Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

CANS describes itself as such:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing public and private interest standing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of some of the major events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Government has since refused to admit anything)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

UNESCO Guidelines For The Governance Of Digital Platforms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

And they’re not wrong.

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

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

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

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

1. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Dormant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action4Canada struck as “bad beyond argument” at Paragraph 45:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45

Adeberg struck as “bad beyond argument” at Paragraph 52:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And please do remember to donate!

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

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

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

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

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants

Posted on

From 2009: WHO Guidance On IHR Implementation In National Legislation

Over the last few years, it’s been covered here how the WHO’s International Health Regulations (or IHR), have been implemented domestically via the Quarantine Act and Public Health Acts. It’s also been argued that the Public Health Agency of Canada (or PHAC), is effectively a local outpost of WHO.

To further bolster those claims, here’s a 2009 document from WHO, giving Member States advice on how to implement the 2005 version of those International Health Regulations. Interestingly, there seems to be little to no interest in any sort of democratic consultation.

See both the original posting, and the marked version.

[Page 2]
The International Health Regulations (2005) – Toolkit for implementation in national legislation: The National IHR Focal Point was developed by the Secretariat of the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to requests for guidance on legislative implementation of the requirements concerning the designation or establishment and functioning of the National IHR Focal Point (NFP) under the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR (2005)” or “Regulations”). This toolkit complements other related legal guidance on the role and assessment of national legislation for IHR (2005) implementation, including the legislative reference and assessment tool and compilation of examples of legislation. The International Health Regulations (2005): Areas of work for implementation and other guidance developed by the WHO Secretariat assist States Parties with the IHR (2005) implementation process.

[Page 7]
1.2. What is a National IHR Focal Point (NFP)?
The designation or establishment of an NFP and its proper functioning are among the key obligations of each State Party under the IHR (2005). An effectively functioning NFP network is essential to the successful implementation of the Regulations.
The NFP is a national centre, established or designated by each State Party. The NFP must be accessible at all times (7 days a week, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year) for IHR (2005)-related communications with WHO IHR Contact Points. WHO has identified such a Contact Point at each of its six regional offices, available at all times for IHR communications. To date, 193 States Parties have designated an NFP.

[Page 10]
1.3 Why are national legislation, regulations and other instruments relevant for NFP designation or establishment and functioning?
.
The IHR (2005) are legally binding on virtually all (i.e. 194) States worldwide, and impact governmental functions and responsibilities across many ministries, sectors and governmental levels. The Regulations also involve very specific operational functions, such as those of the NFP. While the IHR (2005) mandate that the NFP be designated or established, and that it function properly, how these requirements are to be implemented is up to each State Party in light of its own legislation, governmental structures and policies. The effective implementation of these obligations, however, requires that an adequate legal framework is in place.
.
In some States, giving effect to the IHR (2005) within domestic jurisdiction and national law generally requires that the relevant authorities adopt implementing legislation. However, even where new or revised legislation, regulations or other instruments may not be explicitly required under the State Party’s legal system, they may still be considered by the country in order to facilitate performance of IHR activities in a more efficient, effective or otherwise beneficial manner — including those relating to the NFP.

The World Health Organization provides specific wording templates to use in upcoming legislation. In other words, these guidelines are being provided, and all that’s needed is to fill in the blanks.

[Page 16]
A. Minimum mandatory NFP functions
The following functions printed in bold are derived directly from the IHR (2005) and can be considered mandatory components of terms of reference for NFPs:
1) Remaining accessible at all times for communications with WHO IHR Contact Points (via e-mail, telephone and/or fax): In order to ensure coverage of the post around the clock, it is envisioned that NFPs will be offices rather than individuals, including potentially a designated government position supported by a functional structure. It is critical that the NFP be available at all times, and it will not be possible for a single individual to carry out this function. Functional and reliable telephone, e-mail and fax lines are essential. The NFP should be contactable by direct telephone or fax and via a generic institutional email address, preferably one indicating its affiliation with the IHR.

[Page 16]
2) On behalf of the State Party concerned, sending to WHO IHR Contact Points urgent communications arising from IHR (2005) implementation, in particular under Articles 6-12 of IHR (2005): In summary, Articles 6-12 cover the following communications:
(i) Notification (Article 6): Notifying WHO of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within a State Party’s territory in accordance with the Annex 2;
(ii) Information-sharing during unexpected or unusual public health events (Article 7): Providing all relevant public health information if there is evidence of an unexpected or unusual public health event within a State Party’s territory which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern;
(iii) Consultation (Article 8): If the State Party so chooses, keeping WHO advised on events occurring within a State Party’s territory which do not require notification, and consulting with WHO on appropriate health measures;

and so on….

The document also uses legislation from countries around the world to give as examples for how to implement. But don’t worry, it’s not a global conspiracy or anything.

And a serious question to ask: did anyone ever vote for this? Was this on any official Federal or Provincial platform? Was there a public referendum to examine if the citizens wanted this?

(1) https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/emergencies/ihr-toolkit-for-implementation-in-national-legislation3cceba0c-4580-48a4-9d4e-2b17a2146b66.pdf?sfvrsn=60aea14d_1&download=true
(2) IHR Toolkit For Implementation In National Legislation
(3) Wayback Machine Archive

LINKS TO ARTICLES WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION

WHO Constitution in 1946: Canada signs on to the WHO Constitution, a provision within states that adopting this document is a requirement to being a member. This was nearly 100 years ago that this was adopted.

https://canucklaw.ca/world-health-organization-constitution-have-you-actually-read-it/

Int’l Pandemic Treaty a red herring: Why the high profile “amendments” to the International Health Regulations are largely irrelevant. The short answer is that countries are already bound to their dictates. Yes, this just makes it more of a formality

https://canucklaw.ca/who-constitution-why-the-global-pandemic-treaty-is-largely-irrelevant/

IHR are legally binding: The International Health Regulations aren’t just “recommendations” as many might think. Member-states are legally required to implement these rules, although it’s unclear how disobedience might be punished in practice.

https://canucklaw.ca/who-legally-binding-international-health-regulations-ihr/

2005 Quarantine Act is 3rd Ed WHO-IHR: Bill C-12 was introduced in the House of Commons in late 2004. Supposedly”, this was in response to SARS a few years earlier. While the explanations sounded benevolent, the reality is that it laid the path for a lot of the martial law measures that happened 2020-2023. It was also explicitly admitted during the hearings that the QA was designed in anticipation of new changes to WHO-IHR. (The 3rd Edition IHR eventually came out in 2005)

https://canucklaw.ca/the-2005-quarantine-act-bill-c-12-was-actually-written-by-who/

PHAC created at instigation of WHO: The Public Health Agency of Canada was created out of nothing in June 2004, at the instigation of the WHO. The 133rd Session took place in January 2004, and required member-states to “develop a focal point” to respond to future health crises. That turned out to be PHAC. Several Orders-In-Council later, and it was embedded with other legislation. Once Harper took power in early 2006, he introduced the “PHAC Act, to give the new agency its own powers.

https://canucklaw.ca/public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who/

Health Canada pop’n control: PHAC isn’t the only problem that we’ve have to deal with. Health Canada (formerly the Department of Health) was created by Bill 37 back in 1919. The supposed reason was public health after WWI. HC has undergone transformations over the years, and a lot of its old functions are now covered by PHAC.

https://canucklaw.ca/health-canada-initially-created-for-population-control-measures/

Provincial Health Acts are QA derivatives: a quick look through shows that they are written almost identically. They were all put in around 2007-2010, following the passage of the 2005 Quarantine Act. Political parties aside, they serve the same masters.

1st article: BC, AB, SK, MB, ON
2nd article: QC, NS, NB, PEI, NFLD
https://canucklaw.ca/provincial-health-acts-are-really-just-who-ihr-domestically-implemented/
https://canucklaw.ca/the-other-provincial-health-acts-written-by-who-ihr/

This was slipped into a Budget Bill, Bill C-97, back in 2019. It removes the requirement for parliamentary consultations when invoking Quarantine Act, of Human Pathogens and Toxins Act. Considering the timing, it’s hard to argue this wasn’t pre-planned.

https://canucklaw.ca/oversight-for-human-pathogens-and-toxins

This hasn’t been updated in a long time, but the WHO-IHR statements are essentially guidelines for national and regional politicians to follow

https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-actions-were-dictated-by-whos-legally-binding-ihr

The WHO-IHR are far from the only agreements that attack our freedom. Another is the Sendai Framework, which serves to trip away many of the same rights: mobility, association, earning a livelihood, etc…. These same measures can be present in different forms.

https://canucklaw.ca/2-sides-of-the-same-coin-sendai/

Posted on

Newest Grift? $600,000 Sought For Injection Injuries For Federal Workers

This recently came to my attention: there’s an effort to recruit some 600 Plaintiffs (Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries) for a lawsuit over vaccine injuries. There’s to be a massive filing over the injuries they’ve received over the coerced injections.

This group is apparently called the “Federal and Federally Regulated Employees for Justice”, and claims to be made up of volunteers.

If this sounds familiar, it is. It’s a virtual copy of this mess filed back in May 2022. It listed over 600 Plaintiffs who lost their jobs over injection passports. Here’s the Retainer Agreement that clients were asked to sign.

Now, this iteration will be a lawsuit for workers who took the shots and were injured in some capacity.

It’s to be conducted by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself. This is the Toronto lawyer who lost the last Federal case in February 2023, and Action4Canada in August 2022 because they were so incoherently and unintelligibly written.

As with the last suit, this has 2 groups of people:
(a) Employees and former employees of the Federal Government
(b) Employees and former employees of Federally regulated industries

There is a difference between the 2, and that will become obvious later.

The website goes on to explain that $600,000 in total will be sought, and that the amount individual clients pay will be dependent on how many there are to begin with. More clients means less individual costs, which isn’t a bad thing by itself.

Legal Costs: Total retainer fee is about $600,000, which will be divisible by the number of signed Plaintiffs. As an example, 600 + Plaintiffs @ $1,000 each. If the Plaintiff count should be lower, the retainer fee will be pro rated as an example, 300 + Plaintiffs @ $2,000 each. To put this into perspective, this represents about a year’s supply of a latte at Starbuck’s, each day or your annual vehicle insurance. At this time, please do NOT submit your retainer fee. If there is enough interest then a simple one-page retainer agreement will be forwarded and then the retainer agreement and it’s fee can be submitted at that time. We will provide the details at a later time.

Apparently, the group is soliciting donations in addition to collecting retainer fees. At least that’s what it looks like on the webpage.

Now the issues start to mount.

First major problem: members of the Federal Government typically don’t have the right to sue.

From the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved (a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
236(1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees — the Core Public Administration — the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

While this group is signing up clients to represent who are “vaccine injured”, members of the Federal Government don’t have the right to sue — for the most part. To get around that, they have to demonstrate that they tried grievance methods, and that the process isn’t workable.

See this review for input on how the last Federal case should have been drafted.

Second major problem: Why wasn’t Compensation Program at least consulted?

The issue of being compensated for vaccine injuries carries another complication: there’s already a program in place from Ottawa to help victims.

Certainly, one can debate the merits of such a program. And clearly, it was enacted to convince more people to take the experimental injections. However, since Federal workers don’t automatically have access to the Courts, Plaintiffs may be asked about this. Even the Federally regulated workers can have that come up.

Would litigants be denied their day in Court because this already exists? Maybe not, but anything is possible, especially when none of them have even explored the option. Remember the last point: Federal workers need to convince the Court that suing was their only available recourse.

Third major problem: Galati has ALREADY lost on issue of jurisdiction

This proposed lawsuit retreads grounds that the last case already decided. Paragraphs 10-36 of the Decision outlined why employees of the Federal Government don’t normally have the right to sue.

This won’t (directly) impact workers of Federally regulated industries, but there’s still the problem of their respective employers being an intermediate party.

That was appealed, and the hearing was on November 8th, 2023. The Federal Court of Appeal will most likely dismiss it. This means that this proposed suit will already be a lost cause.

This “vaccine injuries” lawsuit is run by the same people who put together the last challenge, so there’s no way they don’t know about this.

Fourth major problem: Rules of Civil Procedure aren’t followed drafting documents

This dead horse has been beaten enough already. See critiques for

(a) Vaccine Choice Canada
(b) Action4Canada
(c) Federal injection pass case — from this group

These cases are all within the last few years. If recent history is any indication, then this proposed lawsuit will be written just as poorly. It’s embarrassing that lawyers can practice for decades without being able to form coherent sentences. Expect a Motion to Strike, followed by another “bad beyond argument” ruling.

Fifth major problem: more money to be demanded, it’s a guarantee

Once this new lawsuit is thrown out, it’s very likely that more money will be sought in order to pay for the Appeals. This is exactly what happened with this group’s other Federal case.

This email was leaked from angry and disillusioned clients, and eventually made its way here.

Hello everyone,  

Some of you have already heard but for those who haven’t, the Judge has rendered his decision in the Government’s motion to strike our claim. In a somewhat anticipated move, the claim was struck for 2/3 of the plaintiffs and remains open for 1/3 to amend the claim and resubmit. There is a letter attached from Rocco himself that goes into greater detail about the decision. Needless to say, the decision was an absolute pile of rubbish and the Panel has decided to appeal the decision.  

Now, as you will read in Rocco’s attached letter, there are additional fees associated with launching the appeal. The additional fees are minimal in comparison to the initial retainer but an explanation is required.  

As Rocco’s letter will clarify, the retainer fee was to cover all that was required to see this matter through a trial in the Federal Court. Now that an appeal is required, it is required to go through the Federal Court of Appeals and that alone will cost in excess of $100,000. Rocco budgeted the retainer fee on doing everything to see a trial through the Federal Court which did not include appeals.  

We feel it necessary at this juncture to apologize to each and every one of you. We misinterpreted the finer details of what the retainer fee covered due, no doubt, to our limited knowledge about how the civil court process works and a misunderstanding of the information Rocco provided to us. Some of you asked specifically what all would be covered with the retainer fee and were informed it would cover this entire matter all the way through no matter what action was required and for this, we apologize.  

We wish to reinforce with you that this was not done out of an attempt to deceive or act maliciously. We are going to be out the same amount as anyone else who desires to proceed and be a part of the appeal.  

To avoid repeating the same confusion, the panel asked Rocco to outline the cost implications for every step and all the way to the Supreme Court which Rocco now outlined in his letter. We hope this will better serve all of us and it is also our hopes that you will see this effort by the panel as a way to remain fully transparent on what transpired but also on what to expect going forward. We too, do not want to see other surprises but more importantly, we do agree with Rocco that we have a strong position for an appeal. We ultimately hope for our day in Court but sadly, we did not have our day in Court here as our lawsuit was wrongly struck down as evidently explained in Rocco’s letter. 

We are planning to host another info session with Rocco via Zoom within the next few weeks to answer questions you may have and to provide more information regarding how the appeal process will work. We are not going to attempt to solicit any money from anyone prior to this information session. Our intent is to allow you to consider whether each of you as individuals wish to proceed from this point.  

We understand many of you will have questions. We will do our best to answer them or have Rocco address them in the upcoming info session.  

We have also attached a link to the decision on the Federal Court website. 

Sincerely and most humbly,  

The Federal Employee Lawsuit Panel
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

Expect more of the same to happen here.

The group also appears to encourage clients to engage in abuse of process by filing multiple, interrelated lawsuits separately, and against different people.

As a point of clarification, you can participate in several similar legal proceedings against another party, as long as each prosecution focuses on a different case. For example, in the case of vaccination mandates, you may file legal proceedings against your employer for liability and compensation for irregularities and employment-related offences. You may also participate in legal proceedings against the federal government for constitutional and Charter violations that have infringed on your freedom and rights.

It’s unclear why such advice would be given. Even assuming good intentions, it’s a blueprint to have a case delayed, and possibly thrown out. The Courts (understandably) don’t want overlapping lawsuits, as it forces Judges to compete with each other in their rulings.

Now, it’s entirely possible that this new case is legitimate and that it will be diligently pursued. However, given how things have been recently, it seems unlikely. People are welcome to pay into this if they want, but need to be aware that this case will never get to Trial.

In fact, it won’t even survive a Motion to Strike.

FROM THE WEBSITE
(A.1) https://fre4justice.ca/
(A.2) https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/
(A.3) fre4justice Main Page

(B.1) https://fre4justice.ca/#section-1
(B.2) https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/
(B.3) fre4justice About Us

(C.1) https://fre4justice.ca/#section-2
(C.2) https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/
(C.3) fre4justice Expression Of Interest

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide: How A COMPETENT Lawyer Should Have Have Handled Federal Injection Pass Case

On Wednesday, November 8th, the Federal Court of Appeal heard a case of over 600 Plaintiffs that was struck for being “bad beyond argument“. This was the high profile case of Federal workers, and members of Federally regulated industries who objected to the CV injections being a new job requirement.

There was an additional complication, as the Federal workers were also barred by law from going to Court. The others could, in theory, still use litigation as an option. This effectively “split” the case.

The case is being handled by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati.

August 2021: Ottawa announces that “vaccine passport” will be required of all Federal workers, and members of Federally regulated industries in the next few months.

May 2022: Statement of Claim is filed on behalf of over 600 Plaintiffs.

January 2023: There’s a hearing in Federal Court to strike the Claim.

February 2023: Claim struck in its entirety without leave (no permission) to amend regarding the Federal employees. However, it’s struck with leave (permission) to refile for everyone else. The Judge also found that the quality of the writing was “bad beyond argument”.

March 2023: Notice of Appeal was filed.

April 2023: The Appeal Book is filed.

May 2023: The Appellants’ written arguments are filed.

June 2023: The Respondents’ written arguments are filed.

November 2023: The Federal Court of Appeal has hearing to review the case.

The case is on reserve, meaning that the 3 Justices haven’t yet made their findings. This is quite common, though it’s uncertain when it will be released.

Interestingly, the lawsuit wasn’t filed until May 2022, nearly a year after mandates were announced. To put it mildly, it was terribly written, and never stood a chance. That’s been covered in detail here, here, here, and here.

Instead, this is going to be a different focus. Rather than simply pointing out errors and faults with how the case has been handled, serious, constructive feedback will be offered. Here are some ways that the case could have been managed differently, and how it may have survived.

Disclaimer:
This article does not attempt to provide legal advice. Instead, it’s meant as constructive feedback and information with regards to the Adelberg v. HMTK Case. The handing, both at the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal was beyond inept and unprofessional. Nonetheless, do not rely on this for your own cases. If you have questions, please seek advice from a competent legal professional

Anyhow, let’s get started.

One of the first things that needs to be pointed out is that employees of the Federal Government — a.k.a. the “Core Public Administration” — don’t automatically have the right to sue. Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) are quite clear about that.

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved (a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
236(1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

With this in mind, Federal workers don’t automatically have the right to go to Court. In fact, they will have to demonstrate that the grievance options available to them are grossly inadequate and/or that the process is corrupted. This didn’t happen here. In fact, it doesn’t appear that any effort was made by anyone to go through the process, at least from reading the pleadings.

Approximately 2/3 of the 600+ Plaintiffs (about 400 in total) are/were members of the Federal Government. In order to sue, they’d have to demonstrate that existing options weren’t adequate.

There’s also the inter-related concern about just how poorly written the Claim is.

Anyhow, let’s offer some constructive feedback.

1. Plead Facts About How Grievance Process Is Unworkable Or Corrupt

The Statement of Claim (SoC) is 50 pages long. While this seems like a lot, the first 15 are just the Parties listed, and the other pages included in the template. The next several are the remedies sought. Then a few pages include some background information on the Parties (which is fine).

The “FACTS” start on Paragraph 22, which is about halfway through the SoC. It goes on from there until about Paragraph 30, approximately 1 page in total, explaining the allegations and pleading facts. Nearly everything else that follows is irrelevant to these proceedings.

Feedback: It would help the case immensely to plead facts about how various clients had attempted to resolve the injection mandates at their jobs. Providing details about what steps were taken (at least by some employees) to avoid this would have helped.

This certainly wouldn’t need to be all 600+ Plaintiffs, but pleading facts for about 20 or 30 of them using grievance options would have gone a long way. Or, considering that there aren’t many options available, perhaps lumping Plaintiffs together could work. For example:

-“Group A Plaintiffs” filed grievances with their union reps.
-“Group B Plaintiffs” contacted their HR Departments to seek alternatives.
-“Group C Plaintiffs” wrote to their employers, refusing, and asking for options.
-“Group D Plaintiffs” tried some combination of different methods.

This may be oversimplified, but remember, Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA give Federal workers the right to grieve, but not to sue. To overcome this, they need to show that there were no options available. And to do that, they need to at least show that they tried some remedies.

Seriously, there were over 400 members and former members of the Federal Government here. Didn’t any of them attempt the grievance process? None of them plead anything of the sort.

2. Plead Facts About Clients Attempting Workarounds Or Exemptions

Paragraph 28(c) is the only mention of Plaintiffs seeking exemptions from these requirements. And only a handful of them are named. While nice to see a mention of it, this isn’t nearly enough.

Feedback: More than just a few Plaintiffs should have been named as seeking exemptions. Additionally, the SoC “should” have given more information on what types of exemptions were sought, and the responses.

Similar to the last point, Plaintiffs who sought exemptions could be grouped together to make things more organized.

-“Group A Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for religious reasons.
-“Group B Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for medical reasons.
-“Group C Plaintiffs” sought exemptions based on freedom of conscience beliefs.
-“Group D Plaintiffs” sought exemptions based on lack of current long term test data.
-“Group E Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for a variety of reasons.

Additionally, Plaintiffs could have tried to obtain various accommodations to allow them to continue working (such as remotely). Information on that could have been pleaded as well.

This could also be used to bolster the claim that the Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies, and only sued as a last resort. It would be an important point to make.

And back to Point #1: considering that by default, Federal workers don’t have the right to sue (they can grieve though), it would have been nice to see what, if any, steps were taken afterwards. But the SoC pleads none of this, and consequently, can’t overcome the s.236 FPSLRA prohibition.

Yes, it’s true that facts are presumed to be true at the initial stages, but they still need to be pleaded in the Statement of Claim.

3. Provide Evidence Of Unworkability In Motion To Strike

It’s true that in Motions to Strike (throw out), evidence is not normally allowed. This is because it’s a preliminary challenge, and the opposing side is trying to say that the suit is fatal flawed regardless.

However, there are a few exceptions to this. These are instances where it will lead to the case being thrown out without any possibility to refile. Jurisdiction is one such exception, and the Statute of Limitations is another. Galati appears to be unaware of this, at least according to Paragraph 3 of his Written Submissions.

Feedback: The first line of defence that the Government has is the “explicit ouster” of s.236 of the FPSLRA. Once again, this is the argument that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear (at least part) of the Claims. If this can not be overcome, then the case is dead in the water.

What should have been done here is have several Plaintiffs submit evidence that they tried to exercise their grievance options. True, this will involve collecting Affidavits. True, they can then be questioned, or cross-examined on this. But such evidence would have helped in demonstrating the unworkability of existing options for Federal workers.

Plaintiffs who file Affidavits could certainly attach as exhibits any documents that show they tried other methods. Emails, text messages, letters, transcripts of recordings, etc…. would all have shown that they attempted to resolve this internally. If enough litigants did this, that would be very powerful evidence.

None of the 400+ Government workers had any evidence to submit for the Motion?

Keep in mind, if people are suing for large sums of money, they’d likely have to testify under oath at some point. Therefore, being cross-examined on an Affidavit hardly seems excessive.

Back to Point #1: if facts had been pleaded about this in the SoC, then it would have been a lot easier. Yes, a Motion to Strike would still be likely, but the Plaintiffs would be in a much stronger position.

4. Allegations Need To Be Particularized (Spelled Out) Clearly

There’s a requirement in the Federal Court Rules to “give particulars” when making allegations of, among other things:

(a) Fraud
(b) Misrepresentation
(c) Breach of Trust
(d) Undue influence
(e) Malfeasance of Public Office

What this means is that there’s a duty for the Plaintiffs to spell out with additional clarity what the accusations are. Galati doesn’t do that here, or in any anti-lockdown cases.

Feedback: If litigants are going to be making accusations of this sort, then it needs to be outlined in much more detail. What specific actions were fraudulent or amount to misrepresentation? What specific actions or statements caused that breach of trust? Instead of just making such bare statements, the underlying information needs to be provided.

Remember, everyone is entitled to confront their accusers. This includes Government officials. How can they respond to allegations if there’s not enough information provided?

If there isn’t enough information available to allege such things, then it would probably be better to just leave them out. It doesn’t help the clients to have the case bogged down unnecessarily.

5. Plead Facts In Support Of Claims Charter Rights Were Breached

Setting aside the issues around jurisdiction, the Courts are generally the proper forum to raise allegations that Charter protections have been violated. And a number of them are raised here:

(a) Section 2, Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 6, Mobility Rights
(c) Section 7, Security of the Person
(d) Section 15, Equality Rights

The problem is: while these are listed, there’s little to no information in support of this. As a result, the Defendants are left to guess. While many people can imply the reasons, it still has to be written out in the pleadings.

Feedback: If someone is going to allege that their rights have been violated, it would be helpful to lay out the details of what has happened. How are groups of people being treated unequally? How are people unsecure in their bodies? What mobility rights have been taken away?

The Plaintiffs have suffered mental anguish? Loss of dignity? Okay, then we need more information (facts) about what has happened.

6. Remove Argument From Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim more closely resembles a Factum than it does a Claim. It tries to argue what the scientific consensus is, and what the motivations of people are. It also draws the same conclusions that the Court is being asked to do.

Feedback: Instead of trying to argue in a Claim, it would be more helpful to to simply plead what information is available. What events? What dates? Who said what? Making it unnecessarily convoluted may impress many, but confusing the Judge is not wise.

Moreover, arguing caselaw and evidence in the initial pleadings isn’t appropriate. That comes much later, and is pretty basic knowledge in civil procedure. This is (partly) why the Government lawyers are saying that there are no facts pled. They’re right, it’s almost entirely argument.

7. Remove Content That’s Inappropriate In A Civil Claim

This is a no brainer. Courts are limited to certain types of cases, and are not allowed to preside over issues outside of their jurisdiction. It was also part of the reason the Action4Canada case was struck.

(a) Allegations of criminal conduct
(b) Allegations of crimes against humanity
(c) Allegations of violations of the Nuremberg Code
(d) Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration
(e) Allegations of involvement in eugenics schemes
(f) Seeking declarations about what the “scientific consensus” is

Feedback: Drop all of this, and related content from this — and other lawsuits. All it does is lead to Motions to Strike over jurisdiction. If the case is about workers having to take injections to keep their jobs, then don’t lose focus.

8. Name All Plaintiffs Instead Of “John Doe” And “Jane Doe”

Dozens of Plaintiffs in the Style of Cause (front pages) are simply listed as either “John Doe” or as “Jane Doe”, along with their employer.

Feedback: If the lawsuit were actually intended to go ahead, this would be pointless, as they’d all have to be identified at some point. It just wastes everyone’s time. Supposedly, this was done to prevent harassment and intimidation, but their identities could still be found out.

Considering that Government lawyers — supposedly — tried to find out who were anyway, it’s unclear what the point is. Despite what people think about Trudeau and his people, they still are entitled to know who is making the allegations. Think about it: how can one confront their accusers in Court, without knowing who they are?

9. Don’t Suggest Lower Court Judge Was Biased

The Notice of Appeal implies that Justice Fothergill was biased in how he wrote up the February 2023 Order which saw the SoC struck. This isn’t a good idea. The Judge correctly outlined many serious defects in the pleading.

Feedback: This is a dumb idea. Don’t do it. To even imply such a thing, there’d have to be some strong basis for it, or it could be considered contempt of Court.

Also, the comparison to Action4Canada was quite fitting. While the Federal suit was much shorter, it had essentially the same flaws and defects. There was the additional problem of the “explicit ouster” of s.236 FPSLRA.

Would the case have survived if the above recommendations had been implemented? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it would have been a lot more likely.

Again, this article is not meant to provide legal advice. This site in general does not provide advice. If you have questions in your own case, please seek professional input.

Pretty pathetic that this case has taken in over $1.2 million in fees and donations. How is this number arrived at?

(a) the donations solicited on the Constitutional Rights Centre website
(b) the Retainer Agreement demanded $1,000 from each Plaintiff (or $600,000+)
(c) the email to clients demanding another $1,000 from each (or $600,000+)

A lot of money has been wasted, and all for a lawsuit that never stood a chance. Now, hundreds of Plaintiffs — with valid problems — are going to find that they’re barred by the Statute of Limitations from trying again.

Meanwhile, a “moronic troll” online can break this case apart with little effort. Have to wonder what’s really going on here.

This article will likely lead to Galati suing the site again. Oh well. It’s not like the last one was well written, or even coherent.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action


Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/canuckla/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5471