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.

  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.

(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

(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

(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

B.C. Court Of Appeal Confirms “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling In Action4Canada Case

In August 2022, Action4Canada had their Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC) struck in its entirety by the B.C. Supreme Court. Justice Ross concluded that the 391 page document was such a convoluted mess, it was impossible to respond to. There were no determinations on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The Court of Appeal has just upheld that ruling

While the Lower Court’s written reasons outlined a number of potentially serious problems, Justice Ross avoided giving a definitive answer as to what content would be allowed. It seems that the Plaintiffs’ lawyer doesn’t understand how to interpret legal findings.

  • Reasons: background information that’s necessary to support findings
  • Order: what the Court actually rules on

And what was the Order?

[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.

For reasons that were never made clear, the decision was appealed. The Plaintiffs could simply have redrafted and refiled an amended version, but didn’t.

The B.C. Court of Appeal has now said exactly that. They couldn’t understand why they were even there. It was agreed that the Claim was prolix (too long) and confusing. Therefore, the obvious answer was to rewrite it, as Justice Ross allowed it.

The other issue in the Appeal was over costs. The argument was that because success was “divided”, there should have been no costs. Apparently, since a rewrite was allowed, this amounts to a partial win. However, costs are considered discretionary, and this was predictably rejected.

Here’s what the B.C. Court of Appeal had to say.

[1] Pleadings play a central role in the conduct of civil litigation and access to justice. Their purpose is to clearly, concisely and precisely define the issues of fact and law to be determined, inform the other side of the case to be met, determine the nature and scope of pre-trial procedures, and guide the trial process: The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2012 BCCA 196 at para. 1; Sahyoun v. Ho, 2013 BCSC 1143 at paras. 16–19; Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, R. 3-1(2) [Rules].

[2] Prolix pleadings are improper. They lead to confusion, unfairness, delay and expense, and impede the litigation they are intended to facilitate: see e.g., Mercantile Office Systems Private Limited v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362 at paras. 22–23, 44, 58. They also occupy inordinate court resources, preventing other litigants from accessing the court services they require and deserve.

[3] Here, the appellants’ notice of civil claim is 391 pages long. Part 1 (“Statement of Facts”) is over 300 pages long, contains more than 1,000 paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, and includes hundreds of footnotes, some of which contain hyperlinks to various websites. Part 2 (“Relief Sought”) is over 40 pages long and seeks, among other things, over 200 declarations. Part 3 (“Legal Basis”) is almost 30 pages long.

[4] The notice of civil claim includes wide-ranging allegations of a global conspiracy, and challenges the scientific and constitutional foundation of the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. To give a sense of the breadth and nature of the allegations, the appellants’ “summary” of the factual basis of their claims includes (at 310–311, para. 283(d) of the notice of civil claim) the allegation that the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the appellants’ “statutory and constitutional rights” because:
… the “COVID-pandemic” was pre-planned, and executed, as a false pandemic, through the [World Health Organization], by Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational Oligarchs the likes of Bill Gates, [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, now Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance], the [World Health Organization], and their former and current associates such as Theresa Tam and Bonnie Henry, the [World Economic Forum], and others, in order to install a New World (Economic) Order with:
(i) De facto elimination of small businesses;
(ii) Concentration of wealth and the power to control economic activity in large global corporations;
(iii) To disguise a massive bank and corporate bail-out;
(iv) To effect global, mandatory vaccination with chip technology, to effect total surveillance and testing of any and all citizens, including the Plaintiffs;
(v) To shift society, in all aspects into a virtual[] world at the control of these vaccine, pharmaceutical, technological, globalized oligarchs, whereby the Plaintiffs, and all others, cannot organize [or] congregate[; and]
(vi) To effectively immobilize resistance to the agenda by neutering Parliaments and the Courts, and by extension the Constitution and Constitutional Democracy and Sovereignty, in short to obtain “global governance”.
[Emphasis in original.]

[5] In reasons indexed at 2022 BCSC 1507 (“RFJ”), the chambers judge sensibly concluded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and cannot be properly answered: RFJ at paras. 45, 74. He also concluded that it is “bad beyond argument” and “cannot be mended”: RFJ at paras. 45, 47–48. He, therefore, granted the respondents’ applications to strike the pleading in its entirety: RFJ at paras. 48, 74.

[6] Next, the chambers judge considered whether to dismiss the appellants’ claim or grant them leave to amend it. He concluded that “there may be legitimate claims that a plaintiff could advance against one or more of the defendants”: RFJ at para. 50. He, therefore, granted the appellants leave to amend and stayed the action pending the filing of a fresh pleading: RFJ at para. 74.

[7] On the issue of costs, the judge noted that “each plaintiff is seeking money damages from one or more defendant”: RFJ at para. 75. Having put the defendants to the expense of unnecessarily answering an improper pleading, the judge awarded each defendant costs “payable forthwith in any event of the cause”: RFJ at paras. 75–76.

[8] In oral submissions, the appellants conceded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and must be redrafted. Although aware of the trite principle that appeals are taken from orders and not reasons, the appellants nevertheless advance the appeal to address various statements made by the judge regarding the propriety of various of their pleadings. In particular, the appellants take issue with the judge’s statements at paras. 52–58 of the reasons for judgment that certain claims “are improper in a civil action”, including claims seeking declarations relating to alleged criminal conduct and matters of science.

[9] The appellants point to para. 73 of the reasons for judgment where, after rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the entire action be dismissed as “an abuse of process or clearly frivolous and vexatious”, the judge held that “if the next iteration of [the notice of civil claim] contains the same, or similar, problems, then the defendants’ arguments on these issues will be strengthened.” The appellants contend that, in making these statements, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and has effectively hamstrung them from advancing what they consider to be justiciable claims.

[10] I agree entirely with the respondents that the appellants have not identified a reviewable error. The passages at issue are clearly obiter. As I read the judge’s reasons, he transparently and helpfully identified a number of areas of concern within the notice of civil claim. He did not make binding determinations. In the absence of a proper pleading, how could he?

[11] It is up to the appellants to redraft their notice of civil claim within the well-known boundaries of proper pleadings established by the Rules and authorities. If they choose to pursue claims the judge identified as problematic and are faced with an application to strike or dismiss, they will have to satisfy the front-line decision-maker that they have pleaded justiciable claims. If they do not, they have had fair warning of the possible consequences.

[12] The appellants also appeal the judge’s costs order. They submit that success was divided in the sense that the judge declined to dismiss their claim. They also submit that costs are often not awarded in cases like this, which they assert to be a form of public interest litigation. In the alternative, they submit that costs should be awarded in the cause.

[13] Respectfully, the appellants have not identified a reviewable error in the judge’s handling of costs. Rather, they ask this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the chambers judge. This we cannot and will not do.

[14] For all of these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.

This critique was published on the Canuck Law website on August 31, 2021. It outlined some of the ways that the Notice of Civil Claim failed to meet the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia.

Vaccine Choice was similarly criticized for their filing.

A week later, Gaw and Kuntz instigated a $7 million defamation lawsuit. They dispatched their “thug” to attempt to destroy this website. And for what? For truthfully pointing out that various anti-lockdown cases — including Vaccine Choice — weren’t properly written? For accurately predicting that none of these cases would ever get to Trial? For calling it all a waste of time and money? For suggesting that these shoddy cases can’t just be the result of sloppiness?

What has happened since then?

(1) The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that it was “bad beyond argument”, and drafted so poorly that it was impossible to respond to. Although leave (permission) was granted to amend, the Claim was never accepted as valid.

(2) The Law Society of B.C. put it in their training manual for new lawyers. This case is now a teaching exercise of “wholly inadequate pleadings”, and how to avoid them. See page 15. That’s right, the LSBC is using it to train new lawyers on how not to draft lawsuits.

(3) Now, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the original Claim wasn’t drafted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. It was too long, confusing, and difficult to follow. They didn’t address the litany of other errors contained within.

Let’s not forget that both Vaccine Choice cases, from 2019 and 2020, have been allowed to sit idly for years. There’s no urgency whatsoever to advance either case.

Despite the Appeal being dismissed, it’s still being promoted as a “win”. Not surprising, considering the August 2022 striking of the Claim was also said to be a “win”. These people are delusional.

And for people who are so touchy about defamation, it seems that the new response is to refer to critics as “paid agitators”. See the February 7th and 21st Rumble videos. During the Zoom version on the 7th, moderators were apparently deleting comments from people asking questions about the cases.

Supposedly, an amended NOCC is ready to be filed for Action4Canada. The obvious question is why that wasn’t done back in 2022. Additionally, why was the original so poorly drafted? And if there really are all these Affidavits of evidence, why mess around for years with shoddy pleadings?

The Court of Appeal has found that the original NOCC wasn’t properly written, and that it has been a waste of time and money. Moreover, wasting judicial resources like this prevents litigants with valid claims from getting their day in Court.

(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
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

(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.)

(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

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

Court Of Appeal For Ontario Upholds “Prematurity” Rulings With CPSO

It’s been challenged many times whether or not professional regulators, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, or CPSO, can have cases taken from them. Typically, the response is to let the internal processes play out, prior to coming to Court. The latest is an Appellate decision in Ontario that confirmed Rochagné Kilian was supposed to exhaust her options with the CPSO first.

The general reasoning behind these decisions is that any doctor — or any professional — could circumvent the internal discipline process by filing with the Court. While Court challenges have come in abundance in recent years, they tend to be thrown out as premature.

Note: This isn’t to justify the rulings that organizations like the CPSO are making, or injection mandates. It’s just to explain procedurally what is going on.

