Category: Types of Law

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 4: October Hearing To Be Postponed Into 2025

The long anticipated hearing of Adam Skelly challenging the Reopening Ontario Act (R.O.A.) has been delayed again, this time, until 2025. It was supposed to begin next week, and last for 3 days. See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

The prime reason seems to be that one of the expert witnesses has withdrawn, leaving Skelly scrambling to find a replacement.

Justice Akazaki vacated the dates, while questioning whether or not the hearings could be squeezed into a single day, or 2.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a request to adjourn and reschedule a three-day hearing of a constitutional challenge to a provincial offence arising from the alleged breach of the Ontario Covid-19 lockdown order.

[2] The OCJ has stayed the provincial offence trial. The applicant / accused has waived his s. 11(b) rights. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the need to avoid further delay. The OCJ proceeding largely entails an agreed statement of fact.

[3] The adjournment was necessitated by the withdrawal of one of the applicant’s expert witnesses. There are also additional steps to be undertaken.

[4] The main impediment to scheduling the return date was the dispute over the length of the hearing. The applicant maintained the case requires three days. The respondents both stated the hearing can be completed in one day.

[5] There is an advantage to having the duration of the hearing settled by a case conference judge, once counsel have organized the completion of the next steps. If the hearing can take place during one day or two instead of three, the hearing can be scheduled earlier and without taking up unnecessary hearing dates.

[6] Therefore, I hereby order:
1. The October 1, 2, and 7, 2024, hearing dates are hereby vacated.
2. The parties shall request a case conference at the earliest opportunity, once the next steps have been agreed, to reschedule the hearing

Why does all of this still matter? For starters, the R.O.A. is still on the books, even if there are no orders in effect from it. This means that in theory, a new “crisis” could lead to future dictates.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Skelly – Restraining Order Deferred Matter
(2) Skelly – Restraining Order Decision, December 2020
(3) Skelly – Criminal Court Limits What He Can Post Online
(4) Skelly – Judge Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Case, June 2021
(5) Skelly – Costs Of $15,000 Ordered For Failed Motion
(6) Skelly – Costs From 2020 Kimmel Decision, Previously Deferred
(7) Skelly – Motion For Security For Costs Decision, September 2023

2020/2021 COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Application Record Restraining Order (Michael Swinwood)
(2) Skelly – Notice of Constitutional Question (February)
(3) Skelly – Amended Notice Of Constitutional Question (June)
(4) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondents (Applicants)
(5) Skelly – Book of Transcripts – Respondent on Motion – HMTQ
(6) Skelly – 2021 Motion Factum
(7) Skelly – 2021 Motion Amended Factum – Respondents (Applicants)
(8) Skelly – 2021 Motion Responding Factum
(9) Skelly – 2021 Motion Reply Factum

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL SWINWOOD:
(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS:
(1) Skelly – Notice Of Application (Ian Perry)
(2) Skelly – Costs – Notice of Motion – Moving Party (Respondent) HMTK
(3) Skelly – Costs – Motion Record-Moving Party (Respondent)
(4) Skelly – Costs – Applicant Responding Motion Record Security For Costs
(5) Skelly – Costs – Factum – Moving Party – HMK
(6) Skelly – Costs – Responding Factum Applicants Skelly et al
(7) Skelly – Justice Akazaki Deferral Of Case

EXPERT REPORTS:
(1A) Skelly – Byram Bridle Resume
(1B) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Report
(1C) Skelly – Byram Bridle Expert Reply Report

(2A) Skelly – Douglas Allen Resume
(2B) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report
(2C) Skelly – Douglas Allen Expert Report

(3A) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Resume
(3B) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Report
(3C) Skelly – Gilbert Berdine Expert Reply Report

(4A) Skelly – Harvey Risch Affidavit
(4B) Skelly – Harvey Risch Expert Report

(5A) Skelly – Joel Kettner Resume
(5B) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Report
(5C) Skelly – Joel Kettner Expert Reply Report

(6A) Skelly – William Briggs Resume
(6B) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Report
(6C) Skelly – William Briggs Expert Reply Report

Posted on

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Just before Parliament took its Summer recess in 2024, NDP Member of Parliament, Jenny Kwan, introduced 2 Private Member’s Bills: C-398 and C-399.

Both are in the introductory stage in the House of Commons. While Private Bills don’t commonly become law, there’s always the possibility they will. There’s also the prospect that the contents will simply be incorporated into a larger, Government Bill.

Starting with Bill C-398, it would create the “right” to set up homeless encampments on Federal land. It would amend the National Housing Strategy Act in several places. Authorities would be prevented from blocking them, or shutting them down. And for reference:

Homeless encampment means an outdoor settlement of one or more temporary structures, such as tents, vehicles or other structures that are not designed or intended for permanent human habitation but that one or more persons experiencing homelessness use as their residence.‍ (campement d’itinérants).

(e) establish measures to prevent the removal of homeless encampments on federal land and to identify alternatives to homeless encampments following meaningful engagement with their residents; and

(f) provide for processes to ensure that Indigenous peoples are actively involved and supported in determining and developing culturally appropriate housing-related programs and that responses to homeless encampments respect their rights.

Bill C-398 does talk about “identifying alternatives to homeless encampments”. Presumably this means providing people with low or no-cost housing. Interestingly, there’s nothing in the legislation that says it will only apply to Canadian citizens, or permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

Logically, anyone who entered the country illegally, who who overstayed their visa, would be entitled to the same protections.

Mandate
10 (1) The mandate of the Ombud is to examine the practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory, and to conduct investigations if the Ombud has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of persons has been the victim of unfairness, inequity, bias, racism or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — in the Department’s decision-making process.

Duties and functions
(2) The Ombud’s duties and functions include
(a) reviewing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s policies, programs, initiatives, training procedures and processing standards to identify fairness or equity problems in the Department’s administration of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including those resulting from biases and discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination;
(b) receiving and, if appropriate, investigating complaints, including complaints about the problems referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) monitoring trends and patterns in complaints in order to identify the problems referred to in paragraph (a); and
(d) making recommendations to the Minister regarding any unfairness, inequity, bias or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — that the Ombud identifies.

Kwan wants to create an ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” policies and practices are being implemented by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. She also wants that ombudsman to make recommendations to the Minister in order to help this along.

Now, while the connection may seem tenuous, consider this:

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada’s border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Back in April 2018, Kwan posted on her website that she had been calling on the Trudeau Government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. The reason for doing this is so that people entering from the United States — to claim asylum — could simply stroll into any official port of entry.

In November 2018, Kwan called for the Safe Third Country Agreement to be suspended, claiming that the U.S. (under Donald Trump) wasn’t a “safe country”.

In March 2020, she wrote to Trudeau and Freeland, protesting that illegals trying to cross from the U.S. were being turned back.

Taken together, what does this all mean?

It means that Kwan, who is pro-open borders, supports having illegals come in from the U.S., and presumably elsewhere as well. On one hand, she introduces Bill C-398, which entrenches the “right” of people to set up encampments on Federal land. On the other, she has Bill C-399, which creates and ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” immigration policies are enforced, and to make recommendations to the Minister.

Will taxpayer funded “housing for illegals” become a human right?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-398
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jenny-kwan(89346)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-398/first-reading
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
(5) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-399
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-399/first-reading
(7) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/on_irregular_border_crossings
(8) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/emergency_study_on_irregular_border_crossings
(9) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/open_letter_to_deputy_prime_minister_on_border_restriction

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(18) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(19) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(20) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(21) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Bill C-293 (International Pandemic Treaty) Revisited: Concerns Raised Over Food Supply

Bill C-293 was covered in early 2023. This is a Private Member’s Bill for domestic implementation of the International Pandemic Treaty, and is now in the Senate.

Parliament had hearings back in late 2023, and those same issues may come up in the Senate. In particular, several groups raised concerns about the food supply should this legislation pass. Specifically, these would include:

  • regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture
  • promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins
  • phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

Back in 2017, there was a major initiative from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to push for mass production of “plant proteins”. For ideological reasons, the Government was trying to phase out meat.

Some participants in the hearings expressed concerns that echoed this.

1. Canadian Federation of Agriculture

However, we write today to express significant concerns with aspects Bill C-293, particularly in its impact on the Canadian animal agriculture sector. While the primary objective of the Bill is pandemic prevention and preparedness, it contains content and language that will adversely affect Canadian farmers and ranchers if passed in its current form. Specifically, we are concerned by the Bill’s language around livestock farming, the promotion of alternative proteins, and the focus on animal agriculture in the context of antimicrobial resistance rather than within the more comprehensive One Health perspective.

Irrelevant focus on alternative proteins, in the context of pandemic preparedness
.
In particular, section 4 (2) (I) of Bill C-293 dissents from the tone and language used throughout other
sections of the Bill and instead, includes language promoting the production and use of alternative proteins and the regulation of animal agriculture, and the phase-out of high-risk species.

2. Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario

Animal Agriculture
Section 4 (2) (l) (ii – iv) directly correlate animal agriculture with increased pandemic risk. These sections further direct the promotion of “alternative proteins,” based on a notion of reduced pandemic risk. This language unfairly represents the risks posed by animal agriculture. These sections of the Bill, as worded, further require drastic action including measures to regulate” animal agriculture and to “phase out…high risk species” in response to this exaggerated notion of risk. These sections should also be removed from the Bill.

Drastic actions, such as those suggested in the current wording of the Bill, in the case of food animals in particular, would result in loss of food supply, economic losses, and increased cost of food, among other effects.

3. Chicken Farmers of Canada

While the majority of the Bill uses overarching language to describe the work of the Advisory Committee on pandemic response (as appointed by the Minister of Health) and the content of their reports, Section 4 (2) (l) is very specific in its intent to promote alternative proteins, regulate animal agriculture and phase out high-risk species.

CFC believes that the basis of this section makes a judgment call that animal agriculture is the cause of pandemics – a notion that is not supported and does not represent the cause of diseases listed in the preamble of the Bill. This premise is tied to the initiative of promoting the production of alternate proteins, which is a specific example not seen elsewhere in the Bill. Initiatives to promote alternative proteins in a Bill on pandemic prevention and preparedness is misplaced and misaligned with the Bill’s objectives. CFC believes that Section 4 (2) (l) is too limiting in its direction and in turn could distract the Advisory Committee from more beneficial areas of work.

4. Canada Mink Breeders Association

1. Remove Clause 2(l)(iii)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins

2. Remove Clause 2(l)(iv)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

3. Remove Clause 2(m)(ii)
(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
• (ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets

All of these groups raised concerns that social policies would be implemented through the backdoor, under the guise of “pandemic prevention”.

A group called Results Canada took a very different approach. It asked that Bill C-293 be amended to include something called “surge financing”. It appears to be an attempt to trigger easier access to money, in the event of a “pandemic”,

4(2)(n.1) “a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Finance, of the measures the Minister intends to take to support the availability of surge financing, as well as the funding of pandemic preparedness and response by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other relevant international organizations;”

Lisa Barrett, the infamous Nova Scotia doctor who had pushed lockdowns, said that she preferred that the Bill be altered in a way where the “correct” science could be promoted.

Again, it’s not specifically about the bill, but I could link it to the bill.

I think that having pieces of misinformation and disinformation out there like that, particularly around vaccination, is part of the issue. If this bill can actually develop a process where science is promoted, as well as the dissemination of science in a trustful way, we could probably get rid of a lot of those statements. Those are not statements I would support, and I think it’s a demonstration of overt mis- and disinformation from certain individuals. Hopefully, we can get beyond that and maybe there’s some use for a bill like this to promote it.
As with most of these Bills, the devil is in the details. The broad outline provided does nothing to answer specifics regarding food supply. Presumably, there would be regulations made by unelected bureaucrats.

Private Member’s Bills usually go nowhere. But this one is already in the Senate. Where did Nathaniel Erskine-Smith get the idea to introduce this? Who wrote it for him?

Critics fear that entire crops and industries could disappear under the guise of “public safety”. It doesn’t really specify any built-in protections. And with “experts” like Lisa Barrett, it’s not a stretch to think that martial law mandates could return in some form.

What will happen in the Senate?

(1) https://eppc.org/publication/the-whos-pandemic-treaty/
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document
(3) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&page=3
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12050235
(8) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12635892/br-external/CanadianFederationOfAgriculture-e.pdf
(9) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12644153/br-external/ChristianFarmersFederationOfOntario-e.pdf
(10) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12473920/br-external/ChickenFarmersOfCanada-e.pdf
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12461049/br-external/CanadaMinkBreedersAssociation-e.pdf
(12) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/HESA/Brief/BR12461107/br-external/ResultsCanada-e.pdf
(13) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/HESA/meeting-82/evidence

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(17) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(18) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(19) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(20) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Federal “Injection Travel Mandate” Cases: Why Appeal When They Could Have Been Fixed?

This is yet another instance of “alternative” media not telling the whole story.

Recently, the news broke that 3 Applications for Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada had been denied. These were attempts at secondary Appeals for Peckford, Bernier and Naoum, challenging the “travel mandates” and the requirement to take the shots in order to travel.

There was actually a 4th Application grouped together, but those litigants have since filed a Statement of Claim instead. The other 3 chose to take the above route.

For context, the 4 related Applications were filed in late 2021 and into 2022. Because they covered essentially the same subject matter, they would be heard together.

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

To make a very long story short: it didn’t have to be this way.

The Federal Court ruled in October 2022 that the 4 cases were “moot”, meaning there was no active issue to try. Since mandates were no longer in effect, all that was sought was declaratory relief. This was in spite of talk that injection mandates could return at some point.

Now the Applicants could have taken another path, and commenced Actions (and filed Claims). This was made clear to them.

Rather than do this, they all chose to appeal the mootness ruling.

They appealed, instead of taking the easier path to fix their case.

Basically, this is Action4Canada 2.0

Action4Canada Case V.S. Travel Mandates Case

Consider 2 high profile cases in recent years.

(Case #1) Back in August 2022, the Action4Canada case (filed in Vancouver) was struck as “bad beyond argument“. This 391 page monster failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure. It was incoherent, and asked for all kinds of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, Justice Alan Ross did allow an amended Notice of Civil Claim to be filed.

Instead of filing a proper Claim, the ruling was appealed instead. They lost.

(Case #2) Back in October 2022, the Federal Court struck 4 Applications to Federal injection mandates for travel for “mootness”. Justice Jocelyne Gagné made a discretionary finding that there was no live issue to try, since the mandates were no longer in effect. However, Justice Gagné, and Associate Justice Tabib, had remarked that if there were damages, then these cases could proceed as Actions. Of course, this would involve filing Statements of Claim.

Instead of filing Actions, ALL of the Applicants appealed.

Following this, they (other than Rickard and Harrison) attempted to appeal again.

The Action4Canada and travel mandate cases share a common thread. Although the circumstances differed, all were given the option to correct the flaws in their pleadings. Instead, each of them chose to appeal.

Filing Actions V.S. Filing Judicial Reviews

JURISDICTION ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW STEPS TAKEN
Federal Statement Of Claim Application Motion
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application Motion
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition Application

Although the names vary somewhat, there are normally a few different ways to commence legal action.

The most common way is with an Action, and it involves filing a Statement of Claim, or some similar document. These can be very simple cases, or they can be very complex and tedious.

A lesser known and understood method is by Judicial Review. In essence, it’s the challenging of some sort of decision or order made by some Government official. Despite how it’s often used, the idea is to challenge simple rulings, such as licences being denied, or funding not being received. It’s typically a much more streamlined process than Actions.

There is overlap between them, and the circumstances of each case determines which would be appropriate.

Why does this matter? Because the Federal Court left open the possibility for these litigants to refile their grievances as Actions, and ask for damages. Instead, they appealed, because …. reasons.

Rickard and Harrison were quite aware of this, as their 2022 Motion indicates. So when the Applications were struck, they could have refiled, but as Actions. They appealed, because …. reasons.

Justices Tabib & Gagné Stated That Case Could Proceed As An Action

True, at an earlier Motion, Associate Justice Tabib did dismiss a Motion that would have allowed the Rickard/Harrison Application to be converted into an Action. Yes, the original pleading wasn’t permitted to be amended to include damages.

Yes, Justice Gagné did strike the Applications as being “moot”. Since no one (apparently) sought damages in their Application, and the travel mandates were lifted, there apparently wasn’t a “live” issue to try.

However, consider what was actually written in the October 2022 decision.

[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.

This is from the ruling, and is pretty clear. If there were damages suffered, then the case should be brought as an Action, not an Application.

Standard For Review: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

After the 4 Applications were declared “moot” in the Fall of 2022, the Applicants could have converted them into Actions, and filed Statement of Claim for each (or one for everyone). Appealing made no sense, especially when looking at the “Standard of Review“. See highlighted version.

What this means is that different standards are applied, depending on whether someone is challenging a: (a) finding of fact; (b) application of or findings of the law; or (c) a discretionary act by a Judge.

Findings of fact: standard of review is “overriding palpable error”
Findings of law: standard of review is correctness
Exercises of discretion: standard of review is “overriding palpable error”

The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. The reasons for deferring to a trial judge’s findings of fact can be grouped into three basic principles. First, given the scarcity of judicial resources, setting limits on the scope of judicial review in turn limits the number, length and cost of appeals. Secondly, the principle of deference promotes the autonomy and integrity of the trial proceedings. Finally, this principle recognizes the expertise of trial judges and their advantageous position to make factual findings, owing to their extensive exposure to the evidence and the benefit of hearing the testimony viva voce. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference-drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.

A. Standard of Review for Questions of Law
.
On a pure question of law, the basic rule with respect to the review of a trial judge’s findings is that an appellate court is free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Thus the standard of review on a question of law is that of correctness: Kerans, supra, at p. 90.

There are at least two underlying reasons for employing a correctness standard to matters of law. First, the principle of universality requires appellate courts to ensure that the same legal rules are applied in similar situations. The importance of this principle was recognized by this Court in Woods Manufacturing Co. v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 504, at p. 515:

Justice Gagné “exercised her discretion” to find that the 4 Applications were moot. In other words, she simply decided that the cases weren’t worth hearing. Now, why does it matter that she used her discretion?

As it turned out, the Appellants argued the wrong test. 2 of them thought it was “correctness”, and the other 2 didn’t specify what they wanted.

Appealing a “discretionary” order is damn near impossible. It’s not enough to say that someone can come to a different conclusion. It must be demonstrated that the Judge’s use of that discretion contained outright error. It’s a much higher standard than correctness.

The Appellants also tried arguing the merits of their cases. However, the only issue to be decided was whether Justice Gagné committed “overriding palpable error” by finding the cases to be moot. It seems that the lawyers don’t understand the purpose of appealing.

Considering that the Applicants could have simply refiled their cases as Actions, it’s baffling why they would do this.

Bernier, Peckford, Naoum Launch SECOND Appeal

The majority of these litigants apparently weren’t satisfied losing once in Appellate Court. They decided to try again with the Supreme Court of Canada. Remember, the goal here was to get the finding of “mootness” overturned. They (still) could have filed Actions — as they were advised — but appealed again, because …. reasons.

Not even “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” attempted a second Appeal with Action4Canada.

“Applying for Leave” is a term that means asking for permission. The SCC doesn’t hear cases from all interested parties. Instead, it picks and chooses what it finds to be important. In fact, most Applications are denied.

Rickard and Harrison, to their credit, did finally make the right choice. However, their Claim has serious issues that will be addressed in a bit.

Bernier, Peckford, Naoum Likely Time Barred At This Point

Even if the above litigants wanted to refile their cases as Actions, it’s likely too late. For most things, the Statute of Limitations is 2 years. As we are now at the end of August 2024, it’s very unlikely that there would be any recent damages they could claim.

To sound like a broken record: they could have done this back in October 2022.

Rickard/Harrison Claim Not Properly Pleaded

Even though Rickard and Harrison are pursuing a Claim, they aren’t out of the woods yet. The pleading is Galati-level bad in terms of its quality.

The Claim is very bare-bones in terms of detail. A Judge might find that there aren’t sufficient facts pleaded. In fairness, the amended version fixes some of it.

Considering that there are allegations of “bad faith”, there’s a requirement to give full particulars, which hasn’t been done.

The Claim pleads breaches of s.6 (mobility), s.7 (security) and s.15 (equality) Charter Rights. However, none of them are properly pleaded. They don’t even specify that the Plaintiffs are Canadian citizens, which is required for the s.6 breach to have teeth. The Notice of Motion is actually quite a good reference point.

What Kind Of Idiot Appeals Instead Of Fixing Their Case?

Allison Pejovic, one of the lawyers involved in the SCC Leave Applications, released a video describing what had happened. She sounds very compelling and passionate. Taken at face value, there’s no reason to doubt anything she says.

However, what she fails to mention is that the Applicants (in all 4 cases) were able to proceed with the cases (as Actions) if there had been damages as a result. From the 2022 ruling:

[40] It is true that the parties, and to some extent the Court, have already invested financial and human resources in these files. However, most of the Court resources are yet to come with a five-day judicial review hearing and extensive writing time (these files comprise 23 affidavits and 15 expert reports totaling approximately 6,650 pages). That is without considering potential appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There were apparently: (a) 23 Affidavits; and (b) 15 expert reports, which totaled over 6,600 pages. Cross-examinations of witnesses also took place. And unlike with Action4Canada, these piles of documents actually exist. But because these lawyers appealed instead of refiling, these will never get to Trial.

And the way the Rickard/Harrison case is proceeding, it will go nowhere either.

One really has to wonder how all of the “freedom lawyers” can be so clueless and incompetent in pursuing cases against the Government.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

Summary Judgement Motion To Be Heard In Injection Mandate For Hundreds Of Healthcare Workers

Next week, on Tuesday August 13th, hundreds of Ontario health care workers will hear a Motion to determine whether or not their lawsuit can proceed.

The Statement of Claim (and the amended version) are both extremely poorly written. They fail to plead the necessary information to support any of the major allegations. And what has been pleaded is largely irrelevant. Here’s the previous review of the case.

For clarity, there are actually 2 separate Motions filed. One is from the Ontario Government, and the other from the various hospitals and health care employers. It seems that the latter have banded together in an effort to mitigate their costs.

1. Vast Majority Of Plaintiffs Are/Were Union Members

Out of the 473 named Plaintiffs, some 387 of them, or more than 80%, belong to unions. These include CUPE, Unifor, OPSEU, and others. Starting at page 58 in the hospitals Factum, the Plaintiffs, Defendants and respective unions are all listed. There are additional Plaintiffs who are simply “John Doe”.

Why does this matter? It’s because unions are typically governed by collective bargaining agreements. These include the processes to grieve matters. Almost universally, grievances that cannot be resolve end up getting sent to arbitration, whereas litigation is prohibited.

There are limited exceptions to this, such as workers suing their unions for failing to represent in good faith. However, none of these exceptions are listed, nor are any facts pleaded that would allow for them.

Unfair as it may be, the Courts are consistently ruling that injection mandates are essentially relating to the terms and conditions of employment. In essence, unionized workers don’t have the right to sue.

In theory, the non-union Plaintiffs could still go ahead. However, the pleading is full of serious defects, which will make that impossible. Read the last review. And the Factums (written arguments) filed outline additional problems.

In Court proceedings, there’s an overarching principle that cases are to be conducted as swiftly and cost effectively (cheaply) as possible. That’s going to be a problem for several reasons.

2. Motion Record Of 13,000 Pages Submitted

There was apparently a 23 volume Motion Record, comprising some 13,000 pages. A Motion Record is a collection of documents (typically the Notice, and Affidavit evidence) that will be used at the hearing.

Why 13,000 pages? This is because the Statement of Claim, and the amended one, don’t plead any facts or particulars about specific Plaintiffs. Nor do they plead facts or particulars about any facts or particulars for any Defendants. Essentially, the Defendants are having to provide basic information to the Court about the parties.

This is something the Plaintiffs are typically expected to do.

While this does seem like an absurd amount of material, consider that there are 473 named Plaintiffs. That works out to an average of about 27 pages per person, including employment agreements and union documentation.

This isn’t a effort to justify injection mandates. However, it is unfair — in terms of due process — to sue on behalf of so many people, yet provide no information about their circumstances.

3. Moron Lawyer Sues 59 Separate Defendants

There are 59 separate Defendants in this case. Yes, the usual Government ones are named, such as Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, the Attorney General and the Province of Ontario. This is to be expected.

However, dozens more are listed, and they are scattered across Ontario. Various hospitals and health centres are named, and have to respond. These organizations have little to no connection with each other.

In the Katanik case, organized by Take Action Canada, counsel made the decision to sue 47 different Defendants, including 20 municipalities, as well as the Ontario Government. This resulted in over 20 lawyers being involved to defend that case.

In this case, the various non-Government Defendants have pooled their money to file a single Motion to cover everyone. This was done to reduce overall expenses. And good for them, because this could have been a lot worse in terms of costs.

4. Hundreds Of Plaintiffs With No Connection

It has been pointed out in the Factums that the vast majority of the Plaintiffs don’t even live or work in Toronto, where this case was filed.

The Defendants argue that it’s improper to lump so many Plaintiffs together.

While some do work together and know each other, the Plaintiffs are scattered across the country. Now, this case could have been commenced as a Proposed Class Action (notwithstanding the union issue), but it wasn’t. It clogs up the Courts to bring so many unrelated cases together.

5. Pleading Is “Bad Beyond Argument” In Terms Of Quality

See the previous review. It outlines the major defects in the pleading, and provides constructive criticism about how it should have been done.

6. CSASPP Gets Honourable Mention Here

Back in late 2023, Justice Chalmers dismissed a $1.1 million defamation lawsuit brought against CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. He ruled that the now infamous email and FAQ were truthful and accurate.

Now, the hospital Defendants are quoting Justice Chalmers.

4. This Action is untenable with no reasonable chance of success. To borrow Justice Chalmers’ phrasing in Galati v. Toews et al, the pleading is prolix, argumentative, advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories, and has no reasonable chance for success. Consequently, the Moving Parties seek an Order striking out the Plaintiffs’ (the “Responding Parties”) Amended Statement of Claim (the “Amended Claim”), without leave to amend, on four grounds:

76. Moreover, this Action does not exist in isolation. Similar pleadings have been filed in Ontario and British Columbia. The British Columbia pleading has since been struck. The Ontario pleading was recently described by Justice Chalmers as follows:

The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

77. Justice Chalmers further opined that the similar Ontario Action has been improperly pleaded and improperly asserts “bizarre conspiracy theories” which are ineffective and have little or no chance of success. The Moving Parties submit that the same observations equally apply to this case.

Since Vaccine Choice Canada discontinued their case — and presumably kept all the donor money — these comments from Justice Chalmers are closest there will be to a ruling. While the CSASPP case was over (alleged) defamation, the critique has made its way to this lawsuit.

It’s also amusing that the Plaintiffs’ Factum cites that CSASPP was successful in surviving a Motion to Strike back in 2022. This is a bit surreal, to attempt to bankrupt an organization, and then piggyback off of their work.

7. Lawyer Unaware Of Employment Law Precedent

As an aside, it’s baffling that counsel keeps citing the 1995 Supreme Court case of Weber v. Ontario Hydro. It went a long way towards shutting down the ability of unionized employees to go to Court. Time and time again, Judges have thrown lawsuits out for lack of jurisdiction if there’s another outlet.

8. How Much Money Have Plaintiffs Had To Pay?

Without seeing the retainer agreements, it’s impossible to know for sure, but consider that there are 473 named Plaintiffs.

The retainer in the Adelberg case — the Federal one — was $1,000 each.
The retainer in the Katanik case — run by Take Action Canada — was $1,500 each.
There have been rumours going around as well that this retainer was $2,000 per head.

  • 473 Plaintiffs * $1,000/Plaintiff = $473,000
  • 473 Plaintiffs * $1,500/Plaintiff = $709,500
  • 473 Plaintiffs * $2,000/Plaintiff = $946,000

As a rough estimate, it’s fair to say that the Plaintiffs have collectively paid between half a million dollars and a million. And all they’re getting is a cut-and-paste Statement of Claim, with no prospects of getting to Trial.

It’s the same garbage pleading over and over again.

9. Some Final Thoughts

Anyhow, the hearing is next week, assuming it doesn’t get postponed. Of course, it’s also possible that the case just gets dropped altogether. It has happened before.

What will the outcome be? It’s possible that the unionized Plaintiffs will be barred from suing completely. However, the non-unionized Plaintiffs would still have to redraft a proper Claim. This is pretty much what happened with the Adelberg (Federal) case — Government employees were barred, but the private sector workers could proceed. Such a decision could happen again.

Assuming that any of the Plaintiffs are allowed to refile, they need to retain a competent lawyer. Their current one clearly isn’t up to the task.

Pardon earlier errors that listed the hearing date as August 18th, 2024, and the number of Plaintiffs as around 300. It is actually August 13th, with 473 (named) Plaintiffs.

(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM

Posted on

18 Reasons Massive Healthcare Workers Claim Is Defective

Here we go again.

On August 13th, 2024, a Motion to Strike will be heard in the Civil Branch of the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. This was over injection mandates dating back to 2021. Approximately 300 healthcare workers — working in many different settings — will see if their case is thrown out.

The original Claim was filed in 2022, and an amended one in 2023.

The main reason for this Motion is that the vast majority of Plaintiffs are likely ineligible to sue. Being part of a union typically means that there’s no right to go to Court. Collective agreements usually have a grievance process that ends with arbitration, but doesn’t allow for litigation.

Beyond that, the Statement of Claim is so poorly and incoherently written that it’s likely to be struck anyway. It doesn’t plead any of the necessary information required, and most of what it does include is irrelevant. It appears to have been written by someone with no understanding at all of Civil Procedure.

All that’s missing is a tirade about Bill Gates and microchipping.

This isn’t Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada or Take Action Canada. Nor is it the mess, Adelberg. This is yet another “bad beyond argument” pleading. The main defects are:

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

This is just a brief critique, but let’s get into it.

1. Failure To Establish Jurisdiction Of The Court

RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01
To Defendant
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
.
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

Rule 21.01(3)(a) of Civil Procedure states that a Defendant may move to to have a case stayed or dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction. Why does that matter here? Because the bulk of the Plaintiffs here are from unionized workplaces. Union workers are typically governed by a collective bargaining agreement, and it usually mandates arbitration as a means of settling disputes.

Plenty of cases have already been thrown out for this.

To even (theoretically) overcome this burden, Plaintiffs would have to plead details about what steps they took to resolve this internally. They would have to demonstrate that the process was corrupt or unworkable.

2. Failure To Seek Relief Within Jurisdiction Of The Court

The Relief sought section is downright goofy, and it’s startling to see that an experienced lawyer is including content such as this. It would be bad enough to see an articling student draft such garbage. And it’s not the first time.

  • Allegations of criminal conduct
  • Allegations of crimes against humanity
  • Allegations of eugenics (which would be criminal)
  • Allegations of violations of Nuremberg Code
  • Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration

Both the Action4Canada and Adelberg (Federal) cases were struck — in part — because they demanded remedies that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction over. Despite being criticized by multiple Courts over this, the same allegations appear here. Mostly likely, this is because this lawyer uses a template and simply cut and pastes from one case to the next.

3. Failure To Plead Concise Set Of Material Facts

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
.
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

In every jurisdiction, Plaintiffs are required to plead the facts. This refers to the: who, what, where, when, and how that things occurred. It is describing a series of events in enough detail that the opposing side — and the Judge — can understand what’s going on.

But that hasn’t happened here. Not a single Plaintiff is described with any detail. Only 8 are even identified in the Claim.

They objected to the injections? What was each one’s specific one?
Who was fired, and who was simply suspended?
Who was required to take the shots, and who was allowed to take the testing?
All Plaintiffs were ineligible for EI? Who applied for it?

None of this is described, nor is the conduct of any Defendant. There are no facts pleaded at all which could possibly be responded to.

4. Failure To Keep Evidence Out Of Claim

The other part of Rule 25.06(1) is that evidence shouldn’t be in a Statement of Claim. The facts are. The facts are simply the sequence of events that each Plaintiff can attest to.

All of the “facts” about the validity of testing and expert views should really be considered expert evidence. That has a place later, but not in the initial pleading.

5. Failure To Remove Argument From Claim

Not only should evidence not be in a Claim, but argument shouldn’t either. The pleading is ripe full of argument, complete with various case citations. However, this is not a Factum, nor a final submission. The original pleading is just supposed to lay out the (alleged) series of events.

How does an experienced lawyer not know this?

6. Failure To Plead Facts To Support Conclusions Of Law

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

Rule 25.06(2) of Civil Procedure requires that the necessary facts be pleaded in order to support any conclusions of draw that are raised. This makes sense, as there has to be enough meat on the bones to theoretically have the Judge rule favourably. However, there are no facts pleaded about individual Plaintiffs or Defendants, just sweeping declarations without background information.

7. Failure To Give Claim Particulars

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
.
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Rule 25.06(8) of Civil Procedure states that all pleadings shall have “full particulars”, which is also known as “particularizing a claim”. This is when fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged. What this means is that such accusations are made, Plaintiffs have the extra burden to spell out what has happened. All major details must be added.

Quite reasonably, Defendants cannot be left guessing what they have to respond to.

8. Failure To Specify Who Should Pay Damages

Starting on page 33, the money sought is outlined.

  • $50,000 for each Plaintiff for “intimidation”
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff for “conspiracy”
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff, by the Government Defendants, for Charter violations
  • $200,000 for each Plaintiff for infliction of mental distress and anguish
  • $100,000 for each Plaintiff for “punitive damages”

This amounts to $550,000 per Plaintiff, but who exactly is supposed to pay it? It’s specified that the Province is to pay for the Charter violations, but that’s it. If money is to be sought, what is the proposed division? Never mind that none of the torts are properly pleaded, or pleaded at all.

9. Failure To Properly Plead S.2 (Fund. Freedoms) Charter Breaches

However, the Claim doesn’t plead any facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) that would support this. The Claim doesn’t describe how any Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of conscience or belief were violated, nor does it specify which grounds apply to which person.

10. Failure To Properly Plead S.6 (Mobility Rights) Charter Breaches

There are a few mentions — although not properly pleaded — that Plaintiffs had their mobility rights infringed. But there isn’t a single instance of this described. Nor would this be relevant since the travel mandates were Federal, and this case is exclusively Provincial. Most likely, it was cut and pasted from the Adelberg case, which is Federal.

11. Failure To Properly Plead S.7 (Security Of Person) Charter Breaches

Similar to the Section 2 breaches, here, there are no facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) pleaded which would support such allegations. Not a single Plaintiff describes their circumstances. Yes, we assume it to be true initially, but there’s nothing to work with.

12. Failure To Properly Plead S.15 (Equality) Charter Breaches

Section 15 of the Charter isn’t the savior that many think it is. Specifically, “equality” is limited to a fairly small number of groups. None of which apply here, as disappointing as that is.

Enumerated grounds, which are explicitly stated in the Charter, include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.

Analogous grounds, which are additional ones the Courts have endorsed, include: sexual orientation, marital status, off-reserve Aboriginal status and income.

Even if remaining injection-free were an enumerated or analogous ground, there are no facts pleaded which would support the Charter violations anyway. Again, not a single Plaintiff’s circumstances are described in any detail.

13. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Intimidation

Because this tort would cover “nature of act or condition of mind”, Rule 25.06(8) requires that full particulars be given, in addition to pleading facts that would support it.

Instead, the Statement of Claim simply states the test, then attempts to argue caselaw in support of it. There are no facts or particulars given — even assuming them to be true — that would support this. Argument is not permitted in this document, anyway.

14. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Conspiracy

As with the “intimidation” tort, there are no facts (Rule 26.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) provided that would support the claim. The document simply states the test and tries to argue.

15. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Malfeasance Of Public Office

There are broad, sweeping declarations that the Government Defendants have acted in ways which are contrary to holding public office. But without any facts or particulars, this tort will go nowhere.

The tort of “infliction of mental anguish” isn’t pleaded properly either.

16. Failure To State A Cause Of Action

RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rule 21.01(1)(b) of Civil Procedure allows Judges to strike a Claim if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. What this means, if there isn’t anything that can realistically be sought, the Court has the power to throw the case out completely, or to allow a rewrite (called granting Leave to Amend).

Here, there are no facts or particulars pleaded to support any of the allegations. The body of the text is argumentative and tries to plead evidence. None of the torts are properly pleaded. A Judge could reasonably conclude that there’s no case to try.

Of course, they tend to allow rewrites, no matter how poorly drafted a case is. Action4Canada was struck with Leave to Amend, which was quite surprising.

17. Failure To Appreciate Statute of Limitations

As many people know, there’s a time limit to file cases. This is commonly referred to as the Statute of Limitations. In Ontario, it’s 2 years for most things, although a number of exceptions exist. See the Ontario Limitations Act.

Even if these Plaintiffs were to hire a competent lawyer (and not withstanding the arbitration requirement), they’d likely be time barred. Since more than 2 years has passed, they wouldn’t be able to include additional claims beyond what’s already there.

18. Claim Just A Duplicate Of Other Cases

A major indicator that clients and donors are being ripped off is that they aren’t getting original work. Instead, it appears that counsel is using a “template” and simply duplicating cases.

Now, if these cases were successful, then it would be a good way to save time and money. But that isn’t at all the situation here.

They all kind of look the same, don’t they?
None of them properly pleaded, and none have ever gone anywhere.

How Many Victims Have Been Ripped Off?

A question that comes up often is how many victims there are of these scam lawsuits. For a partial answer, consider the following:

  • 600 – Adelberg (Federal)
  • 600 – Federal workers vaccine injury (apparently never filed)
  • 300 – Dorceus (this case)
  • 100 – Katanik (Take Action Canada’s “First Responders” suit)

These 4 cases alone amount to over 1,600 litigants who have gotten shoddy and mediocre representation. And all from the same lawyer. If one includes all of the donors, it’s no exaggeration to say that there have been several thousand victims who were taken advantage of.

Keep in mind, many, MANY cases have been filed since 2020.

What’s been disappointing is just how little the “independent” media has been speaking up about this. It’s not enough to simply be against lockdowns. Genuine reporters and journalists should be speaking up on behalf of victims who have been taken advantage of with these shoddy lawsuits. There are thousands of clients and donors whose goodwill and desperation have been exploited. They needed a voice.

Then of course, some asshole tried in June 2022 to bankrupt a former donor who simply wanted her money back. If this isn’t cause for concern, then what is?

True, it’s a little better now, but more should have been expected. While it’s great to support public interest litigation (overall), we shouldn’t lose track of the people who are really impacted by it.

As for Liberty Talk, perhaps the 25% commission in 2020 clouded her judgement.

(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim