Category: Canadian Decisions

Posted on

The Freedom Lawsuits: How Much Money Has Been Thrown Away On Them?

Throughout 2020 and 2021, people were understandably desperate. They wanted their lives and livelihoods back, and who could blame them? They were willing to open their wallets to contribute to lawsuits they viewed as a means to restore normalcy.

Unfortunately, it seems that many contributed — either through donations or retainer fees — to cases that never stood a chance. Either: (a) they were never filed; (b) filing was delayed unnecessarily; (c) they weren’t followed up in a diligent way; (d) the pleadings were incoherent; (e) the Court lacked jurisdiction; or (f) some combination of the above.

Back in 2020, Odessa from Liberty Talk claimed that 75% of donations received from that podcast would be forwarded to fund lawsuits from Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada. She said that they were “really good legal cases”. Once eventually filed, the A4C case was struck as “bad beyond argument”, because it was so poorly written. The VCC case remained dormant for 2 1/2 years, before dates were set for a Motion to Strike.

Keep in mind, this is just a small sample. Another alarming trend is for lawyers to file suits against employers in government and/or unionized workplaces. Typically, there is no inherent right to sue, as there are “grievance” options available. Even moderately competent lawyers should be aware of this lack of jurisdiction.

Another trend is for lawyers to not actually ask for damages, but to seek declaratory relief after orders have already expired. This has led to several rulings of “mootness”.

Other cases included suing people for “defamation” in the attempt to shut down opposing viewpoints. These are SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. Pretty strange for freedom lovers to be against free speech.

How much money has actually been thrown away?

Here are some partial answers.

Item Number Party/Client Amount Raised
1 CRC (PayPal donations) $1,000,000
2 Action4Canada $400,000+
3 Federal Workers Vaxx Pass $600,000+
4 Federal Workers Vaxx Pass (Appeal) $600,000+
5 Federal Workers Vaxx Injury $600,000+
6 Take Action Canada $150,000+
7 Vaccine Choice Canada (2019) ?
8 Vaccine Choice Canada (2020) ?
9 Police On Guard ?
10 Children’s Health Defense (Canada) ?
11 Privacy Is Your Right ?
12 Kulvinder Gill Defamation #1 ?
13 Kulvinder Gill Defamation #2 ?
14 Byram Bridle ?
15 CPSO Challenges ?
TOTAL N/A $3,350,000+

As should be apparent, there isn’t data for many of these. Still, there’s over $3,000,000 just from a handful of cases. Let’s dive a bit deeper.

1. Constitutional Rights Centre, PayPal Donations, $1,000,000

The above is Paragraph 47, Page 50 of the Respondent’s/Plaintiff’s Motion Record, filed in March 2023. This was the CSASPP lawsuit referenced earlier.

  • $179,505 (September to December 2020)
  • $786,706 (2021 calendar year)
  • $43,878 (2022 calendar year)
  • $4,537 (Up to March 2023)

Taking these numbers at face value, it would mean that the CRC raised roughly $1,000,000 from September 2020 through March 2023. There’s no breakdown as to how much went into each (case) account. On the surface, it looks like one giant pot. Pretty lucrative, considering all the suits that emerged were complete garbage.

Familiar with the Wayback Machine? It’s a mainstream archiving site that captures websites at certain times, even if the content is no longer available. Some of the recent business ventures include:

There were even donations sought at one point to finance a public inquiry. It’s unclear how much money came in, or whatever became of that.

Also, donations were sought a few years back for a B.C. doctor’s case that doesn’t appear to have materialized. This isn’t the Action4Canada suit.

Remember: these are just donations, and don’t take retainer fees into account.

2. Action4Canada, $400,000+

August 2021, Action4Canada filed their 391 page Notice of Civil Claim. It was incoherent, rambling, sought remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, and was full of information about non-parties. Unsurprisingly, it was struck in its entirety as “bad beyond argument“.

While Justice Ross did allow the Claim to be rewritten, and provided substantial guidance, the decision was appealed instead. This is absurd, as the B.C. Court of Appeals isn’t going to rule that remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court can be sought.

Where does the $400,000 estimate come from?

According to financial data that was leaked, there was a payment of $200,000 to cover legal expenses April 29, 2022. See page 10. On May 5, an equivalent amount was transferred to cover it. This is not the full amount.

Tanya and other members of Action4Canada stated that a 50% retainer had been required upfront (meaning in 2020). If $200,000 is to cover an outstanding portion, then the retainer would have to have been at least $200,000 as well. It’s also been stated publicly that this was the amount sought.

In a November 2022 update, Action4Canada was again soliciting donations, presumably to finance this “unexpected” appeal. This would be in addition to the $200,000 retainer, and the $200,000 “payment” in the Spring of 2022. Once the BCCA throws out the appeal, presumably a new Claim would be filed.

Court documents are available at the bottom here.

3. Federal Injection Pass Challenge, $600,000+

This was the high profile case of over 600: (a) Federal employees; and (b) employees of Federally regulated industries. It was struck as “bad beyond argument” for failing to follow even the basic requirements of pleadings.

Why $600,000? There were over 600 Plaintiffs, and all had been required to sign a retainer agreement and put up $1,000 each to get started.

There was another problem for about 2/3 of the Plaintiffs: as Federal employees, they have the right to grieve, but not to sue their employer. This is laid out in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Now, there is some “residual jurisdiction”, if the grievance process can be shown to be unworkable or corrupt. However, that would require a suit that was well written.

(1) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(2) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(3) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(6) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(7) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(8) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

4. Federal Injection Pass Challenge, APPEAL, $600,000+

According to correspondence from disillusioned clients, costs to the Federal Court of Appeals are separate from the original $1,000 retainer.

That’s right. Over $600,000 was needed to start the case, and then another $600,000 was needed to go to the Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. Quote:

The fee retainer of $1,000 ($870 + $130 HST) covers a trial to the end in the Federal Court, including any motions, but not appeals to the Court of Appeal.

We also have this email:

Hello everyone,

Some of you have already heard but for those who haven’t, the Judge has rendered his decision in the Government’s motion to strike our claim. In a somewhat anticipated move, the claim was struck for 2/3 of the plaintiffs and remains open for 1/3 to amend the claim and resubmit. There is a letter attached from Rocco himself that goes into greater detail about the decision. Needless to say, the decision was an absolute pile of rubbish and the Panel has decided to appeal the decision.

Now, as you will read in Rocco’s attached letter, there are additional fees associated with launching the appeal. The additional fees are minimal in comparison to the initial retainer but an explanation is required.

As Rocco’s letter will clarify, the retainer fee was to cover all that was required to see this matter through a trial in the Federal Court. Now that an appeal is required, it is required to go through the Federal Court of Appeals and that alone will cost in excess of $100,000. Rocco budgeted the retainer fee on doing everything to see a trial through the Federal Court which did not include appeals.

We feel it necessary at this juncture to apologize to each and every one of you. We misinterpreted the finer details of what the retainer fee covered due, no doubt, to our limited knowledge about how the civil court process works and a misunderstanding of the information Rocco provided to us. Some of you asked specifically what all would be covered with the retainer fee and were informed it would cover this entire matter all the way through no matter what action was required and for this, we apologize.

We wish to reinforce with you that this was not done out of an attempt to deceive or act maliciously. We are going to be out the same amount as anyone else who desires to proceed and be a part of the appeal.

To avoid repeating the same confusion, the panel asked Rocco to outline the cost implications for every step and all the way to the Supreme Court which Rocco now outlined in his letter. We hope this will better serve all of us and it is also our hopes that you will see this effort by the panel as a way to remain fully transparent on what transpired but also on what to expect going forward. We too, do not want to see other surprises but more importantly, we do agree with Rocco that we have a strong position for an appeal. We ultimately hope for our day in Court but sadly, we did not have our day in Court here as our lawsuit was wrongly struck down as evidently explained in Rocco’s letter.

We are planning to host another info session with Rocco via Zoom within the next few weeks to answer questions you may have and to provide more information regarding how the appeal process will work. We are not going to attempt to solicit any money from anyone prior to this information session. Our intent is to allow you to consider whether each of you as individuals wish to proceed from this point.

We understand many of you will have questions. We will do our best to answer them or have Rocco address them in the upcoming info session.

We have also attached a link to the decision on the Federal Court website.

Sincerely and most humbly,

The Federal Employee Lawsuit Panel

Never mind that the case was struck as “bad beyond argument” due to the gross incompetence of counsel. If there was to be any appeal, or extra work, he should fix it for free.

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

5. Federal Workers Injection Injuries, $600,000+

It has the same fundamental problem as the last Federal case. Under s.208 and s.236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, Federal workers have the right to grieve, but not to sue. This will get thrown out for lack of jurisdiction alone. Why $600,000? From the site:

Legal Costs: Total retainer fee is about $600,000, which will be divisible by the number of signed Plaintiffs. As an example, 600 + Plaintiffs @ $1,000 each. If the Plaintiff count should be lower, the retainer fee will be pro rated as an example, 300 + Plaintiffs @ $2,000 each. To put this into perspective, this represents about a year’s supply of a latte at Starbuck’s, each day or your annual vehicle insurance. At this time, please do NOT submit your retainer fee. If there is enough interest then a simple one-page retainer agreement will be forwarded and then the retainer agreement and it’s fee can be submitted at that time. We will provide the details at a later time.

Interestingly, the site went down (or was taken down) shortly after it was exposed. Perhaps too many questions were being asked about the suit’s legitimacy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231111011348/https://fre4justice.ca/

6. Take Action Canada, First Responders, $150,000+

Apparently, this is the new “iteration” of the 2021 Application that Police On Guard had been pushing. And like the POG case, this is terribly written.

Where does the $150,000 figure come from? There are about 100 clients, all of whom have paid a $1,500 retainer in order to be part of this case.

Even though injection passes became a reality in Summer/Fall of 2021, this suit wasn’t filed until March 1, 2023, about a year and a half later. Clearly, it’s not urgent. And even if these people were to find a real lawyer who could get them into court, the Statute of Limitations has likely expired.

Another serious problem will be the lack of jurisdiction. Since most or all of the Plaintiffs are members of a Government and/or belong to a union, they likely don’t have the right to sue. They can grieve — but apparently didn’t — though there’s probably no access to the Court.

This document was leaked in late November. If authentic, it may be a way to engineer an excuse to discontinue the case. Plaintiffs have already paid $1,500 each for a case that took 18 months to file. They’re not going to hand over another $4,500 per person.

(1) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(2) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(3) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(4) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(5) Ontario EMS Demand For More Money

7. Vaccine Choice Canada (2019)

Few people remember this, but Vaccine Choice Canada actually has 2 separate lawsuits pending in Ontario Superior Court. The first was filed in October 2019, supposedly to challenge the vaccination requirements of Ontario students. However, that was over 4 years ago, and it doesn’t look like it’s ever been in Court.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

8. Vaccine Choice Canada (2020)

This high profile case was filed on July 6, 2020, when there were still high hopes that a legal solution existed. After it was launched, Vaccine Choice went on a media blitz trying to raise support and donations.

Problem is: nothing ever came of it. It sat idly from July 2020 until January 2023, where there was a Court appearance to set down dates for a Motion to Strike. That’s right, there was no meaningful activity of any kind for 2 1/2 years.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants

9. Police On Guard

Although Police On Guard is not a client or party, they pushed this April 2021 Application very hard, on behalf of Ontario police officers who were unhappy with their new roles. There was never any hearing though. It likely wouldn’t matter anyway, since cops are usually bound by collective bargaining agreements and can’t sue their employer.

However, their counsel has since confirmed that the case is no longer being pursued, and that the matter is considered “moot”. Apparently, it was rolled over into what is now the Take Action Canada case.

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

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

10. Children’s Health Defense (Canada)

This was another Application from April 2021, that also isn’t being pursued, since it’s supposedly “moot”. Never been in Court either. Okay, how much was raised, and has any of the money been returned? Worth noting that the POG and CHDC Applications are almost identical, with just minor edits.

Some would view it as a conflict of interest to be a Director of CHDC, at the same being paid as counsel to represent them in litigation. Just a thought.

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(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

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

11. Privacy Is Your Right

A group operating under the name “Privacy Is Your Right” solicited money from the public in a March 27, 2023 Zoom hearing, in order to take the CPSO to Court. In short, the doctor involved didn’t want to turn over records to the medical regulator, and several patients sought standing to challenge the demand, citing privacy.

The case was heard on March 30, and thrown out the same day. Leave was sought to go to the Ontario Court of Appeals. While the sudden verdict seemed odd, reading the decision cleared things up.

[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.

Are Dr. Kustka’s Applications for Judicial Review Premature?
.
[29] As this Court recently confirmed in Kilian, judicial review applications challenging decisions to initiate investigations under s. 75(1)(a) of the Code are generally dismissed as premature: Berge v. College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 1220, at para. 7. Challenges to the appointment of investigators, including the College’s compliance with any statutory requirements, can and should be made before the Discipline Committee, if the matter proceeds to that stage.

In short, the exact same issues had already been argued (and decided) by the Courts. The ONCA has also weighed in on the matter. It was premature to sue to prevent the CPSO from instigating proceedings against a doctor. It had also been decided that patients can’t claim private interest standing to prevent such a thing from happening. All of this was previously treaded ground.

Of course, this hadn’t been disclosed at the Zoom call. It wasn’t mentioned that all of the issues being argued had already been settled. Would people still have donated if they knew? And how did they rake in?

12. Kulvinder Gill Defamation #1

Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba (well, mostly Gill) made headlines in December 2020 by filing a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 people and media outlets. While it mainly had to do with spats on Twitter, portions of the suit related to issues with the CPSO investigations.

It’s unclear what Gill and Lamba paid for legal representation, but the other side claimed well over $1 million in costs. They were awarded them on a full indemnity (100%) basis.

The ruling was appealed, and it’s long been suspected that this was “leverage” in order to bargain for more favourable settlement terms.

Yes, the Defendants had said some rude things on Twitter, but filing this suit just makes Gill and Lamba come across as unhinged and vindictive. One would think that the “freedom movement” would disavow such loonies.

(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

13. Kulvinder Gill Defamation #2

This isn’t Gill’s only trip through the “gag proceedings” rodeo. March 2021, she sued the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for calling her an idiot on Twitter. She demanded $7 million in damages.

At the moment, the University has initiated an anti-SLAPP Motion against her. Unclear how much this will cost either side, but it really is a nonsense lawsuit.

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

14. Byram Bridle, University Of Guelph

It’s a bit hard to describe this case. Although it’s cloaked as protecting the speech and expression of a freedom fighter, the claim is filled with petty drama.

Given the parties involved — staff at the University of Guelph — the Court is likely to gut the case, at least regarding some Defendants. Guelph has it’s own collective bargaining agreement, so there will likely be a lack of jurisdiction for at least some of them.

Considering the allegations around speech and expression, the case is also vulnerable to an anti-SLAPP Motion, which would grind everything to a halt.

Seems like a waste of money all around.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/

15. CPSO Challenges

There have been several challenges of medical doctors going to Court in order to avoid potential discipline hearings, or to prevent disclosure of documents. These have never gone anywhere, since the Courts find it “premature” to wade into matters involving a regulator until things are settled.

The rationale is that if a doctor — or any regulated professional — could simply file a lawsuit when threatened, it would render the governing body helpless. While these challenges may be noble, they’re destined to fail.

Stay of related tribunal proceeding
.
137.4 (1) If the responding party has begun a proceeding before a tribunal, within the meaning of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and the moving party believes that the proceeding relates to the same matter of public interest that the moving party alleges is the basis of the proceeding that is the subject of his or her motion under section 137.1, the moving party may file with the tribunal a copy of the notice of the motion that was filed with the court and, on its filing, the tribunal proceeding is deemed to have been stayed by the tribunal. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

That being said, there is an exception. For the “freedom doctors” who object to the CPSO shutting down their free speech, s.137.4(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, or anti-SLAPP laws, allow such matters to be removed from the regulatory body, at least in Ontario. It’s baffling why none of them ever seem to use it.

16. Some final thoughts

This has been an attempt to document at least some of the money paid to lawyers in the last few years. Clearly, not all categories have dollar amounts attached, so the actual figures are much larger. While $3,350,000 can be tracked, it wouldn’t be surprising if it were closer to $10 million, or higher.

Pretty lucrative, isn’t it? And all for cases that were never pursued in any meaningful way. One would think that more donors and clients would be demanding refunds.

How much money did Vaccine Choice Canada receive for 2 lawsuits they aren’t advancing? How much did the case pushed by Police On Guard raise? Children’s Health Defense Canada?

This is likely why the Toews lawsuit happened back in June 2022. She had requested that the Law Society of Ontario investigate what had happened to her donations, as neither the Vaccine Choice nor Action4Canada cases seemed to be moving. Unlike with most complaints, the LSO demanded a response this time, which could easily have triggered an audit into the case financings. Suing her was a way to buy time, and to derail the investigation. Justice Chalmers (rightly) found that this was an act of intimidation.

Suing the Law Society itself, both in 2022 and 2023, was also likely done to buy time. The first one is under reserve on a Motion to Strike, with the second idle for the time being.

And covering these suits was the reason this website was sued in September 2021. Apparently, we can’t have the public asking too many questions about the quality of the work from the “freedom lawyers”.

Why keep pursuing this area?

If it can be destroyed by the truth, then it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.

Posted on

Court Asked To Throw Out Vaccine Choice Canada Suit As “Bad Beyond Argument”

A high profile Toronto lawsuit filed July 6, 2020 will finally be heard in Court.

To clarify, this will not be a Trial, or anything of the sort. Instead the Court will hear Motions to throw the case out as frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, moot (no longer relevant) and “bad beyond argument”. The Factums state that the Statement of Claim — the initial filing — is incoherent, unintelligible, lacks required facts and particulars, and fails to meet even the basics of Civil Procedure.

And they’re not wrong.

See these critiques from 2021 and 2022. These upcoming Motions parallel those predictions a lot.

It doesn’t help that this case remained inactive from July 2020 until January 2023. That’s 2 1/2 years. Makes it hard to view this as urgent.

On a side note: as of the time of publication, there appear to only be 2 Factums on file, despite there being 5 Motions to Strike. Perhaps there has been a delay in filing from other lawyers.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that this group has 2 (two) separate lawsuits. Both were written by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, and both are a complete waste of time and money.

1. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Dormant

Back in October 2019, VCC filed a lawsuit against the Ontario Government challenging requirements to give injections to students. A response was filed, and the case garnered some attention.

But what these people don’t tell you is that the case has been idle for 4 years now. It hasn’t had a single Court appearance since then. There have been no hearings, evidence filed, or obvious attempts to move the case forward.

Ontario Court cases are typically dismissed for delay if they haven’t reached Trial within 5 years, if there isn’t a reasonable explanation. That will happen in October 2024, just 11 months from now.

2. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2020 Lawsuit To Get Thrown Out

Here’s the Mercer Factum. However, the Ahmed/WEC Factum is even juicier with the following. It comes across as a lot more blunt in regards to these circumstances. When others are filed, they’ll be made available too.

(26) It has been outlined in the jurisprudence that it is fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought. Opposing parties cannot be left to speculate as to how the facts support the causes of action pled. Rather, the pleading must tell the defendant who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.

(28) In Adelberg v. Canada, a Statement of Claim was filed by some 600 plaintiffs who alleged they suffered harm because of a COVID-19 vaccination policy issued by the Treasury Board of Canada. The claim was almost 50 pages long, with nine pages devoted to remedies sought, some of which were not available in a civil action, including administrative declarations and injunctive relief. The claim included allegations of constitutional invalidity, criminal culpability and broad assertions of scientific knowledge. The pleading did not particularize the facts and was devoid of material facts pertaining to the personal circumstances of the plaintiffs. The Court found the pleading to be “bad beyond argument” and it was struck in its entirety. It is worthy to note that counsel for the plaintiffs in Adelberg is the same plaintiff counsel as in this matter before this Court.

(29) Similarly, the Court in Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), struck the plaintiffs’ pleading in which they sought damages and other relief from various government entities and employees for harms they allegedly suffered as a result of various restrictions instituted in British Columbia due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that the pleading could not be properly answered by a responsive pleading as it described wide-ranging global conspiracies and sought rulings of the court on issues of science. The pleading was also labelled as “bad beyond argument” and could not be mended by striking portions of it. The plaintiffs counsel in Action4Canada was one in the same as the Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case and in Adelberg.

(32) Much like in the cases of Adelberg and Action4Canada, the pleading in this matter is “bad beyond argument”. It is 190 pages long, violates the rules of pleadings, improperly names defendants, is replete with lengthy diatribes and makes allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies. It leaves many of the Defendants speculating as to how the facts support the causes of action pled. The pleading is, simply put, unintelligible and lacking in clarity, and should be struck. It cannot be mended by striking portions as it would only create more confusion and result in greater expenditure by the parties and this Court.

(37) In the alternative, this Court should strike or dismiss the Plaintiffs’ pleading in its entirety on the grounds that the pleading is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process as it contains many hallmarks of litigant behaviour as identified in the jurisprudence. As already indicated, the pleading is 190 pages in length, misnames defendants, contains 235 footers, includes rambling discourse, repeated misuse of legal, medical and other technical terms and makes discerning a legitimate cause of action very difficult. The pleading is unintelligible and is indicative of litigant behaviour resulting in five separate motions to strike before this Court.

(38) The courts have recognized that scarce resources should not be devoted to proceedings that are clearly frivolous and vexatious. They take away from meritorious cases and there is no benefit served in allowing them to continue. Scarce resources have already been devoted to this matter by the numerous counsel and parties involved as well as three days of valuable court time. The Plaintiffs’ pleading should be struck in its entirety with no leave to amend. The pleading cannot be partially struck or mended to fix the multiplicity of signposts of a vexatious proceeding. Any attempt to do so would only result in the consumption of more time and limited resources and result in further confusion. It is “bad beyond argument”.

Action4Canada struck as “bad beyond argument” at Paragraph 45:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45

Adeberg struck as “bad beyond argument” at Paragraph 52:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52

Earlier this year, the B.C. Law Society roasted the Action4Canada case, including it their training manual for new lawyers as an example of a “Wholly Inadequate Pleading”.

Where’s the lie here? Despite all of the things that various Governments have done to its citizens in recent years, these pleadings are so incomprehensible that they’ll never make it to Trial. Litigants with valid concerns will never get their day in Court. These cases aren’t thrown out on their merits, but because they’re so poorly written. At some point, one has to wonder it this was done intentionally.

Despite the Claim being nearly 200 pages long, it fails to plead details that would have established liability of the Defendants. Yes, this needs to be spelled out. Instead, the bulk of the document is almost entirely irrelevant to a CIVIL Court in Ontario.

Moreover, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates, GAVI, the Rockefeller Foundation, and others aren’t listed as Defendants, so the information about them is irrelevant.

The Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario, particularly Rule 25.06, lay out the basics for how pleadings should be drafted. These aren’t optional. Cases that don’t follow them will get struck down. Hard to imagine how veteran lawyers don’t know this.

Part of the problem with suing so-called “Medical Officers of Health” is that they have immunity from civil and criminal liability unless bad faith can be established. The Statement of Claim doesn’t plead any facts that would allow that to be bypassed.

By letting so much time elapse, the Defendants can now introduce “mootness” as an escape. One has to wonder why the suit was never diligently pursued, and why it was just allowed to sit.

Vaccine Choice seems content to simply file high-profile cases with no concern as to whether they’ll ever advance in the Courts. Kuntz himself has stated that their are other ways to get results other than from what a Judge has to say. This is improper, and a clear abuse of the Court system.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) Factum is due December 8th. Most likely, it will be a rehash of earlier ones, begging and pleading for a chance to rewrite. It will say that “it’s not plain and obvious” the case has no merit. And after it is struck, expect a trip to the Court of Appeals, and requests for more donations.

And please do remember to donate!

Remember, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide: How A COMPETENT Lawyer Should Have Have Handled Federal Injection Pass Case

On Wednesday, November 8th, the Federal Court of Appeal heard a case of over 600 Plaintiffs that was struck for being “bad beyond argument“. This was the high profile case of Federal workers, and members of Federally regulated industries who objected to the CV injections being a new job requirement.

There was an additional complication, as the Federal workers were also barred by law from going to Court. The others could, in theory, still use litigation as an option. This effectively “split” the case.

The case is being handled by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati.

August 2021: Ottawa announces that “vaccine passport” will be required of all Federal workers, and members of Federally regulated industries in the next few months.

May 2022: Statement of Claim is filed on behalf of over 600 Plaintiffs.

January 2023: There’s a hearing in Federal Court to strike the Claim.

February 2023: Claim struck in its entirety without leave (no permission) to amend regarding the Federal employees. However, it’s struck with leave (permission) to refile for everyone else. The Judge also found that the quality of the writing was “bad beyond argument”.

March 2023: Notice of Appeal was filed.

April 2023: The Appeal Book is filed.

May 2023: The Appellants’ written arguments are filed.

June 2023: The Respondents’ written arguments are filed.

November 2023: The Federal Court of Appeal has hearing to review the case.

The case is on reserve, meaning that the 3 Justices haven’t yet made their findings. This is quite common, though it’s uncertain when it will be released.

Interestingly, the lawsuit wasn’t filed until May 2022, nearly a year after mandates were announced. To put it mildly, it was terribly written, and never stood a chance. That’s been covered in detail here, here, here, and here.

Instead, this is going to be a different focus. Rather than simply pointing out errors and faults with how the case has been handled, serious, constructive feedback will be offered. Here are some ways that the case could have been managed differently, and how it may have survived.

Disclaimer:
This article does not attempt to provide legal advice. Instead, it’s meant as constructive feedback and information with regards to the Adelberg v. HMTK Case. The handing, both at the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal was beyond inept and unprofessional. Nonetheless, do not rely on this for your own cases. If you have questions, please seek advice from a competent legal professional

Anyhow, let’s get started.

One of the first things that needs to be pointed out is that employees of the Federal Government — a.k.a. the “Core Public Administration” — don’t automatically have the right to sue. Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) are quite clear about that.

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

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

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

With this in mind, Federal workers don’t automatically have the right to go to Court. In fact, they will have to demonstrate that the grievance options available to them are grossly inadequate and/or that the process is corrupted. This didn’t happen here. In fact, it doesn’t appear that any effort was made by anyone to go through the process, at least from reading the pleadings.

Approximately 2/3 of the 600+ Plaintiffs (about 400 in total) are/were members of the Federal Government. In order to sue, they’d have to demonstrate that existing options weren’t adequate.

There’s also the inter-related concern about just how poorly written the Claim is.

Anyhow, let’s offer some constructive feedback.

1. Plead Facts About How Grievance Process Is Unworkable Or Corrupt

The Statement of Claim (SoC) is 50 pages long. While this seems like a lot, the first 15 are just the Parties listed, and the other pages included in the template. The next several are the remedies sought. Then a few pages include some background information on the Parties (which is fine).

The “FACTS” start on Paragraph 22, which is about halfway through the SoC. It goes on from there until about Paragraph 30, approximately 1 page in total, explaining the allegations and pleading facts. Nearly everything else that follows is irrelevant to these proceedings.

Feedback: It would help the case immensely to plead facts about how various clients had attempted to resolve the injection mandates at their jobs. Providing details about what steps were taken (at least by some employees) to avoid this would have helped.

This certainly wouldn’t need to be all 600+ Plaintiffs, but pleading facts for about 20 or 30 of them using grievance options would have gone a long way. Or, considering that there aren’t many options available, perhaps lumping Plaintiffs together could work. For example:

-“Group A Plaintiffs” filed grievances with their union reps.
-“Group B Plaintiffs” contacted their HR Departments to seek alternatives.
-“Group C Plaintiffs” wrote to their employers, refusing, and asking for options.
-“Group D Plaintiffs” tried some combination of different methods.

This may be oversimplified, but remember, Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA give Federal workers the right to grieve, but not to sue. To overcome this, they need to show that there were no options available. And to do that, they need to at least show that they tried some remedies.

Seriously, there were over 400 members and former members of the Federal Government here. Didn’t any of them attempt the grievance process? None of them plead anything of the sort.

2. Plead Facts About Clients Attempting Workarounds Or Exemptions

Paragraph 28(c) is the only mention of Plaintiffs seeking exemptions from these requirements. And only a handful of them are named. While nice to see a mention of it, this isn’t nearly enough.

Feedback: More than just a few Plaintiffs should have been named as seeking exemptions. Additionally, the SoC “should” have given more information on what types of exemptions were sought, and the responses.

Similar to the last point, Plaintiffs who sought exemptions could be grouped together to make things more organized.

-“Group A Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for religious reasons.
-“Group B Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for medical reasons.
-“Group C Plaintiffs” sought exemptions based on freedom of conscience beliefs.
-“Group D Plaintiffs” sought exemptions based on lack of current long term test data.
-“Group E Plaintiffs” sought exemptions for a variety of reasons.

Additionally, Plaintiffs could have tried to obtain various accommodations to allow them to continue working (such as remotely). Information on that could have been pleaded as well.

This could also be used to bolster the claim that the Plaintiffs sought alternative remedies, and only sued as a last resort. It would be an important point to make.

And back to Point #1: considering that by default, Federal workers don’t have the right to sue (they can grieve though), it would have been nice to see what, if any, steps were taken afterwards. But the SoC pleads none of this, and consequently, can’t overcome the s.236 FPSLRA prohibition.

Yes, it’s true that facts are presumed to be true at the initial stages, but they still need to be pleaded in the Statement of Claim.

3. Provide Evidence Of Unworkability In Motion To Strike

It’s true that in Motions to Strike (throw out), evidence is not normally allowed. This is because it’s a preliminary challenge, and the opposing side is trying to say that the suit is fatal flawed regardless.

However, there are a few exceptions to this. These are instances where it will lead to the case being thrown out without any possibility to refile. Jurisdiction is one such exception, and the Statute of Limitations is another. Galati appears to be unaware of this, at least according to Paragraph 3 of his Written Submissions.

Feedback: The first line of defence that the Government has is the “explicit ouster” of s.236 of the FPSLRA. Once again, this is the argument that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear (at least part) of the Claims. If this can not be overcome, then the case is dead in the water.

What should have been done here is have several Plaintiffs submit evidence that they tried to exercise their grievance options. True, this will involve collecting Affidavits. True, they can then be questioned, or cross-examined on this. But such evidence would have helped in demonstrating the unworkability of existing options for Federal workers.

Plaintiffs who file Affidavits could certainly attach as exhibits any documents that show they tried other methods. Emails, text messages, letters, transcripts of recordings, etc…. would all have shown that they attempted to resolve this internally. If enough litigants did this, that would be very powerful evidence.

None of the 400+ Government workers had any evidence to submit for the Motion?

Keep in mind, if people are suing for large sums of money, they’d likely have to testify under oath at some point. Therefore, being cross-examined on an Affidavit hardly seems excessive.

Back to Point #1: if facts had been pleaded about this in the SoC, then it would have been a lot easier. Yes, a Motion to Strike would still be likely, but the Plaintiffs would be in a much stronger position.

4. Allegations Need To Be Particularized (Spelled Out) Clearly

There’s a requirement in the Federal Court Rules to “give particulars” when making allegations of, among other things:

(a) Fraud
(b) Misrepresentation
(c) Breach of Trust
(d) Undue influence
(e) Malfeasance of Public Office

What this means is that there’s a duty for the Plaintiffs to spell out with additional clarity what the accusations are. Galati doesn’t do that here, or in any anti-lockdown cases.

Feedback: If litigants are going to be making accusations of this sort, then it needs to be outlined in much more detail. What specific actions were fraudulent or amount to misrepresentation? What specific actions or statements caused that breach of trust? Instead of just making such bare statements, the underlying information needs to be provided.

Remember, everyone is entitled to confront their accusers. This includes Government officials. How can they respond to allegations if there’s not enough information provided?

If there isn’t enough information available to allege such things, then it would probably be better to just leave them out. It doesn’t help the clients to have the case bogged down unnecessarily.

5. Plead Facts In Support Of Claims Charter Rights Were Breached

Setting aside the issues around jurisdiction, the Courts are generally the proper forum to raise allegations that Charter protections have been violated. And a number of them are raised here:

(a) Section 2, Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 6, Mobility Rights
(c) Section 7, Security of the Person
(d) Section 15, Equality Rights

The problem is: while these are listed, there’s little to no information in support of this. As a result, the Defendants are left to guess. While many people can imply the reasons, it still has to be written out in the pleadings.

Feedback: If someone is going to allege that their rights have been violated, it would be helpful to lay out the details of what has happened. How are groups of people being treated unequally? How are people unsecure in their bodies? What mobility rights have been taken away?

The Plaintiffs have suffered mental anguish? Loss of dignity? Okay, then we need more information (facts) about what has happened.

6. Remove Argument From Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim more closely resembles a Factum than it does a Claim. It tries to argue what the scientific consensus is, and what the motivations of people are. It also draws the same conclusions that the Court is being asked to do.

Feedback: Instead of trying to argue in a Claim, it would be more helpful to to simply plead what information is available. What events? What dates? Who said what? Making it unnecessarily convoluted may impress many, but confusing the Judge is not wise.

Moreover, arguing caselaw and evidence in the initial pleadings isn’t appropriate. That comes much later, and is pretty basic knowledge in civil procedure. This is (partly) why the Government lawyers are saying that there are no facts pled. They’re right, it’s almost entirely argument.

7. Remove Content That’s Inappropriate In A Civil Claim

This is a no brainer. Courts are limited to certain types of cases, and are not allowed to preside over issues outside of their jurisdiction. It was also part of the reason the Action4Canada case was struck.

(a) Allegations of criminal conduct
(b) Allegations of crimes against humanity
(c) Allegations of violations of the Nuremberg Code
(d) Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration
(e) Allegations of involvement in eugenics schemes
(f) Seeking declarations about what the “scientific consensus” is

Feedback: Drop all of this, and related content from this — and other lawsuits. All it does is lead to Motions to Strike over jurisdiction. If the case is about workers having to take injections to keep their jobs, then don’t lose focus.

8. Name All Plaintiffs Instead Of “John Doe” And “Jane Doe”

Dozens of Plaintiffs in the Style of Cause (front pages) are simply listed as either “John Doe” or as “Jane Doe”, along with their employer.

Feedback: If the lawsuit were actually intended to go ahead, this would be pointless, as they’d all have to be identified at some point. It just wastes everyone’s time. Supposedly, this was done to prevent harassment and intimidation, but their identities could still be found out.

Considering that Government lawyers — supposedly — tried to find out who were anyway, it’s unclear what the point is. Despite what people think about Trudeau and his people, they still are entitled to know who is making the allegations. Think about it: how can one confront their accusers in Court, without knowing who they are?

9. Don’t Suggest Lower Court Judge Was Biased

The Notice of Appeal implies that Justice Fothergill was biased in how he wrote up the February 2023 Order which saw the SoC struck. This isn’t a good idea. The Judge correctly outlined many serious defects in the pleading.

Feedback: This is a dumb idea. Don’t do it. To even imply such a thing, there’d have to be some strong basis for it, or it could be considered contempt of Court.

Also, the comparison to Action4Canada was quite fitting. While the Federal suit was much shorter, it had essentially the same flaws and defects. There was the additional problem of the “explicit ouster” of s.236 FPSLRA.

Would the case have survived if the above recommendations had been implemented? It’s impossible to say for sure, but it would have been a lot more likely.

Again, this article is not meant to provide legal advice. This site in general does not provide advice. If you have questions in your own case, please seek professional input.

Pretty pathetic that this case has taken in over $1.2 million in fees and donations. How is this number arrived at?

(a) the donations solicited on the Constitutional Rights Centre website
(b) the Retainer Agreement demanded $1,000 from each Plaintiff (or $600,000+)
(c) the email to clients demanding another $1,000 from each (or $600,000+)

A lot of money has been wasted, and all for a lawsuit that never stood a chance. Now, hundreds of Plaintiffs — with valid problems — are going to find that they’re barred by the Statute of Limitations from trying again.

Meanwhile, a “moronic troll” online can break this case apart with little effort. Have to wonder what’s really going on here.

This article will likely lead to Galati suing the site again. Oh well. It’s not like the last one was well written, or even coherent.

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Litigants Accused Of Filing Defamation Appeal As “Leverage” Against $1.1 Million Cost Order

The long anticipated Appeal of Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba is scheduled to be heard on December 12th, 2023. This comes nearly 2 years after a Judge threw out their defamation case as frivolous. For some background, see here and here.

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.

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.

Gill (and Lamba) accused of bringing Appeal in bad faith

Now we get to November 2023.

One of the Respondents/Defendants, The Pointer Group Inc., has caused an interesting complication. In a Motion seeking costs up front, it’s accusing the Appellants of filing the Appeal in bad faith, in order to circumvent the cost award. There was a hearing before Justice Roberts on Wednesday November 1st.

From paragraph 28 of the Factum asking for costs:

Given the potentially extensive costs awards payable by Dr. Gill for the Action, her abandonment of her appeal as against 11 of the 22 respondents, her failure to identify any error made by Justice Stewart in granting The Pointer’s SLAPP Motion, the delay in pursuing this appeal and The Pointer’s limited resources, it is apparent that Dr. Gill has brought this appeal for the purpose of obtaining leverage in negotiations with The Pointer to avoid paying some or all of the costs awarded to The Pointer.

To summarize: The Pointer Group is alleging Gill and Lamba brought the Appeal as a tactical maneuver in order to avoid paying the full costs that are owed. It’s stated that approximately half of the Defendants have already settled in return for abandoning the Appeal against them.

Put bluntly, this is claiming contempt of Court on their part, by attempting to do an end run around the October 2022 costs ruling.

The Pointer says that the Appeal doesn’t address them in any meaningful way, and thus, there’s no basis for the Appellate Court to overturn those findings.

It’s interesting that this is the only party that’s sought security for costs to date. Besides, it’s strange to wait until so close to the main hearing date.

Updates will be posted closer to the December date. The Appeal will likely be dismissed, as anti-SLAPP laws were correctly applied here. The legislation is designed to prevent people from being able to bankrupt others on the basis of trivial matters. Additionally, the Appeal costs will likely be “full indemnity” as well This means Gill and Lamba could easily end up owing another $100,000 to $200,000, or more.

Gill has a separate anti-SLAPP Motion to be heard next October. It’s with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. Gill demanded $7 million because he called her an “idiot” online. That could easily cost another $25,000 to $50,000 that she doesn’t have.

Side note: the Court of Appeals has been contacted for more documents, and they will be uploaded when they arrive. Both The Pointer and Gill’s new counsel haven’t responded for comment.

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

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

Posted on

Date Set For Federal Injection Pass Appeal, Pleadings Were “Bad Beyond Argument”

February 2023, a lawsuit by over 600 Federal workers, and workers of Federally regulated industries, was struck in its entirety by Justice Fothergill. November 8th, the Federal Court of Appeals will review the case. Spoiler: the Appeal will be dismissed.

To describe briefly, the Statement of Claim was struck without leave (or permission) to amend against 400 Plaintiffs on the grounds that they were barred by Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA. Government workers, for the most part, don’t have the right to sue their employer.

This didn’t apply to non-Government workers, such as in banking or aviation. However, the Claim was drafted so poorly that it was struck anyway, but with leave to amend.

The Appeal is baseless, and will go nowhere.

While there are many errors in the original case, here are 3 big ones:

1. Federal Workers Barred From Litigation, Must Grieve Instead

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

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

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA give Federal employees the right to grieve, something that often ends in arbitration. However, they don’t necessarily have a right to sue in Court.

Now, there is (somewhat) of a way around this. If Litigants can demonstrate that the grievance process is seriously flawed or corrupted, they may get a Court to hear this. However, that didn’t happen, nor does it appear to have been attempted.

Not only was this case not beneficial to the public, but it was used as precedent in at least 3 more rulings, denying litigants access to the Courts:

(A) Davis v. Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2023 FC 280
(B) Horsman v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard), 2023 FC 929
(C) Doe v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 BCSC 1701

The Appellants allege that Justice Fothergill failed to give reasons for denying their Claim, but he did. It’s in Paragraphs 10-36 of the ruling. Granted, it’s not one that will satisfy them, but it is addressed.

2. Claim Fails To Follow Basics Of Civil Procedure

This comes from Paragraph 39 of the ruling, and lists some of the more obvious problems that came up with this lawsuit. The Federal Court Rules should be known to anyone who brings a case, as they outline the process for doing so.

As stated previously, lawsuits must be written well enough so that the opposing sides (and the Judge) are able to understand what’s going on. This isn’t optional.

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

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

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

When it’s stated that “particulars” are required, this means specific information. There’s an extra burden on the Party making the claims to ensure that they are spelled out. That wasn’t done here, nor was it done in several related anti-lockdown suits.

The case was struck as “bad beyond argument“, and rightfully so. While the non-Government Plaintiffs have the right to refile, they may wish to retain better counsel.

The Claim was struck — in part — as the basics of drafting weren’t followed. The Claim heavily mirrored the Action4Canada case, also struck as “bad beyond argument“.

The Appeal (bizarrely) criticizes Justice Fothergill for relying on the Action4Canada case as a precedent. It’s unclear why, unless this is deliberate obfuscation. The parallels are striking. Although the Federal Claim is much shorter, it has substantially the same defects.

3. Large Portions Of Claim Outside Jurisdiction Of Federal Court

[Para 53] Justice Ross granted leave to the plaintiffs in Action4Canada to amend their pleading. However, he specified that numerous claims, some of which are also advanced in the present proceeding, are improper in a civil action (Action4Canada at paras 52-53). These include allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity.

This should be obvious. If someone is going to commence litigation, it must be over issues that a Court can at least theoretically preside over. Yes, the merits of the case will need to be determined. However, if there are jurisdiction problems, then everything comes to a stop immediately.

The same problems occurred with the Action4Canada case, with Justice Ross saying:

[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.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

This shows why the Action4Canada case was used to help with striking the Federal one. Not only are both poorly written — and don’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure — but both make demands that Civil Courts can’t realistically grant.

In other news:

Action4Canada then appealed the findings that the B.C. Supreme Court couldn’t preside over such matters, but then let the case sit. It went “inactive” until called out.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 2020 case is also facing a Motion to Strike in Ontario in the new year. It will be thrown out for much the same reasons. The case was idle from 2020 until January 2023, when the Motion was finally brought.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s October 2019 lawsuit challenging regulations around immunizing Ontario students hasn’t had a single Court appearance, despite being filed over 4 years ago.

Take Action Canada arranged for a mass filing in Ontario, and the Statement of Claim is a virtual clone of the Federal one. It contains the same challenges which a Civil Court can’t grant. It’s sat dormant since. Because the Plaintiffs (police, fire fighters, paramedics, etc…) are mainly unionized, jurisdiction will be an issue for them as well.

An April 2021 Application organized by Police On Guard, and another from Children’s Health Defense (Canada), aren’t being pursued. Despite being filed nearly 3 years ago, neither have had a single Court appearance.

Also, after the Federal case was struck, there was an email sent out to all 600 or so Plaintiffs, asking for more money. The “freedom business” has turned out to be quite lucrative. Apparently, the $1,000 per head retainer didn’t cover this Appeal, and was only meant to cover Trial costs.

But of course, we all know none of these claims will ever get to Trial.

How much money has been pumped into these nothing-burger lawsuits?

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Put On “Inactive” List, Likely To Be Dismissed As Abandoned

Remember that dumpster fire of a case that Action4Canada filed in August of 2021? Remember how it was struck — not on the merits — but because it was so poorly written? Bad beyond argument?

Heck, even the Law Society of British Columbia piled on.

While Justice Ross did allow for a rewrite, the decision was appealed instead.

This Appeal was particularly frivolous considering the content that was being challenged. Specifically, most of it centered around Paragraph 52, outlining many of the areas that there was no jurisdiction to bring to Civil Court.

[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.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

The B.C. Court of Appeals isn’t going to overturn this. Full stop.

As for the request to revisit the costs issue, it needs to be pointed out that costs are almost entirely discretionary. Given that Justice Ross (correctly) ruled the Notice of Civil Claim wasn’t drafted properly, no one will fault him for such a finding anyway.

Unsurprisingly, there were more requests for donations.

And what a time to be alive. We are in the age where Court Services Online (C.S.O.) can be accessed by anyone. Any member of the public can search a case online, and see what exactly is going on. Yes, B.C. does paywall this content, but it’s not expensive.

As it turns out, no Appeal has yet been scheduled to be heard. This is a serious problem, as British Columbia, like most jurisdictions, don’t want files sitting dormant for months or years. The Action4Canada appeal has been classified as “inactive”, due to a failure to schedule the hearing.

Back at the beginning of 2023, there was a consent order for Translink to delay sending its Factum (arguments). However, it has since been filed.

It also appears that Mark Witten has been replaced as counsel for the B.C. Defendants for some reason.

The B.C. Court of Appeal Rules, and the Act outline the issue A4C is going to have:

[Division 3, Rule 50]
Managing inactive appeal list
50 (1)The registrar must place an appeal on the inactive appeal list if a notice of hearing of appeal is not filed in accordance with these rules by the date that is:
.
(a) one year after the notice of appeal is filed for the appeal, or
(b) 60 days after the appeal is ready for hearing.

[Division 4, Rule 51]
Appeals that are dismissed as abandoned
51(1) For the purposes of section 23 [appeals or applications for leave to appeal dismissed as abandoned] of the Act, an appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned if it remains on the inactive appeal list for 180 days.

(2) Unless a justice orders otherwise, an appeal that is dismissed as abandoned under subrule (1) may not be reinstated.

[Court of Appeal Act]
Appeals or applications for leave to appeal dismissed as abandoned
23(1) An appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned if it remains inactive under the circumstances and to the extent set out in the rules.
.
(2) An appeal or application for leave to appeal that has been dismissed as abandoned under subsection (1) may be reinstated in accordance with the rules.

Under Rule 50, an Appeal must be placed on the “inactive” list if more than 1 calendar year has elapsed since the Notice of Appeal was filed. Under Rule 51, if it remains on that list for 6 months, it will be dismissed for being abandoned. That’s consistent with Rule 23 of the Court of Appeal Act

Interestingly, the Appellants — people launching the Appeal — can’t just fill out a form if the case gets dismissed. Instead, a Judge must approve it.

There have been allegations made that the Respondents have been deliberately delaying getting a hearing booked. This seems very unlikely, for the reasons outlined previously. The Appeal doesn’t address the elephant in the room — that the Claim wasn’t written properly — so there’s no real prospect of the decision getting overruled.

Huang v. Li, 2022 BCCA 450 outlined the test for reinstating Appeals at Paragraph 10:

(a) the length of the delay and, in particular, whether the delay has been inordinate;
(b) the reason for the delay and, in particular, whether the delay is excusable;
(c) whether the respondent has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay; and
(d) the extent of the merits of the appeal.

Ground (d) is particularly fatal. There are no merits to the Appeal. None whatsoever. Instead of rewriting an incoherent Notice of Claim, an Appeal was filed to challenge jurisdiction on a number of issues Civil Courts can’t determine. It’s clearly and obviously baseless.

Supposedly, Action4Canada has a new Notice of Civil Claim ready to go. If this is actually true, then it boggles the mind why they’re wasting time and money messing around with this Appeal.

Questions need to be asked about this.

Receipts attached below (as usual).

UPDATE TO ARTICLE: This Notice of Hearing was filed October 19, 2023. It seems that people are taking note about what gets published in this case.

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

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