Great Barrington Declaration: Gatekeeping True Scale Of Medical Hoax

This is a long overdue piece. The so-called “Great Barrington Declaration” came about in late 2020. It was supposedly a call for “balanced” public health measures.

In reality, it still calls for significant limitations on freedoms. It plays along with the psy-op that there is some virus killing people at all. In short, it works to limit genuine discussion and curiosity on the subject.

It doesn’t really call for a return to normal lives. However, by “appearing” to call for a return to normalcy, it acts as just another voice working to suppress the full truth. Like with most controlled opposition, fact will be mixed with lies in order to obscure the big picture.

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

This is the first of several red flags. The document doesn’t address the premeditation or deception behind these measures. Instead, they are criticized for being too heavy handed. There’s overwhelming evidence this was planned, and it’s easily available, even in October 2020.

And how concerned are they really? Epidemiologists and public health “scientists” are the ones pushing this warfare on the public. Perhaps there is some professional courtesy at play by not calling out the full scale of the lies going on.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

So, these “public health experts” are worried that lockdown measures will result in lower childhood vaccination rates for other things?! That’s an interesting approach. There’s no objection in principle to martial law being used on society, just the means that it’s being done.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

What about the so-called vaccine itself? What kind of irreparable harm will that cause? Is that something that needs discussing? And what “virus” would it be curing?

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

They claim that their knowledge is growing, but never address the elephant in the room: this “virus” has never been isolated or proven to exist in any scientific manner. It seems that none of them will touch the issue of germ theory being pseudo-science.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

Another warning sign: this call doesn’t address the complete lack of necessity for experimental vaccines. Instead, it’s referred to as just another measure. And immunity to what exactly?

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Again, the goal is to allow “some people” to live normal lives, but restricting the freedoms of others. They don’t ideologically object to martial law measures, just how they’re implemented.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

The Declaration quite clearly “does” support having freedoms removed, and having unelected bureaucrats make those decisions. And perform frequent tests for what? The nasal rape sticks can’t actually determine infection.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

Under the terms of the G.B.D., some people should be allowed to return to a normal life. This means that there is still support for reducing others’ freedoms indefinitely.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

While all of this sounds lovely on the surface, the G.B.D. gatekeeps real opposition by helping to gloss over the true scale of this hoax. It seems very doubtful that the people pushing this are unaware of what’s really going on.

Guess what else the G.B.D. doesn’t address? The fraudulent “definition” of a Covid death. This has been brought up on this site, but not many others. The people promoting G.B.D. talk about the science, but never the underlying deceit. There really is no other way to describe this “Declaration” as anything other than as a scam.

They also don’t seem interested in the myriad of businesses who’ve been paid to prop up the narrative via various subsidies. It doesn’t just happen in Canada.


Action4Canada Case To Be Put Off Indefinitely

This is a follow-up to the Action4Canada lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, back in August 2021. This comes after a year of begging and panhandling for money.

So, did the donors get their money’s worth? Not at all.

Far from being the work of legal experts, the final product was nearly 400 pages and extremely disjointed. It demanded millions of dollars, cited non-Canadian laws, demanded international remedies, went on tirades against non-parties, and was mostly comprised of irrelevant material. This Claim wasn’t just poorly done, but must have taken considerable effort to mangle in such a way. See the earlier review on exactly what was wrong with it.

As an extra layer of absurdity, the lawyers who wrote this piece of work have about 70 years of combined experience between them. This wasn’t done by Articling students or interns.

In a move that was entirely foreseeable, the Defendants filed Applications to strike out the Statement of Claim in its entirety. It’s also alleged that the Notices of Liability available to download were being used to harass public officials, and drive up donations.

The hearing was supposed to take place on February 3rd, concerning those Applications. It was expected to last most of a day.

That got pushed back to April 5th, due to an alleged serious illness from counsel.

However, that April 5th hearing never happened. According to the Court staff, the hearing has been postponed indefinitely. There is currently no date set down to review the Application. There’s also no indication or tentative date as to when things will progress.

It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong can’t represent the Plaintiffs for the Application. He is a B.C. lawyer, and was called to the Bar in 1987. Presumably he’s capable of handling this.

To avoid confusion here: this is just an attempt by the Attorney General and others to get the case tossed. It’s not a Trial, or any real progress in anti-lockdown challenges.

Also, striking pleadings is not the same as dismissing a case. Dismissing means terminating a case on its merits, while striking refers to serious defects with the documents themselves. Quite simply, the Attorney General’s argument is that the case is so convoluted, confusing, and incoherent, that it would be a waste of everyone’s time to go any further.

And they’re not wrong.

Is it difficult to meet the minimum threshold? Not really, as long as a few Rules of Civil Procedure are followed for all B.C. cases.

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 — 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.

This isn’t hard. Broadly speaking, a lawsuit must do 3 things:
[1] Briefly set out the facts as alleged
[2] Set out what remedies are being sought
[3] Briefly list what important laws will be relied on

Instead of following these simple rules, a 391 page mess was dropped on the Courts last year. Even someone researching for the last 2 years would have considerable difficulty following along.

Considering how badly this dumpster fire of a “Claim” was done, the response from the Defendants was inevitable. Why litigate a case when they can just get it struck out?

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.

This concept isn’t unique to B.C. Ontario has similar provisions with Rule 21 and 25.11, while the Federal Courts have Rule 221. They all amount to essentially the same thing.

And for clarity, the Government isn’t asking the case be thrown out because there are typos, mistakes, or that it’s sloppy overall. These kinds of cases are sent ahead all the time. No, the Application says that the Claim is so incomprehensible, rambling and scattered that it’s impossible to determine the case that must be made. They also allege that the Claim contains many, many pages which are completely irrelevant.

Again, they’re not wrong.

A cynic may wonder at this point if the goal is just to endlessly ask for extensions. That way, the Application to strike will never be heard, and the case will technically remain open. The donations can keep flowing in.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: this suit has no possibility of ever making it to Trial. There’s no amount of amendments or rewrites that will fix what’s wrong with it.

There have been rumours circulating since last Summer about Affidavits of evidence. Supposedly, these are several thousands of pages in length. This isn’t true at all. However, the statements may have been spread in order to placate nervous donors.

Any member of the public can call any Canadian Court — during business hours — and ask to see what documents are in a case. These Affidavits haven’t been filed for any of these suits, and it seems doubtful they exist at all.

Also: remember that July 6, 2020 case with Vaccine Choice Canada? This is the one where no Defences were ever filed, but no one ever sought Default Judgement. You don’t hear about that anymore, nor the one from October 2019. You don’t hear about the Police On Guard case either.

In other news, there has been an update with regards to Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. These are the doctors who tried to bankrupt 2 dozen people, mostly over mean words on Twitter. After their case was (predictably) dismissed as a SLAPP, the Defendants are alleging that they spent some $1.3 million obtaining that Judgement. While that sounds high, it works out to about $55,000 each, which is plausible. Anyhow, Notice of Appeal has been served, and it looks just as frivolous as the original Claim.

Interesting priorities. The Gill/Lamba case is being appealed, despite it being a matter between private parties, and having no outcome on the public. Meanwhile, anti-lockdown cases are dormant.

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19

(9) Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate – Gill


Reiner Fuellmich Concludes Bogus Hearings, Starts “Crimes Against Humanity” Tour

Pretty strange that a lawyer who claims to be taking Governments to court isn’t at all concerned whether this “virus” has ever been isolated and proven to exist. Then again, considering he’s not actually going to trial over this. (12:45 in this video)

There is a reason [we] the group of international lawyers, who are conducting this grand jury investigation, did this outside the existing system: because the system is completely and totally corrupt.
But its true effort is to show the people what’s going on, and then empower them by showing that they can’t trust the system. Empowering them, for them to understand that they have to get up and do something. Force their own judiciaries (if they’re still functioning) to do their job.
— Reiner Fuellmich

There never was any lawsuit.

In other words, Fuellmich didn’t actually take his “case” to court. This wasn’t the “Nuremberg 2.0” that it had long been hailed as. These people took large sums of donor money for a case they had no intention to try. His so-called grand jury investigation has no legal standing, no power, and the outcome will mean absolutely nothing.

And why should Reiner be “inspiring others to take action”? After all, he solicited donations for a long time, under the pretense that HE would be doing something on behalf of others. This comes across as a complete fraud.

Now, after ripping off donors for nearly 2 years, Fuellmich and his cronies are going on a speaking tour across the United States. If you want to attend, tickets fall in the $100 to $300 range.

Don’t forget to donate, suckers!

Rather than pursuing an international case, as Fuellmich had been promising the entire time, he used the platform — and donations — to raise his own stature. He never brought any case, and it looks like he never intended to do so. Now, he’s ready to make even more money, duping those same people into hearing him speak live.

Beyond that, Fuellmich comes across as intellectually lazy and dishonest for propping up the bogus narrative that there is a virus to deal with. Since these “hearings” have no effect, at least have some truth as to the germ theory hoax.

Of course, Fuellmich is hardly the first lawyer to pretend to be taking the Government to court. He certainly won’t be the last either. One always has to wonder when some superstar lawyer spends all his time giving media appearance, but has no actual progress to report.

Just another subversion agent and grifter.


(Now Available) Borderless Canada: Replacement Migration & Fifth Columnists Operating Within

With all the content given out, occasionally, an ad needs to be run. And this is another book. The 4th one, Borderless Canada, is now available both in paperback and as an e-book. This helps support the costs of running the website, and ensures the information reaches a wider audience.

Borderless Canada: The many hidden costs of the mass migration policies, including economic, social, and cultural. This couldn’t have happened without many subversive interests pushing it. Many know that politicians act as puppets, but not how deep it goes.

Most people aren’t remotely aware of what’s happening on the subjects of borders and immigration. Nor do they grasp the full extent of subversion agents and NGOs working towards these goals. Partly, this is intentional, as politicians and media figures aren’t interested in a fully informed public. You think those subsidies are just a form of charity?

This cannot be explained as simple incompetence or cluelessness. The replacement of the West has long been a deliberate aim.

Also, this isn’t a partisan issue. The bulk of the “right wing” in Canadian politics supports this destruction, as do many of their voters. They just insist it be done legally, and with economic benefits.

Of course, earlier publications are still available.

Twenty Twenty-One: A condensed form of this research into the fake pandemic in Canada. Hard details and stats provided throughout, refuting virtually all major Government claims. Spoiler, there isn’t a “pandemic” at all.

Inside The Ontario Science Table: The sequel focuses on the “independent experts” calling for Ford to keep the Province locked down, and pushing and pandemic narrative. The ties to the University of Toronto and big pharma run very deep.

The Green Bankers Cartel: There’s a lot more than meets the eye to the climate change movement. Far from the image of being grassroots, the financial sector sees it as opportunity. Useful idiots support it anyway, without realizing that they advocate for policies that ensure their own enslavement. We are told “The debate is over” as a means of stifling legitimate concerns and inquiries.

All of these are available online either as ebooks, or paperback.

China Trolls Trudeau Over Violent Crackdown On Ottawa Protests

This would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous. China is trying to take the high ground when it comes to respecting the rights of its citizens. Trudeau is also being mocked for freezing the accounts of his political opponents, while he pretends to be an advocate for democracy. After all, Trudeau is well known for his love of China’s basic dictatorship.

Okay, there’s more to the article than just that.
As for an update on the so-called national emergency:

There’s something pretty screwy about this: one human rights abuser mocking another. Nevertheless, China has (rightly) called out the hypocrisy of the Trudeau Government pretending to care about freedom abroad, while squashing dissent locally. Surely, most people will remember this clip from November 2013.

In fact, this is a pretty common pattern of politicians in Canada and elsewhere: condemn human rights abuses in other countries, while turning a blind eye to it within their own borders. Talking about Ukraine serves as a great way to divert attention from problems in Canada.

As for the freezing of bank accounts, this was the subject of a hearing. Watching the entire hearing for more context and information.

There was an entertaining piece at 15:38:30, when the $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr was brought up. His human rights mattered, although apparently not those of actual Canadians.

At 16:37:30, there was a reference (from a Liberal MP) to a Globe & Mail article stating that donors were not impacted, and the RCMP denied providing a list of names. However, the RCMP does admit that it provided financial institutions with a list of suspected influencers, vehicles and drivers.

The MP brings up Chrystia Freeland’s declaration giving the police more authority to track finances. Also, the financial reporting requirements of crowdfunding sources is designed to be permanent. There is a lot of hair splitting: while the Government itself may not be collecting data, it’s making it easier (and requiring) banks to do it. It’s also much simpler for the RCMP to obtain financial information.

There was a Parliamentary hearing on the issues of suspending insurance, and freezing bank accounts. However, it seems to be pretty subjective as to what would be considering supporting, or how much discretion banks or insurance companies would have.

It’s also unclear how long this will continue in the future.

For all the talk about the protections of the Canadian Charter, it’s a pretty useless document. Section 1 allows for almost unlimited suspensions of rights, as long as it’s declared to be for a public good. Think about it: the Emergencies Act is held in check by the Charter, but Charter rights can be suspended in the name of an emergency. Sounds like circular logic.

While the hearings try to play this down (freezing bank accounts and insurance), it does raise a precedent where the Government could simply ban large gatherings under the pretense that they were unlawful and a threat to society. Declaring people “designated persons” is would be a way to do it. In short, these “limited” measures could be applied more broadly than originally claimed.

An interesting side note: the Canadian Parliament is also holding hearings on gun control, street gangs, and the spread of illicit firearms. A cynic may wonder if there will be an attempt to link Ottawa protesters to gun smuggling over this.

Ottawa has also been holding hearings since February 10th on the topic of crowdfunding, and financing extremism. Far from just declaring a national emergency, this has been in the works for several days, at least. Transcripts and video are available.

At the time of writing: the legislation to invoke a national emergency has passed the House of Commons (with the NDP supporting the Liberals), and is moving to the Senate.

(7) Wayback Machine
(14) Emergencies Act Protesting Regulations

Delay Prevents Action4Canada Case From Being Immediately Thrown Out

Action4Canada and other Plaintiffs were supposed to be in Court on February 3rd, in order to address 2 Applications (here and here) filed back in January. But due to an extremely convenient medical illness, this has been pushed back until April 5th. It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong didn’t simply step up, as he’s been a B.C. lawyer since 1987.

Private matters generally aren’t worth covering. However, their August 2021 lawsuit is a very public case, and has involved soliciting public donations since 2020. It’s fair that people know its true status: that it’s on the verge of being struck.

For all the money that was sunk into getting this lawsuit off the ground, it never stood a chance.

It feels odd to have a previous piece age so well. Back in August 2021, this site critiqued the 391 page lawsuit filed by Action4Canada in Vancouver. The basic premise was that the Notice of Civil Claim was drafted so poorly, it didn’t stand a chance in hell of making it to trial.

To be more specific, the Notice of Claim didn’t follow (at all) Rules 3-1, and 3-7 of BC Civil Procedure. These outline how pleadings are to be drafted. The logical remedy — from the Defendants’ position — would be to file a Motion or Application to strike based on Rule 9-5. This rule allows cases to be struck for a number of reasons, including for being “frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”. Pleadings can also be struck if they don’t disclose a reasonable cause of action.

To make a distinction here: dismissing and striking are not the same thing. Dismissing a case usually means a Judge has made a determination about the merits of the case. By contrast, striking means attacking the pleadings themselves.

For those wondering what “struck without leave to amend” means, here’s an explanation. Sometimes, the Court will “give leave” or permission, to make changes to the pleadings (allowing content to be added or deleted). This is typically meant for very minor issues. For serious problems, such as with this lawsuit, the defects are so extensive that the Court won’t allow it.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil procedure would have looked at Action4Canada’s case and saw where this was going.

Now the other shoe has dropped, and at least 2 Applications have been filed. The first is from the various Provincial Defendants, and the other from Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care. They are trying to strike the case for essentially the same reasons outlined on this site back in August, 2021.

To state the obvious: this doesn’t mean supporting or advocating for the medical martial law measures that have gone on in the last 2 years.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty difficult to argue with the premise of the Application. Specifically, Defendants are trying to get the case struck as being “frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and an abuse of process”. This isn’t just written in a shoddy manner, but it’s over-the-top ridiculous.

The Claim contains many pages of completely irrelevant material, seeks remedies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and makes allegations against people who aren’t parties (and presumably haven’t been subpoenaed). It’s also extremely disjointed and difficult to follow along with.

It’s hard to believe that 2 very senior, very experienced lawyers could draft this garbage. Combined, they have nearly 70 years of legal work completed. While the Claim does contain a fair amount of truthful information, it’s written so badly that no Judge will ever consider it.

By contrast, the Notices of Application were extremely well written, to the point, and raised many fatal defects in the Notice of Civil Claim. Again, this isn’t to defend the Horgan/Henry regime, but their lawyers make a compelling case as to why this should be thrown out. Although there are 2 Applications, the content is very similar.

3. The Claim is a prolix and convoluted document that is replete with groundless accusations against public officials, inflammatory language, and conspiracy theories.

6. The Plaintiffs’ Claim is deficient in form and substance. It is a scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious pleading that fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings and is an abuse of the Court’s process. The Claim should be struck in accordance with Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, without leave to amend.

Pleadings Generally
7. Supreme Court Civil Rule (the “Rules”) 3-1 provides, in part:
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;

(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. [emphasis added]

8. Rule 3-7 provides, in part:
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.

Pleading conclusions of law
(9) Conclusions of law must not be pleaded unless the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

General damages must not be pleaded
(14) If general damages are claimed, the amount of the general damages claimed must not be stated in any pleading. …

9. The function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined by the court. The plaintiff must state, for each cause of action, the material facts. Material facts are those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating the cause of action. The defendant then sees the case to be met and may respond to the plaintiff’s allegations in such a way that the court will understand from the pleadings what issues of fact and law it will be called upon to decide.
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 (S.C.), para. 5

10. As the Court of Appeal recently held in Mercantile Office Systems Private Ltd. v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362, para 44:
None of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the drafting party to “concisely” set out the “material facts” that give rise to the claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim.
None of these pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.

Application to Strike
11. Rule 9-5(1) provides:
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,

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court

12. A pleading may be struck under Rule 9-5(1) if it is plain and obvious that the pleading contravenes any of Rule 9-5(l)(a) through (d).
Knight V. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para. 17

Rule – 9-5(l)(a)-The Notice of Civil Claim Discloses No Reasonable Claim
14. The Claim is premised upon non-justiciable questions and relies heavily upon international treaties, Criminal Code provisions, and unknown causes of action that are incapable of disclosing a reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Rule 9-5(1)(a).

16. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations (and non-violations) of the Criminal Code that are not properly raised in a civil action (Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924, para. 45); including:

17. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of international legal instruments, unwritten constitutional principles, and causes of action unknown to law that are not actionable in Canadian courts (Li v. British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 256, paras. 107-109; Toronto v. Ontario, 2021 SCC 34, para. 5), including the following:

19. The general rule that facts pleaded should be accepted as true for the purposes of a strike application does not apply in a “case like this where the notice of civil claim is replete with assumptions, speculation, and in some instances, outrageous allegations. The law is clear that allegations based on assumption and speculation need not be taken as true.”
Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, para. 19
See, also, Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924 [“Simon”], para. 54

20. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead the concise statement of material facts that is necessary to support any complete cause of action. The Charter claims are inextricably bound up in a prolix, argumentative, and wildly speculative narrative of grand conspiracy that is incapable of supporting a viable cause of action. It is impossible to separate the material from the immaterial, the fabric of one potential cause of action or claim from another, or conjecture and conspiracy from asserted facts.
Fowler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 367, para. 54
Simon, supra, paras 54-59

9-5(l)(b) The Notice of Civil Claim is Scandalous, Frivolous and Vexatious
Scandalous and Embarrassing
22. A pleading is scandalous if it does not state the real issue in an intelligible form and would require the parties to undertake useless expense to litigate matters irrelevant to the claim.
Gill v. Canada, 2013 BCSC 1703 [“Gill”], para. 9

23. A claim is also scandalous or embarrassing if it is prolix, includes irrelevant facts, argument or evidence, such that it is nearly impossible for the defendant to reply to the pleading and know the case to meet. Pleadings that are so prolix and confusing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the case to be met, should be struck.
Gill, supra para. 9
Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473, at para. 36
Kuhn v. American Credit Indemnity Co., [1992] B.C.J. No. 953 (S.C.)

24. The Claim is a scandalous pleading because it is prolix, confusing, and nearly impossible to respond to:
a. The 391 page Claim attempts to plead dozens of causes of action and Charter breaches and seeks over 200 declarations. It is, as a result, nearly impossible to know the case to be met.
b. The Claim contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information, including:

Rule 9-5(l)(a) and (d) – The Claim is Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
28. Little distinction exists between a vexatious action and one that is an abuse of process as the two concepts have strikingly similar features.
Dixon v. Stork Craft Mamifacturing Inc., 2013 BCSC 1117

29. Abuse of process is not limited to cases where a claim or an issue has already been decided in other litigation, but is a flexible doctrine applied by the court to values fundamental to the court system. In Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (CUPE), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, the court stated at para. 37:
Canadian courts have applied the doctrine of abuse of process to preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel (typically the privity/mutuality requirements) are not met, but where allowing the litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.

30. Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights. Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious.
Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No. 355 [“Lang Michener”], at para. 19

33. The Applicants submit the Claim has been brought for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffs and their counsel must know, or ought to know, that a 391 page Claim seeking over 200 declarations concerning alleged criminal conduct and the efficacy of public health measures “cannot succeed … [and] would lead to no possible good”: Lang Michener, supra.

34. The Claim is intended, at least in part, to intimidate and harass health authorities, public officials and politicians, including the Provincial Health Officer, by advancing spurious, public allegations of criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, and ulterior motives. This intention is further corroborated by the Plaintiff Action4Canada’s simultaneous campaign to encourage individuals to serve government officials and politicians with “Notices of Liability” for their actions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. G, I).

35. The Claim is also intended, at least in part, to consolidate, publicize, and amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Claim is a book-length tirade against the entirety of British Columbia’s response to the pandemic, with dozens of quotes from, and hundreds of footnotes to, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-vaccine resources. Both Action4Canada and its counsel have promoted the Claim online and on social media
(Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. D, K).

36. These are improper purposes to file and prosecute a civil action. There can be no question that the Claim is an abuse of process. Permitting this litigation to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The above quotes came from the January 17 Notice of Application. Re-read the original Notice of Civil Claim and ask: what are they wrong about?

The Applications get into allegations that Action4Canada is causing harassment of Government Officials as a result of their behaviour. This is where things get more interesting:

This Application also contains an Affidavit from Rebecca Hill. She apparently works for Mark Witten, the lawyer for the B.C Defendants. She’s alleging that the “Notices of Liability” that Action4Canada provides have led to the bombardment of Government Officials. From the information provided, it’s strongly implied that this is done in order to drive up the donations.

By extension, it wouldn’t take much to argue that the entire Notice of Claim was a stunt to get more people handing out money.

Remember those notices you downloaded, filled out, and submitted? Guess what? Many of them, and the emails, are now saved as evidence by the B.C. Government.

Author’s note: since the Vancouver Court has apparently not scanned the entire Affidavit, the attachments are not available. That may be for the best, as there is contact information.

It’s also worth pointing out: the Defendants are asking for costs as well. This is pretty much inevitable, once the case is thrown out. It seems unlikely that any Plaintiff has given this serious thought. For a reference point, Adam Skelly was hit with a $15,000 cost award, just for trying to open his restaurant. Given the size and vexatious nature of the Action4Canada case, it’s quite possible for everyone to be on the hook for several thousand dollars each. Keep in mind, court costs aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Once more, this isn’t an attempt to defend the B.C. Government. That said, the Claim was written in such a convoluted way, it never stood a chance. One has to ask why it really happened.

Back in October, Action4Canada posted a reply to the response they received from the B.C. Government. It’s amusing that they act indignant that Rule 9-5 was quoted verbatim. Spoiler: if you want a Court to toss a case, you have to cite the law that allows it.

Whether this case is decided on April 5, or is set back again, the ultimate result is the same. Once a Judge sits down with the lawsuit, it’s getting struck without leave to amend.

It’s not just the B.C. case that will be struck. The Ontario ones will be soon as well. Many will remember this filing from July 6, 2020. More than a year and a half later, there are still no defenses filed, no motions, no applications, no scheduled appearances.

In fact, under Rules 14 and 24 of civil procedure in Ontario, all of these idling cases could probably be dismissed at any time for unnecessary delay.

One other thing to consider is the Statute of Limitations. For most things in Ontario and B.C., a person has 2 years to commence legal action. Now, if a case is filed, but sits for years and is simply dismissed, it may be too late to start another. This doesn’t stop the clock. Something to think about.

Prediction: once the B.C. case is struck (for the reasons listed above), the Ford regime will then make similar Applications for the Ontario cases.

Other than wasting a lot of time and money, what has this actually accomplished?

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19

%d bloggers like this: