Private Members Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Energy, Gas And Weapons To Ukraine

Garnett Genuis, Conservative Member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB, has introduced Bill C-388. The short title is: Boosting Canadian Energy and Mining Projects and Ukraine’s Munitions Supply Act. As implied, the goal is to ship weapons and energy to Ukraine. It’s been promoted on Twitter.

However, the Bill is so lacking in details and specifics that it’s unsettling where this will end up. It comes across as a way to endlessly throw money away on a foreign conflict. Not once does Genuis mention any safeguards that would be put in place.

Genuis also wants Canada’s “outdated” or unneeded equipment to be sent off as well. Apparently, the Canadian Forces won’t use them, but they’ll help fight off Russian aggression. It’s never explained or implied how this will happen. To summarize:

  • Canada has made promises to send weapons to Ukraine and not fulfilled them
  • Canada has weapons that are “surplus, and no longer useful” here
  • Canada should be sending equipment to Ukraine that it no longer uses
  • Canada should be buying new equipment here, or making more weapons
  • Canada should fast track gas and energy and mining projects to Ukraine
  • Energy and mining growth will help Canadian economy

Dealing with energy and mining first:

Plan to Fast Track Energy and Mining Projects
Preparation of plan
2 (1) Within 60 days after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Natural Resources must, in collaboration with representatives of the provincial governments responsible for natural resources, prepare a detailed plan to fast track energy and mining projects, including those related to liquefied natural gas and civilian nuclear energy, that includes measures to displace energy exports from hostile countries and support energy cooperation with allies and partners.

Genuis’ legislation would compel Ottawa to come up with a plan to fast track various energy exports to Ukraine. But this is still very broad, and doesn’t give any numbers or targets.

There’s also nothing in the Bill that would require that energy sales take place at fair market rates. Yes, he pitches the “benefits” to the Canadian economy, but how much could a country at war for 2 years afford? The Bill doesn’t specify any of this. Would these be (forgivable) loans? To what degree would the public be forced to subsidize this?

Bearing in mind that Genuis has openly supported and endorsed the Paris Accord, he wants to ramp up production in Canada anyway. This isn’t so that Canadians can have cheap fuel and energy prices, but so that Ukraine can. Interestingly, he doesn’t seem concerned about potential Carbon taxes when it applies to energy shipments abroad. This was from 2017, but a revealing clip, assuming he still holds the same views.

Would the details be worked out behind the scenes by anonymous bureaucrats?

Now, getting to the munitions part:

Genuis is extremely vague on which “munitions” would be sent to Ukraine. He implies that it’s older equipment that the Canadian Forces wouldn’t need. In that case, why would Ukraine need it? Are these guns? Body armour? Explosives? Vehicles? Surveillance equipment?

Genuis doesn’t specify if he expects the “unneeded” weapons to be sold to Ukraine at fair market rates (or close to it). If the Trudeau Government is so wasteful and incompetent, isn’t he concerned they’ll simply be given away, or sold for next to nothing? Is he worried that the munitions will end up in the hands of a hostile power?

And if these are things the Canadian Forces are unlikely to ever use, are they obsolete to the point that they’re useless in war? This isn’t clarified.

Changes To Other Acts As Well

10 (1) The Corporation is established for the purposes of
(a) supporting and developing, directly or indirectly, domestic business, at the request of the Minister and the Minister of Finance for a period specified by those Ministers;
(b) supporting and developing, directly or indirectly, Canada’s export trade and Canadian capacity to engage in that trade and to respond to international business opportunities; and
(c) providing, directly or indirectly, development financing and other forms of development support in a manner that is consistent with Canada’s international development priorities

Section 10(c) of the Export Development Act will be altered to make include this subsequently: “the Corporation shall give preference to the development of munitions manufacturing capacity in Ukraine.”

Genuis’ Bill, if implemented, would give priority to shipping weapons to Ukraine over other foreign “development”.

The Defence Production Act would have Section 16 amended to include this:

16.‍1 For as long as any territory of Ukraine is occupied by armed forces of the Russian Federation, the Minister of National Defence must periodically review Canada’s inventory of defence supplies, and the Minister must offer to donate to Ukraine any defence supplies that, in the opinion of the Minister of National Defence, are surplus or no longer useful to Canada.

The Business Development Bank of Canada Act would be amended to give Ukraine priority to develop munitions. In other words, preference with tax dollars will be given to a foreign country.

The Export and Import Permits Act would be amended to treat weapons exports to Ukraine the same as exports to the United States.

As with most Canadian legislation, there are built-in regulations which give almost unfettered power to bureaucrats. This would alter several Acts, but do nothing to ensure accountability. The whole thing comes across as a means to endlessly take from taxpayers, under the guise of preventing Russian aggression.

For all that Genuis — and Conservatives in general — rail against Trudeau waste and corruption, there’s nothing in Bill C-388 that would prevent more of the same. Are we to be skeptical domestically, but not internationally?


Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(16) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(17) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(18) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(19) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

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.
(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).
(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.
(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.
(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.

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.

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.

(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

(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

(1) Skelly – Swinwood Malpractice Statement Of Claim

(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

(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

B.C. Court Of Appeal Confirms “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling In Action4Canada Case

In August 2022, Action4Canada had their Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC) struck in its entirety by the B.C. Supreme Court. Justice Ross concluded that the 391 page document was such a convoluted mess, it was impossible to respond to. There were no determinations on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The Court of Appeal has just upheld that ruling

While the Lower Court’s written reasons outlined a number of potentially serious problems, Justice Ross avoided giving a definitive answer as to what content would be allowed. It seems that the Plaintiffs’ lawyer doesn’t understand how to interpret legal findings.

  • Reasons: background information that’s necessary to support findings
  • Order: what the Court actually rules on

And what was the Order?

[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

For reasons that were never made clear, the decision was appealed. The Plaintiffs could simply have redrafted and refiled an amended version, but didn’t.

The B.C. Court of Appeal has now said exactly that. They couldn’t understand why they were even there. It was agreed that the Claim was prolix (too long) and confusing. Therefore, the obvious answer was to rewrite it, as Justice Ross allowed it.

The other issue in the Appeal was over costs. The argument was that because success was “divided”, there should have been no costs. Apparently, since a rewrite was allowed, this amounts to a partial win. However, costs are considered discretionary, and this was predictably rejected.

Here’s what the B.C. Court of Appeal had to say.

[1] Pleadings play a central role in the conduct of civil litigation and access to justice. Their purpose is to clearly, concisely and precisely define the issues of fact and law to be determined, inform the other side of the case to be met, determine the nature and scope of pre-trial procedures, and guide the trial process: The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2012 BCCA 196 at para. 1; Sahyoun v. Ho, 2013 BCSC 1143 at paras. 16–19; Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, R. 3-1(2) [Rules].

[2] Prolix pleadings are improper. They lead to confusion, unfairness, delay and expense, and impede the litigation they are intended to facilitate: see e.g., Mercantile Office Systems Private Limited v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362 at paras. 22–23, 44, 58. They also occupy inordinate court resources, preventing other litigants from accessing the court services they require and deserve.

[3] Here, the appellants’ notice of civil claim is 391 pages long. Part 1 (“Statement of Facts”) is over 300 pages long, contains more than 1,000 paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, and includes hundreds of footnotes, some of which contain hyperlinks to various websites. Part 2 (“Relief Sought”) is over 40 pages long and seeks, among other things, over 200 declarations. Part 3 (“Legal Basis”) is almost 30 pages long.

[4] The notice of civil claim includes wide-ranging allegations of a global conspiracy, and challenges the scientific and constitutional foundation of the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. To give a sense of the breadth and nature of the allegations, the appellants’ “summary” of the factual basis of their claims includes (at 310–311, para. 283(d) of the notice of civil claim) the allegation that the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the appellants’ “statutory and constitutional rights” because:
… the “COVID-pandemic” was pre-planned, and executed, as a false pandemic, through the [World Health Organization], by Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational Oligarchs the likes of Bill Gates, [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, now Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance], the [World Health Organization], and their former and current associates such as Theresa Tam and Bonnie Henry, the [World Economic Forum], and others, in order to install a New World (Economic) Order with:
(i) De facto elimination of small businesses;
(ii) Concentration of wealth and the power to control economic activity in large global corporations;
(iii) To disguise a massive bank and corporate bail-out;
(iv) To effect global, mandatory vaccination with chip technology, to effect total surveillance and testing of any and all citizens, including the Plaintiffs;
(v) To shift society, in all aspects into a virtual[] world at the control of these vaccine, pharmaceutical, technological, globalized oligarchs, whereby the Plaintiffs, and all others, cannot organize [or] congregate[; and]
(vi) To effectively immobilize resistance to the agenda by neutering Parliaments and the Courts, and by extension the Constitution and Constitutional Democracy and Sovereignty, in short to obtain “global governance”.
[Emphasis in original.]

[5] In reasons indexed at 2022 BCSC 1507 (“RFJ”), the chambers judge sensibly concluded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and cannot be properly answered: RFJ at paras. 45, 74. He also concluded that it is “bad beyond argument” and “cannot be mended”: RFJ at paras. 45, 47–48. He, therefore, granted the respondents’ applications to strike the pleading in its entirety: RFJ at paras. 48, 74.

[6] Next, the chambers judge considered whether to dismiss the appellants’ claim or grant them leave to amend it. He concluded that “there may be legitimate claims that a plaintiff could advance against one or more of the defendants”: RFJ at para. 50. He, therefore, granted the appellants leave to amend and stayed the action pending the filing of a fresh pleading: RFJ at para. 74.

[7] On the issue of costs, the judge noted that “each plaintiff is seeking money damages from one or more defendant”: RFJ at para. 75. Having put the defendants to the expense of unnecessarily answering an improper pleading, the judge awarded each defendant costs “payable forthwith in any event of the cause”: RFJ at paras. 75–76.

[8] In oral submissions, the appellants conceded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and must be redrafted. Although aware of the trite principle that appeals are taken from orders and not reasons, the appellants nevertheless advance the appeal to address various statements made by the judge regarding the propriety of various of their pleadings. In particular, the appellants take issue with the judge’s statements at paras. 52–58 of the reasons for judgment that certain claims “are improper in a civil action”, including claims seeking declarations relating to alleged criminal conduct and matters of science.

[9] The appellants point to para. 73 of the reasons for judgment where, after rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the entire action be dismissed as “an abuse of process or clearly frivolous and vexatious”, the judge held that “if the next iteration of [the notice of civil claim] contains the same, or similar, problems, then the defendants’ arguments on these issues will be strengthened.” The appellants contend that, in making these statements, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and has effectively hamstrung them from advancing what they consider to be justiciable claims.

[10] I agree entirely with the respondents that the appellants have not identified a reviewable error. The passages at issue are clearly obiter. As I read the judge’s reasons, he transparently and helpfully identified a number of areas of concern within the notice of civil claim. He did not make binding determinations. In the absence of a proper pleading, how could he?

[11] It is up to the appellants to redraft their notice of civil claim within the well-known boundaries of proper pleadings established by the Rules and authorities. If they choose to pursue claims the judge identified as problematic and are faced with an application to strike or dismiss, they will have to satisfy the front-line decision-maker that they have pleaded justiciable claims. If they do not, they have had fair warning of the possible consequences.

[12] The appellants also appeal the judge’s costs order. They submit that success was divided in the sense that the judge declined to dismiss their claim. They also submit that costs are often not awarded in cases like this, which they assert to be a form of public interest litigation. In the alternative, they submit that costs should be awarded in the cause.

[13] Respectfully, the appellants have not identified a reviewable error in the judge’s handling of costs. Rather, they ask this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the chambers judge. This we cannot and will not do.

[14] For all of these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.

This critique was published on the Canuck Law website on August 31, 2021. It outlined some of the ways that the Notice of Civil Claim failed to meet the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia.

Vaccine Choice was similarly criticized for their filing.

A week later, Gaw and Kuntz instigated a $7 million defamation lawsuit. They dispatched their “thug” to attempt to destroy this website. And for what? For truthfully pointing out that various anti-lockdown cases — including Vaccine Choice — weren’t properly written? For accurately predicting that none of these cases would ever get to Trial? For calling it all a waste of time and money? For suggesting that these shoddy cases can’t just be the result of sloppiness?

What has happened since then?

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Now, 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.

Let’s not forget that both Vaccine Choice cases, from 2019 and 2020, have been allowed to sit idly for years. There’s no urgency whatsoever to advance either case.

Despite the Appeal being dismissed, it’s still being promoted as a “win”. Not surprising, considering the August 2022 striking of the Claim was also said to be a “win”. These people are delusional.

And for people who are so touchy about defamation, it seems that the new response is to refer to critics as “paid agitators”. See the February 7th and 21st Rumble videos. During the Zoom version on the 7th, moderators were apparently deleting comments from people asking questions about the cases.

Supposedly, an amended NOCC is ready to be filed for Action4Canada. The obvious question is why that wasn’t done back in 2022. Additionally, why was the original so poorly drafted? And if there really are all these Affidavits of evidence, why mess around for years with shoddy pleadings?

The Court of Appeal has found that the original NOCC wasn’t properly written, and that it has been a waste of time and money. Moreover, wasting judicial resources like this prevents litigants with valid claims from getting their day in Court.

(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

(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.)


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

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

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

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

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

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

CANS describes itself as such:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing public and private interest standing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of some of the major events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Government has since refused to admit anything)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia Quick Fact Sheet (pdf)

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

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

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

The Freedom Lawsuits: How Much Money Has Been Thrown Away On Them?

Throughout 2020 and 2021, people were understandably desperate. They wanted their lives and livelihoods back, and who could blame them? They were willing to open their wallets to contribute to lawsuits they viewed as a means to restore normalcy.

Unfortunately, it seems that many contributed — either through donations or retainer fees — to cases that never stood a chance. Either: (a) they were never filed; (b) filing was delayed unnecessarily; (c) they weren’t followed up in a diligent way; (d) the pleadings were incoherent; (e) the Court lacked jurisdiction; or (f) some combination of the above.

Back in 2020, Odessa from Liberty Talk claimed that 75% of donations received from that podcast would be forwarded to fund lawsuits from Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada. She said that they were “really good legal cases”. Once eventually filed, the A4C case was struck as “bad beyond argument”, because it was so poorly written. The VCC case remained dormant for 2 1/2 years, before dates were set for a Motion to Strike.

Keep in mind, this is just a small sample. Another alarming trend is for lawyers to file suits against employers in government and/or unionized workplaces. Typically, there is no inherent right to sue, as there are “grievance” options available. Even moderately competent lawyers should be aware of this lack of jurisdiction.

Another trend is for lawyers to not actually ask for damages, but to seek declaratory relief after orders have already expired. This has led to several rulings of “mootness”.

Other cases included suing people for “defamation” in the attempt to shut down opposing viewpoints. These are SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. Pretty strange for freedom lovers to be against free speech.

How much money has actually been thrown away?

Here are some partial answers.

Item Number Party/Client Amount Raised
1 CRC (PayPal donations) $1,000,000
2 Action4Canada $400,000+
3 Federal Workers Vaxx Pass $600,000+
4 Federal Workers Vaxx Pass (Appeal) $600,000+
5 Federal Workers Vaxx Injury $600,000+
6 Take Action Canada $150,000+
7 Vaccine Choice Canada (2019) ?
8 Vaccine Choice Canada (2020) ?
9 Police On Guard ?
10 Children’s Health Defense (Canada) ?
11 Privacy Is Your Right ?
12 Kulvinder Gill Defamation #1 ?
13 Kulvinder Gill Defamation #2 ?
14 Byram Bridle ?
15 CPSO Challenges ?
TOTAL N/A $3,350,000+

As should be apparent, there isn’t data for many of these. Still, there’s over $3,000,000 just from a handful of cases. Let’s dive a bit deeper.

1. Constitutional Rights Centre, PayPal Donations, $1,000,000

The above is Paragraph 47, Page 50 of the Respondent’s/Plaintiff’s Motion Record, filed in March 2023. This was the CSASPP lawsuit referenced earlier.

  • $179,505 (September to December 2020)
  • $786,706 (2021 calendar year)
  • $43,878 (2022 calendar year)
  • $4,537 (Up to March 2023)

Taking these numbers at face value, it would mean that the CRC raised roughly $1,000,000 from September 2020 through March 2023. There’s no breakdown as to how much went into each (case) account. On the surface, it looks like one giant pot. Pretty lucrative, considering all the suits that emerged were complete garbage.

Familiar with the Wayback Machine? It’s a mainstream archiving site that captures websites at certain times, even if the content is no longer available. Some of the recent business ventures include:

There were even donations sought at one point to finance a public inquiry. It’s unclear how much money came in, or whatever became of that.

Also, donations were sought a few years back for a B.C. doctor’s case that doesn’t appear to have materialized. This isn’t the Action4Canada suit.

Remember: these are just donations, and don’t take retainer fees into account.

2. Action4Canada, $400,000+

August 2021, Action4Canada filed their 391 page Notice of Civil Claim. It was incoherent, rambling, sought remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, and was full of information about non-parties. Unsurprisingly, it was struck in its entirety as “bad beyond argument“.

While Justice Ross did allow the Claim to be rewritten, and provided substantial guidance, the decision was appealed instead. This is absurd, as the B.C. Court of Appeals isn’t going to rule that remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court can be sought.

Where does the $400,000 estimate come from?

According to financial data that was leaked, there was a payment of $200,000 to cover legal expenses April 29, 2022. See page 10. On May 5, an equivalent amount was transferred to cover it. This is not the full amount.

Tanya and other members of Action4Canada stated that a 50% retainer had been required upfront (meaning in 2020). If $200,000 is to cover an outstanding portion, then the retainer would have to have been at least $200,000 as well. It’s also been stated publicly that this was the amount sought.

In a November 2022 update, Action4Canada was again soliciting donations, presumably to finance this “unexpected” appeal. This would be in addition to the $200,000 retainer, and the $200,000 “payment” in the Spring of 2022. Once the BCCA throws out the appeal, presumably a new Claim would be filed.

Court documents are available at the bottom here.

3. Federal Injection Pass Challenge, $600,000+

This was the high profile case of over 600: (a) Federal employees; and (b) employees of Federally regulated industries. It was struck as “bad beyond argument” for failing to follow even the basic requirements of pleadings.

Why $600,000? There were over 600 Plaintiffs, and all had been required to sign a retainer agreement and put up $1,000 each to get started.

There was another problem for about 2/3 of the Plaintiffs: as Federal employees, they have the right to grieve, but not to sue their employer. This is laid out in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Now, there is some “residual jurisdiction”, if the grievance process can be shown to be unworkable or corrupt. However, that would require a suit that was well written.

(1) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(2) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(3) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(6) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(7) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)

4. Federal Injection Pass Challenge, APPEAL, $600,000+

According to correspondence from disillusioned clients, costs to the Federal Court of Appeals are separate from the original $1,000 retainer.

That’s right. Over $600,000 was needed to start the case, and then another $600,000 was needed to go to the Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. Quote:

The fee retainer of $1,000 ($870 + $130 HST) covers a trial to the end in the Federal Court, including any motions, but not appeals to the Court of Appeal.

We also have this email:

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely and most humbly,

The Federal Employee Lawsuit Panel

Never mind that the case was struck as “bad beyond argument” due to the gross incompetence of counsel. If there was to be any appeal, or extra work, he should fix it for free.

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

5. Federal Workers Injection Injuries, $600,000+

It has the same fundamental problem as the last Federal case. Under s.208 and s.236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, Federal workers have the right to grieve, but not to sue. This will get thrown out for lack of jurisdiction alone. Why $600,000? From the site:

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

Interestingly, the site went down (or was taken down) shortly after it was exposed. Perhaps too many questions were being asked about the suit’s legitimacy.

6. Take Action Canada, First Responders, $150,000+

Apparently, this is the new “iteration” of the 2021 Application that Police On Guard had been pushing. And like the POG case, this is terribly written.

Where does the $150,000 figure come from? There are about 100 clients, all of whom have paid a $1,500 retainer in order to be part of this case.

Even though injection passes became a reality in Summer/Fall of 2021, this suit wasn’t filed until March 1, 2023, about a year and a half later. Clearly, it’s not urgent. And even if these people were to find a real lawyer who could get them into court, the Statute of Limitations has likely expired.

Another serious problem will be the lack of jurisdiction. Since most or all of the Plaintiffs are members of a Government and/or belong to a union, they likely don’t have the right to sue. They can grieve — but apparently didn’t — though there’s probably no access to the Court.

This document was leaked in late November. If authentic, it may be a way to engineer an excuse to discontinue the case. Plaintiffs have already paid $1,500 each for a case that took 18 months to file. They’re not going to hand over another $4,500 per person.

(1) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(2) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(3) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(4) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(5) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money

7. Vaccine Choice Canada (2019)

Few people remember this, but Vaccine Choice Canada actually has 2 separate lawsuits pending in Ontario Superior Court. The first was filed in October 2019, supposedly to challenge the vaccination requirements of Ontario students. However, that was over 4 years ago, and it doesn’t look like it’s ever been in Court.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

8. Vaccine Choice Canada (2020)

This high profile case was filed on July 6, 2020, when there were still high hopes that a legal solution existed. After it was launched, Vaccine Choice went on a media blitz trying to raise support and donations.

Problem is: nothing ever came of it. It sat idly from July 2020 until January 2023, where there was a Court appearance to set down dates for a Motion to Strike. That’s right, there was no meaningful activity of any kind for 2 1/2 years.

(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

9. Police On Guard

Although Police On Guard is not a client or party, they pushed this April 2021 Application very hard, on behalf of Ontario police officers who were unhappy with their new roles. There was never any hearing though. It likely wouldn’t matter anyway, since cops are usually bound by collective bargaining agreements and can’t sue their employer.

However, their counsel has since confirmed that the case is no longer being pursued, and that the matter is considered “moot”. Apparently, it was rolled over into what is now the Take Action Canada case.

(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

10. Children’s Health Defense (Canada)

This was another Application from April 2021, that also isn’t being pursued, since it’s supposedly “moot”. Never been in Court either. Okay, how much was raised, and has any of the money been returned? Worth noting that the POG and CHDC Applications are almost identical, with just minor edits.

Some would view it as a conflict of interest to be a Director of CHDC, at the same being paid as counsel to represent them in litigation. Just a thought.

(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

11. Privacy Is Your Right

A group operating under the name “Privacy Is Your Right” solicited money from the public in a March 27, 2023 Zoom hearing, in order to take the CPSO to Court. In short, the doctor involved didn’t want to turn over records to the medical regulator, and several patients sought standing to challenge the demand, citing privacy.

The case was heard on March 30, and thrown out the same day. Leave was sought to go to the Ontario Court of Appeals. While the sudden verdict seemed odd, reading the decision cleared things up.

[13] In Kilian, at para. 44, this Court confirmed that patients have no private interest standing in the circumstances where the CPSO has initiated an investigation into a member’s conduct, stating as follows:
The Patient Applicants do not have a personal legal interest in the ICRC’s decisions to authorize an investigation of Dr. Kilian’s conduct or to place restrictions on her certificate. They have concerns that their medical records will be disclosed to College investigators, but that does not justify a grant of private interest standing, given the purpose of the regulatory regime and the subject matter of the judicial review proceeding.

[14] In Kilian, at para. 45, this Court held that a finding of private interest standing would be contrary to the statutory purpose, which is to regulate physicians’ conduct in the public interest. A finding of private interest standing would “disrupt” professional regulation because it would entitle thousands of patients to standing at the investigation stage: Kilian, at para. 47. This Court also noted that the Code grants patients standing in certain limited circumstances, further demonstrating the legislature’s intention to circumscribe patient participation in the regulatory process.

[15] Moreover, in Kilian, this Court went on to find that the patients have no direct interest in the decisions under review, which involve the regulator and the member. Similarly, the restrictions on the physician’s certificate in that case did not affect the patients’ legal interests: Kilian, at paras. 49-50. We see no reason to depart from the thorough and persuasive analysis conducted by this Court in Kilian.

Are Dr. Kustka’s Applications for Judicial Review Premature?
[29] As this Court recently confirmed in Kilian, judicial review applications challenging decisions to initiate investigations under s. 75(1)(a) of the Code are generally dismissed as premature: Berge v. College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 1220, at para. 7. Challenges to the appointment of investigators, including the College’s compliance with any statutory requirements, can and should be made before the Discipline Committee, if the matter proceeds to that stage.

In short, the exact same issues had already been argued (and decided) by the Courts. The ONCA has also weighed in on the matter. It was premature to sue to prevent the CPSO from instigating proceedings against a doctor. It had also been decided that patients can’t claim private interest standing to prevent such a thing from happening. All of this was previously treaded ground.

Of course, this hadn’t been disclosed at the Zoom call. It wasn’t mentioned that all of the issues being argued had already been settled. Would people still have donated if they knew? And how did they rake in?

12. Kulvinder Gill Defamation #1

Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba (well, mostly Gill) made headlines in December 2020 by filing a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 people and media outlets. While it mainly had to do with spats on Twitter, portions of the suit related to issues with the CPSO investigations.

It’s unclear what Gill and Lamba paid for legal representation, but the other side claimed well over $1 million in costs. They were awarded them on a full indemnity (100%) basis.

The ruling was appealed, and it’s long been suspected that this was “leverage” in order to bargain for more favourable settlement terms.

Yes, the Defendants had said some rude things on Twitter, but filing this suit just makes Gill and Lamba come across as unhinged and vindictive. One would think that the “freedom movement” would disavow such loonies.

(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(3) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(4) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(5) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(6) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(7) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(9) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

13. Kulvinder Gill Defamation #2

This isn’t Gill’s only trip through the “gag proceedings” rodeo. March 2021, she sued the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for calling her an idiot on Twitter. She demanded $7 million in damages.

At the moment, the University has initiated an anti-SLAPP Motion against her. Unclear how much this will cost either side, but it really is a nonsense lawsuit.

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

14. Byram Bridle, University Of Guelph

It’s a bit hard to describe this case. Although it’s cloaked as protecting the speech and expression of a freedom fighter, the claim is filled with petty drama.

Given the parties involved — staff at the University of Guelph — the Court is likely to gut the case, at least regarding some Defendants. Guelph has it’s own collective bargaining agreement, so there will likely be a lack of jurisdiction for at least some of them.

Considering the allegations around speech and expression, the case is also vulnerable to an anti-SLAPP Motion, which would grind everything to a halt.

Seems like a waste of money all around.


15. CPSO Challenges

There have been several challenges of medical doctors going to Court in order to avoid potential discipline hearings, or to prevent disclosure of documents. These have never gone anywhere, since the Courts find it “premature” to wade into matters involving a regulator until things are settled.

The rationale is that if a doctor — or any regulated professional — could simply file a lawsuit when threatened, it would render the governing body helpless. While these challenges may be noble, they’re destined to fail.

Stay of related tribunal proceeding
137.4 (1) If the responding party has begun a proceeding before a tribunal, within the meaning of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and the moving party believes that the proceeding relates to the same matter of public interest that the moving party alleges is the basis of the proceeding that is the subject of his or her motion under section 137.1, the moving party may file with the tribunal a copy of the notice of the motion that was filed with the court and, on its filing, the tribunal proceeding is deemed to have been stayed by the tribunal. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

That being said, there is an exception. For the “freedom doctors” who object to the CPSO shutting down their free speech, s.137.4(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, or anti-SLAPP laws, allow such matters to be removed from the regulatory body, at least in Ontario. It’s baffling why none of them ever seem to use it.

16. Some final thoughts

This has been an attempt to document at least some of the money paid to lawyers in the last few years. Clearly, not all categories have dollar amounts attached, so the actual figures are much larger. While $3,350,000 can be tracked, it wouldn’t be surprising if it were closer to $10 million, or higher.

Pretty lucrative, isn’t it? And all for cases that were never pursued in any meaningful way. One would think that more donors and clients would be demanding refunds.

How much money did Vaccine Choice Canada receive for 2 lawsuits they aren’t advancing? How much did the case pushed by Police On Guard raise? Children’s Health Defense Canada?

This is likely why the Toews lawsuit happened back in June 2022. She had requested that the Law Society of Ontario investigate what had happened to her donations, as neither the Vaccine Choice nor Action4Canada cases seemed to be moving. Unlike with most complaints, the LSO demanded a response this time, which could easily have triggered an audit into the case financings. Suing her was a way to buy time, and to derail the investigation. Justice Chalmers (rightly) found that this was an act of intimidation.

Suing the Law Society itself, both in 2022 and 2023, was also likely done to buy time. The first one is under reserve on a Motion to Strike, with the second idle for the time being.

And covering these suits was the reason this website was sued in September 2021. Apparently, we can’t have the public asking too many questions about the quality of the work from the “freedom lawyers”.

Why keep pursuing this area?

If it can be destroyed by the truth, then it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.

From 2009: WHO Guidance On IHR Implementation In National Legislation

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

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

See both the original posting, and the marked version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and so on….

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

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

(2) IHR Toolkit For Implementation In National Legislation
(3) Wayback Machine Archive


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st article: BC, AB, SK, MB, ON
2nd article: QC, NS, NB, PEI, NFLD

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

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

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