When people are being asked to donate to public cases, a.k.a. public interest litigation, they are entitled to be fully informed about the nature of the suit. As a consumer, honesty and transparency in advertising are obviously important. This applies regardless of industry.
Plaintiffs in a high profile lawsuit filed last year are asking for money. However, it appears they are not being forthcoming about what is really going on. This is, of course, the latest “travel mandates challenge” filed in Federal Court.
Upon reading the Statement of Claim, and the Amended Claim, it appears simply to be a suit requesting damages. There’s no relief sought that would benefit Canadians as a whole. Even if the lawsuit were successful, there’s nothing for the public listed.
It doesn’t look like there’s much of an ideological issue with the injection pass anyway. Starting on paragraph 32, they argue that the Feds were neglient and incompetent in how it was set up. They also try to argue “negligence” and “bad faith” at the same time, despite them being contradictory.
There’s no order being challenged, nor any request that would prevent injection mandates from returning in the future. There’s no money or justice being sought for the “unvaccinated” as a group.
Rickard and Harrison were asked about this, but have refused to provide any answer, other than some insults. It will be interesting to see what happens now.
Brief History On The Proceedings In Federal Courts
The story actually has quite the convoluted history. There were originally 4 Applications filed in Federal Court and heard together. See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The Statement of Claim is the more well known way to start litigation. It typically involves requests for financial compensation, but other orders can be sought as well. By contrast, an Application for Judicial Review has to do with reviewing an existing order, and is meant to be streamlined.
| JURISDICTION | ACTION | JUDICIAL REVIEW | STEPS TAKEN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal | Statement Of Claim | Application | Motion |
| Ontario | Statement Of Claim | Application | Motion |
| British Columbia | Notice Of Civil Claim | Petition | Application |
- December 2021: Rickard/Harrison (T-1991-21)
- January 2022: Naoum (T-145-22)
- January 2022: Peckford (T-168-22)
- February 2022: Bernier (T-247-22)
The Applications were declared “moot” in 2022 by Justice Jocelyne Gagné, but with the caveat that remedies could still be pursued by way of an Action, with a Statement of Claim.
It turned out that none of the Applicants were actually asking for any sort of damages. They were just asking that the injection pass requirement disappear permanently.
[27] Of note, after the IOs/MO were repealed and the Respondent had given notice of its motion for mootness, the Applicants in file T-1991-21 filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to amend their Notice of Application to assert damages and indicating that their Application would proceed as an Action. On August 3, 2022, Associate Judge Tabib denied the motion, noting “it appears that one of the goals of the proposed amendments is to attempt to insulate the Applicants from the potential consequences of the Respondent’s motion to declare this application moot.” She considered the implications of a dismissal of the motion for mootness and concluded that “I am, accordingly, not satisfied that the dismissal of this application for mootness, if it is ordered, would substantially prejudice the Applicant’s ability to pursue a claim for damages by way of action. More importantly, I am not satisfied that the possibility of a future dismissal, with the resulting costs and inefficiency, justifies, at this time, the extraordinary remedy sought by the Applicants.”
[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.
[46] Additionally, the rail passenger vaccine mandate is also challenged for breaching sections 2(a), 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter in several actions in damages before this Court (files no. T-554-22 and T-533-22), and the air passenger vaccine mandate in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (file no. 2203 09246). It is true that none of these proceedings will test the IOs/MO against section 6 of the Charter but, as indicated above, considering that they are no longer in force, the proper vehicle would be an action in damages if the Applicants suffered any damages as a result of these temporary measures. The Court would then have the proper factual background to assess the Applicants’ Charter rights.
The Government lifted the mandates shortly before filing a Motion to declare the cases moot. Yes, this was a cynical ploy, but it was success in obtaining dismissals. The Judge declined to hear the challenges anyway, but gave an alternative path forward.
For reasons that were never made clear, at least not publicly, the Applicants all appealed. They APPEALED a ruling when they could have simply REFILED as an Action. The Federal Court of Appeal threw it out, noting the lawyers didn’t even understand the Standard For Review. (See here)
| TYPE OF ERROR | STANDARD FOR REVIEW |
|---|---|
| Error of Fact | Overriding, Palpable Error |
| Error of Pure Law | Correctness |
| Mixed Fact & Law | Spectrum, Leaning To Overriding, Palpable Error |
| Discretionary Orders | Overriding, Palpable Error |
Justice Gagné’s decision of “mootness” could be challenged by arguing “overriding palpable error”. Granted, this is often harder than “correctness”. But this is very basic, and it’s baffling that senior, experienced lawyers don’t know this.
Then again, why are they appealing at all? Justice Gagné ruled that they could refile as an Action (with a Statement of Claim) if anyone had suffered any damages.
This is “bad beyond argument” level stupid.
[8] Two of the four groups of appellants do not address the standard of review at all in their memoranda of fact and law. The other two argue that the standard of review in these appeals is correctness. However, in oral submissions, the appellants now acknowledge that this Court must follow the appellate standards of review described in the previous paragraph.
Bernier, Peckford and Naoum decided to APPEAL AGAIN, seeking Leave to file with the Supreme Court of Canada. Keep in mind, they still could have refiled their pleadings (as an Action) with the Federal Court. Quite predictably, all Leave Applications were denied.
To their credit, this time, Rickard and Harrison decided to file a Statement of Claim, as had been recommended earlier. However, their suit is so poorly drafted that it’s unlikely to ever go anywhere.
Now we get to the main point of this article.
Rickard/Harrison Claim Is A PRIVATE Lawsuit
1. The Plaintiffs claim the following:
a. Constitutional damages pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), in the amount of $1,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for breach of the Plaintiffs’ Section 6, 7 and 15 rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Charter as a result of government decision-making and action conduct that was rooted in negligence, bad faith and willfully blind to the lack absence of scientific evidence or disconfirming scientific evidence regarding the role, and, in particular, the unknown efficacy, of Covid-19 vaccination in reducing the risk of Covid-19 transmission and infection within the transportation sector;
b. Costs of this action in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106; and,
c. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honorable Court deem just.
Both the Statement of Claim and the Amended Claim are available. This is important because it doesn’t match with what’s being claimed. The content of this is quite clearly a private lawsuit for damages. It seeks monetary awards for themselves.
(a) Damages, interest, costs recovered
(b) Costs of the proceeding
While the original Applications were a direct challenge to injectin travel mandates, this case does no such thing. It’s a private lawsuit for money. Even if they were successful, there would be no impact on society at large, as none is being sought.
And by arguing “negligence”, Rickard and Harrison are opening the door for the Government to propose so-called better safeguards.
If Rickard and Harrison wanted donations to finance a lawsuit for their retirements, they can ask. However, they need to be transparent about the nature of the case.
Requests For Donations For “Travel Mandates Challenge”
In his pinned tweet, Rickard promotes this case as “seeking justice for 6-7 million ‘unvaccinated’ Canadians”. However, this is not the case.
The Claim (both original and amended versions) do not ask for any kind of remedy that would aid the public as a whole. There’s no remedy being sought that would benefit 6 or 7 million people. Rickard and Harrison are asking for money for themselves.
True, the original Applications challenged mandates, but this case doesn’t.
Reading the case as a whole, Rickard and Harrison aren’t really even challenging the idea of a “vaccine passport”. Instead, they go on and on about how the Trudeau Government was “negligent” and “reckless” in how it was implemented.
Potentially, a Judge could issue guidance on how to better administer such a system.
Interestingly, Rickard often provides screenshots of the front page of his suit. However, a link to the full document is rarely (if ever) included. A possible reason is that reading the Claim reveals instantly that the “challenge” being described doesn’t exist.
Donations To Be Funneled Through A “Charity”
Also in the pinned tweet, Rickard asks for money for this “historic and incredibly import lawsuit”, offering “charity receipts” to people donating. Now, this charity does exist, and can be found on the C.R.A. site.
Registration can also be found with Corporations Canada. Karl Harrison is listed as a director of the organization.
However, the concern comes in about what is being fundraised. Rickard and Harrison are pitching this lawsuit as public interest litigation, a challenge to the travel mandates.
In reality, it’s a private suit for money — for themselves.
Rickard whines (again, pinned tweet) that the mainstream press in Canada has effectively buried the story. Presumably, he’s not getting the money or attention because everyone’s in bed with Trudeau. It’s quite amusing to see.
Incidently, Rickard and Harrison were contacted about this. They were asked why they were only seeking money for themselves, if they were fundraising for a “travel mandates challenge”. Both have refused to answer.
If there is a legitimate explanation, it would be nice to know. However, it comes across as soliciting funds for a private case, disguised as public interest litigation.
They’re handing out tax receipts to cover donations to their private case, while telling prospective donors that it’s a challenge to injection travel mandates. Not a good look.
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
(5) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(6) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(7) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(8) Corporations Canada Page
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)