illegal and unacceptable behaviour by authoritarian states, including China, Russia, and Iran.
Specifically, a re-elected Liberal government will:
• Work with G7, NATO, and likeminded partners to develop and expand collective responses to arbitrary detention, economic coercion, cyber threats, foreign interference in democratic processes, and egregious violations of human rights, including through the use of sanctions, support for international institutions, and coordinated action to reinforce the rules of international trade.
• Review and modernize the Investment Canada Act and provide additional resources to support national security agencies in tracking, assessing, and mitigating economic security threats from foreign investment.
• Expand collaboration and information sharing with Canadian partners and across all levels of government with respect to addressing security risks in foreign research and investment partnerships.
• Introduce legislation to safeguard Canada’s critical infrastructure, including our 5G networks, to preserve the integrity and security of our telecommunications systems.
• Continue to work with international partners to hold Iran accountable for the illegal shootdown of PS752 and continue to provide support to the families and loved ones of the victims as they fight for justice and reparations. We will also continue to advance Canada’s Safer Skies Initiative, to prevent such tragic events in the future.
• Increase resources available to our national security agencies to counter foreign interference and to the RCMP to protect Canadians from unacceptable surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by foreign actors.

[Page 75] • Significantly increase the resources of the Canada Revenue Agency to combat aggressive tax planning
and tax avoidance that allows the wealthiest to avoid paying the taxes they owe. This will increase CRA’s resources by up to $1 billion per year in order to close Canada’s tax gap.
Modernize the general anti-avoidance rule regime in order to focus on economic substance and restrict the ability of federally regulated entities, including financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies, to use tiered structures as a form of corporate tax planning that flows Canadian-derived profit through entities in low-tax jurisdictions in order to reduce taxes back in Canada.
• Work with our international partners to implement a global minimum tax so that the biggest companies in the world are not able to escape the taxes they owe here in Canada.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details. It would be interesting to know what exactly counts as “hate”. It’s likely to be written in such a broad and vague way as to be applied however the politics demands it.

Regarding the overrepresentation in Canadian jails, that could easily be explained by the crime rates, or is that racist to discuss? And who exactly is committing those high rates of violence against blacks?

It’s rather sickening to claim to oppose authoritarianism and human rights abroad, while turning a blind eye to the same sort of thing happening locally.

There’s also large sections on climate change, and the rainbow lobby. Beyond that, gender is woven into pretty much everything. However, that’s to be expected from Trudeau these days.

Of course, this is just a tiny portion of what’s in the platform. Granted, politicians lie all the time, but a lot of these they would actually implement.

(2) Liberal Election Campaign Platform
(3) Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
(10) Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
(11) Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
(12) Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
(13) Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim

Why I Believe Rocco Galati Is Controlled Opposition

Over the last 20 years or so, Rocco Galati has tried to project himself as a constitutional lawyer, fighting for the interests of Canadians, and humanity as a whole. However, looking more into it, I’ve come to believe that this image and persona are entirely artificial. I think he’s actively working against Canadians.

Since this will almost certainly result in more threats, a little disclaimer is needed. This is based on information readily available, and also, there is no intent to mislead or deceive. Given the circumstances we face, truth becomes even more important. Keep in mind, the Ontario Libel and Slander Act contains many built-in defenses for writers and publishers. Furthermore, anti-SLAPP laws prevent people from suing simply to shut another person up.

For extra information, Overdue Revolutions wrote a detailed article on July 17, 2020, outlining many of the same concerns. It is well worth a read, as is the overall “resistance” to Trudeau being controlled. One point the first article was spot on about predicted that Galati “appearing” to challenge Trudeau in the July 6 lawsuit would convince others that it was all taken care of — and that any outcome can be manufactured. However, the plan seems to be to leave it in limbo, at least for now.

Now, getting to the heart of the matter:

As a starting point, it’s a little strange that a person who claims to be censored is in the Canadian media so often. CBC has hosted Galati countless times over the years. True threats to the establishment aren’t given airtime on the national news.

It’s also curious to note that the CBC never threw Galati under the bus over that bogus July 6 lawsuit. Sure, they did a half hearted piece about how this poorly written, and rambling document was likely to be dismissed. And it would have been. However, they could have done so much more damage if they reported that it was still sitting a year later. Then again, lawyers for Trudeau, Tam, Ford, etc…. could have exposed this. It’s been covered many times on Canuck Law. Have to wonder when the “establishment” media and politicians protect the “resistance” lawyer who’s taking them to task.

1. Comments Like This Never Questioned By The Public

This video is a clip from a January 2015 interview, posted in February (see 10:45). Apparently, there are too many white men on benches, and this “white supremacist” system is appalling. The topic wasn’t relevant to the issue of banking practices in Canada, or the COMER case, but the contempt and disgust spills out anyway. In fairness, this was 6 years ago, but is there anything to indicate his views have changed at all?

Have to say, this rant comes across as pretty racist. Can you imagine if those remarks were directed at another group? Also, it was an interview, intended to be aired, not things said at a private event.

2. Representing Assets, Strange Cases

The law is a very broad field, and a lawyer will encounter many types of clients and cases in their careers. However, here are a few that might make people take notice, as they are unusual:

  • Galati represented Abdurahman Khadr in 2003, a suspected terrorist who was brought back to Canada. Khadr claimed to be a CIA informant, making his representation by Galati very odd. After all, this was a lawyer who prided himself on working against the Government.
  • Another noteworthy client was Delmart Vreeland, supposedly a Naval Intelligence Officer. He was arrested in 2000. Vreeland claimed to have information about upcoming attacks that needed to be prevented.
  • Galati challenged the appointments of 2 Justices: Marc Nadon (Supreme Court of Canada); and Robert Mainville (Quebec Court of Appeal). What motivated these, and was there was some client behind the scenes? Also, getting paid for the Nadon case must have been important, given the applications to the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada.

3. Bank Of Canada, COMER Canada Infrastructure Bank

COMER, the Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform, sued the Federal Government in 2011. On paper, this seemed a noble and worthwhile goal, although there may be more than meets the eye. Overdue Revolution covers it pretty well, including the founders of the organization. Strange how the Canadian Infrastructure Bank seemed to rise from the ashes of this case. It’s an organization handing out money for construction and development, and is even less accountable than the Bank of Canada.

The other consequence of losing the Bank of Canada case means that any future challenge to the banking system will be next to impossible. Read into that what you will.

Now, Rob Carbone, of the fake “Republican Party of Canada”, claims to own the Canada Infrastructure Bank. He hangs around the protests a lot, pretending to be a wealthy businessman, larping as a billionaire, apparently with access to trillions of dollars in assets. Supposedly, Chris Saccoccia is planning to become Finance Minister one day. The entire story is nonsense.

4. Citizenship For Convicted Terrorists/Traitors

June 25, 2014, Galati and Manuel Azevedo sued the Governor General of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Immigration Minister. This was to stop Bill C-24, which would have stripped the dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship if convicted of terrorism or treason. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but letting monsters enjoy rights they don’t deserve.

Curiously, Galati and Azevedo tried to use their own dual citizenships (Italian and Portuguese respectively), in order to gain private interest standing. On January 22, 2015, the Application was dismissed by the Federal Court. An appeal was filed (File #A-52-15).

It would have been nice to know who was really behind this challenge. Presumably, Galati and Azevedo are busy lawyers with a lot to do. A bewildering choice, unless there was someone behind the scenes, directing the action. Could they have picked a less deserving class of people?

After Trudeau took office in late 2015, Bill C-6 was one of the first pieces of legislation introduced. Hearings began in April 2016. The Bill passed, making the Appeal moot, and it was formally discontinued in September 2018.

One of Galati’s clients in 2006 was Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, who was (allegedly) one of the Toronto 18 suspects. The charges against him were eventually stayed. The ringleader, Zakaria Amara, was scheduled to have his Canadian citizenship stripped away following his conviction and life sentence. However, he won’t now. Just a thought, but this may be the real reason (at least in part), why Galati and Azevedo challenged Bill C-24.

True, everyone has the right to representation, even accused terrorists. That being said, this is a bizarre way for these lawyers to become household names.

5. The Boyle & Khadr Families

In 2003, Galati worked to secure the release of Abdurahman Khadr, older brother of Omar Khadr. He was being held on suspicion of terrorism. Supposedly, he “implored the public earlier this week to not judge him since he did not face any charges while in American custody for the past two years. But at the same press conference, Khadr later admitted that in the summer of 1998 he attended a notorious training camp in Afghanistan, which Osama bin Laden is rumoured to have visited.”

This is not to imply that Galati is involved in terrorism, but again, it’s certainly unusual for a tax lawyer to take this path. Of all the areas of law that are out there, why is a person drawn to terrorism cases? However, there would later be new ties to the Khadr Family revealed.

If your wife is pregnant, taking her backpacking through a warzone in Afghanistan isn’t really the best idea. But that’s what Joshua Boyle supposedly did. Allegedly, they were kidnapped in 2012 and held prisoner for 5 years. However, they had 3 children in the meantime, making their “captors” some of the nicest people imaginable. The story is farfetched, to put it very mildly.

On December 19, 2017, photographs were posted of a meeting meeting between Trudeau and the Boyles. Now, people can’t just get in to see the Prime Minister, as they would have to be cleared by the RCMP. Interesting, that Trudeau didn’t see him as a threat. Interesting, to have a Twitter account with the name BoylesVsWorld.

Boyle used to be married to Zaynab Khadr, making him the former brother-in-law of Omar Khadr. This is the convicted terrorist who attacked the American army and was captured in 2002 in Afghanistan. Khadr became a multimillionaire as a result of a lawsuit years later. Trudeau handed over $10.5 million of taxpayer money, without putting up any real resistance.

Boyle was later charged with 19 offenses, including assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement. He was acquitted by the Judge.

As a bit of an aside, Joshua’s father, Patrick Boyle, was a connected Judge with the Federal Court, in the tax department. Galati got his start in law working with the Government as a tax lawyer. But that’s probably a coincidence.

While the above sections related to past and historical information, let’s look at something more recent: the so-called challenges to the medical martial law imposed by various Governments.

6. Controlled Opposition To Lockdowns In Canadian Courts

In December 2020, Galati filed a defamation suit against a bunch of people and a few media outlets over comments and publications involving Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, (file #CV-20-00652918-0000)

While touted as being a way to fight back against censorship of doctors, this does no such thing. Instead, it sues a variety of people and organizations over mean words. And suing private individuals won’t result in policy changes. Looking at the statement of claim, we can see what exactly it being sought. Quoting pages 5 and 6:

With respect to Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill:
(a) General damages as against the Defendants, as follows:
(i) As against the personal defendants, jointly ad severally, $4,000,000.00 for express libel and slander and by innuendo and irresponsible publication;
(ii) As against the print publication defendants, The Pointer, Societe Radio-Canada, and the Hamilton Spectator, $750,000. For libel and negligence;
(b) Aggravated damages as against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(c) Punitive damages as against the Defendants, jointly, and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(d) An interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and prominent apology for any and all defamatory publication and/or remarks by the Defendants;
(e) Prejudgement interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C43; and
(f) Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or further relief as this Court deems just.

With respect to Dr. Ashvinder Kaur Lamba:
(a) General damages as against the Defendants, Dr. Angus Maciver and Dr. Nadia Alam, as follows:
(i) As against the person defendants, jointly and severally, $4,000,000.00 for express libel and slander and by innuendo and irresponsible publication.
(b) Aggravated damages as against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(c) Punitive damages as against the Defendants, jointly, and severally, in the amount of $1,000,000;
(d) An interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and prominent apology for any and all defamatory publication and/or remarks by the Defendants;
(e) Prejudgement interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C43; and
(f) Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or further relief as this Court deems just.

Even if this lawsuit is successful, nothing will change in the big picture. Sure, Gill and Lamba may become millionaires in the process, and apologies might have to be issued. That said, lockdown regulations and policies will not be impacted in the slightest.

To everyone donating to the Constitutional Rights Centre, you will never see a penny of this money. You’re just subsidizing private litigation.

Looking up the case online, it seems that many defendants don’t have lawyers. However, in situations like this, it’s fairly common to pool funds to have a single lawyer represent multiple people. According to the records, the next scheduled appearance is September 27, 2021.

Feel free to read the Statement of Claim, which is publicly available. The 2 Plaintiffs are seeking at least $12.75 million, over rude tweets and publications.

Just a personal take, while distasteful comments were made, these are hardly worth suing over, and don’t merit such an action. Even taking everything at face value, this is not $13 million in damages. And such a claim would probably be thrown out if a SLAPP Motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) were filed. And again, even if the Plaintiffs won, it would create no policy changes whatsoever.

As for the comments that Gill goes around blocking people, there is a high degree of truth to that. Besides, how can a person sue another for commenting on someone else’s blocking rates? Rempel may still be on top, but she’s facing some competition.

A source close to this mentioned that depositions took place in July. That’s interesting the case is moving ahead, considering how insignificant it really is.

A private defamation gets Galati’s attention, but these don’t. It’s been addressed repeatedly on this site how 2 claims by Vaccine Choice Canada remain in limbo. One is from October 2019 and involves mandatory vaccination of Ontario students (CV-19-00629801-0000). Another is the infamous one from July 2020, which would end all measures completely, (CV-20-00643451-0000). Supposedly, a group called Action4Canada will be filing a lawsuit in B.C., but hasn’t, even after fundraising for a year.

What litigation people pursue privately is their business. When one repeatedly asks for money to support litigation, it becomes everyone’s business.

There have been rumours circulating that there are all these Affidavits ready to drop on Trudeau and his cronies, and it’s all coming together. Thousands of pages of evidence is about to be submitted, and the Courts will fix it all. Basically, trust the plan. Don’t worry, there is a major effort behind the scenes, and everything is being taken care of.

[1] Diligently push a case that impacts nothing long term.
[2] Let potentially groundbreaking cases remain idle.

The Defendants in the July 6, 2020 case (excluding Windsor-Essex Country and their CMOH) haven’t even bothered to lawyer up. And no attempt was made to force a default judgement. A cynic may wonder if there was collusion involved, an agreement by all parties to do nothing. The Statement of Claim was written up in such a piss poor manner — and maybe that was deliberate — that it would be struck by any challenge filed. Considering that the Claim alleges serious human rights violations, it seems odd to be worth only $11 million, far less than the defamation case.

Considering that the real cases (again, publicly funded) are going nowhere, how exactly can Galati justify spending his time patrolling Twitter, dropping Section 5 threats, and then start suing nobodies?

One could argue that this is just a convoluted strategy, or that there is some grand plan. However, this looks like an effort to “appear” to be fighting against the Trudeau/Ford agenda, while ensuring that it continues. In short, this seems to be an attempt to neutralize real opposition.

Interesting side note on the Sgt. Julie Evans case: the Attorney General used Rule 2.1.01 to try to get the case dismissed. This is the Police on Guard for Thee. However, it’s meant for very obviously defective cases. If the AG was serious about this, why not use a regular Motion to Strike? Was the goal to launch a half hearted effort to make it appear to challenge the case?

7. Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy & Challenging Trudeau

While claiming to be opposed to Trudeau, and the medical martial law measures, Galati’s law firm has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Check the link out. Pretty hard to be against the system when the system is subsidizing your office. Although it doesn’t say the total amount, it could be substantial, given the expenses law firms can incur.

8. Selling Basic Information To Self Represented Litigants

This offer no longer appears to be available, but it was in late Fall 2020. For the low, low rate of just $90, you could purchase half filled Court forms to sue businesses and the Government. Of course, it came with the disclaimer that this didn’t mean you were represented, and that Galati and Co. were indemnified from any consequences. This meant the lawyers assumed no responsibility, no matter what ultimately happened. This is pretty much the safety that vaccine manufacturers enjoy. People would literally be sold the rope to hang themselves with, and the lawyers drafting the papers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Just a hunch, but perhaps this product was stopped because it was a liability. The Law Society of Ontario may view this as selling legal advice, regardless of whatever disclaimers were added. We see more of the same pattern with these legal challenges:

[1] Divert attention with relatively minor matters.
[2] Ensure the big cases never move ahead.

Sure, desperate people could purchase these forms if they wish, and some will buy anything. Now, where does the money from these purchases go? Where does all of the donations for the “lawsuits” go? Unfortunately, too few people ask those difficult questions. This isn’t something where you can just write a cheque and forget about.

Just like with the Gill/Lamba suit, such claims against private parties will not result in any public policy changes. Sure, some will win their cases, but it doesn’t mean the Provincial dictates suddenly become void. There will be no lasting effects outside of individual claims.

Now, had some basic informational videos (not advice) been posted instead to let Canadians know of their options, that would have been a really stand up thing to do. However, this comes across as pretty scummy.

9. Controlled Opposition To Lockdowns In Canada

It’s typically wrong to judge people by the company the keep. However, in this case it’s relevant. Beyond the Courts, the psy-op is preserved by managing and controlling the protests against these measures. Many of the people leading them come across as grifters and subversion agents, while others present as intelligence operatives. After a bit of searching, it becomes clear that it’s the same group of people running everything. Let’s take a quick look.

As addressed earlier, it seems that the anti-lockdown political efforts aren’t a real solution. People like Maxime Bernier claim to support freedom, but will never talk about the experimental nature of these “vaccines” being pushed on children. Likewise, a party that cannot put together a basic structure in 3 years should not be taken seriously. This principle also applies to the Republican Party (Carbone), New Blue Ontario (Karahalios), and Maverick/WExit (Hill), who have each had a year or more. None of them even have an internal constitution, effectively making them dictatorships. Rob Carbone, of course, supposedly is in control of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

You also have to question the thinking of those promoting the rise of unelected people. Yes, traditional parties have failed. So let’s get rid of that, and install someone not chosen by his people, and not restricted by any constitution or governing documents. If you want to save Canada, get rid of democracy. It’s absurd, trading one set of tyrants for another.

Even so-called renegade politicians like Roman Baber and Randy Hillier will only go part way. They’ll complain that these measures are heavy handed, but never call out the medical fraud for what it is. They feed “hopium” to the masses, trying to delude others into believing a political solution is possible.

Kelly Ann Wolfe has been one of the prominent voices from the beginning. However, she has asked (or claims to have asked) the Canadian Military to intervene, and is in talks with the U.S. Armed Forces See 18:30 in the video. Strange how she can openly call for the Government to be overthrown, but is allowed to speak openly. Not a peep from anyone here. You’d think that Wolfe calling for a military dictatorship would be a cause for concern, but apparently not.

According to her own biography, Wolfe is connected to:

  • Hugs Over Masks (Sobolev)
  • Mothers Against Distancing (Saccoccia)
  • Freedom Forum Canada (Black, Jamnisek)
  • The Line Canada (Daigle)

Think these groups don’t all run in the same circles? They do. Wolfe is just one of them, and it’s pretty chilling that such a person is so intertwined in the “resistance”. Think of this as a corporate empire, where the different logos are used to camouflage the fact that the companies all have the same owners.

Considering the “Fed vibes” that Wolfe gives off, it’s fair to ask to what degree these protests are used as a way to monitor citizens. Why are these people leading the opposition? Because they’re ensuring that things go nowhere, following the wisdom of Vladimir Lenin.

Patrick King claims to have attended Bilderberg, which is interesting. He doesn’t really come across as an investigative reporter. King is a co-Founder of the WExit Party (now Maverick), which makes it clear it doesn’t actually oppose the lockdowns the Provinces push. He’s also part of the Yellow Vests.

Vladislav Sobolev used the “pandemic” as an opportunity to start up a clothing line with his company, Hugs Over Masks. Yes, global tyranny is here, but let’s make some quick money selling sweaters and T-shirts. One of the reasons protests fizzled out is that people like Sobolev were simply using them as an opportunity to make money. Now, are these grifters were just in it for profit, or was there a deliberate attempt to drive away real support?

Chris Saccoccia, a.k.a. Chris Sky, came out of nowhere to emerge as the “freedom fighter” for Canada. While he does say a lot of truthful things, his behaviour and appearance are a complete turnoff to normies. Maybe that was the point of selecting him, to make resisters seem like crazies. In fact, it would be difficult to hand pick a better choice. He also started a GoFundMe, and has a (defunct?) business. There’s also this site, Mothers Against Distancing, or MAD, which is pretty sparse. Of course, he doesn’t really need to work, since his father, Art Saccoccia, is a wealthy developer.

Sky also got himself arrested for (allegedly) threatening to kill Doug Ford. The story goes that Rob Carbone turned him in — or made it up — after their relationship soured. While this may be legitimate, it comes across as a psy-op to give the police an excuse to crack down even harder on peaceful demonstrators.

The clip came from Wolfish, and is of Lamont Daigle of The Line. From this, it comes across in a creepy way. Beyond that, this “organic” group is part of an international chain, and seems to support violence to achieve its goals. Wolfish did a great piece on organization. It’s unclear if this really is an Antifa style outfit, or is just Feds pretending to be.

It was since brought to the attention of this site that the clip is actually part of a larger interview, related to the screening of the film “Jesus Meets The Gay Man“. The clip from the above video (from Wolfish) starts at about 3:10 in the full interview. Granted, it talks about someone else in his life being a pedophile, but he appears to be sympathetic about it. The shorter clip doesn’t seem to be taking what was said in the interview out of context. Yes, it’s all on the subject of forgiveness and understanding, but rather offputting here.

Since apparently posting the entire interview may result in copyright issues, go watch the entire thing. It’s about 8 minutes long.

In any event, go read the article on The Line, and its more eyebrow raising aspects. It’s a long one, but well worth the time.

Hanging out with these people seems like a good way to end up on a watchlist, or at least get bamboozled into buying useless junk. It’s best to not get involved with them.

Odessa Orlewicz (or is it Munroe?) was an actress about 20 years ago. She was in a few films, including Freddy vs. Jason. She promotes the grifting of Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada. Her husband, Norbert, went to Langara College to study theatre. He has a formal education in acting, which should set off alarms. Are these 2 even married, or is that just a cover story they use?

In fact, a lot of the people involved seem to be performers as well. Check out their IMDb page. Maxime Bernier, James Coates, Lamont Daigle, Len Faul, Galati, Artur Pawlowski, Adam Skelly and many others all have roles in the series. Is this all just some grand production? At times it seems like it. They recently discarded Chris Sky from the cast, and perhaps Patrick King will take up the role.

Seriously, had anyone heard of many of these “freedom fighters” prior to the Spring of 2020? They all know each other, and it seems to have been the case prior to these lockdowns.

A couple exceptions: Ezra has been around writing for years in a variety of publications. Carpay has been with the JCCF a long time, which has launched challenges against a variety of measures. So it was unfair to lump them in with newcomers. (correction from original)

There is more, but overall, the entire “opposition” movement seems designed to subvert real challenges, and deter Canadians from banding together for mutual interests. While it could be dismissed as a few bad apples, it appears too coordinated. This looks like an effort to pretend to oppose martial law, while ensuring it continues on. The Court aspect is important, but it’s part of a larger agenda.

Anyhow, these are some thoughts on why I believe Galati acts as a form of controlled opposition to the Government. I don’t buy the crafted persona he sells to the public. Aside from the company he keeps, how are any of the cases he takes beneficial to Canadians? How is endless fundraisers with Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada productive, when they don’t result in anything? With all of the information presented, does he really have the public’s interests at heart?

(6) The-Delmart-Edward-Vreeland-Case-911-Foreknowledge
(9) Wayback Machine — Rob Carbone