Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Looking At The Burke Federal Proposed Class Action (Injection Mandates)

Canadians were subjected to varying forms of lockdown measures from 2020 through 2022. Some restrictions still exist today in places such as health care settings.

As a result, a topic that’s come up numerous times is the idea of Class Actions. This is based on the concept that a single lawsuit — if carefully prepared — will be much more effective than individual claims. Many more people could potentially benefit. And indeed, such cases have sprung up.

With that in mind, it’s worth asking: how are these cases going?

One such suit filed in Federal Court is Chief Gregory Burke v. His Majesty the King, and the Attorney General of Canada. It commenced back in September 2023. To put it mildly, advancing the case doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.

There’s just the Statement of Claim and an amended version on file, both of which look to be horribly deficient. It will have to be further amended.

No Motion to Strike has (yet) been commenced. There’s no Statement of Defence. It doesn’t look like any steps have been taken to certify the case as a Class Action. The most recent action was in December 2024, advising of potential dates for a case conference. Donations are being sought still.

Counsel’s Recent Record On “Vaccine Passport” Cases

This Proposed Class Action is being conducted by Leighton Grey of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer. He has filed several related lawsuits (not Class Actions) in Federal Court in recent years. However, the trend seems to be to discontinue — drop — them, rather than push through.

(a) Canada Post: struck in March 2024
(b) Canadian National Railway: discontinued in June 2023
(c) Purolator, discontinued in April 2023
(d) Westjet, discontinued in April 2023

A search of other Court records — such as Manitoba — reveal other, related cases which were promptly discontinued. One has to wonder how diligently this one will be pursued.

Nothing Pleaded About Chief Gregory Burke, Representative Plaintiff

Most people are familiar with the more “traditional” lawsuits. In those, the details of each Plaintiff must be spelled out in the Statement of Claim, and then, the Defendants respond. They typically know from the onset exactly who is suing them, and for how much.

For (Proposed) Class Actions, the Claim pleads information about 1 or more “Representative Plaintiffs” only. There are “subgroups” or “classes” listed of prospective litigants. They still have to provide enough detail about their own circumstances. Beyond that, there’s a process to attempt to certify the lawsuit as a Class Action. A Judge may (or may not) certify.

Only a single Representative Plaintiff — sometimes called a “Token Plaintiff” — is required, provided he or she is able to qualify for all classes.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Problem here: there’s nothing pleaded about Chief Gregory Burke. Federal Court Rules make it clear what’s required in a Statement of Claim. Neither the original nor the amended version provide any information about him.

Since Burke is the only Representative Plaintiff, he must give sufficient detail to at least theoretically support all of such Claims. True, other Plaintiffs may be added, but only if Certification is successful. It’s probably too late to amend the Style of Cause (names of Parties).

  • Section 2(a) of the Charter;
  • Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility)
  • Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
  • Section 8 of the Charter (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
  • Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)
  • Tortious interference of economic relations
  • Tortious inducement to breach contractual relations
  • Intentional infliction of mental suffering
  • Malfeasance of public office
  • Negligent representation
  • Human rights violations

These are just some of the torts alleged in the Statement of Claim. Problem is: Grey pleads no information to support any of it. Granted, it may be true, but there’s nothing explained. Many are simply listed, with no facts or particulars to support any of it.

We know Burke’s name, and that’s about it.

Yes, the Statement of Claim can usually be amended. Keep in mind though, the case was filed nearly a year and a half ago. Shouldn’t such information already be included?

The Representative Plaintiff is Chief Gregory Burke. He is a senior who lives in Nova Scotia. He was chosen for a number of reasons, including his resistance to lockdown tyranny, which is being prosecuted there. He is also a Metis hereditary Chief who fits into both of the subclasses described in the class action.

Heck, there’s more information listed on counsel’s website than there is in the Statement of Claim.

Other Nonsense Included In Statement Of Claim

The Claim bizarrely pleads product liability and breach of implied warranty. This doesn’t make any sense. If Burke were fighting lockdown tyranny, he wouldn’t have taken any of the injections. And in paragraph 5, it’s stated that the Plaintiffs hadn’t. This would only apply if someone had taken the shot(s) and been harmed. Beyond that, it would be the manufacturers who’d be potentially liable.

Starting around paragraph 57, there are allegations that the Government had breached its duty of care to the Plaintiffs. It goes on and on about the dangers posed by “experimental vaccines”. But once again, the Plaintiffs plead that none of them took the shots.

Grey pleads the Nuremberg Code among other remedies that have no jurisdiction in a Canadian Civil Court. This is a Galati favourite, and part of the reason his cases are typically struck early on.

As for the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, the purpose of that legislation had to do with race, ethnicity, and genetic disorders a person might have. It doesn’t apply here, yet lawyers routinely include it.

There are also allegations of interference with economic relations. For this tort to work, the Defendants would have to have done something improper or illegal to a third party that harmed the Plaintiffs. None of that is specified here. The employers would need to be identified, and the circumstances laid out.

The entire Claim reads as if Grey had simply cut and pasted from various other lawsuits, without paying much attention to how logical it all was.

Pleading Names The Subclasses (Groups of Plaintiffs)

Typically, a Class Action will name various “subclasses” of Plaintiffs. These are people who will still be part of the litigation, but whom have been impacted in different ways. Quote:

  1. “Employment Subclass“: members who have experienced job loss or adverse employment effects as a result of the Defendants’ actions. This subclass includes those who have been terminated, denied promotions, experienced decreased working hours or suffered any other professional hardship
  2. “Travel Subclass“: individuals who were prevented or prohibited from travelling due to their vaccination status. Members of this subclass have been adversely affected by the Defendants’ conduct and policies that either implicitly or explicitly restricted the mobility rights of unvaccinated individuals, thus causing significant disruption to both their personal and professional lives.
  3. “Dual Impact Subclass“: is unique in that it encapsulates members who fall within both the aforementioned subclasses.

As stated before, there’s no information pleaded about Burke. He may very well have valid claims both regarding employment and travel, but there’s nothing provided.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 23rd, 2023: Statement of Claim filed.

October 5th, 2023: Government sends notice that it will respond and defend.

November 1st, 2023: Associate Judge Michael D. Crinson and Justice Mandy Aylen are assigned to be case management Judges for the suit.

December 10, 2023: Defendants contact Court, asking that any Statement of Defence be deferred until after Certification Motion has been heard and determined.

June 3, 2024: Statement of Claim (Plaintiff Class) filed with the Court.

December 19th, 2024: Letter from Plaintiff’s lawyer about case management dates.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

That’s where things currently stand. No Statement of Defence has been filed. There’s no Motion to Strike (yet), though presumably one is coming. And the process for a Certification Motion hasn’t even been started.

“2024-10-07
Current Status: The Statement of Claim was filed on 25 September 2023. A Federal Court action with a similar fact pattern recently faced a Motion to Strike Application to amend the Statement of Claim. We await online production of the Amended Statement of Claim to better assess whether further refinements are required in our action. In the interim a Case Management Conference has been requested. Scheduling of same is pending.”

An October 2024 status update may shed some light on things. The current plan is apparently wait to see what happens in some similar case, and then further amend this suit. So… to just wait and see, and piggyback off of someone else. Shouldn’t clients be talking to that lawyer then?

The case is nearly a year and a half old, and there’s just the Statement of Claim. Could such a case be certified and advanced? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem very urgent.

(1) Burke T-2008-23 Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Burke T-2008-23 Intent To Respond (October, 2023)
(3) Burke T-2008-23 Crinson Assigned (November, 2023)
(4) Burke T-2008-23 Crinson Order (December, 2023)
(5) Burke T-2008-23 Amended Statement Of Claim, Plaintiff Class (June, 2024)

Posted on

5th Galati Pleading Struck As “Abuse Of Public Resources”, $190,000 Costs Ordered In Dorceus

[53] I have the distinct impression from reading the Amended Claim as a whole that its object is not to vindicate the employment rights of the plaintiffs so much as it is to mount a political crusade in which the court will be used as a grandstand to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of vaccines and the effectiveness of government measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic by opponents of those measures.

[154] …. If this was not clear from the outset, it should have become clear by the time the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal struck out similarly drafted statements of claim prepared by the same lawyer. While the interests of a free and democratic society may warrant leeway with respect to the pursuit of unconventional claims at the outset, when such claims continue to be pursued after being struck out by four courts, they amount to an abuse of public resources.

[157] …. Plaintiffs’ counsel is a sole practitioner with a different cost structure than that of counsel for the Non-Governmental Defendants and that this is the fifth time that Plaintiffs’ counsel has litigated a motion to strike with respect to a claim of this nature. I expect having done this four times before, that there were significant cost efficiencies for Plaintiffs’ counsel, especially with respect to the factum.

-Justice Koehnen, Ontario Superior Court Judge

This week, 473 Plaintiffs, who are current and former health care workers, saw their Statement of Claim struck completely. This was partly because it was so poorly crafted, but also because most had collective bargaining agreements which prohibited lawsuits. Of those litigants, 395 belonged to some sort of union, while the other 78 did not. They had been employed all across Ontario.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s yet another scam lawsuit that has come crashing down on duped litigants. And this will cost them $190,000 for doing so.

Interestingly, one Plaintiff decided to retain a real lawyer and have a proper Claim drafted. That person was given permission to file. More on that later.

Previous Critique On Galati Case Aged Very, Very Well

Back in July, this review was posted about the numerous defects in the Statement of Claim. And as predicted, jurisdiction was a fatal law, at least for the unionized Plaintiffs.

While the Statute of Limitations wasn’t really a concern of the Court here, it may be if Plaintiffs decide to try their luck elsewhere. However, every other item on this list made its way into Justice Koehnen’s ruling in some form.

  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

Perhaps most notably, the Court finally called Galati out for recycling his earlier cases. It’s long overdue for this to happen.

Galati Called Out For REPEATEDLY Wasting Court Resources

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

Now we have this gem, the 5th pleading to be struck:

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

Worth noting: Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court weighed in a year ago when CSASPP was sued for defamation. He dismissed that case under anti-SLAPP laws, and awarded $132,000 in costs. He was scathing in his decision.

[74] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks dated January 29, 2022, Mr. Gandhi supported the statement with hyperlinks to support the statements. The statements made in the FAQ are also supported by hyperlinks that provides that factual support for the statements. The statements made in the e-mail to Mr. Dicks and in the FAQ, that the Plaintiff has been criticized by the courts in other cases, is supported by the following decisions: Sivak v. Canada, at para. 55, Galati v. Harper, at para. 35, Da Silva Campos v. Canada, at para. 12, Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052, at para. 31, and Al Omani v. Canada 2017 FC 786, at para. 94-95.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

[88] Here, the action commenced in Ontario by the Plaintiff is prolix and contains bizarre conspiracy theories. The action he commenced in British Columbia is similar. I am of the view that “what is really going on” in this case is an attempt by the Plaintiff to stifle public criticism about a class action claim that is not properly pleaded and improperly asserts bizarre conspiracy theories that are ineffective and have little or no chance of success.

Factoring in Justice Chalmers, 10 different Judges in 6 separate Court hearings have made determinations that this type of litigation is frivolous, an abuse of the Court system, improperly pleaded, and has little to no chance of success.

Keep in mind, this list would be a lot longer, if not for several cases that were dropped. These include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada; (b) Katanik / Take Action Canada; (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada; and (d) Sgt. Julie Evans / Police on Guard.

Arbitration/Grievance Requirement Bars Unionized Workers

[13] The plaintiffs’ core complaint is that their employment was suspended or terminated as a result of their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Suspension and termination are core elements within the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the labour relations regime. The fact that the plaintiffs also go on to characterize their claims as ones for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish and breach of the Charter does not change the analysis. All of those complaints remain rooted in the employment relationship and its suspension and termination.

Despite attempts to frame this (Dorceus) as conspiracy, intimidation, and a variety of other torts, Justice Koehnen stated that this is really about litigants having their employment conditions altered to require these vaccines. This was essentially constructive dismissal.

This finding was fatal to the unionized Plaintiffs, who were barred from the Courts.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

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.

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.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada.

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)

From the ruling, we get this information:

[49] The Amended Statement of Claim is, at best, unusually drafted. A statement of claim is supposed to contain material facts on which the action is based. The Amended Statement of Claim contains few material facts about the employment of any of the 473 plaintiffs or the circumstances of their suspension or termination. Mr. Galati explained in oral argument that if the claim contained such facts, it would run into the hundreds of pages and would be challenged as unwieldly. That perhaps speaks to the advisability of pleading this as a consolidated claim.

Galati sued on behalf of nearly 500 people. He was required to plead facts about each Plaintiff that would establish a case for everyone. He had to plead facts about all the (alleged) Charter violations for each Plaintiff. A proper suit for so many people would have been several hundred pages in length. Other than naming their specific employers, he provided no detail about any of them.

Instead, it was the Defendants who compiled a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record in preparing their Motion to Strike.

Even if this was a Class Action — which it wasn’t — sufficient facts would still have to be pleaded for every Representative Plaintiff.

Another missing part was particulars. When alleging malice, bad faith, malfeasance, or a host of other torts, they must be spelled out in detail. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what the case against them is.

Plaintiff Beth Ann Dick Goes Her Own Way

[146] The plaintiff Beth Ann Dick provides an example of the sorts of considerations at issue here when determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Ms. Dick was initially represented by Mr. Galati. She says that she was not informed about the specific claims that Mr. Galati made on her behalf, did not speak with him, and did not meet him to discuss the individual circumstances of her claim, nor was she aware of the types of legal argument that would be made on her behalf.

[147] She has since retained Mr. R. P. O’Connor who has delivered a more conventional fresh as amended statement of claim. It narrows the claim to solely that of Ms. Dick against her former employer, removes the allegations of Charter breaches, removes outlandish allegations of false pandemics and crimes against humanity, and clearly pleads the necessary facts underlying causes of action in tort, contract, and breach of statute that she advances.

[148] Mr. O’Connor’s proposed amended statement of claim is an example of a pleading that survives a challenge under Rule 21. I grant leave to Ms. Dick to file the amended pleading she proposes.

Beth Ann Dick was a Plaintiff in the original case, but bailed out and retained a real lawyer. Her new counsel, R.P. O’Connor sent in a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that actually pleaded valid Causes of Action. It is (more or less) straight breach of contract.

If other Plaintiffs had been represented by a competent lawyer, things could very well have ended differently for them.

While the non-unionized Plaintiffs were granted Leave to Amend, any who want to will likely need to hire a better lawyer.

Missed Opportunity: Bill Galati For The $190,000 In Costs

While the Plaintiffs were hit with $190,000 in Court costs, this could have ended differently. If Justice Koehnen was serious about lawyers not abusing the Court process with duplicate Claims, he could have ordered Galati himself to pay. Rest assured, such baseless litigation would virtually disappear if lawyers were personally responsible for what they file.

Instead, it’s always the clients who have to pay, regardless of how badly (or how often) their counsel screws up.

And on a final note, Action4Canada eventually submitted their Amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC), nearly a year after the Court of Appeal laughed them out of Court. While much shorter, it contains many of the same defects that Justice Ross mentioned, and adds new ones in. Expect another Application to Strike.

DORCEUS DOCUMENTS:
(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
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

PREVIOUS DECISIONS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

ACTION4CANADA:
(1) A4C Amended Notice Of Civil Claim

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It had been introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne of Quebec.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography.

What’s interesting about this Bill is some of the groups that work to oppose it, and all while claiming to fight for women’s rights. One such organization is Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Leslyn Lewis was once a National Board Member of it.

LEAF describes itself as:

a national, charitable, non-profit organization that works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. LEAF has developed expertise in the gendered and intersectional impact of technology-facilitated violence through intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and making submissions to Parliament to highlight gender equity implications of online hate.

At the hearings before the House of Commons, LEAF made submissions, arguing against Bill S-210. The reasons are baffling.

In fairness, LEAF is hardly the only one to argue against Bill S-210. We’ll get into some of the others as well in subsequent articles.

Rather than implement age-restriction specifically for obscene material, LEAF instead defers to the much broader Bill C-63. While decrying possible invasions of privacy, the group recommends something more expansive.

***NCDII stands for non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

LEAF also has a rather convoluted objection to age-verification, under the guise of victims’ rights. While hundreds of underage people (mostly girls) have been victimized, requiring identification would make it harder for them to access their own images.

This means that LEAF is well aware of that the content of minors is often published, but age-verification can’t be allowed in order to allow victims some recourse. Perhaps a more stringent screening process beforehand would be helpful.

LEAF also adds that “To steer clear of such an inordinate penalty, tech companies are likely to over-moderate content on their sites. 2SLGBTQIA+ community members will bear the brunt of this change: through sexual content moderation, queer and trans content is already disproportionately targeted, banned, restricted, and demonetized on social media platforms“.

While denying that the “community” is full of groomers, LEAF argues that age-verification will disproportionately impact these people.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

Keep in mind, section 6(2) of Bill S-210 makes it clear that legitimate purposes related to: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; or (d) “the arts” is a full defence. And “arts” is presumably a broad category. Nonetheless, LEAF still opposes age-verification.

DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY YEAR AMOUNT
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2022 $25,000.00
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2023 $54,475.05
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2024 $54,475.05
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2022 $8,911.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2023 $8,400.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2024 $8,400.00
Justice Canada (JC) 2023 $33,712.34
Justice Canada (JC) 2024 $33,712.34
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2022 $362,668.00
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2023 $364,183.53
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2024 $364,183.53

This is just some of their more recent financing.

The Canadian Court Challenges Program is an initiative set up with public money in order for various “independent” groups to bring lawsuits challenging public policy. In other words, taxpayers have to finance lawfare against their own institutions.

For an idea of the kind of litigation that LEAF brings, check out some of their earlier work. It’s not a stretch to describe them as anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-humanity.

Lately, LEAF has been using a lobbying firm called Counsel Public Affairs. Bridget Howe, Ben Parsons, Sheamus Murphy, and Laila Hawrylyshyn (all Liberals) have been making their rounds. Counsel P.A. also employs Amber Ruddy, drug lobbyist and former CPC National Secretary.

Women’s LEAF, like so many groups, is also significantly subsidized by taxpayers, across different Ministries. They then hire lobbyists to lean on politicians to implement their agendas. In other words, organizations like these are using public money to pressure politicians against implementing safeguards for what children view online.

You don’t hate these people enough.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

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
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(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) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Antisemitism Hearings Continue At Canadian Parliament

The House of Commons has resumed hearings into the concerns of the Jewish community in Canada, and to bring forward ideas on what to do about it. To date, there are 23 witnesses scheduled to testify, and 78 briefs filed with Parliament. The hearings began in May 2024.

Officially, the hearings are referred to as: “Antisemitism and Additional Measures that Could be Taken to Address the Valid Fears that are Being Expressed by Canada’s Jewish Community”.

It’s unclear what, if anything, will come as a result. Free speech absolutists will notice the general trend of recommending solutions that involve some form of “re-education” or punishment.

Interestingly, both the Jewish and Islamic lobbies support the implementation of Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. The vague wording of the text would make it a powerful weapon.

One can’t but notice that the inconsistency of the attitudes of the participants. It seems while free expression is to take a back seat here, it wouldn’t be in similar circumstances. Let’s look at one example, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA.

CIJA On Jewish “Identity”: Free Speech Must Be Curbed

When it comes to protecting the well being of Jews in Canada, nothing is off the table. Aggressive efforts must be made, even if it limits free speech and free association.

  1. Enforce existing anti-hate laws and provide training to courts, police, government employees and the legal system in antisemitism and hate crimes.
  2. Incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism into all government training on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.
  3. Ban Vancouver-based group Samidoun for its direct and open ties to terror groups.
  4. Have both Ottawa and the provinces introduce safe access (bubble) legislation around synagogues, Jewish community buildings, and centres of Jewish life.
  5. Pass the Online Harms Act.
  6. Introduce the new Anti-Racism Strategy and ensure no government funding goes to those promoting and platforming hate.
  7. Ban the display of symbols of listed terror organizations.
  8. List the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
  9. Improve the collection and reporting of hate crime data, including how the information is shared with threatened communities.
  10. The Government of Canada should direct the provinces to act clearly to prevent antisemitism in schools, both on university campuses and in K-12.

These are the points introduced by CIJA for these hearings. However, it’s interesting to note that these efforts are not encouraged for all groups. Far from it.

CIJA On Palestinian “Identity”: Free Speech Must Be Protected

Despite the seemingly heavy handed approach favoured to combat antisemitism, it seems a different path is desirable regarding Palestinians.

Ottawa, ON – November 8, 2024 – In response to the announcement made by the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia about the Prime Minister’s support of “Anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) expressed serious concerns regarding the concept that risks undermining protections for Jewish Canadians and could misuse human rights laws to advance political narratives that silence Jewish voices.

CIJA has engaged directly with the federal government on this issue, calling on the Prime Minister to reject APR and ensure that Canadian policy protects the free expression of all communities without infringing upon Jewish identity or silencing voices within Canada’s Jewish community. CIJA’s engagement has also included correspondence and meetings with key government representatives to advocate for consistent, inclusive, human rights protections.

The concerns are entirely different when it comes to recognizing Palestinians as a race or ethnicity. CIJA summarizes them concisely.

  1. It lacks debate
  2. It is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant under the Charter
  3. It risks sidetracking creation of Islamophobia guides
  4. It challenges freedom of expression
  5. It contravenes Established Government Policies
  6. It is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy
  7. It imposes divisive environment
  8. It silences victims of antisemitism
  9. It silences discussions of terrorism
  10. It invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy

Recently, CIJA published a paper called: “Ten major concerns with the concept of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR)”. The main theme is that it undermines legitimate expression, Government policies and is divisive.

It seems more likely that “Anti-Palestinian racism” is opposed as a concept to make it more difficult to declare what Israel does to them as a genocide.

Bernier On Genocide Of Palestinians: U.N. Needs To Shut Up

Maxime Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister from 2007 until 2008. This is one of the most prestigious positions there is in politics. One would think that he’d have many ideas as to where a future Government could go if he were in power.

However, when running to be the head of the Conservative Party of Canada 2016/2017, his ambitions for foreign policy were very light. He had vague statements about trade and economic growth, but this is his only definitive one:

I won’t aim to please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations — a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel. Instead, I will ensure our country’s foreign policy will be refocused on the security and prosperity of Canadians.

Bernier is no dummy. He knows exactly why the U.N. has been condemning Israel, and the resolutions are very easy to look up. However, he prefers to deflect by referring to the U.N. as “dysfunctional”.

Strange, isn’t it? Bernier was “Mr. Freedom” when it came to Canadians having their rights taken away in 2020 and 2021. But he shilled for a foreign power that did (and still does) worse to its neighbours.

In fairness, few politicians (anywhere) in the West are willing to call out Israeli occupation of Palestinians. A cynic may wonder if all those free vacations had anything to do with it.

Anyhow, this is Parliament is up to these days — hearing witnesses advocate for measures on behalf of a tiny minority — and all because of events on the other side of the world.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12632914
(2) https://www.cija.ca/government_support_of_anti_palestinian_racism_risks_undermining_canadian_jewish_rights
(3) https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cija/pages/4068/attachments/original/1719952377/2024-06-20_APR_Need_to_know.pdf?1719952377
(4) http://www.maximebernier.com/foreign_policy_must_focus_on_the_security_and_prosperity_of_canadians_not_pleasing_the_dysfunctional_united_nations
(5) Wayback Machine Archive Of Bernier

TAXPAYER FUNDED TRIPS TO ISRAEL (2007-2023):
(1) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(2) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2007%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(3) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2007
(4) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2008%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(5) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2008
(6) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2009%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(7) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2009
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2010%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(9) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2010
(10) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2011%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(11) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2012%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(12) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2012
(13) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2013%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(14) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2013
(15) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2014%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(16) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2014
(17) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2015%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(18) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2015
(19) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2016%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(20) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2016
(21) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2017%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(22) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2017
(23) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2018%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(24) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2018
(25) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/travel2019-deplacements2019.aspx
(26) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2019
(27) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2020-Deplacements2020.aspx
(28) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2021-Deplacements2021.aspx
(29) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2022-Deplacements2022.aspx
(30) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2022
(31) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2023-Deplacements2023.aspx
(32) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2023

Posted on

Stale Dated: Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Passes 5 Year Mark, Still At Pleadings

Back in May 2024, Vaccine Choice Canada discontinued their 191 page claim filed in June 2020. While a Motion to Strike had been postponed, the end result was inevitable. The pleading was so poorly drafted that it would be thrown out by the first Judge to look at it.

But what about their earlier one? Hadn’t there been one filed in October 2019? Yes there was, supposedly under the pretense of challenging mandatory immunization of Ontario students. It has effectively been abandoned. This is what the above video addresses.

  • No Trial ever took place
  • No Trial date set down
  • No Depositions taken
  • No hearings
  • No Motions brought
  • No evidence sworn
  • No case management

Under Rule 48.14 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, the Court is to dismiss a case that hasn’t been set down for Trial within 5 years. True, it would almost certainly be extended if there was significant progress being made, but that’s not the case here. VCC’s case hasn’t proceeded past the pleadings in 5 years.

What do the Rules of Court Procedure have to say about this?

Rule 48.14 outlines the situation, and what can be done about it.

Dismissal of Action for Delay
48.14(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, the registrar shall dismiss an action for delay in either of the following circumstances, subject to subrules (4) to (8):
.
1. The action has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means by the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the action.
.
2. The action was struck off a trial list and has not been restored to a trial list or otherwise terminated by any means by the second anniversary of being struck off.

Status Hearing
48.14(5) If the parties do not consent to a timetable under subrule (4), any party may, before the expiry of the applicable period referred to in subrule (1), bring a motion for a status hearing

48.14(6) For the purposes of subrule (5), the hearing of the motion shall be convened as a status hearing.

48.14(7) At a status hearing, the plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay, and the court may,
(a) dismiss the action for delay; or
.
(b) if the court is satisfied that the action should proceed,
.
(i) set deadlines for the completion of the remaining steps necessary to have the action set down for trial or restored to a trial list, as the case may be, and order that it be set down for trial or restored to a trial list within a specified time,
(ii) adjourn the status hearing on such terms as are just,
(iii) if Rule 77 may apply to the action, assign the action for case management under that Rule, subject to the direction of the regional senior judge, or
(iv) make such other order as is just

In theory, a Motion could be brought for an extension of time, but there doesn’t seem to be any arguments that would support this.

It’s also interesting to wonder why the Ontario Government never brought any Motion to Strike this whole time. Given how poorly drafted it is, why not at least try? Perhaps there was collusion between the parties. This would allow the case to remain open, but not advance.

This method allows VCC and their counsel to appear to be challenging Doug Ford, while ensuring nothing ever happens.

So what happened? It’s quite simple.

Vaccine Choice Canada brought a high profile lawsuit in October 2019 that they never intended to advance. They never planned to do anything to fight for medical autonomy in Ontario schools. The organization, and their counsel, have been lying to donors the entire time.

Neither the 2019 or 2020 cases ever went anywhere, and that was intentional.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA (2019 CLAIM)
(1) VCC – October 2019 Statement Of Claim
(2) VCC – October 2019 Statement Of Defence
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs

Remember, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-19-00629810-0000
Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison “Travel Mandates Challenge” Really Just A PRIVATE Suit For Damages

When people are being asked to donate to public cases, a.k.a. public interest litigation, they are entitled to be fully informed about the nature of the suit. As a consumer, honesty and transparency in advertising are obviously important. This applies regardless of industry.

Plaintiffs in a high profile lawsuit filed last year are asking for money. However, it appears they are not being forthcoming about what is really going on. This is, of course, the latest “travel mandates challenge” filed in Federal Court.

Upon reading the Statement of Claim, and the Amended Claim, it appears simply to be a suit requesting damages. There’s no relief sought that would benefit Canadians as a whole. Even if the lawsuit were successful, there’s nothing for the public listed.

It doesn’t look like there’s much of an ideological issue with the injection pass anyway. Starting on paragraph 32, they argue that the Feds were neglient and incompetent in how it was set up. They also try to argue “negligence” and “bad faith” at the same time, despite them being contradictory.

There’s no order being challenged, nor any request that would prevent injection mandates from returning in the future. There’s no money or justice being sought for the “unvaccinated” as a group.

Rickard and Harrison were asked about this, but have refused to provide any answer, other than some insults. It will be interesting to see what happens now.

Brief History On The Proceedings In Federal Courts


The story actually has quite the convoluted history. There were originally 4 Applications filed in Federal Court and heard together. See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The Statement of Claim is the more well known way to start litigation. It typically involves requests for financial compensation, but other orders can be sought as well. By contrast, an Application for Judicial Review has to do with reviewing an existing order, and is meant to be streamlined.

JURISDICTION ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW STEPS TAKEN
Federal Statement Of Claim Application Motion
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application Motion
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition Application
  • December 2021: Rickard/Harrison (T-1991-21)
  • January 2022: Naoum (T-145-22)
  • January 2022: Peckford (T-168-22)
  • February 2022: Bernier (T-247-22)

The Applications were declared “moot” in 2022 by Justice Jocelyne Gagné, but with the caveat that remedies could still be pursued by way of an Action, with a Statement of Claim.

It turned out that none of the Applicants were actually asking for any sort of damages. They were just asking that the injection pass requirement disappear permanently.

[27] Of note, after the IOs/MO were repealed and the Respondent had given notice of its motion for mootness, the Applicants in file T-1991-21 filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to amend their Notice of Application to assert damages and indicating that their Application would proceed as an Action. On August 3, 2022, Associate Judge Tabib denied the motion, noting “it appears that one of the goals of the proposed amendments is to attempt to insulate the Applicants from the potential consequences of the Respondent’s motion to declare this application moot.” She considered the implications of a dismissal of the motion for mootness and concluded that “I am, accordingly, not satisfied that the dismissal of this application for mootness, if it is ordered, would substantially prejudice the Applicant’s ability to pursue a claim for damages by way of action. More importantly, I am not satisfied that the possibility of a future dismissal, with the resulting costs and inefficiency, justifies, at this time, the extraordinary remedy sought by the Applicants.”

[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.

[46] Additionally, the rail passenger vaccine mandate is also challenged for breaching sections 2(a), 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter in several actions in damages before this Court (files no. T-554-22 and T-533-22), and the air passenger vaccine mandate in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (file no. 2203 09246). It is true that none of these proceedings will test the IOs/MO against section 6 of the Charter but, as indicated above, considering that they are no longer in force, the proper vehicle would be an action in damages if the Applicants suffered any damages as a result of these temporary measures. The Court would then have the proper factual background to assess the Applicants’ Charter rights.

The Government lifted the mandates shortly before filing a Motion to declare the cases moot. Yes, this was a cynical ploy, but it was success in obtaining dismissals. The Judge declined to hear the challenges anyway, but gave an alternative path forward.

For reasons that were never made clear, at least not publicly, the Applicants all appealed. They APPEALED a ruling when they could have simply REFILED as an Action. The Federal Court of Appeal threw it out, noting the lawyers didn’t even understand the Standard For Review. (See here)

TYPE OF ERROR STANDARD FOR REVIEW
Error of Fact Overriding, Palpable Error
Error of Pure Law Correctness
Mixed Fact & Law Spectrum, Leaning To Overriding, Palpable Error
Discretionary Orders Overriding, Palpable Error

Justice Gagné’s decision of “mootness” could be challenged by arguing “overriding palpable error”. Granted, this is often harder than “correctness”. But this is very basic, and it’s baffling that senior, experienced lawyers don’t know this.

Then again, why are they appealing at all? Justice Gagné ruled that they could refile as an Action (with a Statement of Claim) if anyone had suffered any damages.

This is “bad beyond argument” level stupid.

[8] Two of the four groups of appellants do not address the standard of review at all in their memoranda of fact and law. The other two argue that the standard of review in these appeals is correctness. However, in oral submissions, the appellants now acknowledge that this Court must follow the appellate standards of review described in the previous paragraph.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum decided to APPEAL AGAIN, seeking Leave to file with the Supreme Court of Canada. Keep in mind, they still could have refiled their pleadings (as an Action) with the Federal Court. Quite predictably, all Leave Applications were denied.

To their credit, this time, Rickard and Harrison decided to file a Statement of Claim, as had been recommended earlier. However, their suit is so poorly drafted that it’s unlikely to ever go anywhere.

Now we get to the main point of this article.

Rickard/Harrison Claim Is A PRIVATE Lawsuit

1. The Plaintiffs claim the following:

a. Constitutional damages pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), in the amount of $1,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for breach of the Plaintiffs’ Section 6, 7 and 15 rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter as a result of government decision-making and action conduct that was rooted in negligence, bad faith and willfully blind to the lack absence of scientific evidence or disconfirming scientific evidence regarding the role, and, in particular, the unknown efficacy, of Covid-19 vaccination in reducing the risk of Covid-19 transmission and infection within the transportation sector;

b. Costs of this action in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106; and,

c. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honorable Court deem just.

Both the Statement of Claim and the Amended Claim are available. This is important because it doesn’t match with what’s being claimed. The content of this is quite clearly a private lawsuit for damages. It seeks monetary awards for themselves.

(a) Damages, interest, costs recovered
(b) Costs of the proceeding

While the original Applications were a direct challenge to injectin travel mandates, this case does no such thing. It’s a private lawsuit for money. Even if they were successful, there would be no impact on society at large, as none is being sought.

And by arguing “negligence”, Rickard and Harrison are opening the door for the Government to propose so-called better safeguards.

If Rickard and Harrison wanted donations to finance a lawsuit for their retirements, they can ask. However, they need to be transparent about the nature of the case.

Requests For Donations For “Travel Mandates Challenge”

In his pinned tweet, Rickard promotes this case as “seeking justice for 6-7 million ‘unvaccinated’ Canadians”. However, this is not the case.

The Claim (both original and amended versions) do not ask for any kind of remedy that would aid the public as a whole. There’s no remedy being sought that would benefit 6 or 7 million people. Rickard and Harrison are asking for money for themselves.

True, the original Applications challenged mandates, but this case doesn’t.

Reading the case as a whole, Rickard and Harrison aren’t really even challenging the idea of a “vaccine passport”. Instead, they go on and on about how the Trudeau Government was “negligent” and “reckless” in how it was implemented.

Potentially, a Judge could issue guidance on how to better administer such a system.

Interestingly, Rickard often provides screenshots of the front page of his suit. However, a link to the full document is rarely (if ever) included. A possible reason is that reading the Claim reveals instantly that the “challenge” being described doesn’t exist.

Donations To Be Funneled Through A “Charity”

Also in the pinned tweet, Rickard asks for money for this “historic and incredibly import lawsuit”, offering “charity receipts” to people donating. Now, this charity does exist, and can be found on the C.R.A. site.

Registration can also be found with Corporations Canada. Karl Harrison is listed as a director of the organization.

However, the concern comes in about what is being fundraised. Rickard and Harrison are pitching this lawsuit as public interest litigation, a challenge to the travel mandates.

In reality, it’s a private suit for money — for themselves.

Rickard whines (again, pinned tweet) that the mainstream press in Canada has effectively buried the story. Presumably, he’s not getting the money or attention because everyone’s in bed with Trudeau. It’s quite amusing to see.

Incidently, Rickard and Harrison were contacted about this. They were asked why they were only seeking money for themselves, if they were fundraising for a “travel mandates challenge”. Both have refused to answer.

If there is a legitimate explanation, it would be nice to know. However, it comes across as soliciting funds for a private case, disguised as public interest litigation.

They’re handing out tax receipts to cover donations to their private case, while telling prospective donors that it’s a challenge to injection travel mandates. Not a good look.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(11) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(12) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(13) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)