Category: Wars

Posted on

Newest Grift? $600,000 Sought For Injection Injuries For Federal Workers

This recently came to my attention: there’s an effort to recruit some 600 Plaintiffs (Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries) for a lawsuit over vaccine injuries. There’s to be a massive filing over the injuries they’ve received over the coerced injections.

This group is apparently called the “Federal and Federally Regulated Employees for Justice”, and claims to be made up of volunteers.

If this sounds familiar, it is. It’s a virtual copy of this mess filed back in May 2022. It listed over 600 Plaintiffs who lost their jobs over injection passports. Here’s the Retainer Agreement that clients were asked to sign.

Now, this iteration will be a lawsuit for workers who took the shots and were injured in some capacity.

It’s to be conducted by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself. This is the Toronto lawyer who lost the last Federal case in February 2023, and Action4Canada in August 2022 because they were so incoherently and unintelligibly written.

As with the last suit, this has 2 groups of people:
(a) Employees and former employees of the Federal Government
(b) Employees and former employees of Federally regulated industries

There is a difference between the 2, and that will become obvious later.

The website goes on to explain that $600,000 in total will be sought, and that the amount individual clients pay will be dependent on how many there are to begin with. More clients means less individual costs, which isn’t a bad thing by itself.

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.

Apparently, the group is soliciting donations in addition to collecting retainer fees. At least that’s what it looks like on the webpage.

Now the issues start to mount.

First major problem: members of the Federal Government typically don’t have the right to sue.

From the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved (a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
236(1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees — the Core Public Administration — the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

While this group is signing up clients to represent who are “vaccine injured”, members of the Federal Government don’t have the right to sue — for the most part. To get around that, they have to demonstrate that they tried grievance methods, and that the process isn’t workable.

See this review for input on how the last Federal case should have been drafted.

Second major problem: Why wasn’t Compensation Program at least consulted?

The issue of being compensated for vaccine injuries carries another complication: there’s already a program in place from Ottawa to help victims.

Certainly, one can debate the merits of such a program. And clearly, it was enacted to convince more people to take the experimental injections. However, since Federal workers don’t automatically have access to the Courts, Plaintiffs may be asked about this. Even the Federally regulated workers can have that come up.

Would litigants be denied their day in Court because this already exists? Maybe not, but anything is possible, especially when none of them have even explored the option. Remember the last point: Federal workers need to convince the Court that suing was their only available recourse.

Third major problem: Galati has ALREADY lost on issue of jurisdiction

This proposed lawsuit retreads grounds that the last case already decided. Paragraphs 10-36 of the Decision outlined why employees of the Federal Government don’t normally have the right to sue.

This won’t (directly) impact workers of Federally regulated industries, but there’s still the problem of their respective employers being an intermediate party.

That was appealed, and the hearing was on November 8th, 2023. The Federal Court of Appeal will most likely dismiss it. This means that this proposed suit will already be a lost cause.

This “vaccine injuries” lawsuit is run by the same people who put together the last challenge, so there’s no way they don’t know about this.

Fourth major problem: Rules of Civil Procedure aren’t followed drafting documents

This dead horse has been beaten enough already. See critiques for

(a) Vaccine Choice Canada
(b) Action4Canada
(c) Federal injection pass case — from this group

These cases are all within the last few years. If recent history is any indication, then this proposed lawsuit will be written just as poorly. It’s embarrassing that lawyers can practice for decades without being able to form coherent sentences. Expect a Motion to Strike, followed by another “bad beyond argument” ruling.

Fifth major problem: more money to be demanded, it’s a guarantee

Once this new lawsuit is thrown out, it’s very likely that more money will be sought in order to pay for the Appeals. This is exactly what happened with this group’s other Federal case.

This email was leaked from angry and disillusioned clients, and eventually made its way here.

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
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

Expect more of the same to happen here.

The group also appears to encourage clients to engage in abuse of process by filing multiple, interrelated lawsuits separately, and against different people.

As a point of clarification, you can participate in several similar legal proceedings against another party, as long as each prosecution focuses on a different case. For example, in the case of vaccination mandates, you may file legal proceedings against your employer for liability and compensation for irregularities and employment-related offences. You may also participate in legal proceedings against the federal government for constitutional and Charter violations that have infringed on your freedom and rights.

It’s unclear why such advice would be given. Even assuming good intentions, it’s a blueprint to have a case delayed, and possibly thrown out. The Courts (understandably) don’t want overlapping lawsuits, as it forces Judges to compete with each other in their rulings.

Now, it’s entirely possible that this new case is legitimate and that it will be diligently pursued. However, given how things have been recently, it seems unlikely. People are welcome to pay into this if they want, but need to be aware that this case will never get to Trial.

In fact, it won’t even survive a Motion to Strike.

FROM THE WEBSITE
(A.1) https://fre4justice.ca/
(A.2) https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/
(A.3) fre4justice Main Page

(B.1) https://fre4justice.ca/#section-1
(B.2) https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/
(B.3) fre4justice About Us

(C.1) https://fre4justice.ca/#section-2
(C.2) https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/
(C.3) fre4justice Expression Of Interest

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(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

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Put On “Inactive” List, Likely To Be Dismissed As Abandoned

Remember that dumpster fire of a case that Action4Canada filed in August of 2021? Remember how it was struck — not on the merits — but because it was so poorly written? Bad beyond argument?

Heck, even the Law Society of British Columbia piled on.

While Justice Ross did allow for a rewrite, the decision was appealed instead.

This Appeal was particularly frivolous considering the content that was being challenged. Specifically, most of it centered around Paragraph 52, outlining many of the areas that there was no jurisdiction to bring to Civil Court.

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

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

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

The B.C. Court of Appeals isn’t going to overturn this. Full stop.

As for the request to revisit the costs issue, it needs to be pointed out that costs are almost entirely discretionary. Given that Justice Ross (correctly) ruled the Notice of Civil Claim wasn’t drafted properly, no one will fault him for such a finding anyway.

Unsurprisingly, there were more requests for donations.

And what a time to be alive. We are in the age where Court Services Online (C.S.O.) can be accessed by anyone. Any member of the public can search a case online, and see what exactly is going on. Yes, B.C. does paywall this content, but it’s not expensive.

As it turns out, no Appeal has yet been scheduled to be heard. This is a serious problem, as British Columbia, like most jurisdictions, don’t want files sitting dormant for months or years. The Action4Canada appeal has been classified as “inactive”, due to a failure to schedule the hearing.

Back at the beginning of 2023, there was a consent order for Translink to delay sending its Factum (arguments). However, it has since been filed.

It also appears that Mark Witten has been replaced as counsel for the B.C. Defendants for some reason.

The B.C. Court of Appeal Rules, and the Act outline the issue A4C is going to have:

[Division 3, Rule 50]
Managing inactive appeal list
50 (1)The registrar must place an appeal on the inactive appeal list if a notice of hearing of appeal is not filed in accordance with these rules by the date that is:
.
(a) one year after the notice of appeal is filed for the appeal, or
(b) 60 days after the appeal is ready for hearing.

[Division 4, Rule 51]
Appeals that are dismissed as abandoned
51(1) For the purposes of section 23 [appeals or applications for leave to appeal dismissed as abandoned] of the Act, an appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned if it remains on the inactive appeal list for 180 days.

(2) Unless a justice orders otherwise, an appeal that is dismissed as abandoned under subrule (1) may not be reinstated.

[Court of Appeal Act]
Appeals or applications for leave to appeal dismissed as abandoned
23(1) An appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned if it remains inactive under the circumstances and to the extent set out in the rules.
.
(2) An appeal or application for leave to appeal that has been dismissed as abandoned under subsection (1) may be reinstated in accordance with the rules.

Under Rule 50, an Appeal must be placed on the “inactive” list if more than 1 calendar year has elapsed since the Notice of Appeal was filed. Under Rule 51, if it remains on that list for 6 months, it will be dismissed for being abandoned. That’s consistent with Rule 23 of the Court of Appeal Act

Interestingly, the Appellants — people launching the Appeal — can’t just fill out a form if the case gets dismissed. Instead, a Judge must approve it.

There have been allegations made that the Respondents have been deliberately delaying getting a hearing booked. This seems very unlikely, for the reasons outlined previously. The Appeal doesn’t address the elephant in the room — that the Claim wasn’t written properly — so there’s no real prospect of the decision getting overruled.

Huang v. Li, 2022 BCCA 450 outlined the test for reinstating Appeals at Paragraph 10:

(a) the length of the delay and, in particular, whether the delay has been inordinate;
(b) the reason for the delay and, in particular, whether the delay is excusable;
(c) whether the respondent has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay; and
(d) the extent of the merits of the appeal.

Ground (d) is particularly fatal. There are no merits to the Appeal. None whatsoever. Instead of rewriting an incoherent Notice of Claim, an Appeal was filed to challenge jurisdiction on a number of issues Civil Courts can’t determine. It’s clearly and obviously baseless.

Supposedly, Action4Canada has a new Notice of Civil Claim ready to go. If this is actually true, then it boggles the mind why they’re wasting time and money messing around with this Appeal.

Questions need to be asked about this.

Receipts attached below (as usual).

UPDATE TO ARTICLE: This Notice of Hearing was filed October 19, 2023. It seems that people are taking note about what gets published in this case.

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

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

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

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

Posted on

600 Plaintiffs Appeal Federal “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling: A Look Inside

It’s been a while, but nice to be back!

Back in February, Federal Court Justice Simon Fothergill struck a lawsuit brought by over 600 Plaintiffs. This was over a 2021 requirement to take the experimental injection (a.k.a. get the vaccine passport) in order to keep their jobs.

Now, the ruling (see official version) was interesting, to be blunt.

Part of the ruling differed because of who the Plaintiffs worked for. Approximately 2/3 of them were employed by the Federal Government, while the other 1/3 were part of Federally regulated industries. This caused a split in the ruling, and they were listed as Schedules “A” and “B”.

  • Schedule “A” Plaintiffs were ones who were part of the core public administration, or members of some branch of the Government
  • Schedule “B” Plaintiffs weren’t with the Government, but instead were parts of industries — like banking, the railways, or aviation — that were regulated by Ottawa

The Claim for all Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety because it was so poorly written. The pleading failed to follow even the basics of civil procedure, and failed to lay out a basis for the suit.

From the Federal Court Rules:

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

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

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

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

Justice Fothergill found that the Statement of Claim was so poorly crafted that it was impossible for the Defendants to file any meaningful defence. It wasn’t thrown out on its merits. He even referenced the ruling against Action4Canada, which was also found to be “bad beyond argument”.

To clarify: neither the Federal case, nor the Action4Canada case in B.C. were struck on their merits. They were struck because they were confusing, convoluted, and impossible to decipher.

While the Federally regulated employees (Schedule “B”) at least had the chance to refile, former Government workers (Schedule “A”) were not so lucky. The Judge ruled that their claims were barred by a legislative requirement that they go through arbitration. Specifically, this is Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Now we get to the appeal.

The Notice of Appeal was filed in March. The Appeal Book (collection of documents) came next, followed by the Appellants‘ and Respondents‘ written arguments.

To sum up, there were 2 major areas to cover:

First, the decision to permanently bar the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs was challenged, on the grounds that their claims lay outside what arbitration and the grievance process could offer.

Second, it was claimed that it was inappropriate to rely on the precedent set by the Action4Canada case, and that they had nothing in common.

Anyhow, read the documents for yourselves.

In response, the Government replied that while there were opportunities to get around the grievance process, the Plaintiffs never explained why they had to, or what steps they took. Furthermore, while “malfeasance of public office” was alleged, the details were never laid out.

In other words, yes, this was at least a possibility, but the Claim didn’t address any of this.

As for the Action4Canada case, Justice Alan Ross laid out in great detail how the British Columbia case was a complete mess, incomprehensible, and sought a litany of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. There was also the problem that large sections were included about non-parties. While the Federal Claim was much shorter, the same problems persisted overall.

Justice Fothergill decided not to duplicate the entire ruling, but simply to refer to it.

A competent lawyer might be able to argue around the arbitration requirement. But in any event, the entire Statement of Claim would have to be rewritten anyway. This Appeal will likely go nowhere.

And the requests for money keep coming!

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.

Curiously, both the Federal workers and Ontario first responders Plaintiffs were filling out retainer agreements ($1,000 and $1,500 respectively) while donations to finance the litigation were being sought online. The end results weren’t impressive.

People are being asked to donate to cases which clients are already paying a retainer?! That’s something, to say the least.

Then, we have this from the Federal case:

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
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

Shortly after the decision, there was already a request for more money. Even though the Plaintiffs had paid $1,000 each (see agreement), more money was needed to appeal. See letter providing more details about the fees.

The above email was leaked by unhappy client(s), and it eventually made its way here. Unfortunately, it seems to be real.

Apparently, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs who had their pleadings struck as “bad beyond argument” should consider that a win, because at least they are allowed a rewrite.

For reference: the email and the attachment were both sent here shortly after the February ruling. Fair to say, some are unhappy with the services they’ve received.

It’s worth asking why the this isn’t being done for free, given the shoddy drafting of the Statement of Claim to begin with. And budgeting for a Trial? Does anyone seriously think this will get that far?

The Federal Court of Appeals will throw this case out, just like the B.C. Court of Appeals will throw out Action4Canada’s. And Vaccine Choice’s suit will get tossed in early 2024.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(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

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Posted on

Bit Of History: Royal Canadian Legion Got Bailout Money, Supported Vaccine Passports

The topic of bailout subsidies during the so-called “pandemic” was addressed extensively on this site. In short, countless groups and industries were getting some form of payout from Ottawa.

However, a recent story is worth covering. A 2021 video of Danielle Smith (who wasn’t in politics at the time) recently surfaced. She said that tyranny — such as vaccine passports — were the kind of things that the Canadian Forces were supposed to fight against.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that Smith has the backbone to stand behind her remarks, especially during campaign season. She has since backed down when asked about this.

Previously, the United Conservative Party, was headed by Jason Kenney, who supported vaccine passports, mask mandates, business closures, and jailed dissidents. Smith barely paid lip service to this, and ignores the fact that the U.C.P. accepted bailout money from Trudeau.

At the risk of being seen as trashing the military, it’s important to at least consider the financial incentives that the Royal Canadian Legion has had over the last few years. These groups made the decision to enforce Provincial vaccine passport requirements in 2021 and 2022, despite supposedly supporting freedom.

For a specific example, the Royal Canadian Legion received $14 million in late 2020 “in order to continue operations during the Covid pandemic this organization is receiving funding.” Was this a case of making a deal with the devil?

Then, there are other things to look at.

CEWS, Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy Recipients:

  • BC/YUKON COMMAND OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
  • LEGION OF CHRIST, CANADA, INCORPORATED
  • LEGION ROYALE CANADIENNE SUCC. 136, LAKE MEGANTIC
  • MONTGOMERY BRANCH 351 ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION #100 CHARLESWOOD BRANCH
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION AMBASSADOR (ONT. NO. 143) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BANFF COL MOORE (ALTA NO 26) BRANCH
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BLENHEIM
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BR 263 COQUITLAM
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BR 94
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BR NO 240
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 10
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 500
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 79
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 80
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH NO. 35
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH NO 9
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRIGDEWATER BRANCH N.S. #24 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CHAPELHOW BRANCH #284
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION DOMINION COMMAND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION EGANVILLE (ONTARIO NO. 353) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION & GENERAL STEWART BR NO 4
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION GRANVIEW (PACIFIC NO 179) BRANCH
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION, HENDERSON HIGHWAY BRANCH NO. 215
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION MISCOUCHE BRANCH 18
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION MOOSE JAW BRANCH 59
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION REDCLIFF BRANCH NO. 6
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ST. LAURENT BRANCH 250 INC.
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 056
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 550
  • The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 64, Conception Bay Centre Inc.
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH NO. 46
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION, CONCEPTION BAY BRANCH 50 INC.
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION,FORT ROUGE #97
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION, NOVA SCOTIA/NUNAVUT COMMAND – BENEVOLENT FUND
  • THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION WEYBURN BRANCH 47 INC.

It would be nice to know how much each individual branch received in bailout money, but the specifics are not included in the CEWS database.

Also noteworthy is that the various Legions (or at least many of them) are structured as charities. This comes with significant tax benefits, which not even non-profits can match.

Registered Charities — Canada Revenue Agency:

  • BRANCH 393 ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION SENIOR CITIZENS COMPLEX
  • BRITISH COLUMBIA/YUKON COMMAND OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION FOUNDATION
  • CLEMENTSPORT BRANCH #122,THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION (POPPY FUND)
  • COURCELETTE #058 ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION POPPY FUND
  • DISTRICT C. ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION VETERANS HOSPITAL FUND
  • FONDS DE COQUELICOT DE LA LEGION ROYALE CANADIENNE, BRANCHE 52
  • FONDS DE COQUELICOT, LEGION ROYALE CANADIENNE “QUEBEC NORTH SHORE” NO. 003
  • FRANK MORRIS ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH NO. 13 BENEVOLENT FUND
  • LEGION ROYALE CANADIENNE “ORTONA 42” FONDS DU COQUELICOT
  • LEGION ROYALE CANADIENNE CAISSE DU COQUELICOT FILIALE 44
  • OKOTOKS BRANCH #291, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION POPPY TRUST FUNDS
  • P.E.I. Command of the Royal Canadian Legion Veterans’ Memorial and Charity Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion (Ont. No.15) Branch Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion – Branch 551 Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Ambassador & Walkerville (Ont. No. 644) Branch Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Branch #475 Poppy Trust Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Branch Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Branch 163 Pipes and Drums
  • Royal Canadian Legion Branch 218 Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Cold Lake #211 Branch Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Espanola (ont No 39) Branch Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Pincher Creek Branch #43 Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion Victory Branch #317 Poppy Trust Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion, North Battleford Branch #70 (Sask) Poppy Fund
  • Royal Canadian Legion, Poppy Trust Fund, Gull Lake, Saskatchewan
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION (ASSINIBOIA BRANCH #17), POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION (WIARTON) BRANCH 208 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION – BRANCH 5 MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION – BR 32 (POPPY FUND TRUST ACCOUNT)
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION #77 POPPY FUND CHARITY
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION A V M SULLY- BRANCH 109 SCHOLARSHIP TRUST
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION AMBASSADOR (ONT. NO. 143) POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ARRAS BRANCH 59 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BEAVER VALLEY (ONTARIO NO 281) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BELLE RIVER BRANCH 399 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BELLEVILLE ONT. NO. 99 BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BEVERLY (ONTARIO NO. 500) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH #498 – POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH NO. 20 DIGBY POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 142 DUNNVILLE BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 148, (NORTH BURNABY) POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 18 POPPY TRUST FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 212 KEMPTVILLE ONTARIO POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 232 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 26
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 272 POPPY
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 288 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 324
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 479, NIAGARA FALLS POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRANCH 532 MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BRIGDEWATER BRANCH N.S. #24 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BROCKVILLE ONT. NO. 96 BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BROME (QUE. NO. 23) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION BURKS FALLS ONT. NO. 405 BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CAMPBELLFORD ONT. NO. 103 BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CAMROSE BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CANWOOD BRANCH # 132 POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CASTOR BRANCH POPPY FUND, BRANCH NO 119, THE
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION COBDEN & DISTRICT (ONTARIO NO. 550) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION COBEQUID NO. 72 BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION COOKSVILLE ONT NO 582 BRANCH POPPY TRUST FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CORNWALL (ONTARIO NO 297) BRANCH POPP
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION CORUNNA (ONT NO 447 LESLIE SUTHERLAND) BRANCH POPPY FUND
  • ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION DEEP RIVER (ONTARIO NO 436) BRANCH POPPY FUND

This is not the complete list. The Canada Revenue Agency lists over 200 such groups with a charity designation.

There’s nothing wrong — in principle — with such groups having this designation, nor receiving tax benefits for it. But one has to wonder if their status would have been revoked if they didn’t play along with the narrative.

In addition to the regular benefits of being a registered charity, such groups were also eligible for extra lockdown and rental subsidies.

Qualifying organizations that are subject to a lockdown and must shut their doors or significantly limit their activities under a public health order may be eligible for additional Lockdown Support of 25 per cent of eligible expenses.

In response to concerns raised by stakeholders about the program, the Government is proposing to amend the CERS in order to allow applicants to include eligible expenses in their CERS application before the expense has been paid. This means that organizations can include rent and other eligible amounts already paid in respect of a claim period as well as amounts that are payable for the claim period when submitting their CERS applications. Amounts that are not paid at the time of the application will have to be paid no later than 60 days after payment of the subsidy.

To be eligible, organizations must be individuals, taxable corporations and trusts, non-profit organizations or registered charities.

Does this mean that various branches of the Royal Canadian Legion took the bailout money as bribes? Not necessarily, but this can’t be completely ignored.

Don’t forget, the Canadian military supposedly saw this “pandemic” as a unique opportunity to use propaganda techniques on Canadian citizens. They refer to it as “shaping and exploiting information”. This was done with the purpose of pushing public health measures, while attempting to minimize civil disobedience.

In other words. the Forces used subversion and deceit in order to wage war on its citizens.

With that in mind, one has to ask if the various Royal Legions were also compromised. Did they turn their backs on veterans in order to push for compliance with lockdown measures?

If the Forces are okay with (or at least willing) to use propaganda in order to push a particular narrative, would various Legions do it as well?

(1) https://twitter.com/_llebrun/status/1655681786389622784
(2) https://pressprogress.ca/danielle-smith-boycotted-remembrance-day-poppies-railed-against-mainstream-medicine-on-podcast/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-adolf-hitler-netflix-rachel-notley-1.6836160
(4) https://globalnews.ca/news/9686254/ucp-danielle-smith-nazi-comments/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/?sort=agreement_value+desc&search_text=royal+legion&page=1
(6) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/vac-acc,021-2020-2021-Q3-00061,current
(7) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/struggling-legions-and-veterans-organizations-to-receive-20m-in-emergency-support-1.5182483
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/2020/11/canada-emergency-rent-subsidy.html
(10) https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-leaders-saw-pandemic-as-unique-opportunity-to-test-propaganda-techniques-on-canadians-forces-report-says

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videos of the December 2022 hearings are available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s start with O.I.C. 2020-0298.

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

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

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

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

Then there’s O.I.C. 2022-0447.

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

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

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

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

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