Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-367: Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

A Private Member’s Bill is getting renewed expression for the potential impact it may have. Bill C-367 would remove “belief based on a religious text” as a defence to certain criminal charges.

The text of the Bill would remove both sections 319(3)‍(b) and 319(3.‍1)‍(b) from the Criminal Code of Canada. Those provisions provide legal defences to people charged with the willful promotion of antisemitism, if it’s done in the context of religious expression. Truth is still allowed, for now.

Of course, the vagueness of these hate speech laws is already an issue. Nothing is properly defined, which makes it very subjective. But remove a potential justification? That’s worth a closer look.

Defences
.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)
.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

This came from Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

Blanchet is also on a large number of international associations in Parliament. This is rather strange, considering his stated goal of breaking up Canada. These people larp as if Quebec were an independent country, and it’s taken seriously.

  • (CAAF) Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association
  • (CACN) Canada-China Legislative Association
  • (CADE) Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAEU) Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
  • (CAFR) Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association
  • (CAIE) Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAIL) Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAIT) Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group
  • (CAJP) Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
  • (CANA) Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
  • (CAPF) Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
  • (CCOM) Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
  • (CEUS) Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
  • (CPAM) Canadian Section of ParlAmericas
  • (RUUK) Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association
  • (SECO) Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
  • (UIPU) Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Considering Blanchet’s position, it’s not really that surprising who paid him a visit recently.

October 20th, 2023, Blanchet gets lobbied by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. November 28th, he introduces Bill C-367 in Parliament. That’s less than 6 weeks later.

Quebec is largely a Catholic province — although immigration is replacing that — so it’s really odd that Blanchet would introduce this Bill. His own constituents could be impacted by this, depending on how it’s interpreted and enforced.

Interestingly, even those who cover the Bill omit the CIJA angle. The Christian Heritage Party, CHP, has commented on Bill C-367 being introduced in late 2023, but no mention of the lobbying behind the scenes. Lifesite ignores it as well. So does at least one pastor.

CIJA is very prolific in Canadian politics.

Their profile lists the following:

  • Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream
  • A civil remedy based in human rights law, included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, with respect to combating hate speech, including antisemitism. Training for provincial attorneys general, prosecutors, and police to enforce Criminal Code hate speech provisions. Training and parameters should cite the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
  • Civil remedy included in the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to combating antisemitism.
  • Equip police departments to counter hate crimes and support targeted communities by providing additional resources to bolster existing police hate crime and community liaison units. Where such units do not exist, funding should be provided to establish them.
  • Update the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to combating antisemitism and online hate. Create a national strategy to tackle online hate and radicalization using the 2019 Justice Committee report, “Taking Action to End Online Hate”, as a foundation. A strategy should draw upon the Christchurch Call, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
  • Hate speech and internet-based hate: For Canada to adopt policies – either/and through legislation or policies adjustments that will provide measurable standards for internet-based dissemination of hate speech, including explicit provisions within the Crimical Code and/or the Human Rights Act.

There are, of course, many other areas CIJA advocates for, such as ending the blood ban for gays. However, a large portion of the focus seems to be around speech and expression.

Don’t expect so-called “Conservatives” to come to the aid of principled free speech. They quite enthusiastically introduced Bill C-250, to jail people for questioning the official version of WWII.

Bill C-250 became moot when the equivalent provisions passed, slipped into Bill C-19, a budget Bill. Nonetheless, there was no pushback or resistance from the political right in Canada. And this highlights the hypocrisy they engage in.

Conservatives were outraged — or at least they pretended to be — over M-103, which was Iqra Khalid’s Motion to “study Islamophobia”. They railed that it was a waste of money, and an attack on free speech. And it was. That being said, they’re supportive of other attempts to imprison Canadians for having incorrect views on history.

News of Bill C-250 was announced on the CPC website, but has since been taken down. However, it has been archived and saved.

This new Bill aims to remove a protection that had previously been embedded in the last one. Incrementalism seems to be the way in politics.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://twitter.com/CHPCanada/status/1760773690902401300/
(7) https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/proposed-canadian-law-could-see-christians-jailed-for-quoting-the-bible/
(8) https://twitter.com/aylmerpastor/status/1760787350496395632
(9) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(10) https://archive.ph/fCnNn
(11) MP Waugh introduces legislation to prohibit Holocaust denial – Conservative Party of Canada
(12) Wayback Machine On Bill C-250

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(N) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(O) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(P) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Court Of Appeal Confirms Dismissal Under Anti-SLAPP Laws Of Gill Defamation Suit

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has thrown out an Appeal from by 2 Ontario doctors. This was to challenge the result of a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit originally filed against 23 individuals and organizations. Although this was primarily over Twitter comments related to the “pandemic”, some old remarks involving the Ontario Medical Association were included.

The Court also denied permission to appeal the cost award of the initial lawsuit. In Ontario, when cases are thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, the costs are “presumptively” awarded on a full indemnity, or 100% basis. And that is indeed what happened to the 2 doctors.

The February 2022 decision was very long. But at its core, many of the same finding came up over and over again.

  • The expressions relate to matters of a public interest
  • The expressions may have been unprofessional and insulting, but were not defamatory
  • The expressions are protected as fair comment, and are obviously comment
  • The Plaintiffs (Gill and Lamba) haven’t produced evidence of any real harm
  • Public interest is better served with protecting the expression

Section 137.1 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act lays out the “anti-SLAPP” laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation. British Columbia has very similar laws. The purpose is to have a mechanism to quickly screen out cases that may be designed to silence speech or expression on public interest issues. Justice Stewart stated:

[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out.

The Court of Appeal ultimately agreed with this sentiment.

What’s interesting is that when the Appeal was finally heard, there weren’t 23 Respondents. There were only 4 of them left. And Lamba herself was no longer involved.

  • Dr. Angus Maciver
  • Dr. Nadia Alam
  • André Picard
  • Alheli Picazo

All of the others had the Appeal against them discontinued. It had been argued by many that this Appeal was simply “leverage”, in order to circumvent the original rulings.

The case was dismissed by Justice Stewart under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, and eventually, a cost award of $1.1 million was handed down. However, the Appeal meant that the case was still open, and that more costs would be required to fight it.

A brief timeline of events:

December 2020: Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 individuals and media outlets, largely over a series of spats on Twitter. This was in the Toronto Branch of Ontario Superior Court.

September 2021: over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions were argued. The primary basis for these Motions was Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is designed to screen out litigation designed for “libel chill” or “gag proceedings”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismissed the claims against all proceedings, on the grounds that the lawsuit was exactly the type of case that anti-SLAPP laws were designed to weed out.

March 2022: the Decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals.

May 2022, despite filing the Notice of Appeal and Evidence Certificate (a list of evidence to be used), Gill and Lamba find themselves without counsel. It appears from the badly redacted filings that they are rather upset about the mess that they’re now in. If only someone had advised them that filing frivolous defamation claims in Ontario — which has strong anti-SLAPP laws — was a very dangerous and risky idea. Clearly, they got poor advice. (See Record)

July 2022: both Gill and Lamba retained new counsel, who tried to ward off the coming costs awards. In total, they were looking at over $1 million in costs. While this sounds excessive, they sued 23 Parties, which works out to an average of about $55,000 each.

September 2022: The Appeal is finally “perfected”, which means that the Appellants have filed everything they intend to bring to the hearing.

Due to various delays, the Appeal was set back considerably.

October 2022: although the case had been appealed, the issue of costs hadn’t been resolved. It finally was at the end of October, with Gill and Lamba (but mostly just Gill) owing over $1.1 million in Court fees. It must be pointed out that s.137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act sets “full indemnity”, or 100% of costs, as the baseline. True, Judges don’t have to award it, but that’s considered the starting point.

November 2023: The Pointer Group Inc., one of the Defendant Respondents, files a Motion for Security for Costs. The rationale is that Gill should have to demonstrate that there’s merit to the Appeal, and that she has money, all in advance.

November 2023: The Motion from The Pointer Group Inc. is dismissed.

December 2023: The Appeal is heard for the remaining parties. As expected, the verdict was reserved (deferred) until later.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal has some harsh words at the end of their ruling.

[25] First, the motion judge found that the offensive language used by Maciver in his impugned tweets was not defamatory. The motion judge noted that there is an important distinction in the law of defamation between words that are actionable for being defamatory and words that merely contain insults and are not actionable. The motion judge acknowledged that some of the language used by Maciver may have been unprofessional and ill-advised, but involved pure name-calling and was therefore not defamatory.

[26] Second, the motion judge found that the appellant had offered no evidence of any harm caused to her reputation as a result of the impugned tweets, other than “vague, unparticularized statements.” Therefore, even if the words complained of were defamatory, and some general damage to the appellant’s reputation is therefore to be presumed, any such damage is likely to be assessed as being merely nominal.

[27] Section 137.1(4)(b) of the CJA provides that if the impugned expression giving rise to a proceeding relates to a matter of “public interest”, the proceeding shall be dismissed unless the plaintiff satisfies the judge that the harm they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, is “sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.”

[28] Given the at most nominal damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the impugned tweets by Maciver, the motion judge found that the public interest in protecting Maciver’s right to speak out on a matter of public interest outweighs any considerations that might otherwise favour allowing the appellant’s defamation action against him to continue.

Regarding the claims against Picard, Weeks and Picazo, the Court of Appeal found that their expressions were protected by the “fair comment” defence. And as with Maciver, Gill never produced any evidence that she had been seriously harmed by these remarks. The Panel decided that protecting the expression was more important than allowing the case to continue — exactly what Justice Stewart had written.

[62] The motion judge found that the appellant’s defamation claim against the critics of her unorthodox views on effective treatment for COVID-19 was intended to silence those critics. As the motion judge found, correctly in my view, this is precisely the type of proceeding that s. 137.1 was designed to foreclose.

[63] It is unclear why the appellant included the unrelated allegations against Maciver in the proceeding that was otherwise focused on issues related to COVID-19. Maciver had a limited social media profile, his criticisms of the appellant were taken down shortly after they were posted, he apologized publicly and privately to the appellant, and he was subsequently disciplined by the OMA for his comments. The appellant waited nearly two years before commencing a proceeding against Maciver and yet was unable to produce any evidence of reputational or other harm resulting from his tweets. The motion judge did not err in dismissing the appellant’s claim against him pursuant to s. 137.1(4)(b) of the CJA.

[67] It was the appellant’s choice to commence a proceeding against 23 different defendants, one, moreover, that has now been found to be without merit. Given that this proceeding is precisely the kind of action that s. 137.1 is designed to prevent, the motion judge was fully justified in applying the presumption of full indemnity costs set out in s. 137.1(7).

Gill had also sought Leave (permission) to appeal the $1.1 million cost award. That was denied, as the Panel viewed her overall Appeal as without any merit.

Gill and Lamba appear to have been successful at “leveraging” the Appeal into a settlement for reduced costs. In other words, they strong armed their victims into accepting lesser amounts. This comes despite the fact that both the original Claim and Appeal had no merit.

This doesn’t appear to be the end for either of them.

Kulvinder Gill still has an open $7 million lawsuit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa over Twitter insults. This faces another anti-SLAPP Motion.

Ashvinder Lamba is suing her former counsel for incompetence, negligence, malpractice, and for having undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Expect follow up coverage.

MOTION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

Posted on

Another Site Taken Down? “Privacy Is Your Right” No Longer Operational

On March 27th, 2023 a group called Privacy Is Your Right appeared seemingly out of nowhere to promote a legal challenge at the Divisional Court of Ontario. There was a press conference held over Zoom. They were to appear on the 30th. The thing was: there was also a lot of begging going on for money. They were already talking about going to the Ontario Court of Appeal if this didn’t work out.

The cause seemed worthwhile enough: patients and a Dr. Sonja Kustka were taking the CPSO to Court in order to prevent them from looking at medical records during an investigation. How did things transpire?

The case was thrown out on the spot, with the reasons coming a few weeks later.

This raises some eyebrows in light of recent events.

Another site, https://fre4justice.ca/, was completely shut down shortly after the attention it received from here. Perhaps there was backlash after pointing out that it would be just a rehash of the other “bad beyond argument” Federal case.

Now, the privacy site hasn’t completely disappeared, at least not yet. However, the site isn’t working, and none of the original links seem to either. It’s been that way for at least a few weeks.

A check on the site https://privacyisyourright.ca/ shows that it was created January 19th, 2023, and that 2 years was paid for. Apparently, the last time the site was updated (in any capacity), was December 22nd, 2023.

The main site, Motion Record, and Factum are only available now via the Wayback Machine, unless they’ve been saved elsewhere. The last time it appears to have been functional — while saved — was January 19th, 2024.

Now, why was it so odd that this group was asking for money, even though they openly conceded they’d probably be appealing it? Turns out that this case, the Kustka, case, was almost identical to the Dr. Rochagné Kilian case which had been rejected for the same reasons. At the time of this fundraising, the Ontario Superior Court had already refused patients standing. See the procedural history, and this review for more information.

That’s right. The big case (Kustka) that Privacy Is Your Right was soliciting money for was a clone of the earlier (Kilian) one.

However, that wasn’t disclosed at the virtual press conference. Going through the website, or at least the archived pages of it, there’s no mention of Dr. Kilian either.

Note: This isn’t to justify what the CPSO has been doing in recent years, but to point out the futility that was obvious from the start.

How many donors would have refused to hand over any money if there had been transparency about this? Probably most of them.

Looking at the ruling, it’s obvious. The Kustka case was a complete rehash of the Kilian case, with only superficial differences. This should have been made apparent prior to soliciting donations.

[10] The issue of public and private interest standing was recently examined in detail by this Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2022 ONSC 5931 (Div. Ct.). The Patient Applicants’ applications for judicial review in this case are analogous to the patients’ applications for judicial review in Kilian. We see no basis to depart from this court’s decision in Kilian, which we find to be persuasive.

[13] In Kilian, at para. 44, this Court confirmed that patients have no private interest standing in the circumstances where the CPSO has initiated an investigation into a member’s conduct, stating as follows:
.
The Patient Applicants do not have a personal legal interest in the ICRC’s decisions to authorize an investigation of Dr. Kilian’s conduct or to place restrictions on her certificate. They have concerns that their medical records will be disclosed to College investigators, but that does not justify a grant of private interest standing, given the purpose of the regulatory regime and the subject matter of the judicial review proceeding.

[14] In Kilian, at para. 45, this Court held that a finding of private interest standing would be contrary to the statutory purpose, which is to regulate physicians’ conduct in the public interest. A finding of private interest standing would “disrupt” professional regulation because it would entitle thousands of patients to standing at the investigation stage: Kilian, at para. 47. This Court also noted that the Code grants patients standing in certain limited circumstances, further demonstrating the legislature’s intention to circumscribe patient participation in the regulatory process.

[15] Moreover, in Kilian, this Court went on to find that the patients have no direct interest in the decisions under review, which involve the regulator and the member. Similarly, the restrictions on the physician’s certificate in that case did not affect the patients’ legal interests: Kilian, at paras. 49-50. We see no reason to depart from the thorough and persuasive analysis conducted by this Court in Kilian.

[16] The Patient Applicants distinguish their applications for judicial review from those brought by the patients in Kilian on the basis that in this case, they seek to challenge s. 76 of the Code, while Kilian was limited to considering an investigation under s. 75 of the Code. In our view, this is a distinction without a difference. In Kilian, the CPSO had brought a parallel application in the Superior Court pursuant to s. 87 of the Code to compel the production of records under s. 76. While, in the circumstances, this Court did not specifically address s. 76, the underlying factual scenario was the same as in this case. The patients in Kilian argued that they had standing to bring an application for judicial review because their private medical records would be disclosed to CPSO investigators.

[17] The production of private medical records pursuant to s. 87 was subsequently addressed by Chalmers J. of the Superior Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 1654 (Sup. Ct.) [Kilian SCJ]. In that case, Chalmers J., relying on College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Bishop (1989), 1989 CanLII 2674 (BC SC), 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 175, held that the expectation of privacy in medical records is subject to the higher need to maintain appropriate standards in the profession: at para. 34. In addition, patient records are protected by the requirement that the CPSO maintain their confidentiality under s. 36 of the RHPA. As a result, courts have rejected the argument that patient-physician privilege precludes an order requiring the production of patient records: Kilian SCJ, at paras. 36 and 51.

The Court denied the patients private standing. Later in the ruling, they are denied public interest standing, again, for the same reasons outlined in the Kilian case.

Again, the group asking for money never disclosed this.

The follow up on the Dr. Kilian case isn’t encouraging either. July 2023, Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down a $16,000 cost award against Dr. Kilian, stating that adding the patient intervenors was a ploy designed to stall the original investigation.

May 8th, 2023, Dr. Kilian was finally ordered to produce the medical records the CPSO demanded. That was upheld by the Court of Appeal in January 2024. Absent a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada, this case appears to be over.

So, why did Privacy Is Your Right gut their website? One possibility is that they’ve milked the donations for all they can. Now that the ruling is out — and everyone can see that it’s just a rehash — that one will dry up as well.

But just like those anti-lockdown and union cases, the CPSO ones are recycled as well.

Posted on

Lawyer In Anti-SLAPP Decision Sued For Malpractice, Incompetence & Negligence

A $600,000 lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court by an Ontario doctor who says that her former counsel was incompetent and negligent to the point that she’s suffered damages. She claims that the representation fell far below what should be considered professional. Specifically the Claim cites:

  • professional negligence
  • breach of fiduciary duty
  • breach of contract
  • incompetence
  • conflict of interest

Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Ashvinder Kaur Lamba, both Ontario doctors, made headlines in 2020, filing a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 parties. It was primarily over petty online drama, and predictably, it was thrown out. The case was appealed, to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Soon afterwards, their lawyer, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, abandoned them. This was allegedly over prolonged health issues.

Asher Honickman went on to represent Lamba in 2022. It’s interesting, since he’s also the one to commence proceedings against her former lawyer.

One of the main points of contention is that Gill and Lamba should never have joined their cases. While Gill alleged defamation from 23 parties, Lamba only had isses with 2 of them (Angus Maciver and Nadia Alam). Even then, she never really had a case against one of them. It’s argued in this malpractice suit that the asymmetry led to Lamba getting dragged into something much larger than she wanted.

Due to deficiencies in the original suit, it’s pleaded that Lamba wants damages from all 23 Defendants, even though she admittedly had nothing to do with 21 of them.

Also in this suit, Lamba claims she was never properly advised about the cost consequences — full indemnity (or 100%) — which are typical if they’re dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws.

There are many more problems to cover, and we’ll get into that. But first:

Timeline of major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Kulvinder Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this.

Now, what other problems are alleged in this malpractice suit?

Lamba’s relief sought incorrectly lists “all” Defendants

This is from page 7 of the Statement of Claim. Even though Lamba is pursuing defamation claims from just 2 of the Defendants (Gill from all 23), she seeks aggravated and punitive damages from everyone. This is a horribly amateurish error to make. These damages make up $2 million dollars, and it’s demanded that people who aren’t alleged to have wronged her have to pay.

This is the problem with the cut-and-paste lawsuit business. Important proofreading like this gets overlooked.

Claim wrongly lists all Defendants liable to BOTH Plaintiffs

From page 81 of the Statement of Claim, it’s alleged that all the Defendants are liable to both Gill and Lamba for: (a) libel and slander; (b) conspiracy; (c) negligence; and (d) breach of professional obligations.

But, as stated earlier, Lamba had nothing to do with 21 out of the 23 Defendants. Her only stated grievances were with Maciver and Alam. The poorly worded Claim doesn’t distinguish that though.

What else is there?

Lamba alleges she wasn’t advised to file Affidavit

Paragraph 17(d) the Claim reads that Lamba didn’t produce any evidence. By this, it means that she never submitted a sworn Affidavit against the anti-SLAPP Motions.

That matters because the 3rd branch of the anti-SLAPP test requires that the Plaintiffs submit evidence of at least some damages. While it doesn’t have to be a “fully developed brief”, there has to be something for a Judge to conclude that damages occurred.

By failing to do this, it’s guaranteed that the case would be thrown out.

Lamba alleges she was neglected in favour of Gill

Paragraph 17(f) of the Claim reads that the anti-SLAPP Motions Lamba received got nowhere near the attention that the ones targeted at Gill. As such, she felt neglected by her own representation.

Lamba alleges she preferred to settle or discontinue

Paragraphs 17(g), (h), and 33(c) of the Claim read that Lamba would have been better off to go the route of apology, settlement, or possibly discontinuance. This would substantially mitigate cost exposure. She states that her lawyer should have taken that approach.

Lamba alleges junior lawyers did work they weren’t trained for

Paragraphs 17(j) and 33(g) of the Claim read that junior lawyers and/or staff were doing parts of the work that they weren’t trained for, or competent in. There was apparently little oversight to ensure that it was done properly. Then again, it seems that senior counsel isn’t competent either.

By junior lawyers, this presumably refers to Samantha Coomara, who works at that firm. Gill and Lamba have a separate lawsuit in Brampton that names her.

As an aside: Coomara was the lawyer of record who sued this site, after sending threatening letters. She is grossly incompetent, and lacks understanding of basic procedures.

Lamba alleges conflict of interest with her legal representation

Paragraphs 17(k), 33(l) and (m) of the Claim read that Lamba’s own lawyers had their own agenda, and put their interests above their own. Presumably this refers to the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice cases which allege that there was a global conspiracy. This led to the highly publicized but poorly drafted lawsuits that kept getting thrown out.

Lamba was interested in a straightforward and (relatively) private defamation case. She apparently never wanted to get involved in any of this. She openly calls this a conflict of interest.

Lamba alleges she was never informed of the risks

Paragraph 33(b) of the Claim reads that Lamba was never properly advised about the risks of starting a defamation suit in Ontario. Between the strong anti-SLAPP laws, and the “presumptive full indemnity on costs”, this can get very messy.

The Claim mentions repeatedly that Lamba wasn’t kept in the loop about major decisions within her own case. It’s also claimed many times that the representation she got was incompetent.

Furthermore, she blames the quality of the pleadings on incompetence. It’s stated that her claims focused on the insults which aren’t actionable, versus the actual defamation.

Lamba is resentful at having her name tied to Gill, and to her lawyer’s overall agenda. She views it as very unhelpful. The $7 million suit Gill filed against Amir Attaran for calling her an “idiot” probably doesn’t help. While Lamba may have had valid grievances on her own, connecting with Gill and her lawyer seem to have caused endless headaches.

Keep in mind, all of this is written from Lamba’s perspective. We’ll have to see what the Statement of Defence says.

What are the practical consequences of suing 23 people and organizations? Well, a lot of lawyers are going to get rich billing the hours to defend against these claims.

This was another headache Lamba had to deal with. The bulk of the lawsuit had nothing to do with her, but she was claiming damages against everyone. Once the case was thrown out, she was presumptively on the hook for half of it. Part of the reason Lamba and Gill got separate counsel is that their interests diverged greatly in terms of the costs.

Gill would benefit much more from a 50/50 split
Lamba would benefit from everyone paying their own share

Anyhow, this is only a quick summary. Do read the entire Statement of Claim, as it’s quite the eye opener.

What will happen with this lawsuit?

It’s hard to say, but here’s a personal prediction:

Since it’s a lawyer being sued for negligence and malpractice, insurance will likely cover it. This means they’ll be providing a lawyer to defend it, and pay most of the bills. If it were a claim for dishonesty or misrepresentation, they probably wouldn’t.

Anyhow, insurance companies are businesses, and they don’t like losing money. They may very well force a settlement, or leave the client to fend for himself. They also don’t like insuring high risk subjects.

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim
(2) Lamba Notice Of Intent To Defend

MOTION FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA
(15) https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22116/index.do

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

Posted on

Failed “Intimidation Lawsuit” Results In $132,268 Cost Award

December 11th, 2023, Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court threw out a $1.1 million defamation lawsuit brought against the anti-lockdown group, CSASPP. On February 3rd, he ordered $132,268.17 in costs to be paid within 30 days.

The lawsuit was filed June 28th, 2022 by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, also known as the “King of the Struck Lawsuit”. For more on the CSASPP dismissal, background information is available here.

Justice Chalmers did more than just rule that this was done to stifle debate. He also said that this suit was brought to derail a Law Society complaint filed by Ms. Donna Toews, and to intimidate others from making complaints in the future. In short, this was a deliberate effort to sabotage the internal process of the LSO itself.

From the ruling of Justice Chalmers, dismissing the case

[89] With respect to the claim against Ms. Toews, I am of the view that “what is really going on” is an attempt to intimidate members of the public who may be considering making a complaint about the Plaintiff to the LSO. The effect of the action against Ms. Toews would be to obstruct the regulatory process. The harm this would cause in the LSO’s ability to receive and process complaints about lawyers is, in my view significant.

[98] For the reasons set out above, I find that the Plaintiff brought this action for the improper purpose of stifling debate with respect to his handling of a proposed class action that is being funded by public donations. I also note that the Claim was brought one day before the Plaintiff submitted a response to the LSO with respect to Ms. Toews complaint. I find that the Claim was brought for the improper purpose of limiting the LSO investigation, and to intimidate others from making any LSO complaints about him.

Suing someone to avoid a Law Society Complaint is grounds for disbarment. David Grant Isaac had his licence revoked in November 2022 over exactly this misconduct. But it’s not the only case here.

Multiple lawsuits filed in order to bury Toews complaint

It’s an oversimplification to just say that this is a defamation case. Ms. Toews apparently had the potential to do some real damage by contacting the LSO. It lead to 3 suits, so far. Who knows if more will be brought later?

Galati v. CSASPP et al.
Filed: June 28th, 2022
Case No.: CV-22-00683322-0000

Galati v. Law Society of Ontario et al.
Filed: July 12th, 2022
Case No.: CV-22-00683933-0000

Galati v. Law Society of Ontario et al.
Filed: July 31st, 2023
Case No.: CV-23-00703697-0000

Not only was Ms. Toews sued in order to subvert her LSO complaint, but the Law Society itself was sued itself, twice. And for what?

Taking her story at face value, she donated $1,000 to each of Action4Canada, and to Vaccine Choice Canada. Presumably, she wanted her money back, since neither was advancing an anti-lockdown case in any meaningful way. The value of her donations amounted to a mere $2,000. And it resulted in 3 overlapping lawsuits.

3 lawsuits were filed in order to bury the Toews complaint, over $2,000. Other than in Small Claims, who files a case over that amount? Who files 3 Claims over the same issue? One really has to wonder what people were afraid the LSO would have found during their investigation. What was really going on?

From Justice Chalmers regarding the costs

[7] The Defendants argue that there is no reason to depart from the presumption that the successful party is entitled to their full indemnity costs. The Defendants claim costs in the amount of $159,920.97 inclusive of counsel fee, disbursements, and H.S.T. They argue that the proceeding was complex. The evidence before the court consisted of more than 3,000 pages. The Plaintiff sued four Defendants and cross-examined the deponents of all affidavits tendered on the motion. The transcripts were over 500 pages. The Plaintiff also filed the affidavits of Lee Turner and Alicia Johnson that were subject to a preliminary objection by the Defendants. I found that the affidavits were irrelevant and inadmissible.

[14] I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff’s offer provides a basis for not awarding costs on a full indemnity basis. The offer requires the Defendants to retract and apologize for their comments made about the Plaintiff. In my reasons, I found that the Defendants’ speech was an expression in the public interest. I also found that the defences of justification and fair comment applied. Acceptance of the offer would have satisfied the Plaintiff’s objective in bringing this action, namely, to silence the Defendants from making an expression in the public interest. It is my view that the Defendants were justified in not accepting the Plaintiff’s offer.

[15] The Defendants were required to incur the costs of the motion to strike the action that I found was brought for an improper purpose. I am of the view that there is no reason to depart from the presumption that the moving party is entitled to its costs on the motion and the proceeding on a full indemnity basis.

[16] Although s. 137.1(7) provides that the presumption is that the successful moving party’s costs will be awarded on a full indemnity basis, the court must consider the fairness and reasonableness of the award having regard to the r. 57.01 factors.

[17] Here, the Plaintiff brought an action in which he seeks damages totalling $1,000,000. The s. 137.1 motion was complex and involved a significant number of documents. There had been cross examinations of 7 witnesses. There were over 3000 pages of documents on the motion, including 500 pages of transcripts. The issues involved expressions in the public interest and in particular comments with respect to the counsel retained to conduct public interest litigation. I am satisfied that the issues were of importance.

The case was a typical SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. It was lawfare from the Plaintiff, using the legal system as a weapon in order to silence his critics. The case was unnecessary, and involved a huge amount of time and expense to deal with it.

Also, Justice Chalmers was not impressed by the “Settlement Offer”. He stated that it would have achieved the Plaintiff’s goal of forcibly silencing his critics.

Then there is this little gem:

[20] I find that the time spent by the Defendants’ lawyers was excessive. The total hours for the preparation of the motion record, including the review of the file and drafting affidavits was 45.8 hours for Mr. Gleason and 92.4 hours for Ms. Rauff. For the preparation of the reply record and preparing for and attending on the cross-examinations, and drafting the factum was 83 hours for Mr. Gleason and 121.3 for Ms. Rauff. From a review of the Costs Outline, it appears that there was an overlap of the work performed by Ms. Rauff and Mr. Gleason. Both docketed for each item of work. There does not appear to have been an efficient division of responsibility.

[22] It is my view that an appropriate counsel fee for the motions is $112,500. This is a reduction of approximately 25% of the Defendants’ lawyer’s actual counsel fee. With H.S.T. in the amount of $14,625 and disbursements of $5,143.17, the total costs are $132,268.17.

Gleason and Rauff may have been overbilling, but at least they won their case on the merits. The same cannot be said for the Nadon reference case. Gonzo logic!

As reported in the National Post, an Appeal of the CSASPP dismissal is already in the works. Appealing a SLAPP decision (unsuccessfully) is presumably on a full indemnity (100% of costs) basis. Can we expect another $50,000+ ruling to come as a result of this?

Who really funded these intimidation suits?

Now, we get to the interesting questions: who really financed the lawsuit against CSASPP? Who funded both of the suits against the Law Society?

Consider the following timeline:

October 11th, 2023: Justice Dow strikes the Claim against the Law Society (the first one), on the grounds that it doesn’t disclose a Cause of Action. He does permit a rewrite, which doesn’t appear to have happened. He also ordered $14,600 in costs to be paid to the LSO for legal costs.

December 11th, 2023: Justice Chalmers dismisses the Toews/CSASPP suit under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, ruling that it was brought for improper purposes, and as an act of intimidation.

January 18th, 2024: CSASPP publishes the decision, and a lengthy commentary piece.

February 3rd, 2024: Justice Chalmers issues his ruling ordering that $132,000 be paid as a result of this failed lawsuit. While a reduction from the $160,000 sought, this is still a large sum of money.

February 4th, 2024: Action4Canada updates its website to announce that they will be doing an “expose” on the so-called agitators within the Freedom Movement.

February 7th, 2024: Kuntz and Gaw have their stream on Zoom, where they claim to be exposing a coordinated “military style” campaign to destroy their lawyer. There are complaints from observers on Zoom that comments are being deleted. The stream itself is a hit piece designed to deflect from the true nature of the criticism.

The Action4Canada, Vaccine Choice, Adelberg (Federal), and Take Action Canada cases were critiqued in detail. At no point is it stated or implied that it’s not worthwhile fighting martial law measures. Instead, the quality of the documents themselves is looked at. They clearly fail to follow the basics of procedure.

Just because someone is skeptical of long delays, and poorly drafted pleadings, it doesn’t mean they’re anti-freedom. It means they’re anti-grifter. There is a difference.

Are Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada funding intimidation lawsuits, such as the one with CSASPP? Although they explicitly deny it, they do lament the drop in donations since 2021.

Interestingly, it’s stated that “he had to act in order to avoid getting disbarred”. Presumably, this refers to the LSO complaint from Ms. Toews. Suing her either for retaliation, or to subvert an investigation, is grounds for revoking a law licence. So, what exactly was so bad? Was there a fear that the LSO would force an audit of the books?

Who’s paying for the $14,600 over the struck suit against the LSO?
Who’s paying for the $132,268 over the dismissed SLAPP against CSASPP?
Who’s paying for the Appeal lodged against CSASPP and the Chalmers rulings?
Who’s paying for when the the second LSO suit is struck?
Who’s paying for the intimidation suit filed against Canuck Law?

Donors to Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice — if there are any left — really need to be asking these questions. Since neither organization is diligently pursuing a case against the Government, are funds being used to silence critics?

The anti-lockdown cases are considered “public interest litigation”. As the name implies, it’s society as a whole, not just private parties, who are impacted. Why the reluctance to be transparent?

A closing thought: if A4C/VCC money was used to sabotage the Toews LSO complaint and/or to silence legitimate inquiry, does it make them accomplices? Are donors now (unknowingly) complicit in illegal activity? Just something to think about.

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

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal: Dude, Why Are You Even Here?

February 14th, 2024, Action4Canada finally had their day at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. While there was a large attendance in Vancouver, observers could also attend via Zoom.

It never made sense to file here. This Appeal was to challenge the ruling of Justice Ross to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) in its entirety, but with leave to amend. In other words, the Plaintiffs were allowed to refile, they just had to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure. They weren’t shut off from seeking remedies in the Courts.

Why appeal, when the NOCC could have simply have been rewritten?

STATUS: As of now, the decision is under reserve (deferred until later). The parties agree that the NOCC should have been rewritten. Consequently, the main issue left to determine is whether costs should have been awarded, and if so, should they have been done at the end. The whole Appeal turned out to be a giant nothing-burger.

The Action4Canada case, and its legal representation, can best be described as embarrassing. It’s a clown show that never ends.

As bad as the May 2022 hearing at the B.C. Supreme Court was, the one at the Court of Appeal was even worse. The Justices actually stated that they didn’t understand what was being appealed. They couldn’t figure out why they were there, and asked for clarification. That’s something that no lawyer ever wants to hear about their case.

Since it was agreed that the Claim was “prolix”, or too long and confusing, the logical step would have been to file a new one. Instead, the Court of Appeal Justices appeared baffled at why an Appeal was lodged.

It also seemed that the Plaintiff’s lawyer didn’t understand the difference between a Court making a ruling on something, as opposed to commenting, or making “obiter remarks”. Pretty sad that after 35 years, a person doesn’t know how to read and interpret a Court decision.

The Appellants’ lawyer needed to have it explained to him that Justice Ross gave feedback so that an amended NOCC would be more compliant with the Rules. The panel stated that it was typical for litigants to get a chance to fix their case, so that it would be heard on the merits. This was quite painful to watch. Once again, after 35 years, lawyers should know what they’re doing.

Yes, Justice Ross gave plenty of background information about how he came to his conclusion. He outlined many several problems, but never ruled on any of them.

Action4Canada case was a train wreck from the beginning

First, it took nearly a year to file a NOCC in the first place, in August 2021. Action4Canada had been fundraising since the Summer of 2020 — if not sooner — but never produced anything. When the document is finally revealed, it’s a convoluted mess with no prospect of getting to Trial.

Second, in September 2021, Action4Canada instigates a defamation lawsuit against this site for criticizing the obvious and glaring flaws with the NOCC. Yes, other cases had been picked apart as well, but this appears to have been the final straw.

Third, a year later, the NOCC was struck as “bad beyond argument” for not even following the basics of Civil Procedure. Although Justice Ross only struck the NOCC as “prolix”, he outlined an almost endless amount of errors and defects contained within. The Canuck Law criticisms of the NOCC have aged very well.

Fourth, instead of swiftly filing a amended version, it was appealed in September 2022. A coherent explanation of why that happened has never been offered. Again, the NOCC could have simply been rewritten. Nor is it explicitly stated that remedies Justice Ross (apprently) improperly disallowed.

Fifth, the Law Society of British Columbia included this case in its February 2023 version of the Professional Legal Training Course for new lawyers. See page 15. It’s now to be used as an example of how not to draft pleadings. The LSBC refers to the case as “an example of a wholly inadequate pleading”. As such, the case is now the laughing stock of the legal profession in B.C.

Sixth, Action4Canada attempts to delay and defer the Appeal indefinitely. It’s only after getting called out on that is a hearing date booked.

What Justice Ross actually ordered in the August 2022 ruling

The decision from Justice Ross was very lengthy, but the order itself wasn’t.

[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

  • The Claim is prolix (too long), confusing and incomprehensible
  • The Claim is struck, but with permission to amend (refile)
  • The case is stayed (on hold) until a new filing is sent
  • The Defendants are awarded costs for their success

Yes, Justice Ross outlined a litany of defects that the NOCC would likely have, but he made no actual determinations on any of them. He only ordered that it must be struck for being prolix.

All sides agree that original NOCC is prolix

The hearing started off with the Appellant (Plaintiff) lawyer stating that he agreed the case was prolix, and that filing an amended version was fine. That should have been the end of it, which is why the decision to appeal never made any sense.

Appeal is based on things Justice Ross didn’t rule on

Not only did Justice Ross not rule on those things, but it appears to misrepresent what he actually said. He never stated that scientific evidence couldn’t be introduced in a Court. He did however, state that determining the scientific consensus was an improper claim. See paragraph 52 (b) and (f).

Paragraph 52 also listed other things that aren’t permitted in a Civil Court, such as making finding on criminal allegations, international criminal law, the Nuremberg Code, or the Helsinki Declaration. Although Ross mentioned these things, he didn’t explicitly rule on them.

Cost awards are typically discretionary

The other part of the Appeal was that Justice Ross shouldn’t have granted the Defendants costs because success had been “divided”. Supposedly, since leave to amend was granted, it was a partial win for the Plaintiffs. By this logic, there shouldn’t have been any. Or at least, costs should have been reserved until the end.

Considering that cost awards are typically at the Judge’s discretion, it’s unclear what the error was. Successful parties typically get some sort of costs. Whether this award comes immediately, or at the end of the proceedings is again, up to the Judge.

For reference, the Plaintiffs ended up paying out approximately $13,000 total for the Applications to Strike. It could easily have been a lot worse.

What’s the point of appealing a $13,000 cost award, considering everything else that’s at stake? This is small potatoes in the big picture. Again, embarrassing is the best way to describe this.

What exactly was the point of appealing?

The Plaintiffs could have easily filed an amended NOCC, and gone ahead with the case. Justice Ross specifically granted permission to do this. It’s not like the case was struck without leave.

The only finding Justice Ross made was that the case was prolix. Yes, there were many problems outlined, but he never made any determinations on them. All sides agreed it was prolix, and even the Plaintiffs agreed a new NOCC should be filed?

Cost awards are typically discretionary, and no error of law has been pointed out. What then is the issue with this? It was only $13,000.

The hearing ended rather abruptly. All sides agreed that the original NOCC was prolix, and needed to be rewritten. It was further agreed that all of the comments about the quality of the pleading, including the types of relief sought, weren’t adjudicated back in August 2022.

The only live issue was over costs. With that, the panel adjourned, with the promise to get a written decision back quickly.

We’ll have to see how well this piece ages.

Both Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada have been fundraising for nearly 4 years. In the meantime, neither of them have filed a coherent Claim, despite the urgency of the issues. It’s beyond obvious that none of these cases will ever get to Trial.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022