Free Speech Archives

March 16, 2025March 16, 2025

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Again, this is not clickbait.

On July 12th, 2023, HateGate co-author Caryma Sa’d filed a $100,000 lawsuit in Federal Court. It was against the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), and Morgan Yew, one of its reporters.

At its core, it was a defamation lawsuit, but dressed up as trademark and competition.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same stunt that co-author Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) had pulled with Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore). And likewise, Sa’d saw her case thrown out by the Judge.

The case was struck on September 25th, 2023, for failing to state a Cause of Action, or to sue over anything the Court could realistically grant. Coincidently, that’s when the “HateGate Affair” was released.

Parts 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Why do these author lawsuits matter? It’s because they show — at a minimum — that there’s an axe to grind against Bernie Farber and CAHN. It’s difficult to view the authors as being at all unbiased when they’ve filed lawsuits about the very people they’re “doing research on”.

As an aside, Sa’d was represented by Frederick Wu. This is also Jeremy MacKenzie’s lawyer in his October 2023 defamation suit with Ezra Levant and Rebel Media. Considering that he filed this case in the wrong Court, it’s understandable why he’d have trouble with the later one. Wu seems to be an incompetent lawyer.

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

The Statement of Claim reads largely as a defamation suit, which should properly be brought in Provincial Court. Instead, it was filed in Federal Court. Allegations which may be viewed as harassment should probably have been filed Provincially as well. According to the ruling:

[7] The principal allegations in the Statement of Claim surround an event that Ms. Sa’d intended to host on July 10, 2021, in Toronto’s Chinatown district, described as a comedy night at which Ms. Sa’d would interview and roast an individual she describes as a right-wing personality. In the days leading to the event, CAHN expressed concern about the event. While both parties opposed the views of this individual, they did not agree on whether the event would be effective in countering those views or rather would serve to promote them.

[10] Ms. Sa’d pleads that, following correspondence between them, CAHN agreed to minor revisions to a handful of passages in its article. However, she alleges that, while the revised article correlated more closely with some facts, the revisions did not materially change the misleading character of the article. She alleges that, in publishing the updated article, CAHN refused to expressly specify which revisions had been made.

[11] The Statement of Claim further pleads that, from time to time, CAHN publishes materials encouraging counter-protestors to attend events and obstruct what it describes as “fake journalists”. Ms. Sa’d alleges that she has been subjected to: (a) in-person harassment at rallies by counter-protesters employing such tactics; and (b) online sexism and racism, including by online personalities she names as John and Jane Doe.

[12] Based on these allegations, Ms. Sa’d invokes subsections 7(a) and (d) of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 [TMA], and sections 36 and 52 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 [CA], and claims against the Defendants declaratory relief, injunctive relief, general damages of $50,000, aggravated and exemplary damages of $50,000, and costs. Details of these statutory provisions will be canvassed later in these Reasons. Ms. Sa’d filed her action as a simplified action under Rules 292 to 299.

Interestingly, this case is packaged as alleged violations of the Trademarks Act, and the Competition Act. There are a few possibilities why this was done:

(a) If filed in Ontario Superior Court, it’s very likely that an anti-SLAPP Motion would have been brought, and it would shut down the case.
(b) Successful anti-SLAPP Motions typically result in “full indemnity”, or 100% cost awards to Defendants. By contrast, Federal Court has much lower cost scales, and thus, is much less risky.
(c) Defamation lawsuits are typically restricted by a very short Statute of Limitations. Failure to follow may result in the case automatically being lost.

Filing in Federal Court may have ultimately have been a wise move (if she was going to sue at all), as it only led to $850 in costs.

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Unsurprisingly, CAHN brought a Motion to Strike the Statement of Claim. Several grounds were cited, but the overall theme was that the case was an abuse of the legal system.

The Notice of Motion accuses Sa’d of using litigation to silence CAHN from speaking on important topics. This strengthens the suspicion that it was filed here and not the Ontario Courts in order to avoid an anti-SLAPP Motion. It’s implied that they would have, it given the chance.

In their Affidavit, it was pointed out that this wasn’t the only such lawsuit that Sa’d had filed.

***Since then, the other 2 cases from Sa’d have been voluntarily discontinued. The case with the Broadbent Institute was dropped on February 13th, 2025. She dropped the suit against Canada Proud on January 28th. That appears to be the end of it.

The Responding Motion Record accused CAHN of bringing the Motion as it was “low risk, high reward”. This is rather ironic, considering that the case was improperly filed in Federal Court to avoid the much more expensive Ontario anti-SLAPP laws.

Sa’d also requested — as an alternative — that the Court give permission to allow the Claim to be amended, or to provide particulars (specifics). Ultimately though, the suit was thrown out completely.

While the general tone of this lawsuit seems more tepid than any of Hategan’s, it’s just as frivolous. Both HateGate authors have filed baseless suits against people they viewed as having wronged them. It doesn’t exactly scream “objective” in their later work.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Sad T-1452-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Sad T-1452-23 Notice Of Motion To Strike
(3) Sad T-1452-23 Ettienne Affidavit
(4) Sad T-1452-23 Motion Record To Strike
(5) Sad T-1452-23 Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1286/2023fc1286.html

March 15, 2025March 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 2B: Settling The Score With TVO And “The Agenda”

No, this title isn’t clickbait.

It takes a special kind of person to sue public television because they don’t report on a guest or subject as glowingly as they should. It’s even worse when members of the organization are sued for no discernable reason. But that’s exactly what happened in September, 2019.

Elisa Ferryman-Cohen (formerly Hategan) filed a $150,000 suit against:

Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVO)
The Agenda With Steve Paikin
Stacey Dunseath
Eric Bombicino

Stacey Dunseath and Eric Bombicino were producers at TVO at the time.

The case was dismissed on consent in January, 2021. Although the terms aren’t public, one has to suspect that Hategan dropped it with the promise that no costs would be sought. The Defendants could easily have brought an anti-SLAPP Motion.

Why does any of this matter? It’s because Ferryman-Cohen (who still uses her old name, Hategan) is apparently the primary author of the “HateGate Affair”. This is a 2023 paper from her and Caryma Sa’d which supposedly “exonerates” Diagolon and Jeremy MacKenzie. It blames a the invocation of the Emergencies Act on a giant failure of intelligence and law enforcement.

Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Also, the paper strongly implies a giant conspiracy to frame innocent people, while trampling on the rights of Canadians more broadly. Considering that Hategan and Sa’d specifically name members of the RCMP, they’re lucky to have not been sued for defamation over it. There’s nothing in their FOIA request package which supports the allegations.

Before that, though, let’s look at Hategan’s other litigation.

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

In an earlier piece on the HateGate scam, we looked at the December, 2018 lawsuit brought by Elisa Hategan. While old litigation is rarely helpful, these cases are quite the exception.

December 4th, 2018, Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore) sued Ferryman-Cohen (formerly Hategan) in Ontario Superior Court. Hategan filed a suit of her own on December 10th, one which Frederiksen counter-claimed.

For context, Moore/Frederiksen was also involved with Heritage Front, and had a similar life experience with Hategan/Ferryman-Cohen. The anger appears to come from Hategan not getting the credit and recognition she felt entitled to.

While the December 4th filing was dismissed for inactivity, the later ones did go before a Judge. And is it ever an interesting ruling.

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

[138] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts. The information about Ms. Moore’s former extra-marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality. By publishing statements about these sexual relations, and falsely claiming that this was done to advance Ms. Moore’s career, Ms. Hategan has clearly given publicity to a matter concerning the private life of Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore submits that this publication is (i) highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (ii) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Ontario courts have particularly noted the private nature of sexual relations and family quarrels, among others.

[139] Ms. Moore further submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of breach of confidence. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra-marital affair was confidential, in that it was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality, and Ms. Hategan’s publication of that information was unauthorized and was to Ms. Moore’s detriment. This confidential and highly intimate information was used to denigrate Ms. Moore’s personal and professional reputation, imputing that Ms. Moore received professional benefits from this and other sexual relationships. Damages, sufficient to mark the wrong that has been done, are warranted.

[140] I agree that this tort has been made out. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra‑marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan in confidentiality. I agree that this information is highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not a legitimate concern to the public.

Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness

[141] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s likeness by registering multiple websites and social media handles (the “domains”) in Ms. Moore’s name. Ms. Hategan inked many of the domains directly to her own website, so that when a person searched for Ms. Moore, they were redirected to Ms. Hategan’s information. In doing so, Ms. Hategan took advantage of the name, reputation and likeness of Ms. Moore’s personality. Ms. Hategan did this for commercial purposes and to boost her own professional reputation. As a direct result, Ms. Moore cannot register many of the domains that would naturally be used for her business – including variations of her name. Instead of using her own name, Ms. Moore has to use a fictional phrase – “one moore liz” – to promote herself online.

[142] I agree with the defendant that these actions constitute an appropriation of Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness.

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

[143] On at least two separate occasions, Ms. Hategan threatened to sue Ms. Moore’s professional colleagues in an attempt to interfere with Ms. Moore’s economic relations. Ms. Moore alleges that this amounts to the tort of intimidation, and is an actionable wrong committed against a third party. In at least one instance, as admitted by Ms. Hategan, these threats led to a speaking engagement being cancelled. As a result of these actions, Ms. Moore has suffered economic harm and loss. Ms. Moore does not know how many other opportunities she may have lost out on, because Ms. Hategan has refused to produce relevant communications with third parties. Ms. Moore submits that an adverse inference should be drawn.

[144] Again, I agree with these submissions. Ms. Hategan has caused interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relation.

Justice Ferguson concluded that Hategan/Ferryman-Cohen had:
(a) Defamed Frederiksen/Moore
(b) Leaked confidential relationship about an out-of-marriage affair, with the explicit aim of causing embarrassment and shame.
(c) Created multiple domains to redirect traffic to her own site, and restrict her rival from getting her story out.
(d) Threatened multiple colleagues with lawsuits in order to intimidate them from working with Frederiksen/Moore.

Ultimately, an Injunction was also issued, to keep Hategan from doing it again.

If this sounds malicious, it is. And it’s not the only way she has behaved in an unprofessional manner. With that in mind, her 2019 lawsuit makes a lot of sense.

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

From reading the Statement of Claim, it doesn’t look like there was any actual defamation in it. Instead, it wasn’t quite the puff piece Hategan was hoping more.

12. In December 2018, the Plaintiff initiated legal action against Elizabeth Moore in Ontario Superior Court, and in February 2019 Bernie Farber was added as a Defendant; they are currently being sued for injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, wrongful appropriation of personality, unlawful interference with economic interests, and negligence, with the case currently subject to ongoing litigation. However, even after Steve Paikin and TVO were made aware that Moore and Farber’s appearance on THE AGENDA had led, at least in part, to a lawsuit, the tortious “Leaving Hate Behind” episode continues to be broadcast and disseminated on TVO’s website and multiple other social media platforms.

13. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, disregard for truth, recklessness and failure to prevent the tortious appropriation and unauthorized dissemination of the Plaintiff’s likeness and personality, the Plaintiff suffered significant harm. The Plaintiff also asserts that the moral and copyright rights of her memoir were violated when Farber and Moore appropriated the Plaintiff’s experiences as detailed in her book, and fraudulently attributed them to Moore during the “Leaving Hate Behind” episode of THE AGENDA WITH STEVE PAIKIN.

38. In July 2019, the Plaintiff learned that another Producer on THE AGENDA had been directed to do “due diligence” and look into her claims prior to the broadcast. In a sworn affidavit dated July 24, 2019, show guest Elizabeth Moore stated that producer Eric Bombicino contacted Moore and Farber on September 8, 2017 with an email that read: “So Elisa Hategan contacted us today via email and made some accusations. I imagine you are familiar with these. I am terribly sorry to bother you for a response, but my EP wanted us to do our due diligence and get your comments on her accusations. She said that basically she was the only female spokesperson for the HF and Elizabeth has stolen details from her life. Again I am terribly sorry to bother you with this, but I have been asked to get a response. Thanks again for everything today guys. It was truly a great interview, and a pleasure to meet both of you.”

39. The fact that Producer Eric Bombicino saw fit to contact Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Moore to verify that indeed they had not made fraudulent statements, and did not contact the Plaintiff at all, shows gross negligence and bias on the part of both Bombicino and other THE AGENDA employees and/or contractors involved in prescreening and fact-checking for the show. Bombicino’s bias is evident in the flippant way he refers to the Plaintiff in his deferential email to Farber and Moore, in which he apologizes repeatedly for having to do “due diligence” and implies that he imagines Farber and Moore are “already familiar with these.” Bombicino’s choice of terminology, as well as how the email is worded, conveys a premeditated bias that shows favouritism toward Farber and Moore, rather than the actions of a government agency employee instructed to do his job in ensuring accuracy, journalistic ethics and lack of bias.

42. After the show aired, the Plaintiff made several attempts to communicate with THE AGENDA show host Steve Paikin about the tortious statements made by Farber and Moore on the show, but received no reply. After she initiated legal action against Elizabeth Moore in December 2018, the Plaintiff forwarded a copy of her Statement of Claim to THE AGENDA host Steve Paikin and Executive Producer Stacey Dunseath. Despite their awareness of the ongoing lawsuit against their show guests, neither TVO nor any staff of THE AGENDA made any attempt to remove the content from their website and multiple social media platforms.

Not being present for any of these talk, this is speculation. However, the Defendants were likely put off by Hategan’s demeanor, and tried to distance themselves from her.

It appears that Hategan thinks that if she sends TVO and The Agenda a copy of her lawsuit with Frederiksen/Moore and Farber, that they’ll simply scrub the content. This comes across as an attempt to intimidate.

From Hategan’s own claim, The Agenda did contact Frederiksen and Farber regarding accusations Hategan had made. But instead of viewing this as due diligence, she sees it as a conspiracy.

Paragraph 48 probably sums it up the best.

48. Bernie Farber made the false representation that both the Plaintiff and Moore were critical in the dissolution of the Heritage Front. At no point did Moore correct Farber that she had not been involved in the “shut down” of the Heritage Front. Without permission, Farber also uses the Plaintiff’s name and courageous actions as an 18-year old teenager and conflates them with Elizabeth Moore, who was a privileged, upper-middle class adult woman who did nothing to shut down the HF, was not a “hero”, and was not involved in any way whatsoever in shutting down the Heritage Front:

“By the way, [Elizabeth] was one of a couple of women that were involved in the Heritage Front, both of them actually, Elizabeth and another woman by the name of Elisa Hategan. Both of them ended up being heroes in terms of how they were able to take themselves out, how they were able to work with the system, to basically shut down the Heritage Front. And so in this particular case, it’s kind of interesting that the women were the heroes in shutting this down. There were others involved as well, the Bristow Affair, he was the mole. All of this came together as a result of the women who full timely took a stand and said, we’re not going to deal with this anymore.”

Hategan isn’t suing TVO or The Agenda for defamation. Instead, she sued because someone else got some of the credit for having shut down Heritage Front. She didn’t want to share the glory.

With all of this in mind, it puts the “HateGate Affair” in a whole new light. Was it really about truth and exoneration? Or was it about settling the score with people who didn’t give her the credit she felt entitled to? Is it really worth suing TVO — paid for by taxpayers — because some hothead didn’t get all the fame she wanted?

It wasn’t just Hategan who did this. Caryma Sa’d filed a similar — although toned down — lawsuit in Federal Court. It was struck for not having any Cause of Action.

To be fair, the “Diagolon” twits have probably realized that it was a serious mistake to work with, or associate with, Hategan at all. She has already threatened to sue Derek (Rants) Harrison for including her in his obviously satirical book, MEME KAMPF.

Isn’t it strange? The alternative media had no qualms about broadcasting the HateGate story, but never bothered to do any fact checking. It’s just like the mainstream press they claim to despite.

HATEGAN CIVIL CASE TVO/THE AGENDA:
(1) Hategan TVO The Agenda Statement Of Claim

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE (FREDERIKSEN/FARBER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc874/2021onsc874.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca217/2022onca217.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca715/2022onca715.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca57/2023onca57.html
(5) Hategan Farber Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Hategan Farber Affidavit Motion To Dismiss
(7) Hategan Farber Responding Factum

RETALIATORY LAWSUIT FROM ELIZABETH FREDERIKSEN:
(1) Hategan Lawsuit Frederiksen Dismissed For Delay

HATEGAN CASH COW TWEETS:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1898792409078939876
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1786099430367592909
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1786210135410450822
(4) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1775117017269338296
(5) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734059907253522839

HATEGAN THREATENS TO SUE DEREK HARRISON:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1775117017269338296
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192

March 5, 2025March 5, 2025

Ottawa Protest Class Action Update: Several Motions And An Appeal

It’s been over 3 years since a Proposed Class Action lawsuit was filed in Ottawa. This was against the leaders of the infamous protest challenging lockdown measures. The case has essentially disappeared from the public consciousness, so it’s a good time to review it.

To summarize: the case hasn’t substantially moved forward. While several rulings have been handed down, they are primarily of a procedural nature.

***There is, of course, the absurd irony of the Plaintiffs filing a Class Action against others who were protesting in favour of freedom — and theirs included. Perhaps they would have preferred that martial law measures continue indefinitely.

Incidently, donations are still being sought.

As of now, the case is on hold pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision. The Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP Motion — which was dismissed — so they are trying again.

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

It wasn’t just Trudeau and Freeland who took the heavy handed approach of freezing assets. The Plaintiffs here also sought (and obtained) an ex-parte Order against the Defendants. They wanted to seize cash that could otherwise have been used to prolong the protests in Ottawa.

Justice MacLeod’s ruling was made without giving anyone the chance to make submissions on their own behalf.

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim underwent various revisions. Successive changes typically require either consent, or a Judge to permit it. The Plaintiffs found that these were needed due to initial defects. Amending is quite common in such lawsuits.

There’s the original, amended, and fresh as amended versions.

Unsurprisingly, the Defendants moved to have the pleading struck entirely. However, Justice MacLeod had this to say about competing Motions.

[1] This motion deals with the form of the Statement of Claim in this proposed class proceeding which, for convenience, I will call the “Convoy Class Proceeding”. Technically, there are two motions, a motion by the plaintiff to amend the claim and a motion by a group of defendants to strike it. The issue is the same. Is the proposed Statement of Claim acceptable?

[35] If the parties agreed or intended that the Convoy participants would blockade the streets, disrupt the operations of the city and disrupt the normal activities of the citizens, they may be found to be joint tortfeasors. Extension of such liability to those who continued to donate funds once the nature of the activity in Ottawa became apparent may be novel but it is not impossible of success. Concerted action liability is a fact-sensitive and fact specific concept. It may be (as Ms. Belton suggests) that there are policy grounds for not extending liability to a class of donors even if the use or misuse of the funds was foreseeable. That is not an analysis that should be done at a pleadings stage.

[36] All of the necessary facts are pleaded. In some cases, they are pleaded more than once. The proposed statement of claim clearly discloses a plausible cause of action against all of the categories of defendants including the new defendants which the plaintiffs seek to name in place of the “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants.

[37] There can be no prejudice in granting the amendments and adding or substituting parties for the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. This is because no statements of defence have yet been filed and no limitation periods have expired. No one wants to be sued. Certainly no one wants to be named as a defendant in what may turn out to be protracted litigation but that is not a factor which precludes an amendment or the addition or deletion of parties.

Typically, Proposed Class Actions name a fixed number of Defendants, but allow for the possibility of many more Plaintiffs. This case was made more difficult by the possibility of including more Defendants at later dates. In a sense, it was something of a moving target.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

The Defendants chose an interesting strategy in the Summer of 2023. They decided to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion, on the grounds that the lawsuit infringed on their right to free expression. On the surface, it seemed to be a reasonable option.

However, a serious problem faced the Defendants: anti-SLAPP laws only protect the expression if the parties are willing to admit to doing it. Justice MacLeod stated:

[19] At the first stage of the analysis, Section 137.1 is therefore engaged at least for those defendants who acknowledge having participated in the activity. I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that the protection of s. 137.1 may not be available to a party who denies having made the expression at issue. A party cannot simultaneously claim protection for freedom of speech under anti-SLAPP legislation while denying involvement in the expression at issue.

[22] The plaintiffs represent the residents, business owners, and employees whose property rights, right to operate a business or right to pursue their livelihood were allegedly disrupted by the activities of the protesters. While the plaintiffs acknowledge the right of the protestors to make their views known to government and to seek support from the public, the plaintiffs allege that the ongoing noise, pollution, blocking of the streets and impeding use of their property and businesses was tortious or unlawful. This is a very significant issue for the exercise of rights in a free and democratic society.

Another problem the Defendants face is that many of the allegations — whether true or not — fall outside the realm of free expression, such as blocking off streets.

While the Judge agreed that the motivations behind the protest (anger of lockdown measures) was public interest, the conduct involved wasn’t necessarily protected. Ultimately, the anti-SLAPP Motion was dismissed.

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

The Defendants then went to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Appellants’ and Respondents’ arguments are available.

Without getting into the weeds, the Appellants (Defendants) argued that Justice MacLeod didn’t apply the anti-SLAPP framework correctly. They stated that there was ample grounds within the law to dismiss the case altogether. The Respondents (Plaintiffs) countered that the Lower Court got it right, and that there was no reason to intervene. The hearing took place, but a ruling was deferred.

And that is where things remain today. As of now, the Court of Appeal has not yet handed down a decision. Of course, Leave to Appeal may still be sought by either side. It’s by no means over.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

It’s worth noting that there was been no movement in terms of hearing the case on the merits. The vast amounts of paperwork all have to do with administrative steps within the case.

February 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim (original version) is filed.

February 17th, 2022: The Court hears a request for a Mareva Injunction ex parte, meaning that the opposing side was not given notice, and not able to present a case on their own behalf. The purpose was to put convoy funds under control of the Court until a final outcome could be determined.

February 22nd, 2022: The Court granted the Injunction.

March 10th, 2022: The Court extends the Mareva Injunction until March 31st, 2022.

April 1st, 2022: The Court adjourns competing Motions until May 2nd. The Plaintiffs wanted to continue the Mareva Injunction, while the Defendants wanted it dissolved.

November 7th, 2022: The Motion to amend the Statement of Claim was supposed to have been heard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, it’s adjourned until January 2023.

November 15th, 2022: The Court hears a Motion from Chris Garrah and Benjamin Dichter, attempting to access $200,000 from the frozen funds. The stated purpose was to be able to finance a defence to this lawsuit.

December 6th, 2022: The Court denies the Motion to free up the money, but allows for the possibility to revisit the issue if circumstances change. Parties are told to try to settle the issue of costs themselves.

January 24, 2023: The Court hears arguments on 2 overlapping Motions. The Plaintiffs wanted to further amend the pleadings, while the Defendants wanted them struck for not having a Cause of Action. The decision is reserved until later.

March 13, 2023: The Court rules on the January 2023 Motions. In the end, it was about the same thing: is the pleading acceptable? It’s decided that the Statement of Claim may be changed to accommodate deficiencies.

June 9th, 2023: Court refuses to award any costs at all over 2 competing Motions. This stems from the earlier March 13th, 2023 ruling.

July 27th, 2023: The Ottawa Court sets dates for various steps within the proposed anti-SLAPP Motion. This is Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

August 25th, 2023: Moving Party Motion Record (document collection) is served.

September 15, 2023: Cross-Examinations of various parties happened.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file volumes I and II of their supplementary evidence.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file their anti-SLAPP Factum (arguments).

December 7th, 2023: Responding Factum (Plaintiffs) is filed.

December 14th, 2023: Anti-SLAPP Motion is heard.

February 5th, 2024: The Ottawa Court refuses to dismiss the case under “anti-SLAPP” laws. Rather than accept the ruling, the Defendants chose to appeal it.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li v. Barber, 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li v Barber, 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim February 2022
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 2022
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 16 2022
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim February 2022
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum January 2023
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim March 2023
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I November 2023
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II November 2023
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum November 2023
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum December 2023
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities December 2023
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities December 2023
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing March 2024
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum March 2024
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum October 2024

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them.

February 13, 2025February 13, 2025

MacKenzie/Levant Defamation Suit: $3,500 For Security Needed, No Trial Yet

Often, defamation lawsuits demand million dollar judgements, though not always.

Plaintiffs can also ask for much less. A broadcast from July 2023 has resulted in a $35,000 lawsuit from Jeremy MacKenzie in Toronto Small Claims Court. That’s the most allowed in Ontario.

Specifically, MacKenzie is suing: (a) Ezra Levant personally; (b) Rebel Media Holdings Inc.; and (c) Rebel News Network Ltd.

Worth noting, Small Claims Courts in general are a very simplified way of resolving disputes over small amounts of money. Cost awards are typically capped as well.This can be a welcome relief to the amount of paperwork that happens in Superior Court cases. The typical steps are involved:

File Plaintiff’s Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim)
File Defence (a.k.a. Statement of Defence)
Attend Settlement Conference
Book Trial (if no Settlement reached)
Have the Trial

Steps #1 through #3 are complete, and a Trial needs to be booked.

Since no agreement was reached at the Settlement Conference, MacKenzie is free to request a Trial.

A complication arose, when Levant filed a Motion for Security for Costs. Essentially, he wanted MacKenzie to have to pay a deposit to the Court pending the outcome of the case. part of the issue was that MacKenzie is a Nova Scotia resident, and presumably had no assets in Ontario. An agreement was reached in the amount of $3,500.

At the time of writing this, it doesn’t appear that MacKenzie has either: (a) paid the deposit; or (b) booked a Trial date.

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

The lawsuit seems to focus around a July 25th, 2023 of the Ezra Levant Show. MacKenzie is suing over claims that he was slandered as follows:

a. That Mr. MacKenzie founded an explicitly racist organization;
b. That Mr. MacKenzie is a government agent;
c. That Mr. MacKenzie concocted a social movement to entrap the Coutts Four in a criminal offence.

In fairness, Levant has walked a tightrope before as to whether his comments cross into defamation. We’ll have to see what happens here.

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Levant claims that it’s obvious, or should be obvious, that a lot of what he covers is opinion, or commentary, and shouldn’t be taken as fact. Essentially, he’s setting up a “Fair Comment” Defence.

From page 10 in the Defence: “On the contrary, Levant clearly states during the July 25 Podcast that the Plaintiff started Diagolon as a joke or a prank, and that the Coutts 4 got into trouble because they took the joke seriously and went too far with their role playing.”

Page 9, paragraph 18, Levant says he genuinely believes that Diagolon was set up as an explicitly racist organization, but qualifies it as “I think it was done as a joke”.

From the Exhibits filed, it seems MacKenzie had his social media accounts scoured for evidence. While some was probably trolling, it may not sit well with the Court.

Should the case ever get to Trial, a Judge can make those determinations.

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

In his Defence, Levant filed MacKenzie’s POEC testimony as an Exhibit. This was the infamous time in 2022 when he admitted under oath that he reported “extremist” behaviour, and was willing to have a “continuous relationship” with law enforcement in identifying threats to public safety.

While this may not be enough to prove MacKenzie is a “fed”, it shows, at a minimum, that he was willing to work with them. His “informing” did lead to the arrest of Landon Preik, of the group, Liberate Your Neighbourhood.

It’s also unclear what damages MacKenzie suffered from the “fed” allegations. He’s been labelled one for several years, so it’s hardly new.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

October 17th, 2023: MacKenzie files the Plaintiff’s Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim) through his lawyer, Frank Wu. The Claim demands $35,000 (the most allowed in Ontario Small Claims), and seeks the maximum costs allowed.

November 20th, 2023: Levant files a Defence, which includes MacKenzie’s testimony before the POEC Committee, and screenshots of some of his comments.

April 22nd, 2024: Levant submits his witness list for the upcoming Settlement Conference, which is just himself.

May 3rd, 2024: Wu submits Affidavits from witnesses Jason Lavigne and Kira Decoste.

May 8th, 2024: Deputy Judge Wong certifies that there was no agreement at the Settlement Conference. Defendants are also permitted to bring a Motion for Security for Costs.

August 7th, 2024: The Defence requested the scheduling of a hearing to determine Security for Costs, and whether MacKenzie would need to post before Trial.

November 8th, 2024: Defence files Motion Record for Security for Costs. MacKenzie being an out-of-Province litigant weighed against him.

November 18th, 2024: On consent, it’s agreed MacKenzie must pay $3,500.

The deposit hasn’t yet been paid, and it’s unclear if it ever will be. But should the case ever go to Trial, transcripts will likely be published on Levant’s show.

(1) MacKenzie Plaintiffs Claim October 2023
(2) MacKenzie Defence November 2023
(3) MacKenzie Defence Affidavit Of Service November 2023
(4) MacKenzie Defence List Of Proposed Witnesses April 2024
(5) MacKenzie Defence Witnesses Affidavit Of Service April 2024
(6) MacKenzie Affidavit Of Jason Lavigne May 2024
(7) MacKenzie Affidavit Of Kira Decoste 2024
(8) MacKenzie Endorsement Of No Settlement May 2024
(9) MacKenzie Defence Request To Clerk August 2024
(10) MacKenzie Defence Motion For Security For Costs November 2024
(11) MacKenzie Defence Motion Record Affidavit Of Service November 2024
(12) MacKenzie Endorsement For Security For Costs November 2024

January 28, 2025January 28, 2025

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Costs Plaintiffs Nearly $150,000 So Far

A few months ago, we looked at the Cornell decision, which resulted in CAHN (the Canadian Anti-Hate Network) and Bernie Farber being removed from 2 different lawsuits. Now, the other shoe has dropped, and Plaintiffs are required to pay out nearly $50,000 in Court fees.

This is, of course, the high profile lawsuit pushing back against the freezing of bank accounts and the invocation of the Emergencies Act in February, 2022.

Due to the gross incompetence of the Plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Statement of Claim made allegations of defamation — but without specifying the defamatory content. Quite predictably, this led to Farber and CAHN bringing forward an anti-SLAPP Motion. Since such Motions stay or “freeze” the proceedings, there’s no opportunity to amend the pleadings, and correct any deficiencies.

And to be clear, it is the incompetence of counsel that led to this.

Loberg Ector LLP does commercial litigation — just very poorly it seems.

Interestingly, counsel for Farber and CAHN cited just $50,000 in costs to bring the anti-SLAPP Motion, while the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed nearly double that amount.

One has to love the law. Where else can “professionals” mess up big time, and then bill clients extra to fix their own mistakes?

A Look Into the Decision On Costs

[2] The CAHN defendants request costs of the action and the motion in the amount of $49,319.13 on a full indemnity basis.

[3] The plaintiffs submit that an award of full indemnity costs is not appropriate in the circumstances and that the costs requested are neither fair nor reasonable. The plaintiffs submit that a costs award of $10,000 would fall within a “fair range.”[1] The plaintiffs’ bill of costs reflects full indemnity fees and disbursements in the amount of $95,881.29.

[4] For the following reasons, I conclude that the CAHN defendants are entitled to their costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $49,319.13, all-inclusive.

[11] The plaintiffs claimed a total of $44,000,000, on a joint and several basis, against the defendants, including the CAHN defendants. This litigation is, in a word, “massive.” In addition to the CAHN defendants, the named defendants include government actors, government agencies, police defendants, and various financial institutions. The motion addressed important issues. In addition to the complexity inherent in a motion brought under s. 137.1 of the CJA, the plaintiffs sought to “look past” the statement of claim to allegations set out in the affidavit of Mr. Gircys. Out of an abundance of caution, the CAHN defendants addressed those allegations in their factum. The plaintiffs cross-examined Mr. Farber and Mr. Warman on their affidavits. While the plaintiffs were entitled to do so, the CAHN defendants incurred costs as a result.

[12] The CAHN defendants offered to settle the motion on June 11, 2024, by requesting the payment of $10,000 (the costs of preparing the notice of motion and affidavits) and the dismissal of the action against them. Although the offer is not r. 49 compliant, it is an additional factor that I have considered in assessing whether the costs requested are fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs’ offer to settle (which involved the dismissal of certain aspects of the claim against the CAHN defendants but which provided that the claim in civil conspiracy would survive and that no costs would be paid by the plaintiffs) does not impact my analysis of the costs to be awarded to the CAHN defendants.

[13] The plaintiffs do not take issue with the hourly rates of legal counsel for the CAHN defendants. I find the hourly rates are reasonable, having regard to their years of experience. The plaintiffs submit that it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the fees of the CAHN defendants because the bill of costs refers to 137.5 cumulative hours spent by two lawyers, one law clerk, and one articling student. While it would have been preferable for the CAHN defendants’ bill of costs to reflect the division of work undertaken, I note that the plaintiffs’ bill of costs adopts the same “cumulative” approach. In any event, the costs incurred by the CAHN defendants would have been well within the reasonable expectation of the plaintiffs, having regard to their own costs of the motion in the amount of $95,881.29.

Plaintiffs’ counsel wasted $96,000 defending (unsuccessfully) against an anti-SLAPP Motion. The Motion is a direct result of their own failure to properly draft the Statement of Claim. Other fees amounted to another $50,000. Keep in mind, this presumably is in addition to other costs expected to pile up.

And that leads to the next problem: the Plaintiffs are now broke

Take Action Canada Soliciting More Donations For Fees

Recently, the advocacy group, Take Action Canada, posted a public call for donations to continue the lawsuit. They also mass emailed, offering to give interviews.

Justice Mosley’s findings have cleared the path to a floodgate of legal actions against those who wish to trample on our Canadian rights & freedoms.

A group of very brave Canadians, without hesitation, have picked up the gauntlet on behalf of ALL Canadians to ensure that those responsible are held to the highest standards.

The legal team at Loberg Ector LLP has played a significant role in the Superior Court review by Justice Mosley’s determination that the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act was unlawful.

Following the review, the legal team analyzed numerous documents and interviewed numerous witnesses in the determination of a remedial process before assembling a Statement of Claim and Notice of Action.

On February 14, 2024 they proceeded with a claim for 20 Plaintiffs against a number of involved defendants including the Prime Minister of Canada, and various cabinet ministers, police officers, banks and others deemed to be involved in the freezing of Canadians’ bank accounts.

All defendants have been served notice. The legal team is awaiting responses from the Defendants before proceeding with the next phase of this process.

To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.

As this was brought to our attention, we at Take Action Canada are taking action.

The plaintiffs are risking much for all of us and in turn our national support will send the strongest message.

The Canadian Trucker Convoy inspired the world and ignited a global wave carrying the message that we will never give up or give in. The time is now for us to grab the gauntlet and use the power of this decision to hold people and the government accountable.

But here’s where the other shoe drops. It’s stated that: “To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.” One has to wonder if the sudden $150,000 in legal costs has depleted all of the retainer funds.

Take Action Canada posted a redacted verion (see archive) of the Notice of Action in order to attract interest. What has been redacted? Any mention of Bernie Farber or CAHN as Defendants. One has to suspect that no one would donate if the full truth of Loberg Ector LLP’s screw up was published.

Quite simply: Take Action Canada posted a “scrubbed” version that conceals the fact that Farber and CAHN were initially sued as well. There’s also no mention anywhere about the $150,000 in costs that resulted from the anti-SLAPP Motion.

When contacted about this, the group claimed not to be in the loop with how the litigation was proceeding. More importantly, they seemed uninterested.

Did they learn nothing from the Katanik disaster?

So, What’s Happening Now With The Case?

At this point, no Statements of Defence have yet been filed by anyone. However: (a) Ottawa Police; (b) Assiniboine Credit Union; (c) Canadian Tire Bank; and (d) Meridian Credit Union have all indicated that they intend to.

The Plaintiffs — as of now — haven’t yet filed an amended Claim.

Of course, the remainder of the lawsuit is so poorly drafted that Motions to Strike are likely coming anyway. All sorts of conspiracies are alleged, without pleading the necessary detail.

Anyhow, remember to donate!

(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(12) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(16) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(17) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(18) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(19) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(20) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(21) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

January 22, 2025March 12, 2025

Just A Coincidence? Ferryman’s Toll & Elisa Ferryman-Cohen?

Is this where “The Ferryman’s Toll” really comes from?

Earlier this year, this site covered the Cornell lawsuit, filed in Ottawa. This was to be the big case against the Government and the banks, for how they acted under the guise of a national emergency. Supposedly, this was the comedy of errors that led Ottawa and law enforcement to panic based on publications from online trolls.

But alas, the hype was overblown. Bernie Farber and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) were able to remove themselves from the proceedings by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion. It worked, and they’re off the hook. Plaintiffs tried to litigate the #HateGate scandal, based on the work of Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan. In doing so, the Plaintiffs’ incompetent lawyers screwed up the case by not properly pleading defamation allegations.

CAHN’s lawyers apparently conducted the entire anti-SLAPP Motion for under $50,000, which is far cheaper than what normally happens in Ontario. The Plaintiffs still thought that was too high.

As for Hategan’s background:

She co-authored the “HateGate” report with Caryma Sa’d.
She was involved with a “hate” group called Heritage Front in the 1990’s.
She became an informant for the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.).
She helped gather evidence and intelligence for the police.
She helped take down many “racists” connected to Heritage Front.
She went on to do many talks about the dangers and harms of racism
And, Heritage Front turned out to be co-founded by Grant Bristow, a CSIS agent.

None of the above claims are disputed by Hategan. She has spoken and written about her experiences with the group many times over the years.

As an aside, both Hategan and Sa’d (unsuccessfully) sued Bernie Farber recently.

Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)
Sa’d v. Yew, 2023 FC 1286 (CanLII)

Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the HateGate scam are available here.

There’s been speculation that Diagolon turned out to be the next iteration of Heritage Front. This is the group run by Jeremy “Raging Dissident” MacKenzie, Derek “Rants” Harrison, and Alex “Ferryman’s Toll” Vriend. And there is a lot of overlap between the two.

But in following up on the Ottawa lawsuit, this gem emerged:

Farber, CAHN Claim Hategan Is Really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen

34. Several other portions of the affidavit contain inadmissible hearsay. Most noteworthy, Mr. Gircys relies heavily on the so-called conclusions of an online post entitled the “HateGate Affair”. It is significant that the authors of that self-published website post, Caryma Sa’d and ‘Elisa Hategan’ (real name Elisa FERRYMAN-COHEN), have previously sued CAHN and Mr. Farber. Ms. Sa’d’s claim against CAHN in Federal Court was dismissed without leave to amend as having no factual or legal basis, and therefore no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Hategan’s claim against Mr. Farber in this Court was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and “a waste of the time and resources of the courts.” These are but further angles of the same baseless conspiracy theories levelled at CAHN in this litigation, demonstrating it is a SLAPP.

This is from paragraph 34 of the Defendants’/Moving Parties’ Factum or arguments. Farber and CAHN argued that the lawsuit — as far as they were concerned — was politically motivated.

Vincent Gircys, one of the Plaintiffs, filed an Affidavit in an attempt to ward of the anti-SLAPP Motion brought by Farber and CAHN. He attaches the report from Sa’d and Hategan as an exhibit.

The report is dismissed as “inadmissible hearsay” by Farber’s and CAHN’s lawyers. No surprise there. But what is very interesting is that they claim that Hategan isn’t even a real name. Supposedly, she is really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen.

Note: After looking into it more, and with some help, it appears that it was legally changed years ago. She still goes by Hategan though, at least publicly.

It raises the question how Hategan (or whoever) would be able to sue in Court under a very old name. Was CAHN not aware of it at the time?

Ferryman-Cohen Used In Suit By Elizabeth Frederiksen

***Editor’s note: it turns out that there was another lawsuit. Elizabeth Frederiksen sued Hategan back in late 2018. She used the current name, Ferryman-Cohen. So, this appears to confirm the claim from CAHN that she hasn’t been using her real — or at least current — name.

Where Did “The Ferryman’s Toll” Really Come From?

We know that Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) worked as a police informant to take down Heritage Front. This was a CSIS operation designed to root out “racists” and “white nationalists”. This has been long established.

Alex Vriend is now a leading figure in “Diagolon” which comes across as little more than a honeypot. Currently, they’re asking for background checks… which would presumably tip off law enforcement about who’s applying. And of all the nicknames he could choose for himself…. he goes with Ferryman.

Why would he name himself after a former police informant from a generation ago?

Keep in mind, that same informant wrote a paper “exonerating” the group recently.

Moreover, this revelation about ‘Hategan’ was completely new. There’s nothing online, her book, or her biography that suggests what CAHN and Farber claim. She admits changing “Elisse” to “Elisa”, but that’s it. No other last name(s) are mentioned. Perhaps it’s a way to separate work life and private life.

Is this all just a bizarre coincidence? Or is the “next Ferryman” about to subvert and destroy nationalism in Canada?

FARBER/CAHN/GIRCYS/CORNELL LAWSUIT
(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell HateGatePaper Filed As Exhibit
(12) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(16) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Category: Free Speech

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Like this:

HateGate, Part 2B: Settling The Score With TVO And “The Agenda”

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

Like this:

Ottawa Protest Class Action Update: Several Motions And An Appeal

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

Like this:

MacKenzie/Levant Defamation Suit: $3,500 For Security Needed, No Trial Yet

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

Like this:

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Costs Plaintiffs Nearly $150,000 So Far

A Look Into the Decision On Costs

Take Action Canada Soliciting More Donations For Fees

So, What’s Happening Now With The Case?

Like this:

Just A Coincidence? Ferryman’s Toll & Elisa Ferryman-Cohen?

Farber, CAHN Claim Hategan Is Really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen

Ferryman-Cohen Used In Suit By Elizabeth Frederiksen

Where Did “The Ferryman’s Toll” Really Come From?

Like this:

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Share this:

Like this:

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

Share this:

Like this:

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

Share this:

Like this:

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

Share this:

Like this:

A Look Into the Decision On Costs

Take Action Canada Soliciting More Donations For Fees

So, What’s Happening Now With The Case?

Share this:

Like this:

Farber, CAHN Claim Hategan Is Really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen

Ferryman-Cohen Used In Suit By Elizabeth Frederiksen

Where Did “The Ferryman’s Toll” Really Come From?

Share this:

Like this: