A challenge to vaccine passports (see archive) by Federal workers has been filed (T-1089-22). It was launched on May 30, 2022, and has little activity to show so far. It appears that after being idle for 3 months, the Defense has sent a letter requesting case management.
A source told this site that potential Plaintiffs were being asked to put up $1,000 each to offset costs for this lawsuit. However, it hasn’t been verified, so it’s just an allegation for now.
But that is the least of it. This Statement of Claim appears to be so poorly crafted that it will never survive in its current form. Most likely, it will be struck. This is a pattern that comes up again and again.
Keep in mind: the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada cases were critiqued as well. The former went down in flames, while the latter remains dormant. While the Federal case isn’t (quite) the dumpster fire that the others were, the drafting is still very bad.
Side note: the Federal Court of Canada allows the public to search the progress of the case, both in terms of documents filed, but status updates. Documents can also be requested by giving staff the file # and the document #. It’s quite convenient.
1. Claim Contains Content Court Can’t Preside Over
The Statement of Claim is filled with allegations and issues that cannot be resolved in a Civil Court. That alone would get the case struck. It’s also worth noting that the numbering system is inconsistent and confusing, much like the A4C and VCC Claims.
- (Page 16, Para 1(c)) crimes against humanity
- (Page 16, Para 1(c)) War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity Act
- (Page 16, Para 1(c)) Criminal Code of Canada
- (Page 20, Para 1(d)(1)) Magna Carta
- (Page 28, Para 34(d)) allegations of eugenics
- (Page 30, Para 47) allegations of crimes against humanity
- (Page 30, Para 47) allegations Nazi experimentation
- (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Nuremberg Code
- (Page 30, Para 47) reference to Helsinki Declaration
- (Page 32, Para 52(a)(v)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada
- (Page 35, Para 55(g)) reference to Criminal Code of Canada
This played a role in getting the Action4Canada case struck out a few weeks ago. None of this belongs in a Civil Claim, and could easily be used in a Motion to Strike.
2. Claim Paragraphs Not Set Out In Organized Manner
This Rule has to do with the organization of the Claim itself. Considering that the Defendant(s) has to respond to the allegations, it has to be easy for them to either “admit” or “deny” paragraphs, or to state that certain ones are unknown. Because this lawsuit is so shoddily crafted, it’s impractical, and near impossible to address the document in any meaningful way.
3. Claim Lacks Concise Statement Of Material Facts
This is a no-brainer. If someone is to be sued, then there must be a concise (relatively short) set of facts laid out in the Statement of Claim. This document is filled with accusations and demands, but is quite limited on the facts to be pleaded.
The Federal Rules are the same in this regard as the B.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 3-1(2)(a) calls for Notices of Civil Claim to have a concise statement of material facts. In Ontario it’s Rule 25.06(1). There are similar provisions in other Provincial Courts as well.
4. Claim Lacks Necessary Particulars To Go Ahead
This is based on Rule 181 of the Federal Court Rules. When the term “particulars” is used here, it means specifics. The allegations must contain enough detailed information so that Defendants may address them.
Here, there are plenty of allegations thrown around, but the document is sorely lacking in specifics. It’s not enough make accusations, but the factual basis must be laid out as well. Ontario Rules 25.06(8) and (10) also lay out this requirement.
This (may) not get the lawsuit thrown out by itself. However, it’s enough that a Judge or Prothonotary would either strike it, or issue an Order for a rewrite.
5. Nature Of Damages Isn’t Really Specified
This should be common sense. Parties seeking damages need to spell out the exact relief they are seeking. That said, the Claim is so rambling and disjointed that it isn’t all that clear. At a bare minimum, this needs to be redone.
6. Entire Claim Could Be Struck Under Rule 221
This is very similar to Rule 9-5 of the British Columbia Rules of Civil Procedure. It allows for pleadings that are convoluted, confusing, or otherwise an abuse of process to be struck out. Even someone well versed in the content would be hard pressed to follow along with the Claim.
The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.11, has this wording as well. It allows Judges to throw out (or at least strike) suits that are abusive in nature.
Having read through the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits, it appears that entire sections are just cut-and-pasted for this one. Doesn’t speak highly for the work involved.
There are also approximately 100 “John Does” and “Jane Does” in the Statement of Claim. This is going to make things confusing, since Defendants have the right to confront their accusers.
Keep in mind, this is a very rudimentary look at the Statement of Claim. It’s entirely possible that there are more defects that can lead to it getting thrown out.
So, why keep drafting such garbage?
Who benefits from cases that either remain inactive for months, or years? Who benefits from cases that are so poorly drafted that they get thrown out on a preliminary challenge? It doesn’t appear that any of these cases were ever intended to move ahead.
Keep in mind, that hundreds of law firms have received CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Others have received cash from the Summer Grants Program. Pretty hard to oppose Trudeau when his programs are paying one’s salaries.
- Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
- Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Statement of Defense in August 2022.
- Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
- Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then.
- Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
- M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
- Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Struck in its entirety.
Well meaning people have paid good money, in the hopes that worthwhile litigation would be undertaken. It’s pretty pathetic that this site is a far more reliable source for updates than the lawyers running the show. Then again, considering the complete lack of progress, it’s not unexpected.
Putting things in perspective….
This website was sued last year for $7,000,000, for exposing what was really happening with the various “anti-lockdown” cases. It speaks volumes when more effort is spent trying to silence critics than to take on Trudeau, Ford, or Horgan. Any any event, that case is stayed, pending an anti-SLAPP Motion.
FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021
(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