In a bit of a twist, the Judge didn’t completely throw the case out. He said that there were potentially valid issues. Instead, the pleadings were so shoddy that they had to be redone throughout.
Now, there’s another question to ask: will the July 6, 2020 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada be attacked next? It contains essentially the same serious defects as its counterpart. The Ontario Attorney General could make use of the A4C ruling to bolster a coming Motion to Strike.
Even back in November 2020, it was obvious that nothing was going to happen.
In addition to the above concerns, there are some others to look at:
1. Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute
In this context “failure to prosecute” means a failure to advance the case. The person(s) or group that initiates proceedings (Plaintiff, Applicant, Moving Party, Appellant, etc…) have an obligation to keep the case moving and active. With Vaccine Choice specifically, the suit was filed on July 6, 2020, and sat inactive for more than 2 years. True, CBC has been released as a Defendant, and Nicola Mercer has filed a Statement of Defense. However, others could try to get a dismissal for inactivity.
Rule 24 of Civil Procedure outlines a number of reasons to dismiss for delay, and gives a guideline of 6 months. It’s unclear though how strongly this is enforced.
It has to be asked why there was no attempt to secure a Default Judgement if other other side wasn’t responding. Had they not all been served? CBC claims — or at least implies — they weren’t.
2. Motion To Dismiss For “Mootness” Of Issues
According to Nicola Mercer’s SoD, paragraphs 25 and 26, the issue of various Orders is “moot” because they have long since expired. In the legal world, mootness means irrelevance, as these are issues that the Court can no longer try.
Think of it this way: would it make sense to go to Family Court for child custody once they are adults? Probably not.
Granted, the Plaintiffs can always ask for an injunction to prevent similar Orders in the future. However, it speaks volumes that the case was allowed to sit for years. Obviously, there was no real effort or urgency in getting them thrown out. The suit may well get tossed (at least in part) for this.
3. Dismissal Under Statute Of Limitations
Typically, there are time limits regarding how long a person can go to Court to seek a remedy. The reasoning goes that it isn’t beneficial to litigate ancient wrongs after a certain point. While there are exceptions, the Ontario Limitations Act, Section 4, specifies 2 years for most things. This is referred to as the “Basic Limitation Period“.
Why does this matter? Because the Statute of Limitations is typically an absolute bar to proceedings. The Vaccine Choice Canada case clearly isn’t going anywhere. If any of the Plaintiffs were to discontinue, and then refile elsewhere, they would be prevented from bringing issues over 2 years old.
In essence, this has been a great way to run out the clock.
4. Dismissal As Suit Brought For Improper Purposes
This should be obvious, but the only reason someone is allowed to file a lawsuit is to take it to Trial. The person(s) has to believe that there is a strong case, and that it can be won on the merits.
By contrast, the July 13, 2022 livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada suggests other motivations at play. Justifications such as “taking a shot across the bow” or of “educating the public”, or of “getting a response” are offered up. Problem is: all of this is illegal. None of these are valid reasons to sue. It’s entirely possible the lawsuit could be thrown out just based on these statements.
In that livestream, it’s asserted that Summary Judgement will be sought against the Defendants. That’s funny. This is when a Judge determines that either there’s not valid defense, or a valid case. If anything, this would be used in favour of throwing out the suit.
There has been boasting that this suit was “leverage” to implement mask exemptions. Action4Canada makes similar statements with respect to their suit. It’s hard to see how, given how poorly the Claims were written. Even if true, it’s not a valid reason to file.
5. Dismissal Over Potential Conflict Of Interest
An observant person might notice a few other things.
This is potentially a serious problem. Denis Rancourt is listed as an expert witness in 2 Applications filed in 2021. He’s also a Plaintiff in the above Vaccine Choice suit. A Judge likely wouldn’t view him as an impartial expert witness if he has an interest in a related matter. Yes, his background is impressive, but this still wouldn’t sit well.
Worth noting, both Applications above could probably be dismissed as well for delay, mootness, and failure to prosecute. They’ve been inactive since April 2021.
Would it be nice to see the Courts completely and permanently block these medical martial law measures? Absolutely it would. However, these are clearly not the cases that will do that. These are nothing more than money pits.
People really need to ask the hard questions, such as: (a) how much money has been raised; and (b) where has it gone?
Will the Ontario Attorney General go after the July 6, 2020 VCC case?
ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19