UN/WHO – Page 3 – Canuck Law

April 13, 2024April 27, 2024

Adam Skelly, Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions

This is the first of a multi-part series on William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly). He made national news back in the Fall of 2020 for refusing to bend the knee to the dictates of Doug Ford. This led to both civil and criminal cases in the months to come. His comically bad legal representation also generated attention.

He has another Application, this one to be heard over 3 days in October 2024. This is being organized by the Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC. Since a lot of work was put together a few years ago, letting it go seemed like a major waste of time and money.

Now, the Government can — and most likely will — bring up the issue of mootness. Lawyers will claim that this is all old news, and that there are no orders in effect. Still, it would be nice to actually hear the case on its merits, especially as the Reopening Ontario Act wasn’t ever taken down.

To begin, here was his run in with Justice Jasmine Akbarali back in 2021.

To make a long story short: the Government was successful in bringing a restraining order against Skelly and his business in December 2020. They did it on an expedited basis, with no real chance to defend. However, the ruling allowed for a “come-back Motion” to be brought. This would be Skelly’s chance to show that he was in the right.

From Justice Kimmel’s ruling:

[46] The applicant asked for its costs. The Crown argued that this was not actually an ex parte motion because they had provided notice, even though the court, by an earlier endorsement, had permitted the respondents not to respond. The respondents did not oppose the relief sought (except to raise procedural objections). The Crown had an onus to meet, irrespective of any position of the respondents. If the Crown had proceeded ex parte, it concedes that it would not have been entitled to costs by virtue of Rule 57.03(3).

[47] Although the Crown did provide notice, the respondents’ participation has been deferred until the come-back motion. I have determined that any costs that might be recoverable by the applicant for this motion should be addressed in the context of that come-back motion if it proceeds.

[48] The court’s practice is to fix the costs of each step in a proceeding if possible. The applicant represented to the court that its bill of costs on a partial indemnity scale for the application amounted to $19,675.00. I can appreciate that there was a need for three counsel on a file such as this. This amount is within the realm of expected costs for an urgent application of this nature, although perhaps a little on the high side having regard to comparable cost awards that I was directed to in contested proceedings.

Since the Crown did (technically) provide notice, they were presumptively entitled to costs. However, Justice Kimmel decided — as an act of fairness — that Skelly should have the chance to make his case. Therefore, the option of a “come-back” Motion was granted. Sounds okay, right?

There were a number of problems that came up. First of all, the person(s) filing a Motion are referred to as the “Moving Parties”, not the “Applicants”. It seems that Skelly’s lawyer, Michael Swinwood, wasn’t even aware of what documents he was filing.

This is what Swinwood was filing.

By contrast, the Ontario Government listed that Skelly and his restaurant were in fact the Moving Parties. These are the titles that should have been shown. Just because a Notice of Constitutional Question is included, doesn’t mean that a Motion suddenly becomes an Application.

Look above. The first screenshot is from Swinwood, and the second from Ontario.

Had Skelly been initiating the entire proceeding by way of Judicial Review, then yes, he would have been considered an Applicant. Instead, he was filing a Motion to challenge an earlier ruling, but within the same case.

For Ontario Courts, Applications are governed by Rule 14.05. One can be started with any of Forms 14E, 14E.1, 68A or 73A. Motions are governed by Rule 37, and are initiated by Form 37-A. These are different forms, and completely different rules apply. Now, a Notice of Motion was filed, but it’s baffling why Skelly would be listed as an “Applicant”.

In June 2021, Justice Akbarali refused to hear the Motion, stating that she had no jurisdiction over the matter. She did, however, allow Skelly and his lawyer another attempt, if it were drafted properly.

Here is a very, very brief timeline of events.

November 28th, 2020: The Ontario Government files an emergency Application against Adam Skelly and his business in order to limit the amount and type of business that it can do. Although he is served with notice, this is done on such a short time frame that there wasn’t really the chance to respond.

December 1st, 2020: The Ontario Government serves their Application Record.

December 2nd, 2020: The Ontario Court defers ruling on a decision on the status of Adamson Barbeque, until the following week.

December 11th, 2020: Justice Kimmel of the ONSC grants the Application from Ontario forcing the business to only operate (or not operate) within the parameters of the Reopening Ontario Act. While $15,000 in costs is awarded, it’s deferred pending an anticipated “Comeback Motion” to be filed.

January 22, 2021: A Criminal Court Judge issues and order restricting what Skelly can post online, including any incitement or encouragement that the Ontario “restriction measures” not be followed.

February 1st, 2021: The Notice of Motion is filed, along with the first iteration of the Notice of Constitutional Question.

February 17th, 2021: Swinwood files a 27 page Notice of Constitutional Question. Rather than simply listing the issues to be considered, it’s filled with argument, and reads more like a Factum.

March 9th, 2021: The Toronto Board of Health sues Skelly in an attempt to recoup the costs of paying over 100 police officers to enforce their mandates. There’s another suit filed on March 10th, and it looks like they went after him twice (CV-21-00658431-0000 and CV-21-00658546-0000).

April 12th, 2021: Skelly and the various expert witnesses have their Affidavits sworn. Note, the documents themselves are attached below. As an aside, it’s a bit disappointing that they all play along with the narrative that there is actually a virus.

May 25th, 2021: Matthew Hodge is cross examined on his Affidavit evidence. This would be the first of several days which he is questioned.

May 27th, 2021: Byram Bridle is cross examined on his Affidavit evidence.

May 31st, 2021: Skelly is cross examined on his Affidavit evidence.

June 8th, 2021: Swinwood amends the Notice of Constitutional Question.

June 11th, 2021: The Factum (arguments) are submitted on Skelly’s behalf.

June 14th, 2021: The Factum is amended.

June 18th, 2021: The Government sends their responding Factum.

June 22nd, 2021: Reply Factum is sent on Skelly’s behalf.

June 29, 2021: Justice Jasmine Akbarali declares that she has no jurisdiction to preside over the Motion brought by Skelly and Swinwood. It seems that Rules of Civil Procedure weren’t followed, but another chance is given to do it properly. Costs for this Motion are to be deferred for a few weeks.

July 13, 2021: Justice Akbarali hands down a $15,000 cost award against Skelly for this Motion not being able to be heard. However, the original $15,000 order from December 2020 is deferred for 6 months, pending the outcome of the original matter.

Theories were rampant as to what happened with the June Motion. Some had said Swinwood was grossly incompetent.

Others suggested that Justice Akbarali was biased, and that the case was rigged. Now Swinwood could have simply redone the paperwork, but he didn’t. However, without proof, this is all speculation.

October 2021: Despite the Toronto Board of Health suing Skelly and his business back in March, they don’t actually serve anything for several months.

February 1st, 2022: Michael Swinwood (Skelly’s lawyer), apparently still hasn’t properly prepared the paperwork to challenge the 2020 decision. He never made another attempt. At this point, the outstanding $15,000 is formally awarded against Skelly. Skelly wasn’t given the opportunity to defend himself personally at the hearing.

June 2nd, 2022: RBC wins a financially crippling default judgement against Adamson BBQ. However, it appears to be against the business itself, and not Adam personally.

June 17th, 2022: Another Application is brought (this time with Ian Perry as counsel) against the Ontario Government. It once again challenges the Reopening Ontario Act.

June 14th, 2023: Ontario files a Notice of Motion for security for costs. In these types of Motions, one side is concerned that another won’t (or can’t) meet its financial obligations. This is a way around that. Typically, this leads to money or property being given to the Court, pending the outcome of the dispute. Ontario argues that it’s necessary here.

June 28th, 2023: A $200,000 lawsuit for incompetence, negligence and malpractice is levied against Michael Swinwood, Skelly’s now “former” lawyer. It’s filed by Ian Perry.

August 11th, 2023: Ontario Government files Motion Record for security for costs Motion.

August 28th, 2023: Skelly files Responding Motion Record for security for costs Motion.

August 29th, 2023: Ontario Government files Factum for security for cost Motion.

September 6th, 2023: Reply Factum for security for costs Motion is filed.

September 8th, 2023: The hearing for the Motion for Security for costs takes place.

November 20th, 2023: Justice McAfee issues a $30,000 “security for costs” order against Adam Skelly. This means he’ll have to put up the money in advance, as a sort of “deposit” in order to continue the latest application.

October 1st, 2nd, 7th of 2024: The Challenge to the R.O.A. is scheduled to be heard.

Now, what was so wrong with the come-back Motion that Swinwood had filed back in 2021? Aside from naming the Parties incorrectly, there were issues with the relief sought. Justice Akbarali mentioned this in the June 2021 decision.

a. An order staying the within proceedings until the determination of the Notice of Constitutional Question, dated February 1, 2021;

b. A request for a further case conference to establish timelines for the production of materials leading to the determination of the constitutional challenge;

c. A suspension of the s. 9 order [Justice Kimmel’s order] due to the revocation of the EMCPA enunciated in s. 17 of the ROA;

d. Compensation for damages caused by the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under s. 24(1) of the Charter;

e. Such further or other order as may be requested and the court deems just and proper.

But what’s missing here? Skelly’s lawyer isn’t asking that the original restraining order be varied or set aside (terminated). That was the entire point of the come-back Motion is the first place.

From the Ontario Factum:

5. The Respondents’ Notice of Motion does not seek any relief varying or setting aside the restraining order granted by this Court on December 4, 2020 under s. 9 of ROA. Nor does the Notice of Motion seek any declaratory relief. Neither does the Respondents’ Amended Amended Notice of Constitutional Question dated June 8, 2021 make any reference to varying or setting aside this Court’s order of December 4, 2020 or to declaratory relief.

6. The only substantive relief sought in this motion is “An Order for compensation for damages caused by the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 24(1) of the Charter.” This relief is not available, with the result that the motion must be dismissed.

7. First, damages are not available as relief on an interlocutory motion in an application. A claim for damages requires pleadings such as a statement of claim and a statement of defence. There are no pleadings in this proceeding, and the only originating process is the Crown’s Notice of Application. Moreover, there has been no notice as required by s. 18 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019. Failure to give the required statutory notice renders this motion a nullity.

37. As set out above at paras. 4-6, the only substantive relief sought in the Respondents’ Notice of Motion is an order “for compensation for damages caused by the breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 24(1) of the Charter.” To the extent that the Respondents purport to seek other or additional relief in their factum, the Court should not entertain such claims.

38. Rule 37.06 provides that every Notice of Motion shall “state the precise relief sought” and “the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on.” The Respondents’ Notice of Motion makes no reference to setting aside this Court’s order of December 4, 2020 or to any declaratory relief. Nor does it refer to any Rule or statutory provision apart from s. 24(1) of the Charter.

39. The purpose of Rule 37.06 is obvious. The Divisional Court has recently confirmed that it is an error of law to grant relief not sought in a Notice of Motion, that due process underlies Rule 37.06, and that “Parties should not have to guess, speculate or intuitively understand what the issues to be decided are on a motion. In an adversarial litigation system, it is imperative that the litigants are made clearly aware of the case they have to meet.” The Respondents should not be permitted to enlarge the legal issues or claim relief in their factum not sought in their Notice of Motion, particularly since the Respondents’ factum attempting to expand the issues was delivered after the evidence on the motion was adduced and the cross-examinations completed.

Justice Kimmel allowed a come-back Motion to be filed because it was anticipated that there would be significant challenges to the original order. Instead, there were requests for damages in the Notice of Motion. There’s also the issue that a Court can’t award damages on an intermittent (case is still ongoing) Motion.

Justice Kimmel permitted “Relief A”, and instead, Swinwood asked for “Relief B”.

How could Swinwood have screwed things up so badly?

And how come he never tried to fix it later?

Anyhow, more to come.

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

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

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 7, 2024April 7, 2024

Illegal Crossings Into Canada For 2023: Quebec Way Down, B.C. Rising

In the first few months of 2023, there were over 4,000 people crossing into Canada illegally. But after changes were announced to apply the Safe Third Country Agreement to the entire Canada/U.S. border, it dropped to an average of about 100.

This of course confirms what many had said all along: the Government could have stopped people from entering illegally at any time if it wanted to. However, politicians simply pretended to be helpless to stop this from happening.

Since January 2017, there have been almost 113,000 illegal crossings into Canada from the U.S. The top 5 source countries have been:

(a) Haiti
(b) Nigeria
(c) Columbia
(d) Turkey
(e) Pakistan

Of course, there is a major disclaimer. This data only are what’s being reported, and doesn’t include anyone who’s slipped across the border unnoticed. The numbers could always be — and likely is — much higher than this.

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. Interestingly though, it only receives major attention when Liberals are in power. A cynic may wonder why.

YEAR: 2017
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
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

YEAR: 2022
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	2,367	0	16	0	2,383
February	2,154	1	9	0	2,164
March	2,492	2	8	0	2,502
April	2,791	3	8	3	2,805
May	3,449	3	40	1	3,493
June	3,066	3	14	3	3,086
July	3,645	3	29	0	3,677
August	3,234	5	10	0	3,249
September	3,650	10	0	0	3,660
October	3,901	16	34	0	3,951
November	3,731	23	34	0	3,788
December	4,689	3	52	1	4,745
TOTALS	39,171	72	289	7	39,540

YEAR: 2023
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	4,875	19	100	0	4,994
February	4,517	5	59	0	4,581
March	4,087	15	71	0	4,173
April	69	9	26	0	104
May	46	3	30	0	79
June	30	1	27	2	60
July	42	8	33	0	83
August	53	3	40	1	97
September	59	2	25	2	88
October	36	7	29	3	75
November	58	0	37	0	95
December	90	5	131	0	226
TOTAL	13,962	77	616	8	14,663

YEAR: 2024
MONTH	QUEBEC	MANITOBA	B.C.	OTHERS	TOTAL
January	79	16	91	5	191
February	75	8	94	1	178

Interestingly, the numbers in British Columbia are actually rising lately. While it’s nowhere near the levels of Roxham Road, it could indicate that people are looking at other alternatives.

Some other useful information:

First, in 2019, something happened that wasn’t really reported on. It was that the Canadian Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin policy. This stopped people from 42 countries (mainly in Europe) from being able to abuse the refugee system with bogus claims.

Second, as for the Safe Third Country Agreement, people are still allowed to enter, and it’s still being gamed by human smugglers and traffickers. Few people know this, but the Treaty is actually a 3-way arrangement with the UNHCR acting as a sort of facilitator. True, the amended agreement has cut the number of interceptions, but is that really the whole story?

Third, the United Nations — a party to U.S/Canada border security — distributes information packages on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement. While claiming to care about the integrity of countries, they publish materials to do exactly the opposite.

Fourth, the U.N. has extensively studied the connection between lack of border enforcement, and the facilitation of human smuggling and trafficking. It isn’t a surprise that open borders lead to increases in illegal crossings. They know exactly what’s going on.

True, changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement seem to have resulted in fewer people entering illegally. That’s certainly positive. However, this pales in comparison to the vast numbers that are entering legally through various channels. But that’s a story for another time.

And while these are the official numbers that get reported, it would be helpful to know how many people come in that are either undetected, or simply aren’t documented.

March 26, 2024March 26, 2024

Action4Canada: 4 Years Later, No Legitimate Notice Of Civil Claim Filed

Yes, the Action4Canada case has been covered here before, but consider this:

It’s been nearly four (4) years since the group began fundraising, under the pretense that they were going to file a Court challenge in British Columbia. They started in the Summer of 2020, and it’s now the end of March 2024. Almost 4 years later, there’s still no valid case on file.

Despite repeatedly assuring the public that time was of the essence, every attempt has been made to ensure that it will never go forward. Probably the worst example was filing a Notice of Appeal back in September 2022, even though the Judge had granted permission to amend and refile.

It’s undeniable at this point, if it wasn’t obvious long ago. The Action4Canada case was never intended to go to Trial. It was a “placeholder” case, to give the illusion that something was being done. This was all while diverting money and energy away from other causes.

And it’s not as if the case was taken on a pro-bono (or “free”) basis. Donors have paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars for what they thought was a sincere anti-lockdown challenge. They’ve received nothing of value for their money. In the Spring of 2021 alone there was a $200,000 payment for legal services.

True, these people could be delusional, but it could just as easily be an act. It’s hard to imagine anyone this out of touch with reality being given control over an organization’s finances.

Yes, one could argue that there technically was a Claim filed a few years ago. But no sensible person who understands civil procedure takes this seriously. For a quick rundown:

(1) August, 2021: After nearly a year of stalling, Action4Canada files their Notice of Civil Claim, a.k.a. Statement of Claim. It’s 391 pages long, rambling, incoherent, and fails to follow the basics of Civil Procedure. This critique of it aged very well.

(2) August, 2022: 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.

(3) February, 2023: 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.

(4) February 2024: The Law Society of B.C. puts out its newest version of their training manual for new lawyers, and the Action4Canada case is still in there. Even a year later, they still view it as teaching material. It wasn’t just a one-off.

(5) February, 2024: 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. The lawyer also apparently didn’t understand that you can appeal the Order, but not the Reasons.

This so-called challenge has been smacked down by the:
(a) British Columbia Supreme Court
(b) British Columbia Court of Appeal
(c) Law Society of British Columbia

And it wasn’t over some minor or technical defect or deficiency. This suit has become the laughing stock of the legal profession because it has been so absurdly handled.

More than a month after the BCCA ruling, there’s still no amended NOCC filed. There obviously is no urgency whatsoever to get anything done.

Let’s not forget that both Vaccine Choice cases, from 2019 and 2020, have been allowed to sit idly for years. No rush here either to advance those.

Fundraising started 4 years ago, and still no legitimate Claim from Action4Canada.

If there really was all this expert evidence and testimony ready to go, why mess around with incoherent and unintelligible pleadings? Why unnecessarily complicate things if all of these witnesses were set? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why delay things for years like this?

Even if a well written Notice of Claim were filed tomorrow (unlikely as that is), the Statute of Limitations would be a serious issue. Any new claims would be barred if they happened over 2 years earlier. And since most of the current NOCC is irrelevant or outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, there isn’t much left to go on.

What was the plan, to let Bonnie Henry just die of old age?

All that they’ve done is deliberately waste time and money. As of late, they smear their critics as “paid agitators”. Strange how it’s apparently not defamation when they suggest others are controlled opposition.

Remember to donate!

LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA:
(1) BCLS Civil Instruction Manual 2023
(2) BCLS Civil Instruction Manual 2024
(3) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/
(4) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/faq-pltc/

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

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

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

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

March 14, 2024August 7, 2024

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:

Recycling Statement of Claim from earlier struck cases
Including content in a CIVIL Claim for which there’s no jurisdiction
Drafting the Claim in a way that’s incoherent and incomprehensible
Involving union/Government workers who are barred by arbitration requirements
Unnecessary delay, causing issues with the Statute of Limitations
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.

HIS MAJESITY THE KING
Solicitor General of Ontario
Town of Ajax
Town of Ajax Fire Department (Fire Chief Aaron Burridge) City of Cambridge
City of Cambridge Fire Department (Fire Chief Brian Arnold)
City of Greater Sudbury
City of Guelph, City of Guelph Fire Department (Fire Chief Dave Elloway)
City of Hamilton
City of Hamilton Police
City of Hamilton Police Chief (Frank Bergen)
City of Hamilton Fire Department (Fire Chief David Cunliffe)
City of Markham
City of Markham Fire Department (Fire Chief Adam J. Grant)
City of Mississauga
City of Mississauga Fire Department (Fire Chief Deryn Rizzi)
City of Ottawa
City of Ottawa Police
City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs)
City of Ottawa Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Hutt)
City of Pickering
City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)
City of Toronto
City of Toronto Police
City of Toronto Chief of Police (James Ramer)
City of Toronto Fire Service (Fire Chief Matthew Pegg)
Toronto District School Board
Toronto Transit Commission
Toronto Transit Commission Chair (Jon Burnside)
City of Windsor
City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)
Town of Orangeville
City of St. Catharines
Regional Municipality of Durham
York Region
York Regional Police
York Regional Police Chief (Jim MacSween)
City of Niagara Falls
Niagara Regional Police
Niagara Regional Police Chief (Bryan MacCulloch)
Town of Oakville
Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault)
Peel Region
Peel Regional Police
Peel Regional Police Chief (Nishan Duraiappah)
Town of Whitby
Town of Whitby Fire Department (Fire Chief Mike Hickey)
Municipality of Leamington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 24, 2024February 27, 2024

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.

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

February 11, 2024June 9, 2024

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
2023-01-05 Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 5

Category: UN/WHO

Adam Skelly, Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions

Like this:

Illegal Crossings Into Canada For 2023: Quebec Way Down, B.C. Rising

Like this:

Action4Canada: 4 Years Later, No Legitimate Notice Of Civil Claim Filed

Like this:

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

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

What kind of idiot sues this many unrelated parties?

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

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

Like this:

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

Like this:

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

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

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

What kind of idiot sues this many unrelated parties?

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

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

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: