Kid Carson - 213 - The Case Against Bonnie Henry *UPDATE*

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-11

[00:00:01]All right, guys. Today we are lucky to have the president of the Bonnie Henry Fan Club in studio, Kip. What's up, man?

[00:00:08]>> Good to see you again. It's been a while.

[00:00:10]>> Can we start with for people who maybe haven't seen you before? I mean, you're pretty well known. You've been spearheading a pretty big movement for us. Thank you, by the way. Maybe a quick 30 second recap of what you've done like in grade two language.

[00:00:26]>> Sure. So, um, and and just for the record, it's not just me. It's obviously it's a team and, uh, they work wonders behind the scenes. Um, I'd like to give them all a shout out right now, but I'm the executive director of, uh, a small nonprofit called the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science and Public Policy, or just CESASP for short.

[00:00:46]And we're uh, a BC nonprofit. And our mandate is published on our website. But right now and since inception, it's been to basically hold everyone accountable in government who was responsible for enacting those mandates uh relating to the lockdown. So that meant um everything from the declaration of emergency, all the public health orders, uh the restrictions on on public gatherings, social distancing, all of those things. Uh we challenged all of that beginning with sort of the foundational premise which was the declaration of an emergency which begott all the other measures and um >> so you're on the naughty list.

[00:01:26]>> We're on the naughty list for sure. For sure. Yeah. And um that's not my main job. My main job is like I work in tech but this is on the side. This is my civic work.

[00:01:37]>> And um we commenced a class action. And I believe it was I think it was early 2022 or uh it's been so long. That's when we started it and then it was within weeks of doing so we filed suit against the provincial government and Dr. Henry. Um there's been a lot of different legal challenges uh regarding CO measures, but ours was different in that it was a class action.

[00:02:06]So it's not one person with a grievance about not being admitted into you know a restaurant or uh being able to go to church or um places of public gathering or whatever. It was not not like that.

[00:02:19]It was on behalf of an entire class of people. So a few million people basically everyone who was affected uh by the co measures above the age of 18 uh at the time they were enacted and um it's entirely crowdfunded. Uh I don't take a salary. the team doesn't take a salary. Um we're entirely funded by donations from the public and um well actually the other side is crowdfunded too. It's just not voluntary the participation but that uh campaign began quite some time ago. We commenced a class action on behalf of a couple million people here in BC. And there was a kind of a hurdle uh a hoop that you need to go through in class actions where you have to get what's called certified. So you bring an application to the court and the judge has to decide whether or not this should be able to proceed as uh a claim brought by many millions of people or because that's what distinguishes it from a normal suit where you've got one or two people suing somebody. In this case, you've got a large number of people and so there's a test that's supposed to be applied uh for that. But that um the class proceedings act is the legislation that enabled people to bring class actions and that was created back in um I think it was the early mid '90s um by the NDP government then NDP government.

[00:03:45]I don't know if it was my car court or who was the premier at the time, but it was introduced by the attorney general to solve um a public policy or a a social issue at the time. Um there was a problem at with um women's cosmetic implants. There was a lot of problems with how they were manufactured.

[00:04:10]Um there were a lot of injuries. There were even deaths in some cases. And there was a concern that that was going to jam up the court system if you had all of these people who had implants um bringing suit against the manufacturers or whoever it was that they thought was responsible. And so this legislation was tabled so that you'd have sort of a collective avenue for redress. Um we're not the first ones to do that. Other jurisdictions have something similar. Um Ontario has a class proceedings act. We have a class proceedings act. But when that legislation was introduced, one of the reasons that the attorney general, the NDP government at the time, it was it was a government sponsored bill, the reason why they that they gave parliament wasn't just what I told you, but also to uh protect people from their own government. That was in the parliamentary debates. Everyone's forgotten about that. That was the NDP government. So, um, we use that tool and that legislation says you have to get certified before you can move on to the next step. So, before you can go to trial, before you can deal with evidence, before you can put people on the stand and ask them questions and give live testimony, you have to get over that procedural hurdle. And the way the legislation is drafted by parliament is it's not supposed to be a difficult uh ownorous step. Um, but we knew that Crown was going to make it ownorous and they did >> to get certified >> to get certified. It was very uh death by a thousand paper cuts. It's usually how they do it. Um and so we got our decision back uh I think it was in o late October of last year and the public was quite insensed with the decision that uh justice career who's our our presiding judge had released. Um there were it was very long. It was 144 pages long. um you don't normally see decisions of that length, but he sat on it for around 2 and 1/2 years. I don't know exact amount of time, but it was a significant amount of time. Um that for some decisions, like the thing is is that there's no requirement that says a judge has to issue a decision within x number of days or months. Um there's some jurisdictions where there is a requirement, not in BC. I don't know of anywhere in Canada. Um and because of that you know this court backlogged with other cases um we had to wait 2 and a half years and we had no control over that >> for certification.

[00:06:51]>> Exactly.

[00:06:52]>> To decide whether you can proceed with the the class action.

[00:06:56]>> Wow. Okay. So then did you did you get it?

[00:06:58]>> We did not. and the reasons that he gave and again they're 144 pages and so I'm not going to be able to synthesize all of them uh but in a nutshell um and there were a bunch of reasons um he felt because Crown had convinced him which is Dr. Henry's lawyers that this case was too big. In fact, he he described it uh as the largest class action in Canadian history. That was his own words. Um and he kept on describing it as large, large, large, large. And I had some time to think about that and I'm not really sure what he means by large. Um you know, maybe I'm just I'm an engineer and so precision of language matters. I thought it mattered in law but it it matters a lot less there because uh large can mean multiple things in um litigation like does that mean the amount of documents that are produced because the court sees like patent cases for you know uh some pharmaceutical company that you released a drug that hurt people and there's millions of pages of documents there's lots of cases like that or litigation with the CRA there's been many instances is where there's been, you know, entire warehouses of documents that potentially would be produced. So, I don't know what he means by that, that shouldn't be a barrier to justice. Um, if he means in terms of like the number of lawyers that are needed, maybe there's something to be said there, but that's there's no rule that says you have to have x number of lawyers in order to go to court. Some people don't have any lawyers at all when they go to court.

[00:08:47]um you know so what does it mean by large and I think what he unconsciously was saying was that he was really talking about the magnitude of the government's interests that were at risk of being displaced >> of course >> that's what I read and that's not a valid reason to to um dismiss an application for certification the test is set out by parliament and it's not a long test there's been many interpretations of that statute over the years, but anyone can read it in like less than 5 minutes. It's not long. Um, but the problem is is that whenever parliament creates laws, there's they don't explain all of it about how they should apply in a given circumstance in the British tradition that's delegated to judges to interpret.

[00:09:38]And that's sometimes where the problems start, right? because judges, they don't like to see themselves as as public policy makers, but for centuries they have been in kind of a uh a less obvious way. That's just how the common law is.

[00:09:54]And um Crown went to great length to try and make the statute, the interpretation that the judge should apply be much more complicated than it really was. And so one of the things that they said was look because there's a you have to be a suitable uh representative plaintiff like that represents this class of millions of people and obviously our stakeholders are happy with our work. Um but I don't think it would have mattered who was the proposed representative.

[00:10:26]That would have been an issue for them.

[00:10:27]And so the the the statute does say they need to be suitable but it doesn't really define what that means. And so Crown took that to say, "Well, they don't have enough money, right? They don't have enough money in order to prosecute this, to bring this all the way to trial, so you should just throw it out."

[00:10:44]>> What?

[00:10:45]>> Yes. And it sounds absurd, but the the obvious danger with that is just forgetting COVID stuff. Um, just imagine there was something else that happened like say there was uh, you know, a defective product recall or you know some cereal that was had arsenic in it and lots of people were dying. The manufacturer could just raise as a defense that look we've killed so many people that this is, you know, the mess is too large that we shouldn't be held accountable and like the plaintiffs they don't have the resources to bring, you know, a large multinational to account.

[00:11:20]>> Our our victims don't have enough money.

[00:11:21]our victims. Yeah. The victims don't have enough money. And so that's a problem, right? Because the one of the reasons why the Class Proceedings Act was created was to facilitate collective access to justice. So there's been this problem that's been going on for centuries where we have elected representatives who make laws, but the laws are they're not complete until a judge interprets them. And then there's a lawyer who also wasn't elected who's explaining how that law should be interpreted. And so they become a lexographer. They they tell the judge what the word reasonable means in this context. So there's always been that vulnerability in the system. It's not perfect. There's some good things about it, some bad things, but the bad things is what they they leveraged in this situation to try and dismiss it. That wasn't the only reason. Um, that was the main central one in my view was just that this is too big.

[00:12:19]>> Hey, it's Kid. Listen, the power of micro doing is undeniable at this point.

[00:12:22]You've listened to podcasts, you've read things about it, but you got to be using the best of the best. Mindful Meds is the gold standard. Website is mindfulmed.io. I have a promo code. You can save 15%. Just use kid cars at checkout. And I take a look at BrainBo and Social Spark, which is a blend I helped create with Mindful Meds. Visit mindfulmed.io.

[00:12:44]There were a lot of my inbox was jammed up and people were calling and and uh uh >> so you you weren't even given the opportunity to go to court and and present your case basically.

[00:12:57]>> Exactly.

[00:12:57]>> Yeah.

[00:12:58]>> But he was evaluating things on their merits. For example, he said that Bonnie Henry is immunized from any liability.

[00:13:07]>> That's not an issue that an application judge should be determining on a certification application. That's something that should be punted down the road to trial. He's just supposed to determine whether we meet the test for certification, not whether we're correct that she's done something wrong. Right.

[00:13:24]So, there was an issue of like advocacy here.

[00:13:27]>> So, they wanted to really nip this in the butt.

[00:13:29]>> Yes.

[00:13:30]>> Is it nip it in the bud? Nip it in the butt. I'm not sure. Whatever. You know, like and the thing is is like >> why did it take two and a half years?

[00:13:38]Because the decision, even if it was a correct decision, it didn't need to be 144 pages. It could have been 30 pages and the decision could have been the same and it could have been released within 3 months. And there there's case law now, especially in England, where u we've all heard that expression, justice delayed is justice denied. But you've now have judges who are confirming that in their decisions that they have a three-month rule in England. anything longer that and they say it undermines public confidence in the judiciary, commercial confidence, the business community, just the public, everyone loses faith in the judiciary because you don't have any certainty of what you can and can't do or what someone ought to be doing in the world if you um don't have access to timely decisions. Someone's got to make a decision, right or wrong.

[00:14:25]But if you sit on it for two and a half years, but I think that was not an accident. I I think um I'm not going to say that the court is corrupt, but I does feel that the decision was the outcome was predetermined early on. And I the reason I think for the 2 and 1/2 years was strategic because we all remember what it was like a couple years ago like it was madness and mayhem in the streets. People were getting arrested. There were riots. There were protests. There were police trampling over people on horses. Uh it was a pretty insane time. Like there were a lot of unhinged people on both sides, right, of the fight. And that was a a concern for me because, you know, that's one of the reasons why we brought this suit is like we're uh u supposed to be a civilized society. If we have a problem, then we have avenues for redress. We don't need to resort to riots. That's what the government tells us at least, right?

[00:15:25]And so this could be a useful pressure release valve is rather than people starting fights or you know trying to do something harmful to uh uh um a public official is is we go to court. Um I think the reason why they took 2 and 1/2 years was not because it required that much reading and thinking. I think it was because the risk of civil unrest at the time that we were in court was significant and I don't think there's anything controversial about that. I think the government's lawyers would agree with everyone knows that it was a time of mass civil unrest and releasing a decision like what Justice Ker released at that time would not have helped. it would have it would have dumped gasoline on the fire and it's well known in the bar that public confidence in the judiciary is not doing well. Uh I was actually just reading a paper on that before I came here. Um it's been going down over the years and so you release a decision like that at you know the climax of public sentiments and it's not going to help. So I think what they thought they could do was wait until everyone kind of forgot about it and public sentiments attenuated and then you kind of mitigate that risk of >> oh everyone's moved on >> everyone's moved on and the economy is racked down everywhere so people can't you know contribute and donate and whatever it is that they need to do cuz you know that that's just life right?

[00:16:55]>> Yeah. I mean the world is even crazier than it was then.

[00:16:58]>> Yes. Exactly. Well, so they so they're like, "Okay, if we if we announce, sorry, no, we're not going to let you go to court uh a few years ago." Yeah.

[00:17:07]People would have just freaked out.

[00:17:08]>> They would have freaked out. Yeah.

[00:17:09]>> So now it's like, "Oh, we release it quietly."

[00:17:12]>> Yes.

[00:17:13]>> And people are I mean, are people paying attention?

[00:17:16]>> Uh some people some people are a lot of people who are very anti-lockdown don't even know about our work. Um we found out recently we had been shadowbanned.

[00:17:28]it it appears on social media.

[00:17:31]>> Doesn't surprise me. Uh but that kind of makes sense cuz I meet people all the time who get really angry when they find out about our work cuz they're like why didn't I know about this? Like how long, you know, looking at your status updates, your website, like I just found the kid Carson interview from, you know, 2020. Why am I just finding this now?

[00:17:50]And I'm just like I I don't run the Silicon Valley tech companies. I don't know how they moderate and and how those algorithms work. I'm a software engineer, but I know that human beings have their fingers over the levers and knobs. So, and I don't know who those people are. They never talk to us. But if you haven't heard of us, it's it may not be an accident because we have an audience around the world, right? In in uh in Germany, in the UK, in Australia, the United States, we have people calling us from from Texas. No surprise.

[00:18:21]Um, so if you're in this country and you haven't heard of us, it's probably not an accident.

[00:18:28]>> Damn. So, this has come out. What's next? I mean, what can you do next?

[00:18:33]>> We have an opportunity to appeal it and you have to start the appeal process within 30 days of that decision. So, that window has already come and gone, but we started that process in time. Um that first step is just you don't really have to do much. You're just basically giving the other side notice that you're going to bring an appeal and you file this form in court and it's not very complicated. But the actual substantive work of analyzing his decision and picking it apart, all the problems that are with it, that goes into what's called your fact or written submissions, whatever it is they call it in the court of appeal. Um but basically it's your argument of of everything that he did wrong and that takes time. that takes a lot of time to uh like a good lawyer on a case like this even even uh like two weeks is is short runway.

[00:19:23]Um our deadline to file that was originally the 30th of last month uh of April. It got punted down the road by a month because both sides needed additional time and there was some uh one of our council had a personal matter to attend to and so that worked out well uh by coincidence that we have uh some additional runway. Um but that's that the 30th of this month which it is for those listening it's right now it's May 2026. What's the date? I think it's the 10th.

[00:19:55]>> Yeah, 9th. Yeah. Mother's Day tomorrow.

[00:19:58]>> Mother's Day tomorrow. Can't forget that.

[00:20:00]>> Um, >> we we've come in the studio late at night on the night.

[00:20:04]>> Exactly.

[00:20:04]>> To record this emergency podcast.

[00:20:07]>> Well, so we have to fund raise. We have to fund raise in order to see this through to the end because um people need to understand that this decision is permanent unless it's altered. That's the way common law jurisdictions work is you have a decision and and there's this idea called stereis.

[00:20:28]It's Latin. It just means that the past decisions are binding on a court. Um like there's some nuance to that but in this case this is a decision that is favorable to the government's interests and they will hop on it and it's already breaking things in the world that uh you wouldn't expect. I I saw recently there was a gentleman who um was being sued by RBC and our decision came up in court.

[00:20:56]It was cited. He uh I think he had borrowed some money from the bank for his business. It was some kind of a loan and uh I'm assuming he it sounds like he defaulted on it and the bank went after him. And he said and I if it hadn't been for the lockdown having all of us living through it, we might have found this to be kind of a spurious argument. He said, "Look, I had a business, but it was in ruins because of these public health orders." And uh the judge cited our decision saying you can't blame Bonnie Henry. She's immunized.

[00:21:31]And so that's what I mean is that that decision it's going to break all kinds of things in the world that it will always come back to haunt people forever. this because this is the kind of decision that the government needs in order to rationalize any absurdity that they do in the future where there's an overreach of executive authority >> and not just for for co but >> it could be anything and it doesn't matter where you sit on on uh in politics um if you're sympathetic with indigenous rights it's it will come back to haunt them if you're sympathetic with people who are more on the right about asserting property rights and things like that it's going to come back to haunt It may eventually even come back to haunt the government itself, right? Like cuz right now the BC government is going after um some pharmaceutical companies that were involved in in the fentanyl crisis, right? If I was council, corporate council for uh those companies, I would be instructing my BC council to you may want to look at that decision cuz they're saying we've created such a mess in the province. And we can argue that the BC government doesn't have the resources in order to see this through like they're broke, right? So this any number, it will break everything for everyone. And if that decision is left to stand, it's going to cause a problem. So this is our last avenue for collective redress. And I I'm saying that not uh metaphorically, but in actuality because there's um a law in Canada called the in BC called the statute of limitations. And it's similar in other just jurisdictions. It's basically a clock that starts ticking as soon as you know or you could have known that you might have a claim that you'd like to bring to the court. and in BC it's two years under the limitations act. Um and once that clock has expired that's it. There's there's been cases there was one years ago there was this um family whose loved one had been killed in a correctional facility. the it was caught on camera and the correctional staff had actually murdered uh this the inmate. And so there was no controversy about who was responsible for it. But they brought their claim just like a few days after the 2-year window had expired. And the judge was very sympathetic and he said, "I have to throw this out." Like I can I can give you what you want, but the other side is going to appeal it and they'll win. So the statute of limitations, it's like the system's broom, right? And this is the last thing that's in the system.

[00:24:08]That's collective redress for everybody.

[00:24:11]So once it's gone, that's it. There's no going back. That decision will be binding forever. So we have to see this through and we have to see it through to the end. Otherwise, we can't complain later. Does that make sense?

[00:24:24]>> Yeah. It's just I'm I'm sweating. I'm just I'm having like PTSD. Hey, it's Kid. Shout out to friend of the show, Nicole Gilmore. One of the Lower Mainland's best real estate agents.

[00:24:33]She's awesome and awake.

[00:24:34]>> As a single person listing a house, it's a little bit intimidating cuz there isn't like the other person on your shoulder to ask questions or advise or collaborate with. So Nicole was super instrumental in helping me focus and on the task that needed to be done. And she kept me moving along. And as um my accountability coach towards listing, I actually did move the process along and it got to a place where we could list and I'm so happy with the results.

[00:25:03]>> Gilmore real estate.ca.

[00:25:06]>> I I didn't mention this, but throughout that time, um Justice Kirar periodically would write us and opposing council as well saying, you know, there's this new decision that's come out from some other court somewhere in the country. uh it might have a bearing on your your application that's before me for certification if you'd like to make submissions on it. You're welcome to do that. And so uh sometimes he would start that process, sometimes we would find a new judgment that was helpful for us.

[00:25:38]Sometimes Crown would bring it to his attention. And this went on like I think there was at least six instances where he asked for for basically more information on how this might be relevant to his analysis and um the polarities cooperated but every time that happened like it would delay things further. So he'd say, you know, I'm going to have my decision I expect within the next month and a half, two months, whatever.

[00:26:04]>> And then just before that time had passed, he'd say, "By the way, you know, I just found this new decision, you know, and then pushes it back another 6 months." And but when we read his decision, there was very little of that postcertification analysis, the feedback that he needed all these other decisions that was actually contemplated in his decision. So that's my my theory that this was a stalling tactic that isn't totally without any grounding. Um but yeah, it was frustrating. It's frustrating cuz everyone was like >> this decision didn't need to be 144 pages and it certainly didn't need to take two and a half years.

[00:26:51]>> Okay. So, like what happens at this point? You've got to raise money.

[00:26:55]>> We have to raise uh it's so originally we thought we needed 70,000. Turns out we don't need transcripts of everything that was said to the judge for this.

[00:27:04]That saves us some money. We need to raise around 50,000. Um it's not a lot.

[00:27:09]I've seen people raise significant amounts for for uh other campaigns that affected far fewer people.

[00:27:15]>> Oh, you've seen GoFundMes for >> And that's where we are. We're on GoFundMe, right?

[00:27:19]>> Okay. Yeah.

[00:27:20]>> Can I put that link in the >> You absolutely can. Yeah, you can you can absolutely put it on there. Um but our problem is is that um a lot of people don't know about us. Some people know about us, but they are lacking confidence in the judiciary. And I I can appreciate that. I can definitely appreciate that. Um, nobody's really saying that we've done a bad job or anything like that. Um, we always take uh um criticism seriously. People have constructive criticism. It's rare. Most people actually really support what we're doing. Um, >> but you're the only people doing this.

[00:27:54]>> It's because class actions are complicated, you know, and I have >> like were there other people also wanting to file a class action?

[00:28:01]Yes, but they don't really understand how to do it because most of the people when they were upset about the lockdown, they were upset about specific grievances that affected them. I I think I may have mentioned this actually last time I was here where, you know, like a buddy of mine, he was upset that he couldn't go into a strip club. You know, another guy was upset he couldn't go to his church. Somebody else was upset that they couldn't go to Canada Can Canadian Tire to pick something up. Somebody else was upset and this one was me. Couldn't see Dune in theaters. You know, everyone had their own grievances, right? And uh I told people, look, if you want a solution for this, you have to put your individual uh grievances aside and think about everybody. That's the only way because there's no one demographic that wasn't affected. You know, everyone was affected. Even if you were rich and you had a private chat, you probably when you landed somewhere still had to submit submit to, you know, uh uh rapid antigen testing or you something like that, right? Everybody. So if everyone is affected, then everyone should bring a class action. That's what this tool is for. but trying to get people um like we're not I would not I would say our followers are are across the political spectrum but there's a large portion on the right and the left tends to think more collectively the right tends to think more about individual issues people things that affect you personally and there's a time and a place for both of those and different issues but for something like this you can't think at an individual level everyone was being screwed over right and it was very hard to get people out of uh that frame of mind where they couldn't stop thinking about themselves. Uh because that people do that in dire times in emergencies. Um that's just how people are. If you're in a car accident, your building is over, you're thinking about yourself. That unfortunately that's just how most people are. So in a situation like this, when people wanted to litigate and there was a lot of people wanted to bring legal challenges, they were doing it in the wrong way. So they were challenging on technicalities and in the rules. uh a lot of people were bringing what was called um judicial reviews and it's a type of procedure and law where you're challenging a government's decision, right? And that's not you you're not supposed to be challenging policy measures normally through judicial review. Um and people basically were challenging things that were downstream rather than the cause. So for example, they didn't like an order that prevented them from public gatherings at places of worship, right? But that that order was predicated on a declaration of an emergency, but they were just so fixated on what happened at their church. It's like, no, no, >> as long as you don't deal with the declaration emergency, the judge is going to say, "Yes, but there was an emergency, so they had to do that, right?" And they'll win. And that's that's what happened. I I told people this, a lot of people didn't listen, but that's what happened in all of those cases is they didn't challenge the underlying declaration of emergency.

[00:31:05]It's like a tree, right? you've got the root and you've got all these different things that are predicated on the base and so you have to challenge the base.

[00:31:13]Um, >> and by the way, just off the top of my head, I'm thinking about that one judge that came out and said that Trudeau did break the law >> by issuing the Emergencies Act.

[00:31:25]>> Yeah. No, >> did that have any effect on anything?

[00:31:27]>> Well, it's good that you raised that. I think that was one of the decisions. Uh, I don't actually. So the the most recent uh um footnote in that that narrative that saga postdates the release of Krar's decision but it's important that you raise that because yes there have been success to those who say there's no hope at all in the judiciary. I would rebuff that by saying actually we have enjoyed successes. There have been successes, intermediate successes, some more technical than substantive. Um, but there's some very important ones like in Alberta for instance, all of the public health orders the chief medical officer issued were struck down as ultravirus.

[00:32:07]Ultravirus means um virus is uh from Latin means no no power. Basically, the law is of no force in effect, right? And all of them were struck down. Not because, you know, there was an issue with the policies themselves that they were farreaching or they weren't supported by science or anything like that, but it was a technical victory because, um, cabinet was issuing those orders or was kind of shephering the chief medical officer, uh, Dena Henshaw into issuing them. And they don't have the legislative parliament hasn't given cabinet the authority to do that. that's what the their chief medical officer is for. And so on that technicality, all of those orders were struck down. That's that's good, but it's not the the >> That was in Alberta.

[00:32:59]>> Yes. So that was in Alberta.

[00:33:00]>> So all the all the mandates that were handed out in Alberta.

[00:33:03]>> Yes. Were all struck down >> were illegal.

[00:33:05]>> Yes. But so people who are getting in for >> and and people can bring claims now for like if their business all those damages that they they they suffered uh they have a claim now and the clock will restart from the date of that decision.

[00:33:20]That's usually how it works. That's when the world has been put on notice, you know, statute of limitations. Oh, it looks like the government broke the law.

[00:33:27]Before that, it was following the law.

[00:33:28]>> So it's great, but it's on a technicality because came from the wrong people. It was on basically I mean >> how could they make that mistake?

[00:33:37]>> It seems silly that >> well the way the government I wasn't there at the hearings but if I read their fact it probably would be fog of war type arguments. Everything was happening so fast. It was all in flux.

[00:33:48]You know we did the best we could. We might have made mistakes. Uh but you know we did what was we thought was necessary based on the best evidence that we have and like obviously we know now that a lot of people in government did know better. Um, >> yeah, it's all it's all bold.

[00:34:03]>> It is. But so that's the thing is basically the orders are on the wrong letter head and so they were all struck down and sometimes like that's often the only way that you will have a victory is by looking for those those uh that technical minutia of uh did the decision maker have full evidential record? did they look at this document and that and so on and so people are trying to challenge substantive public policy through technicalities and the law and that's what judicial reviews do but um at times but that's really not the right tool because you don't get discovery in judicial review discovery is where the other side both sides have to hand over all their documents right judicial review it's much more limited and so I knew that if we're going to do this right there's so many incriminating documents that have come out. We need to see all of them. And plus, my team has constantly been getting an influx of documents from the public and we can't do anything with them until we get into discovery, which happens after certification, of course, action, >> which you were turned down for.

[00:35:07]>> Exactly. Because they don't want the they don't want that.

[00:35:09]>> They know you're going to bring the heat.

[00:35:11]>> Exactly. And that's the thing is that class actions, they require certification and certification has to happen before discovery. That's one of those things where like I was telling you the the legislature when they created this the class proceedings act.

[00:35:23]It doesn't say anything in there about discovery has to get punted down the road. That was something judges created and a lawyer convinced them at some point in time that this is the way you should do it. It's in the interest of justice. It will save court resources.

[00:35:36]It's fair for everybody. Whatever. And um so they use that against us because we obviously we have a lot of incriminating documents. You shouldn't have acted so smart.

[00:35:47]>> Telling you.

[00:35:47]>> But that's that's it's the drawback of doing class action, right? It's like >> you should have walked in there. I'm telling you, just kind of acted like you kind of didn't really know what you're doing and they would have said, "Ah, this will be fun. Let's just bring this guy to trial." And then suddenly you show up and >> Yeah.

[00:35:59]>> smoke them.

[00:36:00]>> I I mean like that's the thing is everyone wants to put her on the stand and ask her these questions, right?

[00:36:05]>> Yeah. And now you don't have the chance unless we prevail in the appeal.

[00:36:09]>> So if you get if if you fund raise enough money >> 50,000 >> 50,000 you can appeal and what are the chances like >> what would you say like and then the appeal in layman's terms I mean listen let's be honest your IQ is a thousand times bigger than mine. I I can't even believe that you know you led this team to this point. It's unbelievable what you you know I don't know how you you're gifted.

[00:36:30]>> It's kind but like I can't I can't predict that. What I'm saying, just explain it to me like I'm dumb.

[00:36:35]>> This is how it works is you have so it's a new judge. In fact, there'll be three of them. There's a panel of them.

[00:36:40]They're all appointed by the government.

[00:36:43]That's just how it works. Um that factor you have working against you. But appellet level courts frequently overturn decisions of lower courts. This happens every day. That's why you have appellet courts and why you have separate judges.

[00:37:00]We've identified definitely mistakes that he made in his decision. So there's there's different there's in order for for a decision to be reviewable uh some some reason why an appellet court has to say there was definitely mistake made is it comes down to one of two things.

[00:37:18]There's either an error of fact or an error of law and errors of law are more significant and we have grounds in both of those. when he makes a mistake that's an error of fact. It it has to still be material. So, it's what's called the overriding. Palpable and overriding is the language in the courts. Palpable means like you concede that there's a mistake, but overriding means that it was actually significant that it determined the outcome, right? And so, uh we've cataloged quite a few and some of them we've disclosed on our status updates on our website, but there's more that we're uncovering. Um, >> you don't want to, you know, show your whole hand.

[00:37:58]>> We don't want to show our whole hand.

[00:37:59]Um, because I, it's not just because we're trying to keep her powder dry, but I could be wrong, right? We may find out doing more reading that actually there was this case law that said, you know, that's not an issue or something like that.

[00:38:12]Um, but there were, yeah, we we've got quite a bit that we can take to the court of appeal. Now, I my prediction is that the the BC Court of Appeal likely will say that mistakes were made.

[00:38:30]Whether or not those mistakes were of sufficient gravity to change the outcome, that I can't know.

[00:38:38]>> That I can't know.

[00:38:39]>> But if you don't go, if you don't file, then we'll never know. And we're locked in with this.

[00:38:43]>> $50,000 is not a lot of money. I've seen people in the lockdown movement, anti-lockdown movement, spend significantly more than that on other things. Um, and you know, like if you distribute that over all of our fans, but that's the problem is that when you're shadowban, people don't even need know that we're doing this. We don't have a big marketing budget, right? Like I'm an engineer. I don't I don't uh I don't manage our social media or anything like that. That's really not what I went to school for. So, um, we're good fighters, you know? We we do the combat I think effectively in court, but when you have an army, you still need to provide it with beans and bullets, otherwise it can't do its job, right?

[00:39:22]Even if they're willing to do the fighting. And so that's kind of where we're at, right?

[00:39:25]>> Yeah. Yeah. Damn. And so you got to raise this by what date?

[00:39:29]>> Very soon. So they are it's I think you said it was the 9th or 10th today.

[00:39:32]>> Yeah. 9th today.

[00:39:33]>> So it's the 9th today. Our Factum is due on the 30th. We need I would say to do it well uh I would like to give our council enough runway at least 2 weeks.

[00:39:43]So that's not a lot of runway.

[00:39:45]>> That's not a lot of We don't have to raise it all of immediately. Now if we can raise it over the coming weeks um that gives our council confidence and she she's been very very uh um reasonable on her her bills. Very reasonable. She's not doing this to get rich. Um this is the kind of work that will prevent you from getting rich.

[00:40:04]>> Oh yeah. any lawyer that would take this on, you're getting a big target on your back, just like you had a target on your back.

[00:40:09]>> I've had a bit of a target on my back in the past and I'll probably get a target on my back for even having you here today.

[00:40:15]>> Thanks for that.

[00:40:16]>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know that it's very rare that you see any any progress or change in history um that where someone wasn't offended. That's just history, right? Because you always have some vested interest that stands to gain by keeping things the way they are. And we're obviously trying to change things and u the government's not happy about that. But we have always been a credible threat to them. We were not, you know, um >> the fact that Bonnie knows your name.

[00:40:46]>> Yeah. I mean, like it was the only one case that she mentioned. I think I I mentioned that maybe it was the last time I was here where it was I think the CBC um uh did an interview with her years ago.

[00:40:57]It was just on Christmas Eve or or or no, I think it was on in around New Year's and they were asking her if she had any New Year's plans and and she said something along the lines of like, you know, she was going to keep the champagne on ice pending the outcome of the class action. And at the time there was, as far as I know, there was only one. So that was that was us.

[00:41:15]>> That must have felt good.

[00:41:16]>> Yeah, it was good.

[00:41:17]>> It was creeping in her dreams at night, making her sweat a little bit, you know?

[00:41:21]I mean, >> someone from, you know, the Department of Justice or um the Attorney General's office, provincial attorney general's office probably had a meeting with her and um >> said, "This guy we might not want to f with."

[00:41:34]>> Well, they they do that anyways, but they hadn't seen anything like this, I think, coming. They knew that there would be lots of legal challenges and I'm sure there's a um a large pile of internal memos we'll never see from um the attorney general's office advising them that you know there could be uh significant number of legal challenges but I don't think that they were thinking that they would see a class action uh challenging the underlying declaration of the emergency itself cuz that most people they just don't think like that for one and two um most lawyers wouldn't have thought to do that either. They would have wanted to do something narrower. But even if they had prevailed in that and one demographic is able to go back to one specific church and one specific municipality, it doesn't really have a huge effect for for all the rest of us or 4 million people.

[00:42:27]>> If you raise the money, let's say you win the appeal, what is the dumb down version of what you want to happen? You go to court, the trial happens, everything gets put on the table.

[00:42:38]>> Yes. everything gets it depends what the decision the court of appeal makes but the court of appeal has the authority to change basically um any any order that justice career has made um like there's I'm kind of simplifying this but in this situation >> yeah simplify it please >> in this situation they can substitute their own discretion if they choose to if the certain test is met and if that happens the they can say they can they have options on the menu. One of them is they can say um we think he made mistakes. We're pointing out those mistakes and we're remitting it back to the application judge. It could be him or potentially a different judge to reconsider our application for for um certification. Or they can just say to hell with it, we're just going to it's in the interest of justice that we just substitute our own decision. right >> and go to trial.

[00:43:40]>> Uh yeah. Well, as soon as you're certified, you know, that that the next step is discovery. They'll still try and fight us and so on, but it would be much harder for them to do that once we have a decision from the court of appeal because the court of appeal >> um there they have the decisions that they render of greater authority than the lower court, the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Um, but if another option is we don't win in the court of appeal. And if that happens, there's still a a potential avenue for redress in Ottawa, we would go to the Supreme Court of Canada. You have to ask permission. You don't have an automatic statutory right to go and appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. You have to ask permission. Um, and there's a test to be met and it's kind of vague, but basically things that are in the national interest and class action challenging the the co measures that affected, you know, millions of people in my view would meet that test. But there's other considerations that uh apply before you can get in through that gate, you know.

[00:44:43]Um, but I think that we do have a chance in the court of appeal and if we can get there, uh, really our problem isn't isn't uh, uh, capability. We have some very good council that can work on that file. Uh, in particular, Larly uh, Pina Forula, she's been amazing to work with.

[00:45:05]Um, the public has been very happy with her work. She's worked in this file uh with professionalism that's been incredibly difficult to do, but she's done an amazing job. And we have other council as well, Omar Shake and others who can assist cuz it an appeal is it's a big job. It's uh you know >> all of this seems like a very big job. A very large job.

[00:45:29]>> It is. It is a large job.

[00:45:31]>> It is. And it's when I was in the military, we used to call it's asymmetric warfare where the one side has all the resources and the other side doesn't. But you can still win. You can still win. That does happen.

[00:45:42]>> What are your thoughts on and I've honestly been tapped out in doing other things, being a dad, you know, focusing on the things in my immediate world.

[00:45:51]Well, trying to keep my finger a little bit on the pulse of what's been going on, obviously. But this new virus that's going around, >> I think this is a hepta virus.

[00:45:58]>> Yeah, he virus. I just started getting like my hearing about it in my algorithm like a couple days ago. Yeah. And I'm like, "Oh, how long's this thing been around for >> and like if they're already setting up something else happening and this trial is still going on >> and they're going to implement some of the same tactics if they even dared. I mean I >> it almost be stupid. I think too many people are awake now. I hope >> well >> for them to do that again. But then then you're already into another virus fight while we haven't even solved >> exactly >> how the last one was handled uh legally or or correctly.

[00:46:30]>> Uh it's just I don't know.

[00:46:31]>> There's been zero accountability.

[00:46:32]>> Thought Yeah. What are your thoughts?

[00:46:33]>> Well, my thoughts are that Bonnie was actually on the CBC. This is very recently. I think it was in the last month or two. I think it was on the morning show on CBC. And >> how'd I miss that?

[00:46:46]>> Yeah, exactly. You know, great way to start your day. The entire country missed that.

[00:46:50]>> Exactly. Yeah. So, she was asked by um the anchor, you know, how do you think the words to the effect of basically how would do you think the world would react to uh if you had to do this again like if there's another virus? And um she her answer I don't remember the exact words that she gave. I listened to it a couple of times just to make sure I heard it correctly. Uh but basically she said that the public would be expected to comply again. So that tells you and then with what you were just talking about uh that they have not foreclosed on repeating all of this and if we do not have closure on this case and like I said this is the last avenue for collective redress then when it does happen again and I'm telling you it will uh we can't complain. We can't complain because we let it happen. And $50,000 distributed over four million people.

[00:47:56]It's not a lot of money, right?

[00:47:58]>> Yeah.

[00:47:59]>> Today's money is constantly losing value. More gets printed. Purchasing power is dropping. And over time, your savings by less and less. You see it at the grocery store. If everything you own is inside the system, you are exposed.

[00:48:12]Banks can restrict access. Lots of videos online of people trying to withdraw $10,000 cash. They're harassed by the banks. It's insane. So, like, what are you doing? Gold and silver gives you a way out. These are real physical assets that exist outside the system. It's just value. They can't be printed. They've stood the test of time.

[00:48:30]They hold purchasing power. Everyone's talking about this. They give you real control. You own it. No permission needed. There are two ways to feel safer that I've used and would endorse and recommend to you. The Sony wallet is a platform let you buy physical metals online. You know, $5 here, $100 there, whatever feels good. It's stored in a military grade vault waiting for when you need it. Of course, you can ship it to your home. You know, 3 days FedEx.

[00:48:53]You can even sell it back and have the cash immediately put back in your bank account if you need it. Millions of people are feeling uneasy about leaving their savings in the bank. Summon wallet is a great solution. Another strategy is you can move your RRSP into gold and silver. Remove the risk of market crashes. maybe even be pleasantly surprised with a sharp rise in the value of silver as so many experts are predicting. So give yourself something most people don't have. Real control, real security, real peace of mind. Find more of how I do this at kidcarson.com/gold.

[00:49:25]All right. Well, >> they make a big deal about, you know, this is a crowdfunded campaign, but so is theirs, right?

[00:49:34]>> Yeah. We're all paying for it.

[00:49:36]>> Exactly. Well, we're paying for the people that we're battling against >> and you don't even know how much they're spending. Um, you can find out roughly how much they raised, but you don't really know where it goes. Like, we're pretty transparent. People can look at our books. You can, anyone can go on the GoFundMe page and see how much we've been raising. Um, and she's been making an issue about that. She, you know, like Bonnie wants us to to reimburse her for her legal costs. I don't think that's going to succeed cuz the the Really?

[00:50:04]>> Yeah. I mean the when parliament drafted the class proceedings act like they said if you don't get certified the presumption is the other side doesn't get costs they don't get reimbured.

[00:50:15]>> So she's using our money like >> Yeah. Well she never paid anything out of pocket.

[00:50:20]>> Yeah. They're using tax money.

[00:50:21]>> Exactly.

[00:50:22]>> Right. For their case.

[00:50:23]>> Exactly.

[00:50:24]>> And then they want us to pay back the money that she took from >> some portion of it. Right. Which they're going to exaggerate into some some massive monolithic figure.

[00:50:34]The problem with that is remember what I said about why we didn't get certified it. One of the core reasons that they gave. So right now she's saying they have deep pockets. Look at their GoFundMe page. They've raised half a million dollars. And it's like that's true, but that's over the span of like 5 years. It's not a lot of money, especially the team's now taking a salary, all the administrative stuff, you know, insurance and phones and hosting, email, all of these things.

[00:50:59]It's not a lot of money. like no nonprofit runs off of, you know, that.

[00:51:04]And so, um, there's a conflict of narratives because we didn't get certified. She was saying we don't have the resources, right? And now she's saying we have deep pockets. So, which one is it? Right? Her council has a duty of cander to the court to not mislead it. So, do we have some secret stash? Because I'd love to know where it is, right? And we put it towards this appeal. But this is the kind of stuff that I have to deal with.

[00:51:31]It's it's just it's when I go in to court and I'm listening to what's going on and I see their arguments like I hear circus music in my mind. It's like it's kind of a dark comedy like a Monty Python skit or Saturday Night Live Matt DV or something like that and they're in costumes or wearing suits and it's just And it's not just some lawyer that's like that's that's supposed to be an advocate for the public interest.

[00:51:55]That that's the attorney general. that's our our lawyer that's there publicly funded supposed to advance the public interest and the things that they would say about um our stakeholders was appalling at times like we had nurses running out of the courtroom during the certification hearing cuz it was like PTSD being traumatized you know like >> you you've been mugged or raped or something horrible has happened to you you're a victim and then your abuser is up there in front of a judge basically telling you that, you know, you deserved it and you did all these things wrong and so they were running out. I saw a lot of it and it was hard. It was hard on me cuz like I'm an engineer and I'm trying to do this. I can't be everyone's therapist at the same time. But that's what was happening, right?

[00:52:44]>> Wow.

[00:52:45]>> Yeah.

[00:52:45]>> Wow. Oh, dude.

[00:52:48]Okay. Well, I know you don't want to be here all night. I know you got plans.

[00:52:51]So, uh um I'll put the link to the GoFundMe.

[00:52:54]>> I appreciate it. get I'll get a couple clips for Instagram so people can share it around. Yeah. So if you are on if you are listening to this uh go to my Instagram page, find uh find one of the clips from this interview. Share it with your groups.

[00:53:07]>> I guess if you're a part of a group, there are a lot of like still like WhatsApp groups and signal groups people, you know, where there's thousands of people in there. Just spread this around.

[00:53:14]>> Y >> and uh yeah, we can't let this not be followed through.

[00:53:18]>> sonnie.ca and then just click on donate and you've got lots of different options. Lots of different options.

[00:53:24]Brother Kip, thank you my man. Thanks for uh thanks for sticking with it because man, it's just exhausting hearing about it. I can't imagine.

[00:53:32]>> We got I don't like to give up. I like to to see things through to the end.

[00:53:36]Even if you fail, just finish what you start. Finish what you start. Let's see where this goes.

[00:53:40]>> No, dude. Thank you for coming in.

[00:53:42]>> Appreciate this.

[00:53:45]When you were talking about