Category: 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/

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour And Environmental Rights”

New Democrat Member of Parliament Alistair MacGregor recently introduced Bill C-315, to amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. At least, his name is on it. It’s unclear if he actually wrote this legislation.

On the surface, this is a Bill to get Canada’s national pension plan to move away from certain activities, at least as far as investing is concerned. To the novice reader, there’s nothing objectionable. It’s short, and (apparently) straight to the point.

But, at its core, this is a form of economic warfare against certain industries. Companies (or sectors)

Preamble
Whereas the Canada Pension Plan is a major pillar of Canada’s retirement income system and the Canada Pension Plan fund is one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world;
.
Whereas capital markets can have a tremendous impact and influence on environmental and social outcomes;
.
And whereas Canada, having a long history as a defender of human rights and freedoms, is committed to promoting responsible business practices and holding to account those who violate human, labour and environmental rights;

1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, in order to take into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has, in performing acts or carrying out work,
(a) committed human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) produced arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; or
(c) ordered, controlled or otherwise directed acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

In fairness, it’s nice that this is transparent about its intent. The CPPIB Act is to be amended to use its financial power to influence social change.

Admittedly, this Bill isn’t entirely bad. It does make sense not to do business with companies that are engaged in arms manufacturing if they may be a threat to Canada.

However, some of the more subjective areas leave opportunities for double standards to take place. Who decides if “environmental rights” have been violated? Considering vaccine passports were a recent issue, what qualifies as “human rights” violations? What about “labour rights”? Would it be illegal to bring in replacement workers? Since none of this is clearly defined, how could any sort of consistency be applied?

This is a common problem in these kinds of bills. Since key terms are undefined, then everything becomes subjective, and impossible to enforce in any uniform matter. Politicians may vote on them, but then it is up to unelected bureaucrats to work out the details.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alistair-macgregor(89269)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-315/
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-315/first-reading

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 S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(K) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(L) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Joanne Person Speaks Out Following Charges Being Withdrawn Over Coutts Arrest

Joanne Person has finally spoken out out about an arrest last year which caused nationwide attention. She was charged with 1 count of Firearms Possession and 1 count of Mischief Over $5,000.00 for allegedly aiding and abetting protesters in Coutts on Feb 14, 2022. On January 16, 2023, the charges were officially withdrawn.

This stems from the a section of the Canada/U.S. border being blocked last winter during nationwide protests over martial law measures.

While there was brief coverage of her case being dropped, it was quite limited. The version told by Person in the livestream paints a very different story to what has been officially reported. This includes the conduct of, and treatment by the RCMP.

Person wasn’t actually a part of any alleged plot, but had merely been hosting protesters in Coutts at her residence.

Although released on bail, it took nearly a year to have the case withdrawn. While news of the charges being dropped is a relief, it doesn’t undo the stress and hardship which came with the arrest. Her name made national news, and no public apology has yet been offered.

Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak, Anthony Olienick and Jerry Morin remain charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers. Police allege that there had been a cache of weapons found in the area. They are scheduled to go on Trial in June.

The stream was hosted by Stand4THEE, and is worth a watch.

(1) https://rumble.com/v29uldy-stand4thee-live-5-press-conference-with-joanne-person.html
(2) https://stand4thee.com/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/joanne-person-coutts-charges-court-prelim-mischief-1.6715505
(4) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/crown-withdraws-charges-against-coutts-protester-who-hosted-others-on-her-property
(5) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/another-one-of-the-coutts-blockade-suspects-granted-bail-pending-trial

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-229: Banning (Without Defining) Symbols Of Hate

Private Member’s Bill C-229 was introduced in early 2021 by N.D.P. M.P Peter Julian. The stated purpose of this piece is to ban so-called symbols of hate.

This goes far beyond Human Rights Tribunals and fines. This Bill (if passed) would amend the Criminal Code and potentially put people in prison for up to 2 years.

Free speech advocates should be calling out such legislation. However, considering this isn’t a Government Bill, it’s likely that few know about it.

-Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of preventing all forms of hatred or violence against any group that is distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability;
-Whereas Parliament acknowledges past atrocities and violence committed against such groups by persons or organizations whose symbols, emblems, flags and uniforms continue to this day to be used to promote or incite hatred and violence against these groups;
-And whereas it is in the interest of all Canadians to prevent the display or sale of symbols or emblems such as the Nazi swastika and the Ku Klux Klan’s insignia, flags such as the standards of Germany between the years 1933 to 1945 and those of the Confederate States of America between the years 1861 to 1865 and uniforms, including the German and Confederate States of America military dress of those periods, as well as the hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan;

There’s also an obvious pivot here. While the Bill states that it’s in the interest of Canadians to ban Nazi or KKK symbols, the earlier text makes it obvious that the scope is far more broad. Specifically, it lists:

  • colour;
  • race;
  • religion;
  • national or ethnic origin;
  • age;
  • sex;
  • sexual orientation;
  • gender identity or expression;
  • mental or physical disability

Another major problem is there is no distinction between “hate”, and having a lively and controversial discussion. What about protests based on honest beliefs? Could signs, slogans and speech be lumped in with symbols?

Is it a violation of “gender identity or expression” to say that biological men don’t belong in women’s sports, changerooms or prisons? It it hateful to say that there are only 2 genders (assigned from before birth), and that there’s no switching between them?

As for discrimination against age, could pedophiles use this in order to justify actions and behaviours that would otherwise be considered criminal? Would it be illegal now to criticize and condemn them?

There is a further complication. The Bill would add a provision that states no prosecution will happen if in good faith: “including for educational purposes or accurate depiction in a film, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed the display to be proper and for the public benefit”. Now, who’s to say what’s good faith and what’s not?

It appears that such legislation could be selectively applied to target people depending on their ideology. This is so poorly written that it leaves plenty of room for abuse and misapplication.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-229
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-229/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/peter-julian(16399)

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-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(E) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(F) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(G) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(H) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(I) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(J) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons A Charity That Received “Pandemic” Bailouts

A topic that hasn’t been covered in quite some time is the long list of business and organizations that received bailout money from the CEWS Program. Of course, this is short for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. There were a few colleges Of physicians & surgeons that got it.

  • Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada
  • College of Family Physicians in Canada
  • College of Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador

Granted, the program did end over a year ago, but it doesn’t erase the fact that so many organizations received this money in the first place.

This can be easily verified by visiting the CEWS Registry (see new link).

About the Royal College, there are 2 different charities: (a) The Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada; and (b) Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada Foundation.

It’s worth pointing out that registered charities also automatically were eligible for CERS, the Canada Emergency Rental Subsidy, and other lockdown grants.

Now, what does the Royal College describe as its functions?

CREATE AND CONDUCT SPECIALTY MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR PHYSICIANS. ACCREDIT SPECIALTY TRAINING PROGRAMS AT CANADIAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOLS. ASSESSS RESIDENCY TRAINING TO ENSURE SPECIALTY SPECIFIC TRAINING REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. PROVIDE A CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO ENSURE FELLOWS ARE ENGAGED IN MAINTENANCE OF KNOWLEDGE. UNDERTAKE PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE LEADERSHIP IN SPECIALTY MEDICINE.

Looking at some tax information in recent years, we get this:

March 31, 2020
Receipted donations: $523,771.00 (0.78%)
Non-receipted donations: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities: $587,500.00 (0.88%)
Government funding: $35,672.00 (0.05%)
All other revenue: $65,682,187.00 (98.28%)
Total revenue: $66,829,130.00

Charitable programs: $38,896,568.00 (56.35%)
Management and administration: $25,033,055.00 (36.26%)
Fundraising: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees: $0.00 (0.00%)
Other: $5,098,798.00 (7.39%)
Total expenses: $69,028,421.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions: $27,934,692.00
Full-time employees: 327
Part-time employees: 164
Professional and consulting fees: $11,781,429.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 2
$250,000 to $299,999: 2
$300,000 to $349,999: 3
$350,000 and over: 3

March 31, 2021
Receipted donations: $36,792.00 (0.05%)
Non-receipted donations: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities: $378,431.00 (0.55%)
Government funding: $4,267,623.00 (6.20%)
All other revenue: $64,139,221.00 (93.20%)
Total revenue: $68,822,067.00

Charitable programs: $32,720,809.00 (57.19%)
Management and administration: $24,492,552.00 (42.81%)
Fundraising: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees: $0.00 (0.00%)
Other: $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $57,213,361.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions: $35,971,607.00
Full-time employees: 270
Part-time employees: 62
Professional and consulting fees: $13,125,154.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$160,000 to $199,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 2
$300,000 to $349,999: 3
$350,000 and over: 2

March 31, 2022
Receipted donations: $22,614.00 (0.03%)
Non-receipted donations: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities: $1,155,246.00 (1.67%)
Government funding: $892,245.00 (1.29%)
All other revenue: $66,959,192.00 (97.00%)
Total revenue: $69,029,297.00

Charitable programs: $39,197,885.00 (65.42%)
Management and administration: $20,477,992.00 (34.18%)
Fundraising: $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees: $0.00 (0.00%)
Other: $238,261.00 (0.40%)
Total expenses: $59,914,138.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions: $35,073,801.00
Full-time employees: 327
Part-time employees: 57
Professional and consulting fees: $6,969,896.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 1
$250,000 to $299,999: 1
$300,000 to $349,999: 4
$350,000 and over: 4

The Royal College Foundation, by contrast, is much, much smaller. It seems primarily geared towards bursaries and scholarship opportunities for medical students.

The Royal College announced in the Fall of 2021 that people who haven’t taken at least 2 shots would be prohibited from entering the premises. However, it appeared that taking tests within the last 3 days would be an alternative. Failure to comply meant possible termination from employment.

The requirement for entry would apply to:

  • Employees
  • Visitors
  • Contractors
  • Volunteers
  • Members of the public

For employees, this would presumably mean tests at least twice per week. Never mind that no virus has ever been proven to exist. This is only the Royal College Of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada.

Why would they play along with this? One possibility is that they know how financially beneficial the bailouts and charity designations are.

The Royal College is also part of HEAL, a coalition of health groups that lobbies Ottawa on issues such as: “mental health, health care improvement, opioids, pharma care, seniors care and other priority health topics”.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (which also got the CEWS bailout), is part of that Federal lobbying coalition.

It’s interesting that no organizations within HEAL did much to push back on the implementation of vaccine passports in late 2021. Have to wonder why.

(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(3) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=college+physicians
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=college+physicians
(5) https://www.royalcollege.ca/
(6) https://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/search-e?Ntt=vaccination&Nty=1&op=Search
(7) Royal College Mandatory Vaccination Policy
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=371168&regId=931696

(A.1) Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
(A.2) Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
(A.3) Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
(A.4) Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
(A.5) Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
(A.6) Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
(A.7) Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
(A.8) Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
(A.9) Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
(A.10) Gyms And Fitness Centers Getting Subsidies To Push Vaxx Pass
(A.11) Sports Groups That Took CEWS To Push Pandemic Hoax
(A.12) Chapters-Indigo Getting Millions In Subsidies To Discriminate
(A.13) Toronto Region Board Of Trade Pushing Vaxx Passports

Posted on

Senate Bill S-257: Entrenching “Political Belief Or Activity” As Protected Human Rights

With everything that’s going on lately in politics, it’s rare to have something positive to report. However, there is a possible gem in the works. Senate Bill S-257 was introduced by in late 2021 (Conservative) Senator Salma Ataullahjan. Granted, it hasn’t passed, but is still noteworthy.

If this, or something similar get does pass, it would entrench “political belief or activity” as protected grounds within the Human Rights Code of Canada.

Canadian Human Rights Act
.
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Of course, this has the potential to stand other legislation on its head.

Would Bill C-16 (gender identity) have to be reworked or thrown out? Would it now be protected speech to say that men are men, and women are women? What about laws to put Holocaust deniers in prison? What about Iqra Khalid’s M-103 (Islamophobia) Motion from several years ago? What about “hate speech” restrictions criticizing immigration and multiculturalism? What about anti-lockdown protests over the last few years that violated “public health” orders from unelected bureaucrats?

It’s entirely possible Bill S-257 will never pass. However, it does have the potential to invalidate draconian legislation on the grounds of free speech. We’ll have to see.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=2
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-257
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-257/first-reading