Category: Canada

Posted on

Class Action Malpractice Lawsuit Against Rocco Galati: New Clients Being Sought

Westpoint Law Group is now accepting applications for potential new clients. This involves a (Proposed) Class Action suit filed in Edmonton, Alberta.

“Canada’s Top Constitutional Lawyer” faces a multi-million dollar malpractice lawsuit for how he has conducted anti-lockdown litigation going back to 2020. The basic allegation is that his work falls far below any level of professionalism that should be expected. Details include:

(a) Missing critical deadlines and being time barred
(b) Having cases thrown out for lack of jurisdiction
(c) Drafting cases which are too convoluted to be addressed
(d) Not following basic rules of procedure
(e) Not properly advising clients of risks involved
(f) Encouraging unionized workers not to formally grieve
(g) Undisclosed conflicts of interest
(h) Seeking relief unavailable in Civil Court (i.e. criminal remedies, Nuremberg, Helsinki, International Criminal Court, crimes against humanity, etc…)
(i) Not advancing his cases in a timely manner
(j) Not seeking Injunctions that were promised
(k) Unnecessarily driving up costs
(l) Appealing decisions when amending was available

The claim contains essentially the same allegations which have been addressed on this website for several years. Nice that something is finally being done about it.

The suit names: (1) Galati personally; (2) his law firm; and (3) the Constitutional Rights Centre. The CRC is the organization which receives donation money. There are in fact 2 separate corporations sued.

There are 2 subclasses as well. The first group is for those who were represented by Galati in any of these cases. The second is for anyone who donated, thinking these claims were legitimate.

Worth noting: Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, both former clients of Galati’s, filed malpractice suits of $2,000,000 and $600,000 respectively. According to the Toronto Registry, both cases are still open. Since insurance money is limited, will we see Plaintiffs fighting over the same pot of money?

125(b). an accounting and disgorgement of revenue obtained by each of the Galati Defendants to draft each Pleading and to pursue each appeal;

Paragraph 125(b) of the Statement of Claim asks for “accounting and disgorgement”. What this means is that an attempt will be made to seize all money taken in for these cases.

Tamara Ugolini of Rebel News covered this as well. (See video)

Which Are The 6 Defective Cases Being Referenced?

There have been so many bogus and defective cases brought in recent years, it may be difficult to keep track of them. For reference, these are the 6 listed in the Statement of Claim.

  1. Vaccine Choice Canada: ONSC CV-20-00643451-0000 (the “2020 Ontario Action”)
  2. Sgt. Julie Evans (Police On Guard):ONSC CV-21-00661200-0000 (“2021 Ontario Action”)
  3. Dorceus: ONSC CV-22-00685694-0000 (the “2022 Ontario Action”)
  4. Katanik: ONSC CV-23-00695518-0000 (the “2023 Ontario Action”)
  5. Action4Canada: BCSC S217586 (the “BC Action”)
  6. Adelberg: Federal Court T-1089-22 (the “Federal Court Action”)

3 of them have been dropped: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada; (b) Evans; and (c) Katanik
3 have been struck at least once: (a) Dorceus; (b) Action4Canada; and (c) Adelberg

While the ones that were struck are officially still “open” cases, let’s be realistic. None of them will ever get to Trial on the merits.

Galati Called Out For REPEATEDLY Wasting Court Resources

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

The BCSC and BCCA rulings are the Action4Canada case.
The FC and FCA findings are Adelberg.
The ONSC decision is from Dorceus.

Of course, the comments from Justice Chalmers in the CSASPP defamation case are very telling. He was quite blunt about how he viewed the VCC and A4C pleadings.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

Dorceus and the CSASPP defamation cases were appealed. Dorceus has yet to be heard, while CSASPP is currently under reserve. It seems extremely unlikely that either will be even partially overturned.

Given that many, MANY Judges have already issued scathing reviews of Galati’s work, it’s difficult to see how this can be overcome.

How Easy Would It Be To Prove The Torts Here?

This lawsuit cites a few different torts, such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. That said, the requirements are much the same for each.

(a) Establish a contract, obligation, or duty to another person or group
(b) Prove that the contract, obligation, or duty has been breached
(c) Prove that damages have resulted from the breach

The first part of the test can be established with almost any documentation, such as a retainer agreement, or receipts showing donations.

The second part should be straightforward, given the various Court rulings cited above. Lawyers have an obligation to take on cases in a professional and diligent manner. This clearly hasn’t been happening. Plaintiffs can of course give evidence of issues not addressed elsewhere.

The third part will involve showing that any breach resulted in harm or financial loss.

When SUING Your Critics Just Isn’t Enough

Not content with simply suing (and threatening to sue) his critics, Galati has also made threats to involve the RCMP. This would be considered “swatting” by most people. The included letter is from September 2021, and addressed to the Law Society of Ontario, or LSO. While framed as “harassment”, the true purpose is to silence the very legitimate criticism of his defective cases.

And as usual, the LSO did nothing.

They don’t protect the public in any meaningful way.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Rocco Class Action Statement Of Claim February 2025

Posted on

HateGate, Part 2B: Settling The Score With TVO And “The Agenda”

No, this title isn’t clickbait.

It takes a special kind of person to sue public television because they don’t report on a guest or subject as glowingly as they should. It’s even worse when members of the organization are sued for no discernable reason. But that’s exactly what happened in September, 2019.

Elisa Ferryman-Cohen (formerly Hategan) filed a $150,000 suit against:

  • Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVO)
  • The Agenda With Steve Paikin
  • Stacey Dunseath
  • Eric Bombicino

Stacey Dunseath and Eric Bombicino were producers at TVO at the time.

The case was dismissed on consent in January, 2021. Although the terms aren’t public, one has to suspect that Hategan dropped it with the promise that no costs would be sought. The Defendants could easily have brought an anti-SLAPP Motion.

Why does any of this matter? It’s because Ferryman-Cohen (who still uses her old name, Hategan) is apparently the primary author of the “HateGate Affair”. This is a 2023 paper from her and Caryma Sa’d which supposedly “exonerates” Diagolon and Jeremy MacKenzie. It blames a the invocation of the Emergencies Act on a giant failure of intelligence and law enforcement.

Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Also, the paper strongly implies a giant conspiracy to frame innocent people, while trampling on the rights of Canadians more broadly. Considering that Hategan and Sa’d specifically name members of the RCMP, they’re lucky to have not been sued for defamation over it. There’s nothing in their FOIA request package which supports the allegations.

Before that, though, let’s look at Hategan’s other litigation.

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

>

In an earlier piece on the HateGate scam, we looked at the December, 2018 lawsuit brought by Elisa Hategan. While old litigation is rarely helpful, these cases are quite the exception.

December 4th, 2018, Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore) sued Ferryman-Cohen (formerly Hategan) in Ontario Superior Court. Hategan filed a suit of her own on December 10th, one which Frederiksen counter-claimed.

For context, Moore/Frederiksen was also involved with Heritage Front, and had a similar life experience with Hategan/Ferryman-Cohen. The anger appears to come from Hategan not getting the credit and recognition she felt entitled to.

While the December 4th filing was dismissed for inactivity, the later ones did go before a Judge. And is it ever an interesting ruling.

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

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

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

Justice Ferguson concluded that Hategan/Ferryman-Cohen had:
(a) Defamed Frederiksen/Moore
(b) Leaked confidential relationship about an out-of-marriage affair, with the explicit aim of causing embarrassment and shame.
(c) Created multiple domains to redirect traffic to her own site, and restrict her rival from getting her story out.
(d) Threatened multiple colleagues with lawsuits in order to intimidate them from working with Frederiksen/Moore.

Ultimately, an Injunction was also issued, to keep Hategan from doing it again.

If this sounds malicious, it is. And it’s not the only way she has behaved in an unprofessional manner. With that in mind, her 2019 lawsuit makes a lot of sense.

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

From reading the Statement of Claim, it doesn’t look like there was any actual defamation in it. Instead, it wasn’t quite the puff piece Hategan was hoping more.

12. In December 2018, the Plaintiff initiated legal action against Elizabeth Moore in Ontario Superior Court, and in February 2019 Bernie Farber was added as a Defendant; they are currently being sued for injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, wrongful appropriation of personality, unlawful interference with economic interests, and negligence, with the case currently subject to ongoing litigation. However, even after Steve Paikin and TVO were made aware that Moore and Farber’s appearance on THE AGENDA had led, at least in part, to a lawsuit, the tortious “Leaving Hate Behind” episode continues to be broadcast and disseminated on TVO’s website and multiple other social media platforms.

13. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, disregard for truth, recklessness and failure to prevent the tortious appropriation and unauthorized dissemination of the Plaintiff’s likeness and personality, the Plaintiff suffered significant harm. The Plaintiff also asserts that the moral and copyright rights of her memoir were violated when Farber and Moore appropriated the Plaintiff’s experiences as detailed in her book, and fraudulently attributed them to Moore during the “Leaving Hate Behind” episode of THE AGENDA WITH STEVE PAIKIN.

38. In July 2019, the Plaintiff learned that another Producer on THE AGENDA had been directed to do “due diligence” and look into her claims prior to the broadcast. In a sworn affidavit dated July 24, 2019, show guest Elizabeth Moore stated that producer Eric Bombicino contacted Moore and Farber on September 8, 2017 with an email that read: “So Elisa Hategan contacted us today via email and made some accusations. I imagine you are familiar with these. I am terribly sorry to bother you for a response, but my EP wanted us to do our due diligence and get your comments on her accusations. She said that basically she was the only female spokesperson for the HF and Elizabeth has stolen details from her life. Again I am terribly sorry to bother you with this, but I have been asked to get a response. Thanks again for everything today guys. It was truly a great interview, and a pleasure to meet both of you.”

39. The fact that Producer Eric Bombicino saw fit to contact Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Moore to verify that indeed they had not made fraudulent statements, and did not contact the Plaintiff at all, shows gross negligence and bias on the part of both Bombicino and other THE AGENDA employees and/or contractors involved in prescreening and fact-checking for the show. Bombicino’s bias is evident in the flippant way he refers to the Plaintiff in his deferential email to Farber and Moore, in which he apologizes repeatedly for having to do “due diligence” and implies that he imagines Farber and Moore are “already familiar with these.” Bombicino’s choice of terminology, as well as how the email is worded, conveys a premeditated bias that shows favouritism toward Farber and Moore, rather than the actions of a government agency employee instructed to do his job in ensuring accuracy, journalistic ethics and lack of bias.

42. After the show aired, the Plaintiff made several attempts to communicate with THE AGENDA show host Steve Paikin about the tortious statements made by Farber and Moore on the show, but received no reply. After she initiated legal action against Elizabeth Moore in December 2018, the Plaintiff forwarded a copy of her Statement of Claim to THE AGENDA host Steve Paikin and Executive Producer Stacey Dunseath. Despite their awareness of the ongoing lawsuit against their show guests, neither TVO nor any staff of THE AGENDA made any attempt to remove the content from their website and multiple social media platforms.

Not being present for any of these talk, this is speculation. However, the Defendants were likely put off by Hategan’s demeanor, and tried to distance themselves from her.

It appears that Hategan thinks that if she sends TVO and The Agenda a copy of her lawsuit with Frederiksen/Moore and Farber, that they’ll simply scrub the content. This comes across as an attempt to intimidate.

From Hategan’s own claim, The Agenda did contact Frederiksen and Farber regarding accusations Hategan had made. But instead of viewing this as due diligence, she sees it as a conspiracy.

Paragraph 48 probably sums it up the best.

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

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

Hategan isn’t suing TVO or The Agenda for defamation. Instead, she sued because someone else got some of the credit for having shut down Heritage Front. She didn’t want to share the glory.

With all of this in mind, it puts the “HateGate Affair” in a whole new light. Was it really about truth and exoneration? Or was it about settling the score with people who didn’t give her the credit she felt entitled to? Is it really worth suing TVO — paid for by taxpayers — because some hothead didn’t get all the fame she wanted?

It wasn’t just Hategan who did this. Caryma Sa’d filed a similar — although toned down — lawsuit in Federal Court. It was struck for not having any Cause of Action.

To be fair, the “Diagolon” twits have probably realized that it was a serious mistake to work with, or associate with, Hategan at all. She has already threatened to sue Derek (Rants) Harrison for including her in his obviously satirical book, MEME KAMPF.

Isn’t it strange? The alternative media had no qualms about broadcasting the HateGate story, but never bothered to do any fact checking. It’s just like the mainstream press they claim to despite.

HATEGAN CIVIL CASE TVO/THE AGENDA:
(1) Hategan TVO The Agenda Statement Of Claim

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE (FREDERIKSEN/FARBER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc874/2021onsc874.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca217/2022onca217.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca715/2022onca715.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca57/2023onca57.html
(5) Hategan Farber Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Hategan Farber Affidavit Motion To Dismiss
(7) Hategan Farber Responding Factum

RETALIATORY LAWSUIT FROM ELIZABETH FREDERIKSEN:
(1) Hategan Lawsuit Frederiksen Dismissed For Delay

HATEGAN CASH COW TWEETS:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1898792409078939876
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1786099430367592909
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1786210135410450822
(4) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1775117017269338296
(5) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734059907253522839

HATEGAN THREATENS TO SUE DEREK HARRISON:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1775117017269338296
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0.1) Previously Published Documents
(0.2) A-2022-06987 Release Section Of 2nd Package
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action Update: Several Motions And An Appeal

It’s been over 3 years since a Proposed Class Action lawsuit was filed in Ottawa. This was against the leaders of the infamous protest challenging lockdown measures. The case has essentially disappeared from the public consciousness, so it’s a good time to review it.

To summarize: the case hasn’t substantially moved forward. While several rulings have been handed down, they are primarily of a procedural nature.

***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.

Incidently, donations are still being sought.

As of now, the case is on hold pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision. The Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP Motion — which was dismissed — so they are trying again.

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

It wasn’t just Trudeau and Freeland who took the heavy handed approach of freezing assets. The Plaintiffs here also sought (and obtained) an ex-parte Order against the Defendants. They wanted to seize cash that could otherwise have been used to prolong the protests in Ottawa.

Justice MacLeod’s ruling was made without giving anyone the chance to make submissions on their own behalf.

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim underwent various revisions. Successive changes typically require either consent, or a Judge to permit it. The Plaintiffs found that these were needed due to initial defects. Amending is quite common in such lawsuits.

There’s the original, amended, and fresh as amended versions.

Unsurprisingly, the Defendants moved to have the pleading struck entirely. However, Justice MacLeod had this to say about competing Motions.

[1] This motion deals with the form of the Statement of Claim in this proposed class proceeding which, for convenience, I will call the “Convoy Class Proceeding”. Technically, there are two motions, a motion by the plaintiff to amend the claim and a motion by a group of defendants to strike it. The issue is the same. Is the proposed Statement of Claim acceptable?

[35] If the parties agreed or intended that the Convoy participants would blockade the streets, disrupt the operations of the city and disrupt the normal activities of the citizens, they may be found to be joint tortfeasors. Extension of such liability to those who continued to donate funds once the nature of the activity in Ottawa became apparent may be novel but it is not impossible of success. Concerted action liability is a fact-sensitive and fact specific concept. It may be (as Ms. Belton suggests) that there are policy grounds for not extending liability to a class of donors even if the use or misuse of the funds was foreseeable. That is not an analysis that should be done at a pleadings stage.

[36] All of the necessary facts are pleaded. In some cases, they are pleaded more than once. The proposed statement of claim clearly discloses a plausible cause of action against all of the categories of defendants including the new defendants which the plaintiffs seek to name in place of the “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants.

[37] There can be no prejudice in granting the amendments and adding or substituting parties for the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. This is because no statements of defence have yet been filed and no limitation periods have expired. No one wants to be sued. Certainly no one wants to be named as a defendant in what may turn out to be protracted litigation but that is not a factor which precludes an amendment or the addition or deletion of parties.

Typically, Proposed Class Actions name a fixed number of Defendants, but allow for the possibility of many more Plaintiffs. This case was made more difficult by the possibility of including more Defendants at later dates. In a sense, it was something of a moving target.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

The Defendants chose an interesting strategy in the Summer of 2023. They decided to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion, on the grounds that the lawsuit infringed on their right to free expression. On the surface, it seemed to be a reasonable option.

However, a serious problem faced the Defendants: anti-SLAPP laws only protect the expression if the parties are willing to admit to doing it. Justice MacLeod stated:

[19] At the first stage of the analysis, Section 137.1 is therefore engaged at least for those defendants who acknowledge having participated in the activity. I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that the protection of s. 137.1 may not be available to a party who denies having made the expression at issue. A party cannot simultaneously claim protection for freedom of speech under anti-SLAPP legislation while denying involvement in the expression at issue.

[22] The plaintiffs represent the residents, business owners, and employees whose property rights, right to operate a business or right to pursue their livelihood were allegedly disrupted by the activities of the protesters. While the plaintiffs acknowledge the right of the protestors to make their views known to government and to seek support from the public, the plaintiffs allege that the ongoing noise, pollution, blocking of the streets and impeding use of their property and businesses was tortious or unlawful. This is a very significant issue for the exercise of rights in a free and democratic society.

Another problem the Defendants face is that many of the allegations — whether true or not — fall outside the realm of free expression, such as blocking off streets.

While the Judge agreed that the motivations behind the protest (anger of lockdown measures) was public interest, the conduct involved wasn’t necessarily protected. Ultimately, the anti-SLAPP Motion was dismissed.

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

The Defendants then went to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Appellants’ and Respondents’ arguments are available.

Without getting into the weeds, the Appellants (Defendants) argued that Justice MacLeod didn’t apply the anti-SLAPP framework correctly. They stated that there was ample grounds within the law to dismiss the case altogether. The Respondents (Plaintiffs) countered that the Lower Court got it right, and that there was no reason to intervene. The hearing took place, but a ruling was deferred.

And that is where things remain today. As of now, the Court of Appeal has not yet handed down a decision. Of course, Leave to Appeal may still be sought by either side. It’s by no means over.

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.

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 v. Barber, 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li v Barber, 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)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim February 2022
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 2022
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 16 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

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them.

Posted on

UHCWO Files Proposed Class Action Over s.2(d) Violations

Back in August, a Proposed Class Action was filed in Oshawa (Durham). This had to do with health care workers who were forced from their jobs over the injection mandates. The Representative Plaintiff, Lisa Wolfs, had been terminated, despite being medically cleared to work.

UHCWO, or United Health Care Workers of Ontario, is the group behind this case. They posted a draft version of the Statement of Claim, but the filed one is available to read.

The case centers around the idea that the Government interfered with employment relations, by inducing a breach of contract. For Wolf, she is a member of the Ontario Nurses Association, and part of their collective bargaining agreement. It’s a now familiar theme from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood, which has had some success in Federal Court.

Here, the labour agreement is between: (a) Wolfs, as an employee; (b) the ONA; and (c) London Health Sciences Centre, the employer. This matters as the Ontario Government is not a party to the contract. Hence, they can’t ask the Court to strike the case for lack of jurisdiction.

UHCWO Is Another s.2(d), Freedom Of Association Case

These particular arguments have been made before, with some success.

Tortious Inducement to Breach Contractual Relation
.
37. The Plaintiff and Class Members plead that the Order was issued in bad faith as:
a. The stated objectives of the Order were either known or could reasonable be known to be unachievable and therefore false;
b. The risks of adverse harm as a result of complying with the Order was either known to the CMOH or the CMOH acted with reckless indifference to the harm or willful blindness; and
c. The Order mandated vaccinations that did not prevent transmission of COVID-19 and such fact was either known to the CMOH, or the CMOH acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness resulting in foreseeable harm.

38. The Order introduced new terms and conditions for continued employment which were not negotiated nor contemplated under the Contract.

39. The Plaintiff and Class Members have either refused to share their vaccination status or are otherwise unvaccinated and thus did not conform to the Order and were placed on leave without pay, effectively a suspension, and some were subsequently terminated from employment.

40. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that the following actions taken by Provincially regulated Healthcare facilities (“the Employers”) were in breach of their contractual employment agreements and induced by the Order:
a. Disclosure of private medical information;
b. Being placed on a leave without pay; and
c. Termination of their employment.

41. Ms. Wolfs pleads that mandating COVID-19 vaccinations and terminating her employment constituted a breach of the ONA Agreement.

42. The Plaintiff and Class Members state that at all material times, their employment contracts were valid and binding upon their Employers. As their Employers have unlawfully purported to suspend or terminate the Plaintiff and Class Members’ contractual agreements and have refused to pay the sums owing to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Employers are in breach of their contractual employment agreements.

43. As the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Defendant was aware of the existence of the contractual employment agreements when he decided to issue the Order.

44. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that the Defendants intended to and caused and/or induced the Employers to breach contractual employment agreements by their actions in relation to: the disclosure of private medical information; imposition of a leave without pay;

Section s.2(d) of the Charter is the freedom of association provision. The argument here is that the Government meddling with employment contracts of other people violated their right to do business together. Presumably, none of these hospitals would have fired anyone, except for this interference.

Currently, Sheikh and Wood have 5 Proposed Class Actions:

  • Payne (Federal)
  • Hill/Free To Fly (Federal)
  • B.C. Public Sector Employees for Freedom
  • United Health Care Workers of B.C
  • United Health Care Workers of Ontario

Payne is under appeal after surviving a Motion to Strike.
Hill survived a Motion to Strike, making minor amendments.
The 2 B.C. cases will have Applications to Strike and Certify heard together.
The Ontario case has just the Statement of Claim.

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

CASE NAMES PAYNE/BCPSEF HILL/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Payne Hill
Filed in B.C.? BCPSEF UHCWBC
Filed in Ontario.? n/a UHCWO
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t? Yes No
Inducement to Breach Contract? No Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights? Yes Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office? Yes Yes

Despite the similarities, there are 2 important differences.

First is the jurisdiction. There are 2 Federal cases, 2 in B.C., and 1 in Ontario. It changes how quickly the cases can be moved along, and has considerable cost consequences for litigants. Given that Ontario is the most expensive, it makes sense to let that proceed last.

Second, there’s a divide in the arguments that are being made. Payne and BCPSEF both involve Government workers. They’re arguing that their employer breached their contracts. By contrast, Free To Fly, UHCWO and UHCWBC argue that the Government induced a breach of contract by third parties, namely their respective employers. This puts the latter group in a stronger position, since union agreements cannot be invoked by non-parties.

Payne is a wild card for another reason. Although the case survived a Motion to Strike, Ottawa has since appealed that decision. It could very easily end up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

Although Wolfs/UHCWO and Dorceus both revolve around vaccine passports, and the medical profession in Ontario, their set up is night-and-day different.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background information on Dorceus.

(a) UHCWO sues only the Ontario Government, and Kieran Moore, the Chief Medical Officer of Health. While health care workers are routinely unionized, it’s with a hospital or clinic. Collective bargaining agreements are between: (I) the employee; (II) the union; and (III) the employer. Since the Government presumably isn’t a party to any such contract, they have no standing to assert any arbitration requirement.

(b) UHCWO centers its case around tortious inducement to breach contractual relations, along with malfeasance and Section 2(d) of the Charter, or freedom of association. These are torts that a Civil Court can in fact address. There’s none of the: International Criminal Court; Nuremberg Code; Helsinki Declaration; crimes against humanity, etc… that plagued Dorceus.

(c) UCHWO is quite clearly structured as an employment claim. It’s primary grievance is wrongful termination, albeit, instigated by outside parties. Dorceus is just a toned down version of the Action4Canada suit, struck as “bad beyond argument”.

(d) UHCWO is set up as a Proposed Class Action. This is a much more efficient option when dealing with hundreds — or even thousands — of potential Plaintiffs. And that leads to the next point:

(e) UHCWO pleads facts about its Representative Plaintiff, Lisa Wolfs. While brief, there’s enough background information provided to understand her situation. That doesn’t happen (at all) in Dorceus, for any Plaintiff.

(f) UHCWO provides enough particulars (details) about malfeasance that the case should be okay. However, it doesn’t drift into full conspiracy mode like Dorceus does.

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

In order to be certified as a Class Action, a Judge will need to be convinced that this is a viable option. One of the considerations is whether there will be enough money set aside to see it through. That is an open question.

After years of defective cases brought forward by Galati, Grey, Christensen, and others, it may be hard to convince others to participate, or even to donate. No one wants to be involved if they think there’s gross incompetence, or deliberate sabotage. There’s understandably fatigue in all of this.

It would be nice to see at least one case get to Trial.

Yes, this site is endlessly critical of shoddy filings. However, the ones mentioned here are well written, and advance arguments that are capable of being adjudicated. Being Class Actions, there’s potential to get justice for many, many people. CSASPP, still under reserve, gets an honourable mention.

UHCWO GENERAL LINKS:
(1) https://uhcwo.ca/
(2) https://x.com/uhcwo

UHCWO COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Wolfs Draft Statement Of Claim
(2) Wolfs Statement Of Claim August 2024

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025

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

FREE TO FLY FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hill Proposed Class Action Statement Of Claim May 2023
(2) Hill Order Case Management June 2023
(3) Hill Amended Statement Of Claim October 2023
(4) Hill Defendant Motion Record To Strike Claim April 2024
(5) Hill Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike Claim May 2024
(6) Hill Plaintiff List Of Proposed Amendments May 2024
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc242/2025fc242.html

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025

PAYNE FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Statement Of Claim October 2023
(2) Payne Notice Of Intent To Defend November 2023
(3) Payne Letter Intent To Strike May 2024
(4) Payne Defendant Motion Record To Strike August 2024
(5) Payne Plaintiff Responding Motion Record October 2024
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.pdf
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.html

Posted on

BCPSEF And UHCWBC Certification Hearings To Take Place In April Over s.2(d) Violations

At the end of April, 2 groups are expected to begin their certification hearings at the British Columbia Supreme Court. These are: BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, and UHCWBC, the United Health Care Workers of BC. These are Proposed Class Action lawsuits filed in October 2023 challenging the injection mandates.

The idea behind Class Actions is simple: it can reduce a significant amount of time and expense to “bundle” related litigants into a single challenge.

The lawyers, Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood, are trying to convince the Court that their clients’ Section 2(d) Charter Rights were infringed. This is — of course — freedom of association — and it’s become their signature tort. They’ve had some success so far.

It’s worth mentioning that there’s strong parallels between these suits and the Payne and Hill cases. They were filed by the same lawyers, and make essentially the same arguments. Both of those survived an initial challenge, although Payne is currently under Appeal. All of them are Proposed Class Actions.

CASE NAMES PAYNE/BCPSEF HILL/UHCWBC
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Payne Hill
Filed in B.C.? BCPSEF UHCWBC
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t? Yes No
Inducement to Breach Contract? No Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights? Yes Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office? Yes Yes

Collective bargaining agreements are typically fatal, due to the issue of whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. Usually, Arbitration is called for. But that doesn’t apply when the party being sued isn’t the employer. In the Hill and UHCWBC cases, the respective Governments are accusing of meddling with other people’s employment.

This removes the potentially strongest initial challenge.

BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, Wrongful Termination

54. The Plaintiff’s plead that the Order constitutes an improper and unjustified imposition by the Defendant of a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent to their existing and freely negotiated employment agreements and as such violates their protected right under s. 2d of the Charter.

It’s been a longstanding defence raised by various Governments in wrongful termination cases: there’s a grievance option available, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction. That said, the argument here is that any grievance process was circumvented by unilaterally imposing changes of employment agreements. If there’s no opportunity for meaningful consultation, how can the internal processes be used?

Up until Payne, various Governments had been entirely successful arguing that there was no way around those agreements. But the logic applied here seems so basic.

Both cases here also argue that the Plaintiffs’ freedom of association rights were violated, and it applies whether or not the Government is the employer.

United Health Care Workers, Inducement To Breach Contract

58. The Plaintiffs and Class Members allege that the Defendants intended to and caused and/or induced the Employers to breach contractual employment agreements by their actions in relation to: the disclosure of private medical information; imposition of a leave without pay; and/or unlawful termination by ordering the Employers to enforce the Orders absent justification. The breaches of contractual employment agreements are therefore a direct result of the unlawful inducement of the breach as herein before particularized and as a result of unlawful interference by the Defendants in the contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs, Class Members and their Employers.

This differs from the above case since the health care workers aren’t directly for the Government. Instead, they had their employment terminated by their employers such as hospitals, because of the injection mandates that were handed down. This is a subtle, but important distinction.

Certification Hearings To Determine Viability Of Class Action(s)

A common misconception is that these hearings are to determine the merits of the Plaintiffs’ respective cases. That’s not really accurate.

Instead, the purpose is to determine whether or not there’s an overall interest in proceeding with such a case. Essentially, the lawyers have to “sell” the idea that they have the ability and plan to see it through. It’s more about the nuts and bolts of such an undertaking, rather than trying the matter. The ability to finance and sustain a prolonged lawsuit will also be an issue.

The Representative Plaintiffs (a.k.a. Token Plaintiffs) are taking a significant risk as well. Should a Claim not be certified, they can be held personally responsible for Court costs. Those can be expensive.

Should either case be certified, it would pretty much close off opportunities to bring related claims for similar classes of people. This is partly why the Court needs to ensure these ones are serious.

Applications to Strike have also been filed in both cases, which is not a surprise. Those presumably will be heard at the same time.

BCPSEF and UHCWBC have both brought forward their Notices, and more documents are expected to be filed.

Hopefully, it goes more efficiently than the CSASPP hearings. Decisions on Certification, and an Application to Strike have been under reserve for nearly 2 years now.

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025

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

GENERAL LINKS:
(1) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/
(2) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/media-release-plaintiff-launches-class-action-lawsuit/
(3) https://x.com/bcpsef
(4) https://unitedtogether.ca/
(5) https://unitedtogether.ca/faq-classaction/
(6) https://x.com/UHCWBC

Posted on

Free To Fly Case Survives: How This s.2(d) Challenge Differs From Payne

Earlier this month, a Proposed Class Action lawsuit from 3 airline employees survived a Motion to Strike. They argue that the Government interfered with their employment by imposing the injection mandates (a.k.a. vaccine passports). The group running it is called Free To Fly. (See Twitter/X).

This follows on the heels of another case (Payne), from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. Both cases: (a) are Proposed Class Actions; (b) sue the Federal Government; (c) involve injection mandates; (d) involve Plaintiffs who were employed, and (e) refused the shots. Despite these similarities, there are important differences, especially around who the employers actually are.

The Plaintiffs here have decided to voluntarily remove portions of their own suit, in order to focus on the stronger ones.

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

Originally, there were 9 separate torts pleaded. Rather than continue that way, the Plaintiffs decided that 6 of them will no longer be pursued, and the focus will be on the remaining 3. Given that there is some overlap and redundancy as well, this makes sense.

Torts that will be pursued in the Amended Claim:

  • Inducement of breach of contract
  • Malfeasance in public office
  • Violation of subsection 2(d) of the Charter

Torts that will not be pursued in the Amended Claim:

  • Negligence
  • Interfering with contractual relations
  • Breach of privacy
  • Violation of subsection 2(a) of the Charter
  • Violation of subsection 7 of the Charter
  • Violation of subsection 15 of the Charter

Additionally, several pages of proposed amendments were included by the Plaintiffs for the remaining torts. They helped persuade the Judge.

[26] At the outset of these reasons, I stated that a motion to strike is not an exercise in critiquing inelegantly drafted pleadings. Nonetheless, where as here, a party is willing to amend a pleading and has proposed specific amendments that would assist in clarifying, confirming or defining the issues for the benefit of the opposing party and the Court, such amendments should be permitted and encouraged.

[27] On this motion, I am satisfied that the currently pleaded facts in the amended statement of claim show more than a scintilla of a cause of action in respect of each of the grounds remaining in issue after the concession by the plaintiffs. However, the pleadings can be improved by some of the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments. Thus, the plaintiffs shall further amend the amended statement of claim to incorporate those paragraphs set out in Appendix A of the plaintiffs’ motion record that relate to the claims of inducement of breach of contract, misfeasance in public office and violation of subsection 2(d) of the Charter and the remedies arising therefrom.

Associate Justice Crinson agreed that at least some of the proposed changes would be beneficial in helping to redraft the case.

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

Both Hill and Payne are Proposed Class Actions against the Federal Government. They are consequences of imposing injection mandates throughout Canada. They invoke Section 2(d) of the Charter, which is Freedom of Association. On the surface, they appear identical. However, they’re not, and Hill is actually in a stronger position.

Just after the New Year, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court handed down a decision which (mostly) left intact a Proposed Class Action for Federal workers. They had been forced from their employment for refusing to take the injections.

Up until this point, such challenges had failed. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) gave the right to grieve, but not to sue. This resulted in a lack of jurisdiction for the Court. Payne succeed — so far — by arguing that the way injection mandates were implemented circumvented any legitimate grievance or collective bargaining process.

Hill and Warren worked for Air Canada, and Lewis worked for WestJet. Both airlines are unionized employers, which on the surface, one would suspect similar questions around jurisdiction.

But here, the employers are not the Defendants. The Government is. Ottawa is being sued for interfering with other parties’ business relationships, namely the airlines and their workers. Instead of wrongful termination, the case is over an inducement to breach a contract. The allegation is that the mandates interfered with the free association of other people.

With this difference in mind, the typical defence raised — lack of jurisdiction — doesn’t apply in Hill. The Federal Government can’t rely on their go-to response.

Sure, they’ll likely argue that any inducement to breach a contract, or interference with business relations was necessary and justified. But that will be a lot harder to sell. For that reason, the Hill case seems to stand in a better position, for now.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

May 15th, 2023: Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court.

June 1st, 2023: It’s determined that there’s to be case management for the remainder of the proceedings, with Associate Judge Crinson and Justice Aylen assigned.

October 11th, 2023: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 10th, 2023: Government requests that requirement to file a Statement of Defence be deferred until after the issue of certification is dealt with.

April 1st, 2024: Government brings its Motion to Strike the case.

May 3rd, 2024: Plaintiffs responding with their own Motion Record, asking that the case be allowed to proceed to the next stages. It also gives several pages of proposed amendments.

May 22nd, 2024: Motion is heard orally, but with the decision reserved.

February 7th, 2025: The Motion is (mostly) dismissed, and amendments are allowed for the remaining torts.

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.

Payne is currently being appealed which is no surprise. However, given the different relationships with that one, Hill should be okay regardless of whether or not it’s overturned. The FPSLRA simply doesn’t apply in Hill.

If Ottawa wants this one tossed, completely new arguments are needed.

Of course, this is nowhere near the end of the road. Certifying the case as a Class Action is the next major hurdle, assuming this ruling is not appealed. Still, an important hurdle has been crossed.

It’s nice to report a success for once.

FREE TO FLY FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hill Proposed Class Action Statement Of Claim May 2023
(2) Hill Order Case Management June 2023
(3) Hill Amended Statement Of Claim October 2023
(4) Hill Defendant Motion Record To Strike Claim April 2024
(5) Hill Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike Claim May 2024
(6) Hill Plaintiff List Of Proposed Amendments May 2024
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc242/2025fc242.html

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025

PAYNE FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Statement Of Claim October 2023
(2) Payne Notice Of Intent To Defend November 2023
(3) Payne Letter Intent To Strike May 2024
(4) Payne Defendant Motion Record To Strike August 2024
(5) Payne Plaintiff Responding Motion Record October 2024
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.pdf
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.html