Category: Globalism

Posted on

TikTok Ban In Canada: Not Even All-Party Lobbying Could Prevent It

Recently, it was announced that the last 2 Canadian offices of TikTok — the social media platform — would be shut down. This comes after an outright ban in the United States. The reason stated was that there were safety concerns, such as gathering intelligence, and that it was a threat to national security. The app would still be available for use, for now, but the physical presence had to be removed.

It’s unclear why the app can still be used if the offices had to be closed.

Of course, context matters. It would have been nice to know if any group or organization had publicly lobbied to have the company shut down. A quick search through the Federal Lobbying Registry has flagged some interesting results.

There weren’t public efforts by lobbyists to silence TikTok. But there were several prominent names who were advocating on its behalf. And it cut across party lines: (a) Conservative; (b) Liberal; (c) NDP; and (d) Bloc Québécois.

The stated goals of these meetings were:

  • Engage federal officials on legislation related to privacy and online safety
  • Engage federal officials on policies, legislation and regulations relevant to digital media and user-generated online content, including privacy, data security, and copyright
  • Engage federal officials on policies to support digital first content creators and foster the creation, discoverability, and exportability of Canadian cultural content online, including Indigenous and French-language content

Among recent Government initiatives were taxing and otherwise regulating social media content. This was hardly limited to just TikTok. Other platforms were getting squeezed as well. But they all had connected “strategists” to meet with political figures, and smooth things over.

However, TikTok was still deemed to be a national security threat.

Even the “Lavalin Guy” couldn’t stop it.

Who Is This All-Star Cast Of Political Lobbyists?

  • Éric Lamoureux – From December 2003 until June 2004, he was a Policy Advisor in the Ministry of Health. From then until January 2006, he was Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, all under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. He also helped secure the DPA (or Deferred Prosecution Agreement) for SNC Lavalin.
  • Louis-Alexandre Lanthier – From June 2007 until May 2011, he was the Campaign Manager for Liberal Justin Trudeau, now sitting Prime Minister.
  • Julie Groleau – From November 2015 until November 2019, she was Parliamentary Assistant, in the Office of Simon Marcil, M.P. for the Bloc Québécois.
  • Maryanne Sheehy – From August 2010 until November 2015, she worked in the Office of the Prime Minister, who at the time, was Conservative Stephen Harper.
  • Michael von Herff – Founder & Managing Partner at PAA Advisory. His firm has “political strategists” for all different parties.
  • Matthew Larventz – From November 2015 until November 2017, he was a Legislative Assistant to Liberal M.P. Randeep Sarai.
  • James Anderson – Former Policy Director in Health, and later Foreign Affairs when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. From November 2007 until March 2009 he was Senior Director, Organization and Outreach for the Federal Liberal Party of Canada
  • Nate Little – From March 2021 until October 2021, he was a Legislative Assistant in the House of Commons for Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, New Democrat M.P. from Nunavut. He was then a Press Secretary until January 2022.
  • Stephen Yardy – From June 2008 until May 2022, he was Campaign Organizer for the New Democratic Party of Canada, and claims to have worked on over 25 political campaigns across the country.

Éric Lamoureux worked deeply in the Federal Government going back to the Paul Martin era. But perhaps his greatest achievement is securing the deferred prosecution for SNC Lavalin, allowing it to continue bidding on contracts. He did this by leaning on François Legault in Quebec, to apply pressure Federally. He’s basically the “Lavalin Guy”.

Louis-Alexandre Lanthier is another influential person who relatively few have ever heard of. He got Trudeau his start in politics as his Campaign Manager. His more recent adventures include helping to flood canada with temporary foreign workers, particularly at places like Tim Hortons.

Of course, the records from the Lobbying Registry are just what’s available publicly. There are most likely far more communications that aren’t documented here.

It’s been publicly speculated that TikTok’s ban in the United States was driven by what’s been called an “anti-Israel” bias. The counter-argument is that TikTok is actually providing more balanced coverage of Middle East issues. The concerns over security from the Chinese could just be a red herring.

One has to wonder, when Canada’s top influence peddlers, including the “Lavalin Guy”, weren’t able to prevent the forced closure of domestic offices.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tiktok-canada-review-1.7375965
(2) https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/g-s1-23194/tiktok-us-ban-appeals-court
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1731230030029
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=371137&regId=956914
(6) https://paainc.ca/
(7) https://paainc.ca/team/
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericlamoureux/
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/louis-alexandre-lanthier-75517b3b/details/experience/
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/juliegroleau/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryanne-sheehy/
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-von-herff-2aab2411/
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/mlarventz/details/experience/
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescharlesanderson/details/experience/
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/nate-little-297590133/
(16) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-yardy-b0a4a326/

Posted on

Incompetently Pleaded Claim Leads To Anti-SLAPP Win For Farber, CAHN

Last week, an Ottawa Judge threw out that a defamation case brought against Bernie Farber and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN). Justice Bell found that it was a “strategic lawsuit against public participation”, which isn’t allowed under Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act.

Here’s the context.

On February 14th, 2024, a Notice of Action was filed in Ottawa. It named Farber, CAHN, various MPs, members of the police, and banks for what had happened when the Emergencies Act was invoked. Filing this bought them — the Plaintiffs thought — another 30 days to file their Statement of Claim.

How this relates to Farber and CAHN is that their postings are blamed for getting the EA invoked. Remember the infamous “Hate Gate” hoax? Well, this lawsuit may have come as a result of it.

However, because the Plaintiffs’ lawyers apparently know nothing about defamation law, or anti-SLAPP laws, Farber and CAHN are off the hook. CAHN posted about this, and accurately stated the problem: the Claim never identified any specific statements or articles. It just made bald assertions.

While the lawsuit can still proceed with regards to the other Defendants, Plaintiffs should seriously consider retaining new counsel.

There will be the typical rumblings about the system being corrupt, or the Judge being bought off. Those concerns have been made many times before.

Alternatively, it’s worth noting that the Statement of Claim was so poorly and incompetently drafted, that this outcome was easily foreseeable. The firm handling this case is Loberg Ector LLP, which boasts about it on their website

“We Do Commercial Litigation”

Just not very well, it seems.

The contact page on their website lists their address as being in Alberta. That Province doesn’t have anti-SLAPP laws, so it’s possible they didn’t know that Ontario did. Anyhow, let’s get into it.

Claim Failed To Specify A Single Defamatory Statement

Here are the passages which related to CAHN.

207. Leading up to the Unlawful Enactments during the Ottawa Protests, several Defendants, acting together, or acting individually, as the case may be:
a. Made public and widely publicized denigrating and derogatory comments falsely characterizing the nature, scope, beliefs, and motives of the persons participating in the Ottawa Protests including some of the Plaintiffs;
b. Published and widely distributed written material including defamatory comments about the Ottawa Protests knowingly containing false and misleading information about the Ottawa Protests;
c. Conspired with or influenced major Canadian media outlets to publish false reports about the activities of the protestors present at the Ottawa Protests;
d. Made false reports regarding the activities of the protestors present at the Ottawa Protests to Crown officials and made false statements to Crown officials in such a way that promoted the Unlawful Enactments;
e. Sought to harm, injure, or otherwise denigrate the reputations of the Plaintiffs with malicious intent; and
f. Made such further and other public statements and publications which denigrated and harmed the reputations of the Plaintiffs as will be discovered at the trial of this action.

208. The conduct of the Defendants, and the false information which was disseminated by several Defendants to the Canadian media, the Financial Institution Defendants, the Crown and the citizens of Canada influenced and enabled the decision to invoke the impugned Unlawful Enactments.

209. The decisions taken by the individual Defendants, the Police Defendants, the Crown Defendants, the Financial Institution Defendants, and the CAHN Defendants were done cynically, politically, and selfishly without the appropriate consideration for the bests interest of Canada and its citizens and with wanton disregard for the wellbeing of the Plaintiffs.

210. Intelligence reports at the time of the Ottawa Protests from the RCMP, OPS, Police Defendants, and CSIS did not show that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security, and indeed consistently corroborated the overall peaceful nature of the Ottawa Protests.

211. While deliberately knowing that the Ottawa Protests was largely a peaceful protest, the Crown Defendants, and in particular Ms. Jody Thomas given her role as the National Security and Intelligence Advisor took it upon themselves to create their own open source intelligence operation to create a new flow of intelligence to the Crown Defendants (the “Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting”) which influenced their decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and Unlawful Enactments.

212. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting was an unsanctioned, and politically motivated open source intelligence operation which reflected the intentionally biased view of the narrative that Ms. Thomas and the Crown Defendants wanted, rather than the truth about the overall peaceful nature of the Ottawa Protests. This included relying heavily upon false or otherwise one-sided open source information and giving undue emphasis or weight to misleading or otherwise biased narratives including those from the CAHN Defendants or their proxies on social media.

213. For greater certainty, in her role as National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Ms. Thomas had the entire intelligence and security information assets at her disposal to draw upon, including military and defence. Ms. Thomas and her office were authorized to draw upon information and intelligence from at least five different secretariat level sources. These include Emergency Preparedness, Intelligence Assessment, Foreign Policy, Defence Policy, and the National Security Council. In addition to the secretariat level information and intelligence sources, Ms. Jody Thomas had several agencies providing intelligence flows which includes but is not limited to CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Communications Security Establishment Canada.

214. None of the intelligence reports or flows of intelligence from the plethora of integrated government-wide perspectives and sources that Ms. Thomas had available to her could be used to justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, nor did they suggest that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security.

215. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting was a deliberate attempt to bypass the secretariat level intelligence and the intelligence flows from the numerous agencies that Ms. Thomas and her office had at their disposal. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting reflected the views and narratives that she wanted to advance, and it was not the integrated government-wide intelligence perspective that was required.

216. The Crown Defendants, members of Cabinet both named and not named as Defendants in this action, accepted the information contained in the Thomas Open Source Reporting and misinformation from the CAHN Defendants or their proxies either negligently or with malicious intent when they knew or ought to have known that such information was misleading, grossly exaggerated, defamatory, and harmful.

217. Essentially, when all or some of the Crown Defendants were unable to obtain the intelligence required to justify invoking the Emergencies Act or demonstrate that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security, they embarked on their own unsanctioned open source intelligence operation by way of the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting to create a new flow of intelligence to the Prime Minister’s Office and to Cabinet while negligently or intentionally relying upon information that they knew or ought to have known was untrue, exaggerated, misleading, defamatory, and biased.

218. The Court ought to give weight to the above paragraphs as an aggravating factor in the course of this litigation when assessing the appropriate level of damages and financial compensation for the Plaintiffs.

252. The CAHN Defendants in particular, provided false information to several other Defendants and media organizations designed to harm the Plaintiffs. Falsified or otherwise highly exaggerated information was supplied by the CAHN Defendants or their proxies to the Crown Defendants and the Police Defendants in support of the Unlawful Enactments.

253. The statements made by the CAHN Defendants and their proxies defamed the Plaintiffs and influenced the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.

254. The statements were false and were made with malice to advance the political agenda of the CAHN Defendants. The CAHN Defendants at one point were recipients of funding and financial support from the Government of Canada. The CAHN Defendants as recently as August 2023, have requested further financial funding for themselves and their causes from the Government of Canada requesting taxpayer money in excess of $130 million over the next 5 years. The true extent of the historical and ongoing financial funding of the CAHN Defendants by the Government of Canada is not fully known but will be discovered during this action.

255. The Plaintiffs, any or each of them, suffered damages as a result of the defamatory statements by the CAHN Defendants which were dishonest, deceitful, and exaggerated while done with malicious intent to cause harm including labelling the Ottawa Protestors, including the Plaintiffs, as being racist, accelerationist, far right extremists, falsely accusing supporters of the Ottawa Protestors as being Nazi’s, misogynistic, and disseminating other hateful and defamatory false accusations about the Plaintiffs some of whom are Indigenous peoples, racialized minorities, persons of colour, women, senior citizens, and disabled individuals.

256. The CAHN Defendants have themselves knowingly propagated hatred, sowed division within Canada, fomented distrust, spread misinformation, and have defamed the Plaintiffs with malevolent intent and for cynical purposes to advance a political agenda which has in the past been paid for and funded by the Canadian taxpayers.

257. Furthermore, the Crown Defendants in relying upon the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting defamed the Plaintiffs when public statements were made repeating the same false information and narratives. In many instances, the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting relied upon the false information from the Government of Canada funded CAHN Defendants and their proxies in a closed loop as a means to improperly justify the illegal invocation of the Emergencies Act.

258. The Plaintiffs seek compensable damages against the CAHN Defendants and the
Crown Defendants for their injurious falsehoods and defamation.

All of this is from the Statement of Claim.

But do you see the problem? At no point, is there any specific quote of any defamatory statement. Nor are there any specific articles or videos referenced. It should have looked something like this:

On February 6th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 8th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 10th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 12th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 14th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 16th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 18th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

And so on.

This is how defamation allegations are supposed to be pleaded in a Statement of Claim. The specific words need to be included, along with information about who spoke or wrote them, when and where. Considering the case against Farber and CAHN was only expression, these needed to be listed.

Instead of this, the Claim goes on about vague and nondescript allegations. This is not how it should be done, and the Claim would have to be rewritten anyway.

But since Ontario has anti-SLAPP laws, there are no rewrites.

Section 137.1 Courts Of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP)

Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.

No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party satisfies the judge that,
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
.
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

The Courts of Justice Act for Ontario has been quoted many times. But here’s a quick overview as to how it works, and what needs to happen.

(1) Defendants, one or multiple, bring a Motion to dismiss under this provision. A lot of papers are exchanged in the meantime.

(2) Defendant(s) must convince the Court that their expression is “of a public interest concern”. This isn’t to say that it’s good or bad, just that it’s something a segment of the public would be interested in. By design, it’s a very low burden.

(3) If the Defendant(s) are able to do this, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s), and they face a 3-part test. If even one part is failed, the anti-SLAPP Motion is granted, and the case dismissed.

(a) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there is “substantial merit” to the Claim.

(b) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there “are no reasonable defences available”.

(c) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there is a greater public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue, as opposed to protecting the expression.

If the Judge decides the expression “isn’t of a public concern”, the Motion is to be dismissed, and the case allowed to proceed. Likewise, if the Plaintiff is convincing on all 3 parts of the test, the Motion should fail.

Otherwise, the case is to be dismissed.

How The Anti-SLAPP Motion Played Out In Court

Starting at paragraph 19, Justice Bell explains his reasons.

The expression itself had to do with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which impacted all Canadians. While not taking sides on the issue, he found that it was a concern to a large segment of the population. As a result, he found that Farber and CAHN met the “public interest threshold”.

Now, the burden shifted to the Plaintiffs, and they had that test to meet. And here’s where the lawyers’ sheer cluelessness about anti-SLAPP laws really showed.

No further steps in proceeding
137.1(5) Once a motion under this section is made, no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of.

No amendment to pleadings
137.1(6) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the responding party shall not be permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding,
(a) in order to prevent or avoid an order under this section dismissing the proceeding; or
(b) if the proceeding is dismissed under this section, in order to continue the proceeding

This is part of what makes anti-SLAPP laws in Ontario so powerful. Part (5) “stays” the case, meaning nothing else can happen until this is resolved (and all Appeals).

Part (6) states that a pleading cannot be amended in order to avoid a dismissal, nor can it be after a case is dismissed.

Because the idiot lawyers never specified any defamatory statements here, there is no next time. As a result, Justice Bell found that there was “no substantial merit” to the Claim. (The civil conspiracy allegation also wasn’t pleaded properly.)

Since there’s no “substantial merit”, that should be the end right there.

There was also the open question as to whether the requirement to serve Notice of Libel was met, and whether the 2 year limitation had lapsed anyway. It wasn’t resolved, but still a possibly valid defence.

For the final part, the Judge found there was no evidence of harm to any Plaintiff from Farber or CAHN. Only Vincent Gircys submitted an Affidavit, but the freezing of his bank accounts couldn’t be tied to them.

Farber and CAHN had asked for $20,000 and $10,000 respectively for damages, which was denied.

The Motion was granted, and the case was dismissed (for Farber and CAHN).

Successful Motions Typically Get Full Indemnity (100%) Costs

Costs on dismissal
137.1(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.

In most circumstances, successful parties only get a portion of their costs back. In Ontario, anti-SLAPP laws refer to “full indemnity” as the default position if the case is dismissed.

This means that Plaintiffs have to pay their lawyers’ costs, and ALL of the Defendants’ lawyers costs. Cost awards typically are well over $100,000.

During the Motion, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers had tried to argue that the suit against Farber and CAHN could be added to and “particularized”. Again, this showed their ignorance about defamation and anti-SLAPP laws.

Now, the case can theoretically still proceed — minus Farber and CAHN — but the Claim will still have to be redrafted anyway. What a waste of time and money.

However, because there are other serious problems with the pleading, it’s possible, and likely, that Motions to Strike will be coming soon.

The Plaintiffs need better lawyers.

Perhaps the Law Societies of Ontario and/or Alberta can assist them in connecting with more competent and experienced help.

(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(7) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 4: October Hearing To Be Postponed Into 2025

The long anticipated hearing of Adam Skelly challenging the Reopening Ontario Act (R.O.A.) has been delayed again, this time, until 2025. It was supposed to begin next week, and last for 3 days. See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

The prime reason seems to be that one of the expert witnesses has withdrawn, leaving Skelly scrambling to find a replacement.

Justice Akazaki vacated the dates, while questioning whether or not the hearings could be squeezed into a single day, or 2.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a request to adjourn and reschedule a three-day hearing of a constitutional challenge to a provincial offence arising from the alleged breach of the Ontario Covid-19 lockdown order.

[2] The OCJ has stayed the provincial offence trial. The applicant / accused has waived his s. 11(b) rights. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the need to avoid further delay. The OCJ proceeding largely entails an agreed statement of fact.

[3] The adjournment was necessitated by the withdrawal of one of the applicant’s expert witnesses. There are also additional steps to be undertaken.

[4] The main impediment to scheduling the return date was the dispute over the length of the hearing. The applicant maintained the case requires three days. The respondents both stated the hearing can be completed in one day.

[5] There is an advantage to having the duration of the hearing settled by a case conference judge, once counsel have organized the completion of the next steps. If the hearing can take place during one day or two instead of three, the hearing can be scheduled earlier and without taking up unnecessary hearing dates.

[6] Therefore, I hereby order:
1. The October 1, 2, and 7, 2024, hearing dates are hereby vacated.
2. The parties shall request a case conference at the earliest opportunity, once the next steps have been agreed, to reschedule the hearing

Why does all of this still matter? For starters, the R.O.A. is still on the books, even if there are no orders in effect from it. This means that in theory, a new “crisis” could lead to future dictates.

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

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

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Just before Parliament took its Summer recess in 2024, NDP Member of Parliament, Jenny Kwan, introduced 2 Private Member’s Bills: C-398 and C-399.

Both are in the introductory stage in the House of Commons. While Private Bills don’t commonly become law, there’s always the possibility they will. There’s also the prospect that the contents will simply be incorporated into a larger, Government Bill.

Starting with Bill C-398, it would create the “right” to set up homeless encampments on Federal land. It would amend the National Housing Strategy Act in several places. Authorities would be prevented from blocking them, or shutting them down. And for reference:

Homeless encampment means an outdoor settlement of one or more temporary structures, such as tents, vehicles or other structures that are not designed or intended for permanent human habitation but that one or more persons experiencing homelessness use as their residence.‍ (campement d’itinérants).

(e) establish measures to prevent the removal of homeless encampments on federal land and to identify alternatives to homeless encampments following meaningful engagement with their residents; and

(f) provide for processes to ensure that Indigenous peoples are actively involved and supported in determining and developing culturally appropriate housing-related programs and that responses to homeless encampments respect their rights.

Bill C-398 does talk about “identifying alternatives to homeless encampments”. Presumably this means providing people with low or no-cost housing. Interestingly, there’s nothing in the legislation that says it will only apply to Canadian citizens, or permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

Logically, anyone who entered the country illegally, who who overstayed their visa, would be entitled to the same protections.

Mandate
10 (1) The mandate of the Ombud is to examine the practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory, and to conduct investigations if the Ombud has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of persons has been the victim of unfairness, inequity, bias, racism or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — in the Department’s decision-making process.

Duties and functions
(2) The Ombud’s duties and functions include
(a) reviewing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s policies, programs, initiatives, training procedures and processing standards to identify fairness or equity problems in the Department’s administration of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including those resulting from biases and discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination;
(b) receiving and, if appropriate, investigating complaints, including complaints about the problems referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) monitoring trends and patterns in complaints in order to identify the problems referred to in paragraph (a); and
(d) making recommendations to the Minister regarding any unfairness, inequity, bias or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — that the Ombud identifies.

Kwan wants to create an ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” policies and practices are being implemented by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. She also wants that ombudsman to make recommendations to the Minister in order to help this along.

Now, while the connection may seem tenuous, consider this:

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada’s border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Back in April 2018, Kwan posted on her website that she had been calling on the Trudeau Government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. The reason for doing this is so that people entering from the United States — to claim asylum — could simply stroll into any official port of entry.

In November 2018, Kwan called for the Safe Third Country Agreement to be suspended, claiming that the U.S. (under Donald Trump) wasn’t a “safe country”.

In March 2020, she wrote to Trudeau and Freeland, protesting that illegals trying to cross from the U.S. were being turned back.

Taken together, what does this all mean?

It means that Kwan, who is pro-open borders, supports having illegals come in from the U.S., and presumably elsewhere as well. On one hand, she introduces Bill C-398, which entrenches the “right” of people to set up encampments on Federal land. On the other, she has Bill C-399, which creates and ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” immigration policies are enforced, and to make recommendations to the Minister.

Will taxpayer funded “housing for illegals” become a human right?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-398
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jenny-kwan(89346)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-398/first-reading
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
(5) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-399
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-399/first-reading
(7) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/on_irregular_border_crossings
(8) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/emergency_study_on_irregular_border_crossings
(9) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/open_letter_to_deputy_prime_minister_on_border_restriction

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(18) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(19) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(20) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(21) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Bill C-293 (International Pandemic Treaty) Revisited: Concerns Raised Over Food Supply

Bill C-293 was covered in early 2023. This is a Private Member’s Bill for domestic implementation of the International Pandemic Treaty, and is now in the Senate.

Parliament had hearings back in late 2023, and those same issues may come up in the Senate. In particular, several groups raised concerns about the food supply should this legislation pass. Specifically, these would include:

  • regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture
  • promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins
  • phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

Back in 2017, there was a major initiative from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to push for mass production of “plant proteins”. For ideological reasons, the Government was trying to phase out meat.

Some participants in the hearings expressed concerns that echoed this.

1. Canadian Federation of Agriculture

However, we write today to express significant concerns with aspects Bill C-293, particularly in its impact on the Canadian animal agriculture sector. While the primary objective of the Bill is pandemic prevention and preparedness, it contains content and language that will adversely affect Canadian farmers and ranchers if passed in its current form. Specifically, we are concerned by the Bill’s language around livestock farming, the promotion of alternative proteins, and the focus on animal agriculture in the context of antimicrobial resistance rather than within the more comprehensive One Health perspective.

Irrelevant focus on alternative proteins, in the context of pandemic preparedness
.
In particular, section 4 (2) (I) of Bill C-293 dissents from the tone and language used throughout other
sections of the Bill and instead, includes language promoting the production and use of alternative proteins and the regulation of animal agriculture, and the phase-out of high-risk species.

2. Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario

Animal Agriculture
Section 4 (2) (l) (ii – iv) directly correlate animal agriculture with increased pandemic risk. These sections further direct the promotion of “alternative proteins,” based on a notion of reduced pandemic risk. This language unfairly represents the risks posed by animal agriculture. These sections of the Bill, as worded, further require drastic action including measures to regulate” animal agriculture and to “phase out…high risk species” in response to this exaggerated notion of risk. These sections should also be removed from the Bill.

Drastic actions, such as those suggested in the current wording of the Bill, in the case of food animals in particular, would result in loss of food supply, economic losses, and increased cost of food, among other effects.

3. Chicken Farmers of Canada

While the majority of the Bill uses overarching language to describe the work of the Advisory Committee on pandemic response (as appointed by the Minister of Health) and the content of their reports, Section 4 (2) (l) is very specific in its intent to promote alternative proteins, regulate animal agriculture and phase out high-risk species.

CFC believes that the basis of this section makes a judgment call that animal agriculture is the cause of pandemics – a notion that is not supported and does not represent the cause of diseases listed in the preamble of the Bill. This premise is tied to the initiative of promoting the production of alternate proteins, which is a specific example not seen elsewhere in the Bill. Initiatives to promote alternative proteins in a Bill on pandemic prevention and preparedness is misplaced and misaligned with the Bill’s objectives. CFC believes that Section 4 (2) (l) is too limiting in its direction and in turn could distract the Advisory Committee from more beneficial areas of work.

4. Canada Mink Breeders Association

1. Remove Clause 2(l)(iii)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins

2. Remove Clause 2(l)(iv)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

3. Remove Clause 2(m)(ii)
(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
• (ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets

All of these groups raised concerns that social policies would be implemented through the backdoor, under the guise of “pandemic prevention”.

A group called Results Canada took a very different approach. It asked that Bill C-293 be amended to include something called “surge financing”. It appears to be an attempt to trigger easier access to money, in the event of a “pandemic”,

4(2)(n.1) “a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Finance, of the measures the Minister intends to take to support the availability of surge financing, as well as the funding of pandemic preparedness and response by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other relevant international organizations;”

Lisa Barrett, the infamous Nova Scotia doctor who had pushed lockdowns, said that she preferred that the Bill be altered in a way where the “correct” science could be promoted.

Again, it’s not specifically about the bill, but I could link it to the bill.

I think that having pieces of misinformation and disinformation out there like that, particularly around vaccination, is part of the issue. If this bill can actually develop a process where science is promoted, as well as the dissemination of science in a trustful way, we could probably get rid of a lot of those statements. Those are not statements I would support, and I think it’s a demonstration of overt mis- and disinformation from certain individuals. Hopefully, we can get beyond that and maybe there’s some use for a bill like this to promote it.
As with most of these Bills, the devil is in the details. The broad outline provided does nothing to answer specifics regarding food supply. Presumably, there would be regulations made by unelected bureaucrats.

Private Member’s Bills usually go nowhere. But this one is already in the Senate. Where did Nathaniel Erskine-Smith get the idea to introduce this? Who wrote it for him?

Critics fear that entire crops and industries could disappear under the guise of “public safety”. It doesn’t really specify any built-in protections. And with “experts” like Lisa Barrett, it’s not a stretch to think that martial law mandates could return in some form.

What will happen in the Senate?

(1) https://eppc.org/publication/the-whos-pandemic-treaty/
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document
(3) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&page=3
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12050235
(8) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12635892/br-external/CanadianFederationOfAgriculture-e.pdf
(9) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12644153/br-external/ChristianFarmersFederationOfOntario-e.pdf
(10) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12473920/br-external/ChickenFarmersOfCanada-e.pdf
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12461049/br-external/CanadaMinkBreedersAssociation-e.pdf
(12) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12461107/br-external/ResultsCanada-e.pdf
(13) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/HESA/meeting-82/evidence

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(17) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(18) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(19) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(20) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

18 Reasons Massive Healthcare Workers Claim Is Defective

Here we go again.

On August 13th, 2024, a Motion to Strike will be heard in the Civil Branch of the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. This was over injection mandates dating back to 2021. Approximately 300 healthcare workers — working in many different settings — will see if their case is thrown out.

The original Claim was filed in 2022, and an amended one in 2023.

The main reason for this Motion is that the vast majority of Plaintiffs are likely ineligible to sue. Being part of a union typically means that there’s no right to go to Court. Collective agreements usually have a grievance process that ends with arbitration, but doesn’t allow for litigation.

Beyond that, the Statement of Claim is so poorly and incoherently written that it’s likely to be struck anyway. It doesn’t plead any of the necessary information required, and most of what it does include is irrelevant. It appears to have been written by someone with no understanding at all of Civil Procedure.

All that’s missing is a tirade about Bill Gates and microchipping.

This isn’t Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada or Take Action Canada. Nor is it the mess, Adelberg. This is yet another “bad beyond argument” pleading. The main defects are:

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

This is just a brief critique, but let’s get into it.

1. Failure To Establish Jurisdiction Of The Court

RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01
To Defendant
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
.
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

Rule 21.01(3)(a) of Civil Procedure states that a Defendant may move to to have a case stayed or dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction. Why does that matter here? Because the bulk of the Plaintiffs here are from unionized workplaces. Union workers are typically governed by a collective bargaining agreement, and it usually mandates arbitration as a means of settling disputes.

Plenty of cases have already been thrown out for this.

To even (theoretically) overcome this burden, Plaintiffs would have to plead details about what steps they took to resolve this internally. They would have to demonstrate that the process was corrupt or unworkable.

2. Failure To Seek Relief Within Jurisdiction Of The Court

The Relief sought section is downright goofy, and it’s startling to see that an experienced lawyer is including content such as this. It would be bad enough to see an articling student draft such garbage. And it’s not the first time.

  • Allegations of criminal conduct
  • Allegations of crimes against humanity
  • Allegations of eugenics (which would be criminal)
  • Allegations of violations of Nuremberg Code
  • Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration

Both the Action4Canada and Adelberg (Federal) cases were struck — in part — because they demanded remedies that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction over. Despite being criticized by multiple Courts over this, the same allegations appear here. Mostly likely, this is because this lawyer uses a template and simply cut and pastes from one case to the next.

3. Failure To Plead Concise Set Of Material Facts

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

In every jurisdiction, Plaintiffs are required to plead the facts. This refers to the: who, what, where, when, and how that things occurred. It is describing a series of events in enough detail that the opposing side — and the Judge — can understand what’s going on.

But that hasn’t happened here. Not a single Plaintiff is described with any detail. Only 8 are even identified in the Claim.

They objected to the injections? What was each one’s specific one?
Who was fired, and who was simply suspended?
Who was required to take the shots, and who was allowed to take the testing?
All Plaintiffs were ineligible for EI? Who applied for it?

None of this is described, nor is the conduct of any Defendant. There are no facts pleaded at all which could possibly be responded to.

4. Failure To Keep Evidence Out Of Claim

The other part of Rule 25.06(1) is that evidence shouldn’t be in a Statement of Claim. The facts are. The facts are simply the sequence of events that each Plaintiff can attest to.

All of the “facts” about the validity of testing and expert views should really be considered expert evidence. That has a place later, but not in the initial pleading.

5. Failure To Remove Argument From Claim

Not only should evidence not be in a Claim, but argument shouldn’t either. The pleading is ripe full of argument, complete with various case citations. However, this is not a Factum, nor a final submission. The original pleading is just supposed to lay out the (alleged) series of events.

How does an experienced lawyer not know this?

6. Failure To Plead Facts To Support Conclusions Of Law

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

Rule 25.06(2) of Civil Procedure requires that the necessary facts be pleaded in order to support any conclusions of draw that are raised. This makes sense, as there has to be enough meat on the bones to theoretically have the Judge rule favourably. However, there are no facts pleaded about individual Plaintiffs or Defendants, just sweeping declarations without background information.

7. Failure To Give Claim Particulars

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

Rule 25.06(8) of Civil Procedure states that all pleadings shall have “full particulars”, which is also known as “particularizing a claim”. This is when fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged. What this means is that such accusations are made, Plaintiffs have the extra burden to spell out what has happened. All major details must be added.

Quite reasonably, Defendants cannot be left guessing what they have to respond to.

8. Failure To Specify Who Should Pay Damages

Starting on page 33, the money sought is outlined.

  • $50,000 for each Plaintiff for “intimidation”
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff for “conspiracy”
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff, by the Government Defendants, for Charter violations
  • $200,000 for each Plaintiff for infliction of mental distress and anguish
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff for “punitive damages”

This amounts to $550,000 per Plaintiff, but who exactly is supposed to pay it? It’s specified that the Province is to pay for the Charter violations, but that’s it. If money is to be sought, what is the proposed division? Never mind that none of the torts are properly pleaded, or pleaded at all.

9. Failure To Properly Plead S.2 (Fund. Freedoms) Charter Breaches

However, the Claim doesn’t plead any facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) that would support this. The Claim doesn’t describe how any Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of conscience or belief were violated, nor does it specify which grounds apply to which person.

10. Failure To Properly Plead S.6 (Mobility Rights) Charter Breaches

There are a few mentions — although not properly pleaded — that Plaintiffs had their mobility rights infringed. But there isn’t a single instance of this described. Nor would this be relevant since the travel mandates were Federal, and this case is exclusively Provincial. Most likely, it was cut and pasted from the Adelberg case, which is Federal.

11. Failure To Properly Plead S.7 (Security Of Person) Charter Breaches

Similar to the Section 2 breaches, here, there are no facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) pleaded which would support such allegations. Not a single Plaintiff describes their circumstances. Yes, we assume it to be true initially, but there’s nothing to work with.

12. Failure To Properly Plead S.15 (Equality) Charter Breaches

Section 15 of the Charter isn’t the savior that many think it is. Specifically, “equality” is limited to a fairly small number of groups. None of which apply here, as disappointing as that is.

Enumerated grounds, which are explicitly stated in the Charter, include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.

Analogous grounds, which are additional ones the Courts have endorsed, include: sexual orientation, marital status, off-reserve Aboriginal status and income.

Even if remaining injection-free were an enumerated or analogous ground, there are no facts pleaded which would support the Charter violations anyway. Again, not a single Plaintiff’s circumstances are described in any detail.

13. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Intimidation

Because this tort would cover “nature of act or condition of mind”, Rule 25.06(8) requires that full particulars be given, in addition to pleading facts that would support it.

Instead, the Statement of Claim simply states the test, then attempts to argue caselaw in support of it. There are no facts or particulars given — even assuming them to be true — that would support this. Argument is not permitted in this document, anyway.

14. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Conspiracy

As with the “intimidation” tort, there are no facts (Rule 26.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) provided that would support the claim. The document simply states the test and tries to argue.

15. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Malfeasance Of Public Office

There are broad, sweeping declarations that the Government Defendants have acted in ways which are contrary to holding public office. But without any facts or particulars, this tort will go nowhere.

The tort of “infliction of mental anguish” isn’t pleaded properly either.

16. Failure To State A Cause Of Action

RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rule 21.01(1)(b) of Civil Procedure allows Judges to strike a Claim if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. What this means, if there isn’t anything that can realistically be sought, the Court has the power to throw the case out completely, or to allow a rewrite (called granting Leave to Amend).

Here, there are no facts or particulars pleaded to support any of the allegations. The body of the text is argumentative and tries to plead evidence. None of the torts are properly pleaded. A Judge could reasonably conclude that there’s no case to try.

Of course, they tend to allow rewrites, no matter how poorly drafted a case is. Action4Canada was struck with Leave to Amend, which was quite surprising.

17. Failure To Appreciate Statute of Limitations

As many people know, there’s a time limit to file cases. This is commonly referred to as the Statute of Limitations. In Ontario, it’s 2 years for most things, although a number of exceptions exist. See the Ontario Limitations Act.

Even if these Plaintiffs were to hire a competent lawyer (and not withstanding the arbitration requirement), they’d likely be time barred. Since more than 2 years has passed, they wouldn’t be able to include additional claims beyond what’s already there.

18. Claim Just A Duplicate Of Other Cases

A major indicator that clients and donors are being ripped off is that they aren’t getting original work. Instead, it appears that counsel is using a “template” and simply duplicating cases.

Now, if these cases were successful, then it would be a good way to save time and money. But that isn’t at all the situation here.

They all kind of look the same, don’t they?
None of them properly pleaded, and none have ever gone anywhere.

How Many Victims Have Been Ripped Off?

A question that comes up often is how many victims there are of these scam lawsuits. For a partial answer, consider the following:

  • 600 – Adelberg (Federal)
  • 600 – Federal workers vaccine injury (apparently never filed)
  • 300 – Dorceus (this case)
  • 100 – Katanik (Take Action Canada’s “First Responders” suit)

These 4 cases alone amount to over 1,600 litigants who have gotten shoddy and mediocre representation. And all from the same lawyer. If one includes all of the donors, it’s no exaggeration to say that there have been several thousand victims who were taken advantage of.

Keep in mind, many, MANY cases have been filed since 2020.

What’s been disappointing is just how little the “independent” media has been speaking up about this. It’s not enough to simply be against lockdowns. Genuine reporters and journalists should be speaking up on behalf of victims who have been taken advantage of with these shoddy lawsuits. There are thousands of clients and donors whose goodwill and desperation have been exploited. They needed a voice.

Then of course, some asshole tried in June 2022 to bankrupt a former donor who simply wanted her money back. If this isn’t cause for concern, then what is?

True, it’s a little better now, but more should have been expected. While it’s great to support public interest litigation (overall), we shouldn’t lose track of the people who are really impacted by it.

As for Liberty Talk, perhaps the 25% commission in 2020 clouded her judgement.

(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim