A University of Guelph professor has formally discontinued his action against David Fisman, a so-called “expert” from recent years. The Statement of Claim, filed in late 2022, involved him, the University of Guelph, and several of their staff. This was the result of a lengthy dispute with Byram Bridle, a faculty member there.
The Notice was “with prejudice, on a no-cost basis”. With prejudice means that it can never again be refiled. Apparently, Fisman agreed to waive costs as well.
The Guelph Defendants filed a Statement of Defence, but Fisman didn’t. Instead, his lawyers opted to commence an anti-SLAPP Motion to have the allegations against him thrown out. The scheduled date was November 19th, 2024.
Keep in mind, under Ontario law, cases dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws are typically subject to “full indemnity” cost awards. This means that the Plaintiff(s) who loses will have to pay 100% of the Defendant(s) costs in addition to their own. This is done to deter people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence free speech.
Fisman doesn’t appear to have any real connection to Guelph. The suit against him has to do with some social media postings. There are (of course) allegations of a conspiracy, but none of it is properly pled. This is the sort of thing which led to Kulvinder Gill’s $1.1 million cost award nearly 2 years ago.
Back on February 28th, 2024, there was a case conference. The Guelph Defendants also commenced an anti-SLAPP Motion of their own.
At that point, Bridle was facing 2 anti-SLAPP Motions, both presumably with full-indemnity cost awards. His solution was to arrange to have one of them dropped.
True, a case is normally “stayed” (or frozen) once this is initiated, but it doesn’t prevent the parties from consenting to discontinue the matter.
While Fisman is no longer a party to this case, Guelph’s Motion is still set to be heard in 2025. Even if the Judge rules that anti-SLAPP laws (s.137.1 of Courts of Justice Act) don’t apply, it’s likely to be dismissed anyway. The reason: Bridle is a faculty member at the school. UGuelph employees are bound by a collective bargaining agreement. In particular, Article 40 outlines that arbitration — not litigation — is the expected path. See earlier review of this case. At its core, the allegations against the university itself (and its staff) amount to a workplace dispute.
Bridle dodged one bullet by dropping his case against Fisman. It remains to be seen if he’ll come to his senses regarding the University of Guelph.
Statistics Canada has finally shown what’s been obvious for a long time: the actual numbers of people coming in are a lot higher than what’s publicly talked about. Specifically, over 1 million people came to Canada on some kind of visa.
The usual disclaimer needs to be added: this is just the official numbers, and they are estimates. It’s difficult to get information on how many people have left, or died.
StatsCan explains it as “Net international migration refers to the total number of moves between Canada and abroad that result in a change in the usual place of residence. It is calculated by adding immigrants, returning emigrants and net non-permanent residents, then subtracting emigrants and net temporary emigration.”
One source that’s expected to grow is from Ukraine.
Of the 943,730 applications for CUETAs, Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, 616,429 have already been approved. That’s about two thirds. Some 133,323 have already arrived, according to Government statistics.
Temporary immigration is the leading contributor to Canada’s growth
Nice to finally see this admitted.
It’s been frustrating to see how limited the Overton window is. Typically, the only number that gets talked about is the 300,000 or 400,000 that obtain permanent residency. There’s a much bigger picture to look at than just this.
Canada is exploding in size, but not because there is some baby-boom happening locally. Instead, the options available to come keep growing.
In 2022, the reason behind Canada’s record-high population growth was somewhat different, since international migration accounted for nearly all growth recorded (95.9%).
What else does Ottawa have to say about this?
For the year 2022, Canada welcomed 437,180 immigrants and saw a net increase of the number of non-permanent residents estimated at 607,782. Both of these numbers represent the highest levels on record, reflecting higher immigration targets and a record-breaking year for the processing of immigration applications at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The estimated gains in non-permanent residents recorded for 2022 are the highest for a single calendar year for which comparable data are available. Furthermore, it is the first time these gains are superior to those from immigrants over the same period.
All provinces and territories saw a year-over-year increase in the net estimated number of non-permanent residents in 2022, with work and study permits, in addition to the number of asylum claimants, up across the country. This increase is because of a combination of factors, including the aforementioned intent to leverage international migration to help fulfill employment needs across the country and the program created to welcome people fleeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
This is something that has been talked about here for several years: by omitting various temporary categories from public discussion, it paints a very distorted picture about how many people are actually entering each year.
It’s an issue that many so-called “truthers” and “dissidents” have been unwilling to address. Sure, they’ll go on about Roxham Road, but not this.
The most recent Annual Report to Parliament is 2022 (which covers the year 2021). It’s a bit frustrating as these reports used “new visas” and “total visas” almost interchangeably at times. I believe these are actually new visas issued.
And over the last few decades:
Year
Stu
TFWP
IMP
Total
2003
61,293
82,151
–
143,444
2004
56,536
90,668
–
147,204
2005
57,476
99,146
–
156,622
2006
61,703
112,658
–
174,361
2007
64,636
165,198
–
229,834
2008
79,509
192,519
–
272,028
2009
85,140
178,478
–
263,618
2010
96,157
182,276
–
278,433
2011
98,383
190,842
–
289,225
2012
104,810
213,573
–
318,383
2013
111,865
221,310
–
333,175
2014
127,698
95,086
197,924
420,078
2015
219,143
73,016
175,967
468,126
2016
265,111
78,402
207,829
551,342
2017
317,328
78,788
224,033
620,149
2018
356,876
84,229
255,034
696,139
2019
402,427
98,310
306,797
807,534
2020
256,740
84,609
242,130
583,452
2021
445,776
103,552
313,294
862,622
Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program
A few problems with this data: either the Feds don’t know how many people leave afterwards, or they just don’t make it easy to find.
For international students graduating, there is the PGWP, the Post Graduate Work Permit. While that was once limited to a single year, it eventually became 3. Now, there is an 18 month extension available, pushing it to 4 1/2 years.
Then we get things like this:
Right now, in cities across the country, it is too hard to build the housing we need, particularly affordable housing. Housing policies are often barriers to producing results and many Canadians – from young families, to seniors, to newcomers – are finding it harder to find an affordable place to call home. It is clear that we need to accelerate change so the system works for all Canadians.
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was in Guelph, Ontario today to launch the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), a $4 billion initiative that will provide funding for local governments to fast track the creation of 100,000 new homes across Canada. Local governments are now invited to develop innovative action plans, in line with the flexible criteria, to remove barriers to building more homes, faster.
The Fund will help cities, towns, and Indigenous governments unlock new housing supply by speeding up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density, or incentivizing development close to public transit. Local governments are encouraged to think big and be innovative in their approaches. They could be accelerating project timelines, allowing increased housing density, encouraging affordable housing units, and more. The Fund will provide upfront funding to support implementation, as well as additional funds upon delivering results.
This was an initiative announced recently: $4 billion to build 100,000 new homes, or a subsidy of about $40,000 each.
It’s a frequent complaint that cities are too congested, and that housing is unaffordable. Additionally, accommodating more people requires extra space to be developed. The Green Belt in Ontario comes to mind. Logically, wouldn’t reducing immigration rates, if not imposing an outright moratorium, be beneficial?
A few observations:
[1] Advocates for affordable housing are typically silent on immigration, and the concept of supply and demand. More people vying for the same number of spots drives prices up.
[2] Advocates for “the living wage” are typically silent on immigration, and the impact on salaries. Having more people compete for the same amount of employment tends to drive wages down, as demand for workers is pushed down.
[3] Environmental advocates are typically silent on the topic of immigration. Yes, they will oppose the development of undisturbed lands, but few will publicly make the obvious connection.
Of course, there is the issue of culture clash, but that’s a discussion for another time.
In any event, get ready for more changes. This trend isn’t likely to be reversed anytime soon, as there are too many with vested interests in seeing it continue. Think the small towns or rural areas will be spared?
Senate Bill S-215 was introduced in November 2021. It is described as an Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.
Let’s call a spade a spade. Is this going to lead to taxpayers having to bail out colleges and universities sometime soon? And what are the details of how this will be implemented?
It was introduced by Senator Lucie Moncion, who is labelled as an independent. Her Senate biography lists her as having a “distinguished career of more than 38 years in the co-operative financial institutions sector, the last 16 as President and CEO”.
How very interesting that a longtime banker would be putting forward legislation to potentially bail out colleges and universities in Canada
Proposal
4 (1) The Minister must develop a proposal for federal initiatives designed to
(a) reduce the risk that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent;
(b) protect students, faculty and staff in the event that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; and
(c) support communities that would be impacted by an institution becoming bankrupt or insolvent.
Consultation
(2) The proposal under subsection (1) must be developed in consultation with representatives from
(a) institutions;
(b) provincial and municipal governments;
(c) groups and associations of — or advocating on behalf of — students, faculty and staff of institutions.
Very interesting to have a former banker in the Senate, and introducing such a Bill.
The Bill went to Committee in October 2022, and doesn’t appear to have moved since. That is, of course, not to say that it won’t advance in the future. Of course, it’s always possible to be slipped into another, larger Bill, and passed with little to no debate.
Consultations will be made with groups acting on behalf of students, faculty and staff? Okay, how do we ensure that there is real representation?
As previously described here and here. Canadian colleges and universities are in fact registered charities, which are already receiving lucrative tax breaks.
There is a provision to support communities that would be impacted by an institution becoming bankrupt or insolvent. While may sound okay, one has to wonder why we have communities that are dependent on universities. Do we think it beneficial to require their survival?
Of all the things to prop up, why the higher education industry? We let citizens go bankrupt, but support this sector?
It’s hard to give a proper critique when there’s so little specific information here.
Ryan Imgrund is back in the news again, and not in a good way.
He became somewhat of a household name in 2020/2021 making doomsday predictions about death waves of Covid-19. Of course, none of this ever materialized. But it didn’t stop major media outlets in Canada from regularly hosting him and treating him as some sort of expert. In reality, he’s a high school science teacher who moonlights as a biostatistician.
Or, at least he was a teacher, until the Summer of 2022.
The Ontario College of Teachers has filed another complaint against him for conduct unbecoming of a teacher. (See archive.) Specifically, it reads:
3. At all material times, Person A was an 18 year old family female whose family was friends with the Member’s family.
.
4. In or about August of 2005 the Member sent Person A, via MSN messenger, unsolicited photographs including:
(a) two photographs of himself standing naked and holding his penis in his hand;
(b) two photographs of himself lying naked on his back holding a beer bottle next to his penis.
It’s typical in these types of cases to redact the identities of the students, especially if there are under the age of majority.
Interestingly, this is supposed to have happened in the Summer of 2005, more than 17 years ago. This woman was 18, and Imgrund would have been in his 20s. It’s unclear why this is coming to light now. Was it only just reported now, or did the College of Teachers know about it a long time ago?
Imgrund still has another complaint pending (see archive) before the College, and no hearing date has yet been set. That one alleges at least 5 victims, all minors, and claims of psychological and mental abuse. There is also an allegation of sexual abuse against 1 of them.
Now, if there is merit to these complaints, it’s unclear why the police weren’t immediately involved.
As with the previous complaint, these are still considered to be just allegations. Neither claim has yet been proven, and Imgrund denies the accusations.
Since March 2020, he listed his work history as “Biostatistician / Corporate Consultant” and doing this as a form of self employment. Apparently, he earned a living “discovering, analyzing and interpreting scientific, mathematical, economic and retail trends”. All of that said, he was most well know for making doomsday predictions around virus infections.
But something else about his biography never made sense. His LinkedIn page states he was working at PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, from 2000 until 2009. (See archive). This doesn’t seem plausible, as he would have been a university junior at that time, and presumably very busy.
It also doesn’t add up since PHAC didn’t come into existence until 2004. It was done by Order in Council, and extensively outlined here. This is far more than simple resume padding.
In any event, Imgrund’s side gig as a television expert seems to have come to an end. He hasn’t appeared since news of the suspension broke earlier this year. We’ll have to see how events unfold.
Now, it’s uncertain how true the O.C.T. accusations are — as again, nothing has yet been proven. But Imgrund’s high profile media presence in the last few years has ensured a continued interest in his activities. Even the mainstream press has picked it up. A less prominent person wouldn’t have attracted the same attention.
Remember the big stories in 2018 when Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson each sued Wilfrid Laurier University for millions of dollars? There was strangely little to report on for the next 4 years. That’s about to change.
Laurier recently filed an anti-SLAPP Motion.
SLAPP is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation. These are a specific type of suit, ones that are brought (or alleged to have been brought) for the purpose of shutting down public discourse. Laurier’s Motion Record can be obtained from the Ontario Superior Court, and it’s interesting.
Turns out, there’s more to the story.
Lindsay Shepherd sued Laurier in 2018 for a total of $3.6 million. Among other things, she claimed that her prospective career in academia had been ruined by her experience. The suit named: (a) the school itself; (b) Nathan Rambukkana, a professor of communications studies; (c) Herbert Pimlott, also a professor of communications studies; and (d) Adria Joel, the acting manager of gendered violence prevention and support.
June 18, 2018, Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million suit against the same Defendants as Shepherd: (a) Wilfrid Laurier; (b) Rambukkana; (c) Pimlott; and (d) Joel. He announced it online as well, making sure there was public knowledge.
Peterson did something else, which was cited in Court papers: he admitted he brought the suit for purposes other than what was filed. He said that he wanted Wilfrid Laurier to be more careful in how they talk about people, and also, that he didn’t think they learned their lesson. These statements have the potential to haunt him later on.
Given how public the suits from Shepherd and Peterson were, the school felt compelled to respond in the same manner. They announced that they thought these proceedings — in particular, Peterson’s — were being used to stifle discussion.
What the Defendants were doing was setting up a defense under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This has been on the books since 2015.
Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
Anti-SLAPP legislation exists in Ontario, and other jurisdictions — to prevent the Courts from being weaponized on issues of public interest. The Defendants were going for the argument that this is exactly what was happening with Peterson.
Peterson then decided to sue Wilfrid Laurier a second time.
Note: there is an error with the Court display. The second lawsuit is actually worth $1,750,000, not the $175,000 that is listed.
There is actually a second lawsuit on file for Jordan Peterson. It was filed September 11, 2018. He claims that Laurier’s defense (claiming he brought the initial suit to silence public discussion) amounts to further defamation. He sued again, but this time, it was only against the school itself.
Statements of Defense have been filed concerning both of Peterson’s lawsuits. The first was on August 31, 2018, and the second was on October 11, 2018.
Apparently, publicly raising an anti-SLAPP defense in a public case amounts to further defamation. It’s unclear what made Peterson think this was a good idea.
Anyhow, the university entered some of their correspondence into evidence, and it’s very interesting. All of this is available in the Motion Record. This anti-SLAPP Motion appears to only address the second lawsuit. A likely reason is that this would be a much easier target to get thrown out.
According to the correspondence submitted in the Motion Record, Laurier’s lawyers have found it strange that Peterson has apparently had prolonged health problems. After all, he has been keeping busy with:
Authoring another book
Hosting a podcast
Participating in media interviews to promote his book
Walking several miles a day
It was reasoned that if Peterson is able to do these, then he should be willing to make himself available to be questioned (deposed).
Depositions are routine in major lawsuits. They are also common in anti-SLAPP Motions. Peterson would have to swear out an Affidavit outlining the damages he suffered, and would then be subject to cross-examination. However, this apparently hasn’t happened.
One can speculate as to his motives, but it seems Peterson has bent over backwards to avoid having to testify under oath, or give evidence.
If he were to discontinue the case, it would be a huge blow to his pride. It would be far worse if his cases (either of them) were dismissed as SLAPPs. Having a Judge rule that Peterson commenced litigation to silence public discourse would destroy his reputation as a “free speech champion”.
Peterson can’t bring himself to admit what he did. But he knows the consequences of losing. Therefore, the only option may be to drag it out indefinitely. It’s worth noting that Ontario Superior Court typically dismisses cases that haven’t been set down for Trial after 5 years, unless good cause it shown. Both of his suits are well past the 4 year mark.
And what happened when Peterson sued Laurier the first time? This!
This 2018 tweet from Lindsay Shepherd is pretty comical. After suing her university for $3.6 million, Peterson decides to pile on with another $1.5 million claim. It never seemed to dawn on her that the school might try to defend itself.
By “suing her”, what Laurier actually did was file a 3rd Party Claim. This is a form of a defense, where a Defendant states that they are not responsible for alleged damages, but someone else is. In this case, the school takes the stance that Peterson should actually be suing Shepherd. They have a valid point.
She secretly recorded a private conversation, and turned it into an international story. Regardless of the nonsense in that meeting, she chose to make it public.
Shepherd’s $3.6 million lawsuit doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere either.
Free speech absolutism also doesn’t seem to be a factor. Peterson has shown he’s perfectly okay with de-platforming identitarians, who hold views he disapproves of. The above video was of Faith Goldy being disinvited to a free speech panel. It makes a mockery of the principles he claims to hold.
While Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel acted like clowns in 2017, Peterson shouldn’t be celebrated. He has demonstrated that he’s quite willing to use the legal system as a weapon.
In the Summer of 2021, Peterson advocated for people to suspend judgement on the lockdown measures that were being implemented across the globe. Vaccine passports were implemented shortly afterwards. Gee, it’s almost as if he knew this would happen.
Despite his reputation, he’s hardly a freedom champion.
Peterson was also denounced as a limited hangout years ago for his refusal to address more complex and controversial subjects. Search “I can’t do it” for just one example of that.
But They Compared Me To Hitler….
In various interviews, Peterson never seems to tire pointing this out. Yes, it was unprofessional, and yes, inappropriate. But there comes a point where he needs to move on.
Peterson has admitted becoming extremely wealthy in the last few years. He went from being an unknown to a household name in a very short amount of time. The incident with Shepherd and Wilfrid Laurier helped immensely.
He would be hard pressed to demonstrate how that November 2017 meeting caused him damages. And remember, it was private. It only became public after Shepherd leaked the audio.
One of the things Plaintiffs in anti-SLAPP Motions must do is prove they have suffered meaningful damages as a result of the speech or expression. If they are just nominal or non-existant, such suits are supposed to be dismissed. This is probably the reason he keeps delaying the case.
This development was covered in the National Post, but the Motion Record wasn’t included.
The Motion should be heard in 2023, to dismiss the second Peterson suit.
What will happen to his first lawsuit? If this initial anti-SLAPP Motion prevails, it seems likely that Laurier will file another to get the original case thrown out. Peterson could potentially lose 2 anti-SLAPP rulings when this is over.
That said, Peterson is now a multimillionaire, so the legal fees shouldn’t be a burden.
An Ontario Superior Court recently ruled that the University of Western Ontario has the right to implement its “vaccine passport” system, and to collect such information. The Judge (to summarize) said that it’s not coercion, but just a choice that people make.
[69] In seeking to justify their request for a permanent injunction, the applicants emphasize what they characterize as the “coercive” nature of the Policy in forcing disclosure of their otherwise private health information. They raise concerns about the danger of losing their academic year if they do not provide their private information by way of proof of vaccination. They raise additional concerns of the fairness of this coercion, given the late timing of Western’s announcement of the continuation of the Policy, after tuition was due and the students had made living arrangements and other financial commitments for the year.
[70] I acknowledge the applicants’ frustration; however, observe that the previous version of the Policy that applied to the 2021-2022 academic terms did notify the university community that the Policy was set to expire on September 7, 2022, and that it would be reviewed by no later than September 1, 2022. There was, in fact, a vaccine mandate and personal information collection policy in place before the ostensible “surprise” of Western’s announcement of the revised Policy on August 22, 2022.
[71] I do not agree with the applicants’ characterization of the Policy as being “coercive” in nature. I do not accept the Policy will “force” members of the university community to disclose their personal information. The Policy forces individuals to choose between two alternatives, even if they like neither option. The choice is the individual’s to make. Each choice comes with its own consequences. That is the nature of choices: Seneca College, at para. 75; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 et a. v. Toronto Transit Commission and National Organized Workers Union v. Sinai Health System, 2021 ONCA 7658 at para. 77.
[72] I am also not persuaded that a disposal order is warranted in the circumstances. Again, the relief sought is broad. The applicants did not provide any authority in support of this relief. The applicants confirmed on the hearing of the application that they want all proof of vaccine information collected by Western to be destroyed. The court does not comprehend any reasonable basis for such a broad order. Among other issues, proof of vaccine information in the 2021-2022 year was collected pursuant to the province’s mandate.
Seriously, why do people bother? Why not just leave the schools altogether? Are the tens of thousands in non-dischargeable student loan debt really worth it?
A curious bit of information about the Judge Kelly Tranquilli: apparently she’s donated to the Liberal Party of Canada several times in recent years. Or, at least there is someone in London with that same name. It’s not much, only about $1,400 in total. Still, worth a look.
As for UWO receiving money, there are many sources, including several millions in “foreign” contributions. This is according to the Federal Lobby Registry. Interesting details shown.
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION
AMOUNT
MORE COMING?
Canada Foundation for Innovation
$7,581,000.00
YES
Canada Research Chairs
$7,339,000.00
YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
$28,885,000.00
YES
City of London
$28,885,000.00
NO
Foreign
$4,209,000.00
YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
$29,038,000.00
YES
Other Federal
$35,699,000.00
YES
Other Provinces
$35,699,000.00
YES
Province of Ontario
$318,799,000.00
YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
$9,292,000.00
YES
UWO gets financial contributions from all areas of government. Also, there are other areas which this institution is able to profit.
Revenue Until April 2021
Receipted donations $23,391,977.00 (1.74%)
Non-receipted donations $7,913,117.00 (0.59%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,860,861.00 (0.66%)
Government funding $458,914,000.00 (34.17%)
All other revenue $844,026,000.00 (62.84%)
Total revenue: $1,343,105,955.00
Expenses Until April 2021
Charitable programs $1,068,203,541.00 (96.31%)
Management and administration $30,830,509.00 (2.78%)
Fundraising $10,090,630.00 (0.91%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,109,124,680.00
Revenue Until April 2020
Receipted donations $5,737,520.00 (0.47%)
Non-receipted donations $29,464,401.00 (2.44%)
Gifts from other registered charities $4,705,436.00 (0.39%)
Government funding $436,669,000.00 (36.14%)
All other revenue $731,737,519.00 (60.56%)
Total revenue: $1,208,313,876.00
Revenue Until April 2019
Receipted donations $11,119,427.00 (0.87%)
Non-receipted donations $17,837,610.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $5,854,513.00 (0.46%)
Government funding $467,184,000.00 (36.63%)
All other revenue $773,266,199.00 (60.64%)
Total revenue: $1,275,261,749.00
Worth pointing out: the top 10 highest paid employees receive in excess of $300,000 each. Good to know tuition dollars are being well spent.
The University of Western Ontario is also a registered charity, meaning it’s receiving all sorts of tax benefits at the expense of the public. Regular readers of this site won’t be surprised in the least.
As for CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, at least 2 groups within UWP received the benefit. Perhaps why there was little interest in protecting students from vaccine mandates. And being a “registered charity”, UWO would also have been eligible for lockdown and rental subsidies.
