Free Speech – Page 2

March 5, 2025April 18, 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 et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li et al. v Barber et al., 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

December 27, 2024February 8, 2025

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.

s.151: Sexual interference
s.152: Invitation to sexual touching
s.153(1): Sexual exploitation
s.163(1): Child pornography
s.171.1(5): Making sexually explicit material available to child
s.172.1: Luring a child
s.173: Indecent acts
s.174: Nudity
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) Cook Flannigan Response To Civil Claim Red
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01#rule9-5
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-118604
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7050/2023onsc7050.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1710/2023onsc1710.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3532/2024onsc3532.html

November 27, 2024November 28, 2024

Free Speech In Canada Apparently Worth Just $16,000 (Haverbeck V. Waugh)

A week ago, Ursula Haverbeck died. She was the 96 year old German woman who had gone to prison for publicly denying the Holocaust. While the major media coverage about her is overwhelmingly negative, she chose to stand for her beliefs. It’s really rare to see something like that these days.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative” Member of Parliament in Canada, introduced Bill C-250 back in 2022. This would put people in prison for up to 2 years for Holocaust denial. Far from being condemned, his actions were publicly lauded.

Leah Gazan, of the New Democratic Party, introduced Bill C-413 in October 2024. It was heavily modeled on Bill C-250, and would imprison people for up to 2 years for Residential School “denialism”.

At all levels of government in this country, politicians work to strip away freedom of speech under the guise of “fighting hatred”. This cuts across party lines, and isn’t limited to just a few. It also seems that outside influences appear to be guiding these efforts.

According to records from Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Waugh, and his wife, Ann, received a trip in 2018 worth $16,244.42 to Israel. This kind of travel is promoted as “fostering professional/cultural understanding, and meeting counterparts”.

Yes, this was just $16,000. The breakdown is as follows:

Transportation: $7,503.50
Accommodation: $2,928.84
Other: $5,812.09

This was sponsored by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. It’s essentially the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC. Previously, the Canada-Israel Committee organized such annual trips, and their roster is full of prominent names. Believe it or not, this sort of thing isn’t illegal at all. In fact, it appears that Members of Parliament from all parties take part in it. By comparison, Trudeau ended up getting fined for his vacation with Aga Khan.

Waugh met with CIJA on February 15th, 2022. He had introduced Bill C-250 just days earlier, on February 9th. He’d probably deny the connection, but this is extremely unlikely to be any sort of coincidence. The Bill was ultimately abandoned when the substance was embedded into a Budget Bill.

Waugh takes a free trip to Israel in 2018. A few years later, he does the bidding of CIJA to introduce criminal penalties to Holocaust denial. Coincidence?

While it’s certainly true that Canadian politicians accept paid travel to other countries, none appear to even come close to the scale that occurs with Israel.

Germany lost a woman who was willing to go to prison for her beliefs. By contrast, Canadian politicians are implementing similar laws here in return for a free vacation. These people are nothing alike.

Yves-François Blanchet (Bill C-367) and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bill C-373) of the Bloc Québécois get honourable mentions for their work in eroding religious freedoms.

Maxime “The U.N. needs to shut up” Bernier has been completely silent on these issues, despite reinventing himself as a populist and free speech champion in 2018.

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	DeBellefeuille, Claude	BQ	2007	$8,661.12
2	Dykstra, Rick	CPC	2007	$8,602.30 (USD)
3	Godin, Yvon	NDP	2007	$4,094.83 (USD)
4	Pearson, Glen	LPC	2007	$8,728.18
5	Savage, Michael	LPC	2007	$5,612.54
6	Simard, Raymond	LPC	2007	$8,188.00 (USD)
7	Smith, Joy	CPC	2007	$8,661.12
8	Stoffer, Peter	NDP	2007	$8,728.18
9	Sweet, David	CPC	2007	$7,374.72 (USD)
10	Van Kesteren, Dave	CPC	2007	$8,728.18
11	Warkentin, Chris	CPC	2007	$7,973.54

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Allison, Dean	CPC	2008	$9,411.00
2	Bennett, Carolyn	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
3	Breitkreuz, Garry	CPC	2008	$7,963.00
4	Brunelle, Paule	BQ	2008	$7,961.00
5	Crête, Paul	BQ	2008	$10,944.00
6	Dhaliwal, Sukh	LPC	2008	$8,758
7	Duceppe, Gilles	BQ	2008	$17,577.56
8	Goodyear, Gary	CPC	2008	$10,944.00
9	Guimond, Michel	BQ	2008	$8,728.18
10	Ignatieff, Michael	LPC	2008	$8,602.30
11	Kramp, Daryl	CPC	2008	$9,446.00
12	Lunney, James	CPC	2008	$7,961.00
13	Martin, Pat	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
14	McCallum, John	LPC	2008	$10,944.00
15	Ménard, Serge	BQ	2008	$7,971.00
16	Mulcair, Thomas	NDP	2008	$7,963.00
17	Nash, Peggy	NDP	2008	$9,411.00
18	Neville, Anita	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
19	Redman, Karen	LPC	2008	$11,785
20	Roy, Jean-Yves	BQ	2008	$7.961.00
21	Silva, Mario	LPC	2008	$7,992.33
22	Sweet, David	CPC	2008	$7,961.00
23	Wasylycia-Leis, Judy	NDP	2008	$7,961.00

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Brown, Gord	CPC	2009	$6,440.00
2	Cannan, Ron	CPC	2009	$9,446.00
3	Coderre, Denis	LPC	2009	$10,239.22
4	Cotler, Irwin	LPC	2009	$1,439.30
5	Dechert, Bob	CPC	2009	$3,983.00
6	Desnoyers, Luc	BQ	2009	$5,520.00
7	Devolin, Barry	CPC	2009	$9,446.00
8	Garneau, Mar	LPC	2009	$7,843.00
9	Glover, Shelly	CPC	2009	$7,843.66
10	Hoback, Randy	CPC	2009	$7,493.62
11	Hoeppner, Candice	CPC	2009	$7,843.00
12	Holland, Mark	LPC	2009	$9,446.00
13	Laforest, Jean-Yves	BQ	2009	$9,086.22
14	Lemieux, Pierre	CPC	2009	$7,493.62
15	Marston, Wayne	NDP	2009	$7,493.62
16	Mendes, Alexandra	LPC	2009	$7,253.64
17	Oliphant, Robert	LPC	2009	$10,602.00
18	Rae, Bob	LPC	2009	$3,804.80
19	Uppal, Tim	CPC	2009	$7,843.00

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Block, Kelly	CPC	2010	$8,451.30
2	Del Mastro, Dean	CPC	2010	$7,956.22
3	Duncan, John	CPC	2010	$6,435.34
4	Fast, Ed	CPC	2010	$9,006.68
5	Laforest, Jean-Yves	BQ	2010	$9,086.22
6	Paillé, Daniel	BQ	2010	$7,904.51
7	Rathgeber, Brent	CPC	2010	$9,078.16
8	Saxton, Andrew	CPC	2010	$8,684.01
9	Simms, Scott	LPC	2010	$8,770.68
10	Thibeault, Glenn	NDP	2010	$8,906.68
11	Watson, Jeff	CPC	2010	$9,586.18

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Adler, Mark	CPC	2011	$5,920.31
2	Bezan, James	CPC	2011	$10,781.52
3	Brison, Scott	LPC	2011	$8,820.48
4	Cotler, Irwin	LPC	2011	$5,700.00
5	Cuzner, Rodger	LPC	2011	$9,397.33
6	Foote, Judy	LPC	2011	$5,030.08
7	LeBlanc, Dominic	LPC	2011	$14,680.00
8	Miller, Larry	CPC	2011	$10,525.04
9	Murray, Joyce	LPC	2011	$8,580.00
10	Ravignat, Mathieu	NDP	2011	$7,281.39
11	Shipley, Bev	CPC	2011	$5,370.04

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Ambler, Stella	CPC	2012	$10,238.84
2	Blanchette-Lamothe, Lysane	NDP	2012	$9,209.84
3	Caron, Guy	NDP	2012	$8,226.84
4	Chisholm, Robert	NDP	2012	$10,016.28
5	Cleary, Ryan	NDP	2012	$6,030.00
6	Davies, Don	NDP	2012	$10,677.68
7	James, Roxanne	CPC	2012	$7,059.14
8	Lapointe, François	NDP	2012	$11,740.46
9	Larose, Jean-François	NDP	2012	$9,031.84
10	Lunney, James	CPC	2012	$3,992
11	Nicholls, Jamie	NDP	2012	$7,808.28
12	Papillon, Annick	NDP	2012	$9,031.84
13	Rafferty, John	NDP	2012	$10,161.68
14	Trottier, Bernard	CPC	2012	$9,856.28
15	Williamson, John	CPC	2012	$9,961.96
16	Young, Terence	CPC	2012	$10,389.22

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aspin, Jay	CPC	2013	$11,165.60
2	Bateman, Joyce	CPC	2013	$7,915.48
3	Bruinooge, Rod	CPC	2013	$9,937.98
4	Clarke, Rob	CPC	2013	$11,165.60
5	Easter, Wayne	LPC	2013	$9,786.96
6	Lamoureux, Kevin	LPC	2013	$10,053.40
7	Lunney, James	CPC	2013	$5,032.71
8	Menegakis, Costas	CPC	2013	$10,490.70
9	Michaud, Élaine	NDP	2013	$8,185.48
10	Scott, Craig	NDP	2013	$10,892.92
11	Young, Wai	CPC	2013	$12,683.80

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Bélanger, Mauril	LPC	2014	$9,537.50
2	Bennett, Carolyn	LPC	2014	$3,981.61
3	Byrne, Gerry	LPC	2014	$12,580.74
4	Falk, Ted	CPC	2014	$12,450.71
5	Hoback, Randy	CPC	2014	$5,092.21
6	Jones, Yvonne	LPC	2014	$11,935
7	Morin, Isabelle	NDP	2014	$9,782.96
8	Opitz, Ted	CPC	2014	$5,026.24
9	Sandhu, Jasbir	NDP	2014	$14,679.57
10	Sweet, David	CPC	2014	$4,915.36
11	Wilks, David	CPC	2014	$8,608.12

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Lunney, James	INDEPENDENT	2015	$3,285.89

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Albas, Dan	CPC	2016	$12,750
2	Blaney, Steven	CPC	2016	$5,616.78
3	Di Iorio, Nicola	LPC	2016	$6,930.36
4	Dubé, Matthew	NDP	2016	$12,342.24
5	Fillmore, Andy	LPC	2016	$10,294.97
6	Fuhr, Stephen	LPC	2016	$11,207.65
7	Garrison, Randall	NDP	2016	$7,800.22
8	Genuis, Garnett	CPC	2016	$12,650.80
9	Gladu, Marilyn	CPC	2016	$9,394.06
10	Godin, Joël	CPC	2016	$11,929.56
11	Grewal, Ra	LPC	2016	$9,391.15
12	Lefebvre, Paul	LPC	2016	$10,236.50
13	Levitt, Michael	LPC	2016	$9,393.35
14	Longfield, Lloyd	LPC	2016	$11,379.11
15	Mendicino, Marco	LPC	2016	$6,714.00
16	O’Regan, Seamus	LPC	2016	$11,186.79
17	Raitt, Lisa	CPC	2016	$8,643.72
18	Rankin, Murray	NDP	2016	$9,495.06
19	Rayes, Alain	CPC	2016	$10,705.65
20	Rempel, Michelle	CPC	2016	$6,296.13
21	Richards, Blake	CPC	2016	$7,880.54
22	Rioux, Jean	LPC	2016	$11,137.02
23	Ruimy, Dan	LPC	2016	$6,841.14
24	Sorbara, Francesco	LPC	2016	$10,350

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Brosseau, Ruth Ellen	NDP	2017	$11,705.62
2	Calkins, Blaine	CPC	2017	$11,492.23
3	Dhillon, Anju	LPC	2017	$9,550.21
4	Hardcastle, Cheryl	NPD	2017	$9,522.18
5	Harder, Rachael	CPC	2017	$7,410.21
6	Maloney, James	LPC	2017	$14,116.86
7	McCauley, Kelly	CPC	2017	$12,724/81
8	Nuttall, Alexander	CPC	2017	$10,423.31
9	O’Connell, Jennifer	LPC	2017	$11,375.14
10	Romanado, Sherry	LPC	2017	$11,840.21
11	Rusnak, Don	LPC	2017	$14,013.00
12	Sarai, Randeep	LPC	2017	$11,806.43
13	Schulte, Deborah	LPC	2017	$15,238.90
14	Zimmer, Bob	CPC	2017	$12,437.04

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Amos, William	LPC	2018	$11,245.24
2	Brosseau, Ruth Ellen	NDP	2018	$2977.22
3	Fergus, Greg	LPC	2018	$8,696.85
4	Kusie, Stephanie	CPC	2018	$13,390.91
5	McLeod, Cathy	CPC	2018	$7,721.70
6	Ng, Mary	LPC	2018	$7,355.84
7	Oliver, John	LPC	2018	$7,197.11
8	O’Toole, Erin	CPC	2018	$7,884,47
9	Schmale, Jamie	CPC	2018	$7,286.99
10	Sikand, Gagan	LPC	2018	$7,150.00
11	Stubbs, Shannon	CPC	2018	$14,212.93
12	Sweet, David	CPC	2018	$1,116.22
13	Vandal, Dan	LPC	2018	$9,282.93
14	Waugh, Kevin	CPC	2018	$16,244.42

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

(2018) Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
(2018) Boulerice, Alexandre
(2018) Caron, Guy
(2018) Casey, Bill
(2018) Chen, Shaun
(2018) Davies, Don
(2018) Genuis, Garnett
(2018) Johns, Gord
(2018) Mathyssen, Irene
(2018) McDonald, Ken
(2018) Ouellette, Robert-Falcon
(2018) Stetski, Wayne
(2018) Tabbara, Marwan
(2018) Tan, Geng

International Democratic Union (IDU)

(2018) Tony Clement

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

(2018) Sweet, David

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Lapointe, Linda	LPC	2019	$13,552.80

March Of Dimes

(2019) Barlow, John
(2019) Damoff, Pam
(2019) May, Bryan

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aldag, John	LPC	2022	$16,695.62
2	Barrett, Michael	CPC	2022	$16,209.30
3	Dancho, Raquel	CPC	2022	$13,313.79
4	Duncan, Eric	CPC	2022	$10,528.25
5	Jeneroux, Matt	CPC	2022	$11,453.80
6	Kelly, Pat	CPC	2022	$10,760.73
7	Lattanzio, Patricia	LPC	2022	$16,903.70

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aitchison, Scott	CPC	2023	$13,994.14
2	Berthold, Luc	CPC	2023	$10,227.60
3	Blanchette-Joncas, Maxime	BQ	2023	$7,524.88
4	Blois, Kody	LPC	2023	$23,930.48
5	Bradford, Valerie	LPC	2023	$14,007.89
6	Chambers, Adam	CPC	2023	$18,950.85
7	Champoux, Martin	BQ	2023	$18,246.85
8	Chahal, Harnirjodh (George)	LPC	2023	$23,744.00
9	Chen, Shaun	LPC	2023	$11,563.58
10	Findlay, Kerry-Lynne	CPC	2023	$23,883.00
11	Fortin, Rhéal	BQ	2023	$18,846.85
12	Goodridge, Laila	CPC	2023	$18,446.20
13	Hallan, Jasraj Singh	CPC	2023	$23,017.04
14	Hepfner, Lisa	LPC	2023	$18,644.15
15	Housefather, Anthony	LPC	2023	$10,866.91
16	Kramp-Neuman, Shelby	CPC	2023	$11,728.58
17	Lapointe, Viviane	LPC	2023	$7,636.23
18	Martel, Richard	CPC	2023	$10,894.04
19	Paul-Hus, Pierre	CPC	2023	$17,233.40
20	Rempel Garner, Michelle	CPC	2023	$12,252.48
21	Scheer, Andrew	CPC	2023	$18,446.20
22	Schiefke, Peter	LPC	2023	$11,316.78

KEVIN WAUGH, CPC MP:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

Category: Free Speech

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:

Action4Canada Sued In Kelowna For Defamation

What About Bringing An Application To Strike?

What About An Anti-SLAPP Application?

Would This Lawsuit Be Covered By Insurance?

Like this:

Free Speech In Canada Apparently Worth Just $16,000 (Haverbeck V. Waugh)

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

International Democratic Union (IDU)

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

March Of Dimes

Like this: