Category: Canada

Posted on

Is The Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Appeal Already Time Barred?

Back in mid-November, this site covered the 2023 case of some 330 members of the Canadian Forces, which had been struck by Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan.

The case was full of serious problems, including: (a) Statement of Claim not pleaded properly; (b) Evidence not being properly pleaded; and (c) Section 29 of the National Defence Act, or N.D.A.

The N.D.A. specified a grievance process was to be used, as opposed to suing in Court. This is common in most unionized and Government workplaces in Canada. Even though the lawyer was trying to argue around that requirement, over 100 of her clients were concurrently trying to grieve.

Worse, the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Catherine Christensen, had been told by the Federal Court back in late 2021 that clients couldn’t bypass the N.D.A. She knew, or at least should have known, that this problem would come up again.

Since the pleading was struck by an Associate Judge, as opposed to a Judge, there is a Rule which allows a Motion to be filed to ask for a review of the decision. However, counsel’s handling of this was comically bad, and very negligent.

This “Lionel Hutz” episode would be funny, except for the real world consequences.

Christensen Missed The Deadline To File Notice Of Motion

The case notes on the Federal Court website list November 12th as the date of the ruling. CanLII gives it as November 13th. Here, it doesn’t really matter, since there was no notice for a month.

There are actually 2 different types of Appeals within the Federal Courts, and those are addressed below. The one that the Plaintiffs here wanted had a time limit of just 10 days. Counsel took 29 to respond. One has to wonder if she got them mixed up initially, and only realized the error later.

Had she sought an extension of time right away, this headache could have been avoided. Similarly, if a Notice of Motion (for the Appeal) was filed, followed by seeking an extension, it would be okay. But that’s not what ended up happening.

A Motion for an extension of time was filed on December 12th, with the Government responding on December 16th.

Granted, Courts often will allow for filings beyond the limitations period, if there are good reasons provided. However, this is far from counsel’s only error.

Appealing WITHIN Federal Courts V.S. Appealing BETWEEN Them

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Note: Prothonotary and Associate Judge are the same thing.

Many will find this nitpicky and boring. But procedurally, there are very different rules to follow depending on who one wants to appeal to. As stated, this would be a Rule 51 Appeal, and the time limit is just 10 days to serve and file a Notice of Motion.

Had the case been struck by a Judge initially, then going to the Federal Court of Appeal would have been the only recourse. Rule 51 doesn’t allow Judges to overturn each other.

Mixing Up “Moving Parties” And “Applicants” Repeatedly

This may seem petty, but is worth mentioning:

Action: This is brought by filing a Statement of Claim. The people who initiate it are called the Plaintiffs, and the people who respond are the Defendants.

Application: This is brought by filing a Notice of Application, seeking Judicial Review of an Order or decision. The people who initiate it are called the Applicants, and the people who respond are called the Respondents.

Appeal: This is brought by filing a Notice of Appeal, seeking to challenge another Court decision. The people who initiate it are the Appellants, and the people who respond are the Respondents.

Motion: This is brought to by filing a Notice of Motion, to initiate steps within, or related to an Action, Application, or Appeal. The people who initiate them are the Moving Parties, and the people who respond are the Respondents.

Since Christensen filed a Motion seeking permission for an extension of time, her clients, at this point, would be considered MOVING PARTIES. But she repeatedly refers to them as “Applicants”, even though they never were. Even calling them “Plaintiffs” would be more accurate.

She also cites the “Federal Courts Act” at times when she really means the “Federal Court Rules”. Those are 2 completely different things. Still, the Court will know what the references are.

Motion Brought Under Wrong Rule (Should Be Rule 8, Not 51)

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicants will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 51(1) of the Federal Courts Rules.

Extension or abridgement
8(1) On motion, the Court may extend or abridge a period provided by these Rules or fixed by an order.

When motion may be brought
8(2) A motion for an extension of time may be brought before or after the end of the period sought to be extended.

This is already wrong. While the ultimate goal is to appeal the decision of Associate Judge Coughlan, first, an extension of time needs to be granted. In reality, this Motion should state Rule 8. True, the Court would still understand what she’s trying to do, but missing the deadline now means filing another Motion.

The written submissions make clear the extension is sought under Rule 8, but the Notice of Motion still needed to be fixed.

Christensen explains that the delay was caused by the difficulties of corresponding with over 300 clients. The Government responded that that the Notice of Motion could have been filed anyway, with the option to discontinue, or even just a Notice to ask for an extension. It would have cost just $20.

Motion Asks For Written Representations…. In Court Of Appeal?

leave for the Motion to be heard with written representations under Federal Courts Act Section 369.2(1);

Written representations only — Federal Court of Appeal
369.2 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court and subject to subsection (2), all motions brought in the Federal Court of Appeal shall be decided on the basis of written representations.

Christensen asks that the Judge determine the Motion with written representations, as opposed to having an oral hearing. This is common for simple Motions, and by itself, is not unreasonable.

However, Rule 369.2(1) applies to the Federal Court of Appeal. If she intends to appeal the decision of an Associate Judge, it remains within the Federal Court.

Unnecessarily Asking For Leave To Appeal?

2. leave for an extension of time to apply for Appeal of a prothonotary order;

3. leave to commence an application for Appeal under Federal Courts Act Section 51(1);

Appeals of Prothonotaries’ Orders
51 (1) An order of a prothonotary may be appealed by a motion to a judge of the Federal Court.

Service of appeal
(2) Notice of the motion shall be served and filed within 10 days after the day on which the order under appeal was made and at least four days before the day fixed for the hearing of the motion.

Items #2 and #3 don’t make any sense. Rule 51 is very short, and there’s no Leave (permission) needed to appeal a decision of a Prothonotary or Associate Judge. You just file a Notice of Motion. It’s also unclear what “apply for an appeal” means, but perhaps it’s a reference to Leave, which isn’t required.

And again, Christensen mixed up “Motion” with “Application”.

Christensen Improperly Swears Her Own Evidence

Use of solicitor’s affidavit
82 Except with leave of the Court, a solicitor shall not both depose to an affidavit and present argument to the Court based on that affidavit.

There’s a practice that lawyers aren’t suppose to argue their own evidence, as it tends to blur the lines between witness and counsel. Typically, an associate, clerk or client will swear it out. A Judge “may” allow it, but there are no guarantees.

Missing the deadline was bad enough. This is just a procedural Motion, seeking an extension of time, and it’s full of very basic mistakes.

Did Plaintiffs Always Intend To Appeal?

One thing the Government brought up is that the Motion says that the parties agreed to appeal, but not that they always intended to do so. This seemingly trivial choice in wording may sink the Motion, depending on how lenient the Judge is.

Motion Doesn’t Specify How Appeal May Be Successful

On paragraph 20 of their submissions, the Government lawyer states that the Plaintiffs offer no insight as to how an Appeal would theoretically be successful, assuming they were granted a time extension.

Paragraphs 7 through 16 of the Notice of Motion very broadly list a series of errors, but none of it is specified. Perhaps a better idea would have been to attach a draft version of the submissions they intended to use — except they weren’t done.

This could have been avoided if a request for a time extension had been filed right away. Seriously, it would have cost just $20, and their position would be a lot better.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Lawsuit

June 20th, 2023 – Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court on behalf of 330 Plaintiffs.

July 28th 2023 – Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

August 7th, 2023 – Notice of Intention to Respond is filed by the Government.

September 11th, 2023 – Statement of Defence is filed by the Government.

September 22nd, 2023 – Reply to the Statement of Defence is filed.

January 30th, 2024 – Court compels Defence to file their Affidavit of Documents.

March 3rd, 2024 – Court orders case management for the lawsuit.

April 29th, 2024 – Court gives a schedule of events to unfold.

  • Defendants shall serve and file their motion to strike by July 12th, 2024.
  • The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their motion in response by August 9th, 2024.
  • Hearing of motion to strike to be in-person at the Federal Court August 20th, 2024.

June 26th, 2024 – Plaintiffs contact Court, ask for hybrid setup so that Plaintiffs can attend the proceedings remotely.

July 11th, 2024 – Government files Motion to Strike the case.

August 12th, 2024 – Court contacted to request permission to file materials.

August 14th, 2024 – Court allows Plaintiff Motion materials to be filed, despite them not complying with the rules and procedure laid out.

August 14th, 2024 – Motion Record with 35 Affidavits filed by Plaintiffs

August 20th, 2024 – Court adjourns Motion to Strike hearing until September 19th.

September 19th, 2024 – Motion to Strike heard in Court.

November 12th, 2024 – Statement of Claim is struck without Leave to Amend. $5,040 in costs ordered.

December 12th, 2024 – Plaintiffs serve Notice Of Motion to extend time limits

December 17th, 2024 – Government responds, saying time extension shouldn’t be granted.

Now, the Court may very well grant an extension to file the Rule 51 Motion papers. There has been a longstanding aim of not using procedural rules unjustly to hinder litigation.

That being said, the Plaintiffs are far from guaranteed any success with this Appeal, even if it were heard. The Statement of Claim had many defects, as outlined in the last article. It’s unclear how any of it could be fixed.

For just a $20 fee, Christensen could have asked for an extension right away. She could have explained that some clients wanted to appeal, while others had not yet responded. Such a request would have been difficult to refuse.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(7) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024

OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w

Posted on

Action4Canada Sued In Kelowna For Defamation

Action4Canada (A4C) will be back in Court soon, but for an entirely different reason. It seems that a drag performer didn’t like what the group was saying about him. The Plaintiff, Tyson Cook, filed a defamation lawsuit in Kelowna on December 19th. It listed the organization, 3 named Defendants, and 1 unidentified Defendant.

In addition to seeking damages, it’s clear that an Injunction will be sought to take the postings down, and to prevent future ones from going up.

Unlike the train wreck the group filed in August 2021, this suit is short, to the point, and well written. It spells out exactly what has been said and done.

To be clear, this isn’t a defence of drag performances in general. However, people REALLY need to be careful about what they publish on the topic, since it can result in lawsuits.

According to the Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, the content published by Action4Canada goes far, far beyond criticizing Cook for being a performer. The postings quoted are still available online.

It makes accusations that he:

  • is a pedophile
  • sexualizes children
  • exploits and abuses minors
  • is a sexual deviant
  • indoctrinates children
  • is connected to a rise in child pornography and sexual abuse
  • performs sexually explicit content in the presence of children
  • promotes self-harm, murder, and cannibalism to children, and/or
  • is an inappropriate role model for children

The content is still up on the Action4Canada website today.

In one such publication from last year, A4C posts his photo along with allegations of specific sexual offences.

20… The following sections provide the categories of offences tending to sexually exploit and corrupt the morals of minors, and/or make available or promote, sexually explicit material or activities: Section 151, 152, 153 (1), 163.1, 171.1(5), 172.1(1), 173 (2), 174 (1), 175(1) (see attachment). These are indictable offences liable to imprisonment.

Although the sections of the Criminal Code of Canada are listed, the actual offences are not specified in the Claim. Here they all are.

  1. s.151: Sexual interference
  2. s.152: Invitation to sexual touching
  3. s.153(1): Sexual exploitation
  4. s.163(1): Child pornography
  5. s.171.1(5): Making sexually explicit material available to child
  6. s.172.1: Luring a child
  7. s.173: Indecent acts
  8. s.174: Nudity
  9. s.175: Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

It’s rather baffling that A4C would post such content, which explicitly accuses him of child sex crimes, but not expect a lawsuit in response. One has to wonder if A4C genuinely believed this to be the case, why not call the police?

What About Bringing An Application To Strike?

Rule 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia does allow for Applications to Strike if a NOCC hasn’t been pleaded properly. That is, of course, what happened with A4C’s previous 391 page suit.

That’s not the case here though. The entire NOCC is just 17 pages, including the covers. It clearly spells out the expression which is being sued upon, who made it, and when. It’s explained why Cook finds it defamatory. Whether or not it can be proven at Trial is another question, but it won’t be struck.

What About An Anti-SLAPP Application?

For reference, B.C. does have the PPPA, or the Protection of Public Participation Act of 2019. It’s based heavily on the Ontario model, and it written in an almost identical manner.

Note: This isn’t legal advice, just commentary.

(1) The Defendant must convince the Judge the expression is of public interest. If this is done, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to do 3 things:

(2a) Convince the Judge that the case has substantial merit.

(2b) Convince the Judge that there’s no likely defence.

(2c) Convince the Judge that the public interest in allowing the case to proceed to greater than the public interest in protecting the expression.

It may be a very hard sell for A4C to persuade that these kind of accusations are of public interest. But even if they do, it’s far from over. The case clearly has substantial merit (2a) — he’s called a pedo, among other things — and a Judge will very likely prefer that Cook get his day in Court (2c). The only possible defence here would be one of truth, if it can be established.

[1] Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. v. Webster. This Ontario case involved comments about “groomers”, which was found to not be public interest speech, among other flaws. That Judge rejected “fair comment” as a defence, dismissed an anti-SLAPP Motion and allowed the case to proceed.

That case also had EGALE Canada acting as an Intervenor. It’s not too farfetched to think that they’ll also try to get involved with Cook and A4C.

[2] Teneycke v McVety, is an Ontario case which saw the anti-SLAPP Motion dismissed. It made allegations that pharma lobbying and a connection to Doug Ford were the reasons the Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Theological Studies didn’t receive Provincial certification. The school was against vaccine mandates. While Kory Teneycke is indeed a lobbyist with Rubicon Strategies, and has political ties to Ford, cause and effect couldn’t be established.

[3] Dong v. Global News is another case that survived an anti-SLAPP Motion in Ontario. Some CSIS sources had believed that M.P. Han Dong had betrayed the “2 Michaels” who were held by China. However, Global News published this as if it were an established fact. The defences of truth and responsible communication failed.

A4C may face the same hurdles with establishing truth or responsible publication. All 3 of the above cases saw their Motions dismissed, at substantial costs to the Defendants.

Another problem here is that not everything can be classified as expression.

18. On or about January 20, 2023, the Defendants, Action4Canada and/or Person A, created an online petition entitled “STOP Taxpayer Funded Drag Queen Sexualization of Children” (the “Petition”), and posted the Petition on the website CitizenGo. The Petition remains available online for individuals to sign virtually.

19. Please sign and share this petition and demand that the City of Kelowna STOP using taxpayers’ money to fund Drag Queen Story Hours, and further demand that the School District reassess Mr. Cook’s suitability as an EA”.

One other factor that goes against A4C relying on anti-SLAPP laws is that this wasn’t just about expression or speech. They created a petition, and essentially tried to get him fired from his job.

Would This Lawsuit Be Covered By Insurance?

44. On or about April 25, June 18, and December 4, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the Defendants, advising them that the Defamatory Publications were false and defamatory. The cease and desist letters demanded that the Defendants remove the Defamatory Publications from the internet and refrain from posting further defamatory statements.

According to the NOCC, Cook’s lawyers sent several cease and desist letters demanding that the content in question be removed. A4C does have insurance, which is not surprising. However, it would be interesting to know if these letters were ever forwarded. For the purpose of mitigating risk, they should have been.

(a) If these letters were never forwarded, an insurance company may very well refuse to cover a lawsuit, and leave A4C to fend for themselves.

(b) If these letters were indeed forwarded, it’s inevitable that an insurer would have insisted the content be removed. After all, their business involves minimizing risk. If that was ignored, then again, the insurer would likely refuse to cover the expenses involved in defending the case.

So, A4C is in trouble again. If the group had any sense, they would take down the postings — voluntarily — and work to settle the case quickly. It’s not disputed at all that Cook does drag shows, but the other allegations may be very difficult to prove.

Action4Canada needs to hire a competent lawyer.

(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01#rule9-5
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-118604
(4) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7050/2023onsc7050.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1710/2023onsc1710.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3532/2024onsc3532.html

Posted on

Worse Than The Original: Galati/Action4Canada File Amended Notice Of Civil Claim

A word of advice: when a party to a lawsuit dies, it’s best to have their name removed. It can look pretty silly when this isn’t done, as is the case with former B.C. Premier, John Horgan.

Action4Canada has (surprisingly) filed their Amended Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC. They, and their counsel, have decided to keeping spamming the Courts by resubmitting content similar to what’s been struck as “bad beyond argument”.

And “spamming” is how one can describe this.

It’s hard to imagine at this point that it’s being done in good faith. There’s only so many times the Courts — and online trolls — can explain the same points to “Canada’s top Constitutional lawyer”. 5 separate Courts have struck similar pleadings, yet the new one here is more of the same.

To be somewhat balanced, there are genuine improvements. The length has been cut from 391 pages down to 54. The claims about Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, etc… have been removed. The allegations pleaded by the various Plaintiffs are better organized, and more readable. And since this is older content being refiled, the Statute of Limitations shouldn’t be much of a factor. Overall, this version is far easier to follow.

Briefly, here are the positions as alleged.

  1. Action4Canada: An advocacy group, with an interest in the rule of law
  2. “Jane Doe”: Mistreatment by the hospital for not honouring mask exemption
  3. Ilona Zink: Lost her business in 2020 due to forced shutdowns
  4. Valerie Ann Foley: Forced from Vancouver public transit, assaulted, over no mask
  5. Linda Morken: Refused service over no mask, arrested for refusing to leave
  6. Gary Morken: Fined over no mask, had to pick up Linda
  7. Pastor Randy Beatty: Church services disrupted over lockdown measures
  8. Brittany Wilson: Nurse, forced from her career over mask and vaccine requirements

Hard to believe, but there *might* be valid Causes of Action. That said, this is hardly the groundbreaking Claim we were all led to believe was coming.

True, there were initially other Plaintiffs, but they left in 2022, following the comically bad performance of Galati and the “bad beyond argument” decision.

That being said, the newer version goes considerably downhill in many ways, compared to the original. It introduces new errors that weren’t present in 2021, and leaves many older problems unfixed. The new errors were likely the result of copying portions of more recent claims.

One of the most comical screwups is that Action4Canada and the other Plaintiffs are still suing John Horgan. He died of cancer a month ago, and the story was national news. While other parties were removed from the Style of Cause (names at the top), Horgan is still there. It’s not his estate that’s being sued, it’s him personally, which is now impossible.

But don’t worry, it gets much, MUCH worse.

Galati Content Previously Struck By 5 Different Courts

For some additional context, here’s the recent Dorceus review, which outlined the frustration the Courts are feeling about Galati refiling the same cases.

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

5 separate Courts: (a) 2 Federal Courts; (b) 2 British Columbia Courts; and (c) the Ontario Superior Court have all thrown out similar pleadings. Justice Chalmers, also in Ontario, took a hardline as well.

This is “Bank of Canada” level bad.

Now, what’s wrong with the current Action4Canada NOCC?

1. Galati STILL Seeks Relief Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction

Galati has been told REPEATEDLY by various Courts to seek only Relief that is within the jurisdiction of the Court. Different types of Courts have different roles, and they need to respect each other. This is obvious, and shouldn’t need explaining.

Except Galati does need to have this explained again and again. Once more, he seeks Relief surrounding: (a) Nuremberg Code; (b) Helsinki Declaration; (c) Criminal Code of Canada, (d) Convention on the Rights of the Child, and more. One has to suspect he simply doesn’t read decisions in his own cases.

2. “Relief Sought” Section Runs Nearly 13 Pages, Is Unworkable

Galati pleads the the section on Relief Sought from paragraph 96 (page 35) to paragraph 121 (page 47). This amounts to nearly 13 pages. Keep in mind, this isn’t 13 items he’s asking for. It’s 13 pages. It’s based largely on facts that aren’t pleaded, and expert evidence improperly listed.

Worth mentioning, the original A4C Claim had 44 pages of Relief Sought, and covered the same sorts of non-justiciable issues. While shorter, it hasn’t really improved in terms of quality.

3. Galati Again Using Pseudo-Legal Concepts To Argue Case

A problem that regularly creeps into his cases is that he cites authorities that don’t have a place in modern Canadian jurisprudence, such as the English Bill of Rights. From the CSASPP defamation case, Justice Chalmers had this to say:

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

Another of his favourites is the Magna Carta. While it’s recognized as a historical document, it simply isn’t used in modern times as a basis for law.

4. Relief Sought Over Torts No Plaintiff Pleaded

A common problem with the Amended NOCC is that it seeks Relief based on facts that no Plaintiff actually pleaded. This problem is persistent. While too numerous to list them all, here’s one:

Paragraph 107 seeks Declaratory Relief about the so-called “vaccine passports” being imposed by the Government. The issue here is that no Plaintiff pleads anything about it. Keep in mind, the original NOCC was filed in August 2021, before these were a thing.

The closest is Brittany Wilson saying that she needed vaccination to work in health care. However, that came from her employer, not the Government — at the time.

There’s also Declaratory Relief sought that vaccine passports breach Section 6 (Mobility) Charter Rights. This was probably cut-and-pasted from the travel mandates cases. No Plaintiff pleads that they were citizens prevented from entering, remaining in, or leaving Canada. Nor do any plead that they were refused the right to move between Provinces, or to earn a livelihood elsewhere.

5. Relief Sought For NON-EXISTENT Minor Plaintiffs

Galati seeks Declaratory Relief regarding 12-17 year olds being offered vaccines. Problem is: NONE of the Plaintiffs are minors, nor are any seeking remedies for any children in their care or custody. For this to apply, at least one Plaintiff would have to be in this situation.

6. Relief Against NON-EXISTENT Municipal Defendants

In this section, Galati seeks various forms of Declaratory Relief against “Provincial and Municipal Defendants”. Problem is, there aren’t any Municipal Defendants. Perhaps this was just cut-and-pasted from another Claim.

7. Relief Sought Against NON-EXISTENT Curfews

In paragraph 97(e), Galati seeks relief surrounding various stay-at-home orders, curfews, and other lockdown measures. Thing is, these didn’t happen in B.C., where this Claim is filed. True, things were far worse in Ontario and Quebec, but this simply doesn’t apply in B.C.

8. Action4Canada Isn’t A Proper Party To This Lawsuit

The only information Action4Canada pleads is that it was co-founded in 2019 and that it “steps up” to advocate on behalf of the rule of law, the Constitution, and democratic governance. It specifically cites what happened starting in 2020.

The group seeks Charter damages pursuant to s.2 (fundamental freedoms),s.6 (mobility), s.7 (security of the person) and s.15 (equality). However, there’s no information pleaded that — even if true — would address any of these torts. There are no material facts at all. A4C clearly lacks Private Interest Standing.

Canada v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United, 2012 SCC 45 is the case which establishes the test for Public Interest Standing.

(a) Serious Justiciable Issue
(b) The Nature of the Plaintiff’s Interest
(c) Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue Before the Court

In theory, A4C could argue this, but there would be serious problems, especially given that their style of litigation isn’t exactly “reasonable and effective”.

9. “Jane Doe” Isn’t A Proper Party To This Lawsuit

Something Galati routinely does is sue on behalf of anonymous Plaintiffs. This is obviously not allowed, as one has the right to confront their accusers in Court. While one may wish to not be associated with litigation, having an “open Court principle” makes this difficult.

In fact, the Dorceus ruling addressed exactly that. Justice Koehnen struck 2 “John Does” and 1 “Jane Doe” for refusing to use their real names in Court. No reason had been provided for any of them doing this. The Plaintiff in this case will meet the same fate.

10. Plaintiffs Plead No Facts About Federal Defendants (Except RCMP)

In the NOCC, it’s required for Plaintiffs to plead material facts (Rule 3-1(2)(a)), and plead particulars (Rule 3-7(17)). This is redundant, and covered many times before.

Problem is, the Plaintiffs don’t plead any facts whatsoever related to the Federal Defendants, with the exception of the RCMP. This includes:

  • Justin Trudeau, current Prime Minister of Canada
  • Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer
  • His Majesty the King in Right of Canada
  • Attorney General of Canada
  • Omar Alghabra, Federal Minister of Transport

While it’s true that details in a Claim are to be assumed true, at least initially, there’s nothing in the NOCC that suggested the Plaintiffs were harmed by any of them. Their grievances now are primarily with the Provincial Defendants. A Judge will almost certainly strike the above named.

Yes, the originally NOCC contained loads of irrelevant information, but at least that version pleaded some facts about the above Parties. That’s all gone now.

11. Pleading Evidence Instead Of Pleading Facts

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.

Virtually everything from paragraph 37 (page 17) until about paragraph 94 (page 34) should be struck. It gets into expert evidence, which is not the role of the NOCC. That comes much later. Galati has been told this many times before, and refuses to listen. It also mentions many people: (a) Peter McCullough; (b) Peter Hotez; (c) Michael Yeadon; (d) William Haseltine, etc… who aren’t parties, and whom the Defendants likely don’t know.

12. Arguing Caselaw In A Notice Of Civil Claim

Once more, Galati tries to argue caselaw throughout the NOCC. This is likely done in order to appear smart, but is a serious mistake. The initial pleadings are not the place to dive into the law, and it’s not supposed to look like a Factum. All of those areas should properly be struck.

Will There Be Leave (Permission) To Further Amend?

That’s actually tricky to answer. Despite the Amended NOCC being full of deficiencies, it is considerably cleaned up. Courts tend to prefer to give “that extra chance”. There are allegations raised which *potentially* would be valid Causes of Action. As such, as least some of the Plaintiffs could proceed.

On the other hand, Galati is (to a large degree) simply recycling his pleadings yet again. He seems to have mostly ignored the guidance of Justice Ross, and appealed for no real reason. This pleading has many of the same defects, and adds in new ones. The B.C. Supreme Court could simply decide to end it all at the next Application to Strike.

Action4Canada has stated on countless occasions that they have tens of thousands of pages of expert reports and evidence ready to go. It’s that true, then why mess around with screwed up pleadings? Why repeatedly sabotage your own cases?

In any event, this lawsuit will never get to Trial.

Remember: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves!

ACTION4CANADA AMENDED CLAIM:
(1) A4C Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Amended Claim VIHA Response

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

5th Galati Pleading Struck As “Abuse Of Public Resources”, $190,000 Costs Ordered In Dorceus

[53] I have the distinct impression from reading the Amended Claim as a whole that its object is not to vindicate the employment rights of the plaintiffs so much as it is to mount a political crusade in which the court will be used as a grandstand to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of vaccines and the effectiveness of government measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic by opponents of those measures.

[154] …. If this was not clear from the outset, it should have become clear by the time the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal struck out similarly drafted statements of claim prepared by the same lawyer. While the interests of a free and democratic society may warrant leeway with respect to the pursuit of unconventional claims at the outset, when such claims continue to be pursued after being struck out by four courts, they amount to an abuse of public resources.

[157] …. Plaintiffs’ counsel is a sole practitioner with a different cost structure than that of counsel for the Non-Governmental Defendants and that this is the fifth time that Plaintiffs’ counsel has litigated a motion to strike with respect to a claim of this nature. I expect having done this four times before, that there were significant cost efficiencies for Plaintiffs’ counsel, especially with respect to the factum.

-Justice Koehnen, Ontario Superior Court Judge

This week, 473 Plaintiffs, who are current and former health care workers, saw their Statement of Claim struck completely. This was partly because it was so poorly crafted, but also because most had collective bargaining agreements which prohibited lawsuits. Of those litigants, 395 belonged to some sort of union, while the other 78 did not. They had been employed all across Ontario.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s yet another scam lawsuit that has come crashing down on duped litigants. And this will cost them $190,000 for doing so.

Interestingly, one Plaintiff decided to retain a real lawyer and have a proper Claim drafted. That person was given permission to file. More on that later.

Previous Critique On Galati Case Aged Very, Very Well

Back in July, this review was posted about the numerous defects in the Statement of Claim. And as predicted, jurisdiction was a fatal law, at least for the unionized Plaintiffs.

While the Statute of Limitations wasn’t really a concern of the Court here, it may be if Plaintiffs decide to try their luck elsewhere. However, every other item on this list made its way into Justice Koehnen’s ruling in some form.

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

Perhaps most notably, the Court finally called Galati out for recycling his earlier cases. It’s long overdue for this to happen.

Galati Called Out For REPEATEDLY Wasting Court Resources

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

Now we have this gem, the 5th pleading to be struck:

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

Worth noting: Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court weighed in a year ago when CSASPP was sued for defamation. He dismissed that case under anti-SLAPP laws, and awarded $132,000 in costs. He was scathing in his decision.

[74] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks dated January 29, 2022, Mr. Gandhi supported the statement with hyperlinks to support the statements. The statements made in the FAQ are also supported by hyperlinks that provides that factual support for the statements. The statements made in the e-mail to Mr. Dicks and in the FAQ, that the Plaintiff has been criticized by the courts in other cases, is supported by the following decisions: Sivak v. Canada, at para. 55, Galati v. Harper, at para. 35, Da Silva Campos v. Canada, at para. 12, Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052, at para. 31, and Al Omani v. Canada 2017 FC 786, at para. 94-95.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

[88] Here, the action commenced in Ontario by the Plaintiff is prolix and contains bizarre conspiracy theories. The action he commenced in British Columbia is similar. I am of the view that “what is really going on” in this case is an attempt by the Plaintiff to stifle public criticism about a class action claim that is not properly pleaded and improperly asserts bizarre conspiracy theories that are ineffective and have little or no chance of success.

Factoring in Justice Chalmers, 10 different Judges in 6 separate Court hearings have made determinations that this type of litigation is frivolous, an abuse of the Court system, improperly pleaded, and has little to no chance of success.

Keep in mind, this list would be a lot longer, if not for several cases that were dropped. These include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada; (b) Katanik / Take Action Canada; (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada; and (d) Sgt. Julie Evans / Police on Guard.

Arbitration/Grievance Requirement Bars Unionized Workers

[13] The plaintiffs’ core complaint is that their employment was suspended or terminated as a result of their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Suspension and termination are core elements within the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the labour relations regime. The fact that the plaintiffs also go on to characterize their claims as ones for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish and breach of the Charter does not change the analysis. All of those complaints remain rooted in the employment relationship and its suspension and termination.

Despite attempts to frame this (Dorceus) as conspiracy, intimidation, and a variety of other torts, Justice Koehnen stated that this is really about litigants having their employment conditions altered to require these vaccines. This was essentially constructive dismissal.

This finding was fatal to the unionized Plaintiffs, who were barred from the Courts.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
.
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
.
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada.

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)

From the ruling, we get this information:

[49] The Amended Statement of Claim is, at best, unusually drafted. A statement of claim is supposed to contain material facts on which the action is based. The Amended Statement of Claim contains few material facts about the employment of any of the 473 plaintiffs or the circumstances of their suspension or termination. Mr. Galati explained in oral argument that if the claim contained such facts, it would run into the hundreds of pages and would be challenged as unwieldly. That perhaps speaks to the advisability of pleading this as a consolidated claim.

Galati sued on behalf of nearly 500 people. He was required to plead facts about each Plaintiff that would establish a case for everyone. He had to plead facts about all the (alleged) Charter violations for each Plaintiff. A proper suit for so many people would have been several hundred pages in length. Other than naming their specific employers, he provided no detail about any of them.

Instead, it was the Defendants who compiled a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record in preparing their Motion to Strike.

Even if this was a Class Action — which it wasn’t — sufficient facts would still have to be pleaded for every Representative Plaintiff.

Another missing part was particulars. When alleging malice, bad faith, malfeasance, or a host of other torts, they must be spelled out in detail. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what the case against them is.

Plaintiff Beth Ann Dick Goes Her Own Way

[146] The plaintiff Beth Ann Dick provides an example of the sorts of considerations at issue here when determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Ms. Dick was initially represented by Mr. Galati. She says that she was not informed about the specific claims that Mr. Galati made on her behalf, did not speak with him, and did not meet him to discuss the individual circumstances of her claim, nor was she aware of the types of legal argument that would be made on her behalf.

[147] She has since retained Mr. R. P. O’Connor who has delivered a more conventional fresh as amended statement of claim. It narrows the claim to solely that of Ms. Dick against her former employer, removes the allegations of Charter breaches, removes outlandish allegations of false pandemics and crimes against humanity, and clearly pleads the necessary facts underlying causes of action in tort, contract, and breach of statute that she advances.

[148] Mr. O’Connor’s proposed amended statement of claim is an example of a pleading that survives a challenge under Rule 21. I grant leave to Ms. Dick to file the amended pleading she proposes.

Beth Ann Dick was a Plaintiff in the original case, but bailed out and retained a real lawyer. Her new counsel, R.P. O’Connor sent in a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that actually pleaded valid Causes of Action. It is (more or less) straight breach of contract.

If other Plaintiffs had been represented by a competent lawyer, things could very well have ended differently for them.

While the non-unionized Plaintiffs were granted Leave to Amend, any who want to will likely need to hire a better lawyer.

Missed Opportunity: Bill Galati For The $190,000 In Costs

While the Plaintiffs were hit with $190,000 in Court costs, this could have ended differently. If Justice Koehnen was serious about lawyers not abusing the Court process with duplicate Claims, he could have ordered Galati himself to pay. Rest assured, such baseless litigation would virtually disappear if lawyers were personally responsible for what they file.

Instead, it’s always the clients who have to pay, regardless of how badly (or how often) their counsel screws up.

And on a final note, Action4Canada eventually submitted their Amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC), nearly a year after the Court of Appeal laughed them out of Court. While much shorter, it contains many of the same defects that Justice Ross mentioned, and adds new ones in. Expect another Application to Strike.

DORCEUS DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

PREVIOUS DECISIONS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

ACTION4CANADA:
(1) A4C Amended Notice Of Civil Claim

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Yukon Status of Women Council Opposed

This is a follow up to the previous article, which covered Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Action and Education Fund. It’s not the only group opposed to this legislation. Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It was introduced by Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography. Quite simply, this is to limit the access of minors to this content.

The Yukon Status of Women Council (YSWC) is the group that sent in this paper in opposition to Bill S-210. The majority of it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

One of their current efforts is SWAPY, Supporting Worker’ Autonomy Project Yukon. While claiming to be against human trafficking and exploitation, they call for support and legalization of sex work, which is inherently exploitative.

They note that:

“It is critical to note that sex work and exploitation and trafficking are often conflated, which has far reaching impacts on policies and services which cause harm to those engaging in sex work, which is consensual (vs. exploitation, which is not consensual). Part of our work aims to counter these misconceptions and increase safety and options for peers.”

The argument is beyond the scope of this article, but it’s also irrelevant here. It’s also repeated in their submissions to the House of Commons. Bill S-210 is about implementing an age-restriction regime for accessing adult content. It’s about whether or not there should be some sort of screening to prevent minors from getting access.

While this seems broad, the Bill does have a “Defences” section within.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

To be clear, Bill S-210 puts in a number of exemptions, such as: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; and the “arts”. While the exact definitions are not spelled out, at least the first 4 are pretty obvious. It’s more subjective as to what “the arts” would encompass.

YSWC states several times that it’s trying to refute the narrative which conflates “consensual work” with overt “trafficking and exploitation”. It’s unclear how that applies here. Minors shouldn’t be permitted access, which is the goal of Bill S-210. Whether or not there’s exploitation at the other end is beside the point.

“The impact of this censorship extends beyond mere content moderation, affecting the livelihoods and autonomy of those who rely on online platforms for income and community building. Independent content creators, including sex workers and artists, face the threat of financial hardship and even more avenues for stigmatization and criminalization as a result of increased content restrictions and platform censorship, while larger adult websites would remain unaffected.”

How would implementing some age-verification system “create financial hardship” unless the content was (at least in part) directed at minors? Seems like those are the kinds of operations that SHOULD be closed down.

The group also claims that the alphabet “community” needs access to sexually explicit material for education and expression. This is identical to what Women’s LEAF argues. Assuming this is true, why then would this be detrimental, unless it was aimed at minors?

YSWC argues that Bill S-210 infringes on the “right to work” for sex workers. It does no such thing, but merely requires some effort to ensure all the customers are actually adults.

YSWC points out that requirements could be bypassed by using a VPN, and setting it to indicate that the device is located in another country. While true, it doesn’t really give a reason to abandon the Bill altogether.

As an aside, YSWC is also involved in a Court challenge against the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods (SCAN) legislation. It allows for evictions of tenants on 5 days notice in the event of certain illegal activities. These include:

  • drug trafficking
  • bootlegging
  • prostitution

In early 2022, the Yukon Government committed to reviewing the SCAN Act.

While it could be argued the YSWC does valid advocacy work for women who’ve fallen on hard times, it still doesn’t explain the opposition to Bill S-224. Perhaps more general privacy concerns would gut their online businesses if people had to use their real identities to gain access.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210
(7) Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS) Mootness Motion To Be Heard Friday

On Friday, Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) will argue against a Motion to have their case declared “moot” in a Yarmouth Court. This isn’t a determination on the merits, but to get the it thrown out regardless. This comes after the organization was denied public interest standing earlier this year.

Interestingly, CANS is doing this without formal representation. Their papers are being drafted by a few of their members, which is quite impressive. At the hearing for public interest standing, William Ray — author of the Stormhaven website — presented their case. The other co-Applicant, J.M., is a minor who does have a lawyer.

The Attorney General’s office is claiming that it’s a waste of time and money, as so long has elapsed, and there are no live issues. The usual “scarcity of judicial resources” justification has been pleaded. Unsurprisingly, CANS opposes the Motion, in part because Robert Strang is still in office. Part of CANS’ mission is to ensure this type of activity never happens again. The Briefs are well worth reading.

To support their Motion, the Government included an Affidavit from Tara Walsh, Senior Executive Director at Public Health. CANS filed Affidavits sworn by Chris Milburn and Shelly Hipson, along with her extensive research. J.M. didn’t submit one, which the lawyer is using to demonstrate that there’s no live issue to try.

In its current form, the case is an Application for Judicial Review. In theory, even if declared “moot”, it may still be okay to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. There is far more latitude with those kinds of proceedings, whereas Applications are more restrictive. That is, after all, what happened with the travel mandates cases — although the idiot lawyers appealed.

The Friday hearing is to be available virtually. Anyone wishing to watch the hearing can contact the Court, or CANS directly. Information is also in their pinned Tweet.

COURT DOCUMENTS (MOOTNESS MOTION):
(1) CANS Walsh Affidavit Mootness Motion
(2) CANS Milburn Affidavit Mootness Motion
(3) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion
(4) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion More Attachments
(5) CANS Government Arguments Mootness Motion
(6) CANS Applicants Arguments Mootness Motion
(7) CANS Government REPLY Arguments Mootness Motion

COURT DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING):
(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2024/2024nssc253/2024nssc253.html

ABOUT THE GROUP:
(1) https://www.thecans.ca/
(2) https://www.thecans.ca/call-to-action-letters-of-support/
(3) Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia Quick Fact Sheet (pdf)