Galati on Lawsuit re COVID-1984

The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover coughs and sneezes, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces, and stay home if you are feeling sick.

Instance 2 is a (REDACTED by GALATI) system that provides (REDACTED by GALATI) services to its customers. It is hosted on a (REDACTED by GALATI) platform and utilizes (REDACTED by GALATI) technologies to ensure secure and reliable operations. The system is designed to be highly scalable and can handle large volumes of data with ease. It also offers advanced features such as (REDACTED by GALATI), which allow users to customize their experience according to their needs. Additionally, the system is equipped with robust security measures such as encryption, authentication, and authorization protocols to protect customer data from unauthorized access.

We appreciate your help in getting the source file for the CLAIM. We understand that Galati may not be comfortable providing it to us, but we would like to make sure that the document is easily accessible and indexed for everyone who needs it.

If you have any feedback or concerns about this process, please feel free to use our FEEDBACK form. If you are considering taking legal action against us, please use our LAWSUIT form instead.

Thank you for your help and understanding!

The local mirror of the redacted version can be found here:

The local mirror of the unredacted version can be found here:

You’re welcome!


I, [Name], of [Address], do hereby make claim for damages against [Name], of [Address], in the amount of $[Amount].

The basis for this claim is as follows: On [Date], I was injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of [Name]. As a result of this accident, I suffered physical and emotional injuries, including but not limited to:

• Physical pain and suffering;
• Loss of wages due to inability to work;
• Medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident;
• Emotional distress.

I am seeking compensation for all damages resulting from this incident. I have attached documentation supporting my claim, including medical records and bills, wage statements, and other relevant documents.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature: ___________________________


You must ‘defend’ this proceeding if you wish to dispute the claim.

To defend the proceeding, you must serve a defence on the plaintiff within 28 days after the date of service of these documents and file it at the court office listed below. You may wish to seek legal advice about how to defend the claim.

If you do not defend the proceeding, judgment may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.

The name and address of the court office is:
[Court Office Address]

If you fail to do so, judgment may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.

You may wish to seek legal advice about your rights and obligations in this matter.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, you must file your statement of defence within forty days of being served. If you are served outside of Canada and the United States of America, you must file your statement of defence within sixty days of being served.

A notice of intent to defend is a document that informs the court and the other parties involved in a lawsuit that you intend to defend yourself against the claims made against you. It does not require you to provide any details about your defence, but it does give you an extra 10 days to file your statement of defence.

If you fail to defend this proceeding, a judgment may be entered against you in your absence and without further notice. This means that the court will make a decision on the case without hearing from you or giving you an opportunity to present your side of the story. If you wish to defend this proceeding but are unable to pay legal fees, you may be eligible for free or reduced-cost legal assistance through a local legal aid office. Contacting a local legal aid office is the best way to determine if you qualify for such assistance.


This action will be automatically dismissed five years after it was commenced unless the court orders otherwise.

Re: Request for Local Office Services

Dear [Name],

This letter is to request services from your local office. I am [name], and I am writing to request assistance with [describe the service you are requesting].

I have been a resident of [city] for [number] years, and I am in need of help with this issue. I understand that your office provides services to residents in my area, and I would like to take advantage of those services.

I have enclosed all relevant documents related to my request, including my identification and proof of residence. Please let me know if there is any additional information you require from me.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.


[Your Name]





Phone: 416-392-7000
Email: [email protected]




  1. As against the Crown and Municipal Defendants the Plaintiffs claim:Â
    1. A Declaration that the “COVID Measures” undertaken and orchestrated by Prime Minister Trudeau (“Trudeau”)i, and the Federal 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;Â
    2. A Declaration that:
      1. s. 7.0.1 through s.70.11 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, RSO 1990.C.e.9 (the “Act“), and in particular vesting an indefinite emergency power in the Premier and Lti-Governor, and further that the “COVID Measures”, undertaken and orchestrated by Premier Doug FORD (“Ford”) 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;
      1. A further Declaration that the “emergency”, COVID-19 “pandemic” declaration issued by Ontario, did not, and does not, meet the statutory requisite criteria set out in s.7.0e.1(3) of that Act, and is in further contravention of s. 7.0.2(1) and (3) of that Act ,and that the declaration of emergency, and its extensions, be declared ultra vires the Act
    3. A Declaration that the COVID Measures taken by both Trudeau and Ford, and their respective governments, at the blind and unquestioned dictates of the World Health Organization (“WHO”) bureaucrats, 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;Â
    4. A Declaration that the COVID Measures undertaken by Trudeau, and his officials, violate ss. 2, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the Charter, specifically the measures:
      1. “self isolation”;
      2. “social distancing”;
      3. the compulsory wearing of face masks;
      4. arbitrary and unjustified closure of businesses;Â
  • In that the Measures are not:
    1. scientifically, nor medically, based nor proven to be effective whatsoever;
    2. pose physical and psychological harm; and
    3. are extreme, unwarranted and unjustified;
  • And that the measures violate of s.2 (right of association ) s. 7 (life, liberty, and security of person), s.8 (unlawful search and seizure), s. 9 (arbitrary detention by enforcement officers), s.15 (equality before and under the law), 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 not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society;Â
  1. A Declaration that the declaration of a public emergency in Ontario, and the very Legislation, Regulations and Orders enacted pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, 250 1990 c. E-9, infringe s. 2, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the Charter specifically the measures of:
    In that the Measures are not:

    1. “self isolation”;
    2. “social distancing”;
    3. the compulsory wearing of face masks;
    4. arbitrary and unjustified closure of businesses;
    5. the closure of schools, daycares, park amenities, and playgrounds;
    6. the discontinuance of access to education, medical, dental, chiropractic, naturopathic, hearing, dietary, therapeutic and other support, for the physically and mentally disabled, particularly special needs children with neurological disorders; and
    7. the closing down of religious places of worship;
    8. scientifically, nor medically, based nor proven to be effective whatsoever;
    9. pose physical and psychological harm; and
    10. are extreme, unwarranted and unjustified. And that the measures violate of s.2 (right of association ) s. 7 (life, liberty, and security of person), s.8 (unlawful search and seizure), s. 9 (arbitrary detention by enforcement officers), s.15 (equality before and under the law), are not in accordance with the tenets of fundamental justice in their over breadth, nor are they justified under s. 1 of the Charter in that they are not demonstrably justified a in free and democratic society;Â
  2. A Declaration that the Municipal COVID Measures enacted by By-Law, and Orders, by the City of Toronto, and conduct of John Tory, are ultra vires the Provincial Act and Regulations, and are further unconstitutional and are of no force and effect, for breaches of s.2 (right of association ) s. 7 (life, liberty, and security of person), s. 8 (unlawful search and seizure), s.9 (arbitrary detention by By-Law officers), andis. 15 of the Charter, specifically the measures of:
    1. “self isolation”;
    2. “social distancing”;
    3. the compulsory wearing of face masks;
    4. arbitrary and unjustified closure of businesses;
    5. the closure of schools, daycares, park amenities, and playgrounds;
    6. the discontinuance of access to education, medical, dental, chiropractic, naturopathic, hearing, dietary, therapeutic, and other support, for the physically and mentally disabled, particularly special needs children with neurological disorders;
    7. the closing down of religious places of worship;

to be taken in the present

The measures referred to are not to be taken at this time.

  1. scientifically, nor medically, based nor proven to be effective whatsoever;
  2. pose physical and psychological harm; and
  3. are extreme, unwarranted and unjustified. Â

That the measures violate s.2 (right of association) by infringing on the right to peacefully assemble and associate with others; s.7 (life, liberty, and security of person) by restricting freedom of movement and expression; s.8 (unlawful search and seizure) by allowing for searches without reasonable suspicion or a warrant; s.9 (arbitrary detention by enforcement officers) by allowing for arbitrary detention without due process; and s.15 (equality before and under the law) by disproportionately targeting certain groups based on their race, religion, or other protected characteristics. Furthermore, these measures are 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 not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

  1. A Declaration that, in the imposition of the COVID Measures, Trudeau, Ford, and Tory, and all the named Medical officer Defendants, have engaged in ultra vires and unconstitutional conduct and have acted in, abuse and excess of their authority;Â
  2. 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;
  3. A Declaration that:
    1. the orders from the Medical Officers from the Counties of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph and Winsor-E ssex, and any and all County or Municipal By- Law or Health Officers and orders, respecting mandatory wearing face-masks, is unconstitutional; and
    2. a further Declaration that the mandatory wearing of face-masks is both ineffective and poses a health risk, and is a violation of s. 7 of the Charter (liberty and security of the person) in violating the physical and psychological integrity, by seriously restricting a person’s primordial right to breath, as well as restricting the very right of liberty, to choose how to breath, as well as pose a physical and medical danger;
  4. A Declaration that any mandatory vaccine scheme against any purported COVID-19, by way of mandatory vaccine, without informed consent, is unconstitutional, and no force and effect in that:
    1. It in infringes s.2 of the Charter in violating freedom of conscience, religion and thought;
    2. 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;
    3. Breaches the same parallel rights recognized prior to the Charter, as written constitutional rights through the Pre-Amble to the Constitution Act, 1867;
    4. 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;
    5. 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;
  5. I, [Name], declare that social distancing, self-isolation, and limits as to the number of persons who can physically congregate, and where they can congregate, violate section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by banning association, including religious gatherings, and further restricting physical and psychological liberty and security of the person rights under section 7 of the Charter. These measures are not in accordance with the tenets of fundamental justice nor demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.
  6. I, [Name], declare that the arbitrary, irrational, and standardless sweep of closing businesses and stores as “non-essential” constitutes unreasonable search and seizure contrary to section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This closure is not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.
  7. We, the undersigned, declare that the declared rationales and motives, and execution of COVID measures by the World Health Organization (WHO) are not related to a bona fide nor an actual “pandemic”, but for other political and socio-economic reasons, motives, and measures at the behest of global billionaire, corporate and organizational oligarchs. We further declare that these measures have been implemented without due consideration for their impact on human rights or civil liberties.
  8. We, the undersigned, declare that prohibitions and obstacles to protest against COVID Measures in Ontario, and in Toronto, 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. We further declare that these constitutional rights were 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. We call on all levels of government to ensure that these rights are respected and upheld in order to protect our collective freedoms.
  9. 1. Mandatory mask wearing;
    2. Social distancing;
    3. Quarantines and lockdowns;
    4. Travel restrictions;
    5. Closure of businesses, schools, places of worship, and other public places;
    6. Contact tracing and surveillance;
    7. Vaccination requirements or mandates;
    8. Any other measures imposed by the Defendants in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
    are unconstitutional and unlawful under the laws of the United States of America, and are therefore null and void ab initio.

    1. Self-isolation is the practice of staying away from other people and avoiding contact with them in order to prevent the spread of a contagious disease. It is usually recommended for people who have been exposed to or are showing symptoms of an infectious disease, such as COVID-19.
    2. No, there are no gatherings of more than five (5) or larger than ten (10) persons allowed.
    3. The shutting down of children’s playgrounds, daycares and schools can have a significant impact on the mental health of children. It can lead to feelings of isolation, loneliness, and anxiety. It can also lead to a decrease in physical activity, which can further contribute to mental health issues. Additionally, it can disrupt the socialization process for young children, which is essential for their development.
    4. Social distancing is a public health practice that involves maintaining physical distance from other people, usually by staying at least six feet apart, in order to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. It is also known as “physical distancing”.
    5. The compelled wearing of face masks is a controversial issue, as it has been argued that it can be an infringement on civil liberties. However, many governments and health organizations have implemented policies requiring the use of face masks in public spaces to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.
    6. Prohibition and curtailment of freedom of assembly, including religious assembly and petition, is a violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly. This type of restriction can lead to a lack of public participation in decision-making processes, which can have a negative impact on democracy.
    7. Yes, the imposition of charges and fines for the purported breach of a contract is allowed under the law.
    8. Restricting travel on public transport without compliance to physical distancing and masking is an important measure to help reduce the spread of COVID-19. It is important that people follow the guidelines set out by their local health authorities, such as wearing a face covering, maintaining a distance of at least two metres from other passengers, and avoiding crowded areas. Additionally, it is important to practice good hygiene when travelling on public transport, such as washing hands regularly and using hand sanitizer.
    9. restrictions on the number of people allowed in stores at one time;
      closing of non-essential businesses;
      limiting hours of operation for essential businesses;
      mandatory use of face masks in public spaces;
      closure of indoor dining and other services that involve close contact with others.
  10. and the right to a fair trial under s. 15 of the Charteri.
  11. (i) The Applicant has not been convicted of any offence involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude;

    (ii) The Applicant is not an undischarged bankrupt;

    (iii) The Applicant has not been declared insolvent by any court of competent jurisdiction; and

    (iv) The Applicant is not subject to any legal proceedings for the recovery of any debt.

  12. I, [Name], declare that any and all municipal/county by-laws and/or orders with respect to compulsory face masks are ultra vires the provincial legislation in that the Province has expressly refused to make face-masking compulsory. This declaration is made in accordance with the applicable laws of the Province of [Province].
  13. We, the undersigned, declare that the decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, are unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary. These decisions have been designed and implemented to favor mega-corporations while de facto putting most small businesses and activities out of business. We call on our government to take immediate action to ensure that all businesses are treated fairly and equitably in this time of crisis.
  14. I, [Name], hereby declare that the World Health Organization’s proposal to enter people’s homes and remove children from parents, or separate families, who are tested positive for COVID-19 is flagrantly unconstitutional in violating the s.2 rights to freedom of association (the family unit) as well as violating the parent-child relationship protected by s.7 of the Charter, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada. This proposal is a gross violation of fundamental human rights and should not be implemented.
  15. I, [Name], hereby declare that all information provided in this document is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false or misleading information may result in legal action being taken against me.
  16. I, [Name], declare that the measures taken by [Government] have a devastating impact on those with severe physical and neurological special needs, particularly children. These measures infringe upon section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the unwritten right to equality through the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. This infringement is based on psychical and mental disability, age, and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

3. Such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.

Yes, interim and/or final injunctive relief can be sought against the Crown and Municipal Defendants for any mandatory vaccine or compelled use of face-mask, and against any other compelled, coercive COVID-Measures. This could include measures that interfere with physical and psychological integrity without informed consent. The court would consider the merits of the case before granting such relief.

The CBC may be liable for breach of contract, negligence, or misrepresentation. Depending on the specific facts of the case, the CBC may also be liable for other causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, or unjust enrichment.

The cost of this action on a substantial indemnity basis will depend on the complexity of the case and the amount of legal fees incurred. The court may also award additional costs, such as expert witness fees, if deemed necessary.


¥ The Plaintiffs 

Yes, this is correct.

(c) She has had to limit her social activities and interactions with friends and family;  (d) She has had to wear a mask in public places, which can be uncomfortable and difficult to breathe in.

he complains that it smells bad.

(d) She suggests that her son try using a scented hand sanitizer to make it more pleasant for him.

(e) She has been asked to wear a face mask in public places.

She should follow the store’s policy and wear a mask while shopping.

she must wear a mask while shopping.

Yes, local grocery shopping is typically pricier for her due to rural pricing. This is because rural areas often have fewer stores and less competition, which can lead to higher prices. Additionally, transportation costs may be higher in rural areas, which can also contribute to higher prices.

If she declines wearing a mask, she should be informed of the safety protocols in place and the potential consequences of not following them. Depending on the store or service, this could include being asked to leave or not being allowed to enter.

(ii) She has a weakened immune system due to her asthma;Â

(iii) She is at higher risk of developing complications from the coronavirus;Â

(iv) She should take extra precautions to protect herself, such as avoiding large crowds and wearing a face mask when out in public;Â

(v) She should also practice social distancing and good hygiene habits, such as washing her hands frequently and avoiding touching her face.

Yes, this is a form of trauma. Trauma can be caused by any event that causes physical or emotional harm. In this case, the mask being held forcibly over her face to prevent her from screaming while she was being sexually and physically assaulted is a traumatic experience that could have long-term psychological effects.

(2) She is concerned about the potential for discrimination based on her health status.

(3) She worries that her personal information could be used against her in the future.

(4) She feels violated by having to disclose such sensitive information.

(5) She is anxious about the possibility of being exposed to COVID-19 while out in public.

McMAHON’s objection to face-masks is valid and should be taken into consideration. The effectiveness of face-masks in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses is still being debated, and there are potential physical and psychological health risks associated with wearing them. Additionally, the right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter may be violated if individuals are forced to wear face-masks against their will.

The Plaintiff, Cindy Campbell, is a resident of Ontario, residing in Toronto. She has brought an action against the Defendant, John Doe, for breach of contract under the Business Practices Act of Ontario and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to comply with his obligations under the contract by failing to provide adequate security measures for her personal information as required by PIPEDA.

She has extensive experience in acute care, long-term care, home health and community health settings. She is passionate about providing quality patient care and advocating for the rights of patients.

In addition to her work in nursing education, CAMPBELL is an active member of the Canadian Nurses Association and has served on several committees related to gerontology and nursing practice. She has also been a keynote speaker at numerous conferences and symposiums related to aging and health care. In 2020, she was awarded the prestigious Canadian Nurses Association Award for Excellence in Nursing Education for her contributions to the field.

CAMPBELL is committed to providing quality care for older adults and advocating for their rights. She is passionate about promoting interprofessional collaboration among healthcare providers and believes that nurses have an important role to play in improving the health outcomes of older adults. Her research focuses on developing innovative strategies for delivering evidence-based care that meets the needs of older adults in a variety of settings.

CAMPBELL has been an integral part of the EOPS team, providing excellent patient care and ensuring that all procedures are performed safely and efficiently. She is highly knowledgeable in the area of pre-operative assessment, surgical techniques, and post-operative care. CAMPBELL is also well-versed in the use of various medical equipment and instruments used during surgery. She is a strong advocate for patient safety and works hard to ensure that all patients receive the best possible care.

In addition to her clinical duties, CAMPBELL has also taken on a leadership role within the unit. She has been instrumental in developing protocols for safe practice, as well as creating educational materials for staff members. She has also been involved in quality improvement initiatives to ensure that the unit meets or exceeds standards set by regulatory bodies.

CAMPBELL’s dedication to her work and commitment to providing excellent patient care have earned her respect from both colleagues and patients alike. Her enthusiasm for her job is evident in everything she does, making her an invaluable asset to Peri-operative Services at St Vincent’s Hospital.

In response to the pandemic, EOPS staff were redeployed to other areas of the hospital. This included staffing the Emergency Room, ICU, and other critical care units. Staff also provided support in areas such as patient transport, environmental services, and food services. In addition, EOPS staff volunteered their time to help with COVID-19 testing and contact tracing efforts.

The closure of EOPS also had a financial impact on the hospital. With fewer surgeries being performed due to the pandemic, there was a decrease in revenue from elective procedures. This meant that the hospital had to find ways to reduce costs in order to remain financially viable during this difficult time. As a result, some staff members were furloughed or laid off due to reduced workloads.

Overall, the closure of EOPS due to the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on both patients and staff alike. While it has been necessary for safety reasons, it has also resulted in decreased access to care for many patients and financial hardship for some staff members.

CAMiPBELL states that the fact is, LTC homes were left unprepared for the pandemic despite ample warning. The lack of resources and support from provincial governments resulted in a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and other necessary supplies. This led to an increase in cases of COVID-19 among residents and staff, resulting in unnecessary death and suffering. CAMiPBELL believes that this was a preventable tragedy that could have been avoided with better planning and preparation.

On August 1, 2020, Petronela GROZA purchased a used car from a dealership in North Augusta. The car was advertised as being in excellent condition and with no mechanical issues. However, shortly after the purchase, Petronela began to experience problems with the car’s transmission. She took the car back to the dealership and was told that the transmission needed to be replaced at her own expense.

Petronela has now filed a lawsuit against the dealership for breach of contract and misrepresentation. She is seeking damages for the cost of repairs, as well as compensation for any inconvenience caused by the faulty vehicle.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for the violation of her constitutional rights, and for the emotional distress caused by the incident. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction to prevent Longo’s from enforcing any such policy in the future. The Plaintiff further seeks punitive damages against Ford and Tory for their reckless disregard of her constitutional rights.

22. The Plaintiff Graza claims that the Defendants’ statements and actions have caused her to suffer damages, including but not limited to: (a) physical and emotional distress; (b) loss of income; (c) loss of enjoyment of life; (d) loss of freedom; (e) humiliation and embarrassment; and (f) other general damages.

The Defendant, John Doe, is an Ontario Resident residing in the County of Peel.

On or about August 1st, 2020, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of a used car. The Plaintiff agreed to pay $10,000 for the car and the Defendant agreed to deliver it on or before August 15th, 2020.

On August 15th, 2020, the Defendant failed to deliver the car as promised and has not refunded any of the money paid by the Plaintiff. As a result of this breach of contract, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $10,000.

The Plaintiff therefore brings this action against the Defendant for breach of contract and seeks damages in the amount of $10,000 plus interest and costs.

The Plaintiff states that the lockdown has caused her to suffer from depression, anxiety, and fear. She is unable to access the mental health services she needs due to the restrictions in place. The Plaintiff also states that she has been unable to access essential items such as diapers and formula for her daughter due to the lack of availability in stores. This has caused her additional stress and worry about providing for her family. The Plaintiff further states that she has been unable to work due to the lockdown, which has caused financial hardship for her family.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for emotional distress, physical pain, loss of income, and other losses suffered as a result of the lockdown orders.

(c) The order is not being enforced in a fair and equitable manner. The Plaintiff has seen people not wearing masks in public places, yet they are not being fined or reprimanded. This sends the message that the order is more of a suggestion than an actual law, which undermines its effectiveness.  (d) It is an infringement on her civil liberties. The Plaintiff believes that this order violates her right to freedom of expression and assembly, as it prevents her from participating in activities she enjoys without having to wear a mask. She also believes that it is an unjustified restriction on her right to privacy, as she feels like she is constantly being monitored by authorities for compliance with the order.

25j. The Plaintiff LEiPE has been denied access to public places, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and other essential services due to her refusal to wear a face-mask. This has had a negative effect on her mental health as she is unable to access the necessary items for her daily life. She is also unable to participate in activities that would normally help her manage her anxiety, such as going for walks or visiting friends.

The Defendant, John DOE, resides in Toronto and is a real-estate developer.

On June 1st, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to purchase a property located at 123 Main Street for $500,000. The agreement was signed by both parties and included a clause that stated that the Defendant would pay all closing costs associated with the transaction.

On July 15th, 2020, the Plaintiff closed on the property and paid all of the closing costs out of pocket. The Defendant failed to reimburse her for these costs as agreed upon in their contract.

The Plaintiff is now suing the Defendant for breach of contract and is seeking reimbursement for all of the closing costs she paid out of pocket.

The Plaintiff’s claim is that the Covid-measures imposed by her employer violate her rights under ss.2 and 7 of the Charter. Section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of conscience and religion, while section 7 protects life, liberty, and security of the person. The Plaintiff claims that she has been denied her right to work without a face-mask due to her religious beliefs, which would constitute a violation of s.2. Additionally, she claims that the Covid-measures have caused her income to drop drastically, which could be seen as a violation of s.7 since it affects her security of person. The Court will need to consider whether or not these measures are reasonable limits on the Plaintiff’s rights in order to determine if they are constitutional or not.

30. The Defendant, John DOE, is a resident of the County of Welling-Dufferin-Guelph, Ontario.

The Plaintiff, SHEiPHEiRD, opposes the COVID-19 measures enacted by the government(s) on the grounds that they are overly restrictive and infringe upon civil liberties. Specifically, the Plaintiff objects to measures such as mandatory mask wearing in public spaces, social distancing requirements, limits on gatherings and events, and restrictions on travel. The Plaintiff believes that these measures are unnecessary and unjustified given the current state of the pandemic. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that these measures have caused significant economic hardship for individuals and businesses alike.

(b) The emergency measures have also caused financial hardship for the Plaintiff, as she has been unable to work due to the restrictions imposed by the government. This has resulted in a significant decrease in her income, making it difficult for her to pay for basic necessities such as food and rent.

(c) The Plaintiff is also concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability from the government regarding their decision-making process and implementation of these measures. She believes that there should be more public consultation and input into decisions that affect citizens’ lives so drastically.

In order to ensure SHEiPHEiRD’s health and wellbeing, we have been working with her medical team to find a safe and effective way for her to receive the necessary I-V therapy. We are currently exploring options such as home visits from a nurse or doctor, or having SHEiPHEiRD travel to a clinic that is able to provide the necessary services. We are also looking into alternative methods of providing nutritional support, such as oral supplements or other forms of nutrition therapy.

We understand the importance of SHEiPHEiRD receiving the necessary nutrition therapy and are committed to finding a solution that will ensure her health and safety.

The SHEiPHEiRD team is committed to providing safe and accessible services to all our clients. We understand that wearing a mask may be uncomfortable for some, and we respect your decision not to wear one. However, we must also ensure the safety of our staff and other clients. Therefore, if you are unable to wear a mask for any reason, please let us know in advance so that we can make alternative arrangements for your appointment.

1. The lock down has caused a disruption to the children’s daily routine and normal activities, which can be detrimental to their physical and mental health.

2. The lack of social interaction with other children their age can lead to feelings of isolation and loneliness, as well as difficulty in developing important social skills.

3. The lack of access to outdoor play areas and parks can limit the amount of physical activity they are able to do, which is essential for healthy growth and development.

4. The restrictions on travel have limited the family’s ability to visit family members or take part in activities outside the home, which can be an important source of support for young children.

5. The uncertainty surrounding the situation can cause anxiety in both parents and children, making it difficult for them to cope with the changes that have been imposed on them.

1. The emergency measures and measures enacted by the various layers of government are not based on sound scientific evidence and may be detrimental to public health.

2. These measures have been implemented without proper consultation with healthcare professionals, such as chiropractors, who could provide valuable insight into the potential risks and benefits of these measures.

3. Many of these measures have been implemented without consideration for the individual rights of citizens, including their right to access healthcare services in a safe and effective manner.

4. These measures have caused significant disruption to businesses, including chiropractic practices, which has had a negative impact on the livelihoods of many individuals and families.

5. The implementation of these measures has led to an increase in stress levels among individuals due to uncertainty about their future, which can lead to physical and mental health issues that can be exacerbated by lack of access to healthcare services such as those provided by chiropractors.

(i) “Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy”;  (ii) “COVID-19: The Science and the Politics”; and  (iii) “The Mask Debate”.

1. “COVID-19: The Hammer and the Dance” (2020)
2. “The COVID-19 Catastrophe and What We Can Do About It” (2020)
3. “The Coronavirus Pandemic: What Everyone Needs to Know” (2020)
4. “The Great Barrington Declaration: A Rational Approach to COVID-19” (2020)
5. “COVID-19: The Real Danger is ‘Lockdown'” (2020)

The OCLA has requested that the WHO retract its recommendation advising the use of face masks in the general population. The letter, co-authored by OCLA Executive Director Dr. Joseph Hickey, was sent to the WHO Director General, all MPs, all Premiers, all Ontario MPPs and the media on June 25th 2020. The letter outlines a body of scientific evidence which suggests that face masks are not effective in preventing transmission of COVID-19 and may even be harmful to public health.

The OCLA has also expressed concern about the CBC’s refusal to cover this important issue and provide Canadians with access to this critical information. They have noted that a CBC high-profile journalist had interviewed RANCOURT at length about face masks but then chose not to use any of the content for their news coverage.

The OCLA is calling on the WHO to retract its recommendation advising the use of face masks in the general population and for CBC to provide Canadians with access to this critical information.

and proposed censorship of opinions, and that he will continue to oppose such censorship in the future.

46ii. The Defendant, Patty Hajdu, is the current Minister of Health for Canada, and as such, a holder of a public office.  46iii. The Defendant, Dr. Theresa Tam, is the Chief Public Health Officer for Canada, and as such, a holder of a public office.  46iv. The Defendant, Doug Ford, is the current Premier of Ontario and as such, a holder of a public office.  46v. The Defendant, Christine Elliott is the current Minister of Health for Ontario and as such, a holder of a public office.

Yes, Dr. Theresa TAM is Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer and a holder of a public office.

The Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada is statutorily and constitutionally liable for the acts and omissions of her officials. This is based on the doctrine of vicarious liability, which states that an employer can be held responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of their employees. The Canadian Constitution also provides that the Crown is liable for any wrongs committed by its agents or servants.

50ii. The Defendant Transport Canada is a federal department, and as such a public office holder.

The Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario is statutorily and constitutionally liable for the acts and omissions of her officials under the doctrine of vicarious liability. This doctrine holds that an employer can be held responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of their employees, even if they did not directly cause the harm. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that this doctrine applies to government entities, including Her Majesty in Right of Ontario.

Yes, the Defendant Attorney General of Ontario is constitutionally responsible for defending the integrity of all legislation and responding to declaratory relief with respect to legislation. The Attorney General is also responsible for providing legal advice to the government and representing the government in court proceedings.

The State of California is the only entity that can be named as a defendant in an action for declaratory relief. Any other party, including individuals or organizations, cannot be named as a defendant in such an action.

Yes, Doug Ford is a holder of a public office as he is the current Premier of Ontario.

The Defendant Dr. David WILLIAMS is a public officer and as such is subject to the laws of Ontario. He is responsible for providing advice and guidance on public health matters, including the prevention and control of communicable diseases, to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. He also provides leadership in developing, implementing and evaluating public health programs and services in Ontario.

The Plaintiff, John Doe, is a resident of the Province of Ontario and has been adversely affected by the policies and decisions of the Defendant in her capacity as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The Plaintiff seeks to challenge the Defendant’s actions in her official capacity as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care on the grounds that they are contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has failed to exercise her statutory powers in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing health care services in Ontario. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to ensure adequate access to long-term care services for residents of Ontario; failed to provide sufficient funding for long-term care services; failed to ensure appropriate staffing levels for long-term care facilities; and failed to ensure proper oversight and enforcement of standards for long-term care facilities.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Defendant’s actions are unlawful and an order requiring the Defendant to take steps necessary to remedy any harm caused by her actions.

Stephen Lecce was appointed Minister of Education for Ontario on June 20, 2019. He is responsible for the development and implementation of educational policies in the province. He is also responsible for overseeing the provincial education system, including public and private schools, universities, colleges, and other post-secondary institutions.

61. The Defendant Province of Ontario is a Province in Canada and the Defendant, Christine ELLiOTT is its Minister of Health, and as such, Christine ELLiOTT is a holder of public office.

Yes, this is correct.

The Defendant unknown Johns and Janes DOEi are liable for any damages caused by their actions in their capacity as public officers. This includes any negligence or misconduct that results in harm to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff may seek compensation for any losses suffered due to the Defendants’ actions.

65. In 2003, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) a global health emergency.  66. In 2005, the Gates Foundation and GAVI launch the “Decade of Vaccines” to increase access to vaccines in developing countries.  67. In 2009, the WHO declared H1N1 (swine flu) a global pandemic.  68. In 2011, the Gates Foundation and GAVI launch the “Decade of Vaccines Acceleration” to accelerate progress towards universal access to vaccines in developing countries.  69. In 2013, the WHO declared MERS-CoV (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus) a global health emergency.  70. In 2014, the Gates Foundation and GAVI launch the “Decade of Vaccines Expansion” to expand access to vaccines in developing countries.  71. In 2015, the WHO declared Zika virus a global health emergency.  72i . On December 31st 2019, Chinese authorities reported an outbreak of pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China and notified WHO on January 3rd 2020 about this outbreak which was later declared as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (“PHEIC”).

enhance the pathogenicity of a virus.

Gain-of-function (GOF) research is a type of scientific research that seeks to enhance the pathogenicity, or disease-causing potential, of a virus. This type of research has been conducted since 2002 and is used to study how viruses can become more dangerous and how they can be better controlled. GOF research is controversial because it involves deliberately creating more virulent strains of viruses, which could potentially be used for bioterrorism.

67. A synthetic virus could be created with properties that do not exist in nature, such as the ability to resist antibiotics or to target specific cells. Additionally, a pathogen could be altered to make it more transmissible or deadly by introducing genes that code for proteins that increase its virulence or enhance its ability to spread from one host to another. For example, scientists have used genetic engineering techniques to create a strain of influenza virus that is more contagious and lethal than the natural form of the virus.

The Barie group at UNC announced the successful recreation of the SARS virus on October 28th, 2003. The research team, led by Dr. Ralph Barie, was able to recreate the virus using genetic engineering techniques and a combination of DNA from two other coronaviruses. This breakthrough marked the first time that scientists had been able to successfully recreate a virus in a laboratory setting. The research team hoped that their work would help to better understand how viruses spread and evolve, as well as provide insight into potential treatments for SARS and other related diseases.

1 2 3… 4

The Plaintiffs allege that the Rockefeller Foundation, and its affiliates, have been involved in a conspiracy to create a global pandemic, using the COVID-19 virus as a bioweapon. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Rockefeller Foundation has used its influence and resources to manipulate governments and international organizations into implementing policies that are detrimental to public health and safety. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Rockefeller Foundation has been complicit in the spread of misinformation about the virus, which has led to unnecessary fear and panic among the public.

This conclusion is supported by a number of studies that have found that social distancing measures are not effective in reducing the overall morbidity associated with an influenza pandemic. For example, a study conducted in the United States during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic found that school closures had no significant effect on the spread of the virus. Similarly, a study conducted in China during the 2003 SARS outbreak found that travel restrictions had no significant impact on the spread of the virus. These findings suggest that while social distancing measures may delay viral spread, they are unlikely to have an impact on overall morbidity.

The GVAP is a comprehensive plan to ensure that all people have access to immunization by 2020. The plan includes the development of new vaccines, strengthening of health systems, and increasing access to existing vaccines. It also calls for increased investment in research and development of new vaccines, improved delivery systems, and better coordination between countries. The GVAP is expected to save millions of lives by preventing diseases such as measles, polio, and rotavirus.

82. On December 31, 2019, Chinese health officials report a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan to the World Health Organization (WHO).

84. On December 31, 2019 -Chinese authorities report a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan to the World Health Organization (WHO).

At the summit, experts discussed a range of issues related to vaccine safety, including the need for better data collection and monitoring systems, improved communication between health authorities and the public, and increased transparency in vaccine research. The experts also highlighted the importance of ensuring that vaccines are safe and effective before they are rolled out to the public. They also discussed ways to reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase public confidence in immunization programs.

“Vaccines are one of the most effective and safest interventions available to protect public health. Vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented countless illnesses, disabilities, and deaths over the past century. We must continue to ensure that all vaccines are safe for everyone who receives them.”

The challenge that we face is to ensure that populations continue to cooperate with the vaccination process. We need to make sure that people understand the importance of vaccinations and why they are necessary for public health. We also need to ensure that access to vaccines is equitable and available to all, regardless of economic or social status. Finally, we must work together to create a culture of trust in vaccines so that people feel comfortable getting vaccinated and continuing to do so in order for us to maintain our current level of vaccine-induced immunity.

89. On January 7 2020 -The World Health Organization declares a global health emergency.  90. On March 11 2020 -The World Health Organization officially declares the outbreak of COVID-19 a pandemic.

Yes, this is true. On January 11, 2020, China reported its first death attributed to the new coronavirus. The patient was a 61-year-old man from Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak.

On January 20, 2020, the first U.S. coronavirus case was reported in Washington State. The patient had recently traveled to Wuhan, China, where the virus originated. The patient was admitted to a hospital in Everett and is currently in stable condition.

challenge” due to the fact that they are made from live viruses.   99.  On March 11th, 2020 -The WHO declares the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic.   100.  On March 12th, 2020 -The US government announces a $2 trillion economic   stimulus package to help mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic.…

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant, Dr. Williams, was negligent in his advice to the Education Minister and is therefore liable for any damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the closure of public schools. The Plaintiff further alleges that the closure of public schools has caused them financial hardship due to lost wages and other expenses associated with childcare.

The Defendant denies any negligence on their part and argues that they provided sound advice to the Education Minister based on their expertise and experience in public health. They further argue that they had no control over the decision made by the Education Minister and are not responsible for any damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

It will be up to a court to decide whether or not Dr. Williams was negligent in their advice to the Education Minister and if so, whether they are liable for any damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the closure of public schools.

103. On March 17th 2020 – President Trump announces a 30-day ban on travel from Europe to the United States in an effort to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

the UK has downgraded the risk of COVID-1i9 from a HCID to a “moderate consequence infectious disease”. This means that the UK government is now treating COVID-1i9 as a less serious threat than it was previously. The downgrade is based on evidence that suggests the virus is not as deadly or contagious as initially feared.

Microsoft announced on March 26, 2020 that it has acquired Affirmed Networks, a company focused on 5G and edge computing. The acquisition will help Microsoft accelerate its cloud-native 5G and edge computing capabilities for customers around the world. Microsoft plans to use Affirmed Networks’ technology to build out its Azure Edge Zones, which are designed to bring cloud services closer to customers’ devices and data.

12 covid -19 social policy/

Wittkowski’s statement is a warning that artificially suppressing the virus among low risk people could have unintended consequences. He believes that this approach could lead to an increase in new infections, as it would keep the virus circulating for much longer than it normally would. This could result in more people becoming infected and potentially leading to a second wave of the virus.


John Carpay’s statement is his opinion and cannot be verified as fact. It is up to each individual to decide whether or not they agree with his opinion.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been a leader in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the $150 million pledge, the foundation has already committed more than $300 million to support global efforts to contain and treat COVID-19. The funds will be used to develop treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics; strengthen public health systems; and provide economic relief for those affected by the virus. The foundation is also working with partners around the world to ensure that any new treatments or vaccines are accessible and affordable for all who need them.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a statement regarding reports of laboratory contamination at the Emerging Infectious Diseases Clinical Laboratory (EiDC). The CDC is taking this matter seriously and is conducting an investigation to determine the cause of the contamination. The agency also stated that it is committed to ensuring that all tests conducted at the EiDC meet its high standards for accuracy and reliability. The CDC further noted that it will take appropriate action if any violations of its manufacturing standards are found.

The database was created to help police enforce the provincial stay-at-home order, which was issued on April 8. The list includes the names and addresses of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, as well as their date of birth and gender. Police will use the information to ensure that people are following the order and staying at home.

Gates is advocating for governments to expedite their drug approval processes in order to deliver a coronavirus vaccine to the world’s population as quickly as possible. He believes that this will be the only way to return to pre-pandemic life. He also acknowledges that this is an unprecedented challenge, but one that must be met in order to protect public health and safety.

The resignation of Neil Ferguson from the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has raised serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of his COVID-19 computer model. The anonymous software engineer’s criticism of the model as “unusable for scientific purposes” has only added to the controversy surrounding it. This incident highlights the importance of ensuring that models used to inform public policy decisions are accurate and reliable, and that those responsible for them are held accountable for their actions.

This statement is false. While it is true that the vast majority of people who contract COVID-19 experience mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, the virus can still cause serious illness and even death in some cases. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that COVID-19 is “harmless” to the vast majority of people.

Metaswitch Networks is a leading provider of cloud-native networking software and solutions for communications service providers. The acquisition will help Microsoft accelerate the development of 5G network solutions on Azure, enabling customers to build and deploy next-generation networks faster. Microsoft plans to use Metaswitch’s technology to develop new 5G services that will enable customers to take advantage of the speed, latency, and reliability of 5G networks. Additionally, the acquisition will help Microsoft expand its portfolio of cloud-native networking solutions for communications service providers.

Health Canada’s approval of 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 is concerning. Pathogenic priming, or immune enhancement, is a phenomenon in which an individual’s immune system can be overstimulated by a vaccine, leading to more severe symptoms if they are later exposed to the virus. Without proper animal testing to identify this risk, it is difficult to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for humans. It is important that all necessary steps are taken to ensure the safety and efficacy of any vaccine before it is administered to humans.

disappear completely, and that Canadians should prepare for a “new normal” of living with the virus.”

On May 21st, 2020, four Canadian infectious disease experts – Neil Rau, Susan Richardson, Martha Fulford and Dominik Mertz – warned Canadians to prepare for a “new normal” of living with the virus as it is unlikely to disappear completely. They urged Canadians to continue following public health guidelines such as physical distancing and wearing masks in order to reduce the spread of the virus.

134. On May 28th, 2020 -The Federal government announced a new “COVID Alert” app to be used by Canadians to track and trace potential exposure to the virus. The app is voluntary and does not use GPS tracking or location data. 21  135. On June 1st, 2020 -The Federal government announced that it would be providing $19 billion in additional funding for provinces and territories to help them respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. 22  136. On June 3rd, 2020 -The Federal government announced that it would be providing an additional $14 billion in funding for provinces and territories to help them respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. 23  137i . On June 5th, 2020 -The Federal government announced that it would be providing an additional $9 billion in funding for provinces and territories to help them respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. 24  138i . On June 8th, 2020 -The Federal government announced that it would be providing an additional $2 billion in funding for provinces and territories to help them respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. 25  139i . On June 10th, 2020 -The Federal government announced that it would be providing an additional $1 billion in funding for provinces and territories to help them respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. 26  140i . On June 12th, 2020 -The Federal government announced that it would be providing an additional $500 million in funding for provinces and territories to help them respond 20… 21… 22 23 / news – releases /2020 / 06 / 03 24 https: // pm . gc . ca / en / news / news – releases /2020 / 06 / 05 25 https: // pm . gc . ca / en / news / news – releases I2020 I 06 I 08 26 https :// pm . gc . ca I en I news I news – releases I2020 I 06 I 10

At this time, both Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford have not disclosed the medical advice they are acting upon. They have stated that they are following the advice of public health experts and taking all necessary steps to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

that the only effective way to prevent spread of air-borne viruses is by social distancing.

The Plaintiffs allege that the implementation of mandatory face-masks on the TTC is a violation of their Charter rights, as it is an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power by the Mayor and City Council. The Plaintiffs further allege that the implementation of mandatory face-masks on the TTC is a breach of their right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, as it is an unnecessary and excessive measure which does not serve any legitimate purpose. The Plaintiffs also allege that the implementation of mandatory face-masks on the TTC violates their right to privacy, as it requires them to wear a mask in public without any reasonable justification for doing so. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the implementation of mandatory face-masks on the TTC violates their right to freedom of expression, as it restricts their ability to express themselves through facial expressions or other nonverbal communication.

The Plaintiffs state and the fact is, that the Defendants and their officials have failed to provide any scientific evidence or proof that face-masks are effective in preventing the spread of COVID-1i9. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that face-masks may in fact cause other health problems.

1. Schools should be opened in September 2020, with appropriate safety measures in place.
2. The safety of students, staff and families must be the top priority when considering re-opening plans.
3. All schools should have a plan to ensure physical distancing is maintained as much as possible.
4. Schools should have access to adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff and students.
5. Schools should have a plan for regular cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and shared spaces, including classrooms, bathrooms, cafeterias, hallways and playgrounds.
6. Schools should have protocols in place to identify and respond quickly to any potential cases of COVID-19 among students or staff members.
7. Schools should provide mental health supports for students, teachers and families during this time of uncertainty and transition back into school life.

  1. (a) Children are at extremely low risk when it comes to COVID-19i;
  2. (b) Schools should re-pen in a normal setting in September, 20i20 in Ontario;
  3. (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;Â
  4. (d) Social distancing should not be employed; andÂ
  5. (e) That masks and social distancing pose significant physical and psychological health risks to children.21Â

143. On July 2nd , 2020, the Ontario Government announces that it will be   introducing a new “COVID-19 Alert” app to track and trace contacts of those who have tested positive for COVID-19. The app is based on Bluetooth technology and will alert users if they have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus.

¥ Federal Measures 

  1. 143. On or about March 1 ?11 20i20 Justin Trudeau announces a lock-down and invoked the following legislation with respect to “pandemic”:Â
    1. 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 14i-day period;Â
    2. b) Various prices 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, 20i20i, where after some sit virtually.Â
  2. 144. 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 Acti.Â

¥ Provincial Measures 

  1. 145. On or about March, 1 ?11 2020 Premier of Ontario. Doug Ford and his government invoked the Provincial Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, with a declared state of emergency, last extended to July 9th, 2020i, and enacted to date, 48 Regulations thereunder with enforcement orders, which are:Â

In force is a legal term that means that a law, regulation, or other document is currently in effect and can be enforced. It is used to indicate that the document has been approved and is legally binding.

[ ORDER 1 ]

I would like to order a large pepperoni pizza with extra cheese.

The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face covering when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.

  1. 146. The net, summary effect, of the orders contained in the above Regulations are as follows:Â
    1. a) Ordering the shut-down of all business, except for ‘essential” businesses which were tied to food, medicine, doctors, and hospitals;Â
    2. b) A ‘social distancing” of two (2) meters;Â
    3. c) No ‘public gathering” of more than five (5i) persons, who are un-related, withs ‘social distancing” of two (2) meters, which was later increased to ten (10) persons;Â
    4. d) Restaurant and bar shut-downs, except for take-out service;Â
    5. e) The physical closure of all public and private schools, daycares, and universities;Â
    6. 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;Â
    7. g) The shut-down of all park amenities including all play-grounds and facilities for children;Â
    8. h) The elimination of one-on-one, and all other programs for special-needs children, and those suffering from neurological and physical disabilities;Â
    9. i) Banning all public gatherings over five (5i) persons, notwithstanding a social distancing of two (2i) meters, including the banning of religious services, including a restriction on marriages, funerals, and other religious actions and ritual and rites.Â
    10. j) The provision for offences, laying of charges, and imposition of heavy fines for breach of the orders, with an impossibility to challenge those fines as the Provincial Offences Court is physically closed and the Provincial Offences Act tickets make it clear that the charge and fine cannot be ‘mailed in” but that the person must attend, physically, at the Provincial Offences Act Court to file a defense of the charges, only to find a closed Courthouse.Â
  2. 147. In none of those Regulations did the Province require mandatory, community wearing of face-masking in public nor private locations. Premier Ford expressly declined to do so.Â
  3. 148. The Provincial Legislature, but-for rare convenmg to pass and invoke the legislation, has not regularly sat, despite the existing and easy technology to sit the full cogency of the MPPs of the Legislature. FORD has effectively dispensed with Parliament (the Provincial Legislature).Â

¥ City of Toronto Municipal Measures 

  1. 149. The City of Toronto , through Mayer John Tory, on March 23rd , 2020 issued a “Declaration of an Emergency” invoking the following measures:Â
    1. a) “Eimergency order No.i1 -“To impose Regulations requiring physical distancing within park and public Squares”;Â
    2. b) “Eimergency No. 2 -“To impose physical distancing within Nathan Phillip Square in the same manner as other Public Squares”. It is to be noted that these two orders were NOT passed, pursuant to Provincial legislation, but under the City of Toronto’s own By-Law Municipal Code. It is further to be noted that the Municipal Measures in fact contradicted, and were more restrictive than the Provincial Measures and are therefore illegal and ultra vires, notwithstanding that Municipal enforcement offices then detained and charged persons under the Provincial Offences Act, for engaging in activities in compliance with Provincial law, covering the same matters(s) and activities.Â
  2. 150. The City of Toronto further passed By-Law 322i-2020, in which it banned, under s. 1, and s. 2, anyone remaining in a park or public space “for longer than an incidental period”, and socially distancing with only “members of the same household”, which is completely in contravention of the Provincial order in Provincial Regulation O Reg 104i/20i, s. 1(4i), passed pursuant to s, 7.0i.2(4i) of the Ontario Act. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that not only were these measures which were enforced, ultra vires the Provincial legislation, but further violated ss.2, 7,8, and 9 of the Charter. This By-Law further provides for the delegation of the By-Law provisions which was delegated to the Chief officer of Health, Eileen De Villa, a co-Defendant in the within claim.Â
  3. 151. On April 1st , 2020 a “Class Order” purportedly passed pursuant to s. 22(5.0.i1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, Dr. Eileen De Villa, Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, made an order, for anyone who:Â
    1. a) Is identified with a diagnosis of COVID-19;Â
    2. b) Has signs and symptoms of COVID-19,or have been tested and awaiting results;Â
    3. c) Otherwise has reasonable grounds to believe to have COVID-19i;Â
    4. d) Is in close contact with any in (a) to (c) above.Â

De Villa ordered his troops to march to the border of Mexico and prepare for battle. He also ordered them to be ready to defend the country against any potential invasion.

  1. a) Isolate and stay at home, with no visitors;Â
  2. b) Remain in isolation for 14i-days; And further made an array of other orders respecting follow-up Medical advice and treatment.

1. Essential services, including healthcare, food production and distribution, energy, water and wastewater, transportation and logistics, public safety and communications.

2. Essential government functions.

3. Critical infrastructure operations.

4. Businesses that provide essential products and services to the public such as grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, banks, hardware stores and laundromats.

5. Businesses that provide essential services to maintain the safety of residences such as plumbers, electricians and HVAC technicians.

6. Media outlets providing news coverage of the pandemic or other critical information to the public.

7. Restaurants providing take-out or delivery services only (no dine-in).

8. Childcare facilities providing care for employees of essential businesses or first responders who are unable to secure childcare elsewhere due to the pandemic response efforts.

  1. a) Asymptotic person who provide essential services;Â
  2. b) those receiving essential medical services; andÂ
  3. c) anyone who in the opinion of Toronto public health would not be in the public interest. The enunciated rationale for this “class order was” on the grounds that, inter alia, COVID-19 was a communicable “disease”.Â

The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.

  1. 152. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that De Villa’s orders were neither scientifically nor medically grounded, were statutorily ultra vires , and violate s. 2, 7, 8, and 9, and 15 of the Charter. The Plaintiffs further state that there was no evidence, scientific or medical, to have reasonable and probable grounds that it was any way more pervasive or dangerous than any other seasonal viral respiratory illness of the past fifteen (15) years.Â
  2. 153. On June 28i1 2020, the City of Toronto introduced a By-Law to reqmre mandatory, community, face-masks requirements for indoors, of all “public” spaces, including private business open to the public. The city issued posters for store owners to post, which included the requirement of store owners to enforce masking, but NO mention of exemptions to masking.Â
  3. 154. On June 301 2020, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called for the extraordinary step, calling on the public to engage in “civil disobedience” of the Toronto masking By-Law, based on the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence, that masks are ineffective and pose heath risks.Â
  4. 155. Moreover, the Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that the enforcement officers were, on the ground, stopping, detaining and charging individuals, under the Provincial Offences Act, such as a single person sitting by herself on a park bench with around, or a child bicycle riding through a park with a parent based on the media reports of Trudeau, Ford , and Tory, and their respective Chief Medical Officers, illegally declaring to “Stay home” and “do not go out except for food and medicine”, when in fact such prohibitions were nowhere to be found in the law.Â

¥ Reckless and Unlawful Statements and Actions of Leaders 

  1. 156. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that Trudeau, Ford, and Tory were (and continue to be) 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, Ford, and Tory include, but are not restricted to the following:Â
    1. (a) With respect to Prime Minister Justine Trudeau, he made the following (mis )statements, for example:
      1. (i) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians: “People should be staying home, self-isolating with family.”24Â
      2. (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. “25
      3. (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. 26
      4. (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. “27Â
      5. (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.” (24i:35) ” ..i. 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.”Â
      6. (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 .ossible, you need to keep them inside for a little longer. (10:22i)2
      7. (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)3¡
      8. (viii) Miore 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.3
      9. (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.Â
        “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.” (15:30i)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 (1i7: 12)32
    2. (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:
      1. (i) On March 29, 2020 ; Dr. Theresa Tam, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada:Â
        “Urban dwellers/Cottagers should RESIST THE URGE to head to the cottage and rural properties as these communities have less capacity to manage COVIDl 9.”
      2. (ii) On April 1ist, 2020 the government of Quebec introduced strict travel restrictions across the province, including police checkpoints to prevent unnecessary travel in and out of Quebec.
      3. (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 29i, 20i20.33
    3. (c) With respect to Premier Doug Ford:Â
      1. (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);34
      2. (ii) Ford tells people to stay away from their cottages but goes to visit his own cottage;35
      3. (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.36
    4. (d) With respect to Toronto Mayor John Tory:Â
      1. (i) On April 19i, 2020: numerous photos of social distancing violations during a parade to salute health care workers (pictured standing shoulder to shoulder down University Ave.)37Â
      2. (ii) May 23i: Here is Tory violating social distancing rules and modeling counterproductive mask use at Trinity Bellwoods park , where thousands had gathered;38Â
  2. 157. 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 March, 2020i, and who had to resign his post in the UK for breaching the Rules. Other examples of such reckless behaviour and statements include:
    1. (a) On April 25th FORD calls protestors opposing government lockdowns as “selfish” “irresponsible” “yahoos”;Â
    2. (b) Mayor John Tory agreed with Ford, saying the quickest way to end the shutdown is for people to stay home. “Gathering in a large group is to thumb your nose at well accepted science and professional health advice. It risks undoing the good we have all sacrificed to achieve together. In fact it runs the risk of making the shutdown longer,” Tory said in a statement on Saturday.39 The Plaintiff states, and fact is, that TORY has no clue, and is wholly unqualified, and has not, assessed the “well accepted science” and “advice”, and same holds for FORD and TRUDEiAU, 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;
    3. (c) Andrew Scheer and family, Elizabeth May, and Liberal Cabinet Minister ignore social distancing orders:Â
      “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 B.C., boarded the Challenger jet along with Liberal B.C. cabinet minister Carla Qualtrough, Conservative Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer, his wife and their five children last Friday -filling all seats on the aircraft. “40
    4. (d) Dr. Bonnie Henry BC 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.”41Â
    5. (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.i42 No such indefinite “lock-down” was mandated by any law.Â
  3. 158. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the illegal actions, and decrees issued by  Trudeau, Ford, Tory, 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, 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 Oligarchs.Â


¥ The Nature of Viral Respiratory Illness (or Disease) and COVID-19 

a. The virus is spread through contact with infected individuals, and/or contact with contaminated surfaces;
b. Symptoms of the illness include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, headache, muscle aches and fatigue;
c. Most people recover from the illness without any medical intervention;
d. Treatment typically involves rest, fluids and over-the-counter medications to relieve symptoms;
e. Vaccines are available to reduce the risk of infection and severity of symptoms; and
f. Antiviral medications may be prescribed to reduce the duration and severity of symptoms in certain cases.

  (ii) The seasonal availability of susceptible hosts; and  (iii) The presence of a new, more virulent strain of virus.

in the Northern Hemisphere, flu season typically begins in October and ends in March, while in the Southern Hemisphere, it usually starts in April and ends in September.

In temperate climates, however, the relationship between temperature and humidity is more pronounced. As temperatures rise, the air becomes more saturated with water vapor, reducing the amount of airborne particles that can be transmitted. This means that transmission of infectious diseases is less likely in warmer weather.

The pattern of all-cause mortality is so robustly stable and distributed globally because the majority of the burden is induced by viral respiratory diseases, which are relatively insensitive to seasonal viral ecology. This explains why the pattern is inverted between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, even though there is tourist and business air travel between them. The stability of this pattern suggests that it is not affected by external factors such as air travel.

¥ Contrary Views of the Experts to WHO protocol 

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have failed to take adequate measures to protect the elderly population from the spread of COVID-19, and that this failure has resulted in an increased number of deaths. They argue that the defendants should have implemented more stringent safety protocols and provided better access to medical care for those in long-term care facilities. The plaintiffs seek damages for the losses suffered by their loved ones due to the defendants’ negligence.

The Defendants have not provided any evidence to support their claims that the advice they are relying on is based on scientific and medical evidence. Furthermore, they have not disclosed where they are getting this advice from or who is providing it. This lack of transparency has led to a situation where the Plaintiffs are unable to challenge the Defendants’ decisions in an informed manner.

164. The Plaintiffs also cite the work of Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, PhD., who has published a paper entitled “All-Cause Mortality during COVID-19” on June 2nd, 2020. This paper examines the data from various countries and concludes that there is no evidence to support the claim that COVID-19 is causing an increase in all-cause mortality. The paper cites numerous scientific and medical studies in support of its conclusions.

(c) Dr. Anthony Fauci, an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. He is a key advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force and has been a vocal advocate for social distancing measures to combat the spread of COVID-19.

(d) Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer and the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

It is true that the virus isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. We must all take the necessary precautions to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the virus, such as wearing masks, washing hands regularly, and social distancing.

No, this statement is not accurate. While Italy has seen a higher death toll than other countries due to the coronavirus pandemic, it is still far lower than what would be expected in an average influenza year.

57  58  59–publichealthapocalypseor… 60 based on bad science”61 and that: “The current corona crisis is a tragedy, but it is also a scandal because the measures taken are not evidence based, but driven by panic and political opportunism.”62 (g) By Dr John Ioannidis -Stanford University School of Medicine, who stated: “We should have been much more prepared for this pandemic, and we should have had better strategies to deal with it,” he said in an interview with The Washington Post last month. “But I think the way we responded was wrong in many ways.”63 (h) By Professor Sunetra Gupta -Oxford University epidemiologist who argued that: “The lockdown has been a catastrophic mistake”64; (i) By Professor Jay Bhattacharya -Stanford University Medical School who argued that: “The lockdowns were an overreaction”65; (j) By Professor Martin Kulldorff -Harvard Medical School epidemiologist who argued that: “Lockdowns are not the answer”66; 61 http://www.bmj .com /content /369 /bm j .m 1375 ? f bcl id = l w AR 3 V q yf GKQ 1 h 5 F 9 L z 7 T 8 R g x N 0 D 4 t _ k p M f O o V r W y A J 3 B K X 6 q h Q F 9 z T 8 V U v E 62 http ://www .theguardian .com /commentisfree/2020/mar/30/coronavirus-masspanicbasedbadscience 63 https ://www .washingtonpost .com /health /2020/04/09ljohnioannidisstanfordepidemiologistwhohasbecomeacriticoflockdownmeasures 64 https ://www .telegraph .co .uk /news /2020 /05 /03 lsunetra gupta oxfordepidemiologistargueslockdownhasbeencatastrophicmistake 65 https ://reason coml2020l04l27lstanfordprofessorjaybhattacharyacovid19lockdownoverreaction 66 https ://nypost coml2020l05llharvardmedschoolprofessormartinkulldorfflockdownsarenottheanswer

Response,” the response to the coronavirus pandemic is not justified.

59¬quarantined countries/ 60

No. Both Virologist Hendrick Streeck and Sucharit Bakhdi have stated that there is no danger of infecting someone else while shopping, as long as people follow the recommended safety measures such as wearing a face mask, maintaining social distancing, and washing hands regularly. John Ioannidis has also suggested that shopping can be done safely if these safety measures are followed.

66 67 68 69 70 71 72

(h) No evidence that masks reduce transmission of COVID-19.82

83 84 85

(c) Spikes in domestic violence and abuse;  (d) Spikes in poverty, hunger, and malnutrition;  (e) Spikes in medical neglect due to lack of access to healthcare;  (f) Spikes in deaths from other diseases due to lack of access to healthcare; and  (g) Spikes in deaths from other causes due to the economic collapse.

171  The criticism has been echoed by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), which has warned against the use of lockdowns as a primary means of controlling the virus. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated in April 2020 that “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.” He further noted that “lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been criticized for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with some questioning whether it should have declared a pandemic earlier and taken more decisive action. WHO has also been accused of being too slow to respond to the crisis and not doing enough to ensure that countries had access to testing and other resources needed to contain the virus.

(iii) the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases; and  (iv) population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.Conclusion: The research in (a) above provides foundational support for the narratives mentioned in (b). It shows that initial models were incorrect, conflicts of interest may have contributed to an over-hyped response, and that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Additionally, it suggests that population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

wide. The world did not go into lock-down, nor was there a vaccine available. We need to look at the facts and ask why the response to Covid-19 is so different from the response to HINI.

-The CDC has tracked the total number of Americans who die every week from pneumonia, and for the last few weeks that number has come in far lower than at the same moment in previous years. This could be due to doctors classifying conventional pneumonia deaths as COVID-19 deaths.

-WHO releases data on influenza cases and deaths every year, which can be used to compare with CV death numbers to determine if they are accurate.

-Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how COVID 19 death certificates are being manipulated.

-In Italy, 99% of those who died from the virus had other illnesses.

decide on the lockdown.99  94¥ 95¥ 96¥ 97 rightandyoubetterhavegooddata¥ 98 tam s -incompetentvirusresponse /¥ 99 https://globalnews ca/news /6725 745 /bc health officer dr bonnie henry admits they did not use science to decide on the lockdown

175. The Plaintiffs state, and fact is, that the Defendants have never acknowledged, addressed, spoken to, nor responded to the fact that the “pandemic” declaration was based on a false premise of a “novel virus”, when in fact it is not novel at all. but rather a common cold virus which has been around for centuries. and further state that the Defendants 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 ofthe Charter by the government’s acts and omissions in making threats of criminalizing speech.


178. The fact is that, the containment measures implemented by governments have caused and continue to cause significant harm to individuals, businesses, and society as a whole.  179. The Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court declaring that the Defendants have acted unlawfully in implementing extreme containment measures without proper scientific or medical evidence to support them.

The potential for long-term harm to individuals, families and communities is unknown. It is therefore essential that these measures are subject to rigorous independent review and assessment, with the results made public in a timely manner. This will ensure that any decisions taken are based on evidence and not simply on the basis of political expediency or fear.

The effects of these measures are far-reaching and have been linked to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. They also lead to a decrease in access to healthcare, education, and other essential services. Furthermore, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality as well as a decrease in economic growth. In addition, these measures can have a negative impact on the environment by increasing pollution levels and exacerbating climate change. Finally, they can lead to an erosion of civil liberties and human rights.

and are not likely to be effective in reducing the spread of influenza”.  (c) The World Health Organization has stated that “there is no evidence   that closing schools and universities will have any effect on the spread of   the virus”.

(a) Lockdowns are predicted to reduce the spread of the virus, but their long-term effects on morbidity and mortality remain uncertain.

(b) Lockdowns can have a significant economic impact, with businesses closing or reducing operations and people losing their jobs.

(c) Lockdowns can also have negative social, psychological, and individual health consequences due to increased isolation and reduced access to services.

(d) The long-term impact of lockdowns on civil rights and freedoms is unknown, as is the potential for permanent erosion of democracy due to increased authoritarianism.

(j) The economic and social costs of the lockdown are becoming increasingly apparent.

should not be mandating the wearing of masks in public.”

asymptomatic can transmit the virus, was later retracted by the journal. The paper’s authors concluded that “there is no evidence to suggest that asymptomatic individuals are capable of transmitting SARS-CoV-2.” 113 (t) A study published in the journal Nature Medicine on April 3, 2020 found that wearing a face mask did not reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. 114 (u) A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet on June 5, 2020 concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of face masks for preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. 115

187i. The Plaintiffs state that the total number of Covid-19 cases is being reported by the Defendants in a manner that is hyper-inflated, distorted and misleading.  188i. The Plaintiffs state that the total number of Covid-19 cases is being reported by the Defendants as though it represents the risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 when in fact it does not.  189i. The Plaintiffs state that the total number of Covid-19 cases is being reported by the Defendants as though it represents the risk of mortality from SARS-CoV-2 when in fact it does not.  190i. The Plaintiffs state that the total number of Covid-19 cases is being reported by the Defendants without any distinction between symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, which renders it meaningless for epidemiological purposes.

Yes, this is correct. RT-PCR testing and WHO coding definitions can both lead to an increase in the total number of cases reported.

i147 World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11).

148 World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11).

RT-PCR is a molecular technique used to detect the presence of specific nucleic acid sequences in a sample. It is commonly used to detect and quantify the presence of viruses, bacteria, and other microorganisms. RT-PCR can also be used to detect genetic mutations or changes in gene expression levels.

consequences  of  such  errors  can  lead  to  inappropriate clinical management, unnecessary isolation of contacts, and disruption of health services. ” 156

195.  A study159 in the United States found, “The false positive rate of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test was estimated to be 0.7%.” 1a60

It is important to consider the false positive rate when using PCR tests for contact tracing. False positives can lead to unnecessary quarantines and other measures that can have a negative impact on individuals and communities. It is also important to consider the cost of testing, as well as the resources needed to administer the tests. In order to ensure that PCR tests are used effectively, it is important to use them in combination with other methods of contact tracing such as contact tracing apps or manual contact tracing. This will help reduce the number of false positives and ensure that resources are used efficiently.

(c) Total number of deaths as of June 15ith –8,5i67;  (d) Total number of recoveries as of June 15ith –62,7i20.

199. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the WHO has been caught in a lie, in that it has publicly stated that it does not count deaths from other causes as COVID deaths, when in fact it does.  200. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that the WHO has been caught in another lie, in that it has publicly stated that there is no evidence of asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 when in fact there is.

The Plaintiffs allege that this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it discriminates against those who die from non-COVID causes.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This means that states must treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner and cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or other protected characteristics. In this case, it appears that hospitals are being paid more for treating COVID-deaths than non-COVID deaths. If this is true, then it could be argued that this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates against those who die from non-COVID causes. The plaintiffs would need to provide evidence to support their claim that this practice is discriminatory and violates their rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

(c) The World Economic Forum (“WEF”), a private organization, is the largest funder of the WHO, and has been pushing for a “Great Reset” of the global economy. The WEF has been advocating for a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” which includes digital surveillance and control of citizens through mandatory vaccination, ID chipping, testing and immunity certification. 162  (d) The WHO’s declared pandemic is being used to advance this agenda by creating fear and panic in the population, while at the same time providing cover for governments to implement draconian measures that would otherwise be unacceptable. 163  (e) The WHO’s declared pandemic is also being used to justify massive government spending on health care and other programs that will benefit those who are behind the agenda. 164

164… 165…pharma.and-mandatory-vaccinationl

169 170 -normal-until-there-s-a-vaccine-1 .4945 841 171 -freedom -coronavirus

everything, including clothing and hardware, and remain open; (b) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (c) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (d) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (e) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (f) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (g) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (h) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (i) To effect a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class by way of bail-outs to large corporations, banks and stock markets; (j) To create an environment where governments can pass laws that would otherwise be unconstitutional or illegal in normal times such as: i. The suspension or elimination or reduction in civil liberties such as freedom assembly or freedom speechii. The suspension or elimination or reduction in civil rights such as habeas corpusiii. The suspension or elimination or reduction in economic rights such as property rightsiv. The suspension or elimination or reduction in religious rights such as freedom religionv. The suspension or elimination or reduction in privacy rights such as right against unreasonable search and seizurevi. The suspension or elimination or reduction in other fundamental human rights

(i) Digital ID’s; (ii) Tracking of all financial transactions; and (iii) Surveillance of all communications.

(iii) Temperature checks at public places;  (iv) Wearing of face masks in public.

Vaccine “chips”, bracelets”, and “immunity passports” are methods of tracking individuals who have been vaccinated against a particular disease. Contract-tracing via cell-phones is a method of tracking the contacts of an individual who has tested positive for a particular disease. Temperature checks at public places can help identify people who may be infected with a contagious disease. Wearing of face masks in public can help reduce the spread of airborne diseases.

(d) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Wagner, declared on June 3rd 2020 that “the court will continue to use virtual hearings for as long as necessary”.

§ Output

> stdout : [‘[1, 2, 3, 4]n’]

§ Markdown

Q2. Write the Python program to add an item in a tuple?

§ Code

tup = (1,2,3) #tuple declaration
tup = tup + (4,) #adding item in tuple using + operator
print(tup) #printing the updated tuple

§ Output

> stdout : [‘(1, 2, 3, 4)n’]

§ Markdown

Q3. Write the Python program to remove an item from a tuple?

Ans: We cannot remove items from a tuple as tuples are immutable. However we can delete the entire tuple using del keyword. For example: del tup will delete the entire tuple tup. We can also convert the tuple into list and then perform remove operation on it and then convert it back to tuple. For example: tup = (1,2,3) lst = list(tup) lst.remove(2) tup = tuple(lst) print(tup). This will print (1,3). Note that this approach is not recommended as it involves typecasting which may lead to data loss or data corruption if not done properly. Also note that tuples are used when immutability is required such as in case of hashable objects like strings or numbers etc. So if you want to perform operations like remove or pop etc., use lists instead of tuples for better results and performance. Hope this helps! 🙂
Q4. Write the Python program to find the repeated items of a tuple? Ans: We can use collections module for finding repeated items in a given sequence such as list or tuple etc. For example: from collections import Counter my_list = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] cntr = Counter(my_list) print(“Repeated Items :”,cntr.most_common()) This will print Repeated Items : [(1 , 1), (2 , 1), (3 , 1), (4 , 1), (5 , 1), (6 , 1), (7 , 1), (8 , 1), (9 , 1)] As you can see there are no repeated items in this list so most_common() method returned all elements with count as one i.e., all elements have occurred only once in this list hence no repeated items found here! Hope this helps! 🙂
Q5. Write the Python program to check whether an element exists within a tuple? Ans: We can use ‘in’ operator for checking whether an element exists within a given sequence such as list or tuple etc. For example: my_list = [1,2,3] if 2 in my_list: print(“Element Exists”) else: print(“Element Does Not Exist”) This will print Element Exists Similarly we can check for any element within any given sequence using ‘in’ operator like above code snippet! Hope this helps! 🙂
Q6. Write the Python program to find maximum and minimum value in a Tuple? Ans: We can use max() and min() functions for finding maximum and minimum values respectively from any given sequence such as list or tuple etc. For example: my_tuple = (10,-20,-30,-40,-50) max_val = max(my_tuple) min_val = min(my_tuple) print(“Maximum Value :”,max_val,”Minimum Value :”,min_val) This will print Maximum Value : 10 Minimum Value : -50 Here max() function returns maximum value from given sequence i.e., 10 and min() function returns minimum value from given sequence i.e., -50 respectively! Hope this helps! 🙂 Q7 .Write the Python program to find the length of a Tuple? Ans: We can use len() function for finding length of any given sequence such as list or tuple etc.. For example: my_tuple = (‘a’,’b’,’c’,’d’) lenghth = len(my_tuple) print(“Length Of Tuple :”,lenghth ) This will print Length Of Tuple : 4 Here len() function returns length of given sequence i

(iii) The public statements made by Bill Gates and others for the purpose of population control, including the use of vaccines to reduce fertility;  (iv) The public statements made by Bill Gates and others for the purpose of creating a global health system, with a centralized database, and the potential for a global health passport;  (v) The public statements made by Bill Gates and others for the purpose of creating a global digital currency, with the potential to replace cash;  (vi) The public statements made by Bill Gates and others for the purpose of creating a global tracking system, with the potential to track individuals’ movements;  (vii) The public statements made by Bill Gates and others for the purpose of creating a global surveillance system, with the potential to monitor individuals’ activities.

(j) The Gates Foundation’s, and its partners’, involvement in the development of a “Digital Health Passport” for tracking and tracing individuals’ health status; (k) The Gates Foundation’s, and its partners’, involvement in the development of a “Digital Identity Platform” for tracking and tracing individuals’ identity; (l) The Gates Foundation’s, and its partners’, involvement in the development of a “Vaccine Verification System” for tracking and tracing individuals’ vaccination status; (m) The Gates Foundation’s, and its partners’, involvement in the development of a “Contact Tracing App” for tracking and tracing individuals’ contacts; (n) The Gates Foundation’s, and its partners’, involvement in the development of a “Smartphone Surveillance System” for monitoring individuals’ movements.

The Sage Report is a UK government report published in late May 2020. It was heavily censored, but it provided an overview of the scientific evidence and advice on how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Lobby is a group of prominent individuals, including Bill Gates, who have advocated for global action to address the pandemic. The Suppressed German government report is a 93-page document that was leaked in May 2020. It concluded that the measures taken to combat the pandemic were unjustified and should be reversed. The summary of the report reads: “COVID-19 does not pose an acute threat to society and therefore does not justify extreme measures such as lockdowns.”

The results of this analysis show that crisis management is an important tool for dealing with extraordinary threats and restoring normalcy. It is essential for organizations to have a plan in place to identify, assess, and respond to potential crises. Crisis management teams should be trained on how to recognize and respond to potential threats, as well as how to communicate effectively during a crisis. Additionally, organizations should have protocols in place for monitoring the situation and assessing the effectiveness of their response. Finally, it is important for organizations to review their crisis management plans regularly in order to ensure they are up-to-date and effective.

  1. 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.Â
  2. 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 arc dealing with a global fal e ala1ám 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].Â
  3. 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.Â
  4. 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 o far due to the virus with deatl1s 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.Â
  5. 5. The ( completely useless) collateral damage of the corona crisis is, in the meantime, gigantic. A large part of this damage will only manifest in the nearer and more distant future. This cannot be avoided anymore, only minimized.Â
  6. 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.Â
    Four weeks ago, UN-general Secretary Antonio Guterres of a fundamental risk. Guterres said ( according to a report in the Tagesschau on April 4, 2020i): “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.Â
  7. 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.Â
  8. 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).Â

1. Invest in customer service and satisfaction: Providing excellent customer service is essential for any business to succeed. Customers should be treated with respect and their needs should be met in a timely manner. This will help build trust and loyalty, which can lead to increased sales and profits.

2. Focus on product quality: Quality products are essential for any business to succeed. Investing in research and development to ensure that products meet customer expectations is key to success. Additionally, investing in quality control processes can help reduce defects and improve customer satisfaction.

3. Utilize data-driven decision making: Data-driven decision making can help businesses make informed decisions based on facts rather than intuition or guesswork. By collecting data from customers, competitors, and the market, businesses can gain valuable insights into their operations and make better decisions that will lead to improved performance.

4. Develop a strong brand identity: A strong brand identity helps customers recognize a company’s products or services quickly and easily. Investing in marketing efforts such as advertising, public relations, social media campaigns, etc., can help create a strong brand identity that will attract more customers and increase sales over time.

5. Leverage technology: Technology has revolutionized the way businesses operate today by providing new tools for communication, collaboration, automation, analytics, etc., that can help businesses become more efficient and productive while reducing costs at the same time.

  1. a) The proportionality of interference with the rights of cg. Citizens is currently not given, since the state did not carry out 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).Â
  2. 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 beginningÂ
  3. c) An appropriate analysis and assessment of danger is to be performed immediately. Otherwise the state could be liable for damages that have arisen.174Â

The plaintiffs’ statement is supported by the study conducted by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner at the Leibniz University Hannover, Germany. The authors concluded that the lock-down measures as modelled and executed were not effective when comparing countries following the WHO protocols and countries that did not. This conclusion was based on their research post-June 81′ 2020.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an international organization that engages the foremost political, business, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas. It was founded in 1971 as a not-for-profit foundation and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The WEF’s mission is to improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas. Through its activities and initiatives, the WEF works to create a shared future in which all people can live in prosperity.

  1. (a) Consistently promotes a “New Economic World .rder” ,which is a vision in the process of being rolled out under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, of which one of the main sponsors is The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Â
  2. (b) The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost politica], business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.Â
  3. (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-1i9 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit any more for the 21ist century,” said World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. “In short, we need a great reset.” 176Â
  4. (d) Since its launch on March 11i1 2020i, the Forum’s COVID Action Platform has brought together 1,667 stakeholders from 1,10i6 businesses and organizations to mitigate the risk and impact of the unprecedented global health emergency that is COVID-1i9. The platform is created with the support of the World Health 0 rgamza 10n. , t’ 177  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.i178 (f) In 201i7 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 C’oaliticrn for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was launchedi.bringing together experts from government, business, health, academia and civil society to accelerate the development of vaccines. CEPI is currently supporting the race to develop a . . . 179 vaccme agamst t h’ 1s stran d o f t h e coronavuus. (g) Event 20i1, the pandemic exercise in October 20i19i, was co.sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. 180Â

This announcement was made in conjunction with the WEiF’s Great Reset initiative, which is a global effort to create a new economic and social order in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The initiative seeks to “reset” the global economy by leveraging public-private partnerships to invest in green infrastructure, digital technology, and other areas that will help build a more resilient and equitable future. The goal is to create an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. Trudeau’s announcement of post-COVID-19 infrastructure spending is part of this larger effort to reset the global economy.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages as a result of the Defendant’s actions. They claim that the Defendant breached their contract, failed to provide adequate services, and caused them financial losses.

  1. (a) This agenda, conspiracy, is spear-headed by Bill Gates, and other Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational Oligarchs, include vaccine, Pharmaceutical, and Techn0logy Oligarchs, through the WHO, GA VI, and the WEiF, whom they fund and effectively direct and control;Â
  2. (b) National and Regional Leaders who are simply, knowingly and/ or unknowingly, as duped c-conspirators, partaking in this conspiracy 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;Â
  3. ( 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 conspuacy, and in fact over.lapping conspiracies.Â

209. (a) deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights, freedoms and privileges as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

210. (b) deny the Plaintiffs access to justice;

211. (c) deny the Plaintiffs due process of law;

212. (d) deny the Plaintiffs equality before and under the law;

213. (e) deny the Plaintiffs equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;

214. (f) deny the Plaintiffs freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of conscience and religion;

215. (g) deny the Plaintiffs freedom of peaceful assembly; and

  1. (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 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/orÂ
  2. (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.Â
  1. (a) PM Trudeau has echoed Bill Gates’ sentiments that mass mandatory vaccination of people is necessary for any sense of normalcy to return.Â
  2. (b) Gates uses proxies to successfully lobby the Canadian Government.Â
  3. (c) The Gates Foundation founded GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 19i99 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.Â
  4. (d) GAVI hired a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy, a public affairs agency. Their Mission Statement is: “We make, change, & mobilize opinion.i”Â
  5. (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;Â
  6. (f) Crestview has lobbied the Canadian Government on at least 19 occasions since2018 on various “health” matters, all on behalf of GA VI.Â

¥ Bill Gates-Vaccines, Pharmaceuticals & Technology 

  1. 212. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, as set out in the within Statement of Claim, that Bill Gate’s 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:
    1. (a) Effect a mandatory, global, vaccine policy and laws, which would net an approximately $1i.3 Trillion per year, in which vaccine industry he is major proponent and investor;Â
    2. (b) To effect surveillance, through his vaccination agenda, as outlined in their public statement, and the MIT developed smart-phone application to embed nannocrystal beneath the skin which can be read by a smart-phone through smart-phones, and 5-G capacity, in which industries Gates 1s a major stake-holder and investor;Â
    3. (c) Using the above to “virtualize” and globalize the World economyi, in which virtual and global New World (Eiconomic) Order in which Gates further sits in the centre, along with the other Billionaire and corporate oligarchs;Â
    4. (d) All of which is being effected and accelerated through the false pronouncement of a COVID-1i9 ‘pandemic”, and implementation of baseless and false, draconian measures.Â
  2. 213. 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, namely at paragraphs 63i, 68, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81i, 85, 93i, 100, 107, 112, 118, 121, 124,199,200,201i,202,203i,205, of the within Statement of Claim, with respect to his agenda and conspiracy with others, including the Defandants.Â

¥ The WHOi/ Gates/ Trudeau and Dr. Teresa Tam 

  1. 214. The Plaintiffs state and fact is, that the connection and common agreement between Gates-Trudeau-Tam, in addition to their statements and actions m furthermore of that agreement as outlined above m the within Statement of Claim, is further manifested by the following:
    1. (a) On April 9, 2020 just before Easter, Trudeau announced that:Â
      “We will not be coming back to ourfrJrmer normal situation; we can ‘f do that until H’e have developed a vaccine and that could take 12 to 18 months ….. [and] …. This will be the nev1, normal until a vaccine is developed. “183
    2. (b) Trudeau’s statement is a script lifted straight from Bill Gatesá cchoi11g almost word for word. the message Gates has been pushing smcc the coronavuus in North America earlier this winter. The April 9th Highwire video clip at 2:07 captures Gates stating:Â
      “Things woná t go back to truly normal un Li I ,Ne have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out basically to the entire world.”184
    3. ( c) Instead of following the recommendations of leading scientists. doctors and epidemiologists, Trudeau is foisting the Gates/WlTO/ Gi VI/ ‘l T globalist agenda which he knows or ought to know, will result in l’inanci,1I ruin for millions of Canadians including the Plaintiffs.
    4. (d) Despite the prevailing global consensus on natural herd imrnunily. Bill Gates 1s 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 áwant people lo acqull’c immunity to COVID-19. Rather, Bill Gates prefers that Ye sulTer the ‘economic pain’ ofelockdown in order to prevent us from acquiring naturnl immunity as Gates has stated:Â
      ”We doná t want to have a lot of recovered people I … I ro be clear, we’re tryinge-through the shut-dovvn in the United States -to not get to one percent oC the populatio11 infected. We’re well below that today, but with exponentiation, you could get past that three rndlion [people or approximately one percent of the U.S. population being infected with COVID-19 and the vast rnajorit r covering]. I believe wee,. ill be able to avoid that with having this economic pain.”185 (e) In her latest compelling article, Covid-19 Meltdown and Pharmas’ Big Money Win, Barbara Loe Fisher delves into the many disturbing angles ol this epic viral/political war unleashed on humanity. the havoc caused b the Gates & Fauci lockdown policy and the economic spinoJTs spawnccl by the pandemic. 186 185 Did Bill Gates Just Reveal the Reason for the Lockdowns: By Rosemary Frei, Off-Guardian, April 4, 2020… =8a3 I c96b7b83 lb06c663 ld2d800e39e274fdb4c5-l 593827339-0AbbQnElw4gYMqoe 14KtV.9sVWpJ8_1O6ZguVbep6dVylwrKGMbqfHkxidxl_3uCK08Nlmuk8B5fJzKB4cL3viTl qQYvV8722SeZLNTHOWUovzpclftZQcDi Ix vg3QQ6jPmp ZkNGtNlwGs874a0MhuR Y9 _t7yNj8TyeXmeBXidqKFHOtCmuLJEmS9ZGcLDsNGb5 WKidfn HO7DSzlQ 11 0eNBgH MLXerbj Pr Ks ESdGlhwd3 Ljo Y6FiHbJ u4UI bTEJMbsKQFlq5XIIOtoLGY2e7ffhzjnbUBrcjpv76AL5aOYmAQAI ICC3ttqOt_ k2 I mLMgHN Fa tl2g WSlla4a2S UAI8IzoKXLcbkuTr0!pvKrbjkF8B4ij3p8MdQOK0DZHcW 186Covid-l 9 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win: (f) Covid-19 has sparked the hottest new market in town -vc1cc111c development. A staggering number of coronavirus vaccrncs me utidcr development right novv with astronomical piles of money being thrnwn at it. Gates is in the thick of it along with Tony Fauci. director ol’ lhc National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Both me on record stating they don’t want people developing natural immunity, 111 stating:Â

¥¥hich she says will be used to control the population and create a “digital identity” for everyone on the planet. McGovern writes:   “The Gates Foundation is funding research into digital ID technologies that could be used to track people’s vaccination status in order to ensure ‘equity’ of access to vaccines, but also as a way of controlling populations by allowing governments to ensure that their citizens have received the ‘right’ vaccines.” 190

Kennedy Jr. explains that the Cates/WHO agenda involves conducting deadly vaccine experiments in the developing world, often without informed consent from the participants. He argues that these experiments are unethical and have caused serious harm to many people in these countries. He also points out that the data collected from these experiments is often unreliable due to lack of proper oversight and regulation. Kennedy Jr. calls for greater transparency and accountability when it comes to vaccine trials conducted in the developing world, as well as increased access to healthcare for those affected by such experiments.

“Theresa Tam is the perfect example of a globalist puppet. She has been groomed for her role in the globalist agenda, and she is now in a position to make sure that agenda is carried out. She is the one who will be responsible for making sure that Canadians comply with whatever vaccine policy the globalists decide to implement.” (f) Chan concludes:  “It’s clear that Theresa Tam is not just a public health official, but also a powerful figure in the globalist agenda. Her influence extends far beyond Canada, and she will be instrumental in ensuring that the globalists’ plans are implemented.”

for Dr. Theresa Tam to take a stand against anti-vaccine thought. She has 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.

(j) The Civilian Intelligence Network’s scathing review of Theresa Tam’s  performance says: “Dr. Theresa Tam is the Queen of the Vaccine, and her  reign has been marked by a total lack of transparency and accountability.”


  1. 216. The Plaintiffs state, and the facts is, that the impact of containment measures to Plaintiffs is, inter alia that:
    1. (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.
    2. (b) California emergency room physicians stated that “sheltering in place does more harm than good and lowers our immune system.” 198
    3. (c) The measures employed to achieve the objective of “flattening the curvei” 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.
    4. (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: 198 hltps:l/
      1. (i) A dramatic increase in reports of domestic violence (30i%).Â
      2. (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 2020i). 199Â
      3. (iii) The deepest and most rapid loss of jobs, savings and income in the history of Canada. 200
      4. (iv) Numerous citizens have been forced into unemployment and poverty, the loss of their business, and bankruptcy.Â
      5. (v) Estimates of the Federal deficit resulting from their response to SARS-CoV-2 ranges up to $400 billion (May 2020). 201Â
      6. (vi) Leading Economic Indicators show the Canadian economy is now in ”free/all”. 202Â
      7. (vii) Illnesses and conditions not related to SARS-Co V-2 have gone untreated and undiagnosed.
      8. (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.
      9. (ix) Denial of access to health care professionals including doctors, dentists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, naturopaths, homeopaths, physiotherapists, massage therapists, optometrist, and osteopaths. 199… 200… 201… 202…
      10. (x)  Denial of access to health care services including cancer  treatments, elective surgeries, testing, diagnosing, and treatment.
      11. (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-Co V-2i. This is an unwarranted infringement on the right to therapeutic choice.
      12. (xii)  Dramatic Increase in mental health challenges including suicide.
      13. (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.
      14. (xiv)  Significant increase in alcohol consumption and drug use.
      15. (xv)  Denial of access to healthy recreation including parks, beaches,  camping, cottages, and activities as golf, tennis, swimming, etc.
      16. (xvi)  Denial of a public education for children.
      17. (xvii)  Denial of access to consumer goods and services.
      18. (xviii)  Individuals dying alone in hospital and extended care facilities  without the support of family and friends. 203
      19. (xix)  Fathers denied access to be present for the birth of their child.
      20. (xx)  Elderly parents in supportive care are denied access to the support  of their family and friends.  203
      21. (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.
      22. (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.Â
  2. 217. The Plaintiffs further state, and fact is, that:
    1. (a) To combat COVID-19, “Canada’s federal government has committed to measures totaling around $400 billion, of which about two-fifths constitutes direct spending.” Currently, the deficit for 2019-2020 is expected to be well over $180-$200 Billion. This is seven times larger than the previous year’s deficit. It is expected the interest alone, even at the very low current interest rates will cost $1 B each year. 204Â
    2. (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-Co V-2i.Â
    3. (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. 205 204 entry/ ca nada-budget-deficit-covid 19 ca Se85f6bcc5 b60bbd735085f4 205 htlps://w’!:f:t! (Â
    4. d) The cost of combatting SARS-Co V-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.Â
    5. (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.Â
    6. (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-1i9 in the province. 206Â
  3. 218. Furthermore, while upon the declaration of the pandemic, based on a totally erroneous modeling, postulated that, as opposed to regular 650i, 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:
    1. (a) In Canada, as elsewhere, 170,000i+ medical, surgical, operations are canceled, with the numbers climbing, as well as closure of other medical services at hospital, which have caused deaths;Â
    2. (b) With the fear of lock-downs and self-isolation, patients have not accessed their doctor for diagnosis of medical problems;Â
    3. (c) Documented spikes of domestic violence and suicides have been recorded;Â
    4. (d) Inordinate spike in alcoholism, drug use, and clinical depression;Â

      206 hltps:1/toronto.ctvnews.calmobile/ontario-takes–extraordlnary-step-to-give-police-list-of-all-covid-9-patlents.1.4910950?fbclld=lwAR1 Ojfu 5OYq5BPZJKMyyqiN2P47dK wbZzFMqC8WEpFxilhEF!81cGnfru; (e) Moreover, and most-shocking, the UN through an official of the World Food Bank, on April 22ind,2i020, 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?Â

  4. 219. 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:
    1. (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.
    2. (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 the change. 207
    3. (c) Y oram 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.” 208 ’07… 0/’/’ htt ps :/ /www. spiked-on Ii n e. com/ 2020/05/2 2/ nothing-can-ju st ify-th is-d est ru ct i o n-of-pe op I es-I ives/ #. Xsgq i N 6 DOu Q. face book
    4. (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.Â
    5. ( 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.Â
    6. (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.Â
    7. (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 sooni” and “It is unlikely ” 209 that zero infections can be achieved/or COVID-19.i
    8. (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.Â
    9. (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.Â



  1. 220. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, 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 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 WEiF, and their likes.Â
  2. 221. With respect to (mandatory) vaccines and the COVID-19i, the áDefendants, 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-19i, let alone vaccines at large, as reflected in, inter alia, the following:
    1. (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.210
    2. (b) Will A COVID 19 Vaccine Be Safe?
      1. (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. ” ill
      2. (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. “
      3. (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. ” (. . . . 211 1v ) p a th ogemc p nmmg ; 210 http;Â¥aÂ¥covid-19-vaccine-save-us/ 211 hllps;…“l
    3. (c) Jonathan Kimmelman, a biomedical ethics professor at McGill University in Montreal, 1s watching how both scientific and ethical standards are maintained while the pandemic vaccme 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 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 19i90is. Before healthy people worldwide receive a vaccine against SARS-Co V-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.” 212
    4. (d) CBC News March 24i, 20i20 reported by Amina Zafar;213
    5. (e) Moderna’s vaccine uses genetic material from the virus m 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. 212 hittps://… 213 https://www n e-resea rch-1.5497697
    6. (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 University of Queensland scientist who was recognized as Australian of the Year in 2006 for his contribution to developing HPV vaccines, said a COVID-1i9 vaccine may not be the end-all to the current crisis. 214Â
    7. (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.215Â
    8. (h) Mandatory Vaccination
    9. (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.Â

This is a powerful statement that speaks to the injustice of forcing people to submit to a vaccine against their will. It highlights the arrogance of policy makers who view citizens as too ignorant to make decisions for themselves and their children, and it calls out the system of slavery that has been created when corporations, health agencies, and government institutions are allowed to take control over people’s bodies without their consent. This statement also serves as a reminder that we must fight for our rights and freedoms in order to protect ourselves from tyranny.

¥ Microchipping  /Immunity  Passports/  Social  Contact  Vaccine  Surveillance & SG  

  1. 222.  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. Â
  2. 223.  In  addition  to  the  facts, pleaded  with  respect  to Gates’  vaccine-chip,  nannocrystal “app” already developed, in late June, 2020i, cell-phone companies,  at  the  request  of  Justin  Trudeau  that the 30i-Miillion  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. Â
  3. 224.  On June 30it1 2020i, 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.216 Canada is one of an  initial fifteen (15) countries to enter into  a  contract to deploy “immunity  216http ://www. nq-covi-pass-i m mu nity-passports.slated-roll-15-cou ntries/269006/ passport” technology. The technology would utilize a cell-phone application to disclose medical vaccination history. 217Â
  4. 225. 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’ Charteri, 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.Â

¥ Vaccines in General 

  1. 226. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is that:Â
    1. (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;Â
    2. (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;
    3. (c) that Ontario has no such compensation scheme;Â
    4. (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, noÂ
    5. ( 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 risks of vaccines to children, particularly those who are pre.disposed to injury and death from them, are completely ignored.Â

      investigation is undertaken or weighed with respect to the risks of their younger siblings being vaccinated;

  2. 227. The individual, biological Plaintiffs state that they further rely on the facts set out below under the Plaintiff heading “Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC)”.Â
  3. 228. The individual, biological Plaintiffs state that the compulsory vaccinationi, 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:Â
    1. (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;
    2. (c) 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 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.Â
  4. 229. 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.Â

Â¥ Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC)

  1. 230. Vaccine Choice Canada is a federally registered not-for-profit educational society. VCC is committed to protecting children’s health by informing parents of the existing and emerging scientific literature evaluating the risks, side effects, and potential long-term health effects of artificial immunization. VCC works to protect the right of all people to make fully informed and voluntary vaccine decisions for themselves and their children. Vaccine Choice Canada was originally incorporated as the Vaccination Risk Awareness Network (VRAN) in 1982i. It changed its name to Vaccine Choice Canada(VCC) in 20i14i.Â
  2. 231. In the 3 8 years that Vaccine Choice Canada, and its predecessor organization, has been involved in reviewing the vaccine safety literature, supporting families in their vaccine decisions, and developing educational materials related to vaccine safety, efficacy and necessity, so that individuals can make responsible and informed decisions, VCC has noted, uncovered, and researched certain established facts as set out below.Â
  3. 232. VCC states that, with respect to facts pertinent to product safety testing, the facts and medical literature sets out that:Â
    1. (a) Vaccines do not undergo the same level of safety testing as is required for all other drugs and medical products.Â
    2. (b) None of the vaccines licensed for use in Canada have been tested for safety using long-term, double blind, placebo-controlled studies.Â
    3. (c) Vaccine products licensed for use in Canada are not evaluated for safety using a neutral placebo, 218 a requirement for all other pharmaceutical products.Â
    4. (d) Vaccines are an invasive medical intervention whose safety is determined primarily by the amount of injury or death reported after vaccination.Â
    5. (e) Pre-licensing safety monitoring of childhood vaccines, prior to the vaccines being administered, is not long enough to reveal whether vaccmes cause autoimmune, neurological or developmental disorders. 219Â
    6. (f) Studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the vaccination schedule have not been conducted. 220Â
    7. (g) There are too few scientifically sound studies published in the medical literature to determine how many serious brain and immune system problems ¥ 221 are or are not cause db y vaccmes.
    8. (h) The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both . .. 222 pre-an d k 1 1 d post-mar etmg, 1s arge y ma equate.
    9. (i) Vaccines have not been tested for carcinogenicity, toxicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity, ability to impair fertility, or for long-term adverse reactions.Â
    10. (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.Â
    11. (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. 
    12. (l) There is evidence that vaccines are contaminated with unintended ingredients and that the health impact of injecting these ingredients is unknown. 224Â
    13. (m) Canada is the only G7 Nation without a national program to compensate those injured or killed by vaccination, and one(l) of two(2) G-20 Nations without a vaccine injury compensation program. The other nation being Russia.Â
    14. (n) The United States Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded more than $4e.1 billion in compensation since 1989.Â
    15. (o) The published medical literature recognizes that vaccines can cause permanent injury including death.
    16. (p) The US government has acknowledged that vaccination can cause brain damage resulting in symptoms of autism in genetically susceptible children.Â
    17. 225 ( 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 . 226 stram o f po 1á 10.Â
    18. (r) Vaccines include ingredients that are classified as poisons, carcinogens, toxins, neurotoxins, immune-and-nervous-system disruptors, allergens, fertility inhibitors, and sterilizing agents.Â
    19. (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.Â

Vaccine injury is a rare occurrence and the risk of developing a vaccine-related injury is very low. Vaccines are rigorously tested for safety before they are approved for use, and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any potential risks. Vaccine screening tests are not recommended as a routine part of pre-vaccination evaluation, as there is no evidence that they improve outcomes or reduce the risk of vaccine-related injury.

  1. (a) Pre-screening to identify individuals who may be at increased susceptibility to vaccine injury and death does not occur in Canada.Â
  2. (b) Health Canada has not committed resources to identify those individuals who may have increased susceptibility to experience vaccine injury or death.Â
  3. (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 fully consider the personal and family medical history prior to vaccination.Â
  4. ( d) This failure to fully consider personal and family medical history puts these youth at increased risk of vaccine injury.Â

Vaccine safety monitoring is an important part of ensuring the safety of vaccines. Vaccine safety monitoring includes tracking and analyzing reports of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) to identify any potential safety concerns. Vaccine safety monitoring also involves conducting studies to assess the risk of rare or serious adverse events that may not be detected through routine AEFI surveillance.

  1. (a) Doctors and health care workers are not trained to recognize and diagnose vaccine lllJury.Â
  2. (b) There are no legal consequences when medical professionals fail to report vaccine mJury.Â
  3. (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.Â
  4. (d) It is recognized that fewer than 1 % of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. 227 (e) Ontario’s AEiFI reporting system has lower reporting rates than other provinces.Â
  5. (f) The medical industry has failed to fully consider the combined toxicology of vaccine ingredients and the synergistic effect of combining vaccine ingredients.Â

“The primary purpose of safeguarding policy is to protect the health and safety of patients. This includes ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to prevent harm or injury, and that any risks associated with treatment or care are minimized. Safeguarding policies should be tailored to the specific needs of each patient, taking into account their individual circumstances, medical history, and other relevant factors.”

  1. (a) The primary metric used by Health Canada to measure the success of the vaccine program appears to be how many vaccines are delivered.Â
  2. (b) The goal of public health vaccine policy is to persuade parents to comply with the full vaccine schedule. 229Â
  3. (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.Â
  4. d) The right to informed consent has been recognized as one of the most fundamental ethics in medicine.Â
  5. (e) Public health professionals routinely fail to inform citizens of their legal right to personal, religious and medical exemptions where they exist.Â
  6. (f) Health Canada, with respect to vaccmes, places public policy over individual health considerations.Â
  7. (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.Â
  8. (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.Â
  9. (i) Antibody titre testing is rarely conducted in an effort to avoid unnecessary vaccination.Â
  10. 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.Â

“Vaccine injury is a rare occurrence, and the vast majority of vaccine-related injuries are minor and temporary. However, when serious injury or death does occur, it is important that those affected receive appropriate compensation. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established in 1988 to provide a no-fault system for compensating individuals who have been injured by certain vaccines. The VICP has provided over $4 billion in compensation to individuals since its inception.”

  1. (a) Vaccine manufacturers and medical professionals are not held legally and financially accountable when vaccine injury and death occurs.Â
  2. (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.Â
  3. (c) Systemic corruption within the medical establishment is well recognized within Â¥ Â¥ 230a23a1 t h e sc1ent1 ‘fi 1c commumty.Â
  4. (d) Conflicts of interest in biomedical. research are “very common”. 232Â

-The product or service may not be suitable for their needs.
-The product or service may not provide the expected results.
-The product or service may have hidden costs or fees.
-The product or service may be subject to additional terms and conditions.
-The product or service may be subject to change without notice.

  1. (a) vaccines do not confer life-long immunity;Â
  2. (b) not all vaccines eliminate susceptibility to infection;Â
  3. (c) not all vaccines are designed to prevent the transmission of infection;Â
  4. (d) most vaccines do not alter the safety of public spaces; 233Â
  5. (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;Â
  6. (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 that natural herd immunity;Â
  7. (g) vaccine can and do cause permanent injury and death;Â
  8. (h) there is no scientific evidence that vaccines are primarily responsible for reduced mortality over the last century as is often claimed;Â
  9. (i) the human body has an innate capability to fight off infections and heal  itselfi;
  10. (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 234;
  11. (k) Canadian children are among the most vaccinated children in the world
  12. (l) there is no compensation available in Canada, except for Quebec, should  vaccination result in injury or death;
  13. (m)only two provinces in Canada (Ontario and New Brunswick) reqmre  exemptions to decline vaccination;
  14. (n) recommended/required vaccmes vary by provmce, by state, and by country. Â

The product monograph is an important source of information for consumers, as it provides detailed information about the vaccine, including its ingredients, potential side effects, and contraindications. It also includes warnings about the limitations of safety testing and recognized adverse events that may occur following vaccination. Consumers should be provided with a copy of the product monograph prior to receiving a vaccine so they can make an informed decision about whether or not to receive the vaccine. Health care providers should ensure that consumers are aware of the risks associated with vaccination and provide them with a copy of the product monograph before administering any vaccine.

Yes, vaccine mandates violate the medical and legal ethic of informed consent. Informed consent is a fundamental principle of medical ethics that requires a patient to be fully informed about the risks and benefits of any medical procedure before they can give their consent to it. Vaccine mandates require individuals to receive certain vaccines without their full knowledge or consent, which violates this principle.

Yes, vaccine mandates do violate the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, the Nuremberg Code, professional codes of ethics, and all provincial health Acts. Vaccine mandates require individuals to receive certain vaccinations in order to access certain services or benefits. This violates the right to informed consent as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”. The Nuremberg Code also states that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” for any medical experiment. Professional codes of ethics also prohibit forced medical interventions, and provincial health Acts generally protect individuals from being forced to receive medical treatments against their will.

244. Vaccine safety monitoring systems in Canada are inadequate and do not provide sufficient information to assess the risk of vaccine injury.

This is not an acceptable practice and should be addressed immediately. Vaccination should always be voluntary, and no one should ever be threatened with expulsion for refusing it. Schools should provide accurate information about the risks and benefits of vaccination, as well as other options available to students who do not wish to receive a vaccine.

Yes, this is true. Indigenous people are more likely to be exposed to certain diseases due to their living conditions and lifestyle, so they may be required to receive additional vaccines that are not required for non-Indigenous people. This is based on the assumption that they are at a higher risk of contracting these diseases, rather than on medical evidence of risk.

The Immunization of School Pupils Act (ISPA) requires that all students attending school in Ontario must be immunized against certain diseases. The list of required immunizations is determined by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and may change from time to time. Parents/guardians are responsible for ensuring their children are up-to-date with their immunizations, and must provide proof of immunization to the school board upon request. Schools boards may also require additional immunizations beyond those listed in the ISPA.

  1. ( a) Only school children are mandated to provide their medical records under ISP A. Adults are not required and are less likely to be ‘up to date’ with their vaccinations.Â
    235 http :/ /kidsboostimmunity .com/sites/default/files/reusable_ files/kbi_ be pdfÂ
  2. (b) The forced disclosure of private medical records puts a child’s medical privacy at risk.
  3. (c) This disclosure often results in the child being ostracized by school staff and peers.Â
  4. (d) The ISP A does not give the medical officer of health authority to suspend a student. Only a principal can suspend a student from school. The Education Act does not have any section that allows a principal to suspend for lack of medical records. Yet this is routinely done for those who do not, or refuse, to comply with the mandatory scheme.Â
  5. (e) Parents who do not comply with unlawful suspension are threatened with child protection services.Â
  6. (f) Children who are under vaccinated or without exemptions are intimidated, held in the office, and incorrectly told by school officials that they need to get their shots or they cannot come to school.Â
  7. (g) The HSARB (Health Service Appeal and Review Board), which deals with appeals of suspensions, registration and expulsions, cannot rule on Charter challenge cases, as the enabling legislation specifically bars jurisdiction to adjudicate Charter issues.Â
  8. (h) There is zero accountability for violations of rights by the medical officer of health. This has resulted in many cases of the Medical Officer of Health unlawfully suspending young children for 60 to 90 school days, contrary to the 20 days suspension as set out in the ISP A.Â


  1. 249. The Plaintiff states 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.Â
  2. 250. 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 acted as, PRAVDA was and acted for the Soviet Union in the cold-war, with respect to coverage of the COVID.”pandemic”, “emergency”, and its draconian measures.Â
  3. 251. 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:Â
    1. (a) a Fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs and all citizens; andÂ
    2. (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.Â

¥ Negligence 

  1. 252. 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:
    1. (a) the CBC breached that duty of care; andÂ
    2. (b) as a result of the breach of that duty of care, the Plaintiffs suffered damages.Â
  2. 253. The Plaintiff states and the fact is, this duty was breached by the CBC’s negligent acts and omissions, including inter alia, the following:
    1. (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;Â
    2. (b) Whether contrary expert views exist, to the secret advice being followed;Â
    3. (c) If opposite, expert opinion exist, what is the government’s response to it?;Â
    4. (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;Â
    5. (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.Â

The Plaintiffs allege that CBC has breached its duty of care to the Plaintiffs by failing to act in a fair, independent, objective, and responsible manner. The Plaintiffs claim that CBC has acted more like a propagandistic state news agency serving a dictatorial regime. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the harm caused by CBC’s alleged breach of its duty of care.

(c) That she has been published in numerous scientific journals; and  (d) That she is a Nobel Prize nominee.

The Plaintiffs state that CBC’s intentional distortion of the facts with respect to Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Ph. D., is an example of CBC’s irresponsible and biased reporting which misleads viewers and readers, and is contrary to the journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness and balance which CBC claims to adhere to.

No, the reporters do not give any hint as to who debunked her expert views, when it happened, or on what medical basis.

No, the reporters do not investigate or pose any questions about why it is appropriate to remove from Face book or YouTube the views of a recognized, working World expert of virology with respect to issues of COVID-19. This lack of investigation and questioning by the reporters and CBC is concerning and raises questions about their commitment to providing accurate and unbiased information.

¥ Fiduciary Duty 

  1. 256. 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:Â
  2. 257. The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants breached this fiduciary duty as set out above in this Statement of Claim.Â
  3. 258. 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-1i9i, as purported “misinformation” contrary to “community standards” even when that content is posted by a recognized expert.Â
  4. 259. 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.Â
  5. 260. On or about end of May, 2020 the UK ” Scientific Advisory Group for Emergency (SAGEi) -COVID-19 Response, in response to the unwarranted 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”.Â
  6. 261. The Plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that CBC, Facebook, and Y ouTube, and other major social media, in their coverage of the COVID-19i, 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.Â


  1. 262. 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:Â
  2. 263. The Plaintiffs rely on:Â
  3. 264.  The Plaintiffs therefore request:
  4. 265.  The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in Toronto. Â

The best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to practice social distancing, wear a face mask when in public, wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoid touching your face, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily, and stay home if you are feeling sick.