Some Thoughts On Why Flair Airlines Supports The Mandatory Vaccination Policy

It seems a bit counter-intuitive that a discount airline would be so enthusiastic about the policy of mandatory vaccines for travelers. Flair Airlines is one such company. Then again, looking a bit deeper, there may be other reasons for doing this.

Specifically, it appears the Flair Airlines LTD. has been getting CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, they are likely getting other subsidies as well.

After all, this company went from serious financial hurt, to being able to expand its operations across Canada. Such a sudden shift requires a lot of money.

A quick look through the Federal Lobbying Registry shows that Flair has been quite busy getting the attention of public office holders. The middlemen they send are also worthy of a closer look.

1. Saad Baig, StrategyCorp Inc

Saad Baig is a Director in StrategyCorp’s Public Affairs group and brings six years of experience advising senior cabinet ministers in the Government of Ontario.
.
Most recently, Saad was Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister of Finance where he was a pivotal part of the team that tabled Ontario’s first balanced budget in ten years. He served as the lead advisor to the Minister on matters relating to tax policy, economic policy and municipal finance. Saad led the development of the 2016 Fall Economic Statement and 2017 Ontario Budget in key areas including transportation, infrastructure, economic development and international trade.
.
Prior to joining the Ministry of Finance, Saad spent over three years as the lead advisor for infrastructure policy to several ministers where he participated in key negotiations on federal-provincial infrastructure matters, designed municipal funding programs, developed infrastructure planning legislation and coordinated policy and issues for two crown agencies.
.
Saad has been involved in numerous political campaigns at the municipal, provincial and federal levels including the 2014 central campaign for the Ontario Liberal Party.

This lobbyist for the discount airline spent 6 years in the Ontario Government, in a variety of roles, working for Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty.

2. Garry Keller, StrategyCorp Inc

Garry has served in several key leadership roles in Canadian politics, including as Chief of Staff to Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird; Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition Rona Ambrose, and chief Parliamentary advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He also served as a Chief of Staff to the Government House Leader and the Chief Government Whip, Director of Communications to the Minister of the Environment and Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the President of the Treasury Board. He also served as Acting Chief of Staff to the United Conservative Party Caucus in Alberta in 2017.
.
As the Chief of Staff to the Foreign Minister, Garry was required to deliver strategic, communication and political advice on both international and domestic matters. He has experience in dealing with regulatory and legal matters, national security matters, trade negotiations, as well as the promotion of Canadian interests and Canadian values on the world stage. He is also an experienced practitioner of the Access to Information Act.
.
Garry regularly provides commentary on domestic and international politics for CTV News Channel, TVO’s The Agenda and a variety of talk radio shows across Canada. His commentary has also appeared in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, and he has appeared on a number of panels for associations and other organizations on Canadian politics.

Keller spent many years as a Conservative Party of Canada operative, and handler for various politicians. He also moved on to Alberta politics.

3. Sébastien Labrecque, StrategyCorp Inc

Before pivoting to government relations, Sébastien worked in the federal government, which led him to develop a thorough understanding of the inner workings of policy and research development in the public service. Thanks to his experience at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Sébastien possesses an extensive knowledge of the policy and stakeholder ecosystems in the areas of housing finance and the digital economy.

Labrecque spent over a year and a half working for the Federal Government before he switched over and became a lobbyist.

4. Kristina Martin, Loyalist Public Affairs

Kristina is a seasoned strategic communications and government relations expert with over a decade of experience working in politics, government relations and the non-profit sector. Based in Ottawa, she knows the inner workings of Parliament Hill and is recognized as a connector and go-to advisor for corporate and nonprofit leaders to advance complex policy agendas.
.
Before joining Loyalist Kristina worked as Director of Communications and Public Affairs at Canada’s largest science and technology outreach organization, Actua. Prior to that she worked at a national government relations and strategic communication firm.
.
Kristina has also served as a communications and political advisor to federal elected officials.

Kristina Martin spent many years with the Federal Liberals when they were in opposition. Now that they are back in power, she’s in a position to wield some real influence.

5. Conal Slobodin, StrategyCorp Inc

Slobodin has since left StrategyCorp and gone to Walmart. However, he has held roles in the Federal Government, and is a former consultant for the Yukon Liberal Party. Small world.

6. Andrew Steele, StrategyCorp Inc

As a Vice President at StrategyCorp, Andrew emphasizes client service, creative solutions and professionalism. He provides counsel on management consulting projects, communications challenges and government relations files at the federal, provincial and municipal level.
.
Previously, Andrew served as Senior Advisor to the Premier of Ontario, as well as Chief of Staff in several Ministries. He has held senior campaign roles for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party.
.
Andrew was the founding CEO of the Pecaut Centre, a non-profit management consulting firm housed at the Boston Consulting Group. More recently, Andrew was essential to implementing the strategic transformation of public broadcaster TVO into the province’s partner for digital learning inside the classroom.
.
A director of the board of the Michael Garron Hospital, Andrew graduated with distinction from the MBA program at Ivey. He writes regularly on public policy as an opinion columnist for the Globe and Mail and others.

Steele, by his own admission, has held senior campaign roles for both the Ontario Liberals, and the Federal Liberals. The connection to Michael Garron Hospital is an interesting one. That’s where Michael Warner, the pro-lockdown doctor, Michael Warner works. Melissa Lantsman, MP-elect for Thornhill, is also a Director.

As for Kenzie McKeegan, Dan Mader and Chris Froggatt, check out this piece on their recent work as Pfizer lobbyists. Have to wonder what all of these political hacks arranged in order for Flair to get onboard with these passports.

There doesn’t seem to be an obvious mention of a bailout, but it’s the most likely thing to search for. And they are definitely getting CEWS from the taxpayers.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/airline-transportation-mandatory-vaccination-1.6206844?fbclid=IwAR38cd6IDeB-_TKKGxfRWnyNe9dg2VUons6nOc0Yp8_xKtll5xvazN9L8kM
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=refineCategory&V_TOKEN=1234567890&V_SEARCH.scopeCategory=solr.facetName.registrationStatus%3D1
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1633983200675
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/saadbaig/
(6) https://strategycorp.com/people/baig-saad/
(7) https://archive.is/sgF3b
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/garry-keller-73130b79/
(9) https://strategycorp.com/people/keller-garry/
(10) https://archive.is/aFUE1
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/s%C3%A9bastien-labrecque-4497915b/
(12) https://strategycorp.com/people/labrecque-sebastien/
(13) https://archive.is/usIo6
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristina-martin-3b1b6741/
(15) https://loyalistpublicaffairs.ca/kristina-martin/
(16) https://archive.is/IFW5a
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/conal-slobodin/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmsteele/?originalSubdomain=ca
(19) https://strategycorp.com/people/steele-andrew/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/melissa-lantsmans-real-record-as-a-lobbyist-after-installing-doug-ford/

LPC Platform Includes Provision To Provide Legal Cover To Businesses Implementing Vaccine Passports

Included in the Liberal Party of Canada election platform on page 2 is a promise to indemnify businesses that exclude people based on not taking those experimental “vaccines”. That’s right, not only are the businesses being offered the subsidies they need, but Government will also run interference to keep these requirements from becoming a liability.

But don’t worry. It’s not about tyranny and eliminating your basic human rights. This is done all in the name of safety and security. What could possibly go wrong?

[Page 2] Proof of Vaccination
Canadians want to finish the fight against COVID-19. Millions of Canadians have rolled up their sleeves and gotten their vaccine shots, doing so to protect themselves, and their community. Across the country, thousands of business owners have demonstrated leadership to support vaccine rollout, and now many want to go further. Whether they are managing a multinational or a small coffee shop, business owners should have no doubt that putting the safety of workers, customers, or clients first is the right thing to do.
.
Proof of vaccination systems give people the confidence of knowing that others around them are fully vaccinated. They also help drive increased vaccination rates and give Canadians confidence that it’s safe to go to restaurants,
shops, and out into their communities.
.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Launch a $1 billion COVID-19 Proof of Vaccination Fund to support provinces and territories who implement a requirement for proof of vaccine credentials in their jurisdiction for non-essential businesses and public spaces.
• Table legislation to ensure that every business and organization that decides to require a proof of vaccination from employees and customers can do so without fear of a legal challenge.

Not only would the Government be economically subsidizing these “passports”, but they’d be running interference to make sure there was no legal remedy for people concerned with basic liberties. Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population. At least in theory, there would be adequate long term testing to know what effects will happen years later.
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

If implemented, there would be no recourse for people who are denied entry (it doesn’t specify exemptions). Also, the indemnified manufacturers don’t seem to be an issue. Great way to implement medical segregation. The pressure to do this makes informed consent — REAL consent — a thing of the past. It seems that “my body, my choice” doesn’t extend to medical autonomy, unless it involves killing children.

One would think that there would be some real opposition to all of this Provincially and Municipally, but there isn’t. Even those who refuse vaccine passports only do so very tepidly.

Doug Ford is doing what he does best: stab the residents of Ontario in the back, again and again. He’s on board with all of this, as are these “conservative” Premiers.

Where are all the constitutional lawyers? Other than holding constant fundraisers, they don’t seem to actually be doing much.

Beyond physical and economic coercion, what else is in there? Since we are looking through the Liberal platform, this is hardly the only objectionable topic. A few points worth noting:

[Page 65] Protecting Canadians from Online Harms
Too many people in Canada are victims of hate speech, which is often amplified and spread on social media. Canadians want action and they want leadership that will put a stop to harmful online content and hold platforms
accountable.
A re-elected Liberal Government will:
• Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.
• Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.

[Page 66] Black Canadians Justice Strategy
Anti-Black racism and discrimination are a reality in Canada, and they are acutely felt in Canada’s policing and
criminal justice system. Black Canadians are significantly overrepresented in the federal prison system, accounting for 7.3% of the prison population when they represent only 3.5% of the greater population. The work of grassroots organizations like Black Lives Matters have raised their voices to bring global attention to this issue. Systemic racism, discrimination, and violence against Black Canadians will persist as long as inequality is not called out and addressed.
.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Develop a Black Canadians Justice Strategy to address anti-black racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system.

[Page 70] Combatting Authoritarianism and Foreign Interference
With authoritarianism, geopolitical competition, and foreign interference on the rise, safeguarding Canada’s national and economic security requires strong action both at home and abroad. We will continue to implement domestic measures to protect Canadians and work closely with our friends, allies, and partners to respond to illegal and unacceptable behaviour by authoritarian states, including China, Russia, and Iran.
.
Specifically, a re-elected Liberal government will:
• Work with G7, NATO, and likeminded partners to develop and expand collective responses to arbitrary detention, economic coercion, cyber threats, foreign interference in democratic processes, and egregious violations of human rights, including through the use of sanctions, support for international institutions, and coordinated action to reinforce the rules of international trade.
• Review and modernize the Investment Canada Act and provide additional resources to support national security agencies in tracking, assessing, and mitigating economic security threats from foreign investment.
• Expand collaboration and information sharing with Canadian partners and across all levels of government with respect to addressing security risks in foreign research and investment partnerships.
• Introduce legislation to safeguard Canada’s critical infrastructure, including our 5G networks, to preserve the integrity and security of our telecommunications systems.
• Continue to work with international partners to hold Iran accountable for the illegal shootdown of PS752 and continue to provide support to the families and loved ones of the victims as they fight for justice and reparations. We will also continue to advance Canada’s Safer Skies Initiative, to prevent such tragic events in the future.
• Increase resources available to our national security agencies to counter foreign interference and to the RCMP to protect Canadians from unacceptable surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by foreign actors.

[Page 75] • Significantly increase the resources of the Canada Revenue Agency to combat aggressive tax planning
and tax avoidance that allows the wealthiest to avoid paying the taxes they owe. This will increase CRA’s resources by up to $1 billion per year in order to close Canada’s tax gap.
Modernize the general anti-avoidance rule regime in order to focus on economic substance and restrict the ability of federally regulated entities, including financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies, to use tiered structures as a form of corporate tax planning that flows Canadian-derived profit through entities in low-tax jurisdictions in order to reduce taxes back in Canada.
• Work with our international partners to implement a global minimum tax so that the biggest companies in the world are not able to escape the taxes they owe here in Canada.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details. It would be interesting to know what exactly counts as “hate”. It’s likely to be written in such a broad and vague way as to be applied however the politics demands it.

Regarding the overrepresentation in Canadian jails, that could easily be explained by the crime rates, or is that racist to discuss? And who exactly is committing those high rates of violence against blacks?

It’s rather sickening to claim to oppose authoritarianism and human rights abroad, while turning a blind eye to the same sort of thing happening locally.

There’s also large sections on climate change, and the rainbow lobby. Beyond that, gender is woven into pretty much everything. However, that’s to be expected from Trudeau these days.

Of course, this is just a tiny portion of what’s in the platform. Granted, politicians lie all the time, but a lot of these they would actually implement.

(1) https://liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/292/2021/09/Platform-Forward-For-Everyone.pdf
(2) Liberal Election Campaign Platform
(3) Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(9) https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1433172901101019137
(10) Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
(11) Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
(12) Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
(13) Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
.
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/supreme-civil/1-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/civil_numerically.pdf
(4) https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/21.08.17-FILED-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-Action4Canada.pdf
(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-action4canada-want-more-money-for-cases-still-not-happening/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWV-xD5sfA&

Canada: Persecuting Religious Groups Locally, While Virtue Signaling Internationally

There’s something Orwellian about telling the world how important religious freedoms are, and how minority groups must be protected — and then forcibly closing down services within the host country. Canada is set to take in more refugees from Afghanistan, who are targeted because of their views. Will they be any safer here?

The following clips are from a Parliamentary hearing on June 22, 2021, to study the persecution of religious minorities in Afghanistan. To address the elephant in the room, it’s beyond hypocrisy to pretend to care about what happens abroad, while attacking such liberties domestically. How can these people do this with a straight face?

Many will recognize the photo as Grace Life Church in Edmonton, AB. It had previously been fenced off for the horrid crime of allowing free worship.

True, this hearing is done FEDERALLY, while the various restrictions are typically imposed PROVINCIALLY. Nevertheless, Ottawa doesn’t seem to ever criticize or condemn such actions. All Parties (Federally and Provincially) are silent on things like this.

Fine, the Canadian Government isn’t having religious groups killed (yet), but we don’t exactly have freedom here. If churches and other institutions can be ordered closed, and pastors jailed, it isn’t really that much better. Even in Provinces where services are “permitted”, that can change in a number of hours, with 1 signature.

What do Federal “Conservatives” say? Well, they will try to score points condemning abuses of freedoms and civil rights abroad, even as they promote the practice here. In different circumstances, this complete lack of self awareness would be quite comical. That said, no one could be this oblivious to what’s going on, and it has to be done intentionally.

Mainstream media outlets will never address this either. Then again, they have regular subsidies they wish to keep coming in, and it’s never wise to annoy major donors.

The 4th video is Conservative Party of Canada MP Garnett Genuis of Alberta. It’s interesting that the “Official Opposition” considers these protections so essential in other countries, but is silent about it within Canada. Would it be bad optics to inform the guests here that their newfound freedoms can be revoked at anytime?

There’s complete silence from MPs/MPPs/MLAs on how easily these rights are being suspended, all under a very flimsy pretense. Section 1 of the Charter (which allows for reasonable limitations) was never intended to be used this way. And restrictions had to be “demonstrably justified”, not just speculated about. If there’s a silver lining, many are realizing that we don’t have rights, but privileges.

Even if religious services aren’t limited or closed in many areas right now, they have been. It’s been done on an arbitrary basis, with no science behind any of it. Moreover, there’s nothing to stop various Premiers and their unelected “Medical Officers” from doing it again when the political agenda suited it.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz5zGm3gJKg
(2) https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1384154709343162374
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SDIR/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11398396
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210622/-1/35780?Language=English&Stream=Video
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11221893

“Inside The Ontario Science Table” Now Available Online

Inside The Ontario Science Table: The “Independent” Group Pulling Ford’s Strings, is now available both in paperback, and as an ebook. It builds off of the last one, and as the name implies, there is a heavy focus on that one Province. Of course, Twenty Twenty-One is still there as well, and covers a lot of topics related to this so-called “pandemic”.

A lot of work has gone into both of these, so please support independent research. Thank you.

Other coverage on the site continues.

(1) https://www.amazon.ca/B09BCNP48J
(2) https://www.amazon.ca/B095Y515XK

Melissa Lantsman’s Real Record As A Lobbyist, After Installing Doug Ford

Melissa Lantsman is just one of many people who helped put Ford into the Premier’s Office, and later lobbied him. Given the amount of money that can be at stake, transparency is needed. Then again, outlets like Rebel Media need to be honest with their coverage.

AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL STORY


Strangely, this clip never made it into footage that Ezra Levant shared. It’s like he didn’t want people to see the whole story. While not necessary homophobic, it’s a cheap shot. Booting him from the event actually wouldn’t seem that bad, although being a politician, she should probably grow a thicker skin.

Yes, Rebel did ask her repeatedly about her time as a Walmart lobbyist, and that is certainly reasonable. She is officially listed as having done so, and the report is from December 9, 2020. However, Rebel plays fast and loose with the truth. Her statement calling Menzies a homophobe makes a bit more sense now, (in context), if being offended equates to bigotry. In the world of tokenism, it’s not that much out of line. But really, is this really worth having a reporter arrested over? Unless, of course, there’s more to that that isn’t being told.

It’s fair to ask why certain stores remained open while others were shut as “non-essential”. Her other influence peddling needs to be looked at. While often legal, the revolving door between politicians and lobbyists is sickening.

All of this came after Doug Ford was elected in June 2018. Considering Lantsman helped put him into power, we have to ask if Ford now owes her any favours. The entire point of hiring lobbyists is because of their connections (or at least apparent connections) to the people in power. As for what happened with the Ontario Pharmacists Association, perhaps this will shed some light.

This also raises the question of whether Lantsman (as an M.P.) would be hit up by lobbyists from the companies she used to represent. Also, will Hill + Knowlton Strategies, or Enterprise Canada, be approaching her at some future point on behalf of their clients?

Lantsman was the “War Room Director and Spokesperson” for Doug Ford when he was campaigning in 2018? That sounds like she was pretty close to him. Also, her years working in Conservative Party of Canada can’t be ignored. Interesting how David Menzies only asked about Walmart. Could be nothing, or it could be that he didn’t want to completely throw her under the bus. Still, mainstream outlets wouldn’t even have approached the issue of Walmart, so this is progress.

In any event, Rebel got the “Save Menzies” site up pretty darn quick, and they are already asking for donations. But that’s probably just to ensure his rights are protected from here on in.

While working as a staffer in Federal politics, Lantsman was lobbied 23 times by various groups, according to the Ottawa Registry. A few of those might raise some eyebrows.

Granted, people can vote for whoever they wish to. However, it would be nice if members of the public did some due diligence and looked into the candidates running for office. These things aren’t all that hard to find.

(1) https://twitter.com/MelissaLantsman/status/1419494169341534222
(2) https://archive.is/CS3zz
(3) https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1419504088249683969
(4) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissalantsman/
(6) https://archive.is/VsG0V
(7) https://www.rebelnews.com/david_menzies_arrested_melissa_lantsman_conservative
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch