Recent Posts

Posted on

Discontinued: Client Forced To Abandon Injection Pass Case After Leighton Withdraws

A former employee at Canadian Natural Resources Limited (or CNRL) dropped his lawsuit, which had been filed in Calgary. Bradley Miles did so as a self-representing litigant, despite previously having counsel.

At least the Notice of Discontinuance was done on a “without cost” basis. That means that he won’t have to pay the lawyers for CNRL. He’s still out whatever fees he paid to his own lawyer, and the money he lost from being terminated, or at least, suspended without pay.

This brings to 10 (and counting) vaccine passport cases Grey has commenced, only to have dropped or abandoned. The search results are still coming in

CNRL Claims Miles Was Offered His Job Back

In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff states that he should be entitled to return to work in the same position he was previously in.

12. On December 2, 2021, Canadian Natural sent the Plaintiff a letter warning him that he was non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and that, effective December 1, 2021, his site access was suspended with pay. The Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to provide proof that he had received a second dose of an approved COVID-19 vaccine by December 21, 2021, he would continue to be non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and would be suspended without pay.

13. On December 22, 2021, the Plaintiff was suspended without pay due to his continued non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy.

14. On or around March 15, 2022, in response to the reduced number of COVID-19 cases in Alberta, and the Alberta government’s easing or removing public health protocols in respect of COVID-19, Canadian Natural sent a letter to employees on unpaid suspension for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy, including the Plaintiff, advising that Canadian Natural was ending certain COVID-19 measures effective April 4, 2022, including the requirement that Workers be fully vaccinated. The Plaintiff was notified that his unpaid suspension would end effective April 4, 2022, and that he was required to return to his work location and role at Canadian Natural on that date.

15. In that letter, Canadian Natural asked employees to indicate whether they intended to return to work at Canadian Natural. Canadian Natural did not receive a response from the Plaintiff regarding his intention, or lack thereof, to return to work. Rather than return to work, the Plaintiff commenced his claim against Canadian Natural.

16. As of April 4, 2022, employees previously suspended without pay for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy were returned to work by Canadian Natural to their same position.

In their Statement of Defence, CNRL claims that Miles was offered his position back in April 2022, but he didn’t respond. Instead, he sued the company in September 2022. But since the case was dropped, we won’t know for sure what the full truth is.

“Poison Pills” Slipped Into Statement Of Claim

E. Criminal Assault
44. Forcing a medical intervention on employees under threat of loss of livelihood is a clear violation of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) which states in part:

265(1) A person commits an assault when
(a) Without consent of another person he applies force intentionally to the person directly or indirectly..
265(3) For the purposes of this Section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of…
(d) The exercise of authority. [emphasis added]

45. Forcing employees to be vaccinated under threat of loss of livelihood is a violation of the CCC. Every member of the CNRL Board who supports the Policy supports the criminal assault of his or her fellow employees and coworkers.

Like many of Leighton’s cases, he includes content that makes explicitly criminal allegations. He knows — or ought to know — that this cannot be adjudicated in a CIVIL proceeding. In fact, the Statement of Claim would have been struck for this alone.

The claim also goes on to argue what would better be described as “expert evidence”. This doesn’t belong in the initial pleadings, and would come later.

Shouldn’t a King’s Counsel/Queen’s Counsel lawyer know better?

Timeline Of This CNRL Case

September 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in Calgary.

March 2023: Statement of Defence is filed.

November 2024: The case is discontinued.

According to the information provided by the Alberta Courts, there doesn’t seem to have been any real urgency to move the case along. It never got past the initial pleadings.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. ***August 9th, 2023: Grey discontinues Helgeton v. FWS Holdings
  8. ***January 19th, 2024: Grey discontinues Hamonic v. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  9. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  10. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  11. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.
  12. November 29th, 2024: Grey abandons Bradley Miles in his CNR case

***Note: since the original publication, another 2 cases in Manitoba were added, bringing the total to 12. There may very well be more.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter. This specific case doesn’t invoke an arbitration requirement as a defence, but most do.

Strange, isn’t it? The “alternative” media will announce all kinds of new lawsuits being filed. However, they very rarely will report on how they end.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Miles Statement Of Claim September 2022
(2) Miles Statement Of Defence March 2023
(3) Miles Notice Of Discontinuance November 2024

Posted on

Action4Canada Injunction Application Booked For May 26th

The British Columbia Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in 2 weeks for an Application for an (interim) Injunction in a defamation case. It’s been set for May 26th.

Last December, Action4Canada and 4 individuals (3 named, 1 unnamed) were sued in Kelowna for defamation. It was filed by a self-described “drag artist and entertainer” named Tyson Cook.

An Injunction Application is asking the Kelowna Court to order the removal of all of the posts in question, and to prohibit new ones from going up. It’s worded to imply that it would last indefinitely, with an alternative suggestion of 1 year.

The Application also seeks validation of service against Tori Olason, through regular mail, and a suspected Facebook account. The process server claims that it’s not safe to return, given a neighbour threatened to call the police to report trespassing.

Interestingly, James Kitchen has resigned as counsel for Action4Canada. He was listed as counsel for that organization, as well as Tammy Mitchell.

The Application names Graeme Flannigan and Action4Canada, but not Mitchell. One has to wonder if cooler heads have prevailed, at least for one person. Flannigan appears — for now — to be self representing.

Flannigan is also the only one so far to file any detailed response. Action4Canada and Mitchell put in their bare-bones “denial”. On the other hand, he’s making statements in support of a justification or fair comment defence. Furthermore, there’s the suggestion that lumping unrelated Defendants together into a single suit is an abuse of process.

Flannigan says that Cook has been selling buttons related to various online posts, and has used the publicity for content. The implication is that far from suffering damages, Cook may have actually profited from all of this.

One thing weighing against Cook: having waited so long to take any action, the Court may not view it as being urgent.

Note: Action4Canada supports silencing its own critics, but screams “lawfare” when the shoe is on the other foot. We’ll have to see how this turns out.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Cook Flannigan Response To Civil Claim
(3) Cook Action4Canada Response To Civil Claim
(4) Cook Mitchell Response To Civil Claim
(5) Cook Kitchen Resigns As A4C Counsel
(6) Cook Notice Of Application For Injunction

Posted on

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

  1. American Chamber of Commerce
  2. Google (which owns YouTube)
  3. Rumble
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Facebook
  6. Pinterest
  7. LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907

Posted on

Diagolon Rat Squad: Liberate Your Neighbourhood

This is to follow up on a story that broke over 3 years ago.

It’s been long established that Jeremy MacKenzie (a.k.a. Raging Dissident) called the police on a group named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, and a member, Landon Preik. This happened while lockdowns were being enforced all over the country. It’s what he swore to under oath.

MacKenzie has repeatedly bragged — such as on Red Ice — that he contacted the RCMP because he viewed the group as a threat to public safety. It’s portrayed as civic necessity, and done to prevent violence. Rightly or wrongly, he has been labelled a “fed” and a “rat” for doing this.

Thing is, his version of events doesn’t add up. There is a much more plausible reason for MacKenzie contacting the police, namely to get himself out of his own gun charges. After all, Preik was arrested less than 2 days after he was.

The whole “HateGate” narrative never made sense in this regard either. If the authorities were looking for an excuse to invoke the Emergencies Act, MacKenzie would have given them a legitimate one. Why then would they frame him for it, if he was cooperative with police?

The Global News article on the case is dated February 3rd, 2022. It references a police investigation that began on September 14th, 2021. (See archive). The problem is that it lacks sufficient information about the case.

However, after ordering some court documents, things become a lot clearer.

MacKenzie’s Arrest/Residential Search January 26th, 2022

Inverness County District RCMP has arrested a man for firearms offences after executing a search warrant at a home in Pictou County.

On January 10, 2022, the Inverness County District RCMP began an investigation after a video was posted to social media of a man, in a business, waving a handgun around in a reckless manner and allegedly having an over capacity magazine. It was determined that this incident occurred on Whycocomagh Mountain Rd. in Whycocomagh.

On January 26, as part of the investigation, police executed a search warrant at a home on High St. in Pictou. During the search, police located and seized five restricted firearms including rifles and handguns, one unrestricted firearm, prohibited magazines, ammunition, body armour, a duty belt with attached holster and magazine pouches and cellular phones.

At the request of police, the suspect, a 35-year-old Pictou man, attended the Pictou RCMP Detachment prior to the search warrant execution and was arrested without incident. He was later released on conditions, which include that he not possess any firearms, weapons, ammunition or explosive substances. He will be facing charges of Careless Use of a Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of a Prohibited Device, Possession of a Prohibited Device Knowing It’s Possession is Unauthorized, Possession of a Firearm at an Unauthorized Place. He will appear in Port Hawkesbury Provincial Court on May 30, 2022.
File #: 2022-39074

Why does the January 26th, 2022 date matter? It’s because of what happened in the immediate aftermath.

MacKenzie was released, and headed to the convoy. Preik was picked up the next day.

Preik Picked Up January 27th, 2022 On Possession Charges

The information about the case is available, and it spells out exactly what he has been charged with. Interestingly, it lists both September and November 2021 dates.

Originally, there were 6 charges. It was later amended to 10.

  1. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: Armi Jager AP80 semi-automatic rifle
  2. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: CZ-CZ858 Tactical 2 semi-automatic rifle
  3. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 5 handgun magazines, with 15 cartridge capacity
  4. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 4 CZ magazines, with 30 cartridge capacity
  5. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 1 CZ detachable magazine, with 30 cartridge capacity
  6. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Rossi Ranch Hand Rifle
  7. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: K100 Dynamic Handgun
  8. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ VZ58 Sporster semi-automatic rifle
  9. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Mossberg shotgun
  10. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ 75 Luger semi-automatic handgun

Notice what’s missing? Preik was never charged with terrorism, treason, sedition, or any violent offence. The complaint against him is solely for possession and transport/storage offences.

That is, of course, not to say that the current charges won’t mess up his life.

Are we supposed to believe that the RCMP took MacKenzie’s information and did nothing with it for months? And is it just a coincidence that they only acted after the raid in Pictou? It strains all credulity to accept such a narrative, but here we are.

MacKenzie: Contacting RCMP Necessary To Prevent Violence

Almost everyone by now is familiar with this clip.

At his POEC testimony MacKenzie specifically named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood” as a group that he turned into police. He said there was a group of men “with masks and guns, saying ‘this is a call to arms'”. It’s portrayed as a necessary act in order to protect public safety.

He also says that this happened in the Fall of 2021.

Again, the timeline doesn’t make sense, if MacKenzie is to be believed. While it seems true that he did contact the police, the sequence of events is very different. His version is quite implausible, and we’ll go through it.

Perhaps he had “more information” to share in January 2022.

Timeline Of Major Events For Preik And MacKenzie

September 14th, 2021: RCMP begins investigating a group called “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, based on videos that had been posted online.

September 23rd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for first time.

September 29th, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for second time.

November 2nd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for third time.

To make this clear, the police are obviously aware of who Preik is, having talked to him on 3 separate occasions. However, there will be no arrest for months. One has to wonder why. MacKenzie (supposedly) telling them about the videos wasn’t enough, but something would change.

January 10th, 2022: RCMP becomes aware of a video of MacKenzie (and another man), in possession of firearms, and would later accuse them of using them carelessly.

January 13th, 2022: According to the ITO (page 5) MacKenzie admitted to police that he was intoxicated when this happened.

January 22, 2022: RCMP applies for a search warrant for MacKenzie’s Pictou home for:

  1. Smith & Wesson M&P 9 firearm
  2. Glock 17 firearm
  3. High capacity magazine
  4. Gun holster
  5. Firearms registration paperwork
  6. MacKenzie’s cell phone (unknown brand)

January 25th, 2022: This is the first day that (if authorized) the search warrant would allow the police into MacKenzie’s home.

January 26th, 2022: RCMP raid MacKenzie’s home in Pictou, N.S., and file firearms charges. From the way the press release is worded, it sounds like he was released almost right away.

January 27th, 2022: Preik is arrested in Chilliwack, B.C.

January 28th, 2022: Preik is released without bail, while facing 6 charges.

February 3rd, 2022: Global News publishes the arrest of Preik. It was noted that he faced (a) five counts of careless use or storage of a firearm, and (b) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The article only specifies that an investigation had been ongoing since September 14th, 2021.

August 2nd, 2022: Preik now facing a total of 10 charges. His release conditions are modified to require that he pay $200 if he breaches them.

December 8th, 2022: Preik appears in court on a further modified complaint.

January 27th, 2023: Crown elects to proceed by indictment (the more serious option)

September 6th, 2024: After voir dire hearing, it’s ruled that Preik’s 3 interrogations (September 23rd, 29th, and November 2nd of 2021) are all admissible as evidence. See page 5.

Preik faces trial later this year, while MacKenzie had all of his charges thrown out.

Why Does Any Of This Matter?

MacKenzie has long stated that he turned in the group to avoid violent (armed) confrontation with the state. While difficult to swallow for many, it’s at least a plausible excuse to send the RCMP after someone. Regardless of one’s personal feelings, there’s a justification to do this.

That justification disappears once you look when things happened.

Preik had been interviewed at least 3 times by police in late 2021. They clearly knew who he was, but chose not to make any arrest then. In fact, they only acted just a day or so after MacKenzie was picked up in Nova Scotia.

It’s unrealistic to assume police simply ignored specific allegations about an armed militia (as MacKenzie made) for several months. But we’re supposed to believe that arrest came just after his…. and it’s entirely a coincidence.

Did MacKenzie call the RCMP to inform them about a violent threat?

Or did he do it to get himself released from prison?

And what’s the deal with his “continuous relationship” with law enforcement? Diagolon isn’t an entrapment operation, is it?

PREIK COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Preik Record Of Proceeding
(2) Preik Information
(3) Preik Release
(4) Preik Transcript January 28 2022
(5) Preik Transcript January 28 2022 Copy
(6) Preik Transcript August 2 2022
(7) Preik Transcript August 2 2022 Copy
(8) Preik Transcript January 27 2023 Elect Method
(9) Preik Transcript August 15 2024 Not Guilty Plea

MEDIA ATTENTION:
(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/8591403/rcmp-seize-firearms-in-b-c-following-probe-into-video-by-self-described-militia/
(2) Preik Arrest Global News Announcement
(3) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2022/rcmp-arrest-man-firearms-offences
(4) RCMP arrest man for firearms offences
(5) https://www.antihate.ca/jeremy_raging_dissident_mackenzie_arrested_waving_handgun_local_business

SEARCH WARRANT FOR MACKENZIE:
(1) ITO Warrant Application For Jeremy MacKenzie January 22 2022

Posted on

CSASPP Class Action Certification Application Still Under Reserve 2 Years Later

It has been a full 2 years since the Certification hearings concluded between CSASPP (the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy), the British Columbia Government, and Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry. No ruling has been made yet.

The Government is also asking the Court to strike the case altogether. While surviving such Applications is usually straightforward, a class proceeding complicates things.

The stakes are very high. If certified, the case would potentially create millions of Plaintiffs.

The hearings began in December of 2022, and were expected to conclude in a single week. That didn’t happen, so a week in April 2023 was needed to finish them off. Then, the decision was deferred.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to make any progress until this is settled once and for all.

In fairness to Justice Crerar, he has a big workload to deal with.

That being said, people do need an answer as to whether or not this case will be certified. 2 years is a long time to make a decision, even with an undertaking of this size. Hopefully, one will come soon.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

January, 2021: The case was initially filed in January 2021 as a Proposed Class Action.

March, 2021: The B.C. Government responds to the lawsuit.

June, 2021: Plaintiffs bring their proposal for case management.

July, 2021: Defendants bring their own proposal to manage the case.

September, 2021: Notice of Civil Claim is amended.

December, 2022: Certification hearings start, but take longer than originally anticipated. They were intended to be completed over a single week.

April 2023: Certification hearings resume, taking up another week. The decision is under reserve, meaning it will be issued later. However, Justice Crerar would still make several subsequent requests for submissions based on related cases happening elsewhere.

July, 2023: Ingram, the disaster of a ruling, is brought to Justice Crerar’s attention. This is the Alberta ruling that struck down orders on a technicality (Cabinet interference), but otherwise okayed them in principle.

September, 2023: Bonnie Henry’s lawyer objects to CSASPP filing a Petition against the vaccine passport for health care workers, claiming the existing litigation amounts to a duplication, and hence, abuse of process.

April, 2024: Justice Crerar sends notice that he will likely be issuing a decision on the Certification Application within a month or so. As a result, CSASPP forwards several recent rulings on related issues. But, the ruling is further delayed.

May, 2024: Bonnie Henry’s lawyers are invited to make further written submissions.

April, 2025: Randy Hillier’s win at the Ontario Court of Appeal is forwarded.

So, When Will The Decision Be Made?

There’s no way to answer this.

Justice Crerar has since released decisions in other cases, although, they’re much simpler in scope. The ruling he issues — whatever it is — will impact millions of people. The various requests for submissions suggest that he’s trying to ward off any possibility of an appeal.

For what it’s worth, the overall quality of the filings has been very high. This is night and day different from another case in Vancouver.

It’s a game of hurry-up-and-wait.

LINKS TO REVIEW:
(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

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

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Case Struck With Leave To Partially Amend, And The s.15 Deception

In recent years, there has been a common pattern happening in high profile lawsuits. Specifically, litigants have a tendency to file unnecessary Appeals, in order to delay their own cases. This happens when Judges permit amended versions to go forward, but are ignored.

Readers of this site have heard of the infamous 4 “travel mandates cases”, brought in 2021 and 2022. They’re perhaps the most egregious examples.

Summer of 2022, all 4 Applications were declared “moot” by Associate Chief Justice Gagné. This was because the vaccine passports weren’t in effect anymore. There was one important caveat though: Applicants were free to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. This is clear in paragraphs 27, 41 and 46 of the decision.

Instead of filing Statement of Claims — which was expressly permitted — all of the Applicants appealed. Rickard/Harrison, Bernier, Peckford, Naoum, etc…. all filed Notice of Appeal. That’s correct, they appealed ACJ Gagné’s ruling, when they could have amended. No convincing explanation has ever been provided of why.

Lawyers for the Appellants then proceeded to crash their cases into the ground. Among other problems, they argued the wrong standard of review for mootness. Instead of properly arguing “overriding, palpable error”, 2 argued correctness, and the other 2 nothing at all.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum all filed Applications for Leave, requesting that the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases. Again, they appealed, when they could have amended. All Applications were denied.

Interestingly, none of Bernier, Peckford or Naoum appear to have filed a Statement of Claim afterwards, despite the fact that they could have. They simply abandoned their cases.

Instead of going to the Supreme Court, Rickard and Harrison finally filed their own claim in 2023, which was the more sensible option. But that, and the amended version had serious problems, with the Attorney General brining a Motion to Strike.

When Associate Judge Trent Horne eventually ruled, something interesting happened. The Section 7 and 12 claims were struck entirely, and the Section 6 (for Rickard only) as well. But while the Section 15 claims were struck as well, he granted leave to amend.

The public is being told that the case is “moving to Trial” on the s.15 claims. This is a gross misrepresentation of what the Judge said. Getting permission for a rewrite is not the same thing as getting the green light to move forward.

Rather than filing another version, Rickard and Harrison appealed again. Once more, they appealed a decision, when they could have amended their filings. Noticing a pattern here?

Results Of November 2024 Motion To Strike

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Allowed to proceed for both Rickard and Harrison

This is what the pinned tweets of Rickard and Harrison say. But the truth is quite different.

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Struck for both Rickard and Harrison, but with leave to amend

In reality, the case was struck entirely against Rickard. Harrison (being the only Canadian citizen), could pursue s.6 at any time. The only caveat is that they have an opportunity to file — yet another — version of the Statement of Claim for s.15.

This *may* be one of the reasons behind the latest appeal. Rickard’s only pathway (currently) at continuing the case is a long-shot attempt to redraft the Statement of Claim in a way that would allow the s.15 claims to go ahead. He doesn’t have s.6 to fall back on. This may be a way of creating a “backup”.

That may not be a bad idea. However, Rickard and Harrison need to be honest about the results of the Motion.

Rickard/Harrison V.S. What Horne Actually Wrote About S.15 Claims

The tweet is very long, but it does get to the specifics about each tort. For the most part, they’re accurate.

Paragraphs 54 to 61 of A.J. Horne’s decision make it very clear what happened regarding the Section 15 claims. They are not “proceeding to Trial”. They were struck, albeit with permission to amend.

[55] Vaccination status is not an enumerated ground in section 15, nor has it been recognized as an analogous ground. Analogous grounds are those similar to the enumerated grounds that would often serve as the basis for stereotypical decisions made not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a personal characteristic that is immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity (Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203 at para 13).

[56] No material facts are specifically pleaded in respect of the section 15 claim. The plaintiffs broadly allege that the vaccine mandates, implemented through the IMOs, violate section 15.

[57] Charter actions do not trigger special rules on motions to strike; the requirement of pleading material facts still applies. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined in the case law the substantive content of each Charter right, and a plaintiff must plead sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. This is no mere technicality, “rather, it is essential to the proper presentation of Charter issues” (Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at para 21).

[61] While the chances of having vaccination status recognized as an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15 may be remote in light of the current jurisprudence, I am not satisfied that such an argument is bound to fail if the plaintiffs allege that vaccination would constitute an unacceptable cost to their personal identity, or would tear asunder immutable or even deeply held beliefs. Lewis and Costa do not foreclose this possibility, or stand for the proposition that vaccination status is incapable of constituting an analogous ground. While it may be dim, there is a “glimmer of hope” (La Rose at para 122) that vaccination status could be recognized as an analogous ground. Leave to amend to add a cause of action under section 15 is granted for both plaintiffs, however any such amendment must be fully and completely particularized.

It is possible that a new complaint would be drafted in such a way that the s.15 claims could go to Trial. However, that’s not what happened here at all. And it’s not just some technicality either.

Also, why appeal A.J. Horne’s ruling if you’re proceeding anyway?

This is the sort of thing Action4Canada did.

Rickard/Harrison Case Is PRIVATE Suit For Damages

[29] The plaintiffs submit that they are able to challenge IMOs as they relate to rail travel because an intention to travel by rail at the material time is irrelevant; they say the inability to travel by rail alone triggers the ability to advance a claim. I cannot agree. There is no indication in any version of the statement of claim that the plaintiffs ever intended to travel by rail when the IMOs were in place. There is no loss or harm, and no basis to claim damages, in this respect. A claim for damages based on railway travel would be an abstract complaint about a government restriction that had no impact or consequence on the plaintiffs. I fail to see how either of the plaintiffs have standing to advance a claim for damages based on a method of transportation they did not use, and expressed no interest in using. At the hearing, the plaintiffs directly stated that they are not advancing a claim based on public interest standing. Leave to amend in this respect is refused.

The original Statement of Claim, the amended version, and the proposed new version ask for anything other than money for themselves. No injunctive or declaratory relief is sought.

At the 2024 hearing, they make it clear that they are NOT seeking any sort of public interest standing, which would benefit many more people.

“Buyout” From Ottawa Is Always An Option

This has been stated before, but is worth repeating:

Because it’s a private lawsuit, seeking only monetary damages, Ottawa could always offer to pay it out, along with costs. This would mean no groundbreaking decision, and no precedent. And really, there’d be no practical way for the Plaintiffs to refuse such an offer.

Current Appeal Is A Somewhat Of A Gongshow

Because the ruling was from an Associate Justice, and not a full one, Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules applies. This means that there is a 10 day time limit to file Motion to have it reviewed.

However, their lawyer missed the deadline to appeal by a few weeks, then requested an extension of time to file. The Crown decided not to oppose the request.

The Court did issue new direction on refiling, and the extension has since been approved.

Instead of filing a new Statement of Claim, Rickard and Harrison are appealing the portions that struck entirely, which are s.7 and s.12. Keep in mind, the Attorney General hasn’t initiated any Appeal. They’ve come solely from the Plaintiffs/Applicants. They’ve also mentioned the possibility of this upcoming decision being appealed as well.

Should that happen, things will probably take close to a year at the Federal Court of Appeal. Then, they’ll have to refile their claim, something they could have done months ago.

Or, to be more accurate, a Statement of Claim could have been filed in the Summer of 2022, after the original Applications were declared “moot”. That was nearly 3 years ago.

Think about it: we can be well into the year 2026, or even 2027, and these people will still be asking for money to file

*checks notes*

another Statement of Claim.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

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

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

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

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) Rickard T-2536-23 Decision For Motion To Strike
(11) Rickard T-2536-23 Rule 51 Motion Appealing AJ Horne Decision
(12) Rickard T-2536-23 Letter From Crown On Extending Time To Appeal
(13) Rickard T-2536-23 Order Regarding Motion To Extend Time

MISCELLANEOUS:
(1) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(2) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(3) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(4) Corporations Canada Page

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress