Category: Types of Law

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self-Injury Done To Avoid Active Military Service

This is another one that’s a bit of a head scratcher.

New Democrat M.P. Randall Garrison introduced Bill C-206 back in December 2021. This would have removed section 98(c) of the National Defence Act. It would mean that it was no longer an offence to injure or main oneself or another for the purpose of avoiding active service.

Although not specified in the Bill, presumably it would be okay to injure another for this purpose if it was done with the person’s consent.

The timing is also interesting. First Reading was at the end of 2021, when vaccine passports were in full swing. A cynic may wonder if this was part of some coordinated effort to help gut the military, by making it easier for people to get out.

Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another
.
98 Every person who
(a) malingers or feigns or produces disease or infirmity,
(b) aggravates, or delays the cure of, disease or infirmity by misconduct or wilful disobedience of orders, or
(c) willfully maims or injures himself or any other person who is a member of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith, whether at the instance of that person or not, with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service, or causes himself to be maimed or injured by any person with intent thereby to render himself unfit for service,
.
is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if he commits the offence on active service or when under orders for active service or in respect of a person on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

It would be interesting whether Garrison came up with this Bill himself, or whether someone else (and who) is really behind it. Somehow, it seems doubtful that it was his idea.

So far, it hasn’t gone past First Reading, but we’ll have to see how it plays out.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=2
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-206
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-206/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/randall-garrison(71995)
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/index.html

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-230: Protecting HCW From MAiD Compulsion DEFEATED
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(H) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(I) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(J) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(K) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(L) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(M) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(N) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(O) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

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

Canadian Grants In Recent Years To Develop Mass Euthanasia Systems For Animals

Searching through Government archives can often lead to some interesting finds. One such result is that we have apparently been handing out taxpayer money to develop euthanasia systems. These are said to be done to prevent the spreading of diseases.

Now, there are only a few listed on this site, but it’s certainly worth a look.

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Catch Data Ltd. May 9, 2022 $100,000.00
Équipe Québécoise De Santé Porcine (Eqsp) Jan 1, 2022 $948,029.00
Western Canada Livestock Development Corporation Mar 9, 2018 $854,250.00
Western Canada Livestock Development Corporation Sep 1, 2019 $235,125.00

According to the program purpose from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada:

Funding to facilitate the agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector’s ability to seize opportunities, to respond to new and emerging issues and to pathfind and pilot solutions to new and ongoing issues in order to help it adapt and remain competitive.

Équipe Québécoise De Santé Porcine has a somewhat different agenda, explained as:

The objective of this project is to design and develop an on-farm unit for pig euthanasia by electrocution that will be used during depopulations ordered by the CFIA following a health crisis, for herds undermovement restriction and to rapidly cull livestock in the event that the Canadian borders are closed to exports. In addition, evaluate, identify and acquire equipment to support complementary methods of mass euthanasia, with the aim of better preparing the Quebec pig sector to face a health crisis.

CIFA is, of course, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That’s very interesting. Supposedly, we need to design systems to mass euthanize pigs, in the event of some upcoming health crisis. Has it already been determined?

Catch Data Ltd.’s agenda, and funded by the National Research Council, is

Development of an automated, connected, adaptive, and self-resetting mechanical cervical dislocation euthanasia system for rodents

This is a euthanasia system that kills by dislocating the spine from the brain. It’s supposed to be very quick. Of course, what’s to stop this from being scaled up to target larger animals? It can’t just be about the rodents. Is disease prevention really the goal?

It could be that all of this is well meaning and benevolent. Then again, this could be developing systems to wipe out parts of the food supply under the guise of “public health”. Who knows?

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/?sort=agreement_start_date+desc&page=1&search_text=euthanasia
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/nrc-cnrc,172-2022-2023-Q1-990927,current
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/aafc-aac,235-2021-2022-Q4-00130,current
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/aafc-aac,235-2019-2020-Q4-00032,current
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/aafc-aac,GC-2017-Q4-00046,current

HOLODOMOR, FOOD SHORTAGES
(A) Cricket Production Subsidies, Aspire Food Group
(B) Subsidizing Plant-Based Industry To Replace Meat
(C) Manufactured Food Shortages, Or Just a Coincidence?
(D) NACIA, Global Markets For Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein, Agenda 2030
(E) World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups, Manufactured Shortages
(F) Private Member’s Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Pandemic Treaty

Posted on

Federal Court Ruling Confirms Lack Of Jurisdiction In Most Employment Matters

The Federal Court of Canada has confirmed a decision that Court lacks jurisdiction with many employment matters due to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA.

While this isn’t specifically related to vaccine passports, there is overlap with the reasons this case was thrown out.

Dreena Davis works for the RCMP Employee & Management Relations Office Workplace Responsibility Unit, as an Internal Conflict Management Practitioner. The problems go back to 2017, and the specifics are beyond the scope of this article.

As a side note: it’s always interesting to see someone self-representing, as was the case here. Just because lawyers are involved, it doesn’t mean they are worth the expense.

From the ruling:

[24] On January 14, 2022, the Defendant moved to strike the claim on the basis that: (i) the essential character of the Plaintiff’s claims are employment issues which are regulated by an exclusive labour relations regime, therefore pursuant to section 236 of the Act the Plaintiff has no right of action; (ii) the Plaintiff’s recourse is to grieve each of her employment-related allegations and proceed with those grievances until their final resolution, as to do otherwise would create a parallel system; (iii) if there are allegations relating to her dissatisfaction with administrative decisions then the proper remedy is judicial review of any final decision after proceeding through the complaints process; and (iv) the claim is an abuse of process as the Plaintiff is seeking to make a collateral attack on administrative findings.

[25] In response to the motion to strike, the Plaintiff submits that “Part 2 of the [Act] does not apply to the excluded and unrepresented employees due to the Legislative error.” She alleges that legislative error occurred in 2003 when Parliament attempted to import the excluded and unrepresented employees into the Act by changing the definition of an “employee”. She submits that the grounds of the Defendant’s motion relating to the complete code as comprised in the Act, including section 236, are therefore “moot” because the Act does not apply to unrepresented employees on the basis of this legislative error.

[26] The Plaintiff further submitted in response that “there is no grievance procedure for the unrepresented employee within the RCMP”. She requests that the Court use its residual discretion on the basis that harassment and systemic negligence constitute extraordinary circumstances. The Plaintiff alleges that the grievance process was a sham and corrupt, as was the grievance system generally. Alternatively, the Plaintiff requested that she be able to apply in the appropriate forum.

In fairness, there were issues with the drafting itself, but those can often be fixed by amendment, or by redrafting.

What’s odd is that the Plaintiff appeared to be following the right steps originally. She filed a harassment complaint with the RCMP in December 2018 (paras 11 and 12), but didn’t like the decision. Afterwards, she filed a grievance over the outcome in March 2020, which was escalated internally (paras 13 and 14). June 2021, the grievance was denied.

After that, she filed an Application for Judicial Review in July 2021, in order to quash the earlier findings. This would have been the correct step, if there were issues to look at.

Bizarrely, Davis discontinued the Notice of Application on September 3, 2021, and filed a Statement of Claim on the 9th. Perhaps she found the scope available from an Application was too narrow.

March 2022, there was a hearing, as the RCMP tried to have the case thrown out. While the Claim was “unfocused, argumentative, and convoluted” (para 32), the fatal error came when the Associate Judge ruled that Section 236 of the FPSLRA meant the Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Claim was struck.

A review was sought, and this week a Judge concluded that there was no reversible error. The Federal Court wasn’t able to hear the Claim because of Section 236 of the FPSLRA.

From the ruling, it’s clear that there was some grievance process in place, and that she did make use of it. But the Courts typically don’t get involved in such employment matters.

Davis had also questioned whether the Associate Judge had been accommodating enough to her as a self-represented litigant. The response was that she had been.

Again, this isn’t a vaccine passport case, but there are parallels with the issues. If there is legislation or a collective bargaining agreement in place, there can be virtually no access to the Courts. While she may not have been part of a union, there were other options available, and she used them, the Court found.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

And on the topic of lockdown measures, including vaxx passes….

RECENT LOCKDOWN CASES (LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE BY ANY MEANS)
(A) Ontario Court Rules 12 Year Old Cannot Be Forced To Take Vaxx
(B) Case Thrown Out When Judge “Takes Judicial Notice”
(C) BCSC Throws Out 4 Cases Involving Vaccine Passport
(D.1) Motion To Strike Federal Travel Restrictions Cases For “Mootness”
(D.2) Federal Court Vaccine Passport Challenges All Struck As “Moot”
(E) University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Pass Challenge Thrown Out For “Mootness”
(F) NS Court Of Appeals On Strang’s Ban On Public Gatherings
(G) AB Court Of Appeals Confirms HCW Can Deny Care For Unvaxxed
(H) University Of Western Ontario, And Their Vaxx Pass Getting Upheld
(I) BCSC Throws Out Quesnel Case, Arbitration Mandated As Solution
(J.1) CSASPP Lawsuit Approaching Certification For Class Action Status
(J.2) CSASPP Certification Hearing Videos Now Available Online
(J.3) CSASPP Certification Hearings To Resume In April 2023

(K) UCalgary Prof Files CHRT Complaint To Bring Back Masks On Planes

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/