Sprawling anti–mandate lawsuit that included a Sooke couple has been rejected

A diffuse anti-mandate lawsuit that included two Sooke residents was rejected by a BC judge last week for being unconstrained and overly wordy. The 20 plaintiffs each allege they have had their Charter rights violated by COVID-19 mandates, and named 19 defendants—including the late Queen, Dr. Bonnie Henry, and several government ministers, among others—as being responsible.

The judge called the claim document “bad beyond argument” and said the defendants could not reasonably understand what they were being sued for.

“[The claim] describes wide-ranging global conspiracies that may, or may not, have influenced either the federal or the provincial governments. It seeks rulings of the court on issues of science. In addition, it includes improper allegations, including criminal conduct and ‘crimes against humanity.’ In my opinion, it is ‘bad beyond argument,’” Justice Alan Ross wrote in his decision.

The main plaintiff was Action4Canada, a national organization with six chapters on Vancouver Island, that has a stated mission of protecting “Canada’s rich heritage which is founded on Judeo-Christian biblical principles.” Formed not long before the COVID-19 pandemic, the group quickly rallied around pandemic response measures it claims infringed on freedoms. The group also has opinions on 5G technology, abortion, drug legalization, “political Islam,” and more.

Among the 19 accused defendants were the now-late Queen Elizabeth II all the way down to a regional manager for BC Ferries, five BC government ministers, several Crown corporations, public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam, and more.

Two plaintiffs, Linda and Gary Morken from Sooke, allege they were harassed by grocery store employees for not wearing masks, and that Linda’s subsequent arrest was unlawful. The incident happened at Village Foods in Sooke, in early February 2021. At that time a mask mandate was in effect, but the Morkens claimed they had mask exemptions.

They accuse the store manager ​of “boisterous, angry theatrics” as he tried to get them to leave the store. Sooke RCMP were called, and Linda says she waited in the store for police to arrive so she could explain that she has a mask exception, while Gary waited outside.

“As Linda stood waiting, another employee shouted at her to leave the store and never return. Linda replied that she would be leaving soon, however she would be back to shop in the store once they realized that they were the ones breaking the law by not honouring masking exemptions,” the notice of civil claim stated.

The lawsuit claims that when two Sooke RCMP constables arrived, they handcuffed and arrested Linda for “her failure to wear a mask while frequenting a public space.” (The RCMP said she was arrested for causing a disturbance after refusing to leave.) She and Gary were both fined $230, and Linda was fined another $230 for not following direction from an enforcement officer.

Linda has been active in protesting vaccine mandates, and is listed as the director for Vaccine Choice Canada.

The Morkens’ claim was one of several allegations about infringement of Charter rights by a wide ranging list of actors. The 391-page notice of claim started with a “facts” section that outlined a timeline of vaccine investment from Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as simultaneous 5G technology investments which the claim argues are related.

They also compare the number of deaths from non-COVID related causes—vehicle collisions, drug fatalities—and conclude that ”fact is, that ten-fold times more people are dying from the Covid measures than from Covid-19 itself.”

Vaccines for children, they also claim, “constitutes medical experimentation and thus constituted a ‘crime against humanity’ emanating from the Nuremberg trials.”

The judge did not address merit of specific claims, but rejected the whole suit because it was “tediously lengthy.” Defendants asked the judge to reject the action, and deny permission for the plaintiffs to try again with an amended notice of claim. Ross rejected the lawsuit, but said the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their claim and resubmit it.

It’s possible that the plaintiffs have a valid claim, the judge wrote, but it is up to them to plead their case within the parameters of the Court’s rules. “Such claims need to be framed in a manner that is intelligible and allows the defendants to know the case they have to meet. It must also confine itself to matters that are capable of adjudication by this court and relief this court is capable of granting,” he wrote.

Action4Canada did not respond to requests for comment, but a post on its website claimed the decision as a victory. They might file an appeal, based on “errors of law” in Ross’s decision, and will also file an amended claim.