2023-09-08 - CSASPP's SLAPP Motion Record and Complete CaseLines Bundle (Galati V CSASPP Et Al.)

Bundle prepared at ontariocourts.caselines.
com
Index
A: Plaintiff/Applicant Documents
Master Sub Bundle Document Date Court Stamp Exhibit
Bundle page page
reference reference
A1 - A1000 A1 - A1000 Responding (Plaintiff's) September 05,

Motion Record File-CV- 2023
22-683322-0000
A1001 - A1171 A1001 - A1171 Responding Motion September 05,

Record (Motion to Strike 2023
Affidavits) CV-22-683322-
0000 (1)
A1172 - A1206 A1172 - A1206 Responding Plaintiffs September 05,

Factum - Galati. CV-22- 2023
683322-0000
B-1: Defendant/Respondent Documents (1)

Master Sub Bundle Document Date Court Stamp Exhibit
Bundle page page
reference reference
B-1-1 - B-1-1630 B-1-1 - B-1-1630 Motion Record - S 137.1 January 31, 2023
Motion - Moving
Defendants - Toews
Warner CSAPP Gandhi -
B-1-1631 - B-1- B-1-1631 - B-1- Supplementary Motion March 29, 2023

1832 1832 Record - Moving
Defendants - Toews
Warner CSAPP-Gandhi -
B-1-1833 - B-1- B-1-1833 - B-1- Motion Record - Motion to April 12, 2023
1872 1872 Strike Evidence - Moving
Defendants - Toews
B-1-1873 - B-1- B-1-1873 - B-1- Supplementary Motion May 30, 2023

2877 2877 Record - Motion to Strike
Evidence - Moving
Defendants - Toews
B-1-2878 - B-1- B-1-2878 - B-1- Abbreviated Book of July 25, 2023

2957 2957 Authorities - Moving
Defendants - Toews
B-1-2958 - B-1- B-1-2958 - B-1- Transcript Brief - Moving July 25, 2023
3468 3468 Defendants - Toews
B-1-3469 - B-1- B-1-3469 - B-1- Factum - Moving July 28, 2023

3511 3511 Defendants - Toews
B-1-3512 - B-1- B-1-3512 - B-1- Reply Factum - Moving September 05,

3543 3543 Defendants - Toews 2023
B-1-3544 - B-1- B-1-3544 - B-1- Compendium - Moving September 05,

3550 3550 Defendants - Toews 2023
C: Defendant to Counterclaim Documents
D: Third Party Documents
E: Intervenor Documents
F: Jointly-submitted and/or Consent Documents
H: Exhibits (Courts use)

0001
1
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb174352206dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-1 A1
Court File No. CV-22-683322-0000

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -
DONNA TOEWS (AKA “DAWNA TOEWS”), KIPLING WARNER, CANADIAN

SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
(“CSAPP”), DEE GANDHI, JANES AND JOHNS DOE
Defendants
RESPONDING (PLAINTIFF’S) MOTION RECORD
ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1062 College Street, Lower Level
Toronto, Ontario M6H 1A9
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
Tel: (416) 530-9684

Fax: (416) 530-8129
Email: rglfpc@gmail.com
Plaintiff on his own behalf
TO:
Tim Gleason
DEWART GLEASON LLP
02-366 Adelaide Street West
Toronto, ON M5V 1R9,
LSO No. 43927A
Email: tgleason@dgllp.ca
Amani Rauff,
LSO No. 78111C
Email: arauff@dgllp.ca
Telephone: 416-971-8000
Facsimile: 416-971-8001
Lawyers for the Defendants
A1
0002
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-2 2 A2
INDEX
TAB DOCUMENT
1. Statement of Claim, Issued, June 28th, 2022.
2. Affidavit of Rocco Galati, sworn March 14, 2023
A Canadian Lawyer Articles, Awards, OBA President Award, and two Book covers.
B OBA President Award Winners 2007 - 2022
C Curriculum Vitale, law archives and reported cases of Rocco Galati, current to 2018.
D Constitutional Rights Centre (CRC) print website
E Kipling Warner’s Curriculum Vitale
F 9/11 conspiracy website and Kip Warner article, 9/11 letter to Minister of Public Safety
G OpenPower Wikipedia page
H OpenPower Foundation Kip Warner Co-Chairman of Machine Learning and AI SIG
I Linux Foundation under, auspices of Linux Foundation of World Economic Forum (WEF)
J OpenPower Foundation brought under, auspices of Linux Foundation of
World Economic Forum (WEF)
K E-mail from Kip Warner to Tanya Gaw December 5th, 2020.
L E-mail from Dee Gandhi to Dan Dicks January 27th, 2021
M Letter from Ms. Furtula January 29th, 2021 and response from Mr. Galati,
February 3rd, 2021
N Website posting of Canadian Society for Advancement of Science, June, 2021
O Complaint by Donna Toews against Rocco Galati, to LSO, May 19th, 2022,
made January 13th, 2022
P Rocco Galati response to LSO complaint, June 29th, 2022
Q Law Society decision on LSO complaint, dated September 12, 2023; Rocco Galati
follow up September 30th, 2022; further follow up by Rocco Galati
December 7th, 2022, and Law Society reply of same date
R Updated print out of Kipling Warner's website, March 13th, 2023
S
T Mission Statement of CRC, November, 2004

U Statement of Claim in Galati v. Moore et al. File #: CV-21-668341-0000
Issued September 7th, 2021
V CRC income, 4th quarter, 2020
A2
0003
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-3 3 A3
W CRC income, 2021

X CRC income, 2022
Y CRC income, 2023, first two months
Z CBC and Global News articles RE: Enable Air, dated October 24th, 2021 and
January 27, 2022
AA Criminal complaint, with attachments by Rocco Galati RE: Enable Air, and its
fraudulent conduct, December 12, 2021
BB Ontario Court of Appeal order dated May 11th, 2022 removing Rocco Galati from
the record on Gill v. Maciver et al
CC Ontario Regulation 364/20 sets out masking requirements and exemptions
DD Federal Court decision, Adelberg et al v. HMTK et al. Ct. File# 1089-22,
February 23rd, 2023
EE Notice of Appeal, Federal Court of Appeal, from Adelberg, issued March 3rd, 2023
FF Decision in Sgt. Julie Evans et al v. AG Ontario et al dated May 5th, 2021
GG Decision in M.A. and L.A. et al., v. De Villa, et al. dated May 27th, 2021
HH Decision in Action4Canada, et al. v. BCAG, et al, dated August 29th, 2022
II Decision in Turek v. CPSO, et al. dated December 13th, 2021, Ontario Divisional Court
JJ Decision in of BC Supreme Court CSASPP v. BC, dated May 4th, 2022
KK Decision in CSASPP v. BC, dated September 12th, 2022
LL Decision in CSASPP v. BC, dated February, 28th 2023
MM Decision in J.W.J. v. S.E.T, Ontario Superior Court, dated February 8th, 2023
NN Statement of Claim in Galati v. Greene and LSO, issued July 12th, 2022
OO Complaints to LSO, from the “Butler Brothers”, December 1st, 2020
PP Complaint from Lindsay H., dated February 18th, 2021
QQ 1st Complaint from Terry Polevoy., dated February 18th, 2021
RR Complaint from Elana Goldfield., dated February 22 nd, 2021
SS 1st Complaint from Alexandra Moore., dated February 18th, 2021
TT 2nd Complaint from Alexandra Moore., dated August 3rd, 2021
UU 2nd Complaint from Terry Polevoy., dated February 4th, 2022
VV Complaint from Franca Lombardi., dated February 4th, 2022
WW Warning letter to LSO in response two other complaints that were dismissed
XX Mr. Kuntz response, dated June 28th, 2022
YY Globe and Mail article “The Lawyer who challenged the Harper Government
and won” dated August 22nd, 2014
A3
0004
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-4 4 A4
ZZ Negative posts by Vladislav Sobolev and “affiliates”

AAA Frederico Fuoco’s email, dated August 15th, 2021
BBB Statements by Frederico Fuoco April 7th, 2021, self-declaring as a Plaintiff in
personal capacity
3. Affidavit of Tanya Gaw, sworn March 11th, 2023
A E-mail from Drew Weselak to Tanya Gaw, dated August 22nd, 2021
B Screenshot, July 28, 2021, with Donna Toews in Group of 44 with Vladislav sobolev
C Screenshot from Vladislav Sobolev, referring to Mr. Galati as “Rocco is a clown”
D E-mail from Tanya Gaw to Rocco Galati, August 8th, 2021
E Statements by Frederico Fuoco, April, 2021, identifying and stating he is a Plaintiff in his
personal capacity
F Emails from Tanya Gaw to Co-Plaintiffs dated September 1st, 2022 and November 3rd, 2022
4. Affidavit of Ted Kuntz, sworn March 13th, 2023
A A letter to LSO, dated June 28th, 2022, with respect to Toews complaint against Mr. Galati
B Emails between Kip Warner and Ted Kuntz, June 29th, 2022, and provided by Tanya Gaw
C Legal challenge update released on or about July 23rd, 2021
5.
6. Affidavit of Sandra Sable, sworn March 11th, 2023.
A4
0005
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-5 A5
TAB 1
A5
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 28-Jun-2022
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour superieure de justice
0006
Court File No/N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-6 A6
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and-
DONNA TOEWS (AKA "DAWNA TOEWS"), KIPLING WARNER, CANADIAN

SOCIETY FOR THE ADV AN CEMENT OF SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY ("CSAPP"),
DEE GANDHI, JANES AND JOHNS DOE
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS:
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the

plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer

acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of
Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiffs lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a
lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN
TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are
served outside of Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you
to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, A JUDGMENT MAY BE

GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE
TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND TIDS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO
PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY
CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
A6
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de justice
0007
Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-7 A7
IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMs, and $10,000.00 for costs, within the time
for serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding
dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay
the plaintiff's claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.
TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if

it has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means within five years after the action
was commenced unless otherwise ordered by the court.
Date: Issued by:
Address of Local Office: 393 University Ave.

10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
TO:
Donna Toews (Aka Dawna Toews)
10 Garth Street
Guelph, Ontario
N1H2G3
dawnatoews@hotmail.com
AND TO:
KIPLING WARNER
Vancouver, BC Canada
kip@thevertigo.com
AND TO:
CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
Unknown Address
Fax: +l (604)256-3060
Tel: +1 (604) 256-3060
reception@covidconstitutionalchallen!:!ebc.ca
A7
Electronically issued / Delivrepar voie electronique : 28-Jun-2022
Toronto Superior Court of Justice / Cour superieure de justice
0008
Court FIie NoJN° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-8 A8
ANDTO
DeeGANDIB
Address/contact unknown
c/o CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADV AN CEMENT
Unknown Address
Fax: +I (604) 256-3060
Tel: +I (604) 256-3060
reception@covidconsti Lutionalchal lenQ.ebc.ca
2
A8
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronique : 28-Jun-2022
Toronto Superior Court of Jusflce / Cour superieure de Justice
0009
Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-9 A9
CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff claims:
General damages as against the Defendants, as follows:
(a) $500,000.00, as against the Defendants, Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi and the
Canadian Society for The Advancement of Science and Public Policy, for libel and
slander (defamation), and irresponsible publication;
(b) As against all Defendants, severally and jointly, conspiracy to undermine the
Plaintiff's solicitor-client relationships, interference with economic interests and
intentional infliction of mental anguish and distress;
(c) As against all Defendants, severally and jointly, aggravated damages as against the
Defendants in the amount of $250,000.00;
(d) As against all Defendants, severally and jointly, punitive damages in the amount of
$250,000.00;
(e) an interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and
prominent apology for any and all d~famatory publication and/or remarks by the
Defendants;
(f) As against Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi, and The Advancement of Science and
Public Policy, $100,000.00 for harassment as delineated by the Superior Court of
Ontario in Caplan v Alas, 2021 ONSC 670;
(g) an interim and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants, or anyone directly
or indirectly associated with them, from posting or disseminating defamatory posts
on the internet.
3 A9
0010
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-10 A10
(h) prejudgment interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c.
C43; and
(i) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or other relief
as this Court deems just.
THE PARTIES
(a) The Plaintiff
2. The Plaintiff, Rocco Galati, is a senior lawyer, practicing in Toronto, Ontario, who has
been practicing law since he was called to the bar in Ontario in 1989. The Plaintiff
practices law through his law firm Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
"duly" incorporated under the laws of Ontario and requirements of the Law Society Act.
3. Rocco Galati is a highly regarded and prominent lawyer. He has been a Member of
Canadian Who's Who (since 2011). In 2014 and 2015 he was named one of the Top
25 Influential Lawyers by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In 2015 he was awarded the
OBA (Ontario Bar Association) President's Award. He was in fact the first lawyer to
receive the award.
4. Between May 2015 and May 2019, he served as an elected bencher for the Law
Society of Ontario (LSO). Between May 2015 to February, 2021. he also served as a
Hearing Panel Member (Adjudicator) of the Ontario Law Society Tribunal (LST).
5. Rocco Galati has litigated, regularly, at all level Courts, including Tax Court, Federal
Court (of Appeal), all levels of Ontario Courts, other Provincial Superior Courts, as
well as the Supreme Court of Canada. He has litigated in several provinces including
Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. He has, as counsel, well
4
A10
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie elecironlque : 28.•Jun-2022
0011
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-11 A11
over 500 reported cases in the jurisprudence. Some of his major cases include: Baker
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC),
(1999] 2 SCR 817, Reference re Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985 (Canada),
Reference re Section 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867, R. v. Ahmad, [2011] S.C.J.
No. 6 (Toronto 18 Terrorism Case); Felipa v. Canada, [2011] F.C.J. No. 135,
Wang v. Canada, 2018 ONCA 798.
6. Rocco Galati has been asked to speak and has spoken, regularly, at various Law and
other Conferences, as well as Law Schools, Universities and High Schools, across
Canada from 1999 to present.
7. Rocco Galati is the founder and Executive Director of Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
since its inception in November, 2004.
8. Rocco Galati has authored/co-authored books such as: "Criminal Lawyer's Guide to
Immigration and Citizenship Law" (1996), "The Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong
Revolution" (2001). He has also produced three Films, "Two Letters & Counting ... "
2008-2011, written, directed and performed by multi-Genie Award winning Tony Nardi,
on the state of art and culture in Canada, and the treatment of "Aboriginal" and "Other"
"Canadians" by the Two Solitudes Tribes of Canada, and on the Funding of"Canadian"
Art and "Culture".
(b) The Defendants
9. The Defendant, Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"), is a resident of Ontario. She has
represented her name to be "Donna Toews" to the Law Society of Ontario, but
5 A11
0012
Court FIie NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-12 A12
represents her name to be "Dawna Toews" on her business profile, social media, and
email. The Plaintiff has had no personal connection nor contact with Ms. Toews. Ms.
Toews made a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario against the Plaintiff on January
th
15th, 2022, which was forwarded by the Law Society to the Plaintiff on May 19 , 2022.
10. The Defendant, Kipling Warner, is a resident of British Columbia. The Plaintiff has had
no personal connection nor contact with Kipling Warner. Kipling Warner encouraged
and directed Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews") to make the Law Society of Ontario
complaint against the Plaintiff and otherwise defamed the Plaintiff, as set out in the
within Statement of Claim. Kipling Warner is the Director of the Canadian Society for
the Advancement of Science and Public Policy.
11. The Defendant, Dee Gandhi, is the treasurer for the Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Science and Public Policy.
12. The Defendant, The Canadian Society for The Advancement of Science and Public
Policy, is a not-for-profit organization, established and promoted by Kipling Warner for
the purposes of conducting anti-COVID measures litigation in British Columbia.
13. The Defendant(s) Janes and Johns Doe are Defendants unknown to the Plaintiff at this
time, but who assisted the named Defendants in the named Defendants' tortious and
actionable conduct against the Plaintiff.
6 A12
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronlque : 28-Jun-2022
0013
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-13 A13
FACTS
• Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews")
14. The Plaintiff does not know Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews'').
15. Ms. Toews has never been the Plaintiff's client.
16. To his recollection, the Plaintiff has never had any direct contact with Ms. Toews.
• Kipling Warner and Associates
17. The Plaintiff does not know Kipling Warner. The Plaintiff has had contact, through Mr.
Warner's solicitor, as set out below, to issue a caution with respect to his defamatory
statements against the Plaintiff and interfering with the Plaintiff's solicitor-client
relations, including with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada.
18. The Plaintiff does not know Dee Gandhi. The Plaintiff has never had any direct contact
with Mr. Gandhi.
• Vaccine Choice Canada
19. Vaccine Choice Canada (hereinafter "V CC") has been a client of the Plaintiff's law firm
since 2015.
20. The Plaintiff acts on VCC's behalf giving legal advice, consultations, issuing legal
opinions, and conducting litigation for VCC, under the instructions ofVCC's Board of
Directors, through their president.
7
A13
Eleetronically issued / Delivre par voie electronique : 28-Jun-2022
0014
Court FIie No/N° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-14 A14
21. The Plaintiff has absolutely NO role in their organization whatsoever, except to provide
legal services, as described in the Law Society Act, as requested, directed, and instructed
by their Board of Directors, through their president.
• Action4Canada
22. Action4 Canada has been a client of the Plaintiffs law firm since October 2020.
23. The Plaintiff acts on Action4Canada's behalf giving legal advice, consultations, issuing
legal opinions, and conducting litigation for them under the instructions of their Board
of Directors, through their president.
25. Neither Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, nor Mr. Gandhi, are on the Board of Directors ofVCC
or Action4Canada.
• Pertinent Chronology leading to Donna Toews' Complaint to the Law

Society of Ontario
26. On or about October, 2020, the Plaintiff was approached by Action4Canada, and other
co-Plaintiffs, in British Columbia, for a lawsuit, however the retainer was not yet
crystalized.
27. On December 5, 2020, the Defendant Kipling Warner, first contacted Tanya Gaw, the
head of the Board of Directors for Action4Canada, indicating that he had organized a
"similar" campaign to hers and directed her view his lawsuit's GoFundMe page.
8 A14
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronlque : 28-Jun-2022
0015
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-15 A15
28. On or about December 14, 2020, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from a lawyer
from British Columbia, Ms. Polina H. Furtula. This lawyer indicated that she was
contemplating legal action against the British Columbia government over the COVID-
19 measures imposed there. She requested that the Plaintiff collaborate with her, owing
to his expertise in constitutional law and proceedings against the Crown. Ms. Furtula's
client(s) were Kipling Warner and his organization, The Canadian Society for The
29. The Plaintiff respectfully declined, and advised Ms. Furtula that he had been approached
by a British Columbia group (Action4Canada) and other plaintiffs, and had, in principle,
agreed to act for them in a challenge to the COVID-19 measures, once a retainer
crystalized.
30. In January 2021, the Plaintiff began working on the Notice of Claim (Statement of
Claim) for Action4Canada and other co-Plaintiffs.
31. On January 27, 2021, the Defendant, Dee Gandhi, Kipling Warner's colleague, and
treasurer of Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, sent an
independent journalist, Dan Dicks from Press for Truth, a defamatory email about the
Plaintiff. This journalist forwarded that email to the Plaintiffs client, Action4Canada.
The email indicated that the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
Policy had filed their statement of claim, but then made defamatory remarks against the
Plaintiff and the case brought by the Plaintiff, asserted that the Defendants had brought
their case first and therefore would have "carriage of the matter", and then asked to
assist them in soliciting donations on their behalf for their legal proceeding.
9 A15
Tori:mto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de justice
0016
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-16 A16
32. On January 29, 2021, the Plaintiff received a letter from Ms. Furtula indicating that she
represented the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, that
she had filed on behalf of her client(s) and therefore the Plaintiff could not file any
proceedings on behalf of his clients.
33. On February 3rd , 2021, the Plaintiff responded to Ms. Furtula's letter indicating her
client did not have exclusive monopoly to litigation against the Crown. The Plaintiff
also, in the same response, issued a warning to Ms. Furtula about Mr. Warner's
defamatory conduct against the Plaintiff.
34. From January 2021 and onward, the Defendants, Kipling Warner, his organization
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, and his associates
from the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, including
Dee Gandhi, continued defaming the Plaintiff to the Plaintiffs clients, and others.
35. In or around June, 2021, the Defendants posted defamatory content about the Plaintiff
on the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy's webpage,
which content disparaged the Plaintiff, and made further defamatory comments about
the Plaintiff and the legal action(s) for which he had been retained. As a result, the
Plaintiffs clients, Action4Canada and VCC, began receiving messages from their
members concerned about the Defendants' statements.
36. On August, 2021, the Plaintiff finalized and issued the Action4Canada, et al, Notice of
Claim (Statement of Claim) in the British Colwnbia Supreme Court. This claim was on
behalf of various Plaintiffs, Action4Canada being one, in British Colwnbia Court File
No.: BCSC NO. VLC-S-S-217586.
A16
Toronto Superior Court ot Justice/ Cour superieure de justice
0017
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-17 A17
37. From August to Christmas, 2021, the Defendants to this Statement of Claim, on behalf
of Action4Canada and others, dragged their heels over whether they would accept
service for various Ministries and officials and requested an indulgence past the normal
30-day deadline, to respond, which the Plaintiff granted. They also indicated that they
wished to bring an application (motion) to strike. The Plaintiff asked that they do so as
soon as possible, under the instructions of his clients.
38. By Christmas day, 2021, the Defendants had not brought their motions to strike. Over
th
Christmas, the Plaintiff became very ill. On December 25 , 2021, the Plaintiff was bed-
ridden. On January 2 nd, 2022, the Plaintiff was admitted for a critical illness to the ICU
in hospital.
39. After being admitted to hospital in January 2, 2022, the Plaintiff entered a very serious
and life-threatening 11-day coma during which coma the Plaintiff came, three (3) times,
under a minute from being declared dead. Through the grace of God, he survived. On
or about January 131h,2022, the Defendants, in British Columbia Supreme Court file
no.: VLC-S-S-217586, bought their motions to strike returnable February 22, 2022.
Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff was in a coma and incapacitated under s.37 of the Law
Society Act, he remained in a public hospital until his discharge on January 22, 2022.
When he was no longer critical, but still acute, he was immobile and still required one-
on-one nursing and acute medical care. He was discharged as a patient from a public
hospital and he transferred himself to recover in a private medical setting with 24/7 care.
40. The Plaintiff did not return home until March 2, 2022, to continue recovering. He still
has not regained full recovery at present.
11 A17
Eleetronicallyissued / Delivre par voie electronique : 28-Jun-2022
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour superieure de Justice
0018
Court FIie NoJN° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-18 A18
41. The motion to strike, which had been set for February 22, 2022, in British Columbia,
was adjourned by the Plaintiffs office to May 3 I51,2022 in the hopes that he would be
sufficiently and competently capable of arguing the motion to strike via zoom-link. The
Plaintiff was granted permission to appear by zoom-link and argued the motion on May
3151,2022. The motion(s) to strike were heard on May 3l5\ 2022 and the Court has
reserved its decision.
42. While the Plaintiff lay in a coma, in January, 2022, the Defendant Kipling Warner was
conspiring and encouraging Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews") to file a complaint
against the Plaintiff with the Law Society of Ontario.
43. On January 15th, 2022, Ms. Toews filed her complaint to the Law Society of Ontario,
which was forwarded to the Plaintiff on May 191\ 2022. The complaint alleged that the
Plaintiff "misled" and "failed to act with integrity" because Ms. Toews, who had
allegedly made a $1,000 donation, "in her husband's name", to the Plaintiff's clients,
VCC and Action4Canada, to support their litigation, had not been personally apprised
and updated by the Plaintiff, as well as not been invited to those organizations'
members-only meetings, and complained about the pace of the litigation,
notwithstanding that:
(a) Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"), has never been a client of the Plaintiff;
(b) The Plaintiff has never met with, been contacted by, nor ever had any
communications with Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"),
12 A18
0019
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-19 A19
(c) The Plaintiff has had absolutely no role in his client (organization) and is not
privy to their fundraising efforts nor how they spend their money apart for his
legal services;
(d) The Plaintiff has no role in organizing any of his clients' members-only
meetings.
The Plaintiff states that the substance of the complaint by Donna Toews (aka
"Dawna Toews"), directed and encouraged by Kipling Warner, simply parrots the
defamatory remarks made by the other three co-Defendants.
• Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews") and Kipling Warner
44. While in hospital and in a coma, which was widely publicized (in fact false obituaries
claiming the Plaintiff was dead emerged and ones are still online ), Kipling Warner was
in communication with Donna Toews, via email, on how to make a complaint to the
Law Society about the Plaintiff.
45. Kipling Warner has also, and recently, orally communicated to a person, who does not
want to be identified due to fear of Mr. Warner's military past and self-professed
prowess as a computer hacker, that "I want to see to it that Rocco Galati is disbarred
and charged with Fraud". Kipling Warner, in discussions with the President of VCC,
Ted Kuntz, insisted that because he (Kipling Warner) "filed first", that the
Action4Canada British Columbia claim, which VCC supported, had to be withdrawn,
and all donations to Action4Canada be returned, with the implication that the donations
be forwarded to him, Kipling Warner, to support his litigation instead.
13 A19
0020
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-20 A20
46. Mr. Warner is under the delusion that he can claim, along with his "Canadian Society
for the Advancement of Sciences in Public Policy" ("CSASPP") exclusive proprietary
rights to litigate the covid-measures in British Columbia. In pursuit of this he goes to all
ends.
47. Mr. Warner, furthermore continued to make defamatory statements against the Plaintiff
on CSASPP's website, https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca. The irony is
that the British Columbia Supreme Court struck Mr. Warner as a Plaintiff in one of his
cases, for lack of standing, in British Columbia Supreme Court file No.: S-2110229.
48. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants, Mr. Warner and Mr. Gandhi, personally, in their
email to the Plaintiffs client, and through their Canadian Society for the Advancement
of Sciences in Public Policy website, https:/1',vww.covidconstilulionalchallengebc.ca,
uttered and published defamatory statements against the Plaintiff, namely:
(a) In his email to an independent journalist, dated February 1, 2021, Mr. Gandhi
wrote, as follows:
Hope you are doing well. I just wanted to update you on the fact that
the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy
(CSASPP) has filed their pleadings against the Crown and Bonnie Henry
(Provincial Health Minister) as of Jan 26th, 2021. Please see link:
https://www.scribd.com/document/492237670/Notice-of-Civil-Claim
You are welcome to share this with anyone and everyone.
This is our certificate of Incorporation :

https://www.scribd.com/document/492256545/CSACPP-
Certificate-of-Incorporation
Now that we have started the litigation process, we are still in need of
Funding. Action 4 Canada has still not filed with Rocco. Legally at
this point Rocco can't really file in BC anymore. The case law is that
for class actions, it's the first to the court house that generally has
14
A20
0021
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-21 A21
carriage of the file. If you would be so kind to share with everyone
so to help the cause.
https:/ /www.gofundme.com/f/bc-su preme-courl-covitl 19-

constitutiona1-challenge
this might interest you further.
Here are some talking about regarding Action 4 Canada and Rocco
(1) Rocco isn't licensed to practice here in BC. He can always be

retained in Ontario and in turn retain counsel in BC. But then you are
paying for two law firms. You can verify that he is not licensed to
practice here in BC at this page:
hltps://v.f\vvv.lawsociet .bc.ca/lsbc/apps/lkup/mbr-search.cfm
(2) The lawyer Rocco wishes to retain here in BC is named Lawrence

Wong. He specializes in immigration law. He was sanctioned in2010 for
his conduct by a Federal Court judge and fined. See for yourself:
http://canlii.ca/t/2bz73
(3) A Federal Court judge wrote in his judgment a few years ago that
Rocco was found to have excessively billed for his time:
<http://canlii.ca/t/ gfl0p#par7>
(4) The same judgment questioned Rocco's competency in

constitutional law:
<http://canlii.ca/t/gfl0p#par9>
(5) Rocco is not a "constitutional law" lawyer. There is no such

professional designation in Canada, nor in particular in BC. That's
not to say, however, that a lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like
personal injury, strata, mergers and acquisitions, class actions, and
the like. But in Rocco's case his area of expertise is tax law.
<https:/ /tgam.ca/3n8Zuyo>
(6) Every lawyer I know that has reviewed Rocco's Ontario pleadings
said it was very poorly drafted. It will most likely get struck and
never make it to trial to be heard on its merits. The reason being is
he brings in all kinds of other topics that aren't necessary (Gates,
50, vaccines, etc.) to obtain the order that he wants. This is how it
likely would be struck:
http://canlii.ca/t/8lld#sec9 _5
15 A21
0022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-22 A22
(6) Rocco wants far too much money to get started. This seems in
line with (2);
(7) Nothing has been accomplished in Ontario since Rocco filed around
six months ago. The defendants haven't even filed replies, despite the
option to apply for a default judgment being available for the majority
of that time;
(8) Even ifhe won in Ontario, it wouldn't have any direct bearing on
us here in BC because health care is under a provincial mandate under s
92(13) of the constitution. In other words, the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice has no jurisdiction over what cabinet ministers do in BC.
See:
<https://bit.ly/2Li6Baw>
(9) We are (CSASPP) a non-profit, non-partisan, and secular society. We

are legally required to have a certain level of accounting controls and
transparency
Thank you Dan, and I look forward to your response and your help.
(b) In or around June 2021, the Canadian Society for the Advance of Sciences in
Public Policy, Mr. Kipling and the other directors of the Society, have posted
the following, about the Plaintiff:
Are you affiliated with Rocco Galati? If not, why?

We receive communications regularly from Mr. Galati's past
donors with concerns. We are asked what became of the substantial
funds that the community raised for him or his third-party fundraising
arms. We do not have any information, were not involved in raising
funds for either, nor did we ever seek to retain Mr. Galati. If you
have concerns about his conduct, any member of the general
public can submit an electronic complaint to the Ontario Law
Society to initiate a formal investigation.
We are not affiliated with Mr. Galati. There are many reasons.
Mr. Galati is not licensed to practise law in British Columbia for any
extended period of time. He can always be retained in Ontario, and in
tum retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual.
16 A22
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 28-Jun-2022
0023
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-23 A23
However, then you are paying for two law firms. Anyone can verify
whether a lawyer is licensed to practise law in British Columbia here.
We were advised directly by Mr. Galati himself that the lawyer he

'wished to retain in British Columbia is Lawrence Wong. Mr. Wong
was personally sanctioned in 2010 for his conduct by a Federal Court
judge with a fine.
A Federal Court judge noted in his reasons for judgment that some of
Mr. Galati's billings were "excessive and unwarranted" in a separate
proceeding. The same judge declined to award the full amount sought
by Mr. Galati for his legal fees in that constitutional proceeding. The
outcome has been discussed by other lawyers.
Mr. Galati is sometimes described by his followers as our nation's

"top constitutional law" lawyer, yet there is no such professional
designation in Canada, nor in particular in British Columbia. That is
not to say that a lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like personal
injury, strata, mergers and acquisitions, class actions, and the like.
According to Mr. Galati, he studied tax litieation at Osgoode Hall.
The Globe and Mail reported Mr. Galati "makes his money from
doing tax law, not constitutional cases."
Mr. Galati filed a COVID-19 related civil proceeding in the Superior

Court of Justice in Ontario on 6 July, 2020. To the best of our
knowledge, as of 30 October, 2021, none of the twenty-one named
defendants have filed replies, despite the plaintiff being at liberty to
apply for a default judgment for the majority of that time. In an
interview published 2 September, 2020, Mr. Galati claimed he
intended to do his best to have an interlocutory mask injunction
application heard before the Christmas holidays of 2020. As of 11
June, 2021, we are not aware of any scheduled hearings and no orders
appear to have been made.
49. The Plaintiff states that neither Mr. Warner, nor the website,
https://www.co idconstitutionalchallen!!ebc.ca, constitute a "broadcaster" under the
Libel and Slander Act and, in any event, are not entitled to Notice under s.5 of the Libel
and Slander Act, as they do not comply with the requirements of s.8 of that Act, in
providing a prominent address for service.
17 A23
0024
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-24 A24
• Defamation
50. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that the above-cited statements are/were false, and
untrue statements, and further, by innuendo, defamatory and caused damage to the
Plaintiff in that they tended to lower the esteem and reputation of the Plaintiff in the
fair-minded members of the community, which statements were also designed to
interfere with the Plaintiff's contractual obligations and economic interests, for all of
which he has suffered, and continues to suffer, considerable financial damages and
damage to reputation for the malicious, untruthful, and defamatory statements.
51. These untrue and false statements were malicious, irresponsible, negligent, and uttered
with malicious intent, in that they attempt to assert and convince the public that the
Plaintiff is inter alia:
(a) Violating the rules of conduct of his profession;
(b) Being immoral;
(c) Misappropriating donors' funds intended to for the legal proceeding;
(d) Not being licensed to practice law, and therefore charging twice (charging for a
British Columbia law firms legal fees as well as his own);
(e) Excessive and unwarranted billing (the Defendants misapply a case here by
insinuating a judge had found that the Plaintiff had charged his clients too
much in a legal proceeding, when actually the case was about the Plaintiff
trying to recuperate the costs of a proceeding that he had conducted out of his
own pocket, which he had brought against the government in his own name,
18
A24
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de Justice
0025
Court FIie No/N° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-25 A25
where he had not charged anyone legal fees, and which case he had been
successful and therefore was entitled to costs, the subject of that decision);
(f) Insinuating that "other lawyers" did not hold him in high esteem;
(g) Making his money in other areas of law and therefore not being a
constitutional lawyer;
(h) Of purposely delaying the legal proceedings or of purposely delaying taking
further steps in the legal proceeding;
(i) conning innocent people/clients out of their money;
G) Representing his client for subversive motives and not for the public good;
(k) Intentionally failing to advance the COVID-19 cases on which he has been
retained.
These statements are also saturated with defamatory innuendo that the Plaintiff is
incompetent.
52. The Defamatory statements were published across multiple platforms and widely
circulated by the Defendants and others, as well as specifically directed to the
Plaintiffs clients.
53. Neither the Defendant, Kipling Warner, nor any representative of Canadian Society
for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, including the treasurer, Dee Gandhi,
provided the Plaintiff the opportunity to answer the allegations before publishing the
defamatory statements.
19
A25
Electronically Issued / Delivre par voie electronlque : 28-Jun-2022
0026
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-26 A26
• Conspiracy
54. The Plaintiff states and fact is, that the Defendants, Donna Toews (aka "Dawna
Toews"), Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy, as well as other "duped co-conspirators" engaged in the
actionable tort of conspiracy to undermine the Plaintiff's solicitor-client relationship
with his clients, which relationships are statutorily, at common law, ands. 7 of the
Charter protected, as well as conspired to interfere with the Plaintiff's economic
interests with his clients, pursuant to civil conspiracy as set out by the Supreme Court
of Canada, in, inter alia, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), {1990)
2 SCR 959, which set out that the tort of the conspiracy comprised of the following
features:
(a) In the first place there will be an actionable conspiracy if two or more persons
agree and combine to act unlawfully with the predominating purpose of
injuring the plaintiff.
{b) Second, there will be an actionable conspiracy if the defendants combine to act
lawfully with the predominating purpose of injuring the plaintiff.
(c) Third, an actionable conspiracy will exist if defendants combine to

act unlawfully, their conduct is directed towards the plaintiff (or the plaintiff
and others), and the likelihood of injury to the plaintiff is known to the
defendants or should have been known to them in the circumstances.
55. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants further conspired to engage in
actionable abuse of process through the Law Society complaint.
• The Law Society Complaint as an Abuse of Process
56. The Plaintiff further states that Donna Toews' Law Society complaint constitutes an
actionable abuse of process in law, brought in bad faith, and absence of good faith, as
20 A26
0027
Court File No/N° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683322-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-27 A27
set out by the facts pleaded above and the jurisprudence in that, under the
jurisprudence, abuse is made out where:
(a) the plaintiff must be a party to a legal process initiated by the Defendant, in
this case a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario;
(b) the legal process must have been initiated for the predominant purpose of
furthering some indirect, collateral and improper objective;
(c) the defendant took or made a definite act or threat in furtherance of the
improper purpose; and
(d) some measure of special damage has resulted.
The Plaintiff states that Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Gandhi, and the Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, took and made acts, as well
as post-facto statements in furtherance of their improper purpose of trying to shut
down the Action4Canada et al, lawsuit in British Columbia, and improperly
attempting to redirect funds raised by Action4Canada, to the Defendants, Kipling
Warner, Dee Gandhi, and the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in
Public Policy. All this damaged and continue to damage the Plaintiff by way of
reputation and his solicitor-client relationships.
57. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants, in their actions knowingly intended,
and in fact inflicted, mental anguish and distress through their actions against the
Plaintiffs, all of which go to punitive damages.
21
A27
0028
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-28 A28
• Interference with Economic Interest
58. The Plaintiff states that, through their conduct and actions, the Defendants have
engaged in interference with the Plaintiffs economic interests as set out by the facts,
pleaded above, and set out by the jurisprudence in that:
(a) the Defendants intended to injure the plaintiffs economic interests;
(b) the interference was by illegal or unlawful means; and
(c) the Plaintiff suffered economic harm or loss as a result.
The Plaintiff states that the actions of the Defendants were intended to injure the
Plaintiff's economic interests in his clientele, through defamatory and other tortious
and unlawful interference and means as set out above, which resulted in economic
harm and loss to the Plaintiff, through his reputation, and client base.
• Online Harassment
59. The Plaintiff further states that, in addition to defamation, the conduct of the
Defendants, Kipling Warner and his CPSAPP, further constitutes the newly-
recognised tort of (online) harassment as delineated by the Ontario Superior Court in
Caplan v Atas 2021 ONSC 670.
60. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that the Defendants have engaged in:
(a) Repeated and serial publications of defamatory material;
(b) Which defamatory material was not only designed and directed at the Plaintiff,
but further designed to cause the Plaintiff further distress by targeting persons
22 A28
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie eleotronlque : 28-Jun-2022
0029
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-29 A29
the Plaintiff cares about, namely his clients and his clients' supporters, so as to
cause fear, anxiety and misery;
As set out by the Superior Court in Caplan v Atas 2021 ONSC 670, at paragraph
68.
• Liability of The Defendants and the Relief Sought
61. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff, jointly and severally,
as set out in paragraph 1 of the within statement of claim, for the instances and reasons
pleaded above.
62. The Plaintiff therefore seeks the relief set out in paragraph 1 of this statement of claim.
63. The Plaintiff further pleads any and all documents mentioned in this statement of
claim as documents referred to in the pleadings herein.
The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in Toronto.
Dated at Toronto this ,/2.y of June, 2022.
~C:::::---
Rocco Galati
TEL: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
Email: rocco@idirect.com
Lawyer for the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
23 A29
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-30 A
A
0031
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-31 A31
TAB 2
A31
0032
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-32 5 A32
Court FileNo. CV-22-683322-0000
ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and-

("CSAPP"), DEE GANDID, JANES AND JOHNS DOE
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, ROCCO GALATI, of the City ofToronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am a senior lawyer, practicing in Toronto, Ontario, I have been practicing law since I
was called to the bar in Ontario in 1989. I practice law through my law firm Rocco Galati
Law Firm Professional Corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario and
requirements of the Law Society Act.
2. I am a highly regarded and sought-out lawyer.The vast majority of my clients have
always come from and through other lawyers. I have been a Member of Canadian Who's
Who (since 2011). In 2014 and 2015, I was named one of theTop 25 Influential Lawyers
by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In 2015 I was awarded the OBA (Ontario Bar
Association) President's Award, the OBA's highest award. I was in fact the first lawyer
to receive the award.
A32
0033
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-33 6 A33
3. Between May 2015 and May 2019, I served as an elected Bencher for the Law Society of
Ontario (LSO). Between May 2015 to February, 2021, I also served as a Hearing Panel
Member (Adjudicator) of the Ontario Law Society Tribunal (LST). Attached, as "Exhibit
A", are copies of the three Canadian Lawyer Magazine editions for 2003, 2014 and 2015,
as well a feature for "Saturday Night" magazine, summer edition, as well as the front
cover of the two books I co-authored. The 2002 Saturday Night and 2003 Canadian
Lawyer articles were both feature articles consisting of 8 pages each. Attached as Exhibit
B" is a copy of the Bar Association past President's Award winners.
4. I have litigated, regularly, at all level Courts, including Tax Court, Federal Court, Federal
Court of Appeal, all levels of Ontario, other Provincial Superior Courts, as well as the
Supreme Court of Canada. I have litigated in several provinces including Ontario, British
Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. I have litigated and argued in French. I have,
as counsel, over 400 reported cases in the jurisprudence. Some of my major cases
include: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699
(SCC), {1999] 2 SCR 817, Reference re Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985 (Nadon
Reference), Reference re Section 98 of the Constitution Act, 186 (Mainville Reference)
7, R. v. Ahmad, [2011) S.C.J. No. 6 (Toronto 18 Terrorism Case); Felipa v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2011) 422 N.R. 288 (FCA), Wang v.
Canada, 2018 ONCA 798. Attached as "Exhibit C", is a copy ofmy various work and
expertise in law as well as my reported cases as counsel current up to 2018.
5. I have been asked to speak, and have spoken, regularly, at various Law and other
Conferences, as well as Law Schools, Universities and High Schools, across Canada from
1999 to the present. In addition, from 1990 to 1992, I was part-time review counsel at
A33
0034
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-34 7 A34
Downtown Legal Services (DLS), Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. I supervised
student work at the legal aid clinic as well as taught substantive courses on the areas of
the Law undertaken by the Clinic.
6. I am the Founder and Executive Director of the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc (CRC).
since its inception in November, 2004. Attached as "Exhibit D", is a copy of the print
context of the website.
7. I have co-authored two books: "Criminal Lawyer's Guide to Immigration and
Citizenship Law" (1996), "The Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution"
(2001). I have also produced three Films, "Two Letters & Counting ... " 2008-2011,
written, directed and performed by multi-Genie Award winner Tony Nardi, on the state
of art and culture in Canada.
• Donna Toews
8. I do not know Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"). I have never met Donna Toews.
9. Ms. Toews has never been my client.
10. To my recollection, I have never had any direct contact with Ms. Toews.
11. I do not know Kipling Warner. I have had extremely limited contact, one or two emails,
and one letter, with Mr. Warner only through Mr. Warner's solicitor, as set out below,
to issue a caution with respect to his defamatory statements against me and interfering
with my solicitor-client relations, including with Vaccine Choice Canada and
A34
0035
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-35 8 A35
Action4Canada, but not exclusive to them. The only thing I know about Mr. Warner is
what is available and floating online. Attached hereto, as "Exhibit E", is a copy of his
resume. Mr. Warner was also contributor to a 9/11 internet cite annexed hereto as
"Exhibit F". In his resume at "Exhibit E" he cites "certification" with a company
OpenPower (Foundation), Attached, as "Exhibit G", is a copy of OpenPower
Foundation, from its Wikipedia page with respect to the OpenPower Foundation. In
addition, when one clicks on the link on page 2 of his resume on "certified" under the
OpenPower reference, it opens up OpenPower Machine Leaming Working Group
("OPMLWG") of which Kip Warner is Co-chairman as attached as "Exhibit H".
OpenPower Foundation was aligned and now operates under the Linux Foundation
which is in tum under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Working
Group is under and the OpenPower Foundation, when one clicks on footnote # 10 of the
page Wikipedia page, it in turn goes to the Linux Foundation, which comes under the
auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Further attached hereto as "Exhibit I''
are the pages setting out the Linux Foundation to the WEF. The OpenPower Foundation
in turn has moved under the auspices of the Linux Foundation, and in tum under the
auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Attached, as "Exhibit J" is a copy of the
link and announcement. The inescapable conclusion from this is that Mr. Warner, as a
self-proclaimed AI expert, works under the WEF.
• Dee Gandhi
12. I do not know Dee Gandhi. I have never had any direct contact with Mr. Gandhi. He has
never been my client.
A35
0036
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-36 9 A36
13. Vaccine Choice Canada (hereinafter "VCC") has been a client of my law firm, Rocco
Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation, incorporated in Ontario under the terms of the
Law Society Act since 2015.
14. I act on VCC's behalf giving legal advice, consultations, issuing legal opinions, and
conducting litigation for VCC, under the instructions of VCC's Board of Directors,
through their president and Board of Directors.
15. I have absolutely NO role in their organization whatsoever, except to provide legal
services, as described in the Law Society Act, as requested, directed, and instructed by
their Board of Directors, through its president.
• Action4Canada
16. Action4 Canada has been a client of my law firm since October, 2020.
17. I act on Action4Canada' s behalf g1vmg legal advice, consultations, issuing legal
opinions, and conducting litigation for them under the instructions of their Board of
Directors, through its president.
18. I have absolutely NO role in their organization whatsoever, except to provide legal
services, as described in the Law Society Act, as requested, directed, and instructed by
their Board of Directors, through their president.
19. Neither Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, nor Mr. Gandhi, are on the Board of Directors of VCC
or Action4Canada.
A36
0037
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-37 10 A37
Society of Ontario
20. On or about October, 2020, I and my firm, Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional
Corporation, were approached by Action4Canada, and other co-Plaintiffs, in British
Columbia, to possibly undertake a lawsuit, however no retainer was crystalized yet.
Chair of the Board of Directors for Action4Canada, indicating that Mr. Warner had
organized a "similar" campaign to Action4Canada and directed Ms. Gaw view his
lawsuit's GoFundMe page. Attached, as "Exhibit K", is a copy of Mr. Warner's email to
my client.
22. On or about December 14, 2020, I received a telephone call from a lawyer from British
Columbia, Ms. Polina H. Furtula. This lawyer indicated that she was contemplating legal
action against the British Columbia government over the COVID-19 measures imposed
there. She requested that I collaborate with her, owing to my expertise in constitutional
law and proceedings against the Crown. Ms. Furtula's client(s) were Kipling Warner and
his organization, the Canadian Society for The Advancement of Science and Public
Policy (herein after the "Society").
23. I respectfully declined, and advised Ms. Furtula that I had been approached by a British
Columbia group (Action4Canada) and other plaintiffs, and had, in principle, agreed to act
for them in a challenge to the COVID-19 measures, once a retainer crystalized.
A37
0038
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-38 11 A38
24. In January 2021, I began working on the Notice of Claim (Statement of Claim) for
Action4Canada and other co-Plaintiffs, for the British Columbia Supreme Court.
independent journalist, Dan Dicks, from "Press for Truth", a defamatory email about me.
This journalist forwarded that email to my client, Action4Canada, concerned about the
defamatory tone of the email. The email indicated that the Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Science in Public Policy had filed their statement of claim, but then
made defamatory remarks against me and the case filed by me, asserting that the
Defendants had brought their case first and therefore would have "carriage of the matter",
and then asked to assist them in soliciting donations on their behalf for their legal
proceeding for their case. Attached, as "Exhibit L" is a copy of that email.
26. On January 29, 2021, I received a letter from Ms. Furtula indicating that she represented
the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, that she had filed
on behalf of her client(s) and therefore I could not file any proceedings on behalf of my
clients because they were filing a class action. I indicated to Ms. Furtula that my clients
were not filing a class action.
27. On February 3rd, 2021, I responded to Ms. Furtula's letter indicating that her client did
not have exclusive monopoly to litigation against the Crown. I also, in the same response,
issued a warning to Ms. Furtula about Mr. Warner's defamatory conduct against me.
Attached, as "Exhibit M", is a copy of both Ms. Furtala' s letter of January 29th, 2021, as
well as my response of February 3rd to that letter.
A38
0039
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-39 12 A39
28. From January 2021 onward, the Defendants, Kipling Warner, his organization Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, and his associates from the
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, including Dee
Gandhi, continued to defame me to my clients, and others.
29. In or around June, 2021, the Defendants posted defamatory content about me on the
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy's webpage, which
content disparaged me, and made further defamatory comments about me and the legal
action(s) for which I had been retained. As a result, my clients, Action4Canada and VCC,
began receiving messages from their donors concerned about the Defendants' statements.
Attached, as "Exhibit N" are some of those comments on their website.
30. On August 171h, 2021, I finalized and issued the Action4Canada, et al, Notice of Claim
(Statement of Claim) in the British Columbia Supreme Court. This claim was on behalf
of various Plaintiffs, Action4Canada being one, in British Columbia Court File No.:
BCSC NO. VLC-S-S-217586.
31. From August to Christmas, 2021, the Defendants in the Action4Canada Claim, dragged
their heels over whether they would accept service for various Ministries and officials
and requested an indulgence past the normal 30-day deadline, to respond, which I
granted. They also indicated that they wished to bring an application (motion) to strike. I
asked that they do so as soon as possible, under the instructions of my clients.
32. By Christmas day, 2021, the Defendants had not brought their motions to strike. Over
Christmas, I became very ill. On December 25th, 2021, I was bed-ridden. On January 2nd,
2022, I was admitted for a critical illness to the ICU in hospital, in Toronto.
A39
0040
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-40 13 A40
33. After being admitted to hospital on January 2, 2022, I entered a very serious and life-
threatening 12-day coma during which coma I came, three (3) times, under a minute from
being declared dead. Through the grace of God, I survived. On or about January 13th ,
2022, the Defendants, in British Columbia Supreme Court file no.: VLC-S-S-217586,
bought their motions to strike returnable February 22, 2022. Meanwhile, while I was in a
coma and incapacitated under s.37 of the Law Society Act, I remained in a public hospital
until my discharge on January 22, 2022. When I was no longer critical, but still acute, I
was immobile and still required one-on-one nursing and acute medical care, 24 hours a
day. I was discharged as a patient from a public hospital and I transferred myself to
recover in a private medical setting with 24/7 care, on January 22nd , 2022.
34. I did not return home until March 2, 2022, to continue recovering.
35. The motion to strike, which had been set for February 22, 2022, in British Columbia, was
adjourned by my office to May 3151, 2022 in the hopes that I would be sufficiently and
competently capable of arguing the motion to strike via zoom-link. I was granted
permission to appear by zoom-link and argued the motion on May 3 l51, 2022. The
motion(s) to strike were heard on May 3 l51,2022 and the Court reserved its decision.
Thus, despite my severe illness, the case went from filing the claim to arguing the motion
to strike in nine (9) months.
36. While I lay in a coma, in January, 2022, the Defendant Kipling Warner was conspiring
and encouraging Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews") to file a complaint against me with
the Law Society of Ontario.
A40
0041
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-41 14 A41
37. On January 151h, 2022, Ms. Toews filed her complaint to the Law Society of Ontario,
which was forwarded to me on May 19th, 2022. The complaint alleged that I "misled" and
"failed to act with integrity" because Ms. Toews, who had allegedly made a $1,000
donation, "in her husband's name", to my clients, VCC and Action4Canada, to support
their litigation, had not been personally apprised and updated by me, as well as not been
invited to those organizations' members-only meetings, and complained about the pace of
the litigation, notwithstanding that:
(a) Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"), has never been a client of mine;
(b) I have never met with, been contacted by, nor ever had any communications
with Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"),
(c) I have had absolutely no role in my client's (organization) nor organizational
structure and not privy to my clients' fundraising efforts nor how they spend
their money apart from my legal services;
(d) I have no role in organizing any of my clients' members-only meetings.
I state that the substance of the complaint by Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"),
directed and encouraged by Kipling Warner, simply parrots the defamatory remarks
made by the other three co-Defendants. Attached, hereto as "Exhibit O", is a copy
of the complaint, dated May 19th, 2022. Attached as "Exhibit P", is a copy of my
response, dated June 29th, 2022. Attached, as "Exhibit Q", is a copy of the Law
Society's response dated September 12th. 2022, my reply email and the follow-up
from the Law Society of Ontario, dated December 7th, 2022.
A41
0042
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-42 15 A42
claiming I was dead emerged and are still online), Kipling Warner was in communication
with Donna Toews, via email, on how to make a complaint to the Law Society about me.
Kipling Warner, in
discussions with the President of VCC, Ted Kuntz, insisted that because he (Kipling
Warner) "filed first", that the Action4Canada British Columbia claim, which VCC
supported, had to be withdrawn, and all donations to Action4Canada be returned, with the
implication that the donations be forwarded to him, Kipling Warner, to support his
litigation instead.
40. Mr. Warner, furthermore continued to make defamatory statements against me on
CSASPP' s website, https:/ /www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca.
41. I state that the Defendants, Mr. Warner and Mr. Gandhi, personally, in their email to my
client, and through their Canadian Society for the Advancement of Sciences in Public
Policy website, http ://www.covidcon titutionalchaUeng be.ca, uttered and published
defamatory statements against me, conspired against me, and interfered with my
solicitor-client relationship and economic interest and conspired, and in fact induced
breach of contract with my clients, vis-a-vis my practice, namely:
wrote, as follows:
A42
0043
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-43 16 A43
https ://www.scribd.com/ document/ 49223 7670/N otice-of-Civil-Claim

carriage of the file. If you would be so kind to share with everyone so
to help the cause.
https://W\,, ,go:fundme.com/:f/bc- uprerne-court-co id 19-

constitutional-challern?.e
(1) Rocco isn't licensed to practice here in BC. can always be

retained in Ontario and in turn retain counsel in BC. But then you
are paying for two law firms. You can verify that he is not licensed to
http ://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/lsb /apps/lkup/mbr- earch.cfm

Wong. He specializes in immigration law. He was sanctioned in 2010
for his conduct by a Federal Court judge and fined. See for yourself:

constitutional law:
A43
0044
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-44 17 A44

<https:/ /tgam.ca/3n8Zuyo>
5G, vaccines, etc.) to obtain the order that he wants. This is how it
http:/ /canlii.ca/t/8lld#sec9 _ 5
(6) Rocco wants far too much money to get started. This seems in line
with (2);
(7) Nothing has been accomplished in Ontario since Rocco filed

around six months ago. The defendants haven't even filed replies, despite
the option to apply for a default judgment being available for the majority
of that time;
See:
<https://bit.ly /2Li6Baw>

transparency
Public Policy, Mr. Kipling and the other directors of the Society, posted the
following "questions" and "answers", post, about me:
A44
0045
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-45 18 A45
We receive communications regularly from Mr. Galati's past donors

with concerns. We are asked what became of the substantial funds that
the community raised for him or his third-party fundraising arms.
We do not have any information, were not involved in raising funds
for either, nor did we ever seek to retain Mr. Galati. If you have
concerns about his conduct, any member of the general public
can submit an electronic complaint to the Ontario Law Society to
initiate a formal investigation.
Mr. Galati is not licensed to practise law in British Columbia for

any extended period of time. He can always be retained in Ontario, and
in tum retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual.However,
then you are paying for two law firms. Anyone can verify whether a
lawyer is licensed to practise law in British Columbia here.

wished to retain in British Columbia is Lawrence Wong. Mr. Wong
judge with a fine.
Mr. Galati's billings were "excessive and unwarranted" in a
separate proceeding. The same judge declined to award the full amount
sought by Mr. Galati for his legal fees in that constitutional
proceeding. The outcome has been discussed by other lawyers.
Mr. Galati is sometimes described by his followers as our nation's "top

constitutional law" lawyer, yet there is no such professional designation
in Canada, nor in particular in British Columbia. That is not to say that a
lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like personal injury, strata,
mergers and acquisitions, class actions, and the like. According to Mr.
Galati, he studied tax litigation at Osgoode Hall. The Globe and
Mail reported Mr. Galati "makes his money from doing tax law, not
constitutional cases."

interview published 2 September, 2020, Mr. Galati claimed he intended
to do his best to have an interlocutory mask injunction application heard
A45
0046
19 A46
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-46
before the Christmas holidays of 2020. As of 11 June, 2021, we are not

aware of any scheduled hearings and no orders appear to have been
made.
Attached, as "Exhibit R", is a copy of Mr. Warner's (Society's) website which still has
this mounted.
42. Apart from the blatant false, untrue, and defamatory remarks in those publications, and
apart from the blatant conspiracy to have members of the public make complaints about
me on nebulous and unsubstantiated ground, those publications further mislead in that:
(a) they blatantly assert that I am not an expert in constitutional law, standing on the
specious razor's edge that "constitutional law" is not an area of "certification"
under the Law Society of Ontario, notwithstanding that I have never claimed to be
certified, as that term of art is understood under the Law Society Act;
(b) that I had to hire Mr. Lawrence Wong in British Columbia because I am not
called to the bar in British Columbia with the full and embarrassing ignorance that
any lawyer called in any province can practice and litigate so long as a British
Columbia lawyer is Co-listed on record which is a requirement of the British
Columbia Court rules. This facilitation was made through agreements through the
Canadian Federation of Law Societies. Mr. Wong has absolutely no role in the
conduct of the case nor is he paid for being on record.
(c) I was not "sanctioned" for over-billing my clients, the Defendants maliciously
distort a case in which I was self-represented, and successful in the case ( the
Nadon Reference), and in which I was seeking Court costs, which were not fully
granted. This is a far cry away from the intentional distortion of the Defendants;
A46
0047
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-47 20 A47
(d) I did not advise the Defendants anything, let alone that I wished to retain Mr.
Wong;
(e) And while they have "no information" of wrong-doing, they encourage the public,
if they have "concerns", to report me to the Law Society.
A47
0048
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-48 21 A48
06dcf
45. Both as a result of Mr. Warner's and his organization written and oral defamatory
remarks of me, I have received vile, hostile, and violent threats over my representation of
Vaccine Choice Canada and Action for Canada, as a result of Mr. Warner and "Canuck
Law" and Ms. Alexandra Moore, whom Mr. Warner sites for support, in his affidavit, for
his conduct, notwithstanding that Ms. Moore has posted, on her website scandalous
defamatory remarks, which include racist and anti-Semitic comments directed at me, for
which I was regrettably compelled to commence an action against her and "Canuck
Law". I say regrettably because I would prefer to practice law rather than have to take
action against Yd-parties who are severely interfering with my law practice, and clients,
on defamatory and racist basis. Attached hereto, as "Exhibit U" is it copy of the
statement of claim against Canuck Law and Ms. Moore. As far as I know neither Ms.
A49
0050
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-50 23 A50
Moore nor Canuck Law, as an organization, have any legal training nor are licensed as
legal professionals. The same holds true for Mr. Kip Warner.
46. Because of Mr. Warner, and Ms. Moore, the support for the CRC, which relies on
donations to do all its work, has had its donations virtually obliterated.
47. The CRC went public with its website in September, 2020. Prior to launching its website,
the CRC did not solicit nor receive donations but acted on the pro bono services of both
its Directors and others. Since launching the website, the CRC donations profile went as
follows:
(a) in the first four months, September to December, 2020 it received$ 179,505.00;
(b) in 2021 it received $786,706.00, progressively tapering down, monthly, following
the Defendants' defamation and tortious conduct against me.
(c) in 2022 it received $43,878.00.
(d) as ofto date, 2023, it has received $4,537.00 which is 53% less than 2022.
Attached as "Exhibit V" are CRC's income and expense statements as well as a CRA
notice of assessment for 2020, attached as "Exhibit W" are the same documents for
2021. Attached as "Exhibit X" is the PayPal total for 2022 (as tax returns have not yet
been filed). Attached, as "Exhibit Y" is the PayPal total to date in 2023. PayPal is the
sole vehicle of donations for 2022 and 2023.
48. The actions, defamation, online harassment, inducement of breach of contract,
interference with economic interests and conspiracy, of Canuck Law started on October
A50
0051
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-51 24 A51
th
20 1h,2020, and continue to this day, despite the action against it on September 16 , 2020.
In its posts, Canuck Law accuses me of;
(a) "not having the public interest at heart", that he should be "looked into", that he
"isn't given the entire story". Canuck Law call lawyers "scum", and imply that I
am also "scum" too because I am a lawyer. Canuck Law repeatedly suggest that
"Rocco Galati is not doing anything" or isn't working on his lawsuit thus alleging
professional misconduct and incompetence. Furthermore, by explicit language
Canuck Law falsely states over and over, that Rocco Galati is not "Canadian" but
a "foreigner meddling in our affairs", by express terms and innuendo imply that I
am a terrorist, and shares terrorist ideology. Moreover, by expressed terms and
innuendo the Canuck Law accuses Rocco Galati of:
(i) Violating the rules of professional conduct for a lawyer;
(ii) Being immoral;
(iii) Being a fraud;
(iv) Being a subversive foreigner;
(v) Taking on cases not to earn a living, but rather for unethical or
illegal reasons;
(vi) Operating secretly and, by innuendo, of supporting terrorists, or of
being a terrorist himself;
A51
0052
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-52 25 A52
(vii) The Defendants further misstate the facts in the case of Horace
who was murdered before the case was finalized;
(viii) The Defendants suggest that Comer case was rigged to lose by
Rocco Galati;
(ix) The Defendants state that Rocco Galati, as a Director of the
Constitutional Rights Centre Inc., shares terrorist ideology.
Kip Warner relies on this website for justifying his actions and conduct against me.
49. Mr. Warner commenced his defamatory remarks in June, 2021.
50. On August 91h,2021 Canuck Law ran a piece on its website by a "Ronnie", and:
(a) In these defamatory and malicious statements, Canuck Law accuses me of "not
having the public interest at heart" and of actually actively working against public
interests. Moreover, by expressed terms and innuendo Canuck Law defamatorily
accuse me of:
• Being controlled opposition, and presenting a false persona;
• Actively working against Canadians;
• That the July 6, Statement of Claim is a bogus lawsuit;
• That I am is "racist" against white men;
• That I lost several cases on purpose, so as to subvert the interests of
Canadians;
A52
0053
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-53 26 A53
• That donations to the Constitutional Centre will go toward Mr. Galati's
private clients;
• Violating the rules of conduct of his profession;
• Fraud;
• Being a subversive foreigner;
• Taking on cases not to earn a living, but rather, insinuating by innuendo,
for unethical or illegal reasons;
• Operating secretly and, by innuendo, of supporting terrorists, or of being a
terrorist myself.
51. Many donors have called, left voicemails, and sent emails to my office indicating that
they were no longer donating because of what Mr. Warner and his "Society", and Canuck
Law, posted.
52. The CRC is not a law firm but an advocacy and support centre, which has been in
existence since 2004 and assists with all constitutional matters, not just COVID-19
related allegations. It in tum supports, financially, other lawyers who are on record for
clients who need support including, but not exclusively, my law firm. Thus, the actions of
the Defendants have not only financially damaged the CRC, but me as well, both through
reputation as well as financial loss. Moreover, it has seriously damaged the clients we all
represent. Furthermore, the CRC provides informational support, and produces
informational videos, at no charge. We speak at universities, colleges, and high schools
when requested. Due to Kip Warner and Canuck Law the CRC has ceased posting about
its activities to shield lawyers who work with the CRC and their clients from attacks. Kip
Warner's defamation has resulted in a self-censorship and has had a chilling effect on the
A53
0054
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-54 27 A54
CRC's expression not the other way around. Mr. Warner, and his Society, and Canuck
Law, have not been chilled, they continue to publicly hurl false, untrue, and viscous
defamation.
• Response to the Affidavit of Kipling Warner
53. With respect to the affidavit of Kipling Warner, I respond, in addition to what is set out
above in my affidavit, as set out below.
54. With respect to paragraphs 1-5, 7-13, 16-29, and 35-42 of his affidavit, I have little to no
knowledge, nor do I care. I have never met, nor spoken, nor directly communicated with
Mr. Warner whatsoever, whether by phone, e-mail, letter, nor social media. I did
communicate with his legal counsel, Ms. Furtala as set out in earlier in my affidavit. I
further reserve the right to fully cross examine on these paragraphs, and the entirety of his
affidavit.
55. With respect to paragraph 6 of his affidavit Mr. Warner gives no hint of what "members"
of what "community" approached him and why.
56. With respect to paragraph 14 of his affidavit I have no idea what he means by "hyperbole
and speculation", with respect to his litigation strategy and, again, and in any event do
not care because he can conduct his, and his Society's litigation as he sees fit, as he has a
right to do so. This is a right he does not accord others who wish to litigate with any
strategy different from his.
57. With respect to paragraphs 30 and 31 of his affidavit, I respond with a "so what", except
to say that Mr. Warner had a "split decision" on standing. He correctly conveyed it as a
A54
0055
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-55 28 A55
win on the standing that was achieved, rightfully so. However, he does not accord the
same view to others, such as my client's decision in Action4Canada or Adelberg, et al.
vs HMTK, et at. In Action4Canada the Defendants requested the dismissal with
prejudice without leave to amend. This was denied by the Court. The claim was struck
with leave to amend. The case is on appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal with
the amended claim on ice pending disposition of the Appeal. In Adelberg the Federal
Court struck, with prejudice, the claim against the Federal "core administration" Federal
workers stating that they had to follow the labour dispute resolution mechanism. It struck
the whole claim but allowed the remaining 240 employees of Federally regulated, non-
government employees, to amend and continue with respect to challenging the same
COVID-19 measures and seek damages.
58. While Mr. Warner, or anyone else for that matter, has a right to think and express
criticism, he cannot cross the line into personal, false, and defamatory attacks based on
any win/loss analysis of litigation, particularly on a distorted, selective, and false one at
that.
59. With respect to paragraph 34 of his affidavit, while Mr. Warner sets out that "2,000
individuals have donated $367,243.00 to his litigation fund, where he was defaming me
on his website and states that I am one asking for "too much money" (without evidence
or particulars), he and his colleagues further went on to say that it should not take more
than $10,000 to run a case in Court and that the problem was "greedy lawyers". Mr.
Warner conveniently has one standard for himself, and other vague and baseless ones for
the part of his universe not to his liking, and defames in the process.
A55
0056
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-56 29 A56
60. With respect to paragraph 43 of Mr. Warner's affidavit he is mistaken on his assumption
that Action4Canada singularly exists to challenge the COVID-19 measures, but rather is
but one of its raison d'etre and it was in existence prior to the arrival of the COVID-19
pandemic and was, and continues to be, active in activities as legal initiatives completely
devoid of the COVID-19 measures. Furthermore, with respect for paragraphs 44 - 49 of
Mr. Warner's affidavit, his gleaning of social media, and posts from social media and
CRA filings, jumps to inaccurate and distorted conclusions and inferences that the
$208,838 filed, is strictly for Action4Canada litigation and, moreover a matter over
which he has no knowledge, nor has any right to know, as a matter protected by solicitor-
client privilege with respect to how, and on what legal matters, this money was spent on.
61. With respect to paragraph 50 of his affidavit, this paragraph is a disingenuous
rationalization of the loss that was actually mounted on the Defendants' website in that
the post goes way beyond their rationale and into gross, defamation and innuendo that I
am a "dishonest", "greedy lawyer" asking for "too much money" and should be able to
do the case, all in, for $10,000, which Mr. Warner knew, or ought to have known, is
neither true, fair comment, nor responsible publication. This post is also tainted and
soiled with his other attempts, and (attempted) and actual conspiracies to want to see me
fired, criminally charged and disbarred, by my own clients.
62. With respect to paragraph 51 of his affidavit, I respond in subparagraph kind by stating:
(a) action4Canada's views on various topics have nothing to do with my action
against the Defendants herein, and is further, irrelevant and simple mudslinging;
A56
0057
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-57 30 A57
(b) Mr. Warner recklessly and without proper investigation, relies on Canuck Law
and its false and untrue statements. On September 7th, 2021, I commenced legal
action against Alexandra Moore (who runs Canuck Law) for the racist and anti-
Semitic videos and articles posted against me, as a Calabrian Jew, and stating
such things as: that I have no right to litigate in the Courts because I am "not a
Canadian" but a "foreigner", born in Italy, and not a Canadian citizen, nor could I
ever be, notwithstanding I came to Canada in 1966 and have been a citizen since
1972 with my father on his, and my own behalf, relinquishing Italian citizenship
in exchange for Canadian citizenship; for stating that I am "controlled opposition"
and do my cases just to loose them, and produce two articles by "Ronnie", making
up depraved statements and innuendo that I am a descendant of the "Jewish
Cabal" [sic] and inner circle controlling the world in the lineage and tradition of
Karl Marx, Trotsky and Adolf Hitler: At the CPC scheduling date held on October
12th,2022, Mr. Warner's anti-slaap motion scheduling was on the same list as my
claim against the LSO which references the Canuck Law defamation and slander.
When I suggested and requested for the Court that both be heard together because
of the similarity, Mr. Gleason on behalf of Mr. Warner vigorously opposed,
stating that the two cases have nothing to do with each other yet here is Mr.
Warner relying on Canuck Law and its postings to better his "fair comment" and
"truth" about me.
(c) With respect to this posting Re. Action4Canada fund raising, I have explained
earlier, I am not responsible nor have any role in Action4Canada except as
independent legal counsel, on retainer;
A57
0058
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-58 31 A58
(d) with respect to this Canuck Law post, I repeat and rely on my comments above in
sub (b) above;
(e) with respect to the CBC article cited by Mr. Warner, he chooses to leave out the
fact that CBC also indicated that I denied that the Constitutional Rights Centre
has anything to do with "Enable Air", and that the CRC received no donations
from Enable Air. Attached as "Exhibit Z" is a copy of the Global News as well as
CBC articles with respect to this, which states: "Enable Air.com advertised that
50 percent of "post-administrative fees" will be donated to Galati and the
Constitutional Rights Centre, an organization he founded. However, Galati told
the CBC he had no connection to the website". In fact, I told the CBC much more:
that I did not know Dr. Goddard who ran Enable Air, never spoke to nor
communicated nor ever met him and never received personally nor through the
CRC any money from Enable Air or Dr. Goddard. In fact, I reported them, made a
criminal complaint against them to the RCMP;
(f) (g) Again, social media chatter about what others think about any piece of
litigation is NOT justification, nor a legal defence to defamation, conspiracy, and
direct interference with economic interests, and inducing breach of conduct, in the
targeted fashion Mr. Warner and Canuck law has obsessively treated me;
(h) With respect to the Western Standard article cited, I repeat that I never had
anything to do with Enable Air, never got any donations from Enable Air, and
furthermore it was me who made the formal complaint and request for an
investigation by the RCMP referenced. Attached here to, as "Exhibit AA" is a
A58
0059
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-59 32 A59
copy of my complaint to the RCMP with attachments, dated December 12th , 2021,
with respect to Enable Air. Furthermore, this report cited by Mr. Warner, relies
and states other falsehoods. It also quotes Vladislav Sobolev stating that he's
openly questioned Galati at various rallies in Vancouver. I have never attended a
rally with Vladislav Sobolev, let alone in Vancouver.
(i)(j)(k)(l) Again, social media, inaccurate and irrelevant chitchat. What is further
to be noted about these (social) media posts is that they post-date the acts and
defamatory statements in this action, made by the Defendants;
(m) Again, this Canuck Law post is more of the same for which Canuck Law been
sued;
(n) (o) (p) (q) again posts which have nothing to do with this lawsuit or me;
(r) (s) Again, my answer is "So what"? The report sets out that I was compelled to
remove myself from the record as I was still recovering from a coma and lengthy
hospitalization. "I" did not file the notice of appeal, which was filed by my office
as a protective measure for my clients prior to being removed. We also requested
and obtained, for Dr. Gill and Dr. Lamba, a ninety 90-day extension from the date
of the Court order, to obtain new counsel. Attached, as "Exhibit BB" is a copy of
the Court of Appeal order.
(t) This contains more defamation, and online harassment from Canuck Law,
singularly obsessed with personally attacking me with respect to my private
practice, particularly after being sued by me, and having several Law Society
A59
0060
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-60 33 A60
complaints by Alexandra Moore, against me and my staff, thrown out by the Law
Society. Furthermore, in this subparagraph Mr. Warner, typically, through
incantation, states:
"I understand that the Plaintiff represents, or represented each of Vaccine

Choice Canada, Police on Guard, and Children's Health Defence
(Canada)."
which is distorted, as I have never represented Police On Guard or Children's Health
Defence.
63. With respect to paragraph 52 and the nebulous reference to queries from unspecified
sources, I take objection to the use of the term of "Galati affiliates". I am a lawyer, who is
legal counsel to Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada and an extensive number of
other clients. Mr. Warner confuses his activist life and activities, which he has a perfect
right to pursue, with my role as a lawyer. I do not have "affiliates" whatever he means by
that other than what I surmise, in his own mind as "guilty by association" in his own
mind as accuser, judge, and jury. Mr. Warner has de facto appointed himself LSO,
Police, and arbiter of all litigation not his own.
A60
0061
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-61 34 A61
65. With respect to paragraph 59 of his affidavit, Mr. Warner is arrogantly and destructively
dismissive of the fact that I act on the instructions of my clients and that, shortly after the
commencement of our action, the province enacted, by way of Regulation, masking
exemptions which provided that anyone can declare an exemption, on very broad and
liberal grounds, and was not required to provide any information or evidence to support
that self-declaration of an exemption. Attached, as "Exhibit CC" is a copy of that
Regulation. No injunction was necessary.
66. With respect to paragraph 60 of Mr. Warner's affidavit, his defamation that I am
incompetent and dishonest shines in this statement as he is not privy to what funding I
sought. Furthermore, I was not simply retained "to draft and file a pleading" but, on a flat
fee, to conduct an action from beginning to end, including ancillary legal consultations
and advice to my client, along the way. Moreover, Mr. Warner's allegation of what is
sufficient, is the basis to the defamation of incompetence and dishonesty intended, and to
inflict intentional harmful, tortious conduct on me.
67. With respect to paragraph 61 of his affidavit, Mr. Warner states that he conducted
research, unspecified in time, whether it was post-facto to his tortious conduct, and knit-
picks what he perceives as loses amongst my cases. He is myopic, selective, and very
calculated in what he cites, while ignoring the preponderance of jurisprudence on which I
have acted as legal counsel, at every level of Court in Canada, in various Provinces, as
attached hereto above at "Exhibit C". I state that these post-facto, calculated, engineered,
A61
0062
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-62 35 A62
and extremely selective pieces of "research", support and are further proof of his mala
tides, absence of fair comment, and absence of responsible publication, and that they are
false, intending to substantially damage my reputation as a lawyer and seriously harming
me.
68. Even with the cases he cites in paragraph 60, his point is to cast aspersions on my legal
competence and experience. Like any other competent lawyer, I am going to "win some
and lose some". Considering the number of cases I have litigated, and the particular
examples Mr. Warner cites as a basis of his tortious conduct, this calculated anorexic
selection is evidence that his defamatory statements were not true, nor fair comment, nor
responsible publication, but simply fortuitous personal attack intended to injure, and
laced with mala tides.
69. Furthermore, some of the cases, which were rulings on costs, Mr. Warner ignores the fact
that, on the merits were successful, such as the Nadon Reference (Galati v. Harper),
which is a seismic case constitutionalizing the Supreme Court of Canada. Again, the only
message these comments convey is that I am incompetent and dishonest.
70. Other cases, such as Sivak, Wang, Da Silva, Comer, were very complex processes of
litigation in which the claims for damages were only part and parcel of the litigation, and
overall strategy for a singular, ultimate goal and relief.
71. For example, the Wang decision was part of an immigration case that had simultaneous
proceedings before the Refugee Board, private civil litigation on which I was not counsel
in the Ontario Superior Court, and a habeas corpus application on which I was counsel.
Wang and her husband, Mr. Yang, were subject to an immigration release which required
A62
0063
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-63 36 A63
a 24-7 house arrest scheme in which they were required to provide, and, pay about $1.5
million a year or else be held in prison. I sued in Federal Court for damages and brought
habeas corpus. Although the habeas corpus application in Superior Court initially was
dismissed, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal issued a seminal and
seismic ruling, agreeing with my argument that habeas corpus, in the immigration
context, is a remedy available even if the person is not held in a custodial institution.
Thus, along with the civil claim in Federal Court, this resulted in the government
abandoning and entering into consentual terms that the house-arrest scheme be, in the
main removed, thus resulting in saving of $1.5 million per year, and resulting in
substaptial freedom for my clients pending resolution of their immigration status. Mr.
Warner's selective comments on Wang are intended to defame and injure.
72. The Sivak case resulted in a settlement for 65 families who were undocumented illegal
immigrants but were granted permanent resident status, notwithstanding their failed
refugee status. The cases had started as applications for judicial reviews and were
converted into an action on a successful motion brought by me. In the end the case, with
the action for damages, as a collateral threat, was so successful that the government
insisted on a sealed settlement agreement so that no other immigration lawyers would
follow suit with their clients. Mr. Warner ignores this in order to harm and injure me and
my reputation.
73. Da Saliva Campo was part of a larger litigation to establish a Federal Ministerial
construction workers' program on behalf of tens of thousands of undocumented
construction workers. A program which was subsequently executed because of this, and
litigation I commenced on behalf of the lawyer who represented those workers before
A63
0064
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-64 37 A64
immigration Canada, to grant amnesty to illegal construction workers. In spite of the
eventual striking of the amended claim cited by Mr. Warner. In fact the lawyer's suit is
still in the court and because of the media coverage and criticism of government as a
result of those cases, illegal construction workers program was established with all the
Plaintiffs in the Da Silva Campo claim obtaining permanent residence, who are the
clients of the lawyer who represented them, and whom I still represent in his own lawsuit
from the same program. Mr. Warner selectively ignores this in his comments because his
intent is to damage my reputation and defame me. Moreover, he is reckless in his
investigating of the facts, before publicizing this, embarrassingly intentional defamation.
74. Again, the Al Omani vs. Canada case was commenced while litigating a refusal of a
Saudi national' s permanent resident visa and that of his wife and children, after two
successful judicial reviews, on specific and unsubstantiated allegations of national
security risks. What Mr. Warner fails to spell out, is that following the filing of the
statement of claim, Mr. Al Omani and his family were granted their visas authorizing
residence in Canada, before the motion to strike was heard because his intent is not to
engage in fair comment but defamation and slander.
75. Clearly, and with respect, Mr. Warner is, from the standpoint of being inside a locked
bathroom, peeking outside through the peep-hole of the bathroom, and trying to survey
the full contents of the living room, albeit not visible through the peep-hole, and then
pretend that his vantage point gave him fair and truthful basis to defame me as to what
was happening in the garden while still looking through the peep-hole of the windowless
bathroom he is inside. While he cites less than a dozen motions in which pleadings were
struck, with or without leave, he does not mention, of the 2000+ cases argued in my
A64
0065
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-65 38 A65
career, and over 400 reported cases, any of my "wins". ather when
he texts him as he states: "Can you name a single important case that he has won"? With
respect, if all the research Mr. Warner claims to have done on me, and he could not find
"a single important case I [sic] have won", that I have to respectfully state that Mr.
Warner's only intention is to cast aspersions on my legal competence and experience and
with what he knows, or ought to have known, is not true, fair comment, responsible
publication or public interest, in that his statements reflect.
(a) Knowingly reckless research;
(b) Distorted intellect;
(c) Lack of honesty;
(d) Lack of integrity;
But is endowed with an abundance of;
(e) Intentionally delusional and dishonest analysis;
(t) Mala tides; and
(g) A clear intention to defame and injure me at any and all costs.
This he shares with Canuck Law and Alexandra Moore.
76. With respect to paragraph 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 of Mr. Warner's affidavit,
Mr. Warner again, deliberately mistakes, falsities, and postulates, while standing on
quicksand, in that:
(a) Mr. Wong is NOT my co-counsel in that he has absolutely no involvement in the
conduct of the case, but his office merely is local counsel of record, as required
under the British Columbia Rules, in order for the Court to have a local BC
Lawyer to contact in the event it is required. His office also assists in serving and
A65
0066
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-66 39 A66
filing and interacting with the Court registry when necessary and when materials
cannot be exchanged electronically between Toronto and Vancouver. I do not
know where Mr. Warner incants his assumptions. Mr. Wong does not bill me, nor
the client, for any legal services on this case except the occasional out-of-pocket
disbursements in effecting service and filing with the Court registry, which
disbursements I would incur even if the case was in Toronto, or I were a local
British Columbia lawyer ;
(b) Again Mr. Warner knit-picks a few instances of costs being awarded against Mr.
Wong, which are irrelevant mudslinging intended to cast aspersions. Mr. Wong
has been a competent and respected lawyer for over 35 years and highly regarded,
particularly in the Chinese community which he heavily represents. I have known
and, at times, worked with him, on public interest cases in the immigration
context for over 25 years.
77. With respect to paragraph 71 of the affidavit: This comment is irrelevant and only
intended to undermine confidence in me. The case is under appeal, with new counsel due
to my coma and recovery therefrom, my former clients were not prejudiced in any way.
This is more non-informative, irrelevant misleading, as a pauper excuse to engage in
tortious conduct against me.
78. With respect to paragraph 72 and 73 of his affidavit, apart from Mr. Warner's obsession,
fixation, and targeting of me and my practice, what is the point of this?
79. With respect to the Adelberg case and paragraphs 74, 75 and 76, it is also irrelevant and
intended to damage my legal requtation. How is this any different from Mr. Warner's
A66
0067
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-67 40 A67
"split" decision on standing for his Society? Attached as "Exhibit DD" to this affidavit is
a copy of the Federal Court decision on the motion to strike. The Adelberg decision was
a split one in result, it is also pending appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. Attached as
"Exhibit EE", is a copy of the notice of appeal. The amended claim with respect to the
Plaintiffs with leave to amend, is awaiting the disposition on the Court of Appeal ruling,
before being served and filed.
80. With respect to the various processes of COVID litigation I have conducted on behalf of
various clients, I attach the following results:
(a) a failed, dismissed request by the government Defendants in Sgt. Julie Evans et
al. v. AG Ontario et al. dated April 20 th , 2021 attached as "Exhibit FF";
(b) a failed dismissed request by the government Defendants in M.A. v. De Villa,
2021 ONSC 3828 school application in M.A. v. De Villa, 2021 ONSC 3828,
Attached as "Exhibit GG";
(c) the decision of Justice Ross in the Action4Canada et al. action attached as
"Exhibit HH";
(d) the decision of Dr. Turek v. CPSO attached as "Exhibit II", where the Judicial
Review (JR) application was procedurally not adjudicated for prematurity,
pending any discipline committee referral, which had not taken place at the time
of the Judicial Review. However Turek obtained a significant win wherein the
Court determined that Policy Guidelines prohibiting criticism of Public Health
Officials and moreover punishable on threat of removal of license, were not law
A67
0068
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-68 41 A68
(binding), and thus mere opinion and not enforceable as "conduct" leading to
sanctions;
(e) the decision of the Federal Court in Adelberg et al. v. HMTK et al. attached in
above in "Exhibit DD";
81. Contrary to Mr. Warner's irrelevant views that my COVID-19 cases have been losses and
a waste of time and money, in fact my clients' satisfaction, views, and confidence in their
lawyer is what matter. He only provides his opinions publicly and intentionally forgetting
my clients and their support base in order to undermine their confidence in me as a
lawyer. The results above put the lie to his assertion which is self-serving to fundraise for
himself and, does not give him licence to use it as a basis to defame me, conspire against
me, and interfere with my practice and economic interest, as well as induce breach of
contract, and engage in online harassment of me and my clients. Mr. Warner and his
"Society" target and focus on my clients instead of his own litigation. Attached, as
"Exhibit JJ", is a copy of his standing case in British Columbia in which he was denied
standing in a split decision, dated May 4th , 2022. Attached as "Exhibit KK" is a decision
by Mr. Chief Justice Hinkson where he and his Society "Lost", in CSAASPP v. BC
dated September 121h, 2023. Also attached as "Exhibit LL" is a Decision of Justice
Corval, in CSAASPP v. B.C dated February 28th , 2023. Also attached as "Exhibit MM"
is the decision of Mr. Justice Bennett of the Ontario Superior Court, and includes a
thorough canvassing of the "COVID-19" cases. Justice Bennett points out that at a ratio
of "20 to l ", the Courts have ruled in the governments favour relying on judicial notice
without evidence. So why are Mr. Warner and Canuck Law obsessed and targeting me
and virtually never criticizing nor attacking any other lawyer(s) who "loses", including
A68
0069
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-69 42 A69
Mr. Warner's own lawyer(s). The answer is to defame and damage me. Analyzed in its
proper context, Mr. Warner's "case", compared to mine, are a dismissal failure.
82. With respect to paragraphs 78-85 of Mr. Warner's affidavit, I state that:
(a) the actions of Mr. Warner speak for themselves and reflect that people who read
his comments see them as defa atory, s and Sandy Sable
who have provided affidavits in the within motion record;
(b) that the Law Society complaint against me, engineered by Mr. Warner, is set out
in the complaint to the LSO and attached documents, including emails between
Ms. Toews and Mr. Warner in which Mr. Warner or one of his co-conspirators,
states, found at "Exhibit O" above in this affidavit,
Thanks for agreeing to help us help you recover your donor funds from
Rocco. Rick informed me this afternoon you are amenable, but would like
to remain anonymous.
I don't know if our lawyer Jonathan Reilly will think anonymity is

possible, but I will ask him before relying on any information you provide.
The law society can likely investigate, and should investigate, both
Action4Canada and VCC. In the mean time can you please email Rick and
cc me under separate cover an email Jonathan can rely on. It should state
the following: Who you are, the amount donated, to who, when, how,
what you were told about how the funds would be spent, any inquiries you
made to learn what became of the donation, and any substantive response
received.
83. With respect to paragraphs 86-93 of Mr. Warner's affidavit, what Mr. Warner
conveniently omits, and thereby misleads the Court, in the following:
(a) He deliberately omits to set out the involvement and details and context, as well
as content of his conspiratorial role in the Law Society complaint against me by
A69
0070
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-70 43 A70
Donna Toews, and what the role of the other two unknown individuals Johnathan
Reilly and "Rick", and others as well as the ex-treasurer of the Law Society, Mr.
Gavin Mackenzie, involved in the Law Society complaint nor why they think that
they are "to recover your donor funds from Rocco", when I received NO funds
from her;
(c) Fails to set out that Ms. Yvonne Coelho is a close friend of Mr. Warner engaging
in online harassment against me and my clients;
(d) While stating that his friend Vladislav Sobolev's version of the conversation with
Ted Kuntz is more reliable, neglects the animus Vladislav Sobolev holds against
me for declining to represent him on his family law case pro bono, and Mr.
Sobolev's attempts in, through and on behalf of Mr. Warner, to Sandy Sable, who
organized and assisted the "1st Responders", from ignoring their vote to retain my
firm, and instead "dump me for Kip Warner".
84. With respect to paragraph 95 of his affidavit and Mr. Warner's lilting statement that I
have commenced this action "to mitigate his (my) declining brand image" I state that:
(a) I do not purport to have a "brand image" I am lawyer who essentially, since 1990
have practiced law with integrity. I have no disciplinary record in the Law
A70
0071
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-71 44 A71
Society, I restrict my practice to proceedings against the Crown, with a heavy
emphasis and concentration on constitutional litigation. After 34 years of practice
I continue, to have an unblemished record in that I have NEVER been brought
before the Discipline Committee of the LSO; and
(b) I have been advised by my colleagues in the bar and the bench and do verily
believe that I am admired for my willingness and ability to act on difficult and
complex litigation. I have been recognized by, including through awards and
acclamations, by my colleagues for excellence in advocacy.
(c) if my "brand image" is declining it is due to Mr. Warner's untrue, false,
defamatory comments, and tortious conduct of Mr. Warner and "his affiliates"
and the racist and anti-Semitic posts of Canuck Law, as well as their dogged on
online harassment of me and my private practice. Which has caused substantial
damage to my reputation and harm to me.
85. With respect to paragraphs 97-102 of Mr. Warner's affidavit, and my suit against the Law
Society of Ontario, it speaks for itself. Attached as "Exhibit NN" is a copy of those
pleadings. The action is for damages resulting from the Law Society operational
bureaucracy requiring me, approximately thirteen (13) times over the course of
approximately 19 months, to take note and/or respond to complaints of non-client third
parties who object to my work on behalf of my clients, and respond to irrelevant, vile,
racist and antisemitic points of view. As a lawyer of 34 years, without a single
disciplinary hearing, or record, and as a former elected Bencher, and Law Society
Tribunal (LST) member for four (4) full years, my sense of duty compelled me to take a
A71
0072
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-72 45 A72
stand against the lack of screening, resulting in nauseating abuse. Mr. Warner may dream
up and feign what he wants, it does not make it so, it is a matter before the Courts. The
Law Society has a duty to competently screen and reject frivolous, baseless, and racist
driven complaints before they go to the lawyer for response. That is why I commenced
the action against the LSO. I attach some of the complaints to the LSO, with respect to
my COVID-19 litigation, as follows:
(a) "Exhibit 00", Complaint from the "Two Butlers", dated December l51, 2020
(dismissed);
(b) "Exhibit PP", Complaint from Lindsey H, dated February 18th , 2021 (dismissed);
(c) "Exhibit QQ", pt Complaint from Terry Polevoy, a Defendant in a case where I
represented the Plaintiff, dated February 18th , 2021 (dismissed);
(d) "Exhibit RR", Complaint from Elana Goldfried, dated February 22 nd , 2021
(dismissed);
(e) "Exhibit SS", pt Complaint from Alexandra Moore, dated February 18th , 2021
(dismissed);
(t) "Exhibit TT", 2nd Complaint from Alexandra Moore, dated August )Cd, 2021
(dismissed);
(g) "Exhibit UU", 2nd Complaint from Terry Polevoy, dated February 4th, 2022
(dismissed);
A72
0073
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-73 46 A73
(h) "Exhibit VV", Complaint from Franca Lombardi, dated February 4 th, 2022
(dismissed);
None of these individuals were ever my clients. I had no prior dealings nor
communication, nor met any one of them whatsoever.
86. Also attached, as "Exhibit WW" is my "notice", through my responses to the Law
Society, as the proverbial "last straw that would break the camel's back". Upon ignoring
me, and forwarding me the Toews complaint, I commenced action against the LSO.
87. Alexandra Moore's (Canuck Law) also complained about my junior lawyer, Samantha
Coomara twice, which were both dismissed by the LSO. The point of the action is that
the LSO owes a duty to lawyers to adequately and thoroughly vet "complaints", support
for which action is evidenced by other eventual dismissals.
88. Again, this is not Mr. Warner's business but he has taken it upon himself to act as the:
(a) Law Society of Ontario by defaming me as "dishonest";
(b) LPIC, by defaming me as "incompetent";
Finally, his conduct, if not corrected by the Courts as falling outside the protected realm
of public interest, brings the administration of the legal profession and justice into
disrepute. Such conduct has no public interest. In fact, it is antimetrical to public interest
A73
0074
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-74 47 A74
in deliberately targeting and attacking a lawyer for representing the interests of his
clients, on his clients' instructions, and satisfaction and confidence. Mr. Warner's only
interest is to see that I, as a lawyer, endure the baseless stigma of "unprofessionalism", as
well as suffer financial loss.
89. With respect to paragraph 103 of Mr. Warner's affidavit I state that:
(a) this lawsuit is not a "take the offensive" lawsuit. I have no interest in Mr. Warner
nor his "Society". I have never initiated contact with him or his Society, for which
I have never, nor will ever have, any need or desire. This action is necessary to
prevent his interference with my solicitor-client relationship, my legal practice,
my career and my reputation and to seek relief for the serious harm and damages
caused by Mr. Warner. Along with his intentionally tortious conduct, as
documented in the affidavit evidence in my motion record, to injure, jail, disbar,
and affect demise on my practice, period. This lawsuit is required for Mr. Warner
to cease and desist his tortious conduct as he failed to do so after a warning.
(b) I do not seek to "undermine the Society's efforts" to my benefit. I have no interest
in him or his Society. He has no evidence to the contrary. I have had an extremely
successful practice since my call to the bar in 1989, long before the "Johnny-
come-lately" arrival of the Society Mr. Warner created in 2021. I simply want Mr.
Warner and his "affiliates" to stay out of my life, and leave me alone with respect
to my private practice in representing my private clients and cease and desist from
damaging my reputation and to prevent further harm and damages ..
90. With respect to paragraphs 104, 105, and 106 of Mr. Warner's affidavit I state that:
A74
0075
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-75 48 A75
(a) he brought this action unto himself by failing to cease and desist after being
cautioned and put on notice in writing;
(b) he has yet to remove any of his defamatory remarks about me from his website
and as recently as early December, 2022, he continues to make defamatory
comments, unaffected by this litigation. He appeared on a Facebook and YouTube
video in which he states, at the 4:42 minute mark of the video.
"Only sometimes daily at least weekly from those who have contributed
to a parallel campaign various fund raising or marketing arms if you
will of Mr. Rocco Galati. and while we never sought to engage him
and we never donated to his campaign we've had very little interaction
with him.
We have been receiving complaints for an extended period of time and

initially we paid very little attention to them because it's not directly
related to the business we have at hand, however these kept on going on
for quite some time and the allegations vary but the general substance of
them is a substantial amount of money was raised for a COVID-19 related
litigation and for whatever reason little if anything ever transpired as a
result of that we're obviously not a public regulator or not the police, we
are not in a position to really do anything about that but in response to all
those inquiries we did put up an FAQ making it clear that we're not
affiliated with Mr. Galati because there were concerns that we might have
been a marketing for fund raising arm for him but we have absolutely
nothing to do with him.
Well, there are a number of different proceedings or action/suits whatever

you want to call them that were commenced by Mr. Galati I'm only aware
of one hearing one substantial hearing that ever took place for covid
related litigation after one of one of Mr. Galatis marketing arms here in
British Columbia and that hearing a believe was to have the preceding
struck for having violated the rules of court and I believe that application
was successful."
and in which video he has images of me while he states the above. I state that this
is yet, a continued, feigned, excuse to continue the defamation and injury to me
A75
0076
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-76 49 A76
because the statement is false, as set out in this my affidavit, and the affidavits of
Sandy Sable, Tanya Gaw, and Ted Kuntz.
(c) It is clear that, his continued online harassment of me, has actually benefited him
by destroying my own donor base for the CRC, while correspondingly benefiting
Mr. Warner. As such his statements are a classic case of a Freudian projection.
(d) Except for filing this action, neither I, nor my clients have responded in kind to
Mr. Warner and his Society, nor engaged with him. He has produced no evidence
that there is any public interest or fair comment/discourse.
• Response to the Affidavit of Donna Toews
91. With respect to the affidavit of Donna Toews, I respond, in addition to what is set out
above in my affidavit, as set out below.
92. With respect to paragraphs 3-7 of Ms. Toews affidavit, I have no knowledge, as I have no
role in Vaccine Choice Canada, except as independent legal counsel. Her concerns
addressed in those paragraphs were addressed by Mr. Ted Kuntz, president of VCC , in
response to her complaint to the LSO . Attached, as "Exhibit XX" is Mr. Kuntz's
response.
A76
0077
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-77 50 A77
93. Ms. Toews gives no hint or sheds no light as to why she thought that I was the one who
owed her answers with respect to her donations to VCC or Ms. Gaw, on behalf of
Action4Canada.
94. With respect to paragraphs 10-16 of Ms. Toews I respond that:
(a) Ms. Toews did not make a donation to my legal fees as she asserts in paragraph
16 of her affidavit, her donations were not sent to Rocco Galati Law Firm
Professional Corporation, they apparently were sent to my clients both of whom
have varied activities and programs which have nothing to do with litigation. I do
not know, nor should I know and care on how they produce their valid and legal
donations and spend them;
(b) Ms. Toews also does not offer a hint nor shed any light, on how Mr. Warner, and
Mr. Gavin Mackenzie, a lawyer and ex-treasurer of the Law Society, nor
Johnathan Reilly or "Rick", came into her life, and picture, in the context of the
obvious commandeering of the complaint against me by Mr. Warner;
(c) Ms. Toews does not indicate if and when she requested a refund of her donation
to VCC and Action4Canada, but nonetheless looks to me to account for her
donation to third party organizations. In fact, she never requested a refund of
those donations from those organization directly which supports the inference and
probability that the donation was only made for the purpose of triggering and
pursuing a LSO complaint against me and that Mr. Wamers' command and
steering of the complaint and fact of, Ms. Toews volunteering for Mr. Warner
organization was no coincidence but a conspiracy.
A77
0078
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-78 51 A78
• Response to the Affidavit of Deepankar Ghandi
95. With respect to the affidavit ofDeepankar Ghandi, I respond as set out below.
96. With respect to paragraph 5 of his affidavit it is not clear how he could have been "aware
of my being retained" by various groups when he was not privy to those retainers.
97. With respect to paragraph 6, the VCC claim was issued a full year before the Defendants
issued their claim in British Columbia and thus it is difficult to see how the claim
"overlapped" the Defendants' claim and not the other way around.
98. With respect to paragraph 7, it is not clear how he would know that I "had (not) done
anything to move the action", nor what my instructions were from my clients with respect
to the action.
99. With respect to paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of his affidavit, my clients' fund-raising
efforts, for varied and various purposes, had nothing to do with me, especially before I
was even retained by my client. Moreover, with respect to paragraph 10 of his affidavit,
and that my client had $208,838.16 raised, assumes that this amount exclusively related
to the litigation commenced by me.
100. With respect to paragraphs 14 and 15 of his affidavit, with respect to Dan Dicks email,
notwithstanding Mr. Deepankar Ghandi's purported intentions, Mr. Dicks forwarded the
e-mail to my clients because Mr. Dicks was alarmed at the defamatory tone and
substance of it. I know this because I spoke to Mr. Dicks whom I have known since I
launched the Comer case over a decade and a half ago, when Mr. Dicks lived and
reported out of Toronto.
A78
0079
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-79 52 A79
101. With respect to paragraph 16 of Mr. Ghandi's affidavit, even under the guise of free
speech, it does not give the Defendants the right to judge, assess, but moreover interfere
in a public fashion, with a specific solicitor-client relationship, which is constitutionally
protected.
102. With respect to paragraph 17, and his "duty" to "convey the information", is and was
disingenuous because he had no knowledge as to what was happening, and moreover
why, with the case, except for the Defendants wayward speculation and ill-will.
103. With respect to paragraph 18 to 20 of his affidavit, my response is that the affidavit and
other Co-Defendants acted on nothing more than reckless, false, baseless, and misguided
hallway rumors by simply conjuring conclusions from non-contextual (social) media
posts. They acted with reckless disregard and reckless, depraved, non-investigation.
104. With respect to paragraph 21, and its subsections, I correspondently respond as follows:
(a)(b)(c) Again, despite the fact that I had conveyed to their counsel, Ms. Furtula,
that I was not commencing a class action proceeding, these statements are again
disingenuous and make out contextually their defamation, conspiracy, and
interference with economic interests, and inducement to breach contract.
(d) the fact that I am not licensed to practice law in British Columbia is a distorted
innuendo that I cannot litigate in BC which is not true and the Defendants know,
or ought to have known, that as I have done other, high profile, cases in BC, and
were otherwise reckless in not properly informing themselves before they put out
that false innuendo.
A79
0080
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-80 53 A80
(e) The fact that I intended to engage Lawrence Wong, is again a false and distorted
innuendo that I was sub-counseling to Mr. Wong, and thus increasing the costs of
the litigation, again with the intention and effect of attempting to remove and
discredit me, and my clients, and remove me as their counsel, and how is any of
this defamation, interference, and tortious conduct in the "public interest"?
(f)(g)(h) With respect to media reports on the after effect of the Nadon reference,
in which I and the CRC, as Applicants, challenged the appointment of the
Honourable Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, successfully, thereby
constitutionalizing the "composition of the Supreme Court", is again distorted
innuendo in that :
(i) I was self-represented;
(ii) the CRC, as party, was represented by CRC Co-Director, Mr. Paul
Slansky;
and what was being reported on was a motion to assess costs at the Federal Court,
which initiated the challenge and forced the Reference to the Supreme Court of
Canada in which we were successful. In the case, one of the reliefs we sought at
the Federal Court was for the government to bring a Reference at the Supreme
Court of Canada. We agreed to stay the Federal Court Application pending the
outcome of the Reference at the Supreme Court of Canada, with an agreement
that we be given intervenor status, at the Supreme Court of Canada, in exchange
for staying the Federal Court Application;
A80
0081
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-81 54 A81
(i) G) Again, this is distorted and malicious innuendo in that, I have never claimed to be
"certified as a specialist", by the LSO, which is the term of art pursuant to terms
of the Law Society Act. But that does not mean that a lawyer cannot possess
expertise in an area of the law, whether or not the LSO has a specific
certification for it, as the Law Society does NOT certify anyone as an "expert" in
anything;
(k) I frankly do not understand Mr. Deepankar Ghandi's Point with this paragraph,
stemming from an interview by Sean Fine of the Globe and Mail, attached hereto
as "Exhibit YY". It is worth noting that Mr. Ghandi's distortion of the article is
visible both in perception and expression because what he quotes did not come
from me, but Mr. Sean Fine.
(1) (m) (n) (o) (p)With respect to Mr. Ghandi's Statement that he considers the
186 page statement of claim for VCC "poorly drafted" and his other legal
opinions, it is not clear to me where his expertise rests to make that assessment
and, moreover particularly in the absence of any knowledge as to what my clients'
litigation strategy was, and instructions to me were.
105. I state that these pre and post-facto, contrived statements are anaemic, and baseless,
attempts to rationalize the deliberate and tortious conduct against me and my clients and
have nothing to do with free speech and "public interest".
106. With respect to paragraphs 22 and 23 of his affidavit, it is devoid of the ring of truth and
furthermore, his, and the other Defendants' opinions of how to conduct litigation does not
justify the interference, defamation, and conspiracy to defame and destroy a solicitor and
A81
0082
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-82 55 A82
his client, in a private solicitor-client relationship, particularly when they are not privy to
it, nor have an iota of any facts with respect to it.
107. Mr. Ghandi, like Mr. Warner, assumes that they have the right to self-appoint themselves
as the last word on everyone else's litigation, then take steps to interfere with it, and
along the way inflict intentional torts. This has nothing to do with the protection afforded
bys. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and balance required thereunder.
• Response to the Affidavit of Vladislav Sobolev
108. With respect to the affidavit of Vladislav Sobolev, in addition to relying on the affidavit
of Mr. Ted Kuntz, president of VCC, present at the meeting, the subject of Mr. Sobolev's
affidavit, I state as follows:
(a) Mr. Sobolev is not impartial when it comes to me;
(b) Mr. Sobolev has many times made despairing and untrue remarks about me and
my representation of my clients, after a particular interaction between himself and
me, wherein I declined to act pro bono for him on his family law litigation against
his (ex) partner with whom he has a child(ren).
109. I met Mr. Sobolev, on or about 2020, who was closely involved with Mr. Chris Sky who
were organizing public rallies, and protests, against COVID-19 measures. Mr. Sobolev,
and Mr. Sky, on many occasions, invited me to speak at the rallies and events, to which I
always respectfully declined. This declining of these events angered them, albeit that Mr.
Sky's anger was more robust and expressed.
A82
0083
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-83 56 A83
110. Furthermore, during my meetings with Mr. Sobolev, before Mr. Sobolev moved from
Toronto to Vancouver, and while visiting Toronto from Vancouver, he continually asked
me to represent him, in his family-law litigation with his ex-partner which, from get-go, I
responded and told him that I could not because I do not, nor ever have, represented a
client on a family-law case per se. Because his litigation involved COVID-19 vaccine
issues with respect to his child or children he persisted in requesting and I persisted in
declining because I have no expertise in family law and procedure.
111. It was my clear impression that he assumed that I "owed" him pro bono representation.
Where that assumption stemmed, I have no idea. Following this, Mr. Sobolev's,
treatment, of me, in public and with others with whom I have contact, has been laced
with negative comments, and allegations similar to those made by Mr. Kip Warner. There
is no question that he holds a personal animus against me for the above reasons.
112. Attached hereto, as "Exhibit ZZ", are some of Mr. Sobolev's, as well as some of his
close associates such as Yvonne Coehlo, which comments, against me, which are no
means exhaustive but just examples. I have had many people relate back to me that he
has made particularly disparaging and defamatory comments at rallies, and during very
zoom calls and conferences. In addition, Sandra Sable sets out her interaction with him,
with respect to me, in her affidavit.
A83
0084
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-84 57 A84
• Response to the Affidavit of Fredrico Fuoco
113. With respect to Fredrico Fuoco affidavit, I respond as set out below.
114. With respect to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, I had at the time, no knowledge of Mr. Fuoco's
personal political activities.
115. Mr. Fuoco came on as a Plaintiff in the Action4Canada case wherein I was instructed
through a committee, through Ms. Tanya Gaw. He was not part of that Committee.
116. Written retainers were signed by all individuals. Mr. Fuoco initially, did not, want the
two corporations named as Plaintiffs and therefore held off on signing this one-page
retainer. When I explained to him that, while Mr. Fuoco would have some basis and
standing on his personal Charter violations, he could not personally sue to recoup the
economic damages by his restaurants operated by way of his corporations. I then told him
that if he wanted to sue for the economic loss of the restaurants he would have to instruct
me, in writing, which he did, which accounts for his August 15th, 2021 email attached as
"Exhibit AAA", from Frederico Fuoco's affidavit. I then got an e-mail from Tanya Gaw,
on behalf of Mr. Fuoco. I then spoke to him and explained that all three, himself and his
two corporations had to come on board as Plaintiffs. What is of note, that in the initial
steps of the litigation in providing preliminary statements for my review Fredirico
identified himself personally as a Plaintiff as early as April 2021, attached hereto is
"Exhibit BBB".
117. Mr. Fuoco was mainly interested in suing for his restaurant's economic loss due to the
measures.
A84
0085
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-85 58 A85
118. He now "has it backwards" as to who was supposed to be named and why. Whether it is a
bona fide misunderstanding on his part, or whether he is simply lying. I am not sure, but
his affidavit is false. However, it has to be noted that at no time after issuing the claim, of
which he had a copy, did he ever raise the fact that he was personally named, never raised
by him either to me nor Ms. Gaw.
119. With respect to paragraph 10 of his affidavit, I had more than one call with Mr. Fuoco, as
well as communication with him through Ms. Gaw. Mr. Fuoco was a persistence caller,
relative to the other Plaintiffs.
120. With respect to paragraph 12 of his affidavit, it was explicit that any updates were to be
given through Tanya Gaw. In any event, there were no pertinent updates to be given,
given the course of events set out above in my affidavit, with respect to the chronology
issuing the claim, to my severe illness, to my arguing the motion May 31st, 2022, and
receiving the decision August 29 th, 2022, all of which took only nine (9) months.
(Considering that, at the moment short, and long motions are being scheduled, in Ontario,
fourteen (14) months from the scheduling date).
121. With respect to paragraph 13 of Mr. Fuoco's, affidavit, I have no knowledge of Mr.
Fuoco's, "familiarity" with Mr. Warner.
122. Withrespecttoparagraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20:
(a) Between August 16th to September 22nd, 2022, I was abroad undergoing further
medical treatment and protocol, overseas, still recovering from the aftereffects of
my coma. Initially there was miscommunication between my office and Ms. Gaw
A85
0086
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-86 59 A86
with Ms. Gaw under the misunderstanding that I was away on "business" which
was later corrected by me;
(b) communications were extremely difficult but I nonetheless communicated with
Ms. Gaw who advised, and I verily believe, communicated with the other Co-
Plaintiffs, as per the terms of the retainer agreement and understanding;
(c) notwithstanding the above, and my absence, I with the assistance of my office,
under instructions, filed a timely appeal, and subsequently, timely perfected it,
which is still pending before the BC Court of Appeal;
(d) it was not expected that I personally contact every Plaintiff individually;
(e) when Mr. Fuoco filed his notice of discontinuance, on September 6th, 2022, as he
states in paragraph 18 of his affidavit, I was still overseas. My office was never,
to this day, served with his notice of discontinuance.
(f) With respect to paragraph 19 and 20, I have never had any indication, from the
LSO, of any complaint from Mr. Fuoco of his purported complaint to the LSO, if
one exists, of which he has not provided in his affidavit.
123. Since the issuance of this action, and retention of counsel, by the defendants, Kip Warner
and the Society, continued to harass and post defamatory remarks with respect to me and
my private practice of law without any privity or knowledge of the scope, depth, nor
details of the Plaintiffs retainer nor instructions from my varied, and independent clients.
In fact, he does so even in perpetually citing past, current, and in-between, references and
publications, in his affidavit, from Canuck Law. Both the posts cited and extracted in the
A86
0087
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-87 60 A87
Canuck Law action, contained in "Exhibit U" of this affidavit, and along with the
complaints filled out by Alexandra Moore, in her complaint(s) to the LSO, show the
depths of the depraved defamation against me.
• Damages caused by Defendants' Conduct
124. The Defendants, through their actions, have caused damages to me as follows:
(a) immense damage to reputation propagating the false statements, lies, an
innuendos that:
(i) I cannot practice in British Columbia;
(ii) that I am "not a constitutional lawyer";
(iii) that I am not competent as a lawyer;
(iv) that I "ask for too much money" and am a "greedy lawyer";
(vi) that I "misled" and am "derelict" in my duties;
(b) Financial damages to the CRC and in turn me;
(c) Inducement of breach of my contracts with my clients;
(d) loss of dignity, mental anguish and anxiety, from the vile, hostile, treatment, and
threats to my bodily integrity received as a result of the Defendants' statements.
A87
0088
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-88 61 A88
125. The Defendants cannot establish that:
(a) Fortuitous and personal defamatory comments and publications, made with mala
tides, and with a reckless disregard and investigation as to the facts, with respect
to my private practice, and private clients, are matters of "public interest";
(b) The Defendants cannot establish that they can or will succeed on any of their
defences put forward to the defamation while I can establish that none of their
defenses to defamation are tenable;
(c) Furthermore, the claim in conspiracy, inducement to breach of contract,
interference with economic interests and the solicitor-client relationship, online
harassment, and intentional infliction of mental anguish and stress, have nothing
to do with "expression", nor the scope and protection afforded by s. 137.1 of the
Courts of Justice Act, and in any event all the causes of action including in
defamation, ought to proceed.
SWORN BEFORE l\.1Eat the City )

of Toronto, in the.f,Y2,_vinceof )
Ontario, on this I'{-''day of ) Rocco Galati
March 2023. )
A or Taking Affidavits
A88
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-89 A
A
0090
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-90 A90
This is Exhibit "~ " to the Affidavit of

Rocco Galati, sworn before me
this 14th day of March 2023
Amina Sherazee, Barrister and Solicitor
A90
0091
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-91 A91
WhenROCC O GaI at i
accused
defends he'sdefendingyou,too
terrorists,
A91
0092
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-92 A92
r'U8LICAT1Qr1SMAIL
REGISTRATION NO 2261235
ENVO!DE f'UBLtC,\llON-
ENGRl:.GISfAEMENT
CANADIANLAWYEA
MAGAZINELTD
240EOWAROST
AURORAON
CANAOA l-!G JS'J
A92
0093
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-93 A93
A93
0094
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-94 A94
GALATI
ROCCO
LAW
GALATI
ROCCO TORONTO
FIRM,
CHIFJUSTICE OFAUTHORITY
MISTRUST
GALATl'S
BEVERLE Y
McLACHL IN has often made him a focal point in the
national media. This past year, Galati
CHIEF SUPREME
JUSTICE, OTTAWA
CANADA,
COURTOF made huge waves by challenging the
MADE
McLACHLIN HEADLINES
across the country this year when she government on its appointment of
came under fire from Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a standard Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme
phone call she made to his government regarding appointments to Court of Canada. Galati's challenge led
the top court. As one nominee noted, "her principled stand against to widespread public debate on both
the attacks of Harper and his government definitely represent the the judicial appointment process and
leadership story of2014'.' The extreme high regard McLachlin com- areas of the constitution and division
mands in Canadian society is evident through the strong support she of powers. In large part due to Galati's
received and her massive vote count in this year's Top 25. McLachlin challenges, Nadon's appointment was
is very vocal and active in working for better access to justice and unsuccessful, but he didn't stop there.
speaks widely in the legal sphere and beyond on the issue and the Galati has also challenged the appoint-
role of the courts. Earlier this year at the Canadian Corporate Coun- ment ofJustice Robert Mainville of the
sel Association meeting, she once again challenged the profession to Federal Court to the Quebec Court of
engage in a "richer debate" on the question of why there aren't more Appeal as well as suing the government
women in the profession and on the bench. McLachlin has gone a over changes to the Citizenship Act.
long way to make the top court more accessible and transparent to
Canadians by being an approachable face of the judiciary. Whatv-0tersbadto say:
"While the legal
community wrungits hands,Galati
Wbatvotershadto say:
aHerHonours!touldhave everyonessupport, steppedup in a bigway.He deserves
in recognitionof her unassailableintegrity(if only to dissuadeher huge recognitionfor that.•
few, misguideddetractors!).•
"11umkyoufor having the integritynot to be bulliedby Prime
MmisterHarperand not simplyreactingln angerand outrage.It
makes me understandthat you canjudge, keepyour emotionsand
do what is bestfor this country.•
A94
28 AUGUST 2014 WWW CANADIAN Lawyermag,com

0095
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-95 A95
A95
0096
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-96 I HUMAN
CRIMINAL LAW
RIGHTS A96
ROCCOGAIATI
LawFirmPC,
Galati
Racca
Ont.
Toronto,
Rocco Galati is famous for being
a one-man opposition to the pres-
ent government, so far spending
$42,000 of his own money on
court challenges. He successfully
launched a case that blocked Ste-
phen Harper's appointment of
Justice Marc Nadon Lo Lhe Supreme
Court of Canada. His opposition to
the appointment of Federal Court
of Appeal Justice Robert Mainville
to the Quebec Court of Appeal was
not as successful. While he doesn't
always win, Galati is dogged in his
efforts to defend the Constitution
against a government he sees as
pushing the boundaries with a lack
of respect for the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. He's now also been
elected as bencher of the Law Soci-
DENNIS EDNEY AND ety of Upper Canada and it will be
NATEWHITLING interesting to see what he brings to
Alta.
Edmonton,
counsel,
Defence the regulation of the profession.
In a rare move, Edney and Whitling are being named as Top HAD
VOTERS
WHAT TOSAY:
25 honourees as a team. Both have spent more than a decade 'J\.true Canadian constitutional and
advocating for Omar Khadr, almost universally on a pro bona human rights hero."
basis. From Guantanamo Bay to the Supreme Court of Canada

(three times), the unlikely duo have fought for Khadr to have
him released from prison (success in May), have him treated as a
child soldier, and otherwise continue to battle for his legal rights
at home and abroad. It's been what the Globe and Mail called
waging "a war of legal attrition against the government;' which
has consistently done everything to paint Khadr as a dangerous
terrorist who should be kept behind bars. Edney, a former soccer
player who only started practising law at 40, has been the public
and media face of the continuing legal battles, even taking Khadr
into his own home after he was recently released on bail. Whit-
ling, a Harvard law grad and former SCC clerk, is a much more
quiet and reserved force behind the scenes.
~ HAD
VOTERS
WHAT TOSAY:
~ "Dennishas gone above and beyond the call of duty in his defenceof Omar
8 Khadr. The nobility of our professiondepends on lawyerslike Dennis as we
~ are sometimes called upon to defend unpopular people or entities - but
8"
z
people who are no less deserving of natural justice and procedural fairness."
<l
sai Whitling is an "intelligent and highly effective advocate who stays out of the
~ limelight."He is a "fantasticlawyer. Exceptionallyintelligentand excellent
cc to work with."
A96
30 AuGuST 2D1 5 www. cANAOI ANLawyermag.com
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-97 A
A
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-98 A
A
0099
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-99 A99
This is Exhibit "8" to the Affidavit of

A~
A~ TakingAffidavits
A99
0100
3/12/23, 7:03 PM OBA.erg - OBA President's Award
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-100 A100
TRACKING PREFERENCES
page.
We use cookie and similar technologies in our web sites. For more information see our grivacy_RQ.!i.cy.
OPTIN OPT OUT
ONTARIO
BARASSOCIATION
A Branchof the
CanadianBarAssociation
OBA President's Award
ABOUT THE AWARD

The OBA President's Award recognizes the significant contribution of an individual Canadian or Canadian organization,
which, in the view of the OBA President, has made a significant contribution to the advancement of Justice in Ontario or
elsewhere.
ELIGIBILITY
Any individual who is a Canadian citizen, or any organization with its primary place of business in Canada, with the
exception of current OBA or CBA staff, current Members of the OBA Board, or current Members of the CBA Board of
Directors. The award may not be made posthumously.
FREQUENCY
This award is discretionary and no award need be granted in any given year.
PRESENTATION
The award (if given) will be presented at the OBA Awards Gala or at the same occasion at which the OBA Distinguished
Service Award is given.
NOMINATION PROCEDURE
The President shall nominate candidates for this Award. The President may personally identify the names of candidates,
or ask the Members of the President's Award Committee to suggest names of candidates. The OBA Officers shall
constitute the President's Award Committee.
SELECTION PROCESS
The award shall be granted at the discretion of the President. The recipients, if any, will be selected by the President in
their sole discretion, after a review of the nominations and the recommendation of the Nominating Committee. Any
decision to grant the award, and the selection of the recipient, shall be made no later than December 1st of year in which
the award is to be granted.
AWARD
The Award may be in the form of an engraved plaque or other suitable representation reflecting a justice theme.
A100
https://www.oba.org/About-US/About-Us/Awards/Association-Awards/OBA-Presidents-Award 1/2
0101
3/12/23, 7:03 PM OBA.erg - OBA President's Award
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-101 A101
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Valerie Dallas
Executive Office Lead
(800) 668-8900 or (416) 869-1047 x 322
vdallas@oba.org
PAST WINNERS
Past recipient winners of the OBA President's Award include:
2022 - Kristin Taylor, Carla Potter, 2017 - Sarah Clarke, Sebastien 2012 - The Hon. PatrickJ. Lesage,
Ardy Mohajer and Noble Chummar Grammond, David Taylor and Anne Q.C.
Levesque
2021 - Nana Yanful, Molly Reynolds, 2011 - LEAF- Women's Legal
Nicholas Wall and Joshua Morry 2016 - Susheel Gupta Education and Action Fund
2020 - Mitch Kowalski, Crystal

O'Donnell, and Maurizio Romanin
2015 - Rocco Galati
2014 - The Hon. Annemarie E.

I 2009/2010 - The Hon. R. Roy
McMurtry, Q.C.
0
2019 - James Douglas and The Bonkalo and Association des juristes 2008 - Pro Bono Law Ontario
Honourable Patricia C. Hennessy d' expression franc;aise de l'Ontario 2007 - AIDWYC - Association in
2018 - Canadian Cross-Border Legal (AJEFO) Defence of the Wrongly Convicted
Coalition
2013 - The Hon. Warren K. Winkler
A101
https://www.oba.org/About-US/About-Us/Awards/Association-Awards/OBA-Presidents-Award 2/2
0102
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-102 A102
This is Exhibit "l" to the Affidavit of

A~
&~ Taking Affidavits
A102
0103
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-103 A103
FREELANCE TUTOR AND INSTRUCTOR, Montreal, Quebec (September 1982 - April 1984).
• Tulored in English, Spanish, Italian, as well as translating in same, on a private basis, during the academic year.
FURNITURE DELIVERER AND MOVER, Sal's Cartage Co. Ltd, Toronto Ontario (April 1982 - September 1982).
·Delivered heavy, imported Scandinavian furniture. Area covered was from Kitchener to Oshawa. Ontario.
FURNITURE DELJVERER AND MOVER, Sal's Ca11age Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. (April 1981 -September 1981 ).
ELECTROPLATER, Sun Polishing and Plating Co. Ltd.,Toronto, Ontario (July 1978 - March 1980).
• Supervised, and involved in, heavy copper, nickel, brass, and chromium electroplating process. Also worked heavy. metal lathes.
PUNCH-PRESS OPERATOR (Part-time and summers), Weiner Electric Co. Ltd., Toronto. Ontario (April 1976 - June 1978).
• Operated various punch-presses in the production of industrial, electrical light fixtures.
Other Professional Experience:

Us! all bar associations, legal or judicial-related committees of which you are or have been a member, and give the Iii/es and dates of anr
offices which you have held in such groups.
LSUC (LSO) ELECTED BENCHER (May, 2015- Present).
• 2018-2019 - Member of Law Society Tribunal Committee as well as Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee.
• 2015-2017 - Member of Finance and Audit Committee, as well as Law Society Tribunal Committee.
HEARING DIVISION MEMBER. Law Society Tribunal (LST) (May, 2015- Present).
FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.(2004- Present).
MEMBER, Ontario Bar Association (OBA) (2015 - 2017).
COMMITEE MEMBER, Ontario Legal Aid Area Committee, Civil appeals, Toronto, Ontario (October 1993 -December 2010).
MEMBER. Refugee Lawyers Association, member of Federal Court Committee, Toronto. Ontario (February 1990 - December 1998).
Pro Bono Activities:

ELECTED BENCHER Law Society of Ontario (2015 -2019).
HEARING DIVISION MEMBER ofLaw Society Tribunal (LST) (May, 2015- 2019).
• A !so designated to sit on French language/Bilingual hearings.
ADVlSOR. Coaching and Advisory Network ("CAN") (December 2016- Present).

• Advise junior lawyers, as assigned by this Law Society program, designed for senior members of the barto rnentorjunior members.
FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Constitutional Rights Centre ("CRC"), (2004-Present).

• The CRC has procured, pro bona counsel, including myself, to argue 28 reported cases at all level Cou11s. including the Supreme Court 01·
Canada. The CRC has also acted as co-Applicant Appellant, most notably on the "Nacion" and "Mainville" References. at LheSupreme C:oun
of Canada.
Page 13 of 44
A103
0104
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-104 P TE Tim II fnnceA104
cnmp/eted)
CIVIL COMMITTEE MEMBER Ontario Legal Aid Area Committee - Civil Appeals (October 1993 -December 20 I 0).
CO-FOUNDER AND COUNSEL to Roma Community & Advocacy Centre (March, 2001-Dec. 2006).
PRO BONO COUNSEL to the Canadian Islamic Congress.(June 2001- December 2004).
PRO BONO COUNSEL to the Falun Da Fa Association of Canada (Mar 2001-Dec 2003).
MEMBER, Refugee Lawyers Association (February 1990 - December, 1998).

•Active member, and former member of Federal Court Committee, Toronto, Ontario.
PRO-BONO COUNSEL, Trinidad and Tobago Social and Cultural Organization (February 1990 -December 1992).
•Acted as pro bono counsel which included weekly attendance at general meeting to answer questions.
Teaching and Continuing Education:

Lisi a/I legal or judicial educational organizations and activities you have been involved with (e.g. leaching course al a Law Fornlly, bar
association, National Judicial Institute, Canadian Institute for the Administralion of Justice, etc.
STAND-BY INSTRUCTOR, Fall 1993 Bar Admission Course.
• Stand-by instructor in Public Law course.
PART TIME PROFESSOR, Seneca College, Toronto, Ontario (September 1992 - December 1992).
•Taught course in one-year administrative and regulato1y law ce11ificate programme for students who had already acquired a B.A .. Taught
while maintained full-time practice.
REVIEW COUNSEL (part-time), Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Downtown Legal Services ("DLS"). Toronto. Ontario. (Fchruary
1990 - August 1992).
• Taught while maintained full-time practice.
• Conducted weekly lecture, during the academic year, explained the role of the clinic, professional duties. and substantive law courses on
areas of law covered by the clinic. Conducted weekly seminars during the summer.
• Supervised 140 students, in concert with the full-time counsel, during the academic year, and 14 full-time students during the summer.
• Assisted in supervising legal work carried out by students at the clinic.
• Also conducted civil appeals and judicial reviews, as well as criminal Summa1y Conviction Appeals. for clinic.
SPEAKER, PRESENTER.
·Spoken.upon invitation, to the current date, at various Universities and Colleges, mostly at Law Faculties. on various legal topics including
at: University of Toronto, York University, Ryerson University, McGill University, Universite de Montreal. Concordia University.
University of British CC1lumbia,University of Western Ontario, University of Windsor, Sir Sanford Fleming College. Seneca College.
George Brown Colleg~. and at numerous high school general assemblies in the Toronto area.
Community and Civic Activities:

Lisi all organizations of which you are a member and any offices held with dates.
MEMBER, Calabrian Benevolent Association of Ontario (March 2018 - present).
• Charitable organization providing services to seniors and donating funds to hospital programs.
MEMBER, Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI) (June 2016- present).
FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Constitutional Rights Centre Inc (CRC) (2004- Present).
,. L Page 14 of44
A104
0105
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-105 Pl 0' '£ A105 ~
TED J}_(J1J1.t"c_g1111pletet,
12).
CO-FOUNDER AND PRO BONO COUNSEL to Roma Community & Advocacy Centre. (March 2001- December 2006).
PRO BONO COUNSEL the Canadian lslamic Congress.(.June 2001- December 2004).
PRO BONO COUNSEL to the Falun Da Fa Association of Canada. (March, 2001-December 2003).
PRO-BONO COUNSEL, Trinidad and Tobago Social and Cultural Organization (February 1990 -December 1992).
PAR 8 -LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

List and explain your areas of legal expertise:
•TAX LITIGATION
My practice in this aree. of law began when I was both an a11icling student at the Department of Justice. and a Tax Litigator there lc)r a shon
time. Upon going into private practice, I maintained, to this day, a certain amount of Tax work, both civil and criminal. In 1996-1997 I alsl,
obtained an LL.M, in Tax, while maintaining my private practice.
·CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
My constitutional expe11ise arises from the fact that my practice has always vi11ually been restricted to public law proceedings against the
Crown. In this context, I have litigated various issues, arising out ofmy Tax, Immigration & Refugee, Criminal. as well as Administrative
and Regulatory Law practice. These cases are listed in my list of reported cases some of which include:
-Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6, [2014] I SCR 433 ("Nadon Reference").
- Quebec (Attorney General) v Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 2 SCR 179 ("Mainville Reference'').
-Galati v. Canada (Governor General), [2015] 4 FCR 3, 2015 FC 91 (CanLJI) (" Bill C-24 Challenge").
-Felipa v. Canada (Citizenship and lmmigration), [2011] F.C.J. No. 1355, 2011 FCA 272.
-Bourgeon v. Canada (2000) 187 D.L.R. (4th) 542 (Ontario Superior Corn1).
-Weerasinge v. Canada [1994] I F.C. 330 (Federal Court of Appeal).
In addition. since 2004, upon founding, and being Executive Director, of the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. ("CRC"). the CRC. thrnugh a
closely-knit roster ofpro-bono counsel, including myself, has litigated, 28 reported cases. In three of those cases. namely: Reference re
Supreme Cou11Act, ss Sand 6, [2014] I SCR 433 ("Nadon Reference"); Quebec (Attorney General) v Canada (Attorney Genernl).1201512
SCR I 79 ("Mainville K.eference"); Galati v. Canada (Governor General), [2015] 4 FCR 3. 2015 FC 91 (Canlll) (" Bill C-24 Challenge")
the CRC was also a co-Applicant/ Appellant.
·CRIMINAL LAW
Early on in my career I conducted many summary conviction cases at CLASP (Osgoode Hall Law School Clinic). as a student. and su111ma1·y
conviction appeals, as a lawyer, at Downtown Legal Services (University of Toronto legal clinic). At the Department or Justice I was
exposed to criminal law work. Since leaving the Depa11ment of Justice about 30 % of my work through my career. to lluctuating degrees.
has been criminal work, including Extradition work. Some ofmy more notable criminal cases have been the "Toronto 18" terrorism case.
where I successfully represented Mr. Ghany. Two applications from the "Toronto 18" case, during the course of the preliminary inquiry.
both initiated by myself and my co-director at the CRC, Paul Slansky, ended up in the SCC namely: Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v.
Canada, [2010] S.C ..J. No. 21 and R. v. Ahmad, [201 I] S.C.J. No. 6. Some ofmy other notable cases were: Bourgeon v. Canada (2000) 187
D.L.R. (4th) 542, where I successfully had read down, under s.7 of the Cha11er, the evidentiary provision of the Extradition /\ct. There is
also R. v. Coultice and Tarpey QL [2004] O.J. No. 2092, in which l, along with my senior co-counsel, and long-time mentor and associate.
the late William Naylor, successfully defended, to the Supreme Court of Canada ( R. v. Coultice QL [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 353 ). on a
dismissed Crown Appeal. This arose from a criminal negligence causing death case in the horse-riding context. wherein we maintained c1
constitutional challenge to the provision, for creating a common-law offence, which throughout the course of the litigation was not
adjudicated because of the consistent rulings against the Crown.
Fl 3tll, Page 15 of44
A105
0106
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-106 l'll()IE 'Tl:JJ A106
/l{J!IIU "/JIIIJJkleil)
·ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
work al the
I gained expe11ise in Administrative Law through my research assistantship while at Osgoode Hall Law School. my Trihunal
and Refugee Board, and through the saturated judicial 1·evicw cases I have
Worker's Compensation Board, as well as the Immigration
Some of my more notable Administrative Law cases, on which I was counsel, which very much speak lor themselves. include:
conducted.
-Baker v. Canada (Minister of Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (SCC);
-Geza v. Canada QL [2001] F.C..J. No. 9 (FCA);
-Weerasinge v. Canada [1994] 1 F.C. 330 (FCA);
-Chinese Business Chamber of Canada v. Canada QL [2006] F.C.J. No. 746;
Board. 120151 0 .
-Amormino v Ontario (Police Services Board), (2016] S.C.C.A. No. 239/ Amormino v Ontario (Provincial) Police Services
.J. No. 6185;
Transitional Council 01·
-Yuan Transitional Ccuncil of the College ofTraditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners, [2014] 0..1. No. 420/Yuan
the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners, [2014] O.J. No. 913 (Ontario Divisional Court);
-Ndungu v. Canada, (2011] F.C.J. No. 636/Ndungu v. Canada, [2011] F.C.J. No. 933 (FCA);
-.JMSL v Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.C..J. No. 439 (FCA).
I have also had more than my fair share of the rare litigation with the Canadian Judicial Council, including:
-Douglas v. Canada, (2013] F.C.J. No. 472 (where I represented the complaint);
(Altomey
-Paul Slansky v. Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen, et al., 2014 CanLI! 5977 (SCC), (Slansky v Canada
Slansky v. Canada.
General), (2013] SCCA No 452/ Slansky v. Canada, (2013] F.C.J. No. 996, Slansky v. Canada, (2011] F.C..1. No. 594.
12011] F.C..1. No. 1775);
-Singh v Canada (Attorney General), [2015] F.C.J. No. 47.
·JUDICIAL REVIEWS AND APPEALS
Supe1·ior
Much ofmy practice, in the context of the several public law substantive areas I practice, whether in the Federal or Provincial
the avenue of Appellate and .Judicial Review work in Tax Court, Divisional Court. Federal Court. as well as the Federal
Courts, often take
have gained an expertise in Prerogative
and Ontario Cou11s of Appeal and, ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada. In this context, I
Certiorari. Mandamus.
Remedies both in the Administrative/Civil context(s), including various and numerous applications for Declarations.
as well as the less known and used writs of Procedendo and Quo Warranto, and in the criminal context. Certiorari. Prohibition.
Prohibition.
and Habeas Corpus. ,
•IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE LAW
the over two hundn::d

Over the years. I have had a very extensive exposure and expe1tise in Immigration and Refugee Law. as witnessed by
reported cases arising from the immigration context, including Baker v. Canada (Minister oflmmigration). fl999] 2
S.C.R. 817.
•CJ VIL LITIGATION
or civil actions
In the Public Law context, I have acquired an expertise in civil litigation. both in Federal and Ontario Court. in the context
against the Crown and its servants and agents. Such cases include:
Multilatural Trade
- Fogal v. Canada QL [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 84 (Challenge to OECD "Multilateral Agreement on Investment" ("MAI")
v. Canada
Treaty]; Fogal v. Canada QL (2001] S.C.C.A. No. 84, Fogal v. Canada (Cabinet) QL [2000] F.C..J. No 916 (FCA). Fogal
(Cabinet) QL [1999] F.C.J. No. 788;
at FTA/\ ((i-8)
-Tremblay v. Quebec Attorney General QL (2001] S.C.C.A. No. 231 (Challenge to Quebec City Perimeter Fence Measures
Summit. April, 200 I), 137. Tremblay c. Quebec (Procureur general) QL [200 I] .J.Q. No 1504;
v. Canada
- Human Rights Institute, et al v. Canada (Cabinet) QL (! 999] B.C.J. No. 2103 (FCA), Human Rights Institute of Canada
of Public Works and Government Services), [2000] l FC 475, 1999 CanLII 9377 (FC)- (an action against the Federal Crown in
(Minister
lilied nuclear
attempting to expropriate Nanoose Bay (determined to be provincial continental shelf) for use by U.S navy to fire uranium
missiles from nuclear-·powered submarines 4 km, under water, from the City of Vancouver;
(SCC). Co111111 ittee
-Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform ("COMER"), et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al., 20 I 7 Can Lil 25790
Committee for Monetary and Economic Relorm ("COMER") v.
for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada, (2014] F.C ..I. No. 764,
loan/ interest
Canada, [20 I 3] F.C.J. No. 926 (an action against the Bank of Canada and Minister of Finance with respect to the Bank's
Rev. 10/2017., Page 16 of44
A106
0107
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-107 C.BJJJJ;CTf;"ll.f/ A107
(mrce cn111p/e1ed)
f}O ,cy. an t ,e Minister's const1tul1ona reac ,es wit respect to l 1e u getary process):
-Mancuso v Canada, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 92, Mancuso v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare). 12015 I F.C..1. No. 1245 .
Mancuso v Canada (Minister ofNational Health and Welfare), Mancuso v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) 120141 F.C..I.
No 732 (FC) (an action with respect to the Food and Drug Act and "Natural Health Products", case is still on-going at Federal Court level).
-Cabral v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FCA 4 (Can Lil), Cabral v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). 12015 I
F.C.J. No 867 (an action against the Minister of Immigration for unequal, discriminatory treatment of temporary workers based on naturnl
origin and ethnicity);
-Wang et al. v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 2841 (CanLII) (an action for unlawful detention in the context of immigrntion
detention);
-Baltrusaitis v. Ontario, [201 I] S.C.C.A. No. 493, Baltrusaitis v. Ontario, [201 I] O.J. No. 4144 (O.C.A). Baltrusaitis v Ontario.12011 I 0..1.
No. 659, Baltrusaitis v. Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 351 (action for s.7 Charter damages for dead time as compensation for wrongful conviction
for first degree murder);
-Dafesh v. Amormino, 2017 ONSC 1748 (an action by an OPP officer, against the OPP, and several Crown attorneys. for wrongf"ul
(constructive) dismissal and abusive proceedings under the Police Services Act;
-Major Pa11ner Wind Energy Corp. v Ontario Power Authority, [2015] 0..1. No. 6642/ Major Pa11ner Wind Energy Co1·p. v Onta1·io Power
Authority, [2015] 0..1 No. 6643(an action in the context ofwindfarms);
-Norton McMullen Consulting Inc. v. Boreham, [2015] 0..1. No. 5667/Norton McMullen Consulting Inc .. v. Boreham. 120151 (LI. No. 49%
(an action in the context ofwindfanns).
I have also acquired expertise in Libel and Slander Law litigation, because of its quasi-constitutional freedom of expression dimension. in
such cases as Howard-Azzeh v. St. Catherines Standard Group Inc., QL [2003] No. 4990/ Howard-Azzeh v. St. Cathcrines Standard Croup
Inc .. QL [2005] No. 4084 (Ont C.A), Bai, et al. v. Sing Tao Daily Ltd., QL [2003] 0..1. No. 1917. Warman v !eke. and currently Tibllo v.
Corriere Canadese as well as Boraks v. Global News et al., both of which are on-going in Ontario Superior Cou11.
In the past few years I have also been retained on behalf of doctors, against the College of Surgeons and Physicians. as well as against
Universities for breach of contract and fiduciary duty in arbitrarily refusing to grant degrees notwithsta11ding compliance of the required
course curriculum.
TERRORISM/ NATIONAL SECURITY LAW
I acquired expertise in National Security/Terrorism Law, both in the Immigration context, with "Security Certificate" cases. as well as in the
Criminal context. These cases include:
-R. v. Ahmad [Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada], [2009] O.J. No. 288;
-Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, [201 OJS.C.J. No. 21 (Toronto 18 Terrorism Case);
-Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al.; (being a Young Person within the meaning orthe
Youth Criminal .Justice Act);
-N. Y. et al., Interested Pa11ies [Indexed as: Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada], [2009] 94 O.R. (3d) 82, Toronto Star Newspapers Lid.
v. Canada, [2007] 0..1.No. 5729, Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario QL [2006] O..J.No.3062;
-.laballah v. Canada QL [2004] F.C.J. No. 420 (FC), Re Jaballah, QL [2003] F.C.J. No. 822 (FC), RE .laballah QL [20021 F.C..I. No. 1385
(FC), .laballah v Canada QL [2000] F.C.J. No. 1577 (FC), Canada (CSIS) v. Jaballah QL [I 999] F.C.J. No. 1681 (FC):
-Canada v. Mahjoub QL [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 151, Canada (CSIS) v. Mahjoub QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 79 (FCA). 239. Canada (CSIS) v.
Mahjoub QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 1483 (FC);
-R. V. Ghany QI [2006] o..r.No.2972;
-Government of Franc:e v. Ouzghar QL [2001] O.J. 5713
I also assisted counsel in Montreal with the Charkaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) case. as well as in Ottawa with
the Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Harkat case.
List and explain other legal areas that you have experience in:
"Poverty Law" - I have extensive experience both in the clinic setting, as well as Legal Aid certificate contexl. in legal aid work. both as a
student and lawyer at teaching clinic(s), as well as Area Committee Member, Civil Appeals.
p
9" Page 17 of 44
- A107
0108
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-108 A108
mpletr!/J
My c in c wor starte as a aw stu elll. ommunlly ega _ e I la

Law School, all between 1984 -1987. [I was also instrumental in setting up, with Mary Jan-ell, the "Worker's Rights" section al Parkdale
with secondment to the "Union of Injured Workers", in 1986.]
Between 1990 and 1992 I was part-time review counsel at the University of Toronto's. Faculty of Law. teaching clinic- "Downtow11 Legal
Services".
Furthennore. in addition to maintaining an extensive Legal Aid practice, between 1990 to 2012. between 1993 to 20 IO I also sal as a
member of the Legal Aid Area Committee-Civil Appeals, in Toronto, deciding appeals on legal aid refusals for civil mallers including
Immigrations and Refugee, Family, and other Civil matters.
If applicable, list all reported cases where you appeared as counsel (excluding routine matters, consent orders etc.):
REPORTED DECISIONS AS COUNSEL - (I have had a reported case, on average, every 4 to 5 weeks throughoul lllY 29-year crn·eer and
inlo my 30th).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA I

• Cases fully argued i11Supreme Court of Canada:
I. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.

2. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, [201 OJ S.C..J. No. 21 (Toronto 18 Terrorism Case).
3. R. v. Ahmad. [2011] S.C..l. No. 6 (Toronto I 8 Terrorism Case).
4. Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6, [2014] 1 SCR 433 ("Nadon Reference").
5. Quebec (Attorney General) v Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 2 SCR 179 ("Mainville Reference'").
• Leave applications as Applicant and Respondent in Supreme Court of Canada: I

6. Baker v. Canada QL [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 85.
7. John v. Canada QL [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 574.
8. Fogal v. Canada QL [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 84 [Challenge to. OECD "Multilateral Agreement on Investment'" Multilateral Trade T1·eulyI.
9. Canada v. Mahjoub QL [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 151 (Challenge to Security Certificates).
10. Tremblay v. Quebec Attorney General QL [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 231 (Challenge to Quebec City Perimeter Fence Measures al FT/\/\
(G-8) Summit, April, 2001).
I I. Galati v. McGuinty QL [200 l J S.C.C.A. No. 6 (Charter challenge to political nomination process).
12. R. v. Coultice QL [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 353 (Crown Appeal) - Criminal Negligence causing death.
13. Main Rehabilitation Co. v. MNR QL [2005J SCCA No. 37 (Abuse of Process from Illegally Obtained Tax Records).
14. Tennina v. Canada (National Revenue, [201 OJ S.C.C.A. No 303 (Abuse of Process in context of warrants under Income Tax Act).
15. Horne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [201 OJ S.C.C.A. No. 335. (Test on Interim Stay).
16. Baltrusaitis v. Ontario, {2011 J S.C.C.A. No. 493 (s. 7 Cha11er right to compensation for wrongful conviction).
17. Huntley v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [201 I] S.C.C.A. No. 522.
18. R. v. Khalid. [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 323 (Whether Appeal Court can take into account new sentencing factors undisclosed to counsel).
19. Chaplllan v. King, [2013J S.C.C.A. No. 143.
20. Paul Slansky v. Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen, et al., 2014 CanLIJ 5977 (SCC) (Whether Canadia11 Judicial
Council can refuse to disclose its investigative report, on judicial review, from a decision to refuse to strike an inquiry).
21. Mancuso v Canada, [2016J S.C.C.A. No. 92 (Action in context of Food and Drug Act constitulional violations with respect to "Nalural
Health Products").
22. Amormino v Ontario (Police Services Board), [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 239 (Whether s.7 of Charter applies in the police discipline conlc:d).
23. Gong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 246.
24. Alabi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2016J S.C.C.A. No. 334.
25. Rocco Galati, et al. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, et al., 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC) (Whether costs. on a successful constitulional
challenge, where the pa11y does not personally benefit, is a constitutional right).
26. Danilo Maala Alrnacen v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2017 CanLJl 20397 (SCC).
27. Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform ("COMER"), et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen. et al.. 2017 CanLIJ 25790 (SCC)
Page 18 of 44 am&
A108
0109
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-109 PRO' ;' . /:"I) A109
II (once_ @Wlir.!ed)
(c 1a cngc 10 an o! arm a Act an u gctary process !.or const1tut1ona v10 a11ons .

28. Lawrence Wong (Barrister and Solicitor), et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 20 l 7 CanLI l 8569 (SCC) (whether or not it
is appropriate to award costs against counsel personally).
• Motions and Other Proceedings:

29. Quebec (Attorney General) v Canada (Attorney General), (2015] S.C.J. No. 22 ("Mainville Reference").
30. Quebec (Attorney General) v Canada (Attorney General), (2014] SCCA No 543.
31. Slansky v Canada (Attorney General), (2013] SCCA No 452.
32. Reference re Supreme Court Act, (2013] S.C.C.A. No. 417 ("Nadon Reference").
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL I

33. Chi v. Canada QL [1992] F.C.J. No.52.
34. M.E.I. v. Leal (1993] 129N.R. 383.
35. Forestiero v. Canada QL (1993] F.C..l. No. 12.
36. Boampong v. Canada QL (1993] F.C..l. No. 791.
37. Sagharichi v. Canada (1993] F.C.J. No. 796.
38. Weerasinge v. Canada [1994] l F.C. 330.
39. Lai v. Canada QL (1994] F.C..I. No. 767.
40. Woodrow v. MNR 94 OTC 6416; QL [I 994] F.C.J. No. 897.
41. O_jok v. CanadaQL (1994] F.C..I. No. 1031.
42. Hussain v. Canada (1995] 174 N.R. 76.
43. Moldeneveau v. Canada [1997] CanRepNat 1452.
44. Yuen v. Canada [1998] CanRepNat 841.
45. Romachkine v. Canada QL (1999] F.C.J. No. 54.
46. Moldeveanu v. Canada QL (1999] F.C..1. No. 55.
47. Leivas v. Canada QL (1999] F.C.J. No. 1824.
48. Leivas v. Canada QL (1999] F.C.J. No 1567.
49. Fogal v. Canada (Cabinet) QL (2000] F.C.J. No 916.
50. Lazar v. Canada (Attorney General) QL (2001] F.C..I. No 653.
51. StumC et al v. Canada QL (2002] F.C..l. NO. 590.
52. Dwyer v. Canada (CCRA) QL [2003] F.C..I. No. 1265.
53. Canada v. Jaballah QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 1274.
54. Main Rehabilitati<'n Co. v. Canada (CCRA) QL [2004] F.C.J. 2030.
55. Chen v. Canada QL (2005] F.C..I. No. 3214.
56. Geza v. Canada QL (2006] F.C.J. No. 477.
57. Chinese Business Chamber of Canada v. Canada QL (2006] F.C.J. No. 746.
58. Jones v. Canada QL (2006] F.C.J. No. 1254.
59. Balathavarajan v. Canada 2006 FCA 340.
60. Lopes v. Canada (Attorney General), (2007] F.C.J. No. 401.
61. Walsh v. Canada, (2007] F.C.J. No. 1170.
62. Luciano v. Canada, (2008] F.C.J. No. 84.
63. Somodi v. Canada, (2009] F.C.J. No. 1240.
64. Tennina v. Canada, [201 OJF.C.J. No. 189.
65. Horne v. Canada, (2010] F.C.J. No. 1585.
66. Toussaint v. Canada; Ndungu v. Canada. (2011] F.C.J. No. 636.
67. Ndungu v. Canada, (2011] F.C.J. No. 933.
68. Canada v. Huntley, (201 l] F.C.J. No. 1382.
69. Felipa v. Canada, (201 l] F.C..J. No. 1355.
70. Slansky v. Canada, [2013] F.C.J. No. 996.
71. Yeagerv. Day, (2013] F.C..I. No. 1215.
72. Tabingo v Canada, (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014] F.C.J. No. 863.
73. JMSL v Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014] F.C..I. No. 439.
74. Kearney v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015] F.C.J. No. 762.
75 . .lia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and lmmigra1ion). [2015] F.C.J. No. 763.
Page 19 of44
- A109
0110
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-110
PllOTECTf:IJ
A110
.Ull1£es11111p/ered)
7 ,. Prasa v ana a (M1rnster of Emp oyment an oc1a eve opmenl , _ 51F. ·.J. o. 81.
77. Committee for Monetary and Economic Refonn v Canada, [2015] F.C.J. No. 59.
78. Mancuso v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), [2015] F.C..1. No. 1245.
79. Galati v Canada (Prime Minister), [2016] F.C.J. No. 123.
80. Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 229.
81. Committee for Monetary and Economic Refonn v. Canada, 20 l 6 FCA 3 l 2 (CanLJI).
82. Almacen v. Canada, 2016 FCA 296 (CanLJI).
83. Cabral v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FCA 4 (CanLJI).
I
84. Wang v. Canada, 2018 FCA 46 (Can LI I
IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL
85. Murray-Audain v. Newcastle (Town) QL [1998] O.J. No. I 162.

86. Galati v. McGuinty (I 999) 27 O.C.A. 161; QL [1999) 0..1. No. 4431.
87. Maharaj v Maharaj QL [2001] 0 ..1.No. 3867.
88. Maharaj v. Maharaj QL [2001] O.J. No. 4933.
89. Bai. et al. v. Sing Tao Daily Ltd., QL [2003] O.J. No. l 917.
90. R. v. Coultice and Tarpey QL [2004] O.J. No. 2092.
90. Martin v. Ontario QL [2005] 0..1. No.4071.
91. R. v. Tennina, [2008) O.J. No. 2469.
92. R. v. Ahmad [Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada], [2009] O.J. No. 288.
within the meaning
93. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. v. Her M~jesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al.: N. Y. (being a Young Person
Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada!. 94 0 R. (3d) 82.
of the Youth Criminal Justice Act) et al., Interested Pai1ies [Indexed as: Toronto Stai·
94. Baltrusaitis v. Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 4144.
95. Wang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 20! 8 ONCA 605.
IN THE ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT I

95. Gunning Estate (Executor of) v. Abrams, QL [1997] 0..1. No. 4364.
96. l-loward-Azzeh v. St. Catherines Standard Group Jnc., QL [2003] No. 4990.
97. J--loward-Azzeh v. St. Catherines Standard Group lnc., QL [2005] No. 4084.
98. Yuan Transitional Council of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners, [20!4) 0..1. No. 420.
99. Yuan Transitional Council of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners, [20 l 4 l 0..1. No. 9 l 3.
l 00. Amormino v Ontario (Provincial) Police Services Board, [2015] O.J. No. 6185.
!01. Amormino v Ontario (Provincial) Police Services Board, [2015] 0..1. No. 6534.
l 02. Major Partner Wind Energy Corp. v Ontario Power Authority, [2015] 0..1. No. 6642.
I 03. Major Pai1ner Wind Energy Corp. v Ontario Power Authority, [2015] O.J No. 6643.
IN THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT I

l 04. Dhandiwar v. M.E.I. ( 1990) 11 Imm. L.R. (2d)l 57; QL [I 990] O.J. No. 562 (Habeas Corpus).
I 05. Vega v. M.E.I. (1990) 11 Imm.L.R. (2d) 160; QL [1990] O.J. No. 520 (Habeas Corpus).
106. Galati v. McGuinty QL [1999] O.J. No. 2171.
107. Bourgeon v. Canada. (2000) 187 D.L.R. (4th) 542; QL [2000] O..J. No 1656.
I 08. United States of America v. Vreeland QL [2000] 0). No. 456.
109. R. v. Coultice QL [2001] O.J. No. 3979 (under Appeal to Ont. C.A.).
110. United States of \merica v. Vreeland QL [2001] O..J. No. 4139.
l 11. Government of France v. Ouzghar QL [2001] 0..1. 5713.
I 12. Kovacs v. Kovacs [2002] 212 D.L.R. (4th) 711; (2002) 59 O.R. (3d) 67.
I I 3. United States of America v. Vreeland QL [2002] O..J. No. 456.
l 14. EI-Kazely v. Canada (CSIS) QL [2003] 0.1. No. 627 (under Appeal to Ont. C.A.).
l 15. .Jahapney v. Canada (CSIS) QL [2003] O.J. No. 629.
116. Martin v. Ontario QL [2004] 0 ..1.No. 2248 (under Appeal to Ont. C.A.).
117. McTeague v. Kalevar QL [2005] O.J. No. 314.
118. R. v. Ghany QI [2006] O.J. No.2972.
Page 20 of44
A110
0111
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-111 Pl/ A111
TECTli ) II 1111,·ecomplere,lj
I I . Toronto tar ewspapers Lt . v. ntano

120. R. v. Mohammed, [2007] OJ. No. 5806.
121. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, [2007] O.J. No. 5729.
122. R. v. Ahmad, [2007] O.J. No. 5662.
123. R. v. Tennina, (2007] 0..1. No. 4678.
124. R. v. Tennina, [2008] O.J. No. 530.
125. Baltrusaitis v Ontario, [2011] O..J. No. 659.
126. Baltrusaitis v. Ontario, [2011] O.J. No. 351.
127. Norton McMullen Consulting Inc. v. Boreham, (2015] OJ. No. 5667.
128. Norton McMullen Consulting Inc., v. Boreham, [2015] OJ. No. 4996.
129. Dafesh v. Amormino, 2017 ONSC 1748.
130. Campisi v Ontario, 2017 ONSC 4189 (CanLII) [Charter challenge to Insurance Act. currently on appeal to Onlario Court or Appeal.
scheduled for October 23rd, 2018].
131. Campisi v Ontario, 2017 ONSC 2884 (CanLIJ) (Currently on appeal to OCA scheduled for October 23rd. 2018).
132. Wang et al. v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 2841 (CanLII) (Habeas Corpus)[currently on appeal to Ontario Court of Appeal.
scheduled for September 24th, 20 I 8].
IN THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT I

133. Human Rights Institute, et al v. Canada (Cabinet) QL [I 999] B.C.J. No. 2096.
134. Human Rights Institute, et al v. Canada (Cabinet) QL [1999] B.C.J. No. 2103 (Nanoose Bay Military Expropriation Challenge).
135. Wong v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) 2013 BCSC 2091.
IN THE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT AND QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL I

136. Tremblay c. Quebec (Procureur general) QL [2001] .J.Q. No 1504 (Quebec City. FTAA Summit Peri metre Fence Challenge) Quebec
Superior Court.
137. Renvoi sur I'article 98 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, [20 I 4] Q.J. No. 14417 ("Mainville Reference'") -Quebec Court orJ\ppt:ul.
IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA I

138. Astra Pharma Inc. v. M.N.R QL [I 989] T.C.J. No. 439; QL [1989] T.C.J. No 439.
139. Whitty v. M.N.R. 89 DTC 348; QL [1989] T.C..I. No. 503.
140. Vangeloffv. M.N.R. QL (1989] T.C.J. No. 719.
141. Daddar v. M.N.R. QL [1989] T.C ..I. No. 722.
142. Berry v. M.N.R. 90 DTC 1083; QL [1989] T.C.J. No. 1115.
143. Molony v. M.N.R. 90 OTC 1394; QL [1990] T.C.J. No. 332.
144. Calgary Television v. M.N.R. 90 DTC 1577; QL [1990] T.C.J. No. 422.
145. Chalmers v. M.N.R. 90 DTC 1361; QL [1990] T.C.J. No. 1115.
146. Dwyer v. Canada (M.N.R) 2001 DTC 725; QL [2001] T.CJ. No. 457.
147. Main Rehabilitation Co. v. Canada QL [2003] No. 743.
148. Galati v. Canada, [2007] T.C.J. No. 585.
149. Galati v. The Queen, 2008 OTC 4402.
150. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. v. Canada, [2010] T.C..I. No. 248.
151. Luciano v. Canada, [2010] T.C.J. No. 302.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT I

152. Scott v. Canada QL (1990] F.C.J No. I 108.
153. Abraham v. Canada (1991) 121mm. L.R. (2d) 52; [1991] I F.C. 37; F.T.R. 212.
154. Aquiar v. Canada (1991) 13 Imm. L.R. (2d) 280.
156. Dong v. Canada (1991) 141mm. L.R. (2d) 317.
157. Vaca v. Canada ( 1992) 15 Imm. L.R. (2d) 315; 50 F.T.R. I 0.
158. Ha v. Canada (1992) 8 Admin. L.R. (2d) 59; 56 F.T.R. 74.
159.Lachowski v. Canada (1993)18Jrnm.L.R.(2d)134; 59F.T.R.44.
Page 21 of 44
A111
0112
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-112 A112
PRO .l-" TH> II Ul.!1.!X!;!!.!llJJlt!lt!t!}
160. I ong v. Cana a (I ., 17 Imm. L.R. ( 2 : 5 I·.. R. 105.

161. Lachowski v. Canada (1993) 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 134; 59 F.T.R. 44.
162. Ibarra v. Canada QL [1993] F.C.J. No.20.
163. Moreno v. CanadaQL [1993] F.C.J. No.455.
164. Nueda v. Canada (1993) 21 Imm. L.R. (2d) 211; 65 F.T.R. 24.
I 65. Sun v. Canada QL [1993] F.C..J. No. 636.
166. Iglesias v. Canada [1993] 76 F.T.R. 106.
167. Antonio v. Canada [1994] 85 F.T.R. 241.
168. Carvajal v. Canada [1994] 82 F.T.R. 241.
169. Carvajal v. Canada QL [l 994] F.C.J. No.751.
170. Perez v. Canada [1994] 80F.T.R. 121.
171.Bohaisy v.Canada [1994] 80F.T.R.114.
172. Leung v. Canada QL [l 994] F.C.J. No. 766.
173. Parediz v. Canada [l 994] 79 F.T.R. 3 I 6.
174. Nicholas v. Canada QL [1994] F.C.J. No. 1138.
175. De Leon v. Canada QL [1994] F.C.J. No. 1248.
176. Ibrahim v. Canada QL [l 994] F.C.J. No. 1056.
177. Calero v. Canada QL [1994] F.C..I. No. 1159.
178. Baffoe v. Canada [1994] 85 F.T.R. 68.
179. Kaisersingh v. Canada [1994] 89 F.T.R. 276.
180.Hazime v. CanadaQL[l994]F.C.J.No.2069.
18 I. Valynegro v. Canada [ I 994] 88 F.T.R. 196.
182. Ali v. Canada [1995] 90 F.T.R. 286;; 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 295.
183. Ali v. Canada [1995] 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 308; (1995) 93 F.T.R. 297.
184. Mogdadi v. CanadaQL [1995] F.C.J. No. 817.
185. Iglesias v. Canada [1995] 91 F.T.R. 233; 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 165.
186. Ofori v. Canada [l 995] 92 F.T.R. 62.
I 87. Dong v. Canada [1995] CanRepNat 1339.
188. Barreto v. Canada QL [1995] F.C.J. No. 879.
189. Osei v. Canada QL [1995] F.C.J. No. 981.
I 90. Amankona v. Canada QL [l 995] F.C.J. No.574.
191. Antwi-Boasiako v. Canada. [1995] 96F.T.R. 186.
192. Hernandez v. Canada [1996] CanRepNat 587.
193.Alza v.Canada[1996] ll0F.T.R.187.
194. Obeng v. Canada 1:1996) 119 F.T.R. 256; CanRepNat 1394.
195. Galati v. Canada ( 1996) 35 Imm. L.R. (2d) l; ( 1997) 120 F.T.R. 41.
196. Marquez v. Canada ( 1996) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 286.
197. .lama v. Canada (1996) CanRepNat 1586.
198. Soares v. Canada ( 1996) CanRepNat 2284.
I 99. Leivas v. Canada (1997) 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 269.
200. Baker v. Canada (1997) 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 14; (1997) 119 F.T.R. 213.
20 I. Zia v. Canada ( 1997) CanRepNat 1263.
202. Oraha v. Canada (1997) 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 39.
203. Kassam v. Canada (1998) 138 F.T.R. 60.
204. Lominadze v. Canada (l 998) 143 F.T.R. 310.
205. Mahmood v. Canada [1998] F.C.J. No. 1345.
206. Lominadze v. Canada QL [1998] F.C..I. No. 958.
207. Lazar v. Canada (Attorney General) QL [l 998] F.C.J. No. 867.
208. Sabet v. Canada QL [1998] F.C..I. No. 926.
209. Fan v. CanadaQL [1998] F.C.J. No. 1233.
210. Atwal v. CanadaQL [1998] F.C.J. No. 1693.
21 I. Lomindaze v. Canada QL [1998] F.C.J. No. 1429.
212. Guzman v. Canada QL [1998] F.C.J. No. l 545.
213.Chung v. CanadaQL[l998]F.C.J.No. 1891.
214.Chung v. CanadaQLfl998JF.C.J.No.1892.
k I Biif Page 22 of 44
- A112
0113
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-113 A113
ana a F. .J. o. 1
216. Cunha v. Canada 99 DTC 5432 (FCTD); QL [1999] F. C. J. No. 667.
217. Lazar v. Canada QL [I 999] F.C..J. No. 553.
218. Fogal v. Canada(Cabinet) QL [1999] F.C.J. No. 788.
219. Karunapathy v. Canada QL [1999] F.C.J. No. 1204.
220.Sivamayamv.CanadaQL[1999]F.C ..J. No.1218.
221. Lominadzev. CanadaQL [1999] F.C.J. No. 1381.
222. Mi tac v. Canada QL [I 999] F.C..I. No. 1385.
223. Human Rights Institute, et al v. Canada(Cabinet) QL [1999] F.C.J. No. 1404.
224. Canada (CS!S) v. Jaballah QL [1999] F.C.J. No. 1681.
225. Main Rehabilitation v. Canada (MNR) QL [1999] F.C.J. No. 1824.
226. Human Rights Institute of Canada v. Canada (Cabinet) QL [2000] I F.C. 475.
227. Hatami v. Canada QL [2000] F.C..I. No 402.
228. Mahmood v. Canada (Cabinet) QL [2000] F.C.J. No 608.
229. Olaso v. Canada QL [2000] F.C.J. No. 1265.
230. Jazxhiu v. Canada QL [2000] F.C.J. No. 1533.
231. .laballah v Canada QL [2000] F.C..l. No. 1577.
232. Sandor v. Canada QL [2000] F.C.J. No. 1668.
233. Kozak v. Canada QL [2000] F.C..J. No I 680.
234. Gyapjas v. Canada QL [2000] F.C.J. No. 1894.
235. Pohlot v. Canada QL [2000] F.C.J. No. 2084.
236. Geza v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 9.
237. Canada (CSIS) v. Mahjoub QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 79.
238. Arndorfer v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 158.
239. Human Rights Institute of Canada v. Canada (Cabinet) QL [2001] F.C ..l. No. 401.
240. Farkas v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 356.
241. Orgona v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No. 574.
242. Olah v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 623.
243. Horvath v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 643.
244. Lakatos v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 657.
245. Ofosu v. Canada QL [200 I] F.C.J. No 661.
246. Piel v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 859.
247. Polgari v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 957.
248. Sarkozi v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 973.
249. Keninger v. Canada QL [2001] F.C.J. No 1114.
250. Boros v. Canada QL F.C.J. No. 1200.
251. Csonka v. CanadaQL [2001] F.C.J. No. 1294.
252. Canada (CSIS) v. Mahjoub QL [2001) F.C..l. No. 1483.
253. Olah v. CanadaQL [2001) F.CJ. No. 1564.
254 . .Jaballah (Re) QL [2001) F.C.J. No. 1748.
255. Ali v. Canada QL [2002) F.C.J. No 336.
256. Boros v. Canada QL [2002] F.C.J. No 892.
257. Arndorfer v. Canada QL (2002) F.C.J. No. 918.
258 . .laballah v. Canada QL [2002) F.C.J. No. 944.
259. L.G. v. Canada QL [2002] F.C..l. No. 1034.
260. Rahman v. Canada QL [2002) F.C..1. 1149.
26 I. Canada v. Nyari QL [2002) F .C.J 1312.
262. Kali v. Canada QL [2002) F.C.J. 1433.
263. RE .laballah QL [2002] F.C.J. No. 1385.
264. Kali v. Canada QL [2002) F.C.J No. 1433.
265. Arndorfer v. Canada QL (2003) F.C..l. No. 1659.
266. Tokar v. Canada QL[2003) F.C.J. No. 107.
267. Soriano v. Canada QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 663.
268. Nemeth v. Canada QL (2003) F.C..J. No. 776.
...
269. Re .laballah, QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 822.
...
e Ml22
lib.
A113
0114
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-114 A114
_7 . Har·at Re 2 J F. · ... o. 7.,,
271. Canada v. Mahjoub QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 1183.
272. Harkat (Re) QL [2003] F.C.J. No. 1184.
273. Burai v. Canada QL (2003] F.C..I. No. 1390.
274. Balint v. Canada QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 1404.
275. Olah v. Canada QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 1430.
276. Farkas v. Canada QL [2003] F.C.J. No. 1640.
277. Burai v. Canada QL [2003] F.C..I. No. 1731.
278. Tam eh v. Canada QL (2003] F.C.J. No. 1859.
279. Jaballah v. Canada QL (2004] F.C..I. No. 420.
280. International Assn. of Immigration Practitioners v. Canada QL (2004] F.C..I. No. 770.
281. Chen, et al v. Canada QL [2004] F.C..I. 1903.
282. Chinese Business Chamber of Canada v. Canada QL (2005] F .C..I. No. 163.
283. Balathavarajan v. Canada QL [2005] F.C.J. No. 1478.
284. Canada v. Basca QL [2005] F.C.J. No.1803.
285. Dezdone v. Canada QL [2005] F.C..T.No.1913.
286. Toledo v. Canada QL [2005] F.C.J. No. 1935.
287. Christopher v. Canada QL [2005] F.C..T.No.2128.
288. Walsh v. MNR QL [2006] F.C.J. No.54.
289. Chen v. Canada QL [2006] F.C..I. No. 500.
290. Gondi v. Canada QL [2006] F.C..1.No. 534.
291. Jones v. Canada QL [2006] F.C..I. No. 591.
292. Walsh v. Canada QL [2006] F.C.J. No. 612.
293. Biro v. Canada QL [2006] F.C.J. No. 909.
294. Walsh v. Canada QL [2006] F.C.J. No. 612.
295. Ramadan v. Canada QL [2006] F.C..I. No. 1347.
296. Elchariti v. Canada QL [2006] F.C.J. No. 1427.
297. De Araujo Garcia v. Canada 2007 FC 79.
298. Elmagraby v. Canada 2007 FC 346.
299. Pourbahri-Ghezmat v. Canada 2007 FC 357.
300. Araujo, et al v. Canada 2007 FC 363.
301. Aldana v. Canada, (2008] F.C..J. No. 725.
302 Holmik v. Canada, [2008] F.C..1. No. 736.
303. Gonsalves v. Canada, [2008] F.C.J. No. 1065.
304. Somodi v. Canada, [2008] F.C..1.No. 1725.
305. Arora v. Canada, [2009] F.C.J. No. 110.
306. Marshall v. Canada, [2009] F.C.J. No. 799.
307. McDowell v. Canada, [2009] F.C..1. No. 786.
308. Gunther v. Canada, [2009] F.C.J. No. I 036.
309. Krena v. Canada, [2009] F.C.J. No. 1035.
310. Toussaint v. Canada (F.C.), [2010] 3 F.C.R. 452.
311. Ndungu v. Canada, [2009] F.C..I. No. 1612.
312. Dong v. Canada, [201 OJF.C..1. No. 54.
313. Felipa v. Canada, [2010] F.C..1. No. 39.
314. Tran v. Canada, [2010] F.C..I. No. 207.
315. Rachewiski v. Canada, [2010] F.C..I. No. 285.
316. Huntley v. Canada, [2010] F.C.J. No. 497.
317. Yin v. Canada, [2010] F.C.J. No. 975.
3 I 8. Cabrera v. Canada, [2010] F.C.J. No. 864.
3 19. Wang v. Canada, [20 I OJF.C.J. No. 980.
320. Liu v. Canada, [2010] F.C..I. No. 1013.
321 Abed v. Canada, [2010] F.C.J. No. 1444.
322. Canada v. Huntley, [2010] F.C.J. No. 1453.
323. Sivak v. Canada, [2011] F.C.J. No. 513.
It ., Page 24 ett·44 ...A114

0115
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-115 A115
I' / · "E Tf:"J) II (t!ll.£f_<;211y1/ered)
.>24. ans -y v. ana a. o.

325. S.B.G. v. Canada, [2011] F.C..I. No. 826.
326. Dehghani-Ashkezari v. Canada, [201 l] F.C.J. No. 1010.
328. King v. Canada, [201 I] F.C.J. No. 1365.
329. Slansky v. Canada, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1775.
330. Reis v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 187.
331. Sivak v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 293.
332. Cervenakova v. Canada, [2012] F.C..l. No. 773.
333. Balazs v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 678.
334 . .Jin v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 677.
335. Goman v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 866.
336. Su v. Canada, [2012] F.C..l. No. 902.
337. Sebok v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1192.
338. Pinter v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1204.
339. Biro v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1282.
340. Kemenczei v. Canada, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1457.
341. Tabingo v. Canada, [2013] F.C.J. No. 410.
342. Douglas v. Canada, [2013] F.C.J. No. 472.
343. Marshall v. Canada, [2013) F.C..I. No. 762.
344. Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform ("COMER") v. Canada, [2013] F.C.J. No. 926.
345. Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada, [2014] F.C.J. No. 764.
346 . .lia v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.C.J. No 647.
347. Mancuso v Canada (Minister ofNational Health and Welfare), [2014) F.C ..1.No 732.
348. Koky v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.C.J. No. 827.
349. Tumarkin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.C..l. No. 918.
350. Galati v Canada (Prime Minister), [2014] F.C.J. No. 1225.
35 I. Galati v Canada (Governor General), [2015] F.C.J. No. 79.
352. Singh v Canada (Attorney General), [2015] F.C.J. No. 47.
353. Hornak v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.C.J. No 521.
354. Cabral v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.C ..J.No 867.
345. Da Silva Campos v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.C..l. No 908.
356. Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada, [2016] F.C ..I. No 185.
357. Back v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] F.C.J. No. 229.
358. Almacen v Canada, (2016] F.C.J. No. 273.
359. Al Omani v Canada, [2016] F.C.J. No. 708.
360. Kristofova v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] F.C..I. No. 433.
361. Cabral v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC I 040 (CanLII).
362. Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052 (CanLII).
363. Back v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 257 (CanLII).
364. Gaziova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 679 (CanLII).
365. Ondras v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 303.
366. Alabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 294 (CanLII).
367. Reinholz v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 237 (CanLII).
368. Forefront Placement Ltd. c. Canada (Emploi et DeveJoppement social), 201 8 CF 692.
369. Ching v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 20 I 8 FC 839.
IN THE IMMIGRATION & REFUGEE BOARD '
370. R. (G.J.) (Re) QL (1992) ImmRefAppBd.

371. A. (N.H.) (Re) QL (1992) ImmRefAppBd.
372. Y. (X.K.) (Re) QL (1992) ImmRefAppBd.
373. Re Servant ( 1995) 27 Imm. L.R. (2d) 251 (IRB,CRDD).
374. Adam v. Canada, [1997] I.A.D.D. No. 677.
375. Okyere v. Canada, (1999] I.A.D.D. No. 452.
376. Wang v. Canada, f2001] l.A.D.D. No. 132.
,, Page 25 of 44
A115
0116
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-116 A116
PROTECTED H (puce cm11plered)
77. \I ang v Cana a ( ·111zens 1pan mm1grauo11). _Q

378. X (Re), 2002 CanLII 52676 (CA IRB).
379. X (Re), 2006 CanLII 799969 (CA !RB).
380. Juhasz v. Canada, [2009J I.A.D.D. No. 729.
381. X (Re). 2010 CanLII 97640 (CA IRB).
If applicable, provide citations for all published decisions you have written (including as an arbitrator, board member, or in another
decision-making capacities), including and noting concurrences and dissents:
TRIBUNAL DECISIONS- PANEL MEMBER - LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL (LST)
I. Law Society of Ontario v. Deslauriers, 2018 ONLSTH 61 (CanLII).

2. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue, 2018 ONLSTH 46 (CanLII).
3.Law Society of Upper Canada v. Bogue, 2018 ONLSTH 13 (CanLII).
If applicable, list all cases in which you participated as counsel or as a judge which were heard by or where leave was sought to the
Court of Appeal of your region and/or the Supreme Court of Canada, and the result (include any pending cases). You may include
significant participation in a case other than as named counsel (e.g., factum review committee). If so, describe precisely the nature of
your participation:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
• Cases fully argued in Supreme Court of Canada. (By definition, leave was granted in these cases, whether for appeal and/or lnlervention).
I. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Immigration), [l 999J 2 S.C.R. 817 - (named co-counsel).

2. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, [20 I OJ S.C.J. No. 21 (Toronto I 8 Terrorism Case) - (named counsel).
3. R. v. Ahmad, [20 I i J S.C.J. No. 6 (Toronto I 8 Terrorism Case) - (named counsel).
4. Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6, [2014J I SCR 433 ("Nadon Reference") (named self-represented party/counsel).
5. Quebec (Anorney General) v Canada (Attorney General), (2015J 2 SCR 179 ("Mainville Reference") (named self'.-represented party/
counsel).
• Leave applications as Applicant and Respondent in Supreme Court of Canada. In all these cases leave was denied. (In Coultice I acted for
the Respondent).
* In all the following cases I was counsel:
I. John v. Canada QL [2000J S.C.C.A. No. 574.

2 .. Fogal v. Canada QL (2001J S.C.C.A. No. 84 (Challenge to OECD "Multilateral Agreement on Investment .. Multilateral Trade Treaty!.
3. Canada v. Mahjoub QL [2001J S.C.C.A. No. 151 (Challenge to Security Certificates).
4. Tremblay v. Quebec Attorney General QL [2001 J S.C.C.A. No. 231 (Challenge to Quebec City Perimeter Fence Measures at FT/\/\ (Ci-8)
Summit, April, 2001).
5. Galati v. McGuinty QL [2001J S.C.C.A. No. 6 (Charter challenge to political nomination process).
6. R. v. Coultice QL [2004J S.C.C.A. No. 353 (Crown Appeal).
7. Main Rehabilitation Co. v. MNR QL [2005] SCCA No. 37 (Abuse of Process from Illegally Obtained Tax Records).
8. Tennina v. Canada (National Revenue, [201 OJ S.C.C.A. No 303 (Abuse of Process).
9. Horne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (20 I OJ S.C.C.A. No. 335.
Page 26 of 44
- A116
0117
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-117 l'R Tl: A117
___t(ll,rp/~1~10
E.!1.H.w11£1:
I 0. r a 1rusa111sv. Ontano. 2011 . . .A. o. 4 3 (s.7 arter ng 11to compensauon tor wronglu conv1ct1on).
I I. Huntley v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 522.
12. R. v. Khalid, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 323.
13. Chapman v. King, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 143.
14. Paul Slansky v. Attorney General of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen, et al., 2014 Can LIi 5977 (SCC').
15. Mancuso v Canada, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 92.
15. Amormino v Ontario (Police Services Board), [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 239.
16. Gong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 246.
17. Alabi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 334.
18. Rocco Galati, et al. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, et al., 20 I 6 CanLII 4 7514 (SCC).
19 Danilo Maala Almacen v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2017 CanLII 20397 (SCC).
20. Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform ("COMER"), et al. v. Her Ma,jesty the Queen. et al.. 2017 CanL!l 25790 (SCC).
21. Lawrence Wong (Barrister and Solicitor), et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. 2017 Can LIi 8569 (SCC).
If applicable, list all cases in which you participated as a judge where leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was requested
or granted and their outcome (include any pending cases):
NIA
List all publications, including online and opinion editorials, with dates and citations or links, if available:
BOOKS
1. Criminal Lawyer's Guide to Immigration & Citizenship Law, Canada Law Books, October 1996. Co-authored with Atihur Weinreb.
2. The Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution, Stoddart Publishing Co., January, 2001. Co-authored with Jan & Riley Adams.
NEWSPAPERS
I. Toronto Free Press, Columnist for paper, April 1996 - March, 1997 (Columnist).
2. Obiter Dicta, Columnist for Osgoode Hall Law School paper, 1986-1987 (Columnist).
FILMS
I
Executive Producer of Three Films, "Two Letters & Counting ... " 2008-2011, written, directed and performed by multi-Genie Award
winning Tony Nardi, Actor, Writer/Playwright, and current Ph.D Candidate.
I. '·Letter One": on the state of art and cultural in Canada, and the treatment of Aboriginal and others by the mainstream culture in Canada.
2. ··Letter Two": on film directors and critics in Canada.
3. '·And Counting ... ": on funding of the Arts in Canada.
-Rev. 10/2017 Page 27 of 44 ----~-..
A117
0118
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-118
f//OTECTEn II
A118
(01we t:IJ!>ijJlt!it:_d}
List all presentations that you have given over the past 10 years (that are not included under Teaching and Continuing Education;
e.g., presentations to members of the public):
( * I have included speaking engagements prior to the last IO years because, in the last 10 years I have not kept a record of most or my
frequent speaking engagements, and the previous speaking engagements are representative samples or other speaking engagements I have
continued in the past ten years, but of which I have felt less a need to keep a record).
•April I J, 20 I 8, Calabrian Benevolent Association of Ontario, "Calabria's Contribution to (Western) Civilization". Keynote Speaker.
•.January 27, 2017, University of Windsor Italian Law Association, "Rocco Galati, Lecture to Students".
•October 27, 2014, Osgoode Hall Law Union, "Galati: From Baker to Nadon", Keynote Speaker.
·October 24, 2014, Osgoode Hall Law Annual Administrative Law Conference, Main Speaker re ·'Nadon Reference and .Judicial
Appointments".
·October 28th. 2006, New College, University of Toronto, Keynote Speaker.
•Canadian Bar Association, CLE, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Conference, April 30th- May Isl. 2004. Toronto. guest speaker
on "Security and Rights Violations".
•"New Directions Conference", Parkdale Community Legal Services, March 3rd- 4th. 2004, Toronto Metro Hall. Keynote speaker nn
··Racial Profiling, Secret Trials, and Criminalization of Immigrants".
•NOP Caucus, J.S. Woodsworth Award, 6th Annual, for Commitment and Excellence in the Fight for and Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, March 21st, 2003. Keynote speaker.
·SPINLA W (Student Public Interest Network Legal Action Workshop) Annual, 2003 Conference, Toronto. March 7th-9th. Scheduled
keynote speaker March 7th. Moot-Court Judge, March 8th. This year's conference, "Borders and Boundaries ...
•Ontario Law Union Conference, February 28 - March I st, 2003, guest speaker, "The (II) legalities of War''. Toronto.
•Canadian Conference on Unity, Sovereignty and Prosperity, Metro Toronto Convention Centre, November I st- 2nd, 2002. Keynote speaker
on "Canada's Institutions and Culture".
•Reqroupment pour la Promotion de la Discussion Populaire (RPDP), "Etes-vous Terrorist?" (Are you a Terrorist?). November 25th. 2002.
Universite de Montreal, Keynote speaker.
•Toronto Peace Action Coalition and Lawyers Against the War "Can Civil Rights Survive the 'Anti-Terrorism· Laws" . .lune 23. 2002.
Keynote Speaker at conference.
•Toronto Peace Action Coalition Teach-in, OISE, February 9th, 2002. Keynote speaker.
•Several appearances, in 2001, on "Mojo Radio," Talk Radio with Andrew Krystel. on various constitutional and civil liberties issues.
•Several appearances, in 2001, on "Michael Corin Live."
•Several appearances, in 2001, on CBC's "Counterspin."
•Science for Peace Conference, University of Toronto, December 9th, 2001. Keynote speaker.
•"Canadian Immigration Law," Insight Educational Conference, September 25th, 2001. Keynote speaker.
q Page 28 of 44
·- A118
0119
- 1- Rocco Galati
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-119 A119
ROCCO GALATI
I 062 College Street, Lower Level, Toronto, Canada M6H I A9
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
e-mails: rocco@idirect.com/ rglfpc@gmail.com
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL
• Born: Capistrano, Italy, May 27 th, 1959, to a family (of successive generations) of farmers.
th th
• Immigrated to Canada May 19th, I 966 as 12 of 13 children (7 of 8 surviving).
Left home at 17 years of age, self-supporting ever since.
• Currently married with 3 children, one aged 26, and 8 year old twins.
Citizenship: Canadian.
• Member of"Canada's Who's Who" since 2011.
• Executive Director and Founder of Constitutional Rights Centre Inc., 2004-present.
LANGUAGES
• English (fluent) • French (fluent) • Calabrian (fluent) • Urdu (current study)

• Italian (fluent) • Spanish (fluent) • Portuguese (functional)
EDUCATION
Oct 5, 2015 Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators (SOAR)

• Certified as a Law Society Tribunal Adjudicator.
Sep 1995 - Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, Ontario. Obtained LL.M. in Tax Law.
Aprl997 • Completed with "A-" average.
Sep 1988 - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Bar Admission Course.
Feb 1989 • Called to Ontario bar March, 1989.
May 1987 - Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec. Civil Law Programme.

Jul 1987
Sep 1984 - Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, Ontario. Obtained LL.B. in I 987
Apr 1987
Jan 1984- L'Universite Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, visiting student, towards McGill degree.
May 1984
May 1983 - L'Universite du Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec. French Immersion Programme.

Jul 1983
Jan 1981 - McGill University (Honours B.A.), Obtained B.A. in "Modern

May 1984 Languages"/Linguistics
• Major in Spanish/Italian, French. Graduated with Distinction.
Sep 1976 - Harbord Collegiate Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Grades 12 & 13.
Jun 1978
Sep 1973 - Central Technical School, Toronto, Ontario, Grades 9-11.

Jun 1976
A119
0120
Rocco Galati
-2-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-120 A120
ACADEMIC AND OTHER A WARDS
1981 -1982 The Edgar M. Wilson Bursary, McGill University.
1981 -1982 The Edgar M. Wilson Bursary, McGill University.
1982-1983 Government of the Republic of Italy Scholarship.
1983 -1984 L'Association Des Gens D'Affaires & Professionnels ltalo-Canadiens Scholarship,
Montreal, Quebec.
1986- 1987 Canadian Department of Justice, Civil Law Scholarship.
201 1- Present Member of Canadian Who's Who.
Aug 2014 Named one of Top 25 Influential Lawyers for 2014, Canadian Lawyer Magazine.
April 2015 OBA (Ontario Bar Association) President's Award for 2015.
Aug 2015 Named one of Top 25 Influential Lawyers for 2015, Canadian Lawyer Magazine.
PUBLICATIONS
Books
I. Criminal lawyer's Guide to Immigration & Citizenship law, Canada Law Books, October 1996.
Co-authored with Arthur Weinreb.
2. The Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution, Stoddart Publishing Co., January, 200 I. Co-
authored with Ian & Riley Adams.
Newspapers
l. Obiter Dicta, Columnist for Osgoode Hall Law School paper, 1986-1987.
2. Toronto Free Press, Columnist for paper, April 1996 - March, 1997.
Films
Executive Producer of Three Films, "Two letters & Counting ... " 2008-20 I I, written, directed
and performed by multi-Genie Award winning Tony Nardi.
I. "letter One": on the state of art and cultural in Canada, and the treatment of Aboriginal and others
by the Two Solitudes Tribes of Canada.
2. "Letter Two":on film directors and critics in Canada.
3. "And Counting ... ": on funding of the Arts in Canada.
A120
0121
Rocco Galati
-3-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-121 A121
CONFERENCES AND APPEARANCES
Speaker at various political and legal rallies, conferences, seminars, Legal Continuing Education Conferences,
Parliamentary Committees, as well as current affairs television and radio. Some examples of such appearances
include:
♦ Witness before Parliamentary Committee on Bill C- I 6, May, 200 I.
♦ Witness before Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-36, November, 200 I.
♦ Witness before Senate Committee on Bill C-36, December, 2001.
♦ Lobby before MPs and Committees with respect to C-11 (Immigration Bill), 200 I.
"Canadian Immigration Law," Insight Educational Conference, September 25 h,2001, Keynotes
1
♦
speaker.
th
♦ Science for Peace Conference, University of Toronto, December 9 , 2001, Keynote speaker.
♦ Several appearances, in 2001, on CBC's "Counterspin."
♦ Several appearances, in 200 I, on "Michael Corin Live."
♦ Several appearances, in 2001, on "Mojo Radio," Talk Radio with Andrew Krystel, on various
constitutional and civil liberties issues.
♦ Toronto Peace Action Coalition Teach-in, OISE, February 9 1\ 2002, keynote speaker.
♦ Toronto Peace Action Coalition and lawyers Against the War "Can Civil Rights Survive the
'Anti-Terrorism' Laws", June 23, 2002, Keynote Speaker at conference.
♦ Reqroupment pour la Promotion de la Discussion Populaire (RPDP), "Etes-vous Terrorist?"

(Are you a Terrorist?), November 25 th, 2002, Universite de Montreal, Keynote speaker.
♦ Canadian Conference on Unity, Sovereignty and Prosperity, Metro Toronto Convention Centre,
November 1'1-December 2, 2002, keynote speaker on "Canada's Institutions and Culture".
♦ Ontario law Union Conference, February 28-March 15\ 2003, guest speaker, "The (II) legalities
of War". Toronto.
♦ SPINLAW(Student Public Interest Network Legal Action Workshop) Annual, 2003 Conference.
th
Toronto. March 7th-9th . Scheduled keynote speaker March 7th. Moot-Court Judge, March 8 . This
year's conference, "Borders and Boundaries".
♦ NDP Caucus, J.S. Woodsworth Award, 6th Annual, for Commitment and Excellence in the Fight
for and Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 21'\ 2003. Keynote speaker.
rd th
♦ "New Directions Conference", Parkdale Community Legal Services, March 3 - 4 , 2004,
Toronto Metro Hall, Keynote speaker on "Racial profiling, secret trials, and criminalization of
immigrants".
♦ Canadian Bar Association, CLE, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Conference, April
30 th- May I 'I, 2004, Toronto, guest speaker on "Security and rights violations".
♦ October 28 1h,2006,New College, University of Toronto, Keynote Speaker.
♦ 2013 Osgoode Hall Law School, annual Administrative Law Conference, Main Speaker re "Nadon
Reference and Judicial Appointments".
♦ Spoke11, upo11invitation, to the current date, at various Universities and Colleges 011 various
legal topics including: University of Toronto, York University, Ryerson University, McGill
University, Universite de Montreal, Concordia University, University of British Columbia,
University of Western Ontario, University of Windsor, Sir Sanford Fleming College, Seneca
College, George Brown College, and at various Toronto High School general assemblies.
A121
-4-
0122
Rocco Galati
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-122 A122
EMPLOYMENT - IN LAW
Feb, 2016- Independent legal counsel to Auditor General for City of Toronto.
Present • Providing legal advise and services, on an independent and as needed basis, to Auditor
General for City of Toronto on substantive, procedural, statutory, and constitutional
issue(s) with respect to its enabling legislation, administrative, and constitutional law.
May, 2015- Elected Bencher, Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) (now Law Society of Ontario)
May, 2019
May, 2015- Hearing Division Member of Law Society Tribunal (LST)

Present Designated to sit on French Language hearings.
2004- Founder/Executive Director of Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.

Present
Nov. 2012- Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation,

Present I 062 College St., Lower Level, M6H I A9
• Continuing previous practice at new location.
Jan. 2005- Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation,

Nov. 2012 637 College St., Suite 203
Continuing law practice as set out below under new incorporation.
Apr 1997 - Private Practice. Barrister and Solicitor,

Dec. 2004 63 7 College St., Suite 203, Toronto, Ontario, M6G I 85, with Galati, Rodrigues,
Azevedo & Associates, Toronto and Vancouver.
• Practice restricted to Constitutional, Administrative, Tax Litigation, Criminal, Immigration
and Refugee, as well as Federal, Superior, and Supreme Court Appeals and Judicial Review.
Dec. 1998 - The (Ontario) Child and Family Services Review Board and the Custody Review Board:
Dec. 2001 Independent Counsel,
• Providing legal advice and services, on an independent and as needed basis, to both Boards,
on substantive and procedural issue(s) with respect to their enabling legislation,
administrative, and constitutional law.
Apr 1996- Private Practice. Barrister and Solicitor, The Phoenix Building,
Apr 1997 439 University Avenue, Suite 780, Toronto, Ontario MSG I Y8.
Apr 1996- Columnist, Toronto Free Press

Mar 1997 • Wrote monthly legal column for independent Toronto newspaper, the "Toronto Free
Press" and advised paper on various issues including libel and slander.
Feb 1990- Private Practice. Barrister and Solicitor, 3 72 Bay St., Suite 510
Apr 1996 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2W9.
• Practice restricted to proceedings against the Crown: primarily in Constitutional,
Immigration, Tax Litigation, Criminal, and Human Rights Law.
Sep 1992 - Seneca College. Part-time Professor, Toronto, Ontario.

Dec 1992 •Taught course in one-year administrative and regulatory law certificate programme for
students who had already acquired a B.A .. Taught while maintained full-time practice.
A122
-5-
0123
Rocco Galati
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-123 A123
Feb 1990- Faculty of Law, University of Toronto,

Aug 1992 Downtown Legal Services ("DLS"). Review Counsel (Part-time),
Toronto, Ontario. Taught while maintained full-time practice.
• Conducted weekly lecture, during the academic year, explained the role of the clinic,
professional duties, and substantive law courses on areas of law covered by the clinic.
Conducted weekly seminars during the summer.
• Supervised 140 students, in concert with the full-time counsel, during the academic year,
and 14 full-time students during the summer. Assisted in supervising legal work carried out
by students at the clinic.
• Also conducted civil appeals and judicial reviews, as well as criminal Summary Conviction
Appeals, for clinic.
Mar 1989 - Department of Justice, Canada, Barrister and Solicitor, Tax

Mar 1990 Litigator Toronto Ontario.
• Litigation in Income Tax matters in the Tax and Federal Court as well as federal
disability/CPP pensions before the Pensions Appeals Board.
Aug 1988 - Department of Justice, Canada, Researcher, Criminal Prosecutions

Mar 1989 Section. Toronto, Ontario.
• Legal research and drafting factums in Extradition, Immigration, Narcotic Control, and Tax
Evasion matters before the Courts. Included issues and factums for all levels of Courts
including the Supreme Court of Canada.
Jul 1987 - Department of Justice, Canada, Articles of Clerkship

Jul 1988 Toronto, Ontario.
• Four rotations: Criminal Prosecutions, Tax Litigation, Civil (Constitutional) Litigation, and
Property & Commercial sections.
Feb 1985 - Community and Legal Aid Services Programme [CLASP I Law Student Caseworker
May 1987 Toronto, Ontario.
• Represented refugee claimants and other immigration clients scheduled to appear before the
Immigration Appeal Board [IAB].
• Translated documents and interpreted as needed by other volunteer caseworkers.
Sep 1986 - Osgoode Hall Law School, Research Assistant to Professor Eric Tucker.
May 1987 • Researched Administrative and Occupational Health and Safety Law.
May 1986- Osgoode Hall Law School, Research Assistant to Professor Eric Tucker.
Aug 1986 • Researched Property, Occupational Health, Safety, and Administrative Law with a heavy
emphasis on Administrative Law.
Jan 1986 - Union of Injured Workers, Caseworker, Toronto, Ontario.

May 1986 • Provided summary advice and represented Worker's Compensation claimants as part of a
pilot project placement, initiated by me and Ms. Mary Jarrell, to establish a "Workers' Rights"
section at Parkdale Community Legal Services.
Sep 1985 - Osgoode Hall Law School, Research Assistant to Professor F. Zemans.
Dec 1985 • Translated, from Spanish to English, legal periodicals and papers concerning Legal Aid in
Latin America.
May 1985 - Parkdale Community Legal Services, Consumer & Immigration Division,
Sep 1985 Law Student Caseworker
[Jan 1986 - • Cases dealt with Immigration, Consumer, Employment, and Human Rights matters.
A123
-6-
0124
Rocco Galati
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-124 A124
May 1986) • Interviewed clients, gave summary advise, legal research, drafting pleadings, legal
documents, counsel's submissions, negotiation, preparing witnesses, and appearing on client's
behalf before courts and tribunals. (Please see attached evaluation to my LL.B transcript.)
• Also translated legal documents as well interpreted whenever required by the office.
OTHER LAW-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND EMPLOYMENT
May, 2015 - LSUC (now Law Society of Ontario) Elected Bencher

May 2019
May, 2015- Hearing Division Member of Law Society Tribunal (LST)

Present Designated to sit on French-language hearings.
2004- Present Founder and Executive Director of Constitutional Rights Centre Inc (CRC).
2005- Present PEN Canada, Member.
June 2001- Counsel to the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Dec. 2004
March, 200 I - Co-Founder and Counsel to Roma Community & Advocacy Centre.
Dec. 2006
Mar 2001- Counsel to the Falun Da Fa Association of Canada.

Dec 2003
Spring 1999 Candidate in Law Society Bencher Election.
Summer 1998 Provincial Liberal Party Nomination Candidate, Davenport Riding.
Spring 1994 Candidate in Law Society Bencher Election.
Jul 1988 - Canadian Tax Foundation

Dec. 1992 Member.
Oct 1993 - Ontario Legal Aid Area Committee

Dec. 2010 Civil appeals Toronto, Ontario.
Feb 1990 - Refugee Lawyers Association

Dec, 1998 Active member, and former member of Federal Court Committee.
Toronto, Ontario.
Fall 1993 Bar Admission Course

Stand-by instructor in Public Law course.
Feb 1990 - Trinidad and Tobago Social and Cultural Organization

Dec 1992 Acted as pro bono counsel which included weekly attendance at general meeting to answer
questions.
Sep. 1986 - Osgoode Hall Law Journal

May 1987 Editor
Proofread, edited, and verified sources and partook in decisions on articles to be published.
Jun 1986 - Faculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School

May 1987 Student Representative.
A124
0125
-7- Rocco Galati
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-125 A125
Elected member on Osgoode's governing body, participated and voted on the academic,
policy, and personnel decisions affecting the law school.
COURTS AND TRIBUNALS APPEAR(ED) BEFORE
• Supreme Court of Canada
• Federal Court of Appeal
• Federal Court
• Tax Court of Canada
• Ontario Court of Appeal
• Quebec Court of Appeal
• Ontario Divisional Court
• Ontario Superior Court of Justice
• Quebec Superior Court of Justice
• B.C. Superior Court
• Ontario Court of Justice (Criminal and Youth Divisions)
• WCAT (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal)
• JAB, IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board)
• Canadian Judicial Council
• Parliamentary Justice and other Committees (Both House of Commons and Senate)
of my
• [ have been reported, in the jurisprudence, an average of a reported case for every 3-4 weeks
practice.
A125
0126
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-126 A126
This is Exhibit "J)" to the Affidavit of

r mg 1 av1ts
A126
0127
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-127 A127
MISSION STATEMENT
Canada lacks a politically free and financially independent institute for the advancement of
constitutional right(s) and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution over the Executive and
Legislative and Judicial branches of government;
The Constitutional Rights Centre is established as a private corporation whose sole mission and
aim(s) are the protection, defence, enforcement, and enhancement of constitutional rights, and
the supremacy of the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, without government funding, interference,
l
or influence whatsoever.
The CRC's mission is, on one hand, to challenge unconstitutional excess of the state, and on the
other, to challenge the state's abdication or abandonment of constitutional duty.
Financing of the CRC is strictly on a private basis and consists of:
• private donation(s);
• pro bono time donated by lawyers, law students, and other volunteers;
• fund-raised cases.
The aims and objectives of the CRC are advanced through the vehicle of:
Litigation in the Court(s) by:
• intervention as a Party and on behalf of Parties;
• procuring co-counsel to assist other counsel
when requested;
• procuring direct representation of client(s).
Education through:
• public and private speaking;
• website publication(s) and newsletter(s); and
• seminars and conferences.
The clear mission of CRC is to be as devoid, free and separate from government funding, J
interference, and influence, as matter is from anti-matter.
The CRC is committed to advocating for a truly independent, impartial, and accountable judiciary
that reflects Canadian demography, values, and a fair and open appointment system. A judicial
appointment system that complies with the process and substance of the equality
and independence provisions of the Constitution.
The CRC is committed to protecting, defending, and enhancing constitutional rights and the
supremacy of the Constitution over police, security services, the Executive, and the Legislative
and other branches of government without regard to:
• political correctness and influence whether political or judicial;
• special-interest and lobby;
• the unpopularity of the person or group asserting the Constitution or right; nor
• the implications or ramifications to public spending required to effect constitutional
rights.
The CRC is committed to resisting the unconstitutional "abdication" or "abandonment" of the
legislative duty of legislatures and the unconstitutional delegation, particularly to private bodies,
of public institutions and functions being the duty of legislatures and governments as gatekeepers
of the public good, policy, and welfare.
The CRC is committed to asserting and defending the citizen's electoral constitutional rights which
ensure and guarantee constitutional democracy.
November, 2004
A127
0128
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-128 A128
CANADA'S CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE (1-7) ©
Canada is a constitutional democracy. In a constitutional democracy, any constitution will take basic
characteristics. A constitution can either be written (constitutional document) or unwritten (through
custom or common-law). A constitution can either be supreme ("entrenched") to all other laws, or
simply just another Act of the Legislature. A constitution can either be amended by simple Act of the
Legislature, whereby it is "flexible" or may require constitutional amendment through an amendment
formula whereby it is "rigid". For example, the UK has an unwritten, flexible, non-Supreme
Constitution; the U.S. has a written, extremely rigid, supreme constitution: Canada, in typical fashion,
falls between the two, and has both a written (and unwritten), semi-supreme, semi-rigid constitution.
With the Patriation of the Constitution, in 1982, as has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada
many times, we moved from a system of Parliamentary supremacy to one of constitutional
supremacy:
72 ... This Court has noted on several occasions that with the adoption of the Charter, the
Canadian system of government was transformed to a significant extent from a system of
Parliamentary supremacy to one of constitutional supremacy. The Constitution binds all
governments, both federal and provincial, including the executive branch (Operation
Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, at p. 455). They may not transgress its
provisions: indeed, their sole claim to exercise lawful authority rests in the powers allocated
to them under the Constitution, and can come from no other source.
- Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217
This is both with respect to the Division of Powers as between the Federal and Provincial
governments under ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as the powers of the state
over the citizen under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Part I of the Constitution
Act, 1982.
Virtually, nothing in the expressed Constitutional texts of the Constitution Acts, 1867to 1982 can be
amended without the consent of 7 or 10 of the Provinces. (The exceptions are some Charter rights
which can be "over-ridden" by expressed unilateral Legislation. Although this has not yet happened).
The amendment formula was broadly described, by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Senate
Reference as follows:
[32] Part V contains four categories of amending procedures. The first is the general
amending procedure (s. 38, complemented bys. 42 ), which requires a substantial degree of
consensus between Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The second is the unanimous
consent procedure (s. 41 ), which applies to certain changes deemed fundamental by the
framers of the Constitution Act. 1982 . The third is the special arrangements procedure (~
43 ), which applies to amendments in relation to provisions of the Constitution that apply to
some, but not all, of the provinces. The fourth is made up of the unilateral federal and
provincial procedures, which allow unilateral amendment of aspects of government
institutions that engage purely federal or provincial interests (ss. 44 and 45 ).
-Reference re Senate Reform, 2014 SCC 32, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 704@paragraph 34
A128
0129
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-129 A129
2
The Supreme Court of Canada has pointed out that the constitution has unwritten constitutional
imperatives as well:
106 The historical origins of the protection of judicial independence in the United
Kingdom, and thus in the Canadian Constitution, can be traced to the Act of Settlement of
1701. As we said in Valente, supra, at p. 693, that Act was the "historical inspiration" for
the judicature provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867. Admittedly, the Act only extends
protection to judges of the English superior courts. However, our Constitution has evolved
over time. In the same way that our understanding of rights and freedoms has grown, such
that they have now been expressly entrenched through the enactment of the Constitution
Act, 1982, so too has judicial independence grown into a principle that now extends to all
courts, not just the superior courts of this country.
107 I also support this conclusion on the basis of the presence ofs. ll(d) of the
Charter, an express provision which protects the independence of provincial court judges
only when those courts exercise jurisdiction in relation to offences. As I said earlier, the
express provisions of the Constitution should be understood as elaborations of the
underlying, unwritten, and organizing principles found in the preamble to the
Constitution Act, 1867. Even though s. 11 (d) is found in the newer part of our
Constitution, the Charter, it can be understood in this way, since the Constitution is to be
read as a unified whole: Reference re Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act (Ont.),
[1987] I S.C.R. 1148, at p. 1206. An analogy can be drawn between the express reference
in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1982 to the rule of law and the implicit inclusion
of that principle in the Constitution Act, 1867: Reference re Manitoba Language Rights,
supra, at p. 750. Section 1 l(d), far from indicating that judicial independence is
constitutionally enshrined for provincial courts only when those courts exercise jurisdiction
over offences, is proof of the existence of a general principle of judicial independence that
applies to all courts no matter what kind of cases they hear.
108 I reinforce this conclusion by reference to the central place that courts hold within the
Canadian system of government. In OPSEU, as I have mentioned above, Beetz J. linked
limitations on legislative sovereignty over political speech with "the existence of certain
political institutions" as part of the "basic structure of our Constitution" (p. 57). However,
political institutions are only one part of the basic structure of the Canadian Constitution. As
this Court has said before, there are three branches of government -- the legislature, the
executive, and the judiciary: Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [ 1985] 2 S.C.R.
455, at p. 469; R. v. Power, [1994] l S.C.R. 60 I, at p. 620. Courts, in other words, are
equally "definitional to the Canadian understanding of constitutionalism" (Cooper, supra, at
para. 11) as are political institutions. It follows that the same constitutional imperative --
the preservation of the basic structure - which led Beetz J. to limit the power of
legislatures to affect the operation of political institutions, also extends protection to the
judicial institutions of our constitutional system. By implication, the jurisdiction of the
provinces over "courts", as that term is used ins. 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867,
contains within it an implied limitation that the independence of those courts cannot be
undermined.
- Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.L), [1997] 3 S.C.R.

3
A129
0130
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-130 A130
3
In addition to the explicit text(s) of the constitutional documents there have always been unwritten
constitutional rights and doctrines often read into our constitutional order through the pre-Amble of
the Constitution Act, 1867 which reads:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their
Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United
Kingdom:
Historically rights and requirements emanating from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of
Rights (1688) and the Act of Settlement (1701) have been read into our constitutional order.
There is often confusion that the Constitution Acts 1867-1982 are the source of Legislative and
Executive authority. They are not.
Her Majesty the Queen is the source of all authority. The Constitutional texts and doctrines simply
allocate the exercise and circumscribe that authority.
Thus, with respect to Legislative authority, s. 17 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads:
Constitution of Parliament of Canada
17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House
styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
And with respect to Executive Authority s. 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads:
Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to
continue and be vested in the Queen.
The exercise of that authority is circumscribed not only by the Constitutional text itself, but is also
circumscribed under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
A130
0131
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-131 A131
4
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and

(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Amendments to Constitution of Canada

(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance
with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
It is also circumscribed by the underlying constitutional imperatives of the Rule of Law and
Constitutionalism which the Supreme Court of Canada has summarized as follows:
[70]The principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law lie at the root of our system of
government. The rule of Law, as observed in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, at
p. 142, is "a fundamental postulate of our constitutional structure". As we noted in the
Patriation Reference, supra, at pp.805-6, "[t]he 'rule of law' is a highly textured expression,
importing many things which are beyond the need of these reasons to explore but conveying,
for example, a sense of orderliness, of subjection to known legal rules and of executive
accountability to legal authority". At its most basic level, the rule of law vouchsafes to the
citizens and residents of the country a stable, predictable and ordered society in which to
conduct their affairs. It provides a shield for individuals from arbitrary state action.
[7l]In the Manitoba Language Rights Reference, supra, at pp.747-52, this Court outlined the
elements of the rule oflaw. We emphasized, first, that the rule of law provides that the law is
supreme over the acts of both government and private persons. There is, in short, one law for
all. Second, we explained, at p. 749, that "the rule oflaw requires the creation and
maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more
general principle of normative order". It was this second aspect of the rule oflaw that was
primarily at issue in the Manitoba Language Rights Reference itself A third aspect of the
rule of law is, as recently confirmed in the Provincial Judged Reference, supra, at para.
10, that "the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule". Put
another way, the relationship between the state and the individual must be regulated by law.
Taken together, these three considerations make up a principle of profound constitutional
and political significance.
[72]The constitutionalism principle bears considerable similarity to the rule of law, although
they are not identical. The essence of constitutional ism in Canada is embodied in s. 52( l) of
the
Constitution Act, 1982, which provides that "[t]he Constitution of Canada is the supreme
law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to
the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." Simply put, the constitutionalism
principle requires that all government action must comply with the law, including the
Constitution. The rule of Law principle requires that all government action must comply
with the law, including the Constitution. This Court has noted on several occasions that
with the adoption of the Charter, the Canadian system of government was transformed to
a significant extent from a system of Parliamentary supremacy to one of constitutional
supremacy. The Constitution binds all governments, both federal and provincial,
A131
0132
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-132 A132
5
including the executive branch (Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, [1985] I S.C.R.
441, at p. 455). They may not transgress its provisions: indeed, their sole claim to exercise
lawful authority rests in the powers allocated to them under the Constitution, and can come
from no other source.
- Reference re Secession of Quebec, /1998] 2 S.CR. 217@para 70-72
Where the constitutional excess is with respect to a citizen, under a Charter right, the remedial
section in s. 24 of the Charter reads:
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (I) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed
or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Where there is a dispute, either as between governments, or as between the citizen and the state, the
Courts arbitrate those disputes, when not fashioning a specific right to the individual under s. 24( 1),
will issue a remedy under s.52(1) of the Constitution Act.1982, which reads:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, of no force or effect.
One often hears, typically from politicians and citizens alike, that the Courts exceed their role, that
they are too "interventionist". This is complete nonsense. As set out by the Supreme Court of Canada
in Vriend:
53 Further confusion results when arguments concerning the respective

roles of the legislature and the judiciary are introduced into the s. 32 analysis.
These arguments put forward the position that courts must defer to a decision
of the legislature not to enact a particular provision, and that the scope of
Charter review should be restricted so that such decisions will be unchallenged.
I cannot accept this position. Apart from the very problematic distinction it
draws between legislative action and inaction, this argument seeks to
substantially alter the nature of considerations of legislative deference in
Charter analysis. The deference very properly due to the choices made by the
legislature will be taken into account in deciding whether a limit is justified
under s. 1 and again in determining the appropriate remedy for a Charter
breach. My colleague Iacobucci J. deals with these considerations at greater
length more fully in his reasons.
54 The notion of judicial deference to legislative choices should not,

however, be used to completely immunize certain kinds of legislative decisions
from Charter scrutiny. McClung J.A. in the Alberta Court of Appeal criticized
the application of the Charter to a legislative omission as an encroachment by
A132
0133
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-133 A133
6
the courts on legislative autonomy. He objected to what he saw as judges

dictating provincial legislation under the pretext of constitutional scrutiny. In
his view, a choice by the legislature not to legislate with respect to a particular
matter within its jurisdiction, especially a controversial one, should not be open
to review by the judiciary: "When they choose silence provincial legislatures
need not march to the Charter drum. In a constitutional sense they need not
march at all. . . . The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not
adopted by the provinces to promote the federal extraction of subsidiary
legislation from them but only to police it once it is proclaimed ~ if it is
proclaimed" (pp. 25 and 28).
55 There are several answers to this position. The first is that in this case,
the constitutional challenge concerns the IRP A, legislation that has been
proclaimed. The fact that it is the under inclusiveness of the Act which is at
issue does not alter the fact that it is the legislative act which is the subject of
Charter scrutiny in this case. Furthermore, the language of s. 32 does not limit
the application of the Charter merely to positive actions encroaching on rights
or the excessive exercise of authority, as McClung J.A. seems to suggest.
These issues will be dealt with shortly. Yet at this point it must be observed
that McClung J.A.'s reasons also imply a more fundamental challenge to the
role of the courts under the Charter, which must also be answered. This issue is
addressed in the reasons of my colleague Iacobucci J. below, and that
discussion need not be repeated here. However, at the present stage of the
analysis it may be useful to clarify the role of the judiciary in responding to a
legislative omission which is challenged under the Charter.
56 It is suggested that this appeal represents a contest between the power
of the democratically elected legislatures to pass the laws they see fit, and the
power of the courts to disallow those laws, or to dictate that certain matters be
included in those laws. To put the issue in this way is misleading and
erroneous. Quite simply, it is not the courts which limit the legislatures. Rather,
it is the Constitution, which must be interpreted by the courts, that limits the
legislatures. This is necessarily true of all constitutional democracies. Citizens
must have the right to challenge laws which they consider to be beyond the
powers of the legislatures. When such a challenge is properly made, the courts
must, pursuant to their constitutional duty, rule on the challenge. It is said,
however, that this case is different because the challenge centres on the
legislature's failure to extend the protection of a law to a particular group of
people. This position assumes that it is only a positive act rather than an
omission which may be scrutinized under the Charter. In my view, for the
reasons that will follow, there is no legal basis for drawing such a distinction.
In this as in other cases, the courts have a duty to determine whether the
challenge is justified. It is not a question, as McClung J.A. suggested, of the
courts imposing their view of "ideal" legislation, but rather of determining
whether the challenged legislative act or omission is constitutional or not.
- Vriend v. Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, @paras. 53-56
A133
0134
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-134 A134
7
The Courts are an explicit, defined, and entrenched part of our constitutional framework. It is their
duty, when called upon, to adjudicate disputes. This adjudicative function of the Courts, is what
distinguishes a constitutional democracy from rule by the Executive, or dictatorial rule.
Those who romanticize, or over-emphasize the separation between the Executive and Parliament,
particularly in a majority government, are well-advised to recall the reality, and observation of the
Supreme Court of Canada that:
53 On a practical level, it is recognized that the same individuals control both the executive
and the legislative branches of government. As this Court observed in Attorney General of
Quebec v. Blaikie, [ 1981] 1 S.C.R. 312, at p. 320, "There is thus a considerable degree of
integration between the Legislature and the Government. ... [I]t is the Government which,
through its majority, does in practice control the operations of the elected branch of the
Legislature on a day to day basis". Similarly, in Reference re Canada Assistance
Plan, supra, at p. 547, Sopinka J. said:
... the true executive power lies in the Cabinet. And since the Cabinet controls the
government, there is in practice a degree of overlap among the terms "government",
"Cabinet" and "executive". . . . In practice, the bulk of the new legislation is initiated
by the government.
- Wells v. Newfoundland, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 199
This is one of the important reasons that the Supreme Court of Canada, in the "Nadon Reference",
Reference Re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, ruled that a change to the composition
of the Supreme Court of Canada would require the consent of all the Provinces to maintain the
separation of powers which is essential to the maintenance to the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and
Democracy itself
It was the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc., along with Rocco Galati, as co-Applicants, who
challenged, in Federal Court, the Nadon appointment, and forced the Governor-General to file a
reference at the Supreme Court of Canada, whereby the CRC and Galati brokered an agreement to
suspend their Federal Court challenge, in exchange for status to be heard on the Supreme Court of
Canada reference, whereby the Supreme Court, as a result of its ruling "constitutionalized" itself and
removed itself from Legislative interference, without a constitutional amendment, with the consent of
all ten (10) provinces with respect to its "composition", or the consent of seven (7) provinces
representing at least half of Canada's population, with respect to any other "matter concerning the
Supreme Court".
© 2016 I Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
A134
0135
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-135 1 A135
CANADA'S EXECUTIVE STRUCTURE ©
The Executive in Canada is defined as follows under s. 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867:
Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to
continue and be vested in the Queen.
In practice this is Cabinet, the Ministers, and the government departments who are supposed to
implement Regulations pursuant to statute, as well as administer the laws passed by Parliament.
This also applies provincially.
In theory there is a "separation of powers" between the Legislature, the Executive, and the
Courts. This "separation of powers" is the separation of the source of all powers, Her Majesty's
powers, in that the Executive is Her Majesty under s. 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Her
Majesty is part of Parliament as defined under s. 17 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and it is Her
Majesty's Courts.
The only true separation in fact and function, is as between the Courts and the
Executive/Par Iiament.
The Supreme Court of Canada has aptly pointed out the reality, particularly in a majority
government, that:
53 On a practical level, it is recognized that the same individuals control both the
executive and the legislative branches of government. As this Court observed
inAttorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 312, at p. 320, "There is thus
a considerable degree of integration between the Legislature and the Government. ...
[I]t is the Government which, through its majority, does in practice control the
operations of the elected branch of the Legislature on a day to day basis". Similarly,
in Reference re Canada Assistance Plan, supra, at p. 547, Sopinka J. said:
... the true executive power lies in the Cabinet. And since the Cabinet controls
the government, there is in practice a degree of overlap among the terms
"government", "Cabinet" and "executive". . . . In practice, the bulk of the new
legislation is initiated by the government.
- Wells v. Newfoundland, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 199,@paragraph 53
The Executive is equally bound to constitutional norms and review ( Operation Dismantle Inc. v.
The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 and Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3). This is
not new. Pre-Patriation of the Constitution in 1982, it has always been held that the Executive is
bound by constitutional norms. (Air Canada v. A.G.B.C. [1986] 2 S.C.R. 539 (SCC))
A135
0136
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-136 A136
CANADA'S JUDICIAL STRUCTURE (1 - 6) ©
The government of Canada has its own description of the Structure of Canada's judiciary in
Canada. You are welcome to visit its website through the following link:
- http:llwww.justice.ge.calenglcsj-sjc/just/07.html
However, as with all government publications and descriptions, they are often incomplete and
self-serving to their own purposes.
The Canadian judiciary, while split into Federal and Provincial Appointments, is extremely
complex, with issue(s) still, to this day, unresolved.
Federal Appointments are governed by ss. 96-101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which read:
VII. JUDICATURE
Appointment of Judges
96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County
Courts in each Province, except those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick.
Selection of Judges in Ontario, etc.
97. Until the Laws relative to Property and Civil Rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and
New Brunswick, and the Procedure of the Courts in those Provinces, are made
uniform, the Judges of the Courts of those Provinces appointed by the Governor
General shall be selected from the respective Bars of those Provinces.
Selection of Judges in Quebec
98. The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from the Bar of that Province.
Tenure of office of Judges
99. (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the judges of the superior courts shall
hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor
General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Termination at age 75
(2) A judge of a superior court, whether appointed before or after the corning into force
of this section, shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of seventy-five
years, or upon the corning into force of this section if at that time he has already
A136
0137
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-137 A137
2
attained that age.
Salaries, etc., of Judges
100. The Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions of the Judges of the Superior, District, and
County Courts (except the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick),
and of the Admiralty Courts in Cases where the Judges thereof are for the Time
being paid by Salary, shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of
Canada . .(W
General Court of Appeal, etc.
101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from Time to
Time provide for the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of a General
Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the Establishment of any additional Courts
for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada. {22)
Provincial Appointments, and the administration of Justice in the Provinces, even the
administration of justice with respect to the Federally appointed Superior Courts, is governed by
s. 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 which reads:
EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES
Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to
Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to
say,
14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution,

Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal
Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
The Governor-General makes federal appointments while the Lieutenant Governor of the
Province(s) makes provincial appointments.
• Federal Appointments
Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides for federal appointments to the Superior
Courts of the Provinces. Tenure, under s. 99, is to 75 years of age. The structure provided for
tenure in judicial appointments comes from the Act of Settlement (170 I). Historically it was for
life, but a constitutional amendment in 1960, the Constitution Act, 1960, reduced the tenure from
life to 75 years.
A137
0138
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-138 A138
3
Section 101 Constitution Act, 1867 also allows the Federal government to create Federal Courts
that serve nationally. Under this section the Federal government established the Supreme Court
of Canada in 1875, the Federal Court of Canada, in 1970, and the Tax Court of Canada, as a
Superior Court, in 1983, as well as an array of Federal Tribunals such as the Parole Board, the
Immigration and Refugee Board, and such.
The differences between the Superior courts of the Provinces, under s. 96, and the Federal
Courts, under s. 101, is that the Superior Courts of the Provinces are general courts with
"inherent" jurisdiction since they pre-date Confederation, and possess jurisdiction above and
beyond their statutory authority granted under various statutes, both Federal and Provincial.
Their full and plenary jurisdiction over constitutional issues cannot be ousted in favor of
exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, even over Federal matters, although they have the
discretion to defer to the Federal Courts, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, i.e. Reza v. Canada,
{1994/ 2 S.C.IL 394. In rare cases the opposite is also true. (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v.
Hernandez, [1975/ 1 S.C.R. 228).
The section 101 Courts are restricted to their statutory authority granted under their Federal
Legislation.
Provincial Courts, created by the Province, under s. 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867 are also
restricted to their statutory authority, which can be granted both under Federal or Provincial
legislation.
• Administration of Justice
Each Province, under their respective Courts of Justice legislation, administers the Courts and
Administration of Justice both for Provincial Courts as well as the federally appointed Superior
Courts, whose judges are appointed by the Federal government.
It is in this sense that we have a "unitary Court system" culminating to the Supreme Court of
Canada, both with respect to Federally appointed judges across the Country in each Province, as
well as a hierarchy of Provincial Courts, Superior Courts, of including Provincial Courts of
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Federal Courts are not part of this unitary court system. Thus, the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled in A.G. Ontario v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. {1989/ 1 S.C.R. 206 as follows:
A provincial legislature has the power, by virtue of s. 92(14) of the Constitution Act.
1867 , to grant jurisdiction to an inferior court to hear a matter falling within federal
legislative jurisdiction. This power is limited, however, bys. 96 of that Act and the
federal government's power to expressly grant exclusive jurisdiction to a court
established by it under s. 101 of the Act. Neither of these exceptions applied here.
The court system in Canada is generally unitary; provincially constituted inferior and
superior courts of original and appellate jurisdiction apply federal as well as provincial
laws. The system dates from Confederation times. The major exception to this unitary
A138
0139
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-139 A139
4
system is the Federal Court of Canada to which Parliament has assigned jurisdiction,
sometimes exclusive, sometimes concurrent, in respect of matters within its legislative
competence.
and further stated:

The Principal Constitutional Issues
14. In assessing the constitutional issues, it is well to remember that the court
system in Canada is, in general, a unitary one under which provincially constituted
inferior and superior courts of original and appellate jurisdiction apply federal as well as
provincial laws under a hierarchical arrangement culminating in the Supreme Court of
Canada established by Parliament under s. 101 oftheConstitution Act. 1867. This goes
back to the time of Confederation when previously constituted superior, county and
small claims courts continued to be charged with the administration of justice in
Canada. The major exception to this unitary system is the Federal Court of Canada (the
predecessor of which was created in 1875 along with the Supreme Court of Canada
under u.Ql_ of the Constitution Act. 1867) to which Parliament has assigned
jurisdiction, sometimes exclusive, sometimes concurrent, in respect of matters within its
legislative competence.
A.G. Ontario v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. [1989] 1 S.CR. 206
• Judicial Review- Balance and Lever to Rule of Law
The function of the Courts is, in a large sense, with respect to public law involving governments,
is to judicially review legislative and government action.
The constitutional right to judicial review was recognized, as early as 1765 in Entick v.
Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98.
Post-patriation of the Constitution in 1982 the Supreme Court of Canada has recently articulated
this right in Dunsmuir, as follows:
[27] As a matter of constitutional law, judicial review is intimately connected with the
preservation of the rule of law. It is essentially that constitutional foundation which
explains the purpose of judicial review and guides its function and operation. Judicial
review seeks to address an underlying tension between the rule oflaw and the
foundational democratic principle, which finds an expression in the initiatives of
Parliament and legislatures to create various administrative bodies and endow them with
broad powers. Courts, while exercising their constitutional functions of judicial review,
must be sensitive not only to the need to uphold the rule of law, but also to the necessity
of avoiding undue interference with the discharge of administrative functions in respect
of the matters delegated to administrative bodies by Parliament and legislatures.
A139
0140
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-140 A140
5
[28] By virtue of the rule oflaw principle, all exercises of public authority must find
their source in law. All decision-making powers have legal limits, derived from the
enabling statute itself, the common or civil law or the Constitution. Judicial review is
the means by which the courts supervise those who exercise statutory powers, to ensure
that they do not overstep their legal authority. The function of judicial review is
therefore to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative
process and its outcomes.
[29] Administrative powers are exercised by decision makers according to statutory

regimes that are themselves confined. A decision maker may not exercise authority not
specifically assigned to him or her. By acting in the absence of legal authority, the
decision maker transgresses the principle of the rule of law. Thus, when a reviewing
court considers the scope of a decision-making power or the jurisdiction conferred by a
statute, the standard of review analysis strives to determine what authority was intended
to be given to the body in relation to the subject matter. This is done within the context
of the courts' constitutional duty to ensure that public authorities do not overreach their
lawful powers: Crevier v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220, at p. 234;
also Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R.
226, 2003 sec 19, at para. 21.
[30] In addition to the role judicial review plays in upholding the rule of law, it also
performs an important constitutional function in maintaining legislative supremacy. As
noted by Justice Thomas Cromwell, "the rule of law is affirmed by assuring that the
courts have the final say on the jurisdictional limits of a tribunal's authority; second,
legislative supremacy is affirmed by adopting the principle that the concept of
jurisdiction should be narrowly circumscribed and defined according to the intent of the
legislature in a contextual and purposeful way; third, legislative supremacy is affirmed
and the court-centric conception of the rule of law is reined in by acknowledging that
the courts do not have a monopoly on deciding all questions oflaw" ("Appellate
Review: Policy and Pragmatism", in 2006 Isaac Pitblado Lectures, Appellate Courts:
Policy, Law and Practice, V-1, at p. V-12). In essence, the rule of law is maintained
because the courts have the last word on jurisdiction, and legislative supremacy is
assured because determining the applicable standard ofreview is accomplished by
establishing legislative intent.
[31] The legislative branch of government cannot remove the judiciary' s power to
review actions and decisions of administrative bodies for compliance with the
constitutional capacities of the government. Even a privative clause, which provides a
strong indication oflegislative intent, cannot be determinative in this respect (Executors
of the Woodward Estate v. Minister of Finance, [1973] S.C.R. 120, at p. 127). The
inherent power of superior courts to review administrative action and ensure that it does
not exceed its jurisdiction stems from the judicature provisions in ss. 96 to 101 of
the Constitution Act, 1867 : Crevier. As noted by Beetz J. in U.E.S., Local 298 v.
Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048, at p. 1090, "[t]he role of the superior courts in
maintaining the rule oflaw is so important that it is given constitutional protection". In
short, judicial review is constitutionally guaranteed in Canada, particularly with regard
A140
0141
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-141 A141
6
to the definition and enforcement of jurisdictional limits. As Laskin C.J. explained

in Crevier:
Where questions of law have been specifically covered in a privative enactment,

this Court, as in Farrah, has not hesitated to recognize this limitation on judicial
review as serving the interests of an express legislative policy to protect decisions
of adjudicative agencies from external correction. Thus, it has, in my opinion,
balanced the competing interests of a provincial Legislature in its enactment of
substantively valid legislation and of the courts as ultimate interpreters of
the British North America Act ands. 96 thereof The same considerations do not,
however, apply to issues of jurisdiction which are not far removed from issues of
constitutionality. It cannot be left to a provincial statutory tribunal, in the face
of s. 96 , to determine the limits of its own jurisdiction without appeal or review.
[pp. 237-38]
See also D. J. Mullan, Administrative Law (2001), at p. 50.
-Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, /2008/ 1 S.C.R.190
Thus the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Courts are under a duty to review
legislation for Constitutional conformity (R. v. Morgentaler /1988/ 1 S.C.R. 30 (SCC) I Vriend
v. Alberta /1998] I S.C.R. 493). Under a duty to review Executive action (Operation Dismantle
Inc. v. The Queen, /1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 I Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3).
They are also under a duty to review the common law, generated by the Courts themselves, for
constitutional conformity, with respect to the criminal law (R. v. Salituro /1991] 3 S.C.R. 654) as
well as civil law disputes (RWDSUv. Dolphin Delivery /1996] 2 S.C.R. 573).
Any legislative provision that pretends to block judicial review on constitutional grounds,
referred to as a "privative clause", has been consistently read down and declared invalid by the
Courts because to bar judicial view, particularly on constitutional grounds, would effectively
amount to unilateral and arbitrary change to the Constitutional structure itself
A141
0142
3/12/23, 7:34 PM CRC CASE COMMENTS Archives - Constitutional Rights Law Centre
Constitutional Rights Law Centre

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-142
CRC-CDC A142
Search for: Search... [ search ]
• ABOUTUS
• CRC-CDC CASES
• MElliA
• NEWSLETTER
• CONTACTUS
THE LAST WORD I CASE COMMENTS

It has happened more than once, that a counsel, who is the last on his/ her feet will quip with the Court that, "well I guess I have the
last word", to which the reply from the Chief Justice is: "no we do".
It has often been pointed out, correctly, that the Supreme Court is not always right: just last. The reasons for this are many and too
complex and unfortunate to detail here on a terse page of a website. Suffice it to boil it down to the essence that, try as we may, "the
law is a human institution".
The unfortunate consequence(s) of this dynamic is that lower Courts of Appeal, to varying degrees, and varying with the times,
depending on the perceived intellectual strength of the composition of the Supreme Court, will often ignore rulings of the SCC,
outright, or under the guise of"distinguishing" SCC rulings as part and parcel of the development of the common law.
There is the doctrine of stare decisis which states that lower Courts are to be bound by rulings of higher appellate Courts. Anyone who
is a seasoned trial / appellate barrister and not a cynic, but even an optimist with too much of experience, will tell you that this is akin
to incantation, belief, and hope.
In law, only the SCC is entitled to over-rule itself. But this happens too often indirectly. Recently, the SCC had to directly admonish
the Federal Court of Appeal for directly, purporting to over-tum it. - Canada v Craig, 2012 SCC 43, {2012] 2 S.C.R. 489.
Given this pre-existing condition and reality, the SCC has perhaps given itself, and in tum the Rule of Law and society at large, more
that it can bargain for when it loosened the grips of stare decisis, when it "reversed itself' on the issue of assisted suicide, in Carter,
by stating:
44 The doctrine that lower courts must follow the decisions of higher courts is fundamental to our legal system. It provides certainty
while permitting the orderly development of the law in incremental steps. However, stare decisis is not a straitjacket that condemns
the law to stasis. Trial courts may reconsider settled rulings of higher courts in two situations: (\) where a new legal issue is raised;
and (2) where there is a change in the circumstances or evidence that "fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate"
(Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101, at para. 42).
While the first criteria is rational and cogent, the second criteria, particularly in the face of Canada's history to the present, lends itself
and invites "palm-tree justice". Clearly this will be an invitation that will be taken up, albeit selectively, by lower (appellate) Courts
simply because they disagree with SCC jurisprudence, rather than a principled application of the notion of stare decisis.
So we see and know that the SCC, despite its constitutional entrenchment, in the Nadon Reference, does not really have the last word
in the ever-evolving process of stare decisis, the common law, constitutional law, and its application by lower Courts.
On an even broader and higher, (or lower, depending on your prospective), plane, public opinion, and the public at large, also weigh in.
CRC CASE COMMENTS

On August I 0, 2020 / CRC CASE COMMENTS
PUBLISHED: JULY 18, 2022
6,•Cm11111e11,~
"Pa11/Slm1. 011Rc1ev Wade"-Paul Slansky
PUBLISHED: SEPT I, 2020
I in l-lak v. AG o[Quehec"-Paul
"£rronen11s Uphnldi11g..Q.[Bill-' Slansky
Back to To12
IN THE NEWS I MEDIA A142
https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/category/comments/ 1/4
0143
3/12/23, 7:35 PM CRC-CDC CASES - Constitutional Rights Law Centre
Constitutional Rights Law Centre

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-143
CRC-CDC
A143
Search for: Search ... : search I
• ABOUTUS
• CRC-CDC CASES
• MEDIA
• NEWSLETTER
• CONTACTUS
CRC-CDC CASES
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CENTRE INC.
G11elpl1,
31. Jlr....Byram Bridle 11. Uuiversi(Jl....f.lf et al# CV-22-00691880-0000
(Expert vaccinologist and viral immunologist, Dr. Byram Bridle sues U of G and professors).
British Columbia Superior Court# VLC-S-S-217586

30. Actin114Cmwda, er ill vs. Dr. Bnm,ie He11rY.,Justin Trudeau. Pr,m,ier Hnr,,ll11,_gf_JJJ_
(Action against BC and Federal Government over various COVID measures).
29. M.A.and L.A., et al vs.EileenDe Villa.e.l.111

Ontario Superior Court# CV-21-00661284-0000 (Application with respect to school lockdowns and other school COVID measures).
11. AG nf 011tarin, et al
28.Sgf. Julie Evil11S.et ill
Ontario Superior Court# CV-21-00661200-000 (Court DENIAL of government's request to summary dismissal of application)
27. Sgt. Julie Eva11s, et al I'. AG ,,.romario, et al

Ontario Superior Court# CV-21-00661200-000 (Police action against Ontario Government over enforcement of COVID Measures.)
26. Vacci11eCJ,nice Ca11ada (VCC),.£1...Al...(n,,d otl,en). v• .!11sti11Trudeau, et.al. (and nthers) .Ontario Superior Court# CV-20-00643451-0000
(Constitutional challenge to legislative and Executive Covid-19 measures, at Federal, Provincial, and Municipal levels).
the Queen, et.al. (.and others). Ontario Superior Court# CV-00629810-

25. 14,ccine C!tnice Ca11ada (.VCC), et. Al. (.and mhers) v. Her Mtl_jerty_
0000 (Constitutional challenge to statutory hurdles to obtaining exemption to medical treatment, without informed consent, with respect
to vaccines).
• Above lists are current (On-Going) Cases
24. Galati et al v. Harper et al. (A-541-14) (Appeal on Costs following Nadon application)
23. Rocco Galati and Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. v. His Excelle11cy the Right Honourable Governor General David Johnston (A-52-15)
(Appeal from Bill C-24 Ruling)
22. Galati v. Canada (Governor General) [2015] F.C.J. No. 79 (Challenge to Bill C-24)
21. Re11voi sur /'article 98 de la loi co11stitutionnelle de 1867 (Dans /'a/faire du), [2014] Q.J. No 14417
20. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Ca11ada (Attorney General) ("Mainville Reference"), 2015 SCC 22
19. Galati v. Canada (Prime Minister), [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 152 (SCC)
18. Galati v. Canada (Prime Mi11ister), [2016] F.C.J. No. 123 (FCA)
17. Galati v. Canada (Prime Mi11i~·ter),[2014] F.C.J. No. 1225
16. Refere11ce Re Supreme Court Act, ("Nado11 Refere11ce'')ss. 5 & 6, 2014 SCC 21
15. Serrano Lemus v. Canada (Citizenship & I111migratio11)2012 FC 1274

-.1.M.S.L. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) 2014 FCA 114
• Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. as (co) Applicant
14. Wong v. Attorney General of British Columbia, (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) [2013] BCSC 2091
13. Shahid v. Canada; Tabi11gov. Canada [2013] F.C.J. No. 410 (FC) A143
- Tabingo v. Canada (Millister of Citi.,enship & Immigration) 2014 FCA 191 (Federal Court of Appeal)
https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/crc-cases/ 1/5
0144
3/12/23, 7:35 PM CRC-CDC CASES - Constitutional Rights Law Centre
12. Moldovan v. Ca11ada(2012] O.J. No. 3113 (Ontario Superior Court)
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-144 A144
11. Slansky v. Ca11ada(2011] F.C.J. No. 594 (Federal Court)
-Slansky v. Ca11ada(2011] F.C.J. No. 1775 (Federal Court)
- Slansky v. Ca11ada(2013] F.C.J. No. 996 (Federal Court of Appeal)
-Sla11sky v. Ca11ada2014 CanLII 5977; Docket No.: 35606 (SCC)
10. Sivak v. Canada [2011] F.C.J. No. 513 (Federal Court)
9. Baltrusaitis v. 011tario (2011] O.J. No. 351 (Ontario Superior Court)

-Baltrusaitis v. 011tario [201 I] O.J. No. 4144 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
- Baltrusaitis v. 011tario [201 I] S.C.C.A. No. 493 (SCC)
8. USA v. Pakulski [2011] O.J. No. 2633 (Ontario Superior Court)
7. Horne v. Ca11ada (2010] F.C.J. No. 1585 (Federal Court of Appeal)

- Horne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & /111111igration)[20 I OJ S.C.C.A. No. 335 (Supreme Court of Canada)
6. Ndungu v. Canada [2009] F.C.J. No. 1612 (Federal Court)

- Ndungu v. Ca11ada;Toussaint v. Canada
(2011] F.C.J. No. 636 (Federal Court of Appeal)
5. Felipa v. Ca11ada [2010] F.C.J. No. 39 (Federal Court)

- Felipa v. Ca11ada [2011] F.C.J. No. 1355 (Federal Court of Appeal)
(Deputy Judges Case)
4. Huntley v. Canada [2010] F.C.J. No. 497 (Federal Court)

- Canada v. Huntley [2011] F.C.J. No. 1382 (Federal Court of Appeal)
- Huntley v. Canada (Citizenship & Immigration) (2011] S.C.C.A.
No. 522 (Supreme Court of Canada)
3. Mitchell v. Canada [2008] F.C.J. No. 1147 (Federal Court)
2. Ebonka v. Canada [2008] F.C.J. No. 1098 (Federal Court)
1. Geza v. Canada [2006] F.C.J. No. 477 (Federal Court of Appeal)
*Note:The above list of reported cases does not include the many cases in which the CRC Inc. has provided advice, consultation, guidance and/or
co-counsel where the cases settled or where no reported case ensued.
LlveI
BROADCAST
DONATE
DONATION DISCLAIMER
The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the
country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled.
- Nova Scotia (A.G.) v. Canada (A.G.)
[1951] S.C.R. 31
After all, the Constitution is a document for the people and one of the most important goals of any system of dispute resolution is to serve well those
who make use of it.
- Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 186, @p. 210
NEW MEDIA
A144
PUBLISHED: JUL 21, 2022
https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/crc-cases/ 2/5
0145
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-145 A145
This is Exhibit ".£" to the Affidavit of

A~
•~ Taking Affidavits
A145
0146
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-146 A146
Voncouve1;BC
Conoda
KipWarner +7 604 551 7988
kip@the11ertigo.com
Senior Software Engineer I Co-chairman OPMLWG 70 Morch 20 22
Education
2007 Artificial Intelligence, BSc (Cognitive Systems: Computational Intelligence & Design}
Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia
2005 Associate of General Science

Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Professional Experience
Jul 2015 - Cartesian Theatre, Vancouver, British Columbia
Present Senior Software Engineer
Techniques: Artificial intelligence, asymmetric cryptography, build automation,

continuous integration testing, digital signal processing, machine learning, MapReduce,
RESTarchitecture, SIMD, and UNIX server daemon.
Technologies: AddressSanitizer / MemorySanitizer; AltiVec / POWER Vector Media

Extension; Apport; Assembly; AVX, Autopkgtest; Avahi / Apple's Bonjour; Bash; C++17;
CppUnit; cwrap (nss_ wrapper); DBus; deb helper; GCC;GOB; Git; GNU Autotools;
I GNU/Linux; init.d; libav / FFmpeg; lsbinit; M4; OpenBMC; OpenSSL; Pistache; pkg-config;
PortAudio; PostgreSQL; PPA; Python; QEMU; quilt; sbuild / pbuilder; setuptools; SQLite;
STL; strace; systemd; Swagger; Umbrella; and Valgrind.
Standards: Debian Configuration Management Specification; Debian Database

Application Policy; Debian Policy Manual; Debian Python Policy; DEP-8; Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard; freedesktop.org; GNU Coding Standards; IANA; IEEE 754; JSON;
LSB; OpenAPI Specification; POSIX; RFC 4180; RSA; SQL; UNIX System V; UML; UPnP;
and Zeroconf.
Hardware: Ported to 64-bit PC (amd64); 64-bit ARM (arm64); EABI ARM (armel); 32-bit
PC (i386); POWERB/9 (ppc64el); RISC-V (riscv64); and partial progress to IBM System z
mainframe (s390x) architectures.
■ Responsible for architectural design and implementation of advanced digital

signal processing and machine learning algorithms for commercial music space;
■ Patent protected and trademark pending;
1/10
A146
0147
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-147 A147
I• ■
OpenPOWER zy_ft), t
Comprehensive exploration of relevant scientific and engineering peer reviewed
primary literature;
■ Approved for Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED)credit;
■ Co-maintainer of upstream P1stachedependency, a high performance modern
C++ RESTtoolkit.
Mar 2020 - OpenPOWER Foundation I

t
Present Co-chairman, Machine Learning Work Group
■ Assist in the definition of frameworks for productive development and deployment

of machine learning solutions using Open POWER technology;
■ Liaise with other industry stakeholders from Google, IBM, and others to promote
POWER based solutions to everyday problems;
■ Review and approve of industry standards as a TechmcolStee,ing Committee
voting member.
Dec 2016 -
Mar 2017
Cartesian Theatre, Vancouver, British Columbia
Senior Software Engineer
I
Techniques:Artificial intelligence, complex systems theory, LALR(1) and Backus-Naur
grammars, compiler design, graph theory, parallelization, cellular automaton, and build
automation.
Technologies:C++14, STL; Gtkmm; GNU Flex and Bison; libsigc++; pthreads; Umbrella;
GNU/Linux; GNU Autotools; M4; OpenSSL; Bash; Git; GCC;GOB; unit testing; pkg-config;
debhelper; quilt; sbuild; OpenCL; Valgrind; and PPA.
Standards: ISO/IEC 14977; Debian Policy Manual; File Hierarchy Standard; freedesktop.org;
GNU Coding Standards; POSIX;and UML.
■ Sophisticated scalable high performance agent based social simulation engine;

■ Responsible for architectural design and implementation;
■ Simulates artificial life in big cities;
• Graphical node based model design tool;
• Hardware accelerated parallelization across heterogeneous computing units;
• Successfully assessed for Scientific Research and Experimental Development
(SR&ED) credit;
■ Developed with the generous assistance of the National Research Council of
Canada's competitive Industrial Research Assistant Program.
2/10
A147
0148
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-148 A148
Nov 2014 - Digital Theatre Systems, Huntington Beach, California

Mar 2015 Senior Software Engineer (Subcontractor)
Technologies:Finite state machines, regular expressions, and formal language parsers;

C++; ALSA; GNU/Linux; Ubuntu; RS-232; HDMI, High Definition Audio (HOA), DTS Ultra
High Definition (DTS-UHD),Groff, GNU Autotools; M4; Bash; Git; libav; GCC;GOB; unit
testing; (Make; pkg-config; A/V receivers; debhelper; pbuilder; automation; and PPA.
Standards: Debian Policy Manual; GNU Coding Standards; EIA/CEA-861; File Hierarchy
Standard; freedesktop.org; IEC60958 / SPDIF; POSIX,and VESA Enhanced EDI □
Standard.
■ Strong customer facing skills; ••

• Designed and engineered contributions to support next generation ultra-high
definition surround sound technology;
• Showcased at 2015 Consumer Electronics Show, Las Vegas;
• Clients distributed in United States, Singapore, Japan and India.
Kip is verv responsiveand a total professionalin answeringqueriesabout the software

he has provided. Thesoftware itself is a breezeto use.
(Digital Theatre Systems)
Apr 2014 - Canonical Ltd, London, United Kingdom

Jun 2014 Software Sustaining Engineer
Technologies:C++; GNU/Linux; Ubuntu; GNU Autotools; Bash; Git; GCC;GOB; debhelper;

pbuilder; and PPA.
Standards: freedesktop.org; GNU Coding Standards; POSIX,and Debian Policy Manual.
• Sole desktop developer within Canonical Technical Services Engineering;

• Clients included Google; Walt Disney; Amazon; French Gendarmerie; Danish
Ministry of Defence, and other NATO allies;
• Contributed to Mozilla Thunderbird code base.
Jul 2009 - Cartesian Theatre, Vancouver, British Columbia

Jan 2014 Senior Software Engineer
Technologies:Artificial intelligence; C++; GNU/Linux; GNU Autotools; □ Bus; Glib; Gtk+ 3;

Glade; GObject introspection; Python; Bash; GCC;GNU Make; Bzr; GStreamer; Blender;
GNU Ocrad; Audacity; Scribus; GIMP; Groff, ConTEXt;BibTEX;MySQL; and lnkscape.
Standards: freedesktop.org, POSIX and GNU Coding Standards.

3/10
A148
0149
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-149 A149
• Successfully recovered substantial portions of NASA's historic billion-dollar 1975

Viking program's SDDPT original mission data. First ever exploration of Martian
surface;
• Engineered digital forensic archaeology technology and algorithms cited by N,.qSLI;
• Responsible for architectural design and implementation;
• Scalability with high volume telemetry;
■ Jewel case box art; trap-sheet; disc face art; website with MySQL, JavaScript,
CS53, PHP, and HTML5;
• Layman accessible with point and click Gtk+ DVD user interface;
• Authored accompanying 360+ page full colour richly typeset e-book;
■ See medic coverage for more information.
Thisis a cleverhack.
(Richard Stallman, President FSF,MacArthur Fellow).
Apr 2009 - Art Institute of Vancouver, Burnaby, Canada

Jun 2009 Instructor
■ Provided college level instruction atan academic institution to students for first
year introductory C++ programming (VG1112);
• Created syllabus, assignments, exams, and provided mentorship;
■ Established learning objectives, facilitated classroom discussions, and undertook
faculty professional development training;
• Emphasis on ANSI/ ISO standardization, GNU Coding Standards, and portability;
• Synthesized technical topics with social and ethical dimension of software fibre
through exploration of the literature.
He has verv high standards and expects the most of his students. He is a natural
instructor and has a gift at explainingcomplexsubject matters simply.
(Dean's Faculty Observation Summary)
Feb 2009 - Manufacturing Automation Laboratories, Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2009 Software Project Engineer (Remote)
Technologies:C; C++; GCC;GOB; GEdit; gprof; NASM; Python; SCons; STL; Ubuntu; Intel
80x87, 80x86, SIMD (MMX, MMX2, SSE, SSE2), and Valgrind.
Standards: POSIX; GNU Coding Standards; and IEEE 754.
■ Advanced manufacturing software technology commercially deployed internationally;

■ Algorithm optimization and refactoring of core subsystems in computationally
intense Virtual Machining System (Computer Numerical Controller emulator);
4/10
A149
0150
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-150 A150
■ Hardware-acceleration interfacing high level C++ OOP with 32-bit protected

mode assembly;
■ Improved build environment with standards compliance.
Sep 2008 - Rocket Gaming Systems, Vancouver, Canada

Dec 2008 Software Engineer
Technologies:C; C++; STL; Intel Vtune; IBM Rational Purify; Ant; GEdit; NSIS; SCons; SVN;
Ubuntu; and VMWare.
■ Conducted audits offlagship product to examine licensing, memory leaks, architectural

design issues, and optimizations;
■ Drafted comprehensive technical reports identifying major issues with recommendations
to senior management.
Jun 2008 - Scrapboy Digital Media, Burnaby, Canada

Aug 2008 Software Engineer
Technologies:C++; Ubuntu; STL; cppunit; XML, and Boost.
■ Details under NOA prior to company's dissolution.
Dec 2006 - Small Neural Systems Group, UBC Brain Research Centre, Canada
Apr 2008 Software Engineer
Technologies:USB; V4L; Ubuntu; Quicktime; SCons; C++; OpenCV; Apt; wxWidgets; and
osx.
■ Invented new algorithm to track sinusoidal movement of C elegannematode
worms with machine vision for use in laboratory environment;
■ Admitted into UNESCO'sendorsed Free Software Directory.
Dec 2004 - Aviation Research Corp, Point Roberts, Washington

Jan 2006 Junior Software Engineer
Technologies:OpenGL and BSD sockets.
■ Sophisticated airport traffic flow simulation modelling technology used across

the globe by major international airports;
■ Engineered high-performance digital camera API and drivers to expand hardware
compatibility and increase product marketability;
■ Oversaw field operations abroad in Shanghai, China;
■ Deliverables completed effectively, on time, and under budget.
5/10
A150
0151
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-151 A151
Professional Technical Skills

■ Distributed computing, Bloom filters, and relational databases.
vector clocks, elliptic curve cryptograph1, UML & Design Patterns.
distributed ledgers, blockchain, and • Portability.
SWIFT. ■ Multimedia: GStreamer, OpenCV,OpenGL,
■ Strong customer facing, written, and SOL.
oral communication skills. • Networking & Security: Berkley sockets,
• Attention to detail. Winsock, GnuTLS,OpenPGP.
• Build automation engineering. • Document Engineering /Typesetting:
■ GNU Coding Standards. Groff, ConTEXt,BibTEX,and Scribus.
• GNU Autotools, GCC,GOB,diff, patch, • SCM: Bzr, CVS,Git, Mercurial, and SVN.
and Nemiver. • GUI:Gtk+, Glade, wxWidgets, Qt, PyGI,
• Node.js / libuv C++ Addons. and Windows API.
• Data structures and algorithms. • Reverse engineering.
■ Languages: C; C++, STL; Bash; Python; • Project costing and feasibility assessments.
Assembly; Lua; PyGI, GObject introspection;
Software LibreCommunity Projects & Contributions
DXX-Rebirth
• Source port contributions of original Descent game with improved networking,
data structures, and bug fixes.
Agni
• Interpreted programming language with C-like syntax.
■ Consists of assembler, compiler, and virtual machine.
• Cross platform and multi-threaded.
EasyTAG
• Improved media parser base64 decoding for album art for large files from seven
minute 0(n 3 ) to less than a second 0(n) running time.
Other Contributions
Autoconf; bisonc++; file, flexc++; GCC;Gnome-Applets; GNU Multiple Precision Floating-
Point Reliably; Insight; libav; libcairo; Nicotine+; Pidgin; Pistache; Seahorse; STandalone
REproducible FLOating-Point; Subversion; Umbrella; Winamp; and software for the
visually impaired.
6/10
A151
0152
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-152 A152
Professional Affiliations, Service, and Awards
■ Open POWER Foundation Machine Learning Workgroup - Voting Member.

■ Free Software Foundation - Associate Member.
■ Seaforth Highlanders of Canada Regimental Association.
■ $500 Bursary Award - Seaforth Highlanders of Canada Regimental Association.
■ Tournament of Minds for Maths & Engineering, Special Award for Efficiency
and Simplicity of Device.
Qualifications
■ IBM Business Partner Integrity;

■ IBM Blockchain Essentials for Developers Certification;
• Combat First Aid, First Aid Standard Enhanced, and First Aid Level C CPR Rescuer;
■ Student Pilot Permit;
■ Aviation Medical Category I;
■ Aeronautical Radiotelephone Restricted Operators Certificate;
■ H2S Alive© Certificate;
• Workers Hazardous Materials Information System;
• FOODSAFELevel 1.
Civic & Volunteer Work
■ Kitsilano Neighbourhood House - Community Volunteer Income Tax Program

(2018-2019) and Better at Home program (2018, 2020);
■ Elections BC 2020 Advanced Information Officer & Counting Support;
■ Elections BC 2017 Supervisory Voting Officer - Managed electoral staff of 16;
■ Elections Canada Scrutineer 2015 - Observe integrity of electoral process;
■ VegFest 2011-2015 - Block Captain, Security Officer, and General Labour;
■ CanSecWest 2009 - Volunteer;
■ UBC Shad Valley Summer 2007 - Guest Lecturer;
■ 8th-24th Annuol Lobour Christmas 011u1erforthe underprivileged.
Profession of Arms
Feb 2011 -
Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (Combat Arms)
Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, Canadian Armed Forces

I
Feb 2015 Infantry Officer, Second Lieutenant
7/10
A152
0153
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-153 A153
• Primary Reserve line infantry regiment under 39 Canadian Brigade Group, 3

Canadian Division, Land Force Western Area.
· ■ Preserved regimental history; maintained, and upheld good stewardship of public
resources; and improved junior officer professional development.
■ Direct Entry Officer (MOS 180) with Reliability Status Security Clearance with
Honourable Release.
Youare demonstrating the qualities of integritV,lovaltV,courage,honestV,fairness and

responsibilitvputting serviceto humanitv before self-interest
(Rt Hon Paul Hellyer, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and friend).
Relevant Courses, Training & Professional Development
Basic Military Qualification (PRes BMQ-Common)
• Instructed by British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own) armoured

reconnaissance unit.
■ Graduated with 96 %average, highest in platoon, with perfect service rifle range
score.
SecondLieutenant Warner'sabilitv to adapt to changingsituations and applv logical

thought to problems enabledhim to meet the coursestandard
(Course Officer).
Basic Military Officer Qualification Part II (AIOV)
• Instructed by Royal Westminster Regiment infantry unit in principles of leadership;

battle procedure; day and night navigation; mission estimates; field craft; principles
of war; issuing orders; leading subordinates; team work; and mission planning.
I noted in his CourseReport upon his successful completion that he demonstrated

the professional qualities and attributes befitting of an officer in the CanadianArmed
Forces.He did perform in an ethical manner. He demonstrated a regard for the safetv
of others and an abilitv to work with them. He also demonstrated the abilitv to work
under pressure.
(Course Officer).
CF Leadership and Recruit School Courses, NATO SCHOOLOberammergau AOL Courses,

Officer Professional Military Education Allied Command Transformation
■ Law and Military Justice ■ Crowd and Riot Control
■ Leadership and Ethics ■ Gender Perspective
■ Staff Duties ■ Human Trafficking: Causes, Consequences,
8/10
A153
0154
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-154 A154
Counter-Strategies ■ Introduction to Risk Management

■ Improvised Explosive Device Awareness ■ Light Urban Search & Rescue -
Course BC Housing
■ Introduction to Hague and Geneva ■ Modelling and Simulation COE
Law ■ Survival Skills in the Mountains
■ Introduction to Satellite Operations - Slovenian Armed Forces
(NATO School:N3-01) ■ Law of Armed Conflict - Turkish
■ Multinational Crisis Management Partnership for Peace Training Center
■ NATO Intel ■ Cyber Defence Awareness - NATO
■ NATO Rules of Engagement Coo_perativeCyber Defence Centre
of Excellence
Other Relevant Courses and Training • Public Key Infrastructure - NATO
■ Assistance to Law Enforcement Communications and Information
& Aid to Civil Power Systems School
■ Conflict Management with Negotiation ■ Cyber Hygiene - NATO HQ
- Inter-American Defense College ■ Mine Awareness - NATO JADL
■ Controlled Goods General Awareness ■ Preserving a Crime Scene - NATO
Training (301328) JADL
■ DND/CF Information Management ■ Digital Forensics and Digital Evidence
■ Green Procurement (C215) - Canada -NATOJADL
School of Public Service
Hobbies I
• Body building, kombucha, yoga, health, and nutrition;
■ Classical French school of fencing in foil, epee, and sabre (past);
■ Philosophy, history, law, science, theology, mathematics, and other literature;
• Vipassana meditation.
Selected Publications
■ Pinch-Shift:a novelmachinevisionalgorithmfor detectingtermini in worms, publication
pending - Coauthor;
■ Avaneva Project CrewHandbook,Cartesian Theatre, 2015 - Author;
■ Cfor Dummies,2 nd Ed, 2004 - Technical Editor.
9/10
A154
0155
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-155 A155
Psycho-Educational
WAIS-Ill
■ Assessment Date: 2 Sept 2005.
■ Examiner: Gail Ross, BSc, MEd Psych.
Picture Completion 13 Vocabulary 15

Coding 11 Similarities 19
Block Design 14 Arithmetic 13
Matrix Reasoning 16 Digit Span 11
Picture Arrangement 13 Information 15
Comprehension 15
Composite Percentile 90% Qualitative

Score Rank Confidence Description
Interval
Verbal Scale 131 98 126-134 Superior
Performance 124 95 117-128 Superior

Scale
Full Scale 131 98 127-134 Superior
Verbal 138 99 132-141 Superior

Comprehension
Perceptual 128 97 120-132 Superior
Organization
10/10
A155
0156
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-156 A156
This is Exhibit " f"to the Affidavit of

A~
•~ TakingAffidavits
A156
0157
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-157 A157
Investigating the Events of September 11, 2001 Using the Scientific Method
Home Introduction News Resources...,. 9/11 Pentagon Study Group About...,.
Kip Warner
Present or Most Recent Position: Software Engineer and CEO, Kshatra Corp.
Fields: Artificial Intelligence, Software Engineering
Degrees and Schools: BScCognitive Systems: Computational Intelligence &

Design, University of British Columbia, 2007
Statement on 9/11: "Evidence of nanothermite has been identified in dust

sampled from ground zero. This requires further investigation."
Additional Information: Kip Warner's background is in artificial intelligence (University of British Columbia,
2007). He is a Vancouver based software engineer and entrepreneur. One of his projects was designing, as
part of a larger project, a digital forensic archaeological technology to recover lost data from NASA'sbillion
dollar 1975 Viking mission to Mars.
Letters: To the Canadian Minister of Public SafetY.,.February 22, 2011. Responses to this letter by officials
and others can also be seen at this location.
A157
0158
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-158 A158
Kip's Open Letter to Minister
of
Public Safety Regarding 9/11
r----------------------
•
------------------------------------------~
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as 1
: if nothing had happened. :

I
I
I I
~ _______ ;§if_ rft!!~tq1;_ ~7_4_-JJ§2)_ ________________________________
~~1:_r~~i!JJI J
r----------------------
,
------------------------------------------~
/ know that most men; including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can 1
: seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to :
: admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
• they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the
I
1 fabric of their lives.
I
I I
1 -Leo Toi. toy (1828- 1910) •
L----------------------------------------------------------------J
Read Letter I Listen to Letter I Signature I Track I Citizen Feedback
Elicited Resnonses I Links I Cite I Author
Listen to Letter:
• Download as FLAC, 195 MB.
• Download as OggNorbis, 50 MB.
• Download as MP3, 66 MB. If unsure, you probably want this one.
Citizen Feedback: A158

0159
fllllm.'St P.0.8. 71522
White Rock. BC V4B 5J5
February 22, 2011
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-159 Email A159
Teli!phone (6041551 79B8
OpcnPGP 86E1886D
Attn: The Honourable Vic Toews Kip Womer

Minister of Public Safety SoftwareEngineer
Suite 306, Justice Building House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Sir,
rd 1
It is my understanding that Public Safety Canada was provided with a mandate enacted on March 23 2005 by the Government
of Canada to ensure that Canadians are safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime, and terrorism. The
2
Department has stated that there is no more fundamental role for government than the protection of its citizens. I write you then
in an open letter as a private citizen regarding the Government of Canada's official disposition to the events of 9/11, and all
derived matters predicated there upon.
As in the case of a series of domino pieces, it is not logical to discuss new events causally linked with preceding ones as though
3 4
they were disparate. Whether it be increased airport and border security, changes in foreign policy and the role of C.S.I.S., law
enforcement, immigration, the lectures 5
heard within the auditoriums of our universities, the deployment of military ordnance and
men abroad, debates on the procurement of war materials, 6 they are all preceded with the tragic aforementioned event that
7 8
claimed thousands of lives, 24 of which were Canadian and with lasting consequences for others. It is not unreasonable to
reflect on them as a set of issues forming an arborescence and sharing a common root, or significant mutual event that preceded
all of them. 9 The influence has been undeniable.
Perhaps the most generally salient of these derived issues is the deployment of military assets and personnel to the nation of the
10
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, currently estimated at a cost approaching $22,000,000,000 by some estimates and having
11
claimed the lives of 154 members of the Canadian Forces through their selfless sacrifice. This was initiated with the approval of
the Governor General of Canada, then The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, in response to the recommendation of the
111
Minister of National Defence, then The Honourable Arthur Eggleton, who authorized on September 20 2001 Canadian Forces
members on exchange assignments in the United States and other allied nations to participate in operations responding to the
9/11 attacks. 12 Other nations followed, including the governments of France, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Turkey, Romania,
Australia, Spain, the United Kingdom, and at least 36 other nations.
The premise for the deployment, given the attacks were the result of al-Qaeda and resulted in the deaths of 24 Canadians, was
the desire for regional stability from where the assailants had originated and the proactive prevention of similar incidents
occurring in the future. The Prime Minister publicly reminisced on the fifth anniversary that "that is why the countries of the United
Nations with unprecedented unity and determination launched their mission to Afghanistan to deal with the source of the 9111
13
terror and to end, once and for all, the brutal regime that horribly mistreated its own people while coddling terrorists. " This was
14
done at the request and with the cooperation of the Government of the United States.
The foundational premise, or first domino, has recently been called into question with the publication of the nine-author, peer
15
reviewed study, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9111 World Trade Center Catastrophe. An international
team of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, Brigham Young, and other institutions, applied optical microscopy,
"Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act." Department of Justice Canada, 23 Mar. 2005. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
html>.
55/FullText
"htto•fllawsJusticegc cateng/P-31
2 What We Do. Public Safety Canada. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
publicsafety
<http:t/www asox>.
gc ca/abVwwdllodex-eng
3 "New Security Measures at YVR." CBC. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
html>.
cbcca1canadalbr1Ush-columb[alstorv12011102114/bc-wr-security
<http·I/Www
4 Welcome Page, Citizenship & Immigration Canada. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<http·//www cic gc catengllsh/deoartmenVmedialfactstsecurHy asp>.
5 Smith, Rogers M. "Lecture: "The Strangers in Ourselves: The Rights of Suspect Citizens in the Age of Anti-Terrorism"" UBC Department of Political Science. 18 Sept. 2006.
Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
ubccatindexoho?id=S676>
oomics
<htto·I/Www
6 "F-35s, Afghanistan Dominate Defence Talks." CBC. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
html>.
cbcca1news1cana_datstory12011101m1mackay-gates-J35
<blto·I/Www
7 "CBC News lndepth: September 11." CBC. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
ca1news/backgcoundtsep11
<blto:1/Www,cbc blrol>.
tconcasuall!es.
8 "More Children Being Killed in Afghan War: UN." CBC. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
cbcca(woddistoty12011t021141arghan-cblldren-uno21411
<hlto·/lwww html>.
9 "Public Safety Minister Honours Victims of 9111and Affirms Dedication to Fighting Terrorism." Public Safety Canada. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<huo·/lwww oubllcsafetygc ca/mectIa1nr12001tnr2oozos11-eng,aspx>.
1O "Afghan War Costs $22B, so Far: Study." The Ottawa Citizen. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
hlml?id=a6e5fJ
canadacom/ottawacitizentnewststoiy
<htto:/lwww JB4-abfd-375tec9d4ef3>.
68-2417-4
11 "In the line of duty: Canada's casualties." CBC.ca. 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
html>.
cbcca/news/background/atghanistan1casua1t1eslllst
<bltp;/AwN/
12 "The International Campaign against Terrorism : A Timeline of Canadian Forces Participation." Canadian Expeditionary Force Command. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<hUo·/lwww forcesgc catoa-ap1cos11ttarg-toiafg1uo1-en9
cercom asip.
13 Harper, Stephen J. "Prime Minister Harper Honours 9111Victims and Restates Canada's Commitment to Fighting Terror." Prime Minister of Canada. 11 Sept. 2006. Web. 19
Feb. 2011.
omgc caten91media,aso?category-2&oageld=46&id=1312>.
<htto·tfwww
14 "Chretien: Cdn Troops 'will do Canada proud"' CTV. 7 Oct. 2001. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
15
<htto•/fwww ooz1ctynewss1422z1>
ctv catCTVNews1cTVNewsAt11120011 A159
Niels H. Harri!, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et al., "Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9111Wor1dTrade Center Catastrophe," The Open Chemical
Physics Journal 2 (2009): 7-31
0160
2
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-160 A160
scanning electron microscopy (SEM). X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS). and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)
to dust sampled in the aftermath collected by private citizens of N.Y.C ..
While their chemical analysis is 25-pages in length. it can be summarized briefly. Distinctive "red/gray chips" were identified in all
samples of the dust collected in the aftermath of the W.T.C. collapses. collected from multiple locations, by different individuals, 16
both before and after first responders arrived on scene with welders. Combustion tests confirmed the chips were not dried paint.
The paper concluded that. "based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips ...is active, 17
unreacted therrnitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material. "
Be advised that W.T.C. 7, the third building to collapse that day, unlike W.T.C. 1 and 2, was not struck by an aircraft and
collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint, through the path of greatest resistance, at free-fall acceleration for more than two
seconds (more than 100 feet, or about eight stories). defying the conservation of energy and momentum required of an
18
unassisted collapse - like the two before it. No steel framed highrise has ever collapsed due to fire, let alone three on the same
day. W.T.C. 7 was roughly a football field away from where the only two hijacked commercial aircraft in N.Y.C. struck W.T.C. 1
19
and 2 that day. The Minister is encouraged to review the collapse footage and come to his own conclusion.
Many beautiful theories have been killed by ugly facts. However, science does not demand we trust these scientists, only the
quality of their evidence. It is a requirement that theories survive replicability, since they cannot be valid if they are not reliable.
Given the sheer volume of dust N.Y.C. was blanketed with that day, and like the private citizens that had kept the samples that
were later used in the aforementioned analysis. there are surely copious sources still remaining allowing one such opportunity.
Who installed the alleged material and to what end they may have intended. we do not know. We do know. however, that the
largest elevator renovation contract in history, affording access to all of the North Tower's core columns, was granted to a
20
company called Ace Elevator in the nine months prior. Now. like the building. they are nowhere to be seen. Occupants of
W.T.C. 7 also noted power outages in the days leading up to the event, compromising all electronic security systems controlling
22
door access to the entire building. 21 Newly uncovered video footage of first responders, coupled with literally hundreds of other
23
eye witness accounts, at least 118 of them being first responders, claim they witnessed sounds of explosions at the onset of the
building collapse.
The official conspiracy theory entails men in caves 24 conspiring to penetrate all levels of the American defensive grid, certainly
25
not made more difficult for them by the N.O.R.A.D. stand down order issued by the Vice President of the United States; seize
control of commercial aircraft; pulverize mid-air 90,000 tons of concrete metal decking of W.T.C. 7, a 47-story steel framed
highrise. suffering no impact from an aircraft. with the ejected portions as fine as talcum powder, before collapsing symmetrically,
28
at virtual free-fall, into its own footprint; 26 27 vaporize an aircraft without so much as a single body in Shanksville. Pennsylvania,
29
which the Secretary of Defence allegedly admitted to having shot down; and the world's most well defended military fortification,
the Pentagon. attacked, unchecked, with a commercial airliner.
30
Miraculously, at least seven of the nineteen alleged conspirators survived the impacts unscathed. That they were even
identified in the first place was equally impressive, given the jet fuel fires were so fierce they incinerated titanium-steel jet engines
31 32
and pulverized steel framed highrises. The recovery of legible passports amidst the pools of molten iron implicating the
alleged Muslim conspirators required no more than twenty-four hours. This no doubt brought Abdulaziz Alomari. alleged
conspirator. some relief that his passport had finally been recovered after it had been reported missing following a break in at his
Denver. Colorado apartment in 1995.33 Trust in Allah. Minister, but tie the camel up anyways.
16 Ibid., p. 22
17 Ibid., p. 29
18 "Other Skyscraper Fires." 9-11 Research: An lndependentlnvestigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack. 11 Sept. 2009. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
<~sis/compare/fires htmJ>.
19 NIST. "WTC 7 Explosion." YouTube. 29 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2011,
<htto:ttwww.youtube.com/watch?y.:XmmbUOeHus>.
20 "The Twin Towers - Gallery of Evidence." AE911Truth.org. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<htto·11www2 ae9J Jtruthorgitwintowersoho>.
21 "WTC Employee Discusses Pre 9/11 Power Downs." YouTube. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
voutubecomtwatch?v=2ZtMIJDXu-Y>.
<http'[[www
22 "9/11 Firefighters Testimony On Explosions In WTC1 ." You Tube. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<http·Uw«w,youtube.comtwatch?v=ILt9AYYwliM>.
23 v.s. "The Twin Towers - Gallery of Evidence," see point 6.
24 Kean Et Al., T. H. "The 9/11 Commission Report." National Archives and Records Administration, July 2004. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<w-NW9-1 Jcommiss,on govtreoocV91J ReportQdl> p. 338.
25 "Dick Cheney Gave Stand Down Orders on 9/11." YouTube. Web, 15 Feb. 2011.
voutube.comlwalch?v=RRJAI4:e7Xw>.
<http·/!www
26 "Evidence Page," AE911Truth.org. Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<hllo·((www ae911Irulh.oro/enleyidence html>.
27 "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Get Local News Time," YouTube. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
voutubecomtwatch?y:2GJub2caUNU>.
<http·//www
28 "US Mayor Says No Flight 93 Plane at Shanksville and No Bodies," You Tube. 5 Oct. 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.
voutube.comlwatch?v=roWE;Bo3da-Y>.
<hllo·l!www
29 "Donald Rumsfeld Says Pennsylvania Flight Shot down." YouTube Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
voutube.comtwatch?y;:GtOfau-WeJE>.
<Mo·11www
30 "At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers Are Still Alive." What Really Happened Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<ht1p·(/whaIreanvhaooened comlWRHARJICLES/hijackers.htm\>.
31 Ibid,
32 v.s. "The Twin Towers - Gallery of Evidence", point 7
33 Harrison, David. "Revealed: the Men with Stolen Identities." The Telegraph, 23 Sept. 2001. Web. 19 Feb. 2011. A160
<ht1o;11www.
teJegraoh htmJ
13911ReveaIed-the:men-With-sto\en-ldentitles
couk/newstworIdnews/mldd\eeast1saucliarabla/134 >.
0161
3
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-161 A161
Through an infusion of hand waving in government incompetence, theories of blowback and radicalism, the cocktail is made
palatable for all manner of political persuasion. It all makes for a great deal of sense, provided we spare it any thought.
But that aside, when considered as a narrative, the official conspiracy theory's canonical treatise, the 9111 Commission Report,
34
was an "uncommonly lucid, even riveting, narrative of the attacks," The New York Times reported. Rich in characters, climax,
35
and heroes like the then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld bravely assisting casualties, no one can deny them that at the
very least, but uncommon indeed. Had NASA's Columbia Accident Investigation Board that convened to investigate the
destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia during re-entry produced something uncommonly lucid, even riveting, in place of a
detailed analysis, they likely would have been promptly fired. It is interesting then to note that even the members that sat on the
official 9/11 commission were so convinced that they had been mislead and setup to fail, that at the end of the panel's tenure,
36
they secretly debated referring the matter to the United States Justice Department for criminal investigation.
The alternative conspiracy theory involves controlled demolition. By whom and for what end, again, we do not know. Still, motives
have been identified. 37 But the alternative conspiracy theory is thus far consistent with the scientific observations, whereas the
official conspiracy theory is not.
All reasonable people would concede that, by all accounts, the events of that day required a conspiracy and, further, that we vary
only in our preference - generally with prejudice towards the politically correct, albeit factually mistaken.
The official conspiracy theory was more popular in years past, given its validation and endorsement by trusted authorities. That,
38
however, is no longer the case with 72 % of Americans not believing the official conspiracy theory as early as 2004.
Regardless, as it stands now, there is overwhelming compelling evidence to justify a new and independent investigation into the
events surrounding that day. That 24 Canadian citizens were murdered, by all accounts, we must treat the events as we would
39
any other formal criminal investigation. Councillor Fujita of the Japanese Diet has also called for this, given Japanese citizens
were among the list of casualties.
40
Interestingly, at least half of the largest group representing 9/11 families in 2006 now question the official account. They even
aired a commercial more than 350 times to millions of viewers in the New York Metropolitan area as part of their campaign to
41
raise awareness. You are encouraged to view it.
The list of high profile individuals who have raised questions concerning the official account that may be of interest to you is
lengthy, but a very modest sample would include 1,447 verified architectural and professional engineers along with 11,326 other
supporters for one such petition; 42 The Honourable Paul Hellyer, former Minister of National Defence and Deputy Prime Minister
44
of Canada; 43 Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States; Capt. Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut; Col. Ann Wright,
U.S. Army, retired Army officer and former U.S. Diplomat; Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, former Director, Ground Weapons Systems,
Office of International Logistics Negotiations serving as chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East; Col. George Nelson,
MBA, former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College; Col.
Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence during the Reagan Administration and a highly
decorated Vietnam veteran; Commander James Clow, Former Chief, National Response Center, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters; Commander James R. Compton, U.S. Navy (ret); General Wesley Clark, Former Commanding General of U.S.
European Command; Gov. Walter Peterson, 81 st Governor, State of New Hampshire; Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical
Science, retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot, former instructor and Fighter Weapons School/ NATO's Tactical
Leadership Program; Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and
Carter, U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions; Major Albert M. Meyer, MHA, U.S. Air Force (ret); Major
General Albert Stubblebine, Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command; Michael Scheuer,
PhD, Former Chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit; Ramsey Clark, MA, JD, 66th U.S. Attorney General; Rev. William Sloane Coffin,
45
Jr., Captain, U.S. Army Intelligence, World War II Former CIA Case Officer; Roland Dumas, Former Foreign Minister of France;
and a plethora more than either of us have time to enumerate.
34 Posner, Richard A. 'The 9/11 Report: A Dissent." NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 29 Aug. 2004. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
<hl!P://www.nytlmes com12004/0B/291books/lhe-9-11-report-a-dlssent html>.
35 v.s. 9/11 Commission Report, p. 37.
36 Eggen, Dan. "9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon: Allegations Brought to Inspectors General." Washington Post. 2 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
<http•//www washingtonpost com/wp-0yn/conten11artjcle/20Q6/QBIQ11AR2ooeoeo101300.htmt>.
37 Thomas Donnelly, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (The Project for the New American Century, Sept 2000 ) p. 51.
38 "The New York Times/CBS News Poll." The New York Times, CBS News, 29 Apr. 2004. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
<hUp;//www.nytimes comipackages/html/politics/20040429 ooll/20040429 poll results.odf>. p. 2a.
39 "Councilor Fujita Questions 9/11 Part 1." YouTube. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
<hltp!//www youtube.comlWatch?v-mOF pXW84jo>.
40 "Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack." PrisonPlanet.com. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
<htto!llwww orlsonolanel com1artictes/iuly2oos1oeozosgovemmentcomolicit him>.
41 "BuildingWhat? TV Ad." BuildingWhat.org. Building What?, 10 Sept. 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.
<http!//bulldlngwhat org/bulldingwhat-tv-ad/>.
42 Ensuring Our Credibility: The AE911Truth Verification Team. Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth. Web. 22 Feb 2011
<b1lo'//ae911 truth.orgtenlnews/41-articles/430-credibinty hJml>.
43 "Former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer Questions 9/11." CIVITATENSIS, 24 June 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
ca/78/m lsc/forme(-Olnadian-defence-m
<!lllp;//\r.ww civitatensls ioister-oaul-hellyer-guestjons-911
l>.
44 "Former President Jimmy Carter Supports Call For New 9/11 Investigation." You Tube. 29 Jan. 2009. Web. 17 Feb. 2011.
45
<!lllP.://www.youtube.com/walch?v=g02UGVp-ak>.
Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Patriots Question 9/11. Web. 16 Feb. 2011. A161
<htto://palriotsauestion911 com/>.
0162
4
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-162 A162
With a strong foundation of support in the academic, scientific and professional community, the questions raised concerning the
official account should not be dismissed as being propagated by marginalized individuals hoping to destabilize government
policy. As said earlier, we do not know with certainty who placed the alleged explosives and to what end they may have intended.
But it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when prompted with cui bono, we are reminded that the fish still rots from the head. A
report on a 2001 conference suggests who was working on nano-thermite at this time - not to be confused with regular thermite.
"All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique
properties of nano-materials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives ...nanoenergetics
hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of
tai/orability with regards to energy release and impulse management. "46 Without a map of said laboratories, we can assume there
are none to be found in the caves of Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The alleged elephant in the room has dark and far reaching ramifications for all manner of issues that arose in consequence to
9/11. No rational human being would prefer the possibility that one's own government may have been complicit in an act of
47
terrorism as a false flag or pretext to initiate a war to the alternative explanation deferring blame to a man in a cave who was in
48 49
denial prior to his death of lung complications in mid December of 2001, yet jubilant and in admission following his passing to
the grave through dubious recordings which government have admitted 50 to faking. But that we do not grant the alternative
conspiracy theory preference does not deny its possibility. 51
On August 4th 1964, two American destroyers off the coast of Vietnam, the USS Maddox and USS Jack Turner Joy, both
reported they were taking fire by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The Turner Joy allegedly fired about 220 shells at radar
controlled surface targets. The United States Congress hastily passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution three days later which
52
prompted major escalation of hostilities in Vietnam, given that they were responding to an act of aggression. Approximately
53
60,000 US servicemen and 110 Canadian independent volunteers later lost their lives in the jungles of Southeast Asia, along
with many hundreds of thousands of civilians. In 2005, the N.S.A. released a declassified internal historical study on the event
confirming that the original incident never happened. 54
There are some who believe that powerful men never gather behind closed doors and plan things, and that there are no
conspiracies. Yet we are prepared to accept that Julius Caesar certainly did not meet his end with a fatal tumble down the stairs
of the Senate; or that plainclothes agents of the Egyptian Government conspired to harass protesters which the world recently
bore witness to; or that there was a conspiracy to poison Erwin Rommel by government when it was learned that he was involved
in a conspiracy against it, prompted by his realization of just how rotten to the core it was. We recognize the questionable
awarding of a municipal contract valued at a mere few thousand to a party with close relations to city council, but balk and roll our
eyes heavenward at those with suspicions where billions were at stake.
Such instances are all well documented. We give concession to these theories without hesitation, there being no danger in doing
so. We cherry pick our conspiracy theories here and there, not based on merit, but based on endorsement invested in unchecked
blind faith. 55 Unfortunately conspiracies are real, there have been countless well documented instances of government
conspiracy, 56 that is why the Canadian Criminal Code clearly outlines provisions for having done so, and that is why we routinely
have Parliamentary Standing Committees investigating them. 57
Had it later been learned that Buckingham Palace had extended a private dinner invitation to the LR.A's Michael Collins shortly
after the Easter Rising, it would have been cause for great public suspicion and for obvious reason. Further, had the State's
explanation for such an encounter, after it had inadvertently been made known, was that it was part of an "Irish cultural outreach
program", it would have been the laughing stock of Europe and the world over.
The alleged at-Qaeda regional commander, Anwar AI-Awlaki, and mastermind behind the "aborted Christmas Day bombing, the
Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, and who also preached to the alleged 9111 hijackers, dined at the
46 Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48.
47 v.s. The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 338.
48 "Bin Laden Says He Wasn't behind Attacks." CNN, 17 Sept. 2001. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.
<http://arch1yes cnn com120011us109116/inv.bfntaden,denraInndexhtml>.
49 al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633
50 "Former CIA Officials Admit To Faking Bin Laden Video." PrisonPlanet.com, 25 May 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
<http://www orisonolanet com1rormer-cia-omc1a1s-adml1-10:fakfng-bin-laden-videp htmJ>.
51 Operation Northwoods was an unimplemented plan calling for a series of false flag operations originating within the CIA in 1962 to be carried out by committing domestic
acts of terror, starting riots, sabotage, assassinations, the shelling of friendly military bases, and so on, to be blamed on Cuba. After its presentation, Kennedy promptly fired
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The documents were dedassified into the public record on November 18, 1997 by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board.
52 "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
11secure
<httos· orTookloResolution>.
wikimedia.prgfwikloedfaleowkl/Gulf
53 "Canada and the Vietnam War." Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 17 Feb. 2011.
orgtwlkioedia/en/wlki/Canada
<httos·//secure wiklmedia and the Vietnam War#Canadians in the lJ s military>.
54 "Excerpts from McNamara's Testimony on Tonkin", The New York Times, 1968-02-25.
55 Watson, Paul Joseph. "The Psychology of Conspiracy Denial." lnfowars, 5 Aug. 2010. Web 18 Feb. 2011.
<httpl/wwWfnrowars
com/the-psychology-ol;conspiracy:deniall>.
56 "Mexico Drug Plane Used for CIA 'rendition' Flights." Google News. AFP, 4 Sep. 2008. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.
go99!e.cpm/artlde/ALeaM5160onBKKMo2gwJe3ql-xUcOEZbYg>.
<htto•l/afp
Mercer, Don. "Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food." Criminal Matters Branch, 7 Nov. 1995. Web. 17 Feb. 2011.
57
<http:/!wl,yw.comoelitlonbureau,gc,ca/eic/sitekb-bc nsf/eng/01041 htmt>. A162
Mercer reflects at one point "specifically on conspiracy, generally referred to as price fixing".
0163
5
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-163 A163
Pentagon just months after 9111."58 The Government later confirmed his presence as part of "a push within the Defence
Department to reach out to the Muslim community." 59 Straight from the horse's mouth.
It is interesting to take a brief sojourn with some figures. Government was responsible for the deaths of approximately 262 million
people in the last century, save those killed in war. Indeed, this figure is six times the number of deaths attributable to all wars
combined in that period (First, Second, Korea, and so on). 60 By contrast, the bubonic plague that claimed around half of Europe's
population in the 14th century killed but roughly 75 million. 61 The numbers identify government as one of the leading causes of
death. It would be only a small simplification to say that Public Safety Canada's philosophy of "there [being] no more fundamental
role for government than the protection of its citizens" 62 as arguably among the most ambitious of any kind in the history of
government. The point only is that government is capable of violence, otherwise it would have no need of armouries.
We do not fully understand the depth of involvement the Government of Canada may have played in 9/11, but we do have more
than circumstantial evidence implicating its primary ally and partner in the alleged War on Terror, whereby our participation was
at their request and it is not unreasonable to suspect that, with all the intimate logistical and political ties our two nations have,
that we were not without our own, shall we say euphemistically, domestic coordinators. The event has been used as a vehicle for
incredibly dangerous unchecked assumptions.
What all parties agree on is that Canada's membership with I.S.A.F. in the war in Afghanistan was preceded by the events that
transpired on 9/11. One's political convictions are immaterial, be they liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, or whatever one
finds fashionable, all reasonable people would agree that murder commit by government against its own innocent citizens as a
pretext for war is not only immoral, but illegal. There is, unfortunately, overwhelming evidence 63 implicating government
involvement in some capacity, either our own or that of our southern neighbour's. Section 46 of the Canadian Criminal Code
provides an interesting legal instrument:
High treason 46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against
whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of
war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen to do any of the above outside of Canada. 64
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1368 adopted on September 12th 2001 called upon "a// States to work together urgently to bring
to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding,
65
supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable. "
On a side note, the Security Council Chamber features a very large, beautiful, and prominent mural of a bird of fire. It was
received as a gift by the Norwegian artist Per Krohg. It actually was not intended to enhance the decor, but served a very
practical purpose. The phoenix is seen rising from the ashes symbolizing the world rebuilding itself. The idea was to remind those
present at all times the world that was laid to waste by the end of the Second World War and to ensure it never happened
again. 66
The perpetrators are no doubt well and confided with the knowledge that those who know, maintain their silence, being as they
are benefactors, and those who ought to know will find the premise that powerful men may have worked in collusion with the aim
of personal gain far too incredulous to investigate. And so the perpetrators are unchecked in their aims, constituting a
monumental threat to public safety, and operating surreptitiously through proxy. They must be routed out with all their means to
do us harm destroyed. However, for the mandate of Public Safety Canada to fulfil its professed legislative duty to Canadian
citizens, the correct perpetrators must be identified and held to justice.
58 Herridge, Catherine. "Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11." FoxNews.com, 20 Oct 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
<http:11www.roxnews.com1us120101101201a1-oaeda-terror•leader-djned-oen1agon-months/>,
59 Ibid. .
60 Rummel, R. J. "20th Century Democide." University of Hawaii. Web. 16 Feb. 2011,
<.b.tlQ;//wwwhawaii edu1powerkms120TH.HIM>.
61 "Bubonic Plague." Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.
<https·//secure wikimedia,org/wikipediaten/wlkj/Bubonjc plague>
62 v.s. Public Safety Canada's What We Do.
63 Griffin, David Ray. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch,
2007. Print.
64 "Treason." Wikimedia Foundation. 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
<hltps'//secure wikimedia orglwlkioedja/en/wlklITreason#Can;Ula>.
65 United Nations. Security Council. Resolution 1368 (2001). United Nations, 12 Sept. 2001. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.
<http·/twww voorg/Docslscres120011sc2001 b!ro>.
66 "The Security Council." UN.org. United Nations, 2001. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. A163
unorg/cyberschoolbusJuntourtsuw.;e~>.
<htto;IIWWW
0164
6
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-164 A164
Sir, the nation is bankrupted into oblivion at $559,602,000,000, 67 with resolute increase at a rate of roughly $6,400,000 by the
hour unabated. I assure you, this is not by accident. By design, there are no means of repayment so as to satisfy the debt in
whole, and the sale of additional Treasury Bonds in exchange for, no, not valuable specie, but additional worthless paper
promissory notes manufactured by fractional reserve private central banks rented to us at interest will only serve to, literally,
compound the problem. We will then be taxed covertly through inflation, an increase in the money supply.
By mathematical design, repayment is never to be achieved with the repayment schedule rolled out to all eternity. 68 69 As Mayer
Amschel Rothschild, founder of the most powerful banking dynasty in history was famously quoted as saying, "Let me issue and
control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. "70
When considering Bonaparte's sentiments on banksters, that the hand that gives is higher than the hand that takes, the list of
suspects is lessened considerably. They were there at Waterloo. 71 They had their hands in the sinking of the Lusitania where
1, 195 lost their lives, 195 of them being American - subsequently catapulting them into the First World War. 72 They financed all
sides of the Second World War, 73 financed the Bolsheviks, 74 befriended Saddam, 75 and on, and on, and on. The planting and
raising of flags, cultural identity, nationalism, the signing of treaties, my grandfather's beach landing and capture at Dieppe,
revolutions, and so on are all merely the noise and objects of concern of a vanquished people in the bankster's mind,
unbeknownst to an insolvent nation, for they are truly as nihilistic as they are ravenous. Blackbeard had nothing on them.
In all likelihood, if history has taught us anything, it would be of little surprise to learn that this cabal may well have had their hand
in 9/11, bearing the credentials and having a long, successful, and well documented track record in similar affairs. The
Rothschilds having "conquered the worfd more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before
or all the Hitlers after them"76 are automatically short listed among the usual suspects. The more consideration we give the
matter, the more irrelevant phantom thespians and bearded cave men become.
Minister, new wars are seldom fought out of the existing treasury. Re-read that last sentence. The banksters know this, and
through the instrument of usury, they are fought not to be won, but to be sustained. 77 It is then no surprise when Nicholas
Rockefeller, descendant of John D. Rockefeller's banking dynasty, confided to his close friend Aaron Russo, film maker and
politician, the designs of the cabal 11 months prior to 9/11. Russo recalled him boasting that "there's going to be an event
Aaron ... We are going to go into Afghanistan so we can put a gas pipeline to the Caspian Sea ... We are going to go into Iraq to
take the oil and to establish a base in the Middle East and we're going to go into Venezuala and try and get rid of Chavez." As he
laughed, he continued, "You're going to see guys going into caves looking for people that they're never going to find ... There's no
real enemy ...By having this war on terror, you can never win it because it's an eternal war. "78
Russo was incredulous. Being a man of strong moral convictions, he was taken aback by Rockefeller's avowal. He expressed his
doubts that people would be that na"ive. Rockefeller reassured him "the media can convince everybody that it's real ... You keep
talking about things, you keep saying them over and over and over again and eventually people will believe this ... You create 9111
which is another lie. Through [9111}, you fight the War on Terror and then you go into Iraq which is another lie, and then Iran. And
it's all one thing leading to another, leading to another, leading to another. "79 I can unfortunately attest to Rockefeller's confidence
in the media's propagation of the mythology, having myself attempted to bring this matter to their attention only to have it fall on a
deaf audience at worst, a muted one at best.
Juvenal put it aptly well over two millennia ago in describing the Roman mob. "It's way back that they discarded their
responsibilities - since the time we stopped selling our votes. The proof? The people that once used to bestow military
commands, high office, legions, everything, now limits itself It has an obsessive desire for two things only - bread and
circuses." 00 Wait not on journalists, Minister. Journalism is dead, the Colosseum timeless. 81
But in all this, the sensible place to begin is, naturally, at the beginning. It goes without saying that if the Harrit, Farrer, et al.
findings turn out to be correct, then the emperor has had no clothes for roughly a decade now. The government's policy of silence
on the subject is rather embarrassing when one can travel to many parts of the developed world where this is all common
67 Canada's National Debt Clock. Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
<http·11www.debtclock.ca>.
68 "Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada," Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. Ottawa: J.O. Patenaude, I.S.O., Printer to the
King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1939. 461-500. Microform.
69 Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. 5th ed. Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 2010. pp. 185-207. Print.
70 Ibid. p. 21 B.
71 Ibid. pp. 226-227.
72 Ibid. pp. 235-262.
73 Ibid. pp. 294-296.
74 Ibid. pp. 263-284.
75 Ibid. p. 304.
76 Ibid. p. 218. Griffin cites Morton, Frederic. The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait, London: Secker & Warburg, 1962.14. Print.
77 Ibid. pp. 229-232.
78 "3.19 Aaron Russo and Rockefeller." YouTube. Zeitgeist, 27 Dec. 2007. Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
youtubecom/watch?y=MGfBDPdSUto>.
<hltlr//wyyw
79 Ibid.
A164
80 Juvenal, and Persius. "Satire 10.77-81," Juvenal and Persius. Ed. Jeffrey Henderson. Trans. Susanna Morton Braund. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2004 373. Print.
81 Baldwin, Chuck. "America's Bread And Circus Society." lnfowars. 8 June 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.
com/americas-bread-and-circus-socieM>.
<hllo·lfwtw,infowars
0165
7
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-165 A165
knowledge. 82 It does not take above average intellectual gifts to see in all that I have related that there is more fly than ointment,
and thus it is incumbent upon the Minister to investigate in accordance with his mandate as an Officer of Public Safety.
Given that we are not free if we are not properly informed, in summary, I have tasked you with a response. Specifically,
i. A statement confirming the Minister has had the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper concerning the alleged discovery of nano-
thermite brought to his attention and that the Minister has perused said paper;
ii. A statement confirming Public Safety Canada have initiated earnest efforts in the replication of the Harrit, Farrer, et al.
findings;
iii. Conditional on a successful replication, a statement confirming Public Safety Canada has duly apprised the Prime
Minister's Office, Commissioner of the R.C.M.P., Chief of Defence Staff, and all other relevant Public Officers;
iv. Conditional on a successful replication, a statement acknowledging that the Governor General was not properly informed
September 20 th 2001 when the Minister of National Defence approached Her requesting the deployment of men and
materials to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan;
v. A meeting with the Minister subsequent his examination of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper with the objective of receiving
his formal responses.
As a safety precaution, albeit a morbid thought and perhaps extreme, but provoked by the deaths of many 9/11 whistle blowers
with first hand information under questionable circumstance, to wit, Barry Jennings, Beverly Eckert, Kenneth Johannemann,
Michael Doran, Christopher Landis, Bertha Champagne, Paul Smith, Deborah Palfrey, Major General David Wherley, Salvatore
Princiotta, Dr. David Graham, 83 and in all likelihood, many others, let the record state that I am of sound mind to never consider
suicide. I will invoke all lawful means of self preservation, and, failing that, now with a considerable international base of irate
people, expect that they will pick up where I left off regardless and see this matter through to the long awaited, decade
outstanding, criminal convictions.
In closing, what I have described above may well be among the greatest and most costly acts of fraud ever perpetrated in
attested history. Voltaire once remarked that it is dangerous to be right when government is wrong. But in times of universal
deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act and we expect nothing less of our Minister in the discharge of his duties.
Yours sincerely,
Kip Warner,
Software Engineer
cc:
His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada;
Mary Dawson, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner;
Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court;
Senate Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators;
Senate Committee on National Security and Defence;
Sheila Fraser, Office of the Auditor General of Canada;
Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism;
The Honourable Arthur Eggleton, Senator and Former Minister of National Defence;
The Honourable Paul Hellyer, Former Minister of National Defence and Former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada;
The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Former Governor General of Canada
82 Nimmo, Kurt. "Nearly 90 Percentof Germans Do Not Believe Official 9/11 Fairy Tale." lnfoWars.com,20 Jan. 2011. Web. 16 Feb. 2011,
<hJ.lo:ttwww,lnfowars.comlnearl)(-90-oercent-ot,germans-do-not-belleve-olficlal-911-fafrv-taleJ>.
83 "Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses (Must See)." YouTube, 14 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. A165
<http•/fwwwyoutube.comlwatch?v:byaY28IZIHU>,
0166
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-166
Your letter is superb. Your connecting it to relevant authorities in explanation and in sending
A166
it to them to incite some public responsibility is equally masterful. Thank you doing this on all
our behalves.
John McMurtry
Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
University of Guelph Professor Emeritus
UN author & editor of Philosophy and World
Problems
Your research is sound. .. We definitely need to begin holding our elected representatives in
Canada to account on this, and your letter is one way to start that ...I want to say that I love
the way you've used UNSC 13 68. I've often quoted it in presentations, but I simply argue that
it provided no justification for the invasion of Afghanistan: as you correctly argue, what it
actually does is obligate governments to seek the true perpetrators of the 9111 crimes ...Maybe
there is a way the Canadian 9/11 truth movement, which is pretty scattered at the moment,
can unite around a couple of main items, such as your letter, in the not-too-distant
future ... Thanks for the very eloquent letter.
Graeme MacQueen
PhD, Harvard
Associate Professor, McMaster University
Founder of McMaster University Centre for
Peace Studies
Co-director of Media & Peace Education in
Afghanistan
I want to attempt to express the enormity of my respect for you ... Your letter is up there as a
work of great political literature, in a league with the Declaration of Independence, Letter
From The Birmingham Jail, etc.
Andrea
Amazing letter, just read it, incredible work keeping track of all the recipients, and the many
non-responses. You're a real patriot. Some of the recipients really picked on the wrong fellow
to try and pretend they didn't receive the letter.
Larry
Democracy Now!
UVic Radio, an Independent News Hour
I've been researching this subject for years now and have recently come across your letter to
Toews. For what it's worth I think you've nailed it; absolutely outstanding, one of the best I've
seen to date if not the best. I've passed along many articles on this subject and have sent
copies of your letter to contacts already. In my humble opinion it is the most well written
letter/article I've seen on any subject. Keep up the good work! ff there were more like you inA166
the battle we'd already have reached the tipping point. The masses are stirring and I have
0167
little doubt the perpetrators are running scared. Things sure are getting "interesting", justice
shall prevail.
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-167 A167
Jim
Royal Canadian Navy
1981-2001
I agree with this thought provoking thesis and believe that further investigation into the 9/11
event will take place because of it.
Peter
Retired Canadian Infantry Officer Platoon
Commander
Military Historian
It is very well written. You are a gifted writer... Glad to have you with us ...It is a great letter
and one that should shine above many on the subject.
Christopher Porter
Canadian Action Party Leader
I just wanted to say that its one of the best let~ers on 9/11, integrating in the appropriate
issues and historical perspective, that I have ever read.
John
Professional Engineer
I have never seen a better written letter! Very well done!
Joseph
Medical Oncologist
Clinical Professor
Faculty of Medicine
University of British Columbia
This letter has truly opened my eyes. My respect for your commitment to discovering the truth
and the passion underlying this exceptionally high quality letter is substantial.
Anna
Law Student
University of Durham
This is an amazing piece of work, and research behind it.
A167
0168
Steve
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-168 Retired A168
high school science teacher
This is an amazing work, thanks for using your energy to do and say the things some of us are
not able, in such a courageous and concise way. I pray this letter will not fall on deaf ears, I
truly pray.
Rachelle
You are right on! And you are very brave .. .I fear that democracy in Canada is a mere
charade, if it ever truly existed. We need to continue the efforts and I applaud you. Thanks
again for your thoughtful letter.
Ellen
Librarian
Congratulations. Your letter is excellent. The issue that you raise is one that I am very
familiar with, and while the implications are unfortunate and frightening, I tend to agree with
your views. I have encountered everything that you mention in your letter, however it was
impressive to see it gathered so cogently, and with such immediacy.
Joe
Undergraduate Student
This is one of the most well put together compilation I have ever seen on this topic.
Mike
Professional Musician
Very well written ... with lots of references ... You make some great points, and it sounds like
there are a lot of other people, with excellent credentials, who also want answers ... But,
you've done your research well, and wrote a good letter.
Ed
Computer Science Instructor
This is an amazing piece of work, and research behind it.
Steve
Retired Highschool Teacher
This is indeed an amazing work, and I support your efforts fully. A168
0169
Nathan
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-169 A169
Your letter is brilliant.
Gery
Professional Engineer
That letter you did was really something. Thanks.
Bill
What an amazing letter! The world needs more citizens like you who are critical thinkers,
objective researchers, intelligent observers, with the strength of character to stand up for
what they believe it. Your letter is an act of moral courage, and I would hope that in the
Canadian, and global context, we have room for those who take action against evil. It
reminds me of a quote from Ayn Rand: 'The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but
the sanction you give it.' Thank-you for not sanctioning it!
Jackie
Your letter to Vic Toews is outstanding, a most remarkable piece or research and composition.
Raymond
I've read your letter and it looks to be extremely well researched and documented.
Blair
Retired Canadian Infantry Officer Plantoon
Commander
Incredibly well written, Kip. Thanks for writing that on behalf of all of us. I hope it falls on
open ears, for once.
Michael
Software Engineer
It's very, very well written and I hope justice of the highest order will be achieved for all.
Lisa
Wow that was an impressive letter.

A169
0170
Ron
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-170 A170
Well done .... very well done.
Amy
Kip this is very impressive,· very well-written and researched. .. The truth shall prevail!
Aleya
An informed and informative letter.
Samad
You are a wonderful writer. .. with a great message .. .I will forward the letter to friends.
Linda
Elementary School Teacher
Good letter. Too bad Ottawa seems stone deaf to everything not uttered by the 46 richest
Canadians (worth as much as the 14,000,000 poorest) and/or the American plutocrats who
tell them what to do.
Mark
Film Studies Instructor
I thought your letter was excellent. It actually blew me away how precise all of your details
were.
Danielle
Elementary School Teacher
I read your letter. It is 100% correct in my view.
David
Software Engineer
Retired Canadian Artilleryman
Got it from the Canadian Action party website - let's give these people hell on earth, like they
want to do to us!
A170
0171
Jim
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-171 A171
A big applause and thank you for a very well crafted and referenced letter to Vic Toews on the
matter of 911 truth ... Last fall my eyes finally opened on the subject and it is good to see that
people like you are taking action. I am also encourage that an existing Canadian federal
party has actually taking on this difficult subject and is trying to get to the root of the
problem.
De Vries
I read the letter you sent to Vic Toews... The content of your letter is bang on.
Victor
I read your letter - very well done. I like your low key strategy. Let people read the letter, and
the (non)responses, and let them make up their own minds.
Dan
Law Student
As someone who has spent many years perfecting my own writing skill I must congratulate
you on this work, which is both well written and well argued. I wasn't familiar with the all the
facts regarding traces of explosive material found in the WTC rubble, and while it's still
somewhat challenging for me to wrap my head around the letter's main argument, I must say
that my opinion on this issue has certainly been influenced your research.
Ilia
Economics Undergraduate Student
All I can say is wow, what an amazing letter. Keep up the good work.
Marc
I felt compelled to write to you after[. ..} told me all about you and sent me to your website
where I was BLOWN AWAY by your concise, eloquent and magnificent letter to Vic Toews
concerning 9/1 I. I must commend you on your courage and dedication.
Trevor
Professional Animator
Elicited Responses: A171

0172
•
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-172 A172
Who Received Resolution Comments
Adrienne Clarkson Unknown NIA

(Former Governor
General)
; Arthur Eggleton Unknown NIA

• (Senator and Former
' Minister of National
• Defence)
Bill Vander Zalm Yes Read, "I was very impressed with your presentation and
(28th Premier of responded your way of presenting but most of all I was
British Columbia impressed with your broad knowledge of so many ·
; from 1986 to 1991) things happening ...Your letter is extremely well
written and documented."
Mr Vander Zalm and I met in private at his home

after he had read the letter. I then provided him
with an additional briefing and answered any
questions he had. Mr Vander Zalm's knowledge
of both this matter and those tangential was
remarkable and extensive.
Canadian Security Yes Read, "I found [your letter to the government] on the
Intelligence Service responded internet...It's very well written ...It's pretty
(CSIS) interesting and obviously the kind of stuff we're
interested in ...For stuff like this, this is exactly for
us ...Thank you very much and I will look into
it...1'11make sure it gets to who it needs to,"
(Christina).
• Commonwealth Yes Read, Prompted with his co-hosting of a conference for
: Secretariat no response the heads of various anti-corruption agencies in
Africa held in May of 2012 in Livingstone,
Zambia, I brought the document to his attention.
This was confirmed via an access attempt and
download of the letter from 62.164.212.19 on 17
Jan 2013. Someone from his office re-visited this
site again on 29 Jan 2013, then again on 8 Feb
2013. This IP address falls within the
Commonwealth Secretariat subnet.
David Johnson Yes Read, "I regret that the Governor General cannot
• (Governor General) responded intervene in matters that are the responsibility of
public or elected officials."
A172
The British North America Act of 1867 vests
executive power in Her Majesty the Queen 0173
of
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-173 Canada who is represented in person by the A173
Governor General of Canada, His Excellency the
Right Honourable David Johnson. He may be
perceived as ceremonial, but in actuality, his legal
mandate bestows him with the highest domestic
public office the nation has to offer, exceeding
even that of the Prime Minister's Office. This is
why the Prime Minister must secure the Governor
General's permission in the dissolution of
Parliament or in the deployment of military force
abroad.
Holders of the Office cannot limit themselves

merely to its privledges, but none of its
responsibilities. Nevertheless, this matter of grave •
concern remained an unregistered interest.
Televised §P-ectatorgames featuring acts of
violence that merely affect the lives of a handful
of people at a given time warranted commentan:
while a probable violation of section 46 of the
Criminal Code (High Treason) and the incumbent
necessity of the dissolution of Parliament, the
initiation of a public enquiry with powers of
subpoena, and the holding of a Federal election
prompted none.
· Enza Uda (Associate Yes Read, "I've read your essay - which is well-written and
Producer, CBC responded well-researched. However, we are not the forum
News, Go Public) to air your paper," (Enza Uda).
Enza's mandate is to hold powers that be

accountable. She has worked before to uncover a
war criminal who is now an old man, incapable of
defending himself, and whose government was ·
dissolved more than half a century ago. She
refused to forward the document to an appropriate ·
forum on the grounds that it was not of interest to
the CBC. Listen here.
: Hardy Staub Yes Read, "Thank you for your document that I read with
: (Liberal MP responded interest.. .I noticed that you had sent it to a variety
candidate for South of very important people and at this stage those
Surrey - White Rock are the people I would have sent it to as
- Cloverdale) well...Once elected however I could forward it to
the appropriate members of our new
government," (Hardy Staub).
Jasbir Sandhu Yes Read, The letter was read in its entirety before him
(Member of responded privately in his constituency office where I found
Parliament for him to be both very reasonable and receptive.A173
He
Surrey North, NDP, acknowledged that he was already suspicious of
' Official Opposition
0174
the collapse of the north and south towers, but
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-174
: Critic for Public was not aware of the third building to collapseA174
in
, Safety) NYC until the briefing. He found the information
quite reasonable, given that, as he noted, "there
were no WMDs in Iraq".
He requested several weeks to examine the letter

in greater detail and review the additional
material he was provided with. He will provide
his party's official response to the five points
made in the conclusion of my letter when
Parliament reconvenes in September 2011.
Given that Mr Sandhu is the official opposition

critic for the Public Safety portfolio, the intended
recipient of my letter, and given that he is in good '
rapport with the Minister responsible for that
cabinet position, the information he is now in
possession with left me thinking that it was in
appropriate hands.
Several weeks passed, giving Mr Sandhu ample

time to review the material. In a followup
meeting, he claimed he had not had time to
review the material, had not liaised with the
Minister, and was still preoccupied with other
things of "higher priority" - among them, by his
own admission, a review of a bill to extend the
Anti-Terrorism Act.
In the end, he refused to sign the petition

demanding a new investigation, although his
clerk signed it on the spot, while he requested an
indeterminate amount of time to reflect on the
matter. He did, however, concede that personal
safety was an issue in his decision at that point.
· Kathy Tomlinson Yes No response Did not express interest after receiving letter.
(Journalist, CBC Listen here. "We hold the powers that be
News, Go Public) accountable," (CBC Go Public website).
Macleans Yes Deleted Confirmed via electronic confirmation receipt.

without
reading
: Mark Warawa Yes Read,

: (Conservative responded 8 Dec 2012, I attended the screening of a film on
• Member of gendercide in Vancouver. Mr Warawa was
• Parliament for present. I approached him after the film and
i Langley, BC) requested a meeting to discuss a separate social
A174
justice and human rights issue. He was agreeable
0175to
and indicated I liaise with his assistant Annette
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-175 select an appropriate date. A175
17 Jan 2013, I briefed Mr Warawa at his
constituency office at 104-4769 222 St, Langley,
BC, where he was provided with a copy of my
letter to the Minister of Public Safety, shown
video footage of the collapse ofWTC 7, and
given a documentary DVD film. He reassured me
that he would examine the material I provided
him as time would permit, in addition to the
Toronto ReP-ort I would drop off later when I was
resupplied with new copies. While viewing the
collapse ofWTC 7, Mr Warawa noted that "the
collapse of the third building .. .It doesn't look
great ... no".
He was reassured that he need not endorse our

petition for a new and independent investigation
into the events of 9/11, but only that we
encourage him to deliver it on behalf of any of
the signatories within his riding.
After I left, he spent some time later that

afternoon examining my personal website. The
following morning he returned to this page and
spent approximately 64 seconds examining the
other responses to date prior to downloading an
additional copy of the letter. Earlier that day,
during our meeting he had said he would likely
read it over his flight back to Ottawa that
weekend.
That evening, he sent me a response in followup

to my email which thanked him for generously
providing me with his time that afternoon. "Hi
Kip, thank you for this follow-up email. It was a.
pleasure meeting you yesterday. I will be in touch. •
Regards, Mark Warawa, Member of Parliament
for Langley".
Five days later, as I had promised him during his

briefing, I dropped off two copies of the Toronto
Report, one for Mr Warawa and another for his
assistant.
14 May 2013, I received a response from Mr

Warawa. "I have had a chance to skim through
the text that you offered and I have decided not to
pursue this matter further; therefore, I will not be
presenting the petitions. I encourage you to
contact your MP or another 1\1Pwho may be
interested in presenting these. " I did not attempt
to disuade him otherwise, but did attempt to A175
determine at the very least whether the decision
had been his. I did not receive a response 0176
after
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-176 several attempts to make contact. A176
10 July 2013, I managed to liaise with Mr
Warawa's assistant at his constituency office over
the telephone in an effort to document who had
made the decision to not deliver the petition, Mr
Warawa, or someone else. The assistant declined
to provide that information, but said that the issue
was not sufficiently important to Mr Warawa, that
I was not a member of his riding (which I had
disclosed from the beginning), and suggested that
I had deliberately mislead Mr Warawa. Audio
available here.
Mark KelleY-(CBC Yes Read, "Hi Kip ...This is an extraordinary piece of work,"
The National / responded he remarked in May of 2011, though leaving the
News: Morning) question of responsibility hanging.
Over the course of about nine months, I found it

interesting that the CBC found some things
newsworthY-and other things_not. Mark was
repeatedly approached gently with the request
that he go on the air, as he does so regularly, and
clarify the matter by simply stating the truth.
Excuses were presented from time constraints to a ·
lack of interest.
In January of 2012, my tone escalated to highlight

the gravity of the situation and the necessity that,
as a journalist, he inform the public. His response
and my followup can be found here.
. Mary Dawson Yes Responded "I wish to confirm that I was able to open and
· (Office of the print your letter addressed to Minister Toews. I
• Conflict of Interest have passed on your request to our investigation
• and Ethics division for their review and our office will
• Commissioner) contact you with a response as soon as possible,"
(Jocelyne Brisebois, Communications Officer for
the Parliamentary Office of the Conflict of
Interest and Ethics Commissioner).
: Niels Harrit Yes Read, "This is brilliant writing, clever and

• (Associate responded comprehensive. Terrific, solid work, well
• Professor, documented, learned a lot myself. Just to quote
• Department of UNSC 1368 should be enough for all ofus,"
Chemistry, (Niels Harrit).
University of
: Copenhagen) Professor Harrit was among the original
whistleblowers to expose the discove(Y..of nano-
thermite uncovered in the dust of the WTC ruins.
A176
Read,
0177
Inquired a total of forty-one times before receipt
Office of the Yes
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-177
Prosecutor responded was finally acknowledged, though I was advised A177
. International that a receipt "does not mean that an investigation
Criminal Court will be conducted". It was downloaded at least 12
times from an address on their subnet
(213.208.214.206), according to the Apache
access logs.
• Patricia Graham Yes Deleted Patricia was apprised of the false flag issue by my
: (Editor-in-chief, without father's presentation at the Vancouver Club
• Vancouver Sun) reading August, 2010 as were the many other high profile
individuals present, such as an ex US diplomat,
supreme court judge, and several prominent
CEOs. All now are aware of the evidence and that :
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth are
asking for a new independent investigation.
Patricia, for reasons unknown, so far has failed to
report on the matter.
• Paul Hellyer Yes Read, "I have managed to carefully read the letter to
• (Former Minister of responded Minister Toews and to scan the attached
• National Defence document concerning thermitic material. I must
• and Farmer Deputy congratulate you on the very comprehensive
· Prime Minister of manner in which you have assembled the
Canada) information contained in your letter. It is most
impressive. ( ...) All I can do is to thank you for
the exhaustive work that you have undertaken and
to hope - which I know is a very long hope - that
the minister or one of his colleagues will take it
seriously and commission the required analysis.
( ...)
"In my mind you are demonstrating the qualities l
of integrity, loyalty, courage, honesty, fairness

and responsibility putting service to humanity
before self-interest which is something that
should be expected of all of us, but I know quite a
few people who wouldn't see it that way," (Paul
Hellyer).
Peace Arch News Yes Read, Published with much gratitude to Lance Peverly,
responded editor, for his courage in demonstrating real
journalism in prioritizing the needs of an
informed community before career .
• RCMP, White Rock Yes Read, "I went through your material last night and
• Detachment responded you've done everything you can. You've gone to
the right agencies and something like that is way
out ofmy purview and jurisdiction.( ...) As far as
we're concerned here in White Rock, it's where A177
it's supposed to be. I don't have the resources to
0178
deal with anything like that here," (Sgt Roland
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-178 Pierschke ). A178
The officer agreed with the thesis of the letter and
conceded that he had known since "day one". The
RCMP's unofficial motto is "we always get our
man" .
. RCMP National Yes Read, RCMP National Security Investigator currently

Security Information responded investigating and considered the letter to be
Network "legitimate". It claims to have "a mandate to
collect information from the general public
regarding terrorist activity," (NSIN web ite).
: Russ Hiebert Yes Read, The letter was read in its entirety before him
• (Member of responded privately at his constituency office. He found it
• Parliament for South "very interesting" and requested an electronic
: Surrey - White Rock copy of the letter to verify footnotes, along with
• - Cloverdale, some time to digest the material presented to him.
• Conservative)
He later responded in writing where he
acknowledged that the official government
explanation for the collapse ofWTC7 was not an
explanation.
Senate Committee Unknown NIA

• on Conflict of
i Interest for Senators
· Senate Committee Unknown NI A

on National Security
& Defence
Sheila Fraser Yes No response

(Auditor General)
Special Senate Yes Read, Barbara Reynolds, Committee Clerk, confirmed

Committee on Anti- responded receipt. She has been notified that I am available
terrorism to testify before the Senate, if they wish.
Stewart Bell Yes Read, Confirmed via electronic confirmation receipt.

(Journalist, The no response
National Post)
• The Guardian Yes Read, Confirmed via electronic confirmation receipt.

no response
A178
0179
• The Leader-Post Yes Deleted Confirmed via electronic confirmation receipt.
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-179
without A179
reading
. The National Post Yes Read and Confirmed via electronic confirmation receipt.
deleted
' Toronto Sun Yes Deleted Confirmed via electronic confirmation receipt.
without
reading
; Vic Toews (Minister Yes No response Hard copy dispatched registered post and filgned
of Public Safety) for by mail processing clerk, Mr M Dery.
After at least half a dozen attempts by email to

confirm the Minister's receipt, including by
telephone, Cheri Elliott, the Minister's personal
Executive Assistant, finally prepared to bring the
letter to the Minister's attention by forwarding it
personally to him with the message body of
"FYI", unintentionally addressed it to myself.
Three minutes later, having realized his mistake,
he then attempted unsuccessfully to recall the
email.
As a consequence, the Minister's potential

justification of future plausible deniability, with
respect to personally having been made aware of
the document, has now been destroyed.
Links:
Toronto International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001
Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust
WhY.The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint
Author:
'Kip_ Warner (Public Key) I
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, (C) Kip Warner.
If you violate the tenns of these copyright conditions without prior explicit written
authorization from me, you agree to indemnify me for all court costs, lawyer fees, and disbursements
in relation to the enforcement of these copyright conditions. Additionally, you
agree to liquidated damages in the amount of $1 M CAD payable to me in the event of a breach.
A179
0180
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-180 A180

A~T~Affid' r mg 1 av1ts
A180
0181
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-181 A181
WIKIPEDIA
The Free Encyclopedia
OpenPOWER Foundation
The OpenPOWER Foundation is a collaboration around OpenPOWER Foundation
Power ISA-based products initiated by IBM and announced as the
"Open.POWER Consortium" on August 6, 2013.l51 IBM is opening OpenPOWERTN
up technology surrounding their Power Architecture offerings,
such as processor specifications, firmware and software with a Predecessor Open POWER
liberal license, and will be using a collaborative development Consortium
mo d e1wit . partners. [6J[7J
. h t h eir --- --- , Formation August6,2013
The goal is to enable the server vendor ecosystem to build their · Founder Google,
181\11,
own customized server, networking and storage hardware for Mellanox,NV_IDIA,
future data centers and cloud computingJEi] !tan
Purpose Member companies
The governing body around the Power ISA instruction set is now
are enabled to
the Open.POWER Foundation: IBM allows its patents to be
create an open
royalty-free for Compliant implementations.( 91 Processors based
on IBM's IP can now be fabricated on any foundry and mixed with ecosystem, using
other hardware products of the integrator's choice. the Power ISA
> 350 membersUl
On August 20, 2019, IBM announced that the Open.POWER · Membership
10
Foundation would become part of the Linux Foundation.[ ) Key people Artem lkoev
(~_b~ir)l?J
Openness Mendy Furmanek

(president)ifil
IBM is using the word "open" to describe this project in three James Kulina
ways:lz1 (executive
director)l1l
1. They are licensing the microprocessor technology openly to its
partners. They are sharing the blueprints to their hardware
and software to their partners, so they can hire IBM or other
companies to manufacture processors or other related chips.
2. They will collaborate openly in an open-collaboration business
Parent
organization
, Website
Linux Foundation
o en owerfoundati
on.org (httQs://oRen
I
model where participants share technologies and innovations l)owerfoundation.or
with each other. g}
3. Advantages via <;>_Qen-:~ource sof!wa_resuch as the Li~ux
operating system.
Power Architecture
Open.Power Foundation also releases Documentation on the
Power Architecture. [u]
IBM S812LC - Habanero - Tyan

manufactured OpenPOWER system
A181
0182
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-182
Some relevant documentsare the Power ISA and Power Architecture Platform Reference.
A182
Hardware
IBM is looking to offer the POWERS chip technology and other
future iterations under the OpenPOWER initiative[ 6J but they are
also making previous designs available for licensing. [i 2 J Partners
are required to contribute intellectual property to the
OpenPOWER Foundation to be able to gain high level status.
The POWERS processor architecture incorporates facilities to

integrate it more easily into custom designs. The generic memory
controllers are designed to evolve with future technologies, and IBM S822LC - Firestone - Wistron
the new CAPI (Coherent Accelerator Processor Interface) manufactured OpenPOWER system
expansion bus is built to integrate easily with external
coprocessors like QPUs, ASICs and FPGAs.
Nvidia is contributing their fast interconnect technology, NVLink, that will enable tight coupling of
Nvidia's Pascal based graphics processors into future POWE-RprocessorsJ!:.;3J
Open source
In August 2019, IBM released the tiny Microwatt processor core implementing the Power ISA v.3.0
and to be used as a reference design for._OpenPOWER. It's entirely open source and published on
GitHub.lii! Later, Chiselwattjoined in as a second open source implementationJI-5.l
16
In June 2020, IBM released the high performance A2I core under a similar open source license.l J
and followed up with the A20 core in September 2020C!'Z]
Libre-SOC is the third, from scratch built, implementation of the Power ISA v.3.0, and the first
Libre/Open POWER ISA core outside of IBM.
Software
---------------------------------------- !5
The OpenPOWER initiative will include firmware, the KVM hypervisor, and little endian Linux
operating systemJ~J The foundation has a site ~n GitHub fo~the-;~~~~; they are releasing as op;;;
source. As of July 2014, it has released firmware to boot Linux.[181
SUSE included support for Powers in their enterprise Linux distribution SUSE Linux Enterprise
Server version 12 (release 27 October 2014)J 19J
Canonical Ltd. supports the architecture in Ubunt!!_~erver from version 16.04 LTS. [~]
FreeBSD has also been reported to have preliminary support for the architectureJ~!][ 22 J
A182
0183
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-183
CollaboraOnline is an enterprise-ready edition of LibreOffice with web-based
A183
office suite real-time
collaboration~upport of the OpenPOWER ppc64le architecture was announced in October 2022.(~3J
It comes with Ubuntu 20.04 packages and Docker images, and is delivered as a part of Nextcloud
Enterprise which specialises in sharing files, writing emails, conducting chats and video conferences.
Members
Google, Tyan, Nvidia, and Mellano~ are founding members of the OpenPOWER Foundation.(~ Nvidia
is looking to merge its graphics cores and Mellanox to integrate its high performance interconnects
with Power cores. Tyan is said to be working on servers using POWERSC?-41 and Google sees using
2
Power processors in its data centers as a future possibility. [ sJ Altera announced support for
OpenPOWER in November 2013 with their ~PGA offerings and Qp~n_9LsoftwareJ 26 J
On January 19, 2014, the Suzhou PowerCore Technology Company and the Research Institute of
Jiangsu Industrial Technology announced that they will join the OpenPOWER Foundation and license
POWERS technologies to promote and help build systems around and design custom made processors
for use in big data and cloud com uting applications.[ 2 7l[g_~ On February 12, 2014, Samsung
Electronics joined.-.?9][ 3_Q] As of March 2014, additional members are Altera, Fusion-io, Hynix,
Micron, Servergy, and Xilinx. As of April 2014, Canonical, Chuanghe Mobile, Emulex,llitachl, Inspur,
Jiilich Research Centre, Oregon State University,Teamsun, Unisource Technology ~Inc, and ZTE are
listed-as m~mbers at various level~J~JAs oTD~-cember2014, Rackspace, Avnet, Lawrence Liver~ore
National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Tsinghua University, Nallatech, Bull, QLogic, and
Bloombase have joined, totaling about 80 members .. 32 ] - - - - - -
At the first annual OpenPOWER Summit 2015, the organization announced that there were 113
members, including ~istron, Cirrascale, and PMC-Sierra.
As of late 2016, the OpenPOWER foundation has more than 250 members.
As of July 2020, the OpenPOWER Foundation reported that it had 350-plus membersJl-J
See also
• IBM__OR_enE_ower - a line of EOWE_R5 based Power Systems machines running Linux
• P_gwerOpen Environment
■ List of O[>en-source hardware projects
■ Q~en _Com_ ute Prqj~g!
■ 0 enBMC
References
1. Russell, John (2 July 2020). "OpenpOWER !3eboot- New Director, New_§_ilicon Partners,
Leveraging_ Linux Foundation Connections" https://www.hpcwire.com/2020/07 /02/o[>enpower-reb
oot-new-director-new-silicon-[>artners-le_yeraging-linux-foundation-connections/). HPCwire.
2. Halfacree. Gareth. "IBM's O en Power Foundation opens Power ISA" _(h!_!Qs_://1?lt-tech.neUnews/tec
h/cpus/ibms-op~~P.Q~~__r--fo~Qs;iation-oen~:Qowe~-::i~_ 9{ 1D.bit-tech. net.
A183
0184
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-184 A184
"Big_Blue Open Sources The _Core Inside BlueGene/Q
3. Morgan, Timothy Prickett (2020-06-30).
Su ercom uters" htt ://www.next latform.com/2020/06/30/big-blue-q_pen-sources-the-core-inside
1>1Y_~gene-q-sui:>ercomputers/). The Next Platform. Retrieved 2020-08-23.
4. Morgan, Timothy Prickett (2020-06-01). "Open Power Puts Open Source Software Guru In Charge"
(htti:>://www. next, latform.com/2020/06/01 /openpower-puts-open-source-software-guru-in-charge{).
The Next Platform. Retrieved 2020-08-23.
5. "IBM, Google and other tech leaders form O ~n_pOWER Consortium~(b!! s://www-03.ibm.com/pr
ess/us/en/pressrelease/41684.wss. www-03.ibm.com. August 6, 2013.
6. at 16:44, Timothy Prickett Morgan 6 Aug 2013. "IBM qpens ~p Power chips, ARM-style, to take on
Chipzilla" (https://~.ther~gist~r.~9.uk/2013/08/06/ibm_o ens up power chips~r:__11]~ty!~ to_!ak
e on chi zilla/ . www.theregister.co.uk.
7. Rosamilia, Tom (August 6, 2013). ~Qpen and Collaborative Development is the Future of Cloud
Computing"(https://web.archive.org/web/20160909231043/httpj/asmarterpf anet.com/blog/20_13/0
8/oi:>en-and-collaborative-development-is-the-futur~-of-cl.9ud-fQ..1:DPUting.html).IBM's A Sma1ter
Planet blog. Archived from the original (https://asmarteri:>lanet.com/blog/2013/08/open-and-collabo
rative-develo ment-is-the-future-of-cloud-com_Quting.html) on September 9, 2016. Retrieved
August 22, 2016.
8. Dignan, Larry. "IBM's O en Power consortium with Nvidia_!_ Google aims to advance datacen~r" _(ht
t s://www.zdnet.com/article/ibms-openpower-consortium-with-nvidia_:ggogle-aims-to-advance-dat~
center/). ZDNet.
9. Final draft of ~ower ISA EULA__(h1:!~~/l~P~Qpowerfoundation.org/final-draft-of-the-p_9.""'{~r-isa-eula-r
~leased/)
10. "QQenPOWER foundation The Next Ste in the O en POWER Foundation Journey" ~ttps://o~
npowerfoundation.org/the-next-step-in-the-openQower-foundation:journ~/).
11. Oi:>enPower Foundation Resource Catalog (https://openpowerfoundation.or /technical/resource-c
atalog_D
I
12. "IBM Form~ OpenPow~r Consortiu_m,Breathe~_New Life Into Po~~E'~{https://www:Ltj_l:J_l'}gle.~Q_ry,J?0
13/08/12/tfh081213-story01/). IT Jungle. August 12, 2013.
13. "NewsFactor" htt s://newsfactor.com/). NewsFactor.
14. Day 2 keynote and O enPOWER blows the doors off: Royalty-free,__9pensoft-core RISC-V
s_y1eating_gallons _(htti:>s://www.talospace.com/2019/08/day-2-keynote-and-o _enpower-blows-door
s.html)
15. Chiselwatt's ...§9~on Github https://github.com/antonblanchard/chi~el~~!!)
16. IBM (2020-06-27). "A2I_Q_Q (t1J!ps://github.co~/openpower-cores/a2i). IBM.
GitHuQ_'~
17. 0 enPOWER Foundation introduces IBM hardware and software contributions at O enPOWER
summit 2020 (.htt s://o en owerfoundation.or /ope_npower-foundation-introduces-ibm-hardware:9
nd-software-contributions-at-openpower-summit-2020[J
18. "O en Sourced BIOS Hel s Power8 Compet~ With X86" (b1:_!i:>s://www.enter~iseai.news/2014/07/
15/open-so~_ce_d-bios-helps-power8-compet~_-:.?@§L Ente,priseAI.
). July 15, 2014.
19. Miller, Michael (April 29, 2014). "SUSE Linux Ent~rise 12 and IBM POWER§" Qlt!P!?_:fl~•11'JVV,,':§l!~~-
com/c/suse-linux-enterprise-12-ibm-power8/). SUSE Communities.
20. King, Rachel. "IBM intros next-gen Power8 microprocessor, servers along_with OpenPower
roadmap~ https://www.zdnet.c.9m/article/ibm-intros-ne~-g-~n-i:>ower8-microgrocessor-s~rvers-algn
g-with-openpower-roadrriapjJ ZDNet.
21. "Adrian Chadd's Ramblil}_gs:_ FreeBSD on the POWE RB: it's _alive!" (htt~://adrianchadd.blogsp9t.c
om/20j 5/02/freebsd-on-: ower8-its-alive.html . February 22, 2015.
A184
0185
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-185 A185
s://wiki.freebsd.org/
22. "FreeBSD Wiki: POWER8" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170829073731/htt
POWER8 . Archived from the original htt s://wiki.freebsd.org/POWER8)_ on 2017-08-29.
Retrieved 2017-11-12.
23. "Collabora Online Unlocks the O enPOWER Architecture" htt~://www.cQ_llaboraoffice.com/press-
releases/collabora-online-unlocks-the-o en ower-architecture/). Col/abora Online. 26 October
2022. Retrieved 2022-10-28.
24. "LBM's new Power8 doubles erformance of Watson chi "_ htt s://www.Qcworld.idg.com.au/artcle/
5247§_8/ibm_new_power8_doubles_performance watsgn_c::_bl~- PC World.
25. Clark, Don (6 August 2013). ~!!:iM__Gets at 1ntel"_(IJ_t1P-s://www.ws·.~o!!:1/articl~s/S
Allies to C_b_[p_Away
B 100014241278873234_20604578650412] 19931232). Wall Street Journal.
26. "Altera Brings FPGA-based Acceleration to IBM Power System~~nd Announces SuQ_portfor
QpenPOWER Consortium - abc27 WHTM" htt s://archive.today/20131122122642/http://www.abc
27.com/story/23996554/altera-bring~-fpga-based-acceleration-t9-ibm-power-systems-and-announ
ces-support-for-openpower-consortium). Archived from the original (http://www.abc27.~Q!!.!/story/2
399_6554/altera-brings-fpga-based-accajeration-to-ibm:power-systems-and-a_Dnounces-supJ'.)ort-f_gr
-q.Pen_ower-consortium) on November 22, 2013. Retrieved January 20, 2014.
27. "China Tech Groups Embrace IB~POWER Technology~ (IJt!ps://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pre
www-03.ibm.com. January 19, 2014.
ssrelease/42989-='!:°VSS).
28. '_1TPro" _{https://www._i!Qrotoday.com/).www.itprotoday.com.
29. "Samsun Electronics Joins OpenPOWER foundation" (https://www-03.i~m.com/press/us/en/pres
srelease/43195.wss). www-03.ibm.com. February 12, 2014.
30. "Samsung joins IBM, Goog~ in OpenPower alliance" (htt s://~.p~world.com/article/f097300/~
~sung-·oins-ibm-google-in-Q_pelJ_ ower-alliance.html). PCWorld. February 12, 2014.
31. "Current members" (https://openpowerfoundation.org/membership/current-members/).
OpenPOWER.
32. "O enPOWER Foundation I OJ?enPOWER Gains Momentum Heading [!!to Second Year" htt s://o
pen powerfou ndation. org/open ower-toJ'.)s-off-first-year-vt_ith-80-members-worlq__wide-and-12-syste
ms-under-developmenV).
External links
■ Qp_enl:Qv'Y!=J~·~- (b!!ps://op~r:,_P.9_~~rfoundatiof1_.Q_l"g!)
horrie ~g_e__
■ QQenPOWER (https://github.com/o en-power on GitHub
■ 0 enPower Cores (bttps://github.com/o eni:>_ower-coreson GitHub
Retrieved from "https:/ /en. wikipedia .orgjw/index.ph p?title=OpenPOWER~Foundation&oldid= 1123350832"
A185
0186
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-186 A186
This is Exhibit " ~ " to the Affidavit of

A~
A~ Taking Affidavits
A186
3/12/23, 12:05 PM OpenPower-Kip-Warner-Cartesian-Theatre.jpg (153Qx695)
0187
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-187 A187
• , • I' 0 ';..• 'JI f) in D • I Sigr. up for ,·our OPF Passport I

Open POWER \Vbr~Jng Comacr Logm ♦J
About E,ems "!embers HUB Technical Blog Join
Groups Us
Machine Learning & AI SIG

WorkgroupDetails
Cha,r
Parnc1pat1on;"fen1bers~
Workgroup!nYolvmem
WorkgroupResources
A187
https://action4canada.com/wp-contentluploads/OpenPower-Kip-Warner-Cartesian-Theatre.jpg 1/1
3/12/23, 12:04 PM Kip-Warner-OpenPower.jpg (141 Ox705)
0188
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-188 A188
Open POWER ;,\·crkmg Co1~cacc

HL:8 Tec1mcal Blog Join
Groups Us
Kip Warner
A188
https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Kip-Warner-OpenPower.jpg 1/1
3/12/23, 12:05 PM OpenPower-Silver-Members.jpg (138Qx695)
0189
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-189 A189
0 .. C, r' (")';;: 'I O in a 41, S1gr.u;i for ·:our OPF Poss;on

Open POWER \rottmg Comacr
.-\boll[ HU: Techr.1cal Blog Join Log::: •J
Groups Us
:--remberLe,.·el S1!•,er'!embers
Registered Coumr::: Canada
Jotned four:da,1onm 2019
1.\"ortgroup parnc1pauon
A189
https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/OpenPower-Silver-Members.jpg 1/1
0190
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-190 A190
This is Exhibit ' .:r::"

to the Affidavit of
A190
3/12/23, 12:04 PM Linux-tie-to-WEF.jpg (1487x698)
0191
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-191 A191
WORLD
ECQNOMIC
FORUM
....__...
I f &i:h♦ ( Sign in )
A191
https://action4canada.com/wp-contenUuploads/Linux-tie-to-WEF.jpg 1/1
0192
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-192 A192
/
This is Exhibit ":J"to the Affidavit of
A~T::Affid' r g 1 av1ts
A192
3/11/23, 7:52 PM IBM is moving OpenPower Foundation to The Linux Foundation I TechCrunch
0193
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-193 A193
Join
Login
TachCnmch
Search '.1
TechCrunch+
Startups
Venture
Security
IBM is moving OpenPower Foundation to Al
Foundation Apps
Events
Ron Miller Advertise
@ron_miller I 10:12 AM PDT• August 20, 2019 More
IBM makes the Power Series chips, and as part of that has open-sourced some of the underlyin!
wider use of these chips. The open-source pieces have been part of the OpenPower Foundatior
announced it was moving the foundation under The Linux Foundation, and while it was at it, ann
sourcing several other important bits.
Ken King, general manager for OpenPower at IBM, says that at this point in his organization's e1
move it under the auspices of the Linux Foundation. "We are taking the Open Power Foundation
entity or project underneath The Linux Foundation with the mindset that we are now bringing mo
approach and open governance principles to the foundation," King told TechCrunch.
But IBM didn't stop there. It also announced that it was open-sourcing some of the technical und
Series chip to make it easier for developers and engineers to build on top of the technology. Perl
company is open-sourcing the Power Instruction Set Architecture (ISA). These are "the definitior
ensuring hardware and software work together on Power," the company explained.
King sees open-sourcing this technology as an important step for a number of reasons around Ii,
''The first thing is that we are taking the ability to be able to implement what we're licensing, the I
architecture, for others to be able to implement on top of that instruction set royalty free with palE
The comoanv is also oullino this under an ooen oovernance workorouo at the OoenPower Faun
Building a startup or looking for your next deal? We have you covered.
A193
https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/20/ibm-is-moving-openpower-foundation-to-the-linux-foundation/ 1/8
3/11/23, 7:52 PM IBM is moving OpenPower Foundation to The Linux Foundation I TechCrunch
0194
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-194
means in practice is that any changes will be subject to a majority vote, so long as the changes 1
A194
requirements, King said.
Join
Jim Zemlin, executive director at the Linux Foundation, says that making all of this part of the Lir l,.ogin
community could drive more innovation. "Instead of a very, very long cycle of building an applica
with hardware and chip designers, because all of this is open, you're able to quickly build your aI
hardware folks, and then work with a service provider or a company like IBM to take it to market. Search , ;
layers in between the actual innovation and value captured by industry in that cycle," Zemlin exp
TechCrunch+
In addition, IBM made several other announcements around open-sourcing other Power Chip le,
Startups
developers and engineers customize and control their implementations of Power chip technologi
Venture
multiple other technologies including a softcore implementation of the Power ISA, as well as refe
Security
architecture-agnostic Open Coherent Accelerator Processor Interface (OpenCAPI) and the Oper
Al
The OpenCAPI and OMI technologies help maximize memory bandwidth between processors aI
Apps
to overcoming performance bottlenecks for emerging workloads like Al," the company said in a s
Events
Advertise
The softcore implementation of the Power ISA, in particular, should give developers more contra More
build their own instruction sets, Hugh Blemings, executive director of the Open Power Foundatior
actually try crafting their own instruction sets, and try out new ways of the accelerated data proc1
lower level than previously possible," he said.
The company is announcing all of this today at the The Linux Foundation Open Source Summit
San Diego.
IBM's new Power9 chip was built for Al and machine learning
h a world that requires ;ncceas:ng amounts of rnr,pute ~O\•verto 1-andle the resou,ce-irte~si,,
intelligence and machine lea.-ning, IBM enrers the fray wit~ ;ts lateSc gereration Power cnip. :h
chips :o :hird-par,y manufacturers and ,o cloud vendors inclucing Google. llieanvmile. 'l's rele
m TechCrunch
April 20, 2023 Boston, MA
Register Now
A194
hltps://techcrunch.com/2019/08/20/ibm-is-moving-openpower-foundation-to-the-linux-foundation/ 2/8
Open POWER 0195
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-195 Join A195
h
11,J
'I
~
In
a
'
your OPEPaSS)l.OJ]
~gll..l.l12.fur
Today marks one of the most important days in the life of the OpenPOWER
Foundation. With !BMannouncing new contributions to the open source community
including the POWER Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) and key hardware reference
designs at Qpr•nPOWERSunrnltl N,mh Amert<"a·101u, the future has never looked
brighter for the POWER architecture.
FoundationAlignswithLinuxFoundation
OpenPOWER
The OpenPOWER Foundation will now join projects and organizations like OpenBMC,
CHIPS Alliance, OpenHPC and so many others within the Lim1>;Fmn\rlmlnn. The
Linux Foundation is the premier open source group, and we're excited to be working
more closely with them.
Since our founding in 2013, IEEE-ISTO has been our home, and we owe so much to
its team, It's as a result of!EEE-ISTO's support and guidance that we've been able to
expand to more than 350 members and that we're ready to take the next step in our
evolution. On behalf of our membership, our board of direcmrs and myself, we place
on record our thanks to the IEEE-ISTOteam.
By moving the POWER ISA under an open model - guided by the OpenPOWER
Foundation within the Linux Foundation - and making ic available to the growing
open technical commons, we'll enable innovation in the open hardware and software
space to grow at an accelerated pace. The possibilities for what organizations and
individuals will be able to develop on POWER through its mature ISA and software
ecosystem will be nearly limitless.
TheImpactof an OpenPOWERISA and OpenSourceDesigns

We've heard in the past that developing a full featured core like POWER can be
complicated - but that's not necessarily the case. In fact, we believe the open source
community can leverage the contriburions made by IBM racher quickly.
In addition to open sourcing the POWER ISA, IBM is also contributing a newly
developed softcore to the community. In a very short time, an IBM engineer was able
to develop a softcore on the POWER ISA, and get it up and running on a Xilinx FPGA
This softcore implementation is being demonstrated this week at OpenPOWER
Summit North America.
"This is the first tangible outcome of the opening of the POWER ISA," said Mendy
Furmanek, President, OpenPOWER Foundation and Director, OpenPOWER Processor
Enablement, IBM. "It's an example of the type of innovation that can be brought
forward by the community as a result of newly open-sourced contributions."
IBMis also contributing reference designs for OpenCAPI and Open Memory Interface
(OM[)to the open source community. OpenPOWER Foundation and Open CAP!
OfSh,iw~I
Consortium member Microchip Technology was recently awarded 1:)1><:!
Flu~hMr-nvn-v
Summit 2019 for its newly announced serial memory controller,
which leverages interface designs !BM is contributing.
A195
1/4
...
• 0196
Open POWER
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-196
,;ii
G A196
..)
1.QgiJJ...
b
Ii,#
'I
fl
m
a
'
~gll..ll12.furyour OPE PassllPJ1
• As the Chairman of the OpenPOWER Foundation Board of Directors, it's an honor

to share in such a tremendous moment with our community. The opening of the
POWER ISA and alignment of the Open POWER Foundation with the Linux
Foundation is a reflection of our mature, sustainable and growing ecosystem.
These changes will result in more consortia-driven initiatives and allow more
diverse, innovative products and solutions to be brought to market. - Artem
lkoev, Chairman of the OpenPOWER Foundation Board of Directors, Co-founder
and CTO, Yaw:!!
• "lnspur Power Systems has a rich portfolio based on both Power and
OpenPOWER that is realizing growth in the China market. Recently, lnspur
Power Systems has developed and announced industry-leading OpenPOWER
products in storage, datacenter, Al and big data. We receive positive feedback
from our customers citing TCO and performance advantages as well as value in
the openness of OpenPOWER technology and software stack. lnspur Power
Systems is very excited about the possibilities today's announcements offer to
the OpenPOWER ecosystem, our company and of course our clients. We
congratulate IBM and the OpenPOWER Foundation for showing leadership in
taking these steps." - John Hu, General Manager, Jlli.pur Power Sys.tcrlli;
• "AtRap tor Computing Systems our top priority has always been owner
controlled, auditable systems. The release of the POWER ISA is key to making
POWER the definitive go-to architecture not only for security-sensitive
applications, but for any application that is intended to last. With this single, vital
step, Rap tor Computing Systems can now offer truly high performance systems
with absolutely no compromises on user freedom. Make no mistake, this is a
milestone for the industry - computing as it should have been, and can be again,
thanks to IBM's willingness to embrace open systems and Raptor Computing
Systems' commitment to owner control." - Timothy Pearson, CTO, Ratl!.DI
I:.Qm121J.UJ)g.Sy..&e.m.5.
• "Atthe University of Oregon, we are committed to supporting the OpenPOWER

platform and developing tools that help improve the quality and efficiency of the
software developed on this platform. The tools developed at the University of
Oregon include the TAU Performance System(R), in use at supercomputing sites
around the world, for evaluating the performance of HPC and Al workloads. The
release of the POWER ISA is an important milestone in developing the software
ecosystem on the OpenPOWER platform." Sameer Shende, Director, Performance
Research Laboratory, .!.!.D..iYfil:fy....oi..OJ:egOJl
• "Wistron Enterprise Business Group has enjoyed a long and productive A196
relationship with the Open POWER Ecosystem and was one of the first members
of the Open POWER Foundation when we joined in 2014. We understand the
2/4
Open POWER ...
• 0197
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-197
:il= Join A197
h
!/,ft
~
~
In
a
'
~g[lJ.l[l.fur yollr OPEFassJ20il
usmess uroup, .'lilfilJ:QJl
• "Rambus joined the OpenPOWER Foundation in November of 2016 and has been
As
actively developing a research platform for hv.brjcjmemq1y-1l)l..sliilllS..
advocates for open hardware standards we're pleased to see the POWER ISA
opened up, a positive step for the overall ecosysrem and industry." - Gary
Bronner, Senior Vice President of Ramhus I.abs
• "SUSE has been part of the POWER/OpenPOWERstory From the start, with SUSE
Linux Enterprise Server being one of the first commercially supported
distributions on the architecture. As a long-time panicipant in open technical
communities, so[tware and more recently hardware, it's great to see IBMand the
OpenPOWER Foundation continuing their drive toward a truly open hardware
and software stack that's enterprise-ready. We look forward to the next
generation of systems resulting from these ongoing efforts." - Alan Clark,
Director of Industry lnitiatives, Emerging Standards and Open Source. fil.!S..!;;
• "We are delighted to see that OpenPOWER is continuing to forge ahead with
opening up every aspect of its computing architecture. This is allowing true
innovation from experts across the entire ecosystem toward a rapid product
development cycle that our industry desperately needs as we shift to
Heterogeneous Distributed Computing architecrures. In particular Molex &
BittWare are looking forward to potentially leveraging the new OM]. Open
Memory Interface, IP and DDIMMsin our future FPGA accelerators." - Allan
Grom,
151
Cantle, CTO. Molex
• "SmartDV'" Technologies, the proven and trusted choice for Verification

Intellectual Property (IP), is extremely excited to see OpenCAPI moving to an
open source IP model. OpenCAPI is an important new development that enables
data to move through the system more efficiently in the areas of accelerators,
networking and storage, as well as general compute off-load. We at SmartDV
believe that having an ecosystem where industry leaders can drive innovation
through an open environment is critical for mass adoprion and acceptance. And
at SmartDV we offer the first commercially available OpenCAPI Bus Functional
Model that supports OpenCAPI 3.0 as well as 3_1 to verify OpenCAPl initiatives
that includes an extensive test suite that performs random or directed protocol
tests to create a range of scenarios to effectively verify the design under test.
SmartDV is also offering a synthesizable OpenCAPI transactor for emulation
and/or FPGA prototyping as well as a System C version of the OpenCAPI Bus
Functional Model." - Barry Lazow, Vice President, Worldwide Sales and
Marketing, 'iuwrr[)\ Terhnotng~
A197
3/4
0198
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-198 A198
This is Exhibit "~,, to the Affidavit of

A~T~Affid. r g 1 av1ts
A198
0199
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-199 A199
From: "TANYA GAW" <tanyagaw@shaw.ca>
Subject: Fwd: BC Supreme Court COVID-19 Constitutional Challenge
Date: Thu, March 9, 2023 3:32 pm
To: "Rocco Galati" <rocco@idlrect.com>
From: "Gaw Tanya" <tanyagaw@shaw.ca>

To: "Rocco Galati" <rocco@idirect.com>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 9:53:54 AM
Subject: Fwd: BC Supreme Court COVID-19 Constitutional Challenge
From: Kip Warner <kip@thevertigo.com>

Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2020 7:56 PM
To: Action4Canada
Cc: Legal Action
Subject: BC Supreme Court COVID-19 Constitutional Challenge
Dear Tanya,
I was approached by one of your campaign organizers at today's

anada
Vancouver Freedom Rally. Thank you for your work in your Action4C
campaign.
I've organized a similar campaign your colleagues found of interest.

It
to
just went public about a day or two ago. They asked me to bring it
your attention.
https: //www .gofu ndme. com/f /bc-supreme-court-covid 19-constitutional-challenge
Our campaign has some common overlap with yours and some
dissimilarities - the largest probably being that we are non-partisan.
Ultimately though we are all trying to achieve a better world through
some different tools.
If you would like to learn more beyond what is available on the

campaign page, I'd be happy to correspond or take a call at 604-551-
7988 to discuss further.
Yours truly,
Kip Warner -- Senior Software Engineer

OpenPGP signed/encrypted mail preferred
https://www.thevertigo.com
Attachments:
untitled-[!]
Size:11.4 k
lfype:ltext/plain
A199
0200
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-200 A200
This is Exhibit"/.;.' to the Affidavit of

Rocco Galati, swam before me
A~
&~ Talting Affidavits
A200
0201
Subject: Fwd: Rocco ... Kip .... Defamatory comments toward you?
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-201 A201
Date: Fri, May 20, 2022 12:51 pm

Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 8:52:16 PM
Subject: Rocco ... Kip .... Defamatory comments toward you?
Dan Dicks form press for Truth sent me the following from Kip ...
~ - . -."~- ...... . - ~ ...

~ ,, - ~- ~..... - - - . ,,,,,,.,,,. ' ...- . ----,.•
From: "dan" <

To: "Gaw Tanya" <tanyagaw@shaw.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:23:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Notice of Civil Claim Filed in the Supreme Court of BC.
Hi Tanya, this was recently brought to my attention, what are your

thoughts on this? ...
-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Notice of Civil Claim Filed in the Supreme Court of BC.
Date: 2021-01-27 12:42
From: Gandhi <gandhi@vantam9.com>
To: dan
Hey Dan,
(Provincial Health Minister) as of Jan 26th, 2021. Please see link :

https ://www .scri bd .com/ docu ment/492256545/CSACPP-Certificate-of- Incorporation
Now that we have started the litigation process we are still in need of
for class actions, its the first to the court house that generally has
carriage of the file. If you would be so kind to- share with everyone so
to help the cause.
rt-covid 19-constitutional-cha llenge

A201
https: //www .gofu nd me .com/f /bc-supreme-cou
0202
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-202
This might interest you further.
A202
Here are some talking about regarding Action 4 Canada and Rocco(l)
Rocco isn't licensed to practise here in BC. He can always be
practise here in BC at this page:
< https ://www.lawsociety.be. ca/lsbc/apps/I kup/mbr-search .cfm >

Wong. He specializes in immigration law. He was sanctioned in 2010 for
< http ://can Iii .ca/t/2bz73>
< http ://canlii.ca/t/gfl0p#par7>
( 4) The same judgment questioned Rocco's competency in constitutional

law:
<http://canlii.ca/t/gf10p#par9>

professional designation in Canada, nor in particular in BC. That's not
to say, however, that a lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like
<https://tgam.ca/3n8Zuyo>
SG, vaccines, etc.) to obtain the order that he wants. This is how it
http ://can Iii .ca/t/8lld#sec9_5
(6) Rocco wants far too much money to get started. This seems in line
with (2);
of that time;
(8) Even if he won in Ontario, it wouldn't have any direct bearing on

92(13) of the constitution. In other words the Ontario Superior Court
See:
A202
(9) We are (CSASPP) a non-profit, non-partisan, and secular society. We 0203
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-203 A203
transparency;
To your best,
Attach men ts:

untitled-[1]
Size: .5 k
A203
0204
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-204 A204
This is Exhibit ""1"to the Affidavit of

A~
A204
Feb. 2. 2021 8:54AM DomusLegis No.9046 P. 1
0205
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-205 A205
OTADEL LAW CORPORATION Philip J. Dougan

1400-ll25 HOWE STREET Silvano S, Todesco
V ANCOUVEJR BC V6Z 2K8 Polina H. Furtula••
PH: 778-945-9990 Leah McKenzie-Brown*,
File No, 1502-1
January 29, 2021
VIA REGISTERED MAIL, FAX, & EMAIL (rocco@idirect.com)
Rocco Galati
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Sir:
Re: Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science In Public Policy v, Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia et al, SCBC Vancouver Registry File
No. S210831
Thank you for speaking with me on December 14, 2020 and the invitation to participate in the
constitutional challenge your client was contemplating.
Since then, we were retained by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
Policy, to advance the interests of British Columbians with respect to the provincial government's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Please find enclosed the filed Notice of Civil Claim in this respect,
I understand that your clients have not filed any materials. Doing so at this point may cause
unnecessary delay and procedural issues in advancing our client's claim. Howevsr, there may
be an opportunity to collaborate at a later date.
Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Yours very truly,
CITADEL LAW CORPORATION

v)j//
1,.,
ft•/
POL\NA H. FURTULA
*Denote& Law Corporation CITADELLAW CORPORATION

•Associate Counsel 1400-1125 Howe Slreet, Vencol.J\/er,BC V(fl.. 21<.8
1W-256 WallaceStreet, Nsnaimo, BC WR 563
eturtula@c~ac!ellawvers.ea
Polina Furtula 77!1--945-QQOO A205
1
0206
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-206 A206
Toronto, Canada M6H 1A9
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
February 3, 2021
SENT VIA EMAIL
Polina Furtula
Citadel Law Corporation
1400-1125 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6Z 2K8
Email: pfurtula@citadellawyers.ca
Dear Ms. Furtula, \___
RE: Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia et al, SCBC Vancouver; Registry File
NO: S210831
Thanks for your letter, dated January 29 '\ 2021 and attached Notice of Action.
1
I frankly do not understand how my clients filing their action "may cause unnecessary delay and
procedural issues in advancing our [your] client's claim". Ours is not a class action proceeding
and your client(s) do not hold a monopoly over COVID-19 litigation in B.C.
When we spoke a few months ago, you knew that our claim was in the works. (Without meaning
to offend, I am not wholly impressed by your Statement of Claim).
I am less impressed by statements being made by Mr. Kip Warner, which have reached me, and
which I attach to this letter. As it appears that he is your instructing client, I write you directly.
Please advise Mr. Warner that his comments are highly defamatory and if he does not issue a full
and unmitigated apology, I have instructed my counsel to issue a defamation suit here in Ontario.
His statements are beyond the pale.
Yours very truly,
Per:
~ (_-
Rocco Galati, BA, LL.B, LL.M.
RG*sc
Encls.
A206
0207
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-207 A207
This is Exhibit "..i" to the Affidavit of

A7o:iss::;;: Taking Affidavits

A207
0208
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-208 A208
Rocco Galati & Related:
We receive communications regularly from Mr. Galati's past donors with

concerns. We are asked what became of the substantial funds that the
community raised for him or his third-party fundraising arms. We do not
have any information, were not involved in raising funds for either, nor
did we ever seek to retain Mr. Galati. If you have concerns about his
conduct, any member of the general public can submit an electronic
A208
complaint to the Ontario Law Society to initiate a formal investigation. 0209
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-209 A209
turn retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual. However, then
you are paying for two law firms. Anyone can verify whether a lawyer is
licensed to practise law in British Columbia here.
We were advised directly by Mr. Galati himself that the lawyer he wished
to retain in British Columbia is Lawrence Wong. Mr. Wong was personally
sanctioned in 2010 for his conduct by a Federal Court judge with a fine.
A Federal Court judge noted in his reasons for judgment that some of Mr.
Galati's billings were "excessive and unwarranted" in a separate

Is this a constitutional challenge or a proposed class

action?
Our current civil proceeding is both a constitutional challenge and a
proposed class proceeding. The options are not necessarily mutually

exclusive.
The longer a plaintiff's claim, the more likely they are to

prevail. Right?
Isn't it really expensive to go to court? A209

0210
Why don't you go afterthe federal government or the
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-210 A210
Prime Minister personally?
Can more than one similar class action co-exist?
Generally not.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice already ruled that there should not
be two or more class actions that proceed in respect of the same
putative class asserting the same cause or causes of action, and one
action must be selected. The commencement of multiple class actions
What about vaccines, 5G, Bill Gates, and China? Do you

intend to make an issue of these things in your
campaign?
Are you affiliated with the evangelical movement?
All Questions:
How do I join your proposed class action?
Why are you using GofundMe?
What kind of information is helpful for you in your

work?
What kind of information is not helpful for you in your

work?
A210
0211
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-211 A211
Is this a constitutional challenge or a proposed class
action?
Our current civil proceeding is both a constitutional challenge and a

proposed class proceeding. The options are not necessarily mutually
exclusive.
What is the current status of your litigation?
What are you doing to help those seeking alternative

or complementary medical treatments?
Isn't it really expensive to go to court?
We receive communications regularly from Mr. Galati's past donors with

concerns. We are asked what became of the substantial funds that the
community raised for him or his third-party fundraising arms. We do not
have any information, were not involved in raising funds for either, nor
did we ever seek to retain Mr. Galati. If you have concerns about his
conduct, any member of the general public can submit an electronic
complaint to the Ontario Law Society to initiate a formal investigation.
turn retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual. However, then
you are paying for two law firms. Anyone can verify whether a lawyer is
licensed to practise law in British Columbia here.
A211
0212
We were advised directly by Mr. Galati himself that the lawyer he wished
to retain in British Columbia is Lawrence Wong. Mr. Wong was personally A212
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-212
sanctioned in 2010 for his conduct by a Federal Court judge with a fine.
A Federal Court judge noted in his reasons for judgment that some of Mr.
Galati's billings were "excessive and unwarranted" in a separate

in Canada, nor in particular in British Columbia. That is not to say that a
Generally not.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice already ruled that there should not
be two or more class actions that proceed in respect of the same
putative class asserting the same cause or causes of action, and one
action must be selected. The commencement of multiple class actions
Are you affiliated with the Q Anon movement?
Why aren't you using common law courts of the

freeman-on-the,;,.land movement, the Sovereign
movement, or another variation of the de-taxer
movement instead of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia?
A212
0213
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-213
Do you issue tax receipts to donors? A213
Who is your lawyer?
Are any of your staff paid?
How do you store donor funds?
I have really important information I need to get to you.

How can I do this?
I am a whistleblower with sensitive information for you.

How can I provide it?
I am a whistleblower. Can you provide me with legal

advice prior to disclosure?
If the law already says the government can do certain

things, then what is the point of a legal challenge?
Why don't you go after the federal government or the

Prime Minister personally?
Are you anti-vaccination?
What about vaccines, 5G, Bill Gates, and China? Do you

intend to make an issue of these things in your
campaign? A213
0214
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-214 A214
Do you have a Telegram channel?
Do you have a WhatsApp channel?
Are you a federal or provincial non-profit?
I need individual legal representation. Can you help?
May I use either your name or emblem for commercial

purposes?
I am a journalist, blogger, talk show host or similar.

Can I interview somone from CSASPP?
I represent an interest group in our community. How

can I provide input into your process?
What about expert reports? Won't you need those?
The longer a plaintiff's claim, the more likely they are to

prevail. Right?
I am running for public office. Will you endorse me?
A214
0215
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-215 A215
CSASPP is a non-profit entity incorporated under the

CSASPP is released
Societies Act, SBC 2015,c 18.All information
under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, © CSASPP,unless
f@a marked otherwise. The CSASPPnames and emblem have

registrations pending
copyright and trademark
~
respectively.
CSASPP is not responsible for the accuracy, adequacy or

completeness of information on this website. CSASPP
makes no warranties of any kind, express or implied
(including warranties of fitness for a particular purpose)
and shall not be liable for any loss arising out of use of this
information, including without limitation any indirect or
consequential damages.
A215
0216
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-216 A216
This is Exhibit "() " to the Affidavit of

A~
&~ Taking Affidavits
A216
0217
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-217 393 University Intake & Resolution
A217
Law Society Barreau Avenue, Suite 1100 Professional Regulation
of Ontario de I 'Ontario Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1£6
https://www.lso.ca
May 19, 2022
Private & Confidential
Sent via email only: rocco@idirect.com
Rocco Galati
Barrister & Solicitor
Rocco Galati Law Firm
Professional Corporation
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:
Re: Subject: Rocco Galati

Complainant: Donna Toews
Case No.: 2022-261151
The Law Society has received a complaint from Donna Toews, which has been assigned
to me. I have attached a copy of the Complaint Form and related materials (including
unredacted documents) for your review.
I am collecting information, pursuant to subsection 49.3 (1) of the Law Society Act, in
order to assess the merits of the complaint. I request the following from you by June 2,
2022:
Please provide me with an explanation with respect to the regulatory issues raised:
• Misleading
• Did not act with integrity
Please provide the following information with supporting documentation where

possible:
• Please advise what happened to the funds that Ms. Toews donated to Vaccine
Choice Canada and Action4Canada, i.e., where were these funds directed to
specifically?
• What is the relationship between you and Vaccine Choice Canada and
Action4Canada? What is your role within these organizations?
• When Ms. Toews made her donations to these organizations, did she sign any
forms? If so, please provide these.
A217
0218
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-218
• Please advise: A218
► How much monies have been raised through donations to support the
constitutional challenges?
► In what form have these monies been received?
► Are these funds being held in trust?
► Have/are these funds been applied for their intended purpose? Please
explain.
• What is the status of the constitutional challenge(s) that these funds are
supporting? Are you personally involved in all the legal challenges?
• Are you or another entity providing regular updates to donors? If so, how often
and in what form are these updates provided?
• Please respond to Ms. Toews' allegations that:
► She received no information about the progress of the constitutional
litigation until after almost 18 months
► Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada and a third organization in Quebec
have raised approximately $3,500,000 to finance litigation in Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec.
► She was not invited to any 'members only' meetings with you as Vaccine
Choice Canada had advised.
If you have additional documents and/or other information that you think will be of
assistance, please forward them to me as well. Once I am in receipt of the information, I
may be telephoning you to discuss the issues raised in the complaint.
A decision about whether to refer this complaint to Investigation Services will be made
on the basis of the information available when the review is completed.
The Law Society requires your prompt and complete response to this correspondence,
as per your obligation under Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
While the Law Society has not sought powers pursuant to subsection 49.3(2) of the Law
Society Act, which would compel you to provide the above information, please be
advised that we may pursue this option if necessary.
Communicating with the Law Society
The Intake & Resolution department works electronically and the best way to
communicate with us is by email. Please advise us if you require Law Society
communications in an alternative format that is accessible, or if you require other
arrangements to make Law Society services accessible to you.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this letter.
Yours truly,
Sharon Greene
Intake & Resolution Counsel A218
0219
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-219
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2296
A219
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Email: sgreene@lso.ca
A219
5/19/22, 5:18 PM
0220
LSO Complaint Form
From: "dawnallll" <dawnallll@protonmail.com>

.. 06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-220
Subject: LSO Complaint Form
A220
Date: Sat, January 15, 2022 9:37 am
To: "Mailbox Complaints Department" <Comail@lso.ca>
Cc: "Gavin@mackenziebarristers.com" <Gavin@mackenziebarrlsters.com >, "Kip@thevertigo.com"
< Kip@thevertigo.com >
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the LSO. Exercise caution before clicking links, opening
attachments, or responding.
To whom it may concern, please see attached forms re: Rocco Galati.
Thank you so much for your time and I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
Sincerely,
Donna Toews
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
------- Original Message -------

On Saturday, January 15th, 2022 at 8:25 AM, dawna toews <dawnatoews@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dawna Toews
Health/Life/Biz/Soul Coach
Ask me about essential oils!
DoTerra Canadian Founder ~ Presidential Diamond
Begin forwarded message:
From: dawna toews <dawnatoews@hotmail.com>

Date: January 15, 2022 at 2:04:08 AM EST
To: Kip Warner <kip@thevertigo.com>
Cc: Gavin MacKenzie <gavin@mackenziebarristers.com>, Denise Berton
< Denise@mackenziebarristers.com >
Subject: Re: LSO Complaint Form
'
Okay. Will do this first thing in the morning. : )
Dawna
On Jan 14, 2022, at 9:00 PM, Kip Warner <kip@thevertigo.com> wrote:
Hey Donna,
I've enclosed the complaint package. You don't need to do anything at

this point other than to submit it to the Law Society. Please take
these attachments and email them to comail@lso.ca. Please bee Gavin and
I so we have a record of the submission.
Any communications you receive from the LSO please forward to Gavin and
I, if you wish. We will discuss what to do next and he may end up
corresponding with them if necessary at a later date.
Yours truly,
A220
5/19/22, 5:18 PM
0221
LSO Complaint Form
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-221 A221
https://clicktime.symantec.com/32dpdp2XAW5UubNwSvjQiKL6xU?
u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thevertigo.com
Attachments:
untitled-[3.1.1]
Size:12.5 k
Type :!text/plain
Complaint Form.pdf
Size: 742 k
Type: application/pdf
Info: Complaint Form.pdf
1 - Email Exchanges June 2020 Redacted.pdf
Size: 264 k
Info: 1 - Email Exchanges June 2020 Redacted.pdf
2 - Statement of Claim redacted .pdf
Size: 20 M
Info: 2 - Statement of Claim redacted .pdf
3 - Email Exchanges Dec 2021 to Jan 2022 Redacted.pdf
Size: 22 k
Info: 3 - Email Exchanges Dec 2021 to Jan 2022 Redacted.pdf
-------
A221
httn~::://wAhm::::iil lnnk' ,..~/hinh/c-r'f'\/nrint,·u• f'.. j,.....,,.llu --: ........... -""-------' - _, • ' "'" ...
0222
Law Society Barreau
of Ontario
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-222
de I'Ontario A222
Complaint Form
Information Sheet
What types of complaints will the Law Society deal with?
As the regulator of the legal professions in Ontario, we receive and respond to written complaints
about lawyers and paralegals licensed by the Law Society. We also respond to information about
unlicensed practitioners who are providing legal services or practising law.
We deal with a range of professional conduct matters. Examples include delay, failure to reply to
communications, rude and discriminatory behaviour, not accounting for money or improperly handling it,
and not reporting on a transaction.
We cannot assist with every kind of complaint; there are some things we do not have the legal authority to
deal with.
After we review your Complaint Form, we will let you know if we are able to help.
Here is some information about other resources you can consider even if the Law Society is not able to
help you.
• If you need legal services, you need to contact a lawyer or licensed paralegal.
• If you believe the fees charged by your lawyer were too high, contact the Assessment Office of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If you believe the fees charged by your paralegal were too high,
you may wish to contact the Small Claims Court. (Currently the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court
is limited to claims of $35,000 or less.)
• In addition to making a complaint to the Law Society you may also wish to explore the availability of
other options, such as the civil and/or criminal justice system. If you believe that the lawyer or
paralegal's conduct may constitute a criminal offence, please consider reporting it to the police.
Please note that the Law Society cannot pay you money or make a lawyer or paralegal pay you money
because of a lawyer or paralegal's mistake. If you believe a lawyer or paralegal has made a mistake, you
will have to deal directly with them or you may have to sue the lawyer or paralegal. You may wish to seek
legal advice about your options.
For more information, visit the 'Public Resources' section of the Law Society website, at http://www.lso.ca.
Confidentiality
In fairness to the lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about, we will share with them some or all of the
information you give us. We may give copies of documents received from you or any other person to the
lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about. We may also need to share personal information (such as
names, addresses and telephone numbers) with the lawyer or paralegal.
Complaints and investigations are otherwise confidential unless the Law Society has begun regulatory
proceedings.
September 2020 A222

Page 1
Law Society ' Barreau
0223
of Ontario de I'Ontario
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-223 A223
What you need to do

1. Complete the Complaint Form.
If the space provided for any answer is insufficient, include a separate document with further details
when you send it.
2. Gather any documents that relate to your complaint.

Include any documents that you think will help us understand your complaint (and direct us to the
parts that you think are important). Note that we may not be able to access documents through file-
sharing services such as Google Docs, Dropbox or OneDrive.
3. Send the completed Complaint Form with copies of relevant documents (do not send originals) and
any additional details by email to comail@lso.ca or mail to:
Law Society of Ontario
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West Toronto ON MSH 2N6
Attention: Complaints & Compliance
What happens next?

We will promptly send you a letter to let you know we received your complaint. Your complaint is assigned
a file number, which will be indicated in the letter.
Each complaint will be carefully reviewed and assessed. For information about this process, visit our
website: https://www.lso.ca/complaints.
If we cannot help with a complaint or deal with it as a professional conduct matter, we will let you know. We
will keep you informed about the status of your complaint.
Our commitment to a respectful environment

The Law Society is committed to communicating with you in a respectful, professional and civil manner.
Similarly, we expect the same courtesy from others.
We understand that the complaint process and the circumstances that give rise to complaints can be
stressful. However, we will not accept racist, discriminatory or harassing behaviour or profane
communications.
The Law Society is required by law to protect staff from harassing, discriminatory and threatening
behaviour. Please note that repeated behaviour of this kind will result in the Law Society restricting
communications or no longer communicating with you beyond advising you of the outcome of your
complaint.
Questions?
If you have any questions about how to file your complaint, please call the Client Service Centre at
416-947-3310 or 1-800-268-7568. Please note we cannot discuss your personal situation until you have
provided your Complaint Form to us.
With very limited exceptions, you must bring your complaint to us within three years of the date the problem
occurred or the date that you became aware of it.
A223
September 2020 Page 2
Law Society Barreau
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
0224
File Number
of Ontario de I 'Ontario
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-224 Lawyer/Paralegal Name
A224
Law Society Number
when you send the Complaint Form.
1. Information about you (the "Complainant")

Are you complaining for yourself or on behalf of a company or other entity?
@ Yourself O Company/Other Entity
Complainant Name
First Name Middle Name
I Donna
Last Name
Toews
Salutation
0 Mr. @ Ms. 0 Mrs. 0 Dr. 0 Other (Specify)

----------------
Mailing Address
Number, Street, P.O. Box, UniUApartment Number

1O Garth Street
City Province/Territory Postal Code
Guelph Jontario N1H 2G3
Contact Information
Home Phone Work Phone Cell/Contact Phone Fax Number

864-77 4-9389
Personal Email Work Email

May we contact you at work?
@ Yes O No
Company Information (if applicable)
Company Name
Contact First Name Contact Last Name Contact Position
A224
Law Society Barreau
0225
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-225 A225
2. Information about the lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about

D Select if you are complaining about more than one lawyer or paralegal
NOTE: Attach a separate Complaint Form for each lawyer or paralegal that you are complaining about.
Lawyer or Paralegal
(!) Lawyer O Paralegal O Unknown

Name and Contact Information
First Name Last Name Work Phone

Rocco Galati 416-530-9684
Mailing Address
Number, Street, P.O. Box, Unit/Apartment Number

Toronto jontario M6H 1A9
3. Complainant and lawyer or paralegal relationship

a. What is your relationship to the lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about?
Examples can include: client, client of opposing lawyer or paralegal, opposing lawyer or paralegal,
employed by lawyer or paralegal, family member, other (specify)
Donor in response to fundraising requests to finance proceeding commenced by Mr. Galati.
b. Did you hire this lawyer or paralegal?

0 Yes @ No
If you hired this lawyer or paralegal:

' If there are any documents that show you hired the lawyer or paralegal, please attach a copy.
(For example: retainer agreement, letter, cheque payable to the lawyer or paralegal.)
When was the lawyer or paralegal hired?
What was the lawyer or paralegal hired to do?
Is the matter completed?
0 Yes O No
A225
---.l.aw Society Barreau
0226
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-226 A226
Is the lawyer or paralegal still working for you?
0 Yes O No
If you did not hire this lawyer or paralegal:
Who did/does the lawyer or paralegal act for?
Plaintiffs in legal proceeding mentioned below, including Vaccine Choice Canada.
How are you involved?

I donated funds to Vaccine Choice Canada to help finance the proceeding.
If the person you are complaining about is not your lawyer or paralegal, do you have your own lawyer or
paralegal?
0 Yes (!) No
Name and Contact Information for Your Lawyer or Paralegal (if applicable)
May we speak to your lawyer or paralegal about this complaint?

0 Yes ONo
c. What area of law/legal services does your complaint relate to? (Select all that apply)
D Real Estate
0 Civil Litigation
D Corporate / Commercial I Business
D Matrimonial/ Family
D Administrative/ Immigration
D Estates / Wills
D Other - Specify:
If you are complaining about an estate:
Are you the Estate Trustee or the Executor?

0 Yes O No
If no, who is the Estate Trustee or the Executor?
Are you a beneficiary?

0 Yes O No
A226
Law Society Barreau
0227
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-227 A227
d. Does your complaint Involve a matter before a Court or a tribunal?
® Yes O No
What is the name of the Court or tribunal? (For example, Ontario Court of Justice, Small Claims Court,
Landlord and Tenant Board.)
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
What city is the Court or tribunal located in?

Toronto
What is the Court or tribunal file number? (If known)

CV-20-00643451-0000
What is the status?

® Ongoing O Complete
A227
0228
LawSociety Barreau
of Ontario
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-228
de I'Ontario A228
4. Your complaint
a. Please tell us about your complaint (4,000 characters maximum)

On June 19, 2020, I donated $1000 in my husband's name to Vaccine Choice Canada with specific
instructions to give the donation to the Legal Fund headed by Mr. Galati, who was preparing a claim
seeking relief on behalf of Canadians wronged by the actions of government officials and others because
of Covid-19. I also donated 1000 to Action4Canada, which was soliciting donations to fund a similar
lawsuit in British Columbia. I understand that Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada, and a third
organization in Quebec have raised approximately $3,500,000 to finance litigation in Ontario, British
Columbia, and Quebec.Vaccine Choice Canada confirmed that my donation had gone to its Legal Fund to
support its legal fees for the constitutional challenge to be brought by Mr. Galati. As VCC suggested, I
"added a membership to my file" so that I would be invited to members only meetings with Mr. Galati. (This
email exchange is attached. I have redacted my name and other Information that may identify me).Mr.
Galati commenced the action on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada and other plaintiffs on July 6, 2020. Mr.
Galati stated during a media interview that he would be sure that an interim hearing would be held before
December 2020.1 received no information about the progress of the litigation until almost 18 months later. I
was not invited to any members only meetings with Mr. Galati in the meantime. No interim hearing has
been held, and no Statements of Defence have been delivered as far as I can determine. No default
proceedings have been taken. In fact, I do not know whether the defendants have even been served with
the Statement of Claim.I wrote to Vaccine Choice Canada on December 20, 2021, to ask whether anything
had come of the lawsuit and whether the Court had seen it yet. Vaccine Choice Canada replied on
January 2, 2022, that "our case filed in the summer of 2020 has not had a hearing yet. The lawyer is
working backstage, but he does not want to tell anything of what he is doing so that he does not give any
opportunity to the enemy." (This email exchange is attached. I have redacted my name and other
information that may identify me).I do not know the relationship between Vaccine Choice Canada, or
Action4Canada, and Mr. Galati, other than that Mr. Galati is representing them in the litigation. No financial
statements of VCC have been filed with Corporations Canada as of December 22, 2021. I do not know
how much of the funds raised by these organizations have been turned over to Mr. Galati in trust, how
much he has been paid, or what he expects to result from the claim he has started (but, evidently,
neglected to pursue).
A228
;! L:aw Society
(;:.-,:,._ ' Barreau
0229
·\:._
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-229
/ of Ontario de I'Ontario A229
b. Please list the documents you are sending. (NOTE: Do not send originals.)
(4,()00characters maximum)
1. Email exchanges between Vaccine Choice Canada and me in June 20202. Statement of Claim in
Ontario Superior Court dated July 6, 2020.3. Email exchanges between Vaccine Choice Canada and me
in December 2021 and January 2022.
A229
LawSociety
0230
Barreau
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-230 A230
c. What do you hope will happen as a result of your complaint? (4,000 charactersmaximum)
I would like the Law Society to investigate to determine what has become of the funds I and other donors
provided to finance this litigation and to inform me of the results of its investigation. If the Law Society's
investigation reveals that the litigation has not proceeded or that the funds raised from donors have not
been applied for their intended purpose, or both, I would hope that the Law Society would request or
require that Mr. Galati return the funds. In summary, I hope that Mr. Galati will be held accountable.
Please note that I do not want Mr. Galati to be informed of my identity, but rather only that the Law Society
has received a request from a donor that it investigate what he has done with the funds that have been
donated.
A230
0231
Law Society Barreau
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-231
of Ontario I de I 'Ontario A231
5. Acknowledgment and Consent

Before completing this Acknowledgment and Consent, please make sure you read the attached
Information Sheet.
0' By checking this box, I confirm that I am the Complainant named in Section 1, and that I have read
and understand the following:
I understand that the Law Society will share some or all of the information and documents that it
receives from me and other parties with the lawyer or paralegal complained about.
I agree to the Law Society sharing and providing copies of information and documents that it receives
from me with the lawyer or paralegal complained about. I understand that if I do not agree, the Law
Society may be unable to process my complaint.
I understand that the Law Society may not be able to process my complaint without supporting
documents. I have attached copies of documents that support my complaint.
I understand that the Law Society may keep digital recordings of voice mail messages as part of the
complaint file.
Donna Toews 2022 / 01 / 13
Name of Complainant Date Completed
Signature of Complainant
Note: If you are filing this complaint for another person who was the lawyer's or paralegal's client or who
was the party directly affected by the lawyer's or paralegal's conduct, we may need a signed authorization
from this other person in order to proceed with the complaint. There is an authorization form (PDF)
available on our website. (You do not need a file number to complete the form.) If you hold power of
attorney for the other person, you can include a copy of the power of attorney with the Complaint Form.
416-947-3310 or 1-800-268-7568. Please note: We cannot discuss your personal situation until you
have provided your Complaint Form to us.
A231
0232
- -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-232 A232
To: Richard
Thomas
Cc:
Subject: Re: Needemail
Date: Sunday,January02, 2022 10:03:14 PM
Amount Donated: $1000 to VCC with specific instructions to give to legal fund headed
by Rocco Galati
Date Given: June 19th 2020
I will send you the correspondence I have had with VCC and their affirmation of giving
to the legal fund on a
separate email.
I also donated $1000 to Action4Canada but did not specify where to spend it so that would be
irrelevant here.
-
Hope this helps. Look for my separate email following this one.
> On Dec 21, 2021, at4:54 PM, > wrote:

>
>Hey-
>
> Thanks for agreeing to help us help you recover your donor funds from
> Rocco. Rick informed me this afternoon you are amenable, but would like
> to remain anonymous.
>
> I don't know if our lawyer Jonathan Reilly will think anonymity is
> possible, but I will ask him before relying on any information you
> provide.
>
> The law society can likely investigate, and should investigate, both
> Action4Canada and VCC. In the mean time can you please email Rick and
> cc me under separate cover an email Jonathan can rely on. It should
> stale the fol lowing: Who you are, the amount donated, to who,
when,
> how, what you were told about how the funds would be spent, any
> inquiries you made to learn what became of the donation, and any
> substantive response received.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> --
A232
0233
-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-233 A233
To:
Subject:
I
Fwd: Donation
Date: Sunday, January 02, 2022 9:58:06 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
From: info@vaccinechoicecanada.com
Subject: Re: Donation
Date: December 20, 2021 at 7:05:43 PM EST
>
Hello,-.
The lawsuits are not a quick fix. If you remember well, the Adam Skelly lawsuit
that had a quick hearing was also a quick fix, not for us. The hearing last 30
minutes and the courts dismissed it saying they had no jurisdiction to rule on
the case.
Our case filed in the summer of 2020 has not had a hearing yet. The lawyer
is
working backstage, but he does not want to tell anything of what he is doing
so
that he does not give any opportunity to the enemy. If if we just said we are
confident or we are not confident, it is enough to give metadata to the enemy.
The other thing to consider is that the situation we are facing now is new for
everybody, even for the lawyers who are navigating it in the dark, without case
precedences to guide them.
Rocco always said that the courts are not the solution; they are slow and they
are part of the system. The cases we have had access to the ruling are not
being ruled with the law, but with the system. Also, the independence of the
courts can not be taken for granted. The courts have been imposing restrictio
ns
on those who work for them or attend their hearings. Can you say they are
independent?
It is important to file the lawsuits, so that we have our side of the story in the
system and maybe we will find a courageous judge or jury, who will stand up
against the system with us.
The lawsuits will not help you in the short-term. Do not think you can make
a
donation and be a contributing party on the lawsuit, sit in your home and wait
for the lawsuit to solve your problems. They won't. I donated to the lawsuit
too,
so I know how frustrating it is.
All the best,
Eloa
A233
0234
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-234 A234
Please note: Neither I, nor any representatives of VCC, are
permitted to give medical, nutritional or legal advice. The
responses provided herein are for information purposes only.
On 2021-12-20 17:28, wrote:

Can you tell me if anything came of this lawsuit? Did the courts see this yet?
-
Thank you for your time,
From: >
Sent: June 22, 2020 12:51 PM
To: info@vaccinechojcecanada.com
<lnfo@vaccinechoicecanada.com>
Yes please add a membership to my file. Thank you for all you are doing.
On Jun 19, 2020, at 1:46 PM, info@vaccinechojcecanada.com wrote:
Hello-
Thank you so very much for your generous donation. I can confirm with
you that your donation is going to our "Legal Fund" which is going directly
toward our legal fees for our upcoming Constitutional Challenge, which
should be filed next week. Details are here:
https: //vacci nechoicecanada. com/i n-the-news/vcc-an nou nces-lega I-action/
If you would like me to add a membership to your file please let me know, I
can do that as well, and you will be invited to member only meetings which
most of the time include our lawyer Rocco Galati. The next meeting is
tomorrow at 7 PM Ontario time.
Please let us know if you have any further questions!
Kindest regards,
Rita Hoffman
Vaccine Choice Canada
On 2020-06-19 10:05, wrote:

I I just made a donation in my husband's name, but it did not allow me to A234
0235
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-235 A235
specify what I wanted to donate to.
I live in the city of Guelph and we have contacted VCC who will be
supporting us in our fight here.
I am not sure if the money we donated can go directly to this cause but
that was my hope. It did not have a means to specify. Is that at all
possible?
Thank you for all you do. <3
A235
0236
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-236 A236
From: Dawna
Toews
To: KipWarner
Subject: Fwd: Donation
Date: Sunday,January 02, 2022 9:58:06 PM
Attachments: PastedGraohic-
Uiff
From: info@vaccinechoicecanada.com
Date: December 20, 2021 at 7:05:43 PM EST
To: dawna toews <dawnatoews@hotmail.com>
Hello, Dawna.
The lawsuits are not a quick fix. If you remember well, the
Adam Skelly lawsuit
that had a quick hearing was also a quick fix, not for us. The
hearing last 30
minutes and the courts dismissed it saying they had no jurisdic
tion to rule on
the case.
Our case filed in the summer of 2020 has not had a hearing
yet. The lawyer is
working backstage, but he does not want to tell anything of
what he is doing so
that he does not give any opportunity to the enemy. If if we
just said we are
confident or we are not confident, it is enough to give metada
ta to the enemy.
The other thing to consider is that the situation we are facing
now is new for
everybody, even for the lawyers who are navigating it in the
dark, without case
precedences to guide them.
Rocco always said that the courts are not the solution; they
are slow and they
are part of the system. The cases we have had access to the
ruling are not
being ruled with the law, but with the system. Also, the indepe
ndence of the
courts can not be taken for granted. The courts have been imposin
g restrictions
on those who work for them or attend their hearings. Can you
say they are
independent?
It is important to file the lawsuits, so that we have our side of the

story in the
system and maybe we will find a courageous judge or jury,
who will stand up
against the system with us.
The lawsuits will not help you in the short-term. Do not think
you can make a
donation and be a contributing party on the lawsuit, sit in your
home and wait
for the lawsuit to solve your problems. They won't. I donate
d to the lawsuit too,
so I know how frustrating it is.
All the best,
Eloa
A236
0237
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-237 A237
Please note: Neither I, nor any representatives of VCC, are
permitted to give medical, nutritional or legal advice.
responses The
provided herein are for information purposes only.
On 2021-12-20 17:28, dawna toews wrote:

Can you tell me if anything came of this lawsuit? Did the courts see
this yet?
Thank you for your time,
Dawna
From: DawnaToews<dawnatoews@hotmail.com>
---------------
Sent: June 22, 2020 12:51 PM
To: info@vaccinechoicecanada.c<info@v
om accjnechojcecanada com>
Yes please add a membership to my file. Thank you for all you are
doing.
Dawna Toews
Dawnatoews
.com
Canadian doTERRA Founder and Presidential Diamond
Holistic Health Coach
Ask me about Essential Oils!
On Jun 19, 2020, at 1:46 PM, info@vaccinechoicecanada.com wrote:
Hello Dawna,
Thank you so very much for your generous donation. I can confirm
with
you that your donation is going to our "Legal Fund" which is going
directly
toward our legal fees for our upcoming Constitutional Challenge, which
should be filed next week. Details are here:
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/jn-the-news/vcc-announces-legal-actio
n/
If you would like me to add a membership to your file please let me
know, I
can do that as well, and you will be invited to member only meeting
s which
most of the time include our lawyer Rocco Galati. The next meeting
is
tomorrow at 7 PM Ontario time.
Please let us know if you have any further questions!
Kindest regards,
Rita Hoffman
On 2020-06-19 10:05, Dawna Toews wrote:

I I just made a donation in my husband's name, but it did not allow me to A237
0238
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-238 A238
specify what I wanted to donate to.
I live in the city of Guelph and we have contacted VCC who

will be
supporting us in our fight here.
I am not sure if the money we donated can go directly to this

cause but
that was my hope. It did not have a means to specify. Is that
at all
possible?
Thank you for all you do. <3
Dawna Toews
Dawnatoews.com
Canadian do TERRA Founder and Presidential Diamond
Holistic Health Coach
Ask me about Essential Oils!
A238
0239
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-239 A239
This is Exhibit "f " to the Affidavit of

A~ T:: Affidavits
A239
0240I
1
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-240 A240
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
June 29, 2022
SENT VIA EMAIL
Sharon Greene
Intake and Resolution Counsel
393 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
Email: SGreene@lso.ca
Dear Ms. Greene,
RE: Law Society Complaint of Donna Toews, 2022-261151
This correspondence is in response to the above-referenced complaint.

• The Complainant - Donna Toews
I do not know Donna Toews.
She has never been my client.
To my recollection I have never had any direct contact with Ms. Toews.
I have never made any representations to her.
• Kip Warner
Kip Warner has never been my client. I have never had any direct communication with Mr.
Warner. I have had contact, through Mr. Warner's solicitor, as set out below, to issue a caution
with respect to his defamatory statements against me, and interfering with my solicitor-client
relations, including with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action-4- Canada.
Vaccine Choice Canada (hereinafter "VCC") has been a client ofmy law firm since 2015.
I act on their behalf giving legal advice, consultations, issuing legal opinions, and conducting
litigation for them under the instructions of their Board of Directors, through their president.
A240
2
0241
2
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-241 A241
I have absolutely NO role in their organization whatsoever, except to provide legal services, as
described in the Law Society Act, as requested, directed, and instructed by their Board of Directors,
through their president.
Neither Ms. Toews, nor Mr. Warner, are on the Board of Directors ofVCC.
• Action -4-Canada
Action-4-Canada has been a client of my law firm since October, 2020.
described in the Law Society Act, and requested, directed, and instructed by their Board of
Neither Ms. Toews, nor Mr. Warner, are on the Board of Directors of Action4Canada.
• Pertinent Chronology leading to Donna Toews' Complaint
On or about October, 2020, I was approached by Action-4-Canada, and other co-Plaintiffs for a
lawsuit, however the retainer was not yet crystalized.
On or about December 14, 2020 I received a call from a British Columbia lawyer, Ms. Polina H.
Furtula. This lawyer was contemplating legal action against the British Columbia government over
the COVID-19 measures imposed there. She requested that I collaborate with her, owing to my
expertise in constitutional law and proceedings against the Crown. She indicated that her
prospective clients were Mr. Kipling Warner and his organization Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Science in Public Policy.
I respectfully declined, and advised Ms. Furtula that I had been approached by a British Columbia
group (Action4Canada) and other plaintiffs, and had, in principle, agreed to act for them in a
challenge to the COVID-19 measures, once a retainer crystalized.
In January 2021, I began working on the Notice of Claim (Statement of Claim) for my clients,
Action4Canada and the co-Plaintiffs.
On January 29, 2021, I received a letter from Ms. Furtula. I attach that letter as Tab 1 to this my
response. The organization she represented, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in
Public Policy, was established and run by Kip Warner. Contrary to what Ms. Furtula asserts in her
letter, I did NOT invite her to participate in the constitutional challenge I was bringing on behalf
of my clients.
Within a few days, an independent journalist, concerned about the contents of an email he received
on behalf of Kip Warner and the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science and Public
Policy ("CSAPP"), Kip Warner, forwarded that email to my client. I attach this email as Tab 2 to
this my response.
A241
02423
3
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-242 A242
On February 3 rd, 2021, I responded to Ms. Furtula's letter. I attach my response as Tab 3 to this
my response. In this same letter, I also communicated with Mr. Warner's lawyer, Ms. Furtula, to
issue a warning about Mr. Warner's defamation.
On August, 2021, I finalized and issued the Action4Canada, et al, Notice of Claim (Statement of
Claim) in the British Columbia Court. I attach a copy as Tab 4 to this my response. This claim is
on behalf of various Plaintiffs, Action4Canada being one.
From August to Christmas, 2021, the Defendants to this British Columbia Statement of Claim
dragged their heels over whether they would accept service for various Ministries and officials and
requested an indulgence past the normal 30 days, to respond, which I granted. They also indicated
that they wished to bring various motions to strike. I asked that they do so as soon as possible,
under the instructions of my clients.
By Christmas day, 2021, the Defendants had not brought their motions. Over Christmas I became
very ill. On December 25 th, 2021, I was bed-ridden. On January 2 , 2022, I was admitted for a
nd
critical illness to the ICU in hospital.
After being admitted to hospital on January 2, 2022, I entered a very serious and life-threatening
I I-day coma during which coma I came, three (3) times, under a minute from being declared dead.
Through the grace of God, I survived. On or about January 13 h,2022, the Defendants bought their
1
motions to strike returnable February 22, 2022. Meanwhile, while I was in a coma and
incapacitated under s.3 7 of the Law Society Act, I remained in a public hospital until my discharge
on January 22, 2022. When I was no longer critical, but still acute, I was immobile and still required
one-on-one nursing and acute medical care. I discharged myself as a patient from hospital and I
had myself transferred by private ambulance to recover in a private medical setting with 24/7 care.
I did not return home until March 2, 2022, to continue recovering. I still have not regained full
recovery at present.
The motion to strike set for February 22, 2022 was adjourned by my office to May 31st, 2022 in
the hopes that I would be sufficiently and competently capable of arguing the various motions to
strike via zoom-link. I was granted permission to appear by zoom-link and argued the various
st
motions on May 31st, 2022. The various motion(s) to strike were heard on May 31 , 2022 and the
Court has reserved its decision.
• Donna Toews and Kip Warner
I note, and learn for the first time, from your disclosure, that in January, 2022, while in hospital
and in a coma, which was widely publicized (in fact false obituaries claiming I was dead emerged
and ones are still online), Kip Warner was in communication with Donna Toews on how to make
a complaint to the Law Society about me.
Kip Warner has also, and recently, orally communicated to a person, who does not want to be
identified due to fear of Mr. Warner's military past and self-professed prowess as a computer
hacker, that "I want to see to it that Rocco Galati is disbarred and charged with Fraud". Kip Warner,
in discussions with the President of VCC, Mr. Ted Kuntz, insisted that because he (Kip Warner)
"filed first", that the Action4Canada British Columbia claim had to be withdrawn and all donations
to Action4Canada be returned, with the implication that they be forwarded to him to support his
A242
02434
4
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-243 A243
litigation instead. Why? God only knows. But these are all details which are relevant to the present
complaint.
Mr. Warner is under the delusion that he can claim, along with his "Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Sciences in Public Policy" ("CSASPP") exclusive proprietary rights and
monopoly to litigate the covid-measures in British Columbia. In pursuit of this he goes to all ends.
(See Tab 3 email to journalist).
Also attached as Tab 5, is a print-out from the CSASPP's website, (with Kip Warner as prime
actor) continues to make defamatory statements against me and my colleagues. The irony is that
the British Columbia Supreme Court struck Mr. Warner as a Plaintiff in one of his cases, for lack
of standing. Attached, as Tab 6, is a copy of that decision.
Mr. Warner can litigate when and where he wishes. What he cannot do, is instigate defamatory
statements, and conspire with Ms. Toews, to issue baseless LSO complaints to "see me disbarred."
I note, and find it distressing, that in her complaint to the LSO, Ms. Toews requests that her identity
be kept from me.
At this point, I have had enough with Mr. Warner, and have issued legal action against him, and
Ms. Toews, over this last straw. Attached, at Tab 7 is a copy of the Statement of Claim.
• The Nature of My Practice
I started my career (1987-1990) with the Department of Justice and since then, to the present, have
been engaged in private practice mostly restricting my practice to proceedings against the Crown.
Attached, as Tab 8, is a copy of my curriculum vitae, current to February, 2018.
Also attached as Tab 9, is a copy of all my reported cases, in the jurisprudence, which I argued,
amongst many others that were not reported, current to 2019.
During the course of my career, in defending constitutional rights, I have had to withstand the
relentless personal attacks, and several viable death threats, from racists, anti-Semitics, and
extremists who took issue with my Calabrian, Jewish heritage and/or my clients, labelling them
and me, as "mobsters", "terrorists" or "anti-vaxxer".
The COVID-19 era is no exception. This is the 8th (!) complaint, against me and one of my junior
lawyers, the LSO has brought to my attention since the commencement of COVID-19 legal
proceedings by my law firm on behalf of clients, just for doing our job(s) as lawyers, to the letter
and spirit of Rule 5.1-1. In two of those complaints, the complainants were Defendants in cases
we were conducting. I attach, as Tab 10, a copy of a Statement of Claim against one such racist
anti-Semite, who made two (2) complaints against me, and one against my junior lawyer.
In my response to yet another one of those LSO complaints by the same person, attached here as
Tab 11, on September 21, 2021, I stated the following to the intake and resolution counsel:
The other thing I cannot fathom is the Law Society of Ontario's approach and conduct in
forwarding this to me for response at all. Ms. Nassar was on the previous Moore
complaints. There seems to have been absolutely no minimal review of them, nor Ms.
A243
02445
5
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-244 A244
Moore's website, to glean what Canuck Law and Ms. Moore are about with respect to me
and my clients.
In my last correspondence, on a similarly outrageous complaint, by an outrageous

individual, with respect to an attempt to censor my speech, I indicated that the next time I
received one of these, I would commence action against the LSO, in the absence of an
apology.
If I do not receive an apology from the LSO on this "Complaint" which should not even
have reached me, if the minimum of research was done on Ms. Moore and her website, I
will commence action against the LSO for negligent investigation and the newly-created
tort of (online) harassment because, it seems to me, that the LSO is more than content and
willing to be dupe and conduit for Ms. Moore's and Canuck Law's filth, anti-Semitic,
racists, and derogatory harassment of me and my clients. ·
Attached, as Tab 12, is another response to yet another complaint similar to the one you have
forwarded me for response by the LSO.
All previous 7 complaints have been dismissed, but I never received any apology, regret, nor
recognition that anything was amiss in the Kingdom of the LSO, for negligence in screening
frivolous and vexatious complaints against members who fearlessly execute their duty to the client,
while suffering attacks on their reputation and practise in representing what some members of the
general public refer to as "distasteful" clients. The lack of screening, research and furtherance of
frivolous and vexatious complaints in light of the above warrants redress and is contrary to the
principles set out under s.4.2. of the Law Society Act. With respect, it is actionable in damages,
and other administrative and constitutional law redress.
• Response to your Letter of May 2022
Let me say, with respect, that it is obvious to me that, prior to sending your assumption-laden and,
might I say, prejudicial accusations and threatening reference to s.49.3(2) of the Law Society Act,
letter of May I 9, 2022 for "response", you did absolutely no preliminary inquiry into either Ms.
Toews nor her enabler Mr. Warner. In tum, as in previous frivolous and outrageous complaints I
have had to respond to, the LSO becomes enabler and provides a platform for abuse.
You assumed that Ms. Toews was a client, notwithstanding that it is clear from Ms. Toews intake
form, that she has never been my client.
Whatever donations Ms. Toews may have made, "on behalf of husband", to either VCC, or Action-
4-Canada, have nothing to do with me. I have no knowledge of them, NOR any responsibility for
them. I am retained by the organizations under the instructions of their Board( s), on a fee for
service basis.
I never made any representations to Ms. Toews, let alone her husband, nor do I have any duty to
report nor respond to her, even if she had contacted me, which to my recollection and knowledge
she did not.
As to what happened to any purported donated funds to VCC or Action-4-Canada is beyond my

knowledge and concern. However, in the spirit of co-operation I forwarded the complaint to my
A244
6
0245
6
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-245 A245
clients and they have responded. I attach, at Tab 13, a letter from Vaccine Choice Canada and at
Tab 14 a letter from Action-4-Canada.
My clients have indicated that they do not want me to disclose solicitor-client privileged
information as they are not complaining about me. I am instructed by the Boards of Directors of
Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada. Neither Ms. Toews nor Mr. Warner are on those
boards.
In answer to the specific questions in your letter, I reproduce the questions and insert my answers
below to your questions.
Question:
• Please Advise what happened to the funds that Ms. Toews donated to Vaccine Choice
Canada and Action4Canada, i.e., where were those funds directed to specifically?
• When Ms. Toews made her donations to these organizations, did she sign any forms?
If so, please provide these.
Answer: I have no involvement in the organizations, including any fund-raising

efforts, and have no knowledge as to how these organizations spend their money.
Both clients have retained me and paid me for legal advice, consultations, and
opinions, as well as litigation.
Question:
• Please advise:
► -how much monies have been raised through donations to support the
► Have/are these funds been applied for their intended purpose? Please explain.
Answer: See previous answer to first three questions. I have no role and no
knowledge of my clients' fund-raising efforts or details with respect to fund-raising
to run their organization(s), their operations and activities, nor expenses, including
legal expenses. I have been paid by my clients for my services. I was paid by
cheque(s) from these two organizations for services rendered.
A245
02467
7
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-246 A246
Question:
• What is the status of the constitutional challenge(s) that these funds are supporting/?
Are you personally involved in these legal challenges?
Answer: The status of these legal challenges is:
(a) Action4-Canada: awaiting decision on various motions to strike.
(b) VCC: The litigation is progressing in accordance with my client's instruction(s)

and litigation strategy. (My client has, and had, a litigation strategy which they
do not wish to fully disclose). My clients provide regular updates to their
members.
I am personally in charge of the litigation.
Question:
• Are you or another entity providing regular updates to donors? If so, how often and
in what form are these updates provided?
Answer: We (my firm) never have, nor are we, providing any "updates" to donors, as
they are not our clients. The organization(s) provide updates to their members. On
regular occasions, I have attended, at the request of my clients, zoom-meetings, in the
form of"Q and As", with my clients' members to update and take questions on the state
of law with respect to the COVID-19 measures, persons' duties/obligations and rights,
and legal proceedings and decisions in Canada and other jurisdictions.
Question:
• Please Respond to Ms. Toews Allegations that
► she received no information about the progress of the constitutional litigation
until after almost 18 months
► Vaccine choice Canada, Action4Canada, and a third organization in Quebec
have raised approximately 3.5 million to finance litigation in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec.
► She was not invited to any "members only" meetings with you as Vaccine
Answer: What Ms. Toews has received, or not received, from VCC, is between her
and VCC. What does this have to do with me? I repeat, she is not my client. I do not
know her. I have never met her. I have had no communication with her. And, by the
way, I am not telepathic.
With respect to her reference to $3.5 million raised, I have no clue as to what she is
referring to. I have no knowledge of how much money is/was received by VCC or
Action4Canada, or "third organizations in Quebec, Ontario, or British Columbia",
whomever they may be. It would have been prudent to put the questions to Ms. Toews
to obtain particulars as to that assertion, which is far, wide, and nebulous, and lacks
any source. In any event, this question cannot possibly be answered by me. Would you
A246
02478
8
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-247 A247
expect an independently retained lawyer, retained to represent the Cancer Society or
Salvation Anny on a specific legal proceeding, to account for donations or donors to
the Cancer Society or Salvation Anny?
With respect to not being "invited" to any 'members only' meetings", I am not the host
of any of those organized or scheduled meetings, which my clients sometimes request
that I attend. Incidentally, I do NOT have knowledge of or attend all those meetings,
I am asked, by my clients, to attend specific meetings. There is no legal precedent
specifying that a donor to an organization has the right to examine, challenge, and
review the litigation strategy and pierce the solicitor-client relationship of the
organization and their legal counsel. Hence, the allegation of "misleading" the donor,
and "not acting with integrity" is baseless, preposterous and demonstrative of malice
and/or bias.
I repeat my assertion that this complaint should never have reached me for response
as it is clear from the intake-sheet that the complainant is NOT one of my clients, nor
is there any indication that she ever communicated with me. Furthermore, any
complaints, or questions, that Ms. Toews may have, are properly directed to the
organizations and not me.
Duty of Fairness and Abuse of Discretion
As Intake and Resolution counsel you have discretion under s.49.3(1) of the Law
Society Act, on whether to conduct an investigation or not, or put a complaint to a
lawyer for response.
The LSO is not required to pursue every single random complaint, by unknown and
unvetted individuals, against its members. Since there is discretion, the exercise of that
discretion must be able to withstand some scrutiny and must, de minimus, meet the
requirements of reasonableness. In exercising your delegated statutory authority and
discretion under s.49.3(1) of the Law Society Act, you also owe a duty of fairness and
this includes adherence to the principles of fundamental justice and the rule against
bias at every step of the intake and investigation process as well as resolution of
complaints in a fair and impartial manner.
Abusing the exercise of statutory authority, on the other hand, and abusing your
discretionary power, results in the loss of jurisdiction. It is my submission that the Law
Society does not have jurisdiction to proceed on Ms. Toews complaint and to do so is
abusive.
With respect, the decision to conduct an investigation into, or, even the referral of the
complaint of Ms. Toews for my response, exudes unfairness, and unreasonableness.
Notwithstanding that I requested particulars on these allegations, none were provided.

In light of the fact that this is the nineth (8th) complaint entertained by the Law Society
(specifically for COVID-19 litigation) in the course of two years alone, requiring
extensive time and effort for response, is causing professional stress and mental
distress, particularly at a time when I am physically vulnerable, for health reasons, is
also tortious and actionable conduct.
A247
02489
9
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-248 A248
With respect, given the (non) facts, the history, and context of these past and present
allegations, the pursuit of this complaint is scandalous, insultingly prejudicial, and,
frankly, stem and flow, unfortunately, from the same source of personally unfounded
attacks against me as a person ofCalabrian Jewish ancestry who represents views and
clients despised by the majority of "Canadians", on constitutionally unpopular
grounds. I regret to say that both as a lawyer, and former Bencher, some members of
the public consider my clients and their causes "distasteful". Throughout my 33 plus
years of practice, these personal attacks have been unfortunately just run-of-the-mill
for me. This position and motive for random, non-client, unrelated, disgruntled
"public" complaints against me, and my law practice, was made clear to the LSO on
the previous frivolous and vexatious complaints, which were eventually dismissed. As
counsel, you must execute the duty of fairness and apprise yourself of the context and
history of the relationship between the present complaint and those of the past. You
must also, at a minimum, ascertain, who the complaint and her affiliates are, the
reasons for the complaint and the applicable Rules, based on facts, and not
assumptions, prior to advancing the complaint asserting very serious allegations
against me, to my attention for response. You failed to do so, and instead, have required
me to do your work for you notwithstanding that I requested particulars on these
allegations, and none were provided. At this point, after suffering seven prior ignorant
abusive complaint allegations, I am justified in asking the question, "why is the LSO
so quick to jump on the proverbial assumption accusation bandwagon"?
• Your Erroneous Characterization of "Misleading and Did Not Act with

Integrity".
Your statement to me, in your email dated May 24 , 2022, takes this complaint beyond
th
the pale when, in answer to my request for particulars, you stated:
With respect to the regulatory issues identified, these stem from Ms. Toews'
complaint. Ms. Toews stated that she wanted her donations to be directed to you
as the lawyer retained to bring constitutional challenges. However, she
expressed concern that the funds may not have been applied to their intended
purpose in view of the length of time since the litigation was funded and a
statement of claim issued; the lack of updates provided to her; and a lack of
transparency including her not being invited to 'members only' meetings with
you. As such, the 'misleading' issue is directed to whether you may have misled
Ms. Toews (and other similar donors) regarding the purpose and use of the
donated funds.
The allegation of 'did not act with integrity" flows from this and concerns
whether or not you were honest and transparent with those who made donations
to fund the constitutional litigation.
It is apparent from her complaint form, that she never hired me, yet you jumped to
those postulations. There is no duty to report to each and every donor of my client
organization. I have no privity with them. I make, and made, no representations to
them. Let alone "mislead" them. You have misapplied the Rule.
A248
10
0249
10
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-249 A249
Neither Ms. Toews nor Mr. Warner are my clients. The standards of professional
conduct I am required to meet are to be measured by the services I provide my clients
I have never had "any dealing in the course of my practice" with Ms. Toews. I have
no relationship with her whatsoever.
Moreover Ms. Toews is directly and individually connected with Mr. Warner. Your
intake failed to ascertain this. Had you performed this very basic and minimal scrutiny,
the absurdity of the allegations, and that I am required to respond to an allegation that
I have breached of the Rules, would become apparent.
The Rules cannot be stretched to an overly broad application to random, unrelated

unknown members of the public who have a vindictive axe to grind with a lawyer. To
propose such an overly broad application would cause the LSO complaints process to
be inundated with frivolous, vexatious and abusive complaints and bring the
administration and regulation of the profession into disrupt and disposition.
(a) "Misleading"
"Misleading appears in the Rules of Professional Conduct in the followings categories:
Marketing of Professional Services
4.2-0 In this rule, "marketing" includes advertisements and other similar

communications in various media as well as firm names (including trade
names), letterhead, business cards and logos.
4.2-1 A lawyer may market legal services only if the marketing
(a) is demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable;
(b) is neither misleading, confusing, or deceptive, nor likely to mislead,

confuse or deceive; and
(c) is in the best interests of the public and is consistent with a high standard
of professionalism.
As explained above, I did not market my services to this complainant. She is not
my client, she has not hired me, I have never met or communicated with her. Ms.
Toews may have sent a donation to organizations who have independently hired
me to conduct litigation for them pursuant to a private retainer. The organization
did not hire me based on any "marketing" whatsoever. There is no evidence or
information in the complaint that I engaged in marketing that contravened the Rules
because none exists. This can be confirmed by my clients, VCC and
Action4Canada. The fact that these organizations collect donations to use at their
discretion, and the terms of their donations, and how they allot their donations are
between the organizations and their donors. I have nothing to do with it and
therefore cannot account to you for it either. Therefore, the Rule is inapplicable.
A249
0250
11
11
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-250 A250
The Rules of Professional Conduct also state, about "misleading":
SECTION 4.1 MAKING LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE
Making Legal Services Available
4.1-1 A lawyer shall make legal services available to the public in an

efficient and convenient way.
Restrictions
4.1-2 In offering legal services, a lawyer shall not use means that
(a) are false or misleading;
(b) amount to coercion, duress, or harassment;
(c) take advantage of a person who is vulnerable or who has suffered a

traumatic experience and has not yet had a chance to recover;
(d) are intended to influence a person who has retained another lawyer or
paralegal for a particular matter to change that representative for that matter,
unless the change is initiated by the person or that representative; or
(e) otherwise bring the profession or the administration of justice into

disrepute.
As explained above, Ms. Toews is not my client, I have never communicated with her or
misrepresented to her. I did not offer legal services to her. She never retained me. I did not
request or solicit donations from her on behalf of any client or for my client's litigation.
The fact that she may have sent donations to organizations is between her and those
organizations. This Rule is inapplicable.
(b) "Did not act with Integrity:
The Rules of Professional Conduct discuss "integrity", as follows:
SECTION 2.1 INTEGRITY
2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all
responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the
profession honourably and with integrity.
Commentary
[1] Integrity is the fundamental quality of any person who seeks to

practise as a member of the legal profession. If a client has any
doubt about their lawyer's trustworthiness, the essential element in
A250
12
0251
12
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-251 A251
the true lawyer-client relationship will be missing. If integrity is
lacking, the lawyer's usefulness to the client and reputation within
the profession will be destroyed, regardless of how competent the
lawyer may be.
[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal

profession may be eroded by a lawyer's irresponsible conduct.
Accordingly, a lawyer's conduct should reflect favourably on the
legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients
and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of
impropriety.
[3] Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer

in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely
upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of
justice. Whether within or outside the professional sphere, if the
conduct is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair a
client's trust in the lawyer, the Law Society may be justified in
taking disciplinary action.
[4] Generally, however, the Law Society will not be concerned with
the purely private or extra-professional activities of a lawyer that do
not bring into question the lawyer's professional integrity.
[4.1] A lawyer has special responsibilities by virtue of the privileges

afforded the legal profession and the important role it plays in a free
and democratic society and in the administration of justice,
including a special responsibility to recognize the diversity of the
Ontario community, to protect the dignity of individuals, and to
respect human rights laws in force in Ontario.
2.1-2 A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal
profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and
institutions.
Commentary
[I] Collectively, lawyers are encouraged to enhance the profession

through activities such as:
(a) sharing knowledge and experience with colleagues and students

informally in day-to-day practice as well as through contribution to
professional journals and publications, support of law school
projects and participation in panel discussions, legal education
seminars and university lectures;
(b) participating in legal aid and community legal services programs

or providing legal services on a pro bono basis;
A251
13
0252
13
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-252 A252
(c) filling elected and volunteer positions with the Law Society;
(d) acting as directors, officers and members of local, provincial,

national and international bar associations and their various
committees and sections; and
(e) acting as directors, officers and members of non-profit or

charitable organizations.
[2] When participating in community activities, lawyers should be

mindful of the possible perception that the lawyer is providing legal
advice and a lawyer -client relationship has been (l"-:aL.:d.
Notwithstanding my pointed request for particulars on how "integrity" was engaged,

you did not provide any factual particulars. I submit that tis because none exist.
There are no facts in Ms. Toews' complaints that provide basis for allegations of
"dishonourable or questionable conduct", indeed, no such conduct has been identified.
Rule 2.1 should not be invoked and abused, for unauthorized purposes, or for acting
on irrelevant considerations. The fact that Ms. Toews may have made a donation to
my client is an irrelevant consideration. The Law Society Act does not authorize an
investigation on that basis. Courts have frequently held that it is ultra vires for a
statutory delegate to do so. Courts have also struck down arbitrary exercises of
discretion where the delegate has acted upon no evidence or has ignored relevant
considerations.
Contrary to your allegation, in all aspects, I upheld my obligations and acted with
integrity in my dealing with both my clients, and others.
• Rule 5.6-1
Rule 5.6-1 states:
Encouraging Respect for the Administration of Justice
5.6-1 A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the
administration of justice.
I have not breached Rule 5.6 (1) of the Rules. You have not provided any evidence or
allegation that I have. On the contrary, I have spent my entire career trying to improve
the administration of justice and encourage public respect for it and the Rule of Law.
My practice consists of litigating the most difficult of cases, often successfully. These
are often perceived or labelled as "controversial cases" whereby individual unrelated
and random unrelated members of the public having erratic and vile reactions against
me personally for simply doing my duty as a constitutional lawyer, practising
according to my oath. It has become "controversial" to question government policy on
the Covid-19 and as a lawyer, representing clients who do question the government
policy have come under attack.
A252
14
0253
14
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-253 A253
In practising law, in a manner that upholds Rule 5.6-1, I have, regrettably, been the
recipient of hate mail and subject to personal attacks and threats to my safety and my
life. This is a regrettable, but not a new, phenomenon for me. When I represented
clients charged pursuant to the Security Certificate provisions of IRPA and/or the
Terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code I was virulently and invidiously slandered
as a "terrorist lawyer", a "terrorist sympathizer" and even as a "terrorist" by random
individual members of the public. That I "put the right of terrorists over citizens" and
that I "defend citizenship of terrorists" are other examples. Those who attacked me
believed in the global "war on terrorism" and that I was not entitled, as an advocate, to
criticize or challenge the government's law in my statements or pleadings on behalf of
my clients. These individuals alleged that by representing my clients, and making
statements regarding the racism and racial profiling my clients were subjected to as
Arabs and/or Muslims, by security services, in this country and elsewhere, that I was
"a threat to the public" and the "security" of Canada.
Often the hate-mail directed against me, sometimes guised and cloaked as a
"complaint", were coloured with racial bias and prejudice, and ethnic stereotyping, not
only against my racial minority clients, but also against me as their ethnic minority
lawyer. This is graphically illustrated by the institutional death threat I received while
representing a Canadian citizen who was detained at Guantanamo Bay on allegations
of "terrorism", wherein the "anonymous" caller demanded I cease representing
"terrorists, or you a dead WOP!"
Revealingly, my non-ethnic and non-racial minority colleagues in the Bar, who also
advocated on behalf of "terrorists suspects" and with whom I am well acquainted, did
not receive the same barrage of hate mail or threats. This is not surprising given that
many Royal Commissions, the SCC and the LSO have acknowledged the existence of
racial and ethnic bias in the justice system and the legal profession. Racial and ethnic
minority lawyers are disproportionately targeted for harsher treatment and unbridled
harassment. They face discrimination within their own profession and prejudice from
society and its members at large. Systemic and individual prejudice is pervasive.
It has not escaped me to consider ethnic malice as a root cause of this complaint. I have
encountered this before: "Who does this Italian lawyer think he is to challenge our
Canadian laws?". My suspicions are borne out in the current COVID context as I have
received hate mail which is demeaning, reprehensible and xenophobic intended to
intimidate me as an advocate. I am denominated as a: "scum lawyer", "mob lawyer",
"mobster" - all referring to the stereotype of Italians as members of organized crime.
That I "wasn't even born in Canada", that I am "a foreigner trying to change laws", and
that I "will never be a Canadian, except in the civic sense, and even that is
questionable."
However, what is equally troublesome and regrettable phenomenon for me, is that the
LSO would give credence to the hate and prejudice, as illustrated by previous
complaints forwarded by the LSO against me which I've had to respond to in order to
dismiss. The LSO should act as a gatekeeper to defend the advocate who encourages
public respect for and improvement to the administration of justice, as evidenced by
my litigation record. Rather than defending the advocate for ethically and fearlessly
A253
15
0254
15
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-254 A254
executing his duties, I am disheartened to learn that the LSO can be used as a vehicle
for attacking a lawyer doing his/her job instead. To the extent that the LSO enables
and allows for such harassment and attacks on me as a member, is an abuse of authority
and discretion and constitutes tortious conduct. Furthermore, the Rules apply equally
to you as a member personally and in your capacity as intake counsel. In particular, I
would remind you of Rule 7-2-1 and the requirement to "avoid ill-considered or
uninformed criticism of competence and conduct". Ms. Toew's complaint, as well as
that of her predecessor complainants with respect to COVID-19 litigation is frivolous
and vexatious. Had you conducted the minimal research that I have, you would have
arrived at this conclusion. By misapplying misusing and abusing your authority and
amplifying and escalating the complaint in the manner that you have is a breach of
your duty under Rule 7.
• Rule 5.1-1: Lawyer as Advocate
In closing, as a former elected Bencher, I completely understand your role in the Law
Society's protection of the "public interest". I know that your job is not an easy one
and your work-load is heavy. However, with the utmost respect, this "complaint" was
not diligently, or competently vetted, examined or researched before being passed on
to a member for response. Unfortunately, it could constitute institutional "rubber
stamping" of targeted character assassination and motive to "disbar" and ruin a
member's legal career by disgruntled and random unrelated non-client individuals. It
could also encourage the proliferation of hate-mail and retaliatory vindictive
"complaints" against lawyers.
The intake process must act, in part, as a gatekeeper to sift through spurious and
misdirected rantings and scandalous allegations (intended to intimidate and harass
lawyers from acting as advocate), from that of legitimate complaints. This is not the
LSO's first failure within the COVID litigation context.
I would remind you of Rule 5.1-1, which reads:
5 .1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client

resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the
tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.
And the first commentary to that Rule which reads and dictates that:
[ 1] Role in Adversarial Proceedings - In adversarial proceedings, the

lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every
argument and ask every question, however distasteful, that the lawyer thinks
will help the client's case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit
of every remedy and defence authorized by law. The lawyer must discharge
this duty by fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner
that is consistent with the lawyer's duty to treat the tribunal with candour,
fairness, courtesy and respect and in a way that promotes the parties' right
to a fair hearing in which justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum
A254
16
0255
16
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-255 A255
' and courtesy in the courtroom is not an empty formality because, unless
order is maintained, rights cannot be protected.
The LSO is tasked with protection of the public, but also of the legal profession and
its members, regardless of the client or case. Rule 5 .1-1 is a cornerstone for Canada's
justice system. The intake counsel's job is to not only protect the public, but also protect
the profession from the public's vile, unjustified, false, and scandalous attack on
lawyers, which is not in concert with the "public interest". It is not in your jurisdiction
and mandate to jump on the proverbial "hate bandwagon".
In another context, outside of a Regulatory complaint, Donna Toews would have been
successfully sued for defamation for her comments, and not be the assumptive
springboard from which to catapult an unsubstantiated query sent to me for response.
Ms. Toews comments and complaints are unfoundedly outrageous and malicious. That
Kip Warner, given his history, added the fuel to the fire, is the more offensive. Yet,
regrettably, you acted on them.
After this gr\ post-COVID, "from -COVID", "with COVID", LSO baseless complaint,
I still await a LSO apology for having had to respond to them, failing which I will seek
redress for unauthorized abusive conduct through legal proceedings in the Courts.
In responding to this complaint, I was required to disclose my personal health

information as defined in the Personal Health Information Protection Act which is
strictly private and highly confidential. While I have made this information available
only to you, I do not authorize the disclosure or release of my private health
information to anyone else, particularly the complainant and her affiliates and co-
conspirators. I trust that any and all of my personal health information will be strictly
protected.
Yours very truly,
..
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL. B, LL.M.

RG*sc
Encls.
A255
0256
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-256 A256

A~
A-< TakingAffidavits
A256
0257
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-257 A257
39 3 ~P-!vers?l/ Intake & Resolullon
Law Society Barreau .'\venue. Suite 1100 Professional Regulacion
of Ontario de I'Ontario forontc. Ornario
',iSG 1E6
h ttps: //www.lso.ca
September 12, 2022
Sent via email only
Rocco Galati
Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Rocco Galati:

Case No.: 2022-261151
On February 28, 2022, the Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional
Regulation Division received a complaint from Donna Toews.
Please find enclosed for your reference, a copy of my response to Donna Toews. You will
note that I have closed the case.
Yours truly,
~c~r;f--
Miko Dubiansky
Intake & Resolution Counsel
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Email: mdubians@lso.ca
Encl.
A257
0258
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-258 A258
393 University Intake & Resolution
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https://www.lso.ca
Professional Regulation
September 12, 2022
Sent via email only to Gavin MacKenzie: gavin@mackenziebarristers.com
Donna Toews
10 Garth ST
Guelph, ON N1H 2G3
Dear Donna Toews:

Case No.: 2022-261151
Your complaint was reassigned to me for completion. You contacted the Law Society
about Rocco Galati, and your complaint was received by Intake & Resolution on
February 28, 2022. I have completed my review of all the information you provide~ to
support your complaint and the information collected from Rocco Galati. For the
reasons explained below, the Law Society will not be taking any further action in
response to your complaint at this time.
Reasons for Outcome
Background
You state that you donated funds to Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada to help
fund litigation headed by Rocco Galati in Ontario and British Columbia challenging
COVID-19measures. Rocco Galati never acted for you.
Issues Raised - Not Considered
1. Did the Lawyer mislead?

2. Did the Lawyer not act with integrity?
Explanation
You raise concerns about a lack of transparency in the relationship between Rocco
Galati, Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada and in how the donated funds were
applied to the legal challenge of COVID-19measures.
Rocco Galati commenced a legal proceeding against you and other Defendants in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice by way of Statement of Claim dated June 28, 2022. I
A258
0259
,.06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-259 A259
have also reviewed this document. The legal proceeding involves issues which are
related to the issues that you have raised in your complaint about Rocco Galati. Both
matters include issues about Rocco Galati's relationship with Vaccine Choice Canada and
Action4Canada and the soliciting and handling of donor funds intended to be applied to
the legal challenge to COVID-19 measures. Therefore, evidence directly /indirectly
related to the issues raised in the complaint is likely to be addressed in the legal
proceeding.
The Law Society's regulatory process could delay the ongoing legal proceeding. Further,
a conclusion to the legal dispute could assist any investigation the Law Society may
conduct. In addition, it is important that no parallel fact-finding exercises are conducted.
For these reasons, the Law Society will often defer an investigation that raises
substantially the same/similar issues that are currently before another body or tribunal.
I have considered the issues raised in your complaint, the issues currently before the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Law Society's public interest mandate. Based
on the information received from both you and Rocco Galati, no further action will be
taken in this case at this time.
If, after the legal issues are resolved, you wish to renew your complaint about Rocco
Galati's conduct, you may contact the Law Society at that time. Please provide a copy of
the final order or judgement confirming that the proceeding is over. Also, if the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice makes any negative comments/findings about Rocco Galati's
relationship with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada and/or the
soliciting/handling of donor funds, you may provide that information as well as any
orders, reasons for judgment or court endorsements with those comments/findings.
Confidentiality
This letter is provided solely for the purpose of communicating to you the outcome of
your complaint to the Law Society pursuant to section 49.12 of the law Society Act and is
confidential as between the recipients and the Law Society.
Outcome
I have concluded that no further action by the Law Society is warranted at this time.
Yours truly,
~6~7
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
cc: Rocco Galati

2
A259
0260
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-260 1 A260
• 1062 College Street, Lower Level
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
September 30th, 2022
VIA EMAIL: mdubians@lso.ca
Miko Dubiansky
393 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Toronto,
Ontario MSG 1E6
mdubians@lso.ca
Dear Mr. Dubiansky,
RE: Rocco Galati; Case No.: 2022-261151
I am writing to you in response to your letter to Ms. Toews, dated September 12, 2022.
Can you please advise why a copy of this letter was sent to Gavin MacKenzie?
Thank you,
Yours very truly,

ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Per:
c__.
Rocco Galati, B.A, LL.B, LL.M.
RG*sc
A260
0261
1 A261
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-261

Toronto, Canada M6H lA9
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
September 30 th, 2022
Miko Dubiansky
393 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Toronto,
Ontario MSG 1E6
mdubians@lso.ca
Dear Mr. Dubiansky,
RE: Rocco Galati; Case No.: 2022-261151
I am writing to you in response to your letter to Ms. Toews, dated September 12, 2022.
Can you please advise why a copy of this letter was sent to Gavin MacKenzie?
Thank you,
Yours very truly,

Per:
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B, LL.M.

RG*sc
A261
3/6/23, 5:42 PM RE: Law Society - private and confidential
0262
From: "Miko Dubiansky" <MDubians@lso.ca>
RE: Law Society - private and confidential
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-262
Subject: A262
Date: Thu, December 8, 2022 10: 12 am
To: "rocco@idirect.com" < rocco@idirect.com >
Dear Rocco Galati,
RE: 2022-261151
Thank you for your email and letter dated December 7, 2022.
do not have a record of receiving 11ourletter dated September 30, 2022. In answer
to your question, Gavin MacKenzie acted for Donna Toews in relation to the
above-referenced complain.t to the Law Society. As the file is closed, have no
further information to add.
Yours Truly,
Miko Dubiansky
Counsel, Intake & Resolution Department

393 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Toronto ON MSG 1E6
T 416-947-3300 ext. 2084
F 416-947-3382
E mdubians@lso.ca
This communication is intended for use by the individual(s) to whom it is

specifically addressed and should not be read by, or delivered to, any other person.
Such communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have.
received this communication in error, please notify the sender and permanently
delete the communication. Thank you for your co-operation.
La presente communication ne vise que le ou les destinataires a

qui elle est
adressee et ne devrait etre Jue par personne d'autre ni envoyee a
un autre
destinataire. Ce message peut contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou de nature
privilegiee. Si vous avez re~u ce message par erreur, veuillez en avertir
l'expediteur et le detruire de fa~on permanente. Merci de votre collaboration.
-----Original Message-----
From: rocco@idirect.com <rocco@idirect.com>
Sent: December 7, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Miko Dubiansky <MDubians@lso.ca>
Cc: rocco@idirect.com
Subject: Re: Law Society - private and confidential
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the LSO. Exercise caution before
clicking links, opening attachments, or responding.
Dear Ms. Dubiansky,
Please see attached correspondence,
Thank you,

Toronto ON M6H 1A9
TEL: 416-530-9684
FAX: 416-530-8129
This e-mail is privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any
related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or
the information it contains by other than an intenoed reclplent is unauthorized. If
you received this e-mail in error, please delete it and advise rocco@idirect.com
immediately.
Ce courrier electronique est confidentiel et protege. L'expediteur ne renonce pas

aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie
de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le
(les) destinataire(s) designe(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courrier
electronique par erreur, veuillez le supprimer et aviser rocco@idirect.com
immediatement.
"Oh why, oh why, does the wind never blow backwards?"---Woody Guthrie
A262
&passed_id= 118& view _unsaf e_images= 1/1
hnps://webmai I.look.ca/high/src/printer_f riendl y _main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mail box=LSO+COMPLAJNT
0263
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-263 A263
This is Exhibit " ~,, to the Affidavit of

A~
.-< Taking Affidavits
A263
3/14/23. 10:37 AM Frequently Asked Questions - CSASPP
0264
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-264 A264
Rocco Galati & Related:
We receive communications regularly from Mr.Galati's past donors with concerns. we are asked what became of the substantial funds that
the community raised for him or his third-party fundraising arms. We do not have any information, were not involved in raising funds for either,
nor did we ever seek to retain Mr. Galati. If you have concerns about his conduct, any member of the general public can submit an electronic
complaint to the Ontario Law Society to initiate a formal investigation
We are not ottilioted with Mr. Galati. There are many reasons.
Mr. Galati is nor licensed :o practise law in British Columbia for any extended period of time. He can always be retained in Ontario, and in turn
retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual. However, then you are paying for two law firms Anyone can verify whether a lawyer is
licensed to practise low in British Columbia here
We were advised directly by Mr Galati himself rhat the lawyer he wished to retoin in British Columbia is Lawrence Wong Mr. Wong
was personally sanctioned in 2010 for his conduct by o Federal court judge with a fine
A Federal Court judge noted in his reasons for judgment that some of Mr Goloti's billings were "excessive and unwarranted" in a separate
proceeding. The same judge declined to award the full amount sought by Mr. Galati for his legal fees in that constitutional proceeding, The
outcome hos been discussed by other lawyers.
Mr. Galati is sometimes described by his followers as our nation's 'top constitutional low· lawyer, yet there is no such professional designation
A264
https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq 1/5
0265
3/14/23, 10:37 AM Frequently Asked Questions - CSASPP
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-265
in Conodo, nor in particular in British Columbia. That is not to say that a lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like personal injury, strata, A265
mergers and acquisitions, class actions, and the like. According to Mr Galati, he studied tax litigation at osgoode Hall. The Globe and
Mail reported Mr. Galati "makes his money from doing tax law, not constitutional cases."
Mr. Galati filed a COVID-19 related civil proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario on 6 July, 2020. To the best of our knowledge, as of
30 October, 2021. none of the twenty-one named defendants have filed replies, despite the plaintiff being at liberty to apply for a default
judgment for the majority of that time. In on interview published 2 September, 2020, ML Galati claimed he intended to do his best to have on
interlocutory mask injunction application heard before the Christmas holidays of 2020 As of 11June, 2021,we are not aware of any scheduled
hearings and no orders appear to have been made
Is this a constitutional challenge or a proposed class action?
Our current civil proceeding is both a constitutional challenge and a proposed class proceeding. The options are not necessarily mutually
exclusive.
The longer a plaintiffs claim, the more likely they are to prevail. Right?
There is no correlate
Excessively long pleadings in the hundreds of pages in length are more likely to be struck This is because the rules require pleadings to
contain a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim. Applications, as a related example, are limited to ten pages in
length
If a plaintiff ignores this requirement and files a claim that is not concise regardless, a defendant can bring an application pursuant to Rule
22-7(2) to dismiss the proceeding for non-compliance with the rules oi court
See Pyper v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2017 BCCA 410 ( Canlll), at para 51 for how the British Columbia Court of Appeal has already
dealt with the general issue oi prolix (unnecessarily long) pleadings
A lawyer billing their client by ,he hour will bill considerably for filing a novel When the novel is discorded on the basis of a technicality, it is the
client that is stuck not only with the cost of its drafting, but also with the costs □ worded to the other side on their successful opplication
at,
Tfie>::o iusion is created with the ambiguous term 'legal fees" popularized by lawyers This term conflates two totally unrelated categories of
e~pensestogether
Fees payable to the cour, are legal fees because the law requires you to pay them They are generally non-negotiable. They are set out In
'
statute. hence why they are legal They range irom a SJ to a few hundred dollars. Even the most complex civil proceedings only cost a iew
hundred to a few thousand dollars on overage, comparable with a stay in a hotel.
The rest of the expenses typically go to lawyers for billable hours These are not ·1egai iees· in the staturnry sense. They are fees that are
created through the law of promises, or contractual fees the parties agree to They represent what a lawyer believes they ore entitled to tor
their time. Hourly rates vary widely Sometimes they correlate with a lawyer's competency and moral literacy, while other times they may not
A lawyer's billable hours are in the same category as those paid to any other contractor hired to do anything for you, like a mechanic. Consent
is the toundation_When a lal',yer claims they need a S100,000 to prosecute a claim. what they are saying is they need 5200 to file at the
courchouse, a few hundred more for filing affidavits, requisitions, couriers, sometimes fees payable tor expert reports, and the rest tor
themselves.
)
For whatever reason the Law Sociery is yet to campaign to clarity the confusion
Why don't you go after the federal government or the Prime Minister personally?
The management oi health care is generally agreed to be delegated under s 92(13) o' our constitution to a provincial mandate. Accordingly,
provincial authorities are responsible for any mistakes made in the management of health care decisions Adding additional co-defendants
A265
3/14/23, 10:37 AM Frequently Asked Questions - CSASPP
0266
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-266
may make for sensational headlines, but it can also invite an adverse costs award when they apply to have themselves struck from the style A266
Generally not.
The Ontario Superior Court ot Justice already ruled that there snould not be two or more class actions that proceed in respect of the same
putative class asserting the some cause or causes of action, and one action must be selected. The commencement of multiple class actions
in the some or other jurisdictions may oe on abuse of process with some stayed as an abuse of process.
What about vaccines, SG, Bill Gates, and China? Do you Intend to make an Issue of these things in your
campaign?
Consider thm if you ore concerned about the prospect for on eventual mandatory vaccination program for COVID-19, or the science behind
vaccinations in general, the executive rationalizing the measure based on its declaration of a state of emergency, that state of emergenc•r
granting extraordinary powers ro the executive it otherwise would not hove had, ond we succeed in demonstrating to the court that there was
never a reasonable justification for that state oi emergency to begin with, or at least not to rhe extent in which it was implemented, then
indirectly we hove destroyed their argument - along with any other doors a state of amergency may have opened for it. This is vital for
readers to understand and cannot be underscored enough
Concurrent effons in other jurisdictions may involve other pressing tangential issues. While these might be nelpful, or even en:ertoining to
follow, ony success that they may enjoy does not necessarily achieve anything for people in British Columbia because healthcare is under a
provincial mandate.
If the first effort in British Columbia fails, it may preclude the ability to make a second attempL For that reason i; is actually in the best interest
for the defendant that the first suit contains as many peripheral issues that weaken its probability of success If that suit is dismissed, the
common law con moke ic difficult for someone ro bring a more refined suit loter with narrower issues to berried.
This is why it is essential thac our pleadings remain focused on what the desired orders actually turn on, rather :hon tangenriol issues chat
would be predicored on a successful narrower constitutional challenge in any event As tempting as it may be for :hose passionate about
other issues ta broaden :r,e scope of what is pied, this con create procedural vulnerabilities that allow a defendant o much lower barrier to
disposing of the claim early without the substantive issues actually being heard on their merits
That can result in the plaintiff getting hit wi:h special costs (fined), though this is rare in an action brought as a class proceecing In chm event
the lawyers ge: paid regardless, but the client is perscna!ly stuck with the consequences.
This is why some lawyers joke in che absence of a naive client tho: they don't lose coses, cliencs do. However, somecimes when :hey win they
toke credit for it in circulating the judgment among :heir peers
We don't wane that :o happen. A precise, level-headed, minimufT' energy trajectory, free of hyperbole, □ ifT'ed at an Achilles heel, is far more
sound.
No Canadians who self identitied as evangelical in :he 2011census amounted

of Christianity globally A rrinori:y demographic attempting
to under 2.9 %. Further, there are 46,400 ci.fterent denominorions
,o advocate on behalf of all affected putative class memoers moy experience
..
difficulties obtaining class certification It would also undermine our commitment :o remaining o secular and ncn-portisan organization
All Questions:
I am a journalist, blogger, talk show host or similar. can I interview somone from CSASPP?
How can I contact your counsel directly?
How do I Join your proposed class action?
Why are you using GoFundMe?
A266
Frequently Asked Questions - CSASPP
0267
3/14/23. 10:37 AM
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-267 A267
What kind of Information ls helpful for you in your work?
What kind of information is not helpful for you in your work?
Is this a constitutional challenge or a proposed class action?
What is the current status of your litigation?
What are you doing to help those seeking alternative or complementary medical treatments?
Are you affiliated with the Q Anon movement?
Why aren't you using common law courts of the freeman-on-the-land movement, the sovereign movement, or
another variation of the de-taxer movement instead of the Supreme Court of British Columbia?
Do you Issue tax receipts to donors?
Who is your lawyer?
Are any of your staff paid?
How do you store donor funds?
I have really important information I need to get to you. How can I do this?
I am a whistleblower with sensitive information for you. How can I provide it?
I am a whistleblower. Can you provide me with legal advice prior to disclosure?
If the law already says the government can do certain things, then what Is the point of a legal challenge?
Why don't you go after the federal government or the Prime Minister personally?
Are you anti-vaccination?
What about vaccines, 5G, Bill Gates, and China? Do you intend to make an issue of these things In your
campaign?
Do you have a Telegram channel?
A267
https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq 415
3/14/23. 10:37 AM Frequently Asked Questions - CSASPP
0268
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-268 A268
Do you have a WhatsApp channel?
Do you have a Twitter account?
Are you a federal or provincial non-profit?
I need individual legal representation. Can you help?
May I use either your name or emblem for commercial purposes?
I represent an interest group in our community. How can I provide Input Into your process?
What about expert reports? Won't you need those?
The longer a plaintiff's claim, the more likely they are to prevail. Right?
I am running for public office. Will you endorse me?
CSASPP s a non-profit entity incorporated under the Societies Act. SBC 2015,c 18 All iniormatior :s re1eased
under the terms of the CC BY-:\JC-ND4 0, ~' CSASPP,unless marked otherwise The CSASPPnames one emblem
CSASPP hove copyright and trademark registrations pending respectively
CSASPP:snot responsible ior the accuracy, adequacy or comp!eteness of information on this website CSASPP
makes no warranties of any kind, express or imolied (including warranties of fitness for o particular purpose)
and shall not be liable for any loss arising out of use of this information, including witha~t limita~:on any indirect
or consequential damages
CSASPPpresents the information on '.his website as a service ro the general public While the ir.fon1ation on this
site is about legal issues, it is not 1egal advice For those using this website who ore not legal professionals, we
urge you to seek 'egol advice from a lawyer
A268
https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq 515
0269
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-269 A269
This is Exhibit 'J "to the Affidavit of

r g 1 av1ts
A269
0273
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-273 A273
This is Exhibit ",(, to the Affidavit of

A~~Affid. r a mg 1 av1ts
A273
0274
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-274 A274
MISSION STATEMENT
Canada lacks a politically free and financially independent institute for the advancement of
constitutional right(s) and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution over the Executive and
Legislative and Judicial branches of government;
The Constitutional Rights Centre is established as a private corporation whose sole mission and
aim(s) are the protection, defence, enforcement, and enhancement of constitutional rights, and
the supremacy of the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, without government funding, interference, ·
or influence whatsoever.
The CRC's mission is, on one hand, to challenge unconstitutional excess of the state, and on the
1
other, to challenge the state's abdication or abandonment of constitutional duty.
Financing of the CRC is strictly on a private basis and consists of:
• private donation(s);
• pro bono time donated by lawyers, law students, and other volunteers;
• fund-raised cases.
The aims and objectives of the CRC are advanced through the vehicle of:
Litigation in the Court(s) by:
• intervention as a Party and on behalf of Parties;
• procuring co-counsel to assist other counsel
when requested;
• procuring direct representation of client(s).
Education through:
• public and private speaking;
• website publication(s) and newsletter(s); and
• seminars and conferences.
The clear mission of CRC is to be as devoid, free and separate from government funding,
interference, and influence, as matter is from anti-matter.
l
1
The CRC is committed to advocating for a truly independent, impartial, and accountable judiciary
that reflects Canadian demography, values, and a fair and open appointment system. A judicial
appointment system that complies with the process and substance of the equality
and independence provisions of the Constitution.
The CRC is committed to protecting, defending, and enhancing constitutional rights and the
supremacy of the Constitution over police, security services, the Executive, and the Legislative
and other branches of government without regard to:
• political correctness and influence whether political or judicial;
• special-interest and lobby;
• the unpopularity of the person or group asserting the Constitution or right; nor
• the implications or ramifications to public spending required to effect constitutional
rights.
The CRC is committed to resisting the unconstitutional "abdication" or "abandonment" of the
legislative duty of legislatures and the unconstitutional delegation, particularly to private bodies,
of public institutions and functions being the duty of legislatures and governments as gatekeepers
of the public good, policy, and welfare.
The CRC is committed to asserting and defending the citizen's electoral constitutional rights which
ensure and guarantee constitutional democracy.
November, 2004
A274
0275
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-275 A275
This is Exhibit
I
"lJ " to the Affidavit of
omnuss10ner or g 1 av1ts
A275
Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0276
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-276 A276
ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
Rocco GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -
Alexandra MOORE, CANUCK LAW, "Ronnie" Doe, Janes and Johns Does
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS:

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer

acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you
to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

TO YOU. IF
YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL
FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL
LEGAL AID OFFICE.
A276
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0277
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-277 A277
the plaintiffs claim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.

Date: , 2021, Issued by:

10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
TO: CANUCK LAW

Alexandra Moore
Janes and Johns Does
"Ronnie" Doe
l689. l 87l@gmail.com
editor@canuckla w. ca
Defendants
A277
Electronically issued I Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0278
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-278 A278
CLAIM
(a) $4,000,000.00, for explicit libel and slander (defamation) and by innuendo and
irresponsible publication;
(b) aggravated damages as against the Defendants in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(c) punitive damages as against the Defendants in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(d) an interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and
prominent apology for any and all defamatory publication and/or remarks by the
Defendants;
(e) $1,000,000.00 for harassment as delineated by the Superior Court of Ontario in
Caplan v Atas, 2021 ONSC 670;
(f) an interim and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants, or anyone directly
or indirectly associated with them, from posting or disseminating on the internet.
(g) prejudgment interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990
c. C43; and
(h) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or other relief
2
A278
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0279
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-279 A279
THE PARTIES
(a) The Plaintiff
2. The Plaintiff, Rocco Galati is a senior lawyer, practicing in Toronto, Ontario, who has
been practicing law since he was called to the bar in Ontario in 1989.
Canadian Who's Who (since 2011). In 2014 and 2015 he was one of the Top 25
Influential Lawyers by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In 2015 he was awarded the OBA
(Ontario Bar Association) President's Award. He was in fact the first lawyer to receive
the award.
4. Between May 2015 to May 2019 he served as an elected bencher for the Law Society
of Ontario (LSO). Between May 2019 to February, 2021. he also served as a Hearing
Panel Member (Adjudicator) of the Ontario Law Society Tribunal (LST).
Court (of Appeal), all levels of Ontario Courts, Other Provincial Superior Courts, as
Ontario, BC, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. He has, as counsel, well over 500
reported cases in the jurisprudence. Some of his major cases include: Baker(SCC),
Nadon Reference(SCC), Mainville Reference(SCC), Ahrned(SCC), Toronto Star
Newspapers (SCC), Felipa(FCA), Wang(OCA).
3
A279
Electronically issued/ De\ivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0280
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-280 A280
Centre
7. Rocco Galati is the founder and Executive Director of Constitutional Rights
Inc. since 2004.
Gong
Immigration and Citizenship Law" (1996), "The Power of the Wheel: The Falun
g ... "
Revolution" (2001). He has also produced three Films, "Two Letters & Countin
Tony
2008-2011, written, directed and performed by multi-Genie Award winning
inal" and
Nardi, on the state of art and culture in Canada, and the treatment of "Aborig
Funding of
"Other" "Canadians" by the Two Solitudes Tribes of Canada, and on the
"Canadian" Art and "Culture".
(b) The Defendants
"Canuck
9. The Defendant, Alexandra Moore, owns, edits, and disseminates the website
social
Law", at https://canucklaw.ca/, as well as the "Canuck Law" accounts across
media and other media platforms, such as:
Telegram: http://t.me/canuck1aw1
Gab: http://irab.com/canucklawl
Twitter: (at)canucklawl
Parler: (at)canucklaw I
LBRY: (at)CanuckLaw
Bitchute: Canuck Law
YouTube: Canuck Law
https://sl Uf!.com/
https://canund.com/
the vanous
10. The Defendant Janes and Johns Doe, as well as "Ronnie" Doe, are
employees, directors, and any other editors, publishers, or writers, who wrote,
Statement
published, edited, or posted the defamatory statements at issue in the within
of Claim.
4
A280
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No.IN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0281
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-281 A281
11. Notwithstanding that s.5 of the Libel and Slander Act ("the Act") does not apply to
the Defendants, as they are neither a newspaper, nor a broadcaster, under s.5 of the
Act, nowhere on the Defendants' website is there any address or name of proprietor
to satisfy the terms of section 8 of the Libel and Slander Act
• Facts
12. On July 6, 2020, Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation issued, on behalf of
various Plaintiffs, a Statement of Claim concerning COVID-19 measures, in Ontario
Superior Court File No.: CV-20-00643451-0000.
13. The Defendants were never Rocco Galati' s clients with respect to the above-
mentioned Statement of Claim, nor does Rocco Galati have any relationship
whatsoever with the Defendants.
14. In or around October, 2020, the Defendants began a persistent, false, malicious,
defamatory campaign against Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre. With
respect to the COVID-19 court case and their work in general.
15. The untrue, malicious, and defamatory statements made by against the Plaintiff are as
follows.
16. On September 16, 2020, the Defendants posted on their website, https://canucklaw.ca/,
an article entitled "Bit Of History: Galati/Trudeau Put Rights Of Terrorists Over
Canadians", this article came to the Plaintiffs attention in or around the end of
November 2020, and was still running as of December 4, 2020, this article stated as
follows:
POST: "Bit Of History: Galati/Trudeau Put Rights Of Terrorists Over

Canadians", Dated September 16, 2020, which states:
5
A281
0282
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-282 A282
Rocco Galati and Justin Trudeau both believe it's a human right for
foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship to retain that citizenship,
even after being convicted of terrorism or treason offences. Although
Galati lost that court challenge, Justin Trudeau would "correct" it
anyway, by implementing Bill C-6.
Simply holding a Canadian passport doesn't make you a Canadian,

except in a civic sense. Terrorists and traitors, however, don't even
deserve that.
1. Islam. Terrorism. Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance
of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to
crack down on free speech, under the guise of "religious tolerance".
2. Galati Defending Terrorists' "Rights"

CLICK HERE, for Galati claiming to have received threats.
CLICK HERE, for $10.5 million payout to Khadr.
CLICK HERE, for Galati defendin g citizensh ip for terrorists .
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001 canlii22177/2001 canlii2217

7.html
ht1Ds://wwv, .canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928.html
1
gal mi .easier. bai I.for. terrorists.2006canlii24454

galati.terrorist.citizenshiµ.20 l 5fc9 l
3. Challenging Security Certificates (2001)
Galati, decided to stop representing terrorists in late 2003. It wasn't

because he saw the practice as wrong. Instead, it was due to alleged
death threats. One of his clients was Abdurabman Khadr, brother of
Omar Khadr.
Omar Khadr himself, would eventually receive $10.5 million from

taxpayers, due to "alleged,, abuses and human rights violations at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
6
A282
0283
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-283 A283
5. Causin2 Oclavs To Justifv Release (2003)
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC

928 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 493
ht lps://www .can lii .orn./en/ca/fcr/doc/2003/2003fc928/2003fc928 .html
In addition to lying in his earlier application, a defense was raised that

human rights had been violated, since the deportation order hadn't
taken place within 120 days (4 months). However, that falls flat when
in
it's pointed out that the Applicant tried other legal means to stay
Canada.
6. Easier For Terrorists To Obtain Bail (2006)
R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oosc/doc/2006/200 6canJ i i244 54/2006 canEi24 4
54.pdf
In short, Galati wanted his client (who was charged with Section 83 -
terrorism - offences), to have the court view them in the same manner
as Section 469 offences. This would make it mandatory that bail
it
hearings be held by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. Thus
would remove the discretion for the Lower Court to conduc t it. Galati
admits that the reason behind it is that he figures it will be easier for his
client to get bail.
7. Bill C-24, Deport Dual National Terrorists
Illd=64019
ht tps://w\VW.par I.ca/LeQisln fo/B ill Details.aspx ?Lam.!_ua!!.e=E&bi
90
[Here you embed an high light part of this article]
This provision would allow for Canada to strip away the Canadian
citizenship of a foreign-born person convicted of terrorism or treason, if
citizenship elsewhere was an option.
7
A283
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 07-Sep-2021 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0284
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-284 A284
8. Fighting Deportation Of Terrorists (2015)
Galati v. Canada (Governor General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 3

[Here you embed and highlight part of the headnote of the case]
Although this application was thrown out, Trudeau would soon be

elected, making this all a non-issue. Still, it's absurd beyond belief that
foreigners who come to Canada only to engage in these crimes should
have people fighting for their rights.
9. Trudeau Liberals Introduce Bill C-6 (2016)
In early 2016, the Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-6, to remove the
requirement that foreign born dual nationals be deported if convicted of
terrorism or treason. In short, Trudeau did in the legislature what Rocco
Galati failed to accomplish in Federal Court.
I 0. Rights Of Canadians Don't Matter

Lawyers have a well deserved reputation for being scum, and these are
just a few examples of it. Societal norms and protections are
undermined under the pretense of "rights" for people who enter
Canada with the intention of doing harm.
Just as bad are the lobbyists, politicians, NGOs, and others who
undermine our laws to let these people in. Islam is not compatible with
a Western Society, and we should not make any effort to accommodate
it.
Foreign NGOs should not be allowed to influence laws and policies in

Canada. For that matter, foreigners shouldn't be allowed to hold public
office - because their loyalty will always be divided.
Also, still running, as of December 4, 2020, was your publication dated,

October 10, 2020, entitled "Rocco Galati' s Real Record As A Constitutional
Lawyer", which states as follows:
[You post CBC video News Story, on episode of Power and Politics,
interviewing, Rocco Galati, and Chris Alexander]
[you post a Conservative ad: Justin believes terrorists should keep their
Canadian citizenship, dated September 28, 2015]
8
A284
0285
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-285 A285
From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful,
and worth a mention.) Ideologically, Justin Trudeau and Rocco Galati seem
to be aligned on this issue.
Galati wasn't even born in Canada. This makes him a foreigner trying to
change the laws for the benefit of other foreigners. He'll never be a
Canadian, except in a civic sense, and even that is questionable.
Note: at 3:30, Galati claims this is about stripping rights of CANADIAN

born people. But in court, he tries to claim his immigrant status for private
interest standing. Nice bait-and-switch.
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance
of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are
efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of "religious
tolerance". What isn't discussed as much are the enablers, whether they
are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.
2. Galati A Professional Agitator/Disruptor?
[Here you embed a story from the National Post: Lawyer Who Defended
Khadr and Challenged Nadon Appointment Did it all to mess with the
"government Machine", dated July 4, 2014]
That was a 2015 article from the National Post, which spells out pretty well
the situation with Rocco Galati. He considers himself an opponent of the
government.
3. Galati Fighting For Terrorists' Rights

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII
22177 (FCA)
This was an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals as to whether suspected
terrorists can be detained on "security certificates", and what were the
terms.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC

928 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 493 A very interesting technique: Stall for as
long as possible using various tactics, then claim your rights are
violated when everything is delayed unreasonably. Seems designed to
weaponize the rules.
Harkat (Re), 2003 FCT 759 (CanLII), [2003] 4 FC 1020

This challenge was to prevent a suspected terrorist from being removed
from Canada. He was found to be ineligible to stay as a refugee.
9
A285
0286
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-286 A286
In December 2003, Galati claimed he would no longer be taking terrorism
cases because he was threatened. Spoiler: he still takes them. There seemed
to be no moral issue with doing this line of work, however.
In 2004, Galati and Abdurahman Khadr (Omar Khadr's older brother), held
a press conference. Galati had secured Khadr's release form Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. Khadr admits that stories he previously told were completely
made up.
R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)

In 2006, Galati launched a constitutional challenge to make it
mandatory that all (Ontario) terrorism cases be heard in Ontario
Superior Court, as opposed to the Lower Court. Galati reasoned that
this would make it easier for accused terrorists to be bail.
Horrace v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 114 (CanLII)

Galati represented a Liberian man who tried to claim asylum, and failed
twice. He was under investigation for terrorism/subversion back home, and
there were serious safety concerns. Galati attempted to secure permanent
resident status but failed.
Galati v. Canada (Gov General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 3

This challenge was against Harper's Bill C-24. That bill would have seen
foreigners who obtain Canadian citizenship have it stripped away if
they were convicted of terrorism or treason. Galati claimed as an Italian
born he would be theoretically vulnerable (as a way to gain private interest
standing).
Galati v. Canada (Governor General), (A-52-15)

Galati lost his challenge to let dual national terrorists keep their Canadian
citizenship. He appealed that ruling, however, the election of Justin Trudeau
made this a non issue.
One thing that needs to be pointed out: it's not like Galati was hard up for
money, or that it was a single mistake. He has been doing this for many
years.
4. Galati Billed $800/Hour For Nadon Case

Galati v. Harper, 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
Galati v. Harper, 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
Rocco Galati, et al. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, et al., 2016
CanLII 47514 (SCC)
Think that it was ideological that Galati challenged a judicial

appointment? Not really. He tried to claim a fee of $800 per hour for his
A286
Electronically is~ued I Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0287
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-287 A287
work. This is excessive, as ruled the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of
Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal. So much
for principles.
5. Mainville Reference: Quebec Court Of Appeal

Galati apparently wasn't content with meddling in selection for the
Supreme Court of Canada. He also tried to interfere with the selection
of a Justice to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This time though, he failed.
6. Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.

The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. ("CRC") was incorporated, in
Ontario, in November, 2004. From 2004 to 2013, it non-publicly, except
to lawyers, operated in its development, in assisting and procuring legal
counsel, with respect to constitutional cases, where counsel and/or their
client, lacked the funds and/or expertise to mount, argue, or appeal a
constitutional issue or case. Since 2013 it has, as co-Applicant, also
initiated litigation in such cases as the "N adon Reference" case, the
"Mainville Reference" case, the challenge to the new Citizenship Act
(Bill C-24).
Pretty strange that THESE are the cases that are first promoted on the
main page of the website. Aren't there better causes titan convicted
terrorists?
The CRC is structurally organized as follows:
It consists of one (1) Corporate Director.

It further consists of the following Operational Directors:
Rocco Galati, B.A.(McGill), LL.B., LL.M. (Osgoode)

Executive Director (Founder) and Director of Tax and other Civil Litigation
Paul Slansky, B.A., LL.B (Michigan)., J.D. (Detroit)

Operational Director, (Quasi) Criminal Litigation
Amina Sherazee, B.A., LL.B (Windsor)., LL.M. (Candidate)

Operational Director, Immigration, Human Rights, and Women's Litigation
Manuel Azevedo, L.L.B. (Osgoode), LL.M. (LSE)

Operational Director, Administrative Law Litigation
From 2004 until 2013, it apparently operated as some secret
organization to get counsel and funds for constitutional cases.
Considering the cases they view as "worthwhile" it's not surprising that
it would be operated secretly.
11
A287
0288
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-288 A288
7. Terrorist Lawyer Manuel Azevedo, Bill C-24
When Galati challenged Bill C-24 (stripping citizenship rights from

dual national terrorists), Manuel Azevedo was an Applicant along side
him. Azevdo was born in Portugal, not Canada, making him another
foreigner trying to rewrite Canadian laws. Azevedo is also a Director at
the Constitutional Rights Centre.
8. Terrorist Lawyer Paul Slansky: CRC Director
Who does Galati have as Directors in his organization? One is Paul

Slansky, who also takes terrorism cases.
9. Galati/COMER V. Bank Of Canada

The COMER case was previously covered on the site, and is actually a
worthwhile cause. It ran from 2011 until 2017, when the Supreme Court of
Canada declined to hear an appeal. The International Banking Cartel bleeds
us dry. In retrospect, however, a cynic might wonder if it was rigged
from the start, given there is no justification whatsoever for our
participation in such a system.
Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform ("COMER") v. Canada,
2013 FC 855 (CanLII)
10. Not Who You Think They Are
Considering the history that the Constitutional Rights Centre Directors

have defending terrorist rights. Why would sensible, intelligent people
choose that as a cause to take on? Why would they try to intervene in
judicial appointments?
Do they internally agree with the cases they've taken on, or is there some
other agenda? It can't (entirely) be about the money, as there are easier
ways to get paid.
And the current case with Vaccine Choice Canada?
With the filing of the challenge in Ontario Superior Court, Rocco

Galati has obtained somewhat of a cult following. The Statement of
Claim is 191 pages, very repetitive, and contains a lot of argument and
evidence, which it shouldn't. 3 months later (and counting), no defense
filed. However, people should know what he really stands for. This is not
to question his ability or skill as a lawyer, but rather his priorities.
12
A288
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021
0289
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-289 A289
17. On December 4, 2020, the Defendants wrote and posted an article on their website,
https://canucklaw.ca/, entitled: "Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaxx Movement Infiltrated By
Grifters And Subverters", dated December 4, 2020, wherein the Defendants made
the following statements:
ANTI-MASK/ANTI-VAXX MOVEMENT INFILTRATED BY

GRIFTERS AND SUBVERTERS
It's nice that people appear to be fighting back against the repeated
violations of Canadians' civil liberties. However, looking into them a little
bit, it's not clear that they actually have the public's best interests at
heart.
1. Other Articles On CV "Planned-emic"

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and
various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the
vile agenda called the "Great Reset". The Gates Foundation finances: the
WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial
College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual
phannaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what
our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the
International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here,
and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised,
shown: here, here, here, and here.
2. Who Should Be Looked Into

Given the deliberate and preplanned efforts of various Governments
around the world to strip people of their basic rights, it's natural to
flock to people fighting back. However, something really seems off
about the groups presented below.
• Rocco Galati, Vaccine Choice Canada

• Action4Canada
• Hugs Over Masks
• No More Lockdowns
• Chris Saccoccia, (a.k.a. Chris Sky)
• Lamont Daigle, The Line
• Rebel Media
13
A289
0290
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-290 A290
They may be legitimate, but there are many things that don't sit well.
This isn't "infighting". It is exposing what is really going on to the
general public.
In fairness, they shouldn't be disregarded entirely, as they all do speak

a considerable amount of truth. But the public isn't getting the entire
story.
3. Rocco Galati, Vaccine Choice Canada

Many people in Canada know about the lawsuit filed in Ontario Superior
Court, Toronto Branch, on July 6, 2020. The Case Number is: CV-20-
00643451-0000. While that sounds great, serious questions need to be
asked.
There are only 5 service addresses listed in the Statement of Claim, despite
there being over a dozen Defendants listed. So have they actually been
served? When, and how many?
No service address provided for:

-Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister)
-Theresa Tam (Public Health Officer of Canada)
-Patty Hajdu (Health Minister of Canada)
-Marc Garneau (Transport Minister of Canada)
-Doug Ford (Ontario Premier)
-David Williams (Ontario Chief Medical Officer)
-Christine Elliott (Health Minister of Ontario)
-Eileen De Villa (Toronto Chief Medical Officer)
-Stephen Lecce (Education Minister of Ontario)
-The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
Another point that never made sense: Denis Rancourt is listed as a Plaintiff
in the July 6, 2020 lawsuit. However, he is also (supposedly) their expert
witness.
This is an enormous conflict of interest, if true. Expert witnesses are

considered "friends of the Court", and are expected to act neutrally.
Obviously that can't happen if that expert is also a Plaintiff, and not one in
an $11 million case. No sensible Judge would allow that to go ahead.
Now, Rocco Galati has given countless interviews about his lawsuit
being filed, but there is never any sort of follow up on where things
stand. The likely reason is that there has been no progress at all in that
case.
14
A290
0291
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-291 A291
There is a single Notice of Intent to file a Defense (not an actual Defense),
filed on September 30. This was on behalf of Windsor-Essex County, and
their Chief Medical Officer, Wajid Ahmed. No defenses have been filed, no
motions, no requests for extension, and no court appearances.
For all the money that Vaccine Choice Canada (and their lawyer) have
taken in, it seems that no case is proceeding.
There had also been talk about filing an application for an injunction -
against forced masks for students in Ontario schools. Galati had said it
would be added to the case as soon as possible. But it wasn't necessary to
do that. An Application for Judicial Review could have been started
separately, and back in August. It hasn't been. Surely, hundreds of
parents would have volunteered to be clients.
It's also worth noting that Vaccine Choice Canada has another lawsuit filed
in October 2019, against the Ontario Government. Galati was the lawyer for
that as well. This was also in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto, Court File
#CV-19-00629810-0000. A defense was filed in that case, but otherwise
it appears to have gone nowhere as well.
Unrelated, but a lawsuit was threatened against this site, for

defamation, simply for publishing a part of Rocco Galati's real record as
a lawyer. To date, nothing has proceeded from that.
Galati freaked out and made threats based on the TRUTHFUL

disclosure of the kinds of cases he takes. However, he's been silent over
repeated questions about what is actually going on with this one.
From the September 13 rally in Vancouver, Action4Canada asked for

money to launch a lawsuit against the B.C. Government. Money poured into
the fund. In fact, it seems that they are still asking for donations online.
Seriously, asking for $1 million? The fundraising continued into October.
And who doesn't love religious freedom?
All of this sounds great, except one major problem: a lawsuit has never
materialized. Sure, the fundraising and requests for donations are still
ongoing, but there is no actual case. And who would do it, Rocco Galati?
Isn't he "not doing" enough lawsuits already?
15
A291
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No.JN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0292
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-292 A292
Fundraising for legal cases is also promoted by Liberty Talk Canada, a new
YouTube channel that recently sprung up and has exploded in growth. That
growth isn't organic at all, but the money keeps coming in.
One point raised by Vaccine Choice Canada: Galati spends hours answering
messages and doing interviews. Okay. Why isn't he working on the case,
where his attention is most needed?
Of the "donations" that Odessa is asking for, people should know that
it's NOT all going towards a BC case. A chunk of it will be given to the
case that Rocco Galati ISN'T advancing in Toronto. Also, a full 25% of
the proceeds will be kept. Nice bit of transparency.
Finally: this is superficial, but looking at Odessa's blank expression, there's
something that seems off about her.
In or around December 4 , 2020, the Defendants also posted a Defamatory video on

th
18.
the website, https://canucklaw.ca/, YouTube account, Canuck Law, and on their
Bitchute account: Canuck_Law, where Defendant, Alexandra Moore, read much of
the defamatory content, from the above defamatory articles, out-loud in a dark room,
which article the Defendants posted on the website, Canuck Law, the YouTube
account, Canuck Law, and on the Bitchute account: Canuck_Law.
19. These defamatory statements and publications made by the Defendants, above, are
false, uttered with malice, without justification, with insidious racist overtones, and
constitute irresponsible journalism. These statements tend to diminish the reputation of
Rocco Galati in the reasonable and fair minds of the community.
20. The Defendants accuse Rocco Galati of "not having the public interest at heart", that
he should be "looked into", that he "isn't given the entire story". The Defendants call
lawyers "scum", and imply that he is scum too because he is a lawyer. The Defendants
repeatedly suggest that Rocco Galati is "not doing anything" or isn't working on his
lawsuit thus alleging professional misconduct and incompetence. Furthermore, by
16
A292
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 07-Sep-2021 Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0293
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-293 A293
is not
explicit language the Defendants falsely state over and over, that Rocco Galati
innuendo
"Canadian" but a "foreigner meddling in our affairs", by express terms and
ed terms
imply that he is a terrorist, and shares terrorist ideology. Moreover, by express
and innuendo the Defendants accuse Rocco Galati of:
(a) Violating the rules of professional conduct for a lawyer;
(b) Being immoral;
(c) Fraud;
(d) Being a subversive foreigner;
(e) Taking on cases not to earn a living, but rather for unethical or
illegal reasons;
(f) Operating secretly and, by innuendo, of supporting terrorists, or
of being a terrorist himself;
(g) The Defendants further misstate the facts in the case of Horace
who was murdered before the case was finalized;
(h) The Defendants suggest that Comer case was rigged to lose by
Rocco Galati;
(i) The Defendants state that Rocco Galati, as a Director of the
Constitutional Rights Centre Inc., shares terrorist ideology.
o. The
21. The defamatory comments are extremely racist both explicitly and by innuend
here,
Defendants indicate that Rocco Galati is not a Canadian because he was not born
n.
and state that holding a Canadian passport does not constitute being a "true" Canadia
in 1976.
Rocco Galati immigrated to Canada in 1966. He became a Canadian citizen
17
A293
0294
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-294 A294
He holds no other legal citizenship, having lost his Italian status upon becoming
Canadian.
22. All the comments against Rocco Galati are further laced with innuendo of
incompetence based on a racial bias. Rocco Galati has been a Canadian Citizen since
1976. Any such distinction between born Canadian and immigrated Canadian can only
be found in vile racism.
23. After receiving hundreds of requests to do so, the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
drafted small claims templates with pleadings attached, which they made available for
purchase for a modest, nominal fee of $90 on the Constitutional Rights Centre's
website, for persons who wished to represent themselves in Small Claims Court
against institutions who have refused to abide by the guidelines and exemptions with
respect to masking during COVID-19. These templates, and pleadings, had taken
months to prepare, which people would be able to purchase and use. These forms had
sections that required some "fill in the blank" as well as provided all the standard court
forms, required for any proceeding, which would need to be populated by the
purchaser. The product being sold, however, was not the standard court forms that
were also included in the package, but the pleaded the structural facts and the law.
24. On December 15th , 2020, the Defendants published and then tweeted the following
further content on canucklaw.ca and other social media platforms, stating that Rocco
Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre was simply selling the standard blank
courts forms which are otherwise available online for free, in order to sucker and con
innocent people out of their money. The statement disseminated was:
18
A294
Electronically issued I Delivre par voie electronique: 07-Sep-2021 Court File NoJN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0295
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-295 A295
"While absolutely nothing happens in July 6 lawsuit with
@VaccineChoiceCA, their lawyer @roccogalatilaw has a new gig: selling
court forms to suckers.
Have to admire the nerve of a man who can sell documents (available for free
online), for $90 each."
[The Defendants then post a video created by the Defendants, entitled

"Galati/CRC Selling Court Forms for $90 Each "which are Free"]
25. And in the comments, the Defendants further stated:
'Galati will SELL you these templates, or you can just get them for free.
If
you buy from him, you are being suckere d. This is Ontario Small Claims:
[Post links to Small Claims forms]"
clips of
26. On December 15th, 2020, the Defendants published a video comprised of
template,
Rocco Galati' s instructional video concerning how to download and use the
by the
without showing the full video, where it is obvious that what is being offered
court
Constitutional Rights Centre, at the request of many, is NOT the free blank
and
forms available online, but rather a template with pleadings with factual matrix
the law written for the purchaser.

Slander
27. Although not required, the Defendants were served a further s.5 Libel and
rd
Notice on December 23 , 2020.
not an
28. On December 281\ 2020, the Defendant's published an "apology" that was
further
apology but rather a back-handed reiteration of the defamation meant to
defame the Plaintiff, as follows:
An Apology/Retraction To Constitutional Rights Centre, Rocco Galati
A few articles have been retracted that concerned Rocco Galati and the
Constitutional Rights Centre, as they are inappropriate and demeaning.
About the specifics that need to be corrected:
19
A295
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-000D
0296
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-296 A296
Apologies for suggesting that lawyers are scum. In reality, the profession is
entirely noble and honourable, and comments to the contrary are based on
ignorance and/or malice.
Apologies for any potential inference that could be drawn between a lawyer
and their clientele. Lawyers who represent terrorists should not be labelled
"terrorist lawyers". Likewise, lawyers who take mafia cases should not be
called "mob lawyers", and lawyers who take criminal cases should not
be called "criminal lawyers", etc ....
Apologies for using the term "agitator" to describe a person's record.

Surely, the cases they take on do not necessarily reflect any privately
held beliefs and opinions. Work is work, and personal is personal.
Apologies for any suggestion that fighting for terrorists to keep their
citizenship, or challenging judicial appointments somehow amounted to
subversion or lawfare[sic]. There are people who believe these to be
legitimate causes.
Apologies for suggesting that serious criminal charges, convictions

and/or security risks should be grounds for stripping someone of their
citizenship. Despite this being practice in many countries, it's wrong,
xenophobic, and racist to treat people like that. A Canadian is a
Canadian is a Canadian.
Apologies for making any distinction between naturalized and born

citizens, or implying that people simply aren't Canadians. This was
uncalled for. As the Charter and Citizenship Act view them as the
same, so there is no debate on the issue.
Apologies for suggesting that citizenship was anything beyond

obtaining the required paperwork, and that place of birth should be an
issue at all. After all, having the status means loyalty to the adopted
country.
Apologies for criticizing the current refugee pathways as abusive, and

in particular, people fleeing from the United States. Surely, this is
short-sighted with regards to the big picture, and everyone, no matter
the situation, deserves a fair hearing.
Apologies for suggesting borders should exist at all. After all, if a

person's lineage in Canada doesn't trace back thousands of years, they
are in no position to keep anyone else out today. Such a stance is racist.
20
A296
0297
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-297 A297
Apologies for suggesting certain ideologies are incompatible with the
West. After all, diversity is our strength, and no sensible person would
disagree.
Apologies for wondering and questioning why urgent cases sit dormant
for months, even as vaccines arrive and are being administered.
Certainly, there are valid explanations for these delays, and ulterior
motives must never be assumed.
Apologies for watching a video and thinking it meant forms being sold,
instead of a pleadings package. More due diligence should have been
done in advance. And yes, if people wish to purchase the products, that
is absolutely their right to do so.
Apologies for suggesting the Federal Government may have influenced

or rigged the Bank of Canada case. The rulings they handed down may
seem suspicious to the casual observer.
The articles in question have now removed. Nothing here should be

interpreted as to detract from the reputation of Galati and the
Constitutional Rights Centre, in the opinions of fair-minded people.
They are committed to upholding the freedoms we hold dear (including,
but not limited to), free speech, free association, viewpoint diversity.
More than ever, controversial views must be protected from tyrants
who would silence dissent and/or shut down media outlets.
29. The Plaintiff states that this ''apology" is a sarcastic recantation of the defamation
itself. Nowhere in this "apology" are the statements retracted and admitted to be false,
malicious, and causing harm to the Plaintiff. The statement has the pre-ambling
sarcastic incantation of "apologies for .. .'' followed by a back-handed repetition of the
defamation. The Plaintiff states that this further defamation is further evidence of
malice calling for punitive damages.
30. On January 7, 2021, in response to the email servmg the s.5 Libel and Slander
Notice, the Defendant, Alexandra Moore, informed the Plaintiffs counsel who had
written the s.5 notices, that she was pursuing a Law Society Complaint against her as a
21
A297
0298
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-298 A298
result of receiving the s.5 Libel and Slander Notices. This is further evidence of
malice calling for punitive damages.
31. On January 9, 2021, the Defendant, Alexandra Moore, followed up on her January 7,
2021 email, addressed to counsel for the Plaintiff, by stating that if the Law Society of
Ontario did not take her seriously, that she would pursue her complaint with the BC
Supreme Court, against counsel for the Plaintiff, which is further evidence of malice
calling for punitive damages.
32. The Defendants continue to post on lmps://canucklav,:.ca/ social media platforms about
the COVID-19 court case, falsely stating that nothing has happened in the COVID-19
court case, and continuing to state and imply that the Plaintiff have taken money
wrongfully or for collateral purposes thereby proliferating and magnifying their
original defamatory statements.
33. The Defamatory statements escalated once again in summer of 2021, when, on July
27, 2021, the Canuck Law Website produced an article entitled, ""Vaccine Choice
Canada, Action4Canada Want More Money For Cases (Still) Not Happening",
purportedly written by a person named "Ronnie", as follows:
Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada Want More Money For Cases

(Still) Not Happening, July 27, 2021 by Ronnie
On July 21, 2021, we had our latest round of panhandling from Tanya Gaw
(Action4Canada) and Ted Kuntz (Vaccine Choice Canada). They are asking
for money for what they claim are lawsuits to challenge various Governments
in Canada.
What people choose to do, and choose to file in their private lives is their
business. That being said, when it involves constantly asking the public for
money, it's fair game to report on what's actually happening. If those
donations aren't be used as advertised, then it's even more important.
22
A298
0299
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-299 A299
This is an almost identical script from a year ago. Action4Canada needs money
to start a suit, and Vaccine Choice Canada needs more to keep theirs going. In
a way, not much has changed. Thankfully, it seems that far fewer people are
buying into it at this point.
[posts video]
Of course, it doesn't help that misinformation videos like this surface,

telling of non-existent court rulings. Whether intentionally, or by
cluelessness, some with large audiences spread false stories of secret court
decisions fixing everything. This doesn't help either. It takes advantage of
widespread ignorance.
Keep in mind, that places like Ontario allow members of the public to search
for cases online. All one needs are the parties and/or case number. One can see
who has lawyers, and when they are next expected in court. If people are
unrepresented, that information is also available. Similarly, the Supreme Court
Of Canada publishes its rulings, as does the Federal Court, and CanLII is also a
great source. Also, individual courts can be contacted for information or
documents.
In their December 2020 update, Vaccine Choice Canada lamented how no

mainstream media had seen fit to cover such an important event. However,
they didn't mention (and still don't mention), that THIS SITE was
threatened by them for exposing the grifting going on.
[image of lawsuit]
This is the infamous case (CV-20-00643451-0000) filed July 6, 2020. Forget

trial, this may very well get dismissed for lack of prosecution the way it's
going. Seriously, is no one asking what's going on?
Gaw says that a statement of claim is in the works in B.C. Apparently, it going
to be 425 pages, or more. This would easily double the 190 pages Vaccine
Choice Canada submitted. These aren't supposed to encompass everything
under the sun. While such a document may look impressive, it will grind down
the proceedings (if they ever happen) considerably.
Yes, there was a temporary moratorium on filing deadlines in Ontario, and that
ended September 14, 2020. That was nearly a year ago. Interestingly, the
length of time that elapsed since that happened is never made clear.
23
A299
0300
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-300 A300
Kuntz also claims that no statement of defense has been filed in that year.
While true, it raises the obvious question: why was no application for default
judgement ever sought? Or for that matter, why was no effort to force the case
forward ever sought? Orlewicz never asks the question either. If a Defendant
plays games or won't answer a lawsuit, this is serious what litigants do.
By the way, this case is nearly 2 years old, (CV-19-00629801-0000), and

hasn't gotten past the pleadings stage. Children are being vaccinated right now.
Keep in mind, the organization asks for money under the guise of pursuing
such claims diligently.
Throughout the talk it's stated that there is a grand plan, and Galati knows
what he's doing. Sure, nothing is happening currently in the public, but trust
the plan. Not that it gives off Q-Anon vibes or anything. Also, Operation
Trust from the 1920s is worth looking into.
Gaw makes the nonsensical statement that she doesn't want to show her cards
at the moment. Okay. So, she and Kuntz are streaming on YouTube with
Orlewicz and asking for money for their lawsuits, but they don't want to reveal
their moves to the Government. They don't want their strategy being known by
their enemies. They seem unaware that YouTube is a public platform, that any
person can access at anytime.
These people say (or at least imply) that the emergency orders in B.C. and
Ontario were allowed to lapse because of the cases Galati has in those
Provinces. Funny, since there is NO CASE in B.C.,just the promise to start
one at some point. As for Ontario, Ford's people take the matter so seriously
that no defenses were ever filed. And again, no effort to force a default
judgement.
Both Gaw and Kuntz state that there are many thousands of pages of evidence,
including affidavits that run to the thousands of pages individually. Great way
to not show your cards. Anyhow, no Judge is ever going to read something of
that length. Even if such documents were submitted (which seems unlikely),
the Defendants could immediately ask for a delay of several months.
As for the Gill lawsuit that's referenced, that is a defamation case over things
said on Twitter, (CV-20-00652918-0000). It will have no impact whatsoever
on Government imposed lockdown measures. Sure, it looks and sounds great,
but is a diversion from bigger issues.
Kuntz boasts about how the various Governments have no reply to the July
2020 lawsuit. But he would probably be utterly speechless if someone asked
him why hen ever followed up. It's not like it's just a few days late.
24
A300
0301
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-301 A301
Do any of the Plaintiffs in the July 6 case find it strange that in a year, there
have been no updates? There was a Notice oflntent to file a Defense on
September 30, 2020 from Windsor-Essex County and their Doctor, Wajid
Ahmed, but nothing since then. Not only that, only the County and Ahmed
have anyone listed as representing them. The establishment fears Galati so
much, they can't be bothered to even lawyer up. Why is that?
[image of Statements of Claim address page]
One obvious explanation for the lack of progress would be a question

about the legitimacy of the service. Only a handful of service addresses are
listed in the July 6, 2020 case. True, a number of them can go together, such as
the Ontario Attorney General and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario. However,
all addresses must still be provided.
[image]
Here are just a few examples. None of the Federal Government, Ontario
Government, City of Toronto, or either Attorney General of Canada or Ontario
bothered to file a response. They also never obtained counsel or filed a notice
of appearance. This isn't a joke. They know Galati isn't serious, so they
don't even go through the motions of playing along.
Moreover, the CBC implies they weren't served at all. In their August
2020 article, they claim to have "obtained an unredacted copy". That's not
service (if true). That's someone calling up the court to order a copy. CBC
alleges that Galati spoke to the CBC but didn't agree to an on the record
interview. Further attempts to secure a public interview weren't successful. In
some sense this might be forced. Pretty hard to claim censorship when the
national broadcaster is offering a platform. One can only guess what CBC
would have asked, but it would be interesting.
They also claim that Vaccine Choice Canada threatened to sue them over how
they cover various movements. That accusation is surprisingly believable.
Perhaps if a convicted terrorist was about to lose their citizenship, this may be
seen as more of an emergency.
A minor point, but page 4 of the July 2020 Claim lists Trudeau and the Federal
Crown as "dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal
Prerogative". Isn't that the Governor General who exercises Royal
Prerogative?
25
A301
0302
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-302 A302
In the end, what do we have here? A group in B.C. promises - STILL- to
file a lawsuit at some point. They just need more cash, and have been at this
for nearly a year. In Ontario, there are 2 lawsuits (1 is specific to vaccinating
students), and neither are progressing. Doesn't seem very urgent. However, the
begging continues.
Again, if this was their private business, then who cares? But they are
endlessly asking the public for money, for the promises of lawsuits.
[image from statement of claim]
Guess we'll have to see if this one goes anywhere (CV-21-00661284-0000). At

least most of the Respondents have representation listed, so there's that. It was
filed April 2021, over 3 months ago, and no court dates are set. Or this one
(CV-21-00661200-000). Denis Rancourt is listed as an expert witness in both,
which is interesting considering he's also a Plaintiff in the July 2020 case
that's sitting in limbo. Is that why his name was scrubbed? So people wouldn't
connect the dots?
Interesting side note on the Sgt. Julie Evans case, the Attorney General used
Rule 2.1.01 to try to get the case dismissed. However, it's meant for very
obviously defective cases. If the AG was serious about this, why not use a
regular Motion to Strike? Was the goal to launch a half hearted effort to make
it appear to challenge the case?
If someone makes wild claims about secret court rulings ending all
measures, but can't provide any specifics, it's probably a hoax. These
things are very easy to search. In a similar vein, if someone wants help
financing a case, but never provides updates, there's probably something going
on.
To those reading this: it's your money, and you can spend it however you like.
That said, you should know where it's going and what is happening with it. It's
truly sad how few do even the most basic research. But then, suckers are born
every minute.
34. The above article includes much of the same defamatory content as previous
publications, such as claiming that the July, 2019 lawsuit is/was a hoax, that the
Defendants were intentionally delaying proceedings, that the Plaintiff is connected
with illegal or dangerous organizations, engaged in counter-intelligence or is
26
A302
0303
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-303 A303
the public
controlled opposition, and that the Plaintiff is misleading or not acting for
interest. All of these statements are false, malicious and defamatory.

spreading
35. More particularly in this article, the Defendants accuse the Plaintiff of
Plaintiff
misinformation, by attributing statements and claims to the Plaintiff that the
spread by
did not make. The Defendants then state that this misinformation is being
the Plaintiff.
36. The Defendants finally imply that the Plaintiff is connected with Q-Anon.
entitled
37. On August 9, 2021, "Ronnie" wrote and published on Canucklaw.ca an article
the same
"Why I believe Rocco Galati is Controlled Opposition". This article, at
Galati is
time, endorses another article of the similar name, "why I believe Rocco
controlling the Opposition", published by another anonymous party on

the website
"Overdue Revolutions", on July 17 \ 2020, as follows:

1
Why I Believe Rocco Galati Is Controlled Opposition

[image]
Over the last 20 years or so, Rocco Galati has tried to project himself as a
a
constitutional lawyer, fighting for the interests of Canadians, and humanity as
whole. However, looking more into it, I've come to believe that this image and
persona are entirely artificial. I think he's actively working against
Canadians.
Since this will almost certainly result in more threats, a little disclaimer is
needed. This is based on information readily available, and also, there is no
s
intent to mislead or deceive. Given the circumstances we face, truth become
even more important. Keep in mind, the Ontario Libel and Slander Act
contains many built-in defenses for writers and publishers. Furthermore, anti-
SLAPP laws prevent people from suing simply to shut another person up.
For extra information, Overdue Revolutions wrote a detailed article on

July 17, 2020, outlining many of the same concerns. It is well worth a read,
as is the overall "resistance" to Trudeau being controlled. One point the
27
A303
Electronically issued I Oelivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0304
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-304 A304
first article was spot on about predicted that Galati "appearing" to
challenge Trudeau in the July 6 lawsuit would convince others that it was
all taken care of- and that any outcome can be manufactured. However,
the plan seems to be to leave it in limbo, at least for now.
Now, getting to the heart of the matter:
As a starting point, it's a little strange that a person who claims to be censored
is in the Canadian media so often. CBC has hosted Galati countless times over
the years. True threats to the establishment aren't given airtime on the national
news.
It's also curious to note that the CBC never threw Galati under the bus
over that bogus July 6 lawsuit. Sure, they did a half hearted piece about how
this poorly written, and rambling document was likely to be dismissed. And it
would have been. However, they could have done so much more damage if
they reported that it was still sitting a year later. Then again, lawyers for
Trudeau, Tam, Ford, etc .... could have exposed this. It's been covered many
times on Canuck Law. Have to wonder when the "establishment" media
and politicians protect the "resistance" lawyer who's taking them to task.
1. Comments Like This Never Questioned By The Public

[Video Player clip]
This video is a clip from a January 2015 interview, posted in February (see
10:45). Apparently, there are too many white men on benches, and this "white
supremacist" system is appalling. The topic wasn't relevant to the issue of
banking practices in Canada, or the COMER case, but the contempt and
disgust spills out anyway. In fairness, this was 6 years ago, but is there
anything to indicate his views have changed at all?
Have to say, this rant comes across as pretty racist. Can you imagine if
those remarks were directed at another group? Also, it was an interview,
intended to be aired, not things said at a private event.
2. Representing Assets, Strange Cases

The law is a very broad field, and a lawyer will encounter many types of
clients and cases in their careers. However, here are a few that might make
people take notice, as they are unusual:
• Galati represented Abdurahman Khadr in 2003, a suspected

terrorist who was brought back to Canada. Khadr claimed to be
a CIA informant, making his representation by Galati very odd.
28
A304
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 07-Sep-2021 Court File No.IN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0305
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-305 A305
After all, this was a lawyer who prided himself on working against
the Government.
• Another noteworthy client was Delmart Vreeland, supposedly a Naval
Intelligence Officer. He was arrested in 2000. Vreeland claimed to have
information about upcoming attacks that needed to be prevented.
• Galati challenged the appointments of 2 Justices: Marc Nadon
(Supreme Court of Canada); and Robert Mainville (Quebec Court of
Appeal). What motivated these, and was there was some client
behind the scenes? Also, getting paid for the Nadon case must have
been important, given the applications to the Federal
Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada.
3. Bank Of Canada, COMER Canada Infrastructure Bank

COMER, the Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform, sued the Federal
Government in 2011. On paper, this seemed a noble and worthwhile goal,
although there may be more than meets the eye. Overdue Revolution covers
it pretty well, including the founders of the organization. Strange how the
Canadian Infrastructure Bank seemed to rise from the ashes of this case. It's an
organization handing out money for construction and development, and is even
less accountable than the Bank of Canada.
The other consequence of losing the Bank of Canada case means that any
future challenge to the banking system will be next to impossible. Read
into that what you will.
Now, Rob Carbone, of the fake "Republican Party of Canada", claims to own
the Canada Infrastructure Bank. He hangs around the protests a lot, pretending
to be a wealthy businessman, larping as a billionaire, apparently with access
to trillions of dollars in assets. Supposedly, Chris Saccoccia is planning to
become Finance Minister one day. The entire story is nonsense.
4. Citizenship For Convicted Terrorists/Traitors

[image]
June 25, 2014, Galati and Manuel Azevedo sued the Governor General of
Canada, the Attorney General of Canada, and the Immigration Minister.
This was to stop Bill C-24, which would have stripped the dual nationals
of their Canadian citizenship if convicted of terrorism or treason. This has
nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but letting monsters enjoy rights
they don't deserve.
Curiously, Galati and Azevedo tried to use their own dual citizenships (Italian
and Portuguese respectively), in order to gain private interest standing. On
29
A305
0306
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-306 A306
January 22, 2015, the Application was dismissed by the Federal Court. An
appeal was filed (File #A-52-15).
It would have been nice to know who was really behind this challenge.
Presumably, Galati and Azevedo are busy lawyers with a lot to do. A
bewildering choice, unless there was someone behind the scenes, directing
the action. Could they have picked a less deserving class of people?
After Trudeau took office in late 2015, Bill C-6 was one of the first pieces of
legislation introduced. Hearings began in April 2016. The Bill passed, making
the Appeal moot, and it was formally discontinued in September 2018.
One of Galati's clients in 2006 was Ahmad Mustafa_Ghany, who was

(allegedly) one of the Toronto 18 suspects. The charges against him were
eventually stayed. The ringleader, Zakaria Amara, was scheduled to have
his Canadian citizenship stripped away following his conviction and life
sentence. However, he won't now. Just a thought, but this may be the real
reason (at least in part), why Galati and Azevedo challenged Bill C-24.
True, everyone has the right to representation, even accused terrorists. That
being said, this is a bizarre way for these lawyers to become household names.
5. The Boyle & Khadr Families
[images]
In 2003, Galati worked to secure the release of Abdurahman K.hadr, older

brother of Omar Khadr. He was being held on suspicion of terrorism.
Supposedly, he "implored the public earlier this week to not judge him since
he did not face any charges while in American custody for the past two years.
But at the same press conference, Khadr later admitted that in the summer of
1998 he attended a notorious training camp in Afghanistan, which Osama bin
Laden is rumoured to have visited."
This is not to imply that Galati is involved in terrorism, but again, it's
certainly unusual for a tax lawyer to take this path. Of all the areas of law
that are out there, why is a person drawn to terrorism cases? However,
there would later be new ties to the Khadr Family revealed.
If your wife is pregnant, taking her backpacking through a warzone in

Afghanistan isn't really the best idea. But that's what Joshua Boyle supposedly
did. Allegedly, they were kidnapped in 2012 and held prisoner for 5 years.
However, they had 3 children in the meantime, making their "captors" some of
the nicest people imaginable. The story is farfetched, to put it very mildly.
30
A306
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No.IN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0307
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-307 A307
On December 19, 2017, photographs were posted of a meeting meeting
between Trudeau and the Boyles. Now, people can't just get in to see the
Prime Minister, as they would have to be cleared by the RCMP. Interesting,
that Trudeau didn't see him as a threat. Interesting, to have a Twitter account
with the name BoylesVsWorld.
Boyle used to be married to Zaynab Khadr, making him the former brother-in-
law of Omar K.hadr. This is the convicted terrorist who attacked the American
army and was captured in 2002 in Afghanistan. Khadr became a
multimillionaire as a result of a lawsuit years later. Trudeau handed over $10.5
million of taxpayer money, without putting up any real resistance.
Boyle was later charged with 19 offenses, including assault, sexual assault, and
forcible confinement. He was acquitted by the Judge.
As a bit of an aside, Joshua's father, Patrick Boyle, was a connected Judge

with the Federal Court, in the tax department. Galati got his start in law
working with the Government as a tax lawyer. But that's probably a
coincidence.
While the above sections related to past and historical information, let's look at
something more recent: the so-called challenges to the medical martial law
imposed by various Governments.
6. Controlled Opposition To Lockdowns In Canadian Courts
[image]
In December 2020, Galati filed a defamation suit against a bunch of people and
a few media outlets over comments and publications involving Kulvinder Gill
and Ashvinder Lamba, (file #CV-20-00652918-0000)
While touted as being a way to fight back against censorship of doctors, this
does no such thing. Instead, it sues a variety of people and organizations over
mean words. And suing private individuals won't result in policy changes.
Looking at the statement of claim, we can see what exactly it being sought.
Quoting pages 5 and 6:
[image]
Even if this lawsuit is successful, nothing will change in the big picture. Sure,
Gill and Lamba may become millionaires in the process, and apologies might
31
A307
0308
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-308 A308
have to be issued. That said, lockdown regulations and policies will not be
impacted in the slightest.
To everyone donating to the Constitutional Rights Centre, you will never

see a penny of this money. You 're just subsidizing private litigation.
Looking up the case online, it seems that many defendants don't have lawyers.
However, in situations like this, it's fairly common to pool funds to have a
single laVv')'errepresent multiple people. According to the records, the next
scheduled appearance is September 27, 2021.
Feel free to read the Statement of Claim, which is publicly available. The 2
Plaintiffs are seeking at least $12.75 million, over rude tweets and
publications.
Just a personal take, while distasteful comments were made, these are hardly
worth suing over, and don't merit such an action. Even taking everything at
face value, this is not$ 13 million in damages. And such a claim would
probably be thrown out if a SLAPP Motion (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation) were filed. And again, even if the Plaintiffs won, it would create
no policy changes whatsoever.
[image]
As for the comments that Gill goes around blocking people, there is a high
degree of truth to that. Besides, how can a person sue another for commenting
on someone else's blocking rates? Rempel may still be on top, but she's facing
some competition.
A source close to this mentioned that depositions took place in July. That's
interesting the case is moving ahead, considering how insignificant it really is.
A private defamation gets Galati's attention, but these don't. It's been
addressed repeatedly on this site how 2 claims by Vaccine Choice Canada
remain in limbo. One is from October 2019 and involves mandatory
vaccination of Ontario students (CV-19-00629801-0000). Another is the
infamous one from July 2020, which would end all measures completely,
(CV-20-00643451-0000). Supposedly, a group called Action4Canada will
be filing a lawsuit in B.C., but hasn't, even after fundraising for a year.
What litigation people pursue privately is their business. When one repeatedly
asks for money to support litigation, it becomes everyone's business.
32
A308
0309
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-309 A309
There have been rumours circulating that there are all these Affidavits ready to
drop on Trudeau and his cronies, and it's all coming together. Thousands of
pages of evidence is about to be submitted, and the Courts will fix it all.
Basically, trust the plan. Don't worry, there is a major effort behind the scenes,
and everything is being taken care of.
[l] Diligently push a case that impacts nothing long term.

[2] Let potentially groundbreaking cases remain idle.
[image]
The Defendants in the July 6, 2020 case (excluding Windsor-Essex Country

and their CMOH) haven't even bothered to lawyer up. And no attempt was
made to force a default judgement. A cynic may wonder if there was collusion
involved, an agreement by all parties to do nothing. The Statement of
Claim was written up in such a piss poor manner - and maybe that was
deliberate - that it would be struck by any challenge filed. Considering
that the Claim alleges serious human rights violations, it seems odd to be worth
only $11 million, far less than the defamation case.
Considering that the real cases (again, publicly funded) are going nowhere,
how exactly can Galati justify spending his time patrolling Twitter, dropping
Section 5 threats, and then start suing nobodies?
One could argue that this is just a convoluted strategy, or that there is some
grand plan. However, this looks like an effort to "appear" to be fighting
against the Trudeau/Ford agenda, while ensuring that it continues. In
short, this seems to be an attempt to neutralize real opposition.
Interesting side note on the Sgt. Julie Evans case: the Attorney General used
Rule 2.1.01 to try to get the case dismissed. This is the Police on Guard for
Thee. However, it's meant for very obviously defective cases. If the AG was
serious about this, why not use a regular Motion to Strike? Was the goal to
launch a half hearted effort to make it appear to challenge the case?
7. Selling Basic Information To Self Represented Litigants

[video player clip cut and edited by the Defendants]
This offer no longer appears to be available, but it was in late Fall 2020.
For the low, low rate of just $90, you could purchase half filled Court
33
A309
0310
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-310 A310
forms to sue businesses and the Government. Of course, it came with the
disclaimer that this didn't mean you were represented, and that Galati
and Co. were indemnified from any consequences. This meant the lawyers
assumed no responsibility, no matter what ultimately happened. This is
pretty much the safety that vaccine manufacturers enjoy. People would
literally be sold the rope to hang themselves with, and the lawyers drafting
the papers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Just a hunch, but perhaps this product was stopped because it was a
liability. The Law Society of Ontario may view this as selling legal advice,
regardless of whatever disclaimers were added. We see more of the same
pattern with these legal challenges:
[1} Divert attention with relatively minor matters.

[2] Ensure the big cases never move ahead.
Sure, desperate people could purchase these forms if they wish, and some
will buy anything. Now, where does the money from these purchases go?
Where does all of the donations for the "lawsuits" go? Unfortunately, too
few people ask those difficult questions. This isn't something where you
can just write a cheque and forget about.
Just like with the Gill/Lamba suit, such claims against private parties will not
result in any public policy changes. Sure, some will win their cases, but it
doesn't mean the Provincial dictates suddenly become void. There will be no
lasting effects outside of individual claims.
Now, had some basic informational videos (not advice) been posted
instead to let Canadians know of their options, that would have been a
really stand up thing to do. However, this comes across as pretty scummy.
8. Controlled Opposition To Lockdowns In Canada

[image]
It's typically wrong to judge people by the company the keep. However, in
this case it's relevant. Beyond the Courts, the psy-op is preserved by
managing and controlling the protests against these measures. Many of
the people leading them come across as grifters and subversion agents,
while others present as intelligence operatives. After a bit of searching, it
becomes clear that it's the same group of people running everything. Let's
take a quick look.
34
A310
0311
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-311 A311
As addressed earlier, it seems that the anti-lockdown political efforts aren't a
real solution. People like Maxime Bernier claim to support freedom, but will
never talk about the experimental nature of these "vaccines" being pushed on
children. Likewise, a party that cannot put together a basic structure in 3 years
should not be taken seriously. This principle also applies to the Republican
Party (Carbone), New Blue Ontario (Karahalios), and Maverick/WExit (Hill),
who have each had a year or more. None of them even have an internal
constitution, effectively making them dictatorships. Rob Carbone, of course,
supposedly is in control of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
You also have to question the thinking of those promoting the rise of unelected
people. Yes, traditional parties have failed. So let's get rid of that, and install
someone not chosen by his people, and not restricted by any constitution or
governing documents. If you want to save Canada, get rid of democracy. It's
absurd, trading one set of tyrants for another.
Even so-called renegade politicians like Roman Baber and Randy Hillier will
only go part way. They'll complain that these measures are heavy handed, but
never call out the medical fraud for what it is. They feed "hopium" to the
masses, trying to delude others into believing a political solution is possible.
[image]
Kelly Ann Wolfe has been one of the prominent voices from the beginning.
However, she has asked (or claims to have asked) the Canadian Military to
intervene, and is in talks with the U.S. Armed Forces See 18:30 in the video.
Strange how she can openly call for the Government to be overthrown, but is
allowed to speak openly. Not a peep from anyone here. You'd think that Wolfe
calling for a military dictatorship would be a cause for concern, but apparently
not.
According to her own biography, Wolfe is connected to:
• Hugs Over Masks (Sobolev)

• Mothers Against Distancing (Saccoccia)
• Freedom Forum Canada (Black, Jarnnisek)
• The Line Canada (Daigle)
Think these groups don't all run in the same circles? They do. Wolfe is just
one of them, and it's pretty chilling that such a person is so intertwined in the
"resistance". Think of this as a corporate empire, where the different logos are
used to camouflage the fact that the companies all have the same owners.
Considering the "Fed vibes" that Wolfe gives off, it's fair to ask to what degree
these protests are used as a way to monitor citizens. Why are these people
35
A311
0312
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-312 A312
leading the opposition? Because they're ensuring that things go nowhere,
following the wisdom of Vladimir Lenin.
Patrick King claims to have attended Bilderberg, which is interesting. He

doesn't really come across as an investigative reporter. King is a co-Founder of
the WExit Party (now Maverick), which makes it clear it doesn't actually
oppose the lockdowns the Provinces push. He's also part of the Yell ow Vests.
Vladislav Sobolev used the "pandemic" as an opportunity to start up a clothing

line with his company, Hugs Over Masks. Yes, global tyranny is here, but let's
make some quick money selling sweaters and T-shirts. One of the reasons
protests fizzled out is that people like Sobolev were simply using them as an
opportunity to make money. Now, are these grifters were just in it for profit, or
was there a deliberate attempt to drive away real support?
Chris Saccoccia, a.k.a. Chris Sky, came out of nowhere to emerge as the
"freedom fighter" for Canada. While he does say a lot of truthful things, his
behaviour and appearance are a complete turnoff to normies. Maybe that was
the point of selecting him, to make resisters seem like crazies. In fact, it would
be difficult to hand pick a better choice. He also started a GoFundMe, and has
a (defunct?) business. There's also this site, Mothers Against Distancing, or
MAD, which is pretty sparse. Of course, he doesn't really need to work, since
his father, Art Saccoccia, is a wealthy developer.
Sky also got himself arrested for (allegedly) threatening to kill Doug Ford. The
story goes that Rob Carbone turned him in - or made it up - after their
relationship soured. While this may be legitimate, it comes across as a psy-op
to give the police an excuse to crack down even harder on peaceful
demonstrators.
[video player clip]
Lamont Daigle of The Line is either a pedophile, or at least a pedophile

sympathizer. Beyond that, this "organic" group is part of an international
chain, and seems to support violence to achieve its goals. Wolfish did a great
piece on organization. It's unclear if this really is an Antifa style outfit, or is
just Feds pretending to be.
Hanging out with these people seems like a good way to end up on a watchlist,
or at least get bamboozled into buying useless junk. It's best to not get
involved with them.
[image]
36
A312
0313
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-313 A313
Odessa Orlewicz (or is it Munroe?) was an actress about 20 years ago. She was
in a few films, including Freddy vs. Jason. She promotes the grifting of
Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada. Her husband, Norbert, went
to Langara College to study theatre. He has a formal education in acting, which
should set off alarms. Are these 2 even married, or is that just a cover story
they use?
In fact, a lot of the people involved seem to be performers as well. Check

out their IMDb page. Maxime Bernier, James Coates, Lamont Daigle, Len
Faul, Galati, Artur Pawlowski, Adam Skelly and many others all have
roles in the series. Is this all just some grand production? At times it seems
like it. They recently discarded Chris Sky from the cast, and perhaps
Patrick King will take up the role.
Seriously, had anyone heard of many of these "freedom fighters" prior to

the Spring of 2020? They all know each other, and it seems to have been
the case prior to these lockdowns.
A couple exceptions: Ezra has been around writing for years in a variety of
publications. Carpay has been with the JCCF a long time, which has launched
challenges against a variety of measures. So it was unfair to lump them in with
newcomers. (correction from original)
There is more, but overall, the entire "opposition" movement seems designed
to subvert real challenges, and deter Canadians from banding together for
mutual interests. While it could be dismissed as a few bad apples, it appears
too coordinated. This looks like an effort to pretend to oppose martial law,
while ensuring it continues on. The Court aspect is important, but it's part of a
larger agenda.
Anyhow, these are some thoughts on why I believe Galati acts as a form of
controlled opposition to the Government. I don't buy the crafted persona
he sells to the public. Aside from the company he keeps, how are any of
the cases he takes beneficial to Canadians? How is endless fundraisers
with Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada productive, when they
don't result in anything? With all of the information presented, does he
really have the public's interests at heart?
38. In these defamatory and malicious statements, the Defendants accuse the Plaintiff of
"not having the public interest at heart" and of actually actively working against public
37
A313
0314
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-314 A314
interests. Moreover, by expressed terms and innuendo the Defendants defamatorily
accuse the Plaintiff of:
(a) Being controlled opposition, and presenting a false persona;
(b) Actively working against Canadians;
(c) That the July 6, Statement of Claim is a bogus lawsuit;
(d) That Mr. Galati is "racist" against white men;
(e) That Mr. Galati lost several cases on purpose, so as to subvert the interests
of Canadians;
(f) That donations to the Constitutional Centre will go toward Mr. Galati's
private clients;
(g) Violating the rules of conduct of his profession;
(h) Fraud;
(i) Being a subversive foreigner;
(i) Taking on cases not to earn a living, but rather, as you insinuate by
innuendo, for unethical or illegal reasons;
(k) Operating secretly and, by innuendo, of supporting terrorists, or of being a
terrorist himself;
39. These comments are extremely defamatory both explicitly and by innuendo, uttered
with malice and untrue. Although not required, a further notice under s.5 of the Libel
and Slander Act was sent to the Defendants on August 14, 2021.
40. In addition, in having a clickable link to "Overdue Revolutions", the
Defendants provided and endorsed the following vile article, which article is
38
A314
Electronically issued I Delivre par voie electronique : 07-Sep-2021 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0315
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-315 A315
not only blatantly false, but also includes defamatory comments against the
Plaintiff:
Overdue Revolutions
Why I believe Rocco Galati is controlling the opposition
This piece is a work in progress, although I have collated enough

information to be confident in the conclusions I am presenting. I am
posting it now because Galati is scheduled to be speaking at the next
Saturday protest at Queen's Park in Toronto. I will be updating it as I
compile more research. It follows the method and research of Miles
Mathis - if you are not familiar with his work and you find yourself
confused by my logic, you may wish to start by reading his expose on
the OJ Simpson trial, showing it was a psy op from beginning to end.
th
Rocco Galati is a Canadian constitutional lawyer who on July 9 filed
a 191-page suit containing 183 criminal and constitutional charges
against various individuals and organizations, including Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau, Chief Doctor of Canada Theresa Tam, and
the CBC, on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada. In the past Galati has
defended several suspects of terrorism, throwing up immediate red
flags. He has also been involved in challenging the appointment of
Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, and bringing a case
against the Canadian government to restore the Bank of Canada as a
lender to the government. Wikipedia lists Galati as Jewish. This is
relevant since the billionaire and trillionaire families who own the
world are predominantly Jewish. That is to say, not all Jews are
elite, but almost all of the elites are Jewish or have significant
Jewish ancestry.
After being called to the bar in 1989, Galati worked for the federal
Department of Justice for one year, before striking out on his own and
exclusively taking cases against the government. In 2001, he, along
with Paul Slansky, defended Delmart Vreeland at trial. Vreeland
claimed to be an officer for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI),
the oldest branch of the US intelligence community. Vreeland had,
according to the story, produced a note predicting the 9/11 attacks.
According to Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American
Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael Ruppert, Chapter 11
" either [Galati nor Slansky] had the slightest doubt that Vreeland
had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence or in some similar
capacity, possibly for the CIA." Ruppert reports that the two lawyers
spent months in well-documented efforts to
39
A315
0316
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-316 A316
prevent the 9/11 attacks, given the foreknowledge provided by
Vreeland.
th
Vreeland had been arrested in Toronto on December 6 , 2000, on
fraud charges. He was immediately put in solitary confinement, and
th
remained there until January 15 . This illegal treatment was
apparently administered because Toronto police had difficulty
ascertaining his identity. In May, the US requested Vreeland's
extradition for credit card fraud. What happened in the five
intervening months? At this point, he hired Slansky and Galati. In
June, he informed his counsel that he had information relevant to the
national security of Canada and the US. Over the next few months
Slansky and Galati made several requests to various intelligence
agencies that they interview their client, without success. In August,
the note predicting 9/11 was produced, although it was allegedly
111
sealed and not opened until September 14 • After Vreeland was
released from prison in 2002, Alex Jones, who competes with David
Icke for world's most obvious intel plant, interviewed him on air.
This is all incredibly suspicious, and reads like yet another show
tria] staged by intelligence. It includes such theatre as Galati
having a dead cat bung on his porch as a threat. Why was Galati
defending what was apparent]y, at the time, a small-time
fraudster? Throughout the story, Vreeland is constantly trying to
contact CSIS, the RCMP, and every other spook agency he could
name. The book by Ruppert is also selling the narrative that US
intelligence was warned of the impending 9/11 attacks but chose to do
nothing. This is misdirection, since we now know that no planes hit
the towers on 9/11. To wrap it up, in 2008 Vreeland was sentenced
to 336 years in prison for sexual exploitation of children and
distribution of cocaine.
Next, Galati served as a lawyer for Abdurahman Khadr of the Khadr

family of spooks. Abdurahman's father, Ahmed Khadr, was a known
financier for Al-Qaeda. At one point in 1998, the Khadr family was
living with Osama bin Laden in a compound outside Jalalabad,
Afghanistan. Later, Abduraman claimed to be an informant for the
CIA. So having Galati represent him in 2002 is quite telling.
In 2006, he represented Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, who was a suspect in

the 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. On June second, 2006, raids around
the GT A resulted in the arrest of 18 suspected terrorists, dubbed the
'Toronto 18'. Here we have immediate numerology, since 18, also
caUed Chai in Hebrew, or aces & eights, is a
40
A316
0317
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-317 A317
common numerological marker in hoax events. The numbers 33
(the highest rank in freemasonry) and 47 are used similarly.
Although the suspects were allegedly planning a series of bombings,
armed invasions of government buildings, and even to behead the
Prime Minister, nothing was carried out. The group had been under
surveillance by CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) since
2004. On November 27, 2005, intelligence agent Mu bin Shaikh began
to infiltrate the group. Mubin has worked as an expert witness for the
UN security council, . ATO, and the Department of Homeland
security, and given many interviews on terrorism for CBC, CNN and
other mainstream propaganda outlets. So the group was infiltrated not
by just any intelligence operative, but by a major spook with
international connections.
In 2011, Galati represented the Committee on Monetary and

Economic Reform (COMER) in a case against the government of
Canada. In it, they argued to restore the Bank of Canada as a lender to
the government, and that it is mandated to provide debt-free financing
to public works undertaken by the government. COMER was
founded by William Krehm and John Hotson in the 1980's.
Krehm was a Russian Jew who grew up in Toronto. In 1932, 2
years after graduating high school, he became a Trotskyist after
being recruited by a fellow Russian Jew, Albert Glotzer. Krehm
joined the Canadian branch of the Communist League of America
(CLA), which is given nine different names on Wikipedia, including
the League for Socialist Action, the Revolutionary Worker's Party,
and The Club. One wonders why they needed so many different
aliases. We know that Communism was a Jewish movement
(remember, Trotsky's real name was Lev Bronstein) invented to
misdirect dissidents around the time of the 1848 republican
revolutions in Europe, and to see the Trotskyist movement in
Canada undergoing so many splits and rebrandings during the 1930' s
indicates it was still accomplishing the same objective. Workers could
be diverted from any meaningful action by following the cavalcade of
socialist organizations and debating which one was best representing
their interests. The same thing still happens now in contemporary
politics, without workers realizing that NONE of the political parties
represent their interests.
Krebm 's Trotskyist faction was opposed to that of Mauri e

Spector, Jewish, who was one the of the founding members of the
CLA. Krehm's affiliation with the organization was sporadic, and he
eventually moved to Montreal to lead the party branch there.
Interesting that someone who was dropping in an out of the
organization was able to later acquire a leadership position. In 1934
41
A317
0318
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-318 A318
he split from the CLA permanently, and with the American B. J. Field
(born Max Gould; Gould is a common Jewish name) founded a new
worker's party, this time with a 5-letter acronym, which later morphed
into a different 4-letter acronym. I don't consider the names
important, seeing as they seemed to change on a monthly basis, but
they were known as the Fieldites, after the assumed name of Gould.
Krehm became the leader of the Canadian Fieldites, and edited
their Worker's Choice newspaper.
In 1936 he was off to Europe, representing the Fieldites as a delegate

at a conference held by the International Revolutionary Marxist
Center in Brussels that year. He bounced back and forth between
Belgium and Spain, before going to Paris and then London. While in
London he spent Christmas with prominent Irish communist Charles
Donnelly. He then returned to Spain, where he joined the Partido
Obrero de Unificaci6n Marxista (POUM, in English the Workers'
Party of Marxist Unification) as a propagandist and translator during
the Spanish Civil War. It's not clear how Krehm was able to afford
his travels across Europe, seeing as professional revolutionary is not a
well paid job. Wikipedia isn't even sure if he graduated from the
University of Toronto, or if he dropped out after two years for lack of
funds. This is a common theme with the biographies of children of the
elite families, who pretend to be working class, but are somehow able
to journey all over Europe, holding audiences with prominent people.
For one example, see MarkT\.vain.
While in Barcelona Krehm met spook George Orwell and would

converse with him in cafes. Orwell later related his experiences in
Spain in Homage to Catalonia. For more on Orwell, see here, page
16. POUM was outlawed by the Spanish government in June 1937,
and Krehm's house was raided by the secret police. He was detained
on suspicion of being a spy, and a11egedlyheld for 3 months, before
being hospitalized following a hunger strike and subsequently being
released. \1/hether or not that actually happened, we can be sure he
was a spy. He was released on the French border, and returned to
Canada, where he began giving speeches about his experiences in
Spain.
Krehm has a Jong list of spook bona fides, and finding him
founding COMER should give us grave doubts about the sincerity
of their mission. COMER circulates a newsletter where they
republish articles from limited hangouts like the Center for
Research on Globalization (globalresearch.ca). Just so you know,
the CRG was founded by Michel Chossudovsky, Jewish.
The Jewish Tribune, a newspaper founded by B'nai Brith Canada
42
A318
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique - 07-Sep-2021
0319
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-319 A319
(now out of publication) described CRG as 'rife with anti-Jewish
conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." So to find CRG being
founded by a Jew and being reprinted by the Jewi h-run COMER
makes no sense under a conventional interpretation. In fact, it i
another example of Jews creating their own opposition, in the
tradition of Karl Marx, Ezra Pound, and Hitler.
It is clear that Galati has made a career out of representing

intelligence assets and spook economic institutions. He has been
set up as a white hat, first trying to prevent 9/11, then trying to
restore interest-free lending for government projects. But notice,
was he successful in either of those endeavours? The question
then remains, why would Galati file this suit if he is controlling
the opposition? The answer is that it gives false hope to those who
are opposed to medical fascism that there are authentic and
intelligent voices representing their interests. If even one person
who was planning on filing suit decides to not do so in light of
Galati's lawsuit, the project will have been successful. Besides
reducing the perceived urgency for others to sue for violations of
civil liberties, having the upcoming legal battle managed from
both sides allows the elites to script the trial in any way they want.
Any outcome can be manufactured, and entered into case law,
based on the actions taken and arguments raised by the lawyers
and judges. If Galati is unsuccessful in his suit, and I predict that
that is the plan, then that will be a blow to anyone else pursuing
similar cases. The solution is to not wait for Rocco Galati to ride
in on a white stalJion to save us, but to file our own lawsuits en
masse and force the government to answer for its unconstitutional
actions.
[In the future I will be updating this article with more research on the
Khadr family, including Omar Khadr the Toronto 18, and the
Canadian Infrastructure Bank, which was created in response to the
COMER lawsuit]
41. All of the above constituted false, malicious, and defamatory statements which tended
to lower the esteem of the Plaintiff in the fair and reasonable minds of the public.
It
further constitutes rabid anti-semitism and hate-speech.
42. On August 31st, 2021, the Defendants continued their harassing, untrue, defamatory,
malicious targeting of the Plaintiff, and his clientele, by publishing an online article
43
A319
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 07-Sep-2021 Court File No.IN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0320
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-320 A320
authored by "Ronnie" entitled: "Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally
Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial", which stated as follows:
Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC)
against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan,
Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike
Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco
Galati and Lawrence Wong.
While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SOC
is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the
Government ever decides to challenge it.
Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil
Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading.
These aren't minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate
basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.
And no, this isn't "infighting". It's difficult to believe that "Canada's top
constitutional lawyer" could draft such garbage unless it was done
intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn't stand
a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.
To begin the critique, let's first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil
Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar,
and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so
presumably he's familiar with how things are done in that Province.
For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for
all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.
• Part 1: Statement of Facts

• Part 2: Relief Sought
• Part 3: Legal Basis
Rule 3-1 -Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil
claim in Form 1.
Contents of notice of civil claim
44
A320
0321
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-321 A321
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
( c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show

in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the
form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.
Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which
apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.
Rule 3-7 - Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it
are to be proved.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to
in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the
documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words
are themselves material.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.
45
A321
0322
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-322 A322
Assuming that this SoC doesn't just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine
Choice Canada are, it's most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays
out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going _throughthe SoC, it becomes
clear it could happen for many reasons.
Rule 9-5 - Striking Pleadings
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(I) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or
amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the
ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the
proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or
dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).
Now, let's address specific criticisms of the SoC.
1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-1 (2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts.
This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive
monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not
needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC - if ever
challenged - is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing
alone.
46
A322
0323
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-323 A323
This
Paragraphs in SOC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact.
makes it easy for the other side to simply "admit" or "deny". But through out
this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.
Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim
they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without
underlying facts being pleaded.
2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1 (2)(b) states that a Claim shall "set out the relief sought by the
at
plaintiff against each named defendant". In this filing, that section starts
what is being asked
page 312, and ends at 3 5 6. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline
for in the Claim. It's incredibly redundant and repetitive.
At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.

-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3
by
$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought
individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private
parties are named, it's unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these
s are
people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Official
named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for
himself.
r, it's
On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. Howeve
not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer
fees?
47
A323
0324
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-324 A324
$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?
3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC "set out a concise summary of the legal
basis for the relief sought". The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page
384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn't
really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief
sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done
without anyone checking to see if it made sense.
What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues
that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted.
Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.
At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just
be stating the law.
4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this
document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn't supposed to happen
at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to
establish.
Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn't be allowed in even if it

were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the
citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other
publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.
5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7 (2) tell us that: "The effect of any document or the purport of any
conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and
the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except
insofar as those words are themselves material." Throughout the SoC there are
very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine,
and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.
6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the
following elements:
48
A324
Court File No.IN° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
0325
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 07-Sep-2021
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-325 A325
(c) it may prejudice, emba1Tass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the
proceeding, or
Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GA VI, the
World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the
bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations
are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn't help.
Moreover, it's not just a brief mention, but entire pages.
Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every
statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.
7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

[image]
This is from page 118. Sure, it's very minor in the scheme of things, but
shouldn't lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet
Singh and Jason Kenney aren't being sued, so why are they even in here?
Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.
This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could
(by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not
minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by
Amendment, or a revised Statement.
Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert
Considering that he "is" an expert witness is the police case and the schools
case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of
interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If
they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence,
in violation of Rule 3-7(1).
And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not
Keremios. See page 121.
But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a
small victory.
Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for
49
A325
07-Sep-2021 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-21-00668341-0000
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique:
0326
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-326 A326
Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the "plain and obvious" test for making
that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and
there isn't any real fix possible.
Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is
never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.
Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice
Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it
has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No
default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in
over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties
agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.
However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no
urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn't seem they (the
lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This
diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go
nowhere. By taking on all these cases - and letting them sit - the Great
Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the
comments would notice.
Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: "The best way to control the
opposition is to lead it ourselves". And that's exactly what this looks like.
• Defamation
4 3. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that the above-cited statements are/were false, and
interfere with the Plaintiff's contractual obligations and economic interests, for all of
which he has suffered, and continues to suffer, considerable financial damages and
50
A326
0327
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-327 A327
uttered
44. These untrue and false statements were malicious, irresponsible, negligent, and
with malicious intent, in they attempt to assert and convince the public that the
(b) Being immoral;
(c) Being fraudulent;
(d) Being a subversive foreigner;

;
(e) Taking on cases not to earn a living, but rather for unethical or illegal motives
(f) Operating secretly and, by innuendo, of supporting terrorists, or of being

a
terrorist himself
(g) "Rigging" his court cases;
(h) sharing terrorist ideology;
(i) Representing his client for subversive motives and not for the public good;
(k) Being associated with dangerous or illegal organizations;
(1) Intentionally failing to advance the COVID-19 cases on which he has been
retained.
the
These statements are also saturated as vile anti-semitism, and also alleging that
Plaintiff is a terrorist, mobster, fraud, and controlled opposition.
at one
circulated by the Defendants. The Defendants' website, https://canucklaw.ca/,
Galati' s,
point, was one of the first google results when typing in the Plaintiff's, Rocco
name into Google.
51
A327
0328
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-328 A328
46. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff the opportunity to answer the allegations
before publishing the defamatory statements.
The Defendants' apology, published December 28 \ 2020, maliciously and

1
47.
irresponsibly aggravated the defamation, which evidence of malice is evidence of,
inter alia, by:
(a) the explicit racial attacks and slurs, expressly and by innuendo, as well as
references to "scum lawyers" and "terrorist lawyers", who are "not real
Canadians" but foreigners";
(b) an "apology" that does not actually retract the false and defamatory allegations
made against the Plaintiff, but in fact re-affirms and aggravates those
allegations by not retracting them, but rather trying to justify why they were
made.
(c) The unfounded threats to the Plaintiffs counsel in issuing necessary steps
under the Libel and Slander Act and Common Law.
(d) By threatening baseless Law Society Complaints, and in fact making them,
against counsel for merely representing the Plaintiff.
Two Law Society complaints were made by the Defendant against Mr. Galati and this
lawyer. Both were dismissed. A third has been made to which Mr. Galati is
responding. The Plaintiff states that this is further evidence of malice and harassment.
52
A328
0329
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-329 A329
Defendants further constitutes the newly-recognised tort of (online) harassment as
delineated by the Ontario Superior Court in Caplan v Atas 2021 ONSC 670.
As set out by the Superior Court in Caplan v Atas 2021 ONSC 670, at paragraph 68.
• Liability Of The Defendants and the Relief Sought
50. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff, for the instances and
reasons pleaded above, in libel and slander and in (online) harassment.
53
A329
0330
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-330 A330
Dated at Toronto this ~~

.t,f'-day of 5e,,,t;:,._

Samantha Coomara
LSUC: 75423R
TEL: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
Email: scoomara@protonmail.com
Lawyer for the Plaintiff
54
A330
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-331 A3
A3
0332
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-332 A332
This is Exhibit " V"to the Affidavit of

A~ T:: Affidavits
A332
0333
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-333 A333
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2020
A333
0334
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-334 A334
INDEX
PAGE
1 Notice to Reader
2 Balance Sheet
3 Statement of Deficit
4 Statement of Income (Loss)
A334
0335
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-335 A335
NOTICE TO READER
On the basis of information provided by management, we have compiled the

balance sheet of Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. as at December 31, 2020 and the
statement of income (loss) and deficit for the year then ended.
We have not performed an audit or a review engagement in respect of these

financial statements and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon.
Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their
purposes.
Toronto, Ontario
June 01, 2021
-1-
A335
0336
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-336 A336

STATEMENT OF INCOME (LOSS)
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2020
(Unaudited - See Notice to Reader)
2020 2019
$ 179,505 $
REVENUE
EXPENSES
173,445
Subcontracting
11,422
Advertising
720
Amortization
696
Dues
678
Office and general
80
Bank charges and interest
187,041
$ (7,536) $
NET INCOME (LOSS)
-4-
A336
0337
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-337 A337
l+I Canada Revenue
Agency
Agence du revenu
du Canada
Page 1 of 4
Sudbury ON P3A 5C1 0005405
Notice details
Business number
RIGHTS CENTRE
Date issued Jun 18, 2021
Corporation income tax assessment

These notice(s) explain the results of our assessment of your T2 Corporation Income Tax Return(s). We
assessed your T2 Corporation Income Tax Return(s) and calculated your balance.
Thank you,
Bob Hamilton
Commissioner of Revenue
Account summary
Go paperless!
Get your mail online through My Business
Account.
1. Log in at
canada.ca/my-cra-business-account
2. Select "Notification preferences"
Total balance: $0.00
T2 CORP 001 E X
Canada
A337
0338
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-338 A338
l♦I
Canada Revenue Agence du revenu
Agency du Canada Page 2 of 4
Sudbury ON P3A 5C1
Notice details
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CENTRE _B_u_s_in_e_s_s_n_u
___ _m_b_e_r
__
INC.
C/O ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM Tax year-end Dec 31, 2020
1062 COLLEGE ST
TORONTO ON M6H 1A9 Date issued Jun 18, 2021
Corporation notice ~f assessment
Results
This notice explains the result of our assessment of your T2 Corporation Income Tax Return.
It also explains
any changes we may have made. For more information, please see the summary section of this
notice.
Description $ Amount CR
Result of this Assessment
0.00
Previous balance
0.00
Total balance
0.00
For more information, please see the summary and explanation of changes and other important
information
sections of this notice.
Thank you,
Bob Hamilton
T2 CORP 101 E X
Canada
A338
0339
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-339 A339
Page 3 of 4
0005406
Notice details
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS CENTRE
INC. _B_u_s_in_e_s_s_n_
___u_m_b
......
_e_r
Tax year-end Dec 31, 2020
Date issued Jun 18, 2021
Summary
Description
$ Reported CR $ Assessed CR
Federal tax
Part I
0.00 0.00
Total federal tax
0.00
Net balance
0.00
Result of this assessment
0.00
Total balance for this tax year-end
0.00
Explanation of changes and other important inform

ation
You sent us Schedule 546, Corporations Information
Act Annual Return for Ontario Corporations, with
corporation income tax return. As of May 15, 2021, your
we no longer collect this information for the Ontario
Ministry of Government and Consumer Services.
For updated information on filing an Ontario Corpor

ations Information Act annual return, go to
ontario.ca/businessregistry or contact ServiceOntario at:
Telephone: 416-314-8880 or 1-800-361-3223

TTY:416-325-3408 or 1-800-268-7095
A339
0340
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-340 A340
This is Exhibit "W"to the Affidavit of

0ll1I~if~
~~
A340
0341
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-341 A341
DECEMBER 31, 2021
A341
0342
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-342 A342
INDEX
PAGE
1 Notice to Reader
2 Balance Sheet
3 Statement of Retained Earnings (Deficit)
4 Statement of Income (Loss)
A342
0343
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-343 A343
NOTICE TO READER
On the basis of information provided by management, we have compiled the

balance sheet of Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. as at December 31, 2021 and the
statement of income (loss) and retained earnings (deficit) for the year then ended.
We have not performed an audit or a review engagement in respect of these

financial statements and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon.
Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their
purposes.
Toronto, Ontario
July 13, 2022
-1-
A343
0344
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-344 A344
STATEMENT OF INCOME (LOSS)

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021
2021 2020
REVENUE $ 786,706 $ 179,505
EXPENSES
Subcontracting 754,199 173,445
Advertising 17,191 11,422
Professional fees 3,045
Office and general 1,536 678
Amortization 264 720
Bank charges and interest 180 80
Dues 696
776,415 187,041
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES 10,291 (7,536)
INCOME TAXES 369
NET INCOME (LOSS) $ 9,922 $ {7,536)
-4-
A344
0345
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-345 A345
Canada Revenue Agence du revenu
l♦I
Page 1 of 4
Agency du Canada
0003071
Sudbury ON P3A 5C1
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CENTRE

INC.
C/O ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
1062 COLLEGE ST
Notice details
Business number
Date issued
.......
Aug 2, 2022
TORONTO ON M6H 1A9
Corporation income tax assessment

These notice(s) explain the results of our assessment of your T2 corporation income tax return(s). We assessed
your T2 corporation income tax return(s) and calculated your balance.
The amount you need to pay is $861.34.
To avoid additional interest charges, please pay by August 22, 2022.
Thank you,
Bob Hamilton
Account summary
Go paperless!
Previous payments may not appear if they have not been
processed. If you have already paid the balance owing, please Get your mail online through My Business
ignore this request. Account.
1. Sign in at
canada.ca/my-cra-business-account
2. Select "Notification preferences"
Total balance: $861.34
Pay by: · August 22, 2022
T2 CORP 001 E X
Canada
A345
0346
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-346 A346
Canada Revenue Agence du revenu Page 2 of 4
l♦I Agency du Canada
Sudbury ON P3A 5C1
Notice details
Business number
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CENTRE
INC. Tax year-end Dec 31, 2021
C/O ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
1062 COLLEGE ST Date issued Aug 2, 2022
TORONTO ON M6H 1A9
Corporation notice of assessment
Results
This notice explains the result of our assessment of your T2 corporation income tax return. It also explains
any changes we may have made. For more details, see the summary section of this notice.
Description $ Amount CR
Result of this assessment 861.34

Previous balance 0.00
Total balance 861.34
If you pay the full amount by August 22, 2022 , we will not charge more interest. If a credit becomes
available on the same or a related business account, we will apply that credit to any amount you owe.
For more information, please see the summary and explanation of changes and other important information
sections of this notice.
Thank you,
Bob Hamilton
T2 CORP 101 E X Canada

A346
0347
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-347 A347
Page 3 of 4
0003072
Notice details
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS CENTRE
INC. Business number
Tax year-end Dec 31, 2021
Date issued Aug 2, 2022
Summary
Description $ Reported CR $ Assessed CR
Federal tax
Part I 454.00 454.00
Total federal tax 454.00
Net provincial and territorial tax/credit
Ontario 349.00 349.00
Total net provincial and territorial tax/credit 349.00
Net balance 803.00
Penalties
Subsection 162(1) failure to file penalty
40.15
Interest
Arrears interest
18.19
Result of this assessment 861.34
Total balance for this tax year-end 861.34
Explanation of changes and other important information
Net Ontario tax/credit consists of the following:
Description
$ Amount
Ontario basic income tax
349.00
Ontario corporate income tax payable
349.00
Total Ontario tax payable before refundable tax credits
349.00
We charged you a failure-to-file penalty. The penalty is 5% of the unpaid tax at the due date.
It also includes
a charge of 1% of the unpaid tax for each complete month the return was late, to a maximum
of 12 months.
We charged arrears interest because you did not pay the amount owing by the due date.
A347
0348
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-348 A348
This is Exhibit "1--:.'

to the Affidavit of
A348
0349
3/9/23, 5:54 PM Reports Home - PayPal
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-349 A349
(https://www.paypal.com/mep/dashboanl)
Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
Reports
Insights
Statements V
Activity download
(/merchantdata/dlog)
Financial summaries V
Disputes and chargebacks ()
Transactions
Help and documentation
A349
https://business.paypal.com/merchantdata/reportHome 1/4
Merchant Insights - PayPal
0350
3/6/23, 7:01 PM
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-350 A350
Sales insights 0 Help us improve this section
Showing data for

2022 L'J
Compare data to last year
Sales CT> TransactionsCT> Average selling priceCT>

All PayPal sales All PayPal sales All PayPal sales
$43,876 CAD 939 $47 CAD

... 91% from a year ago ... 79% from a year ago ""'56% from a year ago
o----00----~--o------co----o=>-----
, 1 Juo
0 All PayPal sales O All PayPal sales last year
Amounts are estimates based on the most recent currency conversion rate.
Sales Insights currently uses the Pacific (US) time zone (PDT/PST). If your PayPal account is based in another time zone, your
daily sales data will vary accordingly and may reflect partial data for the most recent day.
A350
0351
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-351 A351
This is Exhibit "j " to the Affidavit of

A~ r T-:
mg Affid .
1 av1ts
A351
0352
3/9/23, 5:54 PM Reports Home - PayPal
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-352 A352
Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.
(https://www.paypal.com/mep/dashboard)
Reports
Insights
V
Statements
Activity download
(/merchantdata/dlog)
Financial summaries
Disputes and chargebacks ()
Transactions V
Help and documentation
A352
0353
3/6/23, 7:01 PM Merchant Insights - PayPal
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-353 A353
Sales insights E) Help us improve this section
Showing data for

2023
Compare data to last year
Sales(1) Transactions(1) Average sellingprice(1)

All PayPal sales All PayPal sales All PayPal sales
$4,751 CAD 115 $41 CAD

•58% from a year ago •57% from a year ago •1% from a year ago
2 tlJC
0 All PayPal sales 0 All PayPal sales last year
Amounts are estimates based on the most recent currency conversion rate.
Sales Insights currently uses the Pacific (US) time zone (PDT/PST). If your PayPal account is based in another time zone, your daily
sales data will vary accordingly and may reflect partial data for the most recent day.
_ _J
A353
0354
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-354 A354
' "Z:: to the Affidavit of

This is Exhibit
A~T~ r mg Affid.
1 av1ts
A354
exemption 'certificates' I CBC News
12/6/21, 2:21 PM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine
0355
~ Search l. Sign
A355
In
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-355
British Columbia
2 B.C.doctors linked to website selling bogusmask and

vaccine exemption 'certificates'
use, produced through

Document obtained by CBCallegedly signed by Dr. Stephen Maltho
Kelowna business
· CBC News· Posted: Oct 24, 2021 2:01 PM PT

Bethci~y ~ir:1ci.?.9¥.
I Last Updated: October 29
tion 'certificate' purportedly signed by Dr. Stephen

CBC News has obtained a phoney mask and vaccine exemp
produced through the website EnableAir.com, which
Malthouse, shown here at top left. It appears to have been
ian Doctors Speak Out/Gwyllyn.com/CBC)
has been linked to Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard, bottom left. (Canad
comments e A355
1/7
ask-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221825
https:/lwww.cbc.ca/news/ca nada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-m
2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption
'certificates' I CBC News
12/6/21, 2:21 PM
is now under 0356

A B.C. physician accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-356 A356
offered through a
investigation for allegedly writing phoney mask and vaccine exemptions
Kelowna-based website.
l exemption including
CBC News has obtained a four-page "declaration certificate of medica
Malthouse and produced
psychosocial conditions" that was purportedly signed by Dr. Stephen
through a service called EnableAir.com.
n Goddard, whose
That website appears to be connected to another B.C.doctor, Dr. Gwylly
medical licence is temporarily inactive.
and Surgeons of B.C.

A copy of the same certificate has been sent to the College of Physicians
and they are investigating, CBC has confirmed.
ns about EnableAir.com,
A spokesperson for B.C.'s Health Ministry did not answer direct questio
masks or vaccines.
but confirmed there is no such thing as an exemption certificate for either
codes, for people who

EnableAir.com promises "authentic medical exemptions," including QR
the services of five
are "concerned with totalitarian mainstream narratives," and advertises
unnamed Canadian physicians.
ctive customers to
It's not clear how much the service costs, but the website warns prospe
p~~par~ f(?r !be _i~~~!~~-"
"mental_lY._
• AUDIO
~a_cc!na_!ion!or teen
Divorced Sask.__earents fight i_!I~o_u~~~~-r-~(?_\/_1~~1~
daughter
ble invoking the

The certificate allegedly signed by Malthouse includes a two-page pream
ation on Bioethics and
Canadian Human Rights Act, the Constitution, the UN's Universal Declar
Human Rights and the Nuremberg Code.
from mask and vaccine

It doesn't offer any specifics about why the bearer should be exempted
allergies but also HIV,
mandates, but offers a long list of possible reasons, including vaccine
"personal belief."
autism, "impaired social development," asthma, eczema, migraines and
Doctor already faces discipline related to COVID-19 A356

2/7
cine-exemptions-1. 6221825
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vac
2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption
12/6/21, 2:21 PM
0357
matches publicly listed
The contact information displayed on the certificate obtained by CBC
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-357 A357
~t~dto his cannab is
contact information for Goddard. The Kelowna post office box is con_~e
~ebsite.
P._E:=.rson~I
consulting firm, Cana BC Services Ltd., and the fax number is lis~~d ~n-~i?_
hung up on a reporter
Goddard did not respond to emailed questions or text messages, and
offline within hours
when contacted by phone. The full contents of EnableAir.com were taken
of that phone call.
~-<?X1~~
-~o-~!~r ~-~~~~i"-~~ !~-~--•-~-~!!!1!~1
• !I-~- !9 ~f~rn1a_ti~-"--~lajm
_' !!1Js_~ s speech
fre~
violations
to questions about the

Neither Malthouse nor his lawyer, Rocco Galati of Toronto, responded
certificate.
EnableAir.com advertises that 50 per cent of "post-administrative fees"

will be donated to
d. However, Galati told
l
Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, an organization he founde
CBC he has no connection to the website.
ns in Duncan, B.C., last November,

Dr. Stephen Malthouse appeared at a rally against COVID-19 restrictio A357
/YouTube)
referring to the disease as a 'so-called pandemic.' (Garden Gate Society
3/7
cine-exemptions-1 .6221825
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vac
0358
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-358
who lives on Denman Island but is not associated with A358
the island 's
Malthouse, a family doctor
_a!_!~~ c?lleg~ as well as
medical clinic, is already the subject of ~-i?~ipli~ary proc~edings
complaints from at least 1O other physicians.
mic-related measures, falsely

Over the last year, he's appeared at several rallies against pande
vaccines are more dangerous.
claiming that COVID-19 is no more deadly than the flu and that
His musings have gone viral online.
in June, he faces a reprimand

According to a petition Malthouse filed in B.C. Supreme Court
related to COVID-19.
from the college, which wants to bar him from speaking on issues
g they're an infringement on
Malthouse has asked the court to block those measures, arguin
his right to free speech.
Doctors 'need to provide objective medical evidence'

any investigations into
College registrar Dr. Heidi Detter said she couldn't comment on
what's expected of any doctor
Malthouse or EnableAir.com, but the college has a standard for
wrrting exemptions.
ce. You can't simply restate

"It's very clear about the need to provide objective medical eviden
said.
something just because the patient wants you to do that," she
expectations, they may face an

"If somebody is signing a letter that is inconsistent with those
."
investigation by the college and, if warranted, regulatory action
The college po~t.e~ ~ _n_o!.ic1= response to reports of fraudulent exemption letters

in~~-~
l_c:3_s!.vY.
or employers about how to
circulating in the province. It includes guidance for businesses
identify a valid exemption.
A358
4/7
accine-exemptions-1 .6221825
https ://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-v
0359
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-359 A359
sential services, and there are very few valid

In B.C., proof of vaccination is required to access many non-es
exemptions. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)
---- ----- ----- ---------------------· --- . - - - -·-
or deferral from a COVID-19
There's a very short list of acceptable reasons for an exemption
vaccines like Pfizer-
vaccine, including a history of anaphylactic reactions to both mRNA
eneca.
BioNTech and Moderna, and adenovirus vector vaccines like AstraZ
doctors from issuing mask and

Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons has barred three
college said he couldn't comment
vaccine exemptions in recent weeks. A spokesperson for that
on any possible connection to EnableAir.com.
-19 mi~informa~on
• B.C. doctors urge action on colleague spreading COVID
_n from
• On~arj~ c!_octo!ac~use!!_~! ~r:_e~~ing_~_9V~D-1~~i_sinf~rrt1a.~i_<>barred
v~ccine, _mask exemptions
pr.~yi~!".!_g
worked in Williams Lake, and

Another has a B.C.connection - Dr. Rocha_gneKilia_npreviously
held a medical licence in this province from 2009 to 2014.
restrictions could be placed on

Oetter said while the rules are slightly different in B.C.,similar
lent exemptions.
doctors here if evidence suggested they were providing fraudu
Moblle users: View the document

(PDF KB) A359
517
https ://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-colu mbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vacci ne-exemptions-1 .6221825
and vaccine exempuon ceruIIi.;cte::, 1 vuv """~
12/6/21, 221 PM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask
(Text KB)
0360
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-360 A360
CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content
Clarifications
's only
en Malthouse is not associated with Denman Island
• This article was updated to reflect that Dr. Steph
medical clinic.
Oct 29, 2021 12:07 PM PT
♦ CBCNEWS
Coronavirus Brief
latest news, tips on prevention and
Your daily guide to the coronavirus outbreak. Get the
your coronavirus questions answered every evening.
Email address:
Enter your email address
Subscribe
Popular Now in News

incident at Alberta hospital
1 Surgeon handed 4-month suspension for noose
870 reading now
2 CBC INVESTIGATES
man suing teacher over past sexual relationship
'She robbed me of experiences." says Winnipeg
831 reading now
water is now on the horizon

3 Banned for decades, releasing oilsands tailings
564 reading now
4 CBC INVESTIGATES
ate partners, CBC investigation finds
Warning signs present in 1 in 3 homicides of intim
550 reading now
5 NEW
oba over 3 days
539 new COVID-19 cases, 6 deaths reported in Manit
514 reading now A360
6/7
able-a ir-mask-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221825
h ttps://www.cbc.ca/news/ca nada/british-colu m bia/be-en
2/13/22, 9:24 AM (1) RCMP launches investigation into website selling fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions I Globalnews.ca
0361
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-361
We'd like to show you notifications for the latest
A361
Global·
NEWS '" news, features and updates.
No Thanks
HEALTH
RCMP launches investigation into website selling

fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions
By Ashleigh Stewart • Global News
Posted January 27, 2022 4:57 pm ..-·
Global News Hour at 6 BC: Coquitlam f... X
A361
1/20
https://globalnews.ca/news/8542508/rcmp-investigating-covid-exemption-website/
2/13/22, 9:24 AM (1) RCMP launches investigation into website selling fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions/ Globalnews.ca
0362
Experts are cafli rio and 8.C. are
A362
spreading inforr ■
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-362
We'd like to show you notifications for the latest re alleged to
be heading out
news, features and updates. concern
having Canadia1 am - Jan 20,
2022
No Thanks
q i A A+
A police investigation has been launched into a B.C. website offering

allegedly false COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions for a fee, after it was
highlighted in a Global News investigation.
A spokesperson for the Chilliwack RCMP confirmed it is now investigating

Enable Air, which works with unnamed "licensed physicians" to grant
vaccination and mask exemptions for an undisclosed fee.
It comes a week after a Global News investigation detailed the vaccine

exemption service, which has been linked to B.C. physicians Gwyllyn Goddard
and Stephen Malthouse.
Goddard is based in Cultus Lake, an area under the jurisdiction of the

Chilliwack RCMP.
Global News Hour at 6 BC: Coquitlam f...
A362
2/20
0363
--e, 'i,J 0
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-363
A363
'•'-
Global ·" news, features and updates.
NEWS
Yes, Constitutional Law

protects you.
CUCK • THE SMALL RIGHT UPPER CORNER wX" TO
CONTINUE TO THE WEBSITE
. ' .
Clll:I IUII£ 10 U IIUCTlf TII THEUllPIION
APPLIClTIOII roH
Enable Air's website, as pictured on .Jan. 7, 2022. Screenshot
Goddard's phone number, listed on his website, can be matched to the

mobile number listed in the HTML code under the "Message us on
WhatsApp" widget on Enable Air's website.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT
Global News Hour at 6 BC: Coquitlam f ...
Goddard did not answer calls from Globa
READ MORE: Revealed - How a web o .

the fight against COVID-19 A363
3/20
hltps://globalnews.ca/news/8542508/rcmp-investigating-covid-exemption-website/
2/13/22, 9:24 AM (1) RCMP launches investigation into website selling fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions / Globalnews.ca
0364
,able
But whe
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-364
A364
Air is. W iis
..... ~
Global - news, features and updates. e10

phone n NEWS
years 8£ llphone
basicall'.) !\lo Thanks
God dare.a LI ICI I ->UIY 11'1;; I IUU LV ~v UI IU , ,u, ·~ '-'I-'·
Half an hour later, Enable Air's website was taken down.
An RCMP spokesperson said police "are in the evidence gathering stages of

an investigation." They refused to comment further.
Doctors on Tour events return
A medical exemption for the service, obtained by Global News from a source,
was signed by Malthouse. The exemption states that the patient should be
exempt from wearing a mask and receiving a vaccine, citing a wide-ranging
list of medical reasons the exemption "might include," from claustrophobia to
migraines.
When contacted about the news on Thur

comment for Global News" and then hun
A364
4/20
2/13/22, 9:24 AM (1) RCMP launches investigation into website selling fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions I Giobalnews.ca
0365
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-365
A365
news, features and updates.
No Thanks
PLEASENOTE- BYLAWEN~ACEM00 1 R.CMP; All REPRESENTATIVES,

CLERKS & MANAGERS of P08U SERVf~ EMPLOY R, UNION &
HOUSlNG REPRESENTATIVES TI.USlffli~ SEFVESAS A REMINDER TO
voµ Ol= VOOR LEGAL DUTY TO A COM,MODATEMY MEOICM&
PSVCHOSQCl. l EXEMP.TION{SJ.
Wearing ~! QI shi"elds- is dettlmemil to rny hu!fh, A~wf~d(tlng Cho Otn'YTO
ACCOft my fEO!tA!..
JO-D-A'tii ~EMPT'!OlfmuetiapjlfJCl311J d. w, .rvatmfowtha
Jlloa"
nam -$fl(f,.$ignatuf'cof ha phyi.u be~ . ~ f, 2 & 1 oi"
wi ne$t to lhls docu.lrt.t:ri
the- 0\1.11~11 C..9Mtadtfon 1!182fQrmpM of s Chaner¢ RllJn•and f_cee<f-Onis
guaraAfe&lllQ Utt:riQlrtto lit&.
/tbl#ty& s wtily of "''~ · rtn~ Jam&~pp( fron'
th~ locaI r ···ulalio(\{s},naµd~f~·t · usagef4r mwieat
teBO!l .
Mynamei
MEDICAL exa(?110 S-tngh h1tlu4f.bllfw-ec(l,OUl'mito:
(& PSYCHOSOC-lA.l) ted
("1) MentalH&althlst4 • PTSO,Ciqulru~. Anxiety.Depression.
AI..Jtjsm,
ImpairedsQCJ3t deve!Upmen (nrt hioetaool e essions&-prelien1lip reading
in childnm) ·
(2) PhysicalHeallti Issue - COPD. asthma.dysptiea("s!"lortne:;s of breatt1},
headaches, respfralo lractlnfecilons
repE"at~
(3) Constitutiona l
Section2 'fundamental Freedoms' • (a) freedomof conscience
and refig!M;(b) froooomof thouQllt.belief.opiriooand expression, indudmg
freedomof u·,epressando · er mediao( wmmunica110(c) r;;freedomof peaceful
assembly; and(d)freedomof a oaati<Vt
um.lllnght•
mmla.,1011
MALTHOUSE
mm1.io11
n.dl•Me d~z
,DR..STEPHEN
lrse'
1 .... ···-··
_·-······
,.............
A vaccine exemption reportedly signed by 8.C. physician Stephen Malthouse. Screenshot
Goddard's College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (CPSBC) listing shows
he r.~signed i:_12016. Malthouse's CPSBC page shows he is still practising.

It comes as pressure mounts on the CPSE

sharing unverified medical information o
Malthouse is also part of a contingent of

country to persuade the general public t
"Doctors on Tour."
A365
5/20
After a t IS
0366
A366
■
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-366
through<
Spearhe ffe.
No Thanks
Doctors Charles Hoffe, left, and Stephen Ma!thous

Doctors on Tour evc-:~nt.YouTube
In a previous video from these events, M

to act as "emissaries" and to "pass thew
about the vaccine, including that they "c
A366
6/20
0367
ts (a
In thats;
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-367
A367
blood te cipants
news, features and updates. direct
tested p
contradi
patients ACI).
No Thanks
shots" and "death shots," and falsely claims that "more people have died from
these shots than from all vaccines in history combined."
TRENDING STORIES
I'm a Canadian nurse fighting abuse and Omicron. I'm at a breaking
point
'Increasingly severe' penalties for convoy protesters who break law,

feds warn
According to teqE,:r~IdatcJ, 269 deaths have occurred following the

administration of 72.9 million vaccine doses and most cannot be definitively
linked to the vaccine. This pales in comparison to the number of COVID-19-
related deaths in Canada, which now stands at 33,192.
A367
7/20
0368
A368
■
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-368
No Thanks
The RMCP says it has received no complaints about the Doctors on Tour
events and is not investigating.
Doctors 'beyond frustrated' with CPSBC
Alastair McAlpine, a pediatric infectious diseases doctor at BC Children's

Hospital in Vancouver, says he and 12 other physicians filed a group
complaint about Hoffe's conduct in December 2021.
The complaint centred around Hoffe's "inappropriate" use of d-dimer tests,

his unverified claims around the vaccines and included a warning that Hoffe
was intending to appear at a B.C. rally where effigi§'? of politicians and health
officials were hanged by the neck. McAlpine says the complaint was 10 pages
long.
"What he's doing is profoundly unethical," McAlpine says.

READ MORE: COVID-19 - Ontario doct<
lvermectin now director of company off~-
STORY CONTINUES BELO
A368
8/20
llttps://globalnews.ca/news/8542508/rcmp-investigating-covid-exemption-website/
0369
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-369
A369
.,,,
¾
Global, news, features and updates.
NEWS
No Thanks
He said is aware of other doctors filing similar complaints. The doctors are "at
our wits' end" with CPSBC inaction, McAlpine says.
"We are beyond frustrated at the inability of the CPSBC to take even basic
steps to protect the public during the pandemic."
The CPSBC has refused to go into detail about Hoffe's case but confirms that
he has not yet had a hearing, despite Hoffe telling Global News that his first
CPSBC complaint occurred in March 2020 and in the months since he "keeps
getting new complaints" sent to him by the college about his conduct.
Authorities at odds over who should act
The CPSBC and the B.C. Ministry of Health are at odds with where the
responsibility lies with properly investigating these doctors.
A ministry spokesperson said in response-·:1:"'-··"'""""""';·,.,..,.,,,

J..,.,,.""" c.i,,.h.,,,..1..1\.,.,,,, .... ,,, +h . .._:1:_
it is "aware of some medical practitioners ,. ,
misleading statements about COVID-19 a.
A369
9/20
htt:ps://globalnews.ca/news/8542508/rcmp-investigating-covid-exemption-website/
0370
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-370
A370
No Thanks
The incidents had been referred to the CPSBC, which is "the authority under
provincial legislation to govern the practice of their registrants in the public
interest," the spokesperson said.
But the CPSBC argues its hands are tied. A spokesperson said it "made
recommendations to the tri-party steering committee," including amendments
to the Health Professions Act, but "only the government can update
legislation."
1:09
'Unacceptable' for doctors to spread COVID--19 va

- Jan 19, 2022
A370
10/20
2/13/22, 9:24 AM ( 1) RCMP launches investigation into website selling fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions I Globalnews.ca
The Min
0371
he
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-371
r, ••
A371
recomm ,,,
Global· news, features and updates. was
overhau NEWS
releasec
No Thanks
The CPS
receiveo VII .....,._,Vll-'-1..J-ICIUL'CU l.cJ.cJU'C~ Ul IIVYY ""-'"Y U'--LIVC IIIVC.C,Ll~ULl"-'ilS are
underway.
Under BC's Health __ Protectlon Act, the CPSBC has the power to suspend a
physician's licence, or impose limits or conditions on it, before a hearing, if it
is necessary to "protect the public."
Ontario has similar provisions. Currently, Ontario has suspended two doctors
for COVID-19-related infringements and restricted four. More than 40
physicians ln Ontario are being investigat ..· c
GI b N --· H...........- ·-B-c •ti f
·· ·· · ··
······ ·········· , o a I ews our at 5 . ,oqu1 am ...
Surgeons of Ontario for COVID-19-relate
A371
11/20
2/13/22, 9:24 AM ( 1) RCMP launches investigation into website selling fake COVID-19 vaccine and mask exemptions J Globalnews.ca
0372
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-372 A372
¾,,,
Global news, features and updates.
NEWS
Ontario family physician says more must be done to hold doctors 1,vith anti-vaccine views
accountable - Jan 18, 2022
None of the B.C. doctors Global News highlighted for sharing unverified
medical information or allegedly issuing false vaccine exemptions have
restrictions or suspensions placed on their licences.
A CPSBC spokesperson said this action could only be taken as an

"extraordinary remedy" that must be used "sparingly" because it "interferes
with a registrant's ability to practice before any misconduct has been proven."
Enable Air also linked to Ontario
This issue is not constrained to B.C. The College of Pllyslclans and Surgeons
ot Ontario (CPSO) and Ontario Ministry of Health continue to spar about how
to deal with physicians operating in a medical grey area.
STORY CONTINUES BEL.OW ADVERTISEMENT
Global News Hour at 6 BC: Coquitlam f...
A372
12/20
hltps://globalnews.ca/news/8542508/rcmp-investigating-covid-exemption-website/
0373
Enable/.
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-373
A373
;.,,,,.,....,
Global," news, features and updates.

Toronto NEWS
In an arc the
No Thanks
"post ad Galati,
VI I.It\':;; IVI VI ILv-uu.;,~u -..,v, l.;JLILULIVI IUI Rights
Centre.
Galati is also representing Ontario doctor Rochagne Kilian, who has been
connected to the service.
3:18
i,. •• ❖
ref;
K}((J.C:£~~~;:s I(:ltflff
Doug Ford satisfied with CPSO process restricting Ontario doctors - Oct 18, 2021
Kilian is awaiting a hearing with the Ontar Global News Hour at 6 BC: coquitlam f ...
by the CPSO that she has refused to com

Kilian's issuing of false medical exemptio
As a result, the Owen Sound family docto

susp~nded late last yea~

A373
13/20
htt.ps://globalnews.ca/news/8542508/rcmp-investigating-covid-exemption-website/
0374
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-374
A374
Global
NEWS ' news, features and updates.
No Thanks
Galati has been hospitalized since Jan. 2 for a "private medical matter,"
according to the organization's website. As such, Kilian's hearing was
postponed until February.
Kilian's husband, Abrie Kilian, speaking on her behalf, declined to comment

on the hearing.
Questions to Galati's office and associates were not answered.
Canadian cases
CONFiRMED DEATHS FULLY VACCINATED BOOSTED
3,180,027 35,371 83.66% 45.51%

of Canadians aged 5+ of Canadians aged 5 t
Source: Esri Canada

..Iracker for more details and maps
Check out our .Q..oron_av!rn.~ Last Updated: February 12, 2022, at 11:00:00 am EST
© 2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainmt~nt Inc.
0 JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS & REPORT AN ERROR

, Global News Hour at 6 BC: Coquitlam f ...
COVID-19 COVID Omicron COVID
SPONSORED STORIES
A374
14/20
0375
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-375 A375
This is Exhibit " ~~ to the Affidavit of

A375
0376
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-376 1 A376
I 062 College Street, Lower Level
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
December 121\ 2021
VIA FAX & MAIL
Chilliwack RCMP
45924 Airport Road
Chilliwack, British Columbia V2P 1A2
Fax: (604) 702-4243
ATTN: Chilliwack RCMP
RE: Dr. Gywllyn Goddard and "Enable Air"
I am a practicing lawyer in Ontario, called to the Ontario bar in 1989. I am also the
Executive Director of the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. ("CRC") incorporated in
Ontario in November, 2004.
Please consider this letter, along with attached sworn affidavits of Dr. Rochange Kilian,
Dr. Stephen Malthouse, Abraham Kilian, and a CBC article, as a criminal complaint
against Dr. Goddard and "Enable Air" (the corporation) in fraud, false pretences, and
uttering forged documents.
It recently came to my attention that Dr. Goddard, through "Enable Air", solicits and
charges a "referral fee", a substantial amount of money, to refer patients to other doctors
for assessment for medical "exemptions" from COVID-19 inoculations. He charges
approximately $800.00 as the referral fee, and forwards 10% ($80.00) to the physician.
However, on the website, which I understand has now been taken down, he falsely and
fraudulently misrepresented that he forwards "50% of post-administrative" fees collected
to "Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre". This is false and has never
happened.
I categorically state, and would testify under oath that:
1. I have never spoken to, emailed, corresponded, nor received any communication
from Dr. Goddard whatsoever;
2. I was never contacted either by Dr. Goddard, nor anyone else connected with
Enable Air with respect to their false representations, neither would I, nor the
CRC, have ever agreed to such an arrangement; and
... ./2
A376
0377
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-377
2 A377
3. Lastly, that neither I, nor the CRC, have ever received any funds from Dr.
Goddard and/or Enable Air, and that neither would I, nor the CRC, ever agree
with such an arrangement.
The amounts received by Enable Air are staggering, considering that $800,000.00 would
be collected for every 1,000 exemptions.
I would therefore request a criminal investigation against Dr. Goddard and Enable Air
with whom I nor the CRC have ever had any contact or relationship whatsoever.
For full disclosure I am legal counsel to both Dr. Malthouse and Dr. Kilian, in B.C. and
Ontario, respectively.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Yours Truly,
ROCCO GALA TI LAW FIRM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Per:

RG*sc
A377
0378
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-378 A378
IN THE MATTER OF "Enable
Air" and Dr. Gwyllyn S. Goddard
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. STEPHEN

MALTHOUSE
I, STEPHEN MAL THO USE, in the City of Denman Island, in the Province of British Columbia,
MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am a licensed medical doctor in British Columbia.
2. I know Gwyllyn S. Goddard, the individual who created Enable Air and the Enable Air
website.
3. I was made aware that the Enable Air website proclaimed the following:
"DONATIONS: Reminder that 50% of the post-administrative fees are donated to
Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre to pay for the fees required to
win cases that support Employee's & other people's Right to Informed Medical
Consent."
4. I know the above statement to be false and inaccurate.
5. While I do not know the original intentions of Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard in putting that
statement on the Enable Air website, I know for a fact it is not true because he has stated to
me that Enable Air has never made any donations to either Rocco Galati or to the
Constitutional Rights Centre, and that Rocco Galati has never had any contact with him. Dr.
Goddard stated to me that the above-quoted reference in paragraph 3 of this my affidavit,
with respect to Mr. Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre was removed from his
website.
SWORN BEFORE ME BY VIDEO CONFERENCE)

By Stephen Malthouse of Denman Island )
In the Regional District of Comox Valley, )
In the province of British Columbia Columbia )
Before me at the City of Toronto )
th
In the Province of Ontario, on this 11 day of ) ~,<--,?-1~
December, 2021, in accordance with 0. Reg. 431/20:) Stephen Malthouse
Ad · · e -ing Oath or Declaration Remotely. )
a Coomara, Barrister and Solicitor
A378
0379
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-379 A379
IN THE MATTER OF
a complaint pursuant to the
Criminal Code of Canada Against
GWYLLYNS.GODDARD
AFFIDAVIT OF
ROCHAGNE KILIAN
I, Rochagne Kilian, in the City of Kemble, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND
SAY:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. I am an adult female medical doctor residing at 319173 Grey Road 1, Kemble, Ontario
and as such have knowledge of the matters.
2. The facts contained herein are within my personal knowledge and are to the best of my
belief both true and correct. Where I do not have personal knowledge, it is based on
information and belief.
3. In 2005, I earned a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBChB) degree,
which required me to complete five years of theory, two years of internship (this is similar
to residency) and then one year of community service. Community service consists of
being a doctor in a rural area, where you are sometimes the only physician in the town.
This meant that I would run the emergency department, run the surgery department,
perform c-sections, sterilizations and minor traumas that come my way. I helped run the
A379
0380
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-380 A380
clinics with hundreds of people coming through daily. I also dealt a lot with issues
regarding, TB, HIV/AIDS, malnutrition and dealt with trauma patients.
4. I completed my Medical Council Qualification Examinations (MCQE II), certified by the
Medical Council of Canada, during or about 2011 in order to practice medicine in Canada.
5. In addition to the above, I completed my CCFP examination, certified by the College of
Family Physicians of Canada, as a family medicine specialist during or about 2012.
6. Furthermore, I completed my CCFP (EM) examination, certified by the College of Family
Physicians of Canada, as an emergency medicine specialist during or about 2013.
7. I practiced as an emergency room physician at several hospitals, the most recent was Grey
Bruce Health Services Owen Sound, from or about December 2016 until or about 23
August 2021.
8. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" is a copy of my Resume.
ENABLE AIR INFORMATION
9. I am advised by my spouse and do verily believe that according to an internet search he
performed on the Ministry of Citizens' Services of British Columbia website, under the
Corporate Registries of British Columbia it is indicated that GODDARD REAL ESTATE
HOLDINGS INC., incorporation number 0784400 and 1012110 B.C. LTD., incorporation
number 1012110 and DR. GWYLL YN S. GODDARD INC., incorporation number
0748633 were amalgamated as one company under the name DR. GWYLL YN S.
GODDARD INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time on 1 February 2020. Attached
and marked as Exhibit "B" is proof of incorporation.
10. 1012110 B.C. LTD. with incorporation number 1012110 operated by Dr Gwyllyn
Goddard and trading as Enable Air, is a corporation that provides a doctor finding service
A380
0381
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-381 A381
to their clients and provides a non-medical front-end administrative service to medical
doctors.
11. Administrative services provided by Enable Air to medical doctors include the following:-
1. Connecting patients with contracted medical doctors;
11. Providing non-medical front-end administrative services to contracted medical doctors;
m. Payment to contracted medical doctors for services rendered to patients.
ENABLE AIR RELATIONS
12. On or about the summer of 2021, I came to know, through social media groups, that
Enable Air was a patient referral company that needed medical doctors to provide
uninsured longitudinal I health care for patients in Ontario. At the time I was working full
time as an ER doctor with Grey Bruce Health Services but did not have my own private
practise. In the process of my work in ER I was approached by many patients requesting
primary family health care. I decided, that given the demand I would explore starting a
private family practise to offer health care to patients in Ontario and obtaining referrals
from Enable Air would be a good start.
13. On or around the summer of 2021, I approached Enable Air and made known my
willingness to provide uninsured longitudinal care to their clients in Ontario.
14. Enable Air and I engaged in a verbal agreement, to which Enable Air will provide me
with a non-medical front-end administrative service and I, as an independent contractor,
prevention and
1
A longitudinal care is a holistic, dynamic, and integrated care that documents important disease
values and preferences,
treatment goals and plans. A longitudinal plan is patient-centered, reflecting a patient's
Lipika & Donahue, Moreen &
and is dependent upon bidirectional communications. See Dykes, Patricia & Samal,
Arjun & Volk, Lynn & Bates,
Greenberg, Jeffrey & Hurley, Ann & Hasan, Omar & O'Malley, Terrance & Venkatesh,
reality. Journal of the American Medical
David. (2014). A patient-centered longitudinal care plan: Vision versus
Association: JAMIA. https:ljwww.researchgat e.net/public ation/26371 0012 A patient-
Informatics
centered longitudinal care plan Vision versus reality/
A381
0382
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-382 A382
will provide uninsured longitudinal care to Enable Air clients. I would be paid a fee from
Enable Air but I would not bill and I would not receive any fees or monies from the
patient directly.
15. Dr. Goddard requested time to allow him to be able to draft a written agreement and
provide me with same. However, I have not now and have never been provided with a
written agreement.
16. I consider my contractual obligations to Enable Air, and my fiduciary relationship with a
patient, which are both separate relationships, are established the moment I receive a
patient's charts from Enable Air.
17. When I received a patient referral from Enable Air, I consulted the patient.
18. I was not privy to either the contractual agreement that was established between the
patients and Enable Air or, the amount paid by each patient to Enable Air. However, on or
about the 16th of September 2021 some patients did inquire about the payments they made
to Enable Air and the extent of care I will be providing. As a result, for the first time I
became concerned about Enable Air's financial impropriety.
19. Due to my concern, on or about the 17 of September 2021 I inquired with Dr. Goddard
th
about the payments. Upon inquiring what the rate is which patients pay Enable Air, Dr
Goddard informed me that rates are determined on a case-to-case basis, which was also
influenced by the patient's financial means. Dr Goddard did not disclose any amount and
did not provide any further particulars.
CPSO INVESITIGATION
20. On or about the 5th of October 2021, the CPSO initiated investigation for providing
Covid-19 exemptions to patients. I informed Dr Goddard of the CPSO's investigation and
A382
0383
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-383 A383
inquired if Enable Air was going to support me m any way. I did this in a phone
conversation on or about the 8 of October 2021 with my spouse present and he was privy
th
to the conversation as it was on speaker phone. During this call Dr Goddard clearly
refused to provide any support to me in my defense against the CPSOs investigation. He
stated that Enable Air only provides administrative services to medical doctors and "will
not get involved in my legal battle with the CPSO".
14 OCTOBER 2021
21. At the advice of my spouse, I scheduled a virtual meeting between myself and Enable Air
in order to obtain:-
1. more information and particulars of the "agreement" between us,
11. invoices and accounting of payments provided by my patients by Enable Air and,
111. invoices and accounting of payments made by Enable Air to me for services rendered
th
to Enable Air. This meeting was scheduled for 14 of October 2021
22. The purpose of the meeting was to record the following:-
i. The particulars of the contractual relationship that existed between Enable Air and I;
ii. To obtain financial statements regarding the payments made by patients to Enable Air
as the quotes claimed to be provided by patients to me seemed excessive.
iii. To ensure that I obtain proof of payment for each patient I attended to from Enable Air
and have same added to each patients' file.
iv. To ensure that Enable Air is held accountable to me by providing accounting for front-
end administrative services as I had not means to establish how much each patient paid
Enable Air.
th
23. The meeting was held by Zoom video conference on the 14 of October 2021 at 9:00 am
A383
0384
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-384 A384
EST and the following persons were in attendance:
1. Myself, Dr Rochagne Kilian;
11. Abrie JF Kilian, my spouse;
iii. Dr Gwyllyn Goddard;
1v. Lawrence Bintner, Enable Air Accountant and Dr. Goddard's father-in-law;
v. Heather Belanger; Enable Air administrative personnel and
v1. Georgia Jardine, Enable Air administrative personnel.

th
(Attached and marked as Exhibit "C letter forwarded to Enable dated the 17 of October
2021 confirming the Zoom meeting and the points of discussion.)
24. During the meeting Dr Goddard confirmed that Enable Air provides front-end
administrative services in the following manner:
i. Connecting patients with contracted medical doctors;
ii. Providing non-medical front-end administrative services, which includes an intake
process of patients and the creation of patient medical charts, to contracted doctors;
iii.A one-time payment to contracted medical doctors for assessment of patient referred.
25. Dr. Goddard confirmed that Enable Air pays my practice 10% of the total gross amount
paid by patients to Enable Air, for services provided by me to these patients.
26. I confirmed that my contractual obligation to Enable Air and my fiduciary relationship
with a patient, are both established the moment I receive a patient's charts from Enable
Air.
27. I confirmed that I will finalise the consultations of patients already referred, however, I
will not continue consulting patients until Enable Air provides me with a statement of
account for each patient I attended to or any new patients, given my concerns and
A384
0385
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-385 A385
unanswered questions about fees Enable Air charged patients.
28. I also added that on completion of all patients already referred the contractual
relationship between myself and Enable Air will be re-evaluated.
29. At the October 14, 2021, virtual meeting Enable I verbally demanded that Enable Air
provide me with a statement of account of all moneys received by Enable Air from
patients and moneys paid to me, as well as moneys paid by each patient individually to
Enable Air. My demand was prompted by:
1. my concern that some patients may be exploited by the circumstances, following an
inquiry by an acquaintance known to me as Peter Libicz, that informed me that their
family was quoted almost $8,000.00 to receive care from Enable Air, which seemed
excessive to me;
ii. my inability to answer the numerous patients' questions requesting clarification on
the amount they paid to Enable Air;
iii. my desire to ensure that I had adequate proof of payment on file for each patient
attended to; and
iv. the fact that I was under the impression that the provision of patient invoices and
payment receipts were expected from a company that provides front-end
administrative service to medical doctor, but nothing of this sort was forthcoming
from Enable Air.
30. Given my concerns regarding lack of proper financial diligence by Enable Air, I ceased
my involvement with the front-end administrative service provided by Enable Air to my
practice.
A385
0386
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-386 A386
PAYMENTS RECEIVED
31. I never billed patients and I never billed The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) for
any of the patients that were referred by Enable Air. I also did not bill Enable Air for any
of my patients, and finally I did not bill or receive money from any of the patients
referred by Enable Air directly.
32. I received sporadic payments approximately every two weeks from Enable Air for the
contractual services I provided to my patients. It was unclear what the payments were
for since these payments were not patient specific and/or detailed.
SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT
33. According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), my license
was restricted on the 15 of October 2021, rendering me unable to provide

th
comprehensive uninsured longitudinal care to Enable Air patients on the basis of the
restrictions.
th
34. I was officially notified of the restrictions imposed by the CPSO on or about the 18 of
October 2021.
35. I immediately informed Enable Air of the restrictions on my license, which resulted in
me being unable to provide Enable Air patients with comprehensive uninsured
longitudinal care.
th
36. My agreement with Enable Air was subsequently suspended on or about 18 of October
2021.
37. On or about the 18th of October 2021, Enable Air provided me, for the first time, with a
statement of account of alleged moneys paid by my patients to Enable Air.
A386
0387
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-387 A387
38. According to that Statement of Account, Enable Air paid me 10% of total moneys
received by Enable Air from my patients, which constitute on average $80.74 per
patient. Logically, this means that for every $ 80.00 I received for the medical
consultation and assessment, Enable Air was receiving up to $800.00 for the referral fee.
Yet there was no accounting provided to me for the approximately $720.00 which was
unaccounted for and I had no means to establish how much each patient paid Enable Air.
MISREPRESENTATION
39. During the period I was contracted with Enable Air, Dr Goddard did (mis)represent to
me that a portion of the funds paid by patients to Enable Air, will be donated to a lawyer
representing medical doctors in any legal proceedings "to win cases" against them. No
accounting confirmation of this fact was ever produced.
40. I am informed through the CPSO proceedings that the Enable Air website proclaimed
the following, with respect to "donations":
"DONATIONS: Reminder that 50% of the post-administrative fees are donated to
Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre to pay for the fees required to
win cases that support Employee 's & other people's Right to Informed Medical
Consent."
41. I am advised by the Executive Director of the Constitutional Rights Centre (hereinafter
"CRC"), Rocco Galati, and do verily believe that he has never been in communication
with Dr. Goddard. I am further advised by Mr. Galati and do verily believe, that he was
not aware of either Dr. Goddard or his Enable Air donation claim prior to receiving a
call from a CBC reporter doing a story on the matter. Attached and marked as Exhibit
"D" is a copy of the CBC story, wherein the reporter notes that Mr. Galati has no
A387
0388
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-388 A388
connection with the Enable Air website. He further advises, and I verily believe,
that he told the CBC reporter that he had no connection with Dr. Goddard, nor has
the CRC ever received donations from Enable Air.
42. I am further advised by Mr. Galati, and do verily believe, that neither he, nor the
CRC, have ever either requested, or received, any funds or "donations" from Enable
Air and/or Dr. Goddard.
43. I make this affidavit in support of a complaint to the RCMP and for no other or
improper purpose.
SWORN BEFORE ME by
videoconf erence by Rochagane Kilian
of the Town of Kemble, in Grey County
before me in the City of Toronto,
province of Ontario, this /ci'day of I I
December, 2021, in accordance with 0.

Reg. 431/20, Administering Oath or
Declaration Remotely ROCHAG~E KILIA..'N
,-~~/
,. -~. =--
~
A Commissioner for Taking Affidavits

in the Province of Ontario.
Samantha Coomara
A388
0389
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-389 A389
/I// referred to in the

This is Exhibit. ..............
affidavit of .. 13.().C. hu-3ne...
~1. \\ C>..'C\..... .
of the City of ... t-cro\o.J... .................. .
in the province of .... D(:)tO:<.\.0............. .
sworn before me by video teleconference, at
the City of Toronto in the Pro ince of Ontario
this ... /.<?.'~day
of .. ~"\'tle..C ........ 20.4.\
in accordance with 0. Reg. 431/20:
administering_ Oath or Declaration Remotely.
,
·-.:-:-
f<,
.......... ,•;_•~:.·:.:...:.-~,~-
I ,. \,
.............. ····.:~·· .......... .
- -· -

Samantha Coomara B.A. J.D.
A389
0390
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-390 A390
HEALTHCARE AND I
_____,
Goal-focused, collaborative and seasoned Medical
practitioner, with specialised qualifications in both Family-
and Emergency Medicine and more than 16 years of
experience. Presently a practising Emergency Physician at
Owen Sound Hospital (Ontario, Canada), a stroke referral
facility, conducting 8 (eight-hour) shifts and 2 (24-hours)
shifts per month. On average attending to 30 patients per
8-hour shift, which include, (i) Resuscitation, (ii) Acute Stroke
Management, (iii) Cardioversions, (iv) Conscious Sedations,
(v) Fracture Management, (vi) In-Hospital Admissions and
(vii) Pain Management through myoActivation (Trigger Point
Injections). The innovative and novel use of myoActivation in
the ER environment has resulted in decreased utilization of
Diagnostic Radiology, decreased use of pharmaceutical
analgesics, increased patient satisfaction and pain relief,
decreased dependence on Opioids, as well as more efficient
patient turn-over times. Currently a Doctorate and PhD
candidate in Integrative Medicine at Quantum University,
with a keen interest in a Holistic approach to healthcare
through preventative medicine and patient education.
EXPERIENCE
2020 - PRESENT
Part-time myoActivation Practice focusing on Chronic Pain
management and Sports Injury Rehabilitation
2016 - PRESENT
Full-time ER Physician at Grey Bruce Health Services
2014 - 2015
Employed at Vryheid District Hospital at MO Level Gr II
Part-time services rendered to Old Mutual Insurance Company
2013
Locum ER Physician at Cari boo Memorial Hospital in Williams
Lake, BC, Canada
2012
Family Physician and ER Locum at Bulkley Valley District
Hospital in Smithers, BC, Canada
2011 - 2012
Full-time ER Physician at Cariboo Memorial Hospital in
Williams Lake, BC, Canada with Part-time Operating
Room assistance at same hospital and Family Physician
Locum services in the same community
2009 - 2010
Full-time Family Physician at the Atwood Medical Clinic and
Part-time ER shift coverage at Cariboo Memorial Hospital in
Williams Lake, BC, Canada
A390
0391
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-391 2008 A391
Community Service Medical Practitioner employed by the
Free State Provincial Dept of Health at Nketoana District
Hospital, Reitz (MP: 0651133)
2005 - 2007
Medical Intern employed by the Free State Provincial
Department of Health (IN: 0449091)
--------
QUALIFICATIONS
2020
myoActivation Certification through Anatomic
Medicine Foundation
2017
Commenced Doctorate & PhD in Integrative Medicine at
Quantum University
2013
CCFP EM Graduate
2012
2CCFP Graduate
2011
MCQE II Passed
2011
University of British Columbia Shock Course
2011
AmP.ric:;:in Seminar Institute Cardiology Review
2011
The Difficult Airway Course: Emergency
2011
Recertification as ACLS Provider
2011
Recertification as PALS Provider
2010
American Seminar Institute Infectious Disease Review
2010
Americm Scminc1r Institute Emergency Medicine Review
2010
Amt!riorn Seminar Institute Cndocririok,gy
2010
Review MCQE I Passed
2009
Hands-On Diagnostic Ultrasound Training
A391
0392
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-392 A392
J!f rl
This is Exhibit. ... ..µ........ referred to in the
· v ,..- LI
affidav1.t of ... ¥..O.C.0Cl.~ 0.-.i., .. hi I.u..'I.'\
.....
of the City of .... \'.'.Ju.en.~~............. ..
in the province of .... O.D:t'O..'<.\.0............ .
the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario
this ... / .Q.~day of ... De.~ \':>C.K.
..... 20.i..~
in accordance with 0. R !2:. 4" I 120:
administering_ Oath or Declaration Remotely.
t.:,·=- .• ,-.
/\.
··········· •' 1'\
~-····· ......
························
··••...:..,:...•
A Con:mi."issioner
for Taking Affidavits
A392
0393
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-393 A393
License
Copyright (c) Queen's Printer,
Disclaimer
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Volume: CLX, No. 6 Ministry of Citizens' Services

Corporate Registries
February 6, 2020
AMALGAMATIONS
BC Company(s)
ated:
The Registrar of Companies hereby gives notice that the following companies have amalgam
January 26, 2020

TS LTD.,
1238362 E88TLC90 HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0709758 and VILLAGE MARKE
E
incorporation number 0353147 were amalgamated as one company under the name VILLAG
MARKETS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
January 27, 2020
1238486 3 TIER LOGIC INC., incorporation number 0837587 and DATABLE TECHNOLOGY
the
CORPORATION, incorporation number 0916840 were amalgamated as one company under
Time.
name DATABLE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION amalgamated at 12:28 PM Pacific
January 28, 2020
1238802 CROW'S NEST HOLDINGS INC., incorporation number 0949067 and 0743154 B.C. LTD.,
number
incorporation number 0743154 and PEACEY'S DRUG STORE LIMITED incorporation
0801247 were amalgamated as one company under the name PEACEY'S DRUG STORE
LIMITED amalgamated at 11:59 PM Pacific Time.
1238702 EPAC CA ADA VENTURES Ul.C, incorporation number 1210843 and EPACFLEXIBLE
as one
PACKAGI G VA COUVER LTD. incorporation number 1237544 were amalgamated
amalgam ated at
company under the name EPAC FLEXIBLE PACKAGING VA COUVER LTD.
12:01 PM Pacific Time.
January 30, 2020
tion
1239143 0742631 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0742631 and 1215804 B.C. LTD., incorpora
number 1215804 were amalgamated as one company under the name 1215804 B.C. LTD.
amalgamated at 03:30 PM Pacific Time.
tion
1239036 1238546 B.C. LTD., incorporation number C1238546 and 1234719 B.C. LTD., incorpora
amalgamated at 10: 17 AM Pacific Time.
B.C.
1239009 AERO COMPO ENT SUPPORT INC., incorporation number Cl239007 and 1234010
LTD. incorporation number 1234010 were amalgamated as one company under the name
1234010 B.C. LTD. amalgamated at 08:35 AM Pacific Time.
1239018 PREMIUM COMFORT HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING LTD., incorporation number
one
0552973 and 1236288 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1236288 were amalgamated as
company under the name 1236288 B.C. LTD. amalgamated at 09:09 AM Pacific Time.
WACHSTUM ASSETS INC., incorporation number C1238660 and WACHSTUM GP

A393
INC.,
1239132
0394
incorporation number 1135016 and WACHSTUM PRODUCE (DELTA) INC., incorpora A394
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-394 tion
number 0796542 and WACHSTUM PRODUCE (HOLDINGS) INC., incorporation number
0780439 and BC TWEED JOINT VENTURE INC., incorporation number Cl234805 were
amalgamated as one company under the name BC TWEED JOINT VENTURE INC.
1239008 WORLD AVIATION CORP., incorporation number Cl239006 and 1234008 B.C. LTD.,
B.C.
incorporation number 1234008 were amalgamated as one company under the name 1234008
LTD. amalgamated at 08:30 AM Pacific Time.
January 31, 2020
1239333 0898993 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0898993 and MITCHELL LATIMER 73 INC.,
LL
incorporation number 1162932 were amalgamated as one company under the name MITCHE
LATIMER 73 INC. amalgamated at 03:48 PM Pacific Time.
1238418 0960564 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0960564 and 1075459 B.C. LTD., incorporation
amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
tion
1239267 1238247 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1238247 and CVD VFX LIMITED, incorpora
number 1000075 were amalgamated as one company under the name CVD VFX LIMITED
I 239252 ANU K. KHANNA LAW CORPORATION, incorporation number 0597158 and DANIEL
one
CORRIN LAW CORPORATION, incorporation number 0859187 were amalgamated as
ated at 11:27 AM
company under the name DANIEL CORRIN LAW CORPORATION amalgam
Pacific Time.
and
1238762 BUDGEN GEOMATICS AND LAND SURVEYING INC., incorporation number 0683953
one company under
0769916 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0769916 were amalgamated as
the name 0769916 B.C. LTD. amalgamated at 11:59 PM Pacific Time.
1239352 DR. P. C. NEATE INC., incorporation number 0520267 and DR. PAUL C. NEATE DENTAL
tion
CORPORATION, incorporation number 0466262 and DR. PAUL C. NEATE INC., incorpora
INC.
number 0973316 were amalgamated as one company under the name DR. PAUL C. NEATE
INC.,
1239358 DR. ROBERT LOH INC., incorporation number 0478478 and DR. CHRISTOPHER HSIA
incorporation number 1236569 were amalgamated as one company under the name DR.
CHRISTOPHER HSIA INC. amalgamated at 05:52 PM Pacific Time.
1239311 GREENVIEW ENTERPRISES LTD., incorporation number 0606830 and 77 VETERINARY
the
HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 1230927 were amalgamated as one company under
name 77 VETERINARY HOLDINGS LTD. amalgamated at 04:31 PM Pacific Time.
GS
1239321 H & G HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0734609 and VAN OOSTRUM HOLDIN
LTD., incorporation number 0083558 and 1184449 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1184449
03:03
were amalgamated as one company under the name 1184449 B.C. LTD. amalgamated at
PM Pacific Time.
1239214 MEDIEVAL MEDIA INC., incorporation number 0887552 and PACIFIC FLEET
TIONS
PRODUCTIONS INC., incorporation number 0839346 and PARALLAX FILM PRODUC
INC., incorporation number 0506140 were amalgam ated as one company under the name
PARALLAX FILM PRODUCTIONS INC. amalgamated at 09:20 AM Pacific Time.
tion
1239334 RED NOTEBOOK INC., incorporation number 1013921 and 1233380 B.C. LTD., incorpora
A394
0395
M
1239265 REDAWNING CANADA, INC., incorporation number 1176316 and LEAVETOWN.CO A395
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-395
ated as one company under the
VACATIONS INC., incorporation number 0941913 were amalgam
name LEAVETOWN.COM VACATIONS INC. amalgamated at 11:59 PM Pacific Time.
G
1239310 ROYAL CITY FIRE SUPPLIES LTD., incorporation number 0273698 and COBING BUILDIN
ated as one company under
SOLUTIONS LTD., incorporation number 0908680 were amalgam
the name COBING BUILDING SOLUTIONS LTD. amalgamated at 02:46 PM Pacific Time.
1238711 SEVEN SEAS FISH MARKET ON 152ND LTD., incorporation number 0691946 and SEVE
SEA
SEA FISH MARKET ON FOURTH LTD., incorporation number 0653628 and SEVE
under Lhe
RETA1L LTD., incorporation number 0552995 were amalgamated as one company
name SEVEN SEAS RETAIL LTD. amalgamated at 11:59 PM Pacific Time.
1239205 TRINE ENTERPRISES CO. LTD., incorporation number 0112991 and 485831 RC. LTD.,
B.C.
LTD. amalgamated at 11:59 PM Pacific Time.
February 1, 2020
1239373 0323234 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0323234 and N.B.R. ENTERPRISES LTD.,
incorporation number 0107831 were amalgamated as one company under the name N.B.R.
ENTERPRISES LTD. amalgamated at 09:53 AM Pacific Time.
1238499 0955230 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0955230 and KEN MILLEN HOLDINGS LTD.,
incorporation number 1097816 were amalgamated as one company under the name KEN
MILLEN HOLDINGS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239028 1145876 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1145876 and DR. ROBERT GAULTOIS INC.,
ROBERT GAULTOIS INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
number 0601438 were amalgamated as one company under the name 601438.B.C. LTD.
l 238640 l 204577 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1204577 and 0786151 B.C. LTD., incorporation
l 238701 398314 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0398314 and 0870149 B.C. LTD., incorporation
ATER
number 1026496 and 0956763 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1026498 and WHITEW
WEST INDUSTRIES LTD., incorporation number l 063243 were amalgamated as one company
Pacific
under the name WHITEWATER WEST INDUSTRIES LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM
Time.
tion
1238862 423317 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0963654 and 423317 HOLDINGS LTD., incorpora
and
number 0787519 and DELSUMAS PROPERTIES INC., incorporation number 0802316
BOULEVARD GROUP DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., incorpora tion number 0961322 were
T CO.
amalgamated as one company under the name BOULEVARD GROUP DEVELOPME
1239226 451152 B. C. LTD., incorporation number 0451152 and EMTECH HOLDINGS LTD.,
incorporation number 0258765 were amalgamated as one company under the name EMTECH
HOLDINGS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239319 585457 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0585457 and COWICHAN PROFESSIONAL A395
0396
as one
LTD., incorporation number 0141278 were amalgamatedA396
INSTALLATION & WELDING
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-396
G LTD.
company under the name COWICHAN PROFESSIONAL INSTALLATION & WELDIN
INC.,
1238943 ACADEMY SPA INC., incorporation number 0870284 and DR. RACHEL C. STAPLES
RACHEL C. STAPLES INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239296 AGRIFOREST BIO-TECHNOLOGIES LTD., incorporation number 1221864 and BHC
ACQUISITION CORP., incorporation number 1219143 were amalgamated as one company
under the name BHC ACQUISITION CORP. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239166 ANDREWS REALTY LTD., incorporation number0272243 and 415616 B.C. LTD.,
B.C.
1239312 ARCH EAGLE ENTERPRISES LTD., incorporation number 0516016 and 4236
under
INVESTMENTS LTD., incorporation number 0576638 were amalgamated as one company
the name 4236 INVESTMENTS LTD. amalgam ated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
B.C.
1239330 CEDAR CREEK HOLDINGS LIMITED, incorporation number 0865575 and 1043816
and ARROW EQUIPM ENT LTD., incorpora tion number
LTD., incorporation number 1043816
0870290 were amalgamated as one company under the name ARROW EQUIPMENT LTD.
1238344 CEDAR DEVELOPMENT CORP., incorporation number 0543729 and LANDS END
DEVELOPMENTS LTD., incorporation number 0415829 were amalgamated as one company
Time.
under the name LANDS END DEVELOPMENTS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific
AUTO
1239228 DIRT DEVIL ENTERPRISES LTD., incorporation number 0522932 and A-COMBINED
WRECKING (1984) LTD., incorporation number 0285943 were amalgam ated as one company
AM
under the name A-COMBINED AUTO WRECKING (1984) LTD. amalgamated at 12:01
Pacific Time.
1238308 DR. C. SAVOIE INC., incorporation number 1104312 and C. SAVOIE HOLDINGS INC.,
incorporation number 0487240 were amalgamated as one company under the name C. SAVOIE
HOLDINGS INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239236 EAGLE DALLAS SPRING SUBCO INC., incorporation number C1239101 and EAGLE
as one
DALLAS SPRING INVESTORS ULC, incorporation number 0989998 were amalgamated
ORS ULC amalgam ated at 12:01
company under the name EAGLE DALLAS SPRING INVEST
AM Pacific Time.
1239126 EDVAN CONSTRUCTION LTD., incorporation number 0245378 and GOODACRE
CONTRACTING LTD., incorporation number 0222024 were amalgamated as one company
Time.
under the name GOODACRE CONTRACTING LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific
ERS
1239284 EYESPY INNOVATIONS LTD., incorporation number 0946787 and JAYLYN JEWELL
LTD., incorporation number 0655519 were amalgamated as one company under the name
JAYLYN JEWELLERS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238759 GODDARD REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS INC., incorporation number 0784400 and 1012110
B.C. LTD., incorporation number 1012110 and DR. GWYLLYN S. GODDARD INC.,
GWYLLYN S. GODDARD INC. amaJgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
AUTO
1238941 GORDON'S AUTO BODY WORKS LTD., incorporation number 0032211 and CABLE
company under the
LEASING LTD., incorporation number 0288848 were amalgamated as one
name CABLE AUTO LEASING LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
A396
0397
GRANMOUR HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0155640 and MATIN INVESTMA397 ENTS
1239337
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-397
LTD., incorporation number 0257631 and SAMHILL HOLDINGS LTD., incorporat ion number
0395930 were amalgamated as one company under the name SAMHILL HOLDINGS LTD.
1238379 INTERIOR BEVERAGES LTD., incorporation number 1150676 and SMART DISTRIBUTING
INC., incorporation number 1093579 were amalgamated as one company under the name
SMART DISTRIBUTING INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239218 INTERMEDIA PRESS LIMITED, incorporation number0174519 and 1748 HOLDINGS LTD.,
HOLDINGS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239317 KS DOMAINS LTD., incorporation number 1069358 and MEDIASIREN ADVERTISING INC.,
incorporation number 0791367 and HEXONET SERVICES INC., incorporation number 0793786
and INSTRA DOMAIN DIRECTORS INC., incorporation number 1056960 were amalgamated
as one company under the name INSTRA DOMAJ DIRECTORS INC. amalgamated at 12:01
AM Pacific Time.
1238090 MALAMUTE HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0961512 and CORDUST
ENTERPRISES LTD., incorporation number 0527372 were amalgamated as one company under
the name CORDUST ENTERPRISES LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239269 MERRITT AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES LTD., incorporation number 0119342 and RAEMAND
HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0562382 were amalgamated as one company under the
name RAEMAND HOLDINGS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238555 NICLl'S NEXT DOOR TRATTORIA LTD., incorporation number 0939355 and R.W.C.
MCCAIG HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number Cl 196562 were amalgamated as one
company under the name R.W.C. MCCAIG HOLDINGS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific
Time.
1238720 NORTHVIEW FARMS (2014) LTD., incorporation number 0271020 and NORTHVIEW
FARMS LTD., incorporation number 0992425 were amalgamated as one company under the
name NORTHVIEW FARMS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238716 OBERO TECHNOLOGIES INC., incorporation number Cl236245 and KHARKHOURIN
TECHNOLOGIES INC., incorporation number Cl236254 and BALIUC TECHNOLOGIES
INC., incorporation number C1236247 and HARJOT GHAI TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
incorporation number Cl236250 and XACTLY CANADA, INC., incorporation number 1150615
were amalgamated as one company under the name XACTLY CANADA, INC. amalgamated at
12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238544 OCTAGOLD VENTURES LTD., incorporation number 0416248 and KD GOLD
ENTERPRISES LTD., incorporation number 0827486 were amalgamated as one company under
the name KO GOLD ENTERPRISES LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239259 ODDITY KOMBUCHA TEA INC., incorporation number 1070277 and FACULTY BREWING
CO. INC., incorporation number 1026743 were amalgamated as one company under the name
FACULTY BREWING CO. INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238469 PEACE ARCH MOTORS LTD., incorporation number 0272456 and PAM LEASING LTD.,
incorporation number 0211462 and 686907 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0976371 were
amalgamated as one company under the name 686907 B .C. LTD. amalgamated at 12:0 I AM
Pacific Time.
1239123 PLETT HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0570803 and 1016444 B.C. LTD.,
incorporation number 1016444 and 0799597 B.C. LTD., incorporation number 0799597 and
PLETT INVESTMENTS LTD., incorporation number 0867197 were amalgamated as one A397
0398
company under the name PLETT INVESTMENTS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-398 A398
Time.
1238233 RENAUD HOLDINGS LTD., incorporation number 0071043 and RENCO ENTERPRISES
LTD., incorporation number 0901497 were amalgamated as one company under the name
RENCO ENTERPRISES LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1239182 ROYALE BRITISH COLUMBIA FINANCIAL INC., incorporation number 0962549 and
AKHAVAN HOLDINGS INC., incorporation number 0913000 were amalgamated as one
Time.
company under the name AKHAVAN HOLDINGS INC. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific
1239266 SIMPLEX ENT. CORPORATION, incorporation number 0334862 and AA-TWO
CONSTRUCTION LTD., incorporation number 0204564 were amalgamated as one company
under the name AA-TWO CONSTRUCTION LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238325 UNDER THE CAR REPAIRS INC., incorporation number 0373897 and MORE THAN
under the
MUFFLERS LTD., incorporation number 0600370 were amalgamated as one company
name MORE THAN MUFFLERS LTD. amalgamated at 12:01 AM Pacific Time.
1238270 W.K. INVESTMENTS INC., incorporation number 0348465 and 401422 B.C. LTD.,
incorporation number 0401422 and ANSU DEVELOPMENT LTD., incorporation number
LTD.
0284270 were amalgamated as one company under the name ANSU DEVELOPMENT
A398
0399
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-399 A399
Ir If
This is Exhibit.. .. C-:........referred to in the

affidavit of .... ROLY.\t--.13n.i ..~.\ \O,,.'✓.\ ... .
of the City of .... -~-'o\.L ........... .
in the province of ... ~.0.~'f.l.9 ............. .
the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario
this .... /.0 ~ay of ... 0.e.c..e.,,/Y.l_lQe.
( .....20. ?.L
in accordance with 0. Re2:. 431 ' 0:
administering_Oath or Declaration Remotely.
/--=-
r- .' ·, ..:.
. - .. -- . . . .·". .. . ...
' - I ...
~
\ - .. -.__. - --·........--. -.... - - .......... .
A Co~i~sio-;r for Taking Affidavits
A399
0400
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-400 A400
Rochagne Kilian <rochagnekilian@gmail.com>
Gmail
RE: CONFIRMATION OF ZOOM MEETING -14 OCTOBER 2021

1 message
Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:35 AM
Abrie JF Kilian <abriekilian@gmail.com>
To: Rochagne Kilian <rochagnekilian@gmail.com>
Sien aangeheg.
--- Forwarded message ---------

From: Abrie JF Kilian <abriekilian@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: CONFIRMATION OF ZOOM MEETING -14 OCTOBER 2021
To: <enableair@gmail.com>
Cc: Rochagne Kilian <rochagnekilian@gmail.com>
held on the 14th of October 2021.

We refer to the aforementioned matter and the video conference meeting
In attendance at this meeting was the following individuals:

- Dr Rochagne Kilian;
-Abrie Kilian;
- Dr Gwyllyn Goddard;
- Lawrence Bintner;
- Heather Belanger;
- Georgia Jardine.
We confirm the following:-

Dr Gwyllyn Goddard and trading as Enable Air, is
1. 1012110 B.C. LTD. with incorporation number 1012110 is operated by
provides a non-medical administrative service to
a corporation that provides a doctor-finding service to their clients and
medical doctors.
the following: -
2. The Administrative services provided by Enable Air to Dr Kilian include
2.1 Connecting patients with contracted medical doctors;
d medical doctors;
2.2 Providing non-medical front end administrative services to contracte
2.3 Payment to contracted medical doctors for services rendered to patients.
hip with a patient, are both established the

3. Dr Kilian's contractual obligations to Enable Air and my fiduciary relations
moment she receives a patient's charts.
commence consultation of new patients at which
4. Dr Kilian will finalise the consultations of part 1 patients and will not
patient and an agreement.
point Enable Air will provide Dr Kilian with a statement of account for each
patient that made payment to Enable Air seeking
5. Enable Air will also provide Dr Kilian with invoices of each and every
services with Dr Kilian.
and Dr Kilian will reevaluate the contractual
6. Following the completion of consulting all part 1 patients, Enable Air
relationship.
We trust you find the above in order.
Sincerely yours,
Abrie JF Kilian, Esq, LLB, LLM (Und)

obo Dr Rochagne Kilian, M.B. Ch.B, CCFP, CCFP (EM)
A400
0401
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-401 A401
1 11
.. 1s Ex h.b.
Th 1s ))
1 1t. ............. . t he
;, re fierre d to~n
affidavi~ of ... .&>t!.~'.V~-'o ~rt........
..¥:.f.L:-:(
of the City of ... ¥e.t~. Pk ................. ..
. . d) L , •v
m the province of ..... ~¼';' • .I................. .
the City X
Toronto in the Province of Ontario
this ../.r:i....day of~~ .... 20.~,/
in accordance with 0. Reg. 431/20:
administering Oath or Declaration Remotely.
- _,.- ,
/_ ~ ... *
► ......
. . . . . . . . . .,K. ::..:..:~· -~..:.:
::.--~: -· - ••
....... --~- .......... .
A401
2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates'
I CBC News
12/6/21, 2:21 PM
0402
Q Search .!. Sign In
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-402 A402
British Columbia
2 B.C.doctors linked to website selling bogusmask and

d through
Document obtained by CBCallegedly signed by Dr. Stephen Malthouse, produce
Kelowna business
CBC News· Posted: Oct 24, 2021 2:01 PM PT I Last Updated: October 29
- --- Lindsay·
Bethany ---
dly signed by Dr. Stephen

CBC News has obtained a phoney mask and vaccine exemption 'certificate' purporte
website EnableAir.com, which
Malthouse, shown here at top left. It appears to have been produced through the
Out/Gwyllyn.com/CBC)
has been linked to Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard, bottom left. (Canadian Doctors Speak
--------·------------------------------- -
comments
A402
1/7
ptions-1 .6221825
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-exem
12/6/21, 2:21 PM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption
is now under0403
A B.C.physician accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-403 A403
offered through a
investigation for allegedly writing phoney mask and vaccine exemptions
l exemption including
CBC News has obtained a four-page "declaration certificate of medica
Malthouse and produced
psychosocial conditions" that was purportedly signed by Dr. Stephen
n Goddard, whose
That website appears to be connected to another B.C. doctor, Dr. Gwylly
and Surgeons of B.C.

A copy of the same certificate has been sent to t~e College of Physicians
ns about EnableAir.com,
A spokesperson for B.C.'sHealth Ministry did not answer direct questio
masks or vaccines.
but confirmed there is no such thing as an exemption certificate for either
who
promises "authentic medical exemptions," including QR codes, for people
E_na_~l~Air.c'?i:n
the services of five
are "concerned with totalitarian mainstream narratives," and advertises
ctive customers to
It's not clear how much the service costs, but the website warns prospe
"mentally prepare for the invoice."
teen
• AUDIO Divorced Sask. parents fight in court over COVID-19 vaccination for
daughter
ble invoking the

The certificate allegedly signed by Malthouse includes a two-page pream
ation on Bioethics and
Canadian Human Rights Act, the Constitution, the UN's Universal Declar
from mask and vaccine

It doesn't offer any specifics about why the bearer should be exempted
allergies but also HIV,
mandates, but offers a long list of possible reasons, including vaccine
"personal belief."
autism, "impaired social development," asthma, eczema, migraines and
Doctor already faces discipline related to COVID-19 A403

2/7
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air ~mask-vaccine-exemptions-1.6221825
12/6/21, 2:21 PM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates'
I CBC News
0404
listed
The contact information displayed on the certificate obtained by CBC matches publicly
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-404 A404
cannabis
contact information for Goddard. The Kelowna post office box is connected to his_
CanaBC Services Ltd., and the fax number is ~!-~~~-~-~~-~i~__e_~~_?_CJ_~~'P!~~s
J~~-
co_nsu_lt!ng_f!.~02,
on a reporter
Goddard did not respond to emailed questions or text messages, and hung up
within hours
when contacted by phone. The full contents of EnableAir.com were taken offline
of that phone call.
s_peech
• B.C. doctor disciplined for 'harmful' COVID-19 misinformation claims fre~
violations
ns about the
Neither Malthouse nor his lawyer, Rocco Galati of Toronto, responded to questio
certificate.
EnableAir.com advertises that 50 per cent of "post-administrative fees" will be donated

to J
Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, an organization he founded. Howeve
r, Galati told l
B.C., last November,

A404
Dr. Stephen Malthouse appeared at a rally against COVID-19 restrictions in Duncan,
referring to the disease as a 'so-called pandemic.' (Garden Gate Society/YouTube)
317
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-colum bia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-exemptions-1.6221825
2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates' I CBC News
12/6/21, 2:21 PM
-------------------------- 0405
---- - - -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-405 A405
Malthouse, a family doctor who lives on Denman Island but is not associated with the island's
medical clinic, is already the subject of disciplinary_proceedings at_the_collegeas well as
complaints from at least 10 other physicians.
Over the last year, he's appeared at several rallies against pandemic-related measures, falsely
claiming that COVID-19 is no more deadly than the flu and that vaccines are more dangerous.
According to a petition Malthouse filed in B.C.Supreme Court in June, he faces a reprimand

from the college, which wants to bar him from speaking on issues related to COVID-19.
Malthouse has asked the court to block those measures, arguing they're an infringement on

College registrar Dr. Heidi Getter said she couldn't comment on any investigations into
Malthouse or EnableAir.com, but the college has a standard for what's expected of any doctor
wrlting exemptions.
"It's very clear about the need to provide objective medical evidence. You can't simply restate
something just because the patient wants you to do that," she said.
"If somebody is signing a letter that is inconsistent with those expectations, they may face an
investigation by the college and, if warranted, regulatory action."
The college posted ~ notice last week in response to reports of fraudulent exemption letters
circulating in the province. It includes guidance for businesses or employers about how to
A405
4/7
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-colu mbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221825
12/6/21, 2:21 PM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption
0406
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-406 A406
services, and there are very few valid

In B.C.,proof of vaccination is required to access many non-essential
--------------------------------- - - -
l from a COVID-19
There's a very short list of acceptable reasons for an exemption or deferra
es like Pfizer-
vaccine, including a history of anaphylactic reactions to both mRNA vaccin
BioNTech and Moderna, and adenovirus vector vaccines like AstraZeneca.
from issuing mask and

Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons has barred three doctors
he couldn't comment
vaccine exemptions in recent weeks. A spokesperson for that college said
ormation
• B.C. doctors urge action on colleague spreading COVID-19 misinf
bar!ed from
• Ontario doctor accused of spreading COVID-19 misinformation
providing vaccine, mask exemptions
Air.com on social_medi~.
But one of those physicians, Dr. Patrick Phillips, has promoted Enable
in Williams Lake, and

Another has a B.C.connection - Dr. Rochagne Kilia~ previously worked
could be placed on
Oetter said while the rules are slightly different in B.C.,similar restrictions
tions.
doctors here if evidence suggested they were providing fraudulent exemp
Mobile users: View the document

A406
(PDF KB)
517
exemptions-1.6221825
https ://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-
0407
(Text KB}
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-407 A407
Clarifications
use is not associated with Denman Island's only
• This article was updated to reflect that Dr. Stephen Maltho
medical clinic.
Oct 29, 2021 12:07 PM PT
*CBCNEWS
Coronavirus Brief
tips on prevention and
Your daily guide to the coronavirus outbreak. Get the latest news,
Email address:
I Enter your email address

Subscribe
Popular Now in News

Alberta hospital
1 Surgeon handed 4-month suspension for noose incident at
870 reading now
2 CBC INVESTIGATES
teacher over past sexual relationship
'She robbed me of experiences,' says Winnipeg man suing
831 reading now
on the horizon
3 Banned for decades, releasing oilsands tailings water is now
564 reading now
4 CBC INVESTIGATES
rs, CBCinvestigation finds
Warning signs present in 1 in 3 homicides of intimate partne
550 reading now
5 NEW
3 days
539 new COVID-19 cases, 6 deaths reported in Manitoba over
514 reading now A407
6/7
sk-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221825
h tips://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-ma
11125121, 11 : 15 AM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates' I CBC News
Q. Search
0408
:. Sign In
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-408 A408
British Columbia
2 B.C.doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and

Document obtained by CBC allegedly signed by Dr. Stephen Malthouse, produced through
Kelowna business
Bethany Lindsay· CBC News· Posted: Oct 24, 202'! 2:0·1 PM PT i Las[ Updated: Ocrnber 29
:ATIVES,
ION &
DERTO
&
CBC News has obtained a phoney mask and vaccine exempi:ion 'ce1-rificate' purportedly signed by Dr. Stephen
fVlalthouse, shown here at top left. It appea1·s to have been produced thrnugh the website Enable,A,ir.com, which
has been linked to D1·.Gwyllyn Goddai-d, bottom left. (Canadian Doctors Speak Out/Gwyllyn.com/CBC)
A408
https:Ilwww.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-colu mbia/bc-e na ble-air-mask-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221825 116
11/25/21, 11: 15 AM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website ,selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates' I CBC News
0409
comments @
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-409 A409
A B.C. physician accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 is now under
investigation for allegedly writing phoney mask and vaccine exemptions offered through a
CBC News has obtained a four-page "declaration certificate of medical exemption including
psychosocial conditions" that was purportedly signed by Dr. Stephen Malthouse and produced
That website appears to be connected to another B.C. doctor, Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard, whose
A copy of the same certificate has been sent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C.
A spokesperson for B.C.'s Health Ministry did not answer direct questions about EnableAir.com,
but confirmed there is no such thing as an exemption certificate for either masks or vaccines.
EnableAi1-.com promises "authentic medical exemptions," including QR codes, for people who
are "concerned with totalitarian mainstream narratives," and advertises the services of five
It's not clear how much the service costs, but the website warns prospective customers to
"mentally prepare for the invoice."
• AUDIO Divorced Sask. parents fight in court over COVID-19 vaccination for teen
daughter
The certificate allegedly signed by Malthouse includes a two-page preamble invoking the
Canadian Human Rights Act, the Constitution, the UN's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and
It doesn't offer any specifics about why the bearer should be exempted from mask and vaccine
mandates, but offers a long list of possible reasons, including vaccine allergies but also HIV,
autism, "impaired social development," asthma, eczema, migraines and "personal belief."
A409
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221825 2/6
11/25/21 , 11: 15 AM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website .selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption ·certItIcates· I Cl::!C News
Doctor already faces discipline related to COVID-19 0410

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-410 A410
The contact information displayed on the certificate obtained by CBC matches publicly listed
contact information for Goddard. The Kelowna post office box is connected to his cannabis
consulting firm, CanaBC Services Ltd., and the fax number is listed on his personal website.
Goddard did not respond to emailed questions or text messages, and hung up on a reporter
when contacted by phone. The full contents of EnableAir.com were taken offline within hours
of that phone call.
• B.C. doctor disciplined for 'harmful' COVID-19 misinformation claims free speech
violations
Neither Malthouse nor his lawyer, Rocco Galati of Toronto, responded to questions about the
certificate.
EnableAir.com advertises that 50 per cent of "post-administrative fees" will be donated to

Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, an organization he founded. However, Galati told
A410
https ://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-exemptions-1 .6221 825 3/6
11/25/21 , 11: 15 AM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website. selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption ·certItIcates· I l.,;t:SCNews
Dr. S[ephen Malthouse appear"ed at a rally against COVID-19 rest1·ictions in Duncan, 8.C., last November, 0411
1-eferring to the disease as a 'so-called pandemic.' (Garden Gate SocietyiYouTube)
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-411 A411
Malthouse, a family doctor who lives on Denman Island but is not associated with the island's
medical clinic, is already the subject of disciplinary proceedings at the college as well as
complaints from at least 10 other physicians.
Over the last year, he's appeared at several rallies against pandemic-related measures, falsely
claiming that COVID-19 is no more deadly than the flu and that vaccines are more dangerous.
According to a petition Malthouse filed in B.C. Supreme Court in June, he faces a reprimand
from the college, which wants to bar him from speaking on issues related to COVID-19.
Malthouse has asked the court to block those measures, arguing they're an infringement on

College registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter said she couldn't comment on any investigations into
Malthouse or EnableAir.com, but the college has a standard for what's expected of any doctor
writing exemptions.
"It's very clear about the need to provide objective medical evidence. You can't simply restate
something just because the patient wants you to do that," she said.
"If somebody is signing a letter that is inconsistent with those expectations, they may face an
investigation by the college and, if warranted, regulatory action."
The college posted a notice last week in response to reports of fraudulent exemption letters
circulating in the province. It includes guidance for businesses or employers about how to
A411
11125121, 11: 15 AM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bogus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates' I CBC News
0412
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-412 A412
111B.C., proof of vaccination is required to access many 11on-essential services, a11dther-e are ver·y few valid
There's a very short list of acceptable reasons for an exemption or deferral from a COVID-19
vaccine, including a history of anaphylactic reactions to both mRNA vaccines like Pfizer-
BioNTech and Moderna, and adenovirus vector vaccines like AstraZeneca.
Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons has barred three doctors from issuing mask and
vaccine exemptions in recent weeks. A spokesperson for that college said he couldn't comment
• B.C.doctors urge action on colleague spreading COVID-19 misinformation
• Ontario doctor accused of spreading COVID-19 misinformation barred from

providing vaccine, mask exemptions
But one of those physicians, 01-. Patrick Phillips, has promoted EnableAir.com on social media.
Another has a B.C. connection - Dr. Rochagne Kilian previously worked in Williams Lake, and
Oetter said while the rules are slightly different in B.C.,similar restrictions could be placed on
doctors here if evidence suggested they were providing fraudulent exemptions.
A412
https:/lwww.cbc.ca/news/ca nadalbritish-columbia/bc-enable-air-mask-vaccine-exemplion s-1 .6221825 516
11/25/21, 11:15 AM 2 B.C. doctors linked to website selling bQgus mask and vaccine exemption 'certificates' I CBC News
Mobile users: View the document 0413

(PDF KB)
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-413 A413
(Text KB)
Clarifications
" This article was updated to reflect that Dr. Stephen Malthouse is not associated with Denman lsla11cl'sonly
medical clinic.
Oct 29, 202'1 12:07 PM PT
Your daily guide to the coronavirus outbreak. Get the latest news, tips on prevention and
Email address:
Enter your email address
A413
0414
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-414 A414
HP LaserJet Pro MFP M225dw
Fax Confirmation
14-Dec-2021 20:17
Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result

4866 14/12/2021 19:29:51 Send 16047024243 47: 13 63 OK
facsimiletranStnittal
f•x: 6Q4-702-42A3
To: Chlll\wac:kRCMP
Dale: December 14, ZD21

From: RoccoGaiw
Pages: 63 (lnolodlng """""
ATTN: Chilltw>ckRCMP
□ ForReview □ Pia••eomment
.................
A414
ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM 0415
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-415 Rocco Galati, BA. LLB, LL M A415
I 062 College Street Suite 203
Toronto, Ontario
M6H IA9
PHONE: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
facsimiletransmittal
To: Chilliwack RCMP Fax: 604-702-4243
From: Rocco Galati Date: December 14, 2021
Pages: 63 (including cover)
li Urgent □ ForReview □ Please Comment □ Please Reply □ Please Recycle
• • • • • • • • • •
This is in regards to Mr. Rocco Galati's earlier communication with the Chilliwack RCMP.
Mr. Galati is seeking a criminal investigation and charges Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard. Please find
attached a two-page self-explanatory letter along with supporting affidavits. Please note that
the original documents are also being Fed-Exed tomorrow.
In the event of problems with the transmission please contact the sender or the office. This fax is
solicitor-client privileged and contains confidential information intended only for the person(s)
named. Any other distribution or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive this fax in error
please notify the office immediately and destroy the materials received.
Rocco Galati
per:/2_ C-- .
A415
0416
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-416 A416
HP LaserJet Pro MFP M225dw
Fax Confirmation
14-Dec-2021 20:17
Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result

4866 14/12/2021 19:29:51 Send 16047024243 47: 13 63 OK
facsimile
tranSmittal
fo>; &04-702-42A3
Date: oec■ mber 14, Z.D21

Galati
from: ROCCD
Pigu: 13 (Including cDV•~
ATTN; Chllllwlck IICMP
D PleuB l<eply □ Pio- Rocycle

D Forlbvlew □ Pio- eonvnent
WUrgonl
A416
0417
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-417
Rocco Galati, BA' LLB, LL M
I 062 College Street. Suite 203
A417
Toronto, Ontario
M6H IA9
PHONE: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
facsimiletransmittal
To: Chilliwack RCMP Fax: 604-702-4243
From: Rocco Galati Date: December 14, 2021
Pages: 63 (including cover)
W Urgent □ For Review □ Please Comment □ Please Reply □ Please Recycle
• • • • • • • • • •
This is in regards to Mr. Rocco Galati's earlier communication with the Chilliwack RCMP.
Mr. Galati is seeking a criminal investigation and charges Dr. Gwyllyn Goddard. Please find
attached a two-page self-explanatory letter along with supporting affidavits. Please note that
the original documents are also being Fed-Exed tomorrow.
In the event of problems with the transmission please contact the sender or the office. This fax is
solicitor-client privileged and contains confidential information intended only for the person(s)
named. Any other distribution or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive this fax in error
please notify the office immediately and destroy the materials received.
Rocco Galati
per:/2__ C---- .
A417
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-418 A4
A4
0419
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-419 A419
This is Exhibit "f>~,

to the Affidavit of

A~
&< TakingAffidavits
A419
0420
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-420 A420
COURTOFAPPEALFORONTARIO
COURTFILENO.:M53387(C70498)
JUSTICE
BEFORE:THEHONOURABLE
GILLESE DR.GILL,
TITLEOFPROCEEDING:
KULVINDERKAURETAL.v. DR.MACIVER
ETAL.
MAY11,2022
DATE:WEDNESDAY,
OFCOURTHEARING:
DISPOSITION
Rocco Galati personally and his law firm Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
(the "Law Firm") are counsel of record for the appellants in this matter. Unfortunately,
Mr. Galati had a lengthy hospitalization and was in a coma, from which he is still
recovering. He has not yet returned to practice and is not currently competent to attend
to the appeal.
Accordingly, Mr. Galati brought this motion asking that he and his Law Firm be removed
as counsel of record for the appellants. The appellants oppose the motion because they
would like Mr. Galati to remain as their lawyer due to the complexity of the evidentiary
record underlying the appeal and the appeal's connection to their other legal proceedings
in which Mr. Galati is counsel.
In light of Mr. Galati's medical condition and consequent inability to competently attend to
the appeal, in my view, this court must grant the requested withdrawal: R. v. Cunningham,
2010 sec 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331, at paras. 48-49.
Accordingly, the motion is granted, and I order that:
1. Mr. Galati and the Law Firm are removed from the record as counsel for the
appellants in this matter; and
2. the deadline for perfecting the appeal is extended to ninety (90) days from the
date of this endorsement to allow the appellants time to retain and instruct new
lawyers.
A420
0421
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-421 A421
This is Exhibit "(l,, to the Affidavit of

A~T::Affid. r g 1 av1ts
A421
0422
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-422 A422
Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020
ONTARIO REGULATION 364/20

I
formerly under Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
RULES FOR AREAS IN STAGE 3

Consolidation Period: From November 23, 2020 to thee-Laws Cllrrencv date.
Last amendment: 655/20.
Legislative History: 415/20, 428/20, 453/20, 456/20, 501/20, 519/20, 529/20, 530/20, 531/20, 546/20, 574/20, 579/20,
588/20, 642/20, 655/20.
This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.
Terms of Order
I. The terms of this Order are set out in Schedules 1, 2 and 3.
2. REVOKED: 0. Reg. 574/20, s. 1.
Application
3. (1) This Order applies to the areas listed in Schedule 3 to Ontario Regulation 363/20 (Stages of Reopening). 0. Reg.
364/20, s. 3.
(2) This Order applies throughout the Green Zone, the Yellow Zone and the Orange Zone. 0. Reg. 642/20, s. 1.
(3) Despite subsection (2),
(a) if this Order specifies that a particular requirement, condition, rule or other restriction applies in the Yellow Zone only,
then the requirement, condition, rule or other restriction does not apply in the Green Zone or the Orange Zone;
(b) if this Order specifies that a particular requirement, condition, rule or other restriction applies in the Orange Zone only,
then the requirement, conditi~n, rule or other restriction does not apply in the Green Zone or the Yellow Zone; and
(c) if this Order specifies that a particular requirement, condition, rule or other restriction applies in both the Yellow Zone
and the Orange Zone, then the requirement, condition, rule or other restriction does not apply in the Green Zone. 0.
Reg. 642/20, s. 1.
Green Zone
3.1 In this Order, a reference to the Green Zone is a reference to all areas listed as being in the Green Zone of Stage 3 in
section 1 of Schedule 3 to Ontario Regulation 363/20 (Stages of Reopening) made under the Act. 0. Reg. 642/20, s. 2.
Yellow Zone
3.2 In this Order, a reference to the Yellow Zone is a reference to all areas listed as being in the Yellow Zone of Stage 3 in
Orange Zone
3.3 In this Order, a reference to the Orange Zone is a reference to all areas listed as being in the Orange Zone of Stage 3 in
Indoor vs. outdoor
4. (1) The outdoor capacity limits set out in this Order apply to a business, place, event or gathering if the people
attending it are only permitted to access an indoor area,
(a) to use a washroom;
(b) to access an outdoor area that can only be accessed through an indoor route; or
(c) as may be necessary for the purposes of health and safety.
(2) The indoor capacity limits set out in this Order apply to a business, place, event or gathering if the business, place,
event or gathering is fully or partially indoors.
(3) An indoor event or gathering cannot be combined with an outdoor event or gathering so as to increase the applicable
limit on the number of people at the event or gathering.
A422
0423
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-423 A423
Safety plan
5. (1) A person who is required under this Order to prepare and make available a safety plan in accordance with this
section, or to ensure that one is prepared and made available, shall comply with the requirement no later than seven days after
the requirement first applies to the person. 0. Reg. 642/20, s. 3.
(2) The safety plan shall describe the measures and procedures which have been implemented or will be implemented in
the business, place, facility or establishment to reduce the transmission risk of COVID-19. 0. Reg. 642/20, s. 3.
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), the safety plan shall describe how the requirements of this Order will
be implemented in the location including by screening, physical distancing, masks or face coverings, cleaning and
disinfecting of surfaces and objects, and the wearing of personal protective equipment. 0. Reg. 642/20, s. 3.
(4) The safety plan shall be in writing and shall be made available to any person for review on request. 0. Reg. 642/20, s.
3.
(5) The person responsible for the business, place, facility or establishment shall ensure that a copy of the safety plan is
posted in a conspicuous place where it is most likely to come to the attention of individuals working in or attending the
location. 0. Reg. 642/20, s. 3.
SCHEDULE l
BUSINESSES AND PLACES
Closures
1. (I) Each person responsible for a business or place, or part of a business or place, that is required to be closed by
Schedule 2 shall ensure that the business or place, or part of the business or place, is closed in accordance with that Schedule.
(2) Each person responsible for a business or place, or part of a business or place, that Schedule 2 describes as being
permitted to open if certain conditions set out in that Schedule are met shall ensure that the business or place, or part of the
business or place, either meets those conditions or is closed.
(3) Each person responsible for a business or place, or part of a business or place, that does not comply with sections 2 to
6 of this Schedule shall ensure that it is closed.
(4) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), temporary access to a business or place, or part of a business or place, that is
required to be closed by Schedule 2 is authorized, unless otherwise prohibited by any applicable law, for the purposes of,
(a) performing work at the business or place in order to comply with any applicable law;
(b) preparing the business or place to be reopened;
(c) allowing for inspections, maintenance or repairs to be carried out at the business or place;
(d) allowing for security services to be provided at the business or place; and
(e) attending at the business or place temporarily,
(i) to deal with other critical matters relating to the closure of the business or place, if the critical matters cannot be
attended to remotely, or
(ii) to access materials, goods or supplies that may be necessary for the business or place to be operated remotely.
(5) Nothing in this Order precludes a business or organization from operating remotely for the purpose of,
(a) providing goods by mail or other forms of delivery, or making goods available for pick-up; and
(b) providing services online, by telephone or other remote means.
General compliance
I 2. (I) The person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall ensure that the business or organization
operates in accordance with all applicable laws, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the regulations made
under it.
(2) The person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall operate the business or organization in
compliance with the advice, recommendations and instructions of public health officials, including any advice,
recommendations or instructions on physical distancing, cleaning or disinfecting.
(3) The person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall operate the business or organization in
compliance with the advice, recommendations and instructions issued by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health
on screening individuals.
(4) he person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall ensure that an per on in the indoor area of the
premises of the business or organization or in a vehicle that is operating as part of the business or organi.zation, wears a mask
A423
2
0424
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-424 A424
or face covering in a manner that covers their mouth, nose and chin during any period when they are in the indoor area unless
the person in the indoor area, •
\ (a) is a child who is younger than two years of age;
(b) is attending a school or private school within the meaning of the Education Act that is operated in accordance with a
return to school direction issued by the Ministry of Education and approved by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer
of Health;
f (c) is attendinga child care prngramat a place thatis in compliancewith the child care co-openingguidanceissuedby the
Ministry of Education;
\ (d) is receiving residential services and supports in a residence listed in the definition of "residential services and
supports" in subsection 4 (2) of the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with
Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008;
(e) is in a correctional institution or in a custody and detention program for young persons in conflict with the law;
l
f
(t) is performing or rehearsing in a film or television production or in a concert, artistic event, theatrical performance or
other performance;
(g) has a medical condition that inhibits their ability to wear a mask or face covering;
(h) is unable to put on or remove their mask or face covering without the assistance of another person;
1 (i) needs to temporarily remove their mask or face covering while in the indoor area,
(i) to receive services that require the removal of their mask or face covering,
(ii) to engage in an athletic or fitness activity,
(iii) to consume food or drink, or
(iv) as may be necessary for the purposes of health and safety;
(j) is being accommodated in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; 2005;
I (k) is being reasonably accommodated in accordance with the Human Rights Code; or
(I) performs work for the business or organization, is in an area that is not accessible to members of the public and is able
to maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from every other person while in the indoor area.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply with respect to premises that are used as a dwelling if the person responsible for the
business or organization ensures that persons in the premises who are not entitled to an exception set out in subsection (4)
wear a mask or face covering in a manner that covers their mouth, nose and chin in any common areas of the premises in
which persons are unable to maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from other persons.
(6) For greater certainty, it is not necessary for a person to present evidence to the person responsible for a business or
place that they are entitled to any ofrthe exceptions set out in subsection (4 ).
\
(7) A person shall wear appropriate personal protective equipment that provides protection of the person's eyes, nose and
mouth if, in the course of providing services, the person,
(a) is required to come within 2 metres of another person who is not wearing a mask or face covering in a manner that
covers that person's mouth, nose and chin during any period when that person is in an indoor area; and
(b) is not separated by plexiglass or some other impermeable barrier from a person described in clause (a).
Capacity limits for businesses or facilities open to the public
3. (1) The person responsible for a place of business or facility that is open to the public shall limit the number of persons
in the place of business or facility so that every member of the public is able to maintain a physical distance of at least two
metres from every other person in the business or facility, except where Schedule 2 allows persons to be closer together.
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not require persons who are in compliance with public health guidance on
households to maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from each other while in a place of business or facility.
Meeting or event space
4. (1) The person responsible for a business or place that is open may only rent out meeting or event space if the total
number of members of the public permitted to be in all of the rentable meeting or event space in the business or place at any
one time is limited to the number that can maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from every other person in the
business or place, and in any event is not permitted to exceed,
(a) 50 persons, if the meeting or event is indoors; or
(b) 100 persons, if the meeting or event is outdoors.
A424
3
0425
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-425 A425
(1. 1) The person responsible for a business or place that is open shall not pennit the booking of more than one room for
any particular event or a social gathering.
(1.2) In the Yellow Zone, the following additional rules apply to a person who is responsible for a business or place that
rents out meeting or event space:
1. The person must ensure that a safety plan is prepared and made available in accordance with section 5 of this Order.
2. The person must ensur~ that no more than six people are seated together at any table in the rented space.
3. The person must ensure that the meeting or event space is closed to the public between the hours of 12 a.m. and 5 a.m.
4. The person must ensure that music is not played at a decibel level that exceeds the level at which nonnal conversation
is possible.
5. The person responsible for the business or place must,
1. record the name and contact infonnation of every member of the public who attends a meeting or event,
ii. maintain the records for a period of at least one month, and
iii. only disclose the records to a medical officer of health or an inspector under the Health Protection and
Promotion Act on request for a purpose specified in section 2 of that Act or as otherwise required by law.
(1.3) In the Orange Zone, the following additional rules apply to a person who is responsible for a business or place that is
open and that rents out meeting or event space:
1. The person must ensure that a safety plan is prepared and made available in accordance with section 5 of this Order.
2. The person must ensure that no more than four people are seated together at any table in the rented space.
3. The person must ensure that the meeting or event space is closed to the public between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.
4. The person must ensure that music is not played at a decibel level that exceeds the level at which normal conversation
is possible.
5. The person responsible for the business or place must,
1. record the name and contact information of every member of the public who attends a meeting or event,
11. maintain the records for a period of at least one month, and
iii. only disclose the records to a medical officer of health or an inspector under the Health Protection and
Promotion Act on request for a purpose specified in section 2 of that Act or as otherwise required by law.
(2) Subsections (I) to (1.3) do not apply to the rental of meeting or event space for the purpose of a wedding, funeral or
religious service, rite or ceremony that is authorized under section 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 3.
(3) Subsections (1) to (1.3) do not apply to the rental of meeting or event space for the purpose of delivering or supporting
the delivery of court services.
(4) Subsections (I) to (1.3) do not apply to the rental of meeting or event space,
(a) for operations by or on behalf of a government; or
(b) for the purpose of delivering or supporting the delivery of government services.
(5) Subsection (I) does not apply in Stage 3 areas outside of the Orange Zone if the rental of meeting or event space is in
compliance with a plan for the rental of meeting or event space approved by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of
Health.
(6) In the Yellow Zone and the Orange Zone, despite anything else in this section, the person responsible for a business or
place in which a rental described in subsection (2), (3) or (4) takes place must,
(a) record the name and contact infonnation of every member of the public who attends a meeting or event,
(b) maintain the records for a period of at least one month, and
(c) only disclose the records to a medical officer of health or an inspector under the Health Protection and Promotion Act
on request for a purpose specified in section 2 of that Act or as otherwise required by law.
Sale and service ofliquor
4.1 (I) In the Yellow Zone, the person responsible for a business or place that is open and in which liquor is sold or
served under a licence or a special occasion pennit shall ensure that,
(a) liquor is sold or served only between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m.; and
(b) no consumption ofliquor is permitted in the business or place between the hours of 12 a.m. and 9 a.m.
A425
4
0426
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-426 A426
(l.l) In the Orange Zone, the person responsible for a business or place that is open and in which liquor is sold or served
under a licence or a special occasion permit shall ensure that,
(a) liquor is sold or served only between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.; and
(b) no consumption of liquor is permitted in the business or place between the hours of IO p.m. and 9 a.m.
(2) The conditions set out in subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply with respect to businesses and places in airports.
(3) The conditions set out in subsection (1.1) do not apply with respect to,
(a) the sale of liquor for removal from licensed premises in accordance with section 56.1 of Regulation 719 (Licences to
Sell Liquor) made under the liquor Licence Act; and
(b) the sale of liquor for delivery in accordance with section 56.2 of Regulation 719 (Licences to Sell Liquor) made under
the Liquor Licence Act.
In-person teaching and instruction
5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the person responsible for a business or place that is open and that provides in-person
teaching or instruction shall ensure that every instructional space complies with the following conditions:
1. The instructional space must be operated to enable students to maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from
every other person in the instructional space, except where necessary for teaching and instruction that cannot be
effectively provided if physical distancing is maintained.
2. The total number of students permitted to be in each instructional space at any one time must be limited to the number
that can maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from every other person in the business or place, and in any
event cannot exceed,
i. 50 persons, if the instructional space is indoors, or
ii. 100 persons, if the instructional space is outdoors.
(2) If the teaching or instruction involves singing or the playing of brass or wind instruments,
(a) every person who is singing or playing must be separated from every other person by plexiglass or some other
impermeable barrier; and
(b) the exception in paragraph I of subsection (1) that allows persons to be closer than two metres where necessary for
teaching and instruction does not apply.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to,
(a) a school or private school within the meaning of the Education Act that is operated in accordance with a return to
school direction issued by the Ministry of Education and approved by the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of
Health;
(b) a school operated by,
(i) a band, a council of a band or the Crown in right of Canada,
(ii) an education authority that is authorized by a band, a council of a band or the Crown in right of Canada, or
(iii) an entity that participates in the Anishinabek Education System; and
(c) the Ontario Police College, training facilities operated by a police force or fire department, the Correctional Services
Recruitment and Training Centre and the Ontario Fire College.
School teaching person holding study permit
5.1 A school or private school within the meaning of the Education Act may provide in-person teaching or instruction to a
person who holds a study permit issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) and who enters Canada
on or after November 17, 2020, only if the school or private school,
(a) has a plan respecting COVID-19 that has been approved by the Minister of Education; and
(b) operates in accordance with the approved plan.
Cleaning requirements
6. (I) The person responsible for a business or place that is open shall ensure that,
(a) any washrooms, locker rooms, change rooms, showers or similar amenities made available to the public are cleaned
and disinfected as frequently as is necessary to maintain a sanitary condition; and
(b) any equipment that is rented to, provided to or provided for the use of members of the public must be cleaned and
disinfected as frequently as is necessary to maintain a sanitary condition.
A426
5
0427
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-427 A427
This is Exhibit ' 19,,

to the Affidavit of

A~
A-< Taking Affidavits
A427
0428
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-428 A428
Federal Court Cour federale
Date: 20230221
Docket: T-1089-22
Citation: 2023 FC 252
Toronto, Ontario, February 21, 2023
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill
BETWEEN:
KAREN ADELBERG, MATTHEW ANDERSON, WYATT GEORGE BAITON, PAUL

BARZU, NEIL BIRD, CURTIS BIRD, BEAU BJARNASON, LACEY BLAIR, MARK
BRADLEY, JOHN DOE #1 , DANIEL BULFORD, JOHN DOE #2, SHAWN CARMEN ,
JOHN DOE #3, JONATHAN COREY CHALONER, CATHLEEN COLLINS, JANE
DOE #1 , JOHN DOE #4, KIRK COX, CHAD COX, NEVILLE DAWOOD, RICHARD
DE VOS, STEPHANE DROUIN, MIKE DESSON, PHILIP DOBERNIGG, JANE DOE
#2, STEPHANE DROUIN, SYLVIE FILTEAU, KIRK FISLER, THOR FORSETH,
GLEN GABRUCH, BRETT GARNEAU, TRACY LYNN GATES, KEVIN GIEN, JANE
DOE #3, WARREN GREEN, JONA THAN GRIFFIOEN, ROHIT HANNSRAJ,
KAITLYN HARDY, SAM HILLIARD, RICHARD HUGGINS, LYNNE HUNKA,
JOSEPH ISLIEFSON, LEPOSA VA JANKOVIC, JOHN DOE #5, PAMELA
JOHNSTON, ERIC JONES-GATINEAU, ANNIE JOYAL, JOHN DOE #6, MARTY
(MARTHA) KLASSEN, JOHN DOE #7, JOHN DOE #8, JOHN DOE #9 , RYAN
KOSKELA, JANE DOE #4, JULIANS LAZOVIKS, JASON LEFEBVRE, KIRSTEN
LINK, MORGAN LITTLEJOHN, JOHN DOE #10, DIANE MARTIN, JOHN DOE #11,
RICHARD MEHNER, CELINE MOREAU, ROBIN MORRISON, MORTON NG,
GLORIA NORMAN, STEVEN O'DOHERTY, DAVID OBIREK, JOHN ROBERT
QUEEN, NICOLE QUICK, GINETTE ROCHON, LOUIS-MARIE ROY, EMAD SADR,
MATT SILVER, JINJER SNIDER, MAUREEN STEIN, JOHN DOE #12, JOHN DOE
#13, ROBERT TUMBAS, KYLE VAN DE SYPE, CHANTELLE VIEN, JOSHUA
(JOSH) VOID, CARLA WALKER, ANDREW WEDLOCK, JENNIFER WELLS,
JOHN WELLS, MELANIE WILLIAMS, DAVID GEORGE JOHN WISEMAN,
DANIEL YOUNG, GRA TCHEN GRISON, (OFFICERS WITH THE ROYAL
CANADIAN MOUNTAIN POLICE)
and
NICOLE AUCLAIR, MICHAEL BALDOCK, SABRINA BARON, WILLIAM DEAN

BOOTH, CHARLES BORG, MARIE-EVE CARON, THOMAS DALLING, JOSEPH
ISRAEL MARC ERIC DE LAFONTAINE, RICARDO GREEN, JORDAN HARTWIG,
RODNEY HOWES, CHRISTOPHER MARK JACOBSON, JANE DOE #5, PASCAL
A428
0429
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-429 A429
Page:2
LEGENDRE, KIMBERLY LEPAGE, KIM MACDONALD, CINDY MACKAY, KIM

MARTIN MCKAY, DAYID MASON, ALEXANDRA KATRINA MOIR, JOSEPH
DANIEL ERIC MONTGRAIN, RADOSLA W NIEDZIELSKI, LEANNA JUNE
NORDMAN, DONALD POOLE, EDWARD DOMINIC POWER, NORMAN L. REED,
JANE DOE #6, BRENDEN SANGSTER, TIMOTHY JOSEPH SEIBERT, ANN-MARIE
LEE TRAYNOR, CARL BARRY WOOD, EDDIE EDMOND ANDRUKAITIS, RUBY
DA VIS, JENNIFER SCHROEDER, JOSEPH SHEA EMPLOYED BY THE
(DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE)
and
STEFANIE ALLARD, JAKE DANIEL BOUGHNER, BRENT CARTER, BRIAN

COBB, LAURA CONSTANTINESCU, SONIA DINU, ALDONA FEDOR, JANE DOE
#7, MALORIE KELLY, MATTHEW STEPHEN MACDONALD, MITCHELL
MACINTYRE, HERTHA MCLENDON, MARCEL MIHAILESCU, MICHAEL
MUNRO, SEBASTIAN NOWAK, DIANA RODRIGUES, NATALIE HOLDEN,
ADAM DAWSON WINCHESTER, (CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY)
and
CHRISTINE CLOUTHIER, DEBBIE GRAY, JENNIFER PENNER, DALE WAGNER,

JOSEPH AYOUB, (AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA)
and
JANE DOE #8, (ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY)
and
MELANIE DUFOUR, (BANK OF CANADA)
and
JENNIFER AUCIELLO, SHARON ANN JOSEPH, ERIC MUNRO, (CANADA

MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION)
and
JANE DOE #9, (CANADA PENSION PLAN)
and
NATALIE BOULARD, BEATA BOZEK, JOHN DOE #14, NERIN ANDREA CARR,
SARA JESSICA CASTRO, DEBBIE (DUBRA VKA ) CUNKO, JOSEE CYR, JANE
DOE #10, CAROL GABOURY, TANIA GOMES, JULITA GROCHOCKA, MONIQUE
HARRIS, WILLIAM HOOKER, KIRSTIN HOUGHTON, LEILA KOSTYK, DIANE C
LABBE, MICHELLE LAMARRE, NICOLAS LEBLOND, SUANA-LEE LECLAIR,
PAULETTE MORISSETTE, JENNIFER NEAVE, PIERRE-ALEXANDRE RACINE,
A429
0430
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-430 A430
Page: 3
BENJAMIN RUSSELL, ROBERT SNOWDEN, AABID THA WER, HEIDI WIENER,

SVJETLANA ZELENBABA, NADIA ZINCK, AARON JAMES THOMAS
SHORROCK, DEIRDRE MCINTOSH, (CANADA REVENUE AGENCY)
and
TAMARA STAMMIS, (CANADA SCHOOL OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE)
and
JASMIN BOURDON, (CANADA SPACE AGENCY)
and
SHARON CUNNINGHAM, ALLEN LYNDEN, RORY MATHESON, (CANADIAN

COAST GUARD)
and
TAT JANA COKLIN, JOHN DOE #15, RAQUEL DELMAS, JANE DOE #11,
CHELSEA HAYDEN, HELENE JOANNIS, ZAKLINA MAZUR, JANE DOE #12,
JESSICA SIMPSON, KATARINA SMOLKOVA, (CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION
AGENCY)
and
ALEXANDRE CHARLAND, (CANADIAN FORESTRY SERVICE)
and
CATHERINE PROVOST, KRISTINA MARTIN, (CANADIAN HERITAGE)
and
JANE DOE #13, (CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEAL TH RESEARCH)
and
BETH BLACKMORE, ROXANNE LORRAIN, (CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY

COMMISSION)
and
REMI RICHER, (CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION)
and
OCTA VIA LA PRAIRIE, (CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE)
A430
0431
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-431 A431
Page:4
and
ROBERT BESTARD, (CITY OF OTTAWA GARAGE FED REGULATED)
and
KIMBERLY ANN BECKERT, (CORE PUBLIC SERVICE)
and
SARAH ANDREYCHUK, FRANCOIS BELLEHUMEUR, PAMELA BLAIKIE,

NAT ASHA CAIRNS, ANGELA CIGLENECKI, VERONIKA COLN AR, RANDY
DOUCET, KARA ERICKSON, JESSE FORCIER, VALERIE FORTIN, ROXANE
GUEUTAL, MELVA ISHERWOOD, MILO JOHNSON, VALERIA LUEDEE, LAURIE
LYNDEN, ANNETTE MARTIN, CRAIG MCKAY, ISABELLE METHOT,
SAMANTHA OSYPCHUK, JANE DOE #14, WILNIVE PHANORD, ALEXANDRE
RICHER LEVASSEUR, KATHLEEN SAWYER, TREVOR SCHEFFEL,
(CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA)
and
JORDAN ST-PIERRE, (COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE)
and
BRIGITTE SURGUE, JANE DOE #15, (DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE)
and
GHISLAIN CARDINAL, HEATHER HALLIDAY, PAUL MARTEN, CELINE

RIVIER, NGOZI UKWU, JEANNINE BASTARACHE, JANE DOE #16, HAMID
NAGHDIAN-VISHTEH, (DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN)
and
ISHMAEL GAY-LABBE, JANE DOE #17, LEANNE JAMES, (DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE)
and
DANIELLE BARABE-BUSSIERES, (ELECTIONS CANADA)
and
TANYA DAECHERT, JANE DOE #18, FRANCOIS ARSENEAU, CHANT A

AUTHIER, NATHALIE BENOIT, AERIE BIAFORE, ROCK BRIAND, AMAUD
BRIEN THIFFAULT, SHARON CHIU, MICHEL DAIGLE, BRIGITTE DANIELS,
LOUISE GAUDREAULT, KARRIE GEVAERT, MARK GEVAERT, PETER
IVERSEN, DERRIK LAMB, JANE DOE #19, ANNA MARINIC, DIVINE
A431
0432
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-432 A432
Page: 5
MASABARAKIZA, JAMES MENDHAM, MICHELLE MARINA MICKO, JEAN

RICHARD, STEPHANIE SENECAL, JANE DOE #20, RY AN SEWELL, KARI
SMYTHE, OLIMPIA SOMESAN, LLOYD SWANSON, TYRONE WHITE, ELISSA
WONG, JENNY ZAMBELAS, LI YANG ZHU, PATRICE LEVER, (EMPLOYMENT
AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA)
and
JANE DOE #21, BRIAN PHILIP CRENNA, JANE DOE #22, BRADLEY DAVID
HIGNELL, ANDREW KALTECK, DANA KELLETT, JOSEE LOSIER, KRISTIN
MENSCH, ELSA MOUANA, JANE DOE #23, JANE DOE #24, VALENTINA
ZAGORENKO, (ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA)
and
PIERRE TRUDEL, (EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA)
and
STEPHEN ALAN COLLEY, (FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO)
and
VLADIMIR RASKOVIC, (GARDA SECURITY SCREEING INC)
and
MELANIE BORGIA, JONATHAN KYLE SMITH, DONNA ST AINFLELD, ANNILA

THARAKAN, RENEE MICHIKO UMEZUKI, (GLOBAL AFFAIRS CANADA)
and
DENNIS JOHNSON, (GLOBAL CONTAINER TERMINALS CANADA)
and
ALEXANDRE GUILBEAULT, TARA (MARIA) MCDONOUGH, FRANCE VANIER,

(GOVERNMENT OF CANADA)
and
ALEX BRAUN, MARC LESCELLEUR-PAQUETTE, (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
and
AIMEE LEGAULT, (HUMAN RESOURCE BRANCH)
and
A432
0433
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-433 A433
Page: 6
DORIN ANDREI BO BOC, JANE DOE #25, SOPHIE GUIMARD, ELISA HO, KA THY
LEAL, CAROLINE LEGENDRE, DIANA VIDA, (IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND
CITIZENSHIP CANADA)
and
NATHALIE JOANNE GAUTHIER, (INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS

CANADA)
and
CHRISTINE BIZIER, AMBER DAWN KLETZEL, VERONA LIPKA, KERRY

SPEARS, (INDIGENOUS SERVICES CANADA)
and
SUN-HO PAUL JE, (INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CANADA)
and
GILES ROY, (NATIONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA)
and
RAY SILVER, MICHELLE DEDYULIN, LETITIA EAKINS, JULIE-ANNE

KLEINSCHMIT, MARC-ANDRE OCTEAU, HUGUES SCHOLAERT, (NATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA)
and
FELIX BEAUCHAMP, (NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE REVIEW

AGENCY)
and
JULIA MAY BROWN, CALEB LAM, STEPHANE LEBLANC, SERRYNA

WHITESIDE, (NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA)
and
NICOLE HAWLEY, STEEVE L'ITALIEN, MARC LECOCQ, TONY MALLET,

SANDRA MCKENZIE, (NAV CANADA)
and
MUHAMMAD ALI, (OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA)
and
A433
0434
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-434 A434
Page: 7
RYAN ROGERS, (ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION)
and
THERESA STENE, MICHAEL DESSUREAULT, JOHN DOE #16, (PARK CANADA)
and
CHARLES-ALEXANDRE BEAUCHEMIN, BRETT OLIVER, (PARLIMENTARY

PROTECTION SERVICE)
and
CAROLE DUFORD, (POLAR KNOWLEDGE CANADA)
and
JOANNE GABRIELLE DE MONTIGNY, IVANA ERIC, JANE DOE #26, SAL YNA
LEGARE, JANE DOE #27, ANGIE RICHARDSON, JANE DOE #28, (PUBLIC
HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA)
and
FAY ANNE BARBER, (PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA)
and
DENIS LANIEL, (PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD)
and
KATHLEEN ELIZABETH BARRETTE, SARAH BEDARD, MARIO

CONSTANTINEAU, KAREN FLEURY, BRENDA JAIN, MEGAN MARTIN, JANE
DOE #29, ISABELLE PAQUETTE, RICHARD PARENT, ROGER ROBERT
RICHARD, NICOLE INCENNES, CHRISTINE VESSIA, JANE DOE #30, PAMELA
MCINTYRE, (PUBLIC SERVICES AND PROCUREMENT CANADA)
and
ISABELLE DENIS, (REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA)
and
JANE BARTMANOVICH, (ROY AL CANADIAN MINT)
and
NICOLE BRISSON, (SERVICE CANADA)
A434
0435
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-435 A435
Page: 8
and
DENIS AUDET, MATHIEU ESSIAMBRE, ALAIN HART, ANDREA HOUGHTON,

NATALIA KWIATEK, DANY LEVESQUE, DAVID MCCARTHY, PASCAL
MICHAUD, MERYi PENNANEN, TONYA SHORTILL, STEPHANIE TKACHUK,
MARSHALL WRIGHT, (SHARED SERVICES CANADA)
and
EVE MARIE BLOUIN-HUDON, MARC-ANTOINE BOUCHER, CHRISTOPHER

HUSZAR, (STATISTICS CANADA)
and
STEVE YOUNG, (TELESTAT CANADA)
and
NATHAN ALIGIZAKIS, STEPHEN DANIEL, ALAIN DOUCHANT, KRYSTAL

MCCOLGAN, DEBBIE MENARD, CLARENCE RUTTLE, DOROTHY BARRON,
ROBERT MCLACHLAN, (TRANSPORT CANADA)
and
SCOTT ERROLL HENDERSON, DENIS THERIAULT, (TREASURY BOARD OF

CANADA)
and
JOSIANE BROUILLARD, ALEXANDRA MCGRATH, NATHALIE STE-CROIX,

JANE DOE #31, (VETERANS AFFAIRS CANADA)
and
OLUBUSAYO (BUSAYO) AYENI, JOHN DOE #17, CYNTHIA BAUMAN, JANE DOE
#32, LAURA CRYSTAL BROWN, KE(JERRY) CAI, NICO LINO CAMPANELLI,
DONALD KEITH CAMPBELL, COLLEEN CARDER, KA THY CARRIERE,
MELISSA CARSON, DAVID CLARK, BRADLEY CLERMONT, LAURIE COELHO,
ESTEE COSTA, ANTONIO DA SILVA, BRENDA DARVILL, PATRICK DAVIDSON,
EUGENEDA VIS, LEAH DAWSON, MARC FONTAINE, JACQUELINE GENAILLE,
ELDON GOOSSEN, JOYCE GREENAWAY, LORI HAND, DARREN HAY, KRISTA
IMIOLA,CATHERINE KANUKA, DONNA KELLY, BENJAMIN LEHTO, ANTHONY
LEON, AKEMI MATSUMIYA, JANE DOE #33, JANE DOE #34, JANE DOE #35,
ANNE MARIE MCQUAID-SNIDER, LINO MULA, PAMELA OPERSKO, GABRIEL
PAQUET CHRISTINE PAQUETTE, CAROLIN JACQUELINE PARIS, JODIE
PRICE, KEVIN PRICE, GIUSEPPE QUADRINI, SAARAH QUAMINA, SHAWN
ROSSITER, ANTHONY RUSH, ANTHONY SHA TZKO, CHARLES SILVA, RY AN
SIMKO, NORMAN SIROIS, BRANDON SMITH, CATHARINE SPIAK, SANDRA
A435
0436
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-436 A436
Page: 9
STROUD, ANITA TALARIAN, DARYLTOONK, RYAN TOWERS, LEANNE

VERBEEM, ERAN VOOYS, ROBERT WAGNER, JASON WEATHERALL,
MELANIE BURCH, STEVEN COLE, TONI DOWNIE, AMBER RICARD, JODI
STAMMIS, (CANADA POST)
and
NICOLAS BELL, JOHN DOE #18, JOHN DOE #19, JANE DOE #36, JOHN DOE #20,
PAOLA DI MADDALENA, NATHAN DODDS, JOHN DOE #21, JANE DOE #37,
NUNZIO GIOLTI, MARIO GIRARD, JANE DOE #38, JANE DOE #39, YOU-HUI
KIM, JANE DOE #40, SEBASTIAN KORAK, ADA LAI, MIRIUM LO, MELANIE
MAILLOUX, CAROLYN MUIR, PATRIZIA PABA, RADU RAUTESCU, ALDO
REANO, JACQUELINE ELISABETH ROBINSON, JOHN DOE #22, FREDERICK
ROY, JOHN DOE #23, T AEKO SHIMAMURA, JASON SISK, BEAT A SOSIN, JOEL
SZOSTAK, MARIO TCHEON, REBECCA SUE THIESSEN, JANE DOE #41,
MAUREEN YEARWOOD, (AIR CANADA)
and
JOHN DOE #24, JOSEE DEMEULE, JACQUELINE GAMBLE, DOMENIC

GIANCOLA, SADNA KASSAN, MARCUS STEINER, CHRISTINA TRUDEAU, (AIR
CANADA JAZZ)
and
JOHN DOE #25, EMILIE DESPRES, (AIR INUIT)
and
REJEAN NANTEL, (BANK OF MONTREAL)
and
LANCE VICTOR SCHIIKA, (BC COAST PILOTS LTD)
and
ELIZABETH GODLER, (BC FERRIES)
and
JOHN DOE #26, JANE DOE #42, TAMARA DAVIDSON, JANE DOE #43, KARTER
CUTHBERT FELDHOFF DE LA NUEZ, JEFFREY MICHAEL JOSEPH
GOUDREAU, BRAD HOMEWOOD, CHAD HOMEWOOD, CHARLES MICHAEL
JEFFERSON, JOHN DOE #27, JANICE LARAINE KRISTMANSON, JANE DOE #44,
DARREN LOUIS LAGIMODIERE, JOHN DOE #28, JOHN DOE #29, MIRKO
MARAS, JOHN DOE #30, JOHN DOE #31, JOHN DOE #32, JOHN DOE #33, JOHN
DOE #34, JANE DOE #45, JOHN DOE #35, KENDAL STACE-SMITH, JOHN DOE
A436
0437
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-437 A437
Page: 10
#36, STEVE HEATLEY, (BRITISH COLUMBIA MARITIME EMPLOYERS

ASSOCIATION)
and
PAUL VEERMAN, (BROOKFIELD GLOBAL INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS)
and
MARK BARRON, TREVOR BAZILEWICH, JOHN DOE #37, BRIAN DEKKER,

JOHN GAETZ, ERNEST GEORGESON, KYLE KORTKO, RICHARD LET AIN,
JOHN DOE #38, DALE ROBERT ROSS, (CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY)
and
TIM CASHMORE, ROB GEBERT, MICHEAL ROGER MAILHIOT, (CANADIAN

PACIFIC RAILWAY)
and
KARIN LUTZ, (DP WORLD)
and
CRYSTAL SMEENK, (FARM CREDIT CANADA)
and
SYLVIE M.F. GELINAS, SUSIE MATIAS, STEW WILLIAMS, (G4S AIRPORT

SCREENING)
and
SHAWN CORMAN, (GEOTECH AVIA Tl ON)
and
JUERGEN BRUSCHKEWITZ, ANDRE DEVEAUX, BRYAN FIGUEIRA, DAYID

SPRATT, GUY HOCKING, SEAN GRANT, (GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY)
and
DUSTIN BLAIR, (KELOWNA AIRPORT FIRE FIGHTER)
and
HANS-PETER LIECHTI, (NATIONAL ART CENTRE)
A437
0438
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-438 A438
Page: 11
and
BRADLEY CURRUTHERS, LANA DOUGLAS, ERIC DUPUIS, SHERRI ELLIOT,

ROBEN IVENS, JANE DOE #46, LUKE VAN HOEKELEN, KURT WATSON,
(ONTARIO POWER GENERATION)
and
THERESA STENE, MICHAEL DESSUREAULT, ADAM PIDWERBESKI, (PARKS

CANADA)
and
JOHN DOE #39, (PACIFIC PILOT AGE AUTHORITY)
and
ANGELA GROSS, (PUROLATOR INC.)
and
GERHARD GEERTSEMA, (QUESTRAL HELICOPTERS)
and
AMANDA RANDALL, JANE DOE #47, FRANK VERI, (RBC ROY AL BANK)
and
JAMES (JED) FORSMAN, (RISE AIR)
and
JANE DOE #48, (ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC)
and
JERRIL YNN REBEYKA, (SASKTEL)
and
EILEEN FAHLMAN, MARY TREICHEL, (SCOTIABANK)
and
JUDAH GAELAN CUMMINS, (SEASPAN VICTORIA DOCKS)
and
A438
0439
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-439 A439
Page: 12
DARIN WATSON, (SHAW)
and
RICHARD MICHAEL ALAN TABAK, (SKYNORTH AIR LTD)
and
DEBORAH BOARDMAN, MICHAEL BRIGHAM, (VIA RAIL CANADA)
and
KEVIN SCOTT ROUTL Y, (W ASAY A AIRWAYS)
and
SAILOR, (WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA)
and
BAYDA, JAMIE ELLIOTT, JOHN DOE #40, RANDALL MEN GERING,

SAMANTHA NICASTRO, VERONICA STEPHENS, JANE DOE #49, (WEST JET)
and
MEL VIN GEREIN, (WESTSHORE TERMINALS)
Plaintiffs
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING, PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU, DEPUTY

PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FINANCE CHRYSTIA FREELAND, CHIEF
MEDICAL OFFICER TERESA TAM, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT OMAR
ALGHABRA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY MARCO MENDICINO,
JOHNS AND JANES DOE
Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
A439
0440
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-440 A440
Page: 13
I. Overview
[1] The Defendants have brought a motion pursuant to Rule 22l(l)(a) of the Federal Courts
Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules] to strike the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim in its entirety, without
leave to amend.
[2] The Statement of Claim was filed on May 30, 2022. The Plaintiffs comprise
approximately 600 individuals who allege they suffered harm as a result of the Policy on
COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police issued by the Treasury Board of Canada on October 6, 2021 [TB Policy], and
the Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to CO VID-19, No. 61
issued by Transport Canada on April 24, 2022 [Interim Order).
[3] The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Government of Canada, federal
Crown corporations, and federally-regulated businesses or organizations. The precise
circumstances of the Plaintiffs' employment are not pleaded in the Statement of Claim.
[4] Unusually, the style of cause groups the Plaintiffs by their employers. For example, the
first group of Plaintiffs is identified as employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the
second as employed by the Department of National Defence; the third as employed by the
Canada Border Services Agency; and so on.
A440
0441
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-441 A441
Page: 14
[5] There are numerous groups of Plaintiffs identified as employees of a wide variety of
federal government institutions and Crown corporations. Other Plaintiffs are identified as
employees of federally-regulated businesses or organizations such as Air Canada, Bank of
Montreal, BC Ferries, Canadian National Railway, Ontario Power Generation, Purolator, and
Rogers Communications.
[6] According to the Defendants, approximately two-thirds of the Plaintiffs appear to be
employed within the Core Public Administration [CPA], as defined in the Financial
Administration Act, RSC 1985, c F-11, s 11(1) and Schedules I, IV [FAA]. The Defendants say
these Plaintiffs' claims are barred bys 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act,
SC 2003, c 22, s 2 [FPSLRA].
[7] The remaining one-third of the Plaintiffs appear to fall ~ithin two other categories:
employees of federal Crown corporations and employees of businesses or organizations that
operate in a variety of federally-regulated sectors, principally transportation,
telecommunications, logistics, finance, and courier services. The Defendants do not dispute the
Court's potential jurisdiction over the claims brought by these Plaintiffs, but nevertheless
maintain that the Statement of Claim fails to disclose any reasonable causes of action.
[8] With respect to those Plaintiffs who are subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA, the Statement of
Claim must be struck in its entirety without leave to amend. With respect to those Plaintiffs who
are not subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA, the Statement of Claim must be struck in its entirety, but
with leave to amend.
A441
0442
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-442 A442
Page: 15
II. Issues
[9] The issues raised by the Defendants' motion are whether the Statement of Claim should
be struck and, if so, whether leave should be granted to amend the pleading.
A. Plaintiffs Subject to the FPSLRA
[10] The Plaintiffs who are employed within the organizations listed in Schedule A hereto are
members of the CPA, as defined in the FAA. Persons employed within the CPA are subject to s
236 of the FPSLRA. This provision reads as follows:
No Right of Action Absence de droit d'action
Disputes relating to employment Differend lie al'emploi

236 (1) The right of an employee to 236 (1) Le droit de recours du
seek redress by way of grievance for fonctionnaire par voie de grief
any dispute relating to his or her relativement atout differend lie a ses
terms or conditions of employment is conditions d'emploi remplace ses
in lieu of any right of action that the droits d' action en justice
employee may have in relation to any relativement aux faits - actions ou
act or omission giving rise to the omissions - a l'origine du
dispute. differend.
Application Application
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or (2) Le paragraphe (1) s'applique que
not the employee avails himself or le fonctionnaire se prevale ou non de
herself of the right to present a son droit de presenter un grief et
grievance in any particular case and qu'il soit possible ou non de
whether or not the grievance could be soumettre le grief a l' arbitrage.
referred to adjudication.
[ ...]
[ ...]
A442
0443
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-443 A443
Page: 16
[11] The right to grieve is available to employees as defined ins 206(1) of the FPSLRA. Both
unionized and non-unionized employees may file a grievance. The Defendants say that the
Plaintiffs' right to grieve encompasses the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim,
because they concern their "terms and conditions of employment", as that expression is used in s
208 of the FPSLRA:
Right of employee Droit du fonctionnaire
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to 208 (1) Sous reserve des
(7), an employee is entitled to present paragraphes (2) a (7), le
an individual grievance if he or she fonctionnaire a le droit de presenter
feels aggrieved (a) by the un grief individuel lorsqu'il s'estime
interpretation or application, in Iese a) par !'interpretation OU
respect of the employee, of }'application a son egard :
(i) a provision of a statute or (i) soit de toute disposition

regulation, or of a direction or d'une loi ou d'un reglement, ou
other instrument made or issued by de toute directive ou de tout
the employer, that deals with terms autre document de l'employeur
and conditions of employment, or concemant les conditions
d'emploi,
(ii) a provision of a collective
agreement or an arbitral award; or (ii) soit de toute disposition
d'une convention collective ou
(b) as a result of any occurrence or d'une decision arbitrale;
matter affecting his or her terms and
conditions of employment. b) par suite de tout fait portant
atteinte a ses conditions d'emploi.
[12] In Hudson v Canada, 2022 FC 694 [Hudson], I granted the defendant's motion to strike
the statement of claim without leave to amend on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims were
barred bys 236 of the FPSLRA. The analysis that follows is adapted from the one I applied in
Hudson.
A443
0444
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-444 A444
Page: 17
[13] Subsection 236(1) of the FPSLRA has been recognized as an "explicit ouster" of the
courts' jurisdiction (Bron v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 ONCA 71 [Bron] at para 4). Once
it is established that a matter must be the subject of a grievance, the grievance process cannot be
circumvented, even for reasons of efficiency, by relying on a court's residual jurisdiction
(Bouchard c Procureur general du Canada, 2019 QCCA 2067).
[14] Subsection 236(1) of the FPSLRA was enacted in 2005 in direct response to the Supreme
Court of Canada's decisions in Vaughan v Canada, 2005 SCC 11 [Vaughan] and Weber v
Ontario Hydro, [ 1995] 2 SCR 929 [Weber] (see Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of
Correctional Ser-vice of Canada v Robichaud and MacKinnon, 2013 NBCA 3 [Robichaud] at
para 3). Vaughan and Weber stand for the proposition that courts should usually decline to
exercise any residual jurisdiction they may have to intervene in employment-related matters.
Before a court will intervene in an employment-related dispute, there must be a gap in labour
adjudication that causes a "real deprivation of ultimate remedy" (Weber at para 57).
[ 15] This principle was succinctly stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v
Greenwood, 2021 FCA 186 [Greenwood] at paragraph 130 (leave to appeal ref d, 2022 CanLII
19060 (SCC)):
Vaughan and the cases that apply it hold that, in most instances,
claims from employees subject to federal public sector labour
legislation in respect of matters that are not adjudicable before the
FPSLREB should not be heard by the courts, as this would
constitute an impermissible incursion into the statutory scheme.
However, an exception to this general rule allows courts to hear
claims that may only be grieved under internal grievance
mechanisms if the internal mechanisms are incapable of providing
effective redress.
A444
0445
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-445 A445
Page: 18
[16] The Defendants say the effect of s 236 of the FPSLRA is to remove any residual
discretion this Court may have to intervene in labour disputes involving employees with
grievance rights. The Defendants argue thats 236 serves to revoke any statutory grant of
jurisdiction this Court might otherwise possess.
[17] Following the enactment of s 236 of the FPSLRA, it appears that no court has intervened
in a labour dispute that involves employees who possess grievance rights. The most one can find
in the jurisprudence is obiter commentary suggesting that an exception might be found if the
integrity of the grievance procedure is shown to be compromised based on the evidence
presented in a particular case (Lebrasseur v Canada, 2007 FCA 330 [Lebrasseur]). The onus of
establishing that there is room for the exercise of a court's residual discretion lies with a plaintiff
(Lebrasseur at paras 18-19).
[18] In Robichaud, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick suggested that if the residual
discretion to hear a labour dispute continues to exist despites 236 of the FPSLRA, it will be only
in "exceptional" cases: "The truly problematic cases will be those where the grievance process is
itself 'corrupt"' (at para 10).
[19] While evidence is not generally admissible on a motion to strike, it may be admitted
where a jurisdictional question arises. Evidence as to the nature and efficacy of the suggested
alternate processes is necessary to provide a basis for the Court's determination of whether it
ought to decline jurisdiction in favour of the alternate administrative remedies (Greenwood at
paras 95-96).
A445
0446
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-446 A446
Page: 19
[20] The Defendants have adduced evidence in support of their motion to strike, but this
consists only of an affidavit appending the relevant policy documents as exhibits. No evidence
has been tendered respecting "the nature and efficacy of the suggested alternate processes", as
contemplated in Greenwood (at para 95).
[21] The Defendants maintain that it is sufficient for them to invoke the FAA to demonstrate
that the claims of approximately two-thirds of the Plaintiffs are barred bys 236 of the FPSLRA.
The Defendants note that the Plaintiffs do not allege the available internal grievance process is
"corrupt" or incapable of providing redress. Indeed, the Statement of Claim is silent regarding
the potential availability or adequacy of alternative remedies.
[22] It would have been helpful for the Defendants to provide evidence, or alternatively
detailed legal submissions, regarding which of the Plaintiffs are subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA
and which are not. Instead, considerable time was expended during the hearing of this motion
reviewing the Schedules to the FAA in order to determine which groups of Plaintiffs are
employed within the CPA. Following the hearing of the motion, the Court directed the parties to
confirm the accuracy of the lists of employers that appear in Schedules A and B hereto.
Schedules A and B were subsequently approved by the parties through their counsel. To their
credit, this was done on consent.
[23] According to paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim:
The Plaintiffs are all either:
A446
0447
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-447 A447
Page:20
(a) Federal (former) Employees of various agencies and Ministries

of the Government of Canada and servants, officials, and/or
agents of the Crown;
(b) Employees of Federal Crown Corporations; and
(c) Employees of federally regulated sectors;
As set out and categorized in the style of cause in the within claim.
(24] While this manner of pleading is unorthodox, it is sufficiently clear. In effect, the
categories of employment disclosed in the style of cause are incorporated by reference into the
body of the pleading. For the purposes of the Defendants' motion to strike, the Plaintiffs'
assertions respecting their places of employment, as identified in the style of cause, must be
assumed to be true.
(25] Taken at face value, I am satisfied the pleading confirms that the majority of the Plaintiffs
are employed within the CPA. Their claims are therefore barred bys 236 of the FPSLRA.
(26] Before determining whether to exercise any discretion to consider a proceeding, the
Court must first be satisfied that the grievance process is not available and would not provide any
remedy (Murphy v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 146 [Murphy], at para 32, citing Public
Service Alliance of Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 481). As Prothonotary (now
Associate Judge) Mireille Tabib explained in Murphy in paragraph 33:
Consequently, and as also suggested in Lebrasseur v Canada, 2007

FCA 330, at para 19, once it is established that a person has
recourse to a statutory grievance scheme, it is up to the applicant,
and not the respondent seeking to have the application dismissed as
premature, to establish that the procedure is clearly not available.
That is the necessary conclusion, since concluding otherwise and
allowing access to the courts whenever th~ admissibility of a
A447
0448
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-448 A448
Page:21
grievance is challenged would have the effect of bypassing the

exhaustive scheme Parliament intended. It would amount to asking
the Court to prejudge the admissibility of a grievance and to usurp
the role of the grievance authority in respect of the interpretation
and application of the provisions governing the grievance
procedure.
[27] Associate Judge Tabib's ruling in Murphy was recently upheld by Justice Vanessa
Rochester in Murphy v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 57 [Murphy (Appeal)].
[28] Even at this preliminary stage, the onus is on the Plaintiffs to establish the Court's
jurisdiction over the claims advanced in the Statement of Claim (Hudson at para 91; Murphy
(Appeal) at para 82). I am not persuaded that the Plaintiffs who are employed within the CPA
have done so.
[29] On a motion to strike, a plaintiff will satisfy the requirement that the pleadings disclose a
reasonable cause of action unless, assuming all facts pleaded to be true, it is plain and obvious
that the plaintiffs claim cannot succeed (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation, 2013
SCC 57 at para 63). However, this does not mean that the Plaintiffs' assertions respecting this
Court's jurisdiction must be assumed to be true. As Justice Rochester explained in Murphy
(Appeal) at paragraph 86:
It is clear that on a motion to strike an application for judicial

review, the facts asserted by the applicant in its Notice of
Application must be presumed to be true (Prairies Tubulars (2015)
Inc v Canada (Border Services Agency), 2018 FC 991 at para 26
and the cases cited therein). This presumption does not extend to
the arguments that an applicant may make or any evidence they
may submit in response to a motion to strike the Notice of
Application. Concluding otherwise would run counter to the
teaching of the Federal Court of Appeal in [Canada (National
Revenue) v JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc, 2013
A448
0449
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-449 A449
Page:22
FCA 250] and have the effect of rendering such motions to strike
incapable of success, thereby hampering the Court's power to
restrain the misuse or abuse of its process (JP Morgan at para 48). ·
[30) Plaintiffs who enjoy statutory grievance rights and allege they have been harmed by the
TB Policy or Interim Order must exhaust the grievance process before seeking redress in this
Court (Murphy (Appeal) at paras 75-76). As I held in Wojdan v Canada (Attorney General),
2021 FC 1341 at paragraph 31, permitting premature access to the Court:
[ ... ]would have the effect of undermining the labour grievance

process enacted by Parliament. The Court would be preempting the
primary role of labour adjudicators in determining questions that
pertain to the application of the Vaccination Policy, the extent to
which it may be said to infringe employees' rights, whether any
infringement can be justified on the grounds of public health, and
if not, whether the Applicants are entitled to financial or other
compensation. Premature judicial intervention would not be
complementary to fundamental principles oflabour relations, but
destructive of them.
(31] The Plaintiffs argue that their claims are not barred bys 236 of the FPSLRA, because
some of the remedies they seek are beyond the powers of a labour adjudicator to grant. They
emphasize the declaratory relief sought in the Statement of Claim regarding the constitutional
validity of the TB Policy and Interim Order, citing ss 91 and 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867
(UK), 30 & 31 Viet, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5 and the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution A ct, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act
1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].
(32] The Plaintiffs cannot escape the operation of s 236 of the FPSLRA by pleading that their
claims are not ordinary workplace disputes, or that some of the remedies they seek are not
A449
0450
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-450 A450
Page:23
available through the internal grievance process. As the Ontario Court of Appeal held in Bron,
the right to grieve is "very broad" and "[a]lmost all employment-related disputes can be grieved
under s 208 of the FPSLRA" (at paras 14-15).
[33] In Ebadi v Canada, 2022 FC 834 [Ebadi], the plaintiff advanced the argument (at para
35)that:
[ ... ] Bron maintains the court's residual discretion to hear a claim

when a grievance procedure does not provide an adequate remedy.
Further, the Court may assume jurisdiction over claims that, in the
usual course, may be barred by section 236, where there is a gap in
the statutory scheme, where the events produce a difficulty
unforeseen by the scheme, or where "no adequate alternative
remedy already exists," as set out in Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation v
Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 SCR 495 at para 8 [Brotherhood].
[34] Justice Henry Brown rejected this argument, holding that alleged Charter violations may
be addressed through the grievance process under the FPSLRA (Ebadi at 43-44, citing Green v
Canada (Border Services Agency), 2018 FC 414 at paras 10-11). He also affirmed that the
grievance procedure operates "in lieu of any right of action", even when a plaintiffs preferred
remedy (in that case third-party adjudication) is not available (at paras 49-50):
In accordance with the analysis in Green, the Plaintiff could have

challenged the Harassment Policy and Grievance Procedure
themselves under sections 208 and 236 of the FPSRLA. In addition
and in my respectful view, the statutory bar to court litigation set
out in subsection 236(2) pre-empts any cause of action in this
Court notwithstanding there is no access to third party-
adjudication.
Here, the ONCA's reasoning in Bron is again relevant:
A450
0451
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-451 A451
Page:24
[32] Finally, the appellant argues that a superior court must

maintain an inherent jurisdiction despite whatever language
may be used in s. 236. He relies on Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System
Federation v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 1996 CanLII 215
(SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495, [1996] S.C.J. No. 42, at para.
8. As I read that case, it stands for the proposition that a
superior court has inherent jurisdiction to provide a remedy
where the relevant statutory scheme does not speak to the
circumstances at band. In other words, the court's inherent
jUTisdictioncan fill remedial lacunae in legislation. There is
no legislative gap here. Section 236 speaks directly to
workplace complaints that are grievable under the
legislation. For those complaints, even when there is no
access to third-party adjudication, the grievance procedure
operates 'in lieu of any right of action". [Emphasis added]
[35] Canadian courts have consistently found that harms allegedly suffered by employees as a
result of their employers' policies and practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are
properly addressed by way of grievance, in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces (see
National Organized Workers Union v Sinai Health System, 2022 ONCA 802 [Sinai Health] at
para 39 and the cases cited therein). As the Court of Appeal for Ontario held in Sinai Health (at
para 38):
At its core, the harm at issue was the potential for being placed on
leave without pay or terminated under the Policy, if an employee
chose to remain unvaccinated. The appellant's members were not
being forced to be vaccinated, denied bodily autonomy, or denied
the right to give informed consent to vaccination. They could
choose to be vaccinated or not. If they chose not to be vaccinated,
they faced being placed on unpaid leave or having their
employment terminated. This potential harm is fundamentally
related to employment. It is harm which an arbitrator has the tools
to remedy. If the appellant were to prevail in the arbitration, an
arbitrator could order reinstatement without loss of seniority and
compensation for lost wages. There is no palpable and overriding
error in the application judge's conclusion that there was no
remedial gap in the labour relations regime that warranted the
exercise of the Superior Court's residual jurisdiction.
A451
0452
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-452 A452
Page:25
(36] The Plaintiffs who are subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA have not demonstrated that their
circumstances constitute "exceptional cases", or that there is a gap in labour adjudication that
causes a "real deprivation of ultimate remedy" (Weber at para 57; Vaughan at paras 22, 39). For
these Plaintiffs, the Statement of Claim must be struck in its entirety without leave to amend.
B. Plaintiffs Not Subject to the FPSLRA
(37] The Plaintiffs who are employed within the organizations listed in Schedule B hereto are
not members of the CPA, as defined in the FAA. The Defendants concede that these Plaintiffs'
claims potentially fall within this Court's jurisdiction.
(38] The Defendants nevertheless maintain that the Statement of Claim is drafted so poorly
that it fails to disclose any reasonable causes of action. They therefore argue that the Statement
of Claim must be struck in its entirety without leave to amend, regardless of whether or not the
Plaintiffs are subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA.
(39] The Rules that govern pleadings in this Court provide in relevant part:
Form of pleadings Modalites de forme
173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided 173 (1) Les actes de procedure sont
into consecutively numbered divises en paragraphes numerates
paragraphs. consecutivement.
Allegations set out separately Presentation
(2) Every allegation in a pleading (2) Dans la mesure du possible,

shall, as far as is practicable, be set chaque pretention contenue dans un
out in a separate paragraph.
A452
0453
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-453 A453
Page:26
acte de procedure fait l'objet d'un

Material facts paragraphe distinct.
174 Every pleading shall contain a Expose des faits

concise statement of the material facts
on which the party relies, but shall not 174 Tout acte de procedure contient
include evidence by which those facts un expose concis des faits
are to be proved. substantiels sur lesquels la partie se
fonde; il ne comprend pas les
[ ...] moyens de preuve a l'appui de ces
faits.
Particulars
[ ...]
181 (1) A pleading shall contain
particulars of every allegation Precisions
contained therein, including
181 (1) L'acte de procedure contient
(a) particulars ofany alleged des precisions sur chaque allegation,
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of notamment:
trust, wilful default or undue
influence; and a) des precisions sur les fausses
declarations, fraudes, abus de
(b) particulars of any alleged state of confiance, manquements deliberes
mind of a person, including any ou influences indues reproches;
alleged mental disorder or disability,
malice or fraudulent intention. b) des precisions sur toute allegation
portant sur l'etat mental d'une
personne, tel un desequilibre mental,
une incapacite mentale ou une
intention malicieuse ou frauduleuse.
[40] It is fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail
to support the claim and the relief sought (Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare),
2015 FCA 227 [Mancuso] at para 16). Pleadings play an important role in providing notice and
defining the issues to be tried.
[41] The Court and defendants cannot be left to speculate as to how the facts might be
variously arranged to support various causes of action. If the Court were to allow parties to plead
A453
0454
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-454 A454
Page:27
bald allegations of fact, or mere conclusory statements of law, the pleadings would fail to
perform their role in identifying the issues (Mancuso at paras 16-17).
[42] A plaintiff must plead, in summary form but with sufficient detail, the constituent
elements of each cause of action or legal ground raised. The pleading must tell the defendant
who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability. Plaintiffs cannot file inadequate
pleadings and rely on a defendant to request particulars, nor can they supplement insufficient
pleadings to make them sufficient through particulars (Mancuso at paras 19-20).
[43] To establish a reasonable cause of action, a statement of claim must "(l) allege facts that
are capable of giving rise to a cause of action; (2) indicate the nature of the action which is to be
founded on those facts; and (3) indicate the relief sought, which must be of a type which the
action could produce and the court has jurisdiction to grant" (Zbarsky v Canada, 2022 FC 195 at
para 13, citing Berube v Canada, 2009 FC 43 at para 24, aff d, 2010 FCA 276).
[44] As Justice Beth Allen of the Ontario Superior Court ofJustice observed in Guillaume v
Toronto (City), 2010 ONSC 5045 (at para 54):
The importance of clearly drafted and structured pleadings does

not require much explanation. Pleadings should be drafted with
sufficient clarity and precision so as to give the other party fair
notice of the case they are required to meet and of the remedies
being sought. The role of pleadings is to assist the court in its quest
for the truth. Clearly, confusing, run on and poorly organized
pleadings cannot accomplish those goals. Courts have held a
pleading may be struck out on the grounds it is unintelligible and
lacks clarity [ ... ]
A454
0455
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-455 A455
Page:28
[45] The Statement of Claim in this proceeding is almost 50 pages long. Nine pages are
devoted to the remedies sought. There are allegations of constitutional invalidity and criminal
culpability, broad assertions of scientific knowledge regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and a
claim that some of the public health measures instituted by the Government of Canada amounted
to crimes against humanity. Some of the requested remedies are unavailable in a civil action,
including administrative declarations and injunctive relief.
[46] For example, the Statement of Claim seeks a declaration that "vaccine passports" violate
the Plaintiffs' right to move freely within Canada, or to enter and leave Canada, contrary to s 6 of
the Charter. However, the pleading does not particularize any facts suggesting that any of the
Plaintiffs were prevented from travelling either within or outside Canada.
[47] The Statement of Claim includes claims for re-instatement oflost employment, payment
of back pay, and various benefits. But the pleading is devoid of any material facts pertaining to
the personal circumstances of any of the Plaintiffs' employment.
[48] The Statement of Claim alleges that the Defendants have "knowingly engaged in the
misfeasance of their public office, and abuse of authority, through their public office" by
"[ e]xercising a coercive power to force unwanted "vaccination"" under the TB Policy and
Interim Order. However, the pleading fails to engage with the substance of the TB Policy and
Interim Order, which do not force vaccination and also offer various exemptions and
accommodations.
A455
0456
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-456 A456
Page:29
[49] In Turmel v Canada, 2021 FC 1095, aff'd, 2022 FCA 166, Justice Russel Zinn upheld a
decision of Prothonotary (now Justice) Mandy Aylen to strike a statement of claim challenging
certain measures implemented by the Government of Canada to address the COVID-19
pandemic. The plaintiff in that case alleged violations of Charter rights, but neglected to plead
material facts or to particularize the alleged Charter infringements. As in this case, the pleading
consisted largely of bare assertions.
[50] The Defendants say the Statement of Claim in this proceeding is comparable to the one
filed by the same counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs inAction4Canada v British Columbia
(Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 [Action4Canada]. In that case, the plaintiffs sought
damages and other relief from various government entities and employees for harms they
allegedly suffered as a result of various restrictions instituted in British Columbia due to the
COVID-19 pandemic (Action4Canada at para 1).
[51] Justice Alan Ross of the British Columbia Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion
to strike the pleading in its entirety, holding as follows (Action4Canada at paras 45-48):
[ ... ]the [Notice of Civil Claim [NOCC]], in its current form, is not
a pleading that can properly be answered by a responsive pleading.
It describes wide-ranging global conspiracies that may, or may not,
have influenced either the federal or the provincial governments. It
seeks rulings of the court on issues of science. In addition, it
includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and
"crimes against humanity". In my opinion, it is "bad beyond
argument".
[46] I further find that it is not a document that the court can mend
by striking portions. I find that this NOCC is analogous to the
Statement of Claim considered by Justice K. Smith (as he then
A456
0457
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-457 A457
Page:30
was) in Homa/co Indian Band v. British Columbia ( 1998), 25

C.P.C. (4th) 107 (B.C.S.C.) [Homa/co]. He wrote:
[ 11] In my view, the statement of claim is an embarrassing

pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary.
As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse
the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial. Any
attempt to reform it by striking out portions and by
amending other portions is likely to result in more
confusion as to the real issues ....
[4 7) As was the case in Homa/co, attempting to bring the NOCC

into compliance with the Rules by piecemeal striking and
amending would invite more confusion and greater expenditure of
the resources of all concerned.
[48] I find that the NOCC is prolix. It is not a proper pleading that
can be answered by the defendants. It cannot be mended. Given
that finding, I have no hesitation in ruling that it must be struck in
whole.
[52] The Statement of Claim in this proceeding is similarly "bad beyond argument". For
substantially the same reasons identified by Justice Ross in Action4Canada, it must be struck in
its entirety.
[53] Justice Ross granted leave to the plaintiffs inAction4Canada to amend their pleading.
However, he specified that numerous claims, some of which are also advanced in the present
proceeding, are improper in a civil action (Action4Canada at paras 52-53). These include
allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and
scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed
consent is a crime against humanity.
A457
0458
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-458 A458
Page: 31
[54) To this list of impermissible claims must be added the remedies sought in paragraph 4 of
the Statement of Claim, which may be obtained only on judicial review and not by action (see
Wojdan v Canada, 2021 FC 1244):
(a) An interim stay/injunction of the Federal "vaccine mandates"

and "passports" nunc pro tune, effective the day before they were
announced and/or implemented;
(b) A final stay/injunction of the Federal "vaccine mandates" and

"passports" nunc pro tune, effective the day before they were
announced and/or implemented.
[55) For those Plaintiffs who are employed outside the federal public administration, e.g., with
airlines, banks, transportation companies, etc., any amended pleading will have to allege
sufficient material facts to provide a basis for the federal Crown's liability.
[56) The Plaintiffs who are not subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA have standing to question
whether the TB Policy and Interim Order infringed their rights. There is a prospect that the
Plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain COVID-related health measures instituted
by the Government of Canada contravened their Charter rights. It is possible that other valid
claims may exist.
[57) It will be for the Plaintiffs to plead those causes of action in accordance with the Rules.
The claims must be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the Defendants to know the
case they have to meet. The claims must also be confined to matters that are capable of
adjudication by this Court, and seek relief this Court is capable of granting (Action4Canada at
para 71).
A458
0459
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-459 A459
Page:32
III. Conclusion
[58] The Plaintiffs who are employed within the CPA have not established that the available
internal recourse mechanisms are incapable of providing them with adequate redress. This Court
is therefore without jurisdiction to determine the claims advanced in the Statement of Claim, or
should decline to exercise any residual discretion it may have. For those Plaintiffs who are
subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA, the Statement of Claim must be struck in its entirety without
leave to amend.
[59] For those Plaintiffs who are not subject to s 236 of the FPSLRA, the Statement of Claim
must be struck in its entirety, but with leave to amend. Should the Plaintiffs who are not subject
to s 236 of the FPSLRA wish to proceed with a civil action respecting the TB Policy and Interim
Order, they must plead their causes of action in accordance with the Rules. The claims must be
framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the Defendants to know the case they have to
meet. The claims must also be confined to matters that are capable of adjudication by this Court,
and seek relief this Court is capable of granting.
A459
0460
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-460 A460
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The Statement of Claim is struck in its entirety without leave to amend in respect of
all Plaintiffs who are subject to s 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour
Relations Act, SC 2003, c 22, s 2.
2. For the remaining Plaintiffs, the Statement of Claim is struck in its entirety with
leave to amend in accordance with the Reasons that accompany this Order.
3. Costs are awarded to the Defendants, payable forthwith and in any event of the
cause, in the all-inclusive sum of $5,000.
"Simon Father ill"

Judge
A460
0461
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-461 A461
Page: 1
Schedule "A"
PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE

CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Persons employed within the following organizations and who therefore have grievance rights
under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (Schedule I, Schedule IV and Schedule V
of the Financial Administration Act):
• Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

• Canada Border Services Agency
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Canada School of Public Service
• Canadian Coast Guard (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency*
• Canadian Forestry Service (Department ofNatural Resources)
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research*
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission*
• Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
• Canada Revenue Agency*
• Canadian Security Intelligence Service*
• Core Public Service
• Canadian Space Agency
• Correctional Service of Canada
• Courts Administration Service
• Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
• Department of Canadian Heritage
• Department of Employment and Social Development
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• Department of Justice
• Department of National Defence
• Department of Natural Resources
• Department of Transport
• Department ofVeterans Affairs
• Elections Canada ("Office of the Chief Electoral Officer" and "The portion of the federal
public administration in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer in which the employees
referred to in section 509.3 of the Canada Elections Act occupy their positions")
• Environment and Climate Change Canada (Department of the Environment)
• Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
• Global Affairs Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development)
• Government of Canada
A461
0462
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-462 A462
Page:2
• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Department of Citizenship and

Immigration)
• Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations
and Northern Affairs)
• Indigenous Services Canada (Department of Indigenous Services)
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
• National Film Board of Canada (National Film Board)*
• National Research Council Canada*
• National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (National Security and Intelligence
Review Agency Secretariat)*
• Office of the Auditor General of Canada*
• Parks Canada*
• Polar Knowledge Canada (Canadian High Arctic Research Station)*
• Public Health Agency of Canada
• Public Safety Canada (Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
• Public Services and Procurement Canada
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police**
• Service Canada (Department of Employment and Social Development)
• Shared Services Canada
• Staff of the Supreme Court
• Statistics Canada
• Treasury Board
NOTES:
All organizations are part of the core public administration as defmed at s 11(1) of the Financial
Administration Act (Schedules I and IV), except as noted.
* Organizations that are portions of the federal public administration listed in Schedule V
(Separate Agencies of the Financial Administration Act, whose employees have rights to grieve
under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act).
** The RCMP is part of the core public administration and is listed in Schedule IV of the
Financial Administration Act; RCMP members have limited rights to grieve under s 238.24 the
Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, but have other grievance rights under the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Act.
A462
0463
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-463 A463
Page: 1
Schedule "B"
PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE

CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Persons employed within the following organizations:
• Air Canada
• Air Canada Jazz
• Air Inuit
• Bank of Canada
• Bank of Montreal
• BC Coast Pilots Ltd
• BC Ferries
• British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
• Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
• Canada Pension Plan
• Canada Post
• Canadian National Railway
• Canadian Pacific Railway
• City of Ottawa Garage Fed Regulated
• DP World
• Export Development Canada
• Farm Credit Canada
• G4S Airport Screening
• Garda Security Screening Inc
• Geo tech A vi at ion
• Global Container Terminals Canada
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• House of Commons
• Human Resources Branch, Innovation
• Kelowna Airport Fire Fighters
• National Arts Centre
• NAY Canada
• Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
• Ontario Power Generation
• Pacific Pilotage Authority
• Parliamentary Protection Service
• Public Sector Pension Investment Board
• Purolator Inc
• Questral Helicopters
A463
0464
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-464 A464
Page:2
• RBC Royal Bank

• Rise Air
• Rogers Communications Inc
• Royal Canadian Mint
• Sasktel
• Scotiabank
• Seaspan Victoria Docks
• Shaw
• Skynorth Air Ltd
• Telesat Canada
• Via Rail Canada
• Wasaya Airways
• Waterfront Employers of British Columbia
• Westjet
• Westshore Terminals
A464
0465
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-465 A465
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1089-22
STYLE OF CAUSE: KAREN ADELBERG ET AL. v HIS MAJESTY THE

KING ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 19, 2023
JUDGMENT AND REASONS: FOTHERGILL J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 21, 2023
APPEARANCES:
Rocco Galati FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Adam Gilani FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Renuka Koilpillai
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rocco Galati Law Firm FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

Attorney General of Canada FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Toronto, Ontario
A465
0466
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-466 A466
This is Exhibit "'~ to the Affidavit of

A~ r T:: ng Affid .
1 av1ts
A466
L
0467
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-467 A467
Court File No.: (~ -{:; 7-66

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
e delberg, Matthew Anderson, Wyatt George Baiton, Paul Barzu, Neil Bird, Curtis Bird,
Beau Bjarnason, Lacey Blair, Mark Bradley, John Doe #1 , Daniel Bulford, John Doe #2, Shawn
Carmen, John Doe #3, Jonathan Corey Chaloner, Cathleen Collins, Jane Doe #1 , John Doe #4,
Kirk Cox, Chad Cox, Neville Dawood, Richard de Vos, Stephane Drouin, Mike Desson, Jane Doe
#2 , Stephane Drouin, Sylvie Filteau, Kirk Fisler, Thor Forseth, Glen Gabruch, Brett Garneau,
Tracy Lynn Gates, Kevin Gien, Jane Doe #3 , Warren Green, Jonathan Griffioen, Rohit
Hannsraj, Kaitlyn Hardy, Sam Hilliard, Richard Huggins, Lynne Hunka, Joseph lsliefson,
Leposava Jankovic, John Doe #5 , Pamela Johnston, Eric Jones-Gatineau, Annie Joyal, John
Doe #6, Marty (Martha) Klassen, John Doe #7, John Doe #8, John Doe #9, Ryan Koskela, Jane
Doe #4, Julians Lazoviks, Jason Lefebvre, Kirsten Link, Morgan Littlejohn, John Doe #10, Diane
Martin, John Doe #11, Richard Mehner, Celine Moreau, Robin Morrison, Morton Ng, Gloria
Norman, Steven O'Doherty, David Obirek, John Robert Queen, Nicole Quick, Ginette Rochon,
Louis-Marie Roy, Emad Sadr, Matt Silver, Jinjer Snider, Maureen Stein, John Doe #12, John Doe
#13, Robert Tumbas, Kyle Van de Sype, Chantelle Vien, Joshua (Josh) Vold, Carla Walker,
Andrew Wedlock, Jennifer Wells, John Wells, Melanie Williams, David George John Wiseman,
Daniel Young, Gratchen Grison, (officers with the Royal Canadian Mountain Police)
-and-
\
Nicole Auclair, Michael Baldock, Sabrina Baron, William Dean Booth, Charles Borg, Marie-Eve
Caron, Thomas Dailing, Joseph Israel Marc Eric De Lafontaine, Ricardo Green, Jordan Hartwig,
Rodney Howes, Christopher Mark Jacobson, Jane Doe #5, Pascal Legendre, Kimberly Lepage,
Kim MacDonald, Cindy Mackay, Kim Martin-McKay, David Mason, Alexandra Katrina.Moir,
Joseph Daniel Eric Montgrain, Radoslaw Niedzielski, Leanna June Nordman, Donald Poole,
Edward Dominic Power, Norman L. Reed, Jane Doe #6, Brenden Sangster, Timothy Joseph
Seibert, Ann-Marie Lee Traynor, Carl Barry Wood, Eddie Edmond Andrukaitis, Ruby Davis,
Jennifer Schroeder, Joseph Shea employed by the (Department of National Defence)
- and -
Stefanie Allard, Jake Daniel Boughner, Brent Carter, Brian Cobb, Laura Constantinescu, Sonia
Dinu, Aldona Fedor, Jane Doe #7, Malorie Kelly, Matthew Stephen MacDonald, Mitchell
Macintyre, Hertha McLendon, Marcel Mihailescu, Michael Munro, Sebastian Nowak, Diana
Rodrigues, Natalie Holden , Adam Dawson Winchester, (Canada Border Services Agency)
- and-
Christine Clouthier, Debbie Gray, Jennifer Penner, Dale Wagner, Joseph Ayoub, (Agriculture
and Agri-food Canada)
A467
0468
-2-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-468 A468
- and-
Jane Doe #8, (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
- and-
Melanie DuFour, (Bank of Canada)
- and-
Jennifer Auciello, Sharon Ann Joseph, Eric Munro, (Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation)
- and-
Jane Doe #9, (Canada Pension Plan)
- and-
Debbie
Natalie Boulard, Beata Bozek, John Doe #14, Nerin Andrea Carr, Sara Jessica Castro,
#10, Carol Gaboury , Tania Gomes, Julita Grochoc ka,
(Dubravka) Cunko, Josee Cyr, Jane Doe
Kostyk, Michelle Lamarre Nicolas
Monique Harris, William Hooker, Kirstin Houghton Leila
LeBlond Suana-Lee Leclair, Paulette Morissette Jennifer Neave, Pierre-Alexandre Racine,
Benjamin Russell, Robert Snowden, Aabid Thawer, Heidi Wiener, Svjetlana Zelenba
ba, Nadia
Zinck, Aaron James Thomas Shorrock, Deirdre McIntos h , (Canada Revenue Agency)
- and-
Tamara Stammis, (Canada School of the Public Service)
- and-
Jasmin Bourdon, (Canada Space Agency)
- and-
Sharon Cunningham, Allen Lynden, Rory Matheson, (Canadian Coast Guard)
- and-
Joannis,
Tatjana Coklin, John Doe #15, Raquel Delmas, Jane Doe #11, Chelsea Hayden, Helene
an Food Inspectio n
Zaklina Mazur, Jane Doe #12, Jessica Simpson, Katarina Smolkova, (Canadi
Agency)
A468
0469
-3-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-469 A469
- and-
Alexandre Charland, (Canadian Forestry Service)
- and-
Catherine Provost, Kristina Martin, (Canadian Heritage)
- and-
Jane Doe #13, (Canadian Institutes of Health Research)
- and-
Beth Blackmore, Roxanne Lorrain, (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission)
- and-
Rerni Richer, (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission)
- and-
Octavia La Prairie, (Canadian Security Intelligence Service)
-and-
Robert Bestard, (City of Ottawa Garage Fed regulated)
- and-
Kimberly Ann Beckert, (Core Public Service)
- and-
Sarah Andreychuk, Francois Bellehumeur, Pamela Blaikie, Natasha Cairns, Angela Ciglenecki,
Veronika Colnar, Randy Doucet, Kara Erickson, Jesse Forcier, Valerie Fortin, Roxane Gueutal,
Melva Isherwood, Milo Johnson, Valeria Luedee, Laurie Lynden, Annette Martin, Craig
McKay, Isabelle Methot, Samantha Osypchuk, Jane Doe #14, Wilnive Phanord, Alexandre
Richer Levasseur, Kathleen Sawyer, Trevor Scheffel, (Correctional Service of Canada)
- and-
Jordan St-Pierre, (Courts Administration Service)
- and-
A469
0470
-4-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-470 A470
Brigitte Surgue, Jane Doe #15, (Department of Canadian Heritage)
-and-
Ghislain Cardinal, Heather Halliday, Paul Marten, Celine Rivier, Ngozi Ukwu, Jeannine
Bastarache, Jane Doe #16, Hamid Naghdian-Vishteh, (Department of Fisheries and Ocean)
- and-
Ishmael Gay-Labbe, Jane Doe #17, Leanne James, (Department of Justice)
- and-
Danielle Barabe-Bussieres, (Elections Canada)
- and-
Tanya Daechert, Jane Doe #18, Francois Arseneau, Chantal Authier, Nathalie Benoit, Aerie
Biafore , Rock Briand, Arnaud Brien-Thiffault, Sharon Chiu, Michel Daigle, Brigitte Daniels,
Louise Gaudreault, Karrie Gevaert, Mark Gevaert, Peter Iversen, Derrik Lamb, Jane Doe #19,
Anna Marinic , Divine Masabarakiza, James Mendham , Michelle Marina Micko, Jean Richard,
Stephanie Senecal, Jane Doe #20, Ryan Sewell, Kari Smythe, Olimpia Somesan, Lloyd
Swanson, Tyrone White, E_lissaWong, Jenny Zambelas, Li yang Zhu, Patrice Lever,
(Employment and Social Developement Canada)
-and-
Jane Doe #21, Brian Philip Crenna, Jane Doe #22, Bradley David Hignell, Andrew Kalteck, Dana
Kellett, Josee Losier, Kristin Mensch, Elsa Mouana, Jane Doe #23, Jane Doe #24, Valentina
Zagorenko, (Environment and Climate Change Canada)
- and-
Pierre Trudel, (Export Development Canada)
- and-
Stephen Alan Colley, (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)
- and-
Vladimir Raskovic, (Garda Security Screeing Inc)
- and-
A470
0471
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-471 A471
Melanie Borgia, Jonathan Kyle Smith, Donna Stainfield, Annila Tharakan, Renee Michiko
Umezuki, (Global Affairs Canada)
-and-
Dennis Johnson, (Global Container Terminals Canada)
-and-
Alexandre Guilbeault, Tara (Maria) McDonough, France Vanier, (Government of Canada)
- and-
Alex Braun, Marc Lescelleur-Paquette, (House of Commons)
- and-
Aimee Legault, (Human Resource Branch)
- and-
Dorin Andrei Boboc, Jane Doe #25, Sophie Guimard, Elisa Ho, Kathy Leal, Caroline Legendre,
Diana Vida, (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada)
- and-
Nathalie Joanne Gauthier, (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada)
-and-
Christine Bizier,Amber Dawn Kletzel, Verona Lipka, Kerry Spears, (Indigenous Services
Canada)
- and-
Sun-Ho Paul Je, (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada)
- and-
Giles Roy, (National Film Board of Canada)
- and-
A471
-6-
0472
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-472 A472
Ray Silver, Michelle Dedyulin, Letitia Eakins, Julie-Anne Kleinschmit, Marc-Andre Octeau,
Hugues Scholaert, (National Research Council Canada)
-and-
Felix Beauchamp, (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency)
- and-
es
Julia May Brown, Caleb Lam, Stephane Leblanc, Serryna Whiteside, (Natural Resourc
Canada)
- and-
Canada)
Nicole Hawley, Steeve L'italien, Marc Lecocq, Tony Mallet, Sandra McKenzie, (NAV
- and-
Muhammad Ali, (Office of the Auditor General of Canada)
- and-
Ryan Rogers, (Ontario Northland Transportation Commission)
- and-
Theresa Stene, Michael Dessureault, John Doe #16, (Park Canada)
- and-
Charles-Alexandre Beauchemin, Brett Oliver, (Parlimentary Protection Service)
- and-
Carole Duford, (Polar Knowledge Canada)
- and-
Angie
Joanne Gabrielle de Montigny, Ivana Eric, Jane Doe #26, Salyna Legare, Jane Doe #27,
Richardson, Jane Doe #28, (Public Health Agency of Canada)
- and-
Fay Anne Barber, (Public Safety Canada)
A472
0473
- 7.
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-473 A473
- and-
Denis Lanie), (Public Sector Pension Investment Board)
- and-
Jain,
Kathleen Elizabeth Barrette, Sarah Bedard, Mario Constantineau, Karen Fleury, Brenda
Richard , Nicole
Megan Martin, Jane Doe #29, Isabelle Paquette, Richard Parent, Roger Robert
ment
Sincennes, Christine Vessia, Jane Doe #30, Pamela McIntyre, (Public Services and Procure
Canada)
- and-
Isabelle Denis, (Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada)
- and-
Jane Bartmanovich, (Royal Canadian Mint)
- and-
Nicole Brisson, (Service Canada)
- and-
Denis Audet, Mathieu Essiambre, Alain Hart, Andrea Houghton, Natalia Kwiatek, Dany
e
Levesque, David McCarthy, Pascal Michaud, Mervi Pennanen, Tonya Shortill, Stephani
Tkachuk, Marshall Wright, (Shared Services Canada)
- and-
Eve Marie Blouin-Hudon, Marc-Antoine Boucher, Christopher Huszar , (Statistics Canada)
- and-
Steve Young, (Telestat Canada)
- and-
,
Nathan Aligizakis, Stephen.Daniel, Alain Douchant, Krystal McColgan, Debbie Menard
Clarence Ruttle, Dorothy Barron, Robert McLach lan, (Transp ort Canada)
-and-
Scott Erroll Henderson, Denis Theriault, (Treasury Board of Canada)
A473
0474
-8-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-474 A474
-and-
Josiane Brouillard, Alexandra McGrath, Nathalie Ste-Croix, Jane Doe #31, (Veterans Affairs
Canada)
- and-
Olubusayo (Busayo) Ayeni, John Doe #17, Cynthia Bauman, Jane Doe #32,, Laura Crystal Brown
, Ke(Jerry) Cai, Nicolino Campanelli, Donald Keith Campbell, Colleen Carder, Kathy Carriere,
Melissa Carson, David Clark, Bradley Clermont, Laurie Coelho, Estee Costa, Antonio Da Silva,
Brenda Darvill, Patrick Davidson, Eugene Davis, Leah Dawson, Marc Fontaine, Jacqueline
GenaiJle, Eldon Goossen, Joyce Greenaway, Lori Hand, Darren Hay, Krista Imiola, Catherine
Kanuka, Donna Kelly, Benjamin Lehto, Anthony Leon, Akemi Matsumiya, Jane Doe #33, Jane
Doe #34, Jane Doe #35, Anne Marie McQuaid-Snider, Lino Mula, Pamela Opersko, Gabriel
Paquet, Christine Paquette, Carolin Jacqueline Paris , Jodie Price, Kevin Price, Giuseppe
Quadrini, Saarah Quamina, Shawn Rossiter, Anthony Rush, Anthony Shatzko, Charles Silva,
Ryan Simko, Norman Sirois, Brandon Smith, Catharine Spiak, Sandra Stroud, Anita Talarian,
Daryl Toonk, Ryan Towers, Leanne Verbeem, Eran Vooys, Robert Wagner, Jason Weatherall,
Melanie Burch, Steven Cole, Toni Downie, Jodi Starnmis, (Canada Post)
- and-
Nicolas Bell, John Doe #18, John Doe #19, Jane Doe #36, John Doe #20, Paola Di Maddalena,
Nathan Dodds, John Doe #21, Jane Doe #37, Nunzio Giolti, Mario Girard, Jane Doe #38, Jane
Doe #39, You-Hui Kim, Jane Doe #40, Sebastian Korak, Ada Lai, Mirium Lo, Melanie Mailloux,
Carolyn Muir, Patrizia Paha, Radu Rautescu, Aldo Reano, Jacqueline Elisabeth Robinson, John
Doe #22, Frederick Roy, John Doe #23, Taeko Shimamura, Jason Sisk, Beata Sosin, Joel Szostak,
Mario Tcheon, Rebecca Sue Thiessen, Jane Doe #41, Maureen Yearwood, (Air Canada)
- and-
John Doe #24, JOSEE Demeule, Jacqueline Gamble, Domenic Giancola, Sadna Kassan, Marcus
Steiner, Christina Trudeau, (Air Canada Jazz)
-and-
John Doe #25, Emilie Despres, (Air Inuit)
- and-
Rejean Nantel, (Bank of Montreal)

-and-
Lance Victor Schilka, (BC Coast Pilots Ltd)
A474
• 9-
0475
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-475 A475
-and-
Elizabeth Godler, (BC Ferries)
- and-
John Doe #26, Jane Doe #42, Tamara Davidson, Jane Doe #43, Brad Homewood, Chad
Homewood, Charles Michael Jefferson, John Doe #27, Janice Laraine Kristmanson, Jane Doe
#44, Darren Louis Lagimodiere, John Doe #28, John Doe #29, Mirko Maras, John Doe #30, John
Doe #31, John Doe #32, John Doe #33, John Doe #34, Jane Doe #45, John Doe #35, Kendal Stace-
Smith, John Doe #36, Steve Wheatley, (British Columbia Maritime Employers Association)
- and-
Paul Veerman, (Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions)
- and-
Mark Barron, Trevor Bazilewich, John Doe #37, Brian Dekker, John Gaetz, Ernest Georgeson,
Kyle Kortko, Richard Letain, John Doe #38, Dale Robert Ross, (Canadian National Railway)
-and-
Tim Cashmore, Rob Gebert, Micheal Roger Mailhiot, (Canadian Pacific Railway)
- and-
Karin Lutz, (DP World)
- and-
Crystal Smeenk, (Farm Credit Canada)
- and-
Sylvie M.F. Gelinas, Susie Matias, Stew Williams, (G4S Airport Screening)
-and-
Shawn Corman, (Geotech Aviation)
- and-
A475
0476
- 10-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-476 A476
Juergen Bruschkewitz, Andre Deveaux, Bryan Figueira, David Spratt, Guy Hocking, Sean
Grant, (Greater Toronto Airports Authority)
-and-
Dustin Blair, (Kelowna Airport Fire Fighter)
- and-
Hans-Peter Liechti, (National Art Centre)
-and-
Bradley Curruthers, Lana Douglas, Eric Dupuis, Sherri Elliot, Rohen Ivens, Jane Doe #46, Luke
Van Hoekelen, Kurt Watson, (Ontario Power Generation)
-and-
Theresa Stene, Michael Dessureault, Adam Pidwerbeski, (Parks Canada)

-and-
John Doe #39, (Pacific Pilotage Authority)
-and-
Angela Gross, (Purolator Inc.)
-and-
Gerhard Geertsema, (Questral Helicopters)
- and-
Amanda Randall, Jane Doe #47, Frank Veri, (RBC Royal Bank)
-and-
James (Jed) Forsman, (Rise Air)
- and-
Jane Doe #48, (Rogers Communications Inc)
-and-
A476
0477
- 11 -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-477 A477
Jerrilynn Rebeyka, (SaskTel)
-and-
Eileen Fahlman, Mary Treichel, (Scotiabank)
- and-
Judah Gaelan Cummins, (Seaspan Victoria Docks)
-and-
Darin Watson, (Shaw)
- and-
Richard Michael Alan Tabak, (SkyN orth Air Ltd)
-and-
Deborah Boardman, Michael Brigham, (Via Rail Canada)
- and-
Kevin Scott Routly, (Wasaya Airways)
- and-
Bryce Sailor, (Waterfront Employers of British Columbia)
- and-
Joseph Bayda, Jamie Elliott, John Doe #40, Randall Mengering, Samantha Nicastro,
Veronica Stephens, Jane Doe #49, (WestJet)
- and-
Melvin Gerein, (Westshore Terminals)
A477
0478
- 12 -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-478 A478
AND:
11..vtV
li~i=-Ma.j:c.s.cy..Xhe--Quee n Minister Justin Trudeau, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Prime
Finance Chrystia Freeland, Chief Medical Officer Teresa Tam, Minister of Transport Omar
Alghabra, Deputy Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino, Johns and Janes Doe
DEEENDA!Sl' /;2,3
RH [).:.).Vi) E:.✓u n-
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE RESPONDENT:
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the appellant. The
relief claimed by the appellant appears below.
THIS APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial
dministrator. Unless the Court directs otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the
appellant. The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at (place where Federal C?J!il.of App al ~3'
(or Federal Court) ordinarily sits). (~ ,,! li¼.C~ )'"" r /f~
IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any step in the appeal or
to be served with any documents in the appeal, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a
notice of appearance in Form 341A prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the
appellant's solicitor, or, if the appellant is self-represented, on the appellant, WITHIN 10 DAYS
after being served with this notice of appeal.
IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order appealed from,

you must serve and file a notice of cross-appeal in Form 341 B prescribed by the Federal Courts
Rules instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance.
Copies of the Federal Courts Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court
and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at
Ottawa (telephone 613-992-423 8) or at any local office.
A478
0479
- 13 -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-479 A479
IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR

ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
Issued by:
REBECCA DUONG
REGISTRY OFFICER
AGENT DU GREFFE
Address of the local office:
Federal Court of Appeal

180 Queen Street West, Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6
TO:
Adam Gilani
Ontario Regional Office
National Litigation Sector
Government of Canada
Suite 400, 120 Adelaide Street West, Toronto
Ontario MSH 1Tl
A479
0480
- 14 -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-480 A480
APPEAL
THE APPELLANTS APPEAL to the Federal Court of Appeal, pursuant to s. 27 of the Federal
1
Courts Act, from the order of the Federal Court, Mr. Justice Fothergill, dated February 2 l5 , 2023 in
Federal Court Docket# T-1089-22, by which the Federal Court struck the claim, with prejudice,
with respect to two thirds of the Plaintiffs, and further struck the claim with respect to one third of
the Plaintiffs, with leave to amend.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that:

(a) The decision be set aside and that the matter proceed to trial with the Plaintiffs permitted to
pursue the relief sought in this Statement of Claim;
(b) The order (judgment) of granting costs against the Plaintiffs be set aside;
(c) Costs of the motion to strike and within appeal, and,
(d) in accordance with Native Womens Assn. of Canada v Canada {1994} 3 SCR 627 such
further and other relief as counsel may request and this Honourable Court deems just.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows:

(a) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, and contrary to the jurisprudence with respect
to Justice Fothergill' ruling on in rem declaratory and other relief;
(b) That the Learned motions judge erred in ruling that two thirds of the Plaintiffs were required
to pursue the Labour dispute regime under Federal Law and, in doing so:
(i) Blatantly ignored, and did not respond to, submissions from counsel, that the
analysis in Weber (SCC) required a review of the terms of employment under the
labour bargaining agreement which was not before the Court on the motion to strike;
(ii) That the claim was restricted to:
A480
- 15 -
0481
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-481 A481
A. Declaratory relief (in rem) on constitutional grounds; and
B. Common-law, and constitutional torts, all grounded in misfeasance of
public office;
C. Did not address, and biasedly ignored, counsel's submissions and
jurisprudence which ruled that the tort of public misfeasance can be
pursued within the context of unionized employees under a collective
bargaining agreement;
(iii) Breached the Plaintiffs' rights to intelligible reasons for Appellate review contrary
to, inter alia, Sheppard (SCC), and further breached the Plaintiffs' right to reasons
n refusing to address counsel's submissions that took both a central part of the
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Argument, as well as the lion's share of the Plaintiffs'
oral submissions before the Court, contrary to Baker (SCC) and the Appellate
jurisprudence that a Court must directly address counsel submissions in the reasons,
as set out by inter alia, Johnson (Ont. C.A) and Taylor (BCCA);
(iv) Ruling that the pleadings were "deficient" and "bad beyond argument" without
setting out what is deficient about them, but blindly applying a ruling from another
case which is not similar case to this one, nor on point;
(v) Exhibited clear (reasonable apprehension of) bias.
A481
0482
- 16-
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-482 A482
(c) The Learned judge further erred, in law, contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada
jurisprudence on the test to be applied on a motion to dismiss/strike;
(d) The Learned motions judge erred, in law, in ruling sufficient facts were not pleaded to
support the causes of action advanced;
(e) The Learned motions judge erred, in law, in usurping the function of the trial judge, and
making determinations of fact, mixed fact and law, on the basis of bare pleading(s);
(f) Awarded of costs to the Defendants in circumstances where no costs should have been
awarded, or an order of costs in the cause should have been awarded, in that the results of
the motion were split;
(g) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit
The Appellants propose that this appeal be heard in Toronto.
March Jrd,2023
ROCCO GALA TI LAW FIRM

TEL: (416) 530-9684

FAX: (416) 530-8129
Solicitor for the Appellants
A482
0483
- 17 -
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-483 A483
Court File No.:
BETWEEN:
KAREN ADELBERG ET AL.
Plaintiffs
- and-
HIS MAJESTY THE KING ET AL.
Defendants
NOTICE OF APPEAL

TEL: (416) 530-9684

FAX: (416) 530-8129
Email: rocco@idireel.com
Solicitor for the Appellants
A483
0484
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-484 A484
A484
0485
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-485 A485
This is Exhibit "ff,

to the Affidavit of
A485
0486
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-486 A486
REGION)
(TORONTO
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL ENDORSEMENT FORM
(Rule 59.02(2)(c)(i))
Court File Number:
BEFORE Judge/Case Management Master
CV-21-00661200-0000
Vermette J.
Title of Proceeding:
Applicants
Sgt. Julie Evans et al.
-v-
Respondents
Attorne~ General for Ontario et al.
jxNo
ICase Management: D Yes If so, by whom:
Participants and Non-Participants:(Rule 59.02(2)((vii))

Participant
E-mail Address Phone# (YIN)
Party Counsel
zachary.green@ontario.ca N
S. Zachary Green
1) Respondent
Attorney General for
Ontario N
Rocco Galati rocco@idirect.com
2) Applicants
3)
4)
5)
2021
Date Heard: (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(iii)) May 5,
59.02(2)(c)(iv))
Nature of Hearing (mark with an "X"): (Rule
D D Pre-Trial Conference D Application
ID Motion D Appeal Case Conference
59.02(2)(c)(iv))
Format of Hearing (mark with an "X"): (Rule
~ In Writing D Telephone D Videoconference D In Person
If in person, indicate courthouse address:
Relief Requested: (Rule. 59.02(2)(c)(v)) r Rule 2.1.01 (1)

for Ontario that the court make an order unde
Request by the Respondent Attorney General ars on its face to be frivolous or
Application because it appe
of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing this
ss of the court.
vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the proce
(operative terms ordered): (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(vi))

Disposition made at hearing or conference
IThe request is denied.
Page 1 of 2
Civil Endorsement Form A486
0487
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-487 A487
are payable
indemnity basis, fixed at $
Costs: On a NIA
to [when]
by
Brief Reasons, if any: (Rule 59.02(2)(b))
of the pleading for this
Application, there is no basis on the face
Without commenting on the merits of the by way of motion.
of the Rules of Civil Procedure rather than
matter to be dealt with under Rule 2.1.01
Additional pages attached: D Yes X No
____
M_a_,,y_ __
S_., , 20 ~
______ Signature of Judge/Case Management Maste
r (Rule 9.02(2)(c)(i))
Date of Endorsement (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(ii))
Page 2 of 2
Civil Endorsement Form A487
0488
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-488 A488
This is Exhibit " fl~ to the Affidavit of

A~
& £ r T:: g Affid .
1 av1ts
A488
0489
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-489 A489
CITATION: M.A. v. De Villa, 2021 ONSC 3828

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-661284
DATE: 20210527
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

_J
RE: M.A. and L.A. (Minors represented by their Litigation Guardian Renata Dziak), ,-
iii
E.P. and R.P. (Minors represented by their Litigation Guardian Catherine Braund- ~
Pereira), LS. (Minor represented by his Litigation Guardian Bojan Sajlovic), N.K. co
N
co
(Minor represented by his Litigation Guardian Helena Kosin) (Students at the C')
Toronto District School Board), Nancy O'Brien (Toronto District School Board u(f)
Teacher); z
0
G.M., W.M., J.M., and L.M. (Minors represented by their Litigation Guardian ,....
C\I
Scarlett Martyn), M.D. (Minor represented by Litigation Guardian Lindsay Denike) 0
N
(Students at the Durham District School Board), Katrina Wiens (Teacher at Durham
District School Board);
M.L.J. and M.G.J. (Minors represented by their Litigation Guardian Angela
Johnston), C.V., E.W., and M.V. (Minors represented by their Litigation Guardian
Jeff Varcoe) (Students at the Halton District School Board), David Sykes (Teacher,
Resource Consultant for the Deaf, Provincial Schools Authority);
N.M. (Minor represented by his Litigation Guardian Lorie Lewis) J.R.B. (Minor
represented by his Litigation Guardian Jocelyne Bridle), Children's Health Defence
(Canada), and Educators for Human Rights, Applicants
AND:
Eileen De Villa, (Chief Medical Officer, City of Toronto Public Health), City of
Toronto, Dr. Lawrence Loh, (Chief Medical Officer for Peel Public Health),
Hamidah Meghani, (Chief Medical Officer for Halton Public Health), Robert Kyle,
(Chief Medical Officer for Durham Public Health), Dr. Nicola Mercer, (Chief
Medical Officer for Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health), Dr. David
Williams (Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health), The Attorney General for
Ontario, The Minister of Education, The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care,
The Toronto District School Board, The Halton District School Board, The Durham
District School Board, Robert Hochberg, Principal at Runnymede Public School,
Superintendent Debbie Donsky of Toronto District School Board, Johns and Janes
Does (Officials of the Defendants Minister of Education, Health and Long-Term
Care and School Boards), Respondents
BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.
COUNSEL: Rocco Galati, for the Applicants
Padriac Ryan, for the Respondents
HEARD: In writing
A489
0490
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-490 A490
- Page 2 -
ENDORSEMENT
[ 1] Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario has written to the Court asking for a ruling in
writing for this Application to be dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious. The Applicants bring
a Charter challenge against numerous public officials alleging that the formulation and
implementation of various public health policies and measures relating to the ongoing COVID 19 _J
pandemic violate the rights of Canadians. ~
iii
~-
[2] I do not have before me a full record. I only have the Notice of Application issued April 9, CX)
N
CX)
2021, setting out the grounds for the Application and the remedies sought. (")
0
(f)
[3] The grounds described in the Notice are wide-ranging and, perhaps, a tad outlandish in z
0
content and tone. Without the benefit of a complete record and full legal argument, however, I ~
C\I
would not want to opine on whether the Application promises to be a success or failure. Counsel 0
C'J
for the Attorney General obviously believes that the entire litigation is problematic. But the Notice
of Application does cite known grounds of Charter challenge while at the same time it seems to
stretch existing legal concepts in an effort to perhaps make new law.
[4] It strikes me that there are serious legal challenges awaiting the Applicants, not the least of
which is that some of their claims at first blush appear to be potentially in the jurisdiction of
Divisional Court rather than this Court. But those questions require the Court to have before it an
Application Record, and not just a Notice. They also require the input of counsel. As it is, I only
have a letter from counsel for the Attorney General and it does not appear that counsel for the
Applicants has had notice of the Attorney General's request.
[5] For the moment, I can only repeat the words of the Court of Appeal in Khan v. Krylov &
Company, 2017 ONCA 625, at para. 12: "Rule 2.1 is an extremely blunt instrument. It is reserved
for the clearest of cases, where the hallmarks of frivolous, vexatious, or abusive litigation are
plainly evident on the face of the pleading. Rule 2.1 is not meant to be an easily accessible
alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgment, or a trial." The Notice of
Application does not meet this test. I cannot say that the Application is frivolous and vexatious
within the meaning of Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[6] This Application is in need of some case management, and the sooner the better. Counsel
for the Attorney General and counsel for the Applicants are to be in touch with my assistant in
order to schedule a case conference prior to any responding materials being served.
MorganJ.
Date: May 27, 2021
A490
0491
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-491 A491
This is Exhibit ,J~,to the Affidavit of

A~
A~ Tal<lngAffidavits
A491
0492
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-492 A492
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Action4Canada v. British Columbia

(Attorney General),
2022 BCSC 1507
Date: 20220829
Docket: S217586
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Action4Canada, Kimberly Woolman, The Estate of Jacqueline Woolman, Linda

Morken, Gary Morken, Jane Doe #1, Brian Edgar, Amy Muranetz, Jane Doe #2,
Ilona Zink, Federico Fuoco, Fire Productions Limited, F2 Productions
Incorporated, Valerie Ann Foley, Pastor Randy Beatty, Michael Martinz,
Makhan S. Parhar, North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited, Melissa Anne Neubauer,
Jane Doe #3
Plaintiffs
And
Her Majesty the Queen in Right British Columbia, Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam, Dr. Bonnie Henry, Premier
John Horgan, Arian Dix, Minister of Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of
Education, Mable Elmore, Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors' Services and
Long-Term Care, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor
General, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (operating as British Columbia
Ferries}, Omar Alghabra, Minister of Transport, Vancouver Island Health
Authority, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP}, and the Attorney
General of Canada, Brittney Sylvester, Peter Kwok, Providence Health Care,
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Translink (British Columbia}
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Justice A. Ross
Reasons for Judgment
Counsel for the Plaintiffs: R. Galati
A492
0493
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-493 A493
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Page2
Counsel for the Defendants, Her Majesty M.A. Witten

the Queen in Right British Columbia,
Premier John Horgan, Adrian Dix Minister of
Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of
Education, Mable Elmore, Parliamentary
Secretary for Seniors' Services and Long-
Term Care, Mike Farnworth, Minister of
Public Safety and Solicitor General, Dr.
Bonnie Henry:
Counsel for the Defendants, Translink T.J. Delaney

(British Columbia), Peter Kwok: J. Hamilton
Counsel for the Defendants, Providence T. Wedge

Health Care, Vancouver Island Health L. Miller
Authority:
Counsel for the Defendants, Attorney A.C. Gatti

General of Canada, Prime Minister Justin 0. French
Trudeau Chief Public Health Officer
Theresa Tam, Omar Alghabra, Minister of
Transport, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP)
Counsel for the Defendants, British C. Bildfell

Columbia Ferry Services Inc., Brittney
Sylvester
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.

May 31, 2022
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C.

August29,2022
A493
0494
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-494 A494
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 4
THE NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM ................................................................................. 4
BASIS OF THE DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION .................................................... 10
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 11
Should the NOCC be struck on the basis that it is prolix? .................................... 11
Should the plaintiff's claim be dismissed (or should the plaintiffs be granted leave
to amend)? ........................................................................................................... 16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 22
A494
0495
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-495 A495
Introduction
[1] In this action, the plaintiffs seek relief for various hardships and damages they
say they have suffered. They seek damages, and other relief, from various
government entities and employees. The plaintiffs allege that their damages flow
from various restrictions instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
[2] In this application, the defendants, individually and collectively, seek an order
striking the notice of civil claim ("NOCC") on the basis that it is deficient in both form
and substance. The defendants further submit that the action should be dismissed. I
set out their arguments below.
[3] In response, counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the claim should be
allowed to proceed in its current form. Alternatively, counsel submits that if I find that
the current pleading is improper, I should grant leave to amend it.
Issues
[4] The issues for me to decide are:
a) Should the NOCC be struck in whole or in part?
b) Should the plaintiffs be granted leave to amend?
[5] For the reasons set out below, my answers to these questions are:
a) Yes, the NOCC is prolix and must be struck.
b) Yes, the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend.
[6] I set out my reasoning below.
The Notice of Civil Claim
[7] In order to understand my reasons below, it is necessary to describe the

basis of the plaintiffs' claims and the characteristics of the NOCC.
A495
0496
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-496 A496
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Pages
[8] First, this action derives from the health orders, restrictions and lockdowns
declared by the Federal and Provincial governments in relation to the COVID-19
pandemic. In broad overview, the plaintiffs say that the government measures:
a) were not based on science;
b) exceeded the authority of the government agencies;
c) resulted in restrictions that breached the Charter rights of the plaintiffs; and
d) caused damages.
[9] The plaintiffs complain about government actions in four general areas:
a) coercive vaccination mandates;
b) masking;
c) lockdowns, restrictions on gatherings and social distancing; and
d) PCR testing.
[1OJ I should note that my understanding of the claim, as described in the prior two
paragraphs, derives primarily from the submissions of plaintiffs' counsel at the
hearing of this application and not from my reading of the NOCC itself.
[11J The NOCC is 391 pages long.
[12] The original NOCC named as plaintiffs:
a) Action4Canada;
b) twelve named individuals;
c) three individuals identified as Jane Doe 1, 2 and 3;
d) one estate; and
A496
0497
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-497 A497
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Page 6
e) three corporate entities.
[13] Action4Canada is described as a grassroots organization centered in British

Columbia. It was "co-founded" in 2019. It has no legal existence. It is not an
incorporated entity.
[14] Four of the original plaintiffs are no longer involved in the action:
a) One individual plaintiff and the estate discontinued their participation in the
proceeding.
b) One individual, Mr. Makhan Parhar, died. His claim, and the claim of his
business, North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited, have abated.
[15] Thus, as the matter now stands there are ten individual named plaintiffs, three
Jane Does and two corporate entities. In addition, there is Action4Canada.
[16] The plaintiffs' claims fall into several categories of allegations. I describe them
briefly below. In summarizing the allegations, I do not mean to diminish the alleged
harm suffered by any of these plaintiffs. My purpose is simply to categorize the
nature of their claims. For context, the next ten subparagraphs describe the
allegations set out in more than 290 subparagraphs comprising 75 pages of the
NOCC.
a) Two individual plaintiffs ran businesses that were negatively affected by the
public health orders.
b) One plaintiff alleges she was assaulted and unlawfully arrested by transit
police while riding the SkyTrain without a mask.
c) Two plaintiffs allege they were harassed by grocery store employees in

Sooke, and then unlawfully arrested by the RCMP because they were not
masked.
A497
0498
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-498 A498
d) Two plaintiffs allege that they were mistreated, or banned, by BC Ferries staff
as a result of their refusal to wear masks.
e) One plaintiff is a pastor who continued to hold church services after public
health orders required his church to cease. The continuation of church
services led to interactions with RCMP and threats of by-law infraction tickets
being issued if the conduct continued.
f) One plaintiff arrived at Vancouver Airport from an international flight and

proceeded through the airport without a mask, leading to a fine of $3,450.
There is no indication whether he contested that ticket in another forum.
g) One plaintiff, a teacher in the BC Public School system, obtained

accommodations regarding mask-wearing from her employer in the 2020-
2021 school year but was later advised that she would not be rehired for the
next school year. There is no indication whether her employment relationship
would be governed by a collective agreement.
h) One plaintiff was a patient at St. Paul's Hospital and was forced to leave the
hospital because she (and her parents) refused to wear a mask.
i) One plaintiff is a nurse-aid in a long-term care facility who alleges that the
public health measures created a stressful environment for her and many
people like her. She "feels concerned not only for herself but also for her
clients."
j) One plaintiff is a health-care worker at Royal Inland Hospital who faced

employer mandates to wear masks and get vaccinated. Again, there is no
indication whether her employment relationship would be governed by a
collective agreement.
[17] These individual claims occurred at what I will describe as the "operational"
level. In each of these interactions, the public agencies involved were enforcing the
A498
0499
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-499 A499
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General) PageB
health mandates issued by the Federal Government and the Province of British
Columbia.
[18] The allegations at the operational level are then linked to the allegedly
overreaching and ill-advised health mandates imposed by each level of government.
Those mandates, in turn, are linked to individuals within government, either elected
or employed.
[19] The description of the defendants comprises 20 paragraphs set out over three
pages of the NOCC. The defendants fall into five separate categories:
a) the Crown (both Federal and Provincial);
b) Ministers of the Crown (both Federal and Provincial);
c) Public Health Officers (both Federal and Provincial);
d) Crown agencies, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, British

Columbia Ferry Services Inc., The Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Vancouver Island Health Authority, Providence Health Care and Translink
(British Columbia); and
e) individual employees of Crown agencies.
[20] The description of "THE FACTS" in the NOCC comprises 316 paragraphs set
out over 226 pages. This section of the NOCC also includes 399 footnotes, the
majority of which contain links to websites.
[21] I note, for the clarity of anyone reading the pleadings, that the numbering of
the paragraphs in the NOCC leads to further confusion. First, there are two
paragraphs numbered "12". More problematic, the paragraphs proceed from 1-331
followed, for no reason, by paragraphs 255-363. As a result, the section labelled
"THE FACTS" appears to comprise only 240 paragraphs (44-284 ), when it actually
consists of 316 paragraphs. It follows that the reader must be careful to address
A499
0500
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-500 A500
either the first, or the second, paragraph 255 etc. I return to this issue below when
discussing the second paragraph 289.
[22] The "RELIEF SOUGHT' section of the NOCC comprises 40 paragraphs, most
with multiple subparagraphs, set out over 43 pages.
[23] The plaintiffs (individual, corporate and Action4Canada) seek general

damages for breaches of their Charter rights. Each plaintiff claims a set amount of
general damages. In addition, as against the defendant, Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, the plaintiffs collectively seek general damages of $10,000,000 and
punitive damages of $10,000,000. I note that the pleading of specific amounts for
general damages is clearly in violation of Rule 3-7(14) of the Supreme Court Civil
Rules, B.C. Reg 168/2009 [Rules].
[24] The first paragraph under the "THE FACTS" heading states:
44. In 2000 Bill Gates steps down as Microsoft CEO and creates the
"Gates Foundation" and (along with other partners) launches the 'Global
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization ("GAVI"}. The Gates Foundation has
given GAVI approximately $4.1 Billion. Gates has further lobbied other
organizations, such as the World Economic Forum ("WEF") and governments
to donate to GAVI including Canada and its current Prime Minister, Justin
Trudeau, who has donated over $1 billion dollars to Gates/GAVI.
[25] I set out this paragraph to illustrate the wide-ranging and unconstrained
nature of the allegations in the NOCC. The defendants submit that the NOCC makes
allegations about the acts and motivations of many non-parties. That submission is
correct.
[26] Many of the allegations contained in the NOCC do not accord with, and
specifically challenge, the mainstream understanding of the science underlying both
the existence of, and the government's responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
defendants submit that the allegations in the NOCC constitute "conspiracy theories".
In response, the plaintiffs submit that they have pied material facts that expose
"conspiracies". The former expression, used by the defendants, is recognized as a
pejorative term. The latter, used by the plaintiffs, alleges that the NOCC is exposing
A500
0501
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-501 A501
an underlying systemic issue relating to the pandemic. Those allegations are, in turn,
tied to allegations of misfeasance in public office. The plaintiffs also allege criminal
conduct by the defendants.
[27) To be clear, in these reasons, I have not attempted any weighing, limited or
otherwise, in respect of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs. I have undertaken my
assessment on the assumption that the plaintiffs' allegations, if properly pleaded, are
capable of being proven at trial.
Basis of the Defendants' Application
(28) A summary of the defendants' submissions is as follows:
a) The NOCC is prolix.
i. The Rules provide that a pleading must set out a concise statement of the
material facts, the relief sought and a concise summary of the legal basis.
ii. The Rules on pleadings are mandatory. Failure to follow the Rules will
lead to a striking of the pleading.
b) Because of the prolix and wide-ranging nature of the NOCC, it is not capable
of being answered by the defendants.
c) The entirety of the claim is frivolous and vexatious. After striking the NOCC,
I should not allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend it.
[29) In response to the application, the plaintiffs submit that the court should look
to first principles:
a) On an application to strike:
a. the allegations pleaded in the NOCC must be taken as true or capable

of being proven to be true; and
b. the court's role is not to reach a decision on the claim's chance of

success.
A501
0502
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-502 A502
b) The fact that a pleading reveals an arguable, difficult or important point of law,
is not a justification to strike it: Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R.
959.
c) The plaintiffs' right to seek declaratory relief is neither constrained by form nor
bounded by substantive content: Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821
at 830.
d) The constitutionality of legislation is always a justiciable issue: Thorson v.

Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138 at 151.
e) The writ of mandamus is the proper writ to correct government overreach.
[30] In summary, the plaintiffs submit that there are Charter rights affected by
government policies. This may be a long and complex piece of litigation, with difficult
and troubling allegations, but that does not mean that it should be dismissed. Again,
I garner that summary from the plaintiff's submissions on this application, not from
the NOCC.
Analysis
[31] I will deal with the defence submission in two stages. First, whether the
NOCC should be struck. Second, whether the plaintiffs should be granted liberty to
amend.
Should the NOCC be struck on the basis that it is prolix?
[32] The Oxford English Dictionary defines "prolix" as writing that is "tediously
lengthy". At 391 pages, the NOCC is clearly prolix.
[33] Prolixity can warrant striking a claim pursuant to R. 9-5(1 ), which reads:

(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or
amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on
the ground that
A502
0503
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-503 A503

proceeding, or
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed
or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special
costs.
[34] The defendants submit the NOCC's prolixity renders it scandalous within the
meaning of subrule 9-5(1 )(b). The defendants also submit that prolixity falls under
subrule 9-5(1 )(c) and constitutes a further basis to strike:
a) Pleadings are embarrassing where they are prolix, contain argument, or

fail to state the real issue in an intelligible way: Sahyoun v. Ho, 2015
BCSC 392 at para. 62 [Sahyoun].
b) Regardless of the subrule, the law is clear that prolixity can be a basis for
striking where the pleadings are prolix and confusing or they render it
impossible for the opposing party to know the case they must meet: The
Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473
at para. 36.
c) In certain cases, the pleadings are so overwhelmed with difficulties that it

will not be possible to categorize them into specific subparagraphs of R. 9-
5( 1): see, for instance, Sahyoun at para. 64.
[35] The defendants submit that, more important than the length of the NOCC is
the unlimited scope of the document. It is not a piece of legal drafting that complies
with the Rules, or basic tenets, of pleading. It is not a document that can be properly
answered in a response to civil claim. The defendants submit that those problems
arise, in part, because there are multiple allegations against the defendants
individually and jointly. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any
individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular
allegation. Were the action to proceed in its current form, individual defendants
would not be in a position to know whether they were tasked with a burden of
A503
0504
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-504 A504
disproving or countering the myriad allegations. They would not know what case
they were required to meet.
[36] The defendants rely on the decision in Mercantile Office Systems Private
Limited v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362 [Mercantile]
wherein Voith J.A. wrote, in relation to the requirements of pleadings:
[44] Nevertheless, none of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and

a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a
reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in
mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the
drafting party to "concisely" set out the "material facts" that give rise to the
claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim. None of these
pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.
[37] I note again paragraph 44 of the NOCC (above at paragraph 24). It is, quite
clearly, the beginning of a "story".
[38] Justice Voith continued in his conclusion in Mercantile:
[58] I am of the view that the Response and Counterclaim suffer from the
numerous and pervasive difficulties that I have described. These difficulties
cause the Response and Counterclaim to be prolix and both confusing and
inconsistent in various respects. They offend various mandatory requirements
of the Rules and they frustrate the important objects that are served by
proper pleadings.
[39] I note, for context, that the response to civil claim in under discussion in
Mercantile was 12 pages and the counterclaim was five pages.
[40] In addition, the defendants submit that the NOCC breaches other tenets of
pleading. Among other problems: it pleads evidence, includes non-justiciable claims
and alleges criminal conduct by the defendants. These deficiencies fall largely within
the scope of R. 9-5(1 )(a), in that they disclose no reasonable claim.
[41] As an example of the plaintiffs' non-justiciable claims, the defendants point to

(the second) paragraph 289 of the NOCC which seeks the following declaration:
289. A Declaration that the purported order, by Dr. Bonnie Henry,

purportedly pursuant to s. 52(2) of the Public Health Act, that "the
transmission of the infectious agent SARS-CoV-2, based on high "case
A504
0505
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-505 A505
counts", based on a PCR test, is ultra vires the Act and non est factum, in
that:
(b) The classification as such is not scientifically nor medically

based;
(c) The evidence is lacking and contrary to the scientific and
medical evidence;
(d) That "cases' [sic] do not equate to "deaths" and that the
purported death rate is no higher than complications from the annual
influenza;
(e) That the distorted "case" counts are fraudulent, based on the
fraudulent use generating cases of "PCR" test, which is a test that:
a) At best was designed as a "screening test" which requires a
follow-up culture and blood test to ensure the detection of an
infectious virus, and was never designed, nor equipped to be a
diagnostic test;
b) That is is [sic] fraudulently being used as a diagnostic test;
c) That the PCR test has scientifically been debunked, as well as
judicially determined, based on the scientific evidence, that when
used at a "threshold cycle" of thirty five (35) or higher, to cause
between 82% to 96.5% "false positives";
[42] The defendants submit that this is (or these are) issues and remedies that are
non-justiciable.
[43] In response to these submissions, counsel for the plaintiffs submits:
a) the NOCC pleads all material facts necessary to support the causes of action;
b) all causes of action have been fully and properly pied;
c) there is no basis in law to strike the NOCC, in whole or in part;
d) the court should only strike a pleading where it is plain and obvious that it is
"bad beyond argument": Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170 at 176; and
e) The extent and complexity of the NOCC is proportionate to the extent and
complexity of the issues at hand. Counsel describes those issues as: "the
purported global pandemic, these scientific/medical bases or non-basis of the
A505
0506
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-506 A506
[COVID] measures, its history, and the constitutional violations imposed in

Canada and abroad."
[44) On that basis, the plaintiffs submit that they should be allowed to proceed with
the litigation under the current version of the NOCC.
[45) On the first issue, whether the NOCC is prolix, I agree with the defendants'
submission: the NOCC, in its current form, is not a pleading that can properly be
answered by a responsive pleading. It describes wide-ranging global conspiracies
that may, or may not, have influenced either the federal or the provincial
governments. It seeks rulings of the court on issues of science. In addition, it
includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and "crimes against
humanity". In my opinion, it is "bad beyond argument".
[46) I further find that it is not a document that the court can mend by striking
portions. I find that this NOCC is analogous to the Statement of Claim considered by
Justice K. Smith (as he then was) in Homa/co Indian Band v. British Columbia
(1998), 25 C.P.C. (4th) 107 (B.C.S.C.) [Homa/co]. He wrote:
[11] In my view, the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It

contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a
manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial. Any attempt
to reform it by striking out portions and by amending other portions is likely to
result in more confusion as to the real issues ....
[47] As was the case in Homa/co, attempting to bring the NOCC into compliance
with the Rules by piecemeal striking and amending would invite more confusion and
greater expenditure of the resources of all concerned.
[48) I find that the NOCC is prolix. It is not a proper pleading that can be answered
by the defendants. It cannot be mended. Given that finding, I have no hesitation in
ruling that it must be struck in whole.
A506
0507
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-507 A507
Should the plaintiff's claim be dismissed (or should the plaintiffs be

granted leave to amend}?
[49] The second issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs should be granted
leave to amend the pleadings.
[50] In my discussion below, I have indicated that there may be legitimate claims
that a plaintiff could advance against one or more of the defendants. However, I wish
to be clear that:
a) as noted above, I have assumed that allegations are capable of being proved;
b) hence, by ruling that there may be claims that might properly be brought, I
make no finding on the prospect of success of such claims;
c) although I have specifically noted certain types of claims that are improperly
included in the current NOCC, the absence of any comment by me should not
be considered an endorsement of any specific cause of action that is in the
NOCC but omitted in my discussion; and
d) I make no ruling on the proper plaintiffs, or the proper defendants, in this

action. Those will be issues for the plaintiffs to decide, in line with the proper
tenets of pleading. In turn, the defendants will be at liberty to make an
application, if necessary, to determine the proper parties.
[51] To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature
of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same
reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and
indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be
struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel's obligation to draft
pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Ru/es.
[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are
improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of
the NOCC as inappropriate:
A507
0508
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-508 A508
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of

the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVI D-19
prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a
bona fide "pandemic";
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed

consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the
Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity
under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of

which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being
"essential", or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-
corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR

testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false
and fraudulent use of the PCR test.
[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.
[54] I note the remarkably apposite comments of Strayer J. in Vancouver Island

Peace Society v. Canada, [1992] 3 F.C. 42 at 51:
... It is not the role of the Court in these proceedings to become an academy
of science to arbitrate conflicting scientific predictions, or to act as a kind of
legislative upper chamber to weigh expressions of public concern and
determine which ones should be respected. Whether society would be well
served by the Court performing either of these functions, which I gravely
doubt, they are not roles conferred upon it in the exercise of judicial review ...
[55] A significant underlying theme of the NOCC is the pursuit of rulings from this
court on the proper interpretation of scientific data. As such, much of the NOCC
A508
0509
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-509 A509
relates to non-justiciable issues. I note the extract from (the second) paragraph 289
of the NOCC quoted above (at paragraph 41 ). It is beyond doubt that the plaintiffs
seek to turn this court into an academy of science wherein a judge will be asked to
prefer their science over the government's science. Alternatively, the plaintiffs hope
that this court will act as a further legislative chamber to review, criticize or overturn
the policies of the legislative and executive branches of government. That is not the
proper role of this court except in circumstances where those actions infringe on
protected Charter rights or exceed the bounds of delegated authority.
(56] An additional issue, related to justiciability, is that the NOCC seeks a number
of declarations of fact. In West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2020
BCCA 138 at para. 312, the Court of Appeal reviewed the law concerning the
propriety of declaratory relief. The Court noted that even when the requirements set
out in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., 2019 sec 4 at para. 60 are met,
declaratory relief remains discretionary:
[31 0] Where these factors are met, a court looks at the practical value of the
declaration in assessing if it should exercise its discretion to grant such a
remedy:
A declaration can only be granted if it will have practical utility, that is,
if it will settle a "live controversy" between the parties: see
also Solosky v. The Queen, 1979 Canlll 9 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R.
821; Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLll 123
(SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.
Daniels at para. 11; see also S.A. at para. 61.
[311] This Court has also phrased the question as "whether a 'useful
purpose' would be served by granting the order": Wake/am v. Wyeth
Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soins de Sante Inc., 2014 BCCA 36 at para. 71;
see also Greater Vancouver Regional District v. British Columbia (Attorney
General), 2011 BCCA 345 at para. 52 [GVRD].
[3121 An assessment of the practical utility of a declaration necessarily looks
at the effect of the requested remedy on the parties' rights. Declarations must
be connected to legal rights, rather than, for example, facts "detached" from
those rights or "law generally": 1472292 Ontario Inc. (Rosen Express) v.
Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 753 at
para. 30; Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, [1978] A.G. 435
at 501. Detached facts and general pronouncements of law have little utility.
[Emphasis added.]
A509
0510
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-510 A510
[57] A good example of a proposed declaration of fact is set out at (the second)
para. 302 of the NOCC where the plaintiffs seek:
A Declaration that the declared rationales and motives, and execution of

COVID Measures, by the WHO, are not related to a bona fide, nor an actual
'pandemic', and declaration of a bona fide pandemic, but for other political
and socio-economic reasons, motives, and measures at the behest of global
Billionaire, Corporate and Organizational Oligarchs
[58] This is just one example, among many, of a declaration that is detached from
law generally. It has little to do with the rights of the parties and instead seeks a
declaration of fact about the motives of a non-party international organization.
Pleading declaratory relief of this nature is improper.
[59] The defendants urge upon me that the problems with the NOCC are sufficient
grounds for me to conclude that this entire action is an abuse of process and should
be dismissed on the basis that it is clearly frivolous and vexatious.
[60] I do not accept that submission on behalf of the defendants. For the reasons
set out below, I decline to dismiss the action.
[61] In support of the claims made within the NOCC, counsel for the plaintiffs
directed me to several Canadian decisions, plus two from other countries:
a) The Supreme Court of the United States decision indexed as Roman Catholic
Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York,
592 U.S._ (2020) [Diocese of Brooklyn]; and
b) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (2 May 2022), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of
2021 (Supreme Court of India) [Puliyen.
[62] In the Diocese of Brooklyn decision, the Court enjoined the state from
enforcing the "severe" restrictions on religious services. The majority wrote, at page
5:
Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect
the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area.
But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.
A510
0511
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-511 A511
The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending

religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee
of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a
serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.
[63] Hence, the Diocese of Brooklyn decision assists the plaintiffs for the (obvious)
proposition that constitutional rights must be protected, even within a pandemic.
[64] The plaintiffs also rely upon the Pu/iye/ case from India as an example of a
court striking down the COVID-vaccine measures of a government on the basis that
they offended protections of bodily integrity and hence, were unconstitutional.
[65] I note that cases from the Indian Supreme Court are very rarely referenced in
this jurisdiction. I accept that the judge in the Puliyel case engaged in a review of
vaccine mandates and their impact on constitutionally protected rights. However, in
my opinion, the Puliyel case provides limited assistance to the plaintiffs. In very brief
overview, the highest level of intervention by the court consisted of directions that:
a) the government could not force vaccinations on the populace. But, the court
was clear to note that the government was not forcing vaccines on the
populace. At the same time, the court confirmed that, given the pandemic, the
government could restrict the activities of unvaccinated persons and is
"entitled to regulate issues of public health concern by imposing certain
limitations on individual rights ... "
b) required the government to release statistics to the public relating to

vaccination programs; and
c) in addition, the court made a "suggestion", that in the context of the rapidly-
evolving situation presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the government
should review the vaccine mandates.
[66] However, in my opinion, the case provides more support for the defendants'
position than the plaintiffs'. For example, at para. 89, Justice Rao wrote:
(iv) On the basis of substantial material filed before this Court reflecting
the near-unanimous views of experts on the benefits of vaccination in
A511
0512
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-512 A512
addressing severe disease from the infection, reduction in oxygen

requirement, hospital and ICU admissions, mortality and stopping new
variants from emerging, this Court is satisfied that the current vaccination
policy of the Union of India is informed by relevant considerations and cannot
be said to be unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary. Contrasting scientific
opinion coming forth from certain quarters to the effect that natural immunity
offers better protection against COVID-19 is not pertinent for determination of
the issue before us.
(67] There are several other statements in the Puliyel decision that do not align
with the plaintiffs' position in this case. For example, on paediatric vaccinations, Rao
J. ruled "it is beyond the scope of review for this Court to second-guess expert
opinion, on the basis of which the Government has drawn up its policy."
[68] Boiled down to its core, the Puliyel case provides support for two basic points
that assist the plaintiffs:
a) government policies cannot unnecessarily infringe upon the Charter rights of

individuals; and
b) the decision is an example of a court hearing, and (to some extent) ruling
upon, an analogous claim on its merits. In doing so, the court dismissed the
preliminary objection of the Union of India.
[69] I note that there is little need to exceed our province's borders for either of
these two propositions. There is binding authority for those propositions much closer
to home. In particular, Chief Justice Hinkson, in Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021
BCSC 512, ruled that the petitioners' Charter rights (s. 2(c) and (d)) were infringed
by specific "Gathering and Events" orders issued by the Provincial Health Officer. (I
note that decision is under appeal. However, at present it is binding upon me
pursuant to the principles enunciated in Hansard Spruce Mills Limited (Re), [1954] 4
D.L.R. 590.)
[70] On whether the issues are "justiciable" I note the decision of Justice Coval in
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v Henry, 2022
BCSC 724, where he wrote, at para. 39:
A512
0513
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-513 A513
[39] Regarding justiciability, the Petition challenges state action based on

legislatively-delegated discretionary powers. In my view, the petitioners are
correct that whether those actions comply with the Charter and JRPA are
clearly questions suitable for judicial determination (CCD, para 90).
[71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions
infringe their Charter protected rights. Hence, in this case, there is a prospect that
the plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain of the COVID-based health
restrictions instituted by the Federal or Provincial governments infringed their
Charter rights. In addition, it is possible that other valid claims may exist. It will be for
the plaintiff to plead those causes of action in accordance with the Rules. Such
claims need to be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the defendants to
know the case they have to meet. It must also confine itself to matters that are
capable of adjudication by this court and relief this court is capable of granting.
[72] The existence of a single potential, viable cause of action means that it would
be improper for me, at this stage, to foreclose upon the plaintiffs' right to bring their
claims. I note that, in the Homa/co decision, despite finding that the plaintiff's
pleading was "embarrassing" Smith J. granted leave to amend because potential
causes of action existed. In doing so, he stayed further steps pending the filing and
delivery of a fresh pleading by the plaintiff. I make the same order. This action is
stayed until the filing of a fresh pleading by the plaintiff.
[73] I noted above the defendants' submission that there are sufficient grounds for
me to conclude that, based on the NOCC, this entire action is an abuse of process
or clearly frivolous and vexatious. For the reasons set out above, I do not accept that
submission. However, if the next iteration of NOCC contains the same, or similar,
problems, then the defendants' arguments on these issues will be strengthened.
Summary and Conclusion
[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its
entirety;
A513
0514
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-514 A514
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.
[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking
money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each
defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the
NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct
this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was
properly pleaded.
[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the
necessary steps of "defending a proceeding", and for preparing for and attending an
application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.
"A. Ross J."
A514
0515
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-515 A515
/.t
This is Exhibit ..J " to the Affidavit of

A~
&~ Affidavits
TIOOJlg
A515
0516
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-516 A516
CITATION: Turek v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 8105
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 642/21
DATE: 2021/12/13

DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: DR. CAROLINE TUREK, Applicant
AND:
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONT ARIO ET AL.,

Respondents
BEFORE: Sachs, Backhouse and Mandhane JJ.
COUNSEL: Rocco Galati, for the Applicant
Rob (Rabinder) Sidhu, for the Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: December 8, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
Sealing Order
[ 1] The Respondents seek a sealing order that information that identifies patients and
individuals who have provided information to the College should be sealed and not form part of
the public record.
[2] Corbett J. issued an interim order, subject to further order of this Panel, requiring that the
College redact the record of proceeding to remove information tending to identify persons who
have provided information to the College in connection with the investigation of the Applicant.
[3] The sealing order in this case is to protect names and identifying information of the
reporting individual and of a patient from public disclosure and, by extension, to protect the
integrity of the College's investigative process. The order sought does not contemplate sealing
the entire record before the court but only information that tends to identify the two individuals
whose identification information is irrelevant to the issues on the application.
[4] The parties consent to the requested order. The media have been given notice of this
motion pursuant to Justice Corbett's direction. We are satisfied that the three factors set out in
Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at para.38 for granting a sealing order have been met
in this case : 1) the integrity of the open investigation and of the College investigations generally
A516
0517
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-517 A517
Page:2
are important public interests; 2) the order sought is necessary to prevent the serious risk that court
openness poses in this case; and 3) as a matter of proportionality the benefits of the order outweigh
its negative effect.
[5] The sealing order is granted upon the terms as set out in the draft order.
Prematurity
[6] The Respondents submit that the application for judicial review should be dismissed on the
basis of prematurity. In doing so they rely on a number of authorities where applications have been
found to be premature in similar circumstances.
[7] In Sutherland v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario 2007 CanLII 51785 the
Divisional Court struck an application to judicially review a decision to refer an allegation of
professional misconduct to a formal hearing on the basis that the appointment of investigators that
led to the referral was a nullity. The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.
In doing so the Court found that threshold issues of jurisdiction should be raised before the
Discipline Committee.
[8] In Foulds v. Justice of the Peace Review Council 2017 ONSC 5807 the applicant sought to
judicially review a decision to refer an allegation of judicial misconduct to a formal hearing on the
basis that the Complaints Committee lacked the jurisdiction to proceed and on the basis of
procedural unfairness and bias. The Divisional Court held that the application was premature and
that all of the issues raised on the application could be dealt with at the formal hearing on the
merits.
[9] In Halifax (City) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10, the Supreme
Court of Canada considered an appeal from an early judicial review of a screening committee's
decision to refer a complaint to a board of inquiry. In that case the chambers judge granted the
application and quashed the decision under review. The Court of Appeal overturned the chambers
judge's decision and the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the chambers judge
should have not intervened in the proceeding at such an early stage. Doing so only caused
unwarranted delay.
[10] The Applicant argues that her application for judicial review should not be dismissed for
prematurity because only a court can grant the relief she is seeking. That relief includes a request
for three declarations: ( l) a declaration that the Respondent College, as a creature of provincial
authority, has no jurisdiction under s. 92 of the Constitution Act to regulate free speech; (2) a
declaration that the order for investigation of the Applicant was a nullity since there was no basis
for an allegation of unprofessional conduct or incompetence, and (3) a declaration that a Statement
on Public Health Misinformation issued by the Respondent College on April 30, 2021 is invalid
and unconstitutional.
[11] The basis for the Applicant's first declaratory request is an argument that the Respondents'
conduct has nothing to do with professional regulation, but is simply an attempt to regulate free
speech. If there is a decision to refer the matter for a hearing on the merits, that is an issue that the
A517
0518
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-518 A518
Page: 3
tribunal hearing the merits can consider and rule upon. While administrative tribunals cannot grant
declarations of invalidity, they have the authority to consider and rule upon any arguments directed
at their own jurisdiction, including any arguments under sections 91 and 92.
[12] The basis for the second declaratory request is similar to the first- the Respondents are not
investigating professional misconduct or incompetence· they are investigating speech. This, too,
is an argument that can be considered by a tribunal who hears the merits of any complaint, if any
complaint is laid after the investigation. If no complaint is laid, then the matter will be moot.
[13] With respect to the third request for a declaration, the Statement that the College issued on
April 30, 2021 is not an instrument that can attract a declaration of invalidity. It is a guideline and
a recommendation only. As such, it is not binding on any tribunal that may consider the matter
further. The Applicant is not being investigated for breaching or violating the Statement; she is
being investigated for professional misconduct and/or incompetence. If there is a hearing on the
merits, and the Respondent College takes a position similar to the one outlined in the Statement or
relies on the Statement, at that point the tribunal hearing the merits will have an opportunity to
consider and rule upon whether the position taken in the Statement constitutes an unconstitutional
violation of the Applicant's free speech rights.
[14] For these reasons we find that the application is premature and should be dismissed. In
accordance with the agreement of the parties, the Applicant shall pay the Respondents their costs
of this application, fixed in the amount $5000.00, all inclusive.
Sachs J.
I agree
7
Backliouse J.
I agree
MandhaneJ.
Date: December 13, 2021
A518
0519
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-519 A519
This is Exhibit ,jf,to the Affidavit of

A519
0520
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-520 A520
Citation: Canadian Society for the Advancement of

Science in Public Policy v. Henry,
2022 BCSC 724
Date: 20220504 :J
C
C'O
Docket: S211 0229 S2,
Registry: Vancouver s;t
C\J
r---
uCl)
In the Matter Concerning the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241; uco
and the Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28
(\J
Between: (\J
0
C\J
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy
and Kipling Warner
Petitioners
And
Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as Provincial Health Officer

for the Province of British Columbia
Respondent
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Coval
Counsel for the Petitioners: P.H. Furtula
Counsel for the Respondent: J. Gibson

A.C. Bjornson

April 7, 2022

May 4, 2022
A520
0521
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-521
v. Henry
A521
Page2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
PARTIES ................................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND FACTS ............................................................................................ 4 :J
C
Emergency Powers under the PHA ........................................................................ 4 nl
8
The Impugned Orders ............................................................................................ 5
~
r-...
Reconsideration Request ....................................................................................... 5 ()
(J)
The Petition ............................................................................................................ 7 ()

co
(\J
GOVERNING LAW .................................................................................................... 7 (\J
0
(\J
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 9

The Society's Public Interest Standing ................................................................... 9
Serious Justiciable Issue .................................................................................... 9
Genuine Interest ............................................................................................... 11
Reasonable and Effective Means ..................................................................... 13
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 14
Mr. Warner's Private Interest Standing ................................................................. 14
Substitute Petitioners ........................................................................................... 15
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 16
A521
0522
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy A522
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-522 Page3
v. Henry
Introduction
[1] The respondent applies to dismiss this Petition on the basis that the
petitioners lack legal standing. The petitioners argue, in response, that the Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy ("CSASPP") has public
:J
interest standing and Mr. Warner has private interest standing. C
a:l
~
,;:t-
N
[2] The Petition challenges public health orders made under the Public Health ,-....
0
Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28 [PHA], requiring two COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare
(f)
0
co
providers in wide-ranging healthcare facilities across British Columbia. C\J
C\J
0
N
[3] It alleges that the impugned orders fail to provide reasonable exemptions and
accommodations for persons with religious objections, vaccination risks, immunity
from prior infection, and recent negative COVID-19 testing. It seeks to set aside the
orders for infringing the Charter rights of unvaccinated healthcare workers, and as
an unreasonable exercise of statutory powers contrary to the Judicial Review
Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 [JRPA].
[4] The respondent, the Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry ("PHO"),
submits that the orders are reasonable, precautionary public health measures.
Implemented to limit transmission in higher-risk public settings, they protect public
health, vulnerable populations, and functioning of the healthcare system.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that CSASPP has public interest standing to
bring the Petition. Mr. Warner does not, however, have private interest standing to
do so, and his claims are therefore dismissed.
Parties
[6] CSASPP is a not-for-profit society incorporated under the Societies Act,

S.B.C. 2015, c. 18.
[7] With a head-office in Vancouver, it describes itself as a non-partisan, secular

organization, advocating for the development and advancement of science in the
formation of public policy in British Columbia.
A522
0523
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-523
v. Henry
A523
Page4
[8] Mr. Warner, a British Columbia resident, is a software engineer and the
executive director of CSASPP. He describes CSASPP's directors, officers, donors,
and patrons as drawn from diverse communities across the political spectrum.
[9] He deposes that, when the impugned healthcare vaccination requirements =:i
C
cu
were ordered, CSASPP was contacted by more than a thousand self-identified 8
"<t
healthcare workers in British Columbia, including many registered nurses, C\J
l'-
0
concerned about the medical justification for the vaccination mandates and the (f)
0
co
threat of losing their jobs. C\J
C\I
0
C\J
[1OJ As the Public Health Officer under s. 64 of the PHA, Dr. Henry is the
Province's senior public health official. In that role, she has led the public health
response to the emergencies created by the transmission of the novel coronavirus
SARS-CoV-2 and the illness known as COVID-19.
Background Facts
Emergency Powers under the PHA
[11] On March 18, 2020, the Minister of Public Safety declared a state of
emergency throughout British Columbia because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
declaration expired on June 30, 2021.
[12] On March 17, 2020, Dr. Henry issued a notice, under s. 52(2) of the PHA, that
the transmission of the infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus constituted a "regional event"
under s. 51. The PHA defines "regional event" as an "immediate and significant risk
to public health throughout a region or the province".
[13] Under s. 52, the notice enabled the PHO to exercise the "emergency powers"
in Part 5 of the PHA. These powers include the issuance of orders for persons to do
anything that the PHO reasonably believes is necessary "to prevent or stop a health
hazard, or mitigate the harm or prevent further harm from a health hazard". They
include the power to prohibit a class of persons from entering a particular place
(PHA, ss. 31(1)(b), 39(3)).
A523
0524
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-524
v. Henry
A524
Page5
The Impugned Orders
[14] The Petition challenges three sets of orders, issued and updated by the PHO
under the PHA emergency powers (the "Impugned Orders"):
(i) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventative Measures order of ::::J
C
September 9, 2021, September 27, 2021 ("Vaccination Status Order"); ro
8
s::f"
(ii) Residential Care Covid-19 Preventative Measures order of October 21, 2021 C\I
t---
("Residential Care Order"); and 0
(/)
()
co
(iii) Hospital and Community (Health Care and other Services) Covid-19 N
C\J
Vaccination Status Information and Preventative Measures order of 0
C\I
October 21, 2021 ("Hospital Order").
[15] Broadly speaking, the Impugned Orders mandate that, as of mid-October

2021, only double-vaccinated persons may provide healthcare services in a wide-
range of British Columbia healthcare settings, including long-term care facilities,
hospitals and community care settings.
Reconsideration Request
[16] By letter to the PHO of November 8, 2021, pursuant to s. 43 of the PHA, the
petitioners requested a reconsideration of the Impugned Orders ("Reconsideration
Request") on behalf of a broad class of healthcare workers in British Columbia.
[17) Section 43(1) of the PHA says in part:
Reconsideration of orders
43 (1) A person affected by an order, or the variance of an order, may
request the health officer who issued the order or made the variance to
reconsider the order or variance if the person
(a) has additional relevant information that was not reasonably available
to the health officer when the order was issued or varied,
(b) has a proposal that was not presented to the health officer when the
order was issued or varied but, if implemented, would
(i) meet the objective of the order, and
(ii) be suitable as the basis of a written agreement under
section 38 [may make written agreements], or
(c) requires more time to comply with the order.
A524
0525
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-525 Page6
v. Henry
[18] The Reconsideration Request contained a lengthy critique of the Impugned
Orders from Dr. J. Kettner, Chief Medical Officer of Health and Chief Public Health
Officer for the Province of Manitoba from 1999 to 2012. Arguing that the Impugned
Orders failed to comply with generally accepted principles of public health
governance and the Charter, it contained voluminous research, submissions ::::i
C
ro
regarding the principles governing public health orders, and examples of less ~
""'"
C\J
restrictive measures in other jurisdictions. l'--
0
(J)
0
Cl)
[19] The Reconsideration Request proposed, among other things, alternative C\J
(\J
0
approaches to satisfy the objectives of the Impugned Orders, including the following: (\J
I. Natural immunity through a positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen test

result demonstrating recovery from COVID-19, issued no less than 11
days and no more than 6 months after the date on which a person first
tested positive (e.g. France).
ii. Negative PCR or antigen test less than 48 hours prior to attendance
at a facility (e.g. Alberta).
iii. Single vaccination after contracting COVI D-19 after an interval of at
least 21 days following the illness (e.g. Quebec).
iv. Documentation from a physician or registered nurse providing medical
reason for not being fully vaccinated (e.g. Ontario).
[20] On November 9, 2021, under PHA s. 54(1)(h), the PHO issued a variance,
with retroactive effect, halting s. 43 reconsideration requests except for medical
reasons ("Reconsideration Variance").
[21] The evidence filed on behalf of the PHO suggests that, due to hundreds of s.
43 requests, the Reconsideration Variance was necessary to protect public health
until there was a significant reduction in transmissions, serious disease, and strain
on the public health care system.
[22] Section 54(1 )(h) says:
General emergency powers

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the
following:
A525
0526
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-526 Page 7
v. Henry
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of
orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not
reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of
orders];
[23] By letter of January 17, 2022, relying on the Reconsideration Variance, the
:::i
PHO declined to respond to the Reconsideration Request because it sought
C
~
8
exemption from the Impugned Orders on non-medical grounds ("Reconsideration "q"
(\J
Response"). "
0
(J)
0
co
(\J
The Petition (\J
0
(\J
[24] The Petition alleges that the materials in the Reconsideration Request
demonstrate the Charter violations and unreasonableness of the Impugned Orders.
[25] It seeks a declaration that the Impugned Orders are of no force and effect for
unjustifiably infringing the following rights and freedoms of unvaccinated healthcare
workers:
• section 2(a) (freedom of conscience and religion);
• section 2(b) (freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression);
• section 7 (life, liberty and security of the person); and
• section 15(1) (equality rights).
(26] It seeks orders, under the JRPA, quashing and setting aside the Impugned
Orders, or declaring them ultra vires, as unreasonable or exceeding the PHO's
statutory authority.
[27] The petitioners also challenge the Reconsideration Response as an

unreasonable refusal to consider the Reconsideration Request.
Governing Law
[28] Public interest standing permits public-spirited litigants to prosecute issues of

general interest and importance, thereby causing courts to fulfill their "constitutional
role of scrutinizing the legality of government action, striking it down when it is
A526
0527
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-527
v. Henry
A527
PageB
unlawful and thus establishing and enforcing the rule of law" ( Council of Canadians
with Disabilities v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 241, [CCD],
para. 2). 1
[29] Challenges to standing focus on whether "the public interest litigant is an =:i
C
appropriate party to advance a justiciable claim, not on the detail of intended trial
ctl
8
'<I"
evidence or the claim's ultimate prospect of success" (CCD, para. 87). C\J
I'--
()
(f)
()
[30] The litigant has the onus to demonstrate that public interest standing is a:i
C\J
warranted in the circumstances. The assessment focuses on three factors identified C\J
0
C\J
in Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575 [Borowski]:
(i) does the claim raise a serious justiciable issue?
(ii) is the plaintiff directly affected by the action or does the plaintiff have a
genuine interest in its outcome? and
(iii) is the action a reasonable and effective means to bring the claim to court?
[31] The assessment should be flexible and generous, to serve the underlying
purposes of upholding the legality principle and providing access to justice,
particularly so for vulnerable and marginalized citizens broadly affected by legislation
of questionable constitutional validity (Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown
Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 [Downtown
Eastside], paras. 31, 51 ).
[32] On the other side of the balance are the limiting factors of allocation of scarce
judicial resources, screening of "busybody" litigants, and obtaining the viewpoints of
those who are actually most directly impacted by the issues in question. For these
reasons, a party with private interest standing is generally preferred to a public
interest litigant seeking to advance a duplicative claim (Downtown Eastside,
para. 37; CCD, paras. 71, 79-80, 83).
1 Leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, 2021 Canlll 24821.
A527
0528
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-528
v. Henry
A528
Page9
Analysis and Findings
The Society's Public Interest Standing
[33] I turn to consider whether the Society satisfies the Borowski factors.
:::J
Serious Justiciable Issue C
C1l
2,
[34] A serious justiciable issue is one that is appropriate for judicial determination "St"
C\J
I'--
and clearly not frivolous. (_)
(j)
(_)
en
[35] Justiciability asks whether the case suits the court's place in our constitutional
C\J
C\J
0
C\J
system of government: Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49 [Auditor Genera~ at 90-91. Ultimately,
the answer "depends on the appreciation by the judiciary of its own position in the
constitutional scheme" (Auditor General at 91 ).
[36] So long as the pleading reveals at least one serious issue, it will usually be
unnecessary to examine every pleaded claim for the purpose of standing (Downtown
Eastside, para. 42; CCD, paras. 90, 94).
[37] The petitioners argue that challenges such as this -- to the constitutionality
and legality of legislation -- are always considered justiciable (CCD, para 90). They
say serious issues are raised by questioning the "circumvention of the legislature ...
in the name of public health," to achieve goals normally achieved through the
"legislative process, which is transparent, public, and fosters democratic debate."
[38] The PHO argues the Petition "discloses no adjudicative facts and so is non-
justiciable". The Petition, the PHO says, is devoid of any meaningful particulars
permitting the inquiry sought (CCD, paras. 104, 107). The PHO relies on Beaudoin
v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 512 [Beaudoin], to argue that the Reconsideration
Request raises no serious issue, as in that case a similar request for reconsideration
based on similar evidence from Dr. Kettner was ruled inadmissible.

legislatively-delegated discretionary powers. In my view, the petitioners are correct
A528
0529
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-529
v. Henry Page A529
10
that whether those actions comply with the Charter and JRPA are clearly questions
suitable for judicial determination (CCO, para 90).
[40] Regarding a serious issue, the Impugned Orders directly impact members of
a defined and identifiable group in a serious way that, at least on the surface, relates _j
C
ro
to their Charter rights. CSASPP alleges that its alternative proposals reflect a ~
-q-
superior approach, taken in other Provinces and elsewhere around the world, much (\J
r---
()
less intrusive on healthcare workers' Charter rights. In my view, this raises (f)
()
co
substantial questions that meet the threshold of "clearly not frivolous." (\J
(\J
0
(\J
[41] I do not accept the PH O's argument that Beaudoin shows there is no serious
issue to be tried regarding the Reconsideration Response. In Beaudoin, the
reconsideration materials were ruled inadmissible because the petitioners did not
challenge the reconsideration decision. In this case, however, CSASPP seeks to
2
impugn the PHO's Reconsideration Response.
[42] In Beaudoin, religious leaders challenged the PHO's prohibition of certain

religious gatherings, for allegedly violating the Charter rights of freedoms of religion,
expression, assembly and association. After the petition was filed, the PHO
reconsidered the impugned orders and issued a conditional variance allowing
outdoor worship services subject to certain conditions.
[43] The petitioners challenged only the PHO's initial orders, however, not the
decision responding to their reconsideration request. Chief Justice Hinkson ruled the
reconsideration materials inadmissible for that reason:
[79] Moreover, as the religious petitioners have chosen not to amend their
petition to seek judicial review of Dr. Henry's reconsideration decision, the
main evidence they seek to rely on, namely the affidavits of Dr. Warren and
2 At least for purposes of this application, the Reconsideration Request and Response appear central
to CSASPP's case. They are prominent in the Petition, Part 2: Factual Basis, and CSASPP's
evidence and argument at the hearing. The PHO acknowledged in argument that the petitioners'
written submissions sought to impugn, by judicial review, the Reconsideration Response.
Having said that, I make no findings about the adequacy of CSASPP's current pleadings regarding
the Reconsideration Request and Response. As the PHO points out, they are not referred to in the
Petition, Part 1: Orders Sought, and are only indirectly referred to in Part 3: Legal Basis.
A529
0530
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-530
v. Henry Page A530
11
Dr. Kettner, is not admissible on this petition because that evidence was not
before Dr. Henry when she made the G&E Orders ....
[102] Had the religious petitioners amended their petition to seek judicial
review of Dr. Henry's decision to grant them a variance to her G&E Orders,
then the "record of proceeding" would include all of the information before
Dr. Henry when she made her decision on the variance (but not before her
when she issued the G&E Orders). But then the review would be of only her =::i
C
variance decision, not the G&E Orders. cu
Q
s::t
C\J
t---
[44] Overall, the serious justiciable issue factor supports standing. ()
(I)
()
co
Genuine Interest C\J
C\J
0
C\J
[45] The genuine interest factor asks if a litigant has a real stake in the
proceedings or is engaged with the issues in question (CCD, para. 98). Its purpose
is to achieve "concrete adverseness", and thereby ensure sharp debate, thorough
argument, and economical use of judicial resources. A litigant's engagement is
assessed by its reputation, continuing interest, and link with the claim (Downtown
Eastside, paras. 29, 43).
[46] CSASPP claims genuine interest, based on its membership, purposes, and
Reconsideration Request. While not tracking personal information about its
approximately 170 current members, it estimates at least 41 work in the healthcare
field in British Columbia based on participation in its confidential forum for healthcare
issues.
[47] The purposes described in CSASPP's constitution of January 14, 2021 are:
To challenge the provincial COVID-19 measures instituted in British

Columbia.
To advocate and promote the development and advancement of science in
public policy in British Columbia.
[48] Its constitution of October 12, 2021 revised the purposes to include the
following:
(a) To improve health outcomes of people by advocating for the development

and implementation of government and public health policy initiatives to be
based on research conducting using the scientific method;
A530
0531
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-531
v. Henry Page A531
12
(b) To improve access to information on pandemic and epidemic threats and

events;
(d) To oppose the dissemination of information that is not based on research

conducted according to the scientific method;
::J
C
cu
(f) To promote critical thinking and public discussion that includes the widest ~
possible expression of opinions and viewpoints in all public policy debates or "<!'
N
r---
discussion, regardless of the level of government of Canada or of any (_)
province or territory therein. (J)
0
Cl)
N
[49] The PHO submits that CSASPP has no history of involvement in the issues N
0
N
raised by the Petition, and the evidence connecting its membership to healthcare is
vague and weak. The PHO says CSASPP is merely a "purpose-built anti-COVID-19
measures entity".
[50] The PHO relies on Atkins v. Anmore (Village), 2014 BCSC 2402, a petition to
quash municipal bylaws brought by a petitioner in her capacity "as a citizen of the
municipality" (para. 5). Justice Williams found this insufficient for a genuine interest
in the validity of the bylaws and declined public interest standing:
[35] ... the petitioner has [not] established that she has an interest that is
materially different than any other member of the community. While it may be
inferred that she brings these proceedings in some role that is supported by
the two councillors, that, in my view, does not provide the basis for a finding
of the type of interest that the jurisprudence suggests is necessary.
[51] In my view, creating a society committed to one side of an issue is not

sufficient to create a genuine stake for purposes of standing. As in Atkins, the
members of such a group are obviously interested in the issue but do not
necessarily have a stake different from the community generally.
[52] The genuine interest factor is concerned not just with a genuine stake in an
issue, however, but also with engagement. Engagement tests for "concrete
adverseness" and economical use of judicial resources (CCD, para. 98; Downtown
A531
0532
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-532
v. Henry Page A532
13
[53] In my view, CSASPP's Reconsideration Request and allegations regarding

the Reconsideration Response show an engaged, concrete adverseness counting in
favour of standing. Also counting somewhat in favour is the evidence, albeit vague
and inferential, of CSASPP's stake based on the healthcare workers amongst its
:J
membership. C
C1:l
~
,;:)"
[54] Overall, the genuine interest factor supports standing. C\J
t---
0
(/)
0
Reasonable and Effective Means co
C\J
C\J
[55] This third Borowski factor is concerned with "whether the proposed suit is, in 0
C\J
all of the circumstances, a reasonable and effective means of bringing the matter
before the court".
[56] The circumstances that the court should consider in making this inquiry
include (Downtown Eastside, paras. 51-52):
(a) The plaintiff's capacity to bring forward a claim and "whether the issue will be
presented in a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual setting";
(b) Whether the case transcends the interests of those most directly affected by
the challenged law or action;
(c) Whether there are realistic alternative means which would favour a more
efficient and effective use of judicial resources and would present a context
more suitable for adversarial determination; and
(d) The potential impact of the proceedings on the rights of others who are
equally or more directly affected, especially where private and public interests
may come into conflict.
[57] The petitioners submit they have the necessary resources and expertise to
prosecute the claim. They point to Dr. Kettner's report and the other materials in
their Reconsideration Request. They say the importance of their case transcends
the interests of individual healthcare workers and concerns society's interest in
having healthcare decisions made in accordance with scientific research.
[58] The PHO argues the petition is not a reasonable and effective way to bring
the issue before the courts. It says that directly impacted healthcare workers are
A532
0533
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-533
v. Henry Page A533
14
better suited to challenge the Impugned Orders. As stated by Dickson J.A. in CCD,
"all other relevant considerations being equal, a plaintiff with private interest standing
will usually be preferred over a public interest litigant seeking to advance a
duplicative claim in a separate action" (para. 83).
::i
C
[59] As discussed in the hearing, numerous individual healthcare workers, o:l
S2.,
,;:j-
allegedly having lost their jobs due to being unvaccinated, are challenging the C\J
t--
0
Impugned Orders in another proceeding that is also in its early stages: Tatlock v. (f)
0
co
Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry Court File C\J
(\J
0
No. S-222427. C\J
[60] Given the Tatlock proceedings, CSASPP's standing appears unnecessary for
access to justice for impacted healthcare workers. Nevertheless, guided by
Crowell J.'s flexible, purposive approach in Downtown Eastside, CSASPP's petition
appears to be a reasonable and effective means of bringing forward the evidence
and claims regarding the Reconsideration Request and Response. It appears that
no similar issue is being pursued in Tatlock.
[61] In my view, subject to the comments above about the shortcomings in its
pleadings, the Petition represents a reasonable and effective means to bring forward
the important and complex healthcare issues in the Reconsideration Request that
transcend the interests of those directly involved.
[62] Overall, the reasonable and effective means factor supports standing.
Conclusion
[63] In my view, all three Borowski factors support CSASPP's public interest
standing particularly given its role in the Reconsideration Request.
Mr. Warner's Private Interest Standing
[64] Private interest standing is based on personal and direct interest in an issue
by virtue of its impact on the party. It arises if the party has a private right at stake, or
A533
0534
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-534
v. Henry Page 15
was specially impacted by the issue beyond the effect on the general public
(Downtown Eastside, para. 1).
[65] The PHO argues that Mr. Warner is a software engineer, without any
apparent connection to healthcare, and his evidence discloses no actual personal or =:J
C
direct interest in the issues. ro
s
~
r----
[66] In argument, Mr. Warner withdrew his claim to public interest standing and 0
(.I)
argued only for private interest standing. His evidence of the personal impact of the 0
co
N
Impugned Orders is limited to this: N
0
N
... my ability to access medical services in a timely manner has been

affected. For example, I have been on the waitlist for approximately one year
for surgery related to a sports injury.
[67] In my view, Mr. Warner offers no evidentiary basis, beyond this unsupported,
conclusory statement, to suggest any right at stake, or any personal or special
impact from the Impugned Orders. There is nothing, for example, to suggest his wait
for surgery was unusual or impacted by the Impugned Orders.
[68] In my view, for these reasons he does not satisfy the requirements for private
interest standing.
Substitute Petitioners
[69] The petitioners brought a back-up application, in case both were denied
standing, to substitute, as petitioners, two healthcare workers who allege losing their
jobs due to the Impugned Orders.
[70] The PHO did not dispute the private interest standing of these two healthcare
workers, but opposed their substitution because it fundamentally altered the
pleadings and record. The PHO's position was therefore that, if standing were
denied to the petitioners, the substitutes should commence new proceedings.
[71] Having found CSASPP to have public interest standing, I will not decide this
alternative application to substitute these two petitioners.
A534
0535
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-535 Page 16
v. Henry
Conclusion
[72] CSASPP is found to have public interest standing.
[73] Mr. Warner is found not to have private interest standing and his claims are
dismissed. :J
C
(1j
S2,.
[74] Costs of the application are in the cause unless the parties wish to speak to ~
r--
them. 0
(f)
0
CI)
C\l
C\I
0
(\J
"Coval J."
A535
0536
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-536 A536
This is Exhibit" JL~o

the Affidavit of
[iii I~I'~
~-,:-'
A536
0537
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-537 A537

Science in Public Policy v. British
Columbia, ...J
C
2022 BCSC 1606 ro
(_)
Date: 20220912
c.o
Docket: S219760 0
CD
.,-
Registry: Vancouver (_)
(/)
l)
Between: co
N
N
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy and Kipling 0
N
Warner
Petitioners
And
Dr. Bonnie Henry in Her Capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the Province
of British Columbia
Respondent
Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson
Counsel for the Respondent: J.K. Gibson

A.G. Bjornson

May 18 and 19, 2022

September 12, 2022
A537
0538
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-538 A538
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. British
Columbia Page 2
Introduction
[1] The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Food and Liquor
Serving Premises Order ("FLSP Order") and the Gathering and Events Order ("G&E
Order") (together "the impugned Orders"), both issued on September 10, 2021, in
....J
C
response to the COVID-19 pandemic by Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia's u
ctl
co
Provincial Health Officer (the "PHO"). 0
CD
~
u(/J
The Parties u
co
,'I
[2] The Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (the N
0
N
"Society"), is a not-for-profit society duly incorporated under the Societies Act, S.B.C.
2015, C. 18.
[3] The petitioner, Kipling Warner, is a software engineer and the executive
director of the Society, which he asserts has 171 members.
[4] The respondent, PHO, is the senior public health official for British Columbia,
and is appointed pursuant to Part 6 of the Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c. 28 [PHA].
Background
[5] On January 27, 2020, the first diagnosed case of COVID-19 in British
Columbia occurred.
[6] On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19
outbreak a pandemic.
[7] "Public health" is one component of British Columbia's health system and
seeks generally to reduce the incidence of premature death and to minimize the
effects of disease, disability, and injury.
[8] The PHO leads the public health response to public health emergencies in
the Province, including addressing the pandemic causing COVID-19.
A538
0539
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-539 A539
Columbia Page 3
[9] In response to the pandemic, the Province and the PHO undertook a variety
of measures that included health promotion, prevention, testing, case identification,
isolation of cases, contact tracing and vaccination.
[10] On March 17, 2020, the PHO issued a Notice of Regional Event under ,...
_J
s. 52(2) of the PHA. This allowed the Office of the PHO ("OPHO") to exercise
powers under Part 5 of the PHA, including making oral and written public health
0
orders in response to the pandemic. !J)
0
c:c
N
[11] On March 18, 2020, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General N
a
N
declared a state of emergency throughout the Province pursuant to the Emergency
Program Act, RSBC 1996, c. 111. That declaration was extended multiple times and
eventually expired at 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2021.
[12] On September 10, 2021, the PHO issued the impugned Orders. Those
Orders introduced the "Vaccine Passport Regime" providing for proof of vaccination
by way of a QR code or proof of an exemption from vaccination, as well as various
other requirements for attending various venues such as maximum capacity limits,
seating requirements, availability of sanitation stations, and staffing requirements.
[13] Individuals who had received two COVID-19 vaccines (and were therefore
"double vaccinated") had a right to a vaccine passport. The Vaccine Orders provided
that only double vaccinated persons could access the following:
(a) restaurants, cafes and other establishments serving food and liquor
(both indoor and outdoor);
(b) indoor ticketed sporting events;
(c) indoor concerts;
(d) indoor theatre/dance/symphony events;
(e) night clubs;
A539
0540
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-540 A540
Columbia Page 4
(f) casinos;
(g) movie theatres;
(h) fitness centres/gyms (excluding youth recreational sport);

....J
C
(il
0
(i) businesses offering indoor high-intensity group exercise activities;
(g) organized indoor events (e.g., weddings, parties, conferences,

meetings, workshops); and
(k) discretionary organized indoor group recreational classes and

activities.
[14] Individuals who lacked a vaccine passport could not access those spaces
and/or participate in those activities, but the Vaccine Passport Regime did not apply
to many locations, such as retail stores and libraries, among others.
(15] The impugned Orders included preambles explaining the PHO's

considerations in their implementation, including the protection of more vulnerable
populations such as people over 70, those too young to be immunized, and those
who have underlying conditions that cause them to develop lower levels of immunity
to vaccines than average.
[16] The objectives of the impugned Orders were said to include:
(a) reducing the risk of infection, severe illness and death for all
vaccination-eligible age groups and those not eligible for vaccination;
(b) reducing the likelihood of transmission in the higher risk setting of

social mingling coupled with alcohol consumption, which is associated
with increased SARS-CoV-2 transmission;
(c) increasing vaccination uptake in populations, thereby reducing the

public health risk of COVID-19;
A540
0541
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-541 A541
Columbia Page 5
(d) implementing full vaccination for those without medical exemptions,

because doing so provides more effective and durable protection
against infection and severe illness than natural immunity from prior
COVID-19 infection alone; and
(e) preserving the ability and resources of public health and the health
(0
0
care system to protect and care for the health needs of the public, (0
,.....
0
including providing care for health needs other than COVID-19 (such (/'J
u
co
as cancer care and cardiac care). c"'-1
N
0
N
[17] The impugned Orders included an assertion that the current scientific
evidence indicated that testing was generally not an adequate substitute for
vaccination, but might form part of additional layers of protection needed to protect
higher risk populations such as during the roll out of vaccinations.
[18] The impugned Orders also included the PHO's assertion that they were made
after the consideration of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [Charter] as considered in a
context where proportionate, precautionary and evidence-based measures, including
vaccination, are necessary to prevent loss of life, serious illness and disruption of the
health care system and society.
Reconsideration of Public Health Orders
[19] Section 43 of the PHA provides that persons can seek a reconsideration of a
public health order. Specifically, it states:
43(1) A person affected by an order, or the variance of an order, may

(a) has additional relevant information that was not
reasonably available to the health officer when the
order was issued or varied,
(b) has a proposal that was not presented to the health
officer when the order was issued or varied but, if
implemented, would
A541
0542
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-542 A542
Columbia Page 6
(i) meet the objective of the order,
and
(ii) be suitable as the basis of a
written agreement under section
38 [may make written
agreements], or __J
C
(c) requires more time to comply with the order. c;i
u
(2) A request for reconsideration must be made in the form required by c.D
0
the health officer. (D
,-
(3) After considering a request for reconsideration, a health officer may

u
UJ
do one or more of the following: u
CD
N
(a) reject the request on the basis that the information l°'\J
0
N
submitted in support of the request
(i) is not relevant, or
(ii) was reasonably available at the time the
order was issued;
(b) . delay the date the order is to take effect or suspend the
order, if satisfied that doing so would not be detrimental
to public health;
(c) confirm, rescind or vary the order.
(4) A health offiGer must provide written reasons for a decision to reject
the request under subsection (3) (a) or to confirm or vary the order under
subsection (3) (c).
(5) Following a decision made under subsection (3) (a) or (c), no further
request for reconsideration may be made.
(6) An order is not suspended during the period of reconsideration unless
the health officer agrees, in writing, to suspend it.
(7) For the purposes of this section,
(a) if an order is made that affects a class of persons, a
request for reconsideration may be made by one
person on behalf of the class, and
(b) if multiple orders are made that affect a class of
persons, or address related matters or issues, a health
officer may reconsider the orders separately or
together.
(8) If a health officer is unable or unavailable to reconsider an order he or
she made, a similarly designated health officer may act under this section in
respect of the order as if the similarly designated health officer were
reconsidering an order that he or she made.
[20] Section 54(1 )(h) of the PHA provides:
A542
0543
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-543 A543
Columbia Page 7
54(1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the
following:
[...]
orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of
orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory _J
C
reassessment of orders]; Co
CJ
~
[21] The process under s. 43 of the PHA requires that a decision to vary an order 0
(t)
,-
be made by the PHO or her delegate. As such, the PHA does not permit a process CJ
(/J
uIt)
where individual physicians who are not PHO delegates may determine and register N
N
medical exemptions. 0
(',J
[22] The OPHO received hundreds of PHA s. 43 requests during the pandemic,
including over 800 related to the Vaccine Passport Regime and the healthcare
workers' vaccination requirement. Many of those requests were based on the
requesting person not agreeing with the PHO's orders or proposing alternative
measures such as rapid testing or reliance on natural immunity.
Mr. Curtis's Reconsideration Request
[23] Stefan Curtis is a member of what the petitioners assert to be in the class of
persons on whose behalf the petitioners' reconsideration request was made. It was
his evidence that on or about August 20, 2021, he tested positive for COVID-19,
while travelling in the Republic of Bulgaria, a member state of the European Union
("EU").
[24] He deposed that he was tested in a government approved laboratory in Sofia,

Bulgaria and obtained an EU Digital Covid Certificate confirming his recovery from
COVID-19 stated to be valid from September 2, 2021 to February 15, 2022 (the
"Certificate").
[25] On September 30, 2021, Mr. Curtis emailed a request for reconsideration to
the OPHO along with supporting materials. After explaining his background, his
reconsideration request stated in part as follows:
A543
0544
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-544 A544
Columbia Page 8
According to EU laws, the Certificate allows me to attend restaurants, events,
etc. just as a double Covid-19 vaccinated person can.
The reason for this is that my natural immunity to Covid-19 is as good as or
better than a double vaccinated person, according to the World Health
Organization May 10, 2021 bulletin - a copy of which is found at the link
below, and is also attached to this email.
.....J
,__
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341241/WHO-2019-nCoV- Cc
Sci- Brief-Natural-immunity-2021.1-eng.pdf ~-
There are more recent studies supporting this, which undoubtedly, you are
aware of considering your background and expertise. u(/)
Accordingly, please reconsider the Orders as they apply to me, and to the uCl)
class of people who have tested positive and recovered from Covid-19. C\J
N
0
Please allow me and the class of people like me to be exempt from the N
Orders, and allow me to be given the equivalent to a Covid-19 BC Vaccine

Card.
Otherwise, I will not be able to fully participate in my community, while
presenting no danger to the public health.
If you reject my request, please provide detailed reasons for doing so
including why I would be considered a "health hazard" as defined in the
Public Health Act, and the scientific basis on which you rely on, including
specific scientific or medical studies, etc.
[26] Mr. Curtis did not receive a response to his reconsideration request from the
OPHO.
(27] Under s. 43(7) of the PHA a request for reconsideration can be summitted on
behalf of a class of affected persons. On October 20, 2021, the petitioners submitted
a request for reconsideration to the PHO, on behalf of what they assert to be the
following class of persons in British Columbia:
(a) persons who attend events; and
(b) patrons of restaurants with table service, cafes, food primary or liquor
primary establishments, including pubs, bars, lounges, and nightclubs,
liquor manufacturing facilities that have tasting rooms with seating or
private clubs.
(28] The petitioners claim that Mr. Curtis is a member of this class.
[29] The request for reconsideration set out the following bases for it:
A544
0545
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-545 A545
Columbia Page 9
(a) the petitioners presented additional relevant information that was not
reasonably available to the PHO when the impugned Orders were
issued or varied; and
(b) the petitioners made a proposal that was not presented to the PHO _J
C
ro
when the impugned Orders were issued or varied but if implemented, u
c.o
0
would meet the objective of the impugned Orders, and be suitable as :0
.,...
the basis of a written agreement under s. 38 of the PHA. u(/J
ua)
N
[30] The reconsideration request included, and asserted that it was based on: N
0
N
(a) a report from Dr. J. Kettner, MD, MSC, FRCSC, FRCPC, the former
Chief Medical Officer of Health and Chief Public Health Officer for the
Province of Manitoba from 1999 to 2012; and
(b) peer reviewed and other medical research.
[31] The reconsideration request included proposals that purported to draw on

policies in other jurisdictions, including Ontario, Alberta, the United Kingdom and the
European Union, as alternatives to the Vaccine Passport Regime set out in the
impugned Orders, proposing that persons be considered "safe" or equivalent to
being double vaccinated, so they might enjoy the same rights and freedoms as
persons who are double vaccinated in the impugned Orders:
• those with "natural immunity" through a positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen test
result demonstrating recovery from COVID-19 issued no less than 11 days
and no more than six months after the date on which a person first tested
positive,
• those with a negative PCR or antigen test less than 48 hours prior to
attendance at an event,
• those with a single vaccination after contracting COVID-19 after an interval of

at least 21 days following the illness, and
A545
0546
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-546 A546
Columbia Page 10
• those who provided a written document, completed and supplied by a

physician or registered nurse, setting out a documented medical reason for
not being fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and the effective time-period for
the medical reason, be permitted to attend events.
...J
C
C1l
[32] The reconsideration request also proposed that children up to and including u
CD
0
age 18 or that children between the ages of 12 and 17 be excluded from the (0
.,....
u(fJ
impugned Orders.
u
cc
,"'J
[33] By October 24, 2021, proof of vaccination or an exemption became a ('J
a
N
requirement for adult patrons of certain food and liquor-serving establishments. The
FLSP Order also set out other requirements, such as operators' requirements to
monitor the number of patrons, prevent people from congregating, provide sufficient
seating, and so on.
[34] Given the significant time and resources occupied by the reconsideration
process, the PHO determined that, in the interests of public health, it was necessary
for her to decline such requests, other than on a medical deferral basis, until
transmission, serious disease, and strain on the system were significantly reduced.
[35] On November 9, 2021, the PHO issued an order under s. 54(1 )(h) of the PHA
stating with retroactive effect that she would no longer consider s. 43 requests in
respect of certain public health orders, other than those seeking medical deferral to
vaccination where the health of the individual would be seriously jeopardized if the
individual were to comply with the Vaccine Passport Regime Orders (the "Variance
Order").
[36] On November 12, 2021, the PHO suspended the s. 43 reconsideration

process, including for requests already received by the PHO but not yet considered.
[37] On January 17, 2022, the Deputy PHO, Dr. Brian Emerson responded to
Mr. Warner stating:
A546
0547
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-547 A547
Columbia Page 11
On November 12, 2021, the PHO exercised her discretion under section
54( 1)(h) of the PHA to not reconsider any orders pursuant to section 43
unless that exemption is being sought for medical reasons (the "Variance
Order'').
The Variance Order is posted on the PHO website at
https://www2.gov. be.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care- _j
system/office-of-theprovincial-health-officer/covid-19/covid-19-variance-of- C
m
gatherings-events-food-liquor-orderssuspend-reconsideration-proof-of- (_)
vaccination.pdf. The PHO's Variance Order is final and binding.

I have reviewed your request for an exemption, the details of which are set
out above. You have not sought an exemption on medical grounds.
Therefore, pursuant to the Variance Order, I decline to reconsider the Proof
of Vaccination Orders, and your request is dismissed.
Relief Sought
[38] Included in the relief the petitioners seek are:
1. A declaration pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter, and/or section

52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that the impugned Orders and the
Variance Order are of no force and effect as they unjustifiably infringe
the petitioners' and others Charter rights to freedom of religion (s.
2(a)), freedom of expression (s. 2(b)), life, liberty, and security of the
person (s. 7), and equality (s. 15(1)); and/or
2. An order in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to sections 2(2)(a) and/or
7 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c. 241 ("JRPA"),
quashing and setting aside the impugned Orders and the Variance
order as unreasonable; and/or
3. A declaration pursuant to section 2(2)(b) of the JRPA that the
impugned Orders and the Variance Order are ultra vires and of no
force or effect, and specifically
(a) a declaration that the Variance Order is ultra vires and of no
force or effect, because it suspended the reconsideration
process, and because it limited exemptions from vaccination
requirements to medical reasons only and limited the
procedure for individuals to seek reconsideration; and
(b) A declaration that the January 17, 2022 response to the
Reconsideration Request was ultra vires, because it only
considered exemptions sought on specific medical grounds;
and
4. An interlocutory injunction staying the enforcement of the impugned
Orders, pending the final determination of this Application.
Standing
[39] The petitioners say that Mr. Warner has private interest standing and that he
and the Society have public interest standing to bring this petition.
A547
0548
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-548 A548
Columbia Page 12
Private Interest Standing
[40] Private interest standing exists where a party or parties have a personal and
direct interest in an issue being litigated by virtue of its effect on them. Such an
interest arises where the party has a private right infringed by a respondent, or
...J
C:
where a decision will cause or threaten to cause special damage to the party, rv
l)
beyond that suffered by the general public; Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United (D
0
(D
or
Against Violence Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 sec 45 [OTES] at l)
(/J
l)
para. 1. a:i
,'J
N
0
N
[41] Mr. Warner says he is not double vaccinated and has "a personal interest in
ensuring the defendants do not interfere with my Charter rights and employment
rights". Notwithstanding this assertion, Mr. Warner's employment rights are not the
basis for the petition. Mr. Warner did depose that, in general terms, he has not been
able to attend restaurants, theatres, yoga classes, or events, and specifically that he
was unable to attend a candlelight musical performance.
[42] The respondent asserts that Mr. Warner is a frequent litigant who regularly
attempts to act as a representative petitioner in class proceedings and has
personally commenced various proceedings before this Court. While that may be
true, it is not a basis upon which I would deny him standing.
[43] Notwithstanding the reliance in the petition on s. 2(a) of the Charter, neither
Mr. Warner nor the Society purports to act on behalf of religious groups.
[44] Similarly, while the petition focuses on the Vaccine Passport Regime aspect
of the impugned Orders, neither Mr. Warner nor the Society purports to act on behalf
of those who are unable or unwilling to be vaccinated, nor do they purport to act on
behalf of restaurant owners, event organizers, or any other group specifically alleged
to be impacted by the public health orders.
[45] I find that Mr. Warner is entitled to private interest standing to bring the
petition before me, on his own behalf, and for Mr. Curtis as a member of a class that
he can represent under s. 43 of the PHA.
A548
0549
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-549 A549
Columbia Page 13
Public Interest Standing
[46] A grant of public interest standing is discretionary. In restating the test for
public interest standing in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of
Canadians with Disabilities, 2022 SCC 27 [CCO], the Court commented that public
_J
C
interest standing is intended "to ensure that legislation and state action are lawful, ru
u
that courts are accessible and that judicial resources are deployed economically and CD
0
8
,-
appropriately" and reaffirmed the three step test for such standing established in u
'fJ
0
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; Minister of Justice of CJ)
Canada v. Borowski, [1981) 2 S.C.R. 575 [Borowski]:
i) there is a serious and justiciable issue raised by the claim;
ii) they are directly affected by the proposed action or, if not, have a
genuine interest in the outcome of the claim; and
iii) the action is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the claim(s)
to court.
[47] Section. 43(7)(a) of the PHA specifically allows reconsideration requests to be

made on behalf of a class of persons.
Serious and Justiciable Issue
[48) A challenge to the constitutionality of legislation is justiciable.
Direct Effect or Genuine interest
[49) The respondent asserts that the petitioners do not have the direct and
personal interest in the impugned Orders required to establish private interest
standing, and thus lack standing to request judicial review of those Orders.
[50) The respondent contends that I should assess the bona tides of the Society
with caution, as Mr. Warner is a controlling mind of the Society. At its highest, the
respondent argues that this litigation seems to be informed by Mr. Warner's self-
described status as a concerned Canadian citizen, interested and concerned about
prominent political and public issues, ranging from the opioid crisis to the
A549
0550
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-550 A550
Columbia Page 14
international drug trade, to money laundering, and to cryptocurrency. While this may
be laudable, it no doubt describes many Canadians. I accept the respondent's
submission that granting Mr. Warner public interest standing through his society
could open the door for any repeat or busybody litigant to challenge laws or orders
through corporate vehicles.
[51] The respondent also argues that the Society is recently-formed and created
for the purpose of challenging the Province's response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
and does not represent any particular group or segment of society, and does not
meet the second or third Borowski criteria.
[52] The Society was created in January 2021. Its stated purpose is a specific
one; to challenge COVID-19 measures instituted in British Columbia. Mr. Warner
asserts that the Society has received thousands of communications regarding
COVID-19 policies but he did not include any such communications in his material in
support of the petition.
[53] The Society argues that it has advocated on behalf of British Columbians with
respect to the vaccination mandates for healthcare workers, students, and film
workers, and members of the public in general.
[54] In Coalition of Citizens for a Charter Challenge v. Metropolitan Authority, 1993

103 D.L.R. (4th) 409, standing was granted to a recently formed society incorporated
for the purpose of challenging certain government actions, but the decision was
overturned by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal: Coalition of Citizens for a Charter
Challenge v. Metropolitan Authority, 1993, 108 D.L.R. (4th) 145.
[55] The respondent contends that although its name asserts an interest in
science and public policy, the Society does not have a history of engagement with
either of those issues nor a bona fide or genuine interest in the issues presented by
the petition here. The respondent argues that simply creating a group committed to
one side of an issue is insufficient to justify public interest standing.
A550
0551
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-551 A551
Columbia Page 15
[56] The bare assertion by the Society that it makes the request on behalf of a
"class" does not mean that it acts for the class. Nor does it obviate the need to
establish the test for public standing. It is not enough to say one acts in the public
interest; the test must be met.
...J
C
Cv
[57] The respondent contrasts the Society to the respondents in OTES and those (_)
U)
0
in CCO, who presented themselves as advocate societies connected with a (:)
,-
discernible group. u(J,

(_)
a:J
N
[58] The respondent argues that the Society's claim for standing in this case can N
0
N
be contrasted with its claim for standing recently granted by Justice Coval in
Columbia (Provincial Health Officer), 2022 BCSC 724. In that case, Justice Coval
found that the Society should be granted standing because it represented healthcare
workers challenging healthcare worker vaccination policies. Here, the Society does
not assert a claim of membership comprising those who identify as directly impacted
by the impugned Orders.
[59] The respondent points out that.while the Society claims to represent all British
Columbians, its evidence is that it has a negligible membership base. The
respondent asserts that to ground an interest on that basis would be a significant
expansion of public interest standing which should not be given to a group or class
of people that is so vague and ill-defined.
[60] Thus, the respondent asserts that the Society has no real stake or genuine
interest here. It is unnecessary for me to resolve this part of the test, given my
finding on the third part of the test below, and thus I will not grant public interest
standing to the Society.
Reasonable and Effective Means
[61] The respondent contends that neither the Society as petitioner, nor this
petition, offer a reasonable and effective means to bring the matters addressed in
the petition before the Court.
A551
0552
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-552 A552
Columbia Page 16
[62] In OTES at para. 51, Justice Cromwell set out a non-exhaustive list of issues
the court may consider in determining whether the legal proceeding is a reasonable
and effective means to bring the claim to court:
• The court should consider the plaintiff's capacity to bring forward a =

..J
claim. In doing so, it should examine amongst other things, the plaintiff's C:
rv
resources, expertise and whether the issue will be presented in a sufficiently l)
concrete and well-developed factual setting.

The court should consider whether the case is of public interest in the
l)
sense that it transcends the interests of those most directly affected by the (/)
l)
challenged law or action. Courts should take into account that one of the co
ideas which animates public interest litigation is that it may provide access to i'-1
N
justice for disadvantaged persons in society whose legal rights are affected. 0
N
Of course, this should not be equated with a licence to grant standing to
whoever decides to set themselves up as the representative of the poor or
marginalized.
The court should turn its mind to whether there are realistic alternative
means which would favour a more efficient and effective use of judicial
resources and would present a context more suitable for adversarial
determination. Courts should take a practical and pragmatic approach. The
existence of other potential plaintiffs. particularly those who would have
standing as of right. is relevant. but the practical prospects of their bringing
the matter to court at all or by equally or more reasonable and effective
means should be considered in light of the practical realities, not theoretical
possibilities. Where there are other actual plaintiffs in the sense that other
proceedings in relation to the matter are under way, the court should assess
from a practical perspective what, if anything, is to be gained by having
parallel proceedings and whether the other proceedings will resolve the
issues in an equally or more reasonable and effective manner. In doing so,
the court should consider not only the particular legal issues or issues raised,
but whether the plaintiff brings any particularly useful or distinctive
perspective to the resolution of those issues. As, for example, in McNeil, even
where there may be persons with a more direct interest in the issue, the
plaintiff may have a distinctive and important interest different from them and
this may support granting discretionary standing.
The potential impact of the proceedings on the rights of others who
are equally or more directly affected should be taken into account. Indeed,
courts should pay special attention where private and public interests may
come into conflict. As was noted in Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General),
1990 Can LIi 93 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086, at p. 1093, the court should
consider, for example, whether "the failure of a diffuse challenge could
prejudice subsequent challenges to the impugned rules by parties with
specific and factually established complaints". The converse is also true. If
those with a more direct and personal stake in the matter have deliberately
refrained from suing, this may argue against exercising discretion in favour of
standing.
[Emphasis added]
A552
0553
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-553 A553
Columbia Page 17
[631 The mere possibility that a private litigant may challenge the provisions is not
sufficient to negate the third Borowski factor.
[641 Section 43 of the PHA provides that "[al person affected by an order, or the
variance of an order, may request the health officer [ ... ] to reconsider the order or _J
C
ru
variance". The respondent contends that the Society cannot rely on the u
(.D
0
reconsideration request to give it public interest standing to challenge the public (0
.--
0
health orders. It argues that the Society cannot seek a PHA s. 43 reconsideration of (/)
0
co
the impugned Orders or the Variance Order in the first place, as it has no right under c"'l
N
0
the statute to request a reconsideration. N
[65] The Society is not a person affected by the orders it challenged. The
respondent says that an improper request cannot serve as a door to standing.
[66] Given that Mr. Warner has a private interest standing, the inclusion of the
Society as a public interest litigant is not reasonable or effective. The
reconsideration request, other than with respect to Mr. Curtis' reconsideration
application is thus before the Court, to the extent that it is germane. As I will explain
below, Mr. Curtis' reconsideration request is not properly before the Court.
Mootness
[67] The Vaccine Passport Regime was discontinued by the respondent on April
8, 2022. The respondent asserts that I should decline to hear the petition concerning
the impugned Orders because it raises no live controversy, merely a hypothetical or
abstract question, and that even if the impugned Orders remained extant, there are
no adjudicative facts concerning these petitioners before the Court.
[681 Even if the petition is moot, a court may exercise its discretion to hear a
matter if there is still an adversarial context: Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General),
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 at 358-359.
[69] The difficulty with the respondent's submission is that they could offer no
assurance that the impugned aspects of the impugned Orders would not be
A553
0554
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-554 A554
Columbia Page 18
reintroduced if the communication and incidence of COVID-19 increased due to the

anticipated fall cold and flu season or for any other reason.
[70] Given the ongoing risk of COVID-19 outbreaks and the possibility that the
impugned Orders will be reinstated, I find that there is still an adversarial context. As
a result, I am exercising my discretion to hear the petition, regardless of mootness.
(D
g,....
Preliminary Objection (_)
er,
(_)
[71] The petitioners assert that their reconsideration request criticized the co
N
,"'!
impugned Orders and the Variance Order for failing to comply with generally 0
N
accepted principles of public health governance and legislation, including the

Charter, on the basis that they did not provide sufficient information, nor a
comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks associated with the Vaccine
Passport Regime, the data used to inform the orders, justification for the settings
selected, nor the goals and objectives of the impugned Orders.
[72] The petitioners contend that where a party has taken advantage of a
tribunal's reconsideration power, it is the reconsideration decision that represents
the final decision of the tribunal, and only that reconsideration decision may be
judicially reviewed; but that here judicial review is also available in respect of the
respondent's decision to not reconsider the reconsideration request, through the
exercise of the PHO's statutory discretion under s. 54(1 )(h) of the PHA, informed by
the original decision, i.e., the issuance of the impugned Orders.
[73] The respondent disagrees and contends that the reconsideration request is
admissible on the issues of the petitioners' standing and adequate alternative
remedy only, and contends that the petitioners did not raise their argument that the
PHO's January 17, 2022 response to the reconsideration request is subject to
judicial review until so stating in their written submissions. They argue that although
the response is admissible for the purpose of showing that the petitioners pursued
their alternate remedies prior to bringing the petition, the response is not a
reviewable decision and is not properly before the Court for three reasons.
A554
0555
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-555 A555
Columbia Page 19
[74] First, on November 12, 2021 the PHO exercised the PHA s. 54 authority to
suspend requests for reconsideration, except on the basis of a medical exemption.
The respondent contends that the January 17, 2022 decision is not a "decision" that
can underpin a judicial review.
_J
C
m
[75] In Yellow Cab Company Ltd. v. Passenger Transportation Board 2014 BCCA u
C.D
0
329 (Yellow Cab], the Court of Appeal held that generally, parties must exhaust (0
,-
adequate alternative remedies before bringing a judicial review. Where the party has u
(/)
u
co
done so, the reconsideration decision represents the final decision for judicial N
N
Cl
review. However, where "denial of leave does not constitute a determination that the N
request for reconsideration lacks merit[ ... ] the initial administrative decision, and not
the denial of leave, will be the appropriate target for judicial review."
[76] The respondent contends that the January 17, 2022 response self-evidently
was not an assessment of the merits of the request for reconsideration, and
Dr. Emerson's letter states that the denial of the request is not based on medical
exemptions, the only available basis under the Variance Order, and so dismisses the
requ~st without considering its merits.
[77] Second, a review of the January 17, 2022 response was not identified as a
basis for the petition. Thus, the respondent argues that the petition on its face does
not seek the relief the petitioners sought in their written submissions.
[78] Third, the respondent asserts that the necessary record is not before me to
undertake the requested review, because the petitioners failed to provide adequate
notice of the relief sought during oral submissions. The petitioners did not amend
their petition to seek the relief and filed an affidavit attaching Dr. Emerson's
response on April 26, 2022. The respondent says that the petitioners only provided
notice of their request for this relief through written their submissions dated May 6,
2022, and contends that if Dr. Emerson's response is a reviewable "decision", the
evidentiary record that was before Dr. Emerson when the petitioners request was
specifically considered is not before me.
A555
0556
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-556 A556
Columbia Page 20
[79] I agree with the respondent that for the reasons set out in the preceding five
paragraphs, it is not open to me to review the PHO's January 17, 2022 response to
the reconsideration requests.
Discussion _J
§
u
[80] Legislation and the impugned Orders must conform with the Charter and the CD
0
PHA, and there must be a practical and effective means to challenge the legality and ·8
......
u(JJ
constitutionality of the impugned Orders in the courts. ua)
c"\J
("\J
[81] The petitioners assert that the pandemic has led governments across 0
("\J
Canada, and around the world, to assert wide-ranging powers under public health
statutes to take measures that, in normal circumstances, would be achieved through
legislation. Law-making occurs through the legislative process, which is transparent,
public, and fosters democratic debate.
[82] The petitioners contrast the issuance of public health orders to this process,
asserting that such orders are not subject to the same public process and scrutiny
as legislation, thrusting the courts into the role of providing the sole check on
executive overreach.
[83] Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 [JRPA]
provides:
2(1) An application for judicial review must be brought by way of a petition

proceeding.
(2) On an application for judicial review, the court may grant any relief
that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the proceedings
for:
(a) relief in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or
certiorari;
(b) a declaration or injunction, or both, in relation to the
exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported
exercise, of a statutory power.
[84] The JRPA defines statutory power in s. 1 as:
a power or right conferred by an enactment:
A556
0557
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-557 A557
Columbia Page 21
(a) to make a regulation, rule, bylaw or order,
(b) to exercise a statutory power of decision,
(c) to require a person to do or to refrain from doing an act or
thing that, but for that requirement, the person would not be
required by law to do or to refrain from doing,
_,
(d) to do an act or thing that would, but for that power or right, be C:
c;:;
a breach of a legal right of any person, or u
(e) to make an investigation or inquiry into a person's legal right,
power, privilege, immunity, duty or liability[ ... ]
[85] In Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v.

Wall, 2018 sec 26 [Highwood], Justice Rowe outlined the purpose of judicial review
as follows:
The purpose of judicial review is to ensure the legality of state decision

making: see Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 sec 62,
[2010) 3 S.C.R. 585, at paras. 24 and 26; Crevier v. Attorney General of
Quebec, 1981 Canlii 30 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220, at pp. 237-38; Knox v.
Conservative Party of Canada, 2007 ABCA 295, 422 AR. 29, at paras. 14-
15. Judicial review is a public law concept that allows s. 96 courts to "engage
in surveillance of lower tribunals" in order to ensure that these tribunals
respect the rule of law: Knox, at para. 14; Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96 [ ...]
[86] In her dissenting reasons in MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, [1995] 4

S.C.R. 725, Justice Mclachlin, as she then was, commented:
Indeed, it might be argued that the primal position of the superior courts
during this period has been enhanced by the fact that they have jealously
guarded their rights of review of the decisions of inferior tribunals. Where an
aspect of their historical power has been transferred to the inferior tribunal,
the courts have reserved the right to review the decision for conformity to the
law and the rules of natural justice. Attempts by Parliament or the legislatures
to insulate tribunal decisions from supervision by superior courts through the
use of clauses purporting to oust judicial review, while offering protection
against review of decisions on fact and exercise of discretion, have not
deterred the courts from insisting that the decisions of tribunals meet the
basic requirements of legality and fairness: see Crevier v. Attorney General of
Quebec, 1981 CanLLI 30 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220. Viewed thus, transfers
of s. 96 jurisdiction to inferior tribunals have not ousted the power of the
superior courts, but merely elevated it one remove. Administrative tribunals
deal with the factual minutiae of multitudinous disputes; the superior courts
ensure that the law is followed and fair process maintained.
[87] The petitioners assert that the impugned Orders create a Vaccine Passport
Regime whereby individuals who have received two COVID-19 vaccines have a right
A557
0558
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-558 A558
Columbia Page 22
to a vaccine passport, and only they may access the locations and activities set out
in para. 12 above, whereas those without a vaccine passport cannot access these
spaces and/or participate in these activities.
[88] The petitioners contend that their petition for judicial review challenges the _J
C
re
legality of the impugned Orders under the PHA, and the constitutionality of the l)
CD
0
impugned Orders under the Charter. because the impugned Orders and the 8
,-
Variance Order are unreasonable and unresponsive to the petitioners' requests for
u
(/j
u
ro
reconsideration; because they do not comply with the accepted principles of public N
N
a
health governance; and because they violate Charter rights under ss. 2(a), 2(b), 7, N
and 15(1) in a manner that cannot be justified under s. 1.
[89] Dr. Emerson deposed that SARS-CoV-2 is a highly infectious virus that
causes COVID-19 and can be spread by people who do not have symptoms. He
deposed that without public health interventions, SARS-CoV-2 has a high degree of
transmissibility and infectivity.
[90] Dr. Emerson also deposed that over the course of the pandemic, the scientific
community and public health officials have learned that the likelihood of the
transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is greater:
(a) when people are in close proximity to each other, including in crowded
settings;
(b) in indoor settings, especially with poor ventilation;
(c) when people speak, and especially when they sneeze, cough, sing,
chant or engage in excited expression;
(d) when people are living in communal settings; and
(e) when people are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated.
[91] Dr. Emerson also deposed that the risk of the transmission of SARS-CoV-2
increases when there is social mingling coupled with the consumption of alcohol,
A558
0559
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-559 A559
Columbia Page 23
leading to risky behaviour, when the presence of loud music causes people to move
closer in order to converse, and when food or utensils are shared.
[92] Dr. Emerson also deposed that the likelihood of transmission of SARS-CoV-2
increases exponentially in a susceptible population when a number of people are
simultaneously infected in a group setting, and subsequently infect their contacts,
lD
0
who infect their contacts, and so on. This can quickly result in a scenario where local (._D
,...
public health resources are overwhelmed such that they are no longer able to trace
all the contacts of such an exposure and require them to self-isolate. When this
occurs, community spread can quickly become rampant, leading to increased case
counts and, in time, the potential to overwhelm our public health and healthcare
systems as hospitalizations increase.
[93] Dr. Emerson deposed that the requirements of the impugned orders were
intended to be time-limited public health measures.
The Record of the Proceedings
[94] Constitutional cases will frequently be concerned with concepts and principles
that are of fundamental importance to Canadian society. In light of the importance
and the impact that these decisions may have in the future, the courts expect careful
preparation and presentation of a factual basis, as constitutional questions should
not be determined in a factual vacuum.
[95] In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

[Vavilov], at para. 15, the Court determined that judicial review of a decision by an
administrative decision-maker is a review of "the decision actually made, including
the justification offered for it." It is not a determination of whether a decision is
correct, all things considered, and thus excludes reasons that might be adduced in
support of a decision after the fact. Judicial review is thus based on the record
before the decision-maker. New evidence that was not before the decision-maker is
generally not admissible in a judicial review proceeding.
A559
0560
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-560 A560
Columbia Page 24
[96) In Mackay v. Manitoba, [1989) 2 S.C.R. 357, the appellants challenged the
constitutionality of certain provisions of the Elections Finances Act, S.M. 1982-83-84,
c. 45, which provided for payment out of Manitoba's Consolidated Fund. The
appellants argued that the provision of funding for political parties with taxpayers'
....J
dollars constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed C
Cu
u
by s. 2(b) of the Charter, and expressed two particular concerns: first, that splinter c.o
0
(0
groups such as the Neo-Nazis might qualify for public funding, even though they ....
espoused values inimical to a democratic society; and second, that the system of
funding favoured the three established political parties to the detriment of all others.
[97) Justice Cory, for the Court, observed that "not one particle" of evidence was
put before the Court in support of the appellants' submissions, just unsubstantiated
submissions without a factual foundation. With regard to Charter decisions generally,
Cory J. stated:
Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum. To
attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-
considered opinions. The presentation of facts is not, as stated by the
respondent, a mere technicality; rather, it is essential to a proper
consideration of Charter issues. A respondent cannot, by simply consenting
to dispense with the factual background, require or expect a court to deal with
an issue such as this in a factual void. Charter decisions cannot be based
upon the unsupported hypotheses of enthusiastic counsel.
[98] In Danson v. Ontario, [1990) 2 S.C.R. 1086, the Supreme Court of Canada
revisited the question of "the appropriateness of seeking constitutional declarations
by way of application without alleging facts in support of the relief claimed." Justice
Sopinka observed that the Court "has been vigilant to ensure that a proper factual
foundation exists before measuring legislation against the provision of the Charter,
particularly where the effects of the impugned legislation are the subject of the
attack". Sopinka J. concluded that it would be impossible for a motions judge to
assess the merits of the application without evidence of those effects, by way of
adjudicative facts (i.e. actual instances of the use or threatened use of the impugned
rules).
A560
0561
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-561 A561
Columbia Page 25
[99] The petitioners contend that the respondent is attempting to block their ability
to seek judicial review of the PHO's decisions through the Court by manipulating the
record, and that the "procedural machinations" are nothing less than an attempt to
immunize the PHO's decisions from judicial review.
_J
C
Cu
[100] On May 6, 2022, the petitioners provided Mr. Warner's Affidavit #3. Much of l)
lD
0
that affidavit consists of extra-record evidence that was not before the decision- (.'.)
,....
l)
maker that post-dated the orders in question and is hearsay. (/)
u
cc
N
[101] Mr. Curtis' reconsideration request is not part of the record that was before C"'J
a
N
the PHO, and thus reconsideration of it under s. 43(1 )(a) of the PHA is unavailable
as the "additional relevant information that was not reasonably available" to the
PHO.
[102] Indeed, Mr. Curtis acknowledged that the PHO was "undoubtedly aware" of
the studies he enclosed, and it is clear on the recitals to the impugned Orders that
the PHO engaged the question of natural immunity as a consideration. In the result,
Mr. Curtis argues his letter was not information "not reasonably available" to the
PHO.
[103] The petitioners' own reconsideration request was not actually before the PHO
when she issued the impugned Orders. The respondent submits, and I agree that
there is thus no basis upon which the petitioners can assert that the reconsideration
request and its enclosures are admissible as part of the "record of proceeding" for
the purposes of the judicial review of the impugned Orders.
[104] The petitioners' reconsideration request was delivered to the OPHO prior to
the issuance of the Variance Order. The petitioners argue that the evidence
contained in the reconsideration request was therefore evidence that was before the
PHO when she issued the Variance Order.
[105] The respondent contends that the circumstances of the Variance Order
reasonably lead to the conclusion that the reconsideration request was not
"evidence that was before the PHO" when she issued the Variance Order, because
A561
0562
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-562 A562
Columbia Page 26
she was overburdened and unable to deal with the hundreds of reconsideration
requests that it received.
[106] I am unable to accept this submission. The material was contained with the
request, and if the PHO did not or could not deal with it, that is no basis to treat it as ....J
C
ru
something that was not before the PHO with respect to the Variance Order, but not u
CD
0
with respect to the other impugned Orders. c.a
.,....
u(Jj
Admissibility of the Kettner Report u
co
N
N
[107] The petitioners principally rely on a document titled "Report: Citadel Law a
N
Corporation: October 19, 2021: Joel Kettner" ("the Kettner Report") that was filed
with their reconsideration request. The respondent asserts that this reliance is
problematic for three related reasons: the petitioners treat it as an expert report; the
petitioners rely on it for the truth of its contents, despite it being inadmissible
hearsay; and it is not, in fact, an expert report.
[108] To prepare his report, Dr. Kettner was asked to provide his "opinion" on a
number of questions. He opined inter alia on whether the PHO "included adequate
information or rationale to determine if the orders are proportionate and necessary",
the efficacy of vaccines, the risks associated with COVID-19, and the impact of
vaccination exemptions.
[109] The respondent contends that at best, the reconsideration request was part of
the "record of proceeding" for the consideration of the reasonableness of the
Variance Order, and that even if the reconsideration request and its enclosures are
part of the "record of proceeding" for any of the orders, that does not elevate the
attachments to expert evidence.
[11O] The fact that the Kettner Report is not attached to an affidavit from
Dr. Kettner, but instead attached to an affidavit from Mr. Warner does not persuade
me that it is inadmissible on that ground.
A562
0563
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-563 A563
Columbia Page 27
[111] The respondent contends that the Kettner Report remains hearsay and
cannot be relied upon for the truth of its contents.
[112] I find that some of the hearsay evidence in the Kettner Report is admissible,
as given Dr. Kettner's expertise, he is entitled to rely upon medical journal articles to _J
C
(v
support his opinions, if he confirms their reliability. u

co
0
c=i
,....
(113] In R. v. Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223, Justice Mclachlin, as she then was, u(/)
writing for the majority stated: u
co
N
N
The proper procedure to be followed in examining an expert witness on other 0
N
expert opinions found in papers or books is to ask the witness if she knows
the work. If the answer is "no", or if the witness denies the work's authority,
that is the end of the matter. Counsel cannot read from the work, since that
would be to introduce it as evidence. If the answer is "yes", and the witness
acknowledges the work's authority, then the witness has confirmed it by the
witness's own testimony. Parts of it may be read to the witness, and to the
extent they are confirmed, they become evidence in the case. This procedure
was laid out in R. v. Anderson (1914), 1914 Canlll 361 (AB CA), 22 C.C.C.
455 (Alta. S.C.) and has been followed by Canadian courts. (See Holland v.
Prince Edward Island School Board Regional Administrative Unit
#4 (1986), 1986 Canlll 178 (PE SCTD), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 6 (P.E.I.S.C.), at
pp. 21-22; Cansu/ex Ltd. v. Reed Stenhouse Ltd. (1986), 70 B.C.L.R. 189
(B.C.S.C.), at p. 193).
[114] I accept by inference, that Dr. Kettner affirmed the authority of the medical
journal articles to which he referred.
[115] Regardless of whether the Kettner Report is inadmissible hearsay, the fact
remains that the Kettner Report postdated the impugned Orders, and thus cannot be
the basis for a challenge to those orders.
[116] I therefore find that the Kettner Report is not relevant in these proceeding?.
Alleged Charter Breaches
Standard of Review
[117] The petition before me challenges the constitutionality of the impugned

Orders and the Variance Orders themselves, not the enabling provisions of the PHA.
The parties agree that the standard of review is reasonableness.
A563
0564
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-564 A564
Columbia Page 28
[118] The three orders are administrative law decisions made through the
delegation of discretionary decision-making authority under the PHA. The petitioners
bear the burden of establishing that the orders are unreasonable. They must
establish a failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process, or that the
....J
impugned Orders cannot be justified in light of a factual or legal constraint: Vavilov at §
u
para. 101. (!)
0
c::,
.,....
[119] The petitioners allege that the impugned Orders violate their rights under the u
(f)
ua)
Charter to freedom of religion (s. 2(a)), freedom of expression (s. 2(b)), freedom of N
l"'I
0
assembly (2(c)), freedom of association (2(d)), life, liberty, and security of the person N
(s. 7), and equality (s. 15).
[120] The respondent asserts that the petitioners have not pleaded or particularized
any Charter breaches, nor have they provided any evidence in support of an alleged
Charter breaches. The respondent argues that this is fatal to judicial review on
Charter grounds because the Court will not determine constitutional questions
absent properly particularized pleadings and in an evidentiary vacuum. Moreover,
the petitioners' Charter rights were not engaged or breached by the impugned
Orders: see AAA Action Movers (2008) Inc. v. Walker, 2021 BCCA 400 at paras. 32-
33.
Section 2(a) of the Charter
[121] Section 2(a) of the Charter provides:
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion
[122] The petitioners argue that the impugned Orders violate this section of the
Charter. In R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, the Court held that
freedom of religion encompasses the rights "to entertain such religious beliefs as a
person chooses", "to declare religious beliefs openly without fear of hindrance or
reprisal", and "to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and
dissemination".
A564
0565
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-565 A565
~~~ ~~~
[123] To establish a limitation on s. 2(a) of the Charter, the petitioners must show
that they sincerely believe in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion and
that the impugned state conduct interferes with their ability to act in accordance with
that practice or belief in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial: Syndicat
Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 sec 47 at para. 46.
(!)
0
[124] The petition alleges a failure to provide reasonable exemption and ~
,...
accommodation for persons with "[r]eligious objections to vaccinations", but fails to
u(J)
u
co
particularize or provide a factual basis for that allegation. c"'l
N
0
N
[125] The petition does not plead, and the evidence does not establish, what
practice or belief any petitioner or other affiant holds, the nexus of that belief with
any particular religion, or that the impugned Orders interfere with this practice or
belief in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial.
[126] None of the affiants supporting their petition have provided any evidence
about religious beliefs.
[127] The petitioners assert that the impugned Orders violate the third aspect of
freedom of religion - the right "to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or
by teaching and dissemination", of persons whose religious beliefs prohibit them
from receiving vaccines, including those for COVID-19.
[128] The difficulty with this assertion is that the petitioners have offered no
evidence of any such infringement. They simply assert that a grant of public interest
standing, which I have not made, would somehow operate to make the petitioners
representatives of an unknown class of "third parties" and to find an infringement
without any facts. I am not prepared to make a finding of a breach of s. 2(a) of the
Charter in the absence of an adequate evidentiary record, and dismiss this aspect of
the petition.
Section 2(b) of the Charter
[129] Section 2(b) of the Charter states:
A565
0566
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-566 A566
Columbia Page 30
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
[...]
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication
[130] The petitioners contend that the effect of the impugned Orders is to control ....J
C
attempts to convey meaning through expressive conduct to comply with religious 8

beliefs, by affirmatively choosing to refuse to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
(.)
(/)
[131] In Irwin Toy v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 [Irwin Toy] the u(l)
N
Court held that there is a two-part test for determining whether government action C'i
0
("\J
that regulates an activity violates s. 2(b). First, is the activity expressive, i.e., does it
attempt to convey meaning? Second, if the activity is expressive, is the purpose or
effect of the government action to control attempts to convey meaning through that
activity? Moreover, Irwin Toy affirmed that expressive conduct falls within the scope
of s. 2(b).
[132] To establish that the impugned Orders infringe the right to freedom of
expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, the petitioners must demonstrate that: the
activity in question has expressive content, thereby bringing it, prima facie, within the
scope of s. 2(b) protection; and that if the activity is protected, an infringement of the
protected right results from either the purpose or the effect of the government action:
Irwin Toy.
[133] The amended petition does not plead, nor does the evidence establish, what
activity is purported to have expressive content, what its expressive content might
be, such that the activity in question warrants protection, or how government action
is alleged to have infringed, in purpose or effect, the right to expression.
[134] Although the petitioners assert that the effect of the impugned Orders and the
Variance Order is to control attempts to convey meaning through expressive conduct
to comply with religious beliefs by affirmatively choosing to refuse to take a COVID-
19 vaccine, they have provided no evidence of any such infringement. The simple
A566
0567
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-567 A567
Columbia Page 31
assertion that there is a s. 2(b) infringement is insufficient to permit a meaningful

examination of the claim.
[135] In the result, I am not prepared to make a finding of a breach s. 2(b) of the
Charter in the absence of an adequate evidentiary record, and dismiss this aspect of _J
C
ru
the petition. u
Section 7 of the Charter u(fj

uO'.)
[136] Section 7 of the Charter provides:
,"'!
N
a
7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and N
the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.
[137] The analysis under s. 7 has two stages. First, the applicant must establish
that the impugned governmental action imposes limits on a life, liberty or security of
the person interest such thats. 7 is engaged. Second, the applicant must establish
that the deprivation is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, meaning that
the law that impinges on life, liberty, or security of the person must not be arbitrary,
overbroad, or have consequences that are grossly disproportionate to their object:
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 sec 72 at paras. 93-94, 96.
[138] In other words, Section 7 of the Charter does not promise that the state
cannot interfere with a person's life, liberty, and security of the person, but rather,
that the state will not do so in a way that violates the principles of fundamental
justice.
[139] The petitioners' written submissions allege that the impugned Orders
mandate vaccination in a way that engages the liberty and security of the person
interests. The petitioners also assert that the impugned Orders and Variance Order
restrict their freedom of movement, preventing them from having the same access to
property enjoyed by other members of the public.
[140] Considering the petitioners' arguments on liberty and security of the person,
s. 7 protects personal autonomy over bodily integrity, free from state interference
A567
0568
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-568 A568
Columbia Page 32
and also includes the right to fundamentally important and personal medical
decision-making.
[141] Pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter and the common law, the petitioners are
clearly entitled to accept or decline even life-saving medical treatment: B. (R.) v. .....J
C
(i)
Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; Malette v. C.)
Shulman (1990), 72 OR (2d) 417; Fleming v. Reid (1991) 4 OR (2d) 74 and Carter v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 [Carter]. It includes the decision of whether u
(fJ
l)
co
to take a COVID-19 vaccine. ,'\J
N
0
N
[142] In Carter, at para. 64, the Court discussed liberty and security of the person
rights under s. 7:
[64) Underlying both of these rights is a concern for the protection of

individual autonomy and dignity. Liberty protects "the right to make
fundamental personal choices free from state interference": Blencoe v. British
Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 sec 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307,
at para. 54. Security of the person encompasses "a notion of personal
autonomy involving ... control over one's bodily integrity free from state
interference" (Rodriguez, at pp. 587-88, per Sopinka J., referring to R. v.
Morgentaler, 1988 Canlll 90 (SCC), [1988) 1 S.C.R. 30) and it is engaged by
state interference with an individual's physical or psychological integrity,
including any state action that causes physical or serious psychological
suffering (New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community SeNices) v. G.
(J.), 1999 Canlll 653 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, at para. 58; Blencoe, at
paras. 55-57; Chaoulli, at para. 43, per Deschamps J.; para. 119, per
Mclachlin C.J. and Major J.; and paras. 191 and 200, per Binnie and LeBel
JJ.
[143] However, this line of cases does not assist the petitioners. The petitioners
claim that the impugned Orders mandated vaccination and engaged the s. 7 liberty
and security interests. This argument ignores the fact that vaccination was never
mandatory. Rather, there was a period during which discretionary activities were
restricted to those who had become vaccinated against COVID-19.
[144] The petitioners have also not provided any evidence of serious state-imposed
psychological stress such that there would be an interference with the right to
security of the person: Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission),
2000 sec 44 at paras. 55-59.
A568
0569
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-569 A569
Columbia Page 33
[145] Considering the petitioners' arguments regarding the liberty interest, it was
Mr. Warner's evidence that he could not enjoy Vivaldi's Four Seasons candlelight
performance, nor go to restaurants, movie theatres, yoga classes or cultural events
for a period of time. Mr. Warner claims that this amounts to violation of his Charter
....J
rights. C
(v
u
l0
0
[146] Mr. Curtis is a British Columbia resident who received an EU Certificate (D
,-
covering a limited time period from September 2, 2021 to February 15, 2022, and u
(/)
ua:)
who made a request for reconsideration on the basis of natural immunity. There is c"'l
C'\J
I..~
also no evidence on the record to prove that reliance on natural immunity was C'\J
effective in the EU. The PHO considered both the relative effectiveness of
vaccination as a protective measure and natural immunity.
[14 7] The jurisprudence does not support a s. 7 right to publicly-assessible private

establishments. In R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761 [Heywood], Cory J.
considered s. 179(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (now repealed). Sections. 179(1)(b)
imposed lifetime bans from school grounds, playgrounds, public parks and bathing
areas on individuals convicted of sexual assault. Violating the restriction would result
in imprisonment. Cory J. held that s. 179( 1)(b) indeed restricted the liberty of those it
applied to and ultimately found the provision to be unjustifiably overbroad.
[148] However, the impugned Orders only restricted access to private

establishments, to which there is no right to unfettered access, whereas Heywood
considered access to public property. In the result, the case law does not assist the
petitioners.
[149] On the evidence before me, I do not find that the impugned Orders breached
s. 7 of the Charter and I dismiss this aspect of the petition.
Section 15 of the Charter
[ 150] Section 15( 1) of the Charter provides:
15( 1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and,
A569
0570
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-570 A570
~~~ p~~
in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,

colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
[151] To establish a prima facie violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter, the petitioners
must demonstrate that the impugned Orders and the Variance Order, on their face
or in their impact, creates a distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds, _J
C
c;;
u
and imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of (J:)
0
reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage: Fraser v. Canada (Attorney (.0
.,...
ur.r.,
General), 2020 SCC 28, at para. 27. u
co
l'\J
N
[152] The petitioners argue that the impugned Orders and the Variance Order 0
N
discriminate on the basis of religion for the same reason they violate freedom of
religion, as their impact is to draw a distinction on the basis of religion between
persons whose religious beliefs require them to not take vaccines, including the
COVID-19 vaccine, and those persons whose religious beliefs or absence of any
religious beliefs do not include such an objection.
[153] The petitioners contend that the impugned Orders and the Variance Order
reinforce, exacerbate, or perpetuate an existing disadvantage as religious minorities
and those with medical conditions adverse to vaccination are principally harmed by
the impugned Orders.
[154] They argue that it is clear that it is possible to safely exempt persons from the
impugned Orders, as some exemptions have been granted on specific medical
grounds. They say that the PHO has provided no explanation as to why similar
exemptions are not granted to a minority of British Columbians on religious grounds.
[155] The respondent asserts that the evidence in support of the petition does not
establish which analogous or enumerated ground the petitioners rely upon, nor does
it demonstrate any actual breach of s. 15. Further, there is no evidence from non-
parties showing discrimination or denial of a benefit or the imposition of a burden
that reinforces, perpetuates, or exacerbates existing disadvantage experienced by
the petitioners.
A570
0571
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-571 A571
Columbia Page 35
[156] The respondent argues that the impugned Orders require that individuals be
vaccinated for COVID-19 to access certain discretionary activities, pointing out that
there is a Medical Exemption Deferral process available to those people who have
medical conditions that preclude them from becoming vaccinated.
[157] I concur with the respondent that the petitioners' argument with respect to this
alleged Charter breach relies on the impact of the impugned Orders on those with
0
religious beliefs, but without any evidence of such impact. As with their ss. 2(a) and lf.J
0
Q)
(b) allegations, I am not prepared to make a finding of a breach of s. 15 of the c'J
N
0
Charter in the absence of an adequate evidentiary record, and dismiss this aspect of N
the petition.
Reasonableness of the Impugned Orders & the Variance Order
[158] The parties have agreed that the standard of review for the administrative
decision to issue the impugned Orders and the Variance Order is reasonableness.
[159] As discussed, to find that an administrative decision was unreasonable, the

party requesting judicial review must prove that the decision was either not internally
consistent, or it was untenable given the relevant factual and legal constraints:
Vavilov, at paras. 100-107 and 237.
[160] The impugned Orders require individuals to be vaccinated to attend at non-

essential settings or events where there is a high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-
2, or in settings where there is potential for contact with and transmission to
vulnerable populations. That determination was made with careful consideration of
the difficulties and risks in accommodating unvaccinated persons, and the
associated threats to the health of the broader public.
[161] The preambles to the impugned Orders state that they were issued with the
objectives of protecting public health and preventing the spread of COVID-19. The
dangers that the impugned Orders were attempting to address were the risk of
accelerated transmission of SARS-CoV-2, protecting the vulnerable, and maintaining
the integrity of the health care system. The respondent's decision to make the
A571
0572
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-572 A572
Columbia Page 36
impugned Orders, and subsequently the Variance Order, was made in the face of
significant uncertainty and required highly specialized medical and scientific
expertise.
[162] The impugned Orders set out the PHO's reasoning and provide specific
justification for the vaccine mandate in the settings covered by those Orders
anchored in the epidemiological data and generally accepted scientific knowledge
(.)
regarding SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. 1./'J
(.)
cc
\"'I
[163] Dr. Emerson deposed that the PHO necessarily relies on the generally N
0
N
accepted scientific and epidemiological evidence available to her at the relevant

time, as well as the precautionary principle i.e., reasonable measures to avoid
threats that are serious and plausible, when making public health orders under the
PHA.
[164] Dr. Emerson deposed that the PHO regularly receives and reviews the latest
scientific evidence, as well as available global, national, and provincial level
epidemiological data regarding SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, and information with
respect to modelling and outbreaks, to determine what measures are necessary to
respond to and mitigate the effects of the pandemic at any given point in time. He
said that in a public health emergency, the need to act to protect the public in the
face of changing circumstances does not permit all decisions to be made with
scientific certainty.
[165] Dr. Emerson deposed that the OPHO received hundreds of requests for
exemption from vaccination during the pandemic, including 404 requests relating to
the Vaccine Passport Regime. He said that due to the amount of the OPHO and
PHO's time and resources occupied by this process, the PHO determined in the
interests of public health that it was necessary to decline to consider requests other
than on the basis of medical deferral to vaccination, until the levels of transmission,
incidence of serious disease, and strain on the public health and health care
systems were significantly reduced.
A572
0573
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-573 A573
Columbia Page 37
[166] The PHO's factual findings and rationale for issuing the impugned Orders and
the Variance Order were supported by the information available to her at the time,
including, without limitation: the currently available scientific evidence regarding
SARS-CoV-2; the then-current epidemiology in British Columbia; scientific literature;
....J
her background in epidemiology; risks associated with social settings and particular C
Cu
v
behaviours; the risks associated with vulnerable populations contracting COVID-19;
and the impact on the public health and health care systems due to the burden of
preventing COVID-19 and treating COVID-19 patients.
[167] In making the impugned Orders and the Variance Order, I am satisfied that
the PHO assessed available scientific evidence to determine COVID-19 risk for
gatherings in British Columbia, including epidemiological data regarding
transmission of SARS-CoV-2 globally, nationally, and in British Columbia, factors
leading to elevated transmission risk in religious settings, and COVID-19
epidemiology in British Columbia.
[168] I also find that in making the impugned Orders and the Variance Order, the
PHO was guided by the principles applicable to public health decision making, and
in particular, the paradigm that public health interventions be proportionate to the
threat faced and that measures should not exceed those necessary to address the
actual risk. The PHO's orders are limited in duration and constantly revised and
reassessed to respond to current scientific evidence and epidemiological conditions
in British Columbia.
[169] The petitioners argue that these objectives do not comply with what
Dr. Kettner considers the appropriate criteria for public health interventions, because
they are not specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-defined.
[170] Dr. Kettner's Report also sets out what he describes as the principles of
transparency and evidence-based decision-making:
(a) "Interventions in public health should be explained and justified

transparently, including admissions of uncertainty. Options should be
A573
0574
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-574 A574
Columbia Page 38
described. Reasons for their acceptance or rejection should be
explained";
(b) "Decisions and judgment should be made using available data and
evidence", "[t]he expected approach of decision-makers[ ... ] when data =
....J
C:
Cv
is incomplete is to make the best estimates possible of the most u
(0
0
relevant and consequential parameters", and "it is incumbent on ....
(D
decision-makers to explain why they have chosen such parameters,

what are their best estimates of each parameter, what evidence has
been used for making these estimates, and how they have used these
estimates in their decision-making;
(c) "For quantitative estimates, such as the effectiveness of certain

interventions, it is not enough to say that 'something works' or that
something 'may happen"' and "[a]ssertions such as masks 'work'
without an estimate of the infection transmission reduction and other
benefits and harms should be considered just as unacceptable as
asserting that a vaccine 'works' without providing a numerical
estimation of its efficacy or effectiveness such as reduction of
infections, hospitalizations, and deaths as well as the rate and severity
of side effects"; and
(d) "For public health strategies such as mandatory vaccination or

restriction of activities for people without full vaccination, the beneficial
effects and harms of such an intervention should be estimated,
measured, and monitored".
[171] Based on the views of Dr. Kettner, the petitioners also assert that the
response to their reconsideration request fails to address the principle of
proportionality, and does not consider the proposals set out in the request, which
draw upon policies in other jurisdictions.
A574
0575
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-575 A575
Columbia Page 39
[172] In his affidavit, Dr. Emerson deposed that the impugned Orders and other
decision reached by the PHO were based upon current scientific literature. The
petitioners complain that this was not set out, chapter and verse.
[173] Dr. Emerson also deposed that unvaccinated and previously infected are at a ....J
,;::
higher risk than vaccinated people with two doses, without providing a complete
explanation for this view. I no not find that it was necessary for Dr. Emerson to fully
explain his view. u(/)
u(l)
N
[174] I reject as unreasonable, the petitioners' assertion that Dr. Emerson's affidavit N
0
N
is deficient because he did not provide any evidence that the public health care
system was overtaxed. I find that his statement to that effect is sufficient.
[175] Similarly, I find that Dr. Emerson's statement that a "not insignificant"
proportion of eligible population remained unvaccinated, without data to support that
view, his failure to explain how hospitalizations were recorded, the lack of an
explanation as to how the respondent adjusted for age differences, required no
further elaboration
[176] The petitioners place considerable reliance on the comments of Dr. Patty
Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, who stated publicly
that transmission in restaurant settings is not a high risk:
The vaccine passport requires people to be vaccinated to do certain

discretionary activities such as go to restaurants, movies, gyms, not because
these places are high risk. We are not actually seeing Covid transmission in
these settings. It really is to create an incentive to improve our vaccination
coverage[ ... ] The vaccine passport is for non-essential opportunities, and its
really to create an incentive to get higher vaccination rates.
[177] Accepting that this was Dr. Daly's view, there is no indication of the basis
upon which she may have reached that view, nor a bases for preferring that view to
what I have accepted to be the informed views of the respondent.
[178] On February 16, 2022 Coastal Health sent a letter to USC's president and
vice-chancellor, Dr. Ono, stating in part as follows:
A575
0576
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-576 A576
Columbia Page 40
Current scientific evidence, including BC data, indicates that COVID-19
vaccination (2-doses), while effective at preventing severe illness, is not
effective at preventing infection or transmission of the Omicron variant of
SARS-CoV-2, which now accounts for almost 100% of cases in the province.
Therefore, there is now no material difference in likelihood that a UBC
student or staff member who is vaccinated or unvaccinated may be infected
and potentially infectious to others. We also know that Omicron causes less
serious illness than other variants of COVID-19, which is particularly true for
young people. lJ:J
0
(Cl
,,...
[179] Like the view attributed to Dr. Daly, there is no indication of the bases for this u
(/)
view, nor a basis for preferring that view to what I have accepted to be the informed u
co
c"'J
views of the respondent. N
0
N
[180) I find that the PHO's decision to issue the impugned Orders and the Variance
Order was internally consistent and was based on her expert evaluation of the facts
available at the time. In result, I find that the PHO's decision was not unreasonable
and it fell within a range of reasonable options.
Authority for the Impugned Orders & the Variance Order
[181] The impugned Orders and the Variance Order were properly made pursuant
to the PHO's powers under ss. 30, 31, 32, 39(3), 52, 54, 56, and 67(2) of the PHA.
Conclusions
[182) To summarize, first I decline to hear arguments regarding the reconsideration

of Mr. Curtis's exemption application or the petitioners' reconsideration request.
Second, I find that the impugned Orders did not impinge on the petitioners' Charter
rights, hence it is unnecessary for me to consider the reasonableness of the
balancing of the Charter rights. Third, I find that the PHO's decision to issue the
impugned Orders and the Variance Order was reasonable. Last, the impugned
Orders and the Variance Order were not ultra vires the PHO's authority.
A576
0577
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-577 A577
Columbia Page 41
[183] The petition is dismissed.
-~
...J
"The Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson" C
(lj
u
(D
0
(.0
.-
u(/)
u
co
N
N
0
N
A577
0578
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-578 A578
This is Exhibit " t.,Vto the Affidavit of

A~
A578
0579
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-579 A579

Columbia,
2023 BCSC 284
Date: 20230228
Docket: S211 0229 <;)'
0.:,
Registry: Vancouver ('\J
u(/)
u
In the Matter Concerning the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241; OJ
and the Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28 n
N
C
N
Between:
and Kipling Warner
Petitioners
And

Respondent
- and -
Docket: S224652
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Peternella Hoogerbrug
Petitioner
And
Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia

Respondent
- and -
Docket: S224 731
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
York Hsiang, David William Morgan and Hilary Vandergugten
Petitioners
A579
0580
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-580 A580
Columbia Page 2
And
Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia

Respondent
- and -
Docket: S222427 _J
r
Registry: Vancouver i;j
u
Between:
-·
<::!'
:0
,:,..i
u(/J
Phyllis Janet Tatlock, Laura Koop, Monika Bielecki, Scott Macdonald, u
Ana Lucia Mateus, Darold Sturgeon, Lori Jane Nelson, Ingeborg Keyser, en
Lynda June Hamley, Melinda Joy Parenteau and Dr. Joshua Nordine
Petitioners
And
Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia and

Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners in VA S2110229: P.H. Furtula
Counsel for the Petitioners in VA S224652 P.A. Gall, K.C.

and VA S224731: M. Nohra
J. Sebastiampillai
M.A. Shaw
Counsel for the Petitioners in VA S222427: K.A. Bastow

C.L. Le Beau
Counsel for the Respondents: J. Gibson

AC. Bjornson
C. Bant
Place and Dates of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.

December 5-9, 2022
and January 23, 2023
February 28, 2023
A580
0581
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-581 A581
Columbia Page 3
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
THE PARTIES ........................................................................................................... 4
THE ORDER .............................................................................................................. 5
....I
WHAT THE PETITIONS SEEK ................................................................................. 7 C
cu
u
STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................... 8 'S;f"
00
N
RELIEF SOUGHT IN THESE APPLICATIONS ......................................................... 9 uU)
THE CURRENT RECORD ....................................................................................... 10 u
co
,:")
SHOULD THE RECORD BE AUGMENTED? ......................................................... 12 N
0
N
Documents sought by the petitioners ................................................................... 12
Positions of the parties ......................................................................................... 16
Analysis ................................................................................................................ 16
SHOULD THE TWO PETITIONER AFFIDAVITS BE STRUCK? ............................ 20
Analysis ................................................................................................................ 22
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 25
A581
0582
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-582 A582
Columbia Page 4
Introduction
[1] In these interlocutory applications, the petitioners seek orders requiring the
respondent, the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia ("PHO"), to significantly
augment the documentary record it has filed in evidence in these four judicial review
petitions, scheduled to be heard together in May 2023.
[2] The PHO cross-applies to strike two affidavits filed by certain of the
u
petitioners. (jJ
u
aJ
[3] All four petitions challenge the PHO's September 12, 2022 order ("Order"),
extending the requirement that health-care workers in hospitals and designated
community settings be vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 in order to provide health
services to patients in those settings.
[4] The petitioners argue that, while this vaccine mandate may have been
justified at the height of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it can no longer be reasonably
supported given the reduced severity of the virus and changing government
responses to it. Many of the petitioners are unvaccinated health-care workers
claiming to have lost their employment due to the Order.
[5] The PHO submits that ensuring safe hospital and community care for
patients, and protecting the health care system's capacity, are critical public health
goals served by requiring a vaccinated healthcare workforce.
[6] For the reasons that follow, the petitioners' application to augment the current
record is dismissed, and the PHO's application to strike two affidavits is granted.
The Parties
[7] The petitioners in the Hsiang proceedings are doctors and nurses in British
Columbia who allege that the Order prevented them from working in hospitals and
community settings due to their unvaccinated status. They refused vaccinations due
to their assessment of the risks and benefits in their particular medical and personal
circumstances.
A582
0583
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-583 A583
Columbia Page 5
[8] The petitioner Ms. Hoogerbrug is a member of the Dutch Reformed Church.
She is unvaccinated because of the tenets of her religion. She alleges being
terminated from her role as a family nurse practitioner due to her unvaccinated
status.
[9] The petitioners in the Tatlock proceedings are health care workers, mainly in
management and administrative roles. Their evidence is they refused vaccination for
reasons of conscience or assessment of the risks and benefits in their personal
circumstances. They claim to have lost their employment due to their unvaccinated
status despite lack of contact with vulnerable populations in the hospitals or care
facilities where they were employed.
[1O] The petitioner Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
("CSASPP") is a not-for-profit society incorporated under the Societies Act,
S.B.C. 2015, c. 18. With a head office in Vancouver, it describes itself as a non-
partisan, secular organization, advocating for the development and advancement of
science in the formation of public policy in British Columbia. It was granted public
interest standing to bring its petition in my decision at 2022 BCSC 724.
[11] As PHO, Dr. Henry is the Province's senior public health official, responsible
for providing independent advice on public health issues to government ministers
and public officials. A medical doctor with a master's degree in public health, Dr.
Henry is the former Executive Medical Director for the BC Centre for Disease
Control ("BCCDC"), the scientific and operational arm of the Public Health Officer.
She has held positions in the Faculties of Medicine at the University of British
Columbia and University of Toronto. As Associate Medical Officer of Health for the
City of Toronto, she was the operational lead for the SARS outbreak in 2003.
The Order
[12] The Order was made, September 12, 2022, pursuant toss. 30-32, 39(6), 56-
57, 67(2) and 69 of the Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28 [PHA]. It was an
extension of a series of similar orders that have been in place since October 14,
2021.
A583
0584
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-584 A584
Columbia Page 6
[13] The Order is entitled "Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other
Services) COVID-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures -
September 12, 2022".
[14] Its Recitals include:

....J
~
ro
C. People over 70 years of age, and people with chronic health u
conditions or compromised immune systems, are particularly ~
OJ
vulnerable to severe illness, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death c'\J
uIJ)
from COVID-19, even if they are vaccinated;
uCl)
N
F. Unvaccinated people in close contact with other people promotes the o
N
transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to a greater extent than vaccinated
people in the same situations, which in turn increases the number of
people who develop COVID-19 and become seriously ill;
I. The emergence of the Omicron variants has introduced further

uncertainty into the course of the pandemic. The suddenness of the
arrival of the first Omicron variant and its swift and significant impact
on the level of infection, hospitalization and ICU admission rates in
British Columbia, and the greater level of transmissibly of subsequent
Omicron variants, reflect the unpredictability of SARS-CoV-2, and this
uncertainty, coupled with uncertainty about the impact which the
seasonal rise in respiratory viruses in the autumn and winter may
have on the course of the virus, has led me to conclude that I must
exercise caution when determining what measures continue to be
necessary to mitigate the extent of the virus's transmission, and to
reduce the severity of disease which it causes;
J. Chief among these measures is vaccination, and I am of the opinion
that any slippage in the level of vaccination in the health-care
workforce would undermine the capacity of the health-care system to
respond to a significant resurgence of disease;
K. Based on the latest modelling information available to me, there is a
continuing risk of a significant resurgence of disease in the province;
[15] Paragraph UU describes the information and evidence available to the PHO
in reaching her decision to extend the Order despite its effect on unvaccinated
hospital and community care workers:
UU. I recognize the effect which the measures I am putting in place to

protect the health of patients, residents, clients and workers in
hospital and community care settings may have on people who are
unvaccinated and, with this in mind, continually engage in the
reconsideration of these measures, based upon the information and
A584
0585
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-585 A585
Columbia Page 7
evidence available to me, including case rates, sources of
transmission, the presence of clusters and outbreaks, the number of
people in hospital and in intensive care, deaths, the emergence of and
risks posed by virus variants of concern, vaccine availability,
immunization rates, the vulnerability of particular populations and
reports from the rest of Canada and other jurisdictions, scientific
journal articles reflecting divergent opinions, and opinions expressing
contrary views to my own submitted in support of challenges to my
orders, with a view to balancing the interests of the people working or
providing services in the hospital and community care sectors, '1"
a:,
('-1
including constitutionally protected interests, against the risk of harm (_)
posed by unvaccinated people working or providing services in the (f)
(_)
hospital or community care sectors. a:i
[En:,phasis added.]
What the Petitions Seek
[16] The petitioners challenge the Order under the Judicial Review Procedure Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 [JRPA]. Some of the petitioners also challenge it as an
unjustified infringement of their Charter rights and freedoms.
[17] Under ss. 2(2) and 7 of the JRPA, the petitioners seek (among other things):
(a) quashing and setting aside of the Order, to the extent that it requires
individuals to have received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in order to work in
hospital and designated community settings; and
(b) a declaration that continuing the Order is unreasonable, as there is no

reasonable basis for the exercise of emergency powers under the PHA, and
the vaccination mandate is not a reasonable or effective way to address the
spread of SARS-CoV-2.
[18] The petitioners submit that, based on the best available evidence, SARS-
CoV-2 no longer poses either an immediate or significant threat to public health.
They point to the Province and other governments across Canada easing or
eliminating vaccination mandates and other restrictions, due to reduction of
transmission and severity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus across the country.
[19] They argue the Order was an unreasonable and ineffective measure
because:
A585
0586
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-586 A586
Columbia Page 8
i. unvaccinated health professionals do not pose any greater risk of spreading

the SARS-CoV-2 virus to their patients than vaccinated health professionals;
ii. natural immunity from previous infection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus affords
equal, or better, protection from infection, serious illness, hospitalization and
death from the virus than vaccination; and
iii. the risk of either vaccinated or unvaccinated health professionals transmitting

the SARS-CoV-2 virus to patients is very low, as a result of the preventative
measures already being followed by health professionals.
(_)
(Jj
Standard of Review ua)
r0
N
[20] The parties agree that the Order is to be judicially reviewed on the 0
N
reasonableness standard.
[21] In Beaudoin v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 427, the
Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by various churches and their spiritual leaders
of PHO orders prohibiting or restricting different types of in-person gatherings for
religious worship during the second wave of the pandemic.
[22] Justice Fitch summarized the legislative authority for the PHO to make orders
responding to this public health crisis (paras. 29-39), and explained the rationale for
the standard of review of such orders being whether the PHO exercised her
authority in a reasonable way (paras. 142-153).
[23] He described the reviewing court's task this way:
[144] A reviewing court must strive to understand the decision maker's

reasoning process and ask whether the decision bears the hallmarks of
reasonableness-justification, transparency and intelligibility-and whether it
is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on
the decision: Vavilov at para. 99.
[24] The reasonableness standard of review respects the specialized knowledge

and experience of public health officials, and deference to the complexity of the
problems and solutions that they face, which in this case of course was an
unprecedented pandemic and associated public health emergency (Beaudoin,
paras. 151-152).
A586
0587
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-587 A587
Columbia Page 9
[25] At the same time, when their decisions significantly impact people's lives,
administrative decision-makers have a "heightened responsibility to ensure that their
reasons demonstrate consideration of the consequences of their decision and
satisfaction that those consequences are justified in light of the facts and law"
(Beaudoin, para. 148). _J
C
(1j
u
Relief Sought in These Applications
-··
[26] Much of the relief sought in these applications fell away during the hearing, as
positions were abandoned or the parties resolved issues in dispute.
[27] What remained were applications by the Hsiang, Hoogerbrug and CSASPP
petitioners for the PHO to add broad categories of documents to the current record,
and the PHO's application to strike from the record two affidavits submitted by the
Tatlock petitioners.
[28] The petitioners abandoned their applications to: strike the PHO's affidavits
containing the current record; require the PHO to file a new record identifying and
attaching all information directly or indirectly before the PHO in making the Order;
cross-examine Dr. Emerson on the contents of the record; and, permit them to file
further affidavit evidence in response to the factual assertions in the Order.
[29] The PHO agreed to certain redactions from Dr. Brian Emerson's affidavits
and to provide pinpoint cites from the record for certain statements therein. The PHO
also confirmed the prior agreement that the record should include the expert medical
evidence submitted by the petitioners to the PHO before the Order was made. The
parties agreed the expert opinions expressed therein were not admitted for the truth
of their contents. The petitioners agreed to the admission of the PHO's expert
opinion affidavit from Dr. Dove on the same basis.
[30] The Tatlock petitioners consented to the dismissal of their broad applications
to augment the record, in exchange for the PHO agreeing to add a narrow group of
specified documents.
A587
0588
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-588 A588
Columbia Page 10
[31] The Hsiang, Hoogerbrug and CSASPP petitioners withdrew some of their
own sweeping demands to augment the record, and focussed on the specific
categories of documents addressed below.
[32] The PHO withdrew her application to strike the three affidavits of the ...J
C
petitioner Kipling Warner, the two affidavits of Ada Skowronska, and the affidavit of c;i
u
~
Lilly Leppky. All were all sworn, and provided to counsel for the PHO, before the oJ
·:"J
Order and therefore, in that sense, were part of the record. The PHO reserved the u
Cf'J
u
co
position, however, that these affiants were not persons affected by the Order and so
their evidence should be of no weight.
[33] During the hearing, the Hsiang petitioners agreed that the affidavit of
Dr. Richard Schabas was struck because it was evidence and information created
after the Order.
The Current Record
[34] The "record of proceeding" is defined ins. 1 of the JRPA to include

documents produced in evidence before the tribunal and the tribunal's decision and
reasons given by it.
[35] The current record is included in two affidavits from Dr. Emerson, the Acting
Deputy Provincial Health Officer ("Deputy PHO"), plus two additional affidavits
appending press conference information.
[36] Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Emerson has been the Deputy PHO
with the Ministry of Health. Working closely with the PHO on many aspects of the
COVID-19 response, he was the lead public health official involved in drafting and
amending PHO orders under the PHA, including the orders under consideration in
these proceedings.
[37] His affidavits provide background information about the COVID-19 pandemic
and describe the response of the PHO. They attach more than 4,000 pages of the
material documents said to have been before the PHO when she made the Order.
A588
0589
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-589 A589
Columbia Page 11
[38J The general background provided by Dr. Emerson is admissible in judicial

review cases such as this, involving procedural and factual complexity and where
the record is voluminous and constantly evolving. Its purpose is to review "in a
neutral and uncontroversial way", the steps taken and evidence considered by the
administrative decision-maker (Beaudoin, para. 51 ).
[39] The parties agreed that, as a matter of law in British Columbia, apart from
0
such general background, the evidence on an application for judicial review is (/)
0
a)
generally confined to the record before the decision-maker. This is because of the (')
N
0
limitations on the court's supervisory role described above. N
[40] They also agreed that, in a non-adjudicative situation such as this, the record
has to be constructed. They agreed that, with the vast amount of information
available to the PHO by the time of the Order, it would be impractical, and likely
impossible, to identify every relevant document available to the PHO at the material
time.
[41] The petitioners emphasized that the record must nevertheless allow for a
robust, meaningful form of review, to ensure that courts intervene when necessary to
safeguard the legality, rationality, and fairness of the administrative process and to
ensure that the exercise of public power can be justified to the citizenry (Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, paras. 13-14;
Canada Mink Breeders Association v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1731,
paras. 34-35).
[42] They also referred to Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General),

2017 FCA 128, paras. 67-71, for the principle that the evidentiary record lies at the
heart of meaningful judicial review. It is indispensable to the reviewing court's
fulfilment of its responsibility to engage in meaningful review, as unreasonableness
is assessed by comparing the reasons with the result reached in light of the
legislative scheme and the evidentiary record before the administrative decision-
maker.
A589
0590
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-590 A590
Columbia Page 12
[43] The petitioners also relied on s. 17 of the JRPA, which the PHO argued did
not apply. In my view, whether s. 17 applies is immaterial to the petitioners'
application to augment the record, and I believe this was also counsel's ultimate
perspective in the hearing. This is because s. 17 does not require an exhaustive
record to be filed in circumstances such as this, but rather gives the court the .....J
,...
r.i
discretion to direct that the record, or any part of it, be filed. I will therefore not u
~·
<::!"
co
decide the issue of whether s. 17 applies in these circumstances. ("\J
u(/J
uC(l
Should the Record Be Augmented? n
N
~
Documents sought by the petitioners
[44] During the hearing, the Hsiang and Hoogerbrug petitioners limited the scope
of their demands to the time period of January 1 to September 12, 2022, because
their arguments focus on the PHO's response to the Omicron variant rather than to
the prior variants. The documents they sought to be added to the record are as
follows:
Termination of other CDV/D orders
[45] The petitioners seek:
Any and all documents explaining the basis of, justification and/or rationale
for the discontinuation or removal of other COVID regulations and
restrictions, including those tied to vaccination, as well as the discontinuation
or removal of any emergency designation tied to COVID, in BC and other
jurisdictions.
CDV/D incidence
Any and all documents relating to the incidence of COVID infections,

transmission and serious illness, as well as hospitalization and death
attributable to COVID, broken down by vaccination status and number of
doses and age, since the emergence of the Omicron variants.
Other respiratory illnesses
A590
0591
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-591 A591
Columbia Page 13
Any and all documents that support the comments made by the PHO in a
media conference on January 21, 2022, during which the PHO stated that the
provincial government's approach to the COVID virus has shifted to be "much
like how we manage other respiratory illnesses - influenza, or RSV
(respiratory syncytial virus), or enteroviruses that cause the common cold",
including documents from January 2022 to September 12, 2022 that support
this statement. .J
ru
u~-
Previous measures 2009-2019
[48) The petitioners seek:
Any and all documents relating to the measures put in place to prevent
infection and transmission of influenza and other respiratory illnesses, other
than COVID, at hospitals and community health care facilities from 2009-
2019.
Vaccine effectiveness
[49) The petitioners seek:
Any and all documents relating to the relative effectiveness of the primary
course of vaccination:
In preventing people from contracting and transmitting COVID,
since emergence of the Omicron variants; and
Compared to infection acquired immunity without vaccination
with respect to preventing infection, transmission and serious
illness, BC and other jurisdictions about vaccine mandates.
Prevalence of infection
Any and all documents relating to the prevalence or estimated prevalence of

infection and/or infection-acquired immunity in the provincial population.
UBC correspondence
All documents related to the consideration given to the two publicly available
letters to UBC President & Vice-President Chancellor, Dr. Santa Ono, from
the Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Patricia Daly et al,
dated February 16, 2022, and the and the UBC Faculty professors Dr. David
A591
0592
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-592 A592
Columbia Page 14
Patrick, Dr. Sarah (Sally) Otto, and Dr. Daniel Coombs, dated February 20,
2022
Medical exemptions but not religious exemptions
[52] The petitioners seek: _J

r
~
All documents relating to the decision to permit unvaccinated individuals with ~-
a medical exemption to continue working at hospitals and community health ~
co
N
care facilities, but not extending the same opportunity to unvaccinated 0
persons with valid religious reasons for not being vaccinated. ((J
0
co
C'")
N
Medical exemption measures 0
N
All documents relating to the measures put in place for those working at
hospitals and community health care facilities with a medical exemption.
Effectiveness of other measures
Any and all documents relating to the effectiveness of measures other than
vaccination in preventing the transmission of COVID at hospitals and
community health care facilities, including, but not limited to, measures such
as the use of personal protective equipment, hygiene policies, and daily or
less frequent testing.
Transmission by registered health professionals
All documents relating to the transmission of COVID by registered health

professionals at hospitals and community health care facilities to patients and
vice versa, including by vaccination status.
Transmission by others
All documents relating to the transmission of COVID at hospitals and

community health care facilities by persons who are not subject to the
vaccination mandate.
A592
0593
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-593 A593
Columbia Page 15
[57J CSASPP sought its own categories of documents to be added to the record,
from January 1, 2022 to September 12, 2022, as follows:
a. the medical and scientific studies and/or papers considered, or

reviewed by the PHO prior to September 12, 2022 that do not support
or contradict Dr. Henry's statements in the Hospital and Community
(Health Care and other Services) COVID-19 Vaccination Status
Information and Preventative Measures September 12, 2022 (the
"Hospital Order''); 'Sl"
~
N
b. the medical and scientific studies and/or papers considered, reviewed u
or relied on by the PHO that relate to her conclusions in any of the (/j
u
orders being challenged that: CI:)
i. Unvaccinated people in close contact with other people

promote the transmission of SARSCoV-2 ("Covid-19")
to a greater extent than vaccinated people in the same
situations, which in turn increases the number of
people who develop COVID-19 and become seriously
ill;
ii. Immunity acquired from previous Covid-19 infections is
less strong than immunity acquired from vaccinations
against Covid-19;
iii. It is unnecessary for the definition of "vaccinated" in the
Orders, especially the September 12, 2022 Hospital
Order, to include the requirement of booster
vaccinations against Covid-19;
iv. Infection and/or symptomatic disease with two Covid-
19 vaccine doses is similar to infection and/or
symptomatic disease with mRNA booster dose;
v. The immunity of a healthcare workers who meet the
definition of "vaccinated" in the September 12, 2022
Order, and who were last vaccinated in 2021 is the
same or similar to healthcare workers vaccinated more
recently in 2022 or those who have obtained booster
shots against Covid-19 in 2022;
vi. Expanding the grounds upon which a worker may
request an exemption to the requirement to be
vaccinated beyond those based upon a risk to the
health of the worker would undermine the high level of
vaccination which is currently in place among the
hospital and community care workforce, introduce an
unacceptable level of risk to the health of patients,
residents, clients and workers, weaken the
preparedness and resiliency of the health-care system,
and undermine the confidence of the health-care
workforce in the safety of their working environment
and the confidence of the public in the safety of the
health-care system.
A593
0594
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-594 A594
Columbia Page 16
Positions of the parties
[58] As indicated by their requests above, the Hsiang, Hoogerbrug and CSASPP
petitioners, while recognizing the impossibility of a "complete record" in these
circumstances, seek exhaustive production of all documents before the PHO relating
to many aspects of the arguments they wish to raise.
s::r
[59] They argue that the complete record is required on these issues to determine OJ
,"'J
u(f)
whether the factual conclusions reached are reasonable in light of all of the u
co
evidence. They submit that reviewing only a fraction of the evidence, as selected by
the PHO in seeking to have her decision upheld, precludes a reviewing court's
independent assessment of whether the conclusions reached are reasonable. They
say this leads, not to meaningful review, but something closer to "rubber stamping".
[60] The PHO submits that the current, extensive record contains the most
relevant documents available to the PHO in the categories sought by the petitioners.
They say it is a balanced record, permitting of fair, meaningful judicial review,
because it includes the key records and information available to the PHO on the
issues that matter to the petitioners, plus all of the reports and evidence submitted
by the petitioners themselves to the PHO before the Order was made.
[61] The PHO says that compiling the exhaustive material sought by the
petitioners is not only unnecessary for this judicial review, but prohibitively time-
consuming, expensive, and likely even impossible. Even if such a record could be
compiled, it would present the court with an unworkable volume of material that
would be contrary to the summary nature of judicial review.
Analysis
[62] Based on the case law described above, in my view the guiding principle for
determination of the record in this case, where a vast amount of information has
been generated throughout this lengthy pandemic, is to ensure that the record
contains a balanced representation of the important information available to the PHO
A594
0595
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-595 A595
Columbia Page 17
on the issues in dispute, so that a meaningful and fair judicial review can be
conducted.
[63] On the evidence and argument heard in this application, I am satisfied that
the PHO has produced such a record. That is not to say that, as the case proceeds, _J
r
additional documents, or categories of documents, might not be identified for ro
u
,q-
inclusion in the record. In this application, however, the petitioners have not 0::,
N
persuaded me that such documents are missing, for the following reasons. u(/)
u
cc
[64] First, the current record contains extensive documentation from what appears
to be the key sources, being not just the PHO herself, but also BCCDC, the Public
Health Agency of Canada ("PHAC"), the National Advisory Committee on
Immunization ("NACl") 1 , and the World Health Organization ("WHO").
[65] The documents in the record provide regular updates, data and reports, from
across Canada and other jurisdictions, about case rates, outbreaks, transmissibility,
hospitalizations, deaths, variants of concern, vaccine status and effectiveness,
masking, and vulnerability of particular populations. They also summarize, or
reference, an enormous number of additional reports and information from other
sources on these topics.
[66] By way of example of what is in the record:
a) PHO news releases, media briefing transcripts and modelling

presentations April 2020 - September 17, 2022.
These include the epidemiological data for BC and internationally. For BC,
they include information such as: COVID-19 hospitalizations, critical care,
and deaths, including by age and vaccine status; key epidemiological and
trajectory findings; new cases; wastewater viral loads; critical care
demand and supply; case rates and vaccinations rates by location;
vaccination progress; hospitalizations by age and vaccination status;
antibody screening studies; recent trends and modelling of potential cases
or transmission scenarios including by vaccination status; mask and
vaccine card mandate terminations; and current and next steps.
1 NACI is a national advisory committee of experts in multiple fields that provides guidance on the use
of vaccines to the Government of Canada.
A595
0596
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-596 A596
Columbia Page 18
b) BCCDC COVID Situation Reports, weekly up to September 24, 2022.
These include in-depth information about COVID-19, underscoring data

and key trends in the province, including case counts, epidemic curves,
test rates, positivity percentages, hospitalization rates, care facility
outbreaks, deaths and likely sources of infection.
_J
C
c) BCCDC Weekly COVID-19 Reports, up to September 29, 2022. r;i
u~-
The modelling work in these documents shows the epidemiologic
circumstances in British Columbia, along with potential consequences of
not taking action to limit transmission. It also identifies hospitalizations,
critical care admissions and deaths.
d) BCCDC Adverse Events reports, up to September 24, 2022.
These summarize vaccine adverse events following immunization

including number of reports of serious incidents.
e) September 8, 2022 evidence review "Impacts of COVID-19 Vaccination on

Health Care Workers, SARS-CoV-2 Transmission".
f) NACI publications, up to October 7, 2022.
These include: updated guidance on vaccine boosters; recommendations

on the use of bivalent Omicron vaccines; recommendations on the vaccine
booster campaign and the use of Omicron containing vaccines; risks that
increase the risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19, including many
conditions that would require hospitalization.
g) A large volume of PHAC documents from the federal government's health

portfolio, including:
i. Omicron Monitoring Report 5 - January 11, 2022
These include data regarding Omicron hospitalizations and key

literature reviews regarding vaccine effectiveness against Omicron
infection and symptoms, including after one, two or three boosters, risk
of hospitalizations/severe disease, asymptomatic infection, household
transmission, incubation period, risk in children, testing sensitivity and
period of communicability.
They also include: summaries of key epidemiology information,

including for Canada and British Columbia; summaries of recent key
articles on Omicron breakthrough/vaccine effectiveness and
epidemiologic characteristics; articles on Omicron transmission,
hospitalization and vaccine and booster effectiveness.
A596
0597
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-597 A597
Columbia Page 19
ii. Weekly COVID Evidence Reviews
These include evidence, reviews and findings on: COVID and indoor
air; masking; transmissibility among vaccinated individual; strategies to
mitigate risk of outbreaks and mortality in long-term care facilities; and
prioritization of residents in long-term care homes;
h) September 2022 draft study of the production of antibodies from vaccines

and infections, co-authored by Dr. Bonnie Henry. ~
0:,
N
[67] Second, the petitioners' evidence and submissions made little, if any, effort to (_)
(fJ
(_)
take into account what was already included in the record. They did not identify co
specific gaps in the record so much as make sweeping demands for "any and all
documents" on broad issues. These demands did not address the organization of
Dr. Emerson's affidavits or the documentary record attached thereto.
[68] By contrast, counsel for the PHO referred to documents and information in
the current record addressing all categories sought by the petitioners. The
petitioners provided little if any response to the PHO's submissions regarding the
key types of documents and information already included, or why they were
insufficient for fair, meaningful review of the issues they wished to raise.
[69] In sum, the petitioners have not shown why the current record - with the
enormous amount of medical and scientific information it contains, summarizes or
refers to - is insufficient for fair, meaningful judicial review of the arguments they
wish to make regarding the Order.
[70] Third, the petitioners' requests are vast and vague. They seek exhaustive
production of "any and all documents" in extremely broadly defined categories. In my
view, it is impractical and unreasonable to order the PHO to try to identify all such
information and documents before her, all in the context of a lengthy global
pandemic that produced untold information and documents. Such an approach is
also at odds with the summary nature of a petition proceeding and threatens an
unworkably large evidentiary record.
A597
0598
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-598 A598
Columbia Page 20
[71] Fourth, when the petitioners specified particular documents they wished
added to the record, the Crown generally complied. This occurred throughout the
hearing, and was the basis for the Tatlock petitioners withdrawing their document
application altogether. Counsel for the PHO also provided extensive pinpoint cites
connecting statements in Dr. Emerson's affidavit to the specific supporting materials
in the record.
s::t
0:)
C'\J
(_)
[72) Fifth, although some of the petitioners suggested the PHO may have "cherry- er,
(_)
ll)
picked" the record for materials helpful to her position, they provided no evidence or
argument to demonstrate this might be so. The documents themselves do not
suggest it, as they appear to be regular updates of the key publications from the
most relevant sources.
[73] Sixth, the record includes eight expert medical reports and affidavits obtained
by the petitioners in support of their position, each containing numerous studies. All
of these were submitted to the PHO before September 1, 2022. Just listing the
numerous studies in these materials consumes some 19 pages. In my view, the
petitioners did not demonstrate why their own extensive materials combined with the
rest of the PHO's record was insufficient for meaningful review of their challenges.
[74) As the matter proceeds, if the petitioners identify specific documents as

important to meaningful judicial review, they can seek their inclusion in the record,
either by agreement or application. The petitioners are well-placed to do so given the
experts assisting them in their case.
Should the Two Petitioner Affidavits Be Struck?
[75] The respondent applied to strike the affidavits of Dr. Joshua Nordine and
Dr. Steven Pelech, primarily on the grounds that they contained evidence and
information created after the Order and were therefore not part of the record.
[76) Dr. Nordine is a petitioner in the Tatlock petition. He swore an affidavit on

November 17, 2022 (with a follow-up on January 18, 2023 correcting a defective
exhibit in the first affidavit).
A598
0599
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-599 A599
Columbia Page 21
[77] The PHO does not oppose admissibility of the personal information in his
affidavit, being the first eight paragraphs and the first sentence of the ninth
paragraph. In those paragraphs, Dr. Nordine explains that, as an Evangelical
Protestant Christian, he opposed the vaccine because it was developed through the
use of historical fetal tissue cell lines and that, as a result of the Order, he lost his job ....J
(:
(;j
at The Bridge Detox Centre in Kelowna, where he worked with drug-addicted clients. ~-
'Sl'
Q)
N
[78] The balance of his affidavit is a criticism of the Order. His says that "because u(/)
u
cc
of Dr. Henry's orders, the Province of British Columbia has lost my valuable and
much-needed professional medical services to its citizens... [However] becoming
infected with COVID-19 is not considered very serious; it is treated like a 'common
cold'".
[79] The affidavit focusses on:
a) the damage to the healthcare system from removing him from working
with drug-addicted clients, in circumstances where deaths resulting from
toxic drug overdoses in British Columbia have exceeded COVID-19
deaths since March 2020; and
b) the fact that, with two shots of an approved COVID-19 vaccine, hospital
staff may still become sick with COVID-19, but then are merely required to
stay home for five days after symptom onsets, pursuant to the directives of
the Chief Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health,
September 29, 2022.
[80] Counsel for the Tatlock petitioners says she relies on the Nordine affidavit,
not as expert opinion, but for the factual evidence explaining the effect of the Order
on Dr. Nordine himself and his patients. Alternatively, she says it is admissible as a
"Brandeis Brief' or as social context evidence.
[81] The PHO argues the impugned parts of the affidavit, and all of its exhibits, are
inadmissible because they: were created after the Order, and so not part of the
record before the PHO; are argument better addressed through counsel's
submissions; and, are unnecessary because there is already evidence in the record
regarding these issues.
A599
0600
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-600 A600
Columbia Page 22
Analysis
[82] I agree with counsel for the PHO that the impugned parts of the affidavit are
neither a description of the effect of the Order on Dr. Nordine and his patients, nor
social context evidence or Brandeis Brief. They are medical evidence and argument
in support of Dr. Nordine's opinion that the Order is unreasonable, all created after
the Order.
[83] In Beaudoin (paras. 154-157), the Court of Appeal upheld Chief Justice
Hinkson's decision below that affidavits created after the orders in question, and
therefore not available to the PHO when she made them, were not part of the
record. To include them would be inconsistent with the supervisory jurisdiction of the
court and place it in the "untenable position of assessing matters afresh on an
expanded record."
[84] This approach applies to the impugned parts of Dr. Nordine's affidavit and the
exhibits he attaches. The affidavit and its exhibits were all created after the Order
and were therefore not part of the record before the PHO when the Order was
made.2 The petitioners provided no authority for admissibility in judicial review in
such circumstances.
[85] Regarding the affidavit being social context evidence, such evidence can
assist to create a frame of reference, or background context, for deciding factual
issues where Charter issues are raised. Dr. Nordine is not, however, an expert who
has been qualified to give such evidence, and his affidavit does not provide such
evidence but rather provides argument on the ultimate issue of the reasonableness
of the Order.
2The exhibits are: a) BC Coroners Service posting, September 28, 2022, regarding illicit drug toxicity
deaths in British Columbia, January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2022; b) BCCDC Covid-19 situation report,
October 27, 2022; c) BCCDC table of top 15 causes of death in British Columbia, March 2020 to
February 2022, undated and with no explanation of how it was generated; d) Vancouver Coastal
Health Covid-19 update, September 29, 2022; e) British Columbia Select Standing Committee on
Health, November 2022 report "Closing Gaps, Reducing Barriers: Expanding the Response to the
Toxic Drug and Overdose Crisis".
A600
0601
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-601 A601
Columbia Page 23
[86] Even if part of Dr. Nordine's affidavit could be characterized as social context
evidence regarding the seriousness of the toxic drug crisis, such evidence is already
in the record. Counsel for the PHO referred to the media briefing, March 11, 2021,
from the PHO stating that, in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Province is
facing the overdose crisis wherein deaths from illicit drug toxicity is the fifth highest ::J
C:
Cc
cause of death, with overdose deaths particularly affecting younger people in our
u
communities.
[87] Brandeis Briefs may be admitted in constitutional litigation to establish the

purpose and background of legislation, including its social, economic and cultural
context (Cambie Surgeries Corporation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2017
BCSC 860, paras. 23-28). In my view, Dr. Nordine's affidavit is not a Brandeis Brief
but, as I have said, advocacy and expert opinion arguing against the
reasonableness of the Order.
[88] Turning to Dr. Pelech's affidavit, he is a professor in the Department of

Medicine at the University of British Columbia. His affidavit, sworn November 16,
2022, says that he was asked to provide his expert opinion on the "validity of the
arguments put forth in the public health orders issued on June 10, 2022 and
September 12, 2022".
[89] He says the issues he was asked to address were:
a. The benefits and/or risks of getting the first, second and third doses of
COVID-19 vaccines.
b. The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in
Canada, including the most recently approved bivalent vaccine, particularly in
respect of their effectiveness against the Omicron variants, in terms of:
i. Infection, including an explanation of absolute versus
relative risk reduction, and a comparison between the
vaccinated and the unvaccinated;
ii. Transmission, including the duration that a person is
contagious, and a comparison between the vaccinated and the
unvaccinated persons;
iii. Reduction of recovery time, severe illness,
hospitalization and death, including what outcomes the
A601
0602
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-602 A602
Columbia Page 24
vaccines were tested for, and a comparison between the
vaccinated and the unvaccinated; and
iv. The rate at which the effect of the vaccines wane,
especially for those with two shots and three shots.
c. The differences and/or similarities between natural immunity versus
vaccine immunity. ....J
r-
d. The methodology by which reduction in infection and transmission has i;i
0
been or might be measured in any given long-term care, assisted care and/or
hospital setting.
e. The risks and side effects of the vaccines, including the more serious
side effects, specific risks for working age people, and the concept of cost-
benefit for different age groups.
f. The rationale, assertions of fact, and evidence stated in the Orders of
the BC Public Health Officer, particularly the Orders of June 10, and
September 12, 2022).
g. The rationale, assertions of fact, and evidence stated in the affidavits
of Dr. Emerson in the present litigation.
[90] The PHO acknowledges that two of his exhibits are admissible as part of the
record available to her when making the Order. These are Schedules 4 and 5 to his
affidavit, being his "point-by-point critique" of the PHO's June 10, 2022 order, that he
co-authored in August 2022, and his email of August 9, 2022 transmitting this to the
PHO.
[91] The PHO submits that the balance of his affidavit is inadmissible, post-record
expert opinion and should be struck.
[92] Counsel for the Tatlock petitioners argues that Dr. Pelech's affidavit
permissibly supplemented the record because it was evidence necessary to:
(i) provide general background (as opposed to addressing the merits) in

circumstances where that information might assist in understanding the
issues for review;
(ii) bring to the attention of the court procedural defects that cannot be found on
the evidentiary record;
(iii) highlight the complete absence of evidence before the tribunal when making
a particular finding; or
A602
0603
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-603 A603
~~~ ~~~
(iv) elucidate the record upon which the administrative body's reasons were
based.
Saskatchewan (Workers' Compensation Board) v Gjerde, 2016 SKCA 30 at para.

44.
[93] During submissions, counsel for the petitioners did not demonstrate how _J
C
r;:;
Dr. Pelech's affidavit fell within any of these categories. 0
""
co
c"'\I
[94] The point of the affidavit is to identify what Dr. Pelech refers to as "the key u(j)
u
flaws in the BC Public Health Office arguments" - which he describes in detail in co
paragraphs 24-25 - and to support his opinion that, if the Order continues, "this will
lead to further reductions in this critical workforce and endanger the long-term health
of those that choose to remain, and in doing so also the general public".
[95] The affidavit is therefore advocacy and expert opinion. It was created after the
Order and so is not part of the record and should not be admitted on judicial review.
[96] These affidavits are therefore struck for containing advocacy, expert opinion
and information created after the Order under review.
Conclusion
[97] The petitioners' applications to augment the current record are dismissed,
though they have leave to seek to add further specific documents or information to
the record as the case proceeds.
[98] The affidavits of Drs. Nordine and Pelech are struck.
[99] During the hearing the parties advised of their agreement that no costs should
be awarded for the applications.
"Coval J."
A603
0604
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-604 A604
This is Exhibit "",r-,

to the Affidavit of
A604
0605
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-605 A605
CITATION: J.W.T. v. S.E.T., 2023 ONSC 977

COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-1352-00
DATE: 20230208
RE: J.W.T., Applicant
AND: r--
1'-
CT)
S.E.T., Respondent u
(f)
z
0
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice R.T. Bennett ('')
N
0
N
COUNSEL: Rachel Zweig, for the Applicant
Abba Katz, for the Respondent
HEARD: November 21, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
1. The respondent mother S.E.G. (formerly S.E.T.) ("mother" or "respondent mother")

brings a motion seeking an order that she may have the three children of the marriage,
H.W.T. born in 2012, ("H.W.T."), C.R.T. born in 2017 ("C.R.T.") and Z.B.T. born in
2018 ("Z.B.T.") collectively known as "the children", vaccinated against COVID- 19
without the consent of the applicant father J.W.T. ("father" or "applicant father").
2. The children are ten, five and four years of age.
3. The children primarily reside with the mother during the school year.
4. This matter was put over for a long motion pursuant to the final order of Justice Jarvis
dated May 13, 2022. At that time, it was contemplated that the long motion would be
heard during the May 2022 trial sittings. However, due to the unavailability of
counsel, when the motion was called, the motion was moved to the November 2022
trial sittings and was heard by the court November 21, 2022.
5. The parties to their credit entered into minutes of settlement dated April 18, 2021 (sic)
2022 which resolved virtually all parenting and support issues on a final basis.
6. The court will summarize those minutes of settlement so far as they relate to this
motion as follows:
• The parties agreed on the following major decisions with respect to the children
and in particular: the schools that the children would attend.
A605
0606
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-606 A606
2
• That the children's doctor shall be Dr. Sriskanda.
• That the mother would schedule and attend annual medical and dental
appointments for the children providing the date of those appointments to the
father and that she will provide him with a brief written summary of those
appointments if the father is unable to attend.
:::i
C:
(\j
• The parent caring for the children at the time will deal with any medical 0
emergency. r--
r--
(j)
u(/)
• The father will arrange for communion and baptism for the children.
z
0
• Each party is at liberty to observe and follow their respective religious traditions C"')
N
a
while the children are in their care. N
• The children shall not be vaccinated against COVID-19 without a court

order, as per Justice Himel's endorsement and order dated December 13,
2021. The mother will be at liberty to bring a motion in the May 2022 trial
settings for an order that she obtain COVID-19 vaccinations for the children
of the marriage (emphasis added).
• In the event a parent proposes to change any of the already agreed upon items for
the children listed above, or a parenting issue not listed above arises, that party
shall communicate their proposal in writing to the other party along with the
reasons for their position. The other party shall then have 14 days to respond. If
the parties cannot resolve the issue, the mother will make the final decision and
communicate the decision to the father (except as set out in paragraph 1(k) in the
minutes of settlement with respect to the COVID-19 vaccine).
• H.W.T. will commence therapy immediately with Karen Guthrie-Douse and

follow her usual practices. C.R.T. will attend therapy with Ms. Guthrie-Douse as
needed. Counsel for the parties may arrange a joint telephone call with Ms.
Guthrie-Douse to discuss the process. The father will pay for the therapy costs for
him and the children. The mother will pay for the therapy costs for any session
that she attends with Ms. Guthrie-Douse.
• Neither party will make disparaging comments related to the other to the children
and will not discuss any aspect of this court proceeding where there is conflict
between the parties with the children under any circumstances. Neither party will
denigrate or disparage the other parent or members of their extended families with
the children in their presence, nor shall they permit the children to be present if
any other person is disparaging the other parent.
• The parties will ensure that the children are not exposed to any adult conflict,
whether it is during their respective parenting time, exchanges or anytime they
have contact.
A606
0607
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-607 A607
3
• During the school year, the children shall live primarily with the mother and the
father shall have parenting time every Wednesday overnight and alternate
weekends from pick up after school on Friday until drop off Monday morning.
• The minutes of settlement go on to essentially provide that the parties will have
equal parenting time during holidays, summers and Christmas and March break
vacations.
• The father is to pay child support in the amount of $1,999 per month based on his r---
r---
estimated annual income of $105,000 per year. (j')
u
Cl)
7. Those minutes of settlement were signed by the parties on April 19, 2022 and formed z
0
the basis of a final order.
Evidence tendered on the motion

8. The court confirmed with the parties and their counsel that it had received and
reviewed the following prior to hearing submissions on the motion, namely:
• The mother's notice of motion dated May 1, 2022.
• The mother's affidavits dated May 1, 2022, May 25, 2022, November 14, 2022
and November 18, 2022.
• The father's affidavits dated May 20, 2022, November 7, 2022 and November 16,
2022.
• OCL report dated November 22, 2021.
• Minutes of settlement erroneously dated April 18, 2021 but actually signed April
19, 2022.
• The court also received and reviewed the mother's factum dated May 30, 2022
and her supplementary factum dated November 14, 2022 and the father's factum
November 21, 2022.
9. As a preliminary matter, the father's counsel objected to certain aspects of the

mother's materials namely, references to reunification therapy and ADHD diagnosis.
Essentially, the objection to this was that the father did not have an opportunity to
respond to allegations that were made and that the references were irrelevant to the
issues before the court.
10. The father also objected to the court accepting as evidence, letters from doctors that
had been tendered on behalf of the mother.
A607
0608
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-608 A608
4
11. Further, the father objected to reference being made to the OCL report. In particular,
the father objected to the court making findings on a temporary motion based on
recommendations made by an OCL investigator in their report.
12. The court rendered orally its rulings on each of these issues.
13. The court emphasized that the issue to be decided by it was a very narrow one. _J
C
(1l
u
14. The mother wished to tender two different letters from two different doctors. r---
r---
vl
15. The first letter was from a pediatrician who indicated in the letter that it was the u
(/)
mother who had brought the oldest child to all of the pediatric appointments. z
0
16. The court found that this letter was not properly admissible for two reasons. Firstly, it
was not in the form of an affidavit but secondly, and more importantly in the court's
view, the issue of who had taken the child to pediatric appointments several years ago
was in the court's finding totally irrelevant to the issue at hand being the vaccination
issue.
17. The mother also wished to tender a letter from the children's current doctor (Dr. Sriskanda)
indicating the doctor's recommendation with respect to vaccination. The court found
this letter inadmissible in that it was not in the form of an affidavit. Secondly, even if
the court had allowed the letter to form part of the evidence, the doctor was in the
letter not expressing an opinion specifically with respect to these children but was in
the court's view merely reciting and following the public health guidance and
recommendations. As of that time, only the eldest child was eligible for vaccination.
The doctor indicated that there were no medical exemptions or contraindications with
respect to that child and therefore the doctor was recommending in accordance with
public health guidelines that the child be vaccinated. The doctor further recommended
that the younger children be vaccinated when the government deemed them eligible.
Therefore, the letter was not of probative value in that it did not assist the court with
the issue of these children specifically.
18. The mother wished to reference the OCL report and to utilize portions of that in her
argument with respect to the vaccination issue. The court found that the OCL report,
although very thorough, had little if any relevance to the issue before the court. The
sole issue before the court was the issue of vaccination of the children. The OCL
report did not address that matter specifically.
19. The court was not tasked with the decision as to who is the better parent or issues of
parenting time with each parent or even general decision-making issues. The issue
before the court was very specific; that being the issue of decision-making so far as it
relates to the children receiving or not receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.
Therefore, the OCL report was of minimal assistance to the court and minimal
relevance to the issue before the court. In addition, the report and the investigator's
findings had not been tested under cross examination.
A608
0609
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-609 A609
5
20. The remaining evidentiary issue was with respect to the statements in the mother's
reply affidavit relating to the parties' involvement with Ms. Guthrie Douse. The
father's objection to this evidence being before the court was that the father had no
opportunity to respond to the allegations that he had not participated in that therapy
and that the evidence was not proper reply evidence Once again, the court found that
the issue of the therapy was not directly related to the issue before the court.
_J
C
21. The court therefore ruled that the only evidence that was relevant for this motion was u
Cu
evidence that related to the vaccination issue. r--

r--
(])
22. The mother's position was that the court should rule in her favor and find that it was in u(/)
the children's best interests that an order be made which would effectively give her z
0
decision-making over the issue of the children's vaccination and allow her to proceed (")
N
to have the children vaccinated against COVID-19 without the consent of the father. 0
N
23. On a somewhat technical point, the court notes that the mother's motion is
characterized as seeking a court order that the children be vaccinated. Technically, this
is not appropriate, and the court has no authority to order children to be vaccinated.
What the mother is really seeking, and the issue to be decided by the court, is whether
or not that decision should be left with the mother without the necessity of consent
from the father.
24. In response to a question from the court based on an item set out in the mother's
factum, the court clarified that the mother was not asking the court to make a final
decision on vaccination unless that decision was favourable to her. In other words, the
court clarified that the mother was not asking the court to make an order regarding
whether or not the children should be vaccinated but that she was asking the court to
make an order to dispense with the father's consent to vaccination for the children.
25. The father's argument on the other hand and was that the court should not make any
determination of the issue on a temporary basis and the court should require that issue
to be determined at trial. The father's argument was that the court should not take
judicial notice of government publications as requested by the mother but that the
court should defer the matter to trial where expert evidence could be tendered.
Parenting decisions to be determined based on the best interests of

the children
26. It is trite law but needs to be emphasized, that any decision involving the parenting of
a child, is to be determined by the court based on the best interests of the specific child
in question.
nd
27. The court accepts that pursuant to section 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c 3 (2
Supp) and pursuant to section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c
C.12 the court is to determine this issue based on the best interests of these specific
three children.
A609
0610
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-610 A610
6
28. The court will return to that issue and base its decision on the criteria set out in the
Divorce Act, the Children's Law Reform Act, case law and this court's interpretation of
the same.
29. However, there is a much broader issue, and the court feels it appropriate to address
that broader issue prior to dealing with the specificity of this case.
_J
C
C1l
C0VID-19 and vaccine cases u
r---
r---
30. This court notes that there have been few issues if any within the last 50 years or more u)
uCf)
that have caused a greater polarization within society and more entrenched views than
z
those that have been expressed relating to COVID-19 and to some extent the issue of 0
vaccination.
31. This family unfortunately is no different to a plethora of families that find themselves
in the same situation. These parents take different views as to what is in the best
interests of the children and whether or not they should be concerned about any risk of
the COVID-19 vaccines. A sub-category of that analysis is whether or not the risk of
getting COVID-19 and the possible ramifications to the children are greater than the
potential risks, both short and long term, of side effects from the vaccines.
32. The mother's position in its simplest form is that governments have approved vaccines
and governments are recommending that children of the respective ages of these
children have the vaccine administered to them. The mother's family doctor is
recommending that public health protocol be followed. The conclusion that she comes
to is that the public health recommendations should be followed and that the children
should be vaccinated.
33. The mother accepts and reiterates, as does the children's doctor, the public health
messaging that the vaccines are "safe and effective".
34. The father's position is that the vaccine is different than other vaccines. He argues that
the COVID-19 vaccine has been "rushed" and has not been the subject of typical
clinical trials that other vaccines have been required to be put through prior to being
approved for use by the general population. He cites that he believes that there are
experts who would proffer an opinion as to the dangerous side effects of these
vaccines and that this case should not be decided until a court has had the opportunity
of hearing both sides of the argument and receiving evidence from experts on both
sides of that argument.
35. The father relies on the fact that there are any number of ongoing studies that have not
been completed and submits that the court simply does not have enough evidence
before it at this time to be able to make a determination as to whether or not these
vaccines are "safe and effective".
A610
0611
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-611 A611
7
Interpretation of Judicial notice in previously decided COVID-19

vaccination cases
36. Whether this court should make a determination on a temporary motion or defer the
matter to trial for expert evidence largely will be based on how this court interprets
judicial notice and of what "facts" this court finds it should appropriately take judicial _J
C:
notice. Ct;
u
-·
r--
37. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 SCR 863, r--
m
addressed the issue of judicial notice. u(/)
z
0
38. In that decision the court noted at para 48 that "Judicial notice dispenses with the need
for proof of facts that are clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute.
Facts judicially noticed are not proved by evidence under oath. Nor are they tested by
cross-examination. Therefore, the threshold for judicial notice is strict: a court may
properly take judicial notice of facts that are either: ( 1) so notorious or generally
accepted as to not be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or (2) capable of
immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of
indisputable accuracy." This was referenced from an earlier case of R v. Potts (1982),
1982 CanLII 1751 in the Ontario Court of Appeal; and J. Sopinka, S.N. Lederman and
A.W. Bryant on The Law of Evidence in Canada, (2nd ed. 1999), at p. 1055. (emphasis
added)
39. As with many cases, courts interpret legal principles and precedent cases quite
differently.
40. There have been a number of cases that have interpreted judicial notice so far as it
relates to the issue of whether or not a parent's consent to their child's vaccination
should be dispensed with.
41. In some of these cases, the issue of the child's views and preferences becomes more
relevant when the child is somewhat older.
42. In some of these cases, on the issue of whether or not there has been a material change
in circumstances is relevant since there is in place an existing order either final or
temporary which provides one of the parents with decision-making authority.
43. The cases vary, in that in some cases, the parent with the decision-making authority is
opposed to vaccination of the children and the other parent is seeking a court order
"forcing" the child to be vaccinated. The issue then becomes whether or not the
decision-making authority ( at least for the vaccination issue) should changed to the
other parent.
44. In other cases, it is the parent with the decision-making authority who is wishing to
exercise that authority by having the child vaccinated and the court is asked to
A611
0612
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-612 A612
8
determine if the decision-making authority should be reversed so that the parent

opposing the vaccination is in a position of "control".
45. This court has read what it believes to be all of the cases that have been decided to-
date certainly in Ontario, relating to the issue of vaccination and dispensing with a
parents consent to a child being vaccinated.
_J
C
46. Since this issue is of such importance, and is so divisive, the court finds it appropriate (ll
l)
to review cases which have been decided on this issue.
47. The court will in detail reference the cases referred to by each counsel but, as noted 0
(/)
subsequently, has read what the court believes to be all of the cases decided on the z
0
issue to this point in time. ('')
N
0
N
48. Before so doing, the court wishes to emphasize that the court respects that each justice
decides the case as he or she finds appropriate based on the evidence before him or her
and the court has no doubt that in each of these decisions, the case was decided based
on the judge's interpretation of what is in the best interests of the particular child in
front of them and based on the evidence put forward by each side.
49. Having reviewed all of the cases, however, the court finds it striking in terms of the
variation in interpretation of what is judicial notice and of what "facts" are appropriate
to be the subject of judicial notice.
50. The Ontario Court of Appeal has released a decision just as this court was about to
release this decision. Reference to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision is made at the
end of this decision.
A.MandC.D.
51. Justice Hackland rendered his judgment in A.M and CD. on March 9, 2022 [A.M v.
CD., 2022 CarswellOnt 3741, 2022 ONSC 1516, 2022 A.C.W.S. 412].
52. The basic facts of that case were that the court was faced with an urgent motion
brought by the mother of a 7-year-old child seeking an order to have the child
vaccinated against COVID-19 including any further booster shots approved by Health
Canada. The child resided primarily with the mother. The father had final decision-
making authority on the child's health.
53. The mother led evidence that the father had issues with the child being masked. The
mother's evidence was that both she and the child had tested positive for COVID-19
about a month earlier and that the child's symptoms had improved rapidly and she
returned to school after the quarantine period had passed.
54. The father had a scientific background and had been a representative for a
pharmaceutical company. He was opposed to COVID-19 vaccinations at that point in
A612
0613
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-613 A613
9
time and wanted to take a "wait and see approach" until further vaccine study data had
been available.
55. The father expressed views about the mRNA technology and he, although not an
expert, expressed views on the potentially DNA altering vaccinations to a child which
could be life altering.
:J
C:
56. The court in that case found that it was impressed with the father's balanced u
C1l
observations of his struggles in concluding whether or not it was a greater risk to have t---
t---
the child vaccinated or to remain unvaccinated. 0)
u(/)
57. Justice Hackland took judicial notice of the Health Canada advisories and commented z
0
on a then recent decision of this court by Justice Pazaratz.
58. Justice Hackland found that he disagreed that Health Canada advisories on the efficacy
of vaccines "are a species of 'expert opinion' which cannot or ought not to be the
subject of judicial notice."
59. In his decision, he quoted extensively Justice Jarvis's decision in Dyquiangco Jr. v.
Tipay, 2022 ONSC 1441 (CanLII), upon which this court will comment subsequently.
60. Justice Hackland determined that a government health advisory could be judicially
noted. It did not mean that it was determinative of the issue, but he agreed with Justice
Jarvis that it may amount to a legal presumption, placing the onus on the objecting
parent to rebut the presumption.
61. Justice Hackland commented on Justice Pazaratz's finding inJN v. C.G., 2022 ONSC
1198, with respect to one of the mother's downloads in that case being that of Dr.
Robert W. Malone.
62. Justice Hackland, in A.M. noted that "A Google search will, however, disclose that
"Dr. Malone was barred by Twitter for violating the platforms coronavirus
misinformation policy and that a recent Washington Post article stating that Dr.
Malone's "claims and suggestions have been discredited and denounced by medical
professionals as not only wrong, but also dangerous"."
63. He pointed out that Internet downloads are simply not reliable in many instances
particularly when contrasted with public health advisories.
64. In conclusion, Justice Hackland took judicial notice of the efficacy of the vaccine.
65. He did, however, find that there were countervailing considerations in the case before
him in that the objecting father was the ultimate decision-maker with respect to the
child's health based on the existing court order. He also found that the father's interest
in the well-being of his daughter appeared to be sincere and supported by "reasonably
held factual assertions". He noted that "we are currently in a rapidly changing
environment as the COVID-19 pandemic subsides and vaccine and masking mandates
A613
0614
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-614 A614
are being withdrawn. There appears to be particular scrutiny directed at the efficacy of
the Pfizer vaccine for children in the 5 to 11 age group." [see A.M, at para 29.]
66. Ultimately, Justice Hackland found that based on the interim motion he could not find
that there had been a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify the change
in the existing order that allowed the father to have the responsibility over the child's
health care decisions. ....I
C:
ro
CJ
67. He declined to make that determination on an interim basis and found that the t----
t----
vaccination issue could be examined in more depth and on a better record. On that Ci)
basis he dismissed the applicant mother's motion without prejudice to further u

(I)
consideration. z
0
A.C.and L.L.
68. This was one of the earliest decisions decided on the issue ofCOVID-19 vaccination
of children. It was rendered October 1, 2021, by Justice Charney and has been cited in
many decisions subsequently. [see A.C. v. L.L., 2021 ONSC 6530]
69. In that case there were 14 year-old triplets. The father had taken the position that the
children should not attend school in person until they had received their COVID-19
vaccine. His evidence was that two of the children wanted to attend to school in-
person and wanted to be vaccinated, a position supported by the father but opposed by
the mother.
70. Justice Charney in his decision at para 23 noted that "The safety and efficacy of the
COVID-19 vaccine has been endorsed by all governments and public health agencies".
He points to a Toronto Public Health directive to parents of school age children that as
he highlights indicates "Get vaccinated".
71. Justice Charney also references an Ontario Ministry of Health website that states "the
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been proven to be safe in clinical trials and provided
excellent efficacy in adolescents". [A. C. at para 25]
72. He found that those public pronouncements were admissible under the public
documents exception to the hearsay rule: A.P. v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150, at paras 147-
173.
73. Justice Charney notes that, "the responsible government authorities have concluded
that the COVID-19 vaccination is safe and effective for children ages 12 to 17 to
prevent severe illness from COVID-19 and have encouraged eligible children to get
vaccinated. These government and public health authorities are in a better position
than the courts to consider the health benefits and risks to children of receiving the
Covid 19 vaccination. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, it is in the best
interest of an eligible child to be vaccinated." [A. C. at para 28]
A614
0615
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-615 A615
11
74. Justice Charney goes on to find "the question is whether it is in the best interests of the
child. Given the government statements above, there can be no dispute that, as a
general presumption, it is in the best interest of eligible children to get vaccinated
before they attend school in person." [A. C. at para 30]
75. Justice Charney then goes on to an analysis of whether or not under the Health Care
Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sch A, the mother's consent is even necessary for a :J
C
(ij
14-year-old child. u
r--
r--
Saint-Phard and Saint-Phard G)
0
U)
z
76. At about the same time, being October 5, 2021, Justice Mackinnon of this court was 0
('")
rendering a decision whereby the father in that case was seeking sole decision-making N
0
for a 14-year-old child. The parents had been sharing joint decision-making to that N
point in time. [Saint-Phard v. Saint-Phard, 2021 ONSC 691OJ
77. The father was relying on governmental and public health recommendations and the
recommendation of the child's physician. The child had until shortly before the
motion, expressed consent to the vaccination. The mother opposed the vaccination and
the child currently was stating that he did not wish to be vaccinated.
78. Justice Mackinnon found that notwithstanding the child's then expressed views that it
was in the child's best interests to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
79. She concluded that the child's then expressed views were not independent and had
been influenced not only by his mother but by a doctor that the mother had recently
retained.
80. The father in that case relied on Dr. Tam, Chief Officer of Health for Canada, who had
stated that for children between the ages of 12 and 17 "thorough testing has
determined the vaccines to be safe and effective at preventing severe illness".
81. Justice Mackinnon also relied on Dr. Kieran Moore, Chief Medical Officer for Ontario
whose recommendation was that all youth between ages 12 and 17 be vaccinated
against COVID-19.
82. Justice Mackinnon concluded that based on the evidence before her and other cases
including Justice Charney's case (A.C. v. L.L.) that "I find that the applicable
government authorities have concluded that the COVID-19 vaccination is safe and
effective for children ages 12 to 17".
83. The court in that case had received a letter from the child's family doctor, Dr. Tchen,
who recommended that the child be vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
84. A letter from another doctor, being Dr O'Connor, had been submitted on behalf of the
respondent mother. That doctor opined that the child "should not be given the COVID-
19 vaccine on account of having asthma." The doctor also wrote that "the vaccine is
A615
0616
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-616 A616
12
experimental, testing will continue to 2022/2023 thus we have no evidence yet of any
benefits to children"." Dr. O'Connor had cited many adverse effects of the vaccine
including "a huge incidence of myocarditis in young men". The same doctor noted
that she had seen the child and discussed with him the present COVID-19 situation
and the multiple adverse effects and that the child "does not want it".
85. Justice Mackinnon decided to accept the opinion of the father's doctor in preference to ...J
C
the mother's doctor. Justice Mackinnon found that the mother's doctor's (Dr.
(ij
(_)
O'Connor) objections were "directly countered by the judicial notice taken that the l'--
1'--
vaccine is safe and effective and provides beneficial protection against the virus to (j)
(_)
those in this age group." [see para 12] (/)
z
0
86. Justice Mackinnon found that the child had changed his mind based on the influence ('")
N
from the mother and the doctor to whom she had taken him. She also found, at para Cl
N
17, that "The explanations he gave his lawyer and his father are based on wrong
information and inadmissible anecdote. His current stated view to not have the vaccine
is not based on an understanding of accurate medical information as to the benefits and
risks of the vaccine. As such it is not a properly informed decision."
87. At para 18, Justice Mackinnon distinguished a 2001 Alberta Queens Bench case
involving the issue of a child's capability of consenting. Justice Mackinnon concluded
that the child in her case "did not have the requisite medical information on which to
make an informed decision."
88. Justice Mackinnon further found that "the father should arrange for the child to be
properly informed of the medical and scientific facts of the virus and the vaccine
personally by Dr. Tchen prior to being taken for a vaccination."
89. Justice Mackinnon, at para 22, ordered that the child was "entitled to receive the
COVID-19 vaccine and that the mother shall not tell or suggest to [the child] that the
COVID-19 vaccines are untested, unsafe, ineffective or that he is particularly at risk
from them. Nor may she permit any other person to have any such discussion or make
any suggestion to the child, directly or indirectly. My order includes that she is
prohibited from showing [the child] social media sites, websites, other online
information, literature or any other material that calls into question the safety or
efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines or permitting any other person to do so."
TRB and KWPB

90. In December 2021, Justice Kubik of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench issued a
decision relating to children aged 12 and 10 [TRB v. KWPG, 2021 ABQB 997
(CanLII)]. The mother wished the children to be vaccinated; the father opposed. The
parties until that time shared joint decision-making for the children.
91. The father had presented numerous Internet sites. The court found that his materials
"illustrate the father's engagement with vaccine misinformation." [TRB at para 9.]
A616
0617
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-617 A617
13
92. The court found that, "By virtue of its approval by the regulatory authority responsible
for testing and approval of drugs in Canada, the vaccine is not experimental. It is
deemed safe and effective for use in children aged 5-11 and 12-17. While not
mandatory in Alberta, vaccination of children aged 5-11 and 12-17 is recommended by
the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Alberta." [TRB at para 12.]
93. The court went on to note and to find, "Vaccination is prophylactic medical treatment.
Its primary purpose is to prevent the vaccine recipient from contracting illness.
Vaccination also serves the purpose of limiting the spread of illness by limiting its r---
r--
transmissibility." [TRB at para 14.] 0)
uCf)
94. The court further found at para 14 that, "Vaccination like all medical treatment comes z
0
with risk" and that "illness from COVID-19 also comes with risk, including transitory
flu-like symptoms, more serious pneumonia-like symptoms, and the need for
hospitalization including mechanical ventilation, and in some cases long-term health
consequences. Children in Canada have died from COVID-19." (This court does not
see any notation in the reported decision of verification of these statements).
95. In TRB, the court noted that the doctor made no recommendation as to whether or not
the children should be vaccinated.
96. At para 30 the court found that the mother was "authorized to have the children
vaccinated against COVID-19 without the consent of the father."; and, at para 33, that
"Vaccination will limit the risk of transmission and will allow the children to fully
participate in school, extra curricular activities, social activities, and travel
opportunities."
97. The court found that the 10-year-old child's vaccine anxiety was "directly related to
the misinformation she received from her father as well as from her friends."
98. That court directed that the father will not discuss or permit any third party to discuss
the issue of COVID-19 vaccination or COVID-19 generally with the children or
supply social media or other information about the vaccine or the disease to the
children."
Dyquiangco Jr.and Tipay

99. This is a March 2, 2022 decision of Justice Jarvis of this court [Dyquiangco Jr. v.
Tipay, 2022 ONSC 1441 (CanLII)].
100. The decision was based on a motion by the father to have a 12-year-old daughter who
primarily resided with him vaccinated over the objections of the mother to have the
child vaccinated "at this time".
101. The existing situation was that the parties shared joint decision-making.
A617
0618
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-618 A618
14
102. The mother's evidence was that she declined to consent to the vaccination because the
child had recently recovered from the virus without hospitalization and that she had
acquired natural immunity. As part of her evidence, the mother included Internet
excerpts from Dr. Robert Malone who the court noted described as the reason(s) why
parents should vaccinate their children as "a lie". [Dyquiangco Jr. at para 4]
103. The court noted that the mother objected to the child being vaccinated "at this time". _J
C
(1j
u
104. The court noted from the father's materials the excerpt from Health Canada which r--
r--
included, "People who have already had COVID-19 should be vaccinated for future G)
0
protection. They may be offered 2 doses and a booster dose when eligible. COVID-19 Cf)
vaccines help to prevent infection as well as complications. By helping prevent z

0
infection, vaccination can also prevent post COVID-19 condition. This condition
refers to symptoms some individuals experience for weeks or month after being
infected with COVID-19. Symptoms can be very different from those during the initial
infection." [Dyquiangco Jr. at para 19]
105. In referencing the decision to which this court will subsequently refer being R.S.P. v.
H.L.C., 2021 ONSC 8362, Justice Jarvis made findings of what the court was prepared
to take judicial notice. Among his findings Justice Jarvis, in his decision at para 22,
took judicial notice of the following:
• There is no verifiable evidence of natural immunity to contracting the virus or any

mutation a second or more times;
• Vaccines work; Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful
effects, especially in children;
• Vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the
severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes.
106. Justice Jarvis went on to comment, "This is not "fake science". It is not "fake
medicine". Whether there is a drug company conspiracy callously or negligently
promoting unsafe medicine (the "lie") in collusion with federal and provincial
authorities this Court leaves to another day and to those who think Elvis is alive. He
isn't. He left the building decades ago." [Dyquiangco Jr. at para 23]
107. Justice Jarvis then effectively found that an onus was placed on an objecting parent to
demonstrate to the court that it is not in the child's best interest to be vaccinated given
the government guidance.
Rashid and Avanesov

108. In April 2022, Justice Somji of this court issued a decision relating to a seven-year-old
child. The decision related to not only the COVID-19 vaccines but also vaccination for
A618
0619
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-619 A619
15
measles, mumps and rubella ("MMR") wherein the mother wished to have the child
vaccinated and the father opposed.
109. Her Honour in this court's view quite properly found that the court did not have
authority to mandate a child to be vaccinated and that the issue to be decided was who
should have that decision-making authority.
_J
C:
110. The father's argument was that the decision should not be made on and "interim" C1l
u
motion but should be left to trial. Similar to the argument before this court, his r--.
r--.
argument was that once vaccinated, the vaccination could not be "undone". u)
uCf)
111. Justice Somji found that there was no need to defer the matter to trial and that she was z
0
prepared to make a decision based on the evidence before her.
112. In addition, in that case there was an issue of the father having given consent at least
on a conditional basis and then having revoked that consent. That particular issue
being the consent or revocation thereof, is not before this court.
113. The court will only reference this case so far as it relates to the COVID-19 vaccine.
114. Among other cases, Justice Somji cited the case of McDonald v. Oates, ONSC 2022
394 being a decision of Justice Van Melle wherein Her Honour decided that it was
safe to vaccinate the parties' 10-year-old child.
I 15. Justice Somji did a thorough analysis of all of the cases that had been decided to that
point in time.
116. Justice Somji also reviewed the evidence put forward by the father. Among that
evidence was a recorded interview with Dr. Robert Malone who the court found was
the "founder of the mRNA vaccine." In that interview, as noted in the case, Dr.
Malone opined that the vaccine had not been adequately tested for children and that it
would require at least five years of testing and research to fully understand the risks
associated with this new technology.
117. Dr. Malone therefore concluded that given the low risk of harm to young children
from COVID-19 the risk of short and long-term side effects for children far outweigh
any benefit from obtaining the vaccine. He cited as risks including damage to vital
organs and, as noted in that case found that by vaccinating a child:
A viral gene will be injected into your parent cells. This gene will force
your child's body to make toxic spike protein. These proteins often
cause permanent damage in a child's critical vital organs. These organs
include their brain and nervous system, their heart and blood vessels,
including blood clots, their reproductive system, and most importantly
this vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system.
The most alarming point about this, is that once those damages have
occurred, they are irreparable. They cannot be reversed. You can't fix
A619
0620
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-620 A620
16
the lesion within their brains. You cannot repair heart tissue scarring.
You cannot repair a genetically reset immune system. And this vaccine
can cause reproductive damage that can affect future generations of
your family
... this novel technology has not been adequately tested. We need at
least five years of testing and research before we can fully understand ....J
C
the risks associated with this new technology. The harms and risks of 0
Cc
new medicine often become revealed many years later
... there is no benefit for your children or your family ... against the u
(/)
small risk from the virus, given the known health risks from the vaccine z
0
it is apparent you and your children may have to live with for the rest of ('"')
N
their lives. The risk/benefit analysis is not even close with this vaccine 0
N
for children.
[Rashid, at para 79]
118. Justice Samji went on to quote A.M v. C.D. being the decision earlier referenced of
Justice Hackland and in which in that case Justice Hackland had noted that Dr. Malone
had been barred from Twitter.
119. Justice Samji, went on to find that she, as others before her, had found that there was a
presumption in favour of courts finding in favour of Canadian Health authorities. She
found that the evidence from Dr. Malone as well as the remaining evidence from the
father did not "displace the presumption".
120. While Justice Samji did find that there would be a temporary order allowing the
mother to have decision-making authority over the child's health including
vaccinations, she did require the mother to alert the child's health care provider to the
concerns raised by the father. Justice Samji therefore did not simply categorically
dismiss the concerns raised by the father. Similar to other cases, Her Honour did
however issue a prohibition from the father discussing the issue of vaccines with the
child.
D.E. and W.E.

121. On November 7, 2022, Justice Delaquis of the Court of King's Bench of New
Brunswick released this decision [D.E. v. W.E., 2022 NBKB 211]. The parties shared
joint decision-making. The mother wished to have the children who were 10 and 12
years of age vaccinated, and the father opposed.
122. Among the cases cited by that court were many of the cases to which this court has
referred but in addition was the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal case in Inglis v. Inglis,
2022 SKCA 82 (CanLII). The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal took note of the fact
that there were many cases in which courts had taken judicial notice of the vaccines
A620
0621
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-621 A621
17
being safe and effective and only one case that had taken judicial notice of the risks of
the COVID-19 vaccine.
123. The court concluded by taking judicial notice of, vaccines reducing the risk of
contracting COVID-19, children being less likely to become really sick, and the
endorsement by provincial and federal health authorities approving the vaccine. [D.E.
at para 44] _J
C
Cil
u
124. The court also found that the "evidence" led by the father was not relevant and was r---
1"--
unreliable hearsay, including someone's interpretation of the case successfully argued Ci)
by Robert F Kennedy Jr. in the US Supreme Court relating to the Nuremberg Code u(/)
and specifically Article 7 thereof. z
0
125. The court varied the final divorce order to change sole decision-making to the mother
including decisions with respect to allowing the children to be vaccinated.
K.D.B. and K.8.

126. In March 2022, Justice d'Entremont of the Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (as it
then was) issued a decision on a motion to change by the mother changing decision-
making to allow her to have a 10-year-old child vaccinated over the objection of the
father. [K.D.B. v. K.B., 2022 NBQB 74 (CanLII)]
127. The father's argument was that the child had already contracted COVID-19 and
consequently the vaccines would not be beneficial to him. His argument was that there
was reliable information that the risk of the vaccine to a child was greater than the
benefit.
128. The mother had tendered a letter from the family doctor indicating that the child had
no contraindications to receiving the vaccine and recommended that the child received
a two-dose series of vaccines. Another argument was put forward by the mother that
the child could not participate in hockey without being vaccinated and that because of
federal mandates at the time, unvaccinated individuals could not board an airplane or a
train.
129. As well, in that particular case, the child's great-grandmother (presumably maternal)
was being transferred from a hospital to a nursing home and the New Brunswick
restrictions at the time would have precluded the child from entering that nursing
home and visiting the grandmother.
130. The father argued that the vaccines were experimental and that they had been
authorized for emergency use only. He further argued that the evidence was that the
vaccines did not prevent someone from contracting or transmitting COVID-19.
131. The father introduced a letter from a retired family doctor who had not met the child
but who opined that nothing is known about the long-term effects of the vaccines and
A621
0622
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-622 A622
18
that there are reported adverse effects of vaccination such as myocarditis. The court
gave "very little weight" to the opinion of that retired family doctor.
132. The father also provided as evidence, information relating to the warnings found on
the Pfizer website itself.
133. The court took judicial notice of Health Canada's authorization of the Pfizer vaccine ....J
;::
for children ages 5 to 11 in which Health Canada stated "after a thorough and (1l
l)
independent scientific review of the evidence, the Department concluded that the r---
r---
benefits of the vaccine for children between 5 and 11 years of age outweighed the m
risks." [K.D.B. at para 35] u(/)
z
0
134. The court considered the case of JN. v. C. G., 2022 ONSC 1198 being the case decided 0")
N
by Justice Pazaratz of this Court (which this court will subsequently refer). 0
N
135. Justice d'Etremont found that, "With respect, I cannot follow the reasoning outlined in
JN v. C.G. While I appreciate that intelligent people may have different points of view
regarding the COVID-19 vaccinations, the concept of judicial notice is still a
recognized principle of law which may be challenged by compelling and reliable
evidence to the contrary". [K.D.B. at para 56]
136. The court essentially found that there was a presumption in favour of the court
accepting the recommendations of public health and that the father had not "provided
compelling and reliable evidence to the contrary to challenge that which I have
judicially noticed."
137. The court further noted that the State of Florida had recommended against vaccines for
healthy children but found that to be at odds with the US Centre for Disease Control
and Prevention (which the court presumably found to be more credible).
138. The court also considered, as have other cases, the interview done by Dr. Robert
Malone the inventor ofmRNA technology but found that it would be improper for the
court to take judicial notice of the same.
139. The court then took judicial notice of Health Canada recommendations and made in
order granting the mother sole decision-making with respect to the child's health and
medical decisions including vaccinations.
140. As had other courts, that court also precluded the parent (this could have read the
father alone presumably) from exposing the child to any social media or other online
information that would call into question the safety or efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Holden and Holden

141. This is a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal [Holden v. Holden, 2022 ABCA 341]
which relates to an application for the restoration of a fast-track appeal. The decision
A622
0623
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-623 A623
19
being appealed was against an order pronounced April 28, 2022 that gave the mother
sole decision-making with respect to COVID-19 vaccines for the parties' children.
142. The decision obviously relates mainly to the restoration of that appeal. However, the
court goes on to address the issue of judicial notice and COVID-19 vaccines.
143. The court noted at para 98 that, "An appeal court does not set aside original court :::i
C
orders in the absence of an error of law or a factual or mixed fact and law 0
(1;
determination that is clearly wrong." r---

r---
CT)
144. The court noted at para 108 that, "Common sense dictates the chambers judges, when u(/)
considering which parent should have COVID-19 decision-making authority, should z
0
focus on the well-known positions adopted by Health Canada, Alberta Health
N
Services, Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization, and the United Cl
N
States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices ... "
B.C.J.B.and E-R.R.R.
145. In June 2022, Justice O'Connell of the Ontario Court of Justice heard this case and
released reasons for judgment October 31, 2022 [B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2022 ONCJ
500].
146. The only issue before Her Honour in that case was which parent should have the
responsibility for making vaccination related decisions including the COVID-19
vaccine for the parties than I I-year-old child
147. In that particular case, on September 28, 2020, Justice Finlayson of that court (as he
then was) decided that the father should have temporary decision-making authority
about the child's health but only as it related to administering the publicly funded
vaccinations for children.
148. Justice Finlayson tookjudicial notice of, "l. Ontario's publicly funded vaccines are
safe and effective at preventing vaccine preventable diseases. 2. Their widespread use
has led to severe reductions or eradication of incidents of these diseases in our society.
3. The harm to a child, flowing from contracting a vaccine preventable disease, may
even include death."
149. Justice Finlayson's order was made at a time prior to the existence of the COVID-19
vaccme.
150. The child had contracted COVID-19 in February 2022 but was now eligible to receive
the COVID-19 vaccine.
151. In that case, the parties entered into final minutes of settlement which included the
mother having sole decision-making authority for the child with the exception of
decision-making regarding vaccinations which will be determined by the court.
A623
0624
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-624 A624
20
152. This case was decided at trial, not at a motion.
153. The father took the position that the child should be vaccinated, the mother took the
position that in light of her own personal and family medical history and her research
the child should not be vaccinated.
154. The mother took the position that a court should not remove decision-making about .J
C:
vaccines, particularly the COVD vaccine, from a parent who has always made Cil
u
responsible decisions about a child's health simply because the father has attempted to l'--
1'--
paint the mother as "disturbed", or "out of the mainstream" and unreasonable. u)
()
[B.C.J.B. at para 24] (()
z
0
155. Somewhat ironically, this court notes that the child had contracted COVID-19
following a family day weekend with the father and members of his family.
156. The mother gave evidence as to other decisions that the father had made which
appeared to be contrary to the child's best interest from a medical standpoint.
157. There was a Voice of the Child Report in this particular case. The child indicated to
the clinical investigator (which report related to other childhood vaccinations and not
the COVID-19 vaccine) when talking about vaccinations, "Dad says they're good.
Mom says they can be good for some people but not for others".
158. The father sought to have Dr. Sharkawy, a medical doctor who is qualified as a
specialist in infectious diseases and internal medicine in Ontario, qualified as an
expert. That doctor's opinion was that an otherwise healthy 11-year-old should receive
the COVID vaccine even if they had contracted COVID because it would give the
child "optimal protection". The doctor found that they were two ways to acquire
immunity from COVID-19: one being to survive the infection and the other being to
receive the vaccine. [B.C.J.B. at paras 135 and 138]
159. Dr. Sharkawy's opinion was that children should receive the vaccine and that the risk
of myocarditis from the vaccination was "usually short-lived". The doctor also
rendered an opinion with respect to the possibility of 'Long Covid'.
160. The mother sought to have Dr. Bridle qualified as an expert. Dr. Bridle is an Associate
Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology associated with the
Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph.
161. That doctor was trained in the disciplines of immunology and virology. He had
received a number of awards in recognition of his work as a teacher, a researcher, and
a peer reviewer. He had published widely in that area according to his voluminous CV.
162. His evidence was that the risks associated to children of receiving the vaccines far
outweigh the benefits of the vaccines.
A624
0625
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-625 A625
21
163. He testified that "a vaccine by definition is designed to confer immunity, such that a
person who is vaccinated is protected from infection by the disease and cannot
transmit that infection to other people. He explained that immunization equals
vaccination, they are interchangeable terms" [B.C.J.B. at para 159]
164. The doctor then testified that "unlike traditional or routine childhood vaccines, which
do confer immunity with a lifetime duration, the Covid-19 vaccines do not confer _J
C
m
immunity or prevent transmission." u
165. He then went on to testify as to the difference between the technology of traditional
vaccines such as for mom'smumps, measles, polio, etc. and the technology in COVID-
19 vaccines being on mRNA which is a "spike protein."
(")
N
166. Dr. Bridle opined that "the Covid vaccine and the mRNA technology used has 0
N
potentially far greater long-term risks for children and adolescents" and which in his
view "are largely unknown because there has not been sufficient testing or clinical
trials." [B.C.J.B. at para 163]
167. The doctor also testified that typically, vaccine development takes a process of four to
IO years while the COVID-19 vaccines were developed in less than one year.
168. Dr. Bridle also testified that the duration of immunity from the Pfizer and the Modema
inoculations were "ridiculously short" and waning after only two months and gone by
five months. This is why in less than one year, already many Canadians have received
four doses and are starting on fifth doses. He compared this to traditional childhood
immunizations which generally only need one and sometimes two shots to confer a
lifetime immunity, with no booster shots necessary. [B.C.J.B.at para 169]
169. The doctor did not agree that the vaccines prevented severe illness leading to
hospitalization or death. In fact, he stated that vaccinated people are at greater risk
than unvaccinated people of contracting COVID.
170. He also opined that he did not believe the government data and that he felt that it was
"highly manipulated data and the way that that it has been manipulated has not been
disclosed". This was in reference to the number ofunvaccinated people who had
purportedly died from COVID-19. According to his evidence, there were many people
reported to have died from COVID-19 who had died from non-COVID-19 related
reasons.
171. He described the number one risk of vaccines is myocarditis and that young males
were at the greatest risk of developing myocarditis (heart inflammation). [B.C.J.B. at
para 174]
172. Dr. Bridle noted that even the data provided by Pfizer showed that while they initially
claimed that only one in 28,000 young males developed myocarditis, they now after
further study found that number to be one in 10,000.
A625
0626
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-626 A626
22
173. When challenged that his views were not widely accepted and that there had been
many members of his own university faculty who would sign a petition against him,
Dr. Bridle testified that he had been one of the first scientists in Canada to sound the
alarm bell with respect to AstraZeneca vaccines and that subsequently the Ontario
government withdrew the AstraZeneca vaccine for general distribution when it was
shown that there was a one in 55,000 chance of death from the vaccine. [B. C.J.B. at
para 179] ...J
C:
(v
u
174. Dr. Bridle further testified that the gold standard of immunity was the natural r---
r---
immunity one receives from the body's response to a pathogen. The child in that en
particular case had already had COVID-19. u(/)
z
0
175. He also noted that those vaccinated against the first form of the COVID-19 virus being
the "Wuhan" variant fared quite poorly against the Delta and Omicron variants.
176. He testified that he had '"no problem"' with routine immunizations of children where
the vaccinations did not use the mRNA technology.
177. Justice O'Connell then reviewed the law with respect to expert evidence and judicial
notice.
178. Her Honour noted that neither party's expert had signed the Acknowledgement of
Expert's Duty Form under the Family Law Rules, 0. Reg. 114/99. She was satisfied,
however that in response to questions, each expert seemed to understand their duties as
an expert and she was satisfied that both experts took their duties seriously.
179. Justice O'Connell completely accepted Dr. Sharkawy's (the father's expert) evidence.
180. Justice O'Connell accepted that Dr. Bridle is an immunologist and vaccinologist and
that he has expert knowledge in those fields.
181. Justice O'Connell however concluded that because Dr. Bridle's opinions were "so far
removed from the mainstream and widely accepted views of the Canadian and
international medical and scientific community that the court cannot accept Dr.
Bridle's evidence on the Covid vaccine as reliable." [B.C.JB. at para 250]
182. Justice O'Connell then concluded that she, having accepted the father's expert and not
accepting the mother's expert, found that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective
for children and that they reduce the risks of serious illness or death from CO VID-19
infection.
183. She found that the mother's decision not to vaccinate her child was not responsible
and therefore found that the father was to have sole authority to make decisions about
all vaccinations including the COVID-19 vaccine.
M.P.D.S.and J.M.S.
A626
0627
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-627 A627
23
184. In March 2022, Justice Tobin of this court issued a decision relating to the vaccination
of a five-year-old child. The parties at the time remained living within the matrimonial
home. [MP.D.S. v. J.MS., 2022 ONSC 1212 (CanLII)]
185. The facts in that case were that the father had apparently told the mother before they
got married that he "did not believe in vaccines." The mother indicated that if he did
not agree to vaccinate their children their relationship would be at an end. The father _J
C
C1l
eventually agreed that any children they had would be vaccinated. u
r--
r--
186. The father then, following the birth of the child did not want her to be vaccinated. U)
u(I)
187. The court accepted the line of cases pursuant to which courts took judicial notice of z
0
public health declarations.
188. The court found that the government pronouncements with respect to vaccinations
were public documents and therefore an exception to the hearsay rule [see A.C. v. L.L.,
supra, at para 26 relying upon A.P. v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150 at paras 147-173].
189. The court further found that by the father choosing not to be vaccinated against
COVID-19 he was putting the children at risk of harm should they contract COVID-
19.
190. The court therefore found that:
• the father's parenting time should be exercised at the matrimonial home or out-of-
doors
• the father should be required to take a COVID-19 rapid test every Tuesday and to
send the results by text message to the mother
• the father should not knowingly expose the children to any individual that he
knows or believes is not vaccinated against COVID-19, and
• ifhe breached any of those conditions the mother could bring a motion on an
urgent basis to suspend his in person parenting time. [M.P.D.S. at para 64]
C.M.and S.L.S.
191. In April 2022, Justice Sirivar of the Ontario Court of Justice released a decision with
respect to a trial that had been heard in November and December 2021. [CM v. S.L.S.,
2022 ONCJ 206 (CanLII)]
192. The sole decision of that trial was who should be responsible for making decisions
regarding the vaccination of the parties' only child who was then five years old.
193. There were issues of allegations by the mother of abuse by the father. The child
primarily resided with the mother.
A627
0628
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-628 A628
24
194. The father relied on public health recommendations and assertions that vaccines were
safe and effective. He also called to litigation experts.
195. The mother served a report of a doctor that she sought to qualify as an expert
regarding the risk of vaccination of the child. In addition, the mother who is a Doctor
of Chiropractic gave evidence about her research into the risks and benefits of
vaccinations and opinions that she had received including that from a naturpathic _J
C
Cil
doctor. u
r--
r--
196. In that case, the child had a genetic variation which the mother positioned created a (j)
greater risk for this child being vaccinated. u(/)

z
0
197. She proffered Dr. Moskowitz, a retired physician who practiced homeopathic
medicine for 53 years, and Dr. Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia
in the areas of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Neuroscience and Experimental
Medicine and Pathology.
198. The mother also proffered a doctor who practiced integrative medicine as an expert.
This doctor conducted risk assessments and treated children and adults who have
experienced adverse reactions to vaccinations.
199. Dr. Sondheimer who holds a PhD in molecular genetics and cell biology was proffered
as an expert by the father. The doctor's evidence was that the child did not have the
MTHFR mutations but a variation. The mother did not object to this doctor being
qualified as an expert.
200. Dr. Robinson who is the Director of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of
Alberta was also proffered by the father as an expert.
201. Her evidence was that routine childhood vaccinations that are recommended in Canada
prevent infection and that common side effects of vaccines are low-grade fever and
generally disappear within one to three days. Serious side effects such as anaphylaxis
can be reversed with one dose of epinephrine. The doctor testified that she was not
aware of any child dying from vaccine-induced anaphylaxis that the benefits of routine
childhood vaccines far outweigh any serious harm and, that some vaccines do contain
aluminum but the amount is very small and there is no evidence that it causes harm.
[ CM. at para 46]
202. The mother did not object to Dr. Robinson being qualified as an expert but did raise
some issue with her advising governments.
203. As mentioned, the mother proposed Dr. Richard Moskowitz who was a retired
physician who had practiced for 53 years in homeopathic family medicine as an expert
in the areas of family medicine risk assessment for vaccinations and the study of
vaccination.
A628
0629
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-629 A629
25
204. His evidence was that the child was at minimal risk of contracting COVID-19, that
vaccines can lead to chronic issues such as allergies, asthma and ADHD, that vaccine
injury is the rule rather than the exception, that metal adjuvants in certain vaccines
cause autism and, that the drug industry controls government agencies like the Centre
for Disease Control. [CM at para 50]
205. The mother also proffered Dr. Christopher Shaw, who holds a PhD in Neurobiology
and is a Professor at the University of British Columbia in the Department of
Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and who was cross appointed to the programs of r---
r---
Neuroscience and Experimental Medicine and the Department of Pathology, as an m
(.)
expert on the effects of aluminum adjuvanted vaccines. His evidence included (f)
opinions relating to his research on the analysis of the impact of aluminum on mice z
0
and that subjecting a child to a range of pediatric vaccines can have a significant
adverse effect on neural development. [CM at para 59]
206. The mother also proffered Dr. James Neuenschwander as an expert in emergency
medicine, integrative medicine, risk assessments for vaccination, including the
pediatric COVID-19 vaccine, and the treatment of adverse reactions to vaccination. In
addition to his medical degree, Dr. Neuenschwander holds a Bachelor of Arts in
cellular and molecular biology and has 30 years of experience providing risk
assessments for vaccination in treating patients who have experienced adverse
reactions to vaccines. He had been called as an expert into other cases but the United
States courts in Des Moines and Colorado had not accepted his opinion.
207. His evidence was that his methodology involved calculating the odds and specific
risks of the child contracting the disease and comparing it to the risks of experiencing
problems or adverse effects if the child did not receive the vaccine.
208. Dr. Neuenschwander considered the risks set out by the manufacturer of the vaccine
and considered the child's genetics family history, neural development delay, and any
allergy. His evidence was that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children was totally
experimental and that for a healthy child the risks of contracting COVID-19 and
suffering adverse effects are almost zero.
209. The court found that the mother did not have an issue with Dr. Sondheimer being
involved in clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies including Modema to develop
novel therapies. Nor did she have an issue with the fact that the company paid the
Hospital for Sick Children to fund the research.
210. The court did not have an issue either with Dr. Robinson having advised governments.
The court did not find that this affected her impartiality.
211. The court then considered the issue of whether or not the mother's experts should be
qualified as such. The court was not willing to qualify any of the mother's three
experts as experts.
A629
0630
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-630 A630
26
212. The court concluded that the court was not making a finding as to whether or not the
COVID-19 vaccine for children between the ages of five and 11 was safe or not safe.
213. The court found in favour of the father. Justice Sirivar found that his approach and
following the recommendations of the child's treating physicians was child focused.
214. The court found that the mother overestimates her own abilities stemming from her -::!
being a Chiropractor and dismisses the mother's criticism of the father for not being
·-
(ti
CJ
willing to consider her research. r--
r--
CT)
215. As a result, the court found that the father should have sole decision-making 0
Cl)
responsibility for the child relating to COVID-19 vaccination. z
0
Soucy and Chan

216. In June 2022, Justice MacEachern of this court issued a decision relating to the
vaccination of children aged six and nine [Soucy v. Chan, 2022 ONSC 3911]. The
father wished the children to be vaccinated, the mother opposed.
217. The parties had in 2018 signed a separation agreement requiring them to jointly make
decisions for the children including decisions involving vaccinations. Her Honour
declined on a motion, to change that decision-making authority.
218. Justice MacEachern found that what she was being asked to do on an interim motion
was to make a final decision without having the benefit of the OCL position or cross-
examination on the affidavits.
219. The father relied on previous case law to ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact
that the children should be vaccinated. The mother who had been vaccinated herself
against COVID-19 had experienced side effects from the vaccine and was concerned
about the risk of side effects to the children, balanced against what she perceived as a
low risk to them having adverse outcomes if they remained unvaccinated. [Soucy at
para 17]
220. The father had provided nine cases in support of judicial notice. The mother had
provided several cases and in addition had provided articles downloaded from the
Internet.
221. Justice MacEachern found that the "Covid-19 situation is rapidly changing and
developing. This includes changing public health directives such as masking protocols
and vaccine mandates, new variants with changing transmissibility and virulence to
the vaccinated and unvaccinated. These changes mean that a situation that may have
been generally accepted and time sensitive and September 2021 is not as generally
accepted and time-sensitive in September of 2021 is not generally accepted and time-
sensitive in May or June of 2022." [Soucy at para 22]
A630
0631
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-631 A631
27
222. Justice MacEachern also found that the mother's concerns about vaccinating the
children were reasonably held and that she had weighed the risks and benefits of the
children being vaccinated versus not being vaccinated. The father in that case was
seeking to change a joint temporary decision-making order to allow him to have
decision-making and thereafter to proceed with the vaccination of the children. Justice
MacEachern declined to make that order.
_J
C:
m
J.N.and C.G. u
l'-
1'-
0)
223. (The father appealed this decision. The Court of Appeal as referenced in the section at u(I)
the end of this decision allowed the father's appeal. This court has left the motion's z
judge's decision in the body of its decision but has addressed the Ontario Court of 0
Appeal subsequently.)
224. In February 2022, four days after hearing a motion, Justice Pazaratz issued a 23 page,
94 paragraph decision relating to the vaccination of three children aged 14,12 and 10.
[JN. v. CG., 2022 ONSC 1198 (CanLII)]
225. There was a final order in place based on minutes of settlement signed only months
before on October 5, 2021, that the father was to have sole decision-making with
respect to the oldest child and the mother was to have sole decision-making with
respect to the younger two children who were the subject of that motion.
226. When the parties signed the minutes of settlement, they already knew that they
disagreed about the issue of vaccinations and the minutes are reflected that this was a
"live issue and shall be determined at a later date".
227. They also agreed that the eldest child could make his own decision with respect to
vaccination.
228. Earlier in the pandemic, the father went to court seeking an order that the children
should be compelled to attend school in person for the 2020/2021 school year while
the mother argued that the exposure to COVID-19 was too high and that they should
have remote learning. That position was accepted by the court on an earlier motion.
229. The father was now bringing a motion claiming that the mother was not protective
enough and that the younger two children should receive the COVID-19 vaccine and
recommended booster vaccines.
230. The eldest child had been vaccinated, a decision supported by both parents, and had
not exhibited any adverse effects.
231. The mother took the position that she was not an "anti-vaxxer" but that she had
concerns about the current vaccines and worried that "once children are vaxxed, they
can't be unvaxxed."
232. Both children had already had COVID-19 with minimal symptoms.
A631
0632
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-632 A632
28
233. In his materials, the father attacked the mother's political affiliations.
234. The court found that the children did not wish to be vaccinated. The court found those
views to be independent. The court agreed with the father that the children were not
old enough to decide on their own but disagreed that their opinions should be
completely ignored.
....J
C
235. In this case the court had received as part of the materials dozens of pages oflnternet u
m
downloads. r---
r---
CT)
236. The court found that information obtained from the Internet can be admissible if it is u
(/)
accompanied by indicia of reliability, including whether or not the information comes z
0
from an official website from a well-known organization; whether the information is
capable being verified; and, whether the source is disclosed so that the objectivity of
the person or organization posting the material can be assessed. Once the threshold of
admissibility is met, it is then up to the trier of fact to weigh and assess the
information. [JN., at paras 48 and 49]
237. The court noted that with respect to this type of evidence there is no opportunity for
cross examination or testing.
238. The mother was asking the court to equally consider both sides of the story.
239. The court noted that in almost all of the other cases decided where COVID-19
vaccinations had been ordered, the court has found that the Internet materials
presented by the objecting parent have been grossly deficient, unreliable and, at times,
dubious.
240. The court then asks the somewhat rhetorical question, what if the objecting parent
presents evidence which potentially raises some serious questions or doubts about the
necessity, benefits or potential harm of COVID vaccines for children? [JN., at para
54]
241. The court notes that "there are obvious public policy reasons to avoid recklessly
undermining confidence in public health measures".
242. The court then quotes from the mother's materials which include the side effects set
out in the Pfizer fact sheet. The court notes that this is not some fringe website, this is
what the manufacturer of the vaccine is indicating.
243. The court also quotes from an article submitted by the mother from Dr. Robert Malone
the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. The court quotes from Dr. Malone's article as
follows: "The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship
concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene therapy
technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine enterprise. It is my opinion that the
adult public can handle information and open discussion. Furthermore, we must fully
A632
0633
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-633 A633
29
disclose any and all risks associated with these experimental research products." [J.N.,
at para 60]
244. The court at para 66 then went on to review the case law with respect to judicial notice
and what courts had been willing to accept they would judicial notice and also noted
the case of R.S.P. v. H.L. C., 2021 ONSC 8362 (CanLII) being a decision to which this
court will subsequently refer. :;i
I..
Cil
u
245. Justice Pazaratz then goes on to cite examples of where the courts in his opinion have l'--
1'--
been incorrect in taking judicial notice of certain "facts" that has resulted in significant en
harm to a significant number of individuals. u
(/)
z
0
246. Justice Pazartaz goes on to quote the mother's statement that she believes "in personal
choice, knowledge, understanding and informed consent". His Honour found that the
mother went to extraordinary lengths to inform herself and to maintain an open mind
and a balanced enlightened and dispassionate manner.
24 7. He commented that she was not a bad parent and that no one is a bad citizen simply by
virtue of asking questions of the government.
248. The court found that the mother should have sole decision-making authority with
respect to the administration of COVID vaccines for the two younger children.
M.M. and W.A.K.

249. In August 2022, Justice Corkery of this court released a decision with respect to
motion that he heard February 25, 2022, relating to the vaccination of a 12-year-old
daughter. [MM v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580 (CanLII)]
250. The parties had separated in 2016 and since August 2021 the child had refused to see
her father. A section 30 assessment had been completed in 2019 which recommended
joint custody and shared 50-50 parenting time.
251. There was also a May 2021 Voice of the Child Report wherein the child said that she
wanted to reside primarily with the mother. That report also opined that the child's
views were not the result of parental influence.
252. The father's position was that it was presumptively in the child's best interest to be
vaccinated against COVID-19 and that the decision should not be left up to the child.
253. The father submitted "Let the judge be the bad guy. Let the court be the bad guy." .
According to his logic, the parents can then step back and say the judge has ordered
that the child be vaccinated.
254. The mother does not wish to force the child to be vaccinated against her will.
A633
0634
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-634 A634
30
255. The child has through an email three months before the motion was heard, told the
mother's lawyer that she does not want to be vaccinated and that nothing will change
her mind. She also sent an email to her father December 22, 2021 saying that she does
not want anything to do with him and will note be showing up for Christmas, and that
she does not want the COVID-19 vaccine and asks him not to contact her again.
256. The child further wrote a two-page note January 5, 2022 stating that she did not want _J
C
Ct;
the COVID-19 vaccine as that it has negative effects on children and that she believes u
she is mature enough to make her own decision and that she has read many articles r---
r---
based on the effects of vaccine on children she asserts that it is she and not her mother (j)
u
talking. (/)
z
0
257. The child then writes another two-page note January 11, 2022 expressing her dislike C'":,
('\I
for her father and her opposition to attempts to contact her and control her. She repeats 0
('\J
that she wants her opinion on the COVID-19 vaccine respected and cites examples of
her father's behaviour or signs of psychopathy. She indicates that she thinks she needs
her own children's lawyer.
258. The father submitted a note from the child's doctor addressed "To whom it may
concern" which confirms that " ... it is highly suggested that the child be vaccinated
with the Covid-19 vaccination. She has no known contraindications for the vaccine."
259. Justice Corkery then engages in a review of the case law with respect to vaccinations
and judicial notice.
260. Justice Corkery concludes that he is not prepared to take judicial notice of any
government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.
261. He states that even if he did take such judicial notice of the safety and efficacy of a
vaccine he still had no basis for assessing what that means for this particular child.
262. Justice Corkery also takes into consideration the child's views and preferences and
although being unable to determine the extent to which they may be influenced by a
parent he is satisfied that the notes were written by the child and that she is able to
reasonably form her own opinion. He therefore dismisses the father's motion.
R.S.P.and H.L.C.P.
263. In December 2021, Justice Breithaupt-Smith issued a decision (R.S.P. v. HL.C.,2021
ONSC 8362 (CanLII)) relating to, among other things, reconciliation counselling
between a mother and daughter.
264. Although this decision is not related to COVID-19 vaccinations, it is a recent decision
with respect to the issue of judicial notice and a child's ability to provide informed
consent to treatment.
A634
0635
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-635 A635
31
265. The facts of the case do not directly relate to the issue before this court but the court
finds that the decision is relevant to the issues before this court.
266. Justice Breithaupt-Smith considers the conflict between the Health Care Consent Act
and ordering a child to participate in reconciliation therapy despite the child's
reluctance to do so.
_J
C
267. The court then notes based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. u
C1l
Find, "Expert evidence is by definition neither notorious nor capable of immediate and r--.
r--.
accurate demonstration. This is why it must be proved through an expert whose v)
qualifications are accepted by the court and who is available for cross-examination" u(/)
[R.S.P. at para 58] z
0
268. Her Honour then goes on to conduct an analysis of judicial notice Being an analysis of
which this court adopts.
Other cases considered by this court

269. The court has reviewed and considered the following cases in addition to those cases
to which counsel referred this court.
270. Those decided by the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario being:
• A.P. v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150 (CanLII)
• C v. H, 2021 ONSC 5870 (also cited as Campbell v. Heffern) (CanLII)
• A.G. v. M.A. 2021 ONCJ 531 (CanLII)
• McDonald v. Oates, 2022 ONSC 394 (also cited as L.M v. CO.) (CanLII)
• Warren v. Charlton 2022 ONSC 1088 (CanLII)
• Moore v. Moore, 2022 ONSC 2378 (CanLII)
271. Those decided by the Ontario Court of Justice being:
• Rouse v. Howard, 2022 ONCJ 23 (CanLII)
• Davies v. Todd, 2022 ONCJ 178 (CanLII)
272. Those decided by courts in New Brunswick being D.O. v. CJ, 2022 NBQB 19,
V.L.M v. B.S.F., 2022 NBQB 23, D.E. v. WE. 2022 NBKB 211, including the New
Brunswick Court of Appeal decision K.B v. K.D.B. 2022, CanLII 49176 (N.B.C.A.)
wherein judicial notice taken by a lower court was not overturned.
273. Cases decided by the Provincial Court of British Columbia being:
A635
0636
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-636 A636
32
• R.S.L. v. A.C.L., 2022 BCPC 9 (CanLII)
• TK. v. J. W, 2022 BCPC 16 (CanLII)
• G. W v. C.M., 2022 BCPC 29 (CanLII)
• J.F.P v. J.A.G., 2022 BCPC 44 (CanLII) _J

C
(1,
u
• G.F. v. MA ..M, 2022 BCPC 46 (CanLII) r--
r--
CJ)
• A.T v. C.H., 2022 BCPC 121 (CanLII) uCl)

z
0
274. A case decided by the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench being K.MS. v. K.B.S.
2022 SKQB 57 (CanLII).
275. A case decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia being Steiner v. Mazzotta,
2022 BCSC 827 (CanLII).
276. The court also considered the case of Inglis v. Inglis, 2022 SKCA 82 which is a case
decided by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The court notes however that that case
specifically did not decide the issue of judicial notice as the appeal was decided for
other reasons.
277. Most of the above referenced cases, have taken judicial notice of the public health
messaging that COVID-19 vaccines are "safe and effective".
The evidence before the court

278. The mother's evidence is that the paternal grandmother had "tried to interfere with the
children's health care since birth." The mother references the grandmother as allegedly
berating her for the children receiving routine vaccinations.
279. The mother's evidence is that the separation occurred July 27, 2020 and that the
separation was precipitated by "the applicant and his family stormed the house during
intake visit with York Children's Aid Society whose involvement had been requested
by me due to the applicant's mother's accosting me in front of the children due to my
insistence on adhering to COVID-19 protocols."
280. Therefore, according to the mother, the issue of COVID-19 had been front and centre
of the parties' dispute from the date of separation.
281. In the OCL report, there appears to be corroboration of issues between the paternal
grandmother and the mother.
A636
0637
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-637 A637
33
282. The mother's evidence is that the father had never objected to the children receiving
any vaccines until the parties separated.
283. The parties signed comprehensive minutes of settlement on April 19, 2022 in which
they settled all issues on a final basis save and except the issue of the children's
COVID-19 vaccination. Those minutes of settlement provided that the mother would
have final decision-making on all other issues. ....J
,-
284. Part of the evidence from the mother was a letter from the child's family doctor. At the r--
r--
time the letter was written, the younger two children were not eligible to receive the m
vaccine as they were under the age of five. The family doctor recommended that the u(/)
eldest child (and the others when they were eligible) receive their COVID-19 vaccine z
0
in accordance with the Public Health Ontario Guidelines and the Canadian Pediatric N
Society recommendations. Since the children had at that time just recently recovered 0
N
from COVID-19, the recommendation pursuant to the Public Health Guidelines was
that they wait three months to have their vaccination.
285. The family doctor then indicated that if in future Public Health Ontario and the
Canadian Pediatric Society recommended COVID-19 vaccination for children of the
younger children's age she would "fully support this".
286. In May 2022, when the mother's first affidavit was sworn (at that time it was
anticipated that the motion would be heard in the May trial sittings) she was expecting
her fourth child and her doctor had opined that she was at increased risk of a poor
outcome from COVID-19 infection given that she was then pregnant.
287. At the time that the court heard this motion, she had already given birth to the fourth
child.
288. In the mother's affidavit, she does not accept the father's belief that his sister-in-law's
miscarriage was as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination. The mother indicates in her
affidavit that CBC News has reported that a significant increase in stillbirths at Lion's
Gate Hospital in British Columbia where the sister-in-law was living, did not occur.
289. The mother points out that the father is a heavy equipment operator with a grade 12
education and that she is currently enrolled in a social work program at the University
of Waterloo.
290. She asserts, and the court accepts that neither of them have an education in medicine.
291. The father's position is that he wishes to wait until the COVID-19 vaccines have
completed their medical trials prior to the parties making a decision with respect to
whether or not their children should be vaccinated. He points out the obvious, that
vaccination is an irreversible decision (one cannot be "unvaccinated").
292. He asserts that the oldest child, H.W.T., is a happy and healthy 10-year-old boy and
that when he had COVID-19 in March 2022, along with his siblings and his mother, he
A637
0638
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-638 A638
34
experienced cold and flu like symptoms and recovered without any issue. He asserts
that this results in H.W.T. having natural immunity to the virus.
293. His evidence is that H.W.T. is thriving, attending school, playing with his friends and
playing basketball.
294. The father's belief is that the vaccine does not prevent the spread or transmission of ....J
C:
the virus and that this has been confirmed, even by the pharmaceutical companies, (il
u
who manufacture and distribute the vaccine. r---
r---
CT)
295. He points out that initially, the government narrative was that the vaccine would uCf)
prevent either contracting COVID-19 or transmitting COVID-19. z
0
296. He asserts that now even the pharmaceutical companies have accepted this as not
being true.
297. With respect to the younger two children, his evidence is that they, as well, are healthy
and happy children and that they too experienced cold and flu like symptoms from
COVID-19 and both of them recovered without any issue. They both attend ballet
classes.
298. His evidence is that the maternal grandmother works at a men's shelter wherein she is
exposed to COVID-19 on a daily basis and yet she still attended at the mother's home
even while the mother was pregnant.
299. The father submits that while the mother objects to him taking the children to Mexico
over March break 2023, the mother allowed the maternal grandfather to take the
children to a Hall owe' en event that had 8,000 people in attendance.
300. He also submits that it is a double-standard in that the mother would not permit him to
take the children to a friend's cottage but a week later allowed the maternal
grandfather to take the eldest child to Grand Bend where they stayed in a hotel.
301. He points out that while the mother was fully vaccinated, it was she who got COVID-
19 as did the children.
302. The father claims that he entered into the minutes of settlement in April 2022 as he
could not afford to go to trial.
303. He points to studies that found that the infection fatality rate for children under the age
of 19 was 3 in 10,000. He asserts that his research shows that the fatality rate for
children from the vaccine is far higher.
304. In his material, he points to a statement from the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Ontario as follows "physicians must not make comments or provide advice that
encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations.
A638
0639
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-639 A639
35
Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and
disciplinary action when warranted."
305. The father references 12 of 294 current research studies pertaining to the COVID-19
vaccine and children, many of which are estimated not to be completed until mid-
2023, 2024 or in one case 2025.
....J
C
306. In his material, he references that there has been a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Cl,
u
System (VAERS) established since 1990. This is co-managed by the Centre for r---
1'-
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration en
(.)
(FDA). (/)
z
0
307. He points out that according to VAERS reporting system there have been the
following reported as effects of vaccination regarding children between the ages of six
months and 17 years:
• 163 deaths,
• 530 permanent disabilities,
• 1965 myocarditis,
• 270 Encephalitis,
• 231 Bell's Palsy,
• 1,657 severe allergic reactions and
• 103 Guillain Barre/Paralysis.
308. He submits that all of this is offered in support of his argument that it is better to wait
for better evidence and to have the issue decided at trial rather than ordering
vaccination at this point and time.
309. He suggests that changes have occurred in the recommendations of governments with
respect to COVID-19 protocols.
• His "evidence" from Internet sites (Exhibit "E" of father's Affidavit dated
November 7, 2022) is that some other countries are no longer recommending
or have paused COVID-19 vaccination for children.
310. He cites the following list of countries being:
• Denmark ... as of September 2022 children under the age of 18 will not the
vaccinated
A639
0640
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-640 A640
36
• Sweden, vaccinations no longer recommended for children between the ages of

five and 11 as the health agency indicates the risks outweigh the benefits
• United States, no differentiation between people who are vaccinated and not
vaccinated based on general immunity due to either vaccination or previous
COVID-19 infection
....J
C
ru
• Taiwan, suspension of administering second doses of Pfizer vaccine for u
children in the 12 to 17 age group based on concerns of increase ofmyocarditis r--
r--
u)
• United Kingdom public health warning with respect to possible myocarditis

uCf)
following vaccinations particularly after the second vaccination
z
0
• Florida health department indicates the benefit of vaccination is likely

outweighed by the abnormally high risk of cardiac related death among men 18
to 39 years of age following mRNA a vaccination
• Finland paused the use ofModema's COVID-19 vaccine for younger males
due to reports of rare cardiovascular side effect.
311. As well, based on the same exhibit and Internet sites the father points out that cases of
myocarditis have been reported in Ontario following immunization with the COVID-
19 vaccine. Based on the referenced site. These cases have occurred more frequently
in males under the age of 30 years and more commonly following their second dose.
The Internet article indicates that there have been as of that date 21,717 adverse effects
following immunization based on approximately 35 million doses administered as of
that date.
312. The father in the same exhibit points to an Internet site being the Canadian Covid Care
Alliance which claims that being exposed to the virus provides natural immunity
which has been found to be "robust, appropriate, long lasting and complete".
313. He also alleges in the same exhibit that some information is being withheld from the
public and points to articles that he claims substantiate that position.
314. The mother challenges the sources of the father's information, claiming that they are
"biased and anti-vaccine/anti-mandate organization websites such as the Children's
Defense Fund sic (Children's Health Defense) or Canadian Covid Care Alliance.
315. The mother accepts that the children are happy and healthy and that they recovered
from COVID-19.
316. She challenges the father's belief that the children have natural immunity from
COVID-19 as a result of having had COVID-19.
A640
0641
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-641 A641
37
317. Her evidence is that the children did not attend an event where 8,000 people were
present all at once. She claims that there were 8,000 attendees over the course of a
weekend event.
318. So far as her mother is concerned, she claims that her mother works at a homeless
shelter in the kitchen taking two PCR tests per week and additional PCR tests if the
shelter is in outbreak. _J
C
(1l
u
319. The mother recites travel advisories from the Canadian government with respect to r---
r---
unvaccinated travellers. CT)
0
(/)
320. She points out that the OCL section 30 assessment (which did not specifically deal z
0
with the vaccination issue) recommended sole decision-making for the mother.
321. The mother claims, apparently based on government information, that the vaccine does
not prevent infection or transmission but mitigates the risk to individuals in the
community by reducing infection and transmission events and reduces the incidence of
severe disease and hospitalization.
322. The mother challenges the father's evidence with respect to the COVID-19 vaccine.
According to the report referenced by her, as of October 14, 2022 of the 91 million
doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered nationwide there have been 10,501 serious
adverse events reported or .011 % which would represent 1.1 persons per ten thousand
people administered.
323. The OCL report is a piece of evidence. The court notes that it has not been subjected
to the scrutiny of cross-examination.
324. The court further notes, not unexpectedly, that the report did not address specifically
the issue before this court, that being the issue of whether or not the children should be
vaccinated against COVID-19.
325. The other issues that the parents appear to have, regarding the continued therapy
before Ms. Guthrie Douse and the issue of the father seeking travel consent for March
break vacation to Mexico, are not before this court and therefore the court will not
address those issues. They need to be addressed at the next settlement conference that
the parties have before the case management judge or a motion.
326. For those reasons, the OCL report is of very limited use to this court for purposes of
the determination of the issue before this court.
327. What the OCL report does point out is that there is conflict between the parents and
there is clearly conflict between the extended family on each side and the other parent.
Analysis and finding
A641
0642
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-642 A642
38
328. A fundamental tenet in law is that courts do not decide a case until we have given both
sides the opportunity to present their argument.
329. In this case, the court has minimal evidence from either side with respect to the
position that they are advancing.
330. The issue before the court is a very finite one. The issue to be decided is: At this ...J
C
motion should the court make an order allowing the mother to have sole decision- (ij
0
making with respect to the issue of COVID-19 vaccines for the children and thereby l'---
1'---
allowing her to have the children vaccinated? This would require the court to dispense m
with the necessity of the father's consent to those vaccinations. u
(I)
z
0
331. Although it is a temporary motion, as the father quite rightly points out, vaccinations er:,
N
cannot be "undone" and therefore if the court were to grant the relief sought by the 0
N
mother effectively it would be a final order
332. In essence, the position advanced on behalf of the mother is that she accepts the public
health recommendations. She accepts that, as stated by the public health authorities the
COVID-19 vaccines for children are "safe and effective".
333. In addition to the public health recommendations, she relies on the letter from the
family doctor in which the family doctor supports those public health
recommendations.
334. The father, on the other hand, takes the position that this decision should not be made
based on the evidence that the court has before it. He points out that the court has no
expert evidence before it. He asks that the issue be decided at trial where expert
evidence can be called.
335. He further submits that the court should not take judicial notice of the vaccines being
safe and effective based on statements made by various public health authorities.
336. The court has conducted a thorough review of all of the cases referred to by either side
and has reviewed all the Canadian cases of which the court is aware that deal with this
issue.
337. The court finds that the primary issue to be decided by the court is the issue of judicial
notice. The court has referenced that in the review of the case law.
Judicial Notice and this Issue

338. As referenced previously, the law in Canada with respect to judicial notice is as set out
by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find.
339. If there are facts which are clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute,
then a court may take judicial notice of those facts and does not require evidence
before it to have those facts proven.
A642
0643
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-643 A643
39
340. If the facts are not clearly uncontroversial or are capable of being disputed by
reasonable people, then a court should and must require expert evidence of the
same. Expert evidence is an exception to the hearsay rule.
341. The mother in this case, who is asking that she be given decision-making authority so
that she can have the children vaccinated, asks the court to find that it should take
judicial notice of vaccines being "safe and effective"
342. As the court has noted, there have been in excess of 40 decisions wherein judges have
been prepared to make that finding and to effectively order children to be vaccinated
based on taking judicial notice of the vaccines being "safe and effective" u
(/)
z
0
343. The court has gone through a detailed analysis of more than half of those decisions
344. Essentially, what those courts have found is that because public health authorities and
governments who have given them mandates, have said that vaccines are safe and
effective, the court is prepared to take judicial notice of that as a "fact".
345. Based on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Find, those courts have
decided that this "fact" is clearly uncontroversial and not being capable of being
disputed by reasonable people.
346. That is the only way that one gets to the conclusion that a court should take judicial
notice of this "fact"
347. As this court has noted in those decisions, the "dissenting parent" has asked the court
not to take judicial notice of the public health narrative.
348. The dissenting parents have brought forth "evidence" sometimes from the Internet,
and sometimes by bringing forward doctors and scientists whom they have asked the
court to find as an expert who proffers an opinion that is contrary to that of the public
health messaging.
349. This court analyzes the mandate of judicial notice as set out in R. v. Find somewhat
differently to the courts that have been willing to take judicial notice of the public
health messaging.
350. The court comes back to the question which this court asks itself: Is the proposition
that vaccines are "safe and effective" an uncontroversial proposition?
3 51. If the answer to that question is yes, then the court is entitled to take judicial notice of
that "fact"
352. Stated differently, is it a proposition that is capable of being disputed by reasonable

people?
A643
0644
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-644 A644
40
353. If the answer to this question is yes, then the "fact" is not uncontroversial and
therefore the court should not take judicial notice but should require expert evidence to
be tendered in order to make the determination
354. That leads this court to determine the issue of whether or not this proposition is
controversial and whether or not the court has any evidence that "reasonable people"
would dispute this "fact". _J
C
(0
(_)
355. What evidence does this court have before it in order to assist it in making that r---
r---
determination? m
(_)
(/)
356. On the one hand, the court accepts, as have other courts, that the court can take as z
0
evidence what public health authorities have been saying. ('')
N
0
N
357. This court does not dispute that public health authorities in Ontario, Canada and
elsewhere and the governments who have appointed those public health authorities
have clearly communicated to the public that the public health authorities and the
governments are of the view that vaccines are "safe and effective"
358. What public health authorities have been saying is evidence simply of the fact that the
public health authorities have been saying the vaccines are "safe and effective"
359. Based on R. v. Find, however, in order for the court to take judicial notice of the fact
that the vaccines are "safe and effective" the court needs to go a major step beyond
simply acknowledging that public health authorities are saying this.
360. The court must go the additional step and determine that what the public health
authorities are saying is uncontroversial and that this proposition is not capable of
being disputed by reasonable people
361. From the court's analysis of other cases, and the "evidence" produced by the father in
this case, it can be seen, however, that there are those who do not accept that as a
"fact" and who do not accept that as being uncontroversial.
362. In the case before the court, the father has cited Internet articles wherein the authors
thereof do not accept the public health message as being uncontroversial.
363. The question then becomes, are these "dissenting" individuals reasonable people?
364. Prior to reviewing the issue with respect to vaccines, the court finds it appropriate to
take a broader look at the issue of judicial notice and the issue of what constitutes a
reasonable person.
365. The court starts with the fundamental tenet that courts are expected to be impartial and
base decisions on the evidence before us.
A644
0645
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-645 A645
41
366. Judicial notice is an exception to the court requiring evidence before it and, as set out
in R. v. Find, if the court finds that a "fact" is not uncontroversial to reasonable people
then the court does not need evidence before it to prove that fact.
367. In order to make that determination, this court posits that it is reasonable for a court to
not only take into account that which is put before it by the parties in a particular case
but to take into account life experience. .....J
C:
Cl;
u
368. The court finds something of which the court could take judicial notice is that the earth r--
r--
is not flat but is a sphere rotating on its own axis and revolving around the sun. (j)
u(/)
369. Daily life experience corroborates for this court that it has no difficulty taking judicial z
0
notice of the earth being spherical ('")
N
0
N
370. Each day one can observe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the West.
371. Each 28 days, the moon can be seen to go through phases from a new moon to a full
moon and back to a new moon. These phases and the observation of the shape of the
Crescent moon are consistent with the earth being a sphere an inconsistent with it
being flat.
372. From the prairies or from an airplane one can observe the curvature of the horizon.
This is also consistent with the earth being spherical and not being flat.
373. In Canada, each year one experiences four seasons. This is consistent with the earth
being tilted on its axis and rotating around the sun and inconsistent with the earth
being flat.
374. If one travels closer to the equator one notices the difference in climate to that of
Canada. This is also consistent with the earth being spherical and not flat.
375. It can be observed that a toilet flushes in a counter-clockwise direction, or in clockwise

direction depending on whether or not one is in the northern or southern hemisphere.
376. All of these "life observations" are consistent with the proposition that the earth is a
spinning sphere orbiting around the sun and inconsistent with the proposition that the
earth is flat.
377. This court has not encountered any media outlets nor physicists nor any renowned
scientists claiming that the earth is flat.
378. As indicated, the court has no doubt that of the eight billion people in the world there
may be someone who still believes that the earth is flat. That however does not make
that individual fit into the category of a "reasonable person".
379. How is all of this relevant to this case?
A645
0646
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-646 A646
42
3 80. This court is being asked to take judicial notice that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and
effective for children and in particular for the three children in this case.
3 81. Is that proposition consistent with life experiences such that it should be accepted
without the need for expert evidence?
382. Are there reasonable people who would disagree with that proposition? _j
C
Cil
u
383. What does it mean to be "uncontroversial to reasonable people"? r--
r--
(j)
384. To phrase that question differently, ifreasonable people have different opinions and u
(/)
have come to different conclusions with respect to an issue, this court would find that z
0
the "fact" is not "uncontroversial", or stated another way the "fact" is controversial.
385. Once the court has made that determination, the court should not take judicial notice of
this as an "fact". The court would then require expert evidence to determine if this
hypothesis should be accepted as a "fact".
386. To extrapolate further, the court would suggest that if reasonable people receive
different information from different news sources, that would be an indicia of the fact
not being uncontroversial.
3 87. If the "fact" is uncontroversial then one would assume that if one were to read
different newspapers for example the Toronto Star versus a Post media newspaper
such as the National Post, one would receive the same information. Similarly, if one
were to listen to different television news outlets, presumably one would not be
receiving different information. Therefore, if one listens to CNN or Fox News the
information received if it were in fact "uncontroversial" should be the same.
388. .This would apply to Internet search engines as well so that if one were to search a
"fact" on Google, DuckDuckGo or Brave or a different search engine, one should
receive the same result for that "uncontroversial fact".
389. On the other hand, if the information that one is receiving is different based on the
news source outlet and if reasonable and educated people come to different
conclusions, then this court would find that the "fact" is not "uncontroversial" and is
not one of which the court should take judicial notice.
390. The court has before it, the materials put forward by the father. These materials while
not "expert evidence", certainly express an opinion different to that proffered by
public health authorities.
391. As well, as the court has noted with respect to its analysis of the other cases, there are
many others who would appear to have some expertise on the subject of vaccines who
have an opinion different from that of the public health authorities.
A646
0647
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-647 A647
43
392. This then raises the question as to whether or not these "dissenting individuals" are
reasonable people?
393. The court will embark on a detailed analysis in the following paragraphs.
394. The analysis that this court has conducted, leads this court to a conclusion that it
cannot take judicial notice of vaccines being "safe and effective" ..J
C
Ci;
u
395. The vast majority of other courts that have considered this issue have come to a r---
r---
different conclusion. (j)
uC/")
396. It is not for this court to question the decisions made by other judges. However, when z
0
it comes to judicial notice, each court has to come to their own conclusion as to
whether or not a proposition is "uncontroversial".
397. In the following paragraphs, this court cites many hypotheses.
398. This court recognizes that these are this court's personal hypotheses and may not be
necessarily shared or accepted by others.
399. To be clear, this court is not suggesting that it has evidence before it to make findings
based on these hypotheses.
400. However, the reason that this court is putting forward these hypotheses is to
corroborate the rationale for this court as to why this court is not prepared to accept as
"uncontroversial" and not capable of dispute by reasonable people the proposition that
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for the three children before this court.
401. Based on the Supreme Court of Canada, being clearly uncontroversial is the only
basis on which a court should be accepting judicial notice without expert evidence to
prove a "fact".
402. This court will now delve into its analysis of whether or not this court should accept
judicial notice of the vaccines being "safe and effective".
Should the Court take judicial notice and accept that these vaccines
are "effective" without_expert evidence
403. This court will first examine the issue of whether or not these vaccines are "effective".
404. As other courts have previously indicated, the court can, as an exception to the hearsay
rule, take note of recommendations made by public health authorities.
405. An examination of public health records discloses that the "messaging" of public
health has changed over the three years that COVID-19 has been with us.
A647
0648
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-648 A648
44
406. Initially, for example, the heads of public health including those of the United States,
Canada and Ontario were telling the public that masking was not effective because the
size of the particles of the pathogen virus were so small that they would pass through
any standard mask and therefore the mask offered little if any protection against the
transmission or contracting of the virus.
407. That message changed over time and not only were masks encouraged but, based on _J
C
the government giving public health the authority, masks were in fact mandated to be
(il
u
worn in various regions including Ontario, for a period of time in indoor public r---
r---
settings. People not wearing masks were banned from most indoor public settings. m
uU)
408. That has now changed given that the mandates have been lifted. z
0
409. One could question as to whether or not that change was based on a change in the
public health analysis of the issue or was simply a political decision. This court has no
evidence before it with respect to that issue and therefore will not engage in that
analysis.
410. With respect to vaccines, the messaging has been changing as well.
411. The consistent messaging virtually from the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak was that
vaccines were a panacea and they were essentially the answer to all of the problems
related to this disease.
412. What has changed, is that prior to the vaccines being approved and "rolled out" for
public use, the "refrain messaging" from public health was that the vaccines would
prevent one from contracting COVID-19.
413. Up until the development of the COVID-19 "vaccines", as this court referenced from a
previous case, the technology on which vaccines were based, in layman's terms, was
essentially that a small amount of the pathogen was introduced into the human body
through the vaccine. That triggered within the body the natural immune system and
resulted in the individual developing an immunity to the disease for which they were
vaccinated.
414. In virtually all cases, one dose of a vaccine was administered and the result was that
the vaccinated individual had life-long immunity from that disease.
415. The COVID-19 vaccine however had different technology being the rnRNA
technology.
416. As referenced in other cases and in public health records, shortly after the COVID-19
vaccines had been approved and rolled out by various governments and people began
taking the first dose of vaccine, it became evident that the claim that the vaccine would
prevent individuals from getting COVID-19 was not correct.
A648
0649
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-649 A649
45
417. People who had been vaccinated were routinely getting COVID-19 despite the
vaccination, contrary to what had been represented by public health would be the case
before the vaccine rollout.
418. The public health and government messaging then changed again to claim that while
you could get COVID-19 if you were vaccinated, you were at less risk of transmitting
COVID-19 to others if you were vaccinated. _J
C
(ti
u
419. As time went on, and even after people were encouraged, and in some cases mandated r---
1'--
as a requirement of their employment, or to go to a restaurant, or to travel, to get a (j)
second dose of the vaccine, it became evident that this representation by public health, u
(fJ
that being that vaccinated people were less likely to transmit COVID-19, was also z
0
false. ('")
N
0
N
420. All of these various iterations from public health authorities can be accessed by
checking archival records of public health pronouncements at the time over the last
three years.
421. The problem for this court in being asked to take judicial notice that the vaccines are
"effective" is that what the court is being asked to take judicial notice of, is in fact a
moving target.
422. What public health authorities say today, is totally different to what public health
authorities were saying some months or a year ago.
423. One may argue that public health was faced with a crisis and new vaccines and they
have been learning as they go along and they now have the "messaging" correct and
that we as courts should take judicial notice of the current narrative messaging.
424. One of the individuals who has been cited in other cases and to whom other courts
have decided of whom we should take judicial notice is Dr. K.ieran Moore, the Chief
Medical Officer for Ontario.
425. The court notes that at about the time that this court heard this motion, on a Monday,
Dr. Moore held a press conference That was widely disseminated by the mainstream
media in which he indicated that while masks were not being mandated, it was the
strong recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario ("Dr. Moore") that
masks be worn at all times indoors in public settings when social distancing was not
possible.
426. Once again, that was a public health pronouncement and is documented in public
records.
427. The court notes however that it was widely reported by the media based on reports
from eyewitnesses who were present, and by individuals who took pictures at the
event, that a mere three days (72 hours) later, on a Thursday evening, the same Dr.
Moore who had that very week made the pronouncement and recommendation with
A649
0650
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-650 A650
46
respect to masks was seen at a public event indoors over a significant period of time
not wearing a mask when he clearly was not social distancing.
428. So far as this court is aware, Dr. Moore has never publicly denied that the pictures of
him at that event displayed in the media are in fact accurate pictures.
429. That leaves this court with the question of which Dr. Moore this court should be .....J
C
expected to take judicial notice? The "Monday Dr. Moore" who strongly encourages 0
C1l
the use of masks while indoors or the "Thursday Dr. Moore" who apparently either r--
r--
does not believe his own recommendation or does not see fit to follow his own (j)
0
recommendation.? (/)
z
0
430. As the cited cases have pointed out, and as the literature to which the applicant in this
action has directed the court, there are others who would appear to have significant
credentials and expertise in the area who would proffer an opinion that the vaccines
are not "effective." Those individuals totally disagree with the public health and
government messaging that the vaccines are "effective".
431. This court does not have expert evidence on the subject of the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of vaccines and is therefore not concluding that the vaccines are not
effective.
432. However, this court does not put all of those who question the effectiveness of the
COVID-19 vaccines in the same category as individuals who would continue to claim
that the earth is flat.
433. The court finds that there are "reasonable people" who have appear to have some
considerable degree of expertise who have an opinion different to that of the public
health authorities as to the effectiveness of the vaccines.
434. In fact, this court finds that the effectiveness of vaccines can be called into question by
public health pronouncements alone.
435. Initially, public health was recommending a single dose of a vaccine. Public health
then began to recommend a second dose of the vaccine.
436. Public health recommendations have now further evolved such that booster shots are
being recommended to be taken every three to six months. For many individuals,
public health has now recommended up to five doses of the vaccine. Once again, all of
this is the subject of public record.
437. This court is not prepared to take judicial notice based on public health
pronouncements, and based on that which is set out above, that simply because public
health is continuing with the messaging that the vaccines are "effective" that judicial
notice should be taken of this and that this "fact" should be accepted as clearly
uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute.
A650
0651
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-651 A651
47
438. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find made it clear that in order to take judicial
notice of a "fact" the court must find that facts are clearly uncontroversial or
beyond reasonable dispute.
439. This court has pointed out that "the facts" as represented by public health authorities
have changed and have been a moving target over the past three years.
......J
C
440. As well, this court has pointed out that at least some of the public health authorities Ci,
~.
upon whom this court is being asked to take judicial notice have not even acted in r--
r--
accordance with their own recommendations 72 hours after making those 0)
recommendations. u(/)
z
0
441. Dr. Moore. is certainly not alone based on public health representatives and
government representatives who have, based on media reports, not followed their own
recommendations.
442. Further as referenced through the analysis of other cases, this court has pointed out
that people who appear to have expertise including an individual who is recognized as
being the "inventor" or the "founder" of the very vaccine that this court is being asked
to take judicial notice is "effective" have now been quoted as saying that they do not
agree that it is effective.
443. This court finds that it would be illogical to ignore that the inventor of the vaccine is
taking a position contrary to the public health messaging and to take judicial notice of
the public health messaging.
444. One would have to conclude that it is not controversial to have the inventor of the
vaccine take a position contrary to that of public health authorities.
445. Further, the court would have to conclude that Dr. Robert Malone, who has been
recognized by other courts as the inventor or founder of the mRNA vaccine is not a
"reasonable person" when it comes to the issue of him taking a position that is
different to the public health messaging of which this court is being asked to take
judicial notice.
446. To be clear, this court is not finding that Dr. Malone is the inventor of the mRNA
vaccine nor is the court finding that the statements attributed to him are "facts". The
court does find that these are issues that court be determined based on expert evidence
at a trial. The court does find that when individuals who appear to be "primafacie
experts" in a field are questioning the very premise of which a court being asked to
take judicial notice that the court should at least consider this in the analysis of judicial
notice.
44 7. This court finds to ignore this would be totally illogical and not remotely in
accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of what is required in order
for courts to take judicial notice.
A651
0652
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-652 A652
48
448. Therefore, this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of the vaccines as being
"effective".
Should the court take judicial notice that these vaccines are "safe"
without expert evidence
_J
449. Having determined that this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of the vaccines C
Cu
being "effective", it could be argued that this court need not move on to the issue of
u
r---
whether or not judicial notice should be taken as to whether or not they are "safe". 1'--
m
u(I)
450. However, for this court, that issue is even more deeply concerning and something z
0
which the court believes needs to be analysed.
451. It is trite law that the court, in making decisions relating to the parenting of children, is
governed by the best interests of the child or children. The Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c
3 (2nd Supp), and the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C. 12, require the
court to do so.
452. This court therefore should not be issuing any order that requires a child to be
vaccinated or an order that gives decision-making authority to a parent knowing that
by doing so, that parent is going to have the child vaccinated, where, there is a concern
which could be held by reasonable people, that the vaccine is either not safe in the
short term or that the vaccine either does or could possibly or likely have long term
negative side effects.
453. As with the issue of whether or not the vaccines are "effective" there have been as
cited, multiple courts that were prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that the
vaccines are "safe" because that is what public health is telling us.
454. Those courts were prepared to take judicial notice of the "safety" of the vaccine as a
"fact" without the requirement of expert evidence.
455. This court finds that in making any decision, we need to know what we know but
equally importantly, we need to know what we don't know.
456. These vaccines, at the time that the court heard this motion, with children in particular,
had only been administered for a relatively short period of time, and to younger
children, for only a few months and to older children for approximately one year.
457. It is therefore impossible to know what the long-term side effects are of these vaccines
as there are no children to whom the vaccine has been administered for more than
approximately one year.
458. The pharmaceutical companies, the public health authorities, the government, and the
mainstream media are all telling us that these vaccines are "safe".
A652
0653
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-653 A653
49
459. Many courts have been willing to accept and take judicial notice that because public
health is telling us they are "safe" that should be found as a "fact" as to the truth of
that statement. Courts have thereby effectively mandated the vaccination of children
over the objection of a dissenting parent.
460. Continuing on with what we don't know, because of the passage of time or lack
thereof, no one can say with certainty what the long-term effects are of these vaccines _J
C
on children as no child has been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine for long u
(ll
enough to have any ability to tell for certain based on a sample size of individuals who l'--
1'--
could be studied. CT)
u(/)
461. Public health is asking us to rely on their opinion and predictions that these vaccines z
0
are "safe". (Y')
N
0
N
462. This court asks the question that is "clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable
dispute." [R. v. Find, at para 48]
463. The court has no evidence before it as to the basis on which public health authorities
have concluded that COVID-19 vaccines for children are "safe".
464. We know that anyone who claims (including public health authorities) that the
vaccines are safe, is clearly speculating certainly based on any possible long-term
negative side effects.
465. The question then becomes, is it reasonable to take judicial notice of such speculation
where public health authorities are claiming that the vaccines are "safe"?
466. This court could find simply that it is not prepared to take judicial notice of a "fact"
based on what is clearly speculation.
467. However, the court finds that there are additional reasons why this court should not
take judicial notice of the public health authorities' pronouncements that the vaccine is
"safe".
468. As this court pointed out earlier, simply because there is someone who still believes
that the earth is flat, does not mean that is a "reasonable dispute".
469. As has been pointed out in other cases, governments have been wrong before in a
number of areas and when it comes to public health recommendations.
470. For example, the government belief and "messaging" at the time, with respect to the
drug Thalidomide, was clearly wrong.
4 71. This was later proven to have been wrong and unfortunately because many pregnant
women relied on the advice that they were receiving at the time from public health
authorities, it resulted in a number of children being born with deformities.
A653
0654
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-654 A654
50
472. We cannot lose sight, however, of the fact that public health at the time and the
government of the day was promoting a drug which ultimately was proven to have had
very serious and detrimental side effects.
473. As has been noted in other cases, there are many individuals who are "sounding the
alarm bells" with respect to both the short-term and long-term possible side effects of
COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the administration of those vaccines to children. _,
C
Cll
CJ
474. The court has cited other cases where the dissenting parent has called experts to testify T'-
T'-
that they find the vaccines are not safe. Even though those courts have not accepted m
the evidence, nor even accepted them as experts this court finds they are still relevant u(/"J
for the determination of judicial notice. z
0
475. If the proposition is controversial or challenged by reasonable people, the court should
not take judicial notice of that as a "fact".
476. The court find that these "experts" cannot be dismissed into the same category as those
who still believe the earth is flat.
477. Other cases have referenced the VAERS system, which is a system set up for
compensation for victims of vaccine related injuries. The system was established at the
same time that legislation was passed which precluded civil claims against
pharmaceutical companies for vaccine related injuries.
478. An examination of public records will disclose that there is legislation in place in most
countries pursuant to which the pharmaceutical companies have such an immunity
when it comes to vaccines.
479. Unlike other drugs that they sell where they have the risk of lawsuits, the best that
someone can receive as a "vaccine victim" is compensation from a fund established to
provide some compensation for such injuries or death.
480. There are laws in place that preclude an individual from claiming damages against a
pharmaceutical company even where they are able to prove that they were injured as a
result of taking the vaccine manufactured by that pharmaceutical company.
481. The court finds this as another concern as to why the court should exercise extreme
caution in being asked to take judicial notice of vaccines as being "safe" when it
appears that the uncontradicted evidence is that the mRNA vaccine is different to
"conventional vaccines" and that the timeline in their "invention" and testing was far
shorter than with other vaccines.
482. For all of the above reasons, the court is not prepared to take judicial notice of any
pronouncements from pharmaceutical companies claiming that the vaccine is "safe".
A654
0655
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-655 A655
51
483. This court acknowledges that most of the decisions cited by this court have come to a
different conclusion, and they were prepared to simply accept the "government
messaging" on this issue.
484. Clearly, courts are independent of the government and courts routinely render
decisions that are contrary to the positions taken by various governments. For
example, criminal legislation is often set aside by the court for a variety of reasons. ..J
C
ro
u
485. However, when it comes to the issue of government messaging and COVID-19 l'-
1'-
vaccines, it would appear that most courts have not questioned the messaging of (j)
governments. u(I)
z
0
486. History has taught us that governments and the media does not always act in a manner
that promotes public health.
487. It was not that long ago that the media depended on tobacco companies and companies
selling wine, spirits and beer for advertising revenue.
488. At a time when there were a number of experts opining that tobacco caused lung
cancer and other experts opining that alcoholic products could cause cirrhosis of the
liver, among other diseases, the media and governments continued to allow those
companies to advertise and continue to rely on those companies for advertising
revenue.
489. Once those advertising revenues were no longer available to mainstream media, were
those advertisers to a large extent replaced with advertisements paid by large
pharmaceutical companies?
490. For those reasons among others, this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of any
"messaging" from mainstream media.
491. So far as governments are concerned, as is referenced in the material filed on behalf of
the father, there was a time when there were virtually no governments in the world that
challenged the messaging of the vaccines being "safe and effective".
492. However, the articles referenced by the father in this case indicate that there are now
some countries, including Finland and Denmark that have banned or are no longer
recommending the distribution and administration of vaccines to children. This would
appear to be based on a conclusion by those governments that they are no longer
certain that the vaccines are "safe and effective".
493. What about family doctors? Should their opinions be accepted as being totally
independent?
494. The letter that the court received from a family doctor in this case, is similar to the
letters that were tendered apparently in other cases cited by this court. Essentially, the
letter before this court and the letters before other courts, are written in very similar
A655
0656
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-656 A656
52
language. The doctor is simply parroting the narrative and messaging that has been
passed down from public health authorities.
495. There is no evidence before this court, that the doctor in this case, or for that matter in
the other cases, has done any independent research in order to form their own opinion
as to what are the risks of the COVID-19 vaccination.
....J
C
496. In fact, what they merely stated is that public health recommends vaccination of m
l)
children against COVID-19, except in cases where there is evidence that a particular r--
r--
child is at higher risk. CT)
u
(IJ
497. Dissenting parents in other cases and the father in this case before this court, have z
0
questioned whether or not doctors in Ontario are free to give opinions that are contrary ~
N
to public health edicts without having any professional consequences. 0
N
498. There have been cases cited in the media whereby doctors have been disciplined by
their governing bodies where the doctor has issued letters of exemption to patients
from the vaccines or where the doctors have prescribed medications which the public
health authorities have not been recommending for the use with respect to COVID-19.
499. Can the courts therefore take judicial notice of the fact that family doctors issuing a
letter, are doing so totally independent of any concerns from sanctions from their
governing bodies?
500. This court finds that one cannot and should not take judicial notice of that fact.
501. Courts in other cases have discounted Dr. Malone, for among other reasons, because
he was banned from Twitter (when Twitter was under previous ownership) for
spreading "misinformation".
502. By determining that a position taken by someone is "misinformation" simply because

Twitter, Facebook, Google, or some other social media platform bans someone for
declaring what they are saying as "misinformation" is by extension taking judicial
notice of the "fact" that the owners or "regulators" of these platforms are independent
and have made a determination has to what are "facts" and what is "misinformation".
Further it presumes that this determination is uncontroversial.
503. The court does not find that we should be taking judicial notice of a determination by
an owner of one of these platforms as to what is "misinformation".
504. This court does not find that simply because a social media platform bans someone
from it or declares their statements to be "misinformation", as a valid reason to reject
an opinion rendered by the individual, particularly when that individual is the one who
invented the mRNA technology.
505. The court does raise the question however why is it that Twitter (at least while under
previous ownership) Facebook and other social media platforms and the search engine
A656
0657
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-657 A657
53
Google finds it appropriate and necessary to ban anyone who dares to challenge the
public health messaging on the issue of vaccines?
506. The argument presumably is that these platforms are doing so to "protect the public".
507. This court has difficulty accepting that argument, however, when there are all kinds of
things on the Google search engine or social media platforms that would appear to _J
C
clearly be something from which the public or at least a portion of the public needs to u
(1l
be protected. r-
r-
u)
508. Simple examples of this are that of gratuitous violence, or a "recipe" on how to make a u(/)
homemade bomb appear not to be of concern to the individuals censoring "vaccine z
0
misinformation".
509. These organisations do not see any need to protect the public from such information
being distributed through their social media or internet vehicle.
510. If the opinions of individuals who dared challenge public health are not credible, what
is the danger of allowing them to be put out on the Internet?
511. Surely, intelligent people will be able to decide for themselves and determine that
these opinions should not be accepted over those of the public health authorities.
512. It is not only the censorship by social media and Internet search engines, that cause
this court concern but also the mainstream media.
513. Is the proposition that there is censorship within mainstream and social media
platforms simply mere fantasy of "conspiracy theorists"?
514. The dissenting parent in this case, cites as a reason for concern about the safety of the
vaccines, a personal story in which his sister had a miscarriage and the family believes
that this may be connected to her having been vaccinated. He notes that in the BC
hospital where she was being treated, there were an alarming number of stillbirths or
miscarriages among pregnant women who had been vaccinated.
515. The mother, who is asking the court to take judicial notice of public health and to give
her decision-making authority so that she can have the children vaccinated, points out
that Canada's publicly funded broadcaster, the CBC, reported that the concern raised
by the respondent father in this case with respect to this BC hospital, simply did not
happen.
516. This leads the court to another concern that the court has with respect to the
mainstream media.
517. Does the mainstream media have a "narrative" that they promote?
A657
0658
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-658 A658
54
518. One wonders why some stories in the news are, "front-page headlines" for each news
cycle for a number of days and for some cases weeks and months, while on the other
hand, other stories, which arguably are also very newsworthy, are either not reported
at all or are buried in the middle of one newscast and not repeated thereafter.
519. This court is not prepared to take judicial notice that simply because the CBC or any
other mainstream media outlet reports something as being "untrue" that the court _J
C:
(1l
accepts that as being something of which the court will take judicial notice. 0
l'-
1'-
520. For all of the above reasons, this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of the v)
public health claim of that these vaccines are "safe". u(/)

z
0
521. To be clear, the court is not taking judicial notice of any of the representation set out in C'!
N
the father's materials are in fact accurate or are "facts". 0
N
522. The court is merely stating that since it finds that it cannot take judicial notice, by
extension expert evidence is required for the court to make a finding of fact.
Informed consent
523. Another issue that these vaccine cases and the case before this court raises is the issue
of informed consent.
524. The Health Care Consent Act requires that an individual be given an opportunity to
give an informed consent prior to undergoing any medical procedure and that a
healthcare provider ensure that the consent and by the patient to that procedure is
informed prior to administering that procedure.
525. The dissenting father in this case, and the dissenting parents in the other cases cited, all
state that they have done sufficient research to satisfy themselves that they have valid
reasons for not consenting to the vaccination of their child.
526. Courts have, as cited in this decision, not been willing to consider the objections of the
parent who has done their research and has come to a conclusion for their child, that is
contrary to the public health narrative and has determined that the child should not be
vaccinated against COVID-19.
527. In fact, some courts, as cited herein, have even taken away decision-making authority
from a parent who they find is the better parent generally to have that authority. The
decision-making authority has been taken away from them simply because they dared
to question the public health messaging.
528. Doing so, raises huge concerns for this court based on the "slippery slope argument".
529. If courts are prepared to take away decision-making authority from an otherwise
capable parent simply because, based on their research, they have concerns about
public health narrative and subjecting their child to a vaccination, this causes concern
A658
0659
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-659 A659
55
for this court not only in those cases but also in what this court considers the next
logical steps in that determination.
530. Next, are courts going to, through child protection legislation, take away either
decision-making authority or take away children altogether from parents in intact
families who collectively determine to challenge public health narrative or as in this
case to come to a conclusion that is not in their child or children's best interest to be _J
C:
vaccinated? cc
0
r---
r---
531. Following this logic further, the media has reported other cases where individuals who CT)
0
would otherwise be eligible for organ transplants, for example, have been denied those CJ)
transplants simply because they made the decision based on what they believe to be z
0
informed consent that they are not prepared to be vaccinated.
532. Does this logic continue to a case where courts will be mandating vaccinations for
those who object and disagree with public health recommendations?
533. No doubt some will argue this is a far-fetched possibility, but is it?
534. For all of the above reasons, this court is not prepared to take judicial notice of the
"fact" that COVID-19 vaccines for children are "safe".
Censorship of Dissenters
535. In this case, this court has made reference to censorship of those who dare challenge
the public health messaging with respect to vaccines in the mainstream media and in
search engines such as Google and apps such as Twitter.
536. However, as can be seen from some of the cases cited here in, courts have also been
prepared to make orders censoring parents who have a dissenting opinion.
537. Orders have been made precluding those parents from sharing any such opinions with
their children or allowing their children to view any such dissenting opinions either on
the Internet or otherwise.
538. The court well understands, as is ordered typically in family law cases that the courts
discourage, as does this court, parents from involving their children in adult disputes.
539. However, issuing an order which precludes a parent from allowing their teenage child
to view something that is contrary to the public health narrative is deeply concerning
to this court. Hasn't the education system particularly since the I 960s, encouraged and
promoted children to be critical thinkers?
540. Yet it would appear that any time anyone challenges the mainstream "narrative" they
are immediately tarnished with a brush as putting forward "misinformation".
A659
0660
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-660 A660
56
541. There are countries where the courts follow the government narrative and do not
permit the dissemination of opinions that vary from that government narrative. This
court would expect that one could take judicial notice of the "fact" that Canada should
not be such a country.
542. The hallmark of justice is that courts must be viewed to be independent and impartial
triers of fact.
543. We are expected to be gatekeepers and to protect the rights of individuals and groups.
u(I)
The Court as a Gate Keeper z
0
544. Courts are expected to be "gatekeepers" and to protect the interests of those who need
the protection of the courts such as children.
545. In performing this role, it is important to look at as was earlier referenced, what we
know and what we don't know.
546. We know that the COVID-19 vaccine is based on new technology and that it has been
"invented" approximately two years ago.
547. This court is therefore prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that it is impossible
to know the long-term effects of the vaccines simply because of the newness of the
vaccines.
548. We further know that governments were promoting, but are no longer promoting,
vaccines that have been manufactured by Astra Zeneca.
549. Public health authorities are promoting vaccines and are telling the public that
vaccines are "safe and effective".
550. Based on the review of other cases, we know that there are others, whom this court
would deem to be reasonable people, who disagree with the public health, big pharma,
and government "messaging" that the vaccines are in fact "safe and effective".
551. Courts, as gatekeepers, have over the years in utilizing that role, promoted the rights of
individuals and groups who, at that point in time did not have any such rights and
whose rights were not being protected at the time by governments or by mainstream
media.
552. It was the court, that for example, based on rulings, gave women many rights that they
had not had up until that point in time. Similarly, it was courts that gave rights to non-
heterosexual groups who previously had not had those rights. A prime example that
comes to mind is the right to same sex marriage.
553. This court views its obligation to protect the rights of children who are before the
court.
A660
0661
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-661 A661
57
554. Within those rights, this court has referenced, the right to be protected from the
administration of a procedure (in this case a vaccine) without the court having
assurances that the administration of such a vaccine is, at least on a minimum of a cost
benefit analysis, more beneficial to the child than the risk that the child faces in not
being vaccinated.
555. This court finds that it has an obligation to protect the rights of an individual under the _J
C
Health Care Consent Act to be able to make an informed consent and, where the u
(ti
individual or the parent of a child who was not of sufficient age to make that decision l"-
1"-
for themselves, has concluded that they do not want to take the risk of having a J)
vaccine administered to them, that the court has an obligation to protect their rights to
u(/)
make an informed consent by not taking the vaccine certainly without being satisfied
z
0
that the concern of the individual is not that of a "reasonable person".
Finding in this case

556. Having determined, that the court is not prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that
the COVID-19 vaccines for children are safe, and effective, this court is left with little
if any probative evidence on which it could order that the respondent mother have
decision-making authority on the issue of COVID-19 vaccinations and make the order
that she is requesting.
557. The evidence before the court is that each of the three children had COVID-19,
appeared to have had mild symptoms, and recovered from it. The uncontradicted
evidence is that all three children are currently healthy and happy.
558. The applicant father's position has been that the decision as to whether or not the
children should be vaccinated is one that should be deferred, and that if the parties are
unable to come to a consensus based on further research and empirical data that
becomes available, then the issue would have to be decided at a trial where each party
could call expert evidence.
559. The court concurs with that submission.
560. This court has raised many questions which this court believes need to be addressed by
expert evidence before certainly this court would be willing to mandate a child to be
vaccinated contrary to their, or their parents' belief based on informed consent that
such vaccination may pose a greater risk than benefit to the individual.
561. While this court is not taking judicial notice of the fact that vaccines are "safe and
effective", the court wishes to be very clear that it is not taking judicial notice either of
the other propositions and questions posed by this court. The court simply raised those
questions and propositions as the rationale for this court not taking judicial notice of
the proposition that vaccines are "safe and effective". This court has raised many
questions based on media reports and on findings from other cases where doctors and
A661
0662
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-662 A662
58
scientists have an opinion different from that of public health and government on the
issue of whether or not vaccines are safe and effective.
562. This court does not have any evidence before it on which it can make any findings
with respect to these "dissenting opinions".
563. The Family Law Rules, and specifically Rules 20. l, 20.2 and 20.3 set out criteria for .....I
C
the tendering of expert evidence. The court does not have that type of expert evidence u
rc;
before it and the father is asking for an opportunity to proffer that evidence at trial.
564. To be very clear, this court is not taking judicial notice of these dissenting opinions as u
(/)
being "fact". z
0
565. This court finds that these dissenting opinions do create a situation pursuant to which
the court finds that the messaging of public health, government, the pharmaceutical
companies who manufacture and distribute and profit from these vaccines, the
mainstream media and social media platforms all of which have the messaging that the
vaccines are "safe and effective" for children is a proposition that to this court is far
from uncontroversial and is something that this court finds is being challenged by
reasonable people.
566. Courts are required to be impartial adjudicators of the facts before them.
567. Save and except for the issue of whether or not to take judicial notice, courts should
not be making determinations except based on the evidence before them.
568. Judicial notice is an exception to that rule. We as courts, may take judicial notice of
something that is uncontroversial and not subject to dispute by reasonable people.
569. This court posits that a court, in determining whether or not to take judicial notice
cannot nor should it be oblivious to the court's experiences generally in life and the
information that the court receives in day-to-day life from sources such as the media.
570. The court has used the analogy of a flat versus a spherical earth and has noted that all
of this court's life observations are consistent with the earth being a sphere rotating on
its axis and revolving around the sun.
571. Therefore, as noted the court would have no difficulty taking judicial notice of that
"fact".
572. In addition to the material put forward by the father in this case and in addition to the
information ascertained from its review of other cases, this court finds that it cannot
ignore events of which it is aware that are possibly inconsistent with the proposition
that these vaccines are "safe and effective".
573. Millions of viewers have seen television broadcasts oflive sporting events where
athletes who appeared to be in top physical condition and in the prime of their life
A662
0663
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-663 A663
59
have collapsed, and in some cases died of myocardial incidents. Based on other
widespread media reports, the court notes that most professional sports leagues
required players to be vaccinated.
574. Is it possible that there may be a correlation between these players being vaccinated
and these incidents?
575. Of course, the court has no evidence before it on which to make this finding.
r---
r---
576. However, the observation of these incidents certainly is not evidence that is supportive CT)
of finding that the court should take judicial notice of proposition that vaccines are u
(JJ
safe and effective. z
0
('>j
('-J
577. That is just another rationale for this court to find that it requires expert evidence a
N
before making any determination that would require or result in these children being
vaccinated.
578. The court well appreciates that it is extremely expensive to have expert evidence put
forward at a trial.
579. Having said that, should courts be prepared to take a risk with a child's life based on
simply following public health messaging because that is an efficient way of
operating?
580. To this court the answer is clearly no. While it may be expensive and inconvenient,
this court finds that it is a necessary exercise in order for courts to be assured that we
are not requiring something that is potentially harmful to a child.
5 81. History has taught us, as set out in some of the examples herein, that mistakes have
been made in the past which have been extremely detrimental to individuals upon
whom the results have been imposed.
582. Governments and public health authorities have been wrong before. The court has
cited the example of Thalidomide.
583. The media is promoting a message that is based on representations by public health,
the government and pharmaceutical companies who manufacture these vaccines.
Therefore, if any of them are wrong, then the media message is by nature also wrong.
584. Courts as well have been wrong before. The Mother Risk inquiry taught us that simply
because many courts have been willing to accept a certain "fact" does not mean that
well-meaning courts cannot be wrong in their assumptions.
585. This court finds that we should learn from history and to the greatest extent possible
not replicate mistakes that have been made in the past.
A663
0664
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-664 A664
60
586. The court has posed many hypotheses in this decision which this court well realizes
are extremely controversial. The court wishes to emphasize that the court is not
suggesting that it has evidence to support that any of these hypotheses are true. This
court's decision is not based on the assumption that any are in fact true.
587. The whole purpose of this court raising these hypotheses is to demonstrate that the
proposition of public health authorities that the vaccines are "safe and effective" is to _.J
C
ro
this court extremely controversial and one of which according to the criteria set out by u
the Supreme Court of Canada can be challenged by reasonable people and therefore
this court should not be taking judicial notice of that proposition as being true.
0
(()
588. If there is a presumption that public health directives are presumed to be true, and z
0
therefore courts should take judicial notice of the same unless the court is satisfied that
the presumption has been rebutted this court finds that the applicant father should be
entitled to have that addressed at trial wherein he could call expert evidence.
589. The respondent mother's motion is therefore dismissed and this case will be referred to
the trial coordinator to schedule a further settlement conference before the trial
management judge.
590. The applicant father has raised an issue in his materials about consent to a vacation in
Mexico for March break 2023. That is only a few weeks away. Should the parties not
be able to resolve that issue, leave is given to the applicant father to bring a motion
with respect to the same prior to the scheduling of any settlement conference.
591. In this particular case, the court had not heard or received evidence of the views and
preferences of the children. The eldest child is now 10 years of age. The court has no
evidence as to his level of maturity and whether or not the parents would agree that he
is or is not mature enough to form an informed decision on the topic.
592. The concern that the court has, is that it does not wish to create a situation pursuant to
which either or both parents feel that it is appropriate to attempt to influence the child
one way or the other.
593. The court has seen many cases in which parents attempt to do so, and one of the cases
that was cited by the court heard evidence that the child felt that she was on a pizza
which was being pulled in opposite directions by each parent. That is clearly not in the
child's best interest.
594. The court would implore the parents to not "pressure" the child to come to a decision
in accordance with the parent's belief.
595. In many disputes, and in particular in many family law situations, parents are not
willing to open mindedly consider the position taken by the other parent.
596. As with any family law case, often the most damaging impact to the children is the
conflict between the parents.
A664
0665
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-665 A665
61
597. The court would encourage the parents to open mindedly consider all of the research
available to each of them.
598. Knowledge is a powerful tool.
599. Perhaps it is naive of this court to believe that it is possible, but the court would
encourage each side to share with the other all of the information that they have _.J
C
researched and would encourage the other parent to open mindedly read and listen to Ci)
CJ
that information and to open mindedly do their own research. r---
r---
v)
600. Better than having a trial on the issue, would be a situation whereby the parents could CJ
(J)
come to a consensus thereafter. z
0
601. The court has absolutely no doubt each of the parents loves the children and wants to
do what they believe to be in the children's best interest. Simply because parents
disagree on what is in the children's best interest, does not make the dissenting parent a
"bad parent", even if that parent's opinion is contrary to public health
recommendations.
Ontario Court of Appeal Decision: J.N. v. C.G.,2023 ONCA77

602. This court had completed its final draft of this decision and was literally about to
release it when the court learned of the release by the Court of Appeal of Ontario of a
decision in JN v. C. G.
603. This court obviously respects the authority of the Court of Appeal and understands that
it is bound by rulings of that court.
604. On first review, it may appear that the situations faced by this court and by the
Superior Court in that case were very similar in that they both involve a decision in
which a parent is seeking decision-making authority to allow them to have children
vaccinated over the objections of a dissenting parent.
605. It may therefore appear that this court would be bound to change its entire decision as
a result of the Court of Appeal decision.
606. However, this court finds that there are three reasons why, through the distinguishing
of the case before the Court of Appeal and based on the date of the decision that was
appealed, that this court is not bound to do so.
607. This court finds that there is a major difference between the issue before this court and
the issue before the Superior Court in JN v. C. G.
608. The difference is in what the dissenting parent in this case is asking the court to do,
that being to allow him to present expert evidence at trial.
A665
0666
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-666 A666
62
609. In the case of J.N. v. C.G., the father, who was wishing to have the two younger
children vaccinated brought a motion seeking a change in decision-making authority to
allow him to do so. The mother had to that point in time, decision-making authority for
those two children which, would have included decision-making authority over
vaccinations.
610. In the case before this court, it was the mother, who brought a motion seeking _J
C
m
decision-making authority specifically with respect to the issue of vaccinations. u
r--.
r--.
611. In J.N. v. C. G., pursuant to the parties' minutes of settlement, they agreed to have that GI
issue decided by the court. u(I)

z
0
612. The father however in the case before this court was not asking that decision-making ("'.I
N
be given to him as a result of the motion (which decision presumably would have been a
N
not to vaccinate the children).
613. The father in the case before this court was asking that the matter be deferred to a trial
to allow him the opportunity to present expert evidence in order to support the position
that he was taking that being that the COVID-19 vaccines were not "safe and
effective" as had been messaged by public health authorities.
614. The second major difference between the decision in J.N. v. C.G., at the Superior
Court level and the decision reached by this court relates to the conclusions that each
of us has found.
615. In J.N. v. C.G., the motions judge found that the Internet articles proffered by the
mother who was objecting to the child being vaccinated, should be accepted as
evidence.
616. The motions judge therefore found that based on the evidence that was before him,
that the father's motion seeking to change decision-making authority was dismissed.
617. The Court of Appeal has upheld the father's appeal of that decision finding that the
"evidence" before that court was not "proper evidence".
618. However, this court finds that the Court of Appeal decision can be distinguished from
the findings of this court.
619. This court has not utilized any of the evidence produced by the dissenting father
defined as a fact with respect to the truth of the contents of those representations.
620. What this court has found is that the issues raised by the father are sufficient to cause
this court to find that it should not take judicial notice of the proclamations of public
health authorities that the vaccines are "safe and effective".
621. The court notes that the Ontario Court of Appeal found that it allowed the appeal
based on the first ground of appeal that being, "Did the motion judge err by accepting
A666
0667
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-667 A667
63
and relying on the respondent's online resources as expert evidence and by finding that
they raised legitimate concerns about the safety, efficacy and need for the COVID-19
vaccine?"
622. The court found that the motions judge had in fact erred by accepting the respondent's
resources as expert evidence and making a finding based thereon.
_J
C
623. The second ground of appeal was, "Did the motion judge err by finding that the u
Cc
appellant's evidence (from public health authorities and other well-known sources) r--
r--
was credibly disputed?" 0)
u(/)
624. The Court of Appeal noted that, "While taking judicial notice of a fact is highly z
0
discretionary, I note that several courts have already taken notice of the safety,
efficacy and importance of the pediatric COVID-19 vaccines." The Court of Appeal
then quotes many of the same decisions that this court has quoted.
625. However, this court notes that it is not bound by any of those other decisions either
referenced by this court or referenced by the Court of Appeal. They are for the most
part decisions of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
626. The Court of Appeal further stated, "I need not decide whether judicial notice should
be taken of the public health and government information adduced by the appellant, as
the motions judge fell into error in other respects including by treating government
approval of the vaccine as irrelevant."
627. This court would hope it is clear from its decision, that this court has not treated the
public health and government information as "irrelevant".
628. The Court of Appeal went on to review section 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.0.
1990, C. E.23.
629. As noted earlier, this court has accepted pursuant to s. 25 of the Evidence Act that
evidence is not required to prove the proclamations of government have been made.
630. So that there can be no doubt of this court's finding, this court accepts that public
health authorities are saying what the respondent mother claims that they are saying in
that these vaccines are "safe and effective".
631. In paragraph 26 of their decision, the Court of Appeal in speaking of the public health
document exception to the hearsay rule states, "While this speaks only to
admissibility, and not to what weight a judge must ultimately assign to it, it is
important to understand whys. 25 exists ..."
632. In paragraph 28, the Court of Appeal continues by saying, "Again, this does not
compel a judge to give the evidence any weight, but given the purposes behind s. 25
and the public document exception, there is at least an obligation to explain why
materials like those filed by the appellant are not trustworthy, which the motion
A667
0668
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-668 A668
64
judge's reference to some of Canada's historical misdeeds - all false equivalencies -

fails to achieve."
633. Once again, in this decision, the applicant father was not asking this court to decide,
nor is this court deciding, that the public health documents are not trustworthy; he
simply ask that he be given an opportunity to call expert evidence to challenge that.
.....J
C
634. This court's decision is that the applicant father on behalf of the children should be (il
u
afforded an opportunity at trial to produce expert evidence to challenge the r--
r--
trustworthiness of the proclamations made by public health authorities. O')
u
(/)
635. Again, this court finds that that is a major distinction between the case that this court z
0
faces and the decision that it has rendered, and the decision of the motions judge in
JN. V. C.G.
636. In the third question -posed by the court relating to the children's views and
preferences, the court finds that this ground for appeal, is not relevant in the case
before this court as there is no evidence before this court as to the children's views and
preferences with respect to the issue of vaccination. The court therefore finds it need
not address that issue.
637. The fourth ground for appeal was, "Did the motion judge err by placing the onus on
the appellant to show that the children should be vaccinated?"
638. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on this ground as well.
639. The Court of Appeal at para 38 notes, as has this court, that "most family court
decisions related to the pandemic, at least to this point, have deferred to the
government recommendation that people, including children, get vaccinated against
COVID-19."
640. This court has clearly noted that by a ratio of 20: 1, courts in fact made that finding.
641. The Court of Appeal noted at para 41 that while the motions judge was "not obliged to
adopt the reasoning in a court of coordinate jurisdiction, it was important for the
motion judge to cogently explain why he was departing from decisions that had
already addressed health- related parenting decisions in this same context."
642. This court believes that it has thoroughly explained the rationale why this court is
rendering a decision that runs contrary to those other decisions of courts of coordinate
jurisdiction.
643. The Court of Appeal in paragraph 44 then recalls the two primary rationales for public
documents exception to the hearsay rule. The first is the impracticality of traditional
modes of proof.
A668
0669
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-669 A669
65
644. In the event that this court has left any ambiguity, this court is not suggesting and not
finding, that the applicant mother would be required to call expert evidence by viva
voce evidence to prove what the public health authorities are saying.
645. This court has found, that it is prepared to accept as a fact that public health authorities
are issuing proclamations that the COVID-19 vaccines are "safe and effective".
_J
C
646. The Court of Appeal at para 45 finds that "judicial notice should be taken of regulatory 0
(1l
approval, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness. r--
r--
That being the case, where one party seeks to have a child treated by Health Canada- :j)
0
approved medication, the onus is on the objecting party to show why the child should (/)
not receive that medication. The motion judge erred by reversing that onus." z
0
647. That is a finding made by the Court of Appeal.
648. That finding however does not preclude the dissenting parent from having an
opportunity to have their day in court and having an opportunity at a trial to call expert
evidence that may rebut that presumption.
649. This court indicated that there are three reasons why it finds that the Court of Appeal
decision does not result in a requirement that this court change its decision.
650. In this decision, this court has referenced "we need to know what we know and
equally importantly we need to know what we do not know."
651. The decision rendered by the motions judge in JN. v. C.G. was rendered in February
2022, one year ago.
652. The Court of Appeal makes no reference to any "fresh evidence" being called before it
and therefore this court assumes that none was called. That results in an assumption
that the Court of Appeal based its decision solely on the evidence that was before the
motions judge one year ago.
653. As referenced earlier in this decision, this court finds that no one can say with
certainty what the long-term effects are of these vaccines given that these vaccines
have not been administered to any child for a sufficient length of time in order to have
empirical evidence on which to base that finding.
654. The Court of Appeal has found that public health proclamations create an onus on the
dissenting party to rebut a presumption.
655. This court has noted that public health proclamations have been a moving target over
the last three years.
656. Public health records will show that they continue to be a moving target.
A669
0670
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-670 A670
66
657. Public health proclamations have changed over the last three years and, if history is a
predictor of the future, they will continue to change over the next months and years.
658. The court addressing a trial in this issue will be faced with the public health
proclamations that exist at the time of trial which may be different to those that exist
today.
_J
C
659. This court has made reference to the fact that in taking judicial notice, any court (i)
l)
cannot be oblivious to what has transpired in the world and what has been broadly l'--
1'--
reported in the media. u)
u(J)
660. The father before this court, is asking that the court not decide the issue of the z
0
vaccination of his children based on the public health proclamations on the one side n
N
and the "Internet evidence" that he has put forward on the other side. He is asking the Cl
N
court to defer the matter to a trial so that he would be given an opportunity to put
forward expert evidence which he believes would demonstrate to a court that the
vaccines are not "safe and effective".
661. This court is well aware of its obligations pursuant to Rule 2(3) of the Family Law
Rules which require the court to among other things consider when making a decision
the resources available to the court and the pressures on the court of other cases.
662. This court would posit that judges in the GTA and in particular, those in the
burgeoning population of Central East and Central West Regions know better than
anyone the pressures that are on the courts. Statistics will show that the family court in
which this justice sits, is probably one of the busiest in the province if not the country.
663. This court does not routinely put matters over for trial where the matter can be
addressed in a more expeditious manner such as a motion, a summary judgment
motion or a judicial dispute resolution process.
664. However, when it comes to the protection of children, the court finds that court
efficiencies should not result in courts rendering decisions which by their nature
involve the very lives of the children who were before them.
665. The dissenting father in this case has expressed concerns that he questions the safety
of the vaccine and is concerned that the parties' children's health could be put at risk if
the vaccine was administered to them. He seeks to be permitted to have a trial and to
call expert evidence so that a court has the best possible evidence before it prior to
deciding the issue.
666. The Charter of Rights ensures that accused persons have the right to a fair trial. This
court finds that innocent children should and do have that same right.
667. For all of the above reasons, the court finds that the respondent mother's motion is
dismissed and as stated earlier, this matter should be scheduled for trial to afford the
parties to put forward expert evidence.
A670
0671
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-671 A671
67
Costs
668. So far as the issue of costs are concerned, this court wishes to state the following.
669. Based on the affidavits and submissions made on behalf of the parties, the court has no
doubt that each parent loves their children and that each parent was motivated in this
....J
motion by a genuine belief that what they were seeking is in the best interests of their C
a:;
children. 0
r---
r---
670. The court has made a determination which is obviously favorable to the applicant (j)
uCJ)
father.
z
0
671. However, particularly given the decisions that had been rendered prior to this motion
being heard the court does not find that the respondent mother was being unreasonable
in bringing this motion.
672. Therefore, while the court is not precluding the applicant father from seeking costs, the
court wishes to communicate that unless counsels' submissions convince the court
otherwise, this court does not anticipate that costs would be awarded.
673. So far as the issue of costs is concerned, if the parties cannot agree on that issue, then
the respondent mother shall submit cost submissions, not exceeding three pages in
length and not including offers to settle and bills of costs. Those submissions shall be
served and filed no later than February 28, 2023. The applicant father's responding
submissions of the same length shall be served and filed no later than March 15, 2023,
and the reply submissions if any by March 22, 2023. If no cost submissions are filed
by February 28, 2023, then there will be no order as to costs.
Justice R. T. Bennett
Date: February 8, 2023
A671
0672
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-672 A672
This is Exhibit " t)~ to the Affidavit of

A~
A~ Taldng Affidavits
A672
0673
Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
Electronically i~sued I Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-673
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour superieure de justice A673
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALA TI
Plaintiff
- and-
SHARON GREENE, THE DIRECTOR OF INTAKE AND RESOLUTION, THE LAW

SOCIETY OF ONT ARIO ("LSO")
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS:

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND TIDS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer

of
acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules
are
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you ·may serve and file a notice of
you
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle
to ten more days within which to serve and file your statemen t of defence.

TO
TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE
PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY
A673
0674
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-674
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de justice A674

Date: Issued by:

10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
TO: Sharon Greene

393 University A venue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
AND TO: Intake and Resolution Director

Complaints & Compliance
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N6
General line: 416-947-3315
Toll-free: l-800-668-7380
Fax: 416-947-5263
Email: comail@lso.ca
AND TO: Law Society of Ontario

393 University A venue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
Email: lawsociety@lso.ca
A674
0675
Electronically issued I Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour superieure de jusiice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-675 A675
CLAIM
(a) General damages as against the Defendants, as follows:
(i) $500,000.00, as against the Defendants, in negligent investigation, abuse of
authority and process, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of statutory duty,
interference with economic interests, intimidation, and violation of the
Plaintiff's s.7 and s.15 Charter rights;
(ii) Pre-judgment and post judgment interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of
Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C43; and
(iii) costs of this action on a full indemnity basis and such further or other relief
(b) A declaration that s. 49 .3 of the Law Society Act, in the absence of a client
complaint to the Law Society of Ontario, violates s.7 and 8 of the Charter, is not
saved by s.1 of the Charter and should be accordingly "read down" pursuant to
ss.24(1) and s.52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
THE PARTIES
(a) The Plaintiff
practices law through his law firm, Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation,
duly incorporated under the laws of Ontario and the requirements of the Law Society
Act.
2
A675
0676
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12✓ ul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-676
receive the award, with previous Presidents' Awards having been bestowed on judges
and two (2) advocacy groups.
Society of Ontario (LSO). Between May 2015 to February 2021, he also served as a
Court, Federal Court of Appeal, all levels of Ontario Courts, other Provincial Superior
Courts, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada. He has litigated in several provinces
including Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. He has, as
·counsel, over 500 reported cases in the jurisprudence. Some of his major cases
include: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII
699 (SCC), [1999 J 2 SCR 817, Reference re Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985
(Canada), Reference re Section 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867, R. v. Ahmad,
[2011] S.C.J. No. 6 (Toronto 18 Terrorism Case); Felipa v. Canada, [2011] F.C.J.
No.135, Wangv. Canada, 2018 ONCA 798.
3
A676
0677
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie eleclronlque: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-677 A677
8. Rocco Galati has co-authored books, namely: "Criminal Lawyer's Guide to Immigration
and Citizenship Law" (1996), "The Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution"
(2001). He has also produced three Films, "Two Letters & Counting ... " 2008-2011,
written, directed and performed by multi-Genie Award winning Tony Nardi, on the state
of art and culture in Canada, and the treatment of "Aboriginal" and "Other" "Canadians"
by the Two Solitudes Tribes of Canada, and on the Funding of "Canadian" Art and
"Culture".
(b) The Defendants
9. The Defendant, Sharon Greene, is an Intake and Resolution Counsel with the Law
Society of Ontario.
10. The Defendant, the Director of Intake and Resolution, is an employee with the Law
Society of Ontario, and the Defendant, the Law Society of Ontario, is a statutory and
corporate body, and both are responsible for the oversight of the various Intake and
Resolution counsels at the Law Society of Ontario, including their training to ensure
competence and further to ensure that those counsel act in good faith. absence of bad
faith, and are fair and reasonable in their role as Intake and Resolution counsel.
11. The Defendant, the Law Society of Ontario, is a successor to the Law Society of Upper
Canada, established in 1797 and is, at common law, and under the Law Society Act
statutorily, charged with the regulation of Barristers, and Solicitors, and "Licensees" as
4
A677
0678
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-678
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Gour superieure de justice A678
defined post 1992, and, as a statutory body and corporation, is liable, for the actions of
the Co-Defendants, Sharon Greene and the Director of Intake and Resolution.
FACTS
• The Nature of the Plaintiffs Legal Practice.
12. Throughout the Plaintiffs legal career, especially to and including March 11th,2020,
the declared COVID-pandemic, the Plaintiff has been the subject of racially-based,
abusive and frivolous complaints from government departments against whom he
litigates, as well as self-generated LSO complaints based on newspaper and other media
posts, and the racist/anti-Semite prone members of the public of large with nothing
better to do than grind their racist axe. None of any of these numerous complaints, over
the 33 plus years of the Plaintiffs practice, were ever referred to any disciplinary
hearing, or any other disciplinary action.
13. The Plaintiff started his career (1987-1990) with the Department of Justice and since
then, to the present, has been engaged in private practice mostly restricting his practice
to proceedings against the Crown.
14. During the course of his career, in defending constitutional rights, the Plaintiff has had
to withstand the relentless personal attacks, and several viable death threats, from
racists, anti-Semitics, and extremists who took issue with his Calabrian, Jewish heritage
and/or his clients, labelling his clients, and the Plaintiff, as "mobsters", "terrorists" or
"anti-vaxxers".
5
A678
0679
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-679
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de Justice A679
th
15. The COVID-19 era is no exception. On May 19 , 2022, the Plaintiff received, from the
Defendants, the 9th (!) complaint against the Plaintiff and one of his junior lawyers
brought to his attention since the commencement of COVID-19 legal proceedings by
his law firm on behalf of clients, which complaints have been brought against the
Plaintiff and his junior lawyers just for doing their job(s) as lawyers, to the letter and
spirit of Rule 5 .1- of the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Professional Conduct. In
two of those complaints, the complainants were Defendants in cases the Plaintiff and
his firm were conducting.
• Plaintiff's history with the Law Society Pre-Covid-19
th
16. Throughout the Plaintiffs legal career, especially to and including March 11 , 2020,
the declared start of the COVID-pandemic, he has been the subject of racially-based,
abusive and frivolous complaints from government departments against whom he
litigates, self-generated LSO complaints based on newspaper and other media posts, as
well as the racist/anti-Semite prone members of the public oflarge with nothing better
to do than grind their racist axe. None of any of these numerous complaints, over the 33
plus years of the Plaintiffs practice, were ever referred to any disciplinary hearing.
17. The Plaintiff states that, as a Calabrian with Jewish ancestry, he is a member of
historically discriminated group in Canada, including the interment of Halo-Canadians
in World War II as well as the long-standing and pervasive depiction of Italians as
criminals and "mobsters". The Plaintiff has also been, personally, the victim, throughout
his years, including his teenage years, of racially-based violence on the part of racist
6
A679
0680
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683933-0000
A680
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-680
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de jusfice
·- -canadians at tatge, including police officers. He has also faced pervasive discrimination
within the legal profession from both lawyers and judges alike.
18. The Plaintiff has never been charged nor convicted of any criminal offence nor been
found to have ever committed any breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the
Law Society.
• Plaintiff's history with the Law Society Post-Covid-19
th
19. Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 11 , 2020, the Plaintiff
and his junior lawyer have been the subject of no less than nine (9) baseless and abusive
LSO complaints, some of them with racist over-tones and undertones, with respect to
their roles as counsel on cases litigating COVID-19 measures imposed by Provincial
and Federal governments.
20. Of those nine complaints, eight were dismissed. However, the LSO required the Plaintiff
to respond to three (3), Alexandra Moore, "Lindsay H", and Donna Toews, of these
complaints.
21. The complaints made were chronologically made as follows:
(i) December 2020, complaint from "Lindsay H.", through Intake and Resolution
Counsel, Samantha Nassar;
(ii) February 18, 2021, complaint from Terry Polevoy, (a Defendant in a
defamation case), through Intake and Resolution counsel, Samantha Nassar;
7
A680
0681
A681
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-681
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Gour sup,erieure de justice
{iii}""Februafy '18th ,' 2021; complainr froin Alexandra Moore (a defendant in a
defamation case) against my junior lawyer, Samantha Coomara, through
Intake and Resolution Counsel, Samantha Nassar;
(iv) February 22, 2021, complaint from Elana Goldfried, through Intake and
Resolution counsel, Samantha Nassar;
(v) August 3, 2021, complaint from Alexandra Moore (a defendant in a
defamation Case) through Intake and Resolution Counsel, Miko Dubiansky;
(vi) November 25 th , 2021, a further complaint of Alexandra Moore, through
Intake and Resolutions Counsel, Miko Dubiansky;
(vii) February 4, 2022 complaint of Terry Polevoy (another Defendant in a
defamation case) through Intake and Resolution counsel, Sharon Greene;
(viii) February 4, 2022, two complaints from Franca Lombardi, through Intake and
Resolution counsel, Miko Dubiansky;
(ix) May 19th , 2022 complaint by Donna Toews through Intake and Resolutions
counsel, Sharon Greene.
22. After the second complaint, from Alexandra Moore, the Plaintiff wrote to the Law
Society on September 21, 2021, and stated as follows:
The other thing I cannot fathom is the Law Society of Ontario's approach and
conduct in forwarding this to me for response at all. Ms. Nassar was on the
previous Moore complaints. There seems to have been absolutely no minimal
review of them, nor Ms. Moore's website, to glean what Canuck Law and Ms.
Moore are about with respect to me and my clients.
8
A681
0682
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-682 A682
In my last correspondence, on a similarly outrageous complaint, by an

outrageous individual, with respect to an attempt to censor my speech, I
indicated that the next time I received one of these, I would commence action
against the LSO, in the absence of an apology.
lfl do not receive an apology from the LSO on this "Complaint" which should
not even have reached me, if the minimum of research was done on Ms. Moore
and her website, I will commence action against the LSO for negligent
investigation and the newly-created tort of (online) harassment because, it
seems to me, that the LSO is more than content and willing to be dupe and
conduit for Ms. Moore's and Canuck Law's filth, anti-Semitic, racists, and
derogatory harassment of me and my clients.
23. On May 19th, 2022, the Plaintiff received yet another ridiculous, baseless, and
unfounded complaint by a non-client, whom the Plaintiff has never met, does not know,
nor ever communicated with, namely a Ms. Donna Toews.
24. The Plaintiff, under threat of the powers in s. 49 .3 of the Law Society Act, was required
to respond to this complaint, without any particulars whatsoever, but simply the
misplaced assumption of the Defendant, Sharon Greene. Attached as "Schedule A" is a

th
copy of the Plaintiffs response dated June 29 , 2022, to the complaint, which the
Plaintiff forwarded to the LSO. The Plaintiff pleads that "Schedule A" and the
documents referred to and forwarded to the LSO with "Schedule A" are documents
pleaded in the within Claim.
25. Following receipt of this complaint, the Plaintiff filed action against the complainant
and her Co-conspirators, attached as "Scheduled B". The Plaintiff adopts, relies upon,
and incorporates the facts in the statement of claim in "Schedule B" as part and parcel
of the within Statement of Claim.
9
A682
0683
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-683
th
26. Following the Plaintiffs response to the complaint, dated June 29 , 2022, to the Law
Society of Ontario, the Defendant(s), Sharon Greene, and the Law Society of Ontario,
continued to pursue the abusive and baseless complaint with the Plaintiff.
• Action4Canada
30. Neither Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, nor Mr. Gandhi, are on the Board of Directors
Action4Canada.
31. Vaccine Choice Canada (hereinafter "V CC") has been a client of the Plaintiffs law firm
since 2015.
32. The Plaintiff acts on VCC's behalf giving legal advice, consultations, issuing legal
opinions, and conducting litigation for VCC, under the instructions ofVCC's Board of
33. Neither Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, nor Mr. Gandhi, are on the Board of Directors ofVCC.
A683
0684
Eleolronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-684 A684

Society of Ontario
crystalized.
"similar" campaign to hers and directed her to view his lawsuit's GoFundMe page.
36. On or about December 14, 2020, the _Plaintiff,in the within action, Rocco Galati,
received a telephone call from a lawyer from British Columbia, Ms. Polina H. Furtula.
This lawyer indicated that she was contemplating legal action against the British
Columbia government over the COVID-19 measures imposed there. She requested that
the Plaintiff collaborate with her, owing to his expertise in Constitutional Law and
proceedings against the Crown. Ms. Furtula's client(s) were Kipling Warner and his
organization, "The Canadian Society for The Advancement of Science and Public
Policy".
37. The Plaintiff, Rocco Galati, respectfully declined, and advised Ms. Furtula that he had
been approached by a British Columbia group (Action4Canada) and other plaintiffs, and
had, in principle, agreed to act for them in a challenge to the COVID-19 measures, once
a retainer crystalized.
Claim) for Action4Canada and other co-Plaintiffs, in British Columbia.
11
A684
0685
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12.Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-685 A685
independent journalist, Dan Dicks from "Press for Truth", a defamatory email about the
Plaintiff, Rocco Galati. This journalist forwarded that email to the Plaintiffs client,
Action4Canada. The email indicated that the Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy had filed their statement of claim, but then made defamatory
remarks against the Plaintiff, Rocco Galati, and the case brought by the Plaintiff, and
asserted that Kip Warner and the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Sciences in
Public Policy had brought their case first and therefore would have "carriage of the
matter", and then finally asked Action4Canada to assist them in soliciting donations on
their behalf for their legal proceeding.
40. On January 29, 2021, the Plaintiff, Rocco Galati, received a letter from Ms. Furtula
indicating that she represented the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in
Public Policy, that she had filed on behalf of her client(s) and therefore, according to
her, the Plaintiff could not file any proceedings on behalf of his clients.
41. On February 3 rd, 2021, the Plaintiff, Rocco Galati, responded to Ms. Furtula's letter
indicating her client did not have exclusive monopoly to litigation against the Crown.
The Plaintiff, Rocco Galati, also, in the same response, issued a warning through Ms.
Furtula about Mr. Warner's defamatory conduct against the Plaintiff, Rocco Galati.
42. From January 2021 and onward, the Defendants in the action attached in "Schedule B"
hereto, Kipling Warner, his organization Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy, and his associates from the Canadian Society for the
12
A685
0686
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No.IN° du dossier du greffe: CV-22-00683933-0000
A686
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-686
Advancement of Science in Public Policy, including Dee Gandhi, continued defaming
the Plaintiff to the Plaintiffs clients, and others.
members concerned about the Defendants' statements. Kip Warner's defamatory
comments continue in e-mail correspondence with third parties stating that, with respect
to the Plaintiff, "we've been receiving reports weekly, sometimes daily, alleging bad
faith, fraud, or other improprieties in Rocco's fundraising anns".
Claim (Statement of Claim) in the British Columbia Supreme Court. This claim was on
behalf of various Plaintiffs, Action4Canada being one, in British Columbia Court File
No.: VLC-S-S-217586, in British Columbia.
45. From August to Christmas, 2021, the Defendants to this British Columbian Statement
of Claim Court file No.: VLC-S-S-217586, on behalf of Action4Canada and others,
dragged their heels over whether they would accept service for various Ministries and
officials and requested an indulgence past the normal 30-day deadline, to respond,
which the Plaintiff granted. They also indicated that they wished to bring an application
(motion) to strike. The Plaintiff asked that they do so as soon as possible, under the
instructions of his clients.
13
A686
0687
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie eleclronique: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-687
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Gour superieure de Justice A687
46. By Christmas Day, 2021, the Defendants had not brought their motions to strike. Over
th
ridden. On January 2nd, 2022, the Plaintiff was admitted for a critical illness to the ICU
in hospital.
or about January 13th, 2022, the Defendants, in British Columbia Supreme Court file
Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff was in a coma and incapacitated under s.37 of the Law
hospital, on January 22, 2022, and he transferred himself to recover in a private medical
setting with 24/7 care.
49. The motion to strike, in British Columbia Action no.: VLC-S-S-217586, which had been
set for February 22, 2022, in British Columbia, was adjourned by the Plaintiffs office
to May 31st, 2022, in the hopes that he would be sufficiently and competently capable
of arguing the motion to strike via zoom-link. The Plaintiff was granted permission to
14
A687
0688
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie eleclronlque : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-688 A688
appear by zoom-link and argued the various motions on May 31st, 2022. The various
motion(s) to strike were heard on May 31st, 2022 and the Court has reserved its decision.
50. Through the complaint, provided to the Plaintiff by the Law Society Defendants in the
1
within claim, the Plaintiff learned that, while the Plaintiff lay in a coma, on January 15 \
2022, Kipling Warner was conspiring and encouraging Donna Toews (aka "Dawna
Toews") to file a complaint against the Plaintiff with the Law Society of Ontario.
51. On January 15th , 2022, Ms. Toews filed her complaint with the Law Society of Ontario,
th
which was forwarded to the Plaintiff on May 19 , 2022. The complaint alleged that the
allegedly made a $1,000 donation, "in her husband's name", to the Plaintiffs clients,
communications with Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews");
(c) The Plaintiff has had absolutely no role in his clients' organizations and is not
legal services;
15
A688
0689
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronlque : 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-689 A689
meetings.
52. The Plaintiff states that the substance of the complaint by Donna Toews (aka "Dawna
Toews"), directed and encouraged by Kipling Warner, simply parrots the defamatory
remarks made by the other three co-Defendants in the action attached hereto as
"Schedule B".
claiming the Plaintiff was dead emerged and some of which are still online ), Kipling
Warner was in communication with Donna Toews, via email, on how to make a
complaint to the Law Society about the Plaintiff
prowess as a computer hacker, that, "I want to see to it that Rocco Galati is disbarred
be forwarded to him, Kipling Warner, to support his litigation instead. Kip Warner's
defamatory comments continue in e-mail correspondence with third parties stating that,
with respect to the Plaintiff, "We've been receiving reports weekly, sometimes daily,
alleging bad faith, fraud, or other improprieties in Rocco's fundraising arms."
16
A689
0690
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electroniQue: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-690
·55:· Mr. Warner is· under the delusion that he can claim, along with his "Canadian Society
rights to litigate the COVID measures in British Colwnbia. In pursuit of this goal, he
goes to all ends.
email to the Plaintiffs client, and through their CSASPP website,
https://www.covidconstitutionalchailengebc.ca, uttered and published defamatory
statements against the Plaintiff, namely:
wrote, as follows:
17
A690
0691
A691
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-691
https://www.gofundme.com/f/bc-supreme-court-covid 19-
consti tutiona.1-challenge
(1) Rocco isn't licensed to practice here in BC. He can always be

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/lsbc/apps/lk.up/mbr-search.cfm


constitutional law:
<http:/ /canlii.ca/t/gfl0p#par9>

<https ://tgam.ca/3n8Zuyo>
SG, vaccines, etc.) to obtain the order that he wants. This is how it
18
A691
0692
Electronically i!,Sued / Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-692 A692
line with (2);
of that time;
See:

transparency
(b) In or around June 2021, the CSASPP, Mr. Kipling, and the other directors of
the CSASPP, have posted the following, about the Plaintiff:

anns. We do not have any information, were not involved in raising
turn retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual.
19
A692
0693
Electronically i~sued / Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A693
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-693

wished to retain in British Columbia is LawTence Wong. Mr. Wong
judge with a fine.

not to say that a lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like personal
According to Mr. Galati, he studied tax litigation at Osgoode Hall.

knowledge, as of30 October, 2021, none of the twenty-one named
application heard before the Christmas holidays of 2020. As of 11
June, 2021, we are not aware of any scheduled hearings and no orders
58. Following the receipt of the Plaintiffs response to the Defendant, Sharon Greene,
Sharon Greene continued to follow up and pursue the complaint, against the Plaintiff,
made by Donna Toews with the assistance and instigation of Kipling Warner.
20
A693
0694
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-694 A694
• . Conspiracy
59. The Plaintiff states and fact is, that the Defendants in the action attached as "Schedule
B", Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"), Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi, the Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, as well as other "duped co-
conspirators", engaged in the actionable tort of conspiracy to undermine the Plaintiff's
solicitor-client relationship with his clients, which relationships are statutorily, at
common law, and s.7 of the Charter protected, as well as conspired to interfere with
the Plaintiff's economic interests with his clients, pursuant to civil conspiracy as set
out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in, inter alia, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990
CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959, which set out that the tort of the conspiracy
comprised of the following features:
(b) Second, there will be an actionable conspiracy if the defendants combine to act

60. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants in the action attached as "Schedule B"
further conspired to engage in actionable abuse of process through the Law Society
complaint, as well as intimidation (through a third party).
61. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant, Sharon Greene, in the within statement of
claim jumped on a co-conspirator bandwagon with Donna Toews, Kipling Warner,
and CSASPP, which conspiracy should have been evident to the Defendant, Sharon
21
A694
0695
Electronically issued I Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-695
Greene, if she had carefully read Donna Toews' complaint form and attached
documents, and if Shannon Greene conducted embryonic research and/or investigation
of the complaint in a fair and reasonable manner.
62. The Plaintiff states that the LSO Defendants joined the actionable conspiracy against
the Plaintiff when they adopted the complaint by forwarding the complaint and
threatening the use of search and seizure powers under s.49(3) of the Law Society Act.
• The Law Society Complaint as a Tort of Abuse of Process
jurisprudence, abuse of process, as a tort, is made out where:
(a) the Plaintiff is a party to a legal process initiated by the Defendants, in this
case a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario;
(b) the legal process (law society complaint) has been initiated for the
predominant purpose of furthering some indirect, collateral and improper
objective;
(c) the Defendants took or made a definite act or threat in furtherance of the
64. The Plaintiff states that Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Gandhi, and CSASPP, took
and made acts, as well as pre and post-facto statements in furtherance of their
improper purpose of trying to shut down the Action4Canada et al, lawsuit in British
Columbia, and improperly attempting to redirect funds raised by Action4Canada to the
22
A695
0696
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronique : 12.Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-696
Defendants, Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi, and the CSASPP, as well as through the
vehicle of a baseless, abusive, and bad faith complaint to the Law Society of Ontario.
All this damaged and continue to damage the Plaintiff by way of reputation and his
solicitor-client relationships.
65. The Plaintiff further states that the Law Society of Ontario Defendants in the within
action magnified and augmented that actionable abuse of process and, that putting the
Plaintiff through the process of a response, constitutes not only adding to the
actionable abuse of process, but further is a separately actionable tort of abuse of
process.
66. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants in "Schedule B", in their actions,
knowingly intended, and in fact inflicted, mental anguish and distress through their
actions against the Plaintiff, all of which go to punitive damages. The Plaintiff further
states that the Law Society Defendants in the within action are further augmenting and
inflicting mental anguish and distress.
67. The Plaintiff states that, through their conduct and actions, the Defendants in the
action attached hereto in "Schedule B" have engaged in interference with the
Plaintiff's economic interests as set out by the facts, pleaded above, and set out by the
jurisprudence in that:
23
A696
0697
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie eleclronique: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-697
68. The Plaintiff states that the actions of the Defendants in the action attached hereto as
"Schedule B", were intended to injure the Plaintiff's economic interests in his
clientele, through defamatory and other tortious and unlawful interference and means
as set out above, which resulted in economic harm and loss to the Plaintiff, through his
reputation, and client base. The Plaintiff further states that the Law Society
Defendants in the within action further augmented this interference with the Plaintiffs
economic interest through their actions executed in bad faith and in the absence of
good faith.
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty
69. The Plaintiff further states that the Law Society Defendants, in the within action, in
addition to the duties of fairness and reasonableness, at common law and
Administrative Law, and under statute, further owe a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, as
a Barrister and Solicitor, called to the Bar, by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of
Appeal in March, 1989, in that the Defendant Law Society of Ontario assumed a
fiduciary relationship, and owed a corresponding fiduciary duty of care to the Plaintiff,
for the following reasons:
(a) The Defendants were, and are, in a position of power over the Plaintiff, and
were able to use this power so as to control and affect the Plaintiff's interests;
(b) The Plaintiff was, and is, in a corresponding position of vulnerability toward
the Defendants. The Plaintiff was, and is, therefore in a class of persons
vulnerable to the control of the Defendants;
(c) There was, and is, a special position of trust between the Defendants and the
Plaintiff, governed by statute, the Charter, and the common law;
24
A697
0698
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A698
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-698
Toronto Supenor Court of Justice I Cour superieure de Justice
(d) The Defendants undertook to act in the best interests of the Plaintiff, in that:
(i) it is a statutory, Administrative Law, and constitutional
requirement that the Defendants review, assess, and process
complaints in a fair and reasonable fashion;
(ii) the Plaintiff, and other members of the bar, pay for the
administration of the Law Society of Ontario, through their
annual fees, including the disciplinary process; and
(iii) it is in the "public interest" that baseless, abusive, and/or racist-
based complaints not be entertained and processed against
lawyers; and
(e) The Defendants breached this fiduciary duty;
And, as a direct result of this breach, the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damages, which
include, inter alia:
(a) Damage to reputation and interference with the economic and other dimensions
of the Plaintiff's solicitor-client relationships with past, current, and prospective
future clients;
(b) Loss of dignity; and
(c) Violation of his psychological integrity guaranteed and protected by s.7 of the
Charter, as well as violation of his dignity of equal treatment under s.15 of the
Charter.
25
A698
0699
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-699
• . Negligence (Negligent Investigation)
70. The Plaintiff further states, based on the facts set out in the within claim, and the
jurisprudence, that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in negligence, and
negligent investigation, as set out by the jurisprudence, in that:
(a) The Intake and Resolution Counsel, Sharon Greene, the Intake and Resolution
Director, and the Law Society of Ontario, owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to
rationally, fairly, and reasonably deal with the complaint against the Plaintiff;
(b) The Defendants were required to meet the standard of care, where the standard
of care is assessed at the "reasonable investigator" (reasonable intake counsel);
(c) The Intake and Resolution Counsel did not meet this standard;
(d) As a result, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages as set out in
the within claim;
and the Plaintiff further states that the Defendants, the Director of Intake and
Resolution, and the Law Society of Ontario, have failed in his/her/their duty to
properly instruct and train the Defendant, Sharon Greene, in her statutory, common-
law, and constitutional duties in her role, and are equally liable for damages, as direct
supervisor and employer.
26
A699
0700
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-700
Toronto Superior Court of Justice / Cour superieure de Justice A700
• Intimidation
71. It is further submitted that the Defendants, in dealing with the Plaintiff pre-, but
th
moreover post-COVID-19, since March 11 , 2020, have engaged, for the facts set out
in the within claim, in the actionable tort of Intimidation, as defined by the Court of
Appeal of Ontario in Mcllvenna v. 1887401 Ontario Ltd., 2015 ONCA 830, and other
Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, as follows:
[23] The tort of intimidation consists of the following elements:
(a) a threat;
(b) an intent to injure;
(c) some act taken or forgone by the plaintiff as a result of the threat;
( d) as a result of which the plaintiff suffered damages:
- Mcllvenna v. 1887401 Ontario Ltd., 2015 ONCA 830
72. The Plaintiff states that this tort of intimidation is most evident in the three (3)
complaints the Plaintiff has been required to respond to, which he should not have
been required to respond to, but is further evident in his being notified of six other
complaints upon which the LSO did not act upon. The Plaintiff states that if the LSO
is not acting on complaints, "at this time", then there was no need to notify the
Plaintiff except to remind, and intimidate the Plaintiff as to the menacing presence
over the Plaintiffs professional (and personal) life. This is moreover pronounced in
the threat to use the over-reaching powers under s.43 .9 of the Law Society of Ontario
Act in Sharon Greene's initial letter forwarding the complaint.
73. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that the Law Society of Ontario Defendants'
actions and conduct, set out in the within statement of claim, are being carried out in
27
A700
0701
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-701 A701
··bad faith, and in the absence of good faith, and knowingly contrary to their statutory
and constitutional duties.
• Violation of the Plaintiff's ss. 7 and 15 Charter Rights
74. The Plaintiff further states, for the facts pleaded in the within Statement of Claim, that
the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs s.7 and s.15 Charter rights. The Plaintiff further
states that these violations are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, and that he is further
entitled to an award of damages pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, to be determined
at trial.
• Declaration of Unconstitutionality of s. 49.3 of the Law Society Act
75. The Plaintiff states that, in absence of a client complaint, s. 49.3 of the Law Society
Act violates ss.7 and 8 of the Charter, and ought to be accordingly "read down",
pursuant to ss.24(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, for violations of ss. 7 and 8
of the Charter.
• Section 7 of the Charter
76. It is submitted thats. 49.3 of the Law Society Act is a standardless sweep and violates
s.7, in violating, in an overly-broad and arbitrary fashion:
(a) The Solicitor-Client relationship protected by s.7 in the Charter as set out in
the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Canada (Attorney General) v.
Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2015] 1 SCR
401;
(b) The privacy interests protected by both the solicitor and client in the Solicitor-
Client relationship.
28
A701
0702
A702
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-702
• Section 8 of the Charter
77. The Plaintiff further states thats. 49.3 of the Law Society Act further violates s.8 of
the Charter, in the absence of a client complaint, constituting an unreasonable search
and seizure, which brings the administration of justice into dispute and which violation
is not saved by s.1 of the Charter, and for which it should be accordingly "read down"
pursuant to ss.24(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
as set out in paragraph l(a) of the within Statement of Claim, for the instances and
reasons pleaded above, and seeks the relief requested in paragraph l(a).
79. The Plaintiff further seeks the relief set out in paragraph 1(b) of this Statement of
Claim.
80. The Plaintiff further pleads any and all documents mentioned in this Statement of
Claim as documents referred to in the pleadings herein.
81. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in Toronto.
J,.,
Dated at Toronto this Jj day of July, 2022.
~ L---
Toronto, Ontario, M6H 1A9
TEL: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
29
A702
0703
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-703
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour superieure de justice A703
1

Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
June 29, 2022
SENT VIA EMAIL
Sharon Greene
393 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG IE6
Dear Ms. Greene,
RE: Law Society Complaint of Donna Toews, 2022-261151
This correspondence is in response to the above-referenced complaint.

• The Complainant - Donna Toews
I do not know Donna Toews.
She has never been my client.
To my recollection I have never had any direct contact with Ms. Toews.
I have never made any representations to her.
• KipWamer
Kip Warner has never been my client. I have never had any direct communication with Mr.
Warner. I have had contact, through Mr. Warner's solicitor, as set out below, to issue a caution
with respect to his defamatory statements against me, and interfering with my solicitor-client
relations, including with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action-4- Canada.
Vaccine Choice Canada (hereinafter "VCC") has been a client of my law firm since 2015.
A703
0704
Electronically i~sued / Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-704 A704
2
described in the Law Society Act, as requested, directed, and instructed by their Board of Directors,
through their president.
Neither Ms. Toews, nor Mr. Warner, are on the Board of Directors ofVCC.
• Action -4-Canada
Action-4-Canada has been a client of my law firm since October, 2020.
described in the Law Society Act, and requested, directed, and instructed by their Board of
Neither Ms. Toews, nor Mr. Warner, are on the Board of Directors of Action4Canada.
• Pertinent Chronology leading to Donna Toews' Complaint
On or about October, 2020, I was approached by Action-4-Canada, and other co-Plaintiffs for a
lawsuit, however the retainer was not yet crystalized.
On or about December 14, 2020 I received a call from a British Columbia lawyer, Ms. Polina H.
Furtula. This lawyer was contemplating legal action against the British Columbia government over
the COVID-19 measures imposed there. She requested that I collaborate with her, owing to my
expertise in constitutional law and proceedings against the Crown. She indicated that her
prospective clients were Mr. Kipling Warner and his organization Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Science in Public Policy.
I respectfutly declined, and advised Ms. Furtula that I had been approached by a British Columbia
group (Action4Canada) and other plaintiffs, and had, in principle, agreed to act for them in a
challenge to the COVID-19 measures, once a retainer crystalized.
In January 2021, I began working on the Notice of Claim (Statement of Claim) for my clients,
Action4Canada and the co-Plaintiffs.
On January 29, 2021, I received a letter from Ms. Furtula. I attach that letter as Tab 1 to this my
response. The organization she represented, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in
Public Policy, was established and run by Kip Warner. Contrary to what Ms. Furtula asserts in her
letter, I did NOT invite her to participate in the constitutional chaUenge I was bringing on behalf
of my clients.
Within a few days, an independent journalist, concerned about the contents of an email he received
on behalf of Kip Warner and the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science and Public
Policy ("CSAPP"), Kip Warner, forwarded that email to my client. I attach this email as Tab 2 to
this my response.
A704
0705
Electronically i!lsued / Delivre ~ar voie electron_ique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A705
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour supeneure de justice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-705
3
On February 3 rd, 2021, I responded to Ms. Furtula's letter. I attach my response as Tab 3 to this
my response. In this same letter, I also communicated with Mr. Warner's lawyer, Ms. Furtula, to
issue a warning about Mr. Warner's defamation.
On August, 2021, I finalized and issued the Action4Canada, et al, Notice of Claim (Statement of
Claim) in the British Columbia Court. I attach a copy as Tab 4 to this my response. This claim is
on behalf of various Plaintiffs, Action4Canada being one.
From August to Christmas, 2021, the Defendants to this British Columbia Statement of Claim
dragged their heels over whether they would accept service for various Ministries and officials and
requested an indulgence past the normal 30 days, to respond, which I granted. They also indicated
that they wished to bring various motions to strike. I asked that they do so as soon as possible,
under the instructions of my clients.
By Christmas day, 2021, the Defendants bad not brought their motions. Over Christmas I became
very ill. On December 25 th, 2021, I was bed-ridden. On January 2 , 2022, I was admitted for a
nd
critical illness to the ICU in hospital.
After being admitted to hospital on January 2, 2022, I entered a very serious and life-threatening
11-day coma during which coma I came, three (3) times, under a minute from being declared dead.
Through the grace of God, I survived. On or about January 13 , 2022, the Defendants bought their
1h
motions to strike returnable February 22, 2022. Meanwhile, while I was in a coma and
incapacitated under s.3 7 of the Law Society Act, I remained in a public hospital until my discharge
on January 22, 2022. When I was no longer critical, but still acute, I was immobile and still required
one-on-one nursing and acute medical care. I discharged myself as a patient from hospital and I
had myself transferred by private ambulance to recover in a private medical setting with 24/7 care.
I did not return home until March 2, 2022, to continue recovering. I still have not regained full
recovery at present
st
The motion to strike set for February 22, 2022 was adjourned by my office to May 31 , 2022 in
the hopes that I would be sufficiently and competently capable of arguing tbe various motions to
strike via zoom-link I was granted permission to appear by zoom-link and argued the various
motions on May 31 51, 2022. The various motion(s) to strike were heard on May 31sr,2022 and the
Court has reserved its decision.
• Donna Toews and Kip Warner
I note, and learn for the fast time, from your disclosure, that in January, 2022, while in hospital
and in a coma, which was widely publicized (in fact false obituaries claiming I was dead emerged
and ones are still online), Kip Warner was in communication with Donna Toews on how to make
a complaint to the Law Society about me.
Kip Warner has also, and recently, orally communicated to a person, who does not want to be
identified due to fear of Mr. Warner's military past and self-professed prowess as a computer
hacker, that "I want to see to it that Rocco Galati is disbarred and charged with Fraud". Kip Warner,
in discussions with the President of VCC, Mr. Ted Kuntz, insisted that because he (Kip Warner)
"filed first", that the Action4Canada British Columbia claim had to be withdrawn and all donations
to Action4Canada be returned, with the implication that they be forwarded to him to support his
-32,..
A705
0706
Electronically i~sued / Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A706
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-706
4
litigation instead. Why? God only knows. But these are all details which are relevant to the present
complaint.
Mr. Warner is under the delusion that he can claim, along with his "Canadian Society for the
Advancement of Sciences in Public Policy" ("CSASPP") exclusive proprietary rights and
monopoly to litigate the covid-measures in British Columbia. In pursuit of this he goes to all ends.
(See Tab 3 email to journalist).
Also attached as Tab 5, is a print-out from the CSASPP's website, (with Kip Warner as prime
actor) continues to make defamatory statements against me and my colleagues. The irony is that
the British Columbia Supreme Court struck Mr. Warner as a Plaintiff in one of his cases, for lack
of standing. Attached, as Tab 6, is a copy of that decision.
Mr. Warner can litigate when and where he wishes. What he cannot do, is instigate defamatory
statements, and conspire with Ms. Toews, to issue baseless LSO complaints to "see me disbarred."
I note, and find it distressing, that in her complaint to the LSO, Ms. Toews requests that her identity
be kept from me.
At this point, I have had enough with Mr. Warner, and have issued legal action against him, and
Ms. Toews, over this last straw. Attached, at Tab 7 is a copy of the Statement of Claim.
• The Nature of My Practice
I started my career (1987-1990) with the Department of Justice and since then, to the present, have
been engaged in private practice mostly restricting my practice to proceedings against the Crown.
Attached, as Tab 8, is a copy of my curriculum vitae, current to February, 2018.
Also attached as Tab 9, is a copy of all my reported cases, in the jurisprudence, which I argued,
amongst many others that were not reported, current to 2019.
During the course of my career, in defending constitutional rights, I have had to withstand the
relentless personal attacks, and several viable death threats, from racists, anti-Semitics, and
extremists who took issue with my Calabrian, Jewish heritage and/or my clients, labelling them
and me, as "mobsters", "terrorists" or "anti•vaxxer".
The COVlD-19 era is no exception. This is the 8th (!) complaint, against me and one of my junior
lawyers, the LSO has brought to my attention since the commencement of COVID-19 legal
proceedings by my law firm on behalf of clients, just for doing our job(s) as lawyers, to the letter
and spirit of Rule 5.1-1. In two of those complaints, the complainants were Defendants in cases
we were conducting. I attach, as Tab 10, a copy of a Statement of Claim against one such racist
anti•Semite, who made two (2) complaints against me, and one against my junior lawyer.
In my response to yet another one of those LSO complaints by the same person, attached here as
Tab 11, on September 21, 2021, I stated the following to the intake and resolution counsel:
forwarding this to me for response at all. Ms. Nassar was on the previous Moore
complaints. There seems to have been absolutely no minimal review of them, nor Ms.
A706
0707
Electronically i~sued / Delivre par voie electron!que: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-707 A707
s
Moore's website, to glean what Canuck Law and Ms. Moore are about with respect to me
and my clients.
In my last correspondence, on a similarly outrageous complaint, by an outrageous

individual, with respect to an attempt to censor my speech, I indicated that the next time I
received one of these, I would commence action against the LSO, in the absence of an
apology.
If I do not receive an apology from the LSO on this "Complaint" which should not even
have reached me, if the minimum of research was done on Ms. Moore and her website, I
will commence action against the LSO for negligent investigation and the newly-created
tort of (online) harassment because, it seems to me, that the LSO is more than content and
willing to be dupe and conduit for Ms. Moore's and Canuck Law's filth, anti-Semitic,
racists, and derogatory harassment of me and my clients.
Attached, as Tab 12, is another response to yet another complaint similar to the one you have
forwarded me for response by the LSO.
All previous 7 complaints have been dismissed, but I never received any apology, regret, nor
recognition that anything was amiss in the Kingdom of the LSO, for negligence in screening
frivolous and vexatious complaints against members who fearlessly execute their duty to the client,
while suffering attacks on their reputation and practise in representing what some members of the
general public refer to as "distasteful" clients. The lack of screening, research and furtherance of
frivolous and vexatious complaints in light of the above warrants redress and is contrary to the
principles set out under s.4.2. of the Law Society Act. With respect, it is actionable in damages,
and other administrative and constitutional law redress.
• Response to your Letter of May 2022
Let me say, with respect, that it is obvious to me that, prior to sending your assumption-laden and,
might I say, prejudicial accusations and threatening reference to s.49.3(2) of the Law Society Act,
letter of May 19, 2022 for "response", you did absolutely no preliminary inquiry into either Ms.
Toews nor her enabler Mr. Warner. In tum, as in previous frivolous and outrageous complaints I
have had to respond to, the LSO becomes enabler and provides a platform for abuse.
You assumed that Ms. Toews was a client, notwithstanding that it is clear from Ms. Toews intake
form, that she has never been my client.
Whatever donations Ms. Toews may have made, "on behalf of husband", to either VCC, or Action-
4-Canada, have nothing to do with me. I have no knowledge of them, NOR any responsibility for
them. I am retained by the organizations under the instructions of their Board(s), on a fee for
service basis.
I never made any representations to Ms. Toews, let alone her husband, nor do I have any duty to
report nor respond to her, even if she had contacted me, which to my recollection and knowledge
she did not.
As to what happened to any purported donated funds to VCC or Action-4-Canada is beyond my

knowledge and concern. However, in the spirit of co-operation I forwarded the complaint to my
-3'f-
A707
0708
Electronically i:>5uedI Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-708 A708
6
clients and they have responded. I attach, at Tab 13, a letter from Vaccine Choice Canada and at
Tab 14 a letter from Action-4-Canada.
My clients have indicated that they do not want me to disclose solicitor-client privileged
information as they are not complaining about me. I am instructed by the Boards of Directors of
Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada. Neither Ms. Toews nor Mr. Warner are on those
boards.
In answer to the specific questions in your letter, I reproduce the questions and insert my answers
below to your questions.
Question:
• Please Advise what happened to the funds that Ms. Toews donated to Vaccine Choice
Canada and Action4Canada, i.e., where were those funds directed to specifically?
• When Ms. Toews made her donations to these organizations, did she sign any forms?
If so, please provide these.
Answer: I have no involvement in the organizations, including any fund-raising

efforts, and have no knowledge as to how these organizations spend their money.
Both clients have retained me and paid me for legal advice, consultations, and
opinions, as well as litigation.
Question:
• Please advise:
► -how much monies have been raised through donations to support the
► Have/are these funds been applied for their intended purpose? Please explain.
Answer: See previous answer to first three questions. I have no role and no
knowledge of my clients' fund-raising efforts or details with respect to fund-raising
to run their organization(s), their operations and activities, nor expenses, including
legal expenses. I have been paid by my clients for my services. I was paid by
cheque(s) from these two organizations for services rendered.
A708
0709
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque ; 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A709
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-709
7
Question:
• What is the status of the constitutional challenge(s) that these funds are supporting/?
Are you personally involved in these legal challenges?
Answer: The status of these legal challenges is:
(a) Action4-Canada: awaiting decision on various motions to strike.
(b) VCC: The litigation is progressing in accordance with my client's instruction(s)

and litigation strategy. (My client has, and had, a litigation strategy which they
do not wish to fully disclose). My clients provide regular updates to their
members.
I am personally in charge of the litigation.
Question:
• Are you or another entity providing regular updates to donors? If so, how often and
in what form are these updates provided?
Answer: We (my firm) never have, nor are we, providing any "updates" to donors, as
they are not our clients. The organization(s) provide updates to their members. On
regular occasions, I have attended, at the request of my clients, zoom-meetings, in the
form of "Q and As", with my clients' members to update and take questions on the state
of law with respect to the COVID-19 measures, persons' duties/obligations and rights,
and legal proceedings and decisions in Canada and other jurisdictions.
Question:
• Please Respond to Ms. Toews Allegations that
► she received no information about the progress of the constitutional litigation
until after almost 18 months
► Vaccine choice Canada, Action4Canada, and a third organization in Quebec
have raised approximately 3.5 million to finance litigation in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec.
► She was not invited to any "members only" meetings with you as Vaccine
Answer: What Ms. Toews has received, or not received, from VCC, is between her
and VCC. What does this have to do with me? I repeat, she is not my client. I do not
know her. I have never met her. I have had no communication with her. And, by the
way, I am not telepathic.
With respect to her reference to $3.5 million raised, I have no clue as to what she is
referring to. I have no knowledge of how much money is/was received by VCC or
Action4Canada, or "third organizations in Quebec, Ontario, or British Columbia",
whomever they may be. It would have been prudent to put the questions to Ms. Toews
to obtain particulars as to that assertion, which is far, wide, and nebulous, and lacks
any source. In any event, this question cannot possibly be answered by me. Would you
A709
0710
J::lectronically issued / Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022
Toronto Superior Court of Jusllte / Cour superieure de justice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-710 A710
8
expect an independently retained lawyer, retained to represent the Cancer Society or

Salvation Army on a specific legal proceeding, to account for donations or donors to
the Cancer Society or Salvation Army?
With respect to not being "invited" to any 'members only' meetings", I am not the host
of any of those organized or scheduled meetings, which my clients sometimes request
that I attend. Incidentally, I do NOT have knowledge of or attend all those meetings,
I am asked, by my clients, to attend specific meetings. There is no legal precedent
specifying that a donor to an organization has the right to examine, challenge, and
review the litigation strategy and pierce the solicitor-client relationship of the
organization and their legal counsel. Hence, the allegation of "misleading" the donor,
and "not acting with integrity" is baseless, preposterous and demonstrative of malice
and/or bias.
I repeat my assertion that this complaint should never have reached me for response
as it is clear from the intake-sheet that the complainant is NOT one of my clients, nor
is there any indication that she ever communicated with me. Furthermore, any
complaints, or questions, that Ms. Toews may have, are properly directed to the
organizations and not me.
Duty of Fairness and Abuse of Discretion
As Intake and Resolution counsel you have discretion under s.49.3(1) of the Law
Society Act, on whether to conduct an investigation or not, or put a complaint to a
lawyer for response.
The LSO is not required to pursue every single random complaint, by unknown and
unvetted individuals, against its members. Since there is discretion, the exercise of that
discretion must be able to withstand some scrutiny and must, de minimus, meet the
requirements of reasonableness. In exercising your delegated statutory authority and
discretion under s.49.3(1) of the Law Society Act, you also owe a duty of fairness and
this includes adherence to the principles of fundamental justice and the rule against
bias at every step of the intake and investigation process as well as resolution of
complaints in a fair and impartial manner.
Abusing the exercise of statutory authority, on the other hand, and abusing your
discretionary power, results in the loss of jurisdiction. It is my submission that the Law
Society does not have jurisdiction to proceed on Ms. Toews complaint and to do so is
abusive.
With respect, the decision to conduct an investigation into, or, even the referral of the
complaint of Ms. Toews for my response, exudes unfairness, and unreasonableness.
Notwithstanding that I requested particulars on these allegations, none were provided.

In light of the fact that this is the runeth (8 ) complaint entertained by the Law Society
th
(specifically for COVID-19 litigation) in the course of two years alone, requiring
extensive time and effort for response, is causing professional stress and mental
distress, particularly at a time when I am physically vulnerable, for health reasons, is
also tortious and actionable conduct.
A710
0711
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A711
Toronlo Superior Court of Justice / Cour superieure de Justice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-711
9
With respect, given the (non) facts, the history, and context of these past and present
allegations, the pursuit of this complaint is scandalous, insultingly prejudicial, and,
frankly, stem and flow, unfortunately, from the same source of personally unfounded
attacks against me as a person of Calabrian Jewish ancestry who represents views and
clients despised by the majority of "Canadians", on constitutionally unpopular
grounds. I regret to say that both as a lawyer, and former Bencher, some members of
the public consider my clients and their causes "distasteful". Throughout my 33 plus
years of practice, these personal attacks have been unfortunately just run-of-the-mill
for me. This position and motive for random, non-client, unrelated, disgruntled
"public" complaints against me, and my law practice, was made clear to the LSO on
the previous frivolous and vexatious complaints, which were eventually dismissed. As
counsel, you must execute the duty of fairness and apprise yourself of the context and
history of the relationship between the present complaint and those of the past. You
must also, at a minimum, ascertain, who the complaint and her affiliates are, the
reasons for the complaint and the applicable Rules, based on facts, and not
assumptions, prior to advancing the complaint asserting very serious allegations
against me, to my attention for response. You failed to do so, and instead, have required
me to do your work for you notwithstanding that I requested particulars on these
allegations, and none were provided. At this point, after suffering seven prior ignorant
abusive complaint allegations, I am justified in asking the question, "why is the LSO
so quick to jump on the proverbial assumption accusation bandwagon"?
• Your Erroneous Characterization of "Misleading and Did Not Act with

Integrity".
Your statement to me, in your email dated May 24 , 2022, takes this complaint beyond
th
the pale when, in answer to my request for particulars, you stated:
With respect to the regulatory issues identified, these stem from Ms. Toews'
complaint. Ms. Toews stated that she wanted her donations to be directed to you
as the lawyer retained to bring constitutional challenges. However, she
expressed concern that the funds may not have been applied to their intended
purpose in view of the length of time since the litigation was funded and a
statement of claim issued; the lack of updates provided to her; and a lack of
transparency including her not being invited to 'members only' meetings with
you. As such, the 'misleading' issue is directed to whether you may have misled
Ms. Toews (and other similar donors) regarding the purpose and use of the
donated funds.
The allegation of 'did not act with integrity" flows from this and concerns
whether or not you were honest and transparent with those who made donations
to fund the constitutional litigation.
It is apparent from her complaint form, that she never hired me, yet you jumped to
those postulations. There is no duty to report to each and every donor of my client
organization. I have no privity with them. I make, and made, no representations to
them. Let alone "mislead" them. You have misapplied the Rule.
A711
0712
Electronically issued I Delivre par voie electronlque · 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
0

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-712 A712
10
Neither Ms. Toews nor Mr. Warner are my clients. The standards of professional
conduct I am required to meet are to be measured by the services I provide my clients
I have never had "any dealing in the course of my practice" with Ms. Toews. I have
no relationship with her whatsoever.
Moreover Ms. Toews is directly and individually connected with Mr. Warner. Your
d very basic and minimal scrutiny,
intake failed to ascertain this. Had you perfo11I1ethis
the absurdity of the allegations, and that I am required to respond to an allegation that
I have breached of the Rules, would become apparent.
The Rules cannot be stretched to an overly broad application to random, unrelated

unknown members of the public who have a vindictive axe to grind with a lawyer. To
propose such an overly broad application would cause the LSO complaints process to
be inundated with frivolous, vexatious and abusive complaints and bring the
administration and regulation of the profession into disrupt and disposition.
(a) "Misleading"
"Misleading appears in the Rules of Professional Conduct in the followings categories:
Marketing of Professional Services
4.2-0 In this rule, "marketing" includes advertisements and other similar

communications in various media as well as firm names (including trade
names), letterhead, business cards and logos.
4.2-1 A lawyer may market legal services only if the marketing
(a) is demonstrably true, accurate and verifiable;
(b) is neither misleading, confusing, or deceptive, nor likely to mislead,

confuse or deceive; and
(c) is in the best interests of the public and is consistent with a high standard
of professionalism.
As explained above, I did not market my services to this complainant. She is not
my client, she has not hired me, I have never met or communicated with her. Ms.
Toews may have sent a donation to organizations who have independently hired
me to conduct litigation for them pursuant to a private retainer. The organization
did not hire me based on any "marketing" whatsoever. There is no evidence or
information in the complaint that I engaged in marketing that contravened the Rules
because none exists. This can be confirmed by my clients, VCC and
Action4Canada.The fact that these organizations collect donations to use at their
discretion, and the terms of their donations, and how they allot their donations are
between the organizations and their donors. I have nothing to do with it and
therefore cannot account to you for it either. Therefore, the Rule is inapplicable.
A712
0713
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-713
11
The Rules of Professional Conduct also state, about "misleading":
SECTION 4.1 MAKING LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE
Making Legal Services Available
4.1-1 A lawyer shall make legal services available to the public in an

efficient and convenient way.
Restrictions
4.1-2 In offering legal services, a lawyer shall not use means that
(a) are false or misleading;
(b) amount to coercion, duress, or harassment;
(c) take advantage of a person who is vulnerable or who has suffered a

traumatic experience and has not yet had a chance to recover;
(d) are intended to influence a person who has retained another lawyer or
paralegal for a particular matter to change that representative for that matter,
unless the change is initiated by the person or that repr~sentative; or
(e) otherwise bring the profession or the administration of justice into

disrepute.
As explained above, Ms. Toews is not my client, I have never communicated with her or
misrepresented to her. I did not offer legal services to her. She never retained me. I did not
request or solicit donations from her on behalf of any client or for my client's litigation.
The fact that she may have sent donations to organizations is between her and those
organizations. This Rule is inapplicable.
(b) "Did not act with Integrity:
The Rules of Professional Conduct discuss "integrity", as follows:
SECTION 2.1 INTEGRITY
2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice oflaw and discharge all
responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the
profession honourably and with integrity.
Commentary
[1] Integrity is the fundamental quality of any person who seeks to

practise as a member of the legal profession. If a client has any
doubt about their lawyer's trustworthiness, the essential element in
A713
0714
Electraonicallyissued/ Delivre P.arvoie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-714 A714
12
the true lawyer-client relationship will be missing. If integrity is

lacking, the lawyer's usefulness to the client and reputation within
the profession will be destroyed, regardless of how competent the
lawyer may be.
[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal

profession may be eroded by a lawyer's irresponsible conduct.
Accordingly, a lawyer's conduct should reflect favourably on the
legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients
and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of
impropriety.
[3] Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer

in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely
upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of
justice. Whether within or outside the professional sphere, if the
conduct is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair a
client's trust in the lawyer, the Law Society may be justified in
taking disciplinary action.
[4] Generally, however, the Law Society will not be concerned with
the purely private or extra-professional activities of a lawyer that do
not bring into question the lawyer's professional integrity.
(4.1] A lawyer has special responsibilities by virtue of the privileges

afforded the legal profession and the important role it plays in a free
and democratic society and in the administration of justice,
including a special responsibility to recognize the diversity of the
Ontario community, to protect the dignity of individuals, and to
respect human rights laws in force in Ontario.
2.1-2 A lawyer has a duty to uphold the standards and reputation of the legal
profession and to assist in the advancement of its goals, organizations and
institutions.
Commentary
[I] Collectively, lawyers are encouraged to enhance the profession

through activities such as:
(a) sharing knowledge and experience with colleagues and students

informally in day-to-day practice as well as through contribution to
professional journals and publications, support of law school
projects and participation jn panel discussions, legal education
seminars and university lectures;
(b) participating in legal aid and community legal services programs

or providing legal services on a pro bono basis;
A714
0715
A715
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-715
13
(c) filling elected and volunteer positions with the Law Society;
(d) acting as directors, officers and members of local, provincial,

national and international bar associations and their various
committees and sections; and
(e) acting as directors, officers and members of non-profit or

charitable organizations.
[2] When participating in community activities, lawyers should be

mindful of the possible perception that the lawyer is providing legal
advice and a lawyer -client relationship has been ..:1\.::1L..:d.
Notwithstanding my pointed request for particulars on how ''integrity" was engaged,

you did not provide any factual particulars. I submit that tis because none exist.
There are no facts in Ms. Toews' complaints that provide basis for allegations of
"dishonourable or questionable conduct", indeed, no such conduct has been identified.
Rule 2.1 should not be invoked and abused, for unauthorized purposes, or for acting
on irrelevant considerations. The fact that Ms. Toews may have made a donation to
my client is an irrelevant consideration. The Law Society Act does not authorize an
investigation on that basis. Courts have frequently held that it is ultra vires for a
statutory delegate to do so. Courts have also struck down arbitrary exercises of
discretion where the delegate has acted upon no evidence or has ignored relevant
considerations.
Contrary to your allegation, in all aspects, I upheld my obligations and acted with
integrity in my dealing with both my clients, and others.
• Rule 5.6-1
Rule 5.6-1 states:
Encouraging Respect for the Administration of Justice
5.6-1 A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the
I have not breached Rule 5.6 (1) of the Rules. You have not provided any evidence or
allegation that I have. On the contrary, I have spent my entire career trying to improve
the administration of justice and encourage public respect for it and the Rule of Law.
My practice consists of litigating the most difficult of cases, often successfully. These
are often perceived or labelled as "controversial cases" whereby individual unrelated
and random unrelated members of the public having erratic and vile reactions against
me personally for simply doing my duty as a constitutional lawyer, practising
according to my oath. It has become "controversial" to question government policy on
the Covid-19 and as a lawyer, representing clients who do question the government
policy have come under attack.
- '1-2.-
A715
0716
Electronically i;;sued I Delivre r;,ar voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A716
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-716
14
In practising law, in a manner that upholds Rule 5.6-1, I have, regrettably, been the
recipient of hate mail and subject to personal attacks and threats to my safety and my
life. This is a regrettable, but not a new, phenomenon for me. When I represented
clients charged pursuant to the Security Certificate provisions of IRPA and/or the
Terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code I was virulently and invidiously slandered
as a "terrorist lawyer", a "terrorist sympathizer" and even as a "terrorist" by random
individual members of the public. That I "put the right of terrorists over citizens" and
that I "defend citizenship of terrorists" are other examples. Those who attacked me
believed in the global "war on terrorism" and that I was not entitled, as an advocate, to
criticize or challenge the government's Jaw in my statements or pleadings on behalf of
my clients. These individuals alleged that by representing my clients, and making
statements regarding the racism and racial profiling my clients were subjected to as
Arabs and/or Muslims, by security services, in this country and elsewhere, that I was
''a threat to the public" and the "security" of Canada.
Often the hate-mail directed against me, sometimes guised and cloaked as a
"complaint", were coloured with racial bias and prejudice, and ethnic stereotyping, not
only against my racial minority clients, but also against me as their ethnic minority
lawyer. This is graphically illustrated by the institutional death threat I received while
representing a Canadian citizen who was detained at Guantanamo Bay on allegations
of "terrorism", wherein the "anonymous" caller demanded I cease representing
"terrorists, or you a dead WOP!"
Revealingly, my non-ethnic and non-racial minority colleagues in the Bar, who also
advocated on behalf of "terrorists suspects" and with whom I am well acquainted, did
not receive the same barrage of hate mail or threats. This is not surprising given that
many Royal Commissions, the SCC and the LSO have acknowledged the existence of
racial and ethnic bias in the justice system and the legal profession. Racial and ethnic
minority lawyers are disproportionately targeted for harsher treatment and unbridled
harassment. They face discrimination within their own profession and prejudice from
society and its members at large. Systemic and individual prejudice is pervasive.
It has not escaped me to consider ethnic malice as a root cause of this complaint. I have
encountered this before: "Who does this Italian lawyer think he is to challenge our
Canadian laws?". My suspicions are borne out in the current COVID context as I have
received hate mail which is demeaning, reprehensible and xenophobic intended to
intimidate me as an advocate. I am denominated as a: "scum lawyer", "mob lawyer",
"mobster" - all referring to the stereotype of Italians as members of organized crime.
That I "wasn't even born in Canada", that I am "a foreigner trying to change laws", and
that I "will never be a Canadian, except in the civic sense, and even that is
questionable."
However, what is equally troublesome and regrettable phenomenon for me, is that the
LSO would give credence to the hate and prejudice, as illustrated by previous
complaints forwarded by the LSO against me which I've had to respond to in order to
dismiss. The LSO should act as a gatekeeper to defend the advocate who encourages
public respect for and improvement to the administration of justice, as evidenced by
my litigation record. Rather than defending the advocate for ethically and fearlessly
-'tJ-
A716
0717
A717
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-717
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Gour superieure de justice
15
executing his duties, I am disheartened to learn that the LSO can be used as a vehicle
for attacking a lawyer doing his/her job instead. To the extent that the LSO enables
and allows for such harassment and attacks on me as a member, is an abuse of authority
and discretion and constitutes tortious conduct. Furthermore, the Rules apply equally
to you as a member personally and in your capacity as intake counsel. In particular, I
would remind you of Rule 7-2-1 and the requirement to "avoid ill-considered or
uninformed criticism of competence and conduct". Ms. Toew's complaint, as well as
that of her predecessor complainants with respect to COVID-19 litigation is frivolous
and vexatious. Had you conducted the minimal research that I have, you would have
arrived at this conclusion. By misapplying misusing and abusing your authority and
amplifying and escalating the complaint in the manner that you have is a breach of
your duty nnder Rule 7.
In closing, as a former elected Bencher, I completely understand your role in the Law
Society's protection of the "public interest". I know that your job is not an easy one
and your work-load is heavy. However, with the utmost respect, this "complaint" was
not diligently, or competently vetted, examined or researched before being passed on
to a member for response. Unfortunately, it could constitute institutional "rubber
stamping" of targeted character assassination and motive to "disbar" and ruin a
member's legal career by disgruntled and random unrelated non-client individuals. It
could also encourage the proliferation of hate-mail and retaliatory vindictive
"complaints" against lawyers.
The intake process must act, in part, as a gatekeeper to sift through spurious and
misdirected rantings and scandalous allegations (intended to intimidate and harass
lawyers from acting as advocate), from that of legitimate complaints. This is not the
LSO's first failure within the COVID litigation context.
I would remind you of Rule 5. 1-1, which reads:
5.1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client

resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the
tribnnal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.
[ 1] Role in Adversarial Proceedings - In adversarial proceedings, the

lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every
argument and ask every question, however distasteful, that the lawyer thinks
will help the client's case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit
of every remedy and defence authorized by law. The lawyer must discharge
this duty by fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner
that is consistent with the lawyer's duty to treat the tribunal with candour,
fairness, courtesy and respect and in a way that promotes the parties' right
to a fair hearing in which justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum
A717
0718
Electronically i;;sued I Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-718 A718
16
and courtesy in the courtroom is not an empty formality because, unless

order is maintained, rights cannot be protected.
The LSO is tasked with protection of the public, but also of the legal profession and
its members, reg8J'dless of the client or case. Rule 5.1-1 is a cornerstone for Canada's
justice system. The intake counsel's job is to not only protect the public, but also protect
the profession from the public's vile, unjustified, false, and scandalous attack on
lawyers, which is not in concert with the "public interest". It is not in your jurisdiction
and mandate to jump on the proverbial "hate bandwagon".
In another context, outside of a Regulatory complaint, Donna Toews would have been
successfully sued for defamation for her comments, and not be the assumptive
springbo8J'd from which to catapult an unsubstantiated query sent to me for response.
Ms. Toews comments and complaints are unfoundedly outrageous and malicious. That
Kip Warner, given his history, added the fuel to the fire, is the more offensive. Yet,
regrettably, you acted on them.
After this 8th, post-COVID, "from -COVID", "with COVID", LSO baseless complaint,
I still await a LSO apology for having had to respond to them, failing which I will seek
redress for unauthorized abusive conduct through legal proceedings in the Courts.
In responding to this complaint, I was required to disclose my personal health

information as defined in the Personal Health Information Protection Act which is
strictly private and highly confidential. While I have made this information available
only to you, I do not authorize the disclosure or release of my private health
information to anyone else, particularly the complainant and her affiliates and co-
conspirators. I trust that any and all of my personal health information will be strictly
protected.
Yours very truly,
..
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL. B, LL.M.

RG*sc
Encls.
A718
0719
Electronically i~sued I Delivre f?ar voie electrqn_lque: 12-Jul-20
22 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A719
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour supeneur': de justice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-719
Electronically Issued / D{llivre par yole electronlque : 28✓un-2022

Toronto Superior Court of Justice Cour superleure <feJustice
Court File No.:
ONTA"/.llO
SUPERIOR COURT OF .TIJSTICE
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALA TI
Plaintiff
-and-
CANADIAN
DONNA TOEWS (AKA "DAWNA TOEWS"), KIPLING WARNER,
C POLICY ("CSAPP"),
SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND PUBLI
DEE GANDHI, JANES AND JOHNS DOE
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLA™
TO THE DEFENDANTS:
YOU by the
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST
plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the followi ng pages.
lawyer
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND TIDS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario
defence in Form 18A prescrib ed by the Rules of
acting for you must prepare a statement of
or, where the plaintif f does not have a
Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer
proof of service , in this court office, WITHI N
lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with
served on you, if you are served in Ontario .
TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is
United States of
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the
nt of defence is forty days. If you are
America, the period for serving and filing your stateme
a, the period is sixty days.
served outside of Canada and the United States of Americ
file a notice of
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and
ure. This will entitle you
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Proced
defence .
to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of
BE
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, A JUDGMENT MAY
FURTHER NOTICE
GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT
ARE UNABLE TO
TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND TIDS PROCEEDING BUT
BY
PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU
A719
0720
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronrque: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-720 A720

Date: Issued by:

10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1£6
TO:
Donna Toews (Aka Dawna Toews)
I O Garth Street
Guelph, Ontario
NIH 203
AND TO:
KIPLING WARNER
Vancouver, BC Canada
kip@thevertigo.com
AND TO:
CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
Unknown Address
Fax: +1 (604) 256-3060
Tel: +1 (604) 256-3060
receptionl'@,covilcm1stiwtionalchallem1.ebc.:.ca
A720
0721
Electronically Issued/ Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A721
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-721
ANDTO
Dee GANDHI
Address/contact unknown
c/o CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADV AN CEMENT
Unknown Address
Fax: +l (604) 256-3060
Tel: +I (604) 256-3060
receptiontqk icJconstitutionalchal lengebc.ca
2
A721
0722
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-722
CLAIM
(a) $500,000.00, as against the Defendants, Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi and the
Canadian Society for The Advancement of Science and Public Policy, for libel and
slander (defamation), and irresponsible publication;
(b) As against all Defendants, severally and jointly, conspiracy to undermine the
Plaintiffs solicitor-client relationships, interference with economic interests and
intentional infliction of mental anguish and distress;
(c) As against all Defendants, severally and jointly, aggravated damages as against the
Defendants in the amount of $250,000.00;
(d) As against all Defendants, severally and jointly, punitive damages in the amount of
$250,000.00;
(e) an interim and permanent injunction requiring the retraction, removal, and
prominent apology for any and all defamatory publication and/or remarks by the
Defendants;
(f) As against Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi, and The Advancement of Science and
Public Policy, $100,000.00 for harassment as delineated by the Superior Court of
Ontario in Caplan v Atas, 2021 ONSC 670;
(g) an interim and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants, or anyone directly
or indirectly associated with them, from posting or disseminating defamatory posts
on the internet.
A722
0723
Electronically i~sued / Delivre P,arvoie electrol"\ique: 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-723
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour supeneure de Justice A723
(h) prejudgment interest pursuant to s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990 c.
C43; and
(i) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis and such further or other relief
THE PARTIES
(a) The Plaintiff
practices law through his law firm Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
"duly" incorporated under the laws of Ontario and requirements of the Law Society Act.
receive the award.
Society of Ontario (LSO). Between May 2015 to February, 2021. he also served as a
Court (of Appeal), all levels of Ontario Courts, other Provincial Superior Courts, as
Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. He has, as counsel, well
4
-.so- A723
0724
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12✓ ul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-724 A724
over 500 reported cases in the jurisprudence. Some of his major cases include: Baker
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanL/1699 (SCC),
/ 1999/ 2 SCR 817, Reference re Supreme Court Act, R.S. C. 1985 (Canada),
Reference re Section 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867, R. v. Ahmad, (2011] S.C.J.
No. 6 (Toronto 18 Terrorism Case); Felipa v. Canada, [2011] F.C.J. No. 135,
Wang v. Canada, 2018 ONCA 798.
Immigration and Citizenship Law" (1996), "The Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong
Revolution" (2001). He has also produced three Films, "Two Letters & Counting ... "
2008-2011, written, directed and performed by multi-Genie Award winning Tony Nardi,
on the state of art and culture in Canada, and the treatment of"Aboriginal" and "Other"
"Canadians" by the Two Solitudes Tribes of Canada, and on the Funding of "Canadian"
Art and "Culture".
(b) The Defendants
9. The Defendant, Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"), is a resident of Ontario. She has
represented her name to be "Donna Toews" to the Law Society of Ontario, but
5
-51 - A724
0725
Electronically Issued/ Delivre par voie eleclronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-725 A725
represents her name to be "Dawna Toews" on her business profile, social media, and
email. The Plaintiff has had no personal connection nor contact with Ms. Toews. Ms.
Toews made a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario against the Plaintiff on January
1
15th , 2022, which was forwarded by the Law Society to the Plaintiff on May 19 \ 2022.
10. The Defendant, Kipling Warner, is a resident of British Columbia. The Plaintiff has had
no personal connection nor contact with Kipling Warner. Kipling Warner encouraged
and directed Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews") to make the Law Society of Ontario
complaint against the Plaintiff and otherwise defamed the Plaintiff, as set out in the
within Statement of Claim. Kipling Warner is the Director of the Canadian Society for
the Advancement of Science and Public Policy.
11. The Defendant, Dee Gandhi, is the treasurer for the Canadian Society for the
12. The Defendant, The Canadian Society for The Advancement of Science and Public
Policy, is a not-for-profit organization, established and promoted by Kipling Warner for
the purposes of conducting anti-COVID measures litigation in British Columbia.
13. The Defendant(s) Janes and Johns Doe are Defendants unknown to the Plaintiff at this
time, but who assisted the named Defendants in the named Defendants' tortious and
actionable conduct against the Plaintiff.
A725
0726
Electronically l$SUed/ Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A726
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-726
FACTS
• Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews")
14. The Plaintiff does not know Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews").
15. Ms. Toews has never been the Plaintiffs client.
16. To his recollection, the Plaintiff has never had any direct contact with Ms. Toews.
17. The Plaintiff does not know Kipling Warner. The Plaintiff has had contact, through Mr.
Warner's solicitor, as set out below, to issue a caution with respect to his defamatory
statements against the Plaintiff and interfering with the Plaintiffs solicitor-client
relations, including with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada.
18. The Plaintiff does not know Dee Gandhi. The Plaintiff has never had any direct contact
with Mr. Gandhi.
19. Vaccine Choice Canada (hereinafter "VCC") has been a client of the Plaintiff's law firm
since 2015.
20. The Plaintiff acts ·on VCC's behalf giving legal advice, consultations, issuing legal
opinions, and conducting litigation for VCC, under the instructions of VCC's Board of
A726
0727
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-727 A727
• Action4Canada
25. Neither Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, nor Mr. Gandhi, are on the Board of Directors ofVCC
or Action4Canada.

Society of Ontario
crystalized.
"similar" campaign to hers and directed her view his lawsuit's GoFundMe page.
A727
0728
A728
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-728
28. On or about December 14, 2020, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from a lawyer
from British Columbia, Ms. Polina H. Furtula. This lawyer indicated that she was
contemplating legal action against the British Columbia government over the COVID-
19 measures imposed there. She requested that the Plaintiff collaborate with her, owing
to his expertise in constitutional law and proceedings against the Crown. Ms. Furtula's
client(s) were Kipling Warner and his organization, The Canadian Society for The
29. The Plaintiff respectfully declined, and advised Ms. Furtula that he had been approached
by a British Columbia group (Action4Canada) and other plaintiffs, and had, in principle,
agreed to act for them in a challenge to the COVID-19 measures, once a retainer
crystalized.
Claim) for Action4Canada and other co-Plaintiffs.
31. On January 2 7, 2021, the Defendant, Dee Gandhi, Kipling Warner's colleague, and
independent journalist, Dan Dicks from Press for Truth, a defamatory email about the
Plaintiff. This journalist forwarded that email to the Plaintiffs client, Action4Canada.
The email indicated that the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
Policy had filed their statement of claim, but then made defamatory remarks against the
Plaintiff and the case brought by the Plaintiff, asserted that the Defendants had brought
their case first and therefore would have "carriage of the matter", and then asked to
assist them in soliciting donations on their behalf for their legal proceeding.
9
-ss- A728
0729
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-729
Toronto Superior Court of Justice I Cour superieure de Justice A729
32. On January 29, 2021, the Plaintiff received a letter from Ms. Furtula indicating that she
represented the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, that
she had filed on behalf of her client(s) and therefore the Plaintiff could not file any
proceedings on behalf of his clients.
33. On February Yd, 2021, the Plaintiff responded to Ms. Furtula's letter indicating her
client did not have exclusive monopoly to litigation against the Crown. The Plaintiff
also, in the same response, issued a warning to Ms. Furtula about Mr. Warner's
defamatory conduct against the Plaintiff.
34. From January 2021 and onward, the Defendants, Kipling Warner, his organization
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, and his associates
from the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, including
Dee Gandhi, continued defaming the Plaintiff to the Plaintiffs clients, and others.
members concerned about the Defendants' statements.
Claim (Statement of Claim) in the British Columbia Supreme Court. This claim was on
behalf of various Plaintiffs, Action4Canada being one, in British Columbia Court File
No.: BCSC NO. VLC-S-S-217586.
A729
0730
Electronically Issued / Delivre par voie electronlque · 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
0

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-730 A730
37. From August to Christmas, 2021, the Defendants to this Statement of Claim, on behalf
of Action4Canada and others, dragged their heels over whether they would accept
service for various Ministries and officials and requested an indulgence past the normal
30-day deadline, to respond, which the Plaintiff granted. They also indicated that they
wished to bring an application (motion) to strike. The Plaintiff asked that they do so as
soon as possible, under the instructions of his clients.
3 8. By Christmas day, 2021, the Defendants had not brought their motions to strike. Over
th
ridden. On January 2 nd, 2022, the Plaintiff was admitted for a critical illness to the ICU
in hospital.
or about January 13th, 2022, the Defendants, in British Columbia Supreme Court file
Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff was in a coma and incapacitated under s.3 7 of the Law
hospital and he transferred himself to recover in a private medical setting with 24/7 care.
11
A730
0731
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-731 A731
41. The motion to strike, which had been set for February 22, 2022, in British Columbia,
was adjourned by the Plaintiffs office to May 31 , 2022 in the hopes that he would be
st
sufficiently and competently capable of arguing the motion to strike via zoom-link. The
Plaintiff was granted permission to appear by zoom-link and argued the motion on May
3 Pt, 2022. The motion(s) to strike were heard on May 3 l5t, 2022 and the Court has
reserved its decision.
42. While the Plaintiff lay in a coma, in January, 2022, the Defendant Kipling Warner was
conspiring and encouraging Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews") to file a complaint
against the Plaintiff with the Law Society of Ontario.
43. On January 15th,2022, Ms. Toews filed her complaint to the Law Society of Ontario,
which was forwarded to the Plaintiff on May 19 , 2022. The complaint alleged that the
th
allegedly made a $1,000 donation, "in her husband's name", to the Plaintiffs clients,
communications with Donna Toews (aka "Dawna Toews"),
A731
0732
Electronically i~sued / Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A732
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-732
(c) The Plaintiff has had absolutely no role in his client (organization) and is not
legal services;
meetings.
The Plaintiff states that the substance of the complaint by Donna Toews (aka
"Dawna Toews"), directed and encouraged by Kipling Warner, simply parrots the
defamatory remarks made by the other three co-Defendants.
• Donna Toews (aka ''Dawna Toews") and Kipling Warner
claiming the Plaintiff was dead emerged and ones are still online), Kipling Warner was
in communication with Donna Toews, via email, on how to make a complaint to the
Law Society about the Plaintiff.
prowess as a computer hacker, that "I want to see to it that Rocco Galati is disbarred
be forwarded to him, Kipling Warner, to support his litigation instead.
13
- 5'i' - A732
0733
Electronically i!:>sued/ Delivre par voie electronlque: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A733
Toronto Supenor Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de justice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-733
46. Mr. Warner is under the delusion that he can claim, along with his "Canadian Society
rights to litigate the covid-measures in British Columbia. In pursuit of this he goes to all
ends.
email to the Plaintiffs client, and through their Canadian Society for the Advancement
of Sciences in Public Policy website, hups://"vww.covidconstilutionalchal len_ebc.ca,
uttered and published defamatory statements against the Plaintiff, namely:
wrote, as follows:

for class actions, it's the first to the court house that generaJJy has
14
-60 - A733
0734
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie eleclronfque: 12-J.ul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
Toronto Superior·Court of Justice / Cour superieure de justice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-734 A734

htLps://www.2ofundme.com/f/bc-supreme-court-covid 19-
constitutional-challenge
(I) Rocco isn't licensed to practice here in BC. He can always be

retained in Ontario and in tum retain counsel in BC. But then you are
https://www.lmvsocietv.bc.ca/lsb apps/lkup/mbr-search.cfm

hup://canl ii.ca/t/2bz73

constitutional law:

<https ://tgam.ca/3 n8Zuyo>
said it was very poorly drafted_ It will most likely get struck and
5G, vaccines, etc.) to obtain the order that he wants. This is how it
A734
0735
Electronically issued / Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A735
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-735
line with (2);
of that time;
See:

transparency
Public Policy, Mr. Kipling and the other directors of the Society, have posted
the following, about the Plaintiff:

arms. We do not have any information, were not involved in raising
tum retain counsel in British Columbia. This is not unusual.
A735
0736
Electronically i~sued / Delivre par voie electronique : 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de juslice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-736 A736

wished to retain in British Columbia is Lawrence Wong. Mr. Wong
was personall · sanctioned in 2010 for his conduct by a Federal Court
judge with a fine.

· not to say that a lawyer cannot have an area of expertise like personal
According to Mr. Galati, he studied tax litifrntion at Osgoode Hall.
Mr. Galati filed a COVfD-19 related civil proceeding in the Superior

apply for a default iudemem for the majority of that time. In an
applic~tion heard before the Christmas holidays of 2020. As of 11
June 2021, we are not aware of any scheduled hearings and no orders
49. The Plaintiff states that neither Mr. Warner, nor the website,
hnps://ww v.covidconstitutionalchallen!lebc.ca, constitute a "broadcaster" under the
Libel and Slander Act and, in any event, are not entitled to Notice under s.5 of the Libel
and Slander Act, as they do not comply with the requirements of s.8 of that Act, in
providing a prominent address for service.
17
- 63- A736
0737
Electronically ii;sued / Delivre par voie electronique: 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-737 A737
• Defamation
50. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that the above-cited statements are/were false, and
interfere with the Plaintiffs contractual obligations and economic interests, for all of
which he has-suffered, and continues to suffer, considerable financial damages and
51. These untrue and false statements were malicious, irresponsible, negligent, and uttered
with malicious intent, in that they attempt to assert and convince the public that the
(b) Being immoral;
(c) Misappropriating donors' funds intended to for the legal proceeding;
(d) Not being licensed to practice law, and therefore charging twice (charging for a
British Columbia law firms legal fees as well as his own);
(e) Excessive and unwarranted billing (the Defendants misapply a case here by
insinuating a judge had found that the Plaintiff had charged his clients too
much in a legal proceeding, when actually the case was about the Plaintiff
trying to recuperate the costs of a proceeding that he had conducted out of his
own pocket, which he had brought against the government in his own name,
18
- 6'{- - A737
0738
Electronically issued/ Delivre par voie electronique · 12-Jul-2022 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-22-00683933-0000
A738
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure ·dejustice
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-738
where he had not charged anyone legal fees, and which case he had been
successful and therefore was entitled to costs, the subject of that decision);
(f) Insinuating that "other lawyers" did not hold him in high esteem;
(g) Making his money in other areas of law and therefore not being a
constitutional lawyer;
(h) Of purposely delaying the legal proceedings or of purposely delaying taking
further steps in the legal proceeding;
G) Representing his client for subversive motives and not for the public good;
(k) Intentionally failing to advance the COVID-19 cases on which he has been
retained.
These statements are also saturated with defamatory innuendo that the Plaintiff is
incompetent.
circulated by the Defendants and others, as well as specifically directed to the
Plaintiffs clients.
53. Neither the Defendant, Kipling Warner, nor any representative of Canadian Society
for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, including the treasurer, Dee Gandhi,
provided the Plaintiff the opportunity to answer the allegations before publishing the
defamatory statements.
19
-6.S-- A738
0739
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-739
Toronto Superior Court of Justice / Cour superieure de justice A739
• Conspiracy
54. The Plaintiff states and fact is, that the Defendants, Donna Toews (aka "Dawna
Toews"), Kipling Warner, Dee Gandhi, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy, as well as other "duped co-conspirators" engaged in the
actionable tort of conspiracy to undermine the Plaintiffs solicitor-client relationship
with his clients, which relationships are statutorily, at common law, and s.7 of the
Charter protected, as well as conspired to interfere with the Plaintiffs economic
interests with his clients, pursuant to civil conspiracy as set out by the Supreme Court
of Canada, in, inter alia, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), {1990/
2 SCR 959, which set out that the tort of the conspiracy comprised of the following
features:
(b) Second, there will be an actionable conspiracy if the defendants combine to act

55. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants further conspired to engage in
actionable abuse of process through the Law Society complaint.
• The Law Society Complaint as an Abuse of Process
A739
0740
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-740
jurisprudence, abuse is made out where:
(a) the plaintiff must be a party to a legal process initiated by the Defendant, in
this case a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario;
(b) the legal process must have been initiated for the predominant purpose of
furthering some indirect, collateral and improper objective;
(c) the defendant took or made a definite act or threat in furtherance of the
The Plaintiff states that Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Gandhi, and the Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, took and made acts, as well
as post-facto statements in furtherance of their improper purpose of trying to shut
down the Action4Canada et al, lawsuit in British Columbia, and improperly
attempting to redirect funds raised by Action4Canada, to the Defendants, Kipling
Warner, Dee Gandhi, and the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in
Public Policy. All this damaged and continue to damage the Plaintiff by way of
reputation and his solicitor-client relationships.
57. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants, in their actions knowingly intended,
and in fact inflicted, mental anguish and distress through their actions against the
Plaintiffs, all of which go to punitive damages.
21
-6?- - A740
0741
A741
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-741
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Gour superieure de justice
58. The Plaintiff states that, through their conduct and actions, the Defendants have
engaged in interference with the Plaintiffs economic interests as set out by the facts,
pleaded above, and set out by the jurisprudence in that:
The Plaintiff states that the actions of the Defendants were intended to injure the
Plaintiffs economic interests in his clientele, through defamatory and other tortious
and unlawful interference and means as set out above, which resulted in economic
harm and loss to the Plaintiff, through his reputation, and client base.
Defendants, Kipling Warner and his CPSAPP, further constitutes the newly-
recognised tort of (online) harassment as delineated by the Ontario Superior Court in
Caplan v Atas 2021 ONSC 670.
22
-68- A741
0742
A742
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-742
Toronto Superior Court of Justice/ Cour superieure de jusUce
As set out by the Superior Court in Caplan v Atas 2021 ONSC 670, at paragraph
68.
as set out in paragraph l of the within statement of claim, for the instances and reasons
pleaded above.
Dated at Toronto this ,l;.y of June, 2022.

.....
~c:..__
ROCCO GALA TI LAW FIRM
Rocco Galati
l 062 College Street, Lower Level
TEL: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
A742
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-743 A7
A7
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-744 A7
A7
0745
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-745 A745
This is Exhibit "OD'to the Affidavit of

A~T~Affid. r a mg 1 av1ts
A745
0746
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-746 393 University Intake & Resolution A746
ot Ontario de I'Ontario Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
htq,s: //www.lso.c-a
December 1, 2020
Sent by email only rocco@idirect.com
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Complainant: Two Butlers
Case No.: 2020-246673
On October 23, 2020, the Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional Regulation
Division received a letter of complaint from an individual(s) referring to themselves as
Two Butlers.
The Complainant was complaining about posts you may have made on social media. The
Law Society wrote to Two Butlers, requesting further information and/or
documentation in relation to the complaint. To date, the Law Society has not received a
response. Consequently, I have closed the case. However, should the Complainant
provide the requisite information and/or documentation, we may consider reactivating
the case.
I do not require a response from you, as the Law Society does not intend to pursue this
matter further at this time.
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Email: snassar@lso.ca A746
12/1/2020 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL - Law Society of Ontario
0747
From: "Samantha Nassar" <snassar@lso.ca>
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL - Law Society of Ontario
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-747
Subject: A747
Date: Tue, December 1, 2020 1: 30 pm
To: "rocco@idirect.com" <rocco@idirect.com>
Law Society File No.: 2020-246673
Dear Mr. Galati,
I write with hope that you are keeping safe and healthy during this unprecedented time.
I also write to notify you that the Law Society has received a complaint from an individual(s) who refers
to themselves as Two Butlers.
no steps for you to take at
Please find attached a copy of my letter dated today. You will note that this file has been closed and there are
this time.
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Counsel, Intake & Resolution

393 University Ave, Suite 1100, Toronto, ON M5G 1E6
t. 416-94 7-3300 ext. 2098
e. snassar@lso.ca
is working electronically and the best way to send us information is

The Intake & Resolution department
by email. If you send us information by mail or courier, our response may be delayed.
Law Society Barreau
be read by, or delivered

This communication is intended for use by the individual(s) to whom it is specifically addressed and should not
Such communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in
to, any other person.
error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the communication . Thank you for your co-operation.
La presente communication ne vise que le ou les destinataires a

qui elle est adressee et ne devrait etre lue par personne d'autre, ni
Si vous avez
envoyee a un autre destinataire. Ce message peut contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou de nature privilegiee.
collaboration
rer;:u ce message par erreur, veuillez en avertir l'expediteur et le detruire de far;:on permanente. Merci de votre
Attachments:
Read Only Galati, R - 2020-12-01.pdf A747
Size: 173 k
108359&view _ unsafe _images= 1/2
https:/ /we bmail .look. ca/high/src/pri nter _friendly_ main. ph p? passed_ ent_id =0&m a i Ibox= IN BOX&passed _id=
12/1/2020 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL - Law Society of Ontario
• Type: application/pdf 0748

Info: Read_Only_Galati, R - 2020-12-01.pdf
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-748 A748
A748
108359& view_ unsafe _images= 2/2
https ://webm a iI.look. ca/h ig h/src/printe r_friendly _main. p hp? passed_ en t_id =0&mai Ibox= IN B OX&passed_id=
0749
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-749 A749
This is Exhibit "ff,,to the Affidavit of

A749
0750
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-750 A750
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
of Ontario de I'Ontario Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https: / /www.lso.ca
February 18, 2021
Sent by email only to rocco@idirect.com
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Complainant: Lindsay H.
Case No.: 2020-245374
The Law Society has completed its review of the complaint received from Lindsay H., by
the Intake & Resolution Department on September 9, 2020 and the additional materials
you provided.
In order to conduct a further investigation, s. 49.3(2) of the Law Society Act requires a
reasonable suspicion that you may have engaged in professional misconduct/conduct
unbecoming.
Based on my review of the information received in this case, I have concluded that the
appropriate regulatory response is to close this file because no further investigation is
warranted in this matter. This file has therefore been closed.
I am enclosing a copy of the outcome letter sent to the complainant.
Complaints Resolution Commissioner
The complainant has the right to request a review by the Complaints Resolution
Commissioner of the decision to close this file. Additional information about this process
can be found at https://lso.ca/protecting-the-public/complaints/complaints-
resolution-commissioner. The Law Society will inform you in writing if the complainant
requests a review by the Complaints Resolution Commissioner.
A750
0751
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-751 A751
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Email: snassar@lso.ca
Encl.
1. Outcome letter to the Complainant - 2 pages
21Page
A751
0752
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-752 1
A752

I 062 College Street, Lower Level
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
December 30th, 2020
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Samantha Nassar
393 University Avenue
Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
snassar@lso.ca
Re: Complaint Against Rocco Galati by Lindsay H.; Case No.: 2020-245374
This is my Reply to the individual public "complaint" of Ms. Lindsay H. and your letter dated December
1ih, 2020.
In a follow-up email, with respect to Rule 4.1-2, you clarified that I need to address Rule 4.1-2(1 )(a) and
(d) of that Rule with respect to the referenced statement in your letter.
While the letter does not provide a hint as to how the statement could in any way raise any issue(s) of
being "false or misleading", or "otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute", I will
respond as best as I can.
In fact, a modicum of research would have revealed that the statement is a distilled, informational
summary of the law in Ontario, and elsewhere.
Would you please elucidate how the statement, on its face, raises any issue of "false misleading
statements" or "otherwise brings the administration of justice into disrepute"? Since your letter does not
do so, I can only surmise that it is a disconcerting assumption.
A752
0753
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-753 2 A753
• The emails of "Lindsay H" attached to "complaint".
I do not know Lindsay H. I have never spoken to her or had any contact or communication with her. She
has never been my client. Your letter attaches her emails as "letters of complaint for my review".
However, I am at a loss as to how I am supposed to respond to the emails with respect to the Rules.
Her attached emails are incoherent and replete with errors, unfounded assumptions, spurious claims and
troublesome allegations for the following reasons:
(a) I have never, nor do I now, represent(ed) Christopher Saccoccia, whom she describes, as "an
emotionally unstable and dangerous anti mask conspiracy theorist";
(b) How does her personal opinion and claim regarding Mr. Saccoccia concern me? How can she
falsely claim that I represent Mr. Saccoccia without the intake process vetting it? And how can it
then be forwarded to me for serious consideration and timely response?
(c) Furthermore, the appallingly iniquitous claim that I, as an advocate, executing my professional
duties to my client and members of the public am "a threat to the public", is a preposterous
allegation to put forward to me for response. Threats to the public are matters for police
investigation. They must not be made lightly, and must not be pandered to by professional
regulatory bodies.
How could these incomprehensible and hateful emails be deemed a "complaint"? And then, how could
this "complaint" have been forwarded to me without consideration of the above and the impact it would
have on: 1) me as a member, 2) my execution of my professional obligations and oaths, and 3) my
family, due to the stressors? This "complaint", intentionally or unintentionally, serves only to support
and strengthen irate individuals of society, at large, to intimidate lawyers who represent clients and do
cases they personally "dislike" or "disagree" with, and to threaten them with disciplinary action for
doing so. Clearly the "complainant" seeks to see me disbarred or disciplined because she disagrees or
dislikes my "client" and/or their "claims". Given this, and with all due respect, the LSO should be
weary of such attempts and not allow itself to be used as a rubber stamp for baseless, egregious and
malicious insults to be hurled at lawyers who take carriage of matters that individual members of society
may have personal, political, sociological or philosophical objections to.
In fact, it is shocking that this email "complaint" has reached the point that I am required to respond to
unchecked facts, and, insulting attacks on my person and profession. The untrue "facts" and disparaging
personal comments are then used as the basis of Professional Misconduct allegations. Nevertheless, I
respond as follows, as you require.
Lawsuits against the COVID-19 measures have been filed in Canada, in the USA, in England, in
Portugal, in Austria, in Romania, and many other jurisdictions. Many have been argued successfully. So
what? Why is it beyond belief that an individual or organization would challenge forced vaccination
when the Supreme Court of Canada and Appellate Courts have ruled that no medical treatment can be
administered without informed, voluntary consent, because, to do so, violates s.7 of the Charter? At the
end of the day, whether or not a properly filed legal claim is frivolous or vexatious is for the Courts to
determine, not an irate individual via a professional regulatory body. It is the LSO's duty to ensure and
A753
0754
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-754 A754
3
maintain access to justice for individuals who seek to file legal claims for our judiciary to adjudicate,
and also to respect the independence and mechanisms of our legal system, regardless of how unsavoury
an individual may consider the !is. It is not the function of the LSO to have the Professional Regulation
process be misused to abuse lawyers doing cases individual members of the public personally dislike.
In her follow up email, of September 11, 2020, "Lindsay H" purports to be speaking "on behalf of many
concerned citizens". Unintelligible and malevolent accusations are made against me personally as a
lawyer acting for litigants challenging the legal authority and jurisdiction of the government measures
regarding the COVID pandemic. She reviles me of being a "COVID-19 denier" and "conspiracy
theorist". I do not know what these terms mean, but, in its tone and content, this constitutes "hate mail".
I do not make posts on Facebook. I am not on Facebook nor have a Facebook account. This is another
false assertion.
She then contemptuously accuses me of "making more people get sick and die" and that "I mock these
deaths and treats them as irrelevant". How can I be expected to respond to this? It is just more hate
mongering and constitutes "hate mail". I have never mocked anyone's death. These are nothing more
than disdainful comments and constitute "hate mail".
She further writes and accuses that, I "encourage anti-maskers". My only response to this is that I do
not know what "anti-masker" means. Citizens, under the law have a right to not wear a mask if they are
exempt under the masking law, as set out below.
"Lindsay H" does not set out what medical and scientific expertise she has, or consulted, to make her
cosmic, enveloping conclusions with respect to the science, medicine, law, and how my duties as a
lawyer are "making people sick and killing them". Your letter does not state whether the LSO made any
efforts to ascertain this before forwarding the "complaint"/ hate-mail to me.
• "My Statement"
My statement that you cite arose out of the fact that I was getting inundated with phone-calls and emails
(between 1,500 -1, 700) from people who had medical conditions exempting them from the requirement
to wear a mask but, whose legal exemption was not being respected and complied with, by business
owners, who were acting in contravention of the law. These individuals, virtually all, asked what the
simplest, least costly avenue of redress would be, short of hiring a lawyer, and going through the
inordinate legal expenses of enforcing their right.
My statement is an informative summary of what the law of masking is in Ontario, and elsewhere, and
duplicated by various municipalities, including Toronto.
Section 2 of Regulation 546120 requires masking indoors unless the person is exempt under s.2(4) under
various circumstances, wherein the pertinent provisions read:
2( 4) The person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall ensure that any
person in the indoor area of the premises of the business or organization, or in a vehicle that
A754
0755
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-755 A755
4
is operating as part of the business or organization, wears a mask or face covering in a

manner that covers their mouth, nose and chin during any period when they are in the indoor
area unless the person in the indoor area,
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e) ...
(f) ...
(g) has a medical condition that inhibits their ability to wear a mask or face covering;
(h) is unable to put on or remove their mask or face covering without the assistance of
another person;
(i) needs to temporarily remove their mask or face covering while in the indoor area,
(i) to receive services that require the removal of their mask or face covering,
(j) is being accommodated in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, 2005;
(k) is being reasonably accommodated in accordance with the Human Rights Code; or
(1) performs work for the business or organization, is in an area that is not accessible to
members of the public and is able to maintain a physical distance of at least two
metres from every other person while in the indoor area.
- Ontario Regulation 546/20, pursuant to The Reopening Ontario (A Flexible
Response To Covid-19) Act, 2020, at paragraph 2(4)
Section 2(6) of Regulation 546/20 further states:
(6) For greater certainty, it is not necessary for a person to present evidence to the person
responsible for a business or place that they are entitled to any of the exceptions set out in
subsection (4).

Response To Covid-19) Act, 2020, at paragraph 2(6).
In addition, denial of entry, based on a medical condition, contravenes s.1 of the Ontario Human
Rights Code as discrimination based on a disability, which sections reads:
A755
0756
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-756
5
A756
Services
1 Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities,
without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin,
citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital
status, family status or disability. R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, s. l; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32,
S, 27 (1); 2005, C. 5, S. 32 (1); 2012, C. 7, S. 1.
- Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, at s. l.
In light of the above, my statement is not, and could not be, "false", "misleading" or "'otherwise
bring the administration of justice into disrepute". I await your articulated rationale for accepting
Lindsay H. 's hate mail and legitimizing it in the form of a "complaint" for me to be required to
respond under threat of investigation. It is respectfully submitted that Intake and Resolutions
should not be so vulnerable to the temperaments and whims of random members of the public,
who opine that a lawyer must not do her or his job to uphold the rule of law and defend clients, if
it does not align with their own personal opinions, likes or dislikes.
With respect, what is "false", "misleading" and "brings the administration of justice into
disrepute" is Lindsay H. 's "hate mail" emails and the requirement that I respond formally under
threat of investigation/sanction.
It is obvious from "my statement", read together with ten minutes of analysis and research, that it
is neither "false", "misleading", nor "brings the administration of justice into disrepute".
Therefore, the Rules in 4. 1-2 are not engaged by my statement.
• Rule 5.6-1
My statement does not engage Rule 5.6 (1) of the Rules. On the contrary, I have spent my entire
career (over 31 years) trying to improve the administration of justice and encourage public
respect for it and the Rule of Law. My practice consists of litigating the most difficult of cases,
often successfully. These are often perceived or labelled as "controversial cases" where
individual and random members of the public having erratic and vile reactions against me
personally for simply doing my duty as a constitutional lawyer, practising according to my oath.
In practising law, in a manner that upholds Rule 5.6-1, I have, regrettably, been the recipient of
hate mail and subject to personal attacks and threats to my safety and my life. This is not a new
phenomenon for me. When I represented clients charged pursuant to the Security Certificate
provisions of IRPA and/or the Terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code I was virulently and
invidiously slandered as a "terrorist lawyer", a "terrorist sympathizer" and even as a "terrorist"
by random individual members of the public. That I "put the right of terrorists over citizens" and
that I "defend citizenship of terrorists" are other examples. Those who attacked me believed in
the global "war on terrorism" and that I was not entitled, as an advocate, to criticize or challenge
the government's law in my statements or pleadings on behalf of my clients. These individuals
alleged that by representing my clients, and making statements regarding the racism and racial
profiling my clients were subjected to as Arabs and/or Muslims, by security services, in this
country and elsewhere, that I was "a threat to the public" and the "security" of Canada.
A756
0757
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-757 A757
6
Often the hate-mail directed against me, sometimes guised and cloaked as a "complaint", were
coloured with racial bias and prejudice, and ethnic stereotyping, not only against my racial
minority clients, but also against me as their ethnic minority lawyer. This is graphically
illustrated by the institutional death threat I received while representing a Canadian citizen who
was detained at Guantanamo Bay on allegations of "terrorism", wherein the "anonymous" caller
demanded I cease representing "terrorists, or you a dead WOP!"
Revealingly, my non-ethnic and non-racial minority colleagues in the Bar, who also advocated
on behalf of "terrorists suspects" and with whom I am well acquainted , did not receive the same
barrage of hate mail or threats. This is not surprising given that many Royal Commissions, the
SCC and the LSO have acknowledged the existence ofracial and ethnic bias in the justice system
and the legal profession. Racial and ethnic minority lawyers are disproportionately targeted for
harsher treatment and unbridled harassment. They face discrimination within their own
profession and prejudice from society and its members at large. Systemic and individual
prejudice is pervasive.
It has not escaped me to consider ethnic malice as a root cause of Lindsay H's hate mail, as was
the case for the anonymous bully quoted above. I have encountered this before: "Who does this
Italian lawyer think he is to challenge our Canadian laws?". My suspicions are borne out in the
current COVID context as I have received hate mail which is demeaning, reprehensible and
xenophobic intended to intimidate me as an advocate. I am denominated as a: "scum lawyer'',
"mob lawyer", "mobster" - all referring to the stereotype of Italians as members of organized
crime. That I "wasn't even born in Canada", that I am "a foreigner trying to change laws", and
that I "will never be a Canadian, except in the civic sense, and even that is questionable."
The "letters of complaint", emails, from Lindsay Hare yet another erratic, provocative, hateful
tirade against me and ethnic prejudices play a role in sending it. While I sympathise with
whatever personal angst she may have with respect to the COVID pandemic, it has nothing to do
with me as a lawyer. Her redress lies elsewhere.
However, what is a new phenomenon for me, is that the LSO would give credence to the hate
and prejudice. Rather than defending the advocate for ethically executing his duties, I am
disheartened to learn that the LSO can be used as a vehicle for attacking a lawyer doing his/her
job. As the intake counsel, you failed to specify what in my "statement" drew you to conclude it
engages Rule 5.6-1 and on what basis.
• Rule 7. 5-1
With respect to Rule 7.5-1, my statement is not engaged as I have not infringed my obligations to
any client, the Courts, or the administration of justice. On the contrary, my statement is in
furtherance of the administration of justice as it impacts the most vulnerable segments of the
public, being the disabled, and it is with respect to constitutionally and quasi-constitutionally
entrenched human rights. Moreover, it is in furtherance of the law as enacted by the Ontario
Legislature under 0. Reg. 546/20, as set out above, as well as other Provinces in their masking
exemptions and under Human Rights Codes.
A757
0758
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-758
7
A758
In closing, as a former elected Bencher, I completely understand your role in the Law Society's
protection of the "public interest". I know that your job is not any easy one and your work-load
is heavy. However, with the utmost respect, this "complaint" was not diligently, or competently
vetted, examined or researched before being passed on to a member for response. Unfortunately,
it could constitute institutional "rubber stamping" of hate mail and prejudice by disgruntled and
random individuals. It could also encourage the proliferation of hate-mail and retaliatory
vindictive "complaints" against lawyers.
For example, in the past three days it has been brought to my attention that a Defendant in an
action for defamation that I filed on behalf of a client has posted similarly outrageous and vile
twitter posts solely on the basis of me representing a client over an issue on which he not only
disagrees, but is a named party. I attach his posts. Notwithstanding his capacity as a medical
doctor these outrageous statements speak for themselves. Apart from boldly stating that I do not
have a right to take certain cases, a response to his tweets labels all lawyers who take cases with
which they disagree "domestic terrorists". In his tweets he specifically references you, Ms.
Samantha Nasser, with your address, email and phone coordinates and pointedly encourages
others to file LSO complaints against me, referring to a LSO complaint number with which I am
not acquainted. I do not, and will never, accept this type of hate-mail, and neither should the Law
Society. I will not tolerate being asked to respond to such hate mail in the future. I will seek
redress from the Courts.
The intake proces~ must act, in part, as a gatekeeper to sift through spurious and misdirected
rantings and scandalous aJlegations (intended to intimidate and harass lawyers from acting as
advocate), from that of legitimate complaints. This is not the first failure within the COVID
litigation context. Prior to your letter of December 17, 2020, I received correspondence, also
from you, regarding completely unsubstantiated and, revealingly, anonymous "complaints"
made by "Two Butlers". I query who are (is) the "Two Bulter.</'?
I would remind you of Rule 5. l-1 which reads:.
5.1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely
and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with
candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.
[l] Role in Adversarial Proceedings - In adversarial proceedings, the lawyer

has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument
and ask every question, however distasteful, that the lawyer thinks will help the
client's case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every
remedy and defence authorized by law. The lawyer must discharge this duty by
fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner that is consistent
with the lawyer's duty to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy and
respect and in a way that promotes the parties' right to a fair hearing in which
A758
0759
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-759 A759
8
justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum and courtesy in the courtroom
is not an empty formality because, unless order is maintained, rights cannot be
protected.
The LSO is tasked with protection of the public, but also of the legal profession and its members,
regardless of the client or case. Rule 5.1-1 is a cornerstone for Canada's justice system. The
intake counsel's job is to not only protect the public, but also protect the profession from the
public's vile, unjustified, false, and scandalous attack on lawyers, which is not in concert with
the "public interest". It is not in your jurisdiction and mandate to jump on the proverbial "hate
bandwagon".
In another context, outside of a Regulatory complaint, "Lindsay H." would have been
successfully sued for defamation for her comments, and not be the assumptive springboard from
which to catapult an unsubstantiated query sent to me for response. Lindsay H.' s comments and
complaints are unfoundedly outrageous and hateful. Yet, regrettably, you acted on them.
Given all of the above, I am entitled to an apology.
Yours very truly,

ROCCO GALA TI LAW FIRM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Per:
Rocco Galati. B.A., LL.B, LL.M.

RG*bl
A759
0760
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-760 A760
I direct you to the LSO Chapter.2.1

rules of professionalconduct for
Ontario lawyers.Section 3. Would a
client of any legal professionalwho
openly flogs anti-vaccine,anti-mask,
and anti-government positions figure
on whether or not that would
influencetheir trust?
_id=J04&view_ unsafe_images=
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_ma in.php?passed_ent_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed 1/28
A760
12/30/2020 Dr Terry Polevoy Defamation Dec 27-30, 2020 0761
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-761 A761
...
< •
Terry Polevoy, MO
~
•
:,._.-
~
.
......
FILECOMPLAINTSAGAlNST
GALATI:
San1anthaNassar
A761 2/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
'"-'""-'-1- tW-lJ II,,__,,.....,."°""I 'V'-'"'-'l""41o1"-"1 I A762
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-762
Law Soclety of Ontario

393 University Ave. Suite 1100
Toronto,ON
M5G1E6
416-9·47-3300 ext. 2098
snassar@l-so.ca
File# 2,020-246780
,t,rr,c..~1).~l,.4'~
..... i"'""6H~Yl~,-
-00.-(.,.:,..'°"~::.,..,,,:,.,,
,:v4,c,'l•
.•.... __,,
,::,.,,.. ••~ .. ~-):",Y
~-~ ~:~•, ..,~.-,,
}··ii,"((' !,C 1w1:,..-,(,·•!'~:
._. ••o\u-
1~ 1
-:,•,
,........,_.. ...,,,,..,,.,
..............
~-
~
•• :-•r' •.-.,;• ••••• • ••• •••·., .~~('t~
. ··:::
. -~·;;.-~:-~>.
-. ~ .... ~:- .... - ' ••• J
............. ....... :,-•• ....,... •••• ...:- .............. :lr-c-M--.-.... :,,....v-4,

h ;~ ••• • •• .... ,H~
:., , .. ..,•• ••AN',', r.,•:.·.:..:~- .. , ~- ..... -.,.\.~:,O,, .. «:•,
•. ·w ~
·•. y -~ ·, ._;, tAt-N.4.X~~-,...!t.
n,.,.,.,.NY '".., ••~ •; ••.;,,(, ~• "( "Q, •\ .. ~ri,a C

. • ....••. ... •••....
4••,. .,.. ,,,r.
--....::-.. ~,,.- ~
. ,,, .,.,.,, .+I-,,,,~,,.....
~ ~
Llf)or& Slat(dt(·~t
~ 't I'll ~•;tf.'Jl1
-..,,t-:<C>- ,-;....,. "'•~··,..._, .-\;,.,-.,,N,,"'t-' ,,,,c.,)v.,.-.~,:~...,..,,,,A....,_ a n ~'$P<Jpt.>r
5 c;1 ki a1:tio1d.:rr:1;1~1111 <r. ·, ':t
•¥ ..., ..
hrot'.<fbr,s!~'9 HI\>~$, Um pi/)IJ'll1ffI u, ~~ ,i,
......,.,.
..,_., . .
(~!'e .. )l•.:'t , ¼.t\l'<~a~~Ill~ lhh ~3!!:g~tl Isbel h.i,,;Mm . to
.... , ... :---:,: ... ;.:C,,:M!'-~~!W,0,1!
!!'111i,1!311illlfr, • t :Y\',1'tu lll
kf~::.-A.l)<!g
,, ,~. 'f1ll1ir'tlno•Q~ w•lfJltg., ~¢ify'ii'lg ;M
u.'
~ ...:~to-., ;.:.: .. --=
n,a1w 1:()ll'l;lll!lllM (.!, whll:h ~!hlli he , l't9d ~!
◄ ., ~wi,,;nr m nner ell;;;, ~ta!er1~1 ◊f 01a1m uf
ft'I'~~<w il Iii -4 ti","Jil~•HI>J',r-, on ;JI U11.
c1'"'1f ff'fe\} :J~lhf:1 ,f .11(~1. RS.O. lti~<,.<,. I..t2, i;.}
• Dec 29 1 2020 • Twitter for iPad

7~23 P~-11
~r--~·..,..,- ,
.....
tog in J
............•••••••-•-""'••,,.,..•n,.,,,,,,,.,-.·••••·••.-,,w.w-n·.-...,.,..-,./
IK(WV (skion64) @-skion64 • 18h

From Sacha Stone;
January 5th, 11 am EST/4pm GST. l'Ube

hosting Dr Robert Kennedy Jr, Dr David
Martin, Dr Judy Mikovitz, & Dr Rocco •Galati
A7623/28
https://webmail,look,ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_lmages=
in a 2hr "livestream"
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-763 expose. Eugenics, A763
genocide and treason be darnmed!
:..<.:
Terry Polevoy, MD
✓-
FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST

GALATI:
Samantha Nassar
393 UniversityAve. Suite 1100
Toronto,ON
M5G 1E6
416-947-3300 ext. 2098
snassar@lso.ca
-""" A7634/28
,io'-'11,, <
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-764 A764
Canadians Against "Freedom.... , l?h

We wi"IInot stop until these domestic
terrorists are stopped
HELPUS LINETHEROAD- BUT

· . EHl(LE!
Terry Polevoy, MO
Ask them how much money they've

put away to defend themselves in A7645/28
https://webmail.look.ca/hlgh/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_ld=0&mailbo11:=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_lmages=
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-765 A765
court~Did they earmark a large
portionto go to lawyers like Rocco
Galati?l·fthey did, what was the
retainer?It is very disappointingthat
- Roccofiled vexatiouslawsuit against
some of us. Too late!
,, Libel & Slander Act

w••
• N Notice of action
5 ( 1) No action for libel in E
broadcast lies unless the ~
•.·,1,• ,•, ~
c0 ft~-::•r
cd:·< uq·,, ~t -,.:::.
'•' l
~•"{{
lie-·
t·~1,:-:<. g.ei
• .•. ~- .,·' ·•o (~J · V , .. \i..✓ :--:i
'.'CJ .
"-
•
the plaintift<tsknowledge, g
defendant notice in writing
..... -·
X .. •"·•.~!'I ~Oft-:-~:.:.;..• (;..,;v, • ,
_,
' . matter cornplained of, whi(
the same manner as a stc:r
.. . .... '
r
. • by deliverin~1it to a grovvn..
..
<'•• ,:,,,
..
••,,.
.,
,J'"lf), ,(, 'U '\ 11,,-,,.:-.;,-'-'w:
.... "· ••.............. '
~!t: !:., "'
.. chief office of the defendar
,
•••••••••••••~•••••••-•,.•-•~•••-,o#h'<o"fth,-..·..,...•••""'• .,_,.,,tt,_.,HJ,,!,NV~_,,.,,.,.,.
A765 6/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-766 ;-. :~:~
, i .... ' . ~:4~.. / ;"A766
::,;
-~.:./~.
~;-:~~~
0 v
Terry Pole:voy,MD @TcrryPrj~evoy , 1h 0
~"''
A.sk them how much money they've put away

to defend themselves in court! Did they
earn,ark a large portion to go to lawyers Jike
Rocco Galati? If they did, what was the
retainer? It is very disappointing that Rocco
filed vexatious lawsuit against some of us.
Too late!
/':/ ,?:• '\)..
. S-4 ...~,, ., :-
'-"
\,
-~ ...
.:··.. / ,·, ,('•0::1' ,.,
v"'•'")•
; • ~- ~:>r.. •. t
Libel & SlanderAct
Notice of action
5 (1) No action for Ubf)Ilri i
..... •9, .... ;-, ......... ,.,., •••
. ... broadcastHesunless the p

aHege•:
after th~~
tr;fJ;.H,,etfit:11
-• .,. , .....
the ptaihUffs knowledge:g:·
-:.... ;,.-~ t, .,, ., -~ ... ,:- ..... , ..... : ,,,i:
defendantnotice in writing:
................
• ' •• ' ., ,,j<•
:-•: •v••:·-:"1.-.;'•-...~:,•-,,c.::,,•'-•; . ,. r .. • ,.•,. cc.,

.... ··'... of, whi<
... I",• .:- ~ '• :: , •• - .; ••
... m8't1.,r complflin£.){j:
,,. .• •
..
'·. .......
~,·.,.; .,..,._ .....

. ....,,.__
,:,.
·•
. .... .
.......... .....·..
.... ,. .. -~ :,,...
..~,-,
-~-i-
..: .-
: ~
..
·-· ; • •••
.
.... • • • ••
. ....·... ·'
~ ........ -1,,
tlie same r11,~r1nas er a staf

... .,_ ..::......
; : . -~,:,:,,
,- ~ :
_::-··'
.. . . .
.. ·,•
,•
.
... '• . -~- by de!L1eringnto a grown~,
.,,..,,. 'l-.,,!'•~:••:,
-.: ,-.-: • t :. , l" •.,
:":~•)r•
4 .•,·,.
.1...-:,.,.,._,,,.._,.',C,.,V·.,-•
" ..... ·:
,'"<"'-
< ;:::•, .. ~::,::"""'•' _.. chief offh.,eof th..,def ndar
,.if·~
L.'..J
I direct you to the LSO.Chapter 2.1

rulesof professi.onalconduct for
·;;,;, ""- ..-. ..1. - ... !" - I .-. . - -- . - .. - f"'\. .... - L ! - ..- I'"\ \ A I-. .. I ....I
_unsafe_images=
A766 7128
https://webmall.look.ca/high/srclprlnter_frlendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view
untano 1awyers. ~ecI1on
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-767 ~~ vvou1aa A767
client of any legal professionalwho

openly flogs anti-vaccine, anti-mask,
and anti-government positionsfigure
influencetheir trust?
/.f""~•~ ....- -~-N~-1~ ••s•• -•-N-•~
( i r,~,-~ in }
"- .,,,_,.,j':;$!: "·'' -----·-···• .. ,-..-···/
-·· '•
,. Canadians Against "Freedom.... T?lt
We will not stop until these domestic
UCI :D I IC I IMC TUC DnAn - DI IT

_unsafe_images=
A767 8/28
https://webmail.look,ca/high/src/prlnter_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view
12/30/2020 Dr Teny Polevoy Defamation Dec 27-30, 2020 0768
I'll.._,- V.;1 .... ,_._ l I,._ n..,-,,,.,._, - UV I
A768
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-768
EHICl.El
i - iU ·.
· l l'l
.,,
Terry Polevoy, MD
Ask tl1emhow much money they've

put away to defend tl1emselvesin
court! Did they earmark a large.
portion to go to lawyers like Rocco
Galati?If they did,.what was the
retainer? It is very disappointing that
Roccofiled vexatiousla·wsuitagainst
some of us. Too late~
.
; • • :-- X ,e•• ,.... ~•,,•.·•~,,( •'<v i 4}.,.~Y. ,,.
Libel & Slander Act

Notice of action
5 ( 1) No action for libel in c
broadcast Iies unless the r
.-:: ):::-:w·•··,
···: • -v ...::· after
•.-· :::
;;~:~: . ti1e •:::i11e-ge
. I . , t:~. . -~· ,,. ,
the plaintiffs knowledae, c1 A768
9/28
https://webrnail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_enl_id=O&mailbox=Kulvlnder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
••I
A769
,._..,1 ,
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-769
defendant notice in writing
rnatter cornplained of~whk
the san1e manner as a sta·
.. by def!vering it to a gro,Nn-
Vf • l .,,.~ .""'' ~{
J
•• :• •,..
ch ief o ftlce of the defend ar
·r·~:r~
? /~\ ~···:
t...
·.,.,.,.· .•' .,,.,,
'...
(<,,,.... ~:i..-e
• - ........
··,.,.....~•.t,.,t
.,...:,.,,.,....,.,
.......~~ ....... ,.. ~
• -~····"'""°'"
d\ !)::~! 1::ff t ~-
~: {; 1 l'-;:_:., {:~:.., 1~!:.W-i;)~t~:•f:!',.:{ :-f· -:-:
t:~n.::t-.~~::-1 :,)H -~~-::;~~ .. 1ttt ;>;;::,:.:-:t~~ -:-::-:-~~::,.,
;'i.;;,,-:'<..
. ,,,................
,.,. .::: i,;:-. ~~ if~t<(j~:·~~:::;~~: :><W<
?J~:i-:";? /:·;
.:.:::i~·:-c:
""¥4
...,, ., •• ... ,.. .
·---·· ........
.. ,. .,.
,.,., ... ,.
~4 ra:,;:r1~tr
:'<·)',(x:,w::~r: =p~«;:m~~·,!:
:<~·t-;~~-
t:.:.:t':>t:
~Sc-:-~~~('.:<'~:?"~l ;_q.~~.;:-fy~~J ~~,t--:
1t~~;b•,.~-:,.t";a;~~~~t~;-~~l t:~ ~>:·..;~<!
~)~ r(-"::<:~:,:q~:;1}· !'.:
A769
10/28
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-770 A770
Libel & Slaocler Ad

,, ... ;r.,,
Nt)t:~:<:.;
{i.~ t{G~!:-1_!1~
~,.,•·1,('x_..,.<~~ t· ◄ ;I ... tk-- ~ ( 1J N(~ ~:t!1-l:'!':k1r 1:t,(dln ,1 rt<·~ 1 ~,rb. a

.v:~p~:i;~nr
tJi-0ar.v.-1st 1,e_,,\;1~1f,'$<, in'-' f.,,air::hn,,ns. ,;,;.:t,;,,
aflHf f~!.:::
.. ~:ft:a~~:!'":-
-:~.;! H}i~:t~!•,I !ibt?'. hi:i~i {:{J::m:·l::J
ti')!) pf~/nl!lf';:; k,,,::'o\,"ll':::is ;,1: 1,·1'.~1:t''
01,•{)I'!
{l!J)Hl(li➔?'t i,()ti::.eirl Wnlii;[l, ~/\?!C1f:{1~,fl
lh~
;;,r.
ma(t.,r i:<H·,q;:il:!,:,e1 ~l1,il!l>~ii;.w\«:'.,,1in
J·.-1fI::)1
ff1)·::~n<'.:s~:~; ...:-~
lhe ~,~·:u;:){:~ -::,1~":f;11n'.
s:~:t~i~•:':tt:~~'\ ·:•!'
,.
tyyOfrhfe,<tn,; ;r I.<:.,-'<(t".:iwr,,.;;p
p8r,;.0n a1 ~
i>f t.tlBi.k+:,,1d,1r I<'s.,::· rnso,.
,Y:11 '.)flic,;, r: l.
A770
unsafe_images= 11/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/prin1er_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_
12/30/2020 Dr Terry Polevoy Defamation Dec 27-30, 2020
0771
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-771 A771
Libel & Stander Act

Notice of action
5 ('1) No uction for libel tn ·
broeidcdst lies unless tl,e
s{;:,;Yif.ei<_,~'.after the aHe9e
the plE:1 in tiffs kn owleciti:e,,,..i-t--.- . ....,.,....
_-,-.-. _...,-.-.....r""":: ---.--
""";;
de"f.end ant notice in w -i tr ..... ,. ,.;,., .. :..

~ "' -
...... .............
rf1diter c:011 ·1plainedof, vi'l"ii
the same manner as a sta
by delivering fl to a grown
chlef office of th(, dofr}l'Kia
-l ...;
., ._ r··~ . :.,\
~ l 7 • - t
. ;
.:
t~ A
! ~1
J;~-~ ~ .'. t
1. • ~. .,,~
f ,
,.,h:....
"'-. i·,
r<-.,1' '
- .
•
,. _.,.~
J i',.. I-
A771
12/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/prlnter_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mallbox=Kulvlnder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-772 ... A772
·: ..,
.... ; ,
:;. ,I 1
•:-:A•• !• '
' .
,.
< •
( I.
("' ,.
j.
q'\f--~ J '..1< [{) ;n 'r:

:'.. \r~ :~:~'\ :• -'.:i=': ft.;::~'.- .. :·. ;ti -~{tr,{
,,~-•,(··,~~ ·;.~i' .' ... "( i .t, (l:( ,:.$!!~,-,i:
·,-·H :f ~:::.;.,,i r1 t~~--f~,-::\-,.·Ir~·r
A77213/28
sed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
https://webmail.look.ca/high/srclprinter_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&pas
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-773 A773
" ... - ..,..

.....,. ., "'.! ' -
........
I' I ,- .;
A77314/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_en1_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-774 A774
A774
unsafe_images= 15/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/prlnler_friendly_maln.php?passed_ent_ld=0&mailbox=Kulvlnder&passed_id=304&view_
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-775 A775
l .
<. ✓- • ii
~~ •• f,r4""'"
.,
' I
(
, ,
A77516/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-776 A776
Ro.. cco G·alat.·,(6)tr)f'·(-;i""-('tP~:1

.
li ~,.l , Ort 1-)'7
'-.....,.~ ;..
(.)\,\}
'~r/ .-,.v,· ~....) j;J<o1 'Ii '( <•u t.,, .Xu. ,I
Take .alook at this web site. It documents

the horrors and fall-out of the lockdowns.
The Price of Panic - Lockdowns Cost

Lives
Terry Polevoy; MD P-<'Te,,.. ,, Oct 28 ("','

So Rocco, why did you threaten many
Canadian doctors with a baseless,
frivolous, vexatrous, and libelous lawsuit A776
17/28
https://webmail. look.ca/high/src/printer _friendly _main. php?passed_ ent_id=0&mallbox=Kulvlnder&passed_i d=304&view _ unsafe _images=
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-777 A777
on behalf of Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill? May I
remind you that your threatened actions
will have consequences! Maybe you need
to apologlze to all of us!
, ..., ...,(,:•.
',&): '•'I.., ••• ',,, ....
);...;,~)·,, ........ ~
,' : ' ; ' : • •~ : : I;
~ ·: : } ··~ ; ;•: •· ~ ~ ;, : : : ' 1' • ,! .;-.·,·.;: .,. ',: • ::
!·"":';~:1: .::~..;.l, ~- :.:;·. ~~ ,: ·: ;. ::5:11;~-:: ~~::.
•"' " ._,,, ,) • .:,.,,, '!'-'' N,: :·;. ::;~:;·::· '.;''.;:~:: :::,:~-
>... ::-~,,-:,~ -·::1:: ,:
....
~~U
,
.. I
.....,....
o+
'
t
.,,..,....:
....... ,,
., .. •· ,,..
0
·~ :·~A:;-~~,~ .. ~:1·:,::·:;
$,t)"~t:,d>l&!~ U-:e-
... '.~~t~1•~:::_,
r...,
<~i~..J~~I .::,._:,:: ~ H: -"~J!i:;
, ,. !; 00 ~::_. .... ; ,:
F«~t. : '(~;$;.,:;::.L:'ft'x} .ft ,-t3 · -~=
;_., :.:·:'. ::: .,, :• : , ;: :,.-,·: ,(; ·,." ,, :; ,:! <:::

I:•::-:~•
'1 ~. :-~~: :,:••-~- t ,f:;; ~t= ~• • • ~ ~,.),<: : -~ ., '
v
Terry Polevoy, MD
Hey Rocco Galati, the date and

your signature on the bottom of
the last page should have been
·,. ··.,,, .. ,. ..
• ., • ~- f ... , ,4'
A77718/28
r&passed _id=304&view _ unsafe _images=
http s ://webma ii.look. ca/high/src/printer _friendly _main. ph p?passed_ ent_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinde
12/30/2020 Dr Terry Polevoy Defamation Dec 27-30, 2020
0778
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-778 A778
'
..
I '• ::_i;: :-,: :~:.
~-.::~:; ·'::':=!'. ,: :: ~.-i-~<>.'S.~¼3►~:: :' !:·:.:·,
~ l ;t::~: :;,:: ;: ~~ !: : •~, :~ ;:i)~~~ff~~:.-"'.,<!'S.::, :i;
~=::~. -: : ·= ,_ : : : ;: :::: :q ~~:t._

':'.r;s'~~ (,
::_~~t::·:1::~~:'<•~:;:::i:·,:~:;;;',d~~~:c:, :: :~:

the la.st page should have been
filed within 6 weeks. Sorry, but
today is Dec 28, 2020. What took
S·O long?
A77819/28
ssed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinder&pa
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-779
O:'<·? ::NH.?
A779
~-:/~',\
;::~ :::;\;/;/,!
~;,.;
!·:~},;:/':::•.~
,:;/~,~~ ~:
~';;:'.'~ :,:~::~
•••~,
:,:\t,\: ?,\'\:/!
!~:'.~::
';';::::~;:'.: '~; .. \':;t::,;'.;_;
t;~,:~%it ':\'x' ; 1
!~~·r=.
~~>::~ k., .. -t~:~i~L,
::.~!(.:·(=:•..::::·•: .....:~:~:tf..!t y' ... f::: \;~:~:i·tti\:: f\~: ~-if:~~ \ i ::··\.Y:~:f: :<:.:~
~:=~"·:
:if ~:;:
~:: ::~:"*~\~:t~•.::~- :;:: >.
~-:: :-:; .-.=:~ ~(·:~:-i:::~:-:;~:i~r::

.. ·\:j (=::~t::.
:;::i,;:~~ C~;/=:?J:·<:
:·:::: :::~~~ ;..'.) ht ;:-;~~:::\:

~ { · ::-:=·:· ~ 1 • • -:: " .... ~·:t: ~- . ;~$. ·:- -<·i(.. · :.~#:\ · .· :.: ~ ~_:·:;_=
~..,
::·::~)f-.:;.,J~;~:~/f.-.
.6·i::::..-··:;~:'·:~;:~:~~~J~-ji£\.:};:~,tV.);.,c'"\!"- f •·-.~::if}
.}:,,,,,,,,t:= t::,;,(:;~
:.::t'.;~-
-::::-;:,.:·
:: ·:::~:;,:"·~:
::~:.:·
".;:~:i_}'.;'~)t!}fr~:
1
::::}!::
+:'.::,:;;: ',::t=;:~;:=,:=:
,;t:1~;;
'.;t_,=,:,:= :t? ,\.,:\:';};;;~/-:/::i;;<;:\'.;
:::, -i:1~;:{:-;~!%;:~
:,::;~:;t~-d:r;~· 't :t:i: ~-::':):,:;:-~;':::
1
't2:34 /. M , De(, 29 1 2020 ·,.Twrtter \/\/eb fa.pp
Tweet
unsafe_images=
A77920/28
https:/lwebmail.look.calhigh/src/printer_frlendiy_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&maiibox=Kuivinder&passed_id=304&view_
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-780 A780
@elliotgilfoyle @eUiotgHfc~y!•:el'H1
What's the complaint? LOL
Jua,kery
~ Terry Polevoy, MD
(g;·rerryPo!evoy
t
~
~
Here is a linkto the entire Kaur-SOC

I
vexatiousand frivolouslawsuit.It is
now searchable.There is ZERO
I
I
evidenceof specificdamages.There
is an active LSO complaint against 1
Galati. 2020-246780. Add to it if you I

I
J
want! I
Kaur-SOC-lssued.pdf
- ·*
.,,,
htlps://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id==0&mailbox==Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
I
A78021/28
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-781 A781
t ~ ~
. "'
.....
. '.~
···•
...
! ....
.. -
o'.'. :uro+A••JI.
;. ..... ... ...
..
' .
, ... ,.. "v ......
I ,twi ,t/.c51:1(1,:fo:i At i:
, •.;, '.cc<,,.,,J :,,c,,.::
. . .,
.
... ..; •• ·~ y •• ./'" V,1 •
j::~,• t:~::
: =· (.::::
~~=:,:~
:::>:::::
-.::··::
:k : "~::~ ~;.;:•. ;:.::.::::(•~:\ ~~:·:;::, ;. : :::
::::n: )::.::::~:::::::<:! :. ;
:::tr: :: <=~i::::~=:~<:-)
':i~it:··,· •::.:-ar= ~'.::·:{•.··)

::f ~-/ :-: 1·i •:t:,i::!.::·,:::=:(~::~
..-~.~ :.::
:::::;·:: ·: · :::::::·- <.~t
1:·:~:~·::~:f ,~~ :~''.-H.:~~.:-_,:
\l~~ ':~<-.~:·:·~::.:
I • •
~\- t:-::•.-=•='i~,·\~ __,.,'\ct)
~ ~=·: :: r•;:; ==·::.;:...;!!SO~~~; ? :..
:·::-::·:f::t:)_:: ;-'":;:;:;:·:t ::::"~':,~~:' :=.::~}f). "..

yoursignature on the bottom of
the last page should have be-en
filed within 6 weeks. Sorry,but
today is Dec 28, 2020. What tookA781
_unsafe_images= 22/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-782 A782
so long?
ff 'i OP \\ /,••HTO on rNn t.HJ~YHO{l t ntNG ::., 0::::(:i:-: :-:.:: : '·'.<::\ ;::(=,•
i . : (:,,:
i·::: ..: ::·: .::>!
;:f: : . ::: :-:~::J:.: i~:::~;1 ~::f<k·=f:: ::·:; ::: ~~ .::·=::--::
=:>: i !~:\ /::\ ::::'·:: ::/~f··:;::; :: ·: ~
~h~~: ·!f.;~··:h-:;?:: :-i;;:·• :.::: ~ ~:i: :~~:i~:·:J-.:<::~{::1~~:
/::-. ;:~:::.::-~ji}~ :: ...: .:-.···..: ~ ._,..,.,·;.-i,<~- .....;-!'.~::?~-•.:--~::--
,. ~h·~~ ~- · ./ ~=t: ·!.-:.· , .. u◄ ~ ...,.: :
:\~· t l:·.:. t-:.t::1;/::._:::~;-rt~:~:::/{ f ~
:-:; .. = :·=.::· :=: = ... ~=\; :~i=J t·:i:~:::=:; '.:-:~.<(::·-=-,=~::::· ;~~ ~<=)r: .:=.~
::~:.:~-:~::~=~=::::.-:~:
; ::t: :;:=---=:~=~/
:c:::/ :\:::; ·: ::::::,=d~::::=...~:-: ·:.. :).:~:;:-: ;:_. :: t:L::•:?-::·i=~•-:.i :f::):·::·
~~- l~;~~: r··dL·r{,f>r:--t. >-·n ~f~ti..i~::t:H r::·Dr~~~(;. \ ~t i..q>'-tt':.,f/ 1,t\.·; H1 ,;1\~ ...··:-..::
,:: -:,' ·. 'i ! '. . ': i" '._.'",' .',,.F ~ : ':' ;' \ ,: , . I ', . ,, ' l ': u' n "( f .. i:: r n C '. \; _:,! { :·.·.r l ' ; j ·, i: I!
... A78223/28
htlps:l/webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_maln.php?passed_ent_id=0&rnailbox=Kulvlnder&passed_fd=304&view_unsafe_lrnages=
'. V
-~ : :•.~ •. < .•• .·• ,ts..fv1 · :.••

~?C
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-783
_f '•
( ·:'L •·.,: ·· .'.\N 1t ;:_

2 .. , ,~;' :•.·\.. t) P"'••>p
•:_: A783
..Juockery
Terry Polevoy, MD
C((iTei·;·:/P(::;,Jr::
~)
·-:•,. S··· ·e: L.~CiThealtegations

in this 1aws:uit filed by Rocco Galati
11
are frivolousand vexatious.They
were also filed way beyond the
limitsof the the Libeland Slander
Act s.5 R.S.O.,c. L.12, s.5(1). Also,
3 of the email addresseswere
wrong.
;~-'~Terry Polevoy MD ra/T' 1~.J
Ml .
n·v ,··\f ,
\/•~ \/)~ ,. ·1·::n·i
·,•,.-."~ ,:, ~ •,:unc.~
Rocco Galati sent an email to me on Dec¥ 28,

2020 with a Statement of Claim (SOC) to the
Superior Court of Justice on behalf of Drs.
Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Dr. Ashvinder Kaur
Lamba. Signed by him on Dec 9, 2020.
EtectronicaHy filed on Dec 11; 2020. Too late
for libel case!
A78324/28
_unsafe_images =
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-784 A784
'
• <
.. .......,.,, #.
• I •
' ....
'
. . ..' . .,:.
. .. .. .,
J l' , ' .. . I , • "• • ~ •• • I ' • ! • • : !
··, ,. :. ... : : •;, lilt •••
.
'
..,.
Terry Polevoy, MD
RoccoGalati sent an emailto me on

Dec. 28, 2020 with a Statement of
Claim (SOC) to the SuperiorCourt of
Justice on behalf of Drs. Kulvinder
KaurGilland Dr.AshvinderKaur
Lamba. Signed by him on Dec 9,
2020. Electronicallyfiled on Dec 11,
2020. Too late for libelcase!
A78425/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_maln.php?passed_ent_ld:=0&mailbox:=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_lmages:=
f ~ ·. 't
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-785
- • • ;~ !. ', • f
A785
• • I () \,'J '•! it)(/
' ..,.,.......... :.• ~l:-~!'-~,~-•~
conn (.~s>Ji ;irwr.
~».-\: • ~ o \: •:•"! • • i.=• :: •,,.::,: =" ,::::, ~ ;, ; :•:.. : :, ,:•; • ::::•~,;!:,::, - :•:.1. L'.•, :• 'w-: ~ ;, • •o :)• ~=,. I
~ ! •. ,.:.:· ·.:~=;;;:••;;; .... ,.;;}' ':.:. ;,_·;-~ .->,,;:;;,.-,'-::~;'•.-. ~~ ,l,:E ::•=:.::: .··.::..;:•,.. \...:,.
:;:,·. :,. t, J t-=:·,:· '" !' ·•'
0
,!'.'~ ',·.:. 1' .:, :~.·-·. :'." ~ .)1 .• ~:~, .. ·:· !\,
·-~=-·_,._.
;'.:·,<c;:,;.,"'": ·;:••: ~::·,:x. .<:. :;-"'::.>··.?· ;i;,,··::::-~"- ::;•.,!':· .: .. - , ...... 'f~>- ::::t,; .:~-
; ,. ;-~ r • ~.;•,~,,.:;i?J'- .;:
;·,::: '" ", :;;,.,~~:

H' l<•:.' \i.i:';HTO Df:'.n'.""'ll·rl'lb W:KU;t)!_.>;:(,;_ • '..·c ,._,
.,t~",<l ,.,.,,-.
-~- ~ ...,.~.; ., ~ ·.· •/~ • .!1 ..:-..;;"~.':..;.;,.,:
f~-;~;_:,?if:;-:;r.,.~c:.~
,,. ' ··i
' <
::-::.., ,~,::':;.•< ~:
';.\:-.-:~·_~,.:_.;>;:- ,<
..; :...·: :: :: ~-'),.~

.=:.· ~;..: ...·:~.:,":!:: ::::f.;. ~-......... ":.?:·::
.. , . ~-:;;!:--.-
::::::-...: ,: .~~:: ~! :~- :~.. •· , •••• :;:-
·:. :.:. S··::'.: .~!~}::.,_~;;~-•j · .:·,

:••· :• :,,,.·X,~·~- ;•-~::,-:.·y ':····:. !1: ... ,:·- ..- .. ,i.;; ....:!·~ ,.•,:J:,.,1,
.. ~:;:\-.,, ..,:_ :,,~. ·,r,:.,.;. :,;~:::(,·.-: ,.:;• .. :: .. : .• ~:;~•:;;;~
n_.~ :-·~~. r:t:P:t:. _.;.i~.:r;c~:r" T ;,~ ~ \· iH

nJ ::t=:,.,_.f>·;;~ ~?: r :=:oc~:
<=~'.rJ.-r<:~ < ··.:
;r~-~
,{,:; : ~~-. ·,: \ :: :~: .; ', ; -! ~<
?<.\~:.. =.. , i' { :- ,~~ t H~ ~~ >:) r1-:::.:1()
::~·S;H-~,;i.
\=t ~: -~~---:: )'l :.:.·. H.'
Terry Polevoy,MO
Rocco Galati sent an email to me on

Claim (SOC) to the Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of Ors. Kulvinder
Kaur Gill and Dr.Ashvinder Kaur
2020. Electronically filed on Dec.:11,
2020. Too late for libel case!
A78526/28
htlps:/fwebmall.look.ca/high/src/prln1er_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_ld=O&mailbox:::Kulvinder&passed_ld-==304&view_unsafe_lmages=
' .:. •••• ,...
i • •• ~- :"•!'° :-y••:'
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-786
'1
: ·: ..- ;:- : =--·:•...........
:;, ,. ••..
...,. ' .... • • '.'. • ..~.'. ··t
!·· )- '..: -.-;.• ·· .,.. '.
~
•..• :
~
:,.,, ·'• • ; ;. >.\, ·. ::
!•• ~
:··
-~:
~ ~-. .,.' .• :: •• '!. :: : •
'. ;.,:.,: -~: -~.:-:·
•-:- ... :- ... ~ ..
..
"'----~·=·~~
-'Ylo"(
A786
l: , • : • ., ~ , . •· · , · ·.. ! ~ .·.-. "',i.. :'.; .· ~ . .. • ... ·. : .: ; : . ;.-;:s . .,
·,•. ·.•':! -,.::
-: : t., \t. f"li:or~, ,,w«. :1J;~..m1~ •.:~;.ltMt.~'(-1'> :"\i.:\:-'~:-·: ;•·•,., : • ,'

1!.>C.- "
•. :-,,. ~-; .! .... ";,(/> •• • • '"-. ,_ ... ·~ ... ;~ • ::-'"'
,..
' :!.).. : ... ~ 11.:..( ,'"::•;,. :~:- ·•• ,,; ;. ;·:-·:./
< , ~, ., t.:,_-u . !' • •· :: ,-::•;;;~·., "·.;;: J'lf(',,.. :,:
,, ·-··•,:::•. • ...... :.-'<C
n: 1.~·~·-:1:·_:: ~~:;-::·-:,:: ... ::-!:-~, ~'f'·'·~:u-:': ::

\.: :, I\,)'. :•:·,::•; }':::,'•~:,.,):H.:•<:i":~::•:~••:,.~,
v 1'
l ..'.J
Terry Polevoy, MO if Tf-r, /Pok, ..
Dr. Kulvinder Gill, MD, FRCPC

President - Concerned Ontario Doctors
Twitter: @dockaurG
Attachments:
untitled-(1.1
_unsare_images=
A78627/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_en1_id=0&mailbox=Kulvlnder&pa_ssed_id=304&view
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-787 A787
s
Ty
IM
s
Si
Ty
IM
-r pe: ima
IMG_509
Size: 332
Type: image/jpg
IMG_5069.jpeg
Size: 266 k
Ty e: imagej"pg
_unsafe_images:
A78728/28
hllps://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed_id=304&view
0788
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-788 A788
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
_ of Ontario de I'Ontario Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https: //www.Jso.ca
February 18, 2021
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Case No.: 2020-245374
The Law Society has completed its review of the complaint received from Lindsay H., by
the Intake & Resolution Department on September 9, 2020 and the additional materials
you provided.
In order to conduct a further investigation, s. 49.3 (2) of the Law Society Act requires a
unbecoming.
I am enclosing a copy of the outcome letter sent to the complainant.
The complainant has the right to request a review by the Complaints Resolution
resolution-commissioner. The Law Society will inform you in writing if the complainant
requests a review by the Complaints Resolution Commissioner.
A788
0789
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-789 A789
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
21Page
A789
0790
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-790 A790
of Ontario de !'Ontario Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https://www.lso.ca
February 18, 2021
Sent by email only to lglass.glassl@gmail.com
Lindsay H.
lglass.glassl@gmail.com
Dear Madam:

Case No.: 2020-245374
I am writing to follow-up on your complaint noted above. You contacted the Law Society
about Rocco Galati, your complaint was received by Intake & Resolution on September 9,
2020 and I was assigned to consider it.
I have completed my review of all the information you have provided in support of your
complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Law Society will not be investigating
your complaint further.
Reasons for Outcome
Background
Mr. Galati is a lawyer licensed with the Law Society. You have raised concerns regarding
statements made by Mr. Galati on his professional Twitter feed. You are a member of the
public who is not represented by Mr. Galati.
Regulatory Issues Considered
1. Whether Mr. Galati offered legal services that are false or misleading or bring the
administration of justice into disrepute
2. Whether Mr. Galati made public statements and/or appearances in a manner that
infringed on his obligations to the administration of justice
Explanation
On July 13, 2020, Mr. Galati posted a statement on his professional Twitter feed as
follows:
Lots calling for masking advice. Don't call. If refused entry, or service, EVEN AFTER
you provide a medical note (which you are NOT required to do), or you state that
A790
0791
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-791 A791
you are exempt, then make a complaint to your Provincial Human Rights
Commission and ask for monetary damages.
In addition to this statement, you also reference statements relating to masking and/ or
other COVID-19protocols, made by Mr. Galati on his Twitter feed. You raise the concern
that Mr. Galati's statements are "disturbing" and "dangerous" to the public.
I have raised these concerns with Mr. Galati, who is taking the position that he considers
the post to be an informative summary of the law on masking in Ontario and asserts that
his statement is in furtherance of the administration of justice.
I have also reviewed and considered other statements Mr. Galati made on his Twitter
feed about masking and other COVID-19protocols. Mr. Galati appears to be expressing a
political opinion about the government's response to the pandemic, a matter of
considerable public debate.
In responding to a complaint, the Law Society must respect Mr. Galati's right to express
his views. In this case, while the Law Society does not condone Mr. Galati's statements,
the evidence does not suggest that when he made them, he was spreading false or
misleading legal advice or that he did not encourage respect for the administration of
justice.
Outcome
In order to conduct further investigation, s. 49.3(2) of the Law Society Act requires a
reasonable suspicion that Rocco Galati may have engaged in professional misconduct.
The information provided does not meet this test and as a result, the Law Society will
not take any further action in response to your complaint.
You may request a review by the Complaints Resolution Commissioner of the Law
Society's consideration of your complaint or the outcome. Additional information about
this process can be found at https://lso.ca/protecting-the-
public/complaints/complaints-resolutjon-commissioner.
A request for review must be made to the Office of the Complaints Resolution
Commissioner within 60 days of the date of this letter.
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
cc: Mr. Galati
A791
0792
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-792 A792
This is Exhibit " ~~to the Affidavit of

A~ss:::rTT Taking Affidavits

A792
0793
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-793 A793
MSG 1E6
February 18, 2021
Sent by email only to rocco@idirectcom
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Complainant: Terry Polevoy
Case No.: 2020-246780
The Law Society has completed its review of the complaint received from Terry Polevoy,
by the Intake & Resolution Department on October 27, 2020.
unbecoming.
I am enclosing a copy of the outcome letter sent to Dr. Polevoy.
Dr. Polevoy has the right to request a review by the Complaints Resolution
resolution-commissioner.
The Law Society will inform you in writing if Dr. Polevoy requests a review by the
Complaints Resolution Commissioner.
A793
0794
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-794 A794
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
21Page
A794
0795
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-795 A795
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https: //www.lso.ca
February 18, 2021
Sent by email only to drpolevoy@yahoo.com
Terry Polevoy
170 University Ave W
Waterloo, ON N2L 3E9
Dear Dr. Polevoy:

Case No.: 2020-246780
I am writing to follow-up on your complaint noted above. You contacted the Law Society
about Rocco Galati, your complaint was received by Intake & Resolution on October 27,
2020 and I was assigned to consider it.
I have completed my review ofall the information you have provided in support of your
Reasons for Outcome
Background
Mr. Galati represents an opposing party in a claim made against you under the Libel and
Slander Act.
1. Whether Mr. Galati made public statements and/or appearances in a manner that
infringed on his obligations to the administration of justice
Explanation
You have raised concerns about Mr. Galati's social media appearances and his criticism
of the government's response to controlling the COVID-19pandemic. In addition to your
initial complaint, you sent a series of emails and/ or other messages complaining of Mr.
Galati's social media appearances, statements and/or involvement with groups relating
to masking, vaccination or other pandemic related protocols. You raise the concern that
Mr. Galati's conduct is "dangerous" to the public.
A795
0796
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-796 A796
Based on my review of the evidence, Mr. Galati's statements, appearances or general
involvement in pandemic related protocols conduct can be characterized as an
expression of his own views about a current political matter of considerable public
debate.
In responding to a complaint, the Law Society must respect Mr. Galati's right to express
himself and take only such action as is necessary to address any conduct of concern. In
this case, while the Law Society does not condone Mr. Galati's actions, the evidence does
not suggest that Mr. Galati's conduct amounts to an infringement of his obligations to the
Outcome
Other Issues
Your initial concern involved whether Mr. Galati and/or his client was complaint with
the Libel and Slander Act when sending you the Notice pursuant to the same legislation.
This is an issue that does not fall within the Law Society's mandate. The Law Society has
the mandate to consider a licensee's professional conduct, which includes issues such as
honesty or ethics. The Law Society does not address every issue about a lawyer or
paralegal. Sometimes, other authorities such as the Courts or tribunals are better able to
respond to the issues that you raise.
The Law Society does not have the authority to assess and determine whether a licensee
is compliant with the Libel and Slander Act. The court is better able to determine
whether there has been non-compliance in this regard.
For your convenience, I have attached a Fact Sheet with additional information about
these resources and processes.
public/complaints/complaints-resolution-comrnissioner.
A796
0797
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-797 A797
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
cc: Mr. Galati
A797
0798
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-798 A798
This is Exhibit " rl:o the Affidavit of

• sC
A798
0799
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-799 A799
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de !'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
February 22, 2021
Sent by email only to rocco@idirectcom
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Complainant: Elana Goldfried
Case No.: 2020-248513
The Law Society has completed its review of the Complaint Form received from Elana
Goldfried, by the Intake & Resolution Department on December 18, 2020.
unbecoming.
I am enclosing a copy of the outcome letter sent to Ms. Goldfried.
Ms. Goldfried has the right to request a review by the Complaints Resolution
can be found at https://lso.ca/protecting-the-·public/complaints/complaints-
The Law Society will inform you in writing if Ms. Goldfried requests a review by the
A799
0800
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-800 A800
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 94 7-3382
Encl.
21Page
A800
0801
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-801 A801
MSG 1E6
hilps: //www.lso.ca
February 22, 2021
Sent by email only to elanagoldfried@gmail.com
Elana Goldfried
107-470 Mortimer Ave
Toronto, ON M4J 2GS
Dear Ms. Goldfried:

Case No.: 2020-248513
Thank you for speaking with me on January 25, 2021. You made a complaint against
Rocco Galati that was assigned to me for review on December 18, 2020.
I have completed my review of all the information you have provided in support of your
complaint. As I will explain in greater detail below, the Law Society has closed your file
and will not take any further action to investigate this complaint.
Reasons for Outcome
Background
Mr. Galati is a lawyer licensed in Ontario. You are not represented by or involved in any
legal matter involving Mr. Galati.
1. Whether Mr. Galati is acting without integrity by having standard court forms for
sale on his professional website.
Explanation
You raise the concern that Mr. Galati is selling court filing templates on his website,
https://www.constitutionalrig:htscentre.ca. for use in Small Claims Court with respect to
people suing businesses and/or by-law officers regarding COVID-19masking rules and
exemptions. You are concerned that these templates are "clearly the standard forms
available through Ontario Court forms" which are available for free online and that he is
taking advantage of the public by charging for standard forms.
A801
0802
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-802 A802
In our conversation noted above, you agreed that if the templates were found to be pre-
populated precedents that offered advice and suggestions on how to address specific
issues relating to the failure to adhere to masking exemptions that this would not be of
any concern.
Based on my review of Mr. Galati's website, it appears that he is providing more than the
standard court forms that are made available for free online. As such, the evidence is not
sufficient to suggest that Mr. Galati has failed to comply with the rules and
responsibilities set out in Rules of Professional Conduct and/or By-Laws so as to warrant
further scrutiny from the Law Society in this regard.
Outcome
public/complaints/complaints-resolution-commissioner.
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
cc: Mr. Galati
A802
0803
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-803 A803
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
MSG 1E6
https: //www.lso.ca
February 22, 2021
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Case No.: 2020-248513
unbecoming.
A803
0804
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-804 A804
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
21Page
A804
.. 0805
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-805 A805
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
MSG 1E6
https://www.lso.ca
February 22, 2021
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Case No.: 2020-248513
unbecoming.
A805
0806
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-806 A806
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
2I Page
A806
0807
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-807 A807
((()} Law Society Barreau Avenue, Suite 1100 Professional Regulation
~ of Ontario de I'Ontario Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
//www.lso.ca
b..t..tps:
February 18, 2021
Sent by email only to sam@maddalenafuller.com
Samantha Theresa Coomara

277 Atlas Ave
York, ON M6C 3P8
Dear Ms. Coomara:
Re: Subject: Samantha Theresa Coomara

Complainant: Alexandra Moore
Case No.: 2021-248872
On January 6, 2021, the Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional Regulation
Division received a complaint from Alexandra Moore.
Please find enclosed for your reference, a copy of my response to Ms. Moore. You will
I do not require a response from you, as the Law Society does not intend to pursue the
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A807
0808
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-808 A808
This is Exhibit .. Stto the Affidavit of

&✓
A808
0809
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-809 A809
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https: //www.Iso.ca
February 18, 2021
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Case No.: 2021-248873
On January 6, 2021, the Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional Regulation
Division received a complaint from Alexandra Moore.
Please find enclosed for your reference, a copy of my response to Ms. Moore. You will
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A809
0810
·o
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-810
Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
393 University
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https: //www.lso.ca
Intake & Resolution
A810
February 18, 2021
Sent by email only to a.1689.1871@gmail.com
Alexandra Moore
a.1689.1871@gmail.com
Dear Ms. Moore:

Case No.: 2021-248873
I am writing to follow-up on the complaint noted above as I had indicated to you. You
contacted the Law Society about Rocco Galati, your complaint was received by Intake &
Resolution on January 6, 2021 and I was assigned to consider it.
I have completed my review of all of the materials you provided to support your
Reasons for Outcome
Background
Mr. Galati is a lawyer licensed by the Law Society. He is the opposing party in a claim
made against you under the Libel and Slander Act. He is represented by another lawyer
on his claim.
Issues Raised in Your Complaint
1. Whether Mr. Galati has "threatened" you by having his lawyer send you a demand
letter
2. Whether the demand letter sent on Mr. Galati's behalf has made false accusations
against you
Explanation
You raised the concern that Mr. Galati has sent you a "threatening" letter through his
legal counsel in response to you publishing a story about him on your website,
A810
0811
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-811 A811
https://www.canucklaw.ca. You also state that Mr. Galati's demand letter is "bullying"
and includes "repeated false accusations" against you.
The issues you have raised are legal issues for which the Law Society cannot intervene.
Specifically, the use of a demand letter is a legitimate step in the civil legal process
where one party is threatening legal action if certain steps are not taken. Whether the
demand letter is appropriately advanced cannot be determined by the Law Society but is
for the court to determine. Similarly, whether Mr. Galati has advanced statements that
are "false" within the demand letter also cannot be considered by the Law Society. As the
Law Society cannot interfere or give legal advice on such matters, you may wish to speak
with a lawyer in this regard.
Law Society Referral Service
If you require legal advice, legal opinions, or legal services, you may wish to consult with
an Ontario lawyer or paralegal about any rights and remedies that may be available to
you. The Law Society cannot provide you with legal advice. Some legal services can be
provided by either a lawyer or a paralegal but in some situations, you must use a
lawyer.
If you would like to be referred to a licensed Ontario lawyer or paralegal, you can submit
a request to the Law Society Referral Service by completing the request form on our
website at https://lsrs.lso.ca/lsrs/welcome.
The Law Society Referral Service (LSRS) is designed to connect users with a lawyer or
paralegal for a free initial consultation of up to 30 minutes, either by phone or in
person. You can find more information about the LSRSat lso.ca/public-
resources/finding-a-lawyer-or-paralegalflaw-society-referral-service.
Outcome
For the reasons set out above, the Law Society will not be taking further action in
response to your complaint.
Yours truly,
Samantha Nassar
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2098
cc: Mr. Galati
2
A811
0812
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-812 A812
PROFESSIONALCORPORATION
Toronto, CanadaM6H 1A9
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
September 11, 2021
Miko Dubiansky
393 University Avenue, Suite 1100 Toronto
MSG 1E6
Dear Mr. Dubiansky,
RE: Complainant: Alexandra Moore; Case No.: 2021-248873
You have asked me to answer Mr. Moore's "further" complaint.
Ms. Nasser has dismissed two complaints by Ms. Moore: one against me, and one against my
legal counsel with respect to a s.5 Libel and Slander Act Notice I served Ms. Moore as a result
of a vile and vicious video and text blog Ms. Moore wrote and published, through her website,
"Canuck Law".
In my tweet, I was responding to Ms. Moore's second libelous expose where she was lying by
stating that the Constitutional Rights Centre and I were selling "blank forms" which one could
get for free on the Small Claims Court website.
I had others email and phone me to alert me to Ms. Moore's tweet. My response speaks for itself
With respect to the "inappropriate language", whether language is appropriate or not necessary is
always contextual. Clearly, with respect to the "forms" she misleads and lies. I am not going to
address that as it is self-evident. As a result of the hostile, threatening emails and calls I got, as a
result of Moore's tweet, I eventually took down the template.
I attach a copy of a statement of claim, issued in Ontario Superior Court, which outlines the full
history of Ms. Moore's (and Canuck Law's) inexplicable targeting of me and my work
(clientele ).
I demand you read it carefully.
A812
2 0813
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-813 A813
With respect to "moronic troll", Ms. Moore has hounded me for a while with vile, filthy, and
baseless allegations claiming that I am, amongst other things:
(a) A mobster;
(b) "scum";
(c) A terrorist;
(d) An elite Jew who is part of the "Cabal" that controls the world;
(e) A fraud;
(f) Not a "real Canadian" because I am merely a foreigner meddling in strictly Canadian
affairs;
(g) Controlled opposition in line with Karl Marx, Trotsky, and Hitler;
(h) That I intentionally lose and mis-plead my cases.
Ms. Moore, through her website, has published against me the vilest, anti-semetic, racist, and
derogatory filth.
Once you have read the statement of claim, you will have to agree that my reference to her as a
"moronic troll" is the most genteel, bleached, diplomatic, kindest, compliment I could pay her in
describing what she is and does. The reference to "misleads" and "lying" are true, accurate, and
also a kind description of what she does.
I have never met Ms. Moore. I have never, prior to this filth, reached out to her. I have not
reached out since, except through counsel to issue s.5 Libel notices and the statement of claim.
She has never reached out to me, nor has anyone at Canuck Law. I do not know, nor can I
fathom, why I, and my clients, need to be the target of her vile, anti-Semitic, racist, and
derogatory obsessions.
In addition to filing this claim, I am drafting a criminal complaint to forward to the RCMP in
British Columbia, where she is apparently based, to pursue charges under the following Criminal
Code charges:
(a) Criminal harassment - s. 264(2)(b);

(b) Defamatory libel known to be false - s.300; and
(c) Conveying false information with intent to alarm - s.372(1)
forwarding this to me for response at all. Ms. Nassar was on the previous Moore complaints.
There seems to have been absolutely no minimal review of them, nor Ms. Moore's website, to
glean what Canuck Law and Ms. Moore are about with respect to me and my clients.
In my last correspondence, on a similarly outrageous complaint, by an outrageous individual,

with respect to an attempt to censor my speech, I indicated that the next time I received one of
these, I would commence action against the LSO, in the absence of an apology.
If I do not receive an apology from the LSO on this "complaint", which should not even have
reached me, if the minimum ofresearch was done on Ms. Moore and her website, I will
A813
3 0814
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-814 A814
commence action against the LSO for negligent investigation and the newly-created tort of
(online) harassment because ,it seems to me ,that the LSO is more than content and willing to be
dupe and conduit for Ms. Moore's and Canuck Law's filth, anti-Semitic, racists, and derogatory
harassment of me and my clients.
Yours very truly,

Per:
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B. LL.M.

RG*sc
A814
1
0815
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-815 A815
PROFESSIO~AL CORPORATION
I 062 College Street. Lower Level
Toronto. Canada M6H I A9
Direct Line (416j 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
111
December 30 , 2020
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Samantha Nassar
393 Cniversity Avenue
Suite 11 00
Toronto, Ontario
\15G I E6
snassar@lso.ca
Re: Complaint Against Rocco Galati by Lindsay H.; Case No.: 2020-245374
letter dated December

This is my Reply to the individual pub] ic ·•complain(' of Ms. Lindsay H. and your
! ill_ 2020.
Rule 4. l-2( l )(a) and

In a follow-up email, with respect to Rule 4.1-2. you clarified that I need to address
(d) of that Rule \Vith respect to the referenced statement in your letter.
raise any issue(s) of

While the letter does not provide a hint as to how the statement could in any way
ation of justice into disrepute", I will
being ''false or misleading'', or ''othenvise bring the administr
respond as best as I can.
informational
In fact, a modicum of research would have revealed that the statement is a distilled,
summary of the law in Ontario, and elsewhere.
misleading
\Vould you please elucidate how the statement, on its face. raises any issue of "false
justice into disrepute ''? Since your letter Joes not
statements" or "otherwise brings the administration of
do so, I can only surmise that it is a disconcerting assumption.
A815
2 0816
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-816 A816
• The emails of "Lindsa~· H" attached to "complaint".
I do not knO\v Lindsay H. I have never spoken to her or had any contact or communication vvith her. She
has never been my client. Your letter attaches her emails as --Jetters of complaint for my review''.
However. l am at a loss as to how I am supposed to respond to the emails with respect to the Rules.
Her attached emails are incoherent and replete \\'ith enors. unfounded assumptions, spurious claims and
troublesome allegations for the follo'v\ing reasons:
(a) I have never, nor do I nmv, represent(ed) Christopher Saccoccia, \Vhom she describes, as "an
emotionall 1 unstable and dangerous anti mask conspiracy theorist"':
(b) How does her personal opinion and claim regarding Mr. Saccoccia concern me? How can she
falsely claim that I represent Mr. Saccoccia without the intake process vetting it? And how can it
then be fonvarded to me for serious consideration and timely response·)
(CJ Furthermore. the appallingly iniquitous claim that Las an advocate. executing my professional
duties to my client and members of the public am ..a threat to the public··. is a preposterous
allegation to put forward to me for response. Threats to the public are matters for police
investigation. They must not be made lightly, and must not be pandered to by professional
regulatory bodies.
How could these incomprehensible and hateful emails be deemed a ·'complaint"' 1 And then, how could
this ''complaint" have been forwarded to me without consideration of the above and the impact it would
have on: lJ me as a member, 2) my execution ofmy professional obligations and oaths, and 3) my
family. due to the stressors'I Thi::; ''complaint". intentionally or unintentionally. serves only to support
and strengthen irate individuals of society, at large, to intimidate lawyers v..·ho represent clients and do
cases they personally "dislike" or ··disagree" with. and to threaten them \Vith disciplinary action for
doing so. Clearly the --complainant" seeks to see me disbarred or disciplined because she disagrees or
dislikes my ''client"' and/or their ·'claims". Given Lhis, and with all due respect, the LSO should be
weary of sucb attempts and not allow itself to be used as a rubber stamp for baseless, egregious and
malicious insults to be hurled at lawyers who take carriage of matters that individual members of society
may have personal, political, sociological or philosophical objections to.
In fact, it is shocking that this email ·'complaint" has reached the point that I am required to respond to
unchecked facts, and, insulting attacks on my person and profession. The untrue "facts" and disparaging
personal comments are then used as the basis of Professional Misconduct allegations. :'Jevertheless, I
respond as follovv's, as you require.
Law·suits against the C'OV10-l 9 measures have been filed in Canada, in the USA, in England, in
Portugal, in Austria, in Romania, and many other jurisdictions. Many have been argued successfully. So
what') Why is it beyond belief that an individual or organization vvould challenge forced vaccination
\vhcn the Supreme Court of Canada and Appellate Couns have ruled that no medical treatment can be
administered without informed, voluntary consent, because, to do so, violates s. 7 of the Charter? At the
end of the day. whether or not a properly filed legal claim is frivolous or vexatious is for the Courts to
determine, not an irate individual via a professional regulatory body. It is the LSO's duty to ensure and
A816
3
0817
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-817 A817
mainlain access to _justice for individuals v,:ho seek w file legal claims for ourjudiciary tu adjudicate.
and also to respect the independence and n,ech:.inisms uf uur legal system, regardless of hov,: unsavoury
an individual may consider the !is. It is nol the function of the LSO to have the Profcssional RegulatiL1n
process be misused to abuse lawyers doing cases individual members of the public personally dislike.
In her follow up email. of September 11, 20:20, .. l.indsa:, H"' purports to be speaking ""onheha!f of many
c,rncerned citizens··. Unintelligible and male\ olent accusations are made against me personally as a
la\',ycr :icting for litigants challenging the legal authority and jurisdiction of the government measures
regarding the COVID pandemic. She rcvi !cs me of being a ··COVlD-19 denier" and "conspiracy
theorist'·. I do not k.now \Vhat these terms mean, but. in its tone and content. this constitutes "'hate mail''.
I do not make posts on race book. I am not on Face book nor have a face book account. This is another
false assertion.
She then contemplUL)Uslyaccuses me of ··making more people get sick and die'' and that ··rmock these
deaths and treats them as irrelevant"'. Ho\\' rnn I be expected to respond to this') It is just more hate
mongering and constitutes ..hate mail''. I have nn er mocked anyone ·s death. These are nothing more
than disdainful comments and constitute ''hate mail"' .
.'-;he further writes and accuses that, I ..encourage anti-maskers"'. My only response to this is that I Jo
nut know what --anti-masker" means. Citizens, under the law haYe a right to not \,\ear a mask if they are
exempt under the masking law, as set out below·.
--Lindsay Fr' does not set out what medical and scientific expcnise she has. or consulted, to make her
cosmic, enveloping conclusions with respect to the science, medicine, !av,,-,and how my duties as a
lawyer are ..making people sick and killing them'·_ Your letter does nut state \vhcther the LSO made any
dfo1is to asceriain this before forvvarJing the ··complaint"' hate-mail to me.
1
• "'.VlyStatement"
\ly statement that you cite arose out of the fact that I was getting inundated vvith phone-calls and emails
( bctv,:een 1.500 -1, 700 J from people who had medical conditions exempting them from the requirement
to v,:ear a mask but. whose legal exemption was not being respected and complied with, by business
0\\11ers, who were acting in contravention of the law. These individuals, virtually all, asked what the
simplest, least costly avenue of redress would be, short of hiring a iawyer. and going through the
inordinate legal expenses of enforcing their right.
J\·1ystatement is an informative summary of \-vhatthe !av..-of masking is in Ontario, and elsewhere, and
duplicated by various municipalities. including Toronto.
Section 2 of Regulation 546/20 requires masking indoors unless the person is exempt under s.2(4) under
various circumstances, wherein the pertinent provisions read:
2(4) The person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall ensure that any
person in the indoor area of the premises of the business or organization. or in a vehicle that
A817
4
0818
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-818 A818
in a
is operating as pa11 of the business or organization, wears a mask or face covering
are in the indoor
manner that covers their mouth, nose and chin during any period when they
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
:
(g) has a medical condition that h1hibits their ability to wear a mask or face col'ering
of
(h) is unable to put on or remove their mask or face covering without the assistance
another person:
(i) needs to temporarily remove their mask or face covering while in the indoor area,
(i) to receive services that require the removal of their mask or face covering.
U) is being accommodated in accordance with the Accessibility for Onrariuns ,virh
Disabilities Acr. 2005:
(k) is being reasonably accommodated in accordance with the Human Rights
Code; or
to
(1) performs work for the business or organization, is in an area that is not accessible
members of the public and is able to maintain a physical distance of at least two
metres from every other person while in the indoor area.
Response To Covid-19) Act, 2020, at paragraph 2(4)
(6) For greater certainty, it is not necessary for a person to present evidence
to the person
responsible for a business or place that they are entitled to any of the exceptions
set out i11
subsection (4).

Ontario Human
In addition, denial of entry, based on a medical condition, contravenes s. l of the
Rights Cade as discrimination based on a disability, which sections reads:
A818
5 0819
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-819 A819
Services
1 Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities,
vvithout discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin,
citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital
status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 ( 1 ); 2001, c. 3 2,
S. 27 (1); 2005, C. 5, S. 32 (1); 2012, C. 7, S, 1.
- Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, at s. l.
In light of the above. my statement is not and could not be, --false·'. ·'misleading" or "'otherwise
bring the administration of justice into disrepute". 1 av,1ait your articulated rationale for accepting
Lindsay H. 's hate mail and legitimizing it in the form of a "complaint" for me to be required Lo
respond under threat of investigation. It is respectfully submitted that Intake and Resolutions
should not be so vulnerable to the temperaments and whims of random members oCthe public.
who opine that a lawyer must not do her or his job to uphold the rule of la\,v and defend clients, if
it does not align with their own personal opinions, likes or dislikes.
With respect, what is "fal.se", "misleading·' and "brings the administration of justice into
disrepute" is Lindsay }-I.' s '·hate mail"' emails and the requirement tha1 I respond formally under
threat of investigation/sanction.
It is obvious from "my statement", read together with ten minutes of analysis and research, that it
is neither "false", ·'misleading'', nor ·'brings the administration of justice into disrepute''.
Therefore, the Rules in 4. 1-2 are not engaged by my statement.
0
Rule 5.6-1
My srntemcnt does not engage Rule 5 .6 ( 1) of the Rules. On the contrary, I have spent my entire
career (over 31 years) trying to improve the administration ofjustice and encourage public
respect for it and the Rule of Law. My practice consists of litigating the most difficult of cases,
often successfully. These are often perceived or labelled as '·controversial cases" where
individual and random members of the public having erratic and vile reactions against me
personally for simply doing my duty as a constitutional lav,ryer, practising according to my oath.
In practising law, in a manner that upholds Rule 5.6-1, I have, regrettably, been the recipient of
hate mail and subject to personal attacks and threats to my safety and my life. This is not a nev:
phenomenon for me. When I represented clients charged pursuant to the Security Certificate
provisions of IRPA and/or the Terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code I \:.,;asvirulenLly and
invidiously slandered as a "terrorist la\vyer", a ··ten-orist sympathizer" and even as a ''terrorist''
by random individual members of the public. That I "put the right of terrorists over citizens" and
that I "defend citizenship of terrorists" are other examples. Those who attacked me believed in
the global "war on terrorism" and that I was not entitled. as an advocate, to criticize or challenge
the government ·s law in my statements or pleadings on behalf of my clients. These individuals
alleged that by representing my clients, and making statements regarding the racism and racial
profiling my clients were subjected to as Arabs and/or Muslims, by security services, in this
country and elsewhere, that I was ''a threat to the public" and the "security" of Canada.
A819
6
0820
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-820 A820
U 11.enthe hate-mail directed against me. sometimes guised and cloaked as a ··complai nL were
colomed with racial bias and prejudice, and ethnic skrcotyping, not only against my racial
minority clients, but also against me as their ethnic minority lawyer This is graphically
illustrated by the institutional death threat I recei\·ed while representing a Canadian citizen who
vvas detained at Guantanamo Bay on allegation::; oC'"terrorism", vvherein the "anonyrnou:;·· calh:r
demanded I cease representing ·'terrorists, or you a dead \VOP!''
Revealingly, my non-ethnic and non-racial minority colleagues in the Bar, who also advocated
on behalf ol' "terrorists suspects" and with whom I am well acquainted, did no/ receive the same
barrage of hate mail or threats. This is not surprising given that many Royal Commissions, the
SCC and the LSO have acknov,ledged the existence of racial and ethnic bias in the justice system
and the legal profession. Racial and ethnic minority lawyers are disproportionately targeted for
harsher treatment and unbridled harassment. They face discrimination within their own
profession and prejudice from society and its members at large. Systemic and individual
prejudice is pervasive.
It has not escaped me to consider ethnic malice as a root cause of Lindsay H's hate mail, as \Vas
Lhe case for the anonymous bully quoted above. I have encountered this before: "Who does this
Italian lavvyer think he is to cha1lenge our Canadian laws?". :v1ysuspicions arc horne out in the
current COVID context as I have received hate mai 1 which is demeaning, reprehensible and
xenophobic intended to intimidate me as an advocate. 1 am denominated as a: ''scum lawyer'',
··mob lav,ryer", "mobster" - all referring to the stereotype of Italians as members of organized
crime. That I "wasn't even born in Canada". that I am '·a foreigner trying to change laws", and
that I '·vvill never be a Canadian, except in th..: civic sense, and even that is questionable."
The "letters of complaint", emails, from Lindsay If are yet another erratic. provocative, hateful
tirade against me and ethnic prejudices play a role in sending it. While I sympathise with
whatever personal angst she may have with respect to the COVID pandemic, it has nothing to do
\vith me as a lawyer. Her redress lies elsewhere.
1f owevcr. ,vhat is a new phenomenon for me, is that the LSO would give credence to the hate
and prcj udice. Rather than defending the advocate for ethica1ly executing his duties, l am
disheartened to learn that the LSO can be used as a vehicle for attacking a lawyer doing his/her
job. As the inlake counsel, you failed to specify what in my "statement" drew you to conclude it
engages Rule 5.6-1 and on what basis.
0
Ruic 7. 5-1
With respect to Rule 7.5-1, my statement is not engaged as I have not infringed my obligations to
any client, the Courts, or the administration of justice. On the contrary, my statement is in
furtherance of the administration of justice as it impacts the most vulnerable segments of the
public, being the disabled, and it is with respect to constitutionally and quasi-constitutionally
entrenched human rights. Moreover, it is in furtherance L.lf the law as ~nacted by the Ontario
Legislature under 0. Reg. 546/20, as set out above, as \1-.,·ell as other Provinces in their masking
exemptions and under Human Rights Codes.
A820
7 0821
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-821 A821
Rule 5.1-1: Lawyer as Advocate
In closing, as a former elected Bencher, I completely understand your role in the Law Society's
protection of the ·'public interest"'. I know that your job is not any easy one and your \Vork-load
is heavy. However. with the utmost respect, this ·'complaint" was not diligently, or compdently
\'ctted, examined or researched before being passed on to a member for response. Unfo11unately,
it could constitute institutional ·'rubber stamping" of hate mail and prejudice by disgruntled and
randnrn individuals. It could also encourage the proliferation of hale-mail and retaliatory
vindictive ··complaints'' against lav-:yers.
For example, in the past three days it has been brought to my attention that a Defendant in an
action for defamation that I filed on behalf of a client has posted similarly outrageous and vile
twitter posts solely on the basis nf me representing a client over an issue on which he not only
disagrees, but is a named party. I attach his posts. Notwithstanding his capacity as a medical
doctor these outrageous statements speak for themselves. Apart from boldly stating that I do not
ha,·e a right to take cc11ain cases, a response to his t\vects labels all lawyers who take cases v,:ith
,vhich they disagree "domestic terrorists". ln his tv,:eets he specifically references you, \1s.
Samantha \:asser, with your address, email and phone coordinates and pointedly encourages
others to rile LSO complaints against me. referring to a LSO complaint number vvith which lam
not acquainted. I do not, and will never, accept this type of hate-mail, and neither should the Law
Society. l \viii not tolerate being asked to respond to such hate mail in the future. I will seek
redress from the Courts.
The intake process must act.. in pc.1rt.as a gatekeeper to sift through spurious and misdirected
rantings and scandalous allegations (intended to intimidate and harass lawyers from acting as
advocate), from that of legitimate complaints. This is not the first failure within the COVID
litigation context. Prior to your letter of December 17. 2020, I received correspondence. also
from you, regarding completely unsubstantiated and, revealingly, anonymous ··complaints''
made b 1 ··Two Buller.1''. I query \\ho arc (is) the ''Tv.,o Bulti:'r.1·''' 1
f v\ould remind you of Rule 5.1-1 \Vhich reads:.
5.1-J ij/fien acting as an advocate, a /a11,')•ershall represent the client resolute~v

and honourahl) within the limits of the !av, ,,_·hik treating the trihunal with
candour. fairness. courtl'.S). and re:;pect.
And the first commentar) to that Rule v.:hich reads and dictates that:
[I] Role in Adversarial Proceedings - In adversarial proceedings, the lawyer

has a du(r to the client to raisefearless(v eve,:v issue, advance every argument
and ask every question, however distasteful, t/rat the lawyer thinks ,viii help the
client's case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every
reme(~J.'and defence authorized by law. The la,.vyer must discharge this duty by
lair and honourable means, ,l\·ithout illegality and in a manner thcll is consistent
,.vith the laviyer's duty to treat the tribunal vvith candour, fairness, coLtrtesy and
respect and in a way that promotes the parties' right to u fair hearing in which
A821
0822
8
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-822 A822
_justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum and courtesy in lhc courtroom
is not an empty formalit) because, unless order is maintained, rights cannot be
prutected.
The LSO is tasked with protection of the public, but also of the legal profession and its members,
regardless of the client or case. Rule 5.1-1 is a cornerstone for Canada's justice system. The
intake counsel's job is to not only protect the public, but also protect the profession from the
public's vile, unjustified, false. and scandalous attack on lawyers, which is not in concert with
the ·'public interest". It is not in your jurisdiction and mandate to jump on the proverbial ·'hate
bandwagon".
In another context outside of a Regulatory complaint, "Lindsay H.'' would have been
successfully sued for defamation for her comments, and not be the assumptive springboard from
which to catapult an unsubstantiated query sent to me for response. Lindsay H.'s comments and
complaints are unfoundedly outrageous and hateful. Yet, regrettably, you acted on them.
Given all of the above, l am entitled to an apology.
Yours very truly,

ROCCO GALA TI LAW FIRM PROFESSIONAL CORPORA. TIO~
Per:
£-L
Rocco Galati. f3 A. LLB. LL M
RG*bl
A822
0823
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-823 A823
Terry Polevoy, MD
I direct you to the LSO Chapter 2.1

rules of professional conduct for
Ontario lawyers. Section 3. Would a
client of any legai professional who
openly flogs anti-vaccine, anti-mask,
influence their trust?
..·............ ..
'
. .: t • • ! ~=. ... . ►• . ' .
1d=31JLi& 11e 1\,_unsafe_1n 1ages=
. 1/28
1ori1te:
1-t:p'.:'. 'NebrT a , look ,:a, ~1:q.:/s,.r.:. f1 E:/"\di :\ _rr1a1n phi: ,'passe'J_ er,l_ (.! =-C&rr ailt,ox-=-KL!, 1r,:Je·,~passed __
A823
0824
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-824 A824
1:

GALATI:
San1antha Nassar
A824
•,lips :.i/we
r:n,,n~t=)f
br1a ::.1ook.ca/high/src/printer
lnt~kP l<.JRJJ<:!nl,
1tinn
_friendly _ma in .php ?passed_ ent_id =O&mai:box=Kul vinde ,·&passed _id= 304&vi ew _ unsafe_images=
2/28
0825
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-825 A825

Toronto, ON
M5G 1E6
416-947-3300 ext. 2098
snassar@lso.ca
File# 2020-246780
•\.•'•• '• ••W ••
- ,. '
'
-: ..
~r .{,..,:;,.
Ut>-t-f,?c$ I~f.1Cl
t+·,:-: ~.. t''.,~ i:t,·fi:::1·1
:~;r1:r;t--:!O ~ ( ;;_:=.N"'-:.'~~
:~: : ; : ;i.,~1.~d(,~•:):'! ::f)::_;;<./ ;:i $:
::-:-~*i
t·,r0<·~1:·;,~i,~ rf:: t~.-~·$,-.:.-::.:
~ rl 1:::~:-~. th:: p:i:.~k~
:•=·:. :_"!·.: ,:: ~= --~~--,.,J
··: .;H-t::~i:f: :d !1t·:•::: 0
:;,., :i: ~:;-
.-,.,_.,;:
;t1i:, r:1~:::··t'r:::--:tr;
;:-i-.::-:~-:trt·f~ ~ ..• n;~•-::
:~:,..-c::r:
,i
tk:!\:n>:1i~:·1t ,;f.:!f;(; m :,\·;~$:t~gf-~>::·:~tfyi•:g;h(~
,~k:H:~r: c?1:'1!-I.:::~::-?-:; ~~:·-::!:
:::-:, \,'l:·1i,...;/·1 h".~::,::-•·f"<::::1
i1:
::·11 ..~r:·,~;nl
· ::;.~1r::.,.;:1~,2t!''~i::•r,Hf.. :: ::.-.L~, i~) r:J;,;q~·1;·J:·
:~ ::..<.~ ~!~Vf°J~·-Hp r)!.'!'S--Jn a~ ~J1:-
i;y •~!;,.-~:·.{f.:r:i\)
RS
~:: ttx: :"::t::fr~1:n.:,::-:
(.h·:(~i':·,ffi,·.r.~ -L ·D F,~,-r~.- L ~2 ~.
. ··.:::::' ·. /'•
r~~) ::
/
/ •,
•.. ;::: ) __
I
r • • t • •I • •• • 'I,
I
LKlWV (skion64) , '-:.':/;{_-;-,.'.\:[3~~
IJI
Fron, Sacha Stone:
I
l
January 5th, 11 am EST/ 4pm GST. !'ii be
hosting Dr Robert Kennedy Jr, Dr David
Martin, Dr Judy Mikovitz, & Dr Rocco Galati A825
II
@}
° Ku:vir•dcr&passed_ d-=304 &, .ic'N_Jnsol<: _,mages= 3/28

rittps '/webrr-,ail. ook.ca1 .1igh1src1prir.icr_f r ercly _mair p•1p?passed_ er,t_,d=O&r',ailoox
-· ·-··, .. -· -, - --·-··-·•--·- - - - - .. ---•
a 2hr "l1vestrearn" expose. Eugenics,
!tl
0826
genocide and treason be dan1rned!
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-826 A826

GALATI:
Samantha Nassar
Toronto, ON
MSG 1E6
416-947-3300 ext. 2098
snassar@lso.ca
A826
_id=30'1&view _,.msafe _i magcs= 4/28
hi tps .I/we bma l.,ook.calhigh/src/printer _friendly_ main. ph p?passed_ ent_id=O&mailbox= Kulvinder&passed
0827
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-827 A827
Canadians Against "Freedom ...

\f✓e \Nill not stop until these don1estic
US LINETHE-ROAD.. BUT
HE'L.P
VEHICLE.!
.,... , -;.
\ j
'-·
Terry Polevoyf MO
.. .• . ~ ' .
1
Ask them how much money they ve
put away to defer1d themselves in A827
& view_ unsafe _,rnages= 5/28
rtlps 'wec,rna ii ICJok.ca.'h igh/srclpri r'.er _friend Iy_main. pr p? passed_ ent_;d=O &rnai lbox=Kuivinder &passed _i d=304
- ...
0828
court! Did they earmark a large
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-828 A828
portion to go to lawyers like Rocco

Galati? If they did, wt1at was the
retainer? It is very disappointing tt1at
Rocco filed vexatious lawsuit against
some of us~Too late!
.. · .
libel & Slander Act
Notice of action
( '*j I T\l Q -~r, Vi f') p f('> l,, p j ' ,- ,·
11,j U
C
,) \·. · }. I •4_ ) th.
(.~ t, , ; t •../,
i!''
v Il 1 (
~-
t ro1
~)- i ('-
Jr'--·- -·~c· t l !{.'.', l..._t?t ip-,,;,.~~- t ~)
,,..,.;Ct..-=, f. .
1... t\..;
("<
i-~
f
1 i
.t.
;".:,t"t·--
,.,.,,~'1~~ •.. L.-
E: .._: after the: allege1

H-1,'.--:; r)k:ii?7tjff·•i ~ 'Kr,r1A• 1ptjg,•..
, , . <...., r' , o. 1 c , ::-, , 1 r ,.Jv v 1•., ,.__ c ,,..n'I._,,.,
__.,
rJ--·,f
....
6 t<-..-•
H::;' e, 1nda· f , ··-~0··t·1<
r.1t !f ~-
1··)
'e• 1
. I , •r.,
",.r·1ti1
, ··1q ,..,_.
...,. .
.. .
i°"'•
~- ..,fit.
...~ ~-~
f-~ W4 •i:JJ..-.g«t
~ t~: .P-AAJ
~ ~ __,i. A828
-\~'.
e: &pa ssea_i dc-30~ & view_ unsafe _images= 6128
rt tps '/we bn1a :I.look. ca1high/ src/p( nter _rriend ly_ ma in,ph p? passed_ ent_ id=O&mai
lbox=Ku lvir,a
- ...: ....... - ·" - -.-,;~'••
- ~ - -
·,
•s ...{ /," N ••• -Y .. '•'- >,
,v,,,_•••• •••• ...,. ~---•
0829
_.,.~..,:,>.I:'.:"'..,.... .. -...• ,,>.
....) A829
!,''
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-829 L... ,
Terry Polevoy, MD <, 1
Ask them how rnuch money they've put avvay

to defend themselves in court! Did they
earn1ark a large portion to go to lawyers like
Rocco Galati? If they did, \Nhat vJas the
retainer? It is very disappointing that Rocco
filed vexatious !avvsuit against son1e of us.
Too late!
t:jr :--i~;it tr) ~3 :.)rc;~i1.vr1-

t)~/ cie--ii'--~/
•·n:e f olf.:~e of tht~·(iefend,;i:
,:·•
i
.,
0
...
°'I;
.
Terry Polevoy, MD
... , : .
I direct you to the LSO Chapter 2.1

rules of professional conduct for
I"""\ __ ~ - -~ ! - I - ..... - ___ r'°'- __ __ .t. r\~ _\ A I_ .. I _J _ A829
KuIv,nder &passed _1d=304 & ,·iew _ ur,safE:_im agEs= 7/28
r.ttp s /.\vebma;l.lools.ca/n1gh/srcpr n(e r_rrie nd ly _ n-,ain.pJ--.p?passed_ e 'i\_id=O&mai Ibox=
• .• "" - - - •
- _. .I ' _. '• • - --••• '"'' .., -
un1:ar10 1awyers. ~ect1on '5. vvou1a a 0830

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-830 A830
client of any legal professional vvho
openly flogs anti-vaccine{ anti-mask,
on vvhether or not that would
influence their trust?
• • • ,c, ;
'.=./:
Canadians Against "Freedom.u ·•,; s

We vvtll not stop until these don1estic
on.An - DI IT
A830
uct DI IC I ltJC TUC
&view_ Jnsafr, _, ma ge S" 5128
>c,t~c.,... •:1e:;mili" .Ic.,,t--caih19hisrc,pc!r,:er _f r1ena,y_rc,ain .php? passed_ e n,t_io =0&ma1lbox=KJ Iv ir de-&p assed _id=3C.-1
0831
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-831 A831
Terry Polevoy, MD
Ask tt1en1how much money they've

put away to defend tt1emselvesin
court! Did they earmark a large
portjon to go to lawyers like Rocco
Galati? If they did, what was the
retainer? It is very disappointing that
Rocco filed vexatious lawsuit against
sorne of useToo late!
'• ,; ;,,.
Libel & S! and er Act
t; ( -1f i/ No) C-'

i.....;, \
✓;,r•ii(-lf."<
-.._,..l, .,_ t
fo·r ji~i(,j
.. L.-,.
r . (·:
.,..., ir·-1
hrc,--:i( jr·~-:-ss
,__ ,)O .. ~.,.e,1,, t .• l'ii 17!PS'~
. !ic,s
I!>...~, ,;,,_ :'.:) ti----,,-
,, !t:_,. r-
after the a!ie~1e,

\ \Ne-
the PLJintiffs know!edoe. cA831
_id=304 &view_ unsafe _images= 9/28
look.ca/hign/srclpri ,,ter_f riendiy _main. ph p? passed_ e nt_id =O&rnailbox= Kulvirder&passed
hlip s ://we brn a 11.
\.,I 'C"II •••"-'-"•u, ...... ''-• 01(;,11~•• .._, •..,y . ._...,..___
"L#"'"""
0832
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-832 A832
A832
unsafe _images= ",0/28
hllp s 1/webmail ,ook.ca/high/src/pri nler _friendly_ main. ph p? passed_ en\_id=O&m ailbox=Ku lvinde r&passed _id =304 & view_
1e1,y I VILVVy __,..,,u,,u ..,vVtl _...,...,,, •,u, - .... ~ ...
0833
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-833 A833
libfr! & Sl.aml~r Ad

:/ :::.c~:~.
r-.J..._:-t:::>=:· :1
!~(~)~:JG .I \:: rJ fl< 1,\• :-{;._.<~~···~>~
·.ch::: :.:;f i:?:•~
)~'f lJ~":!{;:;5--:·r:Ep=:.;!if:f;rf 11:';5. :;:.... :·
t:!rf~~C'L~">!;(.•·~
~~n~~r !}:.(· ;j:•i, :-9~~-:! !fr~~:h::i~·; :(:,:·r::·
ttn· pl::(:ni!~:"..:.;~ ··::::•o<.:t~·:!:• i~>
, Jt'~·~:;r;1:1 ~~li::
-~!r:t:1r·tc1·+:--t:·:i :t::~e ::ri:.//:"h~~fL s.pf;:.~:fyn~q n·.::.i
::::·:Ld :}L '.f/lt:J1 {:.L.::~!!
i:"'1(1-:t:·:·.:t:.:~~q::: L:·t ~-:;:!'.•1>.i ::1
U't(: t:.:,i:::C· :_:1;:-::v:t :::~~-~~ ~i-;•:~ :: :ir 1 "'. ·:'/ ·::;li~f- ·:•f
r.~yCH-:+·/~:'!nq. :,-i.:,:1-:.;:~::t:)'·//;·: ..;;p p~·.r~;'.:.(Y~

,:H P·:t;
~·r..:~:r~;ff:~/- ·..>f f.h:~~J:;•t,::il(L;:·.1 HS ::; ~?~1l/.c L ~?
A833
_id= 30~ & view_ unsafe _images= '1/28
rl ips !iwe bmal!ook.ca/high/src/prin1er _friendly _main.php? passed_ en1_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&passed
on uec L.,-.Ju, .:::u,v
ur rerry r'Orevoy uerc:HTii::H
0834
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-834 A834
Ube! & Slander Act

Hotice cf action
_r:: l_,1}l r\J
•..J ..
("·r,(-•t 1·,,·, I') f,)l' ·1i1") {.)! 1'
3 ...~'-..•~ ,.._,. ~ ... ' ~{., ',.,t:'.i
f, ·1, ,
brcddcast ties unless. t1·1cr

: '<' : after· the a!feqe
the plaintiff's hno\vledQe. ~~------v-,--------.,,,.....--.
t~ r::.f,'.::,,r. ,··• ,·-,P~ !, .r,1 .,,,
,~, ....... '•· -· 1 J, •.Jc.~.:.
n h\-~,("'.),
.. t..·
r, \·,·
·,·· , / °.(.rd i ,.,n
t < .,.:: t ~"1
•,;,.
A834
304 & v:e'.v_ ur, safe _images= 12/28
r: :os: '1webmail look.ca/high/src/pri;-i!e, _friendiy _ main,prp ?passed_ er,t_,d=O&mailoox=Ku lvir.der&passed_id=
I ,_1 J\..'''-'-''-V
·,I ., ' i '

0835
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-835 A835
. ,.
,· '· :.' . I
A835
&passed_;d=304 & view_ ur,safe _images= 13/28
?passed_ ent_id=C&mailbox=Kulvinder
l1ttp s //webma ii. look.ca/high/src/p rin1er_rriendly _main .php
ur ,erry ,...-u,evuy Ut!IOITICH!Url uec LI -,.)V, ~ULU
1.c',.;u .c'U.c'U
0836
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-836 A836
A836
1L/28
view_ unsafe _images=
blips: '/webrnail.lock ca/high/src/pri'"lter _friendly _ma ir,. php ?passed_ ent_id=O&mailbox=Ku I•,irde r&passed _id=304&
U! rerry ,_.u,~·.,10y ue1an1c1uun vec :-..)v,
.:C.. LVLv
0837
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-837 A837
A837
x=Kulvinder&passed _id=304 &view_ unsafe _images= 15/28
ht tps: '/webmail.look. ca/high/src/printer _friendly _main. php? passed_ en1_id=O&mailbo
Ut ;t:::rry r'Ult:'VUy Ut:'\Cl lld",IU!I L..,10.L &..I -vv, .::..VLlJ
0838
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-838 A838
A838
16/28
h ltps //we bmail.look.ca/hlgh/src/printe r_f r:e nd:y _ma 1n.php?passed_ ent_ld=O&mallbox=Kutvinder&passed _·,d=304 &view_ unsafe _images=
0839
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-839 A839
t•.--~.··-:
Rocco Galati :; ·' . •.
~~....·-.. •, : .
Take a look at this web site. It docun1ents

the horrors and fall-out of the lockdovJns.
The Price of Panic - Lockdovvns Cost

Lives
"t",
l .
I' ...... ;
Terry Polevoy, MD 6) '.

So Rocco, vvhy did you threaten many
Canadian doctors with a baseless,
frivolous, vexatious, and libelous iawsuit A839 1 7 /28
w_unsafe_irnages=
.der&passed_id=3C/4&vie
rt!ps '/webrr.ail.lcok ca1tiigh/src1pr1.-iler_friendly_mam.php?passed_ent_idcc0&mailbox=Kulv1r
0840
on behalf of Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill? May I A840
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-840
remind you that your threatened actions
will have consequences! Maybe you need
to apologize to all of us!
. . .. . .. ...
.. '
.
.· ..
•·"t. . . .;,_.;,; ,•>;•:: s:,,,.
-~- ~~ i, l ~ ·.r: :1.;~:::~·. ~:~u
T' • :• j 'l''-, ~ ii: -..'.•; ]:,:• :
,.
'''f-~·
'
...
~}:..)CJ(~~f/?'j
Terry Polevoy, MD
t<(!l\ . .
........
v•

A840
18/2 8
ma1Ibox= Ku lvinder &passed _1d=30~ & -:,ew _unsafe _,mages=
Mtps ', v,ebma i' ,ook.ca/h 1gh/srcJprin I er _f rie no,1,_ rnain php 'lpasseo _ ent_id~O&
0841
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-841 A841
> '
! ....... . .
: .
~
"'
·....,./ •..,,##hh••
Terry Polevoy 1 MD
Hey Ro~co Galati, the .ate and

filed within 6 week ~ Sorry, but
today is Dec 28 2020~ What took 1
s-olong?
A841
• 'I' ,f "• •
O
I
s=--
_io=304 & view_ unsafe _1111age 1 9/28
ai lbox=Ku:vir.der&passed
t-ittps //webr1a ii. look.ca/high/src.'priolter _ friendly _ma1r:.php ?passed_ ent_id=O&m
0842
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-842 A842
..
... .,
: '
• ! ••
r:.
,,..: < ~·~
,,{_, ); .J> Jw• ;, j
Tweet
1v1c:;;u11 .....a1
A842
a ilbox=Ku Iv1nder &pa sse,:i_i_d =31),1& ,.,jew _ un sa fe_1mages= 20/23
r· I tp s :::wet ma il.lock.ca1h igh1 src/printe r_ 1ri end Iy _ ma i n.I;r p·, passed_ en1._id=0&m
L...'! ,~rry rutt•iU/ ~t c1ttrauv1, vt::a., .:..1-JV, LL..t:.-...•
I ~1 •.JU, ~VLU
0843
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-843 A843
@el Iiotg ilfoyle c;});•••·
<>:..) ':-.,.:: : ••. ··
What's the complaint? LOL
..--·-···;
r··-._
·-._ .,.....
..
,........
Terry Polevoy, MD
- ..
.,:,
Here is a link to the entire Kaur-SOC

vexatious and frivolous lawsuit. It is
novv searchable. There is ZERO
evidence of specific damages. There
is an active LSO complaint against
Galati. 2020-246780. Add to it if you
want!
Kaur-SOC-lssued.pdf
A843
ai:t1ox=Kulvirder &passed _id=304 & view_ unsafe _images= 21128
htlps:: 1webmail. look.calhigh/srclpr;n1er _ frier.cly _main .php? passed_ en1_1d=0&m
0844
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-844 A844
.. ; .......
. '
... . . .' :
Terry Polev y, MD
(-,~
..• '. i J . •. '\ .·.
. '
· () i \/ :..: C_) i ..: :"-·~:·:-

: .....
-:- -
Hey· Rocco Galati, the date and

y'oursignature on the bottom of
filed within 6 \Neeks~Sorry, but
k
today is Dec 28, 2020~ What tooA844
=Kulvinder&passed_i::Jc-304 & 1ievv_ Jnsafe_,.~1ages= 22/28
n'.lps. ',we om ail look ca, h1ghlsrc, pr:nte, _friend I,,_ma'n.prip';passed_ent_;d=0&mallbox
.::../JU LULU
0845
so lor1g?
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-845 A845
,·: '
< .,. " .,.,
A845
&passed_id= 304 & view_ unsafe _images= 23/28
htlps :iiwe bma il.iool<..ca;hig h/srr::ip r1r,ter _/ rie nc ly_ ma in.pr p'i passed_ ent_id=O& mai lbox-Ku:vinder
...,,:;,_ ._ - •'J, ,._ ..... .-
L,·1 :cir:: .JIC·, ,, '-10:::lrJ •C-1•,I\J!
.. } ~ ,.. ;
. ·.[ 0846
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-846 A846
Terry Polevoy, MD
·: allegations
-,._::The
in this lawsuit tiled by Rocco Galati
are frivolous and vexatious~ They
were also filed way beyond the
limits of the the Libel and Slander
Act s.5 R.ScO~,c~Lg12,s~5(1)~Also,
3 of the email addresses were
wrong~
.
.. ·: ./·
>-: Terry Polevoy_f 1\1D ;:;.;_
: ~ :· : .
., '. . . ..
Rocco Galati sent an email to rne on Dec. 28 1
2020 1Nith a Staten1ent of Claim (SOC) to the

Superior Court of Justice on behalf of Drs.
Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Dr. Ashvinder Kaur
Lamba. Signed by him on Dec 9, 2020.
Electronically filed on Dec 11j 2020. Too late
for libel easel A846
UCICJ IICl~IUII U'Cl..,~1-..iv, L.VL.U
UI 1c1ry rv1cvuy
11....lJUiLU.C.U
0847
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-847 A847
...
~..
,•:• ... '; . ~····)
. t,,,:
i\/); . : ~
./=...;~~ \ ~~- ~ ,:
-/-"'""~~ Terry Polevoy, MD
'fp,
't..,~·
j, ·,
..
~ •.··~:•·' ~'.
;- ; ....
~ ·~;
Rocco Galati sent an emaif to me on

Kaur Gill and Dr. Ashvinder Kaur
2020. Electronical'ly filed on Dec 11,
'· - t '
A847
25/28
0&mailboFKulvinder&passed_id=304&view_unsafe_images=
hltps:!/webmail.look.ca/high/src/pri'11er_friendly_main.php?passed_enl_id=
---· ··••j. --•-t -- ···-··- _.,___...-·----
0848
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-848 A848
..
· ·• .\ ....·,
Polevoy, MD
\!',}) •. Terry
Rocco Galati sent an email to me on

Dec. 28, 2020 with a Staten1ent of
Kaur Gill and Dr. Ashvinder Kaur
Lamba. Signed by him on Dec 9 1
2020. Electronically filed on Dec 11,

A848
sed_id=304&view_unsafe_images= 26/28
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/pr:nter_rriendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=Kulvinder&pas
0849
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-849 A849
2 1 4
Terry Po[evoy, r.10
Dr. Kulvinder Gill, MD, FRCPC

President - Concerned Ontario Docto·s
Twitter: @dockaurG
Attachments:
untitled-[ 1.1]
Size: 0.4 k
Type: text/plain
IMG 5067.jpeg
Size: 283 k
Type: image/jpg
IMG 5075.jpeg
Size: 299 k
Type: image/jpg
IMG 5076.jpeg
Size: 250 k
Type: image/jpg
IMG 5098.jpeg
Size: 389 k
Type: lmage/jpg
IMG 5068.jpeg
Size: 306 k A849
I 27/28
?passed_ er.l_id=O&mailbox=Kulvinder &passed _id=304&view _ unsafe _images=
hl tps ://we bma ii. look. ca/high/src/prir.ter _friendly_ ma in .ph p
_. ...... ..,' --. , .. ..- ....'.... ...., . --.. - . - . - ..- .
Type:limage/jpg 0850
IMG 5061.jpeg A850
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-850
Size:I328 k
Type:limage/jpeg
IMG 5060.jpeg
Size:1307 k
Type:limage/jpeg
IMG 5068.jpeg
Size:I306 k
Type :limage/jpg
IMG 5093.jpeg
Size:I338 k
Type:l'maqe/jpq
IMG 5074.jpeg
Size:I337 k
Type :limage/jpg
IMG_5077.jpeg
Size:I312 k
Type: Ii mage/jpg
IMG 5097.jpeg
Size:I329 k
Type :limage/jpg
IMG 5096.jpeg
Size:I280 k
Type :limage/ipg
IMG 5094.jpeg
Size:I345 k
Type:limage/jpg
IMG 5095.jpeg
Size:I332 k
Type: limage/jpg
IMG 5072.jpeq
Size:j319 k
Type:limage/jpg
IMG 5069.jpeg
Size:I266 k
Type: limage/_ipg ··--···---
---··------------ ------------------·-·-·········-----·--···
A850
28/28
ent_1d=0&mai lbox=Kulvinder &passed_i □ =304 & view_ unsafe _images=
h!tps :1/webma ii. look.ca/high/srciprin1er _f nendly _ ma1n.php?passed_
0851
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-851 A851
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https://www.jso.ca
November 25, 2021
Sent via email only
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Rocco Galati:

Case No.: 2021-248873
The Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional Regulation Division received a
further complaint from Alexandra Moore.
Please find enclosed for your reference, a copy of my response to Alexandra Moore. You
will note that I have closed the case.
Yours truly,
~,!,~o/
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A851
0852
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-852 A852
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
htt;ps:f/www.lso.ca
November 25, 2021
Sent via email only
Alexandra Moore
Dear Alexandra Moore:

Case No.: 2021-248873
I am writing to follow-up as I had indicated to you in my email dated September 21,

2021. I have completed my review of your further complaint about Rocco Galati alleging
incivility. I have also collected information from Mr. Galati. For the reasons explained
below, the Law Society will not be taking any further action in response to your
complaint.
Reasons for Outcome
Background
Mr. Galati is a lawyer licensed by the Law Society. Mr. Galati commenced an action
against you in which he is seeking damages for, among other things, libel and slander
(defamation) for posts and statements you made about him on the internet. He is
represented by counsel in the matter. The litigation is ongoing. You have never been
Mr. Galati's client.
1. Whether Mr. Galati was uncivil towards you
Explanation
You raised concerns about Mr. Galati engaging in uncivil conduct towards you. Based on
my review, the concerns raised in your complaint arose in the context of the posts and
statements you are alleged to have made, which are currently before the Court. These
issues are, therefore, likely to be addressed and/or considered by the Court during the
litigation. In any event, you, and your counsel (if you have one) may also have the
A852
0853
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-853 A853
opportunity to raise any specific concerns you have about Mr. Galati with the Court. If
the Court makes any negative comments/findings about Mr. Galati's conduct in this
matter, you may provide the Law Society with that information as well as supporting
documentation for consideration.
Confidentiality
your complaint to the Law Society pursuant to section 49.12 of the Law Society Act and is
Outcome
Yours truly,
~,1,;_7
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
cc: Rocco Galati
2
A853
0854
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-854 A854
This is Exhibit "11"

to the Affidavit of
A~T~ r mg Affid.
1 av1ts
A854
0855
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-855 A855
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
MSG 1E6
https://www.lso.ca
August 3, 2021
Sent by Email Only: rocco@idirectcom
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Case No.: 2021-248873
The Law Society received a complaint from Alexandra Moore which was closed by
Samantha Nassar, Intake & Resolution Counsel for the reasons set out in her letter dated
February 18, 2021.
The Law Society received a further complaint from Ms Moore concerning the attached
Tweet. Since Ms Nassar is away from the office, the file has been reassigned to me to
address the further complaint.
To assist me in my review of the complaint, please provide by August 17, 2021 an

explanation with respect to the following regulatory issue:
• That you used inappropriate language towards Ms Moore
If you have additional documents and/or other information that you think will be of
assistance, please forward them to me as well. Once I am in receipt of the information, I
may be telephoning you to discuss the issues raised in the complaint.
Please note that the Law Society is conducting an investigation under s. 49.3(1) of the
Law Society Act. Since an investigation has not been authorized under s. 49.3(2) of the
Act, you are not required to provide the information requested above. You are, however,
required to respond promptly and completely to this communication (Rule 7.1-1 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct). A decision about whether to refer this complaint to
Investigation Services will be made on the basis of the information available when the
review is completed.
A855
0856
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-856 A856
Please advise us if you require Law Society communications in an alternate format that
is accessible, or if you require other arrangements to make Law Society services
accessible to you.
Temporary arrangements due to COVID-19
The Intake & Resolution department is working electronically and the best way to send
us information is by email. If you send us information by mail or courier, our response
may be delayed.
Information for licensees about the Law Society's response to COVID-19is available on
the Law Society's website here.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this letter.
Yours truly,
~6~7
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A856
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-857 A8
A8
0858
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-858 A858

Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
August 7, 2021
Miko Dubiansky
M5G 1E6
Dear Mr. Dubiansky,
I am writing to you in response to your correspondence with respect to the above-matter.
You have requested that I submit a response by August 17, 2021, however, I am going on
vacation which will start next week. Can you provide me with an extension of time to
September 1i\ 2021 in order to respond?
Yours very truly,

Per:
A858
0859
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-859 A859
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
MSG 1E6
https: //www.lso.ca
November 25, 2021
Sent via email only
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Rocco Galati:

Case No.: 2021-248873
Please find enclosed for your reference, a copy of my response to Alexandra Moore. You
Yours truly,
~6~o/
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A859
0860
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-860
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
A860
Law Society Barreau File Number
of Ontario de I'Ontario Lawyer/Paralegal Name
Law Society Number
when you send the Complaint Form.
1. Information about you (the "Complainant")

Are you complaining for yourself or on behalf of a company or other entity?
(!) Yourself 0 Company/Other Entity
Complainant Name
First Name Middle Name Last Name
Alexandra Moore
Salutation
0 Mr. (!) Ms. 0 Mrs. 0 Dr. 0 Other (Specify)
Mailing Address
City Province/Territo Postal Code

British Columbia .....
Contact Information
Home Phone Work Phone Cell/Contact Phone Fax Number
Personal Email Work Email

a.1689.1871@gmail.com
May we contact you at work?
0 Yes Q No
Company Information (if applicable)
Company Name
n/a
Contact First Name Contact Last Name Contact Position

n/a n/a n/a

A860
0861
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-861 A861
' Law Society Barreau
of Ontario de I'Onta1·io
2. Information about the lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about
0 Select if you are complaining about more than one lawyer or paralegal
NOTE: Attach a separate Complaint Form for each lawyer or paralegal that you are complaining about.
Lawyer or Paralegal
(!) Lawyer O Paralegal O Unknown
Name and Contact Information

Samantha Coomara
Mailing Address

Toronto lontario M6H1A9
3. Complainant and lawyer or paralegal relationship

a. What is your relationship to the lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about?
Examples can include: client, client of opposing lawyer or paralegal, opposing lawyer or paralegal,
employed by lawyer or paralegal, family member, other (specify)
This lawyer is stalking and harassing me
b. Did you hire this lawyer or paralegal?
0 Yes (!) No
If you hired this lawyer or paralegal:

If there are any documents that show you hired the lawyer or paralegal, please attach a copy.
(For example: retainer agreement, letter, cheque payable to the lawyer or paralegal.)
When was the lawyer or paralegal hired?

n/a
What was the lawyer or paralegal hired to do?

n/a
Is the matter completed?
0 Yes (!) No
September 2020 4
Page
A861
0862
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-862 A862
law Society Barreau
ls the lawyer or paralegal still working for you?
0 Yes ® No
If you did not hire this lawyer or paralegal:

Who did/does the lawyer or paralegal act for?
Rocco Galati, who pretends to be filing cases to end martial law measures in Canada
How are you involved?

Reporting on cases which public donations are constantly being sought
If the person you are complaining about is not your lawyer or paralegal, do you have your own lawyer or
paralegal?
0 Yes ® No
Name and Contact Information for Your Lawyer or Paralegal (if applicable)
n/a n/a n/a
May we speak to your lawyer or paralegal about this complaint?

0 Yes ® No
c. What area of law/legal services does your complaint relate to? (Select all that apply)
D Real Estate
0 Civil Litigation
D Corporate / Commercial / Business
D Matrimonial/ Family
D Administrative / Immigration
D Estates / Wills
0 Other - Specify: Reporting on ongoing cases
If you are complaining about an estate:
Are you the Estate Trustee or the Executor?
0 Yes ® No
If no, who is the Estate Trustee or the Executor?

n/a
Are you a beneficiary?

0 Yes ® No

A862
0863
A863
Law Society
of Ontario
I
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-863
Barreau
de I'Ontario
your
d. ID.cie:s eo:mplaintI.Ai¥e!'Zea matter Couf.t1 at,
ll>.:.ei~li'EM!'.
1 a tribunal?
@ Yes O No
What is the name of the Court or tribunal? (For example, Ontario Court of Justice, Small Claims Court,
Landlord and Tenant Board.)
Ontario Superior Court
What city is the Court or tribunal located in?

Toronto
What is the Court or tribunal file number? (If known)

CV-20-00643451-0000, CV-00629801-0000, CV-20-00652918-0000, CV-21-00661200-000
What is the status?

@ Ongoing O Complete

A863
0864
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-864 A864
Law Society Barreau
, of Ontario de I'Ontario
4. Your complaint
a. Please tell us about your complaint (4,000 characters maximum)
I run a site that covers national affairs in Canada
This "lawyer" Samantha Coomara, is acting on behalf of Rocco Galati.
Galati is scamming the public by asking for money for cases he isn't actively pursuing. What people file
privately is their business, but when it involves public fuindraising and donations, it's in everyone's interest
to know where that money is going.
Most notably is a case filed July 6, 2020, which Galati "claims" he is using to fight martial law measures in
Canada. Despite this, more than a year later, there are no defenses filed, and outside of Windsor-Essex
County and their MOH, no one even has representation.
Galati also attemped to scam the public by selling them half filled court documents, and telling them to go
deal with it yourself, or hire a lawyer. He took advantage of desperate people.
As a reporter, I find it worthwhile to cover when high profile fundraising isn't going where it's stated.
I have also covered Galati's "hero of the people" persona, and how his actual court record flies in the face
of it.
However, Galati and his "lawyer" Samantha Coomara are attempting to silence legitimate inquiry and
coverage by threatening and intimidating someone who reports on their lies. This has been going on since
October 2020. Again, when someone takes public money under the pretense of fighting a court case, it's
worth looking into where that money is going.
They have also made repeated false accusations of racism, and threatened to not only get the site taken
down, but to get me banned from ever posting again. These people have weaponzed the slander and
defamation laws in order to silence (*or attempt to silence), legitimate coverage of what they do.
Given this prolonged behaviour, I believe it amounts to stalking and harassment. Coomara refused to
honour a "cease and desist" notice she was served with.

A864
0865
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-865 A865
Law Society Barreau
of Ontario de !'Ontario
b. Please list the documents you are sending. (NOTE: Do not send originals.)
{4,000 char~cters maximum)
August 21, 2021 notice

A865
0866
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-866 A866
Law Society Barreau
c. What do you hope will happen as a result of your complaint? (4,000 characters maximum)
Disbar them both {Coomara and Galati)

Do it such that neither is able to practice again.
These people are criminals, thugs, and are attempting to cover up their own criminal behaviour
Also: a permanent "cease and desist" order, or a no contact order.

A866
0867
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-867 A867
·'\ Law Society Barreau
.· ' of Ontario de I'Ontario
5. Acknowledgment and Consent

Before completing this Acknowledgment and Consent, please make sure you read the attached
Information Sheet.
[a By checking this box, I confirm that I am the Complainant named in Section 1, and that I have read
and understand the following:
I understand that the Law Society will share some or all of the information and documents that it
receives from me and other parties with the lawyer or paralegal complained about.
I agree to the Law Society sharing and providing copies of information and documents that it receives
from me with the lawyer or paralegal complained about. I understand that if I do not agree, the Law
Society may be unable to process my complaint.
I understand that the Law Society may not be able to process my complaint without supporting
documents. I have attached copies of documents that support my complaint.
I understand that the Law Society may keep digital recordings of voice mail messages as part of the
complaint file.
Alexandra Moore Aug 21, 2021
Name of Complainant Date Completed
Signature of Complainant
Note: If you are filing this complaint for another person who was the lawyer's or paralegal's client or who
was the party directly affected by the lawyer's or paralegal's conduct, we may need a signed authorization
from this other person in order to proceed with the complaint. There is an authorization form (PDF)
available on our website. (You do not need a file number to complete the form.) If you hold power of
attorney for the other person, you can include a copy of the power of attorney with the Complaint Form.
416-947-3310 or 1-800-268-7568. Please note: We cannot discuss your personal situation until you
have provided your Complaint Form to us.

A867
0868
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-868 A868
• Law Society Barreau
✓:i of Ontario do I'Ontario
Complaint Form
Information Sheet
What types of complaints will the Law Society deal with?
As the regulator of the legal professions in Ontario, we receive and respond to written complaints
about lawyers and paralegals licensed by the law Society. We also respond to information about
unlicensed practitioners who are providing legal services or practising law.
We deal with a range of professional conduct matters. Examples include delay, failure to reply to
communications, rude and discriminatory behaviour, not accounting for money or improperly handling it,
and not reporting on a transaction.
We cannot assist with every kind of complaint; there are some things we do not have the legal authority to
deal with.
After we review your Complaint Form, we will let you know if we are able to help.
Here is some information about other resources you can consider even if the Law Society is not able to
help you.
• If you need legal services, you need to contact a lawyer or licensed paralegal.
• If you believe the fees charged by your lawyer were too high, contact the Assessment Office of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If you believe the fees charged by your paralegal were too high,
you may wish to contact the Small Claims Court. (Currently the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court
is limited to claims of $35,000 or less.)
• In addition to making a complaint to the Law Society you may also wish to explore the availability of
other options, such as the civil and/or criminal justice system. If you believe that the lawyer or
paralegal's conduct may constitute a criminal offence, please consider reporting it to the police.
Please note that the Law Society cannot pay you money or make a lawyer or paralegal pay you money
because of a lawyer or paralegal's mistake. If you believe a lawyer or paralegal has made a mistake, you
will have to deal directly with them or you may have to sue the lawyer or paralegal. You may wish to seek
legal advice about your options.
For more information, visit the 'Public Resources' section of the Law Society website, at http://www.lso.ca.
Confidentiality
In fairness to the lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about, we will share with them some or all of the
information you give us. We may give copies of documents received from you or any other person to the
lawyer or paralegal you are complaining about. We may also need to share personal information (such as
names, addresses and telephone numbers) with the lawyer or paralegal.
Complaints and investigations are otherwise confidential unless the Law Society has begun regulatory
proceedings.
A868
0869
A869
Law Society
of Ontario
I
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-869
Barreau
de I'Ontario
What you need to do

1. Complete the Complaint Form.
when you send it.
2. Gather any documents that relate to your complaint.

Include any documents that you think will help us understand your complaint (and direct us to the
parts that you think are important). Note that we may not be able to access documents through file-
sharing services such as Google Docs, Dropbox or OneDrive.
3. Send the completed Complaint Form with copies of relevant documents (do not send originals) and
any additional details by email to comail@lso.ca or mail to:
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West Toronto ON M5H 2N6
Attention: Complaints & Compliance
What happens next?

We will promptly send you a letter to let you know we received your complaint. Your complaint is assigned
a file number, which will be indicated in the letter.
Each complaint will be carefully reviewed and assessed. For information about this process, visit our
website: https:/lwww.lso.ca/complaints.
If we cannot help with a complaint or deal with it as a professional conduct matter, we will let you know. We
will keep you informed about the status of your complaint.
Our commitment to a respectful environment

The Law Society is committed to communicating with you in a respectful, professional and civil manner.
Similarly, we expect the same courtesy from others.
We understand that the complaint process and the circumstances that give rise to complaints can be
stressful. However, we will not accept racist, discriminatory or harassing behaviour or profane
communications.
The Law Society is required by law to protect staff from harassing, discriminatory and threatening
behaviour. Please note that repeated behaviour of this kind will result in the Law Society restricting
communications or no longer communicating with you beyond advising you of the outcome of your
complaint.
Questions?
416-947-3310 or 1-800-268-7568. Please note we cannot discuss your personal situation until you have
provided your Complaint Form to us.
With very limited exceptions, you must bring your complaint to us within three years of the date the problem
occurred or the date that you became aware of it.
September 2020 Page2

A869
0870
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-870 A870
MSG 1E6
https://www.lso.ca
November 25, 2021
Sent via email only
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Rocco Galati:

Case No.: 2021-248873
Please find enclosed for your reference, a copy ofmy response to Alexandra Moore. You
Yours truly,
~,!,~o/
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A870
0871
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-871 A871
Intake & Resolution
0
393 University
MSG 1E6
November 25, 2021
Sent via email only
Alexandra Moore
Dear Alexandra Moore:

Case No.: 2021-248873
I am writing to follow-up as I had indicated to you in my email dated September 21,

2021. I have completed my review of your further complaint about Rocco Galati alleging
incivility. I have also collected information from Mr. Galati. For the reasons explained
below, the Law Society will not be taking any further action in response to your
complaint.
Reasons for Outcome
Background
Mr. Galati is a lawyer licensed by the Law Society. Mr. Galati commenced an action
against you in which he is seeking damages for, among other things, libel and slander
(defamation) for posts and statements you made about him on the internet. He is
represented by counsel in the matter. The litigation is ongoing. You have never been
Mr. Galati's client.
1. Whether Mr. Galati was uncivil towards you
Explanation
You raised concerns about Mr. Galati engaging in uncivil conduct towards you. Based on
my review, the concerns raised in your complaint arose in the context of the posts and
statements you are alleged to have made, which are currently before the Court. These
issues are, therefore, likely to be addressed and/or considered by the Court during the
litigation. In any event, you, and your counsel (if you have one) may also have the
A871
0872
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-872 A872
opportunity to raise any specific concerns you have about Mr. Galati with the Court. If
the Court makes any negative comments/findings about Mr. Galati's conduct in this
matter, you may provide the Law Society with that information as well as supporting
documentation for consideration.
Confidentiality
your complaint to the Law Society pursuant to section 49.12 of the Law Society Act and is
Outcome
Yours truly,
~d,~o/
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
cc: Rocco Galati
A872
0873
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-873 A873
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
September 11, 2021
Miko Dubiansky
MSG 1E6
Dear Mr. Dubiansky,
"Canuck Law".
I had others email and phone me to alert me to Ms. Moore's tweet. My response speaks for itself.
( clientele ).
A873
0874
2
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-874 A874
(a) A mobster;
(b) "scum";
(c) A terrorist;
(e) A fraud;
affairs;
derogatory filth.
Code charges:
(a) Criminal harassment - s. 264(2)(b);


these, I would commence action against the LSO, in the absence of an apology.
Ifl do not receive an apology from the LSO on this "complaint", which should not even have
A874
0875
3
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-875 A875
Yours very truly,

Per:

RG*sc
A875
0876
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-876 A876
v
This is Exhibit ..l) ' to the Affidavit of

A~
&« Taking Affidavits
A876
0877
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-877 A877
0
MSG 1E6
htt_ps://www.lso.ca
February 4, 2022
Sent via email only: rocco@idlrect.com
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Mr. Galati:

Case No.: 2021-257110
On August 26, 2021, the Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional Regulation
Division received a complaint from Terry Polevoy. Please find enclosed for your
reference, a copy of my response to Terry Polevoy.
I do not require a response from you at this time as this file is closed.
Yours truly,
Sharon Greene
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2296
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl. Outcome letter to complainant
A877
J
0878
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-878 A878
0 Law Society
of Ontario
Barreau
de I'Ontario
Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 1E6
https://www.lso.ca
February 4, 2022
Sent by email only: drpolevoy@yahoo.com
Terry Polevoy
13-170 University Ave W
Waterloo, ON N2L 3E9
Dear Mr. Polevoy:

Case No.: 2021-257110
I have reviewed your initial complaint, which was received by Intake & Resolution on
August 26, 2021. You subsequently sent in additional materials regarding Mr. Galati.
You expressed concerns regarding Mr. Galati's conduct in a Zoom meeting as well as in
two videos where he was speaking publicly; and his use of a form entitled "Commitment
to Retain Rocco Galati Legal Service". More recently, you stated that Mr. Galati failed to
show up in court and that he does not answer his phone.
I understand that you have no personal involvement in the events described above;
rather, you have written to the Law Society as a concerned citizen.
Th·e Law Society receives information from a number of sources, including members of
the public, the media and the courts. Law Society investigations are confidential until, or
unless, they result in a public regulatory response. Information about Law Society
regulatory action is available on the Law Society website and the Law Society Tribunal
website. ·
We appreciate you taking the time to bring this to the Law Society's attention for our
consideration.
Yours truly,
Sharon Greene
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2296
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
A878
0879
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-879 A879
This is Exhibit "•//.' to the Affidavit of

A~
&« TakingAffidavits
A879
0880
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-880 A880
MSG 1E6
htt;ps://www.Jso.ca
February 4, 2022
Sent by email only
Franca Lombardi
Dear Franca Lombardi:

Complainant: Franca Lombardi
Case No.: 2021-257446
I have reviewed your complaint email and attached video clip of Mr. Galati featured on
Bright Light News, which was received by Intake & Resolution on September 9, 2021.
I understand that you have no personal involvement in this matter; rather, you have
written to the Law Society as a concerned citizen.
The Law Society receives information from several sources, including members of the
public, the media, and the courts. Law Society investigations are confidential until, or
unless, they result in a public regulatory response. Information about Law Society
regulatory action is available on the Law Society website and the Law Society Tribunal
website.
We appreciate you taking the time to bring this to the Law Society's attention for our
consideration.
Yours truly,
~,6~7
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
c.c. Rocco Galati
A880
0881
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-881 A881
MSG 1E6
https://www.iso.ca
February 4, 2022
Sent via email only
Rocco Galati
1062 College St
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H 1A9
Dear Rocco Galati:

Complainant: Franca Lombardi
Case No.: 2021-257446
On September 9, 2021, the Intake & Resolution Department of the Professional

Regulation Division received a complaint from Franca Lombardi. Please find enclosed
for your reference, a copy of my response to Franca Lombardi.
I do not require a response from you at this time as the file is closed.
Yours truly,
~b~o/
Miko Dubiansky
Telephone: (416) 947-3300, ext. 2084
Facsimile: (416) 947-3382
Encl.
A881
0882
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-882 A882
.Jl
This is Exhibit "J"to the Affidavit of
I~If~
f\l11
~-:-'
A~ TakingAffidavits
A882
0883
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-883 A883
l 062 College Street, Lower Level
Toronto. CanadaM6H 1A9
Direct Line (416) 530-9684 Fax (416) 530-8129
September 11, 2021
Miko Dubiansky
MSG 1E6
Dear Mr. Dubiansky,
"Canuck Law".
I had others email and phone me to alert me to Ms. Moore's tweet. My response speaks for itself
(clientele).
A883
2 0884
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-884 A884
(a) A mobster;
(b) "scum";
(c) A terrorist;
(e) A fraud;
affairs;
derogatory filth.
Code charges:
(a) Criminal harassment - s. 264(2)(b );


these, I would commence action against ,the LSO, in the absence of an apology.
If I do not receive an apology from the LSO on this "complaint", which should not even have
A884
..,
.)
0885
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-885 A885
Yours very truly,

Per:
Rocco Galati, B.A., LL.B. LL.M.

RG*sc
A885
1 0886
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-886 A886
ROCCO GALATI LA\V FIRM
PROFESSIO."/AL CORPORATIOJ\
l 062 Collq~e Strec:t. Lower Level
Toronto. Crnada .\·16H lA9
1416J 530-8 \ 2CJ

Direct Linc: (-1Hi) 53U-l.J684 f-a.:,..
111
December 30 • 2020
VIA E\1Ail A~D REGULA.R J\.1AJL
Samantha Nassar
Lav-' Society of Ontario
393 Lniversit\ Avenue
Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
\15G l E6
snassarrcL!so.ca
5374
Re: CompJaint Against Rocco Galati by Lindsay H.: Case :'\To.:2020-24
\ our letter dated December
This ism)- R~ply to the individual pub! ic ··complaint"· of l\1s. Lindsay H. and
l ih. 2020.
Rule 4. l-2( l )(a) and

In ::ifollow-up email, \Vith respect to Rule 4. l-2. you clarified that I need to address
( j) of that Rule with respect to the referenced statement in your letter.
way raise any issue(sJ of
\\'hik the letter does not provide a hint as to how the st3tement could in any
tration of justice inlo disrepute'', I will
being ··false or misleading .., or "othenvise bring the adminis
respc1nd as besl as 1 can.
distilled. informational
In fact, a modicum of research would have revealed that the stmernenl is a
summary of the law in Ontario. and else\vhere.
of ··false misleading
\.Vould you pkase elucidate how the statement, un its face. raises any issue
ot·justic e into disrepute "•) Since your ktter does nvl
St3.temcnts'· or •'otherv-..·isebrings the administration
do so, I can only surmise that-it is a disconcerting assumption.
A886
2 0887
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-887 A887
® The emails of "Lindsa~· B'' attached to "complaint".
nr communicdtion \\ith her. She

I d1~ncit kno\,\ Lindsay H. l ha\"e ne\·er spnlen Lo her l1r had any contact
nt for 111) rnie\1···.
h::isne\·er been 111) client. Your letter attaches her email;; a_c;··ktter;; of complai
tu the emails \\ith respect to the R11le1·.
Hern C\ er. 1 arn at a loss as lll hll\\ l am supposed to respund
and
; incoherem and replete with cnors. unl(.iundeJ ;1ssurnptiPns. spum)us claim::-
ikr at\Jched cmai!_can:>
rrouhleson-:e allegations for the follcrn ing rcasL1ns
describes. us --an
1_a1I have neYer. nor do l nm-,·, represenUedJ Christopher Saccoccia. \\hum shi:
ernL)tionall) unstaL,Je and dangerous anti mask conspiracy theorist ..:
1-!(l\v can she

t b) HlJ\v does her personal opinion and claim regarding \1r. Saccoccia concern me·)
elting 1 And huw can it
it"
1·alsely claim that I rtpresent ;'v1r.Saccoccia without the intake process\
then he frin\arded to me for serious consideration and timely response·.'
r:al
t-::1 !-unhermore. the appallingly iniquiwus cla1111that l. as an advocate. e:,,;ecuting my proicssio
. is a preposte rous
Jutics t() my client and mcrnhers of the public am ··a threat to the public"'
Threats to the public are matters for police
allegation to put forv,ard to me for response
be pandere d tu by professi onal
investigatinn. They muc;i no! bl' made lightly. and must not
reguJatury b1Jdies.
aint"··, And then. hov-:c(,uld

How cou:d these incomprehensibk and hateful emails be deemed a --compl
of the above and the ln1pact it \VGuld
this ~-compL1jn(~ have been for\\arded tu n1c \vi1l1out considciation
hm e un: 1 .I me as 3 member. 2) my execution of rn:profcssi,,nal ob!igo.1
ions and oaths. and 3) rn::,
sen es only to support
family. due tu the stressors'' This --complaint .._ intentional!:, or unintentionally.
te hrnTen represen t cliL'lllS and do
,rnd strengthen irate inJi\ tduJ!s of society. at large. to intimida
\\]1()
\\'ith disciplin ary action for
cases they· personally ·•Jislike .. L'r --Jisagree'' \\ith. and tu threaten them
ed because she liisagn.: es or
do111gso. Clearly the ..Cl)mplainant"' seeks to see me disriarred or disciplin
respect, the LSO should be
dislil-.es my '·cJiem .. and·or their ·\.:]aims·'. Givcn this, and vvith all due
stamp for baseless. egregious and
weary of such attempts and not allow itstlf to be u:;ed as a rubber
indi\·idual members of society
malicious insults to be hurled at lcmycrs \Vho take carriage of matters that
may ha\ c personal. political, sociological or philosophical ob_jections to.
In f3c1. it is shucking that this em~til ·'complaint'· has reached the point
that I am required tu respond to
untrue '·facts .. anddisparaging
unchecked facts, and, insulting ,ntach:s on my person and profession. The
allegations \!everthele::,s. I
per'(>nal cornmems are then used as the basis of Profrss1onal !\.·1isconduct
respond as folk>\\S. as) ou require.
lhL' USA., in England. in

Lawsuits against the COVJD-19 measures have been filed in Canada. in
e been argued successfully. So
Portugal, in Austria, in RDmania, and many other jurisJictions. ~fan::, ha\
challeng e forceJ vaccim1til1n
what' 1 Wl1y is it beyond belief that an indi\idual LH organization would
no medicai treatment can he
\\ hen the Supreme Court uf Canada and /\.ppellate Couns have ruled that
s 7 ()f the Charter') At the
administered \Vithout informed, volunrnry consem, because. io dl) su, \ iulates
vexmicius is for the Cuurts to
end of the day. \-vhcther or not a properly filed legal claim is frivolous or
ory buc.ly ll is the LS()'s duty to ensure and
determine. n,Jt an iraLc indi\ idual \ ia a professional regul;:1t
A887
3 0888
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-888 A888
maintain :.iccess lo justice for inJi, iduals whu seek w file kgal cL.1im,;for trnr judiciary L,1ddjuJicak.
)
and also 10 respect the inJependence anJ rnech:i.nisms uf ,1ur legal system, regardless of hov,: lllbc\\'(1ur
consider the /is. It is nut the functi(rn c,f the LSO to have the Prokssiona l Regul:11ion
an i:1Ji\·iliuc1!111:.iy
prucess be misused to abuse lav,..ycrs d<,ing cases indi\·1Ju;.il members of the public pcrson:.illy Jislike.
nf mJny
h her folk1\\.. up email. of September 11. 21)20. --1_indsa:-, H .. purport:.; to be::speaking --011 hch3lf
:1gainst me personally as a
cuncerned citizens". Unintelligibk and rnale\u!ent accusati(1ns are made
L.m:,er J.cting fur litigants challenging the legal authority and jurisdiction (1fthe gc1\errm1c n1measures
regarding the C0\'10 pandemic. She re\ iks me orbeing a ··CO\'ID-19 denier"' and '·con::;piracy
theorist'-. I do nut k.J10v · \\'hat these terms meim, but. ir: its tone .'.lndcontent. this constitutes "'hate mail ...
...
I do not make posts on f-acebook. I am not u11 Facehook nor ha\e a facebotik account This is another
false asscrtitm.
She then contemptu(1usly accuses me LJf "n1dking more pec,ple get sick and die·· and that --1mock these
death::- anJ treats them as irre!e,·ant''. Hem can I be t\pected to respond 10 this'' It is just more hate
mongering and constitutes "hate ma.ii". I ha\e ne\t:r mocked an:,one·s de:.nh. 1·hese are nothing more
1ha11c1sdainful comments and c(rnstitute "ha:e mail'.
_-:;hefunher \Hites and accuses that. I ··encourage anti-masker;; ... i\·1) only response to this i::; that I do
nut knoVv what --ami-rnasker" means. Citizens. u11derthe !av, ha,·e a right to nut \\car a mask if
they are
exempt under the masking law, as st'l out belO\.\.
her
--L111ds3yH .. does not set out \\hat rnedicai and scientific expertise she has. or consulted. w make
anJ hc,w duties as a
cosmic, en,-cloping conclusions with respect to the science. medicine. !av,,, 111)
any
la\>v').:rare .. making people sick and killing thc>m-- Your letter does nut state \Vhether the L SO made
tu ascertain this before fc1rnarding the ··compla1nt'· hall.?-mail to me.
..:fti:::11:.;
s "\h Statement"
\1) statement that :,,ou cite arose out uf the fact th.'.ltl \\as gelling inundated v-;ith phone-call
s and emails
! bet,~ eenl.500 -1. 7()0) from people \\'ho had medical conditions exempting them from the requirement
to wear a mask but. whose legal exemption \.\•as not being respected and complied with. by business
the
o\\"ncrs. ½·bu wae acting in conlravention of the la,,.,,These individuals. ,·irtually all, asked what
simplest. ienst costly avenue of redress would be, shu'i of hiring a lawyer. and going through the:
ir1ordinate legal expenses of enforcing their right.
J\·1ystatement is ::i.ninformJtive summary of what thl.?law of masking is in ()ntariL1. and else\-\,here. and
duplicatd by various municipalities. including Toronto
4 J under
Section 2 uf Regulation 546/20 req uircs masking indoors unless the persLm is exempt under s 2(
\arious circumstances, wherein the pertinent provisions read:
2(41 The person responsible for a business or organization that is open shall ensure that an::
person in the indoor are;:i oCthe premises orthe business or organization. or in a vehicle chm
A888
4 0889
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-889 A889
is operating as pan of the business or organization, wears a rnask or face cov\:ring in a
are in the indoor
manner that covers their mouth, nose and chin during any perioJ \•.:henthey
(aJ .•
(bl
(CJ ..•
(d)
(el
(g) has a ml!dical condition that inhibits their ability ro wear a mask or face co1iering:
ce of
(h) is unable to put on or remove their mask or face cowring without the assistan
another person:
area.
( i) needs to temporarily remove their mask ur fr1ceco\'ering \Vbile in the indoor
to receive services that require the removal of their mask or face covering.
( i)
(ii) to engage in an athletic or fitness acti\'ity,

(iii) to consume food or drink or
(i\·) as may be necessary for the purposes of health and safety;
ns wirh
(j) is being accommodated in accordance \\"ith the Accessibility /tJr Onturiu
Disu/:,iiiries Acr, 2005:
(k) is being reasonably accommodated in accordance ·with the Human Rights Code: or
(1) performs work for the business or organization, is in an area that

is not accessible to
two
members of the public and is able to maintain a physical distance of at least
metres from ever) other person \vhile in the indoor area.
- Ontario Regulation 546120, pursuant to The Reopening Ontario (,4

Flexible
Response To Covid-19) Act, 2020, at paragraph 2( 4)
For greater certainty, it is not necessary for a person to present evidence

to the person
( 6)
ns set out in
responsible for a business or place that they are entitled to any of the exceptio
subsection (4).

of the Unrario Human

In addition, denial of entry, based on a medical condition, contravenes s. l
Rights Code as discrimination based on a disability. which sections reads:
A889
5 0890
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-890 A890
Services
faci]jties,
1 Every person has a right to equal treatment \•Vithrespect to services, t,;oods and
\Vithout discrir:-1ination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin,
marital
citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientalion, gender identity, gende:· expression, age,
1990. c H.19, s. l; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1 ); 2001, c. 32,
status, family status or disability R.S.O.
S. 27 (1 ); 2005, C. 5, S. 32 (1): 2012, C 7, S. l.
- Human Rights Code, R.S.0. J<J90,c. H.19, at s l
or "''uthcrwisc
Jn light of the aboH. 111) statement is not. and could not be, "false·'. ·'misleading ..
for accepting
bring the administration ofj ustice into disrepute··. 1 await) our articulated rationale
form of a ··complai nt'· for me to be required to
Lindsay H. · s hate mail and legitimizing it in the
ns
respond unJer rhreat orinvestigation. Jt 1s respectfully submitted that Intake and Resolutio
public.
should nol be so vulnerable to the temperaments and \vfoms ol- random members ol'the
clierns. if
who opine that a lawyer must not do her or his job to uphold the rule of Lrn and defend
it does not align\\ ith thtir own personal opinions. liki=s or dislikes
imo
\lvith respect. what is ··faJse'', "'misleading·· and "brings the administration of justice
and the requirement Lhal I respond formally under
disrepute" is Lindsay H. ·s "h;ne mail"' emails
threat L1f investigatiOTl'Sanction.
research, thJt ir
It is oh ious from ··my statement'', read together with ten minutes of anal) sis and
administration of justice into disrepute ··.
is neither ·'false'·. ··misleading'·, nor ··brings the
Therefore, the Rules in -1-.1-2 are not engaged b; nw statc:rnent.
• Ruic 5.6-1
,l\.1\ srntemcnt does nul engage Rule 5.6 {l) of the R.1✓ /1!.1 On the cuntnH), I ha\·e spent rny entire
e public
career I over 31 years) trying to improve the administration of justice and encourag
of litigating the most difficult of cases,
re5pect for it and the Rule of Lav,-. \1y practice consists
cd'ten successfull:v. These are often percci\'ed or label led as "'controversial cases" where
me
inJi\·iJual and random members of the public having erratic and vile reaclillllS against
to my o~,th
personally for simply doing my duly c.1sa constitutional la\vyer. prnctising according
recipient oi'
In practising law, in a manner that upholds Rule 5.6-1, I have. regrettably, been the
is not a nev,;
hate mail and subject to personal attacks c1ndthreats to my safety and my lite. This
charged pursuant to the Securi1y Certificat e
phenomenon for me v.:hen I represented clients
Code I v,,;asvirulently and
provisions of JRPA and/or the Terrorism pro\ isions of the Criminal
a "terrorist '·
invidiously slandered as a "terrorist lciw) er", a ··terrorist sympathizer" and e\ en as
citizens·, and
by rnndum individual members of the public. That l '"put the right uf terrorists over
Those \"-•ho att::ickcd me believed in
that I "defend citizenship of terrorists'' are other examples.
criticize ur challenge
the global "\var on terrorism'· and that I was not entitled. as an advocate, lL)
individuals
the government ·s law in my statemc:nts ur ple,:1ding_ on behalf vf my clients. Th~se
and racial
alleged th3t by representing my clients, and making statements regarding the racism
b security services. in this
profiling my clients were subjected to as Arabs and/or Muslims, 1
cuuntry and tlse\.-vherc, that l was ·'a threat to the public'' and the ·'security '' uf CanaJa.
A890
6 0891
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-891 A891
Olten the h:.ne-mail directed against me. S(.1rnctimcsgui::.cJ and cloaked a::.a --complaint'·. were
C,>luured with racial bias and prejudice. and ethnic :::krcot) ping. I1L)t on!~ against my raciJ:
m1nmit: clients, but also against me as their ethnic rnrnonty lawyer This is graphically
i]Justrated by the institutionaJ death threat I recei\ cd \\hile representing a Canadian citizen who
,-,as detained al Guantanamo Ba;r c,n allegation:,; 01'--terrurism'·, ,,·herein the' ··anonymous" caller
demanded I cease representing "terrorists. L1 r ynu a dead \\"OP ..
1
Re, calingly. my non-ethnic and !1Lm-racial minorit) cul leagues in the Bar, v.ho also ach ocatcd
t:111 bt:>halfo!' "tt:'rrorists suspects·' and,, i:h \,·hc1m I am v,:e\1acquainted, did /JrJ/ recei,·e the same
b3rr~1geuf hate mail or threats I his is not surprising given that many Ro) al Commissil)ns. Lhe
SCC and the LSO ha, e acknov, kdgeJ the c.,1stence of racial and ethnic bi as in tht' justice system
;:rndthe legal profession. Racial :.rndethnic minority la\\ ycrs are dispr,)purtionatcly targeted for
harsher treatmem and unbridled harassment. They face Jiscrirninalion '"'·ithin their O\Vll
pr<"1frssionand prejudice from socid) anJ its members Jt large Systemic and individual
prcjud:ce is pcrvasin·.
lt has ncit escaped me to consider ethnic malice JS a root cause of Lindsay H's hate mail.. as \\,b
the case for the anonymous bully quc1ted above I have encountered this before: "Wl10 does this
Italian la,\:'er think he is to challenge our C.1n;1Liianlaws')'". \1y suspicions arc borne out in the
current COVID context as l ha, e received hate mail \\hich is demeaning. reprehensibk and
:,,:enoph,1bic intended to intimidate me as an advocate. 1 am denominakd as a: ··scum la\Vyer·',
··mob lawyer .._ "mobster·· - alJ referring to the stcn~(1type of Italians as members of organizec
Lrimc. Thal I '"\\a.sn't e,en born in Canada·'. that I :rn1··a foreigner tr:-ing tu change laws·', and
tl1d~I .. \\ill ne\ er be ct Canadian, except in the t..:ivicsen::ic, and e\ en that is ylie::itionable"
l he ··letters of cumpbint"', emails. frnm LinJsay l ! are) et another err:.itic_ provocati,,e. h:iteful
tiraJe against me and ethnic prejudices pla:,- a rcik in ::itnding it. \\"hik I sympathise ,vith
\\ ha Lever personal angst she may have v, ith respect to the COV l D pandemic. it has nothing to do
\\ ith me as a lawyer Her redress lies elsewhere.
If own·cr. what is a nev\· phenomenon for me, is that the LSO would give credence tu the hate
and prejudice. RJtl1er th:m defending the advOL'ate for ethical!) executing his duties.lam
disheartened to learn that the LSO can be used as a vthicle for attacking a IJ.v,'yer doing hi::iiher
_1ob .As the intake c.ounscl, you failed to specify\~ hat in my '·statement" dre,,, :, ou to conclude it
tngJ.ges Rule 5 6-1 and on what basis.
Rule 7. 5-]
\Vith respect to Rulr: 7 5-1, my statement is not engaged as I have not infringed my obligations to
any client. the Courts, or the administration of justice. On the contrary, my statement is in
furtherance of the administration ofjustice c1sit impacts the most, ulnerable segments of the
public, being the disabled. and it is with respect lo constitutional!; clnd quasi-constitutionally
u,trenched human rights !'v1oreu\er, it is Ill furthnance ut" the L:1\,·ss cnacteJ b) the Ontario
Legislature under U. Reg. 546120, as set out abovi.:, as ,,.,,ellc1sulher Provinces in their masking
exemptions and under Human Rights (.'oJt's
A891
7 0892
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-892 A892
0
Rule 5.1-1: Lawyt>r as AdYocate
In ck)sing. as 3 former ekc1eJ Bencher. I completely unJerstand your role in tl1e La\,\ Society's
rrutccLion (1f the ··public intcre:;f· I know that your job is nut any cas:- one and;, our work-load
is hca,·:;,·. Howl'\"c:r. with the utnwst respect, this '"curnplaint .. was nut diligently. or competent!:,
\ cued. examined nr re::;carched before being passed on to a member for respnnse. l 1nfonunmcl:,.
it could cnnstitute institutional ··rubber stamping•· of hate mail and prejudice by disgruntkd and
random indi,iduals. It rnuld et!so encuur:.i.ge LhcpwliCer~niun of hate-mail and retaliatury
\ mdicti, e --cl1mplaints·· agains1. lav,:yers.
For example. in the past tlm:e days it has been brought tl) my attention that a Defendant i11 an
action for defamation that l filed on behalf of a client has posted similarly outrageous and\ ile
\;.,'hich he nut only
t\,\ ittcr po;;ts solely ()n the hasi;; tif me representing d client o, er an issue (111
disagrees. but is a named pan:-. l attach his posts l\otwithstanding his capacity a5 J 111cd1cal
JuctL1r these c1 utrageuu:; statements speaK for themscl\eS. Apart from buldiy slo.tin~ Lhat I du noi
ha\C a right t,1 taki..'certain cases. a response lo his t\\ects 13bels all LnV),L'r:;who take cases with
\-Yhid1they disagree ··Jomeslic terrorists''. ln hist weets he speci ficai I:, references :,LlU, \'1::i.
Samantha \:ci::;ser. \\'ilh )1..,uraddress. email and phone CLlordinates and pl1inteJ!y enc,:iurnges
other:; to !'ilc lSO complainb against me. referring to a LSO complaint number \\ith which I am
nut acquainted. I Ju not and v- i 11111::·,er, accept this t:,pe of hate-maiL and neither should LhcLaw
Society. I \.,:ill not tolerate beitg asked to respond Lo such hate mail in the future. I \.vtll seek
redress from the Courts
The inlake J}rocess rnust act. ln pL11-l. J..S a ga1ekec-pertv sift through spt.iriousand 1nisdircctcd
rclnting:; and scandalou::; alkgations (intended to intimidate and harass lawyers fn,m acling as
i.lLhocate). frum that of legitimate complaints rhis is not the first failure \\'ithin the CO\"ID
litigation comcxt Prior tu your le!ter of December 17. 202U. l rccei\ed currespondence. 3.]sn
from y,,u_ regarding C(lrnpletely unsubstantimed anJ. rn ealingl), anonymous "'cornplain:s ..
mdJc b) ··r1111 Bw!t'n·· f query \,:ho arc !isl the ''Tl1 o Bu!r.:rs''' 1
f \\uuld remind )LlU of Rule 5.1-1 -.,hich reaJs:.
5.1-J 11-hen acti11g a., an advocate, a !trnJ·er shall represent the client re.rnlute~l'
\'-:thin the LmitS of the l:.rn \\ hik tre,Jtin~ th.: Lribun.tl v,:ith
~tnd liu11(1lir,il,l:-,
c:i.ndour. L1;rni_:s~.cuurtcs:,. ~mJ 1·e:,;pecl.
:\nd :he first cornrncntar) tu that Ruk which reads .md dictates that:
[ 1J Roll' in Adversarial Proceedings - In advasarial proceedings, th!! lmt'.)'er

hm a du~v to the client to raise fearlessly e1·e1:vissue, adl'ance ei·ery argument
and ask eve,T question, however distasteful, tlwt the latt-ya thinks· will help the
client',; case and to endea1 our to obtain for the client the benefit of el'(!Y_I'
1
remedr awl defence ,wthorized by law. The lawyer must di::;t:har~e this Juty hy
J"airdnd honourabk means. withuut iikgality and in ..1 m:111nerthut is cunsisic:nt
wi1h the lawyer·~ dut) tt1 treat the tribunal 1vith canJ()Ur. fairness. C\)ltrtesy ctnJ
respect a11J in ;1 Wil)' thm prnrnntcs the panies' right to c1 fair hc:,ring in which
A892
8
0893
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-893 A893
_justice can be done. f\.laintaining Jignit:'.,. Jecunm, anJ CL~unes) in lhc C()Ur1rncll,l
unless orJc'r i~ rnainuineJ. rig.ills cannot be
i-, nnt an empty formJ.lit'.' hc::cau.,.;e.
prutecte-J
The LSO is tasked with protection of the public. but also of the legal profession and its members.
re garJless uf the dient or case. Rule 5. l -1 is a cornerstone for Canada's justice system. The
intake counsel's job is to not only protect the public. but also protect the profession from the
public's vile. unjustified, false. and scandalous attack 1--111lmvyers. \J\.hichis not in concert vvith
the ··public interest". It is not in your jurisdiction and mandate to jump on the prowrbial ·'hate
bandv,;agon·'.
In another context. outside of a Regulatory complaint. ··Lindsay H ., would have been

successfully sued for defamation for her comments. and not be the assumptive springboard from
which to catapult an unsubstantiated query sent to me for response Lindsay H. · s comments and
complaints are unfoundedly outrageous and hateful Yet. regrettcibly, you ac1ed on them
Given all of the 3bove. l am entitled to an apolog).
Yours \·ery trul:,.

ROCCO G.\LA TI LA Vv'flRJ'vf PROFESSIONAL CORPORA TTO\:
Per:
Rocco Galati ri .,. LLB LL M

RG*bl
A893
0894
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-894 A894
This is Exhibit "f},to the Affidavit of

f\ll,I~~ f ~
~-=-'
A894
0895
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-895 A895
Our Right Our Choice Our Future

Notre drolt Notre choix Notre avenir
June 28, 2022
To the Attention of:
Sharon Greene
Intake and Resolution Council
Re: Case# 2022-261151
Dear Ms. Greene:
I am responding to the complaint to the Law Society of Ontario filed by Ms. Donna Toews on
May 19, 2022, against Mr. Galati.
• I am the President of Vaccine Choice Canada and am responding on behalf of the Board of
· Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada.
Mr. Rocco Galati has been retained by Vaccine Choice Canada to provide legal counsel,
opinions, advice and litigation on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada. We have had a solicitor-
client relationship with Mr. Galati since 2015.
Mr. Galati is retained by, and accountable to, the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada.
Mr. Galati and the Board of Directors meet regularly to discuss matters pertinent to Vaccine
Choice Canada and to our litigation efforts in Ontario.
I can confirm that Ms. Dawna Toews did make a $1,000.00 (one thousand) donation to Vaccine
Choice Canada on or about June 19, 2020 and requested that the funds be directed to our legal
efforts.
On June 22, 2020 Ms. Toews requested that we add a membership to her file. Unfortunately,
due to volunteer error, Dawna Toews was not registered as a member of VCC and would not
have received our weekly "Choice Insider", invitations to regional and national zoom calls, and
special meetings for VCC members. As a result, Ms. Toews did not receive or make payment to
an annual invoice for her membership dues.
A895
Case# 2022-261151 1
0896
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-896 A896
No further correspondence was received from Ms. Toews until December 20, 2021. In the
December 20, 2021 email message, Ms. Toews asked- "Can you tell me if anything came of this
lawsuit? Did the courts see this yet?"
A response was filed by one of our intake volunteers. The volunteer provided Ms. Toews with
her personal opinion on the status of the legal proceedings. This was an error. This response
was not approved by or vetted by the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada and does
not represent the position of Vaccine Choice Canada.
This is the full extent of our correspondence with Ms. Toews to date.
I would like to point out that:
a. At no time did Dawna Toews indicate that she was not receiving membership
information from VCC.
b. At no time did Dawna Toews request further updates on the legal proceedings initiated
by VCC before or following her email of December 20, 2021.
c. At no time did Dawna Toews indicate displeasure with VCC.
d. At no time did Dawna Toews request a return of her donation.
Thus, it was a surprise to learn in the complaint filing that Ms. Donna Toews was contacted by
someone involved with Kip Warner's legal action on December 21, 2021 who stated - "Thank
you for agreeing to help us help you recover your donor funds from Roccq."
To be clear, Mr. Galati never received any donor funds directly on behalf of VCC, nor was he
ever privy nor had any involvement in VCC fundraising. He has no role in VCC except as our
independent legal counsel on certain matters.
It would appear Mr. Kip Warner is involved in some kind of action to recover funds donated to
Vaccine Choice Canada. If this is in fact the case, it would have been more appropriate to direct
the request to Vaccine Choice Canada to whom the funds were donated.
It is interesting to note that Donna Toews expressed her wish to remain anonymous in this
complaint against Mr. Galati.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada I wish to declare that:
a. Mr. Galati was retained by, and acts on the instructions of the Board of Directors of
Vaccine Choice Canada. Thus, Mr. Galati is accountable only to the Board of Directors of
Vaccine Choice Canada.
b. The Board of Directors and Mr. Galati meet regularly to discuss the status of the legal
proceedings and our strategy.
c. We have full confidence in Mr. Galati.
A896
Case# 2022-261151 2
0897
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-897 A897
d. Vaccine Choice Canada has no intention of revealing our legal strategy to the public,
regardless whether an individual is a donor.
e. Mr. Galati is not at liberty to disclose or violate our solicitor-client relationship either
with the Law Society of Ontario or any other party.
f. Mr. Galati is not involved in our fund raising efforts, nor has access to any information
pertaining to our donors. Thus, Mr. Galati is not in a position to speak to the amount of
monies raised through donations, nor in what form these monies have been received
and/or spent.
g. We have concerns as to the intentions of Mr. Warner in this matter, as well as the
motives of Ms. Toews.
On June 17, 20211 participated in a 90 zoom meeting with Mr. Warner and Mr. Vlad Sobolev at
the request of Mr. Sobolev. In the meeting Mr. Warner made a number of statements that
were incorrect about VCC's and Action4Canada's legal actions.
Mr. Warner was of the opinion that because his group had filed legal action in BC that
Action4Canada could not file legal action in BC and thus, Action4Canada would be required to
return all donated funds back to donors. I explained to Mr. Warner that he was mistaken in this
opinion.
It appears that Mr. Warner is endeavoring to undermine confidence in the legal actions of
Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada, and moreover wrongfully impugn the integrity of
our legal counsel Mr. Galati and his firm.
If you require any further information, feel free to contact me at

ted@vacci n echoicecanada.com.
Sincerely,
. ~
Ted Kuntz, President
A897
Case# 2022-261151 3
0898
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-898 A898
This is Exhibit 'YX,to the Affidavit of

A~
A898
3/13/23, 8:16 PM The lawyer who challenged the Harper government and won - The Globe and Mail
0899
THE LUNCH
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-899 A899
The lawyer who challenged the Harper government and
won
SEAN FINE > JUSTICEWRITER
PUBLISHEDAUGUST22, 2014
This article was published more than 8 years ago. Some information may no longer be current.
Rocco Galati
RACHELIDZERDA/THEGLOBEAND MAIL
Wherever I've gone this year in Canada, lawyers are talking about Rocco Galati. What's Rocco going
to do next? If the Prime Minister tries any funny business with the courts, Rocco will stop him. Rocco
won't sit by ...
It's as if Mr. Galati, the Toronto lawyer who brought grief to the Conservative government, has been_
designated the Unofficial Opposition. He's the first person ever to challenge a Prime Minister's
appointment of a Supreme Court judge. And he won. All the resources Stephen Harper and his
government could bring to bear, and this upstart spending $42,000 of his own money won the case.
And he's not done. A899
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rocco-galati-is-always-fighting-for-long-shots/article2017.6185/?page=all 1/6
0900
Canada's Unofficial Opposition is eating a tuna salad, washed down with red wine (a Negroamaro,
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-900 A900
an earthy wine from Friuli), at an outdoor patio on College Street in Toronto's Little Italy, just down
the street from the three-storey house he has turned into an office for his small law firm.
The government never thought someone named Galati could defeat it, he says.
"They were so arrogant in assuming that an argument from me couldn't win or shouldn't win,
because we live in a tribal culture. You're only an expert if you're anglo or francophone .... That's
been made clear to me for 26 years. I'd put my win ratio in impossible cases up against anybody's,
yet I'm still ridiculed when I bring a challenge. How does that work?"
But the real question is - why him? Why not someone else in this country of lawyers?
Mr. Galati and I have a lot to talk about. We have so much to talk about that the batteries in my tape
recorder run out of juice. Mr. Galati, an amiable provocateur, goes across the street to buy me new
ones.
Snazzy in a beige linen suit with a striped shirt and grey-patterned tie (only the open-toed sandals
hint at non-conformity), the 55-year-old comes from a world far from Ottawa's Wellington Street,
where the Supreme Court and the Parliament buildings sit in a majestic row. He and his 12 siblings
were born in Calabria, in southern Italy. Five of them died in early childhood. His father, a farmer,
was court-martialled twice and interned because he didn't want to fight in Mussolini's army.
"He always told me the fascists don't come marching in overnight. It's a slow march."
His father came to Toronto in 1965, found work in construction, and brought the family over a year
later. Only three of the children received any formal education, Mr. Galati says. But that includes a
brother who, though he had only two years of public schooling, went to the University of Toronto as
a mature student and became a lawyer.
"Because of my sense of history, I don't like the idea of injustice. Growing up in Toronto was no
picnic in the sixties and seventies. It was a very brutal, racist environment. The police were enforcing
wartime regulations. On College Street, up until Trudeau rewrote the loitering laws, more than two
Italian males could not congregate. They'd get billy-sticked home by the police."
Although he is Catholic, he says his family was Jewish, on both sides, at one time. (When I first met
him at his office, he showed me his late grandfather's Argentine identification document from 1918,
framed on the wall. It has a Star of David on it.) He says most people don't realize how many Jews
(and Muslims) used to live in Calabria, or about the violence used to kill or convert them in previous
centuries. It's a recurrent theme of his - the loss of historical memory.
A900
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rocco-galati-is-always-fighting-for-long-shots/article20176185/?page=all 2/6
0901
A fighter for long shots, he was a long shot himself. He says he was once assessed in school as
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-901 A901
intellectually handicapped, and it was only through the efforts of an English teacher at his technical
high school, who recognized his perceptiveness in Shakespeare studies, that he was able to go to an
academic school for Grade 13.
Bob Dylan saved him from life as an electroplater. He quit his job to move to Montreal to learn to
read the poet Arthur Rimbaud in French; he came to Rimbaud knowing that he had influenced Bob
Dylan.
"He was not very popular in his early years. That was to my liking - this guy stands on what he
believes."
Once again, his future (and Canada's) was altered by the kindness of a teacher. He enrolled in non-
credit courses in poetry at McGillUniversity, and a teacher told him he'd written a publishable poem,
and saw to it that McGill accept him as a full-time student. Despite an A- average, journalism schools
and teachers' colleges rejected him - he still wonders if it was because of his name.
At York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, he learned that his love of Bob Dylan
stood him in good stead: Constitutional law was like poetry.
"I had a professor at Osgoode, a very bright man, Graham Parker, who I took courses on statutory
interpretation from. He said to me, 'Do you read or write poetry?' I said, 'Yeah, I do both.' He said, 'I
can tell. Reading statutes is as difficult as reading poetry."'
He started his law career by working for - of all places - the federal Justice Department. "It seemed
the best place for me to get to court frequently. 11 But he owed $122,000 in bank and student loans,
and the interest rate was 22 per cent; his salary was $29,000. If not for his financial need, "I might
have stayed, because I enjoyed the kind of law they did.''
On Sept. 30 last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his choice for a Quebec vacancy on
the Supreme Court: Justice Marc Nadon of the Federal Court of Appeal. It was an unusual choice in
several respects: He was semi-retired; he was a maritime law specialist (hardly a big need on the
court); and he was little-known.
The Canadian legal community raised hardly a peep.
But in early October, Mr. Galati stepped in. He filed a lawsuit in Federal Court, saying the choice was
illegal under the Supreme Court Act, which governs appointments. Federal Court judges can't be
appointed for any of the three spots reserved for Quebec judges, he said.
There was nothing personal in it, he says. A901
https ://www.theg lobe and mail. com/re port-on-business/careers/ ca reers-I ead e rsh i p/rocco-g alati-i s-always-fighti ng-for-I ong-shots/a rti cle20176185/?page=a II 3/6
0902
"In fact, I like Justice Nadon. I was tormented by bringing the challenge. I thought he was a good
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-902 A902
judge. I got along with him. That's not the point. If it was my father, I would have brought the
challenge."
Justice Nadon immediately stepped aside, pending a resolution of Mr. Galati's lawsuit. Then,
Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution opposing the appointment. Prime
Minister Harper then asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether it was legal.
So why didn't anyone else challenge the appointment? "Look," Mr. Galati says, "there are about
300,000 lawyers in Canada. I think 299,995 think they're all going to the Supreme Court and they
don't want to blow their chances. They're worried about their reputation."
Few thought he had a chance to win. "Most people in the legal establishment thought his case was
frivolous," University of Montreal law professor Paul Daly says.
Fighting the odds is nothing new for Mr. Galati. Early in his career he argued 27 separate times in
Federal Court that government officials need to provide reasons for their decisions. Finally, in Baker
v. Canada, a 1999 deportation case on which he was co-counsel with Roger Rowe, representing a
Jamaican immigrant mother, he won his point at the Supreme Court.
"It was epoch-making," Prof. Daly said. "Your liberty and sometimes your life are really in the hands
of a government official. Because of Baker, the government has to give reasons for finding against
you."
In the Nadon case, he had a secret advantage: he knew the Supreme Court Act inside and out from
another improbable case.
Four years ago, he learned that a judge hearing a constitutional challenge of his was 77 - two years
past retirement age - and that the chief justice could appoint a retired "deputy judge" if he needed
someone to hear a case. The Federal Court had followed the practice since its creation in 1970, and a
predecessor court since 1927. In 80 years, no one had challenged the practice. Mr. Galati did, in Felipa
v. Canada, and won.
We are having a good laugh. In an earlier story, I somehow managed to slip his quote about the
Harper government enjoying "urinating on the Constitution" past my editors. "I say that all the
time," he tells me. "You're the first guy who put that in."
It is hard to say what is more fun to talk to Mr. Galati about - the personal or political. He's what my
mother would call a character.His cellphone voice mail is a Miranda warning: "Ifyou're anyone else
except Miranda, please do not leave a message." Miranda is his daughter who is away at university in
A902
https:/ /www. theglobeand mail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rocco-galati-is-always-fighting-for-long-shots/article20176185/?page=all 4/6

The lawyer who challenged the Harper government and won - The Globe and Mail
0903
3/13/23, 8:16 PM
the United States. (Mr. Galati also has twin four-year-old boys from his second marriage; Miranda is
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-903 A903
from his first.)
Few outside of legal circles realize the lasting importance of the Nadon case. The Supreme Court gave
itself the protection of the Constitution; from here on in, any changes to its composition will require
provincial consent. On Mr. Galati's back, the court insulated itself from tampering.
Although he calls that "a big win," he still describes the ruling as a disappointment. "The way they
politically split it is inconsistent and illogical." (The court said Federal Court judges can be named to
the six non-Quebec spots on the Supreme Court.)
It's news to him that lawyers everywhere are talking about him. "That's strange," he says. The case
hasn't changed his life, "except taking away time from my family and from my billable hours."
He makes his money from doing tax law, not constitutional cases.
And now he has launched a challenge to another of the Harper government's judicial appointments
- that of Federal Court of Appeal Justice Robert Mainville to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and any
subsequent appointment to the Supreme Court.
"The other thing I hear- 'You won the Nadon reference, but that's because nobody likes Nadon;
everyone likes Mainville.' What kind of kindergarten debate is that, really? That's just stupid. Liking
or not liking has nothing to do with it."
Rain has begun to fall, more on me than on him. Mr. Galati is in fine form, still going strong after two
hours, the tuna long since finished. It is a good thing he picked up those batteries.
"I hear, 'Mr. Justice Mainville wanted a transfer to Montreal for personal reasons.' I sympathize. Are
they going to bend the Constitution for me? Should we bend the Constitution for any individual?
Well, no. If we do, we're back into l'etat, c'est moi. We're back to the divine right of kings, Louis XIV
and the Versailles culture.
"This is why stacking of the courts is a very serious concern. There's only one difference between a
dictatorship and a constitutional monarchy: a fair and independent judiciary standing between the
authority of the state and the rights of the citizen."
I tell him I need to pay him for the batteries so no one can accuse me of anything. I give him $5.
"Yeah, okay," he says. "I'm going to give you $1.50 back because as a lawyer I won't be bribed either."
And he does.
A903
https ://www. theg lobe and mail. com/report-on-business/careers/ ca reers-I ead e rsh i p/rocco-ga Iati-i s-a lways-fighti ng-for-I ong-sh ots/a rticle20176185/? page=all 5/6
In his own words:

0904
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-904 A904
Rocco Galati on the business of law:
"IfI go broke, I'm no good to anybody. A lot of good lawyers who do a lot of good work lose sight of
the business side and they go under."
On the source of his sharp tongue:
"It comes from my mother. She had a great, quick wit and was very quick with a metaphor.
Everything that came out of her mouth was original and often funny."
On his previous work representing suspected terrorists:
I saw it as the civil rights issue of the day."
On his chances of winning his challenge, filed in Federal Court, to the appointment of
Federal Court of Appeal Justice Robert Mainville to the Quebec Court of Appeal:
1
"The Federal Court, because they're human beings, is going to be resistant to the idea because he s
one of their own. You know that beautiful line in O Brother, Where Art Thou?where the evil sheriff
is the personification of the devil, and says The law is a human institution?' Therein lies the historic,
1
ageless tension between the rule of law and human capriciousness and tribal impulses."
On whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal, if the Mainville case goes that far:
"What's in it for the Supreme Court at this point? Nothing, they've constitutionalized their status.
Will they care about one judge? Maybe not. There are a lot of variables that have nothing to do with
the law, but with human frailties and dysfunction and a non-adherence to the idea of law."
Sign up for the Careers Newsletter

Get ahead in your career with guidance and tips on career management, leadership, business education and more.
REGISTERTO SIGN UP
A904
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/rocco-galati-is-always-fighting-for-long-shots/article20176185/?page=all 6/6
0905
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-905 A905
~
This is Exhibit "~ ' to the Affidavit of
r mg 1 av1ts
A905
0906
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-906 A906
A906
0907
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-907 A907
Vladislav Freedom
This is Who Tanya Gaw &
"number1 11 RG have been
bushing non stop ...
#TruthAlwaysPrevails
#EliteFreedomClub is going
down like I said beforet.22.!!
---
, ....c~,.,,n
~•r:Mn
=•;:.:-o :z--: ':':."::_-:-

.=,..::._-:=-t:..-=:~
-,
_
-!
....... ~,.,__
1m Like Reply
A907
0908
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-908 A908
A908
0909
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-909 A909
A909
November 23, 2021 0910
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-910 12:57 PM A910
,.a Vladislav Sobolev is u feeling •••

'WI determined with Yvonne Sunshiney
Coelho and 97 others.
10m ·0
VANCOUVER WWR DOES NOT I BELONG TO
Danielle Tanya @Odessa #DATO - ITS
FREEDOM MOVEMENT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE
AND EVERYTHING AVAILABLE & GOING ON
MUST BE DISCUSSED & PRESENTED TO THE
PEOPLE - what we have NOW are selected same
speakers pushing same over & over again - and
legitimate BC lawsuit www.sueBonnie.ca has been
censored & all my initiatives & Chris Sky
UNITED NON COMPLIANCE ♦ message are
heavily censored - so if you can't see the same
actions we are opposing from GUV & elites - WE
HAVE WITHIN OUR OWN FREEDOM MOVEMENT -
that's on you - so that's why we are exposing all
these & taking stand
#FreedomWontBeTrademarked #EliteFreedomClub
WON'T BE TOLERATED NOT ON MY & MANY
OTHERS WATCH #SmallMobOverElites OUT &
WITHIN #FreedomlsEssential #DavidOverGoliath
Ca11adian Society r-,1

Advancen1e11t of scWft,
A910
0911
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-911 A911
A911
0912
h Sharer
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-912 A912
Yvonne Sunshiney Coelho
Been doing what I could to expose since
JULY 2021 Starting with a few questions
re Rocco. Then standing up to
censorship and division from FRW since
sept 2021.
3d Like Reply 200
Corrina Conlan
Yeah.. ego's
3d Like Reply
Brian Paul
Corrina, yeah we all have egos but its
when they inflate, they can cloud
judgement.
3d Like Reply
\ Write a reply ...
Don Smith
Yvonne i am control op wow I'll see ya
tom morrow
3d Like Reply 1-
b Sharer
They block everyone.
3d Like Reply
• A912
0913
< Brian's post ... Q. A913
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-913
It Sharer
Where they kept some ... they kept more
All cash zero transparency You know it.
3d Like Reply
James Davison
Monica spoke there with you you did
great
3d Like Reply
It Sharer
Brian was 1 million collected for Rocco's
be case
3d Like Reply
8 Brian Paul
Yvonne, my guestimate is there has
been a million dollars raised in BC
over the past two years all round yet
we are no where .....my understanding
is it was the 400K to get it started and
then who knows how much else has
been paid? .....Ive also seen other
organizations with billings to Rocco
with little or no leger or details? Like
nearly 10K....
3d Like Reply
0 Write a reply ...
Write a comment. ..
bI
Home Marketplace Groups Pages Notifications Menu
A913
0914
9:33 '-, I 1 :1
l
--□
,I
-• I
A914
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-914
< Brian's post
Raoul Emile
Birds of a fleather flock together. It's no
accident that all these people are so
closely aligned.
1d Like Reply 2 ()
Meleny Carnduff
Thank you for your transparency. I had
been wondering about these ladies and
you just confirmed. Actions speak louder
than words.
1d Like Reply
b Sharer
Meleny Carnduff they do not promote
others, they don't show up at other
events unless they are huge events
where they can promote themselves
or collect Funds , they stole the WWR
and made it their own platform for
perceived fame and collection of
donations, while censoring and
blocking or dismissing most boots on
the ground groups , they are NoT
inclusive , anti non compliance, go to
every extreme to block all freedom
groups from speaking at OUR WWR's
for a year. .... They harass and
intimidate people to not show up at
our events , did not OnCE promote
www.suebonnie.ca at a WWR so as
(QJ Write a comment. .. ~ Q

~
Home
~
Marketplace
@ \
Groups
jo
I
Pages
rJt
Notifications Menu
A914
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-915 A9
A9
Brian Paul was live - with Regina
0916
<
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-916
Phalange and 34 others.
••• A916
3d ·0
Sandy Nightingale
What's up with Rocco? What side is he on
2d Like Reply
b Sharer
Sandy Nightingale controlled op??
millions of dollars, filed and nothing
else. The cases are dead. And sadly
the BC one may be dismissed shortly ..
Im also a donor.
2d Like Reply
Holly Schick Beune

These are all truths that we've all
been aware of for a long time. I'm
thankful for your integrity and
courage to speak out against these
fraudulent and ill intentioned
individuals who seem to spread
underlying poison rather than love.
The jig is up!
1d Like Reply
b Sharer
Holly Schick Beune finally
1d Like Reply
Write a comment. ..
Home Watch Profile Groups Notifications Menu
A916
0917
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-917 A917
< Vladislav Freedom
~ Like CJComment ~ Share
Other posts
Vladislav Sobolev is with James •••
Loewen and 90 others.

Feb 28 · 0
0188 70 comments 19 shares
~ Like CJComment ~ Share
Richelle Feniak is with Mark •••
Friesen and 96 others.

Feb 28 · :~
~ Add Friend OMessage •••
0
Home Watch Marketplace Notifications Menu
A917
0918
9:23 A918
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-918
< Vladislav's post •••
FRI, MAR 3
Meet & Greet in
London [ INTERESTED l
Causes• 106 people
6d Like Reply 50
Guylaine Gervais
I stil I had hope for Rocco.•• ~ ~
1w Like Reply 40
, Author
Vladislav Sobolev
Guylaine Gervais unfortunately
Pierre would grow some balls"•'
before Rocco gets anything
done •••and both are destroying
any chance for us to win •••
1w Like Reply 90
4..J Michael Duboy
Vladislav Sobolev What
happened to Rocco? I know he
got really sick and then I haven't
heard much after that.
(QJ Write a comment ...

0
Home Watch Marketplace Notifications •
Menu
A918
0919
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-919 A919
< Vladislav's post

l .... -· ·- - . --
•••
I
in London
Causes · 106 p ...
6d Like Reply 50
Guylaine Gervais
I still had hope for Rocco ...
1w Like Reply 40
, Author
Vladislav Sobolev
Guylaine Gervais
unfortunately Pierre
would grow some balls
~ before Rocco gets
anything done ...and
both are destroying any
chance for us to win ...
1w Like Reply 90
@ Write a comme ... ~ @ Q

A
Home
!}9
Friends
G
Watch
ra1 ()
Marketplace Notifications Menu
A919
0920
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-920 A920
6d Like Reply
View 6 more replies ...
Write a reolv ...
Alida Hesselink
One of my biggest
disappointments is with
Rocco. Wth happened with
that guy. Hopefully those
that invested didn't get
taken in too badly ...
6d Like Reply 30
Guylaine Gervais
Alida Hesselink we lost
$1000
6d Like Reply

~
Home
!}Ji)
Friends
0
Watch
ffil
Marketplace
C>
Notifications Menu
A920
0921
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-921 A921
< .... ·- ■ ■ .::,

Vladislav's post
•• • , --· ■- --■ ■-■■ ·--- ·-
•••
STAND OUR GROUND

6d Like Reply
Ruta Volkovskis
Rocco? What happened?
Interesting, but from the
beginning I felt he may not
be on our side.
1w Like Reply
. Ava Magyar replied • 2 replies
Cindy Dunstan Bamford

I think the only way to fight
this is from within. People
need to get involved in all
levels of government.
6d Like Reply
@ Write a comme ... ~ @ ©
Home Friends Watch

m1
A921
0922
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-922 A922
Renee Fern
I am so glad I am not the
only one who thinks Rocco
is a clown .... I knew that guy
was sketchy from the get
go
6d Like Reply 500
Julia Spektor
doent look like there is s
light at the end of this
tunnel lol
6d Like Reply
Ci)Crista Fasano replied · 1 reply
Ian Eastwood
Home Friends Watch Marketplace Notifications Menu
A922
0923
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-923 A923
Peter Smith
Why is Rocco a clown? I
thought he was on our side.
3d Like Reply
Oxana Green
https://
www.instagram.com/reel/
CpOUQFmpQqg/?igshid=
Kat Kanada on
lnstagram: "Oh reall ...
instagram.com
6d Like Reply
Dejan Kasie
If you mean Rocco Galatti. ..
I watched video recently.
He was very sick,
hosoitalized and woke uo
@ Write a cornrne ... ~ @ Q
~ ~
Friends
0
Watch
raJ' D
Home
A923
0924
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-924 A924
Dejan Kasie
If you mean Rocco Galatti. ..
I watched video recently.
He was very sick,
hospitalized and woke up
paralized after induced
coma they put him into
without his consent. Long
story ...
6d Like Reply
Sherry Mccallum
Rocco? What did I miss
6d Like Reply
Alexander Zarin
Bernier rules
6d Like Reply
1'" /l9
Home Friends
0
Watch
crB D
A924
0925
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-925 A925
< _,... "" .. --•--

Vladislav's post
I
•••
:-----~-- Pass Case Struck ...

==-...:==---
canucklaw.ca
1w Like Reply 4 o~
Judy Grodsworth
Ruta Volkovskis Well we
certainly know the
courts are ALL
comprised and the
lawyers are part of the
corrupt system working
for the crown and not for
the people so ... I rest my
case!!! -~
6d Like Reply
Write a reolv ...
James Findlay
hP.inn
YP.n l Jkr::iinP.
@ Write a comme ...~ @ Q
Home Friends Watch

rat
A925
0926
Kimberly Marie Brundell A926
<
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-926
Aug 30, 2022 · 0

•••
Rob Carmichael
All of you armchair constitutional law
experts really need to just shut the
fuck up and let this take it's course.
Do you not have the capacity to
realize we went through tyranny never
before seen in this country? This fight
is new to even the best constitutional
expert in Canada. Love to see you
idiots do better. You people are no
better than those that have opposed
us in this movement with your
disgusting vitriol.
27w Like Reply
Kimberly Marie Brundell

Rob Carmichael "tyranny never seen
before". So they never taught in you
in school about residential schools,
the internment of Slavic Canadians
during WWI, the internment of
Japanese Canadians during WWII,
and the 60's scoop of indigenous
children.
27w Like Reply
Kimberly Marie Brundell

Rob Carmichael also Canada's "Top
Constitutional Lawyer" actually
practices tax law.
27w Like Reply
@ Write a comment. .. A926

0927
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-927 A927
A927
0928
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-928 A928
This is Exhibit " It.~~the Affidavit of

A~
.-< Taking Affidavits
A928
0929
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-929 A929
This is Exhibit "A" referred to in the affidavit of

Federico Fuoco affirmed before me
electronically on January 30, 2023
A commissioner f king affidavits

Amani Rauff, LSO No. 78111C
From: Federico Fuoco <federico@telus.net>

Date: August 15, 2021 at 6:27:16 PM PDT
To: rocco@idirect.com
Cc:Federico Fuoco <federico@telus.net>
Subject: Fire Productions ltd. and F2 Productions Inc
Hi Rocco,
As discussed in our conversation, I am instructing you to name Fire

Productions Ltd. and F2 Productions Inc. as plaintiffs in the action and I
further confirm that I am the sole shareholder and director of these
corporations.
Thank you,
Federico Fuoco
Sent from my iPhone
Page 1 of 1
- 1619 -
A929
0930
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-930 A930
sJIto the Affidavit of

This is Exhibit ..

A930
0931
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-931 A931
Plaintiff: Federico Fuoco Business Closure
Address:
2590 East 8th Ave
Vancouver BC V5M 1W2
Email: federico@telus.net
Phone#: 604 715-3473

,
My name is Federico Fuoco and I opened up an Italian restaurant in the heart of Little Italy in Vancouver
Supper Club, back in December 1998. It was a successful and classic dine and dance
called Federico's
it literally
restaurant. Unfortunately, due to Covid, and the ensuing government restrictions, which made
I permanent ly closed Federico's Supper Club by the end
impossible to stay in business and keep it viable,
of March 2020, after 21 and a half years in business.
family
It was sad and devastating, not only for me, but for all the staff and customers that became a second
basically overnight, by governmen t, ill advised shutdowns that forced
to me - staff that lost their livelihoods,
stores." The
some businesses to close and others deemed "essential" and allowed to stay open, like "liquor
irreparable damage and a
inconsistencies and irrational policies of all levels of government have caused
trickle down effect to the service sector, musicians, all facets of the entertainm ent industry, tourism,
suppliers, etc., not to mention the financial ruin of families and the deleterious effect on their well-being.
government
It is unconscionable how many people have been unnecessarily ruined by the actions of inept
with the businesses affected by their Inexplicabl e shutdowns.
policies, and without meaningful consultation
service business called Gusto in Olympic Village in Vancouve r, and the
In fact, I own another food
governmen t measures are making it very difficult to stay afloat. Everything from limited seating to
restrictive
four weeks. Governme nt agencies like WCB and
mask mandates have caused a dip in my sales in the last
Vancouver Coastal Health have become harassers when they come to Gusto or call me after each
anonymous Covid-shamer's complaint. It's disgusting and it's gone too far.
knows how
For example, one of the restrictions is alcohol service has to end at 10:00 pm. I guess the virus
to tell time and that it will infect people after 10:00 pm, not before.
when
Another ridiculous mandate is that people have to wear masks in a restaurant if they're standing,
but when sitting down, the masks can come come off. I
walking to a table and when walking to a restroom,
guess the virus can distinguish between people sitting down and those standing up.
table. I
Another example of insane government policies is that you can only seat up to six people at a
are seven people at a table then it can attack, and it can also
guess the virus can count and if there
distinguish whether or not the people at the table are related.
Tam
I can go on and on with government irregularities and inconsistencies, like Doctors Henry and
don't work and aren't sanitary, to all of a sudden making them mandatory !
adamantly insisting that masks
that one of the main doctors at Vancouver Coastal admitted to me on September 19, 2020 that
Even the fact
even higher,
there are at least 20% false positives when they conduct Covid tests. I believe that number is
but the fact that she admitted to me that there are false positives was a huge admission.
Covid
An even more significant admission of government policy failure, in dealing with the so-called
pandemic, was made by Dr. Bonnie Henry on l\ovember 29, 2020 when she said, (after a rise in
the last
cases), ..."this means that things that were safe, using the guidelines that we have developed over
other words, nothing that she and the governmen t have
10 months, are no longer in that safe zone." In
and
implemented in the last 10 months has worked. They caused and continue to cause so much pain
for businesses , not to mention the pain and suffering they're inflicting on families that can't see
devastation
their loved ones in care homes, etc.
ineptitude. I
Th~se government officials need to be held accountable for their destructive policies and their
A931
0932
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-932 A932
nt officials to
will do whatever I can and be of any help to bring these so called "experts" and governme
account.
Thank you,
Federico Fuoco
A932
0933
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-933 A933
Plaintiff- Federico Fuoco Additional Information - Restaurant Closure
April 7, 2021
Address:
2590 East 8th Ave
Phone#: 604 715-3473
On March 29, 2021 BC's Health Officer, Bonnie Henry, announced that all restaurants must close their
indoor services effective midnight next day, March30, 2021. Take-out and outdoor services would be
"permitted". This announcement was made without consulting restaurateurs, without any prior warning,
without any transparency on presenting evidence and proof that restaurants were the cause of any
outbreaks. The utter disrespect and lack of courtesy for the restaurant industry by the Government and
Health Officer, especially in light of the same tactic of last-minute decision on cutting liquor service after
8:00 pm on New Year's Eve, is astounding and insulting. Restaurant owners had spent thousands of
dollars on food in preparation for the upcoming Easter long weekend celebrations. Gusto Restaurant was
one affected by this decision.
Henry's announcement created a response of overwhelming emotion, as I had already lost one restaurant
due to last year's lockdowns. I was filled with concern for my staff and the injustice and inequity of it all.
My initial response was to stay open and not comply with the Order because I had done everything the
government had asked in the previous health order ...masks, plexiglass, social distancing, hand sanitizer,
and limited seating .. And in the end ...for what? Only to be told that I would need to shut down indoor dining
for 3 weeks because the PHO claimed that restaurants were the cause of spreading the virus. Not Costco,
not the liquor stores, not Walmart, not shopping malls ...but restaurants. There is no evidence to support
Henry's claims, and yet restaurants are being given no recourse other than to comply or be shut down.
I briefly challenged the Orders only to be swiftly met with a Business Closure Order from Vancouver
Coastal Health on Thursday April 1, 2021, around 5:49 pm. The Closure order was given, even though I
only had two people drinking tea indoors. Instead of giving me a warning, the health inspector (Greg
Adamson) gave me a harsh Closure Order.
I then decided to comply with the Draconian "circuit breaker" Order and not allow indoor dining. I was
closed on Good Friday, as I do every year in observance of the reverent day. I opened on Saturday April 3,
2021, complying with the latest health Order, but in contravention of the Closure Order.
I closed on Easter Sunday, again in observance of the Holy Day. At 1:00 am Monday April 5, 2021, a City
inspector duct taped a Business Licence Suspension, along with the Closure Order, on my front glass door
of Gusto. The business licence suspension is in effect until at least April 20, 2021.
The next day, Tuesday April 6, 2021, I received a Liquor Licence suspension, because, "an establishment
cannot have a liquor licence without a valid business licence in place."
These disproportionate and extreme measures were placed on my establishment, even though I hold valid
business and liquor licences that I've paid thousands for the year. I asked the Vancouver Chief Licence
inspector, Kathryn Holm, on Tuesday April 6, 2021, if the suspension could be reduced and allow me to
open before April 20th, and she flatly refused. In fact, she said that she could arbitrarily extend the
suspension indefinitely. She said that only City Council can override her decision. How does one
bureaucrat wield so much power?
I have always put the safety and well-being of my staff and customers first, but I also believe it is important
to expose the inequity and inconsistency of an Order which severely penalizes one group while making
A933
0934
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-934 -2- A934
irrational exemptions for others, such as BC Ferries' indoor dining remaining open, indoor wine tasting at
wineries (which Bonnie Henry is an investor in 'Clos Du Soleil Winery' - "conflict of interest"), as well as
completely enclosed patios. The discrepancies, inconsistencies and sheer hypocrisy of the latest Order are
unjust!
This will be the final nail in the coffin for many restaurants who are hanging on by a thread.
I have a small patio area, but restaurants without patio space will likely not make it through this.
What can be done about the harsh and unfair treatment that I am getting by the provincial politicians like
Solicitor General Mike Farnworth and Adrian Dix, bureaucrat Bonnie Henry, Vancouver mayor Kennedy
Stewart and bureaucrats Kathryn Holm and Greg Adamson? How can we hold these people to account for
going after small businesses, like mine, in order to fulfil a vendetta and make an example of me, to others,
who would dare question their irrational, unjust and Draconian health orders without any science, proof,
and evidence to back them up?
Public officials should serve the public not rule the public!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Federico
A934
0935
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-935 A935
TAB 3
A935
0936
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-936 A936
ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALA TI
Plaintiff
- and-

SOCIETY FOR THE ADV AN CEMENT OF SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
("CSAPP"), DEE GANDHI, JANES AND JOHNS DOE
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, TANYA GAW, of the City of Surrey, in the province of British Columbia, HEREBY SWEAR
AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I reside in the City of Surrey, British Columbia with my elderly mother, who is in my
care.
2. In August of 2019 I founded "Action4Canada'', a grassroots organization centred in
British Columbia. The activities of Action4Canada are in direct response to government
legislation that undermines Canada's Constitution, including the Charter, and Canadian
democratic institutions and values.
3. I am the President of Action4Canada.
4. Action4Canada is one of the plaintiffs in a Constitutional challenge (Civil Litigation)
against the BC and Federal Government.
5. Mr. Rocco Galati is representing Action4Canada and other Plaintiffs in this
Constitutional challenge on a fee for service basis.
A936
0937
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-937 2 A937
6. In a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario against Mr. Galati, Ms. Toews made a claim
that $3.5 million dollars has been raised and questions the management of the funds.
However, I have no knowledge of such funds being raised. She gives no source nor
particulars for this assertion.
7. Rocco's rate was in line with multiple other quotes I received when we were sourcing a
lawyer for a Constitutional challenge in 2020.
8. Rocco made no representation to donors on behalf of Action4Canada and I object to
anyone providing third parties with Action4Canada's private information. This includes
the Law Society. In my view, the solicitor-client privilege is a sacred agreement which
cannot be violated. To be clear. I do not waive my, or Action4Canada's solicitor-client
privilege with respect to this motion nor my affidavit
9. Mr. Galati acts under the instruction of Action4Canada's board.
10. Mr. Galati has no role in Action4Canada except to act as independent legal counsel for
us. He is not privy to our fundraising efforts, how much monies are collected, from
whom, nor how any of these monies are spent. He is paid by Action4Canada on a fee for
legal service basis. He does not engage with nor make any representations to our donors.
l l. Kipling ("Kip") Warner has a history of attempting to create doubt about the integrity of
Action4Canada's case and has consistently made defamatory and libelous statements
publicly. on social media, and to Independent reporters, about Mr. Galati, myself and
Action4Canada. Mr. Warner's actions have caused fear, uncertainty, and a lack of
confidence in the legitimacy of our case and the ability of Rocco Galati to oversee our
case. Mr. Warner has interfered with Action4Canada's economic interest and our legal
representation. All his accusations are vile, untrue, and malicious. Moreover, they relate
A937
0938
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-938 3 A938
to matters which are none of his business. Needless to say, Mr. Warner has no role or
involvement with Action4Canada.
• Response to Affidavit of Kip Warner
12. As a result of Mr. Warner's actions, Action4Canada experienced backlash from multiple
. individuals and attacks online against me personally and our organization. This made me
feel unsafe. This included from supporters, after they got wind of the slander and
defamation purported by Kipling Warner, at rallies, online, as well chats and zooms. For
example, attached as "Exhibit A" is an e-mail in which a supporter states that Mr. Galati
'•is being renamed Rocco the gangster Galatti [sic]", as opposed to ·'Kip who is moving
forward for less money".
13. Mr. Warner's intent is to have people donate to his case and cause while wrongfully
calling into question the expertise, competence, and integrity of our legal counsel Mr.
Galati, and the merits of our case. He has no business or right to do so.
14. We have every confidence in Mr. Galati's expertise, competence, and integrity and loudly
object to the attempts by Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner ( and Mr. Vlavislad Sobolev even
though he is not a Defendant), to undermine our solicitor-client relationship with our
legal counsel, and attack me and Action4Canada.
15. Mr. Warner's actions are vexatious, unfounded and intended to unjustifiably harm Mr.
Galati and to harm Action4Canada. The Law Society complaint Kip Warner encouraged
and assisted Ms. Toews, in making is completely baseless and unfounded. I have
personally been informed that Mr. Warner has spoken to several individuals and stated
that he wants to see Rocco's clients fire him, have him criminally charged, and disbarred.
For what? I have no clue.
A938
0939
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-939 4 A939
16. Mr. Warner has referred, publicly, and in this affidavit, to myself and Vaccine Choice
Canada, and anyone he connects, in his own thinking, with Mr. Galati, as "Galati affiliates".
He in turn refers to Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada as "funding arms" for Mr.
Galati. I take extreme offence to this, Mr. Galati is our lawyer and we are his clients. We are
not his "funding arms". Furthermore, Action4Canada was established in 2019 and its
activities have, and continue to be on various issues and initiatives, and not restricted to a
single case of COVID-19 measures litigation in British Columbia. We have 100 chapters
across Canada.
17. Both Mr. Kip Warner as well as Vladislav Sobolev, who is a very close associate of Kip
Warner in British Columbia, and who has actively and publicly raised money for Kip
Warner, have been on a defamatory and insidious public campaign, both at rallies, and on
social media, and on zoom and chat groups to defame, malign and baselessly discredit both
Mr. Galati and myself and Action4Canada, which has also included some of their inner
circle and supporters such as Yvonne Coelho who have both harassed me and
Action4Canada.
18. While Kip Warner pretends, in his affidavit, that Yvonne Coelho is just an acquaintance, I
am advised by others, and verily believe, that she is she is a close friend to Mr. Warner.
Although I do not know how long Donna Toews has been working with Kip Warner and
Vladislav Sabolov, she made her complaint to the LSO of Ontario against Mr. Galati on
January 13th, 2022, while Mr. Galati was in a coma, public posts by Ms. Toews, lauding
Vladislav Sobolev, in her group of 44, were publicly posted as early as July 28th, 2021.
Attached, as Exhibit "B", is a copy of that group with Donna Toews included, as well as
A939
0940
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-940 5 A940
Yvonne Coelho. Also attached as "Exhibit C", is a post by Vladislav Sobolev referring to
Mr. Galati as a '"clown''.
19. I have been provided and reviewed the affidavits of Kip Warner and Fredrico Fuoco, and
Donna Toews filed by them in their motion records, in the anti-slaap motion brought by
them.
A940
0941
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-941 6 A941
• Response to the Affidavit of Fredrico Fuoco
22. In response to Federico Fuoco's affidavit, I simply respond that his assertions are
blatantly false in that:
(a) he initially wished to be named as a Plaintiff in his own name only. Attached
hereto, as "Exhibit D", are the short synopses requested about the early stages
after we retained Mr. Galati, in which Mr. Fuoco sets out himself as the Plaintiff
and not the two corporations running his restaurant;
(b) subsequently, in conversations with Mr. Galati, upon learning that his restaurant
companies could not recoup financial damages if they were not named, under
Mr. Galati's request, He emailed Mr. Galati to confirm that he also wanted the
two companies added, which is his email request August, 2021 reproduced here
as Exhibit "E'';
(c) he then communicated with me to clarify as to whether he should sign the retainer
on behalf of "all three'' (himself~ and the two companies). I wrote an e-mail to Mr.
Galati, who responded that he should set out all three, which email is attached as
'"Exhibit F";
(d) what is not in dispute is that he retained, along with the other Plaintiffs, Mr. Galati
to proceed, which he does not deny, but reverses reality by claiming he never
retained Mr. Galati in his personal capacity, notwithstanding that in the entire
time leading up to the filing his notice of discontinuance on September 6th, 2022
without notifying, serving either Mr. Galati or me, Mr. Fuoco further never raised
this issue.
A941
0942
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-942 7 A942
23. With respect to communication with respect to the decision of Justice Ross of the British
Columbia Supreme Court, the events were as follows:
(a) Mr. Galati was away between August 16th to September 22nd, 2022 seeking
further medical treatment and therapy from the lengthy aftermath and physical
problems still lingering from his coma;
(b) the decision was released on August 29 th, 2022, at which time I was traveling with
very limited abilities to communicate. I did however m~age to be in contact with
Mr. Galati abroad, although the time-difference and Mr.·Galati own challenges
made that communication difficult, but I was able to communicate with Mr.
Galati's office;
(c) on September 1st, 2022 I wrote an e-mail to the other Plaintiffs. attached hereto as
"Exhibit G". In that e-mail I indicated that Mr. Galati was away on "business''
because that is what Mr. Galati"s office indicated to me, not wanting to divulge
his private medical condition. After I sent the e-mail l was able to connect,
directly, with Mr. Galati who advised me that he was away for medical reasons;
(d) Mr. Galati (and his office) filed a timely appeal from Justice Ross' decision, for
the Plaintiffs who wish to appeal, including appealing the cost order, and further
perfected the appeal in a timely fashion, and is in Court awaiting a schedule date
for hearing. Unfortunately, due to a derelict mis-and non-reading of the decision
itself, some rumors circulated that the Plaintiffs were liable to as much as $10
million in costs, having misread a paragraph in the decision that the quantum of
damages for $10 Million against CBC should not have been specifically pleaded
as to quantum, as prohibited by the Rules. The actual cost order, cumulatively
A942
0943
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-943 8 A943
requested, by all the parties, totals about $13,000.00 which Action4Canada has
decided to cover and pay on behalf of the other Co-Plaintiffs, notwithstanding that
their retainers specifically stated that they were liable for costs, because
Action4Canada was in turn carrying the entire legal fees;
(e) I had several and lengthy conversations with Mr. Fuoco during this time period
which ended up being abusive on his part, some of which are archived on my
phone.
SWORN BEFORE ME BY VIDEO CONFERENCE

By Tanya Gaw of Surrey )
In the province of British Columbia )
Before me at the City of Toronto .rlt,, )
In the Province of Ontario, on this//day of)
March, 2023, in accordance with 0. Reg. 431/20:) ~ ~
Administering Oath or Declaration Remotely. ) 6-~=--->E= ____
':_-~=->_
Tanya Gaw

Rocco Galati, B,A . LL B .. LL M
A943
0944
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-944 A944
This is Exhibit " f, " to the Affidavit of

Tanya Gaw, sworn before me by video
conference this 11th day of March, 2023

Rocco Galati, , B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
A944
3/10/23, 2:40 PM Fwd: Kip Warner - rglfpc@gmail.com - Gmail
0945
M
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-945 A945
778 866-4728
From: drew-truebits <~pro:mnmad com>

Sent: Tuesday,June 22, 20219:07 AM
To: Action4Canada
Subject: Re: Webinars.. ,JoinA4C for Two Informative EventsThis Week with Derek Sloan and ChrisSchaefer
A4C
I appreciate all of your hard work. Can't thank you enough, Please don't stop but .....
That being said, there is a growing number of people who are feeling very disgrunttled over who is being re-named Rocco 'the gangster' Galatti. He seems to be holding our
donations hostage until he receives his full amount. For about 6 months now we are hearing 'any day now', 'We're just going over the fine print' and a slew of excuses when lawyer,
in Europe and other places are offering their services pro bono, ...along with Kip who is actually moving forward for far less money.
I understand that in order to be successful one needs to fail several times. This is a learning curve for all of us. I am being 'the acid test' here because I've heard this from too many.
hope you understand all of this. (A huge weight on your shoulders I'm sure.)
You are a real hero and soldier and look forward to hearing from you but the creeping incrimental donations have slowed due to the loss of faith in Golatti. I think it would be helpf,
for us if you were to give us updates weekly on Golatti's progress or lack there of.
I'm not the largest donater (but a large enough, especially with no job) and I have campaigned others to contribute. You are under a great amount of pressure I'm sure, and sure
you've heard this from others. I want to acknowledge my appreciation for the faith.
Drew Weselak
A945
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcsBJjkXhlNNZPbdQvSfdDVCS 1/1
0946
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-946 A946
This is Exhibit" ~ " to the Affidavit of


Rocco Galati, , B.A., LL,B., LL.M.
A946
0947
Telnet Communications
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-947 A947
Telnet Communications
INBOX Compose Addr~:s:ses Folders Options
Current Folder: None Contact Support
Welcome: rocco@idirect.com Your IP address: 184.146.175.227
Viewing an image attachment - View message

Dow11load this as a file
Vladislav Freedom I::. ·-· /10·,:::ling cw:n,?tulwill, Vladislav Sobolev 'ind 44 others.
1,,13 2021 0
00 128
u'.) Like 0 Comment

I
I
A947
.php 1/1
0948
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-948 A948
This is Exhibit" ( " to the Affidavit of


Rocco Galati, , BA, LL.B., LL.M.
A948
IMG_7381.jpg
0949
3/8/23, 7:33 PM
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-949 A949
< Vladislav Freedom Q
cb Like CJComment c!>Share
Other posts
Vladislav Sobolev is with James •••
Loewen and 90 others.

Feb28 · 0
0188 70 comments 19 shares
[L] Like CJComment c!>Share

•••
Richelle Feniak is with Mark
Friesen and 96 others.
Feb 28 • It
~ Add Friend O Message ···
Watch
nrr
Marketplace
D
Notifications Menu
A949
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcrwqxVxfCsrFMDfrktqRqHXw?projector=1 &messagePartld=0.1 1/1

Vlad evidence - rglfpc@gmail.com - Gmail
0950
3/8/23, 7:34 PM
.Jcen \1ith
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-950 A950
FRI, MAR3
........
MeetAOreetln
C1111ses 106 peoplo

INT■R'IST!D I
6d Uk111Reply so
Cwyt,,lni11Ck-n,1III
lalifJ1U-dhape,forAocco ... •
1w Uke Repty 40
,- Sobolav
e Vladlelav
OuylafneGervais unfortunately
Plemwould graw Nm• balls~
before Rocco gets anytt,ing
done.,. and both are destroying
any chance for us to wtn ..•
---
1w Uke Reply •O
I.J ,......, .....
happened to Rocco? I know he
got realty slck and then I haven't
heard much after that.
@ Write a comment. •.
A950
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcrwqxVxfCsrFMDfrktqRqHXw?projector=1 &messagePartld=0.3 1/1

0951
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-951 A951
This is Exhibit " 1) " to the Affidavit of


Rocco Galati, , BA, LL.B., LL.M.
A951
3/10/23, 2:45 PM Fwd: A4C Plaintiff Federico - Retainer question and further info - rglfpc@gmail.com - Gmail
0952
M
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-952 A952
I f 12
Fwd: A4C Plaintiff Federico - Retainer question and further info 1nbox ,
TANYAGAW Thu, Mar 9, 2:26 PM (1 day ago)
toine
From: "Gaw Tanya• <~y.29-iJw@shnw CB>

"Har1een (Rocco) Hundal" <t!il!,tgonkhundpl@o~
To: "Rocco Galati" <fgcc;o@td1rect.ootn>,
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 12:50:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: A4C Plaintiff Federico - Retainer question and further info
Federico needs some direction on who he puts as plaintiff on the Retainer ....
Tanya
From: "Gaw Tanya· <ra.Dy~aav@:ShEh"C@>

Ta: "Rocco Galati" <£QCCO@jdlraci
eQ:'1i>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 8:44:57 PM
Subject: A4C Plaintiff Federico - Retainer question and further info
RE: Federico ... ~ease clarify if he puts his own name on the retainer or does he put his restaurants name ....or all 3... his personal name and both businesses. He is good with whatever you
recommend.
A952
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcsBJQDwfDsWjHhGTHNwXmNvh 1/1
0953
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-953 A953
This is Exhibit " f: " to the Affidavit of


A953
0954
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-954 A954
Plaintiff: Federico Fuoco Business Closure
Address:
2590 East 8th Ave
Phone#: 604 715-34 73
My name is Federico Fuoco and I opened up an Italian restaurant in the heart of Little Italy in Vancouver,
called Federico's Supper Club, back in December 1998. It was a successful and classic dine and dance
restaurant. Unfortunately, due to Covid, and the ensuing government restrictions, which made it literally
impossible to stay in business and keep it viable, I permanently closed Federico's Supper Club by the end
of March 2020, after 21 and a half years in business.
It was sad and devastating, not only for me, but for all the staff and customers that became a second family
to me - staff that lost their livelihoods, basically overnight, by government, ill advised shutdowns that forced
some businesses to close and others deemed "essential" and allowed to stay open, like "liquor stores." The
inconsistencies and irrational policies of all levels of government have caused irreparable damage and a
trickle down effect to the service sector, musicians, all facets of the entertainment industry, tourism,
suppliers, etc., not to mention the financial ruin of families and the deleterious effect on their well-being.
It is unconscionable how many people have been unnecessarily ruined by the actions of inept government
policies, and without meaningful consultation with the businesses affected by their inexplicable shutdowns.
In fact, I own another food service business called Gusto in Olympic Village in Vancouver, and the
restrictive government measures are making it very difficult to stay afloat. Everything from limited seating to
mask mandates have caused a dip in my sales in the last four weeks. Government agencies like WCB and
Vancouver Coastal Health have become harassers when they come to Gusto or call me after each
anonymous Covid-shamer's complaint. It's disgusting and it's gone too far.
For example, one of the restrictions is alcohol service has to end at 10:00 pm. I guess the virus knows how
to tell time and that it will infect people after 10:00 pm, not before.
Another ridiculous mandate is that people have to wear masks in a restaurant if they're standing, when
walking to a table and when walking to a restroom, but when sitting down, the masks can come come off. I
guess the virus can distinguish between people sitting down and those standing up.
Another example of insane government policies is that you can only seat up to six people at a table. I
guess the virus can count and if there are seven people at a table then it can attack, and it can also
distinguish whether or not the people at the table are related.
I can go on and on with government irregularities and inconsistencies, like Doctors Henry and Tam
adamantly insisting that masks don't work and aren't sanitary, to all of a sudden making them mandatory!
Even the fact that one of the main doctors at Vancouver Coastal admitted to me on September 19, 2020 that
there are at least 20% false positives when they conduct Covid tests. I believe that number is even higher,
but the fact that she admitted to me that there are false positives was a huge admission.
An even more significant admission of government policy failure, in dealing with the so-called Covid
pandemic, was made by Dr. Bonnie Henry on November 29, 2020 when she said, (after a rise in
cases), ..."this means that things that were safe, using the guidelines that we have developed over the last
10 months, are no longer in that safe zone." In other words, nothing that she and the government have
implemented in the last 10 months has worked. They caused and continue to cause so much pain and
devastation for businesses, not to mention the pain and suffering they're inflicting on families that can't see
their loved ones in care homes, etc.
These government officials need to be held accountable for their destructive policies and their ineptitude. I
A954
0955
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-955 A955
will do whatever I can and be of any help to bring these so called "experts" and government officials to
account.
Thank you,
Federico Fuoco
A955
0956
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-956 A956
Plaintiff- Federico Fuoco Additional Information - Restaurant Closure
April 7, 2021
Address:
2590 East 8th Ave
Phone#: 604 715-3473
On March 29, 2021 BC's Health Officer, Bonnie Henry, announced that all restaurants must close their
indoor services effective midnight next day, March30, 2021. Take-out and outdoor services would be
"permitted". This announcement was made without consulting restaurateurs, without any prior warning,
without any transparency on presenting evidence and proof that restaurants were the cause of any
outbreaks. The utter disrespect and lack of courtesy for the restaurant industry by the Government and
Health Officer, especially in light of the same tactic of last-minute decision on cutting liquor service after
8:00 pm on New Year's Eve, is astounding and insulting. Restaurant owners had spent thousands of
dollars on food in preparation for the upcoming Easter long weekend celebrations. Gusto Restaurant was
one affected by this decision.
Henry's announcement created a response of overwhelming emotion, as I had already lost one restaurant
due to last year's lockdowns. I was filled with concern for my staff and the injustice and inequity of it all.
My initial response was to stay open and not comply with the Order because I had done everything the
government had asked in the previous health order ...masks, plexiglass, social distancing, hand sanitizer,
and limited seating .. And in the end ...for what? Only to be told that I would need to shut down indoor dining
for 3 weeks because the PHO claimed that restaurants were the cause of spreading the virus. Not Costco,
not the liquor stores, not Walmart, not shopping malls ...but restaurants. There is no evidence to support
Henry's claims, and yet restaurants are being given no recourse other than to comply or be shut down.
I briefly challenged the Orders only to be swiftly met with a Business Closure Order from Vancouver
Coastal Health on Thursday April 1, 2021, around 5:49 pm. The Closure order was given, even though I
only had two people drinking tea indoors. Instead of giving me a warning, the health inspector (Greg
Adamson) gave me a harsh Closure Order.
I then decided to comply with the Draconian "circuit breaker" Order and not allow indoor dining. I was
closed on Good Friday, as I do every year in observance of the reverent day. I opened on Saturday April 3,
2021, complying with the latest health Order, but in contravention of the Closure Order.
I closed on Easter Sunday, again in observance of the Holy Day. At 1:00 am Monday April 5, 2021, a City
inspector duct taped a Business Licence Suspension, along with the Closure Order, on my front glass door
of Gusto. The business licence suspension is in effect until at least April 20, 2021.
The next day, Tuesday April 6, 2021, I received a Liquor Licence suspension, because, "an establishment
cannot have a liquor licence without a valid business licence in place."
These disproportionate and extreme measures were placed on my establishment, even though I hold valid
business and liquor licences that I've paid thousands for the year. I asked the Vancouver Chief Licence
inspector, Kathryn Holm, on Tuesday April 6, 2021, if the suspension could be reduced and allow me to
open before April 20 th , and she flatly refused. In fact, she said that she could arbitrarily extend the
suspension indefinitely. She said that only City Council can override her decision. How does one
bureaucrat wield so much power?
I have always put the safety and well-being of my staff and customers first, but I also believe it is important
to expose the inequity and inconsistency of an Order which severely penalizes one group while making
A956
0957
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-957 -2-
A957
irrational exemptions for others, such as BC Ferries' indoor dining remaining open, indoor wine tasting at
wineries (which Bonnie Henry is an investor in 'Clos Du Soleil Winery' - "conflict of interest"), as well as
completely enclosed patios. The discrepancies, inconsistencies and sheer hypocrisy of the latest Order are
unjust!
This will be the final nail in the coffin for many restaurants who are hanging on by a thread.
I have a small patio area, but restaurants without patio space will likely not make it through this.
What can be done about the harsh and unfair treatment that I am getting by the provincial politicians like
Solicitor General Mike Farnworth and Adrian Dix, bureaucrat Bonnie Henry, Vancouver mayor Kennedy
Stewart and bureaucrats Kathryn Holm and Greg Adamson? How can we hold these people to account for
going after small businesses, like mine, in order to fulfil a vendetta and make an example of me, to others,
who would dare question their irrational, unjust and Draconian health orders without any science, proof,
and evidence to back them up?
Public officials should serve the public not rule the public!
Please let m~ know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Federico
A957
0958
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-958 A958
This is Exhibit " F " to the Affidavit of


A958
0959
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-959 A959
Subject: Fwd: Judge Ross ruling on Motion to Strike.
To: "Rocco Galati" <rocco@ldirect.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 12:41:16 AM
Subject: Judge Ross ruling on Motion to Strike.
Private and Confidential
Dear A4C plaintiffs,

You may have heard that Judge Ross responded to the Motion to Strike on Monday.
that is not
The naysayers and those who want this case to fail are reporting the case has been completely dismissed but
accurate.
Rocco to file
Judge Ross struck the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) in it's entirety due mostly to its length ... but is permitting
fact responded to the defendants submission who stated that our case is an abuse of process or
a shorter NOCC and in
frivolous and vexatious ... by saying that he (judge Ross)
the claim.
did not agree with the defendants submission and granted Rocco/the plaintiffs the opportunity to resubmit
Judge Ross further supported that Charter Rights were infringed upon ....
"Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights.
Hence, in this case, there is a prospect that the plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain of the COVID-
based health restrictions instituted by the Federal or Provincial governments infringed their Charter rights. In addition,
it is possible that other valid claims may exist."

can
Rocco is away on business but fully aware of Judge Ross's response and we are working to connect so that we
confirm next steps.
Rocco was expecting the judge would make issue with the length but wanted to ensure that all the important details
..
of this case were on record in the courts. This is why he offered to the judge back I May to provide a shorter NOCC
with
As for the costs it is my understanding that Rocco will also be appealing that but I will confirm this when I speak
him and update you as soon as I can
make
Please keep this information confidential. Do not forward or share this email. once I have spoken to Rocco I will
a public statement
Please keep in mind that we are up against very corrupt individuals and that they have every reason to be very
concerned about the magnitude of this claim
Rocco and I are very intent in seeing this legal action through and pursuing justice
Tanya
I
PS ... I am also out of town and doing my best to keep up with messages so I appreciate your understanding that
will be messaging you as a group to keep you updated
https ://www .can Iii .org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507 /2022bcsc1507. html?

fbclid=IwAR18v7rlxwWuC9UTWTXiKrmOMROR_j1Ty20g8bU cjsEr9znR8g NQ9OstGRQ
Attachments:
Iuntitled-Cl] I A959
Gmail - Fwd: Action4Canada Update
0960
3/9/23, 8:45 PM
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-960 A960
Rocco Galati <rglfpc@gmail.com>
Fwd: Action4Canada Update

1 message
TANYA GAW <tanyagaw@shaw.ca> Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:33 PM

To: Rocco ** Galati <rglfpc@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 10:09:14 PM
Subject: Action4Canada Update
Dear Plaintiffs,
Just an update to let you know where things are at. In September I had mentioned having a zoom meeting with Rocco to answer any of your
questions but it came to our attention that one of the plaintiffs had recorded previous meetings and because of this Rocco cannot attend any
further zoom meetings. So if you have any questions please send them to me in writing.
I am so sad about the plaintiff who was removed for attempting to cause division from within but I want to assure you that Rocco is working
very hard on our behalf and to also point out that our case is the only one still proceeding in BC. That is completely thanks to Rocco and his
well thought out strategy and quality of work. Despite the criticism and opposition to our case from individuals within the freedom movement,
we are truly in the best position compared to others. Please keep this in mind when you hear or see any future negative press or posts on
social media.
I will again reiterate that the plan with filing the 391 page statement of claim was to ensure that all the details from this global attack are on
record and all the bad players named. We have succeeded and are moving toward the next step.
Rocco has been working on the new Statement of Claim and will have it ready to file shortly.
Rocco and I also discussed filing an appeal to address several of Judge Ross's decisions in his ruling that were completely off base. Such as
the Supreme Court ruling from India being relevant to our case. Absolutely it is. They are a commonwealth country and therefore, their legal
outcomes carry weight. There are other examples but this is just one.
If we do not appeal Judge Ross' decisions then they will remain on record. That is no good so Action4Canada has decided to appeal, along
with appealing the costs.
An appeal is an addition cost to the Constitutional challenge and this is standard with every lawyer. For eg. Brian Peckford and Maxime
Bernier had their legal action addressing the travel mandate dismissed recently and so they are raising more money for an appeal.
I will be reaching out to our members when we launch the new SOC for further support as well. Action4Canada has been very responsible
with managing our donations and have been thoughtful about saving for additional legal costs. We want to make sure our war chest
maintains additional funds to see this fight through to completion.
Thank you for your patience as we continue to work hard on your behalf. As I have repeatedly said this is not a sprint but a marathon and we
are up against a very powerful opponent but I believe we have the best chance of winning.
God bless you,

Tanya
A960
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=5bb360eba9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A 1759919930577402214&simpl=msg-f%3A 1759919930 . . . 1/1

10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-961 A9
A9
0962
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-962 A962
TAB 4
A962
0963
1 A963
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-963
ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and-

SOCIETY FOR THE ADV AN CEMENT OF SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, TED KUNTZ, of the city of Kelowna in the Province of British Columbia, currently,
physically present in Mesa, state of Arizona, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am the President of Vaccine Choice Canada ("VCC"). I have personal knowledge of the
facts and matters herein, and where I refer to information supplied to me by others, I
verily believe that information to be true.
2. VCC is a not-for-profit organization established to provide information and education to
the public about vaccination, to advocate for individuals to have the right to make
voluntary and informed vaccination decisions, and to advocate for vaccine safety,
efficacy, and informed consent.
3. I have been provided with the affidavits of Kipling (known as Kip) Warner, Donna Toews,
and Vladislav ("Vlad") Sobolev, filed in their anti-slaap motion.
4. To be clear, I do not waive my, or Vaccine Choice Canada solicitor client privilege with
respect to this motion nor my affidavit
A963
0964
2
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-964 A964
5. VCC has retained Rocco Galati as legal counsel since 2015. Mr. Galati provides legal
opinions, advice, and litigation services to VCC. He is accountable to and meets regularly
with the Board of Directors ofVCC.
6. On or about June 19, 2020, Dawna Toews made a $1,000.00(one thousand dollar)
donation to VCC and requested that the funds be directed to our legal efforts.
7. On June 22, 2020, Ms. Toews requested that we add a membership to her file. Due to a
volunteer error, Ms. Toews was not registered as a member of VCC and did not receive
our weekly "Choice Insider", invitations to regional and national zoom calls, and special
meetings for VCC members. As a result, Ms. Toews did not receive or make payment to
8. No further correspondence was received from Ms. Toews until December 20, 2021, when
she asked about the status of our legal proceedings.
9. A response was filed by one of our intake volunteers, providing Ms. Toews with their
personal opinion on the status of the legal proceedings. The response reflected the
personal opinion of the volunteer and was not approved or vetted by the Board of
Directors ofVCC and does not represent the position of VCC.
10. At no time did Ms. Toews indicate that she was not receiving membership information
from VCC, request further updates on the legal proceedings initiated by VCC, indicate
displeasure with VCC, or request a return of her donation.
11. In the complaint filing against Mr. Galati, it was stated that Ms. Toews was contacted by
someone involved with Kip Warner's legal action on December 21, 2021, who stated -
11
"Thank you for agreeing to help us help you recover your donor funds from Rocco. Mr.
A964
0965
3
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-965 A965
Galati never received any donor funds directly on behalf ofVCC, nor was he ever privy
nor had any involvement in VCC fundraising.
12. It is my understanding that Donna Toews expressed her wish to remain anonymous in
her complaint against Mr. Galati.
13. Mr. Galati was retained by and acts on the instructions of the Board of Directors of
Vaccine Choice Canada. Therefore, he is accountable only to the Board of Directors of
14. The Board of Directors and Mr. Galati meet regularly to discuss the status of the legal
proceedings and our strategy. We have full confidence in Mr. Galati.
15. VCC is not required to reveal our legal strategy nor the details of that strategy to the
public, regardless of whether an individual is a donor. Mr. Galati is not at liberty to
disclose or violate our solicitor-client relationship with any party. In fact, VCC maintains
and does not waive its solicitor-client privilege for the purpose of this motion and
affidavit. I provided a letter to the Law Society of Ontario with respect to Ms. Toews'
complaint against Mr. Galati, which is attached as "Exhibit A" to this my affidavit.
16. Mr. Galati is not involved in VCC's fundraising efforts, nor does he have access to any
information pertaining to our donors. Thus, Mr. Galati is not in a position to speak to the
amount of monies raised through donations, nor in what form these monies have been
received and/or spent.
17. On June 17, 2021, I participated in a 90-minute zoom meeting with Mr. Warner and Mr.
Vlad Sobolev at the request of Mr. Sobolev. In the meeting, Mr. Warner made a number
of statements that were incorrect about VCC's and Action4Canada's legal actions. Mr.
Warner was of the opinion that because his group had filed legal action in BC that
A965
0966
4 A966
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-966
Action4Canada could not file legal action in BC and thus, Action4Canada would be
required to return all donated funds back to donors. I explained to Mr. Warner that he was
mistaken in this opinion.
18. Based on the foregoing, I believe that Mr. Warner is endeavoring to undermine
confidence in the legal actions of Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada, and
wrongfully impugn the integrity of our legal counsel, Mr. Galati, and his firm.
19. My general character, and approach to life, is to attempt to build bridges between
common grounds despite the differences that may exist between people. My approach
tends to be diplomatic. In my exchanges with Mr. Warner, I attempted this but to no
avail, albeit that I was of the viewpoint Mr. Warner was wrong about what he was saying
about Mr. Galati and VCC. Attached hereto as "Exhibit B", are the only email exchanges
I had with Mr. Warner.
20. These statements, by Mr. Warner, and views were clearly without any basis. Because of
Mr. Warner's unjustified public, false and inflammatory comments, and the vile and
malicious postings of Canuck Law, our membership, and members of the public,
including donors, began to insist on a public exposure of our litigation strategy and
demand to answer those baseless allegations. We were hesitant to do so because we did
not want to expose our litigation strategy, nor reveal solicitor-client privileged material
which could be used by detractors and the Defendants in our case, to hurt our case and
activities. We instead issued an "update" to our member. Attached hereto, as "Exhibit C",
is a copy of that statement ("update") that was issued within a few days of July 21st,
2021, a year after we had issued our claim in Ontario Superior Court on July 20th, 2020.
What is of note is that very little of this update received any comment nor hostility
A966
0967
5 A967
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-967
because it did not play into this baseless and false narratives being propagated by Mr.
Warner and Canuck Law.
21. In addition to what I have stated above, I respond as set out below.
• Response to Affidavit of Kip Warner
22. As a result of Mr. Warner's actions, VCC has experienced backlash from multiple
individuals and attacks online against me personally and our organization. This included
from supporters, after they got wind of the slander and defamation propagated by Kipling
Warner.
23. We have every confidence in Mr. Galati's expertise, competence, and integrity and loudly
object to the attempts by Ms. Toews, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Vlavislas Sobolev to
undermine our solicitor-client relationship with our legal counsel, and induce a breach of
our contract.
24. Mr. Warner's actions are vexatious, unfounded and intended to unjustifiably harm Mr.
Galati and to harm VCC. The Law Society Complaint Kip Warner encouraged and
assisted Ms. Toews, in making is completely baseless and unfounded.
25. Mr. Warner has referred, publicly, and in this affidavit, to myself and Vaccine Choice
Canada, and anyone he connects, in his own thinking, with Mr. Galati, as "Galati affiliates".
He in turn refers to Mr. Galati's clients, including Vaccine Choice Canada as "funding
arms" for Mr. Galati. I take serious objection to this, Mr. Galati is our legal counsel, and we
are his clients, nothing more. We are not his "funding arms". Furthermore, VCC was
established in 1982, under a predecessor name with the same objectives, scope, and
activities throughout the forty (40) years we have been in existence and its activities have,
and continue to be, on various issues and initiatives, and not restricted to just legal cases of
A967
0968
6 A968
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-968
COVID-19 measures litigation in Ontario. We are a national group with members across
Canada.
26. I have been provided and reviewed the affidavits of Kip Warner and Donna Toews filed
by them in their motion records, in the anti-slaap motion brought by them.
28. I have addressed Ms. Toews" assertions and complaints earlier in this my affidavit. I in
fact provided a letter to the Law Society of Ontario responding to her complaints against
Mr. Galati Attached, as "Exhibit B", is a copy of my letter.
29. Ms. Toews has never reached out to request a refund with respect to $1000.00 donation
which is actually in her husband's name and not hers. Her husband has NEVER
communicated with VCC. There has never been a request for a refund of the donation.
It is inexplicable why she would expect to have Mr. Galati account for the $1000.00
donation, through a Law Society complaint against Mr. Galati, with a request that the
Law Society investigate our books through that complaint except to say that this may
have been a second failed attempt by Mr. Warner to do what he could not t
A968
0969
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-969 A969
7
• R pon e to ffida i ef Vladisla ~
30. With respect to the affidavitofVladislav Sobolev. I stand by the contents of this my
affidavit. I further add that many are aware of the animosityand ill-will held by Mr.
VladislavSobolevagainstMr.Galatifor refusingto act as pro bono counselon his
Family Law litigation.a fact that wasconveyedto me by Mr. Galati.morethan once
when issues af negativecomments and posts made by Mr.VJadislavSobolevarose.
SWORNBEFOREMEBY VIDEOCONFERENCE
By Ted KuntzofKelowna )
ID the provinceof British lumbia )
Be ore me at th i or nt :(',, )
ln U1 Provine f ntario. n thi / 5da of)
Mareh.2023,in accordance with 0. Reg. 4 1/20:)
dmini tering Oattlar D•claration Remotely.)
A ommi ·si oer for TakingAffidavits

RoccoGalati, BA. u..e..LLM.
I A969
0970
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-970 A970
This is Exhibit " A " to the Affidavit of

Ted Kuntz, sworn before me by video

Rocco Galati, , B.A., LLB., LL.M.
A970
586
0971
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-971 A971
Our Right Our Choice Our Future

Notre drolt Notre choix Notre avenir
June 28, 2022
To the Attention of:
Sharon Greene
Intake and Resolution Council
Re: Case# 2022-261151
Dear Ms. Greene:
I am responding to the complaint to the Law Society of Ontario filed by Ms. Donna Toews on
May 19, 2022, against Mr. Galati.
• I am the President of Vaccine Choice Canada and am responding on behalf of the Board of
'Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada.
Mr. Rocco Galati has been retained by Vaccine Choice Canada to provide legal counsel,
opinions, advice and litigation on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada. We have had a solicitor-
client relationship with Mr. Galati since 2015.
Mr. Galati is retained by, and accountable to, the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada.
Mr. Galati and the Board of Directors meet regularly to discuss matters pertinent to Vaccine
Choice Canada and to our litigation efforts in Ontario.
I can confirm that Ms. Dawna Toews did make a $1,000.00 (one thousand) donation to Vaccine
Choice Canada on or about June 19, 2020 and requested that the funds be directed to our legal
efforts.
On June 22, 2020 Ms. Toews requested that we add a membership to her file. Unfortunately,
due to volunteer error, Dawna Toews was not registered as a member of VCC and would not
have received our weekly "Choice Insider", invitations to regional and national zoom calls, and
special meetings for VCC members. As a result, Ms. Toews did not receive or make payment to
A971
Case# 2022-261151 1
587
0972
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-972 A972
No further correspondence was received from Ms. Toews until December 20, 2021. In the
December 20, 2021 email message, Ms. Toews asked - "Can you tell me if anything came of this
lawsuit? Did the courts see this yet?"
A response was flied by one of our intake volunteers. The volunteer provided Ms. Toews with
her personal opinion on the status of the legal proceedings. This was an error. This response
was not approved by or vetted by the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada and does
not represent the position of Vaccine Choice Canada.
This is the full extent of our correspondence with Ms. Toews to date.
I would like to point out that:
a. At no time did Dawna Toews indicate that she was not receiving membership
information from VCC.
b. At no time did Dawna Toews request further updates on the legal proceedings initiated
by VCCbefore or following her email of December 20, 2021.
c. At no time did Dawna Toews indicate displeasure with VCC.
d. At no time did Dawna Toews request a return of her donation.
Thus, it was a surprise to learn in the complaint filing that Ms. Donna Toews was contacted by
someone involved with Kip Warner's legal action on December 21, 2021 who stated - "Thank
you for agreeing to help us help you recover your donor funds from Roccq."
To be clear, Mr. Galati never received any donor funds directly on behalf of VCC,nor was he
ever privy nor had any involvement in VCCfundraising. He has no role in VCCexcept as our
independent legal counsel on certain matters.
It would appear Mr. Kip Warner is involved in some kind of action to recover funds donated to
Vaccine Choice Canada. If this is in fact the case, it would have been more appropriate to direct
the request to Vaccine Choice Canada to whom the funds were donated.
It is interesting to note that Donna Toews expressed her wish to remain anonymous in this
complaint against Mr. Galati.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada I wish to declare that:
a. Mr. Galati was retained by, and acts on the instructions of the Board of Directors of
Vaccine Choice Canada. Thus, Mr. Galati is accountable only to the Board of Directors of
b. The Board of Directors and Mr. Galati meet regularly to discuss the status of the legal
proceedings and our strategy.
c. We have full confidence in Mr. Galati.
A972
Case# 2022-261151 2
588
0973
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-973 A973
d. Vaccine Choice Canada has no intention of revealing our legal strategy to the public,
regardless whether an individual is a donor.
e. Mr. Galati is not at liberty to disclose or violate our solicitor-client relationship either
with the Law Society of Ontario or any other party.
f. Mr. Galati is not involved in our fund raising efforts, nor has access to any information
pertaining to our donors. Thus, Mr. Galati is not in a position to speak to the amount of
monies raised through donations, nor in what form these monies have been received
and/or spent.
g. We have concerns as to the intentions of Mr. Warner in this matter, as well as the
motives of Ms. Toews.
On June 17, 20211 participated in a 90 zoom meeting with Mr. Warner and Mr. Vlad Sobolev at
the request of Mr. Sobolev. In the meeting Mr. Warner made a number of statements that
were incorrect about VCC's and Action4Canada's legal actions.
Mr. Warner was of the opinion that because his group had filed legal action in BCthat
Action4Canada could not file legal action in BC and thus, Action4Canada would be required to
return all donated funds back to donors. I explained to Mr. Warner that he was mistaken in this
opinion.
It appears that Mr. Warner is endeavoring to undermine confidence in the legal actions of
Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada, and moreover wrongfully impugn the integrity of
our legal counsel Mr. Galati and his firm .
• If you require any further information, feel free to contact me at

ted@vaccinechoicecanada.com.
Sincerely,
Ted Kuntz, President

A9733
Case# 2022-261151
0974
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-974 A974
This is Exhibit " l3 " to the Affidavit of


A974
Re: Freedom Team meeting this week? Kip Warner's correspondence
0975
• 3l9i2T. 8:52 PM

06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-975
Subject: A975
I found one of the emails from Ted. Chuck had communication with Kip who made the following statement and then provides a list of questions
below.
Kip ... " Respectfully Chuck there's information in my team's possession that you don't have. We've been receiving reports weekly, sometimes
daily, alleging bad faith, fraud, or other improprieties in Rocco's various fundraising arms."
>> From: "Theodore Kuntz" <ted@vaccinechoicecanada.com>

>> To: "Rocco Galati" <rocco@idirect.com>
>> Cc: "Gaw Tanya" <tanyagaw@shaw.ca>
» Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:59:34 PM
>> Subject: Fwd: Freedom Team meeting this week? Kip Warner's correspondence
>>
>> HI Rocco and Tanya
>>
>> More information on Kip Warner for you.
>>
>> ted
>>
>>
» Hi Ted,
>> below is the email correspondence from me to Kip Warner and his responses
» in black. How should I respond, if at all?
>>
>> Courage and wisdom,
>>
>> Chuck
» 604-947-9011
>>
>>
>>
» Hi Kip,
>>>
>>> Correction - the newsletter was actually produced by Tina, volunteer
>» webmaster with the Freedom Rising coalition.
>>
>> Thanks for that.
>>
>>> I must say that I'm saddened to hear that your group and VCC are
>>> fundamentally not seeing eye-to-eye. There are so many things the
>>> two groups have in common: each group has retained legal counsel,
>>> each group has advanced a court challenge (theirs Constitutional,
»> yours Class Action) against the BC government over their COVI D-19
»> mandates, each group is fighting for justice and each group is
»> awaiting a judicial decision on the merits of their case. It is
>» critically important that both groups recognize that their respective
>>> Court Challenges are actually complementary and synergistic. Both groups
>>> need to exercise respect and kindness in all their communications.
>>
>> Respectfully Chuck there's information in my team's possession that you
>> don't have. We've been receiving reports weekly, sometimes daily,
>> alleging bad faith, fraud, or other improprieties in Rocco's various
>> fundraising arms.
>>
>> But I encourage you to do your own research and not take the word of
>> those bringing us the reports. Here are some basic questions for you
» that will help:
>>
» (1) What date did VCC file in Toronto?
>>
» (2) How many hearings have been held since and for what?
>>
» (3) Did you attend any?
>> A975
» (4) What date was the interlocutory injunction heard that Rocco pledged
» to bring before Christmas of 2020?
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ ent_id=D&mailbox=INBOX&passed_id= 179428&view_ unsafe_images= 1/2
0976
_ 3/9'23~ 8:52 PM
>>
» (5) How many of the defendants have filed reply pleadings?
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-976
>>
A976
» (6) Was a default judgment sought?
>>
» (7) What orders have been made since (1 )?
>>
>> (8) How much money was raised?
>>
>> (9) Has either yourself or anyone else you know audited their financial
>> records?
>>
>> For his BC campaign:
>>
» (1) What was the date the fundraising campaign was announced?
>>
» (2) What was the date the plaintiff filed its pleadings?
>>
» (3) How many hearings have been held since and for what?
>>
» (4) Did you attend any?
>>
» (5) What orders were made?
>>
» (6) How much money was raised?
>>
» (7) Has either yourself or anyone else you know audited their
>> financial records?
>>
» (8) Did his fundraising arm agree to indemnify the individually named
>> plaintiffs in the event an adverse cost award is made?
>>
»> In that light I respectfully ask that you remove the adversarial
>>> language referencing Mr. Galati in the FAQ section of your website. I
>» fear the BC government will try to leverage against you any enmity it
>>> perceives you may have towards Mt. Galati, and VCC. In our mutual
>>> struggle for the flourishing of true humanity, now more than ever we
>» need to demonstrate unity. Together we stand, divided we fall.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by adversarial. The section on Rocco went
» through counsel. If you find something factually wrong, please by all
>> means feel free to point it out.
>>
>>
>>-
>> Kip Warner
» OpenPGP signed/encrypted mail preferred
>>
Attachments:
untitled-[1]
Size:I4.1 k
Type:ltext/plain
A976
https://webmail.look.ca/high/src/printer _friendly_ main.php?passed_ ent_id=0&mailbox=I NBOX&passed_id= 179428&view_ unsafe_images= 2/2

Gmail - Fwd: legal challenges
0977
3/9/23, 8:19 PM
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-977 A977
MGmail Rocco Galati <rglfpc@gmail.com>
Fwd: legal challenges

1 message
TANYA GAW <tanyagaw@shaw.ca> Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:28 PM

To: Rocco •• Galati <rglfpc@gmail.com>
From: "Ted Kuntz" <tedjkuntz@gmail.com>

To: "Odessa Munroe" <omunroe@shaw.ca>, "Gaw Tanya" <tanyagaw@shaw.ca>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 1:04:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: legal challenges
HI Odessa and Tanya
Thought you should see the correspondence I had with Kip in June. Vlad was copied in on this but did not respond.
I did not respond to Kip.
My comments are in the light green/blue. Kip's response is in the darker blue.
ted
From: Kip Warner <kip@thevertigo.com>

Subject: Re: legal challenges
Date: June 18, 2021 at 5:15:33 PM PDT
To: Theodore Kuntz <ted@vaccinechoicecanada.com>
Cc: Vlad Soboled <hugsnation2020@gmail.com>
On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 12:51 -0700, Theodore Kuntz wrote:
Hi Vlad and Kip
Hey Ted,
Thank you for the time yesterday to better understand the intention
and scope of the application undertaken by the Canadian Society for
the Advancement of Science in Public Policy.
My pleasure. It's actually not an application (called a "petition" here

under the BC Civil Rules), but there likely will be several
interlocutory applications (applications for non-final orders) along
the way by the parties.
I applaud your efforts to hold Dr. Bonnie Henry, and the BC

government accountable.
Thank you. It's a lot of work. We are about to initiate the process of
summoning her, probably today.
I do want to ensure that there is clarity in your understanding of

the legal action filed in Ontario and the pending legal action in BC.
These actions are constitutional challenges and not class actions.
Got it.
A977
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=5bb360eba9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A 1759923341950236882&simpl=msg-f"/o3A1759923341 . . . 1/3

Gmail - Fwd: legal challenges
0978
3/9/23, 8:19 PM
I appreciate that you are not in a position to explain to those
making inquiries the rationale for the delay in filing a default
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-978
judgement in Ontario and the delay in the BC action. I can reassure
A978
you that each of the cases arc proceeding. There are important
reasons for the delays.
I think it is important to explain to your supporters that:
- the actions filed by Rocco Galati are distinctly different than the
action you are proceeding with
- that Rocco has been formally retained and work on these filing have
been continually worked on since May 2020.
- that all donations received have gone to support the legal actions
Can I suggest that rather than try to explain to your donors what is
happening with the filings, that you direct them to the
Constitutional Rights Centre, Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice
Canada.
1 had an opportunity to discuss with the team. The consensus was that
people have little difficulty in finding those organizations already.
What we've gathered from the general public's inquiries is that the
answers they are receiving from them they have not found adequate for
whatever reason. We don't have any control over that.
I can tell you that the board ofVCC meets regularly with Rocco to
review the case and to discuss the best strategy to move forward.
I'm really glad to hear that.
As I mentioned, Rocco has secured international experts to address

the fundamental issues of this matter and will launch when all the
necessary affidavits are in place. We already have thousands of pages
of expert testimony secured and experts retained.
Can I also suggest that you remove the information posted under Are
you affiliated with Rocco Galati, and if not, why not?
I personally find this information unhelpful, incomplete in its

answers, and undermines confidence at a time when we need to stand
behind our warriors.
We had an opportunity to discuss this internally. You are correct that

there were some incorrect information in the FAQ as it pertained to
Rocco. Specifically, the filing date and the type of suit (it's not a
class action). The filing date was off by a month and the suit is, as
you indicated on our call, not a class action. Within several minutes
of our call I had that corrected in the FAQ. The original went through
legal.
To ensure that it is accurate, if there's any orders that were made or

any hearings that we missed, please do let us know and we will be sure
to correct the FAQ.
Regarding it being unhelpful, we've actually experienced the opposite.

There's been a decrease in public inquiries concerning Rocco which has
freed up our team to focus on the substantive work, like in my case our
case planning proposal for our upcoming judicial management conference.
This is a critical time in the history of humanity, and we need every

resource we can to reclaim our rights and freedoms.
We absolutely do. But we also as executive directors of non-profits

must always be mindful of our fiduciary responsibility to our
stakeholders. A978

3/9/23\"8:19 PM Gmail - Fwd: legal challenges
Something that was taught to me when I still held a Queen's Commission 0979
as an army officer was that leadership isn't a popularity contest.
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-979
Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions. Sometimes we make the
A979
wrong ones. But when we make the wrong ones, we have to take
responsibility for them, take corrective action, and let the caravan
roll on. If we don't do that, we lose the confidence of others,
including our subordinates, and then we cannot complete our mission
objectives.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for reaching out Ted. Good luck with your work. We all wish your
team the best.
Yours truly,

https://www.thevertigo.com
"You can't create a solution with the same mindset that created the problem."
-Albert E.,instein
A979

0980
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-980 A980
This is Exhibit " ( " to the Affidavit of


A980
0981
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-981 A981
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Legal Challenge Update
Dear VCC Members and Supporters
Many of you have asked the current status of our legal challenge filed in July 2020. Like you, I
am eager for our "day in court" and the opportunity to hold the government, public health, and
the media accountable for their egregious violations of our rights and freedoms.
If you recall, when we retained and instructed Rocco Galati to prepare and issue a Statement of
Claim, it was primarily because no-one else was stepping up to protect our rights. It was never
our intention nor wish to have exclusive proprietary claim over challenging the COVID
measures. It was a comprehensive declaration to governments to indicate that their breach of
our rights is not acceptable.
If you also recall the filing in itself had some immediate impact in the first revocation of the
emergency order, and a public announcement of a pending masking injunction resulted in clear
and comprehensive masking exemption Regulations FOR THOSE CHOOSING TO EXERCISE THEM.
If you also recall, we reiterated that there was no magic wand or bullet to any one singular
Court case.
Our goal is to win and restore our inherent rights and freedoms and not just to show up and say
we tried. There is more to creating a winning strategy, as can be evidenced by the various legal
proceeding that have been filed and argued to date, than simply making legal arguments in a
court of law.
A significant aspect to any successful legal challenge of this nature is having credible experts
fully prepared to testify in support of the arguments put forward. Rocco has repeatedly stated -
the legal arguments are the easiest part of our action. To have a successful outcome,
compelling expert testimony is needed to enable a judge to stand against the fraudulent
government and media narrative.
Almost every legal filing to date by other lawyers has failed because of a lack of adequate
expert testimony. It has taken many, many months to secure the appropriate experts and to
complete the necessary affidavits.
Since the filing of our claim other battles appeared on the front that were in concert with our
initial challenge and the Board of Vaccine Choice Canada decided to collaborate and mesh with
those efforts as they were not separate from ours. We decided, and instructed and agreed with
A981
0982
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-982 A982
our legal counsel, that all the other dimensional challenges which were in fact part and parcel
of our own would be co-ordinated.
For example, the need to protect the right of our medical doctors, nurses, teachers, public
health officials and law enforcement officers to speak their truth without fear of reprisal. As
you are all aware, the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and BC and other
institutions have been unapologetic in their efforts to intimidate into silence medical
professionals and others who dare to question the medical basis for the measures, or to share
their observations on the front lines. Dr. Malthouse, Dr. Trozzi, Dr. Hoffe, Dr. Hodkinson, Dr.
Gill, Dr. Patrick, Dr. Milburn and Dr. Christian, to name a few, have been the targets of these
efforts to censor expert opinion.
Thus, since our last update in January 2021, in concert with that overall plan, other legal actions
have been filed. These include:
1. The defence of doctors in Ontario and BC, before their Colleges, who have been the
subject of tyrannical censor by their Colleges. This includes two Divisional Court
applications, with another three to be filed this week in Ontario, as well as a judicial
review on behalf of Dr. Malthouse in BC.
These Court applications take a constitutional challenge to the Colleges' attempts to

muzzle and gag these doctors who include Drs. Gill, Phillips, Turek, Benoit, Matheson,
Amani, Malthouse, Trozzi and others. In addition, action for damages, as well as the
unconstitutional conduct by their Colleges, are being prepared on behalf of these
doctors.
2. On April 30th, 2021 an application on behalf 24+ police officers who are challenging
the enforcement of the Covid Measures as violating their Oath to uphold the
Constitution. This application challenges such things as:
(a) the fining or arrest of persons who attend protest and petitions and assembly
against government;
(b) the imposition of restriction of entry at Provincial borders;
(c) lockdowns;
(d) church and other religious gathering closures and events;
(e) the halting of coercive measures to vaccinate.
3. On May 7th 2021, an Application to re-open the schools in Ontario, without any of the
Covid-measures was filed. (Interesting that within a few weeks of its filing Ontario
reversed its position of not opening the schools in September 2021). The application is
still proceeding and challenges:
(a) any isolation in the school setting;
(b) any masking; ·
(c) the fraudulent use of PCRtesting and ceasing of testing; and
A982
0983
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-983 A983
(d) any segregation between PCR-tested / vaccinated vs. PCR-untested/ unvaccinated

children.
The preparation of this application has entailed a masking expert affidavit exceeding
2,600 pages of expert testimony and annexed reports; a PCRexpert affidavit exceeding
6,100 pages of expert testimony and annexed data and expert reports concluding that
the PCRtest is being fraudulently used to elevate "case numbers" with a false positive
rate of 96.5%; an expert report on the detrimental and developmental damages caused
by masks especially on children; an expert report on the detriment of the measures and
on line learning on children; as well as over 30 affidavits by the Applicants, who include
children, parents and teachers, outlining the ordeal they have suffered, establishing the
required factual evidence and basis for their seeking of constitutional relief. All in all,
there will be well over 11,000 pages of evidence filed in this application, just on the part
of the applicants.
4. In addition, an action has been proceeding and well under way, suing in defamation
those who have viciously maligned doctors on social media, who post information and
expert opinion contrary to the state narrative.
5. An action will be filed imminently against the Government of BC, Premier John Horgan,
Health Minster Adrian Dix, Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and Public Health
Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry. This action, spanning 425+ pages, will hold these individuals
and institutions accountable for the harm and deaths caused by their actions and failure
to act responsibly in response to COVID-19.
6. The defence of those instrumental in organizing protests, a constitutionally protected

right.
7. A Federal challenge to federal vaccine passports for international travel is contemplated

and, in the works, as will be a Provincial vaccine passport if implemented.
In all of these proceedings constitutional declarations are sought against all these measures and
the authority of public officials imposing them.
Essentially, these other focused applications cover everything that our statement of claim
covered with the exception of vaccines which have not yet been made mandatory by
government.
Our statement of claim has, and continues to act, as the umbrella for these sectorial challenges.
The expert evidence prepared in these other proceedings will also be used to the benefit and
will be available to the VCC challenge when our counsel decides to pull the trigger on our
challenge now that the evidence has been obtained,.(which he does not want to reveal here in
this communication for obvious reasons).
A983
0984
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-984 A984
In addition to these Court proceedings, "actions on the ground" have been on-going with the
assistance and consultation and legal advice of our counsel, such as:
1. Notices of Liability
Notices of Liability was developed through a collaboration of the Constitutional

Rights Centre and Action4Canada to hold school superintendents, administrators,
Principals, Teachers Unions, and teachers personally liable for injury to children and
adults in the public school system, as well as their unlawful efforts to coerce children
to partake in an experimental gene treatment without the knowledge or consent of
parents.
This effort has resulted in the majority of the Superintendents, Principles and
Teachers Unions being formally served with a Notice of Liability. The actions to
formally serve these individuals has been documented for future legal action should
they persist in illegal, immoral and unlawful actions.
This action has resulted in a number of Teachers Unions issuing directives to

teaching staff to not engage in any effort that may coerce a child to partake in the
vaccination experiment.
2. A letter-writing campaign
Vaccine Choice Canada, in collaboration with the Constitutional Rights Centre and
Canada Health Alliance have launched a letter writing campaign where the focus of
the campaign are the Premiers, Minsters of Health and the Chief Public Health
Officers of the various provinces and territories. Our goal is to make clear to these
key decision-makers how their measures and policies in response to COVID 19 have
failed to address the health needs of the public as well as the need to protect and
preserve our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Collaborative Effort
The reality is that a number of organizations are participating in a complex strategy with our
legal counsel to hold our governments, public health officers, colleges, media and others
accountable for the harm and deaths caused by their unwarranted and unconstitutional
actions. These organizations include: The Constitutional Rights Centre, Vaccine Choice Canada,
Action4Canada, Children's Health Defence Canada, Stand On Guard for Thee, Canada Health
Alliance, and other organizations and individuals.
Each of these efforts are central and critical to our overall success. In each of these proceedings
the same constitutional challenges set out in our original claim, as applied to the circumstances,
are being advanced.
A984
0985
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-985 A985
It is important to recognize that these matters are legally and scientifically complex, and
constantly evolving. As new information and research emerges, this information needs to be
incorporated into future statements of claim and actions.
While we appreciate the frustration in witnessing the ongoing, systemic violations of our rights
and freedoms by those we entrusted to protect Canadians, we are confident that we are
making a difference and that our collective actions to hold government and others accountable
is causing governments and others to reconsider their measures.
We are compelled to state, on the fervent insistence of our legal counsel, that he resists,
objects and finds frustrating having to reveal our legal strategy in this fashion and that he takes
absolutely no responsibility in the blow-back to the litigation strategy that may ensue when
government becomes aware of this newsletter, and government will get wind of it, most likely
in a distorted version and misinterpretation of the content as has happened in the past with
comments made by our Counsel to the membership.
Citizen Action
I remind you that legal action alone cannot stop the systemic violations by our governments,
health agencies and mainstream media. These violations must also be addressed by direct
individual action.
This includes engaging your elected representatives, holding the media accountable for
deception and distortion, educating family and friends, being unwilling to comply with illegal,
unconstitutional and unwarranted measures, and being vocal in challenging illegal and
unconstitutional measures.
The ending of tyranny cannot be brought about by a single court case, a single lawyer, or a
single organization, but rather by each of us engaging in action to defend our rights and
freedoms.
Thank you for your patience and continued support.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada
A985
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-986 A9
A9
0987
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-987 A987
TAB 5
A987
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-993 A9
A9
0994
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-994 A994
TAB 6
A994
0995
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-995 A995
ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and-
DONNA TOEWS (A¥A "DAWNA TOEWS"), KIPLING WARNER, CANADIAN

Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sandra Sable, of the City of Ancaster, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am a volunteer with a not-for-profit organization headquartered in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, called "TakeActionCanada". My primary contribution to the organization is project
management, which involves assisting in the organization, execution, and maintenance of
initiatives brought to us by members of our community.
2. I have been provided with the affidavits of Kipling (known as Kip) Warner, and Vladislav
Sobolev filed in a motion brought by Mr. Warner in this action.
3. In early December 2021, I was selected to act as project coordinator on a legal initiative
specific to "First Responders" and "Essential Workers" at municipal levels within the
province of Ontario.
4. During the early stages of this initiative, several zoom meetings were conducted with the
objective of meeting and vetting legal representation in order to take legal action on behalf of
employees who had been discharged or leave without pay or fired for declining COVID-19
A995
0996
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-996 A996
2
vaccines, and/or been coerced against their free consent to take them to keep their jobs. The
group eventually narrowed down the candidates and put it to a vote. The group
overwhelmingly voted in favor ofretaining Mr. Rocco Galati. We then approached Mr.
Galati.
5. Within a few weeks of this decision, I received a text message from Vladislav Sobolev,
commonly known as "Vlad," requesting that he and I have a call.
6. I had only briefly connected with Vlad in June 2020, and as far as I knew, he had moved to
the west coast, British Columbia, that same summer. Nonetheless, I was aware of his
activities to supporting Canadians' rights under the Charter.
7. During our call, Vlad expressed concerns he had about Mr. Galati, which were based on his
own interactions with Mr. Galati a few months earlier. Vlad was very upset and felt that Mr.
Galati had let down many people who may or may not have been plaintiffs in legal actions.
He claimed to have had several interactions with Mr. Galati when he himself presented a
situation that he felt Mr. Galati should represent. He indicated that he wanted Mr. Galati to
represent him on his family law litigation with his partner with whom he had a child. Mr.
Galati declined on the basis that Mr. Galati does not do family law cases. Vlad felt angered
by this. Vlad felt that his case would set precedent for many Canadian families.
8. Vlad wanted me to know that, according to him, Mr. Galati had kept plaintiffs "in the dark"
and uninformed about the legal process. Vlad believed that it was not serving Canadians if
Mr. Galati refused to publicly disclose legal proceedings to which he was retained. Vlad
believed it was Mr. Gali ti's responsibility to Canadians to hold public forums on the
intricacies of each case. Vlad also mentioned that Mr. Galati had been unsuccessful in several
of his cases, which may compromise Canadians as a whole.
A996
0997
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-997 A997
3
9. As a point of reference to his misgivings about Mr. Galati, Vlad directed me to a website that
was populated and managed by a man known as Kip Warner. I had never heard of Mr.
Warner prior to my call with Vlad. It was clear to me that Vlad was comparing Mr. Warner
to Mr. Galati. He was comparing his beliefs of the style of lawyer between Mr. Galati and
Mr. Warner,even though Mr. Warner is not a Lawyer. I also recall Vladislav Sobolev
mentioning "professional opinions" that questioned Mr. Galati professional integrity, one
being "Canuck Law".
10. I visited Mr. Warner's website under the title of "Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy" at Vlad's direction. The website had a dedicated and lengthy
opinion piece, written by Mr. Warner, which was unfavorable towards Mr. Galati. Mr.
Warner questioned Mr. Galati's legal experience, fee schedules, and handling of a legal
action on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada. I had no reason to visit the Canadian Society for
the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, and Mr. Warner's site had it not been for
Vlad's direction to do so.
11. Although I am not a lawyer, I found Mr. Warner's article confusing in reference to his
opinions. However, my impression of Mr. Warner's powerfully written post was clearly
defamatory of Mr. Galati and likely creating doubt of Mr. Galati's professional expertise for
readers visiting the site.
12. While our group did not change lawyers, Mr. Wamers' post(s) and comments, which were
spread, along with those of a site called Canuck Law, caused the Plaintiffs to have doubts and
misgivings which caused many of our group to drop out of the group while we were trying to
reach sufficient numbers to commence the action after the decision made to retain Mr. Galati.
Many of the persons who dropped off, had already signed retainers and provided their fee, in
A997
0998
06dcfa10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-998 A998
4
trust, dropped out and requested a refund, which was granted before the refund deadline was
imposed once worked commenced on drafting of the Statement of Claim. This caused
extensive headaches and compromise to the financial viability of the action.
SWORN BEFORE ME BY VIDEO CONFERENCE

By Sandra Sable of Ancaster )
In the province of Ontario )
Before me at the City of Toronto ~ )
In the Province of Ontario, on thi~ay of)
March, 2023, in accordance with 0. Reg. 431/20:)
Administering Oath or Declaration Remotely. ) S'O\/\C~,blu
Sandra Sable

A998
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-999 A9
A9
10ea534a05a43fac6cb1743522-1000 A10
A10
001
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd16bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-1 A1001
ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -

Defendants

(Response to Motion to Strike)

PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
1062 College Street, Lower
Level Toronto, Ontario M6H
1A9
Tel: (416) 530-9684
Fax: (416) 530-8129
Lawyer for the Plaintiff
TO:
Tim Gleason
DEWART GLEASON LLP
LSO No. 43927A
Amani Rauff,
LSO No. 78111C
Telephone: 416-971-8000
Facsimile: 416-971-8001
A1001
002
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-2 A1002
INDEX
TAB DOCUMENT
1.
A. Body of the affidavit of Mr. Galati filed in his responding affidavit.

B. Body of Mr. Warner’s affidavit filed as “supplementary affidavit”
C. Mr. Warner's motion record on motion to strike
D. Transcript of the cross-examination
2.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A1002
003
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-3 A1003
TAB 1
A1003
008
A1008
0032
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-8

This Is Exhlbr "!SI-erred to in the
ONTARIO . Affjp avi t of.. r.,., ... lf.1.C.(1.fc:........... .
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUST\'wbrn b _ .fs.-efatu.Cl.f:..... : .
p, vlnce of B ltish Colum bia,
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI •,taklnlAffld�•••• .. •••..
within British Columbia.
A Noh,V the.
Publlc In and for
Province of Brltbh COludahlintlff
- and

Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, ROCCO GALATI, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am a senior lawyer, practicing in Toronto, Ontario, I have been practicing law since I
was called to the bar in Ontario in 1989. I practice law through my law finn Rocco Galati
Law Firm Professional Corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario and
requirements of the Law Society Act.
2. I am a highly regarded and sought-out lawyer. The vast majority of my clients have
always come from and through other lawyers. I have been a Member of Canadian Who's
Who (since 2011). In 2014 and 2015, I was named one of the Top 25 Influential Lawyers
by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In 2015 I was awarded the OBA (Ontario Bar
Association) President's Award, the OBA's highest award. I was in fact the first lawyer
to receive the award.
1
A1008
009
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-9 A1009
A1009
010
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-10 A1010
A1010
011
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-11 A1011
A1011
012
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-12 A1012
A1012
013
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-13 A1013
A1013
014
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-14 A1014
A1014
015
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-15 A1015
A1015
016
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-16 A1016
A1016
017
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-17 A1017
A1017
018
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-18 A1018
A1018
019
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-19 A1019
A1019
020
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-20 A1020
A1020
021
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-21 A1021
A1021
022
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-22 A1022
A1022
023
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-23 A1023
A1023
024
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-24 A1024
A1024
025
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-25 A1025
A1025
026
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-26 A1026
A1026
027
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-27 A1027
A1027
028
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-28 A1028
A1028
029
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-29 A1029
A1029
030
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-30 A1030
A1030
031
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-31 A1031
A1031
032
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-32 A1032
A1032
033
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-33 A1033
A1033
034
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-34 A1034
A1034
035
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-35 A1035
A1035
036
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-36 A1036
A1036
037
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-37 A1037
A1037
038
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-38 A1038
A1038
039
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-39 A1039
A1039
040
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-40 A1040
A1040
041
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-41 A1041
A1041
042
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-42 A1042
A1042
043
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-43 A1043
A1043
044
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-44 A1044
A1044
045
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-45 A1045
A1045
046
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-46 A1046
A1046
047
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-47 A1047
A1047
048
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-48 A1048
A1048
049
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-49 A1049
A1049
050
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-50 A1050
A1050
051
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-51 A1051
A1051
052
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-52 A1052
A1052
053
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-53 A1053
A1053
054
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-54 A1054
A1054
055
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-55 A1055
A1055
056
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-56 A1056
A1056
057
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-57 A1057
A1057
058
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-58 A1058
A1058
059
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-59 A1059
A1059
060
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-60 A1060
A1060
061
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-61 A1061
A1061
062
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-62 A1062
A1062
063
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-63 A1063
A1063
064
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-64 A1064
A1064
065
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-65 A1065
A1065
066
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-66 A1066
A1066
067
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-67 A1067
A1067
068
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-68 A1068
A1068
069
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-69 A1069
A1069
070
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-70 A1070
A1070
071
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-71 A1071
A1071
072
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-72 A1072
A1072
073
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-73 A1073
A1073
074
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-74 A1074
A1074
075
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-75 A1075
A1075
076
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-76 A1076
A1076
077
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-77 A1077
A1077
078
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-78 A1078
A1078
079
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-79 A1079
A1079
080
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-80 A1080
A1080
081
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-81 A1081
A1081
082
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-82 A1082
A1082
083
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-83 A1083
A1083
084
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-84 A1084
A1084
085
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-85 A1085
A1085
086
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-86 A1086
A1086
087
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-87 A1087
A1087
088
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-88 A1088
A1088
089
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-89 A1089
A1089
090
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-90 A1090
A1090
091
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-91 A1091
A1091
092
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-92 A1092
A1092
093
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-93 A1093
A1093
094
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-94 A1094
A1094
095
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-95 A1095
A1095
096
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-96 A1096
A1096
097
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-97 A1097
A1097
098
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-98 A1098
A1098
099
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-99 A1099
A1099
100
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-100 A1100
A1100
101
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-101 A1101
A1101
102
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-102 A1102
A1102
103
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-103 A1103
A1103
104
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-104 A1104
A1104
105
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-105 A1105
A1105
106
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-106 A1106
A1106
107
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-107 A1107
A1107
108
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-108 A1108
A1108
109
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-109 A1109
A1109
110
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-110 A1110
A1110
111
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-111 A1111
A1111
112
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-112 A1112
A1112
113
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-113 A1113
A1113
114
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-114 A1114
A1114
115
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-115 A1115
A1115
116
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-116 A1116
A1116
117
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-117 A1117
A1117
118
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-118 A1118
A1118
119
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-119 A1119
A1119
120
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-120 A1120
A1120
121
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-121 A1121
A1121
122
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-122 A1122
A1122
123
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-123 A1123
A1123
124
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-124 A1124
A1124
125
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-125 A1125
A1125
126
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-126 A1126
A1126
127
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-127 A1127
A1127
128
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-128 A1128
A1128
129
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-129 A1129
A1129
130
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-130 A1130
A1130
131
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-131 A1131
A1131
132
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-132 A1132
A1132
133
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-133 A1133
A1133
134
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-134 A1134
A1134
135
283432483989244f94486d4bd1-135 A11
A11
136
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-136 A1136
TAB 2
A1136
170
6bc087283432483989244f94486d4bd1-170 A1170
A1170
171
283432483989244f94486d4bd1-171 A11
Court File No.: CV-22-683322-0000
Rocco Galati Kipling Warner et al.
-and-
Plaintiff Defendants
ONTARIO
. SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT TORONTO
__________________________________________

__________________________________________
Name: ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
Rocco Galati
Address:1062 College Street
Lower Level
Toronto ON M6H 1A9
Telephone No.: 416-530-9684

Fax No.: 416-530-8129
Lawyer for the Plaintiff,

on his own behalf
A11
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-1 A1172
ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -

Defendants
RESPONDING (PLAINTIFF’S) FACTUM

(Response to s.137.1 Motion Returnable September 12th, 2023)

PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
1062 College Street, Lower
Level Toronto, Ontario M6H
1A9
Tel: (416) 530-9684
Fax: (416) 530-8129
Lawyer for the Plaintiff on his
own behalff
TO:
Tim Gleason
DEWART GLEASON LLP
LSO No. 43927A
Amani Rauff,
LSO No. 78111C
Telephone: 416-971-8000
Facsimile: 416-971-8001
A1172
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-2 1 A1173
PART I – THE FACTS

• The Plaintiff
2. The Plaintiff, called to the bar in 1989, is a highly regarded and sought out lawyer. He has twice,
in 2014 and 2015, been named, by Canadian Lawyer Magazine as one of the top 25 influential
lawyers in Canada, in 2015 awarded the OBA’s highest award, the Presidential Award. He also
served as an elected bencher between 2015 and 2019 and sat as a hearing panel member of the
Law Society Tribunal from 2015 to 2021. He has seven front page magazine covers, extensive
profile articles in such magazines as Canadian Lawyer and Saturday Night. He has litigated, at
all level Courts, both Federal and Provincial Superior and Provincial Courts, in five(5)
Provinces and has, as counsel well over 400 reported cases in the jurisprudence, including the
Supreme Court of Canada. He has spoken, upon invitation of various Law conferences and
universities from 1999 to the present, as well as being counsel at the student legal aid clinic at
the University of Toronto Faculty of law. He is founder and executive director of the
Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. (“CRC”) since its inception in 2004. He has further
exclusively produced three films and co-authored two books.1 In his 35 years of practice the
Plaintiff has never been referred to a discipline hearing nor ever been found to engage in
misconduct by the Law Society.
1
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati, at Tab 2, pp. 1-8
A1173
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-3 2 A1174
• The Defendants
3. The Plaintiff does not know, ever met, nor represented in any capacity, nor ever had any direct
contact with any of the Defendants.2
4. Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada have been the Plaintiff’s client since 2015 and 2020
respectively. The Plaintiff has absolutely NO role in their organizations whatsoever, except to
provide legal services, on a fee for services basis.3
5. The Defendants Donna Toews and Kip Warner, engaged in actions to harm the Plaintiff as set
out in paragraphs 20-37 of his affidavit of March 14th, 2023.
7. The Defendants Kip Warner and Dee Ghandi, published defamatory statements to others, and
on the Society’s website, set out in paragraph 41 of the Plaintiff’s affidavit. 5
8. Apart from the blatant false, untrue, and defamatory remarks in those publications, and apart
from the blatant conspiracy to have members of the public make complaints about the Plaintiff
on nebulous and unsubstantiated grounds, those publications further mislead and defame as set
out in paragraph 42, of the Plaintiff’s affidavit. 6
2
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati, at Tab 2, para. 8-11
3
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati, at Tab 2, para. 13-19
4
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record, at Tab 3 and 5
5
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati, at Tab 2, para. 41
6
A1174
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-4 3 A1175
11. The Plaintiff’s position is that this is one of two glaring instances where Mr. Warner has
blatantly misled the Court. The other is in trying to hide when he first knew and met Ms.
Toews. In his initial affidavit he misled by stating that he first met her in January of 2022
shortly after she made the Law Society Complaint against the Plaintiff. When later evidence
showed that he had actually met her a year earlier, after she donated $10,000.00 to his Society,
and that he in fact assisted and commandeered her complaint to the LSO, Mr. Warner changed
7
A1176
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-6 5 A1177
his tune and stated it was a typo or mistake, as between years. This is belied by the fact that he
referenced the timing of the Law Society Complaint in his initial lie to the Court.
12. The above is some of the indication of the malice and conspiracy by the Defendants with
respect to their conduct and actions.
13. Ms. Toews, had no answer as to why she did not take up the donation issue with the recipients
of the donation rather than their lawyer.11
14. With respect to justifying the statements made about the Plaintiff as a lawyer, the Defendants
Mr. Warner and Mr. Ghandi, point to isolated, targeted, “losses” of the Plaintiff in order to
distort his reputation as a lawyer. They had no answers as to why their “research” had a
“disregard to the truth”, and absence of due diligence as to the Plaintiff’s track record, “wins”
and reputation. They hand-picked half a dozen out of the thousands of cases, and over 400
reported cases the Plaintiff has in the jurisprudence.
15. In his affidavit, Mr. Warner heavily relies on the publications of “Canuck Law”, which is the
website run by Alexandra Moore. Mr. Warner, in cross examination, stated that he has known
Ms. Moore for approximately 2 1/2 years, spoke to her regularly, and had last spoken to her
only two weeks prior to cross examination. Canuck Law and Ms. Moore are the Defendants in
a separate action for having, and continue to publish, racist and anti-Semitic, and false
allegations of “fraud”. Her defamation is summarized in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Plaintiff’s
affidavit of March 14, 2023.12
16. This is further indicia of Mr. Warner’s malice and “reckless disregard for the truth” towards
the Plaintiff, in his conspiracy with others to injure the Plaintiff and interfere with his economic
11
Defendants Transcript Brief, cross-examination of Donna Toews, at Tab 2, pages 41-47
12
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati, at Tab 2, pp. 49 and 50
A1177
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-7 6 A1178
interests. The non-reputational damage to the Plaintiff is set out at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the
Plaintiff’s affidavit of March 14th, 2023.
17. The Plaintiff’s responses to the assertions made by Kip Warner are directly addressed, in his
affidavit off March 14th, 2023, at paragraphs 53-94, while those of Dee Ghandi are directly
addressed at paragraphs 95-107, and those of Donna Toews are directly addressed at
paragraphs 108-112, and those of Federico Fuoco, at 113-123, confirmed by the affidavit of
Tanya Gaw.13
18. Since the issuance of this action, and retention of counsel, by the defendants, Kip Warner and
the Society, continued to harass and post defamatory remarks.
19. The Defendants, through their actions, have caused damages to the Plaintiff as follows:
(a) immense damage to reputation propagating the false statements, lies, an innuendos
that: (i) the Plaintiff cannot practice in British Columbia; (ii) that the Plaintiff is
“not a constitutional lawyer”; (iii) that the Plaintiff is not competent as a lawyer;
(b) Financial damages to the CRC and in turn the Plaintiff;
(c) Inducement of breach of his contracts with his clients;
(d) loss of dignity, mental anguish and anxiety, from the vile, hostile, treatment, and
threats to his bodily integrity received as a result of the Defendants’ statements.
20. The Defendants, on the s.137.1 motion, with respect to defamation, pleads the following
defences: (a)Truth; (b) Fair comment; (c) Good faith on occasions of absolute and qualified
13
Responding (Plaintiff’s) Motion Record
A1178
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-8 7 A1179
privilege; (d) Responsible communication; (e) and that ss.5(1) and (6) of the Libel and Slander
Act were not complied with. The Plaintiff responds that: (a) The statements are not true; (b)
Not privileged either absolute or qualified; (c) Were not responsible communication; (d) That
the defendants were not entitled to notice because they are not a “broadcaster” or “newspaper”
and in any event did not comply with s.8 as to entitle them to notice. The Plaintiff further states
that the statements were made in “reckless disregard to the truth”, without adequate
investigation, and with no due diligence, and constituted personal attacks, and were malicious,
and that malice further defeats any possible defence to fair comment, qualified privilege, or
responsible communication.14
21. The Defendants further assert that: (a) No harm was caused to the Plaintiff; (b) The Plaintiff
commenced this action in bad faith or improper purpose; (c) This action has caused the
Defendants damage. The Plaintiff responds that: (a) Damage has been caused to the Plaintiff
for which evidence has been provided both reputational and economic; (b) There is no evidence
of bad faith or improper purpose in the Plaintiff commencing this action; (c) There is no
evidence of any damage caused to the Defendants.
PART II- THE ISSUES & THE LAW

• THE ISSUES
22. Whether the publication of the defamatory remarks “arise from an expression made by a
person that relates to a matter of public interest”?
23. If the expressions were made relating to a matter of public interest whether:
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
14
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645 ; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R.
1130
A1179
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-9 8 A1180
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and (ii) the moving party has no valid
defence in the proceeding?; and
(b) Whether the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a
result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in
permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that
expression?
• THE LAW
24. This is a motion, by the Defendants, under s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act from an
action commenced by the Plaintiffs. The relevant provisions of this motion are sub-sections
137.1(3) and (4).
25. In recent companion case to 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association 2020
SCC 22. Supreme Court of Canada, Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23 decided at the same
time, and applying the principles delineated in 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection
Association, by the Supreme Court of Canada, is on the facts an law on all four with the
within action and motion.
26. The majority judgment in Bent v. Platnick, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing
with s.137. 1, in a motion in an action by a medical doctor, ruled as follows:
…
However, in addition to protecting expression on matters of public interest,
s. 137.1 must also “ensur[e] that a plaintiff with a legitimate claim is not
unduly deprived of the opportunity to pursue it”: para. 46. Applying the
framework that this Court unanimously adopts in Pointes Protection, I ultimately
reach the same conclusion as the Court of Appeal for Ontario: Ms. Bent’s s. 137.1
motion should be dismissed and Dr. Platnick’s defamation claim should be
allowed to proceed.15
• Threshold Burden – s.137.1 (3)
15
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645 at paragraph 74
A1180
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-10 9 A1181
27. The Plaintiffs states that the defamatory statements, fortuitous and personal attacks, in the
within action are the only substance of the statements and Defendants’ comments. The
publications are nothing but “stings”. The Plaintiff, for the arguments delineated below in
this factum, states that there is no “public interest” in stand-alone defamatory, malicious,
fortuitous and unnecessary personal attacks, and perpetual personal attacks on
professionalism and false allegations of fraud targeting the private practice of a private
lawyer, and that the Defendants fail on their in limine onus to set out “public interest” in
their publications and statements.
• Merits-Based Hurdle – s.137.1 (4) (a)
28. With respect to the Plaintiffs’ onus under these provisions, the Supreme Court of Canada, in
Bent v. Platnick ruled as follows:
[87] In Pointes Protection, this Court clarifies the fact that unlike s. 137.1(3),
which requires a showing on a balance of probabilities, s. 137.1(4)(a)
expressly contemplates a “grounds to believe” standard instead: para. 35.
This requires a basis in the record and the law — taking into account the stage
of the litigation — for finding that the underlying proceeding has substantial
merit and that there is no valid defence: para. 39.
[88] I elaborate here that, in effect, this means that any basis in the record and
the law will be sufficient. By definition, “a basis” will exist if there is a single
basis in the record and the law to support a finding of substantial merit and
the absence of a valid defence. That basis must of course be legally tenable and
reasonably capable of belief. But the “crux of the inquiry” is found, after all, in
s. 137.1(4)(b), which also serves as a “robust backstop” for protecting freedom of
expression: Pointes Protection, at paras. 48 and 53.16
16
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraph 87, 88
A1181
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-11 10 A1182
indefensible and false statements of criminal conduct, amplify and solidify the clear
innuendo of the previous statements of Mr. Warner.
30. It is not a matter of public interest where the expression is nothing more than a “sting”, a
stand-alone defamatory remark attacking or calling into question the person or the
competence, professionalism, integrity, and hostility of that person, as ruled by the Ontario
Court of Appeal, in Sokoloff v Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd., 2020
ONCA 730.17
• Substantial merit – s. 137.1 (4) (a) (i)
31. With respect to this onus, the Supreme Court of Canada further ruled:
[90] In Pointes Protection, this Court defined “substantial merit” as a “real

prospect of success — in other words, a prospect of success that, while not
amounting to a demonstrated likelihood of success, tends to weigh more in
favour of the plaintiff”: para. 49.
1. The words complained of were published, meaning that they were

communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff;
2. The words complained of referred to the plaintiff; and
3. The impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to
lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person. 18
As in Bent v. Platnick the Plaintiffs state that there is no issue that the Defendants in the
within action (re) published and uttered the comments for which they have been sued. The
Plaintiffs further state that they refer to the Plaintiff, and that the words are defamatory,
explicitly, or by innuendo, and tend to lower the Plaintiffs’ reputation in the eyes of a
reasonable person.
17
Sokoloff v Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd., 2020 ONCA 730 at paragraphs 18,19,20 32
18
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraph 90
A1182
cfb7
• No Valid Defence – s. 137.1 (4) (a) (ii)
33. With respect to this onus, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled:
[101] Section 137.1(4)(a)(ii) requires Dr. Platnick to show that there are
“grounds to believe” that Ms. Bent has “no valid defence” to his defamation
proceeding. As this Court states in Pointes Protection, at para. 60, this inquiry
“[m]irror[s]” the one under s. 137.1(4)(a)(i): in other words, Dr. Platnick must
show that there are grounds to believe that Ms. Bent’s defences have “no real
prospect of success”. In effect, “substantial merit” and “no valid defence” are
“constituent parts of an overall assessment of the prospect of success of the
underlying claim”: para. 59.
19
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraphs 97-100
A1183
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-13 12 A1184
[102] This makes sense because it reflects how defamation actions, like the one
here, are typically litigated. At trial, the plaintiff must first make a prima
facie showing of defamation. This is what “substantial merit”
captures: Pointes Protection, at para. 59. The burden then shifts to the
defendant to advance a defence to escape liability: Torstar, at paras. 28-29.
This is what “no valid defence” captures: Pointes Protection, at para. 59.
• Justification/Truth
34. With respect to the justification defence, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that:
[107] Once a prima facie showing of defamation has been made, the words
complained of are presumed to be false: Torstar, at para. 28. To succeed on the
defence of justification, “a defendant must adduce evidence showing that the
statement was substantially true”: para. 33. The burden on the defendant is to
prove the substantial truth of the ‘“sting’, or main thrust, of the
defamation”: Downard, at §1.6 (footnote omitted). In other words, “[t]he
defence of justification will fail if the publication in issue is shown to have
contained only accurate facts but the sting of the libel is not shown to be
true”: Downard, at §6.4.21
The Plaintiff states that is clearly present in the within action.
35. The Supreme Court of Canada went on to say that:

[108] Of particular importance here is the fact that partial truth is not a
defence. If a material part of the justification defence fails, the defence fails
altogether: R. E. Brown, Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom,
Australia, New Zealand, United States (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at pp. 10-88 to 10-
90 (“Brown on Defamation”). However, a defendant may justify only part of a
libel “if that part is severable and distinct from the rest”: p. 10-89 (footnote
omitted). This depends on the allegation being separate and self-contained
rather than an “ingredient or part of a connected whole”: p. 10-90 (footnote
omitted).22
In the within case there is “grounds to believe”, and “reasonably capable of belief”, that the
Plaintiff can succeed on at least one of the “stings”, which he clearly can based on the
statements, and law.
36. Applying the facts, the Supreme Court of Canada further ruled:
[109] Applied to the facts of this case, the “sting” of the words is an allegation
of professional misconduct. In her email, Ms. Bent essentially alleges that
Dr. Platnick either misrepresented or altered the opinions of other medical experts
21
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraphs 107
22
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraphs 108
A1184
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-14 13 A1185
with a view to depriving a claimant of a catastrophic impairment classification to

which he or she was entitled. In effect, she alleges dishonesty and serious
professional misconduct. As mentioned above, Ms. Bent appears to accept that
this is the “sting”, or “innuendo”, of the words in her email. Therefore, she
would have to lead evidence that the allegation of professional misconduct is
substantially true in order for her defence of justification to succeed at trial.
Here, on a s. 137.1 motion, Dr. Platnick must show that there are grounds to
believe that Ms. Bent has no real prospect of success in making that showing.
[110] In effect, then, the truth of just one of Ms. Bent’s statements will be
insufficient for the defence to succeed….23
The Plaintiff states that the same holds in the within action. And further that:
[118] Thus, as the foregoing demonstrates, there is a basis in the evidentiary

record to support a finding that the allegation that “Dr. Platnick changed [a]
doctor’s decision” is not substantially true. That basis is legally tenable and
supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief: Pointes Protection,
at para. 50….
[120] In conclusion, I find that there are grounds to believe that Ms. Bent’s
defence of justification has no real prospect of success. As I established
above, she would in fact have to justify both of the statements she made, as
both would appear to make up constituent parts of the “sting”, which is that
Dr. Platnick is guilty of professional misconduct. As I noted, there are
grounds to believe that the statements are not severable, not only in light of a
common sense inference that ties them to a single sting, but also in light of
Ms. Bent’s express language connecting them. Insofar as there is a basis in the
record to support a finding that Ms. Bent’s second statement — that Dr. Platnick
“changed [another] doctor’s decision from a marked to a moderate
impairment” — is not substantially true, and in light of my conclusion that
such a basis exists, then the defence of justification is foreclosed at this stage.
It must be borne in mind here that “grounds to believe” simply
requires a (single) basis in the record and the law to support this finding. The
Dua Letter provides such a basis in addition to the evidentiary record that existed
prior to that letter.24
Again, which is applicable to the within action.
• Qualified Privilege
37. With respect to the qualified privilege defence the Supreme Court of Canada rules:
23
24
A1185
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-15 14 A1186
[121] An occasion of qualified privilege exists if a person making a

communication has “an interest or duty, legal, social, moral or personal, to
publish the information in issue to the person to whom it is
published” and the recipient has “a corresponding interest or duty to receive
it”: Downard, at §9.6 (footnote omitted). Importantly, “[q]ualified privilege
attaches to the occasion upon which the communication is made, and not to the
communication itself”: Hill, at para. 143; Botiuk, at para. 78. Where the occasion
is shown to be privileged, “the defendant is free to publish, with impunity,
remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff”: Hill, at
para. 144; Botiuk, at para. 79. However, the privilege is qualified in the sense
that it can be defeated. This can occur particularly in two situations: where
the dominant motive behind the words was malice, such as where the speaker
was reckless as to the truth of the words spoken; or where the scope of the
occasion of privilege was exceeded (Downard, at §1.9; see also Hill, at
paras. 145-47; Botiuk, at paras. 79-80).
[122] For this reason, a precise characterization of the “occasion” is essential, as

it becomes impressed with the limited, qualified privilege, which in turn becomes
the benchmark against which to measure whether the occasion was exceeded or
abused.25
The Plaintiff states that the Defendants were reckless in their targeting the Plaintiff in an
obsessively negative and distorted fashion in depicting him as incompetent,
unprofessional, dishonest, and a fraud. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled:
[128] Qualified privilege may be defeated “when the limits of the duty or
interest have been exceeded”: Hill, at para. 146; Botiuk, at para. 80. This is the
case when the information communicated in a statement is not relevant to the
discharge of the duty or the exercise of the right giving rise to the privilege,
or when the information is not reasonably appropriate to the legitimate
purposes of the occasion: Downard, at §9.91; Botiuk, at para. 80; Hill, at
paras. 146-47; RTC Engineering Consultants Ltd. v. Ontario (Solicitor
General) (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 726 (C.A.), at para. 18.
[132] Lastly, the record reveals a lack of investigation or reasonable due

diligence by Ms. Bent prior to making her serious allegations. 26
The Plaintiff states that not only did the Society’s website “FAQ” exceed this privilege
but, coupled with the email to Mr. Dicks, the Defendants went out their way to depict the
25
26
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraphs 128 and 132
A1186
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-16 15 A1187
Plaintiff as incompetent, unprofessional, and dishonest and a fraud. The Defendants’
assertion that they were responding to queries as to the connection between them as the
Plaintiff rings false. They could have simply stated that there was no connection between
them and the Plaintiff and left it there. Furthermore, their assertions of being flooded with
queries and complaints about the Plaintiff also rings false as they could only produce one
(1) such query/complaint on cross-examination. There is a clear manifestation of a “lack
of investigation” and “reasonable due diligence” and in fact clear indication of knowingly
and malicious distorting the truth, “with reckless disregard to the truth”.
The Supreme Court of Canada concludes with:
[136] I add that malice is an alternative way to defeat the defence of qualified
privilege. Malice is not limited to an actual, express motive to speak
dishonestly. Instead, it can be established by “reckless disregard for the
truth”: Hill, at para. 145; Botiuk, at para. 79. Notably, an ostensibly honestly
held belief may still be spoken recklessly and the privilege defeated if the
belief was “arrived at without reasonable grounds”: Downard, at §9.60 and
9.61. “The more serious the allegation in issue, the more weight a court will
give to a failure by the defendant to verify it prior to publication as evidence
of malice, in the sense of indifference to the truth”: §9.74 (footnote omitted)…
This was re-iterated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canadian Union of Postal
Workers and B’nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529.27 And further that malice can be
gauged or found on the face of the defamation remarks themselves:
[122]"By the end of the first quarter of the 19th century, a plea of malice became a
mere formality since it was held that malice could be implied from the mere
publication of a defamatory remark. Technically the plaintiff need not enter a plea
of malice to sustain a cause of action in libel and slander, but the practice of doing so
has continued. " 28
38. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Bent v. Platnick, further stated:
[137] ….It seems that Ms. Bent’s email was sent without any investigation,
even in the simplest sense of communicating with Dr. Platnick or checking
27
Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529 at para 31
28
Hiltz and Seamone Co. Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., 1999 NSCA 22 (CanLII) at paragraph 122.
A1187
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-17 16 A1188
her own records and files from a case that had taken place three years
earlier: C.A. reasons, at para. 92; A.R., vol. XIII, at p. 6. In fact, Ms. Bent had
never spoken to or met Dr. Platnick, yet she alleged that he had falsified a
report simply because she had received two reports with an apparent
discrepancy between them…
[138] In any case, I conclude that, even assuming that qualified privilege
attaches to the occasion upon which Ms. Bent’s communication was made,
there are grounds to believe that the defence is not valid under
s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) because it may be defeated by virtue of Ms. Bent having
exceeded the scope of the privilege, and perhaps even by her reckless disregard
for the truth (i.e. malice). My colleague would summarily dismiss
Dr. Platnick’s claim on this prong, definitively foreclosing even the
opportunity for him to vindicate his reputation at a trial where ultimate
assessments of credibility can be made and the aforementioned evidence can
be properly tested. Instead, my colleague chooses to accept Ms. Bent’s
evidence over Dr. Platnick’s at this early stage. With respect, this is not what
is called for on a s. 137.1 motion. As this Court makes clear in Pointes
Protection, Dr. Platnick needs to have established only a basis in the record
and the law, taking into account the stage of the litigation, to support a
finding that Ms. Bent’s defences do not weigh more in her favour. For the
purposes of this motion, and for the reasons explained above, I am satisfied that
there is such a basis here. 29
The Plaintiff states that this also applies to the within action.
39. It is worth noting that, in the within action, all the facts on the findings by of the Supreme
Court of Canada Bent v. Platnick are more than present here in the within action. The
Defendants, engaged in reckless statements and innuendo, without sober investigation, in a
singularly distorted and targeted exercise of painting the Plaintiff as generally incompetent,
unprofessional, dishonest, and a “fraud”. Any defence of qualified privilege, on fair
comment, or responsible publication is therefore defeated.
• Damages caused by Defamation

40. The Supreme Court of Canada went on to state and rule that:
[144] General damages are presumed in defamations actions, and this alone
is sufficient to constitute harm: Pointes Protection, at para. 71; Torstar, at
29
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraphs 135-136-137-138
A1188
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-18 17 A1189
para. 28. However, the magnitude of the harm will be important in assessing
whether the harm is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting
the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting the
expression: Pointes Protection, at para. 70. General damages in the nominal
sense will ordinarily not be sufficient for this purpose.30
And further:
[146] In addition, reputational harm is eminently relevant to the harm inquiry

under s. 137.1(4)(b). Indeed, “reputation is one of the most valuable assets a
person or a business can possess”: Pointes Protection, at para. 69 (citing
“agreement” with the words of the Attorney General of Ontario at the legislation’s
second reading). This Court’s jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasized the
weighty importance that reputation ought to be given. Certainly, “[a] good
reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the
individual. It is an attribute that must, just as much as freedom of
expression, be protected by society’s laws”: Hill, at para. 107; see also Botiuk,
at paras. 91-92.
[147] The import of reputation is only amplified when one

considers professional reputation…
[148] Thus, not only must the monetary harm pleaded by Dr. Platnick be
considered in determining whether the harm is sufficiently serious, but so too
must the reputational harm to Dr. Platnick’s professional reputation be
considered, even if it is not quantifiable at this stage: Pointes Protection, at
para. 71. Indeed, the damaging effects that a defamatory remark may have on
a plaintiff’s “position and standing” in the professional community
exacerbate the harm suffered as a result:…..
…
[150] Ultimately, the question here relates to the existence of harm, not to
whether that harm was justifiably inflicted or suffered. Once the existence of
harm is established, the next question depends on whether that harm was
suffered as a result of the defendant’s expression…31
The Plaintiff states that the evidence is that, as a result of the defamatory publications the
Plaintiff was subject to hostile and viscous reaction from the public at large, including threats
30
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraph 144
31
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645, at paragraphs 146-147-149-150
A1189
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-19 18 A1190
to bodily harm, as well as an obliteration of donations to the Constitutional Rights Centre
(CRC) as set out in the affidavit evidence.32
• Public Interest Balance
41. In determining the public interest balance, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bent v. Platnick
went on to rule:
[163] In Pointes Protection, this Court finds that the public interest in protecting
an expression can be determined by reference to the core values that
underlie s. 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , such as the
search for truth, participation in political decision making, and diversity in forms
of self-fulfilment and human flourishing: para. 77. That said, in Hill, this Court
noted that “defamatory statements are very tenuously related to the core
values which underlie s. 2 (b)”: para. 106. In consistent fashion, this Court
finds in Pointes Protection that there will be less of a public interest in
protecting a statement that contains “gratuitous personal attacks” and that
the “motivation behind” the expression will be relevant to the inquiry:
paras. 74-75 (emphasis omitted).
[164] Accordingly, in determining the public interest in protecting Ms. Bent’s

expression, I need to consider the fact that she made a personal attack against
Dr. Platnick, which cast doubt on his professional competence, integrity, and
reputation. The personal attack was launched by Ms. Bent even though she
and Dr. Platnick had never met or had a single discussion. It bears on my
analysis that Ms. Bent never reached out to Dr. Platnick to confront him or
to investigate her allegations against him.33
And further that allowing the case to proceed “will not deter others from speaking out”, “but
deterring others unnecessarily singling out an individual that is extraneous or peripheral to
the public interests”:34 None of the Defendants ever had any prior direct contract nor reached
out to the Plaintiff. Their expressions were “gratuitous personal attacks” made in “reckless
disregard to the truth”.
42. In weighing the public interest, the Supreme Court of Canada concludes:
[171] This line of reasoning by my colleague is, respectfully, unmoored from
a proper s. 137.1(4)(b) analysis. This Court in Pointes Protection squarely
32
Responding (Plaintiffs) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati at Tab 2, para. 46-47, Exhibits V,W,X,Y
33
34
A1190
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-20 19 A1191
rejects any inquiry into the hallmarks of a SLAPP: “the s. 137.1(4)(b) stage is
fundamentally a public interest weighing exercise and not simply an inquiry
into the hallmarks of a SLAPP” (para. 79)…..
[172] In light of the open-ended nature of s. 137.1(4)(b), courts have the power to
“scrutinize what is really going on in the particular case before them”: Pointes
Protection, at para. 81. On its face, this is not a case in which one party is
vindictively or strategically silencing another party; it is a case in which one
party is attempting to remedy seemingly legitimate harm suffered as a result
of a defamatory communication. This is not the type of case that comes
within the legislature’s contemplation of one deserving to be summarily
dismissed at an early stage, nor does it come within the language of the
statute requiring such a dismissal.35
The Plaintiff states, contrary to the Defendants’ assertions, that the same applies to the within
action.
• Fair Comment & Responsible Communication/Publication
43. It is submitted that the Defendants, in the circumstances, cannot make the Defence of Fair
Comment, and furthermore any such defence is defeated by malice. The defence of Fair
Comment, as delineated by the Supreme Court of Canada, is not available to the
Defendants:36 It is further submitted that the Defendants cannot meet the Defence of
Responsible Communication, as delineated by the jurisprudence and is moreover defeated by
malice in these circumstances. 37
44. It is submitted that this defence cannot be made, and that there is grounds to believe that it
cannot succeed, when due regard is had to the following facts and evidence: (a)The evidence
of malice; (b) Lack of factual basis for the comments; and (c) presence of “reckless regard
for the truth, and improper investigation and lack of responsible due diligence. 38
35
36
WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, at para. 31.
37
Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529, at paragraph 27; B.W. (Brad)
Blair v. Premier Doug Ford, 2020 ONSC 7100 , at paragraph 44; Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3
S.C.R. 640 at para 105, 109, 111, 113, 114, 119-120
38
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645
A1191
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-21 20 A1192
45. The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled, consistent with other jurisprudence, that:
[33] I thus conclude that the motion judge had a basis in the record to find
grounds to believe that the appellants' defences would fail. He was entitled to find
that there was evidence that the appellants acted on assumptions without
exercising due diligence, and that this may be fatal to their defences of
responsible communication and fair comment. He was also entitled to find that
there was evidence of malice that would undermine the appellants' defences. 39
• Conspiracy
46. It is respectfully submitted that, on the evidence, there are grounds to believe, that the
conspiracy cause of action has substantial merit when due regard is had to:
(a) The relationship between Warner, Gandhi, and Toews, and the co-ordination of
Gandhi’s defamatory e-mail to the journalist Dicks;
(b) The website of the Society in Warner making false statements and encouraging
members of the public to report the Plaintiff to the LSO if they have “concerns”,
albeit with admitted no knowledge of any wrong-doing;
47. It is further submitted that the law further recognizes the concept of overlapping conspiracies
in that tort, as well as in the criminal law.
• Pointed Response to Defendants’ Factum
39
Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529 at para 33
A1192
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-22 21 A1193
48. In addition to what the Plaintiff has pleaded above in his factum, the Plaintiff further makes
pointed responses to the Defendants’ factum as set out below.
49. With respect to paragraph 7-37 of the Defendants factum, the Plaintiff states that he has
addressed those assertions in his affidavit of March 14th, 2023, as well as his cross
examination of that affidavit upon both of which he relies.40
50. With respect to paragraphs 38-46 of the Defendants factum, the Plaintiff states that these
facts confirm, and are in line with the Plaintiff’s conspiracy cause of action. The Plaintiff
again points out that the Defendant, in his initial affidavit, dated January 27th, 2023, in
support of his s.137.1 motion, misled the Court in the stating that he met Ms. Toews in 2022,
shortly after she made her LSO complaint. Only when presented with evidence, in the
Plaintiff’s affidavit of March 14th, 2023, did Mr. Warner feign confusion over the year
which, loudly signals false because the evidence establishes that Ms. Toews had made a
$10,000 contribution to the Society in early 2021, and had been volunteering for the Society.
Mr. Warner's reference to 2022 in his initial affidavit could not have been an error because it
pegs the year shortly after the LSO complaint which was in early 2022, in which
complaint he took a guiding role.
51. With respect to paragraphs 47-50, and the Plaintiff’s damages, the Plaintiff states that, above
and beyond reputational damages, which according to the Supreme Court of Canada do not
require quantifying41, he has, at this stage, for the purposes of the motion, proved financial
damages in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bent v. Platnick 42.
40
Responding (Plaintiffs) Motion Record, affidavit of Rocco Galati at Tab 2
41
42
Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645 at para. 138;144;146;150
A1193
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-23 22 A1194
52. With respect to paragraph 51 of the Defendants’ factum, the Plaintiff states that the quote
attributed to the Plaintiff is irrelevant to this motion and furthermore simply reflects what is
contained in the statement of claim, filed with the Superior Court, and covered by absolute
privilege.
A1194
cfb
cfb
cf
59. With respect to paragraphs 55-57 of the Defendants’ factum, and the public interest onus of
the Defendants, the Plaintiff states that they have not met their threshold for the argument set
out above in the within factum.
61. With respect to paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Defendants’ factum, and the absolute privilege
of making a LSO complaint, the Plaintiff states:
45
Singh v. MEI [1985] S.C.R. 177 (SCC) at para. 59.
A1197
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-27 26 A1198
(a) Ms. Toews is not being sued strictly for abusive of process, akin to malicious
prosecution, but also in conspiracy, and interference with economic interests outside
the context of her LSO complaint;
(b) With respect to the absolute privilege accorded to the LSO complaint, the Plaintiff
states that such complaint must be; (i) bona fide; (ii) from a client;
(c) The fact that the common-law interpreting that provision to be absolute, requires a
revisiting in light of Charter values and rights, in that:
(i) the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the symbiotic solicitor-client
relationship is s.7 Charter protected;46
(ii) that the common-law is subject to constitutional norms and scrutiny;47
(iii) that a lawyer’s reputation engages s.7 Charter values in protecting personal
integrity.48
62. Ms. Toews is also being sued in her in the conspiracy to interfere with the Plaintiff’s
economic interests, as well to injure the Plaintiff, as witnessed by her connection with Kip
Warner, Kip Warner's role in commandeering the LSO complaint, and both the attempts of
Ms. Toews and Mr. Warner to hide this from the Court and not provide any answers, on
cross-examination, as to why Ms. Toews issue with her $1,000.00 donation was to be
addressed by the Plaintiff rather than the Plaintiff’s clients.
63. With respect to paragraph 61 and 62 of the Defendants’ factum, and the conspiracy action,
the Plaintiff states that there are overlapping conspiracies as between Mr. Warner, Mr.
46
Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 401
47
R. v. Salituro, 1991 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 654; RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5
(SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 573; Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 1994 SCC, 1994] 3 SCR 835
48
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
A1198
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-28 27 A1199
Gandhi, and the Society, and between Mr. Warner and Ms. Toews, all aimed at injuring the
Plaintiff by interfering with his economic interests, as well as damaging his reputation, albeit
that defamation is not plead against Ms. Toews. Defamation is not the only means by
which to damage reputation.
65. The Plaintiff further states, with respect to the Defendants’ other torts, apart from
defamation, insofar as it does not relate to defamation, the non-defamation torts are not the
proper purview of this motion because s.137.1’s scope is the public debate in the public
interest, which necessarily restricts itself to expression, and not the non-expression conduct
amounting to separate torts.
66. With respect to paragraph 64 of the Defendants’ factum, the Plaintiff states that the
Defendants’ conduct does amount to harassment in that the website continuously reproduces
and renews the same defamatory comments. Furthermore, Mr. Warner and other supporters,
49
A1199
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-29 28 A1200
at the cross examination of the Plaintiff and other affiants on his behalf, in the action against
Alexandra Moore and Canuck Law, appeared at the cross examination and insisted on
remaining as “observers”.
50
Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 401;
R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206
A1200
cfb7
69. With respect to paragraphs 101-117 of the Defendants’ factum, the Plaintiff states that these
assertions are without merit. These assertions are both made in the dark, and without
evidence. Above and beyond the cited “successes” in “COVID litigation”, none of the
Plaintiff’s cases have been dismissed with prejudice. The Defendants’ postulation about what
is proper, or improper, in the taking of instructions from clients, is conjecture and without
evidence. These issues are not the purview of resolution at this motion but for trial.
70. The fact is, to date, most Covid-Litigation cases in Canada have been dismissed at the early
stages. In contrast, the Plaintiffs cases have fared much better, as set out in the Plaintiffs
affidavit.51 In any event, none of this justifies the defamation.
71. It is submitted, with respect, that this action was NOT launched by the Plaintiff as on abusive
process, improper purpose, nor in bad faith, and that such submission, by the Defendants is
offensive, and should deprive the Defendants’ of costs, and that costs should be awarded
against them on this motion.
51
J.W.T. v. S.E.T., 2023 ONSC 977
A1201
cfb
73. With respect to paragraph 118 of the Defendants’ factum, and the seeking of $40,000.00 in
damages, the Plaintiff states: (a) No such cause for damages has been established; and (b) No
evidence of such damages has been tendered to justify the damages of $40,000.00, or any
damages for that matter.
PART IV- ORDER SOUGHT
74. The Respondent therefore respectfully requests:
(a) that the motions of the Defendants be dismissed;
(b) costs of this motion;
(c) such other or further relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Dated this 15th, day of August 2023

___________________________________
TEL: (416) 530-9684;FAX: (416) 530-8129
Lawyer for the Plaintiff on his own behalf
A1202
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-32 31 A1203
“SCHEDULE A”
Authorities
1. 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association 2020 SCC 22
2. B.W. (Brad) Blair v. Premier Doug Ford, 2020 ONSC 7100
3. Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23, [2020] 2 S.C.R. 645
4. Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2015 SCC 7,
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 401
5. Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. B’nai Brith Canada, 2021 ONCA 529
6. Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 1994 SCC, 1994] 3 SCR 835
7. Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640
8. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
9. Hiltz and Seamone Co. Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., 1999 NSCA 22
(CanLII)
10. J.W.T. v. S.E.T., 2023 ONSC 977
11. R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206
12. R. v. Salituro, 1991 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 654
13. Regina v. B.E.S.T. Plating Shoppe Ltd. and Siapas, 1987 CanLII 4056 (ON CA)
14. Regina v. Jetco Manufacturing Ltd. and Alexander, 1987 CanLII 4436 (ON CA)
15. RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 573
16. Singh v. MEI [1985] S.C.R. 177 (SCC)
17. Sokoloff v Tru-Path Occupational Therapy Services Ltd., 2020 ONCA 730
18. WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, at para. 31.
A1203
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-33 32 A1204
“SCHEDULE B”
Statutory Provisions
1. s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate

Purposes
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters
of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public
interest will be hampered by fear of legal action. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
Definition, “expression”
(2) In this section, “expression” means any communication, regardless of whether it is

made verbally or non-verbally, whether it is made publicly or privately, and whether
or not it is directed at a person or entity. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall,

subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person
satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the
person that relates to a matter of public interest. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding
party satisfies the judge that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a
result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public
interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public
interest in protecting that expression. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
2. Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss. 7 and 15
Section 7 - Life, liberty, and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not
to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice.
A1204
cfb73ff5154343b791206d6ebd645501-34 33 A1205
Section 7 guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians. It also
requires that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever they
intrude on those rights. Section 7 often comes into play in criminal matters
because an accused person clearly faces the risk that, if convicted, his or her
liberty will be lost.
Equality rights – section 15
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and,
in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs
• (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as
its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or
groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Section 15 of the Charter makes it clear that every individual in Canada –
regardless of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or physical
or mental disability – is to be treated with the same respect, dignity, and
consideration. This means that governments must not discriminate on any of these
grounds in its laws or programs.
The courts have held that section 15 also protects equality on the basis of other
characteristics that are not specifically set out in it. For example, this section has
been held to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, marital
status, or citizenship.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the purpose of section 15 is to
protect those groups who suffer social, political, and legal disadvantage in society.
Discrimination occurs when a person, because of a personal characteristic, suffers
disadvantages or is denied opportunities available to other members of society.
At the same time as it protects equality, the Charter also allows for certain laws or
programs that aim to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or
groups. For example, programs aimed at improving employment opportunities for
women, Indigenous peoples, visible minorities, or those with mental or physical
disabilities are allowed under subsection 15(2).
A1205
f5154343b791206d6ebd645501-35 34 A12
Court File No.: CV-22-683322-0000

Rocco Galati Kipling Warner et al.
-and-
ONTARIO
. SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT TORONTO
__________________________________________
FACTUM
__________________________________________
Name: ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
Rocco Galati
Address:1062 College Street
Lower Level
Toronto ON M6H 1A9
Telephone No.: 416-530-9684

Fax No.: 416-530-8129
Lawyer for the Plaintiff,

on his own behalf
A12
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb095332424849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1 B-1-1
Court File No. CV-22-683322
ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -

Defendants
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION RECORD OF THE MOVING PARTY DEFENDANTS

(Motion Returnable September 12, 2023)
______________________________________________________________________________
January 31, 2023 DEWART GLEASON LLP

Lawyers
Toronto, ON M5V 1R9
Tim Gleason, LSO No. 43927A


Telephone: 416-971-8000
Facsimile: 416-971-8001
Lawyers for the defendants
B-1-1
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-2 B-1-2
TO: ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM

1062 College Street, lower level
Toronto ON M6H 1A9
Rocco Galati, LSO No.: 29488Q

Telephone: (416) 773 0309
Lawyers for the plaintiff
B-1-2
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-3 B-1-3
ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -

Defendants
INDEX
Tab Document
1. Notice of Motion returnable September 12, 2023
2. Affidavit of Kipling Warner affirmed January 27, 2023
A. Constitution of Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy

dated October 12, 2021
B. Amended Notice of Civil Claim dated September 15, 2021;

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. HMQ et al.
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry File Number S210831
C. Oral Reasons for Judgment of Justice Crerar dated November 7, 2022

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. HMQ et al.
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry File Number S210831
D. Reasons for Judgment of Justice Coval dated May 4, 2022

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. Henry
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry Docket S2110229
B-1-3
i
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-4 B-1-4
E. Reasons for Judgment of Justice Ross dated August 29, 2022

Action4Canada et al. v. HMQ et al.,
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry Docket S217586
F. GoFundMe page of Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public

Policy
Re: BC Supreme Court COVID-19 Constitutional Challenge dated January 24, 2023
G. Homepage, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy

website
H. Informational Flyer, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public

Policy
I. Amy Judd, Anti-vaccine card protesters confront sheriffs outside B.C. Supreme
Court,
Global News, September 13, 2021
J. Keith Fraser, Judge orders more details be provided about COVID constitutional
challenge, Vancouver Sun, October 28, 2021
K. Elizabeth McSheffrey, Judge rejects B.C. government’s bid to drop case against
COVID-19 vaccine orders, Global News, May 6, 2022
L. Ian Holliday, B.C. court rejects top doctor's effort to dismiss COVID-19 vaccine
mandate lawsuit, CTV News, May 7, 2022
M. Keith Fraser, B.C. Supreme Court chief judge dismisses four challenges to COVID-19
health orders, Vancouver Sun, September 13, 2022
N. Jason Proctor, Lawyer challenging B.C. COVID-19 orders says class action could
result in 3 million claims, CBC News, December 14, 2022
O. Website, Donate to Action4Canada, Action4Canada;

https://action4canada.com/donate/
P. Crowd Spontaneously Donates $14,000 Cash To Vaccine Choice Canada And

Action4canada To Sue Bc Government, Vimeo, uploaded by Laura-Lynn Thomspon
September 16, 2020
https://vimeo.com/458823583
Q. Balance Sheet of Action4Canada as of August 15, 2021
B-1-4
ii
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-5 B-1-5
R. I Interview Tanya Gaw About The Status Of Her/Rocco Galati's Case, Youtube,
uploaded by Liberty Talk 3 September 4, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxhhd1VRES0
S. Action4Canada -The win that you thought was a loss!, Canadian Rights Watch,
uploaded September 5, 2022
https://canadianrightswatch.com/action4canada-the-win-that-you-thought-was-a-loss/
T. Colin Butler, Details emerge of Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit over coronavirus
response, CBC News, August 13, 2020
U. Ronnie, Another Toronto Court Challenge, But Will This One Actually Go
Anywhere?, Canuck Law, April 29, 2021
V. Facebook Post of Yvonne Sunshiney Coelho dated July 21, 2021
W. Ronnie, Action4Canada Sstatement of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It

To Trial, Canuck Law, August 31, 2021
B.C. RCMP investigating website selling fake mask and vaccine exemption
X.
‘certificates’, CBC News, January 27, 2022
Y. Facebook Post of The Angry Albertan dated May 25, 2022
Z. Ronnie, VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of), Canuck Law,
August 24, 2022
AA. Letter correspondence from Rocco Galati to Julia Lefebvre dated July 15, 2022
BB. Reid Small, BC’s unvaccinated doctors want to get back to work – and they hope a
billboard helps them, West Coast Standard, August 26, 2022
CC. Colin Dacre, COVID-Mandate lawsuit tossed for being ‘bad beyond argument’,
Castanet, September 1, 2022
DD. Reid Small, Action4Canada leadership under fire after claim tossed, West Coast
Standard, September 9, 2022
EE. Education, Action4Canada Pamphlet causes controversy, Global News, September 28,
2022
FF. Rob Gibson, Anti-SOGI pamphlet distributed at Kelowna school parking lot, Castanet,
September 28, 2022
GG. Ronnie, Action4Canada Apeal Baseless, Seems Designed To Waste Time & Money,
Canuck Law, September 29, 2022
B-1-5
iii
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-6 B-1-6
HH. Community News, Action4Canada accusations anger five Central Okanagan trustees,
Kelowna Capital News, October 4, 2022
II. Rob Munro, Kelowna school trustees lash out at ‘dangerous disinformation’ on sexual
orientation material, Kamloops Info News, October 4, 2022
JJ. Wayne Moore, SD23 trustees push back against anti-SOGI accusations, Castanet,
October 4, 2022
KK. Terry W. Robertson, LETTER: Voters should reject the ParentsVoiceBC slate of
candidates, Kamloops Info News, October 12, 2022
LL. Ronnie, Kulvinder Gill Hit With $1.1 Million Cost Award For Bringing SLAPP,
Canuck Law, November 1, 2022
MM. Tom Blackwell, Vaccine-doubting doctor ordered to pay $1M in legal costs after her
libel suit quashed, National Post, November 3, 2022
NN. Ronnie, Ottawa Files Motion To Strike Federal Vaccine Passport Suit, Canuck Law,
November 14, 2022
OO. Email correspondence from Robyn Hill to Penny Reid dated September 23, 2022
PP. Statement of Claim; Vaccine Choice Canada et al. v. Trudeau et al.,

Toronto Superior Court File CV-20-00643451-0000
QQ. “Rocco Galati's lockdown lawsuit: Ezra Levant interviews lawyer suing Trudeau, Dr.
Tam and more!”, YouTube, uploaded by Rebel News September 2020
RR. LSBC Lawyer Directory search query re ‘Galati’ dated December 21, 2022
SS. Sean Fine, The lawyer who challenged the Harper government and won, Globe and
Mail, August 22, 2014
TT. Reasons for Order and Order of Justice Russell dated December 28, 2012;
Sivak et al. v. HMQ, Federal Court file number T-1700-11
UU. Order and Reasons of Justice Zinn dated November 20, 2014;
Galati et al. v. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper et al., Federal Court filee number
T-1657-13
VV. Reasons for Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal Panel dated February 8, 2016;
Galati et al. v. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper et al., Federal Court of Appeal
file number A-541-14
B-1-6
iv
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-7 B-1-7
WW. Order and Reasons of Justice Zinn dated July 20, 2015;
Da Silva Campos et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al., Federal Court
file number T-2502-14
XX. Order and Reasons of Justice Russell dated February 8, 2016;

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) et al. v. HMQ et al.,
Federal Court file number T-2010-11
YY. Order and Reasons of Jsutice Barnes dated September 16, 2016;
Wang et al. v. HMQ et al., Federal Court file number T-1747-15
ZZ. Reasons for Judgment of Justice Webb dated November 22, 2016;
Almacén v. HMQ, Federal Court of Appeal file number A-108-16
AAA. Order and Reasons of Justice Roy dated August 24, 2017;
Omani et al. v. HMQ, Federal Court file number T-1774-15
BBB. Notice of Civil Claim issued August 17, 2021;

Action4Canada et al. v. HMQ et al., Supreme Court of British Columbia Vancouver
registry file number VLC-S-S-21
CCC. Reasons for Order and Order of Justice Mactavish dated July 29, 2010
Tai v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Federal Court file number IMM-196-
10
DDD. Order and Reasons of Justice Bell dated May 25, 2016;
Liang v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Federal Court file number
IMM-5667-15
EEE. Gabrielle Giroday, What was he thinking?, Canadian Lawyer, May 31, 2016
FFF. Website, LW & Associates, https://www.lwacorp.com
GGG. CanLII Search Results dated December 20, 2022 re query ‘Lawrence Wong’
HHH. Reasons for Decision of Justice Stewart dated February 24, 2022;
Gill et al. v. Maciver et al., 2022 ONSC 1279
Endorsement on Costs of Justice Stewart dated October 31, 2022;
Gill et al. v. Maciver et al., 2022 ONSC 6169
III. Take Action Canada, Legal Action Update, To ALL 1st Responders, Law Enforcement,
EMS, Essential Municipal/Provincial Workers, December 19, 2021
B-1-7
v
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-8 B-1-8
JJJ. Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation Retainer Agreement RE: Ontario
“First Responders/Essential Workers” (police, firefighter, paramedics/ ambulance,
essential workers provincial/municipal) action against coercive vaccine mandates.
KKK. Statement of Claim filed May 30, 2022;

Adelberg et al. v. HMQ et al., Federal Court file number T-1089-22
LLL. Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation Retainer Agreement RE: Federal
Employees Action against coercive vaccine mandate, as well as challenge to the
proposed Federal “Vaccine Passports” with the possibility of certifying as a class
action proceeding.
MMM. Notice of Motion of the respondent HMQ dated November 4, 2022;

NNN. Affidavit of Amina Sherazee sworn November 29, 2022;

OOO. Website, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy
Frequently Asked Questions, dated August 16, 2022
PPP. Letter correspondence from Rocco Galati to Polina Furtula dated February 3, 2021
QQQ. Text message correspondence from Danielle Pistilli to Action4Canada WhatsApp

group chat dated February 4, 2021
RRR. Email correspondence from Ted Kuntz to Vladislav Sobolev and Kipling Warner
dated June 16, 2021
SSS. Email correspondence from Ted Kuntz to Vladislav Sobolev and Kipling Warner
dated June 18, 2021
TTT. Letter correspondence from Kipling Warner to Tanya Gaw dated July 13, 2021
UUU. Procedural Updates, Quote from July 13, 2022 VCC Stream, YouTube, uploaded by
Canuck Law September 1, 2022
VVV. Amended Statement of Claim dated November 9, 2022;
Galati v. Greene et al., Toronto court file number CV-22-00683933-0000
WWW. Email correspondence from Candis Elliott to Kipling Warner dated September 8,
2022
XXX. Video Livestream of Vaccine Choice Canada dated October 19, 2022
YYY. Email correspondence from Dennis Young to Kilping Warner dated August 11, 2022
B-1-8
vi
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-9 B-1-9
3. Affidavit of Deepankar Gandhi affirmed January 27, 2023
A. Email correspondence from Deepankar Gandhi to Dan Dicks, Press for Truth, dated
January 27, 2021
B. Press for Truth video blog dated July 19, 2022 (hyperlink)
C. Press for Truth video interview with Maxime Bernier posted October 8, 2022
D. This Isn’t Over!! “There Are Still Canadians Unable To Go Back To Their Jobs”
Maxine Bernier on PFT!. Odysee, uploaded by Press for Truth October 8, 2022
https://odysee.com/@PressForTruth:4/This-Isn't-Over:9
E. “According To Trudeau I’m An Extremist” TREND GOES VIRAL!!!. Odysee,

uploaded by Press for Truth September 16, 2022
https://odysee.com/@PressForTruth:4/According-To-
Trudeau:7?r=HCcJmrURcKNKrHsBTHd6Z2oCfPFzXnmW
F. Colin Perkel, “Court slams 'gonzo logic' in wake of failed Nadon appointment”,
Maclean’s, February 19, 2016
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/court-slams-gonzo-logic-in-wake-of-failed-
nadon-appointment/
4. Affidavit of Donna Towes affirmed January 27, 2023
A. Email correspondence from Vaccine Choice Canada to Donna Toews dated June 19,
2020 through December 20, 2021
5. Affidavit of Vladislav Sobolev affirmed January 27, 2023
6. Affidavit of Federico Fuoco affirmed January 30, 2023
A. Email correspondence from Federico Fuoco to Rocco Galati dated August 15, 2021
B-1-9
vii
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-10 B-1-10
Tab 1
B-1-10
- 0001 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-11 B-1-11
ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -

Defendants
NOTICE OF MOTION
THE DEFENDANTS will make a motion to a judge on September 12, 2023, at 10:00
a.m., or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard.
PROPOSED METHOD OF HEARING: the motion is to be heard:
[ ] In writing under subrule 37.12.1
[ ] In writing as an opposed motion under subrule 37.12.1 (4);
[ ] In person;
[ ] By telephone conference;
[x] by video conference
at the following location: the courthouse at 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
B-1-11
- 0002 -
2 B-1-12
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-12
THE MOTION IS FOR:
(a) an order dismissing this action;
(b) the costs of this motion and the action on a full indemnity basis;
(c) damages in the amount of $100,000.00; and
(d) such further and other relief as the circumstances of the case may require
and this Court deem to be just.
THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:
(a) the action arises from expression that the defendants made that relates to
matters of public interest;
(b) the action does not have merit or, in the alternative, does not have
substantial merit;
(c) the defendants have valid defences in the action, including that:
1) the allegedly defamatory statements are true;
2) the allegedly defamatory statements constitute fair comment;
3) the allegedly defamatory statements were made in good faith on
occasions of absolute or qualified privilege;
4) the alleged defamatory statements were responsible
communications on a matter of public interest; and
5) in respect of any allegedly defamatory statements in a newspaper
printed and published in Ontario or broadcast from a station in Ontario, the
plaintiff did not comply with subsection 5(1) and section 6 of the Libel and
Slander Act;
B-1-12
- 0003 -
3 B-1-13
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-13
(d) the defendants’ expression did not cause harm or, in the alternative,
substantial or serious harm to the plaintiff;
(e) the public interest in permitting the action to continue does not outweigh
the public interest in protecting the defendants’ expression;
(f) the plaintiff commenced the action in bad faith and/or for an improper
purpose;
(g) the plaintiff’s commencement of the action has caused the defendants
damages;
(h) section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and subrule 37.02(1) of the Rules
of Civil Procedure; and
(i) such other grounds as counsel may advise and this Court may permit.
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL BE USED AT THE
HEARING OF THE MOTION:
(a) the affidavit of Kipling Warner affirmed January 26, 2023;
(b) the affidavit of Deepankar Gandhi affirmed January 27, 2023;
(c) the affidavit of Donna Toews affirmed January 25, 2023;
(d) the affidavit of Vladislav Sobolev affirmed January 27, 2023;
(e) the affidavit of Federico Fuoco affirmed January 30, 2023, and;
B-1-13
- 0004 -
4 B-1-14
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-14
(f) such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Court may
permit.
January 31, 2023 DEWART GLEASON LLP

102–366 Adelaide Street West
Toronto ON M5V 1R9
Tim Gleason, LSO No.: 43927A

Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C

Telephone: (416) 971 8000
Lawyers for the named defendants
TO: ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM

1062 College Street, lower level
Toronto ON M6H 1A9
Rocco Galati, LSO No.: 29488Q

Telephone: (416) 773 0309
Lawyers for the plaintiff
B-1-14
- 0005 -
GALATI - and - TOEWS et al. Court File Nos.: CV-21-00658403-0000
ONTARIO
Proceeding commenced at TORONTO

24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-15
NOTICE OF MOTION
- 0006 -
DEWART GLEASON LLP
102–366 Adelaide Street West
Toronto ON M5V 1R9
Tim Gleason, LSO No. 43927A


Telephone: (416) 971 8000
Lawyers for the named defendants
B-1-15
B-1-15
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-16 B-1-16
Tab 2
B-1-16
- 0007 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-17 B-1-17
ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ROCCO GALATI
Plaintiff
- and -

Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF KIPLING WARNER

(affirmed January 26, 2023)
I, KIPLING WARNER, of the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia,
SOLEMNLY AFFIRM as follows:
1. I am a defendant in this proceeding and Executive Director for the defendant Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (the “Society”). I therefore have
knowledge of the matters to which I depose in this affidavit.
The Society
2. The Society is a non-profit society incorporated under British Columbia’s Societies Act.
3. Its broad purposes are as set out in its constitution, a copy of which, last amended on
B-1-17
- 0008 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-18 2 B-1-18
October 12, 2021, is marked as Exhibit “A” to this affidavit.
4. Beginning in the spring of 2020, I, and others with whom I spoke, had concerns about
whether there was an adequate scientific basis for the government of British Columbia’s
declaration of a public health emergency and related implementation of a series of measures in
relation to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the “coronavirus”).
5. We further believed that, to the extent that the provincial government could show that its
measures were evidence-based, proportionate to and effective in mitigating the spread of the
coronavirus, the government was not articulating the information based on which it had reached
its conclusions to the public. We felt that it was important that the government explain the reasons
for which it was taking the steps that it was given that the measures significantly affected our day-
to-day lives, including our ability to see loved ones and to work.
6. Members of our community asked me to take the lead on a direct-action initiative to
challenge the restrictions.
7. In late 2020 I decided to take formal steps to organize our efforts into a non-profit legal
entity and, on January 14, 2021, had the Society incorporated.
8. The Society currently has approximately  members.
9. The Society is run entirely by volunteers. Neither I nor any of my team take a salary.
10. It is strictly non-partisan and not affiliated with any political party or ideology beyond
Enlightenment-era values of science and law.
11. It is secular and not connected with any religious group or movement.
B-1-18
- 0009 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-19 3 B-1-19
12. We have an “open tent” policy which admits persons of many different ideologies. For
that reason, the Society has members across the political spectrum. We have members who would
describe themselves as social conservatives, feminists, anarcho-capitalists, techno-libertarians,
Marxists, environmentalists, neo-liberals, alt-right, market socialists, centrists and virtually anyone
else that makes up the mosaic of Canadian society. Our membership come from all walks of life.
It includes blue collar workers, nurses, individuals with disabilities, physicians, engineers,
teachers, actors, law professors, lawyers and farmers.
13. The Society’s litigation mandate flows from the broader mandate set out in our
constitution. This litigation mandate is published on our website:
CSASPP’s litigation mandate is to obtain any available civil remedy for the
maximum number of British Columbians that:
(a) 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
(b) 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.
This campaign intends to responsibly use your funds towards the costs of
promoting, filing, and prosecuting a claim for injunctive, declaratory, or other
appropriate relief in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in response to the
COVID-19 measures and its constitutional implications. The proceeding is
currently brought under the Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c 50. This means
that the implications on our potential success would be shared by all citizens, as
opposed to just one individual, business, or organization.
14. In pursuing our litigation mandate, we aim to be focused and avoid hyperbole and
speculation. We try not to become entangled in debates on issues that we see as tangential or
unrelated to the specific issue of challenging excessive government restrictions relating to the
coronavirus because doing so, in our view, can detract from our credibility in the context of
addressing an already controversial issue. We have a strategy of taking the minimum energy
B-1-19
- 0010 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-20 4 B-1-20
trajectory whenever possible, not least of which is because we have finite resources at our disposal.
15. The Society’s key values include:
a. informed decision-making, including with respect to litigation;
b. maximum consultation as possible with all affected stakeholders;
c. responsible use of and accountability for the purposes to which we put donated
funds;
d. transparency to the public with respect to the steps we are taking and the decisions
we are making; and
e. precision in our communications to the public.
16. The Society held a formal banquet at VanDusen Botanical Gardens in Vancouver on July
31, 2022. We had tickets available for 120 individuals, the maximum capacity of the venue. We
nearly sold out shortly after announcing the event online.
17. The Society has pursued its litigation mandate through three civil proceedings against
British Columbia’s provincial government.
18. Specifically, by notice of civil claim dated January 26, 2021, an amended copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “B” to this affidavit, the Society commenced a proposed class proceeding
against the Province of British Columbia and Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as British
Columbia’s provincial health officer. The style of cause is Canadian Society for the Advancement
of Science in Public Policy v HMTK et al, and the court file number is S-210831.
B-1-20
- 0011 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-21 5 B-1-21
19. The Society has many supporters across the country, and the public has shown significant
interest in attending hearings in the Society’s proceedings.
20. For example, on October 1, 2021, the British Columbia Supreme Court held a judicial
management teleconference with respect to our proposed class proceeding into which members of
the public could dial. Because the Court’s teleconference platform could only accommodate 100
listeners at a time, the Society bridged its own teleconference line to allow further listeners in.
Within a few minutes of the hearing beginning, the Society’s teleconference line’s maximum
number of listeners, 1,000, had joined. My team and I later received a multitude of reports from
members of the public, in person, over the telephone and by email, advising that they had been
unable to attend the teleconference because both lines had reached capacity.
21. Similar issues arose with respect to an October 28, 2021 hearing of an application for
particulars in the proposed class proceeding. The Court’s teleconference line reached its maximum
of 100 listeners and, because the Court had changed the dial-in number a few minutes prior to the
hearing, the Society was unable to bridge it with our line that had capacity for 1,000 listeners.
22. My team and I also received reports from members of the public regarding having made
in-person trips to the courthouse only to be turned away because the gallery was full. Some waited
outside the courthouse and approached me directly after hearings ended.
23. Based on the above, the Society had concerns that the Court would not be able to
accommodate the volume of individuals interested in attending the certification hearing for its
proposed class proceeding, both in its physical space and virtually.
24. To address these and other issues relating to the public’s ability to attend hearings, the
B-1-21
- 0012 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-22 6 B-1-22
Society brought an application for an order requiring a webcast of the certification hearing.
25. By decision dated November 7, 2022, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “C” to this
affidavit and can be accessed at this link, Justice Crerar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
granted our webcasting application. He noted in making his decision:
The plaintiff argues that this matter, affecting all British Columbians, is a matter
of widespread public interest. That public interest is not merely theoretical but
actual. The plaintiff provides affidavits from individuals across the province who
say that they will be unable to attend the court proceedings due to physical
infirmities, work and family commitments, economic limitations, and general
distance from the Vancouver Law Courts building.
[…]
There are few issues that have affected the public more than the COVID-19
pandemic and the government response to that pandemic. These matters have
literally affected every British Columbian. It is clearly a matter of public interest.
26. The Court heard the Society’s application for certification of its class proceeding over five
days in December 2022. We are expected to resume the hearing likely in late April 2023.
27. Beyond its class proceeding the Society has pursued two other proceedings, narrower in
scope, that fall within the Society’s mandate. Specifically, it filed two petitions in response to
members of the public’s lobbying it in respect of various restrictive public health measures that
took effect after the commencement of our class proceeding. We could not seek injunctive relief
within the class proceeding because the Court had not yet certified it at the time these measures
were implemented.
28. For example, by petition issued November 26, 2021, the Society and I applied for a
declaration that certain public health orders requiring that healthcare workers become double
vaccinated in order to continue to work were of no force and effect because they violated the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were ultra vires, or unreasonable or exceeded the
B-1-22
- 0013 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-23 7 B-1-23
provincial public health officer’s statutory authority (the “healthcare workers’ petition”).
29. The respondent applied to dismiss the healthcare workers’ petition on the basis that neither
the Society nor I had legal standing. The Society had commenced the proceeding on both my
personal and the Society’s behalf in case one or the other of us was held not to have standing.
30. By decision issued May 4, 2022, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “D” to this affidavit
and can be accessed at this link, Justice Coval of the British Columbia Supreme Court found that,
while I did not have private interest standing, the Society had public interest standing to bring the
petition.
31. At paragraph 70 of a decision in Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General)
dated August 29, 2022, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “E” to this affidavit and can be
accessed at this link, Justice Ross, in striking a pleading that the plaintiff had prepared, cited Justice
Coval’s decision in finding that the issues at stake were justiciable and that, therefore, he should
grant leave to amend:
On whether the issues are “justiciable” I note the decision of Justice Coval in

correct that whether those actions comply with the Charter and JRPA are clearly
questions suitable for judicial determination (CCD, para 90).
32. The plaintiff has cited Justice Coval’s decision as a basis for why courts should allow him
to amend his clients’ pleadings when confronted with motions to strike. I am aware of at least the
following occasions:
a. The plaintiff included Justice Coval’s decision at tab 31 of his book of authorities
in resisting motions to strike in Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General),
B-1-23
- 0014 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-24 8 B-1-24
above.
b. The plaintiff cited Justice Coval’s ruling in his memorandum of fact and law in
resisting a motion to strike in Adelberg et al v HMTK et al., in Federal Court File No T-
1089-22, and included it among the authorities on which he was relying.
33. The court has not yet decided the healthcare workers’ petition on its merits. Procedural
hearings related to the respondents’ disclosure obligations are ongoing.
34. The Society has financed its work through grassroots fundraising. To date, approximately
2,000 individuals have donated over $367,243 to the Society for the purpose of advancing our
work. Most of the donations the Society receives are small. It receives new donations on an almost
daily basis whenever it is preparing for or in court. A copy of a printout dated January 24, 2023
of the Society’s page on crowdfunding platform GoFundMe is marked as Exhibit “F” to this
affidavit. It sets out the amounts raised as of that date and reflects that 236 individuals have
commented to date on that page in support of the Society’s work. The page can also be accessed
at this link.
35. The Society also operates a website, which can be accessed at this link. A copy of the
homepage’s lander is marked as Exhibit “G” to this affidavit.
36. The Society has access to anonymized data concerning, among other things, the number of
visitors to its website and visitors’ locations. Since the creation of the website in January 2021,
approximately  unique visitors have visited approximately  times. Visitors have
viewed its various pages approximately  times.
37. The Society’s data relating to its website does not capture the full extent of who views the
B-1-24
- 0015 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-25 9 B-1-25
Society’s content. I have observed, in keeping tabs on the Society’s online presence, that visitors
frequently republish materials from the Society’s website on social media, blogs, and other third-
party platforms.
38. The Society has never paid for radio, television, or online advertising to date.
39. It distributes flyers, a copy of an example of which is marked as Exhibit “H” to this
affidavit. It has shipped approximately  flyers to various communities across British
Columbia at its supporters’ requests.
40. I understand that the Society’s supporters generally find out about its work through word-
of-mouth communication from other supporters, from our flyers and from materials shared online
or directly from the Society’s website.
41. Individuals from a wide variety of places, including across Canada, the United States, Latin
America, Australia, South Africa, and Europe, have inquired into the Society’s work.
42. The Society and its work have attracted news coverage and commentary at least 36 times.
A sample of this coverage includes:
a. an article in Global News dated September 13, 2021, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “I” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link;
b. an article in the Vancouver Sun dated October 28, 2021, a copy of which is marked
as Exhibit “J” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link;
c. an article in Global News dated May 6, 2022, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit
“K” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link;
B-1-25
- 0016 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-26 10 B-1-26
d. an article in CTV News dated May 7, 2022, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit
“L” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link;
e. an article in the Vancouver Sun dated September 13, 2022, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “M” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link; and
f. an article in the CBC dated December 14, 2022, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “N” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link.
The plaintiff
43. I became aware of the plaintiff and an organization that he represents, Action4Canada,
which I understand purports to, like the Society, challenge measures that governments have taken
in response to the spread of the coronavirus.
44. I understand that Action4Canada has raised funds from individual members of the public,
purportedly to be used to fund an action against British Columbia’s provincial government.
45. A screenshot of the donation page on Action4Canada’s website, which I took on March
31, 2022, is marked as Exhibit “O” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link.
46. A copy of a video of a rally Action4Canada held in the summer of 2020 is marked as
Exhibit “P” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link.
47. A balance sheet that Action4Canada filed with Corporations Canada, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “Q” to this affidavit, reflects that it had $208,838.16 in a legal expense account
as of August 15, 2021.
48. A copy of a video recording dated September 4, 2022 of an interview in which
B-1-26
- 0017 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-27 11 B-1-27
Action4Canada’s founder, Tanya Gaw, spoke beginning at approximately the 29:50 mark to
having raised funds for the proceeding is marked as Exhibit “R” to this affidavit and can be
accessed at this link.
49. A copy of a video recording dated September 5, 2022 of another interview in which Ms.
Gaw spoke beginning at approximately the 11:25 mark about Action4Canada's fundraising is
marked as Exhibit “S” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link.
50. Based on inquiries that the Society and I received and based on my review of the social
media posts, articles and cases I will describe below, I concluded that it was important that the
Society clarify to the public that it was not affiliated with Action4Canada or the plaintiff and that
it did not believe that the way that Action4Canada engaged with various public issues was effective
or that the plaintiff’s approach to litigation was effective.
51. I reviewed various news articles and other commentary raising concerns with (a)
accountability for funds donated to Action4Canada; (b) other matters in which Action4Canada has
involved itself, such as advocating against sexual orientation and gender identity education in
classrooms; and (c) the quality of the pleadings that the plaintiff had filed in various actions. For
example:
a. on August 13, 2020, CBC news published an article, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “T” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Details emerge of
Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit over coronavirus response”, that included the following:
Other claims made in the lawsuit are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic.
“Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report the development

of a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history by using smartphone-
readable nano crystals called ‘quantum dots,’ embedded in the skin using micro-
B-1-27
- 0018 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-28 12 B-1-28
needles. In short, a vaccine chip embedded in the body. This work and research are
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” the lawsuit said.
The statement of claim includes a timeline that begins in the year 2000 when Bill
Gates steps down as the head of Microsoft to start the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. It also states Gates expects a “‘twenty-fold’ return on his $10 billion
vaccine investment within the next few decades.”
Included in the timeline are references to the Chinese military, 5G networks,

international vaccine programs and the Rockefeller Foundation as relevant to the
creation and spread of the coronavirus, but the lawsuit isn’t clear on how.
[Assistant professor of health law and ethics at Western University Jacob] Shelley
said including such references in the statement of claim without providing
supporting scientific evidence could ultimately be what gets the suit dismissed
before it goes to trial under Ontario’s rules of civil procedure.
b. on April 29, 2021, a blog called Canuck Law published a post, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “U” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Another
Toronto Court Challenge, But Will This One Actually Go Anywhere?” that embedded a
video, a copy of which is included at Exhibit U, in which an individual who was fundraising
for various actions that the plaintiff has commenced explained that 25% of donations were
helping her to “continue this show, to keep growing it, to keep taking action” because “it’s
taking nine hours of my day right now”;
c. on July 21, 2021, an individual named Yvonne Coelho posted to Facebook what
she advised was a message from an individual named Joanne Lasoka seeking for Ms. Gaw
to provide the donors to Action4Canada with “full transparency and details of all funds
collected for RG BC challenge since September 2020”. Others commented on the post
seeking the same. A copy of a screenshot of Ms. Coelho’s post is marked as Exhibit “V”
to this affidavit.
d. on August 31, 2021, Canuck Law published a post, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “W” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Action4Canada
B-1-28
- 0019 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-29 13 B-1-29
Statement of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial”;
e. on January 27, 2022, CBC News published an article, a copy of which is marked
as Exhibit “X” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “B.C. RCMP
investigating website selling fake mask and vaccine exemption ‘certificates’”, that included
the following:
A police investigation is underway into a B.C.-based website selling phoney

mask and vaccine exemption certificates, CBC has confirmed.
[…]
Previous versions of the Enable Air website did not include a price for issuing a
certificate, but warned customers to “mentally prepare for the invoice.”
The site also said that 50 per cent of “post-administrative fees” will be donated to
prominent Ontario anti-vaccine lawyer Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights
Centre, an organization he founded.
f. on May 25, 2022, a Facebook profile named “The Angry Albertan” published a
Facebook post that attracted 27 shares and 394 comments, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “Y” to this affidavit, inquiring into the status of Action4Canada’s action;
g. on August 24, 2022, Canuck Law published a post, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “Z” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “VCC July 6, 2020
Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)”, that included the results of a court file search
and concluded:
After more than 2 years, all that has happened is that: (a) there was a Notice of
Discontinuance against the CBC (removing them from the case); and (b) Nicola
Mercer, MOH for the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, filed a Statement of
Defense.
(the correspondence to which the post linked, a copy of which, dated July 15, 2022, is
marked as Exhibit “AA” to this affidavit, indicates that the plaintiff discontinued Vaccine
Choice Canada’s lawsuit as against the Canada Broadcasting Corporation after the latter
B-1-29
- 0020 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-30
14
B-1-30
had proposed to commence a motion pursuant to section 137.1 of Ontario’s Courts of
Justice Act);
h. on August 26, 2022, the West Coast Standard published an article, a copy of which
is marked as Exhibit “BB” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “BC’s
unvaccinated doctors want to get back to work – and they hope a billboard helps them”,
that included the following:
Malthouse, who has favourable reviews on RateMDs among his patients, has been
allegedly connected to EnableAir, a website that issued what it called “authentic
medical exemptions” for a non-refundable fee. The service, which shut down in
late 2021 said 50% of the “post-administrative fees” were donated to Ontario
lawyer Rocco Galati, however, this claim is no longer present on its website.
Sometimes referred to as “the top constitutional lawyer in Canada,” Galati is also

connected to BC-based organization Action4Canada, which is listed on the
“friends” section of the society’s website, however there is no official partnership.
While Action4Canada is supported by many within what can be called the

“freedom movement,” it’s increasingly questioned for its alleged lack of financial
transparency by those within the same movement, and many critics distance
themselves from anyone associated with the group.
Represented by Galati, the organization has been observed taking large quantities
of cash donations at various rallies in Vancouver.
Action4Canada’s Tanya Gaw told the Western Standard the aforementioned

criticisms began about a year ago, reiterating everything is “above board” and she’s
“always been transparent with funds.”
“Vlad from Hugs Over Masks and this nasty girl Yvonne started beaking about
how we need to show who our donors are. That would be illegal for me to show
my donor’s list,” said Gaw, noting she ignored them.
Vladislav Soboled — also known as Coach Vlad, or just Vlad — says he’s openly
questioned Galati at various freedom rallies in Vancouver. As a result, Soboled
claims to have been “threatened and harassed for questioning the Rocco challenge
in BC.”
He also told the Western Standard neither he or the aforementioned Yvonne asked
to see a list of donors, but claims he instead asked for more detailed updates on
how said donor’s money was being used.
“That’s exactly what Tanya does. She twists and turns the truth and facts to portray
the opposing side as bad,” said Soboled.
B-1-30
- 0021 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-31
15
B-1-31
Gaw says the same of her critics.
When asked if she would indemnify plaintiffs for potential adverse cost awards if
her challenge is thrown out of court she said “that will be something for Rocco to
answer.”
“The private meetings we’ve had with plaintiffs were private, and if Rocco’s going
to comment on that I’d leave that to him,” said Gaw.
The Western Standard reached out to Galati on several occasions, but has yet to
hear back.
i. on September 1, 2022, Castanet published an article, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “CC” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “COVID-mandate
lawsuit tossed for being ‘bad beyond argument’”;
j. on September 9, 2022, the Western Standard published an article, a copy of which
is marked as Exhibit “DD” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled
“Action4Canada leadership under first after claim tossed”;
k. on September 28, 2022, Global News published a video segment, a copy of the
webpage for which is marked as Exhibit “EE” to this affidavit, and which can be accessed
at this link, describing an Action4Canada pamphlet advocating that a book relating to the
sexual health education curriculum be taken out of British Columbia schools;
l. on September 28, 2022, Castanet published an article, a copy of which is marked
as Exhibit “FF” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Anti-[sexual
orientation and gender identity] pamphlet distributed at Kelowna school parking lot”;
m. on September 29, 2022, Canuck Law published an article, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “GG” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled
“Action4Canada Appeal Baseless, Seems Designed to Waste Time & Money”;
B-1-31
- 0022 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-32
16
B-1-32
n. on October 4, 2022, Kelowna Capital News published an article, a copy of which
is marked as Exhibit “HH” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled
“Action4Canada accusations anger five Central Okanagan trustees”, that included the
following:
Five Central Okanagan Board of Education trustees have struck back against what
they call “baseless and harmful allegations” against the school district staff, school
board and superintendent/CEO.
In a news release issued by the five trustees Monday – board chair Moyra Baxter,
Norah Bowman, Wayne Broughton, Julia Fraser and Chantelle Desrosiers – they
state the accusations were made by Action4Canada.
While the specific allegations are not explained in the news release, the statement
does reflect on how sexual orientation, gender identity and expression are protected
under the BC Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights.
o. on October 4, 2022, infonews.ca published an article, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “II” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Kelowna school
trustees lash out at ‘dangerous disinformation’ on sexual orientation material”,
p. on October 4, 2022, Castanet published an article, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “JJ” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “SD23 trustees push
back against anti-SOGI accusations”,
q. on October 12, 2022, infonews.ca published a letter to the editor, a copy of which
is marked as Exhibit “KK” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Voters
should reject the ParentsVoiceBC slate of candidates”, that included the following:
However in a September 28, 2022 news release, a right-wing political

lobby/activist group, Action4Canada weighed in with a vitriolic and scurrilous
tirade against SD23’s equality/inclusion program and sexual education curriculum.
They assert that the SOGI program used by SD23 is like the “sexual grooming” of
children by pedophiles and compare some support material to pornography.
Action4Canada made these outrageous accusations against SD23 despite the fact
that the program and curriculum are approved by the Ministry of Education and
Child Care.
B-1-32
- 0023 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-33
17
B-1-33
Action4Canada further alleged that the crime of child abuse is being committed
and that the District superintendent is lying about the situation. The most bizarre
part of all this is their overall insinuation that some kind of conspiracy is at work
here. A conspiracy organized, according to the Action4Canada website, by
unnamed “radical LGBTQ activists” to corrupt students.
Reading their news release and perusing the Action4Canada’s website, which has
language that must be described as anti-LGBTQ, anti-Islamic, and anti-immigrant,
it is clear that this group has an underlying intolerance of certain groups of people.
Clearly, the Action4Canada news release came out during the election campaign
of school trustees in order to bolster support for the four SD23 trustee candidates
they have endorsed under the banner of ParentsVoiceBC (whose information and
promotional video are posted on the Action4Canada webpage).
Unless those endorsed candidates renounce these unsubstantiated, divisive and

scurrilous accusations made by Action4Canada and reject their endorsement,
voters should reject the ParentsVoiceBC slate of candidates.
We need school trustees who are not only caring and tolerant of diversity, but also
think clearly and make decisions based on facts and solid research, not on wild
speculation and conspiracy theories.
r. on November 1, 2022, Canuck Law published an article, a copy of which is marked
as Exhibit “LL” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Kulvinder Gill
Hit with $1.1 Million Cost Award for Bringing SLAPP”, that contained the following:
An Ontario doctor is facing financial ruination over a decision to sue almost 2

dozen parties over pretty harmless comments. Another is looking at a significant
amount as well. It’s hard to imagine why they thought taking this on would be a
good idea.
[…]
Costs has been resolved, at least for this portion. Justice Stewart handed down a
$1.1 million award, primarily against Gill, the main actor in the suit.
[…]
Shortly after filing the Notice of Appeal, Galati, lawyer for Gill and Lamba, filed
a Motion to be removed as counsel of record. He claimed to be too ill to continue.
Much of the version publicly available is redacted as it contains privileged
information. May 12, 2022, Justice Gillese granted it, leaving them scrambling to
retain new counsel.
This came at a time when the pair were still dealing with the cost submissions.
They did eventually find someone to take the Appeal, and for the cost submissions.
Gill and Lamba then threw Galati under the bus, claiming that his prior cost
B-1-33
- 0024 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-34
18
B-1-34
submissions were entirely inadequate. This is very plausible, considering the $1

million (or more) at stake.
s. on November 4, 2022, the National Post published an article, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “MM” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled
“Vaccine-doubting doctor ordered to pay $1M in legal costs after her libel suit quashed”,
that contained the following:
Gill was originally represented by Rocco Galati, the firebrand Toronto lawyer who
has called public-health measures to combat the virus a “vicious fraud” and
protective face coverings “slave-trade masks.”
But against the wishes of clients Gill and Lamda, an Ontario judge allowed him to
withdraw from the case in May, saying “he had a lengthy hospitalization and was
in a coma, from which he is still recovering,” a court order posted by the
CanuckLaw.ca blog indicates. In the meantime, Galati had made “superficial”
submissions to the judge on the legal-costs issue without the consent of his clients,
Saikaley said in a July letter to Stewart.
t. on November 14, 2022, Canuck Law published an article, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “NN” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, entitled “Ottawa
Files Motion To Strike Federal Vaccine Passport Suit From Galati”, that contained the
following:
The Federal Government has filed a Motion to throw out the Claim brought by 600
former members of the civil service. It alleges a number of serious defects,
including: mootness, irrelevant issues, defects in the pleading, lack of jurisdiction,
lack of factual basis, an improper filing, among other things.
The Action4Canada (BC) and Vaccine Choice Canada (ON) suits were covered in
detail last year. Both were written without any consideration of the Rules of Civil
Procedure in their respective Provinces. This Federal case contains most of the
same errors. In many instances, it appears to be a direct cut and paste from the
earlier ones.
[…]
A source told this site at the end of 2021 that such a suit was in the works.
Allegedly, it would involve 500-600 individual Plaintiffs, with each paying $1,000
towards the proceedings. For that kind of money, one would expect a serious case
to go forward.
[…]
B-1-34
- 0025 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-35 19 B-1-35
A common criticism in the Motion to Strike is that the suit makes plenty of bald
assertions, without ever laying a factual foundation. In short, it makes accusations,
but doesn’t provide enough detail so that a Court can seriously consider them.
Many of the allegations pleaded in the Statement of Claim are in fact true.
However, without pleading a factual basis for making these claims, it just makes
people look insane.
As awful as the actions of the Federal (and Provincial) Governments are, they do
make a valid point: these cases are written so poorly that it’s impossible to know
what the cases are that the Defendants are supposed to respond to.
Looking through the filings of Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre (see
below), none of them are good. They aren’t even decent. Instead, the quality of the
drafting ranges from mediocre to downright comical.
Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed
$12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case
was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.
[…]
Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one
of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another
SLAPP Motion.
Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page

Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will
waste time and money.
Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the
filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that
would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served.
Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity
was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was 2 1/2 years ago.
Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021,
more than 18 months ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s
disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.
Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021.
It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant.
These are all his cases. This is what the last 2 1/2 years or so of “fighting” in the
Courts has led to.
I understand that the plaintiff represents or represented each of Vaccine Choice Canada,
Police on Guard, and Children’s Health Defense (Canada) in the proceedings that the article
B-1-35
- 0026 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-36 20 B-1-36
describes.
52. Between early 2021 and present, the Society’s executive team and volunteers have received
numerous inquiries at least weekly, and sometimes daily, with respect to, among other things:
a. whether there is any affiliation between the Society and the plaintiff or any clients
or affiliates of the plaintiff (the “Galati affiliates”). These include Action4Canada, Vaccine
Choice Canada, Police on Guard, Children’s Health Defense (Canada), and others for
which I understand the plaintiff is legal counsel;
b. why the Society is not working with the Galati affiliates; and
c. whether the Society has any knowledge as to what became of funds that, they
advised, they had donated to various Galati affiliates in support of litigation challenging
governmental action related to COVID-19.
53. By way of example of (a), a copy of email correspondence that the Society received from
an individual named Penny Reid through GoFundMe on May 24, 2021 is marked as Exhibit “OO”
to this affidavit.
54. The reports with respect to (c), above, vary, but their general theme is that the Galati
affiliates solicited and raised significant funds for use toward various COVID-19-related litigation
but appear to have done little, if anything, to move that litigation forward.
55. While we initially did not pay significant attention to these reports, because the actions of
the Galati affiliates were not directly relevant to the Society’s mandate, we became increasingly
concerned as inquiries continued to come in and created an administrative burden on an already
B-1-36
- 0027 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-37 21 B-1-37
overtaxed all-volunteer team.
56. Some of those who were making these inquiries of the Society appeared to believe that the
Society might be a marketing or fundraising arm for the plaintiff, akin to a subsidiary of a larger
enterprise.
57. Chief among my concerns with being associated with the Galati affiliates was that the
plaintiff appeared to have failed to in any substantive way move forward an action that he had
commenced in Ontario, on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada, similar to the litigation he proposed
to commence in British Columbia, and for the financing of which I understand Vaccine Choice
Canada had raised considerable funds from the public. A copy of a 187-page statement of claim
issued July 6, 2020 is marked as Exhibit “PP” to this affidavit.
58. I am not a lawyer, but I have been involved in litigation and have some familiarity with the
process. I observed that the pleading prepared by the plaintiff in the Vaccine Choice Canada action
appeared to be improperly drafted. This observation was echoed by the publications I have
described above.
59. I understood that, by mid-2021, a year after the plaintiff had commenced the action, none
of the defendants to that action had yet filed statements of defence. It did not appear that the
plaintiff had applied for injunctive relief despite, in a September 2020 interview with Ezra Levant,
a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “QQ” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link,
advising that he intended for the court to hear an application for an injunction with respect to a
mask mandate heard before the “Christmas holidays” in 2020. This portion of the interview begins
at approximately the 44:40 mark of the video.
B-1-37
- 0028 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-38 22 B-1-38
60. Further, it seemed to me, in respect of his proposed proceeding in British Columbia, that
the plaintiff sought far more in funding than was necessary to draft and file a pleading. My
understanding was that the plaintiff sought several hundred thousand dollars to commence an
action on behalf of Action4Canada (see Exhibit Q).
61. I conducted my own research into the plaintiff and the matters on which he had acted. I
found, among other things, that:
a. The plaintiff was not, for any extended period of time, licenced to practice law in
British Columbia. I determined this by searching for him in the Law Society of British
Columbia’s directory. Copies of a webpage reflecting a search query and of another
webpage reflecting the results of that search from the Law Society of British Columbia's
lawyer directory, dated December 21, 2022, are collectively marked as Exhibit “RR” to
this affidavit.
b. While the plaintiff’s supporters describe him as a “constitutional law” lawyer, there
is no such professional designation in Canada of which I am aware.
c. The Globe and Mail had reported in an August 22, 2014 article, a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “SS” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, having interviewed
the plaintiff:
It’s news to him that lawyers everywhere are talking about him. “That’s strange,”
he says. The case hasn’t changed his life, “except taking away time from my family
and from my billable hours.”
He makes his money from doing tax law, not constitutional cases.
d. In Sivak v Canada, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “TT” to this affidavit and
can be accessed at this link, the Federal Court had struck portions of and parties to the
B-1-38
- 0029 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-39 23 B-1-39
plaintiff’s clients’ claim without leave to amend, commenting:
After reviewing the Claim, my general conclusion is that the impugned portions
are, as the Defendants allege, often little more than bald accusations which the
Plaintiffs have attempted to bolster with colourful rhetoric and irrelevant asides
instead of providing a real basis of fact. For example, a passage such as
there is no doubt, in the minds of anyone involved with refugees, particularly the
members of the immigration bar, as well as notable NGOs, that this “June, 2009
Report” was manufactured by the IRB, as a means of appeasing the Minister,
in order to base negative findings and refugee determinations, which would
reduce the acceptance rates of Czech Roma
is a statement of what the Plaintiffs hope to prove, but it also reveals that the
Plaintiffs are short of facts to support their case, and so have to fall back upon the
alleged omniscience of the “immigration bar” and “anyone involved with
refugees.” I do not see anywhere in the rules that govern pleadings that facts can
be dispensed with provided plaintiff or defendant invokes the oracular powers of
their own counsel and his or her cohorts at the bar.
[…] the Plaintiffs have broadened the scope of their objectives and now wish to
accuse the Canadian government of conspiring to deprive them, and other Czech
Roma, of their rights under our immigration system. If the Plaintiffs wish to launch
such an attack they must proceed efficiently and effectively.
[…] At this stage in the proceedings the Plaintiffs must comply with the rules that
govern the form and content of pleadings. In my view, the Plaintiffs have not done
this with their Claim, and the result is that this action has already taken much longer
than it should have taken to reach this stage. The issues raised by the Plaintiffs have
a significance for many other extant and future refugee claims, and the system
could easily become trammelled as other claims are held in abeyance to await the
outcome of this action. […]
The applicable rules and jurisprudence interpreting those rules, are readily
available to the Plaintiffs and their counsel. The failure to plead sufficient material
facts to support a claim against the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or particular Crown
servants, leads me to conclude that the Plaintiffs have no such facts and are seeking
to use these proceedings as a fishing expedition.
[…]
Once again, I have to agree with the Defendants that the Claim is entirely deficient
with respect to pleading the elements of the tort of conspiracy. Bald allegations of
a conspiracy involving undefined Ministers, the Board, and unidentified
“Defendants’ officials” are made at paragraphs 23, 27 and 28(a)(iv) without any
reference to the above requirements. The Plaintiffs also accuse the “Defendants’
officials” of engaging in unlawful conduct at paragraph 28(b)(iii)(A), but provide
no details to describe this conduct or establish its unlawfulness. This is scandalous
and vexatious.
e. In Galati v Harper, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “UU” to this affidavit and
B-1-39
- 0030 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-40 24 B-1-40
can be accessed at this link, the Federal Court had held that the plaintiff’s bill was
“excessive and unwarranted” given the stage of the litigation. The plaintiff appealed from
the costs portion of this decision. The Federal Court of Appeal held in its reasons for
judgment dismissing the appeal:
The first point to be disposed of is the hourly rate used by the Mr. Galati and the
CRC in their respective claims for costs. Their claim to be entitled to the substantial
indemnity rate of $800 which apparently would apply to these counsel under the
Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure is puzzling. Mr. Galati and Mr. Slansky are both
experienced counsel who presumably know that the costs of litigation conducted
in the Federal Courts are awarded in accordance with the Federal Courts Rules.
They would also presumably know that the Federal Courts Rules do not provide
for an hourly rate benchmark (other than an amount per unit of service as described
in the Tariff) such as the Rules of Civil Procedure apparently do. Given this
knowledge, it is surprising that Mr. Galati would seek an order of costs in excess
of what he would have billed a client for the same services.
As a self-represented litigant, the best Mr. Galati could hope for, under the Federal
Courts Rules and the jurisprudence on self-represented litigants is to recover his
regular hourly rate: see Thibodeau v. Air Canada, 2007 FCA 115, [2007] F.C.J.
No. 404, at paragraph 24.
I might add that a claim for solicitor-client costs by a self-represented litigant is an

oxymoron. A self-represented litigant, by definition, has no counsel and therefore
no out-of-pocket expenses for which full indemnity is appropriate.
As for the CRC, its claim for solicitor-client costs would be limited to its actual
out-of-pocket expense for legal fees. If, as appears to be the case given Mr.
Slansky’s request that any costs awarded be paid to him personally, counsel is
acting pro bono, then the same considerations apply. Any award of solicitor-client
costs would be limited to Mr. Slansky’s regular hourly rate. One is left to wonder
why experienced counsel before the Federal Courts would seek costs calculated on
a basis other than that provided by the Federal Courts Rules.
[…]
The following passages from Mr. Galati’s memorandum of fact and law
encapsulates the argument which was made in this case:
With respect to the Respondent’s position that the right to solicitor-client costs has
no nexus to a fair and independent judiciary, the Appellant (Rocco Galati) states
that in such cases, which involve nothing but protecting the integrity of the
constitution, constitutionally offensive legislation, or Executive action violating
the “architecture of the constitution”, it has everything to do with a fair and
independent judiciary. While the state apparatus is fully and amply funded to
defend such violations, and a citizen who gets no personal benefit, per se, from
upholding the integrity, structure and dictates of the Constitution, in successfully
B-1-40
- 0031 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-41 25 B-1-41
challenging such constitutional violations, to be denied his solicitor-client costs

doing so can only lead to one conclusion in fact and in perception.
That conclusion is that any Court siding with the state on such cases cannot be said
to be “fair or independent” in the least sense, in fact, and in perception, that Court
would be, in fact and in perception, ‘in bed’ with the state Respondents.
Mr. Galati’s memorandum of fact and law at paragraphs 20-22 (emphasis in the
original).
It is important to understand what is being said here. Mr. Galati and the CRC state
as a fact that a Court which, having agreed that certain government action was
inconsistent with the Constitution and having therefore set it aside, will nonetheless
be seen to be, and will in fact be, “in bed” with the government if it fails to award
the successful applicant its solicitor client costs. The tie-in to the Constitution is
that this collusion deprives the affected litigant of its constitutionally protected
right to a fair and independent judiciary.
To be “in bed” with someone is to collude with that person. I do not understand
how one could hope to protect the right to a fair and independent judiciary by
accusing courts of colluding with the government if they don’t give the applicant
its solicitor client costs. The entire Court system, it seems, must be alleged to be
actually or potentially acting in bad faith in order to instill public confidence in the
fairness and independence of the judiciary. This is reminiscent of the gonzo logic
of the Vietnam War era in which entire villages had to be destroyed in order to
save them from the enemy. The fact that this argument is made in support of an
unjustified monetary claim leads to the question “Whose interest is being served
here?” Certainly not the administration of justice’s. This argument deserves to be
condemned without reservation.
A copy of this decision is marked as Exhibit “VV” to this affidavit and can be accessed at
this link.
f. In Da Silva Campos v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), a copy of which is
marked as Exhibit “WW” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, the Federal Court
had struck the plaintiff’s clients’ claim in its entirety, holding, among other things:
The present Statement of Claim comes close to being incomprehensible.
[…]
The Statement of Claim, insofar as it makes allegations relating to TFWP, LMIAs,

the PNP, the Federal Skilled Workers Program, [etc.], is deficient because there
are no facts or insufficient facts pled to permit the defendants and the court to
understand the bases of these claims. I agree with the defendants that these
pleadings are “neither complete nor intelligible.”
B-1-41
- 0032 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-42 26 B-1-42
g. In Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v Canada, a copy
of which is marked as Exhibit “XX” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, the
Federal Court struck the plaintiff’s client’s amended statement of claim without leave to
amend on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no prospect of
success at trial.
h. In Wang v Canada, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “YY” to this affidavit and
can be accessed at this link, the Federal Court of Appeal had recounted, with regard to a
prior proceeding that the plaintiff had commenced for his clients in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice:
Not surprisingly, the Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the Ontario
Statement of Claim as it related to CIC and the CBSA on the basis that it disclosed
no cause of action and was otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court
process. On the day the motion was to be heard, the Plaintiffs’ then counsel (not
Mr. Galati) requested and obtained an adjournment based, in part, on an argument
that “new facts” had emerged “which inform the Plaintiffs’ case against the moving
Defendants”. Plaintiffs’ counsel also advised the Court that he intended to amend
the Statement of Claim. Thrown-away costs were awarded to the Attorney General
in the amount of $2,500.00, payable within 30 days.
The Attorney General brought the motion to strike back before the Court on June
17, 2015. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file any responding material and seems not
to have opposed the motion. Indeed, in an apparent effort to avoid the motion to
strike, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Discontinuance on June 11, 2015. Justice
Edward Belobaba described the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance as
“improper” and of no effect. He went on to strike the claims against the Attorney
General without leave to amend […]
The Court had continued:
The Ontario Superior Court found those allegations could not support a viable
cause of action and the Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to relitigate that issue in
this Court. To do so is an abuse of process: see Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79,
2003 SCC 63 at para 37, [2003] 3 SCR 77. Those allegations are accordingly
struck from the Statement of Claim without leave to amend. […]
There is not much of any substance that remains in the Statement of Claim, and
what does remain is devoid of material facts. Prolixity, repetition and the bare
pleading of a series of events are not substitutes for the requirement that a
defendant know what is being factually and legally alleged so that a proper answer
B-1-42
- 0033 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-43 27 B-1-43
and defence can be stated. What is always required is a recitation of material facts
that can support an arguable cause of action. Nevertheless, there are some
generalized allegations that CBSA and CIC officials knowingly fabricated a case
against the Plaintiffs in order to keep them in custody. In theory, a viable cause of
action for misfeasance in public office could arise, provided that there are sufficient
material facts pleaded to support it. Here there are none and the remaining portions
of the Statement of Claim are struck out for that reason and because what little
remains is unintelligible. The Plaintiffs will, however, have leave to file a fresh
Statement of Claim provided that it contains sufficient material particulars to
support a cause of action for misfeasance in the prosecution of a case for the
detention of the Plaintiffs.
i. In Almacén v Canada, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “ZZ” to this affidavit
and can be accessed at this link, the Federal Court of Appeal had dismissed an appeal from
a dismissal of a motion by the plaintiff’s client to set aside an order striking the plaintiff’s
client’s amended statement of claim.
j. In Al Omani v Canada, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “AAA” to this
affidavit and can be accessed at this link, the Federal Court had commented:
The statement of claim is difficult to apprehend and somewhat unwieldy. It starts

off with bald allegations of various infringements, be they abuse of process, excess
of authority, public misfeasance, negligence, negligent investigation, contempt of
two Federal Court Judgments, as well as violation of section 15 and 7 of the
Charter. For good measure, there is also an allegation that section 49 of the Federal
Courts Act (prohibition of jury trails) and 72 of the IRPA (requirement that leave
be granted for judicial review) are unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
Paragraphs 32 to 35 of the statement of claim that the Plaintiffs list causes of action.
[…] The paragraph ends with a mere declaration, without any connection with the
facts, that “tortious conduct has caused the damages”. What particular facts
constitute the alleged tortious conduct is nowhere to be found in the pleading.
[…]
In the further alternative, the Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to deny their permanent
residence. This time, the allegations are barely more precise in that the Plaintiffs
allege “a contrived denial made in bad faith”, delay and baseless association with
Al Qaeda (para 37). I note that, again, the material facts that would give precision
to the alleged conspiracy are not stated. In fact, there is a general allegation of
conspiracy, but bad faith, delay and baseless association do not make a conspiracy,
i.e. where there is proof of agreement and execution. The Defendant does not know
who, when, where, how and what which would give rise to its liability.
[…]
B-1-43
- 0034 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-44 28 B-1-44
I cannot see a scintilla of a cause of action in the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendant
failed to abide by the orders in bad faith. I am striking the misfeasance claim
respecting the “refusal to abide by Federal Court orders” without leave to amend.
[…]
The fact that the Defendant refused to answer the Plaintiffs’ questions does not
show unlawful conduct. This does not show a cause of action, let alone a reasonable
one. Unlike the points calculation and the inadmissibility decision, the Plaintiffs
failed to point to a statutory obligation that the visa officer(s) breached or show
that the officer(s) acted unlawfully in the exercise of their public functions
generally. As a result, I am striking the misfeasance allegation concerning the
“refusal to provide “cogent and/or sober” answers to questions posed by the
Plaintiffs” without leave to amend.
[…]
There is nothing on the conduct of the investigation that led to the inadmissibility
finding. I agree with the Defendant that the statement of claim fails to plead facts,
let alone sufficient material facts to establish the tort of negligent investigation
other than suggesting that the Plaintiffs are unhappy with the conclusion reached
that they are inadmissible. The pleadings do not even begin to give any indication
to support a general allegation that the investigation may have been negligent. I see
no scintilla of an argument and am striking this claim without leave to amend.
There is not even the faintest allegation of the who, when, where, how and what
giving rise to liability. It is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed. The
Plaintiffs throw up in the air an accusation with nothing to support it. There is
nothing to amend. Actually, the Plaintiffs did not even attempt to specify how the
claim could be amended (Ward v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness), 2014 FC 568, para 30). The fact of the matter is that there is no
cause of action given the material facts pleaded. It is not so much that there are
deficiencies which may be cured by amendment. There is no cause of action
pleaded.
[…]
The pleadings are also so deficient in factual material that the Defendant would be
incapable to know how to answer. They are bare assertions that are unfounded; not
only they do not disclose a reasonable cause of action they could be struck as
frivolous or vexatious […].
[…]
The statement of claim fails to plead the basic elements of either Charter claim.
These pleadings are once again so defective that they cannot be cured by simple
amendment. There is not a reasonable cause of action disclosed. Since I see no
scintilla of a cause of action to be cured, I have to strike both, without leave to
amend.
62. I also researched the proceedings that the plaintiff has commenced specifically in relation
B-1-44
- 0035 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-45 29 B-1-45
to coronavirus measures on behalf of various clients, and learned the following.
A. Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General)
63. By 379-page notice of civil claim issued August 17, 2021, a copy of which is marked as
Exhibit “BBB” to this affidavit, the plaintiff commenced an action on behalf of Action4Canada
and others against, among others, the Province of British Columbia, Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
64. The plaintiff’s co-counsel on the matter was Lawrence Wong, an individual who the
Federal Court had awarded costs against personally in Tai v Canada, a copy of which is marked
as Exhibit “CCC” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link, for appearing on his own
affidavit. Justice Mactavish of the Federal Court wrote in her reasons for judgment:
The affidavit provided by Lawrence Wong does not merely provide an evidentiary
foundation for uncontested facts or for the admission of documents that were
before the Immigration Appeal Division when it made its decision. Rather, Mr.
Wong has put his litigation strategy before the IAD into issue in support of his
clients’ procedural fairness arguments. It was clearly not appropriate in these
circumstances for counsel to appear on his own affidavit.
[…]
The need for this adjournment is entirely attributable to Mr. Wong’s conduct. The
applicants cannot be expected to be aware of the rules governing the propriety of
counsel appearing on his own affidavit, and should not be liable for the costs of the
adjournment. Consequently, the Court orders that the costs of this adjournment
should be paid personally by Lawrence Wong. These costs are fixed in the amount
of $200.
65. Justice Bell of the Federal Court sanctioned Mr. Wong again in Liang v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “DDD” to this affidavit and
can be accessed at this link, ordering him to pay $1,000.00 in costs personally to the opposing
party because the motion he had commenced was “an attack upon the integrity of the Court”.
66. On March 31, 2016, Canadian Lawyer published an article entitled “What was he
B-1-45
- 0036 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-46 30 B-1-46
thinking?” commenting on Justice Bell’s decision. A copy of the article is marked as Exhibit
“EEE” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link.
67. I understand, based on my review of the reported decisions on which Mr. Wong is listed
as counsel, that Mr. Wong specializes in immigration law. Mr. Wong’s website, which can be
accessed at this link, lists “Immigration Law”, among other things, under “Our Services”.
Printouts of the “Our Services” and “Immigration Law” pages of Mr. Wong’s website are
collectively marked as Exhibit “FFF” to this affidavit.
68. A copy of the results of a CanLII search for the terms "Lawrence Wong" conducted
December 20, 2022 is marked as Exhibit “GGG” to this affidavit. The matters on which Mr. Wong
appears to have acted are highlighted in yellow in that document, and those on which he did not
but which happened to be captured in the search are highlighted blue.
69. By decision dated August 29, 2022 (Exhibit E) that can be accessed at this link, Justice
Ross of the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck the entirety of Action4Canada’s claim in
British Columbia, commenting:
The plaintiffs (individual, corporate and Action4Canada) seek general damages for
breaches of their Charter rights. Each plaintiff claims a set amount of general
damages. In addition, as against the defendant, Canadian Broadcasting
The first paragraph under the “THE FACTS” heading states:
44. In 2000 Bill Gates steps down as Microsoft CEO and creates the “Gates Foundation’’ and
(along with other partners) launches the ‘Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization
(“GAVI’’). The Gates Foundation has given GAVI approximately $4.1 Billion. Gates has further
lobbied other organizations, such as the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and governments to
donate to GAVI including Canada and its current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who has donated
over $1 billion dollars to Gates/GAVI.
B-1-46
- 0037 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-47 31 B-1-47
I set out this paragraph to illustrate the wide-ranging and unconstrained nature of
the allegations in the NOCC. The defendants submit that the NOCC makes
correct.
Many of the allegations contained in the NOCC do not accord with, and
specifically challenge, the mainstream understanding of the science underlying
both the existence of, and the government’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The defendants submit that the allegations in the NOCC constitute “conspiracy
theories”. In response, the plaintiffs submit that they have pled material facts that
expose “conspiracies”. The former expression, used by the defendants, is
recognized as a pejorative term. The latter, used by the plaintiffs, alleges that the
NOCC is exposing an underlying systemic issue relating to the pandemic. Those
allegations are, in turn, tied to allegations of misfeasance in public office. The
plaintiffs also allege criminal conduct by the defendants.
[…]
On the first issue, whether the NOCC is prolix, I agree with the defendants’
includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and “crimes against
humanity”. In my opinion, it is “bad beyond argument”.
70. The court awarded costs payable forthwith in any event of the cause against the plaintiffs.
B. Gill v Maciver
71. On February 24, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a claim, that the
plaintiff had commenced on behalf of two doctors against over 20 defendants, pursuant to section
137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. On October 31, 2022, the Court awarded full indemnity costs
with certain reductions against the plaintiffs. Copies of the decisions are collectively marked as
Exhibit “HHH” to this affidavit and can be accessed at this link and this link.
C. “First Responders/Essential Workers” challenges
72. I found an article online, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit "III" to this affidavit and
can be accessed at this link, containing a link to a sample copy of a retainer agreement captioned
B-1-47
- 0038 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-48 32 B-1-48
“RE: Ontario “First Responders/Essential Workers” (police, firefighter, paramedics/ ambulance,
essential workers provincial/municipal) action against coercive vaccine mandates”, metadata dated
December 19, 2021. The article asks clients to enclose a cheque for $1,500 with the executed
retainer.
73. A copy of the linked agreement is marked as Exhibit “JJJ” to this affidavit and can be
accessed at this link.
D. Adelberg et al v Her Majesty the Queen et al
74. By statement of claim issued May 30, 2022, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “KKK”
to this affidavit, the plaintiff commenced an action on behalf of approximately 600 plaintiffs
against the federal government, Prime Minister Trudeau and others.
75. I found via online search a sample copy of a retainer agreement captioned “RE: Federal
Employees Action against coercive vaccine mandate, as well as challenge to the proposed Federal
‘Vaccine Passports’ with the possibility of certifying as a class action proceeding”, metadata dated
October 6, 2021. I have misplaced the link but retained a copy of the document, which is marked
as Exhibit “LLL” to this affidavit.
76. On November 4, 2022, the federal government moved to strike the claim in its entirety. A
copy of its notice of motion is marked as Exhibit “MMM” to this affidavit.
77. Copies of the affidavit evidence and memorandum of fact and law that the plaintiff filed in
response, dated November 29, 2022, are collectively marked as Exhibit “NNN” to this affidavit.
B-1-48
- 0039 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-49 33 B-1-49
The communications at issue and this action
78. I did none of what I describe below with the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. On the
contrary, I took steps to prevent the plaintiff from injuring the Society.
79. As set out above, the Society and I felt that it was prudent to clarify to the public, and
especially our donors, our lack of a relationship with the Galati affiliates and our reasons for
pursuing overlapping goals separately from them.
80. I further believed that, to the extent that I could educate or assist those who had donated
money toward what, in my view, was substandard and ineffective legal work in pursuit of a cause
that the Society shares, it was important that I do so.
81. On January 27, 2021, the Society’s treasurer, Deepankar Gandhi, sent the email to Dan
Dicks with Press for Truth that I understand will be marked as Exhibit A to Mr. Gandhi’s affidavit
in support of this motion.
82. At some time in June of 2021, the Society added to the ‘frequently asked questions’ page
of its website a series of questions and answers addressing, among other things, its relationship
with the plaintiff and with Action4Canada and the differences between the Society’s and
Action4Canada’s approaches to litigation in relation to COVID-19 measures. Copies of
screenshots of the page and of the questions and answers with which I understand the plaintiff
takes issue, captured August 16, 2022 and with the hyperlinks on the original page re-added to the
screenshots, are collectively marked as Exhibit “OOO” to this affidavit.
83. Everything on this page that refers to the plaintiff is, in my view, accurate.
B-1-49
- 0040 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-50 34 B-1-50
84. By correspondence dated February 3, 2021, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “PPP”
to this affidavit, Mr. Galati advised my counsel that he considered me to have made defamatory
comments based on the content of Mr. Gandhi’s email.
85. On February 4, 2021, an individual who I understand to be a friend of Ms. Gaw’s and
involved with other Galati affiliates, Danielle Pistelli, sent the following message to a WhatsApp
group chat for Action4Canada members:
Hey guys. Tanya wanted me to make sure that Kip stays out of our inner circle.
He is slandering Rocco. He’s said a number of defamatory things in some posts.
Tanya sent to Rocco to which he put together a very stern letter responding to all
the things he said. He was able to justify everything this guy smeared and Rocco
is giving him the opportunity to offer a public apology and retract his defamatory
comments or be sued by Rocco. All the statements he’s making can make people
question whether or not they donate. She is thinks he’s either a mole or just an
ignorant ass. Either way stay clear!
A screenshot of this message is marked as Exhibit “QQQ” to this affidavit.
86. On June 17, 2021, I met with an individual named Ted Kuntz, president of Vaccine Choice
Canada, by videoconference. Vladislav Sobolev, a community activist who had organized the
meeting between Mr. Kuntz and me, attended as well. Mr. Kuntz emailed me June 16, 2021:
HI Kip and Vlad

I’m looking forward to our conversation tomorrow and learning more of your
efforts to hold the BC government accountable.
This is the zoom link for our conversation:
Topic: Ted Kuntz’s Zoom Meeting
Time: Jun 17, 2021 11:00 AM Vancouver
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/74246861518?pwd=VHJ0ZW15MGc5cGM4aktaZmR
XdDVydz09
Feel free to call me if anything comes up.
See you tomorrow.
ted
778-892-6650
A copy of this email is marked as Exhibit “RRR” to this affidavit.
87. The meeting was organized in response to the large number of complaints we were
B-1-50
- 0041 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-51 35 B-1-51
receiving about the Galati affiliates, which included Mr. Kuntz’s organization, Vaccine Choice
Canada, and Mr. Kuntz’s concerns regarding mitigating negative public perception of his
organization. Mr. Sobolev was present throughout the meeting. I have reviewed a draft copy of
the affidavit that I understand he will affirm in support of this motion with respect to what was
said during that meeting and can confirm that Mr. Sobolev’s evidence is accurate. Contrary to the
allegations in the statement of claim, the meeting was amicable. I at no point implied to Mr. Kuntz
that anyone should redirect donations to either me or the Society.
88. Mr. Kuntz emailed me following the meeting. The following is an excerpt from his email,
a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “SSS” to this affidavit:
I do want to ensure that there is clarity in your understanding of the legal action
filed in Ontario and the pending legal action in BC.
These actions are constitutional challenges and not class actions.
I appreciate that you are not in a position to explain to those making inquiries the
rationale for the delay in filing a default judgement in Ontario and the delay in the
BC action. I can reassure you that each of the cases are proceeding. There are
important reasons for the delays.
I think it is important to explain to your supporters that:
- the actions filed by Rocco Galati are distinctly different than the action you are
proceeding with
- that Rocco has been formally retained and work on these filing have been
continually worked on since May 2020.
- that all donations received have gone to support the legal actions
Can I suggest that rather than try to explain to your donors what is happening with
the filings, that you direct them to the Constitutional Rights Centre, Action4Canada
and Vaccine Choice Canada.
I can tell you that the board of VCC meets regularly with Rocco to review the case
and to discuss the best strategy to move forward.
As I mentioned, Rocco has secured international experts to address the

fundamental issues of this matter and will launch when all the necessary affidavits
are in place. We already have thousands of pages of expert testimony secured and
experts retained.
B-1-51
- 0042 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-52 36 B-1-52
Can I also suggest that you remove the information posted under Are you affiliated
with Rocco Galati, and if not, why not?
I personally find this information unhelpful, incomplete in its answers, and

undermines confidence at a time when we need to stand behind our warriors.
This is a critical time in the history of humanity, and we need every resource we
can to reclaim our rights and freedoms.
89. I have not had any other meetings with Mr. Kuntz.
90. By letter dated July 13, 2021, a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “TTT” to this affidavit,
I responded to negative comments Ms. Gaw of Action4Canada, another Galati affiliate, had
published online about the Society’s work and how there was an alleged conspiracy on our part to
undermine her work. My letter was intended to extend an olive branch to her to invite her to
participate in our steering committee and provide input into the Society’s work and the litigation
process. This was consistent with our “open tent” principle.
91. In January 2022 an individual named Donna Toews, who ultimately became a volunteer
and fundraiser for the Society, expressed to me concerns like those that I had been hearing from
others. She advised me that she had donated $1,000.00 to each of Action4Canada and Vaccine
Choice Canada in response to their soliciting funds to commence proceedings challenging
government-imposed measures related to the coronavirus but had been kept in the dark as to the
status of each organization’s proceeding and as to the use of her donated funds.
92. Having grown fatigued with the administrative burden in receiving complaints about the
plaintiff and the effect it was having on our volunteers, I agreed to assist her in attempting to
recover the funds she had donated.
93. My purpose in assisting Ms. Toews was not to injure the plaintiff: it was to assist her, and
B-1-52
- 0043 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-53 37 B-1-53
potentially others like her, in determining what had happened to the donated funds.
94. By email dated July 19, 2022, a law clerk from the plaintiff’s office sent me the statement
of claim in this action. I understood that this was not proper service and did not accept service at
the time.
95. I believed then, and continue to believe now, that the plaintiff has commenced this action
in order to mitigate his declining brand image at the cost of my and my co-defendants’ time,
resources and reputations. If the plaintiff was serious about pursuing a civil remedy, I believe it
would have taken little effort to properly serve me, the registered office for the Society being my
home office where I spend the majority of my time.
96. On August 29, 2022 my lawyers submitted a requisition to attend civil practice court in
order to schedule this motion.
The plaintiff’s public comments about this action and his action against the Law Society of
Ontario
97. I believe that the plaintiff is relying on the existence of, among other proceedings, this one,
to prevent me and others from speaking publicly about the matters discussed in this affidavit, and
to communicate to the public that the Galati affiliates’ approach to litigation, among other things,
is legitimate.
98. On July 13, 2022, Mr. Kuntz interviewed the plaintiff during a livestream, a recording of
which Canuck Law published on YouTube on September 1, 2022. A copy of the recording is
marked as Exhibit “UUU” to this affidavit can be accessed at this link. Beginning at the 22:50
mark, the plaintiff said:
B-1-53
- 0044 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-54 38 B-1-54
I’ve also had to sue Kip Warner out in B.C. for his vicious interference with the
Action4Canada and his nonsense in instigating a complaint to the Law Society of
Ontario.
I’ve drafted and issued a law suit against the Law Society of Ontario because I’ve
had nine—count ‘em—nine complaints in the last 14 months because of my
COVID-19 litigation. Do the numbers. Nine in 14 months—what, every six
weeks? Now, the first eight were dismissed but, of them, they forced me to respond
to three, including these depraved, racist, anti-Semitic complainants. Now they’ve
asked me to respond to a fourth and I’ve had enough. I’ve just had enough so I’m
gonna sue them too.
So I’ve got—I’ve got four law—I have four—I will, with this UNESCO action—
I will have four lawsuits in my personal name because you can’t just let these things
go ‘cause I know where they’re going—I know where they’re going with this. I’ve
always known. Call me what you want.
[…]
I’m not putting up with this shit. I never have, so […].
Mr. Kuntz responded:
What it tells me, Rocco, is they’re afraid of crossing you in court.
99. The statement of claim for the action that the plaintiff commenced against the Law Society
of Ontario and its intake and resolution counsel, issued July 12, 2022 and amended November 9,
2022, is marked as Exhibit “VVV” to this affidavit.
100. On September 5, 2022, an organization called Canadian Rights Watch posted a video to its
website in which Ms. Gaw had the following exchange with her interviewer:
Ms. Gaw: […] Rocco just filed another suit about a month ago against
Kipling Warner who, for a year and a half, has also been using defamatory and
libelous statements just a vendetta to go after Rocco, um, and in that claim, it was
because Kipling Warner as well as somebody from the law society in Ontario were
coaching an individual on how to lay a complaint against Rocco, um, and again,
frivolous and libellous. And so Rocco finally got fed up and as a result—
Interviewer: It’s like, I get the sense that they’re, like, hunting him, y’know?
Ms. Gaw: Well, yeah, they, they […] are determined and as far as Kip
Warner is concerned he’s got a very narrow claim that he filed in B.C. It’s sort of
an exemption for health workers against Bonnie Henry.
And I knew about that a year and a half ago […] but this guy has made it a vicious
B-1-54
- 0045 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-55 39 B-1-55
vendetta as well along with Vlad to try to berate Action4Canada, Vaccine Choice
Canada, Rocco, David Lindsay and, um, anyways, it got to the point with Kip
where he was going to independent media—a person that happened to be an ally
of mine and made defamatory comments about Rocco back in January 2021 and
that person—that independent reporter—sent it to me saying ‘What’s this all
about?’.
And so I sent it to Rocco and Rocco got in touch with the lawyer […] that Kip was
working with at the time […] and said, you know, your client better cease and
desist. But he chose not to.
They tried to affect the legal confidence in my legal counsel, they interfered with
people donating to Action4Canada and, like I say, anybody that looks up what a
constitutional challenge is—all lawyers were the same—I’m a gal that likes to have
my bills paid at the end of the month. I hate debt. It freaks me out. And here I
was taking this huge legal challenge on and I couldn’t wait that I could check off
‘Wow, this money has been raised!’—so grateful to the grassroots for every single
dime that was given and then these guys come in and try to interfere with that a
year ago. Started a year ago.
This Vlad guy was on his blog and […] but after Rocco had filed against this Kip
individual somebody recently told me that Vlad and Yvonne—another girl that—
just like high school vicious kind of attacks trying to cause trouble and undermine,
saying I’m not transparent with the funds, etc., and so they’ve been pulling
statements off of their Facebook, which is a wise thing to do. But they’ve already
been screenshotted. They’ve also made libellous and defamatory comments […].
Interviewer: […] Yeah, you should hold everyone accountable.
A copy of this video can be found at Exhibit S to this affidavit and can be accessed at this
link.
101. Copies of emails that I exchanged on September 8, 2022 with an individual named Candis
Elliott, who referred to Ms. Gaw’s interview in advising me that she had heard that morning that
there “might be some effort on [my] part to undermine the important work of R. Galatti on behalf
of Action 4 Canada [sic]”, are collectively marked as Exhibit “WWW” to this affidavit.
102. On October 19, 2022, during a livestream held by Vaccine Choice Canada, a copy of an
excerpt of a recording of which is marked as Exhibit “XXX” to this affidavit, the plaintiff said,
beginning around the 6:15 mark of the recording:
B-1-55
- 0046 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-56 40 B-1-56
I’d like to mention that, as a footnote, you know over the last 15 months I’ve had
no less than 14 Law Society complaints I’ve had to defend, and after the 13th, I
had warned them, stop sending this garbage because I shouldn’t even have to
respond to this garbage. They sent me some more garbage and I sued the Law
Society.
Within two weeks of suing the Law Society, they came up with complaint number
14, for my public speech in Nathan Philips Square in November of 2021, and
they’re taking issue with—and I have until the end of the month to respond—and
it was a self-generated complaint from the Law Society themselves, obviously,
probably because I sued them.
And the complaint was over something they say I said at Nathan Phillips Square
calling Doug Ford a depraved fascist or something, and I might have injected some
peppers and adjectives to that, and the second complaint was referring to some
doctors and, I don’t know if it was the Mayor of Toronto, for engaging in
pedophilic conduct by, you know, they leave this part out, because I said, you
know, they’re encouraging underaged kids, under 12, to come down and get a
vaccine in exchange for an ice cream truck that’s gonna give them free ice cream.
This is where we’ve come, right? And instead of cracking down on these MFers,
they wanna discipline me for pointing it out—that that’s what pedophiles do, is
lure children to them by offering chocolate, candy and ice cream. Why is that an
outrageous analogy to draw?
103. The prejudice that the Society will suffer if this action is permitted to proceed is substantial.
As I have described, the plaintiff continues to use this litigation to undermine the Society’s efforts
for his own benefit. In addition to the chilling effect on the Society and its supporters, the plaintiff
publicizes this and related litigation to solicit support for his initiatives.
This action’s effects on me
104. Addressing the plaintiff’s commencement of this action against me has required that I,
among other things, collect the high volume of documents relevant to the issues the action raises
and educate my counsel. This has taken significant time and effort on my part and has reduced
the time that I can spend operating the Society on a volunteer basis, the time that I can spend on
my work as a software engineer and founder of a small, independent software vendor and my free
time. I would estimate that I have spent at least 150 hours so far dealing with this claim as of this
writing, with more anticipated to come.
B-1-56
- 0047 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-57 41 B-1-57
105. I have spent significant time responding to inquiries from the public in respect of the
plaintiff’s action against myself and the Society. By way of example, a copy of an email exchange
I had with an individual named Dennis Young on August 11, 2022 is marked as Exhibit “YYY”
to this affidavit. I received most of these inquiries, of which there were many, in-person or
by telephone.
106. This action has caused me stress. My reputation is important to me both because of my
vocation and because it reflects on the Society. As I described above, the plaintiff and several
Galati affiliates are relying on the mere fact that the plaintiff commenced this proceeding as
evidence of their allegations that I am attacking them without basis and causing discord in the
community on whose behalf the Society advocates.
AFFIRMED BY THE DEPONENT at the City

of Vancouver in the Province of British
Columbia REMOTELY BY WAY OF VIDEO
CONFERENCE before me at the City of
_________________________________
Toronto in the Province of Ontario on January KIPLING WARNER
26, 2023, in accordance with O Reg 431/20
_____________________________________
A commissioner for taking affidavits
B-1-57
- 0048 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-58 B-1-58
EXHIBIT “A”
B-1-58
- 0049 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-59 B-1-59
CONSTITUTION
BC Society • Societies Act
CERTIFIED COPY NAME OF SOCIETY: CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
Of a document filed with the
Province of British Columbia IN PUBLIC POLICY
Registrar of Companies
Incorporation Number: S0074303

Business Number: 78811 4460 BC0001
CAROL PREST
Filed Date and Time: October 12, 2021 03:36 PM Pacific Time
The name of the Society is CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC
POLICY
The purposes of the Society are:
SOCIETY ACT
CONSTITUTION
1. The name of the Society is
2. The purposes of the Society are:

(a) To improve health outcomes of people by advocating for the development and implementation of
government and public health policy initiatives to be based on research conducted using the scientific
method;
(b) To improve access to information on pandemic and epidemic threats and events;
(c) To improve access to a full range of research conducted using the scientific method concerning
pandemic and epidemic;
(d) To oppose the dissemination of information that is not based on research conducted according to the
scientific method;
(e) To promote the use of and adherence to the scientific method in the development and dissemination
of all public policy at any level of government of Canada or any province or territory therein; and
(f) To promote critical thinking and public discussion that includes the widest possible expression of
opinions and viewpoints in all public policy debates or discussion, regardless of the level of government of
Canada or of any province or territory therein.
This is Exhibit "A" to the affidavit of Kipling

Warner affirmed before me electronically by
way of videoconference this 26th day of
January, 2023, in accordance with O Reg
431/20
_____________________________________
A Commissioner for taking affidavits,
BC Registries and Online Services B-1-59

Incorporation Number S0074303 www.gov.bc.ca/Societies Page 1 of 1
- 0050 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-60 B-1-60
EXHIBIT “B”
B-1-60
- 0051 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-61 B-1-61
This is Exhibit “B” to the affidavit of Kipling Warner

affirmed before me electronically by way of
videoconference this 26th day of January, 2023, in
accordance with O Reg 431/20
B-1-61
___________________________________________
- 0052 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-62 B-1-62
B-1-62
- 0053 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-63 B-1-63
B-1-63
- 0054 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-64 B-1-64
B-1-64
- 0055 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-65 B-1-65
B-1-65
- 0056 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-66 B-1-66
B-1-66
- 0057 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-67 B-1-67
B-1-67
- 0058 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-68 B-1-68
B-1-68
- 0059 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-69 B-1-69
B-1-69
- 0060 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-70 B-1-70
B-1-70
- 0061 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-71 B-1-71
B-1-71
- 0062 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-72 B-1-72
B-1-72
- 0063 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-73 B-1-73
B-1-73
- 0064 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-74 B-1-74
B-1-74
- 0065 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-75 B-1-75
B-1-75
- 0066 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-76 B-1-76
B-1-76
- 0067 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-77 B-1-77
B-1-77
- 0068 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-78 B-1-78
B-1-78
- 0069 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-79 B-1-79
B-1-79
- 0070 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-80 B-1-80
B-1-80
- 0071 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-81 B-1-81
B-1-81
- 0072 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-82 B-1-82
B-1-82
- 0073 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-83 B-1-83
B-1-83
- 0074 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-84 B-1-84
B-1-84
- 0075 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-85 B-1-85
B-1-85
- 0076 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-86 B-1-86
EXHIBIT “C”
B-1-86
- 0077 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-87 B-1-87

2022 BCSC 2108 (CanLII)

Columbia,
2022 BCSC 2108
Date: 20221107
Docket: S210831
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Plaintiff
And
His Majesty the King in right of the Province of British Columbia and
Dr. Bonnie Henry in her Capacity as Provincial Health Officer
Defendants
This is Exhibit “C” to the affidavit of
Kipling Warner affirmed before me
electronically by way of Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Crerar
videoconference this 26th day of
January, 2023, in accordance with O
Reg 431/20
Oral Reasons for Judgment
______________________________
(In Chambers)
Counsel for the Plaintiff: A.D.A. Greer
Counsel for the Defendants: C. Rajotte

E.C. Lapper
Counsel for the Attorney General of British C. Bant

Columbia:
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver

November 7, 2022
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver
November 7, 2022
B-1-87
- 0078 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-88
B-1-88
Columbia Page 2
I. Introduction
[1] The plaintiff, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
Policy, applies for an order allowing for the filming and delayed and limited

broadcast of the certification hearing in this matter, scheduled for December 12–16,
2022. During those five days of hearings, the plaintiff will attempt to convince the
Court to certify its action as a class proceeding, according to the Class Proceedings
Act, RSBC 1996, c 50, and case law on the subject. That proposed class proceeding
aims to challenge and seek compensation for various actions and restrictions
imposed by the provincial government and the Provincial Health Officer in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic. During that week, the respondents will also argue their
application to strike the plaintiff's claim as an abuse of process.1
[2] The plaintiff argues that this matter, affecting all British Columbians, is a
matter of widespread public interest. That public interest is not merely theoretical but
actual. The plaintiff provides affidavits from individuals across the province who say
that they will be unable to attend the court proceedings due to physical infirmities,
work and family commitments, economic limitations, and general distance from the
Vancouver Law Courts building.
[3] The respondents argue that the hearing should not be broadcast. They
emphasise the inability of the Court to control the dissemination of the video once it
has been posted online. The video could be further distributed and manipulated to
the detriment of the dignity of the Court itself and to court proceedings in general.
The internet respects no borders. While improper use of the video within British
Columbia and Canada could attract punishment through the Court's contempt of
court powers, the Court would have limited powers to counter misuse outside British
Columbia.
[4] The respondents also note that there are few precedents or prior examples of
broadcast of a British Columbia court proceeding absent agreement by all parties.
B-1-88
- 0079 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-89
B-1-89
Columbia Page 3
II. Historical broadcast of court proceedings
[5] Under the rule of law in Canadian society, judges determine issues based
upon statutes, enactments, and the common law, represented by earlier decisions in

similar circumstances by other courts. That said, there exists little binding guidance
on the issue before the Court: an application to broadcast the court hearing.
[6] No statute or regulation addresses the broadcast of court proceedings. There

is no common law tradition or custom in Canada of televising trial court proceedings,
as exists in the United States. There is no such tradition in the United Kingdom,
although it has broadcast some appellate court hearings since 2009.2
[7] Our Court’s Practice Direction PD-48, "Applications for Authorization to Video
Record or Broadcast Court Proceedings", provides guidelines for such applications.
In that direction, ss. 8 and 9 set out what an applicant must establish:
Written Argument
8. In support of the application, the applicant must submit a written
argument addressing the impact of the authorization sought on:
a. fair trial rights;
b. privacy interests;
c. witnesses in the proceeding; and
d. the Court and the administration of justice.
9. The applicant’s written argument may also address any other factors
which the applicant considers relevant to the application.
[8] In Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC
1588 at para. 41 [the “Polygamy Reference”], the Court noted that the existence of
the Practice Direction itself recognises that it may be appropriate in certain
circumstances to televise court proceedings. At the same time, there are only a few
instances in British Columbia history of broadcasting court proceedings.
[9] An early instance was seen in HMTQ v. Cho, 2000 BCSC 1162. There, only
counsel submissions and the charge to the jury were permitted to be broadcast.
Neither the jury nor the accused could be filmed. The Court made the order over the
B-1-89
- 0080 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-90
B-1-90
Columbia Page 4
objections of both the Crown and the defence. The Court specifically emphasised
that the broadcast order was an “experiment”: paras. 39–40.
[10] In the Polygamy Reference, Bauman CJSC, as he then was, permitted

broadcast of the closing submissions but not the entire proceedings:
[40] The application sought only to broadcast the closing submissions,

which are similar in substance to appellate submissions. Much of the lively
debate surrounding televised court proceedings centres upon its impact on
witnesses and jurors. Clearly, none of the reservations that have been
expressed by some in this regard apply to appellate litigation. The Supreme
Court of Canada has been televising its proceedings for several years now.
The Ontario Court of Appeal did so as well in R. v. Truscott, 2007 ONCA 575.
[41] The existence of the Practice Direction is a recognition that televising
court proceedings is appropriate in some circumstances. In my view, this
unique proceeding was one. The issues before the Court were of public
interest, and the parties and Interested Persons either consented or took no
position on the matter. In the context of this case, broadcast of the closing
submissions neither raised privacy concerns nor in any other way impaired
the fair and proper administration of justice.
[42] On this basis, I permitted the application. As I observed at the time,
this is an exceptional proceeding and my ruling does not necessarily have
precedential value for future cases.
[11] The Chief Justice described the camera set-up in the courtroom:
[43] The media set up two web cameras in the courtroom which provided
virtually live webcast of the entire closing submissions. I say “virtually”
because it was a condition of my order that there be an approximate 10
minute delay in broadcast to permit recourse in the event of inadvertent
reference to certain protected evidence. While I cannot speak for counsel, I
did not find the cameras to be obtrusive or otherwise distracting. No concerns
arising from the webcast have been brought to my attention.
[12] Again, in the Polygamy Reference, in contrast to the present case, the parties
either supported or took no position on the media application to broadcast the
submissions. Nor was there resistance from any participants whose faces would be
shown.
[13] In West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 1282, this
Court allowed a limited broadcast of the proceedings, which concerned Indigenous
claims. While the hearing appears to have been broadcast on the internet generally,
B-1-90
- 0081 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-91
B-1-91
Columbia Page 5
the proceedings were broadcast specifically for the purpose of allowing members of
the Indigenous group to follow those proceedings: see also Restoule v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 114 at para. 49. Their individual and collective
rights, with respect to both the present and future generations of that group, would

be directly affected by the determinations of the Court. As stated in West Moberly:
[3] That said, I accept the plaintiffs’ submission to the effect that the order
sought may be justified as a means of promoting access to justice, the open-
court principle and reconciliation - all of which must be balanced, however,
against the proper administration of justice.
[4] On that basis, I have concluded that the order that I make should not
go beyond the rationale that has been posited for it, which is a narrow one.
As I understand it, it is to allow members of the plaintiff First Nations who live
in remote areas to watch the proceedings as they unfold. In addition, the
order should not extend beyond the rationale that is supported by the
evidence, which is to a similar effect.
[14] Again, in contrast to the present case, all West Moberly parties and
participants agreed to be broadcast, and did not object to the application.
[15] On the other hand, the leading British Columbia precedent, and the most
recent British Columbia precedent, both denied broadcast.
[16] In R. v. Pilarinos and Clark, 2001 BCSC 1332, Justice Bennett, now of the
Court of Appeal, denied a media application to broadcast the trial of Mr Pilarinos,
accused of building a balcony for the then-premier, allegedly in exchange for political
assistance in a casino application. Despite the public interest in holding those in
power to account, the Court refused the broadcast application.
[17] The Court first distinguished Cho on the basis that that case did not purport to
overturn the common law rule against broadcast of court proceedings, as reiterated
by Esson CJSC (as he then was) in R. v. Vander Zalm, [1992] BCJ No 3065 (SC) at
para. 3: Pilarinos at paras. 43–47. Rather, as stated, the Cho order was "an
experiment" and was thus not of precedential value: Pilarinos at para. 47.
[18] The Pilarinos Court then conducted an extensive analysis of the alternative
argument that refusal to allow broadcast would offend the Charter. The Court
B-1-91
- 0082 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-92
B-1-92
Columbia Page 6
concluded that the denial of broadcast would not contravene s. 2(b) of the Charter,
and, alternatively, if it did, it would be saved by s. 1: paras. 168–170.
[19] The Court declined to exercise its discretion to permit broadcast of the trial,

which could conceivably have been heard by a judge and jury: para. 229. In this, the
Court ultimately agreed with the submissions made by the Attorney General, the
Crown, and the accused: all of whom opposed the broadcast of the trial.
[20] Towards the end of those lengthy and considered reasons, the Court noted
that:
[225] The common law evolves gradually. Often, technology is far ahead of
the both the legislature and the common law.
[21] The Court emphasised that it was not, in 2001, closing the door on the
broadcast of future court proceedings:
[228] These final comments do not demonstrate any bias I have for or
against television in the courtroom. The arguments put forward by the
applicants are compelling. There are good reasons presented for permitting
Expanded Media Coverage in a courtroom, particularly where there will be
complete coverage of the trial. My simple conclusion is that we do not know
the effect of Expanded Media Coverage in the courtroom. Until we do, the
policy of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is a sensible and permissive
approach to the issue.
[22] More recently, in United States v. Meng, 2020 BCSC 43, Associate Chief
Justice Holmes of this Court denied the application of an international media
consortium to broadcast the extradition hearing of Ms Meng. Both the accused and
the Crown opposed broadcast. The Meng decision expressed concern that the
proceedings might be rebroadcast out of context—a particular concern given that, as
in the present certification and strike hearing, the alleged facts of “double criminality”
were assumed, for the sake of argument, to be true: para. 39. The broadcast
contemplated in Meng would extend beyond the borders of British Columbia and
beyond the Court's contempt powers: para. 47. Specifically, it might be rebroadcast
in the United States, where Ms Meng faced a criminal trial, likely before a jury, if she
were ultimately to be extradited. This highlights the driving factor in the Court
B-1-92
- 0083 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-93
B-1-93
Columbia Page 7
denying broadcast in Meng: the risk of acutely prejudicing the criminal trial of
Ms Meng in a foreign country:
[37] The key concern is Ms. Meng’s right to a fair trial in the USA,
should she be extradited. For portions of these extradition proceedings to

be broadcast – even the double criminality hearing – would in my view put
that right at serious risk by potentially tainting trial witness testimony and the
juror pool. Broadcasts would almost inevitably reach the community of
the trial, given the high profile of this case in Canada and abroad, the
political commentary relating to the case, and the sensationalized
nature of some of the media coverage.
...
[39] . . . The question of law in the double criminality portion will be
addressed on the basis that the facts set out in the Record of the Case (and
the supplemental materials) are true. Counsel will accordingly argue the
double criminality question as though Ms. Meng committed the alleged
conduct that is the subject of the US charges, even though Ms. Meng’s
position in the broader proceedings is that she did not. A broadcast of
counsels’ submissions without an explanation of their proper context could
well lead an observer unfamiliar with extradition law to take counsel to be
accepting the truth of the allegations, rather than assuming their truth for the
purpose of the double criminality hearing. To that observer, counsel would
appear to be arguing against Ms. Meng’s extradition on the “technical”
point that her acknowledged conduct is not criminal in Canada, while
accepting that she committed the conduct alleged in the charges.
[40] For a broadcast to be made of Ms. Meng’s own counsel appearing to
acknowledge her guilt of the U.S. charges could entrench a public perception
that Ms. Meng has no real defence to them, and that she resists extradition
only on the “technical” basis relating to double criminality (as well as because
of the abuse of process she alleges). Such an entrenched public
perception could seriously damage Ms. Meng’s right to a fair trial in the
USA because of the potential tainting of witnesses and members of a
jury pool.
[emphasis added]
[23] That concern does not arise in the present circumstances: a certification
hearing. If certification is granted, there will be no criminal trial and there will be no
individual put on trial.
[24] Finally, Holmes ACJ echoes the observations made by Bennett J in Pilarinos,
19 years earlier, on the effect of technology on court proceedings, and the need to
be cautious, but not excessively cautious:
B-1-93
- 0084 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-94
B-1-94
Columbia Page 8
[46] However, the example given there of an unmaterialized risk related to

the comfort of witnesses and other courtroom participants in the presence of
cameras. Initial fears that cameras would always intimidate proved to be
overly cautious, given the evolution of technology and the ever-increasing
access to it by the general public.

[25] Outside of British Columbia, there are examples and precedents of other
courts across the country broadcasting proceedings. Since 2009, the Supreme Court
of Canada has broadcast its hearings live.3 The Court then archives those hearing
videos on its website. Members of the public can click on a hyperlink to the
broadcast of any given hearing and watch it at any given time.4
[26] There is also evidence in the materials that the Federal Court and the Courts
of Manitoba and Nova Scotia also broadcast hearings on a regular basis.5
[27] With the Federal Court, one can access audio and/or video of a few, but far
from all, court proceedings.6 Those proceedings appear to primarily concern
Indigenous disputes: as in West Moberly, such proceedings would promote the
goals of reconciliation and Indigenous access to the Court, often located far from
those peoples.7 Further, those court hearings concern important collective and
individual rights of those groups.
[28] The plaintiff provides more detail of the Manitoba courts' broadcast of their
proceedings, in the Provincial Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Queen's
Bench (now the Court of King's Bench).8 Those broadcasts are not only of judicial
rulings, but also submissions, and not only civil submissions, but also criminal
submissions.9 That said, it appears from the evidence that none of those Manitoba
recordings are still available to the public in an archive, on the court websites or
otherwise.
[29] Ironically, in the context of the present proceedings, the pandemic provides
further precedents for filming and online broadcast of court proceedings in this
province. During the pandemic, the Court of Appeal has provided a public link to
appeal hearings, allowing up to 500 viewers to watch the presentation of arguments
B-1-94
- 0085 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-95
B-1-95
Columbia Page 9
and review of evidence. The hearings are not archived on the court website in the
manner of the Supreme Court of Canada hearings or in the manner sought by the
present applicant. That said, conceivably, although it would be contrary to the
Court's directions and policies, the Court of Appeal video hearings would be

vulnerable to unauthorised reproduction and republication through screen capture or
through other means.10
[30] These broadcast hearings of our Court of Appeal, of course, have concerned
many matters of intense public controversy. These have included matters relating to
the pandemic itself: Redmond v. Wiebe, 2022 BCCA 244; R. v. Holland, 2021 BCCA
184. They have also concerned pre-certification class proceeding motions and other
motions where the facts asserted in the hearing are assumed to be true: British
Columbia v. The Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc., 2021 BCCA 219; Kindylides v. Does,
2020 BCCA 330; Sherry v. CIBC Mortgage Inc., 2020 BCCA 139.
[31] As set out above, this Court does not generally permit broadcasts of its
proceedings. But, the Microsoft Teams hearings carried out throughout the
pandemic raised and mollified some of the hypothetical spectres argued by the
respondents. Online viewers, whose true identities are not necessarily known, can
hypothetically attend those hearings. Further, it would not be difficult for
participants—either the parties or online viewers—to breach court directives by, for
example, screen capturing those proceedings and then rebroadcasting them. Again,
such persons would expose themselves to contempt proceedings if they did so. But,
those hearings are, to some extent, broadcast on the internet and are exposed to
some of the risks addressed by the parties today.
[32] Finally, as this hearing is being heard, a member of the public can watch live
streaming video of not only submissions, but witnesses testifying before the Public
Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, presided over by the Honourable Mr
Justice Rouleau of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Video of each day's hearing is
available to watch on the Commission website11 (which provides a viewable archive
of each day’s hearings), and, more generally, on YouTube. While not a court, that
B-1-95
- 0086 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-96
B-1-96
Columbia Page 10
tribunal provides a precedent of public expectations and interests, and an example

of institutional acceptance of and competence in providing such videographic access
to members of the public to a public hearing.

III. Legal framework
[33] The parties are in general agreement on the law and principles guiding the
Court in this application.
[34] A decision to deny an application to film or broadcast a court proceeding is

not a restriction on the open court principle protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Fertuck, 2021 SKQB 218 at paras. 81, 99–
100; see also Meng at para. 53. Rather, a broadcast order extends and expands the
open court principle. Refusal of a broadcast order does not prevent members of the
public and media from attending the courtroom to watch the hearing and to
scrutinise the proper functioning of the nation's courts. Denial of broadcast does not
impinge public dissemination of information about a court proceeding in the same
way as does a publication ban, a sealing order, or an in camera closed-door hearing
order: Pilarinos at para. 109. As such, it does not engage the tests and
considerations set out by the governing Supreme Court of Canada precedents, such
as Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 SCR 835, R. v. Mentuck,
2001 SCC 76, Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Ontario, 2005 SCC 41, and
Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.
[35] Rather, the decision today will be based upon an exercise of the Court's
jurisdiction and discretion, and its inherent jurisdiction to regulate its proper
functioning: Pilarinos at paras. 24, 26–32, 96, 222. This discretion must be exercised
judicially, with an eye to the precedents and examples cited above, insofar as they
are precedents, and with an eye to the proper administration of justice.
IV. Analysis
[36] This Court exercises its discretion to grant the applicant plaintiff the order it
seeks, permitting the broadcast of the certification and strike hearing.
B-1-96
- 0087 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-97
B-1-97
Columbia Page 11
[37] There are few issues that have affected the public more than the COVID-19
pandemic and the government response to that pandemic. These matters have
literally affected every British Columbian. It is clearly a matter of public interest.

[38] Apart from informing members of the plaintiff of the progress of the litigation, it
will serve an educational purpose for the citizens of British Columbia and advance
public review, public understanding, and public scrutiny of the court process.
[39] Broadcast will advance and promote the open court principle under s. 2(b) of
the Charter. It will advance and promote the s. 2(b) values set out by Justice
Cromwell in Endean v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 42:
[66] The open court principle embodies “[t]he importance of ensuring that
justice be done openly”, which is “one of the hallmarks of a democratic
society”: [citations omitted]. As this Court has previously remarked, “[p]ublicity
is the very soul of justice”: [citations omitted]. And, as Wilson J. summarized
in Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), … [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326,
at p. 1361, the open court principle is rooted in the need
(1) to maintain an effective evidentiary process;
(2) to ensure a judiciary and juries that behave fairly and that
are sensitive to the values espoused by the society;
(3) to promote a shared sense that our courts operate with
integrity and dispense justice; and
(4) to provide an ongoing opportunity for the community to
learn how the justice system operates and how the law being
applied daily in the courts affects them.
[reformatted for clarity]
[40] I agree with the plaintiff that our recent years have witnessed a proliferation of
conspiratorial and uninformed statements about the functioning of different branches
of the government, including the courts. It is hoped that the broadcast of these
proceedings will, in its small part, show that courts in Canada will hear and
adjudicate applications before them in a principled, independent, and neutral
manner, without fear or favour.
[41] Again, there are no witnesses who may be concerned about their privacy, or
intimidated in their testimony, by the prospect of a camera. The hearing will largely
B-1-97
- 0088 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-98
B-1-98
Columbia Page 12
consist of counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants referring to affidavits and
cases, and making arguments. Those affidavits filed in a civil case would be
available to any member of the public at the Court Registry or online. Those
affidavits and arguments will likely be published by the plaintiff and others online, as

is their right to do so. The case law, of course, is publicly available online.
[42] In short, the viewer will see a proceeding much akin to the presentation of
argument before the Supreme Court of Canada, which has broadcast its
proceedings since 2009, and whose website serves as an online library of those
broadcasts.12 Again, those Supreme Court hearings concern matters of the utmost
controversy in Canadian society: matters that attract, as do the issues in the present
case, the occasional — or perhaps frequent — intemperate, irresponsible, or
misinformed statement about the issues before the Court, and, indeed, about the
Court itself.
[43] Further, any member of the public could see personally all that is proposed to
be broadcast by attending the Vancouver Law Courts in person during the
December hearings. Indeed, a request has been made for a large courtroom to
accommodate anticipated large numbers of spectators at that hearing.
[44] The respondents argue that members of the public outside of Vancouver
could still enjoy and exercise their right to the open court principle by either attending
at the Vancouver Courthouse or by listening to audio of the December hearings at
any one of eight designated courthouses throughout British Columbia.
[45] Apart from the limitation of that experience to audio rather than visual
experience, that proposal does not address the geographic or temporal challenges
faced by individuals, such as the affiants or generally. Given the vast size of British
Columbia, many interested individuals would still face long travel and significant
expense in order to listen at a courthouse. Further, the opportunity to listen would be
limited by the courthouse hours.
B-1-98
- 0089 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-99
B-1-99
Columbia Page 13
[46] Returning to the broad province-wide public interest in the pandemic

response measures, as well as in this particular proceeding, the Court reiterates that
it is the Supreme Court of British Columbia and not the Supreme Court of
Vancouver.

[47] The respondents argue that posting a video of court proceedings will cause
the Court to lose control over the use of that video. In our iPhone age, it is easy to
take videos from other online broadcasts and equally easy to manipulate or edit
videos and then repost the results in a manner that could demean the dignity of the
Court or provide the video out of context, on an infinite number of websites.
[48] While the proposed orders would prohibit republication or editing and would
be backed up with powers and penalties pursuant to contempt of court, including
fines and imprisonment, those powers are not a complete solution, argue the
respondents.
[49] Tellingly, despite the vastness of the internet and its infinite ability to inspire
human mischief through irresponsible behaviour and statements, no evidence, even
anecdotal evidence, was provided to the Court of any such misuse or abuse of the
Supreme Court of Canada broadcasts over the past 13 years, or the Court of Appeal
broadcasts over the past nearly three years. No evidence or anecdotes were
provided of Federal Court, Manitoba court, or Nova Scotia court broadcasts being
trivialised or abused as a TikTok video or otherwise. Nor is there any evidence that
any Microsoft Teams hearings in this Court have been screen captured and
republished or abused, to the detriment of the proper administration of justice.
[50] For what it is worth, this judge is not aware of any such instances either.
[51] The Court agrees that such fears and risks should be carefully monitored and,
if they do arise, the Court should consider either or both punishing any perpetrators
of those acts or issuing revised orders that would take down or limit such a
broadcast. That said, on the basis of the present evidence, such fears are
speculative.
B-1-99
- 0090 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-100
B-1-100
Columbia Page 14
[52] The respondents point to various inflammatory and at times seemingly violent
reader comments on the internet, including on sites controlled by the plaintiff, in
support of the argument that broadcast may demean the dignity of the Court and
agitate the risk of violence. The Court repeats the point just made. It agrees that

such risks and chatter should be carefully monitored. Again, if they do arise, the
Court should consider issuing new orders restricting or taking down the broadcast.
[53] Again, that said, on the present evidence, those fears are speculative.
[54] Further, the internet is already a cesspit of misinformed and at times

deranged statements about almost every topic, including our courts. Such poison
exists regardless of whether court proceedings are broadcast. Again, the broadcast
will perhaps serve to strive to convince the reasonable viewer of the fair and
impartial adjudication of this matter.
[55] The respondents argue that video will provide a distorted view of the issues.
Again, the certification and abuse of process applications are purely procedural: the
facts alleged in the pleadings and the affidavits are assumed to be true and are not
scrutinised. But that could be said of many interlocutory procedural disputes heard
by the Supreme Court of Canada or the Court of Appeal, including appeals of
decisions on certification and applications to strike for abuse of process or otherwise
heard by those courts on a regular basis.
[56] In any case, those concerns could be addressed by words at the

commencement of the hearing, either by the Court or counsel, or both. Such words
could also be included under the video as it is broadcast.
[57] Further, and in any case, lawyers making such arguments in an interlocutory
proceeding do not generally present such facts as truly uncontested and
uncontestable. Knowing that the proceedings will be broadcast, it may be
appropriate for counsel for the respondents to pepper their submissions with
statements to the effect of, "While for the purpose of this application, the affidavit is
presumed to be true”, or, “If this matter is certified, those facts will be heavily
B-1-100
- 0091 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-101
B-1-101
Columbia Page 15
contested". Such measures could make clear to the reasonable viewer that nothing
said in the course of submissions is somehow thereby accepted by the respondents
or by the Court as proven.

V. Conclusion and terms of the Order
[58] The order is thus granted generally along the lines of the draft order attached
as a schedule to the plaintiff's notice of application. The plaintiff has set out an
extensive proposed order, including provisions (a) through (w), designed to minimise
disruption of the court proceedings by the addition of cameras, and to protect
against inappropriate uses of the video after the fact. That order is largely based
upon the Practice Direction PD-48, as well as the order in West Moberly.
[59] These reasons will attach as Schedule “A” the resulting order.
[60] The Court will make a few changes to the draft order. The Court grants the
addition sought by the respondents, which addition is not resisted by the plaintiff.
That amendment will be consistent with Practice Directive PD-48, art. 5: specifically,
the video may only feature the faces of counsel for the plaintiff and the judge. The
camera must not capture the faces of counsel for the respondents, the court clerk,
the sheriff, members of the public, or other participants, unless express and clear
permission is granted by those individuals. Any inadvertent video capture of a face
of an non-consenting justice participant must be pixelated or deleted before
broadcast.
[61] With respect to draft order para. 1(u), when the parties eventually agree upon
a website and a broadcasting format, it is not to end with that agreement between
counsel. This is an important matter for the Court. At the end of the day, the Court
will scrutinise the proposed website and format. Accordingly, once that proposal is
reached by agreement between counsel, the parties, or one party on behalf of both
parties, should make that communication to the Court. The communication shall also
set out the safeguards designed to minimise risks, and in particular the risks
B-1-101
- 0092 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-102
B-1-102
Columbia Page 16
identified by the respondents. The Court will consider these reassurances, as well as
the specifications proposed, and, if appropriate, will issue its approval.
[62] With respect to the site of the broadcast of the court proceedings, I will not

micromanage that process at the front end. But, needless to say, a video of a court
proceeding should not be broadcast or used in any manner or on any website where
it could potentially be used as click bait, or harnessed to monetise a party or a
person, or exploited to advance the argument of one party or the other.
[63] The site must provide no comment section or public ability to comment on the
video.
[64] These restrictions will also address some of the respondents' concerns about
control and context.
[65] To this end, the Province may well consider providing the website hosting the
broadcast itself in order to address some of these concerns. For example,
restrictions could be put in place with respect to direct copying of that video. There
may also be an ability to monitor who has visited and watched that video, and thus
potentially gather evidence for a potential contempt proceeding if the broadcast is
abused or the order breached in any way.
[66] With respect to paragraph 4 of the draft order, words to the following effect
should be added to the end of the proposed paragraph, in bold: "Any unauthorized
use of this recording or other breach of the court order allowing its broadcast shall
expose the person so doing to contempt of court proceedings and other sanctions".
[67] To address the respondents' legitimate concerns of a distorted message, also

underneath the video box will be published words to the following effect: "For the
purpose of this pretrial application, the facts alleged in the notice of civil claim and
affidavits are assumed to be true for the sake of argument. If this matter proceeds to
trial, those allegations will be contested and may, in the end, be found to be false".
B-1-102
- 0093 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-103
B-1-103
Columbia Page 17
[68] As a final addition to the order, the video itself will include, as a chyron
warning at the base of the screen, words to the following effect: "Reproduction or
rebroadcast of this recording in any context is prohibited by the court order". It
should be published in a visible font, over two lines if necessary, with a red

background.
[69] I have deliberately said “words to the following effect”: I will leave it to the
good work of counsel to discuss the specific wording of those two provisions. I would
encourage the plaintiff to listen to the concerns of the respondents and incorporate
those in the additions that I have provided here.
[70] Now that the respondents have the reasons and order of the Court, I would
invite the respondents to make further suggestions with respect to any amendments
to the order and any other safeguards that could be implemented in this regard.
[71] The Court encourages the plaintiff to consider those requests seriously. That
said, if there is disagreement on such requests, they could be addressed in a
communication to the Court. The presumptive default will be that the plaintiff’s draft
order, with these amendments, will form the order.
[72] As in Cho, this order is an experiment of sorts. As noted by Bauman CJSC in

the Polygamy Reference, it will not necessarily serve as a precedent.
[73] I conclude by echoing the wise and cautious words of Justice Milman in West
Moberly:
[2] The first comment I will make is that this is a developing area of the
law. It is a novel order that is sought and I recognize the need to tread
carefully in the exercise of the discretion that I have. There is not yet an
established body of rules and jurisprudence to govern the exercise of my
discretion in this respect. I have therefore attempted to craft an order that will
achieve the purpose for which the order is sought without infringing unduly on
the orderly administration of justice.
[74] The Court encourages the parties to monitor the internet for use or abuse of
the broadcast contrary to the strict terms of this order. The Court may direct that the
B-1-103
- 0094 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-104
B-1-104
Columbia Page 18
recording be removed upon any evidence of use or abuse of that broadcast

inconsistent with the dignity and decorum of the Court, the proper administration of
justice, or the terms of the order, either on the application of a party or on the Court's
own motion, at any time. The Court reiterates that anyone committing such acts

would also find themselves facing a contempt of court application.
[75] Costs will be determined after the final adjudication of this matter at trial or
otherwise.
[76] The Court thanks all counsel for their diligent submissions.
“Crerar J”
B-1-104
- 0095 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-105
B-1-105
Columbia Page 19
Schedule A
1. The interlocutory hearings scheduled to commence at the Vancouver Law

Courts on 12 December 2022 in these proceedings may be webcast and

archived on the internet on the following conditions:
a. The plaintiff shall retain a vendor (the “Provider”), as agreed upon by

the plaintiff, the defendants (the “Parties”), and Court Services Branch.
The Provider will:
i. Record and webcast the hearings on the internet as set out

below (the “Webcast”); and
ii. Make an archived copy of the Webcast available on the internet

for a maximum of two years (the “Archived Copy”, and
collectively with the Webcast, the “Streaming Services”).
b. The Provider shall record the hearings using one camera to be placed
in the front row of the gallery, which camera must be arranged to face
and record the presiding judge and the backs of counsel.
c. The camera may only record the faces of counsel for the plaintiff and
the presiding judge. The camera must not record the faces of counsel
for the defendants, the court clerk, sheriffs, members of the public, or
other participants in the proceeding unless express permission is
granted. The Provider must pixilate or redact any footage of faces
recorded contrary to the terms of this order before the Provider makes
the Streaming Services available to the public.
d. For the duration of the hearings, the Provider shall be allowed to bring
into and utilize one camera and one microphone in the courtroom.
e. The Provider will ensure that the camera and operating personnel are
in place 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 hearings.
f. If possible, the audio signal for the camera will run from the in-court
audio system rather than a microphone supplied by the Provider.
g. Operating personnel in the courtroom must be suitably attired in

business dress, and must conduct themselves in a manner keeping
with judicial proceedings.
B-1-105
- 0096 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-106
B-1-106
Columbia Page 20
h. 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 and sound recording
equipment will be unobtrusive and not distracting.

i. The camera and operating personnel must remain in place while the
Court is in session.
j. All other equipment must be left outside the courtroom and must not
impede public access to a courtroom or circulation within the
courthouse.
k. 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.
l. The camera and microphone must not be made live until the court
clerk pronounces “Order in Court” and the court is in session. Camera
and microphones must be turned off when the Court is not in session,
including during breaks.
m. Representatives of Court Services Branch may stop the recording at

any time when directed by the Court or in the event of urgency or
emergency.
n. The hearings will not be delayed, postponed, or otherwise interrupted

to accommodate technical problems with recording equipment.
o. If a party considers that the recording of the hearings is an impediment

or distraction despite this order, it may apply to vary this order,
including to prohibit any further recording of the hearings.
p. The camera will use available light only and the camera will be static.
No mechanical pan/tilt/zoom is permitted. The camera will not be
focused on and will not record or photograph any materials on counsel
tables or in counsel’s possession or any materials used that have not
been admitted into evidence.
q. 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.
r. In the event that the camera captures, contrary to the terms of this
order, any private, privileged, or confidential information or
B-1-106
- 0097 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-107
B-1-107
Columbia Page 21
communication 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
information and/or communication.

s. No logos will appear on the Webcast or Archived Copy at any time,
including during breaks when the court is not in session.
t. The Streaming Services shall not be broadcast on a website where the

Streaming Services could potentially be used as clickbait, to monetize
a party or person, or to advance the arguments of a party. There must
be no comment section on the website or ability to comment on the
Streaming Services.
u. The Provider will post the Webcast and the Archived Copy on a
website to be determined by the Parties, which will require the
approval of the Court as follows:
i. The parties will coordinate to select an appropriate website and

means of hosting the Webcast and the Archived Copy;
ii. One of the parties will send correspondence to the Court,

setting out the proposed website and means for hosting the
Webcast and Archived Copy, which correspondence will set out
the safeguards intended to minimize any risk of the improper
use, copying, or rebroadcasting of the Webcast or the Archived
Copy; and
iii. If the Court considers the website and means of hosting the
Webcast and the Archived Copy appropriate, then the Court will
issue its approval by correspondence to counsel for the parties.
v. The Provider must not make the Streaming Services available to the
public in respect of any day’s recording until 5:00pm the following day
or as soon as practicable thereafter.
w. The Provider will not provide an explicit download feature that would
allow the further download of Streaming Services.
x. The Provider will use a resolution of 1080p at 30 frames per second.
y. The Provider will add a chyron to the Streaming Services,

superimposing the video recording at the bottom of the frame, with the
following text on a red background:
B-1-107
- 0098 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-108
B-1-108
Columbia Page 22
Reproduction or rebroadcasting of this recording in any

context is prohibited by an Order of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia and may result in legal proceedings for
contempt of court.

z. The Provider will add a watermark stating “Reproduction Prohibited”
superimposed behind the video.
aa. The Provider is authorized to and will redact any audio or video
captured in the Streaming Services contrary to the terms of this Order.
bb. The Parties must be provided access to each day’s recording as soon
as practicable on the same day it is recorded. If the Parties agree that
privileged or confidential information has been recorded, then the
Parties may direct the Provider to redact such footage, in which case
the Provider will do so as directed. In the event that the Parties do not
agree, then a Party may request that the Court order the Provider 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 in
the event of any dispute, the Provider shall not make the Streaming
Services available to the public until otherwise directed by the Court.
2. The Provider shall coordinate with Court Services Branch to implement this
order.
AND THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
3. The Streaming Services must not be edited except as set out in

subparagraphs 1(c), 1(y), 1(z), 1(aa), and 1(bb) of this Order, or by further
Order of the Court.
4. The Streaming Services must not be copied, used, or rebroadcast, except as

set out in this Order or by further Order of the Court. And the following notices
shall be placed on the website hosting the Streaming Services:
This is a recording of judicial proceedings which may not be

further broadcast, rebroadcast, transmitted, reproduced,
communicated to the public by telecommunication, or otherwise
made available in whole or in part in any form or by any means,
electronic or otherwise, or stored in whole or in part in any
information storage and retrieval system, without the prior
written authorization of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Any unauthorized use of this recording in breach of the Order of

the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall expose the person
doing so to legal proceedings for contempt of court.
B-1-108
- 0099 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-109
B-1-109
Columbia Page 23
For the purposes of this pretrial application, the facts alleged in

the plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Civil Claim are assumed to be
true for the sake of argument. If this matter proceeds to trial,
those allegations will be contested and may in the end be found

to be false.
5. The plaintiff shall retain the Provider and will be responsible for arranging and
supporting the Streaming Services and all associated costs.
6. This order may be varied at any time on the application of a party or on the
court’s own motion.
1 The Court has added footnotes after delivery of these oral reasons, to provide more detail of the
videographic practices of courts, for clarity, to provide more full citations and references, and to serve
as a jurisprudential resource.
2 Filming court proceedings for future use in educational or documentary productions (i.e. no live
broadcast) has been permitted since 1992: X. v. British Broadcasting Corporation and Lion Television
Limited, [2005] CSOH 80 at para. 4. In 2020, the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order
2020, SI 2020/637, permitted the broadcast of sentencings in England and Wales. On July 28, 2022,
at the Old Bailey, the public watched Justice Munro sentence Ben Oliver to life imprisonment, with a
minimum of ten years and eight months, for the manslaughter of his grandfather: “English Criminal
Court Case Broadcast on TV for First Time” (28 July 2022), Reuters <reuters.com/world/uk/english-
criminal-court-case-broadcast-tv-first-time-2022-07-28/>.
3 “Scheduled Hearings”, online: Supreme Court of Canada <scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/hear-aud-
eng.aspx> (last modified November 25, 2022).

4 “Archived Webcasts”, online: Supreme Court of Canada <scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcasts-
webdiffusions-eng.aspx> (last accessed November 29, 2022).

5 The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and Supreme Court periodically broadcast and archive hearings of
public interest: “Live Webcasts from the Nova Scotia Courts”, online: The Courts of Nova Scotia
<courts.ns.ca/Webcasts/webcasts_live.htm> (last accessed November 29, 2022). Such hearings
include high profile constitutional references, sentencings, and human rights cases: “Archive of
Recent Webcasts (Proceedings)”, online: The Courts of Nova Scotia
<courts.ns.ca/Webcasts/webcasts_archive_trials.htm> (last accessed November 29, 2022).
6 Since 2014, the Federal Court has broadcast some hearings as part of a pilot program to expand
access to hearings of “significant public interest”: “Webcast”, online: Federal Court <www.fct-
cf.gc.ca/en/pages/media/webcast> (last modified April 4, 2022). For example, the Court broadcast the
November 1, 2022 hearing where Ontario Premier Doug Ford successfully asserted parliamentary
privilege to avoid testifying at the Emergencies Act public inquiry. Very few webcasts are archived
and accessible to the public. On the Webcast page, the Court primarily posts written and audio
recorded summaries of key cases in English and Indigenous languages.
7 As of November 29, 2022, two archived hearings are posted on the Court website: Canada
(Attorney General) v. First Nation Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, 2019 FC 1529; and
Deegan v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 960. The former hearing related to the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal’s landmark decision ordering the federal government to compensate
Indigenous individuals for discrimination in the child and family services system. Deegan was a
Charter challenge to the amendments to Income Tax Act that permitted the Canada Revenue Agency
to disclose individuals’ financial information the American Internal Revenue Service.
B-1-109
- 0100 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-110
B-1-110
Columbia Page 24
8 Ten proceedings from all three levels of Manitoba court have been broadcast since 2014:
“Broadcast of Court Proceedings”, online: Manitoba Courts <manitobacourts.mb.ca/general-

information/cameras-in-courtrooms-initiative/broadcast-of-court-proceedings/> (last modified April 19,
2021). Nine were criminal proceedings and involved high-profile murders or sentencings. The lone
civil case was the Progressive Conservative Party’s challenge to the government’s increase in

provincial sales tax.
9 For example, the (then) Court of Queen’s Bench broadcast the final submissions and Justice
Edmond’s reasons in Glover v. The Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, 2021 MBQB 267.
There, Ms Glover challenged the results of the Progressive Conservative Party’s leadership election.
10 After the present hearing, on November 15, 2022, the Court of Appeal announced that it would
return to broadcasting appeals publicly by Zoom: Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Record and
Courtroom Access Policy, s. 2.2. Appeals of non-Chamber hearings will be broader, subject to limited
exceptions, such as matters prosecuted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c 1; appeals
subject to publication bans or sealing orders incompatible with a public broadcast; appeals where
privacy, confidentiality, or other concerns are incompatible with a public broadcast; or other appeals
where the Court directs that no broadcast should occur. The broadcast will be conducted live; absent
exceptional circumstances, the Court will not make or keep video recordings of the hearings: Court of
Appeal for British Columbia, Record and Courtroom Access Policy, s. 2.2.
11 https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/public-hearings/ (accessed November 30, 2022)
12 This Court’s decision adopts similar reasoning that underpins the Federal Court’s broadcast policy.
The Federal Court will generally approve broadcast requests because it “acts as a court of judicial
review, without witnesses and under rules similar to those applicable to appeal courts”: “Policy on
Public and Media Access”, online: Federal Court <www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/media/policy-on-public-
and-media-access#cont> (last modified October 7, 2022).
B-1-110
- 0101 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-111 B-1-111
EXHIBIT “D”
B-1-111
- 0102 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-112 B-1-112

Science in Public Policy v. Henry,
2022 BCSC 724

Date: 20220504
Docket: S2110229
Registry: Vancouver
In the Matter Concerning the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241;
and the Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28
Between:
and Kipling Warner
Petitioners
And

Respondent
Counsel for the Respondent: J. Gibson

A.C. Bjornson

April 7, 2022
May 4, 2022
This is Exhibit “D” to the affidavit of Kipling

431/20
_____________________________________
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C B-1-112
- 0103 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-113
B-1-113
v. Henry Page 2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
PARTIES ................................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND FACTS ............................................................................................ 4

Emergency Powers under the PHA ........................................................................ 4
The Impugned Orders ............................................................................................ 5
Reconsideration Request ....................................................................................... 5
The Petition ............................................................................................................ 7
GOVERNING LAW .................................................................................................... 7
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 9
The Society’s Public Interest Standing ................................................................... 9
Serious Justiciable Issue .................................................................................... 9
Genuine Interest ............................................................................................... 11
Reasonable and Effective Means ..................................................................... 13
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 14
Mr. Warner’s Private Interest Standing ................................................................. 14
Substitute Petitioners ........................................................................................... 15
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 16
B-1-113
- 0104 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-114
B-1-114
v. Henry Page 3
Introduction
[1] The respondent applies to dismiss this Petition on the basis that the
petitioners lack legal standing. The petitioners argue, in response, that the Canadian
Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (“CSASPP”) has public

interest standing and Mr. Warner has private interest standing.
[2] The Petition challenges public health orders made under the Public Health
Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28 [PHA], requiring two COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare
providers in wide-ranging healthcare facilities across British Columbia.
[3] It alleges that the impugned orders fail to provide reasonable exemptions and
accommodations for persons with religious objections, vaccination risks, immunity
from prior infection, and recent negative COVID-19 testing. It seeks to set aside the
orders for infringing the Charter rights of unvaccinated healthcare workers, and as
an unreasonable exercise of statutory powers contrary to the Judicial Review
Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 [JRPA].
[4] The respondent, the Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry (“PHO”),
submits that the orders are reasonable, precautionary public health measures.
Implemented to limit transmission in higher-risk public settings, they protect public
health, vulnerable populations, and functioning of the healthcare system.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that CSASPP has public interest standing to
bring the Petition. Mr. Warner does not, however, have private interest standing to
do so, and his claims are therefore dismissed.
Parties
[6] CSASPP is a not-for-profit society incorporated under the Societies Act,

S.B.C. 2015, c. 18.
[7] With a head-office in Vancouver, it describes itself as a non-partisan, secular

organization, advocating for the development and advancement of science in the
formation of public policy in British Columbia.
B-1-114
- 0105 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-115
B-1-115
v. Henry Page 4
[8] Mr. Warner, a British Columbia resident, is a software engineer and the
executive director of CSASPP. He describes CSASPP’s directors, officers, donors,
and patrons as drawn from diverse communities across the political spectrum.
[9] He deposes that, when the impugned healthcare vaccination requirements

were ordered, CSASPP was contacted by more than a thousand self-identified
healthcare workers in British Columbia, including many registered nurses,
concerned about the medical justification for the vaccination mandates and the
threat of losing their jobs.
[10] As the Public Health Officer under s. 64 of the PHA, Dr. Henry is the
Province’s senior public health official. In that role, she has led the public health
response to the emergencies created by the transmission of the novel coronavirus
SARS-CoV-2 and the illness known as COVID-19.
Background Facts
Emergency Powers under the PHA
[11] On March 18, 2020, the Minister of Public Safety declared a state of
emergency throughout British Columbia because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
declaration expired on June 30, 2021.
[12] On March 17, 2020, Dr. Henry issued a notice, under s. 52(2) of the PHA, that
the transmission of the infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus constituted a “regional event”
under s. 51. The PHA defines “regional event” as an “immediate and significant risk
to public health throughout a region or the province”.
[13] Under s. 52, the notice enabled the PHO to exercise the “emergency powers”
in Part 5 of the PHA. These powers include the issuance of orders for persons to do
anything that the PHO reasonably believes is necessary “to prevent or stop a health
hazard, or mitigate the harm or prevent further harm from a health hazard”. They
include the power to prohibit a class of persons from entering a particular place
(PHA, ss. 31(1)(b), 39(3)).
B-1-115
- 0106 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-116
B-1-116
v. Henry Page 5
The Impugned Orders
[14] The Petition challenges three sets of orders, issued and updated by the PHO
under the PHA emergency powers (the “Impugned Orders”):
(i) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventative Measures order of

September 9, 2021, September 27, 2021 (“Vaccination Status Order”);
(ii) Residential Care Covid-19 Preventative Measures order of October 21, 2021
(“Residential Care Order”); and
(iii) Hospital and Community (Health Care and other Services) Covid-19
Vaccination Status Information and Preventative Measures order of
October 21, 2021 (“Hospital Order”).
[15] Broadly speaking, the Impugned Orders mandate that, as of mid-October

2021, only double-vaccinated persons may provide healthcare services in a wide-
range of British Columbia healthcare settings, including long-term care facilities,
hospitals and community care settings.
Reconsideration Request
[16] By letter to the PHO of November 8, 2021, pursuant to s. 43 of the PHA, the
petitioners requested a reconsideration of the Impugned Orders (“Reconsideration
Request”) on behalf of a broad class of healthcare workers in British Columbia.
[17] Section 43(1) of the PHA says in part:
Reconsideration of orders
43 (1) A person affected by an order, or the variance of an order, may
(a) has additional relevant information that was not reasonably available
to the health officer when the order was issued or varied,
(b) has a proposal that was not presented to the health officer when the
order was issued or varied but, if implemented, would
(i) meet the objective of the order, and
(ii) be suitable as the basis of a written agreement under
section 38 [may make written agreements], or
(c) requires more time to comply with the order.
B-1-116
- 0107 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-117
B-1-117
v. Henry Page 6
[18] The Reconsideration Request contained a lengthy critique of the Impugned
Orders from Dr. J. Kettner, Chief Medical Officer of Health and Chief Public Health
Officer for the Province of Manitoba from 1999 to 2012. Arguing that the Impugned
Orders failed to comply with generally accepted principles of public health

governance and the Charter, it contained voluminous research, submissions
regarding the principles governing public health orders, and examples of less
restrictive measures in other jurisdictions.
[19] The Reconsideration Request proposed, among other things, alternative

approaches to satisfy the objectives of the Impugned Orders, including the following:
i. Natural immunity through a positive RT-PCR or rapid antigen test

result demonstrating recovery from COVID-19, issued no less than 11
days and no more than 6 months after the date on which a person first
tested positive (e.g. France).
ii. Negative PCR or antigen test less than 48 hours prior to attendance
at a facility (e.g. Alberta).
iii. Single vaccination after contracting COVID-19 after an interval of at
least 21 days following the illness (e.g. Quebec).
iv. Documentation from a physician or registered nurse providing medical
reason for not being fully vaccinated (e.g. Ontario).
[20] On November 9, 2021, under PHA s. 54(1)(h), the PHO issued a variance,
with retroactive effect, halting s. 43 reconsideration requests except for medical
reasons (“Reconsideration Variance”).
[21] The evidence filed on behalf of the PHO suggests that, due to hundreds of s.
43 requests, the Reconsideration Variance was necessary to protect public health
until there was a significant reduction in transmissions, serious disease, and strain
on the public health care system.
[22] Section 54(1)(h) says:
General emergency powers

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the
following:
…
B-1-117
- 0108 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-118
B-1-118
v. Henry Page 7
orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not
reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of
orders];
[23] By letter of January 17, 2022, relying on the Reconsideration Variance, the

PHO declined to respond to the Reconsideration Request because it sought
exemption from the Impugned Orders on non-medical grounds (“Reconsideration
Response”).
The Petition
[24] The Petition alleges that the materials in the Reconsideration Request
demonstrate the Charter violations and unreasonableness of the Impugned Orders.
[25] It seeks a declaration that the Impugned Orders are of no force and effect for
unjustifiably infringing the following rights and freedoms of unvaccinated healthcare
workers:
 section 2(a) (freedom of conscience and religion);
 section 2(b) (freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression);
 section 7 (life, liberty and security of the person); and
 section 15(1) (equality rights).
[26] It seeks orders, under the JRPA, quashing and setting aside the Impugned
Orders, or declaring them ultra vires, as unreasonable or exceeding the PHO’s
statutory authority.
[27] The petitioners also challenge the Reconsideration Response as an

unreasonable refusal to consider the Reconsideration Request.
Governing Law
[28] Public interest standing permits public-spirited litigants to prosecute issues of

general interest and importance, thereby causing courts to fulfill their “constitutional
role of scrutinizing the legality of government action, striking it down when it is
B-1-118
- 0109 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-119
B-1-119
v. Henry Page 8
unlawful and thus establishing and enforcing the rule of law” (Council of Canadians
with Disabilities v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 241, [CCD],
para. 2).1
[29] Challenges to standing focus on whether “the public interest litigant is an

appropriate party to advance a justiciable claim, not on the detail of intended trial
evidence or the claim’s ultimate prospect of success” (CCD, para. 87).
[30] The litigant has the onus to demonstrate that public interest standing is
warranted in the circumstances. The assessment focuses on three factors identified
in Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575 [Borowski]:
(i) does the claim raise a serious justiciable issue?
(ii) is the plaintiff directly affected by the action or does the plaintiff have a
genuine interest in its outcome? and
(iii) is the action a reasonable and effective means to bring the claim to court?
[31] The assessment should be flexible and generous, to serve the underlying
purposes of upholding the legality principle and providing access to justice,
particularly so for vulnerable and marginalized citizens broadly affected by legislation
of questionable constitutional validity (Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown
Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 [Downtown
Eastside], paras. 31, 51).
[32] On the other side of the balance are the limiting factors of allocation of scarce
judicial resources, screening of “busybody” litigants, and obtaining the viewpoints of
those who are actually most directly impacted by the issues in question. For these
reasons, a party with private interest standing is generally preferred to a public
interest litigant seeking to advance a duplicative claim (Downtown Eastside,
para. 37; CCD, paras. 71, 79-80, 83).
1 Leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court of Canada, 2021 CanLII 24821.
B-1-119
- 0110 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-120
B-1-120
v. Henry Page 9
Analysis and Findings
The Society’s Public Interest Standing
[33] I turn to consider whether the Society satisfies the Borowski factors.

Serious Justiciable Issue
[34] A serious justiciable issue is one that is appropriate for judicial determination
and clearly not frivolous.
[35] Justiciability asks whether the case suits the court’s place in our constitutional
system of government: Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49 [Auditor General] at 90–91. Ultimately,
the answer “depends on the appreciation by the judiciary of its own position in the
constitutional scheme” (Auditor General at 91).
[36] So long as the pleading reveals at least one serious issue, it will usually be
unnecessary to examine every pleaded claim for the purpose of standing (Downtown
Eastside, para. 42; CCD, paras. 90, 94).
[37] The petitioners argue that challenges such as this -- to the constitutionality
and legality of legislation -- are always considered justiciable (CCD, para 90). They
say serious issues are raised by questioning the “circumvention of the legislature …
in the name of public health,” to achieve goals normally achieved through the
“legislative process, which is transparent, public, and fosters democratic debate.”
[38] The PHO argues the Petition “discloses no adjudicative facts and so is non-
justiciable”. The Petition, the PHO says, is devoid of any meaningful particulars
permitting the inquiry sought (CCD, paras. 104, 107). The PHO relies on Beaudoin
v. British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 512 [Beaudoin], to argue that the Reconsideration
Request raises no serious issue, as in that case a similar request for reconsideration
based on similar evidence from Dr. Kettner was ruled inadmissible.

legislatively-delegated discretionary powers. In my view, the petitioners are correct
B-1-120
- 0111 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-121
B-1-121
v. Henry Page 10
that whether those actions comply with the Charter and JRPA are clearly questions
suitable for judicial determination (CCD, para 90).
[40] Regarding a serious issue, the Impugned Orders directly impact members of
a defined and identifiable group in a serious way that, at least on the surface, relates

to their Charter rights. CSASPP alleges that its alternative proposals reflect a
superior approach, taken in other Provinces and elsewhere around the world, much
less intrusive on healthcare workers’ Charter rights. In my view, this raises
substantial questions that meet the threshold of “clearly not frivolous.”
[41] I do not accept the PHO’s argument that Beaudoin shows there is no serious
issue to be tried regarding the Reconsideration Response. In Beaudoin, the
reconsideration materials were ruled inadmissible because the petitioners did not
challenge the reconsideration decision. In this case, however, CSASPP seeks to
impugn the PHO’s Reconsideration Response.2
[42] In Beaudoin, religious leaders challenged the PHO’s prohibition of certain

religious gatherings, for allegedly violating the Charter rights of freedoms of religion,
expression, assembly and association. After the petition was filed, the PHO
reconsidered the impugned orders and issued a conditional variance allowing
outdoor worship services subject to certain conditions.
[43] The petitioners challenged only the PHO’s initial orders, however, not the
decision responding to their reconsideration request. Chief Justice Hinkson ruled the
reconsideration materials inadmissible for that reason:
[79] Moreover, as the religious petitioners have chosen not to amend their
petition to seek judicial review of Dr. Henry’s reconsideration decision, the
main evidence they seek to rely on, namely the affidavits of Dr. Warren and
2 At least for purposes of this application, the Reconsideration Request and Response appear central
to CSASPP’s case. They are prominent in the Petition, Part 2: Factual Basis, and CSASPP’s
evidence and argument at the hearing. The PHO acknowledged in argument that the petitioners’
written submissions sought to impugn, by judicial review, the Reconsideration Response.
Having said that, I make no findings about the adequacy of CSASPP’s current pleadings regarding
the Reconsideration Request and Response. As the PHO points out, they are not referred to in the
Petition, Part 1: Orders Sought, and are only indirectly referred to in Part 3: Legal Basis.
B-1-121
- 0112 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-122
B-1-122
v. Henry Page 11
Dr. Kettner, is not admissible on this petition because that evidence was not
before Dr. Henry when she made the G&E Orders. …
[102] Had the religious petitioners amended their petition to seek judicial
review of Dr. Henry’s decision to grant them a variance to her G&E Orders,
then the “record of proceeding” would include all of the information before
Dr. Henry when she made her decision on the variance (but not before her

when she issued the G&E Orders). But then the review would be of only her
variance decision, not the G&E Orders.
[44] Overall, the serious justiciable issue factor supports standing.
Genuine Interest
[45] The genuine interest factor asks if a litigant has a real stake in the
proceedings or is engaged with the issues in question (CCD, para. 98). Its purpose
is to achieve “concrete adverseness”, and thereby ensure sharp debate, thorough
argument, and economical use of judicial resources. A litigant’s engagement is
assessed by its reputation, continuing interest, and link with the claim (Downtown
[46] CSASPP claims genuine interest, based on its membership, purposes, and
Reconsideration Request. While not tracking personal information about its
approximately 170 current members, it estimates at least 41 work in the healthcare
field in British Columbia based on participation in its confidential forum for healthcare
issues.
[47] The purposes described in CSASPP’s constitution of January 14, 2021 are:
To challenge the provincial COVID-19 measures instituted in British

Columbia.
To advocate and promote the development and advancement of science in
public policy in British Columbia.
[48] Its constitution of October 12, 2021 revised the purposes to include the
following:
(a) To improve health outcomes of people by advocating for the development

and implementation of government and public health policy initiatives to be
based on research conducting using the scientific method;
B-1-122
- 0113 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-123
B-1-123
v. Henry Page 12
(b) To improve access to information on pandemic and epidemic threats and
events;
…
(d) To oppose the dissemination of information that is not based on research
conducted according to the scientific method;

…
(f) To promote critical thinking and public discussion that includes the widest
possible expression of opinions and viewpoints in all public policy debates or
discussion, regardless of the level of government of Canada or of any
province or territory therein.
[49] The PHO submits that CSASPP has no history of involvement in the issues
raised by the Petition, and the evidence connecting its membership to healthcare is
vague and weak. The PHO says CSASPP is merely a “purpose-built anti-COVID-19
measures entity”.
[50] The PHO relies on Atkins v. Anmore (Village), 2014 BCSC 2402, a petition to
quash municipal bylaws brought by a petitioner in her capacity “as a citizen of the
municipality” (para. 5). Justice Williams found this insufficient for a genuine interest
in the validity of the bylaws and declined public interest standing:
[35] … the petitioner has [not] established that she has an interest that is
materially different than any other member of the community. While it may be
inferred that she brings these proceedings in some role that is supported by
the two councillors, that, in my view, does not provide the basis for a finding
of the type of interest that the jurisprudence suggests is necessary.
[51] In my view, creating a society committed to one side of an issue is not

sufficient to create a genuine stake for purposes of standing. As in Atkins, the
members of such a group are obviously interested in the issue but do not
necessarily have a stake different from the community generally.
[52] The genuine interest factor is concerned not just with a genuine stake in an
issue, however, but also with engagement. Engagement tests for “concrete
adverseness” and economical use of judicial resources (CCD, para. 98; Downtown
B-1-123
- 0114 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-124
B-1-124
v. Henry Page 13
[53] In my view, CSASPP’s Reconsideration Request and allegations regarding
the Reconsideration Response show an engaged, concrete adverseness counting in
favour of standing. Also counting somewhat in favour is the evidence, albeit vague
and inferential, of CSASPP’s stake based on the healthcare workers amongst its

membership.
[54] Overall, the genuine interest factor supports standing.
Reasonable and Effective Means
[55] This third Borowski factor is concerned with “whether the proposed suit is, in
all of the circumstances, a reasonable and effective means of bringing the matter
before the court”.
[56] The circumstances that the court should consider in making this inquiry
include (Downtown Eastside, paras. 51-52):
(a) The plaintiff’s capacity to bring forward a claim and “whether the issue will be
presented in a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual setting”;
(b) Whether the case transcends the interests of those most directly affected by
the challenged law or action;
(c) Whether there are realistic alternative means which would favour a more
efficient and effective use of judicial resources and would present a context
more suitable for adversarial determination; and
(d) The potential impact of the proceedings on the rights of others who are
equally or more directly affected, especially where private and public interests
may come into conflict.
[57] The petitioners submit they have the necessary resources and expertise to
prosecute the claim. They point to Dr. Kettner’s report and the other materials in
their Reconsideration Request. They say the importance of their case transcends
the interests of individual healthcare workers and concerns society’s interest in
having healthcare decisions made in accordance with scientific research.
[58] The PHO argues the petition is not a reasonable and effective way to bring
the issue before the courts. It says that directly impacted healthcare workers are
B-1-124
- 0115 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-125
B-1-125
v. Henry Page 14
better suited to challenge the Impugned Orders. As stated by Dickson J.A. in CCD,
“all other relevant considerations being equal, a plaintiff with private interest standing
will usually be preferred over a public interest litigant seeking to advance a
duplicative claim in a separate action” (para. 83).

[59] As discussed in the hearing, numerous individual healthcare workers,
allegedly having lost their jobs due to being unvaccinated, are challenging the
Impugned Orders in another proceeding that is also in its early stages: Tatlock v.
Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry Court File
No. S-222427.
[60] Given the Tatlock proceedings, CSASPP’s standing appears unnecessary for
access to justice for impacted healthcare workers. Nevertheless, guided by
Crowell J.’s flexible, purposive approach in Downtown Eastside, CSASPP’s petition
appears to be a reasonable and effective means of bringing forward the evidence
and claims regarding the Reconsideration Request and Response. It appears that
no similar issue is being pursued in Tatlock.
[61] In my view, subject to the comments above about the shortcomings in its
pleadings, the Petition represents a reasonable and effective means to bring forward
the important and complex healthcare issues in the Reconsideration Request that
transcend the interests of those directly involved.
[62] Overall, the reasonable and effective means factor supports standing.
Conclusion
[63] In my view, all three Borowski factors support CSASPP’s public interest
standing particularly given its role in the Reconsideration Request.
Mr. Warner’s Private Interest Standing
[64] Private interest standing is based on personal and direct interest in an issue
by virtue of its impact on the party. It arises if the party has a private right at stake, or
B-1-125
- 0116 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-126
B-1-126
v. Henry Page 15
was specially impacted by the issue beyond the effect on the general public
(Downtown Eastside, para. 1).
[65] The PHO argues that Mr. Warner is a software engineer, without any
apparent connection to healthcare, and his evidence discloses no actual personal or

direct interest in the issues.
[66] In argument, Mr. Warner withdrew his claim to public interest standing and
argued only for private interest standing. His evidence of the personal impact of the
Impugned Orders is limited to this:
… my ability to access medical services in a timely manner has been

affected. For example, I have been on the waitlist for approximately one year
for surgery related to a sports injury.
[67] In my view, Mr. Warner offers no evidentiary basis, beyond this unsupported,
conclusory statement, to suggest any right at stake, or any personal or special
impact from the Impugned Orders. There is nothing, for example, to suggest his wait
for surgery was unusual or impacted by the Impugned Orders.
[68] In my view, for these reasons he does not satisfy the requirements for private
interest standing.
Substitute Petitioners
[69] The petitioners brought a back-up application, in case both were denied
standing, to substitute, as petitioners, two healthcare workers who allege losing their
jobs due to the Impugned Orders.
[70] The PHO did not dispute the private interest standing of these two healthcare
workers, but opposed their substitution because it fundamentally altered the
pleadings and record. The PHO’s position was therefore that, if standing were
denied to the petitioners, the substitutes should commence new proceedings.
[71] Having found CSASPP to have public interest standing, I will not decide this
alternative application to substitute these two petitioners.
B-1-126
- 0117 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-127
B-1-127
v. Henry Page 16
Conclusion
[72] CSASPP is found to have public interest standing.
[73] Mr. Warner is found not to have private interest standing and his claims are
dismissed.

[74] Costs of the application are in the cause unless the parties wish to speak to
them.
“Coval J.”
B-1-127
- 0118 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-128 B-1-128
EXHIBIT “E”
B-1-128
- 0119 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-129 B-1-129
Citation: Action4Canada v. British Columbia

(Attorney General),
2022 BCSC 1507

Date: 20220829
Docket: S217586
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Action4Canada, Kimberly Woolman, The Estate of Jacqueline Woolman, Linda

Morken, Gary Morken, Jane Doe #1, Brian Edgar, Amy Muranetz, Jane Doe #2,
Ilona Zink, Federico Fuoco, Fire Productions Limited, F2 Productions
Incorporated, Valerie Ann Foley, Pastor Randy Beatty, Michael Martinz,
Makhan S. Parhar, North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited, Melissa Anne Neubauer,
Jane Doe #3
Plaintiffs
And
Her Majesty the Queen in Right British Columbia, Prime Minister Justin
John Horgan, Arian Dix, Minister of Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of
Education, Mable Elmore, Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors’ Services and
Long-Term Care, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor
General, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (operating as British Columbia
Ferries), Omar Alghabra, Minister of Transport, Vancouver Island Health
Authority, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Attorney
General of Canada, Brittney Sylvester, Peter Kwok, Providence Health Care,
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Translink (British Columbia)
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Justice A. Ross
Counsel for the Plaintiffs: R. Galati

This is Exhibit “E” to the affidavit of Kipling
431/20
_____________________________________
A Commissioner for taking affidavits, B-1-129
- 0120 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-130
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
B-1-130
Page 2
Counsel for the Defendants, Her Majesty M.A. Witten

the Queen in Right British Columbia,
Premier John Horgan, Adrian Dix Minister of
Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of
Education, Mable Elmore, Parliamentary
Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long-

Term Care, Mike Farnworth, Minister of
Public Safety and Solicitor General, Dr.
Bonnie Henry:
Counsel for the Defendants, Translink T.J. Delaney

(British Columbia), Peter Kwok: J. Hamilton
Counsel for the Defendants, Providence T. Wedge

Health Care, Vancouver Island Health L. Miller
Authority:
Counsel for the Defendants, Attorney A.C. Gatti

General of Canada, Prime Minister Justin O. French
Trudeau Chief Public Health Officer
Theresa Tam, Omar Alghabra, Minister of
Transport, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP)
Counsel for the Defendants, British C. Bildfell

Columbia Ferry Services Inc., Brittney
Sylvester

May 31, 2022
August 29, 2022
B-1-130
- 0121 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-131
B-1-131
Page 3
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 4
THE NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM ................................................................................. 4

BASIS OF THE DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION .................................................... 10
ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 11
Should the NOCC be struck on the basis that it is prolix? .................................... 11
Should the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed (or should the plaintiffs be granted leave
to amend)? ........................................................................................................... 16
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION............................................................................. 22
B-1-131
- 0122 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-132
B-1-132
Page 4
Introduction
[1] In this action, the plaintiffs seek relief for various hardships and damages they
say they have suffered. They seek damages, and other relief, from various
government entities and employees. The plaintiffs allege that their damages flow

from various restrictions instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
[2] In this application, the defendants, individually and collectively, seek an order
striking the notice of civil claim (“NOCC”) on the basis that it is deficient in both form
and substance. The defendants further submit that the action should be dismissed. I
set out their arguments below.
[3] In response, counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the claim should be
allowed to proceed in its current form. Alternatively, counsel submits that if I find that
the current pleading is improper, I should grant leave to amend it.
Issues
[4] The issues for me to decide are:
a) Should the NOCC be struck in whole or in part?
b) Should the plaintiffs be granted leave to amend?
[5] For the reasons set out below, my answers to these questions are:
a) Yes, the NOCC is prolix and must be struck.
b) Yes, the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend.
[6] I set out my reasoning below.
The Notice of Civil Claim
[7] In order to understand my reasons below, it is necessary to describe the

basis of the plaintiffs’ claims and the characteristics of the NOCC.
B-1-132
- 0123 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-133
B-1-133
Page 5
[8] First, this action derives from the health orders, restrictions and lockdowns
declared by the Federal and Provincial governments in relation to the COVID-19
pandemic. In broad overview, the plaintiffs say that the government measures:
a) were not based on science;

b) exceeded the authority of the government agencies;
c) resulted in restrictions that breached the Charter rights of the plaintiffs; and
d) caused damages.
[9] The plaintiffs complain about government actions in four general areas:
a) coercive vaccination mandates;
b) masking;
c) lockdowns, restrictions on gatherings and social distancing; and
d) PCR testing.
[10] I should note that my understanding of the claim, as described in the prior two
paragraphs, derives primarily from the submissions of plaintiffs’ counsel at the
hearing of this application and not from my reading of the NOCC itself.
[11] The NOCC is 391 pages long.
[12] The original NOCC named as plaintiffs:
a) Action4Canada;
b) twelve named individuals;
c) three individuals identified as Jane Doe 1, 2 and 3;
d) one estate; and
B-1-133
- 0124 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-134
B-1-134
Page 6
e) three corporate entities.
[13] Action4Canada is described as a grassroots organization centered in British

Columbia. It was “co-founded” in 2019. It has no legal existence. It is not an
incorporated entity.

[14] Four of the original plaintiffs are no longer involved in the action:
a) One individual plaintiff and the estate discontinued their participation in the
proceeding.
b) One individual, Mr. Makhan Parhar, died. His claim, and the claim of his
business, North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited, have abated.
[15] Thus, as the matter now stands there are ten individual named plaintiffs, three
Jane Does and two corporate entities. In addition, there is Action4Canada.
[16] The plaintiffs’ claims fall into several categories of allegations. I describe them
briefly below. In summarizing the allegations, I do not mean to diminish the alleged
harm suffered by any of these plaintiffs. My purpose is simply to categorize the
nature of their claims. For context, the next ten subparagraphs describe the
allegations set out in more than 290 subparagraphs comprising 75 pages of the
NOCC.
a) Two individual plaintiffs ran businesses that were negatively affected by the
public health orders.
b) One plaintiff alleges she was assaulted and unlawfully arrested by transit
police while riding the SkyTrain without a mask.
c) Two plaintiffs allege they were harassed by grocery store employees in

Sooke, and then unlawfully arrested by the RCMP because they were not
masked.
B-1-134
- 0125 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-135
B-1-135
Page 7
d) Two plaintiffs allege that they were mistreated, or banned, by BC Ferries staff
as a result of their refusal to wear masks.
e) One plaintiff is a pastor who continued to hold church services after public
health orders required his church to cease. The continuation of church

services led to interactions with RCMP and threats of by-law infraction tickets
being issued if the conduct continued.
f) One plaintiff arrived at Vancouver Airport from an international flight and

proceeded through the airport without a mask, leading to a fine of $3,450.
There is no indication whether he contested that ticket in another forum.
g) One plaintiff, a teacher in the BC Public School system, obtained

accommodations regarding mask-wearing from her employer in the 2020-
2021 school year but was later advised that she would not be rehired for the
next school year. There is no indication whether her employment relationship
would be governed by a collective agreement.
h) One plaintiff was a patient at St. Paul’s Hospital and was forced to leave the
hospital because she (and her parents) refused to wear a mask.
i) One plaintiff is a nurse-aid in a long-term care facility who alleges that the
public health measures created a stressful environment for her and many
people like her. She “feels concerned not only for herself but also for her
clients.”
j) One plaintiff is a health-care worker at Royal Inland Hospital who faced

employer mandates to wear masks and get vaccinated. Again, there is no
indication whether her employment relationship would be governed by a
collective agreement.
[17] These individual claims occurred at what I will describe as the “operational”
level. In each of these interactions, the public agencies involved were enforcing the
B-1-135
- 0126 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-136
B-1-136
Page 8
health mandates issued by the Federal Government and the Province of British
Columbia.
[18] The allegations at the operational level are then linked to the allegedly
overreaching and ill-advised health mandates imposed by each level of government.

Those mandates, in turn, are linked to individuals within government, either elected
or employed.
[19] The description of the defendants comprises 20 paragraphs set out over three
pages of the NOCC. The defendants fall into five separate categories:
a) the Crown (both Federal and Provincial);
b) Ministers of the Crown (both Federal and Provincial);
c) Public Health Officers (both Federal and Provincial);
d) Crown agencies, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, British

Columbia Ferry Services Inc., The Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Vancouver Island Health Authority, Providence Health Care and Translink
(British Columbia); and
e) individual employees of Crown agencies.
[20] The description of “THE FACTS” in the NOCC comprises 316 paragraphs set
out over 226 pages. This section of the NOCC also includes 399 footnotes, the
majority of which contain links to websites.
[21] I note, for the clarity of anyone reading the pleadings, that the numbering of
the paragraphs in the NOCC leads to further confusion. First, there are two
paragraphs numbered “12”. More problematic, the paragraphs proceed from 1-331
followed, for no reason, by paragraphs 255-363. As a result, the section labelled
“THE FACTS” appears to comprise only 240 paragraphs (44-284), when it actually
consists of 316 paragraphs. It follows that the reader must be careful to address
B-1-136
- 0127 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-137
B-1-137
Page 9
either the first, or the second, paragraph 255 etc. I return to this issue below when
discussing the second paragraph 289.
[22] The “RELIEF SOUGHT” section of the NOCC comprises 40 paragraphs, most
with multiple subparagraphs, set out over 43 pages.

[23] The plaintiffs (individual, corporate and Action4Canada) seek general
damages for breaches of their Charter rights. Each plaintiff claims a set amount of
general damages. In addition, as against the defendant, Canadian Broadcasting
[24] The first paragraph under the “THE FACTS” heading states:
44. In 2000 Bill Gates steps down as Microsoft CEO and creates the
“Gates Foundation’’ and (along with other partners) launches the ‘Global
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (“GAVI’’). The Gates Foundation has
given GAVI approximately $4.1 Billion. Gates has further lobbied other
organizations, such as the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and governments
to donate to GAVI including Canada and its current Prime Minister, Justin
Trudeau, who has donated over $1 billion dollars to Gates/GAVI.
[25] I set out this paragraph to illustrate the wide-ranging and unconstrained
nature of the allegations in the NOCC. The defendants submit that the NOCC makes
correct.
[26] Many of the allegations contained in the NOCC do not accord with, and
specifically challenge, the mainstream understanding of the science underlying both
the existence of, and the government’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
defendants submit that the allegations in the NOCC constitute “conspiracy theories”.
In response, the plaintiffs submit that they have pled material facts that expose
“conspiracies”. The former expression, used by the defendants, is recognized as a
pejorative term. The latter, used by the plaintiffs, alleges that the NOCC is exposing
B-1-137
- 0128 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-138
B-1-138
Page 10
an underlying systemic issue relating to the pandemic. Those allegations are, in turn,
tied to allegations of misfeasance in public office. The plaintiffs also allege criminal
conduct by the defendants.
[27] To be clear, in these reasons, I have not attempted any weighing, limited or

otherwise, in respect of the facts alleged by the plaintiffs. I have undertaken my
assessment on the assumption that the plaintiffs’ allegations, if properly pleaded, are
capable of being proven at trial.
Basis of the Defendants’ Application
[28] A summary of the defendants’ submissions is as follows:
a) The NOCC is prolix.
i. The Rules provide that a pleading must set out a concise statement of the
material facts, the relief sought and a concise summary of the legal basis.
ii. The Rules on pleadings are mandatory. Failure to follow the Rules will
lead to a striking of the pleading.
b) Because of the prolix and wide-ranging nature of the NOCC, it is not capable
of being answered by the defendants.
c) The entirety of the claim is frivolous and vexatious. After striking the NOCC,
I should not allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend it.
[29] In response to the application, the plaintiffs submit that the court should look
to first principles:
a) On an application to strike:
a. the allegations pleaded in the NOCC must be taken as true or capable

of being proven to be true; and
b. the court’s role is not to reach a decision on the claim’s chance of

success.
B-1-138
- 0129 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-139
B-1-139
Page 11
b) The fact that a pleading reveals an arguable, difficult or important point of law,
is not a justification to strike it: Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R.
959.
c) The plaintiffs’ right to seek declaratory relief is neither constrained by form nor

bounded by substantive content: Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821
at 830.
d) The constitutionality of legislation is always a justiciable issue: Thorson v.

Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138 at 151.
e) The writ of mandamus is the proper writ to correct government overreach.
[30] In summary, the plaintiffs submit that there are Charter rights affected by
government policies. This may be a long and complex piece of litigation, with difficult
and troubling allegations, but that does not mean that it should be dismissed. Again,
I garner that summary from the plaintiff’s submissions on this application, not from
the NOCC.
Analysis
[31] I will deal with the defence submission in two stages. First, whether the
NOCC should be struck. Second, whether the plaintiffs should be granted liberty to
amend.
Should the NOCC be struck on the basis that it is prolix?
[32] The Oxford English Dictionary defines “prolix” as writing that is “tediously
lengthy”. At 391 pages, the NOCC is clearly prolix.
[33] Prolixity can warrant striking a claim pursuant to R. 9-5(1), which reads:

(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or
amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on
the ground that
B-1-139
- 0130 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-140
B-1-140
Page 12

proceeding, or
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed

or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special
costs.
[34] The defendants submit the NOCC’s prolixity renders it scandalous within the
meaning of subrule 9-5(1)(b). The defendants also submit that prolixity falls under
subrule 9-5(1)(c) and constitutes a further basis to strike:
a) Pleadings are embarrassing where they are prolix, contain argument, or

fail to state the real issue in an intelligible way: Sahyoun v. Ho, 2015
BCSC 392 at para. 62 [Sahyoun].
b) Regardless of the subrule, the law is clear that prolixity can be a basis for
striking where the pleadings are prolix and confusing or they render it
impossible for the opposing party to know the case they must meet: The
Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2009 BCSC 473
at para. 36.
c) In certain cases, the pleadings are so overwhelmed with difficulties that it

will not be possible to categorize them into specific subparagraphs of R. 9-
5(1): see, for instance, Sahyoun at para. 64.
[35] The defendants submit that, more important than the length of the NOCC is
the unlimited scope of the document. It is not a piece of legal drafting that complies
with the Rules, or basic tenets, of pleading. It is not a document that can be properly
answered in a response to civil claim. The defendants submit that those problems
arise, in part, because there are multiple allegations against the defendants
individually and jointly. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any
individual defendant to determine whether it is required to respond to any particular
allegation. Were the action to proceed in its current form, individual defendants
would not be in a position to know whether they were tasked with a burden of
B-1-140
- 0131 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-141
B-1-141
Page 13
disproving or countering the myriad allegations. They would not know what case
they were required to meet.
[36] The defendants rely on the decision in Mercantile Office Systems Private
Limited v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362 [Mercantile]

wherein Voith J.A. wrote, in relation to the requirements of pleadings:
[44] Nevertheless, none of a notice of claim, a response to civil claim, and

a counterclaim is a story. Each pleading contemplates and requires a
reasonably disciplined exercise that is governed, in many instances in
mandatory terms, by the Rules and the relevant authorities. Each requires the
drafting party to “concisely” set out the “material facts” that give rise to the
claim or that relate to the matters raised by the claim. None of these
pleadings are permitted to contain evidence or argument.
[37] I note again paragraph 44 of the NOCC (above at paragraph 24). It is, quite
clearly, the beginning of a “story”.
[38] Justice Voith continued in his conclusion in Mercantile:
[58] I am of the view that the Response and Counterclaim suffer from the
numerous and pervasive difficulties that I have described. These difficulties
cause the Response and Counterclaim to be prolix and both confusing and
inconsistent in various respects. They offend various mandatory requirements
of the Rules and they frustrate the important objects that are served by
proper pleadings.
[39] I note, for context, that the response to civil claim in under discussion in
Mercantile was 12 pages and the counterclaim was five pages.
[40] In addition, the defendants submit that the NOCC breaches other tenets of
pleading. Among other problems: it pleads evidence, includes non-justiciable claims
and alleges criminal conduct by the defendants. These deficiencies fall largely within
the scope of R. 9-5(1)(a), in that they disclose no reasonable claim.
[41] As an example of the plaintiffs’ non-justiciable claims, the defendants point to

(the second) paragraph 289 of the NOCC which seeks the following declaration:
289. A Declaration that the purported order, by Dr. Bonnie Henry,

purportedly pursuant to s. 52(2) of the Public Health Act, that “the
transmission of the infectious agent SARS-CoV-2, based on high “case
B-1-141
- 0132 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-142
B-1-142
Page 14
counts”, based on a PCR test, is ultra vires the Act and non est factum, in
that:
…
based;

medical evidence;
(d) That “cases’ [sic] do not equate to “deaths” and that the
purported death rate is no higher than complications from the annual
influenza;
(e) That the distorted “case” counts are fraudulent, based on the
fraudulent use generating cases of “PCR” test, which is a test that:
a) At best was designed as a “screening test” which requires a
follow-up culture and blood test to ensure the detection of an
infectious virus, and was never designed, nor equipped to be a
diagnostic test;
b) That is is [sic] fraudulently being used as a diagnostic test;
c) That the PCR test has scientifically been debunked, as well as
judicially determined, based on the scientific evidence, that when
used at a “threshold cycle” of thirty five (35) or higher, to cause
between 82% to 96.5% “false positives”;
…
[42] The defendants submit that this is (or these are) issues and remedies that are
non-justiciable.
[43] In response to these submissions, counsel for the plaintiffs submits:
a) the NOCC pleads all material facts necessary to support the causes of action;
b) all causes of action have been fully and properly pled;
c) there is no basis in law to strike the NOCC, in whole or in part;
d) the court should only strike a pleading where it is plain and obvious that it is
“bad beyond argument”: Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170 at 176; and
e) The extent and complexity of the NOCC is proportionate to the extent and
complexity of the issues at hand. Counsel describes those issues as: “the
purported global pandemic, these scientific/medical bases or non-basis of the
B-1-142
- 0133 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-143
B-1-143
Page 15
[COVID] measures, its history, and the constitutional violations imposed in

Canada and abroad.”
[44] On that basis, the plaintiffs submit that they should be allowed to proceed with
the litigation under the current version of the NOCC.

[45] On the first issue, whether the NOCC is prolix, I agree with the defendants’
includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and “crimes against
humanity”. In my opinion, it is “bad beyond argument”.
[46] I further find that it is not a document that the court can mend by striking
portions. I find that this NOCC is analogous to the Statement of Claim considered by
Justice K. Smith (as he then was) in Homalco Indian Band v. British Columbia
(1998), 25 C.P.C. (4th) 107 (B.C.S.C.) [Homalco]. He wrote:
[11] In my view, the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It

contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a
manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to answer. As a result, it is prejudicial. Any attempt
to reform it by striking out portions and by amending other portions is likely to
result in more confusion as to the real issues. …
[47] As was the case in Homalco, attempting to bring the NOCC into compliance
with the Rules by piecemeal striking and amending would invite more confusion and
greater expenditure of the resources of all concerned.
[48] I find that the NOCC is prolix. It is not a proper pleading that can be answered
by the defendants. It cannot be mended. Given that finding, I have no hesitation in
ruling that it must be struck in whole.
B-1-143
- 0134 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-144
B-1-144
Page 16
Should the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed (or should the plaintiffs be

granted leave to amend)?
[49] The second issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs should be granted
leave to amend the pleadings.

[50] In my discussion below, I have indicated that there may be legitimate claims
that a plaintiff could advance against one or more of the defendants. However, I wish
to be clear that:
a) as noted above, I have assumed that allegations are capable of being proved;
b) hence, by ruling that there may be claims that might properly be brought, I
make no finding on the prospect of success of such claims;
c) although I have specifically noted certain types of claims that are improperly
included in the current NOCC, the absence of any comment by me should not
be considered an endorsement of any specific cause of action that is in the
NOCC but omitted in my discussion; and
d) I make no ruling on the proper plaintiffs, or the proper defendants, in this

action. Those will be issues for the plaintiffs to decide, in line with the proper
tenets of pleading. In turn, the defendants will be at liberty to make an
application, if necessary, to determine the proper parties.
[51] To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature
of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same
reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and
indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be
struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft
pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.
[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are
improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of
the NOCC as inappropriate:
B-1-144
- 0135 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-145
B-1-145
Page 17
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of

the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;

c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19
prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a
bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed

consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the
Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity
under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of

which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being
“essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-
corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR

testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false
and fraudulent use of the PCR test.
[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.
[54] I note the remarkably apposite comments of Strayer J. in Vancouver Island

Peace Society v. Canada, [1992] 3 F.C. 42 at 51:
… It is not the role of the Court in these proceedings to become an academy

of science to arbitrate conflicting scientific predictions, or to act as a kind of
legislative upper chamber to weigh expressions of public concern and
determine which ones should be respected. Whether society would be well
served by the Court performing either of these functions, which I gravely
doubt, they are not roles conferred upon it in the exercise of judicial review ...
[55] A significant underlying theme of the NOCC is the pursuit of rulings from this
court on the proper interpretation of scientific data. As such, much of the NOCC
B-1-145
- 0136 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-146
B-1-146
Page 18
relates to non-justiciable issues. I note the extract from (the second) paragraph 289
of the NOCC quoted above (at paragraph 41). It is beyond doubt that the plaintiffs
seek to turn this court into an academy of science wherein a judge will be asked to
prefer their science over the government’s science. Alternatively, the plaintiffs hope

that this court will act as a further legislative chamber to review, criticize or overturn
the policies of the legislative and executive branches of government. That is not the
proper role of this court except in circumstances where those actions infringe on
protected Charter rights or exceed the bounds of delegated authority.
[56] An additional issue, related to justiciability, is that the NOCC seeks a number
of declarations of fact. In West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2020
BCCA 138 at para. 312, the Court of Appeal reviewed the law concerning the
propriety of declaratory relief. The Court noted that even when the requirements set
out in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., 2019 SCC 4 at para. 60 are met,
declaratory relief remains discretionary:
[310] Where these factors are met, a court looks at the practical value of the
declaration in assessing if it should exercise its discretion to grant such a
remedy:
A declaration can only be granted if it will have practical utility, that is,
if it will settle a “live controversy” between the parties: see
also Solosky v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R.
821; Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123
(SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.
Daniels at para. 11; see also S.A. at para. 61.
[311] This Court has also phrased the question as “whether a ‘useful
purpose’ would be served by granting the order”: Wakelam v. Wyeth
Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soins de Sante Inc., 2014 BCCA 36 at para. 71;
see also Greater Vancouver Regional District v. British Columbia (Attorney
General), 2011 BCCA 345 at para. 52 [GVRD].
[312] An assessment of the practical utility of a declaration necessarily looks
at the effect of the requested remedy on the parties’ rights. Declarations must
be connected to legal rights, rather than, for example, facts “detached” from
those rights or “law generally”: 1472292 Ontario Inc. (Rosen Express) v.
Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 753 at
para. 30; Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, [1978] A.C. 435
at 501. Detached facts and general pronouncements of law have little utility.
[Emphasis added.]
B-1-146
- 0137 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-147
B-1-147
Page 19
[57] A good example of a proposed declaration of fact is set out at (the second)
para. 302 of the NOCC where the plaintiffs seek:
A Declaration that the declared rationales and motives, and execution of

COVID Measures, by the WHO, are not related to a bona fide, nor an actual
‘pandemic’, and declaration of a bona fide pandemic, but for other political

and socio-economic reasons, motives, and measures at the behest of global
Billionaire, Corporate and Organizational Oligarchs
[58] This is just one example, among many, of a declaration that is detached from
law generally. It has little to do with the rights of the parties and instead seeks a
declaration of fact about the motives of a non-party international organization.
Pleading declaratory relief of this nature is improper.
[59] The defendants urge upon me that the problems with the NOCC are sufficient
grounds for me to conclude that this entire action is an abuse of process and should
be dismissed on the basis that it is clearly frivolous and vexatious.
[60] I do not accept that submission on behalf of the defendants. For the reasons
set out below, I decline to dismiss the action.
[61] In support of the claims made within the NOCC, counsel for the plaintiffs
directed me to several Canadian decisions, plus two from other countries:
a) The Supreme Court of the United States decision indexed as Roman Catholic
Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York,
592 U.S. ___ (2020) [Diocese of Brooklyn]; and
b) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (2 May 2022), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of
2021 (Supreme Court of India) [Puliyel].
[62] In the Diocese of Brooklyn decision, the Court enjoined the state from
enforcing the “severe” restrictions on religious services. The majority wrote, at page
5:
Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect
the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area.
But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.
B-1-147
- 0138 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-148
B-1-148
Page 20
The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending

religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee
of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a
serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.
[63] Hence, the Diocese of Brooklyn decision assists the plaintiffs for the (obvious)

proposition that constitutional rights must be protected, even within a pandemic.
[64] The plaintiffs also rely upon the Puliyel case from India as an example of a
court striking down the COVID-vaccine measures of a government on the basis that
they offended protections of bodily integrity and hence, were unconstitutional.
[65] I note that cases from the Indian Supreme Court are very rarely referenced in
this jurisdiction. I accept that the judge in the Puliyel case engaged in a review of
vaccine mandates and their impact on constitutionally protected rights. However, in
my opinion, the Puliyel case provides limited assistance to the plaintiffs. In very brief
overview, the highest level of intervention by the court consisted of directions that:
a) the government could not force vaccinations on the populace. But, the court
was clear to note that the government was not forcing vaccines on the
populace. At the same time, the court confirmed that, given the pandemic, the
government could restrict the activities of unvaccinated persons and is
“entitled to regulate issues of public health concern by imposing certain
limitations on individual rights…”
b) required the government to release statistics to the public relating to

vaccination programs; and
c) in addition, the court made a “suggestion”, that in the context of the rapidly-
evolving situation presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the government
should review the vaccine mandates.
[66] However, in my opinion, the case provides more support for the defendants’
position than the plaintiffs’. For example, at para. 89, Justice Rao wrote:
(iv) On the basis of substantial material filed before this Court reflecting
the near-unanimous views of experts on the benefits of vaccination in
B-1-148
- 0139 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-149
B-1-149
Page 21
addressing severe disease from the infection, reduction in oxygen

requirement, hospital and ICU admissions, mortality and stopping new
variants from emerging, this Court is satisfied that the current vaccination
policy of the Union of India is informed by relevant considerations and cannot
be said to be unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary. Contrasting scientific
opinion coming forth from certain quarters to the effect that natural immunity

offers better protection against COVID-19 is not pertinent for determination of
the issue before us.
[67] There are several other statements in the Puliyel decision that do not align
with the plaintiffs’ position in this case. For example, on paediatric vaccinations, Rao
J. ruled “it is beyond the scope of review for this Court to second-guess expert
opinion, on the basis of which the Government has drawn up its policy.”
[68] Boiled down to its core, the Puliyel case provides support for two basic points
that assist the plaintiffs:
a) government policies cannot unnecessarily infringe upon the Charter rights of

individuals; and
b) the decision is an example of a court hearing, and (to some extent) ruling
upon, an analogous claim on its merits. In doing so, the court dismissed the
preliminary objection of the Union of India.
[69] I note that there is little need to exceed our province’s borders for either of
these two propositions. There is binding authority for those propositions much closer
to home. In particular, Chief Justice Hinkson, in Beaudoin v. British Columbia, 2021
BCSC 512, ruled that the petitioners’ Charter rights (s. 2(c) and (d)) were infringed
by specific “Gathering and Events” orders issued by the Provincial Health Officer. (I
note that decision is under appeal. However, at present it is binding upon me
pursuant to the principles enunciated in Hansard Spruce Mills Limited (Re), [1954] 4
D.L.R. 590.)
[70] On whether the issues are “justiciable” I note the decision of Justice Coval in
B-1-149
- 0140 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-150
B-1-150
Page 22

correct that whether those actions comply with the Charter and JRPA are
clearly questions suitable for judicial determination (CCD, para 90).
[71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions

infringe their Charter protected rights. Hence, in this case, there is a prospect that
the plaintiffs could put forward a valid claim that certain of the COVID-based health
restrictions instituted by the Federal or Provincial governments infringed their
Charter rights. In addition, it is possible that other valid claims may exist. It will be for
the plaintiff to plead those causes of action in accordance with the Rules. Such
claims need to be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the defendants to
know the case they have to meet. It must also confine itself to matters that are
capable of adjudication by this court and relief this court is capable of granting.
[72] The existence of a single potential, viable cause of action means that it would
be improper for me, at this stage, to foreclose upon the plaintiffs’ right to bring their
claims. I note that, in the Homalco decision, despite finding that the plaintiff’s
pleading was “embarrassing” Smith J. granted leave to amend because potential
causes of action existed. In doing so, he stayed further steps pending the filing and
delivery of a fresh pleading by the plaintiff. I make the same order. This action is
stayed until the filing of a fresh pleading by the plaintiff.
[73] I noted above the defendants’ submission that there are sufficient grounds for
me to conclude that, based on the NOCC, this entire action is an abuse of process
or clearly frivolous and vexatious. For the reasons set out above, I do not accept that
submission. However, if the next iteration of NOCC contains the same, or similar,
problems, then the defendants’ arguments on these issues will be strengthened.
Summary and Conclusion
[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its
entirety;
B-1-150
- 0141 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-151
B-1-151
Page 23
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking

money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each
defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the
NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct
this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was
properly pleaded.
[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the
necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an
application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.
“A. Ross J.”
B-1-151
- 0142 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-152 B-1-152
EXHIBIT “F”
B-1-152
- 0143 -
4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-153 B-1-1
B-1-1
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-154 B-1-154
B-1-154
- 0145 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-155 B-1-155
B-1-155
- 0146 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-156 B-1-156
B-1-156
- 0147 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-157 B-1-157
B-1-157
- 0148 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-158 B-1-158
B-1-158
- 0149 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-159 B-1-159
B-1-159
- 0150 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-160 B-1-160
B-1-160
- 0151 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-161 B-1-161
B-1-161
- 0152 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-162 B-1-162
B-1-162
- 0153 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-163 B-1-163
B-1-163
- 0154 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-164 B-1-164
B-1-164
- 0155 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-165 B-1-165
B-1-165
- 0156 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-166 B-1-166
B-1-166
- 0157 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-167 B-1-167
B-1-167
- 0158 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-168 B-1-168
B-1-168
- 0159 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-169 B-1-169
B-1-169
- 0160 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-170 B-1-170
B-1-170
- 0161 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-171 B-1-171
B-1-171
- 0162 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-172 B-1-172
B-1-172
- 0163 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-173 B-1-173
B-1-173
- 0164 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-174 B-1-174
B-1-174
- 0165 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-175 B-1-175
B-1-175
- 0166 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-176 B-1-176
B-1-176
- 0167 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-177 B-1-177
B-1-177
- 0168 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-178 B-1-178
EXHIBIT “G”
B-1-178
- 0169 -
4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-179 B-1-1
B-1-1
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-180 B-1-180
EXHIBIT “H”
B-1-180
- 0171 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-181 B-1-181
This is Exhibit “H” to the affidavit of

electronically by way of
Reg 431/20
_________________________________
B-1-181
- 0172 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-182 B-1-182
B-1-182
- 0173 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-183 B-1-183
EXHIBIT “I”
B-1-183
- 0174 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-184 B-1-184
B-1-184
- 0175 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-185 B-1-185
B-1-185
- 0176 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-186 B-1-186
B-1-186
- 0177 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-187 B-1-187
B-1-187
- 0178 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-188 B-1-188
B-1-188
- 0179 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-189 B-1-189
EXHIBIT “J”
B-1-189
- 0180 -
B-1-190
- 0181 -
B-1-191
- 0182 -
B-1-192
- 0183 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-193 B-1-193
EXHIBIT “K”
B-1-193
- 0184 -
B-1-194
- 0185 -
B-1-195
- 0186 -
B-1-196
- 0187 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-197 B-1-197
EXHIBIT “L”
B-1-197
- 0188 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-198 B-1-198
bc.ctvnews.ca
B.C. court rejects top doctor's effort to

dismiss COVID-19 vaccine mandate
lawsuit
Ian Holliday, Ian Holliday
5–6 minutes
The B.C. Supreme Court has rejected the provincial government's

attempt to dismiss one of the lawsuits challenging COVID-19
vaccination requirements for health-care workers.
Lawyers for provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry had argued
that the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in
Public Policy, which brought the lawsuit, lacked the necessary
standing to raise the issue before the courts.
CSASPP's suit seeks to have Henry's public health orders

requiring workers in most health-care settings to be vaccinated
thrown out on the grounds that they violate the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and fail to provide reasonable exemptions
and accommodations.
Henry's response to the lawsuit submits that the orders are

reasonable, precautionary public health measures.
The decision issued this week by Justice Simon R. Coval does not
come to a conclusion on the merits of CSASPP's allegations, but
rather on the organization's standing to have its case heard. B-1-198
- 0189 -
Coval concluded that the organization
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-199 B-1-199
did have the "public interest
standing" required to bring the claim, despite the province's
arguments to the contrary.
Henry's lawyers submitted that the CSASPP's claim did not raise a
"serious justiciable issue," arguing it was "devoid of any
meaningful particulars" that would make it worth the court's time.
Coval disagreed, writing that the petition raises "substantial

questions" that are clearly within the purview of the justice system.
The provincial health officer also argued that CSASPP had not
demonstrated a "genuine interest" in the questions at hand, noting
that the organization's explicit purpose is to challenge COVID-19-
related measures in British Columbia.
"The PHO submits that CSASPP has no history of involvement in

the issues raised by the petition, and the evidence connecting its
membership to health care is vague and weak," Coval wrote in his
decision.
"The PHO says CSASPP is merely a 'purpose-built anti-COVID-19

measures entity.'"
The justice largely agreed with this assessment of the organization

and its purpose, writing:
"In my view, creating a society committed to one side of an issue is

not sufficient to create a genuine stake for purposes of standing …
The members of such a group are obviously interested in the issue
but do not necessarily have a stake different from the community
generally."
Nevertheless, Coval held that CSASPP had demonstrated a

genuine interest in the legal questions it raised by making a B-1-199
- 0190 -
reconsideration request to
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-200 Henry when the vaccination orders B-1-200
were first issued, and including Henry's denial of the
reconsideration request in its complaint to the court.
Finally, Henry's lawyers argued that CSASPP's claims were

redundant, since several other health-care workers are already
suing the province over the vaccination mandate.
Coval again agreed, but only to a point. The justice wrote that
ongoing litigation brought by health-care workers who lost their
jobs because they were unvaccinated rendered CSASPP's
challenge of the public health orders unnecessary.
However, that case does not address the request that Henry
reconsider her order and allow more exemptions, something the
justice said could be addressed in the CSASPP case.
"CSASPP’s standing appears unnecessary for access to justice for

impacted health-care workers," Coval wrote. "Nevertheless …
CSASPP’s petition appears to be a reasonable and effective
means of bringing forward the evidence and claims regarding the
reconsideration request and response."
Though he concluded that the organization should have public

interest standing and be allowed to continue with its lawsuit, Coval
dismissed a claim of private interest standing brought by the
CSASPP's executive director Kipling Warner.
Warner, a software engineer, claimed he had been directly and

adversely affected by the vaccine mandate, saying his ability to
access medical services in a timely manner had been restricted by
Henry's orders, and citing a long wait for surgery as an example of
this harm.
B-1-200
- 0191 -
"In my view, Mr. Warner offers
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-201 no evidentiary basis, beyond this B-1-201
unsupported, conclusory statement, to suggest any right at stake,
or any personal or special impact from the impugned orders,"
Coval wrote. "There is nothing, for example, to suggest his wait for
surgery was unusual or impacted by the impugned orders. In my
view, for these reasons, he does not satisfy the requirements for
private interest standing."
B-1-201
- 0192 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-202 B-1-202
EXHIBIT “M”
B-1-202
- 0193 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-203 B-1-203
B-1-203
- 0194 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-204 B-1-204
B-1-204
- 0195 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-205 B-1-205
B-1-205
- 0196 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-206 B-1-206
B-1-206
- 0197 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-207 B-1-207
EXHIBIT “N”
B-1-207
- 0198 -
B-1-208
- 0199 -
B-1-209
- 0200 -
B-1-210
- 0201 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-211 B-1-211
EXHIBIT “O”
B-1-211
- 0202 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-212
Home Call to Action 3 Rallies Legal Action 3 Resources/Training 3 COVID-19 3 Interviews Contacts 3 Join 3 Donate
B-1-212
U
Donate to Action4Canada
Action4Canada is volunteer run and 100% supported by the generous donations of members who share our concerns and value our work. We
are committed to educating, equipping and encouraging Canadians to take action and give the silent majority a much needed voice. We work to
protect Canadians rights and freedoms through providing e�ective resources, legal actions, training and more.
Special Notice – Action4Canada has �led legal action against the Federal and �C governments in response to their e�treme emergency
measures. For updates Click Here. We have reached 100% of our current fundraising goal for the Constitutional legal action, however
this is only one part of our strategy. Please continue to support A4C by donating to the General Fund and consider becoming a monthly
donor. Thank you so much to all the donors who helped make this happen. We are going into court fully armed and ready to win!
Payment Methods
Action4Canada is working hard to equip Canadians to defend their guaranteed rights!
Please continue to support the work of Action4Canada. Payment methods below, and please also remember us in your prayers!
Thank you for your generosity!
e-Transfer Credit Card Cheque
Action4Canada Inc.
102 – 15910 Fraser Hwy,
Suite #453 Surrey, BC V4N 0X9
Please note: this address is not an o�ce

If adding a security question please
make it simple. Eg. What Year is it?
Cash
Select one of the buttons below:
A4C General Fund: If you wish to donate in cash you can do
callto@action4canada.com A4C General Fund: so with your local Chapter Leader or at

an Action4Canada booth at a rally.
Legal Action Fund: Donate to Action4Canada
legalaction@action4canada.com
Donate Monthly to
Action4Canada This is Exhibit “O” to the affidavit of
A4C Legal Fund: January, 2023, in accordance with O Reg
431/20
Donate - Legal Fund

__________________________________
E-mail us @ callto@action4canada.com
Action4Canada is a registered non-pro�t organi�ation. We do not have charitable status.
Non-Pro�t Certi�cate of Incorporation
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ACTION4CANADA INC.
Be a Super Spreader & Share!
Partner with Us…

Partnering with Action4Canada allows concerned
Canadians to have the tools to address issues
crucial to Canada’s Sovereignty, Democracy, and
our Freedom.
B-1-212
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact Us
- 0203 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-213 B-1-213
EXHIBIT “P”
B-1-213
- 0204 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-214 B-1-214
See enclosure and link below.
https://vimeo.com/458823583
This is Exhibit “P” to the affidavit of Kipling

431/20
_____________________________________
B-1-214
- 0205 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-215 B-1-215
EXHIBIT “Q”
B-1-215
- 0206 -
Received / Reçue
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-216 2021-09-21
B-1-216
Balance Sheet
Action4Canada Inc.
As at 15 August 2021
15 AUG 2021
Assets
Bank
Action4Canada Visa 1,327.16
Investors Account 1,001.64
Legal Expense Account 208,838.16
TD Business Account 28,621.15
Total Bank 239,788.11
Fixed Assets
Office Equipment 5,196.76
Total Fixed Assets 5,196.76
Total Assets 244,984.87
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Owner A Funds Introduced 40.00
Rounding (0.03)
Sales Tax (1,276.32)
Total Current Liabilities (1,236.35)
Total Liabilities (1,236.35)
Net Assets 246,221.22
Equity
Current Year Earnings 227,881.93
Retained Earnings 18,339.29
Total Equity 246,221.22
This is Exhibit “Q” to the affidavit of Kipling

431/20
_____________________________________
B-1-216
Balance Sheet Action4Canada Inc.
- 0207 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-217 B-1-217
EXHIBIT “R”
B-1-217
- 0208 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-218 B-1-218
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxhhd1VRES0
This is Exhibit “R” to the affidavit of Kipling

431/20
_____________________________________
B-1-218
- 0209 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-219 B-1-219
EXHIBIT “S”
B-1-219
- 0210 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-220 B-1-220
https://canadianrightswatch.com/action4canada-the-win-that-you-thought-was-a-loss/
This is Exhibit “P”

S to the affidavit of Kipling
431/20
_____________________________________
B-1-220
- 0211 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-221 B-1-221
EXHIBIT “T”
B-1-221
- 0212 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-222 B-1-222
cbc.ca
Details emerge of Vaccine Choice

Canada lawsuit over coronavirus
response | CBC News
Colin Butler · CBC News · Posted: Aug 13, 2020 4:00 AM EDT | Last
Updated: August 13, 2020
8–10 minutes
CBC News has obtained an unredacted copy of a lawsuit launched

by an anti-vaccination advocacy group against the government
response to the coronavirus crisis, the details of which can now be
independently verified and publicly reported for the first time.
The lawsuit was filed July 6 in the Ontario Superior Court of

Justice in Toronto by Aylmer, Ont.-based Vaccine Choice Canada
and seven individuals. The legal action is a challenge under
Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the country's
pandemic response measures, including compulsory face masks,
the closure of businesses and the enforcement of physical
distancing.
The plaintiffs are suing the governments of Canada and Ontario,

the City of Toronto, senior politicians, a number of local Ontario
health authorities, health officials and the CBC over their response
to the pandemic.
The suit states that the closure of businesses to prevent the

B-1-222
- 0213 -
spread of the virus was "extreme,
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-223 unwarranted and unjustified," B-1-223
that self-isolation measures imposed on individuals were "not
scientific, nor medically based nor proven" and that the mandatory
wearing of face coverings in some public spaces imposes
"physical and psychological harm."
The lawsuit alleges that the measures violate Sections 2 (right of

association), 7 (life, liberty and security of the person), 8 (unlawful
search and seizure), 9 (arbitrary detention of enforcement officers)
and 15 (equality before and under the law) of the charter.
"The measures ... are further not in accordance with the tenets of
fundamental justice in their overbreadth, nor are they justified
under S.1 of the charter in that they are demonstrably justified in a
free and democratic society," the lawsuit states.
Vaccine Choice Canada describes itself as a

watchdog organization whose mandate is "to empower families to
make educated, voluntary, and informed decisions about
vaccination," but public health authorities have criticized the group
for spreading false or misleading information about vaccines and
immunization.
Names of plaintiffs redacted for fear of harassment
While copies of the 191-page statement of claim exist online, the

names and stories of some of the individual plaintiffs have been
redacted on the documents by the plaintiffs themselves. Social
media posts from Rocco Galati, the lawyer representing the
plaintiffs, said it was done out of precaution to protect the
individuals from harassment.
CBC News has agreed not to name the individuals, who B-1-223
- 0214 -
range from a former professor
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-224 to working parents, a chiropractorB-1-224
and people living with chronic illnesses or disabilities.
No date has been set for when the case will go to court, and it's
unclear whether a judge will allow it to proceed.
The lawsuit is seeking $1 million in general damages and $10

million in punitive damages, plus legal costs.
No statements of defence have been filed in the case.
Legal scholar says lawsuit has claims worth

examining
Among the personal stories contained in the statement of claim is

that of a 23-year-old Hamilton man with autism who has the
emotional capacity of a four-year-old. His guardian claims in the
suit that the man doesn't have the capacity to understand
pandemic health measures, which have "totally mentally
devastated" him by depriving him of his routines and his social and
emotional network.
Another account is of a Mississauga woman who says she can't

wear a mask because it triggers a traumatic memory of having a
mask forcibly held over her face during a sexual assault.
B-1-224
- 0215 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-225 B-1-225
Protesters gather outside the Ontario Legislature in Toronto in May

to demonstrate against government actions related to the
coronavirus pandemic. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)
The claim states the woman is often faced with a choice when she
goes out in public without a mask: risk being embarrassed by
disclosing her private history or be denied service at local
businesses.
"I don't think we need to violate people's privacy or have them

disclose medical conditions, particularly in the context of a private
business," said Jacob Shelley, an assistant professor of health law
and ethics at Western University in London, Ont., who examined
an unredacted copy of the lawsuit provided by CBC News.
"We need to have a discussion about what does it mean to

mandate masks. What does it mean to have everyone wear masks
when you're indoors and you can't socially distance, because I
think there are going to be legitimate instances where people are
going to be unable or unwilling to wear a mask for reasons that
really are their own.
"There's lucid, valid, potential issues that maybe are worth being
adjudicated before the court."
B-1-225
- 0216 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-226 B-1-226
A sign encouraging physical distancing at Union Station in Toronto.

The City of Toronto is one of the parties named in the suit. (Evan
Mitsui/CBC)
Shelley said given the content of the lawsuit, a public debate over
masks risks being overshadowed by other claims that aren't
supported by science.
"The 'pandemic' is false, and the measures phony, designed and

implemented for improper and ulterior purposes, at the behest of
the WHO, controlled and directed by billionaire, corporate
oligarchs," the statement of claim says.
"The plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the evidence is that far
many more people have died as a result of the 'pandemic'
measures themselves than purportedly from the 'COVID-19
deaths,' even if one takes the deaths 'caused' by COVID as a
given."
B-1-226
- 0217 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-227 B-1-227
A sign put up by Ottawa public health authorities specifying mask

rules and who is exempt from them. The lawsuit alleges that
measures such as mandatory mask-wearing are 'extreme,
unwarranted and unjustified' and some may even impose 'physical
and psychological harm.' (Kate Porter/CBC)
Other lawsuit claims
Other claims made in the lawsuit are unrelated to the coronavirus

pandemic.
"Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report

the development of a novel way to record a patient's vaccination
history by using smartphone-readable nano crystals called
'quantum dots,' embedded in the skin using micro-needles. In
short, a vaccine chip embedded in the body. This work and
research are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,"
the lawsuit said.
The statement of claim includes a timeline that begins in the year

2000 when Bill Gates steps down as the head of Microsoft to start
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It also states Gates
B-1-227
- 0218 -
expects a "'twenty-fold' return
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-228 B-1-228
on his $10 billion vaccine investment
within the next few decades."
Included in the timeline are references to the Chinese military, 5G

networks, international vaccine programs and the Rockefeller
Foundation as relevant to the creation and spread of the
coronavirus, but the lawsuit isn't clear on how.
• COVID-19 conspiracy theories creating a 'public health crisis'

in Canada, experts say
• Anti-masking groups draw from anti-vaccination playbook to

spread misinformation
Shelley said including such references in the statement of claim

without providing supporting scientific evidence could ultimately be
what gets the suit dismissed before it goes to trial under Ontario's
rules of civil procedure.
Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati, who is representing plaintiffs in the

B-1-228
- 0219 -
suit, initially agreed to speak
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-229 to CBC News but then did not B-1-229
respond to follow-up requests for comment. (Trevor Hagan/The
Canadian Press)
CBC News reached out multiple times to Galati, who is listed as

the spokesperson for the lawsuit in a press release issued by
Vaccine Choice Canada. He spoke with a reporter last
Wednesday but did not agree to an on-the-record interview.
Galati told CBC News he would be available last Thursday for a

recorded interview but did not respond to requests for comment on
Thursday or the following Monday.
The CBC has also been named as a defendant in the lawsuit for
allegedly propagating misinformation and "false news" about the
coronavirus crisis.
Vaccine Choice Canada has also issued an intent to sue the CBC
over other coverage relating to the anti-vaccination and anti-mask
movements.
B-1-229
- 0220 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-230 B-1-230
EXHIBIT “U”
B-1-230
- 0221 -
B-1-231
- 0222 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-232 B-1-232
B-1-232
- 0223 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-233 B-1-233
B-1-233
- 0224 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-234 B-1-234
B-1-234
- 0225 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-235 B-1-235
EXHIBIT “V”
B-1-235
- 0226 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-236 B-1-236
B-1-236
- 0227 -
B-1-237
- 0228 -
B-1-238
- 0229 -
B-1-239
- 0230 -
B-1-240
- 0231 -
B-1-241
- 0232 -
B-1-242
- 0233 -
B-1-243
- 0234 -
B-1-244
- 0235 -
B-1-245
- 0236 -
B-1-246
- 0237 -
B-1-247
- 0238 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-248 B-1-248
EXHIBIT “W”
B-1-248
- 0239 -
Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial - Canuck Law 2022.08.29, 12:48
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-249 B-1-249
CANUCK LAW
Research, Investigative Journalism, Independent Media (Truth You're Not Getting
Elsewhere)
This is Exhibit “W” to the affidavit of Kipling

431/20
_____________________________________
AUGUST 31, 2021 BY RONNIE
Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally

Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial
https://canucklaw.ca/action4canada-statement-of-claim-fatally-defective-will-never-make-it-to-trial/ B-1-249
Page 1 of 23
- 0240 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-250 B-1-250
Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the
B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian
Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The
Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.
While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with
obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to
Page 2 of 23
- 0241 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-251 B-1-251
challenge it.
Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it
already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor
problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme
Court.
And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer”
could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to
donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was
the point all along.
To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C.
Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way.
And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are
done in that Province.
For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in
all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.
Part 1: Statement of Facts

Part 2: Relief Sought
Part 3: Legal Basis
Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim

Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form
1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
Page 3 of 23
- 0242 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-252 B-1-252
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what
capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.
Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this
Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.
Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally

Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to
be proved.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a
pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents
or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves
material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.
Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada
are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings
are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.
Page 4 of 23
- 0243 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-253 B-1-253
Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended
the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or
dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
.
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).
Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.
1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement

Of Claim
Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not.
Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been
gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a
fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the
exceptionally poor writing alone.
Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it
Page 5 of 23
- 0244 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-254 B-1-254
easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed
full of other information, which complicates things.
Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no
knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being
pleaded.
2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against
each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes,
it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant
and repetitive.
At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.

-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
Page 6 of 23
- 0245 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-255 B-1-255
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3
$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and
organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s
unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they
seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be
expected to figure it out for himself.
On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who
would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?
$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?
3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the
relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is
far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it
mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a
cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.
What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be
relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just
goes through the same demands made earlier.
At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating
the law.
4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document
Page 7 of 23
- 0246 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-256 B-1-256
spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC
should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.
Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to
include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That
may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.
5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation
referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the
documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are
themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and
documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are
devoted to this purpose.
6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay

Proceedings
Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic
Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true.
However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as
witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire
pages.
Page 8 of 23
- 0247 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-257 B-1-257
Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement
and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.
7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par
This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer
fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t
being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and
Kenney is Premier of Alberta.
This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by
themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or
oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised
Statement.
Page 9 of 23
- 0248 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-258 B-1-258
Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert.
Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also
a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning
on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses,
this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).
And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See
page 121.
But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small
victory.
Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011
SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out
Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC
violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.
Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go
to Trial. See here for background information.
Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained
the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by
Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite
having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the
parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.
However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in
bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any
of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court
challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit —
the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments
would notice.
Page 10 of 23
- 0249 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-259 B-1-259
Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to
lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.
(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-
files-records/court-forms/supreme-civil/1-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-
files-records/court-forms/civil_numerically.pdf
(4) https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-
content/uploads/2021/08/21.08.17-FILED-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-Action4Canada.pdf
(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-action4canada-want-more-money-for-
cases-still-not-happening/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWV-xD5sfA&
CANADA, CORRUPTION, GLOBALISM, GRIFTERS, HUMAN RIGHTS, IDENTITY/RELIGION,

NGO/CS, PROCEDURAL
29 Replies to “Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will

Never Make It To Trial”
Andrew
S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 2 1 AT 8 : 4 5 A M
Excellent work Ronnie! I agree with you. Rocco’s controlled opposition.

Thanks for exposing the unfruitful works of darkness again.
Loading...
Page 11 of 23
- 0250 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-260 B-1-260
Heather
S E P T E M B E R 5 , 2 0 2 1 AT 5 : 3 5 P M
I knew it all along. They are SWINDLERS – Tanya Gaw, Rocco Galati and their ‘Jane Doe,’ LL
friends.
Loading...
Heidi
S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 2 1 AT 1 : 2 8 P M
May these dishonest people be richly rewarded for their treasonous acts.
Loading...
Gordon S Watson
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 8 : 4 1 A M
hold on a minute : Tanya Gaw, Ted Kuntz, Linda Morken and others are NOT “dishonest”.
They are babes-in-the-woods who have no idea about how it goes in the legal racket.
Mr Galati, though, is another story. No halfway competent lawyer would put his name on this
piece of garbage. He has taken a third of a million $$s – so far! – for what amounts to a circus
act.
worse : the Plaintiffs have put demselves in jeopardy of being tagged with Costs if/ when this
thing gets dismissed. Not bloody likely those Costs will come out of Rocco Galati’s hide, nor
the pocket of Larry Wong
it would be laughable, but = there is no other, more logical reason this monstrosity is being
promoted, but that it’s CONTRIVED to dis-grace the authentic populist movement to END
THE GOD DAMNED LOCKDOWN
Loading...
Page 12 of 23
- 0251 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-261 B-1-261
Rob
S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 2 1 AT 3 : 2 5 P M
Great assessment.
Loading...
DianeDi
S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 2 1 AT 4 : 3 8 P M
Your work / research is outstanding. I can’t praise you enough for your efforts in trying to help
educate others and with any luck STOP what is about to unfold on the world. My sincere
thanks to you and everything you stand for!
Loading...
Julie Hitchcock
S E P T E M B E R 2 , 2 0 2 1 AT 9 : 1 8 A M
What does this all mean I’m confused
Loading...
Ronnie
S E P T E M B E R 2 , 2 0 2 1 AT 1 2 : 3 4 P M
It means the Statement of Claim has no chance whatsoever of making it to Trial. There are
serious, fundamental issues and violations of the Rules of Civil Procedure for B.C. Supreme
Court. If it’s ever challenged, it will be thrown out. Aside from its length, it’s incredibly poorly
done. Now, this could just be shoddy work, but I suspect it’s deliberate.
Loading...
Page 13 of 23
- 0252 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-262 B-1-262
John Southern
M AY 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 A T 5 : 5 5 A M
It means, if you gave them money. You got played.
Loading...
Jo-Leen
S E P T E M B E R 2 , 2 0 2 1 AT 2 : 0 4 P M
Im still lost. If its poorly done is there still away to fix it because I feel that our charter of rights
and freedoms needs to be enforced. We are being forced to put experimental vaccinations in
our body and I think it is completely wrong.
Loading...
Ronnie
S E P T E M B E R 2 , 2 0 2 1 AT 2 : 2 2 P M
There is a way.
Discontinue this one, draft a proper SoC, then refile.
The point was that this version was written so badly (with all the reasons listed), that it would
never make it to trial as is. It’s too far gone to simply fix with amendments. Then again, it
takes a lot of effort to make a mess like this. It’s not the work of someone serious about taking
down Trudeau, Horgan, Dix, Farnworth and Henry.
Loading...
Page 14 of 23
- 0253 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-263 B-1-263
John
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 5 : 0 7 A M
CSASPP.CA
Loading...
Joan Higgs
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 6 : 2 8 P M
Oh, dear. It doesn’t sound good, though I think the term “controlled opposition gets thrown
around rather loosely.
Loading...
Dingo
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 8 : 5 3 P M
I read the first two paragraphs of the statement of claim and could see straight away this was
useless. at first I thought it was compiled by some ‘sovereign’ group or similar, but it’s been
done by a lawyer FFS!
Here in Australia there are two cases being instituted against the NSW govt for primarily
similar issues, but I fear they are probably doing the same thing – using it as a tactic to make
money.
No court case I have seen has bothered or is bothering to challenge the science govts are
using (which would require expert testimonials) which means the courts will be compelled to
assume the science is sound and will rule against any challenge on grounds of public health
safety.
Now I would pose to serious lawyers who claim to be worth their salt, that if you claim that it
will be too costly to bring in expert scientists who can demonstrate the govts science is faulty,
remember that most of these scientists who have been talking out about this stuff have
Page 15 of 23
- 0254 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-264 B-1-264
everything to lose and nothing to gain by publicly calming the govt science is wrong –
therefore, I do not think the claim that they will be too expensive to testify in court is very
sound, particularly in todays climate where everyone zooms and I see no reason why this
can’t be the case in a court setting
Loading...
Ronnie
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 1 0 : 1 0 P M
Not just any lawyer.

Galati is supposedly “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer”
Loading...
Dingo
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 9 : 0 0 P M
I would also add that any case should be asking for injunctive relief, or declatory relief at
minimum, and not damages.
Loading...
Dingo
S E P T E M B E R 4 , 2 0 2 1 AT 9 : 0 3 P M
“AFL SOLICITORS seek “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF” restraining Minister Brad Hazzard and Dr
Kerry Chant from making any further Orders under section 7 of The Public Health Act 2010
(NSW)”
This filed by Ashley Francina Leonard & Associates.
L di
Page 16 of 23
- 0255 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-265 B-1-265
Loading...
Mike M1A
S E P T E M B E R 5 , 2 0 2 1 AT 8 : 2 9 A M
Yes, keen analytical perception. Remarkable in magnitude of “defective by design” as the

saying goes.
As for being the top constitutional lawyer, this is easily challenged, as not being aware that the
1982 Constitution is illegal, with the corresponding illegal transfer of power, the bogus Queen
and the violation of changing the form of government are only some of the things oblivious to
perception, awareness and acknowledgement.
The Bank of Canada fiasco, was another coup d’etat by anti nation state enemies,
collaborateurs, traitors, and not so evidently is who is in the courts, with the illegal transfer of
power with no recourse to such things as a medical fascist tyranny or treasury bond electronic
debt, compound interest.
People do not realize it is not a pandemic but enforced genocide by bio-weapons aka
vaccines, which are technically not vaccines, additionally, the understanding that supra
national governments or arbitrary proxy and asymmetrical warfare scenarios are fully engaged
in all out war.
Fake news, fake litigation, fake lawyers (with allegiance to a foreign criminal agency and
entity) fake mass media publicity and hype (the star saviour, star lawyer, the plan) are bogus
and detrimental for an individual to be pro-active and accept personal responsibility in addition
to the eventually that all out war must be met with a do or die all multiple choice points in the
time line of empowerment.
getting bogged down with technicalities and lawyers in a social engineering experiment
involving total war and genocide in a theatre or environment that real law and civilized
behaviour is not par for the course, can only be met with pure justice…
of course, some interesting reading is found at : modernfathers1867.wordpress.com and

associated sites….
Page 17 of 23
- 0256 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-266 B-1-266
the idea that the penalty of treason is death and that the penalty of high treason is death was
normal, traditional, effective….
the knights of the round table church members have no problem, any weapon can be a
ceremonial weapon….
forced vaccinations are illegal and represent genocide and war, anyone doing that is an
enemy combatant, engaged in acts of aggression, wars of aggression, they are enemies
foreign and domestic along with mass media that is owned, controlled, voted, edited and
censored by the enemies of nation state sovereignty, our enemies who are at war with us…
now what are you going to do with the sociopath, homicide, genocide maniac, serial killer
terrorist with a bio-weapon? Are you afraid of hate speech now? are you ready to lay down
your life and die, perhaps to some satanic child sacrifice mass murderer with bogus id hiding
behind a fake name, fake character with no morals, values, character, someone that hates
you and all life and has zero reservations or guilt with medical assault with a dangerous
weapon, a bio-weapon? Hmmmm
Loading...
Guffman
S E P T E M B E R 5 , 2 0 2 1 AT 9 : 2 0 P M
So many here ripping this SoC apart… yet none of these legal geniuses are offering up a
better solution as our freedoms and rights are being wrenched away from us. C’mon big
talkers, let’s see your legal prowess!!! I’m guessing I wont see it though, because more than
likely, you’re “all talk, no action”.
At least Tanya and Rocco are TRYING to do something… even if it doesn’t meet your
platinum standard.
Loading...
Connie K
Page 18 of 23
- 0257 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-267 B-1-267
N O V E M B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 1 AT 1 : 4 1 A M
100% agreed. No one else is stepping up. And Canada is way behind the 8 ball for non
compliance. Every small business is going down if they keep this up. Come on Canada, Dont
wait till its too late. Stop Complying Immediatly. And Go Rocco, give it your best shot. Im quite
sure there are many people that could use a hand getting many lawsuits together, so all you
people that have something to say by dissing Rocco should all get your own ass in court, start
charging the criminals and work it for what it is; Criminal corrupt government and medical.
Pure evil.
Loading...
Thomas Kuntz
S E P T E M B E R 6 , 2 0 2 1 AT 11 : 2 7 A M
It is not clear to me who this expert is that is tossing around these accusations. Why aren’t
they providing their name and photo and track record. I suspect if they do that Rocco will have
them for breakfast. They appear to be controlled opposition to me. Identify yourself.
Loading...
Dingo
S E P T E M B E R 6 , 2 0 2 1 AT 1 2 : 0 0 P M
I emailed a constitutional lawyer of 30 yrs an asked him why there are so few court cases
being filed when there is so much conjecture going around, and why those that have been
filed are going nowhere. I highlighted the one exception wherein the Spanish Supreme Court
recently ruled against mandatory vaccine passports. Here was his response (suffice to say, all
the cases close to me in Australia which have all been failing are failing for the same reasons
it appears).
“Court cases on complex subjects are difficult to plan, which requires attorneys with a great
deal of practical experience. When scientific questions are involved, expert testimony is
necessary–which requires attorneys with a sufficient background in the subject-matter to know
Page 19 of 23
- 0258 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-268 B-1-268
how best to use the available experts. All of this costs a great deal (unless the attorneys and
experts can afford to work pro bono publico). Cases of this type can be “cost effective” when
large awards of damages and attorneys’ fees can be obtained; otherwise, not. I could give you
other reasons, too; but these are enough to explain why few cases have been brought so far–
and the few which have show little sign of success so far.”
So this is essentially the problem. In Australia, all the major cases that have not gone
anywhere in recent times were all ruled in favour of govt on grounds of public health and
safety, because, none of these cases challenged the govts science, and until such a
challenge is mounted, the courts are compelled to assume the govts science is sound. You
must demonstrate there is science to the contrary and you need experts to do this.
As for costs, I challenged the lawyer on this. I said (to which I have not had a reply), all the
experts who claim the science the govt is relying on is faulty are coming out at high risk of
losing their licenses, for being banned, censored, persecuted, and yet they still come out
wherever they can. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain which suggests to me,
we shouldn’t just assume they wont be more than happy to testify in court to their science.
Further, with the use of Zoom etc, this should be made even easier. If they are prepared to be
interviewed on alternative media, then they should be more than happy to testify in court.
What is frustrating is that in recent days several cases in Aust have been launched, one was
denied, the other I feel is also going to be denied because they are not going to challenge the
science. I have repeatedly asked them if they plan to challenge the science and I get no
response.
Loading...
Michael Muise
S E P T E M B E R 7 , 2 0 2 1 AT 2 : 3 1 P M
You ‘re a bloody idiot… You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about Moron.. Do you
honestly think a 31 year Constitutional lawyer whose successfully sued politicians in the past
is not going to do his friggin homework, you fucking idiot? Do you think for a moment, that
Gelati would put his impressive career and reputation on the line and represent this civil suit if
he didn’t know what the fuck he was doing you bloody moron? Go back to whatever the hell
Page 20 of 23
- 0259 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-269 B-1-269
you were doing before you got into Law.. Just goes to show you, People can take up training,
education etc and still not have a bloody clue about anything..
Loading...
Gordon S Watson
S E P T E M B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 1 AT 9 : 4 1 P M
perhaps go back and read the actual Claim, Mr Muise. Stooping to profanity only reveals you
don’t have 2 clues to rub together on the issue of how badly-done it is. No ordinary person
could have done such a ridiculous piece of trash : this one took talent
Loading...
DianeDi
S E P T E M B E R 7 , 2 0 2 1 AT 4 : 3 3 P M
Gee, this is one popular post Ronnie – I think you struck a few nerves.
Keep up the great reporting. I think most know by now that Galati (not Gelati as mentioned in
previous comment) is a big time fraud. Time will tell of course, but after all this time and
nothing to show for it, you would think there would be some serious critical thinking going on.
Oh well, the sheep will wait for others to save them – they will be waiting a very long time.
Loading...
Charles Ball
S E P T E M B E R 1 9 , 2 0 2 1 AT 3 : 1 9 P M
The matter is quite simple. The weak link in the chain is Bonnie Henry. As Chief Medical
Officer for the province of B.C. she has failed to carry out her duties as described in the Act
that governs her conduct. Have a lawyer send her a registered letter demanding she exercise
her responsibilities to the B.C. public. If she fails to do so file in the courts and and seek an
Page 21 of 23
- 0260 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-270 B-1-270
order that she act according to her Legislative mandate. If she does not proceed accordingly
she is certainly guilty of acting illegally and her removal can be sought.
Loading...
Karen Selick
J A N U A R Y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 AT 11 : 3 3 A M
The defendants (or one of them) has now brought an application to strike out this entire
Statement of Claim. It’s just unfortunate that the plaintiffs wasted so much money having this
prepared. https://www.scribd.com/document/553277228/2022-01-12-Application-to-strike-
Rocco-Galati-Action4Canada-BC-Suit
Loading...
Ted
J A N U A R Y 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 AT 3 : 0 7 P M
Common Law is the way this lawsuit should be done.

The court system they have now is corrupt and I’m sure every lawyer knows this.
Loading...
Ted Beck
J A N U A R Y 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 AT 3 : 0 4 P M
Why go through these corrupt courts ? Common Law is the way to go with these corrupt
criminals.
Look at awarriorcalls , Common Law is the way this lawsuit should be filed.
Loading...
Page 22 of 23
- 0261 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-271 B-1-271
Page 23 of 23
- 0262 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-272 B-1-272
EXHIBIT “X”
B-1-272
- 0263 -
B-1-273
- 0264 -
B-1-274
- 0265 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-275 B-1-275
EXHIBIT “Y”
B-1-275
- 0266 -
B-1-276
- 0267 -
B-1-277
- 0268 -
B-1-278
- 0269 -
B-1-279
- 0270 -
B-1-280
- 0271 -
B-1-281
- 0272 -
B-1-282
- 0273 -
B-1-283
- 0274 -
B-1-284
- 0275 -
B-1-285
- 0276 -
B-1-286
- 0277 -
B-1-287
- 0278 -
B-1-288
- 0279 -
B-1-289
- 0280 -
B-1-290
- 0281 -
B-1-291
- 0282 -
B-1-292
- 0283 -
B-1-293
- 0284 -
B-1-294
- 0285 -
B-1-295
- 0286 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-296 B-1-296
EXHIBIT “Z”
B-1-296
- 0287 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-297 B-1-297
B-1-297
- 0288 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-298 B-1-298
B-1-298
- 0289 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-299 B-1-299
B-1-299
- 0290 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-300 B-1-300
B-1-300
- 0291 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-301 B-1-301
B-1-301
- 0292 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-302 B-1-302
B-1-302
- 0293 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-303 B-1-303
B-1-303
- 0294 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-304 B-1-304
B-1-304
- 0295 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-305 B-1-305
EXHIBIT “AA”
B-1-305
- 0296 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-306 B-1-306
This is Exhibit "AA” to the affidavit of

Reg 431/20
______________________________
B-1-306
- 0297 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-307 B-1-307
B-1-307
- 0298 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-308 B-1-308
B-1-308
- 0299 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-309 B-1-309
B-1-309
- 0300 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-310 B-1-310
B-1-310
- 0301 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-311 B-1-311
B-1-311
- 0302 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-312 B-1-312
EXHIBIT “BB”
B-1-312
- 0303 -
B-1-313
- 0304 -
B-1-314
- 0305 -
B-1-315
- 0306 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-316 B-1-316
EXHIBIT “CC”
B-1-316
- 0307 -
B-1-317
- 0308 -
B-1-318
- 0309 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-319 B-1-319
EXHIBIT “DD”
B-1-319
- 0310 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-320 B-1-320
B-1-320
- 0311 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-321 B-1-321
B-1-321
- 0312 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-322 B-1-322
B-1-322
- 0313 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-323 B-1-323
B-1-323
- 0314 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-324 B-1-324
B-1-324
- 0315 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-325 B-1-325
EXHIBIT “EE”
B-1-325
- 0316 -
B-1-326
- 0317 -
B-1-327
- 0318 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-328 B-1-328
EXHIBIT “FF”
B-1-328
- 0319 -
B-1-329
- 0320 -
B-1-330
- 0321 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-331 B-1-331
EXHIBIT “GG”
B-1-331
- 0322 -
B-1-332
- 0323 -
B-1-333
- 0324 -
B-1-334
- 0325 -
B-1-335
- 0326 -
B-1-336
- 0327 -
B-1-337
- 0328 -
B-1-338
- 0329 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-339 B-1-339
EXHIBIT “HH”
B-1-339
- 0330 -
B-1-340
- 0331 -
B-1-341
- 0332 -
B-1-342
- 0333 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-343 B-1-343
EXHIBIT “II”
B-1-343
- 0334 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-344 B-1-344
B-1-344
- 0335 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-345 B-1-345
B-1-345
- 0336 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-346 B-1-346
EXHIBIT “JJ”
B-1-346
- 0337 -
B-1-347
- 0338 -
B-1-348
- 0339 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-349 B-1-349
EXHIBIT “KK”
B-1-349
- 0340 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-350 B-1-350
B-1-350
- 0341 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-351 B-1-351
B-1-351
- 0342 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-352 B-1-352
EXHIBIT “LL”
B-1-352
- 0343 -
B-1-353
- 0344 -
B-1-354
- 0345 -
B-1-355
- 0346 -
B-1-356
- 0347 -
B-1-357
- 0348 -
B-1-358
- 0349 -
B-1-359
- 0350 -
B-1-360
- 0351 -
B-1-361
- 0352 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-362 B-1-362
EXHIBIT “MM”
B-1-362
- 0353 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-363 B-1-363
B-1-363
- 0354 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-364 B-1-364
B-1-364
- 0355 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-365 B-1-365
B-1-365
- 0356 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-366 B-1-366
B-1-366
- 0357 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-367 B-1-367
B-1-367
- 0358 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-368 B-1-368
EXHIBIT “NN”
B-1-368
- 0359 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-369 B-1-369
B-1-369
- 0360 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-370 B-1-370
B-1-370
- 0361 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-371 B-1-371
B-1-371
- 0362 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-372 B-1-372
B-1-372
- 0363 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-373 B-1-373
B-1-373
- 0364 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-374 B-1-374
B-1-374
- 0365 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-375 B-1-375
B-1-375
- 0366 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-376 B-1-376
EXHIBIT “OO”
B-1-376
- 0367 -
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 15:53:53 Eastern Standard Time
B-1-377
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-377
Subject: Fwd: GoFundMe Message Response

Date: Friday, September 23, 2022 at 4:41:21 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time
From: Robyn Hill
To: kip@theverHgo.com
This is Exhibit “OO” to the affidavit of
Sent from my iPhone January, 2023, in accordance with O Reg
431/20
_________________________________
From: Robyn Hill <robyn_r_c@hotmail.com> Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C
Date: May 24, 2021 at 6:51:32 PM PDT
To: 22+18ej3il@replyto.gofundme.com
Subject: Re: GoFundMe Message Response
Hi Penny,
I can confirm the lawsuit has been filed and is moving ahead. You can see proof of that with the filing
stamp on the top of the NoTce of Civil Claim. You will find that and all other informaTon on the
updates secTon, on the campaign page (including the Cease and Desist leWer).
Please keep checking the campaign page periodically for announcements. The team has been focusing
their resources on the substanTve work at the court house, but will have a website and Facebook page
up shortly.
As to the other people and groups you have menToned we are not affiliated with them, but do work
closely with the JCCF and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich.
Thank you for helping to raise awareness, it is very much appreciated by the team.
Sincerely Robyn Hill
Sent from my iPhone
On May 24, 2021, at 3:47 AM, GoFundMe <messages@gofundme.com> wrote:
** To respond directly to this message, simply click the 'Reply' buWon **
From: pmr4119@gmail.com
PLEASE NOTE: The message below is NOT from GoFundMe, but rather an individual who
visited and contacted you through your campaign. GoFundMe has not verified the
message's content, so we strongly discourage you from clicking links or sharing your
account email address or other personal informaTon without first verifying the sender's
idenTty. GoFundMe will never ask for your account email address, password, or payment
informaTon in this manner. Do not respond if you are being offered a wire transfer or
asked for a refund outside of GoFundMe. Please forward all suspicious messages to
abuse@gofundme.com.
Visitor Message from pmr4119@gmail.com:
(Re: A thank you note from Robyn)

B-1-377
Page 1 of 2
- 0368 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-378 B-1-378
Hello, Robyn
It is I who thank you for being part of bringing this lawsuit forward.
I had not heard about it unTl yesterday, but was so very thankful when I
did. (I learned about it through 'AwakeCanada.org" . Over the course of
this week, I will be trying to raise the awareness of people across Canada,
through fB groups which have memberships from coast-to-coast.
We (the general public) are having a hard Tme keeping abreast of what is
happening with the various court cases. (We are all very aware that our
very liberty might well hinge on the results. ) *Could you please confirm
for me that this lawsuit is actually "filed" and moving ahead? *
Have you connected yet with "AcTon4Canada"? I am going to assume that you
have, but , to date, I have not seen AcTon4Canada menTon this in their
bulleTns.
BTW : I am a long-Tme paTent of Dr. Charles Hoffe, one of the doctors

featured in the video , "Canadian Doctors Speak Out". Dr. Hoffe has felt
the full wrath of the Health AuthoriTes for speaking his truth. (Again, I
am going to assume that you have heard about this -- he was widely
interviewed (Laura Lynn TV, etc. ).
Have you yourself contacted "Laura Lynn TV"? I am very confident that
she/they would like to interview you.
Sincerely,
Penny Reid, Kamloops, BC
**END OF MESSAGE**
--------
Sent from GoFundMe's Headquarters:

855 Jefferson Ave, PO Box 1329, Redwood City, CA 94063
B-1-378
Page 2 of 2
- 0369 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-379 B-1-379
EXHIBIT “PP”
B-1-379
- 0370 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-380 B-1-380
This is Exhibit “PP” to the affidavit of Kipling
January, 2023, in accordance with O Reg 431/20
_____________________________________
Electronically issued A Commissioner for taking affidavits,
: 06-Jul-2020
Délivré par voie électronique Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C
Toronto
B-1-380
- 0371 -
Electronically issued / Délivré par voie électronique : 06-Jul-2020 Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe: CV-20-00643451-0000
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-381 B-1-381
B-1-381
- 0372 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-382 B-1-382
B-1-382
- 0373 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-383 B-1-383
B-1-383
- 0374 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-384 B-1-384
B-1-384
- 0375 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-385 B-1-385
B-1-385
- 0376 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-386 B-1-386
B-1-386
- 0377 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-387 B-1-387
B-1-387
- 0378 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-388 B-1-388
B-1-388
- 0379 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-389 B-1-389
B-1-389
- 0380 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-390 B-1-390
B-1-390
- 0381 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-391 B-1-391
B-1-391
- 0382 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-392 B-1-392
B-1-392
- 0383 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-393 B-1-393
B-1-393
- 0384 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-394 B-1-394
B-1-394
- 0385 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-395 B-1-395
B-1-395
- 0386 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-396 B-1-396
B-1-396
- 0387 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-397 B-1-397
B-1-397
- 0388 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-398 B-1-398
B-1-398
- 0389 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-399 B-1-399
B-1-399
- 0390 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-400 B-1-400
B-1-400
- 0391 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-401 B-1-401
B-1-401
- 0392 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-402 B-1-402
B-1-402
- 0393 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-403 B-1-403
B-1-403
- 0394 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-404 B-1-404
B-1-404
- 0395 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-405 B-1-405
B-1-405
- 0396 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-406 B-1-406
B-1-406
- 0397 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-407 B-1-407
B-1-407
- 0398 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-408 B-1-408
B-1-408
- 0399 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-409 B-1-409
B-1-409
- 0400 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-410 B-1-410
B-1-410
- 0401 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-411 B-1-411
B-1-411
- 0402 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-412 B-1-412
B-1-412
- 0403 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-413 B-1-413
B-1-413
- 0404 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-414 B-1-414
B-1-414
- 0405 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-415 B-1-415
B-1-415
- 0406 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-416 B-1-416
B-1-416
- 0407 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-417 B-1-417
B-1-417
- 0408 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-418 B-1-418
B-1-418
- 0409 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-419 B-1-419
B-1-419
- 0410 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-420 B-1-420
B-1-420
- 0411 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-421 B-1-421
B-1-421
- 0412 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-422 B-1-422
B-1-422
- 0413 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-423 B-1-423
B-1-423
- 0414 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-424 B-1-424
B-1-424
- 0415 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-425 B-1-425
B-1-425
- 0416 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-426 B-1-426
B-1-426
- 0417 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-427 B-1-427
B-1-427
- 0418 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-428 B-1-428
B-1-428
- 0419 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-429 B-1-429
B-1-429
- 0420 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-430 B-1-430
B-1-430
- 0421 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-431 B-1-431
B-1-431
- 0422 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-432 B-1-432
B-1-432
- 0423 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-433 B-1-433
B-1-433
- 0424 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-434 B-1-434
B-1-434
- 0425 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-435 B-1-435
B-1-435
- 0426 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-436 B-1-436
B-1-436
- 0427 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-437 B-1-437
B-1-437
- 0428 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-438 B-1-438
B-1-438
- 0429 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-439 B-1-439
B-1-439
- 0430 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-440 B-1-440
B-1-440
- 0431 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-441 B-1-441
B-1-441
- 0432 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-442 B-1-442
B-1-442
- 0433 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-443 B-1-443
B-1-443
- 0434 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-444 B-1-444
B-1-444
- 0435 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-445 B-1-445
B-1-445
- 0436 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-446 B-1-446
B-1-446
- 0437 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-447 B-1-447
B-1-447
- 0438 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-448 B-1-448
B-1-448
- 0439 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-449 B-1-449
B-1-449
- 0440 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-450 B-1-450
B-1-450
- 0441 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-451 B-1-451
B-1-451
- 0442 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-452 B-1-452
B-1-452
- 0443 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-453 B-1-453
B-1-453
- 0444 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-454 B-1-454
B-1-454
- 0445 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-455 B-1-455
B-1-455
- 0446 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-456 B-1-456
B-1-456
- 0447 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-457 B-1-457
B-1-457
- 0448 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-458 B-1-458
B-1-458
- 0449 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-459 B-1-459
B-1-459
- 0450 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-460 B-1-460
B-1-460
- 0451 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-461 B-1-461
B-1-461
- 0452 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-462 B-1-462
B-1-462
- 0453 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-463 B-1-463
B-1-463
- 0454 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-464 B-1-464
B-1-464
- 0455 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-465 B-1-465
B-1-465
- 0456 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-466 B-1-466
B-1-466
- 0457 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-467 B-1-467
B-1-467
- 0458 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-468 B-1-468
B-1-468
- 0459 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-469 B-1-469
B-1-469
- 0460 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-470 B-1-470
B-1-470
- 0461 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-471 B-1-471
B-1-471
- 0462 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-472 B-1-472
B-1-472
- 0463 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-473 B-1-473
B-1-473
- 0464 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-474 B-1-474
B-1-474
- 0465 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-475 B-1-475
B-1-475
- 0466 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-476 B-1-476
B-1-476
- 0467 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-477 B-1-477
B-1-477
- 0468 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-478 B-1-478
B-1-478
- 0469 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-479 B-1-479
B-1-479
- 0470 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-480 B-1-480
B-1-480
- 0471 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-481 B-1-481
B-1-481
- 0472 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-482 B-1-482
B-1-482
- 0473 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-483 B-1-483
B-1-483
- 0474 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-484 B-1-484
B-1-484
- 0475 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-485 B-1-485
B-1-485
- 0476 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-486 B-1-486
B-1-486
- 0477 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-487 B-1-487
B-1-487
- 0478 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-488 B-1-488
B-1-488
- 0479 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-489 B-1-489
B-1-489
- 0480 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-490 B-1-490
B-1-490
- 0481 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-491 B-1-491
B-1-491
- 0482 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-492 B-1-492
B-1-492
- 0483 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-493 B-1-493
B-1-493
- 0484 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-494 B-1-494
B-1-494
- 0485 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-495 B-1-495
B-1-495
- 0486 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-496 B-1-496
B-1-496
- 0487 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-497 B-1-497
B-1-497
- 0488 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-498 B-1-498
B-1-498
- 0489 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-499 B-1-499
B-1-499
- 0490 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-500 B-1-500
B-1-500
- 0491 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-501 B-1-501
B-1-501
- 0492 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-502 B-1-502
B-1-502
- 0493 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-503 B-1-503
B-1-503
- 0494 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-504 B-1-504
B-1-504
- 0495 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-505 B-1-505
B-1-505
- 0496 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-506 B-1-506
B-1-506
- 0497 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-507 B-1-507
B-1-507
- 0498 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-508 B-1-508
B-1-508
- 0499 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-509 B-1-509
B-1-509
- 0500 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-510 B-1-510
B-1-510
- 0501 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-511 B-1-511
B-1-511
- 0502 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-512 B-1-512
B-1-512
- 0503 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-513 B-1-513
B-1-513
- 0504 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-514 B-1-514
B-1-514
- 0505 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-515 B-1-515
B-1-515
- 0506 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-516 B-1-516
B-1-516
- 0507 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-517 B-1-517
B-1-517
- 0508 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-518 B-1-518
B-1-518
- 0509 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-519 B-1-519
B-1-519
- 0510 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-520 B-1-520
B-1-520
- 0511 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-521 B-1-521
B-1-521
- 0512 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-522 B-1-522
B-1-522
- 0513 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-523 B-1-523
B-1-523
- 0514 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-524 B-1-524
B-1-524
- 0515 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-525 B-1-525
B-1-525
- 0516 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-526 B-1-526
B-1-526
- 0517 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-527 B-1-527
B-1-527
- 0518 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-528 B-1-528
B-1-528
- 0519 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-529 B-1-529
B-1-529
- 0520 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-530 B-1-530
B-1-530
- 0521 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-531 B-1-531
B-1-531
- 0522 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-532 B-1-532
B-1-532
- 0523 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-533 B-1-533
B-1-533
- 0524 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-534 B-1-534
B-1-534
- 0525 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-535 B-1-535
B-1-535
- 0526 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-536 B-1-536
B-1-536
- 0527 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-537 B-1-537
B-1-537
- 0528 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-538 B-1-538
B-1-538
- 0529 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-539 B-1-539
B-1-539
- 0530 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-540 B-1-540
B-1-540
- 0531 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-541 B-1-541
B-1-541
- 0532 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-542 B-1-542
B-1-542
- 0533 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-543 B-1-543
B-1-543
- 0534 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-544 B-1-544
B-1-544
- 0535 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-545 B-1-545
B-1-545
- 0536 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-546 B-1-546
B-1-546
- 0537 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-547 B-1-547
B-1-547
- 0538 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-548 B-1-548
B-1-548
- 0539 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-549 B-1-549
B-1-549
- 0540 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-550 B-1-550
B-1-550
- 0541 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-551 B-1-551
B-1-551
- 0542 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-552 B-1-552
B-1-552
- 0543 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-553 B-1-553
B-1-553
- 0544 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-554 B-1-554
B-1-554
- 0545 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-555 B-1-555
B-1-555
- 0546 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-556 B-1-556
B-1-556
- 0547 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-557 B-1-557
B-1-557
- 0548 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-558 B-1-558
B-1-558
- 0549 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-559 B-1-559
B-1-559
- 0550 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-560 B-1-560
B-1-560
- 0551 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-561 B-1-561
B-1-561
- 0552 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-562 B-1-562
B-1-562
- 0553 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-563 B-1-563
B-1-563
- 0554 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-564 B-1-564
B-1-564
- 0555 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-565 B-1-565
B-1-565
- 0556 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-566 B-1-566
B-1-566
- 0557 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-567 B-1-567
B-1-567
- 0558 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-568 B-1-568
B-1-568
- 0559 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-569 B-1-569
B-1-569
- 0560 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-570 B-1-570
B-1-570
- 0561 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-571 B-1-571
EXHIBIT “QQ”
B-1-571
- 0562 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-572 B-1-572
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y0qU-p0xQU&
This is Exhibit “QQ”

“R” to the affidavit of Kipling
431/20
_____________________________________
B-1-572
- 0563 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-573 B-1-573
EXHIBIT “RR”
B-1-573
- 0564 -
4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-574 B-1-5
B-1-5
4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-575 B-1-5
B-1-5
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-576 B-1-576
EXHIBIT “SS”
B-1-576
- 0567 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-577 B-1-577
B-1-577
- 0568 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-578 B-1-578
B-1-578
- 0569 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-579 B-1-579
B-1-579
- 0570 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-580 B-1-580
B-1-580
- 0571 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-581 B-1-581
B-1-581
- 0572 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-582 B-1-582
EXHIBIT “TT”
B-1-582
- 0573 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-583 B-1-583
Federal Court Cour fédérale
Date: 20120228
Docket: T-1700-11

Ottawa, Ontario, February 28, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
DAVID SIVAK, LUCI BAJZOVA, MONIKA

SIVAK, LUCIE BAJZOVA, MIROSLAV
SARKOZI, ANDREJ BALOG, ZANETA
BALOGOVA, GALINA BALOGOVA, VIKTOR
SARKOZI, ANDREJ BALOG, ANDREJ
This is Exhibit “TT” to the affidavit of BALOG, MARIE BALOGOVA, LUKAS
Kipling Warner affirmed before me BALOG, MILAN LASAB, MILADA
videoconference this 26th day of LASABOYA, and ELVIS KULASIC
Reg 431/20 Plaintiffs
and
________________________________
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
THE MOTION
[1] I have before me a motion by the Defendants to strike portions of the Plaintiffs’ Amended
Statement of Claim. I heard this motion in conjunction with a motion by the Plaintiffs seeking
certification as a class action and, to some extent, both motions need to be considered together.
B-1-583
- 0574 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-584 B-1-584
Page: 2
[2] By way of judgment, dated March 31, 2011, I converted the Plaintiffs’ previous judicial
review application into an action pursuant to subsection 18.4(2) of the Federal Courts Act, directing
that henceforth the judicial review would be treated and proceeded with as an action.

[3] Since actions are commenced by way of Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs filed their most
recent Amended Statement of Claim (Claim) on October 19, 2011, and it is this document against
which the Defendants’ strike motion is directed.
[4] The Defendants do not seek to strike the Claim in its entirety. They acknowledge the
importance of resolving as quickly as possible the dispute between the parties concerning
procedural fairness, natural justice, and the validity of the Fact-Finding Mission Report on State
Protection Czech Republic, dated June 2009 (2009 Report) in so far as the 2009 Report relates to
the Refugee Protection Division’s (RPD) decision-making process. What the Defendants object to
are those portions of the Claim that deal with tort allegations, as well as a few more peripheral
matters which they say do not comply with the rules and jurisprudence that govern pleadings in this
Court.
OVERVIEW
[5] After reviewing the Claim, my general conclusion is that the impugned portions are, as the
Defendants allege, often little more than bald accusations which the Plaintiffs have attempted to
bolster with colourful rhetoric and irrelevant asides instead of providing a real basis of fact. For
example, a passage such as
B-1-584
- 0575 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-585 B-1-585
Page: 3
there is no doubt, in the minds of anyone involved with refugees,

particularly the members of the immigration bar, as well as notable
NGOs, that this “June, 2009 Report” was manufactured by the IRB,
as a means of appeasing the Minister, in order to base negative
findings and refugee determinations, which would reduce the
acceptance rates of Czech Roma

is a statement of what the Plaintiffs hope to prove, but it also reveals that the Plaintiffs are short of
facts to support their case, and so have to fall back upon the alleged omniscience of the
“immigration bar” and “anyone involved with refugees.” I do not see anywhere in the rules that
govern pleadings that facts can be dispensed with provided plaintiff or defendant invokes the
oracular powers of their own counsel and his or her cohorts at the bar.
[6] This matter was converted to an action because it raised important matters of possible
institutional bias that I felt could not be assessed on judicial review given the limited record
available to the Court. Since conversion, the Plaintiffs have broadened the scope of their objectives
and now wish to accuse the Canadian government of conspiring to deprive them, and other Czech
Roma, of their rights under our immigration system. If the Plaintiffs wish to launch such an attack
they must proceed efficiently and effectively.
[7] To proceed efficiently and effectively both sides must abide by and follow the Federal
Courts Rules (Rules) which were promulgated precisely for this purpose. At this stage in the
proceedings the Plaintiffs must comply with the rules that govern the form and content of pleadings.
In my view, the Plaintiffs have not done this with their Claim, and the result is that this action has
already taken much longer than it should have taken to reach this stage. The issues raised by the
Plaintiffs have a significance for many other extant and future refugee claims, and the system could
easily become trammelled as other claims are held in abeyance to await the outcome of this action.
B-1-585
- 0576 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-586 B-1-586
Page: 4
This situation gives rise to an even greater need for efficiency and effectiveness than might
otherwise be the case. Hence, from this point on, the Court will look to counsel on both sides to do
everything in their power to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of
this dispute on its merits.

[8] Deficient pleadings do not promote the just, most expeditious and least expensive
determination on the merits. In fact, they promote the opposite, which is why it is important that the
objections to the Claim be dealt with quickly and that timelines be set to achieve the remaining steps
needed to carry this dispute to a resolution.
THE MOTION TO STRIKE
[9] Rather than request particulars, the Defendants have brought a motion to strike some
portions of the Claim. After hearing the differences between counsel on these matters, I do not think
the Defendants are being premature or heavy-handed. The wide disparity of views between the
parties over what is required of pleadings means that the Court’s early involvement is to be
preferred.
The Applicable Rules
[10] I see no dispute between the parties concerning the applicable rules and principles that
govern pleadings. The Plaintiffs simply allege that they have complied with the law and that their
Claim as presently drafted is sufficient.
B-1-586
- 0577 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-587 B-1-587
Page: 5
[11] The two principal functions of pleadings are to clearly define the issues between litigants
and to give fair notice of the case which has to be met by the other side. See Cerqueira v Ontario,
2010 ONSC 3954.

[12] Rule 174 requires that every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proven.
[13] Rule 181 requires that a pleading “shall contain particulars of every allegation contained
therein.”
[14] Pursuant to subsection 221(1) of the Rules, a defendant may bring a motion to strike out all
or some of a statement of claim on the following grounds:
a. It discloses no reasonable cause of action;
b. It is immaterial, or redundant; or
c. It is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.
[15] The test in Canada to strike out a pleading under Rule 221 of the Rules is whether it is plain
and obvious on the facts pleaded that the action cannot succeed. In this regard, the Supreme Court
of Canada has noted that the power to strike out a statement of claim is a “valuable housekeeping
measure essential to effective and a fair litigation.” See Hunt v Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 SCR
959 and R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. 2011 SCC 42, at paragraphs 17 and 19.
B-1-587
- 0578 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-588 B-1-588
Page: 6
[16] In determining whether a cause of action exists, the following principles are to be
considered:
a. The material facts pled are to be taken as proven, unless the alleged facts are based
on assumptive or speculative conclusions which are incapable of proof;

b. If the facts, taken as proven, disclose a reasonable cause of action, that is, one with
some chance of success, then the action may proceed; and
c. The statement of claim must be read as generously as possible, with a view to
accommodating any inadequacies in the form of the allegations due to drafting
deficiencies.
See Operation Dismantle Inc. v Canada, [1985] 1 SCR 441.
[17] These basic principles have acquired a fairly heavy gloss of case law over the years as the
Court has applied them to particular sets of pleadings. I think it might be helpful at this stage to set
out some of the more basic guidelines that have emerged from the cases that I believe have
relevance for this motion.
Rule 174
[18] In Baird v Canada 2006 FC 205; affirmed 2007 FCA 48, a statement of claim was held to
be fatally flawed where it did not specify a time when the offending activities giving rise to the
causes of action took place. Nor did it specify which Crown servant did something wrong. The
pleadings were allegations and conclusions, and did not provide the essential facts grounding the
cause of action.
B-1-588
- 0579 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-589 B-1-589
Page: 7
[19] In Sunsolar Energy Technologies (S.E.T.) Inc. v Flexible Solutions International Inc. 2004
FC 1205, this Court concluded that in order to implead corporate officers and directors, actual
actions of personal conduct must be pleaded. A bare assertion of conclusion is not an allegation of
material fact, nor can it support a cause of action against an individual defendant. Nor can it be pled

that it is a “reasonable conclusion” that an individual was implicated to a sufficient extent to support
a finding of deliberate acts. To hold otherwise is to turn an action into a fishing expedition.
[20] Conohan v The Cooperators, [2002] 3 FC 421, 2002 FCA 60 makes the often repeated point
that it is sufficient for a party to plead the material facts. Counsel is then at liberty to present in
argument any legal consequences which the facts support.
[21] The importance of pleading facts is asserted again in Johnson v Canada (Royal Canadian
Mounted Police) 2002 FCT 917, where the Court reiterated that it is not sufficient for a claim to
contain assertions without facts upon which to base those assertions. In Johnson, this meant that a
plea of breach of agreement must allege the relevant terms that have been breached, and a plea of
breach of fiduciary duty must identify the material facts alleged to give rise to the existence of the
duty and the breach.
[22] Kastner v Painblanc (1994), 58 CPR (3d) 502, 176 NR 68 (Fed. CA) emphasizes the
important general point that an action is not a fishing expedition and that a plaintiff who starts
proceedings in the hope that something will turn up abuses the Court’s process.
B-1-589
- 0580 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-590 B-1-590
Page: 8
Rule 181
[23] Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 389, makes it clear that
the purpose of pleadings is to define the matters at issue between the parties, but the purpose of

particulars is different. Particulars are meant to provide the opposing party with sufficient
information of the allegations being advanced so that it might know the case to be met at trial and to
prepare a full and meaningful response. If a pleading is not good as a matter of law, particulars
cannot save it. If it is not good as a matter of pleading, particulars will not improve it. These
distinctions are of significance in the present case because Plaintiffs’ counsel often took the position
before me that this motion to strike is not appropriate because the Defendants have not asked for
particulars and, if the Claim as pled is in any way defective, such defects can be remedied by the
Court simply ordering particulars.
[24] Paul v Kingsclear Indian Band (1997), 137 FTR 275 (TD), however, establishes clearly that
there is no obligation on a defendant to demand particulars and a plaintiff cannot cure an otherwise
deficient statement of claim by arguing that defendant has not sought particulars.
Rule 221
[25] Edell v Canada (Revenue Agency), [2010] GSTC 9, 2010 FCA 26, reaffirms the
fundamental rule that in a motion to strike the Court is narrowly limited to assessing the threshold
issue of whether a genuine issue exists as to material facts requiring a trial. All allegations of fact,
B-1-590
- 0581 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-591 B-1-591
Page: 9
unless patently ridiculous or incapable of proof, must be accepted as proved. The defendant who
seeks summary dismissal bears the evidentiary burden of showing the lack of a genuine issue.
[26] The fundamental rule, however, must take into account that no cause of action can exist

where no material facts are alleged against the defendant. See Chavali v Canada 2002 FCA 209.
[27] Apotex Inc. v Glaxo Group Ltd, 2001 FCT 1351 teaches that the Court should generally
refuse to strike out “surplus statements” that are not prejudicial. Doubt is to be resolved in favour of
permitting the pleading so that relevant evidence in support of the pleading may be brought before
the trial judge.
[28] Also, while the Court is not required to re-draft pleadings, it must examine defective
pleadings to determine if they could be saved through proper amendments. See Sweet v Canada
(1999), 249 NR 17 (Fed. CA).
[29] Even though, if there is any doubt, paragraphs in the pleadings should be left in so that
evidence may be brought before the trial judge, this does not mean that redundant or immaterial
paragraphs outlining the evidence should remain in the pleadings. See Mathias v The Queen, [1980]
2 FC 813 (TD).
[30] Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 reiterates the well-recognized premise that a
scandalous, vexatious or frivolous action includes an action where the pleadings are so deficient in
factual material that the defendant cannot know how to answer. This is echoed again in Murray v
B-1-591
- 0582 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-592 B-1-592
Page: 10
Canada (1978), 21 NR 230 (Fed. CA). A claim that does not sufficiently reveal the facts upon
which a cause of action is based, such that it is not possible for the defendant to answer or the Court
to regulate the action, is a vexatious action.

[31] There are many cases that hold that an action cannot be brought on speculation in the hope
that sufficient facts may be gleaned on discovery to support the allegations made in the pleadings.
See, for example, AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v Novopharm Ltd. 2009 FC 1209; appeal dismissed
2010 FCA 112.
[32] In fact, it is an abuse of process for a plaintiff to start proceedings in the hope that something
will turn up. A plaintiff should not be permitted to discover the defendant to pursue such an action.
See Kastner, above.
[33] I think it is also well-established that the rule that material facts in a statement of claim must
be taken as true in determining whether a reasonable cause of action is disclosed does not require
that allegations based upon assumptions and speculation be taken as true. See Operation Dismantle,
above.
B-1-592
- 0583 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-593 B-1-593
Page: 11
GROUNDS
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
[34] The Defendants say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be struck from the Claim as

he is not a proper or necessary party; nor is he vicariously liable for acts or omissions of employees
at visa posts abroad.
[35] Paragraph 104(1)(a) of the Rules authorizes the Court to order that a person who is not a
proper or necessary party shall cease to be a party to an action. A person is only considered a
necessary party where he or she would be bound by the results of the action, and where there is a
question in the action “which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.” The
Defendants say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not fall into either category. Furthermore,
where the Plaintiffs’ Claim does not seek relief against a defendant, and makes no allegations
against him, that defendant is not a necessary party.
[36] The Defendants say that, in the present case, the Claim does not disclose any material facts
that establish wrongdoing on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or that support a cause of
action against him. The Claim contains only bald allegations respecting this defendant which are
asserted in the form of conclusions. In fact, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is referred to only twice
in the Claim: once in paragraph 7(b)(ii), which describes the Minister as a party while making
allegations against his staff, and again in paragraph 23 in which the Plaintiffs conclude, without any
supporting facts, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs “conspired with and facilitated in the
manufacturing of the June 2009 Report.” It is possible that the Plaintiffs are also referring to the
B-1-593
- 0584 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-594 B-1-594
Page: 12
Minister of Foreign Affairs in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Claim, which allege a “Ministerial and
IRB effort to attempt to be rid of the Roma problem” and a “Ministerial and RPD conspiracy.”
However, the term “Ministerial” is not defined in the Claim and no facts are pled to support the
conclusions in those paragraphs. Therefore, it is entirely unclear how the Minister of Foreign Affairs

is implicated in any alleged wrongdoing.
[37] Furthermore, the Defendants say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not vicariously liable
for the acts or omissions of the staff members at the embassies and visa posts abroad. While unclear
from the vague language in the Claim, the Plaintiffs appear to make this allegation at paragraph
7(b)(ii). The Minister of Foreign Affairs, however, is himself a Crown servant when acting in his
official capacity. An individual Crown servant is not vicariously liable for the torts of subordinate
Crown servants. This also applies to the statement at paragraph 7(b)(iii) in which the Plaintiffs claim
that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is liable for the actions of his employees and staff.
[38] Based on the foregoing, the Defendants say that the Claim does not comply with Rules 174
and 181 respecting the allegations against the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He should be removed as
a party to the within action and the Claim should be amended accordingly. In addition, the portions
of paragraph 7(b) alleging vicarious liability on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should be struck.
[39] In response, the Plaintiffs argue that, with respect to paragraphs 9 to 23 of the Defendants’
submissions:
B-1-594
- 0585 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-595 B-1-595
Page: 13
a. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in statutorily charged with overseeing, inter alia, the
operations of Canada’s embassies and the foreign missions, including the issuance of
visas when visa requirements are imposed;
b. Questions with respect to the contact of the two researchers who drafted the “June,

2009 Issue Paper”, and the Canadian Embassy were refused answered;
c. The Plaintiffs plead, as a fact, that both the Minister of Citizenship and Foreign
Affairs, conspired to:
(i) Engage in an agreement for the use of lawful and unlawful means, and
conduct, the predominant purpose of which is to cause injury to the
Plaintiffs, and all other Canadians (sic); and/or
(ii) To engage in an agreement, to use unlawful means and conduct, whose
predominant purpose and conduct directed at the Plaintiffs, and all other
Czech Roma, is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs and all other Czech Roma, or
the Defendants’ officials should know, in the circumstances, that injury to
the Plaintiffs, and all other Czech Roma, is likely to, and does result;
d. The Plaintiffs have pleaded that the actions of the Minister, and his officials,
breached their Charter and constitutional rights;
e. While Ministers are generally not named as Defendants, there are exceptions to this,
particularly with respect to constitutional and Charter issues and the Plaintiffs state
that this is such an exception and that, at this juncture, it is premature to strike any
parties from the pleadings. See Liebmann v Canada (Minister of National Defence),
[1994] 2 FC 3 and Cairns v Farm Credit Corp., [1992] 2 FC 115.
B-1-595
- 0586 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-596 B-1-596
Page: 14
[40] I do not think that the Plaintiffs adequately answer the complaints raised by the Defendants.
My reading of the Claim leads me to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ accusations against the
Minister of Foreign Affairs are, as pled, nothing more than speculative allegations and conclusions
unsupported by material facts.

[41] I agree with the Defendants that, as presently drafted, the Claim does not disclose sufficient
material facts to establish and support:
a. Any wrongdoing on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs;
b. Any cause of action against him;
c. How the Minister of Foreign Affairs could be vicariously or otherwise liable for the
acts and omissions of other people such as staff members at the embassies and visa
posts abroad and/or the imposition of visa requirements.
[42] As it stands, the allegations against the Minister of Foreign Affairs are bald accusations. If
the Plaintiffs wish to establish that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has conspired to cause them
injury, then they must set out the facts upon which they rely. As presently drafted, the Claim merely
states what the Plaintiffs hope to prove at trial. At this stage, this amounts to a fishing expedition. As
the Federal Court of Appeal made clear in Simon v Canada, 2011 DTC 5016; 2011 FCA 6, the
requirement that a pleading contain a concise statement of the material facts relied upon is a
technical requirement with a precise meaning in law. Each constituent element of a cause of action
must be pleaded with sufficient particularity. Making allegations without a factual foundation is an
abuse of process. In my view, there is nothing clear and/or inferable in the way the Minister of
Foreign Affairs is simply accused of wrongdoing on the basis that he has some vague responsibility
B-1-596
- 0587 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-597 B-1-597
Page: 15
for overseeing embassies and foreign missions, or that embassy officials are somehow conducting a
broad “Ministerial” conspiracy.
[43] The Federal Court of Appeal in Baird v Canada 2007 FCA 48 affirmed that a statement of

claim was fatally flawed where it did not specify a time when the offending activities giving rise to
the causes of action took place, and did not specify which Crown servant did something wrong. It is
not enough to plead allegations and conclusions. The essential facts grounding a cause of action
must be pled.
[44] The applicable rules and jurisprudence interpreting those rules, are readily available to the
Plaintiffs and their counsel. The failure to plead sufficient material facts to support a claim against
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or particular Crown servants, leads me to conclude that the
Plaintiffs have no such facts and are seeking to use these proceedings as a fishing expedition.
Negligence
[45] I also agree with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not pled, or factually substantiated,
the essential elements of the tort of negligence.
[46] As the Defendants point out, to support a cause of action in negligence, a statement of claim
must include sufficient facts to support the essential elements of the tort. These include establishing
a duty of care, providing details of the breach of that duty, explaining the causal connection between
the breach of duty and the injury, and setting out the actual loss. Such a claim requires a factual
B-1-597
- 0588 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-598 B-1-598
Page: 16
basis that identifies each wrongful act as well as negligence, such as the “when, what, by whom and
to whom of the relevant circumstances.” See Benaissa v Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FC 1220,
at paragraph 24.

[47] The Plaintiffs make a bald allegation at paragraph 28(b) of the Claim that the “Defendants’
officials have been negligent in the exercise of their common-law, statutory, and constitutional
duties owed to the Plaintiffs” and that these duties arose in the context of the processing of their
refugee claims pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is followed by
unsubstantiated statements that the “Defendants’ officials breached this duty of care” and that this
caused the Plaintiffs’ losses.
[48] I agree with the Defendants that such allegations are nothing more than conclusions and are
not sufficient to support a cause of action in negligence. No details have been provided to identify
the “Defendants’ officials,” to explain their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Plaintiffs, or
to establish their connection to any of the parties. Similarly, the Claim is silent as to the
“Defendants’ officials” particular acts or omissions that the Plaintiffs’ claim were negligent and no
facts are included to support the specific “common-law, statutory and constitutional duties” that
were allegedly breached. It seems to me that the general requirements for establishing liability in
tort have not been met and it would be impossible to conduct the necessary analysis to determine
whether liability could be established. As the Defendants point out, this is particularly difficult
where the defendant is a government actor. Issues arise as to whether public law discretionary
powers establish private law duties owed to particular individuals or whether the decisions in
question were policy decisions or operational decisions. These questions are very complex and
B-1-598
- 0589 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-599 B-1-599
Page: 17
detailed factual pleadings are required in order to properly determine whether a cause of action
exists.
[49] As I read the Claim as presently drafted, the majority of the limited factual allegations upon

which the claim in negligence is based relate mainly to members of the Board and/or of the Board’s
Research Directorate. The Defendants are correct to point out that these individuals are not linked to
the named Defendants in the Statement of Claim and factual allegations respecting their conduct are
insufficient and fail to ground liability in negligence by the named Defendants.
[50] All that the Plaintiffs say in general reply is that “the proper and complete context and
reading [of all their tort claims] illustrate that the various causes of action are properly pleaded.”
[51] Once again, if the Claim is read in the light of the relevant rules and governing
jurisprudence, I think the Plaintiffs fall a long way short of providing what is required.
Conspiracy
[52] The Defendants point out that the Plaintiffs have not pled the essential elements of the tort
of conspiracy and that paragraphs 23, 27 and 28(a)(iv) should therefore be struck from the Claim.
[53] The Defendants direct the Court to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada
Cement LaFarge Ltd. v British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., [1983] 1 SCR 452 (SCC) at
paragraph 33 for the constituents of the tort of conspiracy:
B-1-599
- 0590 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-600 B-1-600
Page: 18
… whereas the law of tort does not permit an action against an

individual defendant who has caused injury to the plaintiff, the law of
torts does recognize a claim against them in combination as the tort
of conspiracy, if:
1. whether the means used by the defendants are lawful or

unlawful, the predominant purpose of the defendants’conduct is to

cause injury to the plaintiff; or,
2. where the conduct of the defendants is unlawful, the conduct

is directed towards the plaintiff… and the defendants should know in
the circumstances that injury to the plaintiff is likely to and does
result.
[54] In Normart Management Ltd. v West Hill Redevelopment Co., (1998), 37 OR (3d) 97 (OCA)
the Ontario Court of Appeal provided guidance with respect to pleading the tort of conspiracy at
paragraphs 21 and 22. Applied to the present context, I think this means that, as the Defendants
point out,
a. All the parties to the conspiracy must be identified and their relationship to each
other must be described;
b. Agreements between the various defendants must be pled with all facts material to
such agreements including the parties to each agreement, the date of the agreement,
and the object and purpose of each agreement;
c. Overt acts of each of the alleged conspirators in pursuance or furtherance of the
conspiracy must be pled with clarity and precision, including the times and dates of
such overt acts; and
d. The pleadings must allege the injury and the damage occasioned to the plaintiffs and
special damages in the sense of the monetary loss the plaintiffs have sustained must
be pled and particularized.
B-1-600
- 0591 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-601 B-1-601
Page: 19
[55] Once again, I have to agree with the Defendants that the Claim is entirely deficient with
respect to pleading the elements of the tort of conspiracy. Bald allegations of a conspiracy involving
undefined Ministers, the Board, and unidentified “Defendants’ officials” are made at paragraphs 23,
27 and 28(a)(iv) without any reference to the above requirements. The Plaintiffs also accuse the

“Defendants’ officials” of engaging in unlawful conduct at paragraph 28(b)(iii)(A), but provide no
details to describe this conduct or establish its unlawfulness. This is scandalous and vexatious.
[56] Once again, the Plaintiffs provide no detailed response and say little more than that, in their
opinion, they have complied with the rules and the governing jurisprudence.
[57] I have to conclude that, once again, when the Claim is read against the rules and governing
jurisprudence, the paragraphs alleging conspiracy should be struck.
Misfeasance in Public Office/Abuse of Authority
[58] The Defendants make similar complaints in relation to this aspect of the Claim. They say
that the Plaintiffs have not pled the essential elements of the tort of misfeasance in public
office/abuse of authority, so that, paragraphs 24 and 28(a)(i) and (iii) of the Claim should be struck.
[59] In Freeman-Maloy v Marsden, (2006) 79 OR (3d) 401, the Ontario Court of Appeal
provided the following guidance regarding the constituents of the tort of misfeasance in a public
office:
[10] The tort of misfeasance in a public office is founded on the

fundamental rule of law principle that those who hold public office
B-1-601
- 0592 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-602 B-1-602
Page: 20
and exercise public functions are subject to the law and must not
abuse their powers to the detriment of the ordinary citizen. As Lord
Steyn put it in Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England
(No. 3), [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220, at p. 1230 W.L.R.: “The rationale
of the tort is that in a legal system based on the rule of law
executive or administrative power ‘may be exercised only for the
public good’ and not for ulterior and improper purposes.” The

“underlying purpose” of the tort of misfeasance in a public office
“is to protect each citizen’s reasonable expectation that a public
officer will not intentionally injure a member of the public through
deliberate and unlawful conduct in the exercise of public
functions”: Odhavji, supra, at para. 30.
[11] In Three Rivers, supra, the House Lords identified the

ingredients of the tort as being: (1) the defendant must be a public
officer; (2) the claim must arise from the exercise of power as a
public officer; and (3) the mental element, namely, the defendant
must have acted with malice or bad faith. In Odhavji, at para. 23,
[page407] Iacobucci J. described the elements of the tort in similar
terms: “First, the public officer must have engaged in deliberate
and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as a public officer.
Second, the public officer must have been aware both that his or
her conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the
plaintiff.”
[60] The Supreme Court of Canada has also provided extensive guidance with regard to this tort.
In Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse 2003 SCC 69 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the
following:
22 What then are the essential ingredients of the tort, at least

insofar as it is necessary to determine the issues that arise on the
pleadings in this case? In Three Rivers, the House of Lords held
that the tort of misfeasance in a public office can arise in one of
two ways, what I shall call Category A and Category B. Category
A involves conduct that is specifically intended to injure a person
or class of persons. Category B involves a public officer who acts
with knowledge both that she or he has no power to do the act
complained of and that the act is likely to injure the plaintiff. This
understanding of the tort has been endorsed by a number of
Canadian courts: see for example Powder Mountain Resorts,
supra; Alberta (Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services)
(C.A.), supra; and Granite Power Corp. v. Ontario, [2002] O.J.
No. 2188 (QL) (S.C.J.). It is important, however, to recall that the
B-1-602
- 0593 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-603 B-1-603
Page: 21
two categories merely represent two different ways in which a

public officer can commit the tort; in each instance, the plaintiff
must prove each of the tort's constituent elements. It is thus
necessary to consider the elements that are common to each form
of the tort.
23 In my view, there are two such elements. First, the public

officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in
his or her capacity as a public officer. Second, the public officer
must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful
and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff. What distinguishes one
form of misfeasance in a public office from the other is the manner
in which the plaintiff proves each ingredient of the tort. In
Category B, the plaintiff must prove the two ingredients of the tort
independently of one another. In Category A, the fact that the
public officer has acted for the express purpose of harming the
plaintiff is sufficient to satisfy each ingredient of the tort, owing to
the fact that a public officer does not have the authority to exercise
his or her powers for an improper purpose, such [page282] as
deliberately harming a member of the public. In each instance, the
tort involves deliberate disregard of official duty coupled with
knowledge that the misconduct is likely to injure the plaintiff.
24 Insofar as the nature of the misconduct is concerned, the

essential question to be determined is not whether the officer has
unlawfully exercised a power actually possessed, but whether the
alleged misconduct is deliberate and unlawful. As Lord Hobhouse
wrote in Three Rivers, supra, at p. 1269:
The relevant act (or omission, in the sense

described) must be unlawful. This may arise from a
straightforward breach of the relevant statutory
provisions or from acting in excess of the powers
granted or for an improper purpose.
Lord Millett reached a similar conclusion, namely, that a failure to

act can amount to misfeasance in a public office, but only in those
circumstances in which the public officer is under a legal
obligation to act. Lord Hobhouse stated the principle in the
following terms, at p. 1269: “If there is a legal duty to act and the
decision not to act amounts to an unlawful breach of that legal
duty, the omission can amount to misfeasance [in a public office].”
See also R. v. Dytham, [1979] Q.B. 722 (C.A.). So, in the United
Kingdom, a failure to act can constitute misfeasance in a public
office, but only if the failure to act constitutes a deliberate breach
of official duty.
B-1-603
- 0594 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-604 B-1-604
Page: 22
25 Canadian courts also have made a deliberate unlawful act a

focal point of the inquiry. In Alberta (Minister of Public Works,
Supply and Services) v. Nilsson (1999). 70 Alta. L.R. (3d) 267,
1999 ABQB 440, at para. 108, the Court of Queen’s Bench stated
that the essential question to be determined is whether there has
been deliberate misconduct on the part of a public official.

Deliberate misconduct, on this view, consists of: (i) an intentional
illegal act; and (ii) an intent to harm an individual or class
[page283] of individuals. See also Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe Ltd. v.
Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 156 Man. R. (2d) 14, 2001
MBCA 40, in which Kroft J.A. adopted the same test. In Powder
Mountain Resorts, supra, Newbury J.A. described the tort in
similar terms, at para. 7:
... it may, I think, now be accepted that the tort of

abuse of public office will be made out in Canada
where a public official is shown either to have
exercised power for the specific purpose of injuring
the plaintiff (i.e., to have acted in “bad faith in the
sense of the exercise of public power for an
improper or ulterior motive”) or to have acted
“unlawfully with a mind of reckless indifference to
the illegality of his act” and to the probability of
injury to the plaintiff. (See Lord Steyn in Three
Rivers, at [1231].) Thus there remains what in
theory at least is a clear line between this tort on the
one hand, and what on the other hand may be called
negligent excess of power -- i.e., an act committed
without knowledge of (or subjective recklessness as
to) its unlawfulness and the probable consequences
for the plaintiff. [Emphasis in original.]
Under this view, the ambit of the tort is limited not by the
requirement that the defendant must have been engaged in a
particular type of unlawful conduct, but by the requirement that the
unlawful conduct must have been deliberate and the defendant
must have been aware that the unlawful conduct was likely to harm
the plaintiff.
[61] It seems to me, then, that in order to establish a cause of action based on the tort of public
misfeasance/abuse of authority, the Claim must meet the following requirements:
a. It must be established that the Defendant(s) is a public officer;
B-1-604
- 0595 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-605 B-1-605
Page: 23
b. The Claim must arise from the exercise of power as a public officer; and
c. The mental element, namely that the Defendant(s) must have acted in bad faith or
with malice, must be present.

[62] As the Defendants point out, while the Plaintiffs have listed the generic elements of the tort
of misfeasance in public office/abuse of authority at paragraph 28(a)(iii) of their Claim, they have
failed to provide material facts to substantiate the allegations. Again, the “Defendants’ officials” are
not identified, there are no particulars respecting the nature of the public offices that particular
individuals are alleged to have held, the unidentified “Defendants’ officials” are not connected to
the named Defendants, and the bald allegation of “unlawful conduct” is not substantiated by
material facts. Also, the majority of the factual allegations in the Claim refer to members of the
Board and/or of the Board’s Research Directorate and their relationship to the named Defendants, or
to the “Defendants’ officials” is not established in the Claim.
[63] With respect to the allegations in this regard against the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration at paragraph 24 of the Claim I agree with the Defendants that insufficient material facts
are pled and details of the public comments that were allegedly made are not provided. Paragraph
24 of the Claim is not sufficient to ground a cause of action against the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration based on public misfeasance/abuse of authority.
[64] Once again, the Plaintiffs provide no substantial response to these deficiencies in their
Claim. They simply say that they disagree and that their Claim complies with the relevant rules and
jurisprudence. I cannot accept this position.
B-1-605
- 0596 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-606 B-1-606
Page: 24
[65] Based on the foregoing, paragraphs 24 and 28(a)(i) and (iii) of the Claim should be struck,
as well as any other reference to the tort of public misfeasance/abuse of authority.
Abuse of Process

[66] The Defendants have similar complaints with regard to the abuse of process claims. They
say the Plaintiffs have not pled the essential elements of the tort of abuse process and it is not
relevant to the within proceedings.
[67] An allegation of “abuse of process” is made at paragraph 28(a)(ii) of the Claim. The
Plaintiffs assert that unidentified Defendants’ officials “engaged in an abuse of process at common
law.” This allegation is not factually substantiated.
[68] The tort of abuse of process usually involves the misuse of the process of the Court to
coerce someone in a way that is outside the ambit of the legal claim upon which the Court is asked
to adjudicate. The Federal Court of Appeal in Levi Strauss & Co. v Roadrunner Apparel Inc.
(1997), 76 CPR (3d) 129 (FCA) held that:
A review of the authorities shows that the essential element of the

tort of abuse of process is that the abuser must have used the legal
process for a purpose other than that which it was designed to serve,
in other words for a collateral, extraneous, ulterior, improper or illicit
purpose. The gist of the tort is the misuse of or perversion of the
Court’s process and there is no abuse when a litigant employs regular
legal process to its proper conclusion, even with bad intentions.
[69] The Defendants say that it is entirely unclear from the Claim how the tort of abuse of
process could be applied to the actions of any of the named Defendants and that, in any case, the
B-1-606
- 0597 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-607 B-1-607
Page: 25
elements of the tort have not been pled. For these reasons they say that paragraph 28(a)(ii) should
therefore be struck, as well as any other reference to the tort of abuse of process.
[70] Once again, the Plaintiffs assert that they have pled this matter appropriately. However, they

also say that abuse of process is not restricted to Court proceedings and that it can attach to
Ministerial abuse. They say that the essential point is that the Ministers have interfered with the IRB
which is supposed to be as independent as the judiciary. The Plaintiffs say that the Ministers and
their staffs have interfered with the IRB both by their comments and their actions.
[71] Quite apart from whether abuse of process can be applied in this context (basically a legal
point that can be left for future determination) it is my view that the Plaintiffs still need to provide
the factual underpinnings for the tort. Before the Defendants can properly respond, they still need to
know the who, where, when, what and how of these allegations. Factual substantiation is missing
from the Claim. For this reason, I think I have to strike paragraph 28(a)(ii) and other reference to the
tort of abuse of process.
Conclusions on the Named Torts
[72] Generally speaking, then, with regard to the named private law causes of action, I feel that
the Defendants’ objections to the pleadings are substantially justified, and that the Claim fails to
comply with Rule 174 and the “plain and obvious” test posited in Hunt, above.
B-1-607
- 0598 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-608 B-1-608
Page: 26
Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter
[73] The Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs’ allegations at paragraphs 24, 28(a)(v) and
28(b)(iii)(A), (B) and (D) of the Claim respecting alleged breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the

Charter are speculative and hypothetical and are not supported by adequate facts. In both respects,
the Plaintiffs assert that the actions of unidentified officials of the Defendants breached the
Plaintiffs’ sections 7 and 15 Charter rights, resulting in damages. They have failed to indicate how
one or more of their protected interests have been infringed, and they have also failed to identify the
circumstances or context in which the breaches allegedly occurred. I have to agree with the
Defendants that the allegations in this regard are stated in the form of conclusions without any
factual basis. This does not meet the requirements set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in
MacKay v Manitoba, [1989] 2 SCR 357.
[74] Charter allegations in the Claim that are made in a “factual vacuum” should be struck. In
MacKay, above, the Supreme Court of Canada provided the following guidance:
9 Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a

factual vacuum. To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter
and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions. The presentation of
facts is not, as stated by the respondent, a mere technicality; rather,
it is essential to a proper consideration of Charter issues. A
respondent cannot, by simply consenting to dispense with the
factual background, require or expect a court to deal with an issue
such as this in a factual void. Charter [page362] decisions cannot
be based upon the unsupported hypotheses of enthusiastic counsel.
[emphasis added]
B-1-608
- 0599 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-609 B-1-609
Page: 27
[75] Once again, the Plaintiffs say that their Claim sufficiently pleads the facts and grounds upon
which the Defendants can respond to the allegations of Charter breaches, but they have also
indicated that they are not adverse to providing particulars if the Defendants require them.

[76] Once again, I have to agree that, with regard to sections 7 and 15 and the Charter, the Claim
is deficient in the ways alleged by the Defendants.
Redundant and Immaterial Material
[77] The Defendants say that, pursuant to subsection 222(1) of the Rules, the Court can strike out
a pleading on the ground that it is “immaterial or redundant.” Immaterial or redundant allegations in
a claim result in useless expense and prejudice the trial by involving the parties in a dispute that is
wholly apart from the issues. Similarly, portions of a pleading that are irrelevant or inserted for
colour should also be struck as they are scandalous.
[78] On this basis, the Defendants seek to strike the following paragraphs from the Claim for the
following reasons:
a. Paragraphs 12(c) and 14 - in these paragraphs, the Plaintiffs purport to have
knowledge of the opinions of “members of the refugee bar, and others” respecting
the June 2009 Report and assert that this ill-defined group predicted that the situation
was a repeat of the “Hungarian (Roma) Lead Case.” Such opinions cannot be
proven, the scope of the group is not clearly identifiable, the allegations are
unsubstantiated and they are irrelevant and redundant to the Claim. Such allegations
B-1-609
- 0600 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-610 B-1-610
Page: 28
are inserted for colour only and should be struck as they are scandalous and violate
the Rules;
b. Paragraph 12(f) and 17- these paragraphs also refer to the “Hungarian Lead Case”
and are argumentative, inserted for colour only, and are irrelevant and redundant to

the within Claim;
c. Paragraph 20 - this paragraph refers to the cross-examination of Gordon Ritchie and
the Defendants’ alleged refusal to answer undertakings. These factual details are
irrelevant to the Claim;
d. Paragraph 25 - this paragraph should be struck because it is repetitive of paragraph
28 which is in fact pled with more specificity (although factually insufficient in any
event). Paragraph 25 does not refer to a specific cause of action upon which the
Plaintiffs base their entitlement to the damages claimed and is redundant;
e. Paragraph 27 - this paragraph is immaterial to the Claim. It refers to the treatment of
the Roma during the Holocaust and is inserted for colour only and is redundant.
[79] In response, the Plaintiffs simply say that “these ‘facts’ with respect to the Hungarian Roma
Lead Case, in Geza v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] FCJ No 477,
(FCA) were not only pleaded, and advanced, but also further accepted by the Court of Appeal in
that case.”
[80] It is difficult to know what the Plaintiffs mean by this allegation, and which “facts” they are
referring. Geza was not an action and we are in the present case dealing with particular rules of
pleadings. The Rules are clear that the pleadings are to contain facts, not evidence. I just do not see,
B-1-610
- 0601 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-611 B-1-611
Page: 29
for instance, what the unsubstantiated collective opinion of the immigration bar has to do with the
factual underpinnings of this case. The same goes for most of the other points. In my view, the
redundant material simply has no place in this Claim and impedes progress towards a clear
statement of facts and issues to which the Defendants can respond, and the Court can adjudicate.

The Plaintiffs may well feel a sense of historical grievance, and they may have good reason for it,
but I think it better to wait until the facts are provided before the government of Canada and the
RPD are connected with Hitler’s Holocaust and a historical “continuum of persecution.” I am well
aware of the cases referred to earlier where the Court has refused to strike “surplus” statements that
do not give rise to prejudice. However, accusations of this kind are not self-evident facts. All they
do is raise the emotional and rhetorical temperature of the action and impede the just, most
expeditious and least determination of the action on its merits.
[81] I disagree with the Defendants regarding paragraph 12(f) which, although it refers to the
“Hungarian Lead Case” and unspecified public comments by Minister Kenney, does allege facts
which may be relevant and may help to ground the principal claim of institutional bias.
[82] As regards paragraph 25, because paragraph 24 is not substantiated by relevant facts, there is
nothing to ground the Minister’s alleged public references and the balance of the paragraph is really
pleading evidence.
B-1-611
- 0602 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-612 B-1-612
Page: 30
Improperly Pleading Evidence
[83] As the Defendants point out, Rule 174 of the Rules directs that a statement of claim shall not
include evidence by which the facts of the case are to be proven.

[84] On this basis, the Defendants say that the following paragraphs of the Claim should be
struck:
a. Paragraph 12(c) - not only should this paragraph be struck on the basis that it is
irrelevant and/or immaterial, it also constitutes evidence.;
b. Paragraph 12(g) - this paragraph lists the credentials of Paul St. Clair. This is
evidence that has no place in the Claim;
c. Paragraph 14 - as noted above, this paragraph purports to confirm the opinion in the
minds of “anyone involved with refugees, particularly the members of the
immigration bar” which could constitute evidence.
[85] The Plaintiffs provide little by way of response on this issue other than disagreement. There
is significant overlap here with other grounds of complaint and I think I have said enough already to
explain why I agree with the Defendants on these points.
Miscellaneous Deficiencies
[86] The Defendants also complain of the following deficiencies:
B-1-612
- 0603 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-613 B-1-613
Page: 31
a. The term “Minister” is used throughout the Claim without proper specificity given
that two Ministers are named as Defendants. In this regard, it is unclear which
Minister the Plaintiffs are referring to in certain sections of the Claim. Further, the
Plaintiffs appear to use the Minister of Immigration, Minister Kenney, Minister,

Immigration Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
interchangeably (see, for example, paragraph 12(b), 12(c), 22 and 24.) Such
terminology must be clarified so that the Defendants can properly respond to the
Claim;
b. The Plaintiffs have not defined or listed the statutory provisions or legislation upon
which they rely despite making numerous, vague references to statutory breaches
through the Claim;
c. The relief outlined in paragraph 6 of the Claim is duplicative of the relief outlined in
paragraph 1(a) to (d). As well, the Plaintiffs have only particularized their damages
with respect to their negligence claim.
[87] Given that I have already accepted the Defendants arguments as outlined above, I think that
these difficulties disappear and/or do not sufficiently offend the Rules to warrant striking.
Conclusions
[88] It seems to me that the Defendants have provided ample authority and justification for
striking certain portions of the Claim as outlined above.
B-1-613
- 0604 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-614 B-1-614
Page: 32
[89] In George v Harris, [2000] OJ No 1762, at paragraph 20, Justice Epstein, then of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, provided examples of what constitutes a “scandalous,”
“frivolous” or “vexatious” document:
i. A document that demonstrates a complete absence of

material facts;
ii. Portions of a pleading that are irrelevant, argumentative or

inserted for colour, or that constitute bare allegations;
iii. A document that contains only argument and includes

unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the integrity of a
party, and speculative, unsupported allegations of
defamation;
iv. Documents that are replete with conclusions, expressions of

opinion, provide no indication whether information is based
on personal knowledge or information and belief, and contain
many irrelevant matters.
[90] A statement of claim containing bare assertions but no facts on which to base those
assertions discloses no reasonable cause of action and may also be struck as an abuse of process.
Furthermore, as indicated above, a claimant is not entitled to rely on the possibility that new facts
may arise as the case progresses. On the contrary, the facts must be pled in the initial claim. The
question of whether those facts can be proven is a separate issue, but they must be pled nonetheless.
[91] The authorities cited above also show that when a particular cause of action is pled, the
claim must contain pleadings of fact that satisfy all of the necessary elements of that cause of action.
Otherwise, it will be plain and obvious that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.
B-1-614
- 0605 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-615 B-1-615
Page: 33
[92] A statement of claim will also be struck on the grounds that it is so unruly that the scope of
the proceedings is unclear. As stated by this Court in Ceminchuk v Canada, [1995] FCJ No 914, at
paragraph 10
A scandalous, vexatious or frivolous action may not only be one in

which the claimant can present no rational argument, based upon the
evidence or law, in support of the claim, but also may be an action in
which the pleadings are so deficient in factual material that the
defendant cannot know how to answer, and a court will be unable to
regulate the proceedings. It is an action without reasonable cause,
which will not lead to a practical result.
[93] The Plaintiffs claim that this motion to strike is premature and the Defendants were obliged
to request particulars first. However, as pointed out above, I think the jurisprudence of the Court is
clear that there is no obligation on defendants to demand particulars and a plaintiff cannot cure an
otherwise deficient statement of claim by arguing that the defendants have not sought particulars.
See Paul v Kingsclear Indian Band, (1997), 132 FTR 145 (TD).
Amendments
[94] I have no motion or request before me from the Plaintiffs that they be allowed to amend
their Claim to correct the deficiencies outlined above. By and large, they have simply alleged that
they have already pled in accordance with the relevant rules and governing jurisprudence. For the
most part, and for reasons given, I cannot accept this position. I am well aware that an amendment
should be allowed where a claim might possibly succeed if the pleading is amended and that to deny
an amendment there must be no scintilla of a cause of action. See Larden v Canada (1998), 145
FTR 140. However, the Plaintiffs have not sought leave to amend and I have nothing before me to
B-1-615
- 0606 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-616 B-1-616
Page: 34
suggest that the Plaintiffs can establish the scintilla of a cause of action in relation to those portions
of the Claim that have been struck.
[95] It will soon be a year since I ordered this matter converted to an action, and yet we are still

dealing with the fundamentals of the Claim. The time has come to adopt a more urgent approach to
this action and I want counsel on both sides to acknowledge this factor and to proceed and conduct
themselves accordingly. I know that Mr. Galati plans to take a break during the rest of January and
February, but he has indicated he can be available to deal with this file during March 2012. In any
event, the matter cannot be allowed to drag on and both counsel must expect to have to prioritize
this action in future. Both sides acknowledge the importance of the issues raised for the immigration
system generally and there is already a significant body of applications in this Court awaiting the
outcome of these proceedings. That body will grow and will, eventually, begin to cause problems
for the administration of justice in this Court, as well as for the handling of cases before the IRB.
This uncertainty must be addressed quickly and the Court will be looking for counsel’s enhanced
assistance in ensuring the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the merits.
B-1-616
- 0607 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-617 B-1-617
Page: 35
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that

1. For reasons given, the following are struck from the Amended Statement of Claim
pursuant to Rule 221(1) of the Federal Court Rules without leave to amend:
(i) Paragraph 6(b)
(ii) Paragraph 12(c);
(iii) Paragraph 14;
(iv) Paragraph 17;
(v) Paragraph 20;
(vi) Paragraph 24;
(vii) Paragraph 25;
(viii) Paragraph 27;
(ix) Paragraph 12(g);
(x) The Minister of Foreign Affairs as a party;
(xi) All references to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the body of the Claim;
(xii) Paragraph 28(b) and all other references to the tort of negligence;
(xiii) Paragraphs 23, 27 and 28(a)(iv) and all references to the tort of conspiracy;
(xiv) Paragraphs 24, 28(a)(i) and (iii) and all references to the tort of public
misfeasance/abuse of authority;
(xv) Paragraphs 28(a)(ii) and all references to the tort of abuse of process;
B-1-617
- 0608 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-618 B-1-618
Page: 36
(xvi) All allegations of breach of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter contained in
paragraphs 24, 28(a)(v), 28(b)(iii)(A), (B) and (D), and elsewhere in the
claim.

2. The Defendants shall have the costs of this motion.
3. Counsel will confer and prepare and provide to the Court on or before
March 20th, 2012, an itemized list of the further steps to be taken in this action
and a preliminary timetable for accomplishing them. If necessary, the Court will
then establish the time for a conference meeting to discuss and resolve points of
concern.
“James Russell”
Judge
B-1-618
- 0609 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-619 B-1-619
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1700-11

STYLE OF CAUSE: SIVAK et al.
Plaintiffs
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Defendants
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 16, 2012
REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER: HON. MR. JUSTICE RUSSELL
DATED: February 28, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Rocco Galati PLAINTIFFS
Marie-Louise Wcislo DEFENDANTS

Prathima Prasad
Susan Gans
ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM PLAINTIFFS

Toronto, Ontario
Myles J. Kirvan DEFENDANTS

Deputy Attorney General of Canada
B-1-619
- 0610 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-620 B-1-620
EXHIBIT “UU”
B-1-620
- 0611 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-621 B-1-621
Date: 20141120
Docket: T-1657-13
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

Ottawa, Ontario, November 20, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI, AND

Applicants
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE STEPHEN HARPER,

HIS EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
GOVERNOR GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON,
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MARC NADON,
JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, AND
This is Exhibit “UU” to the affidavit THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
of Kipling Warner affirmed before me
electronically by way of Respondents
Reg 431/20
ORDER AND REASONS

________________________________
[1] The within application was filed October 7, 2013, seeking “declaratory, prerogative and
injunctive relief, from the decision, made October 3rd, 2013, to appoint and ‘swear in’
(Administering of oath) the Honourable Justice Marc Nadon, a Judge of the Federal Court of
B-1-621
- 0612 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-622 B-1-622
Page: 2
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to the requirements of ss. 4(2), 6, 10 and 11 of
the Supreme Court Act of Canada and s. 41(d) and 42(d) of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
[2] On October 22, 2013, the Governor in Council referred two questions to the Supreme
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

Court of Canada relating to the challenged appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court
[the Reference]. On motion by the Attorney General of Canada, this application was stayed on
consent, by Order dated November 12, 2013, pending the release of the decision of the Supreme
Court on the Reference. Both applicants applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to
intervene in the Reference and for costs. Mr. Galati requested that his costs be on a solicitor-
client basis. Leave to intervene was granted but no order was made as to costs.
[3] The applicants sought and were granted a further stay of this application. Following the
appointment of Justice Gascon to the Supreme Court, a case management conference was held
following which, on agreement of the parties, an Order issued on August 25, 2014, that “the final
disposition of this application, including costs, shall be conducted by way of written submissions
from the parties.”
[4] Each applicant filed identical motions seeking:
a) A declaration that where a private citizen brings a constitutional challenge to

legislation and/or executive action, going to the “architecture of the Constitution”,
from which he/she derives no personal benefit, per se, and is successful on the
constitutional challenge, that he/she is entitled to solicitor-client costs of those
proceedings, as to deny those costs constitutes a breach of the constitutional right
to a fair and independent judiciary;
b) That the Applicant be granted leave to issue a notice of discontinuance in the

within application;
B-1-622
- 0613 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-623 B-1-623
Page: 3
c) that the Applicant be granted his solicitor-client costs of the within application,
including the within motion; and
d) Such further order and/or direction as this Court deems just.
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

[5] Mr. Galati, a barrister and solicitor, but acting on his own behalf, has provided a
Statement of Account showing 56.4 hours of services at an hourly rate of $800 and
disbursements of $638.00, for a total bill of costs, including tax of $51,706.54.
[6] The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. has provided a Statement of Account for work done
by Paul Slansky, a barrister and solicitor, showing 14.55 hours of services at an hourly rate of
$800, for a total bill of cost, including tax of $16,769.20.
[7] The respondents submit that these bills of costs are excessive and unwarranted given that
the application was stayed at such an early stage. I agree. As one example, Mr. Galati’s claim
for 7.6 hours to “review, research, Attorney General’s motion for stay” in light of the Reference
is excessive and unwarranted.
[8] The respondents filed a cross-motion for an order dismissing the application. In response
to the request for costs, the respondents submit that as there has been no judgment and no
successful party, there should be no costs awarded. In the alternative, they submit that there is
no constitutional right to costs in Canada and, “having regard to the factors set out in Rule
400(3), the purposes of costs would be well-served by a single award of costs, assessed
according to Column III.”
B-1-623
- 0614 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-624 B-1-624
Page: 4
[9] The applicants have provided no authority for the proposition that “where a private
citizen brings a constitutional challenge to legislation and/or executive action, going to the
‘architecture of the Constitution’, from which he/she derives no personal benefit, per se, and is
successful on the constitutional challenge, that he/she is entitled to solicitor-client costs of those
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

proceedings, as to deny those costs constitutes a breach of the constitutional right to a fair and
independent judiciary.”
[10] The respondents point to a decision of the Tax Court of Canada in Lee v Canada
(Minister of National Revenue – MNR), [1991] TCJ No 243, wherein it was stated that:
There is no constitutional right to an award of costs. Moreover,

there is no specific Charter Right that is infringed by the failure of
a Court to award costs. Any attempt to impose such a requirement
through jurisprudence would amount to an excess of jurisdiction.
The role of this Court is confined to the determination of
constitutional challenges to existing legislation.
[11] Although not binding on me, I agree with the observations of the Tax Court Judge.
Moreover, there is no justification in these circumstances to an award of solicitor-client costs.
Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision cited by the applicants, Mackin v New
Brunswick, [2002] 1 SCR 405, a case that did involve judicial independence, reversed the award
of solicitor-client costs made by the Court of Appeal and substituted an award of party and party
costs only. The Supreme Court specifically stated that “solicitor-client costs are not appropriate
in this case.”
[12] I agree with the respondents that considering Rule 400(3), there is no just basis to award
the applicants solicitor-client costs. Such an award is exceptional: Chretien v Canada
B-1-624
- 0615 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-625 B-1-625
Page: 5
(Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, Gomery
Commission), 2011 FCA 53 at para 3. There is no conduct of the respondents in this application
that warrants such an award; nor is there any other circumstance that makes this a case
warranting the highest award of costs. Although the application would have involved complex
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

issues of law and have been of importance to the judicial system and the constitution of Canada,
the application was derailed and supplanted by the Reference. As such, very little work needed
to be done on the application by the applicants. The mere filing of it appears to have had the
desired result.
[13] However, I accept that but for the applicants commencing this application, it was unlikely
that the Reference would have occurred. At the time the application was filed, there was no
apparent objection made to the appointment of Justice Nadon on constitutional grounds by any
person or government. To that extent, one could argue that the applicants have done Canada a
service and should not be out-of-pocket in so doing.
[14] There is no longer any lis between these parties, and the application will be dismissed;
however, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to a single award of costs.
[15] In these circumstances, it makes little sense to refer the costs to a taxing officer – it would
not be an appropriate use of judicial resources. Recognizing that an award of costs is a matter of
discretion, and considering the factors set out in Rule 400(3), I will order a single award of costs
to the applicants, fixed on a lump sum basis in the amount of $5000.
B-1-625
- 0616 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-626 B-1-626
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this application is dismissed, and the applicants are
awarded a single award of costs, fixed on a lump sum basis in the amount of $5000.
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

"Russel W. Zinn"
Judge
B-1-626
- 0617 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-627 B-1-627
FEDERAL COURT
DOCKET: T-1657-13
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROCCO GALATI ET AL v THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

STEPHEN HARPER ET AL
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
ORDER AND REASONS OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ZINN
DATED: NOVEMBER 20, 2014
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Rocco Galati FOR THE APPLICANT

ROCCO GALATI
Paul Slansky FOR THE APPLICANT

Paul J. Evraire / Andrew Law FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Rocco Galati Law Firm FOR THE APPLICANT

Professional Corporation ROCCO GALATI
Toronto, Ontario
Slansky Law FOR THE APPLICANT
Professional Corporation CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INC.
Toronto, Ontario
William F. Pentney FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Toronto, Ontario
B-1-627
- 0618 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-628 B-1-628
EXHIBIT “VV”
B-1-628
- 0619 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-629 B-1-629
Date: 20160208
Docket: A-541-14
Citation: 2016 FCA 39
2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)

CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI,
Appellants
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE STEPHEN HARPER, HIS EXCELLENCY

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GOVERNOR GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON,
THE HONOURABLE MARC NADON, JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT
OF APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER
OF JUSTICE
Respondents
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 11, 2016.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 8, 2016.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PELLETIER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: GLEASON J.A.

CONCURRING REASONS BY: STRATAS J.A.
This is Exhibit “VV” to the affidavit of Kipling
431/20
B-1-629
_____________________________________
Amani Rauff, LSO-No.: 78111C
- 0620
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-630 B-1-630
Date: 20160208
Docket: A-541-14

CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROCCO GALATI,
Appellants
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE STEPHEN HARPER, HIS EXCELLENCY

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GOVERNOR GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON,
THE HONOURABLE MARC NADON, JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT
OF APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER
OF JUSTICE
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PELLETIER J.A.
[1] Mr. Galati, on his own behalf, and the Constitutional Rights Center (CRC) appeal from
the costs portion of the Federal Court’s decision, reported as 2014 FC 1088, dismissing their
application for various heads of relief in relation to the appointment of Mr. Justice Marc Nadon,
a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal Court
B-1-630
- 0621 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-631 B-1-631
Page: 2
denied their motions for solicitor-client costs and made a single award of costs in favour of both
appellants fixed on a lump sum basis at $5,000. Mr. Galati and the CRC appeal from that
decision arguing that they have a constitutional right to solicitor-client costs. They also argue
that the Federal Court should have awarded them such costs pursuant to its discretionary power

pursuant to Rule 400 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
[2] For the reasons which follow, I would dismiss the appeal.
I. FACTS
[3] On or before October 3, 2013, the Governor in Council appointed Justice Marc Nadon, a
former advocate of Quebec and a member of the Federal Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court
of Canada to occupy one of the three seats on the Supreme Court which are reserved for persons
appointed “from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province”: see section 6 of the Supreme
Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 (the Act). It was known at the time that there was an issue about
the eligibility of judges of the Federal Courts to occupy those seats, as evidenced by the fact that,
at the same time as he announced his intention to appoint Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court,
Prime Minister Harper released legal opinions prepared at the Government’s request, all of
which held that such an appointment did not contravene section 6 of the Act.
[4] Mr. Galati and the CRC did not share this view and on Monday October 7, 2013, they
filed a joint notice of application in the Federal Court (the Joint Application) in which they
sought various heads of relief, on the ground that a judge of the Federal Court or the Federal
Court of Appeal was ineligible, by the terms of section 6 of the Act, to be appointed to one of the
B-1-631
- 0622 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-632 B-1-632
Page: 3
three “Quebec” seats on the Supreme Court. They sought to have Justice Nadon’s appointment
set aside.
[5] Perhaps because of the Joint Application, perhaps because of the concerns of the Quebec

Bench and Bar which prompted the Governor in Council to seek out legal opinions in the first
place, the Governor in Council referred the interpretation of sections 5 and 6, as well as its
proposed amendments to the Act, to the Supreme Court (the Reference) which ultimately ruled
that former advocates of Quebec, including any former Quebec advocate appointed to one of the
Federal Courts, were ineligible to occupy one of the “Quebec” seats on the Supreme Court.
Justice Nadon’s appointment to the Supreme Court was held to be invalid: see Supreme Court
Act ss.5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21.
[6] Following the issuance of the Joint Application on October 3, 2013, a case management
conference was held before Mr. Justice Zinn, and was adjourned to October 24, 2013.
[7] When the case management conference resumed, an order was made setting a timeline
for the filing of materials as well as a hearing date for the Attorney General’s motion for a stay
of the Joint Application pending the disposition of the Reference, a motion which Mr. Galati and
the CRC (sometimes referred to as the Joint Applicants) intended to oppose.
[8] After carefully considering the Attorney General’s motion for a stay (for a period of 7.6
hours, in Mr. Galati’s case), the Joint Applicants eventually consented to a stay of the Joint
B-1-632
- 0623 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-633 B-1-633
Page: 4
Application in exchange for the Attorney General’s undertaking not to oppose their application
for intervener status in the Reference.
[9] Mr. Galati and the CRC were granted intervener status and appeared at the hearing of the

Reference.
[10] Following the release of the Supreme Court’s decision, a further case management
conference was held where, by agreement of the parties, it was ordered that the final disposition
of the Joint Application and the question of costs would proceed by way of written submissions.
[11] In that context, both the Joint Applicants filed motions seeking:
a) A declaration that where a private citizen brings a constitutional challenge to legislation

and/or executive action, going to the “architecture of the Constitution”, from which
he/she derives no personal benefit, per se, and is successful on the constitutional
challenge, that he /she is entitled to solicitor-client costs of those proceedings, as to deny
those costs constitutes a breach of the constitutional right to a fair and independent
judiciary;
b) That the Applicant be granted leave to issue a notice of discontinuance in the within
application;
c) That the Applicant be granted his solicitor-client costs of the within application, including
the within motion; and
d) Such further order and/or direction as this Court deems just.
[12] Mr. Galati argued for an award of costs in his favour calculated on the basis of 56.4 hours
of service at an hourly rate of $800, plus disbursements in the amount of $638, for a total award
(including tax) of $51,706. The CRC claimed costs of $16,769 based on 14.55 hours of service
by its counsel, Mr. Slansky, at an hourly rate of $800. In argument, Mr. Galati acknowledged
B-1-633
- 0624 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-634 B-1-634
Page: 5
that his regular hourly rate is not $800 as his clientele do not have the means to pay such an
exalted rate. He advised that $800 per hour is the rate for substantial indemnity pursuant to Part 1
of Tariff A of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, for lawyers of his
year of call and experience.

[13] The Attorney General opposed Mr. Galati’s and the CRC’s motions and filed a cross
motion seeking the dismissal of the Joint Application. On the question of costs, the Attorney
General argued that since, as of the date of the argument, no judgment had been rendered in the
Joint Application, there was no successful party and therefore no basis for an order for costs. In
any event, the Attorney General argued that there was no constitutional right to costs. If an order
of costs were to be made, having regard to the factors mentioned in Rule 400(3) of the Federal
Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, it should be a single award assessed on Column III of Tariff B.
II. THE DECISION UNDER APPEAL
[14] In its decision, the Federal Court noted that Mr. Galati and the CRC provided no
authority for the proposition that there was a constitutional right to solicitor-client costs in the
circumstances described in their motions. Such authority as there was consisted of a Tax Court of
Canada case, Lee v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1991] T.C.J. No. 243, in which it
was held that there was no constitutional right to an award of costs, let alone solicitor-client
costs. The Federal Court agreed with the position taken by the Tax Court of Canada as to the
absence of a constitutional right to costs. Furthermore, having regard to the principles governing
the award of solicitor-client costs, there was no basis for making an order of that nature in this
case since there was no conduct on the part of the respondents which would justify such an
B-1-634
- 0625 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-635 B-1-635
Page: 6
award, nor were there any other circumstances which would justify the highest award of costs:
Reasons, paragraph 12.
[15] That said, the Federal Court accepted that “but for the applicants commencing this

application, it was unlikely that the Reference would have occurred.” In the end result, even
though the Federal Court dismissed the application, it awarded Mr. Galati and the CRC costs
jointly in the amount of $5,000 because “one could argue that the applicants have done Canada a
service and should not be out-of-pocket in so doing:” see Reasons at paragraph 13.
III. ISSUES
[16] Mr. Galati and the CRC raise two issues. The first is that the Federal Court Judge erred in
failing to analyze their claim that, in the case of public interest litigation which satisfies the test
they propose, there is a constitutional requirement that a successful litigant be awarded his
solicitor-client costs because the failure to do so is a breach of the constitutional right to a fair
and impartial judiciary. The second issue is that, even if there is no constitutional right to
solicitor-client costs, the Federal Court judge erred in failing to award them such costs in the
circumstances of this case.
[17] In the alternative, Mr. Galati argues that the Federal Court’s reasons are unintelligible for
purposes of appellate review. Having conducted such an appellate review, I find no merit to this
allegation.
B-1-635
- 0626 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-636 B-1-636
Page: 7
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[18] Costs are within the discretion of the presiding judge: see Rule 400(1) of the Federal
Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the Rules). As such, an award of costs is a discretionary decision,

reviewable on a highly deferential standard, unless it can be shown that the Court erred in law in
making the award of costs it did: see Turmel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 9, at
paragraphs 11-12.
V. DISPOSITION
[19] Since Mr. Galati and the CRC criticize the Federal Court for not analyzing their claim to
solicitor client costs, I am required to step outside the four corners of the Federal Court’s
decision to do that which the Joint Applicants ask us to do.
[20] The first point to be disposed of is the hourly rate used by the Mr. Galati and the CRC in
their respective claims for costs. Their claim to be entitled to the substantial indemnity rate of
$800 which apparently would apply to these counsel under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure
is puzzling. Mr. Galati and Mr. Slansky are both experienced counsel who presumably know that
the costs of litigation conducted in the Federal Courts are awarded in accordance with the
Federal Courts Rules. They would also presumably know that the Federal Courts Rules do not
provide for an hourly rate benchmark (other than an amount per unit of service as described in
the Tariff) such as the Rules of Civil Procedure apparently do. Given this knowledge, it is
surprising that Mr. Galati would seek an order of costs in excess of what he would have billed a
client for the same services.
B-1-636
- 0627 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-637 B-1-637
Page: 8
[21] As a self-represented litigant, the best Mr. Galati could hope for, under the Federal
Courts Rules and the jurisprudence on self-represented litigants is to recover his regular hourly
rate: see Thibodeau v. Air Canada, 2007 FCA 115, [2007] F.C.J. No. 404, at paragraph 24.

[22] I might add that a claim for solicitor-client costs by a self-represented litigant is an
oxymoron. A self-represented litigant, by definition, has no counsel and therefore no out-of-
pocket expenses for which full indemnity is appropriate.
[23] As for the CRC, its claim for solicitor-client costs would be limited to its actual out-of-
pocket expense for legal fees. If, as appears to be the case given Mr. Slansky’s request that any
costs awarded be paid to him personally, counsel is acting pro bono, then the same
considerations apply. Any award of solicitor-client costs would be limited to Mr. Slansky’s
regular hourly rate. One is left to wonder why experienced counsel before the Federal Courts
would seek costs calculated on a basis other than that provided by the Federal Courts Rules.
[24] This appeal raises two questions: is there such an entitlement to solicitor client costs (on
any basis) and, if there is, do the Joint Applicants satisfy the conditions applicable to the award
of such costs?
[25] Both Mr. Galati and the CRC raise, in slightly different ways, the issue of the economic
imbalance between litigants who challenge legislative or executive action on constitutional
grounds. The government has the full resources of the state available to it to defend its position
while challengers who act in the public interest must rely on private resources and the goodwill
B-1-637
- 0628 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-638 B-1-638
Page: 9
of pro bono counsel to advance their case. The former Court Challenges Programme was
designed to deal with this imbalance but has been cancelled.
[26] The Supreme Court has recognized this gap but has declined to close it by judicial fiat. In

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2007
SCC 2, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38, at paragraph 4, the Supreme Court held that “[c]ourts should not seek
on their own to bring an alternative and extensive legal aid system into being.” This position was
re-affirmed in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331 (Carter)at
paragraph 137, where the Court dealt with an argument much like the one made by the Joint
Applicants but in the context of the Court’s normal discretionary power to award costs. There,
the Supreme Court held that an award of special costs in public interest litigation would be
justified if certain conditions were met. The first is that the issues raised must be truly
exceptional, having significant and widespread societal impact. Secondly, not only must the
litigants must have no personal financial interest in the litigation, they must show that it would
not have been possible to effectively pursue the litigation with private funding: see Carter at
paragraph 140.
[27] The Joint Applicants have modified this test by substituting for the requirement that the
litigation have widespread societal impact, the condition that the litigation must go to the
“architecture of the Constitution”. They also make explicit the requirement that the applicants
must be successful in the litigation. Before addressing the question of the Joint Applicants’ right
to solicitor client costs, whether pursuant to the Constitution or otherwise, it makes sense to see
if the Joint Applicants satisfy the conditions for the award of such costs.
B-1-638
- 0629 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-639 B-1-639
Page: 10
[28] The difficulty confronting the Joint Applicants is that they were not successful in their
application. The Federal Court found that the Joint Application “was derailed and supplanted by
the Reference”: see Reasons at paragraph 12. It was therefore dismissed for mootness. Mr. Galati
and the CRC take the position that because the Reference produced the result which they sought

in the Joint Application, they were successful and entitled therefore to their solicitor client costs.
It doesn’t work that way. The fact that their application apparently set in motion a series of
events which led to the conclusion which they hoped to achieve in their application does not
make them successful litigants. It may make them successful politically or in the popular press,
but that is a different matter. They can only claim costs in relation to the judicial treatment of the
Joint Application which, as noted, was dismissed. To hold otherwise would be to create
something in the nature of a finder’s fee for constitutional litigation.
[29] To the extent the right to solicitor client costs accrues only to successful litigants, the
Joint Applicants do not satisfy that test. Given this finding, it is not necessary for me to examine
the other elements of the test which Mr. Galati and the CRC propose other than to comment that
it is far from obvious that the interpretation of sections 5 and 6 of the Act goes to the
“architecture of the Constitution”.
[30] Turning now to the Joint Applicants entitlement to special costs pursuant to the Federal
Court’s discretion over the award of costs, and applying the Carter principles, I find that the
applicants do not meet that test either. As I pointed out above, the Joint Application was not
successful and that leads to the same conclusion in this scenario as in the previous scenario. Be
that as it may, Mr. Galati and the CRC make much of the exceptional nature of the issues raised
B-1-639
- 0630 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-640 B-1-640
Page: 11
by the Joint Application. There is no doubt that the issues raised were of significant importance,
particularly to the members of the Federal Courts, but the interpretation of sections 5 and 6 of the
Act did not have widespread societal impact. When the partisan political overlay is stripped
away, this was a lawyer’s issue with very limited consequences beyond legal circles. It certainly

did not go to the “architecture of the Constitution”.
[31] But, more importantly, the reason for which the claim for solicitor client costs ought to
fail, and, in my view, does fail, is that it fails to meet the second criterion identified by the Court,
namely that it would not have been possible to effectively pursue the litigation with private
means. This refers to the litigation as it actually unfolded, not as it might have unfolded. As it
actually unfolded, the Joint Application required some office time and a small number of
attendances for a combined total of 71 hours of Mr. Galati’s and Mr. Slansky’s time. While this
is not trivial, it is not an insuperable burden for two lawyers with busy practices. Furthermore,
the burden on Mr. Galati and Mr. Slansky, to the extent that he was acting pro bono, has been
relieved by the Federal Court’s exceptional award of costs of $5,000, even though they were
unsuccessful, so that they might not be out of pocket.
[32] For these reasons, then, the Joint Applicants have not shown that they come within the
class of litigants who might be awarded solicitor client costs in public interest constitutional
litigation, whether by right or through the exercise of the Court’s discretion. It is therefore
unnecessary for me to deal with the argument as to constitutional entitlement as it does not arise
on these facts. That said, it sometimes occurs that a party makes an argument that is so
B-1-640
- 0631 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-641 B-1-641
Page: 12
scandalous that it deserves to be condemned, whether it arises on the facts of the case or not.
This is such a case.
[33] The following passages from Mr. Galati’s memorandum of fact and law encapsulates the

argument which was made in this case:
With respect to the Respondent’s position that the right to solicitor-client costs
has no nexus to a fair and independent judiciary, the Appellant (Rocco Galati)
states that in such cases, which involve nothing but protecting the integrity of the
constitution, constitutionally offensive legislation, or Executive action violating
the “architecture of the constitution”, it has everything to do with a fair and
independent judiciary. While the state apparatus is fully and amply funded to
defend such violations, and a citizen who gets no personal benefit, per se, from
upholding the integrity, structure and dictates of the Constitution, in successfully
challenging such constitutional violations, to be denied his solicitor-client costs
doing so can only lead to one conclusion in fact and in perception.
That conclusion is that any Court siding with the state on such cases cannot be
said to be “fair or independent” in the least sense, in fact, and in perception, that
Court would be, in fact and in perception, ‘in bed’ with the state Respondents.
Mr. Galati’s memorandum of fact and law at paragraphs 20-22 (emphasis in the
original).
[34] It is important to understand what is being said here. Mr. Galati and the CRC state as a
fact that a Court which, having agreed that certain government action was inconsistent with the
Constitution and having therefore set it aside, will nonetheless be seen to be, and will in fact be,
“in bed” with the government if it fails to award the successful applicant its solicitor client costs.
The tie-in to the Constitution is that this collusion deprives the affected litigant of its
constitutionally protected right to a fair and independent judiciary.
[35] To be “in bed” with someone is to collude with that person. I do not understand how one
could hope to protect the right to a fair and independent judiciary by accusing courts of colluding
B-1-641
- 0632 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-642 B-1-642
Page: 13
with the government if they don’t give the applicant its solicitor client costs. The entire Court
system, it seems, must be alleged to be actually or potentially acting in bad faith in order to instill
public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary. This is reminiscent of the
gonzo logic of the Vietnam War era in which entire villages had to be destroyed in order to save

them from the enemy. The fact that this argument is made in support of an unjustified monetary
claim leads to the question “Whose interest is being served here?” Certainly not the
administration of justice’s. This argument deserves to be condemned without reservation.
[36] In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Federal Court committed no error
justifying our intervention and that even when, particularly when, the Joint Applicants’
arguments are analyzed, this appeal should be dismissed with costs. The Attorney General seeks
total costs in the amount of $1,000. In the circumstances, that is more than reasonable. I would
therefore dismiss the appeal with one set of costs to the Attorney General fixed at $1,000, all
inclusive.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"

J.A.
“I agree
Gleason J.A.”
B-1-642
- 0633 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-643 B-1-643
Page: 14
STRATAS J.A. (Concurring reasons)
[37] I fully agree with my colleague’s reasons and concur with his proposed disposition of this
appeal. I wish to add a couple of other observations.

[38] At one point in his oral submissions, Mr. Galati submitted that, like government lawyers,
judges are paid by the government and so if in circumstances such as these we do not order the
government to pay private sector lawyers like him, the court would appear to be biased.
[39] The appearance of bias is to be assessed by the informed, reasonable person viewing the
matter realistically and practically: Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy
Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at page 394. That person would be aware of a number of things.
Judges’ impartiality is secured by guarantees of security of tenure and remuneration until
retirement or age 75: Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, sections 99-100. A long string
of Supreme Court cases from Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673 to Provincial Court
Judges’ Assn. (New Brunswick) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), 2005 SCC 44, [2005] 2
S.C.R. 286 has developed exacting requirements to ensure that the judiciary remains fully
independent from government while judicial remuneration is set. And there are many cases
where judges, paid by government, have condemned government misconduct and have ordered
government to do something against its will.
[40] In light of this, the informed, reasonable person viewing the matter realistically and
practically would never think that judges are predisposed to the government just because the
government pays them and does not pay others. This sort of submission can unfairly affect the
B-1-643
- 0634 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-644 B-1-644
Page: 15
legitimacy and public perception of the court. An officer of the court should never make such a
submission. See Es-Sayyid v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FCA
59 at paragraph 50; R. v. S.(R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at paragraph 113.

[41] In this case, the Federal Court exercised its discretion in the appellants’ favour, awarding
them $5,000 in costs for work done in starting a constitutional challenge that soon became moot.
This is more than what other litigants doing the same amount of work would receive under the
applicable law: Federal Courts Rules, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, Rule 400 and Tariff B.
[42] The appellants now come to this Court. They ask us to order that the government
respondents—i.e., the taxpayers—pay them $800 an hour, an amount they admit exceeds the rate
they normally charge their clients. In his memorandum (at paragraph 15), Mr. Galati submits that
if we do not make that order, we will be acting in “breach of the unwritten constitutional
imperatives to the Rule of Law and Constitutionalism.”
[43] The constitutional principle of the rule of law, enshrined in the preamble to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not an empty vessel to be filled with whatever one might
wish from time to time. Rather, it has a specific, limited content in the area of constitutional law.
See, e.g., British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 FCA 49, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473 at
paragraph 58. See also the previous cases in which we have reminded Mr. Galati of the doctrinal
limits to this principle: Yeager v. Day, 2013 FCA 258, 453 N.R. 385 at paragraph 13; Lemus v.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 114, 372 D.L.R. (4th) 567 at paragraph 15;
Austria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 191, 377 D.L.R. (4th) 151 at
B-1-644
- 0635 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-645 B-1-645
Page: 16
paragraphs 71-74; Toussaint v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 146, [2013] 1
F.C.R. 3 at paragraph 60.
[44] In rare circumstances of proven need, a party can obtain an interim costs award (British

Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371) or
state funding for counsel (e.g., R. v. Rowbotham (1988), 41 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.)), in both
cases on the basis of rates much lower than those sought here.
[45] But a constitutional right for lawyers acting as public interest litigants to collect pay and
bonuses from the public purse in the amount of $800 an hour? I don’t see that in the text of the
Constitution or by necessary implication from it. Nor does the Supreme Court see it: Little
Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2007 SCC
2, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38 at paragraph 35; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5,
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 331 at paragraphs 139-141. I also reject the appellants’ submission that some
principle sitting invisibly alongside the visible text of our Constitution somehow springs up to
entitle them to $800 an hour.
[46] The record discloses no inability on the part of the appellants at the outset of this
litigation or even now to ask for donations to their cause. In this case, the appellants chose to
proceed with their litigation, with no reasonable expectation of receiving more than the normal
level of costs under Rule 400 and Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules. And as I have said, in the
circumstances of this case the Federal Court gave them even a little more than that.
B-1-645
- 0636 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-646 B-1-646
Page: 17
[47] Like my colleague, I agree that there are no grounds for setting aside the costs order of
the Federal Court and I would dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $1,000. Had the
respondents asked for more, I would have granted more.

"David Stratas"
J.A.
B-1-646
- 0637 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-647 B-1-647
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-541-14
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROCCO GALATI,

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
CENTRE INC. v. THE RIGHT
HONOURABLE STEPHEN
HARPER, HIS EXCELLENCY
THE, RIGHT HONOURABLE
GOVERNOR GENERAL DAVID
JOHNSTON, THE HONOURABLE
MARC NADON, JUDGE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT OF, APPEAL,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CANADA, THE MINISTER OF,
JUSTICE
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 11, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PELLETIER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRING REASONS BY: STRATAS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Rocco Galati FOR THE APPELLANT,

ROCCO GALATI
Paul Slansky FOR THE APPELLANT,

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
CENTRE INC.
Andrew Law FOR THE RESPONDENTS,

Christine Mohr THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
STEPHEN HARPER, HIS
EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT
HONOURABLE GOVERNOR
B-1-647
- 0638 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-648 B-1-648
Page: 2
GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON,

CANADA, THE MINISTER OF
JUSTICE

Rocco Galati Law Firm FOR THE APPELLANT,

Toronto, Ontario ROCCO GALATI
Slansky Law FOR THE APPELLANT,

Toronto, Ontario CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
CENTRE INC.
William F. Pentney FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Deputy Attorney General of Canada THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
STEPHEN HARPER, HIS
EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT
HONOURABLE GOVERNOR
GENERAL DAVID JOHNSTON,
CANADA, THE MINISTER OF
JUSTICE
Langlois, Kronstrom, Desjardins THE HONOURABLE MARC

Montréal, Québec NADON, JUDGE OF THE
B-1-648
- 0639 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-649 B-1-649
EXHIBIT “WW”
B-1-649
- 0640 -
This is Exhibit “WW” to the affidavit of
electronically by way of videoconference
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-650 B-1-650
this 26th day of January, 2023, in
___________________________________
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C Date: 20150720
Docket: T-2502-14

Ottawa, Ontario, July 20, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION PROCEEDING
BETWEEN:
ANDRE DA SILVA CAMPOS, ARMANDO

FILIPE FREITAS GONCALVES, AURELIO
EDUARDO MARQUES ANJO, AURELIO
JOSE ESTEVES MOTA, AVELINO JESUS
LINHARES ORMONDE, CACIA APARECIDA
SILVA FREITAS, CARLOS ALBERTO LIMA
ARAUJO, CARLOS GARCES GOIS, CARLOS
MANUEL LOUREIRO SILVA, CLAUDIA
FELISMINA CARVALHO DA COSTA,
EMANUEL PEREIRA PIRES, FRANCISCO
FILIPE PEREIRA ANTUNES, GRZEGORZ
JOZEF BIEGA, HENRIQUE MANUEL
RODRIGUES DE MATOS, HERMINIO
AUGUSTO JORGE PEDRO, JOAO GOMES
CARVALHO, JOAO LUIS AGRELA SANTOS,
JOAO PEDRO SOUSA REIS, JORGE
PINHEIRO GOMES PRIOR, JOSE ANTONIO
CAMPOS DE AZEVEDO, JOSE ANTONIO
SILVA MONIZ, JOSE CARLOS SOUSA
COSTA, JOSE FILIPE CUNHA CASANOVA,
JOSE LUIS PEREIRA CUNHA, LEANDRO
FILIPE MATOS GOMES DE SA, LUIS
CARLOS FIGUEIREDO BENTO, LUIS
FILIPE SILVERIO VICENTE, MACIEJ
STANISLAW ZAPRZALA, MANUEL
AGOSTINHO TOME LIMA, MANUEL
DOMINGOS BORLIDO BARREIRAS,
MANUEL COSTA SANTOS, MARCO FILIPE
SILVA MARTINHO MARTINHO, MARCO
B-1-650
- 0641 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-651 B-1-651
Page: 2
PAULO CRUZ PINHEIRO, MARIA ISABEL

DE CASTRO GOUVEIA, MICHAL
SZLESZYNSKI, NUNO RODRIGO
RODRIGUES BORGES, PAOLO ROMANDIA,
PEDRO MANUEL CARDOSO AREIAS,
PEDRO MANUEL GOMES SILVA, PEDRO
FILIPE VILAS BOAS SALAZAR NOVAIS,

RICARDO JORGE CARVALHO
RODRIGUES, ROBERTO CARLOS
OLIVEIRA SILVA, ROGERIO JESUS
MARQUES FIGO, ROSALINO DE SOUSA
HENRIQUES, RUI MANUEL HENRIQUES
LOURENCO, RUI MIGUEL DA COSTA
LOPES, SILVIO ARNALDO FERNANDES,
SOFIA ALEXANDRA LEAL AREIAS SILVA,
VITOR MIGUEL DOS SANTOS RIBEIRO,
WIKTOR ANTONI REINHOLZ, WOJCIECH
PAWEL KACZMARSKI, ALESSANDRO
COLUCCI, ANTONIO DE ARRUDA
PIMENTEL, AUGUSTO JOSE DA COSTA
SANTOS, BONIFACIO MANUEL COSTA
SANTOS, CARLOS ALBERTO LIMA
ARAUJO, CARLOS FILIPE BOTEQUILHAS
RAIMUNDO, DANIEL ORLOWSKI,
DARIUSZ DOMAGALA, EUGENIO PEDRO
MACHADO DA SILVA, FELICE DI MAURO,
FILIPE JOSE LARANJEIRO HENRIQUES,
HUGO RAFAEL PAULINO DA CRUZ, JOSE
CARLOS SOUSA COSTA, LUIS CARLOS DA
PONTE CABRAL, PAULO ALEXANDRE
ARRUDA VIANA, RICARDO JORGE
VASCONCELOS BARROSO, VITOR
MANUEL ESTEVES SILVA VIEIRA, ANA
FILIPA CRUZ PEREIRA, ANA RITA
ARAUJO, ARNALDO GOMES BRAS, BRUNO
MARCELO MARTINS FERNANDES, CACIA
APARECIDA SILVA FREITAS, CLAUDIA
FELISMINA CARVALHO DA COSTA,
FERNANDO ANTONIO PEREIRA MENDES,
FERNANDO JORGE RIQUEZA BAGANHA,
HELDER ANTONIO SANTOS AVILA BRUM,
HENRIQUE MANUEL RODRIGUES DE
MATOS, HERNANI SEBASTIAO MOUTINHO
CORREIA, IGA GLUSZKO, JOAO FILIPE
BRITO FERREIRA, JOSE LUIS PEREIRA
CUNHA, LAUZER VINCENTE GOMES
B-1-651
- 0642 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-652 B-1-652
Page: 3
LOPES, LUIS MIGUEL PEREIRA DA SILVA,

MAFALDA MEDEIROS COSTA, MARIA
ISABEL DE CASTRO GOUVEIA, MARIO
ANDRE LIMA ROCHA, MICHAL
SZLESZYNSKI, NUNO RODRIGO
RODRIGUES BORGES, PAOLO ROMANDIA,
PAULO FILIPE RAPOSO MARTINS,

RAFAEL MANUEL BORGES BATALHA,
RICARDO MIGUEL PIRES DE SOUSA,
SANDRA CRISTINA PIRES DE SOUSA
FERNANDES, SARA CRISTINA CUSTODIO
PEREIRA, SILVIO ARNALDO FERNANDES,
SOFIA ALEXANDRA LEAL AREIAS SILVA,
STEPHANIE OLIVEIRA, VITOR
CARVALHO MARQUES FIGUEIREDO,
ALESSANDRO COLUCCI, ANTONIO DE
ARRUDA PIMENTEL, ANTONIO
DESIDERIO FERREIRA ANDRE, ANTONIO
MARCIANO RAJAO ROSMANINHO,
ANTONIO RICARDO FERRAZ DE SOUSA,
ARMANDO FILIPE FREITAS GONCALVES,
AUGUSTO JOSE DA COSTA SANTOS,
AURELIO EDUARDO MARQUES ANJO,
AURELIO JOSE ESTEVES MOTA,
BONIFACIO MANUEL COSTA SANTOS,
CARLOS MANUEL ALVES BARREIRA LUIS,
EMANUEL PEREIRA PIRES, FERNANDO
AZEVEDO FERREIRA, FERNANDO JORGE
NEVES FERREIRA, JOSE ANTONIO
FERNANDES DA COSTA, JOSE FILIPE
CUNHA CASANOVA, JUSTYNA TADEL,
MARIO FERNANDO CONCEICAO
MARTINHO, PAULO JORGE FRANCO,
PEDRO MANUEL GOMES SILVA, PEDRO
FILIPE VILAS BOAS SALAZAR NOVAIS,
RICARDO JORGE CARVALHO
RODRIGUES, RICARDO JORGE MARTINS
FERREIRA ANTUNES, RUI MIGUEL DA
COSTA LOPES, WIKTOR ANTONI
REINHOLZ, ANDRE DA SILVA CAMPOS,
CARLOS MANUEL ALVES BARREIRA LUIS,
EUGENIO PEDRO MACHADO DA SILVA,
FILIPE JOSE LARANJEIRO HENRIQUES,
FRANCISCO FILIPE PEREIRA ANTUNES,
LANZER VICENTE GOMES LOPES, LUIS
FILIPE SILVERIO VICENTE, LUIS MIGUEL
B-1-652
- 0643 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-653 B-1-653
Page: 4
PEREIRA DA SILVA, RUI MIGUEL DA

COSTA LOPES, SANDRA CRISTINA PIRES
DE SOUSA FERNANDES, ANDRZEJ
TOMASZ WAGA, AVELINO JESUS
LINHARES ORMONDE, CARLOS ALBERTO
BARBOSA SILVA, CARLOS ANTONIO
FERREIRA MATOS, CARLOS GARCES

GOIS, CARLOS JESUS CORREIA, CARLOS
MANUEL LOUREIRO SILVA, DANIEL
FILIPE COSTA FERREIRA, ENRIQUE
FERNANDEZ PEREIRA, FABIO SOARES
MONIZ, FERNANDO MEDEIROS
CORDEIRO, GILVANE PAULINO DAMIAO,
GRZEGORZ JOZEF BIEGA, HELIO
ALEXANDRE DA SILVA GOMES,
HERMINIO AUGUSTO JORGE PEDRO,
IGOR SERGIO GOUVEIA GOMES, JOAO
FILIPE SOUSA ARAUJO, JOAO GOMES
CARVALHO, JOAO LUIS AGRELA SANTOS,
JOAO PEDRO SOUSA REIS, JORGE
PINHEIRO GOMES PRIOR, JOSE ANTONIO
CAMPOS DE AZEVEDO, JOSE ANTONIO
SILVA MONIZ, LEANDRO FILIPE MATOS
GOMES DE SA, LUIS CARLOS FIGUEIREDO
BENTO, MACIEJ STANISLAW ZAPRZALA,
MANUEL AGOSTINHO TOME LIMA,
MANUEL BORGES LEAL, MANUEL COSTA
SANTOS, MARCO FILIPE DA SILVA
MARTINHO, MARCO PAULO DA CRUZ
PINHEIRO, PAULO JOAO DUARTE SABINO,
PAULO ALEXANDRE COSTA REIS, PEDRO
MANUEL CARDOSO AREIAS, PEDRO
MIGUEL RIBEIRO PONTES, RICARDO
JORGE FONSECA FURTADO, RICARDO
JORGE SANTOS FERREIRA, ROBERTO
CARLOS OLIVEIRA SILVA, ROGERIO DE
JESUS MARQUES FIGO, ROSALINO DE
SOUSA HENRIQUES, RUI MANUEL
FERNANDES LIMA, RUI MANUEL
HENRIQUES LOURENCO, VITOR
ALBERTO VERGAS MARCAL, VITOR
MANUEL ESTEVES SILVA VIEIRA, VITOR
MIGUEL DOS SANTOS RIREIRO, WIESLAW
KOTULA, ARTUR GRZEGORSZ KOTULA,
WOJCIECH PAWEL KACZMARSKI, BRUNO
MARCELO MARTINS FERNANDES,
B-1-653
- 0644 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-654 B-1-654
Page: 5
CARLOS ALBERTO FERREIRA JESUS,

EDGAR DA CRUZ SANTOS, JOAQUIM
CARLOS PIEDADE FERREIRA, TIAGO
FERNANDO MARQUES MAIO, AURELIO
JOSE ESTEVES MOTA, CARLOS MANUEL
LOUREIRO SILVA, EMANUEL PEREIRA
PIRES, FERNANDO ANTONIO PEREIRA

MENDES, FERNANDO AZEVEDO
FERREIRA, IGA GLUSZKO, JOAO FILIPE
BRITO FERREIRA, JORGE PINHEIRO
GOMES PRIOR, LAUZER VICENTE GOMES
LOPES, MACIEJ STANISLAW ZAPRZALA,
MANUEL COSTA SANTOS, MARIO
FERNANDO CONCEICAO MARTINHO,
NUNO RODRIGO RODRIGUES BORGES,
PEDRO FILIPE VILAS BOAS SALAZAR
NOVAIS, RAFAEL MANUEL BORGES
BATALHA, ROSALINO DE SOUSA
HENRIQUES, RUI MANUEL FERNANDES
LIMA, RUI MANUEL HENRIQUES
LOURENCO, SANDRA CRISTINA PIRES
SOUSA FERNANDES, TIAGO FERNANDO
MARQUES MAIO, VITOR ALBERTO
VERGAS MARCAL, WIKTOR ANTONI
REINHOLZ, WOJCIECH PAWEL
KACZMARSKI, ADELINO SILVA CAPELA,
ALEXANDRE FERREIRA FILIPE, ANDRESZ
TOMASZ MYRDA, ANTINIO JOAQUIM
OLIVEIRA MARTINS, ANTINIO MANUEL
DA SILVA MARQUES, CARLOS EURICO
FERRAZ DE SOUSA, EDUARDO MANUEL
RODRIGUES MARCELINO, ISAAC
MANUEL LEITUGA PEREIRA, ISABELLE
ANGELINO, JOAO PEDRO ESTEVES
FERREIRA, JOAO TIAGO SOARES,
JOAQUIM AGOSTINHO DA COSTA
RODRIGUES, JOAQUIM FERREIRA
SOARES, JOSE AUGUSTO LOPES
FERREIRA, JOSE CARLOS GOUVEIA
SALGADO, JOSE MANUEL SIEIRA GAVINA,
JOSE JOAQUIM MARQUES TOURITA,
JUVENAL SILVA CABRAL, MARIO LUIS
COSTA RODRIGUES, MIGUEL
ALEXANDRE ANDRINO GOMES, MILTIN
CESAR AGUIAR CARREIRO, ROBERT
ZLOTSZ, SERGIO FERNANDES SILVA
B-1-654
- 0645 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-655 B-1-655
Page: 6
ANSELMO, SIIVINO ARAUJO COUTO,

SIMAO PEDRO MARTINS DA COSTA, AND
VALDEMAR FERREITRA COSTA
Plaintiffs
and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION, MINISTER OF
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT, HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
[1] The defendants move to strike the Statement of Claim, without leave to amend. They
submit that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and is riddled with deficiencies such that
the “claim is beyond particularizing or amending [and] should be struck in its entirety.” I agree;
however, the plaintiffs ought to be granted an opportunity to file an amended claim that properly
and specifically sets out their claim(s).
[2] The present Statement of Claim comes close to being incomprehensible. The claim
appears to assert that the plaintiffs have suffered damages and loss as a result of the delay,
misfeasance, discrimination, negligence, and illegality in the processing of Labour Market
opinions [LMOs], Labour Market Impact Assessments [LMIAs], work permits and permanent
residence applications.
B-1-655
- 0646 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-656 B-1-656
Page: 7
[3] This is a proposed class action proceeding against two Ministers for certain alleged acts
and omissions, and against Her Majesty the Queen for the tortious acts and omissions of her
officials and servants, including the two Ministers.

[4] It is alleged that all of the plaintiffs applied for, and were denied, LMO or LMIA
assessments, on Temporary Work Permits [TWP], Work Permits [WP], or Provincial Nominee
Program [PNP] permanent resident consideration. The plaintiffs are sorted into eight groups (it
is unclear to the court whether some plaintiffs appear in more than one group), as described in
paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim, as follows:
[Group 1] “are all Foreign Temporary Workers, [TFW] pursuant to

the IRPA Regulations, under the authority of s. 12(2) of the IRPA,
who applied for Foreign Temporary Worker permits and were
denied because no Labour Market Opinion ("LMO") or Labour
Market Impact Assessment ("LMIA") had been processed by the
Defendant Minister of Employment and Social Development
(formerly Minister for Human Resources and Social
Development), following which the Minister of Immigration and
his officials denied them work permits due to the inordinate,
inexplicable, and actionable delay by the Minister of Human
Resources and Social Development, contrary to his statutory duty
to process, pursuant to s. 3(1)(f) of the IRPA, which applications
were filed and denied to the Plaintiffs set out in, and in accordance
with,"Schedule A" of the within Statement of Claim;”
[Group #2] “are all Foreign Temporary Workers, pursuant to the

IRPA Regulations, who were denied permits based on the
erroneous, arbitrary, and ultra vires assessment that the Plaintiffs'
trade or work category lack a labour market "shortage", which
refusals were made based on conceded facts by the Defendants
that:
(i) that no statistics existed with respect to "shortages";

(ii) that the Defendant Ministers expressed, publicly, that
they hoped to have such statistics as to shortages, by 2015;
and
(iii) that the best-placed authority as to shortages are the
Provincial, local Labour authorities, industries, and trade
unions;
B-1-656
- 0647 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-657 B-1-657
Page: 8
which applications were filed and denied to the Plaintiffs set out in,
and in accordance with, "Schedule B" to the within statement of
claim;”
[Group #3] “were denied LMO/LMIA consideration due to illegal

and ultra vires Ministerial directions and instructions by the
Minister of Employment and Social Development, of a moratorium
up to June 201h, 2014, which moratorium was applied nationally

even though it arose from a local problem in Western Canada with
no such problem existing in Ontario, particularly with the "ethnic
food sector", and further which instructions were due to the
incompetence and ultra vires LMO/LMIA assessments, as well as
the impossible and onerous policies and requirements then
imposed on June 20'h, 2014, looking forward beyond June 20'h,
2014, which included some of the following:
(i) commit to hiring and training Canadians at high wage

rates even though the employers cannot find Canadians
willing and able to be trained and, further, if a company
failed to find and train a Canadian worker over a 3-5 year
period, then the company could face l year in jail and a
$100,000 fine;
(ii) agree to let in Ministry of Employment and
Development (Human Resources and Social Development)
investigators into their office, unannounced and without
warrant, to review and take all company records; Ministry
of Employment and Development (Human Resources and
Social Development) investigators also were given ability
to enter residential premises;
which LMO/LMIA applications, were filed and denied to the

Plaintiffs set out in, and in accordance with "Schedule C' of the
within Statement of Claim;”
[Group #4] were denied, contrary to law, and by way of illegal and
ultra vires policy change and Minister's instructions, which
policies and changes changed after the Plaintiffs' application was
submitted, but before a decision on the assessment was made,
whereby the new policies and instructions were applied to the
LMO/LMIA, resulting in a refusal of the application, and
actionable damages caused to the Plaintiffs set out in, and in
accordance with "Schedule D" of the within Statement of Claim;
[Group #5] were denied an LMO/LMIA assessment and decision

in order to .renew their work permits, due to arbitrary, and ultra
vires, compliance order(s) against their employers and Plaintiffs
which made it impossible to obtain a decision, such as:
B-1-657
- 0648 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-658 B-1-658
Page: 9
(i) the inexcusable, inordinate delay in processing and

verifying which could take 5-6 months;
(ii) making assessments, and assumptions regarding
commercial, market and labour standard conditions which
did not accord with reality and were based on mere
assumptions without evidence, when the expertise,
evidence, and information lay with local Provincial

authorities, industries, and unions which were not
accessed by the Defendants' officials;
(iii) while they called them "investigations" with respect
to the compliance orders, the Defendants' officials in fact
never showed up at work-sites, or offices, to speak to
employers or employees; and
(iv) while an employer was under "compliance review",
all applications for that employer were not processed;
which resulted in the denial of an LMO/LMIA assessment for the
Plaintiffs who applied for one, prior to the arbitrary compliance
orders were put in place, but before an assessment/decision could
be made, which caused actionable damages for the Plaintiffs as set
out in, and in accordance with "Schedule E' of the within
Statement of Claim;”
[Group #6] “were not able to apply for required LMO/LMIA, to

renew their work permits, due to arbitrary, and ultra vires,
arbitrary changes to LMO/LMIA Rules for which these Plaintiffs
made it impossible to obtain a decision, which rules include such
orders as:
(i) the Defendants' officials would change the wage rates

without notice;
(ii) the Defendants' officials would change the advertising
requirements without notice;
(iii) the Defendants' officials would charge their analysis
of their "labour market" statistics without notice; and
(iv) the Defendants' officials would change language
requirements without notice;
which resulted in the denial of an LMOILMIA assessment for the
Plaintiffs who applied for one, prior to the arbitrary rules were put
in place, but before an assessment/decision could be made, which
caused actionable damages for the Plaintiffs as set out in, and in
accordance with "Schedule F' of the within Statement of Claim;”
[Group #7] “were eligible Provincial Nominee Program ("PNP")

Applicants in Ontario who applied but, because of either illegal
and ultra vires "quota" and inexplicable, illegal, and actionable
delay by the Defendant Minister of Immigration, as well as
superimposing and overriding provincial criteria and selection with
B-1-658
- 0649 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-659 B-1-659
Page: 10
irrelevant and ultra vires federal criteria, will not receive an

answer to their application for their permanent residence, and will
see removal proceedings against them before a decision can be
made, thus causing actionable damages to these Plaintiffs as set
out, and in accordance with "Schedule G'' of the within Statement
of Claim;”
[Group #8] “who qualify for the "PNP" Programme in Ontario but

who, because of the illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires Federal
"quota" by the Defendant Minister of Immigration, as well as super
imposing and overriding provincial criteria and selection with
irrelevant and ultra vires federal criteria, will not be processed, and
subject to removal proceedings prior to a decision and thus caused
actionable damages to the Plaintiffs as set in, and in accordance
with "Schedule H” of the within Statement of Claim;”
[5] The plaintiffs submit that “the substantive issues” in this motion have been dealt with by
the court in Cabral et al v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al, T-2425-14,
which is referred to as “the companion case” and they argue that the basis of the within motion is
“virtually indistinguishable, in law, and that the within motion to strike ought to be dismissed, as
was largely the case in T-2425-14.”
[6] I agree with the defendants that the ruling on the motion to strike in T-2425-14 is of
limited assistance in deciding the within motion because the subject matter of the actions are
significantly different. I also agree with the defendants that the ruling in T-2425-14 is relevant in
two respects: (i) whether the motion should be heard orally rather than in writing, and (ii) with
respect to the plaintiffs’ challenge to section 49 of the Federal Courts Act which bars jury trials
should be struck. For the reasons given in T-2425-14, I find that this motion may be properly
disposed of in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, and that the allegation
challenging section 49 of the Federal Courts Act, must be struck from the Statement of Claim.
B-1-659
- 0650 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-660 B-1-660
Page: 11
[7] The defendants submit that the plaintiffs, as TFWs, are “without standing with respect to
claims concerning the processing of applications for [LMO/]LMIAs and thus paragraphs 2(a)-(f)
and 6(a)-(f) do not disclose a reasonable case of action.” It is accurate, as the defendants plead
that LMOs and LMIAs are applied for and issued to employers, not the workers hired under

them. However, it is not plain and obvious that a worker cannot be adversely affected by the
failure or delay of Canada to issue a LMO or LMIA to a prospective employer which would have
permitted the worker to be hired. On the other hand, it is unclear to the court that the claim, as
currently drafted, pleads that all or any of the plaintiffs would have been hired as temporary
workers had these documents been issued.
[8] I am far from convinced that it is plain and obvious that none of these plaintiffs have a
possible claim against the defendants; however, as presently drafted, the Statement of Claim
cannot stand. The Statement of Claim suffers from a number of deficiencies that cannot be cured
simply by striking its offensive parts for what would remain would not make sense. These
deficiencies include the following:
1. The plaintiffs have not responded to what appears to be an accurate submission by the
defendants that “the title of the proceeding lists 236 plaintiffs but upwards of 90 are listed
twice [and] seven plaintiffs appear multiple times with names spelled in different ways
making it unclear whether they are duplicate or different plaintiffs.” This must be
corrected in order that the defendants know who is bringing the action and without that
information they are unable to mount much if any specific defence.
B-1-660
- 0651 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-661 B-1-661
Page: 12
2. The Schedule “B” plaintiffs are described in paragraph 2(b) as having been denied
permits but in Schedule “B” the plaintiffs are described as having been denied “LMIAs”.
This inconsistency must be resolved.
3. The Schedule “A” plaintiffs are described as having been denied LMIAs, but in Schedule

“A” the plaintiffs list the dates they applied for work permits, which is not relevant to the
claim these plaintiffs are advancing. Again, this must be resolved.
4. “In paragraph 12(a), the plaintiffs make passing reference to a ‘criminal law duty of care,
under s. 126 of the Criminal Code” [but] no facts are pleaded in respect of this claim, nor
is this alleged duty of care otherwise referenced in the pleading.” Absent such
particulars, this pleading should be struck.
[9] The defendants submit that “the plaintiffs plead no material facts supporting a claim that
delays in the processing of applications for LMIAs are actionable.” The plaintiffs plead that
there were delays in processing the LMOs and LMIAs and that those delays were “inordinate,
inexplicable and actionable.” I do not accept, as the defendants suggest, that the claim must set
out the dates of application, the date of denial, and the processing time that passed. Those facts
can be discovered through a demand for particulars if the information is not otherwise available
to the defendants. It is not necessary for the purposes of pleading. On the other hand, the
plaintiffs must plead more than mere delay. Without pleading the basis for its assertion that
there was a delay (such as comparing the processing time to an average, or basing the processing
on some specific direction or policy), the defendants cannot respond.
B-1-661
- 0652 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-662 B-1-662
Page: 13
[10] I agree with the defendants that the plaintiff s’ pleading that they have been or will be
denied permanent resident visas owing to ‘quotas’, ‘delays’, and ‘ultra-vires federal criteria’ is
far too general. The plaintiffs must plead material facts to establish the alleged quota, delay and
ultra-vires claims, and plead facts the support the allegation that they have been or will be denied

permanent resident visas to which they would otherwise be entitled.
[11] I agree with the defendants that the “plaintiffs allege certain Ministerial instructions,
policies, compliance orders, rules, quotas, and ‘federal criteria’ are ‘illegal and ultra-vires’”
without specifically identifying them or stating how they are illegal or ultra-vires. Absent this
information, the pleading is deficient as it lacks material facts necessary for the defendants to
respond to the allegation.
[12] The Statement of Claim, insofar as it makes allegations relating to TFWP, LMIAs, the
PNP, the Federal Skilled Workers Program, the Federal Trades Program, work permits,
permanent residence visas, compliance orders, assessments of labour shortages, and the food-
services moratorium of 2014, is deficient because there are no facts or insufficient facts pled to
permit the defendants and the court to understand the bases of these claims. I agree with the
defendants that these pleadings are “neither complete nor intelligible.”
[13] I further agree with the defendants that it appears that part of this claim, as it relates to the
plaintiffs in T-2425-14, is duplicative. If so, and to that extent, it is improper.
B-1-662
- 0653 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-663 B-1-663
Page: 14
[14] These irregularities and material deficiencies are sufficient, in the court’s view, to strike
the Statement of Claim in its entirety; however, because there may be an actionable claim by
some of these plaintiffs, they will be granted leave to file a Fresh Statement of Claim within sixty
(60) days that conforms to these reasons, failing which the claim will be dismissed.
B-1-663
- 0654 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-664 B-1-664
ORDER
1. The Statement of Claim is struck in its entirety;
2. The plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Fresh Statement of Claim within sixty (60) days

of this Order that complies with the Reasons provided, failing which the action will be
dismissed; and
3. Costs are in the cause.
"Russel W. Zinn"
Judge
B-1-664
- 0655 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-665 B-1-665
FEDERAL COURT
DOCKET: T-2502-14

STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDRE DA SILVA CAMPOS ET AL v MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION ET AL
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
ORDER AND REASONS: ZINN J.
DATED: JULY 20, 2015
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Roger Flaim FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Prathima Prashad

Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
William F. Pentney FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Ottawa, Ontario
B-1-665
- 0656 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-666 B-1-666
EXHIBIT “XX”
B-1-666
- 0657 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-667 B-1-667
Date: 20160208
Docket: T-2010-11

Ottawa, Ontario, February 8, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
COMMITTEE FOR MONETARY AND

ECONOMIC REFORM (“COMER”),
WILLIAM KREHM, AND ANN EMMETT
Plaintiffs
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE

MINISTER OF FINANCE, THE MINISTER
OF NATIONAL REVENUE, THE BANK OF
CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CANADA
Defendants
This is Exhibit “XX” to the affidavit of Kipling

Warner affirmed before me electronically by way
of videoconference this 26th day of January,
2023, in accordance with O Reg 431/20
_____________________________________
B-1-667
- 0658 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-668 B-1-668
Page: 2
ORDER AND REASONS
I. INTRODUCTION

[1] This is a motion by the Defendants under Rule 221 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-
106 [Rules] to strike the Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim of March 26, 2015 [Amended
Claim].
II. BACKGROUND
[2] The Plaintiff, Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform [COMER], is an economic
“think-tank” based in Toronto. COMER was established in 1970 and is dedicated to research and
publications on issues of monetary and economic reform in Canada. The individual Plaintiffs are
members of COMER who have an interest in economic policy.
A. History of the Litigation
[3] This litigation was commenced on December 12, 2011, with the filing of the original
Statement of Claim, which was amended in minor ways on January 19, 2012 [Original Claim].
[4] On August 9, 2013, the Original Claim was struck out in its entirety by Prothonotary
Aalto, without leave to amend. Upon appeal from the decision of the Prothonotary, I struck the
Original Claim in its entirety, but with leave to amend, by way of order on April 24, 2014 [Order
of April 24, 2014].
B-1-668
- 0659 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-669 B-1-669
Page: 3
[5] Appeal and cross-appeals of my Order of April 24, 2014 were dismissed by the Federal
Court of Appeal on January 26, 2015. The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Claim on March 26,
2015. The Defendants now move to strike out this Amended Claim.

B. The Amended Claim
[6] The Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim, while an amended version of the Original Claim,
continues to seek a series of declarations relating to three basic assertions, as noted in my
previous Order of April 24, 2014: first, that the Bank of Canada Act, RSC, 1985, c B-2 [Bank
Act] provides for interest-free loans to the federal, provincial and municipal governments for the
purposes of “human capital expenditures,” and the Defendants have failed to fulfill their legal
duties to ensure such loans are made, resulting in lower human capital expenditures by
governments to the detriment of all Canadians; second, that the Government of Canada uses
flawed accounting methods in relation to public finances, thereby understating the benefit of
“human capital expenditures” and undermining Parliament’s constitutional role as the guardian
of the public purse; and third, that these and other harms are the result of Canadian fiscal and
monetary policy being, in part, controlled by private foreign interests through Canada’s
involvement in international monetary and financial institutions.
[7] The pleadings of fact which accompany the Amended Claim define “human capital
expenditures” as those that encourage the qualitative and quantitative progress of a nation by
way of the promotion of the health, education and quality of life of individuals, in order to make
them more productive economic actors, through institutions such as schools, universities,
B-1-669
- 0660 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-670 B-1-670
Page: 4
hospitals and other public infrastructures. The Plaintiffs state that investment in human capital is
the most productive investment and expenditure a government can make.
[8] The Amended Claim seeks nine declarations. The first is that ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank

Act require the Minister of Finance [Minister] and the Government of Canada to request, and the
Bank of Canada to provide, interest-free loans for the purpose of human capital expenditures to
all levels of government (federal, provincial and municipal).
[9] Second, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the Defendants have not only
abdicated their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act,
but that they have also, by way of a refusal to request and make interest-free loans under ss 18(i)
and (j), caused a negative and destructive impact on Canadians through the disintegration of
Canada’s economy, its financial institutions, increases in public debt, a decrease in social
services, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor, with the continuing disappearance of
the middle class. In the accompanying facts to their Amended Claim, the Plaintiffs use a
June 11, 2014 request of the Town of Lakeshore, Ontario as an example of an occasion when the
Minister refused a request for an interest-free loan without regard to either the nature of the
request or pertinent provisions of the Bank Act. The Plaintiffs say that the Minister’s reasons for
refusing the Town of Lakeshore’s request are both financially and economically fallacious and
not in accordance with statutory duties.
[10] Third, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that s 18(m) of the Bank Act, and its administration
and operation, is unconstitutional and of no force and effect. They say the Defendants have
B-1-670
- 0661 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-671 B-1-671
Page: 5
abdicated their constitutional duties and handed them over to international, private entities whose
interests have, in effect, been placed above those of Canadians and the primacy of the Canadian
Constitution. The Plaintiffs state that no sovereign government such as Canada should ever
borrow money from commercial banks at interest, when it can borrow from its own central bank

interest-free, particularly when that central bank, unlike the banks of any other G-8 nation, is
publically established, mandated, owned and accountable to Parliament and the Minister, and
was created with that purpose as one of its main functions.
[11] Fourth, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the fact that the minutes of meetings
involving the Governor of the Bank of Canada [Governor] and other G-8 central bank governors
have been kept secret is ultra vires the Governor, as being contrary to the Bank Act – particularly
s 24 – and ought to be considered unconstitutional conduct.
[12] The fifth declaration sought is that, by allowing the Governor to keep the nature and
content of international bank meetings secret, by not exercising the authority and duty contained
in ss 18(i) and (j) of the Bank Act, and in enacting s 18(m) of the Bank Act, Parliament has
abdicated its duties and functions as mandated by ss 91(1)(a), (3), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19),
(20) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
[13] The Plaintiffs’ sixth and seventh declarations involve the manner in which the Minister
accounts for public finances, which the Plaintiffs say is conceptually and logically wrong. The
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Minister is required to list human capital expenditures —
including those related to infrastructure as “assets” rather than “liabilities” in budgetary
B-1-671
- 0662 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-672 B-1-672
Page: 6
accounting — as well as all revenues prior to the return of tax credits to individual and corporate
tax payers, then subtract tax credits, then subtract total expenditures in order to arrive at an
annual “surplus” or “deficit,” as required by s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[14] The eighth declaration sought is that taxes imposed to pay for the interest on the deficit
and the debt to private bankers, both domestic and foreign, are illegal and unconstitutional. The
Plaintiffs claim that this is the result of a breach of the constitutional right(s) to “no taxation
without representation” which occurs when the Minister fails to disclose anticipated revenues to
Parliament before the return of anticipated tax credits, prior to determining whether an
anticipated surplus or deficit will be incurred, in the tabling of the budget. This means that a full
and proper Parliamentary debate cannot properly take place, thus breaching the right to no
taxation without representation under both ss 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as
the unwritten constitutional imperatives to the same effect. Also, it results in an infringement of
the Plaintiffs’ right to vote under s 3 of the Charter, which is tied to the right to no taxation
without representation with respect to the Minister’s constitutional violations. The result is a
breach of the terms of the Bank Act relating to interest-free loans and the consequent
constitutional violations by the Executive of its duty to govern, and its relinquishing of
sovereignty and statutory decision-making to private foreign bankers.
[15] The ninth and final declaration sought is that the “privative clause” in s 30.1 of the Bank
Act either (a) does not apply to prevent judicial review, by way of action or otherwise, with
respect to statutorily or constitutionally ultra vires actions, or to prevent the recovery or damages
based on such actions; or (b) if it does prevent judicial review and recovery, is unconstitutional
B-1-672
- 0663 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-673 B-1-673
Page: 7
and of no force and effect, as breaching the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to judicial review and
the underlying constitutional imperatives of the rule of law, Constitutionalism and Federalism.
[16] Besides the declaratory relief sought, the Plaintiffs also in the Amended Claim request

damages in the amount of $10,000.00 each for individual Plaintiff: William Krehm, Anne
Emmett, and for ten COMER Steering Committee [Steering Committee] members named in the
Amended Claim, for the breach of their constitutional right of “no taxation without
representation” and the inseparable infringement of the right to vote due to alleged constitutional
breaches by the Minister. Further, the Plaintiffs request the return of the portion of illegal and
unconstitutional tax, to be calculated and calibrated at trial, for each of the Plaintiffs and the
members of the Steering Committing, consisting of the proportion of taxes to pay interest
charges on the deficit, and debt between 2011 and the time of trial, paid by the Plaintiffs and
Steering Committee members, due to the statutory and constitutional breaches of the Defendants’
rights in refusing and/or failing to cover deficits in the budget by way of interest-free loans, as
well as the breach of their right to no taxation without representation, to be calculated by the
compounded interest changes set out in the budget, as a percentage of the budget, calculated as
the same percentage paid by the Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members, to be calculated at
trial.
III. ISSUES
[17] The Defendants have brought a motion to strike the Amended Claim on the grounds that,
inter alia:
B-1-673
- 0664 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-674 B-1-674
Page: 8
1. it fails to comply with the leave to amend granted and fails to remedy the problems
identified in the Order of April 24, 2014;
2. it seeks to add parties and new claims that are not permissible by virtue of the leave to
amend and the Rules;
3. it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants, or any one of
them;

4. it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;
5. it is an abuse of process of the Court;
6. it fails to disclose facts which would show that the action or inaction of the Defendants,
or any one of them, could cause an infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the
Charter or the Constitution;
7. the causal link between the alleged action or inaction of the Defendants or any one of
them, and the alleged infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights is too uncertain, speculative
and hypothetical to sustain a cause of action;
8. it seeks declaratory relief only available under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC,
1985, c F-7 [Federal Courts Act] and in any event such relief is not available to the
Plaintiffs;
9. the Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek an advisory opinion from the Court;
10. it seeks to adjudicate matters that are not justiciable;
11. it seeks to impose a fetter on the sovereignty of Parliament and seeks to overrule or
disregard the privilege of the House of Commons over its own debates and internal
procedures;
12. the Plaintiffs do not have a s 3 Charter right to any particular form of taxation and there
is no causal connection, or legitimate expectation between their vote and the presentation
of a budget before the House of Commons and resulting legislation;
13. it concerns matters outside the jurisdiction of the Court; and
14. the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the Amended Claim as of right, nor can they
meet the necessary requirements for the grant of public interest standing.
IV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS
[18] The following provisions of the Bank Act are applicable in these proceedings:
B-1-674
- 0665 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-675 B-1-675
Page: 9
Powers and business Pouvoirs
18. The Bank may 18. La Banque peut :
[…] […]
(i) make loans or advances for i) consentir des prêts ou

periods not exceeding six avances, pour des périodes
months to the Government of d’au plus six mois, au
Canada or the government of a gouvernement du Canada ou
province on taking security in d’une province en grevant
readily marketable securities d’une sûreté des valeurs
issued or guaranteed by mobilières facilement
Canada or any province; négociables, émises ou
garanties par le Canada ou
cette province;
(j) make loans to the j) consentir des prêts au

Government of Canada or the gouvernement du Canada ou
government of any province, d’une province, à condition
but such loans outstanding at que, d’une part, le montant non
any one time shall not, in the remboursé des prêts ne
case of the Government of dépasse, à aucun moment, une
Canada, exceed one-third of certaine fraction des recettes
the estimated revenue of the estimatives du gouvernement
Government of Canada for its en cause pour l’exercice en
fiscal year, and shall not, in the cours — un tiers dans le cas du
case of a provincial Canada, un quart dans celui
government, exceed one-fourth d’une province — et que,
of that government’s estimated d’autre part, les prêts soient
revenue for its fiscal year, and remboursés avant la fin du
such loans shall be repaid premier trimestre de l’exercice
before the end of the first suivant;
quarter after the end of the
fiscal year of the government
that has contracted the loan;
[…] […]
(m) open accounts in a central m) ouvrir des comptes dans

bank in any other country or in une banque centrale étrangère
the Bank for International ou dans la Banque des
Settlements, accept deposits règlements internationaux,
from central banks in other accepter des dépôts — pouvant
countries, the Bank for porter intérêt — de banques
International Settlements, the centrales étrangères, de la
International Monetary Fund, Banque des règlements
B-1-675
- 0666 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-676 B-1-676
Page: 10
the International Bank for internationaux, du Fonds

Reconstruction and monétaire international, de la
Development and any other Banque internationale pour la
official international financial reconstruction et le
organization, act as agent or développement et de tout autre
mandatary, or depository or organisme financier
correspondent for any of those international officiel, et leur

banks or organizations, and servir de mandataire,
pay interest on any of those dépositaire ou correspondant;
deposits;
[…] […]
Fiscal agent of Canadian Agent financier du

Government gouvernement canadien
24. (1) The Bank shall act as 24. (1) La Banque remplit les
fiscal agent of the Government fonctions d’agent financier du
of Canada. gouvernement du Canada.
Charge for acting Honoraires
(1.1) With the consent of the (1.1) La Banque peut, avec le

Minister, the Bank may charge consentement du ministre,
for acting as fiscal agent of the exiger des honoraires pour
Government of Canada. remplir de telles fonctions.
To manage public debt Gestion de la dette publique
(2) The Bank, if and when (2) Sur demande du ministre,

required by the Minister to do la Banque fait office de
so, shall act as agent for the mandataire du gouvernement
Government of Canada in the du Canada pour la gestion de
payment of interest and la dette publique, notamment
principal and generally in pour le paiement des intérêts et
respect of the management of du principal de celle-ci.
the public debt of Canada.
Canadian Government Encaissement des chèques du

cheques to be paid or gouvernement canadien
negotiated at par
(3) The Bank shall not make (3) La Banque ne peut exiger
any charge for cashing or de frais pour l’encaissement ou
negotiating a cheque drawn on la négociation de chèques tirés
the Receiver General or on the sur le receveur général ou pour
account of the Receiver son compte et d’autres effets
General, or for cashing or autorisant des paiements sur le
B-1-676
- 0667 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-677 B-1-677
Page: 11
negotiating any other Trésor, ni pour le dépôt au

instrument issued as authority Trésor de chèques faits à
for the payment of money out l’ordre du gouvernement du
of the Consolidated Revenue Canada ou d’un ministère
Fund, or on a cheque drawn in fédéral.
favour of the Government of
Canada or any of its

departments and tendered for
deposit in the Consolidated
Revenue Fund.
[…] […]
No liability if in good faith Immunité judiciaire
30.1 No action lies against Her 30.1 Sa Majesté, le ministre,

Majesty, the Minister, any les administrateurs, les cadres
officer, employee or director ou les employés de la Banque
of the Bank or any person ou toute autre personne
acting under the direction of agissant sous les ordres du
the Governor for anything gouverneur bénéficient de
done or omitted to be done in l’immunité judiciaire pour les
good faith in the actes ou omissions commis de
administration or discharge of bonne foi dans l’exercice —
any powers or duties that autorisé ou requis — des
under this Act are intended or pouvoirs et fonctions conférés
authorized to be executed or par la présente loi.
performed.
[19] The following provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, are applicable in these
proceedings:
Appropriation and Tax Bills Bills pour lever des crédits et

des impôts
53. Bills for appropriating any 53. Tout bill ayant pour but
Part of the Public Revenue, or l’appropriation d’une portion
for imposing any Tax or quelconque du revenu public,
Impost, shall originate in the ou la création de taxes ou
House of Commons. d’impôts, devra originer dans
la Chambre des Communes.
B-1-677
- 0668 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-678 B-1-678
Page: 12
Recommendation of Money Recommandation des crédits

Votes
54. It shall not be lawful for 54. Il ne sera pas loisible à la

the House of Commons to Chambre des Communes
adopt or pass any Vote, d’adopter aucune résolution,
Resolution, Address, or Bill adresse ou bill pour

for the Appropriation of any l’appropriation d’une partie
Part of the Public Revenue, or quelconque du revenu public,
of any Tax or Impost, to any ou d’aucune taxe ou impôt, à
Purpose that has not been first un objet qui n’aura pas, au
recommended to that House by préalable, été recommandé à la
Message of the Governor chambre par un message du
General in the Session in gouverneur-général durant la
which such Vote, Resolution, session pendant laquelle telle
Address, or Bill is proposed. résolution, adresse ou bill est
proposé.
[…] […]
Application to Legislatures Application aux législatures

of Provisions respecting des dispositions relatives aux
Money Votes, etc. crédits, etc.
90. The following Provisions 90. Les dispositions suivantes

of this Act respecting the de la présente loi, concernant
Parliament of Canada, namely, le parlement du Canada, savoir
— the Provisions relating to : — les dispositions relatives
Appropriation and Tax Bills, aux bills d’appropriation et
the Recommendation of d’impôts, à la recommandation
Money Votes, the Assent to de votes de deniers, à la
Bills, the Disallowance of sanction des bills, au désaveu
Acts, and the Signification of des lois, et à la signification du
Pleasure on Bills reserved, — bon plaisir quant aux bills
shall extend and apply to the réservés, — s’étendront et
Legislatures of the several s’appliqueront aux législatures
Provinces as if those des différentes provinces, tout
Provisions were here re- comme si elles étaient ici
enacted and made applicable décrétées et rendues
in Terms to the respective expressément applicables aux
Provinces and the Legislatures provinces respectives et à leurs
thereof, with the Substitution législatures, en substituant
of the Lieutenant Governor of toutefois le lieutenant-
the Province for the Governor gouverneur de la province au
General, of the Governor gouverneur-général, le
General for the Queen and for gouverneur-général à la Reine
a Secretary of State, of One et au secrétaire d’État, un an à
B-1-678
- 0669 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-679 B-1-679
Page: 13
Year for Two Years, and of the deux ans, et la province au

Province for Canada. Canada.
Legislative Authority of Autorité législative du

Parliament of Canada parlement du Canada
91. It shall be lawful for the 91. Il sera loisible à la Reine,

Queen, by and with the Advice de l’avis et du consentement

and Consent of the Senate and du Sénat et de la Chambre des
House of Commons, to make Communes, de faire des lois
Laws for the Peace, Order, and pour la paix, l’ordre et le bon
good Government of Canada, gouvernement du Canada,
in relation to all Matters not relativement à toutes les
coming within the Classes of matières ne tombant pas dans
Subjects by this Act assigned les catégories de sujets par la
exclusively to the Legislatures présente loi exclusivement
of the Provinces; and for assignés aux législatures des
greater Certainty, but not so as provinces; mais, pour plus de
to restrict the Generality of the garantie, sans toutefois
foregoing Terms of this restreindre la généralité des
Section, it is hereby declared termes ci-haut employés dans
that (notwithstanding anything le présent article, il est par la
in this Act) the exclusive présente déclaré que
Legislative Authority of the (nonobstant toute disposition
Parliament of Canada extends contraire énoncée dans la
to all Matters coming within présente loi) l’autorité
the Classes of Subjects next législative exclusive du
hereinafter enumerated; that is parlement du Canada s’étend à
to say, toutes les matières tombant
dans les catégories de sujets ci-
dessous énumérés, savoir :
[…] […]
1A. The Public Debt and 1A. La dette et la propriété

Property. (45) publiques. (45)
[…] […]
3. The raising of Money by 3. Le prélèvement de deniers

any Mode or System of par tous modes ou systèmes de
Taxation. taxation.
4. The borrowing of Money on 4. L’emprunt de deniers sur le

the Public Credit. crédit public.
[…] […]
B-1-679
- 0670 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-680 B-1-680
Page: 14
6. The Census and Statistics. 6. Le recensement et les

statistiques.
[…] […]
14. Currency and Coinage. 14. Le cours monétaire et le

monnayage.

[…] […]
16. Savings Banks. 16. Les caisses d’épargne.
[…] […]
18. Bills of Exchange and 18. Les lettres de change et les

Promissory Notes. billets promissoires.
19. Interest. 19. L’intérêt de l’argent.
20. Legal Tender. 20. Les offres légales.
[…] […]
[20] The following provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, are applicable in these
proceedings:
Democratic rights of citizens Droits démocratiques des

citoyens
3. Every citizen of Canada has 3. Tout citoyen canadien a le

the right to vote in an election droit de vote et est éligible aux
of members of the House of élections législatives fédérales
Commons or of a legislative ou provinciales.
assembly and to be qualified
for membership therein.
Life, liberty and security of Vie, liberté et sécurité

person
7. Everyone has the right to 7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la

life, liberty and security of the liberté et à la sécurité de sa
person and the right not to be personne; il ne peut être porté
deprived thereof except in atteinte à ce droit qu’en
accordance with the principles conformité avec les principes
B-1-680
- 0671 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-681 B-1-681
Page: 15
of fundamental justice. de justice fondamentale.
[…] […]
Equality before and under Égalité devant la loi, égalité

law and equal protection and de bénéfice et protection
benefit of law égale de la loi

15. (1) Every individual is 15. (1) La loi ne fait acception
equal before and under the law de personne et s’applique
and has the right to the equal également à tous, et tous ont
protection and equal benefit of droit à la même protection et
the law without discrimination au même bénéfice de la loi,
and, in particular, without indépendamment de toute
discrimination based on race, discrimination, notamment des
national or ethnic origin, discriminations fondées sur la
colour, religion, sex, age or race, l’origine nationale ou
mental or physical disability. ethnique, la couleur, la
religion, le sexe, l’âge ou les
déficiences mentales ou
physiques.
[…] […]
Commitment to promote Engagements relatifs à

equal opportunities l’égalité des chances
36. (1) Without altering the 36. (1) Sous réserve des
legislative authority of compétences législatives du
Parliament or of the provincial Parlement et des législatures et
legislatures, or the rights of de leur droit de les exercer, le
any of them with respect to the Parlement et les législatures,
exercise of their legislative ainsi que les gouvernements
authority, Parliament and the fédéral et provinciaux,
legislatures, together with the s’engagent à :
government of Canada and the
provincial governments, are
committed to
(a) promoting equal a) promouvoir l’égalité des

opportunities for the well- chances de tous les Canadiens
being of Canadians; dans la recherche de leur bien-
être;
(b) furthering economic b) favoriser le développement

development to reduce économique pour réduire
disparity in opportunities; and l’inégalité des chances;
B-1-681
- 0672 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-682 B-1-682
Page: 16
(c) providing essential public c) fournir à tous les Canadiens,

services of reasonable quality à un niveau de qualité
to all Canadians. acceptable, les services publics
essentiels.
Commitment respecting Engagement relatif aux

public services services publics

(2) Parliament and the (2) Le Parlement et le
government of Canada are gouvernement du Canada
committed to the principle of prennent l’engagement de
making equalization payments principe de faire des paiements
to ensure that provincial de péréquation propres à
governments have sufficient donner aux gouvernements
revenues to provide reasonably provinciaux des revenus
comparable levels of public suffisants pour les mettre en
services at reasonably mesure d’assurer les services
comparable levels of taxation. publics à un niveau de qualité
et de fiscalité sensiblement
comparables.
[21] The following provision of the Rules is applicable in these proceedings:
Motion to Strike Requête en radiation
221. (1) On motion, the Court 221. (1) À tout moment, la

may, at any time, order that a Cour peut, sur requête,
pleading, or anything contained ordonner la radiation de tout ou
therein, be struck out, with or partie d’un acte de procédure,
without leave to amend, on the avec ou sans autorisation de le
ground that it modifier, au motif, selon le cas:
(a) discloses no reasonable (a) qu’il ne révèle aucune cause

cause of action or defence, as d’action ou de défense valable.
the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant (b) qu’il n’est pas pertinent ou

qu’il est redondant ;
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or (c) qu’il est scandaleux, frivole

vexatious, ou vexatoire ;
(d) may prejudice or delay the (d) qu’il risque de nuire à

fair trial of the action, l’instruction équitable de
l’action ou de la retarder;
B-1-682
- 0673 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-683 B-1-683
Page: 17
(e) constitutes a departure from (e) qu’il diverge d’un acte de

a previous pleading, or procédure antérieur ;
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the (f) qu’il constitue autrement un

process of the Court, abus de procédure.
and may order the action be Elle peut aussi ordonner

dismissed or judgement entered que l’action soit rejetée ou
accordingly. qu’un jugement soit enregistré
en conséquence.
V. ARGUMENT
A. Defendants’ Submissions on the Motion
(1) The Test on a Motion to Strike
[22] The Defendants say that the test to strike out a pleading under Rule 221 is whether it is
plain and obvious on the facts pleaded that the action cannot succeed: Sivak et al v The Queen et
al, 2012 FC 272 at para 15 [Sivak]; R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2011 SCC 42 at para 17
[Imperial Tobacco]. While there is a rule that material facts in a statement of claim should be
taken as true when determining whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action, this
does not require the court to accept at face value bare assumptions or allegations which may be
regarded as scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or legal submissions dressed up as facts:
Operation Dismantle v The Queen, [1985] 1 SCR 441 at para 27 [Operation Dismantle]; Carten
v Canada, 2009 FC 1233 at para 31 [Carten].
B-1-683
- 0674 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-684 B-1-684
Page: 18
(2) Reasonable Cause of Action
[23] The Rules require that the pleading of material facts disclose a reasonable cause of action.
A pleading must: (i) state facts and not merely conclusions of law; (ii) include material facts; (iii)

state facts and not the evidence by which they are to be proved; and (iv) state facts concisely in a
summary form: Carten, above; Sivak, above; Rules 174 and 181 of the Rules. The Plaintiffs’
Amended Claim fails to do this. Its allegations do not provide the necessary elements of each
cause of action together with the material facts. Furthermore, it is not clear if the Plaintiffs
continue to rely on the allegations of conspiracy and misfeasance as facts to support these
allegations are not included in the pleadings. As a result, it cannot be said that the Amended
Claim’s assertions result in the liability of the Defendants, or any one of them.
[24] The Amended Claim includes amendments that are not permissible under the Rules: new
parties (the Steering Committee members) and a cause of action not grounded in the facts
already pleaded (the allegation of a breach of s 3 Charter rights) have been added. The
Defendants further argue that the Amended Claim breaches the terms of the permission to amend
by failing to cure the problems identified in the Order of April 24, 2014.
[25] The Defendants say that there is no constitutional duty to present the federal budget in the
manner sought by the Plaintiffs. As a result, no breach of the principle of no taxation without
representation has occurred. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that no taxation without
representation means that the Crown may not levy a tax without the authority of Parliament:
Kingstreet Investments v New Brunswick, [2007] 1 SCR 3 at para 14; Constitution Act, 1867, ss
B-1-684
- 0675 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-685 B-1-685
Page: 19
53 and 90. The present circumstances suggest that this constitutional requirement has been
satisfied.
[26] As the master of its own procedure, Parliament cannot be said to have a duty to legislate.

No cause of action can result from failing to enact a law: New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v
Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319 at 354-355 [NB
Broadcasting]; Telezone Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [2004] OJ No 5, 69 OR (3d) 161
(CA) [Telezone]; Lucas v Toronto Services Board, 51 OR (3d) 783 at para 10; Moriss v Attorney
General, [1995] EWJ No 297 (England and Wales Court of Appeal) at para 38.
[27] Citing s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Plaintiffs allege that the accounting
method employed in the budgetary process is unconstitutional. However, this subsection, “the
Census and Statistics,” is simply one of the classes of subjects enumerated in s 91 over which
Parliament has exclusive legislative authority; it does not impose a duty to legislate and, as such,
is of little help to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants point out that, in any event, much of what is
being sought by the Plaintiffs is publically available from the Department of Finance. For
example, Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2012 can be found online at
http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2012/taxexp12-eng.asp.
[28] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ legitimate expectations argument, the Defendants state that
it falls under the doctrine of fairness or natural justice, and does not create substantive rights:
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 26. The
only procedure due to a Canadian citizen is that proposed legislation receive three readings in the
B-1-685
- 0676 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-686 B-1-686
Page: 20
House of Commons and the Senate and that it receive Royal Assent: Authorson v Canada
(Attorney General), 2003 SCC 39 [Authorson]. The procedural rights described by the Plaintiffs
have never existed: Penikett v The Queen, 1987 CanLii 145 (YK CA) at 17-18.

[29] The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Magna Carta does not assist them.
While the document holds a seminal place in the development of Canadian constitutional
principles, it has been displaced by legislation in both the United Kingdom and Canada. It has no
contemporary independent legal significance or weight and is therefore “amenable to ordinary
legislative change”: Rocco Galati et al v Canada, 2015 FC 91 at para 74 [Galati].
[30] Parliamentary privilege, including its corresponding powers and immunities, ensures the
proper functioning of Parliament and is one of the ways in which the constitutional separation of
powers is respected: Telezone, above, at para 13; Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid, 2005
SCC 30 at para 21 [Vaid]. In Authorson, above, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision in
Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 SCR 753, indicating that the way in
which a legislative body proceeds is a matter immune from judicial review and is one of self-
definition and inherent authority. The United Kingdom Bill of Rights of 1689, 1 Will & Mar sess
2, c 2, partially codifies parliamentary privilege at article 9, precluding any court from
impeaching or questioning the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament:
Prebble v Television New Zealand, [1994] UKPC 3, [1995] 1 AC 321 (JCPC); Hamilton v al
Fayed, [2000] 2 All ER 224 (HL) [Hamilton v al Fayed].
B-1-686
- 0677 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-687 B-1-687
Page: 21
[31] Once a category of privilege is established, it is not the courts but Parliament that may
determine whether a particular exercise of privilege is necessary or appropriate: Parliament of
Canada Act, RSC 1985, c P-1, ss 4-5 [Parliament of Canada Act]; Pickin v British Railways
Board, [1974] AC 765 (HL) at 790; Vaid, above, at para 29. Recognized categories of privilege

include freedom of speech and control over debates and proceedings in Parliament: Vaid, above.
The Defendants assert that the budget debate, its presentation, supporting papers and associated
legislation fall under this category of privilege: Roman Corp v Hudon’s Bay Oil & Gas Co,
[1973] 3 SCR 820 at 827-828; NB Broadcasting, above.
[32] By virtue of ss 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, “Money Bills” must originate in
the House of Commons, and the Governor General must grant a recommendation for the
expenditure of public funds. There is no suggestion in the Amended Claim that these
requirements have not been satisfied.
[33] COMER, as an unincorporated association, cannot benefit from the protection provided
for the electoral rights of citizens provided by s 3 of the Charter. While this protection could
apply to the two individual Plaintiffs, provided they are Canadian citizens, neither has plead such
a cause of action. The Amended Claim makes no suggestion that the Plaintiffs’ access to
“meaningful participation” in the electoral process – what the Supreme Court has determined is
protected by s 3 – has been in any way affected: Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General), [2003]
1 SCR 912 at para 27.
B-1-687
- 0678 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-688 B-1-688
Page: 22
[34] In order for a cause of action to be brought under the Charter, at least a threat of violation
of a Charter right must be established: Operation Dismantle, above, at para 7. The Amended
Claim does not demonstrate a link between the actions of any of the Defendants and the alleged
s 3 harms. The Defendants further submit that s 3 has never been interpreted to encompass any

rights or legitimate expectations that a claimant’s elected representatives will enact any particular
measures or refrain from doing so.
[35] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ damages claim for the return of allegedly unconstitutional
taxes, the Defendants assert that no factual support has been brought forward to support such a
claim.
[36] The Defendants also address several other allegations in the Amended Claim. As regards
the alleged misfeasance by public officers in the withholding of anticipated total revenue, the
Defendants say that the necessary elements of the tort – including any alleged state of mind of a
person involved, wilful default, malice or fraudulent intention – are not made out: St John’s Port
Authority v Adventure Tours Inc, 2011 FC 198 at para 25. Of note is the absence of facts that
would support a finding of deliberate and unlawful misconduct of a public officer, or that a
public officer was aware that his or her conduct was unlawful and likely to harm the Plaintiffs:
Odhavji v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 at paras 23, 28-29. In terms of the nominate tort of statutory
breach, the Supreme Court of Canada has established that it does not exist: The Queen v
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 SCR at 225. Even so, the remedy for a breach of statutory
duty by a public authority is judicial review for invalidity: Holland v Saskatchewan, 2008 SCC at
para 9.
B-1-688
- 0679 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-689 B-1-689
Page: 23
[37] The Plaintiffs also make a claim of conspiracy, but again fail to plead the material facts
necessary to support such an allegation, such as the identity of the officials engaged in the
conduct, the type of agreement entered into, the time the agreement was reached, the lawful or
unlawful means that were to be used, and the nature of the intended injury to the Plaintiffs. Other

requirements that are missing include an agreement between two or more persons and intent to
injure: G.H.L. Fridman, Introduction to the Canadian Law of Torts, 2nd ed (Markham:
Butterworths, 2003) at 185.
[38] The Plaintiffs plead that, through s 24 of the Bank Act, Parliament has allowed the
impugned actions by the Government of Canada. However, the Defendants point out that this
provision has nothing to do with the keeping of minutes by the Bank. In addition, the Plaintiffs
have not provided the grounds necessary to demonstrate how s 30.1, which provides that no
action lies against the Crown, the Minister of Finance and officials of the Bank of Canada for
anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any
powers or duties under the Bank Act, would affect their rights.
(3) Declaratory Relief
[39] The Defendants make a series of submissions in relation to the Plaintiffs’ claim for
declaratory relief. First, they say the Federal Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory and
coercive remedies only as prescribed in the Federal Courts Act. Section 18 indicates that
extraordinary remedies can only be obtained on an application for judicial review under s 18.1.
Subsection 18.4(2) allows the Court to direct that an application for judicial review be treated
B-1-689
- 0680 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-690 B-1-690
Page: 24
and proceeded with as an action, but does not authorize the Plaintiffs to initiate a request for
declaratory or coercive relief in an action.
[40] The requirements for proper judicial review, as set out by s 18.1, include that only

someone who is “directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought” may bring
an application. The Plaintiffs are not directly affected.
[41] The Plaintiffs’ claim damages for a “return of the portion of illegal and unconstitutional
tax.” The Defendants say that it is hard to see how these taxes can be claimed without impugning
the legality of the instruments that gave rise to their increase. Additionally, the law is clear that
the Plaintiffs may only seek to attack administrative action by state actors by way of judicial
review: Telezone, above, at para 52.
[42] Second, in order to claim declaratory relief, entitlement must be established. The
Supreme Court of Canada has held that a declaration of unconstitutionality is a declaratory
remedy for the settlement of a real dispute: Khadr v Canada (Prime Minister), 2010 SCC 3
[Khadr]. Before the court can issue a declaratory remedy, it must have jurisdiction over the issue
at bar, the question before the court must be real and not theoretical, and the person raising it
must have a real interest in raising it. The Defendants say that the Plaintiffs have not met any of
these requirements.
[43] Third, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to refer matters for an advisory opinion. As
determined in the Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs are asking that the Court declare that
B-1-690
- 0681 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-691 B-1-691
Page: 25
their reading of the Bank Act and the Constitution is correct. This is akin to asking the Court for
an advisory opinion. Without an adequate description of how a private right or interest has been
affected, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that
the Court can rule on and find that statutory and constitutional breaches have occurred.

[44] Fourth, declaratory relief necessitates a real dispute between the parties and cannot be
issued in response to one that is merely hypothetical: Operation Dismantle, above, at para 33;
Diabo v Whitesand First Nation, 2011 FCA 96; Re Danson and the Attorney-General of Ontario,
(1987) 60 OR (2d) 679 at 685 (CA). A real dispute is not present here.
[45] Fifth, the Plaintiffs have no real interest or right that has been affected by the
interpretation or operation of s 18 of the Bank Act. As noted in the Order of April 24, 2014,
despite claiming to be acting for “all other Canadians,” the Plaintiffs have failed to produce a
pleading demonstrating how “all other Canadians” have been impacted in a way that constitutes
an infringement of an individual or collective right. The Court is confined to declaring contested
legal rights, and cannot give advisory opinions on the law generally: Gouriet v Union of Post
Office Workers, [1978] AC 435 at 501-502 [Gouriet].
(4) Justiciability
[46] Justiciability is a normative inquiry that involves looking to the subject matter of the
question, the manner of its presentation and the appropriateness of judicial adjudication: Friends
of the Earth - Les Ami(e)s de la Terre v Canada (Governor in Council), 2009 FCA 297 [Friends
of the Earth].
B-1-691
- 0682 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-692 B-1-692
Page: 26
[47] The Defendants argue that the Court can, and in this case should, deal with statutory
interpretation on a motion to strike: Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc, 2007 FC 837 at para
38. The Defendants state that it is critical to note that s 18 of the Bank Act, which enumerates the
business and powers of the Bank of Canada, states that the Bank “may” do what is listed at

paragraphs (a) through (p). The Plaintiffs want paragraphs (i) and (j) to be read as imperative:
that the Bank of Canada is statutorily required, when necessary, to make interest-free loans for
the purposes they define. Such mandatory language is not present and to invoke it borders on
absurdity as it would suggest that Parliament did not follow through on its very purpose for
creating a Bank of Canada, as set out in the Bank Act’s preamble: to regulate credit and currency
in the best interest of the economic life of the Canadian nation.
[48] If the Bank Act is to be read as imperative, the Defendants say that it will become
necessary for the Court to detail the occasions when the Government of Canada “must” request
loans and the Bank “must” provide them. Without these specifications, any declaration made by
the Court will be meaningless, and the courts will not make a declaration where “it will serve
little or no purposes”: Terrasses Zarolega Inc v RIO, [1980] 1 SCR at 106-107.
[49] The Defendants point out that absent “objective legal criteria,” the Court should decline
to hear a matter since such a proceeding would entail significant consideration of policy matters,
which are beyond the proper subject matter for judicial review: Friends of the Earth, above. at
para 33.
B-1-692
- 0683 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-693 B-1-693
Page: 27
[50] In asking for a declaration that the Minister and the Government of Canada be required to
request interest-free loans for “human capital” and or “infrastructure” expenditures, the Plaintiffs
are not merely seeking an interpretation of the Bank Act; they are seeking a coercive order.
Section 18 does not support such a request. The Defendants argue that whether a particular loan

should be sought by the Government of Canada and made by the Bank is an inappropriate matter
for judicial involvement, both institutionally and constitutionally.
[51] Furthermore, the Bank Act does not set out any requirements in regards to how the Bank
ought to exercise its lending powers. Loan-making is clearly subject to the Bank’s discretion and
contemplation of a wide range of circumstances that the Bank is best-positioned to weigh and
consider.
[52] The Defendants say that under the Plaintiffs’ plan, the task of regulating credit and
currency in the best interest of the economic life of Canada would become the responsibility of
the Court, which would have to pronounce the requirements for loans on an ad hoc basis, with
coercive orders.
[53] Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ amendments have not addressed the deficiency related to the
so-called improper “handing-off” to international institutions. The Defendants suggest that the
Plaintiffs want the Court to instigate a grand inquisition in regard to monetary and fiscal matters.
This is not the proper role of the Court and there is no such duty on the Defendants.
B-1-693
- 0684 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-694 B-1-694
Page: 28
[54] The allegation of “handing-off” to international institutions is not a legal cause of action
and is not justiciable. It is not concerned with the objective legality of an action or inaction, but
instead with the abstract concept of “private interests” being placed above the “interests of
Canadians.” Only the people of Canada can, through the election of their representatives,

determine the interests of Canadians.
[55] Government policy decisions and issues that are better decided by a branch of
government are non-justiciable: Imperial Tobacco, above, at para 72; Lorne M Sossin:
Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada (Carswell: Toronto, 1999) at
4-5.
[56] The Defendants say that the Amended Claim attacks the way in which Canada develops
and implements fiscal and monetary policy, as well as its participation in international economic
organizations. It attempts to address abstruse issues relating to the governance of the Bank of
Canada and fiscal policy-making – things that are properly the concern of governments, not the
judiciary: Ontario (Attorney General) v Fraser, 2011 SCC 20 at para 302; Public Service
Alliance of Canada v Canada, [1987] 1 SCR 424 at para 36; RJR- MacDonald Inc v Canada
(Attorney General), [1995] 3 SCR 199 at paras 21, 68; Archibald v Canada, [1997] 3 FC 335 at
paras 54, 83.
[57] The Amended Claim is so broad and general in its parameters that it defies judicial
manageability.
B-1-694
- 0685 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-695 B-1-695
Page: 29
(5) Court’s Jurisdiction
[58] The Defendants say that the test for determining if a matter is within the Federal Court’s
jurisdiction is stipulated in ITO-International Terminal Operators LTD v Miida Electronics,

[1986] 1 SCR 752 at 766 [ITO-International]:
1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by

Parliament.
2. There must be an existing body of federal law which

is essential to the disposition of the case and which
nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must be “a law

of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the
Constitution Act.
[59] As regards the first component of the test, there is no statutory grant for a suit to be
brought against the Bank of Canada. It has been determined that s 17 of the Federal Courts Act,
which provides that the Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is
claimed against the Crown, does not apply to a statutory corporation acting as an agent of the
Crown. Therefore, the Bank of Canada, a statutory corporation created by the Bank Act, cannot
be said to be the Crown or a Crown Agent. The powers in s 18 are not fiscal agent powers, but
rather powers that the Bank of Canada is entitled to exercise in its own right.
[60] Also, the Court has no jurisdiction over a Minister of the Crown. He or she may not be
sued in his or her representative capacity; the Queen is the only proper defendant in an action
against the Crown: Peter G White Management v Canada, 2006 FCA 190.
B-1-695
- 0686 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-696 B-1-696
Page: 30
[61] The Defendants also say that the second part of the ITO-International jurisdictional test
has not been met. It is not fulfilled simply by the fact that an allegedly misused power emanates
from a federal statute. The Plaintiffs do not have specific rights, nor is there a detailed,
corresponding statutory framework. The allegations against the Defendants relating to the

abdication of statutory and constitutional duties can only be grounded in negligence, civil
conspiracy or misfeasance. These matters are based on tort law and would properly be applied by
the provincial courts.
[62] As regards the third portion of the test, s 3 of the Charter is not properly characterized as
a “law of Canada” in the s 101 sense. To support this statement, the Defendants apply the
reasoning in Kigowa v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 1 FC 804 at
para 8, which examined ss 7 and 9 of the Charter.
(6) Standing
[63] As a final issue, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this
claim. Their private rights have not been interfered with, nor have they suffered special damages
specific to them from an interference with a public right: Finlay v Canada (Minister of Finance),
[1986] 2 SCR 607 at paras 18-22 [Finlay].
[64] A general disdain for a particular law or governmental action is not enough to meet the
standard of “genuine interest” for public interest standing. A stronger nexus than what is
presented in the Amended Claim is required between the party making the claim and the
B-1-696
- 0687 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-697 B-1-697
Page: 31
impugned legislation: Canadian Council of Churches v Canada, [1992] 1 SCR 236; Marchand v
Ontario (2006), 81 OR (3d) 172 (SCJ).
B. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion

[65] The Plaintiffs assert, to the extent that the Order of April 24, 2014 refused to strike the
declaratory relief (the bulk of the Amended Claim), and ruled that it is justiciable, that this
motion to strike is an abuse of process because res judicata and issue estoppel apply.
(1) The Test on a Motion to Strike
[66] In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the
Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada
(Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989),
DLR (4th ) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc [1990] 2
SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v
Ontario (1995), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 [Arsenault].
[67] The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be
struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles,
above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome
should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2).
Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of
law”: Hunt, above, at para 55.
B-1-697
- 0688 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-698 B-1-698
Page: 32
[68] The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above,
at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v
Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully
settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger &

Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the
Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely
deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky
Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the
drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant
et al (2001), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).
[69] The Plaintiffs also remind the Court that the line between fact and evidence is not always
clear (Liebmann v Canada, [1994] 2 FC 3 at para 20) and that the Amended Claim must be taken
as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above, at para 10.
(2) Constitutional Claims
[70] As regards the general principles to be applied to their constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs
state that, as previously plead to the Prothonotary and to me, the Constitution does not belong to
either the federal or provincial legislatures, but rather to Canadians: Nova Scotia (Attorney
General) v Canada (Attorney General), [1951] SCR 31 [Nova Scotia (AG)]. Parliament and the
Executive are bound by constitutional norms, and neither can abdicate its duty to govern:
Canada (Wheat Board) v Hallet and Carey Ltd, [1951] SCR 81 [Wheat Board]; Re George
B-1-698
- 0689 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-699 B-1-699
Page: 33
Edwin Gray, (1918) 57 SCR 150 [Re Gray] at 157; Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1988] 2
SCR 217 [Reference re Secession of Quebec].
[71] Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that legislative omissions can lead to

constitutional breaches (Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493) and that all executive action and
inaction must conform to constitutional norms: Air Canada v British Columbia (Attorney
General), [1986] 2 SCR 539; Khadr, above.
[72] With respect to the budgetary issue, the Plaintiffs submit that: (a) contrary to Arsenault,
the Defendants misstate the Plaintiffs’ Amended Claim; and (b) that s 3 of the Charter is
intrinsically tied to the right of no taxation without representation and/or any other underlying
right directly connected to the right to vote.
[73] The Plaintiffs say the Defendants misstate and fail to properly respond to the
constitutional question. Two erroneous submissions and assumptions have been made. First, it is
not plain and obvious that s 91(6) does not impose a duty, or that it is not arguable: Wheat
Board, above; Re Gray, above, at 157; Reference re Secession of Quebec, above. Second, the
Defendants have overlooked that the constitutional, primary duty in the budgetary process, is to
outline all revenues and expenditures. This duty has evolved from the Magna Carta and is tied to
the constitutional right to no taxation without representation. The Defendants have removed and
failed to reveal the true revenue(s) to Parliament, which is the only body that can constitutionally
impose tax and therefore approve the proposed spending. The Minister of Finance has essentially
B-1-699
- 0690 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-700 B-1-700
Page: 34
removed the ability of Parliament to properly review, debate and pass the budget’s expenditures
and corresponding tax provisions.
[74] The Plaintiffs’ position is misconstrued by the Defendants as an attempt to argue a right

in the Magna Carta. All that is stated, the Plaintiffs argue, is that the right can be traced back to
the Magna Carta and is codified by ss 53, 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is
submitted that the tort actions, which are founded in this right and the inseparable right to vote
under s 3 of the Charter, may be “novel,” but comply with the rules of pleading and the Order of
April 24, 2014, while meeting the test for a reasonable cause of action.
[75] Furthermore, the tort action was not, and should not be, framed in public misfeasance or
conspiracy. Rather, the actions of the Minister of Finance, with respect to the budgeting process,
and those of the Bank of Canada officials who relegated or abdicated their duty, relate to the
constitutional breaches and torts pleaded.
(3) Declaratory Relief
[76] On the issue of declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs say that the Defendants’ submissions on
the topic are, in any event, misguided and contrary to the jurisprudence. The Plaintiffs argue that
the issue has already been decided by my Order of April 24, 2014 and was upheld by the Court
of Appeal when it dismissed the Defendants’ cross-appeal. Therefore, the matter constitutes res
judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process: City of Toronto v CUPE, Local 79, [2003] 3 SCR
77.
B-1-700
- 0691 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-701 B-1-701
Page: 35
[77] Declaratory relief goes to the crux of the constitutional right to judicial review: Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at paras 27-31; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2010 FC 757 at para 38; Canada v Solosky, [1980] 1 SCR 821 at 830. The Supreme Court of
Canada has recently reaffirmed the scope of the right to declaratory relief, indicating that it

cannot be statute-barred: Manitoba Metis Federation Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2013
SCC 14 at paras 134, 140 and 143.
[78] The Defendants ignore ss 2 and 17 of the Federal Courts Act as well as Rule 64 of the
Rules. The Court has held that declaratory relief is available, and may be sought, under s 17 of
the Federal Courts Act: Edwards v Canada (2000) 181 FTR 219 [Edwards]; Khadr, above.
(4) Justiciability
[79] As regards the issue of justiciability, noting that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated
that the constitutionality of legislation has always been a justiciable issue, the Plaintiffs argue
that just because the subject-matter at hand deals with socio-economic matters does not make it
non-justiciable.
[80] The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants have “figure-skated” from the notion of
justiciability to that of a “political question.” The Plaintiffs state:
The “Political question” doctrine is an old doctrine adopted early

in the jurisprudence over “pure questions of policy” or “choice”
over “policies” over which no statutory nor constitutional
dimensions exists over which the Court can adjudicate. In a word
the subject-matter did not involve asserted statutory or
constitutional rights. This is not the situation in the within case.
B-1-701
- 0692 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-702 B-1-702
Page: 36
[81] In terms of issues dealing with socio-economic policies that the Supreme Court of
Canada has found to be justiciable, the Plaintiffs point to the following:
 Whether “wage and price” controls were within the competence of the federal
Parliament: Reference re Anti-Inflation Act, 1975, [1976] 2 SCR 373;

 Whether the limits on transfer payments between the federal government and provincial
governments could unilaterally be altered: Reference re Canada Assistance Plan
(Canada), [1991] 2 SCR 525 [CAP Reference];
 A challenge by an individual regarding whether transfer payments by the federal

government to the provincial governments with respect to welfare payments were illegal
because the province was breaching certain provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan:
Finlay, above.
[82] The Plaintiffs assert that the clear test for justiciability is whether there is a “sufficient
legal component to warrant the intervention of the judicial branch”: CAP Reference, above, at
para 33. The Amended Claim meets this test. When social policies are alleged to infringe or
violate Charter-protected rights, they must be scrutinized; this does not exclude “political
questions”: Chaoulli v Quebec (Procureur general), 2005 SCC 35 at paras 89, 183, 185. In such
cases the question before the court is not whether the policy is sound, but rather whether it
violates constitutional rights, which is a totally different question: Operation Dismantle, above,
at 472.
[83] The declaratory relief and damages sought in the Amended Claim are, according to the
Plaintiffs, grounded in the interpretation of the Bank Act, and the constitutional duties and
requirements of the budgetary process. These have not been respected. The Constitution, as a
result, is being structurally violated and the Plaintiffs’ rights are being infringed.
B-1-702
- 0693 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-703 B-1-703
Page: 37
[84] The Defendants have confused the notion of justiciability with that of enforceability by
not properly distinguishing between the declaratory relief and tort relief sought, and in viewing
some of the declaratory relief as non-enforceable. The statutory right to seek declaratory relief is
provided for by Rule 64 of the Rules, whether or not any consequential relief is or can be

claimed. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that instances may exist
where it is appropriate to declare but not enforce a right: Khadr, above.
(5) Standing
[85] Finally, the Plaintiffs submit that they clearly have standing to bring forward these
justiciable issues on the facts pleaded. This standing is personal, but it is also public interest-
based and is in line with recent jurisprudence: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside
Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45; Galati, above.
[86] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution does not belong to the
federal or provincial governments, but to Canadian citizens (Nova Scotia (AG), above), and that
it is a tool for dispute resolution, of which one of the most important goals is to serve well those
who make use of it: Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act, [1996] 1 SCR 186 at 210.
[87] The Plaintiffs submit that it is time to revisit the issue of standing with respect to the
constitutional validity of statutes and executive actions. In cases like the present one, concerned
with the constitutional validity of statutes and/or executive actions by way of declaratory relief,
public interest standing is a constitutional right.
B-1-703
- 0694 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-704 B-1-704
Page: 38
VI. ANALYSIS
[88] Pursuant to my Order of April 24, 2014 (as endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal on
January 6, 2015), the Plaintiffs have now served and filed the Amended Claim and the

Defendants have brought a second motion to strike.
[89] The background to this dispute is set out in my Order of April 24, 2014.
A. The Amendments
[90] While the Amended Claim maintains the declaratory relief described in paragraphs 1 to
10 substantially intact from their previous pleading, the Plaintiffs have dropped the allegations
that the unlawful actions of the Defendants violate ss 7 and 15 of the Charter. Instead, the
Plaintiffs now seek, as part of their declaratory relief, a declaration:
[…]
viii) that taxes imposed to pay for the interest on the

deficit and debt to private bankers, both domestic
and particularly foreign, are illegal and
unconstitutional owing to,
A/ the breach of the constitutional right(s) to no

taxation without representation resulting from
the Finance Minister’s failure to disclose full
anticipated revenues to MPs in Parliament,
before the return of anticipated tax credits,
prior to determining whether an anticipated
surplus or deficit will be incurred, in the
tabling of the budget, in that a full and proper
debate cannot properly ensue as a result, thus
breaching the right to no taxation without
representation under both ss.53 and 90 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, as well as the
B-1-704
- 0695 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-705 B-1-705
Page: 39
unwritten constitutional imperatives to the

same effect;
B/ the infringement of the Plaintiffs’ right to

vote, under s. 3 of the Charter, tied to the right
to no taxation without representation with
respect to the Minister of Finance’s
constitutional violations;

C/ breach of the terms of the Bank of Canada
Act, with respect to interest-free loans, and the
consequent constitutional violations, by the
Executive, of its duty to govern, and
relinquishing sovereignty and statutory
decision-making to private foreign bankers;
[…]
[91] The Plaintiffs have also made it clear that their tort claims are not based upon public
misfeasance and/or conspiracy. The new damages claim reads as follows:
[…]
(b) damages in the amount of:
i) $10,000.00 each for the Plaintiffs William

Krehm and Ann Emmett, as well as the ten
(10) named COMER Steering Committee
members, named in paragraph 2(a) of the
within statement of claim, for the breach of
their constitutional right of “no taxation
without representation” and the inseparable
infringement of the right to vote under s. 3 of
the Charter, as tied to the right and imperative
against no taxation without representation, due
to the constitutional breaches by the Minister
of Finance with respect to the budgetary
process; and
ii) return of the portion of illegal and

unconstitutional tax, to be calculated and
calibrated at trial, for each of the Plaintiffs and
members of COMER’s Steering Committee,
consisting of the proportion of taxes, to pay
B-1-705
- 0696 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-706 B-1-706
Page: 40
interest charges on the deficit, and debt,

between 2011 and the time of trial, paid by the
Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members of
COMER, due to the statutory and
constitutional breaches of the Defendants in
refusing and/or failing to cover deficits in the
budget by way of interest-free loans, as well as

the breach of their right to no taxation without
representation, to be calculated by the
compounded interest changes set out in the
budget, as a percentage of the budget,
calculated as the same percentage paid by the
Plaintiffs and Steering Committee members,
to be calculated and calibrated at trial;
[…]
[92] Other amendments throughout the Amended Claim either bolster the claims with more
facts (e.g. paras 15(h) and 22) or reflect the basic shifts referred to above (see paras 39, 41, 43
and 47).
B. Rule 221 – Motion to Strike
[93] As with the previous strike motion, there is no disagreement between the parties as to the
basic jurisprudence that governs a motion to strike under Rule 221. For purposes of this motion, I
adopt the principles set out in paras 66 and 68 of my Order of April 24, 2014. Essentially, the test
for striking an action is a high one and the Defendants must show that it is plain and obvious,
assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or
that there is no reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. See Imperial Tobacco, above, at
paras 17, 21 and 25.
B-1-706
- 0697 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-707 B-1-707
Page: 41
[94] As I found in my Order of April 24, 2014, this claim remains both novel and ambitious,
but this does not mean that it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that it
does not give rise to a reasonable cause of action or that there is no reasonable prospect that it
will not succeed at trial.

C. Grounds for the Motion
[95] The Defendants have raised a significant number of grounds for striking the Amended
Claim. I will deal in turn with those grounds that I feel have substance and relevance.
(1) Budget Presentation and Taxation
[96] As regards the declaratory relief sought in paras 1(a)(vi) to (viii) of the Amended Claim
dealing with the presentation of the Federal Budget by the Minister of Finance, that Defendants
argue as follows:
12. There is no constitutional duty of presenting the

federal budget in the manner sought by the
plaintiffs. There is no breach of the principle of
“no taxation without representation”. This
principle, as defined by the Supreme Court,
means that the Crown may not levy a tax except
with the authority of Parliament. This
constitutional requirement was satisfied here.
13. Parliament is master of its procedure. It is well

recognized that there is no duty on Parliament to
legislate. There is no cause of action for the
omission of Parliament to enact any law.
14. The plaintiffs allege that the accounting method

used in the budgetary process is a breach of ss.
91(6) Constitution Act, 1867, which grants
legislative power over “[t]he census and
B-1-707
- 0698 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-708 B-1-708
Page: 42
statistics” to Parliament. This provision will not

aid them. Section 91 enumerates the classes of
subjects and all matters coming within them to
which the exclusive legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada is granted – it does not
impose duties on Parliament or the Government.
A reference to a class of federal power in the

Constitution Act, 1867 is not the imposition of a
duty upon Parliament to legislate in respect of
that subject matter. S. 91(6) – “the Census and
Statistics” – is one of the classes of subjects
enumerated in s. 91 for which it is declared in the
Constitution Act, 1867 that “the exclusive
legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada
extends to all matters coming within” this class of
subjects.
15. In any event, much of the information sought by

the plaintiffs to be included in the budget
documents presented before Parliament is
publicly available from the Department of
Finance, for example: Tax Expenditures and
Evaluations 2012 at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-
depfisc/2012/taxexp12-eng.asp.
[footnotes omitted]
[97] The facts supporting the Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief on this issue are set out
in paras 25-43 of the Amended Claim. The main judicial point is stated as follows:
[39] The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the
above “accounting method” used in the budgetary
process are [sic] not in accordance with accepted
accounting practices, are conceptually and logically
wrong, and have the effect of perpetually making the
real and actual picture of what total “revenues”, “total
expenditures”, and what the annual deficit/surplus”
[sic] actually is, what the annual “deficit/surplus”
actually is, in any given year, and what, as a result the
standing national “debt” is. Moreover, and more
importantly, the Plaintiffs state, and fact is [sic], that
such “accounting” methods foreclose any actual or real
debate, or consideration, by elected MPs, in
Parliament, as the actual financial picture is not
B-1-708
- 0699 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-709 B-1-709
Page: 43
available nor disclosed to either Parliamentarians nor

the Canadian public. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact
is, that such accounting method breaches s. 91(6) of the
Constitution Act, 1867 and the duty of the
Defendant(s) to maintain accurate “statistics”, and the
ability of MPs in Parliament to fully and openly debate
the budget, which breaches the Plaintiffs’ right(s) to

“no taxation without representation” and also infringes
their right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter, as tied to
the no right to taxation without representation.
[…]
[41] The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that this
failure and/or calculated choice by the Defendant
Minister of Finance to withhold anticipated total
revenue, before the subtraction of anticipated tax
credits, along with anticipated expenditures, in the
budget bill(s), violates the Plaintiffs’ constitutional
right to no taxation without representation as
guaranteed by ss. 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act,
1867, and unwritten constitutional imperative
underlying it, dating back to the Magna Carta, as well
as diminishes, devalues and infringes on their right to
vote under s. 3 of the Charter with respect to taxation
as tied to deficit, debt, and the availability to debate the
alternative of avoiding both by, inter alia, exercising
the interest-free Bank of Canada loans under s. 18 of
the Bank of Canada Act.
[98] It is true, as the Defendants say, that the Plaintiffs take issue with the way the Minister
presents the federal budget to Parliament. However, the allegations set out above are not just that
the Minister’s accounting methods are fallacious because they fail to take account of human
capital and do not appropriately take tax credits into account. If this was the point of the claims,
then clearly it would be nothing more than a debate about proper accounting procedures in the
context of the federal budget. However, the Plaintiffs provide the facts about how the federal
budget is presented to Parliament and say why they think it is inappropriate before they go on to
state the legal basis of their claim. And the legal basis of the claim is that the Minister’s
B-1-709
- 0700 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-710 B-1-710
Page: 44
accounting methods and practices breach s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867 because they
mean the Defendants are not maintaining and presenting accurate statistics, which in turn
breaches s 3 of the Charter because, in the end, inaccurate and misleading statistics prevent any
meaningful debate on the budget in Parliament. This means in turn that MPs cannot fulfil their

representative function and the Plaintiffs (at least the individual Plaintiffs) are therefore being
taxed without any real representative input on the budget. This undermines s 3 of the Charter
and the guarantees under ss 53 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This is my understanding of
the Amended Claim on this issue.
[99] Clearly, the Plaintiffs disagree with the way the Minister compiles and presents the
budget to Parliament. They know that this, in itself, is not a legal issue they can bring to the
Court. So they have hitched their complaints to s 91(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867, s 3 of the
Charter and the no taxation without representation principle. Can this hitching be equated with
any previous application of the constitutional principles and provisions cited and relied upon?
Not to my knowledge. But that is not the issue before me. Charter litigation generally suggests
that the Supreme Court of Canada may find a Charter or constitutional breach that has not been
previously identified.
[100] The Plaintiffs’ target is the executive branch of government as embodied in the Minister
of Finance. It is the Minister’s actions that are alleged to thwart the Parliamentary process and to
breach the Constitution Act, 1867 and s 3 of the Charter. It has to be admitted that the arguments
underlying the Plaintiffs’ assertion of a Constitution and a Charter breach appear at this stage to
be somewhat novel and esoteric but, as I have already said, this is not a sufficient ground for
B-1-710
- 0701 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-711 B-1-711
Page: 45
saying that they disclose no reasonable cause of action or that there is no reasonable prospect of
success at trial.
[101] The Plaintiffs reiterated the same points clearly in their oral arguments:

The case before you is there is an executive breach of a
constitutional requirement by the Minister of Finance
with respect to the budget process, and that as a result
the legislation that comes out of Parliament breaches
the constitutional right to no taxation without
representation. Why? The MPs are blindfolded.
[Transcript of Proceedings p 38, lines 17-23]
The right to vote includes the right to effective

representation. If the MPs are blinded by executive
constitutional breaches by the Minister of Finance, how
does that ensure effective representation?
[N]owhere in the pleadings are we asking Parliament to

legislate. We are simply saying that there’s an
abdication of executive and parliamentary duty with
respect to the budget as pleaded. That is a different
matter.
And the failure to act applies equally to the executive

as it does to the legislative with respect to
constitutional breaches….
And the actual revenues are not presented to

Parliament. That is what we have pleaded. That is the
fact.
At paragraph 22, I set out the codification of these

principles in sections 53, 54, and 90, and then state that
by removing and not revealing the true revenues of
Parliament, which is the only body which can
constitutionally impose tax and thus approve the
B-1-711
- 0702 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-712 B-1-712
Page: 46
proposed spending from the speech from the throne,

the Minister of Finance is removing the elected MPs’
ability to properly review and debate the budget and
pass its expenditure and corresponding taxing
provisions through elected representatives of the House
of Commons. The ancient constitutional maxim of no
taxation without representation was reaffirmed post-

Charter by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Education Reference.
[Transcript of Proceedings p 50, line 21 to p 51, line 5]
[102] It seems to me that these arguments and assertions cannot apply to COMER itself, which
has no right to vote. As regards the individual Plaintiffs, even assuming they pay tax, the
allegations remain abstract and theoretical. A central allegation – unsupported by facts – is that
MPs are voting blind and have been hoodwinked by the Minister of Finance. There are no facts
pleaded to support this bald allegation. MPs may well understand the issues raised by the
Plaintiffs concerning budgetary accounting practices, but may have decided to accept them. The
Plaintiffs are alleging that Parliament is being misled by the Minister, but that the Plaintiffs are
not.
[103] There are no facts to say which MPs represent the individual Plaintiffs and whether those
MPs have been approached and asked to deal with the issues raised in this claim or whether,
having been made aware of the Plaintiffs’ concerns, those MPs have voted for or against the
budget. If MPs for the individual Plaintiffs have been apprised of the problem then, no matter
how they vote, it is difficult to see how the Plaintiffs are not represented in Parliament on this
issue. Representation does not mean that MPs must vote in accordance with the wishes of
individual constituents. If representative MPs have not been contacted, then it is difficult to
B-1-712
- 0703 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-713 B-1-713
Page: 47
understand why the individual Plaintiffs have come to Court to ask that it make findings about
their rights of representation in Parliament.
[104] On the other hand, if MPs, or at least those which represent the individual Plaintiffs are

aware of the accounting concerns that the Plaintiffs raise, then it seems to me there can be no
undermining of the voting and representation rights of the individual Plaintiffs.
[105] There are no facts in the pleadings to suggest that any MPs are “voting blind” or are
being misled by the Minister of Finance. Similarly, there are none to establish that Parliament
does not monitor and assess the budgetary process, including the way the budget is compiled and
presented by the Minister of Finance. The logic of the Amended Claim is that if Parliament is not
adopting and acting upon the Plaintiffs’ concerns about the budgetary process then
Parliamentarians are blind. This is an unsupported assertion. It is not a fact.
[106] There is nothing more than a bald assertion that the Minister of Finance is “blindfolding”
his Parliamentary colleagues and leading them astray to the detriment of the individual Plaintiffs,
and, presumably, all Canadians with a right to vote.
[107] Even at an abstract level, this seems far-fetched, to say the least. The Plaintiffs are asking
the Court to simply assume that Parliament does not have the wherewithal to understand the way
the budget is compiled and presented. The logic here is that, because the budget is not being
presented as the Plaintiffs think it ought to be presented, their Parliamentary representatives are
being hoodwinked by the Minister of Finance and obviously do not know what they are doing
B-1-713
- 0704 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-714 B-1-714
Page: 48
when they pass a budget. This position is presumptive and unsupported by any facts. It remains
an abstract debate about how the budget should be presented.
[108] Bald assertions, without supporting facts, are not sufficient to satisfy the rules of

pleading. See Rule 174 and accompanying jurisprudence.
[109] There is nothing in the facts as pleaded in the Amended Claim to suggest that Parliament
is not fully aware of the criticisms levelled by the Plaintiffs against the Minister of Finance and
that parliamentarians are not free to question and debate any budget presented from the
perspective of those criticisms. Hence, there is nothing to support the allegation that the ability of
MPs in Parliament to fully and openly debate the budget is impeded in any way. Further, if the
Minister of Finance, in compiling the budget, chooses not to take “human capital” into account
and/or chooses to withhold anticipated total revenue, before the subtraction of anticipated tax
credits, along with anticipated expenditures, in budget bills, these choices also become the will
of Parliament following the established procedures for debating and passing budgets. The
Plaintiffs can have no right to insist that Parliament should only debate and pass budgets in
accordance with the principles and procedures which they approve of and advocate. If the
Plaintiffs disagree with the process then, like everyone else, they have access to their own
Parliamentary representatives. Hence, in my view, there is no factual basis in the Amended
Claim to support an allegation that the Constitution Act, 1867, s 3 of the Charter or any
constitutional principle is breached on the principle of no taxation without representation. If the
individual Plaintiffs have a vote, then they are fully represented in Parliament, and it is
Parliament that decides whether or not to pass the budget presented by the Minister of Finance in
B-1-714
- 0705 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-715 B-1-715
Page: 49
accordance with its own procedures. No facts are pleaded to suggest that Parliament is not fully
aware of the kinds of criticisms that the Plaintiffs have raised in this action against the Minister
and the budgetary process, or that Parliament is not aware that the budgetary process is not open
to the kinds of criticisms that the Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Claim.

[110] The Supreme Court of Canada made the following general point in Authorson, above, at
para 38, quoting Reference re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, above:
How Houses of Parliament proceed, how a provincial

legislative assembly proceeds is in either case a matter
of self‑ definition, subject to any overriding
constitutional or self‑ imposed statutory or indoor
prescription. It is unnecessary here to embark on any
historical review of the “court” aspect of Parliament
and the immunity of its procedures from judicial
review. Courts come into the picture when legislation
is enacted and not before (unless references are made
to them for their opinion on a bill or a proposed
enactment). It would be incompatible with the
self‑ regulating — “inherent” is as apt a word —
authority of Houses of Parliament to deny their
capacity to pass any kind of resolution. Reference may
appropriately be made to art. 9 of the Bill of Rights of
1689, undoubtedly in force as part of the law of
Canada, which provides that “Proceedings in
Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in
any Court or Place out of Parliament”.
[111] The Plaintiffs are not attacking any particular budget legislation that may have had an
impact upon them that gives rise to a cause of action in any court of law. They are attacking the
Parliamentary process that they say is used to present, debate and pass budget bills into law.
They want the Court to interfere, albeit on Constitutional and Charter grounds, with the way
Parliament goes about its business. In my view, the jurisprudence is clear that the Court cannot
B-1-715
- 0706 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-716 B-1-716
Page: 50
do this. The same conclusions must be reached even if the Court looks at the matter from the
perspective of “when legislation is enacted and not before.” Budget bills are passed in
accordance with a self-regulating process in Parliament during which MPs can raise the issues of
concerns to the Plaintiffs. There are no facts pleaded to suggest that the Plaintiffs are not as fully

represented in Parliament on budget bills as they are on any other bill.
[112] As the House of Lords made clear in Hamilton v al Fayed, above:
Article 9 of Bill of Rights 1689 provides:
“That the freedom of speech and debates or

proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached
or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
It is well established that article 9 does not of itself

provide a comprehensive definition of parliamentary
privilege. In Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd.
[1995] 1 AC 321 at p. 332, I said:
“In addition to article 9 itself, there is a long line of

authority which supports a wider principle, of which
article 9 is merely one manifestation, viz. that the
courts and Parliament are both astute to recognise their
respective constitutional roles. So far as the courts are
concerned they will not allow any challenge to be
made to what is said or done within the walls of
Parliament in performances of its legislative functions
and protection of its established privileges: Burdett v.
Abbott (1811) 14 East 1; Stockdale v. Hansard (1839)
9 Ad. & E.C. 1; Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) 12
Q.B.D. 271; Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974]
AC 765; Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 593. As Blackstone
said in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 17th
ed. (1830), vol. 1, p. 163: ‘the whole of the law and
custom of Parliament has its origin from this one
maxim, “that whatever matter arises concerning either
House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed
and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not
elsewhere.”
B-1-716
- 0707 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-717 B-1-717
Page: 51
[113] This is confirmed by s 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and s 4 of the Parliament of
Canada Act. The privileges, immunities and powers of the Senate and House of Commons and
their members are matters of self-definition and regulation by Parliament. In my view, the
presentation, debate and passing of the federal budget allows for no role by the Courts. In the

present case, no facts are pleaded to support a case that Parliament is not cognizant of the
Minister’s methodology or the perspectives of the Plaintiffs, or is being blinded.
[114] As far as the Constitution Act, 1867 and s 3 of the Charter are concerned, COMER, as an
unincorporated association, has no electoral rights. As regards the individual Plaintiffs, there are
no facts pleaded to suggest that they do not have effective representation in Parliament when it
comes to budget bills. In Reference Re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan), [1991]
2 SCR 158 at 1836, the Supreme Court of Canada explained what representation means:
Ours is a representative democracy. Each citizen is

entitled to be represented in government.
Representation comprehends the idea of having a voice
in the deliberations of government as well as the idea
of the right to bring one’s grievances and concerns to
the attention of one’s government representative…
[emphasis in original]
[115] Representation does not mean that the Plaintiffs have a right to force Parliament to
proceed in a way that better suits their view of the appropriate way to present and pass a budget,
and they have not pleaded facts to show that any particular budget legislation has negatively
impacted a legal right that they enjoy.
B-1-717
- 0708 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-718 B-1-718
Page: 52
[116] There is nothing in the Amended Claim to suggest that the individual Plaintiffs do not
enjoy the same meaningful participation in the electoral process as any other Canadian voter. See
Figueroa, above, at para 27. The Plaintiffs do not lack effective representation simply because
budget bills are not presented and dealt with in accordance with their views of what they should

or should not contain, and there is no suggestion that they lack a voice in the deliberations of
government because they are unable to bring their grievances and concerns to the attention of the
MPs who represent them. In my view, Constitutional and Charter protection cannot mean that
individual voters have the right or the expectation that their views on the appropriate presentation
and enactment of any particular piece of legislation will be followed by Parliament. This is not to
say that voter concerns about the way that Parliament enacts legislation are not legitimate
concerns. However, how Parliament proceeds is a matter of self-definition (see Authorson,
above) unless, of course, there is some “overriding constitutional or self-imposed statutory or
indoor prescription.” In my view, notwithstanding the able arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the
Plaintiffs do not plead anything in the Amended Claim to establish an overriding Constitutional
prescription or a breach of s 3 of the Charter that could ground their claim for declaratory relief
or damages for this aspect of their claim. The Plaintiffs don’t even attempt to litigate any
particular budget legislation. They focus their claim instead upon the budget compilation and
Parliamentary process itself, and I think the jurisprudence is clear that the Court simply cannot
go there. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688/89 also prevents the Court from entertaining any
action against any member of Parliament which seeks to make them personally liable for acts
done or things said in Parliament. See Hamilton v al Fayed, above.
B-1-718
- 0709 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-719 B-1-719
Page: 53
[117] In my view, then, those allegations of the Amended Claim that raise the taxation issue
and seek relief based upon the Constitution Act, 1867 and s 3 of the Charter, and the principle of
no taxation without representation have to be struck because it is plain and obvious that they
disclose no reasonable cause of action and have no reasonable prospect of success.

(2) Bank Act Issues
[118] The balance of the Amended Claim deals with alleged breaches of the Bank Act by the
Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada. In its essentials, this aspect of the claim has
not changed since I reviewed the Plaintiffs’ previous Amended Statement of Claim in April,
2014.
[119] I think it is useful to bear in mind the grounds of the Defendants’ cross-appeal that the
Federal Court of Appeal was asked to consider in January, 2015 and which it dismissed:
1. The Judge erred in fact and law in finding that

there are alleged breaches or issues in the
Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim (“Claim”)
that are justiciable;
2. The judge erred in law by finding that s. 18 of the

Bank of Canada Act could not be interpreted in a
motion to strike, but would require full legal
argument on a full evidentiary record;
3. The judge erred in law by finding that had the

learned Prothonotary determined s. 18 of the Bank
of Canada Act to be a “legislative imperative” that
the Claim would then become justiciable;
4. The judge erred in law by finding that even if s. 18

of the Bank of Canada Act is permissive, that this
does not dispose of the matter of justiciability;
B-1-719
- 0710 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-720 B-1-720
Page: 54
5. The judge erred in fact and in law by finding that

the Claim does not require the Court to adjudicate
and dictate competing policy choices and that
objective legal criteria exist to measure the
Plaintiffs’ allegations;
6. The judge erred in law and in fact by

characterizing the Claim as one which requires the

Court to assess whether the Defendants have acted,
and continue to act, in accordance with the Bank of
Canada Act and the Constitution;
7. The judge erred in fact and in law by finding that

relevant and material facts have actually been
pleaded in the Claim in support of the declarations
sought that the policies and actions allegedly
pursued by the Defendants have not complied with
the Bank of Canada Act and the Constitution;
8. The judge erred in law in finding on a motion to

strike that any allegations in the Claim of breach of
statute and/or of constitutional obligations may be
justiciable depending on whether the Plaintiffs can
establish a reasonable cause of action though
appropriate and future amendments;
[120] It also has to be borne in mind that in my Order of April 24, 2014, I did not say that the
Plaintiffs were likely to succeed with their Bank Act claims. All I said was that the claims had to
be struck in their entirely because, as they stood, they did not disclose a reasonable cause of
action and had no prospect of success. The Federal Court of Appeal endorsed this position.
[121] I concluded that the “full import of the Bank Act and what is required of Canada and
those Minister and officials who act, or don’t act, in accordance with the Bank Act is at the heart
of this dispute” (para 72) and that:
B-1-720
- 0711 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-721 B-1-721
Page: 55
[76] So, as regards the declaratory relief sought in

this Claim, it is my view that the matters raised could
be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the
Court. Should the Plaintiffs stray across the line into
policy, they will be controlled by the Court. There is a
difference between the Court declaring that the
Government or the Governor, or the Minister, should

pursue a particular policy and a declaration as to
whether the policy or policies they have pursued are
compliant with the Bank Act and the Constitution. The
facts are pleaded on these issues. Subject to what I
have to say about other aspects of the Claim, the
Plaintiffs should be allowed to go forward, call their
evidence, and attempt to make their case. It cannot be
said, in my view, that it is plain and obvious on the
facts pleaded that the action cannot succeed as regards
this aspect of the Claim. And even if s.18 of the Bank
Act is interpreted as purely permissive, that does not
decide the issue raised in the Claim that Canada has
obviated crucial aspects of the Bank Act and has
subverted or abdicated constitutional obligations by
making itself subservient to private international
institutions.
[122] I said the Bank Act claims “could be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the
Court”(emphasis added) because the Plaintiffs do give their account of the socio-economic
problems that arise from alleged breaches of the Bank Act and related constitutional principles. I
concluded that this provided context for the alleged breaches in the claims because the Court
needs to understand the Plaintiffs’ version of what is at stake and what flows from the alleged
breaches:
[75] The difficult boundary between what a court

should and should not decide will arise time and again
in a case like the present. However, the issue is not
whether the Court should mandate the Government and
the Bank to adopt the economic positions espoused and
advocated by the Plaintiffs. Nor will the Court be
deciding whether a particular policy is “financially or
economically fallacious,” although this kind of
accusation does appear in the Claim. In my view, the
B-1-721
- 0712 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-722 B-1-722
Page: 56
Court is being asked to decide whether particular

policies and acts are in accordance with the Bank Act
and the Constitution. If justiciability is a matter of
“appropriateness,” then the Court is the appropriate
forum to decide this kind of issue. In fact, the Court
does this all the time. The Supreme Court of Canada
has made in clear that the Parliament of Canada and the

executive cannot abdicate their functions (see Wheat
Board, above) and that the executive and other
government actors and institutions are bound by
constitutional norms. See Reference re Secession of
Quebec, above, and Khadr, above.
[123] From a res judicata perspective, it has to be borne in mind that the portions of the claim
related to the Bank Act were struck under Rule 221. My comments about justiciability – “could
be justiciable and appropriate for consideration by the Court,” –not “are justiciable” simply went
to Prothonotary Aalto’s findings that they were not justiciable because they involved matters of
policy rather than law. I was simply pointing out that legal issues could be distinguished from
policy issues, so that the Bank Act claims could become justiciable “subject to what I have to say
about other aspects of the Claim….” And when I say the “facts are pleaded on these issues,”
(para 76) the “issues” I am referring to are the facts that distinguish the law from policy. The
Plaintiffs are right to point out that I thought the Bank Act claims could go forward, but this was
subject to issues of jurisdiction and what I had to say about the other aspects of the claim, and the
Federal Court of Appeal endorsed this reasoning and this approach to the claims.
[124] The reason I said the Bank Act claims “could be justiciable and appropriate for
consideration by the Court” is because, as drafted, these claims give rise to problems of
jurisdiction and justiciability that the Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to resolve by way of
B-1-722
- 0713 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-723 B-1-723
Page: 57
amendments. Now that amendments have been made the Court has to decide whether the
Plaintiffs have resolved these problems.
[125] The grounds brought forward by the Defendants in the present Rule 221 motion, as well

as the arguments of the Plaintiffs, have to be considered in light of what the Court has already
ruled about the Bank Act claims and what the Federal Court of Appeal has endorsed.
[126] The Plaintiffs fault the Defendants for again raising arguments on justiciability that the
Court has already decided and the Federal Court of Appeal has endorsed. As a reading of my
Order of April 24, 2014 shows, my conclusions on justiciability at that time were subject to
serious reservations. I concluded that there were legal issues in the claims (breaches of the Bank
Act and the Constitution) that the Court could deal with and that could be distinguished from the
socio-economic policy assertions in the claims: “In my view, the Court is being asked to decide
whether particular policies and acts are in accordance with the Bank Act and the Constitution. If
justiciability is a matter of ‘appropriateness,’ then the Court is the appropriate forum to decide
this kind of issue.”
[127] I did not conclude, however, that the claims as drafted were sufficient to allow the Court
to carry out this function (otherwise I would not have struck them under Rule 221), and I went
on to point out that the Bank Act and related Constitutional claims had to be struck, and indicated
what the Plaintiffs needed to do by way of amendment to allow the Court to consider the legal
(as opposed to the socio-economic policy aspects) of the claims. It has to be borne in mind that I
struck all of the claims and that the Federal Court of Appeal did not just endorse what I said
B-1-723
- 0714 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-724 B-1-724
Page: 58
about justiciability; it also endorsed my decision to strike all of the claims and my reasons for
doing so. So the important issue before me at this juncture is not whether the Court could
examine and rule on the legal aspects of the claims; the issue is whether the amendments are
sufficient to allow the Court to do this, and whether they overcome the problems I identified that

compelled me to strike all of the claims in 2014.
[128] To be fair to both sides of this dispute, my Order of April 24, 2014 may sometimes
confuse issues of jurisdiction and justiciability. The Federal Court of Appeal seemed to have no
problem with this and, however these concerns should be characterized, I did set them out in
some detail and I will discuss them here as I described them in my Order of April 24, 2014. The
Defendants may not be entirely wrong when they characterize those problems as being about
justiciability rather than jurisdiction.
[129] In my Order of April 24, 2014, I went on to examine the jurisdictional problems that
arose in the Amended Statement of Claim that was then before me:
[86] As I have concluded that it is not plain and

obvious that the breach of statutory and constitutional
obligations and the declaratory relief sought is not
justiciable, all I can do at this juncture is decide
whether the Court has the jurisdiction to deal with this
aspect of the Claim. If amendments are made to
portions of the Claim that are struck, this issue may
have to be re-visited.
[87] At this stage in the proceedings, s. 17 of the

Federal Courts Act appears sufficiently wide enough to
give the Federal Court concurrent jurisdiction where
relief is sought against the Crown. This doesn’t end the
matter, of course, and the Defendants have asked the
Court to examine and apply the ITO v Miida
B-1-724
- 0715 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-725 B-1-725
Page: 59
Electronics Inc, [1986] 1 SCR 752 at p. 766 [ITO],

jurisdictional test.
[88] Given the Federal Court of Appeal decision in

Rasmussen v Breau, [1986] 2 FC 500 at para 12, to the
effect that the Federal Courts Act only applies to the
Crown eo nomine, and not to a statutory corporation
acting as an agent for the Crown, it is difficult to see

why the Bank should be named as a Defendant.
However, the main problem in the way of determining
jurisdiction at this stage is that the Plaintiffs have yet to
produce pleadings that adequately set out how any
private or other interest has been affected by the
alleged statutory and constitutional breaches. The
Plaintiffs are asking the Court to declare that their view
of the way the Bank Act and the Constitution should be
read is correct, and that breaches have occurred. This is
akin to asking the Court for an advisory opinion, and I
see nothing in the jurisprudence to suggest that the
Court has the jurisdiction to provide this kind of ruling
in the form of a declaration.
[89] The Plaintiffs are extremely vague on this

issue. They simply assert that the Federal Court has
jurisdiction to issue declarations concerning statutes
such as the Bank Act, and jurisdiction over federal
public actors, tribunals and Ministers of the Crown.
They say they have private rights to assert but, as yet,
and given that the tort and Charter claims must be
struck, I see no private rights at issue. In addition, they
claim to be acting for “all other Canadians,” but, once
again, they have yet to produce pleadings that
adequately plead how the rights of “all other
Canadians” have been impacted in a way that translates
into the infringement of an individual or a collective
right. If the rights of all Canadians are impacted, then
the individual Plaintiffs would be able to describe, in
accordance with the rules that govern pleadings, how
their individual rights have been breached, but they
have, as yet, not been able to do this.
[90] It seems to me that the fundamental problem

of how the Plaintiffs can simply come to the Court and
request declarations that their interpretations of the
Bank Act and the Constitution are correct is the reason
why they have attached tortious and Charter breaches
to their Claim. They know that they need to show how
B-1-725
- 0716 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-726 B-1-726
Page: 60
individual rights have been infringed but, as of yet,

they have not even set out in their pleadings how their
own rights have been infringed, let alone the rights of
“all other Canadians.”
[91] This means that, in terms of the ITO

principles, the Plaintiffs have yet to show a statutory
grant of jurisdiction by the federal Parliament that the

Court can entertain and rule on the Claim as presently
constituted (i.e. simply declare that statutory and
constitutional breaches have occurred without an
adequate description in the pleadings of how a private
right or interest has been affected and the grounds for a
valid cause of action), and they have yet to cite an
existing body of federal law which is essential to the
disposition of the case and which nourishes such a
statutory grant of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs do not
have any specific rights under the legislation which
they cite and they have provided no statutory or other
framework for the exercise of any rights. They may be
able to do these things with appropriate amendments to
the pleadings. As yet, however, I cannot see how the
Court acquires the jurisdiction to provide the
declaratory relief that is sought.
[emphasis in original]
[130] It seems to me that the Plaintiffs have not resolved these problems in the Amended
Claim.
[131] The Plaintiffs take a very forceful and wide view on the availability of declaratory relief
and the Court’s jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Plaintiffs take the position that
any citizen has a constitutional right, subject to

frivolous and vexatious or no jurisdiction of the Court,
to bring a public interest issue to the Court.
B-1-726
- 0717 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-727 B-1-727
Page: 61
[132] Even if I were to accept this broad approach to standing, I still have to decide the
jurisdictional issue which I could not decide in April, 2014 for the reasons quoted above that
were endorsed by the Federal Court of Appeal, and which, to use the Plaintiffs’ own logic, I must
accept as res judicata. I said that the Plaintiffs could not just ask the Court for an advisory

opinion on these Bank Act issues because “I see nothing in the jurisprudence to suggest that the
Court has the jurisdiction to provide this kind of ruling in the form of a declaration.” In
retrospect, I might have characterized this as a justiciability issue but, in my view, the
terminology doesn’t matter because I decided that the problem was that the Plaintiffs were
asking for a free-standing declaration that amounted to an advisory opinion and the Court is not
in the business of granting free-standing opinions.
[133] The Plaintiffs’ position on this issue is as follows:
You have at paragraph 29 the ruling in Dunsmuir with

respect to judicial review as a constitutional right. And
Dunsmuir and other cases see judicial review writ
large. It’s not the procedural avenue of judicial review
by way of application as opposed to by way of action.
Under section 17 this Court has ruled one can seek
declaratory relief by way of action, and that is in my
factum.
But if I can refer Your Lordship to paragraph 31,

where I actually extract the portions from the Manitoba
Métis case, and they are italicized and bolded at pages
242 and 243.
“Citing Thorsen, the Supreme Court of Canada in this

case”, which is 2013 case,” states: ‘The
constitutionality of legislation has always been a
justiciable issue. The right of the citizenry to
constitutional behaviour by Parliament can be
vindicated by declaration that legislation is invalid or
that a public act is ultra vires.’”
B-1-727
- 0718 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-728 B-1-728
Page: 62
That is paragraph 134 that is extracted. That is exactly

what my clients seek with respect to the actions of the
Minister of Finance and the resulting constitutional
breach of their right to vote – of their right not to be
taxed without effective representation by their MPs,
because they’re blindfolded by the Minister of Finance
and what he does not deliver, which is a constitutional

requirement, we say.
And then over the page from paragraph 140, the

Supreme Court states:
“The Courts are the guardians of the Constitution and

cannot be barred by mere statutes from issuing a
declaration on a fundamental constitutional matter. The
principles of legality, constitutionally and the rule of
law demand no less.”
And then the passage that really answers my friend at

paragraph 143 of Manitoba Métis Federation – an Inc.,
by the way, a corporation brought the challenge.
“Furthermore, the remedy available under this analysis

if of a limited nature. A declaration is a narrow
remedy. It is available without a cause of action, and
courts make declarations whether or not any
consequential relief is available.”
That statutorily reproduced under rule 64 of the Federal

Courts Act, My Lord, which is reproduced at paragraph
32 of my factum, and this court in Edwards, which is
right below that, has ruled that the declaratory relief
may be sought in an action under section 17, which
was have done. And then which is consistent with the
Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in Khadr and
Thorsen.
[Transcript of Proceedings p 54 line 8 to p 55, line 28]
[134] The Plaintiffs appear to be of the view that, as a think-tank, they can simply come to
Court and ask the Court to declare that the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada
are required to do certain things under the Bank Act, and that they have abdicated their
constitutional duties, and allowed international private entities to trump the interests of
B-1-728
- 0719 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-729 B-1-729
Page: 63
Canadians. COMER has no Constitutional or Charter rights to assert and the individual Plaintiffs
are no differently situated from any other Canadian and have no demonstrable individual
Constitutional and Charter rights to assert. In the Amended Claim, the Plaintiffs collectively
remain a think-tank, seeking the Court’s endorsement of alleged Bank Act and Constitutional

breaches related to the Bank Act and international institutions.
[135] Having been given the opportunity to amend, there are still no material facts in the
Amended Claim that link the impugned legislative scheme embodied in the Bank Act to an effect
on themselves as Plaintiffs. Their argument is that freestanding declarations on the
constitutionality of laws and legal authority are always available to any Canadian citizen.
[136] Since my Order of April 24, 2014 was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal, the
Federal Court of Appeal has had occasion to consider and pronounce in some detail on what the
Court can do with pleadings that contain freestanding requests for declaratory relief. In Mancuso
v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 [Mancuso], the Federal Court of
Appeal provided the following guidance:
[31] The appellants allege that their action can

nonetheless proceed to trial on the basis of the
surviving paragraphs. It is not problematic, in their
view, that there are no material facts in the statement of
claim, including none that link the impugned scheme to
an effect on themselves as plaintiffs. They base this
argument on the proposition that freestanding
declarations on the constitutionality of laws and legal
authority are always available.
[32] On this latter point, there is no doubt. Free-

standing declarations of constitutionality can be
granted: Canadian Transit Company v. Windsor
(Corporation of the City), 2015 FCA 88. But the right
B-1-729
- 0720 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-730 B-1-730
Page: 64
to the remedy does not translate into licence to

circumvent the rules of pleading. Even pure
declarations of constitutional validity require sufficient
material facts to be pleaded in support of the claim.
Charter questions cannot be decided in a factual
vacuum: Mackay v. Manitoba, above, nor can
questions as to legislative competence under the

Constitution Act, 1867 be decided without an adequate
factual grounding, which must be set out in the
statement of claim. This is particularly so when the
effects of the impugned legislation are the subject of
the attack: Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General),
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086, at p. 1099.
[33] The Supreme Court of Canada in Canada

(Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1
S.C.R. 44, para. 46 articulated the pre-conditions to the
grant of a declaratory remedy: jurisdiction over the
claim and a real as opposed to a theoretical question in
respect of which the person raising it has an interest.
[34] Following Khadr, this Court in Canada

(Indian Affairs) v. Daniels, 2014 FCA 101 (leave to
appeal granted) at paras. 77-79 highlighted the danger
posed by a generic, fact-free challenge to legislation –
in other words, a failure to meet the second Khadr
requirement. Dawson JA noted that legislation may be
valid in some instances, and unconstitutional when
applied to other situations. A court must have a sense
of a law’s reach in order to assess whether and by how
much that reach exceeds the legislature’s vires. It
cannot evaluate whether Parliament has exceeded the
ambit of its legislative competence and had more than
an incidental effect on matters reserved to the
provinces without examining what its legislation
actually does. Facts are necessary to define the
contours of legislative and constitutional competence.
In the present case, this danger is particularly acute; as
the judge noted, the legislation at issue pertains to
literally thousands of natural health supplements.
[35] This is not new law. While the plaintiffs point

to Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 for the
proposition that there is a broad right to seek
declaratory relief, Solosky also notes that there must be
“a ‘real issue’ concerning the relative interests of each
[party].” The Court cannot be satisfied that this
B-1-730
- 0721 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-731 B-1-731
Page: 65
requirement is met absent facts being pleaded which

indicate what that real issue is and its nexus to the
plaintiffs and their claim for relief.
[137] In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not, in their Amended Claim, pleaded facts to

demonstrate a “real” issue concerning the relative interests of each party, and the nexus of that
real issue to the Plaintiffs and their claim for relief. Although as I pointed out in my Order of
April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs do distinguish between legal issues and policy issues, the legal
issues remain theoretical with no real nexus to some interest of the Plaintiffs, other than an
interest in having the Court endorse their opinion on the Bank Act issues raised.
[138] The Plaintiffs have not addressed the jurisdictional problems I referred to in paras 85 to
91 of my Order of April 24, 2014 and/or what might generally be referred to as the jurisdiction
of the Court to entertain, or its willingness to grant, free-standing requests for declaration.
[139] Apart from the taxation issues which I have concluded are not justiciable for reasons set
out above, the Plaintiffs have made little attempt in their amendments to rectify the problems I
raised in my Order of April 24, 2014. The declaratory relief related to the Bank Act remains the
same. The damages claimed in 1(b)(ii) appear to be based upon s 3 of the Charter and the no
taxation without representation principle, which I have found to be non-justiciable.
[140] The Plaintiffs have urged me to treat my Order of April 24, 2014 and the Federal Court of
Appeal decision on that judgement as res judicata. If I do this then I have to say that in their
Amended Claim the Plaintiffs have still provided no legal or factual basis for the infringement of
their private rights, and the declarations remain nothing more than a request that the Court
B-1-731
- 0722 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-732 B-1-732
Page: 66
provide an advisory opinion that supports their view of the way the Bank Act and the
Constitution should be read.
[141] In order to overcome this problem in their first Amended Statement of Claim, the

Plaintiffs hitched their declaratory relief to ss 7 and 15 of the Charter and various tort claims, all
of which they have now abandoned. In their stead, they have now hitched the declaratory relief
to claims based on s 3 of the Charter and Constitutional guarantees of no taxation without
representation, which I have found to be non-justiciable. This leaves the Court in the same
situation as it found itself in April, 2014:
[91] This means that, in terms of the ITO

principles, the Plaintiffs have yet to show a statutory
grant of jurisdiction by the federal Parliament that the
Court can entertain and rule on the Claim as presently
constituted (i.e. simply declare that statutory and
constitutional breaches have occurred without an
adequate description in the pleadings of how a private
right or interest has been affected and the grounds for a
valid cause of action), and they have yet to cite an
existing body of federal law which is essential to the
disposition of the case and which nourishes such a
statutory grant of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs do not
have any specific rights under the legislation which
they cite and they have provided no statutory or other
framework for the exercise of any rights. They may be
able to do these things with appropriate amendments to
the pleadings. As yet, however, I cannot see how the
Court acquires the jurisdiction to provide the
declaratory relief that is sought.
[142] It seems to me that the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancuso, above, has now made it
clear that a claim for a pure declaration must establish through pleading sufficient material facts
that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims “and a real as opposed to a theoretical question in
respect of which the person raising has an interest.”
B-1-732
- 0723 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-733 B-1-733
Page: 67
[143] I do not wish to denigrate, or even downplay, the Plaintiffs’ concerns about the way that
Parliament has dealt with economic and monetary issues. But not all concerns can be translated
into legal action that can, or should, be dealt with by a court of law. Rather than supplement their
previous ss 7 and 15 Charter claims, and their previous tort claims, the Plaintiffs have

abandoned those claims altogether and have now come up with claims based upon s 3 of the
Charter and Constitutional guarantees of no taxation without representation. As able as their
arguments are, the sudden switch to a new game plan suggests that the Plaintiffs are not able to
remove their concerns from the political realm and to characterize them in such a way that they
can be dealt with by this Court.
[144] It seems to me, then, that the latest Amended Claim discloses no reasonable cause of
action and has no prospect of success at trial. It also seems to me that the Plaintiffs are still
asking the Court for an advisory opinion in the form of declarations that their view of the way
the Bank Act and the Constitution should be read is correct. It also seems to me that they have
failed to show a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that this Court can entertain and rule
on their claim as presently constituted, or that they have any specific rights under the legislation
which they invoke, or a legal framework for any such rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada
pointed out in Operation Dismantle, above, the preventive function of a declaratory judgment
must be more than hypothetical and requires “a cognizable threat to a legal interest before the
Court will entertain the use of its process as a preventative measure” (para 33). The Court is not
here to declare the law generally or to give an advisory opinion. The Court is here to decide and
declare contested legal rights. See Gouriet, above, at 501-502.
B-1-733
- 0724 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-734 B-1-734
Page: 68
D. Other issues
[145] The Defendants have raised a number of other issues going to the adequacy and
appropriateness of the Amended Claim but, in light of the fundamental problems I have dealt

with above, I see no point in going any further with my analysis.
E. Leave to Amend
[146] The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider, as an alternative form of relief, that they
be allowed to proceed on the declaratory relief in their Amended Claim, with leave to amend any
struck portions with respect to the damages portion of the claim.
[147] As set out above, I do not think that, even for the declaratory relief sought, that the
Plaintiffs have been able to raise their claim above a mere request for an advisory opinion. In
addition, as further explained above, given that the Plaintiffs have not been able to rectify the
fundamental issues I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, and have not suggested any way
in which they could be rectified, I see no point in allowing an amendment. Having previously
permitted the Plaintiffs such an opportunity, their response convinces me that, for reasons given,
they have no scintilla of a cause of action that this Court can or should hear. Without having any
real legal interest at stake, the Plaintiffs remain a think tank seeking to have the Court endorse
their political and academic viewpoint. Amendments are not going to change this.
B-1-734
- 0725 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-735 B-1-735
Page: 69
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Plaintiffs’ latest Amended Claim is struck in its entirety;
2. Leave to amend is refused;

3. Costs are awarded to the Defendants.
“James Russell”
Judge
B-1-735
- 0726 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-736 B-1-736
FEDERAL COURT
DOCKET: T-2010-11

STYLE OF CAUSE: COMMITTEE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC
REFORM (“COMER”), WILLIAM KREHM, AND ANN
EMMETT v HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, THE
MINISTER OF FINANCE, THE MINISTER OF
NATIONAL REVENUE, THE BANK OF CANADA,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 14, 2015
ORDER AND REASONS: RUSSELL J.
APPEARANCES:
Peter Hajecek FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Toronto, Ontario

Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
Toronto, Ontario
B-1-736
- 0727 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-737 B-1-737
EXHIBIT “YY”
B-1-737
- 0728 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-738 B-1-738
Date: 20160916
Docket: T-1747-15
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

Ottawa, Ontario, September 16, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
ZHENHUA WANG AND CHUNXIANG YAN
Plaintiffs
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, OXANA M.

KOWALYK (ID MEMBER), SUSY KIM (ID
MEMBER), IRIS KOHLER (ID MEMBER),
OFFICER O'HARA (CBSA OFFICER), HAL
SIPPEL, ERIC BLENKARN, ANDREJ
RUSTJA, CBSA OFFICERS, ALL JOHN AND
JANE DOE CBSA/CIC OFFICIALS
UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS,
INVOLVED IN THE ARREST, DETENTION
AND CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE
PLAINTIFFS, LINDA LIZOTTE-
MACPHERSON, PRESIDENT OF THE CBSA,
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendants
This is Exhibit “YY” to the affidavit of
January, 2023, in accordance with O ORDER AND REASONS
Reg 431/20
__________________________________
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C B-1-738
- 0729 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-739 B-1-739
Page: 2
[1] On these motions the Defendants seek relief under Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules,
SOR/98-106, striking out the Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiffs in this action on the basis
that it discloses no viable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, is an abuse of the
process of the Court and is barred by cause of action estoppel.
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

[2] At the outset of argument the Plaintiffs conceded that the claims asserted against the
President of the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA], the Minister of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [CIC] should be
struck. In the result the action is dismissed as against those parties. What remains for
determination is whether the claims against the remaining Defendants should be struck and, if so,
on what terms.
[3] In order to apply the legal principles relied upon by the parties it is necessary to consider
the specific allegations in the Plaintiffs’ 65 page Statement of Claim.
[4] The Plaintiffs’ complaint arises out of their arrest and detention at the hands of the CBSA
on March 7, 2014. Among other allegations the Plaintiffs say that they were wrongfully arrested
and unlawfully detained on the strength of false information that CBSA and CIC officials either
knowingly or negligently relied upon in the prosecution of the Plaintiffs’ ongoing immigration
detentions. Included in the claims against the named and unnamed officials are allegations that
they misrepresented evidence, conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of a fair hearing, and sought to
punish the Plaintiffs for bringing refugee claims.
B-1-739
- 0730 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-740 B-1-740
Page: 3
[5] Some representative passages concerning the alleged conduct of the CBSA and CIC
officers are set out below:
 The Arrest and Detention of Plaintiffs in Canada
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

87. Prior to, and up to being arrested by the CBSA on March
7th , 2014, the Plaintiffs were subject to the following
actionable conduct by the CBSA/CIC officials:
(a) negligent investigation in refusing to properly

investigate the facts and evidence put forward by
the Plaintiffs; and relying solely on the false
information provided by those who defrauded the
Plaintiffs, as well as officials of the People’s
Republic of China, and who were defendants in
Ontario civil actions for that fraud and other
criminal acts, for which negligent investigation the
CBSA/CIC officers, and Her Majesty the Queen are
liable, in that:
(i) the officers owed a common-law and

statutory duty of care to competently
investigate prior to arrest and detention;
(ii) the officer(s) breached that duty of care; and
(iii) as a result of that breach they caused the

Plaintiffs compensable damages;
(b) that the initial duty to competently investigate is

owed to the present day, which has been flagrantly
breached and ignored by the named and unnamed
CBSA/CIC officers, notwithstanding more
comprehensive and updated information and
evidence provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel;
(c) engaged in abuse and excess of authority, and

misfeasance of public office for the facts set out
above, by:
(i) refusing disclosure undertaken and resisting

disclosure due to the Plaintiffs;
(ii) misrepresenting the nature and quality of the

evidence against the Plaintiffs;
B-1-740
- 0731 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-741 B-1-741
Page: 4
(iii) acting in bad faith, and absence of good

faith, continued to shift the grounds, for
continued detention against the Plaintiffs;
(iv) sought the continued detention of the

Plaintiffs, as punishment, because the
Plaintiffs made refugee claims, refugee
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

claims necessitated by the actions of the
Defendant CBSA/CIC officials who have
now, knowingly, exposed the Plaintiffs to
torture and/or death if returned to China;
(v) refusing to properly investigate;
(d) conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of their statutory

and constitutional rights, to be free of arbitrary and
unlawful arrest and detention as set out below in
this statement of claim;
(e) breached the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right(s) to

counsel; and
(f) otherwise breached their rights under s. 7 of the

Charter, to life, liberty, and security of the person,
in a matter inconsistent with the tenets of
fundamental justice, and contrary to s. 15 of the
Charter, by discriminating against the Plaintiffs
based on their status as wealthy Chinese nationals,
with respect to their investigation, arrest, detention,
and continued detention of the Plaintiffs.
...
102. Prior to, and during, the 1st detention review, the Defendant
CBSA/CIC officials at the hearing, engaged in the
following actionable conduct:
(a) they continued to engage in negligent investigation

as set out above;
(b) they engaged in abuse of process, and abuse and

excess of authority, and misfeasance of public
office by:
(i) refusing disclosure undertaken and owed to

the Plaintiffs;
B-1-741
- 0732 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-742 B-1-742
Page: 5
(ii) misrepresenting the nature and quality of the

evidence against the Plaintiffs’;
(iii) in bad faith, and absence of good faith,

shifted the grounds, for continued detention
against the Plaintiffs;
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

(iv) sought the continued detention of the
Plaintiffs, as punishment, because the
Plaintiffs made refugee claims, refugee
claims necessitated by the actions of the
Defendant CBSA/CIC officials who have
now, knowingly, exposed the Plaintiffs to
torture and/or death if returned to China;
(c) conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of a fair hearing,

and further conspired to continue the Plaintiffs’
unlawful and arbitrary arrest and detention by:
(i) engaging in an agreement for the use of

lawful and unlawful means, and conduct, the
predominant purpose of which is to cause
injury to the Plaintiffs; and/or
(ii) engaging, in an agreement, to use unlawful

means and conduct, whose predominant
purpose and conduct directed at the
Plaintiffs, is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs,
or the Defendants’ officials should know, in
the circumstances, that injury to the
Plaintiffs, is likely to, and does result;
(d) continued to breach the Plaintiffs’ right to counsel

and effective right to assistance of assistance of
counsel;
(e) endangered the lives of the Plaintiffs if ever

returned to China; and
(f) otherwise breached their rights under s. 7 of the

Charter, to life, liberty, and security of the person,
in a matter inconsistent with the tenets of
fundamental justice, and contrary to s. 15 of the
Charter, by discriminating against the Plaintiffs
based on their status as wealthy Chinese nationals,
with respect to their investigation, arrest, detention,
and continued detention of the Plaintiffs.
B-1-742
- 0733 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-743 B-1-743
Page: 6
[6] In this action the Plaintiffs also seek damages from three members of the Immigration
Division (collectively the ID Members) for unlawfully maintaining the Plaintiffs’ detention in
the context of three detention reviews. Each of the impugned decisions was overturned by this
Court on judicial review. The Plaintiffs’ claims are based, in part, on an assertion that ID
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

Members Kowalyk, Kim and Kohler are liable in damages for failing to follow the Federal Court
orders that quashed the earlier detention review decisions and for a variety of other adjudicative
errors. Parts of the Statement of Claim assert causes of actions in negligence and others assert
fraud and malice.
[7] The material allegations made against the ID Members are the following:
MEMBER KOWALYK
106. In making her decision, on December 11th , 2014, ID

Member O.M. Kowalyk, which decision was made in bad
faith, and absence of good faith, the ID Member, with
knowledge and intent and sole purpose of the continued
detention of the Plaintiffs, contrary to law, engaged in the
following conduct, and made the following baseless
findings, with intention and knowledge, in bad faith and
absence of good faith, for the sole purpose of continuing the
unlawful detention of the Plaintiffs by:
(a) making substantive determinations with respect to

the strength and bona fides of the Plaintiffs’
refugee claims which are outside the jurisdiction of
the ID, and the exclusive jurisdiction of the RPD
(Refugee Protection Division) of the IRB;
(b) making rulings diametrically opposed to binding

Federal Court orders and judgments;
(c) knowingly misapplying the jurisprudence to the

facts of the Plaintiffs’ detention with the intention
to continue the unlawful and arbitrary detention of
the Plaintiffs;
B-1-743
- 0734 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-744 B-1-744
Page: 7
(d) refusing a release plan, which has been accepted as

a release plan, for those accused of (association
with) terrorism in Canada;
(e) knowingly making capricious and perverse

findings of fact and law, with the knowledge and
intention of continuing the detention of the
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

Plaintiffs; and
(f) doing all of the above set out in (a)-(e), based on

discrimination, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter ,
because the Plaintiffs are wealthy Chinese
nationals;
which conduct and findings were contrary to the binding

jurisprudence, and the knowledge, experience, and expertise
of the Member which spans just over 30 years as an
Adjudicator and ID member conducting detention reviews.
109. The Plaintiffs state and the fact is that the errors cited by
the Federal Court were not “errors” by Member Kowalyk,
but made knowingly by her, in bad faith, and absence of
good faith, intentionally designed for the purpose of
continuing the Plaintiffs’ unlawful and unconstitutional
detention.
MEMBER KIM
114. In making her decision, on April 2nd, 2015, ID Member

Susy Kim, which decision was made in bad faith, and
absence of good faith, the ID Member, with knowledge and
intent and sole purpose of the continued detention of the
Plaintiffs, contrary to law, engaged in the following
conduct, and made the following baseless findings, with
intention and knowledge, in bad faith and absence of good
faith, for the sole purpose of continuing the unlawful
detention of the Plaintiffs:
(a) making rulings diametrically opposed to binding

Federal Court orders and judgment of Justice Phelan
and knowingly ignored and contradicted
Justice Phelan’s judgment on judicial review;
B-1-744
- 0735 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-745 B-1-745
Page: 8
(b) making substantive determinations with respect to the

Plaintiffs’ refugee hearings which are outside the
jurisdiction of the ID, and the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RPD (Refugee Protection Division) of the IRB;
(c) making rulings diametrically opposed to binding

2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

(d) knowingly misapplying the jurisprudence to facts of the
Plaintiffs’ detention with the intention to continue the
unlawful and arbitrary detention of the Plaintiffs;
(e) refusing a release plan, which has been accepted as a

release plan, for those accused of (association with)
terrorism in Canada;
(f) knowingly making capricious and perverse findings of

fact and law, with the knowledge and intention of
continuing the detention of the Plaintiffs; and
(g) doing all of the above set out in (a)-(e), based on

discrimination, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter,
because the Plaintiffs are wealthy Chinese nationals;

Federal Court jurisprudence, including that of the previous,
successful judicial review, by the Federal Court, of the
previous detention review of Oxana M. Kowalyk.
...
116. The Member’s decision essentially adopted and rehashed

the decision of the previous ID Member (Kowalyk). This is
referenced in Justice Gagne’s decision, at paragraph 48, as
quoted in the previous paragraph of this Statement of
Claim. The decision further ignores and flies in the face of
the judicial review conducted by Justice Phelan of ID
Member Kowalski’s decision, whereby ID Member Kim
knowingly adopts Kowalyk’s errors to fly in the face of the
Federal Court decision quashing Kowalyk’s decision.
117. The Plaintiffs state and the fact is that the errors cited by the
Federal Court were not “errors” by Member Susy Kim, but
made knowingly by her, in bad faith, and absence of good
faith, intentionally designed for the purpose of continuing
the Plaintiffs’ unlawful and unconstitutional detention.
B-1-745
- 0736 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-746 B-1-746
Page: 9
MEMBER KOHLER
143. In making her decision, which decision was made in bad

faith, and absence of good faith, the ID Member, Iris
Kohler, with knowledge and intent and sole purpose of the
continued detention of the Plaintiffs, contrary to law,
engaged in the following conduct, and made the following
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

baseless findings, with intention and knowledge, in bad
faith and absence of good faith, for the sole purpose of
continuing the unlawful detention of the Plaintiffs:
(a) making rulings diametrically opposed to binding

(b) making substantive determinations with respect to the

Plaintiffs’ refugee hearings which are outside the
jurisdiction of the ID, and the exclusive jurisdiction of
the RPD (Refugee Protection Division) of the IRB;
(c) knowingly misapplying the jurisprudence to facts of

the Plaintiffs’ detention with the intention to continue
the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the Plaintiffs;
(d) refusing a release plan, which has been accepted as a

release plan, for those accused of (association with)
terrorism in Canada;
(e) knowingly making capricious and perverse findings

of fact and law, with the knowledge and intention of
(f) doing all of the above set out in (a)-(e), with

discrimination, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter ,
because the Plaintiffs are wealthy Chinese nationals;

Federal Court jurisprudence, including that of previous,
successful judicial reviews, by the Federal Court, of
previous detention reviews, by Justice Phelan and
Justice Gagné, as set out above.
...
146. Furthermore, ID Member Kolher’s decision, rehashes and

repeats the reasons of the previous two ID Members’
decisions, with a number of paragraphs being extracted and
merged from ID Member Kowalyk’s, and ID Member
Kim’s decision, which findings and conclusions knowingly,
B-1-746
- 0737 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-747 B-1-747
Page: 10
and with the sole intent to continue the detention of the

Plaintiffs, fly in the face of the previous two Federal Court
decisions of Justice Phelan and Justice Gagné.
147. The Plaintiffs state and the fact is that the errors cited by the
Federal Court were not “errors” by Member Iris Kohler, but
made knowingly by her, in bad faith, and absence of good
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

faith, intentionally designed for the purpose of continuing
the Plaintiffs’ unlawful and unconstitutional detention.
[8] In addition to the above allegations, the Statement of Claim includes prolix, unfocussed
and generalized accusations of a conspiracy to harm the Plaintiffs carried out by the named
Defendants and other unnamed government officials. It is not possible to tell whether the ID
Members are included in all of the conspiracy allegations but, in a few instances, they are
expressly identified. For the most part, these conspiracy allegations simply repeat the earlier
pleading of individualized bad faith set out above. Below are the key conspiracy allegations
specific to the ID Members:
(d) that the ID members, Oxana Kowalyk, Susy Kim, Iris

Kohler, have also done so in a separate and overlapping
conspiracy, by:
(i) making substantive determinations with respect to

the Plaintiffs’ refugee hearings which are outside
the jurisdiction of the ID, and the exclusive
jurisdiction of the RPD (Refugee Protection
Division) of the IRB;
(ii) making rulings diametrically opposed to binding

Federal Court orders and judgments particularly the
Federal Court orders and judgment made with
respect to the Plaintiffs; on judicial review(s) of
their detention;
(iii) knowingly misapplying the jurisprudence to facts of

the Plaintiffs’ detention with the intention to
continue the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the
Plaintiffs;
B-1-747
- 0738 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-748 B-1-748
Page: 11
(iv) refusing a release plan, which has been accepted as

a release plan, for those accused of (association
with) terrorism in Canada;
(v) knowingly making capricious and perverse findings

of fact and law, with the knowledge and intention of
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

(vi) doing all of the above set out in (a)-(e), based on
discrimination, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter,
because the Plaintiffs are wealthy Chinese
nationals;
155. The Plaintiffs further state that actions of the named and
unnamed CBSA/CIC officers, in conjunction with the ID
Members, at the behest and false information from agents
of the People’s Republic of China, and the fraudsters Szeto
and Chen, with the resulting unlawful and unconstitutional
detention, constitute torture and unusual treatment contrary
to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel or
Unusual Treatment, and also constitutes a crime against
humanity contrary to, inter alia, s. 6 of the Crimes Against
Humanity Act, as well as an offence under the Criminal
Code of Canada. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that the
named and unnamed officials, in furtherance of attempting
to remove the Plaintiffs to China, are acting as de facto
agents for the People’s Republic of China, and in fact are
accessories, co-conspirators with the attempt to deliver the
Plaintiffs to torture, and unlawful imprisonment and/or
death. This conspiracy, and over-lapping conspiracies, and
unlawful and unconstitutional conduct, through the
knowledge and willful conduct of the above-noted officials,
in bad faith and the absence of good faith, also grounds the
basis for civil and constitutional torts and liability.
158. The Plaintiffs further state that this entire process, is a

statutory and constitutional abuse of process, by way of
disguised extradition, on false information obtained from
fraudsters and officials of a dictatorial regime, with a
refusal by Canadian officials to properly and competently
investigate, to remove at the request of a regime that
engages in inter alia, torture, without the procedural and
substantive safeguards of the Extradition Act, which the
B-1-748
- 0739 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-749 B-1-749
Page: 12
named and unnamed officials, and ID Members, know run

contrary to the Royal Commission Inquiry conducted with
respect to Maher Arar, and its report and recommendations,
as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal decision (leave to
the SCC denied), finding it constitutionally impermissible
to extradite based on information obtained by torture, as set
out in USA v. Kadr, which decision is a document referred
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

to in the pleadings herein.
[9] In one concluding passage, the Statement of Claim asserts that the ID Members, among
others, were acting “as de facto agents of the People’s Republic of China, in what amounts to a
disguised and baseless extradition” (see para 156 (vi)).
I. Analysis
[10] Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules applies to these motions and provides for relief on
the following basis:
STRIKING OUT RADIATION D’ACTES DE

PLEADINGS PROCÉDURE
221 (1) On motion, the Court 221 (1) À tout moment, la

may, at any time, order that a Cour peut, sur requête,
pleading, or anything ordonner la radiation de tout
contained therein, be struck ou partie d’un acte de
out, with or without leave to procédure, avec ou sans
amend, on the ground that it autorisation de le modifier, au
motif, selon le cas :
(a) discloses no reasonable a) qu’il ne révèle aucune cause

cause of action or defence, as d’action ou de défense valable;
the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant, b) qu’il n’est pas pertinent ou

qu’il est redondant;
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or c) qu’il est scandaleux, frivole

vexatious,
B-1-749
- 0740 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-750 B-1-750
Page: 13
ou vexatoire;
(d) may prejudice or delay the d) qu’il risque de nuire à

(e) constitutes a departure from e) qu’il diverge d’un acte de
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

a previous pleading, or procédure antérieur;
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the f) qu’il constitue autrement un

and may order the action be Elle peut aussi ordonner que
dismissed or judgment entered l’action soit rejetée ou qu’un
accordingly. jugement soit enregistré en
conséquence.
(2) No evidence shall be heard (2) Aucune preuve n’est

on a motion for an order under admissible dans le cadre d’une
paragraph (1)(a). requête invoquant le motif visé
à l’alinéa (1)a).
[11] The Defendants all contend that the Statement of Claim discloses no cause of action
known to law and is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious. They also argue that a markedly similar
Statement of Claim was struck out by the Ontario Superior Court as disclosing no viable cause of
action, thus rendering this proceeding an abuse of process by relitigation or subject to cause of
action estoppel. The Immigration Division members also rely on the immunity that is afforded to
them by section 156(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
B-1-750
- 0741 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-751 B-1-751
Page: 14
II. The claims against the ID Members
[12] There is no question that the claims advanced against the ID Members in the performance
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

of their adjudicative duties are protected by a strongly worded immunity provision. Section 156
of IRPA states:
156. Immunity and no summons – The following rules apply to the

Chairperson and the members in respect of the exercise or
purported exercise of their functions under this Act:
(a) no criminal or civil proceedings lie against them for

anything done or omitted to be done in good faith; and
(b) they are not competent or compellable to appear as a

witness in any civil proceedings.
[13] Mr. Galati opposes the motion to strike the claims against the ID Members on the basis
that the Court must take the pleaded facts as provable. He asserts that it is only where it is plain
and obvious that a pleading is bad that it can be struck: see, for instance, Hunt v Carey Canada
Inc, [1990] 2 SCR 959 at page 980, 74 DLR (4th ) 321. Motions to strike under Rule 221 of the
Federal Courts Rules are, of course, also subject to Rule 174 requiring that every pleading
contain “a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies”.
[14] While I accept that, on a motion to strike, the Court must take the pleaded facts to be
provable and should only strike in the clearest of cases, at the same time not every legal theory
that can be imagined by the creative legal mind must be entertained. For instance, I do not agree
that this Court must accept, as potentially viable, fanciful interpretations of the scope of
immunity afforded to the ID Members by section 156 of IRPA. An example of such an argument
B-1-751
- 0742 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-752 B-1-752
Page: 15
is the Plaintiffs’ contention that they are entitled to pursue a cause of action for the negligent
enforcement of a judicial decree (i.e., the Federal Court judgments). The Plaintiffs advance this
claim on the strength of the decision in Holland v Saskatchewan, 2008 SCC 42, [2008] 2 SCR
551. That case, of course, involved an allegation of negligent implementation of a judicial decree
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

and not negligent adjudication. In the face of the broad immunity created by section 156, it is
plain and obvious that this allegation and any similar allegation could not, in the absence of
pleaded material facts bearing on bad faith, possibly succeed.
[15] The same can be said of the allegations concerning ostensible errors made by the ID
Members. The Statement of Claim does not survive a motion to strike by the pleading of a series
of supposed errors followed by a bare assertion of bad faith and conspiracy. Indeed, all of the
conspiracy allegations are purely speculative and improper. To assert without any factual
foundation that the ID Members were engaged in a conspiracy to harm the Plaintiffs with the
CBSA and CIC officials and were acting as de facto agents of the Chinese authorities is
particularly scandalous and improper. What the record actually discloses is that the ID Members
produced thoughtful and thorough decisions. This Court found some discrete reviewable errors
in their decisions but identified nothing blameworthy and returned the cases for redetermination.
The remedy for adjudicative error lies in judicial review and not in a collateral action seeking
damages.
[16] What the Court must still consider is whether some remainder of the Statement of Claim
would, if proven, be sufficient to escape the confines of section 156. To determine this, it is
necessary to consider the basic principles with respect to pleadings. The fundamental purpose
B-1-752
- 0743 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-753 B-1-753
Page: 16
and rule of pleadings were discussed by Justice Eric Bowie in Zelinski v the Queen, [2002] 1
CTC 2422, [2002] DTC 1204 (TCC) and recently endorsed by Justice Wyman Webb in Beima v
Canada, 2016 FCA 205, [2016] FCJ No 907 (QL):
4 The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues in dispute
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

between the parties for the purposes of production, discovery and
trial. What is required of a party pleading is to set forth a concise
statement of the material facts upon which she relies. Material
facts are those facts which, if established at the trial, will tend to
show that the party pleading is entitled to the relief sought …
5 The applicable principle is stated in Holmsted and Watson

[Ontario Civil Procedure, Vol. 3, pages 25-20 to 25-21]:
This is the rule of pleading: all of the other pleading

rules are essentially corollaries or qualifications to
this basic rule that the pleader must state the
material facts relied upon for his or her claim or
defence. The rule involves four separate elements:
(1) every pleading must state facts, not mere
conclusions of law; (2) it must state material facts
and not include facts which are immaterial; (3) it
must state facts and not the evidence by which they
are to be proved; (4) it must state facts concisely in
a summary form.
[17] The question is therefore whether the Statement of Claim contains any material factual
allegations that could support a finding of bad faith on the part of any of the ID Members in the
discharge of their adjudicative functions. In this context, bad faith requires proof of deliberate
dishonest conduct by each of the ID Members in carrying out their detention review
responsibilities.
[18] An assessment of the Statement of Claim must begin with an appreciation of the legal
principles that distinguish between speculative or conclusory allegations and those that are
sufficiently particularized to be subjected to further judicial scrutiny (i.e., material facts that are
B-1-753
- 0744 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-754 B-1-754
Page: 17
capable of supporting a potentially viable cause of action). This distinction is discussed by
Justice David Stratas in Merchant Law Group v Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184, 321
DLR (4th) 301 [Merchant Law] in the following passage:
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

[34] I agree with the Federal Court’s observation (at paragraph
26) that paragraph 12 of the amended statement of claim “contains
a set of conclusions, but does not provide any material facts for the
conclusions.” When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not
enough to assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately
or negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did
steal”: Zundel v. Canada, 2005 FC 1612, 144 A.C.W.S. (3d) 635;
Vojic v. Canada (M.N.R.), [1987] 2 C.T.C. 203, 87 D.T.C. 5384
(F.C.A.). “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court
is called upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”:
Canadian Olympic Association v. USA Hockey, Inc. (1997), 74
C.P.R. (3d) 348, 72 A.C.W.S. (3d) 346 (F.C.T.D.). Making bald,
conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an
abuse of process: AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited,
2010 FCA 112 at paragraph 5. If the requirement of pleading
material facts did not exist in Rule 174 or if courts did not enforce
it according to its terms, parties would be able to make the
broadest, most sweeping allegations without evidence and embark
upon a fishing expedition. As this Court has said, “an action at law
is not a fishing expedition and a plaintiff who starts proceedings
simply in the hope that something will turn up abuses the court’s
process”: Kastner v. Painblanc (1994), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 502, 176
N.R. 68 at paragraph 4 (F.C.A.).
[35] To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public

office requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in
carrying out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which
the public officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of
his or her office: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R.
263, 2003 SCC 69 at paragraph 28. For this tort, particularization
of the allegations is mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires
particularization of allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful
default,” “state of mind of a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent
intention.”
B-1-754
- 0745 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-755 B-1-755
Page: 18
[19] More recently, Justice Michael Manson discussed the need for particulars when pleadings
allege fraud or malice. His comments in Tomchin v Canada, 2015 FC 402, 332 CRR (2d) 64
[Tomchin] are particularly apt on this motion:
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

[21] In order to strike a pleading on the ground that it does not
disclose a reasonable cause of action, those allegations that are
properly pleaded as concise material facts and are capable of being
proved must be taken as true (Hunt v Carey Canada Inc, [1990] 2
SCR 959; Federal Court Rules, Rule 174). However, that rule does
not apply to allegations based on assumptions and speculation
(Operation Dismantle Inc v Canada, [1985] 1 SCR 441 at
para 27).
[22] As well, any pleading of misrepresentation, fraud, malice

or fraudulent intent must provide particulars of each and every
allegation; bald allegations of bad faith, ulterior motives or ultra
vires activities is both “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious”, and
an abuse of process of this Court (Federal Court Rules, Rule 191;
Merchant Law Group v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184
at paras 34-35).
...
[38] Throughout the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff alleges

bad faith and ulterior motives on the part of the Defendants.
However, I agree with the Defendants that the allegations are
purely speculative and none of the statements are supported by the
facts as pleaded. What the facts show is nothing other than
legitimate, intra vires reasons for the Plaintiff’s interview,
investigation and detention by CBSA.
[47] The pleading as a whole is replete with opinion and

conclusory statements, devoid of the concise, material facts needed
to support a viable cause of action. I agree with the Defendants that
the Statement of Claim appears to have been filed for collateral
purposes, in the hopes that a fishing expedition may yield some
claim of substance that may somehow support the Plaintiff’s desire
for a remedy against the Defendants. His position is simply wrong
(Kastner v Painblanc, [1994] FCJ No 1671 at para 4 (FCA)).
B-1-755
- 0746 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-756 B-1-756
Page: 19
[20] The allegations made by the Plaintiffs against the ID Members in this proceeding are bad
for the same reasons identified in the Merchant Law and Tomchin decisions noted above. The
allegations of bad faith and malice are merely conclusions unsupported by any material facts.
The allegation of a conspiracy in concert with the People’s Republic of China is particularly
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

troublesome. In the absence of any supporting facts it is a scandalous allegation and, in that
form, should never have been pleaded.
[21] I can only conclude from the total absence of particulars that the claims made against the
ID Members were solely intended to embarrass those Defendants for making detention rulings
adverse to the Plaintiffs’ interests. In the result, all of the claims against the ID Members are
struck out without leave to amend and the action is dismissed as against each of them.
[22] The ID Members are entitled to their costs in the action. Having regard to the scandalous
nature of the allegations made against them, an increased award of costs is justified. These
Defendants are awarded $5,500 payable within 30 days by the Plaintiffs, jointly and severally.
III. The claims against the CBSA and CIC
[23] One of the principal arguments advanced on behalf of the CBSA and CIC Defendants is
that this action is an abusive relitigation of a very similar cause of action dismissed by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice. To fairly address this argument it is necessary to examine the
scope and disposition of that earlier action.
B-1-756
- 0747 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-757 B-1-757
Page: 20
[24] The Statement of Claim issued on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice named, among other parties, CIC and the CBSA as Defendants. That Statement of Claim
sets out, almost verbatim, much of the factual history contained in the Federal Court Statement
of Claim (see for example paras 16-18 and 76-99).
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

[25] Nevertheless, the specific allegations directed at the conduct of CIC and the CBSA in the
Ontario pleading were limited to the following:
62. CIC and CBSA knew, or ought to have known, at the time
that the application forms were submitted by Chen and Szeto, that
Chen and Szeto were not licensed or approved immigration
consultants or professionals, and that they were submitting the
application documents contrary to the IRPA s. 91(1).
63. Furthermore, subsequent to Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang’s

discovery that Chen and Szeto were not licensed to submit
immigration applications, and subsequent to their discovery of
significant other misrepresentations and frauds perpetuated against
them by Chen and Szeto, CIC and CBSA were notified by letters
dated, respectively, January 27, 2014 and February 5, 2014 from
counsel for Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang, specifically advising CIC and
CBSA that:
(a) Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang had discovered that Chen
and Szeto were not licensed or approved
immigration consultants and were not licensed or
qualified to complete and submit applications to
Canada Immigration on their behalf;
(b) Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang had reason to believe that
Chen and Szeto had provided incorrect information
on the applications;
(c) Chen and Szeto had threatened repeatedly to make

false reports regarding Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang to
CBSA and Canada Immigration in the course of
continued attempts at extorting funds from Ms. Yan
and Mr. Wang. Because of the legal actions and
criminal complaints made by Ms. Yan and
Mr. Wang against Chen and Szeto, Ms. Yan and
B-1-757
- 0748 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-758 B-1-758
Page: 21
Mr. Wang had reason to believe that Chen and

Szeto had made and were continuing to make false
allegations to CBSA and CIC against Ms. Yan and
Mr. Wang; and
(d) Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang were requesting copies of

all application documents submitted on their behalf
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

by Chen and Szeto.
64. Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang have to date received no response
whatsoever from CBSA or CIC to the January 27 th and February
5th letters.
65. Therefore, in addition to the fact that CIC and CBSA

should have known that Chen and Szeto were in breach of s. 91(1)
of the IRPA at the time of submission of the purported application,
CIC and CBSA should certainly have known, and commenced a
specific investigation and consulted with Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang’s
counsel, after receipt of their counsel’s February notice letter.
66. Further, having received the latest application in or about

2013, and possibly previous applications from Chen and Szeto
prior to that time, and then the February notification from counsel
for Yan and Mr. Wang, CBSA should then have known that they
were relying upon documents, the preparation of which were a
criminal offence by Chen and Szeto contrary to s. 91(1) of the
IRPA.
67. Knowing that the preparation of the application documents

was a criminal offence by third parties, the CBSA should not have
instructed its counsel to rely upon information on those documents
to continue the detention and deny the freedom of Ms. Yan and
Mr. Wang.
68. Chen and Szeto were not licensed or approved immigration

consultants, and they were submitting the application documents
contrary to the IRPA s. 91(1).
74. The CBSA’s arrest disclosure referred to “tips” that they

received in respect of Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang.
75. Ms. Yan and Mr. Wang believe that their concerns, set out
in their counsel’s February 2014 letter to CIC and CBSA, were
correct and that Chen and Szeto made false report to the Canadian
immigration agencies including CIC and CBSA, as well as false
reports to the embassy, national government, and provincial
B-1-758
- 0749 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-759 B-1-759
Page: 22
government of China, as well as false reports to the Dominican

Republic, all falsely claiming improperly actions and activities by
the Plaintiffs.
109. The plaintiffs state pleading that they have suffered
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

damages as a result of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada and
Canada Border Services Agency failure:
(a) to identify and take preventative steps because, at

the time that the application forms were submitted
by Chen and Szeto, Chen and Szeto were not
licensed or approved immigration consultants or
professionals, and that they were submitting the
application documents contrary to the IRPA s.
91(1);
(b) to take preventative action, including contacting

counsel for the plaintiffs, upon receipt of counsel’s
letter in February 2014 warning that Chen and Szeto
were not licensed and may have file false
information regarding the plaintiffs;
(c) to refrain from using documents prepared by Chen

and Szeto and relying upon “tips” from Chen and
Szeto as a part of the basis for investigation and
detention of the plaintiffs; and
(d) to refrain from CBSA instructing its Minister’s

Counsel to rely on documents prepared by Chen and
Szeto in submissions at Detention Hearings to
continue the detention of the plaintiffs.
[26] Not surprisingly, the Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the Ontario Statement
of Claim as it related to CIC and the CBSA on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and
was otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court process. On the day the motion was
to be heard, the Plaintiffs’ then counsel (not Mr. Galati) requested and obtained an adjournment
based, in part, on an argument that “new facts” had emerged “which inform the Plaintiffs’ case
against the moving Defendants”. Plaintiffs’ counsel also advised the Court that he intended to
B-1-759
- 0750 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-760 B-1-760
Page: 23
amend the Statement of Claim. Thrown-away costs were awarded to the Attorney General in the
amount of $2,500.00, payable within 30 days.
[27] The Attorney General brought the motion to strike back before the Court on June 17,
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

2015. Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file any responding material and seems not to have opposed the
motion. Indeed, in an apparent effort to avoid the motion to strike, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Discontinuance on June 11, 2015. Justice Edward Belobaba described the filing of the Notice of
Discontinuance as “improper” and of no effect. He went on to strike the claims against the
Attorney General without leave to amend on the following basis:
The AG Canada’s motion to strike St. of Claim as against AG

Canada (CIC & CBSA) w/o leave to amend is granted. Unopposed.
No reasonable cause of action is created by not investigating s 91
IRPA breaches. Ps have not alleged insufficient legal basis for
detention. I agree with and adopt AG’s submissions in paras. 35-
37, 38-40 and 41-43, 45 and 50 of AG’s Factum.
[28] By reference Justice Belobaba adopted the following points from the Attorney General’s
written arguments:
35. There is nothing in IRPA that imposes a duty on CIC or

CBSA to investigate or take action against anyone who
contravenes s. 91 by giving representation or advice in an
immigration proceeding or application for consideration.
36. Similarly, s. 91(9) of IRPA, which provides that “[e]very

person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an
offence...” does not impose any duty on CIC or CBSA to
investigate or penalize every person who breaches s. 91.
37. The Plaintiffs have cited no authority to show any duty on

CIC or CBSA to investigate or penalize all persons who
may have breached s. 91 of IRPA. They have also not
pointed to any rationale for imposing such a duty on CIC or
B-1-760
- 0751 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-761 B-1-761
Page: 24
CBSA or indicated how it would be possible or feasible to

perform such a duty.
2) No cause of action created by not investigating

Ms. Chen and Mr. Szeto
38. The Plaintiffs seem to suggest that CIC or CBSA should
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

have investigated Ms. Chen and Mr. Szeto after the
Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote letters of January 27, 2014, and
February 5, 2014 advising that these persons breached
s. 0091. This allegation fails to show any cause of action as
the Plaintiffs cannot, by their counsel’s letters, create a duty
on CIC and CBSA to investigate persons who allegedly
breach s. 91(1), where no such duty exists in law.
Claim, paras 63, 65, 68, 109(b), [Motion Record of

the AG]
39. The Plaintiffs have not explained how their counsel’s

letters could mandate CIC or CBSA to investigate or
prosecute Ms. Chen or Mr. Szeto for breaching or allegedly
breaching s. 91, absent any legislative duty, court order or
other legal requirement to do so.
40. Further, the Plaintiffs do not allege that their detention by

CBSA is unlawful, i.e. that there are insufficient legal bases
for the detention. As such, they fail to show any reasonable
cause of action regarding their detention.
3) Plaintiffs have not alleged insufficient legal basis

for detention
Plaintiffs’ detention currently based on flight risk
41. The Plaintiffs assert a claim for “Special damages in the

amount of $10,000.00 of each day of detention of the
plaintiffs by the defendant Canada Border Services
Agency”, but nowhere in the Claim do the Plaintiffs allege
that their detention is unlawful.
Claim, para 1 (o), [Motion Record of the AG]
42. It seems that the Plaintiffs are seeking damages for time
spent in lawful detention. However, this does not give rise
to any reasonable cause of action.
43. Further, the Plaintiffs implicitly admit that their detention is

lawful, as they assert that “the essence of its [CBSA’s]
B-1-761
- 0752 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-762 B-1-762
Page: 25
current claims against the Plaintiffs” include “the flight risk

and misrepresentation issues”. While the Plaintiffs say that
these “claims” are “in any event, incorrect”, they do not
indicate any reason why they are not flight risks. In
addition, they do not allege that the flight risk issue was
caused by Ms. Chen or Mr. Szeto. In fact, their allegations
indicate the contrary.
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

Claim, para 45, [Motion Record of the AG]
...
45. The Plaintiffs’ allegations indicate that they are foreign

nationals who are detained in Canada as flight risks, i.e.,
being unlikely to appear for examination, an admissibility
hearing or removal from Canada. Since they state that
“flight risk” is part of the essence of CBSA’s claims against
them, and flight risk in these circumstances is sufficient for
their lawful detention by the Immigration Division, the
mere fact that they are detained or that they disagree with
the flight risk finding does not create a reasonable cause of
action.
...
50. As such, the Plaintiffs fail to show any cause of action

against the AG (on behalf of CIC or CBSA) regarding their
detention, or regarding the use or reliance of alleged
incorrect information submitted by Mr. Chen and
Mr. Szeto, as the Plaintiffs’ allegations indicate that CIC or
CBSA relied on information other than that received from
Ms. Chen and Mr. Szeto, to lawfully detain them as flight
risks, pursuant to IRPA.
[29] It is quite clear to me that Justice Belobaba effectively dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims
against the CIC and the CBSA alleging a negligent investigation, albeit in relation to specified
deficiencies pertaining to the supposed fraudsters, Szeto and Chen. To the extent that the
Statement of Claim purported to assert a claim to damages from the Plaintiffs’ detention, that,
too, was dismissed.
B-1-762
- 0753 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-763 B-1-763
Page: 26
[30] I have some reservations about globally applying abuse of process principles to this
motion to strike based on the Ontario Superior Court’s dismissal endorsement. That proceeding
was supported by a few vague allegations of negligent investigation by unnamed officials in the
CBSA and CIC, but the Statement of Claim did not include allegations against the ID Members
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

named in this action nor did it assert that government officials acted or conspired to present false
evidence to the Immigration Division for the purpose of harming the Plaintiffs. In addition to the
absence of a clear overlap of pleaded issues, it is also not entirely clear what the Ontario Superior
Court decided beyond the finding that no cause of action based on an alleged negligent
investigation could be made out. It is also of some significance that the Ontario action was
dismissed on a motion to strike that was unopposed. Finally, some of the allegations in the
Federal Court Statement of Claim post-date the dismissal of the Ontario action. Those after-the-
fact allegations cannot be struck based on the argument that a party is required to put its best case
forward and cannot selectively plead or split its case. Alleged events that have not yet occurred
cannot be reasonably anticipated and pleaded. Given these issues I am not prepared to strike the
entire Statement of Claim based on abuse of process by relitigation principles. That is not to say,
however, that all of what has been pleaded in this action is permissible in the face of the
dismissal of the Ontario action. In my view, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to replead their
allegations concerning supposedly negligent investigations by the CBSA, CIC or any of their
officials. The Ontario Superior Court found those allegations could not support a viable cause of
action and the Plaintiffs are not legally entitled to relitigate that issue in this Court. To do so is an
abuse of process: see Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at para 37, [2003] 3 SCR
77. Those allegations are accordingly struck from the Statement of Claim without leave to
amend.
B-1-763
- 0754 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-764 B-1-764
Page: 27
[31] There is not much of any substance that remains in the Statement of Claim, and what
does remain is devoid of material facts. Prolixity, repetition and the bare pleading of a series of
events are not substitutes for the requirement that a defendant know what is being factually and
legally alleged so that a proper answer and defence can be stated. What is always required is a
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

recitation of material facts that can support an arguable cause of action. Nevertheless, there are
some generalized allegations that CBSA and CIC officials knowingly fabricated a case against
the Plaintiffs in order to keep them in custody. In theory, a viable cause of action for misfeasance
in public office could arise, provided that there are sufficient material facts pleaded to support it.
Here there are none and the remaining portions of the Statement of Claim are struck out for that
reason and because what little remains is unintelligible. The Plaintiffs will, however, have leave
to file a fresh Statement of Claim provided that it contains sufficient material particulars to
support a cause of action for misfeasance in the prosecution of a case for the detention of the
Plaintiffs.
[32] These Defendants have been successful on their separate motions and are entitled to their
costs which I fix at $3,500.00. These costs are similarly payable jointly and severally by the
Plaintiffs within 30 days.
B-1-764
- 0755 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-765 B-1-765
Page: 28
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that these motions are allowed and the Statement of Claim is
struck out in its entirety. The action against the Defendants, Oxana M. Kowalyk (ID Member),
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

Susy Kim (ID Member), Iris Kohler (ID Member), Linda Lizotte-Macpherson, President of the
CBSA, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration is dismissed without leave to amend or refile. The Plaintiffs will have leave to
refile only in respect of a cause of action framed in accordance with these reasons.
THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the Defendants Oxama M. Kowalyk, Susy
Kim and Iris Kohler, shall have their costs in the amount of $5,500.00 payable by the Plaintiffs
jointly and severally within thirty (30) days.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the remaining Defendants shall have their
costs in the amount of $3,500.00 payable by the Plaintiffs jointly and severally within thirty (30)
days.
"R.L. Barnes"
Judge
B-1-765
- 0756 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-766 B-1-766
FEDERAL COURT
DOCKET: T-1747-15
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

STYLE OF CAUSE: ZHENHUA WANG AND CHUNXIANG YAN v HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN, OXANA M. KOWALYK (ID
MEMBER), SUSY KIM (ID MEMBER), IRIS KOHLER
(ID MEMBER), OFFICER O'HARA (CBSA OFFICER),
HAL SIPPEL, ERIC BLENKARN, ANDREJ RUSTJA,
CBSA OFFICERS, ALL JOHN AND JANE DOE
CBSA/CIC OFFICIALS UNKNOWN TO THE
PLAINTIFFS, INVOLVED IN THE ARREST,
DETENTION AND CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE
PLAINTIFFS, LINDA LIZOTTE-MACPHERSON,
PRESIDENT OF THE CBSA, MINISTER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS,
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 16, 2016
ORDER AND REASONS: BARNES J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Rocco Galati FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Mr. Jonathan Dawe FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Mr. Michael Dineen OXANA M. KOWALYK (ID MEMBER)
SUSY KIM (ID MEMBER)
IRIS KOHLER (ID MEMBER)
Mr. Jamie Todd FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Ms. Ildiko Erdei OFFICER O'HARA (CBSA OFFICER)
HAL SIPPEL
ERIC BLENKARN
ANDREJ RUSTJA, CBSA OFFICERS
B-1-766
- 0757 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-767 B-1-767
Page: 2
ALL JOHN AND JANE DOE CBSA/CIC OFFICIALS

UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS, INVOLVED IN
THE ARREST, DETENTION AND CONTINUED
DETENTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS
LINDA LIZOTTE-MACPHERSON, PRESIDENT OF
THE CBSA
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
2016 FC 1052 (CanLII)

PREPAREDNESS
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Toronto, ON
Dawe & Dineen FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Toronto, ON OXANA M. KOWALYK (ID MEMBER)
SUSY KIM (ID MEMBER)
IRIS KOHLER (ID MEMBER)

Deputy Attorney General of Canada OFFICER O'HARA (CBSA OFFICER)
HAL SIPPEL
ERIC BLENKARN
ANDREJ RUSTJA, CBSA OFFICERS
ALL JOHN AND JANE DOE CBSA/CIC OFFICIALS
UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFFS, INVOLVED IN
THE ARREST, DETENTION AND CONTINUED
DETENTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS
LINDA LIZOTTE-MACPHERSON, PRESIDENT OF
THE CBSA
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
B-1-767
- 0758 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-768 B-1-768
EXHIBIT “ZZ”
B-1-768
- 0759 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-769 B-1-769
Date: 20161122
Docket: A-108-16

CORAM: STRATAS J.A.

WEBB J.A.
WOODS J.A.
BETWEEN:
DANILO MAALA ALMACÉN
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 22, 2016.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on November 22, 2016.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: WEBB J.A.
This is Exhibit “ZZ” to the affidavit of

____________________________________
B-1-769
- 0760 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-770 B-1-770
Date: 20161122
Docket: A-108-16

CORAM: STRATAS J.A.

WEBB J.A.
WOODS J.A.
BETWEEN:
DANILO MAALA ALMACÉN
Appellant
and
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on November 22, 2016).
WEBB J.A.
[1] The Appellant’s Amended Statement of Claim dated September 23, 2014 was struck by
an Order of the Prothonotary dated August 10, 2015 (2015 FC 957) without leave to amend. The
Appellant then brought a motion before the Federal Court to set aside this Order. This motion
was dismissed by Order and reasons of Russell J. dated March 9, 2016 (2016 FC 300). This
appeal is from this Order of Russell J.
B-1-770
- 0761 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-771 B-1-771
Page: 2
[2] The Appellant commenced the action in the Federal Court following the denial of the
Appellant’s application to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds
pursuant to section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the
H&C Decision). The claim alleged various causes of action including misfeasance in public

office, negligence, and breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The
Appellant also filed an application for leave and judicial review of the H&C Decision. This
application for leave was denied by Shore J. and a subsequent motion for reconsideration of this
decision was dismissed. The test before Shore J. was whether there were fairly arguable issues in
relation to the H&C Decision. Since leave was denied and the motion for reconsideration
dismissed, the conclusion is that there were no fairly arguable issues.
[3] The Prothonotary struck the Appellant’s Amended Statement of Claim on the basis that,
based on the facts as pled, this Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The Prothonotary also stated that, in the alternative, he would have struck this Statement of
Claim as an abuse of process since, in his view, this was an attempt to re-litigate the decision of
Shore J. to dismiss the application for leave in relation to the H&C Decision.
[4] Russell J. reviewed the decision of the Prothonotary on a de novo basis and dismissed the
Appellant’s motion to set aside the Order of the Prothonotary on the basis that it was an abuse of
process as it “is simply an attempt to re-litigate the reasonableness of the H&C decision, and the
Court has already dealt with the reasonableness of that decision” (paragraph 46 of his reasons).
Russell J. also found that he would dismiss the motion on the basis that, based on the facts as
alleged in this Statement of Claim, no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.
B-1-771
- 0762 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-772 B-1-772
Page: 3
[5] In this Court, the Appellant submitted that, at the time of the issuance of the Statement of
Claim, the application for leave had not been decided. This changes nothing: once the leave
application was decided, none of the issues against the validity of the decision were fairly
arguable. In these circumstances an action based on the validity of the decision cannot succeed

and, in our view, the foundation of his claim is the unreasonableness of the H&C Decision.
[6] The Appellant submits that the Supreme Court holdings in Attorney General of Canada v.
TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585 (TeleZone) and five related cases support his
position in this appeal. We disagree. None of the six cases involved a prior related proceeding
that was determined by a court to be not fairly arguable. In the TeleZone cases the Supreme
Court did not repeal the doctrine against re-litigation – that doctrine applies here.
[7] In this appeal, we have not been persuaded that Russell J. committed any reviewable
error in dismissing the Appellant’s motion and therefore, the appeal will be dismissed, with
costs.
"Wyman W. Webb"
J.A.
B-1-772
- 0763 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-773 B-1-773
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-108-16

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUSSELL OF
THE FEDERAL COURT DATED MARCH 9, 2016, DOCKET NO. T-1508-14.
STYLE OF CAUSE: DANILO MAALA ALMACÉN v.

PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 22, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRATAS J.A.

WEBB J.A.
WOODS J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: WEBB J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Rocco Galati FOR THE APPELLANT
Rachel Hepburn Craig FOR THE RESPONDENT

Marina Stefanovic
Rocco Galati FOR THE APPELLANT

Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
William F. Pentney FOR THE RESPONDENT
B-1-773
- 0764 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-774 B-1-774
EXHIBIT “AAA”
B-1-774
- 0765 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-775 B-1-775
Date: 20170824
Docket: T-1774-15

Ottawa, Ontario, August 24, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy
BETWEEN:
EMAD IBRAHIM AL OMANI, LINA HOUSNE

HAMZA NAHAS, AND SULTAN EMAD AL
OMANI (A MINOR), LULWA EMAD
IBRAHIM AL OMANI (A MINOR), HAYA
EMAD IBRAHIM AL OMANI (A MINOR), BY
THEIR LITIGATION GUARDIANS, EMAD
IBRAHIM AL OMANI AND LINA HOUSNE
HAMZA NAHAS
This is Exhibit "AAA” to the affidavit of
Kipling Warner affirmed before me Plaintiffs
January, 2023, in accordance with O and
Reg 431/20
_________________________________
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
ORDER AND REASONS
[1] The Plaintiffs form a family from Saudi Arabia who applied for permanent residence in
Canada under the Federal Skilled Worker Class. They submitted a statement of claim alleging a
number of causes of action resulting in various heads of damages against the Defendant due to
B-1-775
- 0766 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-776 B-1-776
Page: 2
their treatment in the immigration system. They also seek, or give notice of intent to seek,
declarations that certain provisions in the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7 [Federal Courts
Act] and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] are
unconstitutional. The Defendant moved to strike the statement of claim in its entirety. The Court

must determine whether the Defendant has established that the statement of claim fails to meet
the pleadings requirements set out in the Federal Courts Rules, SOR 98-106 [the Rules]. At the
Plaintiffs’ request, the Court must also determine whether to grant leave to amend any claims
that are struck.
I. Facts as set out in the statement of claim
[2] The principal Plaintiff, Emad Al Omani, first submitted an application for permanent
residence in Canada under the Federal Skilled Worker Class pursuant to subsection 12(2) of the
IRPA in September 2006. That application included his wife, Lina Housne Hamza Nahas, and
their two children, Lulwa Ehmad Alomani and Sultan Emad Alomani, as accompanying
dependents. Their third child, Haya Emad Ibrahim Al Omani, was later added to the application.
[3] The Canadian High Commission in London dealt with the application and refused it in
December 2009 because it fell two points short of the score of 67 needed for a positive decision.
The Plaintiffs mainly contest the visa officer’s award of 4/10 points for “adaptability” and 10/16
points for English proficiency, both of which are made by applying subsection 76(1) and related
provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. The
principal Plaintiff maintains he should have received 5 adaptability points for his Canadian
brother plus at least 3 adaptability points for his wife’s university degree. On language
B-1-776
- 0767 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-777 B-1-777
Page: 3
proficiency, he argues the visa officer should have considered other evidence of his English
language abilities:
A/ with respect to adaptability, the Regulations and CIC’s own

website, sets out that the Plaintiff, Emad Al Omani, should have
obtained, under “adaptability”, 5 points, because he has a “sibling”

(brother) who is a Canadian citizen and another 3 points because
his spouse has a University degree, for a minimum of 8 out of 10
points for “adaptability”, and these 8 out of 10 points, which are
statutorily predetermined, are before even considering the other
factors of adaptability, such as the fact that both the Plaintiff and
his wife have university degrees from English instruction
universities, have a net worth of $2.3 million (CDN), of which half
is in liquid assets, have family in Canada, have a job offer in
Canada, from the company run and owned by the Plaintiff’s
brother;
B/ with respect to language (English) proficiency, the Plaintiff,

Emad Al Omani, only received 10 out of 16 points,
notwithstanding that the Regulations, and CIC’s representations,
indicate that the prescribed English exam is not the only means by
which to access English proficiency, and notwithstanding that the
Applicant raised the issue of the need to write the exam, when he
in fact graduated from an English-speaking University, has worked
for English-speaking companies, in the English language, and was
in the third year of a four year MBA programme, in English, which
he had not yet completed due to work demands, and that the officer
was in possession of confirmation of all of the above, and refused
to exercise jurisdiction to assess his English proficiency, in the
circumstances, within the context of his “ability to become
economically established in Canada”
(at para 20(b)(ii) of the statement of claim).
[4] The decision was challenged in the Federal Court. In August 2010, the decision was set
aside by the Federal Court and the matter was sent back for redetermination by a different visa
officer.
B-1-777
- 0768 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-778 B-1-778
Page: 4
[5] As part of the process of redetermination, the principal Plaintiff submitted further
documentation requested by the Defendant and was called for an interview in January 2014. It is
asserted that the interview lasted some 15 minutes. The officer asked the principal Plaintiff to
explain a change in his job description. Towards the end of the interview, the officer would have

asked the principal Plaintiff suddenly whether he “belonged to, or was in any way associated
with “any group or organization like Al Qaeda in Iraq” ”. The principal Plaintiff categorically
replied, according to the statement of claim, that he did not belong to, nor associated with, such
groups as Al Qaeda, nor Al Qaeda itself (statement of claim, para 26(b)). When the principal
Plaintiff asked for more detail on the question, the officer refused due to “secrecy” concerns.
[6] In March 2014, the redetermination of the Plaintiffs’ permanent residence application
resulted in a second negative decision. The refusal explained that “there are reasonable grounds
to believe [the principal Plaintiff is] a member of the inadmissible class of persons described in
34(1)(f)” of the IRPA.
[7] In September 2014, once again the Federal Court ordered that the second negative
decision be set aside and the matter was sent back for redetermination. On the record as it stands,
the Plaintiffs had not heard from the Crown with respect to this second redetermination. The
Plaintiffs sued.
II. Arguments
[8] Fundamentally, the Plaintiffs argue that they have been mistreated in Canada’s
immigration system to a degree that warrants compensation. They allege the Defendant is liable
B-1-778
- 0769 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-779 B-1-779
Page: 5
in tort for misfeasance in public office, abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority, abuse of
process, negligence and negligent investigation, conspiracy, and for breaches of the plaintiffs’
section 7 and section 15 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution
Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter] rights.

[9] The Plaintiffs are seeking:
i. general damages in the amount of $200,000 per Plaintiff;
ii. aggravated damages in the amount of $50,000 per Plaintiff;
iii. punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 per Plaintiff;
iv. any and all economic loss damages pleaded, to be calculated at trial;
v. a declaration and/or finding that section 49 of the Federal Courts Act,

barring jury trials in the Federal Court, is unconstitutional, and of no
force and effect;
vi. a declaration and/or finding that the requirement to seek leave from an
administrative decision, under the IRPA, to commence judicial review
under section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, pursuant to section 72(1) of
the IRPA, violates the constitutional right to judicial review and a fair
and independent judiciary and is of no force and effect; and
vii. solicitor-client costs of this action and any other relief the Court deems
just.
[10] The Defendant contends in her motion to strike that the statement of claim fails to
establish any of the alleged causes of action and does not properly plead damages. They further
seek to strike the two named Ministers (Foreign Affairs and Citizenship and Immigration) from
the action in favour of Her Majesty the Queen, as well as the Plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments
respecting the Federal Courts Act and the IRPA.
B-1-779
- 0770 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-780 B-1-780
Page: 6
III. Law on a motion to strike
[11] Is before the Court the motion to strike brought on behalf of the Defendant. Rule 221(1)
permits the Court to strike a claim on certain grounds:

221(1) On motion, the Court 221(1) À tout moment, la Cour
may, at any time, order that a peut, sur requête, ordonner la
pleading, or anything radiation de tout ou partie d’un
contained therein, be struck acte de procédure, avec ou sans
out, with or without leave to autorisation de le modifier, au
amend, on the ground that it motif, selon le cas :
(a) discloses no reasonable a) qu’il ne révèle aucune cause

cause of action or defence, as d’action ou de défense valable;
the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant, b) qu’il n’est pas pertinent ou

qu’il est redondant;
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or c) qu’il est scandaleux, frivole

vexatious, ou vexatoire;
(d) may prejudice or delay the d) qu’il risque de nuire à

(e) constitutes a departure from e) qu’il diverge d’un acte de

a previous pleading, or procédure antérieur;
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the f) qu’il constitue autrement un

and may order the action be Elle peut aussi ordonner que
dismissed or judgment entered l’action soit rejetée ou qu’un
accordingly. jugement soit enregistré en
conséquence.
The Defendant primarily relies on Rule 221(1)(a), which allows a claim to be struck if it
“discloses no reasonable cause of action.”. Rule 221(1)(c) is also in play.
B-1-780
- 0771 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-781 B-1-781
Page: 7
[12] The test to strike a claim under Rule 221 sets a high bar. First, it is assumed that the facts
stated in the statement of claim can be proven. The Court must be satisfied that it is plain and
obvious that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action assuming the facts pleaded are
true: R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, [2011] 3 SCR 45 at para 17; Hunt v

Carey Canada Inc, [1990] 2 SCR 959 [Hunt] at p 980. The Defendant bears the onus of meeting
this test: Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272, 406 FTR 115 [Sivak] at para 25.
[13] In Hunt, the Supreme Court sided with the articulation of the rule in England to the effect
that “if there is a chance that the plaintiff may succeed, then the plaintiff should not be “driven
from the judgment seat”” (p. 980). A high bar indeed to succeed on a motion to strike. Some
chance of success will suffice or, as Justice Estey said in Att. Gen. of Can. v Inuit Tapirisat et al,
[1980] 2 SCR 735, “(o)n a motion such as this a court should, of course, dismiss the action or
strike out any claim made by the plaintiff only in plain and obvious cases and where the court is
satisfied that "the case is beyond doubt"” (p.740).
[14] To show a plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action, the statement of claim must plead
material facts satisfying every element of the alleged causes of action: Mancuso v Canada
(National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227, 476 NR 219 [Mancuso] at para 19; Benaissa v
Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1220 [Benaissa] at para 15. The plaintiff needs to explain
the “who, when, where, how and what” giving rise to the Defendant’s liability (Mancuso, para
19, Baird v Canada, 2006 FC 205 at paras 9-11, affirmed in 2007 FCA 48).
B-1-781
- 0772 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-782 B-1-782
Page: 8
[15] Thus, there appears to be a balance. On one hand, a chance of success is enough for the
matter to proceed. On the other, the material facts must be pleaded in sufficient detail such that
the cause of action may exist. The purpose of pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party
and define the issues in such a way that it can understand how the facts support the various

causes of action. As the Court of Appeal put it in Mancuso, “(i)t is fundamental to the trial
process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief
sought” (para 16). The Plaintiffs note that pleadings can still proceed despite being “far from
models of legal clarity” (Manuge v Canada, 2010 SCC 67, [2010] 3 SCR 672 at para 23). But it
remains that adequate material facts must be pleaded. Parties cannot make broad allegations in
their statement of claim in the hope of later going on a “fishing expedition” to discover the facts:
Kastner v Painblanc (1994), 176 NR 68, 51 ACWS (3d) 428 (FCA) at p.2.
[16] Rules 174 and 181 further define the minimum requirements for a statement of claim.
Pursuant to Rule 174, every pleading must contain the material facts on which the party relies.
174 Every pleading shall 174 Tout acte de procédure

contain a concise statement of contient un exposé concis des
the material facts on which the faits substantiels sur lesquels la
party relies, but shall not partie se fonde; il ne comprend
include evidence by which pas les moyens de preuve à
those facts are to be proved. l’appui de ces faits.
Rule 181 requires that a pleading contain particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person,
malice, or fraudulent intention.
181(1) A pleading shall 181(1) L’acte de procédure

contain particulars of every contient des précisions sur
allegation contained therein, chaque allégation, notamment :
including
B-1-782
- 0773 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-783 B-1-783
Page: 9
(a) particulars of any alleged a) des précisions sur les

misrepresentation, fraud, fausses déclarations, fraudes,
breach of trust, wilful default abus de confiance,
or undue influence; and manquements délibérés ou
influences indues reprochés;
(b) particulars of any alleged b) des précisions sur toute

state of mind of a person, allégation portant sur l’état
including any alleged mental mental d’une personne, tel un
disorder or disability, malice or déséquilibre mental, une
fraudulent intention. incapacité mentale ou une
intention malicieuse ou
frauduleuse.
[17] But what are “material facts”? They cannot be conclusions or bald allegations: Merchant
Law Group v Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 at para 34; 321 DLR (4th) 301
[Merchant]; Mancuso at paras 17-18. You cannot plead bad faith as a material fact by merely
stating phrases such as “deliberately or negligently” or “callous disregard:” Zündel v Canada,
2005 FC 1612 at para 16, affirmed in 2006 FCA 356. A modicum of story-telling is required.
The statement of claim must contain enough facts for the Defendant to understand, for instance,
what the bad faith allegation is based on.
[18] The jurisprudence suggests that a pleading can fall into one of three categories along a
spectrum. The pleading either shows no scintilla of a cause of action, in which case the motion to
strike would succeed, shows a scintilla of a cause of action, in which case there may be leave to
amend, or it shows a reasonable cause of action. The Federal Court of Appeal similarly
described in Mancuso material facts and bald allegations as lying on a continuum:
[18] There is no bright line between material facts and bald

allegations, nor between pleadings of material facts and the
prohibition on pleading of evidence. They are points on a
continuum, and it is the responsibility of a motions judge, looking
B-1-783
- 0774 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-784 B-1-784
Page: 10
at the pleadings as a whole, to ensure that the pleadings define the

issues with sufficient precision to make the pre-trial and trial
proceedings both manageable and fair.
IV. Issues

[19] Motions to strike can present short questions with lengthy answers. Based on the
aforementioned law, we are concerned with two overarching issues in this case:
1. Is it plain and obvious that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause
of action with respect to some or all of the claims?
2. Do some claims that could be struck nevertheless show a scintilla of a cause of

action such that the Plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend those claims?
V. Analysis of each alleged cause of action
[20] The Court must take the statement of claim as it is. It must be read as generously as
possible, thereby avoiding to put weight on what may be drafting deficiencies. However, would
not be drafting deficiencies what would amount to speculations, hoping to find facts on
discovery to support the allegations made. In effect, the motions judge is looking for the facts,
taken as proven at this stage that will satisfy all of the necessary elements of the cause of action.
A. Material facts
[21] We find guidance in the binding decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancuso on
the requirements for a statement of claim to resist a motion to strike under rule 221.
B-1-784
- 0775 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-785 B-1-785
Page: 11
[22] The main theme in Mancuso is the requirement that there be sufficient material facts
pleaded. The material facts that are pleaded must be sufficient to support the claim and the relief
sought. That means therefore that the facts must be advanced so that the cause of action may be
established, leading to an appropriate remedy. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge in

Mancuso that “pleadings play an important role in providing notice and defining the issues to be
tried and that the Court and opposing parties cannot be left to speculate as to how the facts might
be variously arranged to support various causes of action” (para 16). The plaintiff must commit
to more than merely stating some facts, a sort of narrative taken as proven, and then posit a series
of alleged causes of action in order to prevail on a motion to strike.
[23] A plaintiff will want to maximize her flexibility in a statement of claim. But she “must
plead, in summary form but with sufficient detail, the constituent elements of each cause of
action or legal ground raised. The pleading must tell the defendant who, when, where, how and
what gave rise to its liability” (Mancuso, para 19). As is often the case, the principle behind the
rule helps understand the scope of the requirement. Hence, we read at paragraph 17 of Mancuso:
[17] The latter part of this requirement – sufficient material facts

– is the foundation of a proper pleading. If a court allowed parties
to plead bald allegations of fact, or mere conclusory statements of
law, the pleadings would fail to perform their role in identifying
the issues. The proper pleading of a statement of claim is necessary
for a defendant to prepare a statement of defence. Material facts
frame the discovery process and allow counsel to advise their
clients, to prepare their case and to map a trial strategy.
Importantly, the pleadings establish the parameters of relevancy of
evidence at discovery and trial.
[24] Thus, adequate pleadings are required up front; adequate material facts are mandatorily
required. As put by the Mancuso Court at para 20, “(p)laintiffs cannot file inadequate pleadings
B-1-785
- 0776 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-786 B-1-786
Page: 12
and rely on a defendant to request particulars, nor can they supplement insufficient pleadings to
make them sufficient through particulars: AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited, 2010
FCA 112.”

[25] That translates into the requirement that tort claims be identified and then the material
facts are set out such that the elements of the tort claim are satisfied. In my view, that is largely
missing in this statement of claim, which has made the examination of the motion to strike quite
cumbersome.
B. How the statement of claim is organized
[26] The statement of claim is difficult to apprehend and somewhat unwieldy. It starts off with
bald allegations of various infringements, be they abuse of process, excess of authority, public
misfeasance, negligence, negligent investigation, contempt of two Federal Court Judgments, as
well as violation of section 15 and 7 of the Charter. For good measure, there is also an allegation
that section 49 of the Federal Courts Act (prohibition of jury trails) and 72 of the IRPA
(requirement that leave be granted for judicial review) are unconstitutional and of no force and
effect.
[27] It then continues with a series of paragraphs that allege facts, what constitutes in fact a
narrative. Follow a number of paragraphs which provide a series of heads of damages that
allegedly would result from the facts as presented. The chapeau of para 30 simply states that
damages were suffered as a result of “officials’ inexcusable delay, false and unfounded
allegations, and breach of duty to process the main Plaintiffs’ application.”
B-1-786
- 0777 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-787 B-1-787
Page: 13
[28] Paragraphs 32 to 35 of the statement of claim that the Plaintiffs list causes of action.
Thus, para 32 declares that there was:
 abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority;

 abuse of process at common law and section 7 of the Charter;
 public misfeasance.
The paragraph ends with a mere declaration, without any connection with the facts, that “tortious
conduct has caused the damages”. What particular facts constitute the alleged tortious conduct is
nowhere to be found in the pleading.
[29] Para 34 of the statement of claim seeks to be somewhat more precise in suggesting that
the delay between various proceedings constitutes in itself abuse and excess of authority as well
as public misfeasance, alleging bad faith at para 35.
[30] The Plaintiffs chose to plead in the alternative that officials have been negligent and
engaged in negligent investigation. As for these causes of action, the statement of claim does not
state what facts are pled in support of its essential elements. Rather, it is simply stated that they
are owed a duty of care “to competently and with due dispatch properly process an application
…as well as competently and diligently investigate any allegations of inadmissibility” (para 36).
[31] In the further alternative, the Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to deny their permanent
residence. This time, the allegations are barely more precise in that the Plaintiffs allege “a
contrived denial made in bad faith”, delay and baseless association with Al Qaeda (para 37). I
note that, again, the material facts that would give precision to the alleged conspiracy are not
B-1-787
- 0778 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-788 B-1-788
Page: 14
stated. In fact, there is a general allegation of conspiracy, but bad faith, delay and baseless
association do not make a conspiracy, i.e. where there is proof of agreement and execution. The
Defendant does not know who, when, where, how and what which would give rise to its liability.

C. Amending pleadings
[32] It does not suffice for the Court to rule that a pleading is deficient. Rule 221 requires
consideration of whether a pleading should be struck with or without leave to amend. The
jurisprudence points to various considerations which come into play in making such
determination.
[33] The Plaintiffs have raised the possibility that if the statement of claim is struck in part or
in whole, leave to amend the pleadings should be granted. As long as a pleading shows a scintilla
of a cause of action, it will not be struck out if it can be cured by amendment: Hunt at pp 976-
978; Simon v Canada, 2011 FCA 6 [Simon] at para 8; Collins v Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para
30 [Collins]; Sivak at para 94; Sweet v Canada (1999), 249 NR 17 at para 21 (FCA) [Sweet];
Larden v Canada, (1998) 145 FTR 140 at para 26; Kiely v Her Majesty the Queen, (1987) 10
FTR 10 (FCTD) at p 2; Waterside Ocean Navigation Co Inc v International Navigation Ltd,
[1977] 2 FC 257 at para 4.
[34] The case law teaches that a pleading will not be struck out without leave to amend unless
there is no scintilla of a cause of action (McMillan v Canada, (1996) 108 FTR 32 [McMillan]
and Sivak). But there must be that scintilla. As Associate Chief Justice Jerome put it in
McMillan, “(t)he burden on the applicant under R. 419 (1)(a) is heavy since portions of the
B-1-788
- 0779 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-789 B-1-789
Page: 15
pleadings will only be struck out if it is clear that the claim cannot be amended to show a proper
cause of action” (para 39).
[35] However, it is not for the Court to redraft the pleadings. In Sweet, the Court of Appeal

commented that “(e)ach proceeding is to be assessed on its own merits, with consideration being
given to, inter alia, the personal situation of the party, the issues and arguments raised, the
manner and tone in which they are raised, the number and proportion of allegations that are
defective and the readiness of the amendments needed” (my emphasis, para 21).
[36] In fact, if a scintilla of a cause of action has been pleaded, this Court may be more
reticent to strike claims without leave to amend in case it is the first version of the pleading, as in
this case. In Simon and Collins, the Court of Appeal warned that failure to comply with the rules
once the pleadings have been allowed to be amended would expose the pleadings to the risk of
being struck out (Simon at para 17 and Collins at para 31).
D. Alleged causes of action
[37] At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that the Defendant’s list of claims was a
satisfactory way to organize the discussion. I will proceed through each claim in this order and
address the two issues identified above.
B-1-789
- 0780 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-790 B-1-790
Page: 16
Claim 1: Misfeasance in public office
[38] The statement of claim alleges the tort of misfeasance in public office. Because it
constitutes the cause of action on which the Plaintiffs have chosen to rely the most heavily, I

have attempted to gather the various paragraphs of the statement of claim which refer to
misfeasance:
1. The Plaintiffs claim […] all of which damages arise from: […]
(ii) the Defendants’ servants and officers’ actions, and lack of

action and omissions, in not issuing the permanent resident visas,
and not complying with the Federal Court orders, constitutes an
abuse of process, abuse and excess of authority and jurisdiction,
public misfeasance, as well as negligence, and negligent
investigation, all compensable at common-law, under the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”), as well as s.
24(1) of the Charter.
[…]
32. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that:
(a) the Defendants’ officials have, with knowledge and intent,

abused process, abused and exceeded authority and jurisdiction,
and engaged in public misfeasance of their office, in their refusal
to lawfully abide by the Federal Court order and terms of the IRPA
and Regulations, and issue permanent residence visas, and in the
refusal(s) to give any cogent and/or sober answers to the plaintiffs
and their counsel, except stone silence and stone-walling and that
the Defendants’ servants and officials have: […]
(iii) engaged in public misfeasance as set out by the Supreme

Court of Canada in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse [2003] 3 S.C.R.
263, in that:
A/ the officials engaged in deliberate, unlawful conduct in the

exercise of their public functions;
B/ the officials are aware that the conduct is unlawful and likely to
injure the plaintiffs; and
B-1-790
- 0781 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-791 B-1-791
Page: 17
C/ the officials’ tortious conduct is the legal cause of the plaintiffs’

injuries pleaded herein;
[…]
33. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants’ officials have a

common-law duty, as well as a statutory duty under s. 3(1)(f) of
the IRPA, as interpreted and confirmed by this Court, in Dragan v

Canada QL [2003] F.C.J. No. 260 and Liang v Canada (M.C.I.)
2012 FC 758 decisions to process applications consistently and
promptly, which sub-section reads:
3. (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to

immigration are
(f) to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt

processing, the attainment of immigration goals established
by the Government of Canada in consultation with the
provinces […]
34. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants’ inexcusable,

inordinate, and castigating delay, both between the time of the 1st
judicial review and the 2nd negative decision, as well as the 2nd
judicial review to the present, constitutes abuse and excess of
authority, as well as public misfeasance, of public office, in that
inexcusable delay has been determined to constitute public
misfeasance in inter alia, McMaster v. Canada, [2009] F.C.J. No.
1071, by this Court.
35. The Plaintiffs further state that the conduct of the officers, and
nature and substance of both decisions to deny the Plaintiffs
permanent residence, has been made in bad faith, and absence of
good faith, and further constitutes public misfeasance as set out
above in the within statement of claim.
[39] As indicated earlier, the Plaintiffs must plead with sufficient detail the constituent
elements of each cause of action. But that is not enough. The Plaintiffs must also plead material
facts in sufficient detail. As already indicated earlier, the trial judge in Mancuso commented, and
it was specifically approved by the Court of Appeal, that “opposing parties cannot be left to
speculate as to how the facts might be variously arranged to support various causes of action”
B-1-791
- 0782 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-792 B-1-792
Page: 18
(para 16). I am afraid this statement of fact suffers from that very deficiency. The elements of the
tort of misfeasance are set out in Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 SCR 263
at paras 22-23 [Woodhouse]. The tort may take two different forms, but each requires the
elements which are common to both. These elements are “(f)irst, the public officer must have

engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in her or her capacity as a public officer. Second, the
public officer must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful and that it was
likely to harm the plaintiff” (para 23). The tort may be approached in two ways. The two
elements can be independently established, requiring unlawful conduct and knowledge that
conduct was likely to cause harm. Or, both elements can be satisfied by proving the public
officer specifically intends to injure a person because such officers do not have the authority to
exercise their powers for an improper purpose (Woodhouse at para 23).
[40] The first element is focused on whether the alleged misconduct is deliberate and
unlawful. This can arise from an act or omission that “arises[s] from a straightforward breach of
the relevant statutory provisions or from acting in excess of the powers granted for an improper
purpose”: Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3), [2000] 2 WLR 1220 at p
1269, cited in Woodhouse at para 24.
[41] The second element establishes the nexus between the impugned public official and the
plaintiff by requiring that defendants know that their conduct was unlawful and likely to harm.
One can read at paragraph 29 of Woodhouse:
The requirement that the defendant must have been aware

that his or her unlawful conduct would harm the plaintiff further
restricts the ambit of the tort. Liability does not attach to each
officer who blatantly disregards his or her official duty, but only to
B-1-792
- 0783 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-793 B-1-793
Page: 19
a public officer who, in addition, demonstrates a conscious

disregard for the interests of those who will be affected by the
misconduct in question. This requirement establishes the required
nexus between the parties. Unlawful conduct in the exercise of
public functions is a public wrong, but absent some awareness of
harm there is no basis on which to conclude that the defendant has
breached an obligation that she or he owes to the plaintiff, as an

individual. And absent the breach of an obligation that the
defendant owes to the plaintiff, there can be no liability in tort.
The Court has further commented that this element requires the Defendant, at the very least, to
have been “subjectively reckless or wilfully blind as to the possibility that harm was a likely
consequence of the alleged misconduct” (Woodhouse at para 38).
[42] The requirement that the Defendant must have known that the conduct was unlawful is
essential to the tort of misfeasance in public office. A public official’s decision may well be
adverse to certain people’s interests, and yet still be lawful:
The requirement that the defendant must have been aware

that his or her conduct was unlawful reflects the well-established
principle that misfeasance in public office requires an element of
“bad faith” or “dishonesty”. In a democracy, public officers must
retain the authority to make decisions that, where appropriate, are
adverse to the interests of certain citizens. Knowledge of harm is
thus an insufficient basis on which to conclude that the defendant
has acted in bad faith or dishonestly. A public officer may in good
faith make a decision that she or he knows to be adverse to the
interest of certain members of the public. In order for the conduct
to fall within the scope of the tort, the officer must deliberately
engage in conduct that he or she knows to be inconsistent with the
obligations of the office.
(Woodhouse, para 28)
B-1-793
- 0784 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-794 B-1-794
Page: 20
[43] With that understanding of the tort, I will assess whether the statement of claim
sufficiently pleads both tort elements for each of the Plaintiffs’ misfeasance pleadings. The
statement of claim seems to allege misfeasance on four grounds: (i) refusal to abide by Federal
Court orders; (ii) refusal to issue permanent resident visas; (iii) refusal to provide “cogent and/or

sober” answers to questions posed by the Plaintiffs; and (iv) delay in processing the Plaintiffs’
permanent residence applications. For the first three grounds, the Plaintiffs allege that the actions
were done “with knowledge and intent”, but no similar claim is made with respect to the alleged
processing delay.
(1) Misfeasance claim 1: Contempt
[44] I see no potential for deliberate, unlawful conduct in the first allegation of contempt. The
statement of claim says both Court orders sent the visa decision back for redetermination. There
is no indication as to how the redetermination should proceed. No direction was given by the
Court. The first redetermination resulted in a second negative decision, and the second
redetermination is outstanding. The pleadings contain no facts, let alone material facts, showing
that the orders were not followed. In fact, the exact opposite occurred. There was no refusal to
abide by the court orders.
[45] As a result, I cannot see a scintilla of a cause of action in the Plaintiffs’ claim that the
Defendant failed to abide by the orders in bad faith. I am striking the misfeasance claim
respecting the “refusal to abide by Federal Court orders” without leave to amend.
B-1-794
- 0785 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-795 B-1-795
Page: 21
(2) Misfeasance claim 2: Refusal to issue permanent visas
[46] The second allegation is not, prima facie, unlawful. The act of refusing to issue
permanent residence visas regularly occurs as a result of implementing IRPA. In this case, it is

not completely clear on the record how the refusal to issue visas constitutes misfeasance.
[47] The statement of claim offers that the first visa officer awarded the principal Plaintiff the
wrong number of points under the IRPR in the face of evidence to the contrary and that the visas
were denied “with knowledge and intent”. The relevant provisions set precise point allocations
for the adaptability criterion, leaving the visa officer little discretion in how to award points for a
Canadian relative or a spouse’s education.
[48] It also states that the second visa officer deemed the principal Plaintiff inadmissible on
the basis of wrong information. The relevant inadmissibility provisions of IRPA state that a
foreign national is inadmissible for “being a member of an organization that there are reasonable
grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to [in above
subsections]” (para 34(1)(f) of IRPA). The determination of whether that organization engages in
the enumerated acts requires that the officer must have “reasonable grounds” to believe in order
to make that decision. That leaves a measure of appreciation to the officer. Certainty beyond a
reasonable ground is not required. The test does not contemplate either that the officer be
satisfied on a balance of probabilities, the legal standard in civil matters (Canada (Attorney
General) v Fairmont Hotels Inc., 2016 SCC 56, [2016] 2 SCR 720). Reasonable grounds to
B-1-795
- 0786 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-796 B-1-796
Page: 22
believe will suffice. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, state that there is no basis for the
inadmissibility finding.
[49] The phrase “with knowledge and intent” is a bald conclusion; however, there are

sufficient material facts alleged early in the statement of claim to appreciate that there is a basis
for the claim that both actions were deliberate conduct. It appears to me that there is a scintilla of
a cause of action pleaded however imperfectly. But more precision is needed. The material facts
must be plainly identified and they must be connected to the elements of the tort asserted,
including of course the required state of mind (Mancuso, para 26).
[50] The second tort element is knowledge that the visa denials were unlawful and likely to
harm the Plaintiffs. The statement of claim says that the visa officers denied the lawful visa
issuance “with knowledge and intent” and “in bad faith”. If the officers did award the wrong
number of points and deem the principal Plaintiff inadmissible in the face of clearly
contradictory evidence, this is sufficient to plead that the officers knew their conduct was
unlawful. Woodhouse found that a similarly-worded pleading was sufficient to establish a
reasonable cause of action in misfeasance:
Insofar as the second requirement is concerned, the

statement of claim alleges that the acts and omissions of the
defendant officers “represented intentional breaches of their legal
duties as police officers”. This plainly satisfies the requirement that
the officers were aware that the alleged failure to cooperate with
the investigation was unlawful. The allegation is not simply that
the officers failed to comply with s. 113(9) of the Police Services
Act, but that the failure to comply was intentional and deliberate.
(Woodhouse, para 36)
B-1-796
- 0787 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-797 B-1-797
Page: 23
[51] The only reference to knowledge that the unlawful conduct would likely harm the
Plaintiffs is at paragraph 35, which states “that the conduct of the officers, and nature and
substance of both decisions to deny the Plaintiffs permanent residence, has been made in bad
faith” and the general assertion that the alleged misfeasance was done “with knowledge”. Bald

conclusions such as “in bad faith” do not qualify as material facts (Merchant at para 34).
Moreover, Rule 181 requires that Plaintiffs provide particulars on the material facts they are
pleading to support a tort’s mental element. Here, the Plaintiffs seem to be pointing to several
circumstantial facts to argue that the Defendant intentionally misprocessed their permanent
residence applications over a ten-year period to keep them out of Canada.
[52] If someone applies for a permanent residence visa, they expect to have it properly
processed because they want to live in Canada. It is not a stretch to infer that improper denial of
such a visa would likely harm applicants wanting to come to Canada. Of course, the statement of
claim should actually plead specifically the material facts necessary to make out this second tort
element. That was not done. Mancuso requires the who, when, where, how and what. The issue
must be defined with more precision in order to make the proceedings manageable and fair. The
amended pleadings will have to provide the material facts such that the Defendant will know
what it is defending against. At this stage, one has to speculate somewhat as to what facts
constitute the cause of action. More and better precision is called for.
[53] My role on a motion to strike is not to decide the Plaintiffs’ chance of succeeding with
this argument (Minnes v Minnes (1962), 39 WWR 112). Because I see a scintilla of a cause of
action, barely, I am also granting leave to amend this particular misfeasance claim with respect
B-1-797
- 0788 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-798 B-1-798
Page: 24
to the second tort element (i.e. material facts underpinning the allegation that the public official
“knew” that their act or omission would likely harm the Plaintiff).
(3) Misfeasance claim 3: Refusal to provide answers

[54] The fact that the Defendant refused to answer the Plaintiffs’ questions does not show
unlawful conduct. This does not show a cause of action, let alone a reasonable one. Unlike the
points calculation and the inadmissibility decision, the Plaintiffs failed to point to a statutory
obligation that the visa officer(s) breached or show that the officer(s) acted unlawfully in the
exercise of their public functions generally. As a result, I am striking the misfeasance allegation
concerning the “refusal to provide “cogent and/or sober” answers to questions posed by the
Plaintiffs” without leave to amend.
(4) Misfeasance claim 4: Delay in processing visa applications
[55] For the fourth misfeasance allegation regarding processing delays, the Plaintiffs relied on
McMaster v Canada, 2009 FC 937, 352 FTR 255 [McMaster] for the authority that delay can
constitute unlawful conduct in a misfeasance action. McMaster concerned an inmate who was
repeatedly denied properly-sized running shoes in the face of a statutory obligation to provide
adequate footwear. The statutory obligation that the Plaintiffs rely on for delay in the
immigration context is subsection 3(1)(f) of IRPA, as interpreted in Liang v Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2012 FC 758 at paragraph 25; 413 FTR 145 [Liang] and Dragan v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 211 at paragraph 45, 227 FTR 272
[Dragan]. This subsection states:
B-1-798
- 0789 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-799 B-1-799
Page: 25
3 (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are

[…]
(f) to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt

processing, the attainment of immigration goals established by the
Government of Canada in consultation with the provinces;

Liang and Dragan found, on applications for mandamus, that unreasonable delay can amount to
an implied refusal to perform the statutory duty to process visa applications under the IRPA.
Justice Rennie, then of this Court, found in Liang that a prima facie case for delay was made out
where applications requiring processing had been outstanding for 4.5 to 10 years.
[56] The Defendant seeks to distinguish Liang and Dragan on the basis that they dealt with
applications for mandamus, not private law actions. They argue that “even where delays are
found to be unreasonable or inordinate, this does not give rise to a free-standing cause of action”,
citing Farzam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1659, 284 FTR 158
[Farzam] at para 105; and Haj Khalil v Canada, 2007 FC 923, 317 FTR 32 [Khalil] at para 8
(affirmed in Haj Khalil v Canada, 2009 FCA 66) (at para 28 of their written representations).
Both Farzam and Khalil dealt with actions in negligence, not misfeasance in public office.
[57] The Plaintiffs’ visa applications have been effectively outstanding for 10 years given they
are still waiting for the outcome of their second redetermination. This falls at the outer end of
Justice Rennie’s suggested timelines for establishing prima facie unreasonable delay in the
mandamus context. The Defendant has not presented an authority stating that unreasonable delay
in processing visa applications cannot amount to unlawful conduct for the purposes of a
misfeasance action. As a result, this appears to be an issue requiring discussion at trial and not on
B-1-799
- 0790 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-800 B-1-800
Page: 26
a motion to strike. The Supreme Court in Hunt commented that “(p)rovided that the plaintiff can
present a "substantive" case, that case should be heard” (p 975). It is premature on a motion to
strike to rule on the matter.

[58] As noted above, unlike the first three misfeasance allegations, the Plaintiffs failed to
specifically plead that the delay was “deliberate”, but did plead that it was done “in bad faith”,
which implies a measure of deliberation. There are circumstantial facts that could support this
tort element, namely the use of different grounds to refuse the visas in the first and second
denial, but the statement of claim fails to plead clearly that the delays were deliberate. In
Woodhouse, the Supreme Court struck allegations that lacked the words “deliberate” and
“intentional”, because inadvertence or negligence is insufficient to make out the intentional tort
of misfeasance:
37 Although the allegation that the Chief deliberately failed to

segregate the officers satisfies the requirement that the Chief
intentionally breached his legal obligation to ensure compliance
with the Police Services Act, the same cannot be said of his alleged
failure to ensure that the defendant officers produced timely and
complete notes, attended for interviews in a timely manner, and
provided accurate and complete accounts of the incident. As
above, inadvertence or negligence will not suffice; a mere failure
to discharge the obligations of the office cannot constitute
misfeasance in a public office. In light of the allegation that the
Chief’s failure to segregate the officers was deliberate, this is not a
sufficient basis on which to strike the pleading. Suffice it to say,
the failure to issue orders for the purpose of ensuring that the
defendant officers cooperated with the investigation will only
constitute misfeasance in a public office if the plaintiffs prove that
the Chief deliberately failed to comply with the standard
established by s. 41(1)(b) of the Police Services Act.
[my emphasis]
B-1-800
- 0791 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-801 B-1-801
Page: 27
Through the narrative offered as facts, I see however a scintilla of a cause of action on this first
tort element, but the pleadings must properly set out the full cause of action. They will have to be
significantly amended.

[59] As with the second misfeasance claim, the pleadings on the second tort element—
knowledge of unlawful conduct and likelihood of harming the Plaintiffs—are not explicit and are
close to being bald, which fails to meet the requirements of Rules 174 and 181. With respect to
the Defendant’s knowledge that their delays were unlawful, the statement of claim fails to plead
the material facts showing which public officials had this knowledge. Was the first officer aware
of an unlawful delay that would likely cause harm in 2009, or only the second officer in 2014?
Or was it other individuals that knew the delay was unlawful?
[60] With respect to the Defendant’s alleged knowledge that the delays were unlawful and
likely to harm the Plaintiffs, I see a scintilla of a cause of action. It is reasonable to infer that an
alleged 10-year delay in processing does not fulfill the IRPA objective of “prompt processing”
and would likely cause harm to the waiting family. However, again, the statement of claim must
plead sufficient material facts to qualify as a reasonable cause of action. I would not strike the
pleadings without allowing an opportunity to amend in order to satisfy the requirements.
[61] Accordingly, I am granting leave to amend this particular misfeasance claim with respect
to the first tort element prerequisite that the unlawful conduct was deliberate, and with respect to
the second tort element requirement that the public official “knew” that their act or omission was
unlawful and likely to harm the Plaintiffs.
B-1-801
- 0792 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-802 B-1-802
Page: 28
Claim 2: Abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority
[62] The Plaintiffs refer to “abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority” at multiple points
in their pleadings, often in concert with their claims respecting misfeasance in public office:

1. The Plaintiffs claim […] all of which damages arise from: […]
(ii) the Defendants’ servants and officers’ actions, and lack of

action and omissions, in not issuing the permanent resident visas,
and not complying with the Federal Court orders, constitutes an
abuse of process, abuse and excess of authority and jurisdiction,
public misfeasance, as well as negligence, and negligent
investigation, all compensable at common-law, under the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”), as well as s.
24(1) of the Charter.
[…]
(a) the Defendants’ officials have, with knowledge and intent,

abused process, abused and exceeded authority and jurisdiction,
and engaged in public misfeasance of their office, in their refusal
to lawfully abide by the Federal Court order and terms of the IRPA
and Regulations, and issue permanent residence visas, and in the
refusal(s) to give any cogent and/or sober answers to the plaintiffs
and their counsel, except stone silence and stone-walling and that
the Defendants’ servants and officials have: […]
(i) engaged in abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority as

historically contemplated by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, et seq [Roncarelli];
[…]
34. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants’ inexcusable,

inordinate, and castigating delay, both between the time of the 1st
judicial review and the 2nd negative decision, as well as the 2nd
judicial review to the present, constitutes abuse and excess of
authority, as well as public misfeasance, of public office, in that
inexcusable delay has been determined to constitute public
misfeasance in inter alia, McMaster v. Canada, [2009] F.C.J. No.
1071, by this Court.
B-1-802
- 0793 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-803 B-1-803
Page: 29
[63] The Defendant argues that abuse and excess of authority and jurisdiction alleged by the
Plaintiffs is encapsulated in the tort of misfeasance. I agree. The following discussion of the tort
of misfeasance in public office in Woodhouse confirms that it covers the claim of abuse and
excess of authority and jurisdiction as contemplated in Roncarelli v Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121:

18 The origins of the tort of misfeasance in a public office can
be traced to Ashby v. White (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 92 E.R. 126,
in which Holt C.J. found that a cause of action lay against an
elections officer who maliciously and fraudulently deprived Mr.
White of the right to vote. Although the defendant possessed the
power to deprive certain persons from participating in the election,
he did not have the power to do so for an improper purpose.
Although the original judgment suggests that he was simply
applying the principle ubi jus ibi remedium, Holt C.J. produced a
revised form of the judgment in which he stated that it was because
fraud and malice were proven that the action lay: J. W. Smith, A
Selection of Leading Cases on Various Branches of the Law (13th
ed. 1929), at p. 282. Thus, in its earliest form it is arguable that
misfeasance in a public office was limited to circumstances in
which a public officer abused a power actually possessed.
19 Subsequent cases, however, have made clear that the ambit

of the tort is not restricted in this manner. In Roncarelli v.
Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, this Court found the defendant
Premier of Quebec liable for directing the manager of the Quebec
Liquor Commission to revoke the plaintiff’s liquor licence.
Although Roncarelli was decided at least in part on the basis of the
Quebec civil law of delictual responsibility, it is widely regarded
as having established that misfeasance in a public office is a
recognized tort in Canada. See for example Powder Mountain
Resorts Ltd. v. British Columbia (2001), 94 B.C.L.R. (3d) 14, 2001
BCCA 619; and Alberta (Minister of Public Works, Supply and
Services) v. Nilsson (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 474, 2002 ABCA
283. In Roncarelli, the Premier was authorized to give advice to
the Commission in respect of any legal questions that might arise,
but had no authority to involve himself in a decision to revoke a
particular licence. As Abbott J. observed, at p. 184, Mr. Duplessis
“was given no statutory power to interfere in the administration or
direction of the Quebec Liquor Commission”. Martland J. made a
similar observation, at p. 158, stating that Mr. Duplessis’ conduct
involved “the exercise of powers which, in law, he did not possess
at all”. From this, it is clear that the tort is not restricted to the
abuse of a statutory or prerogative power actually held. If that were
B-1-803
- 0794 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-804 B-1-804
Page: 30
the case, there would have been no grounds on which to find Mr.
Duplessis liable.
[64] As a result, I am striking the reference to abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority as

a stand-alone cause of action. The matter ought to be dealt with under the misfeasance claims
once properly amended.
Claim 3: Abuse of process
[65] The statement of claim pleads the tort of abuse of process in the same paragraphs already
referred to above for misfeasance in public office and quoted at length at paragraph 38 of these
reasons.
[66] The Defendant contends that abuse of process “involves the misuse of the process of the
courts to coerce someone in a way that is outside the ambit of the legal claim upon which the
court is asked adjudicate”: para 33 of the Defendant’s written representations citing Levi Strauss
& Co v Roadrunner Apparel Inc, (1997), 76 CPR (3d) 129 (FCA) at p 3.
[67] The Supreme Court of Canada authority provided by the Plaintiffs, United States of
America v Cobb, 2001 SCC 19, [2001] 1 SCR 587 [Cobb], also defines abuse of process in terms
of abusing the court process:
37 Canadian courts have an inherent and residual discretion at

common law to control their own process and prevent its abuse.
The remedy fashioned by the courts in the case of an abuse of
process, and the circumstances when recourse to it is appropriate
were described by this Court in R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R.
657, at pp. 658-59:
B-1-804
- 0795 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-805 B-1-805
Page: 31
The availability of a stay of proceedings to remedy

an abuse of process was confirmed by this Court in
R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128. On that occasion
the Court stated that the test for abuse of process
was that initially formulated by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in R. v. Young (1984), 40 C.R. (3d) 289. A
stay should be granted where “compelling an

accused to stand trial would violate those
fundamental principles of justice which underlie the
community’s sense of fair play and decency”, or
where the proceedings are “oppressive or
vexatious” ([1985] 2 S.C.R. [128], at pp. 136-37).
The Court in Jewitt also adopted “the caveat added
by the Court in Young that this is a power which can
be exercised only in the ‘clearest of cases’”
(p. 137).
[68] In a similar decision on a motion to strike, Prothonotary Aalto also concluded that Cobb
relates to abuse of the court process and that the plaintiff failed to plead facts making out this
tort:
[64] On the tort of abuse of process, I agree with the Crown’s

submissions that Cobb does not support the Plaintiff’s submission
that this tort exists on these facts. In Cobb, the Supreme Court
explicitly defined abuse of process as abuse of the Court’s own
process and that definition did not include a public official’s abuse
of any process in a vacuum. The Plaintiff neither pleads facts
relating to an abuse of a Court process nor did he provide any case-
law that expands the tort of abuse of process beyond the abuse of
the Court’s process as conceptualized in Cobb.
(Almacén v Her Majesty the Queen, 2015

FC 957, upheld at 2016 FC 300 and
subsequently upheld at 2016 FCA 296)
[69] Moreover, the Plaintiffs pleaded no material facts going to the elements of this tort in
their statement of claim (i.e. how or when a court process was abused). Actually, when
B-1-805
- 0796 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-806 B-1-806
Page: 32
discussions of immigration officials came before this Court, twice they were returned for a new
determination. It is difficult to see how seizing the Court on judicial review by the Plaintiffs can
be an abuse of process of the Court by the Defendant. Therefore, I am striking this claim without
leave to amend.

Claim 4: Negligence and negligent investigation
[70] The statement of claim pleaded negligence and negligent investigation as follows:
36. In the alternative the Plaintiffs state that, the Defendants’

officials have been negligent, and engaged in negligent
investigation, in the exercise of their common-law, statutory, and
constitutional duties owed to the Plaintiffs in that:
(i) the Defendants’ officials owe a common-law, statutory, and

constitutional, duty of care to competently and with due dispatch
properly process an application sent back by judicial order
pursuant to an application for judicial review under the statutory
scheme pursuant to the IRPA as well as competently and diligently
investigate any allegations of inadmissibility;
(ii) the Defendants’ officials breached this duty of care; and
(iii) as a result of this breach the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and
damages which includes, inter alia;
A/ the mental suffering and distress of separation between the

plaintiffs and their family in Canada, also protected by s.7 of the
Charter;
B/ irreparable loss of companionship, of the Plaintiffs, particularly

that involving the children;
C/ economic loss, to be quantified at trial, in being deprived of,

inter alia;
(i) the benefit of the Plaintiff, Emad Al Omani, to exercise

his proper place and activity in the joint business interests
of his brother in Canada;
(ii) the incursion of legal costs incurred to date, to be

determined at trial;
B-1-806
- 0797 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-807 B-1-807
Page: 33
D/ the mental stress and anguish of falsely being branded as

associated with Al Qaeda, or such groups, which further endangers
their very lives;
E/ their right to equal treatment and protection under the law, as

required by s. 3(3)(d) of the IRPA, the structural imperatives of the
Constitution, as well as s. 15 of the Charter, and loss of their

dignity to the extent of unequal treatment under the law.
[71] The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead material facts pertaining to
each element of a negligence action, particularly duty of care and breach of the standard of care.
I agree. The pleadings are declaratory, without any connection of material facts with the
elements of the tort.
[72] When a duty of care is not clearly established in the case law, the Anns test is used to
determine if a duty exists, as per Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, [2001] 3 SCR 537 at paragraph
30. The Defendant summarized the test at paragraph 36 of her written representations:
(a) Does the relationship between the parties in the circumstances

disclose the reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient
to establish a prima facie duty of care; and
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a prima facie duty of care, are

there residual policy considerations that should negative the
imposition of a duty of care?
[73] The only allegations that the Plaintiffs pleaded with respect to duty of care is to allege
that the Defendant owes a duty of care to (i) “competently and with due dispatch properly
process an application sent back by judicial order pursuant to an application for judicial review
under the statutory scheme pursuant to the IRPA” and to (ii) “competently and diligently
investigate any allegations of inadmissibility” (at para 36 of the statement of claim). They
B-1-807
- 0798 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-808 B-1-808
Page: 34
pleaded no facts whatsoever going to either element of the Anns test (Anns v Merton London
Borough Council, [1978] AC 728 (HL)).
[74] The Plaintiffs also pleaded scarce facts as to the breach of this alleged duty of care.

Repeating the points above, they allege the Defendant did not properly process an application
sent back by judicial review and did not properly investigate allegations of inadmissibility. In my
view, this is less than thin.
[75] The Plaintiffs stated that there exists a duty of care without even alleging how that can
be. What is the duty of care that was owed by immigration officers? The English Court of
Appeal in W. v Home Office, [1997] EWJ No 3289 (QL) [W. v Home Office] found twenty years
ago that there is no proximity such that a duty of care exists between a plaintiff and immigration
officers. One can read at para 28:
The process whereby the decision making body gathers

information and comes to its decision cannot be the subject of an
action in negligence. It suffices to rely on the absence of the
required proximity. In gathering information, and taking it into
account, the Defendants are acting pursuant to their statutory
powers and within that area of their discretion where only
deliberate abuse would provide a private remedy. For them to owe
a duty of care to immigrants would be inconsistent with the proper
performance of their responsibilities as immigration officers. In
conducting their inquiries, and making decisions in relation to
immigrants, including whether they should be detained pending
those inquiries, and making decisions in relation to immigrants,
including whether they should be detained pending those inquiries,
they are acting in that capacity of public servant to which the
considerations outlined above apply.
B-1-808
- 0799 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-809 B-1-809
Page: 35
That is the view taken by this Court in Premakumaran v Canada, 2005 FC 1131
[Premakumaran].
[76] In that case, finding support in A. O. Farms Inc v Canada, [2000] FCJ no 1771, 28

Admin LR (3d) 315 (FCA), the Court found that the immigration officers as agents of the
government owe “a duty of care to the public as a whole and not to the individual Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs cannot be considered a "neighbour" for these purposes and no such relationship should
be created between the Defendant and individual members of the public” (Premakumaran, at
para 25). The Federal Court of Appeal agreed. It found that “(i)n this case, however, no duty of
care arises. As the Motions Judge correctly found, no special relationship of proximity and
reliance is present on the facts of this case” (Premakumaran v Canada, 2006 FCA 213, [2007] 2
FCR 191, at para 24). It is one thing to allege that the performance in office constitutes a
misfeasance. It is quite another to base one’s claim on a duty of care leading to a claim in
negligence. Misfeasance and negligence are completely different and target different states of
mind.
[77] The W. v Home Office case found an echo in this Court in Benaissa. There, the Court
found that the process of the gathering of information by the decision-making body leading to a
decision cannot be the subject of an action in negligence. There may be, in my view,
circumstances in which a degree of proximity will be sufficient. However, the bare assertion that
unidentified immigration officers deliberately failed to process the application for permanent
residence in a timely fashion does not plead the duty of care that would distinguish this case and
the facts that could disclose the factual basis for the allegation of negligence. This does not
B-1-809
- 0800 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-810 B-1-810
Page: 36
disclose a reasonable cause of action. I cannot see a scintilla of a cause of action. There is not
even the beginning of something that could be amended.
[78] Justice Russell faced a similar statement of claim in Sivak. He struck the negligence

claim for failing to plead material facts going to the essential elements of the tort of negligence:
[45] I also agree with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not
pled, or factually substantiated, the essential elements of the tort of
negligence.
[46] As the Defendants point out, to support a cause of action in

negligence, a statement of claim must include sufficient facts to
support the essential elements of the tort. These include
establishing a duty of care, providing details of the breach of that
duty, explaining the causal connection between the breach of duty
and the injury, and setting out the actual loss. Such a claim requires
a factual basis that identifies each wrongful act as well as
negligence, such as the “when, what, by whom and to whom of the
relevant circumstances.” See Benaissa v Canada (Attorney
General), 2005 FC 1220, at paragraph 24.
[47] The Plaintiffs make a bald allegation at paragraph 28(b) of

the Claim that the “Defendants’ officials have been negligent in the
exercise of their common-law, statutory, and constitutional duties
owed to the Plaintiffs” and that these duties arose in the context of
the processing of their refugee claims pursuant to the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act. This is followed by unsubstantiated
statements that the “Defendants’ officials breached this duty of
care” and that this caused the Plaintiffs’ losses.
[48] I agree with the Defendants that such allegations are

nothing more than conclusions and are not sufficient to support a
cause of action in negligence. No details have been provided to
identify the “Defendants’ officials,” to explain their roles and
responsibilities in relation to the Plaintiffs, or to establish their
connection to any of the parties. Similarly, the Claim is silent as to
the “Defendants’ officials” particular acts or omissions that the
Plaintiffs’ claim were negligent and no facts are included to
support the specific “common-law, statutory and constitutional
duties” that were allegedly breached. It seems to me that the
general requirements for establishing liability in tort have not been
met and it would be impossible to conduct the necessary analysis
B-1-810
- 0801 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-811 B-1-811
Page: 37
to determine whether liability could be established. As the

Defendants point out, this is particularly difficult where the
defendant is a government actor. Issues arise as to whether public
law discretionary powers establish private law duties owed to
particular individuals or whether the decisions in question were
policy decisions or operational decisions. These questions are very
complex and detailed factual pleadings are required in order to

properly determine whether a cause of action exists.
[my emphasis]
[79] In my view, the claim as pled does not disclose a reasonable cause of action; indeed,
there is not even a scintilla of a cause of action. The pleadings are nothing other than general
allegations and conclusions without providing the material facts required or even what the duty
of care may be. Bare assertions of conclusions are not allegations of material facts. The Plaintiffs
only declare that there exists some duty of care. The Court in Sivak, relying on
Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 [Kisikawpimootewin] and Murray v Canada
(1978), 21 NR 230 (FCA) found that “a claim that does not sufficiently reveal the facts upon
which a cause of action is based, such that it is not possible for the defendant to answer or the
Court to regulate the action, is a vexatious action” (para 30). The Plaintiffs have asserted the
claim as an alternative. In so doing, they have failed to provide any material fact relevant to a
negligence claim that could support what is at any rate a vague claim based on bald assertions
and conclusions.
[80] The tort of negligent investigation requires the Plaintiffs to plead facts pertaining to the
conduct of the investigation into the inadmissibility finding to make out a reasonable cause of
action (Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41 at para 68).
The Defendant argues that “[i]n the few cases where the standard of care has been held to have
B-1-811
- 0802 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-812 B-1-812
Page: 38
been breached, the conduct of investigators has involved egregious and overzealous behaviour”
(at para 45 of the Defendant’s written representations). Examples of such conduct include
“ignoring exculpatory or other material evidence” and “making decisions based primarily on
assumptions or stereotypes” (Safa Almalki v Canada, 2012 ONSC 3023 at para 17). There is

nothing of the sort that is even alleged by the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
[81] The Supreme Court also noted in Woodhouse that citizens are not entitled to a certain
level of thoroughness in an investigation, nor are they entitled to a certain outcome:
40 … Individual citizens might desire a thorough

investigation, or even that the investigation result in a certain
outcome, but they are not entitled to compensation in the absence
of a thorough investigation or if the desired outcome fails to
materialize…
[82] The statement of claim recounts only the principal Plaintiff’s 15-minute interview where
he was asked about Al Qaeda and states that the officer refused to explain the reason for the
question; it pleads that these allegations have no basis:
24. On January 13th, 2014 the Plaintiff, Emad Al Omani was called
in for a very brief interview with respect to his application re-
determination.
25. On March 17th, 2014 the Plaintiff was, Emad Al Omani was
sent a second negative decision, which stated and concluded,
without any reasons whatsoever, that;
“In particular, there are reasonable grounds to believe that

you are a member of the inadmissible class of persons
described in 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act.” […]
26. The Plaintiff, Emad Al Omani, advises that at no time was he

either:
B-1-812
- 0803 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-813 B-1-813
Page: 39
(a) given notice of these outrageous and untrue conclusions and

allegations; nor
(b) shown any evidence nor any information, to address these false
allegations and conclusions.
During the interview, the Plaintiff was asked an unfocused,

nebulous, and non-contextual question about Al Qaeda. In fact,

during the fifteen (15) minute interview, the Plaintiff, Emad Al
Omani, was only asked two questions, namely:
(a) to explain the change in his job description […]
(b) the officer asked the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff belonged to, or
was in any way associated with “any group or organization like Al
Qaeda in Iraq”, to which the Plaintiff categorically replied that he
did not belong to, nor associated with such groups as Al Qaeda,
nor Al Qaeda itself.
The Plaintiff then asked the officer to be more specific with respect
to why he would even ask such a question, but the immigration
officer refused, citing “secrecy” barring him from divulging any
Canadian government information.
27. The earlier application, which had been denied, had no such
allegations nor conclusions for denial. It was denied based on the
fact that some documents relating to Emad Al Omani, were
missing, and a miscalculation and blatant error(s) in applying the
selection criteria, for which it was sent back for reconsideration by
Federal Court order.
[83] Apart from these statements, no material facts are given. There is nothing on the conduct
of the investigation that led to the inadmissibility finding. I agree with the Defendant that the
statement of claim fails to plead facts, let alone sufficient material facts to establish the tort of
negligent investigation other than suggesting that the Plaintiffs are unhappy with the conclusion
reached that they are inadmissible. The pleadings do not even begin to give any indication to
support a general allegation that the investigation may have been negligent. I see no scintilla of
an argument and am striking this claim without leave to amend. There is not even the faintest
B-1-813
- 0804 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-814 B-1-814
Page: 40
allegation of the who, when, where, how and what giving rise to liability. It is plain and obvious
that the claim cannot succeed. The Plaintiffs throw up in the air an accusation with nothing to
support it. There is nothing to amend. Actually, the Plaintiffs did not even attempt to specify how
the claim could be amended (Ward v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),

2014 FC 568, para 30). The fact of the matter is that there is no cause of action given the material
facts pleaded. It is not so much that there are deficiencies which may be cured by amendment.
There is no cause of action pleaded.
Claim 5: Conspiracy
[84] In what appears to be the further alternative, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is
engaged in a conspiracy at paragraph 37 of their statement of claim:
37. The Plaintiffs further state that the Defendant’s officials have:
(a) (i) engaged, and are engaging in a conspiracy, through their

conduct and communications, to deny the Plaintiff’s statutory,
constitutional, as well as international treaty rights, to deny their
permanent residence under Canadian law, as well as a fair and
impartial assessment of their application, a conspiracy as outlined,
inter alia, by the Supreme Court of Canada in the test set out in
Hunt v. Carey and jurisprudence cited therein, namely to;
A/ engage in an agreement for the use of lawful and

unlawful means, and conduct, the predominant purpose of
which is to cause injury to the Plaintiff; and/or
B/ to engage, in an agreement, to use unlawful means and

conduct, whose predominant purpose and conduct directed
at the Plaintiff, is to cause injury to the Plaintiff, or the
Defendants’ officials should know, in the circumstances,
that injury to the Plaintiff, is likely to, and does result;
The details and particulars of which conspiracy(ies) are as follows:
B-1-814
- 0805 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-815 B-1-815
Page: 41
(b) that the first denial was a contrived denial made in bad faith,
and absence of good faith, entirely designed and engineered to
deny, contrary to law, the Plaintiffs’ application;
(c) that the inordinate, inexcusable, and castigating delay between

the 1st judicial review determination, and second denial, as well as
the inordinate, inexcusable and castigating delay since the 2nd

judicial review, to the present, are all designed to stone-wall and
deny the Plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive rights to have their
applications possessed [sic];
(d) that the baseless, false, and wholly contrived allegations of

inadmissibility for association with Al Qaeda, or such groups, have
been designed and engineered to simply deny the Plaintiffs their
procedural and substantive right to have their application(s)
processed under the IRPA.
The Plaintiffs state that all known (and unknown) officers to the
Plaintiffs involved in the investigation, processing, and denial of
the Plaintiffs’ application have conspired with the goal of denying
the Plaintiffs, by any and all means necessary, and therefore liable
in conspiracy as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in Hunt
v. Carey as follows [repeats test as set out above].
38. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that as a direct result of the
Defendant’s officials illegal actions, and tortious conduct, the
Plaintiffs have, and will, suffer damages which he claims as set out
the within statement of claim.
[85] As the Plaintiffs outlined, Hunt explains that the tort of conspiracy can be established on
two grounds: (i) the plaintiff can claim a conspiracy to injure in that two or more people work
together in agreement using lawful or unlawful means for the predominant purpose of injuring
the plaintiff, who is in fact injured; or (ii) the plaintiff can claim a conspiracy of unlawful acts
where two or more people work together in agreement to engage in unlawful conduct directed
toward the plaintiff that they ought to know is likely to cause injury to said plaintiff, who is in
fact injured.
B-1-815
- 0806 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-816 B-1-816
Page: 42
[86] The Defendant referred to Normart Management Ltd v West Hill Redevelopment Co Ltd,
(1998), 37 OR (3d) 97 (ONCA), for a list of the elements that need to be pleaded to establish a
cause of action in conspiracy. The Ontario Court of Appeal writes at paragraph 21:

[21] In H.A. Imports of Canada Ltd. v. General Mills Inc.
(1983), 42 O.R. (2d) 645, 150 D.L.R. (3d) 574 (H.C.J.), O'Brien J.,
dealing with the civil action of conspiracy as pleaded, quoted from
Bullen, Leake and Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings, 12th ed.
(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1975), as follows at pp. 646-47:
The statement of claim should describe who

the several parties are and their relationship with
each other. It should allege the agreement between
the defendants to conspire, and state precisely what
the purpose or what were the objects of the alleged
conspiracy, and it must then proceed to set forth,
with clarity and precision, the overt acts which are
alleged to have been done by each of the alleged
conspirators in pursuance and in furtherance of the
conspiracy; and lastly, it must allege the injury and
damage occasioned to the plaintiff thereby.
[87] The statement of claim under review speaks of denials to grant permanent residence
based on flimsy reasons followed by long periods without any action on the part of the
government; however it identifies those involved in the alleged grand conspiracy as “all known
(and unknown) officers to the Plaintiffs involved in the investigation, processing, and denial of
the Plaintiffs’ application” (at para 37). This obviously does not constitute an identification by
name. It is not either by group or job positions. The Plaintiffs identify officers based on their
allegation that those who dealt with the matter, given that permanent residence was denied, have
conspired together. The statement of claim does not describe the alleged conspirators’
relationship with each other apart from implying that they are those who worked on the
B-1-816
- 0807 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-817 B-1-817
Page: 43
Plaintiffs’ application at some point. It is as if the Plaintiffs seek to derive some conspiracy
against them based on two denials and the periods of time between events.
[88] The statement of claim fails to describe the agreement(s) between the alleged

conspirators. It pleads their alleged overall approach—denying the processing of the Plaintiffs’
permanent residence application “by any and all means necessary”—but does not plead material
facts precisely describing the purpose of the agreement between the known and unknown
officers. It is fine to have a conspiracy theory, but it must be spelled out. Crying “conspiracy” is
not enough to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
[89] Reading the pleadings as generously as can be, there is no way to decipher what the
agreement may be, who the conspirators are, whether the alleged conspiracy has the predominant
purpose to injure the Plaintiffs, as opposed to pursuing some other purpose, whether the alleged
conspiracy is to use lawful or unlawful means. In other words, we are left with a bald and bold
allegation without even attempting to define the essential elements of the tort alleged, and
obviously, offering any fact, material or not, to substantiate an allegation.
[90] Instead of identifying the branch of the tort of conspiracy the Plaintiffs wish to rely on in
order to state material facts on which they actually rely, they make a completely generic
assertion, without more. There is not even anything about how there can be a conspiracy, as
opposed to, for instance mere knowledge or approval of a cause of conduct. Proof of agreement
and execution is required. Nothing of the sort is alleged with material facts in support.
B-1-817
- 0808 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-818 B-1-818
Page: 44
[91] All that is known is that the Plaintiffs were denied permanent residence twice. The
pleadings, in my view, amount to a complete absence of definition of the tort and its elements. It
is plain and obvious that there is no reasonable cause of action. It is as if the Plaintiffs were
suggesting that, given they were denied twice and there were delays, there must be somehow a

conspiracy. It is not pleading conspiracy to merely allege these facts and, without more, suggest
an agreement the purpose of which is unknown. Put a different way, the Plaintiffs seem to allege
their experience with immigration authorities is such that there must be some conspiracy hatched
somewhere.
[92] The pleadings are also so deficient in factual material that the Defendant would be
incapable to know how to answer. They are bare assertions that are unfounded; not only they do
not disclose a reasonable cause of action they could be struck as frivolous or vexatious (Senechal
v Muskoka (District Municipality), [2003] OJ No 885; Kisikawpimootewin supra).
[93] In terms of overt acts, which would tend to show that some agreement to work together
exists and could be opposed to the co-conspirators, the statement of claim simply references the
first visa denial, the delay between the first judicial review and the second visa denial, the delay
since the second judicial review, and the inadmissibility allegations. There is no trace of any
agreement, just some discrete events. The Plaintiffs pleaded a series of independent events, and
did not present anything tending to show that the conspirators agreed to undertake these acts to
further the conspiracy; rather, they rely on their overarching statement that the Defendant aimed
to deny the Plaintiffs’ application processing, without more.
B-1-818
- 0809 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-819 B-1-819
Page: 45
[94] The nature of a conspiracy requires that there be participants, some known and others
unknown, who agree to do something that will cause injury (Cement LaFarge v B.C. Lightweight
Aggregate, [1983] 1 SCR 452). Here, the material facts allowing to conclude to some agreement
are absent. The date, the object and the purpose of an agreement between unknown participants

is not even pled. No overt act by the participants in furtherance of the conspiracy is offered in the
pleadings. These are bald allegations involving undefined persons without even a hint of the
agreement which is central to a claim of conspiracy. As found in Sivak at para 55, this constitutes
a pleading that is vexatious (see also Kisikawpimootewin). It is not possible, on the basis of these
pleadings, for the Defendant to know how to answer. The pleading is “so defective that it cannot
be cured by simple amendment” (Krause v Canada, [1999] 2 FCR 476 (FCA)). The Plaintiffs
never indicated how they could amend their pleadings on this front such that there could be some
assessment of “the readiness of the amendments needed”, in the words of the Federal Court of
Appeal in Sweet.
[95] I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead all the elements of the
tort of conspiracy. It may be argued that none were pleaded. It is entirely deficient with respect
to pleading the essential elements of the tort. Given the complete lack of detail on the alleged
agreement, I see no scintilla of an argument. As a result, I am striking this claim without leave to
amend.
B-1-819
- 0810 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-820 B-1-820
Page: 46
Claim 6: Breach of Plaintiffs’ section 7 and 15 Charter rights
[96] The Plaintiffs allege both section 7 and section 15 Charter breaches at various points in
their statement of claim. They note that decisions under the IRPA must be applied in a manner

that is consistent with the Charter:
33. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants’ officials have a

common-law duty, as well as a statutory duty under s. 3(1)(f) of
the IRPA, as interpreted and confirmed by this Court, in Dragan v
Canada QL [2003] F.C.J. No. 260 and Liang v Canada (M.C.I.)
2012 FC 758 decisions to process applications consistently and
promptly […] and that such decisions must be Charter-compliant,
as dictated by s. 3(3)(d) of the IRPA which states:
(3) This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that…
(d) ensures that decisions taken under this Act are consistent with
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including its
principles of equality and freedom from discrimination and of the
equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada
[97] The section 7 allegations appear at paragraphs 30, 32, and 36:
30. As a result of the Defendants’ officials’ inexcusable delay,

false and unfounded allegations, and breach of duty to process the
main Plaintiffs’ application, the Plaintiffs have suffered the
following damages:
(a) with respect to Emad Al-Omani his wife and children, the dire
danger, indelible stigma, and mental distress and suffering
knowing that the High Commission is making false and unfounded
allegations that he is associated with Al Qaeda, or such groups, as
well as the mental suffering of not being able to join his brothers
and families in Canada and the financial damages in not being able
to engage with his brothers in their business in Canada, of which
he has a financial interest;
(b) the mental stress and anxiety, and endangerment of their lives,
knowing that false allegations of association with Al Qaeda, or
B-1-820
- 0811 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-821 B-1-821
Page: 47
such groups, have been made which places their lives at risk in
Saudi Arabia
[…]
(a) the Defendants’ officials have […]

(iv) breached the plaintiffs constitutional right(s) to the
Rule of Law and Constitutionalism, as well as their s. 7 and
15 Charter Rights;
which tortious conduct has caused the damages set out in

paragraph 30 in the statement of claim herein.
[…]

constitutional duties owed to the Plaintiffs in that […]
A/ the mental suffering and distress of separation between

the Plaintiffs and their family in Canada, also protected by
s.7 […]

associated with Al Qaeda, or such groups, which further
endangers their very lives;
[98] The section 15 allegations at paragraphs 1, 30, 32, 36 centre on the allegation that the
Plaintiffs were treated unequally on the grounds of race and national origin because they are
Saudi Arabs:
1. The Plaintiffs claim: […]
iii) the actions and omissions of the visa office at the Canadian
High Commission in London, England, constitutes a […] breach of
the Plaintiffs’ right to the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, as well
B-1-821
- 0812 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-822 B-1-822
Page: 48
as equal treatment, both under the underlying imperatives to the

constitution as well as s. 15 of the Charter;

following damages: […]

(c) loss of dignity in being treated unequally contrary to s. 3(3)(d)
of the IRPA, the unwritten principles of the constitution, and s. 15
of the Charter, based on race and national origin, to wit: as Saudi
Arabs.
(a) the Defendants’ officials have […]
(iv) breached the plaintiffs constitutional right(s) to the

Rule of Law and Constitutionalism, as well as their s. 7 and
15 Charter Rights;
which tortious conduct has caused the damages set out in

paragraph 30 in the statement of claim herein. […]

constitutional duties owed to the Plaintiffs in that […]
damages which includes, inter alia; […]
E/ their right to equal treatment and protection under the

law, as required by s. 3(3)(d) of the IRPA, the structural
imperatives of the Constitution, as well as s. 15 of the
Charter, and loss of their dignity to the extent of unequal
treatment under the law.
[99] A preliminary issue with the Plaintiffs’ claim is whether the Plaintiffs hold sections 7 and
15 Charter rights that can be breached. The Plaintiffs are referred to as “Saudi nationals” in the
statement of claim and it appears that the principal Plaintiff only interacted with immigration
officers at the Canadian High Commission in London, United Kingdom. The Plaintiffs pleaded
B-1-822
- 0813 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-823 B-1-823
Page: 49
damages on the basis that they have not been able to join their family in Canada. They are not
Canadian, nor is it clear they were in Canada when the alleged Charter violations occurred.
[100] The Defendant did not raise this as a ground to strike the statement of claim, so I will not

consider it in my decision on this motion. However, given the fundamental nature of this
threshold issue I think it is worth summarizing recent law on the topic.
[101] In Tabingo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 377; [2014] 4 FCR 150,
Justice Rennie questioned whether foreign nationals hold Charter rights and summarized the
jurisprudence applicable to this issue at paragraphs 61-79. He found that the case law generally
does not extend Charter rights to non-Canadians or those outside of Canada, but since the parties
did not contest the issue, he did not draw his own conclusion:
[75] Other recent decisions of this Court have found that non-
citizens outside of Canada generally do not hold Charter rights:
Zeng v Camada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 104, paras 70-72;
Kinsel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012
FC 1515, paras 45-47; Toronto Coalition to Stop the War v
Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),
2010 FC 957, paras 81-82. These three decisions followed Justice
Blanchard’s determination that a Charter claim may only be
advanced by an individual who is present in Canada, subject to
criminal proceedings in Canada, or possessing Canadian
citizenship.
[76] This limitation on the application of the Charter is not a

recent development. Even prior to Slahi, the Federal Court and the
Federal Court of Appeal had interpreted Singh as barring Charter
claims from non-citizens outside Canada: Canadian Council of
Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[1990] 2 FC 534 (CA) (aff’d on other grounds [1992] 1 SCR 236);
Ruparel v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[1990] 3 FC 615; Lee v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1997] FCJ No 242; Deol v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] FCJ No 1034 (aff’d on other
grounds 2002 FCA 271).
B-1-823
- 0814 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-824 B-1-824
Page: 50
[77] The only exception counsel identified involved an applicant

claiming the right to citizenship, rather than the privilege of
immigration: Crease v Canada, [1994] 3 FC 480. In that case the
applicant had applied for citizenship from within Canada and had a
Canadian mother.
[78] The respondent does not dispute either the applicants’

standing or the application of the Charter. The parties appear to
coalesce around the proposition that the FSW applications
establish a sufficient nexus with Canada to extend the reach of
sections 7 and 15. The jurisprudence does not support this
concession. What is in issue involves the repercussions abroad of
domestic legislation. In this case, there is no question of the extra-
territorial application of the Charter as an adjunct of the actions of
Canadian officials abroad, nor is there, as I conclude on the
evidence, non-compliant administration of the legislation. The
issue framed by this case is whether the protections provided by
sections 7 and 15 reach foreign nationals, when residing outside of
or beyond Canadian territory.
[79] Despite my reservations as to the correctness of the

concession, given that there is no lis between the parties on the
issue, I will not determine the point. Charter jurisprudence should
develop incrementally through the interface of opposing positions
and interests. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine the point,
as I find that the claims of infringement fail on their merits.
[102] On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal (Tabingo v Canada, 2014 FCA 191; [2015] 3
FCR 346 [Tabingo]), Justice Sharlow acknowledged Justice Rennie’s remarks in Tabingo, but
also found that she did not need to draw a conclusion on the issue:
[53] In this Court, the Minister argues that the applicants do not
have rights under section 7 or subsection 15(1) of the Charter.
However, for reasons that will become apparent from the
discussion below, I do not consider it necessary to express an
opinion on that point.
B-1-824
- 0815 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-825 B-1-825
Page: 51
[103] Putting aside this preliminary issue and turning to the causes of action as pleaded,
statements of claim must plead material facts pertaining to each element of an alleged Charter
violation. Once again, Mancuso provides useful guidance, at paragraph 21:

[21] There are no separate rules of pleadings for Charter cases.
The requirement of material facts applies to pleadings of Charter
infringement as it does to causes of action rooted in the common
law. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined in the case law the
substantive content of each Charter right, and a plaintiff must plead
sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the
provision in question. This is no mere technicality, “rather, it is
essential to the proper presentation of Charter issues”: Mackay v
Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 at p. 361.
[104] The section 7 of constitutional right requires that it be established that the right to life,
liberty or security has been violated. The pleadings are silent as to what right would have been
violated. As it has been established, more than 30 years ago, the three interests protected by
section 7 are distinct (Singh v Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 SCR 177; Re
B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486). There is no indication to be found in the pleadings
of what interest is involved where a permanent resident visa has been denied to a foreigner.
[105] Not only the interests are not identified such that could be identified the elements that
need to be proven given the ambit of each interest, but the pleadings don’t give any indication as
to how the interest might be engaged. To put it another way, there are no material facts pleaded.
What are the facts to support an allegation of interference with the life, the liberty or the security
of a person that is not allowed to immigrate to Canada, a privilege that has not been elevated to
the level of a right (Medovarski v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC
51, [2005] 2 SCR 539). At best, the pleadings speak in terms of mental stress and anxiety
B-1-825
- 0816 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-826 B-1-826
Page: 52
generated by governor action. It may be worth noting that the Supreme Court discussed that
matter in Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 SCR
307 [Blencoe] and found that stress, stigma and anxiety did not deprive of the right to life, liberty
and security of the person:

97 To summarize, the stress, stigma and anxiety suffered by
the respondent did not deprive him of his right to liberty or security
of the person. The framers of the Charter chose to employ the
words, “life, liberty and security of the person”, thus limiting s. 7
rights to these three interests. While notions of dignity and
reputation underlie many Charter rights, they are not stand-alone
rights that trigger s. 7 in and of themselves. Freedom from the type
of anxiety, stress and stigma suffered by the respondent in this case
should not be elevated to the stature of a constitutionally protected
s. 7 right.
If the Plaintiffs wish to make the case, especially in spite of Blencoe, they have to plead the
material facts, which they have not done. They are essential (Mackay v Manitoba, [1989] 2 SCR.
357 [Mackay]) even more so perhaps where the Supreme Court has already found that stress,
stigma and anxiety for someone living in this country did not rise to a constitutionally protected
right. I do not wish to suggest that it cannot be done in an appropriate case; it is just that it is
especially important that facts be pled such that there can be a reasonable cause of action.
Otherwise, “the defendant would be left guessing as to the scope of the case it has to meet to
respond to the section 7 infringement” (Mancuso, para 23).
[106] I am comforted in my conclusion by the similar finding made in Sivak where the Court
stated that the Plaintiffs “have failed to indicate how one or more of their protected interests have
been infringed, and they have also failed to identify the circumstances or context in which the
breaches allegedly occurred. I have to agree with the Defendants that the allegations in this
B-1-826
- 0817 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-827 B-1-827
Page: 53
regard are stated in the form of conclusions without factual basis.” (para 73). To quote from
Mackay at p 362, “Charter decisions cannot be based upon unsupported hypothesis of
enthusiastic counsel.”

[107] The statement of claim also references mental suffering and financial damages resulting
from the visa denials, neither of which are sufficient to ground a Charter claim in the absence of
additional material facts as set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Tabingo:
[97] The appellants are foreign nationals who reside outside

Canada. Their only connection to Canada is that they have applied
under a Canadian statute for the right to become permanent
residents. They have no legal right to that status, and no right to
enter or remain in Canada unless they attain that status. They had
the right to seek permanent resident status under the IRPA, and
when they did so they had the right to have their applications
considered under the IRPA. However, neither of those rights is a
right to life, liberty or security of the person. When their
applications were terminated by subsection 87.4(1), they were not
deprived of any right that is protected by section 7 of the Charter.
[98] The appellants argue that if their applications had been

accepted they would have acquired the right to enter and remain in
Canada, which means necessarily that they would also have
acquired all Charter rights except those given only to citizens of
Canada. They argue that, because of the importance of their
objective of becoming permanent residents of Canada, the loss of
their right to have their permanent resident visa applications
considered is such a blow to their psychological and physical
integrity that it should be construed as the loss of a right that is
within the scope of section 7 of the Charter.
[99] I do not accept this argument. I have no doubt that the

termination of the appellants’ permanent resident visa applications
caused them financial loss, but financial loss alone does not
implicate the rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The
termination of their applications could have been profoundly
disappointing to the appellants and perhaps for some
psychologically damaging, but the evidence does not establish the
high threshold of psychological harm necessary to establish a
B-1-827
- 0818 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-828 B-1-828
Page: 54
deprivation of the right to security of the person: Blencoe v. British

Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307.
[108] The Plaintiffs also failed to plead facts pertaining to the section 7 internal analysis

regarding the principles of fundamental justice. Being deprived of the right to life, liberty or
security of the person in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice is not violation of
section 7. It simply does not suffice to make a general allegation that section 7 Charter rights
have been violated
[109] With respect to the section 15 claims, they suffer from the same deficiencies. The
Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs must show that there has been a distinction on an enumerated
or analogous ground and that this distinction creates a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or
stereotyping to properly plead a section 15 claim: R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 SCR 483
[Kapp] at para 17; Withler v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 12, [2011] 1 SCR 396 at
paras 30-31. They argue that even if there are enough facts to show adverse impact on an
enumerated ground, the statement of claim does not plead facts showing how the treatment
amounts to discrimination. Such analysis includes various factors such as:
[…] (1) pre-existing disadvantage, if any, of the claimant group;

(2) degree of correspondence between the differential treatment
and the claimant group’s reality; (3) whether the law or program
has an ameliorative purpose or effect; and (4) the nature of the
interest affected.
Kapp at para 19
[110] I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs have not provided any material facts
establishing how they were discriminated against.
B-1-828
- 0819 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-829 B-1-829
Page: 55
[111] The statement of claim fails to plead the basic elements of either Charter claim. These
pleadings are once again so defective that they cannot be cured by simple amendment. There is
not a reasonable cause of action disclosed. Since I see no scintilla of a cause of action to be
cured, I have to strike both, without leave to amend.

Claim 7: Damages
[112] The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs’ damages should be struck for lacking
particularity. Damages are primarily pleaded at paragraphs 1, 30 and 36 of the statement of
claim:
1. The Plaintiffs claim:
(a) general damages in the amount of $200,000 per Plaintiff;
(b) aggravated damages in the amount of $50,000 per Plaintiff;
(c) punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 per Plaintiff;
(d) any and all economic loss damages pleaded, to be calculated at

trial;
[…]

following damages: […]
(a) with respect to Emad Al-Omani his wife and children, the dire
danger, indelible stigma, and mental distress and suffering
knowing that the High Commission is making false and unfounded
allegations that he is associated with Al Qaeda, or such groups, as
well as the mental suffering of not being able to join his brothers
and families in Canada and the financial damages in not being able
to engage with his brothers in their business in Canada, of which
he has a financial interest;
(b) the mental stress and anxiety, and endangerment of their lives,
knowing that false allegations of association with Al Qaeda, or
B-1-829
- 0820 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-830 B-1-830
Page: 56
such groups, have been made which places their lives at risk in
Saudi Arabia […]
(c) loss of dignity in being treated unequally contrary to s. 3(3)(d)

of the IRPA, the unwritten principles of the constitution, and s. 15
of the Charter, based on race and national origin, to wit: as Saudi
Arabs.

[…]

officials have been negligent […]
A/ the mental suffering and distress of separation between the

plaintiffs and their family in Canada, also protected by s.7 of the
Charter;
B/ irreparable loss of companionship, of the Plaintiffs, particularly

that involving the children;
C/ economic loss, to be quantified at trial, in being deprived of,

inter alia;
(i) the benefit of the Plaintiff, Emad Al Omani, to exercise his

proper place and activity in the joint business interests of his
brother in Canada;
(ii) the incursion of legal costs incurred to date, to be determined at

trial;

associated with Al Qaeda, or such groups, which further endangers
their very lives;
E/ their right to equal treatment and protection under the law, as

required by s. 3(3)(d) of the IRPA, the structural imperatives of the
Constitution, as well as s. 15 of the Charter, and loss of their
dignity to the extent of unequal treatment under the law.
[113] The Plaintiffs argue that damages do not need to be precisely calculated at this stage.
There is some support for this position in Woodhouse:
B-1-830
- 0821 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-831 B-1-831
Page: 57
41 Although courts have been cautious in protecting an

individual’s right to psychiatric well-being, compensation for
damages of this kind is not foreign to tort law. As the law currently
stands, that the appellant has suffered grief or emotional distress is
insufficient. Nevertheless, it is well established that compensation
for psychiatric damages is available in instances in which the
plaintiff suffers from a “visible and provable illness” or

“recognizable physical or psychopathological harm”: see for
example Guay v. Sun Publishing Co., [1953] 2 S.C.R. 216, and
Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99. Consequently, even if the
plaintiffs could prove that they had suffered psychiatric damage, in
the form of anxiety or depression, they still would have to prove
both that it was caused by the alleged misconduct and that it was of
sufficient magnitude to warrant compensation. But the causation
and magnitude of psychiatric damage are matters to be determined
at trial. At the pleadings stage, it is sufficient that the statement of
claim alleges that the plaintiffs have suffered mental distress,
anger, depression and anxiety as a consequence of the alleged
misconduct.
[…]
74 As discussed in the context of the actions for misfeasance

in a public office, courts have been cautious in protecting an
individual’s right to psychiatric well-being, but it is well
established that compensation for psychiatric damages is available
in instances in which the plaintiff suffers a “visible and provable
illness” or “recognizable physical or psychopathological harm”. At
the pleadings stage, it is sufficient that the statement of claim
alleges mental distress, anger, depression and anxiety as a
consequence of the defendant’s negligence. Causation and the
magnitude of psychiatric damage are matters to be determined at
trial.
[my emphasis]
[114] The same rule applies to other categories of damages. Other than damages alleged to
result from the Charter violations that have been struck out, I agree with the Plaintiffs that the
Defendant has not discharged her burden to show why the alleged damages should be struck.
Whether they will be able to show that they have suffered damages, including that their
psychiatric well-being has been affected beyond grief or emotional disturbance or distress,
B-1-831
- 0822 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-832 B-1-832
Page: 58
remains to be shown. However the test is not likelihood of success, but rather reasonable cause
of action. I am allowing the damages to proceed as pleaded.
Claim 8: Whether Ministers should be named in the statement of claim

[115] The statement of claim provides the following description of the named Defendants:
3. (a) the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen is statutorily and

vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of her servants
pursuant to s. 17(1)(5) of the Federal Courts Act as well as ss.
24(1) and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and in particular, any
purported Crown prerogative, if any exists post the Patriation of
the Constitution Act, 1982, and Canada Act, 1982, by the
Defendants’, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and/or Citizenship
and Immigration, employees of the Canadian High Commission in
London, England;
(b) The Defendant, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is statutorily

and constitutionally responsible for maintaining and staffing
Canada’s visa posts abroad; and
(c) The Defendant, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is

statutorily and constitutionally responsible for administering the
IRPA and its Regulations.
[116] The defendants seek to strike the two named Ministers (Foreign Affairs and Citizenship
and Immigration) in favour of a single defendant, Her Majesty the Queen who then becomes the
Defendant. The defendants note that the named Ministers are not themselves liable for the
damages claimed in this case (Federation of Newfoundland Indians v Canada, 2003 FCT 383 at
para 30). In Cairns v Farm Credit Corp., [1992] 2 FC 115; 49 FTR 308, Justice Denault wrote:
[6] The plaintiffs have named the Honourable William

McKnight as a defendant in this action. A Minister of the Crown
cannot be sued in his representative capacity, nor can he be sued in
his personal capacity unless the allegations against him relate to
B-1-832
- 0823 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-833 B-1-833
Page: 59
acts done in his personal capacity (Re Air India (1987), 62 O.R.
(2d) 130, (sub nom. Air India Flight 182 Disaster Claimants v. Air
India) 44 D.L.R. (4th) 317 (H.C.)). As the plaintiffs have made no
claims against the Minister relating to actions done in his personal
capacity, the Honourable William McKnight must be struck as a
party to the action.

Similar comments are found in Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), at para 180.
At the hearing of the case, counsel for the Plaintiffs all but conceded the point. At any rate, that
appears to be the state of the law (Sibomana v Canada, 2016 FC 943 at paras 32-33).
[117] I see no reason to name these two Ministers in the present case; therefore I am striking
them from the statement of claim in favour of Her Majesty the Queen as the sole Defendant.
Claim 9: Constitutionality arguments regarding jury trials under the Federal Courts Act and
leave for judicial review under the IRPA
[118] The Plaintiffs indicated that they plan to constitutionally challenge section 49 of the
Federal Courts Act, which bars jury trials, on the basis that it violates “the constitutional
imperatives of Rule and Law and Constitutionalism, as well as the right to a jury trial, grounded
in the Magna Carta, and continued in s. 11(f) of the Charter in the criminal context, as well as
the residual clause of s. 7 of the Charter in the civil context […]” (statement of claim, para 39).
[119] The Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that subsection 72(1) of the IRPA is
unconstitutional on the basis that the Defendant’s officials “can perpetually deny a meritorious
application whereby, sooner or later, a leave application will be denied” and a leave application
is not, in itself, judicial review (at paras 40(a) and (c) of the statement of claim).
B-1-833
- 0824 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-834 B-1-834
Page: 60
[120] The Defendant argues that both arguments should be struck because they are wholly
immaterial to the present action.
[121] In Mancuso, the Federal Court of Appeal encountered a similar issue on a motion to

strike seeking declarations on the constitutionality of other legislation. It concluded that while
free-standing declarations of constitutionality are available, they require a factual grounding:
[32] […] Free-standing declarations of constitutionality can be

granted: Canadian Transit Company v. Windsor (Corporation of
the City), 2015 FCA 88. But the right to the remedy does not
translate into licence to circumvent the rules of pleading. Even
pure declarations of constitutional validity require sufficient
material facts to be pleaded in support of the claim. Charter
questions cannot be decided in a factual vacuum: Mackay v.
Manitoba, above, nor can questions as to legislative competence
under the Constitution Act, 1867 be decided without an adequate
factual grounding, which must be set out in the statement of claim.
This is particularly so when the effects of the impugned legislation
are the subject of the attack: Danson v. Ontario (Attorney
General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086, at p. 1099.
[33] The Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Prime Minister)

v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44, para. 46 articulated the
pre-conditions to the grant of a declaratory remedy: jurisdiction
over the claim and a real as opposed to a theoretical question in
respect of which the person raising it has an interest.
[34] Following Khadr, this Court in Canada (Indian Affairs) v.

Daniels, 2014 FCA 101, 2014 FCA 101 (leave to appeal granted)
at paras. 77-79 highlighted the danger posed by a generic, fact-free
challenge to legislation – in other words, a failure to meet the
second Khadr requirement. Dawson JA noted that legislation may
be valid in some instances, and unconstitutional when applied to
other situations. A court must have a sense of a law’s reach in
order to assess whether and by how much that reach exceeds the
legislature’s vires. It cannot evaluate whether Parliament has
exceeded the ambit of its legislative competence and had more
than an incidental effect on matters reserved to the provinces
without examining what its legislation actually does. Facts are
necessary to define the contours of legislative and constitutional
competence. In the present case, this danger is particularly acute;
B-1-834
- 0825 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-835 B-1-835
Page: 61
as the judge noted, the legislation at issue pertains to literally

thousands of natural health supplements.
[35] This is not new law. While the plaintiffs point to Solosky v.
The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 for the proposition that there is a
broad right to seek declaratory relief, Solosky also notes that there
must be “a ‘real issue’ concerning the relative interests of each

[party].” The Court cannot be satisfied that this requirement is met
absent facts being pleaded which indicate what that real issue is
and its nexus to the plaintiffs and their claim for relief.
[my emphasis]
[122] With respect to the section 49 claim, I note that the Plaintiffs, in their memorandum of
fact and law at paragraph 18, explain that this is not an argument, but rather a notice of relief to
be sought. There is nothing else. Justice Zinn struck the same section 49 argument in Cabral v
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1040 as immaterial to the present action. I
agree. If it is no more than a notice that something will follow, it is useless; furthermore, the said
notice does not even contemplate section 26 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, RSC,
1985, c C-50. It is a different matter of a procedural nature which does not accord with a
statement of claim. It shall be struck from the statement of claim. In so doing I do not wish to
suggest that the constitutionality of section 49 cannot be attacked in these proceedings.
[123] With respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim respecting subsection 72(1) of the IRPA, I agree with
the Defendant that this pleading is immaterial at this point. The Plaintiffs have had two visa
decisions quashed and sent back for judicial review. Each time leave was evidently granted. The
statement of claim references a hypothetical future refusal to grant leave. That cannot be the
basis of a challenge to the legislation in this case. This is no more than a theoretically question,
B-1-835
- 0826 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-836 B-1-836
Page: 62
certainly not a real question on the facts of this case. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ complete lack of
factual basis on which to bring this claim, I am striking this claim without leave to amend.
VI. Conclusion

[124] If there is compensation to be awarded, it is not through the law of conspiracy or
negligence, but rather through the law of misfeasance in public office, once properly pleaded.
There is simply nothing to suggest in the statement of claim that the essential elements of the tort
have even been considered. It is simply not enough to say “negligence” or “conspiracy”. More is
needed to have a scintilla of a cause of action. The essential elements of one cause of action are
not the same as another cause of action. Misfeasance is not negligence, and negligence is not
conspiracy. The material facts for each will vary. The approach taken was in effect to tell the
story generally without connecting the facts to the causes of action alleged later in the document.
At the end of the day, we are left with a narrative that supports a cause of action in misfeasance,
which requires to be pled with more precision, but is dearly missing with respect to the
alternative causes of action in negligence and conspiracy. In my view, there is a scintilla of cause
of action in misfeasance pleaded such that with appropriate amendments in order to allege the
material facts required, the matter could proceed further.
[125] Some of the claims are therefore struck out, without leave to amend:
1. misfeasance in public office – refusal to abide by court order
2. misfeasance in public office – refusal to answer questions
3. abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority
B-1-836
- 0827 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-837 B-1-837
Page: 63
4. abuse of process
5. negligence and negligent investigation
6. conspiracy
7. sections 7 and 15 of the Charter violations

8. constitutional arguments concerning section 49 of the Federal Courts Act
and section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[126] Some claims are struck with leave to amend:
1. misfeasance in public office – refusal to issue visas and delay in issuing visas
2. misfeasance in public office – delay in issuing visas
3. damages – Charter violations.
[127] Finally, the named ministers are struck in favour of Her Majesty the Queen.
[128] Given the split success on the motion, there will not be an award of costs.
B-1-837
- 0828 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-838 B-1-838
Page: 64
ORDER in T-1774-15
THIS COURT ORDERS that for the reasons given, the following causes of action are
struck out from the statement of claim, without leave to amend, pursuant to Rule 221(1) of the

Federal Courts Rules:
1. misfeasance in public office – refusal to abide by court order
2. misfeasance in public office – refusal to answer questions
3. abuse and excess of jurisdiction and authority
4. abuse of process
5. negligence and negligent investigation
6. conspiracy
7. sections 7 and 15 of the Charter violations
8. constitutional arguments concerning section 49 of the Federal Courts Act

and section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
For the reasons given, the following sections are struck from the statement of claim, with
leave to amend, pursuant to Rule 221(1) of the Federal Courts Rules:
1. misfeasance in public office – refusal to issue visas and delay in issuing visas
2. misfeasance in public office – delay in issuing visas
3. damages – Charter violations.
In view of the fact that the success is split on this motion to strike, no costs will be awarded.
B-1-838
- 0829 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-839 B-1-839
Page: 65
On the consent of both parties, the Plaintiffs will have 60 days from the date of this Order to file
an amended statement of claim and the Defendant will have 30 days to file a Statement of
Defence from the date of service of the amended statement of claim.

"Yvan Roy"
Judge
B-1-839
- 0830 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-840 B-1-840
FEDERAL COURT
DOCKET: T-1774-15

STYLE OF CAUSE: EMAD IBRAHIM AL OMANI, LINA HOUSNE HAMZA
NAHAS, AND SULTAN EMAD AL OMANI (A
MINOR), LULWA EMAD IBRAHIM AL OMANI (A
MINOR), HAYA EMAD IBRAHIM AL OMANI (A
MINOR), BY THEIR LITIGATION GUARDIANS,
EMAD IBRAHIM AL OMANI AND LINA HOUSNE
HAMZA NAHAS V HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
ORDER AND REASONS: ROY J.
DATED: AUGUST 24, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Susan Gans FOR THE DEFENDANT

Toronto, Ontario
Deputy Attorney General of FOR THE DEFENDANT

Canada
Toronto, Ontario
B-1-840
- 0831 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-841 B-1-841
EXHIBIT “BBB”
B-1-841
- 0832 -
This is Exhibit “BBB” to the affidavit of
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-842 B-1-842
17-Aug-21 accordance with O Reg 431/20
____________________________________ Court File No. VLC-S-S-217586

Vancouver A Commissioner for taking affidavits,
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C Registry No.
Vancouver Registry
In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

BETWEEN:
Action4Canada, Kimberly Woolman, The Estate of Jaqueline Woolman, Linda

Morken, Gary Morken, Jane Doe #1, Brian Edgar, Amy Muranetz, Jane Doe #2, Ilona
Zink, Federico Fuoco, Fire Productions Limited, F2 Productions Incorporated,
Valerie Ann Foley, Pastor Randy Beatty, Michael Martinz, Makhan S. Parhar, North
Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited, Melissa Anne Neubauer, Jane Doe #3
Plaintiffs
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right British Columbia, Prime Minister Justin
John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Minister of Health, Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of
Education, Mable Elmore, Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long-
Term Care, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (operating as British Columbia Ferries), Omar
Alghabra, Minister of Transport, Vancouver Island Health Authority, The Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Attorney General of Canada, Brittney
Sylvester, Peter Kwok, Providence Health Care, Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, TransLink (British Columbia)
Defendants
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this
court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
B-1-842
- 0833 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-843 B-1-843
1. (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the
above- named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim
described below, and
2. (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counter claim on the
plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the
response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a
copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you,
(b) if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on
which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you,
(c) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the
filed notice of civil claim was served on you, or
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within
that time.
Table of Contents of the Claim

Page
Part 1: Statement of Facts
• The Parties……………………………………………………………………..5
• The Plaintiffs and their personal facts…………………………………………5
• The Defendants…………………………………………………………….....82
• THE FACTS………………………………………………………………………..85
A/ “COVID 19” THE TIMELINE………………………………………………...85
B/ THE COVID-19 MEASURES

• Federal measures…………………………………………………………..103
• Provincial measures…………………………………………………….....104
B-1-843
- 0834 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-844 B-1-844
Page
• Orders of Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry…………………………105
• Ministerial Orders……………………………………………………………106
• Reckless and Unlawful Statements and Actions of Leaders………………...114
C/ IGNORING AND FAILING TO ADDRESS MEDICAL

EXPERTS’ EVIDENCE
• The Nature of Viral Respiratory Illness (or Disease) and COVID-19……….122
• Contrary Views of the Experts to WHO protocol……………………………125
• Covid measures worse than virus…………………………………………….148
D/ THE SCIENCE & MEDICINE OF COVID-19

• Summary (Overview)……………………………………………………...…160
• The Covid -Measures Unscientific, Non-Medical,
Ineffective, and Extreme…………………………………………………..…162
E/ HYPER – INFLATED, DISTORDETED TOTAL

NUMBER OF CV-19 “CASES” & “DEATHS”………………………………….180
F/ GLOBAL POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AGENDA

BEHIND UNWARRANTED MEASURES
• The Non-Medical measures and Aims of The Declared
• Pandemic- The Global Agenda………………………………………….…...188
• Bill Gates- Vaccines, Pharmaceuticals & Technology…………………..…...211
• The WHO / Gates/ Trudeau and Dr. Teresa Tam………………………….....212
• Dr. Bonnie HENRY – Vaccines and the WHO……………………………....244
G/ CONSEQUENCES OF MEASURES TO THE PLAINTIFFS

AND OTHER CITIZENS, AND VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS……………………………………………………247
H/ THE COVID-19 VACCINE- “WE DO NOT GET

BACK TO NORMAL UNTIL WE HAVE A VACCINE”……………………......255
• Microchipping /Immunity Passports/ Social Contact
Vaccine Surveillance & 5G……………………………………………….…...259
• Authorized COVID “Vaccines”…………………………………………..…...261
• Vaccines in General………………………………………………………..….290
I/ THE MEDIA……………………………………………………………………….303
• Negligence…………………………………………………………………….304
B-1-844
- 0835 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-845 B-1-845
Page
J/SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………309
Part 2: Relief Sought………………………………………………………………..312
Part 3: Legal Basis…………………………………………………………………..356
B-1-845
- 0836 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-846 B-1-846
CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF(S)

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
• THE PARTIES
• The Plaintiffs and their personal facts
1. The Plaintiff “Action4Canada”, is a grassroots organization centred in British
Columbia, whose facts, in support of its claim for relief, are as follows:
(a) Action4Canada was co-founded in August of 2019;
(b)The activities of Action4Canada are in direct response to government
legislation that undermines Canada’s Constitution, the Charter, and
Canadian democratic values.
(c) At the onset of 2020, Action4Canada took note of the ongoing emergency
measures that were being enacted in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Many concerned citizens reached out to Action4Canada, to voice the
hardships they faced due to these measures such as loss of job/income,
business closures, school closures, and the re-scheduling of emergency
surgeries. Action4Canada stepped up to advocate for those concerned
citizens, and has continued to listen to their pleas, and find ways to take
action for them.
(d)Action4Canada advocates, educates and takes action in pursuit of
upholding the Rule of Law, the Constitution and democratic governance in
accordance with Canada’s constitutional order and the Rule of Law.
B-1-846
- 0837 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-847 B-1-847
2. The Plaintiffs Kimberly Woolman (“Kimberly”), The Estate of Jaqueline
Woolman (“Jaqueline”) are residents of British Columbia, whose facts, in support
of their claim for relief, and who have suffered actionable damages directly as a
result of the Covid measures imposed and enforced by, and on behalf of the named
Defendants, are as follows:
(a) Kimberly is the adult daughter of Jaqueline Woolman, who passed away
on January 30th, 2021. Jaqueline’s eldest daughter passed away in August
2005, and her husband passed away in July 2011. Kimberly moved to
British Columbia from Ontario to help take care of their mother, who had
developed dementia in or about 2018.
(b) Jaqueline’s remaining three (3) grown children, Sheldon, Kimberly and
Michelle all lived within a few blocks of Jacqueline’s Long-term care
residences: New Horizons (Discovery Harbour), and eventually Yucalta
Lodge both located in Campbell River, British Columbia.
(c) Once diagnosed with dementia, a decision was made in April 2019 to have
her placed in a private long-term care, at New Horizons (Discovery
Harbour) on 850 14th Avenue, in Campbell River, British Columbia. The
decision came after Jaqueline had experienced two (2) falls, and two (2)
hip surgeries on both hips, the first fall and surgery took place in
December 2017, and in January 2018 she has her second fall, while in the
New Horizons care home, and her surgery was also in January of 2018.
B-1-847
- 0838 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-848 B-1-848
(d) Kimberly and Michelle had many issues with New Horizons for
advocating for their mother’s health, and on April 4th, 2019 they were
banned without explanation from visiting Jacqueline.
(e) After multiple complaints filed against New Horizons care home by
Kimberly and her siblings with regards to Jaqueline’s care, punitive
restrictions were put in place by the home. As a result of those restrictions,
the children had Jacqueline transferred to a different care home, Yucalta
Lodge, which operates as a public (publicly-funded) under the Vancouver
Island Health Authority at 555 2nd Ave, Campbell River, British Columbia
in early 2019. Jacqueline’s transfer to the Yucalta Lodge facility was
completed in May 2019, with Michelle’s assistance through her work
connections as the scheduler at a social work office.
(f) In May 2019, upon completion of Jaqueline’s transfer, Jae Yon Jones, the
manager at Yucalta Lodge, constantly changed the rules, contradicted
herself and outright lied about many issues brought forth by Kimberly and
her siblings in relation to their mother. Kimberly and her siblings tried to
resolve these issues in many meetings, to no avail. These issues went on to
persist, and only became amplified by the Covid-19 restrictions put in
place in 2020.
(g) Sometime in 2019, Jaqueline’s doctor approved allowable alcohol shots to
manage her pain. By March 2020, Nursing staff were not offering
Jaqueline any alcohol, without any medical reason as to why. A decision

7
B-1-848
- 0839 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-849 B-1-849
was made after the Covid-19 pandemic began, to put Jaqueline on fentanyl,
which was later increased from 25mcg to 37.5mcg. however Jaqueline was
no longer asking for any alcohol at that point because she would become
too sedated. Similarly, also in March of 2020, the staff at Yucalta Lodge
forced Jaqueline to quit smoking, a habit that helped her remain calm, by
administering a nicotine patch for Jaqueline, without the consent of
Michelle and Kimberly.
(h) Jaqueline was left to waste away in bed, obtaining bed sores as a result of
staff removing her access to her wheelchair, which in turn resulted in
muscle atrophy.
(i) On April 24th, 2020 Kimberly visited the Yucalta Lodge to take her mother
supplies as she had done on numerous occasions. Kimberly was stopped at
the door by staff who informed her that she could not enter due to newly
implemented Covid-19 restrictions. Kimberly pulled up documentation on
her phone that stated she could enter, as she did not understand what the
security measures were about. The Director, Jae Yon Jones took the phone
from Kimberly’s hand, informing her that she could not come in. Kimberly
decided to leave the items for her mother, and was told that the items
would have to be “quarantined” for a few days.
(j) After the interaction that took place on April 24th, 2020, Kimberly went to
visit her mother from outside of her room’s window. There were two (2)
nurses inside with Jaqueline, without any PPE equipment on. Kimberly
8
B-1-849
- 0840 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-850 B-1-850
was confused, as she had thought that the new measures had mandated that
PPE equipment was necessary in all spaces at the time. Kimberly decided
to take a picture, to document the nurses at Yucalta Lodge failing to follow
Provincial health mandates, while denying entry to concerned family
members such as herself. As Kimberly was outside the window, many staff
members passed by, and one staff member took a photo of her license plate
as she entered her car.
(k) On April 24th, 2020, after Kimberly had left the Yucalta Lodge premises,
and returned home, the police began banging on Kimberly’s apartment
door. This lasted for about five (5) or ten (10) minutes. Kimberly was
terrified they were going to break the door down. The Police officers then
circled the building in their car, and drove past her apartment several times
before leaving. They returned several times, over the course of several
days either in their cruisers around the parking lot outside of Kimberly’s
apartment, or banging on the inside apartment door, again without notice,
and without identifying themselves. Kimberly was distraught that the
someone from Yucalta Lodge may have notified the police that she had
purportedly defied their Covid-19 policies.
(l) On April 29th, 2020, Kimberly posted the photo of her mother, Jaqueline
in her room with the two (2) nurses who had no PPE-equipment to her
Facebook page, and was subsequently asked to remove it by the Yucalta
Lodge staff. As a result of the photo on Kimberly’s Facebook page, she

9
B-1-850
- 0841 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-851 B-1-851
was informed that she could no longer attend at Yucalta Lodge property.
Yucalta Lodge alleged that Kimberly, and Jaqueline’s entire family were
security threats to staff safety. Kimberly was told all calls to her mother
would go through management. At that time, the Manager also assured
Kimberly that when her visitation restrictions were removed, she would be
notified. They were later removed in May of 2020, and no one in the
family was notified.
(m) After the visits stopped in April of 2020, Jaqueline was calling Kimberly
and Michelle constantly, while having breakdowns. She was often found
trying to leave the building, thinking she could go to the airport or other
places in her state of dementia.
(n) In June of 2020, Kimberly was on a zoom call with her mother when the
activities-worker entered the room with Jaqueline wearing a mask.
Kimberly commented to Jaqueline on how the efficacy of masks was
questionable when it came to the prevention of the spread of viruses.
Shortly afterwards, Michelle received a letter dated June 12th, 2020 from
Jae Yon Jones, Manager outlining her ‘disrespectful behaviour’, despite
Michelle not even being on the zoom call in question. Michelle was then
informed that all zoom sessions had been cancelled, and she was no longer
allowed on Yucalta Lodge property, including anywhere near Jacqueline’s
window.
10
B-1-851
- 0842 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-852 B-1-852
(o) From June 12th, 2020 onwards, Michelle, and Kimberly’s calls to the
nurses phone on the unit to speak with their mother were repeatedly
denied, and staff told them that they had to go through the manager or
social worker to speak with their own mother. Yucalta Lodge staff
consistently failed to answer the questions posed by Jaqueline’s children as
to whether or not the process that they had to go through in order to speak
to their mother was standard protocol for all clients, or a sanction placed
on their family alone.
(p) Sometime in June 2020, Jacqueline’s son Sheldon went to Yucalta Lodge
to see his mother and was confronted with security guards as if he were a
threat. He was also told that he was not allowed in the building and later
the Manager confirmed that he too was now banned from the property.
This was only the second time during Jacqueline’s entire stay at Yucalta
Lodge that he was ever there to see here in person.
(q) On June 15th, 2020, Kimberly and Michelle received another written notice
that all Zoom visits were cancelled, and told to direct all issues regarding
Jacqueline’s health to her Doctor. Michelle replied to this email notice by
asking what the reason for the cancellation was, and if all resident’s zoom
sessions were cancelled. This question was never answered, or addressed
in any manner. Instead, Michelle received a letter detailing her
“disrespectful behaviour” towards all staff by simply asking questions.
Michelle was told to not be present on the property. At that point, all three
11
B-1-852
- 0843 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-853 B-1-853
(3) of Jacqueline’s children had been banned arbitrarily without cause,
from the physical property, in addition to being banned via phone and
zoom calls.
(r) On July 3rd, 2020 Kimberly and Michelle found out that visits had been re-
instated since May 2020 and they had not been notified. Yucalta Lodge
had two (2) full months to notify the children that they could have been
seeing their mother despite being previously assured that they would be
notified when they could see their mother again. Kimberly had, at the time
spoken to a new care-worker who was very kind, and obliged their requests
to take their mother out for drives and informed them that other clients
were having visits from their family members. The odd time that Kimberly
and Michelle were able to try to talk to their mother, the new care-worker
would be the one to answer the phone. They never stopped calling to try to
talk to their mother.
(s) On July 10th, 2020 Yucalta Lodge claimed the new nurse was misinformed.
By July 13th, 2020 the children were informed that they could only have
‘supervised’ visits with their own mother, although they only allowed
Michelle to do so. All sorts of harsh conditions were laid out for the visits
such as “social distancing in a car”, wearing masks at all times, and 14-day
“quarantines”. Michelle began being followed by the staff when she would
pick up Jaqueline, and so she would often have to drive to remote locations
12
B-1-853
- 0844 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-854 B-1-854
to meet Jaqueline’s son, Sheldon, and Kimberly so that they could see their
own mother without the surveillance of the Yucalta Lodge staff.
(t) In one instance, Michelle picked up her mother with her mask that had
horizontal slits to breathe and not fog up her glasses on. This was
subsequently reported to the director Mae Jon Jones as Michelle having
“holes” in her mask, and the punitive action for that was another fourteen
(14)-day quarantine for Jacqueline. The same care worker who dropped
off Jaqueline to Michelle had the same gaps on the sides of her face and
nose.
(u) Several times, Jacqueline had been prepared for the outings with soiled
briefs, despite Michelle making constant reminders to staff prior to picking
her up, it persisted.
(v) Staff workers were bringing Jacqueline to Michelle’s car in her chair until
sometime in July 2020, when she was delivered by two (2) or more
security staff. This was another tactic by the manager to convey that there
is something dangerous about Jacqueline’s family, specifically Michelle as
they decried that only Michelle was allowed to pick up her mother, and
indeed see her during these drives. When Michelle pulled in to pick up
Jacqueline, security staff were observed coming from another location
outside, likely sent to intimidate her.
13
B-1-854
- 0845 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-855 B-1-855
(w) On July 14th, 2020 Jacqueline’s son, Sheldon called Yucalta Lodge to talk
to Jaqueline, and his call was denied. He was told that he would have to go
through the Manager to seek approval for his phone call.
(x) On September 3rd, 2020 Michelle called the Yucalta nurses’ phone, as
directed to talk to her mother, and was denied three (3) times. The first
time she was told that she had to call the Manager, or head nurse and then
was told not to call again. She called called back anyway, and was
transferred to Louise Smith, the head Registered Nurse, who told her that
she could not talk to her mother without the Manager’s approval. Michelle
repeatedly asked if this is the policy for all clients and family members, to
which she was given a repetition of the “policy” as an answer.
(y) On September 14th, 2020 Michelle sent a notice that she would be stopping
payment for Jaqueline’s care if her Rights were not respected, including her
ceasing restriction of family members visiting with her in person and on the
phone. No response to this notice was ever received.
(z) September 19th, 2020 Michelle went to pick up Jacqueline. Jaqueline’s
birthday is September 21st, and so they had planned to celebrate at
Michelle’s house, alongside Kimberly. When Michelle presented to pick
up Jacqueline, she was slumped in her chair, could not move her feet/legs
at all on her own. Michelle was unable to transfer Jacqueline to the car
without hurting her. The security guards kept watch the entire time and
when asked to help, refused to do so. Michelle asked staff workers leaving
14
B-1-855
- 0846 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-856 B-1-856
the building for help, they too refused her. Michelle called her brother
Sheldon for help, but he did not answer his phone. Jacqueline was in a
great deal of pain, and could hardly express herself. As a result, Jaqueline
was unable to go home to celebrate her birthday with her family but was
returned into the home by the security guards who refused to assist her to
get into her daughters’ car.
(aa) On September 21st, 2020, Jacqueline’s birthday, Michelle called and spoke
with a person named “Melissa” asking to speak to her mother, and was told
that she had to go through Manager’s, Ms. Jones. Her call to Ms. Jones was
denied.
(bb) On September 22nd, 2020, Michelle called the Vancouver Island Health
Authority complaint line and spoke with a person named “Sophia” who
sounded very surprised by the Manager, and other staff’s behaviour. She
then provided the process to file a formal claim against Yucalta Lodge with
the Vancouver Island Health Authority, which Michelle did.
(cc) In October of 2020, due to Jacqueline’s decline in health and threat of
death, the family managed to schedule a visit in Jacqueline’s room with her.
This included Sheldon, Kimberly and Michelle. More rules were set in place,
and the threat of this visit being cancelled was constantly put forth to the
children. They all felt that it might be the last time they would see their
mother alive. They agreed to washing their hands, masks, and a
questionnaire. They would not agree to their temperatures being taken.

15
B-1-856
- 0847 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-857 B-1-857
Kimberly’s temperature goes up when she was in pain, as the result of a car
accident, and Michelle was at the end of menopause. Kimberly and
Michelle’s requested were obliged, and they were escorted to Jaqueline’s
room by the Social Worker, and a security guard as they were a perceived
threat within the facility.
(dd) They noticed on their way out after the visit, that several staff members
were sitting around a table talking, and none of them were wearing masks, or
gloves.
(ee) Sometime later in October of 2020, the children noticed during Zoom
sessions that Jacqueline’s wheel chair was not beside her bed. Their belief
was that this had been the case since they had stopped them from going in to
see Jaqueline in March, 2020, which lead to her experiencing muscle
atrophy. The children further believe, that they removed access to her
wheelchair to deliberately cause atrophy in her muscles so that she could no
longer move around independently, around the same time that they took her
smoking rights away.
(ff) Throughout November, and December 2020, the children were able to have
Zoom visits at request to the Social Worker. The last two (2) visits included
an automatic timer of forty (40) minutes which cut the meeting off
automatically.
(gg) During the Zoom call of December 10th, 2020 Michelle asked the operator
click to allow for recording, and she obliged this request. Michelle also
16
B-1-857
- 0848 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-858 B-1-858
asked her why there was a timer, and she stated that they have always been
forty (40) minutes. This was not true, as they have visited on Zoom with
their mother for an hour or more during past zoom calls.
(hh) Jacqueline’s rapid decline could easily be seen and heard in pictures and
audio/video recordings, and had seen an increase since the covid-19 related
measures began.
(ii) From February 20th, 2020 until her death on January 30th, 2021, the children
clearly discerned that her cognitive abilities and speech were in major
decline due to the lack of any stimulation, increases in medication,
hopelessness, helplessness, depression, and despair in missing her family.
Jacqueline always expressed to her children how thankful she was for her
children, and constantly said she did not know what she would do without
them every time they talked to her before she became completely sedated
due to the drugs she was being prescribed.
(jj) Jacqueline was cut off from all her friends and family in Ontario, as none
of them have been able to get through to her since at least March 2020.
She had been isolated completely and treated even worse than prisoners
in solitary confinement. Toward the end, Jaqueline was unable to hold up
the phone to speak with her own children.
(kk) Jaqueline’s condition became grave, as both staff and her doctor admitted,
yet Michelle and Kimberly were not allowed to be with her throughout her
final days.
17
B-1-858
- 0849 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-859 B-1-859
(ll) Other residents of the care home were able to engage with their families
without having security surrounding them, and without having to have their
phone calls cleared by management.
(mm) Following each car outing Michelle and Kimberly had with their mother,
she would not be allowed out for another fourteen (14) days. In prison,
even people in solitary are allowed out for an hour a day for fresh oxygen.
Jacqueline was only getting out for approximately one (1) hour every
fourteen (14) days, and by that point, she had not been outside since
September 19th, 2020.
(nn) On December 21, 2020 the family made arrangements with Chris
MacDonald (social worker) for several zoom sessions with their mother
over Christmas holidays, while he was to be off work.
(oo) On December 22, 2021 Kimberly and Michelle had a zoom session with
Jacqueline during which, Jacqueline complained of ‘chest pain’. Michelle
called for a worker to tend to her. One worker came rather quickly, and
was told Jacqueline is having chest pain. After 28 minutes another came in
with antacids. At no time was indigestion mentioned. Kimberly and
Michelle asked why antacid and why no one is checking any of
Jacqueline’s vital signs. The second ‘care worker’ walked out of the room.
Shortly after that, Jacqueline was crying and the timer on the Zoom
meeting cut the session. The timers were new. Previously there was no
18
B-1-859
- 0850 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-860 B-1-860
timer and they talked with their mother for an hour; sometimes more each
time. The timers were punitive.
(pp) On December 24th, 2020, as a punitive measure to the Dec 22nd zoom call,
all previously arranged Zoom calls were cancelled. Again, all phone calls
were either ignored, or staff continued to tell Kimberly, Michelle, and
Sheldon that they could not talk to their own mother due to the ‘Safety Plan’.
(qq) Sheldon spoke with a staff member named Joanne, and asked her if she
would put on the film “Scrooge, A Christmas Carol” for Jacqueline that
night as it is family tradition to watch the film around Christmas. She
agreed and when Sheldon asked to speak with Jacqueline he was told he as
to talk with the manager or social worker, none of whom were in the office
for at least a week. He was denied again. Joanne then agreed to set up a
phone call for the children with their mother on Christmas Day.
(rr) On December 25th, 2020 there was no call from Yuculta Lodge so the
children called repeatedly later in the day to wish their mother a ‘Merry
Christmas’. They were denied again, and the “Safety Plan” was the excuse
provided by Yuculta Lodge. They were again told that they could only talk
to their mother with management’s permission, none of which were
available for at least a week.
(ss) On December 31, 2020, Michelle requested (FOIA) a hard copy of the
“Safety Plan” that since June, 2020, all staff stated was the reason no one
could communicate with Jacqueline Woolman on the phone. Family

19
B-1-860
- 0851 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-861 B-1-861
questioned staff repeatedly asking what the safety plan has to do with the
children speaking with their mother. They never answered, only
continually referred to the “Safety Plan” as the reason they wouldn’t put
any of our or other family and friend’s calls through to Jacqueline.
(tt) On January 13th and 14th, 2021 Michelle called the Social Worker as
directed to speak with her mother, and left messages. Both went to voice
mail, none were returned. All through this time, the family tried
desperately to speak with their mother. All calls were DENIED claiming
orders per the ‘Safety Plan’, or ignored and sent to voice mail with no
returned calls.
(uu) On January 20, 2021 Michelle Woolman received a written response
(Request ID: 29609074) to her FOIA request for the Safety Plan. A copy of
the “Safety Plan” has to date, never been received. This letter states in part;
“They (Yuculta) have advised me that they follow the Island Health’s Safety
Plan and that there is no written plan in regards to the family.” This legal
document confirms, since June, 2020 until Jacqueline’s death, six (6) months
later the staff lied about the contents of the safety plan.
(vv) On January 21, 2020, at approximately 1:00 p.m. Michelle received an
email from Philip Friesen (approximately 300 kms away) stating in part; “I
would like to ask that you no longer directly contact the Yucalta site by
telephone and email, and no longer consider Chris MacDonald as your point
of contact.” Mr. MacDonald, the family’s ‘designated contact’ at the time to

20
B-1-861
- 0852 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-862 B-1-862
speak with their mother, had been ignoring all of our calls and requests to
talk to their mother. Mr. Friesen offered to set up regular zoom visits for
Wednesdays at 10:00a.m.. The very next morning, Michelle received a call
that Jacqueline Woolman was palliative. Jacqueline was palliative and non-
communicative at that time of Mr. Friesen’s email and beforehand for 2
days.
(ww) On January 22, 2021at 09:39 a.m., Michelle received a call from “Greg” at
Yuculta informing her “your mom has taken a bit of a turn, so she’s
palliative now, ah, she hasn’t been eating for a couple of days”. He directed
Michelle to call Philip Friesen (Director in Victoria, BC) to set up visits.
Michelle asked Greg to take the phone to Jacqueline and place at her ear so
she could hear Michelle’s voice. Frist, he claimed he couldn’t because he
was not on a remote phone. Then Michelle asked him to call back on the
portable phone and he refused to do so.
(xx) Michelle made arrangements with the Director in Victoria for 1:00 p.m. hrs
for all three (3) adult children to visit their mother that same day. Sheldon,
Kimberly and Michelle all attended and were escorted by security to
Jacqueline’s room.
(yy) The first thing they noticed was her two (2) wing back chairs had been
removed. Then they noticed there were no liquids for her anywhere in the
room. When staff brought back the chairs, they were asked why Jacqueline
wasn’t getting any fluids. They replied that they offer them and she
21
B-1-862
- 0853 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-863 B-1-863
declines, then said “she has to ask for them.” The children informed the
staff ‘she can’t ask’, as she couldn’t speak. Jacqueline was non-
communicative. Staff refused to accommodate her need for hydration and
walked out of the room as they always did.
(zz) Michelle then asked the security guard who was sitting outside
Jacqueline’s door, if he would ask for some swabs and cups. He did so
immediately and they began swabbing Jacqueline’s mouth with water. After
a short time Jacqueline began to respond and perked up a little bit. She
recognized who they were and they even got her to smile a few times.
Family stayed for just over an hour. While there, family noticed they stuffed
a picture of Jaqueline’s husband (married 52 years until his passing) in a
drawer where she couldn’t see it, and a 64 year old picture of her father that
was on the wall in a frame was removed from the frame and had been
deliberately folded (ruined) and bent. The frame and glass were intact. It had
not fallen from the wall.
(aaa) After Jaqueline’s children’s visit, on their way out at the lobby, the
Manager, Ms. Jae Yon Jones was there and Sheldon asked her (holding up
the ruined 64 year old picture of our grandfather) ‘Who did this?”. He was
not physically close to her (at least 25 feet) and he was not threatening. She
did not answer the question and turned to walk to her office calling the
police as she did so.
22
B-1-863
- 0854 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-864 B-1-864
(bbb)On January 30th, 2021 Jaqueline died. Michelle had to make arrangements
through the Director in Victoria for pick up of the now late Jacqueline’s
belongings. Michelle was told no family member was permitted on the
property and to arrange for someone else to attend. Mr. Friesen then offered
to hire a moving company to which Michelle replied she had already made
arrangements with a family friend to do the task. Then the (interim)
Manager, Yuculta, Chris MacDonald (the ‘social worker’ beforehand)
insisted on a moving company to do so. Michelle informed him she already
had a contract with Mr. Friesen (offer, consideration, acceptance) and that he
would be held accountable if he did not allow access to the family friend.
(ccc) The Covid-19 measures while purportedly having the intention of
increasing safety, actually had an adverse reaction on Jaqueline’s health,
rapidly increasing her decline, and eventual death. Kimberly, Michelle, and
Jaqueline’s estate seek relief against the Vancouver Island Health Authority
for the undue hardship that Jaqueline faced as a result of their enactment of
Covid-19 measures that saw her treated like a prisoner.
(ddd)The children were not able to hold a proper funeral with other family
members to give their last respects as is tradition. There was no proper
grieving and healing for Jaqueline’s death. No proper funeral, or ceremony.
Jaqueline’s treatment resulted not only in pain and suffering, and mental
distress to Jaqueline but also to her children in suffering trauma and severe
depression as a result. All of Jacqueline’s adult children have been

23
B-1-864
- 0855 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-865 B-1-865
traumatized by treatment Jacqueline suffered in both facilities; especially
Yuculta Lodge.
3. The Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 (“Jane”), is a resident of British Columbia, whose facts,
in support of her claim for relief, and who has suffered actionable damages
directly as a result of the Covid measures imposed and enforced by, and on behalf
of the named Defendants, are as follows:
(a) Jane is a Nurse Aid in the Luther Court long-term care home for seniors,
located in Victoria, British Columbia and has expressed deep-seated
concerns with regards to the ill-treatment of her care home clients.
(b) Jane has witnessed clients live in an abusive, patronizing, and stressful
environment. As seniors having to make a big adjustment to accommodate
Covid-measures, they often forget to comply with masking mandates. It is
during those moments that Jane has witnessed them being policed and
abused for such “mistakes”.
(c) Jane is also quite concerned for her own health, as she noted that Bonnie
Henry, who has previously been supportive of Nurses Unions, shared
sentiments that Nurses should not be in the profession unless they
vaccinate. Jane is distressed by such coercive statements, which violate her
constitutional rights.
(d) Jane has also asked the British Columbia Health Authority to provide an
FOI on a request for the arbitration that Bonnie Henry signed on in 2019
24
B-1-865
- 0856 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-866 B-1-866
stating, in support of the Nurses Union, that masks are useless. However,
the Health Authority has refused to oblige this request.
(e) The Plaintiff states, and the fact is that, the measures enacted by British
Columbia Chief Medical Officer Bonnie Henry, has created a stressful
environment for many like Jane, who have watched the Long-term care
system become similar to a jail/prison. Jane feels concern not only for
herself, but also for her clients. The measures failed to uphold health and
safety for seniors and in fact the measures have led to deplorable
conditions which in fact have caused and/or accelerated the untimely and
premature deaths of many seniors.
(f) The Plaintiff, Jane Doe #1, does not wish to reveal her identity for fear of
reprisal, and dismissal, by her employer.
4. The Plaintiff(s) Amy Muranetz and Brian Edgar are residents of British
Columbia, whose facts, in support of their claim for relief, and who has suffered
actionable damages directly as a result of the Covid measures imposed and
enforced by, and on behalf of the named Defendants, with respect to using the
B.C. Ferries Inc. transportation system are as follows:
(a) Amy Muranetz (“Amy”) is a Victoria, British Columbia resident and
mother, who shares custody of her daughter with her daughter’s father,
who resides in Delta, British Columbia. As such, Amy has been using the
British Columbia Ferries every other week for the past four-and-a-half
(4.5) years as she shares joint custody of her daughter.

25
B-1-866
- 0857 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-867 B-1-867
(b) On November 2nd, 2020 Amy had an incident on British Columbia Ferries
that left her distressed. She was, and is currently living on Vancouver
Island, and boarded the ferry at 5:00 p.m. at the Swartz Bay terminal to
Tsawwassen terminal, as a walk-on passenger with her daughter. Amy
made her medical exemption to masking known to the reception, and was
let through with her daughter. Once aboard the ferry, Amy purchased her
return ticket for 7:00 p.m. from the gift shop.
(c) As Amy began to board the ferry at the Tsawwassen terminal reception
desk, to make her way back home, she was stopped by the ticket seller who
asked her where her mask was. In reply, Amy stated her medical
exemption. She was then asked where her medical documentation of such
was, but Amy did not have any documents to show on her, as none are
required. The ticket seller proceeded to threaten Amy, stating that she
would not be allowed on the ferry. Amy simply continued on through the
gateway.
(d) After making her way onto the ferry, Amy was stopped on the front bow of
the ship by five (5) British Columbia ferries employees, and the Chief
Steward, who stated that Amy would not be let on to the ferry. Amy
proceeded to share personal, and confidential medical information in
response, to indicate proof of her medical exemption, however the British
Columbia ferries employees then proceeded to threaten her with force.
Amy was escorted off the bow by security. Brittany Sylvester, the terminal
26
B-1-867
- 0858 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-868 B-1-868
manager at Tsawwassen Ferry, escorted Amy down to the main waiting
area. Amy broke down as a result of the traumatic, and embarrassing
experience that she had just gone through.
(e) A first aid attendant employee came to Amy’s assistant, as she was having
trouble breathing, and began having PTSD flashbacks to being four (4)
years old, and remembering dealing with a very aggressive sexual attack.
The first aid attendant assured her that they would get her home on the
9:00 p.m. ferry, however he also asked if Amy could hold a mask up to her
mouth, and suggested that they could, perhaps, smuggle her via a van onto
the ferry. Amy recorded this interaction.
(f) Amy continued to be pressured to leave the premises, although she had no
place to go if she did. Amy was repeatedly asked where she was going to
go, and she continued to cry, and plead that they stop pressuring her.
(g) It was then suggested to Amy by the first aid attendant that perhaps the
main ticket agent who initially threatened her, had stereo-typed her as an
‘anti-masker’. Brittany, the manager then argued with him, stating “no, she
wasn’t stereo-typing, she was doing her job”. Brittney then began to ask
Amy if she had been asked about masks before, and Amy informed her
that she would be recording their conversation. Brittney then ordered the
first aid attendant to leave Amy’s side and demanded that all staff leave the
area. Amy was then informed that Brittney would be calling the police.
27
B-1-868
- 0859 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-869 B-1-869
(h) As the room emptied, Amy was left by herself as police arrived on the
scene. The Delta police officers then proceeded to drive her to a Tim
Horton’s coffee shop in Tsawwassen, and left her there. Amy then called a
cab to her daughter’s father’s house. Amy filmed the entire incident, as she
was quite distraught by their conduct.
(i) The following morning, November 3rd, 2020, Amy found a local clinic that
provided over-the-phone consultations. The clinic emailed Amy a letter
stating that, as she suffers from anxiety/Post-traumatic stress disorder, the
British Columbia Ferries must take that into consideration with regards to
her masking exemption.
(j) On November 4th, Amy returned to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal with the
intention of returning home. She purchased a ticket at the ticket ATM, and
was asked by reception about where her mask was. Amy simply stated that
she had an exemption, and, when asked if she had a letter, did not hesitate
to produce the one she had procured from the clinic the previous day. The
receptionist asked Amy if she had a mask on her person, which she did,
and then they let her go through.
(k) At approximately 11:10 a.m., Amy was in the BC Ferries cafeteria, and
just about to eat a salad when Brittney, the terminal manager approached
her. Brittney stated, “you know why I’m here”. Amy simply replied by
noting that she had a letter, and was more than willing to show Brittney
that letter, however Brittney stated that Amy would need to exit the ship
28
B-1-869
- 0860 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-870 B-1-870
before she would read her letter. Amy declined, and told Brittney she could
read it then, and there, however Brittney refused this suggestion, and that is
when Amy began recording the interaction. Brittney then stated that the
ferry would not leave the harbour so long as Amy was on it, and that she
was calling security. Amy asked why, as she had been more than willing to
produce her medical exemption letter, to which Brittney replied that she
was now banned from travelling due to what had “happened the other
day”.
(l) Brittney left Amy for a few minutes, as about five (5) or six (6) security
guards and employees began to gather, and two (2) Delta Police
Department Officers arrived. Amy produced her letter to the police, and
although they appeared just as confused as she was, they asked her to leave
the vessel.
(m) Amy quietly stood up and, was escorted off of the ferry. She then asked
Brittney to refund her trip. The two (2) police officers escorted Amy to a
car, where one drove her to her ex’s home. To date, British Columbia
Ferries employees have made no further note about Amy being able to
return home to her city, and life. She is under great distress, although she
has gone to great lengths to prove that she has a masking exemption. As a
result of the Defendants’ abusive and illegal conduct, she has suffered
damages in mental distress, anxiety and violations to her constitutional
rights.
29
B-1-870
- 0861 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-871 B-1-871
5. Brian Edgar is a resident of Mill Bay, British Columbia.
(a) Brian travelled from Departure Bay, Nanaimo on the 8:25AM ferry scheduled
to travel to Horseshoe Bay on October 17th, 2020. Brian, and his friend Karla
arrived at the terminal, and paid for their vehicle, and themselves. They then
parked in the vehicle waiting area. They walked out of the area to look for
some friends in long-term parking who were coming with them. They were
travelling to Vancouver.
(b) They arrived on deck five (5) and started walking to the back of the boat,
passing the Chief Steward’s office, and just as they walked by, a man came out
and told them masks are mandatory on board, and that if they did not want to
wear them they would have to go upstairs onto the outer decks. It was clear
that most of the people in that area were not wearing masks and anyone who
was wearing a mask was very well distanced from the group not wearing
masks. Because of this situation, Brian felt it was a good place to be without
infringing on anyone so he joined the group and remained there until it was
time to return to the vehicle.
(c) While on board a couple things occurred that Brian was not witness to. One
was that one of his new friends returned from the bathroom with her two (2)
year old daughter and said that another passenger had stood in front of her
blocking her passage back to where their group was seated. The other
passenger told her she had to wear a mask. There was more interaction
verbally and other passengers were commenting as well. As she got past the
30
B-1-871
- 0862 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-872 B-1-872
individual blocking her passage, someone yelled out “your baby is f***ed”.
Her baby heard all of this. Shortly before returning to the car, Brian was told
that RCMP had been called to meet the ship because of something that had
happened on board.
(d) Brian returned to the car and waited to disembark. Shortly thereafter, the boat
docked but the unloading did not begin. Brian recalls being held on board for
approximately twenty (20) minutes before cars were allowed to disembark.
During that time, Brian could see there were people with dogs (presumably
RCMP) and others that appeared to be police or security.
(e) When they were allowed to disembark, they were guided out of the flow of
traffic and brought to a halt in front of the traffic that was waiting to board the
ferry. They were detained there for fifteen (15)- twenty (20) minutes. An
RCMP officer and a BC Ferries employee approached them. The Officer asked
Karla to produce her License, which she did. The rest of the group were asked
for ID, and declined. They were then notified that somehow they had gathered
information, which indicated that their group was connected to some incident
that had occurred on board and that they were being banned from further
travel aboard any British Columbia Ferries vessel for the rest of that day.
(f) They expressed that they had plans to return home that evening and had done
nothing wrong and had been involved with no incidents aboard the vessel.
Karla let them know that she had remained in her vehicle for the duration of
the ferry ride. They were informed that as a private service British Columbia
31
B-1-872
- 0863 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-873 B-1-873
Ferries had the right to ban them from travel for the day, as British Columbia
Ferry Services Inc., operating as BC Ferries (BCF), is a former provincial
Crown corporation, now operating as an independently managed, publicly
owned Canadian company. The RCMP officer returned Karla’s license and
they were allowed to drive away, feeling both confused, and inconvenienced
by this interaction with British Columbia ferries.
(g) The BC Ferries is realistically the only daily or regular means of travel from
the Islands to the mainland and therefore an essential service fir B.C. residents
and BC Ferries is abusing its authority and not applying the law. The
responsible minister, in omitting to properly regulate this abuse is violating
these platintiff’s s.7 and s.15 Charter rights of the Plaintiffs.
6. The Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 (“Jane”) is a resident of British Columbia, whose facts,
(a) Jane is a nineteen (19)-year old young woman residing in Abbotsford,
British Columbia with her parents.
(b) Jane has fought, and survived through two bouts of cancer, has had her left
leg amputated, has a hearing disability, and is currently experiencing heart
failure.
32
B-1-873
- 0864 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-874 B-1-874
(c) On October 16th, 2020 Jane attended at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver,
British Columbia upon referral from her pediatric oncologist/cardiologist
at Surrey Memorial hospital, due to her experiencing sudden onset of heart
failure.
(d) Upon Jane’s arrival at approximately 10:30 p.m., with her parents, at St.
Paul’s Hospital, they were offered masks which they refused citing their
exemptions, which were honoured without question.
(e) As Jane and her mother transitioned through various meetings with
doctors, and various waiting areas, their mask exemptions continued to be
honoured. Jane’s father was also allowed to continue into the acute ER
ward to join them, all the while having his own masking exemption
honoured in addition to his wife, and daughter’s exemptions.
(f) At approximately 3:30 a.m. on October 17th, 2020 a Dr. Angela M.
approached Jane and her parents to speak with them. Jane clearly outlined
her care needs, including 24/7 parental support and Dr. Angela M.
confirmed that this need would be upheld. Neither Jane, nor either of her
parents wore masks during this entire interaction.
(g) At approximately 5:20 a.m. on October 17th, 2020 an attendant sought out
Jane, and her parents to take them to the room that they would be staying
in, room 5B. Neither Jane, nor either of her parents wore masks during this
interaction.
33
B-1-874
- 0865 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-875 B-1-875
(h) Upon their arrival at 5B, Jane and her parents were approached, and
subsequently attacked by a nurse named Andrea. Andrea attacked Jane by
asking her “Don’t you know we are in a Pandemic? Don’t you care about
people?” Jane simply replied that while she did of course care for others,
she was experiencing heart failure, and as such would not engage in any
action that would increase that risk. Her parents also stated that neither of
them were able to physically tolerate masks, and were as such exempt as
well.
(i) Upon hearing Nurse Andrea’s loud accusations, the individual who was
sharing a room with Jane began to yell out “What is going on out there? Is
someone not wearing a mask? My family has to wear masks? I am afraid,
very afraid.”
(j) Jane, and her parents calmly went on to explain that there was no
provincial, or city-wide mask mandate, and that a requirement to wear a
masks when one is exempt is a violation of the Human Rights Code. Jane,
and her parents also added, that masks produced an anxiety/trauma
response.
(k) Jane, and her parents were then informed that they had to sign a waiver
stating that they were declining service from the hospital, so as to illustrate
that the hospital was waiving all responsibility, and placing that upon Jane
and her family. However, Jane, and her parents were not declining service,
in fact, they were at the hospital seeking care, and treatment for Jane’s
34
B-1-875
- 0866 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-876 B-1-876
heart failure. Jane’s parents explained that not only does her condition
require constant parental supervision, but also that, due to Jane’s hearing
disability, they could not wear masks when communicating with her.
(l) In response to the vast explanation provided by Jane’s parents, even as
their own child experienced heart failure, the nurses handed them a copy of
a document entitled “Essential Visits During COVID-19 Recovery”. Jane’s
parents noted that the document did not, in fact mention anywhere that the
wearing of masks is mandatory. Dr. Angela M. returned to visit the family,
and expressed to them that her hands were tied with regards to hospital
policy.
(m) Jane felt that the situation was compromising her, and placing her at risk.
As such, she asked who else the family could speak with. Dr. Angela M.
said that she would go to speak with her boss, Dr. Pritchard. Unfortunately,
Dr. Pritchard also stated that the masking exemption would not be allowed.
Dr. Angela M. then informed the family that if they could not comply, the
choice was theirs.
(n) As Jane and her family waited in the hallway to speak to an administrator,
they were approached by a nurse named Jodi, who harshly informed them
that they had already been told to wear masks multiple times, and that this
had been documented throughout their stay at the hospital. Jane and her
family noted that they had already spoken to Nurses Andrea, and Sapna,
along with Dr. Angela M. who were all acquainted with their exemptions.
35
B-1-876
- 0867 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-877 B-1-877
(o) Jane and her family were then told that they needed to leave the unit, or
face the threat of security. Nurse Jodi escorted the three to the door of the
unit, and left upon being asked who else the family could speak with.
Nurse Jodi never returned, so Jane’s mother sought her out. Jane’s mother
was again, escorted to the door of the unit by Nurse Jodi, who simply
stated that an individual named Janet Silver was the only person that they
could speak to, but that she was not working at the time, and that she
would not come up to the floor. Nurse Jodi then walked away without
providing any further information by way of documentation, nor orally.
(p) At 7:00 a.m. Jane, and her parents realized they had no choice but to leave
St. Paul’s Hospital, as they had no one else to speak to. Jane and her
parents followed up with the referring physician, Dr. Hoskings, of the
British Columbia Children’s Hospital, however it took days before contact
was achieved.
(q) During that time period, Jane continued to suffer from lack of sleep,
swelling, inability to walk, and overall distress.
(r) Since that time, Jane, and her parents have tried to reason with Wynne
Chui, a clinical nurse specialist, and Dr. Virani of the Heart Function
Clinic. Both individuals work out of St. Paul’s Hospital. Despite their
attempts to appease Jane, and her parent’s requests, it was determined that
Jane would not be able to receive in-patient care in a way that honoured
her exemptions in all circumstances.

36
B-1-877
- 0868 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-878 B-1-878
(s) As a result of this entire situation, Jane, and her parents feel abandoned by
their health-care system. St. Paul’s Hospital negligently placed Jane at risk
of severe heart failure, and as such, Jane and her parents remain scarred,
and anxious as to who, and what system they can rely on for the necessary
care Jane requires going forward.
(t) Since October 2020, Jane has not been able to access medical treatment
through the public health system which is causing her immeasurable pain,
suffering, stress and anxiety as well as endangerment of her very life.
7. The Plaintiff Ilona Zink (“Ilona”) is a resident of British Columbia, whose facts,
(a) Ilona Zink has been investing in her business since the age of sixteen (16)
when she achieved a level one Makeup Artistry Certification. Shortly
thereafter, she went on to attain two (2) additional advanced makeup
diplomas that covered advanced photography, theatrical and film makeup,
aesthetics, hair styling, colour analysis, and nail technician. In addition,
Ilona completed the STAR personality profiling program. By the age of
twenty-four (24), she launched her first salon ‘Ilona’s Aesthetics Inc.’
(b) In 2007, Ilona launched Garrison Studio in the Garrison Crossing,
Chilliwack, British Columbia area. Ilona was generating approximately
$100,000 annually, prior to re-locating to the Okanagan. Upon her move to

37
B-1-878
- 0869 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-879 B-1-879
the Okanagan, she settled into Kelowna, British Columbia, and began
starring in a local makeover show entitled “Garage Makeovers”, in
addition to re-launching the Kelowna location of Garrison Studio.
(c) From 2007, until the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020,
Garrison Studio successfully survived three (3) years of heavy construction
in the area, including 8 months of road closures. Ilona invested into
building the salon from the ground up, including the necessary expenses
such as plumbing, utilities, permits, and all of the salon supplies. The
community was just as enthusiastic about the arrival of Garrison Studio as
Ilona was passionate about it.
(d) When March of 2020 hit, and the Province of British Columbia began
enacting measures that ordered businesses to close, her business was hit
hard. In the entire mall, Ilona’s was the only business that was forced to
close on March 9th, 2020. To make matters worse she was required by mall
management to maintain and upkeep her storefront “daily” as though it
were operating. Ilona witnessed all the other stores in the mall remaining
open and making money while she was forced to stay closed. She was also
informed that any vandalism would not be at the responsibility of mall
management.
(e) In an attempt to keep up with customer service, Ilona forwarded the salon
phone number to her home line. However, over the course of a three (3)-
month period only nine (9) clients ever reached out.

38
B-1-879
- 0870 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-880 B-1-880
(f) Not only did Ilona’s business suffer, but her income as a landlord also
suffered. Her tenant decided that she was not going to pay her any further
rent. The government informed tenants that they did not have to pay rent,
and informed Ilona that she could not evict her to seek a paying tenant.
Thus, neither Ilona’s business, nor the tenant were bringing in any income,
yet she still had a $3000/month payment to shell out for her home as well
as an additional $300/month for property taxes.
(g) As a consequence of the tenant not paying rent, Ilona was put in a
precarious position with the landlord/house financier as she was in a rent to
own contract. Ilona was forced into court proceedings to protect and
uphold her contractual agreement to remain in her home.
(h) When Ilona contacted the government seeking financial support, she was
informed that as a self-employed individual she was ineligible for such
support. She was also ineligible for a business loan, as such a loan required
$50,000+ in staff payroll which does not exist for the type of salon that
Ilona was running.
(i) As a single mother to a 14-year-old daughter, Ilona became overwhelmed
by the simple fact that she was unable to purchase groceries, let alone foot
bills such as rent, utilities, phone, car payments, and many other such
necessary payments. As a result, Ilona’s mental health has suffered
immensely.
39
B-1-880
- 0871 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-881 B-1-881
(j) Ilona was finally able to apply for CERB support payments in late May of
2020, approximately two-and-a-half (2.5) months after she was forced to
close her doors on March 9th, 2020. However, after being closed for only 8
weeks at that point, her business had already suffered irreparable damage.
Ilona had already fallen behind on all necessary payments both business
and personal in nature, and thus, her credit score dropped so low that she
was denied the chance to open up a bank account. Due to falling behind on
internet service provider payments, Ilona has also lost access to her
business email, thus making it difficult for her to collect pertinent
evidence. Now a fifty-seven (57)-year-old woman, Ilona feels that the
government has wiped out everything she has invested in her business, and
by extension, her life since the age of sixteen (16), in a single move with
their highly unjust, and baseless Covid-measure orders.
8. The Plaintiff Federico Fuoco (“Federico”), is a resident of British Columbia,
whose facts, in support of his claim for relief, and who has suffered actionable
damages directly as a result of the Covid measures imposed and enforced by, and
on behalf of the named Defendants, are as follows:
(a) Federico Fuoco is the owner of the restaurant ‘Gusto’, which serves up
authentic Italian food in the centre of downtown Vancouver, British
Columbia, and has been an active restauranteur for the past twenty-one
(21) years. He was also sole shareholder and director of “Fire Productions
40
B-1-881
- 0872 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-882 B-1-882
Limited” and “F2 Productions Inccorporated”, two (2) companies duly
incorporated under the laws of British Columbia which were forced to
cease operation due to the Covid-measures and their enforcement.
(b) Federico lost one of his restaurants, ‘Federico’s Supper Club’ as a result of
the 2020 lockdowns, despite having spent countless dollars on masks for
staff, and safety features within the restaurant. His loss also had a domino
effect on his staff, and as such he is fearful, and anxious of the newer,
stricter measures currently being imposed by Bonnie Henry.
(c) On March 29th, 2021 British Columbia health officer Bonnie Henry
announced that all restaurants must close their indoor services effective
midnight of the following day, March 30th, 2021.
(d) Federico, like countless other restauranteurs in the Province, was caught
completely off-guard by this announcement that was made without prior
consultation or forewarning.
(e) For Federico, this complete lack of consultation by the Bonnie Henry was
reminiscent of the last-minute decision to cut off liquor service at 8:00
p.m. on New Year’s Eve 2020, and with the upcoming Easter holiday, he
had, like many other restauranteurs in the Province, spent thousands of
dollars on food supplies in preparation for the Easter weekend.
(f) Federico chose to remain open, so that both he, himself, and his staff could
continue to gain a livelihood. That all came to an end on Thursday April
1st, 2021 when he was served with a business closure order by his local
41
B-1-882
- 0873 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-883 B-1-883
health inspector, Greg Adamson. Federico was given no prior warning(s),
and at the time he was served with this Closure Order. Federico only had
two customers drinking tea in his restaurant at the time. After serving the
closure order, the health inspector directed his attention to the customers
and employees, harassing them, and instruction them to leave.
(g) Federico complied with the ban on indoor dining, over the Easter long
weekend. He closed as per his annual norm on Good Friday, and Easter
Sunday. On Saturday April 3rd, 2021, he was open in compliance with the
most recent health orders, but in contravention of the Closure Order he was
served with.
(h) At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, April 5th, 2021 Federico found a Business
License Suspension, and Closure Order duct-taped to the glass of his front
door at Gusto restaurant, indicating that the suspension would last until
April 20th, 2021 at minimum.
(i) On Tuesday, April 6th, 2021 Federico received a Liquor License
suspension as “an establishment cannot have a liquor license without a
valid business license in place.” Federico was devastated, as he had already
spent thousands of dollars on renewing all of the licenses related to his
business for the year.
(j) When Federico approached Kathryn Holm, the Vancouver Chief License
inspector if the extension could be reduced, in order to allow him to open
on April 20th, 2021 he was met with flat out hostility. Holm responded by
42
B-1-883
- 0874 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-884 B-1-884
letting Federico know that not only would she not oblige his request, but
she also threatened to extend the closure indefinitely, meaning only the
City Council could override her decision.
(k) Federico has always tried to remain in full compliance with safety
recommendations, and orders from Bonnie Henry for the safety of
everyone, including his staff, however he is adamant that the inequity and
inconsistency of these orders that penalize restaurant owners above others
is completely arbitrarily, negligent, and target the forced closure of only
small, independent businesses in favour of multi-national corporations, and
denies any concept of evenly applied justice. For example, while
customers cannot stand up at Federico’s bar to taste wines, even if socially
distanced, Bonnie Henry has exempted and allowed for people to engage
in wine-tasting at wineries in B.C. This is obviously because Bonnie Henry
owns a winery.
9. The Plaintiff Valerie Ann Foley (“Valerie Ann”), is a resident of British
Columbia, whose facts, in support of her claim for relief, and who has suffered
enforced by, and on behalf of the named Defendants, are as follows:
(a) Valerie Ann is a single mother residing in Richmond, British Columbia.
She is a ‘person with disability’ and has respite care.
43
B-1-884
- 0875 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-885 B-1-885
(b) On December 5th, 2020 at approximately 1:10 p.m., Valerie Ann boarded
the Pacific centre skytrain in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia,
when she noticed a transit officer following her.
(c) The transit officer, Peter Kwok with badge #325 then began harassing
Valerie Ann about not wearing a mask, and she responded by simply
producing her exemption card, which she was not required to do by law.
(d) The transit officer continued to harass Valerie Ann for further proof of a
masking exemption. He then informed Valerie Ann that she either had to
put on a mask, or cover her face. Valerie Ann informed him that she
needed a healthy amount of oxygen to breathe.
(e) The transit officer refused to leave Valerie Ann alone, and continued
harassing her, and threatening to place her under arrest for refusing to wear
a mask, or face covering. The transit officer then grabbed Valerie Ann by
her left arm and began punching her in her side, back, and ribs.
(f) This caught the attention of other passengers, and one of the passengers in
the back of the train began yelling for the transit officer to leave Valerie
Ann alone. The transit officer momentarily let Valerie Ann go, and then
grabbed her again and slammed her against the wall twice.
(g) Valerie Ann tried to move away from the transit officer, and sit back down
in her seat, but he grabbed her by her right arm and dragged her right off of
the Skytrain as it pulled to a stop. The transit officer then handcuffed
Valerie to a railing, where two (2) other transit officers came to his
44
B-1-885
- 0876 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-886 B-1-886
assistance. While Valerie Ann was handcuffed to the railing an
announcement was made over the transit loud-speaker reminding travelers
to wear a mask but explicitly stated: “unless you are exempt”.
(h) The two (2) other transit officers escorted Valerie to an elevator where she
was taken out to the street, still handcuffed, and detained in the back of a
police car. After twenty (20) minutes, two (2) police officers arrived and
performed a thorough search of Valerie’s person, and her belongings.
(i) After waiting inside the police car for an additional twenty (20) to thirty
(30) minutes, the police officers drove Valerie Ann to a garage in
Vancouver where she was told she was going to have her photo, and
fingerprints taken.
(j) Valerie Ann did not actually get out, and get her fingerprints taken.
Instead, the two (2) police officers drove her to Lansdowne mall in
Vancouver, British Columbia, to where her car was parked by the Skytrain
station. The police officers asked Valerie to sign a document, that she did
not properly understand, however she felt undue influence to sign in their
presence and did so. Valerie Ann was told that the police officers needed
to seize her phone, and they did so.
(k) Valerie Ann was, and remains well aware that masks are mandatory in
public spaces in British Columbia, except for those with qualifying
medical exemptions. Such measures are not being enforced properly, and
Valerie Ann’s experience is one such example of the extremes that people
45
B-1-886
- 0877 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-887 B-1-887
are not resorting to, to uphold the covid-19 restrictions. She has been
physically and psychologically traumatized and injured by the illegal
conduct and assault of the transit officers.
10. The Plaintiffs Linda Morken (“Linda”) and Gary Morken (“Gary”), are
residents of British Columbia, whose facts, in support of her claim for relief, and
who has suffered actionable damages directly as a result of the Covid measures
imposed and enforced by, and on behalf of the named Defendants, are as follows:
(a) Linda Morken resides with her husband, Gary Morken in East Sooke,
British Columbia.
(b) On Friday, February 5th, 2021, at approximately 1:40 p.m. Linda was
shopping with her husband Gary for groceries at Village Foods Market in
Sooke, British Columbia.
(c) The store did not have any dedicated personnel stationed at its entrance, so
Linda and Gary were not questioned about their lack of masks. They often
shop at that same store, without masks on.
(d) After about twenty (20) minutes of shopping, Linda decided to ask an
employee where the plastic bags could be found. Linda required a plastic
bag for the oysters that she was planning on purchasing.
(e) The employee informed Linda that she required a mask to shop in the
store. Linda replied that she had a masking exemption, and then repeated
her question about the location of the plastic bags. The employee pointed
46
B-1-887
- 0878 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-888 B-1-888
Linda in the direction of the plastic bags, and then informed her that they
do not accept exemptions in their store.
(f) As Linda moved through the store, she asked another employee for clarity
on the location of the plastic bags along the way. The employee provided
her with directions, and made no mention as to her lack of mask.
(g) Upon Linda’s return to the Fish monger with plastic bag in hand, Linda
was informed by another employee that she would have to leave the store
as she was not wearing a mask. Linda informed him that she was exempt,
and would be leaving the store shortly, after paying for her groceries.
(h) The employee stated that exemptions were not honoured in their store, and
left the scene, seemingly to go and inform a supervisor, of Linda and
Gary’s presence in the store.
(i) Several other customers had overheard the employees’ statement. A few of
them became disrespectful toward Linda and Gary. One man proclaimed
himself to be a lawyer, and then proceeded to inquire as to what Linda’s
exemption was. Linda was well aware that she was within her rights to
keep details of her exemption confidential.
(j) One woman spoke up in defense of Linda and Gary. The woman identified
herself as a lawyer and informed the inquisitive onlookers that some
people were exempt from wearing masks. She herself, along with everyone
else in the store was masked.
47
B-1-888
- 0879 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-889 B-1-889
(k) The store manager then approached Linda and Gary, with an angry and
hysterical demeanor. He only identified himself as the store manager, but
refused to identify himself by name. He stated that they did not allow
exemptions in the store, that there were no exemptions, and that all of his
employees and customers must be masked.
(l) Linda and Gary made attempts to explain their exemptions, but were told
that they must leave the store immediately and that they would not be
allowed to pay for their groceries.
(m) Linda stated that she would be waiting to talk to the police upon their
arrival, but that she and Gary would be waiting for them in the store.
Neither Linda nor Gary raised their voices as they advocated for
themselves. The store manager continued to engage in boisterous, angry
theatrics throughout the entire encounter.
(n) Gary went on to wait in the area just outside of the doors, but Linda
remained inside, choosing to stand quietly out of the way of any other
customers.
(o) While Linda was waiting, she noticed an empty till. She approached the
till, placed her groceries on it, and the cashier began cashing her out. Linda
was already finalizing payment for her groceries via credit card, when the
store manager ran over, yelling that the groceries could not be paid for.
Linda informed him that the transaction had already been approved, and
suggested that he calm down.

48
B-1-889
- 0880 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-890 B-1-890
(p) Linda informed that store manager that she would stand out of the way,
and continue to wait for the arrival of the RCMP officers, which she did.
(q) As Linda stood waiting, another employee shouted at her to leave the store
and never return. Linda replied that she would be leaving soon, however
she would be back to shop in the store once they realized that they were the
ones breaking the law by not honouring masking exemptions.
(r) Linda later learned from her husband Gary, that the store manager, along
with one of the employees were harassing him throughout the duration of
the time that Linda stood inside waiting for the RCMP officers to arrive.
(s) Two (2) RCMP vehicles arrived. A truck driven by RCMP Constable
Steve James (“Constable James”), and a car driven by RCMP constable
Kathleen Biron (“Constable Biron”). Upon their arrival they spoke to
Gary, along with the store manager and his assisting employee.
(t) RCMP constable James then approached Linda, and informed her that she
was not allowed to shop in the store without a mask. Linda attempted to
calmly assert her exemption.
(u) Constable James informed Linda that masks were mandated, and that she
must have one on to be inside the store. Linda attempted to speak, but she
was silenced by constable James, who told her that if she said anything
more, she would be placed under arrest.
(v) Linda asked what exactly she would be arrested for, and constable James
informed her that she would be arrested for not wearing a mask in an
49
B-1-890
- 0881 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-891 B-1-891
indoor public space. Linda attempted to speak again, and constable James
silenced her again, stating that she had done enough talking.
(w) Immediately following this, the time was approximately 2:00 p.m. when
Linda was arrested, handcuffed, and subsequently escorted from the store
by RCMP Constable Steve James, and Kathleen Biron.
(x) While still in the store, and during the process of Linda’s arrest, Constable
Steve James stated that the reason for Linda’s arrest came as a result of her
failure to wear a mask while frequenting a public space.
(y) Neither of the Constables made mention to Linda at that time of
trespassing, or assault. She was only informed that the reason for her arrest
was due to her non-compliance with masking measures in place.
(z) Linda was not asked for her name, or identification. Both Constables also
failed to inform her of her rights at any time during her handcuffing, arrest,
removal from store, and subsequent detainment within the police car.
(aa) As Linda was being placed in the backseat of the RCMP car, she refused to
get in until she was told where she was doing. She asserted that she would
not be going anywhere until her husband was informed about where she
was being taken. Linda was extremely fearful that they would attempt to
detain her at a “quarantine centre”.
(bb) Linda was informed that she would be taken to the RCMP detachment on
Church Street in Sooke, British Columbia. Linda told Gary that she would
50
B-1-891
- 0882 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-892 B-1-892
see him there, and was then taken away without another word from either
constable.
(cc) RCMP Constable Kathleen Biron drove Linda to the Sooke RCMP
detachment.
(dd) Upon Linda’s arrival at the garage of the Sooke RCMP detachment,
constable Kathleen Biron formally placed her under arrest, and charged with
assault. Linda was shocked upon learning her charge, as she had not
assaulted any individual at the store.
(ee) Linda questioned the charge of assault, however Constable Biron advised
her not to speak any further, and began reading off Linda’s rights to her.
(ff) Linda then requested that the handcuffs be removed, as she was
experiencing significant pain in her wrists, and shoulders. They were not
removed. Linda recalls having a very difficult, and painful time attempting
to exit the police cruiser, with her hands still behind her back.
(gg) Linda was then brought from the garage, into an office area of the RCMP
detachment.
(hh) Linda was asked whether she was experiencing any flu-like symptoms
such as fever, cough, or any sort of sickness in general. Linda answered “not
at all”. She was then asked to wear the mask that constable Biron had
provided, which she refused, asserting her exemption.
(ii) Linda went on to answer questions about her identification, and place of
residence. Linda had, in the presence of the constables, left her purse which
51
B-1-892
- 0883 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-893 B-1-893
carried her identification with her husband Gary prior to getting inside their
vehicle. Therefore, Linda did not have any physical forms of identification
on her person at the RCMP detachment.
(jj) Linda had only her Vaccine Choice Canada business cards, and a Vaccine
Choice Canada “Stand Up for Freedom” pin on her person at the time.
(kk) Linda could feel the adrenaline of stress coursing through her body
throughout the entire ordeal, which increased her heart rate to very rapid
levels.
(ll) Linda has had a long-standing heart condition, that is well known to, and
well documented by her family physician.
(mm) After a considerable amount of time had passed, Linda’s handcuffs were
finally removed, and she was instructed to remove her jacket, sweater,
jewelry, watch, and shoes. Linda was very cold, so she requested to have
only her jacket, sweater, and shoes back. Her requests for those items of
clothing were denied, and she was told that she would get them back only
upon her release.
(nn) Linda was never given the opportunity to discuss her experience in having
had her rights violated at the store, or at the detachment. Each time that
Linda tried to speak, she was silenced. Although both Linda and Gary made
note that Constable James made considerable efforts to discuss the events
that took place with the store manager, and employees.
52
B-1-893
- 0884 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-894 B-1-894
(oo) Linda suggested that the constables take note of the poster that had
recently been issued by the British Columbia Office of the Human Rights
Commissioner in hopes that they would see that she and Gary had the right
to be exempt from masking.
(pp) Linda’s person was then thoroughly searched by the Constables.
(qq) Linda’s indicated legal counsel, was then telephoned by the RCMP
constables, as Linda herself was placed in a small, and cold room. There was
a single phone in the room, and Linda was instructed not to touch it until it
rang, at which point it would be her legal counsel on the line. Linda waited
in that room for about thirty (30) minutes, until the constables informed her
that they were not able to reach her legal counsel.
(rr) Linda was then placed in a cell, and was later given a blanket after
expressing that she felt cold.
(ss) Linda was extremely uncomfortable, and began experiencing joint pain
due to not having a sweater, jacket, or shoes with her. Her shoulders, and
wrists were still in pain due to being handcuffed. Linda experienced
amplified symptoms of her diagnosed illnesses as a result of being too
cold. Her diagnosed illnesses include Hemochromatosis, Psoriatic
Arthritis, CFS, Fibromalgia, and Sjogren’s Syndrome.
(tt) Linda once again requested that constable Biron return her articles of
clothing to prevent her arthritic pain from worsening in the cold. Linda was
simply informed that the heat was turned up. Although Linda did not have
53
B-1-894
- 0885 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-895 B-1-895
her watch, she estimated that she was left in this state for three (3) – four
(4) hours.
(uu) At some point during Linda’s time in the cell, she was informed that the
constables had returned to the store to review video footage of the events
that had taken place.
(vv) Upon their return, constable Biron informed Linda that she was being
released. While Linda was still confined to her cell, she was asked to provide
Gary’s phone number so that he could be called to pick her up.
(ww) Linda informed Constable Biron that Gary did not have a cell phone, but
that he was likely waiting for her in the detachment parking lot. Constable
Biron then asked Linda to describe Gary’s truck and provide her with his full
name. She also informed Linda that they could not find her drivers license in
the system, although Linda assured her that it was active, and updated.
(xx) Linda was then asked to re-state her address, and the spelling of Gary’s
name, and for confirmation that Gary and Linda resided at the same place of
residence.
(yy) Constable Biron recorded the information that Linda relayed onto the blue
latex gloves that she was wearing, and left Linda in the cell for
approximately another thirty (30) minutes.
(zz) Upon her release from the Sooke RCMP detachment, Linda was given
back her belongings, and presented with two fines. One fine was for the
“Failure to wear a face covering indoor public space – CRMA 3(1)” in the
54
B-1-895
- 0886 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-896 B-1-896
amount of $230. The second was for the “Failure to comply with direction
from an enforcement officer – CRMA 6” also in the amount of $230.
(aaa) When Linda inquired about her assault charge, she was informed that
video footage had confirmed that no such assault had taken place. Linda was
informed that an individual at the store had claimed that she had
purposefully coughed on the cashier. Linda understood that the video
confirmed that she was standing alone, at a distance from others, where she
coughed once. Linda noted herself that, in any event, it would have been
difficult to cough on the cashier as they were situated behind plexiglass.
(bbb)Linda requested a copy of the video footage from the store, and was
informed that she could attain it via FOI, or through legal counsel and that
the RCMP would not be providing her with a copy.
(ccc) Linda requested to register a formal complaint with the RCMP officers
against the store owner, and employee(s) for falsifying claims of assault. As
a result, Linda felt shamed, and humiliated by the staff, and customers.
Constable James informed her that the assault was a concern raised by the
staff, and that had determined that no such assault had ever taken place.
(ddd)Constable James also stated that the store was within its rights as it was
private property, and went on to compare it to Linda’s home. Linda replied
that during operational business hours, the store is open to the public and as
such, is not private property. Constable James continued to insist that it was,
55
B-1-896
- 0887 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-897 B-1-897
though neither himself, nor Constable Biron ever made any mention of
trespass.
(eee) Constable James also informed Linda that he has looked up the documents
on masking exemptions from the British Columbia Office of the Human
Rights Commissioner. He stated that they follow orders given to them from
the RCMP. Linda realized that Constable James may have never been
informed of the legalities with regards to masking exemptions.
(fff) Linda stated once again, that she wished for the RCMP to lay charges
against the store, and its staff for making frivolous, vexatious claims against
Linda, causing her immense distress. This request was once again denied,
and Linda was released.
(ggg)When Linda was re-united with Gary, he informed her that Constable
Biron had presented him with a ticket that, without checking, he had
assumed was for Linda. Gary simply placed it in the glove compartment.
However, Linda had her own blue ticket sheet with her, and upon re-
inspection, Gary realized that he himself had been issued with a ticket for
frequenting an indoor public space without a mask on.
(hhh)Both Linda, and Gary remain extremely distraught, and mistrustful of the
RCMP’s lack of knowledge of the law surrounding masking exemptions,
and their abusive and false arrest. For individuals with such serious health
complications, this is deeply concerning. They both suffered physically and
psychologically from the RCMP officers’ misconduct.

56
B-1-897
- 0888 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-898 B-1-898
11. The Plaintiff Pastor Randy Beatty (“Randy”), is a resident of British Columbia,
(a) Randy Beatty is a pastor at the Living Waters Fellowship located at 2222
Regent Rd, Black Creek, British Columbia V9H 1A1.
(b) Randy maintains that Bonnie Henry's Orders are in violation of the
constitutional right to worship, assemble, and Section 176 (1-3) of the
Criminal Code.
(c) Due to Bonnie Henry's Orders, Randy’s church has been subjected to three
(3) encounters with the RCMP thus far, as of April 7th, 2021.
(d) During the first encounter, which was on February 21st, 2021, an officer
came to “educate” Randy, and his congregation, following their morning
service. They were informed that they were in violation of Covid-19 orders
and would be fined if they continued to hold any services. The officer was
respectful and considerate. They asked him why the big stores, liquor
stores, bars and restaurants were allowed to be open, but the church was
forbidden to hold service. He replied, “We are in a tough position. A
neighbour had called in a complaint.”
(e) Social Media slander has been rampant for the church, and on FB Merville
and Black Creek, Rant and Rave were also debating the church holding
57
B-1-898
- 0889 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-899 B-1-899
services, and causing backlash against them. Threatening messages have
been left on the church answering machine.
(f) On March 14th, a police car was parked outside the church property
watching, but they made no contact.
(g) On March 22nd, Randy received a call warning of tickets for the church,
and its attendees. This conversation was followed up with an email
informing Randy of the health officers’ directives and that if anyone else
submitted a complaint, Randy was told that he was under threat that the
RCMP would issue a ticket of $2300 to the church and a second ticket of
$230 per person for each attendee at the church service.
(h) In addition to s. 176 of the Criminal Code, the harassment by Police
violated the freedom of conscience, belief, religion, and association
contrary to the Constitution Act, 1867 and s.2 of the Charter.
12. The Plaintiff Michael Martinz (“Michael”) is a resident of British Columbia,
(a) On Wednesday March 3rd, 2021 Michael Martinz was returning to Canada
from a two (2)-week fly fishing expedition in Colombia via Houston and
San Francisco on United flight UA5689. The flight arrived in Vancouver at
approximately 1:00 p.m.
58
B-1-899
- 0890 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-900 B-1-900
(b) Upon exiting the aircraft, Michael walked through Vancouver Airport
without a face mask using his British Columbia medical doctor issued
medical exemption. He arrived at the automated kiosks in the customs area
and filled out his entry information, and proceeded to enter the serpentine
queue to speak with a CBSA officer.
(c) Shortly after Michael entered the serpentine queue a CBSA officer politely
asked him if he had a face covering. Michael replied that he had a medical
exemption, and offered the officer to have a look at his documents.
(d) The officer took the exemption document from Michael and examined
them, and immediately asked what the exemption was for. Michael replied
that he was under no obligation to provide that information to the officer.
The officer acknowledged that Michael was correct, and returned to his
original position behind the CBSA stations. The officer returned moments
later, and escorted Michael to the far side of the CBSA stations, near the
south wall declaring that he did not want Michael “out in the open with the
other passengers without a face mask on”. Michael complied, and
followed the officer.
(e) At the furthest south CBSA station Michael was greeted by another CBSA
officer, who asked him some generic questions, including asking him as to
why he was traveling during a pandemic. He then questioned Michael as to
why he had not booked a designated covid quarantine hotel. Michael
replied that he had no intention of staying at a quarantine hotel or taking

59
B-1-900
- 0891 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-901 B-1-901
their PCR test, citing both his section 6 Charter rights, and section 14(1)
of the Quarantine Act prohibiting medical tests which penetrate his body.
(f) The officers then informed Michael that he would have to speak with a
Health Canada agent and state his case to that individual. Michael’s
documents were stamped, and retained, and it was indicated to Michael
that the officer was handing off the documents to the Health Canada agent.
(g) Michael was then led to the far northern wall of the entrance hall and
placed behind a plastic paneled wall. He was informed, once again that
they did not want him out with the other passengers unmasked. Michael
was then approached by another CBSA officer, who engaged him in
generic conversation. During this time the officer offered to collect
Michael’s luggage, and returned with the luggage on a cart.
(h) Soon after Michael obtained his luggage, the Health Canada agent arrived
with two (2) RCMP members at her side. The CBSA officer departed at
this point.
(i) The Health Canada agent declared that she was a Registered Nurse and
began asking Michael a series of questions regarding his health status. He
replied in the negative to all questions, which were in relation to flu-like
symptoms. The agent then began to state to Michael as to why such covid
measures are in place, and threatened to fine him for non-compliance.
Michael asserted his s. 6 Charter rights, and told her that he had no
interest in complying with unconstitutional orders. The agent probed

60
B-1-901
- 0892 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-902 B-1-902
Michael as to why he had a medical exemption, to which he again replied
that he was under no obligation to disclose that information. The agent did
not like this answer, and instructed Michael that she needed to know, and
encouraged him to cooperate. Michael obliged, and informed her of the
underlying cause. The agent then tried to co-erce Michael into taking a
PCR test by telling him that it “only enters your nose about an inch”.
Michael replied “one inch or one millimetre is still a contravention of
section 14(1) of the Quarantine Act”. The agent then left, seemingly
angered by Michael’s response.
(j) After roughly twenty (20) minutes, the agent returned. She exclaimed that
she could fine Michael $3,450.00 for every day that he was not in the
Covid hotel, and other fines for missing the day eight (8) PCR test. He
politely re-asserted his rights, and that he would not be complying. She
then told him that he was in contravention of s.58 of the Quarantine Act.
(k) When she departed, Michael quickly referenced the Quarantine Act which
he had previously downloaded. Michael noted that what text he could read
on her paper work as she rapidly flipped through and pointed to sections
was the word Covid appearing many times. This word appears nowhere in
the Quarantine Act, as he noted. He was highly suspicious of her unlawful
behaviour at this point.
(l) Another twenty (20) minutes later, the agent returned, with and the RCMP
escort. She informed Michael that she had contacted his doctor with
61
B-1-902
- 0893 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-903 B-1-903
regards to his exemption, and that his doctor had confirmed it as being
valid. She then produced a ticket, and fined Michael for $3,450.00
(m) She then discussed what further enforcement actions could be taken
against him.
(n) At approximately 2:00 p.m. on the afternoon of June 11th, 2021
Michael landed at the Calgary (YYC) International Airport on a flight from
Denver, Colorado. He was returning from a trip abroad to Oklahoma City,
and various locations in Costa Rica seeking new life opportunities.
(o) He had left Canada on May 22nd, 2021, with his spouse Kari Strobel and
she accompanied him for the duration of the trip and throughout the re-
entry process.
(p) Upon their arrival at Calgary, and as soon as they exited the aircraft for
United flight UA5388, they proceeded to walk through a very empty
airport towards the customs and immigration area. They both carry
medical mask exemptions provided by their physician. While they were in
the CBSA line up a female CBSA officer approached them asking if they
needed masks. Michael replied that they did not and they produced their
paperwork. The officer was courteous, reviewed their paperwork and asked
no further questions before walking away.
(q) After a period of twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes in the line-up, it was
their turn to engage with a CBSA officer. Michael presented their
paperwork, Passports, PCR tests, and ‘Arrive Can’ printout, and informed
62
B-1-903
- 0894 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-904 B-1-904
him that they would not be staying in the Government Quarantine facility,
and that they would be exercising their section 6, 7, and 9 Charter rights.
The CBSA officer asked some questions about their travel, whether they
had anything to declare, and then directed us to the Health Canada station
at the East side of the customs area.
(r) The CBSA officer expressed no concerns about their non-compliance with
the illegal travel order. As directed, they approached the Health Canada
unit. They were met by a very curt and disrespectful woman that began
asking questions in a “rapid fire” fashion.
(s) Michael informed her that they would not be taking the arrival PCR test,
and that they would not be staying at the Government Quarantine
Facility. She began threatening them fines and produced some paperwork,
which she filled out in rapid succession, and erroneously checked the box
indicating that they had failed to answer relevant questions in
contravention to Sec 15(1) of the Quarantine Act. This is a false
statement. When she provided the form for Michael to sign, he noticed
that she had transcribed his name incorrectly including his last name, and
Michael pointed this out to her, which she then corrected. Michael
produced his phone to take a picture of the document and she loudly
exclaimed that no photos are allowed in this area.
63
B-1-904
- 0895 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-905 B-1-905
(t) Michael then asked if he was going to be provided a copy of this document
to which she replied that he would. He then signed the document, although
felt that he was under duress to do so, and handed the form back to her.
(u) Michael’s wife, Kari refused to sign her copy.
(v) They then moved on to the next station where Michael again explained
their situation, and a Health Canada official in the neighbouring wicket
found great humour in his statements regarding section 14.1 of the
Quarantine Act being poorly written for this situation. They were all able
to have a laugh, and the process of having their paperwork stamped lasted
no longer than four (4) to five (5) minutes and they were on their way to
collect their luggage.
(w) Upon leaving the arrival hall, an airport official was directing compliant
travelers toward the PCR testing station, and Michael informed her that
they were declining the tests and she said “Okay” with a smile and that
was that. Michael was surprised at the stark difference in his experiences,
and was taken aback at how a federal order and could be carried out so
disparately between regions, that is between Vancouver and Calgary.
64
B-1-905
- 0896 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-906 B-1-906
12. The Plaintiff Makhan S. Parhar (“Makhan”) is a resident of British Columbia,
(a) In January, 2020 discussions of Covid-19 began to frequent the media, and
Makhan S. Parhar’s yoga studio, incorporated as “North Delta Real Hot
Yoga Ltd.” in Delta, British Columbia started suffering financially as people
started to become afraid of attending class. Regular students and even long-
term students began cancelling memberships, or asking to have a hold put on.
The new year, January to March is the time that the studio usually has the most
influx of new students and revenue.
(b) By March, 2020 Makhan’s studio was barely hanging on as class numbers had
dwindled due to the fear of contracting Covid-19. He had no intention of
closing down, he simply could not afford to shut down. What little amount the
studio had left in memberships, was essential for them to pay their bills.
(c) Makhan had no idea that a ‘state of emergency’ was declared, as he was
stressed in his own life about paying upcoming bills, and keeping his now
struggling business running. Makhan sent an email advising students to
continue classes to keep their immune system healthy.
(d) This email triggered many people, and people started calling Delta City
Council, Delta Police, the MLA’s and the media. Immediately, Makhan
65
B-1-906
- 0897 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-907 B-1-907
started receiving mass amounts of hate emails and phone calls. He also started
receiving horrible reviews, and had to close the Studio Facebook page.
(e) Makhan started to receive calls from the media, and spoke with CBC only. The
day that he spoke to them, March 19th, 2020 and in the days following, he had
horrible and negative articles written about him by every media outlet in the
Vancouver area.
(f) A Delta By-law enforcement officer attended at Makhan’s studio, and asked
why they did not shut down. He told them it was his business, and that he
needed to stay open. The By-law enforcement officer then asked if Makhan,
and his patrons were “social distancing” inside the studio, and Makhan stated
that he did not know that he had to do so. He also informed the officer that
business was very slow, and patrons were spaced out by default as a result of
that. The officer said he would be by the next day to check if the studio was in
compliance.
(g) However, two (2) hours later, the By-law officer came back with a supervisor
and they told Makhan that his business licence was suspended by Delta City
Council to which Makhan replied that he was just told that the one officer
would be coming back the next day to check if the studio was in compliance
with social distancing protocols. The supervisor ignored this, and said that they
were acting on orders from Delta council. Any subsequent questions that
Makhan tried asking were ignored.
66
B-1-907
- 0898 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-908 B-1-908
(h) At that point, Makhan felt hopeless, and depressed, a feeling that has grown
worse since that day.
(i) The hate that Makhan has experienced after the studio closing, and the
articles spun by media outlets has been overwhelming. He has even been
recognized at stores such as The Home Depot. Throughout the past several
months, he has stopped going to stores unless absolutely necessary. When he
does go out, he is never alone, and lives in constant fear that someone will
stir up an altercation with him.
(j) In August 2020, Makhan was denied boarding at the gate by Air Canada
after agreeing to wear a mask for a flight. They were not honouring his
medical exemption, and as such Makhan gave in and agreed to wear one. At
the gate, just before boarding, they denied his boarding because they did not
trust that he would keep the mask on. Air Canada subsequently banned
Makhan for life and refused to refund his money. He had to go through his
credit card company to get that money back.
(k) On October 27th, 2020 Makhan was returning from visiting friends at
Flatoberfest in South Carolina. The final leg of three (3) flights was from
San Francisco to Vancouver. Makhan was handed a covid-19 quarantine
form by the flight attendant just as the plane started its descent. Makhan did
not fill it out, and at about 9:30 pm he went to Canadian customs and handed
his passport to them. They asked for the quarantine form, and Makhan
67
B-1-908
- 0899 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-909 B-1-909
answered that he did not fill it out, and did not have any plans of doing so.
He was then asked to go speak to the health officer.
(l) Makhan explained the same to the health officer. He was informed that he
needed to fill it out as RCMP officers stood off to the side. Makhan filled out
the form and signed it.
(m) The following day, October 28th 2020, Makhan went on with his regular
life. Around approximately 4:30 pm, he received a phone call from his
daughter. She told him that the police were at their home. Constable Jacob
Chong with badge #262 took the phone from Makhan’s daughter and
informed him that, as he was not at home, he would be writing Makhan a
$1,150.00 violation ticket, and leaving it there. He refused to tell Makhan his
first name at the time, and informed him that he would be back to check on
Makhan the following day.
(n) Makhan’s daughter was traumatized and afraid after this encounter. She did
not want to come home after school the following day.
(o) The following day, October 29th 2020, Makhan stayed home all day.
Constable Chang with badge #262, of the New Westminster Police
Department came at approximately 7:30 pm with and unidentified officer
holding badge #330. He would not answer any questions that Makhan asked
of him with regards to what jurisdiction he was operating under. He served
Makhan another ticket and told him to toss the ticket from the previous day.
68
B-1-909
- 0900 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-910 B-1-910
(p) The next four (4) days saw Makhan going about his business, and this
entailed him being outside of the home most of the day. The police came
several times and he was home once during their visits.
(q) On November 2nd, 2020 at approximately 11:15 pm, Makhan was coming
home and noticed a New Westminster Police SUV outside of the parking
garage. As he recognized Makhan’s car, he turned on his emergency lights.
Makhan pulled into the underground and waited for the police. Constable
Hildebrand with badge #323 approached the car and told him he was under
arrest. He told Makhan to get out of the car.
(r) After Makhan parked and got out of the car, he was arrested and put in
handcuffs. He asked several times, if he had committed a crime. The
constable refused to answer his questions. Makhan stated several times that
this was a false arrest.
(s) Constable Chris Faris with badge #337 started reading Makhan his rights.
Makhan repeated the same questions as to whether or not he had committed
a crime, or if there was a victim or a complainant. The officer refused to
specify the charge and took Makhan to the station.
(t) At the police station, Makhan told all the police that this was a false arrest.
(u) Makhan declined a phone call to a lawyer, and was placed in a cell.
(v) The police damaged his $70 track pants by cutting the draw-strings out of
them, and when he asked if they would be reimbursing him the cost of the
pants, they replied “no”.

69
B-1-910
- 0901 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-911 B-1-911
(w) After falling asleep, Constable Hildebrand woke Makhan up and told him
that he needed to confirm his name and birthdate in order to get out in the
morning. Makhan declined, and Constable Hildebrand repeated himself.
Makhan stated that he needed to think about the lawfulness of answering. He
repeated himself and he said it was to get Makhan out in the morning.
Makhan was fatigued at that point, he stated that he was under duress and
provided him the information he requested.
(x) Later that night, or in the early morning, Constable Jacob Chong with badge
#262, woke Makhan up and told him that he was issuing another violation
ticket.
(y) On the morning of November 3rd, 2020 while Makhan was in the holding
cell, he received a call from duty counsel. Makhan told the guard that he did
not ask for a lawyer. The guard told him that duty calls all the detainees in
jail to help get them out. Makhan decided to speak to the duty counsel. He
told Makhan that his bail hearing would be before noon and that he would
then find out from the Crown what the matter with Makhan would entail.
(z) At around 3:00 pm, Makhan started to worry about his release, as he still had
not heard from the duty counsel. Makhan asked the guard to speak to his
lawyer, and provided the lawyer’s name. The guard looked up the phone
number, and returned twenty (20) – thirty (30) minutes later. He held up a
phone and informed Makhan that it was his bail hearing.
70
B-1-911
- 0902 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-912 B-1-912
(aa) Makhan had trouble hearing the other end of the phone-line. In addition,
there was a very loud vent in his cell.
(bb) The Crown prosecutor spoke for twenty (20)-thirty (30) minutes, and
stated that they wanted Makhan detained up until the trial. The Duty Counsel
suggested that Makhan be released on his own recognizance. In the end, the
judge allowed Makhan out as long as a surety signed and would be
responsible for him adhering to his bail conditions.
(cc) The judge said that Makhan’s surety would have to come to the Court
during business hours. It was 4:20pm at that point, and the Court Registry
was closed. Makhan spent another night in jail. He was told that he could
call someone, and that he would be transferred to a bigger jail for the night.
A female police officer got Makhan to sign off on his bail conditions while a
justice of the peace was on the phone.
(dd) At approximately 6:00-7:00 pm, Makhan arrived at the North Fraser pre-
trial Detention Centre. He was placed on ‘Droplet Protocol’. The nurse told
him that he would be swabbed. Makhan refused any swabs, or anything
placed inside of his bodily cavity. Makhan was segregated immediately after
intake. He asked for a phone call, but was repeatedly denied. He was told
that he could not interact with the general population until he had obtained a
negative test result.
71
B-1-912
- 0903 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-913 B-1-913
(ee) Makhan told them that he had a bail surety, but needed to phone someone.
He stated repeatedly that no one knew of his arrest, and he simply wanted to
inform them of such. The prison staff showed Makhan no sympathy.
(ff) Makhan was given a bagged vegetarian dinner, and informed them he was
vegetarian for future meals. He was fed three (3) meals a day. Breakfast was
at about 7:30 am. Lunch was usually brought at about 10:45 – 11:00 am, and
dinner was at about 4:30 pm on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. On
Friday, Makhan was released just as dinner was served, so he did not eat
dinner.
(gg) Both Wednesday, and Thursday night’s dinners and Thursday’s lunch
contained meat, therefore Makhan did not get to eat the full meals. He had
previously requested, as denoted above, that he was a vegetarian, and the
prison denied his request for vegetarian meals.
(hh) On Thursday, when Makhan realized that he might be in jail until after the
weekend, and maybe longer. Makhan cleaned the cell by dipping his shower
towel (though he was not actually allowed to shower), in the toilet, and
wiping down the top bunk, and other areas of the cell.
(ii) Makhan was not allowed to shower nor use the phone because he was not
allowed to leave his cell. He asked repeatedly for phone use. The
supervisor told him the same thing repeatedly. Makhan required a negative
covid-19 test result to be allowed out of his cell. However, the supervisor
agreed to take a number and make a call on Makhan’s behalf.

72
B-1-913
- 0904 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-914 B-1-914
(jj) That same day, Makhan asked for, then begged multiple times to get clean
underwear and socks. The guards kept agreeing, but the requested garments
were never delivered. Finally, very late on Thursday, one (1) of the guards
provided Makhan with the requested garments.
(kk) Out of fear that he would be in jail past the weekend and for weeks ahead,
Makhan was left in very little choice but to submit himself to a Covid test.
This was done in hopes of getting a negative result. Makhan was told that if
the test was positive they would contact him, however he never heard from
them.
(ll) Thus far, Makhan has had his first court appearance, pre-trial conference,
and awaits another pre-trial conference on May 5th, 2021. His bail conditions
instruct him to abide by all regulations stipulated by Bonnie Henry. A trial
date is set for July 20th, and 30th, 2021.
(mm) Makhan remains very distraught, for himself, and his family’s sake.
13. The Plaintiff Melissa Anne Neubauer (“Melissa”) is a resident of British
Columbia, whose facts, in support of her claim for relief, and who has suffered
enforced by, and on behalf of the named Defendants, are as follows:
(a) Melissa is a Teacher at the Clearwater secondary school, in Clearwater,
British Columbia.
(b) Melissa was on a medical leave from work from March 9th, 2020 – June
30th, 2020 due to having a break down in March of 2020, and being
73
B-1-914
- 0905 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-915 B-1-915
admitted to the mental health unit at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops,
British Columbia.
(c) By June 30th, 2020, school was finished for the Summer, and as such
Melissa physically returned to her work in September of 2020, when
school was back in session again.
(d) When Melissa returned for health and safety training the first week of
school in September 2020, the Principal of the school, Darren Coates
insisted that she wear a mask. Melissa explained that she was exempt.
Melissa was then required to have her doctor complete a four(4)-page
medical form to allow her exemption. After that, a Disability
Accommodation Plan was created for Melissa, which restricted her
movement within the school. Restrictions included limiting her access to a
washroom, only allowing her access to the building at certain times, and
through a specific door, and limiting her access to the office supplies room.
These restrictions made Melissa’s job difficult.
(e) Melissa made efforts to follow the restrictions, however the principal often
harassed her both verbally, and in writing to do a “better job” at following
them.
(f) In February 2021, the principal sent Melissa a letter outlining further
restrictions on her movements in the school. Melissa only worked half-
days at that point, and one of the new restrictions mandated that she was
not allowed to be in the hallways between 8:00 a.m. and 3:20 p.m.,
74
B-1-915
- 0906 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-916 B-1-916
meaning that she would not be able to exit the building on days that she
finished work mid-day, and she would be unable to arrive on days that she
started work mid-day. The new restrictions also prevented Melissa from
using the washrooms during those times, and the suggested solution was
that she leave her class unattended, and use the washroom when there were
no students in the hallways. The restriction also meant that any
preparation that Melissa needed to do using the printer/photocopier had to
be done outside of her contractual workday.
(g) The principal called two (2) meetings: on February 17th, 2021, and
February 19th, 2021 as he felt Melissa still was not following the
restrictions correctly. Melissa then received a call from the Human
Resources Deparement on February 22nd, 2021 telling her that she was
being placed on administrative leave pending an independent medical
exam by a psychiatrist. The purpose of this medical exam was to confirm
that Melissa’s family doctor and psychiatrist were providing accurate
medical information, and to determine if she was competent to be in a
position of responsibility as a teacher. Melissa’s first day off of work was
February 23rd, 2021. The Independent Medical Exam took place on March
31st, 2021, and Melissa was finally allowed to return to work April 28th,
2021.
(h) Since returning to work she has been wearing a plastic face shield and have
not experienced restrictions with her movement around the school, until
75
B-1-916
- 0907 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-917 B-1-917
May 5th, 2021 when the principal handed Melissa a surplus letter. This
letter means that Melissa no longer has a job after the end of the current
school year, in June 2021. The school district has an obligation to find
Melissa another position in the district, but the position does not have to be
in the same community that she currently lives in. As there are no
positions available in Melissa’s current community of Clearwater, British
Columbia, she is being forced to move. Melissa has a mortgage and is at
risk of losing her home should her position get suspended, and she will be
forced to sell her home and move if her job is relocated to another region.
Melissa strongly feels that she was chosen to receive the surplus letter
because she did not comply with the masking mandates in the school, and
because she is being discriminated against due to her medical conditions.
Furthermore the government (Crown) and its Ministers of Education,
Health, Public Safety, as well as Chief Medical Officer Bonnie Henry are
breaching her constitutional rights, by way of commission, and omission,
in not protecting her rights.
14. The Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 (“Jane”) is a resident of British Columbia, whose facts,
(a) Jane is a Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”) at Royal Inland Hospital in
Kamloops, British Columbia where she resides.

76
B-1-917
- 0908 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-918 B-1-918
(b) At the beginning of 2020, Royal Inland Hospital had made a goal to reduce
the number of patients being admitted in order to prepare for the “First
Wave” of Covid-19 patients. Normally the hospital census is running at
115-120 %. This information was given to Jane, and her team each
morning by the charge nurse. Through May 2020 to the middle of June
2020, the Hospital census had been declining greatly, around 80%. Patients
had been told not to admit themselves unless it was absolutely critical
requiring immediate medical attention.
(c) Jane’s father had been one of those patients that had ignored his medical
needs in order to stay clear of a hospital in fear of getting Covid-19,
causing the severity of his condition to progress. Shortly after, he had
suffered a heart attack and was admitted to the hospital anyways. The
hospital informed him that they would need to put off a scheduled surgery
he had scheduled in Kelowna, British Columbia due to Covid-19 measures
“until further notice”. He was then put on more medication to alleviate
symptoms he was having.
(d) As Jane was working in the Hospital, she was feeling concerned that beds
would fill up due to an influx of Covid patients, but they never did. The
hospital census stayed at 80% for some time, and then declined even
further. Nurses that worked casual shifts soon started to worry that there
was not enough work for them to obtain any shifts. During this period, Jane
77
B-1-918
- 0909 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-919 B-1-919
was extremely worried about her father for whom she was caring at his
house regularly.
(e) After the hospital began to open up for surgeries around October of 2020,
the census began to climb again. The increase in patient census was not
related to Covid-19 but from patients who had put their health on hold from
the beginning of the year. Jane observed that Covid-19 precautions were
not at all organized, and that Nurses would get emails one (1) – two (2)
weeks later pertaining to someone who had tested positive with no actual
record of the person’s name. Instead, room numbers those patients had
stayed in were referred to, but who had been in the rooms could not be
tracked, nor could the location of where those people had gone, and who
else they had interacted with. This then led to further intervention, patients
considered high risk for covid-19 were tested on admission. At various
times, there would be patients considered high risk in rooms with three
other patients, most of whom suffered from cognitive decline and would
not know to stay away from the closed curtain with a precaution sign
pinned to it.
(f) Throughout the later Fall months of 2020, Jane would often read on social
media that the Hospital was overrun with Covid patients, and that it was
over census. This was not true, although Jane did not work on the “Covid
Floor”, she knew nurses that did and they reported to her that there was an
78
B-1-919
- 0910 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-920 B-1-920
average of eight (8) patients total at the time. Although, it was true that the
hospital was over census, that was normal pre-pandemic for the hospital.
(g) By February 2021 Covid-19 Vaccines were being distributed to the staff.
While at work on one shift in February 2021, Jane heard a “Code Blue”
meaning cardiac/respiratory distress being called out over the loud speaker
on the vaccine distribution floor. This had not been the only one as Jane
had been told by multiple nurses. It was around late February, when “the
big outbreak” at Royal Inland hospital went to main stream news. And
ninety (90) people had been reported to be positive cases (approximately
sixty (60) of these were hospital staff).
(h) Nurses were already scarse and this had put even more strain on the
remaining nurses as the nurses who tested positive had to quarantine at
home for fourteen (14) days. This had also created fear amongst all of the
Kamloops community.
(i) Despite all of this, many Nurses that had been working on the Covid floor
and had been around other nurses who had tested positive, without a mask
were not testing positive. Jane noted that this did not make any sense. Also,
nurses who had taken the vaccine had adverse reactions and tested positive
fir Covid-19. One nurse with an underlying heart condition, but previously
with no need for treatment, suddenly came down with an exacerbating
heart condition characterized by extreme fatigue and heart palpitations as
79
B-1-920
- 0911 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-921 B-1-921
well as becoming significantly ill, and has since been unable to return to
work for more than six (6) hours.
(j) In March 2021 Jane had been pulled to the Covid floor. There was one
patient considered “Red” meaning that they were covid positive and were
in an isolation negative pressure room. However, Jane’s patient, whose test
was pending, was put in an room with three (3) other patients, one of
whom had severe dementia and would be unable to identify danger. Later
that night, Jane checked that patient's results only to find out they were
negative and there was only one (1) active Covid positive case in the
hospital.
(k) By the end March 2021, Jane had asked her family doctor, Dr. Victor De
Kock for a mask exemption due to her increased anxiety and history of
asthma that had become exceptionally worse due to the consistency of
wearing something over her face for twelve (12) hours a day. This was
denied by Dr. Victor De Kock, as he stated that he had been ordered by
‘Interior Health’ not to give out exemptions, especially not to health care
workers.
(l) On April 8th, 2021 Jane made another Appointment to attempt to get a
mask exemption as her mental health was becoming noticeably worse. Jane
recorded Dr. Victor De Kock this time, as she stated “I can not breath” and
that her anxiety was getting out of control. He had again refused to provide
80
B-1-921
- 0912 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-922 B-1-922
her with an exemption, and prescribed her anxiety medication along with a
refill on her inhaler.
(m) Throughout March and April of 2021,Vaccines were being pushed on staff.
Staff that refused to get the shot were being shamed by others, for allegedly
“putting others in harm’s way”. Work began to be too much for Jane, and
new information about shedding vaccines had emerged while Interior
Health remained silent about it. Jane had been researching the information
on the transmitting and/or shedding that can occur via coming into contact
with vaccinated people, and was very distressed about her well-being. Jane
remained fearful that she would lose her job, and because she was
concerned about the possibilities of shedding, she decided to take a stress
leave from work, with May 1st being her final day of work. She is presently
still on stress leave, relying on Employment Insurance, and awaiting
further information that can guarantee her safe return to work.
(n) Jane has not revealed her name on this action for fear of reprisal and/or
dismissal by her employer for being a Plaintiff.
81
B-1-922
- 0913 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-923 B-1-923
• The Defendants
23. The Defendant, Justin Trudeau, is the current Prime Minister of Canada, and as
such, a holder of a public office.
24. The Defendant, Dr. Theresa TAM, is Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer and
as such a holder of a public office.
25. The Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, is statutorily and
constitutionally liable for the acts and omissions of her officials, particularly with
respect to Charter damages as set out by the SCC in, inter alia, Ward v. City of
Vancouver.
26. The Defendant Attorney General of Canada is, constitutionally, the Chief Legal
Officer, responsible for and defending the integrity of all legislation, as well as
responding to declaratory relief, including with respect constitutional declaratory
relief, and required to be named as a Defendant in any action for declaratory
relief.
27. The Defendant Omar ALGHABRA is the Federal Minister of Transport, and as
such a public office holder.
28. The Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia, is
statutorily and constitutionally liable for the acts and omissions of her officials,
particularly with respect to Charter damages as set out by the SCC in, inter alia,
Ward v. City of Vancouver.
29. The Defendant Attorney General of British Columbia, is, constitutionally, the
Chief Legal Officer for British Columbia, responsible for and defending the
82
B-1-923
- 0914 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-924 B-1-924
integrity of all legislation, as well as responding to declaratory relief with respect
to legislation, including with respect to its constitutionality, and required to be
named as a Defendant in any action for declaratory relief.
30. The Defendant John HORGAN, is the current Premier of British Columbia, and
as such a holder of a public office.
31. The Defendant Dr. Bonnie HENRY, is British Columbia’s Chief Medical
Officer, and as such a holder of a public office.
32. The Defendant Mike FARNWORTH, is the current Minister of Public Safety
and Solicitor General and, as such, a holder of public office.
33. The Defendant, Adrian DIX, is the current Minister of Health for the Province of
British Columbia and as such a holder of a public office.
34. The Defendant Jennifer WHITESIDE, is the Minister of Education for British
Columbia, and as such, a public office holder.
35. The Defendant, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”), is Canada’s
publicly-funded broadcaster and governed, inter alia, under the Federal
Broadcast Act, with a public mandate as Canada’s national, publicly-funded
broadcaster.
36. The Defendant, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., operating as BC Ferries, is
a former provincial Crown corporation, now operating as an independently
managed, publicly owned Canadian company, under Crown license and
authority.
83
B-1-924
- 0915 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-925 B-1-925
37. The Defendant, Mable Elmore is the current British Columbia Parliamentary
Secretary for Seniors’ Services and Long-Term Care.
38. The Defendant, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) are the federal
and national police service of Canada, providing law enforcement at the federal
level, as well as the Province of British Columbia under renewable memorandum
and contract.
39. The Defendant, Vancouver Island Health Authority provides health care services
through a network of hospitals, clinics, centres, health units, and long-term care
locations in British Columbia.
40. The Defendant, Brittney Sylvester is the current BC Ferries Terminal Manager
(Relief) at the Tsawwassen, British Columbia, Canada Ferry Terminal.
41. The Defendant, Providence Health Care is a Catholic health care provider that
operates seven facilities in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Providence
Health Care was formed through the consolidation of CHARA Health Care
Society, Holy Family Hospital and St. Paul's Hospital on April 1st, 1997.
42. The Defendant, TransLink (British Columbia), is the statutory authority
responsible for the regional transportation network of Metro Vancouver in
British Columbia, Canada, including public transport, major roads and bridges.
43. The Defendant, Peter Kwok, is a Translink Transit officer with Badge #325.
84
B-1-925
- 0916 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-926 B-1-926
• THE FACTS
A/ “COVID- 19”- THE TIMELINE
44. In 2000 Bill Gates steps down as Microsoft CEO and creates the ‘Gates
Foundation’’ and (along with other partners) launches the ‘Global Alliance for
Vaccines and Immunization (‘GAVI’’). The Gates Foundation has given GAVI
approximately $4.1 Billion. Gates has further lobbied other organizations, such
as the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and governments to donate to GAVI
including Canada and its current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who has
donated over $1 Billion dollars to Gates/GAVI.
45. In 2002 Scientists engage in “gain-of-function” (GOF) research that seeks to
generate viruses “with properties that do not exist in nature” and to “alter a
1 2
pathogen to make it more transmissible (to humans) or deadly.”
46. In November, 2002, China’s Guangdong province reports the first case of
‘’atypical Pneumonia’’, later labeled as SARS. In the same month at the
University of North Carolina (UNC) Ralph Baric announced the creation of a
synthetic clone of a mouse coronavirus.
47. On October 28th, 2003 the Baric group at UNC announces a synthetic recreation
of the SARS virus.
48. In 2005 Research demonstrates that Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS
coronavirus infection and transmission. It was deemed a safe drug by the WHO
in 1979, except in high doses. 3 4
1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
2
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/us-halts-funding-new-risky-virus-studies-calls-voluntary-moratorium
85
B-1-926
- 0917 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-927 B-1-927
49. From 2009 to the present, the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” donates
millions to the ‘Imperial College of London’’(ICL), and further funded the
debunked modeling, by Neil Ferguson, at the ICL, that set the COVID-19
‘pandemic’’ declaration in Motion and acceleration, through the WHO and
governments around the globe following suit.
50. In January 2010 Bill Gates pledges $10 billion in funding for the World Health
Organization (“WHO”) and announces “the Decade of Vaccines.” In fact, Bill
Gates and GAVI are the second and third largest funders of the WHO after the
US government under the Presidency of President Trump. The USA, through its
President, cut off funding to the WHO for loss of confidence in it. (Various other
countries have also expelled the WHO on allegations of corruption, attempted
bribery of its officials, and lack of confidence).
51. In May 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation writes a Report, later leaked,
unintentionally from within the organization, with a study of a future pandemic
scenario, where an unknown virus escapes, and a “hypothetical” scenario on
what the appropriate response would be, and its core scenario entitled “how to
secure global governance in a pandemic”. The Plaintiffs state , and the fact is,
that the scenario scripted in this May 2010, Report is what has unfolded during
the “COVID-19” so-called “pandemic”.
3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
4
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/65773/WHO_MAL_79.906.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
86
B-1-927
- 0918 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-928 B-1-928
52. In 2011 a review of the literature by the British Columbia Centre for Disease
Control to evaluate the effectiveness of social distancing measures such as
school closures, travel restrictions, and restrictions on mass gatherings to address
an influenza pandemic concluded that “such drastic restrictions are not
economically feasible and are predicted to delay viral spread but not impact
overall morbidity.” 5
53. In May, 2012, the 194 Members States of the “World Health Assembly” endorse
the ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) led by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation in collaboration with GAVI, and the World Health Organization
(WHO).
54. In 2014 Under President Obama, the National Institute of Health (NIH) halts
federal funding for gain-of-function (GOF) research. The funding hiatus applies
to 21 studies “reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or
SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or
transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.” NIH later allows 10 of the
studies to resume.
55. In 2015 NIAID awards a five-year, $3.7 million grant to conduct gain-of-
function studies on the “risk of bat coronavirus emergence.” Ten percent of the
award goes to the Wuhan, China, Institute of Virology.
5
Social Distancing as a Pandemic Influenza Prevention Measure
https://nccid.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/H1N1_3_final.pdf
87
B-1-928
- 0919 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-929 B-1-929
56. In January, 2015 at a public appearance, Bill Gates states: ‘’ We are taking
things that are genetically modified organisms and we are injecting them into
little kids’ arms; we just shoot them right into the vein’’.
57. In 2018 the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) puts forward a proposal for future
“Vaccine Passports”.
58. In 2017 Dr. Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard School of Public Health tells the New
York Times that the type of gain-of-function experiments endorsed by Dr. Fauci’s
NIAID have “done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics,
and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”
59. In 2019 NIAID awards a six-year renewal grant of $3.7 million to EcoHealth
Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (in China) to continue their gain-
of-function studies on bat coronaviruses.
60. At the January, 2019, World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on
January 23rd, 2019, on a CNBC interview Bill Gates boasts that he expects to
have a “twenty-fold” return on his $10 Billion vaccine investment with the next
few decades.
61. British and French researchers publish a study (May 5, 2020) estimating that
COVID-19 could have started as early as October 6, 2019.
62. On October 18th, through 27th, 2019 Wuhan, China hosts the Military World
Games, held every four years, where more than 9,000 athletes, from 100
countries complete. The telecom systems for the Athletes’ Village are powered
with 5-G technology “showcasing its infrastructure and technological prowess’’.

88
B-1-929
- 0920 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-930 B-1-930
63. On October 18, 2019 - The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World
Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security convene an
invitation-only “tabletop exercise” called Event 201 to map out the response to a
hypothetical global coronavirus pandemic.
64. In November-December, 2019, - General practitioners in northern Italy start
noticing a “strange pneumonia.”
65. On December 2nd and 3rd, 2019 Vaccine scientists attending the WHO’s Global
Vaccine Safety summit confirm major problems with vaccine safety around the
world.
66. On December 3rd, 2019, At the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva
Switzerland, Prof Heide Larson, MA PhD, Director of the “Vaccine Safety
Project”, stated:
“I think that one of our biggest challenges is, as Bob said this morning, or
yesterday, we’re in a unique position in human history where we’ve shifted
the human population to vaccine-induced, to dependency on vaccine-
induced immunity and that’s on the great assumption that populations
would cooperate. And for many years, people lined up the six vaccines,
people were there; they saw the reason. We’re in a very fragile state
now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations. We
don’t have a choice, but to make that effort.”
67. On December 18th, 2019, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) report the development of a novel way to record a patient’s
vaccination history, by using smart-phone readable nano-crystals called
‘’quantum dots’’, embedded in the skin using micro-needles. In short, a vaccine
89
B-1-930
- 0921 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-931 B-1-931
chip embedded in the body. This work and research are funded by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation.
68. On December 31,2019 - Chinese officials inform the WHO about a cluster of
“mysterious pneumonia” cases. Later, the South China Morning Post reports that
it can trace the first case back to November 17th , 2019.
69. On January 7th, 2020 - Chinese authorities formally identify a “novel”
coronavirus.
70. On January 11, 2020 - China records its first death attributed to the new
coronavirus.
71. On January 20, 2020 - The first U.S. coronavirus case is reported in
Washington State.
72. On January 23rd, 2020, Shi Zheng-Li releases a paper reporting that the new
corona virus (COVID-19) is 96% identical to the strain that her lab isolated from
bats in 2013 but never publicized.
73. On January 30, 2020 - The WHO declares the new coronavirus a “global
health emergency.”
74. In January, 2020 - A study of US military personnel confirms that those who
received an influenza vaccine had an increased susceptibility to coronavirus
infection. 6
6
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647
90
B-1-931
- 0922 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-932 B-1-932
75. On February 5th, 2020 - Bill and Melinda Gates announce $100 million in
funding for coronavirus vaccine research and treatment efforts. On February
11th, 2020 the WHO gives the virus its name: ‘COVID-19’’.
76. On February 28th, 2020 - The WHO states that most people will have mild
symptoms from SARS-CoV-2(“COVID19”) infection and get better without
needing any special care.
77. On February 28th, 2020 , the WHO announces that more than 20 vaccines are in
development globally.
78. On February 28th, 2020, the WHO states – “Our greatest enemy right now is
7
not the virus itself. It’s fear, rumors and stigma.”
79. On March 5th, 2020 - Dr. Peter Hotez of Baylor College told a US
Congressional Committee that coronavirus vaccines have always had a “unique
potential safety problem” — a “kind of paradoxical immune enhancement
phenomenon.” 8
80. On March 11, 2020 - The WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic.
81. On March 16th, 2020 - Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, scientific
advisor to the UK government, publishes his computer simulations warning that
there will be over two million COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. unless the country
adopts “intensive and socially disruptive measures.” Imperial College London
receives funding from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
7
WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 28 February 2020
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---28-february-
2020
8
https://www.c-span.org/video/?470035-1/house-science-space-technology-committee-hearing-coronavirus&start=1380
91
B-1-932
- 0923 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-933 B-1-933
82. On March 16th, 2020 - Dr. Anthony Fauci tells Americans that they must be
prepared to “take more drastic steps” and “hunker down significantly” to slow
the coronavirus’s spread.
83. On March 16th, 2020 - NIAID launches a Phase 1 trial in 45 healthy adults of
the mRNA-1273 (COVID-19) coronavirus vaccine co-developed by NIAID and
Moderna, Inc. The trial skips the customary step of testing the vaccine in animal
models prior to proceeding to human trials.
84. On March 17th, 2020 – Prime Minister Trudeau asks for lockdown measures,
under the Federal Quarantine Act, banning travel. On March 18th, 2020
British Columbia declares its emergency under the Emergency Program Act
[RSBC 1996] c. 111.
85. On March 19th, 2020 - The status of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom is
downgraded. COVID-19 is no longer considered a high consequence infectious
disease (HCID). The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) in
the UK is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an
HCID (High Consequence Infectious Disease). 9 10
86. On March 20th, 2020, documents in three (3) countries outline Government’s
policy on coronavirus was going to use applied psychology in order to ramp up
9
https://www.gov.uk/topic/health-protection/infectious-diseases
10
https://prepforthat.com/uk-officials-covid-19-no-longer-high-consequence-infectious-disease/
92
B-1-933
- 0924 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-934 B-1-934
fear in the population, in order to get the population to adhere more closely to the
Government’s policy over the response to Coronavirus. 11
87. On March 24th , 2020 - Global medical experts declared that efforts to contain
the virus through self-isolation measures would negatively impact population
immunity, maintain a high proportion of susceptible individuals in the
population, prolong the outbreak putting more lives at risk, damage our economy
12 13
and the mental stability and health of the more vulnerable.
88. On March 24th, 2020 - Professor Peter Gotzche issues a statement - “The
coronavirus mass panic is not justified.”
89. On March 24th, 2020 - Bill Gates announces funding for a company that will
blanket Earth with $1 billion in video surveillance satellites.
90. On March 26th, 2020 Microsoft announces it is acquiring ‘Affirmed Networks’’
focused on 5-G and “edge” computing’’.
91. On March 26th, 2020 - Dr. Fauci publishes an editorial in the New England
Journal of Medicine stating that “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19
may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza,” with a case
fatality rate of perhaps 0.1%.
92. On March 30th, 2020, Dr Michael J. Ryan, Executive Director of the
Health Emergencies Programme at the World Health Organization publicly stated,
during a press conference that:
11
https://childrenshealthdefense.eu/eu-issues/brian-gerrishs-testimony-to-reiner-fullmich-our-oppressors-are-very-frightened-
people/
12
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
13
https://www.europereloaded.com/twenty-two-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic-videos-scientific-common-sense/
93
B-1-934
- 0925 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-935 B-1-935
“And at the moment in most parts of the world due to lock-down most of
the transmission that's actually happening in many countries now is
happening in the household at family level.
In some senses transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back
into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those
people who may be sick and remove them
and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner”.
93. March 31, 2020, Dr. Theresa Tam states that, “it is not clear that masks actually help
prevent infections, and may increase the risk for those wearing them.”
94. On April 2nd, 2020 - Bill Gates states that a coronavirus vaccine “is the only
thing that will allow us to return to normal.”
95. In April, 2020- A review of the scientific literature conducted by Denis
Rancourt, Ph.D., with regards to the use of masking, concluded there is no
scientific evidence to substantiate the effectiveness of masking of the general
public to prevent infection and transmission. 14
96. On April 6th, 2020 - German epidemiologist, Knut Wittkowski, releases a
statement warning that artificially suppressing the virus among low risk people
like school children may “increase the number of new infections” as it keeps the
virus circulating much longer than it normally would. 15
97. On April 6th, 2020 - Dr. Anthony Fauci states, “I hope we don’t have so many
people infected that we actually have herd immunity.”
98. On April 9th, 2020 - Canadian public health officials stated – “In a best-case
scenario, Canada’s total COVID-19 deaths can range from 11,000 to 22,000.”
14
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340570735_Masks_Don't_Work_A_review_of_science_relevant_to_COVID-
19_social_policy
15 Stand Up for Your Rights, says Bio-Statistician Knut M. Wittkowski. American Institute for Economic Research. April 6, 2020
https://www.aier.org/article/stand-up-for-your-rights-says-professor-knut-m-wittkowski/
94
B-1-935
- 0926 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-936 B-1-936
And “In the bad scenarios, deaths go well over 300,000.” (As of May 21, 2020,
the total reported deaths from COVID 19 in Canada was 6,145.) The number of
deaths attributed to COVID-19, is in line with typical yearly seasonal viral
respiratory illness deaths in Canada. However, the Covid-death numbers are
inflated based on the parameters dictated by the WHO to list a death as a Covid-
death, namely anyone who has the Covid-19, at time of death ,regardless of
whether another clear primary cause of death is evident apart from the simple
presence of the covid-19 virus.
99. On April 10th, 2020 - John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for
Constitutional Freedoms in Canada stated there is reason to conclude that the
government’s response to the virus is deadlier than the disease itself. 16
100. On April 15th, 2020 - Bill Gates pledges another $150 million to coronavirus
vaccine development and other measures. He states, “There are seven billion
people on the planet. We are going to need to vaccinate nearly everyone.”
101. On April 18th, 2020, US News reports corona virus tests are ineffective due to
lab contamination at the EDC and the CDC’s violation of its manufacturing
standards.
102. On April 24th, 2020 - The Ontario government took the "extraordinary step" to
release a database to police with a list of everyone who has tested positive for
COVID-19 in the province. 17
16
https://www.jccf.ca/the-cost-of-the-coronavirus-cure-could-be-deadlier-than-the-disease/
17
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/ontario-takes-extraordinary-step-to-give-police-list-of-all-covid-19-patients-
1.4910950?fBritish Columbialid=IwAR10jfu_5OYq5BPZJKMyyqiN2P47dK_wbZzFMqC8WEpFxiIhEFt81cGnfqc
95
B-1-936
- 0927 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-937 B-1-937
103. On April 30th, 2020 - Bill Gates writes that “the world will be able to go back to
the way things were . . . when almost every person on the planet has been
vaccinated against coronavirus.” Gates also states that “Governments will need
to expedite their usual drug approval processes in order to deliver the vaccine to
over 7 billion people quickly.”
104. On May 5th, 2020, Neil Ferguson resigns from the UK government’s Scientific
Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) after flouting and breaking his own
social distancing rules. On May 6th, 2020, an anonymous soft-ware engineer
(ex-Google) pronounces Neil Ferguson’s COVID-19 computer model “unusable
for scientific purposes’’. In fact, Ferguson’s COVID-19 model has been a
laughing-stock and debacle.
105. On May 11th, 2020, UK Chief Medical Officer Whitty states that COVID-19 is
‘harmless’ to the vast majority’’.
106. On May 14th, 2020, Microsoft announces that it is acquiring UK-based
‘Metaswitch Networks’’, to expand its Azure 5-G strategy.
107. On May 19th, 2020 - Health Canada approves human trials of a SARS-CoV-2
(COVID-19) vaccine without clear evidence that prior animal testing to identify
the potential risk of pathogenic priming (immune enhancement) has been
conducted.
108. On May 21st, 2020 - Four Canadian infectious disease experts, Neil Rau, Susan
Richardson, Martha Fulford and Dominik Mertz state - “the virus is unlikely to
96
B-1-937
- 0928 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-938 B-1-938
disappear from Canada or the world any time soon” and “It is unlikely that zero
infections can be achieved for COVID-19.” 18
109. By May 2020 - Over six million Canadians have applied for unemployment
benefits and 7.8 million Canadians required emergency income support from the
19
Federal government, because of economic shut-downs and closures dictated by
Covid-measures.
110. By May, 2020 - Estimates of the Federal deficit resulting from their response to
SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) ranges up to $400 billion. 20 (This exceeds the
Canada’s national budget for a year). By April 20th, 2021, according to the
Federal Budget released, the national debt has climbed to $1.2 Trillion.
111. On May 20th, 2020 - Dr. Teresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Medical Officer, publicly
advised the use of non-medical masks for the general public to provide an
"added layer of protection" that could help prevent asymptomatic or pre-
symptomatic Covid-19 patients from unknowingly infecting others. Dr. Tam’s
advice is not supported by scientific evidence. 21
112. Throughout the “pandemic” Bonnie Henry was on record saying masks do not
work and was also part of the 2015 nurses arbitration as an expert witness,
reporting the same. 22
18
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-we-are-infectious-disease-experts-its-time-to-lift-the-covid-19-lockdowns
19
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/beyond-lockdown-canadians-can-have-both-health-and-prosperity-an-open-letter-to-the-prime-
minister/
20
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/beyond-lockdown-canadians-can-have-both-health-and-prosperity-an-open-letter-to-the-prime-
minister/
21 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/20/canada-non-medical-masks-provinces-reopen-271008
22
https://action4canada.com/masks/
97
B-1-938
- 0929 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-939 B-1-939
113. On May 21st, 2020 - A letter from Mark Lysyshyn, MD, Deputy Chief Medical
Health Officer with Vancouver Coastal Health states – “Although children are
often at increased risk for viral respiratory illnesses, that is not the case with
COVID-19. Compared to adults, children are less likely to become infected with
COVID-19, less likely to develop severe illness as a result of infection and less
likely to transmit the infection to others.” Dr. Lysyshyn further states – “Non-
medical masks are not needed or recommended. Personal protective equipment
such as medical masks and gloves are not recommended in the school
environment.” 23
114. On May 22nd, 2020 - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters that “contact
tracing” needs to be ramped up across the county. Trudeau stated that he
“strongly recommends” provinces use cell phone apps when they become
available, and that this use would likely be mandated.
115. On or about May 25th,2020, the Federal government announced potential
Criminal Code provisions, making it a criminal offence to publish
“misinformation” about the COVID-19. “Misinformation” quickly evolves to
mean as any opinion or statement, even from recognized experts, which
contradicts or criticizes measures taken and/ or mandated by the WHO, to be
implemented globally by national and regional governments.
23
http://www.vch.ca/Documents/COVID-VCH-Schools-May-21-2020.pdf
98
B-1-939
- 0930 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-940 B-1-940
116. As of June 9th, 2020, neither Prime Minister Trudeau, nor British Columbia
Premier Horgan are willing, and in fact refusing to disclose what medical advice,
and from whom, they are acting upon.
117. The Plaintiffs state and the fact is, that the Defendants and their officials, were
stepping up compulsory face-masks in order to maintain a physical and visual
tool to maintain panic, fear, and to enforce compliance of their baseless measures
due to increasing public resistance, and of their groundless and false basis. The
masks, further act as a visual and present symbol of intimidation and show of
who is in power, and do not act to medically assist but to publicly muzzle, panic,
instill fear, and exert compliance to irrational and ineffective COVID measures
from the Plaintiffs and others. The Plaintiffs state and the fact is, that these
measures were up-stepped after a Canadian survey was released that revealed,
inter alia, that:
(a) 50% of Canadians did not believe Justin Trudeau was being honest about
the COVID-Measures ;
(b) 16% of the Canadians believe that the COVID-Measures are being used to
effect mandatory vaccination and contract tracing and other surveillance;
(c) 19% of the Canadians do not believe that COVID-19 is no more harmful
then a common flu; and
(d) 7% of the Canadians believe that COVID-19 does not exist at all and is
being mis-used as pretext for other, ulterior motives.
99
B-1-940
- 0931 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-941 B-1-941
118. On June 3rd, 2020 Federal Minister of Transport, Omar Alghabra, announced
that face-masks are required by all, when taking public transportation in Canada
whether by plane, train, ship, or transit.
119. Between April 1st and June 15th, 2020 the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(CCLA) reports that approximately 10,000 Covid related charges were laid
across Canada.
120. On June 17th, 2020, the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, considered the
world’s Premier Children’s hospital completed an advisory report, publicly
released days later, to the Minister of Health and Education, with respect to
recommendations for the re-opening of school in September, 2020. The report
was prepared by two experts (in Virology) , upon the contribution and review
of another twenty (20) experts as well as the “SickKids Family Advisory
Networks”. The 11-page report is resound and clear on the facts stat:
(a) Children are at extremely low risk when it comes to COVID-19;
(b) Schools should re-pen in a normal setting in September, 2020 in Ontario;
(c) That no mask should be worn by children because of no evidence of
effectiveness and in fact masks pose a health risk for children;
(d) Social distancing should not be employed; and
(e) That masks and social distancing pose significant physical and
psychological health risks to children. 24
24
“COVID-19: Recommendations for School Re-opening”, Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, Report dated June 17th, 2020.
100
B-1-941
- 0932 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-942 B-1-942
121. On June 23rd, 2020, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms calls for, in
a 69-page report, an end to the lock-down measures based on an analysis of the
lack of medical and scientific evidence for their imposition and the infliction of
unwarranted and severe Charter violations. 25
122. On June 26th , 2020, Sweden’s COVID-19 expert, Anders Tegnell, blasted the
WHO’S response to COVID-19 and states that the “world went crazy” and
further stingingly criticized the WHO as “mis-interpreting data” in branding
Sweden as one of eleven (11) countries who are seeing a “resurgence” in
COVID-19 cases. The Plaintiff state, and the fact is, that Sweden was one of the
few countries in the World who did not adopt, wholesale, the WHO protocol
and in fact faired much better then the countries who did, including Canada, in
that there was no economic shut-down in Sweden. Dr. Tegnell further stated that
the lockdowns “fly in the face of what is known about handling virus
pandemics. 26
123. On June 30th, 2020, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association called for the
extraordinary step, calling on the public to engage in “civil disobedience” of the
masking By-Laws, based on the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence,
that masks are ineffective and pose health risks.
25
“Unprecedented and unjustified: a Charter Analysis of Ontario’s Response to COVID-19” June 22nd, 2020.
26
“Daily Mail Online”, Daily Mail.com, June 26th, 2020
101
B-1-942
- 0933 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-943 B-1-943
124. As of June 23rd, 2021 it has come to light that a Portugal court ruling revealed
that only 0.9% of ‘verified cases’ died of COVID, numbering 152, not the
17,000 deaths that have been claimed 27
125. Since the summer of 2020, to the present, the saturated criticism of the Covid
measures, from the world scientific, medical and legal community has been
overwhelming, with an avalanche of peer-reviewed studies that indicate that:
lockdowns do not work; masks do not work; social distancing does not work. As
well as Public Health Officers, including Bonnie HENRY, warning that the
Covid-19 “vaccines” will not ensure immunity, will further not prevent re-
transmission of the virus to and from the people vaccinated.
126. Meanwhile, from the summer of 2020, to the present, the avalanche of the
preponderance of the scientific and medical evidence also clearly demonstrates
that the harms, including the death-toll, from the measures themselves
exponentially far out-numbers the harm and deaths from the virus.
127. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the lockdowns themselves, of schools
and businesses, and to independent business, and that community is that their
lockdowns are both unnecessary, ineffective, and wholesale destructive.
27
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/lisbon-court-rules-only-0-9-of-verified-cases-died-of-covid-numbering-152-
not-17000-claimed/
102
B-1-943
- 0934 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-944 B-1-944
• B/ THE COVID-19 MEASURES
• Federal Measures
128. On or about March 17th, 2020 Justin Trudeau announces a lock-down and
invoked the following legislation with respect to “pandemic”:
a) The Federal Quarantine Act, stipulating the lock-down of flights to
Canada, and that Canadians returning to Canada, self-isolate and
quarantine themselves for a 14- day period;
b) Various pieces of legislation setting out financial assistance for various
persons and sectors.
Trudeau further and effectively shut down Parliament. Parliament has only
“convened”, sparingly, to pass spending measures, with an amputated, hand-
picked, selection of 25 MPs, notwithstanding that technology such as “Zoom”,
exists to accommodate and convene the entire Parliamentary contingency of the
338 MPs, to date it has not happened. Parliamentary Communities rested in a
legislative coma until April, 2020, where after some sit virtually.
129. Justin Trudeau held (holds) daily press conferences to “inform” Canadians, and
further issues decrees and orders, such as “stay home”, which decrees and fiats
have no legal effect, notwithstanding, that they were acted upon by Municipal
and Provincial enforcement officers, but at that no time has the Federal
Parliament invoked the Federal Emergencies Act .
103
B-1-944
- 0935 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-945 B-1-945
• Provincial Measures
130. In British Columbia, the government followed suit as set out below.
131. On March 17, 2020, Bonnie Henry issued a notice under purportedly the Public
Health Act (the "PHA") that the transmission of the infectious agent SARS-
CoV-2, had caused cases and outbreaks of an illness known as COVID-19 in
British Columbia.
132. On March 18, 2020, the British Columbia Provincial Government declared a
"state of emergency" under the Emergency Program Act [RSBC 1996] c.111.
133. The declaration of a public health emergency further purports to empower
Bonnie Henry (the Chief Provincial Health Officer), to issue verbal orders that
had immediate effect.
134. The purported rationale for the emergency in the period between January 1st to
March 31st, 2020, was that there were three (3) reported deaths attributed to the
COVID-19 virus in Canada. Two (2) in Ontario, and one (1) in British Columbia.
135. In the following months, the mortality rate attributed to COVID-19 increased but
was mainly concentrated in care home facilities, and especially those that were
understaffed and without sufficient medical supplies, just like every other
previous year where the elderly die, in similar numbers, from the complications
of yearly influenza.
136. In its "emergency" response, the Provincial Government closed large sectors of
the British Columbia economy: closing restaurants, fitness facilities, shopping
centres, religious and other peaceful gatherings, issued travel bans, cancelled
104
B-1-945
- 0936 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-946 B-1-946
medical treatments, as well as purported to prohibit constitutionally protected
association and assembly for protests.
137. While hospitals prepared for an influx of COVID-19 patients, many medical
procedures and operations were cancelled under the Provincial Government's
directives. As a result, many died from cancelled surgeries and non-seeking of
medical treatment. However, the high number of intensive care COVID-19
patients did not materialize. Most people infected with COVID-19 experienced
mild to moderate influenza-like symptoms that dissipated quickly.
138. By June 24, 2020, the British Columbia Provincial Government and Public
Health Officer's restrictions on non-essential travel, hotels, and film industries
were lifted. By September 2020, on site, and in person instruction at public
schools, was reintroduced, after having been locked down.
139. The authority to exercise emergency powers under Part 5 of the PHA
purportedly ends when the Provincial Health Officer provides notice that the
emergency has passed (s. 59(1)).
• Orders of Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry
140. The Provincial Health Officer has issued more than fifty (50) orders purportedly
under the authority of Part 5 of the Public Health Act [SBC 2008] c. 28,
including verbal orders (the "PHA Orders").
141. Most of the Provincial Health Officer's Public Health Act [SBC 2008] c. 28
Orders do not reference the medical or scientific basis for issuing the order and
do not satisfy the requirements of s. 52 of the Public Health Act [SBC 2008] c.
105
B-1-946
- 0937 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-947 B-1-947
28, and further constitute the constitutional violation of “dispensing with
Parliament under the pretext of Royal Prerogative”. In a word, Bonnie Henry is
illegally and unconstitutionally acting and governing as if she were the Queen.
132. Order of the Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry, was issued on
February 5th, 2021.
133. Order of the Provincial Health Officer was issued on April 21st, 2021.
134. Order of the Provincial Health Officer dated June 30th, 2021.
134. In British Columbia, like elsewhere, the deaths caused by the covid-
measures themselves far outnumber the deaths purportedly caused
by Covid-19.
142. Despite the relatively low number of persons infected by COVID-19 in British
Columbia, the Public Health Officer failed to provide notice that the emergency
had passed and the Lieutenant Governor in Council continued to extend the
emergency declaration under EPA, through a series of indefinite and unjustified
extensions to the present day.
143. British Columbia is currently in the longest state of “emergency” in its history.
• Ministerial Orders
144. Furthermore, As of June 17, 2020, the British Columbia Provincial Government
had issued thirty(30) orders under the authority of s. 10(1) of the Emergency
Program Act [RSBC 1996] c.111, including orders that were later repealed and
replaced. More orders have been issued since then. All of the orders issued
106
B-1-947
- 0938 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-948 B-1-948
by the Minister contain provisions stating that they apply only for so long as the
declaration of the state of emergency is in effect, which has, to date, been in
perpetuity.
145. Most of the Provincial Government's orders do not reference a specific sub-
paragraph under s. 10(1) but instead rely on the general provision in s. 10(1) that
the Minister may "do all acts and implement all procedures necessary to prevent,
respond to or alleviate the effects of any emergency or disaster.", without
specifying the “effects” and how those “effects” justify the state of emergency.
146. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that reality is that either all or most of the
Ministerial orders were not necessary to "prevent, respond or alleviate" any of
the effects of COVID-19 to the population of British Columbia.
147. The Provincial Government also failed to establish legally binding conditions on
the use of sub-delegated powers to suspend, waive or otherwise alter statutory
provisions for the following Ministerial orders and subsequent orders replacing
them:
a) Ministerial Order M083 which issued on March 26, 2020, after the
initial declarationof a provincial state of emergency. This order applied
to municipalities, regional districts and the City of Vancouver.
Ministerial Order M083 was repealed and replaced by a new order on
May 1, 2020, M139, subsequently in turn repealed and replaced by a
new order, M192, on June 17, 2020.
107
B-1-948
- 0939 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-949 B-1-949
b) M139, Local Government Meetings and Bylaw Process (COVID-19)
Order No. 2,which repealed and replaced M083, Local Government
Meetings and Bylaw Process (COVID-19) Order;
c) Ministerial Order M089, Residential Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 30
March 2020.
d) Ministerial Order M179, Commercial Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 29
May 2020;
e) Ministerial Order M416, Food Liquor premises, Gatherings and Events
(COVID-19) Order No. 2;
f) Ministerial order M425 was issued on November 24th, 2020;
g) Ministerial Order M172 was issued on April 21st, 2021.
141. Indeed, the Ministerial Orders and Public Health Act [SBC 2008] c. 28 Orders
(collectively, the “orders") were and continue to be, inconsistent, contradictory,
and contrary to reasonably established medical and scientific principles and
research, and do not satisfy the requirements of s. 9 of the Emergency Program
Act [RSBC 1996] c.111 and s. 52 of the Public Health Act [SBC 2008] c. 28,
including for, but not limited to, the following reasons:
(a) discouraging the public from wearing masks on the basis that they
were ineffective;
108
B-1-949
- 0940 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-950 B-1-950
(b) mandating that masks be worn in public places;
(c) closing in-house dining but permitting take-out;
(d) not mandating that cooks in public dining establishments wear
maskswhile preparing food for take-out;
(e) allowing in-house dining for groups of the same household, that
could sitnext to groups of different households;
(f) failing to enforce these orders;
(g) allowing shopping in large warehouse grocery and "big box"
franchisessuch as Walmart, Costco, and others (the "Big Box
Stores");
(h) prohibiting and interfering with religious gatherings contrary to s.176
of the Criminal Code;
(i) prohibiting peaceful gatherings if unrelated to work contrary to
constitutional rights as set out below in the within Notice;
(j) limiting shopping in shopping malls;
(k) prohibiting certain travel throughout British Columbia but
allowing travelers from other provinces to travel within
British Columbia;
109
B-1-950
- 0941 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-951 B-1-951
(l) admitting that the limit on the size of gatherings is arbitrary
and was never grounded in science.
142. The effects of these restrictions placed on the Plaintiffs and other
British Columbians, have caused damage disproportionate to any
threat posed by COVID-19, including but not limited to the
following:
(a) Significant increase in overdose deaths. For example, approximately
five people die per day in British Columbia due to an overdose, which
is more than the number of people attributed to COVID-19 related
deaths in British Columbia;
(b) Increase in suicide rates;

(c) Increase in depression and mental-health illness;
(d) Loss of gainful employment;
(e) Increase in domestic violence, including child battery;
(f) Increase in bankruptcies and foreclosures;
(g) Increase in divorces and deteriorations in personal relationships;
(h) Decrease in critical services for the homeless and low income;
(i) Increase in deaths due to medical treatments/surgeries being denies.
40% increase in cancer deaths forecasted as people were too fearful to
see their physician to receive early diagnosis;
(j) Increase in insurance premiums;
(k) Such other effects as may be proved at trial.
143. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that placing this in perspective, in 2018, three-
110
B-1-951
- 0942 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-952 B-1-952
hundred and fourteen (314) British Columbians died in motor vehicle incidents.
In 2019, nine-hundred and eighty-four (984) people died from illicit drug use in
British Columbia and in 2020, one-thousand, five-hundred and forty-eight
(1,548) people died from illicit drug use.
144. In contrast, there were 678 deaths in British Columbia attributed to COVID-19
by the end of week 50 in 2020.
145. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that ten-fold times more people are dying from
the Covid measures than from Covid-19 itself.
146. This kind of economic harm has impacted and will continue to impact British
Columbians and all those who do business in British Columbia for decades by
making British Columbian goods and services less competitive in the global
marketplace.
147. The Plaintiffs, like many British Columbians, have experienced, and continue
to experience, severe economic hardship as a result of the Orders.
148. Meanwhile the Provincial Government, the Provincial Health Officer, and her
staff continue to enjoy economic security through salaries, other benefits, and
pensions. All government salaries, other benefits, and pensions are at public
expense and far less subject to market conditions than the millions of British
Columbians' lack of economic security caused by the continued state of
"emergency".
149. Neither the Provincial Government nor the Public Health Officer to-date have
conducted a risk assessment to assess the likelihood and severity of the

111
B-1-952
- 0943 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-953 B-1-953
negative consequences of the Orders, including those negative outcomes to
economic, physical,emotional, and mental wellbeing mentioned but not limited
to the Restriction Effects.
150. The net, summary effect, of the orders contained above are as follows:
(a) Ordering the shut-down of all business, except for ‘essential’’
businesses which were tied to food, medicine, doctors, and
hospitals;
(b) A ‘social distancing’’ of two (2) meters;
(c) No ‘public gathering’’ of more than five (5) persons, who are un-
related, with ‘social distancing’’ of two (2) meters, which was later
increased to ten (10) persons;
(d) Restaurant and bar shut-downs, except for take-out service;
(e) The physical closure of all public and private schools, daycares,
and universities;
(f) The mandatory use of face-masks, mandated by the Ministry of
Health, to all the Medical Regulatory Medical Services Colleges, to
direct all their licensed members to impose mandatory masking of
all patients, employees, and members, in their place of work;
(g) The shut-down of all park amenities including all play-grounds
and facilities for children;
112
B-1-953
- 0944 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-954 B-1-954
(h) The elimination of one-on-one, and all other programs for special-
needs children, and those suffering from neurological and physical
disabilities;
(i) Banning all public gatherings over five (5) persons,
notwithstanding a social distancing of two (2) meters, including the
banning of religious services, including a restriction on marriages,
funerals, and other religious actions and ritual and rites.
151. On May 21st, 2021, Dr. Bonnie Henry, and her department announced the
availability of the Covid vaccines for twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds,
without the need for their parents’ consent, notwithstanding:
(a) That the Vaccines have NOT undergone required trial and safety
protocols but were all made under and “emergency” basis;
(b) That there has NOT been a recorded death or life-threatening case of any
twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year old in Canada;
(c) That twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds are not at risk of Covid-19;
(d) That, in the absence of informed consent, it constitutes medical
experimentation and thus constituted a “crime against humanity”
emanating from the Nuremberg trials, and principles following the
medical experimentations by the Nazi regime and codified in Canada, as
a Criminal act, pursuant to the War Crime and Crimes Against
Humanity Act;
113
B-1-954
- 0945 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-955 B-1-955
(e) And that on June 5th, 2021 Dr. Joss Reimer, Medical Lead for the
Manitoba Vaccine Implementation Task Force, in asserting that the
various vaccines can be mixed, publicly declared that the Covid-19
vaccinations are a “big human experiment”;
(f) That many twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds do not possess the
intellectual capacity to give informed consent;
(g) And by doing so Dr. Bonnie Henry, and the Province of British Columbia
are violating the s.7 Charter protected right of the parent-child
relationship and in contempt and subversion of the “mature minor”
doctrine of the Supreme Court of Canada.
• Reckless and Unlawful Statements and Actions of Leaders
152. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Trudeau, and the other Co-Defendants
reckless in their groundless, ignorant, and arrogant dictates, without legal basis,
so as to cause and instill a general atmosphere of fear, panic and confusion. Such
decrees by Trudeau, and others, including Henry, included, but are not restricted
to the following:
(a) With respect to Prime Minister Justine Trudeau, he made the following
(mis)statements, for example:
(i) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians: “People should be

staying home, self-isolating with family.”28
28
Retrieved at : https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/covid-19-confirmed-cases-latest-news-and-other-developments-in-
ottawa/
114
B-1-955
- 0946 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-956 B-1-956
(ii) “We’ve all seen the pictures of people online who seem to think
they’re invincible,” Trudeau said. “Well, they’re not. Go home
and stay home.” 29
(iii) Justin Trudeau has issued a stern warning to Canadians who ignore
social distancing advice, telling citizens to “go home and stay
home!” – and leaving open the possibility his government could
take more extreme measures as the number of confirmed
coronavirus cases continues to rise. 30
(iv) “To all the kids out there, who can’t go on play dates or on spring
break vacation...I know this is a big change, but we have to do this
for our grandparents and for the nurses and doctors in hospitals.” 31
(v) “So, to everyone, stay at home, and no matter what stay 2 meters
apart, if you do have to go out. When it gets hard let’s remember
we are all in this together.” (24:35) “…how important it is not just
for ourselves, but for our loved ones and health care workers, for
our seniors, that we stay home, that we stay 2 meters apart, as
much as we can and that we continue to wash our hands regularly.”
(30:12) 32
(vi) “I know it is tough to stay home, especially as the weather gets

nicer. If you have kids, it is even tougher, but to get back outside
and running around the playground and park as soon as possible,
you need to keep them inside for a little longer. (10:22) 33
(vii) “…but I can tell you that we know it is very difficult situation for
Canadians. There are very challenging projections out there that
will emphasize how important it is for all of us to do our part, to
stay home, to keep ourselves safe, to keep our loved ones safe and
get through this…”(42:26) 34
(viii) More and more Canadians are avoiding public spaces. If your
friends or family members are still going to parks and playgrounds,
they are risking lives. Tell them to stop. 35
29
Retrieved at: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/g5xng4/coronavirus-updates-canada-ottawa-and-justin-trudeau-may-jail-and-
fine-people-to-keep-them-home
30
Retrieved at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/justin-trudeau-canada-coronavirus-stay-home
31
https://www.richmond-news.com/news/trudeau-dodges-covid-19-lockdown-appeals-1.24103564
32
Retrieved at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76iqxbZz4X8
33
Retrieved at: \https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3GDk8uHv5A
34 Retrieved at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfAa0vLItn8
35
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVf0_maXkAE7qBg.jpg
115
B-1-956
- 0947 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-957 B-1-957
(ix) On the topic of Asymptomatic viral shed contradiction puts to

questions the merit of social distancing among healthy people: A
reporter asks Mr. Trudeau, after his wife had been tested positive
for coronavirus, what kind of advice he had received from medical
doctors.
“In terms of advice I have gotten from medical
professionals, it was explained to me that as long as I do
not show any symptoms at all, there is no value in
having me tested.” (15:30)A reporter asks about the
possibility of transmission to other members of the
cabinet,17:02 “According to Health Officials the fact that
I have expressed no symptoms means that anyone that I
engaged with throughout this week has not been put at
risk (17:12) 36
(b) While Trudeau made the above-noted comments and decrees,
without legal basis whatsoever, and further contradicted actual
Provincial laws, Trudeau, all the while breaks social distancing
Provincial Laws by:
(i)On March 29, 2020 ; Dr. Theresa Tam, the Chief Public
Health Officer of Canada:
“Urban dwellers/Cottagers should RESIST THE URGE to

head to the cottage and rural properties as these
communities have less capacity to manage COVID19.”
(ii) On April 1st, 2020 the government of Quebec introduced
strict travel restrictions across the province, including
police checkpoints to prevent unnecessary travel in and out
of Quebec.
36
Retrieved at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjEgtT98jqk
116
B-1-957
- 0948 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-958 B-1-958
(iii) Shortly after calling on Canadians to “stay home” and
“Skype that big family dinner,” Trudeau crossed the
provincial border from Ottawa into Quebec on Easter
Weekend to visit his wife and three children who had been
living at their Harrington Lake cottage since March 29 ,
2020. 37
(c) With respect to Premier Doug Ford of Ontario:
(i) Premier Ford tells business they can refuse customers that will not
wear a mask.
"Any business has the right to refuse anyone. That's their

business," Ford said on a teleconference last week. Despite
the fact that no mandatory masks order was in place, and
contrary to the legal opinion of the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association (CCLA); 38
(ii) Ford tells people to stay away from their cottages but goes to visit
his own cottage; 39
(iii) Doug Ford has over his two daughters, and family, who each live in
different households for a total of 6 – violating 5 person maximum
orders. 40
37
Retrieved at https://globalnews.ca/news/6815936/coronavirus-justin-trudeau-andrew-scheer-easter-travel/
38
https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/9994798-doug-ford-says-businesses-can-refuse-anyone-not-wearing-a-mask-but-
rights-watchdog-says-not-so-fast/?fBritish Columbialid=iwar2_ba_3eddfpm0shzqjpnht6fmhw0yjfualjugjrnxczcvi_70gfwodqla
https://www.inbrampton.com/no-mask-no-service-businesses-have-the-right-to-require-masks-on-customers?fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR2UMCjwOtyIXU898j_EwlnBr1nuqiM7TJxJDs6ECz5tACPAHFMipGiHB7c
39
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/05/08/ford-cottage-coronavirus/
40
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-physical-distancing-daughters-1.5564756
117
B-1-958
- 0949 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-959 B-1-959
(d) With respect to Toronto Mayor John Tory:
(i) On April 19, 2020: numerous photos of social distancing violations
during a parade to salute health care workers (pictured standing
shoulder to shoulder down University Ave.) 41
(ii) May 23: Here is Tory violating social distancing rules and
modeling counterproductive mask use at Trinity Bellwoods park,
where thousands had gathered; 42
(e) With respect to Bonnie Henry, by imposing lock-down measures but
exempting wine-tasting at wineries, because Henry owns a winery which
begs the question: if you can stand and wine taste at her winery, why can
you not taste at a bar?
(f) With respect to Jagmeet Singh,
(g) With respect to Jason Kenney,
(h) With respect to Mike Farnworth,
(i) With respect to John Horgan,
153. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the various leaders are fast and loose
with ignoring their own rules, contrary to law, and ignoring the actual rules
implemented, because they know the measures are false and ineffective and that
the virus is no more dangerous than a seasonal viral respiratory illness. This
further holds true for Neil Ferguson who put out the false modeling early on, in
41 Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-salutes-health-care-workers-covid19-1.5537982

42
retrieved at: https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1964623
118
B-1-959
- 0950 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-960 B-1-960
March 2020, and who had to resign his post in the UK for breaching the Rules.
Other examples of such reckless behaviour and statements include:
(a) British Columbia Premier John Horgan has made statements referring to
British Columbia citizens as “selfish”, telling those who hold a masking
exemption to “Buy a Boat”, as opposed to exercising their exemption to
ride the BC Ferries. He has also used methods of guilt-tripping, and fear-
mongering to encourage compliance above consent: “It does disappoint me
that British Columbians are disregarding good advice,” even making
further threats to treat citizens in a matter akin to cattle: “The challenge is
personal behaviour,” he said, then added by way of warning: “We don’t
want to use a stick.” And has also gaslighted women, “Pregnant people are
now a priority population to get their vaccine. All Health Canada -
approved vaccines are safe and effective, including for people who are
pregnant.”, and young people, who have been proven to exhibit the lowest
risks for contracting deadly cases of Covid-19, “the cohort from 20 -29
was not paying attention to the Covid broadcasts,” “Do not blow this for
the rest of us”.
(b) Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth has been quoted making bigoted,
threatening, and condescending statements toward British Columbia
citizens.
"Shut up, grow up and mask up,”
“These irresponsible idiots need to look in the mirror,”

119
B-1-960
- 0951 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-961 B-1-961
"They are the problem and the sooner we get this curve bent down,
the sooner we get COVID under control, then they can go back to
their narcissistic self-indulgent ways - but until that time, they don’t
have the right to endanger the health of the public.”
154. The Plaintiff states, and fact is, that Horgan has no clue, and is wholly
unqualified, and has not, assessed the “well accepted science” and “advice”, and
same holds for Farnworth and TRUDEAU, all of whom simply follow one
singular dogma from the WHO, while refusing to disclose the “science”, its
substance or source, and what “advice” is being given by whom to them all-the-
while ignore vast pool of experts who state that the measures are NOT
warranted;
(c) Andrew Scheer and family, Elizabeth May, and Liberal Cabinet Minister
ignore social distancing orders:
“Parliamentarians packed onto a small nine-seat

government jet last week — ignoring pandemic health
guidelines to maintain a distance of two meters from
others — in their haste to reach Ottawa for a vote on
federal emergency economic legislation that passed on
Saturday. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who lives in
British Columbia, boarded the Challenger jet along with
Liberal British Columbia cabinet minister Carla Qualtrough,
Conservative Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer,
his wife and their five children last Friday — filling all seats
on the aircraft.” 43
43
Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/challenger-flight-may-scheer-qualtrough-1.5530542
120
B-1-961
- 0952 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-962 B-1-962
(d) Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia Provincial Health Officer allows
gatherings of 50 and when challenged on conflicting figures from across
Canada confirm “None of these are based on scientific evidence.” 44
(e) Dr. Yaffe: Ontario's Associate Chief Officer of Health Dr. Yaffe caught
blatantly violating the social-distancing rules, just minutes after the
premier said that based on public-health officials' advice we'll have to stay
on lock-down for an indefinite period. 45 No such indefinite “lock-down”
was mandated by any law.
(f) Dr. Bonnie Henry: Bonnie Henry was caught taking a helicopter trip, while
unmasked over the 2021 Easter long weekend, in violation of her own
mandates limiting intra-provincial travel over the holiday. Bonnie Henry
also continued to allow wine tastings during the time period that provincial
ministerial orders in British Columbia prohibited restaurants, bars, and
pubs from allowing indoor dining. Bonnie Henry is a part-owner of the
Clos du Soleil winery in Keremios, British Columbia.
155. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the illegal actions, and decrees issued by
The Defendants and other public officials were done, in abuse and excess of
their offices, knowingly to propagate a groundless and falsely-declared
‘pandemic’’, and generate fear and confusion on the ground, not only with
citizens, but further, and moreover, with enforcement officials who are pursuing,
44 Retrieved at: https://www.1043thebreeze.ca/2020/04/01/British Columbia-not-budging-on-50-person-limit-restirction/

45
https://twitter.com/RosemaryFreiTO/status/1254908247322083331
121
B-1-962
- 0953 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-963 B-1-963
detaining, ticketing for perfectly legal conduct, because of the contradictory
laws, and conduct of these public officials. All the while, their own personal
conduct clearly manifests a knowledge that the ‘pandemic’’ is false, and the
measures phony, designed and implemented for improper and ulterior purposes,
at the behest of the WHO, controlled and directed by Billionaire, Corporate, and
Organizational Global Oligarchs.
• C/ IGNORING AND FAILING TO ADDRESS MEDICAL EXPERTS’ EVIDENCE
•The Nature of Viral Respiratory Illness (or Disease) and COVID-19
156. From the on-set of the declared emergency, and shortly thereafter up to the
summer of 2020, experts such as Dr. Denis RANCOURT, Ph.D., set out that the
scientific preponderance of the evidence which contradicted and criticized the
measures invoked, as set out below, and the fact is that, as is borne out by vast
preponderance of medical and scientific study, that regardless of the novel viral
specification (“strain”), viral strains which lead to Seasonal Viral Respiratory
Illness (Diseases) annually follow the same pattern, namely:
(a) That classifying causes of death by “influenza” or “influenza-related”, or
“pneumonia” is unhelpful and unreliable in the face of under-lying chronic
diseases, particularly in the elderly (co-morbidity”);
(b) That what is of more and central relevance is simply the total number of
excess deaths during a viral strain season;
122
B-1-963
- 0954 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-964 B-1-964
(c) That the year-to-year winter-burden (excess) mortality in mid- latitude
nations is robustly regular, with respect to Seasonal Viral Respiratory
illness due to the following:
(i) The absolute humidity which directly controls the impact of the
transmission of airborne, pathogen-laden aerosol particle droplets;
(ii) In mid-latitude countries, on either side of the Equator, “Flu-
season” emerges in the late fall-winter months, owing to the dry,
humidity-free, air which allows the pathogen-laden aerosol
particles to travel freely and effectively to infect and be transmitted
from person to person which phenomenon occurs on both sides of
the Equator, at different times on the calendar year, given the
reversal of the seasons on the opposite sides of the Equator;
(iii) As the temperature rises, and humidity content in the air increases,
the incident of transmission is reduced. 46 In tropical year-round hot
climates this phenomenon is not generally in play. Nor is it at play
in extreme cold climates towards both North and South Poles.
157. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, as reflected in the scientific and
medical literature that:
(a) The above means that all the viral respiratory diseases that seasonally
plague temporal-climate populations every year are extremely contagious
46
“All-Cause Mortality during COVID-19”. Denis G. RANCOURT PhD., June 2nd, 2020, and all cited scientific and medical studies
therein.
123
B-1-964
- 0955 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-965 B-1-965
for two reasons: (1) they are transmitted by small aerosol particles that are
part of the fluid air and fill virtually all enclosed air spaces occupied by
humans, and (2) a single such aerosol particle carries the minimal infective
dose (MID) sufficient to cause infection in a person, if breathed into the
lungs, where the infection is initiated.
(b) This is why the pattern of all-cause mortality is so robustly stable and
distributed globally, if we admit that the majority of the burden is induced
by viral respiratory diseases, while being relatively insensitive to the
particular seasonal viral ecology for this operational class of viruses. This
also explains why the pattern is inverted between the Northern and
Southern hemispheres, irrespective of tourist and business air travel and so
on.
(c) The data shows that there is a persistent and regular pattern of winter-
burden mortality that is independent of the details, and that has a well
constrained distribution of year to year number of excess deaths
(approximately 8% to 11% of the total yearly mortality, in the USA, 1972
through 1993). Despite all the talk of epidemics and pandemics and novel
viruses, the pattern is robustly constant.
(d) An anomaly worthy of panic, and of harmful global socio-economic
engineering, would need to consist of a naturally caused yearly winter-
burden mortality that is statistically greater than the norm. That has not
occurred since the unique flu pandemic of 1918 (the “Spanish Influenza”).
124
B-1-965
- 0956 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-966 B-1-966
Covid-19 is no exception and no more virulent than all others apart from
the influenza pandemic of 1918.
(e) Scientific studies show that the three recent epidemics assigned as
pandemics, the H2N2 pandemic of 1957, the H3N2 pandemic of 1968, and
the H1N1 pandemic of 2009, were not more virulent (in terms of yearly
winter-burden mortality) than the regular seasonal epidemics . In fact,
scientific studies further show that the epidemic of 1951 was concluded to
be more deadly, on the basis of P&I data, in England, Wales and Canada,
than the pandemics of 1957 and 1968). 47
• Contrary Views of the Experts to WHO protocol
158. The Plaintiffs further state that the COVID-19 measures have in fact accelerated,
and caused more than would be normal deaths, and in the elderly population,
which has accounted for 81% of the deaths with respect to COVID-19, mostly in
Long-Term Care facilities. 48
159. The Plaintiffs state and fact is that these Defendants, while purportedly relying
on “advice” from their medical officers, are not transparent as to what the advice
was, nor the scientific/ medical basis was, and in fact suppressing it. In fact, to
date, they refuse to disclose where they are ultimately getting this ‘advice’’, and
from whom, based on what medical evidence. The fact is that they are simply
parroting the “advice” and dictates of the WHO without any scrutiny whatsoever,
47
therein.
48
therein.
125
B-1-966
- 0957 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-967 B-1-967
and without ever addressing nor recognizing Canadian and international experts
who took, and continue to take, a contrary view and criticism of those directives
from the WHO.
160. The Plaintiffs state that such experts include, early on, but are not restricted to:
(a) Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at
the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, and head of the
Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited
research scientists in German history.
(b) Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician specializing in Pulmonology,
politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts
of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.
(c) Dr Joel Kettner , a professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery
at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba
province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious
Diseases.
(d) Dr John Ioannidis, a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and
Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of
Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of
Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention
Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center
at Stanford (METRICS).
126
B-1-967
- 0958 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-968 B-1-968
(e) Dr Yoram Lass, an Israeli physician, politician and former Director
General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the
Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the
science-based television show Tatzpit.
(f) Dr Pietro Vernazza , a Swiss physician specializing in Infectious
Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health
Policy.
(g) Frank Ulrich Montgomery ,a German radiologist, former President of the
German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical
Association.
(h) Prof. Hendrik Streeck, a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and
clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute
of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.
(i) Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut
Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut
de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de
Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for
the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’
programme.
(j) Dr. David Katz , an American physician and founding director of the Yale
University Prevention Research Center.
127
B-1-968
- 0959 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-969 B-1-969
(k) Michael T. Osterholm, a regents professor and director of the Center for
Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
(l) Dr Peter Goetzsche , a Professor of Clinical Research Design and
Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane
Medical Collaboration. 49
And the Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that the above-noted experts are not alone in
their contrary views and criticisms, but merely examples of a much bigger body of
experts who take the same views, which contradict and criticize the WHO and
current measures adopted by Canada and British Columbia.
161. These experts have expressed, early on, in summary, for example, the following
opinions:
(a) By Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi:
“[that The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are

grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life
expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact
on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people.
The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services
to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices
empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact
profoundly on our whole society. All these measures are leading to
self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a
spook.”
49
https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/03/coronavirus-skepticism-these-12-leading-medical-experts-contradict-the-official-
government-media-narrative/
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-
panic/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=337111ad6d6d902b24b4e099f5281c65e3e4b9f4-1585388282-0-
Af0o_edKyUgbHvh1VcWNkI9pmmKmNDpIe3t8p8AzOfNSL3KMq2f_1tyTqyj4i1RIgmD_uDh8P8ulAs_zAhps_nKe8fMclO8scdWTV4Jf5xp
ZtzHt3Hg5mrz4twiZSnTJ3tojWZUi6Vu4pAcnuDnaZ4WVv7Da0oCcEh38A0GuO5trR0zZOfPrwpXW5P7QlRjcNju5ST6yX4Ev7A09GNLFQRi
bRI8X1HgEpCzf5fPIQtOchyiX9wWUG-
oM4wIgZqVvKDyUdHNQO1ZpMAXQFtOaEb9VeapKfqawhowADQDFU00X9yL8VLExpR33YwWjprrD7_zYCdPsI6xlOAZ06Js3baIu9t35M7
s2F9IrPgzUR0W5&fBritish Columbialid=IwAR0ZWy2bg8_Hioqtuj-5xuOP8zKS-ds2-
OqPxNL3MArzYJbwwEhrKImvnkA
128
B-1-969
- 0960 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-970 B-1-970
(b) By Dr Wolfgang Wodarg that:
“what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this
virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the
same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?” That’s
missing.”
(c) By Dr Joel Kettner that:
“I have never seen anything like this. I’m not talking about the
pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is
called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t
always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and
I’m trying to understand why. . . I worry about the message to the
public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in
the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings
with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to
that. . . In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been
the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases
reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported
is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into
perspective.”
(d) By Dr John Ioannidis that:
“Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are

disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.
As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection
bias may even worsen in the near future. . . The one situation
where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond
Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case
fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly
population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
. . .Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some
say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even
some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have
been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8%
when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. If we had not
known about a new virus out there, and had not checked
individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to
129
B-1-970
- 0961 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-971 B-1-971
“influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most,

we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit
worse than average. . . .“A fiasco in the making? As the
coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without
reliable data”, Stat News, 17th March 2020.”
(e) By Dr Yoram Lass that:
“Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory

problems, more than three times any other European country. In
the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season. . . .In
every country, more people die from regular flu compared with
we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached
the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination
against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there
maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in
contrast, is a virus with public relations. . . .Whoever thinks that
governments end viruses is wrong. – Interview in Globes, March
22nd 2020.”
(f) By Dr Pietro Vernazza that:
“We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by

epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned
science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China.
This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have
occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the
deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over
80 years. . . .In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to
the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of
every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but
often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the
end of their lives. . . . If we close the schools, we will prevent the
children from quickly becoming immune. . . .We should better
integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions. –
Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020 .”
(g) By Frank Ulrich Montgomery that:
“I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like

this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have
130
B-1-971
- 0962 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-972 B-1-972
to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder
when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and
daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will
take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a
lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their
capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the
lockdown. – Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020.”
(h) By Prof. Hendrik Streeck that:
“The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous

than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the
upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because
the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also
an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not
so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it
more dangerous. . . .You also have to take into account that the
Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In
Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses
died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement.
Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19
statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died
anyway, even without Sars-2. – Interview in Frankfurter
Allgemeine, 16th March 2020”.
(i) By Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. that:
“The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6

million people die of respiratory infections each year compared
with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.
. . .This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in
OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common
coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January
2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-
value was 0.11 (not significant).…it should be noted that
systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-
CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is
equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic
patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available,
which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this
specific pathology. – “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus
data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March
2020.”
131
B-1-972
- 0963 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-973 B-1-973
(j) By Dr. David Katz that:
“I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health

consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools
and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting
and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus
itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many
businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and
despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first
order. – “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the
Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020.”
(k) By Michael T. Osterholm that:
“Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools,

transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert
halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all
of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely
result would be not just a depression but a complete economic
breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a
vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold. . . [T]he best
alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for
serious disease continue to work, keep business and
manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same
time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through
physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as
aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually
build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on
which our lives are based.
– “Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no”
cure”, Washington Post 21st March 2020
(l) By Dr Peter Goetzsche that:
“Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for
measures that are too draconian. They will only get in trouble if
they do too little. So, our politicians and those working with public
health do much more than they should do. . . .No such draconian
measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and
they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year
132
B-1-973
- 0964 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-974 B-1-974
round, as it is always winter somewhere. We cannot close down

the whole world permanently. . . .Should it turn out that the
epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people
wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure
draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember
the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the
tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!” 50
“Corona: an epidemic of mass panic”, blog post on Deadly
Medicines 21st March 2020
162. Expert criticism has also been levelled by Canadian experts, including:
(a) By Dr Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., expert in public health and Researcher,
In stating that:
“Federal and provincial Canadian government responses to and

communications about COVID-19 have been irresponsible.”“The
approach being followed by governments is
reckless.”“Justification for the early panic-response is not
corroborated.”“Faith in epidemic-modelling of catastrophe-
scenarios and mitigation strategies is not justified.” 51
(b) Dr. Richard Schabas, Ontario’s former Chief Medical Officer who is of
the opinion that:
• “We have fundamentally over-reacted and misjudged the

magnitude of the problem.”
• “lockdown measures are unsustainable”
• “the virus isn’t going anywhere”
• “In no country, including Italy, has the death toll come anywhere close
to what we would expect in an average influenza year.” (CBC News,
March 22, 2020) 52
50
Another 10 experts have been added to this link. Total is 22 experts.
51
http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/OCLA-Report-2020-1-Criticism-of-Government-Response-to-COVID19.pdf
52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm9alyH8x_
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/virus-isnt-going-anywhere-says-121720522.html
133
B-1-974
- 0965 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-975 B-1-975
(c) Based on Dr. Richard Schabas’ study of SARS and quarantine 53 Schabas
states:
“far more cases are out there than are being reported. This is
because many cases have no symptoms and testing capacity has
been limited. There have been about 100,000 cases reported to
date, but, if we extrapolate from the number of reported deaths and
a presumed case-fatality rate of 0.5 per cent, the real number is
probably closer to two million – the vast majority mild or
asymptomatic.”
“ the number of deaths was comparable to an average

influenza season. That’s not nothing, but it’s not catastrophic,
either, and it isn’t likely to overwhelm a competent health-care
system. Not even close.” “Quarantine belongs back in the Middle
Ages. Save your masks for robbing banks. Stay calm and carry on.
Let’s not make our attempted cures worse than the disease.” 54
(d) Dr Joel Kettner - former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba
province; professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at
Manitoba University; Medical Director of the International Centre for
Infectious Diseases. In a phone interview on CBC Radio he stated:
“in 30 years of public health medicine I have never seen anything

like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about
the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is
called influenza. . . . But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m
trying to understand why.
. . . the data they are getting is incomplete to really make sense

of the size of the threat. We are getting very crude numbers of
cases and deaths, very little information about testing rates,
contagious analysis, severity rates, who is being hospitalised, who
is in intensive care, who is dying, what are the definitions to decide
53
54
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-strictly-by-the-numbers-the-coronavirus-does-not-register-as-a-dire/
134
B-1-975
- 0966 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-976 B-1-976
if someone died of the coronavirus or just died with the

coronavirus. There is so much important data that is very hard to
get to guide the decisions on how serious a threat this is.
The other part is we actually do not have that much good

evidence for the social distancing methods. It was just a couple of
review in the CDC emerging infectious disease journal, which
showed that although some of them might work, we really don’t
know to what degree and the evidence is pretty weak.
The third part is the pressure that is being put on public health
doctors and public health leaders. And that pressure is coming
from various places. The first place it came from was the
Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) when
he said “This is a grave threat and a public enemy number one”, I
have never heard a Director-General of WHO use terms like
that.” 55
163. Other pointed criticism and opposite views, early on, included:
(a) Stanford University Team—to the effect that the Evidence of Covid 19
mortality rate is low; 56
(b) By Thomas Stavola, Rutgers University Law School Relaxation of
Lockdown via Quarantine of Symptomatics and Digital Contact Tracing,
Experts Agree, indicating that:
“The latest scientific data indicates that mild and asymptomatic

prevalence is much higher than previously thought, thus, the true
fatality rate is closer to 0.4%, or possibly even lower. While
SARS-CoV-2 can be severe in very small subset, these values
indicate that the population-based severity burden is much lower
55
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/17/listen-cbc-radio-cuts-off-expert-when-he-questions-covid19-
narrative/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=d3faf8dfba5018289da87f791a612c2495a7f86d-1585163840-0-
AcjXr346mVjSnluV8YDpGpd_VknFDStnK_liia4dphot9-E3ukKrgN7snq4BA4LggYPkDzLCQ8JXC7G-
hqZtf0BZ0LIgFi5mB5Wv34UJsPHJy6UbROLM35V1nV98oiPR7t8pfCOhZ75WWrgS4NCn6vwzBMXALZw0UMU32u_sijPnsW53IpHqSEyCn
Ddx9dfpJokTen28kaf0ls4UoNQMtfCxCbBpmxmdeFwYj6XWo-
XQXWC4rA57a_cbcLR54bfmC1imS1vPBIsHHqljjCg5N2joQ9spQJUCbF80INdWsmat8SOzlb2pDrtNdA9dCUd62LRszCWgTBrVxRFu7zjPAB
r3Jj0hvjtLIkniXq3AnMs1lCU0rIhPAGzHmXAsEvsRUw
56
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/stanford-team-finds-evidence-covid-19-mortality-rate-low-2-17-times-lower-whos-
esta?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20Personal%20update%20%28VVNwqr%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily
%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpBritish
ColumbiaI6ICJqb2huZnJvbW91dHdlc3RAZ21haWwuY29tIiwgImtsX2NvbXBhbnlfaWQiOiAiSzJ2WEF5In0%3D
135
B-1-976
- 0967 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-977 B-1-977
than initially considered months ago. Studies indicate that

asymptomatic transmission is negligible[1]. Maria Van Kerkhove,
who heads the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and
zoonoses unit, stated that asymptomatic cases are definitely not a
major driver of transmission.” 57
(c) By Knut Wittkowski - German epidemiologist. Mass Isolation
Preventing Herd Immunity , and conluding that:
“The lockdown prevents the normal progression of natural

immunity that is key to protecting the wellbeing of the most
vulnerable. The extended lockdown will increase the harm already
done many fold including deaths.
Dr. Wittkowski said we must protect and quarantine the frail, sick
and very elderly 10% of our population, while allowing the other
90% to acquire the virus with mild to no symptoms, thereby
gaining true NATURAL herd immunity. He estimated this to be a
4 week process.
When people are allowed to go about their daily lives in a

community setting, he argued, the elderly could eventually –
sooner rather than later – come into contact with the rest of the
population in “about four weeks” because the virus at this point
would be “vanquished.”
“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the
disease is ‘herd immunity,’” 58
(d) By Martin Dubravec, MD - Allergist/Clinical Immunologist Allergy and
Asthma Specialists of Cadillac Cadillac, MI, conducting that:The Answer
is Herd Immunity 59;
57
https://medium.com/@tomstavola/latest-science-on-covid-19-and-digital-contract-tracing-f58ee55b3b9b
58
https://www.aier.org/article/stand-up-for-your-rights-says-professor-knut-m-wittkowski/?fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR2ZuYv6Cbcsjiln2UJHXOk84KOjbSOWoxceTSiaNZdl_eZuhadppi25PnE
https://ratical.org/PerspectivesOnPandemic-II.html
59
https://aapsonline.org/coronavirus-covid-19-public-health-apocalypse-or-anti-american/
136
B-1-977
- 0968 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-978 B-1-978
(e) By Dr. Dubravec’s whose advice on how to end this epidemic is:
"What can be done to end this epidemic? The answer is herd

immunity. Let those who will not die nor become seriously ill
from the disease get infected and immune to the disease. Don’t
close schools – open them up! Don’t close universities – reopen
them! Let those under the age of 65 with no significant health
problems go to work. Their risk of death is very close to zero.
They become the wall that stops the virus.
Our current strategy of isolating these healthy people from the

virus: a. is not working – the virus is still spreading and b. for
those who theoretically may be shielded from the virus, they will
get exposed later. Our current strategy is actually leading to a
prolonged COVID-19 season! Herd immunity works and despite
our current efforts to mess it up, herd immunity will be the
ultimate reason the virus dies down. We should promote the
concept, not try to stop it. Unlike the influenza epidemics of the
past, this virus is not attacking young people. We can use herd
immunity to our collective advantage."
The bottom line is that herd immunity is what will stop the
virus from spreading. Not containment. Not a vaccine. Not
staying locked in our homes. It’s time we had an honest
conversation on how to move beyond containment.
(f) By Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche that: “The Coronavirus mass panic is
not justified.” 60
(g) By the Wall Street Journal in “Rethinking the Coronavirus Shutdown”,
that:
No society can safeguard public health for long at the cost of its
economic health. 61
60
https://www.deadlymedicines.dk/wp-content/uploads/G%C3%B8tzsche-The-Coronavirus-mass-panic-is-not-justified.pdf
61
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rethinking-the-coronavirus-shutdown-11584659154
137
B-1-978
- 0969 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-979 B-1-979
(h) By the Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University, who plotted
the rates of new coronavirus infections of the U.S., U.K., Sweden, Italy,
Israel, Switzerland, France, Germany, and Spain, concluding that:
“The numbers told a shocking story: irrespective of whether the

country quarantined like Israel, or went about business as usual
like Sweden, coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact
same way. The professor believes this evidence - actual evidence
and data, not the projections of some model - indicate that
there is no need for either quarantines or economic closures.” 62
(i) By Professor Stefano Montanari that: "The Virus Vaccine is a Scam" 63;
(j) By Virologist Hendrick Streeck that: “There is no danger of infecting
someone else while shopping” 64;
(k) By:
(i) Sucharit Bakhdi: 65
(ii) John Ioannidis, Stanford: 66
(iii) John Lee: 67
(iv) Perspectives on the Pandemic | Professor Knut Wittkowski |
Episode 2. 68
62
https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2020/04/shutdowns-were-pointless-all-along/#.XpnwkkhQ_ZA.facebook
63
https://europeansworldwide.wordpress.com/2020/04/02/the-virus-vaccine-is-a-scam/
64
https://www.zuercher-presse.com/virologe-hendrick-streeck-gibt-keine-gefahr-beim-einkaufen-jemand-anderen-zu-
infizieren/?cn-reloaded=1
65
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBB9bA-gXL4&fBritish Columbialid=IwAR1XMZJdTEpe-
9woCk7YlMd5WShxUms_loYZYLKVBR8CQICkG-VjD63Z5SY
66
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6MZy-2fcBw&fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR1LCsQoUVv3dmZzn_2Uwzl85XgFofld0tnn8iSMTMAODv5N9_Dwsi7f3K4
67
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-to-understand-and-report-figures-for-covid-19-deaths-/amp
68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGC5sGdz4kg
138
B-1-979
- 0970 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-980 B-1-980
(v) “Medical Doctor Blows C Vi Rus Scamdemic Wide Open”
Andrew Kaufman M D in (Nederlands ondertiteld); 69
All indicating that the “pandemic” is not a pandemic and the modeling
and measures unwarranted;
(l) French researchers: in COVID FEAR vs. DATA :
"Under these [first world] conditions, there does not seem to be a

significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2
in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses " which are
responsible for 10 to 20 percent of all respiratory infections,
including colds, worldwide.” 70
(m) In: Coronavirus COVID-19: Public Health Apocalypse or Panic, Hoax,
and Anti-American? 71;
(n) In: Stanford doctor says Fauci doesn't have the evidence to back up his
claims; 72
(o) In: Questioning Conventional Wisdom in the COVID-19 Crisis, with Dr.
Jay Bhattacharya; 73
(p) By Dr M. I. Adil, Corona Virus is a Hoax; 74
(q) In Resp therapist blowing the whistle on covid -19. 75
69
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8JBg9H725E
70
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102597/?fBritish Columbialid=IwAR29vpTe-Dk-
_xoVzVRbuAgVhil1k0DcZkGqyYsak6lC-OByjZcBRP6cyjc
71
https://aapsonline.org/cornoavirus-covid-19-public-health-apocalypse-or-panic-hoax-and-anti-american/
72
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UO3Wd5urg0
73
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J04YzligPyU
74
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9WeIOX1UuQ&feature=youtu.be
75
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0aDAM5LzWA
139
B-1-980
- 0971 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-981 B-1-981
164. Since the summer of 2020, to the present, the avalanche of the world “scientific”
evidence and community of scientists and doctors continues to scream, which
falls upon the deaf ears of the Defendants, that:
(a) Masks do not work to prevent the transmission of aerosol, airborne virus,
in that:
(i) masks do not slow or stop the spread of viruses; 76
(ii) in fact, masks may help viruses spread; 77
(iii) most robust studies have found little to no evidence for the
effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population; 78
(iv) when masks (especially cloth masks) are worn improperly and over
extended periods they can actually cause disease and other serious
health issues; 79
76 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707213/
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-children-tragic-unscientific-and-damaging/
https://www.aier.org/article/masking-a-careful-review-of-the-evidence/
https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/farce-mask-its-safe-for-only-20-minutes-20030427-gdgnyo.html
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707213/pdf/aim-olf-M206817.pdf
77
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5
78
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13523664
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
79
https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/
140
B-1-981
- 0972 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-982 B-1-982
(v) breathing in the microscopic particles from synthetic masks can
cause health problems including cancer similar to asbestos. Some
masks have been recalled because they have been found to contain
toxic materials dangerous to lungs; 80
(vi) masks use leads to dry and irritated eyes, rashes, nosebleeds,
pneumonia and other bacterial infections, damages to ear cartilages; 81
(vii) Masks cause a rapid buildup of CO2 to levels, which are deemed
unsafe by OSHA. 82
(b) That “lock-downs” do not work, and in fact cause irreparable, devastating
harm:
(i) a French study of 160 countries found no association between
stringency of government lockdowns/restrictions and Covid-19
mortality; 83
(ii) a peer-reviewed study, dated January 5, 2021 by eminent Stanford
professors of medicine, infectious disease epidemiology and public
health stated that the evidence:
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
80
https://www.ecotextile.com/2021040127603/dyes-chemicals-news/exclusive-chemical-cocktail-found-in-face-masks.html
https://www.science.news/2021-01-15-long-term-mask-use-breeds-microbes-lung-cancer.html
81
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00266-020-01833-9
82
https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2016/04/01/Carbon-Dioxide-Detection-and-Indoor-Air-Quality-Control.aspx?Page=2
83 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.604339/full
141
B-1-982
- 0973 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-983 B-1-983
"fails to find strong evidence supporting a role for more

restrictive NPIs (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions, such as lock
downs) in control of Covid-19… We fail to find an additional
benefit for stay-at-home orders and business closures"; 84
(iii) another medical research paper states:
“This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full

lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United
Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak.
Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the
lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the
growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number
trends”; 85
(iv) a New Zealand study found that government mandated lockdowns

86
did not reduce Covid-19 deaths;
(v) another medical research paper states:
“closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and

closure of some non-essential businesses were associated
with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and
closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any
independent additional impact.” 87
(vi) the Great Barrington Declaration signed thus far by 13,985 medical
& public health scientists, 42,531medical practitioners states:
"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health

scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical
and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies,
and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we
have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current
84
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
85
86
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786
87
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf
142
B-1-983
- 0974 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-984 B-1-984
lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short

and long-term public health. The results (to name a few)
include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening
cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings
and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess
mortality in years to come, with the working class and
younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.
Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available

will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged
disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We

know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a
thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young.
Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many
other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to

all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all
populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the
point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that
this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine.
Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and
social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and

benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at
minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up
immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better
protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused
Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the

central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of
example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity
and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors.
Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at
home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to
their home. When possible, they should meet family members
outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of
measures, including approaches to multi-generational
143
B-1-984
- 0975 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-985 B-1-985
households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope

and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to

resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand
washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by
everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and
universities should be open for in-person teaching.
Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed.
Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from
home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts,
music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People
who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society
as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable
by those who have built up herd immunity."
This Declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington,
United States, on October 4, 2020, by: Dr. Martin Kulldorff,
professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and
epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious
disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations; Dr. Sunetra
Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with
expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical
modeling of infectious diseases; Dr. Jay Bhattacharya,
professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician,
epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert
focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations; 88
88
https://gbdeclaration.org
144
B-1-985
- 0976 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-986 B-1-986
(vii) neither the long-established pandemic preparedness reports for
Canada nor the World Health Organization included lockdowns as an
evidence-based non-pharmaceutical measure in response to a
pandemic 89;
(viii) the research study, “Effect of school closures on mortality from
coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions” concluded:
"We confirm that adding school and university closures to case

isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s
would lead to more deaths compared with the equivalent
scenario without the closures of schools and universities;" 90
(ix) the research paper: “A country level analysis measuring the impact of
government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors
on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes" found:
Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread

testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per
million people;" 91
(x) a news article found that the COVID-linked hunger is tied to 10,000
excess child deaths each month; 92
89
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf
https://www.longwoods.com/articles/images/Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.pdf
90 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588
91
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-africa-ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-hunger-
92
5cbee9693c52728a3808f4e7b4965cbd
145
B-1-986
- 0977 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-987 B-1-987
(xi) a research study found:
“Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in

England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to
the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK;” 93
(xii) as a result of COVID-19 measures there is significant collateral
damage to the healthcare system with respect to issues such as
delayed diagnosis 94, impacts on cancer patients, 95impacts on disabled
persons; 96 and further issues;
(xiii) COVID-19 lockdowns have imposed substantial economic costs on
countries in Africa, and other countries around the world. 97
(c) That the PCR testing, at over 35 cycles, is a fraudulent and useless manner
to “test”, calculate and count “cases” and “infections”. A PCR test alone
cannot indicate whether the virus in that person is either virulent or
infectious. PCR tests require further culturing tests where the virus is
injected into other cells and then monitored to see if it infects other cells.
Peer-reviewed scientific journals from prestigious sources indicate that at
35 cycles, less than 3% of PCR confirmed “cases” of viral cultures are
positive and therefore actually virulent and infectious. 98
93
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30388-0/fulltext
94
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923753420398252
95
96
https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/controlecancer/resource/pt/mdl-32383576?src=similardocs
97 https://ideas.repec.org/h/fpr/ifpric/133835.html
98
Peer-Reviewed Medical Paper: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603; and
146
B-1-987
- 0978 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-988 B-1-988
165. That alternative, recognized early treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin, exist, but
the Defendants banned their use:
(a) the use of a five-day course of Ivermectin is associated with lower
mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease. 99 There are 89
studies, 48 of which are peer reviewed, to date, which review the efficacy
of ivermectin. 100
(b) Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective both as a pre-exposure
prophylaxis and as early post-exposure treatment, when administered in
appropriate doses, especially when started within the first five days of
symptom onset. 101 There are 285 studies with respect to the efficacy of
using HCQ as a treatment, including 213 which are peer-reviewed. 102
(c) Vitamin D deficiency is associated with higher risk of COVID-19, and
vitamin D may be used to help treat COVID-19. 103
166. That the Defendants, Trudeau, Tam, Henry, and other Public Health Officers
have publicly stated and represented that the Covid-19 “vaccines” will not result
in immunity nor protect against transmission from and to the vaccinated, and
Peer-reviewed paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext.

99
100
https://c19ivermectin.com
101
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920303423;
https://www.ejinme.com/article/S0953-6205(20)30335-
6/fulltexthttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.20.20178772v1
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
https://c19study.com.
102 https://c19study.com
103
Database of all vitamin D COVID-19 studies. https://c19vitamind.com/
147
B-1-988
- 0979 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-989 B-1-989
that, despite the fact that Trudeau has announced the procurement of “booster”
Covid-19 vaccines up to and including, 2024, the other measures will have to be
maintained, all of which is irrational, unscientific, non-medical, and utterly
illogical. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that such admissions by the Defendants
render the proposal of a “Vaccine Passport”, for any use, irrational, illogical,
arbitrary, and contrary to ss.2,7 and 15 of the Charter.
•COVID-Measures Worse than Virus
167. Early on, and into the summer of 2020, another thematic point of sound scientific
and medical criticism is that the COVID - measures are worse than the virus as
reflected in, inter alia, the following:
(a) One study suggests the ultimate changes in contact patterns triggered by
social distancing measures could end up having a negative effect on the
population and, in some cases, even worsen the outcome of the
“epidemic”. 104
(b) Cost of Coronavirus cure could be deadlier than the disease. 105, by
Carpay who is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional
Freedoms;
(c) California ER Physicians: Sheltering in Place Does More Harm than
Good - Lowers Our Immune System.

104
J R Soc Interface. 2018 Aug; 15(145): 20180296.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127185/pdf/rsif20180296.pdf
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/social-distancing-may-worsen-epidemic-outcomes
105
148
B-1-989
- 0980 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-990 B-1-990
(d) Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care in
Kern County, California say the longer people stay inside, the more their
immune system drops. The secondary effects, the child abuse,
alcoholism, loss of revenue – all of these are, in our opinion, significantly
more detrimental thing to society than a virus that has proven similar in
nature to the seasonal flu that we have every year. 106
(e) Economic Consequences of Lockdown:
“Our leaders must reopen our country immediately. We

will survive this virus. We will not survive this economic
lockdown.” 107
168. With respect to treatment measures, the Defendants further ignored, and continue
to ignore, the following expert criticism and opposition;
(a) Ventilators are not working and may be increasing harm. New
evidence reveals there is no ‘pneumonia’ nor ARDS with CV 19.
Ventilators are not only the wrong solution, but high pressure intubation
can actually wind up causing more damage than without. Ventilators are
not working and may be increasing harm. Over 80% of individuals put on
108
ventilators are dying.
106
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/california-er-physicians-sheltering-in-place-does-more-harm-than-
good-lowers-our-immune-system/
https://prepforthat.com/kern-county-california-doctors-coronavirus-end-shutdown/
107
https://www.facebook.com/groups/221945012378955/
108
https://web.archive.org/web/20200405061401/https://medium.com/@agaiziunas/covid-19-had-us-all-fooled-but-now-we-
might-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb
149
B-1-990
- 0981 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-991 B-1-991
(b) Managing the Flow. The truth for any new virus is that most people will
be exposed to it. If one’s goal is to NEVER get COVID-19, one would
pretty much need to live on lockdown for the rest of his/her life. The
ONLY reason for the lockdown is to manage the flow of people through
our hospitals so that those who have acute symptoms will get the care they
need to hopefully not die. Is the desire to manage the flow of people
through our hospitals worth shutting down our economy? Given most
hospitals are operating at 50% or less of capacity, have we not over
managed the flow?
(c) No Evidence Masks Work. No RCT study with verified outcome shows a
benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask
or respirator. There is no such study. Likewise, no study exists that shows
a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. Furthermore, if
there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power
against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit
from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several
large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative
benefit.
(d) Ineffectiveness of Masks & Respirators - D. G. Rancourt. 109
109
19_social_policy?fBritish Columbialid=IwAR3xOsnDOC2oRHau1k8F8_rA6CmfTvca6eZY1lS_BH0GRc5uHhKYPoWEmfk
150
B-1-991
- 0982 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-992 B-1-992
(e) Conflicting Advice About Face Masks to Prevent CV 19. There is
currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other
types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including
universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with
respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. 110
(f) The surgeon general said not to wear a mask. 111
(g) Over 3 times the risk of contracting influenza like illness if cloth mask
is used versus no mask at all; 112
(h) "Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% compared to
medicalmaskswith44%"; 113
(i) Report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major
surgery" 114 ;
(j) Co-Factors: Not everyone is at equal risk of dying from COVID 19. CV
19 has spread unevenly around the world, clustered in several hot pockets,
while leaving other areas with scant outbreaks. What other factors are
contributing to the COVID 19 virus mortality?;
(k) Link Between Air Pollution and CV 19; 115
(l) Underlying Disease and COVID- 19. 116
110
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/04/face-masks-to-prevent-covid-19-conflicting-facts-advice/#_edn5
111
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-need-for-healthy-people-to-wear-face-masks-2020-4
112
113
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150422121724.htm
114
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500410
115
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/04/study-shows-link-between-fine-particle-air-pollution-and-covid-19-mortality/
151
B-1-992
- 0983 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-993 B-1-993
169. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the evidence is that far many, more
people have died as result of the “pandemic” measures themselves, than
purportedly from the “COVID- deaths”, even if one takes the deaths “caused” by
COVID as a given, through the following consequences of the measures:
(a) Spikes in suicide rates resulting in intense clinical depression from the
measures;
(b) Spikes in drug over-dose attributable to measures;
(c) Spikes in domestic violence and murder as a direct result of the measures;
(d) Deaths resulting from the cancellation of over 170,000 medical surgeries;
(e) Deaths from persons afraid to leave their homes to obtain medical
diagnosis and treatments; and
(f) Sub-space spikes in starvation, given the UN World- Food Bank warning
that 130 Million additional people will be on the brink of starvation by end
of 2020 due to disruption of supply chains due to COVID Measures.
170. It is to be noted that the above-noted criticism was early on in the outbreak
which criticism has now intensified both in volume and accuracy, that the
COVOD-measures are unwarranted, extreme, and not based on science and
medicine.
171. Another pointed area of disagreement and criticism, which continues, along with
the above-noted, which the Defendants refuse to acknowledge, ignore, and not
116
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/04/covid-19-hospitalized-patients-and-underlying-chronic-disease/
152
B-1-993
- 0984 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-994 B-1-994
respond to, is the questioning of this as a “pandemic” rather than a typical
seasonal viral respiratory illness, as reflected, inter alia, by the following:
(a) California has a 0.0003% Chance of Death from Covid 19":
“Initial models were woefully inadequate. They predicted

millions of cases of death. Not of prevalence or incidence
but deaths. This is not materializing. What is materializing
in California is 12% positives... This equates to 4.7 million
cases in California. This is the good news.... We have seen
1,227 deaths. California has 0.0003% chance of death from
Covid-19. Is this enough to justify a lock-down?"
"COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara

County, California"Conclusion: "The population
prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara
County implies that the infection is much more widespread
than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.
Population prevalence estimates can now be used to
calibrate epidemic and mortality projections." 117
(b) The above research, in (a) above, is ground-breaking and provides
foundational support for narratives such as :
(i) the initial models were incorrect;
(ii) conflicts of interest (Gates/Fauci/Democrats) contributed to an
over-hyped response and failure to revisit despite availability of
new data (confirmation bias);
(iii) we need to be rational here as the lock-down is hurting normal
citizens - the 99% ;
117
153
B-1-994
- 0985 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-995 B-1-995
(iv) no evidence exists to justify forceful solutions like mandatory
Covid-19 vaccinations, community immunity passwords, contact
tracing, or increased domestic surveillance;
(v) we need to root out and remove all conflicts of interests in our
public health institutions, both CDC and WHO; again
(vi) Annual Influenza Deaths vs. CV 19 deaths. It is claimed that 7
to 8,000+ Canadians die from season viral respiratory illness each
year. The number of Canadians who have died from Covid-19 does
not stray from annual season viral respiratory illness death total,118
notwithstanding the inflated, false “ covid-deaths”;
(c) In 2009-2010, the world experienced the swine flu pandemic (H1N1).
During that pandemic it is claimed that 203,000 people were killed world-
wide by the virus. There was not a need to shut down our entire way of life
in 2009. It is still unclear why this is the strategy being implemented today;
(d) The CDC has tracked the total number of Americans who die every week
from pneumonia. For the last few weeks, that number has come in far
lower than at the same moment in previous years. How could that be? It
seems that doctors are classifying conventional pneumonia deaths as
COVID-19 deaths. That would mean this epidemic is being credited for
118
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?nsukey=8gR2B80EUvHgIg1gz%2FFrRbGWu%2BhOoChcVMEV2tcidO%2FquhcnKlUPJ
6Oevxq86h8W7SYtAC%2FYsoVycvKvhtVZgT%2FvREx1TON%2British
ColumbiaUTJ6uKZDsLJ4QDUYN0QG2n2ifAPsDuLBJZryuEWbYH8BsYmR4hwzToazvCLjqZsbV0YQAANZ46gHbo7Sf%2Beyzk1c3WND68j
154
B-1-995
- 0986 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-996 B-1-996
thousands of deaths that would have occurred if the virus never appeared
here.
(e) Number of influenza cases and deaths according to WHO every year. 119
(f) Are the numbers of CV deaths accurate? 120
(g) Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how COVID 19 death
certificates are being manipulated; 121
(h) Italy: 99% who died from virus had other illness; 122 The Key Points
being that :
• The cases and deaths of this new disease COVID19 are

being described as "flu-like symptoms with pneumonia" but
there is NO data that shows SARSCov2 is present in all
of these cases/deaths. Only coronavirus of which there are
many strains.
• This is because the PCR test is not reliable enough to

identify the new strain - laboratory testing is only
identifying coronavirus. This is the flaw in the CDC/WHO
theory of causality for this "new" disease "COVID19".
They haven't provided any data about the presence of this
new strain (SARSCov2) in COVID19 and it is known
that many influenza viruses and bacteria cause "flu-like
symptoms with pneumonia".
• Until you have evidence to prove the causality of

COVID19 disease as being to SARsCov2 by showing that
it is present in every case of the disease then there is no
119
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/seasonal-influenza/burden-of-influenza?fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR0ZDNTwTXKGve_oJVmtZsGKFAl44JYSo6IAf4GkA47EYD8805b6FS-8Rkw
120
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/why-the-exact-death-toll-for-covid-19-may-never-be-known-1.4881619
121
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s
122
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-
says?utm_campaign=pol&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=applenews&fBritish Columbialid=IwAR0qN9k2HVrnAghrK-
Wrl72J7oBoNY1vFAGY3dI-M7GWKirK6cfUeAI16yg
155
B-1-996
- 0987 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-997 B-1-997
new disease. Koch's postulates need to be used to provide

proof of causality.
• Mathematical Modeling Flawed

In March, UK epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from the
Imperial College of London issued a mathematical “model”
that predicted that as many as 500,000 in the UK would
die from Covid-19. On March 24th Ferguson revised his
modeling projections to read 20,000 deaths, and “likely far
fewer.” On April 2nd Ferguson revised it again to read
5,700 deaths. The problem was that many world leaders
used Ferguson’s original number to shut down most of the
planet. 123
(i) The Canadian government implemented the lockdown on the basis of Neil
Ferguson’s Imperial College mathematical modeling that was grossly
flawed. Ferguson has drastically backtracked on his predictions which
begs the question why is Canada now doubling down on the lockdown that
will not be lifted until a vaccine is ready?
(j) UK Decides CV 19 No Longer A ‘High Consequence Infectious
Disease’ As of March 19, 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a
high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK. 124
(k) High Consequence Infectious Disease Public Health England, have
provided current information and regarding COVID-19 mortality rates as
low. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) in the UK
123
https://prepforthat.com/fear-mongering-covid-19-epidemiologist-says-he-was-wrong/
124
156
B-1-997
- 0988 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-998 B-1-998
and is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as
an HCID (High Consequence Infectious Disease). 125
(l) Our World in Data researchers announced this week that they had stopped
relying on World Health Organization data for their models. 126
(m) New Oxford study suggests millions have already built up coronavirus
immunity. 127
(n) Lack of Good Data. If you are going to do something as draconian as shut
down an economy, you better be right, and you better have good data. The
government has neither. 128
(o) Dr Teresa Tam’s incompetent virus response. 129
(p) British Columbia health officer Dr Bonnie Henry admits They did not
use science to impose restrictions. 130
172. The measures have been also heavily criticized, on a legal basis, in Canada and
abroad. Early on in the declaration, on March 26th, 2020 the UN Commissioner
for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, took an opposite view to that of Dr.
Teresa Tam, whose view is that it is appropriate to run rough-shod over these
rights and worry about it later, where Bachelet early declared that:
125
126 https://fee.org/articles/oxford-based-group-stops-using-who-data-for-coronavirus-reporting-citing-errors/?fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR1okWvqn-qe7zvbHxoUY_U-4Nlqe6A8mOVwGqw4_N3qk9TXsfs_P6eEMJA
127
https://news.yahoo.com/oxford-study-suggests-millions-people-221100162.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb
128
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-we-must-ask-the-experts-how-they-screwed-up-the-coronavirus-models-so-
badly?fBritish Columbialid=IwAR0xrpFytibdv5JJLOR2fveTjvpj5b23tn7JFn2uemrXeu27GDFRpeuDLoI
129
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2020/03/29/devastating-timeline-reveals-total-incompetence-of-theresa-tams-virus-
response/
130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8fclCOG4c&feature=youtu.be&fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR0BmcUm4qk7BB3VuJRqvaJpyuB0VfyfkvmVM6HLmF-u0KiKJbD_cdKQIls&app=desktop
157
B-1-998
- 0989 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-999 B-1-999
“Lockdowns, quarantines and other such measures to contain and

combat the spread of COVID-19 should always be carried out in
strict accordance with human rights standards and in a way that is
necessary and proportionate to the evaluated risk.”
173. Former UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumpton was an early opponent to the
lock-down measures. In a BBC interview of May18th, 2020, he re-iterated and
stated, inter alia, as follows:
JS: because they seem to me to have no real purpose in continuing the

lockdown other than to spare themselves public criticism. now one does
understand why politicians don't want to be criticized but it's the mark of a
statesman that you're prepared to stand up for the national interest and not
simply to run away before public opinion. especially when you have in a
sense created that public opinion yourself by frightening the daylights out
of people over the over the last eight weeks and trying to persuade them
that this is a much more virulent epidemic than it actually is.
….
LS: what i'm advocating now is that the lockdown should become entirely
voluntary. it is up to us, not the state, to decide what risks we are going to
take with our own bodies. now, the traditional answer that people give to
that is: “well, but by going out or in the streets and in shops and things you
are infecting other people”. but you don't have to take that risk you can
voluntarily self-isolate. you don't have to go into the streets. you don't have
to go to the shops. people who feel vulnerable can self-isolate, and the rest
of us can then get on with our lives.
….
we have never lived in a risk-free world and we're never going to live in a
risk-free world.
we are entitled to take risks with our own lives especially when basically
life is only worth living if you are prepared to engage in social activities.
which inevitably involve risk. that is part of life.
158
B-1-999
- 0990 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1000 B-1-1000
174. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that the above-noted scientific and medical
expert opinions, against and in severe criticism of the “pandemic” declaration,
and its draconian and un-necessary measures, are not exhaustive, but
examples. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that the Defendants have never
acknowledged, addressed, spoken to, nor responded to these contrary expert
views, and further state that the Defendants, including the mega-social media,
such as YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Yahoo and like, as well as CBC,
have intentionally suppressed, censored, belittled and removed the publication of
any such contrary views, contrary to the principles and methodology of science
and medicine, with the acquiescence and actual support of the Canadian Federal
government, which government threatens to add criminal sanctions to assist
these media for what they irrationally, arbitrarily and unscientifically deem
“misinformation” , and further violate the Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech,
expression, and the media, contrary to s.2 of the Charter, by the government’s
acts and omissions in making threats of criminalizing speech, and doing
absolutely nothing, by omission, to regulate this type of “Stalinist censorship”.
175. Since the summer of 2020, this factor of the measures being in force, and causing
more devastation than the virus, has gone from severe to catastrophic as reflected
by:
(a) There are more suicides because of the measures and purported deaths by
Covid-19;
159
B-1-1000
- 0991 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1001 B-1-1001
(b) There are more drug overdoses because of the measures and purported
deaths by Covid-19;
(c) There is more starvation caused by the measures and purported deaths by
Covid-19;
(d) There are far more deaths, from cancelled, necessary surgeries and fear to
access medical treatment for fear of covid, than purportedly from Covid
itself.
(e) There are devastating mental health disorders caused by the measures;
(f) Domestic violence, child, and sexual abuse have sky-rocketed;
(g) Small businesses and livelihoods, to the tune of millions, have been
obliterated.
• D/ THE SCIENCE & MEDICINE OF COVID-19
• Summary (Overview)
176. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the World Health Organization,
(“WHO”), our federal, provincial, and municipal governments, and the
mainstream media, propagate that we are facing the biggest threat to humanity in
our lifetime. This is false.
177. The fact is that, false and baseless predictions of wide-spread infection with high
rates of mortality persuaded governments that unprecedented containment
measures were necessary to save us from certain peril.
178. The fact is that, while there is more about the SARS-CoV-2(”COVID-19”)
coronavirus that needs to be understood, the scientific and medical evidence

160
B-1-1001
- 0992 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1002 B-1-1002
clearly demonstrates that the mathematical modeling used to justify extreme
containment measures were invalid. Further, that the vast majority of the
population is not at serious risk of complications or mortality as a result of
exposure to COVID-19.
179. The fact is that, the mass and indiscriminate containment of citizens, the
restriction of access to our economy, courts, parliament and livelihoods, medical
and therapeutic care, and the imposition of physical distancing and other
restrictions are measures that have never before been implemented nor tested,
nor have a scientific or medical basis.
180. The fact is that, the impact of these measures on physical, emotional,
psychological, and economic well-being is profoundly destructive, unwarranted,
and clearly not sustainable.
181. The fact is that, these drastic isolation measures are not supported by scientific or
medical evidence. There is considerable agreement in the scientific community
that such drastic measures are not sustainable nor warranted or justified, and
while these measures may delay viral spread, they are unlikely to impact overall
morbidity.
182. The fact is that, this over-hyped COVID-19 pandemic narrative is creating
unnecessary panic and being used to justify systemic governmental violations of
the rights and freedoms that form the basis of our society, including our
constitutional rights, sovereignty, privacy, rule of law, financial security, and
even our very democracy.

161
B-1-1002
- 0993 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1003 B-1-1003
183. The fact is that, it is clear that significant violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights and
freedoms are being perpetrated by the federal, provincial and municipal
governments and health authorities.
184. The fact is that, as a result of all of the above, the Plaintiffs have suffered and
continue to suffer, severe violations of their constitutional rights which are
justified on any measurement, including s. 1 of the Charter.
• The Covid-Measures Unscientific, Non-Medical, Ineffective, and Extreme
185. From the on-set of the declared emergency to summer of 2020, the Plaintiffs
state and the fact is, that the Measures implemented lack scientific and medical
evidence to support containment measures in that:
(a) Mass and indiscriminate lockdown of the general population has not been
previously attempted in modern history, and has no scientific nor medical
basis. In fact, Dr. Bonnie Henry, BRITISH COLUMBIA Chief Medical
Officer, has flatly stated that the measures are not based on science or
medicine.
(b) A 2011 review of the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of social
distancing measures such as school closures, travel restrictions, and
restrictions on mass gatherings to address an influenza pandemic
concluded that “such drastic restrictions are not economically feasible and
are predicted to delay viral spread but not impact overall morbidity.” 131
131
Social Distancing as a Pandemic Influenza Prevention Measure
162
B-1-1003
- 0994 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1004 B-1-1004
(c) There are no realistic and contextual studies of the negative social, family,
psychological, and individual health consequences of extended general
population lockdowns, nor the impact on the national economy.
(d) The long-term impact of the broadly applied infringements of civil rights
and freedoms is not known, including any permanent structural erosion of
democracy itself due to increased authoritarianism and heightened
regulatory or penal consequences for violating government directives.
(e) The measures enacted by the federal, provincial and municipal
governments are unprecedented.
(f) The government has acted in diametrical opposition to the precautionary
principle: “Government shall not act with insufficient scientific knowledge,
if the action has any likelihood of causing more harm than good”.
(g) Justification for the early panic response has not been corroborated. 132
(h) Faith in epidemic-modeling and the resulting mitigation strategies are not
justified.
(i) Physicians globally are expressing alarm over the exponentially growing
negative health consequences of the national shutdown. 133 134
(j) Despite the importance given to physical distancing as a containment
measure, there is a lack of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of such

135 136
intervention on the long-term health of citizens.
132 http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/OCLA-Report-2020-1-Criticism-of-Government-Response-to-COVID19.pdf
133
https://www.scribd.com/document/462319362/A-Doctor-a-Day-Letter-Signed#from_embed
134 https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2020/05/22/600-physicians-say-lockdowns-are-a-mass-casualty-
incident/#20248e5250fa
163
B-1-1004
- 0995 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1005 B-1-1005
(k) There is no scientific evidence to substantiate the effectiveness of two
meter ‘physical distancing’ as an intervention to reduce SARS-CoV-2
transmission and infection and to improve overall health. 137
(l) Dr. Martin Dubravec, MD, a Clinical Immunologist states: “The bottom
line is that herd immunity is what will stop the virus from spreading. Not
containment. Not a vaccine. Not staying locked in our homes. It’s time we
had an honest conversation on how to move beyond containment.” 138
(m) A review of the scientific literature with regards to the use of masking
concluded there is no scientific evidence to substantiate the effectiveness
of masking of the general public to prevent viral infection and
transmission. 139
(n) Denis Rancourt, Ph.D. has identified the many unknowns regarding the
potential harm from a broad public policy of masking. Rancourt concludes:
“In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that
have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus
barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention or allows
corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.” 140
135
Benjamin E Berkman. Mitigating pandemic influenza: the ethics of implementing a school closure policy. Journal of
Public Health Management and Practice: JPHMP, 14(4):372–378, August 2008. PMID: 18552649.
136
137
https://www.zuercher-presse.com/virologe-hendrick-streeck-gibt-keine-gefahr-beim-einkaufen-jemand-anderen-zu-
infizieren/?cn-reloaded=1
138
https://aapsonline.org/coronavirus-covid-19-public-health-apocalypse-or-anti-american/
139
19_social_policy
140 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340570735_Masks_Don't_Work_A_review_of_science_relevant_to_COVID-
19_social_policy
164
B-1-1005
- 0996 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1006 B-1-1006
(o) A study of cloth masks cautions against the use of cloth masks. The study
concludes: “As a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be
recommended.” 141
(p) According to Dr. Richard Schabas, former Chief Medical Officer for
Ontario -“Quarantine belongs back in the Middle Ages. Save your masks
for robbing banks. Stay calm and carry on. Let’s not make our attempted
cures worse than the disease.” 142
(q) On May 20, 2020, Dr. Teresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Medical Officer,
publicly advised the use of non-medical masks for the general public to
provide an "added layer of protection" that could help prevent
asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic Covid-19 patients from unknowingly
infecting others. Dr. Tam’s advice is not supported by scientific evidence.

143
(r) It would appear that any advice/requirement to use masks is for a
purpose/agenda other than the prevention of viral infection and
transmission.
(s) A paper published on January 30, 2020 in The New England Journal of
Medicine (NEJM) which appeared to confirm that individuals who are
asymptomatic can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others has subsequently
proven to contain major flaws and errors. 144
141
142
143 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/20/canada-non-medical-masks-provinces-reopen-271008
144
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
165
B-1-1006
- 0997 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1007 B-1-1007
(t) The imposition of mass and indiscriminate self-isolation measures prevents
the development of natural immunity necessary to secure herd immunity

145
and end the epidemic.
(u) On April 6, 2020, German epidemiologist, Knut Wittkowski, released a
statement warning that artificially suppressing the virus among low risk
people like school children may “increase the number of new
infections” as it keeps the virus circulating much longer than it normally
would. 146
(v) On March 24, 2020 global medical experts declared that efforts to contain
the virus through self-isolation measures would negatively impact
population immunity, maintain a high proportion of susceptible individuals
in the population, prolong the outbreak putting more lives at risk, damage
our economy and the mental stability and health of the more vulnerable. 147
148
(w) A review of recent literature pertaining to social distancing measures
conducted by David Roth and Dr. Bonnie Henry of the British Columbia
Centre for Disease Control concluded the following: a) widespread
proactive school closures are likely not an effective prevention measure
during an influenza pandemic; b) stringent travel restrictions and border
control may briefly delay imminent pandemics, these approaches are

145
https://www.aier.org/article/herd-immunity-is-misleading/
146
Stand Up for Your Rights, says Bio-Statistician Knut M. Wittkowski. American Institute for Economic Research. April 6,
2020
https://www.aier.org/article/stand-up-for-your-rights-says-professor-knut-m-wittkowski/
147
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
148
166
B-1-1007
- 0998 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1008 B-1-1008
neither economically nor socially feasible; and c) there is no recent
evidence outlining the effectiveness of the prohibition of mass gatherings.

149
(x) According to a public statement issued by the British Columbia Ministry of
Health: a) COVID-19 virus has a very low infection rate in children and
youth; b) In British Columbia, less than 1% of children and youth tested
have been COVID-19 positive; c) There is no conclusive evidence that
children who are asymptomatic pose a risk to other children or to adults,
and d) Schools and childcare facility closures have significant negative
mental health and socioeconomic impacts on vulnerable children and

150
youth.
(y) According to a May 21, 2020 letter from Dr. Mark Lysyshyn, MD, Deputy
Chief Medical Health Officer with Vancouver Coastal Health: “Although
children are often at increased risk for viral respiratory illnesses, that is
not the case with COVID-19. Compared to adults, children are less likely
to become infected with COVID-19, less likely to develop severe illness as
a result of infection and less likely to transmit the infection to others.” Dr.
Lysyshyn further states: “Non-medical masks are not needed or
recommended. Personal protective equipment such as medical masks and
gloves are not recommended in the school environment.” 151
149
150
https://www2.gov.British Columbia.ca/assets/gov/health/about-British Columbia-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-
health-officer/covid-19/covid-19-pho-guidance-k-12-schools.pdf
151
http://www.vch.ca/Documents/COVID-VCH-Schools-May-21-2020.pdf
167
B-1-1008
- 0999 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1009 B-1-1009
(z) On May 21, 2020, British Columbia’s Chief Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie
Henry stated: “We’re encouraging people [to wear masks] as a mark of
respect, as a mark of politeness, and paying attention to the welfare of
others.” The recommendation to mask no longer is on the basis of
effectiveness but instead is being promoted as a social grace. 152
(aa) British Columbia’s Chief Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, when
addressing a question regarding the inconsistency among the
provinces of Canada on COVID-19 restrictions placed on
Canadians stated: "None of this is based on science.” 153
(bb) The reported number of deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2 is
demonstrably unreliable given the inclusion of “presumptive”
deaths, and the failure of the medical establishment to differentiate
between individuals dying from COVID 19 and those with co-

154 155
morbidities dying with COVID 19.
(cc) The failure to differentiate between individuals dying from COVID
19 and those with co-morbidities dying with COVID 19 inflates the
risk of mortality from SARS-CoV-2 and undermines confidence in
any response strategy based on mortality statistics. 156
152
https://www.straight.com/covid-19-pandemic/may-21-coronavirus-update-British Columbia-resistance-health-
measures-regional-restrictions-gender-differences-second-wave
153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8fclCOG4c&feature=youtu.be&fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR0BmcUm4qk7BB3VuJRqvaJpyuB0VfyfkvmVM6HLmF-u0KiKJbD_cdKQIls&app=desktop
154
Why the exact death toll for COVID-19 may never be known. CTV News, April 3, 2020
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/why-the-exact-death-toll-for-covid-19-may-never-be-known-1.4881619
155
https://www.cpsBritish Columbia.ca/for-physicians/college-connector/2020-V08-02/04
156
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says
168
B-1-1009
- 1000 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1010 B-1-1010
(dd) Doctors globally are being pressured to issue death certificates that
identify COVID 19 as the cause of death even when other co-
morbidity issues are the more likely cause of death.
(ee) The presentation of mortality data, expressed as a percentage of
deaths of tested and confirmed cases, is distorting the risk and
creating undue panic. This data fails to include a significant
percentage of the population who contracted the virus but were not
tested nor confirmed and who recovered without medical
intervention.
(ff) To date, the number of reported deaths attributed to SARS-CoV-2
is not out of “normal” range when compared to the annual
mortality from influenza and pneumonia (seasonal viral respiratory
illness) recorded through the last decade. 157 158 159
(gg) According to Dr. Richard Schabas, former Chief Medical Officer
of Ontario, strictly by the numbers, the coronavirus does not
register as a dire global crisis.
(hh) No data has been provided by the Government of Canada nor
British Columbia to indicate that the total mortality in Canada has
increased substantially from previous years.

157
Strictly by the numbers, the coronavirus does not register as a dire global crisis. Richard Schabas. The Globe and Mail.
March 9, 2020
158
New Data Suggest the Coronavirus Isn’t as Deadly as We Thought. WDJ/Opinion. April 17, 2020
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/stanford-team-finds-evidence-covid-19-mortality-rate-low-2-17-times-lower-whos-esta
159
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102597/?fBritish Columbialid=IwAR29vpTe-Dk-
_xoVzVRbuAgVhil1k0DcZkGqyYsak6lC-OByjZcBRP6cyjc
169
B-1-1010
- 1001 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1011 B-1-1011
(ii) Mortality modeling by the World Health Organization, Imperial
College of London, and the US Institute for Health Metrics and
Evaluation have all been drastically “downgraded”. Strategies and
measures based on these original predictions are invalid. 160 161
(jj) As of March 19, 2020, the status of COVID-19 in the United
Kingdom was downgraded. COVID-19 is no longer considered a
high consequence infectious disease (HCID). The Advisory
Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) in the UK is also of
the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an
HCID (High Consequence Infectious Disease). 162 163
(kk) On March 26, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci published an editorial in
the New England Journal of Medicine stating that “the overall
clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to
those of a severe seasonal influenza with a case fatality rate of
perhaps 0.1%.” 164
(ll) On April 9, 2020, Canadian public health officials stated: “In a
best-case scenario, Canada’s total COVID-19 deaths can range
from 11,000 to 22,000.” And “In the bad scenarios, deaths go well
over 300,000.” As of May 21, 2020, the total reported deaths from
160
How One Model Simulated 2.2 Million U.S. Deaths from COVID-19. Cato Institute. April 21, 2020
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19
161
https://prepforthat.com/fear-mongering-covid-19-epidemiologist-says-he-was-wrong/
162
163
164
170
B-1-1011
- 1002 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1012 B-1-1012
COVID 19 in Canada was 6,145. As of July 2, 2020, the total
deaths attributed to COVID 19 in Canada was 8,642. In 2018, the
mortality rate of the 2018 influenza/pneumonia in Canada which
was 23 per 100,000. 165 In a population of 37.7 M, this equates to
approximately 8,671 deaths. This is the mortality even though a
vaccine exists for both influenza and pneumonia and there is a high
uptake rate in the senior population.
(mm) The World Health Organization knew as early as February 28,
2020 that most people will have mild illness from SARS-CoV-2
166
infection and get better without needing any special care.
(nn) The Canadian government has implemented a re-start strategy that
continues to maintain the unsubstantiated narrative that the SARS-
CoV-2 virus is extra-ordinarily dangerous and requires extra-
ordinary social distancing measures never before implemented.
(oo) The re-start strategy recommended by the federal and various
provincial governments is based on ‘sector’ rather than ‘risk’.
There is no evidence that a re-start based on sector has scientific
merit.
165
https://www.statista.com/statistics/434445/death-rate-for-influenza-and-pneumonia-in-canada/
166
WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 28 February 2020
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---28-february-
2020
171
B-1-1012
- 1003 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1013 B-1-1013
(pp) According to a number of infectious disease experts, hospital
capacity, rather than the number of infections should be the metric
of choice for relaxing restrictions. 167
(qq) There is no evidence that harms caused by the mass and
indiscriminate containment of citizens was calculated and
considered in the modeling and strategic planning response to
SARS-CoV-2. 168
(rr) SARS (2003), Swine Flu/H1N1 (2009), and MERS (2012) were all
considered pandemics by the World Health Organization. Each of
these pandemics were effectively contained without lockdowns,
economic ruin, violations of privacy, and the indefinite loss of the
right to work and personal freedoms. SARS and MERS dissipated
on their own naturally without any vaccine intervention. 169
(ss) Academic studies of media coverage during the 2003 Canadian
SARS outbreak concluded that the media coverage was excessive,
sensationalist, and sometimes inaccurate. Government health
agencies were criticized for lacking a unified message and
communications strategy, resulting in confusion and panic about
167
168
Rethinking the Coronavirus Shutdown. WSJ/Opinion. March 19, 2020
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rethinking-the-coronavirus-shutdown-11584659154
169
172
B-1-1013
- 1004 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1014 B-1-1014
170
the disease. These same criticisms hold even more true for
media and government response to SARS-CoV-2.
(tt) The suspension of our civil liberties is not justified by the known
risk posed by SARS-CoV-2.
(uu) In a statement released on March 24, 2020, professor Peter
Gotzche states: “The coronavirus mass panic is not justified.” The
suspension of our right to liberty, to work, to travel, and to conduct
commerce is not justified by the known risk posed by SARS-CoV-
2. 171
(vv) There is no independent human rights oversight committee to track
human rights violations associated with SARS-CoV-2 response
measures in Canada.
(ww) Communications about SARS-CoV-2 by the Government of
Canada and mainstream media have been exaggerated, distorted,
irresponsible, and appear to have been purposely designed to evoke
fear and panic. The fear is out of proportion to the actual risk of
mortality.
(xx) Governments and media have repeatedly failed to properly
distinguish between the ‘risk of infection’ and ‘the risk of
170
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sars-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome
171
The Coronavirus mass panic is not justified. Professor Peter C. Gøtzsche24 March 2020
https://www.deadlymedicines.dk/wp-content/uploads/G%C3%B8tzsche-The-Coronavirus-mass-panic-is-not-justified.pdf
173
B-1-1014
- 1005 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1015 B-1-1015
mortality’. For the vast majority of the population the risk of
mortality is extremely low.
(yy) Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the entire Canadian population is
very low. Extreme social controls should never be used in low
prevalence epidemics.
(zz) As presented by PHAC, the modelling techniques used to establish
probabilities of the epidemic trends and thus “inform” policy
decisions have no basis in evidence, are completely inflated, and
essentially amount to statistical chicanery.
(aaa) Using total case numbers as though they represent the risk of being
infected with SARS-CoV-2 is perception management. While
these numbers may be of interest for epidemiological study, they
have little bearing on the true risk facing citizens.
(bbb) Severity of SARS-CoV-2 is estimated by infection fatality rates.
Infection fatality rates cannot be established until the total number
of cases, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, in the entire
population can be estimated.
(ccc) The Canadian government failed to perform a national random
sample test to establish a SARS-CoV-2 baseline across the entire
population to justify the restrictions and violations of rights and
freedoms.
174
B-1-1015
- 1006 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1016 B-1-1016
(ddd) Exaggerated claims and distorted messages have contributed to an
atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that is destructive to the well-
being of Canadians. It would appear that the real epidemic is an
epidemic of fear.
(eee) The evoked fear and panic is so entrenched amongst a large
proportion of Canadians that it is extremely difficult to reverse that
message even when the scientific data does not support such panic.
(fff) As recent as May 22, 2020 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told
reporters that contact tracing needs to be ramped up across the
county. Trudeau stated that he “strongly recommends” provinces
use cell phone apps when they become available, and that this use
would likely be mandated. Use of surveillance technologies to
monitor citizens constitutes a clear violation of our right to
privacy.
(ggg) As of May 24, 2020, the Prime Minister of Canada had not invoked
the Emergencies Act, nor has he to date. Therefore, emergency
measures announced by the Prime Minister and his public statements
to Canadians to “just stay home” have no legal basis or authority, are
an abuse of power, and is resulting in confusing, dangerous and
unlawful messaging.
(hhh) The Prime Minister of Canada and British Columbia Premier John
Horgan have repeatedly stated that “life will not return to normal
175
B-1-1016
- 1007 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1017 B-1-1017
until a vaccine is found”. It is irresponsible to base a return to
normal upon a vaccine when there is no guarantee that an effective
and safe vaccine can be developed.
(iii) There are significant risks to both individuals and to confidence in
the health care system by accelerating the development of a SARS-
CoV-2 vaccine by relaxing normal and prudent safety testing
measures.
(jjj) Health Canada approved human trials of a SARS-CoV-2, under an
Interim Order, of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (May 19, 2020) without
clear evidence that prior animal testing to identify the potential risk
of pathogenic priming (immune enhancement) has been
conducted. Pathogenic priming has prevented the development of
an effective and safe coronavirus vaccine to date.
(kkk) Dr. Peter Hotez of Baylor College (who has previously tried to
develop a SARS vaccine) told a US Congressional Committee on
March 5, 2020 that coronavirus vaccines have always had a
“unique potential safety problem” — a “kind of paradoxical
immune enhancement phenomenon.” 172
(lll) To impose through influence, mandate, or coercion an
inadequately tested SARS-CoV-2 vaccine product upon all
172
176
B-1-1017
- 1008 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1018 B-1-1018
Canadians when 99% of the population is not at risk of
mortality is reckless, irresponsible and immoral.
(mmm) A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine ought to be targeted at the less than 1% of
the population that is at risk of mortality, rather than the more than
99% that is not at risk.
(nnn) There is no moral, medical or ethical justification to ignore prudent
safety protocols and to suggest that the use of this yet to be
developed medical product is necessary for life to return to normal.
(ooo) Dr. Allan S. Cunningham, a retired pediatrician, has raised the
possibility that a potential contributor to the current coronavirus
outbreak is the seasonal influenza vaccine. A randomized placebo-
controlled trial in children showed that the influenza vaccine
increased fivefold the risk of acute respiratory infections caused by
a group of non influenza viruses, including coronaviruses. 173 174
(ppp) A study of US military personnel confirms that those who
received an influenza vaccine had an increased susceptibility to

175
coronavirus infection.
(qqq) EU numbers show correlation between influenza vaccine and
coronavirus deaths. The countries with highest death rates
(Belgium, Spain, Italy, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland
173
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m810/rr-0
174 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/
175
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647
177
B-1-1018
- 1009 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1019 B-1-1019
and USA) had all vaccinated at least half of their elderly
population against influenza. 176
(rrr) Canada continues to be one of only two G20 Nations which fails to
compensate citizens who are injured and killed by government
approved and recommended vaccine products. The other is
Russia.
(sss) The unwillingness of the Government of Canada to provide
compensation for vaccine injury, while at the same time imposing
vaccine products upon its citizens, is unconscionable.
(ttt) To rely on a vaccine as the required strategy to returning life to
normal is reckless, irresponsible and unwarranted.
(uuu) Jonathan Kimmelman, director of McGill University’s biomedical
ethics unit stated: "Outbreaks and national emergencies often
create pressure to suspend rights, standards and/or normal rules
of ethical conduct. Often our decision to do so seems unwise in
retrospect.”
(vvv) On June 8th, 2020 the WHO publicly announced that the risk of
symptomatic spreading of the virus was “very rare”. This statement
removed by Facebook as “fake News”, given its very early, prior
contrary assessment, the WHO, the next day partially retracted this June
8th, 2020 statement by qualifying without details or explanation that

176
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/niall-mccrae-david-kurten-eu-numbers-show-correlation-flu-vaccine-
coronavirus-deaths/
178
B-1-1019
- 1010 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1020 B-1-1020
modeling suggested Asymptomatic transmission is possibly as high as
40%: NO evidence or study was provided, nor the basis of the previous
day’s release. On July 4th, 2020 the WHO re-re paddled back to its
original June 8th, 2020 position.
186. A posted report announcing the June 8th, 2020 WHO release, on Facebook, with
respect that Asymptomatic transmission was very rare, which was immediately
removed by Facebook as “Fake News” for, contradicting earlier WHO releases.
187. From the summer of 2020, to the present, the alarm and clarity that the
Defendants have not been following the science, or medicine, has intensified,
world-wide, and in Canada, while the Respondents continue to refuse to disclose
the source and substance of whose and what science they are following, based on
what?
188. British Columbia doctors have written Bonnie Henry, publicly, requesting she
disclose and explain her “scientific” basis for the measures. She has consistently
refused. In fact, doctor(s) doing so, or criticizing Covid-measures such as Dr.
Stephen Malthouse, and other, have been pursued by their Regulatory College
for simply asking questions of Bonnie Henry and the Covid measures. Directors
from the College of Surgery and Physicians of British Columbia have issued, on
the pain of discipline and removal of medical license, that no criticism of the
official Public Health opinions, dictates, and treatment will be tolerated by the
College.
179
B-1-1020
- 1011 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1021 B-1-1021
189. This is not restricted to British Columbia. On April 20th, 2021 Ontario doctors
demanded, of Ontario Premier Doug Ford, an open and public discussion and
debate of his measures as they do not add up to science or medicine, like the
measures in British Columbia.
• E/ HYPER – INFLATED, DISTORDETED TOTAL NUMBER OF CV-19
“CASES” & “DEATHS”
190. Since the on-set of the “emergency”, and into the summer of 2020, the Plaintiffs
state that the total number of Covid-19 cases is the basis for almost all of the
Covid-19 data including deaths in those cases, recovery from those cases,
hospitalizations and ICU admissions of those cases and total active cases.177
Total case numbers are also used for other epidemiological metrics (e.g.,
virulence and transmission rates of Covid-19).
191. Yet the total case numbers are inflated by both RT-PRC testing and WHO
coding definitions.
192. The Plaintiffs state that the WHO coding of cases allows ‘virus not identified’,
i.e., probable cases to be counted as Covid-19 cases. 178 WHO coding also
inflates death data numbers by requiring all cases where Covid-19 is “probable
or confirmed” to be certified as a death due to Covid-19 regardless of
177
Public Health Agency of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/public- health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-
infection/health-professionals/national-case-definition.html“Confirmed:A person with laboratory confirmation of infection with the
virus that causes COVID-19 performed at a community, hospital or reference laboratory (NML or a provincial public health
laboratory) running a validated assay. This consists of detection of at least one specific gene target by a NAAT assay (e.g. real-time
PCR or nucleic acid sequencing).
178
WHO ICD-10 Coding https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/COVID-19-coding-icd10.pdf?ua=1 ]
180
B-1-1021
- 1012 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1022 B-1-1022
comorbidities. Admonishing physicians to “always apply these instructions,
whether they can be considered medically correct or not.” 179
193. RT-PCR was never intended as a diagnostic tool 180 and is not an antigen test 181.
194. The Plaintiffs state that the PCR tests are based on an arbitrary cycling number
(Ct) that is not consistent among testing laboratories. 182 “Cycling too much could
result in false positives as background fluorescence builds up in the PCR
reaction.” Tests can show positive for minute amounts of RNA that are not
causing illness and for non-infectious fragments of RNA. 183 RT-PCR tests
cannot prove the pathogenic nature of the RNA.
195. RT-PCR tests have a specificity of 80-85%. 184 This means 15-20% of the time a
positive test does not indicate the presence of RNA of SARS-CoV-2, but of some
other RNA source. RT-PCR testing is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 testing. 185
196. RT-PCR tests are more likely to be false positive than false negative. 186 In low
prevalence countries like Canada: “Such [false positive] rates would have large
179
WHO Cause of Death Guidelines https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19-20200420-
EN.pdf?ua=1
180
Dr. Judy Mikowitz https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/03/is-the-new-coronavirus-created-in-a-lab.aspx
“Epidemiology is not done with PCR. In fact, Kary Mullis who invented PCR, Nobel Laureate, and others, said PCR was never intended
for diagnostic testing.”
181
Not an Antigen Test: Prof Eleanor Riley, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease, University of Edinburgh and Dr Colin
Butter, Associate Professor and Programme Leader in Bioveterinary Science, University of Lincoln
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-different-types-of-testing-for-covid-19/
182
Issues with the RT-PCR Coronavirus Test, David Crowe and Dr. Stephen Bustin, April 23, 2020
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/RT-PCR_Test_Issues.php ]
183
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-south-korea-patients-infected-twice-test-a9491986.html
184
RT-PCR Test 80–85% specificity per Dr. James Gill, Warwick Medical School, England
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-different-types-of-testing-for-covid-19/ ]
185
Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2, March 10, 2020 Abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/
Full text: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25786
“In our study, we found a potentially high false negative rate of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients in Wuhan
clinically diagnosed with COVID-19. Furthermore, the RT-PCR results showed a fluctuating trend. These may be caused by insufficient
viral material in the specimen, laboratory error during sampling, or restrictions on sample transportation.” ]
181
B-1-1022
- 1013 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1023 B-1-1023
impacts on test data when prevalence is low. Inclusion of such rates significantly
alters four published analyses of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio.
The high false discovery rate that results, when prevalence is low, from false
positive rates typical of RT-PCR assays of RNA viruses raises questions about
the usefulness of mass testing…”10
197. The Plaintiffs state that the implications of false positive tests include the
following: “There are myriad clinical and case management implications. Failure
to appreciate the potential frequency of false positives and the consequent
unreliability of positive test results across a range of scenarios could
unnecessarily remove critical workers from service, expose uninfected
individuals to greater risk of infection, delay or impede appropriate medical
treatment, lead to inappropriate treatment, degrade patient care, waste personal
protective equipment, waste human resources in unnecessary contact tracing,
hinder the development of clinical improvements, and weaken clinical trials.” 187
198. A Chinese study 188 found, “In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly
half or even more of the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' reported in the
active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives.” 189
186
. 10 False positives in reverse transcription PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v1.full.pdf ]
187 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v2
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v2>______________
_________
188
Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients, March 23,
2020
http://html.rhhz.net/zhlxbx/017.htm
Full translation: https://theinfectiousmyth.com/articles/ZhuangFalsePositives.pdf
182
B-1-1023
- 1014 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1024 B-1-1024
199. The Public Health Agency of Canada reports more than 1.4 million people have
had PCR tests. 190 Considering the false positive rate, especially for contact
tracing, this is not a good use of our resources (both dollars and testing staff).
200. As of June 15th, 2020 the COVID “statistics” are as follows:
(a) Population of Canada 2020--- 37,742,154;
(b) Total number of confirmed or probable cases as of June 15th -- 99,147;
(c) Therefore, 0.0026% of Canadians are testing positive;
(d) 0.00021% of Canadians are dying ‘’with’’ or ‘’of COVID’’ (there is no
current differentiation between death “with” or “from” COVID
statistically speaking). As of June 15,2020 the national death count from
covid stands at 8,175, a completely inflated and distorted number, due to
levels of gross mismanagement of patient care in institutions where
outbreaks are reported, and death certificate mislabelling of dying ‘’with’’
covid, as opposed to dying ‘’from’’ covid. Meanwhile, the statistics
(2018) for other causes of death, according to statistics Canada, in Canada
were as follows:
(i) Suicides--- 3,811;

(ii) influenza and pneumonia (seasonal viral respiratory illness) ---
8,511*;
189
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fik54b/false_positives_among_asymp
tomatic/
<https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fik54b/false_positives_among_asym
ptomatic/>___________________________________________
190
PHAC Daily Update, May 25: 1,454,966 total people tested
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/surv-covid19-epi-
update-eng.pdf
183
B-1-1024
- 1015 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1025 B-1-1025
(iii) accidents (unintentional injuries) ---13,290;

(iv) medical error (including medications)--- 28,000;
(v) heart disease--- 53,134;
(vi) cancer--- 79,536.
201. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is that the US, UK, and Italy, through their public
health officials have publicly admitted that a COVID death is tallied as such,
simply where the COVID virus is found, albeit inactive, and regardless of
whether the patient died from another primary cause of death, such as from
cancer in palliative care. Thus a senior US Health official, on April 19th,2020,
Dr. Ezike, Director of Public Health, put it this way:
That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given
a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID,
that would be counted as a COVID death.
‘’It means technically if you died of a clear alternate cause but

you had COVID at the same time, its still listed as a COVID
death.
Everyone who is listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that was

the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.
The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Canada uses the same system, mandated
by the WHO, because the WHO collapsed three different ways of certifying and
classifying death into one, in order to grossly inflate the number of deaths
“attributable” to covid-19.
202. This includes someone like George Floyd who was killed (murdered) by four (4)
Minneapolis police officers, who have been charged with murder, in that the
official autopsy report stipulated that he had tested positive for COVID months
184
B-1-1025
- 1016 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1026 B-1-1026
earlier. (Why George would be tested for COVID, in the circumstances, is
beyond baffling).
203. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that in many jurisdictions, such as New York
City, a hospital is paid much more to deal with a “COVID-death”, than a non-
COVID death.
204. The Plaintiff states, and the facts is, that the false and faulty manner and method
of determining a ‘’COVID-death’’, is wholly and exclusively dictated by WHO
guidelines and parroted by Chief Medical Officers in Canada, in furtherance of
the WHO’s false ‘’pandemic’’, to instill baseless fears, in the WHO’s non-
medical agenda, at the control and instigation of Billionaire, Corporate, and
Organizational Oligarchs, who actually control the agenda of the WHO, to effect
their plan to install a New World (Economic) Order by means of economic shut-
down and mandatory vaccinations and surveillance of the planet’s population.
205. From the summer of 2020 to the present, the fraud, and fraudulent misuse of the
PCR testing, which accounts for the “case-counts”, and in turn the panic and
justification for ALL Covid-measures continues, without the explanation to the
public that:
(a) The inventor of the PCR test, Nobel-Prize winner Kary Mullis, made it
clear that the PCR test cannot and does not detect any virus that it can
diagnose any virus but is merely a screening investigative test and that, in
order to verify the existence of a virus you must:
(i) Do a culture test to isolate and identify the virus; and

185
B-1-1026
- 1017 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1027 B-1-1027
(ii) A concurrent blood-test to check for anti-bodies to verify that the
virus is still infectious;
(b) The PCR test, when used at a threshold cycle of 35 or over, in the
“positive” cases, 96.5% are false positives, which has been judicially
excepted by three (3) courts, and currently British Columbia tests at
between 43-45 cycles and which means that every time British Columbia
announces a positive case count it needs to be reduced by 96.5%;
(c) That the PCR test will give a positive for all coronaviruses of which there
are seven(7);
(d) That the PCR test will register and count as positive dead, non-infectious
virus fragments;
(e) That dead, non-infectious virus fragments remain in the body for up to 80
days from the time the virus ceases to be infectious;
(f) That the positive “case(s) count(s)” has no relationship to the death
count.
(g) In November 2020, a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests are
unreliable. 191On December 14, 2020, the WHO admitted the PCR Test
has a ‘problem’ at high amplifications as it detects dead cells from old
viruses, giving a false positives. 192 On February 16th, 2021, BC Health
191https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful-media-
blackout/
192
https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem
186
B-1-1027
- 1018 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1028 B-1-1028
Officer, Bonnie Henry, admitted PCR tests are unreliable. 193 On April 8th,
2021, the Austrian court ruled the PCR was unsuited for COVID
testing. 194On April 8th, 2021, a German Court ruled against PCR testing
stating, “the test cannot provide any information on whether a person is
infected with an active pathogen or not, because the test cannot
distinguish between “dead” matter and living matter”. 195 9 On May 8th,
2021, the Swedish Public Health Agency stopped PCR Testing for the
same reason. 196 On May 10th, 2021, Manitoba’s Chief Microbiologist
and Laboratory Specialist, Dr. Jared Bullard testified under cross
examination in a trial before the court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba, that
PCR test results do not verify infectiousness and were never intended to
be used to diagnose respiratory illnesses. 197
206. In fact, as of April 2021, the Canadian and British Columbia claim that
approximately 23,000 Canadians have died “from” and “with” Covid which is a
fraudulent and misrepresenting statistic in that this is over the equivalent of two
(2) flu seasons which means that 11,500 purportedly died in 2019-2020 and
another 11,500 purportedly died in the 2020-2021 flu season. Even accepting the
questionable dying “with Covid”, 11,500 is not significantly higher than the
193
https://rumble.com/vhww4d-bc-health-officer-admits-pcr-test-is-unreliable.html
194 https://greatgameindia.com/austria-court-pcr-test/
195 https://2020news.de/sensationsurteil-aus-weimar-keine-masken-kein-abstand-keine-tests-mehr-fuer-
schueler/
196
https://tapnewswire.com/2021/05/sweden-stops-pcr-tests-as-covid19-diagnosis
197 https://www.jccf.ca/Manitoba-chief-microbiologist-and-laboratory-specialist-56-of-positive-cases-are-not-
infectious
187
B-1-1028
- 1019 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1029 B-1-1029
8,500-9,100 who died from complications of the annual influenza, every year,
prior to Covid-19. Vis-à-vis the population, it still amounts to a mere ¼ of 1%
(0.0027%) of the population. To call this a “pandemic” is to engage in fraud and
fear-mongering. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that an extremely exponential
more people have died as a direct result of the Covid measures themselves.
• F/ GLOBAL POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AGENDA BEHIND

UNWARRANTED MEASURES
•The Non-Medical measures and Aims of The Declared Pandemic- The Global
Agenda
207. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that the WHO is not, nor ever has been, an
objective, independent medical body, but is riddled with over-reaching socio-
economic and political dictates of its funders who, inexplicably over and above
the nation-states who fund-it, is heavily funded, and directed, through its “WHO
Foundation”, and GAVI, by international Billionaire Oligarchs, and Oligarch
organizations such as Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum (“WEF”).
The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that WHO vaccination programs, funded by
the Bill Gates and Melinda Foundation, have been accused, by the governments
of various sub-Saharan African countries, as well as Nicaragua, India, Mexico
and Pakistan, the Philippines, of conducting unsafe, damaging vaccine
experiments on their children. In India, the Courts are investigating these
vaccination experiments on children. The WHO has recently, in the context of
the COVID-19, been expelled from various countries for lack of confidence,
188
B-1-1029
- 1020 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1030 B-1-1030
corruption, and attempted bribery of their officials, up to, and including, head(s)
of state. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is:
(a) There is a declared agenda to impose global mandatory vaccination, ID
chipping, testing and immunity certification on all citizens. This global

198
agenda has been in the works for decades;
(b) Bill Gates, through his Foundation and Organization(s), is the largest
private funder to the World Health Organization, is a leading proponent of
keeping the economy locked down until a vaccine is developed. Gates is

199
also a major advocate behind the contact tracing initiative. Gates is a
major investor in developing a SARS-CoV-2(COVID-19) vaccine and in
tracking technology. Gates has a clear financial conflict of interest in
advocating for a vaccine and contact tracing;
(c) Bill Gates has no medical or scientific training or credentials and holds no
elected office. He should not be determining the fate of mankind. 200
(d) The Gates Foundation (along with other partners) helped launch the Global
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). The foundation has
given $4.1 billion to GAVI over the past 20 years; 201
(e) These self-propelling agenda personally benefit Gates and other
Billionaires, Corporations, and Organizations, particularly vaccines and
computer and wireless technology, in his pharmaceutical (vaccine)

198
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/a-timeline-pandemic-and-erosion-of-freedoms-have-been-decades-in-the-making/
199
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bill-gates-life-wont-go-back-to-normal-until-population-widely-vaccinated
200
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-
and-mandatory-vaccination/
201
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/4/14/21215592/bill-gates-coronavirus-vaccines-treatments-billionaires
189
B-1-1030
- 1021 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1031 B-1-1031
holdings and agenda, as well as IT and internet holdings and concerns in
that, overnight , a vast majority of socio-economic activity has been
dislocated to a “virtual”, “new normal” whereby everything from
commerce, schools, Parliament, Courts, are converting to “virtual’’, not to
mention the electronic surveillance through cellphone applications for
contract tracing;
(f) The Gates Foundation project to develop at-home testing evolved from a
two-year-old research project from the University of Washington that was
intended to track the spread of diseases like influenza. All told, the Gates
Foundation has poured about $20 Million into the effort. A project funded
by the Gates Foundation announced it would begin issuing at-home
specimen collection kits for the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, according
to a report in the Seattle Times; 202
(g) Dr. Joel Kettner, former Chief Medical Officer revealed that pressure is
being put on public health doctors and public health leaders by the
Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) when he said,
“This is a grave threat and a public enemy number one”. Kettner states –
“I have never heard a Director-General of WHO use terms like that.” 203;
202https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/gates-funded-program-will-
soon-offer-home-testing-kits-for-new-coronavirus/
203
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/17/listen-cbc-radio-cuts-off-expert-when-he-questions-covid19-narrative/
190
B-1-1031
- 1022 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1032 B-1-1032
(h) While these initiatives are presented as measures to address health, they
significantly increase control by governments over their citizens, violate
privacy, and are part of an agenda to impose vaccination by mandates and
other forms of coercion;
(i) Contact tracing applications are being installed in cell phone software
upgrades without the express knowledge or permission of consumers;
(j) The Centre for Disease Control in the United States is actively lobbying
for increased masking and physical distancing measures, without
substantive evidence to justify these measures., while in Canada
compulsory masking has also emerged;
(k) Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law school professor has declared: “If a safe
vaccine is to be developed for Covid-19, I hope it’s mandated, and I will
defend it, and we’ll argue that in the Supreme Court of the United States.”
204
;
(l) Social media platforms such as Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Twitter,
YouTube and others, under the direction of governments, are actively
censoring information that challenges the SARS-CoV-2(COVID-19)
pandemic narrative. Public debate on this topic is not being permitted,
where Canada is no exception, and even worse, with the Canadian
government threatening to enact Criminal Code provisions for those who
204
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2020/05/20/more-than-stimulus-checks-how-covid-19-relief-might-include-
mandated-vaccines/?fBritish
Columbialid=IwAR2nrvg0WDTdv_KwjL_wedTNWBe3pxbqQeQAvQIK4m8OfSctLGFhAU9rGYE#1d19b0d57992
191
B-1-1032
- 1023 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1033 B-1-1033
utter or publish ‘’misinformation’’ on COVID-19, including expert
opinion;
(m) The voices of highly credentialed and respected scientists and medical
doctors have been censored by the government and media, preventing them
from providing critical information from their decades long experience in
dealing with infectious diseases and epidemics. Even our own public
health experts’ experience and advice, gathered over many decades has
been ignored. This includes Dr. Joel Kettner, former Chief Medical
Officer of Manitoba and Dr. Richard Schabas, former Chief Medical
Officer of Ontario;
(n) Scientists have been involved in “gain-of-function” (GOF) research since
2002 that seeks to generate viruses “with properties that do not exist in
nature” and to “alter a pathogen to make it more transmissible (to

205 206
humans) or deadly.” ;
(o) Rather than instruct people on how to improve their overall health or boost
their immunity with healthy foods, quality supplements, and physical
activity, governments are telling citizens that the only way to survive the
coronavirus crisis is to rush the development of a vaccine and then inject
all seven billion humans on the planet;
(p) Many scientists and doctors have expressed confidence in high dose
Vitamin C, Vitamin D supplementation, and other generic, inexpensive,

205 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
206
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/us-halts-funding-new-risky-virus-studies-calls-voluntary-moratorium
192
B-1-1033
- 1024 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1034 B-1-1034
and readily available medications and treatments to assist recovery. To
state that there is no cure to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is dishonest;
(q) The “no cure” agenda devolves directly from the pharmaceutical industry,
which is receiving billions of dollars from governments to develop
expensive and, so far, unproven as safe and effective “cures”. Yet safe,
effective and inexpensive remedies that help with recovery from Covid-19
already exist;
(r) Research in 2005 demonstrated that Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of
SARS coronavirus infection and spread, thus negating the urgent need for
207
a vaccine;
(s) Some governments are actively restricting access to treatments that have
been proven to alleviate the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2(COVID-19)
including VITAMIN C and D, zinc, HCQ, GTH precursors, and oxygen
treatments, including hyperbaric chambers;
(t) The decision by governments globally to institute social controls and
severe containment measures will prolong the epidemic and guarantee
successive waves of infection. As social controls are lifted, susceptible
individuals previously cocooned from infection will become exposed.
Successive waves of infection is a certainty as a result of severe
containment measures that prevented the development of natural
immunity;
207
193
B-1-1034
- 1025 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1035 B-1-1035
(u) Prime Minister Trudeau and Premiers, including the Respondents, have
stated that “life will not return to normal until we have a vaccine”,
parroting Bill Gates and Gates’ mantra and agenda, and has failed to take
“mandatory vaccination” off the table as a potential action of the
government. 208 It would appear that the Prime Minister and Premier are not
considering any alternative plan to ending this lockdown;
(v) The Government of Canada has not assumed legal and financial liability
for any injury or death resulting from containment measures or the use of
any vaccine;
(w) When a government uses its power to force ordinary citizens to give up
their freedoms, that nation is in great danger of moral and economic

209
collapse.
208. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the non-medical aims and objectives to
declare the “pandemic”, for something it is not beyond one of many annual
seasonal viral respiratory illnesses, was to, inter alia, effect the following non-
medical agendas, by using the COVID- 19” as a cover and a pretext:
(a) To effect a massive bank and stock market bail-out needed because the
banking system was poised to again collapse since the last collapse of
2008 in that the World debt had gone from $147 Trillion dollars in 2008 to
$321 Trillion dollars in January, 2020 and that;
208 https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/coronavirus-live-updates-covid-19-covid19
209
https://www.chp.ca/commentary/free-injections-or-mandatory-vaccinations
194
B-1-1035
- 1026 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1036 B-1-1036
(i) With 10 days of the declared pandemic European and North
American banks were given $2.3 Trillion dollars and further
amounts to hold up stuck markets and corporations, for a total of
approximately $5 Trillion dollars, largely going un-noticed in the
face of the “pandemic”, with this number progressively climbing ;
(ii) The shutting of virtually all, small independent businesses, with
the bizarre, but intended consequence that a local, street-level
clothing-store, or hardware store, or any store not selling food or
medicine, is forced shut down but a Walmart or Costco could sell
anything and everything in its stores because one section of the
store sold food (an essential service);
(iii) Other stores unable to sell, had to close with the consequence that
all small hardware shops, and the like, were closed but the large
corporations such as Home Depot, and the like, were equipped to
take on-line orders and have drive-by pick up;
(b) The fact is that the pandemic pretense is there to establish a “new
normal”, of a New (Economic) World Order, with a concurrent neutering
of the Democratic and Judicial institutions and an increase and dominance
of the police state;
(c) A massive and concentrated push for mandatory vaccines of every human
on the planet earth with concurrent electronic surveillance by means of
proposed:
195
B-1-1036
- 1027 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1037 B-1-1037
(i) Vaccine “chips”, bracelets”, and “immunity passports”;
(ii) Contract- tracing via cell-phones;
(iii) Surveillance with the increased 5G capacity;
(d) The elimination of cash- currency and the installation of strictly digital
currency to better-effect surveillance;
(e) The near-complete revamping of the educational system through “virtual”
learning and closure of schools, particularly at the University levels.
209. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the benefactors of these goals and
agendas are the global oligarchs who control and profit from vaccines and the
technical infrastructure of information and communication such as Bill Gates,
and his companies and Organizations, who pursues global vaccination and
profits from a global shift to “virtual economy” along with the other corporate
oligarchs and their “on-line” sale and distribution infrastructure of globalization,
and by-passing of effective national governance of nation-states under their own
respective Constitutions, including Canada.
210. The Plaintiffs state, and the facts is, that this agenda is well on its way to
“virtualizing”, “corporatizing”, and “isolating” even Parliament and the Courts to
an embarrassing and debilitating degree as reflected, inter alia by:
(a) Virtual Parliamentary Committees and sittings become the “new normal”
because a declared “pandemic”, is available every year, with projected “2nd
and 3rd waves;
196
B-1-1037
- 1028 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1038 B-1-1038
(b) The Supreme Court of Canada, on June 3rd,2020 announced virtual,
“Zoom” hearing of its appeals with its first virtual appeal hearing on or
about June 10th, 2020;
(c) The Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, Justice Justice Geoffrey
Morawetz, embarrassingly declared, on May 29th, 2020 that :
“there is no real return to full-scale, what I will call normal

operations, to pre-March operations, until such time that
there’s a vaccine available”.
Whether the Chief Justice is aware, or not aware, that he was echoing a
mantra originated by Bill Gates, and an agenda Gates has been pursuing
for decades, which serves Bill Gates and his associates, is unknown.
211. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that this agenda executed under the
pretext of the COVID-19 has been long in the planning and making, as reflected
and borne out by, inter alia the following facts and documents:
(a) (i) “decade of vaccines” declared by Bill Gates, and its funding
with the full support of the Canadian government, under a
Memorandum of Understanding in 2020 up to including PM
Trudeau, and further, on or about May 18th, 2020, gifting Bill Gates
another $800 Million dollars of Canadian Taxpayer dollars in
addition to prior millions already gifted;
(ii) The public statements made by Bill Gates and others for
mandatory vaccination of the globe, with vaccine-chips, chip-
197
B-1-1038
- 1029 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1039 B-1-1039
bracelets, smart-phone tracing, covid-testing, and surveillance of
everyone;
(iii) The criminal vaccine experiments causing horrific damage to
innocent children in India, Pakistan, Africa and other developing
countries;
(b) The Rockefeller Foundation Report, issued on May 2010, and
leaked, in which report a hypothetical scenario and hypothetical is
laid out with the effect of “ how to obtain global governance during
a pandemic”, and which report, posits an unknown virus escaping
Wuhan, China;
(c) The 2010 Canadian Film Board documentary in which Dr. Theresa
Tam, an ex-WHO committee member, is featured and quoted to
have stated, with respect to a potential pandemic;
Transcript (of Film Documentary):
1:25 – 1:32 - “Large epidemics and pandemics occur on a regular

basis through-out history, and it will occur again. It definitely will.”
57:00 - 58:00 - “If there are people who are non-compliant, there
are definitely laws and public health powers that can quarantine
people in mandatory settings.”
“It’s potential you could track people, put bracelets on their arms,
have Police and other set-ups to ensure quarantine is undertaken.”
“It is better to be pre-emptive and pre-cautionary and take the heat
of people thinking you might be overreacting, get ahead of the
curve, and then think about whether you’ve over-reacted later. It’s
such a serious situation that I think decisive early action is the key.”
Narrator Colm Feore states: “Police checkpoints are set up on all
the bridges and everyone leaving the city is required to show proof
198
B-1-1039
- 1030 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1040 B-1-1040
of vaccination. Those who refuse to cooperate are taken away to

temporary detention centers.”
1:22 – “What is certain is an epidemic or pandemic is coming.” 210
(d) Gates, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, between
2003 and 2017,vaccine program killing thousands of children and
severely injuring 486,000-plus in India, Pakistan, and Africa in
administrating vaccines, as exposed by Robert Kennedy Junior and
his Defense of Children Foundation, and others, and the fact that in
India the Courts are investigating this conduct, and an unsuccessful
motion brought in the Italian Parliament to have Gates indicted and
extradited for crimes against humanity , and further that developing
nation states declaring that they have been “guinea pigs”, mostly
children, in furtherance of global vaccination;
(e) A study by Dr. Peter Aaby in Africa, DTP Vaccine Increases
Mortality 5-Fold, In Study Without Healthy User
Bias concluded: "DTP was associated with 5-fold higher
mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has
shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. All currently available
evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children
from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or
NFB Website: http://onf-nfb.gc.ca/en/our-collection/?idfilm=55974

210
Toronto Sun article: https://torontosun.com/news/national/warmington-tam-talked-of-tracking-bracelets-in-2010-epidemic-film
199
B-1-1040
- 1031 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1041 B-1-1041
pertussis.” 211 DTP while discontinued North America is still
administered in the developing World.
(f) All the facts pleaded, in the above statement of claim with respect
to Bill Gates, the Gates Foundation, GAVI, the WEF,
Gates’entrenchment in vaccinating, mandatorily the entire planet,
and his vaccine-chip pursuits with smart-phone surveillance,
covid-testing, acquisition of 5G companies for maximum contact
tracing and surveillance, his relationship with the WHO and its
funding;
(g) A UN report, commissioned and released, in September, 2019,
prepared by the “Global Preparedness Ministry Board”, in which an
“Apotyliptic Pandemic” is predicted killing as many as 80 million
people;
(h) “Event 201”, an exercise, simulating a pandemic, prior to October
18th, 2019, organized by Gates, GAVI, which included the “World
Economic Forum”, on invitation only;
(i) The Government of Canada’s, minutely detailed 67- page Report,
entitled“ Government of Canada Response Plan COVID-19”, final
version 3.1”, with previous versions unavailable, which could not
211 http://vaccinepapers.org/high-mortality-dtp-vaccine/
200
B-1-1041
- 1032 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1042 B-1-1042
have been researched and written a mere couple of weeks prior to
the declaration of lock-downs and emergency in Canada;
(j) The heavily censored UK “Sage Report” of late-May, 2020;
(k) The International Lobby, spear-headed by Bill Gates and others as
set out in the within Statement of Claim;
(l) The Suppressed German government 93-page, May, 2020, report
which was eventually and recently leaked, which clearly and
conclusively determined that the “pandemic” and measures are
unjustified. The salient summary of which reads:
cs. KM4 – 51000/29#2
KM4 Analysis of Crisis Management (Brief Version)
Remarks: It is the task and aim of crisis management groups and

any crisis management to recognize extraordinary threats and to
fight them until the normal state is re-established/regained.
A normal state cannot therefore be a crisis.
Summary of the results of this analysis
1. In the past the crisis management did not (unfortunately against

better institutional knowledge) build up adequate instruments for
danger analysis. The situational reports, in which all information
relevant for decision-making should be summarized in the
continuing/current crisis, today still only cover a small excerpt of
the looming spectrum of danger. An assessment of danger is in
principle not possible on the basis of incomplete and inappropriate
information. Without a correctly carried out assessment of danger,
no appropriate and effective planning of measures is possible. The
deficient methodology has an effect on a higher plane with each
transformation; politics so far has had a strongly reduced chance to
make factually correct decisions.
201
B-1-1042
- 1033 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1043 B-1-1043
2. The observable effects of COVID-19 do not provide sufficient

evidence that there is – in relation to the health consequences of all
of society – any more than a false alarm. At no point in time, it is
suspected, was there a danger as a result of this new virus for
the population (comparison is the usual death rate in
Germany). Those who die of corona are essentially those who
statistically die this year, because they have arrived at the end of
their lives and their weakened bodies cannot any longer fight
coincidental everyday challenges (including the approximately 150
circulating viruses). The danger of COVID-19 was
overestimated. (In a quarter of a year worldwide no more than
250,000 deaths with COVID-19, as opposed to 1.5 million
deaths during the 2017/18 influenza season). The danger is
obviously no larger than that of many other viruses. We are
dealing with a global false alarm which has been unrecognized
over a longer period of time. - This analysis was reviewed by
KM4 for scientific plausibility and does not fundamentally
oppose the data and risk assessments provided by the RKI
[Robert Koch Institute].
3. A fundamental reason for not discovering the suspected false

alarm is that the existing policies for the actions of the crisis
management group and the crisis management during a
pandemic do not contain appropriate instruments for detection
which would automatically triger an alarm and the immediate
cancellation/abandonment of measures, as soon as either a
pandemic proves to be a false alarm or it is foreseeable that the
collateral damage – and among these especially the parts that
destroy human lives – threatens to become larger than the
health effects of and especially the deadly potential of the illness
under consideration.
4. In the meantime, the collateral damage is higher than the

recognizable benefit. The basis of this assessment is not a
comparison of material damages with damage to persons
(human lives). Alone a comparison of deaths so far due to the
virus with deaths due to the measures decreed by the state
(both without certain data). Attached below is an overview-type
summary of collateral health damages (incl. Deaths), reviewed
by scientists as to plausibility.
5. The (completely useless) collateral damage of the corona

crisis is, in the meantime, gigantic. A large part of this damage
202
B-1-1043
- 1034 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1044 B-1-1044
will only manifest in the nearer and more distant future. This
cannot be avoided anymore, only minimized.
6. Critical infrastructures are the lifelines necessary for the

survival of modern societies. As a result of the protective
measures, the current security of supply is no longer a given as
it usually is (so far gradual reduction of the basic security of
supply, which could result in a fallout in future challenging
situations). The resilience of the highly complex and strongly
interdependent complete system of critical infrastructure has
been reduced. Our society lives, from now on, with increased
vulnerability and a higher risk of failure of infrastructures
necessary for life. This can have fatal consequences, if on the in
the meantime reduced level of resilience of KRITIS a truly
dangerous pandemic or other danger should occur.
Four weeks ago, UN-general Secretary Antonio Guterres of a

fundamental risk. Guterres said (according to a report in the
Tagesschau on April 4, 2020): “The weaknesses and insufficient
preparation which are becoming apparent through this pandemic
give insight into how a bioterrorist attack could look – and these
weaknesses possibly increase a risk thereof.” According to our
analysis, in Germany a grave deficiency is the lack of an adequate
system for the analysis and assessment of danger.
7. the protective measures decreed by the state, as well as the

manifold societal activities and initiatives which, as initial
protective measures cause the collateral damage, but have in
the meantime lost any purpose, are largely still in effect. It is
urgently recommended to abolish these immediately, to avert
damage to the population – especially unnecessary additional
deaths -, and to stabilize the situation around critical
infrastructure, which is possibly becoming precarious.
8. The deficits and failures in crisis management consequently

lead to communication of information that was not well-
founded. (A reproach could be: The state showed itself to be one of
the biggest fake-news-producers in the corona crisis).
From these insights it follows:
a) The proportionality of interference with the rights of eg.

Citizens is currently not given, since the state did not carry out
203
B-1-1044
- 1035 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1045 B-1-1045
an appropriate consideration with the consequences. The

German constitutional court demands an appropriate
balancing of measures with negative consequences. (PSPP
judgement of May 5, 2020).
b) The situational reports of the crisis management group BMI-

BMG and the communications from the state to the provinces
regarding the situation must there fore henceforth
-conduct an appropriate analysis and assessment of dangerous
-contain an additional section with meaningful, sound data
regarding collateral damage (see remarks in the long version)
-be freed of irrelevant data and information which are not
required for the assessment of danger, because they make it
difficult to see what is going on
-an index should be formed and added at the beginning
c) An appropriate analysis and assessment of danger is to be

performed immediately. Otherwise the state could be liable for
damages that have arisen. 212
212. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that in a study issued by Stefan Homburg,
Christof Kuhbandner, at the Leibniz University Hannover, Germany, post-June 8th,
2020, these authors soundly concluded in their study that the lock-down measures as
modelled and executed were Not effective, globally comparing countries following
the WHO protocols and countries that did not. 213
213. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that this agenda includes the “World Economic
Forum (“WEF”)”. The Plaintiffs state and fact is that the WEF;
(a) Consistently promotes a “New Economic World Order” ,which is a
vision in the process of being rolled out under the auspices of the
212 https://human-synthesis.ghost.io/2020/05/31/km4-analysis-of-crisis-management-short-ver/
<https://human-synthesis.ghost.io/2020/05/31/km4-analysis-of-crisis-management-short-ver
213
http://diskussionspapiere.wiwi.uni-hannover.de/pdf_bib/dp-671.pdf
204
B-1-1045
- 1036 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1046 B-1-1046
World Economic Forum, of which one of the main sponsors is The
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
(b) The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for
Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost
political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape
global, regional and industry agendas.
(c) The World Economic Forum is committed “to the launch of the
Great Reset - a project to bring the world's best minds together to
seek a better, fairer, greener, healthier planet as we rebuild from the
pandemic.” "The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old
systems are not fit any more for the 21st century," said World
Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. "In short, we
need a great reset." 214
(d) Since its launch on March 11th, 2020, the Forum’s COVID Action
Platform has brought together 1,667 stakeholders from 1,106
businesses and organizations to mitigate the risk and impact of the
unprecedented global health emergency that is COVID-19. The
platform is created with the support of the World Health
Organization. 215
214F
214
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/the-great-reset-this-weeks-world-vs-virus-
podcast/
215
https://cepi.net/about/whoweare/
205
B-1-1046
- 1037 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1047 B-1-1047
(e) The WEF sponsors have big plans:”…the world must act jointly
and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies,
from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every
country, from the United States to China, must participate, and
every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In
short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” “The World
Economic Forum is launching a new Davos Manifesto, which
states that companies should pay their fair share not taxes, show
zero tolerance for corruption, uphold human rights throughout their
global supply chains, and advocate for a competitive, level playing
field.” Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World
Economic Forum. 216
(f) In 2017 Germany, India, Japan, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Welcome Trust and the World Economic Forum
founded the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
(CEPI) to facilitate focused support for vaccine development to
combat major health epidemic/pandemic threats. As an
organization, the Forum has a track record of supporting efforts to
contain epidemics. In 2017, at the Annual Meeting, the Coalition
for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launched –
bringing together experts from government, business, health,
216
https://www.weforum.org/the-davos-manifesto
206
B-1-1047
- 1038 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1048 B-1-1048
academia and civil society to accelerate the development of
vaccines. CEPI is currently supporting the race to develop a
vaccine against this strand of the coronavirus. 217
(g) Event 201, the pandemic exercise in October 2019, was co-
sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates

218
Foundation.
(h) As early as 2016, the president of the WEF, announced his and the
WEF’s intentions that, “within 10 years”, humans would be
microchipped, including in the brain, to integrate with technology;
(i) In the Fall of 2020, the WEF commissioned a study written by two
(2) McGill University professors, entitled: Transhumanism : How
to make the Human Body an effective Information Platform” with
volunteer, body-microchipped study groups;
214. Further with respect to global vaccination, in the context of Covid, the WEF has
stated:
(a) That:
“The COVID-19 crisis is affecting every facet of people’s

lives in every corner of the world. But tragedy need not be
its only legacy. On the contrary, the pandemic represents
a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect,
reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more
equitable, and more prosperous future. Interactive
diagram.” 219
217
https://cepi.net/about/whoweare/ https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf pg 19
218
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
219
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset
207
B-1-1048
- 1039 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1049 B-1-1049
(b) And that:
“The changes that are underway today are not isolated to a

particular country, industry, or issue. They are universal,
and thus require a global response. Failing to adopt a new
cooperative approach would be a tragedy for humankind.
To draft a blueprint for a shared global-governance
architecture, we must avoid becoming mired in the current
moment of crisis management.
Specifically, this task will require two things of the
international community: wider engagement and
heightened imagination. The engagement of all
stakeholders in sustained dialogue will be crucial, as will
the imagination to think systemically, and beyond one’s
own short-term institutional and national
considerations.” 220
215. In early July, 2020, Trudeau announced the massive expenditure of post-
COVID-19 infrastructure spending to re-align the economy, in concert with the
WEF agenda, in tandem with private sector partnership whereby the anticipated
privatization of public assets is a given. In September 2020, Trudeau announced
his support for the “Great [2030] Reset”.
216. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that:
(a) This agenda, is spear-headed by Bill Gates, and other Billionaire,
Corporate, and Global Organizational Oligarchs, which include vaccine,
Pharmaceutical, and Technology Oligarchs, through the WHO, GAVI, and
the WEF, whom they fund and effectively direct and control;
220
https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006OLciUAG?tab=publications
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/globalization-4-what-does-it-mean-how-it-will-benefit-everyone/
208
B-1-1049
- 1040 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1050 B-1-1050
(b) National and Regional Leaders who are simply, knowingly and/ or
unknowingly, as duped partners, partaking in this agenda by simply
declaring a “pandemic”, “emergency”, and delegating decisions to their
Chief medical officers who are simply following the dictates and
guidelines without question nor concern for the world expert opinions
against such measures, of the WHO;
(c) In effect there are less than a hand-full of people dictating the virtual fate
of the planet whereby sovereign Parliaments, Courts, and Constitutions are
by-passed;
(d) The “social media”, such as Google, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon owned
and operated by the likes of Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg, and, in Canada,
the CBC, funded and controlled by the Federal Government, are
knowingly playing in concert with this over-arching conspiracy, and in fact
over-lapping conspiracies.
208. The Plaintiffs further state that through their conduct, communication, agreement,
and functions of their intertwined respective public and private offices, the
Defendants, knowingly and unknowingly, intentionally and unintentionally, as
outlined, inter alia, by the Supreme Court of Canada in the test set out in Hunt v.
Carey and jurisprudence cited therein, have and to continue to:
(a) engage in an agreement for the use of lawful and unlawful means,
and conduct, the predominant purpose of which is to cause injury to
the Plaintiffs, through the declaration of a false pandemic and

209
B-1-1050
- 1041 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1051 B-1-1051
implementation of coercive and damaging measures including the
infliction of a violation of their constitutional rights as set out above
in the within statement of claim; and/or
(b) to engage, in an agreement, to use unlawful means and conduct,
whose predominant purpose and conduct directed at the Plaintiffs,
is to cause injury to the Plaintiffs, through the declaration of a false
pandemic and implementation of coercive and damaging measures
including the infliction of a violation of their constitutional rights as
set out above in the within statement of claim, that Defendants and
officials and employees, should know, in the circumstances, that
injury to the Plaintiffs , is likely to, and does result.
217. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Canada’s , and Trudeau’s, connection to
Gates, Gates’ foundation, and various companies , and the global vaccine
industry, is inter alia, as follows:
(a) PM Trudeau has echoed Bill Gates’ sentiments that mass mandatory
vaccination of people is necessary for any sense of normalcy to return.
(b) Gates uses proxies to successfully lobby the Canadian Government.
(c) The Gates Foundation founded GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in
1999 with $750 million and continues to run it and fund it. The Global
Vaccine Alliance, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on
the public all across the world.
210
B-1-1051
- 1042 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1052 B-1-1052
(d) GAVI hired a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy, a public affairs
agency. Their Mission Statement is: “We make, change, & mobilize
opinion.”
(e) Canada has gifted Bill Gates, and his related Foundation and companies
well over $1 Billion dollars in pursuit of his agenda, $800 Million recently
by Justin Trudeau;
(f) Crestview has lobbied the Canadian Government on at least 19 occasions
since2018 on various “health” matters, all on behalf of GAVI.
•Bill Gates- Vaccines, Pharmaceuticals & Technology
218. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, as set out in the within Statement of Claim,
that Bill Gates companies, and associates, manifest a clear agenda, for himself
and his associates in the vaccine, pharmaceutical and technology, industries,
through the de facto control of the WHO, influencing and dictating its agenda,
to:
(a) Effect a mandatory, global, vaccine policy and laws, which would net an
approximately $1.3 Trillion per year, in which vaccine industry he is
major proponent and investor;
(b) To effect surveillance, through his vaccination agenda, as outlined in their
public statement, and the MIT developed smart-phone application to
embed nanocrystal beneath the skin which can be read by a smart-phone
211
B-1-1052
- 1043 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1053 B-1-1053
through smart-phones, and 5-G capacity, in which industries Gates is a
major stake-holder and investor;
(c) Using the above to “virtualize” and globalize the World economy , in
which virtual and global New World (Economic) Order in which Gates
further sits in the centre, along with the other Billionaire and corporate
oligarchs;
(d) All of which is being effected and accelerated through the false
pronouncement of a COVID-19 ‘pandemic’’, and implementation of
baseless and false, draconian measures.
219. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Bill Gates’ statements, and conduct, in
the above-noted facts, has been documented, as reflected in the within Statement
of Claim.
• The WHO / Gates/ Trudeau/Dr. Teresa Tam/ and Dr. Bonnie Henry
220. The Plaintiffs state and fact is, that the connection and common agreement
between Gates-Trudeau-Tam, in addition to their statements and actions in
furthermore of that agreement as outlined above in the within Statement of
Claim, is further manifested by the following:
(a) On April 9, 2020 just before Easter, Trudeau announced that:
“We will not be coming back to our former normal

situation; we can’t do that until we have developed a
vaccine and that could take 12 to 18 months…..
212
B-1-1053
- 1044 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1054 B-1-1054
[and]….This will be the new normal until a vaccine is

developed.” 221
(b) Trudeau’s statement is a script lifted straight from Bill Gates’ echoing
almost word for word, the message Gates has been pushing since the
coronavirus in North America earlier this winter. The April 9th Highwire
video clip at 2:07 captures Gates stating:
“Things won’t go back to truly normal until we

have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out basically to the
entire world.” 222
(c) Instead of following the recommendations of leading scientists, doctors
and epidemiologists, Trudeau is foisting the Gates/WHO/ GAVI/ WEF
globalist agenda which he knows or ought to know, will result in financial
ruin for millions of Canadians including the Plaintiffs.
(d) Despite the prevailing global consensus on natural herd immunity, Bill
Gates is determined however, to prevent natural immunity so he can
mandate his new vaccine(s) for everyone. Noted scientist and journalist.
Rosemary Frei, shows Bill Gates does not want people to acquire
immunity to COVID-19. Rather, Bill Gates prefers that we suffer the
‘economic pain’ of lockdown in order to prevent us from acquiring natural
immunity as Gates has stated:
“We don’t want to have a lot of recovered people […] To

be clear, we’re trying – through the shut-down in the
United States – to not get to one percent of the population
221
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/coronavirus-live-updates-covid-19covid19
222
Blowing the Whistle on Covid-19, April 9, 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4u1LJQ7_k
213
B-1-1054
- 1045 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1055 B-1-1055
infected. We’re well below that today, but with

exponentiation, you could get past that three million
[people or approximately one percent of the U.S.
population being infected with COVID-19 and the vast
majority recovering]. I believe we will be able to
avoid that with having this economic pain.” 223
(e) In her latest compelling article, Covid-19 Meltdown and Pharmas’ Big
Money Win, Barbara Loe Fisher delves into the many disturbing angles of
this epic viral/political war unleashed on humanity, the havoc caused by
the Gates & Fauci lockdown policy and the economic spinoffs spawned by
the pandemic. 224
(f) Covid-19 has sparked the hottest new market in town – vaccine
development. A staggering number of coronavirus vaccines are under
development right now with astronomical piles of money being thrown at
it. Gates is in the thick of it along with Tony Fauci, director of the National
Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Both are on record
stating they don’t want people developing natural immunity, in stating:
“Now, I hope we don’t have so many people infected that

we actually have that herd immunity, but I think it would
have to be different than it is right now”, says Fauci. 225
223
Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason for the Lockdowns: By Rosemary Frei, Off-Guardian, April 4, 2020 https://off-
guardian.org/2020/04/04/did-bill-gates-just-reveal-the-reason-behind-the-
lockdowns/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=8a31c96b7b831b06c6631d2d800e39e274fdb4c5-1593827339-0AbbQnElw4gYMqoe14KfV-
9sVWpJ8_IO6ZguVbep6dVylwrKGMbqfHkxidxl_3uCK08NImuk8B5fJzKB4cL3viT1qQYvV8722SeZLNTHOWUovzpclffZQcDifx
vg3QQ6jPmp
ZkNGtNlwGs874a0MhuRY9_t7yNj8TyeXmeBXidqKFHOtCmuLJEmS9ZGcLDsNGb5WKidfnHO7DSzIQ110eNBgHMLXerbjPrKs
ESdGlhwd3LjoY6FiHbJu4U1bTEJMbsKQFlq5XIIOtoLGY2e7fThzjnbUBrcjpv76AL5aOYmAQAllCC3ttqOt_k21mLMgHNFafl2gW
Slla4a2SUAI8IzoKXLcbkuTr0IpvKrbjkF8B4ij3p8MdQOK0DZHcW
224
Covid-19 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/04/covid19-meltdown-and-pharmas-big-
money-win/
Covid-19 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/04/covid19-
225
meltdown-and-pharmas-big-money-win/
214
B-1-1055
- 1046 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1056 B-1-1056
(g) Natural immunity would disrupt Bill Gates expressed intension to
“vaccinate everything that moves”. In a video interview Gates says:
“Eventually, what we’ll have to have is

certificates of who is a recovered person, who’s a
vaccinated person, because you don’t want people moving
around the world where you’ll have some countries that
won’t have it under control…” 226
(h) The Gates foundation has invested tens of $billions in vaccine
development which includes a decades long vicious propaganda war
against anyone questioning vaccine safety. Gates’ ‘decade of vaccines’
from 2010-20 captured the global media and social media giants that have
demonized and ruthlessly censored the ‘vaccine risk aware’ movement
comprised mostly of vaccine injured families trying to protect their
children and the basic human right to informed consent and exemption
rights. This has been documented by various publications, which explore
the massive influence and control with which the Gates’ empire
manipulates global health and vaccine policies. 227
(i) In one article Canadian medical journalist, Celeste McGovern investigates
the upcoming vaccine and microchip technologies Gates is funding. 228
226
6 How we must respond to the coronavirus epidemic, Youtube video March 25,
2020:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8fIjxicoo#t=33m45s
227
Bill Gates search-Covid -19 Global Pandemic, Vaccine Impact News: https://vaccineimpact.com/?find=bill+gates
228
Bill Gates and Intellectual Ventures Funds Microchip Implant Technology, By Celeste McGovern, April 14, 2020:
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/bill-gates-and-intellectual-ventures-funds-microchipimplant-vaccine
technology1?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20Bill%20Gates%20and%20Intellectual%20Ventur
es%20Funds%20Microchip%20Implant%20Vaccine%20Technology%20%28TCCz3V%29&utm_medium=e
mail&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpBritish ColumbiaI6ICJjLm1jZ292ZXJuQGhvdG1haWwuY29tIi
wgImtsX2NvbXBhbnlfaWQiOiAiSzJ2WEF5In0%3D
215
B-1-1056
- 1047 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1057 B-1-1057
(j) In another, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exposes the Gates/WHO agenda listing
their deadly vaccine experiments in the developing world. Kennedy
explains:
“In 2010, when Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO,

he said “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A
month later, Gates said in a TED Talk that new vaccines
“could reduce population.” And, four years later, in 2014,
Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of
chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women
with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. 229
(k) Another expose is that of Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor and founder
of the Alliance for Human Research Protection. She examines how Gates’
table top ‘Event 201’ pandemic exercise in October, 2019, set the stage for
how the coronavirus pandemic would be handled. It predicted the
pandemic would end ONLY after an effective vaccine had been brought to
market. It is no coincidence that the coronavirus pandemic was unleashed
just weeks after Gates’ pandemic ‘war games’ rehearsal and is now playing
out, as lockdown scenario threatens to continue until the new vaccine
arrives? 230
(l) Sharav also delves into Gates’ vast business ventures related to enhancing
pharmaceutical products and vaccines. His ID2020 is a digital ID program
229
Bill Gates’ Globalist Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. April 9, 2020,
Children’s Health Defense:https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/governmentcorruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-
for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/
230
Bill Gates & Intellectual Ventures Funds Microchip Implant Vaccine Technology by Celetes McGovern, April 14, 2020:
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/bill-gates-and-intellectual-ventures-fundsmicrochip-implant-
vaccinetechnology1?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20Bill%20Gates%20and%20Intellectual%20Ventur
es%20Funds%20Microchip%20Implant%20Vaccine%20Technology%20%28TCCz3V%29&utm_medium=e
mail&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpBritish ColumbiaI6ICJjLm1jZ292ZXJuQGhvdG1haWwuY29tIi
wgImtsX2NvbXBhbnlfaWQiOiAiSzJ2WEF5In0%3D
216
B-1-1057
- 1048 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1058 B-1-1058
aimed at identifying 1 billion + people lacking identity documents. Also in
development are several ID devices that people could be forced to have
implanted into their body to identify their vaccine and birth-control
status. 231
221. With respect to the Defendants Trudeau and Tam, the Plaintiffs state, and the
fact is that:
(a) Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer and longtime loyal
servant of the WHO, serves on multiple international committees and
related organizations that dictate global health policies. Her main job is to
make sure that Trudeau follows the WHO/Gates lockdown policy until the
new Covid-19 vaccine arrives in 18 months.
(b) Molly Chan, author of a probing analysis of Dr. Tam’s career thinks it’s
evident from her background that:
“Theresa Tam works with the world’s most powerful

globalist entities that have tremendous say in how the
world deals with disease and immunization. This power
enables them to have a grip on the entire planet, and to
decide which measures are put into place to control the
behaviour of people in any event they choose to cause a
panic over. With COVID-19, we have a perfect example of
how the decisions of this small group of people can lead to
global hysteria and unprecedented societal changes.” 232
231
Coronavirus provides dictators and oligarchs with a dream come true, By Vera Sharav, Alliance for Human Research Protection,
March 26, 2020: https://ahrp.org/coronavirus-provides-oligarchs-with-adream-come-true/
232
Dr. Theresa Tam, Queen of the Vaccine by Molly Chan, Civilian Intelligence Network, March 31, 2020:
https://civilianintelligencenetwork.ca/2020/03/30/dr-teresa-tam-queen-of-the-vaccine/
217
B-1-1058
- 1049 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1059 B-1-1059
(c) Molly Chan asks important questions on Tam’s career and extensive
influence:
“Does this make Theresa Tam a puppet or master? How

is it possible to not follow WHO recommendations, when
you’re the one making them? She is on powerful
committees!”
(d) Considering the multiple numerous high-level positions Dr. Tam holds on
the international stage, Tam’s first loyalty is not to the wellbeing of
Canadians , or the Plaintiffs, but to the globalist policies so generously
funded by Gates and Big Pharma.
(e) Chan dubs Tam as the ‘Queen of Vaccine’ and explains:
“convened public health leaders and parents to collaborate

on the effort to shut down any hint of anti-vaccine thought.
Governments, including Canada and the U.S. are also
working with social media companies to remove vaccine
misinformation and promote scientific literacy. She wants
to make sure that people are not allowed to publicly say
anything against vaccinations, and establish them as just a
normal part of life, no questions asked.” 233
(f) While flexing her expansive influences, it seems a ‘no brainer’
Theresa Tam has been instrumental in controlling the CBC’s narrative
about the need to snuff out ‘vaccine hesitancy’ which includes the ruthless
censorship of any voices that would question vaccine safety in mainstream
media.
233
Dr. Theresa Tam, Queen of the Vaccine by Molly Chan, Civilian Intelligence Network, March 31, 2020:
https://civilianintelligencenetwork.ca/2020/03/30/dr-teresa-tam-queen-of-the-vaccine/
218
B-1-1059
- 1050 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1060 B-1-1060
(g) Tam is accused of “total incompetence” in having botched the Canadian
response to the COVID-19 pandemic:
“Tam has failed miserably, putting political correctness,

and virtue-signalling lecturing ahead of doing her job. She
couldn’t grasp the situation in time, and when she grasped
the seriousness of it was far too late to stop it.” 234
(h) The Toronto Sun’s cutting review of Theresa Tam’s incompetence says:
“Our country is now run by ‘healthcrats’. Dr. Theresa Tam

is the Healthcrat who runs the federal government. Her
record on being wrong is spotless.” 235
(i) In a recent interview in Chatelaine magazine, Tam bashes vaccine
resistors and accuses them of causing measles outbreaks. Her cryptic
statement, “I always think we do a really good job, when no one knows
what we’re doing”, reveals the federal health agency’s lack of
transparency and inability to provide crucial epidemiological data during
this crisis.
222. Since the summer of 2020, to the present, this agenda has been made the clear
by, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Admission and boasting by the likes of Gates and the WEF of what their
plan is, including admission and promotion of the “2030 re-set” by
Trudeau, as well as by the WEF stating that: “by 2030 you will own
nothing, but you will be happy”;
234
Devastating timeline reveals complete incompetence of Theresa Tam’s Virus Response
https://spencerfernando.com/2020/03/29/devastating-timeline-reveals-total-incompetence-of-theresatams-virus-response/
235
The healthcrats cure is proving worse than the disease, Toronto Sun, April 10, 2020:
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/snobelen-the-healthcrats-cure-is-proving-worse-than-thedisease
219
B-1-1060
- 1051 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1061 B-1-1061
(b) By the censorship of social and mainstream media of anything, and
everyone critical of the Covid-measures;
(c) By the banning of alternative medical treatment and prosecution and
persecution of Doctors who advocate alternative medical treatment to the
awaited vaccine such as British Columbia doctors Stephen Malthouse,
David Code, Dr. Dorle Kneifel, and Ontario doctors Dr. Patrick Phillips,
Dr. Kulvinder Gill, Dr. Caroline Turek;
(d) By the economic devastation of independent businesses to the
corresponding increased and doubling of profits by the billionaire oligarchs
and corporate oligarchs;
(e) By the “emergency” approval of vaccines, that did not comply with the
necessary animal and human trials without which approval normally could
not ensue and whereby approval of such experimental medical vaccines
could not only see approval if no existing alternative medical treatment
available could assist or alleviate with respect to the virus, which explains
why such medicine as HCQ, Ivermectin, etc… was banned for use for
treating Covid-19;
220
B-1-1061
- 1052 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1062 B-1-1062
• Dr. Bonnie HENRY – History and Conduct as British Columbia Chief

Medical Officer – Ignoring the Science
223. Dr. Henry worked internationally with the WHO/UNICEF polio eradication
program in Pakistan and with the WHO to control the Ebola outbreak in
Uganda. 236
224. Dr. Henry helped to establish the Canada Pandemic Influenza Plan, which
contains recommendations for health-related activities during the spread of a
virus. 237 Canada Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Task Group (CPIPTG)
members: B Henry (Chair), Canada’s pandemic vaccine strategy
Acknowledgements. 238
225. In 2012, Health Canada demanded that nurses who refused to take a vaccine
would be mandated to wear a mask throughout the 6-month flu season; it was
known as VOM (Vaccinate or Mask). The Ontario Nurses Union filed a
grievance against St. Michael’s Hospital’s VOM policy. The result was a
precedent setting win for nurses across the country. The arbitrator in the case
ruled that wearing masks “was not supported by science and was most likely an
attempt to drive up vaccination rates among staff.”
226. Dr. Henry was one of the expert witnesses who was instrumental in overturning
the mask mandate and testified in the 2015 case saying, “there’s very scant
236
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-
health-officer/biographies
237
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Henry
238
221
B-1-1062
- 1053 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1063 B-1-1063
evidence about the value of masks in preventing the transmission of influenza.”
Dr. Henry goes on to say that there is no data to support wearing masks and,
“When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we
need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support
that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any
additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the
policy.”
227. In December 2019, Dr. Henry supported the arbitrator’s 2015 decision on behalf
of British Columbia Nurses.
228. In May 2020, Dr. Henry unequivocally states, “there is no evidence that if you’re
not ill wearing a mask, particularly wearing a mask outside or out in public, that
provides much protection or any benefit at all.” Dr. Henry further admits that
asymptomatic people do not spread the virus, “we have not seen anybody not
showing any symptoms passing it on to anyone else.” 239 Henry also admits
there is “no real science behind the decisions she is making.” 240
229. Throughout 2020, Dr. Henry is on record repeatedly saying that masks are not
effective and yet in March of 2021, Dr. Henry once again lies to the public
claiming she has never said that masks do not work. 241
239
https://rumble.com/vbdsmb-bonnie-henry-admits-no-evidence-masks-work-for-those-not-sick.html
240
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/COVID-19_-B.C.-health-officer-explains-50-vehicle-
limit-for-events.mp4
241
https://action4canada.com/masks/
222
B-1-1063
- 1054 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1064 B-1-1064
230. Henry is duty bound to make decisions based on science and facts, and yet it is
very evident that she intentionally ignored the information available to her on
masking, asymptomatic spread, social distancing and lockdowns, and instead
implemented the draconian measures that destroyed people's livelihoods and put
the public in harm’s way on multiple levels.
231. On June 28, 2012, Dr. Henry worked for BCCDC Emergency - Management and
Environmental Health and was a presenter at the Public Health Ethics and
Pandemic Planning. Dr. Henry listed the goals of the CPIP (Canadian Pandemic
Influenza Plan) and ensured that, were there a pandemic, the plan must account
for minimizing serious and overall deaths and minimize societal disruption
amongst Canadians. She also lists the risks to schoolchildren of closing schools,
and the fact that children are at very low risk of contracting or transmitting
viruses. However, Dr. Henry supports that government restrictions are
acceptable, including forced quarantine and personal autonomy being effected by
forced vaccinations. Dr. Henry, along with her fellow presenter, Dr. Unger,
believe this is the right, moral and ethical thing to do. 242
232. As a result of Dr. Henry's previous involvement with the CPIP, BCCDC, Dr
Fauci, and the WHO, and as she currently holds the position of British
Columbia's Chief Health Officer, there is reason to be concerned that Dr. Henry's
actions are calculated and possibly pre-mediated based on the level of training
242
https://mediasite.phsa.ca/Mediasite/Showcase/bccdc/Presentation/e4823d251a8c40a38cdc80666f7d0fa
71d
223
B-1-1064
- 1055 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1065 B-1-1065
Dr. Henry has participated in. Of great concern is, Dr. Henry's willingness to
openly and aggressively violate the public's "guaranteed" Charter Rights.
Specifically, their right to bodily autonomy, security of the person, to be
employed and provide for one's family, the freedom of mobility, the freedom of
speech and to assemble, the freedom to access medical care and the right to live
without being subjected to discrimination and hate.
233. To date, Dr. Bonnie Henry, along with the other British Columbia Defendants
have engaged in illegal and unconstitutional actions as set out below:
234. To begin with, the emergency measures are based on the claim that we are
experiencing a "public health emergency.” There is no evidence to substantiate
this claim. In fact, the evidence indicates that we are experiencing a rate of
infection consistent with a normal influenza season. 243
235. The purported increase in “cases” is a direct consequence of increased testing
through the inappropriate use of the PCR instrument to diagnose so-called
COVID-19. It has been well established that the PCR test was never designed or
intended as a diagnostic tool and is not an acceptable instrument to measure viral
infections. Its inventor, Kary Mullis, has clearly indicated that the PCR testing
device was never created to test for coronavirus. 244 Mullis warns that, “the PCR
Test can be used to find almost anything, in anybody. If you can amplify one
243
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nQgq0BxXfZ4f
244
https://rumble.com/vhu4rz-kary-mullis-inventor-of-the-pcr-test.html
224
B-1-1065
- 1056 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1066 B-1-1066
single molecule, then you can find it because that molecule is nearly in every
single person.”
236. In light of this warning, the current PCR test utilization, set at higher
amplifications, as in British Columbia, for example is using it at cycles of 35+, is
producing up to 97% false positives. 245 Therefore, any imposed emergency
measures that are based on PCR testing are unwarranted, unscientific, and
fraudulent. An international consortium of life-science scientists has detected 10
major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level in a 3-peer
review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2. 246
237. In November 2020, a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests are unreliable, and
when run at 35 threshold cycles are or, produce a 96.5% false positive rate.
British Columbia runs them at 43-45 cycles. 247
238. On December 14, 2020, the WHO admitted the PCR Test has a ‘problem’ at high
amplifications as it detects dead cells from old viruses, giving a false positive. 248
239. On February 16, 2021, Dr. Henry herself admitted that PCR tests are
unreliable, yet still continued to use them to identify cases. 249
240. On April 8, 2021, the Austrian court ruled the PCR test was unsuited for COVID
testing. 250
245
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603
246
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
247
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful-
media-blackout/
248
https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
249
https://rumble.com/vhww4d-bc-health-officer-admits-pcr-test-is-unreliable.html
250
https://greatgameindia.com/austria-court-pcr-test/
225
B-1-1066
- 1057 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1067 B-1-1067
241. On April 8, 2021, a German Court ruled against PCR testing stating, “the test
cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active
pathogen or not, because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter and
living matter.” 251
242. On May 8, 2021, the Swedish Public Health Agency stopped PCR testing for the
same reason. 252
243. On May 10th, 2021, Manitoba’s Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist,
Dr. Jared Bullard, testified under cross-examination in a trial before the Court of
Queen's Bench in Manitoba, that PCR test results do not verify infectiousness
and were never intended to be used to diagnose respiratory illnesses. 253
244. On July 21, 2021 - Innova Medical Group Recalled Unauthorized SARS-CoV-2
Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test with Risk of False Test Results. The FDA has
identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. Use of these
devices may cause serious injuries or death. 254
245. On July 21, 2021 the CDC sent out a “Lab Alert revoking the emergency use
authorization to RT-PCR for COVDI-19 testing and encourages laboratories to
adopt a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of
SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”. The CDC is admitting that the RT-PCR test
251
https://2020news.de/sensationsurteil-aus-weimar-keine-masken-kein-abstand-keine-tests-mehr-fuer-
schueler/
252
https://tapnewswire.com/2021/05/sweden-stops-pcr-tests-as-covid19-diagnosis/
253
https://www.jccf.ca/Manitoba-chief-microbiologist-and-laboratory-specialist-56-of-positive-cases-are-
not-infectious/
254
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-recalls/innova-medical-group-recalls-
unauthorized-sars-cov-2-antigen rapid-qualitative-test-risk-false-test
226
B-1-1067
- 1058 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1068 B-1-1068
'cannot' differentiate between SARS, influenza or the common flu. This is
confirmation of what was stated in Section 7 and reported since the onset of the
so-called pandemic. 255
246. On July 21, 2021 an FDA document admits the “COVID” PCR test was
developed without isolation Covid samples for test calibrations, effectively
admitting it's testing something else. In the FDA document, it is clearly stated
that ordinary seasonal flu genetic material was used as the testing marker in the
PCR test kits. The authorities would have known that many people would test
“positive” for it, thus allowing them to use these results to create the “covid”
narrative. 256
247. Prior to COVID-19, the definition of a case (in a medical sense) has been a
patient with significant symptoms. With the implementation of the PCR test,
cases are now being defined as someone who tests positive regardless of whether
they have any symptoms or not.
248. Dr. Henry has been knowingly conflating positive PCR test result with the actual
disease, thereby deliberately misleading the public into believing the infection is
far more serious and widespread than it actually is. At no time in history have we
ever encouraged asymptomatic people to get tested, yet Dr. Henry allowed this to
happen to keep the case numbers high.
255
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-
2_Testing_1.html
256
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-08-01-fda-covid-pcr-test-fraud.html
227
B-1-1068
- 1059 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1069 B-1-1069
249. The British Columbia government is reportedly decreasing the amplifications of
the PCR test in order to lower the number of COVID-19 cases to deceive the
public into believing that the decline in cases is a result of people being
“vaccinated.” The government is now testing the vaccinates at much lower
threshold rates, but the unvaccinated at 43-45.
250. Dr. Henry has been instrumental in disseminating information to the public that is
knowingly false, deceptive and/or misleading. To knowingly disseminate false
information is a violation of the Health Professions Act.
251. It is evident that the government, with the recommendations and support of Dr.
Henry, have imposed the emergency measures based on the fraudulent,
unwarranted and unscientific use of the PCR test.
252. Based on this compelling and factual information, the emergency measures, as
well as the use of the COVID-19 experimental injection (“vaccine”), were not,
and are not required or recommended. In fact, warnings around the world are
calling for the immediate halt of the experimental 'vaccines' due to the volume of
extreme adverse reactions, including death.
253. Furthermore:
a) The Nuremberg Code, 257 to which Canada is a signatory, states that it is

essential before performing medical experiments on human beings, there
is voluntary informed consent. It also confirms, a person involved should
have legal capacity to give consent, without the intervention of any
element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior
form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and
comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to
257
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf
228
B-1-1069
- 1060 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1070 B-1-1070
enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This

requires, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the
experimental subject, that there should be made known to him/her the
nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means
by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards
reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his/her health or person
which may possibly come from participation in the experiment.
b) All the treatments being marketed as COVID-19 “vaccines”, are still in

Phase III clinical trials until 2023, 258 and hence, qualify as a medical
experiment. People taking these treatments are enrolled as test-subjects
and are further unaware that the injections are not actual vaccines as they
do not contain a virus but instead an experimental gene therapy.
c) None of these treatments have been fully approved; only granted

emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), which Health Canada 259 260 261 is using as the basis for approval
under the interim order, therefore, fully informed consent is not possible.
d) Most vaccines are trialed for at least 5-10 years, 262 and COVID-19
treatments have been in trials for less than a year.
e) No other coronavirus vaccine (i.e., MERS, SARS-1) has been approved

for market, due to antibody-dependent enhancement, resulting in severe
illness and death in animal models. 263
f) Numerous doctors, scientists, and medical experts are issuing dire

warnings about the short and long-term effects of COVID-19 injections,
including, but not limited to, death, blood clots, infertility, miscarriages,
Bell’s Palsy, cancer, inflammatory conditions, autoimmune disease, early-
onset dementia, convulsions, anaphylaxis, inflammation of the heart, 264
258
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1
259
https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Basis-of-Decision-COVID-19-Vaccine-
Moderna-Health-Canada.pdf
260
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-
vaccines-treatments/authorization/applications.html
261
https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/the_facts_about_pfizer_and_biontech_s_covid_19_vaccine
262
https://hillnotes.ca/2020/06/23/covid-19-vaccine-research-and-development/
263
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/coronavirus/connecticut-confirms-at-least-18-cases-of-
264
apparent-heart-problems-in-young-people-after-covid-19- vaccination/2494534/
229
B-1-1070
- 1061 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1071 B-1-1071
and antibody dependent enhancement leading to death. This includes

children ages 12-17 years old. 265
Dr. Byram Bridle, a pro-vaccine Associate Professor on Viral Immunology at the
University of Guelph, gives a terrifying warning of the harms of the
experimental treatments in a peer reviewed scientifically published research
study 266 on COVID-19 shots. The added Spike Protein to the “vaccine” gets
into the blood, circulates through the blood in individuals over several days
post-vaccination, it accumulates in the tissues such as the spleen, bone marrow,
the liver, the adrenal glands, testes, and of great concern, it accumulates high
concentrations into the ovaries. Dr. Bridle notes that they “have known for a
long time that the Spike Protein is a pathogenic protein, it is a toxin, and can
cause damage if it gets into blood circulation.” The study confirms the
combination is causing clotting, neurological damage, bleeding, heart problems,
etc. There is a high concentration of the Spike Protein getting into breast milk
and reports of suckling infants developing bleeding disorders in the
gastrointestinal tract. There are further warnings that this injection will render
children infertile, and that people who have been vaccinated should NOT
donate blood.
254. Minors are at nearly zero percent risk of contracting or transmitting this
respiratory illness and are, instead, buffers which help others build their immune
265
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-data-reports-injuries-12-to-17-year-olds-more-
than-triple/
266
https://omny.fm/shows/on-point-with-alex-pierson/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-covid-19-vaccines-
sugge
230
B-1-1071
- 1062 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1072 B-1-1072
system. The overall survival rate of minors who have been infected with the
SARS-CoV-2 virus is 99.997%. 267 In spite of these facts, the British Columbia
government and Dr. Henry are pushing the experimental treatment , to be
applied to minors, without parental consent, with the tragic outcome of a
high incidence of injury and death.
255. According to Health Canada's Summary Basis of Decision, 268 updated May 20,
2021, the trials have not proven that the COVID-19 treatments prevent infection
or transmission. The Summary also reports that both Moderna and Pfizer
identified that there are six areas of missing (limited/no clinical data)
information: “use in pediatric (age 0-18)”, “use in pregnant and
breastfeeding women”, “long-term safety”, “long-term efficacy” including
“real- world use”, “safety and immunogenicity in subjects with immune-
suppression”, and concomitant administration of non-COVID vaccines.”
Furthermore:
a) Under the Risk Management plan section of the Summary Basis of

Decision, it includes a statement based on clinical and non-clinical studies
that “one important potential risk was identified being vaccine-associated
enhanced disease, including VAERD (vaccine-associated enhanced
respiratory disease).” In other words, the shot increases the risk of
disease and side-effects, and weakens immunity toward future SARS
related illness.
b) The report specifically states, “The possibility of vaccine-induced

disease enhancement after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, has been
267
https://online.anyflip.com/inblw/ufbs/mobile/index.html?s=08
https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Basis-of-Decision-COVID-19-Vaccine-
268
Moderna-Health-Canada.pdf
231
B-1-1072
- 1063 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1073 B-1-1073
flagged as a potential safety concern that requires particular attention

by the scientific community, including the WHO, the Coalition for
Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the International Coalition
of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA).” 269
In spite of this information, Dr. Henry, with the support of John Horgan,
Adrian Dix and Mike Farnworth, has intentionally and consistently
mislead the public by insisting the COVID injection is safe, and goes
further to highly recommend the “vaccine” as safe for pregnant women,
nursing infants and children.
256. As reported in the United States to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System
(VAERS), there have been more deaths from the COVID-19 injections in five
months (Dec. 2020 – May 2021) than deaths recorded in the last 23 years from
all vaccines combined. 270 Furthermore:
a) It is further reported that only one percent of vaccine injuries are reported to
VAERS, 271 compounded by several months delay in uploading the adverse
events to the VAERS database. 272
b) On July 2, 2021, VAERS data release showed 438,441 reports of adverse

events following COVID-19 injections, including 9,048 deaths and 41,015
serious injuries, between December 14, 2020, and July 2, 2021, and that
adverse injury reports among 12-17-year old’s more than tripled in one
week. 273
c) Dr. McCullough, a highly cited COVID-19 medical specialist, came to the

stunning conclusion that the government was “...scrubbing unprecedented
269
https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/CDC-death-toll-following-experimental-covid-injections-now-at-4863-
270
more-than-23-previous-years-of-recorded-vaccine-deaths-according-to-vaers/
271
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/no_author/harvard-medical-school-professors-uncover-a-
hard-to-swallow-truth-about-vaccines/
272
https://vaxoutcomes.com/thelatestreport/
273
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-vaers-deaths-reported-covid-vaccines/
232
B-1-1073
- 1064 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1074 B-1-1074
numbers of injection-related-deaths.” He further added, “...a typical new

drug at about five deaths, unexplained deaths, we get a black-box warning,
your listeners would see it on TV, saying it may cause death. And then at
about 50 deaths, it’s pulled off the market.” 274
257. Canada’s Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) is a passive reporting
system and is not widely promoted to the public, hence, many adverse events are
going unreported. Historically, in Canada, only about 1% of adverse effects are
actually reported.
258. Dr. Joss Reimer, medical lead for Manitoba’s Vaccine Implementation Task
Force, says that new vaccine recommendations from the National Advisory
Committee on Immunization on mixing mRNA vaccines will be a form of trial
and error. Reimer stated, “Well in some ways, during a pandemic everything we
do is a big human experiment.” 275 However, according to Health Canada's
Summary Basis of Decision Pfizer and Moderna warn that the interchangeability
of the injections is unknown and recommend first and second dose of the same
shot. The World Health Organization also warns that mixing the vaccines is
dangerous.
259. Safe and effective treatments, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, and
preventive measures, Vitamin D and Zinc, exist for COVID-19, apart from the
274
https://johnbwellsnews.com/highly-cited-covid-doctor-comes-to-stunning-conclusion-govt-scrubbing-
unprecedented-numbers-of-injection-related-deaths-by-leo-hohmann/
275
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/manitoba-vaccine-lead-says-mixing-vaccines-is-part-of-pandemic-s-
big-human-experiment-
1.5457570?fbclid=IwAR0sYVZiRZgkhAjPn_9q3IRuFdBfTvWIi_nolNrhe69Aefzf8NxlKR_iXsI
233
B-1-1074
- 1065 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1075 B-1-1075
experimental shots, yet the British Columbia government and Dr. Henry are
prohibiting their use. 276 277
260. Messaging from the British Columbia government and Dr. Henry has placed
pressure on the public to receive “vaccines” in exchange for the loosening of
implemented lockdowns, restrictions, and infringements of various freedoms.
This includes an inability to make income or see family members as a result of
these restrictions, which adversely affects people’s ability to meet basic needs
and care for themselves and their families.
261. The British Columbia government and Dr. Henry have incentivised the receiving
of injections, measuring the public’s compliance against the degree, prevalence
and severity of lockdowns and restrictions. This is a form of coercion, and in
fact criminal extortion, as it makes clear specific consequences of non-
compliance, which includes continued difficulty to make income, to maintain
businesses, to maintain living standards and meet personal/familial
responsibilities due to the continuation of these lockdowns and restrictions. This
has also impacted the medical and homecare system wherein family members are
not permitted to visit their family members. This is likely to continue due to the
unconscionable mandate to vaccinate healthy people. This, all in the face of the
276
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/study-finds-84-fewer-hospitalizations-for-patients-
treated-with-controversial-drug-hydroxychloroquine
277
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/manitoba-vaccine-lead-says-mixing-vaccines-is-part-of-pandemic-s-
big-human-experiment-
1.5457570?fbclid=IwAR0sYVZiRZgkhAjPn_9q3IRuFdBfTvWIi_nolNrhe69Aefzf8NxlKR_iXsI
234
B-1-1075
- 1066 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1076 B-1-1076
fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has established that it is a s.7 Charter
right to refuse any medical treatment without informed, voluntary, consent.
262. The elderly have been treated cruelly and inhumanely by forcing the harmful
experimental injection on them and also withholding loved ones from being
“permitted” to visit them. Many elderly people died alone with no one by their
side in their final hours to comfort and console them. The isolation of the elderly
has been comparable to convicted criminals in solitary confinement. The elderly
have been isolated for up to a month at a time, and now going on 16 months.
Criminals subjected to this kind of isolation were compelled to choose a lethal
injection over being subjected to the intense feelings of separation from human
contact. Therefore, it sadly comes as no surprise that the elderly are choosing
euthanasia over further lockdowns. 278
263. Over 80% of all deaths occurred in care-homes and were people over the age of
80. The majority had multiple existing comorbidities.

264.
As for children, they have been exposed to unprecedented amounts of fear,
instability, shaming, psychological trauma, bullying, and segregation through the
COVID-19 measures 279 and, are therefore, even more susceptible to being
influenced by those in authority than their developmental stage would usually
entail. Children have experienced extreme depression and anxiety due to the
COVID-19 measures and are at the highest scale of suicide ideation of all age
278
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/facing-another-retirement-home-lockdown-90-year-old-chooses-
medically-assisted-death-1.5197140
279
https://action4canada.com/student-mask-covid-exemptions/
235
B-1-1076
- 1067 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1077 B-1-1077
groups. The “pandemic” has taken a heavy toll on children's mental health. 280 281
The “extra” suicides and drug over-doses undisputedly tied to Covid-measures
constitutes criminal negligence causing death.
265. The curriculum, and indeed all government narratives, exclude full disclosure of
the growing risks (adverse reactions and death) of the experimental treatments,
and the emerging evidence that the shots do not provide protection, as claimed.
Informed consent with FULL disclosure is mandatory and yet, due to lack of
research data, “full” disclosure cannot be provided.
266. As a result of the British Columbia government and Dr. Henry's push to
vaccinate the masses, ‘medically unqualified’ people such as politicians, teachers,
and business owners, have also placed pressure on the public to receive an
injection that might (according to medical specialists) jeopardize their health by
harming or even killing them.
267. Recommendations/mandates from the British Columbia government and Dr.
Henry, that people take COVID-19 injections, are being made in complete
contradiction to statements, recommendations, and findings of qualified medical
practitioners and world-renowned scientist and virologist, including the inventor
of the mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, who is calling for “an immediate
280
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/07/08/very-very-concerning-pandemic-taking-heavy-toll-on-
childrens-mental-health-sick-kids-study-shows.html
281
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/most-ontario-youth-experienced-depression-during-pandemic-early-data-
suggests-1.5501275
236
B-1-1077
- 1068 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1078 B-1-1078
halt of the COVID-19 “vaccines” due to the severe adverse reactions; in
particular, the extreme danger it poses to young people.” 282
268. Researchers in Britain have also called on the government to halt their use of the
coronavirus “vaccine” immediately after discovering potentially “toxic” side-
effects. 283
269. Dr. Vladimir Zev Zelenko, MD, called child vaccine mandates “coercive human
experimentation,” calling for those responsible for such policies to be tried for
“crimes against humanity.”
270. “According to the CDC, healthy kids 18 or younger have a 99.998% rate of
recovery from COVID-19 WITHOUT any treatment,” Zelenko told America’s
Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). “There is NO medical necessity for any vaccines.
Especially, an experimental and unapproved mRNA injection that has shown to
have many dangerous side effects.”
271. He continued: “Any government or individual that forces or mandates children to
get this experimental injection is in direct violation of the Geneva convention’s
prohibition against coercive human experimentation. These are criminals of the
highest order and must be brought to justice for crimes against humanity.” 284
272. On June 25, 2021, Spanish researchers are conducting studies of the mRNA
vaccines and the preliminary analysis of vaccination vials confirms the presence
282
https://gospelnewsnetwork.org/2021/06/29/mrna-inventor-says-to-stop-covid-vaccines-now/
283
https://www.oann.com/chinese-virus-vaccine-produces-toxic-effects-british-researchers-call-on-govt-
to-halt-use-immediately/#
284
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/dr-zelenko-calls-child-vaccine-mandate-coercive-
human-experimentation-crimes-against-humanity/
237
B-1-1078
- 1069 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1079 B-1-1079
of graphene nanoparticles. Graphene oxide is a highly toxic substance. The
discovery made here by La Quinta Columna is being referred to as a full-fledged
attack of State bioterrorism, or at least with the complicity of governments to the
entire world population, now constituting crimes against humanity. 285
273. On July 3, 2021, CTV News is spewing propaganda to support the governments’
objective to force the experimental injection on the healthy Canadians who
choose to reject the injection. The propaganda further incites discrimination,
unreasonable fear and intolerance (hate) towards the unvaccinated. 286
274. The injections being heavily promoted by Dr Henry have not been through the
strict protocol normally assigned to new drugs or treatments. They were only
approved by the FDA to be used under emergency authorization. This FDA
approval was the basis for the “interim” approval by Health Canada. One of the
main criteria for that authorization was that there are no alternative treatments
available. This is the reason why Dr. Henry has withheld crucial information
regarding other proven treatments for COVID-19, such as Hydroxychloroquine
and Ivermectin. If she admitted that there were other treatments, then that
criterion would no longer be met and the injections would have to be pulled and
subjected to more in-depth study to be able to justify their use.
275. Dr. Henry is using her position to promote this experimental genetic technology
of unknown efficacy and safety. With the knowledge of Premier Horgan,
285
https://www.orwell.city/2021/06/covid-19-is-caused-by-graphene-oxide.html
286
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/unvaccinated-people-are-variant-factories-infectious-
diseases-expert-says-1.5495359
238
B-1-1079
- 1070 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1080 B-1-1080
Minister of Safety Mike Farnworth, and Minister of Health Adrian Dix, she is
deliberately misleading the public causing further harm and death. Everyone who
takes these injections has the right to informed consent regarding the nature of
the authorization, and to know that by taking it they are themselves becoming the
test subjects in the Phase III trials. She is abusing the trust and duty that people
naturally have towards someone who presents themselves as a physician.
276. She is even going so far as to tell minors that they do not need parental consent
when she is fully aware there is even less safety data to warrant risking the lives
of children who are at extremely low risk from COVID-19.
277. Dr. Henry is on record recommending the “vaccine” for pregnant women. She is
therefore responsible and duty bound to know the harms and alert people to
them. She is using her trusted position to manipulate women into taking a
harmful shot.
278. On April 26, 2021, Dr. Henry made a public announcement and claimed that
when the vaccine was originally tested and introduced, there were some concerns
about whether women who were pregnant should receive it, but then states, "now
there is more substantial data supporting it is safe and effective in pregnancy" ...
and adds, "A new study released last week showed protected antibodies are
transmitted through breast milk to the infant as well." 287 288 Dr. Bridle’s report
287
https://globalnews.ca/news/7813885/b-c-encourages-pregnant-women-to-get-vaccinated-but-wont-
move-them-up-the-list/
288
https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2021/75959a-eng.php
239
B-1-1080
- 1071 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1081 B-1-1081
warned of infants with gastrointestinal bleeding. There are further reports of
infant deaths associated with nursing mothers who had taken the shot.
279. Dr. Henry is once again outright lying because according to Health Canada’s
Summary Basis of Decision, updated May 20, 2021, it maintained what it had
since the onset: that both the Moderna and Pfizer manufacturers identified that
there are six areas of missing (limited/no clinical data) information. Listed as
follows: “use in paediatric (age 0-18)”, “use in pregnant and breastfeeding
women”, “long-term safety”, “long-term efficacy” including “real world use”,
“safety and immunogenicity in subjects with immune-suppression”, and
“concomitant administration of non-COVID vaccines.”
280. This is on Health Canada's website and was part of the Health Canada
approval process, to which Dr. Henry has full access.
281. In mid-June, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study called
"Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons" by Tom
T. Shimabukuro and others from the Center of Disease Control's "v-safe COVID-
10 Pregnancy Registry Team." The team wrote that there were "no obvious
safety signals among pregnant [women] who received Covid-19 vaccines" even
though it published a table which showed that 82% of women in the study who
were injected with either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine during early
pregnancy, lost their babies (miscarried). 289
289
https://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=33214
240
B-1-1081
- 1072 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1082 B-1-1082
282. On April 19, 2021, Dr. Henry uses the single death of an infant as more fodder to
manipulate compliance of the masses. Dr. Henry says that the infant’s tragic
death "reminds us of the vicious nature of this virus.” The reality was that this
infant was already a patient at the British Columbia Children's Hospital for a pre-
existing condition. 290
283. The same article goes on to say that this was the very first death under the age of
30 in the entire province of British Columbia (population 5 million). More than a
year (and two “waves”) into the pandemic. That in itself highlights just how
NOT dangerous this virus is to young people under the age 30.
284. In a news report on May 14, 2021, after numerous reports of adverse effects from
the AstraZeneca injection, Dr. Henry continued to manipulate and coerce the
public into taking the jab by only reporting on cases, not deaths, by PCR based
cases. She further claims in her public announcement that youth are now at great
risk for contracting COVID-19. Dr. Henry makes this claim with no evidence to
substantiate it. Dr. Henry blatantly lies about youth getting COVID-19 saying,
"especially young people are having severe disease with Covid-19.” The facts are
that young people are at nearly zero percent risk of contracting or transmitting
this virus and if they do get it, they have mild symptoms.
290
https://web.archive.org/web/20210420021347/https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/infant-
dies-from-covid-19-at-b-c-childrens-hospital
241
B-1-1082
- 1073 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1083 B-1-1083
285. Dr. Henry's May 14, 2021, news update included a Langley man, Mr.
Mulldoon, 291 who was hospitalized and had to undergo surgery to remove six
feet of his small intestines due to a severe reaction to the AstraZeneca shot. Dr.
Henry sidestepped the issue and minimized the fact that this man's life has been
permanently impacted by referring to his blood clot as “very rare.” Statistics
prove otherwise.
286. The fact is, there can be no "informed" consent since this experimental "vaccine"
is still in the trial phase. All the potential side-effects are unknown. Anyone
involved in this experiment is equivalent to a lab rat, at this point.
287. When countries around the world, including several provinces in Canada, were
banning AstraZeneca due to the serious adverse reactions including death, Dr.
Henry is on record continuing to not only make it available to the public but
promote it and claiming it is "perfectly safe.”
288. The duty of disclosure for informed consent is rooted in an individual’s right to
bodily integrity and respect for patient autonomy. A patient has the right to
understand the consequences of medical treatment regardless of whether those
consequences are deemed improbable, and have determined that, although
medical opinion can be divided as to the level of disclosure required, the standard
is simple, “A Reasonable Person Would Want to Know the Serious Risks, Even
291
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/covid-19-bc-man-hospitalized-with-astrazeneca-vaccine-
induced-blood-clot/ar-BB1gHW5y
242
B-1-1083
- 1074 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1084 B-1-1084
if Remote.” Hopp v Lepp, supra; Bryan v Hicks, 1995 CanLII 172 (BCCA);
British Columbia Women’s Hospital Center, 2013 SCC 30.292
289. Vaccination is voluntary in Canada, yet, some federal, provincial, municipal
officials have incentivised the taking of COVID-19 injections, even suggesting
that lockdowns and lockdown measures will not end until enough of the
population has received these injections. This is despite the negative impacts
lockdowns have had on the health and well-being of the citizenry. Canadian law
has long recognized that individuals have the right to control what happens to
their bodies; law which is being directly infringed upon by these officials.
290. Dr. Henry has been instrumental in disseminating information to the public that
is knowingly false, deceptive and/or misleading, resulting in egregious crimes
against humanity, the division of families and society, abuse and mistreatment of
our elderly and children, the destruction of our economy, employment and
businesses, prohibiting medical care, and all of these things contributing to
increased drug overdoses, suicide, depression, excess deaths and an overall
breakdown of society.
291. Dr. Henry persists, in the face of mounting evidence, to misrepresent COVID-19
as a deadly condition when this condition produces only mild or no symptoms for
the greatest percentage of the population (99.997%).
292
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc30/2013scc30.html?resultIndex=1
243
B-1-1084
- 1075 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1085 B-1-1085
• Dr. Bonnie HENRY – Vaccines and the WHO
292. As per her Biography, Bonnie Henry has worked with the WHO and UNICEF
Polio eradication program, as well as with the WHO to manage Uganda’s Ebola
outbreak 293.
293. Bonnie Henry was in Pakistan working with the WHO to purportedly eradicate
polio in 2000. This through a vaccination program, without informed consent of
the recipients, and this notwithstanding the fact that, according to the WHO,
every Polio case since 1979 has been a result of the Polio vaccine itself and not
naturally occurring. 294
294. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a member, and funding organization
of the WHO, specifically when it comes to the topic of developing vaccines, and
delivering them to the “developing world” 295
295. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation developed a highly comprehensive
campaign to dispel “misinformation”, and coerce Pakistani families to vaccinate
their infants by implying that all infants should receive the vaccine unless there
was a reason not to. 296
296. The World Bank released a project appraisal document naming all of the
sponsors on the project for a polio eradication project in Pakistan, that named the
293
Biographies - Province of British Columbia (gov.British Columbia.ca)
294
Bonnie Henry – National Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases (nccid.ca)
295
WHO | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
296
Polio: Questions and Answers (immunize.org)
244
B-1-1085
- 1076 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1086 B-1-1086
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a sponsor, and the WHO as one of the
major planning organizations on the project. 297
297. As recently as May 2018, children have been not only experiencing injury, but
also death at the hands of the Polio vaccine that has seen mass campaigns across
even the most remote parts of their nation, including invasive door-to-door
vaccination campaigns, since 1998, yet these deaths are often brushed aside.
These massive injuries and deaths have been documented in South Asia (India
and Pakistan) as well as Africa. 298
298. Also per her biography, Bonnie Henry has been heavily involved, in the past, in
the management of “mass gatherings” in Canada and abroad 299. This included
the Vancouver 2010 Olympic, and Paralympic Winter Games. Incidentally, Todd
Dennett, former employee at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was
appointed to be responsible for overseeing the medal ceremonies 300. Todd
Dennett was the manager of scheduling and trip operations at the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation from March 2005-April 2008 301. Todd Dennett is
now the CEO and founder of Tiller Global, a company that boasts of a portfolio
including having worked with: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Microsoft,
HIV Vaccine Trials Network 302.
297
World Bank Document
298
Deaths of children after getting polio vaccine panic people - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
299
Biographies - Province of British Columbia (gov.British Columbia.ca)
300
Making the Olympic medal moment perfect: it’s all in the details | The Seattle Times
301
Todd Dennett | LinkedIn
302
Portfolio – Tiller Global
245
B-1-1086
- 1077 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1087 B-1-1087
299. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that administrating medical treatment without
informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment and contrary to the
Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declaration of 1960, still in vigor, and further
and thus constitutes a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of
Canada.
without the need for their parents consent, notwithstanding:
protocols but were all made under an “emergency” basis;
(b) That there has NOT been a recorded death or life-threatening case of any
(c) That twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds are not at risk of Covid-19;
(d) That, in the absence of informed consent, it constitutes medical
Humanity Act;
(e) And that on June 5th, 2021 Dr. Joss Reimer, Medical Lead for the
246
B-1-1087
- 1078 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1088 B-1-1088
(f) That many twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds do not possess the
intellectual capacity to give informed consent;
(g) And by doing so Dr. Bonnie Henry, and the Province of British Columbia
• G/ CONSEQUENCES OF MEASURES TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND

OTHER CITIZENS, AND VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
301. The Plaintiffs state, and the facts is, that the impact of containment measures to
Plaintiffs is, inter alia that:
(a) Mass containment measures negatively impacts the development of herd
immunity, artificially prolongs the epidemic, extends the period of
confinement, and contributes to maintaining a high proportion of
susceptible individuals in the population.
(b) California emergency room physicians stated that “sheltering in place does
more harm than good and lowers our immune system.” 303
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/california-er-physicians-sheltering-in-place-does-more-harm-than-good-lowers-our-
303
immune-system/
247
B-1-1088
- 1079 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1089 B-1-1089
(c) The measures employed to achieve the objective of “flattening the curve”
so as not to overwhelm the health care system were disproportionate to the
objective. Our health care system has consistently operated at 40 – 50%
below capacity since the introduction of these measures.
(d) The suspensions of rights to participate in community and in commerce
has caused substantial and irreparable harm to the economy, livelihoods,
communities, families, and the physical and psychological well-being of
Canadians and the Plaintiffs. These include:
(i) A dramatic increase in reports of domestic violence (30%).
(ii) Over six million Canadians have applied for unemployment
benefits and 7.8 million Canadians required emergency income
support from the Federal government (as of May 2020). 304
(iii) The deepest and most rapid loss of jobs, savings and income in the
305
history of Canada.
(iv) Numerous citizens have been forced into unemployment and
poverty, the loss of their business, and bankruptcy.
(v) Estimates of the Federal deficit resulting from their response to
SARS-CoV-2 ranges up to $400 billion (May 2020). 306
304
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/beyond-lockdown-canadians-can-have-both-health-and-prosperity-an-open-letter-to-the-
prime-minister/
305
https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/beyond-lockdown-canadians-can-have-both-health-and-prosperity-an-open-letter-to-the-
prime-minister/
306 https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/beyond-lockdown-canadians-can-have-both-health-and-prosperity-an-open-letter-to-the-
prime-minister/
248
B-1-1089
- 1080 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1090 B-1-1090
(vi) Leading Economic Indicators show the Canadian economy is now
in “freefall”. 307
(vii) Illnesses and conditions not related to SARS-CoV-2 have gone
untreated and undiagnosed.
(viii) Dramatic increase in number of individuals dying at home due to
lack of medical care and for fear of visiting emergency wards
despite the fact that most hospitals have capacity.
(ix) Denial of access to health care professionals including doctors,
dentists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, naturopaths, homeopaths,
physiotherapists, massage therapists, optometrist, and osteopaths.
(x) Denial of access to health care services including cancer
treatments, elective surgeries, testing, diagnosing, and treatment.
(xi) Regulated health care practitioners, including chiropractors,
Naturopaths, and Homeopaths have been directed to refrain from
providing health care knowledge to individuals concerned about
SARS-CoV-2. This is an unwarranted infringement on the right to
therapeutic choice.
(xii) Dramatic Increase in mental health challenges including suicide.
(xiii) The significant potential for the traumatizing children due to the
disproportionate fear of contracting a virus for which the risk of
death is virtually zero.

307 https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/beyond-lockdown-canadians-can-have-both-health-and-prosperity-an-open-letter-to-the-
prime-minister/
249
B-1-1090
- 1081 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1091 B-1-1091
(xiv) Significant increase in alcohol consumption and drug use.
(xv) Denial of access to healthy recreation including parks, beaches,
camping, cottages, and activities as golf, tennis, swimming, etc.
(xvi) Denial of a public education for children.
(xvii) Denial of access to consumer goods and services.
(xviii) Individuals dying alone in hospital and extended care facilities
without the support of family and friends. 308
(xix) Fathers denied access to be present for the birth of their child.
(xx) Elderly parents in supportive care are denied access to the support
of their family and friends.
(xxi) The effective closure of Courts of Law is unprecedented, illegal,
unconstitutional, undemocratic, unnecessary, and impedes the
ability of Canadians to hold our governments accountable.
(xxii) The effective closure of Parliaments is unprecedented, illegal,
unconstitutional, undemocratic, unnecessary, and impedes the
ability of Canadians, including the Plaintiffs, to hold governments
accountable.
302. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that:
(a) To combat COVID-19, “Canada’s federal government initially
committed to measures totaling around $400 billion, of which about
two-fifths constitutes direct spending.” Currently, the deficit for
308
https://globalnews.ca/news/6866586/British Columbia-woman-disability-dies-covid-19/
250
B-1-1091
- 1082 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1092 B-1-1092
2019-2020 is expected to be well over $1.2 Trillion. This is seven
times larger than the previous year’s deficit. 309
(b) There is no evidence that the impact of these negative consequences
were calculated, much less fully considered in the government’s
response to SARS-CoV-2.
(c) John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional
Freedoms in Canada has stated there is reason to conclude that the
government’s response to the virus is deadlier than the disease itself.

310
(d) The cost of combatting SARS-CoV-2 is placed disproportionately on
the young and blue collar and service workers who cannot work from
home, as opposed to white collar workers who often can.
(e) The results from Sweden, and other countries that did not engage in
mass and indiscriminate lockdowns, demonstrates that other more
limited measures were equally effective in preventing the
overwhelming of the health care system, and much more effective in
avoiding severe economic and individual health consequences.
(f) The Ontario government took the "extraordinary step" to release a
database to police with a list of everyone who has tested positive for
COVID-19 in the province. 311
309
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-budget-deficit-covid19_ca_5e85f6British Columbiac5b60bbd735085f4
310
311
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/ontario-takes-extraordinary-step-to-give-police-list-of-all-covid-19-patients-
1.4910950?fBritish Columbialid=IwAR10jfu_5OYq5BPZJKMyyqiN2P47dK_wbZzFMqC8WEpFxiIhEFt81cGnfqc
251
B-1-1092
- 1083 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1093 B-1-1093
303. Furthermore, while upon the declaration of the pandemic, based on a totally
erroneous modeling, postulated that, as opposed to regular 650, 000 deaths every
year form seasonal viral respiratory illness , world-wide, that 3.5 Million may or
would die, the erroneous COVID implemented measures have proven to be
more devastating than the “pandemic” at its posited worse in that:
(a) In Canada, as elsewhere, 170,000+ medical, surgical, operations are
canceled, with the numbers climbing, as well as closure of other medical
services at hospital, which have caused deaths;
(b) With the fear of lock-downs and self-isolation, patients have not accessed
their doctor for diagnosis of medical problems;
(c) Documented spikes of domestic violence and suicides have been recorded;
(d) Inordinate spike in alcoholism, drug use, and clinical depression;
(e) Moreover, and most-shocking, the UN through an official of the World
Food Bank, on April 22nd,2020, had published a document stating that,
because of COVID-19 (measures)and the disruption of supply chain, it
estimates that 130 Million “additional people” “on the planet could be on
the brink of starvation by end of year 2020 which, begs the question:
why is it justifiable to add 130 Million deaths to purportedly save 3.5
Million?
304. The Plaintiffs state, and the facts is, that the purported, and false, goals of the
WHO measures and its purveyors, such as the Defendants, are a perpetual
moving target, and purposely shift to an unattainable goals, in that:

252
B-1-1093
- 1084 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1094 B-1-1094
(a) The initial rationale for the mass lockdown of Canadian society was to
“flatten the curve” to avoid overwhelming health care services. It was
never about preventing the coronavirus from spreading altogether, but
rather to render its spread manageable.
(b) It appears now that the goal has changed. Government appears to have
shifted the goal to preventing the virus from infecting any and all
Canadians. If so, this ought to be made clear, as should the justification for
312
the change.
(c) Yoram Lass, the former director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Health is of
the opinion that “lockdown cannot change the final number of infected
people. It can only change the rate of infection.” 313
(d) There are warnings of an imminent “second wave.” But if the “first wave”
has been flattened, planked or buried to the extent that in vast areas of the
country very few people have been exposed to the virus at all, then the
“second wave” is not really a second wave at all, but a delayed first wave.
(e) Minimizing the total spread of the coronavirus until a vaccine is available
will be the most expensive goal in the history of human governance.
(f) There is no scientific evidence to substantiate that the elimination of the
virus through self-isolation and physical distancing is achievable or
medically indicated.
312 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-on-covid-19-a-lockdown-without-a-clear-goal
313
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/22/nothing-can-justify-this-destruction-of-peoples-lives/#.XsgqiN6D0uQ.facebook
253
B-1-1094
- 1085 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1095 B-1-1095
(g) According to four Canadian infectious disease experts, Neil Rau, Susan
Richardson, Martha Fulford and Dominik Mertz - “The virus is unlikely to
disappear from Canada or the world any time soon” and “It is unlikely
that zero infections can be achieved for COVID-19.” 314
(h) There is no compelling reason to conclude that the general-population
lockdown measures (first requested by the Trudeau government on 17
March) had a detectable effect in Canada. The lockdown measures may
have been implemented after “peak prevalence” of actual infections, which
renders mitigation measures entirely without effect.
(i) The Government of Canada has been slow to endorse the re-opening of the
economy even as hospitals remain well below capacity – the metric that
was initially used to justify the restrictions.
305. Since the summer of 2020, the above-noted consequences have exponentially
multiplied, magnified, and chronically festered to the large point of deprivation
and deaths, caused by the measures.
• H/ THE COVID-19 VACCINE- “WE DO NOT GET BACK TO NORMAL

UNTIL WE HAVE A VACCINE”
306. From the on-set of the declared “emergency”, the Plaintiffs state, and the fact
was, that the narrative and mantra created and propagated by Bill Gates that “we
do not get back to normal until we have a vaccine” has been accelerated by a
314
254
B-1-1095
- 1086 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1096 B-1-1096
falsely declared “pandemic” to what has been a persistent push for mandatory
vaccination of every human being on the planet, along with “global governance”
as propagated by Bill Gates, Henry Kissinger, the Rockefeller Foundation,
GAVI, the WEF, and their likes.
307. With respect to (mandatory) vaccines and the COVID-19, the Defendants, in
addition to pushing the ultimate aim of mandatory vaccines, spear-headed by Bill
Gates, and others, have also ignored and refuse to address the issues in the
context of COVID-19, let alone vaccines at large, as reflected in, inter alia, the
following:
(a) Intention to Create Vaccine Dependency: Is it ethical to deny children,
young people and most of the population who are at low risk of mortality
the opportunity to develop natural immunity when we know natural
immunity is lifelong in most cases? Are we going to create another
condition where we become ‘vaccine dependent’ or will we recognize the
value of natural herd immunity? Advocates of the natural herd immunity
model are of the opinion that rather than the mass isolation of billions of
people, only the most at-risk people and their close associates should be
isolated. The forced mass quarantine of an entire, mostly low-risk
population is disproportionate and unnecessary. This is the position being
utilized by Sweden. 315
(b) Will A COVID 19 Vaccine Be Safe?
315
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/will-a-covid-19-vaccine-save-us/
255
B-1-1096
- 1087 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1097 B-1-1097
(i) Dr. Anthony Fauci – is the director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States. Fauci has
stated: “We need at least around a year and a half to make sure
any new vaccine is safe and effective.” [1]
(ii) Dr. Paul Offit - Offit warns, “Right now you could probably get
everyone in this country to get this (CV) vaccine because they are
so scared of this virus. I think we should keep remembering that
most people who would be getting this vaccine are very unlikely to
be killed by this virus.”
(iii) Dr. Peter Hotez - dean of the National School of Tropical
Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters, “I
understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in
general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be
doing it with.”
(iv) Pathogenic Priming316;
(c) Jonathan Kimmelman, a biomedical ethics professor at McGill
University in Montreal, is watching how both scientific and ethical
standards are maintained while the pandemic vaccine trials progress at
breakneck speed.
"My concern is that, in the fear and in the haste to develop

a vaccine, we may be tempted to tolerate less than optimal
316
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589909020300186?via%3Dihub=&amp=1
256
B-1-1097
- 1088 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1098 B-1-1098
science," Kimmelman said. "That to me seems

unacceptable. The stakes are just as high right now in a
pandemic as they are in non-pandemic settings. "To show
how long the process can take, Kimmelman points to the
example of the ongoing search for an effective HIV vaccine
that began in the 1990s. Before healthy people worldwide
receive a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the risk/benefit
balance needs to tip in favor of the vaccine's efficacy in
offering protection over the potential risks, he said. The
balance still exists even in the face of a virus wreaking an
incalculable toll on human health and society.” 317
(d) CBC News March 24, 2020 reported by Amina Zafar; 318
(e) Moderna's vaccine uses genetic material from the virus in the form
of nucleic acid. That tells the human body how to make proteins that
mimic viral proteins and this should provoke an immune response. Denis
Leclerc, an infectious diseases researcher at Laval University in Quebec
City, said the advantage of nucleic acid vaccines like Moderna's is that
they're much faster to produce than other types. While relatively
safe, nucleic acid vaccines are generally not the preferred strategy,
Leclerc said, because they don't have the same safety record as the
traditional approach.
(f) Will a COVID 19 vaccine be effective? Ian Frazer - Immunologist Ian
Frazer has downplayed the role of a vaccine in overcoming the coronavirus
pandemic, saying it may “not stop the spread of the virus in the
community”. That’s if a vaccine can be developed at all. Frazer, a
317
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/coronavirus-covid19-april16-canada-world-1.5534020
318
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-research-1.5497697
257
B-1-1098
- 1089 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1099 B-1-1099
University of Queensland scientist who was recognized as Australian of
the Year in 2006 for his contribution to developing HPV vaccines, said a
COVID-19 vaccine may not be the end-all to the current crisis. 319
(g) Role of Influenza Vaccination to Current Outbreak - Allan S.
Cunningham, Retired pediatrician The possibility that seasonal flu shots
are potential contributors to the current outbreak. A randomized
placebo-controlled trial in children showed that flu shots increased fivefold
the risk of acute respiratory infections caused by a group of non influenza
viruses, including coronaviruses. 320
(h) Mandatory Vaccination
(i) Diane Doucet – Message to New Brunswick Committee on Law

Amendments“Mandatory vaccination may soon be imposed on the
entire population. Eventually, every person will have to decide
between attending school, keeping their job, their home and their
ability to participate in society and their so-called freedom to
choose. People will also be at risk of losing their jobs if they speak
out against mandatory vaccinations.
We are not talking about quarantining individuals infected by a

disease. We are talking about the segregation of healthy children
and adults from participating in society. Their crime is that they do
not consent to handing over their bodies to the tyrannical will of a
vaccine cartel which is accountable to no one.
The policy makers look down upon the citizenry with arrogance.
We live in a system that views the common people as being too
ignorant to decide what’s best for themselves and their children.
When corporations, health agencies and government institutions
treat people like chattel and punish those who do not submit, you
319
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/coronavirus-australia-immunologist-ian-frazer-expresses-doubt-around-role-of-
vaccine-in-pandemic-c-983647
320
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m810/rr-0
258
B-1-1099
- 1090 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1100 B-1-1100
have slavery. If an institution can take it upon itself and do what it

wants to people’s bodies against their will, then you live in a slave
system. We find ourselves here today, wondering how we managed
to slip this low.”
• Microchipping /Immunity Passports/ Social Contact Vaccine Surveillance
& 5G
308. The Plaintiffs state that, and fact is, this global vaccination scheme which is
being propelled and pushed by the Defendants, is with the concurrent aim of total
and absolute surveillance of the Plaintiffs and all citizens.
309. In addition to the facts, pleaded with respect to Gates’ vaccine-chip, nannocrystal
“app” already developed, in late June, 2020, cell-phone companies, at the request
of Justin Trudeau that the 30-Million eligible Canadians “voluntarily” load up
“contract-tracing apps” now available from the phone-tech giants. These
companies began dumping the apps on to customers without informed consent.
310. On June 30th, 2020, Canada announced that it was participating, to be included,
as one of an initial fifteen (15) countries, to require “immunity passport”, a cell-
phone application disclosing medical vaccination history. 321 Canada is one of an
initial fifteen (15) countries to enter into a contract to deploy “immunity
passport” technology. The technology would utilize a cell-phone application to
disclose medical vaccination history. 322
321https://www.mintpressnews.com/mass-tracking-covi-pass-immunity-passports-
slated-roll-15-countries/269006/
322
https://www.mintpressnews.com/mass-tracking-covi-pass-immunity-passports-slated-roll-15-countries/269006/
259
B-1-1100
- 1091 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1101 B-1-1101
311. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that above and beyond what is set out
above in the within Statement of Claim, mandatory vaccination, for any disease,
let alone a virus, is a flagrant violation of the Plaintiffs’ Charter , and written
constitutional rights, under s. 2 and 7 of the Charter, to freedom of belief,
conscience, religion, and life liberty and security of the person as a violation of
physical and psychological integrity, where informed medical consent is absent
in a mandatory scheme.
312. Furthermore, and more importantly, the Plaintiffs state that public officials,
including the relevant Defendants, Trudeau, Tam, and Henry have warned that,
despite the anticipated five (5) years of the Covid-19 “vaccines”, the vaccines
will not result in immunity: do not prevent transmission of the virus to and from
the recipient: and that the other measures, lockdoans, maskins and useless PCR
tests must be maintained indefinitely. This all begs the question: why then roll
out an experimental “vaccine” by-passing the safety protocols?
Version April 29/21
• Authorized COVID “Vaccines”
313. Since the Summer of 2020, with respect to the Covid “vaccines”, the events have
unfolded as set out below.
260
B-1-1101
- 1092 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1102 B-1-1102
314. There are four COVID-19 vaccines which have received emergency use
323
authorization in Canada:
(a) The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for use in
Canada on December 9, 2020.
(b) The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for use in Canada on
December 23, 2020.
(c) The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for use in Canada
on February 26, 2021.
(d) The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine was authorized for use in Canada on
March 5, 2021.
(e) Merck, a major pharmaceutical company, which was developing two (2)
potential vaccines, abandoned their development and publicly announced,
that it is more effective for people to simply contract the virus and let the
natural immune system deal with it.
Note: Health Canada authorized two manufacturers to produce this vaccine
developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University: AstraZeneca and Serum
Institute of India (SII). NACI has not specifically reviewed evidence for the
SII vaccine, but Health Canada has deemed SII and AstraZeneca vaccines to
be comparable. Authorization of the SII COVID-19 vaccine (COVISHIELD)
was based on its comparability to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine as
323
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/immunization/national-advisory-
committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines/recommendations-use-covid-
19-vaccines-en.pdf
261
B-1-1102
- 1093 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1103 B-1-1103
determined by evaluation and direct comparison of manufacturing processes
and controls and the quality characteristics of the two products. The results of
this comparison by Health Canada determined that the two products were
sufficiently similar and that the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of
COVISHIELD could be inferred from the non-clinical and clinical studies
from the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
315. These “vaccines” constitute experimental Medical Devices in that:
(a) Canadians have been led to believe that the COVID 19 vaccines have
undergone robust clinical trials and have proven these products to be both
safe and effective. That belief is simply untrue. In fact it is a bald and
intentional lie.
(b) Those partaking in the COVID 19 vaccines are test subjects in ongoing
clinical trials. 324
(c) The COVID-19 vaccines have not received full Health Canada approval.
They have only been granted ‘interim use’; i.e. ‘emergency use
authorization’. This means that these medical products are considered
‘experimental’. Those partaking in these products are subjects in human
clinical trials. In order to obtain emergency use, it must be established
that no other recognized and approved medical treatment or drugs are
available to mitigate, assist, or avert the disease which explains the
324
https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/what-vaccine-trials
262
B-1-1103
- 1094 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1104 B-1-1104
banning and use of such drugs as HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Zinc, and
Magnesium in combination, treatments that have been proven effective.
(d) These “vaccine” products are unlike any previous vaccine. The most
significant difference with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is the
introduction of ‘messenger RNA/DNA technology’. This technology has
never before been injected into humans on a mass scale to function as a
vaccine.
(e) The AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines use a genetically modified virus to
carry genes that encode SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins into the host cells.
Once inside the cell, the spike protein genes are transcribed into mRNA
in the nucleus and translated into proteins in the cytosol of the cell.
(f) The long-term consequences of injecting genetic technology into humans
on a mass scale is, quite simply, unknown.
316. Safety Trials have not been completed with these vaccines and furthermore:
(a) None of the vaccines authorized for COVID-19 have completed Phase III
clinical trials. Clinical trials are still ongoing.
(b) Phase III safety results will not be concluded until 2022 - 2024 depending
upon the manufacturer.
(c) Long-term safety data does not exist for these products. 325
325
https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
263
B-1-1104
- 1095 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1105 B-1-1105
(d) The normal development timeline to determine the safety of a vaccine is 5
- 10 years. It is impossible to know the safety and efficacy of a new
medical product in the few months these products have existed.
(e) It is also important that Canadians know that these ‘vaccines’ are unlike
any previous vaccine.
(f) There are significant concerns related to the fast tracking of a COVID 19
vaccine, with safety being first and foremost.
(g) Vaccine manufacturers have been working on a coronavirus vaccine for
more than fifty (50) years with no success.
(h) A coronavirus vaccine carries the risk of what is known as ‘pathogenic
priming’ or ‘disease enhancement’, whereby instead of protecting against
infection, the vaccine makes the disease worse in vaccinated individuals.

326
(i) The mechanism that causes disease enhancement is not fully understood
and has prevented the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine to
date.
(j) Disease enhancement occurred with the dengue fever vaccine. Vaccines
developed for other coronaviruses, SARS-1 and MERS, resulted in a high
rate of death in test animals.
(k) Normal protocols to test the safety of vaccines include testing in animals
prior to testing in human subjects.
326
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-insight-idUSKBN20Y1GZ
264
B-1-1105
- 1096 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1106 B-1-1106
(l) Animal testing prior to human trials is even more necessary for a
coronavirus vaccine as all previous efforts to develop a coronavirus
vaccine have failed because the vaccine caused an exaggerated immune
response upon re-exposure to the virus. 327 Vaccinated animals suffered
hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies,
especially in their lungs. Consequently, those vaccines were never
approved.
(m) In the rush to develop a COVID vaccine, Health Canada has permitted
vaccine makers to either bypass animal testing entirely or conduct animal
testing concurrently with testing in humans.
(n) Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, was
involved in previous efforts to develop a SARS vaccine. On March 5,
2020, Hotez told a US Congressional Committee that coronavirus vaccines
have always had a “unique safety problem” — a “kind of paradoxical
immune enhancement phenomenon.” 328
(o) Hotez has stated, "I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for
vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to
be doing it with."
327
childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-COVID-vaccine-trial-pathogenic-priming/
328
265
B-1-1106
- 1097 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1107 B-1-1107
(p) Vaccine manufacturers have yet to provide data that defines the vaccine’s
interaction with other vaccines or prescription medications. 329
(q) COVID-19 vaccines have not been tested for their ability to cause cancer,
induce organ damage, change genetic information, impact the fetus of a
pregnant woman or to impair fertility.
(r) The product monograph for the AstraZeneca vaccine authorized for use in
330
Canada states: “It is unknown whether AstraZeneca COVID-19
Vaccine may impact fertility. No data are available.” “The safety and
efficacy of AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine in pregnant women have not
yet been established.” “It is unknown if AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine
is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/ infants cannot be
excluded.” “The safety and efficacy of AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine in
children and adolescents (under 18 years of age) have not yet been
established. No data are available.” “Currently, there is limited information
from clinical trials on the efficacy of AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine in
individuals ≥65 years of age.”
(s) William Haseltine, a former Harvard Medical School professor states that,
“These protocols seem designed to get a drug on the market on a timeline
arguably based more on politics than public health.” 331
329
COVID-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-COVID-19-vaccine-
authorisation.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0vCv09_332PjR41OUBJOy1k1ESQg--_CbAqcGpk1ZWY71xBztuLDE05oE
330 https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
331 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/22/beware-covid-19-vaccine-trials-designed-succeed-start/
266
B-1-1107
- 1098 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1108 B-1-1108
317. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that these Vaccines include never
before used mRNA genetic technology in that:
(a) The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines includes ingredients never before used in
licenced vaccines, and function unlike any previous vaccine to date.
(b) These treatments are more accurately a medical device and includes
synthetic genetic technology based on a computer generated “spike
glycoprotein antigen encoded by RNA and formulated in lipid
nanoparticles”. 332
(c) According to the Canadian National Advisory Committee on
Immunization (NACI) – Recommendations on the Use of COVID-19

333
Vaccines: “mRNA vaccines that use messenger RNA (mRNA) platforms
contain modified nucleotides that code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
A lipid nanoparticle formulation delivers the mRNA into the recipient's
cells. Once inside the cytoplasm of a cell, the mRNA provides instructions
to the cell’s protein production machinery to produce the trans-membrane
spike protein antigen that becomes anchored on the cell’s external
surface.”
(d) The NACI claims – “The mRNA does not enter the nucleus of the cell and
does not interact with, or alter, human DNA.” and “The mRNA, lipid
nanoparticle, and spike protein are degraded or excreted within days to
332https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
333https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-
on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines-en.pdf
267
B-1-1108
- 1099 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1109 B-1-1109
weeks from time of immunization.” (page 17) Evidence to substantiate
these claims have not been provided.
(e) The same document states: “COVID-19 vaccines based on viral vector
platforms use a modified virus to carry genes that encode SARS-CoV-2
spike proteins into the host cells. The vector virus is a type of adenovirus
that has been modified to carry COVID-19 genes and to prevent
replication. These modifications are intended to prevent the viral vector
from causing disease (i.e., they are non-replicating). Once inside the cell,
the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein genes are transcribed into mRNA in the
nucleus and translated into proteins in the cytosol of the cell. The
AstraZeneca vaccine uses a modified chimpanzee adenovirus vector
(ChAd). “ (page 17) Again, evidence to substantiate these claims have not
been provided.
(f) This technology has never before been injected into humans on a mass
scale.
(g) The long-term consequences of injecting genetic technology into a human
body is unknown.
(h) A white paper produced by Moderna states: “DNA vaccines have a risk of
permanently changing a person’s DNA.” 334
334
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/RNA_Vaccines_White_Paper_Moderna_050317_v8_4.pd
f
268
B-1-1109
- 1100 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1110 B-1-1110
(i) The Moderna White Paper also states: “As with all new vaccines, time is
needed to establish the level and duration of immunogenicity and the
safety profile of mRNA vaccines in larger, more diverse populations.”
(j) The potential exists for significant consequences, not only for the person
receiving the vaccine, but for future generations as it is highly possible that
the mRNA/DNA in the vaccine will combine with the recipient’s own
DNA and be transmitted to their offspring.
(k) The mRNA vaccine uses the cell's own machinery to create a protein that
is identical to the spike protein on the coronavirus. This protein is also
found in the placenta and in sperm. If a constant immune response is
initiated by the vaccine against this protein, it will likely attack these
human tissues as well and prevent placentas and sperm from forming
properly. This autoimmune cross-reactivity could cause infertility,
miscarriages and birth defects.
(l) The mRNA in the Pfizer vaccine was sequenced from the 3rd iteration of
the original WUHAN published Genome SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
The WHO protocols Pfizer used to produce the mRNA do not appear to
identify any nucleotide sequences that are unique to the SARS-CoV-2
virus. When questioned Pfizer confirmed: “The DNA template does not
come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person.” 335
335
https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/what-vaccine-trials
269
B-1-1110
- 1101 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1111 B-1-1111
318. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that: Vaccines manufacturers have been given
total immunity from liability, in that:
(a) COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been granted total immunity from
liability for any harm or injury caused by their products.
(b) Federal procurement minister Anita Anand justified the indemnity in the
following statement - “All countries, generally speaking, are faced with
the issue of indemnification of companies, especially in cases of novel
technologies like this.” 336
(c) Ordinarily, a ‘novel technology’ would demand a higher level of oversight
and accountability, not less.
(d) Without legal accountability, there is no financial incentive for
manufacturers to make the safest vaccines possible, nor is there incentive
to remove injurious vaccines from the marketplace.
(e) Legal and financial indemnity does not exist with any other product
licensed for use in Canada.
(f) Experience in other countries reveals that eliminating or severely
restricting manufacturer liability for injury or death result in an ever-
expanding market of poorly tested vaccine products.
(g) A 2017 study investigated the consequences in the United States of
removing litigation risk related to vaccines. The researchers concluded that
vaccines that were licensed after legislation that pre-empted most product
336
https://globalnews.ca/news/7521148/coronavirus-vaccine-safety-liability-government-anand-pfizer/
270
B-1-1111
- 1102 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1112 B-1-1112
liability lawsuits are associated with a significantly higher incidence of
adverse events than were vaccines that were licensed under a previous
regime that permitted consumers to sue. 337
319. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that there is No Evidence the Vaccine
Prevents Infection or Transmission, and the Public Health officers warn of this
very fact and further that:
(a) These medical devices have been declared ‘effective’ even though
manufacturers have not demonstrated that their product prevents infection
or transmission, nor whether the device will result in a reduction in

338 339 340
severe illness, hospitalization, or death.
(b) According to a report in the British Medical Journal, “Hospital
admissions and deaths from COVID-19 are simply too uncommon in the
population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate
statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people. The same
is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are
not designed to find out.” 341
(c) Given these vaccines have not been proven to prevent infection or
transmission, there is no evidence that they contribute to community
protection/herd immunity.
337
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11151-017-9579-7
338
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-
and-first-see-the-full-data/
339
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opinion/covid-vaccine-coronavirus.html
340
https://stopmedicaldiscrimination.org/home#af86c044-aed2-496d-92bb-e1d76dca284e
341
www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
271
B-1-1112
- 1103 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1113 B-1-1113
(d) What is being reported by vaccine manufacturers is relative risk
reduction, not absolute risk reduction The absolute risk reduction appears
to be less than 1%. 342
(e) On the Public Health Agency of Canada website, the National Advisory
Committee on Immunization (NACI) “recommends that all individuals
should continue to practice recommended public health measures for
prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission (wear
a face covering, maintain physical distance, and avoid crowds)
regardless of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.” (pg. 41) 343
(f) According to the ‘Recommendations on the use of COVID-19 vaccines’
on the Government of Canada website - “There is currently insufficient
evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these
vaccines in preventing death, hospitalization, asymptomatic infection and
reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” 344
(g) According to the National Advisory Committee on Immunization –
Recommendations on the Use of COVID-19 Vaccines: 345 “Due to the
availability of only short-term clinical trial data, the duration of
342
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-
and-first-see-the-full-data/
343
19-vaccines-en.pdf
344
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-
immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines.html#a2
345
19-vaccines-en.pdf
272
B-1-1113
- 1104 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1114 B-1-1114
protection provided by COVID-19 vaccination is currently unknown.”
(page 18) and “Efficacy against hospitalization was not assessed in the
clinical trials of the mRNA vaccines, but evidence from the clinical trials
involving the AstraZeneca vaccine is suggestive of a protective effect
against hospitalization.” (page 20)
(h) The data from Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials presented to the High
Consequence Infectious Disease Working Group and NACI are
unpublished and have not been made available for independent third
party review and verification.
320. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that the British Columbia Health
Information is not Congruent with Vaccine Manufacturer Information in that:
(a) Information disseminated by BC Health and the BC Centre for Disease
Control is not congruent with information taken directly from the Pfizer
Emergency Use Authority request to the US FDA.
(b) The Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization request states the following: 346
• Under section 6.2 - Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps:
• Duration of protection
It is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2
months.
• Effectiveness in certain populations at high-risk of severe COVID-19
346
273
B-1-1114
- 1105 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1115 B-1-1115
The subset of certain groups such as immunocompromised individuals is too
small to evaluate efficacy outcomes.
• Effectiveness in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2
Available data are insufficient to make conclusions about benefit in
individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
• Effectiveness in pediatric populations
The representation of pediatric participants in the study population is too
limited to adequately evaluate efficacy in pediatric age groups younger than
16 years.
• Future vaccine effectiveness as influenced by characteristics of the
pandemic, changes in the virus, and/or potential effects of co-
infections
The evolution of the pandemic characteristics . . . as well as potential changes
in the virus infectivity, antigenically significant mutations to the S protein,
and/or the effect of co-infections may potentially limit the generalizability of
the efficacy conclusions over time.
• Vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infection
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic
infection.
• Vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects of COVID-19 disease
274
B-1-1115
- 1106 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1116 B-1-1116
At present it is not possible to assess whether the vaccine will have an impact
on specific long-term sequelae of COVID-19 disease in individuals who are
infected despite vaccination.
• Vaccine effectiveness against mortality
A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack
rates would be needed to confirm efficacy of the vaccine against mortality.
• Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of
SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.
• Under Section 6. 3 - Known Risks:
The vaccine has been shown to elicit increased local and systemic adverse
reactions as compared to those in the placebo arm.
Severe adverse reactions occurred in 0.0 - 4.6% of participants.
• Under Section 6.4 - Unknown Risks/Data Gaps:
• Safety in certain subpopulations
There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of
the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age,
pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals.
• Adverse reactions that are very uncommon or that require longer
follow-up to be detected
275
B-1-1116
- 1107 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1117 B-1-1117
Use in large numbers of individuals may reveal additional, potentially less
frequent and/or more serious adverse events not detected in the trial safety
population.
• Vaccine-enhanced disease
Risk of vaccine-enhanced disease . . . remains unknown and needs to be
evaluated further.
• Under Section 7.0 - VRBPAC Meeting Summary:
• The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee
convened on December 10, 2020 to discuss potential implications of
authorization of the Pfizer vaccine. The committee members
acknowledged the following:
- The importance of long-term safety data for the Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID-19 Vaccine as it is made using a technology not used in
previously licensed vaccines.
- The lack of data on how the vaccine impacts asymptomatic
infection and viral shedding.
- FDA noted that the vaccine should not be administered to
individuals with known history of a severe allergic reaction to any
component of the vaccine.
- Appropriate medical treatment used to manage immediate allergic
reactions must be immediately available in the event an acute
anaphylactic
276
B-1-1117
- 1108 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1118 B-1-1118
- FDA explained that there are insufficient data to inform vaccine-
associated risks in pregnancy.
- Committee members raised concerns about the limited
conclusions about the prevention of severe disease based on the
study endpoints.
- Potential benefits that could be further evaluated but are not
necessary to support an EUA include: prevention of COVID-19 in
individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, prevention of
mortality and long-term complications of COVID-19, reduction in
asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduction of SARS-
CoV-2 transmission.
- Known risks include: common local and systemic adverse
reactions, (notably injection site reactions, headache, fever, chills,
myalgia, and fatigue), all of which are usually mild to moderate
and lasting a few days, with higher frequency in younger vaccine
recipients.
- Potential risks that should be further evaluated include:
uncommon to rare clinically significant adverse reactions that
may become apparent with more widespread use of the vaccine.
- Since the roll-out of the vaccine, the following immediate, and
identifiable reactions have included: death, blood clots, heart
attacks, and strokes, as well as various less drastic side effects,

277
B-1-1118
- 1109 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1119 B-1-1119
while the long-term adverse reactions will be revealed with the
passage of time and completion of the human trials expected to be
completed 2023.
(c) On the Public Health Agency of Canada website, the National Advisory
347
Committee on Immunization (NACI) states:
(i) “Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the duration of
protection of COVID-19 vaccines and the effectiveness of
COVID-19 vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”
(pg. 41)
(ii) “The immune response to SARS-CoV-2, including duration of
immunity, is not yet well understood. Reinfections with SARS-
CoV-2 have been reported.” (p. 41)
(iii) “Currently, there is a lack of evidence on potential differences in
vaccine efficacy or safety between those with and without prior
evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” (p. 41)
(iv) “Currently, there are no data on COVID-19 vaccination in
individuals who are immunosuppressed.”
(v) “NACI recommends that a complete COVID-19 vaccine series may
be offered to individuals who are immunosuppressed . . . if
347
19-vaccines-en.pdf
278
B-1-1119
- 1110 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1120 B-1-1120
informed consent includes discussion about the limited evidence on
the use of COVID-19 vaccines in this population.” (p. 42)
(vi) “It is currently unknown whether immunocompromised individuals
will be able to mount an immune response to the authorized
COVID-19 vaccines.” (p.43)
(vii) “Currently, there are no data on the safety and efficacy of COVID-
19 vaccines in pregnancy or during breastfeeding. Pregnant or
breastfeeding individuals were excluded from the mRNA and viral
vector COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.” (p. 45)
(viii) “Currently, there are no data to inform outcomes of inadvertent
administration of COVID- 19 vaccine to pregnant individuals or
their developing fetus in clinical trials.” (p. 45)
(ix) “There is currently no evidence to guide the time interval between
the completion of the COVID-19 vaccine series and conception. In
the face of scientific uncertainty, it may be prudent to delay
pregnancy by 28 days or more after the administration of the
complete two-dose vaccine series of a COVID-19 vaccine.” (p. 45)
(x) “NACI recommends that a complete vaccine series with a COVID-
19 vaccine may be offered to individuals in the authorized age
group who are breastfeeding . . . if informed consent includes
discussion about the limited evidence on the use of COVID-19
vaccines in this population. “ (p. 45)

279
B-1-1120
- 1111 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1121 B-1-1121
(xi) “As no immunological correlate of protection has been determined
for SARS-CoV-2, these cellular responses cannot be interpreted as
corresponding with vaccine protection.” (p.50)
(xii) “There is limited data on the efficacy or effectiveness of mRNA
vaccines against P.1 (variant of concern) and P.2 (variant of
interest).” (p. 50)
(d) Information on the Health BC website states: “Vaccines are very safe. It is
much safer to get the vaccine than to get COVID-19. Serious side effects
due to the vaccines were not seen in the clinical trials.” 348
(e) The BC Center for Disease Control website states: "The vaccine will help
reduce the spread of COVID-19 in B.C. Vaccines save lives by preventing
disease, especially for people most likely to have severe illness or die. If
enough people get vaccinated, it makes it difficult for the disease to

349
spread.” This information is not consistent with manufacturer
statements.
(f) These statements above in (d) and (e), are not supported by the data, the
information provided by Pfizer and the Vaccines and Related Biological
Products Advisory Committee, nor the National Advisory Committee on
Immunization (NACI).
348
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkbc-files/covid-19-vaccines
349
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccines-for-covid-19
280
B-1-1121
- 1112 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1122 B-1-1122
(g) This distortion of the facts raises serious concerns of the integrity of
Canadian regulatory agencies.
321. Furthermore, and more importantly, the Plaintiffs state that public officials,
including the relevant Defendants, Trudeau, Tam, and Henry have warned that,
despite the anticipated five (5) years of the Covid-19 “vaccines”, the vaccines
will not result in immunity: do not prevent transmission of the virus to and from
the recipient: and that the other measures, lockdowns, masking, and useless PCR
tests must be maintained indefinitely. This all begs the question: why then roll
out an experimental “vaccine” by-passing the safety protocols?
322. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that under the circumstances “emergency”
improperly and negligently deficient, untested “Vaccines” are Not Warranted for
the following reasons:
(a) Many individuals who intend to be at the front of the line for a COVID-19
vaccine will do so because they believe COVID-19 is an illness with a high
rate of mortality. This fear creates a sense of panic that compels people to
accept a medical product with an unknown safety and efficacy profile.
(b) Our federal and provincial governments and the mainstream media persist
in describing COVID-19 as a “deadly” condition. This is not true for the
vast majority of the population.
281
B-1-1122
- 1113 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1123 B-1-1123
(c) The risk of mortality is primarily to those over 80 years of age in poor
health, residing in extended care facilities. LTC residents accounted for
81% of all reported COVID-19 deaths in Canada in 2020. 350
(d) For the greatest percentage of the population under 70 years in good
health, COVID-19 poses a very low risk and the use of an experimental
product is not warranted.
(e) According to the CDC, the case survival rate of COVID-19 in patients ages
0 – 17 is 99.998%, 99.95% in patients 18 – 49 years, and 99.4% in patients
50 – 64 years. (as of March 19, 2021) 351
(f) There is no evidence that the benefits of vaccination for COVID-19
outweigh the risks.
(g) What is also rarely acknowledged by our government, public health
officers, and the corporate media is that safe and effective drugs and
vitamin and mineral supplementation for the prevention and treatment of
COVID-19 have been identified. 352 353 354 355 356 357
(h) Such treatments make illegal the use of an experimental product.
350
https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/covid-19-rapid-response-long-term-care-snapshot-
en.pdf?emktg_lang=en&emktg_order=1
351 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
352
https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/covid-19/treatments
353
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWQtT7dHGE
354
https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/01/first-country-bans-ivermectin-lifesaver.html
355
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Kory-2020-12-08.pdf
356
https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/Marik-Covid-Protocol-Summary.pdf
357
https://covexit.com
282
B-1-1123
- 1114 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1124 B-1-1124
(i) Canadians do not have access to treatments that have demonstrated
effectiveness in treating COVID-19 including HCQ and Ivermectin. 358 359

360
(j) The only Health Canada recommended treatment for COVID-19 is oxygen
therapy and ventilation. 361
(k) The province of British Columbia updated its COVID treatment guidelines
on April 18, 2021 to include inhaled budesonide and colchicine for
ambulatory outpatient and long-term care. 362
323. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that there has been No Individualized Risk-
Benefit Analysis has been conducted by the Defendants, and further that:
(a) The arguments used to legalize and implement COVID-19 vaccination are
political and ideological rather than evidence-based.
(b) In the rush to approve a COVID-19 vaccine a robust analysis of the risks
vs benefits has not been conducted. Indeed, how does one conduct a risk-
benefit analysis when both the risks and the benefits are unknown?
(c) Some researchers have described the use of a COVID-19 vaccine in the
general population as “the most reckless and brazen experiment in the
history of humanity.”
358 https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/covid-19/treatments
359
https://covexit.com/first-ambulatory-treatment-recommended-for-covid-19-in-canada/
360 https://covexit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Antimicrobial-Immunomodulatory-Therapy-adults.pdf
361
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/clinical-
management-covid-19.html.
362
https://covexit.com/first-ambulatory-treatment-recommended-for-covid-19-in-canada/
283
B-1-1124
- 1115 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1125 B-1-1125
(d) Implementing an ‘everyone should be vaccinated’ policy assumes the risk-
benefit is the same for everyone. This is simply not true and fails to take
into consideration the established fact that the risk of COVID-19 varies
greatly depending upon several known variables, most especially age and
pre-existing conditions. These variables must be considered when
assessing the risk and benefit of utilizing these medical devices.
(e) Deaths in the frail and elderly following COVID-19 vaccination have
prompted health officials to recognize the need to assess individuals for
their ‘fitness to be vaccinated’. 363
(f) As of April 16, 2021, Canada has reported 3,738 vaccine related adverse
reactions including 19 deaths which are under investigation. 364 As of April
16, 2021, VAERS reports 86,080 adverse events following COVID-19
vaccination, including 3,186 deaths. What is to be remembered is that,
historically, VAERS reports about a small portion of all adverse effects
and deaths actually reported. A mere 1% are reported. 365 366
(g) We ought to have robust evidence that the benefits of vaccination clearly
outweigh the risks. This has not been demonstrated.
363 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n167/rapid-responses
364 https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
365
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID1
9
366
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes
284
B-1-1125
- 1116 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1126 B-1-1126
(h) The reporting of vaccine injury is subjective, voluntary, and there are no
consequences for failing to report vaccine injury.
(i) Physicians receive little to no training on how to recognize and diagnose
vaccine injury, and open themselves up to criticism and reprimand if they
do fill out the vaccine injury reports.
(j) A Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study found that less than 1% of vaccine
367
adverse reactions were reported.
(k) The real number of children and adults who experience vaccine injury is
unknown. The Defendant government(s) are not tracking documents, nor
reporting hospitalizations and deaths due to the Covid vaccines.
324. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that with respect to the constitutionally
established right to informed consent that:
(a) It is not possible to give informed consent when the results of the clinical
trials are unknown.
(b) Informed consent is the most fundamental aspect of an ethical medical
system and a free society.
(c) It is imperative that any individual contemplating getting a COVID-19
vaccine be fully aware that these vaccines have not completed the most
basic testing to demonstrate either safety or efficacy and that they are
participating in a medical trial.
367
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
285
B-1-1126
- 1117 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1127 B-1-1127
(d) In a letter dated October 3, 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice
President of Pfizer stated – “All vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus
are by definition novel. If any such vaccine is approved for use under any
circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that

368
recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”
(e) In a paper published in The National Center for Biotechnology
Information entitled ‘Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial
subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease’, the
authors state – “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing
antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if
they were not vaccinated. The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of
anti-body dependent enhancement (ADE) should have been and should
be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects
currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials
and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical
369 370
ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”
325. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is that Health Canada Oversight has been
and continues to be Insufficient in that:
368
https://coronaversation.wordpress.com/2020/11/11/dr-mike-yeadons-open-letter-regarding-sars-cov-
2-vaccine/
369
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
370
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/pdf/IJCP-9999-e13795.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1U-
vdWXpOG0SJb0VGR1KkmkqsioWKY8Ux-iOeWpyt0xxa7C5HwlhFBZnU
286
B-1-1127
- 1118 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1128 B-1-1128
(a) Many Canadians assume Health Canada provides rigorous oversight and
would not permit a vaccine to be introduced to the Canadian public
without robust testing to ensure both safety and effectiveness. The fact is
that Health Canada does not conduct its own clinical trials to determine the
safety and efficacy of a vaccine. Instead, Health Canada relies on the data
provided by the vaccine manufacturers.
(b) Vaccine manufacturers are not required to maintain a blinded, neutral
placebo-control group, the gold standard for safety testing. This failure
371
undermines the integrity of claims of vaccine safety. (page 53)
(c) Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have paid
billions in criminal penalties and settlements for research fraud, faking
drug safety studies, failing to report safety problems, bribery, kickbacks,

372 373
and false advertising.
(d) Moderna has never before produced a vaccine.
(e) In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations in
what was then the largest health care fraud settlement in history. 374
(f) The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the United States has paid
out more than $4.4 B in compensation for vaccine injury and death since
1989. 375
371
372
www.corp-research.org/merck
373
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-
pharmaceuticals?CMP=share_btn_fb
374
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/pfizer-fined-23-billion-illegal-marketing-off-label/story?id=8477617
287
B-1-1128
- 1119 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1129 B-1-1129
(g) Canada is one of only two G20 Nations without a national vaccine injury
compensation program.
(h) Canada is more than three decades behind other countries in
acknowledging vaccine injury and providing financial compensation to
those injured and killed by vaccination.
(i) While Prime Minister Trudeau promised a COVID vaccine injury
compensation program in December 2020, the details of the program have
yet to be revealed, and a vaccine injury compensation program has yet to
be implemented.
(j) Vaccines are not benign medical products. Vaccination is an invasive
medical procedure that delivers by injection complex biochemical drugs
and now genetic modifying technology.
(k) Because of this complexity and uncertainty, the level of safety testing for a
COVID-19 vaccine ought to be even more rigorous. But this is not the
case. The safety testing of the COVID-19 vaccine is less rigorous and more
incomplete as compared with other vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs.
(l) The consequences of rushing a novel and inadequately tested product can
be serious, permanent, and even deadly. 376
(m) Data following the administration of the Pfizer vaccine reveals that 2.8%
of test subjects experienced a ‘health impact’ significant enough such that
375
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10584
376
https://hpv-vaccine-side-effects.com/covid-19-vaccine-side-effects-world-map/
288
B-1-1129
- 1120 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1130 B-1-1130
they were “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, and
required care from a health professional.” 377
(n) If the entire Canadian population were to be vaccinated with the Pfizer
vaccine, more than 900,000 people could experience a ‘health impact’ of
this significance.
(o) There are significant conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency with
COVID purchase contracts with the Government of Canada.
(p) Moderna's research and development partner is the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), directed by Dr Anthony Fauci.
Moderna shares joint ownership of vaccine patent with NIAID scientists.

378 379
(q) NIAID and Dr. Fauci are financially conflicted when recommending this
product.
(r) Health Canada lacks transparency by not releasing COVID purchase
contract details or answering questions about leaked documents that raised
questions about the integrity of the mRNA vaccines. 380
377
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-Clark-508.pdf
378
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html
379
https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/08/28/moderna-covid19-vaccine-coronavirus-patents-
darpa/
380
https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-ema-leaks-raise-concerns-over-vaccine-mrna-integrity/
289
B-1-1130
- 1121 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1131 B-1-1131
• Vaccines in General
326. The Plaintiffs state, quite apart from the “Covid vaccines”, which are not
“vaccines” as medically and historically understood and medically defined, that
with previous vaccines in general, the fact is that:
(a) it is undisputed that vaccines cause severe, permanent injury up to and
including death in a certain percentage of those who are vaccinated,
including physical, neurological, speech, and other disabilities;
(b) that, as a result of this reality, risk, and severe injury, certain North
American jurisdictions, such as the USA, and Quebec, as well as all G-
7 countries except Canada, have established compensation schemes for
those injured and killed by vaccines;
(c) that British Columbia has no such compensation scheme;
(d) that there is no individual pre-screening, to attempt to pre-determine,
which individual may have a propensity to be so injured, even in cases
where older siblings, in the same family have been injured, no
investigation is undertaken or weighed with respect to the risks of
their younger siblings being vaccinated;
(e) the Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that while peanuts and other nuts, as
an absolute proposition, do not injure or kill, they do injure
or kill those who are allergic to them. While schools have taken
saturated and heightened steps to make their spaces “nut-free”, the
290
B-1-1131
- 1122 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1132 B-1-1132
risks of vaccines to children, particularly those who are pre-
disposed to injury and death from them, are completely ignored.
327. The individual, biological Plaintiffs state that compulsory vaccination, and or
testing, schemes violates their rights, by act and omission. Mandatory
vaccination removes the right to weigh the “risks” of vaccinating or not
vaccinating, to allow for informed choice, in that vaccines can cause injury or
death, is a violation of their rights as follows:
(a) an in limine compulsory vaccination scheme violates s.2(a) and (b) of
the Charter in infringing the rights to freedom of conscience, religion,
thought and belief, as well as infringing the rights to liberty and security of
the person, in interfering with the physical and psychological integrity of
the person and the right to make choices as to that integrity and autonomy,
pursuant to s.7 of the Charter;
(b) that the failure and omissions of the Defendants, their officials and
delegees, in the vaccination scheme, to transparently and honestly present
the risks of vaccination, pro and con, and the failure and omissions to make
individual assessments to pre-determine and pre-screen those children who
may have a propensity and pre-disposed to being vaccine injured,
constitutes a violation of the same Charter cited above, in depriving the
right to an informed consent before medical treatment through vaccine is
compulsorily administered, by way of omission as set out by the Supreme
Court of Canada in, inter alia, Vriend in unnecessarily exposing children

291
B-1-1132
- 1123 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1133 B-1-1133
and adults, to injury up to and including death, by an overly-broad,
untailored, indiscriminate and blind vaccination scheme, notwithstanding
the dire and pointed warnings in the manufacturers’ own very inserts and
warnings as to the risks.
328. The Plaintiffs state that the violations of their ss. 2(a) and (b) Charter rights are
not justified under s.1 of the Charter and puts the Defendants to their onus of
justifying the violations. The Plaintiffs further state that the violations of their s.7
Charter rights, as set out above in the statement of claim, are not in accordance
with the tenets of fundamental justice in that the scheme and provisions suffer
from overbreadth and that the protection of overbreadth in legislation has been
recognized, by the Supreme Court of Canada, as a tenet of fundamental justice,
and that further they cannot be saved under s.1 of the Charter, the onus of which
lies with Defendants.
329. The Plaintiffs state that, with respect to facts pertinent to product safety testing,
the facts and medical literature sets out that:
(a) Vaccines do not undergo the same level of safety testing as is required for
all other drugs and medical products.
(b) None of the vaccines licensed for use in Canada have been tested for
safety using long-term, double blind, placebo-controlled studies.
292
B-1-1133
- 1124 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1134 B-1-1134
(c) Vaccine products licensed for use in Canada are not evaluated for safety
381
using a neutral placebo, a requirement for all other pharmaceutical
products.
(d) Vaccines are an invasive medical intervention whose safety is determined
primarily by the amount of injury or death reported after vaccination.
(e) Pre-licensing safety monitoring of childhood vaccines, prior to the
vaccines being administered, is not long enough to reveal whether
vaccines cause autoimmune, neurological or developmental disorders. 382
(f) Studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative
number of vaccines or other aspects of the vaccination schedule have not

383
been conducted.
(g) There are too few scientifically sound studies published in the medical
literature to determine how many serious brain and immune system
problems are or are not caused by vaccines. 384
(h) The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies,
both pre- and post-marketing, is largely inadequate. 385
(i) Vaccines have not been tested for carcinogenicity, toxicity, genotoxicity,
mutagenicity, ability to impair fertility, or for long-term adverse
reactions.
381
https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf
382
https://icandev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ICAN-Reply.pdf
383
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13563/the-childhood-immunization-schedule-and-safety-stakeholder-concerns-scientific-
evidence.
384 https://www.nvic.org/PDFs/IOM/2013researchgaps-IOMchildhoodimmunizationschedulea.aspx
385
https://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-combined-vaccine-protection-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella
293
B-1-1134
- 1125 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1135 B-1-1135
(j) Health Canada does not conduct its own independent clinical trials to
determine vaccine safety and efficacy and instead relies on the data
provided by the vaccine manufacturers.
(k) Studies comparing the overall health of vaccinated and unvaccinated
children reveal that vaccinated children are significantly more likely to
have neuro-developmental disorders and chronic illness. 386
(l) There is evidence that vaccines are contaminated with unintended
ingredients and that the health impact of injecting these ingredients is

387
unknown.
(m) Canada is the only G7 Nation without a national program to compensate
those injured or killed by vaccination, and one(1) of two(2) G-20 Nations
without a vaccine injury compensation program. The other nation being
Russia.
(n) The United States Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded
more than $4.1 billion in compensation since 1989.
(o) The published medical literature recognizes that vaccines can cause
permanent injury including death.
(p) The US government has acknowledged that vaccination can cause brain
damage resulting in symptoms of autism in genetically susceptible

388
children.
386
https://antivakcina.org/files/MawsonStudyHealthOutcomes5.8.2017.pdf
387
https://www.corvelva.it/it/speciale-corvelva/vaccinegate-en.html
294
B-1-1135
- 1126 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1136 B-1-1136
(q) The US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has acknowledged that every
domestic case of polio that occurred after 1979 was caused by the vaccine
strain of polio. 389
(r) Vaccines include ingredients that are classified as poisons, carcinogens,
toxins, neurotoxins, immune-and-nervous-system disruptors, allergens,
fertility inhibitors, and sterilizing agents.
(s) Health Canada exposed children to cumulative levels of mercury and
aluminum, in the incubation of the vaccines that exceeded the US FDA’s
safety guidelines.
330. The Plaintiffs state that, with respect to the facts pertinent to screening for
susceptibility to vaccine injury, that:
(a) Pre-screening to identify individuals who may be at increased
susceptibility to vaccine injury and death does not occur in Canada.
(b) Health Canada has not committed resources to identify those individuals
who may have increased susceptibility to experience vaccine injury or
death.
(c) Policies to administer vaccines to “Mature Minors”, often without the
knowledge and consent of the parents and without the informed consent
of the “Mature Minor”,, in schools and medical settings without the
knowledge or consent of the parents has inadequate safety protocols to
388
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/080226-Vaccine-Autism-Court-Document-Kirby-
HuffPost.pdf.
389
https://web.archive.org/web/20150103130229/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm.
295
B-1-1136
- 1127 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1137 B-1-1137
fully consider the personal and family medical history prior to
vaccination.
(d) This failure to fully consider personal and family medical history puts
these youth at increased risk of vaccine injury.
331. The Plaintiffs state that, with respect to the facts pertinent to monitoring of
adverse effects of vaccination, that:
(a) Doctors and health care workers are not trained to recognize and
diagnose vaccine injury.
(b) There are no legal consequences when medical professionals fail to report
vaccine injury.
(c) Parents’ observations of health and behavioral changes following
vaccination are routinely ignored and denied by doctors and rarely
captured in adverse events reporting systems.
(d) It is recognized that fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are
reported. 390
(e) British Columbia’s AEFI reporting system has no better record than the
national one nor reporting rates than other provinces. 391
(f) The medical industry has failed to fully consider the combined toxicology
of vaccine ingredients and the synergistic effect of combining vaccine
ingredients.
390
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-
2011.pdf
391
https://www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health-professionals-partners/resources/Health-Care-
Professionals/adverse-events/Annual_Report_Vaccine_Safet.pdf
296
B-1-1137
- 1128 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1138 B-1-1138
(g) Bonnie Henry has instructed people to mix vaccines for 1st and 2nd shot
even though Moderna, for instance, has clearly stated that they do not
known the effects of interchangeability and therefore only recommend
first and second shot of the Moderna vaccine. Bonnie Henry has further
advocated the immunization of twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds
without the consent of their parents.
255. The Plaintiffs state that, with respect to the facts pertinent to safeguarding policy
over patient health, that:
(a) The primary metric used by Health Canada to measure the success of the vaccine
program appears to be how many vaccines are delivered.
(b) The goal of public health vaccine policy is to persuade parents to comply
with the full vaccine schedule. 392
(c) The pursuit of the goal of persuading parents to comply with vaccination
recommendations is incompatible with the goal of allowing parents to
possess the knowledge they need to exercise their right to informed
consent, and act in their child’s best interests.
(d) The right to informed consent has been recognized as one of the most
fundamental ethics in medicine.
(e) Public health professionals routinely fail to inform citizens of their legal
right to personal, religious and medical exemptions where they exist.
392
https://cic-cci.ca/
297
B-1-1138
- 1129 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1139 B-1-1139
(f) Health Canada, with respect to vaccines, places public policy over
individual health considerations.
(g) Government policy makers have refused to consider the fact that the risks
of the target diseases are not the same for every child and that some
children are at greater risk of being harmed by vaccines due to genetic or
environmentally caused predispositions.
(h) Government policymakers ignore that the fact that for informed consent to
happen, the risk-benefit analysis must be conducted for each vaccine and
individually for each child.
(i) Antibody titre testing is rarely conducted in an effort to avoid unnecessary
vaccination.
(j) An increasing number of parents are choosing not to vaccinate because
they recognize that public health vaccine policy poses a serious threat to
both their health and liberty.
256. The Plaintiffs state that, with respect to the facts pertinent to lack of
accountability for vaccine Injury, that:
(a) Vaccine manufacturers and medical professionals are not held legally and
financially accountable when vaccine injury and death occurs.
(b) A consequence of this legal immunity is that there is no legal or financial
incentive for the vaccine industry to make their products safer, even when
there is clear evidence that vaccines can be made safer.

298
B-1-1139
- 1130 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1140 B-1-1140
(c) Systemic corruption within the medical establishment is well recognized
within the scientific community. 393 394
(d) Conflicts of interest in biomedical research are “very common”. 395
257. The Plaintiffs state that, with respect to the facts pertinent to informed consent,
that Consumers are rarely informed that:
(a) vaccines do not confer life-long immunity;
(b) not all vaccines eliminate susceptibility to infection;
(c) not all vaccines are designed to prevent the transmission of infection;
396
(d) most vaccines do not alter the safety of public spaces;
(e) Health Canada has acknowledged that vaccines are voluntary in Canada
and cannot be made mandatory due to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms;
(f) there is no scientific evidence that herd immunity can be achieved using
vaccines due to the temporary nature of the immunity offered nor that
vaccine herd immunity is more effective than natural herd immunity;
(g) vaccine can and do cause permanent injury and death;
(h) there is no scientific evidence that vaccines are primarily responsible for
reduced mortality over the last century as is often claimed;
(i) the human body has an innate capability to fight off infections and heal
itself;
393 https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
394
https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12074
395
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/.
396
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/why-you-cant-trust-the-cdc-on-vaccines/
299
B-1-1140
- 1131 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1141 B-1-1141
(j) the pharmaceutical companies that produce almost all vaccines have been
found guilty and paid billions of dollars in criminal penalties for research
fraud, faking drug safety studies, failing to report safety problems, bribery,
kickbacks and false advertising 397;
(k) Canadian children are among the most vaccinated children in the world
(l) there is no compensation available in Canada, except for Quebec, should
vaccination result in injury or death;
(m) only two provinces in Canada (Ontario and New Brunswick) require
exemptions to decline vaccination;
(n) recommended/required vaccines vary by province, by state, and by
country.
258. Consumers are rarely provided with the product monograph (product information
insert) by health care providers. Vaccines monographs warn of limitations to
vaccine safety testing as well as recognized adverse events following vaccination
which include severe and permanent injury and death.
259. Vaccine mandates violate the medical and legal ethic of informed consent.
260. Vaccine mandates violate ‘The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human
Rights’, the Nuremberg Code, professional codes of ethics, and all provincial
health Acts.
397 GlaxoSmithKline Fined $3B After Bribing Doctors to Increase Drug Sales.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-
pharmaceuticals?CMP=share_btn_fb
Merck: Corporate Rap Sheet
http://www.corp-research.org/merck
300
B-1-1141
- 1132 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1142 B-1-1142
261. A review of the available literature of the vaccine education materials produced
by the British Columbia government reveals that the risk of vaccine injury is
discussed superficially, if at all, and that consumers are given insufficient
information to make an informed decision.
262. A review of Public Health Agency of Canada recommended curriculum for
school children reveals that education on the risk of vaccine injury is absent, as is
education on the right to informed consent. 398
263. The vaccine risk information provided to consumers varies by health region.
264. Vaccines are routinely administered to youth in medical clinics and school
settings without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
265. Youth vaccinated in school-based clinics routinely report being intimidated into
vaccination and being threatened with expulsion if they refuse vaccination.
266. Public health presents as if all vaccines carry the exact same risk/benefit
assessment for all individuals.
267. Individual benefit versus individual risk of vaccination is rarely considered.
268. Indigenous people are required to receive vaccines other than those required for
non-Indigenous people based on assumed risk, not upon medical evidence of
risk.
without the need for their parents consent, notwithstanding:
398
https://kidsboostimmunity.com/sites/default/files/reusable_files/kbi_British Columbia.pdf
301
B-1-1142
- 1133 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1143 B-1-1143
protocols but were all made under an “emergency” basis;
(b) Furthermore, Bonnie Henry is falsely claiming that the vaccine is safe
and approved for children, despite Health Canada’s Summary Basis of
Decision, updated May 20th, 2021, stating the trials have not proven that
the Covid-19 treatments pevent infection or transmission, which trials
will not be completed until 2023. The summary also reports that both
Moderna and Pfizer identified that there are six areas of missing
(limited/no clinical data) information: “use in paediatric (0-18)”, “use in
pregnant and breastfeeding women”, “long-term safety”, “long-term
efficacy” including “real world use”, and concomitant administration of
non-Covid Vaccines”. The WHO, on June 20th, 2021 called for an
immediate halt to the vaccination of children and adolescents.
(c) That there has NOT been a recorded death or life-threatening case of any
(d) That twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds are not at risk of Covid-19;
(e) That, in the absence of informed consent, it constitutes medical
Humanity Act;
302
B-1-1143
- 1134 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1144 B-1-1144
(f) And that on June 5th, 2021 Dr. Joss Reimer, Medical Lead for the
(g) That many twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds do not possess the
intellectual capacity to give informed consent, however the government
of British Columbia has been encouraging youth to make appointments
on their own, with friends, or with “trusted adults” by way of s.17 of the
Infants Act. This propaganda aimed at children violates the parent-child
relationship under s.7 of the Charter. 399
(h) And by doing so Dr. Bonnie Henry, and the Province of British Columbia
• I/ THE MEDIA
270. From the time of the declaration of “emergency” to the present, the Plaintiffs
state that the Defendant CBC, and other mainstream media, is purposely
suppressing valid, sound, and sober criticism of recognized experts with respect
to the measures that amount to censorship and violation of freedom of speech,
expression and the media.
399
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/covid-19/vaccine/youth
303
B-1-1144
- 1135 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1145 B-1-1145
271. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that CBC, a completely publicly- funded
news service, and national broadcaster, paid for by Canadian taxpayers, has been
to the Trudeau government, and has acted as, PRAVDA did for the Soviet Union
in the cold-war, with respect to coverage of the COVID-“pandemic”,
“emergency”, and its draconian measures.
272. The Plaintiffs state that CBC, as the nationally and publicly-funded broadcaster
under the public broadcasting policy for the Canadian public, under the
Broadcast Act, owes:
(a) a Fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs and all citizens; and
(b) a duty in Negligence (negligent investigation) to the Plaintiffs and all
citizens;
To be independent, fair, balanced, and objective in its coverage of the
“pandemic”, declared “emergency”, and the measures undertaken, which
duties it has breached causing damages to the Plaintiffs.
• Negligence
273. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant, CBC, as a publicly-funded mandate to
publicly broadcast on behalf of Canadians, owes a common-law, and statutory
duty of care to the Plaintiffs, to fairly, independently, objectively report, and
engage in responsible journalism, on the news and current affairs, and the
Plaintiffs further state that:
(a) the CBC breached that duty of care; and
304
B-1-1145
- 1136 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1146 B-1-1146
(b) as a result of the breach of that duty of care, the Plaintiffs suffered
damages.
274. The Plaintiff states and the fact is, this duty was breached by the CBC’s
negligent acts and omissions, including inter alia, the following:
(a) The daily broadcasting of Trudeau’s press-conferences, with absolutely no
questions about the scientific and medical evidence behind the measures,
and their source;
(b) Whether contrary expert views exist, to the secret advice being followed;
(c) If opposite, expert opinion exist, what is the government’s response to it?;
(d) The CBC further dumps, on a daily basis, the government numbers on
COVID-positive rates, and death rates, without any investigation or
scrutiny as to the basis of compiling those numbers, and who and how the
parameters are determined in complying those numbers nor any contextual
analysis as to what they mean;
(e) The CBC has done no independent investigation, nor asked any questions,
on the scientific or medical basis of the COVID- measures but simply
parrots the government line, and has not investigated, exposed, nor
published the avalanche of Canadian and World experts who firmly hold
an opposite view, and severe criticism of the measures, nor put those
criticism to the Federal Defendants for response.
275. In short, the Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that CBC has breached its duty of
care to the Plaintiffs, and has not acted in a fair, independent, objective, and
305
B-1-1146
- 1137 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1147 B-1-1147
responsible manner, but has acted in a manner more akin to a propagandistic
state news agency serving a dictatorial regime.
276. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that CBC has actually gone far beyond the
above in that, in the rare instance CBC pretends to tackle an opposite view, CBC
irresponsibly belittles, and in fact intentionally misleads, the Plaintiffs and
viewers. For example, in a story published May 21st, 2020, written by CBC’s
Andrea Bellemere, Katie Nicholson and Jason Ho entitled “How a debunked
COVID-19 video kept spreading after Facebook and YouTube took it
down”, these “reporters” falsely and intentionally distort with respect to the
video in question entitled “Plandemic”. In the story they refer, with a picture, to
a person CBC describes as: “featuring controversial virologist Judy Mikovitz”.
In the story, these three “reporters” choose to:
(a) Delete the fact that it is Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Ph. D., is a recognized
expert in virology who worked at the Centre for Disease Control (CDC)
with Anthony Fauci, with whom she had serious disagreement which she
documented in her book entitled “Plague Corruption”;
(b) That she continues to work in, and be recognized as an expert in virology;
(c) The “reporters” do not give a hint as to by whom, when, on what medical
basis her expert views were “debunked”;
(d) Nor do the “reporters” investigate, nor pose any questions, about why it is
appropriate to remove from Facebook, or YouTube, the views of a
recognized, working World expert, of virology, with respect to issues of

306
B-1-1147
- 1138 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1148 B-1-1148
COVID-19. This conduct by these “reporters” and CBC, is intentional at
worst, and depraved and gross negligence at best.
• Fiduciary Duty
277. The Plaintiffs further state that the CBC further has a fiduciary relationship, and
owed a corresponding fiduciary duty, to the Plaintiffs, as the national publicly-
funded broadcaster to fairly, independently, objectively report, and engage in
responsible journalism, on the news and current affairs for the following reasons:
(a) The Defendant CBC is in a position of power over the Plaintiffs, with
respect to what it covers and reports; and was able to use this power so as
to control and affect the Plaintiff’s interests in their right to freedom of
speech, expression, and the media for their national, publicly-funded
broadcaster under the Broadcast Act, with respect to the covid -
“pandemic’, “emergency” and measures;.
(b) The Plaintiffs are in a corresponding position of vulnerability toward CBC
in depending on CBC to put out fair, balanced, responsible, objective and
responsible reports on the reality of the “pandemic”, the declared
“emergency” as well as measures undertaken;
(c) CBC impliedly and statutorily undertakes to so, to act in the best interests
of the Plaintiffs’, and the public, in its functions and work, in that:
(i) the Defendant CBC performs a public function, to operate as
Canada’s national publicly-funded broadcaster under statute;
307
B-1-1148
- 1139 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1149 B-1-1149
(ii) the Defendant CBC impliedly and statutorily undertakes to so to act
in the best interests of the Plaintiffs’.
278. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants breached this fiduciary duty as set out
above in this Statement of Claim.
279. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that CBC, Facebook, YouTube , Google,
and other social media are viciously censoring, and removing any and all
content that criticizes or takes issue with the WHO, and governments that follow
WHO guidelines, with respect to covid-19, as purported “misinformation”
contrary to “community standards” even when that content is posted by a
recognized expert.
280. The Plaintiffs further state, and the fact is, that the Defendant Federal Crown is
by way of act and omission, under inter alia, the Broadcast Act , and its
Agencies such the CRTC, legislatively and administratively violating the
Plaintiffs’ rights under s. 2 of the Charter, to freedom of expression and the
press in doing nothing to halt what has been described by members of the
scientific community as “ Stalinist censorship”, by government, along with
media the likes of CBC, Facebook, and YouTube. In fact, the Federal Crown
goes further, in following suit with these social media censors, to propose
criminal sanctions for posting such deemed and anointed “misinformation” by
all, including experts.
281. On or about end of May, 2020 the UK “ Scientific Advisory Group for
Emergency (SAGE) –COVID-19 Response, in response to the unwarranted

308
B-1-1149
- 1140 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1150 B-1-1150
measures of redaction, and removing, all criticism in respect of COVID-
Measures, from the Report, of this government advisory body, the body
responsible for their SAGE report referred to the government redaction as
“Stalinist Censorship”.
282. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that CBC, Facebook, and YouTube, and
other major social media, in their coverage of the COVID-19, have acted in the
same fashion, by knowingly and intentionally suppressing and removing expert
opinion not in line with the official dogma of the WHO, which is being blindly
and deafly parroted and incanted by the Defendant governments (leaders) and
their officials, to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and citizens at large, in violation
of their constitutional rights.
• J/ SUMMARY
283. In summary, the Plaintiffs state that the COVID -19 Legislation, and Regulations
By-Laws, and orders, violate, as follows, the Plaintiffs’ statutory and
constitutional rights in:
(a) That the conduct of Justin Trudeau, the British Columbia Premier John
Horgan and the other Co-Defendants, constitute a dispensing of Parliament
under the pretense of Royal prerogative contrary to the Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights to a Parliament;
309
B-1-1150
- 1141 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1151 B-1-1151
(b) That the declaration of an emergency by the Defendant John Horgan, in
B.C, was ultra vires , and continues to be ultra vires, the Act in failing to
meet the requisite criteria to declare an emergency;
(c) That the declared emergency, and measures implemented thereunder are:
(i) Not based on any scientific or medical basis;
(ii) Are ineffective , false, and extreme;
(iii) Contravene ss. 2, 6, 7,8,9, and 15 of the Charter ;
(iv) Contravene the same parallel unwritten constitutional rights,
enshrined through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act, 1867;
(v) Contravene the same rights found in international treaties, read in,
as a minimal standard of protection, under s. 7 of the Charter, as
ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, in, inter alia, the Hape
decision;
(d) That the “COVID- pandemic” was pre-planned, and executed, as a false
pandemic, through the WHO, by Billionaire, Corporate, and
Organizational Oligarchs the likes of Bill Gates, GAVI, the WHO, and
their former and current associates such as Theresa Tam and Bonnie
Henry, the WEF, and others, in order to install a New World (Economic)
Order with:
(i) De facto elimination of small businesses;
(ii) Concentration of wealth and the power to control economic
activity in large global corporations;

310
B-1-1151
- 1142 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1152 B-1-1152
(iii) To disguise a massive bank and corporate bail-out;
(iv) To effect global, mandatory vaccination with chip technology, to
effect total surveillance and testing of any and all citizens,
including the Plaintiffs;
(v) To shift society, in all aspects into a virtual’’ world at the control
of these vaccine, pharmaceutical, technological, globalized
oligarchs, whereby the Plaintiffs, and all others, cannot organize
nor congregate.
(vi) To effectively immobilize resistance to the agenda by neutering
Parliaments and the Courts, and by extension the Constitution and
Constitutional Democracy and Sovereignty, in short to obtain
“global governance”.
284. The Plaintiffs rely on:
(a) the Statutory Schemes set out in the within statement of claim;
(b) The Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and jurisprudence
thereunder;
(c) ss. 2, 7,8,9, 15, and 24(1) of the Charter;
(d) s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(d) the Common Law;
(e) such further statutory or constitutional provisions as counsel may advise.
311
B-1-1152
- 1143 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1153 B-1-1153
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
285. Declarations that the “Covid-measures” and declaration of the “emergency”
invoked by the Respondents:
(a) do not meet the prerequisite criteria of any “emergency” as prescribed
by ss.9-10.2 nor ss.12-13 of the Emergency Program Act [RSBC 1996],
nor is it within the jurisdictional purview s.52(2) of the Public Health
Act, SBC [2008], and further contravenes s.3(1) and s.120(1) of the
Public Health Act SBC [2008];
(b) that the invocation of the measures, dealing with health and public
health, breach the Plaintiffs’ right to consult and constitutional duty to
consult, of the Respondents, both in procedure, and substance, with
respect to broad sweeping public health measures both under
administrative law, and the fundamental justice requirement under
section 7 of the Charter as enunciated and ruled by the SCC;
(c) that, in any event, if the pre-requisites of an “emergency” are met, as
declared to be a national and international “emergency”, the jurisdiction,
and constitutional duty, to deal with this “national emergency”, and its
measures, is strictly with the Federal Parliament, under the Federal
Emergencies Act and Quarantine Act, pursuant to s. 91(7) and (11) of
the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as under the “Peace, Order, and
312
B-1-1153
- 1144 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1154 B-1-1154
Good Government (“POGG”)” Power, under s.91 of the Constitution
Act, 1867 and not the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature;
(d) that quarantine is Federal jurisdiction and not within the jurisdiction of
the Province;
(e) that “lock-downs”, and “stay at home orders”, and any curfews, in
whole or in part, are forms of Martial law outside the Province’s
jurisdiction under s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and, subject to
constitutional review and constraints, matters of Federal jurisdiction
under the POGG power and s. 91(7) of the Constitution Act, 1867;
(f) that “lock-downs”, in any event, and the arbitrary and irrational means
by which businesses have been ordered closed and/or restricted
constitute an unreasonable seizure contrary to s.8 of the Charter;
286. As against the Crown (and Municipal) Defendants the Plaintiffs further claim:
(a) A Declaration that the purported order of the chief health officer,
Dr. Bonnie Henry, dated April 30th, 2021, as well as June 30th,
2021, along with previous such orders, before and after June 30th,
2021 and any such duplicate future or extended orders, purportedly
made under ss. 30, 31, 32 and 39(3) of the Public Health Act, S.B.C
2008 (“the Act”), are ultra vires that Act, and null and void, as an
enveloping emergency order of national dimension; and the strict
313
B-1-1154
- 1145 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1155 B-1-1155
jurisdiction of the Federal Government under s.91 (7) and (11) as
well as the “POGG” power of the Constitution Act, 1867, which
rests in the exclusive jurisdiction, subject to constitutional review
and constraints, with the Federal Parliament.
(b) A further Declaration that ministerial order #M182 of April 30th,
2021, as well as the order of Bonnie Henry of June 30th, 2021, and
the lockdown and travel restrictions are of no force and effect as
constitutionally, Martial Law, pursuant to s.91(7) as well as the
POGG Power;
287. A Declaration that the Public Health Act, and ss.30, 31, 32, and 39(3) of the Act
is restricted to making orders of a local or regional scope and not of a completely
provincial application in the context where the declared threat is not provincial in
nature but national, and that the province is without jurisdiction to make such
orders and measures as such orders and measures are the jurisdiction subject to
constitutional review and constraints, of the Federal Parliament under the
Emergencies Act, and under s. 91 under the POGG power, as well as ss.91(7)
and (11) of the Constitution Act 1867.
288. A Declaration that the Province, in any event, while maybe having jurisdiction
with respect to some localized measures which coincidentally may have
consequential impact on liberty, movement and association, has no constitutional
jurisdiction to restrict or target the physical/psychological liberty, expression,
association, and/ or assembly of every individual in the Province and that, if such
314
B-1-1155
- 1146 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1156 B-1-1156
jurisdiction exists, subject to constitutional review and constraint, it rests with
the Federal Parliament and government pursuant to the Federal Emergencies
Act.
289. A Declaration that the purported order, by Dr. Bonnie Henry, purportedly
pursuant to s.52(2) of the Public Health Act, that “the transmission of the
infectious agent SARS-CoV-2, based on high “case counts”, based on a PCR
test, is ultra vires the Act and non est factum, in that:
(a) It does not constitute a “regional event” but, by its purported terms
constitutes a national and international event, and is ultra vires the
authority of the British Columbia Parliament and government with
jurisdiction, if any, subject to constitutional review and constraints,
resting with the Federal Parliament under the Emergencies Act;
(b) The classification as such is not scientifically nor medically based;
(c) The evidence is lacking and contrary to the scientific and medical
evidence;
(d) That “cases’ do not equate to “deaths” and that the purported death rate
is no higher than complications from the annual influenza;
(e) That the distorted “case” counts are fraudulent, based on the fraudulent
use generating cases of “PCR” test, which is a test that:
a) At best was designed as a “screening test” which requires a
follow-up culture and blood test to ensure the detection of
315
B-1-1156
- 1147 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1157 B-1-1157
an infectious virus, and was never designed, nor equipped
to be a diagnostic test;
b) That is is fraudulently being used as a diagnostic test;
c) That the PCR test has scientifically been debunked, as well
as judicially determined, based on the scientific evidence,
that when used at a “threshold cycle” of thirty five (35) or
higher, to cause between 82% to 96.5% “false positives”;
d) That British Columbia tests at a threshold cycle of well over
forty (40) “threshold cycles”. In weekly meetings with
Bonnie Henry, doctors reported that her second in comman
gave instruction to turn up the PCR for the sole purpose of
creating increased cases.
290. A Declaration that the order of April 23rd, and June 30th, 2021 and previous such
orders, and subsequent such orders or extensions, in any event, violate the
Constitution Acts, 1867, 1982, as follows:
(a) That the restrictions on freedom of expression, conscience, association,
and assembly, were recognized, and continue to apply, as unwritten
constitutional rights, through the Pre-amble of the Constitutional Act,
1867, and that the Province has absolutely no jurisdiction to curtail
those rights, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that if
such curtailment were to be effected, it rests, subject to constitutional
review, and constraints, in the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament;

316
B-1-1157
- 1148 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1158 B-1-1158
(b) That these same rights, contained in ss. 2(a)(b), 7, 8, 9 and 15 of the
Charter are also being violated by the Order(s) of Bonnie Henry and
none of the violations are justified under a free and democratic society
under s. 1 of the Charter that that:
(i) The measures do not evidentiarily, scientifically, nor
medically set out a valid legislative objective;
(ii) Are not rational;
(iii)Are not tailored to minimally to infringe the constitutional
rights; and
(iv) The measures’ deleterious effects far outweigh the
beneficial effects in that the number of deaths caused by the
measures are at a ratio of deaths well above for every death
purportedly attributed to COVID-19.
291. A Declaration that administrating medical treatment without informed consent
constitutes experimental medical treatment and contrary to the Nuremberg Code
and Helsinki Declaration of 1960, still in vigor, and further and thus constitutes
a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada.
292. A declaration that the offering, promoting, and administering of Covid-Vaccines,
or any other medical treatment to twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds without
the informed consent of the parent(s) constitutes:
(a) In the absence of informed consent, medical experimentation and thus
further constitutes a “crime against humanity” emanating from the

317
B-1-1158
- 1149 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1159 B-1-1159
Nuremberg trials and principles following the medical experimentations
by the Nazi regime and codified in Canada, as a criminal act, pursuant to
the War Crime and Crimes Against Humanity Act;
(b) And by doing so Dr. Bonnie Henry and the Province of British Columbia
(c) A Declaration that s.17 of the Infants Act [RSBC 1996] C. 223, if it
purports to grant (12) to (17) year olds, or children younger than (12), the
ability to orally, or in writing, give informed, voluntary consent to any
medical treatment, including vaccines, is of no force and effect as
violating s.7 of the Charter in that:
(i) It interferes with the parent-child relationship which has been
recognized by the SCC, to be constitutionally protected by s.7 of
the Charter;
(ii) It violates s.7 of the Charter with respect to the minor by
violating the minor’s physical and psychological integrity, in
incurring a possible adverse reaction without the benefit of
understanding the risk thereby vitiating the informed, voluntary
consent required under s.7 of the Charter;
(iii)Given that the Covid vaccines have not been finally approved,
with human trials not ending until the end of 2023 and the
318
B-1-1159
- 1150 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1160 B-1-1160
concession by Public Health officers that the “Covid Vaccines”
are thus medically “experimental” it violates s.7 of the Charter by
contravention of the Nuremberg Principles and Code, as well as
the Helsinki Declaration of 1960, both of which international
instruments provide and are to be read in as the minimal
protection under s.7 of the Charter as dictated by, inter alia, by
the SCC in the Hape decision; and
(iv) Violates s.15 of the Charter, based on age, in not providing
minors with the same constitutional protection of informed,
voluntary consent provided and upheld under s.7 of the Charter,
that adults have.
293. A Declaration that the measures imposed by Dr. Bonnie Henry constitute a crime
against humanity contrary to s.7 and 15 of the Charter in the unjustifiable deaths
directly caused by her measures, including suicides, deaths from cancelled
surgeries, drug over-doses, and depraved abuse of children, especially the
physically and neurologically disabled, in that she knows that her measures are
worse than the purported “Covid-deaths”, and that Dr. Bonnie Henry has in fact
been complicit in crimes against humanity in her dispersing and administered
deadly and unsafe vaccines in India (Pakistan) in or about the year 2000. Bonnie
Henry has further advocated the immunization of twelve (12) to seventeen (17)
year olds without the consent of their parents.
319
B-1-1160
- 1151 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1161 B-1-1161
294. A Declaration that the “COVID Measures” undertaken and orchestrated by
Prime Minister Trudeau (“Trudeau”), Premier Horgan, the Federal Crown,
Provincial Crown, and their named officials constitute a constitutional violation
of “dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”,
contrary to the English Bill of Rights (1689) as read into our unwritten
constitutional rights through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act,1867,
emanating from the unwritten constitutional principles of Rule of Law,
Constitutionalism and Democracy , as enunciated by the Supreme Court of
Canada in, inter alia , Quebec Secession Reference.
295. A Declaration that the Public Health Act, [SBC 2008] (the “Act ), and in
particular vesting an indefinite emergency power in the Premier and Lt.-
Governor, and further that the “COVID Measures”, undertaken and orchestrated
by Premier John HORGAN (“Horgan”) as well as Bonnie Henry, Mike
Farnworth, Jennifer Whiteside, Adrian Dix, and the Provincial Crown, constitute
a constitutional violation of “dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of
Royal Prerogative”, contrary to the English Bill of Rights (1689) as read into
our unwritten constitutional rights through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution
Act, 1867, emanating from the unwritten constitutional principles of Rule of
Law, Constitutionalism and Democracy , as enunciated by the Supreme Court of
Canada in, inter alia , Quebec Secession Reference;
296. A Declaration that the COVID Measures taken by both Trudeau, Horgan,
Farnworth, Dix, Whiteside, and Henry, and their respective governments, at the
320
B-1-1161
- 1152 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1162 B-1-1162
blind and unquestioned dictates of the World Health Organization (“WHO”)
bureaucrats, in defiance and ignoring of the avalanche of scientific and medical
evidence to the contrary, constitute a constitutional violation of the abdication of
the duty to govern, as enunciated in, inter alia, the Re Gray and Canada
(Wheat Board) v. Hallett and Carey Ltd. decisions of the Supreme Court of
Canada;
297. A Declaration that, in the imposition of the COVID Measures, the Defendants
have engaged in ultra vires and unconstitutional conduct and have acted in,
abuse and excess of their authority;
298. A Declaration that the concept of “social distancing” is neither scientifically, nor
medically based, and is an ineffective and a fictional concept, which has no
scientific nor medical basis and hitherto unknown, with respect to a seasonal
viral respiratory illness;
299. A Declaration that any mandatory vaccine scheme against any purported
COVID-19, by way of mandatory vaccine, or any coercive or extortive
measures to force the Plaintiffs to “choose” to vaccinate, without informed,
voluntary, consent, such as the use of “vaccine passports” or any and all other
coercive measures, is unconstitutional, and no force and effect in that:
(a) It infringes s. 2 of the Charter in violating freedom of conscience,
religion and thought;
321
B-1-1162
- 1153 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1163 B-1-1163
(b) Infringes s. 7, life, liberty, and security of the person in violating
physical and psychological integrity in denying the right to choose,
based on informed, voluntary, medical consent;
(c) Breaches the same parallel rights recognized prior to the Charter, as
written constitutional rights through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution
Act, 1867;
(d) Breaches parallel international treaty rights to no medical treatment
without informed consent, and right to bodily integrity, which
international treaty rights are to be read in, as a minimal s. 7 Charter
protection, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in, inter
alia the Hape decision;
(e) And that, under no circumstances are mandatory vaccines, nor coerced
compliance to vaccines, in accordance with the tenets of fundamental
justice, nor demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
300. A Declaration that:
a) Social distancing, self-isolation, and limits as to the number of persons
who can physically congregate, and where they can congregate, violates
the unwritten rights contained, and recognized pre-Charter, by the SCC,
through the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and that the Province
has no jurisdiction to do so under s.92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as
ruled by the SCC, with respect to rights to freedom of association,
thought, belief, and religion in banning association, including religious

322
B-1-1163
- 1154 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1164 B-1-1164
gatherings, as well as violate s. 2 Charter and further restricting
physical and psychological liberty and security of the person rights under
s.7 of the Charter, and are not in accordance with the tenets of
fundamental justice, nor demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the
Charter;
b) That prohibitions and obstacles to protest against COVID Measures in
British Columbia, are a violation of the constitutional rights to freedom of
expression, conscience, belief , and association, assembly, and petition,
under s. 2 of the Charter, and not demonstrably justified by s. 1, as well
as a violation of these constitutional rights, recognized prior to the
Charter, through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and
against international treaty rights protected by s. 7 of the Charter;
301. A Declaration that the arbitrary, irrational, and standard-less sweep of closing
businesses and stores as “non-essential”, and the manner of determining and
executing those closures, and “lock-downs”, constitutes unreasonable search and
seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter and not demonstrably justified under s.1
of the Charter;
302. A Declaration that the declared rationales and motives, and execution of COVID
Measures, by the WHO, are not related to a bona fide, nor an actual “pandemic”,
and declaration of a bona fide pandemic, but for other political and socio-
economic reasons, motives, and measures at the behest of global Billionaire,
Corporate and Organizational Oligarchs;

323
B-1-1164
- 1155 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1165 B-1-1165
303. A Declaration that any and all COVID Measures coercively restraining and
curtailing the physical and psychological integrity of the Plaintiffs, and any and
all physical and psychological restraints, including but not restricted to:
(a) “self-isolation”;
(b) no gatherings of more than five (5) and later ten (10)persons, or any
set number;
(c) the shutting down of children’s playgrounds, daycares and schools;
(d) “social distancing”;
(e) the compelled wearing of face-masks;
(f) prohibition and curtailment of freedom of assembly, including religious
assembly, and petition;
(g) the imposition of charges and fines for the purported breach thereof;
(h) restriction of travel on public transport without compliance to physical
distancing and masking;
(i) restrictions on shopping without compliance to masking and physical
distancing;
(j) restrictions on attending restaurants and other food service
establishments without compliance to masking, physical distancing,
and providing name/address/contact information for contact tracing
purposes.
(k) Crossing into and leave British Columbia and any and all subdivisions
within British Columbia;

324
B-1-1165
- 1156 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1166 B-1-1166
Constitute a violation of ss. 2,6,7,8, 9, and ss. 15 of the Charter , to
freedom of association, conscience religion, assembly, and express on
under s. 2, liberty and security of the person in violating the physical and
psychological integrity of the liberty and security of the person, not in
accordance tenets of fundamental justice, contrary to s.6(mobility rights)
and well as s. 7(liberty), and further breach of the rights against
unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8, arbitrary detention under
s. 9 of the Charter , and not demonstrably justified under s. 1, as well as
breach of the unwritten parallel rights, recognized as constitutional rights,
through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act, 1867 and affected by
means of removing measures against the “Liberty of the Subject” by way
of habeas corpus as well as constituting Martial Law measures outside the
scope of the Province under s.92, and subject to constitutional constraints,
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament under s.91 (POGG),
s.91(7) and (11) and the Federal Emergencies Act R.S.C. 1985, and
Quarantine Act S.C. 2005;
304. Further Declarations that:
(a) the thoughtless imposition of “social distancing” and self-isolation at
home breaches s. 2 of the Charter, in denying the right to freedom of
association and further breaches the right to physical and psychological
integrity, under s. 7 of the Charter (liberty) in curtailing and restricting
physical movement, which measures are wholly unjustified on any

325
B-1-1166
- 1157 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1167 B-1-1167
scientific or medical basis, and which are not in accordance with the
tenets of fundamental justice in being vague, and suffering from
overbreadth, and which cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
(b) That the measures themselves, and the arbitrary detention, by
enforcement officers, in enforcing these vague and over-broad, and often
ultra vires, and contradictory “orders”, is a violation of the right against
arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter and that, in the course of
such “enforcement” the search and seizure of private information,
including medical information, from individuals, being charged with
purported violations of such orders, constitutes a violation of ss.7 and 8
of the Charter, and that neither violation of s. 7 or 8 are in accordance
with the tenets of fundamental justice nor justified under s. 1 of the
Charter;
(c) That the use of “contact-tracing Apps” constitutes a violation of
s. 8 of the Charter, and further violates ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter with
respect to the constitutional rights to privacy, under both sections, and
that such breaches are not in accordance with the tenets of fundamental
justice, and are further not justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
(d) That the compelled use of face masks breaches, in restricting the right to
breath, at the crux of life itself, and the liberty to choose how to breath,
infringes s. 7 to the Charter liberty, security of the person and is not in
326
B-1-1167
- 1158 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1168 B-1-1168
accordance with the tenets of fundamental justice and not justified by s. 1
of the Charter;
(e) That the above-noted infringements under s. 2,6, 7, 8, and 9, as well as
the arbitrary decisions on what businesses to close, and which ones to be
left open, constitutes a. 15 of the Charter violation based on:
(i)Conscience, belief , and religion;
(ii)Association, assembly and petition;
(iii)Trade and profession;
(iv)Mobility;
And further, that such measures are arbitrary, and discriminate before and
under the law, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter (and not justified under s.1
of the Charter), and are further a violation of the unwritten constitutional
right to equality recognized before the Charter, as unwritten constitutional
rights through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 as emanating
from the principles of Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, and Respect for
Minorities as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Quebec
Secession Reference;
305. A Declaration that the use of “vaccine passports” is a violation of ss. 2,7, and 15
of the Charter, and that the use of “vaccine passports” and any and all other
coercive measures to compel, as de facto mandatory, the constitutionally
protected right to refuse medical procedure or treatment without informed
consent, including vaccines further violates ss. 2, 7, and 15 of the Charter, as

327
B-1-1168
- 1159 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1169 B-1-1169
well as those mirrored unwritten rights established pre-Charter under the
Constitution Act, 1867.
306. A Declaration that the Vaccine propaganda being pushed to twelve (12) to
seventeen (17) year olds by the British Columbia government by way of s.17 of
the Infants Act, in fact, violates the child-parent relationship in s.7 of the
Charter.
307. A Declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which
businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or
not, was designed and implemented to favor mega-corporations and to de facto
put most small businesses and activities out of business;
308. A Declaration that:
(a) the Defendant Federal Crown, and its agencies and officials, including
but not restricted to the CRTC, have, by glaring acts and omissions,
breached the rights of the Plaintiffs to freedom of speech, expression,
and the press, by not taking any action to curtail what has been
described by the UK scientific community as “Stalinist censorship”,
particularly the CBC in knowingly refusing to cover/or publish the
valid and sound criticism of the COVID measures, by recognized
experts;
(b) a Declaration that the Federal Crown has in fact aided the suppressing
and removing of “Facebook” and “YouTube” postings, even by
experts, which in any way contradict or criticize the WHO and

328
B-1-1169
- 1160 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1170 B-1-1170
government measures as “misinformation” “contrary to community
standards”, by the federal Defendants threatening criminal sanction for
such “misinformation”;
thus violating s. 2 of the Charter by way of act, and omission, as
delineated and ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in, inter alia,
Vriend.
309. A further Declaration that the failure, and in fact intentional choice, by the
British Columbia Defendants, as well as Federal Defendants, to ensure that the
Plaintiffs constitutional rights are not violated by those public officials
purporting to enforce the Covid measures, as well as private agents purporting to
enforce Covid measures, is not prevented and not legislated, and in fact such
violations are encouraged, constitute violations of the Plaintiffs delineated by the
Supreme Court of Canada in, inter alia, Vriend.
310. A Declaration that the measures have a devastating impact on those with severe
physical and neurological special needs, particularly children, and infringe s. 15
of the Charter, and are not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, and further
violate the unwritten right to equality through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution
Act, 1867, based on psychical and mental disability, and age;
311. A Declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and
lockdowns of schools in British Columbia, by the Respondents, are:
a) not scientifically, or medically, based;
329
B-1-1170
- 1161 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1171 B-1-1171
b) based on a false, and fraudulent, use of the PCR test, using a threshold
cycle of 43-45 cycles in that once used above the 35 threshold cycles, of
all the positives it registers, 96.5%, are “false positives”, resulting in an
accuracy rate, as a mere screening test, of 3.5% accuracy;
c) that all measures of masking, social distancing, and school “lockdown”
(closures) are a sole and direct result of the mounting, or “rising”
“cases”, being cases, which are 96.5% false positive;
d) that the PCR test, in and by itself, as used, cannot distinguish between
dead (non-infectious) vs. live (infectious) virus fragments;
e) that (solitary confinement) isolation/quarantine of asymptomatic
children, for any duration, is abusive, and constitutes violations under
s.7 and 15, of the Constitution Act, 1982 as violating the physical and
psychological integrity, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, and further
constitutes cruel and unusual treatment under s. 7 of the Charter; and
further violates s.7, by way of the International Law under the The
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (the “Torture Convention”) and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
f) that such treatment of children is particularly egregious with respect to
children with special needs, suffering physical and neurological
330
B-1-1171
- 1162 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1172 B-1-1172
disabilities, in violating s.7 and s.15 of the Charter in that absolutely no
particular or special provisions are made for them, to accommodate their
disability(ies), with respect to the Covid measures.
312. A Declaration that the science, and preponderance of the scientific world
community, is of the consensus that:
a) masks are completely ineffective in avoiding or preventing transmission
of an airborne, respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 which leads to
COVID-19;
b) that prolonged use of masks results, especially for children, in
irreparable physical, neurological, psychological,language development,
and social development harms, some of which are irreversible;
c) that “lockdowns”, quarantine and isolation are ineffective and cause
more damage than they prevent;
d) that Public Health officials, including the Defendants, as well as the
WHO, have pronounced that the Covid “Vaccines” do NOT prevent
transmission, in either direction, between vaccinated and non-
vaccinated persons.
313. A Declaration that the mandatory use of masks, isolation and PCR testing, in the
school context, violates children’s constitutional rights under:
331
B-1-1172
- 1163 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1173 B-1-1173
a) section 7 of the Charter in infringing their rights to physical and
psychological safety, and integrity, as well as, medical
procedure/treatment without informed consent;
b) section 7 in infringing their right to education, flowing from their right
to education under the Education Act, and further under section 7 of the
Charter as interpreted by the Canadian Courts, as well as under section
7 by way of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child as
read in as a minimal protection under section 7 of the Charter, as
enunciated, inter alia, by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker, Hape,
and the Federal Court of Appeal in De Guzman;
314. A Declaration that the notion of “asymptomatic” transmission, from children to
adults, of an airborne respiratory virus, is “oxymoronic”, without scientific, or
medical basis, and hitherto scientifically and medically unknown;
315. A Declaration that masking, social distancing and testing in school settings,
particularly elementary school(s), is unscientific, non-medical, unlawful, and
unconstitutional and should be halted forthwith;
316. A Declaration that children do not pose a threat with respect to Covid-19, to their
teachers;
317. A Declaration that teachers who do not wish to mask have the statutory and
constitutional right not to mask.

332
B-1-1173
- 1164 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1174 B-1-1174
318. A Declaration that the masking of children is unscientific, non-medical,
physically, psychologically, neurologically, socially, and linguistically
harmful to them and that the masking of children be prohibited, regardless and
despite their parents’ requests and/or directions, because as children have their
own independent rights under the Education Act , s. 7 and 15 of the Charter, as
well as s.7 of the Charter as read in, and through, the international law under the
Convention on the rights of the Child;
319. A Declaration that the mandatory vaccination of public service employees, or
any citizens for that matter, without informed, voluntary, consent, is
unconstitutional and of no force and effect as violating ss.2,7, and 15 as set out
above in this statement of claim, in that compulsory medical treatment has been
clearly ruled, by the Supreme Court of Canada, and other Appellate Courts, as
violating s.7 of the Charter.
320. A Declaration that none of the above Charter violations are saved by s.1 of the
Charter, as they fail to meet the test, thereunder, as enunciated in, inter alia, the
Oakes decision, as the measures:
(a) Are not pursuant to valid statutory objective;
(b) The measures are not rational;
(c) The measures are not tailored for minimal impairment of the
Charter rights;
333
B-1-1174
- 1165 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1175 B-1-1175
(d) The measures dilatory effects far outweigh their beneficial
effects;
321. Orders, in (the nature of) Prohibition, prohibiting the Respondent(s) from:
a) administering any PCR test that has above a 25 threshold cycle as a
screening test only;
b) registering a “case”, as “positive”, based on a positive PCR screen test,
without following up with a culture test to determine that it is the
SARS-CoV-2 virus, as well as a further con-current blood test to
determine antibody activity to verify that the virus is alive (infections)
and not dead (not-infections), which procedure constitutes scientifically
accepted method to isolate, identify, and confirm the presence of an
infectious virus in a person;
c) “locking down” any school(s);
d) requiring any masking or face covering of any children;
e) Conducting classes and school by remote, online, distance learning over
a computer which is not a statutory nor constitutionally acceptable
alternative to in-person school learning, especially for children with
physical and neurological disabilities and that the Respondents be
334
B-1-1175
- 1166 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1176 B-1-1176
prohibited from conducting remote classrooms outside the physical
school setting;
f) requiring solitary confinement of children and barring contact with
family members for any duration;
g) deeming of two “positive” PCR result(s) in a school as an “outbreak”,
which is absurd ad nauseam, and constitutes a violation of s.7 of the
Charter in fraudulently creating undue panic and fear.
322. Orders, in the nature of mandamus, requiring the Respondent Ministers to:
a) reveal the source and substantive advice received, from whom, based on
what specific scientific and medical evidence for the measures imposed;
b) reveal all data with respect to what threshold cycle rate all PCR tests are
administered;
c) provide a release of all data comparing “cases” and co-relating them to
“all-cause mortality”, and the location(s) and ages of those purportedly
dead “from” as opposed to “with”, Covid, as well as the demographic
age groups of the deaths;
d) Order the re-attendance of the Applicant children to return to their
school without masks, and without PCR testing, for in-person learning.
335
B-1-1176
- 1167 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1177 B-1-1177
323. The Plaintiffs, with respect to enforcements measures, of police, by-law, and
health officers further seek:
(a) A Declaration that a “reception, or “informal gathering”, under s. 19 and
20 of Order of the Provincial Health Officer – Gatherings and Events
(March 24th, 2021), or any such subsequent order(s), pursuant to the
Public Health Act [SBC 2008], does not include a gathering whose
obvious purpose is to assemble, associate and otherwise gather to exercise
freedom of speech, expression and/or assembly and religion as
constitutionally recognized under the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as s.2
of the Charter;
(b) A Declaration that, with respect to the masking:
(i)that no police officer has the jurisdiction to apply the Trespass Act,
[RSBC 2018] c. 3 to a person who declares a legal exemption to a
mask, and who enters a public place; and
(ii) that owners of places of business who refuse to comply with lawful
exemptions may be charged with an offence pursuant to the
Emergency Program Act [RSBC 1996] c 111 and Ministerial
Orders and Regulations thereunder;
(iii) that Police Officers are equally entitled to masking exemptions and
to be free from coercion by their superiors to take a Covid vaccine,
336
B-1-1177
- 1168 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1178 B-1-1178
or PCR test contrary to their constitutional right to refuse based on
informed consent;
(iv) That Police officers, like any other citizen, are constitutionally
entitled, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada and Court of
Appeal, to refuse medical treatment without informed consent,
including vaccines, and that Police officers should be free from
coercion by superiors to be vaccinated;
(c) A Declaration that police, and/or a by-law, Provincial Offences, or Health
Officer, with respect to an individual who fails and/or refuses to comply
with any oral and written orders from any of the Provincial Respondents
do not have the powers of arrest against that individual under Provincial
Regulations such as those set out in Part 4, Division 6 of the Public
Health Act SBC [2008], and the closing summation of Bonnie Henry’s
Orders;
(d) That the bar of entry across “Provincial Borders”, but for “essential travel”
by residents/citizens coming from Alberta, as well as the intra-provincial
travel bans without probable grounds of an offence being committed,
which is a form of imposing Martial Law, without the jurisdiction to do so
as per s.91(7) of the Constitution Act 1867. It is also contrary s.7 of the
Charter (Liberty), for vagueness and over-breadth as well as s.6 of the
Charter, and thus compels the Police officer to breach their oath to uphold
337
B-1-1178
- 1169 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1179 B-1-1179
the Constitution and further, that the RCMP has no jurisdiction to set up
roadblocks at British Columbia’s “borders” and refuse passage into British
Columbia, as well as set out by the SCC, Pre-Charter, in inter alia
Winner;
(e) That the measures and enforcement of the measures under Ministerial
Orders 172/2021 and 182/2021, as set out above in subparagraph (d)
constitutes Martial Law, Police State measures outside the scope of the
Province’s jurisdiction under s.92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and are
within, subject to constitutional restraints, the jurisdiction of the Federal
Parliament under s.91(7) and (1) and the “Peace, Order, and Good
Government “(POGG)” Power on s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and
thus further compels the Police officer to breach their oath to uphold the
Constitution;
(f) A Declaration that failure and/or refusal to comply with Provincial Covid
Measures does not constitute a “common nuisance” contrary to s.180 of
the Criminal Code or constitute “obstruct peace officer” contrary to s. 129
of the Criminal Code thus granting the power of arrest to a police officer
in the enforcement of a regulatory and/or municipal by-law as enunciated
by the SCC in R v. Sharma [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650;
(g) A Declaration that the RCMP has no jurisdiction to enforce Provincial
Health nor “emergency” measures in the Province of British Columbia;
338
B-1-1179
- 1170 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1180 B-1-1180
(h) A Declaration that, in any event, the restriction of physical movement and
travel bans based on “essential travel”, is a violation of s.7 liberty and
security of the person, not in accordance with fundamental justice as being
void for vagueness, as well as overbreadth, and impossible to enforce, in
that it is nearly impossible to ascertain, while respecting an individual’s
Charter right to remain silent, and right against arbitrary detention and
questioning, to determine whether that person has, “on reasonable and
probable grounds” committed an offence;
(i) A Declaration that a police constable or by-law officer cannot, by way of
general, blanket order(s), from his/her administrative supervisors, be
directed how, when and in what circumstance, to lay a charge against an
individual and thus dictate the discretion of that Police officer;
(j) A Declaration that no politician should be directing nor commenting on
how, whom or in what circumstances any police officer should enforce nor
apply the applicable law;
(k) A Declaration that the Covid emergency measures violate a police
constable’s duty, as office-holder to Her Majesty the Queen, in that the
enforcement of the provisions, and the enforcement provision(s) are of no
force and effect and unconstitutional in in allowing, and being directed by
superiors, to violate a citizen’s constitutional rights under the Constitution
Act 1867, as well as the Charter, as follows:
339
B-1-1180
- 1171 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1181 B-1-1181
(i) Violation of freedom of expression, speech, association, assembly
and religion contrary to those unwritten constitutional rights
recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada through the Preamble
to the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s.2 of the Charter;
(ii) Violation of the right to liberty and security of the person through
the arbitrary and unreasonable detention, arrest, and interference
with the physical liberty and movement of citizens, contrary to the
Liberty of the Subject under Habeas Corpus, as well as ss. 7, 9,
and 10(c) of the Charter;
(iii)Violation of the protection against unreasonable search and seizure
contrary to s.8 of the Charter;
(iv) Placing police officers in the potential violation, with respect to
religious gatherings and services, of committing an offence
contrary to s. 176 of the Criminal Code.
323. Order(s), (in the nature of) Prohibition to:
(a) all police administrative supervisor(s) to cease and desist in interfering with
a police constable’s discretion as to how to apply and enforce the law,
following the investigation by that individual police constable;
(b) all publicly elected politicians to cease and desist in interfering with a police
constable’s discretion as to how to apply and enforce the law, following the
investigation by that individual police constable;
340
B-1-1181
- 1172 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1182 B-1-1182
(c) all “public health officers” to cease and desist in interfering with a police
constable’s discretion as to how to apply and enforce the law, following the
investigation by that individual police constable;
(d) All Police administrative superiors to cease and desist from coercive and
illegal conduct, directions, and/or orders geared to denying masking
exemptions of officers, PCR testing and vaccines contrary to the Police
officer’s constitutional rights to refuse any medical procedure and/or
treatment with informed consent as enunciated and ruled by the Supreme
Court of Canada;
(e) All public officials, and the named Defendants, from implementing any
mandatory vaccination measures, nor implementing any “Vaccine Passport”
measures whatsoever.
324. The Plaintiffs seek the Declaratory and Prerogative/Injunctive relief set out in
this Statement of Claim. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek damages, as set out
below:
(a) With respect to Action4Canada damages in the amount of $1 Million
for:
(i) A breach of s.2(a), (c), and (d) Charter rights to exercise
freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, and association via the
limitations placed since the onset of the Covid-19 emergency
measures.
341
B-1-1182
- 1173 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1183 B-1-1183
(b) With respect to Kimberly Woolman Damages in the amount of $2
Million for:
(i) a breach of their s.7 Charter right to not be subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment, in that the Yucalta Lodge care home
unconstitutionally separated them from visiting their elderly
mother, and caring for her on a number of occasions in retaliation
to their voicing opinions in relation to their mother Jaqueline
Woolman’s care, and further violation and interference with their
s.7 protected right to the parent-child relationship;
(ii) Violation of their s. 2(c) and (d) Charter right to association, in
that the Yucalta Lodge care home prevented them from visiting
their mother individually, and together, and monitored their
association, and assembly on a number of occasions when they
picked their mother up.
(iii) Violation of their s.2(b) Charter fundamental freedom of
thought, belief, opinion, and expression, in that the Yucalta Lodge
care home prevented them from sharing an open dialogue with
their mother in relation to the Covid-19 emergency measures in
general, and the specific measures that the care home had put into
place.
342
B-1-1183
- 1174 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1184 B-1-1184
(c) With respect to the Estate of Jaqueline Woolman damages in the
amount of $2 Million for violations of the deceased, during her lifetime,
recoverable by the estate for:
(i) Violation, during the deceased’s lifetime of her s.7 Charter right
to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The Yucalta
Lodge care home repeatedly breached this right by subjecting
Jaqueline Woolman to abusive quarantining measures, as well as
the cruel, and anxiety-inducing separation from her children that
she was made to endure, and interference of the s.7 Charter
protected right to the parent-child relationship;
(ii) For a breach of the deceased’s s.15 Charter equality rights to not
face discrimination, which the Yucalta Lodge care home breached
by taking advantage of Jaqueline Woolman’s mental, physical
disability, as well as her age by ignoring her wishes.
(iii) damages for a breach of her s.2 (c) and (d) Charter fundamental
freedoms to associate with her own children, and in particular, her
two (2) daughters Kimberly and Michelle Woolman.
(iv) For the intentional causing of pain and suffering of the Plaintiff
as a result of the constitutional violations.
343
B-1-1184
- 1175 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1185 B-1-1185
(d) With respect to Jane Doe #1 damages in the amount of $200,000.00 for:
(i) a breach of her s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person in that the Covid-19 emergency measures enacted by
Bonnie Henry have resulted in her employer enforcing the use of
masks on their premises, including forcing Jane to wear a mask
while at work.
(ii) The cause of anxiety and pain and suffering as a result.
(e) With respect to Brian Edgar damages in the amount of $200,000 for:
(i) A breach of his s.7, 8, 9, and 10 Charter rights, as Brian, and his
party were detained for questioning, and asked to produce
identification documentation by the police after exiting a BC
Ferries vessel, although their only allegedly suspicious behaviour
had been associating with a group of people heading to the same
event in Vancouver.
(ii) A breach of his s.2 (c) and (d) Charter rights to associate, which
the BC Ferries infringed upon by targeting Brian and his party for
peacefully assembling, and associating with each other, and
another group on the vessel that were all attending the same event
in Vancouver on that given date.
344
B-1-1185
- 1176 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1186 B-1-1186
(iii)A breach of his s.15 Charter right to be free from discrimination,
which the BC Ferries staff infringed by specifically targeting
Brian, and his party for the simple reason that they were attending
a specific event in Vancouver on that given date.
(f) With respect to Amy Muranetz damages in the amount of $200,000 for:
(i) A breach of her s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person as she was stopped, and questioned about her mask
prior to entering a BC Ferries vessel, and several times while
aboard the vessel, by the BC Ferries staff.
(ii) A breach of her s.15 Charter right to be free from discrimination,
which the BC Ferries staff infringed by specifically targeting her
for not wearing a mask.
(iii) A breach of her s.8, 9 and 10 Charter rights to remain secure
against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as not be
arbitrarily detained, and be informed of the reason for detention.
BC Ferries staff stopped, detained, and questioned Amy at length
and leisure without reasonable explanation.
(iv) A breach of her s.6 Charter mobility rights, as Amy, was banned
by BC Ferries staff indefinitely from travelling back home on the
BC Ferries.
345
B-1-1186
- 1177 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1187 B-1-1187
(v) A breach of her s.7 Charter right to be free from cruel and
unusual treatment, and punishment. Amy was treated inhumanely
by BC Ferries staff in that they continued to detain, and mistreat
her while she experienced a Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
(“PTSD”) episode while under their watch. It was also an
excessive punishment, for the BC Ferries staff to prevent Amy
from returning home on the ferries, for simply exercising a
medical masking exemption.
(vi) For the intentional causing of pain and suffering of the Plaintiff as
a result of the constitutional violations.
(g) With respect to Jane Doe #2 damages in the amount of $2 Million for:
(i) A breach of her s.15 Charter right to be free from discrimination,
which the Hospital staff infringed upon by specifically targeting
her for not wearing a mask, and deciding to deny her imminent
medical treatment based on such.
(ii) A breach of her s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person as she was stopped, and questioned about her lack of
mask throughout her time at the hospital, and this took precedence
over carrying out her imminent and necessary medical treatment.
346
B-1-1187
- 1178 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1188 B-1-1188
(iii)A breach of her s.7 Charter right to be free from cruel and
unusual treatment, and punishment. Jane was punished, and
denied critical medical treatment for a life-threatening illness for
exercising a valid, medical masking exemption.
(iv) For the intentional causing of pain and suffering of the Plaintiff as
a result of the constitutional violations;
(v) For endangering her very life.
(h) With respect to Valerie Ann Foley damages in the amount of $2 Million
for:
(i) A breach of her s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person as she was stopped, and questioned about her lack of
mask, for which she carried a medical exemption.
(ii) A breach of her s.8, 9 and 10 Charter rights to remain secure
The Vancouver Skytrain Transit Officer not only lacked the
jurisdiction to do so, but went on to verbally, and physically
harass, and viciously assault, and subsequently handcuff Valerie
while failing to provide any reasonable explanation for the
severity of his actions.
347
B-1-1188
- 1179 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1189 B-1-1189
(iii)A breach of her s.7 Charter right to be free from cruel and
unusual treatment, and punishment. Valerie was
disproportionately treated, including being physically assaulted by
the Vancouver Skytrain Transit Officer, for the alleged crime of
being un-masked with a valid medical exemption.
(iv) For the intentional causing of pain and suffering of the Plaintiff as
(i) With respect to Linda and Gary Morken damages in the amount of
$250,000 each for:
(i) A breach of their s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person as they were stopped, and questioned about their lack
of masks, for which they carried valid medical exemptions.
(ii) A breach of Linda’s s.8, 9 and 10 Charter rights to remain secure
The store staff, and RCMP Officers failed to provide the explicit,
and reasonable causes behind Linda’s search, and detention.
(iii)A breach of both Linda, and Gary’s s.15 Charter right to be free
from discrimination, which the store staff, and RCMP Officers
infringed upon by specifically targeting them for being un-
348
B-1-1189
- 1180 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1190 B-1-1190
masked, and going above and beyond the reasonable protocol that
the situation had called for, simply for that reason;
(iv) Unlawful detention and confinement.
(j) With respect to Pastor Randy Beatty damages in the amount of
$500,000 for:
(i) A breach of s.2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) rights for Randy to exercise
his freedom of expression, religion, peaceful assembly, and
association, as the result of emergency measures that not only
limited his church services, but at times saw them close entirely,
despite following strict safety protocols;
(ii) A breach of Randy’s s.15 Charter right to be free from
discrimination due to religious beliefs, and many Covid-19
measures discriminate upon religious peoples, including
Christians to refrain from engaging with the measures and
mandates due to their religious beliefs.
(k) With respect to Ilona Zink damages in the amount of $500,000 for:
(i) A breach of her s. 6(2)(b) Charter right to gain a livelihood,
which becomes difficult and next-to-impossible when covid-19
mandates involve the closure of specific businesses, calling some
essential, and others “non-essential”;
(ii) Unreasonable seizure contrary to s.8 of the Charter.

349
B-1-1190
- 1181 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1191 B-1-1191
(l) With respect to Federico Fuoco damages in the amount of $750,000 for:
(i) A breach of his s. 6(2)(b) Charter right to gain a livelihood,
which becomes difficult when covid-19 mandates involve the
closure of specific businesses, calling some essential, and others
“non-essential”.
(ii) A breach of Federico’s s.15 Charter right to be free from
discrimination due to his beliefs, and his masking exemption, yet
he was discriminated against by the city of Vancouver who denied
him the attempt to open his restaurant safely, and served him with
closure notices, and revocation of his licensing in relation to his
business.
(iii) For the slanderous, and baseless attacks on his business as the
result of the rampant environment of division that has been
created in British Columbia due to the Covid-19 emergency
measures, and this has impacted not only public opinion on
Federico, a well-known restauranteur in Vancouver, but also his
restaurant business.
(m) With respect to Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions
Incorporated, damages in the amount of $750,000.00 for:
350
B-1-1191
- 1182 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1192 B-1-1192
(i) Violation of s.8 of the Charter in the unreasonable seizure of the
businesses as a result of “lock-downs”;
(ii) Damages, to be calculated at trial, for loss of income as a result of
the unconstitutional lock-downs and violations of s.8 of the
Charter.
(n) With respect to Michael Martinz damages in the amount of $250,000
for:
(i) A breach of his s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person as he was stopped, from passing through airport
security, despite holding a Canadian passport so that he could be
forced to take a PCR test, contrary to s.14(1) of the Quarantine
Act.
(ii) A breach of Michael’s s.8, and 9 Charter rights to remain secure
arbitrarily detained, as he was stopped from leaving the airport,
and detained for a lengthy time period as airport staff, and a nurse
made attempts to force him to take the penetrative PCR test
against his will and contrary to s.14(1) of the Quarantine Act.
351
B-1-1192
- 1183 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1193 B-1-1193
(o) With respect to Makhan S. Parhar damages in the amount of $250,000
for:
(i) A breach of his s.7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person as he was stopped, from passing through airport
security, despite holding a Canadian passport so that he could be
forced to take a PCR test.
(ii) A breach of Makhan’s s.8, 9, 10(c) and 11 Charter rights to
remain secure against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as
not be arbitrarily detained, and be informed of the reason for
detention. For much of the time that Makhan was detained, his
questions as to why were left unanswered.
(iii) A breach of his s.7 Charter rights to be free from cruel and
unusual treatment and punishment. Not only was Makhan placed
in quarantine, but during his time detained in jail, he was denied
vegetarian meals that he specifically requested.
(iv) A breach of his s. 6 Charter mobility rights, as he was placed
under quarantine restrictions.
(v) For the intentional causing of pain and suffering of the Plaintiff as
352
B-1-1193
- 1184 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1194 B-1-1194
(p) With respect to North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
damages in the amount of $750,000 for:
(i) Violation of s.8 of the Charter in the unreasonable seizure of the
businesses as a result of “lock-downs”;
(ii) Damages, to be calculated at trial, for loss of income as a result of
the unconstitutional lock-downs and violations of s.8 of the
Charter.
(q) With respect to Melissa Anne Neubauer damages in the amount of
$250,000 for:
(i) A breach of her s.15 Charter rights to be free from
discrimination, as her employers discriminated against her for
seeking a valid masking exemption, which they eventually denied.
She is now seeking employment in another region entirely.
(ii) A breach of the s.6(2)(b) Charter right to gain a livelihood in any
province in Canada, and can not do so due to the discrimination
she faced at the hands of her employer, as a result of the Covid-19
restrictions.
353
B-1-1194
- 1185 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1195 B-1-1195
(r) With respect to Jane Doe #3 damages in the amount of $750,000 for:
(i) A breach of the s.15 Charter rights to be free from discrimination,
and she felt that due to being unvaccinated, she was not able to
comfortably carry out her work as a vital essential medical
worker.
(ii) A breach of the s.6(2)(b) Charter right to gain a livelihood in any
province in Canada, due to the aforementioned reason, and the
discrimination that she faced as a result thereof, having had to
leave her place of work on a stress leave.
324. The Plaintiffs further seek such other or further monetary damages, to be
calculated at trial, as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court grant.
325. The Plaintiffs further state that the damages they have suffered, as a result of the
unlawful actions of both public and private actors, lie at the feet of the Crown
Defendants in that they have chosen and/or failed to institute measures and
enforcement to ensure that, in the execution of the “Covid measures”, the
Plaintiffs/ rights under those measures were respected and enforced thus
violating their statutory and constitutional rights by act and omission, for which
the Crown is liable in damages.
354
B-1-1195
- 1186 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1196 B-1-1196
326. As against the CBC:
(a) A Declaration that:
(i) The CBC, as the publicly- funded broadcaster under the Broadcast
Act, owes a fiduciary duty to be fair, independent, impartial,
objective, and responsible, in its news coverage and investigation
of the “pandemic”, and COVID- Measures, which fiduciary duty it
has flagrantly and knowingly breached;
(ii) That the CBC, owing a duty of care to the Plaintiffs as the
national, publicly - funded broadcaster, has been grossly negligent
in its coverage and reporting on the COVID-19; and
(iii) That the CBC has knowingly and intentionally suppressed,
censored, and unjustifiably belittled expert opinion opposed and
critical of the WHO and government line on COVID, and thus
propagated “misinformation” and “false news”.
(b) Further as against the CBC, general damages in the amount of $10
Million dollars;
(c) Punitive damages in the amount of $10 Million dollars;
(d) Such further or other injunctive relief as counsel may advise and this
Honorable Court grant.
327. The Plaintiffs further seek Costs of this action and such further and/or other
Declaratory relief as counsel may advise and this Honorable Court entertain.
355
B-1-1196
- 1187 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1197 B-1-1197
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
327. That the “Covid-measures” and declaration of the “emergency” invoked by the
Respondents:
(a) Do not meet the prerequisite criteria of any “emergency” as
prescribed by ss.9-10.2 nor ss.12-13 of the Emergency
Program Act [RSBC 1996], nor is it within the jurisdictional
purview of s.52(2) of the Public Health Act, SBC [2008], and
further contravenes s.3(1) and s.120(1) of the Public Health Act
SBC [2008];
(b) Breach the Plaintiffs’ right to consult and constitutional duty to
consult, of the Respondents, both in procedure, and substance,
with respect to broad sweeping public health measures both
under administrative law, and the fundamental justice
requirement under section 7 of the Charter as enunciated and
ruled by the SCC;
(c) If the pre-requisites of an “emergency” are met, as declared to
be a national and international “emergency”, the jurisdiction,
and constitutional duty, to deal with this “national emergency”,
and its measures, is strictly with the Federal Parliament, under
the Federal Emergencies Act and Quarantine Act, pursuant to
356
B-1-1197
- 1188 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1198 B-1-1198
s. 91(7) and (11) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as under
the “Peace, Order, and Good Government (“POGG”)” Power,
under s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and not the jurisdiction
of the provincial legislature;
(d) That quarantine is Federal jurisdiction;
(e) That “lock-downs”, and “stay at home orders”, and any curfews,
in whole or in part, are forms of Martial law outside the
Province’s jurisdiction under s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867
and, subject to constitutional review and constraints, matters of
Federal jurisdiction under the POGG power and s. 91(7) of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
(f) that “lock-downs”, in any event, and the arbitrary and irrational
means by which businesses have been ordered closed and/or
restricted constitute an unreasonable seizure contrary to s.8 of
the Charter.
328. As against the Crown Defendants, and Officials:
(a) That the purported order of the chief health officer, Dr. Bonnie
Henry, dated April 30th, 2021, as well as June 30th, 2021 along with
previous such orders, before and after June 30th, 2021, and any such
duplicate future or extended orders, purportedly made under ss. 30,

357
B-1-1198
- 1189 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1199 B-1-1199
31, 32 and 39(3) of the Public Health Act, S.B.C 2008 (“the Act”),
are ultra vires that Act, and null and void as an enveloping
emergency order of national dimension; and the strict jurisdiction
of the Federal Government under s.91 (7) and (11) as well as the
“POGG” power of the Constitution Act, 1867, which rests in the
exclusive jurisdiction, subject to constitutional review and
constraints, with the Federal Parliament.
(b) That Ministerial order #M182 of April 30th, 2021, as well as the
order of Bonnie Henry on June 30th, 2021, and the lockdown and
travel restrictions are of no force and effect as constitutionally,
Martial Law, pursuant to s.91(7) as well as the POGG Power;
329. That the Public Health Act, and ss.30, 31, 32, and 39(3) of the Act is restricted to
making orders of a local or regional scope and not of a completely provincial
application in the content where the declared threat is not provincial in nature but
national, and that the province is without jurisdiction to make such orders and
measures as such orders and measures are the jurisdiction subject to
constitutional review and constraints, of the Federal Parliament under the
Emergencies Act, and under s. 91 under the POGG power, as well as ss.91(7)
and (11) of the Constitution Act 1867.
330. That the Province, in any event, while maybe having jurisdiction with respect to
some localized measures which coincidentally may have consequential impact

358
B-1-1199
- 1190 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1200 B-1-1200
on liberty, movement and association, has no constitutional jurisdiction to restrict
or target the physical/psychological liberty, expression, association, and/ or
assembly of every individual in the Province and that, if such jurisdiction exists,
subject to constitutional review and constraint, it rests with the Federal
Parliament and government pursuant to the Federal Emergencies Act.
331. That the purported order, by Dr. Bonnie Henry, purportedly pursuant to s.52(2)
of the Public Health Act, that “the transmission of the infectious agent SARS-
CoV-2, based on high “case counts”, based on a PCR test, is ultra vires the Act
and non est factum, in that:
(a) It does not constitute a “regional event” but, by its purported
terms constitutes a national and international event, and is ultra
vires the authority of the British Columbia Parliament and
government with jurisdiction, if any, subject to constitutional
review and constraints, resting with the Federal Parliament
under the Emergencies Act;
based;
medical evidence;
359
B-1-1200
- 1191 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1201 B-1-1201
(d) That “cases’ do not equate to “deaths” and that the purported
death rate is no higher than complications from the annual
influenza;
(e) That the distorted “case” counts are fraudulent, based on the
fraudulent use generating cases of “PCR” test, which is a test
that:
(i) At best was designed as a “screening test” which requires a
follow-up culture and blood test to ensure the detection of
an infectious virus, and was never designed, nor equipped
to be a diagnostic test;
(ii) That is fraudulently being used as a diagnostic test;
(iii)That the PCR test has scientifically been debunked, as well
as judicially determined, based on the scientific evidence,
that when used at a “threshold cycle” of thirty five (35) or
higher, to cause between 82% to 96.5% “false positives”;
(iv) That British Columbia tests at a threshold cycle of well over
forty (40) “threshold cycles”. In weekly meetings with
Bonnie Henry, doctors reported that her second in comman
gave instruction to turn up the PCR for the sole purpose of
creating increased cases.
360
B-1-1201
- 1192 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1202 B-1-1202
332. That the order of April 23rd, 2021 and previous such orders, and subsequent such
orders or extensions, in any event, violate the Constitution Acts, 1867, 1982, as
follows:
(a) That the restrictions on freedom of expression, conscience, association,
and assembly, were recognized, and continue to apply, as unwritten
constitutional rights, through the Pre-amble of the Constitutional Act,
1867, and that the Province has absolutely no jurisdiction to curtail
those rights, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that if
such curtailment were to be effected, it rests, subject to constitutional
review, and constraints, in the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament;
(b) That these same rights, contained in ss. 2(a)(b), 7, 8, 9 and 15 of the
Charter are also being violated by the Order(s) of Bonnie Henry and
none of the violations are justified under a free and democratic society
under s. 1 of the Charter that that:
(i) The measures do not evidentiarily, scientifically, nor
medically set out a valid legislative objective;
(ii) Are not rational;
(iii)Are not tailored to minimally infringe the
constitutional rights; and
361
B-1-1202
- 1193 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1203 B-1-1203
(iv) The measures’ deleterious effects far outweigh the
beneficial effects in that the number of deaths
caused by the measures are at a ratio of 10-12
deaths for every death purportedly attributed to
COVID-19.
333. That administrating medical treatment without informed consent constitutes
experimental medical treatment and contrary to the Nuremberg Code and
Helsinki Declaration of 1960, still in vigor, and further and thus constitutes a
crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada.
325. The offering, promoting, and administering of Covid-Vaccines, or any other
medical treatment to twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds without the
informed consent of the parent(s) constitutes:
(d) In the absence of informed consent, medical experimentation and thus
further constitutes a “crime against humanity” emanating from the
Nuremberg trials and principles following the medical experimentations
by the Nazi regime and codified in Canada, as a criminal act, pursuant to
the War Crime and Crimes Against Humanity Act;
(e) And by doing so Dr. Bonnie Henry and the Province of British Columbia
362
B-1-1203
- 1194 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1204 B-1-1204
(f) S.17 of the Infants Act [RSBC 1996] C. 223, if it purports to grant (12)
to (17) year olds, or children younger than (12), the ability to orally, or in
writing, give informed, voluntary consent to any medical treatment,
including vaccines, is of no force and effect as violating s.7 of the
Charter in that:
(i) It interferes with the parent-child relationship which has been
recognized by the SCC, to be constitutionally protected by s.7 of
the Charter;
(ii) It violates s.7 of the Charter with respect to the minor by
violating the minor’s physical and psychological integrity, in
incurring a possible adverse reaction without the benefit of
understanding the risk thereby vitiating the informed, voluntary
consent required under s.7 of the Charter;
(iii)Given that the Covid vaccines have not been finally approved, with
human trials not ending until the end of 2023 and the concession by
Public Health officers that the “Covid Vaccines” are thus medically
“experimental” it violates s.7 of the Charter by contravention of the
Nuremberg Principles and Code, as well as the Helsinki
Declaration of 1960, both of which international instruments provide
and are to be read in as the minimal protection under s.7 of the
Charter as dictated by, inter alia, by the SCC in the Hape decision;
and
363
B-1-1204
- 1195 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1205 B-1-1205
(iv) Violates s.15 of the Charter, based on age, in not providing minors
with the same constitutional protection of informed, voluntary
consent provided and upheld under s.7 of the Charter, that adults
have.
334. That the measures imposed by Dr. Bonnie Henry constitute a crime against
humanity contrary to s.7 and 15 of the Charter in the unjustifiable deaths directly
caused by her measures, including suicides, deaths from cancelled surgeries,
drug over-doses, and depraved abuse of the elderly and children, especially the
physically and neurologically disabled, in that she knows that her measures are
worse than the purported “Covid-deaths”, and that Dr. Bonnie Henry has in fact
been complicit in crimes against humanity in her dispersing and administered
deadly and unsafe vaccines in India (Pakistan) in or about the year 2000. Bonnie
Henry has further advocated the immunization of twelve (12) to seventeen (17)
year olds without the consent of their parents.
335. That the “COVID Measures” undertaken and orchestrated by Prime Minister
Trudeau (“Trudeau”), Premier Horgan, the Federal Crown, Provincial Crown,
and their named officials constitute a constitutional violation of “dispensing with
Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”, contrary to the English
Bill of Rights (1689) as read into our unwritten constitutional rights through the
Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act,1867, emanating from the unwritten
constitutional principles of Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and Democracy , as
364
B-1-1205
- 1196 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1206 B-1-1206
enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in, inter alia , Quebec Secession
Reference.
336. That the Public Health Act, [SBC 2008] (the “Act ), and in particular vesting an
indefinite emergency power in the Premier and Lt.-Governor, and further that the
“COVID Measures”, undertaken and orchestrated by Premier John HORGAN
(“Horgan”) as well as Bonnie Henry, Mike Farnworth, Jennifer Whiteside,
Adrian Dix, and the Provincial Crown, constitute a constitutional violation of
“dispensing with Parliament, under the pretense of Royal Prerogative”, contrary
to the English Bill of Rights (1689) as read into our unwritten constitutional
rights through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act, 1867, emanating from the
unwritten constitutional principles of Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and
Democracy , as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in, inter alia ,
Quebec Secession Reference;
326. The COVID Measures Measures taken by both Trudeau, Horgan, Farnworth,
Dix, Whiteside, and Henry, and their respective governments, at the blind and
unquestioned dictates of the World Health Organization (“WHO”) bureaucrats,
in defiance and ignoring of the avalanche of scientific and medical evidence to
the contrary, constitute a constitutional violation of the abdication of the duty to
govern, as enunciated in, inter alia, the Re Gray and Canada (Wheat Board)
v. Hallett and Carey Ltd. decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada;
365
B-1-1206
- 1197 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1207 B-1-1207
337. That in the imposition of the COVID Measures, the Defendants have engaged in
ultra vires and unconstitutional conduct and have acted in, abuse and excess of
their authority;
338. That the concept of “social distancing” is neither scientifically, nor medically
based, and is an ineffective and a fictional concept, which has no scientific nor
medical basis and hitherto unknown, with respect to a seasonal viral respiratory
illness;
339. That any mandatory vaccine scheme against any purported COVID-19, by way
of mandatory vaccine, or any coercive or extortive measures to force the
Plaintiffs to “choose” to vaccinate, without informed, voluntary consent,
such as the use of “vaccine passports” or any and all other coercive measures, is
unconstitutional, and no force and effect in that:
(a) It infringes s. 2 of the Charter in violating freedom of
conscience, religion and thought;
(b) Infringes s. 7, life, liberty, and security of the person in
violating physical and psychological integrity in denying the
right to choose, based on informed medical consent;
(c) Breaches the same parallel rights recognized prior to the
Charter, as written constitutional rights through the Pre-
Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867;
366
B-1-1207
- 1198 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1208 B-1-1208
(d) Breaches parallel international treaty rights to no medical
treatment without informed consent, and right to bodily
integrity, which international treaty rights are to be read in, as a
minimal s. 7 Charter protection, as enunciated by the Supreme
Court of Canada in, inter alia the Hape decision;
(e) And that, under no circumstances are mandatory vaccines, nor
coerced compliance to vaccines, in accordance with the tenets
of fundamental justice, nor demonstrably justified under s. 1 of
the Charter;
340. That:
a) Social distancing, self-isolation, and limits as to the number of persons
who can physically congregate, and where they can congregate, violates
the unwritten rights contained, and recognized pre-Charter, by the SCC,
through the pre-amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and that the Province
has no jurisdiction to do so under s.92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as
ruled by the SCC, with respect to rights to freedom of association,
thought, belief, and religion in banning association, including religious
gatherings, as well as violate s. 2 Charteand further restricting physical
and psychological liberty and security of the person rights under s.7 of
the Charter, and are not in accordance with the tenets of fundamental
justice, nor demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter;

367
B-1-1208
- 1199 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1209 B-1-1209
b) That prohibitions and obstacles to protest against COVID Measures in
British Columbia, are a violation of the constitutional rights to freedom of
expression, conscience, belief , and association, assembly, and petition,
under s. 2 of the Charter, and not demonstrably justified by s. 1, as well
as a violation of these constitutional rights, recognized prior to the
Charter, through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 and
against international treaty rights protected by s. 7 of the Charter;
341. That the arbitrary, irrational, and standardless sweep of closing businesses and
stores as “non-essential”, and the manner of determining and executing those
closures, and “lock-downs”, constitutes unreasonable search and seizure contrary
to s. 8 of the Charter and not demonstrably justified under s.1 of the Charter;
342. That the declared rationales and motives, and execution of COVID Measures, by
the WHO, are not related to a bona fide, nor an actual “pandemic”, and
declaration of a bona fide pandemic, but for other political and socio-economic
reasons, motives, and measures at the behest of global Billionaire, Corporate and
Organizational Oligarchs;
343. That any and all COVID Measures coercively restraining and curtailing the
physical and psychological integrity of the Plaintiffs, and any and all physical
and psychological restraints, including but not restricted to:
(a) “self-isolation”;
368
B-1-1209
- 1200 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1210 B-1-1210
(b) no gatherings of more than five (5) and later ten (10) persons, or any
set number;
(c) the shutting down of children’s playgrounds, daycares and schools;
(d) “social distancing”;
(e) the compelled wearing of face-masks;
(f) prohibition and curtailment of freedom of assembly, including religious
assembly, and petition;
(g) the imposition of charges and fines for the purported breach thereof;
(h) restriction of travel on public transport without compliance to physical
distancing and masking;
(i) restrictions on shopping without compliance to masking and physical
distancing;
(j) restrictions on attending restaurants and other food service
establishments without compliance to masking, physical distancing,
and providing name/address/contact information for contact tracing
purposes.
(k) Crossing into and leave British Columbia and any and all subdivisions
within British Columbia;
369
B-1-1210
- 1201 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1211 B-1-1211
Constitute a violation of ss. 2,6,7,8, 9, and ss. 15 of the Charter , to
freedom of association, conscience religion, assembly, and express on under s. 2,
liberty and security of the person in violating the physical and psychological
integrity of the liberty and security of the person, not in accordance tenets of
fundamental justice, contrary to s.6(mobility rights) and well as s. 7(liberty), and
further breach of the rights against unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s.
8, arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter , and not demonstrably justified
under s. 1, as well as breach of the unwritten parallel rights, recognized as
constitutional rights, through the Pre-Amble of the Constitution Act, 1867 and
affected by means of removing measures against the “Liberty of the Subject” by
way of habeas corpus as well as constituting Martial Law measures outside the
scope of the Province under s.92, and subject to constitutional constraints, the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament under s.91 (POGG), s.91(7) and
(11) and the Federal Emergencies Act R.S.C. 1985, and Quarantine Act S.C.
2005;
344. That:
(a) The thoughtless imposition of “social distancing” and self-isolation at
home breaches s. 2 of the Charter, in denying the right to freedom of
association and further breaches the right to physical and psychological
integrity, under s. 7 of the Charter (liberty) in curtailing and restricting
physical movement, which measures are wholly unjustified on any
370
B-1-1211
- 1202 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1212 B-1-1212
scientific or medical basis, and which are not in accordance with the
tenets of fundamental justice in being vague, and suffering from
overbreadth, and which cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
(b) The measures themselves, and the arbitrary detention, by enforcement
officers, in enforcing these vague and over-broad, and often ultra vires,
and contradictory “orders”, is a violation of the right against arbitrary
detention under s. 9 of the Charter and that, in the course of such
“enforcement” the search and seizure of private information, including
medical information, from individuals, being charged with purported
violations of such orders, constitutes a violation of ss.7 and 8 of the
Charter, and that neither violation of s. 7 or 8 are in accordance with the
tenets of fundamental justice nor justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
(c) The use of “contact-tracing Apps” constitutes a violation of s. 8 of the
Charter, and further violates ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter with respect to
the constitutional rights to privacy, under both sections, and that such
breaches are not in accordance with the tenets of fundamental justice, and
are further not justified under s. 1 of the Charter;
(a) The compelled use of face masks breaches, in restricting the right to
breath, at the crux of life itself, and the liberty to choose how to breath,
infringes s. 7 to the Charter liberty, security of the person and is not in
371
B-1-1212
- 1203 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1213 B-1-1213
accordance with the tenets of fundamental justice and not justified by s. 1
of the Charter;
(b) The above-noted infringements under s. 2,6, 7, 8, and 9, as well as the
arbitrary decisions on what businesses to close, and which ones to be left
open, constitutes a. 15 of the Charter violation based on:
(i) Conscience, belief, and religion;
(ii) Association, assembly and petition;
(iii) Trade and profession;
(iv) Mobility;
And further that such measures are arbitrary, and discriminate before and under
the law, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter (and not justified under s.1 of the
Charter), and are further a violation of the unwritten constitutional right to
equality recognized before the Charter, as unwritten constitutional rights through
the Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867 as emanating from the principles of
Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, and Respect for Minorities as enunciated by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Quebec Secession Reference.
345. That the use of “vaccine passports” is a violation of ss. 2,7, and 15 of the
Charter, and that the use of “vaccine passports” and any and all other coercive
measures to compel, as de facto mandatory, the constitutionally protected right to
372
B-1-1213
- 1204 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1214 B-1-1214
refuse medical procedure or treatment without informed consent, including
vaccines further violates ss. 2, 7, and 15 of the Charter, as well as those mirrored
unwritten rights established pre-Charter under the Constitution Act, 1867.
346. The Vaccine propaganda being pushed to twelve (12) to seventeen (17) year olds
by the British Columbia government by way of s.17 of the Infants Act, in fact,
violates the child-parent relationship in s.7 of the Charter.
347. That the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would
remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed
and implemented to favor mega-corporations and to de facto put most small
businesses and activities out of business;
348. That:
(a) The Defendant Federal Crown, and its agencies and officials, including
but not restricted to the CRTC, have, by glaring acts and omissions,
breached the rights of the Plaintiffs to freedom of speech, expression,
and the press, by not taking any action to curtail what has been
described by the UK scientific community as “Stalinist censorship”,
particularly the CBC in knowingly refusing to cover/or publish the
valid and sound criticism of the COVID measures, by recognized
experts;
373
B-1-1214
- 1205 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1215 B-1-1215
(b) The Federal Crown has in fact aided the suppressing and removing of
“Facebook” and “YouTube” postings, even by experts, which in any
way contradict or criticize the WHO and government measures as
“misinformation” “contrary to community standards”, by the federal
Defendants threatening criminal sanction for such “misinformation”;
thus violating s. 2 of the Charter by way of act, and omission, as delineated and
ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in, inter alia, Vriend;
349. That the failure and in fact intentional choice by the British Columbia
Defendants, as well as Federal Defendants, to ensure that the Plaintiffs
constitutional rights are not violated by those public officials purporting to
enforce the Covid measures, as well as private agents purporting to enforce
Covid measures, is not prevented and not legislated, and in fact such violations
are encouraged, constitute violations of the Plaintiffs delineated by the Supreme
Court of Canada in, inter alia, Vriend.
350. That the measures have a devastating impact on those with severe physical and
neurological special needs, particularly children, and infringe s. 15 of the
Charter, and are not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, and further violate the
unwritten right to equality through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867,
based on psychical and mental disability, and age;
374
B-1-1215
- 1206 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1216 B-1-1216
351. That the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns of
schools in British Columbia, by the Respondents, are:
(i) not scientifically, or medically, based;
(ii) based on a false, and fraudulent, use of the PCR test, using a
threshold cycle of 43-45 cycles in that once used above the
35 threshold cycles, of all the positives it registers, 96.5%,
are “false positives”, resulting in an accuracy rate, as a
mere screening test, of 3.5% accuracy;
(iii)All measures of masking, social distancing, and school
“lockdown” (closures) are a sole and direct result of the
mounting, or “rising” “cases”, being cases, which are 96.5%
false positive;
(iv) The PCR test, in and by itself, as used, cannot distinguish
between dead (non-infectious) vs. live (infectious) virus
fragments;
(v) The (solitary confinement) isolation/quarantine of
asymptomatic children, for any duration, is abusive, and
constitutes violations under s.7 and 15, of the Constitution
Act, 1982 as violating the physical and psychological
integrity, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, and further
375
B-1-1216
- 1207 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1217 B-1-1217
constitutes cruel and unusual treatment under s. 7 of the
Charter; and further violates s.7, by way of the
International Law under the The Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (the “Torture Convention”)
and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
(vi) is particularly egregious with respect to children with
special needs, suffering physical and neurological
disabilities, in violating s.7 and s.15 of the Charter in that
absolutely no particular or special provisions are made for
them, to accommodate their disability(ies), with respect to
the Covid measures;
352. That the science, and preponderance of the scientific world community, is of the
consensus that:
(i) masks are completely ineffective in avoiding or preventing
transmission of an airborne, respiratory virus such as
SARS-CoV-2 which leads to COVID-19;
(ii) that prolonged use of masks results, especially for children,
in irreparable physical, neurological, psychological,
376
B-1-1217
- 1208 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1218 B-1-1218
language development, and social development harms,
some of which are irreversible;
(iii)that “lockdowns”, quarantine and isolation are ineffective
and cause more damage than they prevent;
(iv) that Public Health officials, including the Defendants, as
well as the WHO, have pronounced that the Covid
“Vaccines” do NOT prevent transmission, in either
direction, between vaccinated and non-vaccinated persons.
353. That the mandatory use of masks, isolation and PCR testing, in the school
context, violates children’s constitutional rights under:
(i) section 7 of the Charter in infringing their rights to physical
and psychological safety, and integrity, as well as, medical
procedure/treatment without informed consent;
(ii) section 7 in infringing their right to education, flowing from
their right to education under the Education Act, and
further under section 7 of the Charter as interpreted by the
Canadian Courts, as well as under section 7 by way of the
International Convention on the Rights of the Child as
read in as a minimal protection under section 7 of the
Charter, as enunciated, inter alia, by the Supreme Court of
377
B-1-1218
- 1209 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1219 B-1-1219
Canada in Baker, Hape, and the Federal Court of Appeal in
De Guzman;
354. That the notion of “asymptomatic” transmission, from children to adults, of an
airborne respiratory virus, is “oxymoronic”, without scientific, or medical basis,
and hitherto scientifically and medically unknown.
355. That masking, social distancing and testing in school settings, particularly
elementary school(s), is unscientific, non-medical, unlawful, and
unconstitutional and should be halted forthwith.
356. That children do not pose a threat with respect to Covid-19, to their teachers;
357. That teachers who do not wish to mask have the statutory and constitutional right
not to mask;
358. That the masking of children is unscientific, non-medical, physically,
psychologically, neurologically, socially, and linguistically harmful to them and
that the masking of children be prohibited, regardless and despite their parents’
requests and/or directions, because as children have their own independent rights
under the Education Act , s. 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as s.7 of the
Charter as read in, and through, the international law under the Convention on
the rights of the Child;
359. that the mandatory vaccination of public service employees, or any citizens for
that matter, without informed, voluntary, consent, is unconstitutional and of no

378
B-1-1219
- 1210 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1220 B-1-1220
force and effect as violating ss.2,7, and 15 as set out above in this statement of
claim, in that compulsory medical treatment has been clearly ruled, by the
Supreme Court of Canada, and other Appellate Courts, as violating s.7 of the
Charter.
360. That none of the above Charter violations are saved by s.1 of the Charter, as
they fail to meet the test, thereunder, as enunciated in, inter alia, the Oakes
decision, as the measures:
(a) Are not pursuant to valid statutory objective;
(b) The measures are not rational;
(c) The measures are not tailored for minimal impairment of the
Charter rights;
(d) The measures dilatory effects far outweigh their beneficial
effects;
361. That, with respect to enforcements measures, of police, by-law, and health
officers:
(a) A “reception, or “informal gathering”, under s. 19 and 20 of Order of the
Provincial Health Officer – Gatherings and Events (March 24th, 2021),
or any such subsequent order(s), pursuant to the Public Health Act [SBC
2008], does not include a gathering whose obvious purpose is to assemble,
379
B-1-1220
- 1211 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1221 B-1-1221
associate and otherwise gather to exercise freedom of speech, expression
and/or assembly and religion as constitutionally recognized under the
Constitution Act, 1867 as well as s.2 of the Charter;
(b) With respect to the masking that:
(i) No police officer has the jurisdiction to apply the Trespass Act,
[RSBC 2018] c. 3 to a person who declares a legal exemption to a
mask, and who enters a public place; and
(ii) Owners of places of business who refuse to comply with lawful
exemptions may be charged with an offence pursuant to the
Emergency Program Act [RSBC 1996] c. 111 and Ministerial
Orders and Regulations thereunder;
(iii) Police Officers are equally entitled to masking exemptions and to
be free from coercion by their superiors to take a Covid vaccine, or
PCR test contrary to their constitutional right to refuse based on
informed consent;
(iv) Police officers, like any other citizen, are constitutionally entitled,
as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal, to
refuse medical treatment without informed consent, including
vaccines, and that Police officers should be free from coercion by
superiors to be vaccinated;
380
B-1-1221
- 1212 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1222 B-1-1222
(c) That police, and/or a by-law, Provincial Offences, or Health Officer, with
respect to an individual who fails and/or refuses to comply with any oral
and written orders from any of the Provincial Respondents do not have the
powers of arrest against that individual under Provincial Regulations such
as those set out in Part 4, Division 6 of the Public Health Act SBC [2008],
and the closing summation of Bonnie Henry’s Order of March 31st, 2021;
(d) That the bar of entry across “Provincial Borders”, but for “essential travel”
by residents/citizens coming from Alberta, as well as the intra-provincial
travel bans without probable grounds of an offence being committed,
which is a form of imposing Martial Law, without the jurisdiction to do so
as per s.91(7) of the Constitution Act 1867. It is also contrary s.7 of the
Charter (Liberty), for vagueness and over-breadth as well as s.6 of the
Charter, and thus compels the Police officer to breach their oath to uphold
the Constitution and further, that the RCMP has no jurisdiction to set up
roadblocks at British Columbia’s “borders” and refuse passage into British
Columbia, as well as set out by the SCC, Pre-Charter, in inter alia
Winner;
(e) That the measures and enforcement of the measures under Ministerial
Orders 172/2021 and 182/2021, as set out above in subparagraph (d)
constitutes Martial Law, Police State measures outside the scope of the
Province’s jurisdiction under s.92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and are
381
B-1-1222
- 1213 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1223 B-1-1223
within, subject to constitutional restraints, the jurisdiction of the Federal
Parliament under s.91(7) and (1) and the “Peace, Order, and Good
Government “(POGG)” Power on s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and
thus further compels the Police officer to breach their oath to uphold the
Constitution;
(f) That the failure and/or refusal to comply with Provincial Covid Measures
does not constitute a “common nuisance” contrary to s.180 of the Criminal
Code or constitute “obstruct peace officer” contrary to s. 129 of the
Criminal Code thus granting the power of arrest to a police officer in the
enforcement of a regulatory and/or municipal by-law as enunciated by the
SCC in R v. Sharma [1993] 1 S.C.R. 650;
(g) That the RCMP has no jurisdiction to enforce Provincial Health nor
“emergency” measures in the Province of British Columbia;
(h) That the restriction of physical movement and travel bans based on
“essential travel”, is a violation of s.7 liberty and security of the person,
not in accordance with fundamental justice as being void for vagueness, as
well as overbreadth, and impossible to enforce, in that it is nearly
impossible to ascertain, while respecting an individual’s Charter right to
remain silent, and right against arbitrary detention and questioning, to
determine whether that person has, “on reasonable and probable grounds”
committed an offence;
382
B-1-1223
- 1214 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1224 B-1-1224
(i) A police constable or by-law officer cannot, by way of general, blanket
order(s), from his/her administrative supervisors, be directed how, when
and in what circumstance, to lay a charge against an individual and thus
dictate the discretion of that Police officer;
(j) No politician should be directing nor commenting on how, whom or in
what circumstances any police officer should enforce nor apply the
applicable law;
(k) The Covid emergency measures violate a police constable’s duty, as
office-holder to Her Majesty the Queen. in that the enforcement of the
provisions, and the enforcement provision(s) are of no force and effect and
unconstitutional in in allowing, and being directed by superiors, to violate
a citizen’s constitutional rights under the Constitution Act 1867, as well as
the Charter, as follows:
(i) Violation of freedom of expression, speech, association, assembly
and religion contrary to those unwritten constitutional rights
recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada through the Preamble
to the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as s.2 of the Charter;
(ii) Violation of the right to liberty and security of the person through
the arbitrary and unreasonable detention, arrest, and interference
with the physical liberty and movement of citizens, contrary to the
383
B-1-1224
- 1215 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1225 B-1-1225
Liberty of the Subject under Habeas Corpus, as well as ss. 7, 9,
and 10(c) of the Charter;
(iii)Violation of the protection against unreasonable search and seizure
contrary to s.8 of the Charter;
(iv) Placing police officers in the potential violation, with respect to
religious gatherings and services, of committing an offence
contrary to s. 176 of the Criminal Code;
362. That the Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiffs have been violated as set out in
the within Statement of Claim as set out in the facts, as well as the relief sought,
including the relief sought for monetary damages.
363. Such further or other grounds as counsel may advances and this Honourable
Court accept.
384
B-1-1225
- 1216 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1226 B-1-1226
Plaintiff’s(s’) address for service:
_________________________
TEL: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
Lawyer for the Plaintiffs
Lawrence Wong
210-2695 Granville Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
TEL: 604-739-0118
FAX: 604-739-0117
Fax number address for service (if any): (416) 530-8129

E-mail address for service (if any): rocco@idirect.com
Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia

The address of the registry is:
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BRITISH COLUMBIA
V6Z 2E1
TEL: 604-660-2845
FAX: 604-660-2845
385
B-1-1226
- 1217 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1227 B-1-1227
Date: August 16th, 2021 ____________________________

Signature of
[ ] plaintiff [x]lawyer for plaintiff(s)

TEL: (416) 530-9684
FAX: (416) 530-8129
Lawrence Wong
210-2695 Granville Street
Vancouver, B.C.
TEL:604-739-0118
FAX:604-739-0117
TO: Ministry of the Attorney General - Canada

Department of Justice Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
T: 613-957-4222
F: 613-954-0811
E: webadmin@justice.gc.ca
AND TO: Ministry of Attorney General - British Columbia

PO Box 9290 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9J7
T: 604-660-2421
E: servicebc@gov.bc.ca
AND TO: Dr. Bonnie Henry

PO Box 9648 STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9P4
E: bonnie.henry@gov.bc.ca
386
B-1-1227
- 1218 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1228 B-1-1228
AND TO: Premier John Horgan

PO BOX 9041 STN PROV GOVT
Victoria, BC V8W 9E1
P: 250-387-1715
F: 250-387-0087
E: premier@gov.bc.ca
AND TO: Adrian Dix

PO BOX 9050, STN PROV GOVT.
Victoria BC V8W9E2
P: 250 953-3547
F: 250 356-9587
E: HLTH.Minister@gov.bc.ca
AND TO: Jennifer Whiteside

PO Box 9045, Stn Prov Govt,
Victoria, BC V8W9E2
T: 250 356-8247
F: 250 356-0948
E: educ.minister@gov.bc.ca
AND TO: Mike Farnworth

PO Box 9010 Stn Prov Gov
Victoria, BC V8W9E2
T: 250 356-2178
F: 250 356-2965
E: PSSG.Minister@gov.bc.ca
AND TO: Mable Elmore

T: 250 387-3655
F: 250 387-4680
E: mable.elmore.mla@leg.bc.ca
AND TO: Omar Alghabra

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6
T: 613-992-1301
F: 613-992-1321
E: Omar.Alghabra@parl.gc.ca
387
B-1-1228
- 1219 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1229 B-1-1229
AND TO: Office of the BC Ferries Commissioner

PO Box 9279 Stn Prov Gov
Victoria BC V8W 9J7
T: 250-952-0112
E: info@bcferrycommission.ca
AND TO: Island Health

1952 Bay Street
Victoria, B.C. V8R 1J8
P: 250-370-8699
E: info@viha.ca
AND TO: RCMP

"E" Division
14200 Green Timbers Way,
Surrey, B.C. V3T 6P3
P: 778-290-3100
E: bcrcmp@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
AND TO: Providence Health Care

1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6
P: 604-806-9090
E: communications@providencehealth.bc.ca
AND TO: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Values and Ethics Commissioner
1000 Papineau Avenue, Suite 5N-R08
Montréal, QC H2K 0C2
E: Commissioner@cbc.ca
AND TO: TransLink and Peter Kwok

400 - 287 Nelson's Court
New Westminster, BC V3L 0E7
T: 778.375.7500
F: 604.636.4809
388
B-1-1229
- 1220 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1230 B-1-1230
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:

(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of
record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) Prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party’s possession or control and
that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a
material fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
389
B-1-1230
- 1221 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1231 B-1-1231
APPENDIX
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no
legal effect.] Part1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
This claim challenges the statutory and constitutional validity of the Covid
measures, both Federal and Provincial by way of Declaratory, and other relief.
Part2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]
A personal injury arising out of:
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice
[ ] another cause
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[ ] personal property
[ ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[ ] a matter not listed here
390
B-1-1231
- 1222 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1232 B-1-1232
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ ] a class action
[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[x] constitutional law
[ ] conflict of laws
[ ] none of the above
[] do not know
Part 4:
[If an enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]
-ss.2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 24 and 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982
-Emergency Program Act [RSBC 1996] c. 111 [RSBC 1996] ss. 2,7,8,9,15,24
-Public Health Act [SBC 2008] c. 28
391
B-1-1232
- 1223 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1233 B-1-1233
EXHIBIT “CCC”
B-1-1233
- 1224 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1234 B-1-1234
Federal Court Cour fédérale

This is Exhibit “CCC” to the affidavit of
accordance with O Reg 431/20 Date: 20100729
_____________________________________ Docket: IMM-196-10

Vancouver, British Columbia, July 29, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
TING-HSIANG TAI, TSAI-HUEI CHANG,

WEI-HSUAN TAI, and LIN TAI
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This application for judicial review came on for hearing before me in Vancouver. At the
outset of the hearing an issue arose with respect to the fact that counsel for the applicants was
appearing on his own affidavit. After hearing from counsel, I ordered that the matter be adjourned
to allow the applicants to retain new counsel. I took the question of costs under reserve.
B-1-1234
- 1225 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1235 B-1-1235
Page: 2
[2] The affidavit provided by Lawrence Wong does not merely provide an evidentiary
foundation for uncontested facts or for the admission of documents that were before the
Immigration Appeal Division when it made its decision. Rather, Mr. Wong has put his litigation

strategy before the IAD into issue in support of his clients’ procedural fairness arguments. It was
clearly not appropriate in these circumstances for counsel to appear on his own affidavit.
[3] I am of the view that there are “special reasons” for an award of costs in this case within the
meaning of Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22.
I am moreover satisfied that these costs should be paid personally by the solicitor for the applicants.
[4] Mr. Wong was put on notice by letter dated May 27, 2010, that counsel for the respondent
objected to his appearing on his own affidavit. No steps were taken by Mr. Wong at that time to
either seek leave of the Court under Rule 82 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 to appear on
his own affidavit, or to withdraw from the file so that his clients could obtain new legal
representation.
[5] Counsel for the respondent renewed her objection to Mr. Wong appearing in this matter in a
second letter, this one dated July 23, 2010. Once again, Mr. Wong took no steps to resolve this issue
in advance of the date set for the hearing of the application.
[6] Mr. Wong was advised that the Court was considering making an award of costs payable
by him personally, and was given the opportunity to be heard. He did not provide a satisfactory
B-1-1235
- 1226 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1236 B-1-1236
Page: 3
explanation for his conduct in this matter. His explanation that he originally had an associate
working on the file when he put in his own affidavit in support of his clients’ application does not
assist him, in light of his statement that his associate left his office in April of 2010.

[7] Moreover, the fact that the Court does in some cases grant leave to counsel to appear in his
or her own affidavit also does not assist Mr. Wong. Not only was leave not sought in a timely
manner, it is also clear from the jurisprudence of this Court that leave will not be granted where,
as here, the affidavit in issue deals with substantive matters: see, for example, Sawridge Band v.
Canada, 2002 FCT 254, 112 A.C.W.S. (3d) 623.
[8] Finally, the Court does not accept Mr. Wong’s claim that the respondent left him “no way
out” by refusing to allow him to withdraw his affidavit. The respondent’s refusal was based upon
the fact that it was Mr. Wong’s affidavit that had been the basis for the Court’s grant of leave in this
matter. As Mr. Wong himself conceded, there was indeed a “way out” for him, which was for him
to withdraw from the file and for his clients to retain new counsel.
[9] The need for this adjournment is entirely attributable to Mr. Wong’s conduct. The applicants
cannot be expected to be aware of the rules governing the propriety of counsel appearing on his own
affidavit, and should not be liable for the costs of the adjournment. Consequently, the Court orders
that the costs of this adjournment should be paid personally by Lawrence Wong. These costs are
fixed in the amount of $200.
B-1-1236
- 1227 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1237 B-1-1237
Page: 4
[10] In accordance with the provisions of Rule 404(3) of the Federal Courts Rules, the Court
orders that Mr. Wong deliver a copy of this Order personally to the applicants.
B-1-1237
- 1228 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1238 B-1-1238
Page: 5
ORDER

1. This matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator;
2. Costs of the adjournment are fixed at $200, which are to be paid personally by
Lawrence Wong;
3. A copy of this Order is to be served personally on the applicants by Mr. Wong.
“Anne Mactavish”
Judge
B-1-1238
- 1229 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1239 B-1-1239
FEDERAL COURT

DOCKET: IMM-196-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: TING-HSIANG TAI et al. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: July 27, 2010
REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER: MACTAVISH J.
DATED: July 29, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Lawrence Wong FOR THE APPLICANTS
Caroline Christiaens FOR THE RESPONDENT
Lawrence Wong & Associates FOR THE APPLICANTS

Barristers and Solicitors
Vancouver, BC
Myles J. Kirvan, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT

Vancouver, BC
B-1-1239
- 1230 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1240 B-1-1240
EXHIBIT “DDD”
B-1-1240
- 1231 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1241 B-1-1241
Date: 20160525
Docket: IMM-5667-15

Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 25, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
BETWEEN:
KAI ZHAN LIANG
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS
[1] The applicant, Kai Zhang Liang, seeks through counsel, Lawrence Wong, reconsideration
of my decision made on March 24, 2016, in which I dismissed the applicant’s application for
leave and judicial review. The facts underpinning this request for reconsideration pursuant to
Rule 397(1) of the Federal Courts Rules are somewhat bizarre.

This is Exhibit “DDD” to the affidavit of
Reg 431/20
B-1-1241
_________________________________
- 1232 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1242 B-1-1242
Page: 2
[2] In an affidavit in support of the reconsideration request, an associate in Mr. Wong’s law
firm deposes to having attended the Vancouver Registry Office, having taken pictures of the
Court file and having concluded there was “no marking, sticky note, hand writing, bent corner,
crease or any other discernible sign of them having been read”. The affiant further deposes that

he did not “find any signature of any Justice of the Federal Court”. Curiously, the affiant states
that “I did not see any physical sign of it being read”. The original position of the applicant,
denied at the oral hearing of this matter held on May 20, 2016, is that I did not read the file. Of
course, if I did not do so, such conduct would have constituted a serious violation of my oath of
office. At the hearing, Mr. Wong abandoned the contention that I had not read the file and simply
asserted that the file had been placed in the “wrong pile”. Essentially, Mr. Wong contended that
the case was so meritorious that any reasonable judge would have granted leave and Registry
staff must have placed a “leave granted” file in the “leave dismissed” pile. In essence, Mr. Wong
contends either serious wrongdoing on the part of one of Her Majesty’s justices or serious
negligence on the part of the Registry staff.
[3] The affidavit in support of the motion for reconsideration is lacking in several respects.
First, it presumes a justice is going to mark up a copy of a file to which the public has access.
Second, it seems to presume a justice will make markings on court documents rather than in a
bench book. Third, it deposes to comments made by unnamed Registry staff regarding material
apparently in my possession during consideration of the leave application. Those comments, in
which it is asserted that Mr. Wong’s associate observed and photographed the same file (pieces
of paper) that I had in my possession during my deliberations, are inaccurate.
B-1-1242
- 1233 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1243 B-1-1243
Page: 3
[4] My sole purpose on a motion under Rule 397(1) of the Federal Courts Rules is to
determine whether I overlooked anything. Such a motion does not serve as an appeal. Because of
the seriousness of the allegations made by Mr. Wong, I consulted the Registry in Ottawa. As
proof that his investigative techniques were inadequate and, in my view, inappropriate, I

retrieved the actual order signed by me. The typed portion of the order reads “This application
for leave and judicial review is hereby dismissed”. Immediately above the typed portion, in my
handwriting is found the date “24 Mar 2016”. Immediately below the typed portion is found my
signature “B. Richard Bell”, which I personally placed on the document. Immediately below my
signature, in my handwriting are found the word and initials “Justice FC”; this latter notation
being an abbreviation for “Justice of the Federal Court”.
[5] Nothing was overlooked. Registry staff did not place the file in the ‘wrong pile’. This
motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
[6] The respondent requests costs in the amount of $1000 assessed personally against counsel
for the applicant, Mr. Wong. The respondent contends the motion lacks merit and in addition,
constitutes an attack upon the “integrity of the Court and Registry staff and offends the principal
of judicial immunity and deliberative secrecy”. In his written submission, which constitutes a
public document, Mr. Wong, an officer of the Court, states that a review of the “court file, the
physical file covers and the actual files show there is no written record of physical trace that will
give the appearance that the file has been reviewed by a judge”. This public statement made by
an officer of the Court is inaccurate. The hand written signature of a judge, the hand written
B-1-1243
- 1234 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1244 B-1-1244
Page: 4
notation of the date and the identity of the Court constitute prima facie proof the file has been
reviewed by a judge.
[7] In the circumstances, I conclude that the attack upon the integrity of the Court, which is

based upon speculation and innuendo and an inadequate verification at the Registry, constitute
special circumstances under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and
Refugee Protection Rules (Immigration Rules) for the making of an order of costs. For the
reasons set out herein, I consider this proceeding to have been incurred improperly and without
reasonable cause as contemplated by Rule 404(1) of the Immigration Rules. In the
circumstances, I agree with counsel for the respondent that this is an appropriate case for the
award of costs against the applicant (Rule 22) and a direction that the solicitor, Mr. Wong,
personally pay the costs of the applicant as contemplated by Rule 404(1)(a) of the Immigration
Rules.
B-1-1244
- 1235 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1245 B-1-1245
Page: 5
ORDER
1. The motion is dismissed with costs payable forthwith by the applicant to the respondent
in the amount of $1000;

2. Lawrence Wong, counsel for the applicant, is directed to personally pay the costs of the
applicant;
3. No order is made pursuant to Rule 404(3) of the Immigration Rules.
“B. Richard Bell”

Judge
B-1-1245
- 1236 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1246 B-1-1246
FEDERAL COURT
DOCKET: IMM-5667-15

STYLE OF CAUSE: KAI ZHAN LIANG v THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK

(HELD BY WAY OF
TELECONFERENCE):
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 20, 2016
ORDER AND REASONS: BELL J.
DATED: MAY 25, 2016
APPEARANCES:
Lawrence Wong FOR THE APPLICANT
Timothy Fairgrieve FOR THE RESPONDENT

Chantelle Coulson
Lawrence Wong & Associates FOR THE APPLICANT

Barristers & Solicitors
Richmond, B.C.
William F. Pentney FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
Vancouver, B.C.
B-1-1246
- 1237 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1247 B-1-1247
EXHIBIT “EEE”
B-1-1247
- 1238 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1248 B-1-1248
B-1-1248
- 1239 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1249 B-1-1249
B-1-1249
- 1240 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1250 B-1-1250
B-1-1250
- 1241 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1251 B-1-1251
B-1-1251
- 1242 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1252 B-1-1252
EXHIBIT “FFF”
B-1-1252
- 1243 -
This is Exhibit “FFF” to the affidavit of
Kipling Warner affirmed before meB-1-1253
LW & ASSOCIATES (/)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1253
_____________________________________
Our Services
Corporate Law
No matter what size your business is, there are always
various kinds of obstacles that you may come across
as you grow. We help your success become reality, so
that you can do what you do best.
LEARN MORE (/CORPORATE)
Real Estate Law

Buying or selling property really is exciting, but the
truth is that it also comes with stressful and confusing
times. With so many moving parts, the pressure of all
the legal paperwork involved can be overwhelming. Let
us help you. We've helped countless buyers and sellers
every year to make sure their sale or purchase goes
smoothly, and free of worry.
B-1-1253
- 1244 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1254
LEARN MORE (/REAL-ESTATE)
B-1-1254
Immigration Law
We have assisted with over 2,000 immigration cases
over the last 30 years and we are proudly Canadian.
Immigration can be a stressful and time-consuming
process. LW & Associates is equipped with the
experience and skills to help you achieve your
immigration objectives.
LEARN MORE (/IMMIGRATION)
Civil Litigation
Civil litigation is a complicated process, but many
times a necessary one. We will passionately advocate
for your interests, with a thorough understanding of
the facts and the law.
LEARN MORE (/REAL-ESTATE-1)
B-1-1254
- 1245 -
LW & ASSOCIATES (/)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1255 B-1-1255
Immigration
Immigration can be a long complicated process with many hurdles, as the laws
and procedures are constantly changing. Consult with our lawyers to accurately
assess your application. Ensure that your application goes through without any
unforeseen obstacles, and get advice on what options are available in your
specific case. With our extensive experience in Canada's immigration system,
your new life in Canada is in good hands.
Our immigration law services include:
Permanent Resident Applications
• Federal Skilled Worker Program

• Federal Skilled Trades Program
• Canadian Experience Class
• Provincial Nominee Program
• Humanitarian & Compassionate
• Permanent Resident Card Renewal
Family Sponsorship
• Common-Law Partner
• Conjugal Partner
• Spousal
• Parents & Grandparents
• Provincial Family Class
• Dependent Child & Other
Temporary Residency
• Visitor Visa
• Study Permit
• Work Permit B-1-1255
• Business Visitor Visa
- 1246 -
• Super Visa
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1256 B-1-1256
• Youth Mobility Program
Additional Services Offered
• General Consultation
• Letters of Invitation
• Canadian Citizenship
• Start-up Visa
REQUEST A CONSULTATION (/HIRE-US)
B-1-1256
- 1247 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1257 B-1-1257
EXHIBIT “GGG”
B-1-1257
- 1248 -
This is Exhibit “GGG” to the affidavit
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1258 of Kipling Warner affirmedB-1-1258
before me
"Lawrence Wong" Reg 431/20
Case name, document title, file number, author or citation ________________________________

Noteup/Discussion: cited case names, legislation titles, citationsAmani
or dockets
Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C
Cases
All jurisdictions All courts and tribunals Any date By relevance
1. Geng v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 FC 1155

(CanLII)
Federal Court — Canada (Federal)
2017-12-14 | 12 pages | cited by 31 documents
misrepresentation — residency — application — error in the administration — induce
an error
2. Bankruptcy of Syntec Biofuel Inc., 2007 BCSC 656 (CanLII)

Supreme Court of British Columbia — British Columbia
2007-05-11 | 16 pages
bankruptcy — creditors — assets — offer — annulment
3. Lin v. Kuo, 2009 CanLII 25310 (ON SC)

Superior Court of Justice — Ontario
2009-05-21 | 11 pages
motion — security for costs — settlement — affidavits — cross-examinations
Practice and procedure
4. Mung c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 1997 CanLII 16861 (CF)

1997-07-16 | 4 pages
contrôle judiciaire — affidavit — délai — établi sous serment — agent des visas
5. Tai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 788 (CanLII)

appearing on his own affidavit — personally — adjournment — costs — clients
B-1-1258
- 1249 -
6. B-1-1259
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lam, 1999 CanLII 7527 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1259
1999-02-09 | 3 pages
citizenship — resident — person — attachment — absences
7. Hu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1312 (CanLII)

2003-11-07 | 5 pages | cited by 1 document
residence — overseas — citizenship — centralized their life — assignment
8. Liao v. Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1273 (CanLII)
2001-11-20 | 1 page
proficiency — redetermination — quashing — error — reviewable
9. Liang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 569 (CanLII)

file — reconsideration — pile — typed portion — deposes
10. LS Entertainment Group inc. et al v. Wong et al, 2000 BCSC 1789 (CanLII)
confidential information — conflict of interest — firm — copyrights — deposes
11. Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 229 (CanLII)
Federal Court of Appeal — Canada (Federal)
bar against appeals — removed from the file — constitutional — reconsideration
motion — notice
12. Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 949 (CanLII)

underlying application for judicial review — adequate alternative remedy — jurisdiction
— improperly constituted — motion
B-1-1259
- 1250 -
13. Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1468 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1260 B-1-1260
2011-12-13 | 5 pages
judicial review — application for permanent residence — sponsorship — visa office —
costs
14. So v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7234 (FC)
1998-01-08 | 4 pages
commercial venture — entrepreneur — participation in the management — substantial
investment in a business — ability
15. R. v. Poon and Wong, 2006 BCSC 869 (CanLII)

lawyer — police — tell — interview — call
16. Chang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 8832 (FC)
1999-09-29 | 5 pages
citizenship — ginseng — days — absences — physical presence
17. Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 8146 (FC)
1999-05-19 | 2 pages
video-tape — tape — cross-examination — transcript — wishes a copy
18. Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 281 (CanLII)
writs of mandamus — applications — certified — selection criteria — moot
19. Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 904 (CanLII)

2012-07-19 | 7 pages
hardship — passport — suicide — permanent residence status — admissibility
B-1-1260
- 1251 -
20. B-1-1261
Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16653 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1261
2000-12-13 | 1 page
landing — error — centralized — fundamental — find
21. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Chang, 1999 CanLII 7469 (FC)
1999-01-12 | 2 pages
residence — established — export — abroad — preceding
22. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lan, 1999 CanLII 7471 (FC)
1999-01-27 | 2 pages
abroad — husband — citizen — masters degree — residence
23. Rosemont Management /McCaul Leasehold Management v. Cityzien Properties,

2022 ONSC 5237 (CanLII)
2022-11-02 | 3 pages
intervenors — sought — patties — uploaded — costs
24. Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 9010 (FC)
1998-12-17 | 2 pages
improper as to be bereft — visa officer — motion — programme manager — bereft of
any possibility
25. Lawrence Wong (Barrister and Solicitor), et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, 2017 CanLII 8569 (SCC)
Supreme Court of Canada - Applications for Leave — Canada (Federal)
2017-02-23 | 1 page
daté — fédérale — autorisation — rejetée — arrêt
26. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Gu, 2000 CanLII 15443 (FC)
2000-05-26 | 4 pages
residence — citizenship — person — chemical — off-shore
B-1-1261
- 1252 -
27. B-1-1262
Lin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2021 FCA 81 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1262
delegates — inadmissibility — applications for judicial review — threshold —
administrative
28. Huang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 507 (CanLII)
percentage of equity — entrepreneur — outstanding voting shares — control —
qualifying business
29. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dragan, 2003 FCA 139 (CanLII)
expedited — irreparable harm — will — timetable — mootness
30. Tam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 16712 (FC)
visa officer — on-going participation in the management — business — ability to
provide active — entrepreneur
31. Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 75 (CanLII)

e-mail address — e-mail to communicate — e-mail communication — visa officer —
spam
32. Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 614 (CanLII)

full-time basis by a business — rules of procedural fairness — employed on a full-time
basis — documentation — residency
33. Zhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16222 (FC)
B-1-1262
cross-examination — missing — investor immigrant — supplemental — affidavit
- 1253 -
34. Ho v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 6167 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1263 B-1-1263
1997-08-14 | 5 pages
visa officer — investor — net worth — directed a business — controlled
35. Zhang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2021 FC 746
(CanLII)
money laundering — integration — inadmissible — judicial review — conviction
certificates
36. Chen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 FC 425 (CanLII)
inadmissible — admissibility — legitimate expectations — procedural fairness — family
member
37. SDAB2018-0036 (Re), 2018 CGYSDAB 36 (CanLII)

Calgary Subdivision & Development Appeal Board — Alberta
2018-10-11 | 18 pages
proposed development — common amenity space — units — parcel — buildings
38. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tian, 2018 FC 65 (CanLII)

humanitarian — compassionate — inadmissibility — removal — review
39. Zhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 81 (CanLII)
2002-01-24 | 10 pages
visa officer — interview — application — scheduled — attend
40. T. M. Engineering Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 30425 (BC EST)

British Columbia Employment Standards Tribunal — British Columbia
1998-02-03 | 10 pages
employment — fired — customer — delegate — enlarge
B-1-1263
- 1254 -
41. Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 42 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1264 B-1-1264
visa application — selection criteria — requirements — legislation — terminated
42. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Yaqoob, 2005 FC 1017 (CanLII)

refugee — evidence — terrorist — organization — complicity
43. Pua v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 CanLII 101837
(CA IRB)
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada — Canada (Federal)
2012-11-14 | 3 pages
compassionate considerations — humanitarian — five-year period — university —
education
44. Li v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2021 FC 803 (CanLII)

2021-07-29 | 7 pages
cards — permanent resident card — résident permanent — mandamus — carte
45. Zheng v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2021 FC 616 (CanLII)
relationship — conjugal — common-law partnership — marriage — sponsorship
46. Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1187 (CanLII)

2014-12-10 | 11 pages
citizenship — adequate knowledge — test — procedural fairness — re-test the applicant
s knowledge
47. Lo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 799 (CanLII)

2007-07-31 | 13 pages
daughter — residency — stroke — evidence — son-in-law
B-1-1264
- 1255 -
48. B-1-1265
Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 146 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1265
personal suitability — interview — visa officer erred — breach of procedural fairness —
cross-examination
49. Wen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 7671 (FC)
personal suitability — resourcefulness — visa officer — assessment — adaptability
50. Lo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1155 (CanLII)
visa officer — criminal equivalency — offence — functus officio — possession of an
offensive weapon
51. Zhou v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 CanLII 59857
(CA IRB)
2012-02-22 | 3 pages
removal order on its face — submitted — validly issued — syntax — grammar
52. Zhou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1230 (CanLII)

foreign national — visa officer — inadmissible — selection — documents
53. Deng v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FCA 234
(CanLII)
deceased — application — jurisdiction — hear — judicial review
B-1-1265
- 1256 -
54. B-1-1266
Qian v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 CanLII 61945
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1266
(CA IRB)
2012-02-10 | 6 pages
employment — appointment — reasonable apprehension of bias application — press
release — viewing the matter realistically

2017-12-28 | 17 pages
rooftop amenity space — development — building — relaxations — parking
56. Lin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 862 (CanLII)
residency — misrepresentation — inadmissibility — admissibility — permanent
57. Dhalla v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 100 (CanLII)
permanent residence — attack — collateral — wrongful — negligence
58. Fan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 696 (CanLII)

fraudulent — procedural fairness — misrepresentation — immigration — prospective
59. Zhang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 80476
(CA IRB)
2015-05-28 | 3 pages
residency — delegate — humanitarian — compassionate — shortfall
60. Yang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 94599 (CA IRB)
2010-08-13 | 4 pages
marriage is genuine — memory — discrepancy — character — entered into primarily to
acquire
B-1-1266
- 1257 -
61. B-1-1267
Wen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 CanLII 44023
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1267
(CA IRB)
2008-01-24 | 16 pages
adult — minor — husband — residency — sister
62. Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 971 (CanLII)

removal orders — five-year period — permanent resident — delegate — compassionate
considerations
63. Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 CanLII 70646 (CA IRB)
2016-07-18 | 3 pages
sponsor — truthfully — visa — evidence — refusal
64. Kuo-Ting v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 16718 (FC)
1997-05-07 | 2 pages
visa officer — entrepreneur — business — ability — immigrant
65. Kuang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 77848 (CA IRB)
marriage — visa officer — genuine — evidence — entered into primarily to acquire
66. Liang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 541 (CanLII)

declaration — reasonable apprehension of bias — fake — interview — marriage
67. R. v. Barkow, 2008 ONCJ 84 (CanLII)

Ontario Court of Justice — Ontario
sentence — cocaine — trafficking — thereby committing an offence — grams
Criminal Sentencing
B-1-1267
- 1258 -
68. Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 841 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1268 B-1-1268
processing — citizenship application — delay — mandamus — investigation
69. Zhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 155 (CanLII)

breach of procedural fairness — visa officer — undecided — perfect his application —
letter
70. Lee v. Li, 2001 BCSC 434 (CanLII)

2001-03-22 | 12 pages
trembling — fraud — handwriting — characters — tremor
71. Tran v Tate, 2020 CanLII 120620 (ON LTB)

Landlord and Tenant Board — Ontario
2020-09-04 | 3 pages
eviction — tenancy — rent deposit — pay — owing
72. Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 64840 (CA IRB)
2011-05-27 | 5 pages
five-year period — late disclosure — client — departure — permanent resident
73. Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 85 (CanLII)

standard of review is correctness — residence — citizenship — days — absence
74. Chiu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1036 (CanLII)
2005-07-26 | 1 page | cited by 1 document
negative credibility finding — explanation — discrepancies — impugning — citizenship
B-1-1268
- 1259 -
75. He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 CanLII 99892 (CA IRB)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1269 B-1-1269
2013-11-05 | 2 pages
sponsor — joint recommendation — application — permanent resident visa — officer
76. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wu, 1999 CanLII 7664 (FC)
1999-03-30 | 4 pages
residence — citizenship — preceding — standard of review — requirement
77. Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 CanLII 98575 (CA IRB)
2016-11-21 | 5 pages
breach of natural justice — sponsor — jurisdiction to re-open — compassionate
considerations — application
78. Zhang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 CanLII 138281 (CA IRB)
2019-10-03 | 6 pages
divorce — dissolved primarily — second spouse — find — sponsor
2011-11-21 | 3 pages
visa — compassionate considerations — humanitarian — processing — permanent
resident
80. Stephen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5528 (FC)
1997-09-10 | 3 pages
visa officer — self-employed person — significant contribution to the economy — self-
employed category — artistic
81. Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 576 (CanLII)

physical presence test — test for citizenship — interview — jurisprudence — procedural
fairness
B-1-1269
- 1260 -
82. Kurotsu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 16152 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1270 B-1-1270
1997-01-06 | 3 pages
visa officer — application for permanent residence — job validation — qualify for
immigration — suitability
83. Tan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 115182 (CA IRB)
2018-10-03 | 8 pages
lived in a common-law relationship — doctrine of res judicata applies — breach of
procedural fairness — couple lived in a common-law — special circumstances
84. He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 36250 (CA IRB)
2009-01-16 | 5 pages
visa officer — marriage — couple — family members — genuine
85. Qin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1154 (CanLII)
visa officer — experience as a dental hygienist — units of assessment —
redetermination — cross-examination on affidavit
86. Vas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 95132 (CA IRB)
2010-06-15 | 6 pages
marriage — panel — genuine — evidence — trip
87. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wong, 1999 CanLII 7522 (FC)
1999-02-09 | 3 pages
citizenship — residence — absences — person — attachment
88. Wan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 CanLII 64227 (CA IRB)
2017-07-11 | 5 pages
sponsorship application — permanent resident visas — index — minimum necessary
income — foreign
B-1-1270
- 1261 -
89. B-1-1271
Lin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2010 CanLII 85542 (CA
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1271
IRB)
2010-01-05 | 5 pages
humanitarian — taking into account the best — residency — compassionate
considerations — degree of establishment
90. Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 70957 (CA IRB)
2007-12-07 | 5 pages
marriage — genuine — visa officer — wedding — purpose of acquiring
91. Fraser v New Concept Quality Doors Ltd., 2017 ONSC 1804 (CanLII)
2017-03-21 | 5 pages
undertakings refusals motion — proceeding — success on the undertakings refusals —
motion in the all-inclusive amount — removal
92. Ye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 94162 (CA IRB)
2010-08-26 | 7 pages
relationship — visa — photographs — genuine — marriage
93. Hui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 16157 (FC)
1997-01-09 | 3 pages
visa officer — business — entrepreneur — vegetarian restaurant — profits
94. Shen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 82872 (CA IRB)
2009-08-07 | 4 pages
five-year period — residency obligation — humanitarian — compassionate
considerations — ties
B-1-1271
- 1262 -
95. B-1-1272
Hui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 4749 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1272
1997-01-09 | 3 pages
visa officer — business — entrepreneur — vegetarian restaurant — profits
96. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Chen, 2005 FCA 56 (CanLII)
application for judicial review — convert — idem — quash — motion
97. Lee v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 CanLII 44037 (CA
IRB)
2008-03-10 | 10 pages
ties — young — residency obligation — family — self-esteem
98. Zheng v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 97936 (CA IRB)
2015-02-10 | 7 pages
visa office — balance of probabilities — genuine — marriage — find
99. Ou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 88137 (CA IRB)
2011-09-14 | 7 pages
visa officer — marriage — interview — spent — father s funeral
100. Chu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 905 (CanLII)

functional residence — days — established — periods — citizenship
101. Yang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 113757 (CA IRB)
2020-11-07 | 4 pages
removal — special relief — failed to observe a principle — natural justice — stay
B-1-1272
- 1263 -
102. B-1-1273
Yip v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 8557 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1273
1999-08-25 | 6 pages
citizenship — country — absences — residence — attachment
103. Richter v Stratton, 2020 BCSC 654 (CanLII)

deck — strata — owners — rear — access
104. Chiu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1671 (CanLII)
younger daughters — removal — compassionate considerations — eldest daughter —
humanitarian
105. Wang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 CanLII 99505
(CA IRB)
2012-10-23 | 7 pages
residency obligation — five-year period — compassionate considerations warrant
special relief — best interests of a child — permanent resident
106. Campbell v. British Columbia, 1984 CanLII 670 (BC SC)

1984-02-10 | 5 pages
rent controls — rentalsman — landlord — residential premises — amount
107. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Truong, 1998 CanLII 7379 (FC)
1998-02-03 | 6 pages
adjudicator — term of imprisonment — convicted of an offence — imposed —
determination
108. Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 362 (CanLII)

shortfall — residency — compassionate considerations — removal — humanitarian
B-1-1273
- 1264 -
109. B-1-1274
Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8738 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1274
attend a swearing-in ceremony — anonymous letter — citizenship swearing-in
ceremony — notification — advised
110. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wong, 1998 CanLII 8801 (FC)
1998-11-30 | 4 pages
integration into society — attachment — absences — abroad — student
111. Zeng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 CanLII 59374 (CA IRB)
2005-06-23 | 7 pages
marriage — panel finds — visa officer — genuine — permanent resident
112. Yang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 CanLII 99737
(CA IRB)
2013-08-27 | 8 pages
post-refusal period — removal orders — compassionate considerations — taking into
account the best — humanitarian
113. Thai Agri Foods v. Choy Foong Trading, 2013 ONSC 883 (CanLII)
contract — agreement — settlement — counter-offer — terms
Contracts Practice and procedure
114. Lam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 77980 (CA IRB)
2008-12-16 | 8 pages
return — application — permanent resident — physically — travel
B-1-1274
- 1265 -
115. Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 668 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1275 B-1-1275
member of the family class — application of res judicata — staying — non-
accompanying family member — sponsorship
116. Deng Estate v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 59
(CanLII)
extension of time — application for judicial review — motions — jurisdiction — leave
117. Hsu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 CanLII 52351 (CA
IRB)
2006-12-12 | 7 pages
sister — elder — retrospective — departure — residency
118. Bing Ma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 587 (CanLII)

citizenship — four-year period — residency requirement — test — days
119. Chan (Re), 1998 CanLII 8805 (FC)

1998-11-30 | 5 pages
centralized her mode of living — application for citizenship — abroad — residence —
student
120. Chak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 81098 (CA IRB)
2010-04-29 | 8 pages
marriage — brother — meeting — testimony — wife
121. Zhang v Canada (ublic Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 CanLII 93972
(CA IRB)
2014-01-09 | 8 pages
removal — children — best interests — evidence — positive factor B-1-1275
- 1266 -
122. B-1-1276
Cheung v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 CanLII 99894 (CA IRB)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1276
2013-12-02 | 9 pages
marriage — balance of probabilities — visa officer — sisters — godparents
123. Luo c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2014 CanLII 66626 (CA IRB)
2014-08-18 | 10 pages
sponsor — temporary pause — applications — processing — permanent resident
124. Tian v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 CanLII 61304 (CA
IRB)
residency obligation — removal — five-year period — footnote — permanent resident
125. Xiu v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 72624 (CA
IRB)
2018-05-30 | 7 pages
absences — residency obligation — application — misrepresentation — days
126. Liang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 77847 (CA IRB)
2008-09-26 | 8 pages
sponsor — visa officer — visit — met — ex-wife
127. Feng v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 87358 (CA IRB)
2014-08-10 | 7 pages
five-year period — daughter — husband — residency obligation — liver
128. Yan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 98247 (CA IRB)
2014-07-17 | 7 pages
sponsor — joint recommendation — reunited — humanitarian — compassionate
B-1-1276
- 1267 -
129. B-1-1277
Gau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1258 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1277
social services — visa officer — reasonably be expected to cause — application for
judicial review — willingness
130. Shen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 73191 (CA IRB)
2015-01-27 | 7 pages
five-year period — foreign assignment — child directly affected — residency obligation
— outside
131. SDAB2021-0081a&b (Re), 2021 CGYSDAB 81 (CanLII)

2022-02-03 | 11 pages
existing retaining wall — development permit — relaxation — proposed retaining wall
— property
132. Su v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 78018 (CA
IRB)
2015-04-09 | 7 pages
five-year period — permanent resident — child directly affected — humanitarian —
compassionate
133. Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 CanLII 61061 (CA IRB)
2012-03-30 | 7 pages
marriage — visa — entered into primarily — status — genuine
134. Gao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 45216 (CA IRB)
2008-02-15 | 7 pages
spouse — divorce from her ex-husband — entered into primarily — husband — genuine
B-1-1277
- 1268 -
135. B-1-1278
Wu v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 CanLII 104470 (CA
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1278
IRB)
2014-06-26 | 9 pages
daughter — child — immigration — wedlock — husband
136. Nghiem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 83078 (CA IRB)
2009-02-12 | 10 pages
marriage — couple — lives — purpose of acquiring any status — testimony
137. Lee v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 78017 (CA IRB)
2015-04-02 | 10 pages
marriage — genuine — find — primarily for the purpose — testimony
138. X (Re), 2017 CanLII 61296 (CA IRB)

likely country of removal — abeyance — evidence — reconsideration — decision-
making process
139. Luk (Re), 2007 LSBC 13 (CanLII)

Law Society of British Columbia — British Columbia
cheque — letter — practised — divorce — application
140. Shi v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 140634 (CA
IRB)
2018-12-21 | 8 pages
panel finds — grandchildren — misrepresentation — removal — discretionary
141. Xu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1575 (CanLII)

sponsor — member of the family class — foreign national — compassionate
considerations — letter
B-1-1278
- 1269 -
142. B-1-1279
Wang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 CanLII 47394
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1279
(CA IRB)
2007-02-05 | 8 pages
residency — compassionate considerations — children — humanitarian — hardship
143. He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 134179 (CA IRB)
2021-07-22 | 8 pages
family class — sponsor — foreign national — compassionate — visa
particulars — pleading — misrepresentation — misfeasance — airlines
145. Huang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 89260 (CA IRB)
2011-12-15 | 8 pages
government-subsidized housing — begun a new conjugal relationship — foreign
national — visa — application for permanent residence
146. Cheng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 45181 (CA IRB)
2008-03-07 | 10 pages
banquet — photos — hepatitis — wedding — marriage
147. Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 763 (CanLII)

citizenship — residence — statements — credit card — cellular telephone
148. Ho v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 CanLII 84521 (CA IRB)
2009-10-09 | 10 pages
visa — divorce — relationship — lack of visits — second wife
B-1-1279
- 1270 -
149. Deng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 603 (CanLII)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1280 B-1-1280
application for judicial review — leave — extension of time to file — refugee —
convoked
150. Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1140 (CanLII)

centralized — citizenship — absences — residential — mode of existence
151. Chen v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 CanLII 85504
(CA IRB)
2015-07-13 | 9 pages
spouse — taking into account the best — elder child — temporary resident visas —
humanitarian
2010-10-04 | 13 pages
broker — couple — genuine — marriage proposal — relationship
153. Chen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 CanLII 14582
(CA IRB)
2007-02-26 | 11 pages
residency obligation — children — daughters — immigration officer — evidence
154. Tai v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 CanLII 84323 (CA
IRB)
2009-12-10 | 10 pages
immigration officer — permanent resident cards — father — landed — children
155. Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 CanLII 70164 (CA IRB)
2008-04-10 | 10 pages
visa officer — hometown — marriage — wedding — interview B-1-1280
- 1271 -
156. B-1-1281
Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CanLII 54293 (CA IRB)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1281
2003-04-02 | 11 pages
field investigation — investigating officer — lady who answered the call — husband —
evidence
157. Chan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 CanLII 86946 (CA IRB)
2012-05-07 | 12 pages
marriage — visa officer — genuine — children — ancestral home
158. Tran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 94493 (CA IRB)
2010-06-23 | 11 pages
father — visa office interview — genuine relationship — family — find
159. Chiu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 CanLII 62011
(CA IRB)
2007-11-21 | 14 pages
breach of natural justice — member — functus officio — procedural fairness — nullity
2012-10-09 | 27 pages
permanent resident — travel document — five-year period — scheduling conference —
status
161. Choi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 CanLII 45210 (CA IRB)
2010-01-21 | 11 pages
relationship — marriage — husband — couple — immigrate
162. Yang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2022 FC 329 (CanLII)
misrepresentation — special relief — card — removal — permanent resident
B-1-1281
- 1272 -
163. B-1-1282
Jiang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 CanLII 87960 (CA IRB)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1282
2021-08-05 | 10 pages
visa office — father — provide his passport — permanent resident visa — landed
164. Shi v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 139479 (CA
IRB)
misrepresentation — children — passport — residency — wife
165. Lu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 58547 (CA IRB)
2011-03-03 | 14 pages
daughter — husband — family — residency obligation — child
166. Qing v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1224 (CanLII)
visa officer — tax — inadmissible — accumulated — application
167. Zheng v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 CanLII 99692
(CA IRB)
2013-09-30 | 10 pages
residency obligation — employment — humanitarian — compassionate — find
168. Su v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 95432 (CA IRB)
2011-01-24 | 13 pages
panel — marriage — balance of probabilities — primarily for the purpose — purpose of
acquiring a status
2010-10-13 | 13 pages
marriage — remember — genuineness — visa officer — sister
B-1-1282
- 1273 -
170. Xu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 47714 (CA IRB)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1283 B-1-1283
2007-04-25 | 12 pages
member of the family class — letter — sponsor — visa — written
171. Chan v. Lam, 2002 CanLII 44912 (ON CA)

Court of Appeal for Ontario — Ontario
client — husband — offer to settle — wife — children
172. Liang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 CanLII 94075 (CA IRB)
2015-11-30 | 11 pages
co-signer s withdrawal — sponsorship — visa — income — re-instate
173. Yim v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 24500 (CA IRB)
2020-01-08 | 12 pages
res judicata — doctrine — decisive new evidence — previous — special circumstances
174. Gan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1083 (CanLII)

2009-10-22 | 11 pages
application — in-person interview — risk factors — judicial review — personalized risk
175. Goussev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 8609
(FC)
visa officer — marine engineer — mekhanik — mechanical engineer — systems
176. 2308537 Ontario Inc. et al. v 1233121 Ontario Inc., 2015 ONSC 2630 (CanLII)
2015-04-21 | 12 pages
balance of the purchase price — principal — instalment — payment — interest
Creditors and debtors Property and trusts
B-1-1283
- 1274 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1284 B-1-1284
2010-04-09 | 17 pages
residency obligation — full-time basis by a business — company — employed on a full-
time basis — five-year period
178. Wong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 47716 (CA IRB)
2007-04-18 | 14 pages
residency obligation — business — humanitarian — compassionate considerations —
five-year period
2011-01-06 | 12 pages
marriage — purpose of acquiring a status — panel — entered into primarily —
proposal
180. Chiu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 CanLII 89266 (CA IRB)
2011-04-25 | 13 pages
marriage is genuine — relationship — purpose of acquiring — entered into primarily —
privilege
2011-02-22 | 12 pages
permanent resident status — compassionate considerations — humanitarian —
employed on a full-time basis — projects
182. Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 211 (CanLII),
[2003] 4 FC 189
visa — applications — mandamus — selection — units of assessment
B-1-1284
- 1275 -
183. Chang (Re), 1998 CanLII 7477 (FC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1285 B-1-1285
residence — citizenship — résidence — living — accumulated
184. Iao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 CanLII 62899 (CA IRB)
2013-02-01 | 11 pages
sponsor — visa officer — member of the family class — application — time
185. Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 836 (CanLII)

citizenship — questions — written test — adequate knowledge — oral

2017-11-29 | 16 pages
fence — trees — endorsement of the final instrument — developer is responsible for
ensuring — property
187. St. George’s Hill Trust (Trustee of) v. Li, 2013 BCSC 2165 (CanLII)
meeting — client — advice — firm — questions
188. Zhang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 CanLII 94265
(CA IRB)
2013-08-15 | 14 pages
five-year period — meeting the residency obligation requirements — physically present
— days — biological father
189. Zhuang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 CanLII 70897 (CA IRB)
2007-12-27 | 13 pages
foreign national — non-accompanying family — sponsor — examined — application for
permanent residence
B-1-1285
- 1276 -
190. Wong v. Luk, 2009 CanLII 66615 (ON SC)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1286 B-1-1286
2009-11-26 | 11 pages
bid — line of credit — quantum meruit — affidavit — compensated

2018-08-01 | 13 pages
stormwater management system — dams — ponds — golf course — development
192. Liu v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2021 CanLII 42434 (CA
IRB)
2021-02-17 | 14 pages
misrepresentation — child — family — remorse — husband
193. Teng v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 CanLII 101681 (CA IRB)
2012-11-09 | 16 pages
marriage — genuine — visa officer — primarily for the purpose — relationship
2008-02-25 | 16 pages
medical examination — humanitarian — foreign nationals — compassionate
considerations — undergo
195. Zeng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 CanLII 34700 (CA IRB)
2012-01-03 | 18 pages
inadmissibility — ground of refusal — foreign national — sponsor — interview
196. Motek Cultural Initiative v Metrolinx, 2022 CanLII 78160 (ON LT)
Ontario Land Tribunal — Ontario
2022-08-23 | 15 pages
expropriation — boomerang — tenancy — land — owner
B-1-1286
- 1277 -
197. B-1-1287
Wong v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 39140
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1287
(CA IRB)
2011-01-07 | 14 pages
removal orders — delegate — acting chief — evidence — humanitarian

2015-09-25 | 19 pages
retaining wall — swale — property — relaxation — height
199. Manofmizpeh v. Ng, 2022 ONSC 1113 (CanLII)

2022-02-16 | 19 pages
rent — lease — repairs — roof — skylight
Practice and procedure Residential tenancies
200. Fang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 196 (CanLII)

letter — credibility — procedural fairness — duties — concerns
2010-06-11 | 19 pages
immigration officer — panel — summons — genuineness of the marriage — submitted

2015-08-17 | 43 pages
site — development permit — stripping — grading — sedimentation ponds
203. Borisova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 859 (CanLII),
[2003] 4 FC 408
members of the putative class — visa — applications — selection — immigrants
B-1-1287
- 1278 -
204. B-1-1288
Sun v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 CanLII 131096
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1288
(CA IRB)
2019-12-05 | 19 pages
misrepresentation — application — permanent resident card — removal — renewal
205. Ney v. Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 1301 (BC SC)
child — health care — parental — treatment — medical
2004-03-22 | 18 pages
visa officer — marriage — photographs — aunts — marry
207. Complainant v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2016
BCHPRB 16 (CanLII)
Health Professions Review Board of British Columbia — British Columbia
2016-02-10 | 19 pages
disposition — drive — complaint — driving — investigation
208. SDAB2015--0118 (Re), 2015 CGYSDAB 118 (CanLII)

development permit — site — units — access road — intermunicipal gateways

2017-02-21 | 78 pages
development — site — stalls — storage — road
210. Liu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 849 (CanLII)
misrepresentation — error in the administration — admissibility — application —
collateral attack
B-1-1288
- 1279 -
211. B-1-1289
Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1012 (CanLII),
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1289
[2005] 2 FCR 3
definition of dependent child — student — academic — inadmissible — post-secondary
institution
212. Stefanovska v. Kok (H.C.J.), 1990 CanLII 6848 (ON SC)

easement — purchasers — vendors — property — domestic utility
Contracts
permanent residents — irreparable harm — putative class — cards — card
214. Huang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 CanLII 107048
(CA IRB)
2020-08-04 | 24 pages
misrepresentation — husband — residency — family — stamps
215. X (Re), 2014 CanLII 98096 (CA IRB)

2014-10-31 | 29 pages
claimant — non-political crime — square metre — political enemies — evidence
216. Yang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2020 CanLII 84209
(CA IRB)
2020-08-04 | 26 pages
misrepresentation — family — residency — wife — stamps
B-1-1289
- 1280 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1290 B-1-1290
2015-01-29 | 60 pages
retaining wall — developer — drainage — swale — height

2016-12-21 | 63 pages
setback — building — parking — development — will
219. Lin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 CanLII 47171 (CA IRB)
2002-07-15 | 27 pages
principal — removal — minor — dependants — landing
220. Sui v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 FC
1314 (CanLII)
delegate — application for restoration — temporary resident status — foreign national
— enforcement officer
221. Iao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1253 (CanLII)

sponsor — lock-in period — common-law partner — partenaire conjugal — permanent
resident
222. Chow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 CanLII 71242 (CA IRB)
2004-04-15 | 34 pages
daughter — immigration officer — five-year period — humanitarian — compassionate

2016-05-24 | 39 pages
retaining wall — height — pergola — relaxation — development permit
B-1-1290
- 1281 -
224. X (Re), 2020 CanLII 120798 (CA IRB)
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1291 B-1-1291
2020-06-12 | 92 pages
torture — embezzlement — confessions — alleged co-conspirators — project
225. Lei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 CanLII 52338 (CA IRB)
2006-07-20 | 44 pages
permanent residents under the former — retrospective — permanent resident status —
persons who were permanent residents — panel
226. Ching v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 839 (CanLII)
abuse of process — evidence obtained by torture — delay — judicial review — remedy

2016-08-19 | 136 pages
proposed development — site — building — parking — parcel
B-1-1291
- 1282 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1292 B-1-1292
EXHIBIT “HHH”
B-1-1292
- 1283 -
This is Exhibit “HHH” to the affidavit of Kipling
Warner affirmed before me electronically by way of
videoconference this 26th day of January, 2023, in
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1293 B-1-1293
_____________________________________ CITATION: Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169

A Commissioner for taking affidavits, COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-652918-0000
Amani Rauff, LSO No.: 78111C DATE: 20221031
RE: Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Dr. Ashvinder Kaur Lamba, Plaintiffs
AND:
Dr. Angus Maciver, Dr. Nadia Alam, André Picard, Dr. Michelle Cohen, Dr. Alex
Nataros, Dr. Ilan Schwartz, Dr. Andrew Fraser, Dr. Marco Prado, Timothy
Caulfield, Dr. Sajjad Fazel, Alheli Picazo, Bruce Arthur, Dr. Terry Polevoy, Dr.
John Van Aerde, Dr. Andrew Boozary, Dr. Abdu Sharkawy, Dr. David Jacobs,
Tristan Bronca, Carly Weeks, The Pointer, The Hamilton Spectator, Société-Radio
Canada, the Medical Post, Defendants
BEFORE: Stewart J.
COUNSEL: Jeff G. Saikaley, for the Plaintiff Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill
Asher Honickman, for the Plaintiff Dr. Ashvinder Kaur Lamba
Howard Winkler and Eryn Pond, for the Defendant Dr. Angus Maciver
Julian Porter, for the Defendant Nadia Alam
Jaan Lilles and Katie Glowach, for the Defendants Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Alex
Nataros, Dr. Abdu Sharkawy, Dr. Nadia Alam and Dr. Michelle Cohen
Susan Toth, for the Defendant Dr. John Van Aerde
Andrea Gonsalves and Caitlin Milne, for the Defendant Dr. Andrew Fraser
Alex Pettingill, for the Defendants Dr. Ilan Schwartz, Dr. Marco Prado, Timothy
Caulfield and Dr. Sajjad Fazel
Timothy Flannery, for the Defendant Dr. Terry Polevoy
Daniel Iny and Melanie Anderson, for the Defendant Dr. Andrew Boozary
Meredith Hayward and Michael Binetti, for the Defendants Tristan Bronca and The
Medical Post
Brian Radnoff and David Seifer, for the Defendant The Pointer Group Incorporated
Andrew MacDonald, Carlos Martins and Emma Romano, for the Defendants André
Picard and Carly Weeks
B-1-1293
- 1284 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1294
- Page 2 -
B-1-1294
George Pakozdi, for the Defendant Alheli Picazo
Emma Carver, for the Defendant Bruce Arthur
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
Preliminary Background
[1] In my decision of February 24, 2022 I invited counsel for the parties to provide submissions
as to costs if that subject could not be agreed upon.
[2] Unfortunately, none of the parties have been able to arrive at any resolution on costs.
Accordingly, I received submissions from the several moving parties/defendants on these motions
who were successful in obtaining the dismissals of the actions brought against them pursuant to
137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (“CJA”).
[3] In response I received very brief submissions from then counsel for the responding
parties/plaintiffs. Given the nature and brevity of those submissions I gave counsel for the moving
parties/defendants some additional time to determine their intentions in the expectation that they
might wish to provide reply submissions.
[4] Following this inquiry as to the intentions of the moving parties/defendants, I received
requests from new counsel for both responding parties/plaintiffs to provide supplementary
submissions on costs. I granted that request.
[5] I now have received and reviewed those submissions as well as reply submissions from
counsel for some of the moving parties/defendants.
Section 137.1 (7) of the Courts of Justice Act (“CJA”)
[6] It is evident from my decision that the moving parties/defendants were entirely successful
in obtaining complete dismissals of the proceedings brought against them. The approach to be
taken regarding any costs to be awarded to successful moving parties/defendants on such motions
is set out in s. 137.1 (7) of the CJA, as follows:
(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is
entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis,
unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the
circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
[7] The costs provision that applies to this determination therefore requires that successful
moving parties on motions of this nature are entitled to full indemnification of their costs unless
such costs are not appropriate in the circumstances. As I interpret the provision, its purpose is to
provide for full indemnification of the costs of successful moving parties, but not designed as
punishment of the unsuccessful responding parties.
B-1-1294
- 1285 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1295
- Page 3 -
B-1-1295
[8] The preservation of a discretion by the motions judge to fix costs is apparent in the language
employed in the applicable provision. Even when costs on a full indemnity scale are sought,
available and otherwise justifiable such costs may be determined not to be appropriate and
disallowed as a result.
Issues
[9] Costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, are sought by the moving
parties/defendants as set out in their Joint Costs Submissions, as follows:
(a) Dr. Angus MacIver seeks costs of $98,530.24;
(b) Dr. Nadia Alam seeks costs in connection with the OMA dispute of $73,176.71;
(c) Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Alex Nataros, Dr. Abdu Sharkawy, Dr. Nadia Alam and Dr.
Michelle Cohen seek costs in connection with the Covid-19 dispute of $254,057.35;
(d) Dr. John Van Aerde seeks costs of $63,386.08;
(e) Dr. Andrew Fraser seeks costs of $100,211.82;
(f) Dr. Ilan Schwartz, Dr. Marco Prado, Timothy Caulfield and Dr. Sajjad Fazel seek costs
of $138,464.37;
(g) Dr. Terry Polevoy seeks costs of $51, 058.69;
(h) Dr. Andrew Boozary seeks costs of $59,015.25;
(i) Tristan Bronca and The Medical Post seek costs of $129,337.77;
(j) The Pointer Group Incorporated seeks costs of $64,170.15;
(k) Andre Picard and Carly Weeks seek costs of $90,562.89;
(l) Alheli Picazo seeks costs of $33,281.26;
(m) Bruce Arthur seeks costs of $33,281.26.
[10] All amounts for costs and disbursements as set out above reflect claims for recovery of
costs on a full indemnity basis.
[11] The total amount sought in costs by the moving parties/defendants therefore is
$1,115,357.13.
[12] Two main issues have been advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs/responding parties in their
costs submissions:
(a) Are the amounts sought by any or all of the moving parties/defendants for
costs not appropriate in the circumstances?
B-1-1295
- 1286 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1296
- Page 4 -
B-1-1296
(b) Should the costs of all of the moving parties/defendants be made payable by
both plaintiffs/responding parties on a joint and several basis as has been
requested?
Appropriateness of Amounts of Costs Sought
[13] It is submitted on behalf of both responding parties/plaintiffs that full indemnity costs are
not appropriate, and that a significant reduction of the amounts claimed is particularly warranted
as a result of the duplication of efforts of all counsel for the moving parties/defendants.
[14] Although a more cost-effective way of addressing the issues on the motion might have
been employed, such as the bringing of one or more test motions on behalf of a small number of
representative moving parties/defendants, all motions apparently were brought and heard together
on agreement of the parties. Each had slightly different factual underpinnings which made separate
arguments and considerations necessary.
[15] Where appears to have been possible, the moving parties/defendants dealing with the
various claims who shared a similar factual foundation were represented by the same counsel. The
fact that so many moving parties/defendants brought individual motions was inevitably the product
of having been claimed against by the responding parties/plaintiffs in the same action but with
respect to different statements and/or conduct.
[16] Although it must be observed that there was some degree of repetition and duplication of
the legal principles that apply and of the public policy considerations in the various facta prepared
and submitted by the moving parties/defendants, the issues were nevertheless of great importance
to each of the parties and submissions were required to be tailored to the specific fact situations
bearing on the many and various claims against them.
[17] As has been set out in the Joint Costs Submissions, in order for the moving
parties/defendants to pursue these motions it was necessary for extensive affidavit material to be
filed and for cross-examinations to be conducted. Facta were prepared and submitted to address
the legal authorities bearing upon the outcome of the motions as well as the fairly extensive factual
background giving rise to the various claims. Presence of counsel was required for the cross-
examinations conducted and for all other necessary steps leading up to the motions, as well as for
the hearing of the motions themselves.
[18] The motions were heard fairly efficiently over three days from September 27-29, 2021.
[19] Counsel for Dr. Jacobs et al. submitted a request for costs in an amount substantially higher
than those submitted on behalf of most of the other moving parties/defendants. However, this is a
product of having represented several of the moving parties/defendants, and the assumption of a
leading role in the preparation of materials and presentation of submissions to the court throughout
the process generally.
[20] It must also be noted that the responding parties/plaintiffs claimed damages of
$2,000,000.00, a considerable sum by any calculation and of understandably great concern to the
moving parties/defendants. Further, the costs now claimed are costs of the entire actions, all of
which were dismissed in their entirety on these motions.
B-1-1296
- 1287 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1297
- Page 5 -
B-1-1297
[21] Although counsel for the moving parties/defendants maintain the belief that third party
funding was involved in maintaining the claims against their clients, this is strenuously denied by
the responding parties/defendants and their former counsel. There is no evidence before that
amounts to proof to the contrary, and I do not view this assertion as having any bearing on the
subject of costs.
[22] I also have no reason to conclude that the fees and disbursements claimed by experienced
counsel for the moving parties/defendants were not actually incurred.
[23] Although the individual responding parties/plaintiffs are not substantial corporations or
institutions, they are educated persons who were represented by counsel throughout. I agree that
no real access to justice argument serves to soften the costs consequences of their failure to
withstand the motions brought. The purpose of the anti-SLAPP provisions, including the costs
provisions, in the CJA is to discourage those who would seek to use the legal process improperly
to shut down debate on matters of public interest (see: Levant v. De Melle, 2022 ONCA 79;
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority v. Smith, 2018 ONSC 127; Air Georgian Ltd. v.
Eugeni, ONSC 9 September 2019).
[24] Having said that, I am of the view that the responding parties/plaintiffs should not be
expected to incur exposure to the costs for additional legal counsel, clerks or students who may
have been present at any of the proceedings but did not take an active role. I consider the inclusion
of such costs claimed against the responding parties/plaintiffs in these circumstances to be not
appropriate. Accordingly, any costs of attendance in court or related proceedings claimed with
respect to persons falling under that description are to be removed and the resulting amounts
recalculated.
[25] Accordingly, the full indemnity costs in the amounts requested by counsel for the moving
parties/defendants with the noted reductions are to be recoverable as claimed. If there is any issue
or argument with respect to the amounts that result following such adjustments, I may be spoken
to.
Joint and Several Liability for Costs
[26] Dr. Lamba submits that the OMA issue was not a SLAPP suit, and that costs on a partial
indemnity scale are therefore appropriate.
[27] Having already determined that the claims arising out of the OMA issue comprise a SLAPP
suit, I consider that the costs provisions of s. 137.1 (7) therefore apply for which the responding
parties/plaintiffs are responsible to pay.
[28] It is further submitted on behalf of Dr. Lamba that she should not bear costs in connection
with the Covid-19 issue on a joint and several liability basis with Dr. Gill.
[29] A reading of the Statement of Claim and an assessment of the issues advanced on the
motions make it clear that Dr. Lamba made allegations against Dr. MacIver and Dr. Alam, and
only with respect to the OMA issue. This comprised a comparatively small portion of the motions
proceedings and the subject matter responded to and argued on behalf of the moving
parties/defendants. Further, she did not file any affidavit and therefore was not cross-examined.
B-1-1297
- 1288 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1298
- Page 6 -
B-1-1298
[30] In my view, the only costs which Dr. Lamba ought to be required to pay are those of Dr.
MacIver and Dr. Alam on the OMA issue. As the claims in this regard are also advanced on behalf
of Dr. Gill, both Responding Parties/Plaintiffs are to be jointly and severally liable for payment of
those costs as determined herein.
[31] With respect to the costs awarded to the Moving Parties/Defendants in connection with
their successful motions arising out of the Covid-19 issue, such costs are to be payable by Dr. Gill
only.
Conclusion
[32] An order shall issue in accordance with these reasons.
Date: October 31, 2022
B-1-1298
- 1289 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1299 B-1-1299
CITATION: Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-652918-0000
DATE: 20220224
ONTARIO

BETWEEN: )
)
Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Dr. Ashvinder ) Rocco Galati, for the Plaintiffs
Kaur Lamba )
)
Plaintiffs )
– and – )
)
Dr. Angus Maciver, Dr. Nadia Alam, André ) Howard Winkler and Eryn Pond, for the
Picard, Dr. Michelle Cohen, Dr. Alex ) Defendant Dr. Angus Maciver
Nataros, Dr. Ilan Schwartz, Dr. Andrew )
Fraser, Dr. Marco Prado, Timothy ) Julian Porter, for the Defendant Nadia Alam
Caulfield, Dr. Sajjad Fazel, Alheli Picazo, )
Bruce Arthur, Dr. Terry Polevoy, Dr. John ) Jaan Lilles and Katie Glowach, for the
Van Aerde, Dr. Andrew Boozary, Dr. Abdu ) Defendants Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Alex
Sharkawy, Dr. David Jacobs, Tristan ) Nataros, Dr. Abdu Sharkawy, Dr. Nadia
Bronca, Carly Weeks, The Pointer, The ) Alam and Dr. Michelle Cohen
Hamilton Spectator, Société-Radio Canada, )
the Medical Post ) Susan Toth, for the Defendant Dr. John Van
) Aerde
Defendants )
) Andrea Gonsalves and Caitlin Milne, for the
) Defendant Dr. Andrew Fraser
)
) Alex Pettingill, for the Defendants Dr. Ilan
) Schwartz, Dr. Marco Prado, Timothy
) Caulfield and Dr. Sajjad Fazel
)
) Timothy Flannery, for the Defendant Dr.
) Terry Polevoy
)
) Daniel Iny and Melanie Anderson, for the
) Defendant Dr. Andrew Boozary
)
) Meredith Hayward and Michael Binetti, for
) the Defendants Tristan Bronca and The
) Medical Post
)
B-1-1299
- 1290 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1300
- Page 2 -
B-1-1300
) Brian Radnoff and David Seifer, for the

) Defendant The Pointer Group Incorporated
)
) Andrew MacDonald, Carlos Martins and
) Emma Romano, for the Defendants André
) Picard and Carly Weeks

)
) George Pakozdi, for the Defendant Alheli
) Picazo
)
) Emma Carver, for the Defendant Bruce
) Arthur
)
)
)
)
)
) HEARD: September 27, 28 and 29, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
Stewart J.
Nature of the Motions
[1] The Plaintiffs have initiated proceedings as against these more than 20 Defendants and
claim damages in the aggregate of approximately $12,000,000.00 for defamation and other
purported causes of action.
[2] The Defendants have brought these several motions pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of
Justice Act (“CJA”), R.S.O 1990, c C.43. Section 137.1 allows for the dismissal by judicial order
of a proceeding that limits debate on matters of public interest. These motions are more commonly
referred to as “anti-SLAPP” motions. A SLAAP refers to a strategic lawsuit against public
participation, a characterization which the Defendants argue aptly attaches to the proceedings
brought against them.
[3] The Plaintiffs argue that the motions do not satisfy the test for dismissal at this early stage
and therefore submit that the relief requested by the Defendants should not be granted.
[4] The most relevant portions of Section 137.1 of the CJA provide as follows:
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes
B-1-1300
- 1291 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1301
- Page 3 -
B-1-1301
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public

interest;

(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting

expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters
of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action. 2015, c. 23, s.3.
Definition, “expression”
(2) In this section,
“expression” means any communication, regardless of whether it is made verbally or non-

verbally, whether it is made publicly or privately, and whether or not it is directed at a
person or entity. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject
to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the
judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a
matter of public interest. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party
satisfies the judge that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding;

and
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as
a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the
public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the
public interest in protecting that expression. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
B-1-1301
- 1292 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1302
- Page 4 -
B-1-1302
[5] It is not disputed that the tort of defamation is governed by a well-established test requiring
that three criteria be met:
(a) that the words complained of were published, meaning that

they were communicated to at least one person other than the
plaintiff;

(b) the words complained of referred to the plaintiff; and
(c) the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they
would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a
reasonable person.
[6] Even if the definition of defamation is met, a defendant may have several defences to rely
on to escape liability. These include justification, fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible
journalism (see: Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61).
[7] In order to properly consider the issues raised by a motion brought pursuant to s. 137.1
evidence may be filed by the parties to provide background and context to an impugned statement
as well as to establish the chances of success of the claims and any available defences.
[8] Subsections 137.1(3) and (4) of the CJA set out a two-part test for a motion to dismiss an
action on this basis. First, the defendant has the onus of showing that the plaintiff’s proceeding
arises from an expression that “relates to a matter of public interest”. If the defendant meets that
threshold, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff satisfies the court that there are
grounds to believe the proceeding has substantial merit, that there are grounds to believe that the
defendant has no valid defence, and that the harm suffered by the plaintiff is sufficiently serious
such that the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest
in protecting that expression.
[9] It is instructive to repeat that, once it has been established by the Defendants that the
impugned communication relates to a matter of public interest, the burden on these motions rests
on the Plaintiffs to establish that there is substantial merit to each of their claims.
[10] The three factors that comprise the plaintiff`s onus to meet the second branch of the test
are conjunctive. If the plaintiff fails to meet the onus on any one of those three requirements, the
action must be dismissed.
[11] The Supreme Court of Canada has considered the test for dismissal under s. 137.1 and has
expressed views on issues related to the approach to be applied thereunder in two recent decisions:
1704604 Ontario Ltd. V. Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 and Bent v. Platnick, 2020
SCC 23.
[12] In Pointes Protection, “substantial merit” was defined as a real prospect of success. The
requirement was further refined in Bent v. Platnick as demonstrating a prospect of success that
need not be demonstrably likely, but one that weighs more in favour of the plaintiff.
B-1-1302
- 1293 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1303
- Page 5 -
B-1-1303
[13] Substantial merit has been described as a more demanding standard than that applicable on
a motion to strike a claim pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to disclose
a cause of action. Accordingly, more than merely some chance of success is required. In Bent v.
Platnick, was stated (at para. 49):
…for an underlying proceeding to have “substantial merit”, it must have a

real prospect of success — in other words, a prospect of success that, while
not amounting to a demonstrated likelihood of success, tends to weigh more
in favour of the plaintiff. In context with “grounds to believe”, this means that
the motion judge needs to be satisfied that there is a basis in the record and
the law — taking into account the stage of the proceeding — for drawing such
a conclusion. This requires that the claim be legally tenable and supported by
evidence that is reasonably capable of belief.
[14] In Bent v. Platnick, the Court went on to state (at paras 87 and 88):
In Pointes Protection, this Court clarifies the fact that unlike s. 137.1(3),
which requires a showing on a balance of probabilities, s. 137.1(4)(a)
expressly contemplates a “grounds to believe” standard instead: para.35. This
requires a basis in the record and the law – taking into account the stage of
the litigation – for finding that the underlying proceeding has substantial merit
and that there is no valid defence.
I elaborate here that, in effect, this means that any basis in the record and the
law will be sufficient. By definition, “a basis” will exist if there is a single
basis in the record and the law to support a finding of substantial merit and
the absence of a valid defence. That basis must of course be legally tenable
and reasonably capable of belief. But the “crux of the inquiry” is found, after
all, in s. 137.1(4)(b), which also serves as a “robust backstop” for protecting
freedom of expression.
[15] The “crux of the inquiry” therefore is the balancing exercise required by s. 137.1(4)(b)
which involves a weighing of the seriousness of the harm to the Plaintiffs as a result of the
expressions of the Defendants and the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue,
versus the public interest in protecting the expression.
[16] Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, having applied the
provisions of the legislation referred to above which govern the determination of the issues in light
of the principles and considerations articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the authorities
noted above, for the reasons that follow I find that an application of the test under s. 137.1 to each
claim, including the allegations of “negligence” and “conspiracy” (which are nothing but dressed-
up and unsubstantiated variations of the central claims of alleged defamation), must result in a
dismissal of all claims.
[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is
designed to discourage and screen out.
B-1-1303
- 1294 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1304
- Page 6 -
B-1-1304
The Plaintiffs
[18] The Plaintiff Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill (“Dr. Gill”) is a medical doctor practising at an
allergy, asthma and clinical immunology clinic with locations in Brampton and Milton, Ontario.
Dr. Gill has been a member of the Ontario Medical Association (“OMA”) Governing Council and
transparency of the OMA and the harm of escalating cuts to frontline health care. She is a founding

member and leader of Concerned Ontario Doctors (“COD”) which operates in part as a platform
for the expression of her views.
[19] The undisputed evidence on the motion plainly shows that Dr. Gill is not afraid to voice
unpopular views or to court controversy.
[20] Dr. Gill also is a frequent commentator on issues related to the Covid-19 pandemic and
does so frequently on her Twitter account which has attracted more than 63,000 “followers”.
[21] Accordingly, in addition to her campaign of attack on the OMA and its leadership, Dr. Gill
has been an outspoken critic of prevailing public health advice on how to prevent or slow Covid-
19 infection from spreading throughout the community, using social media platforms including
Twitter to disseminate her controversial views. In doing so, Dr Gill has suggested that the risks
posed by the Covid-19 virus are exaggerated, vaccines are unnecessary, lockdowns are illogical,
and hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for infection caused by the virus.
[22] Dr. Gill has been formally and publicly cautioned by the College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario against using her position as a physician to bolster her dissemination of such
misleading information which contradicts the positions advocated by public health authorities in
Ontario and Canada. The prohibition contained in the Regulated Health Professions Act against
use in a civil proceeding of documents or details of the College’s investigation requires that no
further mention or consideration of same enter into the deliberations required by these motions.
[23] The Plaintiff Dr. Ashvinder Kaur Lamba (“Dr. Lamba”) is a medical doctor practising as
a physician at a long-term care home and a retirement home in Etobicoke, Ontario and is an
addiction physician in Thornhill, Ontario. She also has a family practice in Brampton. Dr. Lamba
is a former OMA delegate and member of the OMA Governing Council and is now Secretary of
the Board of COD.
[24] Dr. Lamba is to some extent a secondary protagonist with respect to the advancement of
these claims which, in large part, arise out of matters in which Dr. Gill is the central figure. Dr.
Lamba did not swear or file an affidavit in response to these motions. She asserts her claims only
as against two of the Defendants and only with respect to allegations relating to statements said to
have been made concerning her OMA activities and positions.
[25] The multi-million dollar claims for damages made by both Plaintiffs are for reputational
damage only, although each Plaintiff continues to be active in their professional organization and
affairs and to practise medicine unimpeded in Ontario. As will be referred to below, the Plaintiffs
have advanced very little basis for demonstrating that they or their reputations have been damaged
as a result of the statements or conduct of any of the Defendants.
B-1-1304
- 1295 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1305
- Page 7 -
B-1-1305
The Defendants
[26] The Defendant Dr. Angus McIver (“Dr. McIver”) is an elderly physician who holds no
leadership position in the OMA. He has a primary Twitter account (“@smootholdfart”) with 1206
followers, and a now-deleted secondary Twitter account (“@vitomaciver”) which had been used
mainly for posting photos of his dog.

[27] The Defendant Dr. Nadia Alam (“Dr. Alam”) is a medical doctor practising as a family
physician and anaesthetist in Ontario and is a Board Director of the Halton Hills Family Health
Team. Dr. Alam has been and remains active in the OMA. From 2017-2020 she was a member of
the Board of Directors of the OMA and was OMA President during 2018-2019. Dr. Alam is
represented by two separate counsel in connection who separately address the two categories of
allegations the Plaintiffs have made against her.
[28] The Defendant Dr. David Jacobs (“Dr. Jacobs”) is a physician specializing in diagnostic
radiology in Toronto. Dr. Jacobs is a leader in his specialty associations and professional governing
bodies.
[29] The Defendant Dr. Alex Nataros (“Dr. Nataros”) is a family physician practising medicine
in British Columbia. Dr. Nataros is a recipient of the Leadership and Advocacy Award of the
College of Family Physicians of Canada.
[30] The Defendant Dr. Michelle Cohen (“Dr. Cohen”) is a family physician in Brighton,
Ontario who is a public advocate on health policy issues, having published articles in various
newspapers and periodicals on health policy topics.
[31] The Defendant Dr. John Van Aerde (“Dr. Van Aerde”) is a specialist in paediatric
medicine. Although now retired from clinical practice, Dr. Van Aerde remains active in various
medical associations, medical education institutions as well as the Canadian Medical Association.
[32] The Defendant Dr Andrew Fraser (“Dr. Fraser”) is a tenured professor at the University of
Toronto Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomedical Research. He conducts research on genetic
models of development and disease, and has significant training and experience in pathology and
statistical analysis.
[33] The Defendant Dr. Ilan Schwartz (“Dr. Schwartz”) is a physician with a subspecialty in
infectious diseases, employed by the University of Alberta and the Alberta Health Services. Dr.
Schwartz was involved in clinical trials of the use of hydroxychloroquine that were among the
many such research investigations that showed it to be an ineffective treatment for Covid-19
infection.
[34] The Defendant Dr. Marco Prado (“Dr. Prado”) is a professor at Western University with
an established expertise in biochemistry and immunology.
B-1-1305
- 1296 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1306
- Page 8 -
B-1-1306
[35] The Defendant Timothy Caulfield (“Caulfield”) is a health policy and health sciences
professor at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law and School of Public Health whose
research has dealt with misinformation in the context of health care and Covid-19.
[36] The Defendant Dr. Sajjad Fazel (“Dr. Fazel”) is a post-doctoral associate at the University
of Calgary and also holds a Masters Degree in Public Health.

[37] The Defendant Dr. Terry Polevoy (“Dr. Polevoy”) is a retired family physician who is an
active leader within various medical associations, including associations of physicians in his area
of practice and provincial associations. Dr. Polevoy is active on social media, primarily through
his Twitter account where he frequently shares information, opinions and news stories on a variety
of subjects including politics and health care.
[38] The Defendant Dr. Andrew Boozary (“Dr. Boozary”) is a physician in Toronto and the
Executive Director of Population Health and Social Medicine at the University Health Network.
[39] The Defendant Dr. Abdu Sharkawy (“Dr. Sharkawy”) is a physician with a specialization
in infectious diseases and internal medicine. He routinely speaks in public and using his Twitter
account to educate members of the public on health and medicine matters.
[40] The Defendant The Medical Post publishes both a print magazine and an online newspaper
for Canadian physicians. The online newspaper is published daily and is only available to
registered users or subscribers.
[41] The Defendant Tristan Bronca has worked with the Medical Post and has become familiar
with the scientific literature on hydroxychloroquine showing it is not an effective treatment for
covid-19.
[42] The Defendant The Pointer Group Incorporated (“The Pointer”) is a paid subscription-
bases digital-only media platform that provides locally-focused news in the Peel and Greater
Toronto Regions.
[43] The Defendant André Picard (“Picard”) is the Staff Senior Health Columnist for The Globe
and Mail where he has worked since 1987. Picard reports and writes on health and health care
issues. He is the author of six books on health-related subjects and speaks publicly on frequent
occasions on such matters, also using a Twitter account for that purpose.
[44] The Defendant Carly Weeks is a Health Reporter for The Globe and Mail where she has
been a staff writer since 2007. She writes and often speaks publicly on health-related topics and
additionally uses a Twitter account for that purpose.
[45] The Defendant Alheli Picazo (“Picazo”) is a freelance writer who primarily covers the
topics of politics and health. She uses Twitter for this purpose and often tweets about the Covid-
19 pandemic and related issues.
B-1-1306
- 1297 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1307
- Page 9 -
B-1-1307
[46] The Defendant Bruce Arthur (“Arthur”) is a columnist at the Toronto Star. He uses his
Twitter account to express personal views and concerns on a variety of topics, including the Covid-
19 pandemic.
[47] The Plaintiffs have discontinued their action as against the Defendants The Hamilton
Spectator and Societe-Radio Canada.

Preliminary Observations
[48] As can be seen from the above descriptions of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have brought
these proceedings against more than 20 individual physicians, academics, medical and scientific
experts, and journalists as well as against publications that have and continue to provide valuable
information to the public about Covid-19.
[49] In the motions before the Court, the Defendants seek to avail themselves of a provision
enacted by the legislature that is intended to operate as a shield against anyone seeking to stifle
debate on issues that are of interest to the public. The ultimate issue before me is whether these
claims are such that they should be dismissed on that basis at this early stage.
[50] The provision under which the Defendants move for orders dismissing the claims against
them is not the first or the only available recourse by which a proceeding may be terminated or
curtailed by the courts when appropriate. For instance, Rules 2.1.01, 20 and 21 establish bases
upon which proceedings may be dismissed or adjudicated upon short of any full trial. No one has
an absolute and unfettered right to pursue any civil claims through to full trial and judgment
without confronting a possible roadblock that may bring the proceedings to a halt.
[51] One may well wonder about the motives of these full-time physicians who remain active
in what might fairly be described as the politics of their professional associations in bringing
proceedings seeking staggering money judgments against such a broad array of persons whom
they claim to perceive as having injured their reputations. The sheer variety of their targets and the
magnitude of their claims set them up to be examined pursuant to s. 137.1.
[52] Because there are so many claims made in these proceedings against so many Defendants,
and so many arguments and defences advanced by them, applying the test on each of the motions
brought on their behalf is a daunting task. However, it does appear that the claims can be grouped
generally into 2 categories: those that arise out of statements made by some Defendants in the
context of an OMA dispute, and those that arise out of or were provoked by the controversial views
expressed by Dr. Gill about pandemic-related matters.
[53] In dealing with the substance of these various motions, I may repeat the same positions
taken by various parties, or make liberal reference to those parts of the written submissions that
have been filed on behalf of some parties as well as the rationales for those arguments as advanced.
[54] In several instances, some Defendants have sought to avail themselves of more than one
available defence. As will be seen below, I consider it unnecessary to determine to any full extent
or comment upon the defences of justification that have been asserted because I consider that the
B-1-1307
- 1298 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1308
- Page 10 -
B-1-1308
additional defences of fair comment, responsible journalism and/or qualified privilege offer full
defences to the claims and therefore no entry into what may be (at its highest) an arbitration of
matters of scientific debate is necessary. By declining to do so, I do not purport to suggest that the
opinions of the Plaintiffs are of equal persuasive merit to those views expressed by the Defendants,
but only that a thorough evaluation of them for the purposes of these motions is not strictly
required.

[55] As a general observation, counsel for the Plaintiffs has urged the Court to agree that it must
adopt a fairly narrow approach to the s. 137.1 analysis referred to herein, must avoid drawing any
inferences, and must not arrive at any conclusions based on a qualitative assessment of the
evidence tendered by the parties.
[56] In my opinion, to adopt an overly-rigid and narrow approach to the analysis of the material
filed in this case would be to ignore the stated purpose of the legislation as well as the “crux of the
inquiry” and “robust backstop” descriptions employed by the Supreme Court of Canada to describe
the balancing process that is designed to protect, in appropriate cases, freedom of expression on
matters of public interest from the chilling prospect of litigation.
[57] Having said that, the material filed by the parties is such that it requires very little or nothing
by the way of credibility assessments to dispose of the motions. Rather, the expressions or conduct
of the Defendants that are the subject of the action are basically not in dispute. The critical task is
to determine if they are protected when the analysis established by s. 137.1 is applied. Having
carefully considered the evidence and arguments put forward by the Plaintiffs, I nevertheless am
of the opinion that the expressions complained of attract the protection that a s. 137.1 analysis
permits.
[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the
Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been
applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have
accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.
The OMA Dispute Claims
A. Dr. MacIver
[59] Section 137.1 places an initial burden, which is purposefully not an onerous one, on a
defendant to satisfy the motion judge that the proceeding arises from an expression that relates to
a matter of public interest. At this first stage of the s. 137.1 analysis, it is not legally relevant
whether the expression is desirable or deleterious, valuable or vexatious, or whether it helps or
hampers the public interest. The only question is whether the expression pertains to any matter of
public interest, defined broadly.
[60] The expression in the action brought against Dr. Maciver concerns tweets published by
him on his Twitter feed in September 2018. In its entire context, Dr. Maciver’s expression pertains
to the public debate about the OMA sparked by the Plaintiffs and their physician advocacy
organization COD on Twitter and their blocking of physicians who do not agree with their views.
B-1-1308
- 1299 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1309
- Page 11 -
B-1-1309
[61] When Dr. Maciver published his tweets, the Plaintiffs through COD had been engaged in
ongoing, serious and inflammatory attacks on the OMA and its leadership on Twitter and on other
platforms. These attacks included allegations of fraud and corruption. Dr. Maciver wanted to
respond to the Plaintiffs’ Twitter attacks directly on their Twitter feeds that was the site of the
public conversation but could not do so because the Plaintiffs had blocked him and others from
engaging with them on Twitter.

[62] Frustrated by the Plaintiffs’ blocking of him, Dr. Maciver tweeted the words complained
of on his own Twitter feed. In his initial tweet, which is the primary subject of this litigation as
against him, Dr. Maciver used some rather offensive name-calling towards the Plaintiffs. He
deleted this tweet within days after posting it.
[63] The following facts provide context to Dr. Maciver’s expression:
(a) Prior to and at the time of the publication of the words complained of,
there was significant interest in Ontario and, in particular, within the Ontario
medical community concerning the contract negotiations between the
Government of Ontario and the OMA, on behalf of Ontario physicians.
(b) Since its formation, COD has taken positions critical of and has attacked
the OMA and its leadership. The Plaintiffs, as leaders of COD, have a “lack
of confidence in the integrity, fairness, accountability and transparency of the
OMA.” Dr. Maciver is one of the many OMA physicians who strongly oppose
COD’s and the Plaintiffs’ ongoing attacks on the OMA.
(c) In October 2017, Dr. Maciver replied to a COD tweet, expressing his
ongoing disappointment in COD “continuing to fragment the profession in
Ontario.” Soon after his fairly benign expression of disappointment, the
Plaintiffs blocked him from posting on their Twitter account.
(d) The Plaintiffs also have blocked the Twitter accounts of other physicians
who appeared to dissent from their political views concerning the OMA.
(e) Prior to the publication of the words complained of, the Plaintiffs used
Twitter to criticize the OMA and its leadership. These criticisms included
allegations of fraud and corruption. Some examples of this are as follows:
• OMA=toxic culture of misogyny, bullying & intimidation
• None of them are held to account for their lies, unethical

conduct, and bullying & intimidation of frontline MDs
• Corrupt OMA’s hypocrisy on Full Display
• We will be fully united once we truly revamp the OMA. But that
can only happen once it’s dismantled, the vermin scurries out…
B-1-1309
- 1300 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1310
- Page 12 -
B-1-1310
• The following is the epitome (so far) of the egregiousness of this

organization and its so called “leaders” - how disgusting can they
get?
• Instead, corrupt OMA’s implementing draconian Code of

Conduct to silence MDs

• …undemocratic OMA passed Part 1 of 2 Part Code of Conduct
to silence MDs from exposing unethical conduct
• LAME DUCK OMA…Incoming OMA Pres Nadia Alam was

NEVER elected by membership
• Of course, the corrupt OMA rewards its unethical “leaders” with

accolades and rewards. One word: karma.
• Unbelievable hypocrisy on display
• The corrupt OMA is taking extreme measures to muzzle your

doctors…
[64] Leading up to the publication of his impugned tweets in September 2018, Dr. Maciver
became increasingly frustrated by the Plaintiffs’ attacks on the OMA and, in particular, their
attacks on the honesty and integrity of its leadership. Dr. Maciver believed the Plaintiffs’ attacks
were very serious charges which called for debate and response on the main forum in which they
were being made, i.e. the Plaintiffs’ Twitter feeds. Because the Plaintiffs had blocked Dr. Maciver,
he could not respond directly to them.
[65] On September 4, 2018, Dr. Maciver lost his temper over the Plaintiffs’ ongoing conduct
and what he viewed as the inflammatory positions they were taking on behalf of COD. Dr. Maciver
reacted on his @smootholdfart account about being blocked by the Plaintiffs on Twitter. He made
further tweets from his @vitomaciver account the same day and on September 8, 2018. From the
outset, the primary focus of the Plaintiffs’ complaint and this action against Dr. Maciver concerns
the words “corksoakers” and “twats” published in the initial @smootholdfart tweet.
[66] In its entire context, Dr. Maciver’s expression pertains to the public debate about the OMA
sparked by the Plaintiffs and COD on Twitter and their blocking on Twitter of physicians who
dissent from their inflammatory views.
[67] I am of the opinion that the impugned communications authored by Dr. Maciver were on
a matter of public interest.
[68] In terms of referencing the Plaintiffs in the initial @smootholdfart Tweet, Dr. Maciver
understood Dr. Gill and Dr. Lamba to be the public faces of COD on Twitter. This is the only
reason he referenced them.
B-1-1310
- 1301 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1311
- Page 13 -
B-1-1311
[69] The law is clear that people have no legal duty to “always be calm, cool, kind, gentle and
polite.” It has long been recognized by courts that “there is a distinction between actionable
defamation and mere obscenities, insults and other verbal abuse” and “[t]he courts cannot award
damages in favour of the victims of empty threats, insulting words or rudeness” (see: Langille et
al v. McGrath, 2000 CanLII 46809).

[70] The law tolerates such speech not only as an expression of free speech in a free society but
also as a safeguard against our court system being flooded with litigation.
[71] It is clear from the words complained of and the overall context in which they were
published on Twitter that Dr. Maciver was communicating his disapproval of the conduct of the
Plaintiffs. The offensive language used by him is pure name-calling, and not defamation.
[72] Although some of the language used by Dr. Maciver on Twitter may have been
unprofessional and ill-advised, the words complained of are not defamatory and therefore not
actionable. There is an important distinction in the law of defamation between words that are
actionable for being defamatory and words that merely contain insults and are not actionable.
Freedom of speech would be seriously curtailed if insulting comments, which have caused no harm
to reputation, were actionable for being defamatory (see: Diop v. Transdev Dublin Light Rail, 2019
IEHA 849).
[73] On multiple occasions, Dr. Maciver has apologized to the Plaintiffs both publicly and
privately and shown contrition for the heated language he used on Twitter. The fact of Dr.
Maciver’s apologies was also made known within the physician community on Twitter.
[74] On September 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs published a Facebook post to COD’s many followers
which referred to Dr. Maciver’s “vulgarity” and repeated the allegedly offending language. In the
post, the Plaintiffs wrongfully claimed that Dr. Maciver called them “cock sucking cunts” and
further incorrectly told their readers that Dr. Maciver made his tweets as a leader of the OMA.
[75] Any reputational harm to the Plaintiffs purportedly caused by Dr. Maciver’s expression is
evidently of very low magnitude, if any has actually occurred.
[76] Dr. Gill offered no evidence of any harm arising from Dr. Maciver’s briefly published
expression, other than vague, unparticularized statements. In fact, it is her own evidence that she
remains “a highly regarded member of [her] profession.” Dr. Lamba has not seen fit to tender
evidence on this motion to describe the alleged harm that she claims to have suffered.
[77] Even if for the purposes of this motion the words complained of are found to be defamatory
of the Plaintiffs and that some general damages to their reputation are therefore to be presumed,
then the record before me supports a conclusion that any damages suffered are likely to be assessed
as merely nominal and insufficient to warrant continuation of this proceeding.
[78] An application of the s. 137(4)(b) “crux of the matter” analysis therefore requires a
dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Maciver. For the reasons he asserts, the public
B-1-1311
- 1302 -
24849d4b81874901b436af8bb0953324-1312
- Page 14 -
B-1-1312
interest in protecting Dr. Maciver’s right to speak out on a matter of public interest outweighs any
considerations that might otherwise favour allowing the action against him to continue.
[79] Accordingly, the relief requested by Dr. Maciver is hereby allowed and the action against
him is dismissed.

B. Dr. Alam and the Medical Post
[80] In 2018 Dr. Alam was President of the OMA. The Plaintiffs objected to what they described
as Dr. MacIvor’s vulgarity and demanded via Facebook that the OMA and Dr. Alam censure him.
[81] Dr. Alam was then called upon to comment on this situation by members of the OMA as
well. As such, Dr. Alam has raised a very strong defence that her response was written on an
occasion of qualified privilege in furtherance of her duties to communicate to OMA membership
and to respond to what may fairly be described as an attack upon her and the OMA by the Plaintiffs.
[82] The basic elements of the attack by the Plaintiffs may be seen in a statement published by
the Plaintiffs on their Facebook page which states, in part:
We are your Ontario Doctors
September 7, 2018

2023-09-08 - CSASPP's SLAPP Motion Record and Complete CaseLines Bundle (Galati V CSASPP Et Al.)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

2023-09-08 - CSASPP's SLAPP Motion Record and Complete CaseLines Bundle (Galati V CSASPP Et Al.)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Bundle prepared at ontariocourts.caselines.

A1 - A1000 A1 - A1000 Responding (Plaintiff's) September 05,

A1001 - A1171 A1001 - A1171 Responding Motion September 05,

A1172 - A1206 A1172 - A1206 Responding Plaintiffs September 05,

B-1: Defendant/Respondent Documents (1)

B-1-1631 - B-1- B-1-1631 - B-1- Supplementary Motion March 29, 2023

B-1-1873 - B-1- B-1-1873 - B-1- Supplementary Motion May 30, 2023

B-1-2878 - B-1- B-1-2878 - B-1- Abbreviated Book of July 25, 2023

B-1-3469 - B-1- B-1-3469 - B-1- Factum - Moving July 28, 2023

B-1-3512 - B-1- B-1-3512 - B-1- Reply Factum - Moving September 05,

B-1-3544 - B-1- B-1-3544 - B-1- Compendium - Moving September 05,

B-2: Defendant/Respondent Documents (2)

B-3: Defendant/Respondent Documents (3)

B-4: Defendant/Respondent Documents (4)

B-5: Defendant/Respondent Documents (5)

B-6: Defendant/Respondent Documents (6)

B-7: Defendant/Respondent Documents (7)

B-8: Defendant/Respondent Documents (8)

B-9: Defendant/Respondent Documents (9)

B-10: Defendant/Respondent Documents (10)

C: Defendant to Counterclaim Documents

D: Third Party Documents

H: Exhibits (Courts use)

Court File No. CV-22-683322-0000

DONNA TOEWS (AKA “DAWNA TOEWS”), KIPLING WARNER, CANADIAN

ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM

Tel: (416) 530-9684

Lawyers for the Defendants

2. Affidavit of Rocco Galati, sworn March 14, 2023

T Mission Statement of CRC, November, 2004

W CRC income, 2021

ZZ Negative posts by Vladislav Sobolev and “affiliates”

C Legal challenge update released on or about July 23rd, 2021

6. Affidavit of Sandra Sable, sworn March 11th, 2023.

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DONNA TOEWS (AKA "DAWNA TOEWS"), KIPLING WARNER, CANADIAN

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, A JUDGMENT MAY BE

TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if

Date: Issued by:

Address of Local Office: 393 University Ave.

1. The Plaintiff claims:

General damages as against the Defendants, as follows:

slander (defamation), and irresponsible publication;

Plaintiff's solicitor-client relationships, interference with economic interests and

intentional infliction of mental anguish and distress;

Defendants in the amount of $250,000.00;

Public Policy, $100,000.00 for harassment as delineated by the Superior Court of

Ontario in Caplan v Alas, 2021 ONSC 670;

or indirectly associated with them, from posting or disseminating defamatory posts

as this Court deems just.

(a) The Plaintiff

25 Influential Lawyers by Canadian Lawyer Magazine. In 2015 he was awarded the

receive the award.

v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC),

Reference re Section 98 of the Constitution Act, 1867, R. v. Ahmad, [2011] S.C.J.

Wang v. Canada, 2018 ONCA 798.

Canada from 1999 to present.

since its inception in November, 2004.

Art and "Culture".

(b) The Defendants

the Advancement of Science and Public Policy.

Advancement of Science and Public Policy.

Policy, is a not-for-profit organization, established and promoted by Kipling Warner for

the purposes of conducting anti-COVID measures litigation in British Columbia.