Category: Canadian Decisions

The Federal Court of Appeal partially overturned a 2023 ruling on injection mandates for over 600 Plaintiffs who had sued back in May 2022. This suit covered a broad range of employers, both part of the Government, and others regulated by Ottawa.

There were additional claims pleaded related to loss of mobility rights and freedom of travel. However, these seemed to be almost an afterthought. Primarily, this was a lawsuit over workers refusing to take the injections in the Fall of 2021.

Back in February 2023, Justice Fothergill struck the Claim for most (about 400) of the Plaintiffs without leave to amend. This meant that they wouldn’t be allowed to submit a new version. The other 200 or so saw their claims struck with permission to refile. A lump sum of $5,000 in costs was also awarded.

To explain this a little better: the Court created Schedules “A” and “B”, and lumped various employers into each. The “A” employers were part of the Federal Government. By contrast, The “B” employers weren’t part of the Government, but part of Federally regulated industries. The reason for this is that there’s a distinction in how their respective claims were to be handled.

Employees who fell into Group “A” were prohibited from going to Court at all over employment. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act allow the right to grieve, but not to sue.

Employees who fell into Group “B” were not necessarily restricted from going to going to Court. However, the pleadings were so horribly written that a new version would need to be created. The Court referred to it as “bad beyond argument”, and for “substantially the same reasons” as the Action4Canada case, it had to be struck. As with the Vaccine Choice Canada case, this one failed to follow the basics of civil procedure — once again.

That said, with this Appellate ruling, all Plaintiffs will be allowed to file something.

What this means is that everyone will be able to make claims for restrictions on their movements. That can still go ahead. However, the employment claims for all Schedule “A” litigants are still barred, with the possible exception of those employed by the RCMP. They’re governed by different provisions in the FPSLRA.

One of the problems with having so many Plaintiffs is that there’s no information pleaded about any of them specifically. Instead, generalizations are made, without reference to who it applies to. As for the travel restrictions, it’s unclear which litigants are alleging it.

Hopefully, these people will retain a competent lawyer this time.

Alternatively, maybe counsel will take a remedial refresher course on how to plead documents.

SCHEDULE “A”: PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

• Canada Opportunities Agency
• Canada Border Services Agency
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Canada School of Public Service
• Canadian Coast Guard (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency*
• Canadian Forestry Service (Department of Natural Resources)
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research*
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission*
• Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
• Canada Revenue Agency*
• Canadian Security Intelligence Service*
• Core Public Service
• Canadian Space Agency
• Correctional Service of Canada
• Courts Administration Service
• Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
• Department of Canadian Heritage
• Department of Employment and Social Development
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• Department of Justice
• Department of National Defence
• Department of Natural Resources
• Department of Transport
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Elections Canada (“Office of the Chief Electoral Officer” and “The portion of the federal public administration in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer in which the employees referred to in section 509.3 of the Canada Elections Act occupy their positions”)
• Environment and Climate Change Canada (Department of the Environment)
• Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
• Global Affairs Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development)
• Government of Canada
• Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration)
• Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs)
• Indigenous Services Canada (Department of Indigenous Services)
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
• National Film Board of Canada (National Film Board)*
• National Research Council Canada*
• National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat)*
• Office of the Auditor General of Canada*
• Parks Canada*
• Polar Knowledge Canada (Canadian High Arctic Research Station)*
• Public Health Agency of Canada
• Public Safety Canada (Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
• Public Services and Procurement Canada
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police**
• Service Canada (Department of Employment and Social Development)
• Shared Services Canada
• Staff of the Supreme Court
• Statistics Canada
• Treasury Board

NOTES:

All organizations are part of the core public administration as defined at s 11(1) of the Financial Administration Act (Schedules I and IV), except as noted.

• Organizations that are portions of the federal public administration listed in Schedule V (Separate Agencies of the Financial Administration Act, whose employees have rights to grieve under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act).

** The RCMP is part of the core public administration and is listed in Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act; RCMP members have limited rights to grieve under s 238.24 the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, but have other grievance rights under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

SCHEDULE “B”: PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

• Air Canada
• Air Canada Jazz
• Air Inuit
• Bank of Canada
• Bank of Montreal
• BC Coast Pilots Ltd
• BC Ferries
• British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
• Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions
• Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
• Canada Pension Plan
• Canada Post
• Canadian National Railway
• Canadian Pacific Railway
• City of Ottawa Garage Fed Regulated
• DP World
• Export Development Canada
• Farm Credit Canada
• G4S Airport Screening
• Garda Security Screening Inc
• Geotech Aviation
• Global Container Terminals Canada
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• House of Commons
• Human Resources Branch, Innovation
• Kelowna Airport Fire Fighters
• National Arts Centre
• NAV Canada
• Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
• Ontario Power Generation
• Pacific Pilotage Authority
• Parliamentary Protection Service
• Public Sector Pension Investment Board
• Purolator Inc
• Questral Helicopters
• RBC Royal Bank
• Rise Air
• Rogers Communications Inc
• Royal Canadian Mint
• Sasktel
• Scotiabank
• Seaspan Victoria Docks
• Shaw
• Skynorth Air Ltd
• Telesat Canada
• Via Rail Canada
• Wasaya Airways
• Waterfront Employers of British Columbia
• Westjet
• Westshore Terminals

1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA?
2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions?
3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons?
4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable?
5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts?

1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA? YES

[42] On the first issue, I conclude that the Federal Court erred in finding that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA applies to the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP.

[43] It will be recalled that subsection 236(1) of the FPSLRA provides that 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”.

[44] To recall, the relevant definition of what constitutes a grievance is set out in subsection 206(1) of the FPSLRA. That section states that a grievance is one that may be filed under either section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA. Thus, the bar in section 236 applies only to those who could seek redress via a grievance under section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA.

[45] Yet, section 238.4 of the FPSLRA applies only to grievances arising under a collective agreement applicable to RCMP members who meet the statutory definition of “employee” in the FPSLRA. Based on the materials that were before the Federal Court and that are now before this Court, it is impossible to ascertain whether any collective agreement has been negotiated for RCMP members. The National Police Federation was certified as the bargaining agent for RCMP members in 2019 by the FPSLREB in National Police Federation v. Treasury Board, 2019 FPSLREB 74. However, it is unclear if a collective agreement has been achieved and, if so, whether a challenge to the TB Policy could be the subject of a grievance under any such agreement. Given this lack of information, it is not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP possessed rights to grieve the TB Policy under a grievance to which section 238.24 of the FPSLRA pertains.

The RCMP Plaintiffs may still have their employment claims struck at some point. However, with the information available on this Motion, they couldn’t be now.

2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions? YES

[53] The Federal Court therefore erred in finding that the plaintiffs’ claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures could have been grieved or were subject to section 236 of the FPSLRA. While these claims suffer from the lack of proper pleadings and a failure to plead the necessary material facts that characterize the Statement of Claim generally, they should not have been struck without leave to amend. If properly pleaded, it may perhaps be possible for the plaintiffs to raise a claim that could come within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Without seeing an amended pleading, however, it is impossible to discern whether or not a valid claim might be advanced. The plaintiffs therefore should have been granted leave to amend the claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures on the same basis as the Federal Court allowed other claims to be amended.

All Plaintiffs should be given the right to have their travel-related claims heard.

In fairness to Justice Fothergill, it was unclear who exactly was pleading that their travel related rights were infringed. The Statement of Claim was so lacking in detail that it was impossible to tell.

3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons? NO

[54] On the third issue, I conclude that the Federal Court did not err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons, other than the RCMP. However, the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy.

[55] It is not disputed that the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than the RCMP could have filed grievances under section 208 of the FPSLRA challenging the TB Policy or its application to them. As noted, the TB Policy was a term and condition of employment and thus subject to grievance under section 208 of the FPSLRA, which allows the employees of the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons other than the RCMP to file grievances relating to their terms and conditions of employment. That said, the FPSLREB recently held in Rehibi v. Deputy Head (Department of Employment and Social Development, 2024 FPSLREB 47, that a grievance challenging the application of the TB Policy could not be referred to adjudication due to the fact that only a subset of matters that may be grieved under the FPSLRA may be referred to adjudication under subsection 209(1) of the FPSLRA.

[64] Since the defendants sought to strike the Statement of Claim based on the fact that a grievance process was available, it was incumbent on the defendants to establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. However, no evidence was tendered on this issue and the statutory scheme is not sufficiently clear to definitively establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. I therefore conclude that the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy without leave to amend. The plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP should have been granted leave to amend their claims related to the TB Policy on the same basis as the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than those listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons were granted leave to amend.

Since the RCMP are governed by a different part of the FPSLRA, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that their employment claims shouldn’t have been struck under s.236. That’s not to say that it may not happen anyway. That said, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs are out of luck.

This is a pattern that’s become more obvious: lawyers bringing cases to Court that involve Government and/or union workers. There’s almost always some legislation or collective bargaining agreement that gets these thrown out.

See below, under the “precedents” section. Since the 2023 decision, 5 more cases have been thrown out (4 in Federal Court, and 1 in B.C. Supreme Court) citing this Adelberg ruling as precedent.

4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable? NO

[65] I see no error in the Federal Court’s determination that allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity, are not justiciable in a civil action.

[66] As for the validity of the TB Policy and the Interim Order, it would appear that those issues may now well be moot. In addition, while it might have been possible to argue that the policies at issue were invalid in the context of a justiciable claim for relief on some other basis in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585, the Federal Court did not err in holding that an order setting aside the TB Policy and the Interim Order could only be obtained by way of an application for judicial review.

[67] I accordingly see no basis for setting aside any of the foregoing rulings made by the Federal Court.

This is comical and goofy. Experienced lawyers should know what Courts can and cannot adjudicate over. It reeks of incompetence that this keeps happening over and over again.

Bad beyond argument.

5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts? NO

[68] Finally, I see no error in the Federal Court’s finding that the Statement of Claim was improperly pleaded and lacked the necessary material facts. As noted in Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare) 2015 FCA 227, [2015] F.C.J. No. 1245 at para. 16, a plaintiff must plead, in summary form, but with sufficient detail, the constituent facts to support the relief sought. As the Federal Court rightly noted in this case, for the claims in respect of which leave to amend is granted, the plaintiffs must set out with sufficient particularity the facts they rely on in support of their claim, including details of how they were specifically impacted by the policies they impugn and the bases for and all material facts necessary to ground the claims advanced. The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is entirely devoid of these necessary material facts.

[69] I therefore see no reviewable error in the decision to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety. However, leave to amend it should be granted to all the plaintiffs in accordance with these reasons.

This is common sense, or at least it should be. If you want to sue someone, you have to spell out the allegations with enough specific detail that they can respond to it.

Here’s he TL, DR (too long, didn’t read) version of things:

(1) Members and former members of the RCMP may still be able to bring employment related claims around their refusal to take the injections.

(2) All Plaintiffs — both Schedules “A” and “B” — can make travel related claims

(3) Other than RCMP, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs have their employment claims barred

(4) The Statement of Claim is filled with issues a Civil Court can’t preside over

(5) The Statement of Claim fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and doesn’t plead the facts necessary to be properly responded to.

(6) The $5,000 cost award is set aside, and no costs were awarded here.

The “bad beyond argument” findings of Justice Fothergill (here), and Justice Ross (Action4Canada) have been upheld. Neither case was pleaded in a coherent manner. And both needed to be redone. It’s still mind boggling that veteran lawyers don’t understand how to draft documents.

While all Plaintiffs can now go ahead with something, a few questions:

(a) Since the Schedule “A” employment claims are still prohibited, will there be an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? That was promised after all.

(b) Since so much time has passed, will any new allegations be barred by the Statute of Limitations? For most things, there’s a 2 year time limit.

(c) Will any more of the litigants discontinue their case? Will others try to proceed, but with more “effective” counsel?

(d) Considering that Action4Canada never bothered to file an amended Notice of Civil Claim, even 4 months after “winning” their Appeal, will this happen here too? Will these Plaintiffs call their critics “paid agitators“?

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1752/2023fc1752.html#par24
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc137/2024fc137.html#par44

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

It’s time to put a decade long myth to rest: the Nadon Reference Case.

This was a 2013 challenge in Federal Court to the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court. The specific issue was not his abilities, but where he had worked. Under Canadian law, Quebec is entitled — rightly or wrongly — to 3 out of the 9 spots on the Supreme Court of Canada. Judges from the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal can sit on the SCC, but not take those 3 positions.

Yes, there was an Application filed by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” in October 2013. However, that’s not what decided Nadon’s fate. The Attorney General brought a Motion to stay (defer) the case, and an Order In Council (OIC) forward the matter to the Supreme Court. This was decided as a Constitutional Question. The case was deferred on consent, meaning all sides agreed to hand it over.

The original Application was eventually dismissed in 2014. However, it seems that costs were just as important — if not more so — than the principle of how SCC Justices are selected. This leads to the absurd idea that there is a “Constitutional right” to costs, even for lawyers who don’t actually win their cases. Gonzo logic!

The case was never “won on the merits”.

It was more a case of “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Ever wonder why no ruling is ever help up as a trophy? That’s because there isn’t one.

(A) Consent Order staying the 2013 Application
(B) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc21/2014scc21.html
(C) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc1088/2014fc1088.html
(D) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca39/2016fca39.html
(E) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2016/2016canlii47514/2016canlii47514.html

The above are a: consent to stay; SCC Reference, involving many Intervenors; and then three (3) subsequent dismissals. The earth shattering victory we are told about isn’t there.

Timeline Of Major Events

Now, the above is a lot to take in, so hopefully, this will clarify the details how events unfolded.

October 7th, 2013: A Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court, challenging the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada.

October 22nd, 2013: Order-In-Council (OIC) 2013-1105 is signed, referring the issue of the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court for a Reference.

October 28th, 2013: The Attorney General’s Office brings a Motion to stay (defer) the case, since it has already been sent off for reference anyway.

November 12th, 2013: Justice Zinn signs a Consent Order staying the Application, pending the outcome of the SCC Reference.

March 21st, 2014: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Justice Nadon isn’t eligible to use any of Quebec’s 3 seats on the Court. However, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t sit on the bench in any of the other 6 spots.

September 26th, 2014: “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” files a Motion for costs, and for Leave (permission) to dismiss the case. He didn’t win, and wants it dismissed, but claims he’s entitled to costs anyway.

October 31st, 2014: The Attorney General’s Office files a Cross-Motion (a Motion of their own), asking that the original Application be dismissed, since the issue of Justice Nadon’s appointment if now moot. They also ridicule the demand for costs, since the Applicants didn’t actually win.

November 7th, 2014: Reply submissions (rebuttal arguments) are filed in the Motion for costs.

November 20th, 2014: Justice Zinn hands down a ruling dismissing the original Application, and awarding a lump sum of $5,000 in costs to the Applicants. This is in spite of them not actually winning their case. The Motion was “in writing”, and as the name implies, done without an oral hearing.

January 11th, 2016: The Federal Court of Appeal hears the Appeal on costs. This is not about Justice Nadon’s appointment, but whether there’s a “Constitutional right” to costs.

February 8th, 2016: Federal Court of Appeal hands down scathing rebuke, along with $1,000 Order for bringing baseless Appeal in the first place.

July 28th, 2016: Supreme Court of Canada denies Leave (permission) to file Appeal over the demand for costs. This was the second attempt at appealing.

Now, to expand more on these….

Application Was Stayed (Deferred) On Consent

Almost immediately after the Application was filed, the Attorney General’s office brought a Motion to stay the proceedings (or defer) the case.

The Motion references Order In Council 2013-1105, an “Order referring to the Supreme of Canada for hearing and consideration the questions related to the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices From Quebec”.

Justice Russel Zinn signed a Consent Order, which stayed the Application while the subject was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the form of a Reference Question. By consenting, it was known to all — or should have been known — that it was surrendering control to the SCC.

This wasn’t a “win on the merits” by any means. However, it was an indication that the Federal Government took the issue seriously enough to forward it onward.

Many “Intervenors” For SCC Reference Question

Although the Supreme Court Reference is very lengthy, this is the main point. Should Justice Nadon be allowed to take a “Quebec spot” on the SCC if he’s sitting on the bench for the Federal Court of Appeal?

[109] This reference stems from the appointment of the Honourable Justice Marc Nadon to fill one of the three seats on this Court allocated to the Province of Quebec. Justice Nadon is a former member of the Quebec bar of almost 20 years standing. At the time of his appointment to this Court, he was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

• René LeBlanc and Christine Mohr, for the Attorney General of Canada
• Patrick J. Monahan and Josh Hunter, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario
• André Fauteux and Jean‑François Beaupré, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec
• Sébastien Grammond, Jeffrey Haylock and Nicolas M. Rouleau, for the interveners Robert Décary, Alice Desjardins and Gilles Létourneau
• Rocco Galati, on his own behalf
• Sébastien Grammond, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges
• Paul Slansky, for the intervener the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc

But what frequently gets overlooked is that there were many Intervenors — 3rd party participants — at the Supreme Court review over the Nadon appointment. It wasn’t just one person against the Government.

[8] After carefully considering the Attorney General’s motion for a stay (for a period of 7.6 hours, in Mr. Galati’s case), the Joint Applicants eventually consented to a stay of the Joint Application in exchange for the Attorney General’s undertaking not to oppose their application for intervener status in the Reference.

Some comments from the Federal Court of Appeal are pretty funny. If their 2016 ruling is to be taken at face value, it seems that the Attorney General didn’t even want him at the SCC Reference. It comes across as him only agreeing to the Consent Order if there was no objection to him being an Intervenor. That’s got to hurt.

What if the AG had opposed Intervenor status? Would he have held up the Motion to stay the case?

Now, if this Reference result really was a “win on the merits”, then it looks as though every Intervenor could make that same claim. All of them submitted papers, and all were allowed to speak.

The most charitable interpretation of this would be a “shared win”.

Now, the real fun begins.

Federal Court Dismisses Motion For Costs, Dismisses Application

After the Supreme Court decision, the original Application became moot. After all, Justice Nadon was gone from the bench, so there wasn’t a real issue to resolve.

However, a Motion was filed demanding costs. The “claim” was that lawyers who bring constitutional challenges are entitled to costs. Apparently, this wasn’t just about principle. There was money to be made on this.

There were obviously problems with this. The most prominent is that fact that there was no “win or success”, which is typically required to receive costs. From the Attorney General of Canada:

The Federal Government filed a Cross-Motion, asking that the original Application be dismissed, and that the Court refuse costs.

The reason for dismissing the Application is obvious: mootness. Justice Nadon is gone, so there’s nothing left to deal with. It’s unclear why “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” would seek leave (permission) to dismiss, instead of just discontinuing on his own. A cynic may think that it would be harder to claim “success” if he simply dropped the case.

Federal Court Takes Note Of Overbilling In Costs Motion

In their Cross Motion, the Attorney General argued that even if costs should be awarded (for an unsuccessful case), the amounts sought were unreasonable. They point out that for Ontario lawyers, even the most experienced ones litigation the most complex matters were only entitled to $350/hour. This Motion demanded $800/hour, more than double that.

In the 2014 reasons (dismissing the Application and the Motion for costs) the Court notes at paragraphs 5-7 that the amounts sought are “excessive and unwarranted”. They want nearly $70,000 for litigation was stayed at the very beginning stages. It’s even more absurd given the self-representation that was going on.

Almost as an aside, Justice Zinn remarks that if not for the original challenge, the SCC Reference would likely not have happened. From a certain perspective, it could be viewed as public service.

He ultimately awarded a lump sum of $5,000. This is still a fair amount of money, but less than 10% of what the Applicants had originally demanded.

Federal Court Of Appeal Dismisses Appeal For Costs

[12] Mr. Galati argued for an award of costs in his favour calculated on the basis of 56.4 hours of service at an hourly rate of $800, plus disbursements in the amount of $638, for a total award (including tax) of $51,706. The CRC claimed costs of $16,769 based on 14.55 hours of service by its counsel, Mr. Slansky, at an hourly rate of $800. In argument, Mr. Galati acknowledged that his regular hourly rate is not $800 as his clientele do not have the means to pay such an exalted rate. He advised that $800 per hour is the rate for substantial indemnity pursuant to Part 1 of Tariff A of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, for lawyers of his year of call and experience.

[13] The Attorney General opposed Mr. Galati’s and the CRC’s motions and filed a cross motion seeking the dismissal of the Joint Application. On the question of costs, the Attorney General argued that since, as of the date of the argument, no judgement had been rendered in the Joint Application, there was no successful party and therefore no basis for an order for costs. In any event, the Attorney General argued that there was no constitutional right to costs. If an order of costs were to be made, having regard to the factors mentioned in Rule 400(3) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, it should be a single award assessed on Column III of Tariff B.

[28] The difficulty confronting the Joint Applicants is that they were not successful in their application. The Federal Court found that the Joint Application “was derailed and supplanted by the Reference”: see Reasons at paragraph 12. It was therefore dismissed for mootness. Mr. Galati and the CRC take the position that because the Reference produced the result which they sought in the Joint Application, they were successful and entitled therefore to their solicitor client costs. It doesn’t work that way. The fact that their application apparently set in motion a series of events which led to the conclusion which they hoped to achieve in their application does not make them successful litigants. It may make them successful politically or in the popular press, but that is a different matter. They can only claim costs in relation to the judicial treatment of the Joint Application which, as noted, was dismissed. To hold otherwise would be to create something in the nature of a finder’s fee for constitutional litigation.

[35] To be “in bed” with someone is to collude with that person. I do not understand how one could hope to protect the right to a fair and independent judiciary by accusing courts of colluding with the government if they don’t give the applicant its solicitor client costs. The entire Court system, it seems, must be alleged to be actually or potentially acting in bad faith in order to instill public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary. This is reminiscent of the gonzo logic of the Vietnam War era in which entire villages had to be destroyed in order to save them from the enemy. The fact that this argument is made in support of an unjustified monetary claim leads to the question “Whose interest is being served here?” Certainly not the administration of justice’s. This argument deserves to be condemned without reservation.

[47] Like my colleague, I agree that there are no grounds for setting aside the costs order of the Federal Court and I would dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $1,000. Had the respondents asked for more, I would have granted more.

The Federal Court of Appeal was pretty scathing in their review. Yes, the $5,000 award was appealed on the grounds that it wasn’t nearly enough, and the Applicants had a “right” to costs.

The FCA reiterated that there was no “win on the merits”. The parties had agreed to stay the Application in favour of letting the SCC Reference go ahead. True, it produced the outcome that was sought, but that’s not the same as actually winning.

The FCA took serious issue the implication that the Courts were “in bed with” the Government for not giving him his costs. Keep in mind, he was self represented. In the public sphere, this would have led to a defamation lawsuit.

The FCA rejected the notion that the Nadon appointment “went to the architecture of the Constitution”. Yes, it was an important question, but outside of a small amount of people, it had no impact.

The FCA also pointed out how absurd it was to use the Ontario guidelines for costs submissions when in Federal Court. Was this simply oversight? Incompetence? Or a way to justify inflated billing?

Supreme Court Denies Application For Leave (For Costs)

The applications for leave to appeal from the judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-541-14, 2016 FCA 39, dated February 8, 2016, are dismissed with costs.

Not content with losing at the Federal Court of Appeal, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” sought Leave (permission) to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This wasn’t about Justice Nadon, but another attempt at having someone recognize “his Constitutional right to costs”. This is nonsense, and it appears that he spent more time and effort trying to get costs than in the original Application.

Serious question: Is it considered fraud to misrepresent the results of Court cases, if done for the purposes of self-promotion, and generating business? The Nadon case has been held up as a “major win on the merits”, even though that’s not the truth. This was from 2013 to 2016.

Again, a better description would be, “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Fast forward to 2024, and groups like Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lie about their cases in order to keep the donation money rolling in. They pretend that losses and endless delays are somehow “wins”. At what point does puffery and self-promotion cross into outright deception?

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Supreme Court Reference ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 433
(2) Federal Court On Motion For Costs 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
(3) Federal Court Of Appeal On Costs 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
(4) Supreme Court Of Canada On Costs 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Nadon Reference Case Notice Of Application
(2) Nadon Reference Case AG Motion To Stay
(3) Nadon Reference Case Order Staying Application
(4) Nadon Reference Case RG Motion For Costs
(5) Nadon Reference Case AG Cross Motion Record
(6) Nadon Reference Case AG Reply Submissions On Costs

ORDER IN COUNCIL SEARCH:
(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/