Ronnie – Page 2 – Canuck Law

December 18, 2025December 20, 2025

“They Downplayed My Contributions, So I Had To Engage In Litigation”

“The Hate Network” is a Canadian documentary that is currently being screened for select audiences, presumably before being made more public. It’s effectively HateGate 2.0.

In honour of that, let’s take a look back at its predecessor, HateGate 1.0.

September 2023, the “HateGate Affair” was published by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan, who still goes by her old name. While the paper was disjointed and rambling, it tried to promote a narrative. Specifically, it attempted to convince people that the Emergencies Act (EA) was invoked in February 2022 largely over a meme and shoddy police work. It cited a 1,082 page FOIPOP release “proving” it.

So, why was the EA invoked? A shorter FOIPOP from around the same time suggests, although it does not conclude, that blockades along the Canada-U.S. border were shutting down international travel and shipments. While not definitive, it’s far more plausible than HateGate.

Going back through the 85 page paper, it’s obvious that most supporters never read the HateGate Affair, let alone the FOIPOP package, or this page. They probably just relied on this 4 1/2 minute video to tell them what to think.

The FOIPOP doesn’t prove — at all — that law enforcement relied on CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. If anything, police found little to substantiate their claims. The authors just cherrypicked quotes to suit a narrative. And most of the HateGate Affair has nothing to do with the invocation anyway.

Keep in mind, Hategan and Sa’d didn’t request a FOIPOP from the police for all information and conversations related to the invocation. That would have been tens of thousands of pages, at least. Instead, they asked for information about the group Diagolon, and simply reported that they had proof of this narrative. Nice pivot.

Hategan got her “fame” as a teenager in the 1990s, helping infiltrate and eventually take down the neo-nazi group Heritage Front. It turned out to be an operation, and its leader, Grant Bristow, a CSIS agent. However, she’s nearly 50 now, and nowhere near as relevant. But if people minimize her role in this, she’s quite willing to file a lawsuit against them.

Let’s look at some forgotten gems in this “paper”.

Grant Bristow And Bernie Farber Were Actually Friends

These are from pages 48 and 50 of HateGate Affair. Even though Grant Bristow was “supposedly” the head of the largest neo-nazi group in Canada, he and Farber remained friends. The only logical conclusion is not just that it was a CSIS operation (which it was), but that Farber knew all along that it was.

Farber must have deduced (if he wasn’t directly informed) that Diagolon was also an operation. After all, it was the O.P.P. informant, Hategan, writing this paper.

And why does Hategan have I.P. tracking software on her website?

Ferryman-Cohen Sued Bernie Farber For Clout

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

[138] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts. The information about Ms. Moore’s former extra-marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality. By publishing statements about these sexual relations, and falsely claiming that this was done to advance Ms. Moore’s career, Ms. Hategan has clearly given publicity to a matter concerning the private life of Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore submits that this publication is (i) highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (ii) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Ontario courts have particularly noted the private nature of sexual relations and family quarrels, among others.

[139] Ms. Moore further submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of breach of confidence. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra-marital affair was confidential, in that it was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality, and Ms. Hategan’s publication of that information was unauthorized and was to Ms. Moore’s detriment. This confidential and highly intimate information was used to denigrate Ms. Moore’s personal and professional reputation, imputing that Ms. Moore received professional benefits from this and other sexual relationships. Damages, sufficient to mark the wrong that has been done, are warranted.

[140] I agree that this tort has been made out. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra‑marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan in confidentiality. I agree that this information is highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not a legitimate concern to the public.

Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness

[141] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s likeness by registering multiple websites and social media handles (the “domains”) in Ms. Moore’s name. Ms. Hategan inked many of the domains directly to her own website, so that when a person searched for Ms. Moore, they were redirected to Ms. Hategan’s information. In doing so, Ms. Hategan took advantage of the name, reputation and likeness of Ms. Moore’s personality. Ms. Hategan did this for commercial purposes and to boost her own professional reputation. As a direct result, Ms. Moore cannot register many of the domains that would naturally be used for her business – including variations of her name. Instead of using her own name, Ms. Moore has to use a fictional phrase – “one moore liz” – to promote herself online.

[142] I agree with the defendant that these actions constitute an appropriation of Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness.

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

[143] On at least two separate occasions, Ms. Hategan threatened to sue Ms. Moore’s professional colleagues in an attempt to interfere with Ms. Moore’s economic relations. Ms. Moore alleges that this amounts to the tort of intimidation, and is an actionable wrong committed against a third party. In at least one instance, as admitted by Ms. Hategan, these threats led to a speaking engagement being cancelled. As a result of these actions, Ms. Moore has suffered economic harm and loss. Ms. Moore does not know how many other opportunities she may have lost out on, because Ms. Hategan has refused to produce relevant communications with third parties. Ms. Moore submits that an adverse inference should be drawn.

[144] Again, I agree with these submissions. Ms. Hategan has caused interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relation.

Page 51 of HateGate Affair, Ferryman-Cohen complains that she’s been silenced from speaking out. This came after she filed a frivolous lawsuit against Farber for not giving her the credit she thought she deserved. She was also found to be harassing, threatening, stalking and defaming her “rival”, Elizabeth Moore-Frederiksen.

Caryma Sa’d went after CAHN in Federal Court, but it was struck for having no Cause of Action.

Ferryman-Cohen Sued TV Ontario For Clout

48. Bernie Farber made the false representation that both the Plaintiff and Moore were critical in the dissolution of the Heritage Front. At no point did Moore correct Farber that she had not been involved in the “shut down” of the Heritage Front. Without permission, Farber also uses the Plaintiff’s name and courageous actions as an 18-year old teenager and conflates them with Elizabeth Moore, who was a privileged, upper-middle class adult woman who did nothing to shut down the HF, was not a “hero”, and was not involved in any way whatsoever in shutting down the Heritage Front:

“By the way, [Elizabeth] was one of a couple of women that were involved in the Heritage Front, both of them actually, Elizabeth and another woman by the name of Elisa Hategan. Both of them ended up being heroes in terms of how they were able to take themselves out, how they were able to work with the system, to basically shut down the Heritage Front. And so in this particular case, it’s kind of interesting that the women were the heroes in shutting this down. There were others involved as well, the Bristow Affair, he was the mole. All of this came together as a result of the women who full timely took a stand and said, we’re not going to deal with this anymore.”

Back in 2019, Ferryman-Cohen sued TVO because it didn’t give her enough of a glowing review. She and Elizabeth Moore-Frederiksen both were credited with helping to topple Heritage Front. But sharing credit wasn’t good enough, and she filed a $150,000 lawsuit. It was settled out of Court.

Ferryman-Cohen Sued For Defamation By Paul ApSimon

Ferryman-Cohen is being sued for defamation by Paul ApSimon, a former fencing instructor. She posted ancient allegations on her website that essentially accused him of sexual abuse and pedophilia. Now, unless this turns out to be provably true, then he’s 100% justified in filing this one. As of the time of writing this, there is an anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

Bit of advice for Diagolon supporters: maybe someone who gets sued for making these kinds of accusations isn’t the best person to write for you.

Ferryman-Cohen Sues Caryma Sa’d And Toronto Police

Ferryman-Cohen has finally gone after Caryma Sa’d, her co-author, filing a $2.53 million lawsuit. There are some interesting revelations here.

She is suing the Toronto Police twice in Small Claims Court. One was on December 8th, and the other on the 16th.

There’s also one against Mitch Hancock in Small Claims for $35,000. She simply cannot allow people to forget that she’s the one who took down Heritage Front.

50. Sa’d further lied to police, claiming that she did not owe Ms. Hategan any money (despite having had extensive text and verbal discussions about splitting credit, donations, and other compensations for Ms. Hategan). Sa’d has earned thousands of dollars from work performed at least in part by Ms. Hategan, and as a result of her journalistic mentorship. Sa’d and Hategan’s co-authored article The Hategate Affair was also uploaded to a website solely under Sa’d’s control. The website (found at https://dove-herring-wfpt.squarespace.com/ and linked to the domain “hategate.ca”) was operational from September 12, 2023 until fall/winter 2024, and featured “Donation” and “Make a Donation” buttons from its inception until around January 2024. Ms. Hategan does not know the total amount of money collected by Sa’d through the website, through Sa’d’s GoFundMe journalism-related pages, or via direct e-transfers to Sa’d’s bank account and PayPal account, but strongly believes the figure is in the thousands of dollars.

77. It took Elisa many years to overcome her police phobia. Graduating Magna cum Laude from the University of Ottawa with a double major in criminology and psychology, she served as a consultant with the London, UK-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and has assisted law enforcement such as the Ontario Provincial Police with advice and training on preventing radicalization and extremism in youth. As a keynote speaker for the Probation Officers Association of Ontario (POAO), she presented workshops alongside OPP and RCMP officers. Her wrongful arrests and the high volume of false police reports Sa’d filed about her, which are still registered in CPIC, have destroyed her reputation in the law enforcement community.

96. As a result of Sa’d’s false reports, Ms. Hategan was locked out of her X account and remains suspended to the present day, unable to access her account. Ms. Hategan has never been suspended from any social media platform before. Sa’d lied to X Support by falsely claiming that the photo was a “private” image, even though Sa’d is a notorious public figure who regularly seeks media attention, stives to be famous and become an “influencer”, and has her own Wikipedia Page. As a result of Sa’d’s malicious and false reports, Ms. Hategan has lost her primary source of income – most of her public speaking and consulting requests, as well as crowdfunding donations, come from her X account.

113.(g)(ii). Her duty and loyalty to another client, Jeremy Mackenzie. Ms. Hategan believes that Mackenzie paid Sa’d for work on The HateGate Affair, the September 12, 2023 85-page longform article co-authored and written in majority by Ms. Hategan. Elisa is entitled to receive half of all earnings as per her agreement with Sa’d, but received nothing.

Ferryman-Cohen didn’t “leave behind” her life working with law enforcement. She apparently still does it, and works/worked as a consultant for the ISD? They’re arguably worse than CAHN.

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. Ferryman-Cohen believes that MacKenzie paid Sa’d to create HateGate Affair, and she wants a cut of it. She also wants compensation for whatever donations came in. There’s no objection that the document is misleading, just that she wasn’t paid.

This also explains why the paper was so shoddy, at least in part. No one will donate unless there’s a juicy story, such as the EA being invoked over a meme. This was supposed to be a cash cow.

Ferryman-Cohen apparently doesn’t work a regular job, and largely relies on pubic speaking and online donations. Gee, where have we heard that before?

There are many more allegations against Sa’d and her boyfriend that are not relevant here.

Ferryman-Cohen Works For Institute For Strategic Dialogue

According to her LinkedIn page, (see archive), Elisa Hategan is the Regional Coordinator for Central Canada and United States at Against Violent Extremism. They coordinate with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or ISD.

Not familiar with the ISD? They were covered here and here previously, but quite simply, they can be considered the “global” version of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. Their work includes:

Documenting activities of the far right
Education and digital citizenship
Outreach
Deradicalization efforts

Among the ISD’s donors is the ADL, or Anti-Defamation League. As many know, it was created in 1913 to “protect” the reputation of Leo Frank, convicted rapist and murderer of a 13 year old girl.

Ferryman-Cohen rails against CAHN and Bernie Farber, while participating in an organization that does essentially the same thing. Both CAHN and ISD get taxpayer subsidies. Did no one ask any questions about that? That takes some real mental gymnastics.

She’s also an Advisory Board Member and Social Media Manager for OVED for Human Rights, a Holocaust Survivors Non-Profit. That’s interesting, considering that HateGate was written to “exonerate” people who adamantly deny the Holocaust even happened.

Guys, They’re Totally Not Feds!

The CBC outed and doxed many nationalists at a recent meetup in B.C., while deliberately shielding a member from Second Sons Canada. Very interesting choice, considering the recent protests in Ottawa and Regina.

Heritage Front was a CSIS operation, and Ferryman-Cohen helped destroy it. She points that out every day. It’s hard to believe that she’s bright enough to do that, but too clueless to see the obvious parallels. Sa’d doesn’t mention it either.

Filing lawsuits for being called a “fed” isn’t a good look, especially when the allegation was confessed to under oath. The POEC transcripts are freely available.

It’s kind of surreal to think about. An admitted police informant (Hategan) is promised money to write a paper concluding that another admitted police informant (MacKenzie) was framed by the cops? And none of this seems abnormal?

Prospective members of Second Sons Canada are required to undergo a criminal record check, amongst other things, before being admitted. And who is it that conducts record checks? That would be the RCMP…. who apparently tried to frame MacKenzie. Applicants will be paying to hand over their details to law enforcement.

For the reasons outlined above, the HateGate Affair cannot be taken at face value. There are far too many questions that need to be answered. No amount of gaslighting will change that reality. It would be nice to know how MacKenzie got ahold of those RCMP messages (see 1:00 mark).

What will “The Hate Network” look like? The 2023 release seems designed to “legitimize” an intelligence operation, by dressing it up as state persecution against free speech. Now, this is just a prediction, but maybe the 2025 version will do much the same, but by “shoe-horning” it in with legitimate cases.

(1) Hategan LinkedIn Profile
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ps-sp%2C214-2020-2021-Q3-0023%2Ccurrent
(3) Elisa Hategan Toronto Police Lawsuit
(4) Hategan v Toronto Police 456 Pages Redacted
(5) Elisa Hategan Caryma Sad lawsuit Info Redacted
(6) Elisa Hategan Hancock Lawsuit
(7) Public Safety A-2022-00112 – Release Package Diagolon

(1) Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
(2) Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
(3) Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
(4) Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)
(5) Sa’d v. Yew, 2023 FC 1286 (CanLII)

HATEGATE AFFAIR:
(1) HateGate Affair Original Filing
(2) HateGate Archived Version (Without Highlighting)
(3) HateGate Archive (With Highlighting)

December 18, 2025January 17, 2026

Case Conference Sought In Stale Military Injection Pass Case

Parties in a 2023 case over injection passes in the military are asking the Court what to do next. The disagreement comes over how to proceed. The Defendants want to bring a Motion to Strike — to throw out the case — while the Plaintiffs want to pursue other steps first.

The lawsuit itself hasn’t progressed since the pleadings were filed in 2023.

The information about the Plaintiffs is interesting, and the paths they’ve taken are varied. The lengths of service for some exceed 25 years. They’re located all over Canada, and are involved in many occupations. Some of them were kicked out for refusing the shots, or forced to retire. Others took them, and have ongoing health problems.

From the information listed in the Statement of Defence, any preliminary challenge would most likely be based on 2 ideas:

Lack of jurisdiction (a.k.a. alternative system available); and
Insufficient detail pleaded in Statement of Claim

1. Government Claims “Grievance Scheme” Should Have Been Used

15. The Plaintiffs had recourse through the grievance process established under the National
Defence Act (“NDA”). The CAF grievance process is set out in sections 29 to 29.15 of the NDA and Chapter 7 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders (“QR&O”). Subsection 29(1) of the NDA provides that any officer or non-commissioned member of the CAF who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF for which no other process for redress is provided under the NDA is entitled to submit a grievance.

Just as in Qualizza and Neri, the Government here claims that Plaintiffs “should” have filed grievances, similar to what unionized workers do. This is invoking the defence that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, regardless of the merits. This has gotten many related suits thrown out.

The Statement of Defence also says that current and former veterans have the option of applying for compensation, which must be exhausted prior to commencing litigation.

2. Inadequate Pleading, Considering Allegations Made

The Government also criticises the quality of the Statement of Claim itself. While over 30 declarations are sought, critical detail is missing from the pleading.

A complaint here (and common in these cases) is that necessary detail is missing to even theoretically advance. For example, while many Plaintiffs claim to have a religious objection to the shots, under Section 2(a) of the Charter, not one of them explains what the objection actually is. Here’s a primer in what should be added.

True, one could easily argue that the Charter is useless, and it largely is. But then, why makes such claims in the first place?

While the Statement of Claim makes many accusations against the military, and very serious ones, they do need to be spelled out in much greater detail.

Unfortunately, far too few people get their “day in Court”. In an ideal world, every valid case would get to Trial. However, thousands of Plaintiffs have seen their cases thrown out (often for lack of jurisdiction) prior to any ruling on the merits. And others are bogged down by drafting deficiencies.

(1) Bruce Statement Of Claim
(2) Bruce Statement Of Defence
(3) Bruce Reply Statement
(4) Bruce Notice Of Discontinuance McLaren
(5) Bruce Notice Of Discontinuance Radford
(6) Bruce Letter To The Court

December 13, 2025December 13, 2025

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Conclude Certification Hearings, Decision Under Reserve

A pair of Proposed Class Actions wrapped up their hearings for certification on Friday, in the B.C. Supreme Court. These groups are attempting to convince a Judge that this is the most expeditious way to process thousands of claims related to loss of employment over injection mandates from 2021.

On a related note: the Court will also consider Applications brought to throw both cases out completely. The Government is making the usual arguments about how these cases are an “abuse of process”, and an ineffective way to resolve disputes. Notes from the hearings were provided by observers who attended, and are quite detailed. For simplicity, they were compiled into a single document. The suits came from:

(1) UHCWBC – United Health Care Workers of British Columbia
(2) BCPSEF – British Columbia Public Sector Employees For Freedom

It’s unclear how many Plaintiffs would result if either case was certified, but it could be in the hundreds, if not thousands. A lot of people didn’t like being pressured to take the shots.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, and 8 in this series on s.2(d) challenges.

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Cases

CASE NAMES	FEDS4F/BCPSEF	FREE2FLY/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers?	Yes	No
Filed Federally?	Feds For Freedom	Free To Fly
Filed in B.C.?	BCPSEF	UHCWBC
Filed in Ontario.?	n/a	UHCWO
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t?	Yes	No
Inducement to Breach Contract?	No	Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights?	Yes	Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office?	Yes	Yes

There are actually 5 different Proposed Class Actions going on which are based on a variation of the s.2(d) argument. While similar, there are differences in the arguments being advanced.

Feds For Freedom (Payne) initially got past a Motion to Strike at the beginning of 2025, but that was overturned by the Court of Appeal. By contrast, Free To Fly (Hill) survived a preliminary challenge that the Government did not appeal. This bodes well for the health care worker cases, as the arguments are essentially the same.

Update: The case of British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 49 was mentioned after this publication. Without getting lost in the weeds, it allowed Court access in instances where collective bargaining was impacted unilaterally without good faith consultation. There isn’t the comparable “ouster” that exists Federally, over constitutional challenges. This is good news for public sector workers, hoping to avoid the fate of Payne.

The B.C. cases are having both Applications to Strike and for Certification heard at the same time. The Ontario lawsuit appears to have been pushed back to the end.

Another wildcard is that CSASPP was refused certification recently, but Justice Crerar’s decision has been appealed. There is potentially some overlap with the ones here.

Understanding The Arguments Of These s.2(d) Cases

Government Workers: It is true that unionized and Government workplaces typically have a collective bargaining agreement. This means that there’s some sort of grievance process to follow, and then arbitration. How these differed is that the Plaintiffs are arguing that injection mandates “added a term or condition” to the employment, without any meaningful consultation, negotiation or consideration. In the Payne case, that was accepted initially, then overturned.

Non-Government workers: The argument differs here, because the Government isn’t actually the employer. Instead, Plaintiffs allege the Government induced a breach of contract, by causing the employer to “add a term or condition” to the employment, without any meaningful consultation, negotiation or consideration. Another way to look at this is as third party interference.

In both variations, the Plaintiffs state that their Section 2(d) Charter rights (freedom of association) were violated. This was caused by the Government not allowing employers and employees to engage in voluntary relationships. Presumably, employers wouldn’t have fired anyone (or very few), without authorities meddling.

The UHCWBC case (and similarly, the UHCWO one) appear to be on more solid ground because they are not Government employees. The go-to tactic of claiming lack of jurisdiction does not apply to them.

We’ll have to wait for a decision, however long that takes. Assuming certification of either happens, this is only the beginning. Much more will have to be done prior to Trial. Both groups are still fundraising to cover existing costs, and CSASPP is trying to raise money for their ongoing Appeal.

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025
(9) BCPS Plaintiff Submissions Certification And Strike December 2004
(10) BCPS UHCWBC Plaintiff REPLY Submissions Cert/Strike January 2025

UHCWBC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) UHCWBC Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) UHCWBC Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) UHCWBC Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(4) UHCWBC Amended Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(5) UHCWBC Requisition For Case Management Scheduling August 2024
(6) UHCWBC Notice Of Application For Certification October 2024
(7) UHCWBC Response To Application For Certification October 2024
(8) UHCWBC Notice Of Application To Strike Claim October 2024
(9) UHCWBC Consent Order Scheduling October 2024
(10) UHCWBC Response To Application To Strike November 2024

CERTIFICATION NOTES:
(1) UHCWBC and BCPSEF Certification Notes
(2) https://x.com/uhcwbc
(3) https://unitedtogether.ca/
(4) https://x.com/bcpsef
(5) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/

December 13, 2025December 20, 2025

Military Veterans Injection Pass Appeal Dismissed, Hennelly Factors

The Federal Court of Appeal threw out a challenge on Monday involving hundreds of current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Another $2,340 in costs was also ordered. As of now, this appears to be the end of the road.

Many had thought that the purpose was to get the case back on track, after it was struck last year. However, that’s only partly true. This proceeding was to determine whether or not Justice Manson of the Federal Court erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to bring an initial Appeal. The filing deadline had been missed.

The Justices here ruled that no mistake had been made, and the Appeal was dismissed.

Appeals Within/Between Federal Courts

Whether it’s a Judge or Associate Judge/Prothonotary who makes a decision matters, if parties wish to challenge. It determines where the Appeal goes to, procedure, and more importantly, the time limit.

APPEAL RULING FROM	PROTHONOTARY	JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where	Federal Court	Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To	Single Judge (FC)	Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure	Rule 51	Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice	10 Days	30 Days
Initial Document	Notice Of Motion	Notice Of Appeal
Procedure	Motion	Appeal
New Evidence Allowed?	No	With Leave, Rule 351

The original claim was struck over (a) inadequate pleadings; and (b) a requirement to follow the grievance scheme, by an Associate Judge, back in November, 2024. This meant there was a mere 10 days to serve a Notice of Motion. However, counsel appeared to mistake it for being a 30-day limit. Justice Manson refused a request to extend time. The case was effectively time barred at that point.

Now, the case went to the Federal Court of Appeal. What should have happened was a committed effort to convince this panel that it was a mistake to not grant that extension. Instead, it was glossed over in favour of attempting to argue the case shouldn’t have been thrown out in the first place.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal ruled that no error was made in refusing to grant an extension of time.

Hennelly Factors: What Decided This Appeal

The test for whether or not to grant an extension of time is commonly referred to the Hennelly Test, or the Hennelly Factors. While not exhaustive, these are 4 considerations that need to be made.

a continuing intention to pursue an appeal of the Associate Judge’s order
that their proposed appeal had some merit
that the respondents would not be prejudiced by the delay
that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay

A number of other issues were raised, such as not following procedures, and citing incorrect rules. That said, this is what courts look to when making their decision on time extensions.

Factor #1: Was There A Continuing Intention To Appeal?

[7] In particular, the Judge held that there was no evidence supporting an intent to appeal, even when considering the Affidavit.

The Affidavit submitted surprisingly came from counsel, and not from a client. On contentious issues, lawyers are prohibited from swearing out evidence they intend to argue. Typically, a client or a clerk does this. Consequently, this one was disallowed.

It also didn’t say the magic words: “I/we always intended to appeal”.

Factor #2: Was There Some Merit To The Appeal?

[12] Second, the appellants contend that the Judge erred in concluding that their proposed appeal had no likelihood of success. In fact, the bulk of the appellants’ submissions in this appeal focuses on the merits of some aspects of the Associate Judge’s order. The appellants contend in this respect that the Associate Judge erred: (i) in treating their claim as improperly bypassing the CAF grievance system; (ii) in concluding that that system was an adequate alternative remedy; and (iii) in striking the amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

[13] One major problem with these submissions is that nothing of that sort was put to the Judge. As the Judge correctly noted, both the Affidavit and the appellants’ written submissions in support of the Motion are silent as to how the appeal of the Associate Judge’s order might be successful (Order at para. 15). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that these submissions are based, in large part, on documents, mostly directives and reports on reviews of the National Defence Act and the CAF, that were not before the Judge and that were appended, in e-versions, to the appellants’ Memorandum of Fact and Law in this appeal.

[14] As the respondents correctly point out in their written submissions, the Judge cannot be faulted for not considering documents and submissions that were not put to him.

The Motion requesting the extension of time actually didn’t get into this at all. No draft submissions were attached, nor was there a section outlining what the appeal might look like. Justice Manson denied the request, in part, not knowing he Court of Appeal saw nothing wrong with that.

Factor #3: Will The Respondents Not Be Prejudiced By The Delay?

[7] …. On prejudice, the Judge found that although the respondents did not claim to be prejudiced by the delay in bringing the Motion, they were “certainly going to be prejudiced” by the fact the appellants were seeking an additional delay – that is up to the end of January 2025 – to file a “full motion record for an Appeal” (Order at paras. 19-21). According to the Judge, the respondents, in such context, were facing “indefinite delay going forward”.

This is probably the most subjective part of the test, as it’s hard to prove that a party is prejudiced. Nonetheless Justice Manson concluded that there was already excessive delay, and that there probably would be again.

Factor #4: Was There A Reasonable Explanation For The Delay?

[7] …. Finally, the Judge determined that both the 29-day delay and the additional 6-week delay sought to create a “full motion record for an Appeal”, were not explained in any rational sense, even, again, when considering the Affidavit (Order at paras. 22-23).

The official reason for the delay was that there was a serious logistical problem coordinating over 300 clients, to determine who actually wanted to appeal. Justice Manson ruled that a Notice of Motion could still have been filed within the 10 day period. in short something could have been filed, and the client issues sorted out later.

Part of the problem with this test is that it’s discretionary, and largely subjective. What one Judge may consider a reasonable explanation, another would reject out of hand. Similarly, one may view submissions to have “at least some merit”, while a colleague would not. There’s no uniform standard.

The Court of Appeal concluded with this:

[17] One other major problem with this appeal is that the appellants, at best, only superficially address the Judge’s application of the other Hennelly criteria (intent to appeal, delay and prejudice) to the circumstances of the case. There is nothing for us, therefore, to conclude that the appellants have met the highly deferential palpable and overriding error standard on these issues.

At the Monday hearing, a considerable amount of time was spent arguing how an Appeal could have proceeded (which is the 2nd Factor). That said, none of that had been put to Justice Manson previously. The 1st, 3rd, and 4th Factors weren’t addressed in great detail. The Appeal was dismissed.

What Happens Now For The Plaintiffs?

It’s quite disappointing for Plaintiffs, especially to have it end this way. The Court of Appeal never made any meaningful or deep findings on the merits of their cases. Nor was any new ground broken over employment rights. A missed deadline is what ultimately sealed their fate.

There’s no single answer for what comes next. Many are still employed with the military, while others have left. And most have at least initiated the grievance process, and are at various stages. They have some things to figure out.

While an attempt at the Supreme Court of Canada is theoretically possible, it seems unlikely to happen.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim (June 2023)
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim (July 2023)
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence (September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence (September 2023)
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim (July 2024)
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions (August 2024)
(7) Qualizza Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave (November 2024)

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time (January 2025)
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (February 2025)
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book (April 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/ARGUMENTS/RESULTS (AD HOC):
(1) Qualizza Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law (June 2025)
(3) Qualizza FCA Order Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)
(4) Qualizza FCA Reasons Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record (March 2025)
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement (May 2025)
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement (May 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE:
(1) Qualizza SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(2) Qualizza SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) Qualizza SCC Certificate File Access
(4) Qualizza SCC Response From AG Opposing Application
(5) Qualizza SCC Responding Certificate

November 26, 2025November 26, 2025

B.C. Property Rights Class Action: Signing Away Your Land For Peanuts?

Back in August, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that a section of land in Richmond actually belonged to the Cowichan Tribes. Understandably, this caused a lot of confusion for property and business owners, who learned about the decision after the fact. The case is being appealed, and that will be covered later.

It’s being reported that a Proposed Class Action has been filed in New Westminister. The Notice of Civil Claim is available, and it lists two Proposed Representative Plaintiffs: (a) Jasjeet Grewal; and (b) John Doe, who is unidentified.

Grewal is the owner of a hazardous materials removal business, but lives in Burnaby. He pleads that, despite not living in Richmond, his business affairs are now in question. The unidentified Plaintiff pleads that he owns property in Richmond, and is directly impacted by the ruling.

The Governments of Canada and British Columbia are named as Defendants.

While there may be issues with the filing itself, there’s a more immediate concern:

Class Action For Compensation If Owners SIGN AWAY Rights

There are 6 different remedies being sought. 4 of them are for damages, and the others are for Declaratory Relief. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Despite the excitement that came with sharing this development, readers need to consider what’s going on with this case. Nowhere in the N.O.C.C. does it state that it’s fighting for landowners keeping their property. This lawsuit doesn’t demand either the Federal or Provincial Governments do anything to prevent similar Court decisions from coming up.

Instead, it’s to get property owners to sign away their rights in return for compensation.

Many have raised the argument that they shouldn’t have to pay property taxes if they don’t actually own the property. That is a valid point. However, demanding tax refunds from the Government (either Canada or B.C.) will necessitate handing it over.

This is a suit over compensation not land protection.

In Richmond specifically, probably the best argument landowners have is that they weren’t notified the Cowichan case was going on until after the fact. They weren’t able to participate, and were denied any sense of due process. That’s certainly true. But will they still have those rights if they take the money?

Nowhere in the lawsuit do the Plaintiffs challenge the implementation of UNDRIP, which helped make this possible. There’s nothing sought that would compel Governments to do more to protect property rights. Other than demands for future transparency, they aren’t seeking any change at all.

Notice Of Claim Has Some Procedural Defects

Let’s have some fun with this one.

The “Class” doesn’t appear to apply to either Representative Plaintiff. In paragraph 7, it lists people who may have suffered losses as a result of trying to refinance, sell, buy or mortgage property. Neither claim that they did, although perhaps it’s just not stated.

To be fair, there are presumably Plaintiffs in B.C. who would only be seeking compensation for losses, and not looking to sell. But in that case, there should have been multiple subclasses. This needs to be cleared up.

The Plaintiffs here don’t plead that they have been harmed or suffered damages.

Paragraph 8 states that the “Class” may also include all property owners in Provinces other than B.C., regardless of whether or not they suffered any losses. Again, this doesn’t include Grewal or John Doe. It’s unclear what grievances people from other regions could raise. This section is so vague it could also mean Plaintiffs living where there are no land claims whatsoever.

The torts aren’t adequately pleaded. When making these kinds of allegations, there’s a requirement to “provide particulars”, or to spell out in details what has happened. There are claims of negligence, deceit and malfeasance, but nothing is laid out. Who? What? Where? When? The Claim could be amended easily enough, but this information has to be there.

The N.O.C.C. doesn’t actually state that it will be seeking a Certification Order, although it may be assumed.

***In fairness, this isn’t the sort of disaster case that is normally covered here. But, there are some procedural issues that may come up. None of it should be fatal though, and better drafting should fix these errors.

With this in mind, it doesn’t change the primary concern: this lawsuit seems designed to convince Plaintiffs to hand over their land. Yes, it’s a cynical take. Do you really think you’ll be allowed to keep it once that tax refund goes through?

Sure, Plaintiffs may get *some* of their cash back, but will almost certainly be expected to sign away their deed in return. Does that seem worth it?

Also consider: in Class Actions, the lawyers typically have wide latitude to settle suits. This means that individual Plaintiffs may get very little in terms of their “tax refunds”. Then the lawyers will take some 30% to 45% from each client for fees.

CLASS ACTION COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grewal Doc 001 Class Action Notice Of Civil Claim

COWICHAN RULING OF AUGUST, 2025:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html

(1) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0065-000611
(2) https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/CivilLitigationDirectives.pdf

November 16, 2025November 17, 2025

“Posties” Appeal Again: Hennelly Factors And Getting The Runaround

Let’s start with a thought experiment. How aggressively are litigants supposed to be following up with counsel? What separates diligence from excessiveness?

Employees of Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties”) have commenced yet another Appeal, trying to extend the deadline to challenge an earlier ruling.

To summarize: employees of Canada Post brought grievances when their company implemented the injection pass back in 2021. It eventually went to Arbitration, where it was deemed to be a “reasonable” policy in 2022.

Instead of challenging this ruling via Application for Judicial Review, they found a lawyer who convinced them to file a Statement of Claim. It was predictably tossed for lack of jurisdiction, in addition to the inadequate pleading itself.

Although Plaintiffs wanted to file an Appeal, they were given the runaround by counsel, and eventually abandoned. They found a new lawyer, but needed to file for an extension. The deadline had long expired.

See Parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

Over the last year, the focus was on getting an extension of time to Appeal. There were questions of whether or not Plaintiffs “acted diligently”, and if Defendants really were “prejudiced” by the delay.

Hennelly Factors And Deadlines To Appeal

APPEAL RULING FROM	PROTHONOTARY	JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where	Federal Court	Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To	Single Judge (FC)	Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure	Rule 51	Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice	10 Days	30 Days
Initial Document	Notice Of Motion	Notice Of Appeal
Procedure	Motion	Appeal
New Evidence Allowed?	No	With Leave, Rule 351

Understanding the Appeal process depends on who issued a ruling. If a decision comes from a Justice, then a Notice of Appeal goes to the Federal Court of Appeal. There’s a 30 day time limit. However, if it comes from an Associate Justice (Prothonotary), then there’s just 10 days to serve a Notice of Motion. Here though, because it took months for the Plaintiffs to file anything, it didn’t seem to matter.

Obtaining an extension of time to begin a proceeding is often doable, but may not be easy. The decision comes down to the Hennelly Test, which is a “suggested” list of 4 considerations. Other factors may also be looked at.

Did the moving party have a continuing intention to pursue the application?
Does the moving party have a reasonable explanation for the delay?
Is there some potential merit to the application?
Is there prejudice to the other party from the delay?

In the original Motion to extend time to Appeal, Associate Justice Cottor acknowledged the first part of the test, that the Plaintiffs had a continuing intention to pursue it.

Cottor entertained the idea of “giving the benefit of the doubt” to the third part, that there was some potential merit to the Appeal. That’s interesting, considering no explanation was ever provided on how to challenge the lack of jurisdiction (as Arbitration was required).

That being said, Cottor ruled against the Posties on the second and fourth part of the Hennelly Test. He said there was no reasonable explanation for the day, and presumed that there was prejudice caused by its length.

The request to extend time was 234 days past the deadline, of which 53 days of which was caused by Gratl himself. He didn’t act promptly after taking the case.

In this decision, Justice Kane said there was no error in how this had been applied, and upheld the refusal to extend time.

Now, the Notice of Appeal argues that the same mistakes were made.

Were Plaintiffs Supposed To Hound Their Former Counsel?

No Motion was ever filed by this firm.

In their first and more recent Motion Records asking for more time, the Plaintiffs give substantial evidence that they tried to get an Appeal started. The above screenshots are from one of the Affidavits. They were effectively led on, and then abandoned.

However, Associate Justice Cottor (starting on paragraph 9) wasn’t convinced that the Plaintiffs had pursued this diligently enough.

[35] A delay of 53 days is significant, and there is a no reasonable explanation for it. As per Singh 2023 the question is whether the Moving Plaintiffs have a reasonable explanation for the entire delay from the March 25 Appeal Deadline to the service of the Notice of Appeal on November 14. Since they do not have a reasonable explanation for a significant portion of the period, namely 53 days, it is not possible to conclude that they have a reasonable explanation for the delay. The outcome of the analysis of the initial delay of almost six months will not change this conclusion.

[36] While it may not be necessary to also consider the initial delay of almost six months given the above conclusion, I will do so for completeness. The initial delay is the period from the Appeal Deadline of March 25 until Current Counsel was engaged on September 22. As noted above, the Moving Plaintiffs blame Former Counsel for that delay. The defendants advanced various arguments in response, the general tenor of which is that: a) clients must live with their choice of counsel and counsel’s actions (subject to limited exceptions which the defendants say do not apply), with clients and counsel being treated as one for the purposes of a motion to extend time; and b) that the Moving Plaintiffs were insufficiently diligent in following up with Former Counsel in the circumstances of this case. The Moving Plaintiffs argued in response that the cases that have held that errors or inadvertence of counsel is not a reasonable explanation for…

[37] Using the approach advocated for by the defendants, namely that errors or inadvertence of counsel is not a reasonable explanation for the delay, then there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. However, if that approach is not used, it is appropriate to consider the behavior of the Moving Plaintiffs during that period … Considering the conduct of the Moving Plaintiffs during that period of delay does not assist them. They knew that the Appeal Deadline had been missed, and that the filing of a motion for an extension of time was lagging considerably (and more so as time went on). However, despite that, there was only occasional follow-up by the Moving Plaintiffs. Having regard to what transpired during that initial period of almost six months, it is not possible to conclude that the Moving Plaintiffs diligently addressed the situation

Associate Justice Cottor saw this as 2 separate delays: (a) nearly 6 months from previous counsel, Grey; and (b) another 53 days from current counsel, Gratl. He concluded there was no reasonable explanation. In the Appeal, Justice Kane saw no problem with this reasoning.

It raises the question of what litigants need to do. Are they expected to hound their lawyers day-in and day-out to check the progress of the case? Are they supposed to involve the Law Society? If lawyers mislead clients and lie to them, are they not able to fix their case?

Of course, none of this addresses the elephant in the room: there’s no jurisdiction to sue the company, as Canada Post is unionized, with a collective bargaining agreement.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

***It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

***Despite what happened, many Plaintiffs want to pursue an Appeal. However, they’re abandoned by their lawyer, and forced to seek a new one. They eventually hire Jason Gratl

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

***Since the Notice of Motion is so late, Gratl is forced to bring another Motion, this one to extend time. However, his explanation for the months long delay falls on deaf ears.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

September 23rd, 2025: Hearing is held via video on this Motion.

October 2nd, 2025: Justice Kane refuses Appeal that would have extended time to Appeal original decision from Associate Justice Coughlan.

***Gratl tried to explain again why the Canada Post Plaintiffs should get an extension of time, despite being months late. Again, the Court rules otherwise. At this point, the options within the Federal Court are exhausted.

October 17th, 2025: Plaintiffs file Notice of Appeal with Federal Court of Appeal.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events in T-1436-22.

We’ll have to see what happens. But it’s frustrating for litigants to be let down when they clearly were trying to advance their case.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)
(3) Canada Post Order Dismissing Appeal For Extension Of Time (October, 2025)
(4) Canada Post Federal Court Case History

LITIGATION (APPEAL TO FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post FCA Notice Of Appeal

Author: Ronnie

“They Downplayed My Contributions, So I Had To Engage In Litigation”

Grant Bristow And Bernie Farber Were Actually Friends

Ferryman-Cohen Sued Bernie Farber For Clout

Ferryman-Cohen Sued TV Ontario For Clout

Ferryman-Cohen Sued For Defamation By Paul ApSimon

Ferryman-Cohen Sues Caryma Sa’d And Toronto Police

Ferryman-Cohen Works For Institute For Strategic Dialogue

Guys, They’re Totally Not Feds!

Like this:

Case Conference Sought In Stale Military Injection Pass Case

1. Government Claims “Grievance Scheme” Should Have Been Used

2. Inadequate Pleading, Considering Allegations Made

Like this:

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Conclude Certification Hearings, Decision Under Reserve

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Cases

Understanding The Arguments Of These s.2(d) Cases

Like this:

Military Veterans Injection Pass Appeal Dismissed, Hennelly Factors

Appeals Within/Between Federal Courts

Hennelly Factors: What Decided This Appeal

Factor #1: Was There A Continuing Intention To Appeal?

Factor #2: Was There Some Merit To The Appeal?

Factor #3: Will The Respondents Not Be Prejudiced By The Delay?

Factor #4: Was There A Reasonable Explanation For The Delay?

What Happens Now For The Plaintiffs?

Like this:

B.C. Property Rights Class Action: Signing Away Your Land For Peanuts?

Class Action For Compensation If Owners SIGN AWAY Rights

Notice Of Claim Has Some Procedural Defects

Like this:

“Posties” Appeal Again: Hennelly Factors And Getting The Runaround

Hennelly Factors And Deadlines To Appeal

Were Plaintiffs Supposed To Hound Their Former Counsel?

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

Like this:

Grant Bristow And Bernie Farber Were Actually Friends

Ferryman-Cohen Sued Bernie Farber For Clout

Ferryman-Cohen Sued TV Ontario For Clout

Ferryman-Cohen Sued For Defamation By Paul ApSimon

Ferryman-Cohen Sues Caryma Sa’d And Toronto Police

Ferryman-Cohen Works For Institute For Strategic Dialogue

Guys, They’re Totally Not Feds!

Share this:

Like this:

1. Government Claims “Grievance Scheme” Should Have Been Used

2. Inadequate Pleading, Considering Allegations Made

Share this:

Like this:

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Cases

Understanding The Arguments Of These s.2(d) Cases

Share this:

Like this:

Appeals Within/Between Federal Courts

Hennelly Factors: What Decided This Appeal

Factor #1: Was There A Continuing Intention To Appeal?

Factor #2: Was There Some Merit To The Appeal?

Factor #3: Will The Respondents Not Be Prejudiced By The Delay?

Factor #4: Was There A Reasonable Explanation For The Delay?

What Happens Now For The Plaintiffs?

Share this:

Like this:

Class Action For Compensation If Owners SIGN AWAY Rights

Notice Of Claim Has Some Procedural Defects

Share this:

Like this:

Hennelly Factors And Deadlines To Appeal

Were Plaintiffs Supposed To Hound Their Former Counsel?

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

Share this:

Like this: