Category: Canadian Decisions

Posted on

BCPSEF And UHCWBC Certification Hearings In A Week Over s.2(d) Violations

During the week of April 28th to May 2nd, 2025, the fates of 2 Proposed Class Actions are to be determined in a Victoria Court. These are on behalf of B.C. public sector employees, and B.C. health care workers, both current and former. Their employment was threatened by injection mandates a few years ago.

The British Columbia Supreme Court will hear both: (a) Applications to Certify; and (b) Applications to Strike. The decisions will almost certainly be deferred until later.

The groups organizing and arranging funding are: (a) BCPSEF, B.C. Public Service Employees for Freedom; and (b) UHCWBC, United Health Care Workers of B.C.

Because of the overlap in the cases, they’ll be argued at the same time. This is often done to save time and money for everyone involved.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and especially 5. These cases are all very similar.

Application To Strike BCPSEF Claim Entirely

5. The plaintiff was a unionized employee of the Province within the BC Public Service. At all material times, his employment was subject to the collective agreement between his union, the B.C. General Employees’ Union (the “GEU”), and his employer, the Province.

9. On January 11, 2022, the GEU filed a grievance on behalf of the plaintiff, challenging the Province’s decision to put him on leave without pay. On August 15, 2022, the GEU notified the plaintiff that it was withdrawing his grievance because the GEU had determined the grievance did not have a reasonable chance of success.

21. Jurisdiction in this case is determined through the “essential character” framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Weber v. Ontario Hydro. The central question is whether the cause of action arises “from the interpretation, application or alleged violation of the [plaintiff’s] collective agreement”. Plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration by pleading causes of action or wrongs which are typically adjudicated outside the labour relations process. Rather, the central focus of the analysis is the facts of the complaint, not the legal form in which the complaint is advanced. Accordingly, Charter and tort claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator if their “essential character” relates to the interpretation and application of a collective agreement.

22. The connection between the dispute and collective agreement does not need to be explicit or direct. Rather, defendants need only establish that the dispute arises “inferentially” out of the collective agreement to have it struck under Rule 21-8. This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s direction to adopt “a liberal position” under which the legislative intention to grant labour arbitrators “broad exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to conditions of employment” is given effect.

The B.C Government is asking that the Baldwin case (BCPS) be thrown out on the grounds that grievance structure provides for an alternative remedy. Consequently, the Courts have no jurisdiction.

This is essentially the same arguments that Payne (Feds4Freedom) made in Federal Court, and that case survived a Motion to Strike. In fairness, it is currently under appeal. This isn’t to say that either Payne or Baldwin are hopeless, but this is something to consider.

In their response, BCPS stated that: “The Plaintiffs allege that the Impugned Order and Regulation imposed terms on the Plaintiffs’ employment that were contrary to (and indeed uncontemplated by) the relevant collective agreements.” In short, the manner in which this was handled falls far outside the scope of any grievance scheme available.

Essentially, it’s a re-argument of the Payne case. If the employer (namely, Government) unilaterally changes conditions of employment and circumvents the grievance system, are workers still expected to follow it?

Application To Strike UHCWBC Claim Entirely

17. This action is an abuse of process for two reasons.
18. First, the plaintiffs are attempting to usurp the roles of their unions. Unionized employees give up certain individual rights in exchange for certain collective powers exercisable through unions. The issues raised in this action could have been, and in some instances were, raised by unions through the mandatory grievance and arbitration processes set out in the relevant collective agreements. Many of those grievances have now been settled. To the extent that unions have settled grievances filed by the plaintiffs or putative class members, the issues raised by those grievances are res judicata and it is abusive for the plaintiffs to attempt to re-litigate them in this action. If the plaintiffs (or any putative class members) are dissatisfied with how their unions have handled or settled their grievances, their remedy is a fair representation complaint under s. 12 of the Labour Relations Code.

24. Dealing first with the inducing breach of contract claim, one element of this tort is, of course, a breach of contract. To succeed in his inducing breach of contract claim against the PHO and Province, Mr. Ferguson would have to show (among other things) that his employer, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, breached the collective agreement between the Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association and HEABC by suspending him without pay and terminating his employment. Ms. Perepolkin would have to show that her employer, the Interior Health Authority, breached the collective agreement between the Health Sciences Association and HEABC.

The B.C Government is also asking that the health care workers case be thrown out as well. It raises somewhat different issues.

The Government argues that the Representative Plaintiffs (Ferguson and Perepolkin), should have grieved through their respective unions against the employers.

But here’s where things get interesting: The Provincial Government isn’t the employer. They can’t invoke collective bargaining agreements they aren’t part of. Instead, the Claim accuses them of inducing a breach of contract of third parties. In other words, they meddled in someone ELSE’S business.

In the Hill case (FreeToFly), the Motion to Strike was dismissed because of this distinction. It was never appealed, and is soon to face its own certification hearings.

Things *might* be trickier since Ferguson and Perepolkin have already settled their cases internally. That said, it doesn’t remove the fact that their employment was messed with in the first place. And again, the Province isn’t the employer.

Certification Applications For Both BCPSEF And UHCWBC

Both BCPSEF and UHCWBC have submitted their Certification Applications. Other Affidavits were subsequently filed in support.

For most lawsuits, all of the parties are named at the start. Class Actions differ significantly because they allow many more Plaintiffs (and sometimes Defendants) to be added later. Here, a Judge must be satisfied that the Representative Plaintiff(s) speaks for a class of people, or classes. Also, it must be demonstrated that such litigation would be an effective way of dealing with all these claims at once.

These hearings aren’t to try the case. Instead, they’re to convince the Court that such a proceeding should be allowed to go ahead.

The Government raises the usual objections over abuse of process, and some new ones. Specifically, these cases might overlap with the CSASPP Proposed Class Action that has been under reserve for 2 years now. Another possible conflict is with a case called Ferguson. Hopefully, that can be resolved.

Questions are also raised about potential lack of common issues, and the feasibility of taking on such cases.

There is a joint response for both BCPSEF and UHCWEF, and an interesting read.

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

Given that Hill and Payne both survived initial challenges in Federal Court, this is promising. Of course, there’s no guarantee of what this Judge will do.

We’ll have to see at the end of April.

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
(9) BCPS Plaintiff Submissions Certification And Strike December 2004
(10) BCPS UHCWBC Plaintiff REPLY Submissions Cert/Strike 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

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

Posted on

A Look At The Hillier Ruling: Appeal Overturns Ban On Public Gatherings

Nice to cover a win, rare as they may be.

Last week, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a ruling which found “stay-at-home” orders from 2021 to be justified, even if they did breach the Charter. The Application came from former Ontario MPP, Randy Hillier. This comes 4 years after Doug Ford effectively placed the entire Province under house arrest.

In the end, the Court of Appeal boiled it down to a simple 2-part question:

[47] The issues raised in this case are as follows:

(a) did the Gathering Restrictions violate Mr. Hillier’s freedom of peaceful assembly as provided for in section 2(c) of the Charter?

(b) if yes, is the violation justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

The Appellate Court indeed found that the orders did in fact amount to a breach of rights that couldn’t be justified. In particular, the way some gatherings could be accommodated, but not others, was very revealing.

[7] Despite these cautions, I conclude that the gathering limits at issue in this case were not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter. This case is materially different from Trinity Bible Chapel. First, this case concerns an absolute, rather than partial ban. Second, while Ontario tailored restrictions on religious gatherings to facilitate freedom of religion, no such tailoring was performed to facilitate the right to peacefully assemble. The evidence discloses that Ontario failed to consider the impact of the gathering limits on s. 2(c) of the Charter. The pandemic posed significant challenges for Ontario, but the Constitution does not fade from view in times of crisis.

Various public officials “claimed” that there has been all kinds of consultations done to ensure protection of rights, or at least some of them. This seems designed more to protect themselves from future challenges, than any sincere effort. Freedom of assembly didn’t make the list, for some reason.

Now, things should have been straightforward. However, Government lawyers have been quite good at convincing Judges that suspending rights (on the flimsiest of bases). “Trust me, Bro” has been the way it’s worked for a while.

While the Appeal seemed to be a long shot, there were at least 2 things which helped. First, several cases the Government relied on weren’t entirely helpful. Second, creating multiple “tiers” of protected rights involved some mental gymnastics to explain.

Ontario Superior Court Dismisses Application

From reading the original ruling, a familiar issue comes up.

[72] Mr. Hillier concedes that the Gathering Restrictions were enacted to address a pressing and substantial concern, namely COVID-19. This included the pressing need to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, and to reduce hospitalization and ICU admissions. The Court of Appeal in Trinity Bible found COVID-19 was a pressing and substantial concern in the spring of 2021. The Court of Appeal further accepted the motion judge’s finding that the “the objective of the religious gathering restrictions was to reduce COVID-19 transmission, hospitalization and death, and to mitigate threats to the integrity of the healthcare system”:

[73] As reviewed earlier in this decision, these were factually the same considerations before me. The rising caseloads and mounting deaths required government action. Without government intervention and restrictions, many more people would die. In Ontario, the pressing and substantial concern was heightened because its healthcare system, particularly the hospital sector, was close to its breaking point. Not only were those who suffered from COVID-19 at risk, but so were all the Ontarians who might need acute hospital care. There was no immediate fix to this long-standing structural problem, aside from doing all that was possible to reduce the spread of COVID-19. In short, it is hard to envision a more pressing and substantial objective.

[74] Accordingly, while I would have come to the same conclusion, there is no factual or legal basis for me to depart from the finding in Trinity Bible, that the Gathering Regulations were enacted to address the pressing and substantial objective of reducing the transmission of COVID-19.

The ruling, like so many, seems to “defer to the experts” without posing any real challenge. It this the best approach?

This may be a purist stance to take. But playing along with the Government narrative of there being a “pressing and substantial concern”, dooms many of these cases to fail. Under the Oakes Test, virtually any infringement of rights can be justified if it’s deemed to be:

(a) Pressing and Substantial Objective
(b) Rational Connection
(c) Minimal Impairment

By conceding the first (and really, the second) parts here, litigants are reduced to arguing that the impairment is not minimal, and is excessive.

In this instance though, tying this to Trinity Bible Chapel hurt initially, although it was ultimately useful later on. Justice Callaghan ruled that the outdoor assemblies could be restricted, much like a church could. That led to the Application being dismissed.

But there was one important difference: religious gatherings were restricted, while political gatherings were prohibited outright. That would change everything on Appeal.

As an aside, this ruling was cited by the Alberta King’s Bench in May 2024. Club Ménage, a polygamy group, challenged Land Use By-Laws which prohibited certain type of gatherings. In this context, it appears to be a swinger’s club.

Court Of Appeal Overturns Lower Court Ruling

Here’s how the Hillier Appeal was framed. It was over 2 questions of law. The Court seemed to focus almost exclusively on the second, while side-stepping the first.

The Applicant raises two issues in this Appeal, namely:
1) that the Application Judge erred in his application of the minimal impairment branch of the test cited in R v Oakes; and
2) that the Application Judge erred in upholding government action that created a constitutionally impermissible hierarchy of rights.

One of the cases, interestingly enough, that Hillier relied on in his Appeal was Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel et al. This matters, because even when Courts found “restrictions” to be justified, they never entirely banned religious gatherings. They were just made very inconvenient.

[155] Finally, it is important to note that, throughout the pandemic, religious gathering limits were carefully tailored to reflect evolving circumstances, new scientific evidence, and changing levels of risk. Ontario never completely banned religious gatherings. Even when risk was at its highest, and public health at its most precarious, religious institutions were permitted to have upwards of ten persons together, to facilitate virtual or drive-in services.

[167]… Yet, it remains the fact that, despite the claimants’ characterization as such, there was never a complete ban on religious gatherings or religious activity. It was always open to the churches to deliver services to congregants, albeit in a less than optimal fashion. Gathering limits imposed a significant burden on religious activity, but they did not prevent it from occurring.

By this logic, how then could Ford justify a stay-at-home order which permitted one type of protected activity (religious in nature), while outright banning another (political assembly)? While Trinity is often seen as a bad ruling, there was something good within it.

It stands to reason that public assembly could be permitted, with similar restrictions. But the reason it was not: political gatherings are a potential threat to Government, while religious gatherings aren’t.

58. Mr. Hillier’s third argument on appeal is that the application judge “erred in law in upholding a hierarchy of rights established by Ontario” through the Gathering Limits. This is how Mr. Hillier describes the fact that the Gathering Limits prohibited outdoor gatherings for political purposes while allowing certain religious gatherings.

59. This is a new argument on appeal which this Court should not entertain. As a general rule, appellate courts will not entertain new issues on appeal. The application judge’s reasons contained no analysis of a “hierarchy of rights” because Mr. Hillier did not make this argument below, and therefore this Court would have to consider this argument as a matter of first impression. There is no exception to the rule against new arguments on appeal for constitutional claims.

The Government lawyers complained that “hierarchy of rights” was a new issue on Appeal, and should not be considered. That said, they concede that Hillier had referred to other types of activities, such as religion, sports events, and shopping. They then go on to argue (essentially) that any sort of activities can be restricted if it is deemed to be necessary.

In other words, hypocrisy had been addressed before, even if “hierarchy of rights” was a new term.

Hillier wasn’t really introducing a brand new issue, but making better arguments.

Sanity did prevail at the Court of Appeal.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

June 13th, 2022: Hillier files Notice of Application in Toronto.

October 6th, 2022: Hillier files Notice of Constitutional Question.

May 4th, 2023: Hillier is questioned during discovery.

May 5th, 2023: Joel Kettner is questioned during discovery.

May 16th, 2023: Kevin Bardosh is questioned during discovery.

June 7th, 2023: Hillier files Factum (arguments) for hearing.

July 7th, 2023: Ontario files Responding Factum.

July 21st, 2023: Hillier’s Reply Factum comes in.

July 27th/28th, 2023: Application is heard in Provincial Court.

September 12th, 2023: Supplementary submissions are filed after the fact.

November 13th, 2023: More supplementary submissions are filed.

November 22nd, 2023: Ontario Superior Court dismisses the Application.

February 26th, 2024: Appellant’s (Hillier’s) Factum is filed.

May 23rd, 2024: Respondent’s (Government’s) Factum is filed.

September 19th, 2024: Appeal is heard in Toronto.

April 7th, 2025: Ontario Court of Appeal overturns ONSC decision.

With all this in mind, some perspective is needed. Doug-The-Thug is still in power, and in fact, was re-elected in 2022 and 2025. He’s faced no real consequences for doing any of this. Hopefully though, there will be more pushback the next time such a tyrant wants to impose martial law.

ONSC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hillier Notice Of Application
(2) Hillier Notice Of Constitutional Question
(3) Hillier Transcript Of Hillier
(4) Hillier Transcript Of Bardosh
(5) Hillier Transcript Of Kettner
(6) Hillier Factum
(7) Hillier Responding Factum
(8) Hillier Reply Factum
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc6611/2023onsc6611.html

ONCA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) HIllier APPEAL Appellant Factum
(2) HIllier APPEAL Respondent Factum
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca259/2025onca259.html

Posted on

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Abandons Calgary Firefighters Injection Pass Case In 2023

This article is to follow up on a 2022 case that no one ever heard about again. Specifically, it involved the Calgary Fire Department being sued for their new requirement to take the clot-shots. Many covered the announcement at the time, but nothing ever came of it.

Turns out that the lawsuit was discontinued, see here and here, less than a year after it was filed. The primary reason appears to be pushback from Calgary itself. The Calgary Firefighters Association, Local 255, has a collective bargaining agreement with the City and employees.

It’s also (yet another) cautionary tale about the problems litigants can have when they sue too many parties. Here, there could have been a decent case against the Alberta Government. Instead, the lawyer decides to name the employer as well, causing new headaches.

Additionally, the pleading had other serious defects.

The genius behind this was Leighton Grey, K.C., or King’s Counsel.

Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

24.01
(a) If any difference concerning the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of this Agreement or any question as to whether any difference is arbitral arises between the parties or persons bound by the Collective Agreement, such parties or persons shall endeavour to resolve the difference utilizing informal dispute resolution meetings. Should the parties fail to resolve the difference either party may proceed through the grievance process as set out below.

Step Two
If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved at Step One the Association within fifteen (15) days of the decision rendered by the Deputy Fire Chief or designate may submit the grievance to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or designate shall hear the grievance within fifteen (15) days of receiving it and shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days from the date the grievance was heard. If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved the grievance may be advanced within thirty (30) days to arbitration as provided under 24.01(c). If a grievance is not advanced to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the decision in Step Two, the grievance shall be deemed abandoned.

(e) The grievance arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any Member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the grievance arbitration board, but if there is no majority the decision of the Chair governs and it shall be deemed to be the award of the board;

Article 24 of that agreement spells out the grievance process. It reads:
(a) Bring grievance to Deputy Fire Chief.
(b) If no resolution, proceed to file with Fire Chief.
(c) Proceed to arbitration, if needed.

It’s also specified that if there’s no satisfactory conclusion reached with the Chief, then there’s a 30 day time limit to seek arbitration. It’s also clear that such a hearing is meant to be final.

Now, lawyers have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that various agreements never contemplated vaccine passports. While true, this amounts to CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, where the employer unilaterally changes a term and condition of employment. This sort of thing “is” usually covered.

Of course, had Grey only sued the Government of Alberta, the union agreement wouldn’t have come into play. Think about it, they can’t invoke a contract they’re not a party to. But by suing the Fire Department as well, Grey ensures that lack of jurisdiction will be an issue.

It’s just like an Ontario lawyer, who would be okay suing just the Ford Government. But then, he decides to sues any and all employers as well. Of course, suddenly union contracts create a jurisdiction issue.

City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike

The City of Calgary Fire Department brought an Application to Strike. Predictably, they invoked the union agreement, which specified arbitration as the only option.

Grey could simply have sued the Alberta Government — who brought in Provincial mandates — and left it at that. After all, they can’t challenge jurisdiction based on a contract they didn’t sign. Suing the Calgary Fire Department was an idiotic move, and allowed this to happen.

Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

The Statement of Claim contains poison pills, ensuring that it will be struck. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear criminal allegations at all.

The document also doesn’t plead any facts or particulars about any Plaintiff. The Judge would just be left guessing what the circumstances are for everyone, and which specific arguments they intend to make. This is probably since this lawsuit is largely recycled from other ones.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  8. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  9. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter.

Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

On his website, Grey brags about his success and accomplishment in the profession, including being an Adjudicator for Law Society disciplinary hearings from 2015–2020. He also mentions being the youngest to receive the King’s Counsel designation. Alberta describes members as:

Competence, including:

  • sound intellectual ability with a thorough, comprehensive, and current knowledge of law and practice in the applicant’s field
  • distinguished legal service with demanding and challenging legal work that contributes to the development of the law and practice
  • a recognized expertise in a particular area of law and practice (which may include the general practice of law)
  • an outstanding ability as a lawyer in the applicant’s field, to a standard to be expected of King’s Counsel

One has to wonder how and why so many defective cases were filed in recent years over the “vaccine passport” issue. It appears that most involved unionized employers, making them doomed to fail. Shouldn’t more be expected?

Note: To anyone who has read this far, are you aware of any other injection pass/vaccine pass cases brought by Leighton Grey? This site covered 9 that were dropped, and 1 struck, but there may very well be more. If so, please respond with the details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
https://www.calgaryfirefighters.org/files/docs/IAFF_L255_2021-2023_Collective_Agreement_.pdf

Posted on

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Drops (At Least) 9 Vaccine Passport Cases

This site has covered many of the terribly crafted cases filed by the “freedom lawyers” in recent years. These challenges to lockdown measures — such as injection mandates — are often comically done. The suits have procedural defects built in, which ensures that they go nowhere.

However, let’s consider another angle. Does it benefit clients, or the public as a whole, when cases are simply discontinued (dropped) long before they’re ever heard?

Worse, there’s typically no media attention when lawsuits are ended like this. Certainly, high profile rulings do get published. But there are no decisions when cases are simply dropped, making it far harder to piece together what’s really going on.

While CanLII is a great tool for searching verdicts, it’s essentially useless at helping to find out when discontinuances are filed. Reporters are left having to manually search, often without complete information.

Today, let’s look at a (somewhat) more low profile lawyer, and at some of his recent work. The results are not encouraging.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  8. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  9. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Now, Grey is still soliciting money for his Proposed Class Action (Burke), which was filed in Federal Court. This is supposedly on behalf of federally regulated workers, excluding the airline industry. But considering he already dropped the Winnipeg suit, why should people have confidence in this one?

It’s worth noting that this very likely isn’t the complete list.

#1: Lawsuit Against University Of Winnipeg, Brent Roussin Et Al

This case is actually a bit confusing. While it appears that the parties agreed to having the case struck, there is still a Notice of Discontinuance on file. It’s also worth noting that the Statement of Claim filed here is essentially cut-and-pasted into future claims.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Mlodzinski Statement Of Claim
(2) Mlodzinski Notice Of Motion Uncontested
(3) Mlodzinski Order Striking Case
(4) Mlodzinski Notice Of Discontinuance

#2: Lawsuit Against Purolator, Canadian Government

June 17th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed against Purolator and Ottawa.

December 23rd, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

April 10th, 2023: Claim is discontinued against everyone.

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.

There isn’t anything noteworthy to report in the case. After it sat idle, for nearly a year, the case was dropped. Presumably, no one got refunds.

PUROLATOR COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Purolator T-1267-22 Statement Of Claim
(2) Purolator T-1267-22 Amended Statement Of Claim
(3) Purolator T-1267-22 Notice Of Discontinuance

#3: Lawsuit Against Westjet, Government Of Canada

October 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed.

November 17th, 2022: Defence files Notice of Intent to Respond.

November 20th, 2022: Case management is ordered.

November 21st, 2022: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 5th, 2022: Plaintiffs (a) Erin Shannon; (b) Tara Mainland; (c) Jennifer Masterman all send in Notices of Discontinuance.

December 8th, 2022: Plaintiff’s lawyer (Grey) submits letter with proposed timetable.

February 28th, 2023: Court orders case management conference on March 13th, 2023.

March 13th, 2023: Conference discusses options of discontinuing overall, or setting timetable to file materials for Motion to Strike.

April 12th, 2023: Lawsuit is discontinued.

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.

WESTJET COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Westjet Statement Of Claim October 2022
(2) Westjet Amended Statement Of Claim November 2022
(3) Westjet Order Timetable December 2022
(4) Westjet Notice Of Discontinuance April 2023

#4: Firefighters V. City Of Calgary, Case Dropped

July 7th, 2022: Statement of Claim filed.

August 9th, 2022: Application brought to strike Statement of Claim.

September 9th, 2022: Hearing (to strike suit) adjourned.

September 21st, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

April 25th, 2023: Notice of Discontinuance.

Note: The Alberta Courts are a bit different. The search function allows people who order a list of the documents filed. From there, specific ones can be selected.

CALGARY FIREFIGHTER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

#5: Peters V. Winnipeg/Manitoba Class Action

December 8th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in the King’s Bench Court of Manitoba

January 5th, 2023: Municipal Defendants prepare Notice of Motion to strike lawsuit.

January 6th, 2023: Manitoba Defendants prepare Notice of Motion to strike lawsuit.

February 14th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

February 27th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

April 27th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

May 25th, 2023: Notice of Discontinuance is filed.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

As an aside, the Notice of Discontinuance is dated April 3rd, 2023, but wasn’t filed until the end of May. Perhaps dropping the case had long been the intention.

There are so many examples of this happening.

WINNIPEG/MANITOBA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Winnipeg Class Action Statement Of Claim
(2) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Motion Municipal Defendants
(3) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Motion Provincial Defendants
(4) Winnipeg Class Action Affidavit Of Service
(5) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Discontinuance

#6: Lawsuit Against Canadian National Railway Dropped

March 4th, 2022: Grey files the Statement of Claim against CNR and the Federal Government. Despite representing over 200 Plaintiffs, the entire document is just 14 pages long.

September 7th, 2022: case management is held to bring a Motion to Strike.

October 11th, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

October 28, 2022: first Notice of Discontinuance is filed. Several Plaintiffs want out.

February 1st, 2023: Statement of Claim is again amended.

February 7th, 2023: Order from the Court regarding how to proceed with the Motion to Strike the case.

May 8th, 2023: Most Plaintiffs discontinue.

May 17th, 2023: Grey files a Motion to remove himself as solicitor for the few remaining clients. This appears to be the most work he has actually performed in the case.

June 20th, 2023: Last client discontinues case.

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.

So, what actually happened in this case? The Statement of Claim was amended a few times, and there was some activity on a Motion to Strike. Then the suit was dropped without anything happening. None of the Plaintiffs ever got their day in Court. But their lawyer probably got his money.

CNR COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CNR T-553-22 Statement Of Claim (March 4, 2022)
(2) CNR T-553-22 Case Management September 7 2022
(3) CNR T-553-22 Amended Statement Of Claim (October 11, 2022)
(4) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance October 28, 2022
(5) CNR T-553-22 Amended Amended Statement Of Claim (February 1, 2023)
(6) CNR T-553-22 Order Regarding Motion To Strike February 7 2023
(7) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance May 8, 2023
(8) CNR T-553-22 Motion For Removal Of Solicitor (May 17, 2023)
(9) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance June 20, 2023

#7: Pillon V. Ducks Unlimited Canada Lawsuit

October 2023, Grey files a lawsuit in Manitoba against Ducks Unlimited Canada. The case is discontinued in January 2024, before the Statement of Claim is even served.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Pillon Statement Of Claim
(2) Pillon Notice Of Discontinuance

#8: Hildebrand V. Canadian National Railway Lawsuit

At the end of October, 2023, Grey filed a Statement of Claim on behalf of Kenton Hildebrand, against CNR in Manitoba. The case was dropped in April 2024, and had not even been served.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

HILDEBRAND COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CNR Hildebrand Statement Of Claim
(2) CNR Hildebrand Notice Of Discontinuance

#9: Grey Withdraws As Counsel For Stowe/TransX Case

Grey filed this suit in October 2023. For more than a year later, until November 2024, there had been no activity whatsoever. Then, Grey filed a Motion to get himself removed as counsel.

While technically Grey hasn’t discontinued this case, Stowe is essentially screwed. He’s now outside the Statute of Limitations to file a proper claim, and it seems very unlikely he can get help with the existing one. For him, the case is over.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Stowe TransX Statement Of Claim
(2) Stowe TransX Motion To Withdraw

Okay, So Why Should People Care About This?

These types of lawsuits typically make the news when they’re filed. That said, they almost never get any sort of attention when they’re dropped. The public wrongly believes that there are lawyers working hard to protect their rights.

People are free to spend their own money however they wish. With that in mind, most people like to view themselves as intelligent consumers. Many appreciate being more fully informed before making purchases or financial contributions.

The next time some Government comes to trample people’s rights, is there any reason to expect the “freedom lawyers” will defend the public?

Worth noting: Grey was recently successful in getting certification for a Proposed Class Action involving residential school students. He’s clearly capable of doing great work. But his injection pass cases have consistently been a complete dead end.

Do you actually think Liberty Talk would ever address something like this?

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) Recycling pleadings in subsequent cases
(d) Drafting cases which are too convoluted to be addressed
(e) Not following basic rules of procedure
(f) Not properly advising clients of risks involved
(g) Encouraging unionized workers not to formally grieve
(h) Undisclosed conflicts of interest
(i) Seeking relief unavailable in Civil Court (i.e. criminal remedies, Nuremberg, Helsinki, International Criminal Court, crimes against humanity, etc…)
(j) Not advancing his cases in a timely manner
(k) Not seeking Injunctions that were promised
(l) Unnecessarily driving up costs
(m) 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