Category: Vaccines

Posted on

End Of An Era: Vaccine Choice Canada Discontinuing Anti-Lockdown Case

Does anyone remember the hype in alternative media circles about Vaccine Choice Canada taking on Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford over martial law measures? It seemed to be the beginning of something grand. This would be the big case to stop the New World Order.

But in the end, nothing ever came of it. The case sat idly for years, even as more donations were solicited. The quality of the pleadings themselves was very questionable. There weren’t even service addresses for most Defendants, despite them being freely available. No attempt was made to push the case forward, or to obtain Default Judgement. Critics who publicly asked questions were threatened, and some sued.

Now, the other shoe drops. The case is being discontinued, and will never make it to Trial. Heck, it won’t even make it to the scheduled Motion to Strike.

The litigants themselves will never see their day in Court. Given the 2 year Statute of Limitations, they probably don’t have recourse with another lawyer. Donors who paid money in good faith were ripped off.

How long before the many interviews from the Summer of 2020 get scrubbed from the internet?

Thanks for the money, suckers!

Vaccine Choice Canada’s Email To Supporters

Dear Vaccine Choice Canada Community and Donors,

After much consultation and deliberation the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada have decided to file a ‘Notice of Discontinuance’ with regards to the legal action filed on July 6, 2020 (Court File No. CV-20-00643451-0000). Discontinuance means that a party, for its own reasons, has chosen not to continue the litigation. The decision to discontinue does not take away from the importance or merit of the case.

It is the position of the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada that to continue this legal matter at this time is not advisable. Our confidence in the independence and integrity of our Courts, and their willingness to properly consider the available facts and scientific evidence has been seriously eroded, past repair or hope. We are of the opinion that to participate in a fraudulent and illegitimate process is to give legitimacy to that process. 

Our decision is based on the following considerations:

1. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to properly consider the facts as they relate to COVID-19, the evidence and lack thereof of a pandemic; the extent of harm caused by the so called “vaccine”; the extent of harm caused by measures and mandates imposed by governments including masking, social distancing, lockdowns, injection of a genetic material; lack of proper safety testing; the violation of our Charter Rights and Freedoms, and other matters related to the government’s response to the COVID-19 event.

2. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to consider expert testimony that challenges the claims of Health Canada, the CDC, and statements made by various government officials, officers and agencies.

3. The Courts have clearly demonstrated a deference, not to facts, the scientific method, and scientific evidence, but rather to government authorities, regardless of the inability of such authorities to justify their measures and mandates.

4. The Courts have utilized “judicial notice”, “mootness”, and “motion to strike” as instruments to deny full debate and disclosure of the available evidence.

5. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by their requirement that those attending court be compelled to wear a face covering, despite compelling evidence of the ineffectiveness of coverings in preventing transmission, and the harm from prolonged use of face coverings. 

6. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court judges publicly declaring their compliance with vaccine mandates that violate bodily sovereignty and informed consent.

7. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court refusing to consider the appeal of lower court decisions that violate our fundamental rights and freedoms. 

8. Our Courts are no longer committed to “justice” as understood by Canadians. Rather, our Courts have become politicized such that they serve those in power rather than justice. Our Courts have become instruments of control and coercion rather than safeguards to ensure the upholding of the rule of law and our Charter rights and freedoms. 

9. We are also fully aware that the Courts have used the legal process to delay, defer and unnecessarily increase the cost of seeking justice. We are fully aware of the punitive costs awarded to those seeking justice which punishes those seeking justice and discourages future efforts to seek justice.

10. Our Courts have failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite it being the highest law of the land. They have refused to demand that governments “demonstrably justify” their clear and undisputed violations of our Charter rights and freedoms as required under Section 1. 

Given our current lack of confidence in the independence and commitment of the Courts to justice and to protecting our rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are of the opinion that to proceed under these circumstances would cause more harm than good, jeopardize future legal action by adding to defective case law, and further erode confidence in the integrity of our judicial system and government agents. (A brief summary of the failure of the Canadians courts to uphold our Charter rights and established rule of law is available here:

https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/news/are-courts-failing-to-protect-medical-freedom-for-children-and-youth)

We are also of the opinion that given the number of defendants included in this action, in the event of an unjust ruling where the plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs, this could present a significant financial burden. The awarding of punitive court costs would undoubtedly impair the ability of VCC to serve our mission with respect to defending informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right, responsibility and authority of parents to protect their children from harm.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/vcc-statement-of-claim-2020-redacted.pdf

We are confident that were the available facts to be properly considered, and the laws of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upheld, that our proceeding would have been successful. The failure of our law enforcement and Canadian judicial systems to properly respond to the harms caused by government measures and mandates, including permanent injury and death, and to the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms is deeply disturbing and reveals a significant betrayal that needs to be rectified if justice is to be served in Canada.

Vaccine Choice Canada will continue to inform and defend our right to informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right and responsibility of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Forced and coerced vaccination, and other purported medical treatments, have no place in an ethical medical system, and a free and democratic Nation. Given the present threats to our fundamental and inherent rights and freedoms, the work of Vaccine Choice Canada was never more important.

We know that justice will eventually be served, however, it would appear that this is not the time.

Sincerely,

Ted Kuntz, President
Board of Directors Vaccine Choice Canada
VaccineChoiceCanada.com

June 13, 2024

That appears to be it. 4 years later, Vaccine Choice is dropping their case, after making no effort whatsoever to push it through the Courts. Donors should be receiving refunds, at a bare minimum.

Vaccine Choice Lawsuit A Giant Bait-And-Switch

Re-read this passage from Kuntz’ email.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

Kuntz states that the Statement of Claim was written to “ensure that [people] were named, and their actions exposed”. He states that “we believe we have achieved our purpose”.

Why does this matter? Because he doesn’t say that going to Trial and having the Court hold people accountable would have achieved the purpose. In other words, this was for publicity. It was never about getting any sort of a ruling or decision.

Consider this quote from a July 13, 2022 livestream. Fuller video here.

“Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides. And what you’ve helped us to understand is that there’s more to educating the impact of your legal proceeding than simply what happens within the Court. It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds…. We brought awareness to a dynamic that had been hidden from the public. And I would suggest that maybe, this was the most important impact we’ve had to date.”

It’s actually illegal to commence proceedings like this. You can’t sue somebody to “make a point”, or to “fire a shot across the bow”, or any similar justification. The Courts refer to this sort of thing as bringing a suit “for improper purposes”. The only permitted reason is that the Plaintiff(s) believes that he or she has a strong case.

Does this sort of thing happen? Yes it does. But few are retarded enough to openly admit it on a public livestream. Anyone can be listening in. This alone would be grounds to throw the case out.

So, What Happened Over The Course Of 4 Years?

July 6th, 2020: Vaccine Choice Canada files a 191 page Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. In addition to its length, the Claim was incoherent, and failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure.

Summer 2020: There was a media blitz online soliciting donations for this lawsuit. It was supposed to be the great challenge to medical martial law in Canada. However, no one seems to be asking the important questions, such as what activity is going on.

September 2020: Counsel for Vaccine Choice Canada tells Rebel Media that he will do everything he can to ensure an Application for a mask injunction is heard before Christmas (2020). However, that never happens. To be clear, no Application is ever filed with the Court. It simply does not exist.

In fact, no activity whatsoever will happen with this case for a long time to come. But what does happen is lawfare directed against critics and ideological opponents.

December 2020: 23 people and organizations are sued for defamation by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, primarily over Twitter comments. It would be thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

January 2021: CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, is threatened with a defamation suit for an email to Dan Dicks (Press For Truth) from their Treasurer. The email tries to redirect attention and money to their case, and calls into question the abilities of counsel for Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice.

March 2021: Kulvinder Gill files another defamation lawsuit, this time against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. She demands $7,000,000 because he called her an “idiot” online. An anti-SLAPP Motion will be heard later this year.

Ted Kuntz later admitted that Vaccine Choice financed (or at a minimum, coordinated) the Gill defamation cases. See paragraph 20 in the main text, and Exhibit “C”, starting on page 20.

From that, it’s reasonable to suspect VCC funded other defamation lawsuits.

September 2021: This website is sued in large part for publicly questioning the horrible quality of the VCC and A4C pleadings, and for pointing out the lack of progress in any of these cases. Currently, there’s an open anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

June 2022: CSASPP is sued for the email mentioned above, and an FAQ that’s critical (in part) of the VCC case. The suit also goes after a woman named Donna Toews. She dared to contact the Law Society of Ontario, LSO, asking about money she had donated to Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada. It was thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

July 2022: The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) is sued for $500,000. The primary motivation appears to be an attempt to derail the complaint from Donna Toews, and to make sure it cannot be investigated. It was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action (a grievance the Court can theoretically remedy), and the incoherent pleadings.

Note: The LSO would be sued again in 2023, a virtual clone of the last one. The probable reason was to keep the Court activity going, in order to sabotage their investigative abilities.

July 2022: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed regarding the CBC, which removes them as a Defendant. Previously, the organization had threatened to file an anti-SLAPP Motion if the case against them wasn’t dropped. See cover letter.

August, 2022: A single Statement of Defence is filed, more than 2 years after the Claim is originally brought. It suggests a Motion to Strike will be coming.

December 2022: Lawsuit from Byram Bridle filed against the University of Guelph, employees, and non-employees. Currently on hold while 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions are pending.

***You’ll notice in this list so far that there’s no mention of Court activity, such as motions, hearings, witnesses testifying, or evidence being sworn. That’s because none ever took place. This case is a “paper challenge”, not going anywhere.***

January 2023: Vaccine Choice Canada had its first Court appearance. Yes, that is the correct date. It took 2 1/2 years for even this. And it was just a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session. Simply put, these are 5-10 minute hearings with a fairly full docket. What happened was that dates were set down for the Defendants to bring Motions to strike (throw out) the case.

  • June 30th, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28th, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31th, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17th, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8th, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22nd, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30th, February 1st, 2024 – 2 day Hearing

March 2023: For his work creating the article and video called “Nothing Burger Lawsuits”, Rick Thomas is threatened with a lawsuit. None have been filed yet, but anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason.

January 2024: The hearing briefly starts, headed by Justice Dow. However, he immediately recuses himself and adjourns the case. The reason being that he’s a former co-worker and personal friend of Health Minister Christine Elliott. This conflict of interest makes him unavailable to adjudicate the Motion. The hearing is rebooked — with a new Judge — for May 1st and 2nd of 2025.

February 2024: Ted Kuntz (VCC) and Tanya Gaw (A4C) host a livestream to “expose” people they call “paid agitators”. Basically, it’s just a hit piece on their critics.

June 2024: Vaccine Choice Canada announces that they’re dropping the case.

So much for being the ground-breaking challenge.

What About VCC’s 2019 Challenge For Vaxxing Students?

Few will remember this, but Vaccine Choice filed a challenge in October 2019 against Ontario’s policy of immunizing children as a requirement of attending class. In over 4 1/2 years, that case hasn’t gone past the pleadings.

Keep in mind — and this is written into the Statement of Claim forms — that a case will be dismissed for delay if it’s not resolved or set down for Trial within 5 years. Sure, it can be extended, but the Court will need to be convinced that there’s activity.

Should donors expect a refund for this case?

What About Those Thousands Of Pages Of Expert Evidence?

Once of the mantras endlessly repeated is that counsel for Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada has the best evidence from the top experts in the world.

We’ve all seen pictures or videos where all these expert reports are bandied about, attached as Affidavit evidence. Supposedly, it amounts to tens of thousands of pages. Problem is, they’ve never been filed in any Court. Any if these reports do exist, why delay cases with convoluted pleadings?

It seems more likely no such Affidavits exist, and that these are just images of stacks of blank paper. Or, they could just be random items printed from the internet. One explanation might be that it’s to divert attention from the lack of activity in the Courts. This would be done for the purpose of duping and deceiving donors and potential donors.

Why spend (presumably) hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions, on expert reports if there was never any intention to push the case forward?

It these thousands of pages of expert reports do exist, which seems unlikely, then a competent lawyer should have been responsible for drafting the pleadings.

Growing List Of Anti-Lockdown Cases Not Pursued

The Vaccine Choice cases don’t exist in isolation. Consider these:

  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (August 2021)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (by B.C. Court of Appeal)
  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg, Federal injection pass case (May 2022)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg (by Federal Court of Appeal)
  • Non-Existent?! – Federal workers vaccine injury lawsuit
  • Abandoned?! – Vaccine Choice Canada (October 2019)
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (July 2020)
  • Discontinued – Sgt. Julie Evans (April 2021), fundraised by Police On Guard
  • Discontinued – Children’s Health Defense Canada (April 2021), of which counsel was, at the time, a Director of the organization
  • Discontinued? – Take Action Canada (March 2023) is in an awkward spot. While it faces Motions to throw out the case as “bad beyond argument”, the group is openly considering dropping the case. More money is demanded. If only someone could have warned Sandy and Vincent that this was a bad idea

It’s worth mentioning that Action4Canada can probably be classified as “abandoned” at this point. 4 months after their nonsense Appeal was thrown out, there’s still no amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC).

Seriously: Is this a track record of good results?

Sadly, many of the “truther” media accounts promote these cases as if they’re legitimate, despite the abundance of information available. Liberty Talk is an obvious example, but hardly the only one.

Does it make sense why this website would spend so much time and effort tracking these bogus cases, and the endless money-pits that they’ve become? Does it make sense to question why millions of dollars have been funneled into this litigation? Shouldn’t everyone be held to account?

How much money has been raised? Here’s a starting point.

Okay, So What’s YOUR Solution?

A common thread most detractors have here is that the content is too negative. It’s too divisive. It needlessly weakens the Freedom Movement. No solutions are ever offered, despite endless criticism.

Well, there is a simple solution for donors at least. Demand full refunds, preferably with interest. If they say there’s no money available (since it was all spent on lawyers), start suing VCC for refunds. They’ll capitulate rather than face hundreds or thousands of angry people. Small Claims Court is dirt cheap, for example.

Deceit and/or misrepresentation would surely void any “no refunds” policy.

What About Potential Cost Consequences?

One question worth asking is how much VCC would be forced to pay for dropping the case. After all, the (successful) Defendants could ask for costs to offset the expenses incurred so far. True, the Motion to Strike wasn’t actually heard, but it had to be prepared.

This is certainly a valid point.

However, after thinking it over, it’s probably not a big deal. Government lawyers often agree to waive costs (or minimize them) if lawsuits are discontinued. This could have happened here. Or, the Defendants could have agreed to accept nominal costs (small amounts) as a symbolic victory.

Using Action4Canada as a reference, they paid out approximately $13,000 in costs after their Notice of Civil Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. True, Ontario has higher tariffs, but $50,000 or less would have been a reasonable order from a Judge against VCC. In any event, it would be a drop in the bucket considering the money that was fundraised.

Now that the Claim has been dropped, Kuntz, VCC, and their counsel are presumably free to spend the rest as they wish. There doesn’t appear to be a refund policy.

How long until Action4Canada announces they’re discontinuing their case?

As Trudeau would say: “Thank you for your donation.”

GRIFTERS MAIN PAGE

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
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs

Posted on

CSSEM Cases Thrown Out: $530,000 For Petitions That Don’t Actually Challenge Anything

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed 3 Petitions challenging a requirement that health care workers (HCW) still have to take the clot-shots to keep their jobs.

There was one small victory though. The Public Health Office is to review the requirement that remote workers have to get the shots. This would also apply to others who don’t come into any contact with patients, residents or clients. The reasons for that start on paragraph 210 of the ruling.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that remote workers or workers who don’t come into contact with others will be exempt from the injection orders. It simply means that it must be reconsidered.

[315] The petitions are dismissed, with the exception that, under JRPA s. 5(1), I remit to the PHO for reconsideration, in light of this decision, whether to consider requests under s. 43 of the PHA, for reconsideration of the vaccination requirement from healthcare workers able to perform their roles remotely, or in-person but without contact with patients, residents, clients or the frontline workers who care for them.

What percentage would this apply to?

These cases were financed by a group called CSSEM, the Canadian Society for Science & Ethics in Medicine. On their website, they take credit for raising $530,000 to date. There’s overlap with the people running this group, and those who had campaigned for Action4Canada.

Whether coincidental or by design, the name is strikingly similar to CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. Both groups have the same goals. Was this done to piggyback off of their fundraising?

Hsiang et al v. Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S224731

Hoogerbrug v. Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S224652

CSASPP et al v. Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the Province of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S2110229

Tatlock et al v. Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia et al.SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S22242

Previously, there were 4 Petitions to be heard together, but CSASPP discontinued, after advising that it would be the case.

From the looks of their website, CSSEM is still funding the other 3 cases. While they weren’t anywhere near the dumpster fire that the Action4Canada one is, there are several problems which led to them being dismissed anyway:

  1. Petitions don’t challenge the “emergency” declarations in any meaningful way
  2. Petitions don’t challenge the junk “science”
  3. Petitions don’t challenge the Public Health Act
  4. Petitions should probably have been done as Civil Claims

Instead, the Petitions largely focus on narrow exemptions under the Canadian Charter. It’s a “cookie-cutter” challenge that’s been seen many times — including from the JCCF — and never goes anywhere. Seriously, it cost over half a million dollars for this?

26. The Petitioners seek the following orders under sections 2(2) and 7 of the Judicial Review
Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241:
.
a. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order of the Provincial Health Officer, dated November 18, 2021, entitled “Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Services) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021” (“Order”), to the extent that it requires individuals to have received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in order to work in hospital and designated community settings;
b. A declaration that the decision to continue in effect, or the failure or refusal to rescind, the November 18 Order, at any time after November 18, 2021, in response to the Petitioner’s requests or otherwise, is unreasonable and ultra vires, as there is not presently a reasonable basis for the exercise of emergency powers under the Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c 28, and the vaccination mandate is not a reasonable or effective way to address the spread of SARS-CoV-2;
c. In addition or in the alternative, a declaration that there is no reasonable basis to refuse or decline or neglect to issue notice under section 59 of the Public Health Act “that the emergency has passed”, and to follow the specified steps required under section 60 of the Public Health Act, including rescission of the November 18 Order;
d. Such other relief as the Court deems warranted and just; and
e. Costs of the Petition.

This is the Relief sought in the Hsiang Petition. As is obvious, there’s no challenge to the Public Health Act, the legislative structure that allowed this in the first place. Nor does it ask for a declaration that there was never any emergency at all — just that there currently isn’t one.

The test on a Judicial Review typically is “reasonableness”. Since all major facts are conceded, there isn’t much to argue over. In the ruling, Justice Coval simply “defers” to the expertise of Bonnie Henry and the Public Health Office.

1. Petitions Don’t Challenge Emergency Declarations

Looking at the Hsiang, Morgan and Vandergugten Petition, there are already serious problems. The Petition argues that there currently isn’t an emergency, and that there is no longer a need for restrictions on people’s liberties and livelihoods.

Instead of that taking that there never was a need, and hence the measures were overblown, the document claims that it doesn’t apply now. It tacitly admits that such regulations may have been entirely reasonable and necessary at earlier dates.

This was certainly noticed by Justice Coval.

When the starting position is that there used to be a significant risk of spreading this (alleged) virus, you’ve already lost.

2. Petitions Don’t Challenge Junk Science

Apparently, the people challenging the injection mandate also “trust the science”. By this, there’s no effort to challenge any of the extensive lies and distortion that has come out the last few years. Admittedly, Petitions aren’t designed to be deep dives. However, these ones take almost everything the B.C. Government takes at face value.

Here’s an easy one: what’s the definition of a “Covid death“?

3. Petitions Don’t Challenge Public Health Act

This is yet another area that’s mind boggling. The Petitioners didn’t challenge any (or all) of the B.C. Public Health Act. This is the legislation that made all of this possible.

Instead, the lawyers are reduced to essentially arguing for exemptions within the framework of the PHA itself. This would have been a perfect time for a full attack on the PHA, but that didn’t happen.

(A) World Health Organization Constitution legally binding on member
(B) International Health Regulations are legally binding on WHO members
(C) Canada’s Bill C-12 (2005 Quarantine Act) was written by WHO
(D) Provincial Health Acts are extension of WHO-IHR
(E) Public Health Agency of Canada a de-facto branch of World Health Organization

There’s a wealth of information available on this. Instead of pursuing exemptions within the Charter, shouldn’t lawyers be asking by the World Health Organization is drafting our laws?

4. Petitions Should Have Been Filed As Civil Claims?

Although the names vary by jurisdiction, there are different ways a person can start a Court process. This matters as it appears the CSSEM chose the wrong one.

The most well known method is by “Action”. It’s starting by filing a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Civil Claim, as it’s called in B.C. It also has a few other names. These can be extremely simple, or they can be very complex, depending on the circumstances.

A lesser known method is by “Judicial Review”. This is when someone goes to Court to challenge an Order from some branch of Government, or Government Official, or Crown Corporation. These are meant to be a more streamlined process than Actions.

Petitions aren’t meant to be a deep dive into the science. They’re designed as reviews of whether or not decisions are reasonable. Considering what isn’t being challenged above, the outcome was inevitable.

JURISDICTION ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW
Federal Statement Of Claim Application
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition

On the surface, a Petition appears to be the correct method. After all, these were challenges to specific orders from Bonnie Henry. However, things like discovery aren’t permitted here. They’re meant for Actions. The Hsiang and Hoogerbrug Petitioners attempted to augment (add to) their evidence the following:

  • Any and all documents relating to the incidence of COVID infections, transmission and serious illness, as well as hospitalization and death attributable to COVID, broken down by vaccination status and number of doses and age, since the emergence of the Omicron variants.
  • Any and all documents that support the comments made by the PHO in a media conference on January 21, 2022, during which the PHO stated that the provincial government’s approach to the COVID virus has shifted to be “much like how we manage other respiratory illnesses – influenza, or RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or enteroviruses that cause the common cold”, including documents from January 2022 to September 12, 2022 that support this statement.
  • Any and all documents relating to the measures put in place to prevent infection and transmission of influenza and other respiratory illnesses, other than COVID, at hospitals and community health care facilities from 2009-2019.
  • Any and all documents relating to the relative effectiveness of the primary course of vaccination: In preventing people from contracting and transmitting COVID, since emergence of the Omicron variants; and compared to infection acquired immunity without vaccination with respect to preventing infection, transmission and serious illness, BC and other jurisdictions about vaccine mandates.
  • Any and all documents relating to the prevalence or estimated prevalence of infection and/or infection-acquired immunity in the provincial population.
  • All documents related to the consideration given to the two publicly available letters to UBC President & Vice-President Chancellor, Dr. Santa Ono, from the Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Patricia Daly et al, dated February 16, 2022, and the and the UBC Faculty professors Dr. David Patrick, Dr. Sarah (Sally) Otto, and Dr. Daniel Coombs, dated February 20, 2022
  • All documents relating to the decision to permit unvaccinated individuals with a medical exemption to continue working at hospitals and community health care facilities, but not extending the same opportunity to unvaccinated persons with valid religious reasons for not being vaccinated
  • All documents relating to the measures put in place for those working at hospitals and community health care facilities with a medical exemption
  • Any and all documents relating to the effectiveness of measures other than vaccination in preventing the transmission of COVID at hospitals and community health care facilities, including, but not limited to, measures such as the use of personal protective equipment, hygiene policies, and daily or less frequent testing
  • All documents relating to the transmission of COVID by registered health professionals at hospitals and community health care facilities to patients and vice versa, including by vaccination status
  • All documents relating to the transmission of COVID at hospitals and community health care facilities by persons who are not subject to the vaccination mandate

It would have taken weeks or months to get all of this information together.

In fairness, CSASPP also tried to add evidence to their existing record. However, it was nowhere near what’s been listed above. Petitions are designed to be simple and straightforward, not the fact finding mission that’s being requested here.

CSASPP discontinued their Petition in 2023. In their status updates here and here, they blame lawyer Peter Gall (Hsiang and Hoogerbrug Petitions) for endless delays. If done in bad faith — and who knows — it would amount to hijacking the other challenges. The protracted nature of these cases merits a piece all on its own.

The Attorney General’s Office wasn’t happy about attempts to greatly expand the scope of the Petitions.

This isn’t quite as absurd as Action4Canada appealing a decision to strike their Claim, as opposed to simply rewriting it. But it’s still pretty bad.

But in the end, what was really challenged?

The (remaining) Petitioners don’t seem to have an issue with: (a) an emergency being declared at all; (b) the completely fraudulent science going unchecked; and (c) the B.C. Public Health Act. All that’s left is whether or not health care workers still have to get the shots under the current order.

If these suits were supposed to involve many procedural steps, such as discovery, then they should have been Civil Claims, not Petitions.

An interesting Twitter thread covering this case came from Peyman Askari. He breaks down other parts of the ruling quite well.

Administrative staff who work remotely, or who have no contact with patients, may get a reprieve in all of this. That said, this is nowhere near all of the health care workers in the Province.

Now, there will very likely be an Appeal. But what exactly would they argue?

(1) https://www.cssem.org/
(2) https://www.cssem.org/donate
(3) CSSEM Petition To The Court
(4) CSSEM Notice Of Assignment Justice Coval Assigned
(5) CSSEM Memorandum Justice Coval Will Hear All Petitions Together
(6) CSSEM Affidavit #3 Of Sophie Harney
(7) CSSEM Affidavit #4 of Sophie Harney
(8) CSSEM Gall’s Requisition To Set JMC For 19 Oct 2022
(9) CSSEM Peter Gall Disputes Record With Crown
(10) CSSEM Peter Gall’s Cover Letter For His Application
(11) CSSEM Gall Writes AG Regarding Further Amended Petitions
(12) CSSEM AG Writes Peter Gall To Advise His Proposed Amendments Are Convoluted
(13) CSSEM CSASPP Petitioner Advises Of Discontinuance
(14) CSSEM CSASPP Notice Of Discontinuance
(15) CSSEM Peter Gall’s Written Submissions For CPC Regarding Another Adjournment
(16) CSSEM Corrected Reasons Dismissing Peter Gall’s Application To Augment Record
(17) CSSEM CanLII Version Reasons For Decision (Augmenting Record)
(18) CSSEM Reasons For Decision (Dismissal)

COURT SERVICES ONLINE UPDATES:
(1) CSSEM Procedural Updates 01
(2) CSSEM Procedural Updates 02
(3) CSSEM Procedural Updates 03
(4) CSSEM Procedural Updates 04

CSSEM DOCUMENTS:
(1) CSSEM Applicants For Incorporation
(2) CSSEM Certificate Of Incorporation
(3) CSSEM Constitution
(4) CSSEM Incorporation Application
(5) CSSEM Model Bylaws
(6) CSSEM Statement Of Directors And Registered Office

CSASPP STATUS UPDATES:
(1) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20221116
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20230301
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20230608

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 3: R.O.A. Challenge Finally To Be Heard?

Starting on October 1st, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court will finally hear a long delayed challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act, or R.O.A. Of course, this assumes that there are no more setbacks. Given how things have played out so far, there are no guarantees.

This Application is from William Adamson Skelly (a.k.a. Adam Skelly), and stems from his refusal to bend the knee to Doug Ford back in 2020.

Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions
Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

Due to Michael Swinwood — the former lawyer — screwing up the case in 2021, and then walking away, the matter has been unnecessarily delayed for years. This is in spite of getting several expert witnesses ready to appear.

  1. Byram Bridle
  2. Douglas Allen
  3. Gilbert Berdine
  4. Harvey Risch
  5. Joel Kettner
  6. William Briggs

There are, of course, differences in the reports that have been submitted. However, what they all argue is that this “global pandemic” is vastly overblown. Lockdown measures weren’t needed, nor was there any benefit to society from implementing them.

Now, in the year 2024, why does this still matter? While the so-called “pandemic” may be over, the Reopening Ontario Act is still in effect, even if there aren’t any shutdowns going on.

Here are the provisions being challenged:

Orders continued
2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the order filed as Ontario Regulation 106/20 (Order Made Under the Act — Extensions and Renewals of Orders).
.
Clarification
(3) For greater certainty, an order that is in force is continued under subsection (1) even if, on the day that subsection comes into force, the order does not apply to any area of the Province.

Power to amend orders
4 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order,
.
(a) subject to subsections (2) and (5), amend a continued section 7.0.2 order in a way that would have been authorized under section 7.0.2 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act if the COVID-19 declared emergency were still in effect and references in that section to the emergency were references to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects;
.
(b) amend an order continued under section 2 to address transitional matters relating to the termination of the COVID-19 declared emergency, the enactment of this Act or the continuation of orders under section 2.

Provisions applying with respect to orders
7 (1) Subsections 7.2 (3) to (8) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to orders continued under section 2, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Same
(2) Subsections 7.0.2 (6) to (9) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act continue to apply, with necessary modifications and the modifications specified in subsection (3), with respect to continued section 7.0.2 orders, including any amendments to such orders made under this Act.
.
Modifications
(3) The modifications referred to in subsection (2) are the following:
.
1. The reference, in paragraph 1 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to the emergency is deemed to be a reference to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects.
.
2. The reference, in paragraph 2 of subsection 7.0.2 (7) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, to when the declared emergency is terminated is deemed to be a reference to when the order in relation to which that paragraph applies is revoked or ceases to apply.

Temporary closure by police, etc.
9.1 (1) A police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable may order that premises be temporarily closed if the police officer, special constable or First Nations Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an organized public event or other gathering is occurring at the premises and that the number of people in attendance exceeds the number permitted under a continued section 7.0.2 order.

Offences
10 (1) Every person who fails to comply with subsection 9.1 (2) or (3) or with a continued section 7.0.2 order or who interferes with or obstructs any person in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred by such an order is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction,
.
(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;
.
(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and
.
(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.
.
Separate offence
(2) A person is guilty of a separate offence on each day that an offence under subsection (1) occurs or continues.
.
Increased penalty
(3) Despite the maximum fines set out in subsection (1), the court that convicts a person of an offence may increase a fine imposed on the person by an amount equal to the financial benefit that was acquired by or that accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence.

The Reopening Ontario Act may be seen as “sleeper” legislation. While there may be no obvious harm now, it can be used at any time, and under almost any pretense. We have seen this elsewhere, and the public is lulled into a false sense of security, believing the threat to be over.

But that’s not all. The Health Protection and Promotion Act is also facing a challenge given the heavy handed and unconstitutional manner which it was employed.

Interpretation
Directions by M.O.H.
24 (1) A medical officer of health, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) to the persons whose services are engaged by or to agents of the board of health of the health unit served by the medical officer of health. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 24 (1).
.
When M.O.H. may give directions
(2) A medical officer of health may give directions in accordance with subsection (3) where the medical officer of health is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that a communicable disease exists in the health unit and the person to whom an order is or would be directed under section 22,
(a) has refused to or is not complying with the order;
(b) is not likely to comply with the order promptly;
(c) cannot be readily identified or located and as a result the order would not be carried out promptly; or
(d) requests the assistance of the medical officer of health in eliminating or decreasing the risk to health presented by the communicable disease.

This is a bit of rabbit hole, but the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act is part of a much larger picture. The source material is extensive, but an informative read. To sum it all up:

  • Canada signed on to the WHO’s legally binding Constitution in 1946
  • The International Sanitation Regulations came into effect in 1951
  • The International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) came into effect in 1969
  • The International Health Regulations (2nd Ed.) came into effect in 1995
  • The International Health Regulations (3rd Ed.) came into effect in 2005
  • Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act, is Canada’s domestic implementation of WHO-IHR 3rd Ed.
  • The Provinces implemented their own version of the Quarantine Act, such as HPPA
  • The HPPA (really) came from the WHO

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the Canuck Law site.

Now, with all of this in mind, it seems pretty obvious that the Reopening Ontario Act didn’t just happen. It was brought in to compliment and help enforce existing public health measures. Our politicians are actors, reading scripts. They weren’t responsible for drafting any of this, but they did pass it.

The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting this case together, and the documents are readily available. Given that the hearing isn’t for several months, there will certainly be updates.

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

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

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 2: Swinwood Malpractice Claim

This is the second part on William Adamson Skelly, (a.k.a Adam Skelly). He made national headlines back in 2020, for refusing to capitulate to Doug Ford and Christine Elliott. A restraining order was granted against him in December, but a “come-back Motion” was allowed to go ahead to challenge it in an ad-hoc manner.

For background information on this, see Part 1. It outlines many of the major events that led up to this moment. This is hardly exhaustive of what happened.

Anyhow, his highly anticipated challenge was derailed due to the gross incompetence of then lawyer Michael Swinwood. Despite all of the time, money and effort that had gone into the challenge, it didn’t follow the basics of procedure.

Specifically, the purpose of the come-back Motion was to challenge the December order. Instead, Swinwood filed a Motion for damages, something that wouldn’t have been allowed at this stage anyway. Justice Akbarali ruled that there was no jurisdiction to hear it, but gave permission to refile the papers correctly.

When a litigant wants to make changes to their Notice of Motion, the correct method is to serve an AMENDED Notice of Motion. Instead, a second Notice was issued, and it wasn’t clear which the Court was supposed to consider.

Neither Notice set out that the point of the Motion was to challenge the December order, and any basis for issuing it. That was brought up afterwards. And it’s pretty common knowledge that a Notice has to spell out what is being asked for.

Apparently, there was no Notice placed in the Motion Record (a book of documents), which is a pretty basic oversight.

Despite this being a Motion, Skelly was listed as an Applicant on Court documents. He should have been referred to as a Moving Party. Just because a Notice of Constitutional Question is included, it doesn’t change this reality. Again, this is amateurish.

If damages were sought, then an “originating process” such as a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Application would have to have been filed. This Motion was not the way to do it. Still Justice Akbarali allowed another attempt to fix things.

However, that never happened. So, what did Skelly do?

He sued his lawyer for negligence and professional malpractice, demanding $200,000. It’s always interesting to hear when such a thing happens. From the Statement of Claim:

22. In late 2020 or early 2021, Mr. Skelly learned about Mr. Swinwood and retained him to pursue a constitutional challenge against the public health measures.

23. Mr. Skelly was under the impression that Mr. Swinwood was not only a reasonably competent lawyer but also one who had significant experience in constitutional and civil matters.

24. Throughout the duration of his retainer, Mr. Swinwood representing Mr. Skelly, acted with complete disregard for the Rules of Civil Procedure and in a manner that can only be described as completely incompetent and negligible.

25. In an Endorsement of the Honourable Justice Myers dated February 26, 2021, His Honour reprimanded Mr. Swinwood for sending an unsolicited letter to Justice Kimmel asking that she remain seized of the matter. Justice Myers highlighted that she was never seized of the matter to begin with and explicitly ordered that “Mr. Swinwood is to comply with Rule 1.09 in any future communication with the Court.”

26. In Her Honour’s Direction dated March 9, 2021, the Honourable Justice Akrabali set out a timetable for the hearing of the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Skelly, with the hearing to take place on June 28 and 29, 2021 (the “June Hearing”).

27. In the Direction, Justice Akrabali made a point to tell Mr. Swinwood to make sure he files his materials with the proper style of cause as the materials he submitted failed to do so. A hearing for the come-back motion contemplated by Justice Kimmel and Mr. Skelly’s constitutional challenge was scheduled for June 28 and 29th, 2021.

31. In her Endorsement dated June 28, 2021, Justice Akrabali pointed out various flaws in the
steps taken by Mr. Swinwood resulting in the court not having the issues properly raised before it (the “June Endorsement”). These flaws are listed below:
i. Not seeking to vary or set aside the Order of Justice Kimmel based on unconstitutionality in the Notices of Motion making it deficient rendering the proceeding procedurally unfair;
ii. Not properly placing the February Notice of Motion before Her Honour;
iii. Not having the February Notice of Motion initially placed in the respondent’s Motion Record and adding it only after the applicant brought up the issue in an attempt to fix the defect;
iv. The relief in the February Notice of Motion is not based on any Notice of Constitutional Question;
v. Having two Notices of Motion for the same motion instead of amending the document;
vi. Not making it clear to Ontario which Notice of Motion the hearing was to proceed on;
vii. Not giving appropriate notice of the relief sought in the Notice of Motion;
viii. The Notice of Constitutional Question did not raise the issue of setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality until its third iteration on June 8, 2021, which was well after the date of cross-examinations and the finalization of the evidentiary record;
ix. Neither Notice of Motion sought an Order setting aside the legislative scheme on the basis of unconstitutionality;
x. Failing to put before Her Honour the Affidavits of Service for Mr. Swinwood’s June 24, 2021, Motion Record; and,
xi. No originating process for the damages or declaration of invalidity sought.

32. At paragraph 44 of Justice Akrabali’s June Endorsement she states the following: “This is not a case where the respondents are self-represented parties. They were represented at the hearing by two counsel, at least one of whom has been practicing for many years. Earlier in the proceedings, when the Notices of Motion were being prepared, the respondents were represented by four counsel. I cannot explain why none of them considered these very basic issues, or if they did, why they did not address the deficiencies in the proceeding which could have been done easily and efficiently in February or March 2021…”

38. In the six months that passed Mr. Skelly obtained new counsel to issue the correct originating process Mr. Swinwood failed to issue and to bring Mr. Skelly’s challenge back for a hearing on the merits.

39. During this time, neither Mr. Skelly nor his new counsel received any correspondence regarding the desire of Ontario to receive the December Costs

It’s hard to imagine that a veteran lawyer could repeatedly make such basic errors unless done intentionally. Not only did Swinwood mess up, he never went ahead with another attempt. He effectively let the case die. Even with the trouble and expense of having 6 expert witnesses, Swinwood didn’t try again.

The Notice of Constitutional Question (all iterations of it) were also very poorly written. Instead of briefly outlining the issues, Swinwood appears to try to turn it into a Factum and make full arguments. 27+ pages was excessive.

All sorts of theories were floated, including that Swinwood had been bribed and/or threatened. However, without proof, those are just theories.

To date, there has been no activity in this malpractice suit other than the Claim itself being issued.

Now, there is a new Application scheduled to go ahead in October 2024. The 1st, 2nd and 7th are set aside for it. The Concerned Constituents of Canada, or CCOC, is putting that together. Mootness may be an issue — or at least the Province will argue it — given how much time has passed, but we’ll have to see. The R.O.A. hasn’t been formally rescinded.

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

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

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 1: The Akbarali Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

From Justice Kimmel’s ruling:

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Swinwood was filing.

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a very, very brief timeline of events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 14th, 2021: The Factum is amended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Ontario Factum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could Swinwood have screwed things up so badly?

And how come he never tried to fix it later?

Anyhow, more to come.

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

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

(1) Skelly – RBC Default Judgement Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) August, 2022: The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that it was “bad beyond argument”, and drafted so poorly that it was impossible to respond to. Although leave (permission) was granted to amend, the Claim was never accepted as valid.

(3) February, 2023: The Law Society of B.C. put it in their training manual for new lawyers. This case is now a teaching exercise of “wholly inadequate pleadings”, and how to avoid them. See page 15. That’s right, the LSBC is using it to train new lawyers on how not to draft lawsuits.

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

(5) February, 2024: The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the original Claim wasn’t drafted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. It was too long, confusing, and difficult to follow. They didn’t address the litany of other errors contained within. The lawyer also apparently didn’t understand that you can appeal the Order, but not the Reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember to donate!

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

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

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

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

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