Category: Canadian Decisions

Posted on

“Bad Beyond Argument” Dorceus Ruling Appealed, Galati Undeterred By $190,000 Cost Order

It should be obvious by now that this is just an abuse of the Court system.

Back in December, a Toronto lawsuit involving nearly 500 health care workers across Ontario was struck by a Superior Court Judge. The Statement of Claim was extremely poorly written, and didn’t plead any of the necessary facts for any Plaintiff, or any Charter breach. It did, however, go off on many unrelated tangents. This trainwreck came from “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, Rocco Galati.

Instead of the 473 Plaintiffs outlining their cases and circumstances, the Defendants had to do it. They ended up introducing a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record with their employment documents. That’s right, the Defendants had to provide the background information on the Parties.

The Claim was also littered with subjects that a Civil Court had no ability to hear.

It included:

  • Allegations of criminal conduct
  • Allegations of crimes against humanity
  • Allegations of eugenics (which would be criminal)
  • Allegations of violations of Nuremberg Code
  • Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration

Rather than simply pleading facts, the Statement of Claim tried arguing expert evidence, and caselaw, neither of which is appropriate at this stage. The purpose is to lay out the “who, what, where, when, how” of events, not make legal submissions. A competent lawyer would know this, but then, Galati isn’t a competent lawyer.

Beyond that, there was the issue of jurisdiction. The vast majority of Plaintiffs were unionized, and subject to various collective bargaining agreements. This wasn’t something that could be fixed simply by advancing a better quality pleading, unless brand new arguments were made, such as here.

See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

As an aside, the CSASPP defamation suit had gotten a mention in the Motion hearing, and Justice Chalmers’ comments about the Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada cases were referenced. That Appeal should be interesting.

Justice Koehnen further ordered $190,000 in costs against the Plaintiffs, which worked out to less than $500 per Plaintiff. He ended up chewing out the Galati for “recycling” his old pleadings. Unfortunately, it’s still the clients who are stuck with the Bill. No matter how often lawyers act in frivolous and vexatious ways, they typically aren’t personally held responsible.

[53] I have the distinct impression from reading the Amended Claim as a whole that its object is not to vindicate the employment rights of the plaintiffs so much as it is to mount a political crusade in which the court will be used as a grandstand to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of vaccines and the effectiveness of government measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic by opponents of those measures.

[154] …. If this was not clear from the outset, it should have become clear by the time the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal struck out similarly drafted statements of claim prepared by the same lawyer. While the interests of a free and democratic society may warrant leeway with respect to the pursuit of unconventional claims at the outset, when such claims continue to be pursued after being struck out by four courts, they amount to an abuse of public resources.

[157] …. Plaintiffs’ counsel is a sole practitioner with a different cost structure than that of counsel for the Non-Governmental Defendants and that this is the fifth time that Plaintiffs’ counsel has litigated a motion to strike with respect to a claim of this nature. I expect having done this four times before, that there were significant cost efficiencies for Plaintiffs’ counsel, especially with respect to the factum.

-Justice Koehnen, Ontario Superior Court Judge

In an unsurprising twist, the ruling has been appealed. The Notice itself is nothing new, and appears to be cut-and-pasted from other (failed) Appeals.

The Notice takes issue with the fact that the Judge found that the Court had no jurisdiction over the bulk of the Plaintiffs, even the arbitration requirement. However, Rule 21.01 (1) and (3) of Civil Procedure make it clear that it’s grounds for bringing a challenge.

The Notice takes issue with the Court not taking “facts pleaded as true”. However, counsel doesn’t know how to draft a Statement of Claim, nor does he know what’s supposed to be in one. Rehashing failed conspiracy theories hasn’t sat too well either.

The Notice takes issue with the $190,000 in costs awarded. However, costs are a discretionary matter, and almost impossible to overturn. And again, it involved 473 Plaintiffs, from all over the Province.

It’s unclear if the $190,000 in costs has actually been paid. If not, the Defendants can always seek an Order for Security for Costs prior to the hearing. Should it be granted, it would force Plaintiffs/Appellants to pay up ahead of time.

Plaintiffs To Be Shaken Down For More Money?

Now, if Adelberg (over 600 Plaintiffs) is any indication, a retainer of more than $600,000 isn’t enough. Another $600,000 was sought to appeal that “bad beyond argument” decision. That’s over $1.2 million for a lawsuit that never proceeded past the Statement of Claim. One has to assume that the Dorceus Plaintiffs are also being asked to pay more.

Similarly, although Katanik (100 Plaintiffs) was ultimately dropped, the $150,000 retainer wasn’t enough, and another $450,000 was demanded.

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada routinely hit up donors for more money.

With this in mind, it’s fair to assume that the Dorceus Plaintiffs/Appellants are also being asked to pay more. And again, when their Appeal crashes, it’s not counsel who has to pay costs.

DORCEUS DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM
(9) Dorceus Notice Of Appeal
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

PREVIOUS DECISIONS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

Posted on

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Costs Plaintiffs Nearly $150,000 So Far

A few months ago, we looked at the Cornell decision, which resulted in CAHN (the Canadian Anti-Hate Network) and Bernie Farber being removed from 2 different lawsuits. Now, the other shoe has dropped, and Plaintiffs are required to pay out nearly $50,000 in Court fees.

This is, of course, the high profile lawsuit pushing back against the freezing of bank accounts and the invocation of the Emergencies Act in February, 2022.

Due to the gross incompetence of the Plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Statement of Claim made allegations of defamation — but without specifying the defamatory content. Quite predictably, this led to Farber and CAHN bringing forward an anti-SLAPP Motion. Since such Motions stay or “freeze” the proceedings, there’s no opportunity to amend the pleadings, and correct any deficiencies.

And to be clear, it is the incompetence of counsel that led to this.

Loberg Ector LLP does commercial litigation — just very poorly it seems.

Interestingly, counsel for Farber and CAHN cited just $50,000 in costs to bring the anti-SLAPP Motion, while the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed nearly double that amount.

One has to love the law. Where else can “professionals” mess up big time, and then bill clients extra to fix their own mistakes?

A Look Into the Decision On Costs

[2] The CAHN defendants request costs of the action and the motion in the amount of $49,319.13 on a full indemnity basis.

[3] The plaintiffs submit that an award of full indemnity costs is not appropriate in the circumstances and that the costs requested are neither fair nor reasonable. The plaintiffs submit that a costs award of $10,000 would fall within a “fair range.”[1] The plaintiffs’ bill of costs reflects full indemnity fees and disbursements in the amount of $95,881.29.

[4] For the following reasons, I conclude that the CAHN defendants are entitled to their costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $49,319.13, all-inclusive.

[11] The plaintiffs claimed a total of $44,000,000, on a joint and several basis, against the defendants, including the CAHN defendants. This litigation is, in a word, “massive.” In addition to the CAHN defendants, the named defendants include government actors, government agencies, police defendants, and various financial institutions. The motion addressed important issues. In addition to the complexity inherent in a motion brought under s. 137.1 of the CJA, the plaintiffs sought to “look past” the statement of claim to allegations set out in the affidavit of Mr. Gircys. Out of an abundance of caution, the CAHN defendants addressed those allegations in their factum. The plaintiffs cross-examined Mr. Farber and Mr. Warman on their affidavits. While the plaintiffs were entitled to do so, the CAHN defendants incurred costs as a result.

[12] The CAHN defendants offered to settle the motion on June 11, 2024, by requesting the payment of $10,000 (the costs of preparing the notice of motion and affidavits) and the dismissal of the action against them. Although the offer is not r. 49 compliant, it is an additional factor that I have considered in assessing whether the costs requested are fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs’ offer to settle (which involved the dismissal of certain aspects of the claim against the CAHN defendants but which provided that the claim in civil conspiracy would survive and that no costs would be paid by the plaintiffs) does not impact my analysis of the costs to be awarded to the CAHN defendants.

[13] The plaintiffs do not take issue with the hourly rates of legal counsel for the CAHN defendants. I find the hourly rates are reasonable, having regard to their years of experience. The plaintiffs submit that it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the fees of the CAHN defendants because the bill of costs refers to 137.5 cumulative hours spent by two lawyers, one law clerk, and one articling student. While it would have been preferable for the CAHN defendants’ bill of costs to reflect the division of work undertaken, I note that the plaintiffs’ bill of costs adopts the same “cumulative” approach. In any event, the costs incurred by the CAHN defendants would have been well within the reasonable expectation of the plaintiffs, having regard to their own costs of the motion in the amount of $95,881.29.

Plaintiffs’ counsel wasted $96,000 defending (unsuccessfully) against an anti-SLAPP Motion. The Motion is a direct result of their own failure to properly draft the Statement of Claim. Other fees amounted to another $50,000. Keep in mind, this presumably is in addition to other costs expected to pile up.

And that leads to the next problem: the Plaintiffs are now broke

Take Action Canada Soliciting More Donations For Fees

Recently, the advocacy group, Take Action Canada, posted a public call for donations to continue the lawsuit. They also mass emailed, offering to give interviews.

Justice Mosley’s findings have cleared the path to a floodgate of legal actions against those who wish to trample on our Canadian rights & freedoms.

A group of very brave Canadians, without hesitation, have picked up the gauntlet on behalf of ALL Canadians to ensure that those responsible are held to the highest standards.

The legal team at Loberg Ector LLP has played a significant role in the Superior Court review by Justice Mosley’s determination that the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act was unlawful.

Following the review, the legal team analyzed numerous documents and interviewed numerous witnesses in the determination of a remedial process before assembling a Statement of Claim and Notice of Action.

On February 14, 2024 they proceeded with a claim for 20 Plaintiffs against a number of involved defendants including the Prime Minister of Canada, and various cabinet ministers, police officers, banks and others deemed to be involved in the freezing of Canadians’ bank accounts.

All defendants have been served notice. The legal team is awaiting responses from the Defendants before proceeding with the next phase of this process.

To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.

As this was brought to our attention, we at Take Action Canada are taking action.

The plaintiffs are risking much for all of us and in turn our national support will send the strongest message.

The Canadian Trucker Convoy inspired the world and ignited a global wave carrying the message that we will never give up or give in. The time is now for us to grab the gauntlet and use the power of this decision to hold people and the government accountable.

But here’s where the other shoe drops. It’s stated that: “To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.” One has to wonder if the sudden $150,000 in legal costs has depleted all of the retainer funds.

Take Action Canada posted a redacted verion (see archive) of the Notice of Action in order to attract interest. What has been redacted? Any mention of Bernie Farber or CAHN as Defendants. One has to suspect that no one would donate if the full truth of Loberg Ector LLP’s screw up was published.

Quite simply: Take Action Canada posted a “scrubbed” version that conceals the fact that Farber and CAHN were initially sued as well. There’s also no mention anywhere about the $150,000 in costs that resulted from the anti-SLAPP Motion.

When contacted about this, the group claimed not to be in the loop with how the litigation was proceeding. More importantly, they seemed uninterested.

Did they learn nothing from the Katanik disaster?

So, What’s Happening Now With The Case?

At this point, no Statements of Defence have yet been filed by anyone. However: (a) Ottawa Police; (b) Assiniboine Credit Union; (c) Canadian Tire Bank; and (d) Meridian Credit Union have all indicated that they intend to.

The Plaintiffs — as of now — haven’t yet filed an amended Claim.

Of course, the remainder of the lawsuit is so poorly drafted that Motions to Strike are likely coming anyway. All sorts of conspiracies are alleged, without pleading the necessary detail.

Anyhow, remember to donate!

(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(12) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(16) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(17) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(18) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(19) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(20) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(21) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Just A Coincidence? Ferryman’s Toll & Elisa Ferryman-Cohen?

Is this where “The Ferryman’s Toll” really comes from?

Earlier this year, this site covered the Cornell lawsuit, filed in Ottawa. This was to be the big case against the Government and the banks, for how they acted under the guise of a national emergency. Supposedly, this was the comedy of errors that led Ottawa and law enforcement to panic based on publications from online trolls.

But alas, the hype was overblown. Bernie Farber and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) were able to remove themselves from the proceedings by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion. It worked, and they’re off the hook. Plaintiffs tried to litigate the #HateGate scandal, based on the work of Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan. In doing so, the Plaintiffs’ incompetent lawyers screwed up the case by not properly pleading defamation allegations.

CAHN’s lawyers apparently conducted the entire anti-SLAPP Motion for under $50,000, which is far cheaper than what normally happens in Ontario. The Plaintiffs still thought that was too high.

As for Hategan’s background:

  • She co-authored the “HateGate” report with Caryma Sa’d.
  • She was involved with a “hate” group called Heritage Front in the 1990’s.
  • She became an informant for the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.).
  • She helped gather evidence and intelligence for the police.
  • She helped take down many “racists” connected to Heritage Front.
  • She went on to do many talks about the dangers and harms of racism
  • And, Heritage Front turned out to be co-founded by Grant Bristow, a CSIS agent.

None of the above claims are disputed by Hategan. She has spoken and written about her experiences with the group many times over the years.

As an aside, both Hategan and Sa’d (unsuccessfully) sued Bernie Farber recently.

Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)
Sa’d v. Yew, 2023 FC 1286 (CanLII)

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

There’s been speculation that Diagolon turned out to be the next iteration of Heritage Front. This is the group run by Jeremy “Raging Dissident” MacKenzie, Derek “Rants” Harrison, and Alex “Ferryman’s Toll” Vriend. And there is a lot of overlap between the two.

But in following up on the Ottawa lawsuit, this gem emerged:

Farber, CAHN Claim Hategan Is Really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen

34. Several other portions of the affidavit contain inadmissible hearsay. Most noteworthy, Mr. Gircys relies heavily on the so-called conclusions of an online post entitled the “HateGate Affair”. It is significant that the authors of that self-published website post, Caryma Sa’d and ‘Elisa Hategan’ (real name Elisa FERRYMAN-COHEN), have previously sued CAHN and Mr. Farber. Ms. Sa’d’s claim against CAHN in Federal Court was dismissed without leave to amend as having no factual or legal basis, and therefore no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Hategan’s claim against Mr. Farber in this Court was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and “a waste of the time and resources of the courts.” These are but further angles of the same baseless conspiracy theories levelled at CAHN in this litigation, demonstrating it is a SLAPP.

This is from paragraph 34 of the Defendants’/Moving Parties’ Factum or arguments. Farber and CAHN argued that the lawsuit — as far as they were concerned — was politically motivated.

Vincent Gircys, one of the Plaintiffs, filed an Affidavit in an attempt to ward of the anti-SLAPP Motion brought by Farber and CAHN. He attaches the report from Sa’d and Hategan as an exhibit.

The report is dismissed as “inadmissible hearsay” by Farber’s and CAHN’s lawyers. No surprise there. But what is very interesting is that they claim that Hategan isn’t even a real name. Supposedly, she is really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen.

Note: After looking into it more, and with some help, it appears that it was legally changed years ago. She still goes by Hategan though, at least publicly.

It raises the question how Hategan (or whoever) would be able to sue in Court under a very old name. Was CAHN not aware of it at the time?

Where Did “The Ferryman’s Toll” Really Come From?

We know that Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) worked as a police informant to take down Heritage Front. This was a CSIS operation designed to root out “racists” and “white nationalists”. This has been long established.

Alex Vriend is now a leading figure in “Diagolon” which comes across as little more than a honeypot. Currently, they’re asking for background checks… which would presumably tip off law enforcement about who’s applying. And of all the nicknames he could choose for himself…. he goes with Ferryman.

Why would he name himself after a former police informant from a generation ago?

Keep in mind, that same informant wrote a paper “exonerating” the group recently.

Moreover, this revelation about ‘Hategan’ was completely new. There’s nothing online, her book, or her biography that suggests what CAHN and Farber claim. She admits changing “Elisse” to “Elisa”, but that’s it. No other last name(s) are mentioned. Perhaps it’s a way to separate work life and private life.

Is this all just a bizarre coincidence? Or is the “next Ferryman” about to subvert and destroy nationalism in Canada?

FARBER/CAHN/GIRCYS/CORNELL LAWSUIT
(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell HateGatePaper Filed As Exhibit
(12) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(16) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Court Refuses Extension Of Time To Appeal Military Injection Pass Ruling

The Federal Court of Canada refused a request to extend time to challenge a November decision. Because of Justice Manson’s ruling, this means that approximately 330 current and former military personnel most likely won’t get a hearing to determine whether their case was prematurely struck.

They’re also on the hook for another $1,080 in costs.

From earlier: The case was thrown out for a variety of reasons, including the poor quality of the pleadings themselves, and the lack of facts included. There was also the concern that the Court had no jurisdiction, given Section 29 of the National Defence Act, which mandates a grievance scheme. Their lawyer, Catherine Christensen, had received a similar ruling in late 2021.

From earlier: The Plaintiffs missed their deadline to appeal. Because of the nature of the Appeal, there was a 10 day time limit, not 30. Since it was an Associate Judge (and not a Judge) who struck the case, the Federal Rules require a Motion be filed to review. Christensen did eventually file a Motion requesting an extension of time, but it had all kinds of problems with it.

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Note: Prothonotary and Associate Judge are the same thing.

The original ruling came out on November 13th, 2024. Christensen filed a Motion requesting an extension of time on December 11th, some 29 days later. One has to wonder if she thought she had 30 days to appeal, and simply messed it up. The responding submissions outlined a comical array of errors.

While extensions of time do happen regularly in Court proceedings, this request was so poorly and incoherently done, it was outright refused. Christensen also never explained how such an Appeal would succeed even if the extension of time were granted. The ruling was pretty harsh.

Since the Court has refused an extension of time, this is most likely the end of the road, unless this is successfully challenged at the Federal Court of Appeal.

And if the Plaintiffs want to take this route, perhaps they should get a better lawyer.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(7) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(8) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time January 2025

OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w

Posted on

Federal Proposed Class Action (Injection Mandates) Survives: Is s.2(d) The Way Forward?

With all of the horrible cases that have been covered, it’s rare (but refreshing) to see one that’s actually well put together. Last week, Federal Court Judge Southcott dismissed (most) of a Motion to Strike, allowing the case to proceed.

A Proposed Class Action for Federal workers was filed in October 2023 by B.C. lawyers Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. It was on behalf of 3 Representative Plaintiffs who were forced out of their positions. They had been employed by:

  • Department of National Defence (Payne)
  • Correctional Services Canada (Harvey)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (Molaro)

Many of the cases involving injection passports filed in recent years were sloppy, and didn’t properly plead any tort or Charter violations. One of the most infamous was the “bad beyond argument” Adelberg case, and Appeal. Interestingly though, since Adelberg didn’t quite result in all claims being thrown out for good, it served as leverage for this case.

But what Sheikh and Wood did was quite different. They argued just 2 torts, and at least one of them never tried in a serious way in these cases.

  • Section 2(d) of the Charter: Freedom of Association
  • Malfeasance of Public Office

The Malfeasance of Public Office tort was struck regarding the 3 Plaintiffs here. The reason being that all 3 apparently had some right to grieve under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. But the Judge did allow for the possibility of new Plaintiffs — it is a Class Action — whom might qualify.

As for the Section 2(d) allegations: they are allowed to proceed.

Sections 208/236 FPSLRA Typically Bar Workers From Court

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

The main obstacle to Government workers suing is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA. Section 208 gives everyone the right to grieve, while Section 236 prohibits Actions (or lawsuits). This is similar to unionized private employers, and there are plenty of rulings striking such cases.

But what happened here is rather clever. By using union arguments about meaningful consultation, the Judge was persuaded that there was no valid grievance process, or at least that it was arguable.

Section 2(d) Of Canadian Charter: Freedom Of Association

44.The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that s. 2d of the Charter provides for Freedom of association which guarantees the right of employees to meaningfully associate in the pursuit of collective workplace goals, which includes a right to collective bargaining. As such Laws or state actions that prevent or deny meaningful discussion and consultation about working conditions between employees and their employer may substantially interfere with the activity of collective bargaining, as may laws that unilaterally nullify significant negotiated terms in existing collective agreements.

45. The Plaintiffs and Class Members all had freely negotiated, valid, and binding contractual employment agreements with the Treasury Board.

46. None of the Plaintiffs or Class Member contractual employment agreements called for disclosure of Covid-19 vaccination status nor mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.

47. The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that the Policy was a new term and condition placed upon their employment by the Treasury Board absent collective bargaining, memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent.

48. The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that the imposition by Treasury Board of a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining, memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent violates their protected right under s. 2d of the Charter.

49. The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that the action of the Treasury Board in imposing a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining, memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent is not saved by s.1 of the Charter as the Treasury Board did not possesses the requisite justification based upon the objectives espoused by the Policy.

(This is from paragraphs 44 to 49 in the Statement of Claim.)

To understand why the Motion to Strike failed, consider what is actually being argued. No one contests that the terms of employment were changed. Instead, the challenge is brought over lack of consideration and meaningful consultation. It’s not entirely that injection mandates were introduced into Government employment. It’s that there was no proper protocol in implementing it.

Section 2(d) had been mentioned — in passing — in other injection pass cases. But Sheikh and Wood may be the first to actually have used it successfully.

If all of this sounds like a union argument, it is. Sheikh is former counsel for the British Columbia Nurses’ Union (BCNU), and for a time, was the C.E.O. This case was written from the perspective of someone who expects employers to deal in good faith with workers.

Of course, this is nowhere near the end. The case still needs certification, and even then, there are many steps before Trial. That said, at least the case is still alive.

What Tipped The Scales For The Plaintiffs?

[35] In my view, the authority that carries the day for the Plaintiffs in the context of this motion is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada [SCC] in Morin. That case considered whether a labour arbitrator’s exclusive jurisdiction granted by provincial statute applied to an argument that a collective agreement was negotiated in a discriminatory manner, so as to include a discriminatory term, and thereby contravened the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms…. The SCC found that the dispute did not concern how the relevant term in the collective agreement would be interpreted and applied but rather whether the process leading to the adoption of the alleged discriminatory clause violated the Québec Charter such that the term was unenforceable (at paras 23-24).

And that parallels what happened here. It wasn’t necessarily bringing in injection mandates themselves, but the way which it was implemented.

On some level, it’s an absurd argument, but it got past a Motion to Strike.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

October 6th, 2023: Statement of Claim is filed on behalf of 3 Representative Plaintiffs.

November 9th, 2023: Government responds with their Notice of Intent.

May 31st, 2024: Government sends notice that it intends to bring Motion to have the case struck (thrown out) in its entirety.

June 6th, 2024: Prothonotary Ring gives directions that there be case management.

June 10th, 2024: Chief Justice Crampton directs (a) Justice Southcott and (b) Prothonotary Ring to be assigned manage the proceeding.

July 1st, 2024: Prothonotary Ring issues schedule for documents to be served for Motion to Strike.

August 19th, 2024: Government brings its Motion to Strike.

October 1st, 2024: Plaintiffs file responding arguments as to why case shouldn’t be struck.

December 13th, 2024: Motion to Strike is argued before Justice Southcott.

January 1st, 2025: Justice Southcott partially grants the Motion to Strike. The tort of Malfeasance of Public Office is struck, but with Leave if eligible Plaintiffs are identified. The Section 2(d) claims are allowed to proceed.

Section 2(d) Superior To Common 2(a)/7/15 Challenges

Typically, the “freedom lawyers” have cited the standard s.2(a), s.7, and s.15 when it comes to challenging injection requirements. And predictably, they always fail. They never plead the necessary facts, and hence, these claims are routinely tossed.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) To Be Considered

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) To Be Considered

(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(2)The claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) To Be Considered

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80

  • Section 2(a) – freedom of religion – may allow for individual exemptions, depending on what is actually in the specific injections. It doesn’t, in any way, permit religion to be generally used to circumvent mandates.
  • Section 7 – security of the person – fails since the Courts have repeatedly said there’s no “right” to have a certain profession. Nobody was actually forced to take these shots, although there were certainly consequences.
  • Section 15 – equality – does not apply at all, since “vaccination status” isn’t in the Charter (enumerated), and hasn’t ever been recognized (analogous).

Other injection passport challenges have included: Section 8 (search and seizure); Section 9 (arbitrary detention); and Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment). In fairness though, they have been extremely half hearted attempts.

Yes, one could plausibly conclude that the Charter is worthless, since it doesn’t protect people outside of narrow grounds. And they’re right.

However, plenty of lawyers still take large amounts of money from clients knowing that these portions offer no protection whatsoever.

The Section 2(d) method described above may be about the only way around a largely useless and defective Charter. By challenging not the mandates themselves, but how they were implemented, there’s at least one pathway. Without having meaningful consultations about retroactive changes to their contracts, people are denied their right to freely associate in the context of employment.

The Federal Government may very well try to appeal this decision. After all, it’s taxpayer money anyway. But for now, Section 2(d) challenges seem to be realistic method, at least for litigants who don’t normally have the right to sue.

Sheikh and Wood have a similar case on reserve in B.C., based on the same arguments. We’ll have to see how this ruling impacts that one.

(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

Is The Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Appeal Already Time Barred?

Back in mid-November, this site covered the 2023 case of some 330 members of the Canadian Forces, which had been struck by Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan.

The case was full of serious problems, including: (a) Statement of Claim not pleaded properly; (b) Evidence not being properly pleaded; and (c) Section 29 of the National Defence Act, or N.D.A.

The N.D.A. specified a grievance process was to be used, as opposed to suing in Court. This is common in most unionized and Government workplaces in Canada. Even though the lawyer was trying to argue around that requirement, over 100 of her clients were concurrently trying to grieve.

Worse, the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Catherine Christensen, had been told by the Federal Court back in late 2021 that clients couldn’t bypass the N.D.A. She knew, or at least should have known, that this problem would come up again.

Since the pleading was struck by an Associate Judge, as opposed to a Judge, there is a Rule which allows a Motion to be filed to ask for a review of the decision. However, counsel’s handling of this was comically bad, and very negligent.

This “Lionel Hutz” episode would be funny, except for the real world consequences.

Christensen Missed The Deadline To File Notice Of Motion

The case notes on the Federal Court website list November 12th as the date of the ruling. CanLII gives it as November 13th. Here, it doesn’t really matter, since there was no notice for a month.

There are actually 2 different types of Appeals within the Federal Courts, and those are addressed below. The one that the Plaintiffs here wanted had a time limit of just 10 days. Counsel took 29 to respond. One has to wonder if she got them mixed up initially, and only realized the error later.

Had she sought an extension of time right away, this headache could have been avoided. Similarly, if a Notice of Motion (for the Appeal) was filed, followed by seeking an extension, it would be okay. But that’s not what ended up happening.

A Motion for an extension of time was filed on December 12th, with the Government responding on December 16th.

Granted, Courts often will allow for filings beyond the limitations period, if there are good reasons provided. However, this is far from counsel’s only error.

Appealing WITHIN Federal Courts V.S. Appealing BETWEEN Them

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Note: Prothonotary and Associate Judge are the same thing.

Many will find this nitpicky and boring. But procedurally, there are very different rules to follow depending on who one wants to appeal to. As stated, this would be a Rule 51 Appeal, and the time limit is just 10 days to serve and file a Notice of Motion.

Had the case been struck by a Judge initially, then going to the Federal Court of Appeal would have been the only recourse. Rule 51 doesn’t allow Judges to overturn each other.

Mixing Up “Moving Parties” And “Applicants” Repeatedly

This may seem petty, but is worth mentioning:

Action: This is brought by filing a Statement of Claim. The people who initiate it are called the Plaintiffs, and the people who respond are the Defendants.

Application: This is brought by filing a Notice of Application, seeking Judicial Review of an Order or decision. The people who initiate it are called the Applicants, and the people who respond are called the Respondents.

Appeal: This is brought by filing a Notice of Appeal, seeking to challenge another Court decision. The people who initiate it are the Appellants, and the people who respond are the Respondents.

Motion: This is brought to by filing a Notice of Motion, to initiate steps within, or related to an Action, Application, or Appeal. The people who initiate them are the Moving Parties, and the people who respond are the Respondents.

Since Christensen filed a Motion seeking permission for an extension of time, her clients, at this point, would be considered MOVING PARTIES. But she repeatedly refers to them as “Applicants”, even though they never were. Even calling them “Plaintiffs” would be more accurate.

She also cites the “Federal Courts Act” at times when she really means the “Federal Court Rules”. Those are 2 completely different things. Still, the Court will know what the references are.

Motion Brought Under Wrong Rule (Should Be Rule 8, Not 51)

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicants will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 51(1) of the Federal Courts Rules.

Extension or abridgement
8(1) On motion, the Court may extend or abridge a period provided by these Rules or fixed by an order.

When motion may be brought
8(2) A motion for an extension of time may be brought before or after the end of the period sought to be extended.

This is already wrong. While the ultimate goal is to appeal the decision of Associate Judge Coughlan, first, an extension of time needs to be granted. In reality, this Motion should state Rule 8. True, the Court would still understand what she’s trying to do, but missing the deadline now means filing another Motion.

The written submissions make clear the extension is sought under Rule 8, but the Notice of Motion still needed to be fixed.

Christensen explains that the delay was caused by the difficulties of corresponding with over 300 clients. The Government responded that that the Notice of Motion could have been filed anyway, with the option to discontinue, or even just a Notice to ask for an extension. It would have cost just $20.

Motion Asks For Written Representations…. In Court Of Appeal?

leave for the Motion to be heard with written representations under Federal Courts Act Section 369.2(1);

Written representations only — Federal Court of Appeal
369.2 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court and subject to subsection (2), all motions brought in the Federal Court of Appeal shall be decided on the basis of written representations.

Christensen asks that the Judge determine the Motion with written representations, as opposed to having an oral hearing. This is common for simple Motions, and by itself, is not unreasonable.

However, Rule 369.2(1) applies to the Federal Court of Appeal. If she intends to appeal the decision of an Associate Judge, it remains within the Federal Court.

Unnecessarily Asking For Leave To Appeal?

2. leave for an extension of time to apply for Appeal of a prothonotary order;

3. leave to commence an application for Appeal under Federal Courts Act Section 51(1);

Appeals of Prothonotaries’ Orders
51 (1) An order of a prothonotary may be appealed by a motion to a judge of the Federal Court.

Service of appeal
(2) Notice of the motion shall be served and filed within 10 days after the day on which the order under appeal was made and at least four days before the day fixed for the hearing of the motion.

Items #2 and #3 don’t make any sense. Rule 51 is very short, and there’s no Leave (permission) needed to appeal a decision of a Prothonotary or Associate Judge. You just file a Notice of Motion. It’s also unclear what “apply for an appeal” means, but perhaps it’s a reference to Leave, which isn’t required.

And again, Christensen mixed up “Motion” with “Application”.

Christensen Improperly Swears Her Own Evidence

Use of solicitor’s affidavit
82 Except with leave of the Court, a solicitor shall not both depose to an affidavit and present argument to the Court based on that affidavit.

There’s a practice that lawyers aren’t suppose to argue their own evidence, as it tends to blur the lines between witness and counsel. Typically, an associate, clerk or client will swear it out. A Judge “may” allow it, but there are no guarantees.

Missing the deadline was bad enough. This is just a procedural Motion, seeking an extension of time, and it’s full of very basic mistakes.

Did Plaintiffs Always Intend To Appeal?

One thing the Government brought up is that the Motion says that the parties agreed to appeal, but not that they always intended to do so. This seemingly trivial choice in wording may sink the Motion, depending on how lenient the Judge is.

Motion Doesn’t Specify How Appeal May Be Successful

On paragraph 20 of their submissions, the Government lawyer states that the Plaintiffs offer no insight as to how an Appeal would theoretically be successful, assuming they were granted a time extension.

Paragraphs 7 through 16 of the Notice of Motion very broadly list a series of errors, but none of it is specified. Perhaps a better idea would have been to attach a draft version of the submissions they intended to use — except they weren’t done.

This could have been avoided if a request for a time extension had been filed right away. Seriously, it would have cost just $20, and their position would be a lot better.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Lawsuit

June 20th, 2023 – Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court on behalf of 330 Plaintiffs.

July 28th 2023 – Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

August 7th, 2023 – Notice of Intention to Respond is filed by the Government.

September 11th, 2023 – Statement of Defence is filed by the Government.

September 22nd, 2023 – Reply to the Statement of Defence is filed.

January 30th, 2024 – Court compels Defence to file their Affidavit of Documents.

March 3rd, 2024 – Court orders case management for the lawsuit.

April 29th, 2024 – Court gives a schedule of events to unfold.

  • Defendants shall serve and file their motion to strike by July 12th, 2024.
  • The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their motion in response by August 9th, 2024.
  • Hearing of motion to strike to be in-person at the Federal Court August 20th, 2024.

June 26th, 2024 – Plaintiffs contact Court, ask for hybrid setup so that Plaintiffs can attend the proceedings remotely.

July 11th, 2024 – Government files Motion to Strike the case.

August 12th, 2024 – Court contacted to request permission to file materials.

August 14th, 2024 – Court allows Plaintiff Motion materials to be filed, despite them not complying with the rules and procedure laid out.

August 14th, 2024 – Motion Record with 35 Affidavits filed by Plaintiffs

August 20th, 2024 – Court adjourns Motion to Strike hearing until September 19th.

September 19th, 2024 – Motion to Strike heard in Court.

November 12th, 2024 – Statement of Claim is struck without Leave to Amend. $5,040 in costs ordered.

December 12th, 2024 – Plaintiffs serve Notice Of Motion to extend time limits

December 17th, 2024 – Government responds, saying time extension shouldn’t be granted.

Now, the Court may very well grant an extension to file the Rule 51 Motion papers. There has been a longstanding aim of not using procedural rules unjustly to hinder litigation.

That being said, the Plaintiffs are far from guaranteed any success with this Appeal, even if it were heard. The Statement of Claim had many defects, as outlined in the last article. It’s unclear how any of it could be fixed.

For just a $20 fee, Christensen could have asked for an extension right away. She could have explained that some clients wanted to appeal, while others had not yet responded. Such a request would have been difficult to refuse.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(7) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024

OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w