Canadians were subjected to varying forms of lockdown measures from 2020 through 2022. Some restrictions still exist today in places such as health care settings.
As a result, a topic that’s come up numerous times is the idea of Class Actions. This is based on the concept that a single lawsuit — if carefully prepared — will be much more effective than individual claims. Many more people could potentially benefit. And indeed, such cases have sprung up.
With that in mind, it’s worth asking: how are these cases going?
One such suit filed in Federal Court is Chief Gregory Burke v. His Majesty the King, and the Attorney General of Canada. It commenced back in September 2023. To put it mildly, advancing the case doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.
There’s just the Statement of Claim and an amended version on file, both of which look to be horribly deficient. It will have to be further amended.
No Motion to Strike has (yet) been commenced. There’s no Statement of Defence. It doesn’t look like any steps have been taken to certify the case as a Class Action. The most recent action was in December 2024, advising of potential dates for a case conference. Donations are being sought still.
Counsel’s Recent Record On “Vaccine Passport” Cases
This Proposed Class Action is being conducted by Leighton Grey of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer. He has filed several related lawsuits (not Class Actions) in Federal Court in recent years. However, the trend seems to be to discontinue — drop — them, rather than push through.
(a) Canada Post: struck in March 2024
(b) Canadian National Railway: discontinued in June 2023
(c) Purolator, discontinued in April 2023
(d) Westjet, discontinued in April 2023
A search of other Court records — such as Manitoba — reveal other, related cases which were promptly discontinued. One has to wonder how diligently this one will be pursued.
Nothing Pleaded About Chief Gregory Burke, Representative Plaintiff
Most people are familiar with the more “traditional” lawsuits. In those, the details of each Plaintiff must be spelled out in the Statement of Claim, and then, the Defendants respond. They typically know from the onset exactly who is suing them, and for how much.
For (Proposed) Class Actions, the Claim pleads information about 1 or more “Representative Plaintiffs” only. There are “subgroups” or “classes” listed of prospective litigants. They still have to provide enough detail about their own circumstances. Beyond that, there’s a process to attempt to certify the lawsuit as a Class Action. A Judge may (or may not) certify.
Only a single Representative Plaintiff — sometimes called a “Token Plaintiff” — is required, provided he or she is able to qualify for all classes.
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.
Particulars
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.
Problem here: there’s nothing pleaded about Chief Gregory Burke. Federal Court Rules make it clear what’s required in a Statement of Claim. Neither the original nor the amended version provide any information about him.
Since Burke is the only Representative Plaintiff, he must give sufficient detail to at least theoretically support all of such Claims. True, other Plaintiffs may be added, but only if Certification is successful. It’s probably too late to amend the Style of Cause (names of Parties).
- Section 2(a) of the Charter;
- Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility)
- Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
- Section 8 of the Charter (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
- Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)
- Tortious interference of economic relations
- Tortious inducement to breach contractual relations
- Intentional infliction of mental suffering
- Malfeasance of public office
- Negligent representation
- Human rights violations
These are just some of the torts alleged in the Statement of Claim. Problem is: Grey pleads no information to support any of it. Granted, it may be true, but there’s nothing explained. Many are simply listed, with no facts or particulars to support any of it.
We know Burke’s name, and that’s about it.
Yes, the Statement of Claim can usually be amended. Keep in mind though, the case was filed nearly a year and a half ago. Shouldn’t such information already be included?
The Representative Plaintiff is Chief Gregory Burke. He is a senior who lives in Nova Scotia. He was chosen for a number of reasons, including his resistance to lockdown tyranny, which is being prosecuted there. He is also a Metis hereditary Chief who fits into both of the subclasses described in the class action.
Heck, there’s more information listed on counsel’s website than there is in the Statement of Claim.
Other Nonsense Included In Statement Of Claim
The Claim bizarrely pleads product liability and breach of implied warranty. This doesn’t make any sense. If Burke were fighting lockdown tyranny, he wouldn’t have taken any of the injections. And in paragraph 5, it’s stated that the Plaintiffs hadn’t. This would only apply if someone had taken the shot(s) and been harmed. Beyond that, it would be the manufacturers who’d be potentially liable.
Starting around paragraph 57, there are allegations that the Government had breached its duty of care to the Plaintiffs. It goes on and on about the dangers posed by “experimental vaccines”. But once again, the Plaintiffs plead that none of them took the shots.
Grey pleads the Nuremberg Code among other remedies that have no jurisdiction in a Canadian Civil Court. This is a Galati favourite, and part of the reason his cases are typically struck early on.
As for the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, the purpose of that legislation had to do with race, ethnicity, and genetic disorders a person might have. It doesn’t apply here, yet lawyers routinely include it.
There are also allegations of interference with economic relations. For this tort to work, the Defendants would have to have done something improper or illegal to a third party that harmed the Plaintiffs. None of that is specified here. The employers would need to be identified, and the circumstances laid out.
The entire Claim reads as if Grey had simply cut and pasted from various other lawsuits, without paying much attention to how logical it all was.
Pleading Names The Subclasses (Groups of Plaintiffs)
Typically, a Class Action will name various “subclasses” of Plaintiffs. These are people who will still be part of the litigation, but whom have been impacted in different ways. Quote:
- “Employment Subclass“: members who have experienced job loss or adverse employment effects as a result of the Defendants’ actions. This subclass includes those who have been terminated, denied promotions, experienced decreased working hours or suffered any other professional hardship
- “Travel Subclass“: individuals who were prevented or prohibited from travelling due to their vaccination status. Members of this subclass have been adversely affected by the Defendants’ conduct and policies that either implicitly or explicitly restricted the mobility rights of unvaccinated individuals, thus causing significant disruption to both their personal and professional lives.
- “Dual Impact Subclass“: is unique in that it encapsulates members who fall within both the aforementioned subclasses.
As stated before, there’s no information pleaded about Burke. He may very well have valid claims both regarding employment and travel, but there’s nothing provided.
Timeline Of Major Events In Case
September 23rd, 2023: Statement of Claim filed.
October 5th, 2023: Government sends notice that it will respond and defend.
November 1st, 2023: Associate Judge Michael D. Crinson and Justice Mandy Aylen are assigned to be case management Judges for the suit.
December 10, 2023: Defendants contact Court, asking that any Statement of Defence be deferred until after Certification Motion has been heard and determined.
June 3, 2024: Statement of Claim (Plaintiff Class) filed with the Court.
December 19th, 2024: Letter from Plaintiff’s lawyer about case management dates.
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.
That’s where things currently stand. No Statement of Defence has been filed. There’s no Motion to Strike (yet), though presumably one is coming. And the process for a Certification Motion hasn’t even been started.
The case is nearly a year and a half old, and there’s just the Statement of Claim. Could such a case be certified and advanced? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem very urgent.
(1) Burke T-2008-23 Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Burke T-2008-23 Intent To Respond (October, 2023)
(3) Burke T-2008-23 Crinson Assigned (November, 2023)
(4) Burke T-2008-23 Crinson Order (December, 2023)
(5) Burke T-2008-23 Amended Statement Of Claim, Plaintiff Class (June, 2024)