The records in particular that the CPSO was after primarily involved the issuance of exemptions for the injections in 2021. Dr. Kilian is hardly the only doctor to be investigated for doing this, but the procedural history is interesting, to say the least. It’s not just her doing this, but various patients have also tried to intervene.

The Court of Appeal lays out the facts in their ruling, which are largely agreed with. The main issues to be decided were questions of law.

There’s a lot going on, but here’s a timeline.

August 23rd, 2021: Dr. Kilian attends a town hall meeting with Grey-Bruce Health Services (GBHS), which was her employer at the time. She expressed concerns about the injection mandate that was coming up. Around that time, she’d also been issuing exemptions for patients.

On a bit of a side note

[11] In the late summer of 2021, Dr. Kilian began to sign exemption forms for people who did not wish to get the COVID-19 vaccine. She provided these exemptions in three different ways: through her own practice, through an organization known as “EnableAir”, and through an organization known as White Knight Medical. Her association with “EnableAir” was limited and is now the subject of a complaint to the RCMP in British Columbia. The details and outcome of that complaint are not relevant to the issues we have to determine in this case.

October 1st, 2021: Investigators were formally assigned to look into Dr. Kilian, and to the exemptions that were being issued. They also weren’t happy that she wasn’t complying with the “safe and effective” mantra that was expected.

October 15th, 2021: The ICRC, which is the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the CPSO, issued restrictions on Kilian’s medical certificate of registration. In particular, it was supposed to prevent the issuance of more exemptions for injections, masks and testing.

October 21st, 2021: The CPSO files an Application to compel Dr. Kilian to turn over patient records, and to cooperate with their investigation. This comes after repeated requests for that information are refused.

October 27th, 2021: Dr. Kilian received an interim suspension of her license, because these restrictions were not being followed.

November 2021: Dr. Kilian files her own Application for Judicial Review, challenging the constitutionality of what the CPSO was doing. At this time, the she hadn’t attempted to resolve it internally.

January 7th, 2022: The CPSO Application is supposed to be heard, but is deferred until February 8th.

February 7th, 2022: A large number of people, approximately 40, applied to intervene in Dr. Kilian’s case, claiming to be patients of hers, and invoking privilege. This was one day before the Application was supposed to be heard. Note, another ruling incorrectly lists the date as February 14th.

February 18th, 2022: The Ontario Superior Court hears an the Motion to Intervene and reserved the decision.

March 14, 2022: The ONSC schedules a hearing on the Application to compel the turning over of medical records of patients. There were patients asking for Intervenor status, since they viewed their medical records as privileged. Justice Pollak deferred the issue of Intervenors until the other questions were settled.

Justice Pollak wrote: “As I have found above, I agree with Dr. Kilian that the parties must be given the opportunity to make their submissions on what the issues are for determination by this court in the Application and what the subject matter of the Application is.”

This is from the ruling. Keep it in mind.

April 9th, 2022: Justice Pollak stays (puts on hold) an Intervenor Motion from Kilian’s patients. This had been argued o February 18th, and March 22nd.

April 19th, 2022: Justice Pollak, ONSC, stays (prevents) the Application from the CPSO for the production of patient files, related to Dr. Kilian and injection exemptions. This was to be until the Judicial Review was heard from Kilian. It ruling be challenged at Divisional Court.

August 8th, 2022: The Divisional Court granted leave (permission) to appeal the Interlocutory stay from Dr. Kilian’s patients.

September 27, 2022: There’s a Case Management Conference on the Appeal, with the hearing to be scheduled for December 5th, 2022.

November 7th, 2022: The Divisional Court granted a Motion from the CPSO to quash (throw out) the Application for Judicial Review of Dr. Kilian’s patients, and a review of her own case. The Court also granted a publication ban as requested.

Dr. Kilian had asked the Divisional Court to look at 3 ICRC decisions, and all were upheld.

  • Judicial Review of the investigation decision is premature
  • The Restrictions Decision was reasonable
  • The Suspension Decision was reasonable

November 8th, 2022: Justice Leiper issued a decision that it wasn’t in the interests of the various patients to be granted Intervenor status. Rules 5.03 and 13.01(2) were both cited, but prematurity was the concern. The original Application still hadn’t been ruled on, and the Court found this to be unnecessarily complication. The patients had also asked for permission to intervene anonymously. However, since they were denied standing — premature at this stage — it was deemed irrelevant if the Court knew who they were.

January 5th, 2023: The Divisional Court lifts the stay that Justice Pollak had ordered on April 19, 2022. Costs of $7,500 were ordered, with the panel saying that a different Judge should handle the case. The Panel was annoyed with her, saying this:

[18] On February 18th, 2022, the Applications Judge heard the motion to intervene and reserved her decision. On March 14th, 2022 she released a lengthy endorsement (2022 ONSC 1526) in which she set out the positions of the various parties in detail. At the conclusion of her reasons, in paragraph 44, she stated:
[44] As I have found above, I agree with Dr. Kilian that the parties must be given the opportunity to make their submissions on what the issues are for determination by this court in the Application and what the subject matter of the Application is. I find that it is not possible for this court to consider the factors to be examined on this Intervenor motion until the subject matter and scope of this Application, which is a major issue in dispute between the parties, is resolved. In light of this significant dispute between the parties on the “subject matter of the proceeding” (the Application), I reserve the decision on this motion until the court has made a determination on the subject matter and scope of the Application.

[19] There was no mention in the March 14th, 2022 endorsement that the Applications Judge was considering imposing a temporary stay.

In other words, Justice Pollak had effectively “scooped” the Application Judge, by imposing a stay that was already under consideration. While this surely was an oversight, it did set things back considerably. And a new Justice would hear the Application.

March 10th, 2023: Justice Chalmers dismissed the Application from Dr. Kilian’s patients to intervene in the proceedings.

April 20th, 2023: The Court of Appeal heard a Motion to stay (defer) pending appeal of the dismissal of the Appellant’s Application for leave to intervene. The Appellants are the patients of Dr. Kilian who wanted intervenor status. They didn’t want the CPSO to hand over their medical data until the other issues were resolved.

April 21st, 2023: The Court of Appeal notifies the Parties that the Appeal has been dismissed, with the reasons to follow.

April 24th, 2023: The Court of Appeal hands down the written reasons. It finds patients “do not have a direct legal interest in the proceedings between the CPSO and Dr. Kilian just because their medical records may be examined in the course of an investigation”. Therefore, they can’t stop the data from being shared with the CPSO while main Appeal is ongoing.

May 8th, 2023: Justice Dineen grants the CPSO’s Application to compel Kilian to cooperate fully with their investigation. Various arguments against it are all rejected.

July 26, 2023: Dr. Kilian is hit with $16,000 in costs from the Court of Appeals. It’s also determined that the strategy of “adding Intervenors” was largely a tactic designed to stall or prevent the release of records to the CPSO.

January 25th, 2024: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal to comply with the CPSO’s requirement to cooperate, and turn over patient information. Dr. Kilian is hit with $18,000 in costs.

It’s unclear if there will be an attempt to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Who knows at this point? As long as there’s money to be made, it cannot be ruled out.

Regardless of what one thinks of the CPSO getting access to these files, the case was a mess.

As for another “premature” case….

Privacy Is Your Right Fiasco

The Divisional Court of Ontario heard a challenge on March 30th, 2023, and dismissed it right away. The written reasons were issued on April 21st. What was the problem?

It was filed by a Dr. Sonja Kustka, an Ontario doctor who was challenging several moves from the CPSO, such as:

  • The appointment of investigators by the Registrar to investigate Dr. Kustka’s COVID-19 practices, dated February 24, 2022 (the “Appointment Decision”);
  • The ICRC’s interim order, dated May 3, 2022, imposing restrictions on Dr. Kustka’s certificate of registration (the “Interim Order”);
  • The ICRC’s decision, dated June 9, 2022, confirming the interim restrictions but deciding not to suspend Dr. Kustka’s certificate of registration (the “Confirmation Decision”); and
  • The Registrar’s decision, dated June 9, 2022, appointing investigators to investigate Dr. Kustka’s cooperation with the investigation of her COVID-19 practices and her compliance with the Interim Order.

She also had patients apply to be Intervenors, to involve themselves in the case, and to claim that the CPSO seizing medical records amounted to a breach of medical privilege.

In short, it was a rehash of the Kilian case above.

Back in March 2023, there was a fundraising drive that went on to finance this litigation. At present, it’s before the Court of Appeals. But it wasn’t disclosed that all of the major issues had already been argued and decided ahead of this.

Parallel between CPSO cases and certain employment suits

There is significant overlap between some of these doctors’ challenges, and cases involving unionized or government employers. In both cases, it comes down to lack of jurisdiction.

  • With these types of suits involving doctors and their regulators, Courts are routinely finding that the internal investigations should have been carried out prior to commencing litigation. The Courts may be asked to review only afterwards.
  • With many (former) employees, they aren’t following the terms of their collective bargaining agreements, or for public sector workers, applicable legislation. This usually means that there is some grievance process that must be followed, which often leads to arbitration. There’s no inherent right to sue, unless the process is corrupt or unworkable.

Just because a dispute may involve constitutional issues, the Courts aren’t necessarily able to hear them if there are other avenues to settle them.

Saying that a case is brought prematurely is a polite way of saying that there’s no jurisdiction to hear them. It would be interesting to know what kind of advise such litigants are getting. It seems to be common sense that their lawyers would inquire about their circumstances in advance.

Court of Appeal for Ontario
2024-01-25 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2024 ONCA 52
2023-07-26 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2023 ONCA 515
2023-04-24 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2023 ONCA 281

Superior Court of Justice
2023-05-08 Kilian v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2689
2022-03-14 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2022 ONSC 1526

Divisional Court
2022-12-09 Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 6871
2022-11-08 The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2022 ONSC 6345
2022-11-07 Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5931

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS), And Their Public Interest Standing Application

An Application for “Public Interest Standing” was heard on January 24, 2024, in the Yarmouth Court in Nova Scotia. A group called the Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia, or (CANS), argued that their organization should be granted public interest standing to in addition to the private standing they already obtained.

All of this concerns an October 2021 Application for Judicial Review, or (JR), the group filed, challenging the scope of freedom restrictions that had been in place. Understandably, not everyone was happy with the dictates of Robert Strang, which eroded basic liberty.

The Court in Yarmouth was full of observers, with about another 30 who were attending virtually. Clearly, there was interest in what was going on.

On a procedural note, there were problems with 2 of the Affidavits that had been filed in support of the Application. It seems that they didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the attachments. One of the people was in Court, and could be questioned on its contents. The other was only attending virtually, and that Affidavit had to be struck.

CANS describes itself as such:

The Citizens’ Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) is a federally registered non-profit organization that champions public awareness of government actions, decisions and policy through advocacy, smart activism, education, awareness training and organizational change management.

We are a grassroots organization made up of professionals, educators and families with big hearts and strong community connections. We are committed to protecting the human and constitutional rights and freedoms of all Nova Scotians.

For the recent hearing, CANS went ahead without a lawyer. The case was argued by William Ray, better known as “Stormhaven” for the website he has run for years. (The site is protected for the time being). Although the hearing concluded, no decision was rendered that day. It was reserved until a later date, which was expected.

Since the initial filing, CANS made 3 amendments to the proceedings.
(a) A child co-Applicant “JM” was added, who does have counsel.
(b) A nurse co-Applicant is added to the case, raising additional issues.
(c) In 2023, written submissions are added to narrow the scope of what CANS is asking for.

As for the public interesting standing application, for their part, the Respondent lawyer is opposing the granting of that standing. It’s claimed that CANS is already allowed to proceed in private, and that this adds nothing new.

The Government also claims that since so much time has elapsed, all of the orders in question have long since expired. From that perspective, there’s no real issue to be tried. However, the mootness Motion will be heard in the future.

Ray responded to the topic of mootness being brought up. He stated that CANS members wanted to ensure that they obtained a ruling on the record. That way, if the Government ever attempted anything remotely similar, they could be at the Court “within hours”, to get it shut down.

Distinguishing public and private interest standing

To clarify, there is a difference in the types of standing.

Private Interest Standing: refers to people or organizations who are directly impacted by litigation. This could be for different reasons, whether financial or some other interest. Parties who can establish a direct impact are presumed to have private standing. CANS and its members have already established that the infringements on their liberties have impacted them personally.

Public Interest Standing: is a bit more complicated. It allows Parties who may not be directly impacted in the litigation to participate anyway. The standard is set by the case AGC v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45.

Questions to be asked:
(a) Is there a serious justiciable issue?
(b) What is the nature of the Plaintiff’s interest? Real and genuine?
(c) Is granting standing a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issue before the Court?

In short, no one can simply assert that they have a public interest in a particular issue or piece of litigation. There is a test to be met, upon which a Judge can either grant or refuse standing.

CANS believes that if public interest standing were granted, in addition to the private standing they have, they’ll be able to accomplish more.

Timeline of some of the major events

October 27, 2021: CANS files an Application for Judicial Review.

February 1, 2022: a child co-Applicant was added to bring greater strength to the case.

August 2022: The Government of Nova Scotia (the Moving Party here) decides to bring a Motion for “mootness”, which is still pending as of the publication here.

October 31, 2022: The Government sent their Record (evidence and materials for why they mandated stuff). CANS hasn’t responded to the motion yet but will once the judge sets a schedule for that

December 2022: A nurse co-Applicant and the separation of grounds for review into two issues; rights and ultra vires with submissions.

June 12, 2023: CANS decides to go with self-representation (meaning no lawyer), after endless headaches and delays from existing counsel.

December 04, 2023: CANS filed a Rule 20 form in order to compel the admittance of the following facts by the Respondents:

1) That a Vaccine is; “A substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen, typically prepared from an inactivated or weakened form of the causative agent or from its constituents or products.” CDC;

2) That “VOLUNTARY” has the following definition & legal meaning Free; without compulsion or solicitation. Without consideration; without valuable consideration; gratuitous.

3) That Robert Strang acting as CMOH had not read the detailed Safety Data contained in the manufactures monographs of any of the experiment.

(The Government has since refused to admit anything)

January 24, 2024: The Court hears the Application to grant CANS public interest standing, in addition to the private standing that it already obtained.

It’s expected that once the decision on whether or not CANS is awarded “public interest standing”, the mootness Motion will have to be addressed.

This is not the complete timeline of events, but just a few of the developments that have happened since the initial filing in October 2021. A more detailed version will follow.

The Respondent (Government) lawyer, of course, objected to the granting of public standing. A few of the issues he raised were: (a) CANS is a very informal group of people, with there being a less rigid structure than others; (b) as a private entity with private standing, this is redundant and not helpful; (c) although this wasn’t a mootness Motion, nothing good can come of the ruling, given the delay in time.

Should CANS ultimately be successful on the Application for JR, the effects could be felt nationwide. There would be precedent for limiting powers to impose “emergency orders”. This would apply regardless of whether public interest standing is granted.

CANS took issue with a CBC article covering the hearing, and put out this press release in response to it.

We’ll have to see what happens here. In either case, the Government is still expected to proceed with its mootness Motion.

(1) https://www.thecans.ca/
(2) https://www.thecans.ca/call-to-action-letters-of-support/
(3) Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia Quick Fact Sheet (pdf)

(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023

Since this case involves Nova Scotia, it might be a good time to repost these freedom of information requests from 2020 through 2022. They’re interesting, and they have significant cross-over with what’s going on in Yarmouth. Thanks again to Shelly Hipson.

(1) Nova Scotia FOI: Tactic Admission No Hospitalization Wave
(2) Nova Scotia FOI: Refusing To Turn Over Data To Justify Masks In Schools
(3) Nova Scotia FOI: More Requests To Get Answers
(4) Nova Scotia FOI: Province PREVIOUSLY Reduced ICU Capacity Recently
(5) Nova Scotia FOI: No Evidence Asymptomatic Spreading Even Exists
(6) Nova Scotia FOI: Refusal To Release Contract From CanIMMUNIZE
(7) Nova Scotia FOI: $19.1 Million Spent On Shots, Testing
(8) Nova Scotia FOI: No Real Increase In Deaths During “Pandemic”
(9) Nova Scotia FOI: More Deaths As Vaxx Numbers Climbing
(10) Nova Scotia FOI: Death Statistics By Age/Vaxx Status
(11) Nova Scotia FOI: Data Dump On Vaccination Rates
(12) Nova Scotia FOI: Miscellaneous FOI Results Released
(13) Nova Scotia FOI: Can’t Be Bothered With Pfizer Documents Released
(14) Nova Scotia FOI: AEFI And Weather Modification Data
(15) Nova Scotia FOI: Response On Adverse Effects And Reactions

UNESCO Guidelines For The Governance Of Digital Platforms

Recently, UNESCO released their action plan to regulate social media platforms. The guideline is a 59 page document outlining a series of goals and steps that should be taken by Member States.

On the surface, the paper seems harmless enough. But as with most things, the devil is in the details.

Going through this, the thoughts that comes to mind are the CRTC, and Bills C-11 and C-18. There’s a strong reluctance to accept any sort of Government interference with media access.

The paper talks about the importance of having an independent media, with a diversity of perspectives. Nothing wrong with that. However, there are a few places where the idea is raised of subsidizing “independent” media, presumably with Government funds. While a viable media is important, this creates an obvious conflict of interest.

There are also several mentions of online media being used in ways to help advance the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda, a.k.a. Agenda 2030. It’s unclear what would happen if online platforms were used in ways to undermine its implementation.

There are repeated calls to use digital platforms to respect and protect human rights. This is fine in principle, but it’s undefined, and presumably arbitrary, what those rights are.

Paragraph 38 talks about the need for there to be an ongoing relationship with digital platforms and “credible” news sources. Of course, the term credible is left undefined. It’s also unclear what, if any, voices that media who aren’t considered credible would have.

Paragraph 45 gets into the topic of “compliance mechanisms”. It’s rather chilling, as it mentions the possibility of regulators making final decisions with respect to the rules on platforms.

Paragraph 49 addresses the idea of having checks and balances. This sounds fine, until one asks what structures would have to be put in place to begin with.

Paragraph 52 covers “investing” in so-called independent media, in order to make it more sustainable. If the only way that independents can survive is by getting bailout money, then that would convert them into Government employees. No need to ban critics when they can simply be bought off.

Paragraph 54 talks about having: (a) national; (b) regional; and (c) global governance systems put in place, to safeguard freedom of expression, access to information, and other human rights. There’s also a brief mention about limiting expression to protect human rights.

Perhaps the most interesting sections are paragraphs 68-73, which outline how an “independent regulator” would work. Of course, how independent can it be when it reports to the very people it’s supposed to keep an eye on.

68. In statutory regulation, official regulatory authorities, though constituting part of the executive state apparatus, should be wholly independent of the government and be primarily accountable to legislatures for fulfilment of their mandates. This applies to existing regulatory bodies that have a legitimate interest in content on platforms (such as electoral management bodies, advertising authorities, child protection entities, data and privacy commissions, competition bodies, etc.), as well as any new dedicated or coordinating regulatory instances that may be established.

69. With regard to all statutory bodies engaging in platform regulation, either solely or jointly, periodic review should be performed by an independent body reporting directly to the legislature. Statutory interventions should also be subject to review in the courts if authorities are believed to have exceeded their powers, acted unreasonably, or acted in a biased or disproportionate manner.

70. Official regulatory authorities need to be independent and free from economic, political, or other pressures. Their power and mandate should be set out in law. They should also comply with international human rights and promote gender equality standards.

71. Official regulatory institutions must have sufficient funding and expertise to carry out their responsibilities effectively. The sources of funding must also be clear, transparent, and accessible to all, and not subject to the governmental discretion.

72. Governing officials or members of the official regulatory institutions working on the issue of content on platforms should:
a. Be appointed through a participatory, transparent, non-discriminatory, and independent merit-based process.
b. Be accountable to an independent body (which could be the legislature, judiciary, an external council, or an independent board/boards).
c. Include relevant expertise in international human rights law and the digital ecosystem.
d. Deliver an annual public report to an independent body—ideally the legislature—and be held accountable to it, including by informing the body about their reasoned opinion.
e. Make public any possible conflicts of interest and declare any gifts or incentives.
f. After completing the mandate, for a reasonable period, not be hired or provide paid services to those who have been subject to their regulation, in order to avoid the risk known as “revolving doors”.

73. The official regulatory authorities should be able to request that digital platforms provide periodic reports on the application of their terms of services, and take enforcement action against digital platforms deemed non-compliant with their own policies or failing to fulfil their responsibilities to safeguard freedom of expression and access to information and diverse cultural content. They should be able to establish a complaints process and issue public recommendations that may be binding or non-binding and be empowered to issue transparent and appropriate directives to the platforms for the promotion and respect of human rights, based on international human rights standards

In fairness, there are portions that are noble, such as 72(e) and (f) which aim to limit conflicts of interest in the forms of gifts or lobbying. Lest this be viewed as a hatchet job, there are portions of the paper that are quite good.

Paragraph 115, and its many subparagraphs, detail how due process information and human rights data should be integrated at all stages of moderation. On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with this, but who will be setting the standards?

Paragraphs 116 to 118 offer suggestions for collecting user demographic data for research purposes. While it’s supposed to be anonymized, there’s not enough specifics included as to it use.

Paragraph 143 gives brief guidelines about how platforms should conduct themselves during emergencies and armed conflicts. It suggests . Developing cooperation with trusted partners, independent media organizations, and other reliable flaggers.

These are just some of the issues that are raised. This UNESCO paper seems so harmless on the surface, but it’s really vague at times when clarity is needed.

Note: While UNESCO claims to want to prevent misinformation from spreading, it has hardly been neutral or objective. Only recently, it was telling people to only trust official sources for information on the “pandemic”.

(1) https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/online-disinformation-unesco-unveils-action-plan-regulate-social-media-platforms
(2) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339
(3) UNESCO Guidelines To Govern Digital Platforms
(4) https://www.youtube.com/@UNESCO
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90cIg4lv-3M

Court Asked To Throw Out Vaccine Choice Canada Suit As “Bad Beyond Argument”

A high profile Toronto lawsuit filed July 6, 2020 will finally be heard in Court.

To clarify, this will not be a Trial, or anything of the sort. Instead the Court will hear Motions to throw the case out as frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, moot (no longer relevant) and “bad beyond argument”. The Factums state that the Statement of Claim — the initial filing — is incoherent, unintelligible, lacks required facts and particulars, and fails to meet even the basics of Civil Procedure.

And they’re not wrong.

See these critiques from 2021 and 2022. These upcoming Motions parallel those predictions a lot.

It doesn’t help that this case remained inactive from July 2020 until January 2023. That’s 2 1/2 years. Makes it hard to view this as urgent.

On a side note: as of the time of publication, there appear to only be 2 Factums on file, despite there being 5 Motions to Strike. Perhaps there has been a delay in filing from other lawyers.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that this group has 2 (two) separate lawsuits. Both were written by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, and both are a complete waste of time and money.

1. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Dormant

Back in October 2019, VCC filed a lawsuit against the Ontario Government challenging requirements to give injections to students. A response was filed, and the case garnered some attention.

But what these people don’t tell you is that the case has been idle for 4 years now. It hasn’t had a single Court appearance since then. There have been no hearings, evidence filed, or obvious attempts to move the case forward.

Ontario Court cases are typically dismissed for delay if they haven’t reached Trial within 5 years, if there isn’t a reasonable explanation. That will happen in October 2024, just 11 months from now.

2. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2020 Lawsuit To Get Thrown Out

Here’s the Mercer Factum. However, the Ahmed/WEC Factum is even juicier with the following. It comes across as a lot more blunt in regards to these circumstances. When others are filed, they’ll be made available too.

(26) It has been outlined in the jurisprudence that it is fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought. Opposing parties cannot be left to speculate as to how the facts support the causes of action pled. Rather, the pleading must tell the defendant who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.

(28) In Adelberg v. Canada, a Statement of Claim was filed by some 600 plaintiffs who alleged they suffered harm because of a COVID-19 vaccination policy issued by the Treasury Board of Canada. The claim was almost 50 pages long, with nine pages devoted to remedies sought, some of which were not available in a civil action, including administrative declarations and injunctive relief. The claim included allegations of constitutional invalidity, criminal culpability and broad assertions of scientific knowledge. The pleading did not particularize the facts and was devoid of material facts pertaining to the personal circumstances of the plaintiffs. The Court found the pleading to be “bad beyond argument” and it was struck in its entirety. It is worthy to note that counsel for the plaintiffs in Adelberg is the same plaintiff counsel as in this matter before this Court.

(29) Similarly, the Court in Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), struck the plaintiffs’ pleading in which they sought damages and other relief from various government entities and employees for harms they allegedly suffered as a result of various restrictions instituted in British Columbia due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that the pleading could not be properly answered by a responsive pleading as it described wide-ranging global conspiracies and sought rulings of the court on issues of science. The pleading was also labelled as “bad beyond argument” and could not be mended by striking portions of it. The plaintiffs counsel in Action4Canada was one in the same as the Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case and in Adelberg.

(32) Much like in the cases of Adelberg and Action4Canada, the pleading in this matter is “bad beyond argument”. It is 190 pages long, violates the rules of pleadings, improperly names defendants, is replete with lengthy diatribes and makes allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies. It leaves many of the Defendants speculating as to how the facts support the causes of action pled. The pleading is, simply put, unintelligible and lacking in clarity, and should be struck. It cannot be mended by striking portions as it would only create more confusion and result in greater expenditure by the parties and this Court.

(37) In the alternative, this Court should strike or dismiss the Plaintiffs’ pleading in its entirety on the grounds that the pleading is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process as it contains many hallmarks of litigant behaviour as identified in the jurisprudence. As already indicated, the pleading is 190 pages in length, misnames defendants, contains 235 footers, includes rambling discourse, repeated misuse of legal, medical and other technical terms and makes discerning a legitimate cause of action very difficult. The pleading is unintelligible and is indicative of litigant behaviour resulting in five separate motions to strike before this Court.

(38) The courts have recognized that scarce resources should not be devoted to proceedings that are clearly frivolous and vexatious. They take away from meritorious cases and there is no benefit served in allowing them to continue. Scarce resources have already been devoted to this matter by the numerous counsel and parties involved as well as three days of valuable court time. The Plaintiffs’ pleading should be struck in its entirety with no leave to amend. The pleading cannot be partially struck or mended to fix the multiplicity of signposts of a vexatious proceeding. Any attempt to do so would only result in the consumption of more time and limited resources and result in further confusion. It is “bad beyond argument”.

Action4Canada struck as “bad beyond argument” at Paragraph 45:

Adeberg struck as “bad beyond argument” at Paragraph 52:

Earlier this year, the B.C. Law Society roasted the Action4Canada case, including it their training manual for new lawyers as an example of a “Wholly Inadequate Pleading”.

Where’s the lie here? Despite all of the things that various Governments have done to its citizens in recent years, these pleadings are so incomprehensible that they’ll never make it to Trial. Litigants with valid concerns will never get their day in Court. These cases aren’t thrown out on their merits, but because they’re so poorly written. At some point, one has to wonder it this was done intentionally.

Despite the Claim being nearly 200 pages long, it fails to plead details that would have established liability of the Defendants. Yes, this needs to be spelled out. Instead, the bulk of the document is almost entirely irrelevant to a CIVIL Court in Ontario.

Moreover, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, GAVI, the Rockefeller Foundation, and others aren’t listed as Defendants, so the information about them is irrelevant.

The Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario, particularly Rule 25.06, lay out the basics for how pleadings should be drafted. These aren’t optional. Cases that don’t follow them will get struck down. Hard to imagine how veteran lawyers don’t know this.

Part of the problem with suing so-called “Medical Officers of Health” is that they have immunity from civil and criminal liability unless bad faith can be established. The Statement of Claim doesn’t plead any facts that would allow that to be bypassed.

By letting so much time elapse, the Defendants can now introduce “mootness” as an escape. One has to wonder why the suit was never diligently pursued, and why it was just allowed to sit.

Vaccine Choice seems content to simply file high-profile cases with no concern as to whether they’ll ever advance in the Courts. Kuntz himself has stated that their are other ways to get results other than from what a Judge has to say. This is improper, and a clear abuse of the Court system.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) Factum is due December 8th. Most likely, it will be a rehash of earlier ones, begging and pleading for a chance to rewrite. It will say that “it’s not plain and obvious” the case has no merit. And after it is struck, expect a trip to the Court of Appeals, and requests for more donations.

And please do remember to donate!

Remember, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants