Category: Canadian Decisions

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Pass Case Struck As “Embarrassing” And “Bad Beyond Argument” (Another Galati Special)

In a decision that should surprise no one, a Federal Court Judge has ruled that a lawsuit was so poorly written that it was impossible to answer. (See archive and CanLII).

Justice Simon Fothergill ruled “the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer.”

In short, the document was incoherent, filled with irrelevant material, and so disorganized that it was unreasonable to expect the Defendants to respond. But it gets much worse.

Approximately two thirds of the more than 600 Plaintiffs are permanently barred from taking legal action. The other third can still go ahead, but the case needs to be completely redone.

Broadly speaking, there are 2 different classes of Plaintiffs:
(1) Employees of the Federal Government, listed on Schedule A
(2) Employees of Federally regulated industries, listed on Schedule B

Federal employees are stopped by Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, workers employed by the Government are prohibited from filing lawsuits, and must seek other methods, such as arbitration.

Not only can they not turn to the Court, but it appears they passed on what few remedies were available, such as asking for exemptions, and going through the grievance process. And, if this retainer agreement is a valid document, it would mean they paid $1,000 each.

The Plaintiffs who are in Federally regulated industries can still theoretically proceed. But there are other significant problems.

Even if the case were allowed to proceed in its entirety, all Plaintiffs would have to be named properly. Close to 100 of them are “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”.

Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act state that litigants who want to challenge Government Orders and seek injunctive relief are required to do so by way of Application for Judicial Review. This lawsuit didn’t do that. Instead, a Statement of Claim was filed. That’s right, the wrong paperwork was filed to begin with.

There are a few possible remedies here. First, the Claim could be redone as an Application. Second, the portions pertaining to challenging the Order can be removed.

Beyond that, the challenge (regardless of format) would have to be completely rewritten. The Court found that it was seriously deficient, and pleaded so poorly that a response was impossible.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

As stated in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules.

This is a common problem is many of these cases. While there are accusations made everywhere, there are rarely (if ever) sufficient facts pled to allow a meaningful defence. Defendants are entitled to know what the case is that they must address.

As Justice Fothergill noted, it was “embarrassing” and “bad beyond argument”.

Surprisingly, things still go downhill.

In the Motion to Strike, the Defendants brought up the issue that large portions of this case were substantially similar (and sometimes identical) to the Action4Canada case that was thrown out last August. This includes:

  • 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

Instead of Action4Canada accepting that certain remedies were beyond the scope of a Civil Court, the organization appealed. 6 months after that ruling (which allowed a rewrite), no amended Claim has been filed. It’s unclear if one ever will be.

Now the Action4Canada ruling has been used as a partial basis for throwing out the Federal case. Justice Fothergill also noted that the pleadings were just as bad here as with the other suit.

So, what will happen now? If the Action4Canada case is any indicator, there will be an Appeal filed with the Federal Court of Appeals. Nothing will never come of it, other than to waste time and money.

Do read the reasons given by Justice Fothergill. It’s mindboggling that such paperwork can be submitted and taken seriously. (See original Claim).

The outcome of this Federal case was predictable and it was far more than mere sloppiness. It takes considerable skill and effort to draft something this poorly.

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaccine-passport-case-hears-motion-to-strike-claim/

Posted on

Canadian Frontline Nurses’ $1 Million Defamation Case Dismissed As A SLAPP

The group Canadian Frontline Nurses, CFLN, has had their million dollar defamation suit thrown out as a SLAPP. This is of course, short for strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is when the Courts are improperly used to silence speech or expression on public interest discussion.

Note: although the ruling has been handed down, it’s not yet posted publicly. It will be included here when that happens.

CFLN and 3 of its members: (a) Kristen Nagle; (b) Sarah Choujounian; and (c) Kristal Pitter, were all listed as Plaintiffs. They had sough general damages for defamation of $750,000.00, and another $250,000.00 for aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages.

This lawsuit centered around 2 articles. Are they worth $1 million?

Article posted by Canadian Nurses Association, September 9, 2021

Enough is enough: professional nurses stand for science-based health care
The reckless views of a handful of discredited people who identify as nurses have aligned in some cases with angry crowds who are putting public health and safety at risk. They have drawn in anti-science, anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-public health followers whose beliefs align with theirs. For some reason they would have us believe that millions of the best educated health scientists, public health experts, physicians and nurses globally have all missed something they have not. Their outlandish assertions about science would be laughable were they not so dangerous.

Now the focus is on images of surly mobs happy to stand in front of health-care settings and harass, threaten, and even assault health-care workers coming and going in the business of saving lives. These protests have stunned and saddened exhausted health-care workers. They are demoralizing, infuriating and dangerous.

Anti-public health disinformation threatens to confuse a tired and bewildered public by deliberately misrepresenting personal ideology as facts, and science as conspiracy. The public should be assured that the vast majority of Canada’s 448,000 regulated nurses are united in their commitment to operate from a stringent code of ethics, and they are duty-bound to use science, evidence, and facts in assessing, planning, and evaluating the care they deliver to people across Canada. This scientific approach is a fundamental ideology of modern nursing.

This portion of an article published by the Canadian Nurses Association was quoted to support the defamation claims against the organization and leadership.

Here’s the problem: nowhere in the article are any of the Plaintiffs named. This is a fatal error in a defamation case, as defamatory speech or expression has to be of the person(s) suing. This article could refer to anyone.

However, the Claim states that they were “referred”, and that should be enough. That’s going to be a very tough sell.

Article posted by Together News/Comox Valley, September 11, 2021

There was another article, this one from Comox Valley. While this one did mention the Plaintiffs by name, it appeared to be referencing (for the most part) quotes that they had made. While the January 6 comments seem out of place, it’s difficult to see how these leads to $1 million in damages.

Statements of Defense laid groundwork for anti-SLAPP Motion

The Canadian Nurses Association and Together News both filed Statements of Defense. They raised multiple justifications:

  • CNA statement doesn’t refer to the Plaintiffs (CNA)
  • Words themselves are not defamatory (CNA)
  • Qualified privilege (Both)
  • Responsible communication on matters of public interest (Both)
  • Truth (Both)
  • No malice (Both)
  • No damages incurred (Both)
  • Fair comment (Together News)

CFLN Responding Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 1
CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 2
CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 3
CFLN Supplementary Motion Record Of Plaintiffs

Both documents reference Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the legislation on which anti-SLAPP is based upon. The Defendants signaled that they would be bringing Motions on this. And that’s what they did.

Lawsuits like this actually harm freedom movement

Yes, the “health restrictions” are based on deception and distortions of reality. But this doesn’t help. Considering that these groups claim to be pro-freedom, suing critics makes it difficult to take them seriously.

In December 2020, Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 people and media outlets. It was (predictably) thrown out as a SLAPP. Gill still has another $7 million suit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

These kinds of suits have exposed a certain sect of society: there are plenty of people who “claim” to support freedom, and free speech, but who don’t. Instead, we have people who selectively support speech depending on the ideology involved.

Appeal is already being promised

Canadian Frontline Nurses is promising to appeal the SLAPP ruling. This is pointless, as the Ontario Court of Appeal isn’t going to overturn any of this.

Now, are they simply getting very poor advice, or are the donations that come in making it all worthwhile?

COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) CFLN Statement Of Claim
(2) CFLN Statement Of Defense CDN Nurses Association
(3) CFLN Statement Of Defense Together News/Comox Valley
(4) CFLN Responding Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
(5) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 1
(6) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 2
(7) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 3
(8) CFLN Supplementary Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
(9) CFLN Freedom Rally Documentation
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.pdf

OTHER LINKS
(1) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca
(2) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca/donate
(3) https://t.me/NursesAgainstLockdowns/2229
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-suit-ontario-1.6698686
(5) https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/blogs/cn-content/2021/09/09/enough-is-enough-professional-nurses-stand-for-sci
(6) https://comoxvalley.news/quack-quack-these-pro-virus-nurses-have-dangerous-ideas/

Posted on

Union Collective Agreement Causes BCSC Judge To Throw Out Vaccine Mandate Case

Recently, a B.C. Supreme Court Justice threw out a case involving several former employees working for the City of Quesnel. They sued the City, the City Manager, and the Province of British Columbia for attempting to force them into taking certain “injections”, to protect against an imaginary disease.

This case wasn’t decided on its merits. Instead, it came down to a lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs had hoped the Court would be able to fix their problems. They were all part of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which probably did nothing to advance their interests.

However, there are several sections of the B.C. Labour Relations Code which have made this lawsuit impossible to advance. Specifically, as union employees with the City of Quesnel, they are prohibited from taking this to Court. Their union and collective bargaining agreements state there are different remedies.

Consequently, the Defendants brought an Application to Strike based on Section 9-5 of the B.C. Rules of Civil Proceedure. Given the terms of the collective agreement, it was argued that there was no cause of action against Quesnel.

This is not to justify (in any way) attempting to coerce the clot-shots. But the regulations make it inevitable that no court case would proceed.

It goes something like this: City employees are required to bring their issues up in the form of a grievance. If there still isn’t satisfaction, then the next step is arbitration. There are then limited avenues to appeal the outcome of arbitration, if it was unfair.

Effect of certification
27(1) If a trade union is certified as the bargaining agent for an appropriate bargaining unit,
.
(a) it has exclusive authority to bargain collectively for the unit and to bind it by a collective agreement until the certification is cancelled,
(b) if another trade union has been certified as the bargaining agent for the unit, the certification of that other trade union is cancelled for the unit, and
(c) if a collective agreement binding on the unit is in force at the date of certification, the agreement remains in force.

Section 84 gets into dismissal and arbitration. Every collective agreement has to address this in some form or another. Although the terms of dismissal and discipline vary considerably, something must still be put into writing.

Dismissal or arbitration provision
84(1) Every collective agreement must contain a provision governing dismissal or discipline of an employee bound by the agreement, and that or another provision must require that the employer have a just and reasonable cause for dismissal or discipline of an employee, but this section does not prohibit the parties to a collective agreement from including in it a different provision for employment of certain employees on a probationary basis.
.
(2) Every collective agreement must contain a provision for final and conclusive settlement without stoppage of work, by arbitration or another method agreed to by the parties, of all disputes between the persons bound by the agreement respecting its interpretation, application, operation or alleged violation, including a question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.

Section 89 of the Act gives an arbitration board the final say to impose a remedy.

Unfortunately, this is hardly unique. Most (if not all) public sector employee unions have some sort of clause which mandates grievances and arbitration as an alternative to Court. But in fairness, it’s doubtful that any of these were drafted with this specific issue in mind.

The employees argued that the circumstances of this case were an exception to the requirements that would have them go through other processes. However, that argument was rejected.

They also brought up the idea that pressuring employees to take this drug would amount to assault under the Criminal Code of Canada. That fell apart when it was pointed out that civil remedies for criminal allegations weren’t possible. Additionally, none of the Plaintiffs actually took the shots.

The Claim against the Province was struck on the basis that it “does not allege the existence of any employment relationship between the province and the plaintiffs”. The counter argument was that the vaccine mandates came from the Province itself.

The Plaintiffs did try to remove the City Manager from the case. But they didn’t seek an Order under Rule 6-2(7) of B.C. Civil Procedure. As such, he remained as a Defendant, and would now be able to seek costs.

All in all, the ruling is disappointing, but not a huge surprise. Unions typically have agreements which limit the ability of employees to seek legal action in Court. The only way to get into Court would be a limited scope to appeal if arbitration was unfair or biased.

But being pressured into taking certain drugs probably isn’t what the people who wrote these agreements had in mind.

(1) https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/20/2022BCSC2003.htm
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2003/2022bcsc2003.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2003/2022bcsc2003.pdf
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/regu/bc-reg-168-2009/latest/bc-reg-168-2009.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-244/latest/rsbc-1996-c-244.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec265_smooth

Posted on

CSASPP Certification Hearing Approaching For Class Action Suit Against Bonnie Henry

With all the bad news about Court challenges being thrown out, here’s one to keep an eye on. British Columbia may very well have a class-action suit against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government get to Trial in April 2023. This comes from the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP.

It’s nice to see regular status updates, which should be commonplace in litigation that involves public donations. People don’t want to be left in the dark.

B.C. uses a service called “Court Services Online“, which allows members of the public to search for cases in the Supreme Court, and Court of Appeal. However, it’s behind a paywall, so here are some highlights of what’s been going on.

It appears there have been Court appearances every few months (on average). This is encouraging to see, as long silences make people wonder.

Here are the notes of the decisions thus far, and it’s mostly procedural stuff.

Yes, the courts do proceed at a snail’s pace, but it’s nice to be able to see some progress being made. This is especially important for donors who have chipped in.

There is to be a certification hearing from December 12 to 16, 2022. That’s just a few weeks away. The Judge will make the decision as to whether this class action will go ahead or not.

If the case is certified, then BCPHO Bonnie Henry would be forced to testify under oath. And she does have so much to answer for.

There are a few other (smaller) cases that CSASPP is working on, but this class action is by far the largest. We will see how things turn out.

As for other B.C. news: remember that in August 2021, Action4Canada filed an incoherent 400 page Notice of Civil Claim in Vancouver. Predictably, it was struck in its entirety, although a rewrite was allowed. Instead of fixing the problem, it was appealed for some strange reason.

The CSASPP/A4C comparison is like professional baseball v.s. children’s T-ball. Guess having competent lawyers does make a difference. Then again, the T-ball players generally don’t sue spectators for pointing out glaring flaws.

In any event, the certification hearing in December will be worth watching, and hopefully it will be broadcast online. Below is just a section of the documents that are available. Many more aren’t listed.

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

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency

Posted on

AB Court Of Appeals Confirms HCW Are “Independent Contractors”, Can Refuse Unvaccinated Patients

The Alberta Court of Appeals had upheld a Queen’s Bench (now King’s Bench) decision that allows life saving treatments to be denied on the basis of vaccination status.

Interestingly, both Courts acknowledged, but skirted around the issue of whether these shots were actually safe. Instead, it came down to the case of doctors not actually being Government agents. As such, they can’t be forced to protect people’s Charter rights and freedoms.

This seems to be — at least in part — semantics, as Alberta Health Services gives direction on these kinds of issues all the time.

That said, the Lower Court stated that it was pointless, and in fact, unproductive, to issue Orders unless it was prepared to enforce them.

[42] In my view it is not necessary for the Treating Physicians to reconcile these differences in expert opinions rather, they must be free to decide which expert opinions they accept in exercising their clinical judgment, which informs the standard of care.

Defining the Legal Relationship Between Treating Physicians and the Applicant
[44] In Rasouli (Litigation Guardian of) v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011 ONSC 1500, the following passages are found at paragraphs 88 and 89:
.
However, as noted by Ellen I. Picard and Gerald B. Robertson in their text Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada:
.
In the great majority of cases, patients engage and pay their doctor (usually through medicare plans) and have the power to dismiss them. The hospital does not employ the physicians nor are they carrying out any of the hospital’s duties to the patient. They are granted the privilege of using personnel, facilities and equipment provided by the hospitals but this alone does not make them employees. They are independent contractors who are directly liable to their patients, and the hospital is not vicariously liable for their negligence.
.
Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients that begins upon the formation of the doctor-patient relationship. When this duty is breached, it is the individual doctors who are liable in negligence, not the hospital.
.
[45] In the result, the Treating Physicians are independent contractors who owe the applicant a duty of care.

Is the Relationship Between the Applicant and Her Treating Physicians Governed by the Alberta Bill of Rights?
[46] Since the advent of the Charter, Courts have looked to the Charter to determine if constitutionally protected rights are affected as the Charter can be interpreted more generously than Provincial Bills of Rights. There is no need to consider the claim under the Alberta Bill of Rights because if the Charter claims fail, her claim under the Alberta Bill of Rights will necessarily fail as well.

[52] The fact that the Treating Physicians, who are independent contractors, work in publicly funded hospitals under the rubric of Provincial and Federal healthcare legislation, does not mean that they are state actors subject to the Charter.

[56] In R v Dersch [1993] SCR 768, it was held at para 20, that a doctor who illegally took a blood sample at the request of the police was acting as an agent of government subjecting the action of the doctor in taking the blood sample to Charter scrutiny.
.
[57] However, at para 18, the Court observed that the actions of emergency room physicians in providing emergency treatment to the accused did not render the physicians agents of government for the purposes of the Charter.

[61] There is no evidence that at any time the Treating Physicians became agents of government in establishing preconditions for transplantation or that any governmental body was in any way involved in this process.

[69] In order for the medical system to function properly, Treating Physicians who are providing clinical advice, must be free to do so and are not governed by the Charter but rather by the standard of care which is owed to every patient.

[77] In Sweiss v Alberta Health Services, 2009 ABQB 691 at paragraph 60, the perils of the court attempting to interfere with the exercise of the clinical judgment were described:
.
The overriding theme which pervades the reasons of the English Court of Appeal in Re J. relates to its concern over the Court ordering a medical professional to treat his or her patient in a fashion which is contrary to clinical judgment. The Court in Re J. expressed its rationale as follows at 519:
.
…The Court is not, or certainly should not be, in the habit of making orders unless it is prepared to enforce them. If the Court ordered a doctor to treat a child in a manner contrary to his or her clinical judgment, it would place a conscientious doctor in an impossible position. To perform the Court’s order it could require the doctor to act in a manner which he or she generally believed not to be in the patient’s best interests; to fail to treat the child as ordered would amount to a contempt of court. Any judge would be most reluctant to punish the doctor for such a contempt, which seems to me to be a very strong indication that such an order should not be made.

Conclusion
[89] In the result, I conclude that the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions made by the Treating Physicians, and in particular has no application to the Treating Physicians establishing preconditions for XX transplantation. The Originating Application is dismissed in its entirety.

The Courts also brought up the issue of scarcity: people can be denied organs, given their relatively low supply, if they don’t meet certain criteria. Again, it’s not forcing anyone to get the shot, as long as they are fine with not getting the organs they need.

It’s difficult to view this as anything other than coercion.

IV. Conclusion
[74] This is not the first time medical judgments about allocation of scarce resources have been made in the face of competing needs. While such decisions are doubtless exceedingly difficult, they nevertheless must be made. In this case, the Charter does not apply to the respondents’ exercise of clinical judgments in formulating pre-conditions to [organ] transplant, including requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in the wake of the pandemic.

[75] In conclusion, we are not persuaded this Court can, or ought to, interfere with generalized medical judgments or individualized clinical assessments involving Ms Lewis’ standard of care. In the circumstances of this appeal, while Ms. Lewis has the right to refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the Charter cannot remediate the consequences of her choice.

[76] The appeal is dismissed.

Think about the ramifications of these rulings: a person cannot be forced to get an experimental vaccine. However, doctors have the right to withhold life saving treatments if they refuse. In other words, it’s still “take the vaccine or die”.

A cynic may wonder if doctors are going along with this since they were forced to get the shots in order to keep practicing. Perhaps they wish for everyone to suffer, instead of admitting they made a mistake.

This may (or may not) be the end of the road. At this point, the only available option is to file an Application for Leave to be heard at the Supreme Court. And although they reject cases deemed not to be “in the national interest”, it seems likely that this one would be heard at least.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2022/2022abca359/2022abca359.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2022/2022abca359/2022abca359.pdf
(5) https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/court-upholds-doctors-right-to-require-covid-vaccination-for-organ-transplant-patient-saying-alternative-is-medical-chaos

Posted on

N.S. Court Of Appeals Rules On Strang’s Attack On Free Assembly

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled a week ago on a challenge to a May 2021 injunction. Previously, the Provincial Supreme Court ruled ex-parte that Robert Strang could effectively suspend freedom of assembly on an indefinite basis.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, CCLA, applied to intervene to appeal the matter. It was granted on August 31, 2021. Due to the complexity of the issues, and other delays, it took a year for the case to be heard.

While the issue of infringing on civil rights did come up in the decision, it wasn’t front and center. Instead, there were many procedural errors cited. Still, the trio did make many findings which can be used at a later date. It wasn’t a total loss.

Strang got (rightfully) rebuked for his overreaching power grab, but it could have been done in a much more forceful way.

Overall, it’s a “meh” kind of ruling.

Issues:
1. Should the Court hear an appeal of an ex parte order?
.
2. Should the Court entertain a moot appeal?
.
3. Did the judge err by:
a) Granting an injunction order without the applicants having advanced any common law cause of action, statutory authority, or other right to a remedy;
b) Applying the test for an interlocutory injunction to the applicants’ request for a permanent injunction;
c) Stating and applying the wrong test for a quia timet injunction;
d) Granting an Injunction Order against all Nova Scotians without requiring evidence that such a remedy was needed against all Nova Scotians;
e) Granting an injunction order without considering that the order infringed the Charter rights of all Nova Scotians and that this infringement may not be justified in circumstances;
f) Accepting the evidence of a named applicant as independent expert evidence, without compliance with Rule 55 or the common law requirements for independent expert evidence.

Between the 3 Justices, there was some dissent on a few issues, although they seemed to agree for the most part. The more important things they were all in agreement on:

  • The Attorney General’s application should not have been ex parte;
  • The Court should hear this moot appeal;
  • Dr. Strang’s expert opinion was not admissible;
  • The Nova Scotia Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to issue a quia timet injunction to enjoin apprehended breaches of the Public Health Order made pursuant to the Health Protection Act;
  • The motion judge erred when he employed the test for an interlocutory injunction when he actually was asked for and did issue a permanent injunction;
  • The motion judge erred by not considering the impact on Charter rights when considering if he should issue the requested injunctive relief;
  • The motion judge erred by issuing injunctive relief that was far too broad.

There was dissent on the following:

  • The AGNS failed in its duty to provide full disclosure of information in its possession on the ex parte application;
  • The motion judge erred in law in finding the prerequisites for a permanent quia timet injunction had been made out;
  • Dr. Strang’s opinion about the risk of outdoor transmission should not have been accepted because he lacked the necessary independence and impartiality as set out in White Burgess.

In contrast to a few other recent decisions, the NSCOA decided to hear the case in spite of it being moot. The issues were of such a public interest that it should go ahead. This differed significantl from other recent cases, in which there was no inclination to do so.

(Para 47) The COA disagreed that applying for an injunction without notice was appropriate. Unless: (a) it’s impossible to give notice; or (b) giving notice may cause the event, this type of procedure shouldn’t be attempted. The Government could have given notice, but simply found it more expedient not to.

(Para 54) The Government chose a method that was designed for temporary measures, but the open-ended nature of the Order sought was effectively permanent, or semi-permanent. There was no end date provided.

(Para 56-57) The Government tries to argue that it would have met the test for a permanent injunction with the information it had the time. Additionally, the Court found that the wrong test had been applied for in seeking a permanent — as opposed to temporary — injunction.

(Para 61-63) The proper quia timet test was used. This is a test used to get injunctions based “on the fear of” something happening. Problem is, this test seems to be almost entirely subjective, and open to abuse.

(Para 64-69) The question came up as to whether or not there was even a valid cause of action. The Court decided that the likelihood of these Orders being violated, combined with the fear of disease spreading, was justifiable in and of itself.

(Para 127-140) The Order applied not only to certain people wanting to attend gatherings, but to Nova Scotians as a whole. The Court also said that this was overreaching given the overstated likelihood of infection.

(Para 141-148) The Court took issue with the fact that the original Order was obtained ex-parte, and there wasn’t enough consideration given to the Charter violations that would likely result.

(Para 149-168) Robert Strang, the Medical Officer of Health, should not have been qualified as an “expert”. Given his position, there was an inherent conflict of interest. He gave evidence in support of submissions that would validate his own demands. As such, he wasn’t separate enough.

[169] The Province incorrectly applied for a permanent ex parte injunction, but argued the test for an interim injunction described in RJR. The Province should have sought an interlocutory injunction on notice to which the RJR test properly applied. The Charter rights engaged should have been considered in the balance of convenience step of the RJR test.

[170] The Province did not establish a basis for granting either an interlocutory or permanent injunction because it did not tender admissible evidence of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 on which a finding of “high probability” of serious or irreparable harm could be grounded. The Chief Medical Officer should not have been qualified as an expert. In any event, the Order granted should not have been indefinite as to time, place and person.

(Para 200-218) The issue of mootness came up. Since the Orders have been rescinded, was there an issue to even be tried? The NSCOA decided to limit its scope to questions of law, and not revisit the factual findings from the Lower Court.

(Para 220-247) Robert Strang’s role as expert witness was questioned, given his conflict of interest. The NSCOA acknowledged that sections 8, 20, 24, 32 and 37 give him the right to issue directives based on his opinions and beliefs.

(Para 248-280) The ruling went on at length as to whether the proper test had been applied for permanent injunction. This was important, as it related to the concerns of Charter breaches. The Judges agreed that the test hadn’t been met.

(Para 281-303) The Court of Appeals took issue with the fact that the injunction would apply to everyone in the Province, and was done without the means to challenge in the first place. It was an error of due process to not allow others to confront accusers. This wasn’t limited to a select group, either.

(Para 303-328) The Panel avoided the question — for the most part — about whether these Orders were violation of Charter rights. A full analysis apparently wasn’t required. Instead, there was more of an issue with the roughshod way this was done. In short, there were more procedural than substantive problems.

(Para 329-350) Is this “virus” transmissible, and was there proper disclosure? Here, the NSCOA seemed to avoid that, and simply stated that Strang was offering full disclosure with whatever available information he had. He was able to get the injunction without introducing actual evidence. The Court didn’t seem too bothered by that.

In a sense, this was academic, as there’s currently no Order in place. Still, there’s a ruling now, and the good parts may be useful later.

SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS

It was helpful to have a (somewhat) favourable ruling from Nova Scotia. However, the problems go much deeper than just the Charter, or some Officer of Health. To date, it doesn’t seem that any lawyer has brought this forward.

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s scary.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12
2004 creation of PHAC
Health Canada’s Real History

Although probably outside the scope here, it would be nice to see the Public Health Acts themselves challenged in Court. No one ever voted for this, but the W.H.O. is able to write our laws to include medical tyranny.

If laws are put in place that aren’t written in this country, shouldn’t that be grounds to have them challenged and struck down?

Also, it’d have been preferable to fully address the issue of civil rights violations. Freedom of assembly, especially when protesting Government overreach, is an important ability to have. Without it, there’s no open society.

The NSCOA acknowledged that the May 2021 Order violated Charter rights, but didn’t really dive into it. Instead, they seemed more content to focus on the many breaches of procedure that had taken place.

The panel also seemed to go out of their way to give Strang the benefit of the doubt. He took the rights of a million people away. He needs to be held to account, not given deference.

On the bright side: there are parts of this ruling which could be the basis for future actions at a later date, such as restricting the use of ex-parte injunctions. It wasn’t a complete loss. Another Judge might quote portions of this to come to favourable conclusions elsewhere.

Guess we’ll see what happens next.

(1) https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/59th_1st/1st_read/b026.htm
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/laws/stat/sns-2004-c-4/latest/sns-2004-c-4.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2021/2021nssc170/2021nssc170.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2021/2021nsca65/2021nsca65.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2021/2021nsca65/2021nsca65.html