Category: Free Speech

Posted on

Defamation Claim Against CSASPP And Donor Dismissed As A SLAPP

June 28, 2022, a $1.1 million defamation lawsuit was filed against the B.C. based group CSASPP, and 3 of its members. It was commenced 18 months ago, and finally thrown out by Justice Chalmers under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. (See CanLII version).

For a bit of context, “SLAPP” is an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation. It’s when a person or group sues another in order to silence their expression on issues of public interest.

The suit was filed by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, who seems to put more effort into threatening and suing his critics than he does in holding tyrannical administrations to account. This site has extensively covered just how shoddy those pleadings are.

An anti-SLAPP Motion is simply a Motion to dismiss. It’s complex, and there are many steps, but really, it’s just a Motion to dismiss. Here are the basic requirements:

Tests that must be met by both sides

The Defendant(s), or Moving Part(y/ies), must convince the Judge that the expression is that of a public interest. Specifically, it must be on a topic that at least a segment of the population has a genuine interest in knowing about. By design, it’s a very low burden.

If successful, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff(s), or Respondent(s), who then must pass 3 conjunctive tests. If the Plaintiff(s) fails even 1 part, then the case must be dismissed.

(A) The Plaintiff(s) must convince the Judge that there is “substantial merit” to the allegations. That’s not to say that a win is guaranteed, but that it’s more likely than not that it could prevail at Trial.

(B) The Plaintiff(s) must convince the Judge that there are no reasonable defences that are likely available. There are many ways to overcome a defamation suit, and the Plaintiff(s) must show that there are no plausible ones.

(C) The Plaintiff(s) must convince the Judge that there is greater public interest in allowing the case to proceed to Trial than there is in protecting the expression. At the heart of it, the Plaintiff(s) must also show that the expression led to (or will lead to) serious financial and/or reputational harm. Here, the Court decides which will prevail.

Here, the CSASPP Defendants prevailed in every aspect. It wasn’t a close call, or a difficult case.

[45] The pandemic and the governments’ response affected virtually all Canadians. The actions commenced by A4C, and the Society are proposed class actions. I am of the view that segments of the public have a genuine interest in receiving information about a lawyer who is acting for plaintiffs in a proposed class action that challenges the government’s response to the pandemic.

[46] The expression relates to the differences between the actions commenced by the Plaintiff on behalf of VCC and A4C, and the action commenced by the Society. The expression also relates to the use of funds donated to be used in the litigation to challenge the government’s response to the pandemic. Those members of the public who donated money for the litigation would have a genuine interest about the quality of legal representation and how their donations are being used.

The public has a valid interest in knowing what is happening with those cases, and how the money being donated is being spent.

The Plaintiff couldn’t even meet a single branch of the test

(A) The Court found that there was no merit to the defamation claims, so the case was effectively over then. Additionally, the other “torts” such as: abuse of process; unlawful means; harassment; conspiracy, etc… were just derivatives of the defamation claims.

(B) The Court accepted all defences that were offered, including: (i) absolute privilege; (ii) qualified privilege; (iii) justification, or truth; and (iv) fair comment. Absolute privilege protects complaints to quasi-judicial bodies, and prevents retaliatory lawsuits. Qualified privilege refers to an obligation — usually professional — to speak out. Fair comment refers to the protection of people to express opinions that could honestly be held.

(C) The Court also found that there was much stronger interest in protecting the expression than allowing the case to continue. It didn’t help that while financial losses were alleged, the details of which were withheld. Nor did it help that there were many other sources of criticism, making it harder to pinpoint a source.

At its core, it was about 4 different expressions

(1) A January 2021 email to Dan Dicks of Press for Truth, inviting people to donate this case, as opposed to the Action4Canada one. At the time, there had been nothing filed, despite months of fundraising.

(2) A June 2021 change to the FAQ (frequently asked questions) which stated clearly that there was no association or affiliation between the groups, and gave reasons why. It was also largely a duplicate of the Dicks email.

(3) A January 2022 complaint to the LSO — or Law Society of Ontario — asking for information as to the whereabouts of money donated to various cases.

(4) Allegations — not properly pleaded — of a conversation where there was a desire to see the Plaintiff disbarred and criminally charged with fraud.

Interestingly, the Dicks email and the FAQ took place more than a year prior to this case being filed. It’s the LSO complaint that appears to have been the driving force.

Brief timeline of major events

January 2021: CSASPP emails Dan Dicks in order to promote their proposed suit, and to pitch it as a better investment than Action4Canada.

June 2021: CSASPP puts the section up on their FAQ, supposedly to quell constant inquiries about who they are connected to, and what there role is in other cases.

January 15, 2022: the original LSO complaint is put forward to the LSO, although it appears that it wasn’t immediately accepted.

May 19, 2022: The LSO finally forwards the complaint and demands a response.

June 28, 2022: The $1.1 million dollar suit is filed against CSASPP and its people

June 29, 2022: A letter is sent to the LSO, informing them that Donna Toews has been sued, and that the Court will effectively be deciding the issue.

July 12, 2022: The Law Society itself is sued, and the Toews complaint makes up large part of it. One can assume this was done to further thwart any investigation into the complaint. The suit demands $500,000 in damages, and is very poorly written.

July 13, 2022: There’s an appearance on a livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada, bragging about the CSASPP and LSO suits which have just been filed. It’s plausible to view this as a publicity stunt. Supposedly, neither CSASPP nor the LSO had actually been served by this point.

October 12, 2022: CSASPP and the LSO appear in Court on the same day to set down dates to throw out their respective cases. CSASPP’s Motion is based on s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP). The LSO Motion is based on Rule 21 of Civil Procedure (failing to state a cause of action). Both are to be heard the next Autumn.

The next several months is a document exchange of the papers needed to carry out the anti-SLAPP Motion. The LSO documents are also attached below.

July 28, 2023: CSASPP files their Factum, or written arguments. This is a Friday, and it’s interesting to see what happens the following Monday.

July 31, 2023: The Law Society is sued for a second time, and it’s largely a rehash of the first one. Another $500,000 is sought. It’s possible this was done to “keep open” litigation against the LSO, assuming the first case is thrown out.

September 12, 2023: CSASPP’s Motion to dismiss is heard, with the ruling under reserve.

September 21, 2023: LSO’s Motion to strike is heard, the ruling under reserve.

December 11, 2023: The suit against CSASPP is dismissed as a SLAPP. The Court finds that the suit was brought for the improper purposes of stifling debate, and to intimidate people from filing LSO complaints. In essence, it’s a finding of professional misconduct.

The Law Society Complaint from Donna Toews

On June 19, 2020, I donated $1000 in my husband’s name to Vaccine Choice Canada with specific instructions to give the donation to the Legal Fund headed by Mr. Galati, who was preparing a claim seeking relief on behalf of Canadians wronged by the actions of government officials and others because of Covid-19. I also donated $1000 to Action4Canada, which was soliciting donations to fund a similar lawsuit in British Columbia. I understand that Vaccine Choice Canada,Action4Canada, and a third organization in Quebec have raised approximately $3,500,000 to finance litigation in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. Vaccine Choice Canada confirmed that my donation had gone to its Legal Fund to support its legal fees for the constitutional challenge to be brought by Mr. Galati.

As VCC suggested, I “added a membership to my file” so that I would be invited to members only meetings with Mr. Galati. (This email exchange is attached. I have redacted my name and other information that may identify me). Mr. Galati commenced the action on behalf of Vaccine Choice Canada and other plaintiffs on July 6, 2020.

Mr. Galati stated during a media interview that he would be sure that an interim hearing would be held before December 2020. I received no information about the progress of the litigation until almost 18 months later. I was not invited to any members only meetings with Mr. Galati in the meantime. No interim hearing has been held, and no Statements of Defence have been delivered as far as I can determine. No default proceedings have been taken. In fact, I do not know whether the defendants have even been served with the Statement of Claim.

I wrote to Vaccine Choice Canada on December 20, 2021, to ask whether anything had come of the lawsuit and whether the Court had seen it yet. Vaccine Choice Canada replied on January 2, 2022, that, “our case filed in the summer of 2020 has not had a hearing yet. The lawyer is working backstage, but he does not want to tell anything of what he is doing so he does not give an opportunity to the enemy.” (This email exchange is attached. I have redacted my name and other information that may identify me).

I do not know the relationship between Vaccine Choice Canada, or Action4Canada,and Mr. Galati, other than that Mr. Galati is representing them in the litigation. No financial statements of VCC have been filed with Corporations Canada as of December 22, 2021. I do not know much of the funds raised by these organizations have been turned over to Mr. Galati in trust, how much he has been paid, or what he expects to result from the claim he has started (but, evidently neglected to pursue).

Justice Chalmers not only ruled that the Toews complaint was protected by absolute privilege. He found that she had been sued in order to derail the complaint, and as an act of intimidation.

From the ruling

[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.

[94] I also find that there is a strong public interest in protecting the right of members of the public to make complaints to quasi-judicial bodies such as the LSO. If the public could be subject to expensive litigation for making a complaint, this would impair the ability of the LSO to regulate the profession. I find that this harm outweighs any harm that may have been suffered by the Plaintiff because of the LSO complaint.

[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.

This is now official: an ONSC Judge has ruled that a lawsuit was filed in order to sabotage an existing LSO complaint, and to intimidate others from making complaints. This is grounds for disbarment, and there is precedent in Ontario for revoking licences under these circumstances.

Justice Chalmers also found that criticising “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” was justified, because his cases — particularly his anti-lockdown suits — were objectively very poor.

[74] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks dated January 29, 2022, Mr. Gandhi supported the statement with hyperlinks to support the statements. The statements made in the FAQ are also supported by hyperlinks that provides that factual support for the statements. The statements made in the e-mail to Mr. Dicks and in the FAQ, that the Plaintiff has been criticized by the courts in other cases, is supported by the following decisions: Sivak v. Canada, at para. 55, Galati v. Harper, at para. 35, Da Silva Campos v. Canada, at para. 12, Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052, at para. 31, and Al Omani v. Canada 2017 FC 786, at para. 94-95.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

[87] The comment with respect to the quality of the Plaintiff’s legal services is analogous to reviews of other products and services. Courts have recognized that discussion among the consuming public of the quality of services is a matter of public interest: Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555, at para. 5. The Defendants argue that the stifling of reasonable public debate as to the value of a lawyer’s services, tactics or approach to litigation negatively affects public confidence in the legal system. The Defendants also argue that it would bring the legal system into disrepute if a lawyer could drag those who question the value of his or her services through expensive litigation. I agree.

[93] On the other side of the ledger, I find that there is a strong public interest in protecting the expression. The Plaintiff is advancing a public interest class action with respect to the government’s restrictions in response to the pandemic. Members of the class, and persons who have donated to the litigation have a right to information about the lawyer retained to prosecute the claims.

One very minor error: neither the VCC nor A4C cases are class actions, although they would have the large impact on the public, depending on the ruling.

Apparently an appeal is already in the works. It’s unclear what possible grounds there are for reversal, as there are no major errors in the ruling.

Should people still be donating to these lawsuits, knowing that the lawyer in charge of them could very well be disbarred for bringing this case? Keep in mind, the LSO won’t take too kindly to having to pay to defend 2 frivolous suits themselves. Perhaps it’s time to consider other options.

One final thought: successful anti-SLAPP Motions in Ontario typically lead to “full indemnity” (or 100% of costs) for the Defendant(s). Considering the volume of paperwork involved here, it could easily top $100,000 to $150,000. Many such awards have been handed out in recent years, and in fact, have gone much higher. If the case is appealed unsuccessfully, that will likely lead to full indemnity costs as well.

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

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

Posted on

UNESCO Guidelines For The Governance Of Digital Platforms

Recently, UNESCO released their action plan to regulate social media platforms. The guideline is a 59 page document outlining a series of goals and steps that should be taken by Member States.

On the surface, the paper seems harmless enough. But as with most things, the devil is in the details.

Going through this, the thoughts that comes to mind are the CRTC, and Bills C-11 and C-18. There’s a strong reluctance to accept any sort of Government interference with media access.

The paper talks about the importance of having an independent media, with a diversity of perspectives. Nothing wrong with that. However, there are a few places where the idea is raised of subsidizing “independent” media, presumably with Government funds. While a viable media is important, this creates an obvious conflict of interest.

There are also several mentions of online media being used in ways to help advance the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda, a.k.a. Agenda 2030. It’s unclear what would happen if online platforms were used in ways to undermine its implementation.

There are repeated calls to use digital platforms to respect and protect human rights. This is fine in principle, but it’s undefined, and presumably arbitrary, what those rights are.

Paragraph 38 talks about the need for there to be an ongoing relationship with digital platforms and “credible” news sources. Of course, the term credible is left undefined. It’s also unclear what, if any, voices that media who aren’t considered credible would have.

Paragraph 45 gets into the topic of “compliance mechanisms”. It’s rather chilling, as it mentions the possibility of regulators making final decisions with respect to the rules on platforms.

Paragraph 49 addresses the idea of having checks and balances. This sounds fine, until one asks what structures would have to be put in place to begin with.

Paragraph 52 covers “investing” in so-called independent media, in order to make it more sustainable. If the only way that independents can survive is by getting bailout money, then that would convert them into Government employees. No need to ban critics when they can simply be bought off.

Paragraph 54 talks about having: (a) national; (b) regional; and (c) global governance systems put in place, to safeguard freedom of expression, access to information, and other human rights. There’s also a brief mention about limiting expression to protect human rights.

Perhaps the most interesting sections are paragraphs 68-73, which outline how an “independent regulator” would work. Of course, how independent can it be when it reports to the very people it’s supposed to keep an eye on.

68. In statutory regulation, official regulatory authorities, though constituting part of the executive state apparatus, should be wholly independent of the government and be primarily accountable to legislatures for fulfilment of their mandates. This applies to existing regulatory bodies that have a legitimate interest in content on platforms (such as electoral management bodies, advertising authorities, child protection entities, data and privacy commissions, competition bodies, etc.), as well as any new dedicated or coordinating regulatory instances that may be established.

69. With regard to all statutory bodies engaging in platform regulation, either solely or jointly, periodic review should be performed by an independent body reporting directly to the legislature. Statutory interventions should also be subject to review in the courts if authorities are believed to have exceeded their powers, acted unreasonably, or acted in a biased or disproportionate manner.

70. Official regulatory authorities need to be independent and free from economic, political, or other pressures. Their power and mandate should be set out in law. They should also comply with international human rights and promote gender equality standards.

71. Official regulatory institutions must have sufficient funding and expertise to carry out their responsibilities effectively. The sources of funding must also be clear, transparent, and accessible to all, and not subject to the governmental discretion.

72. Governing officials or members of the official regulatory institutions working on the issue of content on platforms should:
a. Be appointed through a participatory, transparent, non-discriminatory, and independent merit-based process.
b. Be accountable to an independent body (which could be the legislature, judiciary, an external council, or an independent board/boards).
c. Include relevant expertise in international human rights law and the digital ecosystem.
d. Deliver an annual public report to an independent body—ideally the legislature—and be held accountable to it, including by informing the body about their reasoned opinion.
e. Make public any possible conflicts of interest and declare any gifts or incentives.
f. After completing the mandate, for a reasonable period, not be hired or provide paid services to those who have been subject to their regulation, in order to avoid the risk known as “revolving doors”.

73. The official regulatory authorities should be able to request that digital platforms provide periodic reports on the application of their terms of services, and take enforcement action against digital platforms deemed non-compliant with their own policies or failing to fulfil their responsibilities to safeguard freedom of expression and access to information and diverse cultural content. They should be able to establish a complaints process and issue public recommendations that may be binding or non-binding and be empowered to issue transparent and appropriate directives to the platforms for the promotion and respect of human rights, based on international human rights standards

In fairness, there are portions that are noble, such as 72(e) and (f) which aim to limit conflicts of interest in the forms of gifts or lobbying. Lest this be viewed as a hatchet job, there are portions of the paper that are quite good.

Paragraph 115, and its many subparagraphs, detail how due process information and human rights data should be integrated at all stages of moderation. On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with this, but who will be setting the standards?

Paragraphs 116 to 118 offer suggestions for collecting user demographic data for research purposes. While it’s supposed to be anonymized, there’s not enough specifics included as to it use.

Paragraph 143 gives brief guidelines about how platforms should conduct themselves during emergencies and armed conflicts. It suggests . Developing cooperation with trusted partners, independent media organizations, and other reliable flaggers.

These are just some of the issues that are raised. This UNESCO paper seems so harmless on the surface, but it’s really vague at times when clarity is needed.

Note: While UNESCO claims to want to prevent misinformation from spreading, it has hardly been neutral or objective. Only recently, it was telling people to only trust official sources for information on the “pandemic”.

(1) https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/online-disinformation-unesco-unveils-action-plan-regulate-social-media-platforms
(2) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339
(3) UNESCO Guidelines To Govern Digital Platforms
(4) https://www.youtube.com/@UNESCO
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90cIg4lv-3M

Posted on

Litigants Accused Of Filing Defamation Appeal As “Leverage” Against $1.1 Million Cost Order

The long anticipated Appeal of Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba is scheduled to be heard on December 12th, 2023. This comes nearly 2 years after a Judge threw out their defamation case as frivolous. For some background, see here and here.

A brief timeline of events:

December 2020, Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 individuals and media outlets, largely over a series of spats on Twitter. This was in the Toronto Branch of Ontario Superior Court.

September 2021, over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions were argued. The primary basis for these Motions was Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is designed to screen out litigation designed for “libel chill” or “gag proceedings”.

February 2022, Justice Stewart dismissed the claims against all proceedings, on the grounds that the lawsuit was exactly the type of case that anti-SLAPP laws were designed to weed out.

March 2022, the Decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeals.

May 2022, despite filing the Notice of Appeal and Evidence Certificate (a list of evidence to be used), Gill and Lamba find themselves without counsel. It appears from the badly redacted filings that they are rather upset about the mess that they’re now in. If only someone had advised them that filing frivolous defamation claims in Ontario — which has strong anti-SLAPP laws — was a very dangerous and risky idea. Clearly, they got poor advice. (See Record)

July 2022, both Gill and Lamba retained new counsel, who tried to ward off the coming costs awards. In total, they were looking at over $1 million in costs. While this sounds excessive, they sued 23 Parties, which works out to an average of about $55,000 each.

October 2022, although the case had been appealed, the issue of costs hadn’t been resolved. It finally was at the end of October, with Gill and Lamba (but mostly just Gill) owing over $1.1 million in Court fees. It must be pointed out that s.137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act sets “full indemnity”, or 100% of costs, as the baseline. True, Judges don’t have to award it, but that’s considered the starting point.

Gill (and Lamba) accused of bringing Appeal in bad faith

Now we get to November 2023.

One of the Respondents/Defendants, The Pointer Group Inc., has caused an interesting complication. In a Motion seeking costs up front, it’s accusing the Appellants of filing the Appeal in bad faith, in order to circumvent the cost award. There was a hearing before Justice Roberts on Wednesday November 1st.

From paragraph 28 of the Factum asking for costs:

Given the potentially extensive costs awards payable by Dr. Gill for the Action, her abandonment of her appeal as against 11 of the 22 respondents, her failure to identify any error made by Justice Stewart in granting The Pointer’s SLAPP Motion, the delay in pursuing this appeal and The Pointer’s limited resources, it is apparent that Dr. Gill has brought this appeal for the purpose of obtaining leverage in negotiations with The Pointer to avoid paying some or all of the costs awarded to The Pointer.

To summarize: The Pointer Group is alleging Gill and Lamba brought the Appeal as a tactical maneuver in order to avoid paying the full costs that are owed. It’s stated that approximately half of the Defendants have already settled in return for abandoning the Appeal against them.

Put bluntly, this is claiming contempt of Court on their part, by attempting to do an end run around the October 2022 costs ruling.

The Pointer says that the Appeal doesn’t address them in any meaningful way, and thus, there’s no basis for the Appellate Court to overturn those findings.

It’s interesting that this is the only party that’s sought security for costs to date. Besides, it’s strange to wait until so close to the main hearing date.

Updates will be posted closer to the December date. The Appeal will likely be dismissed, as anti-SLAPP laws were correctly applied here. The legislation is designed to prevent people from being able to bankrupt others on the basis of trivial matters. Additionally, the Appeal costs will likely be “full indemnity” as well This means Gill and Lamba could easily end up owing another $100,000 to $200,000, or more.

Gill has a separate anti-SLAPP Motion to be heard next October. It’s with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. Gill demanded $7 million because he called her an “idiot” online. That could easily cost another $25,000 to $50,000 that she doesn’t have.

Side note: the Court of Appeals has been contacted for more documents, and they will be uploaded when they arrive. Both The Pointer and Gill’s new counsel haven’t responded for comment.

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

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

Posted on

University Of Ottawa Files Anti-SLAPP Motion In $7 Million Defamation Suit

This is a follow-up to an August 2022 piece that outlined a defamation claim between Kulvinder Gill, the University of Ottawa, and a professor named Amir Attaran. Attaran and the University were sued for $7 million back in March 2021 over 2 insulting tweets.

Finally, there seems to be some movement. The Defendants have initiated an anti-SLAPP Motion to get the lawsuit thrown out as “gag proceedings”, or as an attempt to shut down public discourse. The hearing is set for October of 2024, a year from now.

Attaran himself responded to an inquiry, and confirmed that it’s a SLAPP Motion. He said that his demands for a public apology had been refused, and now he wants his day in Court.

Ontario has an online search tool, which makes it easy to track how cases are progressing. Court documents are also considered public records, and are open to anyone, with limited exceptions.

A Notice of Intent was filed back in June 2021, although not an actual Statement of Defence. Then the case sat idly for over 2 years. Looking at the content in the Statement of Claim, it’s not hard to see why. The quotes are from page 9.

As an aside, the date in Paragraph 34 is wrong. It references a July 28th, 2021 article, which would have been after this suit was filed.

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

The suit is frivolous, to put it mildly. Gill is suing for millions over a Twitter spat, which included the above statements. Anti-SLAPP laws (Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for Ontario) are meant to protect against this sort of thing.

The first tweet is insulting, but is unlikely to be considered defamation. The second one appears to be Attaran just trolling Gill.

Even if Attaran genuinely views Gill as an idiot, these remarks — while distasteful — would probably be viewed as opinion, and protected as fair comment.

An additional problem is that Gill will most likely be unable to prove that she suffered any damages as a result of these comments. Twitter is known as a cesspool, where people say rude and insulting things.

She’ll also find it difficult to convince a Judge that shutting down discourse like this will be in the public interest. Understandably, the the Courts tend to lean towards protecting speech and expression.

It’s worth pointing out there’s no requirement that speech or expression be beneficial or helpful in order to be protected as public expression. As long as it’s on a subject that a segment of the population might care about, then s.137.1 applies. The above comments were in the context of arguing over lockdown measures.

With these things in mind, the anti-SLAPP Motion is certain to prevail.

Posting these kinds of comments online won’t damage Gill’s reputation or her work prospects. However, suing over them just makes her look unhinged or vindictive.

Gill was also abandoned by previous counsel. It’s unclear, at least from what’s available here, who will be representing her at this Motion. As the 2024 date draws near, expect an update, along with more filings.

In other news:

This also isn’t Gill’s first attempt at silencing critics. February 2024, a $12.75 million suit was thrown out as a SLAPP. In October 2022, she and Ashvinder Lamba — but mostly just Gill — were ordered to pay over $1.1 million in fees to the Defendants’ lawyers. Back in December 2020, she and Lamba sued 23 people and organizations over essentially the same type of comments as this.

Instead of paying costs — as they likely can’t afford to — the ruling was appealed. It has just dragged on. At least 1 of the Respondents has made accusations that the Appeal is an attempt to circumvent the costs Order. A hearing is scheduled next week to determine whether costs must be put up in advance by Gill. More on that later.

It’s bizarre that Gill had been embraced by the “freedom movement” over the last few years. She’s done more to attempt to chill free speech in Canada than just about anyone.

DOCUMENTS
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Counsel Abandons Plaintiff

OTHER
(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/#sec137.1_smooth
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc6169/2022onsc6169.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-l12/latest/rso-1990-c-l12.html
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-of-Appeal-and-Appellants-Certificate-Gill-2.pdf

Posted on

Respondent Lawyers Accused Of Misconduct In Action4Canada Appeal

It’s interesting what people can do when motivated. October 13th, this piece went out, publishing that the Action4Canada Appeal had been listed as “inactive” due to a failure to schedule the hearing.

Less than a week later, it’s been announced that the case has been removed from the “inactive” listings, and a hearing booked for February 14th, 2024.

Further details: Action4Canada filed an appeal on Sept. 28, 2022 and the Respondents filed their response by January 2023. The appeal could have been before the Appeal Court within 6 months however, the Respondents were not cooperative in setting a timely date. Rocco’s office consistently made every effort to work with all parties involved. If a court date is not set within a year the file is automatically put on an ‘inactive’ list. This transpired on Sept. 28, 2023 and was due to the Respondents’ ongoing delays in setting a date.

The update is accurate, at least in the sense that Appeals are automatically considered inactive if a Notice of Hearing isn’t filed within a year of the Notice of Appeal. That part is true. Section 50 of the B.C. Court of Appeal Rules spells this out.

However, it’s probably not a good idea to go around accusing the Respondent/Defendant lawyers of attempting to delay and sabotage the hearing of the Appeal. It seems unlikely that this would be protected under anti-SLAPP laws.

On the off chance that this is true, some receipts would be nice.

Also, delaying the case would make no sense from their perspective. The Appeal is baseless — as has been covered here — and focuses primarily on issues that a B.C. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant. It revolves around Paragraph 52 in Justice Ross’ ruling. This would be an easy case to get thrown out.

This also isn’t the first time that Government lawyers have been accused of deliberately stalling this case. Back in late 2020, there were claims that the B.C. officials had delayed service by 2 1/2 months.

This makes little sense either, as the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, was a convoluted mess that was doomed to fail from the outset.

Looking at the big picture, Action4Canada has been fundraising for about 3 1/2 years now and still hasn’t put forward a valid NOCC. This will never get to Trial.

In other news:

(1) The Federal Court of Appeals will hear the Appeal of some 600+ Plaintiffs — both Government workers and employees of Federally regulated industries — on November 8th, 2023. See the background information here.

(2) Vaccine Choice Canada will be in Court for 2 days, January 30 and February 1st, 2024. This is to finally have the hearing to strike out the July 6, 2020 Claim. For anyone wondering why it took so long, it’s because it took 2 1/2 years to have a first appearance.

Factums (arguments) are due starting in November, and will be provided.

(3) Vaccine Choice’s other case, from October 2019, hasn’t gotten past the pleading stages. This is despite being filed 4 years ago. It may very well be dismissed for delay soon.

Update: Shortly after this was published, Action4Canada made significant changes to their October 19, 2023 update. They removed references to the Respondent lawyers deliberately delaying the hearing of the Appeal. Guess someone had to explain that these kind of accusations are a bad idea. Without receipts or other proof, a defamation claim was quite possible.

Remember to donate!

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Posted on

Rebel News Abandons Lawsuit Against Canada Revenue Agency After 2 Months

This is a follow-up to an April 2022 article, which covered Rebel News suing the Canada Revenue Agency (the C.R.A.) for access to various subsidies. A Notice of Application was filed to challenge the C.R.A.’s decision. However, nothing seems to have been announced afterwards, which was odd.

As it turns out, the lawsuit was discontinued less than 2 months later. It was done on consent, and without costs. The Federal Court allows members of the public to check the status of cases online, and to get summaries of what has progressed.

There were no hearings or motions, just a Notice of Appearance filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada.

While this lawsuit was publicly sold as a way to protect free speech, it comes across as far less idealistic. Rebel wanted to be classified as a QCJO, or a qualified Canadian journalism organization, and that was denied. There are significant financial considerations at play here.

This was also announced on Twitter.

But the April 7, 2022 article states this:

So Rebel News is fighting back. Because if we don’t fight back now they’re going to destroy us — like Trudeau is doing more and more to his peaceful political opponents. He wants to try to do to us what he did to the truckers — if he had his way he’d put us in jail and seize our bank accounts. This is a step in that direction — having a government panel declare, legally, that our journalists are not actually journalists.

Because if they can do this to us, their largest independent critic left, they’ll do this to anyone. They’ll censor you. Which is why we have to fight back now — not later, right now. There might not even be a later.

The outcome of that lawsuit will affect us, obviously. But it will affect everyone. Anyone in Canada who wants to do journalism without government censorship. And every citizen in Canada who wants the freedom to choose their own choice of news, without some secret government panel deciding what is or isn’t real news.

I don’t know if there are other journalists who are being censored; I know if they succeed, we won’t be the last. I think we’re likely the only ones who can and will fight back. Good news is, we’ve got an absolute top-notch legal team.

This is hyperbolic and misleading. The C.R.A. is responsible for overseeing various programs which result in tax breaks and subsidies, including for media outlets. The C.R.A. decided (rightly or wrongly) that Rebel News didn’t meet the criteria for subsidies.

There’s also the bemusement in seeing such a lawsuit coming from an organization that purports to rail against Trudeau funding the media at all.

Here are the current registered journalism organizations:

  • La Presse Inc.
  • The Narwhal News Society
  • Presse-Ouest Ltée
  • Journaldesvoisins.com
  • New Canadian Media
  • The Local TO Publishing
  • The Canadian Jewish News
  • Chateauguay Valley Community Information Services
  • Coopérative nationale de l’information indépendante
  • La Gazette de la Mauricie

If Rebel had gotten their QCJO designation, what would they be receiving?

(a) Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit: this would pay up to 25% of salaries of the business’ employees, which are typically the biggest expense
(b) Digital News Subscription Tax Credit: subscribers would receive a tax rebate of up to 15%
(c) Registered Journalism Organization Status: going the next step, QCJOs would be able to qualify as RJO as well, and start issuing tax receipts, similar to how charities operate.

According to their own records, Rebel succeeded in getting 86% of the 2,000 donors that were sought. This would translate to approximately 1,720 individual donors.

If there really was such a top-notch legal team on the case, why abandon it in the beginning stages? Rebel hasn’t succeeded in getting the QCJO designation, so it’s not like Ottawa quietly capitulated.

However, it doesn’t seem that any of the money has been returned. The donation function on the article hasn’t been taken down either.

So, not only does that mean we’re not allowed to attend government press conferences, it also punishes us under Income Tax Act.

The C.R.A. has nothing to do with deciding who can attend government press conferences, or debates in political elections. So including this is a red herring. This lawsuit is about getting access to subsidy money, and tax breaks.

Or at least it was, until it was abandoned in May 2022.

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(A) T-720-22 Document #1 Notice Of Application
(B) T-720-22 Document #2 Notice of Appearance
(C) T-720-22 Document #4 Notice of Discontinuance
(D) T-720-22 Document #5 Affidavit of Service

OTHER LINKS:
(1) https://www.rebelnews.com/rebel_news_is_suing_justin_trudeau
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b_1vwGrcY4&t
(3) https://archive.ph/beOQY
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(5) https://twitter.com/RebelNewsOnline/status/1512229529737211921
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/business-tax-credits/canadian-journalism-labour-tax-credit/qualified-canadian-journalism-organization.html
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/business-tax-credits/canadian-journalism-labour-tax-credit.html
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/deductions-credits-expenses/digital-news-subscription.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/business-tax-credits/canadian-journalism-labour-tax-credit/registered-journalism-organization.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/list-charities/list-charities-other-qualified-donees.html
(11) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/other-organizations-that-issue-donation-receipts-qualified-donees/other-qualified-donees-listings/list-registered-journalism-organizations.html