Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP Members can join our first individual “Intentional” Mass Tort Lawsuit.

Being that the Canadian Constitution is in itself deceptive, it needs to reflect the PEOPLE as the true power of the Crown. Therefore, all Canadians and Indigenous Nations must immediately command their collective sovereign and veto rights beyond the executive, fraudulently neglected from insertion in the Canada Constitution 1867-1982.

Canadian Peoples’ Union NFP Members can join our first individual “Intentional” Mass Tort Lawsuit. This lawsuit will require those wanting to physically participate in the lawsuit is to be well educated in regards to the legal aspects we are individually undertaking. Each claimant/ litigant will have to speak and defend their own case. This is why we can bring the Canadian citizens and Indigenous Nations together but still individually presenting their case in this mass tort.


Our aim is to file the suit ASAP so that we can protect through injunction or seizure, our provincial and national assets before a global economic collapse.


The prima facie “Intentional Tort” is for 10 million dollars for each Litigant/Claimant plus, an additional 10 million dollars in damages payable to each Canadian and Indigenous person in Canada. Are we crazy? Absolutely not, this is serious and needs to be handled in the same manner.



Intentional mass torts are not the same as class actions. Class actions need to be represented by legal council. Given the facts surrounding the rule of law and procedures, certain strategic moves are required especially since most law firms are refusing to take on our case under the excuses of conflict of interest or that they are too busy at this time.

This meant that in order to launch our CPU mandate efforts to place the power into the hands of the Canadian people and Indigenous Nations, we need to first launch individual intentional tort proceedings. This I will undertake myself as a self-represented individual on a personal level basis.

Our members who feel they can also do a great job in representing themselves within their provinces and at the national level are welcomed to join in the mass tort. Those who feel they are not well enough prepared and educated with the laws and our rights, can simply assist by helping us with legal costs. We also need people to help with fundraising and to help us let everyone know what we are doing and to ask everyone to keep esigning their Citizen’s Convention of Consent forms.

Esigning the legal document between all other Canadians who esign will help change from, representative democracy system of Governance to a direct democracy system of governance.  Doing so, will help to place the Canadian people  and the Indigenous Nations in our rightful position within the governance of Canada as the co-owners, shareholders of governance and our assets. This also needs to be done by the Indigenous Nations so that we can both stop globalization and becoming world citizens while losing our rights to our resources and national rights.

Our national rights are being diminished the further the world Government advances through corporate governance of all that we have through the public-private partnerships (P3’s – PPP) and privatization.

HOW CAN YOU HELP?  You can help by participating, pledging or donating here:

Please read the information below and follow the links to help yourself get acquainted with the different procedures and terms.

Time for real justice!

ACCORD Between The Chief Justice of Canada And The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada


This is an important document everyone should read and download for reference:

Time to learn!

Tort, negligence and nuisance claims—overview


Key considerations when pursuing or defending tort claim will include focus on the specific requirements for establishing a successful claim, the nature of the remedies that may be available, the defences that might apply and specific issues arising in relation to liability.

While every case will be fact-specific, a body of case law has evolved, with some statute, which will help practitioners to consider where in the spectrum their case might fall and what matters might need to be considered.

The content below considers tort claims generally, including negligence claims, bailment and nuisance claims (both private and public). For specific guidance on professional negligence claims, see: Professional negligence claims—overview.

What are claims in tort?

The two key and mutually supporting functions of tort law are:

  1. to compensate people when their rights are infringed and
  2. in providing a mechanism for redress, to thereby define and uphold those rights

The courts strive to strike a balance between promoting corrective justice and remedying wrongs and not contributing to the creation of an overly litigious society that believes there must be a remedy for every misfortune. In attempting to achieve this, judges consider the balance of risk and responsibility at both an individual and a social level.

For further guidance on the evolution of tort claims and the types of interest that tort law seeks to protect, see Practice Note: What is a tort?.

For a brief outline to the torts of trespass to land, trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment) and trespass to goods, privacy/defamation, liability for animals, product liability, employers’ liability and vicarious liability, see Practice Note: Tort—the different types of tort.

There is a distinction between tort claims and contract claims, although there are occasions (such as professional negligence claims) where a claimant may be able to pursue a claim in tort and/or contract in the alternative. For specific guidance on professional negligence claims, see: Professional negligence claims—overview.

Whatever the tort (with the exception of trespass to land and defamation where a claimant does not need to prove loss), to establish tortious liability, the claimant must satisfy the court of three points:

  1. that the defendant had a legal duty to act in a particular fashion
  2. that the defendant’s conduct was in breach of that duty
  3. that the claimant suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach

A defendant in a tort action who is found to be liable cannot be fined or put in prison; if the defendant is required to pay money to the claimant, it is to compensate for the claimant’s injury or loss.

The tort of negligence

The most common form of tort law is that of negligence. For liability in negligence to be founded, four key ingredients must be present:

  1. duty of care
  2. breach of that duty
  3. damage (which is caused by the breach)
  4. foreseeability of such damage

The various elements of each of the tests overlap and their separation can be artificial upon close analysis in certain circumstances. However, considering each of the items in turn is an essential guide to testing whether an actionable claim in negligence has arisen.

For negligence to be established, the defendant must owe the claimant a duty to take reasonable care not to inflict damage on them. The crux of the tort is the careless infliction of harm and so intentionally inflicted harm will never give rise to a claim in negligence.

This raises two questions:

  1. what constitutes carelessness?
  2. when is liability not imposed even though the defendant was careless?

The courts use the concept of ‘duty of care’ to answer both questions. The concept has three parts (Rich v Bishop Rock, The Nicholas H, per Lord Steyn):

  1. foreseeability
  2. ‘proximity’
  3. liability should be ‘fair, just and reasonable’

Having established that a duty of care exists, it is then necessary to consider whether or not there has been a breach of that duty. This will depend on a number of factors (such as the probability of harm, seriousness of the harm should it occur, utility of the defendant’s activity and the cost of precautions) considered against the general background of reasonableness objectively considered.

For general guidance on these key ingredients, see Practice Note: Key elements to establish a claim in negligence.

For more detailed guidance on each of the different requirements, see Practice Notes:

  1. Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?
  2. Negligence—when is the duty of care breached?

For specific guidance on when a breach of statutory duty can give rise to a claim in negligence, see Practice Note: Negligence—breach of statutory duty.

Although many of the principles governing general negligence claims also cover negligence by professionals in the exercise of their profession, there are a number of specific considerations too. For guidance on professional negligence claims, see subtopic: Professional negligence claims—overview, including Practice Note: Standard of care in professional negligence claims.



Tort claims arising out of bailment

Bailments arise in a wide range of circumstances. Usually, bailment arises out of contract or in circumstances where the relationship of the parties is governed by contract. This means that, usually, the bailment and liability of the parties to the bailment will be governed by the express and implied terms of the relevant contract.

However,  bailment can generate rights and liabilities distinct from those arising in contract and claims in relation to bailed goods frequently arise in circumstances where it is (or could be) said that the bailee has been negligent in relation to the care of the goods. Moreover, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 defines ‘wrongful interference with goods’ as including ‘negligence so far as it results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods’. Typically, a bailee’s cause of action will be in tort where the bailed goods are returned to the bailor in a damaged condition.

For further guidance (from the both the commercial and tortious context), see Practice Note: Bailment.

Establishing causation in tort claims

Causation is a key element in pursuing a successful claim in tort and can often prove to be the most difficult aspect to establish.

There are two elements to establishing causation in respect of tort claims, with the claimant required to demonstrate that:

  1. the defendant’s breach, in fact, resulted in the damage (harm) complained of (factual causation), and
  2. this damage (harm) should, as a matter of law, be recoverable from the defendant (legal causation)

The claimant has the burden of establishing each of the above two factors.

Establishing factual causation requires the claimant to produce evidence that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s breach resulted in the damage complained of. The starting point for a claimant in most cases is to prove in the affirmative that the claimant would have been unlikely to suffer loss ‘but for’ the defendant’s breach of duty.

Where a claimant establishes that they have, as a matter of fact, suffered loss as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty, the courts are unwilling to provide a full indemnity to the claimant for the losses suffered (save in cases of fraud). Rather, the court, in considering legal causation, examines:

  1. first, whether the tort is the effective cause of the eventual loss or whether there have been other, intervening, factors (effective cause)
  2. second, how far removed the damage suffered is from the contemplation of the defendant (remoteness of damage)

For further guidance on the applicable principles of both factual and legal causation in tort law, see Practice Notes:

  1. Tort claims—causation as a matter of fact
  2. Tort claims—causation in law

Note: only strict liability torts are exempt from this rule (eg trespass to the person).

For specific issues arising in relation to causation in professional negligence claims, see Practice Note: Causation and remoteness in professional negligence claims.

Damages in tort claims

To successfully claim damages in tort, the claimant will need to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that:

  1. the defendant’s conduct did, in fact, cause them the damage, loss or injury of which they complain
  2. they have suffered loss, and
  3. the damage is not in law too remote a consequence of the defendant’s wrongdoing

This involves concepts of causation and foreseeability. Oftentimes, the so-called ‘but for’ test will apply, ie ‘but for’ the defendant’s act or omission, the claimant would not have suffered damage.

The claimant will also (in most cases) need to demonstrate that they have suffered actual loss before they can recover damages, and this leads to the question of whether or not the damage in question was reasonably foreseeable. In essence, the test of foreseeability is satisfied if the risk of damage was foreseeable by a reasonable person, even when the risk was small, unless the risk was so small that the reasonable person could justifiably disregard it.

There are a variety of different damages that can be sought depending on the nature of the loss and other, specific circumstances. General damages are to compensate the claimant for the non-monetary aspects of the specific harm suffered; whereas special damages compensate the claimant for quantifiable monetary losses suffered as a result of the defendant’s act or omission.

Less commonly, the court may award exemplary (or punitive) damages and certain claims carry with them remedy in the form of aggravated damages.

Restitutionary damages apply where the court seeks to strip back the gain obtained by the defendant at the claimant’s expense.

The quantum of damages awarded can be reduced in certain circumstances, eg where the claimant has failed to mitigate its loss or where the claimants are themselves partly at fault (contributory negligence).

For further guidance on seeking damages in tort claims, see Practice Note: Damages in tort claims—recovery and assessment and for when damages for loss of a chance may be recoverable, with reference to the test in Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons and its further consideration in Wellesley v Withers and Wright v Lewis Silkin, see Practice Note: Loss of chance damages.

For specific guidance on seeking damages in misrepresentation claims, see the Practice Note: Damages as a remedy for misrepresentation.

Multiple tortfeasors and contribution

Where more than one party is potentially liable for any tortious damage caused, then the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CL(C)A 1978) may apply.

There are different categories of tortfeasor (party responsible):

  1. joint tortfeasors: the parties are responsible for the same damage through the same tortious act
  2. several tortfeasors: the parties are responsible for causing the same damage through different tortious acts
  3. several tortfeasors: the parties are responsible for causing different damage through different tortious acts

There are differences as a result as to how a claim should be pleaded and how you might settle a claim against a number of tortfeasors, depending on whether their liability is joint or several.

Under CL(C)A 1978, s 1, a defendant can seek a contribution from their co-tortfeasor for any remedy imposed on them. When and to what extent such a contribution can be sought is governed by the provisions of CL(C)A 1978.

For more detailed guidance on joint and several liability in tort, see Practice Note: Joint, several, and joint and several liability (which considers these issues on liability from both the tortious and contractual perspective) and on seeking a contribution, see Practice Note: Multiple tortfeasors—liability issues and contribution claims.

For the practicalities of how to bring a claim for a contribution, see Practice Note: Making an additional claim under CPR 20—contribution and indemnity claims.

Defences to tort claims

Most tort claims are defended on the basis that any of the following apply:

  1. the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty
  2. there was no breach of duty
  3. there was a break in the chain of causation such that, even if there had been a duty owed, which was breached, that breach was not causative of the claimant’s loss

Often, these defences are run in the alternative.

However, in addition to these more general defences, a defendant may sometimes (alternatively or in addition) be able to avail themselves of a defence or a basis for reducing damages claimed, based on:

  1. limitation
  2. consent (volenti non fit injuria)
  3. some form of exclusion of liability (subject, as appropriate, to principles of fairness under the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977)
  4. the claimant’s own wrong doing (ex turpi causa)
  5. necessity and self-defence
  6. contributory negligence

For more details on these concepts, see the Practice Notes:

  1. Defences to Tort claims
  2. Limitation—tort claims
  3. Limitation—Defamation
  4. Limitation—professional negligence claims
  5. Limitation—Latent damage
  6. Excluding and limiting liability for misrepresentations

Equitable remedies in tort claims

The two forms of equitable remedy most commonly sought in tort claims are either an injunction or equitable damages.

An injunction may be granted in relation to all forms of tortious conduct, where it is feared a tort will be committed, or one has been committed and loss is on-going. The court can direct a party to:

  1. refrain from doing something (a prohibitory injunction), or
  2. do something (a mandatory injunction)

Such injunctions are discretionary and can be obtained on an interim basis where appropriate.

A court may grant damages where an injunction could have been granted but it elected not to. The jurisdiction is exercised sparingly.

For further guidance on seeking equitable remedies in tort claims, see the Practice Note: Seeking equitable remedies in tort claims.

Read more info: