SLAPP Archives - Page 3 of 6

March 24, 2024March 24, 2024

Egale Canada, Registered Charity Getting Public Money

This is a follow up on Egale Canada. For the earlier critique of their work, see this piece. This time, we get a bit heavier into the financial side of things, and see how big things really are. Remember, your tax dollars are helping to finance this, regardless of personal views.

As an aside, Egale received $513,801 from CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, back in 2020. It got another $35,779 in 2021. Interesting priorities.

From its publicly available filings, it’s clear that after 2012, Canadian taxpayers are financing this organization to a great degree. And that doesn’t even factor in the rebates that private donors receive from Revenue Canada.

YEAR	TOTAL $	GOV’T	OTHER	% GOV’T	EXPENSES
2006	$40,123	$2,507	$37,616	6.2 %	$15,193
2007	$24,644	$0	$24,644	0.0 %	$18,777
2008	$53,154	$6,578	$46,576	12.4 %	$61,661
2009	$106,471	$0	$106,471	0.0 %	$104,518
2010	$259,365	$0	$259,365	0.0 %	$209,962
2011	$464,975	$0	$464,975	0.0 %	$408,782
2012	$707,761	$345,963	$361,798	48.9%	$690,912
2013	$1,801,607	$1,290,184	$511,423	71.6 %	$1,808,589
2014	$1,704,083	$910,500	$793,583	46.6 %	$1,728,727
2015	$2,014,901	$887,075	$1,127,826	44.0 %	$2,013,484
2016	$2,798,237	$1,154,301	$1,643,936	41.3 %	$2,311,837
2017	$3,851,872	$1,132,350	$2,719,522	29.4 %	$3,578,714
2018	$3,704,557	$3,524,832	$179,725	95.1 %	$3,916,554
2019	$4,095,433	$3,831,557	$263,876	93.6 %	$4,043,359
2020	$2,833,582	$2,637,412	$196,170	93.1 %	$2,754,446
2021	$3,635,394	$1,891,479	$1,743,915	52.0 %	$3,595,380
2022	$4,763,496	$3,163,263	$1,600193	66.4 %	$4,615,041

There are some discrepancies with the data copied from the C.R.A. website, as it appears that not all of the same categories are listed in the “short version”. Notably, CEWS isn’t included. The categories also aren’t consistent across the years, so we’ll do our best.

Note: the form for 2007 is incomplete. However, the assets listed in 2006 were totaled at $50,783. In 2007, it was given at $56,650. From that, we will assume that the change will be the difference in revenue and expenses for that year.

Equity (worth) = assets – liabilities
$56,650 – $50,783 = new revenue – $18,777
From this, assume 2007 revenue was ~ $24,644

For the years 2018 and 2019, the itemized lists lump various Government and private funding grants together, in terms of the source. However, the overall totals are the same.

Egale is raising in revenue about 100 times that rate it did less than 20 years ago. In fairness, increases in Government (or taxpayer) money has helped a lot. Assuming these records are fairly accurate, this organization has certainly been growing.

Although it would be nice to blame this on Trudeau, the growth long predates him. And the majority of Government funding appears to have been from Ontario (which is Provincial) anyway.

While Government funding costs a straight 100%, donations from private groups and individuals aren’t free either. Specifically, they are eligible for rebates from the C.R.A. of around 40 to 45 cents on the dollar.

Considering the kinds of causes that Egale takes on, is this a prudent use of public money?

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-22: (Raising Age Of Consent From 14 To 16)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=1736719
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=107655
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/JUST/meeting-57/evidence
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/391/JUST/Evidence/EV2805304/JUSTEV57-E.PDF
(5) Egale Canada Opposes Raising Age Of Consent

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-75: (Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-108/evidence
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20180925/-1/30041?Language=English&Stream=Video
(5) Egale Canada Human Rights Trust Bill C-75

PARLIAMENTARY TESTIMONY, BILL C-6: (Conversion Therapy)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10980515
(2) https://egale.ca/newsletter-open-letter-c6/
(3) https://egale.ca/awareness/open-letter-bill-c6/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cb124b36-46bf-4cab-b648-a3c75f571873

HIV NON-DISCLOSURE: (Hiding Positive Status From Partners)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Brief/BR10044994/br-external/EgaleCanadaHumanRightsTrust-e.pdf
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10485413
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/WitnessMeetings?witnessId=248803
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-149/evidence
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-28/
(6) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/hiv-vih/nd.html
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-28/page-24

ONLINE HATE: (Censorship)
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10543157
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Reports/RP10581008/justrp29/justrp29-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-150/evidence#Int-10636774
(4) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=10625547

INTERFERING WITH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:
(1) https://egale.ca/awareness/supreme-court-of-canada-decision-affirms-trans-rights-protective-counter-speech/

PARTNERS:
(1) https://egale.ca/our-partners/

POLICIES:
(1) https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Discriminatory-and-Unworkable-FINAs-Policy-1.pdf
(2) https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/msm-blood-ban/

RACHEL GILMORE TWEET:
(1) https://twitter.com/atRachelGilmore/status/1737207763640402361

March 23, 2024March 23, 2024

Would It Be So Difficult To Admit “I Shouldn’t Have Done That”?

Kulvinder Gill is back in public, asking for money.

She has only days left to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court fees. Here’s some background. This stemmed from a $12.75 million defamation case that she and Ashvinder Lamba filed in December 2020. They sued 23 individuals and media outlets, primarily over comments on Twitter. There are 4 rulings that have come down

(a) Dismissal in February 2022
(b) Costs awarded in October 2022
(c) Motion for security for costs denied November 2023
(d) Appeal dismissed in February 2024

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

Unsurprisingly, this libel-chill lawsuit backfired bigtime. Gill now owes nearly $300,000 by the end of March, not including lawyers’ fees and other private settlements. Perhaps she should finally admit this was a bad idea.

It’s also scary to think what would have happened if she had won. Would she start suing more people who have annoyed her online? Fortunately for society, she lost.

A few days ago, Jay Bhattacharya posted an interview with Gill about her looming financial problems. For reference, Bhattacharya wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, which can be viewed as “diet lockdowns”. Gill has imminent Court orders to pay, and she doesn’t have the money.

Would it be so difficult to admit she shouldn’t have filed this lawsuit in the first place? That bit of self-reflection would have gone a long way.

Watching the interview, it becomes clear that Gill still doesn’t understand why sued at all.

She talks about wanting to bring her truth forward, but that’s not the purpose of a defamation lawsuit. It’s about whether a Court can silence someone on speech or expression they’ve made publicly. She’s been dealing with these people for nearly 4 years now, and still doesn’t get it.

Gill also talks about anti-SLAPP Motions as if this were a surprise to her. These laws have been on the books in Ontario since 2015, and were well known. In reality, any competent lawyer would discuss such a possibility right away. Not only that, Ontario law typically provides full indemnity (100% of costs) to Defendants who are successful in getting their cases dismissed.

Gill talks about “fair comment” as if it this were some oddity. This defence — one of mixed fact and opinion — is routinely used by Defendants. A statement doesn’t have to be completely accurate as long as there’s some factual basis for it, and a person could honestly hold such a belief.

Gill appears to have gotten incompetent advice, both from former and current counsel.

Noticeably absent is any mention that Gill regrets the damage she inflicted on others. She attempted to bankrupt people over mean words on Twitter. Yes, she had to deal with the CPSO, but she sued people over Twitter remarks. It’s amazing how tone deaf she remains.

Gill tries to justify suing all those people on the grounds that they were “big and powerful”, and that they were “covered by insurance”. Not all of them were, and some had to personally pay out of their savings. A few were seniors living off of a pension. In any event, it comes off as a pretty cold blooded excuse.

Additionally, there are several major omissions in this interview. These are things that Gill should have disclosed if she’s asking for money. They aren’t minor by any means, but could easily cause potential donors to walk away.

Ted Kuntz claims Vaccine Choice Canada funded Gill’s case
Appeal lodged to “leverage” settlements with Defendants
Gill suing former lawyer for $1,850,000 for malpractice
Gill suing former lawyer for $6,000 in Brampton
Ashvinder Lamba suing former counsel for $600,000 for malpractice
Gill has open $7,000,000 defamation suit with Amir Attaran
Gill sued people who had apologized to her publicly

Granted there are most likely people who would still donate to her defence, but a lot would see this as grounds to refuse.

1. Ted Kuntz claims Vaccine Choice Canada funded Gill’s case

Ted Kuntz of Vaccine Choice Canada gave an Affidavit in the Spring of 2023. See highlighted version. This was in support of a $1.1 million defamation lawsuit against CSASPP. It didn’t go so well. A similar one was filed in the lawsuit against this website.

What’s interesting in the Kuntz Affidavit is paragraph 20. Kuntz says that in the Summer of 2021, the Vaccine Choice membership became concerned about the total lack of activity in their anti-lockdown case. In response, there was an update sent, which is attached as “Exhibit C”.

“Exhibit C” talks about a need to protect doctors, nurses, teachers, etc…. and for them to be able to speak the truth. It explicitly states that “other legal actions had been filed”.

Item #4 in that list talks about a defamation lawsuit that was underway over doctors who had been maligned on social media. Although it doesn’t explicitly name Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, who else could it be? VCC has never identified any other people that may have been used like this.

“Exhibit C” in the Kuntz Affidavit makes it appear that these other lawsuits — such as the Gill/Lamba case in question — were directly financed by them. At a bare minimum, one can imply that the defamation suit was coordinated to help their overall purpose. From the ruling:

[317] Given the position taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs by their counsel in response to the suggestion made by some of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs’ claims were being maintained with the possible benefit of third party funding, I did not consider it necessary or appropriate to refer to it in the above reasons as it did not form any part of the applicable analysis. However, I should indicate to the parties that approach taken in that regard is without prejudice to the entitlement of any party to refer to such issue if there is a proper basis for doing so when making submissions on costs.

In fact, at the end of the February 2022 ruling, it’s stated that the Defendants have been questioning whether Gill’s and Lamba’s suit was financed by outside money.

Kuntz’s Affidavit sure makes it look like Gill and Lamba were getting money for their case from third parties, or at least that it was coordinated by others.

Too bad Gill doesn’t mention that in her recent e-begging.

2. Appeal lodged to “leverage” settlements with Defendants

An important detail that gets glossed over is the reason the case was appealed in the first place. Gill and Lamba (mostly Gill though) were hit with over $1 million in costs that the Defendants’ lawyers had rung up. By appealing, and thus keeping the case open, Gill was able to “leverage” settlements out of people who just wanted it over with. This comes across as bad faith.

In their Appellate Motion for security for costs, The Pointer Group alleges exactly that. Their Motion was denied, however. Their Factum is still well worth a read.

3. Gill suing former lawyer for $1,850,000 for malpractice

Gill filed a Notice of Action against her former lawyer, and his firm. The reason is that the 2 year anniversary of Justice Stewart’s ruling was approaching, and this bought her time. She’s suing him (and his law firm) for $1.85 million. The Notice alleges professional malpractice.

Granted, it could be a year or 2 before she sees any money from this. However, since she’s asking for donations on GiveSendGo, shouldn’t this be mentioned? If the insurance company settles — which is highly probable — she’s in for a windfall of cash.

This came hot on the heels of her former co-Plaintiff filing a lawsuit, and likely was the motivating factor.

4. Gill suing former lawyer for $6,000 in Brampton

Kulvinder Gill actually has two (2) separate lawsuits against former counsel. The Samantha Coomara listed is a junior lawyer, licensed since 2018. It’s for a relatively minor amount, less than $6,000. This is likely what Gill and Lamba had paid out of pocket.

However, this is probably nowhere near the amount of fees their lawyer charged. Since their December 2020 case was so poor, there was never any prospect of collecting anything on contingency. It seems doubtful that he would do anything for free. So, who paid for the case?

If the Kuntz Affidavit is to be taken seriously, Vaccine Choice Canada’s donors paid.

5. Ashvinder Lamba suing former counsel for $600,000 for malpractice

Recently, Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s former co-Plaintiff, filed a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former lawyer. This is likely what gave Gill the idea to file her own (larger) suit. Insurance companies will likely pay out rather than take on a longer, more expensive Trial.

As of the time of writing this, a Notice of Intent to Defend has been filed. This is not the same thing as a Statement of Defence, but still indicates that the case will be fought.

Lamba complains about “junior staff” being involved in work that they weren’t trained or competent in. This is likely a reference to Coomara, whom Gill and Lamba both sued in 2022.

6. Gill has open $7,000,000 defamation suit with Amir Attaran

Gill plays the pity card throughout her interview, lamenting the fact that she doesn’t have money to pay the existing cost order. She leaves out that she has an open $7,000,000 defamation suit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. His crime? Calling her an idiot on Twitter.

This plea from Gill rings hollow. She laments that she’s facing bankruptcy, yet she is still attempting to bankrupt someone else for comments made on Twitter. One would think that she would drop that suit, at a minimum.

If Gill was being transparent, she would have disclosed this.

7. Gill sued people who had apologized to her publicly

[73] On multiple occasions, Dr. Maciver has apologized to the Plaintiffs both publicly and privately and shown contrition for the heated language he used on Twitter. The fact of Dr. Maciver’s apologies was also made known within the physician community on Twitter.

Likely the worst of the comments came from Angus Maciver, who had publicly apologized for making them. But it wasn’t enough to stop him from getting sued. This comes across as particularly vindictive

Would anyone donate to Gill’s GiveSendGo account if she had disclosed all of this?

Probably not.

To be clear, Gill has every right to express her views and opinions in the public arena. She can put forward whatever she believes to be true. Likewise, she has the ability to post downright dumb and offensive things. This is called “free speech”, and it’s something everyone in the “Freedom Movement” should agree on.

But it’s become clear that she cares about her free speech, and only her free speech. Yes, she should be able to post what she wants.

It’s just too bad that she doesn’t extend her victims the same courtesy.

Maybe, just maybe, she shouldn’t have filed such an absurd lawsuit in 2020. Perhaps she shouldn’t have named so many people. Would it be too hard to admit she was wrong?

Note: by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

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

AFFIDAVITS FROM CSASPP CASE:
(1) CSASPP RG Kuntz Affidavit
(2) CSASPP RG Gaw Affidavit
(3) CSASPP RG Sable Affidavit

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Notice of Action

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim
(2) Lamba Notice Of Intent To Defend

GILL/ATTARAN $7,000,000 DEFAMATION LAWSUIT:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Counsel Abandons Plaintiff

February 29, 2024October 31, 2024

Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Commenced In University Of Guelph Lawsuit

Wednesday, February 28th, 2024, Byram Bridle, the high profile professor from the University of Guelph, was back in Court. This was a short hearing to set down another anti-SLAPP Motion to dismiss his December 2022 lawsuit.

Guelph has previously filed a Statement of Defence, on behalf of all their Defendants. But now, their lawyer, Lynn Turnbell, is asking that the case be thrown out altogether. Their stated reason is that the contents of the Claim are covered under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the anti-SLAPP provision.

Guelph further states that the subject matter should be tossed for a lack of jurisdiction. Bridle is a university employee, as are most Defendants. It’s argued that the matter should have gone to arbitration instead of litigation. And they’re not wrong.

The initial anti-SLAPP Motion was filed by Kate Costin, the lawyer for David Fisman. Yes, it’s that David Fisman. It’s unclear why his content (Twitter related) is being connected to this. That will be heard on November 19th, 2024.

Counsel for Bridle requested that everything be moved back to 2025. He stated that he will be taking his annual 2 month vacation to Turkey — for medical reasons.

However, Justice Dow refused that request. The Fisman anti-SLAPP Motion will still be heard in November 2024, and the Guelph Motion is now booked for October 16th, 2025.

University of Guelph Faculty covered by collective agreements

The University of Guelph publicly posts their collective bargaining agreements, which include ones with faculty members. This particular one took only seconds to find.

Article 40 of the agreement, beginning on page 131, makes it clear the steps that are to be taken in the event of a serious problem within the university.

Informal resolution
Formal grievance
Arbitration

This wasn’t difficult to find. Not only does Bridle presumably have a copy of this document, but it’s publicly available on the school’s website.

True, there may be the power of a Court to review the findings of an Arbitrator, depending on the rules that are set out. This would be analogous to filing an Appeal. However, what happened here was suing in Court instead of going to arbitration. These are not the same thing.

40.1 The Parties agree to attempt to resolve disputes arising from this Agreement amicably and promptly.

40.2 In order to ensure that Grievances of Members are remedied in a reasonable, just, and equitable manner, the University and the Association mutually agree that the procedure for submitting and dealing with Grievances shall be as indicated in the remainder of this Article.

Informal Resolution
40.9 The University and the Association mutually agree that it is the desire of the Parties that differences in the interpretation, application, administration, and alleged violations of this Agreement shall be dealt with as quickly as is reasonably possible. If a Member has a complaint or dispute that may give rise to a Grievance, they and/or an Association designate shall first discuss the matter at a meeting arranged for this purpose with the Dean, University Librarian, or, in the case of Veterinarians, Director, or designate, within twenty (20) days after the Member would reasonably be expected to have become aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint or dispute.

40.11 Failing informal resolution of the complaint or dispute and within ten (10) days following receipt of notification of the proposed resolution under the informal process, the Association has the right to present the written Formal Grievance to the Provost, or designate, pursuant to this Article.

Formal Grievance Procedure
40.14 Following receipt of a Formal Grievance, the Provost, or designate shall convene a meeting within ten (10) days with the Member and/or the Association designate. With reasonable notice to the other Party prior to the meeting, either Party may have others attend who have information relevant to the specific Grievance. The Provost (or designate) shall reply in writing within fifteen (15) days of that meeting.

40.19 Failing resolution of a Grievance, the University or the Association will provide notification that a matter shall be submitted to Arbitration. Such notification must be made in writing and addressed to the other party within fifteen (15) days of the date of receipt of the Formal Grievance decision.

40.22 The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties.

40.23 All arbitration expenses, including the remuneration of the Arbitrator, shall be shared equally by both Parties, subject to the award of costs by the Arbitrator as part of the remedy.

Looking at Article 40.22, it seems that the Arbitrator’s ruling is meant to be final. There’s no obvious way to challenge it further, unless the process is demonstrated to be corrupted. Since no arbitration took place, that would be difficult to prove.

The process outlined is pretty straightforward: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration, if needed. There’s no mention whatsoever about having an option to pursue litigation. This is typical in unionized and Government workplaces.

But according to the Statement of Claim, that’s not what happened.

After the grievance process went against Bridle, he didn’t pursue arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved. This included Nick Duley, and outside HR consultant, who was hired for an investigation. Also named is Laurie Arnott, Vice President of Faculty Relations. It’s alleged that there’s a grand conspiracy against him.

Paragraph 100, it’s stated that Guelph refused to investigate online harassment that happened outside of school grounds. It fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and hence, no ability to do anything. This comes across as reasonable.

Paragraph 136 of the Claim says that Bridle refused to participate in Duley’s investigation, calling it a “kangaroo court”. Duley is referred to as a “hired gun”. That won’t sit well without proof.

The content in the Claim comes across as being so over the top, it’s difficult to determine what’s factual, and what’s overblown.

Now, it’s possible that the Court may find that the grievance process was corrupted and unworkable, but that’s for the Plaintiff to establish. This is sometimes referred to as “residual jurisdiction”. While a major conspiracy is alleged, it seems that it would be very difficult to prove.

Contending with the anti-SLAPP Motions

Fisman appears to have nothing to do with the University of Guelph, so including him in this case seems unproductive. Even if he did interact with some of the online content, he’s not involved in essentially what is a workplace dispute at Guelph. Considering how hard it is to prove defamation, and to get damages, this will be a tough sell in November.

The Kulvinder Gill/Ashinder Lamba, Boraks and CSASPP cases are also good examples of how much bad lawyering can impact clients.

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279
Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169
Gill v. Maciver, 2023 ONCA 776
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 4294
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 6420
Galati v. Toews et al, 2023 ONSC 7508
Galati v. Toews et al, 2024 ONSC 935

There’s also this gem from March 2021, with a Motion scheduled for this Fall.

The trend in recent years is to implement mechanisms designed to screen out cases as abusive. For defamation type cases, these are called anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Again, it’s hard to tell from this Statement of Claim what’s real, and what’s hype and distortion. Hopefully, more will come out in the pending Motions.

To survive an anti-SLAPP Motion, the Plaintiff is required to prove at least some of the damages. This means submitting Affidavit evidence, and being cross examined on it. The Plaintiff must also establish that there are no reasonable defences that could be relied upon. Will this happen?

How will all of this end?

It’s possible that there will be a negotiated settlement to discontinue the case entirely. Although s.137.1(5) “stays” the case, the parties can always agree to drop it. This sort of thing has happened many times before.

If not, it’s going to be very expensive for Bridle. He’s facing full indemnity (100% of costs) on 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions. This could set him back $100,000 or more. Courts tend to be very harsh to Plaintiffs who bring lawsuits to silence public speech improperly.

An open question is why this case was even brought. Even a quick read through the collective bargaining agreement would have indicated that this was not the path to take. Should the Guelph Motion not succeed under anti-SLAPP provisions, it will likely still get dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reading through the Claim, it looks as though large parts of this are simply cut and pasted from earlier lawsuits. The same sorts of allegations come up over and over again. This isn’t original content.

It appears that Bridle was poorly advised both in employment law, and defamation law.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/
(5) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
(6) https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/system/files/UGFA_CA_2022_FinalPrint_Nov20_2023.pdf

February 26, 2024August 7, 2024

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

Last Friday, a Notice of Action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court, at their Toronto Division. A woman intends to sue her former counsel, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, for: (a) professional negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount; and (c) aggravated and/or punitive damages.

A Notice of Action is not the same thing as a Statement of Claim. Instead, this document is occasionally filed when a lawsuit is in the works, but the Statute of Limitations is approaching. Justice Stewart dismissed the Gill/Lamba suit on February 24, 2022, and this Notice was filed February 23, 2024. This came just a day before the 2 year anniversary.

Once filed, a Plaintiff has 30 days under Rule 14.03 to serve all Defendants with this Notice, and the Claim itself. (Pardon the error which previously listed the time as 6 months).

Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet are listed as counsel for Kulvinder Gill. They also represented her at the Court of Appeal which ultimately dismissed the Maciver anti-SLAPP Appeal.

What does the Notice of Action say?

1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, claims against the Defendants, Rocco Galati and Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation as follows:
a. General and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $1,500,000;
b. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of reputation in the amount of $250,000;
c. Aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;
d. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
e. The costs of this proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, plus all applicable taxes, and;
f. Such further and other relief as the plaintiff may advise and as this Honourable Court
may seem just.

2. The Defendants acted for the Plaintiff with respect to various litigation matters starting in late 2020, including defamation actions and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Their representation of the Plaintiff was negligent, constituted a breach of contract and a breach of the fiduciary duties, causing the Plaintiff significant damages.

Of course, this isn’t the entire pleading. The real Statement of Claim is presumably in the works, and it should be interesting to read. Ashvinder Lamba also has a $600,000 malpractice suit pending, alleging many of the same things as Gill.

Brief timeline of some major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill’s public opinions, which contradict the “approved” narrative, lands her in trouble with the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the regulator which is responsible for licensing in that Province. They’re not too happy that her views don’t toe the line.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

March 2021: Gill sues the University of Ottawa and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million. This is over 2 rude comments on Twitter, one where he calls her an “idiot”. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit, and mere insults aren’t actionable.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this. (CanLII version available)

February 2024: Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s then co-Plaintiff, files a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former counsel.

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason. It’s to stop people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence critics on issues of public interest. And nothing screams frivolous like attempting to bankrupt a person over some name calling. Here’s the background on this one.

SLAPP of course refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

While the comical defamation lawsuits have made national news, Gill’s adventures with the CPSO have pretty much flown under the radar. She has attracted several complaints since 2020, over her public stances and comments. Lawsuits were brought in Court to try to resolve it there, largely on the grounds of free speech. Such litigation has been repeatedly thrown out as “premature”.

In fairness, prematurity just means there’s a lack of jurisdiction.

The problem, realistically, is that the CPSO — like many professional organizations — mandates that problems be resolved internally first. Here’s one of Gill’s decisions, from 2021. Starting at paragraph 31, it’s explained that this is a long established policy, going back decades. The rationale is that if this isn’t followed, it leads to fragmentation and splitting of cases, along with overlapping rulings.

This isn’t to justify in any way what the CPSO has been up to. They’ve shown themselves to be a willing accomplice to the Ford regime, and deserve no sympathy.

It’s to recognize that had Gill been competently advised, it seems unlikely she would have pursued this path. In the Notice of Action, she alleges that former counsel was negligent.

There is a parallel between:

Doctors suing the CPSO (instead of using the internal disciplinary process first); and
Public sector and unionized workers suing their employers (instead of filing grievances)

In both instances, lawsuits are likely to be thrown out. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that the other remedies are unworkable and/or corrupted. Now, the million dollar question in these cases is whether they were advised of this in advance.

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Doctors, lawyers, and pretty much all professionals are required to have insurance. This protects against lawsuits for negligence, incompetence, malpractice, and more. It’s to ensure that there is money available for successful claims, and that it won’t bankrupt them.

One caveat: insurance providers typically refuse to pay out if there are accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation. But Gill and Lamba are just alleging negligence and of breach of contract, which should be okay.

We’ll have to see what the Statement of Claim looks like, when it’s eventually filed. But just going off of the Notice, it doesn’t look good.

Why pursue this? One possibility is that Gill really needs the money. Even “settling” with most parties in the case with Lamba, she still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Saikaley and Brunet want to get paid as well, and this may be a way to do it. Then there’s that anti-SLAPP Motion pending with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

Update: On March 25th, 2024, the actual Statement of Claim was filed, and it’s a doozy.

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

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

February 22, 2024February 22, 2024

Court Of Appeal Confirms Dismissal Under Anti-SLAPP Laws Of Gill Defamation Suit

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has thrown out an Appeal from by 2 Ontario doctors. This was to challenge the result of a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit originally filed against 23 individuals and organizations. Although this was primarily over Twitter comments related to the “pandemic”, some old remarks involving the Ontario Medical Association were included.

The Court also denied permission to appeal the cost award of the initial lawsuit. In Ontario, when cases are thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, the costs are “presumptively” awarded on a full indemnity, or 100% basis. And that is indeed what happened to the 2 doctors.

The February 2022 decision was very long. But at its core, many of the same finding came up over and over again.

The expressions relate to matters of a public interest
The expressions may have been unprofessional and insulting, but were not defamatory
The expressions are protected as fair comment, and are obviously comment
The Plaintiffs (Gill and Lamba) haven’t produced evidence of any real harm
Public interest is better served with protecting the expression

Section 137.1 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act lays out the “anti-SLAPP” laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation. British Columbia has very similar laws. The purpose is to have a mechanism to quickly screen out cases that may be designed to silence speech or expression on public interest issues. Justice Stewart stated:

[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out.

The Court of Appeal ultimately agreed with this sentiment.

What’s interesting is that when the Appeal was finally heard, there weren’t 23 Respondents. There were only 4 of them left. And Lamba herself was no longer involved.

Dr. Angus Maciver
Dr. Nadia Alam
André Picard
Alheli Picazo

All of the others had the Appeal against them discontinued. It had been argued by many that this Appeal was simply “leverage”, in order to circumvent the original rulings.

The case was dismissed by Justice Stewart under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, and eventually, a cost award of $1.1 million was handed down. However, the Appeal meant that the case was still open, and that more costs would be required to fight it.

A brief timeline of events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2022: The Appeal is finally “perfected”, which means that the Appellants have filed everything they intend to bring to the hearing.

Due to various delays, the Appeal was set back considerably.

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

November 2023: The Pointer Group Inc., one of the Defendant Respondents, files a Motion for Security for Costs. The rationale is that Gill should have to demonstrate that there’s merit to the Appeal, and that she has money, all in advance.

November 2023: The Motion from The Pointer Group Inc. is dismissed.

December 2023: The Appeal is heard for the remaining parties. As expected, the verdict was reserved (deferred) until later.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal has some harsh words at the end of their ruling.

[25] First, the motion judge found that the offensive language used by Maciver in his impugned tweets was not defamatory. The motion judge noted that there is an important distinction in the law of defamation between words that are actionable for being defamatory and words that merely contain insults and are not actionable. The motion judge acknowledged that some of the language used by Maciver may have been unprofessional and ill-advised, but involved pure name-calling and was therefore not defamatory.

[26] Second, the motion judge found that the appellant had offered no evidence of any harm caused to her reputation as a result of the impugned tweets, other than “vague, unparticularized statements.” Therefore, even if the words complained of were defamatory, and some general damage to the appellant’s reputation is therefore to be presumed, any such damage is likely to be assessed as being merely nominal.

[27] Section 137.1(4)(b) of the CJA provides that if the impugned expression giving rise to a proceeding relates to a matter of “public interest”, the proceeding shall be dismissed unless the plaintiff satisfies the judge that the harm they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, is “sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.”

[28] Given the at most nominal damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the impugned tweets by Maciver, the motion judge found that the public interest in protecting Maciver’s right to speak out on a matter of public interest outweighs any considerations that might otherwise favour allowing the appellant’s defamation action against him to continue.

Regarding the claims against Picard, Weeks and Picazo, the Court of Appeal found that their expressions were protected by the “fair comment” defence. And as with Maciver, Gill never produced any evidence that she had been seriously harmed by these remarks. The Panel decided that protecting the expression was more important than allowing the case to continue — exactly what Justice Stewart had written.

[62] The motion judge found that the appellant’s defamation claim against the critics of her unorthodox views on effective treatment for COVID-19 was intended to silence those critics. As the motion judge found, correctly in my view, this is precisely the type of proceeding that s. 137.1 was designed to foreclose.

[63] It is unclear why the appellant included the unrelated allegations against Maciver in the proceeding that was otherwise focused on issues related to COVID-19. Maciver had a limited social media profile, his criticisms of the appellant were taken down shortly after they were posted, he apologized publicly and privately to the appellant, and he was subsequently disciplined by the OMA for his comments. The appellant waited nearly two years before commencing a proceeding against Maciver and yet was unable to produce any evidence of reputational or other harm resulting from his tweets. The motion judge did not err in dismissing the appellant’s claim against him pursuant to s. 137.1(4)(b) of the CJA.

[67] It was the appellant’s choice to commence a proceeding against 23 different defendants, one, moreover, that has now been found to be without merit. Given that this proceeding is precisely the kind of action that s. 137.1 is designed to prevent, the motion judge was fully justified in applying the presumption of full indemnity costs set out in s. 137.1(7).

Gill had also sought Leave (permission) to appeal the $1.1 million cost award. That was denied, as the Panel viewed her overall Appeal as without any merit.

Gill and Lamba appear to have been successful at “leveraging” the Appeal into a settlement for reduced costs. In other words, they strong armed their victims into accepting lesser amounts. This comes despite the fact that both the original Claim and Appeal had no merit.

This doesn’t appear to be the end for either of them.

Kulvinder Gill still has an open $7 million lawsuit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa over Twitter insults. This faces another anti-SLAPP Motion.

Ashvinder Lamba is suing her former counsel for incompetence, negligence, malpractice, and for having undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Expect follow up coverage.

MOTION FOR SECURITY FOR 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

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

February 17, 2024July 19, 2024

Lawyer In Anti-SLAPP Decision Sued For Malpractice, Incompetence & Negligence

A $600,000 lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court by an Ontario doctor who says that her former counsel was incompetent and negligent to the point that she’s suffered damages. She claims that the representation fell far below what should be considered professional. Specifically the Claim cites:

professional negligence
breach of fiduciary duty
breach of contract
incompetence
conflict of interest

Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Ashvinder Kaur Lamba, both Ontario doctors, made headlines in 2020, filing a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 parties. It was primarily over petty online drama, and predictably, it was thrown out. The case was appealed, to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Soon afterwards, their lawyer, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, abandoned them. This was allegedly over prolonged health issues.

Asher Honickman went on to represent Lamba in 2022. It’s interesting, since he’s also the one to commence proceedings against her former lawyer.

One of the main points of contention is that Gill and Lamba should never have joined their cases. While Gill alleged defamation from 23 parties, Lamba only had isses with 2 of them (Angus Maciver and Nadia Alam). Even then, she never really had a case against one of them. It’s argued in this malpractice suit that the asymmetry led to Lamba getting dragged into something much larger than she wanted.

Due to deficiencies in the original suit, it’s pleaded that Lamba wants damages from all 23 Defendants, even though she admittedly had nothing to do with 21 of them.

Also in this suit, Lamba claims she was never properly advised about the cost consequences — full indemnity (or 100%) — which are typical if they’re dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws.

There are many more problems to cover, and we’ll get into that. But first:

Timeline of major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Kulvinder Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this.

Now, what other problems are alleged in this malpractice suit?

Lamba’s relief sought incorrectly lists “all” Defendants

This is from page 7 of the Statement of Claim. Even though Lamba is pursuing defamation claims from just 2 of the Defendants (Gill from all 23), she seeks aggravated and punitive damages from everyone. This is a horribly amateurish error to make. These damages make up $2 million dollars, and it’s demanded that people who aren’t alleged to have wronged her have to pay.

This is the problem with the cut-and-paste lawsuit business. Important proofreading like this gets overlooked.

Claim wrongly lists all Defendants liable to BOTH Plaintiffs

From page 81 of the Statement of Claim, it’s alleged that all the Defendants are liable to both Gill and Lamba for: (a) libel and slander; (b) conspiracy; (c) negligence; and (d) breach of professional obligations.

But, as stated earlier, Lamba had nothing to do with 21 out of the 23 Defendants. Her only stated grievances were with Maciver and Alam. The poorly worded Claim doesn’t distinguish that though.

What else is there?

Lamba alleges she wasn’t advised to file Affidavit

Paragraph 17(d) the Claim reads that Lamba didn’t produce any evidence. By this, it means that she never submitted a sworn Affidavit against the anti-SLAPP Motions.

That matters because the 3rd branch of the anti-SLAPP test requires that the Plaintiffs submit evidence of at least some damages. While it doesn’t have to be a “fully developed brief”, there has to be something for a Judge to conclude that damages occurred.

By failing to do this, it’s guaranteed that the case would be thrown out.

Lamba alleges she was neglected in favour of Gill

Paragraph 17(f) of the Claim reads that the anti-SLAPP Motions Lamba received got nowhere near the attention that the ones targeted at Gill. As such, she felt neglected by her own representation.

Lamba alleges she preferred to settle or discontinue

Paragraphs 17(g), (h), and 33(c) of the Claim read that Lamba would have been better off to go the route of apology, settlement, or possibly discontinuance. This would substantially mitigate cost exposure. She states that her lawyer should have taken that approach.

Lamba alleges junior lawyers did work they weren’t trained for

Paragraphs 17(j) and 33(g) of the Claim read that junior lawyers and/or staff were doing parts of the work that they weren’t trained for, or competent in. There was apparently little oversight to ensure that it was done properly. Then again, it seems that senior counsel isn’t competent either.

By junior lawyers, this presumably refers to Samantha Coomara, who works at that firm. Gill and Lamba have a separate lawsuit in Brampton that names her.

As an aside: Coomara was the lawyer of record who sued this site, after sending threatening letters. She is grossly incompetent, and lacks understanding of basic procedures.

Lamba alleges conflict of interest with her legal representation

Paragraphs 17(k), 33(l) and (m) of the Claim read that Lamba’s own lawyers had their own agenda, and put their interests above their own. Presumably this refers to the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice cases which allege that there was a global conspiracy. This led to the highly publicized but poorly drafted lawsuits that kept getting thrown out.

Lamba was interested in a straightforward and (relatively) private defamation case. She apparently never wanted to get involved in any of this. She openly calls this a conflict of interest.

Lamba alleges she was never informed of the risks

Paragraph 33(b) of the Claim reads that Lamba was never properly advised about the risks of starting a defamation suit in Ontario. Between the strong anti-SLAPP laws, and the “presumptive full indemnity on costs”, this can get very messy.

The Claim mentions repeatedly that Lamba wasn’t kept in the loop about major decisions within her own case. It’s also claimed many times that the representation she got was incompetent.

Furthermore, she blames the quality of the pleadings on incompetence. It’s stated that her claims focused on the insults which aren’t actionable, versus the actual defamation.

Lamba is resentful at having her name tied to Gill, and to her lawyer’s overall agenda. She views it as very unhelpful. The $7 million suit Gill filed against Amir Attaran for calling her an “idiot” probably doesn’t help. While Lamba may have had valid grievances on her own, connecting with Gill and her lawyer seem to have caused endless headaches.

Keep in mind, all of this is written from Lamba’s perspective. We’ll have to see what the Statement of Defence says.

What are the practical consequences of suing 23 people and organizations? Well, a lot of lawyers are going to get rich billing the hours to defend against these claims.

This was another headache Lamba had to deal with. The bulk of the lawsuit had nothing to do with her, but she was claiming damages against everyone. Once the case was thrown out, she was presumptively on the hook for half of it. Part of the reason Lamba and Gill got separate counsel is that their interests diverged greatly in terms of the costs.

Gill would benefit much more from a 50/50 split
Lamba would benefit from everyone paying their own share

Anyhow, this is only a quick summary. Do read the entire Statement of Claim, as it’s quite the eye opener.

What will happen with this lawsuit?

It’s hard to say, but here’s a personal prediction:

Since it’s a lawyer being sued for negligence and malpractice, insurance will likely cover it. This means they’ll be providing a lawyer to defend it, and pay most of the bills. If it were a claim for dishonesty or misrepresentation, they probably wouldn’t.

Anyhow, insurance companies are businesses, and they don’t like losing money. They may very well force a settlement, or leave the client to fend for himself. They also don’t like insuring high risk subjects.