Category: Types of Law

Posted on

Ontario First Responders Case To Be Discontinued After Bait-And-Switch Fails

A year ago, a $125 million lawsuit was filed in Ontario against various employers whom had forced people out of their jobs. This stemmed from the Fall 2021 injection mandates across Canadian Provinces and elsewhere. It made headlines across Canadian media outlets.

Interestingly, the case wasn’t filed until March 2023, nearly 18 months after the mandates came into effect. Clearly, this wasn’t urgent at all. And when it eventually was filed, it sat dormant for another year. This gem came from “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, and was written in an incomprehensible and unintelligible manner.

Keep in mind, Section 4 of the Ontario Limitations Act sets the time limit (for most things) at 2 years. Since so much time has elapsed, there will be no second opportunity. If this case falls through, that’s it.

Of course, this case never stood a chance. See the previous review on it. There were a litany of basic errors made that ensured it. These include:

  1. Recycling Statement of Claim from earlier struck cases
  2. Including content in a CIVIL Claim for which there’s no jurisdiction
  3. Drafting the Claim in a way that’s incoherent and incomprehensible
  4. Involving union/Government workers who are barred by arbitration requirements
  5. Unnecessary delay, causing issues with the Statute of Limitations
  6. Suing a needless amount of people, driving up costs

It’s this last point that’s of particular interest in this development.

Original retainer was $1,500 each Plaintiff, to cover all

According to the retainer agreement that’s freely available, each of the Plaintiffs would be expected to pay $1,500. While this sounds low, keep in mind that there were supposed to be 100 or more litigants. This would put the total at around $150,000.

That sounds like a reasonable amount, if the case were ever to get to Trial. However, this one never would, for a variety of reasons.

What kind of idiot sues this many unrelated parties?

Twenty (20) different towns, cities and municipalities are being sued. Each is run independently, and presumably, each will end up getting their own lawyer. And this should be obvious, but lawyers are expensive. Even poor and incompetent ones want lots of money.

Considering that the injection mandates were a Provincial dictate, the Plaintiffs could have sued the Ontario Government, and left it at that. However, the moron who compiled this case decided to sue everyone under the sun, even when Plaintiffs had no connection.

  1. HIS MAJESITY THE KING
  2. Solicitor General of Ontario
  3. Town of Ajax
  4. Town of Ajax Fire Department (Fire Chief Aaron Burridge) City of Cambridge
  5. City of Cambridge Fire Department (Fire Chief Brian Arnold)
  6. City of Greater Sudbury
  7. City of Guelph, City of Guelph Fire Department (Fire Chief Dave Elloway)
  8. City of Hamilton
  9. City of Hamilton Police
  10. City of Hamilton Police Chief (Frank Bergen)
  11. City of Hamilton Fire Department (Fire Chief David Cunliffe)
  12. City of Markham
  13. City of Markham Fire Department (Fire Chief Adam J. Grant)
  14. City of Mississauga
  15. City of Mississauga Fire Department (Fire Chief Deryn Rizzi)
  16. City of Ottawa
  17. City of Ottawa Police
  18. City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs)
  19. City of Ottawa Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Hutt)
  20. City of Pickering
  21. City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)
  22. City of Toronto
  23. City of Toronto Police
  24. City of Toronto Chief of Police (James Ramer)
  25. City of Toronto Fire Service (Fire Chief Matthew Pegg)
  26. Toronto District School Board
  27. Toronto Transit Commission
  28. Toronto Transit Commission Chair (Jon Burnside)
  29. City of Windsor
  30. City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)
  31. Town of Orangeville
  32. City of St. Catharines
  33. Regional Municipality of Durham
  34. York Region
  35. York Regional Police
  36. York Regional Police Chief (Jim MacSween)
  37. City of Niagara Falls
  38. Niagara Regional Police
  39. Niagara Regional Police Chief (Bryan MacCulloch)
  40. Town of Oakville
  41. Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault)
  42. Peel Region
  43. Peel Regional Police
  44. Peel Regional Police Chief (Nishan Duraiappah)
  45. Town of Whitby
  46. Town of Whitby Fire Department (Fire Chief Mike Hickey)
  47. Municipality of Leamington

It would be one thing if lawsuit named several officials in a Federal or Provincial Government. They’d all be lumped together, and likely represented together. But here, completely different towns and cities are being sued, some on behalf of a single Plaintiff. This is not a good approach.

There’s also the significant issue that it’s not clear who many of the parties are. Given how poorly worded it is, this can be left open to interpretation.

Take Ottawa, for example. The lawsuit names: (a) City of Ottawa; (b) City of Ottawa Police; and (c) City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs). This is clearly talking about 3 different parties.

However, others like Oakville list: (a) Town of Oakville; and (b) Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault). It’s not clear if the Fire Department itself if being named, or whether Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault is, and it’s just listing his title.

Similarly with “City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)”, and “City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)”, are the Fire Departments themselves being named, or the actual Chiefs? There are several of these instances where it’s not clear who is being named.

On the subject of not knowing who people are: the lawsuit includes several “John Does”. This is complete nonsense. If a person is going to Court asking for money, they need to identify themselves. This is repeated from the Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada, and Adelberg cases.

In short, dozens of separate potential lawsuits were joined into one. Since each jurisdiction ended up getting their own counsel, costs would inevitably skyrocket. And it led to this:

Another $4,500 from each, $450,000 in total to cover costs

November 24, 2023, this letter was sent to the Plaintiffs, demanding another $4,500 each, or else the case would be discontinued. In other words, their lawyer was threatening to pull the plug unless more money was handed over.

According to the letter, there were already 22 different lawyers on retainer for the various Defendants. It’s fair to assume that each would be asking for costs if they were able to get the case thrown out. Courts typically do award costs to successful parties.

$1,500 each became $6,000 really fast.

This is the bait-and-switch that was pulled on the Plaintiffs.

Because there were so many Defendants sued, and now so many lawyers, there would likely be dozens of Motions to Strike (or for Summary Judgement). It’s entirely possible that the total cost award — when the case was thrown out — would amount to thousands of dollars against each Plaintiff. Supposedly this extra half million (or so) would be put in trust to pay off the anticipated cost awards.

Not only that, the lawyer handling the file never tried to defend it. Instead, he held their case hostage, quadrupling the original price. Of course, the the lawsuit would still have been tossed anyway. Given the fact that the Plaintiffs were Government and/or unionized workers, they’d have no jurisdiction to sue in Court. Even without that, the Claim would, in any event, have to be rewritten in a coherent manner.

The letter cites a January 24th, 2024 case conference, to set dates for a Summary Judgement Motion. Presumably, the Defendants want the case thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. Remember, employees of unionized workplaces typically have the right to grieve and to arbitrate, but not to litigate.

For reference: the January 24th hearing did happen, but it was adjourned indefinitely. As of now, there are currently no dates set for anything.

There is an alternate theory on why this demand letter came. Given that the Ontario First Responders Claim is essentially a cut-and-paste of the Adelberg (Federal) case, it’s entirely possible that the lawyer himself would have been personally on the hook. He just recycles his Claims, makes cosmetic changes, and refiles them.

A deadline of December 17th, 2023 was given to vote. According to a source within, the group voted on whether or not to pay the extra money. The answer was overwhelmingly “no”. This meant they weren’t willing to give in to blackmail.

If a Notice of Discontinuance is filed, it amounts to dropping the case. And given how much time has passed, none of the litigants will be able to seek further recourse.

It seems unlikely that any refunds will be issued, regardless of what a dumpster fire this suit was from the beginning.

Statement of Claim didn’t follow Rules of Civil Procedure anyway

The Action4Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada and Adelberg (Federal) cases were all critiqued a long time ago. None of these Statement of Claims, all drafted by the same person, followed the basics of Civil Procedure. Whether in British Columbia, Ontario, or the Federal Court, there are certain minimum standards everyone needs to meet.

The documents were so incoherent, that even a person without a background in law could see that there would be serious problems.

Action4Canada and Adelberg were both struck as “bad beyond argument”. These were in August 2022 and February 2023, respectively. This was before the First Responders case was filed.

Adelberg had the additional problem that most of the Plaintiffs were barred from suing because of legislation that mandated a grievance process. Again, that ruling came out before this one was filed.

It was reported in January 2023 that the Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense (Canada) cases had been dormant since their initial filings nearly 2 years before. Again, this was before the First Responders case. How many warning signs are needed?

$150,000 was thrown away on a case designed to go nowhere. None of the Plaintiffs will ever get their day in Court over this. What a waste.

A comment about the group that organized this case, Take Action Canada:

Over 2 years later, this nonsense is still posted their website. They actually gloat about this site getting sued for warning about the dangers of these scam lawsuits. Sandra Sable, who apparently runs T.A.C., even gave an Affidavit in support of a similar intimidation lawsuit against CSASPP and their leadership. She complains that the criticism of other cases — like A4C/VCC — led to potential Plaintiffs dropping out en masse. Apparently, it caused her endless headaches, and threatened the viability of the suit itself, which is probably true. In other words, Sable was fully aware of what she was signing onto, and did it anyway.

The irony: if Sable and T.A.C. had taken these warnings to heart, Plaintiffs in the First Responders case wouldn’t have been taken advantage of like this. Plenty of former clients saw what was going on. But some people are immune to good advice.

Since the Plaintiffs were will never get justice for their cases, perhaps they can start filing malpractice lawsuits, and get the insurance money. Gill and Lamba have clearly learned how this works.

T.A.C. DOCUMENTS/LINKS TO LOOK AT
(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(3) Ontario EMS Retainer Agreement – $1,500 Each Plaintiff
(4) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(7) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(8) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money

T.A.C. POSTS SURVEY ABOUT DISCONTINUING “FIRST RESPONDERS” LAWSUIT
(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/tac911-legal-action-1st-responder-essential-workers-update-dec-survey/
(2) Take Action Canada — Legal Action 1st Responder Essential Workers Update Dec Survey
(3) Wayback Machine Archive
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontario-EMS-Demand-For-More-Money.pdf

MEDIA COVERING INITIAL FILING
(1) https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/former-municipal-employees-launch-125m-lawsuit-over-vaccine-mandates-1.6298453
(2) https://www.insauga.com/ex-oakville-hamilton-municipal-workers-part-of-125m-lawsuit-filed-over-vaccine-mandates/
(3) https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/126m-class-action-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-launched-6656849
(4) https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/covid-19-lawsuit-seeks-125m-from-ontario-municipalities-including-cambridge-fire-department/article_f6ba19fb-7152-590d-9573-2fe81653efd5.html

Posted on

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act): Who’s Really Pushing This Agenda?

Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has been introduced in Parliament by Arif Virani, the Justice Minister. First Reading happened on February 26th, 2024. There’s a lot of it to go through

To begin with, there are actually some worthwhile provisions in the Bill, such as the mandatory reporting of child pornography. No sensible reason would reject that. And there are instances where being able to quickly remove certain content would be in the best interests of society.

Ottawa gives its own summary of the Bill.

However, Bill C-63 seems to blend together straightforward and legitimate issues with ones that are much more vague and impractical. Consequently, it’s harder to simply accept or reject.

There’s also the question of who has been influencing the drafting of this content. That will be addressed a bit later.

The Bill would create a Digital Safety Office of Canada, and an Ombudsman to oversee it. In essence, it would add a new layer of bureaucracy to specifically monitor “digital safety”.

Content that foments hatred is “defined” in this Bill, but is still vague. Additionally, it seeks to be able to attribute specific motivations to expression. What may be valid discourse to some will be considered hate speech to others.

There is a disclaimer that this wouldn’t apply to content solely because it expresses “disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends”. Sounds great, but that also is subjective as well, depending on the views of whoever is interpreting it.

Harmful content in fact lists 7 different categories, and all of them at least somewhat open to interpretation. What can easily happen is that these new laws will be selectively applied, depending on the politics of the people involved.

The Bill would create a new section of the Criminal Code. This is one which a person could lay an information on another, and with the Attorney General’s consent, it could be brought before a Judge. If ordered by that Judge a person may be forced to enter into a recognizance, if a Judge is convinced that hate crime may be committed.

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
.
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.‍1); or
(b) an offence under section 320.‍1001.

A person could be forced into this recognizance for up to 2 years, or would face 12 months in prison if they refuse. This is similar to being out on bail or on a peace bond, but with no actual crime committed.

Terms of the “recognizance” could include:

(a) Wearing an electronic monitoring device
(b) Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times, a.k.a. a curfew
(c) Abstaining from drugs and alcohol
(d) Submitting to drug and alcohol testing
(e) No contact orders
(f) Weapons prohibitions

The topper on this one is that a Judge isn’t required to give reasons for this, but is supposed to say why written reasons aren’t included. Again, this is for when some is suspected that they may commit a crime. No actual charges are necessary.

Other changes to the Criminal Code involve Section 318 and 319, which raise the potential imprisonment for incitement to hatred from 2 years to 5 years.

Advocating genocide will also expose a person to a potential life sentence.

The Canadian Human Rights Act would also be amended to include “communication of hate speech”, which is defined as: to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But it also is poorly defined, which will likely lead to it being applied in an uneven manner, depending on the politics of those involved.

Section 140 of the Online Harms Act is the “Regulations” part. This is where unnamed and unelected bureaucrats are able to change or interpret provisions of the legislation without any real oversight. Nearly all Acts have such a backdoor, which allows changes to be done behind the scenes.

There is more to Bill C-63, but those are some of the major points.

Now, where did this come from?

Lobbying is a reality in politics. Special interests groups lobby money to get certain agendas pushed, and to get money for their causes. This is hardly news. Searching the Federal Lobbyist Registry, the following names come up:

  • Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
  • National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)
  • Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF)
  • YWCA Canada
  • Friends of Canadian Broadcasting

Are there others involved in this? Probably, but these are the names that come up, which appear to be relevant to regulating speech and expression.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, has been prolific in lobbying Ottawa for changes to the Human Rights Act, and to the Criminal Code. This group has pushed for stricter definitions around so-called hate crimes and antisemitism. Their recent efforts include making Holocaust denial punishable by prison time, and removing religious protections. See here and here.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, NCCM, specifically lists Section 13 of the Canadian Rights Act. They want laws against Islamophobia, and condemn “white supremacy”. Other efforts include anti-racism initiatives, such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, had pressured Ottawa to take action against online harassment and gendered violence. The recent lobbying specifically relates to new technologies used to do this.

YWCA Canada supports regulations against online hate, which is taken from a feminist and “gendered violence” perspective.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a bit of an outlier. It wants more financial support for smaller, independent media, while opposing the funding of the CBC. It also pushes for regulations around online hate. Presumably, this would lead to many (much smaller) anti-racist outlets.

And to search online hate more generally, click on this link.

While it’s always important to read upcoming legislation, this piece often gets left out. The groups pushing for changes need to be considered as well. This is especially true if our interests don’t align.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/arif-virani(88910)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1709098767406
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584229
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=594289
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362688&regId=941750
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=377298&regId=947241
(12) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=375749&regId=944913

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(N) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(O) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(P) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(Q) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

Last Friday, a Notice of Action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court, at their Toronto Division. A woman intends to sue her former counsel, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, for: (a) professional negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount; and (c) aggravated and/or punitive damages.

A Notice of Action is not the same thing as a Statement of Claim. Instead, this document is occasionally filed when a lawsuit is in the works, but the Statute of Limitations is approaching. Justice Stewart dismissed the Gill/Lamba suit on February 24, 2022, and this Notice was filed February 23, 2024. This came just a day before the 2 year anniversary.

Once filed, a Plaintiff has 30 days under Rule 14.03 to serve all Defendants with this Notice, and the Claim itself. (Pardon the error which previously listed the time as 6 months).

Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet are listed as counsel for Kulvinder Gill. They also represented her at the Court of Appeal which ultimately dismissed the Maciver anti-SLAPP Appeal.

What does the Notice of Action say?

1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, claims against the Defendants, Rocco Galati and Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation as follows:
a. General and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $1,500,000;
b. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of reputation in the amount of $250,000;
c. Aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;
d. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
e. The costs of this proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, plus all applicable taxes, and;
f. Such further and other relief as the plaintiff may advise and as this Honourable Court
may seem just.

2. The Defendants acted for the Plaintiff with respect to various litigation matters starting in late 2020, including defamation actions and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Their representation of the Plaintiff was negligent, constituted a breach of contract and a breach of the fiduciary duties, causing the Plaintiff significant damages.

Of course, this isn’t the entire pleading. The real Statement of Claim is presumably in the works, and it should be interesting to read. Ashvinder Lamba also has a $600,000 malpractice suit pending, alleging many of the same things as Gill.

Brief timeline of some major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill’s public opinions, which contradict the “approved” narrative, lands her in trouble with the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the regulator which is responsible for licensing in that Province. They’re not too happy that her views don’t toe the line.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

March 2021: Gill sues the University of Ottawa and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million. This is over 2 rude comments on Twitter, one where he calls her an “idiot”. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit, and mere insults aren’t actionable.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this. (CanLII version available)

February 2024: Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s then co-Plaintiff, files a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former counsel.

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason. It’s to stop people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence critics on issues of public interest. And nothing screams frivolous like attempting to bankrupt a person over some name calling. Here’s the background on this one.

SLAPP of course refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

While the comical defamation lawsuits have made national news, Gill’s adventures with the CPSO have pretty much flown under the radar. She has attracted several complaints since 2020, over her public stances and comments. Lawsuits were brought in Court to try to resolve it there, largely on the grounds of free speech. Such litigation has been repeatedly thrown out as “premature”.

In fairness, prematurity just means there’s a lack of jurisdiction.

The problem, realistically, is that the CPSO — like many professional organizations — mandates that problems be resolved internally first. Here’s one of Gill’s decisions, from 2021. Starting at paragraph 31, it’s explained that this is a long established policy, going back decades. The rationale is that if this isn’t followed, it leads to fragmentation and splitting of cases, along with overlapping rulings.

This isn’t to justify in any way what the CPSO has been up to. They’ve shown themselves to be a willing accomplice to the Ford regime, and deserve no sympathy.

It’s to recognize that had Gill been competently advised, it seems unlikely she would have pursued this path. In the Notice of Action, she alleges that former counsel was negligent.

There is a parallel between:

  • Doctors suing the CPSO (instead of using the internal disciplinary process first); and
  • Public sector and unionized workers suing their employers (instead of filing grievances)

In both instances, lawsuits are likely to be thrown out. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that the other remedies are unworkable and/or corrupted. Now, the million dollar question in these cases is whether they were advised of this in advance.

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Doctors, lawyers, and pretty much all professionals are required to have insurance. This protects against lawsuits for negligence, incompetence, malpractice, and more. It’s to ensure that there is money available for successful claims, and that it won’t bankrupt them.

One caveat: insurance providers typically refuse to pay out if there are accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation. But Gill and Lamba are just alleging negligence and of breach of contract, which should be okay.

We’ll have to see what the Statement of Claim looks like, when it’s eventually filed. But just going off of the Notice, it doesn’t look good.

Why pursue this? One possibility is that Gill really needs the money. Even “settling” with most parties in the case with Lamba, she still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Saikaley and Brunet want to get paid as well, and this may be a way to do it. Then there’s that anti-SLAPP Motion pending with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

Update: On March 25th, 2024, the actual Statement of Claim was filed, and it’s a doozy.

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

MOTION FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA
(15) https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22116/index.do

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-367: Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

A Private Member’s Bill is getting renewed expression for the potential impact it may have. Bill C-367 would remove “belief based on a religious text” as a defence to certain criminal charges.

The text of the Bill would remove both sections 319(3)‍(b) and 319(3.‍1)‍(b) from the Criminal Code of Canada. Those provisions provide legal defences to people charged with the willful promotion of antisemitism, if it’s done in the context of religious expression. Truth is still allowed, for now.

Of course, the vagueness of these hate speech laws is already an issue. Nothing is properly defined, which makes it very subjective. But remove a potential justification? That’s worth a closer look.

Defences
.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)
.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

This came from Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

Blanchet is also on a large number of international associations in Parliament. This is rather strange, considering his stated goal of breaking up Canada. These people larp as if Quebec were an independent country, and it’s taken seriously.

  • (CAAF) Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association
  • (CACN) Canada-China Legislative Association
  • (CADE) Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAEU) Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
  • (CAFR) Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association
  • (CAIE) Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAIL) Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAIT) Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAJP) Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
  • (CANA) Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
  • (CAPF) Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
  • (CCOM) Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
  • (CEUS) Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
  • (CPAM) Canadian Section of ParlAmericas
  • (RUUK) Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association
  • (SECO) Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
  • (UIPU) Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Considering Blanchet’s position, it’s not really that surprising who paid him a visit recently.

October 20th, 2023, Blanchet gets lobbied by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. November 28th, he introduces Bill C-367 in Parliament. That’s less than 6 weeks later.

Quebec is largely a Catholic province — although immigration is replacing that — so it’s really odd that Blanchet would introduce this Bill. His own constituents could be impacted by this, depending on how it’s interpreted and enforced.

Interestingly, even those who cover the Bill omit the CIJA angle. The Christian Heritage Party, CHP, has commented on Bill C-367 being introduced in late 2023, but no mention of the lobbying behind the scenes. Lifesite ignores it as well. So does at least one pastor.

CIJA is very prolific in Canadian politics.

Their profile lists the following:

  • Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream
  • A civil remedy based in human rights law, included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, with respect to combating hate speech, including antisemitism. Training for provincial attorneys general, prosecutors, and police to enforce Criminal Code hate speech provisions. Training and parameters should cite the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
  • Civil remedy included in the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to combating antisemitism.
  • Equip police departments to counter hate crimes and support targeted communities by providing additional resources to bolster existing police hate crime and community liaison units. Where such units do not exist, funding should be provided to establish them.
  • Update the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to combating antisemitism and online hate. Create a national strategy to tackle online hate and radicalization using the 2019 Justice Committee report, “Taking Action to End Online Hate”, as a foundation. A strategy should draw upon the Christchurch Call, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
  • Hate speech and internet-based hate: For Canada to adopt policies – either/and through legislation or policies adjustments that will provide measurable standards for internet-based dissemination of hate speech, including explicit provisions within the Crimical Code and/or the Human Rights Act.

There are, of course, many other areas CIJA advocates for, such as ending the blood ban for gays. However, a large portion of the focus seems to be around speech and expression.

Don’t expect so-called “Conservatives” to come to the aid of principled free speech. They quite enthusiastically introduced Bill C-250, to jail people for questioning the official version of WWII.

Bill C-250 became moot when the equivalent provisions passed, slipped into Bill C-19, a budget Bill. Nonetheless, there was no pushback or resistance from the political right in Canada. And this highlights the hypocrisy they engage in.

Conservatives were outraged — or at least they pretended to be — over M-103, which was Iqra Khalid’s Motion to “study Islamophobia”. They railed that it was a waste of money, and an attack on free speech. And it was. That being said, they’re supportive of other attempts to imprison Canadians for having incorrect views on history.

News of Bill C-250 was announced on the CPC website, but has since been taken down. However, it has been archived and saved.

This new Bill aims to remove a protection that had previously been embedded in the last one. Incrementalism seems to be the way in politics.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://twitter.com/CHPCanada/status/1760773690902401300/
(7) https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/proposed-canadian-law-could-see-christians-jailed-for-quoting-the-bible/
(8) https://twitter.com/aylmerpastor/status/1760787350496395632
(9) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(10) https://archive.ph/fCnNn
(11) MP Waugh introduces legislation to prohibit Holocaust denial – Conservative Party of Canada
(12) Wayback Machine On Bill C-250

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(N) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(O) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(P) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal: Dude, Why Are You Even Here?

February 14th, 2024, Action4Canada finally had their day at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. While there was a large attendance in Vancouver, observers could also attend via Zoom.

It never made sense to file here. This Appeal was to challenge the ruling of Justice Ross to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) in its entirety, but with leave to amend. In other words, the Plaintiffs were allowed to refile, they just had to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure. They weren’t shut off from seeking remedies in the Courts.

Why appeal, when the NOCC could have simply have been rewritten?

STATUS: As of now, the decision is under reserve (deferred until later). The parties agree that the NOCC should have been rewritten. Consequently, the main issue left to determine is whether costs should have been awarded, and if so, should they have been done at the end. The whole Appeal turned out to be a giant nothing-burger.

The Action4Canada case, and its legal representation, can best be described as embarrassing. It’s a clown show that never ends.

As bad as the May 2022 hearing at the B.C. Supreme Court was, the one at the Court of Appeal was even worse. The Justices actually stated that they didn’t understand what was being appealed. They couldn’t figure out why they were there, and asked for clarification. That’s something that no lawyer ever wants to hear about their case.

Since it was agreed that the Claim was “prolix”, or too long and confusing, the logical step would have been to file a new one. Instead, the Court of Appeal Justices appeared baffled at why an Appeal was lodged.

It also seemed that the Plaintiff’s lawyer didn’t understand the difference between a Court making a ruling on something, as opposed to commenting, or making “obiter remarks”. Pretty sad that after 35 years, a person doesn’t know how to read and interpret a Court decision.

The Appellants’ lawyer needed to have it explained to him that Justice Ross gave feedback so that an amended NOCC would be more compliant with the Rules. The panel stated that it was typical for litigants to get a chance to fix their case, so that it would be heard on the merits. This was quite painful to watch. Once again, after 35 years, lawyers should know what they’re doing.

Yes, Justice Ross gave plenty of background information about how he came to his conclusion. He outlined many several problems, but never ruled on any of them.

Action4Canada case was a train wreck from the beginning

First, it took nearly a year to file a NOCC in the first place, in August 2021. Action4Canada had been fundraising since the Summer of 2020 — if not sooner — but never produced anything. When the document is finally revealed, it’s a convoluted mess with no prospect of getting to Trial.

Second, in September 2021, Action4Canada instigates a defamation lawsuit against this site for criticizing the obvious and glaring flaws with the NOCC. Yes, other cases had been picked apart as well, but this appears to have been the final straw.

Third, a year later, the NOCC was struck as “bad beyond argument” for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure. Although Justice Ross only struck the NOCC as “prolix”, he outlined an almost endless amount of errors and defects contained within. The Canuck Law criticisms of the NOCC have aged very well.

Fourth, instead of swiftly filing a amended version, it was appealed in September 2022. A coherent explanation of why that happened has never been offered. Again, the NOCC could have simply been rewritten. Nor is it explicitly stated that remedies Justice Ross (apprently) improperly disallowed.

Fifth, the Law Society of British Columbia included this case in its February 2023 version of the Professional Legal Training Course for new lawyers. See page 15. It’s now to be used as an example of how not to draft pleadings. The LSBC refers to the case as “an example of a wholly inadequate pleading”. As such, the case is now the laughing stock of the legal profession in B.C.

Sixth, Action4Canada attempts to delay and defer the Appeal indefinitely. It’s only after getting called out on that is a hearing date booked.

What Justice Ross actually ordered in the August 2022 ruling

The decision from Justice Ross was very lengthy, but the order itself wasn’t.

[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

  • The Claim is prolix (too long), confusing and incomprehensible
  • The Claim is struck, but with permission to amend (refile)
  • The case is stayed (on hold) until a new filing is sent
  • The Defendants are awarded costs for their success

Yes, Justice Ross outlined a litany of defects that the NOCC would likely have, but he made no actual determinations on any of them. He only ordered that it must be struck for being prolix.

All sides agree that original NOCC is prolix

The hearing started off with the Appellant (Plaintiff) lawyer stating that he agreed the case was prolix, and that filing an amended version was fine. That should have been the end of it, which is why the decision to appeal never made any sense.

Appeal is based on things Justice Ross didn’t rule on

Not only did Justice Ross not rule on those things, but it appears to misrepresent what he actually said. He never stated that scientific evidence couldn’t be introduced in a Court. He did however, state that determining the scientific consensus was an improper claim. See paragraph 52 (b) and (f).

Paragraph 52 also listed other things that aren’t permitted in a Civil Court, such as making finding on criminal allegations, international criminal law, the Nuremberg Code, or the Helsinki Declaration. Although Ross mentioned these things, he didn’t explicitly rule on them.

Cost awards are typically discretionary

The other part of the Appeal was that Justice Ross shouldn’t have granted the Defendants costs because success had been “divided”. Supposedly, since leave to amend was granted, it was a partial win for the Plaintiffs. By this logic, there shouldn’t have been any. Or at least, costs should have been reserved until the end.

Considering that cost awards are typically at the Judge’s discretion, it’s unclear what the error was. Successful parties typically get some sort of costs. Whether this award comes immediately, or at the end of the proceedings is again, up to the Judge.

For reference, the Plaintiffs ended up paying out approximately $13,000 total for the Applications to Strike. It could easily have been a lot worse.

What’s the point of appealing a $13,000 cost award, considering everything else that’s at stake? This is small potatoes in the big picture. Again, embarrassing is the best way to describe this.

What exactly was the point of appealing?

The Plaintiffs could have easily filed an amended NOCC, and gone ahead with the case. Justice Ross specifically granted permission to do this. It’s not like the case was struck without leave.

The only finding Justice Ross made was that the case was prolix. Yes, there were many problems outlined, but he never made any determinations on them. All sides agreed it was prolix, and even the Plaintiffs agreed a new NOCC should be filed?

Cost awards are typically discretionary, and no error of law has been pointed out. What then is the issue with this? It was only $13,000.

The hearing ended rather abruptly. All sides agreed that the original NOCC was prolix, and needed to be rewritten. It was further agreed that all of the comments about the quality of the pleading, including the types of relief sought, weren’t adjudicated back in August 2022.

The only live issue was over costs. With that, the panel adjourned, with the promise to get a written decision back quickly.

We’ll have to see how well this piece ages.

Both Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada have been fundraising for nearly 4 years. In the meantime, neither of them have filed a coherent Claim, despite the urgency of the issues. It’s beyond obvious that none of these cases will ever get to Trial.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Posted on

2 Sides Of The Same Coin: Sendai Framework And International Health Regulations

This topic isn’t revolutionary. However, it’s interesting how different pieces of legislation (supposedly brought for completely different areas of life) can serve much the same purpose. Laws that seemingly have no connection to each other can end up having very similar results.

Let’s look at a few of them.

For emergency and disaster management:
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 21) signed in 1992
–Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World signed in 1994
–Hyogo Framework for Action signed, goes from 2005 to 2015
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030) signed in 2015
–Sendai Framework signed, goes from 2015 to 2030.

For public health management:
–W.H.O. Constitution signed in 1946
-W.H.O. International Sanitary Regulations signed in 1951
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (First Edition) signed in 1969
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Second Edition) signed in 1995
–W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Third Edition) signed in 2005

Now, what can these things have in common? Quite simply, they are pretexts for removing rights and property from people, under the cloak of being an emergency. True, the nature of it will vary, but the results are the same.

1. Parallels Between Sendai Framework And WHO-IHR

While not identical, there are many connections and similarities between enacting emergency management laws, and the public health laws. Using B.C. as an example:

(a) Bill 31 was derived from the Sendai Framework, which itself is part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. There are many aspects to this ideology

(b) The Provincial Public Health Acts are the result of the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself is derived from the 3rd Edition of the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Also, the WHO’s Constitution is well worth a read, as it dates back to the 1940s.

While laws are being enacted that greatly impact the lives of Canadians, the reality is that these — and many laws — are derived from international agreements that the public has no say in.

(a) Bill 31 is framed as “disaster reduction measures”, which presumably means natural disasters. As for speculation about “climate lockdowns”, this type of legislation is laying the ground work.

(b) Provincial Health Acts are framed as “preventing communicable diseases”, and we saw plenty of that in the last few years.

And reading through both, it’s clear that both are intended — among other things — to strip away large parts of individual rights, including property rights. These things are presented as necessary for the greater good.

Additionally, both sets of laws allows near dictatorial powers when it comes to issuing orders. A Cabinet Minister could do it for the Emergency & Disaster Management Act. A Minister, or Public Health Officer, can give orders concerning regulations within the Public Health Act

2. B.C. Bill 31, Emergency & Disaster Management Act

This is still going through the Legislature, but parts of it are certainly worth looking at. They’re ripe for abuse in the wrong hands.

Essential matters
75 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) identify supplies, equipment or other items, services, property or facilities, or a class of any of these, as essential;
(b) for things identified under paragraph (a) as essential,
(i) establish or restrain increases in prices or rents for them,
(ii) ration or otherwise provide for their distribution or use,
(iii) provide for their restoration, and
(iv) prohibit or limit seizures of them or evictions from them;
(c) authorize a person to provide a service or give assistance of a type that the person is qualified to provide or give;
(d) require a person to provide a service or give assistance of a type that the person is qualified to provide or give;
(e) provide for, maintain and coordinate the provision and maintenance of necessities.
(2) Subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iv) applies despite any enactment governing tenancies or the recovery of property.
(3) Subsection (1) (c) and (d) applies despite any contract, including a collective agreement.

Land and other property
76 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) appropriate, use or control the use of any personal property;
(b) use or control the use of any land;
(c) authorize the entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures;
(d) prohibit the entry into any structure or onto any land by any person;
(e) authorize or require the alteration, removal or demolition of any trees, crops, structures or landscapes;
(f) authorize or require the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of works;
(g) require the owner of a structure to
(i) have any damage to the structure assessed, and
(ii) give the results of the assessment to the minister or a person in a class of persons specified by the minister.
(2) The power under subsection (1) (b) to use or control the use of land does not apply to specified land.

General restrictions
78 (1) The minister may, by order, control or prohibit one or more of the following:
(a) travel to or from any area;
(b) the carrying on of a business or a type of business;
(c) an event or a type of event.
(2) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) require a person to stop doing an activity, including an activity that a person is licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized to do under an enactment;
(b) put limits or conditions on doing an activity, including limits or conditions that have the effect of modifying a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment.

Clearly, the Bill is much longer than this. But what do these sections include?

  • Establish price controls of “essential goods”
  • Establish rationing of “essential goods”
  • Require (force) people to provide certain services
  • Appropriate or control someone’s private land
  • Allow warrantless searches
  • Prohibit people from entering their property
  • Prevent travel
  • Prohibit certain types of businesses
  • Prohibit or restrict activities

Sound familiar? It should. These things were implemented throughout British Columbia through 2020 to 2022, but under the pretense of “disease prevention”. All that’s missing are the injection passports and the mask mandates.

3. B.C. Public Health Act (2009), Derivative Of WHO-IHR

People will no doubt remember the years of endless (and seemingly arbitrary) dictates from BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and Health Minister Adrian Dix. But what allowed them to do this?

General powers respecting health hazards and contraventions
31 (1)If the circumstances described in section 30 [when orders respecting health hazards and contraventions may be made] apply, a health officer may order a person to do anything that the health officer reasonably believes is necessary for any of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether a health hazard exists;
(b) to prevent or stop a health hazard, or mitigate the harm or prevent further harm from a health hazard;
(c) to bring the person into compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it;
(d) to bring the person into compliance with a term or condition of a licence or permit held by that person under this Act.
(2) A health officer may issue an order under subsection (1) to any of the following persons:
(a) a person whose action or omission
(i) is causing or has caused a health hazard, or
(ii) is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the person’s licence or permit;
(b) a person who has custody or control of a thing, or control of a condition, that
(i) is a health hazard or is causing or has caused a health hazard, or
(ii) is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the person’s licence or permit;
(c) the owner or occupier of a place where
(i) a health hazard is located, or
(ii) an activity is occurring that is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the licence or permit of the person doing the activity.

Specific powers respecting health hazards and contraventions
32(1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 30 [when orders respecting health hazards and contraventions may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 31 (1) [general powers respecting health hazards and contraventions].

32(2) Without limiting section 31, a health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
(a) have a thing examined, disinfected, decontaminated, altered or destroyed, including
(i) by a specified person, or under the supervision or instructions of a specified person,
(ii) moving the thing to a specified place, and
(iii) taking samples of the thing, or permitting samples of the thing to be taken;
(b) in respect of a place,
(i) leave the place,
(ii) not enter the place,
(iii) do specific work, including removing or altering things found in the place, and altering or locking the place to restrict or prevent entry to the place,
(iv) neither deal with a thing in or on the place nor dispose of a thing from the place, or deal with or dispose of the thing only in accordance with a specified procedure, and
(v) if the person has control of the place, assist in evacuating the place or examining persons found in the place, or taking preventive measures in respect of the place or persons found in the place;
(c) stop operating, or not operate, a thing;
(d) keep a thing in a specified place or in accordance with a specified procedure;
(e) prevent persons from accessing a thing;
(f) not dispose of, alter or destroy a thing, or dispose of, alter or destroy a thing only in accordance with a specified procedure;
(g) provide to the health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to a thing’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or hazardous agent by the thing;
(h) wear a type of clothing or personal protective equipment, or change, remove or alter clothing or personal protective equipment, to protect the health and safety of persons;
(i) use a type of equipment or implement a process, or remove equipment or alter equipment or processes, to protect the health and safety of persons;
(j) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a health officer any relevant record;
(k) take a prescribed action.
(3) If a health officer orders a thing to be destroyed, the health officer must give the person having custody or control of the thing reasonable time to request reconsideration and review of the order under sections 43 and 44 unless
(a) the person consents in writing to the destruction of the thing, or
(b) Part 5 [Emergency Powers] applies.

While not identical, the B.C. Public Health Act provides many of the same restrictions that Bill 31 would (if enacted). Primarily, property and personal rights can be suspended in an open ended manner, under the excuse of an emergency.

It’s also worth mentioning the the “Public Officials” involved in issuing orders are exempt from legal liability, and cannot be sued. It’s written right into the legislation.

SENDAI FRAMEWORK, B.C. BILL 31
(1) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/4th-session/bills/bills-with-hansard-debate
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/42nd-parliament/4th-session/20231003am-Hansard-n331#bill31-1R
(3) https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
(4) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
(5) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf
(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_on_Disaster_Risk_Reduction
(8) https://www.unisdr.org/files/8241_doc6841contenido1.pdf
(9) https://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

WHO TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(2) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/
(4) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/provincial-health-acts-are-really-just-who-ihr-domestically-implemented/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/the-other-provincial-health-acts-written-by-who-ihr/
(15) WHO International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition 2005