UN/WHO Archives - Page 8 of 44

February 5, 2023

Private Member’s Bill C-219: Introducing “Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights”

Private Member’s Bill C-219 has a number of interesting parts, which should make people wary about the intent and purpose of it. It was introduce by N.D.P. M.P. Richard Cannings. As always, it can’t be assured that this won’t become law, or be embedded into other legislation at some point.

This Bill is to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Sounds harmless enough, doesn’t it? Let’s see what it says.

Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law
Environmental law principles
5 Every enactment must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law, including

(a) the precautionary principle according to which where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

(b) the polluter-pays principle according to which polluters must bear the cost of measures to reduce pollution according to the extent of either the damage done to society or the exceeding of an acceptable level of pollution;

(c) the principle of sustainable development according to which development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

(d) the principle of intergenerational equity according to which present generations of Canadians hold the environment in trust for future generations and have an obligation to use its resources in a way that leaves that environment in the same, or better, condition for future generations; and

(e) the principle of environmental justice according to which there should be a just distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among Canadians, without discrimination on the basis of any ground prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To be blunt, this sounds somewhat Communistic. It gives the Government the right to act, even if there isn’t really a scientific or informed basis for doing so. Taken to its logical outcome, property could be seized, or businesses could be shut down in the name of protecting environmental rights.

The “polluter pays” is a reiteration of the climate change/Carbon tax initiatives that are ongoing, and is just wealth redistribution. If Carbon Dioxide is considered pollution, then almost anything can be.

All of this talk about equity and environmental justice also sounds like redistribution, but with language designed to conceal what’s really going on.

Things get interesting when you realize that anyone (at least in theory) can bring a Court challenge to protect their “environmental rights”.

Right of access to courts
9 (1) Every person residing in Canada has the right to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before a court or tribunal regardless of whether or not they are directly affected by the matter.

No challenge to standing
(2) The Government of Canada must not challenge the standing of a person residing in Canada to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before a court or tribunal on the sole ground that the person is not directly affected by the matter.

Right to request review
10 Every person residing in Canada has the right to request the Auditor General to review, in accordance with section 22 of the Auditor General Act, any Act of Parliament respecting the environment, any instrument made under the authority of such an Act or any environmental policy of the Government of Canada to determine whether, in order to ensure respect for the rights conferred under this Act, it should be amended, repealed or revoked.

Anyone familiar with the Court system knows that you need “standing” to bring a challenge. This means private interest standing (impacts you directly), or public interest standing (impacts society). This Bill would imply that public interest is automatic, so there’d be no need to prove a direct impact.

Also worth noting is that it says anyone “residing in Canada”. It doesn’t specify Canadian citizens. It also doesn’t say that people bringing such challenges have to be in country legally.

It would also amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding this section:

Canadian Bill of Rights
37 Paragraph 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights is replaced by the following:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, including to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

But here’s where that may get tricky: yes, the Bill of Rights mentions property rights. However, when anyone has public interest standing to bring a legal challenge, how secure are your property rights? How would we realistically decide which rights prevail?

And what happens if the Government decides to appropriate your property in some way on the grounds that it violates other people’s rights to a healthy environment?

The Bill’s sponsor, Richard Cannings, is listed 375 times in the Lobby Registry of Federal officials. In fairness though, many of these have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Cannings’ recent meetings include representatives from:

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Foundation
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Climate Action Network Canada
Ecojustice Canada
Environmental Defence Canada
Greenpeace Canada
Nature Canada
The Nature Conservancy of Canada
World Wildlife Fund Canada

There’s considerable overlap with Rosa Galvez’s Bill S-243.

It’s fair to ask who wrote Bills C-219 and S-243.

As we’ve seen with the 2005 Quarantine Act, and various Provincial Public Health Acts, harmless sounding legislation can be used as a basis to trample rights. While this environmental “Bill of Rights” seems great at first glance, how would things actually work?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-219
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/richard-cannings(89327)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-219/first-reading
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1675642237504

January 23, 2023April 23, 2023

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearings To Resume In Late April

The Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy (CSASPP) has announced that the certification hearings for their Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government will pick up at the end of April.

CSASPP had been in Court from December 12-16, 2022, but things took much longer than expected. Consequently, all of the procedural issues had not been resolved by then.

As you may recall from watching our certification hearing footage we unfortunately ended up using more time than previously allocated within the five days of 12-16 December, 2022. The hearing therefore needed to be continued in the new year at the earliest that all parties’ calendars, including the Court’s, could be reconciled.

I am writing to advise you that the parties have made arrangements for the continuation of our certification hearing on 24 April, 2023, for five days before Justice Crerar again.

You will recall from the footage that there was some controversy over the nature of the relationship between the Public Health Officer and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The latter is an organization that the Deputy Provincial Health Officer has stated in the past under oath “is the scientific and operational arm of the PHO”.

Dr. Henry is now claiming that the BC CDC does not answer to her, but is in fact an independent program of the Provincial Health Services Authority. The PHSA is not named as a defendant in this proceeding. She needs this to be true because adding the BC CDC as a defendant would create additional delays and procedural obstacles that might mitigate the risk of accountability.

We will be making submissions upon resumption of our certification hearing that the relationship is as the Deputy Provincial Health Officer originally claimed, that the BC CDC is the scientific and operational arm of Dr. Henry.

In support of Dr. Henry’s position that they are apparently distinct her Deputy Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Brian Emerson, is now back peddling in a newly tendered affidavit asserting a material distinction. She will be relying upon this affidavit at the continuation of our certification hearing.

If Dr. Henry wishes to throw the BC CDC under the bus, she should seek leave from Justice Crerar to file a third party notice.

It appears that the plot is thickening, and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

The proceedings for the Certification Hearing thus far are available to watch by members of the public. It’s extremely rare for footage of Court hearings to be filmed, but this is an exceptional case. The public interest is huge.

Regarding the status update: it’s worth mentioning that the BCCDC Foundation is actually a registered charity that receives funding from big pharma. The B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority, or BCPHSA, is also a charity, and appears to be a private — or semi private — corporation. The structure of the Government is convoluted, to say the least.

In addition to advancing this lawsuit, many people want Bonnie Henry to be forced to take the witness stand. It’s one thing to give dictates at a press conference. It’s another to have to answer questions under oath. And she certainly has a lot to answer for.

Below are a significant portion of those 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

January 22, 2023January 25, 2023

Federal Vaccine Passport Case Hears Motion To Strike Claim

Thursday, January 19th was an interesting day in Federal Court. Ottawa brought a Motion to Strike a lawsuit brought by over 600 people challenging a 2021 Order which mandated experimental shots for their continued employment. This applied to: (a) Government workers; and (b) industries that were subject to Federal regulation.

For those who don’t know, this is not a Motion to decide a case on its merits. Instead, it’s designed to throw out a case — either in whole or in part — before it goes through the various stages of litigation. Typically, there’s either some serious error in law, or the case (even if the facts are assumed to be true) is still insufficient.

Originally, the Motion to Strike was to be heard in writing (which means no arguments at a hearing). However, that changed at the last moment, as the Justice decided to allow a 3 hour session. It went a bit past the allotted time, and took about 3 1/2.

If this hearing is to be any indication of where things are going, there were several main issues that needed to be addressed.

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: 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.

Approximately 2/3 of the more than 600 Plaintiffs were members of the Federal Government. The other 1/3 or so were part of companies that were Federally regulated. This can create a split, as only some of them may be eligible for this lawsuit.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone, at least the employees of the Federal Government.

Most union employees, especially in the public sector, are prohibited from taking their problems to Court. Instead, they have to follow a grievance process that eventually leads to arbitration. Granted, those rulings may be appealed if the process is unfair, but that’s where things start out.

This was discussed at length at the hearing: the prospect that the majority of Plaintiffs may be barred from the case. It doesn’t appear any of them ever tried to go through arbitration.

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

While the public sector workers may be barred because of arbitration requirements, the employees of Federally regulated sectors have a different issue: did they sue the wrong people?

The notion was discussed that the individual employers ought to be sued instead, or at least in addition to the Government. After all, shouldn’t a former worker at Air Canada be suing Air Canada? Shouldn’t a former bank employee be suing that bank? Of course, there is the counter-argument that these industries were simply following the rules that Ottawa mandated.

We’ll have to see how that plays out.

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

This should be common sense, but, if people wish to take their grievances to Court and ask for money, they need to identify themselves.

Instead, there are 40 “John Does” listed, and another 49 “Jane Does”. The Crown Counsel brought this up at the hearing, and complained that he had no idea who they were. Despite the Defendants’ attempts, these people apparently remain unidentified.

It’s unclear why they weren’t named in the Statement of Claim. One possibility was that they didn’t want their names splashed around, given the rampant fundraising that was going on. It was suggested that this was to prevent retaliation against friends and family who still held jobs. However, that makes little sense, as they’d still have to be identified as some point.

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

At the hearing, the Judge stated that he would have no problems with a Statement of Claim, if it were only damages and/or declaratory relief. However, challenging the Order itself presented a complication, as it likely should have been an Application.

This alone may not be fatal. If it were simply a matter of the wrong form, the Judge could theoretically grant an extension of time to refile properly.

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

Ottawa is claiming the issue is “moot” and not worth wasting everyone’s time. Moot, in the legal sense means that the issues are over and done with, and cannot be fixed by the Court. Here, Crown Counsel states that since the Orders have lapsed, there’s nothing to try. That’s what happened with Brian Peckford’s case.

In fairness, this appears to be something that may be selectively employed to deny someone their day in Court. It seems underhanded to pull an Order (or let it expire) as a means of avoiding having to answer for it. There’s also the possibility that similar Orders may be imposed at some point in the future.

It should be noted that “moot” issues can still be tried, if the Court finds there to be compelling public interest in doing so. And so far, that has been applied unevenly.

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

This was addressed at length in the first critique of this suit. This Claim appears to not follow even the basics of the Federal Court Rules, which could lead to it getting thrown out. At a minimum the Judge could order that a rewrite be performed.

(a) Lack of material facts pleaded
(b) Overall disorganization
(c) Claim lacks particulars (specifics) needed to proceed
(d) Nature of damages needs to be clearly specified

The Motion to Strike addressed these concerns, along with several others. Striking a pleading won’t (typically) lead to the case being thrown out. However, it does take time — and hourly billings — to amend or redraft it.

The Judge did discuss the possibility of allowing a rewrite, if the Claim weren’t barred for other reasons. This includes the arbitration requirement mentioned earlier.

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Crown Counsel brought up the valid point that large sections of this Federal case are similar — and sometimes identical — to the Action4Canada case that was struck on August 29, 2022. (See Order)

Justice Alan Ross found the Action4Canada case:
(a) Prolix, or far too long
(b) Embarrassing to the Court
(c) Made non-justicable demands
(d) Was “bad beyond argument”
(e) Contained many pages of irrelevant material
(f) Was not something that could be adequately responded to
(g) Was so poorly written that mere amendments were inadequate

Now, a fair amount of the content from that NOCC, or Notice of Civil Claim, was cut and pasted into the Federal case. Not only are Plaintiffs not getting quality work, they aren’t even getting original work.

The Federal Judge would likely be obligated to strike the sections of the Claim that are identical or substantially similar to the Action4Canada case.

Despite the NOCC’s horrible quality, Justice Ross did allow Action4Canada the chance to redraft it properly. Instead, they appealed the Decision, because, reasons…

Now, the choice to let Action4Canada rewrite may very well influence this Court if it decides to allow another shot at the Federal vaxx pass case.

Predictions For The Motion Outcome?

Just a guess, but here we go:

The case will have to be refiled as an Application for Judicial Review
The (ex) Federal employees will be barred, as they should have pursued arbitration
The (ex) workers of Federally regulated industries will be allowed to proceed
All Plaintiffs will have to identify themselves
The pleadings will be struck in their entirety, but a rewrite will be allowed, at least for the Plaintiffs who are not barred.
Despite being “moot”, it will be in the public interest to proceed
The duplication with Action4Canada case will have to be removed
Expect an appeal, and more requests for donations

We’ll have to wait until the decision comes down to see how accurate all this is.

Update: a copy of the retainer agreement is now available for viewing. Turns out that Plaintiffs were paying $1,000 each for the privilege of being represented in this suit. Doesn’t look like they got their money’s worth.

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

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

January 11, 2023June 10, 2024

Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice

It’s the most harmless sounding names that are most chilling.

The Government of Canada has announced a new agreement with the United States and Mexico: The Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice. Mélanie Joly, Foreign Affairs Minister, also tweeted about it.

While this sounds fine enough, the vague wording of much of the text is cause for concern.

Considering the lengths that these countries have gone in establishing equal rights, it seems unproductive to keep pushing the narrative that there’s all these hate groups and institutions. It comes across as having the effect of making peaceful co-existence impossible, and maybe that’s the point.

It’s unclear what exactly “racial justice” would involve. If it were simply equal rights, then it would be very different to oppose. But would it be reparations? This idea has been floated in recent years. Perhaps it involves affirmative action or quotas in various institutions.

To address the obvious: this document doesn’t advocate for “equality”. That would be equal rights and opportunities between people. That would be fine. Instead, it calls for “equity”, which is equality of outcome, and sounds pretty much like Communism.

There’s a bit of a bait-and-switch here as the document calls on partners to: “root out the barriers to equal opportunity”. However, they are pushing equity (equality of outcome), while attempting to persuade others that it’s about equal opportunity.

Declaration between the Government of the United Mexican States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the United States of America.

Across our three nations, generations of leaders have fought to build democracies where people from richly diverse histories and cultures share the equal promise of freedom and inclusion. Our diversity is North America’s greatest strength, as it boosts innovation, leads to economic growth, enriches our democracies, and advances our security.

Yet in spite of our progress, many across North America continue to face intersecting forms of systemic racism, discrimination and hate because of who they are, whom they love, the language they speak, their nation of origin, the color of their skin, and their religion or beliefs. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, religion, belief, language, and socio-economic status persist throughout our region and in each of our countries. Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples, who have lived in North America since time immemorial, continue to face unacceptable disparities and barriers, as do other communities with lived experience of discrimination and racism. Systemic racism, expressions of white supremacy and discrimination in all forms diminish our economic growth, limit our prosperity, undermine national and regional security, and threaten the durability of our democracies. To unleash North America’s full and vast potential, we must comprehensively address these barriers and challenges.

Building on efforts in our respective countries to advance equity and racial justice, at the 2021 North American Leaders’ Summit President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared their commitment to building just, inclusive, and equitable democracies that combat systemic racism and discrimination in all forms. Following that declaration, we committed to working together to create a North America in which every individual has an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential and equal participation in social, cultural, economic, and political life.

We now establish this North American Partnership as a reflection of our common commitments to advancing equity and racial justice within our countries, and our intent to work collaboratively to address systemic forms of discrimination and honor the diverse tapestry of histories, customs, cultures, languages, identities, ethnicities, abilities, and beliefs that make North America strong.

In recognition of our close ties and shared vision, the Participants in this Partnership will:

(1) Work within our own countries to affirmatively advance equity and racial justice, and to comprehensively root out the barriers to equal opportunity that marginalized communities continue to face.

(2) Establish a Trilateral Racial Equity and Inclusion Expert Network to facilitate the exchange of information to share best practices and innovative strategies developed across our three countries for advancing equity and racial justice in our public policies and societies, and to help identify further action areas for the Partnership. In establishing this expert exchange, we will seek opportunities to engage communities with lived experience of racism and discrimination on driving solutions to protect the rights of members of marginalized communities; advance health equity and economic inclusion; address racial and other disparities in the justice system, access to the ballot, and educational opportunities; and reflect the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce.

(3) Collaborate together to advance equity and racial justice through our participation in regional and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and other fora. This includes advancing the rights and aspirations enshrined in multilateral commitments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Decade for People of African Descent, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and other joint undertakings.

Discrimination against people “for who they love”, is presumably referring to adults of the same sex. However, it wouldn’t take much to expand that to include pedophilia, as the language is very vague. As for gender identity, many would agree that this has been forced on the public far too much already.

“Reflect[ing] the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce” is code for hiring quotas. Most people can agree that a merit-based civil service is the best way to have it. Social engineering shouldn’t push that principle aside

As for “address racial and other disparities in the justice system”, does this mean something like Gladue Rights across the continent? This would be race-based discounts in criminal court, due to overrepresentation of certain groups.

This agreement also endorses the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030), and connects equity and racial justice to that.

The claim that certain groups “face unacceptable disparities and barriers” is telling, even if hard to understand. Disparities simply refers to differences in overall outcomes. This can be for many reasons, and is not necessarily discrimination. But it goes on imply that these differences are the direct result of some barriers that are put in place. This follows the assumption that groups of people would essentially be the same if others wouldn’t oppress them in some way.

An obvious example is the long debunked wage gap. Just because men and woman — on average — make different personal and lifestyle choices, doesn’t mean discrimination took place.

While the text sounds well meaning enough, domestic implementation of such ideals would invite even more Government overreach and interference.

And a logistical question: what would happen to people who decide that they want nothing to do with such a system? What punishments would they face?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/federal-anti-racism-secretariat/declaration-partnership-equality-racial-justice.html
(2) https://twitter.com/melaniejoly/status/1612801847076749314
(3) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice/
(4) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice-2/

December 17, 2022April 22, 2023

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearing Videos Now Available Online

An interesting development is taking place in British Columbia. The Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy (CSASPP) had a weeklong hearing to determine — among other issues — if their class action would be certified. This took place all week, and was to challenge the various dictates of BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and her political handlers.

For their part, the Defense is attempting to get the case struck (thrown out) at least in part. They’ve alleged that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, among other things.

This isn’t the trial, to be clear. It’s a series of procedural issues in order to get to trial. The decision is reserved, and expected in the new year.

If certification is successful, the class action trial would begin in April 2023.

A few questions to be determined here:

Should the claim be certified as a class action?
Can additional Plaintiffs be added to the original claim?
Should the claim be struck, in all or in part?

As per an earlier ruling, the proceedings for certification could be posted online.

The videos (for December 12th to 15th) are now available here:

https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos

The December 16th video should be up soon.

Surprisingly, there was real contention at the beginning as to what kind of site should be hosting the videos. While YouTube was suggested, there were concerns that the Terms Of Service would make it too easy to redistribute. Ultimately, they ended up on Vimeo.

However, please do take heed of the warning. Although the hearings are being made public, the usual rules against redistribution and rebroadcasting still apply. Screenshotting, and otherwise generating new copies would breach the order. We more of this type of content available, not less.

This is a recording of judicial proceedings which may not be further broadcast, rebroadcast, transmitted, reproduced, communicated to the public by telecommunication, or otherwise made available in whole or in part in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, or stored in whole or in part in any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written authorization of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Any unauthorized use of this recording in breach of the Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall expose the person doing so to legal proceedings for contempt of court.

For the purposes of this pretrial application, the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Civil Claim are assumed to be true for the sake of argument. If this matter proceeds to trial, those allegations will be contested and may in the end be found to be false.

It’s worth noting that Action4Canada got an honourable mention on December 14th. The section is from 2h:18m:34s until 2h:19m:20s. The stellar work of their legal experts needed to be showcased.

The 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.

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

December 7, 2022December 7, 2022

Go Visit Shelly’s Nova Scotia FOI Website!

Several articles have gone up on Canuck Law over the last year based on the work of Shelly Hipson. She’s a Nova Scotia resident who’s spent a fair amount of time attempting to get answers from the regime of Robert Strang, Tim Houston, and Iain Rankin. It’s appreciated to see people taking the initiative.

Shelly has gone even further than making the results public. She now has a website, where the originals are posted. They are worth a read, in order to know what’s been going on.

Now, this isn’t to say that the information is all accurate. It is the government, after all. However, it’s what has been provided, so take everything with a grain of salt.

https://shellyhipson.ca/

At the time of this being published, there are over 60 FOI available, with varying degrees of information handed out. The results vary from full disclosure, to “no records”, to deliberate withholding.

There’s a pretty significant document dump posted for curious eyes.

https://shellyhipson.ca/documents/CANS-vs-STRANG/

The 2 videos shown above are also her compilations, and are on the site. With permission, they have been rebroadcast on Bitchute, Odysee, and Rumble. Given YouTube’s heavy censorship, that would not be a good place to post.

Category: UN/WHO

Private Member’s Bill C-219: Introducing “Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights”

Like this:

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearings To Resume In Late April

Like this:

Federal Vaccine Passport Case Hears Motion To Strike Claim

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Predictions For The Motion Outcome?

Like this:

Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice

Like this:

CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearing Videos Now Available Online

Like this:

Go Visit Shelly’s Nova Scotia FOI Website!

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Predictions For The Motion Outcome?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: