Federal Vaccine Passport Case Hears Motion To Strike Claim

Thursday, January 19th was an interesting day in Federal Court. Ottawa brought a Motion to Strike a lawsuit brought by over 600 people challenging a 2021 Order which mandated experimental shots for their continued employment. This applied to: (a) Government workers; and (b) industries that were subject to Federal regulation.

For those who don’t know, this is not a Motion to decide a case on its merits. Instead, it’s designed to throw out a case — either in whole or in part — before it goes through the various stages of litigation. Typically, there’s either some serious error in law, or the case (even if the facts are assumed to be true) is still insufficient.

Originally, the Motion to Strike was to be heard in writing (which means no arguments at a hearing). However, that changed at the last moment, as the Justice decided to allow a 3 hour session. It went a bit past the allotted time, and took about 3 1/2.

If this hearing is to be any indication of where things are going, there were several main issues that needed to be addressed.

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Approximately 2/3 of the more than 600 Plaintiffs were members of the Federal Government. The other 1/3 or so were part of companies that were Federally regulated. This can create a split, as only some of them may be eligible for this lawsuit.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone, at least the employees of the Federal Government.

Most union employees, especially in the public sector, are prohibited from taking their problems to Court. Instead, they have to follow a grievance process that eventually leads to arbitration. Granted, those rulings may be appealed if the process is unfair, but that’s where things start out.

This was discussed at length at the hearing: the prospect that the majority of Plaintiffs may be barred from the case. It doesn’t appear any of them ever tried to go through arbitration.

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

While the public sector workers may be barred because of arbitration requirements, the employees of Federally regulated sectors have a different issue: did they sue the wrong people?

The notion was discussed that the individual employers ought to be sued instead, or at least in addition to the Government. After all, shouldn’t a former worker at Air Canada be suing Air Canada? Shouldn’t a former bank employee be suing that bank? Of course, there is the counter-argument that these industries were simply following the rules that Ottawa mandated.

We’ll have to see how that plays out.

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

This should be common sense, but, if people wish to take their grievances to Court and ask for money, they need to identify themselves.

Instead, there are 40 “John Does” listed, and another 49 “Jane Does”. The Crown Counsel brought this up at the hearing, and complained that he had no idea who they were. Despite the Defendants’ attempts, these people apparently remain unidentified.

It’s unclear why they weren’t named in the Statement of Claim. One possibility was that they didn’t want their names splashed around, given the rampant fundraising that was going on. It was suggested that this was to prevent retaliation against friends and family who still held jobs. However, that makes little sense, as they’d still have to be identified as some point.

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

At the hearing, the Judge stated that he would have no problems with a Statement of Claim, if it were only damages and/or declaratory relief. However, challenging the Order itself presented a complication, as it likely should have been an Application.

This alone may not be fatal. If it were simply a matter of the wrong form, the Judge could theoretically grant an extension of time to refile properly.

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

Ottawa is claiming the issue is “moot” and not worth wasting everyone’s time. Moot, in the legal sense means that the issues are over and done with, and cannot be fixed by the Court. Here, Crown Counsel states that since the Orders have lapsed, there’s nothing to try. That’s what happened with Brian Peckford’s case.

In fairness, this appears to be something that may be selectively employed to deny someone their day in Court. It seems underhanded to pull an Order (or let it expire) as a means of avoiding having to answer for it. There’s also the possibility that similar Orders may be imposed at some point in the future.

It should be noted that “moot” issues can still be tried, if the Court finds there to be compelling public interest in doing so. And so far, that has been applied unevenly.

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

This was addressed at length in the first critique of this suit. This Claim appears to not follow even the basics of the Federal Court Rules, which could lead to it getting thrown out. At a minimum the Judge could order that a rewrite be performed.

(a) Lack of material facts pleaded
(b) Overall disorganization
(c) Claim lacks particulars (specifics) needed to proceed
(d) Nature of damages needs to be clearly specified

The Motion to Strike addressed these concerns, along with several others. Striking a pleading won’t (typically) lead to the case being thrown out. However, it does take time — and hourly billings — to amend or redraft it.

The Judge did discuss the possibility of allowing a rewrite, if the Claim weren’t barred for other reasons. This includes the arbitration requirement mentioned earlier.

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Crown Counsel brought up the valid point that large sections of this Federal case are similar — and sometimes identical — to the Action4Canada case that was struck on August 29, 2022. (See Order)

Justice Alan Ross found the Action4Canada case:
(a) Prolix, or far too long
(b) Embarrassing to the Court
(c) Made non-justicable demands
(d) Was “bad beyond argument”
(e) Contained many pages of irrelevant material
(f) Was not something that could be adequately responded to
(g) Was so poorly written that mere amendments were inadequate

Now, a fair amount of the content from that NOCC, or Notice of Civil Claim, was cut and pasted into the Federal case. Not only are Plaintiffs not getting quality work, they aren’t even getting original work.

The Federal Judge would likely be obligated to strike the sections of the Claim that are identical or substantially similar to the Action4Canada case.

Despite the NOCC’s horrible quality, Justice Ross did allow Action4Canada the chance to redraft it properly. Instead, they appealed the Decision, because, reasons…

Now, the choice to let Action4Canada rewrite may very well influence this Court if it decides to allow another shot at the Federal vaxx pass case.


Predictions For The Motion Outcome?


Just a guess, but here we go:

  • The case will have to be refiled as an Application for Judicial Review
  • The (ex) Federal employees will be barred, as they should have pursued arbitration
  • The (ex) workers of Federally regulated industries will be allowed to proceed
  • All Plaintiffs will have to identify themselves
  • The pleadings will be struck in their entirety, but a rewrite will be allowed, at least for the Plaintiffs who are not barred.
  • Despite being “moot”, it will be in the public interest to proceed
  • The duplication with Action4Canada case will have to be removed
  • Expect an appeal, and more requests for donations

We’ll have to wait until the decision comes down to see how accurate all this is.

Update: a copy of the retainer agreement is now available for viewing. Turns out that Plaintiffs were paying $1,000 each for the privilege of being represented in this suit. Doesn’t look like they got their money’s worth.

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

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

(U.S.) HR 61: Bill To Expand Scope Of Hate Crimes Introduced

Remember the mass shooting in Buffalo last year that was supposedly based on the “replacement theory”? It had been predicted that this would lead to more calls for gun control, and it did.

But the other shoe has dropped. House Resolution 61 has been introduced to expand hate crime laws within the U.S., and to specifically target a certain type of crime. It was sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas.

What’s particularly alarming is how many of the terms in this Bill are not clearly defined. (See archive.) This makes it difficult to enforce, but enables it to be selectively applied. In a practical sense: it has the potential to make debate much trickier, and easier to shut down.

Yes, this is in the United States, but something similar could easily come to Canada in the not too distant future. Don’t dismiss the possibility.

To state the obvious: this is only focused on one group of people.

A BILL
To prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate
crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy in-
spired hate crime and to amend title 18, United States
Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Leading Against White
5 Supremacy Act of 2023’’.
6 SEC. 2. WHITE SUPREMACY INSPIRED HATE CRIME.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person engages in a white su-
8 premacy inspired hate crime when white supremacy
ide

2
1 ology has motivated the planning, development, prepara-
2 tion, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime
3 or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effec-
4 tuated, would have constituted a crime.
5 (b) CONSPIRACY.—A conspiracy to engage in white
6 supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to
7 exist—

8 (1) between two or more persons engaged in the
9 planning, development, preparation, or perpetration
10 of a white supremacy inspired hate crime
; or
11 (2) between two or more persons—
12 (A) at least one of whom engaged in the
13 planning, development, preparation, or per-
14 petration of a white supremacy inspired hate
15 crime;
and
16 (B) at least one of whom published mate-
17 rial advancing white supremacy, white suprema-
18 cist ideology, antagonism based on ‘‘replace-
19 ment theory’’
, or hate speech that vilifies or is
20 otherwise directed against any non-White per-
21 son or group, and such published material—
22 (i) was published on a social media
23 platform or by other means of publication
24 with the likelihood that it would be viewed
25 by persons who are predisposed to engag-

3
•HR 61 IH
1 ing in any action in furtherance of a white
2 supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are
3 susceptible to being encouraged to engage
4 in actions in furtherance of a white su-
5 premacy inspired hate crime;
6 (ii) could, as determined by a reason-
7 able person, motivate actions by a person
8 predisposed to engaging in a white suprem-
9 acy inspired hate crime or by a person who
10 is susceptible to being encouraged to en-
11 gage in actions relating to a white suprem-
12 acy inspired hate crime
; and
13 (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a
14 person who engaged in the planning, devel-
15 opment, preparation, or perpetration of a
16 white supremacy inspired hate crime.
17 (c) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY, EN-
18 FORCEMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING.—The De-
19 partment shall have authority to conduct operations and
20 activities pursuant to this section, specifically—
21 (1) with regard to information or evidence ob-
22 tained by the Department of any action cited in this
23 section, the Department shall have the authority to
24 investigate, intercede, and undertake other actions
25 that it deems necessary and appropriate to interdict,

4
•HR 61 IH
1 mitigate, or prevent such action from culminating in
2 violent activity;
3 (2) the Department shall have the authority to
4 prosecute persons who engaged in actions cited in
5 this section
; and
6 (3) the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in
7 the Department of Justice shall maintain records of
8 white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related
9 actions cited in this section
, and enforcement actions
10 in response thereto.
11 The Department shall provide annual reports to the ap-
12 propriate committees in Congress that shall include infor-
13 mation cited in this paragraph.
14 SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
15 Section 249(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
16 amended—
17 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
18 by inserting after ‘‘race, color, religion, or national
19 origin of any person’’ the following: ‘‘, or because of
20 a white supremacy based motivation against any
21 person’’
; and
22 (2) in subparagraph (B)—
23 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the
24 end;

