Category: Canadian Decisions

Posted on

“Posties” Injection Pass Case Thrown Out For Lack Of Jurisdiction, Shoddy Pleading

The Federal Court has just thrown out a lawsuit from various Canada Post workers, which challenged the 2021 “injection mandates”. This was a change to the job requirements that applied to everyone. The union eventually forced the matter to arbitration, which the workers lost. See the archives here and here for more information.

The Claim originally had 281 Plaintiffs, but 132 of them discontinued prior to the Motion to Strike being heard. That was nearly half of them.

Like most (or all) Government workers and/or unionized workplaces, there are collective bargaining agreements. These agreements allow for grievances to be filed, and that can lead to arbitration. They typically don’t allow for litigation. Canada Post is one such employer.

Now, if the arbitration process was unfair or corrupted, in theory the workers could have gone to the Court and asked for a review. This would be analogous to filing an Appeal. If serious errors were found, the case could be sent back for a new hearing.

Instead, a few hundred of them ended up suing Canada Post, and the Federal Government. They found a lawyer who apparently convinced them that the the arbitration requirement (and result) didn’t matter. And quite predictably, the case was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction.

The lawsuit had many problems, some of which were fatal.

  • Going to Court when collective agreements require other alternatives
  • Suing after arbitration is already completed
  • Not properly pleading facts and particulars
  • Having a Claim that’s difficult to follow
  • Not understanding jurisdiction of Crown Corporations

Surprisingly, this didn’t come from “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”. It was from a firm called Grey Wowk Spencer, and its lawyer, Leighton Grey.

In fairness, the Claim was written a lot more clearly than what usually gets critiqued here. The pleading was (mostly) coherent, and it wasn’t that difficult to follow along.

However, there were still serious errors throughout the litigation process. These were the kinds of mistakes that senior lawyers should never be making. In matters such as these, no one’s work is above criticism.

Timeline of major events in case

It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

January 24th, 2022: Canada Post’s lawyer serves some 700 pages of material related to the arbitration hearings.

February 12th, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post. Colin Furness, who works for the University of Toronto, testifies.

March 21st, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

March 22nd, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

April 5th, 2022: Final arguments were to be held for arbitration process.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

Note: the following information is posted on the Federal Court of Canada website. These steps are from their notes on how things have been progressing. This lawsuit came AFTER arbitration had taken place. Instead of challenging the validity or fairness of the arbitration, it acts as though it never happened.

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

July 18th, 2022: A Notice of Intention to Respond is filed.

November 3rd, 2022: Defendants send correspondence asking for case management, and to suspend normal timelines to file a Defence.

November 23rd, 2022: Associate Judge Catherine A. Coughlan is assigned to manage the case.

January 16th, 2023: Plaintiffs provide letter for dates for case management conference.

April 6th, 2023: Case conference is delayed until May 31st.

May 31st, 2023: Plaintiffs directed to file Amended Statement of Claim by June 15th.

June 19th, 2023: Plaintiffs file Amended Statement of Claim.

July 7th, 2023: Dates are set down for Defendants’ Motions to Strike (throw out the case), and the following deadlines were established. Worth mentioning, these kinds of Motions are done in many steps.

  • August 18th: Defendants serve (but not file) Notice of Motion, and any Affidavit evidence
  • September 15th: Plaintiffs serve (but not file) any Affidavit evidence
  • October 27th: Any cross-examinations on Affidavits is to have finished. This is similar to a Court setting, where a person gets asked about evidence that they submit. Failure to attend means evidence won’t be considered.
  • November 17th: Moving Party Defendants are to submit their Motion Records, which is a collection of documents. In Federal Court, it also includes the written arguments, or submissions
  • December 8th: Responding Plaintiffs to serve and file their Motion Record(s)
  • January 23rd-25th, 2024: Court to hear the Motions

July 10th, 2023: Lawyer for Canada Post contacts the Court and advises a lack of availability for the week in January when the hearing is to take place.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 15th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

It’s disappointing that neither the lawsuit nor the grievance really challenged the pseudo-science that was going on here. Instead, it’s limited to worker rights, and the declarations of “the experts”.

Now we get to some of the problems that the case had. To be blunt, it was a gong-show, and was never going to reach Trial. And to be frank, NONE of these issues are new or novel. They’ve all been dealt with many times before.

Problems include:

Court has no jurisdiction due to collective bargaining agreement

CUPW is covered by their collective bargaining agreement. See archive. Article 9 is very long, and goes into depth about the grievance process. If disputes cannot be resolved, then the normal course is to go to arbitration. And in fact, that’s exactly what happened here.

Article 9.99 covers “declaratory relief”, which is something that so-called constitutional lawyers almost always try to claim. In fact, it’s claimed in this case. The Arbitrator is given wide range to adjudicate over nearly type of employment dispute.

But instead of challenging the fairness or adequacy of the hearings (i.e. review or appeal), the lawsuit acts as if they never happened. Consequently, this case was doomed to fail.

Federal Court has no jurisdiction over Crown Corporations

[47] As noted at the outset of these Reasons, Canada Post advances two distinct arguments asserting this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Claim.

[48] First, it argues that as a Crown Corporation, the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over Canada Post pursuant to sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(5) of the FCA. Citing the oft-quoted decision in ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 SCR 752 (SCC), Canada Post argues that none of the three-part test for jurisdiction is met: There is no statutory grant of jurisdiction by the Federal Parliament; there is no existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes a statutory grant of jurisdiction; and this is not a case based on the “law of Canada” under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[49] Further, Canada Post relies on the recent decision of Associate Judge Horne in Van Sluytman v Canada, 2022 FC 545 at para 56, for the proposition that section 17 of the FCA only applies to the Crown, eo nomine (by its name), and not to statutory corporations acting as agent for the Crown: Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada, 2014 FC 380 at paras 87-88; affirmed 2015 FCA 20.

[50] In its responding memorandum of fact and law, the Plaintiffs do not address this argument
directly. Rather, they assert that the Federal Government acting under statutory and constitutional
law effectively controls Canada Post. To bolster their position, they point to section 91(5) of the Constitution Act where the Government of Canada has exclusive authority over postal services. Any arguments that suggest that Canada Post is not an agent of the Federal Government, the Plaintiffs say, amounts to “legal sophistry”.

The requirement to go through the grievance process was addressed in the previous section, but it’s not the only problem that the former workers have to deal with.

Apparently, it’s been settled law for many years that the Federal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to preside over cases involving Crown Corporations. This applies even though Ottawa does hand down some rules relating to how they can operate.

Of course, even if Canada Post were part of the Federal Government, there still wouldn’t be jurisdiction to sue. Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, allow employees to grieve but not to litigate. In other words, the Court would still lack jurisdiction.

By the way, Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada (a.k.a. COMER, or the Bank of Canada case), was struck for lack of jurisdiction. It was also struck multiple times for failing to state a cause of action, by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”.

The Attorney General of Canada was removed since the directive to mandate injections only went to the Federal Government, not to Crown Corporations. The case against Canada was also struck. However, this comes across as unfair, since Canada Post still implemented the policy anyways.

Statement of Claim so poorly written many would be blushing

[Paragraph 1] f. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation mandatory vaccination practice for covid-19 violates sections 124 & 125 of the Canada Labour Code, specifically sections (q),(s),(w) and (y), wherein the corporation demonstrated criminal negligence causing harm by not providing their employees the necessary “Informed Consent” regarding any of the potential adverse effects or dangers associated with the vaccines they provided their employees as options.

g. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated sections 124, 125 of the Canada Labour Code, specifically sections z.03, z.04, z.05, z.06, z.11, z.13 & z.19, by failing to capture within each of the national safety minutes, any discussion to either educate, review, or document any of the potential hazards or dangers associated with their vaccination options on any of the national collective bargaining agencies that operate under Canada Post.

h. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated sections 124, 125 of the Canada Labour Code, specifically sections (t), (v), (w) & (z), by implementing several different covid 19 vaccines as personal protective equipment in the work place. Not only failing to provide their employees with the knowledge and understanding necessary to properly use the corporation’s newly implemented personal protective equipment, the corporation also failed to ensure that said personal protective equipment be deemed safe under “…ALL conditions of their intended use.”

i. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219 of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated section 127.1(1) & 128 of the Canada Labour Code, by refusing to properly investigate thousands of employee health and safety concerns regarding the vaccine products mandated for use by the Canada Post Corporation, instead, deeming the employees as “non-compliant” in the process by placing them on leave without pay status.

j. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219 of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated all applicable clauses – (a) through (g) – within section 125.1 of the Canada Labour Code, by failing to review, document and disclose to their employees, the proprietary ingredients recognized as known dangerous goods contained within the vaccines that they were assigning their employees as personal protective equipment, and, by failing to inform their employees of the potential direct exposure to ethylene oxide as it pertains to the nasopharyngeal swabs used at Canada Post rapid testing sites, their employee home testing kits and when requiring their employees to confirm their positive or negative covid status by means of their mandatory PCR test process.

m. A Declaration pursuant to section 265.(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation mandatory vaccination practice for covid-19 violated section 122.(1) & 122.1 of the Canada Labour Code, by not only subjecting their employees to confusing and ineffective work place processes and expectations in relation to their covid 19 protocols, but also by subjecting their unvaccinated employees to regular psychological violence in the form of coercion or ridicule from their peers and management representatives at Canada Post.

n. Damages for violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights pursuant to sections 2, 122, 124, 125, 125.1, 127.1(1), and 128 of the Canada Labour Code as well as section 217(1) of the Criminal Code, in the amount of $500,000.00 per Plaintiff;

This is the kind of nonsense that “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” is famous for. Here, Grey asks for all kinds of declaratory relief that the Federal Court can’t possibly grant. He’s asking a civil Court to provide criminal remedies. For obvious reasons, there’s no jurisdiction. And it’s not just a brief mention, but is in there many times.

Thankfully, the Amended Statement of Claim removes all of these. However, the fact that they were in at all shows that this lawyer has a very poor grasp of procedure. Did he not read the Action4Canada or Adelberg cases? In both cases, the Judges said that this was improper.

And these weren’t the only problems.

k. A Declaration pursuant to section 3(1) of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, 2017, that the Canada Post Corporation Defendants violated clause (b) specifically, by requiring them the Plaintiffs to undergo PCR testing that sampled RNA genetic material (covid-19 virus) to continue their employment at Canada Post, as per the corporation’s Defendants’ mandatory vaccination practice.

Many people cite this Act, but few know what it’s really about.

The intended use of the legislation was to ensure that people with various birth defects wouldn’t be subjected to discrimination. It could also be extended to cover race and ethnicity, which are genetic. It wasn’t designed to mean various “medical” procedures.

This was also removed from the original Claim.

Facts (Rule 174) and particulars (Rule 181) need to be pleaded

The Federal Courts Rules lay out how procedure is supposed to take place in the Court. It’s complimented by the Federal Courts Act. Together, these outline how things are done.

One of the problems with having so many Plaintiffs is that it becomes difficult to plead facts for each one. And in this case, there are no specific facts for anyone. No one is named.

At paragraphs 41 and 42 of the decision, it’s noted that it isn’t clear at all which of the Plaintiffs are even invoking religious belief as a reason to refuse the injections.

At paragraph 44 of the Amended Claim, it’s stated that the “Practice provides for accommodation, “due to a medical, religious or other prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Act.” However, it’s never listed which Plaintiffs are invoking which exemption. In theory, the Claim could be rewritten like this:

Group “A” Plaintiffs refused based on religious beliefs (and list them)
Group “B” Plaintiffs refused based on medical beliefs (and list them)
Group “C” Plaintiffs refused based on conscientious objection (and spell it out)
Group “D” Plaintiffs refused based on other reasons (and list them)

Yes, the Statement of Claim would be much longer, but it least it would be clear who was refusing for what reason. In its current form, the Judge is left to guess. And it continues under “Charter violations”.

Paragraph 88: freedom of conscience under Charter s.2(a) breached
Paragraph 89: freedom of religion under Charter s.2(a) breached
Paragraph 90: right to life under Charter s.7 breached
Paragraph 91: right to liberty under Charter s.7 breached
Paragraph 92: right to security of the person under Charter s.7 breached
Paragraph 93: right to privacy of the person under Charter s.7, 8 breached
Paragraph 94: right to equality under Charter s.15 breached

While all of the “standard” Charter violations are listed, it’s unclear who is invoking which. While there will certainly be a lot of overlap, this needs to be spelled out.

There are several other torts later on, none of them properly pleaded.

Paragraph 100: tortious interference with economic relations
Paragraph 101: intention infliction of mental suffering
Paragraph 102-105: assault and battery
Paragraph 106-107: human rights violations
Paragraph 108-118: Charter violation damages, aggravated, punitive, bad faith

Yes, it’s true that the facts are to be assumed true — or at least capable of being proven — in the initial stages. But there aren’t any facts pled. There are just brief accusations, without specifics, and it’s unclear who is even alleging what. Here, it just seems like the lawyer threw in every tort he could think of, in the hopes that something would stick.

Granted, this isn’t nearly as bad as the Action4Canada or Vaccine Choice Canada pleadings. That would require real effort. But like those cases, there isn’t enough information to respond to.

And to be fair, at least this case doesn’t sue everyone in sight, exponentially driving up costs. Many others do, to their clients’ detriment.

When pleading facts, lawyers are supposed to spell out the who, what, where, when, how, etc… This is to provide enough concrete information for the Defendants to respond to. But like so many cases, there are just accusations without the detail, and they’re typically struck.

Now, if it were just the poor pleading, the Judge could have allowed the Claim to be rewritten. This often happens. In paragraph 15, it’s stated “If a pleading shows a scintilla of a cause of action, it will not be struck out if it can be cured by amendment”. It then goes on to cite Al Omani v Canada, 2017 (one of Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s cases, which was struck).

However, since there was never any jurisdiction in Federal Court, no amount of editing would fix this problem. There are some things which editing and proofreading will never solve.

Will the lawyers be issuing refund cheques? Seems doubtful.

Note: Of course, this isn’t to justify in any way what has been happening over the last few years. All of it was uncalled for and harmful. This critique is just to outline what went wrong for the “Posties”. Do not interpret it as any sort of justification for Government tyranny.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling, Full Text
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION:
(1) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim June 7 2023
(2) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading

OTHER LAWS AND DECISIONS
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par52
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par51
() https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca20/2015fca20.html
() https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc786/2017fc786.html#par32
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/FullText.html
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/

Posted on

Ontario First Responders Case To Be Discontinued After Bait-And-Switch Fails

A year ago, a $125 million lawsuit was filed in Ontario against various employers whom had forced people out of their jobs. This stemmed from the Fall 2021 injection mandates across Canadian Provinces and elsewhere. It made headlines across Canadian media outlets.

Interestingly, the case wasn’t filed until March 2023, nearly 18 months after the mandates came into effect. Clearly, this wasn’t urgent at all. And when it eventually was filed, it sat dormant for another year. This gem came from “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, and was written in an incomprehensible and unintelligible manner.

Keep in mind, Section 4 of the Ontario Limitations Act sets the time limit (for most things) at 2 years. Since so much time has elapsed, there will be no second opportunity. If this case falls through, that’s it.

Of course, this case never stood a chance. See the previous review on it. There were a litany of basic errors made that ensured it. These include:

  1. Recycling Statement of Claim from earlier struck cases
  2. Including content in a CIVIL Claim for which there’s no jurisdiction
  3. Drafting the Claim in a way that’s incoherent and incomprehensible
  4. Involving union/Government workers who are barred by arbitration requirements
  5. Unnecessary delay, causing issues with the Statute of Limitations
  6. Suing a needless amount of people, driving up costs

It’s this last point that’s of particular interest in this development.

Original retainer was $1,500 each Plaintiff, to cover all

According to the retainer agreement that’s freely available, each of the Plaintiffs would be expected to pay $1,500. While this sounds low, keep in mind that there were supposed to be 100 or more litigants. This would put the total at around $150,000.

That sounds like a reasonable amount, if the case were ever to get to Trial. However, this one never would, for a variety of reasons.

What kind of idiot sues this many unrelated parties?

Twenty (20) different towns, cities and municipalities are being sued. Each is run independently, and presumably, each will end up getting their own lawyer. And this should be obvious, but lawyers are expensive. Even poor and incompetent ones want lots of money.

Considering that the injection mandates were a Provincial dictate, the Plaintiffs could have sued the Ontario Government, and left it at that. However, the moron who compiled this case decided to sue everyone under the sun, even when Plaintiffs had no connection.

  1. HIS MAJESITY THE KING
  2. Solicitor General of Ontario
  3. Town of Ajax
  4. Town of Ajax Fire Department (Fire Chief Aaron Burridge) City of Cambridge
  5. City of Cambridge Fire Department (Fire Chief Brian Arnold)
  6. City of Greater Sudbury
  7. City of Guelph, City of Guelph Fire Department (Fire Chief Dave Elloway)
  8. City of Hamilton
  9. City of Hamilton Police
  10. City of Hamilton Police Chief (Frank Bergen)
  11. City of Hamilton Fire Department (Fire Chief David Cunliffe)
  12. City of Markham
  13. City of Markham Fire Department (Fire Chief Adam J. Grant)
  14. City of Mississauga
  15. City of Mississauga Fire Department (Fire Chief Deryn Rizzi)
  16. City of Ottawa
  17. City of Ottawa Police
  18. City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs)
  19. City of Ottawa Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Hutt)
  20. City of Pickering
  21. City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)
  22. City of Toronto
  23. City of Toronto Police
  24. City of Toronto Chief of Police (James Ramer)
  25. City of Toronto Fire Service (Fire Chief Matthew Pegg)
  26. Toronto District School Board
  27. Toronto Transit Commission
  28. Toronto Transit Commission Chair (Jon Burnside)
  29. City of Windsor
  30. City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)
  31. Town of Orangeville
  32. City of St. Catharines
  33. Regional Municipality of Durham
  34. York Region
  35. York Regional Police
  36. York Regional Police Chief (Jim MacSween)
  37. City of Niagara Falls
  38. Niagara Regional Police
  39. Niagara Regional Police Chief (Bryan MacCulloch)
  40. Town of Oakville
  41. Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault)
  42. Peel Region
  43. Peel Regional Police
  44. Peel Regional Police Chief (Nishan Duraiappah)
  45. Town of Whitby
  46. Town of Whitby Fire Department (Fire Chief Mike Hickey)
  47. Municipality of Leamington

It would be one thing if lawsuit named several officials in a Federal or Provincial Government. They’d all be lumped together, and likely represented together. But here, completely different towns and cities are being sued, some on behalf of a single Plaintiff. This is not a good approach.

There’s also the significant issue that it’s not clear who many of the parties are. Given how poorly worded it is, this can be left open to interpretation.

Take Ottawa, for example. The lawsuit names: (a) City of Ottawa; (b) City of Ottawa Police; and (c) City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs). This is clearly talking about 3 different parties.

However, others like Oakville list: (a) Town of Oakville; and (b) Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault). It’s not clear if the Fire Department itself if being named, or whether Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault is, and it’s just listing his title.

Similarly with “City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)”, and “City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)”, are the Fire Departments themselves being named, or the actual Chiefs? There are several of these instances where it’s not clear who is being named.

On the subject of not knowing who people are: the lawsuit includes several “John Does”. This is complete nonsense. If a person is going to Court asking for money, they need to identify themselves. This is repeated from the Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada, and Adelberg cases.

In short, dozens of separate potential lawsuits were joined into one. Since each jurisdiction ended up getting their own counsel, costs would inevitably skyrocket. And it led to this:

Another $4,500 from each, $450,000 in total to cover costs

November 24, 2023, this letter was sent to the Plaintiffs, demanding another $4,500 each, or else the case would be discontinued. In other words, their lawyer was threatening to pull the plug unless more money was handed over.

According to the letter, there were already 22 different lawyers on retainer for the various Defendants. It’s fair to assume that each would be asking for costs if they were able to get the case thrown out. Courts typically do award costs to successful parties.

$1,500 each became $6,000 really fast.

This is the bait-and-switch that was pulled on the Plaintiffs.

Because there were so many Defendants sued, and now so many lawyers, there would likely be dozens of Motions to Strike (or for Summary Judgement). It’s entirely possible that the total cost award — when the case was thrown out — would amount to thousands of dollars against each Plaintiff. Supposedly this extra half million (or so) would be put in trust to pay off the anticipated cost awards.

Not only that, the lawyer handling the file never tried to defend it. Instead, he held their case hostage, quadrupling the original price. Of course, the the lawsuit would still have been tossed anyway. Given the fact that the Plaintiffs were Government and/or unionized workers, they’d have no jurisdiction to sue in Court. Even without that, the Claim would, in any event, have to be rewritten in a coherent manner.

The letter cites a January 24th, 2024 case conference, to set dates for a Summary Judgement Motion. Presumably, the Defendants want the case thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. Remember, employees of unionized workplaces typically have the right to grieve and to arbitrate, but not to litigate.

For reference: the January 24th hearing did happen, but it was adjourned indefinitely. As of now, there are currently no dates set for anything.

There is an alternate theory on why this demand letter came. Given that the Ontario First Responders Claim is essentially a cut-and-paste of the Adelberg (Federal) case, it’s entirely possible that the lawyer himself would have been personally on the hook. He just recycles his Claims, makes cosmetic changes, and refiles them.

A deadline of December 17th, 2023 was given to vote. According to a source within, the group voted on whether or not to pay the extra money. The answer was overwhelmingly “no”. This meant they weren’t willing to give in to blackmail.

If a Notice of Discontinuance is filed, it amounts to dropping the case. And given how much time has passed, none of the litigants will be able to seek further recourse.

It seems unlikely that any refunds will be issued, regardless of what a dumpster fire this suit was from the beginning.

Statement of Claim didn’t follow Rules of Civil Procedure anyway

The Action4Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada and Adelberg (Federal) cases were all critiqued a long time ago. None of these Statement of Claims, all drafted by the same person, followed the basics of Civil Procedure. Whether in British Columbia, Ontario, or the Federal Court, there are certain minimum standards everyone needs to meet.

The documents were so incoherent, that even a person without a background in law could see that there would be serious problems.

Action4Canada and Adelberg were both struck as “bad beyond argument”. These were in August 2022 and February 2023, respectively. This was before the First Responders case was filed.

Adelberg had the additional problem that most of the Plaintiffs were barred from suing because of legislation that mandated a grievance process. Again, that ruling came out before this one was filed.

It was reported in January 2023 that the Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense (Canada) cases had been dormant since their initial filings nearly 2 years before. Again, this was before the First Responders case. How many warning signs are needed?

$150,000 was thrown away on a case designed to go nowhere. None of the Plaintiffs will ever get their day in Court over this. What a waste.

A comment about the group that organized this case, Take Action Canada:

Over 2 years later, this nonsense is still posted their website. They actually gloat about this site getting sued for warning about the dangers of these scam lawsuits. Sandra Sable, who apparently runs T.A.C., even gave an Affidavit in support of a similar intimidation lawsuit against CSASPP and their leadership. She complains that the criticism of other cases — like A4C/VCC — led to potential Plaintiffs dropping out en masse. Apparently, it caused her endless headaches, and threatened the viability of the suit itself, which is probably true. In other words, Sable was fully aware of what she was signing onto, and did it anyway.

The irony: if Sable and T.A.C. had taken these warnings to heart, Plaintiffs in the First Responders case wouldn’t have been taken advantage of like this. Plenty of former clients saw what was going on. But some people are immune to good advice.

Since the Plaintiffs were will never get justice for their cases, perhaps they can start filing malpractice lawsuits, and get the insurance money. Gill and Lamba have clearly learned how this works.

T.A.C. DOCUMENTS/LINKS TO LOOK AT
(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(3) Ontario EMS Retainer Agreement – $1,500 Each Plaintiff
(4) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(7) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(8) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money

T.A.C. POSTS SURVEY ABOUT DISCONTINUING “FIRST RESPONDERS” LAWSUIT
(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/tac911-legal-action-1st-responder-essential-workers-update-dec-survey/
(2) Take Action Canada — Legal Action 1st Responder Essential Workers Update Dec Survey
(3) Wayback Machine Archive
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontario-EMS-Demand-For-More-Money.pdf

MEDIA COVERING INITIAL FILING
(1) https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/former-municipal-employees-launch-125m-lawsuit-over-vaccine-mandates-1.6298453
(2) https://www.insauga.com/ex-oakville-hamilton-municipal-workers-part-of-125m-lawsuit-filed-over-vaccine-mandates/
(3) https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/126m-class-action-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit-launched-6656849
(4) https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/covid-19-lawsuit-seeks-125m-from-ontario-municipalities-including-cambridge-fire-department/article_f6ba19fb-7152-590d-9573-2fe81653efd5.html

Posted on

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

Last Friday, a Notice of Action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court, at their Toronto Division. A woman intends to sue her former counsel, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, for: (a) professional negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount; and (c) aggravated and/or punitive damages.

A Notice of Action is not the same thing as a Statement of Claim. Instead, this document is occasionally filed when a lawsuit is in the works, but the Statute of Limitations is approaching. Justice Stewart dismissed the Gill/Lamba suit on February 24, 2022, and this Notice was filed February 23, 2024. This came just a day before the 2 year anniversary.

Once filed, a Plaintiff has 30 days under Rule 14.03 to serve all Defendants with this Notice, and the Claim itself. (Pardon the error which previously listed the time as 6 months).

Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet are listed as counsel for Kulvinder Gill. They also represented her at the Court of Appeal which ultimately dismissed the Maciver anti-SLAPP Appeal.

What does the Notice of Action say?

1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, claims against the Defendants, Rocco Galati and Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation as follows:
a. General and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $1,500,000;
b. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of reputation in the amount of $250,000;
c. Aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;
d. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
e. The costs of this proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, plus all applicable taxes, and;
f. Such further and other relief as the plaintiff may advise and as this Honourable Court
may seem just.

2. The Defendants acted for the Plaintiff with respect to various litigation matters starting in late 2020, including defamation actions and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Their representation of the Plaintiff was negligent, constituted a breach of contract and a breach of the fiduciary duties, causing the Plaintiff significant damages.

Of course, this isn’t the entire pleading. The real Statement of Claim is presumably in the works, and it should be interesting to read. Ashvinder Lamba also has a $600,000 malpractice suit pending, alleging many of the same things as Gill.

Brief timeline of some major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill’s public opinions, which contradict the “approved” narrative, lands her in trouble with the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the regulator which is responsible for licensing in that Province. They’re not too happy that her views don’t toe the line.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

March 2021: Gill sues the University of Ottawa and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million. This is over 2 rude comments on Twitter, one where he calls her an “idiot”. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit, and mere insults aren’t actionable.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this. (CanLII version available)

February 2024: Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s then co-Plaintiff, files a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former counsel.

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason. It’s to stop people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence critics on issues of public interest. And nothing screams frivolous like attempting to bankrupt a person over some name calling. Here’s the background on this one.

SLAPP of course refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

While the comical defamation lawsuits have made national news, Gill’s adventures with the CPSO have pretty much flown under the radar. She has attracted several complaints since 2020, over her public stances and comments. Lawsuits were brought in Court to try to resolve it there, largely on the grounds of free speech. Such litigation has been repeatedly thrown out as “premature”.

In fairness, prematurity just means there’s a lack of jurisdiction.

The problem, realistically, is that the CPSO — like many professional organizations — mandates that problems be resolved internally first. Here’s one of Gill’s decisions, from 2021. Starting at paragraph 31, it’s explained that this is a long established policy, going back decades. The rationale is that if this isn’t followed, it leads to fragmentation and splitting of cases, along with overlapping rulings.

This isn’t to justify in any way what the CPSO has been up to. They’ve shown themselves to be a willing accomplice to the Ford regime, and deserve no sympathy.

It’s to recognize that had Gill been competently advised, it seems unlikely she would have pursued this path. In the Notice of Action, she alleges that former counsel was negligent.

There is a parallel between:

  • Doctors suing the CPSO (instead of using the internal disciplinary process first); and
  • Public sector and unionized workers suing their employers (instead of filing grievances)

In both instances, lawsuits are likely to be thrown out. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that the other remedies are unworkable and/or corrupted. Now, the million dollar question in these cases is whether they were advised of this in advance.

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Doctors, lawyers, and pretty much all professionals are required to have insurance. This protects against lawsuits for negligence, incompetence, malpractice, and more. It’s to ensure that there is money available for successful claims, and that it won’t bankrupt them.

One caveat: insurance providers typically refuse to pay out if there are accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation. But Gill and Lamba are just alleging negligence and of breach of contract, which should be okay.

We’ll have to see what the Statement of Claim looks like, when it’s eventually filed. But just going off of the Notice, it doesn’t look good.

Why pursue this? One possibility is that Gill really needs the money. Even “settling” with most parties in the case with Lamba, she still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Saikaley and Brunet want to get paid as well, and this may be a way to do it. Then there’s that anti-SLAPP Motion pending with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

Update: On March 25th, 2024, the actual Statement of Claim was filed, and it’s a doozy.

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

MOTION FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA
(15) https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22116/index.do

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

Posted on

B.C. Court Of Appeal Confirms “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling In Action4Canada Case

In August 2022, Action4Canada had their Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC) struck in its entirety by the B.C. Supreme Court. Justice Ross concluded that the 391 page document was such a convoluted mess, it was impossible to respond to. There were no determinations on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The Court of Appeal has just upheld that ruling

While the Lower Court’s written reasons outlined a number of potentially serious problems, Justice Ross avoided giving a definitive answer as to what content would be allowed. It seems that the Plaintiffs’ lawyer doesn’t understand how to interpret legal findings.

  • Reasons: background information that’s necessary to support findings
  • Order: what the Court actually rules on

And what was the Order?

[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

For reasons that were never made clear, the decision was appealed. The Plaintiffs could simply have redrafted and refiled an amended version, but didn’t.

The B.C. Court of Appeal has now said exactly that. They couldn’t understand why they were even there. It was agreed that the Claim was prolix (too long) and confusing. Therefore, the obvious answer was to rewrite it, as Justice Ross allowed it.

The other issue in the Appeal was over costs. The argument was that because success was “divided”, there should have been no costs. Apparently, since a rewrite was allowed, this amounts to a partial win. However, costs are considered discretionary, and this was predictably rejected.

Here’s what the B.C. Court of Appeal had to say.

[1] Pleadings play a central role in the conduct of civil litigation and access to justice. Their purpose is to clearly, concisely and precisely define the issues of fact and law to be determined, inform the other side of the case to be met, determine the nature and scope of pre-trial procedures, and guide the trial process: The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2012 BCCA 196 at para. 1; Sahyoun v. Ho, 2013 BCSC 1143 at paras. 16–19; Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, R. 3-1(2) [Rules].

[2] Prolix pleadings are improper. They lead to confusion, unfairness, delay and expense, and impede the litigation they are intended to facilitate: see e.g., Mercantile Office Systems Private Limited v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362 at paras. 22–23, 44, 58. They also occupy inordinate court resources, preventing other litigants from accessing the court services they require and deserve.

[3] Here, the appellants’ notice of civil claim is 391 pages long. Part 1 (“Statement of Facts”) is over 300 pages long, contains more than 1,000 paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, and includes hundreds of footnotes, some of which contain hyperlinks to various websites. Part 2 (“Relief Sought”) is over 40 pages long and seeks, among other things, over 200 declarations. Part 3 (“Legal Basis”) is almost 30 pages long.

[4] The notice of civil claim includes wide-ranging allegations of a global conspiracy, and challenges the scientific and constitutional foundation of the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. To give a sense of the breadth and nature of the allegations, the appellants’ “summary” of the factual basis of their claims includes (at 310–311, para. 283(d) of the notice of civil claim) the allegation that the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the appellants’ “statutory and constitutional rights” because:
.
… the “COVID-pandemic” was pre-planned, and executed, as a false pandemic, through the [World Health Organization], by Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational Oligarchs the likes of Bill Gates, [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, now Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance], the [World Health Organization], and their former and current associates such as Theresa Tam and Bonnie Henry, the [World Economic Forum], and others, in order to install a New World (Economic) Order with:
.
(i) De facto elimination of small businesses;
(ii) Concentration of wealth and the power to control economic activity in large global corporations;
(iii) To disguise a massive bank and corporate bail-out;
(iv) To effect global, mandatory vaccination with chip technology, to effect total surveillance and testing of any and all citizens, including the Plaintiffs;
(v) To shift society, in all aspects into a virtual[] world at the control of these vaccine, pharmaceutical, technological, globalized oligarchs, whereby the Plaintiffs, and all others, cannot organize [or] congregate[; and]
(vi) To effectively immobilize resistance to the agenda by neutering Parliaments and the Courts, and by extension the Constitution and Constitutional Democracy and Sovereignty, in short to obtain “global governance”.
[Emphasis in original.]

[5] In reasons indexed at 2022 BCSC 1507 (“RFJ”), the chambers judge sensibly concluded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and cannot be properly answered: RFJ at paras. 45, 74. He also concluded that it is “bad beyond argument” and “cannot be mended”: RFJ at paras. 45, 47–48. He, therefore, granted the respondents’ applications to strike the pleading in its entirety: RFJ at paras. 48, 74.

[6] Next, the chambers judge considered whether to dismiss the appellants’ claim or grant them leave to amend it. He concluded that “there may be legitimate claims that a plaintiff could advance against one or more of the defendants”: RFJ at para. 50. He, therefore, granted the appellants leave to amend and stayed the action pending the filing of a fresh pleading: RFJ at para. 74.

[7] On the issue of costs, the judge noted that “each plaintiff is seeking money damages from one or more defendant”: RFJ at para. 75. Having put the defendants to the expense of unnecessarily answering an improper pleading, the judge awarded each defendant costs “payable forthwith in any event of the cause”: RFJ at paras. 75–76.

[8] In oral submissions, the appellants conceded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and must be redrafted. Although aware of the trite principle that appeals are taken from orders and not reasons, the appellants nevertheless advance the appeal to address various statements made by the judge regarding the propriety of various of their pleadings. In particular, the appellants take issue with the judge’s statements at paras. 52–58 of the reasons for judgment that certain claims “are improper in a civil action”, including claims seeking declarations relating to alleged criminal conduct and matters of science.

[9] The appellants point to para. 73 of the reasons for judgment where, after rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the entire action be dismissed as “an abuse of process or clearly frivolous and vexatious”, the judge held that “if the next iteration of [the notice of civil claim] contains the same, or similar, problems, then the defendants’ arguments on these issues will be strengthened.” The appellants contend that, in making these statements, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and has effectively hamstrung them from advancing what they consider to be justiciable claims.

[10] I agree entirely with the respondents that the appellants have not identified a reviewable error. The passages at issue are clearly obiter. As I read the judge’s reasons, he transparently and helpfully identified a number of areas of concern within the notice of civil claim. He did not make binding determinations. In the absence of a proper pleading, how could he?

[11] It is up to the appellants to redraft their notice of civil claim within the well-known boundaries of proper pleadings established by the Rules and authorities. If they choose to pursue claims the judge identified as problematic and are faced with an application to strike or dismiss, they will have to satisfy the front-line decision-maker that they have pleaded justiciable claims. If they do not, they have had fair warning of the possible consequences.

[12] The appellants also appeal the judge’s costs order. They submit that success was divided in the sense that the judge declined to dismiss their claim. They also submit that costs are often not awarded in cases like this, which they assert to be a form of public interest litigation. In the alternative, they submit that costs should be awarded in the cause.

[13] Respectfully, the appellants have not identified a reviewable error in the judge’s handling of costs. Rather, they ask this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the chambers judge. This we cannot and will not do.

[14] For all of these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.

This critique was published on the Canuck Law website on August 31, 2021. It outlined some of the ways that the Notice of Civil Claim failed to meet the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia.

Vaccine Choice was similarly criticized for their filing.

A week later, Gaw and Kuntz instigated a $7 million defamation lawsuit. They dispatched their “thug” to attempt to destroy this website. And for what? For truthfully pointing out that various anti-lockdown cases — including Vaccine Choice — weren’t properly written? For accurately predicting that none of these cases would ever get to Trial? For calling it all a waste of time and money? For suggesting that these shoddy cases can’t just be the result of sloppiness?

What has happened since then?

(1) The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that it was “bad beyond argument”, and drafted so poorly that it was impossible to respond to. Although leave (permission) was granted to amend, the Claim was never accepted as valid.

(2) The Law Society of B.C. put it in their training manual for new lawyers. This case is now a teaching exercise of “wholly inadequate pleadings”, and how to avoid them. See page 15. That’s right, the LSBC is using it to train new lawyers on how not to draft lawsuits.

(3) Now, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the original Claim wasn’t drafted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. It was too long, confusing, and difficult to follow. They didn’t address the litany of other errors contained within.

Let’s not forget that both Vaccine Choice cases, from 2019 and 2020, have been allowed to sit idly for years. There’s no urgency whatsoever to advance either case.

Despite the Appeal being dismissed, it’s still being promoted as a “win”. Not surprising, considering the August 2022 striking of the Claim was also said to be a “win”. These people are delusional.

And for people who are so touchy about defamation, it seems that the new response is to refer to critics as “paid agitators”. See the February 7th and 21st Rumble videos. During the Zoom version on the 7th, moderators were apparently deleting comments from people asking questions about the cases.

Supposedly, an amended NOCC is ready to be filed for Action4Canada. The obvious question is why that wasn’t done back in 2022. Additionally, why was the original so poorly drafted? And if there really are all these Affidavits of evidence, why mess around for years with shoddy pleadings?

The Court of Appeal has found that the original NOCC wasn’t properly written, and that it has been a waste of time and money. Moreover, wasting judicial resources like this prevents litigants with valid claims from getting their day in Court.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

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 – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Posted on

Court Of Appeal Confirms Dismissal Under Anti-SLAPP Laws Of Gill Defamation Suit

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has thrown out an Appeal from by 2 Ontario doctors. This was to challenge the result of a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit originally filed against 23 individuals and organizations. Although this was primarily over Twitter comments related to the “pandemic”, some old remarks involving the Ontario Medical Association were included.

The Court also denied permission to appeal the cost award of the initial lawsuit. In Ontario, when cases are thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, the costs are “presumptively” awarded on a full indemnity, or 100% basis. And that is indeed what happened to the 2 doctors.

The February 2022 decision was very long. But at its core, many of the same finding came up over and over again.

  • The expressions relate to matters of a public interest
  • The expressions may have been unprofessional and insulting, but were not defamatory
  • The expressions are protected as fair comment, and are obviously comment
  • The Plaintiffs (Gill and Lamba) haven’t produced evidence of any real harm
  • Public interest is better served with protecting the expression

Section 137.1 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act lays out the “anti-SLAPP” laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation. British Columbia has very similar laws. The purpose is to have a mechanism to quickly screen out cases that may be designed to silence speech or expression on public interest issues. Justice Stewart stated:

[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out.

The Court of Appeal ultimately agreed with this sentiment.

What’s interesting is that when the Appeal was finally heard, there weren’t 23 Respondents. There were only 4 of them left. And Lamba herself was no longer involved.

  • Dr. Angus Maciver
  • Dr. Nadia Alam
  • André Picard
  • Alheli Picazo

All of the others had the Appeal against them discontinued. It had been argued by many that this Appeal was simply “leverage”, in order to circumvent the original rulings.

The case was dismissed by Justice Stewart under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, and eventually, a cost award of $1.1 million was handed down. However, the Appeal meant that the case was still open, and that more costs would be required to fight it.

A brief timeline of events:

December 2020: Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 individuals and media outlets, largely over a series of spats on Twitter. This was in the Toronto Branch of Ontario Superior Court.

September 2021: over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions were argued. The primary basis for these Motions was Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is designed to screen out litigation designed for “libel chill” or “gag proceedings”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismissed the claims against all proceedings, on the grounds that the lawsuit was exactly the type of case that anti-SLAPP laws were designed to weed out.

March 2022: the Decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals.

May 2022, despite filing the Notice of Appeal and Evidence Certificate (a list of evidence to be used), Gill and Lamba find themselves without counsel. It appears from the badly redacted filings that they are rather upset about the mess that they’re now in. If only someone had advised them that filing frivolous defamation claims in Ontario — which has strong anti-SLAPP laws — was a very dangerous and risky idea. Clearly, they got poor advice. (See Record)

July 2022: both Gill and Lamba retained new counsel, who tried to ward off the coming costs awards. In total, they were looking at over $1 million in costs. While this sounds excessive, they sued 23 Parties, which works out to an average of about $55,000 each.

September 2022: The Appeal is finally “perfected”, which means that the Appellants have filed everything they intend to bring to the hearing.

Due to various delays, the Appeal was set back considerably.

October 2022: although the case had been appealed, the issue of costs hadn’t been resolved. It finally was at the end of October, with Gill and Lamba (but mostly just Gill) owing over $1.1 million in Court fees. It must be pointed out that s.137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act sets “full indemnity”, or 100% of costs, as the baseline. True, Judges don’t have to award it, but that’s considered the starting point.

November 2023: The Pointer Group Inc., one of the Defendant Respondents, files a Motion for Security for Costs. The rationale is that Gill should have to demonstrate that there’s merit to the Appeal, and that she has money, all in advance.

November 2023: The Motion from The Pointer Group Inc. is dismissed.

December 2023: The Appeal is heard for the remaining parties. As expected, the verdict was reserved (deferred) until later.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal has some harsh words at the end of their ruling.

[25] First, the motion judge found that the offensive language used by Maciver in his impugned tweets was not defamatory. The motion judge noted that there is an important distinction in the law of defamation between words that are actionable for being defamatory and words that merely contain insults and are not actionable. The motion judge acknowledged that some of the language used by Maciver may have been unprofessional and ill-advised, but involved pure name-calling and was therefore not defamatory.

[26] Second, the motion judge found that the appellant had offered no evidence of any harm caused to her reputation as a result of the impugned tweets, other than “vague, unparticularized statements.” Therefore, even if the words complained of were defamatory, and some general damage to the appellant’s reputation is therefore to be presumed, any such damage is likely to be assessed as being merely nominal.

[27] Section 137.1(4)(b) of the CJA provides that if the impugned expression giving rise to a proceeding relates to a matter of “public interest”, the proceeding shall be dismissed unless the plaintiff satisfies the judge that the harm they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, is “sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.”

[28] Given the at most nominal damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the impugned tweets by Maciver, the motion judge found that the public interest in protecting Maciver’s right to speak out on a matter of public interest outweighs any considerations that might otherwise favour allowing the appellant’s defamation action against him to continue.

Regarding the claims against Picard, Weeks and Picazo, the Court of Appeal found that their expressions were protected by the “fair comment” defence. And as with Maciver, Gill never produced any evidence that she had been seriously harmed by these remarks. The Panel decided that protecting the expression was more important than allowing the case to continue — exactly what Justice Stewart had written.

[62] The motion judge found that the appellant’s defamation claim against the critics of her unorthodox views on effective treatment for COVID-19 was intended to silence those critics. As the motion judge found, correctly in my view, this is precisely the type of proceeding that s. 137.1 was designed to foreclose.

[63] It is unclear why the appellant included the unrelated allegations against Maciver in the proceeding that was otherwise focused on issues related to COVID-19. Maciver had a limited social media profile, his criticisms of the appellant were taken down shortly after they were posted, he apologized publicly and privately to the appellant, and he was subsequently disciplined by the OMA for his comments. The appellant waited nearly two years before commencing a proceeding against Maciver and yet was unable to produce any evidence of reputational or other harm resulting from his tweets. The motion judge did not err in dismissing the appellant’s claim against him pursuant to s. 137.1(4)(b) of the CJA.

[67] It was the appellant’s choice to commence a proceeding against 23 different defendants, one, moreover, that has now been found to be without merit. Given that this proceeding is precisely the kind of action that s. 137.1 is designed to prevent, the motion judge was fully justified in applying the presumption of full indemnity costs set out in s. 137.1(7).

Gill had also sought Leave (permission) to appeal the $1.1 million cost award. That was denied, as the Panel viewed her overall Appeal as without any merit.

Gill and Lamba appear to have been successful at “leveraging” the Appeal into a settlement for reduced costs. In other words, they strong armed their victims into accepting lesser amounts. This comes despite the fact that both the original Claim and Appeal had no merit.

This doesn’t appear to be the end for either of them.

Kulvinder Gill still has an open $7 million lawsuit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa over Twitter insults. This faces another anti-SLAPP Motion.

Ashvinder Lamba is suing her former counsel for incompetence, negligence, malpractice, and for having undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Expect follow up coverage.

MOTION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

Posted on

Another Site Taken Down? “Privacy Is Your Right” No Longer Operational

On March 27th, 2023 a group called Privacy Is Your Right appeared seemingly out of nowhere to promote a legal challenge at the Divisional Court of Ontario. There was a press conference held over Zoom. They were to appear on the 30th. The thing was: there was also a lot of begging going on for money. They were already talking about going to the Ontario Court of Appeal if this didn’t work out.

The cause seemed worthwhile enough: patients and a Dr. Sonja Kustka were taking the CPSO to Court in order to prevent them from looking at medical records during an investigation. How did things transpire?

The case was thrown out on the spot, with the reasons coming a few weeks later.

This raises some eyebrows in light of recent events.

Another site, https://fre4justice.ca/, was completely shut down shortly after the attention it received from here. Perhaps there was backlash after pointing out that it would be just a rehash of the other “bad beyond argument” Federal case.

Now, the privacy site hasn’t completely disappeared, at least not yet. However, the site isn’t working, and none of the original links seem to either. It’s been that way for at least a few weeks.

A check on the site https://privacyisyourright.ca/ shows that it was created January 19th, 2023, and that 2 years was paid for. Apparently, the last time the site was updated (in any capacity), was December 22nd, 2023.

The main site, Motion Record, and Factum are only available now via the Wayback Machine, unless they’ve been saved elsewhere. The last time it appears to have been functional — while saved — was January 19th, 2024.

Now, why was it so odd that this group was asking for money, even though they openly conceded they’d probably be appealing it? Turns out that this case, the Kustka, case, was almost identical to the Dr. Rochagné Kilian case which had been rejected for the same reasons. At the time of this fundraising, the Ontario Superior Court had already refused patients standing. See the procedural history, and this review for more information.

That’s right. The big case (Kustka) that Privacy Is Your Right was soliciting money for was a clone of the earlier (Kilian) one.

However, that wasn’t disclosed at the virtual press conference. Going through the website, or at least the archived pages of it, there’s no mention of Dr. Kilian either.

Note: This isn’t to justify what the CPSO has been doing in recent years, but to point out the futility that was obvious from the start.

How many donors would have refused to hand over any money if there had been transparency about this? Probably most of them.

Looking at the ruling, it’s obvious. The Kustka case was a complete rehash of the Kilian case, with only superficial differences. This should have been made apparent prior to soliciting donations.

[10] The issue of public and private interest standing was recently examined in detail by this Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2022 ONSC 5931 (Div. Ct.). The Patient Applicants’ applications for judicial review in this case are analogous to the patients’ applications for judicial review in Kilian. We see no basis to depart from this court’s decision in Kilian, which we find to be persuasive.

[13] In Kilian, at para. 44, this Court confirmed that patients have no private interest standing in the circumstances where the CPSO has initiated an investigation into a member’s conduct, stating as follows:
.
The Patient Applicants do not have a personal legal interest in the ICRC’s decisions to authorize an investigation of Dr. Kilian’s conduct or to place restrictions on her certificate. They have concerns that their medical records will be disclosed to College investigators, but that does not justify a grant of private interest standing, given the purpose of the regulatory regime and the subject matter of the judicial review proceeding.

[14] In Kilian, at para. 45, this Court held that a finding of private interest standing would be contrary to the statutory purpose, which is to regulate physicians’ conduct in the public interest. A finding of private interest standing would “disrupt” professional regulation because it would entitle thousands of patients to standing at the investigation stage: Kilian, at para. 47. This Court also noted that the Code grants patients standing in certain limited circumstances, further demonstrating the legislature’s intention to circumscribe patient participation in the regulatory process.

[15] Moreover, in Kilian, this Court went on to find that the patients have no direct interest in the decisions under review, which involve the regulator and the member. Similarly, the restrictions on the physician’s certificate in that case did not affect the patients’ legal interests: Kilian, at paras. 49-50. We see no reason to depart from the thorough and persuasive analysis conducted by this Court in Kilian.

[16] The Patient Applicants distinguish their applications for judicial review from those brought by the patients in Kilian on the basis that in this case, they seek to challenge s. 76 of the Code, while Kilian was limited to considering an investigation under s. 75 of the Code. In our view, this is a distinction without a difference. In Kilian, the CPSO had brought a parallel application in the Superior Court pursuant to s. 87 of the Code to compel the production of records under s. 76. While, in the circumstances, this Court did not specifically address s. 76, the underlying factual scenario was the same as in this case. The patients in Kilian argued that they had standing to bring an application for judicial review because their private medical records would be disclosed to CPSO investigators.

[17] The production of private medical records pursuant to s. 87 was subsequently addressed by Chalmers J. of the Superior Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 1654 (Sup. Ct.) [Kilian SCJ]. In that case, Chalmers J., relying on College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Bishop (1989), 1989 CanLII 2674 (BC SC), 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 175, held that the expectation of privacy in medical records is subject to the higher need to maintain appropriate standards in the profession: at para. 34. In addition, patient records are protected by the requirement that the CPSO maintain their confidentiality under s. 36 of the RHPA. As a result, courts have rejected the argument that patient-physician privilege precludes an order requiring the production of patient records: Kilian SCJ, at paras. 36 and 51.

The Court denied the patients private standing. Later in the ruling, they are denied public interest standing, again, for the same reasons outlined in the Kilian case.

Again, the group asking for money never disclosed this.

The follow up on the Dr. Kilian case isn’t encouraging either. July 2023, Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down a $16,000 cost award against Dr. Kilian, stating that adding the patient intervenors was a ploy designed to stall the original investigation.

May 8th, 2023, Dr. Kilian was finally ordered to produce the medical records the CPSO demanded. That was upheld by the Court of Appeal in January 2024. Absent a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada, this case appears to be over.

So, why did Privacy Is Your Right gut their website? One possibility is that they’ve milked the donations for all they can. Now that the ruling is out — and everyone can see that it’s just a rehash — that one will dry up as well.

But just like those anti-lockdown and union cases, the CPSO ones are recycled as well.