Litigants Accused Of Filing Defamation Appeal As “Leverage” Against $1.1 Million Cost Order

The long anticipated Appeal of Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba is scheduled to be heard on December 12th, 2023. This comes nearly 2 years after a Judge threw out their defamation case as frivolous. For some background, see here and here.

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.

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.

Gill (and Lamba) accused of bringing Appeal in bad faith

Now we get to November 2023.

One of the Respondents/Defendants, The Pointer Group Inc., has caused an interesting complication. In a Motion seeking costs up front, it’s accusing the Appellants of filing the Appeal in bad faith, in order to circumvent the cost award. There was a hearing before Justice Roberts on Wednesday November 1st.

From paragraph 28 of the Factum asking for costs:

Given the potentially extensive costs awards payable by Dr. Gill for the Action, her abandonment of her appeal as against 11 of the 22 respondents, her failure to identify any error made by Justice Stewart in granting The Pointer’s SLAPP Motion, the delay in pursuing this appeal and The Pointer’s limited resources, it is apparent that Dr. Gill has brought this appeal for the purpose of obtaining leverage in negotiations with The Pointer to avoid paying some or all of the costs awarded to The Pointer.

To summarize: The Pointer Group is alleging Gill and Lamba brought the Appeal as a tactical maneuver in order to avoid paying the full costs that are owed. It’s stated that approximately half of the Defendants have already settled in return for abandoning the Appeal against them.

Put bluntly, this is claiming contempt of Court on their part, by attempting to do an end run around the October 2022 costs ruling.

The Pointer says that the Appeal doesn’t address them in any meaningful way, and thus, there’s no basis for the Appellate Court to overturn those findings.

It’s interesting that this is the only party that’s sought security for costs to date. Besides, it’s strange to wait until so close to the main hearing date.

Updates will be posted closer to the December date. The Appeal will likely be dismissed, as anti-SLAPP laws were correctly applied here. The legislation is designed to prevent people from being able to bankrupt others on the basis of trivial matters. Additionally, the Appeal costs will likely be “full indemnity” as well This means Gill and Lamba could easily end up owing another $100,000 to $200,000, or more.

Gill has a separate anti-SLAPP Motion to be heard next October. It’s with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. Gill demanded $7 million because he called her an “idiot” online. That could easily cost another $25,000 to $50,000 that she doesn’t have.

Side note: the Court of Appeals has been contacted for more documents, and they will be uploaded when they arrive. Both The Pointer and Gill’s new counsel haven’t responded for comment.

(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

(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(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

U.N. Sendai Framework Introduced Domestically Via B.C. Bill 31 (Emergency & Disaster Management Act)

A few weeks ago, British Columbia Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, made ripples because of the embedded language which seemed to be a threat to property rights. Under the pretense of emergencies, rights could be suspended in a manner that heavily paralleled the Public Health Act.

However, it’s noteworthy that the B.C. Government isn’t actually responsible for this legislation. It’s domestic implementation of the United Nations Sendai Framework, signed in Japan in 2015.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Hon. B. Ma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
Hon. B. Ma: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.
Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. This bill delivers on government’s pledge to introduce modernized emergency management legislation that aligns with the United Nations Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, the international best practices for how we make our communities safer and more resilient.
This legislation formally recognizes the rights of First Nations as decision-makers in emergency management, which is an important step in aligning B.C.’s approach with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The Emergency and Disaster Management Act moves towards a holistic four-phase approach of mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. It embraces disaster risk reduction and will require that climate risk be assessed so that entities can better mitigate the impacts of climate-related emergencies before they happen.
This bill updates the concept of what constitutes an emergency to reflect modern realities and risks and provides improved tools for response and recovery. I look forward to debate on this bill and, ultimately, to the improvements it will bring for the safety of people across British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.

It’s also explicitly stated that it will be used to “mitigate the risks” of climate change, but without specifying what those risks are.

Bill 31 is quite long, but here are a few notable parts. Section 76 allows the Minister to suspend property rights under the guise of mitigating an emergency. It also allows for warrantless entry under that same pretense.

Furthermore, the Minister is able to order that property be destroyed …. including crops. By this logic, food supply would not be secure either.

Land and other property
76 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) appropriate, use or control the use of any personal property;
(b) use or control the use of any land;
(c) authorize the entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures;
(d) prohibit the entry into any structure or onto any land by any person;
(e) authorize or require the alteration, removal or demolition of any trees, crops, structures or landscapes;
(f) authorize or require the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of works;
(g) require the owner of a structure to
(i) have any damage to the structure assessed, and
(ii) give the results of the assessment to the minister or a person in a class of persons specified by the minister.
(2) The power under subsection (1) (b) to use or control the use of land does not apply to specified land.

Section 78 would give the Government the power to restrict travel and movement, shut down businesses, and various events. This greatly parallels what happened from 2020 to 2022. The difference here is that the excuse isn’t a disease.

General restrictions
78 (1) The minister may, by order, control or prohibit one or more of the following:
(a) travel to or from any area;
(b) the carrying on of a business or a type of business;
(c) an event or a type of event.
(2) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) require a person to stop doing an activity, including an activity that a person is licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized to do under an enactment;
(b) put limits or conditions on doing an activity, including limits or conditions that have the effect of modifying a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment.

Section 82 says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make retroactive orders. This would presumably legalize actions that would previously have been illegal.

Section 139 makes it clear that compliance is mandatory.

Section 140 gives provincial administrators the power to ask for police enforcement

Section 141 outlines judicial remedies to obtain injunction.

Section 154 provides protection from legal proceedings for pretty much anyone involved in implementing emergency management orders.

There is much more to this Bill, and that will be covered in a follow-up.

Now, what does this have to do with the United Nations?

Turns out, that the Sendai Framework was agreed to in 2015, and this is just B.C. implementing their version of it. This is also the third conference, with the first being Yokohama in 1994, and the second in Hyogo in 2005. The specific agency is the UNDDR, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The full text of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (see archive) is available online. As should be apparent, Bill 31 heavily copies this content.

And the Emergency & Disaster Management Act heavily mirrors the Provincial Public Health Acts, which strip away property rights under the cloak of disease prevent. Those have been covered here and here.

More to come!

(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English

Date Set For Federal Injection Pass Appeal, Pleadings Were “Bad Beyond Argument”

February 2023, a lawsuit by over 600 Federal workers, and workers of Federally regulated industries, was struck in its entirety by Justice Fothergill. November 8th, the Federal Court of Appeals will review the case. Spoiler: the Appeal will be dismissed.

To describe briefly, the Statement of Claim was struck without leave (or permission) to amend against 400 Plaintiffs on the grounds that they were barred by Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA. Government workers, for the most part, don’t have the right to sue their employer.

This didn’t apply to non-Government workers, such as in banking or aviation. However, the Claim was drafted so poorly that it was struck anyway, but with leave to amend.

The Appeal is baseless, and will go nowhere.

While there are many errors in the original case, here are 3 big ones:

1. Federal Workers Barred From Litigation, Must Grieve Instead

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved (a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
236(1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA give Federal employees the right to grieve, something that often ends in arbitration. However, they don’t necessarily have a right to sue in Court.

Now, there is (somewhat) of a way around this. If Litigants can demonstrate that the grievance process is seriously flawed or corrupted, they may get a Court to hear this. However, that didn’t happen, nor does it appear to have been attempted.

Not only was this case not beneficial to the public, but it was used as precedent in at least 3 more rulings, denying litigants access to the Courts:

(A) Davis v. Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2023 FC 280
(B) Horsman v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard), 2023 FC 929
(C) Doe v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 BCSC 1701

The Appellants allege that Justice Fothergill failed to give reasons for denying their Claim, but he did. It’s in Paragraphs 10-36 of the ruling. Granted, it’s not one that will satisfy them, but it is addressed.

2. Claim Fails To Follow Basics Of Civil Procedure

This comes from Paragraph 39 of the ruling, and lists some of the more obvious problems that came up with this lawsuit. The Federal Court Rules should be known to anyone who brings a case, as they outline the process for doing so.

As stated previously, lawsuits must be written well enough so that the opposing sides (and the Judge) are able to understand what’s going on. This isn’t optional.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

When it’s stated that “particulars” are required, this means specific information. There’s an extra burden on the Party making the claims to ensure that they are spelled out. That wasn’t done here, nor was it done in several related anti-lockdown suits.

The case was struck as “bad beyond argument“, and rightfully so. While the non-Government Plaintiffs have the right to refile, they may wish to retain better counsel.

The Claim was struck — in part — as the basics of drafting weren’t followed. The Claim heavily mirrored the Action4Canada case, also struck as “bad beyond argument“.

The Appeal (bizarrely) criticizes Justice Fothergill for relying on the Action4Canada case as a precedent. It’s unclear why, unless this is deliberate obfuscation. The parallels are striking. Although the Federal Claim is much shorter, it has substantially the same defects.

3. Large Portions Of Claim Outside Jurisdiction Of Federal Court

[Para 53] Justice Ross granted leave to the plaintiffs in Action4Canada to amend their pleading. However, he specified that numerous claims, some of which are also advanced in the present proceeding, are improper in a civil action (Action4Canada at paras 52-53). These include allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity.

This should be obvious. If someone is going to commence litigation, it must be over issues that a Court can at least theoretically preside over. Yes, the merits of the case will need to be determined. However, if there are jurisdiction problems, then everything comes to a stop immediately.

The same problems occurred with the Action4Canada case, with Justice Ross saying:

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:

a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

This shows why the Action4Canada case was used to help with striking the Federal one. Not only are both poorly written — and don’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure — but both make demands that Civil Courts can’t realistically grant.

In other news:

Action4Canada then appealed the findings that the B.C. Supreme Court couldn’t preside over such matters, but then let the case sit. It went “inactive” until called out.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 2020 case is also facing a Motion to Strike in Ontario in the new year. It will be thrown out for much the same reasons. The case was idle from 2020 until January 2023, when the Motion was finally brought.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s October 2019 lawsuit challenging regulations around immunizing Ontario students hasn’t had a single Court appearance, despite being filed over 4 years ago.

Take Action Canada arranged for a mass filing in Ontario, and the Statement of Claim is a virtual clone of the Federal one. It contains the same challenges which a Civil Court can’t grant. It’s sat dormant since. Because the Plaintiffs (police, fire fighters, paramedics, etc…) are mainly unionized, jurisdiction will be an issue for them as well.

An April 2021 Application organized by Police On Guard, and another from Children’s Health Defense (Canada), aren’t being pursued. Despite being filed nearly 3 years ago, neither have had a single Court appearance.

Also, after the Federal case was struck, there was an email sent out to all 600 or so Plaintiffs, asking for more money. The “freedom business” has turned out to be quite lucrative. Apparently, the $1,000 per head retainer didn’t cover this Appeal, and was only meant to cover Trial costs.

But of course, we all know none of these claims will ever get to Trial.

How much money has been pumped into these nothing-burger lawsuits?

(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)


(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

University Of Ottawa Files Anti-SLAPP Motion In $7 Million Defamation Suit

This is a follow-up to an August 2022 piece that outlined a defamation claim between Kulvinder Gill, the University of Ottawa, and a professor named Amir Attaran. Attaran and the University were sued for $7 million back in March 2021 over 2 insulting tweets.

Finally, there seems to be some movement. The Defendants have initiated an anti-SLAPP Motion to get the lawsuit thrown out as “gag proceedings”, or as an attempt to shut down public discourse. The hearing is set for October of 2024, a year from now.

Attaran himself responded to an inquiry, and confirmed that it’s a SLAPP Motion. He said that his demands for a public apology had been refused, and now he wants his day in Court.

Ontario has an online search tool, which makes it easy to track how cases are progressing. Court documents are also considered public records, and are open to anyone, with limited exceptions.

A Notice of Intent was filed back in June 2021, although not an actual Statement of Defence. Then the case sat idly for over 2 years. Looking at the content in the Statement of Claim, it’s not hard to see why. The quotes are from page 9.

As an aside, the date in Paragraph 34 is wrong. It references a July 28th, 2021 article, which would have been after this suit was filed.

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

The suit is frivolous, to put it mildly. Gill is suing for millions over a Twitter spat, which included the above statements. Anti-SLAPP laws (Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for Ontario) are meant to protect against this sort of thing.

The first tweet is insulting, but is unlikely to be considered defamation. The second one appears to be Attaran just trolling Gill.

Even if Attaran genuinely views Gill as an idiot, these remarks — while distasteful — would probably be viewed as opinion, and protected as fair comment.

An additional problem is that Gill will most likely be unable to prove that she suffered any damages as a result of these comments. Twitter is known as a cesspool, where people say rude and insulting things.

She’ll also find it difficult to convince a Judge that shutting down discourse like this will be in the public interest. Understandably, the the Courts tend to lean towards protecting speech and expression.

It’s worth pointing out there’s no requirement that speech or expression be beneficial or helpful in order to be protected as public expression. As long as it’s on a subject that a segment of the population might care about, then s.137.1 applies. The above comments were in the context of arguing over lockdown measures.

With these things in mind, the anti-SLAPP Motion is certain to prevail.

Posting these kinds of comments online won’t damage Gill’s reputation or her work prospects. However, suing over them just makes her look unhinged or vindictive.

Gill was also abandoned by previous counsel. It’s unclear, at least from what’s available here, who will be representing her at this Motion. As the 2024 date draws near, expect an update, along with more filings.

In other news:

This also isn’t Gill’s first attempt at silencing critics. February 2024, a $12.75 million suit was thrown out as a SLAPP. In October 2022, she and Ashvinder Lamba — but mostly just Gill — were ordered to pay over $1.1 million in fees to the Defendants’ lawyers. Back in December 2020, she and Lamba sued 23 people and organizations over essentially the same type of comments as this.

Instead of paying costs — as they likely can’t afford to — the ruling was appealed. It has just dragged on. At least 1 of the Respondents has made accusations that the Appeal is an attempt to circumvent the costs Order. A hearing is scheduled next week to determine whether costs must be put up in advance by Gill. More on that later.

It’s bizarre that Gill had been embraced by the “freedom movement” over the last few years. She’s done more to attempt to chill free speech in Canada than just about anyone.

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Counsel Abandons Plaintiff


Respondent Lawyers Accused Of Misconduct In Action4Canada Appeal

It’s interesting what people can do when motivated. October 13th, this piece went out, publishing that the Action4Canada Appeal had been listed as “inactive” due to a failure to schedule the hearing.

Less than a week later, it’s been announced that the case has been removed from the “inactive” listings, and a hearing booked for February 14th, 2024.

Further details: Action4Canada filed an appeal on Sept. 28, 2022 and the Respondents filed their response by January 2023. The appeal could have been before the Appeal Court within 6 months however, the Respondents were not cooperative in setting a timely date. Rocco’s office consistently made every effort to work with all parties involved. If a court date is not set within a year the file is automatically put on an ‘inactive’ list. This transpired on Sept. 28, 2023 and was due to the Respondents’ ongoing delays in setting a date.

The update is accurate, at least in the sense that Appeals are automatically considered inactive if a Notice of Hearing isn’t filed within a year of the Notice of Appeal. That part is true. Section 50 of the B.C. Court of Appeal Rules spells this out.

However, it’s probably not a good idea to go around accusing the Respondent/Defendant lawyers of attempting to delay and sabotage the hearing of the Appeal. It seems unlikely that this would be protected under anti-SLAPP laws.

On the off chance that this is true, some receipts would be nice.

Also, delaying the case would make no sense from their perspective. The Appeal is baseless — as has been covered here — and focuses primarily on issues that a B.C. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant. It revolves around Paragraph 52 in Justice Ross’ ruling. This would be an easy case to get thrown out.

This also isn’t the first time that Government lawyers have been accused of deliberately stalling this case. Back in late 2020, there were claims that the B.C. officials had delayed service by 2 1/2 months.

This makes little sense either, as the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, was a convoluted mess that was doomed to fail from the outset.

Looking at the big picture, Action4Canada has been fundraising for about 3 1/2 years now and still hasn’t put forward a valid NOCC. This will never get to Trial.

In other news:

(1) The Federal Court of Appeals will hear the Appeal of some 600+ Plaintiffs — both Government workers and employees of Federally regulated industries — on November 8th, 2023. See the background information here.

(2) Vaccine Choice Canada will be in Court for 2 days, January 30 and February 1st, 2024. This is to finally have the hearing to strike out the July 6, 2020 Claim. For anyone wondering why it took so long, it’s because it took 2 1/2 years to have a first appearance.

Factums (arguments) are due starting in November, and will be provided.

(3) Vaccine Choice’s other case, from October 2019, hasn’t gotten past the pleading stages. This is despite being filed 4 years ago. It may very well be dismissed for delay soon.

Update: Shortly after this was published, Action4Canada made significant changes to their October 19, 2023 update. They removed references to the Respondent lawyers deliberately delaying the hearing of the Appeal. Guess someone had to explain that these kind of accusations are a bad idea. Without receipts or other proof, a defamation claim was quite possible.

Remember to donate!

(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

(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 – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)


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

Take Action Canada: 2 Years Later, No Activity In Vaccine Mandate Case

This is an update from March 2023. More than 100 “first responders” from Ontario (police, medical, firefighters, etc….) filed a lawsuit against the Ontario Government and their respective organizations. It sought over $100 million in damages.

April 2021: For context, it’s important to know the history. Originally, there was an Application filed back in April 2021 on behalf of a number of Ontario police officers. This case was heavily promoted, and donations solicited, from a group called Police On Guard. It’s interesting that P.O.G. was never listed as a client, despite their public role.

That case sat idly for several months — as always — before the next version came out. Now, the case is still considered active, and no one bothered to tell the public that this Application wasn’t being pursued. It’s unclear if any of the donor money was ever returned.

Worth noting: there was an April 2021 Application from Children’s Health Defense (Canada). It also appears that it’s not being pursued, and nothing has been publicly announced about returning donations.

Fall 2021: The next iteration was by a group called Take Action Canada. This was more broadly to challenge the vaccine passports that were being implemented in the Fall of 2021. Apparently, prospective clients were being asked to contribute $1,500 each, despite this being (despite abandoning the April Application).

March 1, 2023: Although the clients’ livelihoods made this case urgent, nothing was actually filed until March 2023. That’s right, it took approximately a year and a half from the time the suit was being organized, until the time a Statement of Claim was filed in Ontario Superior Court. Clearly, there is no urgency whatsoever in getting this done.

And what was the product? A rehash of filings from British Columbia and the Federal Court that had already been thrown out as “bad beyond argument”. People who had been forced from their professions were paying retainer fees for copies of pleadings previously tossed, and more than once.

July 18, 2023: an Amended Statement of Claim was filed. It pleaded some specific details for 35 of the Plaintiffs. The likely reason for doing this was to address criticisms from earlier cases that the claims lacked facts and background information. Here’s the Requisition.

However, the Amended Claim also states that “particulars will be provided later”. This likely won’t sit well with the Court, as Defendants are entitled to know the case against them.

August 10, 2023: the City of Hamilton filed a Notice of Intent to Defend. Note, this not the same thing as filing a Defence. It’s just a short statement that they intend to do so.

According to a recent response from the Court Registry, no actual defences have been filed, nor are there any hearings scheduled. In other words, it’s just another dead end case.

Should things progress, there are a few major problems to contend with:

  • First: the Plaintiffs mostly (if not entirely) are/were unionized employees, which means there’s a requirement to go through the grievance process. This typically ends in arbitration. While there are limited ways to argue around this, this document falls far short of that.
  • Second: as with similar cases, this one is pleaded so poorly that it’s likely to get struck due to its incomprehensible and incoherent nature. While not fatal, it will be another significant delay.
  • Third: given that it took so long to even get a case filed, the Defendants are likely to argue that the issues are “moot” (as in no longer relevant).
  • Fourth: even if some of the Plaintiffs were to seek out a new lawyer and file a new case, the Statute of Limitations — typically 2 years — will prevent them from refiling.

This case was announced 2 years ago, and hasn’t gotten past the pleadings stage. This is comparable with Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2020 suit, which was dormant for 2 1/2 years before a Motion to Strike was brought. That will be heard January 30th February 1st, 2024.

Again, few of these cases are being tried on the merits. They are being struck or dismissed because they aren’t written in an intelligible way, or have fatal defects.

This site has covered only a relatively small number of these kinds of cases. One has to wonder how prevalent the issue really is.

Instead of criticizing this site, perhaps Take Action Canada should be trying to reimburse people who’ve paid the retainer fees. Just a thought.

(3) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(4) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(6) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend