It was an amazing day in court. Rocco was brilliant as he argued the merits of the case in opposition to the Motion to Strike. He pointed out that this is not a case about a truck hitting a bicycle but one of great importance and public interest. Rocco meticulously provided case law, Canadian and International, to defend our position as well as facts, supported by evidence, countering the defense’s accusation that the case was founded on “conspiracy theories.” Mr. Galati advised Justice Ross that he can provide the evidence proving Bill Gates funds GAVI and the WHO; Bonnie Henry has ties to Bill Gates and the WHO; Teresa Tam is tied to the WHO; Justin Trudeau paid a billion dollars to Bill Gates; and made many more important points.
Ken Drysdale presents findings relating to his investigation of criminal allegations concerning the COVID-19 pandemic response to Tanya Gaw of Action4Canada. The findings he presents are shocking, hard-hitting and full of valuable information you can’t afford to ignore.
The motion to strike was heard on Tuesday May 31, 2022 in the BC Supreme Court. See link above for full report.
Legal documents presented…
Tab 9 Response to Motion to Strike – (478 Pages) Application Record
Book of Authorities (743 Pages)
Application Record Index (6 Pages)
Part 1 of 2 Affidavit (160 Pages)
Part 2 of 2 Affidavit (171 Pages)
Application Record – Volume 1 (Tabs 1-18) (481 Pages)
Application Record – Volume 2 (Tabs 20-54) (612 Pages)
Application-Record-Volume-3 (Tabs-55-93) (595 Pages)
Tanya Gaw, Founder of Action4Canada, provides a brief overview of the court proceedings
click for video
Thank you to everyone who attended in person at the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver. The court was filled to capacity (78 seats) plus there were another 50-70 people outside of the court room.
The court proceeding addressed the Motion to Strike set forth by the defendants named in Action4Canada’s Statement of Claim. Justice Alan Ross presided.
It was an amazing day in court watching Rocco Galati in action. Rocco was brilliant as he argued the merits of the case in opposition to the Motion to Strike. Rocco pointed out that this is not a straightforward case such as a truck hitting a bicycle, but rather one of extreme complexity and huge public interest.
Rocco meticulously provided case law, both Canadian and International, to defend our position as well as facts supported by evidence, to counter the defense’s accusation that the case was founded on “conspiracy theories.” Mr. Galati advised Justice Ross that the case is not based on conspiracy theories but rather facts, and that he can provide the evidence proving that Bill Gates funds GAVI and the WHO; Bonnie Henry has ties to Bill Gates and the WHO; Teresa Tam is tied to the WHO; Justin Trudeau paid a billion dollars to Bill Gates; and many more important points.
The proceedings began at 10:00am PST and there were ‘seven’ lawyers representing the defendants.
Mr. Witten, the lead counsel for John Horgan, Bonnie Henry and the other provincial crown defendants, was the first to speak and provided a very weak submission. Mr. Witten provided no evidence to support his vague allegations and argument that the Statement of Claim was “replete with groundless conspiracy theories, deficient in substance, frivolous, convoluted, scandalous, irrelevant, costly, an embarrassment and an abuse of the court’s process.” Mr. Witten made further claims that the Notices of Liability were threatening and intimidating to those who received them and that the delivery of said documents was harassment.
Mr. Witten spoke for more than hour and covered several sections of the Statement of Claim (SOC) in great detail. It was impressive to hear the merits of the case being spoken by the defense and at times it became difficult to know if he was representing the defendants or the plaintiffs. As Mr. Witten read through the details of the Statement of Claim it only legitimized our position that the government has indeed violated the Constitutional rights of Canadians, caused irreparable harm and over-stepped their authority.
The lawyers representing the additional defendants named in the SOC provided their submissions and it was clear that they also had no argument or evidence to support their reasons for the Motion to Strike.
There was a break for lunch and upon returning to the court at 1:30pm PST Rocco began his response. As mentioned above it was nothing less than brilliant and something to behold.
Mr. Galati not only challenged Mr. Witten for referring to the case as a conspiracy theory but also for making the absurd statement that it would be too much work and too costly to proceed with this case. Mr. Galati called out the provincial governments and the Prime Minister for spending an accumulative 1.2 trillion dollars on COVID-19 measures and that by comparison, the cost for the case would be inconsequential.
Rocco brought to the attention of the court Mr. Witten’s lame and offensive efforts to discredit him by reporting that Rocco had 10 cases which were dismissed due to Motions to Strike, but conveniently failed to point out Rocco’s nearly 600 reported cases that were won. None of his wins were revealed by Witten. Rocco pointed these facts out to remind the court that previous wins and losses are irrelevant. The Case at hand is the only issue.
Mr. Witten further failed to mention the thousands of cases that Rocco has argued in his 34 year career and the many wins he has achieved. Justice Ross thanked Mr. Galati for the information and it rightfully elevated the level of respect due to Rocco.
In closing, Rocco stood on the merits of the case and that it is a matter of public interest and should not be dismissed. Rocco added, “the Constitution does not kneel, bend nor kiss the feet of public health officers, or any public officials, including the legislatures.”
The defense lawyers were then given the opportunity to reply but ZERO replied! None of them had a rebuttal! This is because they could not respond to Rocco’s correction of the defendant’s counsel’s embarrassing mis-statement and ignorance of Constitutional law and rights pleaded.
We now await Justice Ross’ decision which may take up to 30 days. We will make an announcement once the information is made available to us.
To access the Court docs visit the Legal Action Page.
Remember: Freedom of speech, thought, belief and the right to life, liberty and security of the person are guaranteed. We do not need to beg, barter or ask for them…they are ours for the taking.
Please consider becoming a monthly donor and help Action4Canada continue to bring solutions and hope to the nation!
God bless you and God bless Canada!
The Team @
Live UPDATES posted here
• Justice Alan Ross presiding.
• Hearing has started and the lawyers are doing their introductions and walking through the
statement of claim.
• Lead defense counsel (Witten) is arguing the claim is spurious convoluted and rife with
conspiracy theories and vexatious beyond what the court should consider.
• Defense is arguing, BC 12-17 year old’s lack of informed consent, parental consent, medical
experimentation and implicit negligence, that these claims and international law / Nuremberg
codes don’t apply and are ‘non justiciable’ citing precedents, and Willoughby vs Chong.
• Defense now citing Fowler, saying defense can’t separate material from immaterial facts and
conspiracy theories sprinkled throughout. Plaintiff therefore claims case doesn’t reach standards
of reasonable clarity to be able to respond, and fails to establish actionable causes of negligence
• Defense is declaring claim is scandalous, confusing and impossible (pg 391) and citing
irrelevance of Bill Gates etc and allegations re others not a party to this claim. Frivolous,
fanciful and groundless re conspiracy etc so not worth court’s consideration.
• Defense calls NWO allegations groundless and irrelevance vexatious and abuse of process.
• Rocco will have his turn to respond after the defense has laid out their full response.
• Defense claiming case is vexatious and abuse of court and designed to harass govt health
officials. Also believes some of the criminal claims don’t belong in a Civil claim or court.
• Defense arguing that the claim is intended to harass and or slander defendants
• Simultaneously arguing that the A4C NOLs are compromising case because of the NOL nonlegal status.
• Defense is citing pages from the A4C website, and claiming the fundraising is somehow the
motive behind the case.
• NOLs are a second prong: citing Employer NOL page and how to take action and how to’s.
Saying that to a lay person these look like a legal document so defense is asking judge to see a
vaccine NOL as intimidating.
• It appears that the defense is trying to argue that the NOLs are also an intimidation tactic and so
that confirms that the case is just for intimidation.
• Defense now citing how many Twitter followers Rocco has sent the claim to saying that the
purpose is improper and abuse of court process they’re also asking for no recourse to appeal.
• On a break.
• Defense lawyer for Vancouver Island Health: Arguing scandalous claim and absence of
• Saying convoluted and hard to pick out which claims vs which defendant so not reasonably
argued against and should be struck.
• Now trans link lawyer and Peter Kwok argued claims not directly vs his client(s).
• TL lawyer saying claim safe policy and if constitutional nature then beyond the scope of his
client, citing vaxx discrimination case precedent from last year where case was struck.
• Citing other precedent Mansouri (Ontario COVID case) citing narrative as fact and judge can
take judicial notice of how anti narrative claims in this action can be assumed to be unfounded
[not much of an argument so circular].
• Now taking early lunch break.
• Rocco’s arguing vs conspiracy narrative asking them to address facts
• Walking through case law precedents now.
• Arguing amendments should allow amendment.
• Saying this case is too much work is no reason to strike.
• He says that there are tons of conspiracies happening but they are not theories. Scientific fact:
no one has isolated the virus. PCR is the only tool which has been thrown out as credible and it
has a 96.5% false positive result.
• Constitutional questions are justiciable arguing from Supreme Court precedent.
• Arguing the right to be heard and submit evidence.
• Rocco says that almost all of his cases have had motions to strike. The 1st lawyer tried to say
that Rocco has had 10 motions to strike but failed to mention that was out of almost 600 cases.
The judge said he didn’t realize that.
• Re constitutional rights re vaccines and measures and citing US and India Supreme Court and
applying to Bonnie Henry and access to Canadian Health Care. Judge asking for clarification on
these other national Supreme Court precedents.
• Arguing the banning discrimination of unvaxxed and coercion of vaxx to access public places
and work or medical care makes it a rights / constitutional matter.
• Rocco saying the defense’s claim of conspiracy theories, not based on fact, amounts to baseless
smear against his client and claim, and they have provided no facts to support said smear
• Cited the Ontario judge in favor of mother to not vax her kids.
• Arguing admissibility of relevant international law and/or treaties, where these align with the
provisions of the constitution are justiciable, whether they’re signed to Canada or not.
• The constitution does not bend, kneel and kiss the feet of judicial legislators.
• Calls out government for wasting money in so many areas but now the government can’t spend
a little bit of money to discuss people’s constitutional rights? It’s lazy for the defendant to say it
is a waste of time and would take too long.
• He doesn’t understand why “his friend” the lawyer doesn’t understand rights such as the right to
religion and he’s willing to give him a free 14 hour course on constitutional rights! These are
• He understands that the claims they are making are not very nice and are somewhat
uncomfortable but the court has never been about being comfortable.
• Rocco talks about the run around he has had from courts when A4C tried to first file. Then
when Rocco got sick the court agreed to file. Then court said Rocco dragged his heels, which
was not the case.
• This is an issue of public interest.
• In their affidavit the defence is trying to call Rocco out over a couple of tweets written about
him, which is absurd. If you look up Rocco’s name you will find thousands of times his name is
mentioned. He has won and lost cases, as have many others. Rocco gives credit to who he is and
his experience and that this case has warrant and has merit.
• None of the defence lawyers reply and none of them rebut his testimony.
• Court is now adjourned for a decision