5
•HR 61 IH
1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period
2 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
3 (C) by adding at the end the following:
4 ‘‘(iii) the offense was in furtherance of
5 a white supremacy based motivation.’’.
6 SEC. 4. FINDINGS.
7 Section 4702 of the Matthew Shepard and James
8 Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 249
9 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
10 ‘‘(11) Mass shootings and other hate crimes
11 motivated by white supremacy
have been increasing
12 in frequency and intensity. These heinous and viru-
13 lent crimes are inspired by conspiracy theories, bla-
14 tant bigotry, and mythical falsehoods such as ‘‘re-
15 placement theory’’
. All instances must be prevented
16 and severe criminal penalties must be applied to
17 their perpetrators.’’.

There is a section in HR 61 that states: Department of Justice shall maintain records of white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related actions cited in this section. Does this mean that groups that talk about the ongoing replacement in the West will be looked at? (As if they aren’t already).

Also, will law enforcement to more than simply monitor and keep records? Will there be active involvement in setting up undercover operations or honeypots?

The Bill also talks about postings on the internet which people who are “susceptible to being encouraged” might read or view the content. This is another slippery slope. It seems designed to force authors to water down whatever they say because of what some random person “might” say or do.

Census data — Government distributed — in countries across the West have shown considerable demographic changes (or replacement, depending on your slant) over the last 60 or so years. Was it racist to have generated this information in the first place? Is it racist to openly and honestly discuss what is happening?

Moreover, the mainstream media has addressed this topic many times in the last few decades. It’s openly predicted that most countries in the West will be majority non-white by the end of this century, if not sooner. This is hardly a secret.

Hate crimes are already illegal in the U.S. So, why is this specific Bill necessary?

To play devil’s advocate here: this could simply be about grandstanding. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician put forth legislation they never planned to advance in order to score points. Then again, it may not be the case.

The vague and undefined definitions and explanations are possibly the worst part, as there are no actual standards to be applied.

(1) https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr61/BILLS-118hr61ih.pdf
(2) BILLS 118 House Resolution 61
(3) https://www.congress.gov/member/sheila-jackson-lee/J000032
(4) https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory
(5) https://www.businessinsider.com/buffalo-mass-shooting-latest-linked-to-great-replacement-theory-2022-5?op=1

Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice

It’s the most harmless sounding names that are most chilling.

The Government of Canada has announced a new agreement with the United States and Mexico: The Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice. Mélanie Joly, Foreign Affairs Minister, also tweeted about it.

While this sounds fine enough, the vague wording of much of the text is cause for concern.

Considering the lengths that these countries have gone in establishing equal rights, it seems unproductive to keep pushing the narrative that there’s all these hate groups and institutions. It comes across as having the effect of making peaceful co-existence impossible, and maybe that’s the point.

It’s unclear what exactly “racial justice” would involve. If it were simply equal rights, then it would be very different to oppose. But would it be reparations? This idea has been floated in recent years. Perhaps it involves affirmative action or quotas in various institutions.

To address the obvious: this document doesn’t advocate for “equality”. That would be equal rights and opportunities between people. That would be fine. Instead, it calls for “equity”, which is equality of outcome, and sounds pretty much like Communism.

There’s a bit of a bait-and-switch here as the document calls on partners to: “root out the barriers to equal opportunity”. However, they are pushing equity (equality of outcome), while attempting to persuade others that it’s about equal opportunity.

Declaration between the Government of the United Mexican States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the United States of America.

Across our three nations, generations of leaders have fought to build democracies where people from richly diverse histories and cultures share the equal promise of freedom and inclusion. Our diversity is North America’s greatest strength, as it boosts innovation, leads to economic growth, enriches our democracies, and advances our security.

Yet in spite of our progress, many across North America continue to face intersecting forms of systemic racism, discrimination and hate because of who they are, whom they love, the language they speak, their nation of origin, the color of their skin, and their religion or beliefs. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, religion, belief, language, and socio-economic status persist throughout our region and in each of our countries. Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples, who have lived in North America since time immemorial, continue to face unacceptable disparities and barriers, as do other communities with lived experience of discrimination and racism. Systemic racism, expressions of white supremacy and discrimination in all forms diminish our economic growth, limit our prosperity, undermine national and regional security, and threaten the durability of our democracies. To unleash North America’s full and vast potential, we must comprehensively address these barriers and challenges.

Building on efforts in our respective countries to advance equity and racial justice, at the 2021 North American Leaders’ Summit President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared their commitment to building just, inclusive, and equitable democracies that combat systemic racism and discrimination in all forms. Following that declaration, we committed to working together to create a North America in which every individual has an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential and equal participation in social, cultural, economic, and political life.

We now establish this North American Partnership as a reflection of our common commitments to advancing equity and racial justice within our countries, and our intent to work collaboratively to address systemic forms of discrimination and honor the diverse tapestry of histories, customs, cultures, languages, identities, ethnicities, abilities, and beliefs that make North America strong.

In recognition of our close ties and shared vision, the Participants in this Partnership will:

(1) Work within our own countries to affirmatively advance equity and racial justice, and to comprehensively root out the barriers to equal opportunity that marginalized communities continue to face.

(2) Establish a Trilateral Racial Equity and Inclusion Expert Network to facilitate the exchange of information to share best practices and innovative strategies developed across our three countries for advancing equity and racial justice in our public policies and societies, and to help identify further action areas for the Partnership. In establishing this expert exchange, we will seek opportunities to engage communities with lived experience of racism and discrimination on driving solutions to protect the rights of members of marginalized communities; advance health equity and economic inclusion; address racial and other disparities in the justice system, access to the ballot, and educational opportunities; and reflect the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce.

(3) Collaborate together to advance equity and racial justice through our participation in regional and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and other fora. This includes advancing the rights and aspirations enshrined in multilateral commitments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Decade for People of African Descent, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and other joint undertakings.

Discrimination against people “for who they love”, is presumably referring to adults of the same sex. However, it wouldn’t take much to expand that to include pedophilia, as the language is very vague. As for gender identity, many would agree that this has been forced on the public far too much already.

“Reflect[ing] the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce” is code for hiring quotas. Most people can agree that a merit-based civil service is the best way to have it. Social engineering shouldn’t push that principle aside

As for “address racial and other disparities in the justice system”, does this mean something like Gladue Rights across the continent? This would be race-based discounts in criminal court, due to overrepresentation of certain groups.

This agreement also endorses the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030), and connects equity and racial justice to that.

The claim that certain groups “face unacceptable disparities and barriers” is telling, even if hard to understand. Disparities simply refers to differences in overall outcomes. This can be for many reasons, and is not necessarily discrimination. But it goes on imply that these differences are the direct result of some barriers that are put in place. This follows the assumption that groups of people would essentially be the same if others wouldn’t oppress them in some way.

An obvious example is the long debunked wage gap. Just because men and woman — on average — make different personal and lifestyle choices, doesn’t mean discrimination took place.

While the text sounds well meaning enough, domestic implementation of such ideals would invite even more Government overreach and interference.

And a logistical question: what would happen to people who decide that they want nothing to do with such a system? What punishments would they face?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/federal-anti-racism-secretariat/declaration-partnership-equality-racial-justice.html
(2) https://twitter.com/melaniejoly/status/1612801847076749314
(3) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice/
(4) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice-2/

Postmedia Periodicals: Taxpayer Handouts From 2015 – 2022

The handouts really took off in September 2015, when Stephen Harper was still Prime Minister. In the last article, someone commented that Trudeau was in office. In reality, that didn’t happen until November 2015 (the election was in October). Anyhow, as for what Postmedia has been getting, here are some numbers.

Also noteworthy is that there was another spike in 2020. The likely reason is that periodicals that previously wouldn’t have met the threshold for subsidies would now have qualified anyway.

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Airdrie Echo Apr 1, 2020 $18,210
Bow Valley Crag & Canyon Apr 1, 2020 $29,507
Chatham-Kent This Week Apr 1, 2020 $55,450
Clinton News Record Sep 4, 2015 $22,737.00
Clinton News Record Jun 1, 2016 $23,545.00
Clinton News Record Jul 4, 2017 $24,218.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2018 $22,525.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2019 $21,086.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2020 $21,086
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2020 $5,272
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2021 $15,629.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2021 $2,228.00
Clinton News Record Apr 1, 2022 $12,979.00
The Cochrane Times Post Sep 4, 2015 $28,086.00
The Cochrane Times Post Jun 1, 2016 $30,384.00
The Cochrane Times Post Jul 4, 2017 $30,368.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2018 $28,200.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2019 $25,118.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2020 $19,730
The Cochrane Times-Post Apr 1, 2020 $25,118
The Cochrane Times-Post Apr 1, 2020 $6,280
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2021 $21,449.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2021 $3,058.00
The Cochrane Times Post Apr 1, 2022 $19,026.00
The Cold Lake Sun Apr 1, 2020 $20,629
The Courier Press Apr 1, 2020 $18,333
Devon Dispatch Apr 1, 2020 $18,529
The Drayton Valley Western Review Sep 4, 2015 $43,553.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Jun 1, 2016 $45,401.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Jul 4, 2017 $47,170.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2018 $43,548.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2019 $36,803.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2020 $36,803
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2020 $9,201
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2021 $30,227.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2021 $4,310.00
The Drayton Valley Western Review Apr 1, 2022 $23,327.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2018 $45,771.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2019 $43,679.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2020 $43,679
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2020 $10,920
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2021 $42,191.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2021 $6,015.00
Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance Apr 1, 2022 $40,516.00
The Fairview Post Sep 4, 2015 $24,882.00
The Fairview Post Jun 1, 2016 $24,404.00
The Fairview Post Jul 4, 2017 $24,837.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2018 $24,474.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2019 $21,966.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2020 $21,966
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2020 $5,492
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2021 $19,984.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2021 $2,849.00
The Fairview Post Apr 1, 2022 $18,195.00
Fort McMurray Today Apr 1, 2020 $45,970
Goderich Signal Star Sep 4, 2015 $59,801.00
Goderich Signal Star Jun 1, 2016 $63,126.00
Goderich Signal Star Jul 4, 2017 $68,550.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2018 $67,698.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2019 $66,744.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2020 $66,744
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2020 $16,686
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2021 $53,353.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2021 $7,607.00
Goderich Signal Star Apr 1, 2022 $48,812.00
The Graphic Leader Apr 1, 2020 $24,378
The Grove Examiner Apr 1, 2020 $54,973.00
Hanna Herald Sep 4, 2015 $19,578.00
Hanna Herald Jun 1, 2016 $17,247.00
Hanna Herald Jul 4, 2017 $14,934.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2018 $14,835.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2019 $12,539.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2020 $12,539
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2021 $11,724.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2021 $1,672.00
Hanna Herald Apr 1, 2022 $12,190.00
High River Times Apr 1, 2020 $18,012.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Sep 4, 2015 $22,616.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Jun 1, 2016 $24,454.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Jul 4, 2017 $26,059.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2018 $24,960.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2019 $23,501.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr. 1, 2020 $23,501
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr. 1, 2020 $5,875
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2021 $11,038.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2021 $2,109.00
Huron Expositor (Seaforth) Apr 1, 2022 $11,038.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Sep 4, 2015 $12,877.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Jun 1, 2016 $11,255.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Jul 4, 2017 $10,309.00
Ingersoll Times (The) Apr 1, 2018 $8,543.00
The Journal Apr 1, 2020 $29,340
Kenora Miner & News Apr 1, 2020 $44,217.00
The Kincardine News Apr 1, 2020 $18,210
Kings County Record Apr 1, 2022 $43,730.00
The Kingsville Reporter Sep 4, 2015 $22,709.00
The Kingsville Reporter Jun 1, 2016 $23,318.00
The Kingsville Reporter Jul 4, 2017 $23,540.00
The Kingsville Reporter Apr 1, 2018 $23,331.00
The Kingsville Reporter Apr 1, 2019 $22,407.00
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend) Sep 4, 2015 $17,070.00
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend) Jun 1, 2016 $18,137.00
Lakeshore Advance (Grand Bend) Jul 4, 2017 $19,119.00
Leduc Rep Apr 1, 2020 $40,857
The Londoner Apr 1, 2020 $18,210
The Lucknow Sentinel Sep 4, 2015 $18,460.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Jun 1, 2016 $18,423.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Jul 4, 2017 $18,902.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2018 $18,832.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2019 $17,215.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2020 $17,215
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2021 $14,828.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2021 $2,114.00
The Lucknow Sentinel Apr 1, 2022 $13,367.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Sep 4, 2015 $9,828.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Jun 1, 2016 $10,957.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Jul 4, 2017 $11,895.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2018 $11,964.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2019 $10,156.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2020 $10,156
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2021 $12,288.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2021 $1,752.00
The Mayerthorpe Freelancer Apr 1, 2022 $10,893.00
Melfort Journal (The) Sep 4, 2015 $24,293.00
Melfort Journal (The) Jun 1, 2016 $24,134.00
Melfort Journal (The) Jul 4, 2017 $24,541.00
Melfort Journal (The) Apr 1, 2018 $25,021.00
Melfort Journal (The) Apr 1, 2019 $23,562.00
The Mid-North Monitor Sep 4, 2015 $18,702.00
The Mid-North Monitor Jun 1, 2016 $16,844.00
The Mid-North Monitor Jul 4, 2017 $17,388.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2018 $16,342.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2019 $13,959.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2020 $13,959
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2021 $12,037.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2021 $1,716.00
The Mid-North Monitor Apr 1, 2022 $11,958.00
The Mitchell Advocate Sep 4, 2015 $34,254.00
The Mitchell Advocate Jun 1, 2016 $37,250.00
The Mitchell Advocate Jul 4, 2017 $37,347.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2018 $37,940.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2019 $36,312.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $36,312
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $9,078
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $33,859.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $4,827.00
The Mitchell Advocate Apr 1, 2022 $34,680.00
The Nanton News Sep 4, 2015 $9,860.00
The Nanton News Jun 1, 2016 $10,075.00
The Nanton News Jul 4, 2017 $11,804.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2018 $11,529.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2019 $10,060.00
Nanton News Apr 1, 2020 $10,060
Nanton News Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2021 $10,503.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2021 $1,497.00
The Nanton News Apr 1, 2022 $8,193.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Sep 4, 2015 $18,445.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Jun 1, 2016 $19,839.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Jul 4, 2017 $18,349.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Apr 1, 2018 $19,460.00
Nipawin Journal (The) Apr 1, 2019 $17,024.00
Northern Light Apr 1, 2022 $30,161.00
Northern News This Week Apr 1, 2020 $39,207
Northern Times (The) Sep 4, 2015 $28,403.00
Northern Times (The) Jun 1, 2016 $23,393.00
Northern Times (The) Jul 4, 2017 $20,040.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Sep 4, 2015 $14,323.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Jun 1, 2016 $13,672.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Jul 4, 2017 $13,751.00
Norwich Gazette (The) Apr 1, 2018 $13,203.00
Ontario Farmer Sep 4, 2015 $711,372.00
Ontario Farmer Jun 1, 2016 $766,553.00
Ontario Farmer Jul 4, 2017 $830,958.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2018 $866,359.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2019 $855,254.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2020 $855,254
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2020 $213,814
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2021 $817,081.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2021 $116,496.00
Ontario Farmer Apr 1, 2022 $829,881.00
Pembroke Observer & News Apr 1, 2020 $50,195
Petrolia Topic Sep 4, 2015 $17,584.00
Petrolia Topic Jun 1, 2016 $13,988.00
Petrolia Topic Jul 4, 2017 $13,045.00
Petrolia Topic Apr 1, 2018 $11,529.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Sep 4, 2015 $19,473.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Jun 1, 2016 $17,369.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Jul 4, 2017 $17,830.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2018 $16,734.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2019 $14,512.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2020 $14,512
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2021 $12,273.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2021 $1,750.00
The Pincher Creek Echo Apr 1, 2022 $12,024.00
The Post Apr 1, 2020 $34,234
The Record Apr 1, 2020 $29,688
Record-Gazette Sep 4, 2015 $24,641.00
Record-Gazette Jun 1, 2016 $25,499.00
Record-Gazette Jul 4, 2017 $30,464.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2018 $26,074.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2019 $20,152.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2020 $20,152
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2020 $5,038
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2021 $16,080.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2021 $2,293.00
Record-Gazette Apr 1, 2022 $9,558.00
Sarnia & Lambton County This Week Apr 1, 2020 $17,172
Sault This Week Apr 1, 2020 $144,121
Shoreline Beacon Sep 4, 2015 $47,020.00
Shoreline Beacon Jun 1, 2016 $42,554.00
Shoreline Beacon Jul 4, 2017 $45,071.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2018 $43,511.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2019 $39,074.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2020 $39,074
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2020 $9,769
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2021 $30,263.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2021 $4,315.00
Shoreline Beacon Apr 1, 2022 $28,816.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Sep 4, 2015 $50,183.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Jun 1, 2016 $49,929.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2019 $47,825.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2020 $47,825
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2020 $11,956
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2021 $39,545.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2021 $5,638.00
The Standard (Elliot Lake) Apr 1, 2022 $29,462.00
The Standard (Sudbury) Jul 4, 2017 $51,533.00
The Standard (Sudbury) Apr 1, 2018 $50,234.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Sep 4, 2015 $26,167.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Jun 1, 2016 $17,299.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Jul 4, 2017 $15,567.00
Strathroy Age Dispatch Apr 1, 2018 $14,082.00
Tilbury Times Sep 4, 2015 $16,677.00
Tilbury Times Jun 1, 2016 $18,047.00
Tilbury Times Jul 4, 2017 $17,675.00
Tilbury Times Apr 1, 2018 $17,827.00
Tilbury Times Apr 1, 2019 $17,493.00
Tillsonburg News Sep 4, 2015 $30,683.00
The Timmins Times Apr 1, 2020 $19,582
The Tribune Apr 1, 2022 $32,987.00
The Trentonian Apr 1, 2020 $32,614
Vermilion Standard Apr 1, 2020 $20,765.00
The Vulcan Advocate Sep 4, 2015 $24,641.00
The Vulcan Advocate Jun 1, 2016 $16,756.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2018 $20,573.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2019 $19,194.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $19,194
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2020 $5,000
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $17,417.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2021 $2,483.00
The Vulcan Advocate Apr 1, 2022 $17,731.00
Weekender Times-Advance Apr 1, 2020 $44,932
The Wetaskiwin Times Apr 1, 2020 $14,794
The Whitecourt Star Sep 4, 2015 $29,083.00
The Whitecourt Star Jul 4, 2017 $27,757.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2018 $23,818.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2019 $21,086.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2020 $21,872
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2020 $5,272
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2021 $17,624.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2021 $2,513.00
The Whitecourt Star Apr 1, 2022 $18,817.00
The Wiarton Echo Sep 4, 2015 $26,741.00
The Wiarton Echo Jun 1, 2016 $29,913.00
The Wiarton Echo Jul 4, 2017 $30,176.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2018 $32,003.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2019 $24,872.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2020 $24,872
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2020 $6,218
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2021 $21,881.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2021 $3,120.00
The Wiarton Echo Apr 1, 2022 $17,342.00

While it looks like there is double dipping in 2020/2021, the smaller grants are classified as “Aboriginal recipient”. That’s why there are multiple entries. 2020 is also when the “special measures for Covid” grants were being handed out.

These are not just one-off occurrences, where an outlet is short of cash and needs help. Instead, subsidies appear to be built into their respective business models.

Of course, these grants don’t take into account other indirect contributions, just as Government buying up ad space. That was extremely common occurrence over the last few years.

Do we have any sort of real media when everyone — including the “independents” — are getting handouts from the Federal Government? Doesn’t seem like it.

Digital Citizen Contribution Program & The Paris Call

It’s no secret that very little (if anything) the Canadian Government does actually originates organically from within this country. Typically, some international body or N.G.O. is responsible for setting it in motion. And efforts to combat misinformation online are no exception.

Activities like the Digital Citizen Initiative and Digital Citizen Contribution Program understandably raise questions. In a free and open society, should the Government be attempting to influence and manipulate public opinion on important topics? Why are we paying for this? And does this sort of thing end up doing an end run around democracy? (Not that we really have one)

Is advancing international cyber norms something Ottawa should be involved with? (See original)

All of that said, a more basic question needs to be asked:

Who’s really behind it?

Turns out that this stems from a 2018 agreement that received little coverage in the mainstream press. Here is how it’s explained on the Paris Call website.

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron launched the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace with the goal of addressing new cyberspace threats that could endanger citizens and infrastructure. The Paris Call invites all cyberspace actors to work together and encourages states to cooperate internationally with private sector partners, the world of research, and civil society organizations.

Supporters of the Paris Call commit to working together to adopt responsible behaviour and secure cyberspace, based on a set of nine common principles. These principles act as a non-binding declaration and set a precedent as the largest-ever multi-stakeholder cybersecurity agreement in modern history.

Today, over 95 governments, nearly 350 international organizations, as well as more than 600 private sector entities have endorsed the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly pledged Canada’s support for the Paris Call in November 2018.

The media grants to “safeguard democracy” are somewhat known in media and political circles. But what isn’t discussed is the international agreement done to make this happen.

Now, were any referendums or election campaigns ever held on joining some initiative like this? No. And it raises the question of who exactly will be setting the standards, enforcing the standards, and what kind of private information that will be shared.

Of course, Microsoft is involved in this project, because, why not?

As with all (or at least, most) agreements, this is considered non-binding. However, Government treats it as if it were a legitimate obligation. Now, what are the ideas behind this?

9 Principles of the Paris Call:

  • Protect individuals and infrastructure
  • Protect the Internet
  • Defend electoral processes
  • Defend intellectual property
  • Non-proliferation
  • Lifecycle security & supply chain security
  • Cyber hygiene
  • No private hack back
  • International Norms

On their own, these principles seem harmless, and in fact beneficial. But with all things, the details of how it would be implemented are worth looking at.

The Paris Call is supported by some 400 N.G.O.s and 700 private corporations, at least, according to recent updates on the site. That of course raises the question of who’s just there in a symbolic capacity, and who was actually involved in drafting these documents. They emphasize multi-stakeholder participation at the U.N., without really specifying.

Here, the Government uses taxpayer money to “combat harmful disinformation“. Now, it doesn’t (yet) call for the banning of certain viewpoints, but it does mean subsidizing and financing favourable ones.

This has led to the Digital Democracy Project and the “Media Literacy Week“, among other initiatives. The Federal Government is using taxpayer money to domestically implement an international agreement for cyberspace security.

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program was an initiative to hand out fairly large sums of money to “media influencers” that could potentially sway public opinion on a number of different topics.

The amounts and recipients of earlier grants were previously covered here. That addressed the DCCP, but was not exhaustive of these programs.

This seems like rebranded efforts such as Internet Governance Forum and the Digital Cooperation. Both of which were heavily influenced by the United Nations.

Special Ukraine Crisis Call
In the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this special call is aimed to address the growing spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation. The special targeted call was launched to fund initiatives that help people identify misinformation and disinformation online.

Yes, the Feds actually had a program to contract out influential people that could manipulate public opinion on the Ukraine-Russia situation. Is war propaganda ethical at all?

It’s not a stretch to see politicians go to the next level, and start banning or restricting viewpoints that contradict official narratives. It’s been talked out before.

One final point: let’s not pretend that this is limited to Trudeau or the Liberals. Had Stephen Harper been re-elected in 2015, he surely would have signed onto it.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-disinformation/digital-citizen-contribution-program.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2022/03/government-of-canada-reinforces-support-to-organizations-to-help-counter-harmful-disinformation.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/news/2020/05/paris-call-trust-and-security-in-cyberspace.html
(4) https://pariscall.international/en/
(5) https://pariscall.international/en/principles
(6) https://pariscall.international/assets/files/10-11-WG3-Multistakeholder-participation-at-the-UN-The-need-for-greater-inclusivity-in-the-UN-dialogues-on-cybersecurity.pdf
(7) https://pariscall.international/assets/files/WG4-Final-Report-101121.pdf
(8) Paris Call Advancing International Norms
(9) Paris Call Text

Byram Bridle Lawsuit Unlikely To Ever Get Anywhere

Several people recently forwarded this lawsuit from Byram Bridle, filed just before Christmas. He’s a Professor at the University of Guelph, and has had an eventful last few years. The Claim is 73 pages long, demands $3 million, and is interesting…. to say the least.

It’s difficult to know what’s true and exaggerated, simply because it reads like a comedy skit. The Statement of Claim alleges grand conspiracies between the University of Guelph, various employees and administrators, and some “experts” online.

Also, one of the people Bridle sued is a lawyer in that Province. It appears doubtful this will go over well with the Law Society of Ontario, especially given Galati’s $500,000 suit against them and their former intake officer. That one was filed July 2022, and is facing a Rule 21 Motion to Strike.

Allegedly, they’re all working together to financially and professionally destroy Bridle, because…. reasons, or something. It’s never made clear.

On December 19th, 2022, Dr. Byram Bridle issued a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court. The expert vaccinologist, and viral immunologist, states that he has been viciously and falsely attacked by some of his colleagues, with the complicity of the University administration. Some of the Defendants include the President of University of Guelph, Dean Wichtel, Administrator Arnott, Professor Pyle, Professor Weese, and Dr. David Fisman at the University of Toronto.

Also, it’s a bit unclear how to describe Bridle himself. He’s portrayed as an expert in vaccines and immunology, and was developing vaccines against Covid-19. Granted, that doesn’t exist, but that’s another issue. In the same document, he’s a vocal advocate against people getting these shots.

In this scenario, Bridle is about the only rational one. Others are trying to harass, bully, intimidate and crush him. Again, it’s hard to know what’s real, what’s exaggerated, and what’s flat out untrue.

One disturbing trend within the “freedom movement” is that many see nothing wrong with using the Courts to silence people they disagree with. Kulvinder Gill and the Canadian Frontline Nurses are recent examples.

Does Bridle have a valid case? Maybe, but as it’s written, it’s pretty hard to read without laughing. Guess we’ll have to see.


Why Bridle lawsuit will never go anywhere


Aside from the issues noted above, there’s a bigger problem. The Statement of Claim came from the Constitutional Rights Centre, which has a history of filing: (a) very poorly drafted suits; and (b) letting lawsuits sit for months or years without activity.

Here are some recent ones:

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.
  • Adelberg et al. v. Attorney General et al. Federal Court #T-1089-22. Filed May 2022. Motion to Strike commenced November 2022.

Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed $12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.

Gill and Lamba bizarrely decided to appeal that dismissal. Given how baseless the original defamation suit was, this will just lead to much larger cost awards when it’s finally thrown out. There had been talk of a second Appeal, one specific to the cost Order.

Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another SLAPP Motion.

Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will waste time and money.

Federal Vaxx Pass challenge is facing a Motion to Strike. Among other defects, the Attorney General notes that it’s largely a cut and paste of the Action4Canada suit.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served. Note: see below.

Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was over 3 years ago.

Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021, nearly 2 years ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.

Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021. It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant for almost 2 years.

This is not the work of people who are truly committed to seeing their cases through. These seem much more like placeholders. There’s no reason to assume Bridle’s case will be treated with any urgency.


Finally movement with Vaccine Choice Canada case?


When perusing the Ontario Superior Court SEARCH, this was recently updated for Vaccine Choice. Apparently, there is a case conference set for January 17, 2023, which just a few weeks away.

This was a bit of a surprise, considering that the case was 2 1/2 years old, with no activity. Most likely, this conference is to set down a hearing date for a Motion to Strike. After all, the case is still in its infancy, and is nowhere near ready for a trial. The Parties haven’t yet appeared even a single time.

The 191 page document doesn’t comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, so this outcome shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Also see here, and see here.

If the Ontario Attorney General is going to attempt to have this suit thrown out, the above reviews will outline what to expect.

As for the Bridle lawsuit, don’t expect it to go anywhere, anytime soon. It wouldn’t be a shock if it just remained idle for the next 3-5 years.

BRIDLE LAWSUIT
(1) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(14) A4C Dismissal Order As Entered By BCSC

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(3) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(4) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(5) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(6) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(7) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

%d bloggers like this: