Many had been wondering what had happened to that high profile case with Vaccine Choice Canada. After a highly publicized launch in 2020, and a fundraising blitz, details were scant. There was no progress shared with people because there was nothing to report.
Above is what shows now. Below is what it showed until recently.
Vaccine Choice Canada is finally in Court for its July 6, 2020 lawsuit. This is the case that generated nationwide attention across the alternative media. 2 1/2 years after it was filed, they were finally before a Judge. This was January 17, 2023. Many had been asking what the delay was about.
That’s right: 2 1/2 years to make a first appearance.
Of course, there’s Vaccine Choice’s other lawsuit that was filed in October of 2019. That’s been dormant for about 3 years, and hasn’t gone past the pleadings stage.
It wasn’t difficult to look for this. Anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE, by clicking the link to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.
Now for the bad news. This isn’t a Trial or anything. This wasn’t some major appearance, or famous international expert about to testify. It was an appearance to initiate a Motion to Strike (throw out) the pleadings as frivolous and vexatious.
For a more in-depth explanation of the pleading defects:
(a) Pleading Are Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial
(b) Was This Case Brought For Improper Purposes?
(c) Even More Errors In Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit
Why has this case sat dormant for years? That’s a great question, and something that the Plaintiffs have never given a meaningful answer to. They’ve never been able to explain any of the serious issues that are outlined above.
To be clear, this wasn’t the hearing that people might be expecting. Instead, this was a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session to set down dates. It took approximately 10 minutes. The real fun won’t happen for another year. There were 2 full days set aside: January 30 and February 1, 2024.
- June 30, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
- July 28, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
- October 31, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
- November 17, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
- December 8, 2023 – Responding Factum
- December 22, 2023 – Reply Factum
- January 30, February 1, 2024 – Hearing
In fairness, there may not be any cross examinations, since this Motion is supposed to just be questions of law. For these purposes, the allegations themselves may be largely irrelevant.
However, the sweeping accusations that fill the 191 page Claim may be a problem. Making such assertions without pleading a factual basis does tend to get cases struck. It was a major problem with Action4Canada.
On the topic of costs: when somebody sues a lot of people, often, a lot of lawyers will get involved. On January 17th, there were 5 of them representing various clients:
- Wajid Ahmed, Windsor-Essex County
- Nicola Mercer, County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph
- City of Toronto, John Tory, Eileen De Villa
- Ontario Defendants
- Federal Defendants
For clarity, there were 5 lawyers at this appearance. There are many, MANY more names of the other paperwork. When this Claim is eventually struck, expect a stiff costs award.
The Motion is based on Rules 21.01 and 25 of Civil Procedure for Ontario. Quite simply, the Defendants want to throw the case out on a preemptive challenge.
Where Available
.
To Any Party on a Question of Law
.
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
Action Frivolous, Vexatious or Abuse of Process
.
21.01 (1)(d) the action is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
Striking out a Pleading or Other Document
.
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
.
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.
That’s what this Motion is about: to throw the case out so that it never reaches Trial. And again, why has it taken 2 1/2 years to get to this point?
One possible explanation for this absurd delay is that many Parties may not have been served at the time, if they ever were at all. Looking at the Statement of Claim:
Those are all the service addresses listed. However, that’s not nearly all the people who were listed as Defendants. In fact, CBC claims that it wasn’t served, but only that they “obtained an unredacted copy” of the Statement of Claim. Now, CBC could be lying about that, but who knows?
Another question that frequently came up was why no effort to force Default Judgement ever took place. If the Defendants don’t respond, the Court can issue a ruling against them. At a minimum, it would force them to file replies in order to avoid such a decision.
Vaccine Choice Canada answers this (sort of) by claiming that they have an “undisclosed litigation strategy”, and that it’s not in their interest to release it. That comes across as extremely suspicious, to say the least.
Since July 6, 2020, all that’s happened is that Nicola Mercer filed a Statement of Defense, and that CBC was dropped as a Defendant when they threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion.
What’s the point of this anymore? Considering the overwhelming majority of the population has had the shots, and the damage of lockdowns is done, what’s to be accomplished?
Also, consider the ONTARIO LIMITATIONS ACT. Section 4 is the Basic Limitation Period. In short, people have 2 years to commence an Action, with some limited exceptions. Even if the Plaintiffs were to discontinue here, and file a new Claim — one that’s properly written — they may be barred by Statute. In short, they’ve run out the clock on themselves.
Let’s be blunt. The Vaccine Choice suits (actually, both of them) are so poorly drafted neither will ever get to Trial.
Remember Action4Canada, and their 391 page Notice of Civil Claim? It was struck in its entirety for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia. The same thing will happen here.
2 1/2 years, just to make a first appearance. Absurd.
Isn’t an explanation owed to members of the organization? What about to the various Plaintiffs? How about the donors who contributed in good faith?
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(2) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-24-sch-b/latest/so-2002-c-24-sch-b.html
VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit