The Federal Government has filed a Motion to Strike the 2023 lawsuit from Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison.
See parts 1, 2 and 3 in the series so far.
For context, they previously filed an Application challenging the Interim Orders which mandated the injection pass to travel on trains or airplanes. 3 other Applications were filed with near exact circumstances, and for simplicity, were to be heard together. There was an impressive compilation of 23 Affidavits and 15 export reports included as evidence.
But before the cases could be heard, the Government brought a Motion to strike the 4 Applications for “mootness”. In essence, this is the idea that there is no longer a live issue to try. Since the travel mandates, weren’t in effect currently, the Government argued it was a waste of time and money. Apparently, no one was seeking damages.
Justice Jocelyne Gagné granted the Motion and threw the cases out, despite pleas to hear them anyway. Applicants were concerned that mandates could come back at a later time.
However, Justice Gagné did “throw a bone” to the Applicants. She stated in the ruling that if any of them had damages to recover, they could file a Claim and do so. Although not explicitly stated, presumably the ad hoc challenges to the mandates could still go on.
Instead of filing Claims and asking for damages, lawyers for all 4 Applications appealed. It was never made clear what possessed them to do it.
After screwing up at the Federal Court of Appeal — and this will be addressed later — most of the Applicants tried to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. They lost. Rickard and Harrison finally decided after the first Appeal to file a Claim. This is what the article will address.
The Rickard/Harrison suit is very poorly written, and likely to be struck for a series of procedural defects. It’s hard to believe they were represented by counsel.
A Necessary Disclaimer
To address the obvious: in no way, shape or form is this meant to excuse or justify “injection mandates”, whether for travel, or general livelihood. That being said, we need to be realistic about this case. It’s going nowhere.
While the original 4 Applications were struck as “moot”, this case has its own problems that will most likely see its demise.
Brief History On These Cases
December 2021: The Rickard/Harrison Application is filed. (T-1991-21)
January 2022: The Naoum Application is filed. (T-145-22)
January 2022: The Peckford Application is filed. (T-168-22)
February 2022: The Bernier Application is filed (T-247-22)
Eventually, the Court decides that all cases will be heard together, in order to save time and expense. This happens fairly often. Over the next several months, some 6,650 pages of evidence would be amassed. This would include 23 Affidavits and 15 expert reports.
Before the case can be heard, however, the Government brings Motions to strike the Applications on the basis of “mootness”. At this point, there were no mandates in effect, and no one had damages to claim. It’s a preemptive effort to derail the case.
October 2022: All 4 Applications are struck as “moot” by Justice Gagné.
November 2022: Notices of Appeal are filed against the striking of the Applications.
A-251-22 (Peckford)
A-252-22 (Rickard/Harrison)
A-253-22 (Bernier)
A-254-22 (Naoum)
November 2023: Federal Court of Appeal dismisses Appeals of all 4 Applications.
This is where Rickard/Harrison diverge from the others. They will file a Statement of Claim very shortly, while the others will attempt to get leave to go to the Supreme Court.
SCC File #41082 (Peckford)
SCC File #41081 (Bernier)
SCC File #41100 (Naoun)
November 2023: Rickard/Harrison filed Statement of Claim in Federal Court. (T-2536-23)
December 2023: The Government files Notice of Intent to Respond
June 2024: Rickard/Harrison file amended Statement of Claim.
July 2024: The Government files Notice of Motion against Rickard/Harrison, indicating they want the Claim struck. Despite its short length, there are many problems.
August 2024: Applications for Leave (permission) to go to Supreme Court of Canada are dismissed for Peckford, Bernier, Naoun
Rickard and Harrison decided to go their own way. What then are the issues with the Claim that they filed?
1. Claim Doesn’t Actually Challenge Mandates Themselves
The previous Applications from Rickard/Harrison, Bernier, Peckford and Naoun all challenged that mandates themselves, which required the “injection passport” in order to take a plane or a train. They asked for “Declaratory Relief”, which is a ruling from a Judge that something is illegal.
However, looking at the Statement of Claim, it demands: (a) $1,000,000 in damages; (b) costs of the lawsuit; and (c) “other such relief”. That’s it. They’re not asking the Court to make Declarations of any sort, or challenge the constitutionality of these Interim Orders.
So, what then is the purpose here?
Even assuming that a Judge finds that Charter damages are warranted, it doesn’t mean that the mandates themselves (or any part of it) will be prohibited from being reinstated later.
2. Failure To Plead Necessary Material Facts
Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.
This is from Section 174 of the Federal Court Rules.
In the November 2022 version of the Statement of Claim, the lawyer who drafted the case pleaded no facts whatsoever about the circumstances of Rickard and Harrison. There was no information provided on which to base a reply. From the perspective of due process, this is bad, as the Defendants are entitled to know what the allegations they must defend against.
To be fair, the Claim was amended in June 2023. It provided some, but not really enough information to reply to. Pretty pathetic that the case just sat in limbo for months.
3. Failure To Plead Necessary Particulars
Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.
This is also from the Federal Court Rules.
The Statement of Claim (and the amended version) both make allegations of bad faith, abuse of office, and deceit. In these instances, there’s an additional requirement to plead particulars. This is also referred to as “particularizing a Claim”. What this means is that extra detail and information must be provided. There can be no doubt as to what Defendants are being accused of: who, what, where, when….
What’s been pleaded here seems to fall short.
For these kinds of cases, facts and particulars must be included. In Ontario, for example, pleading facts (s.25.06(1)) and particulars (s.25.06(8)) is outlined in their Rules of Civil Procedure. It’s similar everywhere.
4. Failure To Properly Plead s.6 (Mobility) Charter Breaches
Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
This comes across as pedantic, but there are several errors with how this part of the Claim is written, and it’s addressed in the Notice of Motion.
First, Rickard and Harrison don’t actually plead that they are Canadian citizens. Apparently they are, but it needs to be included in the Claim. It wasn’t in either the original or amended version.
Second, Rickard and Harrison don’t plead that they were prevented from entering or leaving Canada. But to be fair, it becomes practically impossible to leave (outside the U.S.) without an airplane. This portion of the Claim needs to be explained better.
Third, Rickard and Harrison don’t plead that they were prevented either from residing in any province, or gaining a livelihood.
Fourth, since Rickard and Harrison only referenced air travel in their Statement of Claim, restrictions on trains wouldn’t be an issue for the Court to consider.
Theoretically, a breach of s.6(1) is doable in a challenge. While s.6(2) doesn’t seem to apply, they could argue that they had their only practical means of leaving the country removed, absent taking the shots.
5. Failure To Properly Plead s.7 (Security) Charter Breaches
Life, liberty and security of person
7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
This isn’t to justify the mandates, but Rickard and Harrison need to be realistic. S.7 challenges that dealt with this exact issue have been filed (and thrown out) across the country. They weren’t forced to take the injections, but had their ability to travel serious hampered.
Again, this isn’t to excuse the practice, but this challenge offers nothing new. Even if it did, the Claim is so poorly drafted that a Judge may not take it seriously.
6. Failure To Properly Plead s.15 (Equality) Charter Breaches
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The areas that are specifically listed in Section 15(1) of the Charter are referred to as enumerated grounds. In addition, Courts have recognized others, known as analogous grounds.
- Race
- National or ethnic origin
- Colour
- Religion
- Sex
- Age
- Mental or Physical Disability
- Sexual Orientation
- Marital Status
- Off-Reserve Aboriginal Status
- Citizenship
- Income
Many seem to think that Section 15 encompasses equality under and and all categories. It does not. In reality, it’s extremely limited. There’s nothing here which could be construed as “vaccination or medical status”. It isn’t even a new or novel challenge, and has been rejected countless times already.
Note: again, this isn’t in any way to defend the coercive injection mandates, but to point out that the Charter isn’t the solution people think it is. Rickard and Harrison appear to have been very poorly advised.
The End For Rickard/Harrison Challenge?
The Motion brought by the Government does concede that there may be a possible path forward with regards to the s.6 (mobility) challenge. Sections 7 and 15 are basically dead in the water, especially considering the litany of rulings on these exact issues.
However, the performance of their legal team has thus far been underwhelming.
Aside from those 3 provisions in the Charter, Rickard and Harrison don’t plead any other grounds. If these fail, then that’s the end.
Since they’re not even asking for declaratory relief anymore — challenging the travel restrictions in principle — then it’s unclear what purpose the 6,650 pages (Affidavits and expert reports) will serve.
To be honest though, the Plaintiffs may wish to retain more competent counsel.
After appealing Justice Gagné’s 2022 ruling, when the case could have simply been refiled as an Action, this is the result. We get a short, poorly written Claim that pleads very little of the necessary information. It’s amended later, but still falls far short of what’s needed.
While it would be nice to see a ruling that firmly condemns the “injection travel mandates”, it seems very unlikely that this is it.
Why Keep Covering The “Freedom Lawyers”?
All too often, these “freedom” challenges fail spectacularly. There are always theories about why this is happening: (a) the system is corrupt; (b) the Judge is bribed and/or threatened; (c) the lawyers are retarded; (d) the Charter is worthless, and so on.
However, a much less talked about concern is that the challenges brought forward are regularly complete trash. They’re filed too late, filed in the wrong court, or the wrong paperwork is done. There have been several cases of unionized workers who were advised to sue — as opposed to seeking arbitration — and predictably, those are thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. In countless other instances, the pleadings are drafted so poorly that there’s no prospect of advancing to Trial. There are many different excuses.
In these exact challenges, lawyers APPEALED a decision from Justice Gagné, when they could simply have REFILED the case as an Action. It’s Action4Canada all over again.
Aside from Rickard and Harrison, the other Applicants appealed for a second time (sought Leave at the Supreme Court of Canada) instead of refiling as a Claim.
Why does this continue to happen?
We’ve seen that Governments across Canada bribe the media to promote the “pandemic” narrative. This happens both with direct subsidies and advertising. Taxpayer money is used to finance and subsidize the “scientists” who call for more lockdown measures. Other subsidies are used to prop up businesses who implement mandates. Heck, Trudeau even gave bailout money (CEWS) to his political “opponents”. See above.
For reference: Conservative Fund is the fundraising branch of the Conservative Party of Canada. United Conservative Association is the similar arm of the Conservatives in Alberta. And yes, both the Federal Liberals and New Democrats also took the money.
There is a pretty obvious explanation of why these cases are handled so poorly. However, this site does not engage in kooky conspiracy theories.
FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)
RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)