Free Speech Archives - Page 4 of 31

March 24, 2024March 24, 2024

Egale Canada, Registered Charity Getting Public Money

This is a follow up on Egale Canada. For the earlier critique of their work, see this piece. This time, we get a bit heavier into the financial side of things, and see how big things really are. Remember, your tax dollars are helping to finance this, regardless of personal views.

As an aside, Egale received $513,801 from CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, back in 2020. It got another $35,779 in 2021. Interesting priorities.

From its publicly available filings, it’s clear that after 2012, Canadian taxpayers are financing this organization to a great degree. And that doesn’t even factor in the rebates that private donors receive from Revenue Canada.

YEAR	TOTAL $	GOV’T	OTHER	% GOV’T	EXPENSES
2006	$40,123	$2,507	$37,616	6.2 %	$15,193
2007	$24,644	$0	$24,644	0.0 %	$18,777
2008	$53,154	$6,578	$46,576	12.4 %	$61,661
2009	$106,471	$0	$106,471	0.0 %	$104,518
2010	$259,365	$0	$259,365	0.0 %	$209,962
2011	$464,975	$0	$464,975	0.0 %	$408,782
2012	$707,761	$345,963	$361,798	48.9%	$690,912
2013	$1,801,607	$1,290,184	$511,423	71.6 %	$1,808,589
2014	$1,704,083	$910,500	$793,583	46.6 %	$1,728,727
2015	$2,014,901	$887,075	$1,127,826	44.0 %	$2,013,484
2016	$2,798,237	$1,154,301	$1,643,936	41.3 %	$2,311,837
2017	$3,851,872	$1,132,350	$2,719,522	29.4 %	$3,578,714
2018	$3,704,557	$3,524,832	$179,725	95.1 %	$3,916,554
2019	$4,095,433	$3,831,557	$263,876	93.6 %	$4,043,359
2020	$2,833,582	$2,637,412	$196,170	93.1 %	$2,754,446
2021	$3,635,394	$1,891,479	$1,743,915	52.0 %	$3,595,380
2022	$4,763,496	$3,163,263	$1,600193	66.4 %	$4,615,041

There are some discrepancies with the data copied from the C.R.A. website, as it appears that not all of the same categories are listed in the “short version”. Notably, CEWS isn’t included. The categories also aren’t consistent across the years, so we’ll do our best.

Note: the form for 2007 is incomplete. However, the assets listed in 2006 were totaled at $50,783. In 2007, it was given at $56,650. From that, we will assume that the change will be the difference in revenue and expenses for that year.

Equity (worth) = assets – liabilities
$56,650 – $50,783 = new revenue – $18,777
From this, assume 2007 revenue was ~ $24,644

For the years 2018 and 2019, the itemized lists lump various Government and private funding grants together, in terms of the source. However, the overall totals are the same.

Egale is raising in revenue about 100 times that rate it did less than 20 years ago. In fairness, increases in Government (or taxpayer) money has helped a lot. Assuming these records are fairly accurate, this organization has certainly been growing.

Although it would be nice to blame this on Trudeau, the growth long predates him. And the majority of Government funding appears to have been from Ontario (which is Provincial) anyway.

While Government funding costs a straight 100%, donations from private groups and individuals aren’t free either. Specifically, they are eligible for rebates from the C.R.A. of around 40 to 45 cents on the dollar.

Considering the kinds of causes that Egale takes on, is this a prudent use of public money?

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-22: (Raising Age Of Consent From 14 To 16)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=1736719
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=107655
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/JUST/meeting-57/evidence
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/391/JUST/Evidence/EV2805304/JUSTEV57-E.PDF
(5) Egale Canada Opposes Raising Age Of Consent

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-75: (Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-108/evidence
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20180925/-1/30041?Language=English&Stream=Video
(5) Egale Canada Human Rights Trust Bill C-75

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-6: (Conversion Therapy)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10980515
(2) https://egale.ca/newsletter-open-letter-c6/
(3) https://egale.ca/awareness/open-letter-bill-c6/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cb124b36-46bf-4cab-b648-a3c75f571873

HIV NON-DISCLOSURE: (Hiding Positive Status From Partners)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Brief/BR10044994/br-external/EgaleCanadaHumanRightsTrust-e.pdf
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10485413
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248803
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-149/evidence
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-28/
(6) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/hiv-vih/nd.html
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-28/page-24

ONLINE HATE: (Censorship)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Reports/RP10581008/justrp29/justrp29-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-150/evidence#Int-10636774
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=10625547

INTERFERING WITH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
(1) https://egale.ca/awareness/supreme-court-of-canada-decision-affirms-trans-rights-protective-counter-speech/

PARTNERS:
(1) https://egale.ca/our-partners/

POLICIES:
(1) https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Discriminatory-and-Unworkable-FINAs-Policy-1.pdf
(2) https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/msm-blood-ban/

RACHEL GILMORE TWEET:
(1) https://twitter.com/atRachelGilmore/status/1737207763640402361

March 23, 2024March 23, 2024

Would It Be So Difficult To Admit “I Shouldn’t Have Done That”?

Kulvinder Gill is back in public, asking for money.

She has only days left to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court fees. Here’s some background. This stemmed from a $12.75 million defamation case that she and Ashvinder Lamba filed in December 2020. They sued 23 individuals and media outlets, primarily over comments on Twitter. There are 4 rulings that have come down

(a) Dismissal in February 2022
(b) Costs awarded in October 2022
(c) Motion for security for costs denied November 2023
(d) Appeal dismissed in February 2024

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279 – Case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws
Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169 – Over $1 million in costs awarded
Gill v. Maciver, 2023 ONCA 776 – Security for costs from The Pointer Group
Gill v. Maciver, 2024 ONCA 126 – Appeal dismissed

Unsurprisingly, this libel-chill lawsuit backfired bigtime. Gill now owes nearly $300,000 by the end of March, not including lawyers’ fees and other private settlements. Perhaps she should finally admit this was a bad idea.

It’s also scary to think what would have happened if she had won. Would she start suing more people who have annoyed her online? Fortunately for society, she lost.

A few days ago, Jay Bhattacharya posted an interview with Gill about her looming financial problems. For reference, Bhattacharya wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, which can be viewed as “diet lockdowns”. Gill has imminent Court orders to pay, and she doesn’t have the money.

Would it be so difficult to admit she shouldn’t have filed this lawsuit in the first place? That bit of self-reflection would have gone a long way.

Watching the interview, it becomes clear that Gill still doesn’t understand why sued at all.

She talks about wanting to bring her truth forward, but that’s not the purpose of a defamation lawsuit. It’s about whether a Court can silence someone on speech or expression they’ve made publicly. She’s been dealing with these people for nearly 4 years now, and still doesn’t get it.

Gill also talks about anti-SLAPP Motions as if this were a surprise to her. These laws have been on the books in Ontario since 2015, and were well known. In reality, any competent lawyer would discuss such a possibility right away. Not only that, Ontario law typically provides full indemnity (100% of costs) to Defendants who are successful in getting their cases dismissed.

Gill talks about “fair comment” as if it this were some oddity. This defence — one of mixed fact and opinion — is routinely used by Defendants. A statement doesn’t have to be completely accurate as long as there’s some factual basis for it, and a person could honestly hold such a belief.

Gill appears to have gotten incompetent advice, both from former and current counsel.

Noticeably absent is any mention that Gill regrets the damage she inflicted on others. She attempted to bankrupt people over mean words on Twitter. Yes, she had to deal with the CPSO, but she sued people over Twitter remarks. It’s amazing how tone deaf she remains.

Gill tries to justify suing all those people on the grounds that they were “big and powerful”, and that they were “covered by insurance”. Not all of them were, and some had to personally pay out of their savings. A few were seniors living off of a pension. In any event, it comes off as a pretty cold blooded excuse.

Additionally, there are several major omissions in this interview. These are things that Gill should have disclosed if she’s asking for money. They aren’t minor by any means, but could easily cause potential donors to walk away.

Ted Kuntz claims Vaccine Choice Canada funded Gill’s case
Appeal lodged to “leverage” settlements with Defendants
Gill suing former lawyer for $1,850,000 for malpractice
Gill suing former lawyer for $6,000 in Brampton
Ashvinder Lamba suing former counsel for $600,000 for malpractice
Gill has open $7,000,000 defamation suit with Amir Attaran
Gill sued people who had apologized to her publicly

Granted there are most likely people who would still donate to her defence, but a lot would see this as grounds to refuse.

1. Ted Kuntz claims Vaccine Choice Canada funded Gill’s case

Ted Kuntz of Vaccine Choice Canada gave an Affidavit in the Spring of 2023. See highlighted version. This was in support of a $1.1 million defamation lawsuit against CSASPP. It didn’t go so well. A similar one was filed in the lawsuit against this website.

What’s interesting in the Kuntz Affidavit is paragraph 20. Kuntz says that in the Summer of 2021, the Vaccine Choice membership became concerned about the total lack of activity in their anti-lockdown case. In response, there was an update sent, which is attached as “Exhibit C”.

“Exhibit C” talks about a need to protect doctors, nurses, teachers, etc…. and for them to be able to speak the truth. It explicitly states that “other legal actions had been filed”.

Item #4 in that list talks about a defamation lawsuit that was underway over doctors who had been maligned on social media. Although it doesn’t explicitly name Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, who else could it be? VCC has never identified any other people that may have been used like this.

“Exhibit C” in the Kuntz Affidavit makes it appear that these other lawsuits — such as the Gill/Lamba case in question — were directly financed by them. At a bare minimum, one can imply that the defamation suit was coordinated to help their overall purpose. From the ruling:

[317] Given the position taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs by their counsel in response to the suggestion made by some of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs’ claims were being maintained with the possible benefit of third party funding, I did not consider it necessary or appropriate to refer to it in the above reasons as it did not form any part of the applicable analysis. However, I should indicate to the parties that approach taken in that regard is without prejudice to the entitlement of any party to refer to such issue if there is a proper basis for doing so when making submissions on costs.

In fact, at the end of the February 2022 ruling, it’s stated that the Defendants have been questioning whether Gill’s and Lamba’s suit was financed by outside money.

Kuntz’s Affidavit sure makes it look like Gill and Lamba were getting money for their case from third parties, or at least that it was coordinated by others.

Too bad Gill doesn’t mention that in her recent e-begging.

2. Appeal lodged to “leverage” settlements with Defendants

An important detail that gets glossed over is the reason the case was appealed in the first place. Gill and Lamba (mostly Gill though) were hit with over $1 million in costs that the Defendants’ lawyers had rung up. By appealing, and thus keeping the case open, Gill was able to “leverage” settlements out of people who just wanted it over with. This comes across as bad faith.

In their Appellate Motion for security for costs, The Pointer Group alleges exactly that. Their Motion was denied, however. Their Factum is still well worth a read.

3. Gill suing former lawyer for $1,850,000 for malpractice

Gill filed a Notice of Action against her former lawyer, and his firm. The reason is that the 2 year anniversary of Justice Stewart’s ruling was approaching, and this bought her time. She’s suing him (and his law firm) for $1.85 million. The Notice alleges professional malpractice.

Granted, it could be a year or 2 before she sees any money from this. However, since she’s asking for donations on GiveSendGo, shouldn’t this be mentioned? If the insurance company settles — which is highly probable — she’s in for a windfall of cash.

This came hot on the heels of her former co-Plaintiff filing a lawsuit, and likely was the motivating factor.

4. Gill suing former lawyer for $6,000 in Brampton

Kulvinder Gill actually has two (2) separate lawsuits against former counsel. The Samantha Coomara listed is a junior lawyer, licensed since 2018. It’s for a relatively minor amount, less than $6,000. This is likely what Gill and Lamba had paid out of pocket.

However, this is probably nowhere near the amount of fees their lawyer charged. Since their December 2020 case was so poor, there was never any prospect of collecting anything on contingency. It seems doubtful that he would do anything for free. So, who paid for the case?

If the Kuntz Affidavit is to be taken seriously, Vaccine Choice Canada’s donors paid.

5. Ashvinder Lamba suing former counsel for $600,000 for malpractice

Recently, Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s former co-Plaintiff, filed a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former lawyer. This is likely what gave Gill the idea to file her own (larger) suit. Insurance companies will likely pay out rather than take on a longer, more expensive Trial.

As of the time of writing this, a Notice of Intent to Defend has been filed. This is not the same thing as a Statement of Defence, but still indicates that the case will be fought.

Lamba complains about “junior staff” being involved in work that they weren’t trained or competent in. This is likely a reference to Coomara, whom Gill and Lamba both sued in 2022.

6. Gill has open $7,000,000 defamation suit with Amir Attaran

Gill plays the pity card throughout her interview, lamenting the fact that she doesn’t have money to pay the existing cost order. She leaves out that she has an open $7,000,000 defamation suit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. His crime? Calling her an idiot on Twitter.

This plea from Gill rings hollow. She laments that she’s facing bankruptcy, yet she is still attempting to bankrupt someone else for comments made on Twitter. One would think that she would drop that suit, at a minimum.

If Gill was being transparent, she would have disclosed this.

7. Gill sued people who had apologized to her publicly

[73] On multiple occasions, Dr. Maciver has apologized to the Plaintiffs both publicly and privately and shown contrition for the heated language he used on Twitter. The fact of Dr. Maciver’s apologies was also made known within the physician community on Twitter.

Likely the worst of the comments came from Angus Maciver, who had publicly apologized for making them. But it wasn’t enough to stop him from getting sued. This comes across as particularly vindictive

Would anyone donate to Gill’s GiveSendGo account if she had disclosed all of this?

Probably not.

To be clear, Gill has every right to express her views and opinions in the public arena. She can put forward whatever she believes to be true. Likewise, she has the ability to post downright dumb and offensive things. This is called “free speech”, and it’s something everyone in the “Freedom Movement” should agree on.

But it’s become clear that she cares about her free speech, and only her free speech. Yes, she should be able to post what she wants.

It’s just too bad that she doesn’t extend her victims the same courtesy.

Maybe, just maybe, she shouldn’t have filed such an absurd lawsuit in 2020. Perhaps she shouldn’t have named so many people. Would it be too hard to admit she was wrong?

Note: by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

KULVINDER GILL BEGGING FOR MONEY:
(1) https://www.givesendgo.com/kulvinder
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_La5W3PP4
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

VARIOUS COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279 Case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws
(2) Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169 – Over $1 million in costs awarded
(3) Gill v. MacIver, 2023 ONCA 776 – Security for costs from The Pointer Group
(4) Gill v. Maciver, 2024 ONCA 126 – Appeal dismissed

AFFIDAVITS FROM CSASPP CASE:
(1) CSASPP RG Kuntz Affidavit
(2) CSASPP RG Gaw Affidavit
(3) CSASPP RG Sable Affidavit

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Notice of Action

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim
(2) Lamba Notice Of Intent To Defend

GILL/ATTARAN $7,000,000 DEFAMATION LAWSUIT:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Counsel Abandons Plaintiff

February 29, 2024October 31, 2024

Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Commenced In University Of Guelph Lawsuit

Wednesday, February 28th, 2024, Byram Bridle, the high profile professor from the University of Guelph, was back in Court. This was a short hearing to set down another anti-SLAPP Motion to dismiss his December 2022 lawsuit.

Guelph has previously filed a Statement of Defence, on behalf of all their Defendants. But now, their lawyer, Lynn Turnbell, is asking that the case be thrown out altogether. Their stated reason is that the contents of the Claim are covered under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the anti-SLAPP provision.

Guelph further states that the subject matter should be tossed for a lack of jurisdiction. Bridle is a university employee, as are most Defendants. It’s argued that the matter should have gone to arbitration instead of litigation. And they’re not wrong.

The initial anti-SLAPP Motion was filed by Kate Costin, the lawyer for David Fisman. Yes, it’s that David Fisman. It’s unclear why his content (Twitter related) is being connected to this. That will be heard on November 19th, 2024.

Counsel for Bridle requested that everything be moved back to 2025. He stated that he will be taking his annual 2 month vacation to Turkey — for medical reasons.

However, Justice Dow refused that request. The Fisman anti-SLAPP Motion will still be heard in November 2024, and the Guelph Motion is now booked for October 16th, 2025.

University of Guelph Faculty covered by collective agreements

The University of Guelph publicly posts their collective bargaining agreements, which include ones with faculty members. This particular one took only seconds to find.

Article 40 of the agreement, beginning on page 131, makes it clear the steps that are to be taken in the event of a serious problem within the university.

Informal resolution
Formal grievance
Arbitration

This wasn’t difficult to find. Not only does Bridle presumably have a copy of this document, but it’s publicly available on the school’s website.

True, there may be the power of a Court to review the findings of an Arbitrator, depending on the rules that are set out. This would be analogous to filing an Appeal. However, what happened here was suing in Court instead of going to arbitration. These are not the same thing.

40.1 The Parties agree to attempt to resolve disputes arising from this Agreement amicably and promptly.

40.2 In order to ensure that Grievances of Members are remedied in a reasonable, just, and equitable manner, the University and the Association mutually agree that the procedure for submitting and dealing with Grievances shall be as indicated in the remainder of this Article.

Informal Resolution
40.9 The University and the Association mutually agree that it is the desire of the Parties that differences in the interpretation, application, administration, and alleged violations of this Agreement shall be dealt with as quickly as is reasonably possible. If a Member has a complaint or dispute that may give rise to a Grievance, they and/or an Association designate shall first discuss the matter at a meeting arranged for this purpose with the Dean, University Librarian, or, in the case of Veterinarians, Director, or designate, within twenty (20) days after the Member would reasonably be expected to have become aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint or dispute.

40.11 Failing informal resolution of the complaint or dispute and within ten (10) days following receipt of notification of the proposed resolution under the informal process, the Association has the right to present the written Formal Grievance to the Provost, or designate, pursuant to this Article.

Formal Grievance Procedure
40.14 Following receipt of a Formal Grievance, the Provost, or designate shall convene a meeting within ten (10) days with the Member and/or the Association designate. With reasonable notice to the other Party prior to the meeting, either Party may have others attend who have information relevant to the specific Grievance. The Provost (or designate) shall reply in writing within fifteen (15) days of that meeting.

40.19 Failing resolution of a Grievance, the University or the Association will provide notification that a matter shall be submitted to Arbitration. Such notification must be made in writing and addressed to the other party within fifteen (15) days of the date of receipt of the Formal Grievance decision.

40.22 The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties.

40.23 All arbitration expenses, including the remuneration of the Arbitrator, shall be shared equally by both Parties, subject to the award of costs by the Arbitrator as part of the remedy.

Looking at Article 40.22, it seems that the Arbitrator’s ruling is meant to be final. There’s no obvious way to challenge it further, unless the process is demonstrated to be corrupted. Since no arbitration took place, that would be difficult to prove.

The process outlined is pretty straightforward: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration, if needed. There’s no mention whatsoever about having an option to pursue litigation. This is typical in unionized and Government workplaces.

But according to the Statement of Claim, that’s not what happened.

After the grievance process went against Bridle, he didn’t pursue arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved. This included Nick Duley, and outside HR consultant, who was hired for an investigation. Also named is Laurie Arnott, Vice President of Faculty Relations. It’s alleged that there’s a grand conspiracy against him.

Paragraph 100, it’s stated that Guelph refused to investigate online harassment that happened outside of school grounds. It fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and hence, no ability to do anything. This comes across as reasonable.

Paragraph 136 of the Claim says that Bridle refused to participate in Duley’s investigation, calling it a “kangaroo court”. Duley is referred to as a “hired gun”. That won’t sit well without proof.

The content in the Claim comes across as being so over the top, it’s difficult to determine what’s factual, and what’s overblown.

Now, it’s possible that the Court may find that the grievance process was corrupted and unworkable, but that’s for the Plaintiff to establish. This is sometimes referred to as “residual jurisdiction”. While a major conspiracy is alleged, it seems that it would be very difficult to prove.

Contending with the anti-SLAPP Motions

Fisman appears to have nothing to do with the University of Guelph, so including him in this case seems unproductive. Even if he did interact with some of the online content, he’s not involved in essentially what is a workplace dispute at Guelph. Considering how hard it is to prove defamation, and to get damages, this will be a tough sell in November.

The Kulvinder Gill/Ashinder Lamba, Boraks and CSASPP cases are also good examples of how much bad lawyering can impact clients.

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279
Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169
Gill v. Maciver, 2023 ONCA 776
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 4294
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 6420
Galati v. Toews et al, 2023 ONSC 7508
Galati v. Toews et al, 2024 ONSC 935

There’s also this gem from March 2021, with a Motion scheduled for this Fall.

The trend in recent years is to implement mechanisms designed to screen out cases as abusive. For defamation type cases, these are called anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Again, it’s hard to tell from this Statement of Claim what’s real, and what’s hype and distortion. Hopefully, more will come out in the pending Motions.

To survive an anti-SLAPP Motion, the Plaintiff is required to prove at least some of the damages. This means submitting Affidavit evidence, and being cross examined on it. The Plaintiff must also establish that there are no reasonable defences that could be relied upon. Will this happen?

How will all of this end?

It’s possible that there will be a negotiated settlement to discontinue the case entirely. Although s.137.1(5) “stays” the case, the parties can always agree to drop it. This sort of thing has happened many times before.

If not, it’s going to be very expensive for Bridle. He’s facing full indemnity (100% of costs) on 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions. This could set him back $100,000 or more. Courts tend to be very harsh to Plaintiffs who bring lawsuits to silence public speech improperly.

An open question is why this case was even brought. Even a quick read through the collective bargaining agreement would have indicated that this was not the path to take. Should the Guelph Motion not succeed under anti-SLAPP provisions, it will likely still get dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reading through the Claim, it looks as though large parts of this are simply cut and pasted from earlier lawsuits. The same sorts of allegations come up over and over again. This isn’t original content.

It appears that Bridle was poorly advised both in employment law, and defamation law.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/
(5) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(6) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/system/files/UGFA_CA_2022_FinalPrint_Nov20_2023.pdf

February 27, 2024March 27, 2024

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act): Who’s Really Pushing This Agenda?

Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, has been introduced in Parliament by Arif Virani, the Justice Minister. First Reading happened on February 26th, 2024. There’s a lot of it to go through

To begin with, there are actually some worthwhile provisions in the Bill, such as the mandatory reporting of child pornography. No sensible reason would reject that. And there are instances where being able to quickly remove certain content would be in the best interests of society.

Ottawa gives its own summary of the Bill.

However, Bill C-63 seems to blend together straightforward and legitimate issues with ones that are much more vague and impractical. Consequently, it’s harder to simply accept or reject.

There’s also the question of who has been influencing the drafting of this content. That will be addressed a bit later.

The Bill would create a Digital Safety Office of Canada, and an Ombudsman to oversee it. In essence, it would add a new layer of bureaucracy to specifically monitor “digital safety”.

Content that foments hatred is “defined” in this Bill, but is still vague. Additionally, it seeks to be able to attribute specific motivations to expression. What may be valid discourse to some will be considered hate speech to others.

There is a disclaimer that this wouldn’t apply to content solely because it expresses “disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends”. Sounds great, but that also is subjective as well, depending on the views of whoever is interpreting it.

Harmful content in fact lists 7 different categories, and all of them at least somewhat open to interpretation. What can easily happen is that these new laws will be selectively applied, depending on the politics of the people involved.

The Bill would create a new section of the Criminal Code. This is one which a person could lay an information on another, and with the Attorney General’s consent, it could be brought before a Judge. If ordered by that Judge a person may be forced to enter into a recognizance, if a Judge is convinced that hate crime may be committed.

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
.
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.‍1); or
(b) an offence under section 320.‍1001.

A person could be forced into this recognizance for up to 2 years, or would face 12 months in prison if they refuse. This is similar to being out on bail or on a peace bond, but with no actual crime committed.

Terms of the “recognizance” could 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

The topper on this one is that a Judge isn’t required to give reasons for this, but is supposed to say why written reasons aren’t included. Again, this is for when some is suspected that they may commit a crime. No actual charges are necessary.

Other changes to the Criminal Code involve Section 318 and 319, which raise the potential imprisonment for incitement to hatred from 2 years to 5 years.

Advocating genocide will also expose a person to a potential life sentence.

The Canadian Human Rights Act would also be amended to include “communication of hate speech”, which is defined as: to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But it also is poorly defined, which will likely lead to it being applied in an uneven manner, depending on the politics of those involved.

Section 140 of the Online Harms Act is the “Regulations” part. This is where unnamed and unelected bureaucrats are able to change or interpret provisions of the legislation without any real oversight. Nearly all Acts have such a backdoor, which allows changes to be done behind the scenes.

There is more to Bill C-63, but those are some of the major points.

Now, where did this come from?

Lobbying is a reality in politics. Special interests groups lobby money to get certain agendas pushed, and to get money for their causes. This is hardly news. Searching the Federal Lobbyist Registry, the following names come up:

Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)
Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF)
YWCA Canada
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting

Are there others involved in this? Probably, but these are the names that come up, which appear to be relevant to regulating speech and expression.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, has been prolific in lobbying Ottawa for changes to the Human Rights Act, and to the Criminal Code. This group has pushed for stricter definitions around so-called hate crimes and antisemitism. Their recent efforts include making Holocaust denial punishable by prison time, and removing religious protections. See here and here.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, NCCM, specifically lists Section 13 of the Canadian Rights Act. They want laws against Islamophobia, and condemn “white supremacy”. Other efforts include anti-racism initiatives, such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, had pressured Ottawa to take action against online harassment and gendered violence. The recent lobbying specifically relates to new technologies used to do this.

YWCA Canada supports regulations against online hate, which is taken from a feminist and “gendered violence” perspective.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is a bit of an outlier. It wants more financial support for smaller, independent media, while opposing the funding of the CBC. It also pushes for regulations around online hate. Presumably, this would lead to many (much smaller) anti-racist outlets.

And to search online hate more generally, click on this link.

While it’s always important to read upcoming legislation, this piece often gets left out. The groups pushing for changes need to be considered as well. This is especially true if our interests don’t align.

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(N) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(O) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(P) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(Q) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

February 26, 2024August 7, 2024

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

Last Friday, a Notice of Action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court, at their Toronto Division. A woman intends to sue her former counsel, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, for: (a) professional negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount; and (c) aggravated and/or punitive damages.

A Notice of Action is not the same thing as a Statement of Claim. Instead, this document is occasionally filed when a lawsuit is in the works, but the Statute of Limitations is approaching. Justice Stewart dismissed the Gill/Lamba suit on February 24, 2022, and this Notice was filed February 23, 2024. This came just a day before the 2 year anniversary.

Once filed, a Plaintiff has 30 days under Rule 14.03 to serve all Defendants with this Notice, and the Claim itself. (Pardon the error which previously listed the time as 6 months).

Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet are listed as counsel for Kulvinder Gill. They also represented her at the Court of Appeal which ultimately dismissed the Maciver anti-SLAPP Appeal.

What does the Notice of Action say?

1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, claims against the Defendants, Rocco Galati and Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation as follows:
a. General and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $1,500,000;
b. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of reputation in the amount of $250,000;
c. Aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;
d. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
e. The costs of this proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, plus all applicable taxes, and;
f. Such further and other relief as the plaintiff may advise and as this Honourable Court
may seem just.

2. The Defendants acted for the Plaintiff with respect to various litigation matters starting in late 2020, including defamation actions and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Their representation of the Plaintiff was negligent, constituted a breach of contract and a breach of the fiduciary duties, causing the Plaintiff significant damages.

Of course, this isn’t the entire pleading. The real Statement of Claim is presumably in the works, and it should be interesting to read. Ashvinder Lamba also has a $600,000 malpractice suit pending, alleging many of the same things as Gill.

Brief timeline of some major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill’s public opinions, which contradict the “approved” narrative, lands her in trouble with the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the regulator which is responsible for licensing in that Province. They’re not too happy that her views don’t toe the line.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

March 2021: Gill sues the University of Ottawa and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million. This is over 2 rude comments on Twitter, one where he calls her an “idiot”. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit, and mere insults aren’t actionable.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this. (CanLII version available)

February 2024: Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s then co-Plaintiff, files a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former counsel.

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason. It’s to stop people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence critics on issues of public interest. And nothing screams frivolous like attempting to bankrupt a person over some name calling. Here’s the background on this one.

SLAPP of course refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

While the comical defamation lawsuits have made national news, Gill’s adventures with the CPSO have pretty much flown under the radar. She has attracted several complaints since 2020, over her public stances and comments. Lawsuits were brought in Court to try to resolve it there, largely on the grounds of free speech. Such litigation has been repeatedly thrown out as “premature”.

In fairness, prematurity just means there’s a lack of jurisdiction.

The problem, realistically, is that the CPSO — like many professional organizations — mandates that problems be resolved internally first. Here’s one of Gill’s decisions, from 2021. Starting at paragraph 31, it’s explained that this is a long established policy, going back decades. The rationale is that if this isn’t followed, it leads to fragmentation and splitting of cases, along with overlapping rulings.

This isn’t to justify in any way what the CPSO has been up to. They’ve shown themselves to be a willing accomplice to the Ford regime, and deserve no sympathy.

It’s to recognize that had Gill been competently advised, it seems unlikely she would have pursued this path. In the Notice of Action, she alleges that former counsel was negligent.

There is a parallel between:

Doctors suing the CPSO (instead of using the internal disciplinary process first); and
Public sector and unionized workers suing their employers (instead of filing grievances)

In both instances, lawsuits are likely to be thrown out. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that the other remedies are unworkable and/or corrupted. Now, the million dollar question in these cases is whether they were advised of this in advance.

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Doctors, lawyers, and pretty much all professionals are required to have insurance. This protects against lawsuits for negligence, incompetence, malpractice, and more. It’s to ensure that there is money available for successful claims, and that it won’t bankrupt them.

One caveat: insurance providers typically refuse to pay out if there are accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation. But Gill and Lamba are just alleging negligence and of breach of contract, which should be okay.

We’ll have to see what the Statement of Claim looks like, when it’s eventually filed. But just going off of the Notice, it doesn’t look good.

Why pursue this? One possibility is that Gill really needs the money. Even “settling” with most parties in the case with Lamba, she still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Saikaley and Brunet want to get paid as well, and this may be a way to do it. Then there’s that anti-SLAPP Motion pending with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

Update: On March 25th, 2024, the actual Statement of Claim was filed, and it’s a doozy.

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

MOTION FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA
(15) https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22116/index.do

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

February 23, 2024February 28, 2024

Private Member’s Bill C-367: Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

A Private Member’s Bill is getting renewed expression for the potential impact it may have. Bill C-367 would remove “belief based on a religious text” as a defence to certain criminal charges.

The text of the Bill would remove both sections 319(3)‍(b) and 319(3.‍1)‍(b) from the Criminal Code of Canada. Those provisions provide legal defences to people charged with the willful promotion of antisemitism, if it’s done in the context of religious expression. Truth is still allowed, for now.

Of course, the vagueness of these hate speech laws is already an issue. Nothing is properly defined, which makes it very subjective. But remove a potential justification? That’s worth a closer look.

Defences
.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person 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 he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)
.
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(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 antisemitism toward Jews.

This came from Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

Blanchet is also on a large number of international associations in Parliament. This is rather strange, considering his stated goal of breaking up Canada. These people larp as if Quebec were an independent country, and it’s taken seriously.

(CAAF) Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association
(CACN) Canada-China Legislative Association
(CADE) Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group
(CAEU) Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association
(CAFR) Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association
(CAIE) Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group
(CAIL) Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group
(CAIT) Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group
(CAJP) Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
(CANA) Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
(CAPF) Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie
(CCOM) Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
(CEUS) Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
(CPAM) Canadian Section of ParlAmericas
(RUUK) Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association
(SECO) Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly
(UIPU) Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union

Considering Blanchet’s position, it’s not really that surprising who paid him a visit recently.

October 20th, 2023, Blanchet gets lobbied by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. November 28th, he introduces Bill C-367 in Parliament. That’s less than 6 weeks later.

Quebec is largely a Catholic province — although immigration is replacing that — so it’s really odd that Blanchet would introduce this Bill. His own constituents could be impacted by this, depending on how it’s interpreted and enforced.

Interestingly, even those who cover the Bill omit the CIJA angle. The Christian Heritage Party, CHP, has commented on Bill C-367 being introduced in late 2023, but no mention of the lobbying behind the scenes. Lifesite ignores it as well. So does at least one pastor.

CIJA is very prolific in Canadian politics.

Their profile lists the following:

Digital Citizen Contribution Program (DCCP): The objective of the project is to combat online disinformation and hate, specifically, antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 where it is spreading: online via social media. Antisemitism cannot be allowed to permeate civil discourse and become mainstream
A civil remedy based in human rights law, included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, with respect to combating hate speech, including antisemitism. Training for provincial attorneys general, prosecutors, and police to enforce Criminal Code hate speech provisions. Training and parameters should cite the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
Civil remedy included in the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to combating antisemitism.
Equip police departments to counter hate crimes and support targeted communities by providing additional resources to bolster existing police hate crime and community liaison units. Where such units do not exist, funding should be provided to establish them.
Update the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to combating antisemitism and online hate. Create a national strategy to tackle online hate and radicalization using the 2019 Justice Committee report, “Taking Action to End Online Hate”, as a foundation. A strategy should draw upon the Christchurch Call, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
Hate speech and internet-based hate: For Canada to adopt policies – either/and through legislation or policies adjustments that will provide measurable standards for internet-based dissemination of hate speech, including explicit provisions within the Crimical Code and/or the Human Rights Act.

There are, of course, many other areas CIJA advocates for, such as ending the blood ban for gays. However, a large portion of the focus seems to be around speech and expression.

Don’t expect so-called “Conservatives” to come to the aid of principled free speech. They quite enthusiastically introduced Bill C-250, to jail people for questioning the official version of WWII.

Bill C-250 became moot when the equivalent provisions passed, slipped into Bill C-19, a budget Bill. Nonetheless, there was no pushback or resistance from the political right in Canada. And this highlights the hypocrisy they engage in.

Conservatives were outraged — or at least they pretended to be — over M-103, which was Iqra Khalid’s Motion to “study Islamophobia”. They railed that it was a waste of money, and an attack on free speech. And it was. That being said, they’re supportive of other attempts to imprison Canadians for having incorrect views on history.

News of Bill C-250 was announced on the CPC website, but has since been taken down. However, it has been archived and saved.

This new Bill aims to remove a protection that had previously been embedded in the last one. Incrementalism seems to be the way in politics.

(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://twitter.com/CHPCanada/status/1760773690902401300/
(7) https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/proposed-canadian-law-could-see-christians-jailed-for-quoting-the-bible/
(8) https://twitter.com/aylmerpastor/status/1760787350496395632
(9) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(10) https://archive.ph/fCnNn
(11) MP Waugh introduces legislation to prohibit Holocaust denial – Conservative Party of Canada
(12) Wayback Machine On Bill C-250

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(H) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(I) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(J) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(K) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(L) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(M) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(N) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(O) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(P) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Category: Free Speech

Egale Canada, Registered Charity Getting Public Money

Like this:

Would It Be So Difficult To Admit “I Shouldn’t Have Done That”?

1. Ted Kuntz claims Vaccine Choice Canada funded Gill’s case

2. Appeal lodged to “leverage” settlements with Defendants

3. Gill suing former lawyer for $1,850,000 for malpractice

4. Gill suing former lawyer for $6,000 in Brampton

5. Ashvinder Lamba suing former counsel for $600,000 for malpractice

6. Gill has open $7,000,000 defamation suit with Amir Attaran

7. Gill sued people who had apologized to her publicly

Like this:

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

What does the Notice of Action say?

Brief timeline of some major events

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Like this:

Private Member’s Bill C-367: Removing Religious Protections For Antisemitic Expression

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Ted Kuntz claims Vaccine Choice Canada funded Gill’s case

2. Appeal lodged to “leverage” settlements with Defendants

3. Gill suing former lawyer for $1,850,000 for malpractice

4. Gill suing former lawyer for $6,000 in Brampton

5. Ashvinder Lamba suing former counsel for $600,000 for malpractice

6. Gill has open $7,000,000 defamation suit with Amir Attaran

7. Gill sued people who had apologized to her publicly

Share this:

Like this:

University of Guelph Faculty covered by collective agreements

Contending with the anti-SLAPP Motions

How will all of this end?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

What does the Notice of Action say?

Brief timeline of some major events

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: