Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff returnable at General Sitting in Toronto on 29-MAY-2018 to begin at 09:30 duration: 2h language: E for an Order granting leave that the expert affidavit of J. Marvin Herndon Ph.D. for part of the Respondent's Motion Record dated 8-DEC-2017 and other forms of relief; filed on 14-MAY-2018
Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff returnable at General Sitting in Toronto on 29-MAY-2018 to begin at 09:30 duration: 2h language: E for an Order granting leave that the expert affidavit of J. Marvin Herndon Ph.D. for part of the Respondent's Motion Record dated 8-DEC-2017 and other forms of relief; filed on 14-MAY-2018
Reasons for Order and Order dated 31-JUL-2018 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 52 Result: dismissed Filed on 31-JUL-2018 copies sent to parties and Case Management Judge Interlocutory Decision Certificate of Order entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1379 page(s) 336 - 336
Reasons for Order and Order dated 31-JUL-2018 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 52 Result: dismissed Filed on 31-JUL-2018 copies sent to parties and Case Management Judge Interlocutory Decision Certificate of Order entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1379 page(s) 336 - 336
Knowing of Herndon's history of retracted studies and flawed data it is not a surprise, it would be interesting to know the Judge's reasoning with the dismissal of the request to have Herndon's 'expert affidavit' admitted. Would the reasoning be available to the public via the "Interlocutory Decision Certificate of Order entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1379 page(s) 336 - 336"?
Would the reasoning be available to the public via the "Interlocutory Decision Certificate of Order entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1379 page(s) 336 - 336"?
It looks like only final decisions are available on-line. The one linked below (assuming link works) was an initial decision dismissing the case back in December 2016, but with the opportunity for the plaintiff to amend his claims (which he did, and thus the case is still going).
I would allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to attempt to salvage his pleading by amending it within 40 days of the date of this Order, the Christmas Recess within the meaning of rule 2 of the Rules, being included in the computation of that delay. In so doing, I would caution the Plaintiff, as did the Federal Court of Appeal in Simon, that any further pleading will have to be compliant with all of the Rules governing pleadings and that non-compliance with those Rules could expose the pleading to the risk of being struck out again.
Reasons for Order and Order dated 31-JUL-2018 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 52 Result: dismissed Filed on 31-JUL-2018 copies sent to parties and Case Management Judge Interlocutory Decision Certificate of Order entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1379 page(s) 336 - 336
Copy of Notice of Appeal (Appeal Court File No. A-249-18 ) appealing the Order of Ahmed J. dated 31-JUL-2016 (DOC. 62) filed in the Court of Appeal on 08-AUG-2018 on behalf of Plaintiff placed on file on 17-AUG-2018
Copy of Notice of Appeal (Appeal Court File No. A-249-18 ) appealing the Order of Ahmed J. dated 31-JUL-2016 (DOC. 62) filed in the Court of Appeal on 08-AUG-2018 on behalf of Plaintiff placed on file on 17-AUG-2018
Can anyone figure out what is going on with this? I tried following it but I don't speak legalese and just went round in circles and disappeared up my own litigation
Its up to each judge to decide how many times the plaintiff gets to amend their claim. If the Judge says that specific things in the claim have to be amended or changed in order for the proceedings to continue, and the claimant/plaintiff does so to the judge's satisfaction, then its on to the next thing and so on. If, on the other hand, the Judge decides that its going to be a waste of time and money (primarily the plaintiff's) then they'll put a kibosh on the whole thing.
Right now, this case looks like its back in the "pleading" Phase.. where you're literally "pleading your case" to the judge. Its all paperwork, filings etc, which is why it tends to drag out.
The case doesnt really start until you get into the "discovery" or "pretrial" phase, which is where the vast majority of the money that gets spent comes into play. This is where all the evidence is examined, claims are researched, depositions and interrogations take place etc. As for the number of appeals, its generally one appeal per court. So if you start at the bottom and there are 7 "superior" courts above the court that provided the ruling, -generally- speaking you can appeal 7 more times depending on the judge and whether or not they find grounds for an appeal.
Its a really convoluted system. It looks and sounds easy on paper, but in practice its an absolute quagmire.
Essentially Herndon's claims (a) should have been filed earlier, (b) don't relate to Canada and (c) don't contain any evidence or proof. Herndon's expertise is also called into question:
The Plaintiff’s request for leave quite obviously fails at the first stage of the inquiry. As noted above, one requirement is that an expert be properly qualified, which plainly has not been done in the case at bar.
[...]
If this Court is to accept scientific opinion evidence expressed in such unqualified terms – which effectively draws conclusions about the chemical makeup of contrails based on a simple review of photographs – it ought to be convinced that the expert providing that opinion fully understands his or her obligations to the Court.
And costs of the motion have been awarded to the defendant.
the issue of relevance raised by the learned motions Judge, based on his observation that Dr. Herndon did not “appear” to perform any testing in Canada, is not entirely accurate. Dr. Herndon, in rendering his view that (i) the release of the aerial discharges into the troposphere captured in those 600 digital photographs comprising Exhibit B to the affidavit of Dan Pelletier constitutes an act of deliberate particulate air pollution, and (ii) that the aerial discharges captured in those photographs are of the ‘same form and type of poisonous geoengineering trails …documented, analyzed, and evaluated in the scientific literature authored or coauthored by him’ was based on Dr. Herndon’s systematic and methodical review of the over 600 digital photographs of aerial discharge released or in the process of being released in Canadian airspace.
We respectfully submit therefore that Dr. Herndon’s views assessing discharges released into Canadian airspace, also meets the threshold of relevance.
An interesting strategy, claiming that looking at photos of contrails counts as "testing".
The appeal document also seems to confirm that the cost of Herndon's publishing fees is being picked up by Environmental Voices California, a chemtrail-peddling site that tries to dress itself up as a legitimate environmental activism group. The founder of that site is Deborah J. Whitman, whose Facebook page is full of chemtrail and antivax stuff.
If that is an argument, then they might want to consider the paper by Shearer, et al, "Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program" https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011
Wherein photos of contrails that were supposedly "chemtrails" were shown to 49 contrail experts, who unanimously identified them as contrails.
The appeal document also seems to confirm that the cost of Herndon's publishing fees is being picked up by Environmental Voices California, a chemtrail-peddling site that tries to dress itself up as a legitimate environmental activism group. The founder of that site is Deborah J. Whitman, whose Facebook page is full of chemtrail and antivax stuff.
Is there any sort of financial disclosure information regarding their (Environmental Voices California) revenue and expenses? They seem to have a nonprofit status.
Is there any sort of financial disclosure information regarding their (Environmental Voices California) revenue and expenses? They seem to have a nonprofit status.
If I am reading this correctly then I think the case has finally come to an end as of November 2020.
73
2020-11-03
Ottawa
Reasons for Judgment and Judgment dated 02-NOV-2020 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 16 Result: "THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that: 1. The motion to strike the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim is granted without leave to amend; and 2. Costs are awarded to the Defendant in the amount of $3,500.00." Filed on 03-NOV-2020 copies sent to parties Final Decision Certificate of Judgment entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1469 page(s) 125 - 126
