Author: Ronnie

Posted on

From April: Australian Court Throws Out 1,000 Page Class Action As Incoherent

A while back, an Australian Court issued a ruling that is eerily similar to what has been happening here. A Proposed Class Action was filed to obtain justice for victims who had been injured from the “Covid vaccines”.

Justice Anna Katzmann of the Federal Court in New South Wales issued a 62 page decision, see archive, explaining why the lawsuit was thrown out.

***Note: this ruling was actually from April, 2025. Due to a bunch of different delays and setbacks, including getting these documents, it’s finally being covered now. Nonetheless, it’s proof that the rampant screw-ups from the “freedom lawyers” isn’t limited to just Canada. Australian lawyers apparently can be just as bad. Here’s an earlier article on it.

The Plaintiff is also on the hook for 80% of the Defendants’ Court costs.

  1. The third further amended statement of claim be struck out.
  2. No other amended statement of claim be filed without the leave of the Court.
  3. The respondents’ application for security for costs be dismissed.
  4. The applicants pay 80% of the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application filed on 17 June 2024.
  5. These orders be entered forthwith.

Although the Claim was struck, it at least allows for the possibility that a proper version may be filed, if leave was granted. But it wouldn’t happen with present counsel.

While the lawyers in Canada (deservedly) get endless criticism from this site, it’s worth noting that the problem isn’t limited to just them. We have more in common than it seems.

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada are ridiculed for their absurdly long claims (391 and 191 pages, respectively). However, this one much longer than either of those.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the Statement of Claim was 1,000 pages long. Or at least, 2 of the versions were 1,000 pages. Lawyers apparently “settled” on one that was over 800. This alone would have unnecessarily driven up legal costs.

651 pages – first version
652 pages – second version
990 pages – third version
1,023 pages – fourth version
818 pages – fifth version

Excluding Notice of Filing and the back page, this totals 4,134, or 827 pages per draft. Lawyers would have to read over 4,000 pages just to cover the different versions of the Statement of Claim. Beyond that, Justice Katzmann complains that her various directions weren’t complied with, driving up costs, and wasting time.

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

[2] The proceeding was commenced in April 2023 by the filing of an originating application and a 652-page statement of claim. Since then, the statement of claim has been amended four times. Still, the pleading remains prolix. The latest version, the third further amended statement of claim (3FASOC), is 819 pages long. It is dense and extremely difficult to follow. Substantial parts of it are impenetrable.

[3] The relief sought is “compensation and/or damages” with interest plus costs. The basis of the claim for compensation, as distinct from damages, is obscure. A claim is made in the pleading, but not in the originating application, for exemplary damages but that claim is not particularised, contrary to the requirement in r 16.44(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) that, where such a claim is made, the pleading must also “state particulars of the facts on which the claim is based”. Despite the misfeasance claim, no declaration is sought that anything allegedly done by any of the Commonwealth officers was unauthorised, invalid or beyond power.

[13] The respondents’ contention is that summary judgment should be entered in their favour because the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success; the 3FASOC fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action; and the proceeding is an abuse of process.

[14] Alternatively, the respondents contend that the pleading should be struck out in full because it contains scandalous material, is embarrassing, evasive and ambiguous, and an abuse of process, and it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

[15] The respondents contend that the negligence claim is bound to fail because the applicants have no reasonable prospect of establishing the existence of the pleaded duty; the allegations of bad faith have not been adequately pleaded or properly particularised; the allegations of breach are vague, generalised, embarrassing and inappropriate; and the pleading makes no attempt to link the alleged breaches of duty to the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants. The respondents contend that the misfeasance claim is fatally flawed in a number of respects.

[37] Pleadings are covered by Pt 16 of the Rules. The key features include the following matters. First, a pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case permits: r 16.02(1)(b). Second, it must identify the issues the party wants the Court to resolve: r 16.02(1)(c). Third, it must state the material facts on which the party relies that are necessary to give the opposite party fair notice of the case against it but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved: r 16.02(d). Fourth, it must state the provisions of any statute relied on: r 16.02(e). In addition, a pleading must not ask for relief that is not claimed in the originating application: r 16.02(4).

[38] Importantly, not all relevant facts are “material facts”. A fact is material if it is essential to the cause of action, that is to say, if it is a fact which, in combination with other facts, gives rise to
a right to sue: Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697 at 710–712 (Scott LJ). In other
words, a fact is material if it is essential to prove that fact in order to make out the cause of
action or put another way, it is an element of the cause of action.

The decision is much longer, of course, but this is noteworthy. Justice Katzmann has to explain, in great detail, what pleadings are supposed to include. Despite the tedious length, most of the necessary information isn’t submitted at all. Nearly the entirety of these filings is irrelevant.

While this was in Australia, the Judge could easily be describing a filing from several Canadian cases.

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

In fairness, Plaintiffs are required to plead sufficient detail so that Defendants understand what they’re being accused of. This is necessary.

However, this goes far beyond that. It argues ad nauseum the side effects and inadequate testing of vaccines. And it goes on for hundreds of pages. The goal of pleadings is to simply lay out the allegations so they can be responded to.

The Claim does (briefly) address the classes of Plaintiffs who will be covered by it. But it gets bogged down by the minute detail. Indeed, this appears designed to be incoherent and convoluted.

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Another parallel here is that this case had significant fundraising as well. While this is certainly not the only source of crowdfunding, this took in nearly $173,000 Australian dollars. Overall, close to $1 million was raised.

And all for a case so poorly drafted it never stood a chance.

Gee, they’re not in cahoots, are they?

AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1.1) https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0339
(1.2) Decision Of Justice Anna Katzmann
(2) Aussie Applicants Genuine Steps Statement (April 26th, 2023)
(3) Aussie Statement of Claim (April 26th, 2023)
(4) Aussie Amended Statement of Claim (April 28th, 2023)
(5) Aussie Further Amended Statement of Claim (September 18th, 2023)
(6) Aussie Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (March 4th, 2024)
(7) Aussie Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (May 6th, 2024)
(8) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (June 17th, 2024)
(9) Aussie Affidavit of Melissa McCann Redacted (July 15th, 2024)
(10) Aussie Applicants Written Submissions (November 11th, 2024)
(11) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (November 18th, 2024)
(12) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (November 29th, 2024)
(13) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (December 20th, 2024)
(14) Aussie Applicants Response (December 20th, 2024)

Posted on

Time Barred? Was Vaccine Injury Class Action Filed Too Late?

Last Spring, news broke about a Proposed Class Action lawsuit filed on behalf of victims who had been injured or killed by Covid vaccines. Understandably, this was big news. Finally, someone would step forward and represent the members of the public, many of whom had no money for individual cases.

Who would be included in this lawsuit?

The Proposed Class
13. The members of the proposed class, hereinafter referred to as (“the Class” or “Class Members”), include:
a. All Canadians who have suffered death or serious injury due to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada;

Question #4 of the FAQ makes it clear that Quebec residents are excluded.

The Representative Plaintiff was to be Drue Taylor, an Alberta resident. She had publicly spoken out about the severe harms that had been inflicted on her. A logical choice.

However, more than a year later, there are concerns that have come up. First among them, was this case filed in time, or is it barred by the Statute of Limitations?

***To preface this article: It’s not meant to attack the victim. She is undoubtedly sincere in describing what she has gone through. The point is to ask hard questions about the lawsuit itself. There are many things that need to be answered.

Alberta Limitations Act Specifies 2 Year Time Limit

Section 3(1) of the Limitations Act of Alberta specifies that there is a 2 year timeframe from when the person knew (or ought to have known) to bring legal action, or a 10 year ultimate limit. There are a number of exceptions, but those mainly have to do with minors, or sexual assault.

Why this matters is because the Statement of Claim was filed on May 6th, 2024. Depending on when she knew (or ought to have known), this may be too late. A Judge would have to decide this. As Taylor is the only Representative Plaintiff, the suit would come to an end.

The Claim pleads virtually nothing about the Plaintiff, except this:

2. The Plaintiff, Drue Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”), is the proposed class representative.

3. Taylor suffered permanent, chronic, and significant physical, psychological, and emotional harms, and other damages, after receiving each of her two COVID-19 vaccine doses.

4. The Plaintiff is 34 years of age with a husband and two children. Prior to 24 April 2021, Taylor worked as a professional massage therapist for humans and horses in addition to being a professional yoga trainer. She resides in St. Albert, Alberta.

Although the Claim offers very little information about Taylor, she did appear before the NCI (National Citizens Inquiry). Some important points to note:

  • Her first shot was April 24th, 2021
  • She had severe reactions almost immediately
  • Her second shot was January 8th, 2022
  • She had far worse reactions immediately after this shot
  • She was diagnosed with POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome) in “April or May of 2022”

Why does this matter? Because any moderately competent lawyer will at least try to argue that the case is time barred, and get it dismissed. During her NCI testimony, Taylor makes it clear that she strongly suspected even in 2021 that it was the vaccines.

At a minimum, a disclaimer should have been included when asking for donations.

$2,000,000 Sought To “Take Case To Trial”

According to the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page about this case, it’s expected that it will cost approximately $2 million to take the case to Trial. It’s implied that it will cover legal costs, hiring of expert witnesses, etc…. See archive. That is a lot of money.

Of course, that raises an obvious question: what happens to any leftover funds if it’s quickly settled, or thrown out on a preliminary challenge? While the 2 year deadline is definitely a concern, it’s not the only one Taylor may face.

Or worse: what happens if the case is not pursued diligently?

Complete Lack Of Activity Since Lawsuit Filed

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on lawyers to report on what has been happening. Alberta, like all Courts, allow records of the proceedings to be accessed by members of the public. And the result is not encouraging.

May 6th, 2024: Statement of Claim is filed.

October 30th, 2024: The case officially became “managed” by the Court.

November 12th, 2024: An upcoming hearing was cancelled.

We are now into July, 2025.

That is the entire case. Even if the Statute of Limitations wasn’t a concern, nor the poor pleadings, there has been no real effort to advance the suit for 14 months. No Defences have been filed, or any sort of preliminary challenge.

***Again, this isn’t to take a swipe at Taylor. However, prospective donors and clients should be informed about what they are being asked to contribute to.

This Site Threatened Again With Litigation

In what shouldn’t be that surprising, yet another “freedom lawyer” is threatening to sue over unfavourable coverage of their anti-lockdown cases.

It wouldn’t be the first time, and probably not the last.

The main criticism appears to be that the overall impression of the articles is misleading. Supposedly, these cases weren’t abandoned, but settled. Considering that many involve unionized employers — and hence, no jurisdiction — that seems unlikely. Then there’s the issue of the defective pleadings themselves.

One of the “discontinued” cases was a Proposed Class Action filed in Manitoba. It was dropped before the Certification process even began. Another 2 were dropped before the suits were even served.

Then there’s the Canada Post disaster. Instead of filing an Application for Judicial Review, and possibly getting the Arbitration overturned, a Statement of Claim was filed. This resulted in it being struck for lack of jurisdiction.

Admittedly, Defendants can, and often do, agree to waive costs in return for having Plaintiffs discontinue their cases. That could easily have happened to at least some of the ones here. Technically, it’s considered a settlement. That being said, it hardly seems like “winning”.

In any event, if counsel want to take this approach, he knows where to serve the Statement of Claim.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Taylor Statement Of Claim
(2) Taylor Statement Of Claim Filed
(3) Taylor Frequently Asked Questions
(4) Taylor Case History July 2025

LIMITATIONS ACT:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-12/

NCI Testimony:
(1) https://rumble.com/v3p2492-drue-taylor-vaccine-injury-develops-pots-red-deer-day-2-national-citizens-i.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide To Pleading Charter Claims (If You Must)

Let’s do something different today.

For people who have been wronged by some level of Government, what is your recourse? Well, suing is an option, of course. But what would Statement of Claim or Notice of Application look like? How would it be presented?

While there’s no perfect way to draft documents, it’s important to understand that very specific information needs to be included. This is especially true when making allegations that Charter Rights have been violated.

The goal here is to get people thinking about what they have to submit when making constitutional challenges, as well as what to avoid. This list is not exhaustive, but includes some common torts. Even Ottawa published an interesting guide on the Charter.

***Note: Many have made the argument over the years that the Charter is worthless, especially in light of the Bill of Rights. This is not meant to address that. Instead, it’s to highlight what information is required to provide in order to bring such cases. As usual, this is INFORMATION, not advice.

With that in mind, let’s begin.

Pleading Facts And Providing Particulars Necessary

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Pleading facts: This means laying out the sequence of events, and giving the who, what, where, when, etc… of what happened. Who said what? Who did what? In the case of alleged Charter breaches, it’s not meant to be a legal argument, or to cite case law.

Pleading particulars: Depending on the nature of the allegations, there’s an extra requirement to spell out the bad behaviour. Again, it’s not meant to devolve into argument. Admittedly though, it can be tricky to argue state of mind at the onset, but something needs to be included.

The above quotes are from the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. However, it’s virtually identical across jurisdictions. These apply regardless of whether or not there’s a Constitutional challenge.

Beyond that, Courts have explicitly ruled on what needs to be pleaded in order to bring Charter related cases. The necessary information is very specific.

Here are some common Charter torts that are brought up.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) Pleading

In the above section, it’s explained that it’s necessary to plead a “concise statement of material facts”. Sounds great, but what do these facts need to cover? Well, for major Charter issues, the Courts have long ago ruled on what’s required. There’s no excuse for professional lawyers not to know better.

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

It’s not nearly enough to say “muh religion”, and leave it at that. To bring such a case, litigants must: (a) explain in detail what those beliefs are; and (b) explain how someone else’s actions or demands have imposed on those beliefs in a serious way.

Facts Required For Section 2d (Association) Pleading

This is a complicated one, although a good guide is available. While there’s much caselaw in the context of collective bargaining (unionization), association is protected under a few grounds.

The purpose of the freedom of association encompasses the protection of
(1) individuals joining with others to form associations (the constitutive approach)
(2) collective activity in support of other constitutional rights (the derivative approach), and
(3) collective activity that enables “those who would otherwise be vulnerable and ineffective to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of those with whom their interests interact and, perhaps, conflict”.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc1/2015scc1.html#par54

Essentially, litigants would have to plead that their association was somehow obstructed or prevented. It’s worth pointing out that Section 2(d) protects the right of association itself, not necessarily the activities for which people are associated.

Facts Required For Section 6 (Mobility) Pleading

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) Pleading

(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(2)The claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

Interestingly, Section 7 “does not describe any right of a corporation or the purely economic interest of a natural person, nor does it guarantee the right to unrestrained business activity or to practice a particular profession or occupation.” This was settled decades ago, but lawyers still take clients’ money to argue these cases.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1990/1990canlii6753/1990canlii6753.html

Facts Required For Section 12 (Cruel/Unusual) Pleading

(1) plaintiff must show that the action involves some treatment or punishment by the state, and
(2) that such treatment is cruel and unusual

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc442/2005fc442.html#par27

It’s also noted that: “A mere prohibition on certain conduct, even if it results in cruel and unusual effects, does not qualify as treatment under s. 12. Punishment means a sanction imposed by the state as a corrective measure for the commission of a particular offence.”

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) Pleading

Despite common perceptions, the Charter doesn’t really protect equality at all. Instead, it covers a limited number of grounds, and even that is subject to the politics involved.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

This is why “vaccination status”, and similar arguments have failed in recent years. It’s not covered under the existing lists, and few have tried to add it as an analogous ground. This is why they fail.

Facts Required For Malfeasance Of Public Office Pleading

(1) the tortfeasor engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as a public official; and,
(2) the tortfeasor knew his or her conduct was unlawful and that their conduct was likely to injure the plaintiff.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1112/2021fc1112.html#par27
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc69/2003scc69.html#par23

Although not a Charter issue, malfeasance is worth mentioning, as it’s commonly argued. The necessary elements are easy enough to find. Of course, particulars would have to be included as well. The elements for other torts such as conspiracy or intimidation are easy enough to look up.

Clients Routinely Screwed Over By Inadequate Pleadings

As has been demonstrated, across jurisdictions, there’s a requirement to “plead material facts” when filing a case. It’s easy enough to find out what those facts must include.

Because so many lawsuits involve malice, breach of trust, malfeasance, or a “conspiracy”, there’s an added burden to spell out what’s been going on.

But what happens when clients pay top dollar for counsel who either doesn’t know this, or who can’t be bothered to do it properly? Here are some recent examples.

The above 7 cases have a total of well over 2,000 Plaintiffs, but comprise just 228 pages. That being said, if the: Style of Cause (party names), service addresses and cover pages are removed, it’s much less than 228. So, how do you adequately plead Charter violations in a single line, or 2?

You don’t.

All of these cases demand money for Charter breaches, but don’t plead facts for any of them, for any client. And while alleging all kinds of conspiracies, none are really spelled out.

It’s disheartening that various Law Societies allow incompetent morons to practice. This is done to detriment of clients, the profession, and to society as a whole. They should all be disbarred, as there’s no benefit to letting them keep their licences.

Should prospective litigants be considering Court action, it’s necessary to think about what must be pleaded in a Statement of Claim, or Notice of Application. The Rules of Civil Procedure are available publicly, requiring facts and particulars. Similarly, specific elements of Charter torts have been established long ago.

These claims are a good way to screen out prospective lawyers. If they think such a filing is “okay”, or is “pretty good”, then you’re about to get taken advantage of. Disgust and shock are the reactions they should have.

Understanding the information above will put self-reps in a better position than many “professionals”.

***Once more, this is INFORMATION, not legal ADVICE. Please take everything here with a grain of salt, and do your own research.

Posted on

The Hartman Appeal, Part 1: Looking At The Notice

The Court of Appeal for Ontario will review the case of Dan Hartman, either late this year, or early next year. Back in March, the Ontario Superior Court struck the case without an opportunity to amend the pleadings.

This is a wrongful death suit filed after his son, Sean, passed away shortly after taking the injections. A similar one was filed against Pfizer.

Although there is considerable overlap in the facts pleaded, the case is argued 2 ways:

  1. Malfeasance of public office
  2. Negligence

The first tort implies intentional, while negligence implies carelessness.

However, Justice Antoniani threw the case out completely, despite offers to expand the pleadings. It was ruled that the proposed amendments — while they added more information — it wouldn’t help. The necessary elements for malfeasance weren’t pleaded. Nor was there “sufficient proximity” to establish a private law duty of care.

The Appeal seeks to overturn this ruling.

Malfeasance Of Public Office Explained

The Statement of Claim argues that the Defendants acted with “reckless indifference or willful blindness” when they pushed the vaccines on Canadians.

56. As a department, Health Canada is responsible for administering acts and regulations, and for implemening government-wide regulatory initatives. Health Canada was responsible for discharging the operational role of regulatory approval, monitoring, and compliance of Covid-19 vaccinations for use in Canada.

57. The Plaintiff pleads that Health Canada was recklessly indifferent or willfully blind in discharging its responsibilities of regulatory approval and oversight of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID- 19 vaccination by, inter alia:

Starting on paragraph 61, it’s specified:

  • Issuing a certificate of compliance to Pfizer
  • Failing maintain oversight and control over Health Canda in relation to their regulatory responsibility for oversight, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment
  • Representing to Canadians in public statements and press releases that the Covid-19 vaccination was safe and effective, despite the Minister and Minister’s Department of Health possessing data to the contrary
  • Failing to revoke the certificate of compliance issued

However, the Judge gave an interesting take on the malfeasance claims, stating that the following details were required:

[81] To prove misfeasance in public office, the Plaintiff must show:
a) Deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions;
b) Awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the Plaintiff’s son;
c) Harm;
d) A legal causal link between the tortious conduct and the harm suffered; and
e) An injury that is compensable in tort law.

Presumably, the Defendants know few, if any of the people who were harmed by these injections. This seems unreasonably narrow in scope.

Negligence Claim Explained: No Private Duty Of Care

While arguing intent can be tricky, the Statement of Claim also pushed variations of “negligence” as alternative torts.

77. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants breached the standard of care and negligently misrepresented the safety of the vaccine and did not disclose the risks associated with the vaccine which include but not limited to myocarditis and pericarditis. The particulars include:
.
(a) Failed to disclose that individuals under 40 had an increased risk of myocarditis after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine;
(b) Failed to disclose that rates of myocarditis were higher in adolescent males;
(c) Inadequate testing was performed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine;
(d) The Defendants failed to complete post market surveillance and inform the public of the results;
(e) The Defendants failed to accurately, candidly, promptly and truthfully disclose the issues with the COVID-19 vaccine;
(f) The Defendants failed to identify, implement, and verify that the procedures in place to address post market surveillance risks were in place to address issues, complaints, and timely notification of concerns; and,
(g) The Defendant failed to change the public recommendations of the COVID-19 vaccine being that it was safe and effective.

The Judge ruled that the duties of the Defendants are to the public at large, and not to individual members of the public. But really, who is the public, if not a collection of individuals?

[91] The necessary elements to ground an action in negligence are not present. The duties of the Defendants under the legislative scheme are to the Canadian public. Sufficient proximity is not established and there is no private law duty of care. Other policy considerations militate against finding such a duty. As such, it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.

One would think that when public officials make decisions, especially coercive ones, that there would be some duty of care to the people impacted. But it seems not.

Looking At The Notice Of Appeal

The Notice of Appeal alleges a number of serious errors made. Keep in mind, at this stage, the Court is to assume that all facts pleaded are true, or capable or being proven.

  • The misapplied the “plain and obvious” test applicable on a motion to strike. In particular, the judge failed to read the pleading generously and assume the facts pleaded to be true, as required.
  • The Appellant submits that this analysis was flawed. The Statement of Claim pleaded that the Respondents knew of specific risks (e.g. heightened myocarditis risk in adolescent males) and nonetheless targeted the youth population (including Sean) with assurances of safety. Facts, if proven, could establish a relationship of proximity despite the broad public context.
  • Misfeasance in public office is an intentional tort aimed at wrongful exercises of public power by officials who either intend to harm or act with knowledge that they are exceeding their lawful authority and that their conduct will likely harm the plaintiff.
  • On a Rule 21 motion, the court must assume the truth of the facts pleaded. Here, the facts pleaded (e.g. that the Minister knew of specific dangers and knowingly misled the public or ignored legal duties) should have been taken as true for the purposes of the motion. If so assumed, the misfeasance claim is legally tenable.
  • Error in Denying Leave to Amend the Pleading: The judge erred in law by denying the Appellant leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

What will happen at the Court of Appeal? It’s unclear, but there’s a chance to get this claim restored.

***Note: follow-up both with this case, and with Pfizer, are coming. This isn’t anywhere near the complete record as far as the documents go.

AGC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman AGC Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman AGC Reasons For Decision (March, 2025)
(3) Hartman AGC Notice Of Appeal (April, 2025)

PFIZER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman Pfizer Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman Pfizer Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2025)

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action: Defendants Fail In Attempt To Move Case

This is an update to the Proposed Class Action filed in Ottawa in February 2022, against protesters demanding an end to lockdown measures. While the case has dragged on, there has been no shortage of activity.

The lawsuit was filed alleging Defendants had been involved in nuisance activity, including:

  • blocking streets and sidewalks
  • incessant honking of horns
  • flooding neighbourhoods with diesel fumes

***There is, of course, the absurd irony of the Plaintiffs filing a Class Action against others who were protesting in favour of freedom — and theirs included. Perhaps they would have preferred that martial law measures continue indefinitely.

After more than 3 years, it seems that certification hearings may soon be coming. Despite numerous attempts to get the case thrown out, it has survived so far.

Anti-SLAPP Laws Not Meant For This Type Of Case

Previously, the Defendants had attempted to strike the claim, arguing that it wasn’t something that (assuming that even if the facts were true) could proceed to Trial. The Judge rejected attempt.

Afterwards, an anti-SLAPP Motion was brought, on the basis that the protests amounted to “public expression”. If granted, it would allow the Court to dismiss the case if it was brought to silence that expression. However, that effort failed as well. The Defendants weren’t being sued for their expression, but for alleging committing a nuisance while exercising that expression.

[62] Yet, by bringing a s. 137.1 motion against the background of the Rouleau Report and taking the position that their interactions over several weeks could not amount to concerted action, the appellants (several of whom filed no evidence) are trying to use a light-touch screening mechanism to get rid of a case for which any determination on the merits patently will require a deep dive into the evidence and the making of extensive findings of credibility. In sum, the appellants are trying to use their s. 137.1 motion for purposes for which it is not designed or appropriate.

The Court of Appeal upheld to decision to allow the case to proceed. This isn’t to justify the Class Action filed, but the Court did make a valid point: anti-SLAPP laws weren’t designed for this type of case.

Interestingly, the Defendants also seemed to be denying that they were involved in causing these specific nuisances, while simultaneously justifying them as “expression”.

The Court of Appeal rejected several arguments about how the Superior Court had erred in applying the anti-SLAPP test. Bottom line: laws meant to protect expression didn’t apply to the tort of nuisance.

Motion For Change Of Venue Denied

The Defendants requested that the case be moved, arguing that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a fair Trial. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs filed a Motion Record and Factum in opposition to it.That Motion was dismissed as well.

Justice Glustein commented that this should have been brought much sooner, not the 3 years that it has been. Since the case began, the Defendants have filed: (a) filed a Motion to Strike; (b) filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion; and (c) appealed the Anti-SLAPP decision.

The judge also noted the defendants could have brought a change of venue application much earlier given that the lawsuit is now more than three years old. The court has already issued more than a dozen pre-certification decisions in the case, Glustein said, including rulings on Mareva orders, escrow funds and dismissal motions.

This was reported by the Ottawa Citizen as well. While not on CanLII, the decision is publicly available.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

It’s worth noting that there was been no movement in terms of hearing the case on the merits. The vast amounts of paperwork all have to do with administrative steps within the case.

February 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim (original version) is filed.

February 17th, 2022: The Court hears a request for a Mareva Injunction ex parte, meaning that the opposing side was not given notice, and not able to present a case on their own behalf. The purpose was to put convoy funds under control of the Court until a final outcome could be determined.

February 22nd, 2022: The Court granted the Injunction.

March 10th, 2022: The Court extends the Mareva Injunction until March 31st, 2022.

April 1st, 2022: The Court adjourns competing Motions until May 2nd. The Plaintiffs wanted to continue the Mareva Injunction, while the Defendants wanted it dissolved.

November 7th, 2022: The Motion to amend the Statement of Claim was supposed to have been heard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, it’s adjourned until January 2023.

November 15th, 2022: The Court hears a Motion from Chris Garrah and Benjamin Dichter, attempting to access $200,000 from the frozen funds. The stated purpose was to be able to finance a defence to this lawsuit.

December 6th, 2022: The Court denies the Motion to free up the money, but allows for the possibility to revisit the issue if circumstances change. Parties are told to try to settle the issue of costs themselves.

January 24, 2023: The Court hears arguments on 2 overlapping Motions. The Plaintiffs wanted to further amend the pleadings, while the Defendants wanted them struck for not having a Cause of Action. The decision is reserved until later.

March 13, 2023: The Court rules on the January 2023 Motions. In the end, it was about the same thing: is the pleading acceptable? It’s decided that the Statement of Claim may be changed to accommodate deficiencies.

June 9th, 2023: Court refuses to award any costs at all over 2 competing Motions. This stems from the earlier March 13th, 2023 ruling.

July 27th, 2023: The Ottawa Court sets dates for various steps within the proposed anti-SLAPP Motion. This is Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

August 25th, 2023: Moving Party Motion Record (document collection) is served.

September 15, 2023: Cross-Examinations of various parties happened.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file volumes I and II of their supplementary evidence.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file their anti-SLAPP Factum (arguments).

December 7th, 2023: Responding Factum (Plaintiffs) is filed.

December 14th, 2023: Anti-SLAPP Motion is heard.

February 5th, 2024: The Ottawa Court refuses to dismiss the case under “anti-SLAPP” laws. Rather than accept the ruling, the Defendants chose to appeal it.

April 3rd, 2024: Appellants’ arguments are submitted to the ONCA.

October 15th, 2024: Respondents’ arguments are submitted.

October 28th, 2024: Ontario Court of Appeal hearing takes place, with Justices Lauwers, Brown and Coroza presiding. Defendants argue that the Superior Court should have dismissed the case under anti-SLAPP laws. The Plaintiffs counter that the correct decision was made.

March 6th, 2025: Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses anti-SLAPP Appeal.

March 18th, 2025: Court of Appeal issues a cost order of $20,000.

June 22nd, 2025: Motion for a change of venue is denied.

While Pat King was initially noted in default, that was set aside on consent. Since then, he and Joseph Janzen have filed their Statement of Defence.

This Class Action differs from most because it has yet to identify all of the Defendants who would be named, not just the Plaintiffs. After all this time, it would seem a daunting task.

It’s worth mentioning that the Plaintiffs here have put more effort into their lawsuit than virtually any of the “freedom lawyers” so far. They seem committed to see this through. Now, if only they valued their individual liberties that much.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li et al. v Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)
(10) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2025 ONCA 169 (CanLII)
(11) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2025 ONCA 216 (CanLII)
(12) Zexi Li Reasons For Decision Change Of Venue

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim (February, 2022)
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection (February, 2022)
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection (February, 2022)
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2022)
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum (January, 2023)
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2023)
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I (November, 2023)
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II (November, 2023)
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum (November, 2023)
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum (December, 2023)
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities (December, 2023)
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities (December, 2023)
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing (March, 2024)
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum (March, 2024)
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum (October, 2024)
(16) Zexi Li Responding Motion Record Change Venue (May, 2025)
(17) Zexi Li Change Of Venue Respondents Factum (April, 2025)
(18) Zexi Li Consent Set Aside Default Judgement (June, 2025)
(19) Zexi Li Statement Of Defence King Janzen (June, 2025)

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them. There’s also a website supporting the lawsuit that posts more of them.

Posted on

“Frozen Bank Accounts” Lawsuit Dropped Without A Fight

A much hyped case challenging Ottawa’s decision to freeze bank accounts of peaceful protestors has come to an end. Lawyers have discontinued the claim, before a single Statement of Defence had been filed.

Clients and donors contributed at least $150,000 to a case that never even finished the pleadings.

It was all a giant nothing-burger.

While lawyers could simply have challenged the freezing of bank accounts, and probably advanced the case, they had to turn it into a giant conspiracy. They pleaded that Government officials had relied on the postings of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), doing no research whatsoever. This is the infamous #HateGate scandal. Ironically, they made the same mistake they accuse law enforcement of: not bothering to get their facts straight ahead of time.

Against CAHN, and Bernie Farber, the Plaintiffs essentially made defamation allegations, but without spelling out what they were. However, because of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, Defendants filed a Motion to dismiss. It was granted, along with nearly $50,000 in costs being awarded. What’s interesting is that once the Motion is initiated, Plaintiffs are prohibited from amending their claim to prevent this.

And the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed almost $100,000, over a pleading they bungled.

Granted, the anti-SLAPP decision only got Farber and CAHN off the hook. Theoretically, the case could still proceed against the others. However, the Statement of Claim was so poorly drafted it would have faced a Motion to Strike. Most likely, clients would have to pay tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in more costs. Instead, the suit was dropped.

This is pretty shoddy work for a major commercial litigation firm.

The Notice doesn’t specify the terms, but it’s entirely possible that the Defendants agreed not to seek any costs in return for discontinuing.

Interestingly, at least one group is still asking for money. Shouldn’t donations be returned, if Plaintiffs aren’t going ahead with their case?

LAWYER DETAILS:
(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cornell Notice Of Action
(2) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(3) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(4) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(5) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(9) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(12) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(13) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Fraser Stride Credit Union
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(18) Cornell Notice Of Discontinuance

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/justice/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress