Category: Canadian Decisions

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

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action Update: Several Motions And An Appeal

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

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

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

Incidently, donations are still being sought.

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

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

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

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

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

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

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

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

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li v. Barber, 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li v Barber, 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim February 2022
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 2022
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 16 2022
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim February 2022
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum January 2023
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim March 2023
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I November 2023
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II November 2023
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum November 2023
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum December 2023
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities December 2023
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities December 2023
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing March 2024
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum March 2024
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum October 2024

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

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

Torts that will be pursued in the Amended Claim:

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

Torts that will not be pursued in the Amended Claim:

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

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

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

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

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

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

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

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

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

It’s nice to report a success for once.

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

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

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

Posted on

Galati’s (Other) $500,000 Case Against LSO Discontinued Last May

A $500,000 suit was filed against the Law Society of Ontario at the end of July, 2023. It was discontinued the following year, without the Plaintiff making any effort whatsoever to advance it.

For context, all of this stems from a 2022 complaint to the Law Society from a former donor named Donna Toews. She had contributed to both Action4Canada (A4C) and Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) for their anti-lockdown cases. However, she became unhappy with the total lack of activity in pushing either case. To get her money back, she contacted the LSO.

This set off a chain of events, with A4C and VCC likely terrified that the Law Society might investigate. Potentially, it could force their books open, and lead to audits.

As a result, Kuntz and Gaw directed Galati to sue Toews in order to shut her up. It was a way to derail her complaint, at least for the foreseeable future. Gaw later remarked online that it had to be done to prevent disbarment.

It didn’t stop there. Galati sued the LSO a few weeks later, to future complicate any attempt to investigate Toews’ complaint. He then sued the LSO a second time to further keep things in limbo. This isn’t an editing mistake. He really started separate (but very repetitive) litigation.

Now, we know the fate of the last suit. It was dropped without a fight.

3 Related Lawsuits Filed To Bury Toews Complaint

(1) June 28th, 2022 v.s. Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (CSASPP)

(2) July 12th, 2022 v.s. Law Society of Ontario (LSO)

(3) July 31st, 2023 v.s. Law Society of Ontario (LSO)

Anyhow, the CSASPP lawsuit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, and an award of over $132,000 was ordered shortly afterward. It was appealed, but on very weak grounds.

The first claim against the LSO was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action, although permission was given to amend and refile. It doesn’t appear to have ever happened though. A cost award of $14,600 was handed down at the time.

The second claim was dropped last Spring.

Assuming the Appeal is dismissed against CSASPP, that pretty much ends the entire saga.

Of course, it doesn’t look good for the LSO. After all, this is supposed to be the regulatory body. If a member can sue somebody who complains — to sabotage the complaint — and then sues the LSO twice, all without consequences, what exactly is their purpose?

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

January 2021: CSASPP emails Dan Dicks in order to promote their proposed suit, and to pitch it as a better investment than Action4Canada.

June 2021: CSASPP puts the section up on their FAQ, supposedly to quell constant inquiries about who they are connected to, and what there role is in other cases.

January 15th, 2022: the original Toews LSO complaint is put forward to the LSO, although it appears that it wasn’t immediately accepted.

May 19th, 2022: The LSO finally forwards the Toews complaint and demands a response.

June 28th, 2022: The $1.1 million dollar suit is filed against CSASPP and its people

June 29th, 2022: A letter is sent to the LSO, informing them that Donna Toews has been sued, and that the Court will effectively be deciding the issue.

July 12th, 2022: The Law Society itself is sued, and the Toews complaint makes up large part of it. One can assume this was done to further thwart any investigation into the complaint. The suit demands $500,000 in damages, and is very poorly written.

July 13th, 2022: There’s an appearance on a livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada, bragging about the CSASPP and LSO suits which have just been filed. It’s plausible to view this as a publicity stunt. Supposedly, neither CSASPP nor the LSO had actually been served by this point.

October 9th, 2022: An amended Statement of Claim is filed against the LSO, despite the fact the the Motion to Strike had already been initiated. This isn’t permitted.

October 12th, 2022: CSASPP and the LSO appear in Court on the same day to set down dates to throw out their respective cases. CSASPP’s Motion is based on s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP). The LSO Motion is based on Rule 21 of Civil Procedure (failing to state a cause of action). Both are to be heard the next Autumn.

The next several months is a document exchange of the papers needed to carry out the both the anti-SLAPP Motion and LSO Motions. Both are attached below.

July 28th, 2023: CSASPP files their Factum, or written arguments. This is a Friday, and it’s interesting to see what happens the following Monday.

July 31st, 2023: The Law Society is sued for a second time, and it’s largely a rehash of the first one. Another $500,000 is sought. It’s possible this was done to “keep open” litigation against the LSO, assuming the first case is thrown out.

September 12th, 2023: CSASPP’s Motion to dismiss is heard, with the ruling under reserve.

September 21st, 2023: LSO’s Motion to strike is heard, the ruling under reserve.

October 11th, 2023: The (first) Claim against the LSO is struck in its entirety for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, and for inadequate pleading. However, Justice Dow does allow the pleading to be rewritten, for what is presumably the last time.

December 11th, 2023: The Claim against CSASPP is dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws

February 3rd, 2024: Galati is ordered to pay $132,268.17 in costs.

March 6th, 2024: Appellant’s Factum is filed for CSASPP case.

May 13th, 2024: The second LSO suit is discontinued.

May 31st, 2024: Respondents in CSASPP Appeal file their Factum.

January 13th, 2025: CSASPP Appeal is heard, but the ruling is reserved.

However, it doesn’t look like Galati’s troubles are over yet. He still has to deal with malpractice lawsuits from Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. They’re valued at $2,000,000 and $600,000, respectively.

CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7508/2023onsc7508.html
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc935/2024onsc935.html
(18) CSASPP RG Appellant’s Factum
(19) CSASPP RG Respondent’s Factum

1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc5617/2023onsc5617.html

2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim
(2) Notice Of Discontinuance LSO Cross

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim
(3) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Defence
(4) Gill Malpractice Reply To Defence

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim
(2) Lamba Notice Of Intent To Defend
(3) Lamba Reply To Statement Of Defence

Posted on

Reader Feedback: Focus More On The Merits Of Respective Grievances

It’s always appreciated when readers take the time to comment, regardless of whether it’s positive, negative, or more neutral. Feedback from the audience is usually very beneficial.

However, recent comments are worthy of a response.

In short, the suggestion was to spend more time going through the merits of the various suits. This was preferable to the focus of detailing how they collapse, as it doesn’t present a balanced picture. An interesting idea indeed.

For context: many of the recent postings here have focused on the injection mandates (a.k.a. “vaccine passports”) that people were pressured into taking. This was often done in order to keep their employment. The suggestion had been made to address more of the “meat” of the claims themselves, rather than procedural issues. Sounds great, but there’s a problem.

Now, countless cases have either been dropped, struck or dismissed, including many high profile ones. The suits that were thrown out were typically done with a Motion. This means that there was no adjudication on the merits, but instead, lawyers attacked something about the pleading itself.

A wise man pointed out in detail how many other cases were made substantially more difficult (if not impossible) by the concept of “Judicial Notice”. In essence, Courts will simply “defer” to previous rulings of similar findings instead of trying it themselves. While this may be an efficient way to save time and money in theory, in practice, it often leads to litigants not getting their day in Court.

Another concern is the concept of “mootness”, where a Judge can simply decline to hear a case, saying that there’s no live controversy to preside over.

The article is well worth a read.
https://chuckblack.substack.com/p/more-on-the-concept-of-judicial-notice

As much as people prefer cases to be “tried on the merits”, that too often doesn’t happen. Procedural issues, mootness, and “Judicial Notice” are all obstacles to real justice. While it’s up to the Judge to “take Judicial Notice”, or to determine a case to be “moot”, they can’t be blamed for everything. A large part of the problem is directly caused by the lawyers themselves.

And that leads to the next point.

We won’t be able to see whether or not litigants have valid grievances, since cases are routinely thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

To repeat: we won’t be able to see whether or not litigants have valid grievances, since cases are routinely thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

It’s baffling that this needs to be pointed out.

Yes, lots of people have gotten tickets and fines thrown out. Others have gotten criminal charges tossed. Many have successfully challenged EI decisions which originally refused them access. This is great, and especially commendable for those who self represent. At the individual level, it’s wonderful news.

But, for better or worse, the focus on this site has been big, high profile lawsuits.

Even major cases that have advanced beyond initial pleadings tended to focus on exemptions for lockdown restrictions, rather than challenging public policy. Broader lawsuits have basically gone nowhere.

Sure, we can read through the Statement of Claim (or Notice of Application) of various lawsuits. The Plaintiffs or Applicants will present their version of events. But until a case actually progresses along, there won’t be much to report.

There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that people were pressured into taking the shots. Often, this was in the context of travel or employment. Logically, there would be only 2 options here, and cases should proceed easily. Either they were: (a) justified; or (b) unjustified.

However, too many lawyers have come up with option (c), which is to crash their lawsuits procedurally. Strange, the Department of Justice doesn’t hire such idiots.

While covering public cases is not new, this site tries to offer something substantially different from what’s available on other platforms. This includes:

  1. Following up on cases not covered elsewhere
  2. Attaching at least some of the Court documents
  3. Honest critiques about what has been going wrong
  4. Document at least some of the wasted donation money

This should be typical, not an outlier.

1. Following Up On Cases Not Covered Elsewhere

Beginning in 2020 and well into 2023, there was an almost endless stream of announcements that lawsuits had been filed against Governments and their employees. This happened in every Province, and in the Federal Court. But what was typically lacking was any subsequent coverage. These suits died quietly.

Cases covered here include: (a) Canada Post; (b) Canadian National Railway; (c) Purolator; (d) Westjet; (e) Winnipeg Police; (f) Cornell; (g) Dorceus; (h) Katanik; (i) Adelberg; (j) Angione; (k) Qualizza, and (l) Briant, among many others.

Sure, they’ve had brief mentions elsewhere, but not this level of detail.

2. Attaching At Least Some Of The Court Documents

We’re well into the internet era. Given how easy it is to pull Court documents and obtain Judges’ findings, there’s no reason not to include some of it with an article or review. It gives readers background material to fact check and review for themselves.

A wise man pointed out that “law is about more than just reading the judgements and tracking the paperwork”.

While this is true, at least some documents are necessary anyway. In order to have any sort of intelligent discussion on a case, people have to agree on the basic facts. When was it filed? What were the Plaintiffs asking for? Was the case struck? Was it past the Statute of Limitations? What arguments did opposing counsel make?

Other sites may include a Statement of Claim when announcing the suit is launched, or a CanLII ruling afterwards. These are certainly helpful, but there’s much more.

Reasonable people can have a nuanced discussion on the overall merits of a strategy. They can have valid disagreements on the best course of action. But they still need to be grounded in the same reality.

Lawyers and their clients typically make public statements about their litigation. Problem is: what they say is often either exaggerated, or made up completely. But once you have the Court documents, their input often isn’t really necessary.

3. Honest Critiques About What Has Been Going Wrong

Going back to 2020, there’s a very strong “tribal” mentality, especially within the Freedom Movement. There seems to be the pressure to stand with “your side”, regardless of the circumstances. In the context of these lawsuits, one is expected to remain silent about the obvious problems:

  • Suing when arbitration and/or grieving required (no jurisdiction)
  • Commencing a proceeding too late (Statute of Limitations)
  • Missing other key deadlines
  • Filing the wrong paperwork to start proceeding
  • Drafting incoherent and unintelligible pleadings (“Bad Beyond Argument”)
  • Failing to properly plead torts (missing essential elements)
  • Making weak and unconvincing arguments
  • Seeking remedies Court can’t grant (also jurisdiction)
  • Taking unnecessary steps that don’t advance case (appealing v. amending)
  • Lawyers filing Motions to formally withdraw as counsel (abandoning clients)
  • Simply not advancing a case at all
  • Recycling pleadings rejected in other Courts

This isn’t the result of corrupt Judge(s). The above actions are caused by Plaintiffs’ lawyers either through: (a) incompetence; (b) negligence; or (c) intentional acts. Sure, the motivations can be debated.

There have been complaints that this site is divisive, and overly negative. While true, it’s also honest coverage about the states of these cases. Instead of blindly cheering for one side, explanations are provided about what has gone wrong. Where else is this done?

Remember: pretty hard to get into the merits of these cases when they’re thrown out due to the actions of their own lawyers.

4. Document At Least Some Of The Wasted Donation Money

It’s important to remember that many of these “freedom lawsuits” aren’t just some private matters. Plaintiffs and Applicants in many of them solicit donations in order to finance them. It comes through direct funding, and through sales of merchandise.

No one is suggesting that people cannot crowdfund or solicit donations for litigation. There’s nothing inherently wrong with doing it. That being said, it becomes a public matter. After all, such cases are being financed by the public.

If counsel isn’t doing a professional job (see above list) then it’s in the public interest to report on what’s going on. This has been done here extensively, with millions wasted just from a single lawyer.

Donations often cannot be refunded, true. That said, litigants owe it to their donors to be completely transparent, both with their money, and with updates on their cases. And it makes sense. If we are to demand accountability from elected officials, it should be practiced here as well.

So, What About The Merits Of These Cases?

It would be nice to focus on the merits on grievances, especially in the context of the injection mandates. Undoubtedly, most, if not all, are valid. No one disputes that people either lost their employment, or suffered some other hardship.

However, since the “freedom lawyers” put forward an almost endless array of shoddy and defective cases, it’s extremely rare to see a case proceed past the initial stages. If one actually does get to Trial, it can be discussed at length.

At the start, all we really have is the Statement of Claim, which anyone can access and read. Other than simply quoting it, there’s not much to go on.

Covering the “technical details” of how litigation implodes isn’t for everyone.

Sorry, not sorry.