Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Federal Court To Stream Several Challenges To Emergencies Act

The Federal Court of Canada is about to hear 4 related cases concerning the invocation of the Emergencies Act a year ago. Also, the proceedings will be available to watch virtually, for people who can’t attend in person.

The hearings are set for April 3rd to 5th, which is this coming Monday to Wednesday.

The cases are:

(1) Canadian Frontline Nurses et al v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-306-22
Filed: February 18, 2022

(2) Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-316-22
Filed: February 18, 2022

(3) Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-347-22
Filed: February 23, 2022

(4) Jerimiah Jost et al v. Governor In Council et al.
Case Number: T-382-22
Filed: February 24, 2022

Because of the overlap in issues raised, all 4 will be heard together. This isn’t unusual in major cases.

From the look of things, it seems that Ottawa will be challenging these cases over: (a) mootness; and (b) standing. Mootness means that the issues are no longer live, and can’t be litigated. Standing refers to a Party’s ability to bring a case in the first place, and whether or not they have a real interest in it.

Expect a follow-up with some file documents attached.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://twitter.com/cvangeyn/status/1641796100104376321
(5) https://theccf.ca/?case=emergencies-act-challenge
(6) https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/T-347-22-NOA.pdf
(7) https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/CCF-Factum-ea-challenge.pdf
(8) https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/emergencies-act/#materials
(9) https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-response-to-federal-government-announcement-of-emergencies-act-inquiry/
(10) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca/legal-battles

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada’s OTHER Lawsuit: Dormant After 3 1/2 Years

Often in court cases, the information being eventually drops off. As a result, many lose track of interesting claims that they were otherwise interested in. An October 2019 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada is one such case. This is case #CV-19-00629810-0000, filed in Ontario Superior Court, in Toronto.

This isn’t to be confused with the high profile suit of July 2020. This was filed to challenge lockdown measures imposed (primarily) by the Ford Regime in Ontario. These are quite different. The 2019 suit covered vaccination policies in schools.

While there are 2 different cases, they have something in common: both have sat idly for years, without any activity to show for it.

Thankfully, we’re in an age where case status can be SEARCHED online, and documents can often be obtained for free. As there had been no announcements since 2019, an update is long overdue. And as it turns out, there’s nothing to report. Nothing has happened since the pleadings in later 2019/early 2020.

Nor does it seem like the 2019 case has had a single hearing.

So, what happened with all the donations?

And that’s interesting, considering some of the problems with the drafting.

1. Should Have Been An Application, Not A Statement Of Claim

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act lays out some circumstances which cases need to be brought as an Application for Judicial Review, as opposed to having more discretion to file a Statement of Claim.

Page 6 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that both a Mandamus (requirement to perform a duty) and a Prohibition (a restriction) are being sought. As a result, it looks like the wrong paperwork was filed to get this going.

2. Suit Should Probably Have Been Filed In Divisional Court

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.

Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

Section 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act states that an Application for Judicial Review must be brought in Divisional Court. Now, it’s possible to get permission to file in Superior Court, but it doesn’t look like that ever happened. Nor does it appear that it was attempted.

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

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

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.

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

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material.

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.

This is a common criticism. The Rules of Civil Procedure need to be followed when drafting lawsuits. The people being sued need to have enough specific information to understand the allegations against them. It also has to be written in a way that’s understandable.

The Ontario Government also claims that the Sections 2 and 7 Charter challenges are so vague and non-specific that they are impossible to respond to.

4. VCC Has To Plead For Public Interest Standing

Starting on page 10, the Statement of Defence argues that there is no standing here, as the organization is not a person, and not directly impacted. This is funny.

There is a way for organizations to do this, and they have to convince the Court that they meet a 3 part test. That’s how standing is granted.

(1) Does the Application raise a serious justiciable issue?
(2) Do the Organizations have a real stake or genuine interest in that issue?
(3) Is the participation of the Organizations a reasonable and effective way to litigate?

Granted, a well written document could probably have gotten them standing, but it still needs to be covered.

Then again, if the case was never intended to go forward, then maybe it’s not necessary to write a Claim or Application properly.

5. Why No Attempt To Get Claim Thrown Out?

Why keep covering these grifts? Because the truth matters.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t real issues to bring to Court. Obviously, there were, and they deserve considerable media attention. However, the case has just sat idly for years now.

A question worth asking is why the Ford Government has made no attempt to get this case thrown out (struck) since it was filed in October 2019. No action has been taken to bring it forward either. Was there collusion to keep everything in limbo?

It appears that the wrong paperwork was filed, and submitted to the wrong Court. The quality of the Statement of Claim is very poor as well. So, why just let it sit?

Keep in mind, Ford also let the July 6, 2020 Claim sit unchallenged for the first 2 1/2 years as well. Vaccine Choice didn’t have their first Court appearance until January 17, 2023. And that was just to set down Motion dates.

Are these just “placeholders”? Is the goal to keep them on the books as long as possible, in order to give the appearance that something is being done? Is this a way to enrich the Directors?

Remember to donate, suckers!

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

Posted on

Chief Justice Hinkson, The Vancouver Foundation, And Many Unanswered Questions

It was recently revealed that the Justice who presided over several anti-lockdown cases in British Columbia runs a group called the Vancouver Foundation. Looking into the details of this charity a bit more, this creates — at a minimum — the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. (See archive.)

The group describes itself in this way:

“Vancouver Foundation grants to hundreds of charities and non-profits in BC every year. Our vision is to create healthy, vibrant, and livable communities, and we focus on supporting projects that address the root causes of important issues. Our funding comes from generous gifts from the community, as well as from managing endowment funds for people, charities, and businesses.”

The Vancouver Foundation is involved in many different areas, and has undoubtedly has done a lot of good work. However, some things need to be questioned.

Anyhow, this is quite the rabbit hole, so let’s jump in.

The Vancouver Foundation Act is what governs the organization. This isn’t a traditional group, but one that was created in 1943 by an Act of Parliament.

Board of directors
5 (1) The board of directors of the foundation is to consist of at least 10 and not more than 18 persons, with the directors determining the number of directors from time to time in the bylaws of the foundation.
(1.1) If the number of directors is below the minimum number set out in subsection (1) or in the bylaws, as applicable, the board continues to have the authority to carry out its duties and exercise its powers until all vacancies are filled.
(1.2) Subject to section 6, the board consists of the following members:
(a) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia or, if applicable, the judge appointed by the Chief Justice under that section;
(b) a member of the Law Society of British Columbia who has been nominated by the Law Society of British Columbia in accordance with the bylaws of the foundation and whose nomination has been accepted by the board;

Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson is a Director at the Vancouver Foundation, by virtue of his position on the Court. Far from being just a name on paper, he’s prominently listed as a Director (see margin on page 3). He also made the following rulings:

COURT CASES PRESIDED OVER BY CHIEF JUSTICE HINKSON

(A) Kassian v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1603
(Refusal for exemption to vaccine passport)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1603/2022bcsc1603.html

(B) Eliason v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1604
(Refusal for charter rights to travel, s.6 of Charter)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1604/2022bcsc1604.html

(C) Maddock v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1605
(Refusal for compensation due to injury)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1605/2022bcsc1605.html

(D) CSASPP v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1606
(Refusal to allow health care workers to opt out)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1606/2022bcsc1606.html

(E) Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 248, BCSC 248
(Refusal to allow a church to remain open)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2021/2021bcsc512/2021bcsc512.html

True, one might get the impression that he simply called these cases as he saw fit. But there is more to things than meet the eye.

Kate Hammer is the Vice President for Engagement, was previously a Senior Policy Advisor for the Minister of Education (Ontario), and also worked in the Office of the Premier under Kathleen Wynne. Sure, that’s Ontario, but people in political circles have very deep networks of connections, and it’s rarely limited to a region. (See archive.)

She’s also now lobbying the B.C Government on behalf of the Vancouver Foundation. Things get even more convoluted. Why? Because the B.C. Lobbying Registry shows exactly what subject matters are being discussed.

The Vancouver Foundation is trying to get more access and influence from the B.C. Government. This can cause a problem.

  • Activities to support an amendment to Vancouver Foundation Act related to definition of “reserve amount”
  • Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options and opportunities for ensuring legislation and regulations related to lobbyists transparency do not limit charities and non-profits from participating in vital conversations about government policies and priorities.
  • Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options and opportunities for the charitable sector to play a key role in pandemic recovery
  • Vancouver Foundation seeks to discuss with the BC Government options for expanding the Unclaimed Property Act’s ability to use dormant assets to boost investment in community initiatives and organizations.

Let’s think about this one. Chief Justice Hinkson, a Director at the Vancouver Foundation, is making key Court rulings relating to “pandemic measures”. Meanwhile, his organization is lobbying the B.C. Government for greater influence in exactly those areas.

And what taxpayer sources is the Vancouver Foundation getting money from?

SOURCE DATE AMOUNT
Provincial Employees Community Services Fund 2022-09-08 $68.00
City of Surrey 2022-08-26 $3,000.00
City of Surrey 2022-06-22 $48.13
Advanced Education and Skills Training 2022-04-07 $250,000.00
Children and Family Development 2022-04-05 $2,760,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction 2022-04-01 $1,350,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction 2022-04-01 $30,000,000.00
Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2022-03-21 $1,005,258.00
City of Vancouver 2022-03-11 $45,000.00
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, and Rural Development 2022-02-24 $5,000,000.00
City of Surrey 2020-10-08 $45.00
BC Arts Council 2020-04-02 $200,000.00
Social Development and Poverty Reduction 2020-04-02 $590,000.00
Advanced Education, Skills and Training 2020-03-31 $250,000.00
Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2020-03-16 $955,718.00
Provincial Employees Community Services Fund 2020-03-13 to 2020-09-10 $59.80
City of Vancouver 2020-03-13 $22,500.00

The Vancouver Foundation has received several millions of taxpayer money in the last few years.

Glenn Wald gets an honourable mention. He was the Director of Communications at Vancouver Foundation from November 2017 until October 2022. He has also been involved with both the Federal and British Columbia Governments. (See archive.)

Joe Gallagher, Vice President Indigenous Health & Cultural Safety at Provincial Health Services Authority, is also worth listing. He was a Board Member at the Vancouver Foundation until July 2022, so very recent. (See archive.)

Dara Parker is formerly a Program Manager for the United Nations Association in Canada, and an advisor for the U.N. Human Resettlements Programme. (See archive.)

As covered previously, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) Foundation is in fact a registered charity that contributes substantial amounts annually to up to 4 “qualified donees”. These are:

  • B.C. Centre for Disease Control
  • Community-Based Research Centre Society (also a charity)
  • Provincial Health Services Authority (also a charity)
  • University of British Columbia (also a charity)

The BCCDC Foundation used to have a scroller to cycle through their major donor list. It’s since been removed, but thankfully saved in an earlier article:

The BCCDC Foundation proudly lists the Vancouver Foundation as a donor, as well as companies like Pfizer. The BCCDC-F also admits that a significant portion of its funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. Is it any wonder why the B.C. Government is so pro-pharma?

In terms of following the money, the next sections are from CSASPP’s March 12, 2023 summary for the Vancouver Foundation’s financials. As a registered charity, it’s required to disclose a fair amount of information publicly. Rather than reinvent the wheel, here are the highlights:

Based on the T3010 Registered Charity Information Return filed with the Canada Revenue Agency, several years of reporting periods are available. The records are copious with thousands of donees. We will save you the trouble of sifting through them. The following is a summary of our provisional material findings.

In fiscal year 2021 the Vancouver Foundation donated to the Public Health Association of British Columbia $193,072 and to Fraser Health Authority $93,434. The year prior of 2020 Vancouver Coastal Health Authority received $100,000 from the Foundation. A charity setup by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control to receive donations, the BCCDC Foundation for Population and Public Health, received $13,000.

During the onset to the alleged pandemic in 2019, many of you will recall the traditional intellectual safeguards were largely mute. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association received $151,718.

Other recipients during that fiscal year include the BCCDC’s Foundation at $57,667, Fraser Health Authority at $41,055, the Registered Nurses Foundation of BC at $4,276, and a charity setup by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at a $1,000.

The previous fiscal year of 2018 the BCCDC Foundation again received $57,667, Fraser Health Authority $41,472, the BC Civil Liberties Association $36,104, and the CBC’s charity $1,000.

From the voluminous records we were able to analyze in the time invested, this is where money directly went. The question of where money went after the Vancouver Foundation donated it to the BCCDC Foundation is also worth commenting on.

Unlike the Vancouver Foundation, the BCCDC’s Foundation does not donate to thousands of donees. Based on its own T3010 filing, from fiscal years 2017 to 2021, it donates to only one to four donees a year. A sophisticated organization, such as the Vancouver Foundation, cannot reasonably be said to not know where the aforementioned benefactor receiving a donation would subsequently direct it to.

In every filing we uncovered problematic benefactors. In fiscal year 2021 the BCCDC Foundation donated to the Provincial Health Services Authority $140,247. The year prior of 2020 an amount of $487,689 was donated to the PHSA. In 2019 they received $588,553. In 2018 they received $290,267. In 2017 they received $426,016. The BCCDC Foundation then in 2017 donated to the BCCDC itself $15,300.

Recall that the PHSA is Dr. Henry’s employer, a defendant named in all of our litigation – including the petition in which the Chief Justice presided over. It is impossible for any reasonable person to characterize the movement of substantial sums of money in this manner under the direction of the Chief Justice as, at the very least, not carrying the perception of a conflict of interest.

What is the result of all of this? We get a situation where there really is no separation between the judiciary, the legislature, and N.G.O.s with financial interests. Everything seems to blend together.

Was there anything to those anti-lockdown rulings in B.C.? Impossible to say for sure, but the connections of the Vancouver Foundation do raise a lot of questions.

SOURCES:
(1) https://www.vancouverfoundation.ca/detail/chief-justice-christopher-hinkson/
(2) https://archive.is/wPjZm
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/psl/00032_01
(4) https://www.vancouverfoundation.ca/about-us/our-people/our-team/
(5) http://2007.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/sites/default/files/publications/VF_Magazine_2020_web.pdf
(6) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3770&regId=56555677
(7) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/reports/funding/received?cocId=3770&regId=56555677&extnl=true
(8) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3770&regId=56567332
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kate-hammer-5226a6a6
(10) https://archive.is/9RHmI
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/daraparker/details/experience/
(12) https://archive.is/cNFEY
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/glennewald/details/experience/
(14) https://archive.is/QFi7M
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-gallagher-1730a0b3/
(16) https://archive.is/SL24p
(17) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates

(A) BCCDC Foundation Charity Page
(B) University Of British Columbia Charity Page
(C) Provincial Health Services Authority Charity Page
(D) Community-Based Research Centre Society Charity Page
(E) Vancouver Foundation Charity Page

Posted on

Little Pushback On Efforts To Criminalize “Residential School ‘Denialism'”

This was announced a few weeks back, and it would have been worth watching to any of the free speech warriors in power challenge this proposal. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Last Fall, Winnipeg Member of Parliament Leah Gazan (N.D.P.) pushed a Motion to formally recognize what happened at Residential Schools as a “genocide”. There was no opposition to the Motion, and it appeared to be coordinated between all parties.

However, that apparently wasn’t enough. Now, Gazan is interested in advancing a Bill to make it a hate crime to deny the genocide in the declaration that she helped advance. Presumably this would impact the Human Rights Code of Canada, but could also be applied to the Criminal Code.

NDP MP Leah Gazan, who got the House of Commons last October to unanimously recognize that genocide occurred at residential schools, now wants to take the issue a step further by drafting legislation to outlaw attempts to deny that genocide and make false assertions about residential schools.

“Denying genocide is a form of hate speech,” said Gazan, who represents the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

“That kind of speech is violent and re-traumatizes those who attended residential school.”

Gazan’s proposal is causing controversy, even among those who want the facts about residential schools widely known. But the Office of Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller said he would be interested in reviewing the proposed legislation.

“Residential school denialism attempts to hide the horrors that took place in these institutions,” Miller’s office told CBC News.

This of course flies in the face of the maxim that the best way to counter bad speech is with better speech. It’s unclear whether any such Bill would lead to criminal charges and/or prison sentences for people who violate it.

Gazan’s other legislative efforts include Bill C-223, a guaranteed living income, or U.B.I. She has twice pushed Bill C-232, to create a climate emergency action framework”. She also supports creating a separate notification system for missing Indigenous women. She has also spoken out in favour of decriminalizing sex work (a.k.a. prostitution).

Of course, the precedent for criminalizing “denialism” in Canada has already been set. Kevin Waugh of Manitoba introduced Bill C-250, which would have put Holocaust deniers in prison for up to 2 years.

Far from being shocked by this, the Conservative Party of Canada celebrated efforts by one of their M.P.s to criminalize discussion on a controversial topic. Waugh brought Private Member’s Bill C-250, to do just that. It was ultimately abandoned when near identical provisions were put into Bill C-19, an omnibus budget Bill.

As such, it isn’t really a surprise that the “Official Opposition” isn’t pushing back on efforts to ban denialism of Residential Schools. But will any such legislation actually pass? Who knows?

It’s also uncertain to what degree disagreement would be permitted. It’s not specified whether outright denial would be required to constitute hate speech, or just questioning details within.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/Leah-Gazan(87121)
(2) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1585726302044229632
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100
(4) https://twitter.com/CityNewsTO/status/1628425241717538816
(6) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/22/red-dress-alert-for-missing-indigenous-women/
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-motion-recognize-genocide-1.6632450
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-223
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-232
(10) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-232
(11) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1630956370244542464

HOLOCAUST DENIAL PUNISHABLE BY PRISON TIME:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/third-reading
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(8) https://twitter.com/Paulatics/status/1537078472820006915
(9) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/simons-paula/interventions/581135/47#hID
(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iNiV2uAsQg&feature=youtu.be

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-230 DEFEATED: Would Protect Health Care Workers From MAiD Compulsion

Anyone hear about Bill C-230? It would have protected health care workers from being compelled to participate in medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. Perhaps it made the news at one point.

It had been introduced by Kelly Block, Member of Parliament for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Saskatchewan, back in March 2022.

Turns out it was defeated in October 2022, along party lines. The vote was 115 in favour, and 208 against. Conservatives supported the Bill, while Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois voted it down.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the purpose of compelling them to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.
.
It also makes it an offence to dismiss from employment or to refuse to employ a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 241.‍2:
Intimidation
241.‍21 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of compelling a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying, uses coercion or any other form of intimidation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Employers
(2) Every person who refuses to employ, or dismisses from their employment, a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assist­ance in dying is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It’s hard to believe this is real, but it is. Parliament voted down a Bill that would have protected health care workers from being forced to participate in assisted suicide.

Don’t forget that we still have Bill S-248 in the Senate. That would remove the requirement for final consent for people wanting to end their lives.

In late 2021, Don Davies introduced Bill C-220, which would make it an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing to assault a health care worker. Are we to assume that people in the medical industry need to be protected from violence…. but at the same time, it’s okay to compel them to kill others?

People can be truly evil.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/c-230
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/186
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kelly-block(59156)
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-230/first-reading
(6) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/s-248
(7) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/c-220

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

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Pass Case Struck As “Embarrassing” And “Bad Beyond Argument” (Another Galati Special)

In a decision that should surprise no one, a Federal Court Judge has ruled that a lawsuit was so poorly written that it was impossible to answer. (See archive and CanLII).

Justice Simon Fothergill ruled “the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer.”

In short, the document was incoherent, filled with irrelevant material, and so disorganized that it was unreasonable to expect the Defendants to respond. But it gets much worse.

Approximately two thirds of the more than 600 Plaintiffs are permanently barred from taking legal action. The other third can still go ahead, but the case needs to be completely redone.

Broadly speaking, there are 2 different classes of Plaintiffs:
(1) Employees of the Federal Government, listed on Schedule A
(2) Employees of Federally regulated industries, listed on Schedule B

Federal employees are stopped by Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, workers employed by the Government are prohibited from filing lawsuits, and must seek other methods, such as arbitration.

Not only can they not turn to the Court, but it appears they passed on what few remedies were available, such as asking for exemptions, and going through the grievance process. And, if this retainer agreement is a valid document, it would mean they paid $1,000 each.

The Plaintiffs who are in Federally regulated industries can still theoretically proceed. But there are other significant problems.

Even if the case were allowed to proceed in its entirety, all Plaintiffs would have to be named properly. Close to 100 of them are “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”.

Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act state that litigants who want to challenge Government Orders and seek injunctive relief are required to do so by way of Application for Judicial Review. This lawsuit didn’t do that. Instead, a Statement of Claim was filed. That’s right, the wrong paperwork was filed to begin with.

There are a few possible remedies here. First, the Claim could be redone as an Application. Second, the portions pertaining to challenging the Order can be removed.

Beyond that, the challenge (regardless of format) would have to be completely rewritten. The Court found that it was seriously deficient, and pleaded so poorly that a response was impossible.

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.

As stated in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules.

This is a common problem is many of these cases. While there are accusations made everywhere, there are rarely (if ever) sufficient facts pled to allow a meaningful defence. Defendants are entitled to know what the case is that they must address.

As Justice Fothergill noted, it was “embarrassing” and “bad beyond argument”.

Surprisingly, things still go downhill.

In the Motion to Strike, the Defendants brought up the issue that large portions of this case were substantially similar (and sometimes identical) to the Action4Canada case that was thrown out last August. This includes:

  • allegations of criminal behaviour;
  • broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge;
  • and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity

Instead of Action4Canada accepting that certain remedies were beyond the scope of a Civil Court, the organization appealed. 6 months after that ruling (which allowed a rewrite), no amended Claim has been filed. It’s unclear if one ever will be.

Now the Action4Canada ruling has been used as a partial basis for throwing out the Federal case. Justice Fothergill also noted that the pleadings were just as bad here as with the other suit.

So, what will happen now? If the Action4Canada case is any indicator, there will be an Appeal filed with the Federal Court of Appeals. Nothing will never come of it, other than to waste time and money.

Do read the reasons given by Justice Fothergill. It’s mindboggling that such paperwork can be submitted and taken seriously. (See original Claim).

The outcome of this Federal case was predictable and it was far more than mere sloppiness. It takes considerable skill and effort to draft something this poorly.

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaccine-passport-case-hears-motion-to-strike-claim/