Colleges/Universities: Heavily Subsidized Charities, Playing Along With Mask, Vaccine Orders

Yes, these numbers are higher than the amounts of colleges and universities in Canada. However, many of them have more than one registered charity operating under their name. It also includes some student unions, religious sects, and graduate student groups.

Visit this earlier piece for some of the grant money received on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This isn’t difficult to find.

If the audio sounds a bit off in the video, it had to be compressed in order to be uploaded to this site. The original is available here.

While the video is by no means exhaustive, there were some key takeaways:

  • College and universities are registered charities with the C.R.A.
  • They’re eligible for rent subsidies, CERS, from their status as charities
  • The schools (or at least some groups within) have received CEWS, the wage subsidy
  • They take money from private donors, which includes pharmaceutical pushers
  • Canadian taxpayers forced to subsidize FOREIGN universities through C.R.A.

Although not in this video, it’s worth mentioning that universities regularly receive large grants from groups like CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. For many professors, this funding is essential to do research. Are they really going to debunk their Government masters? Of course, that’s a major topic that deserves its own piece.

Of course, NSERC (Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council), and SSHRC (Social Studies & Humanities Research Council), distribute money to other parts of universities. It’s fair to assume that these schools are well aware of the outcomes that are expected.

What is the result of this? There are significant financial interests in having post secondary institutions play along with the “pandemic” narrative. Consequently, there has been no real opposition to imposing masks and vaccine passports in the schools.

Also consider that virtually all schools have nursing and other health programs. Many universities have medical schools. There’s too much tied up in the status quo to pose a genuine threat.

Vital questions are not asked as a result of these policies. Issues such as no virus ever being isolated, (see Fluoride Free Peel’s work) should be front and center in this discussion. But they aren’t.

Another important question is how the World Health Organization defines a “Covid death”. The result would be funny, if not for the real world consequences.

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. (See archive here). It’s been covered elsewhere on this site, and is worth bringing up again.

These are just a few of the basic questions that colleges and universities should be having their students think about. After all, they pitch themselves as institutions of higher learning. Instead, they serve to promote the status quo.

Come to think of it: plenty of schools offer some kind of media or journalism program. However, the “next generation” of journalists and reporters don’t seem interested in doing real research. Sadly, that’s not too surprising anymore.

This continues the list of institutions that are getting funded to shill the “pandemic” narrative. These include: restaurants and hotels, political parties, law firms, more law firms, churches, trucking associations, chambers of commerce, financial institutions, the publishing industry, and gyms, just to name a few of them.

As with so many groups supporting these “pandemic measures”, just follow the money. It explains a lot about their actions. Yes, it sounds cynical to equate these decisions with selling out, but what other explanations are there?

(2) Canada Emergency Rental Subsidy

(A.1) Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
(A.2) Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
(A.3) Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
(A.4) Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
(A.5) Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
(A.6) Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
(A.7) Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
(A.8) Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
(A.9) Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
(A.10) Gyms, Fitness Centres Getting CEWS As They Mandate Masks, Vaxx Passports
(A.11) CERS, The Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy For Businesses

We’re Being Ruled By Charities (Video Compilation)

Most people (reasonably) assume that the institutions stripping rights away in the name of “infection control” are at least part of the Government. But is that really the case? Turns out, many “health authorities” are registered charities which receive millions each year from outside sources.

All of this information is freely available on the Canada Revenue Agency’s website. The C.R.A. is responsible for monitoring the finances of charities.

Side note: most colleges and universities in Canada are also structured as charities. Presumably, it makes it easier to attract donations, knowing that the public really pays for almost half. Of course, the University of Toronto — epicenter of the Ontario Science Table — is one as well.

All of this would be common knowledge if the media wasn’t paid to deceive and mislead.


(A.1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(A.2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(A.3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(A.3.2) Oversight For QA Proposals Removed, Slipped In Budget Bill
(A.4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part I
(A.5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(A.6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR

(B.1) Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As WHO-IHR Outpost
(B.2) Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures
(B.3) Robert Steiner Claims To Be Major PHAC Advisor To Liberals
(B.4) BC Provincial Health Services Authority A Private Corporation, Charity
(B.5) BCCDC Foundation A Registered Charity; Funded By Big Pharma
(B.6) Alberta Health Services: Mostly Autonomous Corporation, Charity
(B.7) Ontario Public Health An Autonomous Corporation, OST Ties
(B.8) Executives Of “Charity” Public Health Orgs. Paid Very Well
(B.9) Canada Public Health Association A Charity, Funded By Big Pharma
(B.10) University Of Toronto; Charity; Merck; Millers; OST
(B.11) McMaster University; Charity; Gates; Donations; Pandemic

(C.1) Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
(C.2) Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
(C.3) Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
(C.4) Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
(C.5) Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
(C.6) Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
(C.7) Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
(C.8) Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
(C.9) Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
(C.10) Gyms Getting Subsidized To Implement Masks, Vaxx Passes

(D.1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(D.2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(D.3) Postmedia Subsidies/Connections, Lack Of Real Journalism
(D.4) Latest “Pandemic Bucks” Grants In 2021, Lorrie Goldstein
(D.5) Nordstar; Torstar; Metroland Media; Subsidies & Monopoly
(D.6) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(D.7) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(D.8) Tri-City News, LMP Pulls Bonnie Henry Article; Pandemic Bucks
(D.9) Black Press Group; Media Outlet Doxing Of Convoy Donors
(D.10) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(D.11) Digital Citizen Contribution Program: Funds To Combat “Misinformation”
(D.12) Counter Intelligence “Disinformation Prevention” Groups Are Charities
(D.13) CIVIX, More Grants To Combat “Disinformation” In 2021, Domestic, Foreign
(D.14) PHAC Supporting #ScienceUpFirst Counter Intel Effort
(D.15) Rockefeller Spends $13.5 To Combat Misinformation
(D.16) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies (CEWS)
(D.17) John Tory’s Sister Board Member At Bell; CEWS; Subsidies
(D.18) True North Not Honest About Bailouts/Subsidies It Receives

Newsflash: CPC Motion Doesn’t Actually Call For Ending Any Measures On February 28

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. While there have been many who fit the description in the last 2 years, Interim CPC Leader Candice Bergen has become the latest iteration of it.

Despite pretending to stand with the truckers protesting against the medical martial law measures, Bergen tells them to “go home”. This comes despite this so-called opposition party essentially doing nothing for the last 2 years. It’s an attempt to neutralize real resistance.

Over the last few weeks, the trucking “convoys” in Canada have made international news. That said, Bergen wants to shut it down and gives vague words about fighting for them.

And right now, no one in Canada embodies controlled opposition like Candice Bergen, or the “Conservative” Party of Canada. They object over nitpicky details of Trudeau’s tyranny, but not over ideology. And there’s been deafening silence over the lockdowns imposed by Provinces. Interestingly, there’s often feigned outrage over human rights abuses abroad, but never locally.

To make this clear: Candice Bergen and the CPC don’t actually call for the ending of all Federal martial law measures by February 28. Instead, it’s just a motion to generate some plan — any plan — by February 28. It could be a plan that lasts for 10 or 20 years, but as long as it’s submitted by February 28, it would comply with the demands of this motion.

Moreover, even if a “plan” were submitted by February 28, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it would be meaningful, or not subject to changes.

This comes from the playbook of “Operation Trust“, a 1920s plan to protect the Bolsheviks. The idea was to placate Russians into doing nothing to take back their country, but convincing them that a military operation was already underway. The same principle was used for Q-Anon.

Bergen never addresses fundamental problems like Health Canada or PHAC had been implemented for population control measures. She never addresses that Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written by WHO, or that the International Health Regulations are legally binding. She discusses nothing of substance, which sums up what her party is.

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point. After all, Bergen was the Deputy Leader of the CPC when Erin O’Toole was in charge. Presumably, she didn’t find his actions that abhorrent.

Also, a quick look at some of the organizations Bergen has been in touch with suggest she might have been influenced by other groups. These includes big pharma, who don’t have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Unfortunately, the hoopla over tossing out Erin O’Toole seems to be for nothing. Bergen was Deputy Leader at that time, and even now, doesn’t really oppose anything. Both O’Toole and Bergen are globalist shills. However, he was far more overt about it, and she may get a pass as a result.

While this article may come across as being negative and a buzzkill, it’s important for Canadians to know what’s actually being proposed. Words matter, and these are meaningless.

Trusting her in any way is a serious mistake.


“A Death Resulting From A Clinically Compatible Illness, In A Probable Or Confirmed COVID-19 Case”

The work that real truthers do is invaluable. As an example, there are many, like Fluoride Free Peel, proving this “deadly virus” doesn’t really exist. Another one to look up is Andrew Kaufman.

Under the quack definition of “isolation”, alleged viruses are supposedly isolated by mixing them with bovine, pig or monkey cells and cultured. An obvious question would be: why aren’t samples taken directly from the patient? It would be comical if not for the fact that a lot of people take this seriously.

For those not wishing to get involved in a scientific debate, let’s do something simpler. What exactly is a Covid death, according to the World Health Organization? What strict scientific and medical standards are applied in making such diagnoses?

We are always told to trust the science. But what does the official guidelines say about what a “Covid death” really is?

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. (See archive here). It’s been covered elsewhere on this site, but so far, hasn’t had an article devoted to it.

If the included video isn’t of high enough resolution (it was compressed), then it’s available on Odysee or Bitchute as well.

There are plenty of other examples of this. Please, do a little digging, using the definition provided above. The above video contains several cases of this fraudulent definition being used, but many more are available.


Illegal Crossings Into Canada On The Rise Again, Unsurprisingly

Trudeau wasn’t kidding when he said that Roxham Road would be reopened to fake refugees entering from the United States. Then again, it had never really closed, but had declined.

In September and October 2021, there were 169 and 113 interceptions respectively by the RCMP. This increased to 845 in November, and 2,811 in December. It’s pretty messed up that actual Canadians are having their movements restricted, but illegal aliens can just come in almost at will. Included below is the official data for the last several years.

Of course, this doesn’t take into account the people who slip in unnoticed across the thousands of miles of unprotected borders between Canada and the U.S.

Nor does it factor in the hordes of people who enter legally, but who then never leave.

PROVINCE/TERRITORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Newfoundland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prince Edward Island 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nova Scotia 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Brunswick 10 5 5 ? ? 25
Quebec 1,335 1,295 785 875 1,035 2,595
Ontario 2,660 2,340 1,995 2,630 2,790 3,7935
Manitoba 20 15 25 10 225 505
Saskatchewan ? ? ? ? ? 30
Alberta 35 40 35 65 70 120
British Columbia 125 85 110 130 170 220
Yukon 0 0 0 0 0 5
Northwest Territories 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nunavut 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 4,185 3,770 2,955 3,715 4,290 7,365

Illegals were still coming into Canada via land border crossings during the Harper years. However, it’s only considered an issue when Trudeau is in power.

YEAR: 2017
January 245 19 46 5 315
February 452 142 84 0 678
March 654 170 71 2 897
April 672 146 32 9 859
May 576 106 60 0 742
June 781 63 39 1 884
July 2,996 87 51 0 3,314
August 5,530 80 102 0 5,712
September 1,720 78 79 4 1,881
October 1,755 67 68 8 1,890
November 1,539 38 46 0 1,623
December 1,916 22 40 0 1,978
TOTAL 18,836 1,018 718 22 20,593
YEAR: 2018
January 1,458 18 41 0 1,517
February 1,486 31 48 0 1,565
March 1,884 53 33 0 1,970
April 2,479 50 31 0 2,560
May 1,775 36 53 0 1,869
June 1,179 31 53 0 1,263
July 1,552 51 31 0 1,634
August 1,666 39 39 3 1,747
September 1,485 44 68 4 1,601
October 1,334 23 37 0 1,394
November 978 23 18 0 1,019
December 1,242 11 27 0 1,280
TOTAL 18,518 410 479 7 19,419
YEAR: 2019
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246

One can only imagine how bad 2022 will end up being with this issue. Of course, the vast scale of LEGAL immigration is a much, MUCH bigger problem than the illegal entries. That said, it’s not an issue that can be ignored.


Delay Prevents Action4Canada Case From Being Immediately Thrown Out

Action4Canada and other Plaintiffs were supposed to be in Court on February 3rd, in order to address 2 Applications (here and here) filed back in January. But due to an extremely convenient medical illness, this has been pushed back until April 5th. It’s unclear why Lawrence Wong didn’t simply step up, as he’s been a B.C. lawyer since 1987.

Private matters generally aren’t worth covering. However, their August 2021 lawsuit is a very public case, and has involved soliciting public donations since 2020. It’s fair that people know its true status: that it’s on the verge of being struck.

For all the money that was sunk into getting this lawsuit off the ground, it never stood a chance.

It feels odd to have a previous piece age so well. Back in August 2021, this site critiqued the 391 page lawsuit filed by Action4Canada in Vancouver. The basic premise was that the Notice of Civil Claim was drafted so poorly, it didn’t stand a chance in hell of making it to trial.

To be more specific, the Notice of Claim didn’t follow (at all) Rules 3-1, and 3-7 of BC Civil Procedure. These outline how pleadings are to be drafted. The logical remedy — from the Defendants’ position — would be to file a Motion or Application to strike based on Rule 9-5. This rule allows cases to be struck for a number of reasons, including for being “frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process”. Pleadings can also be struck if they don’t disclose a reasonable cause of action.

To make a distinction here: dismissing and striking are not the same thing. Dismissing a case usually means a Judge has made a determination about the merits of the case. By contrast, striking means attacking the pleadings themselves.

For those wondering what “struck without leave to amend” means, here’s an explanation. Sometimes, the Court will “give leave” or permission, to make changes to the pleadings (allowing content to be added or deleted). This is typically meant for very minor issues. For serious problems, such as with this lawsuit, the defects are so extensive that the Court won’t allow it.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil procedure would have looked at Action4Canada’s case and saw where this was going.

Now the other shoe has dropped, and at least 2 Applications have been filed. The first is from the various Provincial Defendants, and the other from Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care. They are trying to strike the case for essentially the same reasons outlined on this site back in August, 2021.

To state the obvious: this doesn’t mean supporting or advocating for the medical martial law measures that have gone on in the last 2 years.

Nonetheless, it’s pretty difficult to argue with the premise of the Application. Specifically, Defendants are trying to get the case struck as being “frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, prolix, and an abuse of process”. This isn’t just written in a shoddy manner, but it’s over-the-top ridiculous.

The Claim contains many pages of completely irrelevant material, seeks remedies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and makes allegations against people who aren’t parties (and presumably haven’t been subpoenaed). It’s also extremely disjointed and difficult to follow along with.

It’s hard to believe that 2 very senior, very experienced lawyers could draft this garbage. Combined, they have nearly 70 years of legal work completed. While the Claim does contain a fair amount of truthful information, it’s written so badly that no Judge will ever consider it.

By contrast, the Notices of Application were extremely well written, to the point, and raised many fatal defects in the Notice of Civil Claim. Again, this isn’t to defend the Horgan/Henry regime, but their lawyers make a compelling case as to why this should be thrown out. Although there are 2 Applications, the content is very similar.

3. The Claim is a prolix and convoluted document that is replete with groundless accusations against public officials, inflammatory language, and conspiracy theories.

6. The Plaintiffs’ Claim is deficient in form and substance. It is a scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious pleading that fails to meet the basic requirements for pleadings and is an abuse of the Court’s process. The Claim should be struck in accordance with Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, without leave to amend.

Pleadings Generally
7. Supreme Court Civil Rule (the “Rules”) 3-1 provides, in part:
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the Plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;

(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7. [emphasis added]

8. Rule 3-7 provides, in part:
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.

Pleading conclusions of law
(9) Conclusions of law must not be pleaded unless the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

General damages must not be pleaded
(14) If general damages are claimed, the amount of the general damages claimed must not be stated in any pleading. …

9. The function of pleadings is to clearly define the issues of fact and law to be determined by the court. The plaintiff must state, for each cause of action, the material facts. Material facts are those facts necessary for the purpose of formulating the cause of action. The defendant then sees the case to be met and may respond to the plaintiff’s allegations in such a way that the court will understand from the pleadings what issues of fact and law it will be called upon to decide.
Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2703 (S.C.), para. 5

10. As the Court of Appeal recently held in Mercantile Office Systems Private Ltd. v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362, para 44:
None of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the drafting party to “concisely” set out the “material facts” that give rise to the claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim.
None of these pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.

Application to Strike
11. Rule 9-5(1) provides:
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,

(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court

12. A pleading may be struck under Rule 9-5(1) if it is plain and obvious that the pleading contravenes any of Rule 9-5(l)(a) through (d).
Knight V. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para. 17

Rule – 9-5(l)(a)-The Notice of Civil Claim Discloses No Reasonable Claim
14. The Claim is premised upon non-justiciable questions and relies heavily upon international treaties, Criminal Code provisions, and unknown causes of action that are incapable of disclosing a reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Rule 9-5(1)(a).

16. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations (and non-violations) of the Criminal Code that are not properly raised in a civil action (Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924, para. 45); including:

17. The Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of international legal instruments, unwritten constitutional principles, and causes of action unknown to law that are not actionable in Canadian courts (Li v. British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 256, paras. 107-109; Toronto v. Ontario, 2021 SCC 34, para. 5), including the following:

19. The general rule that facts pleaded should be accepted as true for the purposes of a strike application does not apply in a “case like this where the notice of civil claim is replete with assumptions, speculation, and in some instances, outrageous allegations. The law is clear that allegations based on assumption and speculation need not be taken as true.”
Willow v. Chong, 2013 BCSC 1083, para. 19
See, also, Simon v. Canada, 2015 BCSC 924 [“Simon”], para. 54

20. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead the concise statement of material facts that is necessary to support any complete cause of action. The Charter claims are inextricably bound up in a prolix, argumentative, and wildly speculative narrative of grand conspiracy that is incapable of supporting a viable cause of action. It is impossible to separate the material from the immaterial, the fabric of one potential cause of action or claim from another, or conjecture and conspiracy from asserted facts.
Fowler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 367, para. 54
Simon, supra, paras 54-59

9-5(l)(b) The Notice of Civil Claim is Scandalous, Frivolous and Vexatious
Scandalous and Embarrassing
22. A pleading is scandalous if it does not state the real issue in an intelligible form and would require the parties to undertake useless expense to litigate matters irrelevant to the claim.
Gill v. Canada, 2013 BCSC 1703 [“Gill”], para. 9

23. A claim is also scandalous or embarrassing if it is prolix, includes irrelevant facts, argument or evidence, such that it is nearly impossible for the defendant to reply to the pleading and know the case to meet. Pleadings that are so prolix and confusing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the case to be met, should be struck.
Gill, supra para. 9
Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473, at para. 36
Kuhn v. American Credit Indemnity Co., [1992] B.C.J. No. 953 (S.C.)

24. The Claim is a scandalous pleading because it is prolix, confusing, and nearly impossible to respond to:
a. The 391 page Claim attempts to plead dozens of causes of action and Charter breaches and seeks over 200 declarations. It is, as a result, nearly impossible to know the case to be met.
b. The Claim contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information, including:

Rule 9-5(l)(a) and (d) – The Claim is Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
28. Little distinction exists between a vexatious action and one that is an abuse of process as the two concepts have strikingly similar features.
Dixon v. Stork Craft Mamifacturing Inc., 2013 BCSC 1117

29. Abuse of process is not limited to cases where a claim or an issue has already been decided in other litigation, but is a flexible doctrine applied by the court to values fundamental to the court system. In Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (CUPE), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, the court stated at para. 37:
Canadian courts have applied the doctrine of abuse of process to preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel (typically the privity/mutuality requirements) are not met, but where allowing the litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.

30. Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights. Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious.
Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No. 355 [“Lang Michener”], at para. 19

33. The Applicants submit the Claim has been brought for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffs and their counsel must know, or ought to know, that a 391 page Claim seeking over 200 declarations concerning alleged criminal conduct and the efficacy of public health measures “cannot succeed … [and] would lead to no possible good”: Lang Michener, supra.

34. The Claim is intended, at least in part, to intimidate and harass health authorities, public officials and politicians, including the Provincial Health Officer, by advancing spurious, public allegations of criminal conduct, conflicts of interest, and ulterior motives. This intention is further corroborated by the Plaintiff Action4Canada’s simultaneous campaign to encourage individuals to serve government officials and politicians with “Notices of Liability” for their actions in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic (Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. G, I).

35. The Claim is also intended, at least in part, to consolidate, publicize, and amplify COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Claim is a book-length tirade against the entirety of British Columbia’s response to the pandemic, with dozens of quotes from, and hundreds of footnotes to, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-vaccine resources. Both Action4Canada and its counsel have promoted the Claim online and on social media
(Affidavit #1 of Rebecca Hill, Ex. D, K).

36. These are improper purposes to file and prosecute a civil action. There can be no question that the Claim is an abuse of process. Permitting this litigation to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The above quotes came from the January 17 Notice of Application. Re-read the original Notice of Civil Claim and ask: what are they wrong about?

The Applications get into allegations that Action4Canada is causing harassment of Government Officials as a result of their behaviour. This is where things get more interesting:

This Application also contains an Affidavit from Rebecca Hill. She apparently works for Mark Witten, the lawyer for the B.C Defendants. She’s alleging that the “Notices of Liability” that Action4Canada provides have led to the bombardment of Government Officials. From the information provided, it’s strongly implied that this is done in order to drive up the donations.

By extension, it wouldn’t take much to argue that the entire Notice of Claim was a stunt to get more people handing out money.

Remember those notices you downloaded, filled out, and submitted? Guess what? Many of them, and the emails, are now saved as evidence by the B.C. Government.

Author’s note: since the Vancouver Court has apparently not scanned the entire Affidavit, the attachments are not available. That may be for the best, as there is contact information.

It’s also worth pointing out: the Defendants are asking for costs as well. This is pretty much inevitable, once the case is thrown out. It seems unlikely that any Plaintiff has given this serious thought. For a reference point, Adam Skelly was hit with a $15,000 cost award, just for trying to open his restaurant. Given the size and vexatious nature of the Action4Canada case, it’s quite possible for everyone to be on the hook for several thousand dollars each. Keep in mind, court costs aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Once more, this isn’t an attempt to defend the B.C. Government. That said, the Claim was written in such a convoluted way, it never stood a chance. One has to ask why it really happened.

Back in October, Action4Canada posted a reply to the response they received from the B.C. Government. It’s amusing that they act indignant that Rule 9-5 was quoted verbatim. Spoiler: if you want a Court to toss a case, you have to cite the law that allows it.

Whether this case is decided on April 5, or is set back again, the ultimate result is the same. Once a Judge sits down with the lawsuit, it’s getting struck without leave to amend.

It’s not just the B.C. case that will be struck. The Ontario ones will be soon as well. Many will remember this filing from July 6, 2020. More than a year and a half later, there are still no defenses filed, no motions, no applications, no scheduled appearances.

In fact, under Rules 14 and 24 of civil procedure in Ontario, all of these idling cases could probably be dismissed at any time for unnecessary delay.

One other thing to consider is the Statute of Limitations. For most things in Ontario and B.C., a person has 2 years to commence legal action. Now, if a case is filed, but sits for years and is simply dismissed, it may be too late to start another. This doesn’t stop the clock. Something to think about.

Prediction: once the B.C. case is struck (for the reasons listed above), the Ford regime will then make similar Applications for the Ontario cases.

Other than wasting a lot of time and money, what has this actually accomplished?

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19

%d bloggers like this: