A Motion to Strike the Claim of Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison is to be heard in Federal Court later this month. The Government argues that there’s no valid Cause of Action (Issue the Court can rule in their favour on) outside of their s.6 (Mobility Rights) possibly being violated.
And to be clear, this is a private lawsuit for damages. The Plaintiffs aren’t asking for any sort of remedy that would benefit the public. They just want money for themselves. They solicit donations under the guise of “travel mandates challenge”, but it’s very misleading.
Citing significant defects in both the original Statement of Claim and the amended version, the Government has brought a Motion to Strike.
The Notice of Motion brings up a very interesting point: Rickard and Harrison don’t actually plead that they are Canadian citizens. This matters as only citizens are able to invoke s.6(1) Charter Rights. It seemed like a very basic error to make.
The Government also argues that the other Causes of Action (s.7 and s.15) have no basis, but were willing to concede that s.6 might, if properly pleaded.
Rickard and Harrison have brought their own Motion to further amend their Claim, including another version, and it has opened up a can of worms.
The Defendants point out in their response (see page 4) that Plaintiffs aren’t able to amend their pleadings when there is a Motion to Strike pending. Procedurally, this is not allowed. It would result in overlapping Motions if some errors are fixed along the way, or new ones made.
And the other shoe drops.
Rickard wasn’t a Canadian citizen at the time that the “travel mandates” were in effect. He was only a permanent resident. As such, he had no s.6 Charter right to “enter, remain in and leave Canada”. He had been concealing it from the Court, and presumably, donors for the entire time.
Why does this matter? It’s because the Claim is based on violations of 3 sections of the Charter:
-Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility Rights)
-Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
-Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)
The Section 6 path was probably the only one that stood a chance. In theory, Rickard could have argued Section 6(2), which is Interprovincial travel, and permanent residents have those protections. But he didn’t. Only s.6(1) is referred to.
In their Motion to further amend the pleadings, Plaintiffs allege 3 additional violations:
-Section 12 of the Charter (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
-Section 19(2) of IRPA (Immigration & Refugee Protection Act)
-Violations of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
However, these cause new problems. None of these new Causes of Action are properly pleaded, and would probably be barred by the Statute of Limitations. It’s also worth asking whether the last 2 weren’t used previously to hide Rickard’s true immigration status.
Why Shaun Rickard Was Ineligible To Invoke S.6 (Mobility) Rights
In the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim, see page 12, Rickard finally reveals the truth: he was a permanent resident of Canada at the time. He only became a citizen later.
An no, this isn’t some immigration bashing post. There are genuine consequences here.
Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood
(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.
According to Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility Rights), every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Unlike most Charter issues, this one is specific to citizenship. Think about it. If anyone could enter, remain in and leave Canada, then there would be no borders at all.
Rickard should have been upfront about his status. But then, it would make it much harder to get anyone to donate. Even a quick glance at the Canadian Charter would have had people asking exactly these questions.
Why S.7 (Security) And S.15 (Equality) Claims Will Fail
This is unpopular to say, but neither Rickard nor Harrison was forced to take the injection. They chose not to, and the consequence was making their lives considerably more difficult. Does this amount to pressure and/or coercion? Yes it does, but various Courts have already refused this argument.
Equality Rights
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.
- Race
- National or ethnic origin
- Colour
- Religion
- Sex
- Age
- Mental or Physical Disability
So-called “enumerated grounds” are what’s listed in the Charter when it was originally framed. However, the Supreme Court has since recognized other protections, called “analogous grounds”.
Readers won’t want to hear it but “discrimination” based on vaccination status (and related arguments) have already been thrown out by the Courts. Rickard and Harrison offer nothing new.
- Sexual Orientation
- Marital Status
- Off-Reserve Aboriginal Status
- Citizenship
- Income
Infuriating as it may be, “equality” the way the Charter is written doesn’t extend to medical treatment. It’s already been argued in Courts across Canada.
In their response to the Motion to Strike, Rickard and Harrison tacitly admit that some of these issues (such as Section 15 and equality) have been directly addressed by other Courts. See page 22. But their view is that the Federal Court shouldn’t be bound by it.
Section 6 (Mobility Rights) is still somewhat of a new ground, but again, s.6(1) only applies to citizens. Rickard finally admits he wasn’t one in 2021/2022. As such, he can’t claim damages for that, although Harrison still could.
Understanding Different Types Of Proceedings
This Statement of Claim only came about after 4 related Applications for Judicial Review were struck in 2022 for “mootness”. However, the Judge did allow Actions (Statements of Claim) to be filed for damages. Instead of refiling — as permitted — everyone appealed, and lost. 3 of the 4 (not Rickard and Harrison) sought Leave to Appeal with the Supreme Court, and lost.
See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the backstory.
| TYPE | ACTION | JUDICIAL REVIEW |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Document | Statement of Claim | Application or Petition (BC) |
| Proceeding Type | Can Be Very Complex | Meant To Be Simplified |
| Purpose | Damages, Various Orders | Review Existing Order |
The original challenges were in the form of Applications for Judicial Reviews, which are meant to be streamlined challenges to orders from the Government. Actions, on the other hand, can take almost any form.
This Is A PRIVATE Suit For Damages, Not A Mandates Challenge
The first, second and proposed third version of the Statement of Claim only ask for monetary damages for Rickard and Harrison. The documents are filed and publicly available.
Despite their misrepresentations, there’s no Relief Sought whatsoever that would prevent future injection mandates from coming back. This is a private lawsuit.
That doesn’t stop Harrison from offering tax receipts through his corporation, actually a “charity” to partially reimburse donors. That could cause real issues with the Canada Revenue Agency
According to the Government lawyers, they are only now finding out that Rickard wasn’t a citizen at the time, and hence ineligible to claim s.6(1) damages. That was concealed from everyone.
Most likely, Rickard will be struck as a Plaintiff, but Harrison would still be able to proceed with s.6 damages. They’ll probably then ask for more money to appeal.
As an aside, Rickard has another grift going on in Pickering, Ontario. He’s set up another fundraiser to file a lawsuit to “fight wokeness”. However, there are several shortfalls:
- No content specified in potential suit
- No lawyer named to pursue the Claim
- No potential Plaintiff(s) named
- No mention of specifically which Defendants would be named
- No mention of obtaining public or private interest standing
- No guarantee case will actually take place
- No timeline or deadlines mentioned
- No mention of refunds if the case doesn’t proceed
It’s still amazing how shameless people can be doing things like this.
Deport them both.
Revoke their citizenship and send them back to the UK.
And while we’re at it, deport the lawyer too, if possible.
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) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(11) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(12) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(13) Corporations Canada Page
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)
What about if a corporate entity puts in a case against the mandates? It too would have private interest standing but it’s arguments benefit the public primarily because a corporation cannot take a vaccine….
Also if the corporation was not looking for costs just a ruling that sets a precedent for any individual to use, then having the case be private makes no difference 🤔🤔
So much ado about nothing:
(a) the Charter was NEVER assented to and never in force for several reasons, but even if it had been assented to, a Charter is an understanding between corporations, not between corporations and humans;
(b) all federal-level courts, agencies, etc are imposters, as the 1931 Statute of Westminster made it clear that provinces were sovereign and could not be ‘colonized’;
and
(c) in 2014, a team of globalists headed by the L-G of Ontario at the time, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, transferred (trafficked) all Canadian Citizens to the World Government and they then were in law recognized as Global Citizens. Even Trudeau has his T-shirt to prove it and further, the team won a UN award for accomplishing this action that few know about.
I do wish people would access the facts and truth about our situation from People-United before they spend any time on these courtroom dramas. FROM a protonmail account, email p-united@proton.me and request the People-United research content. Provide your first name and postal code so they can be sure you are not a robot. You will get the content FREE.
There is no longer any reason to not know the truth about our situation. We may never recover because Canadians, handed the correct information, keeps believing in courts that do not exist except in their minds.
Yes that is really interesting. a constitution outranks the charter, and yes, according the the myth called canada, problematic issues. It would have been more appropriate to have a multiple class action lawsuit. of course General ZOG and Rothschild legal Bar society of London is evidently in everything for the most part…there are endless excuses to enforce injustice, and be exempted from the law, with unlimited arbitrary rulings, that are in fact unconstitutional, and contrary to peace, order and good government. the fact remains, treason, high treason, genocide, bio-weapons deployment, bio-terrorism, acts of aggression by enemies foreign and domestic, and guess who the CEO’s are of the 5 major pharma bio-weapons companies are? Obviously, infringement on mobility rights, religious freedom and conscience, and health sovereignty are big problems. Weird how abortion is elevated as the gold standard, which is not a true value, family value or a real Canadian value, and actually represents a declining immoral genocide and infanticide of women’s rights, however, they did not fight for that the same way as against forced vaccination…my body my choice? the idea of individual sovereignty, health sovereignty would be essential as a foundation of nation state sovereignty and a sovereign currency, that is debt free, and not having a central bank indebted to or operated or controlled or influenced or voted by enemies foreign and domestic, a real national security threat….even if an individual, the charter and constitution was ignored, we have Dominion Voting Machines to thank for all the things we did not vote for…