Free Speech Archives - Page 3 of 32

October 5, 2024January 28, 2025

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Leads To Anti-SLAPP Win For Farber, CAHN

Last week, an Ottawa Judge threw out that a defamation case brought against Bernie Farber and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN). Justice Bell found that it was a “strategic lawsuit against public participation”, which isn’t allowed under Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act.

Here’s the context.

On February 14th, 2024, a Notice of Action was filed in Ottawa. It named Farber, CAHN, various MPs, members of the police, and banks for what had happened when the Emergencies Act was invoked. Filing this bought them — the Plaintiffs thought — another 30 days to file their Statement of Claim.

How this relates to Farber and CAHN is that their postings are blamed for getting the EA invoked. Remember the infamous “Hate Gate” hoax? Well, this lawsuit may have come as a result of it.

However, because the Plaintiffs’ lawyers apparently know nothing about defamation law, or anti-SLAPP laws, Farber and CAHN are off the hook. CAHN posted about this, and accurately stated the problem: the Claim never identified any specific statements or articles. It just made bald assertions.

While the lawsuit can still proceed with regards to the other Defendants, Plaintiffs should seriously consider retaining new counsel.

There will be the typical rumblings about the system being corrupt, or the Judge being bought off. Those concerns have been made many times before.

Alternatively, it’s worth noting that the Statement of Claim was so poorly and incompetently drafted, that this outcome was easily foreseeable. The firm handling this case is Loberg Ector LLP, which boasts about it on their website

“We Do Commercial Litigation”

Just not very well, it seems.

The contact page on their website lists their address as being in Alberta. That Province doesn’t have anti-SLAPP laws, so it’s possible they didn’t know that Ontario did. Anyhow, let’s get into it.

Claim Failed To Specify A Single Defamatory Statement

Here are the passages which related to CAHN.

207. Leading up to the Unlawful Enactments during the Ottawa Protests, several Defendants, acting together, or acting individually, as the case may be:
a. Made public and widely publicized denigrating and derogatory comments falsely characterizing the nature, scope, beliefs, and motives of the persons participating in the Ottawa Protests including some of the Plaintiffs;
b. Published and widely distributed written material including defamatory comments about the Ottawa Protests knowingly containing false and misleading information about the Ottawa Protests;
c. Conspired with or influenced major Canadian media outlets to publish false reports about the activities of the protestors present at the Ottawa Protests;
d. Made false reports regarding the activities of the protestors present at the Ottawa Protests to Crown officials and made false statements to Crown officials in such a way that promoted the Unlawful Enactments;
e. Sought to harm, injure, or otherwise denigrate the reputations of the Plaintiffs with malicious intent; and
f. Made such further and other public statements and publications which denigrated and harmed the reputations of the Plaintiffs as will be discovered at the trial of this action.

208. The conduct of the Defendants, and the false information which was disseminated by several Defendants to the Canadian media, the Financial Institution Defendants, the Crown and the citizens of Canada influenced and enabled the decision to invoke the impugned Unlawful Enactments.

209. The decisions taken by the individual Defendants, the Police Defendants, the Crown Defendants, the Financial Institution Defendants, and the CAHN Defendants were done cynically, politically, and selfishly without the appropriate consideration for the bests interest of Canada and its citizens and with wanton disregard for the wellbeing of the Plaintiffs.

210. Intelligence reports at the time of the Ottawa Protests from the RCMP, OPS, Police Defendants, and CSIS did not show that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security, and indeed consistently corroborated the overall peaceful nature of the Ottawa Protests.

211. While deliberately knowing that the Ottawa Protests was largely a peaceful protest, the Crown Defendants, and in particular Ms. Jody Thomas given her role as the National Security and Intelligence Advisor took it upon themselves to create their own open source intelligence operation to create a new flow of intelligence to the Crown Defendants (the “Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting”) which influenced their decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and Unlawful Enactments.

212. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting was an unsanctioned, and politically motivated open source intelligence operation which reflected the intentionally biased view of the narrative that Ms. Thomas and the Crown Defendants wanted, rather than the truth about the overall peaceful nature of the Ottawa Protests. This included relying heavily upon false or otherwise one-sided open source information and giving undue emphasis or weight to misleading or otherwise biased narratives including those from the CAHN Defendants or their proxies on social media.

213. For greater certainty, in her role as National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Ms. Thomas had the entire intelligence and security information assets at her disposal to draw upon, including military and defence. Ms. Thomas and her office were authorized to draw upon information and intelligence from at least five different secretariat level sources. These include Emergency Preparedness, Intelligence Assessment, Foreign Policy, Defence Policy, and the National Security Council. In addition to the secretariat level information and intelligence sources, Ms. Jody Thomas had several agencies providing intelligence flows which includes but is not limited to CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Communications Security Establishment Canada.

214. None of the intelligence reports or flows of intelligence from the plethora of integrated government-wide perspectives and sources that Ms. Thomas had available to her could be used to justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act, nor did they suggest that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security.

215. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting was a deliberate attempt to bypass the secretariat level intelligence and the intelligence flows from the numerous agencies that Ms. Thomas and her office had at their disposal. The Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting reflected the views and narratives that she wanted to advance, and it was not the integrated government-wide intelligence perspective that was required.

216. The Crown Defendants, members of Cabinet both named and not named as Defendants in this action, accepted the information contained in the Thomas Open Source Reporting and misinformation from the CAHN Defendants or their proxies either negligently or with malicious intent when they knew or ought to have known that such information was misleading, grossly exaggerated, defamatory, and harmful.

217. Essentially, when all or some of the Crown Defendants were unable to obtain the intelligence required to justify invoking the Emergencies Act or demonstrate that the Ottawa Protests were a threat to national security, they embarked on their own unsanctioned open source intelligence operation by way of the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting to create a new flow of intelligence to the Prime Minister’s Office and to Cabinet while negligently or intentionally relying upon information that they knew or ought to have known was untrue, exaggerated, misleading, defamatory, and biased.

218. The Court ought to give weight to the above paragraphs as an aggravating factor in the course of this litigation when assessing the appropriate level of damages and financial compensation for the Plaintiffs.

252. The CAHN Defendants in particular, provided false information to several other Defendants and media organizations designed to harm the Plaintiffs. Falsified or otherwise highly exaggerated information was supplied by the CAHN Defendants or their proxies to the Crown Defendants and the Police Defendants in support of the Unlawful Enactments.

253. The statements made by the CAHN Defendants and their proxies defamed the Plaintiffs and influenced the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.

254. The statements were false and were made with malice to advance the political agenda of the CAHN Defendants. The CAHN Defendants at one point were recipients of funding and financial support from the Government of Canada. The CAHN Defendants as recently as August 2023, have requested further financial funding for themselves and their causes from the Government of Canada requesting taxpayer money in excess of $130 million over the next 5 years. The true extent of the historical and ongoing financial funding of the CAHN Defendants by the Government of Canada is not fully known but will be discovered during this action.

255. The Plaintiffs, any or each of them, suffered damages as a result of the defamatory statements by the CAHN Defendants which were dishonest, deceitful, and exaggerated while done with malicious intent to cause harm including labelling the Ottawa Protestors, including the Plaintiffs, as being racist, accelerationist, far right extremists, falsely accusing supporters of the Ottawa Protestors as being Nazi’s, misogynistic, and disseminating other hateful and defamatory false accusations about the Plaintiffs some of whom are Indigenous peoples, racialized minorities, persons of colour, women, senior citizens, and disabled individuals.

256. The CAHN Defendants have themselves knowingly propagated hatred, sowed division within Canada, fomented distrust, spread misinformation, and have defamed the Plaintiffs with malevolent intent and for cynical purposes to advance a political agenda which has in the past been paid for and funded by the Canadian taxpayers.

257. Furthermore, the Crown Defendants in relying upon the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting defamed the Plaintiffs when public statements were made repeating the same false information and narratives. In many instances, the Thomas Open Source Intelligence Reporting relied upon the false information from the Government of Canada funded CAHN Defendants and their proxies in a closed loop as a means to improperly justify the illegal invocation of the Emergencies Act.

258. The Plaintiffs seek compensable damages against the CAHN Defendants and the
Crown Defendants for their injurious falsehoods and defamation.

All of this is from the Statement of Claim.

But do you see the problem? At no point, is there any specific quote of any defamatory statement. Nor are there any specific articles or videos referenced. It should have looked something like this:

On February 6th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 8th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 10th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 12th, 2022, Farber stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 14th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 16th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

On February 18th, 2022, CAHN published an article which stated: “…. [insert quote]….”

And so on.

This is how defamation allegations are supposed to be pleaded in a Statement of Claim. The specific words need to be included, along with information about who spoke or wrote them, when and where. Considering the case against Farber and CAHN was only expression, these needed to be listed.

Instead of this, the Claim goes on about vague and nondescript allegations. This is not how it should be done, and the Claim would have to be rewritten anyway.

But since Ontario has anti-SLAPP laws, there are no rewrites.

Section 137.1 Courts Of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP)

Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.

No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party satisfies the judge that,
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
.
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

The Courts of Justice Act for Ontario has been quoted many times. But here’s a quick overview as to how it works, and what needs to happen.

(1) Defendants, one or multiple, bring a Motion to dismiss under this provision. A lot of papers are exchanged in the meantime.

(2) Defendant(s) must convince the Court that their expression is “of a public interest concern”. This isn’t to say that it’s good or bad, just that it’s something a segment of the public would be interested in. By design, it’s a very low burden.

(3) If the Defendant(s) are able to do this, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s), and they face a 3-part test. If even one part is failed, the anti-SLAPP Motion is granted, and the case dismissed.

(a) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there is “substantial merit” to the Claim.

(b) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there “are no reasonable defences available”.

(c) The Plaintiff(s) must persuade that there is a greater public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue, as opposed to protecting the expression.

If the Judge decides the expression “isn’t of a public concern”, the Motion is to be dismissed, and the case allowed to proceed. Likewise, if the Plaintiff is convincing on all 3 parts of the test, the Motion should fail.

Otherwise, the case is to be dismissed.

How The Anti-SLAPP Motion Played Out In Court

Starting at paragraph 19, Justice Bell explains his reasons.

The expression itself had to do with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which impacted all Canadians. While not taking sides on the issue, he found that it was a concern to a large segment of the population. As a result, he found that Farber and CAHN met the “public interest threshold”.

Now, the burden shifted to the Plaintiffs, and they had that test to meet. And here’s where the lawyers’ sheer cluelessness about anti-SLAPP laws really showed.

No further steps in proceeding
137.1(5) Once a motion under this section is made, no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of.

No amendment to pleadings
137.1(6) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the responding party shall not be permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding,
(a) in order to prevent or avoid an order under this section dismissing the proceeding; or
(b) if the proceeding is dismissed under this section, in order to continue the proceeding

This is part of what makes anti-SLAPP laws in Ontario so powerful. Part (5) “stays” the case, meaning nothing else can happen until this is resolved (and all Appeals).

Part (6) states that a pleading cannot be amended in order to avoid a dismissal, nor can it be after a case is dismissed.

Because the idiot lawyers never specified any defamatory statements here, there is no next time. As a result, Justice Bell found that there was “no substantial merit” to the Claim. (The civil conspiracy allegation also wasn’t pleaded properly.)

Since there’s no “substantial merit”, that should be the end right there.

There was also the open question as to whether the requirement to serve Notice of Libel was met, and whether the 2 year limitation had lapsed anyway. It wasn’t resolved, but still a possibly valid defence.

For the final part, the Judge found there was no evidence of harm to any Plaintiff from Farber or CAHN. Only Vincent Gircys submitted an Affidavit, but the freezing of his bank accounts couldn’t be tied to them.

Farber and CAHN had asked for $20,000 and $10,000 respectively for damages, which was denied.

The Motion was granted, and the case was dismissed (for Farber and CAHN).

Successful Motions Typically Get Full Indemnity (100%) Costs

Costs on dismissal
137.1(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.

In most circumstances, successful parties only get a portion of their costs back. In Ontario, anti-SLAPP laws refer to “full indemnity” as the default position if the case is dismissed.

This means that Plaintiffs have to pay their lawyers’ costs, and ALL of the Defendants’ lawyers costs. Cost awards typically are well over $100,000.

During the Motion, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers had tried to argue that the suit against Farber and CAHN could be added to and “particularized”. Again, this showed their ignorance about defamation and anti-SLAPP laws.

Now, the case can theoretically still proceed — minus Farber and CAHN — but the Claim will still have to be redrafted anyway. What a waste of time and money.

However, because there are other serious problems with the pleading, it’s possible, and likely, that Motions to Strike will be coming soon.

The Plaintiffs need better lawyers.

Perhaps the Law Societies of Ontario and/or Alberta can assist them in connecting with more competent and experienced help.

(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) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(15) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

October 3, 2024October 3, 2024

Private Member’s Bill C-413: Jail Time For Residential School “Denialism”

Leah Gazan, New Democrat M.P. for Winnipeg Centre, has made good on an earlier promise. Bill C-413 has now had First Reading in Parliament. If passed, it would ban “Residential School Denialism”, and people could face prison time for doing so.

In case people still think voting matters — for some reason — let’s differentiate between “left wing” politics and “right wing” politics in Canada. Hopefully, this clears things up.

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Gazan, who is Jewish, touts the “Never Again” motto as a rationale for bringing in this Bill.

Interestingly, she rails against war crimes committed in the Middle East, by Israel. However, she seems to support the same kind of censorship laws that Zionists do regarding the Holocaust. This appears to involve some mental gymnastics, especially given her enthusiasm for abortion.

Anyhow, this is what she recently contributed:

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.‍1):
Willful promotion of hatred — Indigenous peoples

(2.‍2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada or by misrepresenting facts relating to it
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍2)
(3.‍2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍2)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
.
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
.
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
.
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward Indigenous peoples.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

If the text of Bill C-413 looks familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-250. That was introduced in 2022 by “Conservative” Kevin Waugh to criminalize Holocaust denial. More on that later.

Both this Bill, and the one criminalizing Holocaust denial contain a provision that requires consent from the Attorney General to proceed. While this may be viewed as a safety mechanism, it can also mean that politically motivated cases would be filed only.

The Bill allows for the seizure and forfeiture of “anything in relation to the offence”, which presumably refers to computers and cell phones.

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

The text of Bill C-413 is modelled on Bill C-250, which was started by Kevin Waugh. However, the contents of that Bill were eventually incorporated into a budget, so this became irrelevant. As a result, people who “publicly deny the Holocaust” can now be locked up for 2 years.

This wasn’t just Waugh going rogue. The “Conservative” Party of Canada bragged about this being brought in, at least initially. Although the article was scrubbed, an archive of it is still available.

Things didn’t stop there. Yves-François Blanchet and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, both part of the Bloc Québécois, introduced Bills C-367 and C-373, respectively. These identical pieces of legislation were aimed at removing the “religious exemption” defence of Holocaust denial.

Back in July 2018, Kevin Waugh took a taxpayer funded trip to Israel. He billed $16,200 for this. It’s apparently commonplace to bring Members of Parliament (and spouses) each year to “foster cultural understanding”. To be fair, it seems to be commonplace that MPs are travelling to other countries at taxpayer expense.

Waugh, Blanchet and Brunelle-Duceppe were all lobbied by CIJA prior to their respective Bills being introduced. This is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC.

This is the left v.s. right political framework in Canada. There doesn’t seem to be any principled protection or dedication to free speech. Instead, special rules are brought in, depending on the political leanings of the people involved.

Time after time, we are seeing hate speech laws being brought for the protection of a specific group. But, will we ever see any legislation that prohibits the “willful promotion of hatred” against whites? Don’t count on it.

GAZAN’S BILL C-413:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-413
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/leah-gazan(87121)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-413/first-reading

WAUGH’S BILL C-250:
(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

BLANCHET’S BILL C-367:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584234

BRUNELLE-DUCEPPE’S BILL C-373:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-373
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alexis-brunelle-duceppe(104786)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-373/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=592585

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

September 17, 2024September 17, 2024

CSASPP Defamation Appeal To Be Heard In January 2025

A high profile defamation Appeal is now scheduled to be heard in the new year. The Court of Appeal for Ontario will hear arguments on January 13th, 2025, to determine whether or not Justice Chalmers should have thrown out a lawsuit in late 2023 under anti-SLAPP laws. There’s also a challenge to the $132,000 cost award that was handed down.

This is the $1.1 million “intimidation lawsuit” brought against CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, and one of their donors. For more background, see the decision and the cost award. They provide the necessary information to understanding how events played out.

Supposedly, it was over a “defamatory” email to Dan Dicks of Press for Truth, and a posting on CSASPP’s FAQ page. In reality, the suit was filed to derail the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) complaint filed by Donna Toews.

[89] With respect to the claim against Ms. Toews, I am of the view that “what is really going on” is an attempt to intimidate members of the public who may be considering making a complaint about the Plaintiff to the LSO. The effect of the action against Ms. Toews would be to obstruct the regulatory process. The harm this would cause in the LSO’s ability to receive and process complaints about lawyers is, in my view significant.

[98] For the reasons set out above, I find that the Plaintiff brought this action for the improper purpose of stifling debate with respect to his handling of a proposed class action that is being funded by public donations. I also note that the Claim was brought one day before the Plaintiff submitted a response to the LSO with respect to Ms. Toews complaint. I find that the Claim was brought for the improper purpose of limiting the LSO investigation, and to intimidate others from making any LSO complaints about him.

Justice Chalmers made it clear in paragraphs 89 and 98 of his decision that this was an intimidation lawsuit, designed at least in part to stop others from filing complaints with the LSO.

And it didn’t stop there. The LSO itself was sued in 2022, and again, in 2023, to further bury the Toews complaint. The earlier one was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action (ask for something the Court can actually provide). No amended Statement of Claim has been filed, and the other case appears inactive.

Included are the Factums of both sides, which are the arguments submitted. For reference, the Appellant(s) are the ones who commence the proceedings, while the Respondents are the ones who have to answer. There is an Appeal Record of several thousand pages, but it’s primarily a compilation of documents previously submitted.

Anyhow, here are some points to note.

Appeal Attempts To Reargue Entire Motion

The Appellant’s Factum attempts to reargue the Motion which led to Justice Chalmers throwing the case out. Instead, he should have been outlining the errors the Judge (allegedly) made.

When asking to have a Decision reviewed, there are only a few options.

TYPE OF ERROR	STANDARD FOR REVIEW
Error of Fact	Overriding, Palpable Error
Error of Pure Law	Correctness
Mixed Fact & Law	Spectrum, Leaning To Overriding, Palpable Error
Discretionary Orders	Overriding, Palpable Error

The correctness standard in law is meant to ensure that litigants are treated fairly, and held to the same standards. If a Lower Court hasn’t done this, then the Higher Court is able to step in.

The overriding, palpable error standard reflects that Judges are often in the best position to oversee the case, and that their decision making ability is owed a deal of deference. This applies to factual findings, and discretionary orders, such as costs and damages. Nonetheless, clear errors can still be fixed.

This is what should have been done: spell out the errors (if any) made by Justice Chalmers. The standard is Housen v. Nikolaisen, set over 20 years ago. Instead, it comes across as a demand to have the original matter reheard. This isn’t the role of the Appellate Courts, and he should know better.

The Respondents’ Factum addresses this quite well.

Appellant’s Ridiculous Demands Regarding Costs

One amusing thing of note is the Relief sought. In fairness, litigants are free to ask for whatever they want, but this is comical. The Appellant asks for costs both for this Appeal, and for the original Motion that he lost. In the alternative, he wants costs waived altogether. Doesn’t work like that.

Repeatedly Implying Justice Chalmers Rigged Decision

31. The Appellant states that not only did Justice Chalmers not apply this binding case from the Ontario Court of Appeal to the facts and evidence before him, Justice Chalmers completely ignored it, and thus erred in law.

41. …. The Plaintiff states that is clearly present in the within action. Justice Chalmers ignored the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in applying the test.

42. …. In the within case there is “grounds to believe”, and “reasonably capable of belief”, that the Plaintiff can succeed on at least one of the “stings”, which he clearly can based on the statements, and law. Again, Justice Chalmers ignored the binding Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. Justice Chalmers finding that the assertions were backed up by hyperlinks, makes a final determination that they are “true”. They are not. They are not even “partial truths” and Justice Chalmers does not deal with the Plaintiffs evidence in this respect.

43. …. Again, which is applicable to the within action, more than a single basis exists. Justice
Chalmers ignored this evidence and jurisprudence

44. …. The Plaintiff states that not only did the Society’s website “FAQ” exceed this privilege but coupled with the email to Mr. Dicks, the Defendants went out their way to depict the Plaintiff as incompetent, unprofessional, and dishonest and a fraud. The Defendants’ assertion that they were responding to queries as to the connection between them as the Plaintiff rings false. They could have simply stated that there was no connection between them and the Plaintiff and left it there. Furthermore, their assertions of being flooded with queries and complaints about the Plaintiff also rings false as they could only produce one (1) such query/complaint on cross-examination. Justice Chalmers ignored this binding jurisprudence.

45. …. The Plaintiff states that this also applies to the within action, and that Justice Chalmers ignored this jurisprudence and did NOT deal with an[y] of the above, which was before him and argued by the Plaintiff.

46. …. It is worth noting that, in the within action, all the facts on the findings by the Supreme Court of Canada Bent v. Platnick are more than present here in the within action. The Defendants, engaged in reckless statements and innuendo, without sober investigation, in a singularly distorted and targeted exercise of painting the Plaintiff as generally incompetent, unprofessional, dishonest, and a “fraud”. Any defence of qualified privilege, on fair comment, or responsible publication is therefore defeated. Justice Chalmers does not deal with this argument nor the evidence to support it.

50. …. The Appellant states that the evidence is that, as a result of the defamatory publications the Plaintiff was subject to hostile and viscous reaction from the public at large, including threats to bodily harm, as well as an obliteration of donations to the Constitutional Rights Centre (CRC) as set out in the affidavit evidence. This evidence was not only ignored by Justice Chalmers, but stated not to exist, which is a palatable and blatant error

55. Justice Chalmers further ignores and does not address the Plaintiff’s submissions, and evidence supporting those submissions, on the conspiracy tort pleaded.

56. Justice Chalmers further ignores and does not address the Plaintiff’s submissions and evidence supporting those submissions, contained in paragraphs 59 to 73 of the Plaintiffs factum before the Court.

These quotes are from the Appellant’s Factum. He repeatedly claims that Justice Chalmers “ignored” the information that was put in front of him. One can interpret this as an allegation that the Motion was rigged. Elsewhere in the Factum, it’s implied that he was grossly incompetent.

This really isn’t a good look, if one wants the Ontario Court of Appeal to take this case seriously.

Although not part of the Appeal, the Court probably won’t be amused by this either. At a virtual press conference back on March 27, 2023, he claimed that Judges “are pretending they weren’t pointed to the jurisprudence”. In other words, it’s an accusation that the judicial system is corrupt. Should lawyers be saying such things?

Repeatedly Citing (Largely Irrelevant) Case: Bent V. Platnick

The 2020 Supreme Court of Canada case, Bent v. Platnick, was repeatedly quoted in the original Motion, and again in the Appeal. It was another defamation case, but the allegations made there were far worse than anything CSASPP had published. The levels are so different that it’s actually quite unhelpful.

Appeal Nearly Dismissed For Unnecessary Delay

Once an Appellant files all of their major “books”, there’s a final document called the Certificate of Perfection that needs to be included. Aside from the extra fee, it tells the Court that everything has been done, and that a hearing date should be set.

Apparently, it wasn’t done here properly. It was only after a Motion to Dismiss had been brought, that it was filed. Now, it could be sloppiness, but CSASPP believes it to be intentional delay.

Champerty And Maintenance: VCC Donors Paying For Appeal?

Both Ted Kuntz and Tanya Gaw submitted Affidavits in support of the original claim.

On Exhibit #C, page 21 of Kuntz’s Affidavit, there are remarks indicating that Vaccine Choice Canada had used donor money to finance defamation actions on behalf of doctors on social media. Presumably, this refers to Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba.

Now the obvious question: are donors paying for this as well?

Overall, the Appeal comes across as a delay tactic. This is partly to avoid paying the $132,000 in costs that are owed, and partly to avoid the consequences of commencing a lawsuit to sabotage the Toews LSO complaint. But in the end, this Appeal will be dismissed as well.

Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws (Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) have “full indemnity” as a default position for costs. This means that if a Defendant is successful in getting such a lawsuit tossed, they are presumptively entitled to 100% of their costs back. This makes defamation suits very risky to pursue.

Of course, a competent lawyer should know that.

CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) CanLII Posting Of Decision

CSASPP/RG APPEAL DOCUMENTS (2024)
(1) CSASPP Defamation Appellant Factum
(2) CSASPP Defamation Respondent Factum
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.scribd.com/document/768627727/2024-09-12-Notice-of-Merit-Hearing-13-January-2025
(5) https://www.scribd.com/document/758138683/2024-08-06-Defendant-Respondents-Motion-Record-to-Dismiss-for-Delay

1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum

2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim

September 16, 2024September 27, 2024

Diagolon And The Company They Keep: GDL

Sometimes, even when people say some of the right things, you have to wonder if they really have your interests at heart. In their recent “Road Rage Terror Tour”, Diagolon cross-promoted a group called the GDL, or Goyim Defense League, based in the United States.

In the above photo, Derek (Rants) Harrison sports a Goyim TV cap.

Elsewhere in the series:

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Considering that Diagolon is “just a meme” and just a joke “based around a podcast community”, it’s rather interesting to promote this group. The GDL has an online platform called Goyim TV.

The GDL’s efforts can accurately be described as “agitation”. Yes, they say a lot of truthful things about foreign influence of the West. However, they conduct themselves in such a way, it seems designed to prevent the masses from taking them seriously.

And that would fit MacKenzie, Harrison, Vriend, etc… to a “T”. Yes, they also address difficult truths on their streams. However, they also say and do a lot of idiotic things. Given how strict hate laws are in this country, it’s interesting that none of them have been charged over it. MacKenzie had all his previous charges disappear, despite being so “persecuted”.

Adam Green, who has streamed with MacKenzie and Harrison, claims to have founded the Goyim Defense League, and to be selling their merchandise.

When trying to persuade people, appearance and presentation do matter a great deal. One cannot be taken seriously if they are loud, abusive, or come across as bullies. These groups present themselves as being almost cartoonish. Is this being done intentionally?

How To Provoke A Backlash, Creating New Censorship Laws

What’s employed here is the classic strategy of: (1) problem; (2) reaction; (3) solution.

(1) Problem – Groups like Diagolon or the GDL go around harassing and/or intimidating people. In the above case, this was a “protest” outside Disney, where children frequent. Minadeo is to the left in the photo.

(2) Reaction – There’s confusion and dismay about what’s going on. Most people just trying to go about their lives probably don’t want to see this.

(3) Solution – The public demands (or is perceived to demand) stronger penalties and consequences for so-called hate crimes and intimidation.

Goyim Defense League, Florida House Bill 269

Recently, Jon Minadeo, head of Goyim TV, left California for Florida, to continue his “activism“. And what was the result of that? New legislation popped up shortly afterwards.

Considering Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ love for Israel, this cannot be surprising in the slightest. He has even gone abroad to sign legislation that limits free speech.

Public Nuisances: Prohibits person from distributing onto private property any material for purpose of intimidating or threatening owner, resident, or invitee; prohibits person from willfully & maliciously harassing, threatening, or intimidating another person based on person’s wearing or displaying of any indicia relating to any religious or ethnic heritage; requires violations be reported as hate crimes; prohibits display or projection of images onto building, structure, or property without permission; prohibits person who willfully enters campus of state university or Florida College System institution for purpose of threatening or intimidating another person from remaining on such campus after being warned to depart.

To be clear: HB 269 REQUIRES that such acts be reported as hate crimes.

Even a quick search of GDL will flag interesting results. They include protesting outside a Synagogue. While people are free to express their views, the overall conduct seems calculated to cause resentment.

Need a hate-speech Bill passed? Send in these idiots to stir up trouble. Soon enough, the public will be demanding a response. See how easy that is?

Diagolon, Canada Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act)

Recently, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, and the consequences it will have for free speech in Canada. It appears both CIJA and NCCM, the Israeli and Islamic lobbies, have been supportive of this.

This Bill would allow Courts to impose orders on people they suspect might commit harmful acts. Not charged or convicted. Suspicion would be enough to see a Judge. These restrictions may include:

(a) Wearing an electronic monitoring device
(b) Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times, a.k.a. a curfew
(c) Abstaining from drugs and alcohol
(d) Submitting to drug and alcohol testing
(e) No contact orders
(f) Weapons prohibitions

Yes, this Bill needs to be stopped.

However, how is any of this productive? The public won’t be interested in protecting Vriend’s ability to laugh at tigers killing Indians. There’s no will to protect MacKenzie’s rape “jokes”. Seeing these clowns operate, it seems more likely the public would support some level of restricting their expression.

Above are just a few of their clips. Pretty hard for people to take them seriously when they’re making comments like these. Clownish and goofy.

And done intentionally.

For all MacKenzie and Vriend whine about their “meme” group being taken seriously in Ottawa, this is the logical outcome: using it as an excuse to crack down on free speech. Then there’s this:

The internet in Canada is under attack by the Trudeau government — again. The Online Harms Act, Bill C-63 violates our charter rights and would give the government ultimate authority to fine, silence, and criminalize Canadians for freely expressing themselves. If you want to keep your free speech in Canada, then email your members of Parliament right now and demand that they do everything in their power to STOP Bill C-63.

This site was recently set up by Greg Wycliffe, promoting the dangers of Bill C-63. Wycliffe also set up a GiveSendGo (or GSG) account, asking for $50,000. This is done under the pretext of protecting free speech rights in Canada.

By itself, this seems fine, and a good way to get the point across. And although it’s unclear what the $50,000 would be needed for, people can ask for money to finance activism.

Where things get interesting is that Wycliffe pushes the bogus narrative that the Emergencies Act was invoked because of a meme. He claims the RCMP decided to frame MacKenzie, because reasons…. He opposes Bill C-63, yet apparently supports the people who ensure that it will get passed. He’s silent on the obvious agitation.

This may be why Diagolon and the GDL are connected. They seem to have the same goals.

FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 269:
(1) https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/
(2) https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76984
(3) https://www.change.org/p/stop-house-bill-269-in-florida
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0FaUaZNt70
(5) https://x.com/jnewsgabe/status/1597348747851153409
(6) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/neo-nazi-groups-spew-hate-disney-world-orlando-officials-say-rcna103186
(7) https://www.wsmv.com/2024/07/17/nashville-synagogue-calls-police-after-neo-nazi-group-shows-up/
(8) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-signs-bill-combat-hate-crimes-israel-rcna81799

(1) https://savefreespeech.ca/
(2) https://www.givesendgo.com/savefreespeech?amp;utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=savefreespeech

August 26, 2024February 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 3: Why The Final Report Is Misleading

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence. Even if the members themselves aren’t connected directly, they function as “useful idiots” for the Government.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1 and 2 of the HateGate Scam are available as well.

Back in the Fall of 2023, this 85 page document was written by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan, and released by Crier Media. It supposedly proved the Emergencies Act had been invoked because of shoddy intelligence and poor research. Authorities engaged in a clownish series of acts and panicked over an edgy podcast.

This is in no way an attempt to justify the loss of freedoms that had been going on since 2020. That said, there are questions to ask about this report.

The strongest evidence is said to be the 1,802 page FOIPIP document. It’s comprised of emails, letters and memos between Government officials and law enforcement.

Interestingly, the massive FOIA released from the RCMP is quoted, but never linked. Nor was it included by any of the “media” outlets who covered the expose. Was was this receipt left out?

Here are just a few points to consider:

What Data Did FOIA Request Actually Ask For?

Any and All records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports on the subject of “Diagolon” or in relation or reference to the subject of Diagolon. Search term: Diagolon Also referred to as the Diagolon Network or Diagolon Militia.
Timeframe: January 01 2021 to August 15 2022

From this, Sa’d and Hategan went on to draw the conclusion that police are taking their information primarily from the media. After that, the police would feed this data — primarily from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network — to politicians, who (among other things) invoked the Emergencies Act. They apparently all fed off of each other, which was referred to many times as the “circle jerk”.

However, Sa’d and Hategan — in their FOIPIP request — didn’t ask for all “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” that resulted in the EA being invoked. Instead, the request was specific to the group, Diagolon. They then decided that these records were sufficient. It’s worth noting that the FOIPIP didn’t inquire about any other (alleged) extremists.

Nor did the FOIA request to obtain any “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” about how so-called violent extremists groups are defined, surveilled and dealt with.

Nor did the FOIA request to obtain any “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” about what information and evidence had been gathered on Diagolon. They didn’t ask to see anything from law enforcement directly. Granted, this would likely have been withheld, if investigations were ongoing.

The documents included here do have significant redactions, so there’s a lot of information that’s being withheld. Nonetheless, Sa’d and Hategan can apparently still piece together what was going on.

Point is, a lot of conclusions were drawn on a very incomplete record.

Authors Interviewed No Witnesses To Draw Conclusions

Pages 57 to 62 of the HateGate report quote some emails between various law enforcement and Government. From this, the authors conclude that the RCMP was working blindly to fulfill demands to dig up dirt on various extremist groups.

Problem is: going through their report, it doesn’t look like they interviewed a single witness, or even attempted to. Since the FOIPIP only asked about “Diagolon”, most likely there are many other emails not included. Given the gaps in the record (see previous section), one would think they would try to contact at least a few of the officers involved. After all, their email addresses were listed.

This isn’t to justify — in any way — the heavy handed approach that was used on peaceful protesters. Far from it. But these are very serious allegations to make, and it’s very speculative.

RCMP Expressed Doubt About Reliability Of CAHN Articles

Pages 16 through 26 of the 2nd FOIPIP package are worth a read. The RCMP does discuss Diagolon at length, and admits that a lot of the information they get came from CAHN. However, they also admit that it’s almost impossible to verify any of it, and that it’s unclear how CAHN can make these assertions with any level of confidence.

The RCMP also expresses doubts about a University of New Brunswick Professor named David Hofmann. They don’t know how he can state that Diagolon is an “American-style militia movement”.

They conclude that “operational information” would be needed to build any profile, since none of the open source claims can be verified.

Is this self serving? Maybe, but these are the same FOIPIP documents that are being used to make them look incompetent and dishonest. Yes, the RCMP does monitor the content CAHN puts out — that’s obvious — but they have doubts about its reliability.

MacKenzie’s Stream From February 15th, 2022

Starting at page 47 of the 6th FOIPIP package, MacKenzie’s video is mentioned, along with several quotes. He refers to himself (presumably sarcastically) as the Neo-Nazi Militia Commander. He mentions the patches that were found in Coutts, but suggests they were planted. He also goes on about the “country” being a meme.

It’s baffling to understand what kind of idiot would post a video with such a title. If authorities aren’t understanding what’s satire v.s. reality, why give them this kind of bait? And it’s hardly the first time he’s done something like this.

MacKenzie either doesn’t know — or pretends not to know — that posting this content can have serious consequences. Hard to claim he’s being smeared by CAHN when this is how he describes himself.

There are also remarks in various streams about “hunting circs”, which police take to mean “hunting circulons”, or people who subscribe to different ideologies. While this is likely in jest, authorities take them at their word.

Part of the reason authorities had such difficulty understanding what Diagolon was likely had to do with the endless mixed messages. MacKenzie and his friends routinely said things that would be considered fed-posting, only to follow it up with “it’s all just a joke”. Comments about “gun or rope” and the like are also just jokes.

Yeah. The majority of the content was – especially considering the time, it was very anti-COVID, anti-vaccine, anti-government material. There was a lot of conspiracy theory material in that. There was a lot of what I would define as White nationalists, White supremacy ideology existing within that space. There was also a lot of what I would define as militia-type discussions. There was a lot of talk of acquiring weaponry, body armour, ammunition, planning meet-ups, organizing community events, and then also articulating the purpose of these events beyond simply….

Going back to the Schill gun grab of May 2024, Carmichael testified that there were meet-ups in person. There were also conversations around weapons, ammnition, and body armour.

He also testified that the in-person meetings were surveilled.

One has to wonder how long this has been going on for. How extensive it the information that has been gathered? This is another reason to think that more information should have been asked for with the FOIPIP request.

Are MacKenzie, Harrison, Vriend and the others completely oblivious to what’s being set in motion? All of this talk about being a militia, going shooting, etc… is being taken at face value. And now with the hard anti-immigration push, it looks even worse.

RCMP Has Their “Talking Points” Available For The Media

Back in April 2022, the RCMP had their “talking points” ready for media inquiries. This is from the beginning of the 1st FOIPIP package. In essence, there were scripts already prepared, including what to say if pressed further.

Page 31 of the 9th FOIPIP package has a similar script, dated February 20th, 2022. No specifics can be given, but there’s a “trust us” response.

Far from being unique, it seems likely that most (or all) press conferences are structured this way. There’s the set script, and then the “extra information” to be released if there’s any pushback.

Diagolon is mentioned in the context that body armour from Coutts, AB had their markings on it. Yes, it is labelled a “militia” in this memo. Can’t figure out why.

Authors Insert Themselves Greatly Into Report

The HateGate report is 85 pages, or less, if covers, table of contents, etc… are removed. Pages 10 and 11 are about Caryma Sa’d, and 31 to 44 are about Elisa Hategan. 16 pages, or approximately 20% of the report’s content is information on the authors and their experiences. There’s about as much detail on them as there is on MacKenzie. And that leads to another concern….

Other Agendas From The Authors?

As an aside, it’s comical how the “independent” media who broke HateGate never bothered to do the slightest bit of due diligence into the people writing the report.

Part 1 of this series covered Elisa Hategan, one of the co-authors. She had been involved with a group called Heritage Front back in the 1990’s. She later acted as an “asset” for the Ontario Provincial Police, helping to bring them down. Hategan’s story is widely available, and she even published a book titled: “Race Traitor”.

Heritage Front turned out to be a CSIS operation, quite literally. It was co-founded by Grant Bristow, who was at one point the second-in-command of the group. This means the group was created, at least in part, by CSIS. Who’s to say that Diagolon isn’t the next iteration?

Part 2 covered Hategan’s lawfare against Bernie Farber, and Elizabeth (Moore) Frederiksen. Justice Ferguson found that Hategan had engaged in doxing, stalking, harassment, and invading privacy. Not content to lose in Court, she kept it going in Appellate Court for another 2 years.

Hategan’s involvement in writing the HateGate report is suspicious because: (a) she glosses over the “honeypot” possibility; and (b) given her recent history with Farber, this looks like revenge.

Thoughts On The FOIA And HateGate Report?

The claim has been going around since September 2023 that this was “proof” that an intelligence failure around Diagolon and MacKenzie led to the EA being invoked. But the request only asks for information on Diagolon, and is structured in a way that ensures such proof won’t be included. It would have been far more productive to request all records related to the declaration of emergency in the first place.

Alternatively, multiple FOIPIP requests could have been made, even if there would be overlap in the disclosure.

While the FOIA package is over 1,000 pages, there’s very little in there. Many of the emails are chains, so the same content keeps coming up. A lot of pages have little to no content on them.

Sa’d and Hategan fill in the blanks with their own assumptions. Without talking to witnesses, they speculate and give their views about what was going on. If this was clearly explained to be opinion, that would be one thing, but people interpret this as fact.

Taking the FOIA documents at face value, it’s clear that the RCMP (and presumably CSIS too) do in fact monitor the news in general. They also have looked at what CAHN has said about others, including Diagolon. However, while these articles are quoted, and shared, there’s no hard proof that it led to anything, let alone the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Yes, other countries (such as New Zealand) have been contacted about Diagolon. However, given the kinds of comments MacKenzie and his followers routinely make, this doesn’t seem outrageous.

The HateGate report comes across much more as an advocacy piece that something objective. MacKenzie’s take on things is always given deference. People like Bernie Farber are always pushing ideological agendas. The authors (in particular Hategan) use their own experiences as material and for reference points.

Overall, this is nowhere near the “breaking story” that had been portrayed.

It’s interesting, but that’s about it.

Again, this is in no way to justify the declaration of emergency, or the crackdown on protesters, or the freezing of bank accounts. None of that was called for.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE:
(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

August 25, 2024March 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Part 1 of the HateGate Scam is available as well.

There’s a lot more to get into, all of it ignored by so-called “alternative” media.

In the last piece, we covered Elisa Hategan’s history with “Heritage Front”. This so-called white supremacist group turned out to be (at least in part) a CSIS operation. It was co-founded by Grant Bristow, who was a CSIS agent at the time.

As she co-authored the infamous “HateGate report” with Caryma Sa’d, it was strange to omit the possibility that Jeremy MacKenzie and “Diagolon” may be the next iteration. If the Government would manufacture at least one such group, what’s to stop them from doing it again? While this coincidence alone is not definitive proof, it’s not something that can be ignored either.

Now, we come across something which completely stands things on its head. Hategan went after Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (who still uses her maiden name, Moore) a few years ago. She lost.

Both Hategan and Moore/Frederiksen were part of Heritage Front, and both played a role in bringing down the group. As is noted by Justice Ferguson, both women’s stories have many similarities. However, their futures diverged greatly afterwards.

Farber and Moore/Frederiksen went on to lead the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, while Hategan was left in relative obscurity. Reading through the decision, it appears that she didn’t get the glory and recognition she felt was owed to her. Being able to share her story wasn’t enough, as she didn’t want others to have that same right.

Hategan went as far as to buy up many domain names with very similar names to Elizabeth Moore, so that they couldn’t be used. This behaviour is downright creepy.

Farber chose his “pet”, and it wasn’t Hategan, so she lashed out.

It’s baffling why Hategan would write the HateGate report — which is 85 pages long, and full of citations. She claims to be the main researcher and writer of the document. MacKenzie and his crew used it to claim “vindication” over Government overreach, and the invoking of the Emergencies Act. Considering Hategan now proudly shares her identity as Jewish and a lesbian, allying with them would make no sense. Ideologically, she has far more in common with Farber and Moore/Frederiksen.

However, it makes sense once the history between these people is revealed.

Put into context, the HateGate paper comes across as an act of revenge.

One has to wonder if this is why the “honeypot” narrative of Diagolon was glossed over. Sure, it would do damage to MacKenzie, Harrison and Vriend to reveal it, but not to Farber or CAHN.

Ironically, Hategan also feels sidelined by Caryma Sa’d, who has received the bulk of the publicity for the HateGate paper.

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

September 2017: Farber goes on “The Agenda”, and talks about Hategan and Frederiksen as “heroes” who helped take out the group, Heritage Front.

December 2018: Hategan files Statement of Claim against Moore/Frederiksen. It includes torts for (a) injurious falsehood; (b) civil conspiracy; (c) wrongful appropriation; (d) unlawful interference; and (e) negligence. None of it was pleaded properly, and one may say it was “bad beyond argument”.

January 2019: Statement of Defence (and a Counter-Claim) are filed by Frederiksen. She sued for (a) defamation; (b) invasion of privacy; (c) appropriation of likeness; and (d) interference with economic relations.

April 2019: Statement of Claim is amended, and Bernie Farber added as a Defendant.

July 2019: Farber filed a Statement of Defence, and also brought a Motion to Dismiss for Summary Judgement.

December 2020: Justice Ferguson hears Motions for Summary Judgement brought by Farber and Frederiksen. The decision is reserved, which is typical in these types of cases.

February, 2021: Justice Ferguson throws out Hategan’s Claim on a Summary Judgement Motion, and Frederiksen’s Counter-Claim is granted. Hategan was ordered to pay:

$100,000 for general damages;
$50,000 for aggravated damages;
$50,000 for punitive damages

March 2021: Hategan serves Notice of Appeal on Frederiksen and Farber.

March 2021: Justice Ferguson confirmed the cost award against Hategan. Also the permanent injunction for her to stop publishing content about Frederiksen, remove existing content, release all domain names, and refrain from using identifiers of her likeness.

April 2021: The Registrar gave notice to Hategan that her Appeal would be dismissed for delay since she had missed the 30 day deadline to file her paperwork. Hategan thought there was 60 days, however, that didn’t apply since there was no transcript.

May 2021: Hategan retains another lawyer, who asks for consent for an extension to file the Appeal documents. The request is denied.

July 2021: The Registrar dismisses the Appeal for delay.

August 2021: Hategan’s counsel advises that there will be a Motion brought to challenge the administrative delay. There were procedural headaches after this. January 2022 is set as a date, but delayed again.

February 2022: Justice Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario hears a Motion to set aside (invalidate) the Registrar’s dismissal of the Appeal for delay. It’s held via video conference.

March 2022: Justice Pardu dismisses Motion to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal for delay. Among the reasons given is that there is — on the surface — little or no merit to the Appeal. Frederiksen had agreed to waive costs if the Motion was dismissed, while Farber got the $5,000 he asked for.

July 2022: Justice Simmons orders Hategan to pay security for costs to Farber.

October 2022: Justices Lauwers, Roberts and Trotter dismissed a Review Motion (of Justice Simmons) requiring Hategan to pay security for costs.

January 2023: Court of Appeal hears a Review Motion from Hategan. She’s contesting the decision of the Registrar to dismiss her Appeal for unnecessary delay.

January 2023: Hategan’s Review Motion (at the Court of Appeal) is dismissed. Given her delay, prejudice to the Respondents, and the lack of merit to the Appeal, Justices Nordheimer, Miller and van Rensburg decided not to give her another chance. She was ordered to pay Frederiksen $7,500, and Farber another $5,000.

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)

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

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.

All of this comes from Justice Ferguson’s ruling in 2021. Hategan meddled in the business of Moore/Frederiksen to a significant degree, and damages were awarded.

Worth noting: Justice Ferguson also concluded that none of Hategan’s torts had any merit whatsoever. It was a baseless and frivolous lawsuit.

Rather than accepting the loss, Hategan managed to tie up the matter in Appellate Court for another 2 years. No Appeal was ever actually heard for Justice Ferguson’s 2021 decision.

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

In a turn of events that should surprise no one, Hategan threatened to sue Derek Harrison earlier this year. She wasn’t happy with the entry in his (sarcastic?) book called “Meme Kampf”. She was apparently also arrested in December 2023 for criminal harassment. Again, not surprising.

Justice Ferguson found (among other things) that Hategan had been buying up various domain names so that Frederiksen would be unable to do business. This goes far beyond petty bullying. All things considered, she comes across as being unhinged.

If people are going to be claiming that there’s a complete failure of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Canada, then the context of their writing is important. The FOIPOP (linked below) doesn’t really support their conclusions.

Again, Hategan claims to be the primary author of the report.

Hategan apparently had no problems being part of the “anti-hate industry”. The animosity only started after she didn’t get the credit and attention she believed she deserved. For better or worse, Farber chose Frederiksen, and gave her accolades for her work.

True, people should have their work judged on its merits. However, this case changes everything. It’s not some ancient D.U.I. from 20 years ago, but reflects directly on what’s happening now.

One final point: this isn’t to be construed that the people at CAHN are the “good guys”. They aren’t, and they’ve done considerable damage to people. In no way should this be seen as endorsing their “work”.

CARMICHAEL ASSAULTING A PRISONER:
(1) Ernest Carmichael Disciplinary Hearing Penalty Decision 25.07.2014
(2) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/siu-lays-assault-charge-against-york-region-police-officer-1.1392108
(3) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/york-police-officer-charged-with-assault/article_d1b43f97-a077-59b4-8603-747a94b76170.html

Category: Free Speech

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Leads To Anti-SLAPP Win For Farber, CAHN

“We Do Commercial Litigation”

Claim Failed To Specify A Single Defamatory Statement

Section 137.1 Courts Of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP)

How The Anti-SLAPP Motion Played Out In Court

Successful Motions Typically Get Full Indemnity (100%) Costs

Like this:

Private Member’s Bill C-413: Jail Time For Residential School “Denialism”

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

Like this:

CSASPP Defamation Appeal To Be Heard In January 2025

Appeal Attempts To Reargue Entire Motion

Appellant’s Ridiculous Demands Regarding Costs

Repeatedly Implying Justice Chalmers Rigged Decision

Repeatedly Citing (Largely Irrelevant) Case: Bent V. Platnick

Appeal Nearly Dismissed For Unnecessary Delay

Champerty And Maintenance: VCC Donors Paying For Appeal?

Like this:

Diagolon And The Company They Keep: GDL

How To Provoke A Backlash, Creating New Censorship Laws

Goyim Defense League, Florida House Bill 269

Diagolon, Canada Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act)

Like this:

HateGate, Part 3: Why The Final Report Is Misleading

What Data Did FOIA Request Actually Ask For?

Authors Interviewed No Witnesses To Draw Conclusions

RCMP Expressed Doubt About Reliability Of CAHN Articles

MacKenzie’s Stream From February 15th, 2022

RCMP Has Their “Talking Points” Available For The Media

Authors Insert Themselves Greatly Into Report

Other Agendas From The Authors?

Thoughts On The FOIA And HateGate Report?

Like this:

HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

Like this:

“We Do Commercial Litigation”

Claim Failed To Specify A Single Defamatory Statement

Section 137.1 Courts Of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP)

How The Anti-SLAPP Motion Played Out In Court

Successful Motions Typically Get Full Indemnity (100%) Costs

Share this:

Like this:

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

Share this:

Like this:

Appeal Attempts To Reargue Entire Motion

Appellant’s Ridiculous Demands Regarding Costs

Repeatedly Implying Justice Chalmers Rigged Decision

Repeatedly Citing (Largely Irrelevant) Case: Bent V. Platnick

Appeal Nearly Dismissed For Unnecessary Delay

Champerty And Maintenance: VCC Donors Paying For Appeal?

Share this:

Like this:

How To Provoke A Backlash, Creating New Censorship Laws

Goyim Defense League, Florida House Bill 269

Diagolon, Canada Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act)

Share this:

Like this:

What Data Did FOIA Request Actually Ask For?

Authors Interviewed No Witnesses To Draw Conclusions

RCMP Expressed Doubt About Reliability Of CAHN Articles

MacKenzie’s Stream From February 15th, 2022

RCMP Has Their “Talking Points” Available For The Media

Authors Insert Themselves Greatly Into Report

Other Agendas From The Authors?

Thoughts On The FOIA And HateGate Report?

Share this:

Like this:

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

Share this:

Like this: