Category: SLAPP

Posted on

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

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

Here’s the context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We Do Commercial Litigation”

Just not very well, it seems.

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

Claim Failed To Specify A Single Defamatory Statement

Here are the passages which related to CAHN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this is from the Statement of Claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on.

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

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

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

Section 137.1 Courts Of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, the case is to be dismissed.

How The Anti-SLAPP Motion Played Out In Court

Starting at paragraph 19, Justice Bell explains his reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successful Motions Typically Get Full Indemnity (100%) Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs need better lawyers.

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

(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(12) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(15) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

CSASPP Defamation Appeal To Be Heard In January 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyhow, here are some points to note.

Appeal Attempts To Reargue Entire Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Respondents’ Factum addresses this quite well.

Appellant’s Ridiculous Demands Regarding Costs

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

Repeatedly Implying Justice Chalmers Rigged Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal Nearly Dismissed For Unnecessary Delay

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

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

Champerty And Maintenance: VCC Donors Paying For Appeal?

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, a competent lawyer should know that.

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

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

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

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

Posted on

HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2021: The Registrar dismisses the Appeal for delay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

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

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

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

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

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

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HERITAGE FRONT/CSIS:
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8CQ6pjKaJ8
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy7U8AOXhuw
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1cBOmr3pWg
(4) https://crier.co/the-hategate-affair-unmasking-canadas-hate-industry/
(5) Full Text Of HateGate Report (85 Pages)
(6) https://www.amazon.com/Race-Traitor-Canadian-Intelligence-Services-ebook/dp/B00JA05FYM
(7) https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati
(8) https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati/reference/0deb7fad4bfd4546cfd5e016c1667454
(9) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1709587192715124829
(10) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192
(11) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(12) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1762255316429803597/
(13) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1798395395887997146
(14) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1797682910516195560
(15) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734060656960090558
(16) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1783193060005818703

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc874/2021onsc874.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca217/2022onca217.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca715/2022onca715.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca57/2023onca57.html

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0) Previously Published Documents
(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

Defamation Lawsuit Discontinued Against David Fisman

A University of Guelph professor has formally discontinued his action against David Fisman, a so-called “expert” from recent years. The Statement of Claim, filed in late 2022, involved him, the University of Guelph, and several of their staff. This was the result of a lengthy dispute with Byram Bridle, a faculty member there.

The Notice was “with prejudice, on a no-cost basis”. With prejudice means that it can never again be refiled. Apparently, Fisman agreed to waive costs as well.

The Guelph Defendants filed a Statement of Defence, but Fisman didn’t. Instead, his lawyers opted to commence an anti-SLAPP Motion to have the allegations against him thrown out. The scheduled date was November 19th, 2024.

Keep in mind, under Ontario law, cases dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws are typically subject to “full indemnity” cost awards. This means that the Plaintiff(s) who loses will have to pay 100% of the Defendant(s) costs in addition to their own. This is done to deter people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence free speech.

Fisman doesn’t appear to have any real connection to Guelph. The suit against him has to do with some social media postings. There are (of course) allegations of a conspiracy, but none of it is properly pled. This is the sort of thing which led to Kulvinder Gill’s $1.1 million cost award nearly 2 years ago.

Back on February 28th, 2024, there was a case conference. The Guelph Defendants also commenced an anti-SLAPP Motion of their own.

At that point, Bridle was facing 2 anti-SLAPP Motions, both presumably with full-indemnity cost awards. His solution was to arrange to have one of them dropped.

True, a case is normally “stayed” (or frozen) once this is initiated, but it doesn’t prevent the parties from consenting to discontinue the matter.

While Fisman is no longer a party to this case, Guelph’s Motion is still set to be heard in 2025. Even if the Judge rules that anti-SLAPP laws (s.137.1 of Courts of Justice Act) don’t apply, it’s likely to be dismissed anyway. The reason: Bridle is a faculty member at the school. UGuelph employees are bound by a collective bargaining agreement. In particular, Article 40 outlines that arbitration — not litigation — is the expected path. See earlier review of this case. At its core, the allegations against the university itself (and its staff) amount to a workplace dispute.

Bridle dodged one bullet by dropping his case against Fisman. It remains to be seen if he’ll come to his senses regarding the University of Guelph.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim
(3) Byram Bridle Statement Of Defence
(4) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Fisman
(5) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(6) University Of Guelph, Text Of Collective Bargaining Agreement
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/second-anti-slapp-motion-commenced/

Posted on

Jordan Peterson Quietly Drops Lawsuit Against Wilfrid Laurier University

The long anticipated anti-SLAPP Motion between Jordan Peterson and Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) will never be heard. Shortly before it was scheduled to go ahead, the parties quietly settled the case. Or to be more accurate, Peterson dropped the lawsuit and agreed to pay partial costs.

In their Motion Record, submitted back in 2022, Laurier includes correspondence with Peterson over the scheduling of Cross-Examinations. The school attempted many times to set dates. However, it appears that he repeatedly gave them the run around.

Put simply, if a party wants to put evidence into the file, the other side is entitled to ask them questions. This is commonly referred to as “testing the evidence”. Peterson can put anything he wants into an Affidavit, as long as he’s willing to be questioned about it.

For background on the case, see here and here.

Now, he won’t be on the hook for full indemnity, or 100% of costs. This is typical when defamation suits are dismissed under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act for Ontario, or the anti-SLAPP laws. Instead, he’ll only have to pay a portion of those.

To be clear, Peterson never won anything. He just negotiated a lower rate in return for abandoning this lawsuit. He dragged out the case for 5 1/2 years just to leverage reduced costs.

From the April 15th, 2024 Civil Endorsement of Justice Akazaki:

The case conference was brought before me as the judge assigned to hear the anti-SLAPP motion on April 18, 2024. Before I began the conference, counsel confirmed that there was no objection to my hearing the motion due to my participation, prior to my appointment, in an on-campus debate organized by University of Toronto students touching on the plaintiff’s ideas. I have, separately, determined there are no grounds for recusal.

The grounds for the motion for adjournment was the need to join the two related actions. Subsection 137.1(5) does not provide for judicial discretion based on other steps that could be taken, because it specifically prohibits further steps. Once an anti-SLAPP motion has been brought, the plaintiff cannot even discontinue the action: Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555, at para. 35. Since the grounds for seeking the adjournment entail prohibited procedural steps, I saw no reason to grant the adjournment.

I discussed with counsel the nature of the second statement of claim as being less of a libel claim than a pleading of aggravation of the cause of action set out in the first statement of claim. Counsel for the University stated that she had no instructions to bring an anti-SLAPP motion in the first claim. Counsel appeared willing to discuss a resolution of the motion, possibly subject to argument regarding costs under subsections (7) and (8).

In the event the motion is resolved or the issues change as a result of that discussion, counsel should contact my judicial assistant to inform me same.

Few people know (or will remember) that Peterson actually sued Laurier twice. The first time was after the Shepherd audio got leaked. The second was when Laurier publicly responded to the first lawsuit. The whole thing smacks of lawfare.

At the first case conference, Peterson tried to join the 2 suit. But since invoking anti-SLAPP in the second lawsuit stays that proceeding, procedurally, this isn’t allowed to happen.

Apparently, the original lawsuit is still open. This is the one which Laurier filed a 3rd Party Claim against Lindsay Shepherd, arguing that she’s responsible for damages Peterson may have suffered.

From April 18th, 2024 AMENDED Civil Endorsement of Justice Akazaki:

On consent, this court hereby orders:

  1. The motion is granted, and this action is dismissed.
  2. The plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs of the motion and of the action on a partial indemnity basis, in an amount to be agreed by the parties or to be assessed.
  3. If the costs are to be assessed, the assessment may be commenced by either party in accordance with rule 58.
  4. The costs amount shall be payable within 30 days of the parties’ agreement on value or the date of assessment, as the case may be.

So, that appears to be the end of it. Peterson won’t have to face the consequences of his lawsuit, and Laurier will get (at least some) costs back. The original lawsuit, while still open, seems dead in the water. There’s no way to advance it without facing another anti-SLAPP Motion.

Considering that both defamation lawsuits were filed in 2018, this comes across as a weak way to end it. Peterson has been — for years — dodging attempts to move the anti-SLAPP Motion forward. Now, just before the hearing, he jumps ship.

Oddly, Peterson isn’t as media happy about it now as he was then.

(1) Wilfrid Laurier University Anti-SLAPP Motion Record
(2) Wilfrid Laurier University Endorsement Form
(3) Wilfrid Laurier University Amended Endorsement
(4) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/CaseLookup/CSLKUP001.xhtml
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNv4LFpGf4
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zLcMGCedA
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjQeLn0hyI
(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYuqrO8LLo
(10) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jordan-peterson-lawsuit-wilfrid-laurier?

Posted on

A Look Into Gill’s $2 Million Professional Malpractice Claim

Kulvinder Gill’s $2 million malpractice lawsuit is out, and is it ever interesting. When previously covered, just the Notice of Action was filed, but now, there’s the Statement of Claim.

Here’s some background information on what has transpired since 2020.

It alleges incompetence, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and an overall lack of professionalism. This covers both Gill’s defamation lawsuits — there are 2 — and her dealings with the CPSO. There’s certainly a lot to break down.

The Notice listed the value at $1.85 million, but the Claim is now for $2 million. The reason is that the demand for aggravated and/or punitive damages had risen from $100,000 to $250,000. No defence has yet been filed, but it will be worthwhile to read when it is.

Disclaimer: This is just the Statement of Claim, and nothing has yet been proven. More than likely, there is some slant in Gill’s favour. However, the content is an eye opening look into how things unfolded.

Gill says (paragraph 9) that Galati represented that he, and his junior associate, Samantha Coomara, had significant experience dealing with defamation cases and the CPSO. Apparently, he talked Gill out of using other lawyers, claiming they had: (a) limited experience; (b) conflicts of interest; and (c) never litigated in Court.

As an aside: having dealt with Coomara personally, she is incompetent, and is unfit to litigate defamation Claims. She has a limited grasp of civil procedure, and would be better off working as a clerk or secretary. She doesn’t even know what documents go in Motion Records.

Gill says (paragraph 13) that she was misled into what her retainer was to cover. She relied on a verbal agreement that it would cover both her CPSO and defamation matters.

Gill says (paragraph 19) that bringing together 23 different Defendants for her defamation case with Lamba was done to leverage larger settlements. She suggests that Galati misrepresented the situation by labelling everyone “co-conspirators”, in order to make the case stronger. Considering many Defendants didn’t even know each other, this seems like a bad faith abuse of the Court process.

Gill says (paragraph 20) that Galati’s conduct was, at least in part, designed to raise is own profile as a fighter against public health measures. She implies that she was used as a pawn to advance his own professional image. He did this to the detriment of her interests. This is something she’ll repeat over and over in the Claim.

Gill says (paragraph 23) that she wasn’t promptly notified that one of the potential Defendants had threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion in response to the Notice of Libel that was sent. In other words, at least one person was quite willing to use this method. Gills states she didn’t find out until after the suit had already been thrown out. If true, it would likely mean this was withheld from her in order to prevent her from backing out of suing.

Gill says (paragraph 25) that she had no idea the Defendants would be filing anti-SLAPP Motions until they actually happened. If true, it would mean that her counsel failed to advise her of the most likely path forward. This would amount to professional malpractice. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to quickly screen out defamation cases.

Gill says (paragraph 26) that she was never given the informed choice as to whether to proceed with the case or not. She further adds that she was unaware of the potentially crippling cost consequence (full indemnity, or 100%). If she had been, she wouldn’t have pursued the case.

Gill says (paragraph 27) that she never got the opportunity to review the Statement of Claim before it was filed in December 2020.

Gill says (paragraph 29) that she didn’t get the kind of service that the fees warranted. Instead, her defamation pleading was a “template”, or a cut-and-paste version of earlier cases. Considering the money involved, she expected far more. It’s been stated here many times that Galati simply recycles his cases.

Gill says (paragraph 34) that she only found out after the fact that Amir Attaran, in a separate proceeding, had filed his own anti-SLAPP Motion. Apparently, he had been threatening to do this for some time, but it hadn’t been communicated to her.

Gill says (paragraph 38) that she wasn’t kept in the loop as to the activity surrounding the main defamation case. She had also WRONGLY been assured in February 2021 that the anti-SLAPP Motions weren’t a threat, as they wouldn’t be considered public interest expression. That turned out to be very wrong.

Gill says (paragraph 39) that Galati waited until the last minute before her CPSO deadlines that he wanted more money. Under the circumstances, and without more time, she felt forced to go along with it.

Gill says (paragraph 41) she was never consulted regarding the documents submitted for the CPSO hearings. She adds correctly that the Ontario Court threw out her Application for Judicial Review because she hadn’t exhausted internal mechanisms first. in short, it was doomed to fail since her counsel lacked a basic understanding of jurisdiction.

Gill says (paragraph 45) that the Affidavit Galati prepared for her was largely just a cut-and-paste from the Statement of Claim. It lacked the evidence within, didn’t explain why it was necessary, and didn’t lay out the harm suffered — an essential element.

And how come there was never an Affidavit for Ashinder Lamba?

Gill says (paragraph 51) that she was finally made aware of the true costs during cross-examinations. This was well into 2021. When defamation cases in Ontario are thrown out anti-SLAPP laws, or s.137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act, the default position is “full indemnity”. This is 100% of Court costs. This means that a losing Plaintiff would have to pay for everything. Gill claims she wasn’t advised of this in advance, and she should have been.

Gill says (paragraph 52 and 53) that Galati advised against making more settlement offers to other Defendants. This is nonsense, given how strong anti-SLAPP laws are. Gill states she later found out that there were offers coming in, and that Galati lied to her about it. If true, this is professional misconduct.

Gill says (paragraph 56) that Galati was drinking alcohol prior to the anti-SLAPP hearing in September 2021. She says she had to ask him not to drink at the actual hearing. Now, this is just her word, but he does drink during the livestreams with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada, so it comes across as plausible.

The gif is clipped from the February 8th, 2023 stream with Tanya Gaw, at the 1:24:00 mark.

Gill says (paragraph 60) that at her November 2021 CPSO hearing, there were several observers in attendance. She found out afterwards that this had been done to generate publicity and business for the CRC. However, she didn’t want her matters to be a public spectacle.

The Claim goes on and on, but the general theme is that Gill got thoroughly incompetent representation, and from a lawyer who had other agendas. She was kept out out of the loop with regards to important decisions. Galati also apparently tried to bill her in ways that fell outside their retainer agreement.

A few other points are worth looking at in detail:

Wholehearted Media Is A Galati Front Operation

Gill takes issue with some content being broadcast by an outlet called Wholehearted Media, which she had believed was independent. She alleges that she only later found out that her counsel co-founded it, and profited from the income it generated. In fact, he sells an e-course on the site.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with lawyers, or any professionals expressing views publicly. They have the same right to free speech. However, if there is any direct, personal involvement with any media promoting its work, that needs to be disclosed. Gill says that it wasn’t made clear.

In a July 13, 2022 stream with Vaccine Choice Canada, Galati admitted that he ran Wholehearted Media with Rajie Kabli. See the clipped version.

The earliest version of the site the Wayback Machine saved is February 2021. So, this isn’t some ancient, long running publication. The earliest story seems to be announcing the July 2020 lawsuit with Vaccine Choice Canada. And in the earlier “about” section, it’s clear who runs it.

Here’s where things get interesting.

However, when Galati was specifically confronted about Wholehearted Media in his defamation suit with Canuck Law, he said under oath that wasn’t involved in the content. If true, it would mean that the site promotes his work — as a lawyer — but that he has no say in the matter.

Don’t worry, there’s more on that later.

Cases Being Used To “Double-Dip” For Donations

Archiving sites like the Wayback Machine are a gold mine of information for researchers and investigators. Just because content is removed or changed from a site, it doesn’t really disappear.

Gill is angry (paragraph 40) that her case was being used to generate side income for her lawyer. Despite her — and Lamba — paying retainers, their case was posted next to links soliciting donations.

And how does Gill know that donations to the Constitutional Rights Centre exceeded $1 million? Most likely, because it was published previously.

Although the CRC site has since been altered, the Wayback Machine shows that the Gill/Lamba case was published. It was next to a series of links soliciting donations. Clicking on those leads to various PayPal accounts.

Gee, who posted these?

This is from the defamation case against CSASPP.

From paragraph 47 of his Affidavit (in the anti-SLAPP Motion) the online donations are listed. The PayPal records themselves are also entered into evidence.

(a) in the first four months, September to December, 2020 it received $179,505.00;
(b) in 2021 it received $786,706.00, progressively tapering down, monthly, following the Defendants’ defamation and tortious conduct against me.
(c) in 2022 it received $43,878.00.
(d) as of to date, 2023, it has received $4,537.00 which is 53% less than 2022.

Note: this Affidavit was compiled in March 2023, hence the skewed 2023 number.

Starting on page 186 of the Transcript Brief, question 116, it gets into the income in recent years. It’s admitted that donations to the site were large, including over $786,000 in the year 2021.

During the CSASPP anti-SLAPP Motion, Galati refused to specify how much of the $1 million in PayPal donations went to him personally. He also refused to give a full accounting of what his total earnings were during that period. Refusing to disclose particulars contributed to that case being thrown out.

Now, in her malpractice suit, Gill is referencing these online donations to demonstrate a conflict of interest with her representation. Her case had been used — presumably without her permission — to solicit funds for the CRC.

Gill alleges that this amounts to a breach of contract, and a breach of fiduciary duty. Her lawyer’s obligations are to her, and not to self promote, as seems to be the case here.

The Federal Workers and Ontario First Responders (a.k.a. Ontario Health Workers) are also listed on the page soliciting donations. This is despite clients having paid retainers of $1,000 and $1,5000 respectively. So, it’s not just Gill’s case where there’s multiple incomes.

Health/Retirement Were Just Excuses To Dump Gill

Gill says in the Statement of Claim that Galati used his recent health troubles to remove himself as her lawyer. He would be unable to continue representing her, and would likely end up retiring overall.

However, Gill points out that despite this, he continued to represent other clients, and even filed new litigation. Perhaps his illness was case specific. It comes across as an excuse to dump her personally. If this turns out to be the case, he would likely be on the hook for the extra costs she incurred in obtaining new counsel.

Summary Of Incompetence/Negligence Allegations

Starting at page 15 in the Statement of Claim, the specific acts are listed. And is it ever a list. These are serious accusations, and they venture into the realm of professional misconduct.

a) He improperly commenced a claim that was doomed to fail.

b) He failed to advise Dr. Gill of the risks in commencing a defamation action in the Province of Ontario, including the very real potential for anti-SLAPP motions to be filed, the test for these motions and the likelihood for an adverse full indemnity costs award.

c) He failed to pursue any potential settlement with the Defamation Defendants, which would have mitigated damages and potentially rendered an action unnecessary.

d) He failed to advise Dr. Gill of critically important information that would have allowed her to make an informed decision regarding various steps in the litigation, including but not limited to (i) initiating an action, (ii) continuing the action, (iii) settling the action against various parties and (iv) properly responding to the anti-SLAPP motions.

e) He failed to properly and competently articulate, advance and argue a meritorious claim against some of the Defamation Defendants.

f) He employed and/or relied upon junior lawyers, staff, and other employees who lacked sufficient competency skills, and training for the tasks they were undertaking.

g) He held himself out as an expert in the field of defamation law, when he knew or ought to have known that he, in fact, lacked any such expertise.

h) He failed to provide Dr. Gill with competent advice and recommendations.

i) He failed to communicate with Dr. Gill in a regular, open, transparent, and clear manner.

j) He failed to provide Dr. Gill with notice and/or sufficient notice of deadlines in her legal proceedings.

k) He missed and failed to advise Dr. Gill that he had missed critical deadlines in the CPSO matters (including appeals to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board).

l) He failed to take instructions or solicit informed consent from Dr. Gill on important steps in the litigation.

m) He placed his own beliefs, interests and/or ideology above the interests of his client, Dr. Gill.

n) He acted for Dr. Gill even though he was in a conflict of interest, seeking to advance his own interests, political or otherwise, and to personally benefit from acting for Dr. Gill and putting his own interests ahead of hers.

o) He committed flagrant breaches of his duties owed to Dr. Gill pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

p) He drafted, prepared, and issued a grossly deficient Statement of Claim.

q) He committed numerous errors and breaches in defending the anti-SLAPP Motions.

r) He prepared and delivered deficient responding motion material to the anti-SLAPP Motions.

s) He failed to provide Dr. Gill with a copy of the Motion Decision in a timely manner.

t) He prepared and delivered deficient cost submissions.

u) He prepared and delivered a deficient Notice of Appeal.

v) He abandoned Dr. Gill’s legal cases at critical times and left her in a vulnerable position.

w) He generally acted as incompetent legal counsel in advancing and protecting Dr. Gill’s interests.

x) Such further particulars as counsel for the plaintiff will advise.

Keep in mind, this is just Gill’s Statement of Claim, so this is her version of events. Still, it comes across as believable. It boggles the mind that any truly informed person would have filed such a lawsuit. Anyone with a working knowledge of anti-SLAPP laws would have immediately seen that this case was very likely to be thrown out.

As with her interview a month ago, Gill doesn’t show any regret or remorse for the people that she waged lawfare against. Indeed, her grievance seems to be that Galati and Coomara were incompetent at doing it, not that it was a bad idea in the first place.

Another thought: given Elon Musk’s promise to cover Gill financially, how does it impact this case? Her GiveSendGo has also raised a substantial amount of money.

Frankly, this case seems unlikely to go to Trial. As a practicing lawyer, malpractice insurance is mandatory, and the case will probably be settled. Still, it’s nice to finally have this out.

As for the Maciver Defendants: Sharkawy, Polevoy, Caulfield, Cohen, Boozary, etc…. they’re presumably still out large sums of money. Gill will never fully pay, especially in light of the “settlements” she forced. However, there is another way they can recoup their losses. And the answer is pretty obvious.

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

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

GILL’S LEGAL BILLS:
(1) https://twitter.com/XNews/status/1771902773358916041
(2) https://www.givesendgo.com/kulvinder
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_La5W3PP4
(4) CanLII Version Of Ontario Anti-SLAPP Legislation

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

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

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

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

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