
This article is to follow up on a 2022 case that no one ever heard about again. Specifically, it involved the Calgary Fire Department being sued for their new requirement to take the clot-shots. Many covered the announcement at the time, but nothing ever came of it.
Turns out that the lawsuit was discontinued, see here and here, less than a year after it was filed. The primary reason appears to be pushback from Calgary itself. The Calgary Firefighters Association, Local 255, has a collective bargaining agreement with the City and employees.
It’s also (yet another) cautionary tale about the problems litigants can have when they sue too many parties. Here, there could have been a decent case against the Alberta Government. Instead, the lawyer decides to name the employer as well, causing new headaches.
Additionally, the pleading had other serious defects.
The genius behind this was Leighton Grey, K.C., or King’s Counsel.
Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

24.01
(a) If any difference concerning the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of this Agreement or any question as to whether any difference is arbitral arises between the parties or persons bound by the Collective Agreement, such parties or persons shall endeavour to resolve the difference utilizing informal dispute resolution meetings. Should the parties fail to resolve the difference either party may proceed through the grievance process as set out below.
Step Two
If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved at Step One the Association within fifteen (15) days of the decision rendered by the Deputy Fire Chief or designate may submit the grievance to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or designate shall hear the grievance within fifteen (15) days of receiving it and shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days from the date the grievance was heard. If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved the grievance may be advanced within thirty (30) days to arbitration as provided under 24.01(c). If a grievance is not advanced to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the decision in Step Two, the grievance shall be deemed abandoned.
(e) The grievance arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any Member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the grievance arbitration board, but if there is no majority the decision of the Chair governs and it shall be deemed to be the award of the board;
Article 24 of that agreement spells out the grievance process. It reads:
(a) Bring grievance to Deputy Fire Chief.
(b) If no resolution, proceed to file with Fire Chief.
(c) Proceed to arbitration, if needed.
It’s also specified that if there’s no satisfactory conclusion reached with the Chief, then there’s a 30 day time limit to seek arbitration. It’s also clear that such a hearing is meant to be final.
Now, lawyers have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that various agreements never contemplated vaccine passports. While true, this amounts to CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, where the employer unilaterally changes a term and condition of employment. This sort of thing “is” usually covered.
Of course, had Grey only sued the Government of Alberta, the union agreement wouldn’t have come into play. Think about it, they can’t invoke a contract they’re not a party to. But by suing the Fire Department as well, Grey ensures that lack of jurisdiction will be an issue.
It’s just like an Ontario lawyer, who would be okay suing just the Ford Government. But then, he decides to sues any and all employers as well. Of course, suddenly union contracts create a jurisdiction issue.
City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike
The City of Calgary Fire Department brought an Application to Strike. Predictably, they invoked the union agreement, which specified arbitration as the only option.
Grey could simply have sued the Alberta Government — who brought in Provincial mandates — and left it at that. After all, they can’t challenge jurisdiction based on a contract they didn’t sign. Suing the Calgary Fire Department was an idiotic move, and allowed this to happen.
Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

The Statement of Claim contains poison pills, ensuring that it will be struck. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear criminal allegations at all.
The document also doesn’t plead any facts or particulars about any Plaintiff. The Judge would just be left guessing what the circumstances are for everyone, and which specific arguments they intend to make. This is probably since this lawsuit is largely recycled from other ones.
Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases
See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for more information.
- March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
- April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
- April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
- April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
- May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
- June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
- January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
- March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
- November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.
Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.
Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter.
Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

On his website, Grey brags about his success and accomplishment in the profession, including being an Adjudicator for Law Society disciplinary hearings from 2015–2020. He also mentions being the youngest to receive the King’s Counsel designation. Alberta describes members as:
Competence, including:
- sound intellectual ability with a thorough, comprehensive, and current knowledge of law and practice in the applicant’s field
- distinguished legal service with demanding and challenging legal work that contributes to the development of the law and practice
- a recognized expertise in a particular area of law and practice (which may include the general practice of law)
- an outstanding ability as a lawyer in the applicant’s field, to a standard to be expected of King’s Counsel
One has to wonder how and why so many defective cases were filed in recent years over the “vaccine passport” issue. It appears that most involved unionized employers, making them doomed to fail. Shouldn’t more be expected?
Note: To anyone who has read this far, are you aware of any other injection pass/vaccine pass cases brought by Leighton Grey? This site covered 9 that were dropped, and 1 struck, but there may very well be more. If so, please respond with the details.
COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
https://www.calgaryfirefighters.org/files/docs/IAFF_L255_2021-2023_Collective_Agreement_.pdf