Private Member’s Bill C-367: Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

A Private Member’s Bill is getting renewed expression for the potential impact it may have. Bill C-367 would remove “belief based on a religious text” as a defence to certain criminal charges.

The text of the Bill would remove both sections 319(3)‍(b) and 319(3.‍1)‍(b) from the Criminal Code of Canada. Those provisions provide legal defences to people charged with the willful promotion of antisemitism, if it’s done in the context of religious expression. Truth is still allowed, for now.

Of course, the vagueness of these hate speech laws is already an issue. Nothing is properly defined, which makes it very subjective. But remove a potential justification? That’s worth a closer look.

Defences
.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)
.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

This came from Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

Blanchet is also on a large number of international associations in Parliament. This is rather strange, considering his stated goal of breaking up Canada. These people larp as if Quebec were an independent country, and it’s taken seriously.

  • (CAAF) Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association
  • (CACN) Canada-China Legislative Association
  • (CADE) Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAEU) Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
  • (CAFR) Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association
  • (CAIE) Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAIL) Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAIT) Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAJP) Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
  • (CANA) Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
  • (CAPF) Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
  • (CCOM) Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
  • (CEUS) Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
  • (CPAM) Canadian Section of ParlAmericas
  • (RUUK) Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association
  • (SECO) Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
  • (UIPU) Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Considering Blanchet’s position, it’s not really that surprising who paid him a visit recently.

October 20th, 2023, Blanchet gets lobbied by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. November 28th, he introduces Bill C-367 in Parliament. That’s less than 6 weeks later.

Quebec is largely a Catholic province — although immigration is replacing that — so it’s really odd that Blanchet would introduce this Bill. His own constituents could be impacted by this, depending on how it’s interpreted and enforced.

Interestingly, the Christian Heritage Party, CHP, has commented on Bill C-367 being introduced in late 2023. However, they make no mention of the lobbying behind the scenes. Lifesite ignores it as well. So does at least one pastor.

CIJA is very prolific in Canadian politics.

Their profile lists the following:

  • Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream
  • A civil remedy based in human rights law, included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, with respect to combating hate speech, including antisemitism. Training for provincial attorneys general, prosecutors, and police to enforce Criminal Code hate speech provisions. Training and parameters should cite the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
  • Civil remedy included in the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to combating antisemitism.
  • Equip police departments to counter hate crimes and support targeted communities by providing additional resources to bolster existing police hate crime and community liaison units. Where such units do not exist, funding should be provided to establish them.
  • Update the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to combating antisemitism and online hate. Create a national strategy to tackle online hate and radicalization using the 2019 Justice Committee report, “Taking Action to End Online Hate”, as a foundation. A strategy should draw upon the Christchurch Call, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
  • Hate speech and internet-based hate: For Canada to adopt policies – either/and through legislation or policies adjustments that will provide measurable standards for internet-based dissemination of hate speech, including explicit provisions within the Crimical Code and/or the Human Rights Act.

There are, of course, many other areas CIJA advocates for, such as ending the blood ban for gays. However, a large portion of the focus seems to be around speech and expression.

Don’t expect so-called “Conservatives” to come to the aid of principled free speech. They quite enthusiastically introduced Bill C-250, to jail people for questioning the official version of WWII.

Bill C-250 became moot when the equivalent provisions passed, slipped into Bill C-19, a budget Bill. Nonetheless, there was no pushback or resistance from the political right in Canada. And this highlights the hypocrisy they engage in.

Conservatives were outraged — or at least they pretended to be — over M-103, which was Iqra Khalid’s Motion to “study Islamophobia”. They railed that it was a waste of money, and an attack on free speech. And it was. That being said, they’re supportive of other attempts to imprison Canadians for having incorrect views on history.

News of Bill C-250 was announced on the CPC website, but has since been taken down. However, it has been archived and saved.

This new Bill aims to remove a protection that had previously been embedded in the last one. Incrementalism seems to be the way in politics.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://twitter.com/CHPCanada/status/1760773690902401300/
(7) https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/proposed-canadian-law-could-see-christians-jailed-for-quoting-the-bible/
(8) https://twitter.com/aylmerpastor/status/1760787350496395632
(9) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(10) https://archive.ph/fCnNn
(11) MP Waugh introduces legislation to prohibit Holocaust denial – Conservative Party of Canada
(12) Wayback Machine On Bill C-250

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 S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(N) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(O) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(P) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Action4Canada Appeal: Dude, Why Are You Even Here?

February 14th, 2024, Action4Canada finally had their day at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. While there was a large attendance in Vancouver, observers could also attend via Zoom.

It never made sense to file here. This Appeal was to challenge the ruling of Justice Ross to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) in its entirety, but with leave to amend. In other words, the Plaintiffs were allowed to refile, they just had to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure. They weren’t shut off from seeking remedies in the Courts.

Why appeal, when the NOCC could have simply have been rewritten?

STATUS: As of now, the decision is under reserve (deferred until later). The parties agree that the NOCC should have been rewritten. Consequently, the main issue left to determine is whether costs should have been awarded, and if so, should they have been done at the end. The whole Appeal turned out to be a giant nothing-burger.

The Action4Canada case, and its legal representation, can best be described as embarrassing. It’s a clown show that never ends.

As bad as the May 2022 hearing at the B.C. Supreme Court was, the one at the Court of Appeal was even worse. The Justices actually stated that they didn’t understand what was being appealed. They couldn’t figure out why they were there, and asked for clarification. That’s something that no lawyer ever wants to hear about their case.

Since it was agreed that the Claim was “prolix”, or too long and confusing, the logical step would have been to file a new one. Instead, the Court of Appeal Justices appeared baffled at why an Appeal was lodged.

It also seemed that the Plaintiff’s lawyer didn’t understand the difference between a Court making a ruling on something, as opposed to commenting, or making “obiter remarks”. Pretty sad that after 35 years, a person doesn’t know how to read and interpret a Court decision.

The Appellants’ lawyer needed to have it explained to him that Justice Ross gave feedback so that an amended NOCC would be more compliant with the Rules. The panel stated that it was typical for litigants to get a chance to fix their case, so that it would be heard on the merits. This was quite painful to watch. Once again, after 35 years, lawyers should know what they’re doing.

Yes, Justice Ross gave plenty of background information about how he came to his conclusion. He outlined many several problems, but never ruled on any of them.

Action4Canada case was a train wreck from the beginning

First, it took nearly a year to file a NOCC in the first place, in August 2021. Action4Canada had been fundraising since the Summer of 2020 — if not sooner — but never produced anything. When the document is finally revealed, it’s a convoluted mess with no prospect of getting to Trial.

Second, in September 2021, Action4Canada instigates a defamation lawsuit against this site for criticizing the obvious and glaring flaws with the NOCC. Yes, other cases had been picked apart as well, but this appears to have been the final straw.

Third, a year later, the NOCC was struck as “bad beyond argument” for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure. Although Justice Ross only struck the NOCC as “prolix”, he outlined an almost endless amount of errors and defects contained within. The Canuck Law criticisms of the NOCC have aged very well.

Fourth, instead of swiftly filing a amended version, it was appealed in September 2022. A coherent explanation of why that happened has never been offered. Again, the NOCC could have simply been rewritten. Nor is it explicitly stated that remedies Justice Ross (apprently) improperly disallowed.

Fifth, the Law Society of British Columbia included this case in its February 2023 version of the Professional Legal Training Course for new lawyers. See page 15. It’s now to be used as an example of how not to draft pleadings. The LSBC refers to the case as “an example of a wholly inadequate pleading”. As such, the case is now the laughing stock of the legal profession in B.C.

Sixth, Action4Canada attempts to delay and defer the Appeal indefinitely. It’s only after getting called out on that is a hearing date booked.

What Justice Ross actually ordered in the August 2022 ruling

The decision from Justice Ross was very lengthy, but the order itself wasn’t.

[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

  • The Claim is prolix (too long), confusing and incomprehensible
  • The Claim is struck, but with permission to amend (refile)
  • The case is stayed (on hold) until a new filing is sent
  • The Defendants are awarded costs for their success

Yes, Justice Ross outlined a litany of defects that the NOCC would likely have, but he made no actual determinations on any of them. He only ordered that it must be struck for being prolix.

All sides agree that original NOCC is prolix

The hearing started off with the Appellant (Plaintiff) lawyer stating that he agreed the case was prolix, and that filing an amended version was fine. That should have been the end of it, which is why the decision to appeal never made any sense.

Appeal is based on things Justice Ross didn’t rule on

Not only did Justice Ross not rule on those things, but it appears to misrepresent what he actually said. He never stated that scientific evidence couldn’t be introduced in a Court. He did however, state that determining the scientific consensus was an improper claim. See paragraph 52 (b) and (f).

Paragraph 52 also listed other things that aren’t permitted in a Civil Court, such as making finding on criminal allegations, international criminal law, the Nuremberg Code, or the Helsinki Declaration. Although Ross mentioned these things, he didn’t explicitly rule on them.

Cost awards are typically discretionary

The other part of the Appeal was that Justice Ross shouldn’t have granted the Defendants costs because success had been “divided”. Supposedly, since leave to amend was granted, it was a partial win for the Plaintiffs. By this logic, there shouldn’t have been any. Or at least, costs should have been reserved until the end.

Considering that cost awards are typically at the Judge’s discretion, it’s unclear what the error was. Successful parties typically get some sort of costs. Whether this award comes immediately, or at the end of the proceedings is again, up to the Judge.

For reference, the Plaintiffs ended up paying out approximately $13,000 total for the Applications to Strike. It could easily have been a lot worse.

What’s the point of appealing a $13,000 cost award, considering everything else that’s at stake? This is small potatoes in the big picture. Again, embarrassing is the best way to describe this.

What exactly was the point of appealing?

The Plaintiffs could have easily filed an amended NOCC, and gone ahead with the case. Justice Ross specifically granted permission to do this. It’s not like the case was struck without leave.

The only finding Justice Ross made was that the case was prolix. Yes, there were many problems outlined, but he never made any determinations on them. All sides agreed it was prolix, and even the Plaintiffs agreed a new NOCC should be filed?

Cost awards are typically discretionary, and no error of law has been pointed out. What then is the issue with this? It was only $13,000.

The hearing ended rather abruptly. All sides agreed that the original NOCC was prolix, and needed to be rewritten. It was further agreed that all of the comments about the quality of the pleading, including the types of relief sought, weren’t adjudicated back in August 2022.

The only live issue was over costs. With that, the panel adjourned, with the promise to get a written decision back quickly.

We’ll have to see how well this piece ages.

Both Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada have been fundraising for nearly 4 years. In the meantime, neither of them have filed a coherent Claim, despite the urgency of the issues. It’s beyond obvious that none of these cases will ever get to Trial.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(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

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(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 – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

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.

SENDAI FRAMEWORK, B.C. BILL 31
(1) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/4th-session/bills/bills-with-hansard-debate
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/42nd-parliament/4th-session/20231003am-Hansard-n331#bill31-1R
(3) https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
(4) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
(5) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf
(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_on_Disaster_Risk_Reduction
(8) https://www.unisdr.org/files/8241_doc6841contenido1.pdf
(9) https://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

WHO TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(2) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/
(4) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/provincial-health-acts-are-really-just-who-ihr-domestically-implemented/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/the-other-provincial-health-acts-written-by-who-ihr/
(15) WHO International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition 2005

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.

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(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
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-ems-workers-suit-recycled-from-recent/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-Of-Application-Police-On-Guard.pdf
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Take-Action-Canada-Retainer-Essential-First
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52

Federal Court Strikes Claim By Coast Guard Worker Over Pay Issues, Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction

A member of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jennifer Horsman has had her challenge thrown out of the Federal Court, and lack of jurisdiction is cited.

This isn’t a case about being forced to take the clot-shots, but it’s still interesting. In August 2022, her employer claimed that she had been overpaid nearly $9,000, the remainder of a larger amount that was supposedly owed. Horsman says she kept her own records of all dates and shifts and contested the demand. This caused financial hardship.

She also tried to seek union representation, but was denied.

Despite attempts to resolve this internally, Horsman was unsuccessful. She eventually ended up suing the Government in March 2023 to resolve this, and here’s where it takes a turn.

Ottawa brought a Rule 221 Motion to Strike (throw out) the lawsuit on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Looking at Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Individual Grievances
Presentation
Right of employee
.
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
.
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
.
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
.
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
.
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

Section 208 then goes on to list a series of conditions and limitations.

Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, it seems laid out that Federal workers have the rights to file grievances, but they have no real right to take their problems to Court.

This ruling confirms the Adelberg decision, a high profile ruling in February 2023 that permanently ended the cases of over 400 Federal workers. Another 200 workers of Federally regulated industries had a setback as well, since the pleading was so poorly drafted.

Adelberg was also cited by a former RCMP worker, whose case was struck because of the FPSLRA.

Lesson in here: members of the Federal Government, as well as most unionized employers, have no guaranteed right to go to Court. There’s almost always a grievance or arbitration requirement.

If there’s any consolation here, it’s that the person wasn’t ordered to pay any costs. Yes, the Attorney General asked, but the Judge declined. She also didn’t waste many thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer to get the exact same result. Still, she has guts for at least attempting this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2003-c-22-s-2/latest/sc-2003-c-22-s-2.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

600 Plaintiffs Appeal Federal “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling: A Look Inside

It’s been a while, but nice to be back!

Back in February, Federal Court Justice Simon Fothergill struck a lawsuit brought by over 600 Plaintiffs. This was over a 2021 requirement to take the experimental injection (a.k.a. get the vaccine passport) in order to keep their jobs.

Now, the ruling (see official version) was interesting, to be blunt.

Part of the ruling differed because of who the Plaintiffs worked for. Approximately 2/3 of them were employed by the Federal Government, while the other 1/3 were part of Federally regulated industries. This caused a split in the ruling, and they were listed as Schedules “A” and “B”.

  • Schedule “A” Plaintiffs were ones who were part of the core public administration, or members of some branch of the Government
  • Schedule “B” Plaintiffs weren’t with the Government, but instead were parts of industries — like banking, the railways, or aviation — that were regulated by Ottawa

The Claim for all Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety because it was so poorly written. The pleading failed to follow even the basics of civil procedure, and failed to lay out a basis for the suit.

From the Federal Court Rules:

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

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.

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

Justice Fothergill found that the Statement of Claim was so poorly crafted that it was impossible for the Defendants to file any meaningful defence. It wasn’t thrown out on its merits. He even referenced the ruling against Action4Canada, which was also found to be “bad beyond argument”.

To clarify: neither the Federal case, nor the Action4Canada case in B.C. were struck on their merits. They were struck because they were confusing, convoluted, and impossible to decipher.

While the Federally regulated employees (Schedule “B”) at least had the chance to refile, former Government workers (Schedule “A”) were not so lucky. The Judge ruled that their claims were barred by a legislative requirement that they go through arbitration. Specifically, this is Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Now we get to the appeal.

The Notice of Appeal was filed in March. The Appeal Book (collection of documents) came next, followed by the Appellants‘ and Respondents‘ written arguments.

To sum up, there were 2 major areas to cover:

First, the decision to permanently bar the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs was challenged, on the grounds that their claims lay outside what arbitration and the grievance process could offer.

Second, it was claimed that it was inappropriate to rely on the precedent set by the Action4Canada case, and that they had nothing in common.

Anyhow, read the documents for yourselves.

In response, the Government replied that while there were opportunities to get around the grievance process, the Plaintiffs never explained why they had to, or what steps they took. Furthermore, while “malfeasance of public office” was alleged, the details were never laid out.

In other words, yes, this was at least a possibility, but the Claim didn’t address any of this.

As for the Action4Canada case, Justice Alan Ross laid out in great detail how the British Columbia case was a complete mess, incomprehensible, and sought a litany of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. There was also the problem that large sections were included about non-parties. While the Federal Claim was much shorter, the same problems persisted overall.

Justice Fothergill decided not to duplicate the entire ruling, but simply to refer to it.

A competent lawyer might be able to argue around the arbitration requirement. But in any event, the entire Statement of Claim would have to be rewritten anyway. This Appeal will likely go nowhere.

And the requests for money keep coming!

Familiar with the Wayback Machine? It’s a mainstream archiving site that captures websites at certain times, even if the content is no longer available. Some of the recent business ventures include:

There were even donations sought at one point to finance a public inquiry. It’s unclear how much money came in, or whatever became of that.

Also, donations were sought a few years back for a B.C. doctor’s case that doesn’t appear to have materialized. This isn’t the Action4Canada suit.

Curiously, both the Federal workers and Ontario first responders Plaintiffs were filling out retainer agreements ($1,000 and $1,500 respectively) while donations to finance the litigation were being sought online. The end results weren’t impressive.

People are being asked to donate to cases which clients are already paying a retainer?! That’s something, to say the least.

Then, we have this from the Federal case:

Hello everyone,  

Some of you have already heard but for those who haven’t, the Judge has rendered his decision in the Government’s motion to strike our claim. In a somewhat anticipated move, the claim was struck for 2/3 of the plaintiffs and remains open for 1/3 to amend the claim and resubmit. There is a letter attached from Rocco himself that goes into greater detail about the decision. Needless to say, the decision was an absolute pile of rubbish and the Panel has decided to appeal the decision.  

Now, as you will read in Rocco’s attached letter, there are additional fees associated with launching the appeal. The additional fees are minimal in comparison to the initial retainer but an explanation is required.  

As Rocco’s letter will clarify, the retainer fee was to cover all that was required to see this matter through a trial in the Federal Court. Now that an appeal is required, it is required to go through the Federal Court of Appeals and that alone will cost in excess of $100,000. Rocco budgeted the retainer fee on doing everything to see a trial through the Federal Court which did not include appeals.  

We feel it necessary at this juncture to apologize to each and every one of you. We misinterpreted the finer details of what the retainer fee covered due, no doubt, to our limited knowledge about how the civil court process works and a misunderstanding of the information Rocco provided to us. Some of you asked specifically what all would be covered with the retainer fee and were informed it would cover this entire matter all the way through no matter what action was required and for this, we apologize.  

We wish to reinforce with you that this was not done out of an attempt to deceive or act maliciously. We are going to be out the same amount as anyone else who desires to proceed and be a part of the appeal.  

To avoid repeating the same confusion, the panel asked Rocco to outline the cost implications for every step and all the way to the Supreme Court which Rocco now outlined in his letter. We hope this will better serve all of us and it is also our hopes that you will see this effort by the panel as a way to remain fully transparent on what transpired but also on what to expect going forward. We too, do not want to see other surprises but more importantly, we do agree with Rocco that we have a strong position for an appeal. We ultimately hope for our day in Court but sadly, we did not have our day in Court here as our lawsuit was wrongly struck down as evidently explained in Rocco’s letter. 

We are planning to host another info session with Rocco via Zoom within the next few weeks to answer questions you may have and to provide more information regarding how the appeal process will work. We are not going to attempt to solicit any money from anyone prior to this information session. Our intent is to allow you to consider whether each of you as individuals wish to proceed from this point.  

We understand many of you will have questions. We will do our best to answer them or have Rocco address them in the upcoming info session.  

We have also attached a link to the decision on the Federal Court website. 

Sincerely and most humbly,  

The Federal Employee Lawsuit Panel
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

Shortly after the decision, there was already a request for more money. Even though the Plaintiffs had paid $1,000 each (see agreement), more money was needed to appeal. See letter providing more details about the fees.

The above email was leaked by unhappy client(s), and it eventually made its way here. Unfortunately, it seems to be real.

Apparently, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs who had their pleadings struck as “bad beyond argument” should consider that a win, because at least they are allowed a rewrite.

For reference: the email and the attachment were both sent here shortly after the February ruling. Fair to say, some are unhappy with the services they’ve received.

It’s worth asking why the this isn’t being done for free, given the shoddy drafting of the Statement of Claim to begin with. And budgeting for a Trial? Does anyone seriously think this will get that far?

The Federal Court of Appeals will throw this case out, just like the B.C. Court of Appeals will throw out Action4Canada’s. And Vaccine Choice’s suit will get tossed in early 2024.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action