Category: SLAPP

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action Update: Several Motions And An Appeal

It’s been over 3 years since a Proposed Class Action lawsuit was filed in Ottawa. This was against the leaders of the infamous protest challenging lockdown measures. The case has essentially disappeared from the public consciousness, so it’s a good time to review it.

To summarize: the case hasn’t substantially moved forward. While several rulings have been handed down, they are primarily of a procedural nature.

***There is, of course, the absurd irony of the Plaintiffs filing a Class Action against others who were protesting in favour of freedom — and theirs included. Perhaps they would have preferred that martial law measures continue indefinitely.

Incidently, donations are still being sought.

As of now, the case is on hold pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision. The Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP Motion — which was dismissed — so they are trying again.

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

It wasn’t just Trudeau and Freeland who took the heavy handed approach of freezing assets. The Plaintiffs here also sought (and obtained) an ex-parte Order against the Defendants. They wanted to seize cash that could otherwise have been used to prolong the protests in Ottawa.

Justice MacLeod’s ruling was made without giving anyone the chance to make submissions on their own behalf.

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim underwent various revisions. Successive changes typically require either consent, or a Judge to permit it. The Plaintiffs found that these were needed due to initial defects. Amending is quite common in such lawsuits.

There’s the original, amended, and fresh as amended versions.

Unsurprisingly, the Defendants moved to have the pleading struck entirely. However, Justice MacLeod had this to say about competing Motions.

[1] This motion deals with the form of the Statement of Claim in this proposed class proceeding which, for convenience, I will call the “Convoy Class Proceeding”. Technically, there are two motions, a motion by the plaintiff to amend the claim and a motion by a group of defendants to strike it. The issue is the same. Is the proposed Statement of Claim acceptable?

[35] If the parties agreed or intended that the Convoy participants would blockade the streets, disrupt the operations of the city and disrupt the normal activities of the citizens, they may be found to be joint tortfeasors. Extension of such liability to those who continued to donate funds once the nature of the activity in Ottawa became apparent may be novel but it is not impossible of success. Concerted action liability is a fact-sensitive and fact specific concept. It may be (as Ms. Belton suggests) that there are policy grounds for not extending liability to a class of donors even if the use or misuse of the funds was foreseeable. That is not an analysis that should be done at a pleadings stage.

[36] All of the necessary facts are pleaded. In some cases, they are pleaded more than once. The proposed statement of claim clearly discloses a plausible cause of action against all of the categories of defendants including the new defendants which the plaintiffs seek to name in place of the “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants.

[37] There can be no prejudice in granting the amendments and adding or substituting parties for the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. This is because no statements of defence have yet been filed and no limitation periods have expired. No one wants to be sued. Certainly no one wants to be named as a defendant in what may turn out to be protracted litigation but that is not a factor which precludes an amendment or the addition or deletion of parties.

Typically, Proposed Class Actions name a fixed number of Defendants, but allow for the possibility of many more Plaintiffs. This case was made more difficult by the possibility of including more Defendants at later dates. In a sense, it was something of a moving target.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

The Defendants chose an interesting strategy in the Summer of 2023. They decided to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion, on the grounds that the lawsuit infringed on their right to free expression. On the surface, it seemed to be a reasonable option.

However, a serious problem faced the Defendants: anti-SLAPP laws only protect the expression if the parties are willing to admit to doing it. Justice MacLeod stated:

[19] At the first stage of the analysis, Section 137.1 is therefore engaged at least for those defendants who acknowledge having participated in the activity. I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that the protection of s. 137.1 may not be available to a party who denies having made the expression at issue. A party cannot simultaneously claim protection for freedom of speech under anti-SLAPP legislation while denying involvement in the expression at issue.

[22] The plaintiffs represent the residents, business owners, and employees whose property rights, right to operate a business or right to pursue their livelihood were allegedly disrupted by the activities of the protesters. While the plaintiffs acknowledge the right of the protestors to make their views known to government and to seek support from the public, the plaintiffs allege that the ongoing noise, pollution, blocking of the streets and impeding use of their property and businesses was tortious or unlawful. This is a very significant issue for the exercise of rights in a free and democratic society.

Another problem the Defendants face is that many of the allegations — whether true or not — fall outside the realm of free expression, such as blocking off streets.

While the Judge agreed that the motivations behind the protest (anger of lockdown measures) was public interest, the conduct involved wasn’t necessarily protected. Ultimately, the anti-SLAPP Motion was dismissed.

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

The Defendants then went to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Appellants’ and Respondents’ arguments are available.

Without getting into the weeds, the Appellants (Defendants) argued that Justice MacLeod didn’t apply the anti-SLAPP framework correctly. They stated that there was ample grounds within the law to dismiss the case altogether. The Respondents (Plaintiffs) countered that the Lower Court got it right, and that there was no reason to intervene. The hearing took place, but a ruling was deferred.

And that is where things remain today. As of now, the Court of Appeal has not yet handed down a decision. Of course, Leave to Appeal may still be sought by either side. It’s by no means over.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

It’s worth noting that there was been no movement in terms of hearing the case on the merits. The vast amounts of paperwork all have to do with administrative steps within the case.

February 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim (original version) is filed.

February 17th, 2022: The Court hears a request for a Mareva Injunction ex parte, meaning that the opposing side was not given notice, and not able to present a case on their own behalf. The purpose was to put convoy funds under control of the Court until a final outcome could be determined.

February 22nd, 2022: The Court granted the Injunction.

March 10th, 2022: The Court extends the Mareva Injunction until March 31st, 2022.

April 1st, 2022: The Court adjourns competing Motions until May 2nd. The Plaintiffs wanted to continue the Mareva Injunction, while the Defendants wanted it dissolved.

November 7th, 2022: The Motion to amend the Statement of Claim was supposed to have been heard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, it’s adjourned until January 2023.

November 15th, 2022: The Court hears a Motion from Chris Garrah and Benjamin Dichter, attempting to access $200,000 from the frozen funds. The stated purpose was to be able to finance a defence to this lawsuit.

December 6th, 2022: The Court denies the Motion to free up the money, but allows for the possibility to revisit the issue if circumstances change. Parties are told to try to settle the issue of costs themselves.

January 24, 2023: The Court hears arguments on 2 overlapping Motions. The Plaintiffs wanted to further amend the pleadings, while the Defendants wanted them struck for not having a Cause of Action. The decision is reserved until later.

March 13, 2023: The Court rules on the January 2023 Motions. In the end, it was about the same thing: is the pleading acceptable? It’s decided that the Statement of Claim may be changed to accommodate deficiencies.

June 9th, 2023: Court refuses to award any costs at all over 2 competing Motions. This stems from the earlier March 13th, 2023 ruling.

July 27th, 2023: The Ottawa Court sets dates for various steps within the proposed anti-SLAPP Motion. This is Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

August 25th, 2023: Moving Party Motion Record (document collection) is served.

September 15, 2023: Cross-Examinations of various parties happened.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file volumes I and II of their supplementary evidence.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file their anti-SLAPP Factum (arguments).

December 7th, 2023: Responding Factum (Plaintiffs) is filed.

December 14th, 2023: Anti-SLAPP Motion is heard.

February 5th, 2024: The Ottawa Court refuses to dismiss the case under “anti-SLAPP” laws. Rather than accept the ruling, the Defendants chose to appeal it.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li et al. v Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim February 2022
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 2022
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 16 2022
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim February 2022
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum January 2023
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim March 2023
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I November 2023
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II November 2023
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum November 2023
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum December 2023
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities December 2023
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities December 2023
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing March 2024
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum March 2024
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum October 2024

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them.

Posted on

MacKenzie/Levant Defamation Suit: $3,500 For Security Needed, No Trial Yet

Often, defamation lawsuits demand million dollar judgements, though not always.

Plaintiffs can also ask for much less. A broadcast from July 2023 has resulted in a $35,000 lawsuit from Jeremy MacKenzie in Toronto Small Claims Court. That’s the most allowed in Ontario.

Specifically, MacKenzie is suing: (a) Ezra Levant personally; (b) Rebel Media Holdings Inc.; and (c) Rebel News Network Ltd.

Worth noting, Small Claims Courts in general are a very simplified way of resolving disputes over small amounts of money. Cost awards are typically capped as well.This can be a welcome relief to the amount of paperwork that happens in Superior Court cases. The typical steps are involved:

  1. File Plaintiff’s Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim)
  2. File Defence (a.k.a. Statement of Defence)
  3. Attend Settlement Conference
  4. Book Trial (if no Settlement reached)
  5. Have the Trial

Steps #1 through #3 are complete, and a Trial needs to be booked.

Since no agreement was reached at the Settlement Conference, MacKenzie is free to request a Trial.

A complication arose, when Levant filed a Motion for Security for Costs. Essentially, he wanted MacKenzie to have to pay a deposit to the Court pending the outcome of the case. part of the issue was that MacKenzie is a Nova Scotia resident, and presumably had no assets in Ontario. An agreement was reached in the amount of $3,500.

At the time of writing this, it doesn’t appear that MacKenzie has either: (a) paid the deposit; or (b) booked a Trial date.

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

The lawsuit seems to focus around a July 25th, 2023 of the Ezra Levant Show. MacKenzie is suing over claims that he was slandered as follows:

a. That Mr. MacKenzie founded an explicitly racist organization;
b. That Mr. MacKenzie is a government agent;
c. That Mr. MacKenzie concocted a social movement to entrap the Coutts Four in a criminal offence.

In fairness, Levant has walked a tightrope before as to whether his comments cross into defamation. We’ll have to see what happens here.

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Levant claims that it’s obvious, or should be obvious, that a lot of what he covers is opinion, or commentary, and shouldn’t be taken as fact. Essentially, he’s setting up a “Fair Comment” Defence.

From page 10 in the Defence: “On the contrary, Levant clearly states during the July 25 Podcast that the Plaintiff started Diagolon as a joke or a prank, and that the Coutts 4 got into trouble because they took the joke seriously and went too far with their role playing.”

Page 9, paragraph 18, Levant says he genuinely believes that Diagolon was set up as an explicitly racist organization, but qualifies it as “I think it was done as a joke”.

From the Exhibits filed, it seems MacKenzie had his social media accounts scoured for evidence. While some was probably trolling, it may not sit well with the Court.

Should the case ever get to Trial, a Judge can make those determinations.

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

In his Defence, Levant filed MacKenzie’s POEC testimony as an Exhibit. This was the infamous time in 2022 when he admitted under oath that he reported “extremist” behaviour, and was willing to have a “continuous relationship” with law enforcement in identifying threats to public safety.

While this may not be enough to prove MacKenzie is a “fed”, it shows, at a minimum, that he was willing to work with them. His “informing” did lead to the arrest of Landon Preik, of the group, Liberate Your Neighbourhood.

It’s also unclear what damages MacKenzie suffered from the “fed” allegations. He’s been labelled one for several years, so it’s hardly new.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

October 17th, 2023: MacKenzie files the Plaintiff’s Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim) through his lawyer, Frank Wu. The Claim demands $35,000 (the most allowed in Ontario Small Claims), and seeks the maximum costs allowed.

November 20th, 2023: Levant files a Defence, which includes MacKenzie’s testimony before the POEC Committee, and screenshots of some of his comments.

April 22nd, 2024: Levant submits his witness list for the upcoming Settlement Conference, which is just himself.

May 3rd, 2024: Wu submits Affidavits from witnesses Jason Lavigne and Kira Decoste.

May 8th, 2024: Deputy Judge Wong certifies that there was no agreement at the Settlement Conference. Defendants are also permitted to bring a Motion for Security for Costs.

August 7th, 2024: The Defence requested the scheduling of a hearing to determine Security for Costs, and whether MacKenzie would need to post before Trial.

November 8th, 2024: Defence files Motion Record for Security for Costs. MacKenzie being an out-of-Province litigant weighed against him.

November 18th, 2024: On consent, it’s agreed MacKenzie must pay $3,500.

The deposit hasn’t yet been paid, and it’s unclear if it ever will be. But should the case ever go to Trial, transcripts will likely be published on Levant’s show.

(1) MacKenzie Plaintiffs Claim October 2023
(2) MacKenzie Defence November 2023
(3) MacKenzie Defence Affidavit Of Service November 2023
(4) MacKenzie Defence List Of Proposed Witnesses April 2024
(5) MacKenzie Defence Witnesses Affidavit Of Service April 2024
(6) MacKenzie Affidavit Of Jason Lavigne May 2024
(7) MacKenzie Affidavit Of Kira Decoste 2024
(8) MacKenzie Endorsement Of No Settlement May 2024
(9) MacKenzie Defence Request To Clerk August 2024
(10) MacKenzie Defence Motion For Security For Costs November 2024
(11) MacKenzie Defence Motion Record Affidavit Of Service November 2024
(12) MacKenzie Endorsement For Security For Costs November 2024

Posted on

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Costs Plaintiffs Nearly $150,000 So Far

A few months ago, we looked at the Cornell decision, which resulted in CAHN (the Canadian Anti-Hate Network) and Bernie Farber being removed from 2 different lawsuits. Now, the other shoe has dropped, and Plaintiffs are required to pay out nearly $50,000 in Court fees.

This is, of course, the high profile lawsuit pushing back against the freezing of bank accounts and the invocation of the Emergencies Act in February, 2022.

Due to the gross incompetence of the Plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Statement of Claim made allegations of defamation — but without specifying the defamatory content. Quite predictably, this led to Farber and CAHN bringing forward an anti-SLAPP Motion. Since such Motions stay or “freeze” the proceedings, there’s no opportunity to amend the pleadings, and correct any deficiencies.

And to be clear, it is the incompetence of counsel that led to this.

Loberg Ector LLP does commercial litigation — just very poorly it seems.

Interestingly, counsel for Farber and CAHN cited just $50,000 in costs to bring the anti-SLAPP Motion, while the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed nearly double that amount.

One has to love the law. Where else can “professionals” mess up big time, and then bill clients extra to fix their own mistakes?

A Look Into the Decision On Costs

[2] The CAHN defendants request costs of the action and the motion in the amount of $49,319.13 on a full indemnity basis.

[3] The plaintiffs submit that an award of full indemnity costs is not appropriate in the circumstances and that the costs requested are neither fair nor reasonable. The plaintiffs submit that a costs award of $10,000 would fall within a “fair range.”[1] The plaintiffs’ bill of costs reflects full indemnity fees and disbursements in the amount of $95,881.29.

[4] For the following reasons, I conclude that the CAHN defendants are entitled to their costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $49,319.13, all-inclusive.

[11] The plaintiffs claimed a total of $44,000,000, on a joint and several basis, against the defendants, including the CAHN defendants. This litigation is, in a word, “massive.” In addition to the CAHN defendants, the named defendants include government actors, government agencies, police defendants, and various financial institutions. The motion addressed important issues. In addition to the complexity inherent in a motion brought under s. 137.1 of the CJA, the plaintiffs sought to “look past” the statement of claim to allegations set out in the affidavit of Mr. Gircys. Out of an abundance of caution, the CAHN defendants addressed those allegations in their factum. The plaintiffs cross-examined Mr. Farber and Mr. Warman on their affidavits. While the plaintiffs were entitled to do so, the CAHN defendants incurred costs as a result.

[12] The CAHN defendants offered to settle the motion on June 11, 2024, by requesting the payment of $10,000 (the costs of preparing the notice of motion and affidavits) and the dismissal of the action against them. Although the offer is not r. 49 compliant, it is an additional factor that I have considered in assessing whether the costs requested are fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs’ offer to settle (which involved the dismissal of certain aspects of the claim against the CAHN defendants but which provided that the claim in civil conspiracy would survive and that no costs would be paid by the plaintiffs) does not impact my analysis of the costs to be awarded to the CAHN defendants.

[13] The plaintiffs do not take issue with the hourly rates of legal counsel for the CAHN defendants. I find the hourly rates are reasonable, having regard to their years of experience. The plaintiffs submit that it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the fees of the CAHN defendants because the bill of costs refers to 137.5 cumulative hours spent by two lawyers, one law clerk, and one articling student. While it would have been preferable for the CAHN defendants’ bill of costs to reflect the division of work undertaken, I note that the plaintiffs’ bill of costs adopts the same “cumulative” approach. In any event, the costs incurred by the CAHN defendants would have been well within the reasonable expectation of the plaintiffs, having regard to their own costs of the motion in the amount of $95,881.29.

Plaintiffs’ counsel wasted $96,000 defending (unsuccessfully) against an anti-SLAPP Motion. The Motion is a direct result of their own failure to properly draft the Statement of Claim. Other fees amounted to another $50,000. Keep in mind, this presumably is in addition to other costs expected to pile up.

And that leads to the next problem: the Plaintiffs are now broke

Take Action Canada Soliciting More Donations For Fees

Recently, the advocacy group, Take Action Canada, posted a public call for donations to continue the lawsuit. They also mass emailed, offering to give interviews.

Justice Mosley’s findings have cleared the path to a floodgate of legal actions against those who wish to trample on our Canadian rights & freedoms.

A group of very brave Canadians, without hesitation, have picked up the gauntlet on behalf of ALL Canadians to ensure that those responsible are held to the highest standards.

The legal team at Loberg Ector LLP has played a significant role in the Superior Court review by Justice Mosley’s determination that the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act was unlawful.

Following the review, the legal team analyzed numerous documents and interviewed numerous witnesses in the determination of a remedial process before assembling a Statement of Claim and Notice of Action.

On February 14, 2024 they proceeded with a claim for 20 Plaintiffs against a number of involved defendants including the Prime Minister of Canada, and various cabinet ministers, police officers, banks and others deemed to be involved in the freezing of Canadians’ bank accounts.

All defendants have been served notice. The legal team is awaiting responses from the Defendants before proceeding with the next phase of this process.

To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.

As this was brought to our attention, we at Take Action Canada are taking action.

The plaintiffs are risking much for all of us and in turn our national support will send the strongest message.

The Canadian Trucker Convoy inspired the world and ignited a global wave carrying the message that we will never give up or give in. The time is now for us to grab the gauntlet and use the power of this decision to hold people and the government accountable.

But here’s where the other shoe drops. It’s stated that: “To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.” One has to wonder if the sudden $150,000 in legal costs has depleted all of the retainer funds.

Take Action Canada posted a redacted verion (see archive) of the Notice of Action in order to attract interest. What has been redacted? Any mention of Bernie Farber or CAHN as Defendants. One has to suspect that no one would donate if the full truth of Loberg Ector LLP’s screw up was published.

Quite simply: Take Action Canada posted a “scrubbed” version that conceals the fact that Farber and CAHN were initially sued as well. There’s also no mention anywhere about the $150,000 in costs that resulted from the anti-SLAPP Motion.

When contacted about this, the group claimed not to be in the loop with how the litigation was proceeding. More importantly, they seemed uninterested.

Did they learn nothing from the Katanik disaster?

So, What’s Happening Now With The Case?

At this point, no Statements of Defence have yet been filed by anyone. However: (a) Ottawa Police; (b) Assiniboine Credit Union; (c) Canadian Tire Bank; and (d) Meridian Credit Union have all indicated that they intend to.

The Plaintiffs — as of now — haven’t yet filed an amended Claim.

Of course, the remainder of the lawsuit is so poorly drafted that Motions to Strike are likely coming anyway. All sorts of conspiracies are alleged, without pleading the necessary detail.

Anyhow, remember to donate!

(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) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(16) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(17) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(18) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(19) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(20) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(21) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Just A Coincidence? Ferryman’s Toll & Elisa Ferryman-Cohen?

Is this where “The Ferryman’s Toll” really comes from?

Earlier this year, this site covered the Cornell lawsuit, filed in Ottawa. This was to be the big case against the Government and the banks, for how they acted under the guise of a national emergency. Supposedly, this was the comedy of errors that led Ottawa and law enforcement to panic based on publications from online trolls.

But alas, the hype was overblown. Bernie Farber and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) were able to remove themselves from the proceedings by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion. It worked, and they’re off the hook. Plaintiffs tried to litigate the #HateGate scandal, based on the work of Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan. In doing so, the Plaintiffs’ incompetent lawyers screwed up the case by not properly pleading defamation allegations.

CAHN’s lawyers apparently conducted the entire anti-SLAPP Motion for under $50,000, which is far cheaper than what normally happens in Ontario. The Plaintiffs still thought that was too high.

As for Hategan’s background:

  • She co-authored the “HateGate” report with Caryma Sa’d.
  • She was involved with a “hate” group called Heritage Front in the 1990’s.
  • She became an informant for the Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.).
  • She helped gather evidence and intelligence for the police.
  • She helped take down many “racists” connected to Heritage Front.
  • She went on to do many talks about the dangers and harms of racism
  • And, Heritage Front turned out to be co-founded by Grant Bristow, a CSIS agent.

None of the above claims are disputed by Hategan. She has spoken and written about her experiences with the group many times over the years.

As an aside, both Hategan and Sa’d (unsuccessfully) sued Bernie Farber recently.

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)
Sa’d v. Yew, 2023 FC 1286 (CanLII)

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

There’s been speculation that Diagolon turned out to be the next iteration of Heritage Front. This is the group run by Jeremy “Raging Dissident” MacKenzie, Derek “Rants” Harrison, and Alex “Ferryman’s Toll” Vriend. And there is a lot of overlap between the two.

But in following up on the Ottawa lawsuit, this gem emerged:

Farber, CAHN Claim Hategan Is Really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen

34. Several other portions of the affidavit contain inadmissible hearsay. Most noteworthy, Mr. Gircys relies heavily on the so-called conclusions of an online post entitled the “HateGate Affair”. It is significant that the authors of that self-published website post, Caryma Sa’d and ‘Elisa Hategan’ (real name Elisa FERRYMAN-COHEN), have previously sued CAHN and Mr. Farber. Ms. Sa’d’s claim against CAHN in Federal Court was dismissed without leave to amend as having no factual or legal basis, and therefore no reasonable prospect of success. Ms. Hategan’s claim against Mr. Farber in this Court was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and “a waste of the time and resources of the courts.” These are but further angles of the same baseless conspiracy theories levelled at CAHN in this litigation, demonstrating it is a SLAPP.

This is from paragraph 34 of the Defendants’/Moving Parties’ Factum or arguments. Farber and CAHN argued that the lawsuit — as far as they were concerned — was politically motivated.

Vincent Gircys, one of the Plaintiffs, filed an Affidavit in an attempt to ward of the anti-SLAPP Motion brought by Farber and CAHN. He attaches the report from Sa’d and Hategan as an exhibit.

The report is dismissed as “inadmissible hearsay” by Farber’s and CAHN’s lawyers. No surprise there. But what is very interesting is that they claim that Hategan isn’t even a real name. Supposedly, she is really Elisa Ferryman-Cohen.

Note: After looking into it more, and with some help, it appears that it was legally changed years ago. She still goes by Hategan though, at least publicly.

It raises the question how Hategan (or whoever) would be able to sue in Court under a very old name. Was CAHN not aware of it at the time?

Ferryman-Cohen Used In Suit By Elizabeth Frederiksen

***Editor’s note: it turns out that there was another lawsuit. Elizabeth Frederiksen sued Hategan back in late 2018. She used the current name, Ferryman-Cohen. So, this appears to confirm the claim from CAHN that she hasn’t been using her real — or at least current — name.

Where Did “The Ferryman’s Toll” Really Come From?

We know that Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) worked as a police informant to take down Heritage Front. This was a CSIS operation designed to root out “racists” and “white nationalists”. This has been long established.

Alex Vriend is now a leading figure in “Diagolon” which comes across as little more than a honeypot. Currently, they’re asking for background checks… which would presumably tip off law enforcement about who’s applying. And of all the nicknames he could choose for himself…. he goes with Ferryman.

Why would he name himself after a former police informant from a generation ago?

Keep in mind, that same informant wrote a paper “exonerating” the group recently.

Moreover, this revelation about ‘Hategan’ was completely new. There’s nothing online, her book, or her biography that suggests what CAHN and Farber claim. She admits changing “Elisse” to “Elisa”, but that’s it. No other last name(s) are mentioned. Perhaps it’s a way to separate work life and private life.

Is this all just a bizarre coincidence? Or is the “next Ferryman” about to subvert and destroy nationalism in Canada?

FARBER/CAHN/GIRCYS/CORNELL LAWSUIT
(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 HateGatePaper Filed As Exhibit
(12) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(16) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Action4Canada Sued In Kelowna For Defamation

Action4Canada (A4C) will be back in Court soon, but for an entirely different reason. It seems that a drag performer didn’t like what the group was saying about him. The Plaintiff, Tyson Cook, filed a defamation lawsuit in Kelowna on December 19th. It listed the organization, 3 named Defendants, and 1 unidentified Defendant.

In addition to seeking damages, it’s clear that an Injunction will be sought to take the postings down, and to prevent future ones from going up.

Unlike the train wreck the group filed in August 2021, this suit is short, to the point, and well written. It spells out exactly what has been said and done.

To be clear, this isn’t a defence of drag performances in general. However, people REALLY need to be careful about what they publish on the topic, since it can result in lawsuits.

According to the Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, the content published by Action4Canada goes far, far beyond criticizing Cook for being a performer. The postings quoted are still available online.

It makes accusations that he:

  • is a pedophile
  • sexualizes children
  • exploits and abuses minors
  • is a sexual deviant
  • indoctrinates children
  • is connected to a rise in child pornography and sexual abuse
  • performs sexually explicit content in the presence of children
  • promotes self-harm, murder, and cannibalism to children, and/or
  • is an inappropriate role model for children

The content is still up on the Action4Canada website today.

In one such publication from last year, A4C posts his photo along with allegations of specific sexual offences.

20… The following sections provide the categories of offences tending to sexually exploit and corrupt the morals of minors, and/or make available or promote, sexually explicit material or activities: Section 151, 152, 153 (1), 163.1, 171.1(5), 172.1(1), 173 (2), 174 (1), 175(1) (see attachment). These are indictable offences liable to imprisonment.

Although the sections of the Criminal Code of Canada are listed, the actual offences are not specified in the Claim. Here they all are.

  1. s.151: Sexual interference
  2. s.152: Invitation to sexual touching
  3. s.153(1): Sexual exploitation
  4. s.163(1): Child pornography
  5. s.171.1(5): Making sexually explicit material available to child
  6. s.172.1: Luring a child
  7. s.173: Indecent acts
  8. s.174: Nudity
  9. s.175: Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

It’s rather baffling that A4C would post such content, which explicitly accuses him of child sex crimes, but not expect a lawsuit in response. One has to wonder if A4C genuinely believed this to be the case, why not call the police?

What About Bringing An Application To Strike?

Rule 9-5 of Civil Procedure for British Columbia does allow for Applications to Strike if a NOCC hasn’t been pleaded properly. That is, of course, what happened with A4C’s previous 391 page suit.

That’s not the case here though. The entire NOCC is just 17 pages, including the covers. It clearly spells out the expression which is being sued upon, who made it, and when. It’s explained why Cook finds it defamatory. Whether or not it can be proven at Trial is another question, but it won’t be struck.

What About An Anti-SLAPP Application?

For reference, B.C. does have the PPPA, or the Protection of Public Participation Act of 2019. It’s based heavily on the Ontario model, and it written in an almost identical manner.

Note: This isn’t legal advice, just commentary.

(1) The Defendant must convince the Judge the expression is of public interest. If this is done, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to do 3 things:

(2a) Convince the Judge that the case has substantial merit.

(2b) Convince the Judge that there’s no likely defence.

(2c) Convince the Judge that the public interest in allowing the case to proceed to greater than the public interest in protecting the expression.

It may be a very hard sell for A4C to persuade that these kind of accusations are of public interest. But even if they do, it’s far from over. The case clearly has substantial merit (2a) — he’s called a pedo, among other things — and a Judge will very likely prefer that Cook get his day in Court (2c). The only possible defence here would be one of truth, if it can be established.

[1] Rainbow Alliance Dryden et al. v. Webster. This Ontario case involved comments about “groomers”, which was found to not be public interest speech, among other flaws. That Judge rejected “fair comment” as a defence, dismissed an anti-SLAPP Motion and allowed the case to proceed.

That case also had EGALE Canada acting as an Intervenor. It’s not too farfetched to think that they’ll also try to get involved with Cook and A4C.

[2] Teneycke v McVety, is an Ontario case which saw the anti-SLAPP Motion dismissed. It made allegations that pharma lobbying and a connection to Doug Ford were the reasons the Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Theological Studies didn’t receive Provincial certification. The school was against vaccine mandates. While Kory Teneycke is indeed a lobbyist with Rubicon Strategies, and has political ties to Ford, cause and effect couldn’t be established.

[3] Dong v. Global News is another case that survived an anti-SLAPP Motion in Ontario. Some CSIS sources had believed that M.P. Han Dong had betrayed the “2 Michaels” who were held by China. However, Global News published this as if it were an established fact. The defences of truth and responsible communication failed.

A4C may face the same hurdles with establishing truth or responsible publication. All 3 of the above cases saw their Motions dismissed, at substantial costs to the Defendants.

Another problem here is that not everything can be classified as expression.

18. On or about January 20, 2023, the Defendants, Action4Canada and/or Person A, created an online petition entitled “STOP Taxpayer Funded Drag Queen Sexualization of Children” (the “Petition”), and posted the Petition on the website CitizenGo. The Petition remains available online for individuals to sign virtually.

19. Please sign and share this petition and demand that the City of Kelowna STOP using taxpayers’ money to fund Drag Queen Story Hours, and further demand that the School District reassess Mr. Cook’s suitability as an EA”.

One other factor that goes against A4C relying on anti-SLAPP laws is that this wasn’t just about expression or speech. They created a petition, and essentially tried to get him fired from his job.

Would This Lawsuit Be Covered By Insurance?

44. On or about April 25, June 18, and December 4, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff sent cease and desist letters to the Defendants, advising them that the Defamatory Publications were false and defamatory. The cease and desist letters demanded that the Defendants remove the Defamatory Publications from the internet and refrain from posting further defamatory statements.

According to the NOCC, Cook’s lawyers sent several cease and desist letters demanding that the content in question be removed. A4C does have insurance, which is not surprising. However, it would be interesting to know if these letters were ever forwarded. For the purpose of mitigating risk, they should have been.

(a) If these letters were never forwarded, an insurance company may very well refuse to cover a lawsuit, and leave A4C to fend for themselves.

(b) If these letters were indeed forwarded, it’s inevitable that an insurer would have insisted the content be removed. After all, their business involves minimizing risk. If that was ignored, then again, the insurer would likely refuse to cover the expenses involved in defending the case.

So, A4C is in trouble again. If the group had any sense, they would take down the postings — voluntarily — and work to settle the case quickly. It’s not disputed at all that Cook does drag shows, but the other allegations may be very difficult to prove.

Action4Canada needs to hire a competent lawyer.

(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Cook Flannigan Response To Civil Claim Red
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/168_2009_01#rule9-5
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-118604
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7050/2023onsc7050.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1710/2023onsc1710.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc3532/2024onsc3532.html

Posted on

Byram Bridle Lawsuit Dropped, Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Terminated

The high profile December 2022 Ontario lawsuit of Byram Bridle has come to an end. The Notice of Discontinuance was recently filed, along with the Consent form. The parties agreed to drop the case with no costs to anyone.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for more specifics on the case.

Bridle had previously discontinued with respect to David Fisman, but the new document applies to everyone else. The litigation is finished at this point.

While the details of the case remain disputed, at its core, Bridle brought a lawsuit against his employer, the University of Guelph. This was over issues of workplace bullying and harassment. This immediately causes problems, given the union agreement he was subject to.

Specifically, Bridle has the right to grieve and to arbitrate, but not to litigate.

University Of Guelph Faculty Covered By Collective Agreements

Article 40 of Guelph’s Collective Bargaining Agreement delves into dispute resolution. It lays out a process that everyone is expected to follow. In short, it goes: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration as a last resort. And the ruling of an Arbitrator is expected to be final.

However, Bridle didn’t go to arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved, including those who handled the initial investigation. He seemed to think that cloaking everything with allegations of “conspiracy” would somehow get around the lack of jurisdiction of the Courts. He must have had poor representation.

Another interesting detail: Bridle filed a police report in Peel over impersonation and identity theft, as a result of a website in his name. The report was filed with the Motion Records. It doesn’t seem like the site was meant to be taken seriously, but just to report on his views and statements. This fed into the “conspiracy” allegations.

The findings from that complaint were to be used to bolster this case, which seems to be a bad faith reason to call the police.

Bridle was also banned from the University after he refused to participate in an investigation alleging threats and possible violence. But this just ties into the narrative pushed by the Defence that the suit is fundamentally about a workplace dispute. It doesn’t somehow grant the Courts the right to hear such a case.

It gets even worse.

Lawsuit Framed (Largely) As Challenge Over Public Views

While the Courts would have no jurisdiction anyway, Bridle ended up framing his lawsuit (mainly) to indicate that he was attacked for his public views and policy positions on viruses and vaccines. This exposed him to an anti-SLAPP Motion, which is exactly what the University ended up doing.

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.

Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws give “full indemnity”, or 100% of costs as the recommendation if lawsuits are dismissed. And given the mentioned lack of jurisdiction, there was already a built in defence to support such a Motion. Hard to believe counsel didn’t explain this to Bridle.

To sum up, Bridle’s poor choice to file such a Claim turned an arbitration hearing into a lawsuit with a full indemnity anti-SLAPP Motion, and no chance of success. Such rulings typically result in cost awards of well over $100,000.

It doesn’t end there.

Bridle apparently wasn’t satisfied filing such a case against his employer. He decided to include David Fisman (yes, that Fisman) over some online comments he made. This was justified by calling everything a “conspiracy”. Unsurprisingly, Fisman responded with an anti-SLAPP Motion of his own.

Suddenly, Bridle was staring down 2 anti-SLAPP Motions, with no real prospects of winning either. Going the distance could have easily set him back a quarter million ($250,000) or more.

The amount of paperwork for these Motion Records can be difficult to grasp. Fisman filed this, this and this. Guelph filed 3 volumes here, here and here. Bridle has a 2,000 page Motion Record of his own.

Ultimately, Bridle negotiated to have both Motions dropped without costs. Presumably, the Defendants’ insurers decided it wasn’t worth pouring more money into a case if Bridle would be unlikely or unable to pay. Hopefully, this doesn’t happen again.

But what’s the result here? Other than burning a lot of bridges, and airing out his dirty laundry, Bridle hasn’t accomplished much.

“Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s” Record On Covid Cases

The Bridle case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Here are some other well known cases that were filed in recent years, and all from the same lawyer. Very lackluster, to put it mildly.

  • Abandoned – Vaccine Choice Canada (1st case), Spring 2020
  • Abandoned – Sgt. Julie Evans (Police on Guard), around 2022?
  • Abandoned – Children’s Health Defense Canada, around 2022?
  • Abandoned – Kulvinder Gill/Ashvinder Lamba (right after Appeal launched), March 2022
  • Abandoned – Kulvinder Gill v. Attaran, March 2022
  • Abandoned – Action4Canada (no amended Claim ever filed), August 2022
  • Abandoned – Adelberg (Federal case, no amended Claim ever filed) February 2023
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (2nd case), May 2024
  • Discontinued – Byram Bridle v. David Fisman, June 2024
  • Discontinued – Katanik (Take Action Canada), July 2024
  • Discontinued – Byram Bridle v. University of Guelph, October 2024
  • Never Happened – B.C. Action for Provincial doctors
  • Never Happened – Injection pass case for up to 400 college students
  • Never Happened – Injection injury case for up to 600 Federal workers
  • Never Happened – Public inquiry for Government response

The category of “never happened” includes several causes for which money was raised, that don’t appear to have ever materialized.

  • Lost – Gill/Lamba case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, February 2022
  • Lost – Action4Canada case struck as “bad beyond argument”, August 2022
  • Lost – Adelberg (Federal case) struck as “bad beyond argument”, February 2023
  • Lost – Law Society of Ontario case struck for no Cause of Action, October 2023
  • Lost – CSASPP defamation case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, December 2023
  • Lost – Action4Canada Appeal dismissed, no reviewable error listed, February 2024
  • Lost – Adelberg Appeal (mostly) dismissed as employment claims still barred, June 2024

Both Action4Canada and Adelberg were struck by the Courts, (BCSC and Federal, respectively). Instead of pursuing amended versions — which was allowed — time and money were wasted with frivolous Appeals. This is why they’re classified as both “lost” and “abandoned”.

Guess they don’t make “top Constitutional lawyers” like they used to.

For a rough idea of how much money one lawyer can waste, see this previous compilation with estimates attached. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” has poured millions of dollars from donors and clients down the drain. Not one case ever got past a Motion to Strike.

The CSASPP Appeal will be heard in January 2025, and a case called Dorceus is under reserve, pending a Decision on the Motion to Strike. The Adelberg SCC Leave Application will be decided soon. All 3 are unlikely to go anywhere.

Many cases — including Bridle’s — make national news initially, and are never heard from again. They result in headlines, attention, and large donations. That’s because winning isn’t the goal, publicity is. Of course, that isn’t a legitimate reason to sue.

This specific lawsuit was reported in over 25 “alternative” media outlets in December 2022, but it doesn’t look like a single one ever followed up. The Statement of Claim was juicy enough, wasn’t it?

BRIDLE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Byram Bridle Statement Of Claim
(2) Byram Bridle Statement Of Defence
(3) Byram Bridle Statement Reply
(4) Byram Bridle Notice Of Motion Fisman
(5) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman 1 Of 2
(6) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman Supplemental
(7) Byram Bridle Motion Record Fisman Volume 1 Full
(8) Byram Bridle Motion Record Plaintiff Full
(9) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Fisman
(10) Byram Bridle Notice Of Motion Guelph
(11) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 1 Of 3
(12) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 2 Of 3
(13) Byram Bridle Motion Record Guelph 3 Of 3
(14) Byram Bridle Affidavit Of Service MR
(15) Byram Bridle Peel Police Identity Theft
(16) Byram Bridle Consent Dismissal Of Claim
(17) Byram Bridle Notice Of Discontinuance Guelph
(18) Byram Bridle Affidavit Of Service

EXTRA LINKS:
(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(3) University Of Guelph, Text Of Collective Bargaining Agreement

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress