Action4Canada (A4C) will be back in Court soon, but for an entirely different reason. It seems that a drag performer didn’t like what the group was saying about him. The Plaintiff, Tyson Cook, filed a defamation lawsuit in Kelowna on December 19th. It listed the organization, 3 named Defendants, and 1 unidentified Defendant.
In addition to seeking damages, it’s clear that an Injunction will be sought to take the postings down, and to prevent future ones from going up.
Unlike the train wreck the group filed in August 2021, this suit is short, to the point, and well written. It spells out exactly what has been said and done.
To be clear, this isn’t a defence of drag performances in general. However, people REALLY need to be careful about what they publish on the topic, since it can result in lawsuits.
According to the Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, the content published by Action4Canada goes far, far beyond criticizing Cook for being a performer. The postings quoted are still available online.
It makes accusations that he:
- is a pedophile
- sexualizes children
- exploits and abuses minors
- is a sexual deviant
- indoctrinates children
- is connected to a rise in child pornography and sexual abuse
- performs sexually explicit content in the presence of children
- promotes self-harm, murder, and cannibalism to children, and/or
- is an inappropriate role model for children
The content is still up on the Action4Canada website today.
In one such publication from last year, A4C posts his photo along with allegations of specific sexual offences.
20… The following sections provide the categories of offences tending to sexually exploit and corrupt the morals of minors, and/or make available or promote, sexually explicit material or activities: Section 151, 152, 153 (1), 163.1, 171.1(5), 172.1(1), 173 (2), 174 (1), 175(1) (see attachment). These are indictable offences liable to imprisonment.
Although the sections of the Criminal Code of Canada are listed, the actual offences are not specified in the Claim. Here they all are.
- s.151: Sexual interference
- s.152: Invitation to sexual touching
- s.153(1): Sexual exploitation
- s.163(1): Child pornography
- s.171.1(5): Making sexually explicit material available to child
- s.172.1: Luring a child
- s.173: Indecent acts
- s.174: Nudity
- s.175: Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
It’s rather baffling that A4C would post such content, which explicitly accuses him of child sex crimes, but not expect a lawsuit in response. One has to wonder if A4C genuinely believed this to be the case, why not call the police?
What About Bringing An Application To Strike?
Rule 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia does allow for Applications to Strike if a NOCC hasn’t been pleaded properly. That is, of course, what happened with A4C’s previous 391 page suit.
That’s not the case here though. The entire NOCC is just 17 pages, including the covers. It clearly spells out the expression which is being sued upon, who made it, and when. It’s explained why Cook finds it defamatory. Whether or not it can be proven at Trial is another question, but it won’t be struck.
What About An Anti-SLAPP Application?
For reference, B.C. does have the PPPA, or the Protection of Public Participation Act of 2019. It’s based heavily on the Ontario model, and it written in an almost identical manner.
Note: This isn’t legal advice, just commentary.
(1) The Defendant must convince the Judge the expression is of public interest. If this is done, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to do 3 things:
(2a) Convince the Judge that the case has substantial merit.
(2b) Convince the Judge that there’s no likely defence.
(2c) Convince the Judge that the public interest in allowing the case to proceed to greater than the public interest in protecting the expression.
It may be a very hard sell for A4C to persuade that these kind of accusations are of public interest. But even if they do, it’s far from over. The case clearly has substantial merit (2a) — he’s called a pedo, among other things — and a Judge will very likely prefer that Cook get his day in Court (2c). The only possible defence here would be one of truth, if it can be established.
[1] Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. v. Webster. This Ontario case involved comments about “groomers”, which was found to not be public interest speech, among other flaws. That Judge rejected “fair comment” as a defence, dismissed an anti-SLAPP Motion and allowed the case to proceed.
That case also had EGALE Canada acting as an Intervenor. It’s not too farfetched to think that they’ll also try to get involved with Cook and A4C.
[2] Teneycke v McVety, is an Ontario case which saw the anti-SLAPP Motion dismissed. It made allegations that pharma lobbying and a connection to Doug Ford were the reasons the Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Theological Studies didn’t receive Provincial certification. The school was against vaccine mandates. While Kory Teneycke is indeed a lobbyist with Rubicon Strategies, and has political ties to Ford, cause and effect couldn’t be established.
[3] Dong v. Global News is another case that survived an anti-SLAPP Motion in Ontario. Some CSIS sources had believed that M.P. Han Dong had betrayed the “2 Michaels” who were held by China. However, Global News published this as if it were an established fact. The defences of truth and responsible communication failed.
A4C may face the same hurdles with establishing truth or responsible publication. All 3 of the above cases saw their Motions dismissed, at substantial costs to the Defendants.
Another problem here is that not everything can be classified as expression.
18. On or about January 20, 2023, the Defendants, Action4Canada and/or Person A, created an online petition entitled “STOP Taxpayer Funded Drag Queen Sexualization of Children” (the “Petition”), and posted the Petition on the website CitizenGo. The Petition remains available online for individuals to sign virtually.
19. Please sign and share this petition and demand that the City of Kelowna STOP using taxpayers’ money to fund Drag Queen Story Hours, and further demand that the School District reassess Mr. Cook’s suitability as an EA”.
One other factor that goes against A4C relying on anti-SLAPP laws is that this wasn’t just about expression or speech. They created a petition, and essentially tried to get him fired from his job.
Would This Lawsuit Be Covered By Insurance?
44. On or about April 25, June 18, and December 4, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the Defendants, advising them that the Defamatory Publications were false and defamatory. The cease and desist letters demanded that the Defendants remove the Defamatory Publications from the internet and refrain from posting further defamatory statements.
According to the NOCC, Cook’s lawyers sent several cease and desist letters demanding that the content in question be removed. A4C does have insurance, which is not surprising. However, it would be interesting to know if these letters were ever forwarded. For the purpose of mitigating risk, they should have been.
(a) If these letters were never forwarded, an insurance company may very well refuse to cover a lawsuit, and leave A4C to fend for themselves.
(b) If these letters were indeed forwarded, it’s inevitable that an insurer would have insisted the content be removed. After all, their business involves minimizing risk. If that was ignored, then again, the insurer would likely refuse to cover the expenses involved in defending the case.
So, A4C is in trouble again. If the group had any sense, they would take down the postings — voluntarily — and work to settle the case quickly. It’s not disputed at all that Cook does drag shows, but the other allegations may be very difficult to prove.
Action4Canada needs to hire a competent lawyer.
(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01#rule9-5
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-118604
(4) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7050/2023onsc7050.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1710/2023onsc1710.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3532/2024onsc3532.html
I think of Tanya Gaw and A4C as toothless chihuahuas and that they are a liablity to the so called “freedom movement” here in Canada. I am critical of Tanya and A4C in my blog posts.
I know nothing about this matter other than what you have posted here and what I have read in the Cook’s notice of civil claim (NCC). To be clear, I find it morally repugnant/depraved for drag queens to confuse/indoctrinate/traumatize defenseless and vulnerable children. As such, I find it to be a glaring ommission on your part Ronnie that you do not address the merits of A4C’s claims/statements against Cook. For example, the NCC states:
“Who is this drag man in question? Tyson Cook, AKA Miss Freida Whales. It was not difficult to come up with the following information. His extra-curricular activities are shocking to say the least. Tyson created videos depicting murders that also include cannibalism and a Satanic-like ritual. His social media posts consist ofsexually vulgar and profane language. View evidence Here”
Cannibalism and satanic like rituals???? And you have nothing to say about this Ronnie???
Your entire post reads as an emotionless review of “legalise” that is absent of any sense of morals and values. You only interest/focus appears to be A4C and not whether there are any merits to its serious claims against Cook. Your website content demonstrates you are a capable investigator/researcher. And yet here, in this case, you have chosen to provide only a superficial/cursory review. For me, the signficance of your blog post here is not what you have written but what you have not written and chosen to ignore.
Until February 2019, the Criminal Code of Canada had a provision against false news.
The UN orchestrated the legalizing of lying and deceit in government and media by repealing Section 181 of the Criminal Code of Canada in 2019, just before the release of the lies and misinformation needed to lockdown and vaccinate everyone was unleashed.
The repealed section use to read:
Spreading false news
181 Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that
causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 177.
I’m not a lawyer, thank goodness, but in my view, it would seem that it was not illegal for them to write what they did about the plaintiff after 2019, even if it was false. After all, it was in the public interest, and rather than cause injury, may have saved many children and parents heartache.