起訴加拿大皇家騎警（續）上
Federal Court of Appeal
BETWEEN:
Xin Wang
Appellant
and
His Majesty The King
Respondent
Notice of Appeal
TO THE RESPONDENT:
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the appellant. The relief claimed by the appellant appears below.
THIS APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court directs otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the
appellant. The appellant requests that this appeal be heard at Regina,SK.
IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any step in the appeal or to be served with any documents in the appeal, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of
appearance in Form 341A prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the appellant’s solicitor or, if the appellant is self-represented, on the appellant, WITHIN 10 DAYS after being served with this notice of appeal.
IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order appealed from, you must serve and file a notice of cross-appeal in Form 341B prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance.
Copies of the Federal Courts Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court and other
necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office.
IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND
WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
(Date)
Issued by: (Registry Officer)
Address of local office:
TO: His Majesty The King
Prairie Regional Office – Saskatoon
Department of Justice Canada
Saskatoon Square
410 – 22nd Street East, Suite 410
Saskatoon SK S7K 5T6
Telephone: 306-518-0800
Fax: 306-975-4030
Email: AGC_PGC_SASKATOON@JUSTICE.GC.CA
Appeal
THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from the order of Roger R. Lafrenière dated October 12,2023 by which
1. The Statement of Claim is struck, without leave to amend.
THE APPELLANT ASKS that the Court grant leave to amend the Statement of Claim.
THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
A, Selectiveness of the Order: Striking down the entire Statement of Claim (the Claims)without addressing the entire Claims, especially the proposed amended Claims.
1,Selectiveness is a telltale sign of having conclusions in mind,then select the elements that suit the conclusions and leave out the elements that say otherwise. Therefore, the whole issue gets distorted into something else.
2,Selectiveness is characteristic of the Order. Selective in picking points and issues to address,in picking facts and evidence, then jump into conclusions about the entire case. The Claims by the plaintiff are about the unlawful actions of 6 specific RCMP members, they could be added as defendants as their information made available and the Rockyview General Hospital as well. The plaintiff has to choose how many defendants he can afford to pursue. The Order distortes the whole issue into being narrowly scandalous about RCMP in general. I will elaborate further about the selectiveness as we go on examine the Order.
3,The Order offers opinions and general principles without any chain of thoughts, how those principles are related to this particular case, leaves others to wonder how they get there.I will
elaborate later on as well.
B, Factual errors
Exaggerated and distorted facts
4, The Order states "Later on at page 7, the Plaintiff alleges that the RCMP is colluding with the government of China in an attempt to “suppress and kill” the Plaintiff." (paragraph 4 of the Order)
5, I mention in the Claims the following entities as Communist International Organization, China
Communist Party and government, a group of secret Communist International members who infiltrate RCMP, 6 RCMP members who acted unlawfully, Rockyview General Hospital. The Order selectively cherry picks RCMP out, then declares the case is narrowly scandalous about RCMP.
6, My allegations are about a group of RCMP members, not RCMP as a whole. This group is
colluding with the China Communist Party. This order fails to distinguish this group from RCMP as a whole. " They are a small group that infiltrates the RCMP, they are not the RCMP itself. Anything related to this group does not apply to the RCMP in general. Most of the officers I encountered acted within the authorities, only 3 events with 6 officers involved acted unlawfully."(Paragraph 11 of the Motion Record). This group does manage to control considerable resources of RCMP but operate outside the police authorities.
7,This distortion of the issue leads to the wrong conclusion that my Claims are scandalous, frivolous and vexatious about the RCMP.
C,Presumed facts and premature judgements
8,The Order states "[13] Finally, the Statement of Claim makes a number of allegations in relation
to the detainment of the Plaintiff in Alberta on or about June 20, 2021. Mental Health legislation, such as The Alberta Mental health Act, RSA 2000, c M-13 dictates that when a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person suffering from a mental disorder may cause harm to themselves or others, or should be examined in the interests of their own safety or the safety of others, the peace officer may apprehend the person and convey them to a facility or secure location for assessment and examination. The Statement of Claim does not plead any material facts to support an allegation of unreasonable tortious conduct by the RCMP members, nor a breach of applicable legislation.(paragraph 13 of The Order).
9,The Order merely reiterate the legislation but does not offer any clue about what reasonable
grounds are in this particular case. Not a single fact mentioned and not a single question answered. Simply Assuming police have reasonable grounds to act are presumed.
10,The Order claims there are no material facts to support allegations of misconduct. From the
facts presented in the Claim, I find the police misconducts as:
a, The Officer acted on false ground that I drove wearing a helmet and swerved dangerously on the Highway, which could be an intentional lie and breach of trust.
b,on unreasonable ground to associate any harm with wearing a helmet.
c, didn't perform any duties of a reasonable officer is supposed to do,to investigate and lay
charges if offenses are committed. If the police account of events were true,the plaintiff should be
charged with careless or dangerous driving. But the plaintiff wasn't charged for any offense. The
bizarre driving allegation could also be the result of alcohol and/or drug use. The officer made no
effort to investigate.
d, the police actions contradicts itself which is a strong indication of lying about what happened. If there was a danger in the driving, there should be a charge for that offense, if there is no danger, what is the ground to handcuff the plaintiff and send him to the hospital for examination?
e, didn't disclose to the plaintiff what he had been accused of, violating the right to know.
f, didn't advise any legal counseling.
11,The Order states that"[6] To make out a case under paragraph 221(1)(c), the moving party must show the pleading is so clearly futile that it has not the slightest chance of success. In Ceminchuk v Canada, [1995] FCJ No 914 [Ceminchuk] at paragraph 10 (QL), Prothonotary John Hargrave described what is meant by a scandalous, vexatious or frivolous pleading:
[10] A scandalous, vexatious or frivolous action may not only be one in which the claimant can
present no rational argument, based upon the evidence or law, in support of the claim, but also may be an action in which the pleadings are so deficient in factual material that the defendant cannot know how to answer, and a court will be unable to regulate the proceedings. It is an action without reasonable cause, which will not lead to a practical result.
[7] That is precisely what the Court is facing here. It is for a plaintiff to provide a statement of
claim containing enough particulars and material facts not only to show a cause of action, but also
both to allow the defendant to plead to the statement of claim and to allow the Court to properly regulate the proceedings. The Statement of Claim provides no factual foundation for what appears to be unconnected allegations, leaving both the Defendant and the Court to speculate as to the circumstances that are alleged to ground a claim against the members of the RCMP. This would prove to be an unmanageable proceeding both from the point of view of the Defendant to be able to plead intelligently to as it fails to define the issues or give fair notice of the case to be met, and from the point of view of the Court as it would be practicably impossible to oversee or control."
12, Again these are general assertions with no link to this particular case. It does not offer any example of what claim by the plaintiff is vexatious and unable to be pleaded by the defendant. How hard is it to tell what reasonable grounds the officer had in mind when taking those actions? What were the probable causes for the actions? This is a pretty standard question that any officer should be to answer. Unless, of course, they didn't have any reasonable grounds to justify their actions.
13,The Order keeps complaining that there are not enough material facts about anything the
plaintiff put forward, but decline to name a single fact or any type of details or evidence listed in the
Claim in chronical order from fact 1-fact 12 except once for claiming statute barred for Fact 4-Fact 8 and declaring no misconduct of the officers found in the unlawful mental hospital detention without giving any details or offering any clue how the findings are reached. Selectively leave out more facts out of the conversation. As Exhibit 4 the Memorandum of Facts and Laws, T-1451-23, offers more facts and evidence and illustrates that the plaintiff doesn't have much security staying at home, let alone getting to the public domain.
"Part I Facts
1,The applicant was detained in the mental health department of the Rockyview Hospital,AB from June 20,2021 till July 14,2021. The situation was similar to prison confinement except for that the applicant was not criminally charged for any offense.
2,The applicant was wrongfully detained due to the police officer misconduct and gross admission procedure violations by the hospital. The applicant has no mental issues that require involuntary confinement and treatment. Therefore the applicant was not responsible in any way for the confinement.
3,The police officer's misconduct is manifested in the fact that he didn't perform the duty of a police officer by charging me for what he believed I did, instead he assumed the role of a psychiatrist and judge, sending me to hospital for assessment. Even assuming the eractical driving allegations were true, it could have been the result of drug and/or alcohol consumption, the police officer made no effort to investigate and rule out those or any other possibilities. In fact, the office didn't perform any duties a police officers are supposed to do, to investigate and lay charges if offenses are committed.
4, There is no reasonable connection between what has been observed and any harm presented or perceived. What makes them believe it was a mental issue?
5, Not informing me of any legal rights and what I had been accused of. How could I defend myself without even knowing what I had been accused of?
6, I received no legal counseling despite my numerous requests.
7, The wrongful confinement is also obvious that there is no diagnosis or treatment suggested before issuing certificates for detention and permission to treat without my consent, no such information before the Mental Health Review Panel hearing. Only during the hearing,Dr. Sargent suggested I was suffering from delusional disorder, which is not a known mental health disease. Dr. Sargent also told me he didn't think I was harmful during our clinical session conversation before the hearing.
8,I didn't receive any treatment except for one pill of lowest dosage per day. I only started taking the pill 7 days later, during that first week of confinement, I was doing fine without any treatment.
9,despite there was no diagnosis and any symptom that called for any treatment, the hospital still issued a certificate requesting treatment without my consent.
10, The hospital admitted during the hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel, AB, that it didn't find anything abnormal about me, only delusional about China Communist Party, but still insisted on detaining me and permission to treatment without my consent.
11, I didn't take the pill, I spitted out. That proved that the treatment is absolutely not necessary.
12, abnormalities and conflict of interest
I am a political dissident from China while Dr Fung, a Chinese origin, who issued two certificates for detention and treatment without my consent, never had a clinical session with me and our conversation lasted less than 10 sentences, he also claimed seeing me yelling at police officers despite the hospital testimonials admitted there's no abnormal behavior of mine. He also claimed that I had eractical community behavior in his long report about me, since we never discussed anything but a few words of greeting exchange, how did he know about my community situations?
13, Cherry Picking what I said to use as evidence
I said I crossed the yellow line a few inches to avoid animals and potholes, there was no oncoming traffic and it was safe to do so. The doctor only quoted me as saying "I crossed the yellow line". That is it. One line report of five words by another doctor was good enough to detain me and request for permission to treatment without my consent.
14, Abnormal treatment at the hospital
I was denied access to dental care and cardiac examination despite heavy teeth bleeding and hypertension.
15, Abnormalities with the hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel,AB
I didn't have access to resources to research my case and the hearing was scheduled at short notice of 4 days with my medical records partially released to me just two days before the hearing date. I didn't have any access to submit my written representation to the Panel before and after the hearing.
16,I had only 15-20 minutes to present my case, given so many issues from police misconduct to admission procedure violations, I could barely cover one topic in whole.
17,Despite my numerous requests for the hearing records to appeal the Panel decision at the Queen's Bench of Alberta, the hospital never release the document to me.
18,The Panel didn't give any reason or explanation for the decision.
19,The applicant is the victim of a series of police and governmental authorities misconducts.
20, The applicant is the victim of crimes carried out by a group that acted unlawfully.
Part II The points of the issues
21, whether the applicant has been in a situation that is similar to jail and is not responsible for that.
Part III Submissions
22,The detention at the Hospital is similar to jail and the applicant was not responsible for the detention.
23,The applicant has been targeted to be murdered by a group and they have accomplices within the governmental authorities.
24,The police accomplices of the group are planning to act unlawfully to imprison the applicant to have him killed in prison.
25, The series of police misconducts, the hospital treatment and 24/7 attacks by the group, make the applicant insecure and unsafe to leave home,let alone go to work, the situation is similar to being put under house arrest. It has been like that ever since then."( Paragraph 1-25 of the Memorandum of Facts and Laws, T-1451-23).
D, Denial of facts and reality
14,The preceding is still in the early stage, not in the examination for discovery, asking for details
and evidence is premature. Details not present now doesn't mean that they don't exist and cannot be discovered later on.
15,The Order denies that “under constant 24/7 ultrasound radiation attacks, there are sonic
cannons installed around my house, the attackers chase me everywhere I go or stay, using all kinds of vehicles, choppers and airplanes, launching ultrasound bullets towards me.” The Order labels it as "These are bizarre allegations that are not founded on any material facts, let alone reality." (paragraph4 of the Order).
16,As for the existence of sonic weapons, please Google the following words: ultrasound cannon, harmful level of ultrasound radiation, sonic weapons. Wikimedia is a good source of information as well.
17, As an engineer working on weapon systems before, I would like to offer some facts about ultrasound. It penetrate solid objects like steel and concrete, therefore ultrasound cannons can shoot from within closed spaces like any housing structures and vehicle cargo trailers, avoiding being noticed from outside, that is why I call it the "perfect stealth murder weapon." (paragraph 1 of the Motion Record). Ultrasound can rupture tissues causing bleeding, lethal if vital organs get hit. It also interrupts nerve functions causing seizures and stroke, it leaves no trace behind because the bullets are made of highly compressed air , disappearing into thin air after hitting targets. It generates loud sounds if the launch wattage is high like regular cannons, but pretty much silent at lower level. That's why I always get someone playing loud music or making noises in his vehicle around me to cover up the sound of ultrasound cannons.
18,Some ocean freight liners use ultrasound cannon to expel pirates from hijacking their ships.
19, I have ultrasound radiation levels around me and my home monitored 24/7 with cell phone and tablet apps and documented those attacks events, again I offered but no one wants to look at this evidence. These are scientific evidence I included in this Appeal. See Exhibit 1 abnormal ultrasound event log recorded by cell phone and tablet using ultrasound detection apps. Anyone can download the app and monitor the ultrasound radiation levels and compare them with mine.
20,What are the odds that I get these abnormal at harmful level ultrasound radiation when lived in
New Brunswick and now ten thousands kilometers away in Saskatchewan? Basically the abnormal ultrasound radiation follows me everywhere I go or stay. As a trucker I am all over the map including in The US, my ultrasound radiation monitoring devices set off alarms constantly.
Denied fact
21,The Order denies the fact of the existence of the attackers who are doing everything to harm me, asserting that is result of paranoid ,"Plaintiff’s claim falls somewhere between incoherence,
conjecture, and paranoid thinking and delusions.(paragraph 4 of the Order).
22,Being attacked is my whole life everyday now. Let me give some examples. My phone can't get started at home, I have to unplug the antenna and SIM card to turn my phone on at home, otherwise it will keep getting shut down. I have to drive to sit under the cell towers to be able to start my phone with antenna on and SIM card in it and get the phone connected to services. Even that is no guarantee. When I tried to upload my application record for judicial review T-1451-23, I got constantly cut out and dropped off. I had to drive 200 km to Swift Current to use TD bank wifi to upload the files into the federal court electronic filing system. I believe they were trying to make me miss the deadline to file the record. After I finished uploading the files, my tire got slashed, I lost count of how many times my tire has been damaged and windshield got smashed, my brakes got tampered. I got one truck driving aggressively toward me and chasing me in the wheat field dirt roads while downloading this Order under the cell tower. A few minutes ago, a pickup truck drove into my yard beating horns and yelling,then ran away. Similar scenarios repeat on daily basis.
23,I documented some of the attacks with videos and uploaded to my YouTube channel
https://m.youtube.com/@tiandaotan. Again I offered to show the doctors and police officers those videos but no one is interested in watching them.
Confused fact
24,Paragraph of the Order "[5] The Plaintiff claims that since 2018, he has been a victim of RCMP misconduct,harassment and neglect. Oddly enough, the Plaintiff claims on the one hand that the RCMP have ceaselessly harassed the Plaintiff while on the other hand they have failed to act or neglected him."
25,My complaint about RCMP actions are those ones taken against me, my complaint about
RCMP in-action are about no serious investigation about criminal activities towards me. The Order confuses both as the same.
E, Selective approach
26,Assuming statute-barred for Fact 4-Fact 8 without addressing my reasons for extension.
Selectively leave those facts that are not statute-barred.
27, Selectively pick the disputables and ignore the indispensables. Using the disputables to strike the indisputables is flawed reasoning.
F, Illogical and incoherent reasoning
28, The Order states that " I find that the Plaintiff’s claim remains at its core vexatious and
discloses no reasonable cause of action. By way of example, the Plaintiff alleges that China has
influenced the RCMP to “deliver poison with poison laced devices like to blow a alcohol tester with poison laced nuzzles (sic).” This is emblematic of the Plaintiff’s continued intention to raise outrageous and baseless conspiracy allegations. The proposed amendments do not alleviate confusion nor do they address the plethora the Defendant with respect to the pleading in its entirety."( Paragraph 8 of the Order).
29,The Order selectively picks one out of two my explanations for motives to strike my Claims. In this particular scenario,I offer two possible motives,one is the poison laced nuzzle, the other is
defamation making me look like a would- be DUI offender. The Order conveniently leaves the other one out ,then jumps into the conclusion that the whole Claim is just a conspiracy allegation.
30,All those actions with no probable cause including two unlawful searches, one unlawful
arrest,one unlawful detention and seizure of property, two alcohol sobriety tests get reduced to my delusional conspiracy with one example of my explanation for motives?
31,The Claims should be disputed by facts, not by explanations for motives.
32,As I made it clear in the Motion Record ``18,Most importantly I am just offering some possible explanation to why some acted unlawfully, my claims are not based on the explanations, my claims are based on the actions taken and the tortious consequences of the unlawful actions. Whether my explanation for the motive is true or not does not affect the tortious nature of those actions. The explanations help to consider all those incidents as a series of connected actions." (paragraph 18). Those explanations are for better understanding of motives, my claims are not based on those explanations for motives.My claims are based on the actions taken and the tortious consequences of those actions. Disputing the explanations for motives doesn't undermine the integrity of the Claims.
33,Bearing in mind that we are dealing with state sponsored sophisticated spy works,if it can
happen,it will happen, they have vast resources to make that happen.
G, Damage claims
34,The Order complains that"[9] Moreover, in his amended prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requests $3,500,000 in damages for loss of income, violation of his Charter rights, “health damages” and punitive damages, as well as an “order to investigate the attacks by police and agents on behalf of the China Communist Party”. There are no material facts pleaded that would support a claim for such substantial damages. This Court also has no authority to order that an investigation be conducted." (Paragraph 9)
35,The damages are identified in the Order as:
a,Loss of income and opportunities
b,Harassment claim has been dropped in the amended Claims, but still being used as evidence of deficiency.
c, Health damage
36,The Order selectively leaves out damages like defamation, lost and damaged teeth, reasonable enjoyment of life, financial loss and costs.
37,Let me offer some perspectives about damages. I am a trucker making $50000-60000 per year. Assuming 10 years lost wages, that is $500,000-600,000 pure wage loss. What about medical and dental plans? What about pensions? I went to a decent trucking school and have a decent safety record and working experience, I can easily land a job with benefits under normal circumstances. Now I have to work for companies that don't even want to pay wages, let alone benefits and pensions. How much it will cost me to restore the dental damages without insurance, now I don't have one tooth that is not damaged in one way or another and is bleeding heavily everyday. What's the price for your pleasure? What is the price tag for stress of living in pervasive fear for years and years? What kind of loss is living in a house arrest torturing conditions?
38,The most damaging loss is defamation, ruining my life by ruining my driving safety records.
39,As the Order suggests"Plaintiff appears to acknowledge in his pleading that many of his
interactions with the RCMP arose because they received calls from someone claiming to care about the Plaintiff."(paragraph 5 of The Order)
40,If someone unknown offered such intense care as calling police about my parking by a wheat field dirt road with zero traffic, what do you think they will do when they got pictures of me sitting in a commercial vehicle cabin blowing cop's alcohol testers? My employer at Monarch Transport Inc. once told me he had been fighting for me every day during my brief employment of one and a half months. He received complaints every day about me. Someone also cared about me wearing a helmet while working around my truck and took a picture and sent it to my boss. My employer got exhausted handling the complaints and eventually I got fired. Who are those guys who offered such free harmful intense stalking care about me? What are the odds that I got innocent people complaining about me wearing a helmet everywhere I go? Even the police went to such lengths as sending me to a mental hospital for wearing a helmet. Because it gives me good protection and they want to get rid of it. My boss offered to give me a helmet after seeing pictures of me wearing a homemade helmet. But what I need is an ultrasound proof helmet.
41,I am a trucker staying in remote locations with no one nearby. How did they know what I did and complaining to my boss? Who are those all-present intense malicious care givers?
42,That's how the defamation was done. Ruining my driving safety reputation by making look-likes. They can't get a real DUI case because I don't do. Making me do a sobriety test and then taking pictures and sending to my employer or potential employers I apply. What would come to your mind if you got those pictures as a potential employer? The police must have gotten some things about this guy like a beer bottle in the cabin,or smell alcohol,or something wrong with this guy to ask him to do sobriety test, that is what police normally do, they will not assume the police would bang my door asking for sobriety test while I was off duty sleeping. But that is exactly what happened to me.The police simply did it out of blue. I don't get to explain myself as it was all done on my back. My boss at Monarch Transport called me the next day asking what happened. Apparently some intense care giver made the calls to my employer, possibly sending some pictures as well. Now I got some serious explanation to do. I was still in the probation period of employment. I could get fired right on the spot. You know how hard it is to make people believe you are innocent when the police are doing some things to you? When it comes to DUI offenses with commercial transportation companies, the company safety rating and insurance premium and audit are all at stake if something happens. What if some intense care giver also told you that this guy is crazy doing funny things like wearing a helmet, swerving on the road and getting detained in a mental hospital? If I apply for another job and the company checks references back to the last employment and being told I got fired for being made to do sobriety tests. I am done. They don't bother to find out if I was innocent or not. New recruits must also pass insurance company screening,if one insurance company got those intense care calls and the pictures of me blowing cop's sobriety devices on multiple occasions and heard the crazy story in mental hospital, I am out of the industry, the insurance company will tell the company to stay away from this guy, not worth the risks.
43,This kind of malicious care can be traced back to 2013 when I was running a restaurant in
Windsor,ON. I noticed that there was always someone chasing the customers who just left my
restaurant and talking to them. Later on I had to shut down the restaurant due to lack of customers. Spreading rumors to isolate me,the target, is a standard spy operation.
44,I am sure this kind of intense harmful all-present care is the result of 24/7 stalking surveillance on me. It must have happened much earlier than I realized.
45,I also took pictures of drones hanging around my house all the time and chasing me every
where I go. These are military grade drones that work at high altitude and long hours.
H, Uncertainty on cause of action
46,The Order contradicts itself by saying there's no cause of action, later on complaining that there are not enough material facts to support the cause of action.
47,The Order's stance on the cause of action drifting between no cause of action and no material facts to support the cause of action. Even though the Claims are not struck down on no cause of action, this kind of uncertainty undermines the integrity of the Order.
48,The amended claim clearly states the causes of action and offers a list of facts. Stating there is no cause of action and material facts is a plain denial of obvious facts.
I, Using points in the original Claims, which are dropped in the amended Claims like harassment,
to strike down the amended Claims.
49,I admit that pleading harassment and racial discrimination is a mistake. That's not what the
whole thing is about. I have to dodge attacks constantly and don't have the luxury to sit down
organizing my thoughts. Some steps are not carefully defined. My take on the situation evolves too. The Order offers some analysis on this issue in a different approach. We wish similar works on other issues as well. The selective approach on different issues undermines the integrity of the Order too. Having said that, it still doesn't belong to unamendables and as a matter of fact, the harassment pleading has been dropped in the proposed amended Claims.
50,The Order is stuck in the past of the original Claims and paid very little attention to The proposed sample of amended Claims. The focus examination should be on the sample amended Claims to find out if it meets the requirements. Beating a dead horse hard doesn't make a lot of sense.
J, Lack of material facts
51,To support the decision to strike down the Claims without leave to amend, we need material
facts about the Claims or examples of defects in the Claims that can not be fixed in any way possible.The Order points out some mistakes or shortcomings, those defects are repairable, like the relief amounts, injunction order request, harassment allegation, explanations for motives, they can be amended or simply dropped. None of them fall into unrepairables. The evidence supports "to amend" but does not support"without leave to amend".
52,The Order offers lectures in principles about unrepairable,but offers no material facts as what
defects in the Claim are unrepairables. The Order complains about no material facts in the Claim but
does not point out what facts listed in the Claim don't qualify as material facts.
K, Selectively not to apply rules
53,The Order rules that"[3] On a motion to strike a pleading on the grounds that it does not
disclose a reasonable cause of action, those allegations that are capable of being proved must betaken as true: Hunt v Carey Canada Inc, 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 959. This rule does not apply."
54,Most of the Claims are based on facts that can be proved in Court, like what is probable cause for the actions? What are the reasonable grounds? Why not telling the plaintiff what he has been accused of? What harm is perceived? Pretty standard in cases involving police actions.
55,Declaring this rule not applying without any material facts seems detached from this case, baseless and not acceptable.
56,This appeal is also based on the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1 Abnormal ultrasound radiation log
Exhibit 2 (also Exhibit 4 for case T-1451-23) Written Representation 1 at detention and treatment hearing.
Exhibit 3(also Exhibit 5 for case T-1451-23) Written Representation 2 at detention and treatment hearing before the Mental Health Review Panel.
Exhibit 4 Memorandum of facts and laws T-1451-23
October 22, 2023
The Appellant: Xin Wang
307 1st Ave W
Climax, SK S0N0N0
3065102499
Email: benkingfirst@gmail.com
由 天道壇 發佈 @ 10月 30, 2023
0 則留言
