The Ontario Superior Court struck (threw out) a case against the Law Society of Ontario because it was so poorly written. Both the original and amended versions were struck.
In fairness, Justice Dow has permitted another rewrite, just as Justice Ross had done with the Action4Canada disaster.
What makes this Claim even more absurd was the fact that it was predicated on the actions of non-parties. Specifically, various people had made complaints to the LSO, which regulates the legal profession. To clarify, the LSO itself was sued, because other people made complaints. And it wasn’t just sued once.
The Claim also made contradictory allegations. It stated that the Law Society was “negligent” and “failed to carefully read” the complaints in question. It also accused the LSO of acting in malice, in bad faith, and with intent to harm. Either the LSO could have been negligent, or it could have acted with malice. It cannot simultaneously be both.
Moreover, Section 9 of the Law Society Act immunizes the LSO against legal action for actions taken in “good faith”. Claims for negligence are also barred.
Liability of benchers, officers and employees
9. No action or other proceedings for damages shall be instituted against the Treasurer or any bencher, official of the Society or person appointed in Convocation for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or in the intended exercise of any power under this Act, a regulation, a by-law or a rule of practice and procedure, or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of any such duty or power.
It’s baffling why anyone would plead negligence or sloppiness in such a Claim, knowing that it would lead to it being either struck or dismissed.
The July 2022 version was amended in October, but it didn’t fix the problems.
As for the Claim’s substance, 8 out of the 9 LSO complaints in question were dismissed. The one remaining came from Donna Toews, a former donor to both Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada. She contacted the LSO to inquire about what had happened with the money she gave.
If the following content sounds familiar, it should. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” filed three (3) related lawsuits designed to bury the Toews complaint once and for all. Here’s the background reading on the CSASPP case and verdict.
(1) June 28, 2022: Galati v. Toews, Warner, Gandhi and CSASPP
Court File No: CV-22-00683322-0000
(2) July 12, 2022: Galati v. Law Society of Ontario (LSO) et al.
Court File No: CV-22-00683933-0000
(3) July 31, 2023: Galati v. Law Society of Ontario (LSO) et al.
Court File No: CV-23-00703697-0000
3 separate lawsuits were filed to ensure that the Law Society of Ontario would never investigate the Toews complaint. Why? An obvious explanation is the possible consequences. The LSO is the regulator, and it has the power to force open a lawyer’s books. In theory, all of these cases — not just VCC and A4C — could have been audited, leading to all kinds of problems down the road.
(1) has been dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. An Appeal is said to already be in the works, though it will go nowhere.
(2) has now been struck in its entirety. As of the time of writing, no amended Statement of Claim has been filed, and one may not be coming.
(3) hasn’t been in Court yet, and the lawyers were likely waiting to see the outcome of (2) before deciding how to proceed.
Of course, one could argue that suing this site in September 2021 was also designed to shut down discussion over the status and financing of the anti-lockdown cases. The glaring flaws in those actions were described almost perfectly, including the various portions of Civil Procedure.
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved
Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.
The Rules of Civil Procedure are pretty clear, and fairly basic. In order to file a lawsuit, the facts (details) must be outlined in an organized manner. Moreover “giving particulars” refers to the requirement to spell out in detail the allegations.
It’s not enough to make bare accusations. The who, what, where, when, why and how must also be laid out. Defendants can’t be left guessing about what they have to respond to. In cases where Charter or Constitutional breaches are alleged, this applies even more so.
Instead, the Statement of Claim simply states the tests for (most) of the torts, but without pleading facts or giving adequate information about how this would apply. The LSO lawyers at the hearing referred to this as a “factual vacuum”, meaning there’s no information to rebut. They’re not wrong.
It boggles the mind that a “top constitutional lawyer” with decades of experience can’t draft a Claim or Charter challenge in a coherent manner. Clients really aren’t getting their money’s worth. However, saying this publicly can lead to a defamation lawsuit.
[21] First, conspiracy, arose from the defendants having “jumped on a co-conspirator bandwagon” (at paragraph 61 of the Statement of Claim). With the parties in the related action, this occurred by accepting the complaints without conducting appropriate research or investigation in a fair and reasonable manner. As submitted by the defendant, such conduct, assuming it to be true, would amount to negligence. This does not meet the test for bad faith or exclude the immunity provided by Section 9 of the Law Society Act, supra. Something beyond that is required.
[22] Regarding the claim of abuse of process, the claim against these defendants is it “magnified and augmented” conduct by the complainants “by putting the plaintiff through the process of a response” (at paragraph 65 of the Statement of Claim). I cannot find that the actual complaint fulfilled the third element of the four elements of this cause of action (see Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2010 ONCA 872 (at paragraph 27). That is, the Law Society “took or made a definite act or threat in furtherance of the improper purpose”. The Law Society received a complaint, advised Mr. Galati and, in six of the nine incidents, confirmed the Law Society would not be taking any action. In two of the remaining three, it advised Mr. Galati, upon receiving his response, no further action was being taken. The final complaint has been set aside pending the outcome of litigation.
[23] Regarding the interference with economic interests, I accept the Supreme Court of Canada statement of the elements requiring an intentional infliction of economic injury by the use of unlawful means against a third party (see A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 at paragraph 23). That is, Mr. Galati suffered economic injury by the Law Society’s use of unlawful means by the defendants in the related action. Further, “unlawful means” are to be interpreted narrowly and must constitute an actionable civil wrong. That is, an actionable wrong was committed by the Law Society against the parties to the related action. Such conduct is not described in paragraphs 67 or 68 of the Statement of Claim.
[24] Regarding a breach of fiduciary duty, what is required is “an undertaking by the fiduciary, express or implied, to act in accordance with the duty of loyalty reposed on him or her” (see Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24 at paragraph 30). The cause of action arises when the alleged fiduciary, here the Law Society, forsakes the interest of the beneficiary, here Mr. Galati, in favour of others. Here, the Law Society is the regulator of Mr. Galati’s profession and owes a duty to protect the public interest. Paragraph 69 of the Statement of Claim fails to plead how that became subordinate to any fiduciary duty owed by the defendants to Mr. Galati.
[25] Regarding negligence or negligent investigation, judicial interpretation of Section 9 of the Law Society Act, supra would appear to be a full defence (see Robson v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONSC 5579 at paragraphs 40-41, affirmed 2017 ONCA 468). The pleading requires allegations that somehow remove that barrier, as what is contained in paragraph 70 of the Statement of Claim, is insufficient.
[26] Regarding intimidation, the three elements of this tort require material facts to support how informing Mr. Galati that he did not need to respond to the complaints fulfilled these elements. Paragraphs 71 to 73 of the Statement of Claim required greater particulars that set out the specific basis for not advising him of its receipt of complaints that it has concluded were so without merit that his response was not required.
[27] Regarding the Charter challenges under Sections 7 and 15, material facts are required about how or what specifically was the conduct by the defendants that resulted in deprivation of Mr. Galati’s Section 7 rights and further, that same occurred in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
[28] Similarly, it is insufficient to rely on Section 15 of the Charter by identifying one’s ethnic origin or religion. Mr. Galati must connect how these characteristics resulted in discrimination and how he did not receive the “equal benefit of the law without discrimination”.
[29] Finally, Mr. Galati’s pleading (at paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Statement of Claim) challenging Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act, supra, must address how not requiring or applying the Section 49.3 power somehow gives standing to challenge the constitutionality of that section. Further, to proceed as required, the required notice of constitutional question to the Attorney General of Ontario must be delivered.
It’s also pretty funny that at paragraph 30, Justice Dow urges that the Plaintiff “reflect on the wisdom” of filing a further amended version. He knows the suit is baseless, and tactfully suggests reconsideration.
January 2021: CSASPP emails Dan Dicks in order to promote their proposed suit, and to pitch it as a better investment than Action4Canada.
June 2021: CSASPP puts the section up on their FAQ, supposedly to quell constant inquiries about who they are connected to, and what there role is in other cases.
January 15, 2022: the original Toews LSO complaint is put forward to the LSO, although it appears that it wasn’t immediately accepted.
May 19, 2022: The LSO finally forwards the Toews complaint and demands a response.
June 28, 2022: The $1.1 million dollar suit is filed against CSASPP and its people
June 29, 2022: A letter is sent to the LSO, informing them that Donna Toews has been sued, and that the Court will effectively be deciding the issue.
July 12, 2022: The Law Society itself is sued, and the Toews complaint makes up large part of it. One can assume this was done to further thwart any investigation into the complaint. The suit demands $500,000 in damages, and is very poorly written.
July 13, 2022: There’s an appearance on a livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada, bragging about the CSASPP and LSO suits which have just been filed. It’s plausible to view this as a publicity stunt. Supposedly, neither CSASPP nor the LSO had actually been served by this point.
October 9, 2022: An amended Statement of Claim is filed against the LSO, despite the fact the the Motion to Strike had already been initiated. This isn’t permitted.
October 12, 2022: CSASPP and the LSO appear in Court on the same day to set down dates to throw out their respective cases. CSASPP’s Motion is based on s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP). The LSO Motion is based on Rule 21 of Civil Procedure (failing to state a cause of action). Both are to be heard the next Autumn.
The next several months is a document exchange of the papers needed to carry out the both the anti-SLAPP Motion and LSO Motions. Both are attached below.
July 28, 2023: CSASPP files their Factum, or written arguments. This is a Friday, and it’s interesting to see what happens the following Monday.
July 31, 2023: The Law Society is sued for a second time, and it’s largely a rehash of the first one. Another $500,000 is sought. It’s possible this was done to “keep open” litigation against the LSO, assuming the first case is thrown out.
September 12, 2023: CSASPP’s Motion to dismiss is heard, with the ruling under reserve.
September 21, 2023: LSO’s Motion to strike is heard, the ruling under reserve.
October 11, 2023: The Claim against the LSO is struck in its entirety for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, and for inadequate pleading. However, Justice Dow does allow the pleading to be rewritten, for what is presumably the last time.
December 11, 2023: The suit against CSASPP is dismissed as a SLAPP. The Court finds that the suit was brought for the improper purposes of stifling debate, and to intimidate people from filing LSO complaints. In essence, it’s a finding of professional misconduct.
A question that has been asked is whether there is some outside source financing the CSASPP and LSO lawsuits. Consider the following: at least 3 clients have submitted evidence in support of the defamation suit. Presumably, they don’t want the money to stop coming in.
Tanya Gaw of Action4Canada
Ted Kuntz of Vaccine Choice Canada
Sandra Sable of Take Action Canada
The Action4Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada and Take Action Canada cases have been critiqued at length already. They are all horribly pleaded, and none of them will ever get to Trial.
But these “activists” don’t demand accountability from their counsel. Instead, they are quite willing to aid and abet with frivolous defamation lawsuits. These are SLAPPs, designed to silence dissent and discussion on the public interest litigation they fundraise for.
In the case of Donna Toews and her LSO complaint, the objective is clearly to ensure that no investigation ever takes place. Lawyers have been disbarred for such acts before.
Are Gaw, Kuntz and Sable merely offering support (Affidavits) to go after CSASPP? Or have they provided financial backing as well? Are they going to cover the costs when these cases are thrown out?
It’s worth noting that all 3 published news about the suit against this site in 2021. Gaw and Kuntz swore Affidavits against an anti-SLAPP Motion as well. This appears to go past simply being clients.
The anti-lockdown lawsuits are a multi-million dollar industry. This is why so many are eager to silence dissent. No one wants to see the money dry up.
Will there be another attempt at suing the LSO? We’ll have to see.
CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) CanLII Posting Of Decision
1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum
2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim
… or worse yet, in some cases, precedent setting that empowers and emboldens the opposite side…
Controlled demolition! Great job in keeping the story and facts simple. Mr. Galati and his friends should read your articles before trying another Claim.
I’ve notice over the years that those behind these ‘claims’ move from category to category. First it was about the Bank of Canada, then refugees/immigrants and citizenship, then when that peetered out, it became about anti-lockdowns, then ‘freedom’ issues, and now ‘silencing’ those who need to be heard.
Very meritorious and well-written claims filed by self-represented litigants are thrown out by the thousands for no reason, because lawyers can defame the self-rep litigant as ‘vexatious and litigious’ without a single ounce of proof. Lawyers on the other hand, as we can see, can file for these same provable reasons and they are still heard and the claims dignified.