SUPREME COURT

TISH COLUMBIA ST 2 '1 0 8 3.1 1

OJAEIgIBUVER REGISTRY No. ...............................

JAN 26 2021 Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY

PLAINTIFF
AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT

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

DEFENDANTS

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

NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below.

If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must

a. file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this

court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and

b. serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.

If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must

a. file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the

above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil
claim described below, and

b. serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the
plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
 2

JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response
to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.

Time for response to civil claim

A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff,
a. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21
days after that service,

b. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of
America, within 35 days after that service,

c. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days
after that service, or

d. if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within
that time.

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

Overview

1. Pandemic is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified

acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.​1

2. Science is the study of reality. It informs sound public policy.

3. In its response to the COVID-19 virus, the government of British Columbia has
invoked extraordinary executive powers predicated on unsubstantiated scientific and
legal grounds with catastrophic consequences for British Columbians.

Parties

4. The plaintiff, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
Policy (the “Society”), a not-for-profit society duly incorporated under the ​Societies Act,
SBC 2015, c. 18 with its head office at 108-2115 Cypress Street, Vancouver, British
Columbia.

5. The Society is a non-partisan and secular organization. Its mandate is to

advocate for a greater role of science in the formation of public policy. Its directors,

1
​WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020
 3

officers, donors, and patrons draw themselves from diverse communities and from
across the political spectrum.

6. The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British
Columbia, may exclusively make laws in relation to matters that are not within the
jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and its ministers may make orders pursuant to
the ​Emergency Program Act, R ​ .S.B.C. 1996, c. 111 (the “​EPA​”), and has an address for
service care of the Attorney General, Ministry of Attorney General, PO Box 9290 Stn
Prov Govt, Victoria, British Columbia (the “Provincial Government”).

7. The defendant, Dr. Bonnie Henry is British Columbia's Provincial Health Officer
(the “Provincial Health Officer”) appointed under Part 6 of the ​Public Health Act,​ S.B.C.
2008, c 28.

Proposed class

8. This action is brought on behalf of members of the class consisting of all persons
residing or doing business in British Columbia who, since on or after March 17, 2020,
have suffered personal injury or other damages as a result of the actions of the
defendants in declaring a state of emergency pursuant to the ​EPA and Part 5 of the
Public Health Act ​(the “Class”).

9. It is estimated that the Class consists of hundreds of thousands of residents and

businesses in British Columbia.

Government Declares an Emergency

10. On March 17, 2020, the Provincial Health Officer issued a notice under the ​Public
Health Act (the “​PHA​”) that the transmission of the infectious agent SARS-CoV-2, had
caused cases and outbreaks of an illness known as COVID-19 in British Columbia.

11. The following day, on March 18, 2020, the Provincial Government declared a
“state of emergency” under the​ EPA​.

12. A declaration of a state of emergency enabled the Provincial Government to

exercise sweeping statutory powers under the ​EPA.​ This legislation has its roots in the
federal ​War Measures Act of 1914. The latter was originally intended to implement a
declaration of war for the First World War.

13. The declaration of a public health emergency also provided for a range of
emergency powers under the ​PHA,​ including empowering the Provincial Health Officer
to issue verbal orders that had immediate effect.
 4

Rationale for State of Emergency

14. In the period between January 1 to March 31, 2020, there were 3 reported
deaths attributed to the COVID-19 virus in British Columbia.

15. In the following months, the mortality rate attributed to COVID-19 increased but
clustered around care home facilities, and especially those that were understaffed and
without sufficient medical supplies.

16. In its “emergency” response, the Provincial Government closed large sectors of
the British Columbia economy issuing orders prohibiting attendance at restaurants,
fitness facilities, shopping centres, religious and other peaceful gatherings, issued travel
bans and cancelled medical treatments.

17. While hospitals prepared for an influx of COVID-19 patients, many medical
procedures and operations were cancelled under the Provincial Government’s
directives. However, the high number of intensive care COVID-19 patients did not
materialize. Most people infected with COVID-19 experienced mild to moderate
influenza-like symptoms that abated quickly.

18. By June 24, 2020, the Provincial Government and Public Health Officer’s
restrictions on non-essential travel, hotels, and film industries were lifted. By September
2020, on site and in person instruction at public schools was reintroduced.

19. The authority to exercise emergency powers under Part 5 of the ​PHA ends when
the Provincial Health Officer provides notice that the emergency has passed (s. 59(1)).

20. Despite the relatively low number of persons infected by COVID-19 in British
Columbia, the Public Health Officer failed to provide notice that the emergency had
passed and the Lieutenant Governor in Council continued to extend the emergency
declaration under ​EPA.​

21. British Columbia is currently in the longest state of emergency in provincial

history.

COVID-19

22. The COVID-19 disease is similar in symptoms to influenza (also known as the
common seasonal flu), but influenza, according to the World Health Organization can
spread faster than COVID-19.
 5

23. The most at risk for severe influenza infection are children, pregnant women, the
elderly, those with underlying chronic medical conditions and those who are
immunosuppressed. For COVID-19, older age and underlying conditions increase the
risk for severe infection.

24. The infection fatality ratio of COVID-19 (the “IFR”) is extremely low, comparable
to the seasonal flu. The all-cause mortality of British Columbia from June 30, 2019 to
July 1, 2020, the period in which COVID-19 appeared, does not differ drastically from
the all-cause mortality statistics since 2016.

25. The language the defendants have used, and continue to use, in public
statements respecting COVID-19 deaths misrepresent the true fatality of this disease.
The defendants only report the case fatality ratio (the “CFR”) rather than infection
fatality ratio of COVID-19 (“IFR”). In reality, the number of persons infected but not
reported is significantly higher than the cases reported. This means that the true fatality
due to COVID-19 is significantly lower than reported by the defendants.

26. This misunderstanding of statistical data has caused, and continues to cause,
unwarranted public alarm.

27. The defendants have refused to take responsibility for the inaccurate information
provided to the public. For example, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control
(the “BCCDC”), states as follows in its disclaimer:

“... the Province of British Columbia, including the British Columbia Centre for
Disease Control, the Provincial Health Services Authority and the British
Columbia Ministry of Health makes no representation or warranties regarding the
accuracy of the information in the dashboard and the associated data, nor will it
accept responsibility for errors or omissions. (...) Anyone using this information
does so at his or her own risk, and by using such information agrees to indemnify
the Province of British Columbia, including the British Columbia Centre for
Disease Control, the Provincial Health Services Authority and the British
Columbia Ministry of Health and its content providers from any and all liability,
loss, injury, damages, costs and expenses (including legal fees and expenses)
arising from such person’s use of the information on this website.”

pp. 3-4, ​British Columbia COVID-19 Disclaimer and Data Notes.​

COVID-19 Testing is Unreliable to a Significant Degree

28. The tests which the Public Health Officer and the Provincial Government have
used, and continue to use, to determine the presence of COVID-19 in a person
 6

inaccurately slant results towards a higher number of positive cases of COVID-19 in the
population than there actually are. This in turn causes needless panic and unfounded
justification of government emergency orders.

29. This has caused excessive public alarm.

30. The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) testing
methodology used by the Provincial Government has produced significant COVID-19
false-positives.

31. A false-positive is a test that mistakenly appears positive, but in actuality is false.

32. This methodology has produced COVID-19 false-positives for a goat, a papaya,
and a kiwi.

33. A growing number of scientists are condemning the use of PCR testing kits in
COVID-19 testing, which can be used for multiple purposes. This includes scientists
who sell the kits.

34. According to the inventor of the PCR testing method, Dr. Kary Mullis, who earned
a Nobel Prize for his work with PCR testing methodology, PCR identifies substances
qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the
viruses themselves.

35. The PCR test used in British Columbia purported to identify positive cases of
COVID-19 is not sufficient to diagnose the presence of an infectious disease, including
COVID-19. It is an aid to diagnosis only.

36. These false-positives inflate the number of alleged COVID-19 cases above the
true case number of actual COVID-19 infected persons.

37. In 2019, provinces reported 147 lab-confirmed cases of flu the first week of
November. This year, they reported four.

38. This comes despite testing more than twice as many people for flu than usual —
almost 10,000 tests were done in the first week of November, 2020 compared to a
six-year average of about 4,500.

39. Unsurprisingly, by January 18, 2021, the BCCDC confirmed it had not detected a
single case of influenza circulating in the community.

40. The number of new cases reported without being qualified by information about
the false-positive rate or false discovery rate also misleads the public about the danger
represented by the new case number. Such danger is due to a lack of general public
 7

understanding about how disease prevalence, amount of testing, and the probability of
obtaining a false-positive, affect the proportion of new cases accurately representing
true-positive cases of COVID-19.

41. In spite of this a positive result has been used as a basis to enforce isolation of
individuals on the grounds that they may have, and may be contagious for, a disease for
which they show no symptoms, and from whom no COVID-19 virus had been isolated,
purified, or shown to be biologically active.

42. This causes unnecessary fear and begets additional government policies that
restrict the liberty of people to mitigate a problem which has been exaggerated by how
these tests have been misused.

Compromised Medical Treatments and Therapies

43. In its “emergency” response, the Provincial Government cancelled medical

treatments they deemed “non-essential” for which many residents had been on the
waiting list for significant amounts of time.

44. In addition, the defendants have obstructed or discouraged licensed physicians

and other treatment providers licensed under the ​Health Professions Act​, R.S.B.C.
1996, c. 183, from advocating modalities or therapies with respect to the clinical
approach in treating COVID-19 and related diseases, despite the physician having
independently undertaken reasonable review of the scientific literature, that may
improve a patient’s immune system, reduce the potential negative outcome of a viral
infection, and potentially accelerate the time required for recovery.

45. These include therapies that have been studied extensively in the scientific
literature for more than half a century and are proven to be safe, inexpensive,
ubiquitous, effective, and essential to the optimal function of the immune system (the
“Complementary Therapies”), some of which are unpatentable.

46. The defendants knew, or ought to have known, that cancelling medical
treatments or obstructing or discouraging the use of any of the Complementary
Therapies in the treatment of disease was not grounded in science and would cause
harm to the public.

Ministerial Orders

47. As of June 17, 2020, the Provincial Government had issued 30 orders under the
authority of s. 10(1) of the ​EPA,​ including orders that were later repealed and replaced.
More orders have been issued since then. All of the orders issued by the Minister
 8

contain a provision stating that they apply only for so long as the declaration of the state
of emergency is in effect.

48. Most of the Provincial Government’s orders do not reference a specific

sub-paragraph in the s. 10(1) and instead rely on the general provision in s. 10(1) that
the Minister may “do all acts and implement all procedures necessary to prevent,
respond to or alleviate the effects of any emergency or disaster.”

49. The reality is that either all or some of the Ministerial orders were not necessary
to “prevent, respond or alleviate” the effects of COVID-19 to the population of British
Columbia.

50. The Provincial Government also failed to establish legally binding conditions on
the use of sub-delegated powers to suspend, waive or otherwise alter statutory
provisions for the following Ministerial orders and subsequent orders replacing them:
a. Ministerial Order M083 was issued on March 26, 2020, after the initial declaration
of a provincial state of emergency. This order applied to municipalities, regional
districts and the City of Vancouver. Ministerial Order M083 was repealed and
replaced by a new order on May 1, 2020, M139, subsequently in turn repealed
and replaced by a new order, M192, on June 17, 2020.
b. M139, Local Government Meetings and Bylaw Process (COVID-19) Order No. 2,
which repealed and replaced M083, Local Government Meetings and Bylaw
Process (COVID-19) Order;
c. Ministerial Order M089, Residential Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 30 March 2020.

d. Ministerial Order M179, Commercial Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 29 May 2020;

e. Ministerial Order M416, Food Liquor premises, Gatherings and Events

(COVID-19) Order No. 2; and

f. Such further orders as will be provided at trial, but which are known to the
defendants.

(the “Ministerial Orders”)

51. The Provincial Health Officer has issued more than 50 orders under the authority
of Part 5 of the ​PHA,​ including verbal orders (the “PHA Orders”).

52. Most of the Provincial Health Officer’s PHA Orders do not reference the medical
or scientific basis for issuing the order and do not satisfy the requirements of s. 52 of the
PHA​.
 9

53. Indeed, the Ministerial Orders and PHA Orders (collectively, the “Orders”) were
and continue to be, inconsistent, contradictory, and contrary to reasonably established
medical and scientific principles and research, ​and do not satisfy the requirements of s.
9 of the ​EPA​ and s. 52 of the ​PHA,​ ​ particulars of which include, but are no limited to:

a. discouraging the public from wearing masks on the basis that they were
ineffective;

b. mandating that masks be worn in public places;

c. closing in-house dining but permitting take-out;

d. not mandating that cooks in public dining establishments wear masks

while preparing food for take-out;
e. allowing in-house dining for groups of the same household, that could sit
next to groups of different households;
f. failing to enforce these orders;

g. allowing shopping in large warehouse grocery and “big box” franchises

such as Walmart, Costco, and others (the “Big Box Stores”);
h. prohibiting religious gatherings;

i. prohibiting peaceful gatherings if unrelated to work;

j. limiting shopping in shopping malls;

k. prohibiting certain travel throughout British Columbia but allowing

travellers from other provinces to travel within British Columbia;
l. admitting that the limit on the size of gatherings is arbitrary and was never
grounded in science;
m. such other particulars as may be proven at trial.

Effect of government measures on British Columbians

54. The effects of these restrictions placed on British Columbians have caused
damage disproportionate to any threat posed by COVID-19, including but not limited to
the following (the “Restriction Effects”):
a. Significant increase in overdose deaths. For example, approximately five people
die per day in B.C. due to an overdose, which is more than the number of people
attributed to COVID-19 related deaths in B.C.;
b. Increase in suicide rates;
 10

c. Increase in depression and mental-health illness;

d. Loss of gainful employment;

e. Increase in domestic violence, including child battery;

f. Increase in bankruptcies and foreclosures;

g. Increase in divorces and deteriorations in personal relationships;

h. Decrease in critical services for the homeless and low income;

i. Increase in insurance premiums;

j. Such other effects as may be proved at trial.

55. To put this in perspective, in 2018, 314 British Columbians died in motor vehicle
incidents. In 2019, 984 people died from illicit drug use in British Columbia and in 2020,
1,548 people died from illicit drug use.

56. In contrast, there were 678 deaths in British Columbia attributed to COVID-19 to
the end of week 50 in 2020.

57. Commercial insurers have already paid out billions in claims globally as a result
of damage caused by government COVID-19 measures rather than physical injuries
caused by the virus. The increase in insurance premiums affects the costs of everyday
living and doing business in British Columbia.

58. This kind of economic harm has impacted and will continue to impact British
Columbians and all those who do business in British Columbia for decades by making
British Columbian goods and services less competitive in the global marketplace.

Economic security of defendants versus class members

59. Many British Columbians have experienced, and continue to experience, severe
economic hardship as a result of the Orders.

60. Meanwhile the Provincial Government, the Provincial Health Officer, and her staff
continue to enjoy economic security through salaries, other benefits, and pensions. All
government salaries, other benefits, and pensions are at public expense and far less
subject to market conditions than the millions of British Columbians’ lack of economic
security caused by the continued state of “emergency”.
 11

61. Neither the Provincial Government nor the Public Health Officer to-date have
conducted a risk assessment to assess the likelihood and severity of the negative
consequences of the Orders, including those negative outcomes to economic, physical,
emotional, and mental wellbeing mentioned but not limited to the Restriction Effects.

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

1. A declaration that all Ministerial Orders and/or Public Health Orders be set aside
as unreasonable.

2. A declaration that the following Ministerial Orders are ​ultra vires t​ he ​EPA:​

a. Ministerial Order M083, issued on March 26, 2020; repealed and replaced
by a new order on May 1, 2020, M139, repealed and replaced by a new
order, M192, on June 17, 2020;
b. Ministerial Order M089, Residential Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 30 March
2020;
c. Ministerial Order M179, Commercial Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 29 May
2020; and
d. Ministerial Order M416, Food Liquor premises, Gatherings and Events
(COVID-19) Order No. 2.

3. A declaration that all decisions of municipal authorities made pursuant to M083,

issued on March 26, 2020; repealed and replaced by a new order, M139, repealed and
replaced by a new order, M192, on June 17, 2020, that do not otherwise comply with
the ​Local Government Act, R ​ .S.B.C. 2015, c. 1 or ​Vancouver Charter, S
​ .B.C. 1953, c.
55 are of no force and effect.

4. A declaration pursuant to s. 24(1) of the ​Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms (the "​Charter''​ ), ​Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the
Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the "Constitution Act, 1982") t​ hat each or all of the
Orders made since March 17, 2020 and those currently in force are of no force or effect
as they unjustifiably infringe and disproportionately limit the following:

a. s. 2 of the ​Charter​;

b. s. 6(1) of the ​Charter;​

c. s. 7 of the ​Charter​;

d. s. 8 of the ​Charter;​
 12

e. s. 9 of the ​Charter, ​and

f. s. 15 of the ​Charter​.

5. A declaration that any of the Orders be read so that its effects do not limit rights
established under the ​Charter.​

6. An injunction enjoining the defendants from issuing any administrative directive,

order, or from exercising influence in any manner, including through its agents or
regulators, that prevent or discourage any physician licensed under the ​Health
Professions Act, R ​ .S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 ​in the Province of British Columbia from
advocating modalities or therapies that, in the physician’s sole discretion, after the
physician having independently undertaken reasonable review of the scientific literature,
and having obtained their patient’s informed consent, determines may improve their
patient’s immune system, reduce the potential negative outcome of a viral infection, and
potentially accelerate the time required for recovery.

7. An injunction enjoining the defendants from issuing further orders under the ​EPA
and Part 5 of the ​PHA.

8. General damages;

9. Special damages;

10. Special costs, or in the alternative Costs; and

11. An order certifying this action as a class proceeding;

12. Interest under the ​Court Order Interest Act​, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79;

13. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS

1. The defendants have failed to establish the legally binding conditions necessary
to declare a state of emergency and erred in concluding that the criteria for declaring an
​ nd ​PHA​.
“emergency” were satisfied under the ​EPA a

2. The continued state of emergency is disproportional and unnecessary to deal

with the nature of the problems posed by COVID-19.

3. In the alternative, if the conditions under which the defendants could declare a
state of emergency did exist in March 2020, such conditions no longer existed after
 13

May, 2020 and did not warrant the continued renewal of a state of emergency in British
Columbia past May 2020.

Public Health Act

4. Part 5 of the ​PHA s​ ets out the emergency powers available to medical health
officers, the Provincial Health Officer, and the Minister of Health in a public health
emergency.

5. The Provincial Health Officer did not have grounds to reasonably believe that the
conditions set out in s. 52 of the ​PHA​ existed in declaring a state of "emergency".

6. In the alternative, if the Provincial Health Officer did have grounds to reasonably
believe that the conditions set out in s. 52 of the ​PHA existed to provide the requisite
notice in March 2020, which is denied, then the Provincial Health Officer did not have
grounds to continue to reasonably believe that such conditions existed past May 2020.

7. The authority to exercise emergency powers under Part 5 of the ​PHA ​ends as
soon as reasonably practical after the emergency has passed, and in the case of a
regional event, when the provincial health officer provides notice that the emergency
has passed.

8. The Provincial Health Officer has failed to provide notice that the emergency has
passed despite reasonable medical, statistical, and scientific evidence.

9. Following May 2020, the Public Health Officer continued to exercise emergency
powers pursuant to Part 5 of the ​PHA,​ despite there being insufficient evidence or
reasonable evidence that the prerequisites of s. 52 of the ​PHA​ were met.

10. In the alternative, if the Provincial Health Officer had grounds to be reasonably
satisfied of the requirements of s. 52 of the ​PHA to continue a state of emergency, the
PHA Orders exceeded her statutory authority and were inconsistent with established
medical and scientific principles and the actual ramifications of COVID-19 in British
Columbia.

Hippocratic Oath

11. The Hippocratic Oath (the “Oath”) is an oath of ethics by which physicians are
bound. It is one of the oldest legal documents in attested history.

12. The Oath’s most sacrosanct tenet is ​primum non nocere​, or first do no harm.

13. The Provincial Health Officer is in violation of her Oath.

 14

Emergency Program Act

14. The ​EPA ​establishes the conditions under which the government can declare a
state of emergency, for how long those declarations can last, and when they can deploy
emergency powers to protect human lives and mitigate property damage.

15. Pursuant to the ​EPA ​an "emergency" means “a present or imminent event” that is
“caused by accident, fire, explosion, technical failure or the forces of nature,” and that
“require[s] prompt coordination of action or special regulation of persons or property to
protect the health, safety or welfare of a person or to limit damage to property” (s. 1(1)).

16. The effects of COVID-19 in British Columbia did not fit within the definition of an
“emergency” under the ​EPA.

17. The Provincial Government’s interpretation of the ​EPA​, its assessment of the
situation, and actions taken were “unreasonable” as a matter of administrative law.

18. In the alternative, if an “emergency” existed pursuant to s. 9 of the ​EPA​, which is

denied, t​he Provincial Government exceeded the limits on its power under s. 10(1) and
s.10.1(1) of the ​EPA​, by making Ministerial Orders that:

a. did not fit into, or were inconsistent with, the powers specified in s. 10(1)
and s. 10.1 of the ​EPA;​ and

b. were not “necessary to prevent, respond to, or alleviate the effects of an

emergency or disaster”.

19. The ​EPA does not authorize or give the Provincial Government and its ministers
absolute discretion to suspend, amend or override valid statutes or regulations when
acting under s. 10(1) of the ​EPA.

20. The plaintiff says that COVID-19 mostly seriously affects senior citizens, and that
the vast majority of British Columbians, even if infected, would not be in mortal or other
danger, thus an emergency order affecting all citizens is a substantial and unnecessary
overreach.

21. Section 26 of the ​EPA,​ is not a defence as it does not include ministerial orders.

22. The Provincial Government failed to establish legally binding conditions on the
use of sub-delegated powers to suspend, waive or otherwise alter statutory provisions
in Ministerial Orders. The Ministerial Orders do not sufficiently guard against arbitrary or
inconsistent decision making by sub-delegates.
 15

23. In addition to being unauthorized, the Ministerial Orders do not demonstrate

consideration of the principle of proportionality.

24. The ​EPA​’s lineage ​has its roots in the federal ​War Measures Act of 1914. The
latter was originally intended to implement a declaration of war for the First World War.

25. The PHA Orders do not discriminate between the sick and the healthy,
collectively punishing a whole group in violation of Article 33 of the ​Fourth Geneva
Convention​ of 1949.

26. An emergency order is a hammer, and now, the defendants have seen all
matters relating to COVID-19 as a nail.

Doctrine of unconscionability

27. The doctrine of unconscionability is applicable to any waiver of liability issued by

the defendants in the “British Columbia COVID-19 Disclaimer and Data Notes” and
related notices.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”)

28. The ​Charter​ limits British Columbia’s response to an emergency under

the ​EPA ​and the ​PHA.​

29. The Orders made under the ​EPA​ and ​PHA a

​ re inconsistent with the ​Charter​ as
follows:

a. Orders that prohibit religious gatherings infringe on the s. 2(a) ​Charter

right of freedom of conscience and religion;

b. Orders that prohibit peaceful gatherings infringe on the s. 2(c) ​Charter

right of freedom of peaceful assembly and s. 2(d) ​Charter ​right of freedom
of association;

c. Orders that prohibit or limit medical procedures infringe on the s. 7 ​Charter

right of life, liberty and security of the person and s. 15 equality rights;

d. Orders that control or prohibit travel to or from any area of British

Columbia under s. 10(1)(f) of the ​EPA​ limit the freedom of peaceful
assembly” under s. 2(​c)​ of the ​Charter​, or “the right … to move to and take
up residence in any province” under s. 6(2)(a) of the ​Charter,​ and the right
not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned under s. 9 of the ​Charter;​
 16

e. Orders that require a person to render assistance of a type that the person
is qualified to provide under s. 10(1)(e) of the EPA limit the right to life,
liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7
of the Charter, and

f. Orders that authorize the entry into any building or on any land, without
warrant under s. 10(1)(i) of the EPA limit the right to be secure against
unreasonable search or seizure under s. 8-of the Charter.

30. Therefore, the Orders violate ss. 2, 6-9 and 15 by infringing on these rights in a
manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. These
infringements cannot be justified pursuant to the criteria of s. 1 of the Charter.

31. The plaintiff relies on s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in seeking a declaration
that the Orders are unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

Plaintiff's address for service: Citadel Law Corporation

1400 — 1125 Howe Street
'

Vancouver, BC V62 2K8

Fax number address for service: N/A

E-mail address for service: MA

Place of trial: Vancouver
The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver,
BC

@ I,
II: For:
Date: January26, 2021
“V._w
A” ...C...._....-...--c .E"

-
fl

cm-

.
_-,.,-.
.. ., .

Signature of Polina Furtula

Lawyer for the plaintiff

Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:

(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court othenivise orders, each party of
record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or
control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to
prove or disprove a material fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
 17

Appendix

Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:

In its response to the COVID-19 virus, the government has invoked extraordinary
executive powers predicated on unsubstantiated scientific and legal grounds with
catastrophic consequences for British Columbians. In doing so, the defendants have
overreached their authority under the ​Emergency Program Act, ​the ​Public Health Act,
and have ​infringed on ​Charter r​ ights in a manner that does not accord with the
principles of fundamental justice.

Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:

A personal injury arising out of:

[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice
[x] another cause

A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[ ] personal property
[ ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[x] a matter not listed here

Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

[x] a class action

[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[x] constitutional law
[ ] conflict of laws
[ ] none of the above
[ ] do not know
Part 4:
 18

​ SBC 1996, c. 111;

1. Emergency Program Act, R

​ ublic Health Act​, SBC 2008, c 28;

2.​ P

3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter''), Part I of the Constitution
Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.