Category: Canada

Posted on

CSASPP Certification Refused, Appeal Being Considered

A long overdue ruling has finally come for the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP. This is the Proposed Class Action filed in Vancouver, back in January, 2021.

However, it’s not what many had been hoping for, as certification was refused. Justice Crerar referred to the case as an “abuse of process”.

An obvious question is why it took 2 1/2 years to issue a decision, if the defects were so clear cut. The hearings concluded in April, 2023, and it’s now October, 2025. The case had been under reserve the entire time.

While the Judge seemed disinclined to issue costs over the unsuccessful certification, the Defendants are still able to request them anyway.

The status update on CSASPP’s website goes into detail about issues with the decision. It’s more detailed than here, and worth reading. The update concludes as follows:

“If we are to appeal the ruling, we have 30 days to do so from the date of the ruling. We have not made any decision and will continue to analyze your options. If you would like us to pursue an appeal, you can show your support in donating. As usual, we will continue to keep you apprised in the meantime.”

Here are a few points to consider.

1. Justice Crerar Critical Of Several Versions Of Pleadings

[47] To be fair to the plaintiff, to some extent the factual basis has evolved in real time: as more public health orders were issued, it was not wholly unreasonable for the plaintiff to amend its pleadings to particularise those new orders. Further, the evolving Covid jurisprudence rendered many of the plaintiff’s legal claims and arguments untenable. That said, many of the amendments could have been anticipated and pleaded at an early stage of the litigation. To give two critical and fundamental examples: as discussed below, the plaintiff was in a position to properly identify and define the subclasses at an early stage, and it was always ill-conceived to have the Society serve as the proposed representative plaintiff.

[133] The plaintiff’s constantly moving pleadings target has consumed a grossly disproportionate amount of time of the parties and the Court: it is near-impossible to respond to or adjudicate on a pleading that is so mutable. Such constant amendments constitute in themselves an abuse of process.

The Judge would go on at length how the Notice of Civil Claim had been amended several times. He said there were 8 versions in total. However, he offers a reasonable justification for most of it: Bonnie Henry issued new health orders over time, and older ones became obsolete. As such, changes would be necessary, in order to avoid mootness becoming an issue.

Yes, it was something of a “moving target”, but that was the result of a steady stream of new orders.

The case was filed in January 2021. Travel restrictions within the Province wouldn’t be introduced until April, and terminate in June. Injection passes wouldn’t become a reality until September or October for most people. It’s difficult to litigate issues prior to their existence.

And if having the Society itself was such a problem, it would have been better to know that sooner. Alternatives were offered.

2. Justice Crerar Critical Of Multiple Proceedings

[163] As a further basis for striking the claim as an abuse of process, the plaintiff Society has filed three proceedings against the same defendant—Dr. Bonnie Henry—each concerning various health orders. It is an abuse of process for the plaintiff to bring this action against these defendants when it has already brought other proceedings in relation to the same subject matter (one petition of which has now been dismissed, and the other abandoned).

The Judge would cite 2 Petitions that CSASPP had filed against Bonnie Henry. One was to challenge the limit on public gatherings, and the other was the new injection mandate for health care workers. He had a point in that they did have overlapping issues.

However, these were limited challenges, and ones that couldn’t wait years for the Court to act in the larger case.

And it’s not as if he was efficient in handing down this ruling.

3. Justice Crerar Preferred Petition Over Claim

[195] First, as set out above, the present claim is a thinly-veiled challenge to administrative decisions that would be appropriately brought as a judicial review. In Ernst, the existence of judicial review as a more appropriate remedy to address the essence of the plaintiff’s complaints weighed heavily against the continued survival of a claim based in Charter damages:

[199] Declaratory relief is a more appropriate remedy than Charter damages in a case like this one that deals with broad questions of policy, public health, and medical and epidemiological judgment. Of course, the plaintiff would prefer to avoid that administrative law remedy, as it appropriately requires deference to the expert decision maker entrusted by the legislature with those decisions, as seen in Hoogerbrug and Beaudoin, and many other Covid-related decisions.

A Petition, or Judicial Review, is a limited challenge to existing orders or decisions. Unlike a Civil Claim, this isn’t meant to be broad, or to have much of an evidence gathering process. There’s also no opportunity to pursue a Class Action.

Moreover, there’s typically a high degree of deference given to the “expert decision makers”, which often renders Petitions ineffective.

4. Justice Crerar Takes Shots At CSASPP’s Lawyer

[399] I wish to emphasise that nothing in this section should be read as casting any aspersion on the competence or ethics on plaintiff’s counsel, who has proven herself to be a skilled, eloquent, and zealous advocate in court. The plaintiff’s serial failures to meet court deadlines, and the ever-changing parameters of the proposed class proceeding, from proposed plaintiffs, to claims, to common issues, may well be the fault of the plaintiff Society and its principals rather than her law firm. The point is that a plaintiff and a law firm proposing what will be the largest and most complicated class proceeding in Canadian history must establish a commensurate degree of competence and experience, as exhibited through impeccable prosecution of the claim, to have any hope of certification.

While designed to be tactful, this comes across as insulting. And just because a case is complicated, that’s not grounds to throw it out. Such a suit would be an immense amount of work for a single lawyer, but it’s not as if more couldn’t be retained if certification was successful.

Of course, Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia have an almost inexhaustible supply of money, courtesy of taxpayers. They are forced to contribute to the defence regardless of their views.

5. Alternative Representative Plaintiffs Were Offered

[381] As set out above, Ms Leppky is cited as a representative of the religious subclass: her religious beliefs prohibit her from getting vaccinated, thus affecting her ability to work, and to access various locations. Ms Gauthier is cited as a representative of the proposed medical subclass: her surgery was cancelled, affecting her pain, stress and ability to work. In contrast to the other two, Mr Parihar is not cited as a representative of any of the subclasses, but he presumably represents the vaccination subclass: the FANCC avers that he was unable to attend certain events and locations, and was shunned due to his unvaccinated status.

In the event that the Society itself was considered unsuitable, an alternative was offered that would see 3 individuals become Representative Plaintiffs. That was refused.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

January, 2021: The case was initially filed in January 2021 as a Proposed Class Action.

March, 2021: The B.C. Government responds to the lawsuit.

June, 2021: Plaintiffs bring their proposal for case management.

July, 2021: Defendants bring their own proposal to manage the case.

September, 2021: Notice of Civil Claim is amended.

December, 2022: Certification hearings start, but take longer than originally anticipated. They were intended to be completed over a single week.

April 2023: Certification hearings resume, taking up another week. The decision is under reserve, meaning it will be issued later. However, Justice Crerar would still make several subsequent requests for submissions based on related cases happening elsewhere.

July, 2023: Ingram, the disaster of a ruling, is brought to Justice Crerar’s attention. This is the Alberta ruling that struck down orders on a technicality (Cabinet interference), but otherwise okayed them in principle.

September, 2023: Bonnie Henry’s lawyer objects to CSASPP filing a Petition against the vaccine passport for health care workers, claiming the existing litigation amounts to a duplication, and hence, abuse of process.

April, 2024: Justice Crerar sends notice that he will likely be issuing a decision on the Certification Application within a month or so. As a result, CSASPP forwards several recent rulings on related issues. But, the ruling is further delayed.

October, 2025: The Certification Application is dismissed.

Will This Ruling Be Appealed?

There’s a 30 day time limit to decide, and there’s no official word yet.

Justice Crerar was extremely critical of CSASPP for unnecessarily delaying the case. He then takes 2 1/2 years to hand down a ruling that should — by his own remarks — have been straightforward. The 144 page ruling is bloated, and could easily have been 30 or 40.

He seemed to imply at paragraph 14 that a Class Action would be less efficient than having Plaintiffs bring individual suits, which of course defies the wisdom of bringing one.

He dwelled about a lawsuit that Kip Warner had been involved with against Google. While minor, it was irrelevant to this case.

The Judge’s preferred avenue — a Petition — wouldn’t address many of the concerns raised in the Claim. Nor would there be an opportunity for any deep dive into the evidence. CSASPP also wouldn’t be able to challenge the declaration of emergency, which started this in the first place.

Interestingly, this proceeding was declared to be an “abuse” of the legal system. However, Action4Canada’s case, the most poorly drafted suit in B.C. history, wasn’t ruled to be one. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Appeal called it that.

RULING ON CERTIFICATION
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.pdf

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

Posted on

Bill S-224: Lowering The Burden To Prosecute Human Trafficking (Died In Last Session)

Senator Salma Ataullahjan introduced Bill S-224 back in late 2021. It cleared the Senate, and Second Reading in the House of Commons. In fact, it came very close to getting passed.

Put simply, it would have amended the Criminal Code to make it easier for police to lay charges in cases of suspected human trafficking. It would have removed an element of the offence — fear for one’s safety — thus lowering the burden. There was a surprisingly vocal set of opponents fighting against it.

Broadly speaking, “trafficking” would fall into 2 major categories: (a) sex work, such as pornography or prostitution; or (b) forced labour in general. Participants in the 2023 study focused on the former.

***It’s true that this Bill died when the last session of Parliament ended. That being said, legislation that doesn’t advance is often brought back at later times. This may be one such case.

What Would Bill S-224 Actually Change?

Exploitation
279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

Factors
279.04 (2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

The proposed Bill S-224 would remove the requirement that victims fear for their safety if they don’t comply with the demands.

Exploitation
279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that
(a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and
(b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.
(2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.

Critics claim that taking out that requirement will make it easier for police to charge third parties for the so-called “legitimate” work they may be involved with.

Opposition To S-224 Framed As “Protecting Rights”

Some of the “solutions” being proposed are:

  • Reject Bill S-224 in its entirety.
  • Decriminalize/legalize sex work.
  • Support non-carceral forms of safety, including decent and affordable housing for all, restorative and transformative justice initiatives, and community-based anti-violence programs geared toward preventing gendered violence and supporting survivors.
  • Invest in community initiatives run by and for people working in the sex industry that are non directive and based in human rights, and not focused on “exiting” sex work. Programs contingent on people stopping or “exiting” sex work or that have eligibility requirements fail to address the complexity of sex workers’ lives.
  • Invest in Indigenous community initiatives, migrant worker community initiatives, and youth based initiatives that furnish people with networks of community support that undercut the precarity and vulnerability that place people in vulnerable situations.
  • Ensure full and permanent immigration status for all in Canada, without exception.

Advocates who oppose Bill S-224 are quick to point out that sex work isn’t necessarily exploitative by nature. They then go on to demand housing for all, and immigration status for all.

Bill S-224 Opposed By Ford Government

Bizarrely, one of the strongest opponents is the Ontario Government, currently headed by Doug Ford.

Keep in mind, Ford had no problem spending endless amounts of money a few years back. He sent the police to shut down businesses, enforce stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc…. But his administration objects to changes of law that would make it easier to pursue human traffickers.

In their brief to Parliament, it’s lamented how the inevitable legal challenges would be wasteful, and a poor use of taxpayer money. It’s rationalized that because the current laws are constitutional, they don’t need to be tweaked.

Overall, this is a very strange hill to die on. One would think that special interest groups would be fighting for more aggressive laws to jail such people. Considering the focus on how much exploitation there is in immigrant and poorer communities, wouldn’t such changes be welcomed?

Sure, other groups sent in brief in support of S-224, but they’re not the concern.

It’s worth mentioning that organizations opposing this Bill receive taxpayer subsidies.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640
(5) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230612/-1/39495?gefdesc=&startposition=20230612164645
(6) Bill S-224 Brief Butterfly HIV Legal
(7) Bill S-224 Brief CASWLR
(8) Bill S-224 Brief Joint Criminologists
(9) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Government
(10) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Native Women
(11) Bill S-224 Brief Vincent Wong
(12) Bill S-224 Brief West Coast LEAF

Private Member Bills In PREVIOUS Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19.1) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(19.2) Bill S-210: Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Restrictions
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

The Pham Case: NGOs Pushed For Foreign Criminals Having More Rights Than Canadians

A disturbing trend has been in the news lately. Recently, a series of cases were published where foreigners received unusually low sentences for criminal convictions, in order to avoid deportation. Since the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Pham, there has been a requirement to view “immigration consequences” when handing down punishment.

What’s even more unsettling is how this came to happen. A foreign drug trafficker received a 2 year sentence on a Joint Submission (agreement), but seemed to have realized after the fact that it would mean deportation.

For context: under the rules at the time, non-citizens who received a jail sentence of 2 years (or more) were excluded from many appeal options to avoid deportation. Removal was pretty much automatic. However, those convicted and receiving lesser punishment still had more prospects of staying. This was later reduced to a 6 month limit.

Hoang Anh Pham was sentenced to 2 years in prison for drug possession, for the purposes of trafficking. On Appeal, he asked that it be reduced by a day, to avoid deportation. The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, rejected it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Leave (permission) to hear the case, and then did allow it.

What likely tipped the scales was that several Intervenors (interested parties) made submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada. These were:

  • British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Council for Refugees (Charity Page)
  • Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Various groups weighed in, asking the the Supreme Court require that Judges take immigration consequences into account when imposing sentences. How does this benefit actual Canadians? How does special consideration for foreign criminals create a better society?

Hoang Anh Pham Previously Convicted For Drug Trafficking

[2] The facts as disclosed at trial were that the appellant was involved in a three-stage marijuana grow operation consisting of 591 plants at various stages of growth. It was estimated that the value of this crop ranged from $461,718 (if sold by the pound) to $738,750 (if sold by the ounce). An additional 28 grams of marijuana was found in two freezer bags in the freezer compartment to the refrigerator on the main floor.

[3] At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the appellant’s prior criminal record was entered as an exhibit. It disclosed that on December 12, 2000 the appellant had been convicted of one count of failing to attend court (section 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code), one count of trafficking in a scheduled substance (section 5(1) of the CDSA) and one charge of possession of a scheduled substance for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the CDSA). At that time, the appellant had received a sentence of one day in gaol on the first count and a three month conditional sentence order, concurrent, on each of the other two charges.

[4] At the sentencing hearing in this case, the appellant’s then counsel and Crown counsel urged upon the sentencing judge, by way of joint submission, a sentence of imprisonment for two years. The Crown cited as aggravating factors that the appellant had benefitted financially and that he had not learned his lesson from his previous encounter with the criminal justice system.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal, we can see that Pham was already a convicted drug trafficker when this sentence was handed down.

Prosecutors Complicit With Sentence Reduction

[32] Returning to the case at bar, the appellant has previously been convicted of three offences. In 2000, he was convicted of failing to attend court, trafficking in a scheduled substance, and possession of a scheduled substance for the purposing of trafficking. For the first offence, he was sentenced to one day in jail; he received a three month conditional sentence for the other two charges. Now there is the more recent drug- related conviction, which resulted in the two year prison term he asks us to reduce. Illegal drugs are a tremendous scourge on our society. The appellant’s repeated contribution to the problem, albeit modest in the large scale of things, would normally disqualify him from leniency. However, as the prosecution has consented to this appeal, I would agree to allow it with the caveat that in future cases, this relief will not be there simply for the asking.

In a dissenting opinion with the ABCA, Justice Martin mentioned that the prosecution had consented to the appeal, which would have reduced the sentence. So, even though he was argued that he “clearly hadn’t learned his lesson”, the Crown is still okay with reducing the sentence to help prevent deportation.

1. B.C. Civil Liberties Association

2. The BCCLA submits that failure to consider the immigration consequences of a sentence would deprive the court of information required to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors, and may result in a sentence which unjustly infringes an offender’s rights and freedoms.

3. Immigration consequences must be taken into account by a sentencing judge in order to ensure that the offender is not punished more than necessary. A permanent resident convicted in Canada and sentenced to two years or more is almost certain to face deportation. For many permanent residents, deportation will be the most punitive impact of their sentence. In order to ensure that sentences are consistent with the principles of proportionality and restraint, the BCCLA submits that immigration consequences are relevant personal circumstances which should be taken into account as part of the individualized sentencing assessment.

2. Canadian Council For Refugees

4. Given that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a criminal offence may face removal from Canada, it is the CCR’s submission that the judge imposing the sentence must take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability of remedies for the retention of status in Canada. This is based on the following reasoning:

9. Non-citizens whose human rights will be infringed by removal are entitled to have their interests considered by a competent, independent and impartial decision maker prior to removal. A scheme was created for consideration of such interests under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Relevant to this appeal, this obligation is met in the equitable appeal which is available to permanent residents and Convention refugees who face removal because of a criminal conviction but who have received a sentence of less than two years.

17. It is submitted therefore that a judge, exercising a judicial discretion in relation to the imposition of an appropriate sentence for a crime committed, ought to take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability to a non-citizen of a hearing which is fully in compliance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter in relation to that person’s status in Canada.

Of course, these aren’t anywhere near all of the filed documents. However, they do illustrate what the main concerns being raised are.

The Supreme Court also has the video of the hearing posted on its website, even years later. It’s worth a watch.

51:30: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers begins, and brings up the possible ineffective assistance of counsel argument.
1:02:00: Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario begins.
1:08:00: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:13:41: Canadian Council for Refugees begins.
1:19:15: Canadian Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:38:30: Respondent (Government) begins.

While the Government (initially) asked that the case be remitted back to the Court of Appeal, at the hearing, they simply consented to the Appeal being allowed.

This should make Canadians’ blood boil. Registered “charities” are getting significant tax breaks while they try to implement caselaw to give preferential treatment to foreign criminals.

Conservative Bill A Trojan Horse?

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, consider a recent video from Michelle Rempel-Garner. She proposes a Private Member’s Bill to amended the Criminal Code. In her words, Judges “should not” be able to take immigration status into account. It’s at the 2:00 mark.

Should not?

How about cannot? Or must not? Or are prohibited from?

While this may come across as pedantic, this choice of wording would allow Judges to retain discretion as to whether or not they consider immigration status. There would merely be a recommendation against doing so, not an outright ban.

Does she not realize that every lawyer with a foreign convicted criminal for a client will be arguing that their case is exceptional?

We’ll have to see what happens.

COURT RULINGS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca203/2012abca203.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii68768/2012canlii68768.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc15/2013scc15.html

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA:
(1) https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/34897/
(2) Pham Factum Appellants Factum
(3) Pham Factum Respondents
(4) Pham Factum Appellants Reply
(5) Pham Factum BC Civil Liberties Association
(6) Pham Factum Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
(7) Pham Factum Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(8) Pham Factum Canadian Council For Refugees
(9) Pham Factum Criminal Lawyers Association Of Ontario

Posted on

Diagolon Brings Lawsuit In Small Claims Court Over Tour Expenses

Last Summer, Diagolon held their “Road Rage Terror Tour” in various cities across Canada. Plenty of photos were taken, and licence plates recorded. But it seems that the fallout hasn’t ended, and it’s from an unexpected source.

A scheduled stop in Hamilton was cancelled as a result of backlash from the public. This came after expenses were racked up in anticipation of holding the event. That’s when relations really soured, and all over a fairly small amount of money.

What do the saviours of the White race do? Their leader files a lawsuit in Ottawa.

According to the Claim, MacKenzie gave money to McEvoy, who was actually making reservations. Everything was in her name.

When the event ultimately got cancelled, MacKenzie demanded a refund from the organization. He was refused, on the basis that McEvoy was the one who made the payment (via etransfer), and that it would have to be returned to her. This was to comply with anti-money laundering laws.

McEvoy kept the money, so MacKenzie decided to sue her.

McEvoy then countersued, on the basis that the funds MacKenzie had paid her don’t even come close to what she paid out of pocket on other items. Considering that she spent time volunteering for the group, this is a strange way to show appreciation.

Nothing was resolved at the Settlement Conference, so the next step is Trial, assuming MacKenzie pays the fee for it. He backed out of going to Trial against Ezra Levant.

Timeline Of Events

April 7th to June 6th, 2024: McEvoy incurs expenses in anticipation of the “Road Rage Terror Tour” stopping by and having an event.

May 2nd, 2024: MacKenzie transfers $1,188 to McEvoy.

July 4th, 2024: MacKenzie transfers another $366.

July 31st, 2024: The Caledonia venue issues a refund (to McEvoy) of the deposit.

August 1st, 2024: MacKenzie is informed that refunds will have to be issued to McEvoy herself, as she’s the one who they received money from.

August 8th, 2024: MacKenzie files a $1,554 lawsuit in Ottawa Small Claims Court.

August 28th, 2024: McEvoy files a defence against the claim.

September 17th, 2024: McEvoy files a counterclaim for $2,187.23.

January 13th, 2025: Settlement conference is held, and neither claim is resolved.

And that’s where things stand now. If a Trial is ever held, an update will be posted.

Lawsuit Doesn’t Really Help “The Brand”

It’s no wonder that as a movement, Diagolon struggles to gain traction. Aside from being an obvious honeypot, it’s really a bad look to be suing volunteers over small change. This is even more so the case then they spend money out of pocket.

While blaming biased media for declining interest is possible, this will likely hurt more. Nothing turns off potential supporters like seeing others taken advantage of.

It probably doesn’t help that the group had been (allegedly) misrepresenting themselves when attempting to book venues. That led to more cancellations later on.

Did it have to come to this? Surely, CSIS has an expense account that they can reimburse MacKenzie from, so that he’s not preoccupied over the small details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Caledonia Plaintiffs Claim
(2) Caledonia Defence
(3) Caledonia Defendants Claim – Counterclaim
(4) Caledonia Settlement Conference

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.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress