2023-09-15 - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submissions in Certification Application

Citadel law corporation Philip J.
Dougan
1400-1125 Howe street Silvano S. Todesco
Vancouver BC v6z 2k8 Polina H. Furtula*•
PH: 778-945-9990
______________________________________________________________________________
File No. 1502-1
September 15, 2023
VIA EMAIL (sc.civil_va@bccourts.ca)
Manager
Supreme Court Scheduling
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Re: Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia et al,
SCBC Vancouver Registry File No. S210831
We are counsel to the plaintiff in the above noted matter.
Please provide this letter and attachments to Justice Crerar who is assigned as the Judicial
Management Judge in the above noted matter under the Class Proceedings Act.
Further to Justice Crerar’s memorandum to counsel dated August 16, 2023, attached are the
following:
1. Supplemental submissions of the plaintiff;

2. Appendix A;
3. Appendix B;
4. Appendix C;
5. Appendix D.
Thank you for your assistance.

Yours very truly,
CITADEL LAW CORPORATION
Per:
POLINA H. FURTULA
Cc: Chantelle Rajotte, Emily C. Lapper, Trevor Bant – Via Email
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Denotes Law Corporation 1400-1125 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8
•Associate Counsel 120-256 Wallace Street, Nanaimo, BC V9R 5B3
Polina Furtula 778-945-9990 pfurtula@citadellawyers.ca

1
No. S210831
Vancouver Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN
CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF

SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY
PLAINTIFF
AND
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AND DR. BONNIE HENRY, IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL HEALTH
OFFICER FOR THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
DEFENDANTS
Supplemental Submissions of the Plaintiff
Canadian Society for the Advancement His Majesty the King in right of the
of Science in Public Policy Province of British Columbia
Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as
Polina H. Furtula Provincial Health Officer for the
Citadel Law Corporation Province of British Columbia
1400 – 1125 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8 Chantelle Rajotte
Emily Lapper
Trevor Bant
Ministry of Attorney General
1301 – 865 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3
1001 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC V8W 2C5
2
Introduction
The plaintiff makes the following submissions in response to the Court’s August 16,
2023 direction, which provides the parties an opportunity to provide supplementary
submissions on the following two topics:
a. Changes to the proposed Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim (10

pages); and,
b. Written submissions on any recent judicial decisions, in British Columbia

or otherwise, that may affect the earlier submissions of the parties or the
issues before the Court (3 pages).
A. Proposed changes of the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim
1. By way of letter dated June 5, 2023, 1 the plaintiff sought leave to make further
changes to the notice of civil claim. The materials submitted to the Court are attached to
these submissions as follows:
a. Appendix A – June 5, 2023 letter to the Court.
b. Appendix B - Proposed further amendments to the Further Amended

Notice of Civil Claim (“FANOCC”), with new proposed changes underlined
and highlighted in green (the yellow highlights were from the proposed
changes of December 14, 2022); and
c. Appendix C - Clean copy of the FANOCC, without any underlining or

strikethroughs.
Also included with these submissions is:
d. Appendix D – Notice of Discontinuance (Health Worker’s Petition).
1
Submitted June 6, 2023.
3
2. The plaintiff submits, and the defendants accept, that the test under s. 4(1)(a) of
the Class Proceedings Act and Rule 9-5 considers the pleading as it exists or might be
amended. The plaintiff seeks leave to amend pleadings as needed to assist the Court in
applying the “plain and obvious” test for ascertaining whether a cause of action has been
properly plead. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hunt v Carey Canada Inc.,
“Assuming the facts as stated in the statement of claim can be proved, is it “plain and
obvious” that the plaintiff’s statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action?”
3. The Courts generally permit a plaintiff to amend a pleading to prevent the action
either from being stuck or from not being certified. This is particularly so since the
Supreme Cour Civil Rules permit amendments per Rule 6-1. Consistent with the Court’s
ruling in Henderson v Myler, 2 the plaintiff’s proposed amendments are necessary to fairly
adjudicate all the issues between the parties and should thus be permitted.
4. The new proposed further amended pleading contains eight deletions, two
revisions that track submissions made by the plaintiff at the hearing, two minor additions,
and six further additions, which the defendants mischaracterize as substantive.
5. The defendants have consented to the deletions and do not strenuously oppose
the two revisions that track submissions that were made by the plaintiff at the hearing,
nor the two minor additions. As such, the plaintiff’s submissions will focus on the six
additions with which the defendants have taken issue.
6. The plaintiff rejects the defendants’ characterization of these additions as belated

and improper and propose substantively new amendments. Rather, the plaintiff submits
and the additions buttress existing claims raised in previous iterations of the FANOCC
and the plaintiff’s submissions at the certification hearing by adding clarity and particulars
to the arguments advanced.
Proposed Additions Clarify Cause of Action

7. The defendants challenge only six of the proposed additions identified in our June
5, 2023 letter to the Court (“Proposed Changes”), as set out in paragraphs 16 and 17 of
2
2021 BCSC 354 at para. 20.
4
their Supplemental Submissions dated August 30, 2023 (“Defendants’ Supplemental

Submissions”). Each of these six Proposed Changes are discussed in turn below.
Part 1, paragraph 53.B.b
8. The following Proposed Changes add clarification and further particularization of

the facts that support a s.9 Charter claim and are underlined below:
53.B.b. Orders, directives, or decrees requiring Class members to quarantine for

two weeks or another period of time caused Class members to be deprived of their
liberty by compelling them to stay home or at another facility. Class members were
legally required to comply, and the PHO conduct would lead a reasonable person
to conclude that they had no choice but to comply.
9. These facts support a s.9 Charter claim, as set out in Part 3, para. 29.d of the
FANOCC. This is not a new allegation. The affidavit of 3 provides the factual
foundation in this respect and plaintiff’s counsel made this submission during the
continuation of the hearing in April 2023. 5
10. The defendants already made submissions regarding their position in this respect.
The defendants also do not challenge the Proposed Changes at Part 3 para. 29.d, which
deal with s.9 of the Charter and are as follows (the June 5, 2023 proposed changes are
underlined):
(d) Orders, directives, or decrees that require quarantine limit the freedom of
peaceful assembly” and liberty under s. 2(c) and 7 of the Charter, and the right not
to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned under s. 9 of the Charter; particulars of
which include:
i. Verbal orders, directives or decrees made at various times, including but not
limited to September 8, 2020, March 28, 2020, December 31, 2021,and
statements found on the BC CDC website from time to time relating to self-
3
Vol. 2, Tab 25 of December 12-16, 2023 Application Record.
5
See para. 5 of 2023-04-24 Plaintiff’s Submissions – s.9 of Charter submitted by way of USB to the Court on May 3,
2023.
5
isolation requirements; Ministerial Orders M172-2021 (April 21, 2021), M182

(April 30, 2021), M212 (May 25, 2021);
11. These portions of the Proposed Changes correspond to submissions made at the
certification hearing. There is no prejudice to the defendants.
Part 1, paragraph 53.J and Part 3, paragraph 11.a
12. These Proposed Changes are underlined:
Part 1
53. J. The September 10, 2021 PHA Orders do not allow Subclass Class Members
of to be exempted in a timely manner, or at all, which is contrary to the principles
of fundamental justice, as little or no notice was provided to Class members on
how to seek reconsideration of these orders which were arbitrary and grossly
disproportionate to the actual threat (if any) posed by unvaccinated persons. The
September 10, 2021 PHA Orders were further arbitrary because they provided no
rational connection to their purported goals, and were overly broad as they applied
to individuals who did not pose any threat (those with a negative test for COVID-
19 or prior immunity, for example). Because the September 10, 2021 PHA Orders
resulted in the deprivations of liberty set forth at paragraph 53.B.b, 53.E.a, and
53.E.b, the effects were grossly disproportionate to the modest state interest of
increasing vaccine uptake.
Part 3
11.a. The process of reconsideration of the Public Health Officer’s PHA Orders
and her order of April 12, 2021, titled “Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend
Reconsideration – April 12, 2021” , Hospital and Community (Health Care and
Other Service) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures
– November 18, 2021, Variance of Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor
Serving Premises Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination –
November 12, 2021 and subsequent updates were contrary to the principles of
fundamental justice because they were arbitrary, overbroad and grossly
6
disproportionate in their effects. These orders were overbroad as they systemically

denied all exemptions (except for very limited prescribed medical reasons) even
though reasonable accommodations could have been made. They were grossly
disproportionate because the seriousness of the deprivation of liberty was
completely out of sync with the objective of the measures.
13. Proportionality is a key component of any Charter analysis. The above proposed
additions simply clarify the principles of fundamental justice engaged. The basic question
in any s.1 analysis is proportionality between effects and objectives.
14. The plaintiff made submissions on gross proportionality at the hearing. 6 The
defendants also discussed proportionality at para. 416, 417, 418 of their written
submissions. 7
15. Gross disproportionality was also included at Part 1 para. 53.E.c. of the FANOCC,
which was a change proposed prior to the close of the plaintiff’s submissions at the
December 2022 certification hearing. 8
16. These portions of the Proposed Changes correspond to the submissions made at
the certification hearing and are not “new”. There is no prejudice to the defendants.
17. In further response to paras. 20 – 23 of the Defendants’ Supplemental

Submissions, gross disproportionality here is raised with respect to PHO Orders that are
different than those considered in Beaudoin. Beaudoin considered orders that prohibited
in-person gatherings for religious worship. 9 Namely, orders of November 19, 2020,
December 2, 9, 15 and 24, 2020. 10
18. Beaudoin deals with different orders and does not assist the defendants. Beaudoin
is an administrative action with its own set of facts.
19. The defendants’ submissions at paras. 21-23, should also be ignored as they are
improperly continuing their arguments after the close of submissions in April 2023. The
6
See para. 88.a. of Vol. 7 Tab 52 Application Record.
7
Vol. 7 Tab 54, Application Record
8
22-12-14 Schedule A - Further Amended NOCC submitted by way of USB to the Court on May 3, 2023.
9
Beaudoin v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 427 at para. 3.
10
Beaudoin v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 512 at para. 68.
7
application before this Court is whether to consider changes to the pleadings identified in
the Proposed Changes.
20. Gross disproportionality here is plead with respect to the reconsideration process
established by Dr. Henry in 2021. 11
21. In response to para. 20, there are less extreme examples of gross
disproportionality in Canadian jurisprudence than that offered by the defendants. In
Bedford, the SCC found that the concept of gross disproportionality was best captured by
the hypothetical example of a law “with the purpose of keeping the streets clean that
imposes a sentence of life imprisonment for spitting on the sidewalk.” 12 However, also in
Bedford, the Court considered the principle of gross proportionality in relation to the
prohibition on bawdy-houses and the prohibition on communicating in public for the
purposes of prostitution and found both provisions to be grossly disproportionate.13
Similarly, in Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society (“PHS“) 14 the Court found
the federal government’s refusal to exempt an existing safe injection site from drug
possession laws to be grossly disproportionate.
22. More specifically, in PHS, the Court found that the availability of exemptions acted
as a safety valve that prevented the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”) from
applying where such application would be arbitrary, overbroad or grossly disproportionate
in its effects, 15 and ordered that an exemption be granted.
23. In this case, the exemption process of the PHO is alleged to be grossly
disproportionate (amongst others) to the objective of the impugned orders. In other
words, the exemption process is not a safety valve at all.
11
As listed in Part 3, para. 11a: April 12, 2021, titled “Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration –
April 12, 2021” , Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Service) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information
and Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021, Variance of Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor Serving
Premises Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination – November 12, 2021 and subsequent
updates.
12
Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (“Bedford”) at para 120.
13
Bedford at paras 130-136, 146-160.
14
Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 134 (“PHS”)
15
PHS at para. 113
8
24. While the threshold to engage the gross disproportionality principle may be high,
the SCC is willing to apply it in practice, as illustrated in the Court’s decisions in Bedford
and PHS.
Part 3, paragraph 29.c.
25. These portions of the Proposed Changes correspond to the submissions made at
the certification hearing. There is no prejudice to the defendants.
c. Orders, directives, or decrees 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 because by treating everyone equally created a distinction on an enumerated
ground and were discriminatory in their effect.
26. This addition provides further clarification to the claim relating to s.15 of the
Charter.
Part 3, paragraph 31
27. These Proposed Changes are underlined:
31. The plaintiff relies on s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in seeking a declaration
that the Orders and s.92 of the PHA are unconstitutional and of no force or effect.
Section 24(1) of the Charter specifically provides remedies for unconstitutional
government acts. These constitutional rights cannot be taken away by a statutory
enactment purporting to grant immunity to the PHO.
28. This provides further clarification of the legal basis for this claim.
29. In response to paras. 24 and 25, the underlined Proposed Changes above provide
the rationale as to why s.92 are unconstitutional, namely that “constitutional rights cannot
be taken away by a statutory enactment purporting to grant immunity to the PHO”.
Part 3, paragraph 33
30. The Proposed Changes are as follows:
33. The defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia,
is vicariously liable for the conduct, acts, or omissions of the Provincial Health
Officer, including Charter damages as she is an appointee of the Crown and all her
9
executive actions are attributable to the Crown and which relief is not barred by
s.92(3)Public Health Act.
31. Although not previously pled, submissions were made by both parties at the
hearing with respect to vicarious liability. For example:
a. Para. 26 of the Written Submissions of the plaintiff. 17
b. Paras. 276 and 283 of the Written Submissions of the defendants. 18
32. This is a clarification of liability claims. The defendants are not prejudiced by this
and the proper defendants, namely the Crown and Dr. Henry in her capacity as PHO,
are already named.
33. None of these Proposed Changes raise new issues. The pleadings allege
sufficient facts to allow the causes of action to proceed as class proceedings.
Common issues are not significantly impacted by the Proposed Changes
34. In response to paras. 10-12, of the Defendants’ Supplemental Submissions,

Common Issues 1 – 3 relate to the relief sought with respect to whether the Ministerial
Orders relating to the declaration and extension of the state of emergency are ultra vires
the EPA at Part 2 para. 2. 19 These remain proper common issues that would advance
the litigation.
35. Common issues 4 – 9 relate to the administrative relief no longer sought and can
be removed. This serves to reduce the length and complexity of the trial of this matter if
certified.
17
Vol. 7, Tab 52 of Application Record.
18
Tab 54 of Application Record.
19
Part 2 para. 2 of FANOCC:
2. A declaration that the following Ministerial Orders are ultra vires the EPA:
Declaration of State of Emergency – M073-2020;
[All subsequent extensions of the state of emergency]
10
iscontinua nce of ealt h are etition
36. The Health Worker’s Petition was discontinued on June 6, 2023 29 after seeking the
defendant, Dr. Henry’s approval on May 26, 2023 and which consent was given on June
5, 2023.
37. Rule 9-8(2) and (9)30 provides that a petition may be discontinued by consent of
the parties or court order after the hearing has been set. The defendant, Dr. Henry,
consented to the discontinuance without seeking costs. Three other petitions are being
case managed by Justice Coval and the discontinuance has resulted in a shorter hearing
before Justice Coval.
38. The defendants claim abuse of process on the basis that the Health Worker’s
Petition is another proceeding about the same subject matter as in this action. This
defence is specifically prohibited by the Rules. The discontinuance cannot be used as a
defence by the defendants in this action, without leave of the court as per Rule 9-8(8):
(8) Unless the court otherwise orders, the discontinuance of an action in whole
or in part is not a defence to a subsequent proceeding for the same or
substantially the same cause of action.
39. Furthermore, the Health Worker’s Petition does not give rise to an abuse of
process as per the plaintiff’s submissions at the certification hearing. Here again, at
paras. 27 – 31 of the Defendants’ Supplemental Submissions, the defendants
impermissibly seek to continue and reiterate the arguments they made during the April,
2023 hearing.
40. In any event, nowhere does Telezone, 31 or any other case, establish the incredible
proposition that a party who had a judicial review dismissed may not bring a related and
otherwise valid action seeking damages due to the abuse of process doctrine. In
Greengen, 32 the Court of Appeal overturned a stay of proceedings that would have
prevented an action from proceeding until a related judicial review could be heard and
29
See attached Notice of Discontinuance at Appendix D.
30
Rule 9-8 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
31
Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62.
32
Greengen Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2018
BCCA 214 .
11
determined. That is – they allowed a related action to proceed after a related judicial
review was commenced.
41. In contrast, the defendants raise Stanford v. Beazley, 33 to argue abuse of process.
Stanford was a case which delt with concurrent ongoing actions in both Provincial and
Supreme Court. The Court in that case noted “that the duplicative nature of the Supreme
Court action is evident in the plaintiff's motivation for filing the action; that is, to
simultaneously preserve the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court in
relation to the dispute until the plaintiff elects his final venue of choice”. 34 The plaintiff in
this case has permissibly discontinued the health care petition and does not seek to
maintain both actions. As such, the Stanford facts are neither controlling nor instructive
upon the present matter.
B. Updated Jurisprudence
42. The defendants cite Gateway Bible, Beaudoin and Trinity Bible, as jurisprudence
on challenges to restrictions on religious gatherings based mostly on s. 2(a) of the
Charter. Each of those cases was decided upon based on an induvial factual analysis
with the benefit of an evidentiary record. In so citing those cases, the defendants assert
that certification in this case should fail.
43. At this point in the proceeding, the plaintiffs have not had full discovery or
production of all documents relevant to the governments decision and have not had an
opportunity to examine or cross-examine all relevant witnesses on the decision-making
process. There has been no determination as to the nature of the decision that was made.
It is therefore not appropriate at this stage to determine whether the decision-making
process or the orders issued were constitutionally valid. This is a factual determination
that can only be made at trial.
33
2019 BCSC 671 (Stanford”).
34
Stanford supra at para 39.
12
44. Furthermore, it is improper to go beyond the pleadings and consider the merits of
the claim. This was reiterated by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Jiang v. Peoples
Trust Co. 35 In that case the Court of Appeal reiterated that making final positive
conclusions about the strength of a plaintiffs cause of action at the certification stage
“advocates final resolution of legal questions in the absence of an evidentiary record and,
in fact prior to any discovery process was inappropriate”. 36
45. While there have been developments in Covid-19 related jurisprudence across
Canada, the fact scenario related to this cause of action is novel and specific to British
Columbia. More importantly, it is not the Court’s role at a certification hearing to make a
determination on the breach of the Charter without a full evidentiary record. 37 The Charter
analysis is fact specific, and it is not plain and obvious that this claim will not succeed.
46. A cause of action or facts that support a cause of action that are novel, as is the
case here, cannot be sufficiently shown as bound to fail due to the various fact specific
determinations in other provinces. The Court in Brogaard v. Canada (Attorney
General), 38 held that in developing areas of the law, the Court could not determine the
merits of the pleaded claims at the certification stage and that the causes of action were
sufficiently pleaded for the purpose of certification.
47. The defendants also raise Ingram v. Alberta (Chief Medical Officer of Health), 39
where the Court concluded that the impugned orders were ultra vires Alberta’s Public
Health Act in that the final decision makers were the cabinet and committees of cabinet,
rather than the Chief Medical Officer of Health (the equivalent to the provincial health
officer in BC). 40
35
2017 BCCA 119 (“Jiang“).
36
Jiang supra at para 66-67.
37
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57 at para.. 102 (Joint BOA, Tab 164, p.525)
38
2002 BCSC 1149 at para. 101. Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19 does not assist the defendants
as it put the novel cause of action relating to waiver in tort to rest, as the courts had been speculating for decades
as to whether it is a proper claim. The law with respect to government response to Covid-19 in contrast, is a
developing area of the law.
39
2023 ABKB 453 (“Ingram”).
40
Ingram, supra at para. 520.
13
48. In addition, the Court found that the s.2(a) of the Charter rights of the applicants
were infringed but were saved under s.1. 41
49. The decision in Ingram, was made after examinations for discovery of the
provincial health officer had taken place and based on different facts than in this case.
50. There are two further decisions the Court should be aware of. First, the Military
Grievances External Review Committee (MGERC) 42 recently found that the
implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine policy 43 within the Canadian Armed Forces
(“CAF”) violated the Charter rights of some members. The decision is published online.
51. In Annex 1 - Constitutionality of the Canadian Armed Forces COVID-19

vaccination policy published on July 18, 2023, the tribunal concluded that the requirement
to be vaccinated in order to remain employed by CAF engaged the grievors’ right to liberty
and the consequences of non-compliance could also engage some grievors’ right to the
security of the person and was not saved under s.1 as it failed the minimal impairment
requirement in the implementation of the CAF vaccination policy.
52. In earlier arbitration decision, Public Health Sudbury& Districts v Ontario Nurses’
Association, 44 the arbitrator concluded that a health care employer requiring Covid-19
vaccination without a reasonable exemption violated a health care worker’s sincere belief
that to get vaccinated would interfere with the exercise of her faith, in violation of the
Ontario Human Rights Code.
53. While obviously non-binding, these two decisions demonstrate that the facts
surrounding vaccination requirements, for example, can be reasonably interpreted as
violating rights protected under provincial human rights legislation and the Charter as
being overbroad and disproportionate. This proposed class action also argues, in part
41
Ingram, supra at paras. 521 and 522.
42
A tribunal that is part of the military grievance process. The committee took the step of releasing three
annexes in mid-July, 2023 that laid out its analysis in order to streamline future cases.
43
The CDS orders and directives imposed vaccination against COVID-19 as a service requirement for all members
of the CAF, unless they could demonstrate that they are “unable” to get vaccinated based on one of the prohibited
grounds of discrimination.
44
2022 CanLII 48440 (ON LA)
14
that the defendants' response to the perceived threat of Covid-19, including vaccination
requirements, and lack of meaningful exemptions, was (and continues to be as far as
healthcare worker’s are concerned) overbroad and disproportionate.
54. The plaintiffs maintain that like the Federal Courts certification in Condon v.
Canada, 45 that the proposed common issues in this case contain elements of novelty and
difficulty should be left to be worked out in the laboratory of the trial court.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Date: September 15, 2023

_____________________________
Polina H. Furtula,
Counsel for the plaintiff
45
[2014] F.C.J. No. 297, 2014 FC 250.
APPENDIX A
-
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF
SEPTEMBER 15, 2023
June 5, 2023 Letter to Court

JUN 06 2023
1 Vancouver
ION Philip J. Dougan
1400-1125 HOWE STREET Silvano S. Todesco
TlCITADELLAW
VANCOUVER BC V6Z 2K8 Polina H. Furtula**
W VH: 778-945-9990
File No. 1502-1
June 5, 2023
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Manager
Supreme Court Scheduling
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Re: Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy v. Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia et al,
SCBC Vancouver Registry File No. S210831
We are counsei to the plaintiff in the above noted matter.
Please provide this letter and enclosures to Justice Crerar who is assigned as the Judicial
Management Judge in the above noted matter under the Class Proceedings Act On April 28,
2023, at the certification hearing of this matter, we advised the Court that we would be sending
proposed further amendments to the notice of civil claim.
Please find enclosed the following;
1. Proposed further amendments to the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim (TANOCC"),
with new proposed changes underlined and highlighted in green (the yellow highlights
were from the proposed changes of December 14, 2022);
2. Clean copy of the FANOCC, without any underlining or strikethroughs, due to the
numerous changes at various points In time, which may be confusing:
3. Arizona et al v. Mayorkas et al, 598 U.S.(2023){“Anzona v. Mayorkas").
The plaintiff seeks leave to make further changes to the proposed FANOCC In order to remove
paragraphs with respect to relief that is no longer claimed and to add a few clarifications under
Part 1 and Part 3. The plaintiffs position is that none of these are prejudicial to the defendants
as for the most part they clarify matters already discussed during the certification hearing.

*Denotes Law Corporation 1400-1125 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC VeZ 2K8
●Associate Counsel 120-256 Wallace Street, Nanaimo. BC VGR 5B3
Polina Furtula 778-945-9990 ofurtula@cltadellawvers.ca

A
P;I CECADELIAW CXDRPOiLATION
1400-1125 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8
A summary of these proposed changes is below:

Part 1: Statement of Facts
a. Para. 8-the Class definition has been changed to correspond to the proposed definition
contained at para. 49 of the Plaintiff’s Reply Submissions 2023-04-28;
b. Para. 41 - a portion of the sentence has been removed;
c. Paras. 44 - 46 - These were deleted and para. 46 amended as per the April 25, 2023
submissions to the Court;
d. Para. 50- Deleted;
e. Para. 53.A.- Deleted as per the April 25, 2023 submissions to the Court;
f. Para. 53.B.b.- Clarification was added regarding quarantine requirements;
g. Para. 53.B.C.- Clarification added regarding Zubin S. Parihar;
h. Para. 53.J. - Clarification regarding reference to the Class members was added as per the
April 26, 2023 submissions to the Court; Clarification was added regarding the arbitrary
and grossly disproportionate nature of the orders;
Part 2: Relief Sought
i. Para. 1 - seeking administrative relief was removed;
j. Para. 3- seeking declaratory relief was removed;
k. Para. 7- seeking injunctive relief was removed as per the April 25, 2023 submissions to
the Court;
Part 3: Legal Basis
I. Para. 11.a.- Clarification was added regarding the arbitrary and grossly disproportionate
nature of the orders;
m. Para. 27- Deleted as per the April 28, 2023 submissions to the Court;
n. Para. 29.c.- Clarification added re s.15 equality rights;
a. Para. 29.d.i. - Further particulars added as already outlined in the December 21, 2022
letter to the defendants; References to ministerial orders were removed as per the April
25, 2023 submissions to the Court;
b. Para. 29.h. - Date of referenced order was corrected as per the April 28, 2023
submissions to the Court;
c. Para. 30 - Clarification was added regarding s.1 of the Charter,
d. Para. 31 - Clarification was added regarding s.92 of the Public Health Act;
e. Para. 33- Added vicarious liability of the Province as admitted in paras. 276 and 283 of
the Defendants' Written Submissions dated December 5,2022.
The plaintiff also wants to draw the Court’s attention to the recent U.S. Supreme Court judgment
in Arizona v. Mayorkas,^ and in particular pages 4-8
'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-592 5hd5.pdf
2
1400-1125 Howe Street Vancouver. BC V6Z 2K8
A draft of this letter and the proposed changes was sent to the defendants’ counsel. The
defendants have advised that they object to the above summary of proposed changes being
included in this letter on the basis that it is inaccurate and incomplete and Is also argument. We
disagree.
It is also the defendants’ position that some of the newly proposed amendments are new and
substantive. The defendants’ position is that it would be prejudicial to the defendants not to
provide them with an opportunity to be heard with respect to this new pleading delivered while
judgment is under reserve on the certification application and the defendants’ application to
dismiss the claim.
The defendants have advised that they will submit a request to appear through Scheduling for a
Judicial Management Conference to seek directions from the Court with respect to the procedural
steps arising from the plaintiffs delivery of this new pleading.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours very truly,
Per:
lA
'. POLINA H. FURTULA
Cc: Chanteiie Rajotte, Emily C. Lapper, Trevor Bant-Via Email
3
APPENDIX B
-
SEPTEMBER 15, 2023
Proposed further amendments to the FANOCC, with new

proposed changes underlined and highlighted in green
(the yellow highlights were from the proposed changes of
December 14, 2022);
SCHEDULE A
Original filed January 26, 2021, amended September 15, 2021 pursuant to Rule 6-
1(1), further amended ________________
No. S210831
Vancouver Registry

BETWEEN
CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY
ZUBIN SINGH PARIHAR
LILY LEPPKY
MELISSA GAUTHIER
PLAINTIFFS
AND
HER HIS MAJESTY THE QUEEN KING IN RIGHT

OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AND
DR. BONNIE HENRY IN HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL HEALTH
DEFENDANTS
Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50
FURTHER AMENDED 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

2
1. file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-
named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described
below, and
2. serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff
and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response
to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim

A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff,
1. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within
21 days after that service,
2. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United
States of America, within 35 days after that service,
3. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49
days after that service, or
4. 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 for the thousands fighting for their lives in hospitals,
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
1 WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020
3
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,
officers, donors, and patrons draw themselves from diverse communities and from across
the political spectrum.
5.a. Zubin Singh Parihar is a British Columbia resident who was affected by the
defendants’ response to the Covid-19 virus.
5.b. Lily Leppky is a British Columbia resident who was affected by the defendants’
response to the Covid-19 virus.
5.c. Melissa Gauthier is a British Columbia resident who was affected by the
6. The defendant, Her His Majesty the QueenKing 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
18 years old or older, residing or doing business in British Columbia who, since on or after
March 17, 2020, have suffered personal injury or other damages been subject to orders,
directives, or decrees or actions as a result of the actions of the defendants made in
response to the Covid-19 virus and/or pursuant to in declaring a state of emergency
pursuant to the Emergency Program Act EPA and/or Part 5 of the Public Health Act (the
“Class”).
4
This action is brought on behalf of members of the class consisting of all natural
persons 18 years old or older, residing or doing business in British Columbia who,
since on or after March 17, 2020, have suffered personal injury or other damages
been subject to orders, directives, or decrees or actions as a result of the actions of
the defendants made in response to the SARS-CoV-2 (“Covid-19”) virus and/or
pursuant to in declaring a state of emergency pursuant to the Emergency Program
Act EPA and/or Part 5 of the Public Health Act (the “Class”).
8a. The following are proposed subclasses within the Class:
i. Medical Subclass:
British Columbia residents whose access to medical procedures were

cancelled or delayed due to orders, directives or decrees of the
defendants in response to Covid-19 and/or made pursuant to the
Emergency Program Act and/or Part 5 of the Public Health Act;
ii. Vaccination Subclass:
British Columbia residents who were not double vaccinated against

COVID-19 between September 13, 2021 to April 8, 2022 and who did
not receive written exemptions from this requirement from the PHO;
iii. Religious Subclass:
British Columbia residents whose religious beliefs prevented them from

attending in-person religious gatherings and/or were not vaccinated
against Covid-19 due to their religious beliefs.
British Columbia residents who were not vaccinated against COVID-19

because of religious beliefs, and who did not receive exemptions or
accommodations from the PHA Orders.
iv. All members of the Class with physical or mental health conditions including
inability to communicate verbally, physical or psychological conditions that make
wearing mask or being vaccinated dangerous to their health (the “Disability
Subclass”);
5
v. All members of the Class who had medical procedures scheduled from March 17,
2021 onward, which were cancelled or delayed by order, decree or other directive
of the defendants or each of them (the “Medical Subclass”);
vi. All members of the Class who, at any time from March 17, 2020 held sincere
religious beliefs that prohibited vaccination (the “Religious Subclass”).
(collectively the “Subclass Members”)
9. It is estimated that the Class consists of hundreds of thousands millions of

residents and business owners in British Columbia.
9.a. Subclass Members form a small subset of the larger Class.
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.
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.
6
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 was in the longest state of emergency in provincial history.
21.a. Although the state of emergency was cancelled as of June 30, 2021, the Provincial
Health Officer continued to issue PHA Orders pursuant to Part 5 of the Public Health Act,
despite there being insufficient evidence or reasonable evidence that the prerequisites of
s. 52 of the PHA were met.
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.
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
7
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 the 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
inaccurately slant results towards a higher number of positive cases of COVID-19 in the
8
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.
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
understanding about how disease prevalence, amount of testing, and the probability of
9
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. [Intentionally blank]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. [Intentionally blank] 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 contain
a provision stating that they apply only for so long as the declaration of the state of
emergency is in effect (the “Ministerial Orders”).
10
48. Most of the Provincial Government’s orders do not reference a specific sub-
paragraph in the s. 10(1) of the EPA 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. [Intentionally blank]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:
i. 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.
ii. 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;
iii. Ministerial Order M089, Residential Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 30 March 2020.
iv. Ministerial Order M179, Commercial Tenancy (COVID-19) Order, 29 May 2020;
v. Ministerial Order M416, Food Liquor premises, Gatherings and Events (COVID-
19) Order No. 2; and
vi. Such further orders as will be provided at trial, but which are known to the
defendants and listed in the Response to Demand for Particulars dated August
30, 2021.
(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. None of the Provincial Health Officer’s PHA Orders reference the medical or
scientific basis for issuing the order and do not satisfy the requirements of s. 52 of the
PHA.
11
52.a. Dr. Henry has admitted that the limit on the size of gatherings is arbitrary and is
not grounded in science.
52.b. Dr. Henry has admitted that wearing a mask does not protect a person from
contracting COVID-19.
53. Indeed, the Ministerial Orders and PHA Orders, directives or decrees
(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:
i. mandating that masks be worn in public places;

ii. closing in-house dining but permitting take-out;
iii. not mandating that cooks in public dining establishments wear masks while
preparing food for take-out;
iv. allowing in-house dining for groups of the same household, that could sit next
to groups of different households;
v. disallowing family gatherings;
vi. allowing shopping in large warehouse grocery and “big box” franchises such as
Walmart, Costco, and others (the “Big Box Stores”);
vii. prohibiting religious gatherings;
viii. prohibiting peaceful gatherings if unrelated to work;
ix. limiting shopping in shopping malls;
x. prohibiting certain travel throughout British Columbia but allowing travellers
from other provinces to travel within British Columbia;
xi. prohibiting entering restaurants and cafes if unvaccinated but allowing eating
in food courts without being vaccinated against COVID-19;
xii. such other particulars as may be proven at trial.
53.i. On or about July 10, 2020, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.
8 (“CRMA”) came into force. Pursuant to the CRMA, any EPA instrument (order or
regulation made under section 10 or 10.1 of the EPA, is also enacted as a provision under
the CRMA.
53.ii. In issuing the Ministerial Orders, and enacting the CRMA, the Provincial
Government knew or was wilfully blind that the preconditions of invoking the EPA were
not met and/or that the Ministerial Orders were contrary to the Charter.
12
53.iii. In issuing the PHA Orders, the PHO knew or was wilfully blind that the
preconditions of Part 5 of the PHA were not met and/or that the PHA Orders were contrary
to the Charter.
Effect of government measures on British Columbians
53. A. [Intentionally blank] Orders limiting travel within British Columbia have limited
Class members’ ability to move freely within British Columbia while not restricting
movement of non-residents.
53. B. Orders limiting peaceful assembly have stopped or limited the Class members
intent and right to publicly protest or otherwise express political and other views between
November 7, 2020 and February 10, 2021. Public protests took place on December 1, 5,
and 12, 2020 in Vancouver, B.C. and organizers and attendees were issued violation
tickets for contravening PHA Orders titled “Gathering and Events” in place at the time.
53.B.a. Orders limiting public assembly have prevented Class members from
peacefully exercising their freedom of association and movement, including but not limited
to meeting with family members and friends.
53.B.b. Orders, directives, or decrees requiring Class members to quarantine for two
weeks or another period of time caused Class members to be deprived of their liberty by
compelling them to stay home or at another facility. Class members were legally required
to comply, and the PHO conduct would lead a reasonable person to conclude that they
had no choice but to comply.
53.B.c. The Orders, directives, or decrees limiting public assembly, mandating

vaccination in order to attend gatherings affected the liberty and security of the person
interests of Zubin Parihar. He did not participate in public gatherings and protests. He
did not want to risk high penalties or jail if participating in a public protest until March
2021. He was unable to attend cultural events, hockey games, restaurants, movie
theatres, the gym and participate in other recreational activities. He was also shunned by
his neighbours because he was not vaccinated against Covid-19. All of which caused
him to become depressed, angry and isolated.
Medical Subclass
53.C. The cancellation of surgeries and additional medical diagnostic and other
procedures scheduled on or after March 17, 2020 have caused and continue to cause
personal injury to members of the Medical Subclass and resulted in discrimination against
the members of the Medical Subclass based on physical or mental disability.
53.C.a. The denial of timely or other access to medical procedures, such as but not
limited to surgeries, medical appointments, diagnostic and prophylactic procedures,
resulted in the denial of healthcare services of the Medical Subclass, which exacerbated
13
existing disadvantages due to their health conditions, which is especially important in

British Columbia, as there is no private medical care alternatives. This created
psychological and physical suffering to Medical Subclass members, such as but not
limited to physical pain, anxiety, depression and such further particulars as shall be
provided at trial.
53.C.b. As a result of the orders, directives, or decrees cancelling medical procedures
Melissa Gauthier’s scheduled hysterectomy on March 27, 2020 was cancelled. This
exacerbated her existing disadvantage caused by her medical condition and resulted in
further pain, stress and affected her ability to work.
Vaccination Subclass
53.D. PHA Orders mandating persons be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to
secure employment or participate in various activities, attend events, restaurants, book
travel accommodation and other activities that allow these persons to fully participate in
British Columbia and Canadian society are forms of compulsions and prohibitions that
affect fundamental life choices of Vaccination SubcClass members.
53.D.a. The PHO refused to consider accommodations to Vaccination Subclass
members based on religious or other grounds, except specific medical conditions.
53. E. The Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodation to Vaccination
SubcClass members such as exempting persons who have recovered from COVID-19,
or those who produce a negative rapid antigen COVID-19 test as an alternative to proof
of vaccination, and other reasonable accommodations that become apparent from time
to time.
53.E.a. The Vaccination Subclass members were prevented from having the same
access to property enjoyed by other members of the public and prevented from continuing
to work in the healthcare and other fields. These restrictions affected Vaccination
Subclass member’s autonomy with regard to important and fundamental life choices,
namely control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference, and affected their
dignity and independence.
53.E.b. PHAO Orders in respect of vaccination against COVID-19 created an offence
punishable by imprisonment for failure to comply, thereby depriving the Vaccination
Subclass of liberty interests protected by s. 7 of the Charter.
53.E.c. The deprivations of liberty interests set out above were arbitrary and overbroad
as the PHA orders were of the broadest possible scope, and could have been used to
imprison persons in circumstances that were fundamentally unjust. The deprivation of
liberty interests did little or nothing to enhance the state’s interest in reducing the impact
of COVID-19, which interest could have been sufficiently and better addressed while
considering accommodations or exemptions such as an exemption requiring proof of a
negative COVID-19 test or natural immunity. Further, the state interest in increasing the
uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was a lesser state interest (compared to reducing the
14
impact of COVID-19), and the deprivations of liberty interests were grossly

disproportionate to this object.
Religious Subclass
53.F. PHA Orders mandating persons be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to
travel accommodation and other activities require Religious Subclass members to choose
between their religion or securing employment and participating in society were and
continue to be unacceptable to the personal identity of the members of the Religious
Subclass.
53.F.a. [Intentionally blank] PHO PHA Orders and Ministerial Orders that prohibit
attendance at religious in-person gatherings, prevented Religious Subclass
members from attending Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, or other
places where religion is practiced, which resulted in a substantial barrier to the
practice of their religion.
53.F.b. Lily Leppky’s sincerely held religious beliefs, prohibit her from getting
vaccinated. As a result of the orders, directives, or decrees of the defendants, or each of
them, Ms. Leppky was prevented from having the same access to property enjoyed by
other members of the public and prevented her from continuing to work in the healthcare
field. Theses restriction affected Ms. Leppky’s autonomy with regard to important and
fundamental life choices, namely her sincerely held religious beliefs, which are inherently
personal and negatively affected her dignity and independence.
53. G. [Intentionally blank] Orders mandating face coverings that did not provide
exemptions for persons with disabilities that make wearing a mask difficult or impossible
causing the Medical Subclass and Disabled Subclass to be unable to attend grocery and
other stores, work, or communicate while out in public spaces;
53. H. The Subclass Members are a minority in British Columbia and do not pose a
danger to public health while attending public venues or dealing with members of the
public due to the high rates of vaccination in the province and other measures that limit
the spread of COVID-19.
53.I. The Orders fail to take into account the Subclass Members already
disadvantaged positions in Canadian society and have resulted in differential treatment
between Subclass Members and other member of the British Columbian and Canadian
society, without providing for reasonable accommodation. This has also resulted in the
perpetuation of false stereotypes of Subclass Members, by being perceived as:
a. dangerous to the public health;
b. ignorant;
c. not worthy of respect;
d. undeserving of medical treatment;
15
e. such other particulars as may be provided at trial.
53. J. The September 10, 2021 PHA Orders do not allow Subclass Class Members
of to be exempted in a timely manner, or at all, which is contrary to the principles of
fundamental justice, as little or no notice was provided to Class members on how to seek
reconsideration of these orders which were arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the
actual threat (if any) posed by unvaccinated persons. The September 10, 2021 PHA
Orders were further arbitrary because they provided no rational connection to their
purported goals, and were overly broad as they applied to individuals who did not pose
any threat (those with a negative test for COVID-19 or prior immunity, for example).
Because the September 10, 2021 PHA Orders resulted in the deprivations of liberty set
forth at paragraph 53.B.b, 53.E.a, and 53.E.b, the effects were grossly disproportionate
to the modest state interest of increasing vaccine uptake.
53. K. The process of reconsideration of the Public Health Officer’s PHA Orders was
slow and lacked independence, and was not proportional to the rights affected, resulting
in a discriminatory effects of the Orders on Class members, including Subclass Members.
53. L. Due to a large number of reconsideration requests, the Public Health Officer
stopped requests for reconsideration, by issuing her order of April 12, 2021, titled
“Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration – April 12, 2021”. The Public
Health Officer stopped all reconsideration requests, except on Charter grounds in or
around April 12, 2021, but failed to reconsider such requests in a timely manner or at all.
53.M. The following orders further stopped reconsideration requests on Charter grounds
pursuant to Part 5 of the PHA:
a. Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Service) Covid-19
Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021 and
subsequent updates;
b. Variance of Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor Serving Premises
Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination – November 12, 2021
and subsequent updates.
54. The further effects of these restrictions placed on British Columbians have
caused personal injury and 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;

16
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;
ii. Refusal of medical treatment to unvaccinated persons;
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.
Hippocratic Oath
58.a. 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.
58.b. The Oath’s most sacrosanct tenet is primum non nocere, or first do no harm.
58.c. The Provincial Health Officer is in violation of her Oath and the approaches and
guidelines described in the BCCDC “Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health at
the BCCDC.
17
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”.
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 well-being mentioned but not limited to the Restriction Effects.
61.a. In failing to conduct a risk assessment the Provincial Government and the Public
Health Officer, or each of them have:
i. exhibited a clear disregard for the Charter rights of members of the Class;
ii. failed to ensure their response to the COVID-19 virus measures impairs the
constitutional rights and freedoms of Class members as little as possible.
61.b. In failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Subclass Members the

Provincial Government and the Public Health Officer, or each of them have:
1. i. exhibited a clear disregard for the Charter rights of Subclass

Members;
ii. failed to ensure their response to the COVID-19 virus measures impairs
1. the constitutional rights and freedoms of Subclass Members as little as
possible.
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
1. [Intentionally blank] A declaration that all Ministerial Orders made pursuant to the
Emergency Program Act and/or Public Health Orders relying on Part 5 of the Public
Health Act be set aside as unreasonable.
18
c. Declaration of State of Emergency – M073-2020;

d. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 155-2020;
e. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 173-2020;
f. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 207-2020;
g. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 241-2020;
h. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 264-2020;
i. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 310-2020;
j. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 351-2020;
k. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 389-2020;
l. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 436-2020;
m. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 458-2020;
n. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 482/2020;
o. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 494-2020;
p. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 506-2020;
q. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 570-2020;
r. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 571-2020;
s. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 572-2020;
t. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 581-2020;
u. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 592-2020;
v. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 611-2020;
w. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 700-2020;
x. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 001-2021;
y. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 013-2021;
z. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 057-2021;
aa. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 088-2021;
bb. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 107-2021;
cc. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 161-2021;
dd. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 202-2021;
ee. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 258-2021;
ff. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 285-2021;
gg. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 313-2021;
hh. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 332-2021;
ii. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 366-202
3.. [Intentionally blank] The Following orders are ultra vires the EPA and the CRMA:
jj. Commercial Tenancy (COVID-19) Order – M179-2020;

kk. Electronic Attendance at Corporate Meetings (COVID-19) Order – M116-
2020;
ll. Electronic Attendance at Credit Union Meetings (COVID-19) Order – M138-
2020;
mm. Electronic Attendance at Statutory Meetings (COVID-19) Order –
M167-2020;
19
nn. Electronic Attendance at Strata Property Meetings (COVID-19) Order –

M114-2020;
oo. Face Coverings (COVID-19) Order – M012-2021 [REPEALED]
pp. Face Coverings (COVID-19) Order amendment – M200-2021;
qq. Face Coverings (COVID-19) Order repeal – M274-2021;
rr. Food and Liquor Premises, Gatherings and Events (COVID-19) Order –
M358-2020;
ss. Food and Liquor Premises, Gatherings and Events (COVID-19) Order No.
2 – M416-2020;
tt. Food Delivery Services (COVID-19) Order – M480-2020;
uu. Gatherings and Events (COVID-19) Order – M314-2020;
vv. Limitation Periods (COVID-19) Order – M086-2020;
ww. Limitation Periods (COVID-19) Order No. 2 – M098-2020;
xx. Local Government Meetings and Bylaw Process (COVID-19) Order – M083-
2020;
yy. Local Government Meetings and Bylaw Process (COVID-19) Order No. 2 –
M139-2020;
zz. Local Government Meetings and Bylaw Process (COVID-19) Order No. 3 –
M192-2020;
aaa. Prohibition on Unconscionable Prices for Essential Goods and
Supplies (COVID-19) Order – M115-2020;
bbb. Residential Tenancy (COVID-19) Order – M089-2020;
ccc. Residential Tenancy (COVID-19) Order No. 2 – M195-2020;
ddd. Travel Restrictions (COVID-19) Order – M172-2021;
eee. Travel Restrictions (COVID-19) Order No. 2 – M182-2021;
fff. Travel Restrictions (COVID-19) Order No. 3 – M212-2021;
ggg. Travel Restrictions (COVID-19) Order No. 3 repeal – M242-2021;
hhh. Use of Face Coverings in Indoor Public Space (COVID-19) Order –
M425-2020.
iii. Such further orders as advised at trial.
2. 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.. Damages pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter.
5. In addition or in the alternative, aA declaration pursuant to s. 24(1) or in the

further alternative, a declaration pursuant to and s.52(1) of the Constitution
Act, 1982 being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the
"Constitution Act, 1982") that each or all of the Orders made since March
20
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;
b. s. 7 of the Charter;
c. s. 8 of the Charter;
c. s. 9 of the Charter, and
d. s. 15 of the Charter.
6.. A declaration that any of the Orders s.92 of the PHA be read so that its
effects do not limit rights established under the Charter, with respect to Charter
damages.
7.. [Intentionally blank] 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
or designated health professional licensed under the Health Professions Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 in the Province of British Columbia from advocating
opinions, recommendations, modalities or therapies with respect to Covid-19 that,
in based on the physician’s or designated health professional’s sole professional
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.
An injunction enjoining the defendants from issuing further orders under the EPA and
Part 5 of the PHA.
General damages;
7.a. Damages pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter;
Special damages;
8.. Special costs, or in the alternative costs; and
9.. An order certifying this action as a class proceeding;

21
10. In the alternative, if this Honourable Court refuses to certify this proceeding as a
class proceeding, an order that it be allowed to continue as a proceeding under the
Supreme Court Civil Rules;
11. Interest under the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79;
12.. 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 “emergency” were satisfied under the EPA and PHA.
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
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 sets 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.
22
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.
Reconsideration – April 12, 2021” , Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other
Service) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures –
November 18, 2021, Variance of Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor Serving
Premises Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination – November
12, 2021 and subsequent updates were contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice because they were arbitrary, overbroad and grossly disproportionate in their
effects. These orders were overbroad as they systemically denied all exemptions
(except for very limited prescribed medical reasons) even though reasonable
accommodations could have been made. They were grossly disproportionate
because the seriousness of the deprivation of liberty was completely out of sync with
the objective of the measures.
11. [Intentionally blank]
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.
23
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, the 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 most 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.
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.
24
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. [Intentionally blank] 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, and otherwise, including the exercise of discretion by the
defendants.
29. The Orders, directives, or decrees made under the EPA and PHA are inconsistent
with the Charter as follows:
a. [Intentionally blank] Orders, directives, or decrees that prohibit

religious gatherings infringe on the s. 2(a) Charter right of freedom of
conscience and religion;, particulars of which include:
i. PHA Orders: “Gatherings and Events” - August 7, 2020,

September 18, 2020, November 19, 2020, December 2, 9, 15 and
24, 2020 and subsequent “Gatherings and Events” orders, each
as amended from time to time;
ii. Ministerial Orders M314 (Aug. 20, 2020), M358 (Sept. 20, 2021),
M416 (Nov. 13, 2020), M013 (January. 8, 2021); and
iii. Such further orders as may be advised at trial.
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, particulars of which include:
i. PHA Orders: “Gatherings and Events” - August 7, 2020, September

18, 2020, November 19, 2020, December 2, 9, 15 and 24, 2020,
25
September 10, 2021 and subsequent “Gatherings and Events”

orders, each as amended from time to time;
ii. PHA Orders: Post-secondary Institution Housing COVID-19
Preventive Measures’ – September 9, 2021
iii. Ministerial Orders M314 (Aug. 20, 2020), M358 (Sept. 20, 2021),
iv. Such further orders as may be advised at trial.
c. Orders, directives, or decrees 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 because by treating everyone equally created a
distinction on an enumerated ground and were discriminatory in their effect.
d. Orders, directives, or decrees that require quarantine 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” and liberty under s. 2(c)
and 7 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;, particulars of
which include:
i. Verbal orders, directives or decrees made at various times, including

but not limited to September 8, 2020, March 28, 2020, December 31,
2021,and statements found on the BC CDC website from time to time
relating to self-isolation requirements; Ministerial Orders M172-2021
(April 21, 2021), M182 (April 30, 2021), M212 (May 25, 2021);
ii. Such further orders as may be advised at trial.
e. [Intentionally blank]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. [Intentionally blank]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.;
26
g. Orders or actions or inactions that limit or prohibit reconsideration of PHA

Orders infringe on the s. 7 Charter as they do not accord with the principles
of fundamental justice, particulars of which include:
i. PHA Order “Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration

– April 12, 2021”; Hospital and Community (Health Care and
Other Service) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and
Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021, Variance of
Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor Serving Premises
Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination –
November 12, 2021; and
h. Orders that mandate vaccination infringe on the s. 7 Charter rights of life,

liberty and security of the person and do not accord with the principles of
fundamental justice and s. 15 equality rights; particulars of which include:
i. PHA Orders “Food and Liquor Serving Premises – September 10,

2021”;
ii. “Gatherings and Events – September 10, 2021”;
iii. “Post-secondary Institution Housing COVID-19 Preventive
Measures” – September 9, 2021
iv. “Covid-19 Vaccination Status and Preventive Measures Order –
August 20, 2021, September 9, 2021 and further amendments;
v. Residential Care Staff COVID-19 Preventive Measures PHA Order
– September 12, 2021;
vi. “Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration – April 12,
2021” ;
vii. Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Service) Covid-
19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures –
October 21, 2021 and subsequent updates; and
viii. Such further orders as may be advised at trial.
30. Therefore, the Orders violate ss. 2, 7, 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. The
infringements cannot be demonstrably justified because they were not minimally
impairing and there was no proportionality between the deleterious and salutary
effects of the Orders.
27
32. The plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter on behalf of
members of the Class, which are necessary for vindication, deterrence, and
compensation to Class members.
Officer, including Charter damages as she is an appointee of the Crown and all
her executive actions are attributable to the Crown and which relief is not barred
by s.92(3)Public Health Act.
Plaintiff's address for service: Citadel Law Corporation

Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8
Fax number address for service: N/A
E-mail address for service: N/A
Place of trial: Vancouver
The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC
Date: May 3, 2022 _________________________________

Signature of lawyer for the plaintiff
Polina H. Furtula
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record
to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
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
all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
serve the list on all parties of record.
Appendix
28
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 rights 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:
29
1. Emergency Program Act, RSBC 1996, c. 111;
2. Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c 28;
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;
4. COVID-19 Related Measures Act, SBC 2020, c. 8 (“CRMA”).
.
APPENDIX C
-
SEPTEMBER 15, 2023
Clean copy of the FANOCC

SCHEDULE A
Original filed January 26, 2021, amended September 15, 2021 pursuant to Rule 6-
1(1), further amended ________________
No. S210831
Vancouver Registry

BETWEEN

OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY
ZUBIN SINGH PARIHAR
LILY LEPPKY
MELISSA GAUTHIER
PLAINTIFFS
AND
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT

OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AND
DEFENDANTS
Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50
FURTHER AMENDED 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

2
1. file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-
named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described
below, and
2. serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff
and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response
to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim

A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff,
1. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within
21 days after that service,
2. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United
States of America, within 35 days after that service,
3. if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49
days after that service, or
4. 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 for the thousands fighting for their lives in hospitals,
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.
1 WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020
3
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, officers, donors,
and patrons draw themselves from diverse communities and from across the political
spectrum.
5.a. Zubin Singh Parihar is a British Columbia resident who was affected by the
5.b. Lily Leppky is a British Columbia resident who was affected by the defendants’
response to the Covid-19 virus.
5.c. Melissa Gauthier is a British Columbia resident who was affected by the
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 natural
persons 18 years old or older, residing in British Columbia who, since on or after
March 17, 2020, have been subject to orders, directives, or decrees of the
defendants made in response to the SARS-CoV-2 (“Covid-19”) virus and/or
pursuant to the Emergency Program Act EPA and/or Part 5 of the Public Health
Act (the “Class”).
8a. The following are proposed subclasses within the Class:

4
i. Medical Subclass:
British Columbia residents whose access to medical procedures were

cancelled or delayed due to orders, directives or decrees of the
defendants in response to Covid-19 and/or made pursuant to the
Emergency Program Act and/or Part 5 of the Public Health Act;
ii. Vaccination Subclass:
British Columbia residents who were not double vaccinated against

COVID-19 between September 13, 2021 to April 8, 2022 and who did
not receive written exemptions from this requirement from the PHO;
iii. Religious Subclass:
British Columbia residents who were not vaccinated against COVID-19

because of religious beliefs, and who did not receive exemptions or
accommodations from the PHA Orders.
(collectively the “Subclass Members”)
9. It is estimated that the Class consists of millions of residents and business owners
in British Columbia.
9.a. Subclass Members form a small subset of the larger Class.
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.
5
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.
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 was in the longest state of emergency in provincial history.
21.a. Although the state of emergency was cancelled as of June 30, 2021, the Provincial
Health Officer continued to issue PHA Orders pursuant to Part 5 of the Public Health Act,
6
despite there being insufficient evidence or reasonable evidence that the prerequisites of
s. 52 of the PHA were met.
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.
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 the 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
7
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
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.
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.
8
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
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.
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.
46. The defendants knew, or ought to have known, that cancelling medical treatments
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 contain
a provision stating that they apply only for so long as the declaration of the state of
emergency is in effect (the “Ministerial Orders”).
9
48. Most of the Provincial Government’s orders do not reference a specific sub-
paragraph in the s. 10(1) of the EPA 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.
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. None of the Provincial Health Officer’s PHA Orders reference the medical or
scientific basis for issuing the order and do not satisfy the requirements of s. 52 of the
PHA.
52.a. Dr. Henry has admitted that the limit on the size of gatherings is arbitrary and is
not grounded in science.
52.b. Dr. Henry has admitted that wearing a mask does not protect a person from
contracting COVID-19.
53. Indeed, the Ministerial Orders and PHA Orders, directives or decrees (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:
i. mandating that masks be worn in public places;

ii. closing in-house dining but permitting take-out;
iii. not mandating that cooks in public dining establishments wear masks while
preparing food for take-out;
iv. allowing in-house dining for groups of the same household, that could sit next
to groups of different households;
v. disallowing family gatherings;
vi. allowing shopping in large warehouse grocery and “big box” franchises such as
Walmart, Costco, and others (the “Big Box Stores”);
vii. prohibiting religious gatherings;
viii. prohibiting peaceful gatherings if unrelated to work;
ix. limiting shopping in shopping malls;
10
x. prohibiting certain travel throughout British Columbia but allowing travellers

from other provinces to travel within British Columbia;
xi. prohibiting entering restaurants and cafes if unvaccinated but allowing eating
in food courts without being vaccinated against COVID-19;
xii. such other particulars as may be proven at trial.
53.i. On or about July 10, 2020, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, S.B.C. 2020, c.
8 (“CRMA”) came into force. Pursuant to the CRMA, any EPA instrument (order or
regulation made under section 10 or 10.1 of the EPA, is also enacted as a provision under
the CRMA.
53.ii. In issuing the Ministerial Orders, and enacting the CRMA, the Provincial
Government knew or was wilfully blind that the preconditions of invoking the EPA were
not met and/or that the Ministerial Orders were contrary to the Charter.
53.iii. In issuing the PHA Orders, the PHO knew or was wilfully blind that the
preconditions of Part 5 of the PHA were not met and/or that the PHA Orders were contrary
to the Charter.
Effect of government measures on British Columbians
53. A. [Intentionally blank]

53. B. Orders limiting peaceful assembly have stopped or limited the Class members
intent and right to publicly protest or otherwise express political and other views between
November 7, 2020 and February 10, 2021. Public protests took place on December 1, 5,
and 12, 2020 in Vancouver, B.C. and organizers and attendees were issued violation
tickets for contravening PHA Orders titled “Gathering and Events” in place at the time.
53.B.a. Orders limiting public assembly have prevented Class members from
peacefully exercising their freedom of association and movement, including but not limited
to meeting with family members and friends.
53.B.b. Orders, directives, or decrees requiring Class members to quarantine for two
weeks or another period of time caused Class members to be deprived of their liberty by
compelling them to stay home or at another facility. Class members were legally required
to comply, and the PHO conduct would lead a reasonable person to conclude that they
had no choice but to comply.
53.B.c. The Orders, directives, or decrees limiting public assembly, mandating

vaccination in order to attend gatherings affected the liberty and security of the person
interests of Zubin Parihar. He did not participate in public gatherings and protests. He
did not want to risk high penalties or jail if participating in a public protest until March
11
2021. He was unable to attend cultural events, hockey games, restaurants, movie
theatres, the gym and participate in other recreational activities. He was also shunned by
his neighbours because he was not vaccinated against Covid-19. All of which caused
him to become depressed, angry and isolated.
Medical Subclass
53.C. The cancellation of surgeries and additional medical diagnostic and other
procedures scheduled on or after March 17, 2020 have caused and continue to cause
personal injury to members of the Medical Subclass and resulted in discrimination against
the members of the Medical Subclass based on physical or mental disability.
53.C.a. The denial of timely or other access to medical procedures, such as but not
limited to surgeries, medical appointments, diagnostic and prophylactic procedures,
resulted in the denial of healthcare services of the Medical Subclass, which exacerbated
existing disadvantages due to their health conditions, which is especially important in
British Columbia, as there is no private medical care alternatives. This created
psychological and physical suffering to Medical Subclass members, such as but not
limited to physical pain, anxiety, depression and such further particulars as shall be
provided at trial.
53.C.b. As a result of the orders, directives, or decrees cancelling medical procedures
Melissa Gauthier’s scheduled hysterectomy on March 27, 2020 was cancelled. This
exacerbated her existing disadvantage caused by her medical condition and resulted in
further pain, stress and affected her ability to work.
Vaccination Subclass
53.D. PHA Orders mandating persons be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to
travel accommodation and other activities that allow these persons to fully participate in
British Columbia and Canadian society are forms of compulsions and prohibitions that
affect fundamental life choices of Vaccination Subclass members.
53.D.a. The PHO refused to consider accommodations to Vaccination Subclass
members based on religious or other grounds, except specific medical conditions.
53. E. The Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodation to Vaccination
Subclass members such as exempting persons who have recovered from COVID-19, or
those who produce a negative rapid antigen COVID-19 test as an alternative to proof of
vaccination, and other reasonable accommodations that become apparent from time to
time.
53.E.a. The Vaccination Subclass members were prevented from having the same
access to property enjoyed by other members of the public and prevented from continuing
to work in the healthcare and other fields. These restrictions affected Vaccination
Subclass member’s autonomy with regard to important and fundamental life choices,
12
namely control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference, and affected their
dignity and independence.
53.E.b. PHA Orders in respect of vaccination against COVID-19 created an offence
punishable by imprisonment for failure to comply, thereby depriving the Vaccination
Subclass of liberty interests protected by s. 7 of the Charter.
53.E.c. The deprivations of liberty interests set out above were arbitrary and overbroad
as the PHA orders were of the broadest possible scope, and could have been used to
imprison persons in circumstances that were fundamentally unjust. The deprivation of
liberty interests did little or nothing to enhance the state’s interest in reducing the impact
of COVID-19, which interest could have been sufficiently and better addressed while
considering accommodations or exemptions such as an exemption requiring proof of a
negative COVID-19 test or natural immunity. Further, the state interest in increasing the
uptake of COVID-19 vaccines was a lesser state interest (compared to reducing the
impact of COVID-19), and the deprivations of liberty interests were grossly
disproportionate to this object.
Religious Subclass
53.F. PHA Orders mandating persons be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to
travel accommodation and other activities require Religious Subclass members to choose
between their religion or securing employment and participating in society were and
continue to be unacceptable to the personal identity of the members of the Religious
Subclass.
53.F.a. [Intentionally blank]
53.F.b. Lily Leppky’s sincerely held religious beliefs, prohibit her from getting
vaccinated. As a result of the orders, directives, or decrees of the defendants, or each of
them, Ms. Leppky was prevented from having the same access to property enjoyed by
other members of the public and prevented her from continuing to work in the healthcare
field. Theses restriction affected Ms. Leppky’s autonomy with regard to important and
fundamental life choices, namely her sincerely held religious beliefs, which are inherently
personal and negatively affected her dignity and independence.
53. G. [Intentionally blank]
53. H. The Subclass Members are a minority in British Columbia and do not pose a
danger to public health while attending public venues or dealing with members of the
public due to the high rates of vaccination in the province and other measures that limit
the spread of COVID-19.
53.I. The Orders fail to take into account the Subclass Members already
disadvantaged positions in Canadian society and have resulted in differential treatment
between Subclass Members and other member of the British Columbian and Canadian
13
society, without providing for reasonable accommodation. This has also resulted in the
perpetuation of false stereotypes of Subclass Members, by being perceived as:
a. dangerous to the public health;
b. ignorant;
c. not worthy of respect;
d. undeserving of medical treatment;
e. such other particulars as may be provided at trial.
53. J. The September 10, 2021 PHA Orders do not allow Class Members of to be
exempted in a timely manner, or at all, which is contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice, as little or no notice was provided to Class members on how to seek
reconsideration of these orders which were arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the
actual threat (if any) posed by unvaccinated persons. The September 10, 2021 PHA
Orders were further arbitrary because they provided no rational connection to their
purported goals, and were overly broad as they applied to individuals who did not pose
any threat (those with a negative test for COVID-19 or prior immunity, for example).
Because the September 10, 2021 PHA Orders resulted in the deprivations of liberty set
forth at paragraph 53.B.b, 53.E.a, and 53.E.b, the effects were grossly disproportionate
to the modest state interest of increasing vaccine uptake.
53. K. The process of reconsideration of the Public Health Officer’s PHA Orders was
slow and lacked independence, and was not proportional to the rights affected, resulting
in a discriminatory effects of the Orders on Class members, including Subclass Members.
53. L. Due to a large number of reconsideration requests, the Public Health Officer
stopped requests for reconsideration, by issuing her order of April 12, 2021, titled
“Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration – April 12, 2021”. The Public
Health Officer stopped all reconsideration requests, except on Charter grounds in or
around April 12, 2021, but failed to reconsider such requests in a timely manner or at all.
53.M. The following orders further stopped reconsideration requests on Charter grounds
pursuant to Part 5 of the PHA:
a. Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Service) Covid-19
Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021 and
subsequent updates;
b. Variance of Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor Serving Premises
Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination – November 12, 2021
and subsequent updates.
14
54. The further effects of these restrictions placed on British Columbians have caused
personal injury and 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;
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;
ii. Refusal of medical treatment to unvaccinated persons;
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.
Hippocratic Oath
15
58.a. 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.
58.b. The Oath’s most sacrosanct tenet is primum non nocere, or first do no harm.
58.c. The Provincial Health Officer is in violation of her Oath and the approaches and
guidelines described in the BCCDC “Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health at
the BCCDC.
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”.
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 well-being mentioned but not limited to the Restriction Effects.
61.a. In failing to conduct a risk assessment the Provincial Government and the Public
Health Officer, or each of them have:
i. exhibited a clear disregard for the Charter rights of members of the Class;
ii. failed to ensure their response to the COVID-19 virus measures impairs the
constitutional rights and freedoms of Class members as little as possible.
61.b. In failing to provide reasonable accommodations to Subclass Members the

Provincial Government and the Public Health Officer, or each of them have:
1. i. exhibited a clear disregard for the Charter rights of Subclass

Members;
ii. failed to ensure their response to the COVID-19 virus measures impairs
1. the constitutional rights and freedoms of Subclass Members as little as
possible.
16
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
c. Declaration of State of Emergency – M073-2020;

d. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 155-2020;
e. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 173-2020;
f. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 207-2020;
g. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 241-2020;
h. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 264-2020;
i. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 310-2020;
j. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 351-2020;
k. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 389-2020;
l. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 436-2020;
m. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 458-2020;
n. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 482/2020;
o. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 494-2020;
p. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 506-2020;
q. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 570-2020;
r. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 571-2020;
s. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 572-2020;
t. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 581-2020;
u. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 592-2020;
v. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 611-2020;
w. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 700-2020;
x. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 001-2021;
y. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 013-2021;
z. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 057-2021;
aa. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 088-2021;
bb. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 107-2021;
cc. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 161-2021;
dd. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 202-2021;
ee. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 258-2021;
ff. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 285-2021;
gg. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 313-2021;
hh. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 332-2021;
ii. Extension of State of Emergency – OIC 366-202
4. Damages pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter.

17
5. In addition or in the alternative, a declaration pursuant to s. 24(1) or in the further

alternative, a declaration pursuant to s.52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 being
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the "Constitution Act,
1982") that 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. 7 of the Charter;
c. s. 9 of the Charter, and
d. s. 15 of the Charter.
6. A declaration that s.92 of the PHA be read so that its effects do not limit rights
established under the Charter, with respect to Charter damages.
8. Special costs, or in the alternative costs; and
9. An order certifying this action as a class proceeding;
10. In the alternative, if this Honourable Court refuses to certify this proceeding as a
class proceeding, an order that it be allowed to continue as a proceeding under the
Supreme Court Civil Rules;
11. Interest under the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79;
12. 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 “emergency” were satisfied under the EPA and PHA.
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
18
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 sets 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.
Reconsideration – April 12, 2021”, Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other
Service) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures –
November 18, 2021, Variance of Gatherings and Events & Food And Liquor Serving
19
Premises Orders to Suspend Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination – November

12, 2021 and subsequent updates were contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice because they were arbitrary, overbroad and grossly disproportionate in their
effects. These orders were overbroad as they systemically denied all exemptions
(except for very limited prescribed medical reasons) even though reasonable
accommodations could have been made. They were grossly disproportionate
because the seriousness of the deprivation of liberty was completely out of sync with
the objective of the measures.
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, the 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
20
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 most 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.
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.
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, and otherwise, including the exercise of discretion by the
defendants.
29. The Orders, directives, or decrees made under the EPA and PHA are inconsistent
with the Charter as follows:
21
a. [Intentionally blank]
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, particulars of which include:
i. PHA Orders: “Gatherings and Events” - August 7, 2020, September

18, 2020, November 19, 2020, December 2, 9, 15 and 24, 2020,
September 10, 2021 and subsequent “Gatherings and Events”
orders, each as amended from time to time;
ii. PHA Orders: Post-secondary Institution Housing COVID-19
Preventive Measures’ – September 9, 2021
iii. Ministerial Orders M314 (Aug. 20, 2020), M358 (Sept. 20, 2021),
iv. Such further orders as may be advised at trial.
c. Orders, directives, or decrees 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 because by treating everyone equally created a
distinction on an enumerated ground and were discriminatory in their effect.
d. Orders, directives, or decrees that require quarantine limit the freedom of

peaceful assembly” and liberty under s. 2(c) and 7 of the Charter, and the
right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned under s. 9 of the Charter,
particulars of which include:
i. Verbal orders, directives or decrees made at various times, including

but not limited to September 8, 2020, March 28, 2020, December 31,
2021,and statements found on the BC CDC website from time to time
relating to self-isolation requirements;
e. [Intentionally blank]
f. [Intentionally blank]
g. Orders or actions or inactions that limit or prohibit reconsideration of PHA

Orders infringe on the s. 7 Charter as they do not accord with the principles
of fundamental justice, particulars of which include:
22
i. PHA Order “Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration

– April 12, 2021”; Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other
Service) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive
Measures – November 18, 2021, Variance of Gatherings and Events
& Food And Liquor Serving Premises Orders to Suspend
Reconsideration re Proof of Vaccination – November 12, 2021; and
h. Orders that mandate vaccination infringe on the s. 7 Charter rights of liberty

and security of the person and do not accord with the principles of
fundamental justice and s. 15 equality rights; particulars of which include:
i. PHA Orders “Food and Liquor Serving Premises – September 10,

2021”;
ii. “Gatherings and Events – September 10, 2021”;
iii. “Post-secondary Institution Housing COVID-19 Preventive
Measures” – September 9, 2021
iv. “Covid-19 Vaccination Status and Preventive Measures Order –
August 20, 2021, September 9, 2021 and further amendments;
v. Residential Care Staff COVID-19 Preventive Measures PHA Order
– September 12, 2021;
vi. “Variance of Existing Orders to Suspend Reconsideration – April 12,
2021”;
vii. Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Service) Covid-19
Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures – October
21, 2021 and subsequent updates; and
viii. Such further orders as may be advised at trial.
30. Therefore, the Orders violate ss. 2, 7, 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. The
infringements cannot be demonstrably justified because they were not minimally
impairing and there was no proportionality between the deleterious and salutary
effects of the Orders.
23
32. The plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter on behalf of
members of the Class, which are necessary for vindication, deterrence, and
compensation to Class members.
Officer, including Charter damages as she is an appointee of the Crown and all
her executive actions are attributable to the Crown and which relief is not barred
by s.92(3) Public Health Act.
Plaintiff's address for service: Citadel Law Corporation

Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8
Fax number address for service: N/A
E-mail address for service: N/A
Place of trial: Vancouver
The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC
Date: _________________________________
Signature of lawyer for the plaintiff
Polina H. Furtula
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record
to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
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
all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
serve the list on all parties of record.
24
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 rights 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:
25
1. Emergency Program Act, RSBC 1996, c. 111;
2. Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c 28;
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;
4. COVID-19 Related Measures Act, SBC 2020, c. 8 (“CRMA”).
.
APPENDIX D
-
SEPTEMBER 15, 2023
Notice of Discontinuance
(Health Workers Petition)
Vancouver
06-Jun-23
NO. S-2110229
VANCOUVER REGISTRY
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ACT,

RSBC 1996, c. 241; AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, SBC 2008, c. 28.
BETWEEN:

OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY and
KIPLING WARNER
PETITIONERS
AND:

RESPONDENT
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE
[Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms.]
Filed by: Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy and Kipling
Warner (the “Petitioners”)
TAKE NOTICE that the Petitioners
[ x ] discontinue this proceeding against the respondent, Dr. Henry, in her capacity as
Provincial Health officer for the Province of British Columbia
[ x] Notice of trial has been filed and this discontinuance is
[ x] with the consent of all parties of record
Date: June 6, 2023
____________________________________
Signature of lawyer for petitioners,
Polina H. Furtula

2023-09-15 - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submissions in Certification Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023-09-15 - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submissions in Certification Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citadel law corporation Philip J.

September 15, 2023

VIA EMAIL (sc.civil_va@bccourts.ca)

We are counsel to the plaintiff in the above noted matter.

1. Supplemental submissions of the plaintiff;

Thank you for your assistance.

CITADEL LAW CORPORATION

Cc: Chantelle Rajotte, Emily C. Lapper, Trevor Bant – Via Email

Polina Furtula 778-945-9990 pfurtula@citadellawyers.ca

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Supplemental Submissions of the Plaintiff

a. Changes to the proposed Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim (10

b. Written submissions on any recent judicial decisions, in British Columbia

A. Proposed changes of the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim

a. Appendix A – June 5, 2023 letter to the Court.

b. Appendix B - Proposed further amendments to the Further Amended

c. Appendix C - Clean copy of the FANOCC, without any underlining or

Also included with these submissions is:

d. Appendix D – Notice of Discontinuance (Health Worker’s Petition).

6. The plaintiff rejects the defendants’ characterization of these additions as belated

Proposed Additions Clarify Cause of Action

their Supplemental Submissions dated August 30, 2023 (“Defendants’ Supplemental

Part 1, paragraph 53.B.b

8. The following Proposed Changes add clarification and further particularization of

53.B.b. Orders, directives, or decrees requiring Class members to quarantine for

isolation requirements; Ministerial Orders M172-2021 (April 21, 2021), M182

Part 1, paragraph 53.J and Part 3, paragraph 11.a

12. These Proposed Changes are underlined:

disproportionate in their effects. These orders were overbroad as they systemically

17. In further response to paras. 20 – 23 of the Defendants’ Supplemental

Part 3, paragraph 29.c.

c. Orders, directives, or decrees that prohibit or limit medical procedures infringe on

27. These Proposed Changes are underlined:

30. The Proposed Changes are as follows:

a. Para. 26 of the Written Submissions of the plaintiff. 17

b. Paras. 276 and 283 of the Written Submissions of the defendants. 18

Common issues are not significantly impacted by the Proposed Changes

34. In response to paras. 10-12, of the Defendants’ Supplemental Submissions,

iscontinua nce of ealt h are etition

51. In Annex 1 - Constitutionality of the Canadian Armed Forces COVID-19

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Date: September 15, 2023

June 5, 2023 Letter to Court

File No. 1502-1

VIA HAND DELIVERY

We are counsei to the plaintiff in the above noted matter.

Please find enclosed the following;

3. Arizona et al v. Mayorkas et al, 598 U.S.(2023){“Anzona v. Mayorkas").

CITADEL LAW CORPORATION

Polina Furtula 778-945-9990 ofurtula@cltadellawvers.ca

A summary of these proposed changes is below:

CITADEL LAW CORPORATION

'. POLINA H. FURTULA

Cc: Chanteiie Rajotte, Emily C. Lapper, Trevor Bant-Via Email

Proposed further amendments to the FANOCC, with new

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT

HER HIS MAJESTY THE QUEEN KING IN RIGHT

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

FURTHER AMENDED NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

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