COVID-19
TDF files Notice of Constitutional Question for upcoming ArriveCAN trial
News release from The Democracy Fund
Written by TDF’s Legal Team
Court document filed by TDF alleges that ArriveCAN requirement was not properly specified by the Minister of Health.
The Democracy Fund (TDF) has filed a Notice of Constitutional Question in the Ontario Court of Justice over an ArriveCAN ticket issued to one of their “fight-the-fines” clients. The court application argues that the client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information the government demanded she disclose through ArriveCAN, which included information about her vaccination status. TDF further argues that this demand constituted an unreasonable seizure as it was not authorized by law.
While the Government of Canada has claimed that ArriveCAN was legally required starting in November 2020, TDF argues that the orders-in-council that purport to establish ArriveCAN make no reference to ArriveCAN. Rather, the orders say that information must be provided by an “electronic means specified by the Minister of Health.”
The question is, when and where did the Minister of Health specify ArriveCAN to be the electronic means referred to in the orders in council?
TDF’s litigation director, Alan Honner, says he made several inquiries to government ministries about when and where the Minister of Health actually specified ArriveCAN to be the electronic means set out in the orders in council. He never received an answer.
The only document TDF uncovered which specifies ArriveCAN as the electronic means set out in the orders-in-council is dated November 26, 2021, more than a full year after ArriveCAN was supposed to become legally mandatory.
“There is a real question about whether the government actually took the steps to make ArriveCAN legally binding on travellers prior to November 2021,” says TDF Litigation Director Alan Honner. “If the Minister of Health failed to make the specification as required by law except for this one time, then for at least an entire year, the government was telling us that ArriveCAN was legally required when it was not.”
TDF had previously filed an application in the Federal Court of Canada making this same argument. That application was dismissed for mootness because all COVID-19 border measures were rescinded within weeks of TDF filing its court documents.
TDF will be arguing at the upcoming trial that the November 26 document does not apply to their client. Among other things, the document refers to an order in council that was rescinded and not to the order in council that their client was charged with breaching.
“The good news is that the application cannot be struck for mootness because we are dealing with an active ticket,” says Honner. “The bad news is that the prosecution can avoid the argument by dropping the charges.”
The trial will take place on February 15, 2024.
To support our work, please consider making a tax-deductible donation on this page.
About The Democracy Fund:
Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.
From the Brownstone Institute
Morens implicated Margaret (Marg) Moore, known colloquially as “The FOIA lady” in trying to hide information from the American people, particularly that related to the origins of Covid-19, which is a felony.
A relatively unknown public records officer at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is now at the centre of a burgeoning scandal involving Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The saga unfolded after subpoenaed emails belonging to David Morens, a former top advisor to Anthony Fauci, revealed that someone had taught him to game the system and avoid emails being captured by FOIA requests.
“i learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe,” Morens wrote in a Feb 24, 2021, email. “Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.”
Morens implicated Margaret (Marg) Moore, known colloquially as “The FOIA lady” in trying to hide information from the American people, particularly that related to the origins of Covid-19, which is a felony.
It sparked an investigation by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to expose what Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) called a “cover-up.”
A letter to NIH director Monica Bertagnolli in May suggested “a conspiracy at the highest levels” of these once trusted public health institutions.
“If what appears in these documents is true, this is an apparent attack on public trust and must be met with swift enforcement and consequences for those involved,” Wenstrup wrote.
Wenstrup said there was evidence that a former chief of staff of Fauci’s might have used intentional misspellings — such as “Ec~Health” instead of “EcoHealth” — to prevent emails from being captured in keyword searches by FOIA officials.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
Today, Wenstrup announced a subpoena to compel Moore (The FOIA lady) to appear for a deposition on October 4, 2024, saying that she’d repeatedly resisted these efforts and delayed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation.
“Her alleged scheme to help NIH officials delete COVID-19 records and use their personal emails to avoid FOIA is appalling and deserves a thorough investigation,” said Wenstrup.
“Holding Ms. Moore accountable for any role she played in undermining American trust is a step towards improving the lack of accountability and absence of transparency rapidly spreading across many agencies within our federal government,” he added.
Moore, however, has indicated through her lawyers that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Her lawyers wrote to Wenstrup explaining that she’d cooperated with the Select Subcommittee to find “an alternative” to sitting for an interview, including expediting her own FOIA request for her own documents.
They also explained that Morens’ emails suggesting Moore gave tips “about avoiding FOIA,” were misleading because Morens, under oath said, “That was a joke…She didn’t give me advice about how to avoid FOIA.”
Nonetheless, Moore’s decision to plead the Fifth has only fuelled concern over the lack of transparency and accountability of one of the nation’s top health research institutions.
It’s not over until the FOIA lady sings!
Further reading: The great FOIA dodge
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Alberta
Chris Scott and Rebecca Ingram attempting Class Action Lawsuit against Province for COVID restrictions
Could open the door for business owners across the province to seek damages for financial losses
News release regarding this class action lawsuit from Rath & Company
Rath & Company has launched a class action lawsuit against the Province of Alberta on behalf of business owners in Alberta who faced operational restrictions due to, now deemed illegal, Public Health Orders. This lawsuit follows the recent Ingram Decision by the Calgary Court of King’s Bench, which declared that all of Dr. Hinshaw’s Public Health Orders were ultra vires, in other words illegal or not lawfully enacted. The Ingram Decision has opened the door for affected business owners to seek damages for the financial losses incurred due to the restrictions imposed by these unlawful Public Health Orders.
The lawsuit names Rebecca Ingram and Chris Scott as representative plaintiffs who suffered significant financial harm due to Dr. Hinshaw’s Public Health Orders. On February 7, 2024, the parties attended their first case conference with Justice Feasby of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to establish the next steps. The lawyers for the Province of Alberta made it clear that they intend to oppose the class action certification. Premier Smith has yet to comment on the government opposition to compensate individual business owners impacted by Dr. Hinshaw’s unlawful Public Health Orders.
“This marks the first of many procedural and substantive steps. This is an important case about
government actions and overreach during a time when business owners were unlawfully mandated to close their businesses at moments notice. It will give Albertans the opportunity to hold the Alberta government accountable and seek fair compensation on behalf of the many businesses impacted by Deena Hinshaw’s many unlawful decisions,” said lead counsel Jeffrey Rath.
The class action represents all impacted Alberta business owners. If you have been adversely affected and wish to join this class action lawsuit, please register by completing the online form at Business Class Action – Rath&Company (rathandcompany.com). Should the Court grant permission for this action to proceed as a “Class Action” (also known as “Certification”), you may qualify as a class member whether or not you have registered.
“In what world is it fair for small business owners to bear the financial brunt for the benefit of the entire province? Our hope is that this lawsuit brings justice to the affected business owners who suffered significant hardship and losses without justification or consideration by the province’s harsh and unilateral actions,” Mr. Rath continued.
From Rath & Company
Business Class Action Update – October 1, 2021
The Certification Hearing scheduled with Justice Feasby will be available for online viewing. Below are the details you need to join the session:
Date and Time:
- October 2 and 3, 2024, at 10:00 AM (Mountain Time, UTC-06:00)
Join Online:
- Webex Link: https://albertacourts.webex.com/meet/virtual.courtroom16
- Webinar Number: 265 095 912
- Video address: [email protected]
- Webinar Password: COURT10022024 (or use the numeric code 26878100 when dialing in)
Join by Phone:
- Dial-In Number: +1-780-851-3573 (Canada Toll – Edmonton)
- Access Code: 277 254 26969
PLEASE NOTE – Recording or rebroadcasting of this hearing is strictly prohibited.
Documents related to this matter that have been filed to date are available for viewing online – see links BELOW.
We encourage all interested parties to observe the proceedings.
Summary of the Covid Business Restrictions Class Action Lawsuit
Rath & Company has commenced a Class Action lawsuit against the provincial government of Alberta on behalf of business owners who faced operational restrictions due to Public Health Orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. This lawsuit aims to secure financial compensation for businesses in Alberta that were either fully or partially restricted by these health orders.
The legal foundation of this case is anchored in the recent Ingram decision by the Calgary Court of King’s Bench, which determined that the Public Health Orders were not enacted lawfully.
The primary plaintiffs in this lawsuit are two Alberta business owners who suffered considerable financial losses due to the imposed Public Health Orders.
This legal action represents an opportunity for business owners who were operational in Alberta from 2020 to 2022 and were impacted by these health directives.
If you are among those affected and are interested in joining this class action lawsuit as a member of the group, we invite you to register with us. To do so, please complete our intake form.
This is an intake form for use by our legal team. Information provided in this form will be used to assist us in moving the Class Action case forward.
If the Court permits the action to proceed as a “Class Action” (this is called “Certification”), you may be a Class Member. You will receive a notice if the action is Certified that will explain your rights as a Class Member.
Please Complete this Form to the best of your ability and it will be sent directly to: [email protected]
To Review the Class Action Documents Click Here:
- Notice of Application
- Business Class Action Statement of Claim
- Business Class Action Plaintiffs Brief
- Business Class Action Provinces Brief
- Business Class Action Plaintiffs Reply
- Affidavit of Rebecca Ingram
- Affidavit of Christopher Scott
- Affidavit of Dana Hogemann – Senior
- Assistant Deputy Minister, Treasury Board Secretariat
- Affidavit of Andy Ridge – Incident Commander of the Emergency Operations Centre with the Ministry of Health
- Affidavit and Expert Report of Randy Popik – Chartered Accountant at Kingston Ross Pasnak LLP
- Affidavit and Expert Report of Christopher Cotton – Professor of Economics at Queen’s University
- Scott Transcript
- Ridge Undertaking
- Ridge Transcript
- Cotton Undertaking
- Cotton Transcript
- Popik Undertaking
- Popik Transcript
- Ingram Transcript
- Eberle-Morris Transcript
- Hogemann Transcript
- Ingram Decision
Covid Business Losses Class Action Intake Form
Business Class Action Update – October 1, 2024
The Certification Hearing scheduled with Justice Feasby will be available for online viewing. Below are the details you need to join the session:
Date and Time:
- October 2 and 3, 2024, at 10:00 AM (Mountain Time, UTC-06:00)
Join Online:
- Webex Link: https://albertacourts.webex.com/albertacourts/j.php?MTID=m178603e16b482202c28d98b5ad6c9ffa
- Webinar Number: 2772 542 6969
- Webinar Password: COURT10022024 (or use the numeric code 26878100 when dialing in)
Join by Phone:
- Dial-In Number: +1-780-851-3573 (Canada Toll – Edmonton)
- Access Code: 277 254 26969
PLEASE NOTE – Recording or rebroadcasting of this hearing is strictly prohibited.
We have uploaded the
We have uploaded the Transcripts and Undertaking. Specifically, on the website you can now find the:
Business Class Action Update – June 21, 2024
The government of Alberta has taken the position of opposing the certification of our proposed class action. As a result, we must go to court to get the lawsuit “certified” as a class action – this is known as the certification hearing.
The certification hearing is scheduled for October 2 and 3, 2024, before Justice Feasby. The following schedule has been agreed to leading up to the certification hearing:
- April 12, 2024 – Plaintiffs to file and serve their Notice of Application and any evidence for the certification hearing
- April 26, 2024 – Any cross examination on the plaintiffs’ material to be completed
- May 10, 2024 – Any undertakings arising from the cross examination to be answered
- June 7, 2024 – Defendants to file and serve any evidence in response
- June 21, 2024 – Any cross examination on the defendant’s material to be completed
- July 19, 2024 – Any undertakings arising from the cross examination to be answered
- August 9, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ written brief to be filed and served
- September 13, 2024 – Defendant’s written brief in response to be filed and served
- September 27, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ reply brief, if any, to be filed and served
- October 2 and 3, 2024 – Certification Hearing
We have uploaded the Plaintiffs Notice of Application and evidence in support as well as the government of Alberta’s evidence on our website. Specifically, on the website you can now find the:
- Notice of Application
- Affidavit of Rebecca Ingram
- Affidavit of Christopher Scott
- Affidavit of Dana Hogemann – Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treasury Board Secretariat
- Affidavit of Andy Ridge – Incident Commander of the Emergency Operations Centre with the Ministry of Health
- Affidavit and Expert Report of Randy Popik – Chartered Accountant at Kingston Ross Pasnak LLP
- Affidavit and Expert Report of Christopher Cotton – Professor of Economics at Queen’s University
- Business Class Action Brief
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Class Action Lawsuit?
What is certification?
The court must first assess whether the claim should be advanced in the form of a class action. The court will consider whether the claim shows an appropriate cause of action, an identifiable class of persons, and issues that are shared in common. The court will also determine whether a class action is a preferable procedure, and whether there is an appropriate representative plaintiff. If the class action is certified by the court, the representative plaintiff or plaintiffs will advance the case on behalf of all class members.
Am I a class member?
When a class action is certified, a definition of the class is provided. If you are an individual class member meeting the class description, then you do not need to sign up to be part of the class action – you are automatically included.
Do I have to pay to be part of the class action?
Premier Smith says Alberta Bill of Rights will strengthen property rights and protect medical choices
Province introduces civilian oversight of RCMP in Alberta: Committees to oversee RCMP service delivery
A city divided: Homelessness and drug crisis fuel tensions in Nanaimo
BC Conservative leader regrets getting COVID shots, says mandates were about control
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoStudy Confirms the Truth about Masks and Children
-
Business2 days agoSome dockworkers earn more than $400,000 a year
-
illegal immigration1 day agoCartels, UN, and NGOs Fuel U.S. Border Crisis – A Report from Colombia
-
Alberta1 day agoProvince will not allow liquor sales in Alberta grocery and convenience stores
-
Crime2 days agoBukele Defends El Salvador’s Gang Reforms
-
International1 day agoRescue group issues warning to Jews, Americans over potential terrorist threats
-
Crime2 days agoEXCLUSIVE: GOP Rep Demands Answers From FBI Over ‘Misguided’ Crime Stats
-
Economy1 day agoFederal government should listen to Canadians and trim the bureaucracy