Category: Vaccines

Posted on

Take Action Canada Case Discontinued Back In July 2024

The anti-lockdown group, Take Action Canada, has discontinued their case against the Ontario Government. This was the “Ontario First Responders” case broadly publicized. It challenged the injection pass mandate for about 100 Plaintiffs, primarily police and fire fighters.

For reasons that never made any sense, counsel decided to sue twenty (20) different Municipalities and Cities as well, and the specific employers. This resulted in a small army of lawyers being retained to defend the case. Unsurprisingly, it was to jack up the expenses as well.

The Statement of Claim was horribly deficient, being a replica of Action4Canada and Adelberg, both of which were found to be “bad beyond argument”. The amended version did little to fix those problems. Ontario, like other Provinces, has Rules of Civil Procedure which, among other things, outline how Claims are to be drafted.

There’s also the issue that most (if not all) of the Plaintiffs were either Government workers or unionized, which meant they would be government by a collective bargaining agreement. Such contracts typically outline a grievance process, which almost exclusively leads to arbitration. So jurisdiction was a serious concern.

For background on the case, see Parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The initial filing made national news. But there was never any follow-up, outside of this site. So many of these cases are simply allowed to die off once the cameras are gone. No refunds, naturally. Has this been reported anywhere else?

Realizing that costs would likely exceed initial fees, counsel tried to blackmail the Plaintiffs. Instead of the $1,500 each to pursue the entire case, another $4,500 was demanded. Sources have reported that this was voted down.

There was an aborted hearing back in January 2024. The dozens of lawyers bringing Summary Judgement Motions wanted to schedule dates for a hearing. However, it ended with nothing being determined. Presumably, the Plaintiffs needed time to assess their options.

Now the other shoe (and the case itself) drop. There won’t even be a Motion to Strike or Summary Judgement Motion heard. The case has simply been discontinued.

Good luck Canuck Law defending the legal action by Rocco!

Thing is: Take Action Canada was well aware in advance of the kinds of of problems they’d be having. Sandra Sable testified (against CSASPP) that criticism of counsel threatened the viability of the Claim. Prospective Plaintiffs kept bailing out, and demanding refunds. See original.

They threw clients to the wolves anyway.

Now for a productive suggestion: while Plaintiffs won’t ever get justice against the Ford regime, or their employers, there are other targets. In order to practice law, a lawyer MUST have malpractice insurance. This is not negotiable.

Ashvinder Lamba and Kulvinder Gill were very unhappy with the quality of their legal representation. They had no qualms about trying to take some of that insurance money. Perhaps former Plaintiffs here should consider their options.

Donors, and former clients, should have a serious discussion with Sandy and Vince about where their money has been going. Presumably, no one has received refunds.

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(3) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(4) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(6) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(7) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-Of-Application-Police-On-Guard.pdf
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Take-Action-Canada-Retainer-Essential-First
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52
(12) https://takeactioncanada.ca/tac911-legal-action-1st-responder-essential-workers-update-dec-survey/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/CSASPP-RG-Sable-Affidavit.pdf

Posted on

Incompetently Pleaded Claim Leads To Anti-SLAPP Win For Farber, CAHN

Last week, an Ottawa Judge threw out that a defamation case brought against Bernie Farber and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN). Justice Bell found that it was a “strategic lawsuit against public participation”, which isn’t allowed under Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act.

Here’s the context.

On February 14th, 2024, a Notice of Action was filed in Ottawa. It named Farber, CAHN, various MPs, members of the police, and banks for what had happened when the Emergencies Act was invoked. Filing this bought them — the Plaintiffs thought — another 30 days to file their Statement of Claim.

How this relates to Farber and CAHN is that their postings are blamed for getting the EA invoked. Remember the infamous “Hate Gate” hoax? Well, this lawsuit may have come as a result of it.

However, because the Plaintiffs’ lawyers apparently know nothing about defamation law, or anti-SLAPP laws, Farber and CAHN are off the hook. CAHN posted about this, and accurately stated the problem: the Claim never identified any specific statements or articles. It just made bald assertions.

While the lawsuit can still proceed with regards to the other Defendants, Plaintiffs should seriously consider retaining new counsel.

There will be the typical rumblings about the system being corrupt, or the Judge being bought off. Those concerns have been made many times before.

Alternatively, it’s worth noting that the Statement of Claim was so poorly and incompetently drafted, that this outcome was easily foreseeable. The firm handling this case is Loberg Ector LLP, which boasts about it on their website

“We Do Commercial Litigation”

Just not very well, it seems.

The contact page on their website lists their address as being in Alberta. That Province doesn’t have anti-SLAPP laws, so it’s possible they didn’t know that Ontario did. Anyhow, let’s get into it.

Claim Failed To Specify A Single Defamatory Statement

Here are the passages which related to CAHN.

207. Leading up to the Unlawful Enactments during the Ottawa Protests, several Defendants, acting together, or acting individually, as the case may be:
a. Made public and widely publicized denigrating and derogatory comments falsely characterizing the nature, scope, beliefs, and motives of the persons participating in the Ottawa Protests including some of the Plaintiffs;
b. Published and widely distributed written material including defamatory comments about the Ottawa Protests knowingly containing false and misleading information about the Ottawa Protests;
c. Conspired with or influenced major Canadian media outlets to publish false reports about the activities of the protestors present at the Ottawa Protests;
d. Made false reports regarding the activities of the protestors present at the Ottawa Protests to Crown officials and made false statements to Crown officials in such a way that promoted the Unlawful Enactments;
e. Sought to harm, injure, or otherwise denigrate the reputations of the Plaintiffs with malicious intent; and
f. Made such further and other public statements and publications which denigrated and harmed the reputations of the Plaintiffs as will be discovered at the trial of this action.

208. The conduct of the Defendants, and the false information which was disseminated by several Defendants to the Canadian media, the Financial Institution Defendants, the Crown and the citizens of Canada influenced and enabled the decision to invoke the impugned Unlawful Enactments.

209. The decisions taken by the individual Defendants, the Police Defendants, the Crown Defendants, the Financial Institution Defendants, and the CAHN Defendants were done cynically, politically, and selfishly without the appropriate consideration for the bests interest of Canada and its citizens and with wanton disregard for the wellbeing of the Plaintiffs.

210. Intelligence reports at the time of the Ottawa Protests from the RCMP, OPS, Police Defendants, and CSIS did not show that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security, and indeed consistently corroborated the overall peaceful nature of the Ottawa Protests.

211. While deliberately knowing that the Ottawa Protests was largely a peaceful protest, the Crown Defendants, and in particular Ms. Jody Thomas given her role as the National Security and Intelligence Advisor took it upon themselves to create their own open source intelligence operation to create a new flow of intelligence to the Crown Defendants (the “Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting”) which influenced their decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and Unlawful Enactments.

212. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting was an unsanctioned, and politically motivated open source intelligence operation which reflected the intentionally biased view of the narrative that Ms. Thomas and the Crown Defendants wanted, rather than the truth about the overall peaceful nature of the Ottawa Protests. This included relying heavily upon false or otherwise one-sided open source information and giving undue emphasis or weight to misleading or otherwise biased narratives including those from the CAHN Defendants or their proxies on social media.

213. For greater certainty, in her role as National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Ms. Thomas had the entire intelligence and security information assets at her disposal to draw upon, including military and defence. Ms. Thomas and her office were authorized to draw upon information and intelligence from at least five different secretariat level sources. These include Emergency Preparedness, Intelligence Assessment, Foreign Policy, Defence Policy, and the National Security Council. In addition to the secretariat level information and intelligence sources, Ms. Jody Thomas had several agencies providing intelligence flows which includes but is not limited to CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Communications Security Establishment Canada.

214. None of the intelligence reports or flows of intelligence from the plethora of integrated government-wide perspectives and sources that Ms. Thomas had available to her could be used to justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, nor did they suggest that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security.

215. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting was a deliberate attempt to bypass the secretariat level intelligence and the intelligence flows from the numerous agencies that Ms. Thomas and her office had at their disposal. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting reflected the views and narratives that she wanted to advance, and it was not the integrated government-wide intelligence perspective that was required.

216. The Crown Defendants, members of Cabinet both named and not named as Defendants in this action, accepted the information contained in the Thomas Open Source Reporting and misinformation from the CAHN Defendants or their proxies either negligently or with malicious intent when they knew or ought to have known that such information was misleading, grossly exaggerated, defamatory, and harmful.

217. Essentially, when all or some of the Crown Defendants were unable to obtain the intelligence required to justify invoking the Emergencies Act or demonstrate that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security, they embarked on their own unsanctioned open source intelligence operation by way of the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting to create a new flow of intelligence to the Prime Minister’s Office and to Cabinet while negligently or intentionally relying upon information that they knew or ought to have known was untrue, exaggerated, misleading, defamatory, and biased.

218. The Court ought to give weight to the above paragraphs as an aggravating factor in the course of this litigation when assessing the appropriate level of damages and financial compensation for the Plaintiffs.

252. The CAHN Defendants in particular, provided false information to several other Defendants and media organizations designed to harm the Plaintiffs. Falsified or otherwise highly exaggerated information was supplied by the CAHN Defendants or their proxies to the Crown Defendants and the Police Defendants in support of the Unlawful Enactments.

253. The statements made by the CAHN Defendants and their proxies defamed the Plaintiffs and influenced the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.

254. The statements were false and were made with malice to advance the political agenda of the CAHN Defendants. The CAHN Defendants at one point were recipients of funding and financial support from the Government of Canada. The CAHN Defendants as recently as August 2023, have requested further financial funding for themselves and their causes from the Government of Canada requesting taxpayer money in excess of $130 million over the next 5 years. The true extent of the historical and ongoing financial funding of the CAHN Defendants by the Government of Canada is not fully known but will be discovered during this action.

255. The Plaintiffs, any or each of them, suffered damages as a result of the defamatory statements by the CAHN Defendants which were dishonest, deceitful, and exaggerated while done with malicious intent to cause harm including labelling the Ottawa Protestors, including the Plaintiffs, as being racist, accelerationist, far right extremists, falsely accusing supporters of the Ottawa Protestors as being Nazi’s, misogynistic, and disseminating other hateful and defamatory false accusations about the Plaintiffs some of whom are Indigenous peoples, racialized minorities, persons of colour, women, senior citizens, and disabled individuals.

256. The CAHN Defendants have themselves knowingly propagated hatred, sowed division within Canada, fomented distrust, spread misinformation, and have defamed the Plaintiffs with malevolent intent and for cynical purposes to advance a political agenda which has in the past been paid for and funded by the Canadian taxpayers.

257. Furthermore, the Crown Defendants in relying upon the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting defamed the Plaintiffs when public statements were made repeating the same false information and narratives. In many instances, the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting relied upon the false information from the Government of Canada funded CAHN Defendants and their proxies in a closed loop as a means to improperly justify the illegal invocation of the Emergencies Act.

258. The Plaintiffs seek compensable damages against the CAHN Defendants and the
Crown Defendants for their injurious falsehoods and defamation.

All of this is from the Statement of Claim.

But do you see the problem? At no point, is there any specific quote of any defamatory statement. Nor are there any specific articles or videos referenced. It should have looked something like this:

On February 6th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 8th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 10th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 12th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 14th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 16th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 18th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

And so on.

This is how defamation allegations are supposed to be pleaded in a Statement of Claim. The specific words need to be included, along with information about who spoke or wrote them, when and where. Considering the case against Farber and CAHN was only expression, these needed to be listed.

Instead of this, the Claim goes on about vague and nondescript allegations. This is not how it should be done, and the Claim would have to be rewritten anyway.

But since Ontario has anti-SLAPP laws, there are no rewrites.

Section 137.1 Courts Of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP)

Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.

No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party satisfies the judge that,
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
.
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

The Courts of Justice Act for Ontario has been quoted many times. But here’s a quick overview as to how it works, and what needs to happen.

(1) Defendants, one or multiple, bring a Motion to dismiss under this provision. A lot of papers are exchanged in the meantime.

(2) Defendant(s) must convince the Court that their expression is “of a public interest concern”. This isn’t to say that it’s good or bad, just that it’s something a segment of the public would be interested in. By design, it’s a very low burden.

(3) If the Defendant(s) are able to do this, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s), and they face a 3-part test. If even one part is failed, the anti-SLAPP Motion is granted, and the case dismissed.

(a) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there is “substantial merit” to the Claim.

(b) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there “are no reasonable defences available”.

(c) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there is a greater public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue, as opposed to protecting the expression.

If the Judge decides the expression “isn’t of a public concern”, the Motion is to be dismissed, and the case allowed to proceed. Likewise, if the Plaintiff is convincing on all 3 parts of the test, the Motion should fail.

Otherwise, the case is to be dismissed.

How The Anti-SLAPP Motion Played Out In Court

Starting at paragraph 19, Justice Bell explains his reasons.

The expression itself had to do with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which impacted all Canadians. While not taking sides on the issue, he found that it was a concern to a large segment of the population. As a result, he found that Farber and CAHN met the “public interest threshold”.

Now, the burden shifted to the Plaintiffs, and they had that test to meet. And here’s where the lawyers’ sheer cluelessness about anti-SLAPP laws really showed.

No further steps in proceeding
137.1(5) Once a motion under this section is made, no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of.

No amendment to pleadings
137.1(6) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the responding party shall not be permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding,
(a) in order to prevent or avoid an order under this section dismissing the proceeding; or
(b) if the proceeding is dismissed under this section, in order to continue the proceeding

This is part of what makes anti-SLAPP laws in Ontario so powerful. Part (5) “stays” the case, meaning nothing else can happen until this is resolved (and all Appeals).

Part (6) states that a pleading cannot be amended in order to avoid a dismissal, nor can it be after a case is dismissed.

Because the idiot lawyers never specified any defamatory statements here, there is no next time. As a result, Justice Bell found that there was “no substantial merit” to the Claim. (The civil conspiracy allegation also wasn’t pleaded properly.)

Since there’s no “substantial merit”, that should be the end right there.

There was also the open question as to whether the requirement to serve Notice of Libel was met, and whether the 2 year limitation had lapsed anyway. It wasn’t resolved, but still a possibly valid defence.

For the final part, the Judge found there was no evidence of harm to any Plaintiff from Farber or CAHN. Only Vincent Gircys submitted an Affidavit, but the freezing of his bank accounts couldn’t be tied to them.

Farber and CAHN had asked for $20,000 and $10,000 respectively for damages, which was denied.

The Motion was granted, and the case was dismissed (for Farber and CAHN).

Successful Motions Typically Get Full Indemnity (100%) Costs

Costs on dismissal
137.1(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.

In most circumstances, successful parties only get a portion of their costs back. In Ontario, anti-SLAPP laws refer to “full indemnity” as the default position if the case is dismissed.

This means that Plaintiffs have to pay their lawyers’ costs, and ALL of the Defendants’ lawyers costs. Cost awards typically are well over $100,000.

During the Motion, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers had tried to argue that the suit against Farber and CAHN could be added to and “particularized”. Again, this showed their ignorance about defamation and anti-SLAPP laws.

Now, the case can theoretically still proceed — minus Farber and CAHN — but the Claim will still have to be redrafted anyway. What a waste of time and money.

However, because there are other serious problems with the pleading, it’s possible, and likely, that Motions to Strike will be coming soon.

The Plaintiffs need better lawyers.

Perhaps the Law Societies of Ontario and/or Alberta can assist them in connecting with more competent and experienced help.

(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(7) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Adam Skelly, Part 4: October Hearing To Be Postponed Into 2025

The long anticipated hearing of Adam Skelly challenging the Reopening Ontario Act (R.O.A.) has been delayed again, this time, until 2025. It was supposed to begin next week, and last for 3 days. See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

The prime reason seems to be that one of the expert witnesses has withdrawn, leaving Skelly scrambling to find a replacement.

Justice Akazaki vacated the dates, while questioning whether or not the hearings could be squeezed into a single day, or 2.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a request to adjourn and reschedule a three-day hearing of a constitutional challenge to a provincial offence arising from the alleged breach of the Ontario Covid-19 lockdown order.

[2] The OCJ has stayed the provincial offence trial. The applicant / accused has waived his s. 11(b) rights. Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the need to avoid further delay. The OCJ proceeding largely entails an agreed statement of fact.

[3] The adjournment was necessitated by the withdrawal of one of the applicant’s expert witnesses. There are also additional steps to be undertaken.

[4] The main impediment to scheduling the return date was the dispute over the length of the hearing. The applicant maintained the case requires three days. The respondents both stated the hearing can be completed in one day.

[5] There is an advantage to having the duration of the hearing settled by a case conference judge, once counsel have organized the completion of the next steps. If the hearing can take place during one day or two instead of three, the hearing can be scheduled earlier and without taking up unnecessary hearing dates.

[6] Therefore, I hereby order:
1. The October 1, 2, and 7, 2024, hearing dates are hereby vacated.
2. The parties shall request a case conference at the earliest opportunity, once the next steps have been agreed, to reschedule the hearing

Why does all of this still matter? For starters, the R.O.A. is still on the books, even if there are no orders in effect from it. This means that in theory, a new “crisis” could lead to future dictates.

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
(7) Skelly – Justice Akazaki Deferral Of Case

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

GAVI Sends New Lobbyist, Cameron Doherty, To Ottawa On Their Behalf

GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, hired yet another lobbyist last year to push their agenda in Ottawa. This is a “Conservative” named Cameron Doherty. He joins Ashton Arsenault, who is still officially registered.

All of these lobbyists seem to come from the same firm, Crestview Strategy. The organization was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff.

Zakery Blais worked as a staffer for David Lametti, before he was Attorney General.
Jason Clark, former LPC fundraiser, lobbied for GAVI.
Ashton Arsenault is a conservative “strategist”.

For reference, visit the “pharma” page on this site. It’s quite disgusting how prevalent lobbying, and in particular, drug lobbying really is.

On the Federal Lobbying Registry, GAVI describes its work as follows:

Working with Parliamentarians to advocate for support for commitments to vaccines and immunization in the form of policy that recognizes the value of improving global health outcomes, emergency and humanitarian assistance, pharmaceutical innovation, official development financing and poverty reduction.

SOURCE COUNTRY AMOUNT EXPECTED NEXT YEAR?
Global Affairs Canada (GAC) $111,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Australia $82,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Belgium $3,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Brazil $121,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Germany $56,000,000.00 Yes
Government of India $3,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Ireland $5,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Japan $179,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Norway $111,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Saudi Arabia $41,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Scotland $1,000,000.00 Yes
Government of Sweden $32,000,000.00 Yes
Government of the United Kingdom $311,000,000.00 Yes
Qatar $2,000,000.00 Yes

It’s hardly just Ottawa that funds GAVI. Governments all over the world fund it with taxpayer money. How much more will Doherty cause to be sent abroad?

On October 16th, 2023, he met with:

  • Matthew Trnkus, Senior Advisor | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)

On October 17th, 2023, he met with:

  • Jwane Izzetpanah, Manager, Stakeholder Relations | House of Commons
  • Oz Jungic, Senior Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
  • Darren Hall, Policy Advisor | House of Commons
  • Christina Lynch, Director of Operations | Privy Council Office (PCO)
  • Nisara Jiwani, Senior Analyst | Privy Council Office (PCO)

On October 18th, 2023, he met with:

  • Ali Ehsassi, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
  • Heather McPherson, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
  • Mike Lake, Member of Parliament | House of Commons

This is just the information that’s “on the books”. There could very easily be more that isn’t disclosed to the public.

On his LinkedIn page, Doherty lists himself as having completed internships both with the Ontario Conservatives (2020), and the Conservative Party of Canada (2021). Presumably, he’s well “educated” in the need for mass vaccinating the public.

This is consistent with the behaviour in this field. A person will have a short stint with a political party (or a few of them) and then go in to lobbying. Those connections will then be used in order to influence the decision making of “governments”.

All Parties Involved With “Influence Peddling” In Ottawa

As an aside, Jagmeet Singh, NDP chief, was recently in the news for all the wrong reasons. His brother Gurratan Singh, was exposed as being a lobbyist for Metro, a competitor of Loblaws.

All parties are involved with lobbying, which means they all have special interest groups determining what their policies will be. “Mr. Fire Your Lobbyist” seems to be okay with the drug peddling that goes on, but decides to call out the grocery store influence.

CPC, NDP Both Took Trudeau Bailout Money In 2020

This reaches back to 2020, but both the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party received CEWS. This is the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, a bailout program run by the C.R.A. in 2020 and 2021. Ever wonder why “opponents” always seem to agree on so much?

It’s almost as if they’re all in it together.

(1) https://crestviewstrategy.com/our-team/cameron-doherty/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rob-silver-leaves-crestview-citing-wife-s-job-as-trudeau-chief-of-staff-1.3389152
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/cddoh/details/experience/
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=374457&regId=957001
(5) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/poilievre-accuses-singh-of-picking-on-loblaw-stores-because-brother-works-for-competitor
(6) https://crestviewstrategy.com/our-team/gurratan-singh/
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Claim Seriously Defective, Will Never Get To Trial

The Federal Government has filed a Motion to Strike the 2023 lawsuit from Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison.

See parts 1, 2 and 3 in the series so far.

For context, they previously filed an Application challenging the Interim Orders which mandated the injection pass to travel on trains or airplanes. 3 other Applications were filed with near exact circumstances, and for simplicity, were to be heard together. There was an impressive compilation of 23 Affidavits and 15 export reports included as evidence.

But before the cases could be heard, the Government brought a Motion to strike the 4 Applications for “mootness”. In essence, this is the idea that there is no longer a live issue to try. Since the travel mandates, weren’t in effect currently, the Government argued it was a waste of time and money. Apparently, no one was seeking damages.

Justice Jocelyne Gagné granted the Motion and threw the cases out, despite pleas to hear them anyway. Applicants were concerned that mandates could come back at a later time.

However, Justice Gagné did “throw a bone” to the Applicants. She stated in the ruling that if any of them had damages to recover, they could file a Claim and do so. Although not explicitly stated, presumably the ad hoc challenges to the mandates could still go on.

Instead of filing Claims and asking for damages, lawyers for all 4 Applications appealed. It was never made clear what possessed them to do it.

After screwing up at the Federal Court of Appeal — and this will be addressed later — most of the Applicants tried to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. They lost. Rickard and Harrison finally decided after the first Appeal to file a Claim. This is what the article will address.

The Rickard/Harrison suit is very poorly written, and likely to be struck for a series of procedural defects. It’s hard to believe they were represented by counsel.

A Necessary Disclaimer

To address the obvious: in no way, shape or form is this meant to excuse or justify “injection mandates”, whether for travel, or general livelihood. That being said, we need to be realistic about this case. It’s going nowhere.

While the original 4 Applications were struck as “moot”, this case has its own problems that will most likely see its demise.

Brief History On These Cases

December 2021: The Rickard/Harrison Application is filed. (T-1991-21)

January 2022: The Naoum Application is filed. (T-145-22)

January 2022: The Peckford Application is filed. (T-168-22)

February 2022: The Bernier Application is filed (T-247-22)

Eventually, the Court decides that all cases will be heard together, in order to save time and expense. This happens fairly often. Over the next several months, some 6,650 pages of evidence would be amassed. This would include 23 Affidavits and 15 expert reports.

Before the case can be heard, however, the Government brings Motions to strike the Applications on the basis of “mootness”. At this point, there were no mandates in effect, and no one had damages to claim. It’s a preemptive effort to derail the case.

October 2022: All 4 Applications are struck as “moot” by Justice Gagné.

November 2022: Notices of Appeal are filed against the striking of the Applications.

A-251-22 (Peckford)
A-252-22 (Rickard/Harrison)
A-253-22 (Bernier)
A-254-22 (Naoum)

November 2023: Federal Court of Appeal dismisses Appeals of all 4 Applications.

This is where Rickard/Harrison diverge from the others. They will file a Statement of Claim very shortly, while the others will attempt to get leave to go to the Supreme Court.

SCC File #41082 (Peckford)
SCC File #41081 (Bernier)
SCC File #41100 (Naoun)

November 2023: Rickard/Harrison filed Statement of Claim in Federal Court. (T-2536-23)

December 2023: The Government files Notice of Intent to Respond

June 2024: Rickard/Harrison file amended Statement of Claim.

July 2024: The Government files Notice of Motion against Rickard/Harrison, indicating they want the Claim struck. Despite its short length, there are many problems.

August 2024: Applications for Leave (permission) to go to Supreme Court of Canada are dismissed for Peckford, Bernier, Naoun

Rickard and Harrison decided to go their own way. What then are the issues with the Claim that they filed?

1. Claim Doesn’t Actually Challenge Mandates Themselves

The previous Applications from Rickard/Harrison, Bernier, Peckford and Naoun all challenged that mandates themselves, which required the “injection passport” in order to take a plane or a train. They asked for “Declaratory Relief”, which is a ruling from a Judge that something is illegal.

However, looking at the Statement of Claim, it demands: (a) $1,000,000 in damages; (b) costs of the lawsuit; and (c) “other such relief”. That’s it. They’re not asking the Court to make Declarations of any sort, or challenge the constitutionality of these Interim Orders.

So, what then is the purpose here?

Even assuming that a Judge finds that Charter damages are warranted, it doesn’t mean that the mandates themselves (or any part of it) will be prohibited from being reinstated later.

2. Failure To Plead Necessary Material Facts

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

This is from Section 174 of the Federal Court Rules.

In the November 2022 version of the Statement of Claim, the lawyer who drafted the case pleaded no facts whatsoever about the circumstances of Rickard and Harrison. There was no information provided on which to base a reply. From the perspective of due process, this is bad, as the Defendants are entitled to know what the allegations they must defend against.

To be fair, the Claim was amended in June 2023. It provided some, but not really enough information to reply to. Pretty pathetic that the case just sat in limbo for months.

3. Failure To Plead Necessary Particulars

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

This is also from the Federal Court Rules.

The Statement of Claim (and the amended version) both make allegations of bad faith, abuse of office, and deceit. In these instances, there’s an additional requirement to plead particulars. This is also referred to as “particularizing a Claim”. What this means is that extra detail and information must be provided. There can be no doubt as to what Defendants are being accused of: who, what, where, when….

What’s been pleaded here seems to fall short.

For these kinds of cases, facts and particulars must be included. In Ontario, for example, pleading facts (s.25.06(1)) and particulars (s.25.06(8)) is outlined in their Rules of Civil Procedure. It’s similar everywhere.

4. Failure To Properly Plead s.6 (Mobility) Charter Breaches

Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

This comes across as pedantic, but there are several errors with how this part of the Claim is written, and it’s addressed in the Notice of Motion.

First, Rickard and Harrison don’t actually plead that they are Canadian citizens. Apparently they are, but it needs to be included in the Claim. It wasn’t in either the original or amended version.

Second, Rickard and Harrison don’t plead that they were prevented from entering or leaving Canada. But to be fair, it becomes practically impossible to leave (outside the U.S.) without an airplane. This portion of the Claim needs to be explained better.

Third, Rickard and Harrison don’t plead that they were prevented either from residing in any province, or gaining a livelihood.

Fourth, since Rickard and Harrison only referenced air travel in their Statement of Claim, restrictions on trains wouldn’t be an issue for the Court to consider.

Theoretically, a breach of s.6(1) is doable in a challenge. While s.6(2) doesn’t seem to apply, they could argue that they had their only practical means of leaving the country removed, absent taking the shots.

5. Failure To Properly Plead s.7 (Security) Charter Breaches

Life, liberty and security of person
7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

This isn’t to justify the mandates, but Rickard and Harrison need to be realistic. S.7 challenges that dealt with this exact issue have been filed (and thrown out) across the country. They weren’t forced to take the injections, but had their ability to travel serious hampered.

Again, this isn’t to excuse the practice, but this challenge offers nothing new. Even if it did, the Claim is so poorly drafted that a Judge may not take it seriously.

6. Failure To Properly Plead s.15 (Equality) Charter Breaches

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The areas that are specifically listed in Section 15(1) of the Charter are referred to as enumerated grounds. In addition, Courts have recognized others, known as analogous grounds.

Enumerated Grounds:

  • Race
  • National or ethnic origin
  • Colour
  • Religion
  • Sex
  • Age
  • Mental or Physical Disability

Analogous Grounds:

  • Sexual Orientation
  • Marital Status
  • Off-Reserve Aboriginal Status
  • Citizenship
  • Income

Many seem to think that Section 15 encompasses equality under and and all categories. It does not. In reality, it’s extremely limited. There’s nothing here which could be construed as “vaccination or medical status”. It isn’t even a new or novel challenge, and has been rejected countless times already.

Note: again, this isn’t in any way to defend the coercive injection mandates, but to point out that the Charter isn’t the solution people think it is. Rickard and Harrison appear to have been very poorly advised.

The End For Rickard/Harrison Challenge?

The Motion brought by the Government does concede that there may be a possible path forward with regards to the s.6 (mobility) challenge. Sections 7 and 15 are basically dead in the water, especially considering the litany of rulings on these exact issues.

However, the performance of their legal team has thus far been underwhelming.

Aside from those 3 provisions in the Charter, Rickard and Harrison don’t plead any other grounds. If these fail, then that’s the end.

Since they’re not even asking for declaratory relief anymore — challenging the travel restrictions in principle — then it’s unclear what purpose the 6,650 pages (Affidavits and expert reports) will serve.

To be honest though, the Plaintiffs may wish to retain more competent counsel.

After appealing Justice Gagné’s 2022 ruling, when the case could have simply been refiled as an Action, this is the result. We get a short, poorly written Claim that pleads very little of the necessary information. It’s amended later, but still falls far short of what’s needed.

While it would be nice to see a ruling that firmly condemns the “injection travel mandates”, it seems very unlikely that this is it.

Why Keep Covering The “Freedom Lawyers”?

All too often, these “freedom” challenges fail spectacularly. There are always theories about why this is happening: (a) the system is corrupt; (b) the Judge is bribed and/or threatened; (c) the lawyers are retarded; (d) the Charter is worthless, and so on.

However, a much less talked about concern is that the challenges brought forward are regularly complete trash. They’re filed too late, filed in the wrong court, or the wrong paperwork is done. There have been several cases of unionized workers who were advised to sue — as opposed to seeking arbitration — and predictably, those are thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. In countless other instances, the pleadings are drafted so poorly that there’s no prospect of advancing to Trial. There are many different excuses.

In these exact challenges, lawyers APPEALED a decision from Justice Gagné, when they could simply have REFILED the case as an Action. It’s Action4Canada all over again.

Aside from Rickard and Harrison, the other Applicants appealed for a second time (sought Leave at the Supreme Court of Canada) instead of refiling as a Claim.

Why does this continue to happen?

We’ve seen that Governments across Canada bribe the media to promote the “pandemic” narrative. This happens both with direct subsidies and advertising. Taxpayer money is used to finance and subsidize the “scientists” who call for more lockdown measures. Other subsidies are used to prop up businesses who implement mandates. Heck, Trudeau even gave bailout money (CEWS) to his political “opponents”. See above.

For reference: Conservative Fund is the fundraising branch of the Conservative Party of Canada. United Conservative Association is the similar arm of the Conservatives in Alberta. And yes, both the Federal Liberals and New Democrats also took the money.

There is a pretty obvious explanation of why these cases are handled so poorly. However, this site does not engage in kooky conspiracy theories.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

Federal “Injection Travel Mandate” Cases: Why Appeal When They Could Have Been Fixed?

This is yet another instance of “alternative” media not telling the whole story.

Recently, the news broke that 3 Applications for Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada had been denied. These were attempts at secondary Appeals for Peckford, Bernier and Naoum, challenging the “travel mandates” and the requirement to take the shots in order to travel.

There was actually a 4th Application grouped together, but those litigants have since filed a Statement of Claim instead. The other 3 chose to take the above route.

For context, the 4 related Applications were filed in late 2021 and into 2022. Because they covered essentially the same subject matter, they would be heard together.

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

To make a very long story short: it didn’t have to be this way.

The Federal Court ruled in October 2022 that the 4 cases were “moot”, meaning there was no active issue to try. Since mandates were no longer in effect, all that was sought was declaratory relief. This was in spite of talk that injection mandates could return at some point.

Now the Applicants could have taken another path, and commenced Actions (and filed Claims). This was made clear to them.

Rather than do this, they all chose to appeal the mootness ruling.

They appealed, instead of taking the easier path to fix their case.

Basically, this is Action4Canada 2.0

Action4Canada Case V.S. Travel Mandates Case

Consider 2 high profile cases in recent years.

(Case #1) Back in August 2022, the Action4Canada case (filed in Vancouver) was struck as “bad beyond argument“. This 391 page monster failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure. It was incoherent, and asked for all kinds of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, Justice Alan Ross did allow an amended Notice of Civil Claim to be filed.

Instead of filing a proper Claim, the ruling was appealed instead. They lost.

(Case #2) Back in October 2022, the Federal Court struck 4 Applications to Federal injection mandates for travel for “mootness”. Justice Jocelyne Gagné made a discretionary finding that there was no live issue to try, since the mandates were no longer in effect. However, Justice Gagné, and Associate Justice Tabib, had remarked that if there were damages, then these cases could proceed as Actions. Of course, this would involve filing Statements of Claim.

Instead of filing Actions, ALL of the Applicants appealed.

Following this, they (other than Rickard and Harrison) attempted to appeal again.

The Action4Canada and travel mandate cases share a common thread. Although the circumstances differed, all were given the option to correct the flaws in their pleadings. Instead, each of them chose to appeal.

Filing Actions V.S. Filing Judicial Reviews

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

Although the names vary somewhat, there are normally a few different ways to commence legal action.

The most common way is with an Action, and it involves filing a Statement of Claim, or some similar document. These can be very simple cases, or they can be very complex and tedious.

A lesser known and understood method is by Judicial Review. In essence, it’s the challenging of some sort of decision or order made by some Government official. Despite how it’s often used, the idea is to challenge simple rulings, such as licences being denied, or funding not being received. It’s typically a much more streamlined process than Actions.

There is overlap between them, and the circumstances of each case determines which would be appropriate.

Why does this matter? Because the Federal Court left open the possibility for these litigants to refile their grievances as Actions, and ask for damages. Instead, they appealed, because …. reasons.

Rickard and Harrison were quite aware of this, as their 2022 Motion indicates. So when the Applications were struck, they could have refiled, but as Actions. They appealed, because …. reasons.

Justices Tabib & Gagné Stated That Case Could Proceed As An Action

True, at an earlier Motion, Associate Justice Tabib did dismiss a Motion that would have allowed the Rickard/Harrison Application to be converted into an Action. Yes, the original pleading wasn’t permitted to be amended to include damages.

Yes, Justice Gagné did strike the Applications as being “moot”. Since no one (apparently) sought damages in their Application, and the travel mandates were lifted, there apparently wasn’t a “live” issue to try.

However, consider what was actually written in the October 2022 decision.

[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.

This is from the ruling, and is pretty clear. If there were damages suffered, then the case should be brought as an Action, not an Application.

Standard For Review: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33

After the 4 Applications were declared “moot” in the Fall of 2022, the Applicants could have converted them into Actions, and filed Statement of Claim for each (or one for everyone). Appealing made no sense, especially when looking at the “Standard of Review“. See highlighted version.

What this means is that different standards are applied, depending on whether someone is challenging a: (a) finding of fact; (b) application of or findings of the law; or (c) a discretionary act by a Judge.

Findings of fact: standard of review is “overriding palpable error”
Findings of law: standard of review is correctness
Exercises of discretion: standard of review is “overriding palpable error”

The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. The reasons for deferring to a trial judge’s findings of fact can be grouped into three basic principles. First, given the scarcity of judicial resources, setting limits on the scope of judicial review in turn limits the number, length and cost of appeals. Secondly, the principle of deference promotes the autonomy and integrity of the trial proceedings. Finally, this principle recognizes the expertise of trial judges and their advantageous position to make factual findings, owing to their extensive exposure to the evidence and the benefit of hearing the testimony viva voce. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference-drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.

A. Standard of Review for Questions of Law
.
On a pure question of law, the basic rule with respect to the review of a trial judge’s findings is that an appellate court is free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Thus the standard of review on a question of law is that of correctness: Kerans, supra, at p. 90.

There are at least two underlying reasons for employing a correctness standard to matters of law. First, the principle of universality requires appellate courts to ensure that the same legal rules are applied in similar situations. The importance of this principle was recognized by this Court in Woods Manufacturing Co. v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 504, at p. 515:

Justice Gagné “exercised her discretion” to find that the 4 Applications were moot. In other words, she simply decided that the cases weren’t worth hearing. Now, why does it matter that she used her discretion?

As it turned out, the Appellants argued the wrong test. 2 of them thought it was “correctness”, and the other 2 didn’t specify what they wanted.

Appealing a “discretionary” order is damn near impossible. It’s not enough to say that someone can come to a different conclusion. It must be demonstrated that the Judge’s use of that discretion contained outright error. It’s a much higher standard than correctness.

The Appellants also tried arguing the merits of their cases. However, the only issue to be decided was whether Justice Gagné committed “overriding palpable error” by finding the cases to be moot. It seems that the lawyers don’t understand the purpose of appealing.

Considering that the Applicants could have simply refiled their cases as Actions, it’s baffling why they would do this.

Bernier, Peckford, Naoum Launch SECOND Appeal

The majority of these litigants apparently weren’t satisfied losing once in Appellate Court. They decided to try again with the Supreme Court of Canada. Remember, the goal here was to get the finding of “mootness” overturned. They (still) could have filed Actions — as they were advised — but appealed again, because …. reasons.

Not even “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” attempted a second Appeal with Action4Canada.

“Applying for Leave” is a term that means asking for permission. The SCC doesn’t hear cases from all interested parties. Instead, it picks and chooses what it finds to be important. In fact, most Applications are denied.

Rickard and Harrison, to their credit, did finally make the right choice. However, their Claim has serious issues that will be addressed in a bit.

Bernier, Peckford, Naoum Likely Time Barred At This Point

Even if the above litigants wanted to refile their cases as Actions, it’s likely too late. For most things, the Statute of Limitations is 2 years. As we are now at the end of August 2024, it’s very unlikely that there would be any recent damages they could claim.

To sound like a broken record: they could have done this back in October 2022.

Rickard/Harrison Claim Not Properly Pleaded

Even though Rickard and Harrison are pursuing a Claim, they aren’t out of the woods yet. The pleading is Galati-level bad in terms of its quality.

The Claim is very bare-bones in terms of detail. A Judge might find that there aren’t sufficient facts pleaded. In fairness, the amended version fixes some of it.

Considering that there are allegations of “bad faith”, there’s a requirement to give full particulars, which hasn’t been done.

The Claim pleads breaches of s.6 (mobility), s.7 (security) and s.15 (equality) Charter Rights. However, none of them are properly pleaded. They don’t even specify that the Plaintiffs are Canadian citizens, which is required for the s.6 breach to have teeth. The Notice of Motion is actually quite a good reference point.

What Kind Of Idiot Appeals Instead Of Fixing Their Case?

Allison Pejovic, one of the lawyers involved in the SCC Leave Applications, released a video describing what had happened. She sounds very compelling and passionate. Taken at face value, there’s no reason to doubt anything she says.

However, what she fails to mention is that the Applicants (in all 4 cases) were able to proceed with the cases (as Actions) if there had been damages as a result. From the 2022 ruling:

[40] It is true that the parties, and to some extent the Court, have already invested financial and human resources in these files. However, most of the Court resources are yet to come with a five-day judicial review hearing and extensive writing time (these files comprise 23 affidavits and 15 expert reports totaling approximately 6,650 pages). That is without considering potential appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There were apparently: (a) 23 Affidavits; and (b) 15 expert reports, which totaled over 6,600 pages. Cross-examinations of witnesses also took place. And unlike with Action4Canada, these piles of documents actually exist. But because these lawyers appealed instead of refiling, these will never get to Trial.

And the way the Rickard/Harrison case is proceeding, it will go nowhere either.

One really has to wonder how all of the “freedom lawyers” can be so clueless and incompetent in pursuing cases against the Government.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)