Action4Canada: 4 Years Later, No Legitimate Notice Of Civil Claim Filed

Yes, the Action4Canada case has been covered here before, but consider this:

It’s been nearly four (4) years since the group began fundraising, under the pretense that they were going to file a Court challenge in British Columbia. They started in the Summer of 2020, and it’s now the end of March 2024. Almost 4 years later, there’s still no valid case on file.

Despite repeatedly assuring the public that time was of the essence, every attempt has been made to ensure that it will never go forward. Probably the worst example was filing a Notice of Appeal back in September 2022, even though the Judge had granted permission to amend and refile.

It’s undeniable at this point, if it wasn’t obvious long ago. The Action4Canada case was never intended to go to Trial. It was a “placeholder” case, to give the illusion that something was being done. This was all while diverting money and energy away from other causes.

And it’s not as if the case was taken on a pro-bono (or “free”) basis. Donors have paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars for what they thought was a sincere anti-lockdown challenge. They’ve received nothing of value for their money. In the Spring of 2021 alone there was a $200,000 payment for legal services.

True, these people could be delusional, but it could just as easily be an act. It’s hard to imagine anyone this out of touch with reality being given control over an organization’s finances.

Yes, one could argue that there technically was a Claim filed a few years ago. But no sensible person who understands civil procedure takes this seriously. For a quick rundown:

(1) August, 2021: After nearly a year of stalling, Action4Canada files their Notice of Civil Claim, a.k.a. Statement of Claim. It’s 391 pages long, rambling, incoherent, and fails to follow the basics of Civil Procedure. This critique of it aged very well.

(2) August, 2022: The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that it was “bad beyond argument”, and drafted so poorly that it was impossible to respond to. Although leave (permission) was granted to amend, the Claim was never accepted as valid.

(3) February, 2023: The Law Society of B.C. put it in their training manual for new lawyers. This case is now a teaching exercise of “wholly inadequate pleadings”, and how to avoid them. See page 15. That’s right, the LSBC is using it to train new lawyers on how not to draft lawsuits.

(4) February 2024: The Law Society of B.C. puts out its newest version of their training manual for new lawyers, and the Action4Canada case is still in there. Even a year later, they still view it as teaching material. It wasn’t just a one-off.

(5) February, 2024: The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the original Claim wasn’t drafted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. It was too long, confusing, and difficult to follow. They didn’t address the litany of other errors contained within. The lawyer also apparently didn’t understand that you can appeal the Order, but not the Reasons.

This so-called challenge has been smacked down by the:
(a) British Columbia Supreme Court
(b) British Columbia Court of Appeal
(c) Law Society of British Columbia

And it wasn’t over some minor or technical defect or deficiency. This suit has become the laughing stock of the legal profession because it has been so absurdly handled.

More than a month after the BCCA ruling, there’s still no amended NOCC filed. There obviously is no urgency whatsoever to get anything done.

Let’s not forget that both Vaccine Choice cases, from 2019 and 2020, have been allowed to sit idly for years. No rush here either to advance those.

Fundraising started 4 years ago, and still no legitimate Claim from Action4Canada.

If there really was all this expert evidence and testimony ready to go, why mess around with incoherent and unintelligible pleadings? Why unnecessarily complicate things if all of these witnesses were set? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why delay things for years like this?

Even if a well written Notice of Claim were filed tomorrow (unlikely as that is), the Statute of Limitations would be a serious issue. Any new claims would be barred if they happened over 2 years earlier. And since most of the current NOCC is irrelevant or outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, there isn’t much left to go on.

What was the plan, to let Bonnie Henry just die of old age?

All that they’ve done is deliberately waste time and money. As of late, they smear their critics as “paid agitators”. Strange how it’s apparently not defamation when they suggest others are controlled opposition.

Remember to donate!

(1) BCLS Civil Instruction Manual 2023
(2) BCLS Civil Instruction Manual 2024

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

(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)


(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act): Who’s Really Pushing This Agenda?

Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has been introduced in Parliament by Arif Virani, the Justice Minister. First Reading happened on February 26th, 2024. There’s a lot of it to go through

To begin with, there are actually some worthwhile provisions in the Bill, such as the mandatory reporting of child pornography. No sensible reason would reject that. And there are instances where being able to quickly remove certain content would be in the best interests of society.

Ottawa gives its own summary of the Bill.

However, Bill C-63 seems to blend together straightforward and legitimate issues with ones that are much more vague and impractical. Consequently, it’s harder to simply accept or reject.

There’s also the question of who has been influencing the drafting of this content. That will be addressed a bit later.

The Bill would create a Digital Safety Office of Canada, and an Ombudsman to oversee it. In essence, it would add a new layer of bureaucracy to specifically monitor “digital safety”.

Content that foments hatred is “defined” in this Bill, but is still vague. Additionally, it seeks to be able to attribute specific motivations to expression. What may be valid discourse to some will be considered hate speech to others.

There is a disclaimer that this wouldn’t apply to content solely because it expresses “disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends”. Sounds great, but that also is subjective as well, depending on the views of whoever is interpreting it.

Harmful content in fact lists 7 different categories, and all of them at least somewhat open to interpretation. What can easily happen is that these new laws will be selectively applied, depending on the politics of the people involved.

The Bill would create a new section of the Criminal Code. This is one which a person could lay an information on another, and with the Attorney General’s consent, it could be brought before a Judge. If ordered by that Judge a person may be forced to enter into a recognizance, if a Judge is convinced that hate crime may be committed.

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.‍1); or
(b) an offence under section 320.‍1001.

A person could be forced into this recognizance for up to 2 years, or would face 12 months in prison if they refuse. This is similar to being out on bail or on a peace bond, but with no actual crime committed.

Terms of the “recognizance” could include:

(a) Wearing an electronic monitoring device
(b) Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times, a.k.a. a curfew
(c) Abstaining from drugs and alcohol
(d) Submitting to drug and alcohol testing
(e) No contact orders
(f) Weapons prohibitions

The topper on this one is that a Judge isn’t required to give reasons for this, but is supposed to say why written reasons aren’t included. Again, this is for when some is suspected that they may commit a crime. No actual charges are necessary.

Other changes to the Criminal Code involve Section 318 and 319, which raise the potential imprisonment for incitement to hatred from 2 years to 5 years.

Advocating genocide will also expose a person to a potential life sentence.

The Canadian Human Rights Act would also be amended to include “communication of hate speech”, which is defined as: to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But it also is poorly defined, which will likely lead to it being applied in an uneven manner, depending on the politics of those involved.

Section 140 of the Online Harms Act is the “Regulations” part. This is where unnamed and unelected bureaucrats are able to change or interpret provisions of the legislation without any real oversight. Nearly all Acts have such a backdoor, which allows changes to be done behind the scenes.

There is more to Bill C-63, but those are some of the major points.

Now, where did this come from?

Lobbying is a reality in politics. Special interests groups lobby money to get certain agendas pushed, and to get money for their causes. This is hardly news. Searching the Federal Lobbyist Registry, the following names come up:

  • Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
  • National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)
  • Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF)
  • YWCA Canada
  • Friends of Canadian Broadcasting

Are there others involved in this? Probably, but these are the names that come up, which appear to be relevant to regulating speech and expression.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, has been prolific in lobbying Ottawa for changes to the Human Rights Act, and to the Criminal Code. This group has pushed for stricter definitions around so-called hate crimes and antisemitism. Their recent efforts include making Holocaust denial punishable by prison time, and removing religious protections. See here and here.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, NCCM, specifically lists Section 13 of the Canadian Rights Act. They want laws against Islamophobia, and condemn “white supremacy”. Other efforts include anti-racism initiatives, such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, had pressured Ottawa to take action against online harassment and gendered violence. The recent lobbying specifically relates to new technologies used to do this.

YWCA Canada supports regulations against online hate, which is taken from a feminist and “gendered violence” perspective.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a bit of an outlier. It wants more financial support for smaller, independent media, while opposing the funding of the CBC. It also pushes for regulations around online hate. Presumably, this would lead to many (much smaller) anti-racist outlets.

And to search online hate more generally, click on this link.

While it’s always important to read upcoming legislation, this piece often gets left out. The groups pushing for changes need to be considered as well. This is especially true if our interests don’t align.


Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(N) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(O) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(P) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(Q) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

Last Friday, a Notice of Action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court, at their Toronto Division. A woman intends to sue her former counsel, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, for: (a) professional negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount; and (c) aggravated and/or punitive damages.

A Notice of Action is not the same thing as a Statement of Claim. Instead, this document is occasionally filed when a lawsuit is in the works, but the Statute of Limitations is approaching. Justice Stewart dismissed the Gill/Lamba suit on February 24, 2022, and this Notice was filed February 23, 2024. This came just a day before the 2 year anniversary.

Once filed, a Plaintiff has 30 days under Rule 14.03 to serve all Defendants with this Notice, and the Claim itself. (Pardon the error which previously listed the time as 6 months).

Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet are listed as counsel for Kulvinder Gill. They also represented her at the Court of Appeal which ultimately dismissed the Maciver anti-SLAPP Appeal.

What does the Notice of Action say?

1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, claims against the Defendants, Rocco Galati and Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation as follows:
a. General and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $1,500,000;
b. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of reputation in the amount of $250,000;
c. Aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;
d. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
e. The costs of this proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, plus all applicable taxes, and;
f. Such further and other relief as the plaintiff may advise and as this Honourable Court
may seem just.

2. The Defendants acted for the Plaintiff with respect to various litigation matters starting in late 2020, including defamation actions and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Their representation of the Plaintiff was negligent, constituted a breach of contract and a breach of the fiduciary duties, causing the Plaintiff significant damages.

Of course, this isn’t the entire pleading. The real Statement of Claim is presumably in the works, and it should be interesting to read. Ashvinder Lamba also has a $600,000 malpractice suit pending, alleging many of the same things as Gill.

Brief timeline of some major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill’s public opinions, which contradict the “approved” narrative, lands her in trouble with the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the regulator which is responsible for licensing in that Province. They’re not too happy that her views don’t toe the line.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

March 2021: Gill sues the University of Ottawa and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million. This is over 2 rude comments on Twitter, one where he calls her an “idiot”. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit, and mere insults aren’t actionable.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this. (CanLII version available)

February 2024: Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s then co-Plaintiff, files a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former counsel.

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason. It’s to stop people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence critics on issues of public interest. And nothing screams frivolous like attempting to bankrupt a person over some name calling. Here’s the background on this one.

SLAPP of course refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

While the comical defamation lawsuits have made national news, Gill’s adventures with the CPSO have pretty much flown under the radar. She has attracted several complaints since 2020, over her public stances and comments. Lawsuits were brought in Court to try to resolve it there, largely on the grounds of free speech. Such litigation has been repeatedly thrown out as “premature”.

In fairness, prematurity just means there’s a lack of jurisdiction.

The problem, realistically, is that the CPSO — like many professional organizations — mandates that problems be resolved internally first. Here’s one of Gill’s decisions, from 2021. Starting at paragraph 31, it’s explained that this is a long established policy, going back decades. The rationale is that if this isn’t followed, it leads to fragmentation and splitting of cases, along with overlapping rulings.

This isn’t to justify in any way what the CPSO has been up to. They’ve shown themselves to be a willing accomplice to the Ford regime, and deserve no sympathy.

It’s to recognize that had Gill been competently advised, it seems unlikely she would have pursued this path. In the Notice of Action, she alleges that former counsel was negligent.

There is a parallel between:

  • Doctors suing the CPSO (instead of using the internal disciplinary process first); and
  • Public sector and unionized workers suing their employers (instead of filing grievances)

In both instances, lawsuits are likely to be thrown out. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that the other remedies are unworkable and/or corrupted. Now, the million dollar question in these cases is whether they were advised of this in advance.

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Doctors, lawyers, and pretty much all professionals are required to have insurance. This protects against lawsuits for negligence, incompetence, malpractice, and more. It’s to ensure that there is money available for successful claims, and that it won’t bankrupt them.

One caveat: insurance providers typically refuse to pay out if there are accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation. But Gill and Lamba are just alleging negligence and of breach of contract, which should be okay.

We’ll have to see what the Statement of Claim looks like, when it’s eventually filed. But just going off of the Notice, it doesn’t look good.

Why pursue this? One possibility is that Gill really needs the money. Even “settling” with most parties in the case with Lamba, she still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Saikaley and Brunet want to get paid as well, and this may be a way to do it. Then there’s that anti-SLAPP Motion pending with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

Update: On March 25th, 2024, the actual Statement of Claim was filed, and it’s a doozy.

(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim

(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

2 Sides Of The Same Coin: Sendai Framework And International Health Regulations

This topic isn’t revolutionary. However, it’s interesting how different pieces of legislation (supposedly brought for completely different areas of life) can serve much the same purpose. Laws that seemingly have no connection to each other can end up having very similar results.

Let’s look at a few of them.

For emergency and disaster management:
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 21) signed in 1992
Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World signed in 1994
Hyogo Framework for Action signed, goes from 2005 to 2015
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030) signed in 2015
Sendai Framework signed, goes from 2015 to 2030.

For public health management:
W.H.O. Constitution signed in 1946
-W.H.O. International Sanitary Regulations signed in 1951
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (First Edition) signed in 1969
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Second Edition) signed in 1995
W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Third Edition) signed in 2005

Now, what can these things have in common? Quite simply, they are pretexts for removing rights and property from people, under the cloak of being an emergency. True, the nature of it will vary, but the results are the same.

1. Parallels Between Sendai Framework And WHO-IHR

While not identical, there are many connections and similarities between enacting emergency management laws, and the public health laws. Using B.C. as an example:

(a) Bill 31 was derived from the Sendai Framework, which itself is part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. There are many aspects to this ideology

(b) The Provincial Public Health Acts are the result of the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself is derived from the 3rd Edition of the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Also, the WHO’s Constitution is well worth a read, as it dates back to the 1940s.

While laws are being enacted that greatly impact the lives of Canadians, the reality is that these — and many laws — are derived from international agreements that the public has no say in.

(a) Bill 31 is framed as “disaster reduction measures”, which presumably means natural disasters. As for speculation about “climate lockdowns”, this type of legislation is laying the ground work.

(b) Provincial Health Acts are framed as “preventing communicable diseases”, and we saw plenty of that in the last few years.

And reading through both, it’s clear that both are intended — among other things — to strip away large parts of individual rights, including property rights. These things are presented as necessary for the greater good.

Additionally, both sets of laws allows near dictatorial powers when it comes to issuing orders. A Cabinet Minister could do it for the Emergency & Disaster Management Act. A Minister, or Public Health Officer, can give orders concerning regulations within the Public Health Act

2. B.C. Bill 31, Emergency & Disaster Management Act

This is still going through the Legislature, but parts of it are certainly worth looking at. They’re ripe for abuse in the wrong hands.

Essential matters
75 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) identify supplies, equipment or other items, services, property or facilities, or a class of any of these, as essential;
(b) for things identified under paragraph (a) as essential,
(i) establish or restrain increases in prices or rents for them,
(ii) ration or otherwise provide for their distribution or use,
(iii) provide for their restoration, and
(iv) prohibit or limit seizures of them or evictions from them;
(c) authorize a person to provide a service or give assistance of a type that the person is qualified to provide or give;
(d) require a person to provide a service or give assistance of a type that the person is qualified to provide or give;
(e) provide for, maintain and coordinate the provision and maintenance of necessities.
(2) Subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iv) applies despite any enactment governing tenancies or the recovery of property.
(3) Subsection (1) (c) and (d) applies despite any contract, including a collective agreement.

Land and other property
76 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) appropriate, use or control the use of any personal property;
(b) use or control the use of any land;
(c) authorize the entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures;
(d) prohibit the entry into any structure or onto any land by any person;
(e) authorize or require the alteration, removal or demolition of any trees, crops, structures or landscapes;
(f) authorize or require the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of works;
(g) require the owner of a structure to
(i) have any damage to the structure assessed, and
(ii) give the results of the assessment to the minister or a person in a class of persons specified by the minister.
(2) The power under subsection (1) (b) to use or control the use of land does not apply to specified land.

General restrictions
78 (1) The minister may, by order, control or prohibit one or more of the following:
(a) travel to or from any area;
(b) the carrying on of a business or a type of business;
(c) an event or a type of event.
(2) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) require a person to stop doing an activity, including an activity that a person is licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized to do under an enactment;
(b) put limits or conditions on doing an activity, including limits or conditions that have the effect of modifying a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment.

Clearly, the Bill is much longer than this. But what do these sections include?

  • Establish price controls of “essential goods”
  • Establish rationing of “essential goods”
  • Require (force) people to provide certain services
  • Appropriate or control someone’s private land
  • Allow warrantless searches
  • Prohibit people from entering their property
  • Prevent travel
  • Prohibit certain types of businesses
  • Prohibit or restrict activities

Sound familiar? It should. These things were implemented throughout British Columbia through 2020 to 2022, but under the pretense of “disease prevention”. All that’s missing are the injection passports and the mask mandates.

3. B.C. Public Health Act (2009), Derivative Of WHO-IHR

People will no doubt remember the years of endless (and seemingly arbitrary) dictates from BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and Health Minister Adrian Dix. But what allowed them to do this?

General powers respecting health hazards and contraventions
31 (1)If the circumstances described in section 30 [when orders respecting health hazards and contraventions may be made] apply, a health officer may order a person to do anything that the health officer reasonably believes is necessary for any of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether a health hazard exists;
(b) to prevent or stop a health hazard, or mitigate the harm or prevent further harm from a health hazard;
(c) to bring the person into compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it;
(d) to bring the person into compliance with a term or condition of a licence or permit held by that person under this Act.
(2) A health officer may issue an order under subsection (1) to any of the following persons:
(a) a person whose action or omission
(i) is causing or has caused a health hazard, or
(ii) is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the person’s licence or permit;
(b) a person who has custody or control of a thing, or control of a condition, that
(i) is a health hazard or is causing or has caused a health hazard, or
(ii) is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the person’s licence or permit;
(c) the owner or occupier of a place where
(i) a health hazard is located, or
(ii) an activity is occurring that is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the licence or permit of the person doing the activity.

Specific powers respecting health hazards and contraventions
32(1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 30 [when orders respecting health hazards and contraventions may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 31 (1) [general powers respecting health hazards and contraventions].

32(2) Without limiting section 31, a health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
(a) have a thing examined, disinfected, decontaminated, altered or destroyed, including
(i) by a specified person, or under the supervision or instructions of a specified person,
(ii) moving the thing to a specified place, and
(iii) taking samples of the thing, or permitting samples of the thing to be taken;
(b) in respect of a place,
(i) leave the place,
(ii) not enter the place,
(iii) do specific work, including removing or altering things found in the place, and altering or locking the place to restrict or prevent entry to the place,
(iv) neither deal with a thing in or on the place nor dispose of a thing from the place, or deal with or dispose of the thing only in accordance with a specified procedure, and
(v) if the person has control of the place, assist in evacuating the place or examining persons found in the place, or taking preventive measures in respect of the place or persons found in the place;
(c) stop operating, or not operate, a thing;
(d) keep a thing in a specified place or in accordance with a specified procedure;
(e) prevent persons from accessing a thing;
(f) not dispose of, alter or destroy a thing, or dispose of, alter or destroy a thing only in accordance with a specified procedure;
(g) provide to the health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to a thing’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or hazardous agent by the thing;
(h) wear a type of clothing or personal protective equipment, or change, remove or alter clothing or personal protective equipment, to protect the health and safety of persons;
(i) use a type of equipment or implement a process, or remove equipment or alter equipment or processes, to protect the health and safety of persons;
(j) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a health officer any relevant record;
(k) take a prescribed action.
(3) If a health officer orders a thing to be destroyed, the health officer must give the person having custody or control of the thing reasonable time to request reconsideration and review of the order under sections 43 and 44 unless
(a) the person consents in writing to the destruction of the thing, or
(b) Part 5 [Emergency Powers] applies.

While not identical, the B.C. Public Health Act provides many of the same restrictions that Bill 31 would (if enacted). Primarily, property and personal rights can be suspended in an open ended manner, under the excuse of an emergency.

It’s also worth mentioning the the “Public Officials” involved in issuing orders are exempt from legal liability, and cannot be sued. It’s written right into the legislation.

(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English

(15) WHO International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition 2005

U.N. Sendai Framework Introduced Domestically Via B.C. Bill 31 (Emergency & Disaster Management Act)

A few weeks ago, British Columbia Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, made ripples because of the embedded language which seemed to be a threat to property rights. Under the pretense of emergencies, rights could be suspended in a manner that heavily paralleled the Public Health Act.

However, it’s noteworthy that the B.C. Government isn’t actually responsible for this legislation. It’s domestic implementation of the United Nations Sendai Framework, signed in Japan in 2015.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Hon. B. Ma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
Hon. B. Ma: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.
Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. This bill delivers on government’s pledge to introduce modernized emergency management legislation that aligns with the United Nations Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, the international best practices for how we make our communities safer and more resilient.
This legislation formally recognizes the rights of First Nations as decision-makers in emergency management, which is an important step in aligning B.C.’s approach with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The Emergency and Disaster Management Act moves towards a holistic four-phase approach of mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. It embraces disaster risk reduction and will require that climate risk be assessed so that entities can better mitigate the impacts of climate-related emergencies before they happen.
This bill updates the concept of what constitutes an emergency to reflect modern realities and risks and provides improved tools for response and recovery. I look forward to debate on this bill and, ultimately, to the improvements it will bring for the safety of people across British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.

It’s also explicitly stated that it will be used to “mitigate the risks” of climate change, but without specifying what those risks are.

Bill 31 is quite long, but here are a few notable parts. Section 76 allows the Minister to suspend property rights under the guise of mitigating an emergency. It also allows for warrantless entry under that same pretense.

Furthermore, the Minister is able to order that property be destroyed …. including crops. By this logic, food supply would not be secure either.

Land and other property
76 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) appropriate, use or control the use of any personal property;
(b) use or control the use of any land;
(c) authorize the entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures;
(d) prohibit the entry into any structure or onto any land by any person;
(e) authorize or require the alteration, removal or demolition of any trees, crops, structures or landscapes;
(f) authorize or require the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of works;
(g) require the owner of a structure to
(i) have any damage to the structure assessed, and
(ii) give the results of the assessment to the minister or a person in a class of persons specified by the minister.
(2) The power under subsection (1) (b) to use or control the use of land does not apply to specified land.

Section 78 would give the Government the power to restrict travel and movement, shut down businesses, and various events. This greatly parallels what happened from 2020 to 2022. The difference here is that the excuse isn’t a disease.

General restrictions
78 (1) The minister may, by order, control or prohibit one or more of the following:
(a) travel to or from any area;
(b) the carrying on of a business or a type of business;
(c) an event or a type of event.
(2) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) require a person to stop doing an activity, including an activity that a person is licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized to do under an enactment;
(b) put limits or conditions on doing an activity, including limits or conditions that have the effect of modifying a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment.

Section 82 says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make retroactive orders. This would presumably legalize actions that would previously have been illegal.

Section 139 makes it clear that compliance is mandatory.

Section 140 gives provincial administrators the power to ask for police enforcement

Section 141 outlines judicial remedies to obtain injunction.

Section 154 provides protection from legal proceedings for pretty much anyone involved in implementing emergency management orders.

There is much more to this Bill, and that will be covered in a follow-up.

Now, what does this have to do with the United Nations?

Turns out, that the Sendai Framework was agreed to in 2015, and this is just B.C. implementing their version of it. This is also the third conference, with the first being Yokohama in 1994, and the second in Hyogo in 2005. The specific agency is the UNDDR, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The full text of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (see archive) is available online. As should be apparent, Bill 31 heavily copies this content.

And the Emergency & Disaster Management Act heavily mirrors the Provincial Public Health Acts, which strip away property rights under the cloak of disease prevent. Those have been covered here and here.

More to come!

(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English

Take Action Canada: 2 Years Later, No Activity In Vaccine Mandate Case

This is an update from March 2023. More than 100 “first responders” from Ontario (police, medical, firefighters, etc….) filed a lawsuit against the Ontario Government and their respective organizations. It sought over $100 million in damages.

April 2021: For context, it’s important to know the history. Originally, there was an Application filed back in April 2021 on behalf of a number of Ontario police officers. This case was heavily promoted, and donations solicited, from a group called Police On Guard. It’s interesting that P.O.G. was never listed as a client, despite their public role.

That case sat idly for several months — as always — before the next version came out. Now, the case is still considered active, and no one bothered to tell the public that this Application wasn’t being pursued. It’s unclear if any of the donor money was ever returned.

Worth noting: there was an April 2021 Application from Children’s Health Defense (Canada). It also appears that it’s not being pursued, and nothing has been publicly announced about returning donations.

Fall 2021: The next iteration was by a group called Take Action Canada. This was more broadly to challenge the vaccine passports that were being implemented in the Fall of 2021. Apparently, prospective clients were being asked to contribute $1,500 each, despite this being (despite abandoning the April Application).

March 1, 2023: Although the clients’ livelihoods made this case urgent, nothing was actually filed until March 2023. That’s right, it took approximately a year and a half from the time the suit was being organized, until the time a Statement of Claim was filed in Ontario Superior Court. Clearly, there is no urgency whatsoever in getting this done.

And what was the product? A rehash of filings from British Columbia and the Federal Court that had already been thrown out as “bad beyond argument”. People who had been forced from their professions were paying retainer fees for copies of pleadings previously tossed, and more than once.

July 18, 2023: an Amended Statement of Claim was filed. It pleaded some specific details for 35 of the Plaintiffs. The likely reason for doing this was to address criticisms from earlier cases that the claims lacked facts and background information. Here’s the Requisition.

However, the Amended Claim also states that “particulars will be provided later”. This likely won’t sit well with the Court, as Defendants are entitled to know the case against them.

August 10, 2023: the City of Hamilton filed a Notice of Intent to Defend. Note, this not the same thing as filing a Defence. It’s just a short statement that they intend to do so.

According to a recent response from the Court Registry, no actual defences have been filed, nor are there any hearings scheduled. In other words, it’s just another dead end case.

Should things progress, there are a few major problems to contend with:

  • First: the Plaintiffs mostly (if not entirely) are/were unionized employees, which means there’s a requirement to go through the grievance process. This typically ends in arbitration. While there are limited ways to argue around this, this document falls far short of that.
  • Second: as with similar cases, this one is pleaded so poorly that it’s likely to get struck due to its incomprehensible and incoherent nature. While not fatal, it will be another significant delay.
  • Third: given that it took so long to even get a case filed, the Defendants are likely to argue that the issues are “moot” (as in no longer relevant).
  • Fourth: even if some of the Plaintiffs were to seek out a new lawyer and file a new case, the Statute of Limitations — typically 2 years — will prevent them from refiling.

This case was announced 2 years ago, and hasn’t gotten past the pleadings stage. This is comparable with Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2020 suit, which was dormant for 2 1/2 years before a Motion to Strike was brought. That will be heard January 30th February 1st, 2024.

Again, few of these cases are being tried on the merits. They are being struck or dismissed because they aren’t written in an intelligible way, or have fatal defects.

This site has covered only a relatively small number of these kinds of cases. One has to wonder how prevalent the issue really is.

Instead of criticizing this site, perhaps Take Action Canada should be trying to reimburse people who’ve paid the retainer fees. Just a thought.

(3) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(4) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(6) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend