SLAPP – Canuck Law

August 4, 2025August 6, 2025

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

July 3, 2025July 3, 2025

“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/

May 11, 2025May 11, 2025

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

March 26, 2025March 27, 2025

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

March 16, 2025March 16, 2025

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Again, this is not clickbait.

On July 12th, 2023, HateGate co-author Caryma Sa’d filed a $100,000 lawsuit in Federal Court. It was against the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), and Morgan Yew, one of its reporters.

At its core, it was a defamation lawsuit, but dressed up as trademark and competition.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same stunt that co-author Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) had pulled with Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore). And likewise, Sa’d saw her case thrown out by the Judge.

The case was struck on September 25th, 2023, for failing to state a Cause of Action, or to sue over anything the Court could realistically grant. Coincidently, that’s when the “HateGate Affair” was released.

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

Why do these author lawsuits matter? It’s because they show — at a minimum — that there’s an axe to grind against Bernie Farber and CAHN. It’s difficult to view the authors as being at all unbiased when they’ve filed lawsuits about the very people they’re “doing research on”.

As an aside, Sa’d was represented by Frederick Wu. This is also Jeremy MacKenzie’s lawyer in his October 2023 defamation suit with Ezra Levant and Rebel Media. Considering that he filed this case in the wrong Court, it’s understandable why he’d have trouble with the later one. Wu seems to be an incompetent lawyer.

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

The Statement of Claim reads largely as a defamation suit, which should properly be brought in Provincial Court. Instead, it was filed in Federal Court. Allegations which may be viewed as harassment should probably have been filed Provincially as well. According to the ruling:

[7] The principal allegations in the Statement of Claim surround an event that Ms. Sa’d intended to host on July 10, 2021, in Toronto’s Chinatown district, described as a comedy night at which Ms. Sa’d would interview and roast an individual she describes as a right-wing personality. In the days leading to the event, CAHN expressed concern about the event. While both parties opposed the views of this individual, they did not agree on whether the event would be effective in countering those views or rather would serve to promote them.

[10] Ms. Sa’d pleads that, following correspondence between them, CAHN agreed to minor revisions to a handful of passages in its article. However, she alleges that, while the revised article correlated more closely with some facts, the revisions did not materially change the misleading character of the article. She alleges that, in publishing the updated article, CAHN refused to expressly specify which revisions had been made.

[11] The Statement of Claim further pleads that, from time to time, CAHN publishes materials encouraging counter-protestors to attend events and obstruct what it describes as “fake journalists”. Ms. Sa’d alleges that she has been subjected to: (a) in-person harassment at rallies by counter-protesters employing such tactics; and (b) online sexism and racism, including by online personalities she names as John and Jane Doe.

[12] Based on these allegations, Ms. Sa’d invokes subsections 7(a) and (d) of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 [TMA], and sections 36 and 52 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 [CA], and claims against the Defendants declaratory relief, injunctive relief, general damages of $50,000, aggravated and exemplary damages of $50,000, and costs. Details of these statutory provisions will be canvassed later in these Reasons. Ms. Sa’d filed her action as a simplified action under Rules 292 to 299.

Interestingly, this case is packaged as alleged violations of the Trademarks Act, and the Competition Act. There are a few possibilities why this was done:

(a) If filed in Ontario Superior Court, it’s very likely that an anti-SLAPP Motion would have been brought, and it would shut down the case.
(b) Successful anti-SLAPP Motions typically result in “full indemnity”, or 100% cost awards to Defendants. By contrast, Federal Court has much lower cost scales, and thus, is much less risky.
(c) Defamation lawsuits are typically restricted by a very short Statute of Limitations. Failure to follow may result in the case automatically being lost.

Filing in Federal Court may have ultimately have been a wise move (if she was going to sue at all), as it only led to $850 in costs.

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Unsurprisingly, CAHN brought a Motion to Strike the Statement of Claim. Several grounds were cited, but the overall theme was that the case was an abuse of the legal system.

The Notice of Motion accuses Sa’d of using litigation to silence CAHN from speaking on important topics. This strengthens the suspicion that it was filed here and not the Ontario Courts in order to avoid an anti-SLAPP Motion. It’s implied that they would have, it given the chance.

In their Affidavit, it was pointed out that this wasn’t the only such lawsuit that Sa’d had filed.

***Since then, the other 2 cases from Sa’d have been voluntarily discontinued. The case with the Broadbent Institute was dropped on February 13th, 2025. She dropped the suit against Canada Proud on January 28th. That appears to be the end of it.

The Responding Motion Record accused CAHN of bringing the Motion as it was “low risk, high reward”. This is rather ironic, considering that the case was improperly filed in Federal Court to avoid the much more expensive Ontario anti-SLAPP laws.

Sa’d also requested — as an alternative — that the Court give permission to allow the Claim to be amended, or to provide particulars (specifics). Ultimately though, the suit was thrown out completely.

While the general tone of this lawsuit seems more tepid than any of Hategan’s, it’s just as frivolous. Both HateGate authors have filed baseless suits against people they viewed as having wronged them. It doesn’t exactly scream “objective” in their later work.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Sad T-1452-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Sad T-1452-23 Notice Of Motion To Strike
(3) Sad T-1452-23 Ettienne Affidavit
(4) Sad T-1452-23 Motion Record To Strike
(5) Sad T-1452-23 Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1286/2023fc1286.html

March 15, 2025March 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 2B: Settling The Score With TVO And “The Agenda”

No, this title isn’t clickbait.

It takes a special kind of person to sue public television because they don’t report on a guest or subject as glowingly as they should. It’s even worse when members of the organization are sued for no discernable reason. But that’s exactly what happened in September, 2019.

Elisa Ferryman-Cohen (formerly Hategan) filed a $150,000 suit against:

Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVO)
The Agenda With Steve Paikin
Stacey Dunseath
Eric Bombicino

Stacey Dunseath and Eric Bombicino were producers at TVO at the time.

The case was dismissed on consent in January, 2021. Although the terms aren’t public, one has to suspect that Hategan dropped it with the promise that no costs would be sought. The Defendants could easily have brought an anti-SLAPP Motion.

Why does any of this matter? It’s because Ferryman-Cohen (who still uses her old name, Hategan) is apparently the primary author of the “HateGate Affair”. This is a 2023 paper from her and Caryma Sa’d which supposedly “exonerates” Diagolon and Jeremy MacKenzie. It blames a the invocation of the Emergencies Act on a giant failure of intelligence and law enforcement.

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

Also, the paper strongly implies a giant conspiracy to frame innocent people, while trampling on the rights of Canadians more broadly. Considering that Hategan and Sa’d specifically name members of the RCMP, they’re lucky to have not been sued for defamation over it. There’s nothing in their FOIA request package which supports the allegations.

Before that, though, let’s look at Hategan’s other litigation.

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

In an earlier piece on the HateGate scam, we looked at the December, 2018 lawsuit brought by Elisa Hategan. While old litigation is rarely helpful, these cases are quite the exception.

December 4th, 2018, Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore) sued Ferryman-Cohen (formerly Hategan) in Ontario Superior Court. Hategan filed a suit of her own on December 10th, one which Frederiksen counter-claimed.

For context, Moore/Frederiksen was also involved with Heritage Front, and had a similar life experience with Hategan/Ferryman-Cohen. The anger appears to come from Hategan not getting the credit and recognition she felt entitled to.

While the December 4th filing was dismissed for inactivity, the later ones did go before a Judge. And is it ever an interesting ruling.

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.

Justice Ferguson concluded that Hategan/Ferryman-Cohen had:
(a) Defamed Frederiksen/Moore
(b) Leaked confidential relationship about an out-of-marriage affair, with the explicit aim of causing embarrassment and shame.
(c) Created multiple domains to redirect traffic to her own site, and restrict her rival from getting her story out.
(d) Threatened multiple colleagues with lawsuits in order to intimidate them from working with Frederiksen/Moore.

Ultimately, an Injunction was also issued, to keep Hategan from doing it again.

If this sounds malicious, it is. And it’s not the only way she has behaved in an unprofessional manner. With that in mind, her 2019 lawsuit makes a lot of sense.

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

From reading the Statement of Claim, it doesn’t look like there was any actual defamation in it. Instead, it wasn’t quite the puff piece Hategan was hoping more.

12. In December 2018, the Plaintiff initiated legal action against Elizabeth Moore in Ontario Superior Court, and in February 2019 Bernie Farber was added as a Defendant; they are currently being sued for injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, wrongful appropriation of personality, unlawful interference with economic interests, and negligence, with the case currently subject to ongoing litigation. However, even after Steve Paikin and TVO were made aware that Moore and Farber’s appearance on THE AGENDA had led, at least in part, to a lawsuit, the tortious “Leaving Hate Behind” episode continues to be broadcast and disseminated on TVO’s website and multiple other social media platforms.

13. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, disregard for truth, recklessness and failure to prevent the tortious appropriation and unauthorized dissemination of the Plaintiff’s likeness and personality, the Plaintiff suffered significant harm. The Plaintiff also asserts that the moral and copyright rights of her memoir were violated when Farber and Moore appropriated the Plaintiff’s experiences as detailed in her book, and fraudulently attributed them to Moore during the “Leaving Hate Behind” episode of THE AGENDA WITH STEVE PAIKIN.

38. In July 2019, the Plaintiff learned that another Producer on THE AGENDA had been directed to do “due diligence” and look into her claims prior to the broadcast. In a sworn affidavit dated July 24, 2019, show guest Elizabeth Moore stated that producer Eric Bombicino contacted Moore and Farber on September 8, 2017 with an email that read: “So Elisa Hategan contacted us today via email and made some accusations. I imagine you are familiar with these. I am terribly sorry to bother you for a response, but my EP wanted us to do our due diligence and get your comments on her accusations. She said that basically she was the only female spokesperson for the HF and Elizabeth has stolen details from her life. Again I am terribly sorry to bother you with this, but I have been asked to get a response. Thanks again for everything today guys. It was truly a great interview, and a pleasure to meet both of you.”

39. The fact that Producer Eric Bombicino saw fit to contact Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Moore to verify that indeed they had not made fraudulent statements, and did not contact the Plaintiff at all, shows gross negligence and bias on the part of both Bombicino and other THE AGENDA employees and/or contractors involved in prescreening and fact-checking for the show. Bombicino’s bias is evident in the flippant way he refers to the Plaintiff in his deferential email to Farber and Moore, in which he apologizes repeatedly for having to do “due diligence” and implies that he imagines Farber and Moore are “already familiar with these.” Bombicino’s choice of terminology, as well as how the email is worded, conveys a premeditated bias that shows favouritism toward Farber and Moore, rather than the actions of a government agency employee instructed to do his job in ensuring accuracy, journalistic ethics and lack of bias.

42. After the show aired, the Plaintiff made several attempts to communicate with THE AGENDA show host Steve Paikin about the tortious statements made by Farber and Moore on the show, but received no reply. After she initiated legal action against Elizabeth Moore in December 2018, the Plaintiff forwarded a copy of her Statement of Claim to THE AGENDA host Steve Paikin and Executive Producer Stacey Dunseath. Despite their awareness of the ongoing lawsuit against their show guests, neither TVO nor any staff of THE AGENDA made any attempt to remove the content from their website and multiple social media platforms.

Not being present for any of these talk, this is speculation. However, the Defendants were likely put off by Hategan’s demeanor, and tried to distance themselves from her.

It appears that Hategan thinks that if she sends TVO and The Agenda a copy of her lawsuit with Frederiksen/Moore and Farber, that they’ll simply scrub the content. This comes across as an attempt to intimidate.

From Hategan’s own claim, The Agenda did contact Frederiksen and Farber regarding accusations Hategan had made. But instead of viewing this as due diligence, she sees it as a conspiracy.

Paragraph 48 probably sums it up the best.

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.”

Hategan isn’t suing TVO or The Agenda for defamation. Instead, she sued because someone else got some of the credit for having shut down Heritage Front. She didn’t want to share the glory.

With all of this in mind, it puts the “HateGate Affair” in a whole new light. Was it really about truth and exoneration? Or was it about settling the score with people who didn’t give her the credit she felt entitled to? Is it really worth suing TVO — paid for by taxpayers — because some hothead didn’t get all the fame she wanted?

It wasn’t just Hategan who did this. Caryma Sa’d filed a similar — although toned down — lawsuit in Federal Court. It was struck for not having any Cause of Action.

To be fair, the “Diagolon” twits have probably realized that it was a serious mistake to work with, or associate with, Hategan at all. She has already threatened to sue Derek (Rants) Harrison for including her in his obviously satirical book, MEME KAMPF.

Isn’t it strange? The alternative media had no qualms about broadcasting the HateGate story, but never bothered to do any fact checking. It’s just like the mainstream press they claim to despite.

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

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

HATEGAN THREATENS TO SUE DEREK HARRISON:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1775117017269338296
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192

Category: SLAPP

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

Like this:

“Frozen Bank Accounts” Lawsuit Dropped Without A Fight

Like this:

Action4Canada Injunction Application Booked For May 26th

Like this:

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

Like this:

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Like this:

HateGate, Part 2B: Settling The Score With TVO And “The Agenda”

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Share this:

Like this:

Hategan Also Went After Frederiksen And Farber

Hategan Went After TVO, Their Staff And The Agenda

Share this:

Like this: