This is the 3rd affidavit

of Kipling Conrad Singh Warner in this case

made or October 2022

No. S-210831
Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY

Plaintiff

AND:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AND DR. BONNIE HENRY IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL
HEALTH OFFICER FOR THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Defendants

Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kipling Conrad Singh Warner, entrepreneur, care of 1400 1125 Howe Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:

1. I am the Executive Director of the plaintiff, the Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Science in Public Policy (the "Society") and as such have
personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafier deposed to, save and
except where stated to be made upon information and belief, and as to such
latter-mentioned facts, I believe them to be true.

2. I swear this affidavit in support of the Society's application to webcast certain

proceedings.

Background

3. The Society is a non-profit society provincially incorporated on or about January

14, 2021. Now shown to me and attached as Exhibit "A" to this affidavit is a
true copy of the Society's Incorporation Certificate.
 -2

The Society is run by volunteers. Neither I nor any other staff members of the
Society take a salary from the Society.

Public Interest Generally

The proceedings have generated very significant public interest. The Society's
ability to advance the proceedings is made possible by grass-roots
contributions from members of the public. As of the date of this affidavit,
approximately 1,800 people have donated over $330,000 to the Society for the
purpose of advancing the proceedings. Most of the donations are small. New
donations are made on an almost daily basis.

Now shown to me and attached as Exhibit "B" to this affidavit is a true copy
of an screenshot of the Society's 'GoFundMe' page as of today's date. The
page may be accessed at the following URL: https://www.qofundme.com/f/bc-
supreme-court-covid19-constitutional-challenge. As of today's date, the page
contains more than a hundred comments of support from members of the public
which have donated to the Society.

The Society also operates a website with which it communicates to the public
regarding the status of the proceedings. The Society tracks various
anonymized data related to the website, including the number of visitors to the
website and their geographical origin. Since the website's inception in January
2021, the website has received approximately 147,000 visits, approximately
101,000 of which were unique visitors (as opposed to repeat visitors). Since
inception, there have been 233,000 webpage views in total. During the month
of July 2022, the webpage received in or around 10,000 webpage views. In
May 2022, the website received nearly 23,500 views. The majority of the
visitors appear to come directly to the website's URL, as opposed to indirectly
through social media links, search engines, or embedded links in news articles.

The statistics that we track are an under estimate of the true number of online
followers. This is because visitors frequently republish our materials on social
media, blogs, or other third party platforms we are not in control of. When this
happens our materials are frequently shared with tens or even hundreds of
thousands of people.

We have received inquiries from many interested persons, including media

requests, across widely geographically distributed regions. These have
including Canada, the United States, Latin America, and Europe.

10. The Society does not have use any form of paid radio, TV, or online advertising.
Our followers find out about our work mostly through word of mouth from other
followers, our free flyers, materials shared online, or directly from our website.

11. We have shipped approximately 52,500 flyers to various communities across

mostly British Columbia at our followers' requests For public redistribution.
Attached as Exhibit "C" to this affidavit is a true copy of our most popularflyer.
 -3

12. The Society has also received many communications from media outlets from
time-to-time which express interest in the proceedings. The proceedings have
also received various media coverage. Attached as Exhibit "D" to this affidavit
is a true copy of an excerpt from the 'news coverage' page of the Society's
website which chronicles a subset of the domestic and international coverage.

Public Interest In Attending Hearings

13. I have witnessed significant interest on the part of members of the public in
attending the court hearings in the proceedings. Unfortunately, due to various
logistical hurdles and technological limitations, it has been very difficult for the
law courts to accommodate all members of public who wish to attend.

14. For example, on October 4, 2021 the Court held a judicial management
conference in this proceeding, which was made available to the public via
teleconference. Unfortunately, the Court's teleconference plafform was only
able to accommodate a maximum of 100 listeners at a time.

15. To mitigate that limitation, we attempted to bridge our own teleconference line
we published online with the Court's. This is very costly for us. Our own line
could support a maximum of a 1,000 callers, automatically mute callers, and
would only consume a single connection to the Court's dial-in. Despite this, as
it happened, the capacity of 1,000 listeners was reached within a few minutes
of the hearing beginning. Although I do not know how many other members of
the public wished to attend via teleconference, the fact that the capacity limit
was quickly reached leads me to believe that many members of the public
wished to attend by telephone but could not do so. I know this for a fact because
I received a multitude of reports in person, over the telephone, by email, and
from my staff that originated from the general public that they were unable to
dial-in due to the line having already reached capacity.

16. I wrote and posted a status update concerning this issue on the Society's
website on October 4, 2021. Now shown to me and attached as Exhibit "E" to
this affidavit is a true copy of that status update.

17. Unfortunately, the notes I publish on the Society's website concerning the
status of the proceedings are imperfect because the hearings are complicated,
and there is only so much detail I can convey in writing without making the
status update overly long and complex. To give our followers who were unable
to attend greater certainty about what transpired, sometimes the Society orders
transcripts. However, these are costly and the Society cannot afford to do this
for every hearing.

18. Unfortunately, the capacity iSSueS with respect to teleconference attendance

has continued. On October 28, 2021, the Court heard the defendants'
application for particulars. Although members of the public were again
permitted to attend the hearing via telephone, the Court's dial-in number was
 -4-

changed only a few minutes prior to the hearing. This made it impossible to
provide proper notice to all interested members of the public via the Society's
website or to bridge it with our larger I,000 caller capacity dial-in. Moreover,
the Court's new dial-in number had a capacity of only 100 listeners. At one
point, it appeared that even the defendants' counsel were unable to attend the
hearing of the application because the Court's system was at capacity. The
Society's own counsel had the same problem.

19. I wrote and posted a status update concerning this issue on the Society's
website on October 28, 2021. Now shown to me and attached as Exhibit "F"
to this affidavit is a true copy of that status update.

20. In order to work around the capacity issue, the Society began encouraging
members of the public to share a single telephone line and listen together to
ensure that as many people as possible would have access to the proceedings.
This approach is reflected in a status update which I wrote and posted on the
Society's website on April 4, 2022. Now shown to me and attached as Exhibit
"G" to this affidavit is a true copy of that status update.

21. am also aware of various issues that have prevented the ability of members
of the public to physically attend hearings in the proceedings brought by the
Society. In particular, I have heard from people who, having made a trip to the
courthouse, have been turned away because there is inadequate seating in the
gallery. I believe that some of these people who had been waiting outside the
courtroom approached me directly after the hearings ended where they shared
this concern. I have also heard From people who do not live in Vancouver and
cannot travel to the courthouse due to family and work obligations, the rising
cost of fuel and other impediments.

22. Unless something is done, I believe that many members of the public are
interested in attending the hearing of the certification application will be unable
to do so due to the capacity issues alone.

Webcasting Proceedings

23. I have made preliminary inquiries with Court Services Branch, In-Court
Technology Department, by telephone at 604.660.3500. I asked them about
the logistics of webcasting proceedings should the Court grant the application
to webcast the certification hearing in this case, which I am informed is
scheduled to begin on 12 December 2022 (the "Certification Proceedings").

24. Based on these inquiries, I understand that in order to webcast a proceeding

at the Vancouver Law Courts, a third-party service provider would need to be
retained. One potential third-party service provider is Webcast Canada, which
I understand this was the service provider used following the application in
West Moberly First Nations v. Attorney General of Canada, 2018 BCSC 1282,
and used from time to time in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.
 5

25. Furthermore, I understand that Court Services Branch would work with the
third-party service providerin order to implement streaming from the courtroom.

26. I have also corresponded with Mark Van Driel, the proprietor of Nexus
Webcast, who confirmed that it would be possible to record the Certification
Proceedings without internet, which will save the public resources of the Law
Courts. Attached hereto as Exhibit "H" is a true copy of the email
correspondence from Mr. Van Driel to me dated 11 0ctober 2022.

27. To address concerns about confidentiality, the proceedings at the hearing may
be recorded but not webcast until 5:00 pm one day after the conclusion of a
day's proceedings pursuant to the terms of the order sought.

28. This would allow for the confidentiality of information to be protected in two
ways.

29. First, where a party is making submissions that it believes to be confidential,

the order sought provides that the Court may direct that the cameras be shut
off and only turned on when directed by the Court.

30. Second, under the terms of the order sought, the parties will receive access to
the recording for their review, and to request specific confidential information
be redacted. If a redaction request is made, then webcasting of the proceedings
would be suspended.

31. The parties would be required to act reasonably and in good faith in making
and responding to these requests, but in the event that no agreement is
reached, affer hearing the parties' submissions, the Court may order any
confidential information to be redacted.

Related Exhibits

32. Attached hereto as Exhibit 'T' is a copy of a PDF print out of the website of the
Supreme Court of Canada, entitled Archived Webcasts.

33. Attached hereto as Exhibit 'U" is a copy of the report published by the Court of
Appeal for British Columbia entitled Webcasting Pilot Project October 2049.

34. Attached hereto as Exhibit "K" is a copy of a PDF print out of the website of the
Federal Court of Canada, entitled Webcast.

35. Attached hereto as Exhibit "L" is a copy of a PDF print out of the website of the
Courts of Nova Scotia, entitled Live Webcasts From the Nova Scotia Courts.

36. Attached hereto as Exhibit "M" is a copy of a PDF print out of the website of the
Manitoba Courts, entitled Broadcast of Court Proceedings.
 -6-

37. Attached hereto as Exhibit "N" is a copy of the Order Made After Application of
the Honourable Mr. Justice Milman dated 4 July 2018.

38. Attached hereto as Exhibit "O" is a copy of the news story entitled "Canada's
chief justice says system must continue modernizing beyond COVID-19
pandemic", dated 7 February 2022.

SWORN BEFORE ME at Vancouver,

British Columbia on;Q October 2022:

A CommissioneF For/[aking Affidavits for SINGH WARNER

British Columbia

,,,,,kMsD gq,

2?a
OanadaVaA2R6
This is Exhibit 'L" referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed') before me at
Vancouver. British Columbia
on this 20'h day of October 2022

A Comm- issioner For Ta Ffidavits for Briti!;h Columbia

 2
z
%-;i%'--,,_%-;%_-:9/_;;9-:9_, --3- :-_ I
4Ill&llty jlll&ll - "" //14411(%_%_-l'-:_//jl&l'kl%- laLky/AaA(k% -_4
J l!I! jl k'_ff-W//j!l;jll%'Q7 -"- U//fL7.jl(k'_ #-%!lj.]j/ll.jll%%a l /jak:Kjll -'_
I k '1- ' ffl i IT ' N ' @ %- - # "lfa ffl % '' f a a ffi a % ' k-/ /&a'ffl'a iTh )l%# i;/ aVl % / i I 41
ji - - - - - - - -- - - - - ' Ir
f I
I

t 4

f I
I

BRITISH
t COLUMBIA J

Num6er: Soo743o3
f s

t J
Societies Act

f CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION I

t CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN J

PUBLIC POLICY
f I

I :Hered3yCertify that - '

k J
CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY was
incorporated under the Societies Act on January 14, 202'l at 09:27 AM Pacific Time.
f I
I

k J
I

I
f !
I

i J
Issuedu'nder my handat
'Victoria, British Co(:ttm6ia
f !
I

i
/ I

CAROLPREST '
I
f REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ', !
PROVINCE OF BRInSH COLLJMBIA
CANADA

i J
.-J. . - - - - - __ . -. - - - _ - - - - __ _. - - - - __ - - - - _ - - - - __ _. _- _ _ - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ILy .
) .V.: r -_'i%VJLlfll'__'v- 1!!-X'%'%WAX"Z":f-uJ&Vh'j"%-'%)'u - 'A%LVJ!fig<J ( VJ al c
i m'a; 9, ;"-'-'a.'_'-aa _ _ _ _o-%' _ _, W' i

ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE
This is Exhibit 'fl" referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on tt)is 20'h day of October 2022

A Commissioner
for lJfng Affldavits€or BritishColumbia
Q Seanch Howitwoiks y StartaGoFundMe
'k
gohimlmsi [EEE] 8
Signin 4

BC Supreme Court COVID-19 Constitutional Challenge

$332,478 raisedof$350,000goal

t8K donations

@ Elaine Smith
co %O (Offline) ' 5 hours ago

0 Cody Jackson
" 650 (Offline) a 4 days ago

@ Vera Meuleman
8 Team fundraiaer co el00 (Offline) a 6 days ago
Kip Warner and 3 others are organisin0 this fundraiser.
g See top donations

(!Covid-19 Resources

For up to date and accurate information about COVID safety, visit the
 s

This is Exhibit "C,:' referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmedl before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on this 20'h day of October 2022
 6

iaai II

'K ,";'!i';'

rthe
e in

'kV'-.:)"y'i'i
 , J'd,+.&a*,
7
r ;"
Wa 'Q
r- 9
'!7b#"" JJP
'%@;d/

CSASPP is a non-profit, non-partisan, secular, crowd funded, and

volunteer driven organization that was created in response to
popular community demand for a direct action initiative to counter
BC's COVID-19 related measures.

CSASPP's approach engages the very premise of an alleged

emergency. Without an emergency, there can be no basis for
extraordinary executive powers, including everything that required
or benefited from one.

We filed our class action on your behalf on January 26, 2021 and
intend to continue aggressively prosecuting it. Under the civil rules,
Dr. Bonnie Henry must personally submit to answering our
questions while under oath.

Our civil proceeding's objectives are to obtain any available civil

remedy for the maximum number of British Columbians that revert
in whole or in part any COVID-19 related statute, ministerial order,
regulation, or other executive, regulatory, or legislative measure;
past, extant, or proposed; that constrain any activity of any person
inadequately supported by either science or law; and that may
facilitate that person's subsequent pursuit of a civil remedy brought
against, with preference towards the natural over the legal, any
other person complicit in the consultation, enactment, or
enforcement of said.

If you are a business owner or individual in British Columbia, we are

already advocating for you. Learn more about our progress, tools to
help businesses obtain relief from their insurers, and how to deal
with regulators and by-law enforcement at

www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca
(604) 256-3060

This publication is not intended to be used as legal advice. Readers

are encouraged to obtain their own.
This is Exhibit 'D " referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on tt,is 201hday of 9ctober 2022

A Commissionlor Tak)fg Affidavits for British Columbia

10/20/22, 12:22 PM News Coverage - CSASPP
9
Western Standard

74 September, 2022 - BC
Supreme Court Judge Rejects 4
Challenges to Former
Vaccination Policies

by Peter Wilson

The Epoch Times

73 September, 2022 - s.c.

Supreme Court chief judge
dismisses four challenges to
COVID-19 health orders

by Keith Fraser

Vancouver Sun

5 August, 2022 - Henry's counsel

abandons appeal of CSASPP's
public interest standing

bv Reid Small
htips://www 2/10
 lo

This is Exhibit "EI' referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on tl)is 20'h day of October 2022
7' / i 5?i
/Ah! C )T;' British Columbia
10/20/22, 12:24 PM Status Updates - CSASPP

- Kip

18 0ctober, 202r. Orders of 10 August, 2027, Judicia/

Management Conference

Friends,

We have finally received lxtck the entered orders from our 10 August, 2021 Judicial Management Conference before Justice
Crerar. The orders were entered by the registry on 15 0ctober, 2021. You can download Cl copy from our Court Documents page.
This document contains the expected timelines the parties must submit to for various hearings, document exchange, and so
forth.

- Kip

4 0ctober, 2027: Summary oflOctober, 2027, Judicial

Management Conference

Friends,

Thank you for attending last Friday's Judicial Management Conference. We had over a thousand people ottempt to attend by
teleconference, in addition to those who were at the courthouse. The ogenda canvassed can be downloaded .

Unfortunately our plotform was only able to accommodate o maximum of 1,000 listeners at a time. We were expecting several
hundred, but not over a thousand. The call limit WOS reached in very short order, so we estimate there was a much greater
public interest than the aforementioned maximum copocity. Accordingly we will take steps to substantially increase this limit
for our next hearing.

We had o productive morning. Justice Creror made the following four orders:

l. Our response to the defendants' request for additional particulars (details) is due from us 12 0ctober, 2021

2. If the defendants ore still not satisfied with the additional particulars provided by us, they must bring an application no
later than 28 0ctober, 2021 for appropriate relief;

3. The defendants have a deadline of 25 November, 2021 to file their Amended Response to Civil Claim;

4. Our next Judicial Management Conference is scheduled for 21 January, 2022, at 0900.

Regarding (1), we have already provided the requested details on 30 August, 2021. These can be located here. The defendants
claim deficiencies in our particulars, but ultimately only the court can determine that.

if the defendants believe we have not complied with order (1), Justice Crerar's order (2) allows the defendants to bring an
application for additional relief. However, he cautioned the defendants hom acting in on excessively high handed manner,
given the grey areas of the relevant 10W and the complexities of closs proceedings.

Regarding order (4), we will provide dial-in details CIS usual as the date approaches.

- Kip

29 September, 2027. Agenda forlOctober, 2027, Judicial

Management Conference

Friends,

For those interested, you can obtain o copy of the parties' mutually agreed upon agendo to be convassed during this Friday's
Judicial Management Conference here.

https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates 36/51
 J2

This is Exhibit "E" referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on t5is 20'h day of October 2022

ACommissione orTakiy/AffidavitsforBashColumbia
10/20/22, 12:24 PM Status Updates - CSASPP
f3
If the document disappears, try again later. Scribd's spam filter is very poorly written and raises many false positives. Each time
this happens we get in touch with them to conect it which sometimes tokes Cl few days.

- Kip

28 0ctober, 2027: Summary of Dr. Henry's application hearing

Friends,

An interesting hearing today.

Dr. Henry's application initially demanded fifteen particulars (details) from CSASPP clarifying what she wCls being sued for. This
included where she allegedly wos in breach of her Hippocrotic Oath.

Dr. Henry abandoned C)11but two of the fifteen demands. Of the two that remoined, Justice Crerar WOS prepared to issue an

order to compel CSASPP to clarify only one of them. This was due to Cl mixture or our having already provided most of the

requested information to her well in advance of today's hearing, but also because Dr. Henry did not have an adequate legal
basis to obtoin what she was seeking prior to discovery

Justice Crerar's order requires CSASPP to identify the government's agents or employees, if known to us, who were responsible
for the following conduct I drcifted in para. 44 of our :

44. In addition, the defendants hove obstructed or discouraged licensed physicians and other treatment providers

licensed under the Health Professions Act, ri.s.s.c. 1g96, C. 1E1:3,from advocating modalities or therapies with respect
to the clinical approach in treoting COVID-19 and related diseases, despite the physician having independently

undertaken reasonable review of the scientific literature, that may improve Cl patient's immune system, reduce the
potential negative outcome of a viral infection, and potentially accelerate the time required for recovery.

This is not a problem. Further, Justice Crerar observed that providing such particulars may be to our advantage in increosing

our chances of surviving certification. He made no costs order.

Justice Crerar, who formerly taught civil procedures, advised the parties that the hearing was likely unnecessary. We are in
agreement.

Regarding the dial-in circus, I apologize for the confusion. The Court changed the number only a few minutes prior to the

hearing with insufficient notice to advise the majority of you, contrary to our request delivered well in advance. The new dial-in

had o copacity of only one-hundred callers - clearly inadequate, given the last hearing had over a thousand attempt to
attend. Even Crown counsel WCIS unable to attend their own application hearing at one point.

This was outside of the control of Justice Crerar who has nothing to do with administering the Court's IT.

I instructed counsel to seek an odjournment of only o day (non-prejudicial to Dr. Henry) at the onset of the hearing to be able
to give the general public better notice. Justice Crerar was concerned that doing so might make accommodating our already
tight self-imposed deadlines for moving our case along difficult ond decided to cany on.

Justice Crerar issued his reasons for judgment at the conclusion of the hearing, which we are grateful for. It is not unusual for a
judge to reserve judgment for several months of deliberation.

For those who were not able to attend, we have already ordered tmnscripts of the day's proceeding and the concluding
reasons for judgment. As soon OS we have them, so will you.

As many of you have noticed, the technological infrastructure in our Court is wanting. It is more than a minor nuisance. It is

arguably so inadequate to constitute o violation of your constitutional riqht to an open court. But the tragedy does not end
there.

https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates 34/51
10/20/22, 12:24 PM Status Updates - CSASPP
rLh
We are in the process of moking formal am>ngements, with the approval of the Court, to modernize public access in this digita
age to our subsequent hearings. We sought, and were granted, leave (permission) by Justice Crerar to begin making inquiries
with the Court's technicol staff.

- Kip

27 0ctober, 2027'. Dial-in for Thursday 28 0ctober, 2021, hearing

for Dr. Henry's application

Friends,

You can join us tomorrow to listen live to our 10AM hearing before Justice Crerar by dialling (778) 725-6348 or toll-free at (844)

636-7837 with conference ID 960 371 077#. If you ore reading this from Cl hondset, you can speed dial with the conference ID
automatically entered for you by clicking here.

suspect that you will already be muted automatically, but please ensure you do this manually on your end anyway to ensure
our hearing is not interrupted.

I am advised that this line should be able to hold more than a 1000 callers so that we hopefully do not run into the same
problem ogain.

If you are not able to attend, I am advised that the transcripts I preemptively ordered should be available by Friday 29 0ctober,

2021 or earlier. We will publish them as done previously. Because this is an application hearing and not o judicial or case
planning conference, transcripts are permitted.

As noted For our previous hearings, the Court's C0VID-19 Notice 43 outlines conditions for remote access, including complying
with the Policy on Use of Electronic Devices in Courtrooms for those wishing to listen to the hearing.

will draw your attention again to the fact that you are not permitted to record audio from the hearing unless you are
accredited media. If you ore not sure if you are accredited media, you probably are not. If you would like to become accredited
media, you can find out how here.

- Kip

26 0ctober, 202r. Dr. Henry demands additional details from

CSASPP

Friends,

This Thursday 28 0ctober, 2021 at 10AM, at the usual place of the Supreme Court at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, we will be
having Cl hearing by video teleconference before Justice Crerar We will provide the information on how to access the hearing
CIS soon OS we hove them.

This hearing is at the defendantsa volition. Dr. Henry and the Provincial Crown have brought an app to seek additional
particulars (details) from CSASPP on the specifics of what exactly they are being sued for. We have responded accordingly with
our response and o supporting affidavit. All of these documents are available under our Court Documents section of our
website.

While this moy seem painfully obvious to our followers on what the defendants ore being sued for, C)S I have indicated

previously, this :S Cl standard tactical move. Intelligent defendants alwoys try to dispose of a suit eorly on a procedurol basis
(some rule of Court has allegedly not been complied with) in order to avert the plaintiff's claim from eventually being
adjudicated on its merits by a trial judge.

But this does not always work out the way the defendants think it will.

Lastly, I apologize for the short notice. This is one of the challenges our team has in balancing our working lives outside of the
campaign with our volunteer civic work.

https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates 35/51
 (5

This is Exhibit "(;" referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmedl before me at
Vancouver. British Columbia
on thi,s 20'h day of October 2022

A Commissioner
ft3T' g ddavits for BritishColumbia
10/20/22, 12:28 PM Status Updates - CSASPP
16
The room is typically assigned either the day before or the morning of the hearing. As soon CISwe have it available we will
publish it online. Alternatively, when you walk into the front door, walk past the concierge desk and you will see Cl collection of
documents posted on the wall with room numbers for different hearings for that day. Your file number is S-210831 Sometimes
hearings are not alwoys listed and sometimes they are which is beyond our control.

When you find your way into the Court room, please pay attention to Court room etiquette. Leave signage and other protester
paraphernalia outside the building. If the hearing has olready begun, open the door, remain silent, bow to Justice Creror
(vicariously the Sovereign), and take your seot in the gallery. Do not take pictures, attempt to record, or otherwise use your

mobile or other electronic devices from inside of the Court room. Outside of the Court room you can use your mobile, but do
not take pictures from anywhere inside of the building.

Friends,

Thank you for listening to last week's p hearing. As I predicted, the majority of the time WCIS spent on procedural

wrongling with Crown counsel taking an issue on the question of m.. This occupied two of the three days, with
completion of both side's submissions ending on Thursdoy.

Justice Coval has reserved his judgment on this question. We anticipate approximately two weeks, after which the continuation
of the hearing will be decided based on that decision. If Justice Coval agrees that we have standing, then the petition will
proceed.

A reminder again that your donations are instrumental to maintain the continuous momentum behind our work.

- Kip

4 April 2022 Public Dial-In for Health Care Workers'Petition

Friends,

The public dial-in coordinates are below for this Wednesday's hearing. You will recall that this p seeks to challenge on
constitutional and administrative grounds the injection mandates health care workers' have been confronted with. To access
it, perform the following steps:

1. Dial phone number: +1 (778) 907-2071;

2. When prompted for Meeting ID, enter: 794 6938 2817;

3. Press #;

4. Ignore prompt for participant ID ond press # (again);

5. When prompted for meeting password, please enter: 881212;

6. Press #.

The hearing will begin on Wednesday 6 April, 2022, at 10AM and continue on until at least Friday. But we will likely require more

time. This is because Crown counsel will predictably try to consume the majority of the time on p wrangling on the

issue of m.. Thot is, whether we should be allowed to bring such Cl challenge in the first place before the substantive issue
of whether the government made o mistake in issuing any of the public health orders in question.

Usually counsel checks in with the Court clerk around 0945, but you are welcome to call in, and probably should, much eorlier
than that to ensure you are able to get in. Your line will automatically be muted.

https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates 1 8/51
10/20/22, 12:28 PM Status Updates - CSASPP
t7
We are only able to accommodate a maximum of a 1000 callers, CIS in our previous hearings. We encourage groups of you to
share a single line and listen together to ensure that CIS many people can get in as possible. Usually our lines become
saturated to complete capacity within o few minutes.

As in 011of our previous hearings, please take note again of the Court's C0VID-19 Notrce 43 that outlines conditions for remote
access, including complying with the Polrcy on Use of Electronrc Devices rn Courtrooms.

Note that this petition is separate from our two other proceedings, the CIOSS action and the injection passport petition. If this
petition fails, our other two proceedings will still continue on.

- Kip

3 April 2022 Justice Crerar's Orders of 21 January, 2022, Judicial

Management Conference for Class Proceeding

Friends,

A brief interlude before this busy week begins.

You will recall we had a Judicial Monagement Conference on 21 January, 2022, before Justice Crerar for our CICISSproceeding.

At that time various procedural orders were made by his lordship. These orders granted CSASPP's request to amend its

certification application by 15 February, 2022, the defendants a time extension for responding materials, and a new judicial
management conference scheduled for 21 April, 2022, to continue moving things forward.

https://www.covidconstitutionaichallengebc.ca/status-updates 19/51
 lf3

This is Exhibit ")fl' referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on this 20'h day of October 2022

A Commissione? for ing Affidavits 'for British Columbia

-------- Forwarded message ------- -
From: Mark Van Driel <mark@nexuswebcast.ca>
i?
To: Kip Warner <klp@thevertigo.com>
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Tue, 11 act 2022 21 :23:07 +OOOO
Subject: Re: Service inquiry
Hi Kip

Yes, correct,Any in-room recording of proceedings would be simply recorded to the camera units and recorders we place in the
courtroom as standalone devices, and are not dependent on the use of a local WiFi system to enable. The main priority would be
hard-wired connection to any active microphone sound system used in the room directly to our sound recording mixers,

I hope that helps clarify your questions and concern.

j\Aark Van Driel

NEXUS Webcast Services
604-736-4454
VIRTUAL SERVICES
British Columbia V6J 1M7
/nexuswebcast.ca
https:/
NEXUS WEBCAST SERVICES VIDEO
 20

This is Exhibit "f" referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmedj before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on t5is 20'h day of October 2022
l/)
A CommissiThelr
f& 'fakindffidavits for Bri'tish Columbia
 10/20/22, 12:37 PM Supreme Court of Canada - Archived Webcasts
2f

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Home > Cases > Archived Webcasts

Archived Webcasts

Please note that the first available webcast is that of the hearing of February 10, 2009. Courtroom proceedings
will be webcast unless a case is deemed to be unsuitable for webcasting due to a publication ban or privacy
concerns.

To find out when the Court will be sitting, check the Court's list of Scheduled Hearinqs.

If you wish to view an archived hearing but don't know the date or which the case was heard, you may use the
SCC Case Information Search page and access the webcast of a particular case.

To access archived webcasts of Court hearings, please select a year and a month, then press 'Search',

Year:

2009

Month :

October

Searcb

Available webcasts for the month of October 2022

kffzeLtitntnii ehr'ai'aer IQinnQ-l!inn 2QnV 1/2

10/20/22, 12:37 PM
Supreme Court of Canada - Archived Webcasts 22
' Case Name Webcast
Date

Corporation Archived
2022-10-12
of the City of
Greater
Sudbury v.
Ministry of

Date modified: 2019-10-11

h++ne'lAanhnar err-re.r. riatr:qsp-sossier/info/webcasts-webdiffusions-eng.aspx

This is Exhibit ",2' referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on th,is 20'h day of Oc'4er 2022

A Commissiondr
f6r T'akingJdavits for Britis'hColumbia
Court of Appeal for British Columbia

, J,

WelxasLirigPilotPn3ed ']i
OcLober20l9 i
 45

Webcasting
Pilot
Projectl2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.O Introduction

1.1 Background to the Webcasting Pilot Project

2.O Methods 2

2.1 Selecting and evaluating appeals to webcast 2

2.2 Technical aspects of webcasting 3

3.O Results 3

3.I Carter v- A.G 3

3.2 Taseko Mines 4

3.3 Reference re: Environmental Management Act 4

4.0 Evaluation of Access Benefits 5

4.1 Viewership cost. 5

4.2 Public and media feedback 5

5.0 Decision to Continue with Select Webcasts

5.I Criteria for selecting appeals to webcast

1
 26'
Webcasting
Pilot
Projectl2019
1.O Introduction

1.1 Background to the Webcastmg Pilot Project

[1] In 2013, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia initiated a webcast pilot project to

evaluate the access benefits of making appeals of clear and significant public interest available

to view remotely.

[2] Threeappealswereselectedtoincludeinthepilotproject:(1)Corterv.AttorneyGenero/

of Canada, March 18 - 22, 2013; (2) Taseko Mines Limited v. Western Canada Wilderness

Committee, June 7-8, 2017; and (3) Reference re: Proposed Amendments to the Environmental
ManagementAct, March 18 - 22, 2019.

[3] The pilot project is now complete. After evaluating the costs, viewership statistics, and

feedback from the public, litigants, lawyers, court staff and judges with respect to each webcast,

the court has decided to continue providing live webcasts and video archive for select appeal

proceedings.

[4] This report provides: (1) a summary of the pilot project methods and results; (2) an

evaluation of the access benefits; and (3) criteria the court will apply when selecting appeals for

webcast in future.

2.O Methods

2.1 Selecting and evaluating appeals to webcast

[5] The Court identified appeals of prospective public interest that did not involve access

restrictions and where all parties, counsel, and justices agreed to have a webcast proceed.

[6] For each webcast an email account was created and posted to the court's website to

gather feedback from the viewing public. Participating justices, counsel, and members of the

media were also surveyed by email for their comments respecting the utility of the webcast.

Capital and operating costs were tracked and viewership statistics recorded.

2
 Webcasting
Pilot
Projectl2019

2.2 Technical aspects of webcasting

[7] The court was assisted by the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice to employ the

necessary technology to conduct electronic appeals. It was initially hoped that

videoconferencing technology could be merged with webcasting to create a joint solution;

however, the two types of technology are too different. Therefore, in order to host the webcasts,

the Court Services Branch of the Ministry of Justice engaged Shared Services British Columbia

which, in turn, engaged a third party contractor to host the webcasts (Webcast Canada). This is

the typical platform for government webcasts.

3.0 Results

3.1 Carter v. A.G.

[8] TheCorterappealaddressedthequestionofwhethertheprovisionsoftheCrimjno/Code

that prohibit physician-assisted dying are constitutional.

Operating Costs $25,000 total

(excluding staff time) $5,000 per day

Viewers per day Adjournment application - 249

Day I-1939
Day 2-1188
Day 3 - 622
Day 4 - 354
Day 5 - 219

Average Viewers per day 864

Cost per viewer per day $5.78

3
 2g
ProjecJ
Webcasting
Pilot z@lg
3.2 Taseko Mines

[9] Taseko Mines engaged questions of freedom of speech on political issues in the context

of a defamation claim and involved questions about land use of significance in rural British

Columbia.

Operating Costs $1460 total

(exduding staff time) $730 per day

Viewers per day Day 1-118

Day 2 - 56

Average viewers per day 65

Cost per viewer per day $11 .23

3.3 flvrv(ej}Cb ib.' EnVirOnmental Mauagemviil Abt

[10] The Reference required the Court of Appeal to consider the constitutionality of certain
amendments to the Environmental Management Act proposed by the Legislature of British

Columbia. The proposed amendments arose in the context of intense national debate about the

future of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project.

Operating Costs $4,082.50 total

(excluding staff time) $816.5 / day

Viewers per day Day 1- 430

Day 2 - 316
Day 3 - I 97
Day 4-160
Day 5-189

4
 ':L9
Webcasting
Pilot
Projectl20l9
Average Viewers per day 258

Cost per viewer per day $3.16

4.O Evaluation of Access Benefits

4.1 Viewership cost

[11] The differences in viewership between Taseko and Carter or Taseko and the Reference
serve to highlight that the vast majority of appeals could reasonably be expected to generate low

(or possibly no) webcast viewership.

[12] Operating costs in Carter were orders of magnitude greater than in Taseko or the

Reference. This difference is primarily the result of selecting different (more basic) service

packages from the third party webcast host. The Reference provides a best case estimate of cost

per viewer per day (at 53.16) since viewership was greater than in Taseko and operating costs
are closer to those anticipated for future broadcasts than in Carter.

4.2 Public and media feedback

[13] Feedbackreceivedfromthepublicandmembersofthemediawasgenerallypositive,but

limited in volume, amounting to fewer than 10 emails per webcast.

[14] Comments received indicate that the webcasts have: (1) been utilized as a learning tool

in educational environments (Cmter and Taseko}; (2) provided opportunities for interested

people to watch the proceedings who could not otherwise have attended (Carter, Taseko,

Reference); (3) been used by members of the media to check information for stories reporting on

proceedings (Carter and Reference), and (4) been used by members of the media to provide

coverage they would not otherwise have been able to provide (Reference).

5
 Projectl
Webcasting
Pilot z@lg
[15] Additionally,membersofthepublicandmediacommentedthatarchivedrecordingshave

significant value in their own right. The recordings can be referenced outside of work hours,

studied in classrooms, and allow for efficient viewing since court watchers can skip to those

portions of the presentation(s) they are most interested in.

5.0 Decision to Continue with Select Webcasts

[16] After evaluating the results of the pilot project, the court considered three options: (1)

stop providing webcast and video archive of select appeals; (2) continue to provide webcast and

video archive of select appeals; and (3) provide video archive, but no live webcast, for select

appeals.

[17] The court wishes to proceed with the second option: continue to provide webcast and

video archive of select appeals. This decision is consistent with the reality that most appeal

proceedings are not of interest to the general public and providing a webcast would have little

or no positive access benefit, but is still responsive to the appetite for increased real time and

after hearing access to appeals of significant public interest.

5.1 Criteria for selecting appeals to webcast

[18] The court proposes to apply a principled set of criteria for selecting appeals to broadcast

in future. These criteria emerge from lessons learned over the course of the pilot project.

[19] Once an appeal of prospective interest is identified, either in writing by the parties, or by

the court itself, the court will consider: (1) whether the appeal involves interests centered in

remote locations or otherwise involves the interests of people for whom attending court in

person is practically impossible; (2) whether the appeal involves questions of national interest;

(3) accessibility of the subject matter of the appeal (including privacy concerns or other

restrictions on access); and (4) the volume of media attention focused on the appeal prior to the

hearing. Parties will be informed if their appeal is being considered for webcast and their views

with respect to the utility and/or propriety of providing a webcast will be considered.

6
 Webcasting
Pilot
Projectl20l9
Questions regarding the Court of Appeal's webcast program should be directed to:

Shirley Smiley
Legal Counsel

604-660-3406
Shirley.Smiley@bccourts.ca

7
 32

This is Exhibit "35;:F

referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on this 20'h day of October 2022

:AC6mmissionir r akir4AffldavitsforBritishColumbia
Thls aRe Is best viewed with Google Cmome or Mozilla Fiiefox.
3'E-E]"
.1.l- ,, L
,jjl[
uL I'.0
Th&!!!:(.!ffl!WJ.lMRt:QE%-!!iJAl!il4!&'!J!.i j;'l:'! .!)O 'i-,2
t,!(!W N

" - -
_. _ .,mbll a '%4.

.,,-#'
""i a'_ ,,, l

'sS " SX ,
.'._ 'X '

Pages

Webcast
The Court is launching a webcast pilot project to facilitate access to a broader selection of hearings of significant public interest for the media and
membersofthewiderpublic.ThepilotprojectbuildsontheCourt'sPolicyonPublicandMediaAccessandStrateqicPlan(2014-2019). Ifa(iproved
for release by the Court, archived recordings of such hearings or other audio or video recordings may be made available on this page.

Note: The material on this site is protected by the provisions ofthe Copyright Act and by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and International
agreements. Reproduction of this material is permitted only in accordance with these provisions. See Important Notices

Show I 25 entries Search:

Date File

2022

Files T-221-19 and T-1192-19 0jibway Nation of Saugeen

April 21, 2022 Summary (English and AniShinaabemowinl g

Audio-Anishinaahemowin 4@

2021

File T-1186-20 Cahiin Waquan v. Mikisew Cree First Nation

October 12, 2021 Summary (Enqlish and Cree) g

File T-1468-19 Waiter Bruce Janvier v. Chipewyan Prairie First Nation as Represented by its Chief and Council and Dustin Twin in his Capacity as
Electoral Officer

June 7, 2021 Summary (Enqiish and Denel D

File T-336-19 IN THE MATTER OF T-336-19 TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENTCOMMITTEE INC ET AL V HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Aptil 23, 2021

File T-2139-18 Ursula Copeau v. AGC and the Pessamit Innu First Nation
Date File 3','
April 21, 2021 Summary (Enqlish, Innu)

2020

File T-892-20 MICHAEL LINKLATER v THUNDERCHILD FIRST NATION GOVERNMENT et al

November 25, 2020 Summary (Enqlish, Plains Cree) %

Audio (Plains Cree) <t))

FllesT-2153-00andT-2155-DO PETERWATSONetalvHERMAJESTYTHEQUEENetal;andWESLEYBEARetalvHERMAJESTfTHEQUEENetal

January 28, 2020 Summary (Enqlish, Cree) g

:zo79

File T-388-19 Darlene Thomas v One Arrow First Nation

December 31, 201 9 Summary (Enqlish, Plains Cree) g

Audio (Plains Cree')4)))

FileT-608-17

December 1 9, 201 9

File T-1 621-191N THE MATTER OF ATTORNE'f GENERAL OF CANADA v. FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA and
others

November 25-26, 2019

File T-238-80 IN THE MATTER OF JIM SHOT BOTH SIDES et al v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

June 12, 201 9 Summary (Enqlish, Bi(igkfooj) g

Audio (Blackfootl

File T-146-19 IN THE MATTER OF SAMANTHA WHALEN v. FORT MCMURRAY N0. 448 FIRST NATION

May 24, 2019 Summary(Enqllsh,Cree,Deny)!

File T-1 736-141N THE MATTER OF GWENDOLYN LOUISE DEEGAN ET AL v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ET AL

February 1, 201 9 (Dayj)4))

January 31, 201 9 AUMQ(DayJ))))

January30,2019

January 29, 2019

 Date File

January 28, 2C119 Ayfy; (Dayj)))))

Showing 1 to 17 of 17 entries
0 %;

Date modified: 2022-0421

About the Law and Online Representing Court Files Media Resources
Court Practice Access Yourself and
Decisions
Administration Registry
Jurisdiction Acts and Forms Finding Legal of the Court Court Costs
Careers Rules E-Fiting Help Court Files Court Files Procedural
Liaison Practice E-Motion Practice Decistons Decisions Charts
Com mittees Guides E-Omer Guides Hearing Lists Calendar of Procedural
Reports and Procedural Procedural General Hearings Roadmaps
Statistics Charts Charts Sittings Resoiving
Procedural Procedural Summer Your Case
Roadmaps Roadmaps Recess Finding Legal
Court Costs (.hecklists Calendar of Help
Deadlines Court Costs Hearings C,hecklists
Calculator Deadlines
C5ecklists Calculator
Resolving
Your Case
Registry

0 iImportant Notices i Disclaimeri Contact Us i Feedback

This is Exhibit 'L" referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on this 201h day of October 2022
10/20/22, 12:39 PM
37
The Courts of Nova Scotia - Live Webcasts

HOME (../INDEX.HTM) COURTDOCKETS (../GENERALCONTENT/DOCKETS ONLINE.HTM)

aowsagiay
Live Webcasts From the #otia 8cotia Courts
LEVEL OR TYPE OF

COURT
Upcoming Webcast:
WHO YOLI ARE

WHAT YOU WANT TO

There are currently no scheduled webcasts from the Nova Scotia Courts.

DO
TOPIC OR

RESOURCE NOTE: The Courts' webcasts are protected by the CopyrightAct. Webcasts may not be re-broadcast by embedding them
in another website or any other means. However, sma// portions may be used as part of news coverage.
Keyword Search

READ FULL COPYRIGHT STATEMENT >>

PLEASE NOTE:

The video player on this page may not work on all

browsers. If you encounter an error message, try viewing
the video in Microsoft Edge or CL/CKHERE>>

(aocumentstsrowserinstructions.paQ far jnS(ruCtjOnS On hOW tO

solve the problem in Google Chrome and Firefox.

To View Completed Webcasts...

The Courtas ke webcas[s are recorded and
made available for vrewrng later.

To view archrved Cour[ webcas[s of

CEREMONIES AND EVENTS, CLICK HERE >> (webcastsarchive events.htm)

:Low/Lente
i-Med(um/Moyenne
:.High/Rapide- To view archrved Court webcasts of
PROCEEDINGS AND TRlAlS, CLICK HERE :":' (webcastsarchlvetrlals.htm)

[)(SCLAIMER: COPYRIGHT:
The content of this website is general information not legal advice. This website is protected by the Copyright Act.

Links to other websites do not constitute an endorsement Some restrR.tions app§ to the reuse, without permission, of
nor an acceptance of responsibilily for those websites. certain content.

(( READ FULL DISCLAIMER STATEMENT >> << READ FULL COPYRIGHT STATEMENT >>

https://www.courts.ns.ca/Webcasts/webcastslive.htm#:-:text"There are currently no scheduled,as part of news coverage. i/1

This is Exhibit m" referred to in the
Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on this 20'h day of October 2022

A Commissiohear f6r Tak/g Affldavits Tor British Columbia

10/20/22, 12:39 PM Broadcast of Court Proceedings - Manitoba Courts
39

General Information Manitoba Courts

Broadcast of Court Proceedings

To date, ten court proceedings have been live streamed directly from the courtroom. Of these ten, all but
one were criminal proceedings and there have been a mixture of proceedings from the Provincial Court,

the Court of Queen's Bench and the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The first of these proceedings took place on April 16, 2014 in the Court of Queen's Bench where

Associate Chief Justice Shane Perlmutter acquitted Ms. Cassandra Knott of the 2nd degree Murder. He
issued detailed reasons for his decision. The CBC was present in the courtroom and provided a live

stream of his detailed reasons. The live feed was shared with other media. A link to this recording is no
longer available.

The second of these proceedings took place on April 30, 2014 when the Manitoba Court of Appeal heard

arguments from counsel on the conviction appeal of Denis Labossiere. Mr. Labossiere was found guilty by
a jury of three counts of First Degree Murder following a trial that took place January and February 2012,

The CBC was present in the courtroom and provided a live stream of the proceeding. The live feed was

shared with other media. A link to this recording is no longer available.

On May 20, 2014, CTV provided a live broadcast of a Provincial Court sentencing docket. The Court

heard sentencing submissions on a number of cases involving drug and weapon charges and imposed

sentences. CTV provided a live stream of the proceeding and shared the live stream with other media. A

link to this recording is no longer available.

On June 4, 2014 the Court of Queen's Bench heard arguments in the matter of The Progressive

Conservative Party of Manitoba vs. The Government of Manitoba related to the recent PST increase. A

link to this recording is no longer available.

On June 25, 2014, Provincial Court Judge Moar heard submissions from counse'l on sentence in the

matter of R v. Langan, a man convicted of Impaired Driving Causing Death. The proceeding was live

streamed and later made available as a video. A link to this recording is no longer available.

On February 6, 2017, after a complex and lengthy trial, Provincial Court Judge Thompson read his written

reasons for verdict in the matter of R v. Andrea Giesbrecht. Ms. Giesbrecht had been charged with six

counts of 'Concealing the dead body of a child'. Judge Thompson convicted Ms. Giesbrecht on all counts

and the proceeding was live streamed from the courtroom, although a link to this recording is no longer

available. You may read Judge Thompson's written reasons here.

https://www.manitobacourts.mb 1/2
10/20/22, 12:39 PM Broadcast of Court Proceedings - Manitoba Courts
%7

On July 14, 2017, after sentencing submissions were made in the matter of R v. Giesbrecht, Provincial
Court Judge Thompson ruled on a defense motion for unreasonable delay and sentenced Ms. Giesbrecht
in relation to her convictions for six counts of 'Concealing the dead body or a child' The proceeding was
live streamed from the courtroom. A link to this recording is no longer available.

On May 17, 2018, afier trial, Provincial Court Judge Lord read aloud and issued her written reasons for
verdict in the matter of R v. Amsel. Mr. Amsel had been charged in association with explosive devices
having been found or detonated in December 2013 and July 2015. Judge Lord convicted Mr. Amsel
on May 17, 2018 and the proceeding was live streamed from the courtroom. A video of the proceeding
as well as Judge Lord's written reasons can be accessed here.

On November 22, 20'l8, after sentencing submissions were made in the matter of R v. Amsel, Provincial
Court Judge Lord sentenced Mr. Amsel for his role in making explosive devices and arranging for their
delivery and/or detonation. This sentence was live streamed from the courtroom and a video from this
proceeding, as well as Judge Lord's written reasons can be found here.

On December 12, 2018, the Manitoba Court of Appeal heard the appeal of R v. Giesbrecht. Ms
Giesbrecht had been convicted and sentenced in the Provincial Court and now sought an appeal. Ms.
Giesbrecht's counsel listed nine (9) grounds or appeal dealing with the conviction and sentence. The
hearing of this appeal was live streamed from the courtroom, but the video of this event is no longer
accessible on line. The Manitoba Court of Appeal issued their judgment on April 2, 2019 dismissing the
conviction appeal, allowing a sentence appeal and varying the sentence to six (6) months on each of the
six (6) counts for a total of three (3) years less credit for 252 days of pre-trial custody. The Court's full

judgment can be read i.

As additional dates for courtroom broadcasts are determined, they will be announced on the news page,
the carousel and Twitter

Information on this page last updated on April 19, 2021

The following information is not intended to represent the opinion of the Judiciary, and does not purport to be, nor should be relied upon as,
legal advice. The information and data on this site is subject to change without notice and if you rely on the information on this site, you are
responsible for ensuring its accuracy or completeness.

https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/genera 2/2
 'f-l

This is Exhibit "M referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on this 20th day of October 2022
/ / / (;!,z 7
[k:,4%. fl i,
A C'ommissioneF'fofTa4gAffidavitsfor BritishColumbia
 ?UPREMECOURT
OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA

SEAL
VICTORIA
REGISTRY No, 18 0247
ENTERED Victoria Registry

TN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITiSH COLUMBIA

' JUL 20 s
TWEI N:

4 taa @'ES l (VR)BbRLY FIRST NATIONS, and ROLAND W[LLSON ON HIS OWN BEHALF
i>.NLl UJ% BEHALF OF ALL OTHER WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS BENEFIC[ARIES
OF TREATY N0. 8

PLAINTIFFS

AND:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITTSH COLUMBIA,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, and BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND
POWER AUTHORITY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER MADE AFTF,R APPLICATION

THE HONOURABLE MR.

BEFORE 04/JULY/2018
JUSTICE MILMAN

ON THE APPLICATION of the Plaintiffs coming on for hearing at Vancouver, BC on

04/JUL/2018 and on hearing Chris Tollefson and Katie Duke, counsel for the Plaintiffs; Erin
Christie, counsel for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of' British Columbia;
Shelan Miller and Sarah Bird, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada; and Charles Willms,
counsel for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority;

THIS COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT:

1. The interlocutory injunction hearing scheduled to commence at the Vancouver Law Courts
on July 23, 2018 (the "Hearing") may be streamed and archived on the Internet on the
following conditions:

a. The Plaintiffs shall retain Webcast Canada or an alternate party (the "Provider"), as
agreed upon by the Plaintiffs, Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of
British Columbia, the Attorney General of Canada, and the British Columbia Hydro
and Power Authority (the "Parties") and Court Services Branch, to:

record and stream the Hearing on the Internet as set out below (the "Webcast");
and

PagelofS
 make an archived copy of the Webcast available on the [ntemet for a maximum
of two (2) years (the "Archived Copy") (collectively, the "Streaming
Services").

b. The Provider shall record the Hearing using two cameras - one to be focused on the
presiding Justice, and one to be focused on counsel speaking at the lectern.

c. ForthedurationoftheHearing,theProvidershallbeallowedtobringintoandutilize
in the courtroom two video cameras.

d. The Provider will ensure that cameras and operating personnel are in peace and ready
to proceed in an area designated by the court at least 10 minutes prior to the
scheduled commencement (or re-commencement) of the Hearing.

e. If possible, the audio signal for the cameras will run from the in-court audio system
rather than microphones supp)ied by the Provider,

f, Operating personnel in the courtroom must be suitably attired in business dress, and
must conduct themselves in a manner keeping with judicial proceedings,

g. Equipment and operating personnel will be placed in an area, as agreed between the
Court and the Provider, and shall not be moved or removed while the court is in
session, The area designated shall provide reasonable access to coverage. Cameras
and sound recording equipment will be unobtrusive and not distracting.

h. The cameras and operating personnel must remain in place while the Court is in
session.

All other equipment must be left outside the courtroom and must not impede public
access to a courtroom or circulation within the courthouse.

The streaming and recording shall be limited to the court proceedings alone. There
will be no filming outside the courtroom, or at any time inside the courtroom when
the court is not in session, including of any private conversations,

k. The cameras and microphones must not be made live until the Court Clerk
proriounces "Order in Court" and the court is in session. Cameras and microphones
must be turned off when the court is not in session (e.g., during breaks).

1. Court Services representatives may stop the recording/broadcast at any time when
directed by the Court or in the event of urgency or emergency.

m. The Hearing will not be delayed, postponed, or otherwise internipted to

accommodate technica) problems with recording equipment.

n. If a Party considers that the recording of the Hearing is an impediment or distraction

despite this order, it may apply to vary this order, including to prohibit any further
recording of the Hearing.

Page2of5
 o. There wig) be no visual, audio, or photographic coverage of the members of the
public in attendance.

p. The video recorded or broadcast image of a person must be tightly framed and must
not show less than the person's head and shoulders.

q. The video image will be framed to avoid capturing the image of any court staff when
located in their ordinary positions,

r. Cameras will use available light only and all cameras will be static, No pan/tilt/zoom
is permitted, An accredited and properly attired operator may from time to time
accompany the cameras while the court is in session to adjust the framing of images,
atways obeying the requirements of this order and avoiding images of any court staff
or public. Cameras will not be focused on and will not record or photograph any
materials on counsel tables, or in counsers possession.

s. There will be no visual or audio recording of communications between counsel and

their clients, between co-counsel of a client, or between counsel and the Court
privately or in camera.

t. The Provider must not record any portion of the Hearing concerning a Confidential
Document or Confidential Information, as defined in the order of this Court made
June 19, 2018 (the "Contidentiality Order"). The Provider shall cease recording and
await further direction rrom the Court as soon as a Party or the Court indicates that a
Confidential Document or Confidential Information wilJ be discussed.

u. In the event that the cameras capture, contrary to the terms of this order, any private,
privileged, or confidential communications involving counsel for any of the Parties,
under no circumstances shall the Parties or their counsel be deemed to have waived
the privacy, privilege, or confidentiality associated with that communication.

v. No logos will appear on the Webcast or Archived Copy at any time, including during
breaks when the court is not in session.

w. The Provider wil post the Webcast and Archived Copy on website(s) to be
determined by the Court Services Branch, the Provider, and the Parties,

x. If a Party believes that Confidential Information or a Confidential Document has

been recorded, that Party may request that the Court order the Provider to edit the
recording to redact that footage. If the Court so orders, the Provider shall redact the
footage according to the Court's order. Pending the Court's ruling, the Provider shall
not stream the proceedings until otherwise directed by the Court, Unless the Court
otherwise orders, there must be a delay of at least two (2) hours between the
conclusion of daily court proceedings during which the video recording was made
and the time of streaming.

2. The Provider shall coordinate with Court Senices Branch to implement this order.

Page 3 of 5
3. EachPartyshallbearitsowncostsofthisapplication.

AND THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

4. Cameras will not record any counsel or other participant in the proceedings who objects to
being recorded,

5. The Webcast and Archived Copy must not be edited except as set out in paragraph I(x) of
this order or by further order of the Court.

6. The Webcast and Archived Copy must not be copied, used, or rebroadcast, except with the
consent of the Parties or by further order of the Court. A notice shall be placed on the
website(s) hosting the Webcast and Archived Copy as follows:

The webcast of this proceeding may not be broadcast, rebroadcast,

transmitted, reproduced, communicated to the public by
telecommunicatiori, or otherwise made avaflable in whole or in part in
any firm or by ariy meam, electronic or otherwise, or stored in whole
O?' inpart in arty information storage arid retrieval system,without the
prior written authorization of the SupremeC02J7'/ of British Columbia.

Page 4 of 5
 7. The Plaintiffs shall retain the Provider, and the Defendants have each agreed to contribute
an amount equal to one-quarter of the cost of the Streaming Services, to a maximum of
$7,500 per Party. The total expense for the Streaming Services shall not exceed $30,000.

THE FOLLOWING PARTIES APPROVE THE FORM OF THIS ORDER AND CONSENT
TO EACH OF THE ORDERS, IF ANY, THAT ARE INDICATED ABOVE AS BEINO BY
CONSENT:

Si of Chris To
er P '

Si K. C
Lawyer for Defendant Her Majesty
The Queen in Right of the Province
of British Cotumbia

€ helan Miller
Lawyer for Defendant The Attorney
General of Canada

Lawyer for Defendant British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority

By the Court

Page 5 of 5
 47

This is Exhibit "Q' referred to in the

Affidavit #3 of Kipling Conrad Warner
sworn (or affirmed) before me at
Vancouver, British Columbia,
on thip 20'h day of pcto.ber 2022

A S? ar ! Columbia
10/20/22, 12:40 PM CBA British Columbia - Canada's chief lustice says system must continue rnodernizing beyond COVID-19 pandemic

THE CANADIAN
BAR ASSOCIATION
British Columbia Branch

Canada's chief justice says system must continue

modernizing beyond COVID-19 pandemic
February 07, 2022

Share

From The Canadian Press

Canada's chief justice said those working in the justice system must continue to build on innovations
put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard Wagner said "there is no turning back" now that the pandemic has forced the justice system to
modernize.

"I think that the excellence of our justice system, whether it be criminal or civil, will depend on more
use of the technology," said Wagner, specifically citing technology that permits the virtual presence of
the parties and lawyers invo(ved.

Since the 1 980s, the Supreme Court has had the technology to permit lawyers to argue cases remotely
without having to come to Ottawa, he said.

Lawyers "rightly or wrongly" did not opt to use it except for a few instances throughout the years, said
Wagner, adding that other courts across the country did not have that technology.

"They have to use that for the future. That's for sure," he said.

Wagner told the Canadian Bar Association's annual meeting Monday that courts across the country
have "spared no effort" in adapting to the unprecedented challenge of the public heafth crisis.

Many courts across the country have allowed participants and observers to join proceedings via
videoconference during the pandemic.

Modernizing the system is not simply intended to minimize disruptions caused by the pandemic, said
Wagner, but iS alSO about applying thOSe changes "purposefully" tO ensure that juStiCe becomes
accessible to everyone.

https://www.cbabc
10/20/22, 12:40 PM CBA British Columbia - Canada's chief justice says system must continue modernizing beyond COVID-19 pandemic

4-9-
Wagner spoke to the association before it voted and passed several resolutions to make the justice
system more modern, accessible and equitable for people in Canada.

The association's members voted to urge dispute resolution bodies to permanently put in place
remote proceedings where appropriate, and create a working group with justice system partners to
explore matters that are potentially suitable for remote proceedings.

Attendees voted to ask those in the justice system to consider innovative approaches to help low- and
middle-income Canadians in accessing civil legal services, in an effort to address the "access to justice
crisis."

Members also voted to urge all levels of Canadian government to address the increased
overrepresentation oflndigenous peoples in Canadian prisons.

The passed resolution asks each level of government to negotiate an action with Indigenous groups
within two years. The action plan would provide well-funded preventive community-based services and
alternatives to incarceration oflndigenous peoples.

https:/ 2/2