Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal: Why Didn’t They Just Rewrite The Claim?

Note: Court documents are provided below. Help yourself!

August 2020 (or around then), a group called Action4Canada began soliciting donations for the promise of a lawsuit to challenge martial law measures in British Columbia. However, it would be about a year before anything would materialize.

August 17th, 2021, Action4Canada filed this 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim) in Vancouver. To put it very mildly, the lawsuit was a complete mess, and never stood any chance of making it to Trial.

August 31st, the Canuck Law site published this review of Action4Canada’s 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC). The gist of the article was that the document completely failed to meet the basics of the Rules of Civil Procedure for British Columbia, and would inevitably be struck.

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

That article gathered some real traction, and was spread throughout the alt-media and freedom community. However, it seemed that the people at Action4Canada were outraged, and alleged that it caused a drop in donations.

September 7th, the Canuck Law site was sued for defamation for $7,000,000, and that article was specifically included. It’s believed that the head of Action4Canada instigated the suit, in retaliation for increased scrutiny, and the loss in donations.

May 31st, 2022, an Application to Strike was heard in Vancouver to throw out Action4Canada’s case. This came after months of the Plaintiffs trying to delay matters.

August 29th, 2022, Justice Alan Ross struck the Action4Canada case in its entirety, although a rewrite was allowed. His ruling greatly paralleled the 2021 review that this site had been sued over. Even the B.C. Law Society piled on, using this case as an example of how not to draft pleadings. See page 15, (27 overall).It was a bittersweet vindication.

That said, Justice Ross did allow the NOCC to be rewritten, and that’s where things get interesting. The Plaintiffs could have just written it properly, but instead, the case was appealed.

Some Plaintiffs, such as Amy Muranetz and Federico Fuoco, saw the writing on the wall when the August ruling came. They realized that this wasn’t what they signed up for, and discontinued. But the Appeal is still going ahead with the majority of the parties.

The Appeal seeks to overturn several parts of Justice Ross’ decision, such as this:

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:

a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

Yes, the Appellants are trying to get the B.C. Court of Appeals to decide that a Civil Court is able to make criminal rulings, determine scientific consensus, and make rulings with respect to the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration. Clearly, this will go nowhere.

The Appeal also states that costs should not have been awarded to the Defendants, despite the fact that the NOCC was incoherent. As costs are generally discretionary, this won’t make headway.

While claiming that the case was improperly struck, the Appellant’s Factum avoids the elephant in the room: the original Claim didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure at all.

Again, the case could simply have been rewritten.

It’s worth noting that Action4Canada is still soliciting donations, under the pretense that an amended NOCC will be filed anytime. It’s been 8 months since Justice Ross’ ruling, and still nothing. Also, considering the mess the lawyers made last time, shouldn’t they be replaced by more competent people?

And is Lawrence Wong part of this, or is his office just a mailing address?

Action4Canada’s main lawyer said in an Affidavit earlier this year (while he’s suing other people out West) that the amended NOCC was on hold. Meanwhile, this group is still asking for more money, for a NOCC that they know isn’t coming anytime soon.

In reality, Action4Canada has been fundraising since about the Summer of 2020. As no legitimate lawsuit has been filed in nearly 3 years, is this not a scam?

Reading through the Respondents’ Factums — and there are 5 of them — they all point to the same thing. Instead of appealing, the Claim could simply have been written in a clear and intelligible way. Justice Ross provided that option.

The Factum from Action4Canada ignores the elephant in the room. The case was struck (largely) because it was so convoluted and incomprehensible. That point is glossed over almost entirely. And what so the Defendants (Respondents) have to say about this?

Factum of Attorney General of Canada:

[Page 14, Paragraph 27] The chambers judge found those pleadings above to be improper. However he did not dismiss those or any parts of the action. He did not conduct an exhaustive review of the claim. He determined that he was unable to parse the claim to indicate whether paragraphs, categories, or claims should remain in or should be struck, stating: “[t]hat is not the proper role of this court.”

Factum of B.C. Ferries, Brittney Sylvester:

[Page 5, Paragraph 15] The chambers judge’s finding of prolixity is unimpeachable. At more than 390 pages, the NOCC is clearly prolix. But sheer length is not the only problem. The NOCC’s scope is sweeping and unconstrained: it makes wide-ranging allegations—even against non-parties—that have little or no connection to any justiciable question of law. It contains extensive passages of completely irrelevant information and convoluted legal arguments. And as the chambers judge found, it is impenetrable: “[it] is not a pleading that can properly be answered by a responsive pleading”. As such, it was properly struck.

Factum of Provincial Defendants:

[Page 3, Paragraphs 11, 12] The NOCC is replete with wide-ranging and unconstrained allegations against both the defendants and non-parties. It alleges a vast narrative of global conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and corporate and non-governmental organization corruption. Non-parties against whom the appellants levy allegations include Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the World Health Organization.

The appellants seek declaratory relief on numerous non-justiciable issues pertaining to questions of science, public health, and conspiracy theories. The appellants also allege numerous offences under the Criminal Code and violations of international legal instruments—none of which are viable causes of action in a domestic civil action.

Factum of Peter Kwok, TransLink:

[Page 2, Paragraph 9] Justice Ross found that the NOCC “is not a document that the court can mend by striking portions”. He noted that the NOCC contained “multiple allegations against the defendants individually and jointly”, such that it “would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular allegation” . Justice Ross went on to find that the issues with the NOCC were so profound that it could not be saved by a piecemeal striking of the problematic portions, as doing so “would invite more confusion and greater expenditure of the resources of all concerned.”

Factum of Vancouver Island Health Authority and Providence Health Care:

[Page 6] The appellants ignore that the notice of civil claim was struck due to its prolix and confusing nature, and focus on challenging the obiter of Justice Ross in respect of which claims are properly included in the notice of civil claim. Justice Ross did not specifically strike any of the claims in the notice of civil claim, but rather sought to provide guidance on which claims could be properly included in the next iteration of the appellants’ notice of civil claim. These issues are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Justice Ross’ order ought to be overturned. Rather, this appeal ought to address the serious defects in the notice of civil claim which render it prolix, scandalous, embarrassing, and confusing to the point where it is impossible to properly respond to.

As painful as this is to say, how are they wrong? These quotes explain quite well why the original NOCC was struck. And this leads to another point: Action4Canada frequently misrepresents why this happened at all. They admit it was prolix (too long), but downplay other issues.

Another common lie is that Justice Ross found the NOCC to be valid. He did no such thing. Instead, he said there were “potentially valid causes of action”, which is not same thing. There might be parts that theoretically could be litigated if the NOCC were written properly.

So, what happens when the B.C. Court of Appeals eventually throws this out? Will there be an Application for Leave (permission) to get the Supreme Court of Canada to hear this? If so, an amended NOCC may not be filed until 2025 or 2026.

Why wasn’t the original NOCC written properly?

Why appeal instead of just writing it according to the guidelines of Justice Ross?

Remember: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves!

On an unrelated, but humourous note: Action4Canada has apparently enraged gay rights groups to the point where some of their financial information was posted online. See General Ledger below. It seems that in late April 2022, page 10, there was a $200,000 transfer to pay for legal fees (and a corresponding transfer to cover the balance). It’s fair to assume that this “Action” has cost much more than half a million in total.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(3) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(4) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(5) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(6) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(7) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(8) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(9) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(10) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health

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

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

Posted on

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearings To Resume On Monday, April 24

Monday, April 24, the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver is set to resume certification hearings for a proposed class action lawsuit. It was brought by a group called CSASPP, the Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy.

This is not a Trial, but simply procedural hearings to determine if the class action is to be certified (approved), and can go ahead. Even if certified, there is still a lot to be done afterwards.

There won’t be livestreaming of the proceedings, but at least one person, Eva Chipiuk, is promising real-time updates on Twitter. It’s explained here, in a short video clip.

The hearings started on December 12, 2022, and were supposed to have been concluded during the week of the 12th to the 16th. But things took a lot longer than expected, to be blunt.

CSASPP provides a page for their status updates, which is in reverse chronological order. If the court documents themselves are a bit overwhelming, this will provide a “Coles Notes” version.

Videos of the December 2022 hearings are available online.

Should this case go ahead, then Bonnie Henry, the “British Columbia Provincial Health Officer” would likely be forced to testify. And does she ever have things to answer for.

On a side note: it would be nice to see the issue of whether this “virus” exists confronted head on. After all, if the Government is lying about vaccines, masks, lockdowns, testing, contact tracing and pretty much everything else, why should we assume they tell the truth about viruses?

As for the Action4Canada suit, there’s been no amended Notice of Civil Claim filed in the 8 months since the last one crashed spectacularly. The organization is still fundraising, on the premise that it will refile at some point. The group decided to file a baseless appeal, rather than do a rewrite, which was allowed. It’s now used by the B.C. Law Society as a “teaching moment“. Heck, even the OPCA hacks aren’t really pushing this case anymore.

Below are a significant portion of the CSASPP documents. It’s not exhaustive, but should provide readers with much needed background information. These can be saved or duplicated at will.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2108/2022bcsc2108.html

Posted on

UNAIDS Releases Paper On “Human Rights-Based Approach” To Sexuality

The Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, recently caused a stir. This policy paper came out: “The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Topics include:

  • sexual and reproductive health and rights, including termination of pregnancy;
  • consensual sexual activities, including in contexts such as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work;
  • gender identity and gender expression;
  • HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission;
  • drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use; and
  • homelessness and poverty.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details.

To address the obvious: this is not legally binding on anyone. It’s just a paper. Still, that doesn’t mean the contents won’t work their way into Federal or Provincial legislation at some point.

As part of the Who We Are section, UNAIDS describes itself as “leading the global effort to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

Apparently, UNAIDS timed this document to coincide with International Women’s Day. That’s interesting, to say the least.

Anyhow, this UNAIDS document is called the: “8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty”. (See archive).

In fairness, there could be a lot of poor and imprecise wording throughout the document. But assuming that there’s not, it’s quite disturbing what’s been put out.

Parts I and II cover more general areas and ideas in law, and often seem quite reasonable. Having laws applied equally and fairly to all is something most people can easily get behind. But Part III is where things change.

Part III (page 20) of the document is where things really get weird. The following comments are an accurate reflection of what’s actually being written.

(Principle 14, page 21) addresses “sexual and reproductive health and rights”. Apparently no one should be held accountable for a mother drinking or doing drugs while pregnant. Non-disclosure of HIV (or presumably any disease) isn’t to be considered illegal.

Moreover, where a person’s criminal actions might result in criminal consequences, there’s to be no extra punishments based on the existence of the pregnancy. An example of this would be the homicide of a pregnant woman leading to multiple murder charges.

Are the unborn babies expected to have any rights here?

(Page 22) there’s a provision where “parents, guardians, carers, or other persons” who enable or assist children in exercising their sexual and/or reproductive rights may not be held criminally liable. Is this sort of thing to justify pedophilia and grooming?

(Principle 15, page 22) suggests that there should be laws against abortion in any capacity whatsoever. This applies both to the mother, and any third party.

(Principle 16, page 22) covers “consensual” sexual activity. While this is premised on the idea that all participants are in agreement, the wording suggests that it could be applied to adults and children.

Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity

The prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner? What does that even mean? Is it discrimination if an adult is not allowed to be with a child?

The paper also states that minors should be participating in decisions that impact them, taking their age and maturity into account. Is this an attempt to turn a prohibited practice into more of a “grey area”?

As for “age of consent to marriage”, is that a reference to child brides?

There’s the issue of not criminalizing activity involving members of the alphabet soup. Just a thought, but since it’s okay to not disclose HIV status, would it also be okay to deceive a partner about their true identity?

(Principle 17, page 23) calls for the complete decriminalization of sex work — such as prostitution, or pornography — as long as it’s done without coercion or fraud. To their credit, it’s specified to be limited to adults.

(Principle 18, page 23) says that sexual orientation or gender identity should not be criminalized, but doesn’t define either term in a meaningful way.

Beyond that, there’s to be no penalty for “exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity”, unless coercion is involved. This leaves open the possibility of people just larping as the opposite sex, and who don’t have gender dysphoria.

It also doesn’t address the growing issue of using gender identity as a means to attack single-sex spaces, such as prisons, changerooms and most sports.

The document further criticizes any efforts or attempts to engage in conversion therapy.

(Principle 19, page 24) implies that it’s fine to not disclose HIV positive status to a partner, as long as there’s no deliberate attempt to spread it. Presumably, this wouldn’t just apply to HIV.

(Principle 20, page 24) effectively calls for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, including by minors and pregnant women. Part (b) could be interpreted to mean the possession or distribution or drug paraphernalia shouldn’t be criminalized either.

The document also promotes what could be considered safe injection sites.

(Principle 21, page 24) would end vagrancy and squatting laws, if done for life-sustaining reasons. While this is all understandable, it’s unclear what will happen with property owners. All said, this section is probably the most reasonable one, as it’s not an issue of immorality.

Now, just because the United Nations releases a document, that doesn’t mean it will become law. However, content from “non-binding” papers often do trickle into domestic politics.

(1) https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2023/march/20230308_new-legal-principles-decriminalization
(2) https://www.unaids.org/en/whoweare/about
(3) https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf
(4) UNAIDS March Principles On Criminal Law Sexual Behaviours

Posted on

Were Recent Gun Control Measures In Canada Initiated By The United Nations?

The title isn’t clickbait. The UNODA, or United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, keeps records of the various actions taken by Member States. Canada is one of them.

One of the specific initiatives is the UN Programme of Action (PoA) and its International Tracing Instrument (ITI), which essentially amounts to global gun control efforts.

Interestingly, the Federal Government is reporting some of the restrictions they’ve made on gun owners in the 2022 report as the progress being made towards the implementation of PoA and the ITI. (See archive).

This raises the obvious question of who is really in charge here.

Let’s start with O.I.C. 2020-0298.

[Page 3]
National targets
1.4. Has your country set national targets relating to the implementation of the PoA and ITI?
1.4.1. If so, describe
In May 2020, the Government of Canada prohibited over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants. These prohibited firearms cannot be legally sold, or imported, and can only be used or transported under limited circumstances. An Amnesty Order is in effect until October 30, 2023 to allow firearms owners and businesses to come into compliance with the law, and to allow time to implement a mandatory buyback program.
.
As part of the Government of Canada’s comprehensive strategy to keep communities safe from gun violence, the Government intends to continue the implementation of regulations for firearms licence verification and business record-keeping; require the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so that they can never hold more than five rounds; ban the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets; implement the gang prevention and intervention program to provide direct funding to municipalities and Indigenous communities; introduce red flag laws to allow the immediate removal of firearms if that person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner, and increase maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling.
Target year:
2024

If this is to be taken at face value, then the May 1, 2020 Order In Council was aimed at complying with the PoA and the (ITI).

The “Red-Flag Laws” are a reference to Bill C-21, which was introduced in the last session of Parliament, and reintroduced in this one.

Altering firearms so they can never hold more than 5 bullets is also something that Bill C-21 addresses, although the details are sparse.

Then there’s O.I.C. 2022-0447.

[Page 6]
ITI 12a 2.3.2. How long must manufacturing records be kept?
[if other, please explain]
For businesses only (NOT for manufacturers): As of May 18, 2022, firearms businesses are required to keep records which describe each firearm in their possession, and record activities related to each firearm, the date on which these activities are performed, and their disposal, as follows, in order to facilitate the tracing of firearms by law enforcement in the event that a firearm is diverted to the illicit market:
.
i) Manufacturer, make, model, type of firearm, classification, action, gauge or caliber, barrel length, magazine capacity (in the case of a fixed magazine), and all serial numbers found on the frame and receiver.
.
ii) Manufacture, importation, exportation, purchase, alteration, repair, storage, exhibition, deactivation,
destruction, sale, barter, donation, consignment, pawn, or any other category related to the possession or disposal of the firearm, and the date on which the change occurred;
.
iii) The name of the shipper, their permit number or carrier licence number, and the reference number, if the shipper is different from the business keeping the records. Businesses would be required to retain the possession and disposal records for 20 years from the record’s creation. Once a business ceases to be a business they must transfer their records to the Registrar of Firearms who will hold them for no less than 20 years.

By another Order In Council, it’s now the law that businesses must keep records of all gun sales for a minimum of 20 years, regardless of whether they are non-restricted. Again, this is the “progress” that’s being reported to the UNODA.

Keep in mind, Target 16.4 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals states that: “By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime”. The full text is available online.

Were these changes made because politicians believed they were the right things to do? Or, were they done in order to comply with international agreements?

(1) https://disarmament.unoda.org/conventional-arms
(2) https://smallarms.un-arm.org/sustainable-development-goals
(3) https://smallarms.un-arm.org/country-profiles/CAN
(4) https://unoda-poa.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/CAN-English-1186-SUBMITTED.pdf
(5) UNODA 2022 Report On Gun Control Measures
(6) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=41953&lang=en
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21
(9) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

Posted on

Changes To Safe Third Country Agreement Won’t Close All Loopholes

Starting on March 25th, people illegally entering Canada from the United States to claim asylum will no longer be able to bypass immediate deportation simply by crossing between ports. A new change is expected to apply the same standard regardless of where they cross.

However, it’s not anywhere near the “fix” that it’s being made out to be.

Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, spread the notice on Friday.

To address irregular migration, we are expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply not only at designated ports of entry, but across the entire land border, including internal waterways, ensuring fairness and more orderly migration between our two countries. This change will come into effect at 12:01 A.M (EDT) on Saturday, March 25, 2023. Canada also announced we will welcome 15,000 migrants on a humanitarian basis from the Western Hemisphere over the course of the year, with a path to economic opportunities to address forced displacement, as an alternative to irregular migration.

Even if this were to be applied, and Roxham Road effectively closed, the Safe Third Country Agreement has a number of other loopholes built into it to ensure a steady stream of crossers. This applies to “refugees” fleeing from the United States. More on that later in the article.

And what are the numbers on people illegally crossing into Canada over the last several years? Keep in mind, these are just official statistics.

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

And of course, this has continued into 2023. This is because…. reasons.

YEAR: 2023
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA B.C. OTHERS TOTAL
January 4,875 19 100 0 4,994
February 4,517 5 53 0 4,575
TOTALS 9,392 24 153 0 9,569

Keep in mind, there are a number of “exceptions” that will let people enter from the United States anyway. These include:

(1) Family member exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

  • is a Canadian citizen
  • is a permanent resident of Canada
  • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
  • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
  • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
  • holds a valid Canadian work permit
  • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
  • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

(2) Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:

  • are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
  • have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
  • do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

(3) Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:

  • hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
  • hold a valid work permit
  • hold a valid study permit
  • hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
  • are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

(4) Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:

  • they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

Even if a ride through the Quebec crossing isn’t an option for everyone, there are enough exceptions that a lot of people will still qualify. A cynic may wonder if this is being done in an effort to help obscure the true numbers of how many are entering Canada.

In any event, why this sudden announcement? It could be over recent revelations that New York City was paying for tickets to ship illegals to Canada. The “solution” to Quebec’s problem has been to start relocating illegals elsewhere in Canada, which left a bad taste.

Even so-called “based” U.S. State Governors like Ron DeSantis (Florida), and Greg Abbott (Texas) are doing the same thing. Of course, no one ever voted for any of this.

But this recent announcement is at least a step in the right direction.

ARTICLE 8
1. The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
2. These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
3. The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

As mentioned many times, the UNHCR is actually a party to this border agreement. This means that the decisions really aren’t strictly between Canada and the U.S. This detail isn’t reported by any mainstream outlet in Canada.

The UNCHR also publishes instructional guides on how to circumvent border controls. They should be a decision maker…. why exactly?

Thanks to a 2019 change, Canada scrapped the Designated Country of Origin practice. This had labelled dozens of countries (mainly in Europe) as “safe”, and led to an expedited deportation process for those apply from there.

While it’s nice to close the loophole that exists in between official border ports, the issues are much larger than that.

(1) https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2023/03/24/working-united-states-grow-our-clean-economies-and-create-good-middle
(2) https://twitter.com/SeanFraserMP/status/1639393921179570184
(3) https://twitter.com/SeanFraserMP/status/1639403782508367875
(4) https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-06351.pdf
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/processed-claims.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2017.html
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2018.html
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2019.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2020.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2021.html
(11) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2022.html
(12) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/roxham-road-quebec-new-york-asylum-seekers-1.6748192
(13) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/roxham-road-quebec-new-york-asylum-seekers-1.6748192
(14) https://www.ntd.com/desantis-granted-more-power-to-relocate-illegal-aliens-to-blue-states_900749.html
(15) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/09/16/texas_gov_greg_abbott_we_will_stop_bussing_illegal_immigrants_to_blue_states_when_biden_secures_the_border.html#!
(16) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(17) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(18) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(19) https://www.unhcr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/what-to-know-about-irregular-border-crossings-Aug2019-en.pdf?ea.tracking.id=SOC19_UNR&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=CA_PS_EN_canada_Tweet&utm_content=border-facts

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Pass Case Struck As “Embarrassing” And “Bad Beyond Argument” (Another Galati Special)

In a decision that should surprise no one, a Federal Court Judge has ruled that a lawsuit was so poorly written that it was impossible to answer. (See archive and CanLII).

Justice Simon Fothergill ruled “the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer.”

In short, the document was incoherent, filled with irrelevant material, and so disorganized that it was unreasonable to expect the Defendants to respond. But it gets much worse.

Approximately two thirds of the more than 600 Plaintiffs are permanently barred from taking legal action. The other third can still go ahead, but the case needs to be completely redone.

Broadly speaking, there are 2 different classes of Plaintiffs:
(1) Employees of the Federal Government, listed on Schedule A
(2) Employees of Federally regulated industries, listed on Schedule B

Federal employees are stopped by Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, workers employed by the Government are prohibited from filing lawsuits, and must seek other methods, such as arbitration.

Not only can they not turn to the Court, but it appears they passed on what few remedies were available, such as asking for exemptions, and going through the grievance process. And, if this retainer agreement is a valid document, it would mean they paid $1,000 each.

The Plaintiffs who are in Federally regulated industries can still theoretically proceed. But there are other significant problems.

Even if the case were allowed to proceed in its entirety, all Plaintiffs would have to be named properly. Close to 100 of them are “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”.

Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act state that litigants who want to challenge Government Orders and seek injunctive relief are required to do so by way of Application for Judicial Review. This lawsuit didn’t do that. Instead, a Statement of Claim was filed. That’s right, the wrong paperwork was filed to begin with.

There are a few possible remedies here. First, the Claim could be redone as an Application. Second, the portions pertaining to challenging the Order can be removed.

Beyond that, the challenge (regardless of format) would have to be completely rewritten. The Court found that it was seriously deficient, and pleaded so poorly that a response was impossible.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

As stated in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules.

This is a common problem is many of these cases. While there are accusations made everywhere, there are rarely (if ever) sufficient facts pled to allow a meaningful defence. Defendants are entitled to know what the case is that they must address.

As Justice Fothergill noted, it was “embarrassing” and “bad beyond argument”.

Surprisingly, things still go downhill.

In the Motion to Strike, the Defendants brought up the issue that large portions of this case were substantially similar (and sometimes identical) to the Action4Canada case that was thrown out last August. This includes:

  • allegations of criminal behaviour;
  • broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge;
  • and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity

Instead of Action4Canada accepting that certain remedies were beyond the scope of a Civil Court, the organization appealed. 6 months after that ruling (which allowed a rewrite), no amended Claim has been filed. It’s unclear if one ever will be.

Now the Action4Canada ruling has been used as a partial basis for throwing out the Federal case. Justice Fothergill also noted that the pleadings were just as bad here as with the other suit.

So, what will happen now? If the Action4Canada case is any indicator, there will be an Appeal filed with the Federal Court of Appeals. Nothing will never come of it, other than to waste time and money.

Do read the reasons given by Justice Fothergill. It’s mindboggling that such paperwork can be submitted and taken seriously. (See original Claim).

The outcome of this Federal case was predictable and it was far more than mere sloppiness. It takes considerable skill and effort to draft something this poorly.

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaccine-passport-case-hears-motion-to-strike-claim/