Category: SLAPP

Posted on

Deadline Looms To Implement Anti-SLAPP Laws Across Europe

To start the new year off on a positive note, let’s look at what’s happening in the European Union. Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the EU Parliament is approaching the 2 year anniversary, which is the deadline. Denmark has already opted out, but the other EU countries have until May 7th, 2026.

It’s encouraging sign to see more efforts to free speech from civil lawsuits. If Brussels can get this passed, can Ottawa as well?

What Are The Important Parts In The Directive?

Article 2
Scope
This Directive shall apply to matters of a civil or commercial nature with cross-border implications brought in civil proceedings, including procedures for interim and precautionary measures and counteractions, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or the liability of the state for acts and omissions in the exercise of state authority (acta iure imperii). This Directive shall not apply to criminal matters or arbitration and shall be without prejudice to criminal procedural law.

Article 3
Minimum requirements
1. Member States may introduce or maintain provisions that are more favourable to protect persons engaged in public participation against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings against public participation in civil matters, including national provisions that establish more effective procedural safeguards relating to the right to freedom of expression and information.
.
2. The implementation of this Directive shall in no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of safeguards already afforded by Member States in the matters covered by this Directive.

Article 4
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:
(2) ‘matter of public interest’ means any matter which affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it, in areas such as:
(a) fundamental rights, public health, safety, the environment or the climate;
(b) activities of a natural or legal person that is a public figure in the public or private sector;
(c) matters under consideration by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceedings;
(d) allegations of corruption, fraud, or of any other criminal offence, or of administrative offences in relation to such matters;
(e) activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, including the protection of democratic processes against undue interference, in particular by fighting disinformation;

Article 10
Security
Member States shall ensure that in court proceedings brought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation, the court or tribunal seised may require, without prejudice to the right of access to justice, that the claimant provide security for the estimated costs of the proceedings, which may include the costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant, and, if provided for in national law, damages.

Article 12
Burden of proof and substantiation of claims
1. The burden of proving that the claim is well founded rests on the claimant who brings the action.
2. Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to substantiate the claim in order to enable the court to assess whether it is not manifestly unfounded.

Article 13
Appeal
Member States shall ensure that a decision granting early dismissal pursuant to Article 11 is subject to an appeal.

Article 14
Award of costs
1. Member States shall ensure that a claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public participation can be ordered to bear all types of costs of the proceedings that can be awarded under national law, including the full costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant unless such costs are excessive.
2. Where national law does not guarantee the award in full of the costs of legal representation beyond what is set out in statutory fee tables, Member States shall ensure that such costs are fully covered, unless they are excessive, by other means available under national law.

Article 15
Penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures
Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals seized of abusive court proceedings against public participation may impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures, including the payment of compensation for damage or the publication of the court decision, where provided for in national law, on the party who brought those proceedings.

Some key takeaways from this include:

  • “Matter of public interest” is defined very broadly
  • Presumptive full indemnity (100% of costs) to Defendants
  • Damages can be awarded to Defendants
  • Plaintiff has the burden in showing why the case should continue
  • Plaintiff can be ordered to put up a security deposit in order to continue
  • Rulings can be appealed
  • Applies to civil cases, not criminal
  • Countries can implement stronger protections if they want

Keep in mind, this is just the framework. Individual countries will come up with their own versions. At least some of this should be familiar, given the cases covered here.

Sign Of Things To Come Locally?

So, why should Canadians care? Because there’s the possibility to build on existing laws here. A national framework could be implemented here, or at least some could implement their own versions.

  • Quebec — Provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (2009)
  • Ontario — Section 137.1 in the Courts of Justice Act (2015)
  • British Columbia — Protection of Public Participation Act (2019)

Interestingly, the more “communist” provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, while the more “conservative” provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan do not. Whatever the country ends up as, or if any provinces leave, these protections are still important.

The EU Directive, much like the Canadian laws, is extremely broad in what “matters of public interest” can include. Otherwise, what would be the point? And there’s always the possibility of including topics not previously considered.

Anti-SLAPP exists in most, though not all, of the U.S. as well.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already weighed in several times in anti-SLAPP appeals, so it’s unlikely that including new provinces will contribute much in terms of precedent. Still, perhaps a visit to the local M.P. might be helpful.

(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj

Posted on

“They Downplayed My Contributions, So I Had To Engage In Litigation”

“The Hate Network” is a Canadian documentary that is currently being screened for select audiences, presumably before being made more public. It’s effectively HateGate 2.0.

In honour of that, let’s take a look back at its predecessor, HateGate 1.0.

September 2023, the “HateGate Affair” was published by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan, who still goes by her old name. While the paper was disjointed and rambling, it tried to promote a narrative. Specifically, it attempted to convince people that the Emergencies Act (EA) was invoked in February 2022 largely over a meme and shoddy police work. It cited a 1,082 page FOIPOP release “proving” it.

So, why was the EA invoked? A shorter FOIPOP from around the same time suggests, although it does not conclude, that blockades along the Canada-U.S. border were shutting down international travel and shipments. While not definitive, it’s far more plausible than HateGate.

Going back through the 85 page paper, it’s obvious that most supporters never read the HateGate Affair, let alone the FOIPOP package, or this page. They probably just relied on this 4 1/2 minute video to tell them what to think.

The FOIPOP doesn’t prove — at all — that law enforcement relied on CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. If anything, police found little to substantiate their claims. The authors just cherrypicked quotes to suit a narrative. And most of the HateGate Affair has nothing to do with the invocation anyway.

Keep in mind, Hategan and Sa’d didn’t request a FOIPOP from the police for all information and conversations related to the invocation. That would have been tens of thousands of pages, at least. Instead, they asked for information about the group Diagolon, and simply reported that they had proof of this narrative. Nice pivot.

Hategan got her “fame” as a teenager in the 1990s, helping infiltrate and eventually take down the neo-nazi group Heritage Front. It turned out to be an operation, and its leader, Grant Bristow, a CSIS agent. However, she’s nearly 50 now, and nowhere near as relevant. But if people minimize her role in this, she’s quite willing to file a lawsuit against them.

Let’s look at some forgotten gems in this “paper”.

Grant Bristow And Bernie Farber Were Actually Friends

These are from pages 48 and 50 of HateGate Affair. Even though Grant Bristow was “supposedly” the head of the largest neo-nazi group in Canada, he and Farber remained friends. The only logical conclusion is not just that it was a CSIS operation (which it was), but that Farber knew all along that it was.

Farber must have deduced (if he wasn’t directly informed) that Diagolon was also an operation. After all, it was the O.P.P. informant, Hategan, writing this paper.

And why does Hategan have I.P. tracking software on her website?

Ferryman-Cohen Sued Bernie Farber For Clout

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

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

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

Page 51 of HateGate Affair, Ferryman-Cohen complains that she’s been silenced from speaking out. This came after she filed a frivolous lawsuit against Farber for not giving her the credit she thought she deserved. She was also found to be harassing, threatening, stalking and defaming her “rival”, Elizabeth Moore-Frederiksen.

Caryma Sa’d went after CAHN in Federal Court, but it was struck for having no Cause of Action.

Ferryman-Cohen Sued TV Ontario For Clout

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

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

Back in 2019, Ferryman-Cohen sued TVO because it didn’t give her enough of a glowing review. She and Elizabeth Moore-Frederiksen both were credited with helping to topple Heritage Front. But sharing credit wasn’t good enough, and she filed a $150,000 lawsuit. It was settled out of Court.

Ferryman-Cohen Sued For Defamation By Paul ApSimon

Ferryman-Cohen is being sued for defamation by Paul ApSimon, a former fencing instructor. She posted ancient allegations on her website that essentially accused him of sexual abuse and pedophilia. Now, unless this turns out to be provably true, then he’s 100% justified in filing this one. As of the time of writing this, there is an anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

Bit of advice for Diagolon supporters: maybe someone who gets sued for making these kinds of accusations isn’t the best person to write for you.

Ferryman-Cohen Sues Caryma Sa’d And Toronto Police

Ferryman-Cohen has finally gone after Caryma Sa’d, her co-author, filing a $2.53 million lawsuit. There are some interesting revelations here.

She is suing the Toronto Police twice in Small Claims Court. One was on December 8th, and the other on the 16th.

There’s also one against Mitch Hancock in Small Claims for $35,000. She simply cannot allow people to forget that she’s the one who took down Heritage Front.

50. Sa’d further lied to police, claiming that she did not owe Ms. Hategan any money (despite having had extensive text and verbal discussions about splitting credit, donations, and other compensations for Ms. Hategan). Sa’d has earned thousands of dollars from work performed at least in part by Ms. Hategan, and as a result of her journalistic mentorship. Sa’d and Hategan’s co-authored article The Hategate Affair was also uploaded to a website solely under Sa’d’s control. The website (found at https://dove-herring-wfpt.squarespace.com/ and linked to the domain “hategate.ca”) was operational from September 12, 2023 until fall/winter 2024, and featured “Donation” and “Make a Donation” buttons from its inception until around January 2024. Ms. Hategan does not know the total amount of money collected by Sa’d through the website, through Sa’d’s GoFundMe journalism-related pages, or via direct e-transfers to Sa’d’s bank account and PayPal account, but strongly believes the figure is in the thousands of dollars.

77. It took Elisa many years to overcome her police phobia. Graduating Magna cum Laude from the University of Ottawa with a double major in criminology and psychology, she served as a consultant with the London, UK-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and has assisted law enforcement such as the Ontario Provincial Police with advice and training on preventing radicalization and extremism in youth. As a keynote speaker for the Probation Officers Association of Ontario (POAO), she presented workshops alongside OPP and RCMP officers. Her wrongful arrests and the high volume of false police reports Sa’d filed about her, which are still registered in CPIC, have destroyed her reputation in the law enforcement community.

96. As a result of Sa’d’s false reports, Ms. Hategan was locked out of her X account and remains suspended to the present day, unable to access her account. Ms. Hategan has never been suspended from any social media platform before. Sa’d lied to X Support by falsely claiming that the photo was a “private” image, even though Sa’d is a notorious public figure who regularly seeks media attention, stives to be famous and become an “influencer”, and has her own Wikipedia Page. As a result of Sa’d’s malicious and false reports, Ms. Hategan has lost her primary source of income – most of her public speaking and consulting requests, as well as crowdfunding donations, come from her X account.

113.(g)(ii). Her duty and loyalty to another client, Jeremy Mackenzie. Ms. Hategan believes that Mackenzie paid Sa’d for work on The HateGate Affair, the September 12, 2023 85-page longform article co-authored and written in majority by Ms. Hategan. Elisa is entitled to receive half of all earnings as per her agreement with Sa’d, but received nothing.

Ferryman-Cohen didn’t “leave behind” her life working with law enforcement. She apparently still does it, and works/worked as a consultant for the ISD? They’re arguably worse than CAHN.

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. Ferryman-Cohen believes that MacKenzie paid Sa’d to create HateGate Affair, and she wants a cut of it. She also wants compensation for whatever donations came in. There’s no objection that the document is misleading, just that she wasn’t paid.

This also explains why the paper was so shoddy, at least in part. No one will donate unless there’s a juicy story, such as the EA being invoked over a meme. This was supposed to be a cash cow.

Ferryman-Cohen apparently doesn’t work a regular job, and largely relies on pubic speaking and online donations. Gee, where have we heard that before?

There are many more allegations against Sa’d and her boyfriend that are not relevant here.

Ferryman-Cohen Works For Institute For Strategic Dialogue

According to her LinkedIn page, (see archive), Elisa Hategan is the Regional Coordinator for Central Canada and United States at Against Violent Extremism. They coordinate with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or ISD.

Not familiar with the ISD? They were covered here and here previously, but quite simply, they can be considered the “global” version of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. Their work includes:

  • Documenting activities of the far right
  • Education and digital citizenship
  • Outreach
  • Deradicalization efforts

Among the ISD’s donors is the ADL, or Anti-Defamation League. As many know, it was created in 1913 to “protect” the reputation of Leo Frank, convicted rapist and murderer of a 13 year old girl.

Ferryman-Cohen rails against CAHN and Bernie Farber, while participating in an organization that does essentially the same thing. Both CAHN and ISD get taxpayer subsidies. Did no one ask any questions about that? That takes some real mental gymnastics.

She’s also an Advisory Board Member and Social Media Manager for OVED for Human Rights, a Holocaust Survivors Non-Profit. That’s interesting, considering that HateGate was written to “exonerate” people who adamantly deny the Holocaust even happened.

Guys, They’re Totally Not Feds!

The CBC outed and doxed many nationalists at a recent meetup in B.C., while deliberately shielding a member from Second Sons Canada. Very interesting choice, considering the recent protests in Ottawa and Regina.

Heritage Front was a CSIS operation, and Ferryman-Cohen helped destroy it. She points that out every day. It’s hard to believe that she’s bright enough to do that, but too clueless to see the obvious parallels. Sa’d doesn’t mention it either.

Filing lawsuits for being called a “fed” isn’t a good look, especially when the allegation was confessed to under oath. The POEC transcripts are freely available.

It’s kind of surreal to think about. An admitted police informant (Hategan) is promised money to write a paper concluding that another admitted police informant (MacKenzie) was framed by the cops? And none of this seems abnormal?

Prospective members of Second Sons Canada are required to undergo a criminal record check, amongst other things, before being admitted. And who is it that conducts record checks? That would be the RCMP…. who apparently tried to frame MacKenzie. Applicants will be paying to hand over their details to law enforcement.

For the reasons outlined above, the HateGate Affair cannot be taken at face value. There are far too many questions that need to be answered. No amount of gaslighting will change that reality. It would be nice to know how MacKenzie got ahold of those RCMP messages (see 1:00 mark).

What will “The Hate Network” look like? The 2023 release seems designed to “legitimize” an intelligence operation, by dressing it up as state persecution against free speech. Now, this is just a prediction, but maybe the 2025 version will do much the same, but by “shoe-horning” it in with legitimate cases.

(1) Hategan LinkedIn Profile
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ps-sp%2C214-2020-2021-Q3-0023%2Ccurrent
(3) Elisa Hategan Toronto Police Lawsuit
(4) Hategan v Toronto Police 456 Pages Redacted
(5) Elisa Hategan Caryma Sad lawsuit Info Redacted
(6) Elisa Hategan Hancock Lawsuit
(7) Public Safety A-2022-00112 – Release Package Diagolon

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

HATEGATE AFFAIR:
(1) HateGate Affair Original Filing
(2) HateGate Archived Version (Without Highlighting)
(3) HateGate Archive (With Highlighting)

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0.1) Previously Published Documents
(0.2) A-2022-06987 Release Section Of 2nd Package
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

Posted on

Anti-SLAPP Ruling Upheld: When “Recycling” Your Defamation Cases Goes Horribly Wrong

A long awaited Court of Appeal decision has finally been handed down. Justices Zarnett, Young and Favreau have upheld a December 2023 ruling from Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court. That initial verdict saw a $1.1 million defamation case against CSASPP thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, with $132,000 in costs awarded. Another $10,000 in costs was ordered in this subsequent ruling.

CSASPP is of course the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. In January 2021, it began a Proposed Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia. This has been covered elsewhere on this site.

See here, here and here for background information.

That said, a hilarious detail seems to have been overlooked. The case against CSASPP was almost entirely borrowed from an earlier defamation case…. against this website. To clarify, there were 2 separate actions, with overlapping allegations.

[1] This website was sued in September 2021 for detailed criticism of various anti-lockdown cases.

[2] CSASPP and its staff were sued in June 2022 over much, MUCH more mild criticism, and to silence a fomer donor from complaining to the Law Society of Ontario.

Given that this there were 2 different lawsuits, with very different circumstances, one would expect that 2 very different cases would have been prepared. Instead, it seems that the documentation for the first case was simply repackaged and reused for the second case. From the ruling:

[86] …. Finally, because of evidence in the appellant’s own materials of other extremely vitriolic and sustained criticisms of him by others, including the publication “Canuck Law”, he found that if there was damage to the appellant’s reputation, it was not shown to have been caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

[91] The difficulty with the appellant’s submission is the motion judge’s causation finding. The motion judge referred to the evidence from the appellant of a concerted campaign against him by a group known as “Canuck Law” who was not a party to his action. The motion judge stated: “the [appellant] references the group extensively in the material filed on this motion. In articles posted on the Canuck website, the [appellant] was the subject of disparaging and racist comments”. Referring to that and some judicial criticism, he concluded that there was no evidence that any damage to the appellant’s reputation was caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

As an aside, the “racist comments” referred to in the CSASPP case actually came from a site called Overdue Revolutions. It was just misrepresented that they originated here.

Not only are anti-lockdown cases being recycled, but defamation ones are as well. By filing evidence that someone else may have engaged in character assassination, it completely undermines the claims that CSASPP had been responsible.

Whatever happened to taking pride in one’s work?

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

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

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

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

Posted on

“Frozen Bank Accounts” Lawsuit Dropped Without A Fight

A much hyped case challenging Ottawa’s decision to freeze bank accounts of peaceful protestors has come to an end. Lawyers have discontinued the claim, before a single Statement of Defence had been filed.

Clients and donors contributed at least $150,000 to a case that never even finished the pleadings.

It was all a giant nothing-burger.

While lawyers could simply have challenged the freezing of bank accounts, and probably advanced the case, they had to turn it into a giant conspiracy. They pleaded that Government officials had relied on the postings of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), doing no research whatsoever. This is the infamous #HateGate scandal. Ironically, they made the same mistake they accuse law enforcement of: not bothering to get their facts straight ahead of time.

Against CAHN, and Bernie Farber, the Plaintiffs essentially made defamation allegations, but without spelling out what they were. However, because of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, Defendants filed a Motion to dismiss. It was granted, along with nearly $50,000 in costs being awarded. What’s interesting is that once the Motion is initiated, Plaintiffs are prohibited from amending their claim to prevent this.

And the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed almost $100,000, over a pleading they bungled.

Granted, the anti-SLAPP decision only got Farber and CAHN off the hook. Theoretically, the case could still proceed against the others. However, the Statement of Claim was so poorly drafted it would have faced a Motion to Strike. Most likely, clients would have to pay tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in more costs. Instead, the suit was dropped.

This is pretty shoddy work for a major commercial litigation firm.

The Notice doesn’t specify the terms, but it’s entirely possible that the Defendants agreed not to seek any costs in return for discontinuing.

Interestingly, at least one group is still asking for money. Shouldn’t donations be returned, if Plaintiffs aren’t going ahead with their case?

LAWYER DETAILS:
(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cornell Notice Of Action
(2) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(3) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(4) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(5) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(9) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(12) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(13) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Fraser Stride Credit Union
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(18) Cornell Notice Of Discontinuance

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/justice/

Posted on

Action4Canada Injunction Application Booked For May 26th

The British Columbia Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in 2 weeks for an Application for an (interim) Injunction in a defamation case. It’s been set for May 26th.

Last December, Action4Canada and 4 individuals (3 named, 1 unnamed) were sued in Kelowna for defamation. It was filed by a self-described “drag artist and entertainer” named Tyson Cook.

An Injunction Application is asking the Kelowna Court to order the removal of all of the posts in question, and to prohibit new ones from going up. It’s worded to imply that it would last indefinitely, with an alternative suggestion of 1 year.

The Application also seeks validation of service against Tori Olason, through regular mail, and a suspected Facebook account. The process server claims that it’s not safe to return, given a neighbour threatened to call the police to report trespassing.

Interestingly, James Kitchen has resigned as counsel for Action4Canada. He was listed as counsel for that organization, as well as Tammy Mitchell.

The Application names Graeme Flannigan and Action4Canada, but not Mitchell. One has to wonder if cooler heads have prevailed, at least for one person. Flannigan appears — for now — to be self representing.

Flannigan is also the only one so far to file any detailed response. Action4Canada and Mitchell put in their bare-bones “denial”. On the other hand, he’s making statements in support of a justification or fair comment defence. Furthermore, there’s the suggestion that lumping unrelated Defendants together into a single suit is an abuse of process.

Flannigan says that Cook has been selling buttons related to various online posts, and has used the publicity for content. The implication is that far from suffering damages, Cook may have actually profited from all of this.

One thing weighing against Cook: having waited so long to take any action, the Court may not view it as being urgent.

Note: Action4Canada supports silencing its own critics, but screams “lawfare” when the shoe is on the other foot. We’ll have to see how this turns out.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Cook Flannigan Response To Civil Claim
(3) Cook Action4Canada Response To Civil Claim
(4) Cook Mitchell Response To Civil Claim
(5) Cook Kitchen Resigns As A4C Counsel
(6) Cook Notice Of Application For Injunction

Posted on

HateGate, Part 2D: ApSimon V. Hategan Defamation Lawsuit

The “HateGate Affair” was released in September 2023. That was the conspiracy theory that the Emergencies Act was invoked because politicians and law enforcement used unreliable sources to conclude the public was in danger. Specifically, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (or CAHN) was heavily referenced. This has been addressed here before.

However, there’s another reason to be skeptical about its accuracy.

The primary author, Elisa Hategan (or rather, Elisa Ferryman-Cohen) has an open defamation lawsuit pending. She published allegations against a former fencing coach, Paul ApSimon, some of which crossed into criminal accusations. Supposedly, these happened when she was a student at the University of Ottawa in the 1990s. Keep in mind, this lawsuit predates the publication of the “HateGate Affair”, and was accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Perhaps some due diligence was called for.

If someone is willing to fabricate such a story once, perhaps they would again.

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

February 21, 2023, Hategan posted an article entitled: “Truth is Stronger than a Sword – What the Canadian Fencing Federation Doesn’t Want You to Know will Shock You.” Other references to the content are available as well.

The article itself is very disjointed, and not well organized. Hategan makes all sorts of allegations of psychological and emotional abuse, alcohol abuse, favouritism, and sexual involvement with students. Given that the ages are unclear, this may have been illegal. Considering all of this supposedly happened about 25 years ago, how can any of it be verified?

As “proof”, Hategan attaches screenshots of journal entries she claims to have written at the time. There doesn’t seem to be any independent evidence included.

It was not surprising in the least that it led to a defamation lawsuit. The Statement of Claim was filed in Ottawa on March 9th, 2023. It sought $200,000 in damages, and an order that the content be taken down.

Note: it appears Hategan filed most of her documents as paper copies (not electronic), so they’re not available online. However, others are.

Although the anti-SLAPP hearing should have been concluded, things ran well behind schedule. It’s currently set to resume in June of this year.

From the lawsuit:

24. While Paul had not been identified by name in the 2008 and 2012 posts on Hategan’s “Incognito Press” blog, she has identified Paul in the Article as the subject of the serious and false allegations made in those two posts.

25. Hategan’s statements contain serious false allegations against Paul, in their plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of the surrounding circumstances, which give the words a defamatory meaning and/or innuendo, in that they falsely state and/or infer that Paul:

a. Demanded or expected sexual favours from athletes he coached;
b. Granted special advantages to athletes he coached in exchange for sexual favours;
c. Engaged in sexual behaviour with minors;
d. Provided alcohol to underage students;
e. Encouraged underage students to use and abuse alcohol;
f. Encouraged or promoted unhealthy and dangerous eating habits and/or disorders;
g. Psychologically abused athletes that he coached;
h. Was biased and/or discriminated against individuals who identify as being homosexual;
i. Was corrupt or was part of a corrupt organization;
j. Was the subject of an internal investigation;
k. Bullied athletes or others involved in the fencing community;
l. Allowed bullying of athletes by other athletes;
m. Interfered with independent investigations;
n. Engaged in or participated in a “cover-up” of the alleged inappropriate behaviour;
o. Was unethical and lacked integrity; and,
p. Exceeded or misused his authority.

Given that this happened in Ontario, Hategan filed an anti-SLAPP Motion, asking that the suit be thrown out. ApSimon responded that this was not an appropriate case for it.

That is a valid point. Ontario does have system in place to screen out frivolous suits related to expression. But when the words are clearly harmful, and not just “free speech”, Judges tend to dismiss such Motions and allow litigation to proceed. This comes across as such a case.

4. Anti-SLAPP legislation was not enacted to dismiss actions such as this, where an individual’s reputation is severely damaged without any justification. Defendants cannot make serious, baseless allegations at the expense of a person’s reputation under the guise of speaking out in the public interest. Those harmed must have the opportunity to vindicate their reputation and clear their name.

77. In this case, the serious defamatory sting, sexual abuse, and its obvious effect on Paul’s reputation is what justifies allowing the case to continue. Had Hategan’s allegations only been about Paul’s coaching style or technique, Paul concedes that his burden may not have been met. It could be argued that such harm, even if it were based on pure lies, may not be significant enough to justify allowing an action to continue under the s. 137.1 framework.

78. But the sting of the expressions is far more serious and concerns sexual abuse and manipulation, potentially against minors. It is the type of allegation that is difficult to shake off once made, no matter the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The courts have recognized the considerable public interest in allowing individuals targeted by such allegations to defend their reputation publicly in court.

The worst of Hategan’s allegations were of the nature of sexual harassment and sexual abuse, potentially against minors. ApSimon essentially is demanding his day in Court to clear his name. Unless hard evidence is put forward, this would be hard for the Judge to refuse.

Hategan has already been found by an Ontario Court Judge to have defamed someone else, invaded her privacy, interfered with her economic relations, and appropriated her likeness. This is, of course, her frivolous lawsuit with Elizabeth Frederiksen and Bernie Farber. It was just a few years ago.

Hategan also had filed a baseless lawsuit against: (a) Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVO); (b) The Agenda With Steve Paikin; (c) Stacey Dunseath; and (d) Eric Bombicino. That was dismissed on consent.

Additionally, she’s also made threats to sue Derek Harrison for including an entry on her in his (obviously) satire publication called “Meme Kampf”.

There’s the recent lawfare from Caryma Sa’d. There were 3 claims, not just 1.

As for the HateGate story, it’s a publication that concludes — with no real evidence — that the RCMP conspired with politicians and the media (or at least, were grossly incompetent) to declare a national emergency.

Wild idea, but maybe celebrating her “HateGate Affair” publication as some sort of vindication wasn’t the best move. But then, nobody fact checks anything anymore.

APSIMON COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) ApSimon Statement Of Claim March 2023
(2) ApSimon Notice Of Intent To Defend May 2023
(3) ApSimon Defence To Counterclaim
(4) ApSimon Defendants Compendium September 2024
(5) ApSimon Defendants Larger Compendium September 2024
(6) ApSimon Plaintiff Responding Factum September 2024
(7) ApSimon Court Endorsement September 2024
(8) ApSimon Court Endorsement February 2025

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

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

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

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

HATEGAN THREATENS TO SUE DEREK HARRISON:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758177743265517947
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress