Category: Canadian Decisions

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

Posted on

Following Up On The Recent Gill SLAPP Ruling, Appeal(s)

Given the developments since the costs decision was handed down against Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, it seems that a follow-up piece is required. Justice Stewart decided that the failed defamation lawsuit — dismissed as a SLAPP — merited full indemnity against the Plaintiffs. The price tag is about $1.1 million.

As an aside, it appears that National Post, as well as several mainstream outlets have covered the decision, and even credited this site for the research. That’s interesting. The comments pictured above are from this article.

However, it seems from the comments posted that a lot of people don’t really understand what happened, or why. Gill and Lamba weren’t in Court because someone tried to censor their speech. Instead, they sued 23 people and organisations for $12.75 million in order to silence them for their ideas, beliefs and opinions.

Gill and Lamba didn’t sue the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, for their practices. This was aimed primarily at critics on Twitter.

Moreover, this wasn’t for some nominal amounts, designed to make a point. Gill and Lamba demanded damages to the degree that would have bankrupted people, had they been successful.

Most readers here have already gone through the Statement of Claim filed in December 2020, and the February 2022 dismissal as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. If not, they are essential for background information.

Not only were the Defendants faced with losses — roughly $500,000 each, had they lost — but they were forced to pay large sums of money to lawyers to protect themselves. The above includes the amounts that the Defendants claimed.

Gill and Lamba objected, stating that there was considerable duplication in the work done, and that the costs seem absurd. They have a point. That being said, they brought this on themselves. What exactly did they think would happen?

People in the freedom community would be outraged if some “lefty” or “commie” attempted to use the courts as a weapon to silence free speech. They would call this out as censorship and of weaponizing the legal system. It would never be tolerated.

However, Gill and Lamba did exactly the same thing — or at least tried to — and many of these freedom lovers celebrate them as heroes. The lack of awareness is amazing.

Had someone sued Gill for millions of dollars because she called them an “idiot”, many would rally to her defense. Meanwhile, she did just that to Amir Attaran, and there is complete silence. $7 million for two rude tweets is ridiculous.

According to the February ruling, some Defendants who sent rude tweets to Gill had since offered public apologies to her, and she still filed suit against them. Not at all a good look.

That’s right, apologies were made, but Gill tried to bankrupt them anyway.

The point is: if someone supports free and open discourse, regardless of how testy it can be, then it has to be done consistently. We cannot selectively censor, depending on one’s beliefs.

Gill and Lamba filed Notice of Appeal in March 2022. This was against the SLAPP decision. In a nutshell, they argue that the case should not have been dismissed, but sent to Trial instead. Costs were not factored in, as the cost ruling hadn’t happened at that point.

From the National Post:

Jeff Saikaley​, Gill’s lawyer, said neither he nor his client would comment as she is appealing both this week’s decision on costs, and the ruling in February that dismissed the lawsuit.”

Taken at face value, it implies that a second Appeal is coming, with this specific to the cost award that just came down. One has to ask what kind of advice these doctors are getting. Both Appeals are doomed, and here’s an explanation of why:

Appeal #1: Dismissal As Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

To understand why this is baseless, look up s.137.1 Courts of Justice Act for Ontario. The criteria is laid out pretty clearly.

Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party satisfies the judge that,
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Without going too deep, this is how it works. First, the Defendant must convince the Judge that the speech or expression is of a public interest matter. This is the “threshold burden” and it’s very low.

At that point, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff, who must show:
(a) There is substantial merit;
(b) There are no valid, reasonable defenses; and
(c) The harm outweighs public interest in allowing this expression

In the February ruling, Justice Stewart ruled that the Plaintiffs consistently failed to meet this 3-part test. Keep in mind: if any part fails, then all of it fails. Simply meeting 1 or 2 parts isn’t enough.

For most of the claims, the Plaintiffs couldn’t even meet a single branch of it.

This isn’t to agree with, or justify what the Defendants had to say. The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to keep public discourse going by filtering out just these kinds of cases.

Here is the Factum of the Medical Post and Tristan Bronca. All the Factums (arguments) follow this basic formula: (a) expression meets threshold burden; and (b) Plaintiff can’t meet test to avoid dismissal.

There’s significant case law in that Factum, and is worth a read.

The standard for review is given by Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. It describes the standards used to review: (a) errors of fact; (b) errors of law; and (c) mixed fact and law.

Prediction: this Appeal will go nowhere.

Appeal #2: Full Indemnity Costs Against Gill/Lamba

Going back to s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act:

No further steps in proceeding
(5) Once a motion under this section is made, no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

No amendment to pleadings
(6) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the responding party shall not be permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding,
(a) in order to prevent or avoid an order under this section dismissing the proceeding; or
(b) if the proceeding is dismissed under this section, in order to continue the proceeding. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

These anti-SLAPP laws are quite powerful. Once a Motion is started, then the case is stayed, and nothing else can happen. This also prohibits Plaintiffs from making necessary amendments to pleadings in order to avoid a dismissal.

It also provides guidance on costs.

Costs on dismissal
(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Costs if motion to dismiss denied
(8) If a judge does not dismiss a proceeding under this section, the responding party is not entitled to costs on the motion, unless the judge determines that such an award is appropriate in the circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Damages
(9) If, in dismissing a proceeding under this section, the judge finds that the responding party brought the proceeding in bad faith or for an improper purpose, the judge may award the moving party such damages as the judge considers appropriate. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Full indemnity (100% of costs) is seen as the starting point in these kinds of cases. Justice Stewart is entirely within her discretion to do this.

According to Volpe v. Wong-Tam, 2022 ONSC 4071 (CanLII), paragraph 25, there’s significant, and recent history in handing down full indemnity on SLAPP cases.

(i) $164,186.76 in Canadian Thermo Workers, at para. 147,

(ii) $132,000 in Bernier v. Kinsella, 2022 ONSC 1601, at paras. 10-14,

(iii) $151,741.51 to the moving party Al Jazeera in Levant, ordered by the Court of Appeal at para. 92,

(iv) $131,076 in Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, at para. 23,

(v) $129,106.61 plus HST in Fortress Real Developments, at para. 76, and

(vi) $122,286.94 to the defendant Ms. Mohammed and $126,438.55 to the defendant Ms. Barclay in United Soils Management, at paras. 10, 17, and 43.

Granted, the $1.1 million award here is much higher than any listed above. However, with 23 people and businesses sued, it was bound to be messy.

Arguably, Gill and Lamba dodged a bullet. The Judge could easily have included damages, given how frivolous it was.

Defendants Already Going After Their Money

A source confirmed that the Defendants are already looking at ways to recoup their money. This includes attempting to seize assets, and to get Gill’s and Lamba’s wages garnished. Being public doctors, they are presumably paid through OHIP.

Apparently, the LSO, Law Society of Ontario, has also been approached. There is a compensation fund set up for victims of malpractice or misconduct committed by lawyers. If Gill goes bankrupt or otherwise refuses to pay, it may be the only recourse for some of the Defendants. Not all of them have insurance.

The current Appeal on the dismissal has little to no prospect of success. Anti-SLAPP laws were designed to weed out these kinds of cases. A separate Appeal is being considered for costs, but that would be a tough sell, considering costs are discretionary.

As for the suit with the University of Ottawa and Amir Attaran, Gill would be well advised to discontinue that before she’s faced with another anti-SLAPP Motion. The filing has zero chance of success.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

It would be nice to know what kind of advice they’ve been getting. These decisions aren’t something that intelligent, fully informed people typically make.

And for true supporters of free speech and open discourse: be very careful about embracing Gill and Lamba as heroes. What they tried to do is downright shocking.

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(3) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(4) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(5) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(6) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(7) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(9) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

Posted on

Kulvinder Gill Hit With $1.1 Million Cost Award For Bringing SLAPP

An Ontario doctor is facing financial ruination over a decision to sue almost 2 dozen parties over pretty harmless comments. Another is looking at a significant amount as well. It’s hard to imagine why they thought taking this on would be a good idea.

On December 11, 2020, Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba brought a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 individuals and organizations. While portions had to do with the CPSO, the bulk related to comments (mostly on Twitter) over “pandemic” measures.

Absurdly, many in the “freedom community” celebrated this lawsuit. Instead of suing, for example, the CPSO. this was aimed primarily at online critics.

Author’s note: originally, Gill and Lamba were represented by Rocco Galati. He left in the Spring of 2022, and the pair obtained new (and separate) lawyers. Jeff G. Saikaley took over for Gill, and Asher Honickman for Lamba. Gill and Lamba are now trying to get money back from their former lawyer, but more on that coming up.

Yes, Twitter is a cesspool, and people are often nasty and rude. However, that doesn’t justify attempting to bankrupt and destroy them. Cooler heads prevailed, and on February 24, 2022, the lawsuit was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Ontario, like many jurisdictions, has laws on the books designed to quickly throw out claims that are brought to shut down speech and expression on issues of public concern.

Gill and Lamba served Notice of Appeal in March of 2022. That is still before the Court of Appeals, and will be addressed later on. In the meantime, there’s still the issue of costs from the Trial Court, specifically fees from the various Defendants’ lawyers.

Costs has been resolved, at least for this portion. Justice Stewart handed down a $1.1 million award, primarily against Gill, the main actor in the suit.

Why was this so high? Partly, because of the number of lawyers involved, but also because of the fairly unique way that SLAPP award are handed out.

For a bit of background on why SLAPP costs are calculated in an unusual manner, consider the sections from 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs on dismissal
(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Costs if motion to dismiss denied
(8) If a judge does not dismiss a proceeding under this section, the responding party is not entitled to costs on the motion, unless the judge determines that such an award is appropriate in the circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Damages
(9) If, in dismissing a proceeding under this section, the judge finds that the responding party brought the proceeding in bad faith or for an improper purpose, the judge may award the moving party such damages as the judge considers appropriate. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

From Sections 137.1(7) through (9) we can see full indemnity (100% of costs) is the standard if the Defendants are successful in getting the suit(s) dismissed. Should they fail, the Plaintiffs aren’t automatically entitled to their costs. There’s also a provision to allow for damages if a case is ever brought in bad faith.

Two other provisions worth noting: a case is considered “stayed” until all SLAPP issues are resolved, including appeals. This means that a claim can’t be amended, nor can it be discontinued. It’s “frozen in place”, so to speak.

No further steps in proceeding
(5) Once a motion under this section is made, no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

No amendment to pleadings
(6) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the responding party shall not be permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding,
(a) in order to prevent or avoid an order under this section dismissing the proceeding; or
(b) if the proceeding is dismissed under this section, in order to continue the proceeding. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

One thing to consider, a lawsuit can be dismissed as a SLAPP if any of the defenses are likely to succeed. This is a much lower threshold than what’s used for Summary Judgement.

Given this structure, there really isn’t a reason for Defendants not to at least attempt this procedure, if it’s applicable. Of course, it relates to topics of public interest, not private disputes.

These are the cost submissions from the various Defendants. Keep in mind, full indemnity is the default position, and of course everyone asked for it.

This probably caused panic in Gill and Lamba, with reality setting in about what they’re facing. Given that they attempted to bankrupt people over mean words, it’s unlikely any mercy would be shown.

What did they think would happen?

Obviously, attorney-client communications are confidential, but one has to wonder why Gill and Lamba attempted this lawsuit in the first place. Many people who read it could tell that this would go nowhere, and that a high cost award was very likely. Were they fully informed about the risks ahead of time?

Things would get stranger still.

Shortly after filing the Notice of Appeal, Galati, lawyer for Gill and Lamba, filed a Motion to be removed as counsel of record. He claimed to be too ill to continue. Much of the version publicly available is redacted as it contains privileged information. May 12, 2022, Justice Gillese granted it, leaving them scrambling to retain new counsel.

This came at a time when the pair were still dealing with the cost submissions. They did eventually find someone to take the Appeal, and for the cost submissions. Gill and Lamba then threw Galati under the bus, claiming that his prior cost submissions were entirely inadequate. This is very plausible, considering the $1 million (or more) at stake.

There was “case management” during the summer, with the issue of costs at the forefront. Gill and Lamba now had separate lawyers. This made sense since their interests now diverged. Lamba, a relatively minor player in this, seemed to think that a split on costs with Gill was unfair to her financially.

Keep in mind, all of this was still going on while there was an active challenge to the SLAPP ruling. It must have been stressful.

Going to the Court of Appeals might be seen as a Hail Mary, in an attempt to ward off financially crippling costs. But in the end, it will just dig them in deeper. It seems extremely unlikely the C.O.A. will help them at all. We will get to that further on.

Now, Gill is faced with a cost award of over $1 million.

Kulvinder Gill has other suit pending against University of Ottawa

On March 15, 2021, Gill filed a $7 million lawsuit against the University of Ottawa, and Amir Attaran, one of its professors. The Claim lists 2 (two) rude and insulting tweets that Attaran had made. Apparently, the University is vicariously liable, being his employer.

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

Are these comments worth $7 million in damages?

July 13, 2021, a Notice of Intent to Defend was filed on behalf of Attaran and the school. It doesn’t appear that anything has happened since then.

If Gill were wise, she would discontinue that case before she’s faced with another anti-SLAPP Motion. She’d presumably be on the hook for a further $50,000 to $100,000.

Gill/Lamba are taking Galati and Coomara to Court now

In an interesting turn of events, Gill and Lamba are asking a Brampton Court for nearly $5,700 from their (now former) attorneys. Given the small amount, this seems likely to be a refund for disbursements. Samantha Coomara works at the same firm, and is a junior associate.

Gill/Lamba Appeal pending, but has zero chance of success

Gill and Lamba did file a Notice of Appeal, along with their Certificate Respecting Evidence within the 30 day time limit.

Then things started happening. Or rather, not happening.

It really doesn’t help when the Appellant’s counsel suggests that the Trial Judge may have been biased in making determinations. It was raised a few times in the Notice.

Nor does it help when the Appeal itself is baseless. Anti-SLAPP laws exist to throw out suits that clearly have little to no merit. The issue isn’t who is the better expert, but whether the Defendants have the right to express themselves on certain topics. Name calling or insults alone are not actionable.

May 12, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a notice that it was considering dismissed the Appeal for delay. Timelines are very short, and this can happen, unless proper permission to extend time is obtained. It seems that no material had been submitted by this point.

Counsel for Gill and Lamba bailed from the Appeal, claiming to have a prolonged illness, making it impossible to continue the work. In spite of that, the following happened:

  • May 25, 2022, he filed a suit in Federal Court over workers who were fired
  • May 31, 2022, he attended an Application to Strike (Action4Canada case)
  • June 28, 2022, he sued an anti-lockdown group in BC
  • July 12, 2022, he sued the Law Society of Ontario
  • August 28, 2022, he filed a Notice of Appeal in BC (Action4Canada)
  • October 12, 2022, he attended hearings for 2 Ontario cases

This is in addition to several ongoing fundraisers with groups like Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada. There’s still money to be made in this.

He just wanted off the Gill case — for whatever reason — and illness was a pretext.

Gill and Lamba have new counsel for their Appeal, but the problems remain. Specifically, that they sued many parties over content that isn’t actionable. When the Appeal is eventually thrown out, they’ll be on the hook for those costs as well.

The Appeal deadlines have been extended (yet again), and it’s unclear when the materials will ever be submitted. A wise move at this point would be to discontinue, but that’s a decision the Appellants have to make. They’re digging themselves in deeper. True, they have new lawyers, but that doesn’t make the Appeal any less frivolous.

While Section 137.1(7) typically allows for full indemnity (100% costs) for successful anti-SLAPP Motions, this would apply to the Appeals of those decisions. It’s not too farfetched to see Gill and Lamba — or, primarily Gill — hit with another $200,000 to $400,000. This would be in addition to the $1.1 million that they’re already on the hook for.

As for the Defendants, who still have to deal with an Appeal: they want their pound of flesh. There won’t be any sympathy. There’s already talk about getting liens, and having garnishment done. Unless Gill has significant assets to sell, she’s looking at bankruptcy.

One has to wonder what kind of legal advice Gill and Lamba have received since 2020. Anyone with a working knowledge of anti-SLAPP legislation could have foreseen this outcome.

It would be interesting to see if a Law Society complaint gets filed, or already has been. With so much money at stake, things are going to be messy.

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(3) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(4) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(5) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(6) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(7) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(9) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE CANADA/ONTARIO STUDENTS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

FEDERAL VACCINE PASSPORT CHALLENGE:
(1) Statement Of Claim, Federal Workers Forced Out

Posted on

Four Applications To Federal Travel Mandates All Struck As “Moot”

The other day, the Federal Court released its reasons for dismissing various Applications challenging air and train vaccination mandates. The ruling came from Associate Chief Justice Gagné (2022 FC 1463). The specific challenges were:

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

All of these challenges were heard together, since they cover essentially the same issues. This isn’t surprising, as it can theoretically free up other courts.

To be clear, the cases weren’t struck or dismissed based on the merits, evidence, or arguments of the case. Instead, they were struck since the orders themselves had expired. The Judge decided it wasn’t worth hearing anyway, to ward off any potential return of these restrictions.

In the ruling, it came down to 2 questions: (a) are the cases moot; and (b) if so, should they be heard anyway?

[14] The Applicants and the Respondent both agree that the applicable test on a motion for mootness is the one articulated by Justice Sopinka in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), 1989 1 SCR 342. Unsurprisingly, they take very opposite positions on both of the two key stages as set forth in Borowski. Namely, they disagree on i) whether the issue is moot, and on ii) whether the Court should exercise its discretion to nonetheless hear the case, if it is found moot.

[15] The Respondent’s motion therefore raises the following issues:
(a) Are the issues raised by these Applications for judicial review moot; is there a live controversy?
(b) If the issues are moot, should the Court nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the merits?

“Mootness” in the legal context means that the underlying issues have already been resolved in some way, or the circumstances have changed in a way that makes it impossible to determine. In this instance, the Federal Government argued that since the travel mandates had expired, there was no remedy to seek.

The Applicants, however, were concerned that these measures — or very similar ones — could be brought back, and it could happen at any time. They wanted this issue dealt with once and for all.

In their eyes, travel mandates were hardly “theoretical”, as they had already happened. Should the Court refuse to intervene, Ottawa would be able to reimpose them at a later date.

[20] The Applicants argue that there remains a live controversy because of statements by the Government of Canada that travel restrictions have only been “suspended”, suggesting that they may be re-implemented at any time if the COVID-19 public health situation worsens. In that sense, the Respondent’s motions would be premature. The Applicants rely on a press release issued by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, statements made by Ministers at a June 14, 2022 press conference, and in an interview that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave to the CBC shortly afterwards.

[21] Firstly, the hearing of these Applications for judicial review is set for five days commencing on October 31, 2022. Since the hearing of this Motion, Transport Canada has removed the requirement to wear a mask on planes and trains and repealed the last remaining IO. In my view, the situation is as likely to improve as it is to worsen by the time the hearing of these Applications on their merits is over. The Applicants’ argument is highly speculative and does not support their position that the controversy is still ongoing.

[22] Secondly, a comment made by a Minister to a journalist, taken outside its context, does not amount to a decision by that Minister and it is no more an indication of a live controversy. Even if the Minister called what occurred in June 2022 a suspension, the reality is that all IOs/MO that had contained a vaccination mandate have legally expired and none that contain such a mandate have been reissued since June.

The ruling goes on some more, with the Judge explaining why this wasn’t worth continuing, since the orders had all lapsed.

The case was ultimately thrown out for “mootness”. The Judge declined to hear the merits anyway.

And therein lies another problem with this Court. Is there really justice when a Judge can simply pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and which ones they can decline? What exactly was the remedy that they should have sought? And where?

[48] For the above reasons, these Applications will be struck as moot. The air and rail passenger vaccine mandates were repealed, as have other related public health measures. The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate.

[49] There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.

[50] Finally, it is not the role of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions. If the air and rail vaccine mandates are re-introduced in the future, they can be properly challenged and should be weighed against the reality in which they are implemented.

Apparently, the inability of millions of people to fly and exercise their Section 6 Charter rights (mobility) isn’t a concern for the Court. After all, the mandates are gone — for now. If this isn’t worth spending judicial resources on, what exactly is?

Interestingly, the Judge says it’s not the place of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions, but suggests that the cases can be brought back again if travel mandates are reinstated.

Suppose that does happen — and that the vaccine passport does return — what’s to stop Ottawa from temporarily pulling it (again) to ward off another challenge? Perhaps this is old fashioned, but it would be nice to see the issue resolved once and for all.

The Applicants who initiated these suits are now on the hook for the costs of losing this motion. While their initial filings were compelling, letting the orders expire then doing this was a dirty trick. It’s unclear what cost scale would be used, but the parties could very well settle it on their own.

Had a Prothonotary issued this ruling, it could be reviewed under Rule 51. But this came from a Justice, so the next step would be challenging this at the Federal Court of Appeals. There has been talk of doing this, especially in light of the Associate Chief Justice refusing to hear it altogether. We will have to see if that happens in the next few weeks. There is a 30 day time limit to file notice.

For reference, the standard for review is also available online. It addresses findings of fact, law, and mixed fact and law.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.pdf
(3) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/522361/1/document.do
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html

Posted on

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Baseless, Seems Designed To Waste Time & Money

There are times when people really need to cut their losses. However, it seems that not everyone is taking that advice.

With the specific case at hand, it appears that Justice Ross’ quite reasonable decision has not been heeded. Instead of fixing the defects in the previous pleadings, the Plaintiffs are going to appeal.

It’s not clear to what extent there has been collaboration among all the parties. Was this a joint decision, or a unilateral one? Still, this is a very bad move, and we’ll get into why.

This site long ago predicted NOCC would get struck out

August 17th, 2021, the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) was filed.

August 31st, 2021, this site wrote that the NOCC was fatally defective, riddled with serious and basic errors, didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, and would never make it to Trial.

September 7th, 2021, Rocco Galati sued this site, and everyone “directly or indirectly associated” for $7 million. He also demanded that anyone “directly or indirectly associated” be banned from posting on the internet again, presumably on any subject. Although there were allegations of racism and anti-Semitism, the main issue was the harsh and detailed critiques and reviews of his various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Guess the truth hurts.

May 31st, 2022, the Application to Strike was finally heard. The Defendants attempted to get the case thrown out without leave to amend. This was on the grounds that the NOCC was so incomprehensible, that it was impossible to answer it.

August 29th, 2022, Justice Ross strikes the NOCC in its entirety, for a litany of defects. Being too long (prolix) was just one issue. However, the Court did allow for the NOCC to be amended and refiled, if it were done properly.

September 28th, 2022, a Notice of Appeal is served, challenging portions of the August ruling. Instead of properly drafting the NOCC, it appears the next move is to just appeal.

Plaintiffs are bailing, as they see the writing on the wall

An observant person will notice there are less Appellants than what might be expected. People are catching on. Amy Muranetz and Federico Fuoco both filed Notices of Discontinuance. And they’re not alone. In fact, several names are missing from the Notice of Appeal.

Appellants listed:

  • Action4Canada
  • Linda Morken
  • Gary Morken
  • Jane Doe #1
  • Brian Edgar
  • Jane Doe #2
  • Ilona Zink
  • Valerie Ann Foley
  • Pastor Randy Beatty
  • Michael Martinz
  • Melissa Anne Neubauer
  • Jane Doe #3

Plaintiffs who have since left:

  • Kimberly Woolman
  • The Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
  • Amy Muranetz
  • Federico Fuoco
  • Fire Productions Limited
  • F2 Productions Incorporated
  • Makhan S. Parhar
  • North Delta Real Hot Yoga Limited

In fairness, one of the Plaintiffs had passed away prior to the May 31st hearing. Still, it’s not a sign of confidence that this will go ahead.

People are realizing that the NOCC, filed in August 2021, was complete garbage. There’s no way to spin this as some sort of victory, hard as they try. Consequently, many don’t want to face financial devastation with the cost awards that are coming.

Notice of Appeal asks for things Appellate Court can’t grant

These are the grounds of appeal that are listed:

The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(a) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, and jurisprudence with respect to Justice Ross’ ruling on declaratory and other relief at paragraphs 52 to 55 and Declarations at paragraph 56 to 58;
(b) That the Learned judge erred, in law, contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the test to be applied on a motion to dismiss/strike;
(c) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in ruling sufficient facts were not pleaded to support the causes of action advanced;
(d) That the Learned motions judge erred, in law, in usurping the function of the trial judge, and making determinations of fact, mixed fact and law, on the basis of bare pleading(s);
(e) The award of costs to the Defendants in circumstances where no costs should have been awarded, or an order of costs in the cause should have been awarded in that the results of the motion were split;
(f) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court permit

To start with the obvious one, the Notice alleges that Justice Ross erred in determining that certain topics were outside of his authority. Sounds reasonable, until you see what this actually refers to.

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:
.
a) alleging criminal conduct;
.
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
.
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
.
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
.
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
.
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

Among the improper claims, the NOCC had wanted a CIVIL Court Judge to make adjudications on criminal conduct, crimes against humanity, the Helsinki Declaration, the Nuremberg Code, and to determine what “the science” shall be.

The plain fact is that the B.C. Supreme Court has no authority to do any of this, so this had to be struck. The B.C. Court of Appeal isn’t going to reverse this. It’s time to face reality.

Additionally, these things appear repeatedly in the various Actions and Applications launched by the Constitutional Rights Centre. It would make all of them vulnerable to being struck.

Also worth mentioning: costs are largely discretionary. The Court of Appeals won’t (except in extremely rare cases) interfere with the decision. Considering there is no award yet — just the entitlement to one — it would be hard to challenge it.

BCCA isn’t going to overturn decision to strike NOCC

Keep in mind: Justice Ross didn’t throw the case out completely. Instead, he did something better. He told the Plaintiffs they could refile, if the NOCC were drafted properly. In other words, he gave the opportunity to fix it.

The NOCC was disorganized, cluttered, and contained plenty of irrelevant information. It went on lengthy tirades about non-parties such as Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab. None of this is appropriate, and it fell far short of what should be expected of veteran lawyers.

Granted, it will be a huge headache to rewrite a 400 page document. However, in the Application to Strike, one of the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs was the ability to rewrite the NOCC. The Court allowed it. Pretty hard to challenge an outcome that one sought.

Is Lawrence Wong actually involved in this case?

A bit off topic, but worth asking once again: is Lawrence Wong a part of this lawsuit? Or is his name listed just so there is a B.C. lawyer “on file”? Would be nice to know.

Will a Cross-Appeal be filed by the Respondents?

Most people have heard of an Appeal, but far fewer know what a Cross-Appeal is. Essentially, it’s like a counterclaim, but at the higher level.

Consider this: the Application to Strike was brought (largely) on the grounds that the NOCC was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Defense lawyers asked that the case be struck without leave (or permission) to amend. However, the Court did allow an amended version to be filed.

Yes, this is speculation, but what if that provision were to get overturned by the BCCA? What if the BCCA decided that the Appeal was frivolous and abusive, and decided to not allow a rewrite of the original NOCC? A Panel could very easily rule that this entire matter isn’t being done for legitimate reasons, and block it altogether.

If Witten, Wedge and the other lawyers are going to be in front of the BCCA anyway, there’s really nothing to stop them from attempting such a tactic.

Consider Kulvinder Gill, Ashvinder Lamba as cautionary tale

Yes, this is a different case, but there are some striking parallels that need to be pointed out. It’s also a decision from 2022, so very recent.

One question that potential litigants always need to ask: what happens if I start a messy, prolonged, or expensive suit, and ultimately lose?

Regular readers will know that Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba tried to sue 23 individuals and media outlets over mean words on Twitter. They sought $12.75 million in damages over juvenile comments. Predictably, the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

That ruling was inexplicably appealed. Shortly afterwards, Galati left, claiming to have a prolonged illness that made his participation impossible. Gill and Lamba apparently are still going ahead with this, and have retained new lawyers. They’ll have to face additional costs when the Appeal is ultimately dismissed, and it’s likely it will be. This could very well push the total bill over $1.5 million.

Gill also has another suit pending against the University of Ottawa. She sued the school, and one of their professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million over 2 rude tweets. If they ever decide to file an anti-SLAPP Motion, Gill will be the hook for that as well.

Absurdly, many in the “freedom community” cheered at these efforts to forcibly shut down the free speech of people they disagreed with.

When successful with an anti-SLAPP Motion, Defendants are typically given costs on a full indemnity (or 100%) scale. Gill and Lamba are staring down $1.2 million at least. Given the damage they sought to inflict, the Defendants are expected to show no mercy. These 2 are facing bankruptcy, or at least being put on payment plans for the rest of their lives.

In an interesting turn of events, Gill and Lamba have since sued Galati and Samantha Coomara (his assistant). It would be nice to know how that turns eventually out.

If the Action4Canada Plaintiffs don’t want to go down this same path, consider getting out. Remember, it’s not the lawyers who are stuck with the 6 and 7 figure bills. It’s the clients.

What exactly is the point of this Appeal?

The obvious question has to be asked: why is this happening?

The BCCA isn’t going to rule that the B.C. Supreme Court should preside over criminal matters, or crimes against humanity. It’s not going to rule that a disorganized and confusing case shouldn’t be rewritten. It’s not going to rule that a Judge can’t award a successful party costs.

Instead of drafting a proper NOCC, the decision is to file a baseless Appeal with zero prospect of success. The result will be (about) another year wasted, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent. None of this will get the Plaintiffs closer to the relief they seek.

And to address comments from Action4Canada, (archive here):

For some reason Canuck Law, The Western Standard and Castanet are consistently working to put the worst possible spin on the facts of A4C’s case and to disparage Rocco, Tanya Gaw and Action4Canada. It appears they are on a mission to create doubt and distrust in the public’s eye by providing twisted versions of the truth and claiming that Action4Canada lacks integrity and transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is also interesting that none of these “Independent” media outlets have ever reported on Action4Canada’s campaigns and tireless work in providing Canadians, at no charge, with resources that are effectively protecting their children, their jobs, their right to travel, their bodily autonomy and so much more.

Their style of reporting doesn’t serve anybody well and brings into question whose side they are really on.

Real independents are on no one’s side.

A journalist or reporter should have one commitment: to show the truth. Anything less than that means that they are shilling for a particular group.

And the truth is that this case (and many related ones) are written so poorly that they have zero prospect of ever getting to Trial. They have been covered in extensive detail, with specific references to the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario, B.C. and Federally.

Does revealing this information cut into the money that donors are willing to pay? Absolutely it does. But then, how “independent” are journalists who gloss over or ignore these obvious defects?

If someone chooses to sue another in their private lives, that is their business. However, the moment that public donations are sought, it becomes a reportable case. Considering that Action4Canada is still asking for money, it’s fair game.

When someone tries to destroy this site (or anyone, really) for simply telling the truth, don’t expect any sympathy or favourable coverage of the ongoing grifting.

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)
(24) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

(A) Gill & Lamba v. Maciver decision CV-20-652918-0000 – 24 Feb 2022
(B) Gill & Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(C) Gill & Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay