Category: Grifters

Posted on

“Posties” Appeal Again: Hennelly Factors And Getting The Runaround

Let’s start with a thought experiment. How aggressively are litigants supposed to be following up with counsel? What separates diligence from excessiveness?

Employees of Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties”) have commenced yet another Appeal, trying to extend the deadline to challenge an earlier ruling.

To summarize: employees of Canada Post brought grievances when their company implemented the injection pass back in 2021. It eventually went to Arbitration, where it was deemed to be a “reasonable” policy in 2022.

Instead of challenging this ruling via Application for Judicial Review, they found a lawyer who convinced them to file a Statement of Claim. It was predictably tossed for lack of jurisdiction, in addition to the inadequate pleading itself.

Although Plaintiffs wanted to file an Appeal, they were given the runaround by counsel, and eventually abandoned. They found a new lawyer, but needed to file for an extension. The deadline had long expired.

See Parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

Over the last year, the focus was on getting an extension of time to Appeal. There were questions of whether or not Plaintiffs “acted diligently”, and if Defendants really were “prejudiced” by the delay.

Hennelly Factors And Deadlines To Appeal

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Understanding the Appeal process depends on who issued a ruling. If a decision comes from a Justice, then a Notice of Appeal goes to the Federal Court of Appeal. There’s a 30 day time limit. However, if it comes from an Associate Justice (Prothonotary), then there’s just 10 days to serve a Notice of Motion. Here though, because it took months for the Plaintiffs to file anything, it didn’t seem to matter.

Obtaining an extension of time to begin a proceeding is often doable, but may not be easy. The decision comes down to the Hennelly Test, which is a “suggested” list of 4 considerations. Other factors may also be looked at.

  1. Did the moving party have a continuing intention to pursue the application?
  2. Does the moving party have a reasonable explanation for the delay?
  3. Is there some potential merit to the application?
  4. Is there prejudice to the other party from the delay?

In the original Motion to extend time to Appeal, Associate Justice Cottor acknowledged the first part of the test, that the Plaintiffs had a continuing intention to pursue it.

Cottor entertained the idea of “giving the benefit of the doubt” to the third part, that there was some potential merit to the Appeal. That’s interesting, considering no explanation was ever provided on how to challenge the lack of jurisdiction (as Arbitration was required).

That being said, Cottor ruled against the Posties on the second and fourth part of the Hennelly Test. He said there was no reasonable explanation for the day, and presumed that there was prejudice caused by its length.

The request to extend time was 234 days past the deadline, of which 53 days of which was caused by Gratl himself. He didn’t act promptly after taking the case.

In this decision, Justice Kane said there was no error in how this had been applied, and upheld the refusal to extend time.

Now, the Notice of Appeal argues that the same mistakes were made.

Were Plaintiffs Supposed To Hound Their Former Counsel?

No Motion was ever filed by this firm.

In their first and more recent Motion Records asking for more time, the Plaintiffs give substantial evidence that they tried to get an Appeal started. The above screenshots are from one of the Affidavits. They were effectively led on, and then abandoned.

However, Associate Justice Cottor (starting on paragraph 9) wasn’t convinced that the Plaintiffs had pursued this diligently enough.

[35] A delay of 53 days is significant, and there is a no reasonable explanation for it. As per Singh 2023 the question is whether the Moving Plaintiffs have a reasonable explanation for the entire delay from the March 25 Appeal Deadline to the service of the Notice of Appeal on November 14. Since they do not have a reasonable explanation for a significant portion of the period, namely 53 days, it is not possible to conclude that they have a reasonable explanation for the delay. The outcome of the analysis of the initial delay of almost six months will not change this conclusion.

[36] While it may not be necessary to also consider the initial delay of almost six months given the above conclusion, I will do so for completeness. The initial delay is the period from the Appeal Deadline of March 25 until Current Counsel was engaged on September 22. As noted above, the Moving Plaintiffs blame Former Counsel for that delay. The defendants advanced various arguments in response, the general tenor of which is that: a) clients must live with their choice of counsel and counsel’s actions (subject to limited exceptions which the defendants say do not apply), with clients and counsel being treated as one for the purposes of a motion to extend time; and b) that the Moving Plaintiffs were insufficiently diligent in following up with Former Counsel in the circumstances of this case. The Moving Plaintiffs argued in response that the cases that have held that errors or inadvertence of counsel is not a reasonable explanation for…

[37] Using the approach advocated for by the defendants, namely that errors or inadvertence of counsel is not a reasonable explanation for the delay, then there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. However, if that approach is not used, it is appropriate to consider the behavior of the Moving Plaintiffs during that period … Considering the conduct of the Moving Plaintiffs during that period of delay does not assist them. They knew that the Appeal Deadline had been missed, and that the filing of a motion for an extension of time was lagging considerably (and more so as time went on). However, despite that, there was only occasional follow-up by the Moving Plaintiffs. Having regard to what transpired during that initial period of almost six months, it is not possible to conclude that the Moving Plaintiffs diligently addressed the situation

Associate Justice Cottor saw this as 2 separate delays: (a) nearly 6 months from previous counsel, Grey; and (b) another 53 days from current counsel, Gratl. He concluded there was no reasonable explanation. In the Appeal, Justice Kane saw no problem with this reasoning.

It raises the question of what litigants need to do. Are they expected to hound their lawyers day-in and day-out to check the progress of the case? Are they supposed to involve the Law Society? If lawyers mislead clients and lie to them, are they not able to fix their case?

Of course, none of this addresses the elephant in the room: there’s no jurisdiction to sue the company, as Canada Post is unionized, with a collective bargaining agreement.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

***It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

***Despite what happened, many Plaintiffs want to pursue an Appeal. However, they’re abandoned by their lawyer, and forced to seek a new one. They eventually hire Jason Gratl

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

***Since the Notice of Motion is so late, Gratl is forced to bring another Motion, this one to extend time. However, his explanation for the months long delay falls on deaf ears.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

September 23rd, 2025: Hearing is held via video on this Motion.

October 2nd, 2025: Justice Kane refuses Appeal that would have extended time to Appeal original decision from Associate Justice Coughlan.

***Gratl tried to explain again why the Canada Post Plaintiffs should get an extension of time, despite being months late. Again, the Court rules otherwise. At this point, the options within the Federal Court are exhausted.

October 17th, 2025: Plaintiffs file Notice of Appeal with Federal Court of Appeal.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events in T-1436-22.

We’ll have to see what happens. But it’s frustrating for litigants to be let down when they clearly were trying to advance their case.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)
(3) Canada Post Order Dismissing Appeal For Extension Of Time (October, 2025)
(4) Canada Post Federal Court Case History

LITIGATION (APPEAL TO FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post FCA Notice Of Appeal

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 9: Closing Off With What Alternative Media Didn’t Report

The saga at Universal Ostrich Farms has come to an end, with the Supreme Court refusing to hear a final Appeal. The birds are now dead, and many people are still angry from it. This will be the last of it, at least here and will attempt to cover some points mostly left out by “alternative” media.

***As an aside, most people didn’t want the birds killed. I didn’t. However, blame for this falls on the owners who turned them into test subjects. And the farm — for lack of a better term — became an open air biolab.

Probably the most shocking is that the owners attempted to cover up dozens of bird deaths, and that it wasn’t their first time doing this. Had a neighbour not reported this, it’s likely that few would ever have known.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the series for more information.

For anyone not too up to date with the story, here are some key events:

  • The CFIA, or Canadian Food Inspection Agency, issued an order at the end on 2024 to cull approximately 400 ostriches (or some amount) from a farm in the Interior B.C. This was on the basis that the ostriches had the “H5N1 virus” based on “PCR testing”.
  • The farmers filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court.
  • The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of the culling until the case was heard.
  • The Federal Court (Justice Zinn) dismissed the Application in May.
  • The Federal Court of Appeal issued another stay in June, until the Appeal was heard.
  • The Appeal was dismissed in August.
  • The Court of Appeal refuses a further stay in September.
  • Following the FCA refusal to issue a further stay, the CFIA moved in (with RCMP protection) and seized control of the farm.
  • September, the Supreme Court has issued a stay of their own, however, the CFIA will retain possession of the farm until the proceedings are concluded.
  • November 6th, SCC refuses to hear the Appeal. The birds are killed that night.

Most of the documents from the Supreme Court are attached below. The arguments seemed to revolve largely around whether there should have been reconsideration.

To clarify, litigants don’t automatically have the right to be heard. They must file an Application for Leave, and persuade the Court their case is worth hearing. Considering that only about 5% to 7% are granted each year, the odds are never good.

FROM CATHY FURNESS’ JUNE 2025 AFFIDAVIT:
(0) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(1) UOF Furness Call Log
(2) UOF Furness Declaration An Infected Place
(3) UOF Furness Exemption Request Documentation
(4) UOF Furness Denial Of Exemption Request
(5) UOF Furness Requirement To Dispose
(6) UOF Furness Notice Of Violation Failure To Report
(7) UOF Furness Notice Of Violation Failure To Comply
(8) UOF Furness Inspection Report
(9) UOF Furness More Inspection Reports
(10) UOF Furness Another Inspection Report
(11) UOF Furness Inspection Report Protestors

1. It Was A Neighbour, Not The Farmers Who Reported

This was from Exhibit “S” of the Furness Affidavit. It was a neighbour, not the farmers themselves who reported that ostriches were dying. This is a serious problem, as owners are expected to report deaths and suspected outbreaks.

2. Bilinski Covered Up Previous Suspected Outbreak

This is from Exhibit “Z” of the Furness Affidavit. On January 2nd, 2025, Bilinski reveals for the first time that there was a suspected outbreak 2 years ago, and some birds had died. He claimed that the survivors had immunity.

3. All But 2 Deceased Were Too Decomposed To Test

This is from Exhibit “T” of the Furness Affidavit. A lot of noise had been made about the CFIA only testing 2 dead birds. But according to their inspection report, only 2 were able to be tested on. The rest were either severely decomposed, or had been attacked by scavengers.

4. No Evidence Brought Forward For Exemption

This is from Exhibit “EE” in the Furness Affidavit. A package was sent to the farmers outlining the information that would be required to support a request for an exemption. Instead, the information they provided to the CFIA more closely resembled a business plan.

5. Farmers Claim Not To Know How Many Birds There Are

This is from Exhibit “G” of the Furness Affidavit. Bilinski and Espersen received a visit on January 20th, 2025. Among other things, they were asked how many birds there were in total. They answered that they didn’t know, and would have to count. This is an issue that would come up repeatedly.

Consider that Espersen and Bilinski claimed to have about 450 birds at one point. And again, they’re not sure. The CFIA only counted 314 when the culling was done. Does this mean that nearly 1/3 died over the last year? Were some sold or otherwise moved off the property?

6. Farmers Fined Twice For Not Following Rules

These are from Exhibits “RR” and “SS” of the Furness Affidavit. The farm was fined twice. The first was for not reporting deaths and a suspected outbreak, and the other was for not following quarantine protocols. Reading the package as a whole, it’s surprising that UOF wasn’t hit with many more tickets. If the CFIA had been vindictive, they very easily could have.

Come to think of it, it’s surprising that the CFIA didn’t just try to seize the farm a lot sooner. From what they describe in their inspections, few, if any health protocols were followed.

7. Decades Of Debt And Foreclosure

This was somewhat addressed in Part 4. The farmers here seem to owe everyone money, so it’s worth wondering if and how that would ever be paid back. It also raises questions about whether creditors could have seized the birds, had their not been killed. After all, they were essentially the only asset. They don’t own the land, so it’s not like that could be sold.

As one example: June 2023, Espersen and Bilinski were ordered to pay $244,323 in a foreclosure done by consent.

(A) 0752063 Bilinski Petition To Court
(B) 0752063 Bilinski Notice Of Application
(C) 0752063 Requisition General
(D) 0752063 Bilinski Consent Order Of Foreclosure

Rocky Mountain Ostrich, Espersen’s former company, was ordered to pay $61,134 in 1996 by the Federal Court. In 2002, another $24,310 was ordered.

When the dust finally settles, will creditors go after the GoFundMe or GiveSendGo accounts? It appears to be the only money they have. This probably isn’t what donors expected.

8. There Never Was A Happy Ending For The Ostriches

While it’s easy to be sympathetic, the reality is those birds were dead anyway. They were effectively a lab experiment, and would have been killed afterwards. Even without all this, apparently is was their practice to kill animals… by Halal methods?

Note: This isn’t my video, but was circulating on X (formerly, Twitter). This is Rick Walker of Maverick News. He gives many good takes on this case.

About Those Claims Evidentiary Review Not Sought…

There have been comments online that efforts should have been made to attempt to introduce new evidence for the Appeal(s). This is worth mentioning.

When the Federal Court of Appeal stayed the culling temporarily, their Order specified that there was not to be any new material sent. Instead, the existing Application Records (evidence) would simply be reused. While the Supreme Court *may* have allowed new evidence, they refused to hear the case anyway.

One has to ask if this farm would have enjoyed anywhere near the support it did, had the media covering it been transparent. Instead of endless stories about heartbreak, it would have been nice (or at least necessary) to get a complete account of how this farm operated.

Finally, there’s that run-in that counsin Danny Bilinski also had with the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) back in 2002. Dan and David tried raising money, but weren’t transparent with investors about ongoing financial problems.

(A) https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/-/media/PWS/Resources/Enforcement/Decisions/2002/2002-BCSECCOM-102.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DOCUMENTS (LEAVE TO APPEAL APPLICATION)
(1) UOF SCC Decisions Of FC And FCA
(2) UOF SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) UOF SCC Notice Of Name
(4) UOF SCC Application No Prohibition On Publication
(5) UOF SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(6) UOF SCC Memorandum Arguments For Leave To Appeal
(7) UOF SCC Notification Opposing Leave
(8) UOF SCC Response To Application For Leave
(9) UOF SCC Applicants Reply Memorandum
(10) UOF SCC Applicants Reply

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)
(3) UOF FCA Appeal Denied (August, 2025)
(4) UOF FCA Motion To Stay Dismissed (September, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(10) UOF APPEAL Order Staying Cullings Pending Appeal (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Adelberg Amended: “Wrongful Termination” Claim Alleges Arbitrary Detainment

Today we get a 3-in-1: Adelberg, Action4Canada and Dorceus.

The infamous Adelberg Federal case has finally been amended. There’s quite the story behind it.

Readers have commented at times asking why this subject is covered to such a degree. In short: it’s a multimillion dollar grift that is still ongoing. Desperate clients and donors are still being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers. No one else reports on it.

While the main focus here is on Adelberg, the others will be briefly discussed as well.

February, 2023: the Federal Court struck the case in its entirety as “bad beyond argument”. Furthermore, the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs (members of the Government) were barred because of a grievance requirement. However, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs (those in Federally regulated industries) could at least theoretically refile.

June, 2024: the Federal Court of Appeal did something interesting. Although the suit was primarily about employment, it ruled EVERYONE could technically bring travel claims, despite them likely being moot. It also tentatively allowed the RCMP Plaintiffs to proceed with employment claims for the time being. It did confirm that the initial filing was grossly deficient, inadequately pleaded, and “bad beyond argument”.

January, 2025: the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an Appeal that would allow the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs to file employment claims.

September, 2025: The remaining Plaintiffs file a new Statement of Claim. Aside from minor tweaks, it’s basically the same as before. That said, there is a 100 page “Schedule” attached. It includes: (a) names; (b) birthdates; (c) employment dates; (d) vaccination status; and (e) if any travel claims are being advanced. It still falls far short of the necessary information to proceed.

***Note: to prevent doxing, the personal information in the “Schedule” will not be published.

Aside from the bare-bones nature of the information, it’s now only being provided in September, 2025. The original Claim was filed in May, 2022. And it still covers less than half of the remaining Plaintiffs. Why wasn’t client information sought out 4 years ago?

But that is only the beginning of the problems here.

“Wrongful Termination” Suit Alleges Arbitrary Detention

At its core, Adelberg is a mass Tort for wrongful termination. It claimed that some 600+ Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries were fired or forced out for refusing vaccination. There were also vague claims about travel rights being infringed.

However, for some unknown reason, counsel has decided to plead that Plaintiffs’ Section 9 Charter rights were also violated in the process. This is the prohibition against arbitrary arrest or detention.

The Statement of Claim is very disjointed, so it’s hard to follow at times. But it appears to state that requiring the injection pass to obtain goods or services, or to travel, amounts to arbitrary detention. Apparently it violated Plaintiffs’ rights to address this by way of habeas corpus.

***Apologies for not catching it before, as it was in the earlier version. However, there were so many flaws that it got overlooked.

The pleading goes off on tangents about topics unrelated to work or travel. Despite those being the priorities, they receive little attention.

Lawsuit Fails To IDENTIFY All Plaintiffs

There are 46 “John Does” in the Statement of Claim, and another 23 “Jane Does”. Quite literally, there are dozens of Plaintiffs asking for money who refuse to identify themselves. Amusingly, it includes 17 current and former police officers who won’t give their names.

As should be obvious, this is complete nonsense.

Amended Claim Doesn’t Plead Necessary Facts Or Particulars

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

Frequent readers will have seen this chart.

“Pleading facts” means laying out who said or did what, when and where. It doesn’t mean arguing caselaw, or trying to test evidence.

“Pleading particulars” is required when Plaintiffs are alleging fraud, malice, malfeasance, etc… There’s an extra burden to spell out the nature of the allegation.

No Facts Pleaded For s.2(a) Freedom Of Religion Torts

Despite the sweeping declarations, not a single Plaintiff actually pleads any detail about how their religious freedoms were violated with introduction of vaccine mandates. This tort has specific elements to plead, and it’s not optional.

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

No Facts Pleaded For s.6, Mobility Rights Torts

Despite allegations that travel and mobility rights had been violated, no Plaintiff specifies any instance of this happening. This is regardless of whether international travel, s.6(1), or interprovincial travel, s.6(2) is considered. No one pleads either tort.

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

No Facts Pleaded For s.7, Security Of The Person Torts

No Plaintiff pleads any facts to establish that their safety was in danger from these mandates. It’s worth pointing out that Courts have consistently refused to find “practicing a specific profession” as worthy of s.7 protections. This dates back to the 1990s. Unsurprisingly, lawyers argue torts they know will be thrown out.

(1) Plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person, and
(2) the claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

No Facts Pleaded For s.9, Arbitrary Detention/Imprisonment Torts

As stated earlier, there’s no indication that any Plaintiffs are claiming that they were detained, let alone arbitrarily. This tort doesn’t apply in the context of wrongful dismissal. Supposedly it applies when dealing with people obtaining goods or services, or travelling, but it’s not explained how.

(1) Plaintiff must have been detained or imprisoned, and
(2) that detainment or imprisonment must have been arbitrary

No Facts Pleaded For s.15, Equality Rights Torts

Not a single Plaintiff pleads any facts that they were subjected to any humiliating or dehumanizing treatment from their “unvaccinated” status. Theoretically, it may be able to get it added as an “analogous ground”, but counsel makes no effort to do that.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

No Facts Pleaded For Miscellaneous Torts

There are several general torts included in the Statement of Claim.
(a) Malfeasance of public office
(b) Intimidation (through 3rd parties)
(c) Conspiracy
(d) Intentional infliction of mental anguish

However, there’s still the same problem. Not a single Plaintiff pleads anything that would theoretically support such claims advancing. The “Schedule” attached covers less than half the Plaintiffs, and is limited to:

  • Name
  • Employer
  • Birthdate
  • Date employment started
  • Date required to take injections
  • Date sent home without pay
  • Date fired or resigned
  • Damages (if quantifiable)
  • Travel restrictions

There’s nothing to indicate what religious beliefs any of the Plaintiffs follow, and how they were impacted. There’s nothing specific outlining any travel plans that were disrupted. No one describes how the security of their bodies was threatened if they refused. There’s no information that clearly explains how any tort is engaged.

And of course, no Plaintiff alleges details of arbitrary arrest.

The Claim still fails to include nearly all of the required information. For all the declarations of a “conspiracy”, there’s very little concrete information to go off of. From a procedural point of view, Defendants need to know what they are being accused of.

Now, let’s move on to the other cases: Action4Canada and Dorceus.

Action4Canada Faces Another Application To Strike

In August, 2022, Action4Canada’s pleading was struck as “bad beyond argument“. Then it was appealed, unsuccessfully, for no coherent reason. Now, there is a shorter version available, but the same problems remain.

(1) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike VIHA
(2) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Kwok Translink
(3) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Federal Defendants
(4) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Provincial Defendants

Dorceus Appeal Will Go Absolutely Nowhere

December, 2024, a massive healthcare workers case in Ontario was struck as “bad beyond argument“. All claims against the Government and unionized employers were completely struck, though the non-union ones could be sued individually.

While this is being appealed, it seems unlikely to change anything.

(1) Dorceus Appellants Factum
(2) Dorceus AG Respondents Factum

Limitation Period Expires For CSASPP Defamation Appeal

As an aside, the 60 day limitation period has lapsed to seek permission to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Free speech prevails here.

Frivolous Cases Waste Donor/Client Money

These grift lawsuits date back to 2020, and continue to waste time, money and energy. Filing Claims that fail to meet any basic level of professionalism does no one any favours — except Government officials.

Appealing, instead of amending, doesn’t help clients. It only works to delay and derail opportunities to hold people accountable.

Is there merit to the Plaintiffs’ demands? Quite likely, yes. When they say they were forced out of their jobs, or prohibited from travelling, most (if not all) are telling the truth. On the surface, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of any of them.

That said, these pleadings are so poorly written that none of these cases will ever get to Trial. It is entirely the fault of the people drafting the papers.

And groups like The Democracy Fund and JCCF are publicly silent about all this.

But there is a solution: go after lawyers’ insurance money.

(1) Adelberg Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim NO SCHEDULE

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 8: Giving Away Someone ELSE’S Land

The Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.) will be asked to hear a case challenging a Government decision to kill 400 or so birds in the name of public health. Worth noting, the S.C.C. declines to hear 90-95% of cases every year. While the subject matter would be fairly unique, numerically, it will be tough to sell it as “national interest”.

This is of course Universal Ostrich Farms, in Edgewood, B.C.

A quick summary of recent events:

  • The CFIA, or Canadian Food Inspection Agency, issued an order at the end on 2024 to cull approximately 400 ostriches from a farm in the Interior B.C. This was on the basis that the ostriches had the “H5N1 virus” based on “PCR testing”.
  • The farmers filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court.
  • The Federal Court granted a temporary stay of the culling until the case was heard.
  • The Federal Court (Justice Zinn) dismissed the Application in May.
  • The Federal Court of Appeal issued another stay in June, until the Appeal was heard.
  • The Appeal was dismissed in August.
  • The Court of Appeal refuses a further stay in September.
  • Just now, the Supreme Court has issued a stay of their own, however, the CFIA will retain possession of the farm until the proceedings are concluded.

Beyond the Court drama, there’s a lot going on with the ostriches that received far less attention. Most importantly, these animals aren’t to be food at all. Instead, they are lab animals, supposedly infected with some manmade “antigens”.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the series for more information.

If nothing else, this situation has shown the cognitive dissonance of protesters. Back in 2021, the rallying cries were that “Covid is a hoax”, or at worst that “It’s just the flu”. Now, the animals are being heralded as the anti-pharma solution to the next pandemic.

Remember: in 2020/2021, PCR testing was seen as “junk science” and completely unreliable. Many of these same protesters railed against it. But now that UOF’s business model is “antibody production”, suddenly PCR tests are a fairly accurate diagnostic tool. Even the Pelech Affidavit only gave mild criticism over cycle counts.

The above video was shot by Drea Humphrey (Rebel News), and posted online. It shows Katie Pasitney telling the RCMP to back off, since the farm is “on Indigenous land”. The news has also been shared on places like Facebook.

Protesters here are likely many of the same ones angry that B.C. Courts have been ruling that various tribes have rights to other people’s private property. They viewed it as Government overreach. But for UOF, it’s apparently okay to just declare Indigenous rights. Okay….

Some of the more astute observers have pointed out that doing this may make it easier for further land grabs in the future. Is invoking UNDRIP really the best idea? This may help Espersen, Bilinski and Pasitney in the short term, but overall, could backfire on them.

But here’s more the interesting part: it’s not their land to give away.

2014 Farm Foreclosure To RBC => Sold To Quigleys

.

This was covered in Part 4 of the series. Karen Espersen and David Bilinski don’t actually own the land in question. Nor does Katie Pasitney.

Back in 2012, RBC filed a Petition in B.C. Supreme Court over unpaid debts. The property was eventually sold to Catherine and Thomas (Owen) Quigley, who are the owners today.

Fast forward to 2021, Esperson filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Quigleys. There had apparently been an agreement to subdivide the land (and get her a portion of it back) that had followed through. There have been endless delays, with Trial scheduled for 2026. The Counterclaim is also worth reading.

It’s anyone’s guess that the Judge will do at the end. But in the meantime, the Quigleys are still the legal owners of the property. There’s no indication — at least from what’s readily available — that they endorsed any of this.

In short, Espersen and Pasitney have told the police that an Indian tribe has rights to the land that belongs to someone else. While it’s an innovative and amusing technique to use against the RCMP, it’s not their property.

Imagine this scenario: you live in an apartment and pay rent. For various reasons, you are unable to meet those obligations, and the landlord tries to evict you. Is it then okay to declare that the property is on unceded land, and that the owners have no rights? That’s more or less what’s happening here.

There’s all kinds of sympathy for the farmers, and their animals. But what about the rights of the owners?

Courts Unwilling To Delve Into Issue

As for the Federal Court rulings themselves, this pretty accurately sums up the frustration that many have with the process.

[6] In this regard, it is not the role of this Court to set, vary, or grant exemptions from governmental policy. Rather, our sole role is to determine whether the decisions at issue in this appeal were reasonable in accordance with the deferential standard of review set out in the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, this Court, and other Canadian courts. Because the Stamping-Out Policy, which underlies the two decisions, the Notice to Dispose, and the Exemption Denial, are all reasonable in accordance with that case law, we have unanimously concluded that this appeal cannot succeed.

The Federal Court of Appeal has echoed the Federal Court in ruling that it’s not their job to vary Government policy, or to make exceptions. As long as the underlying decisions are “reasonable”, they won’t intervene. Of course, reasonable doesn’t necessarily mean “correct”.

Will the Supreme Court get involved, or will they refuse to hear it? Looking at the low success rate of Applications for Leave, it seems unlikely. Then again, it’s a fairly novel case, with potential to impact many lives down the road. The S.C.C. just might.

While it’s understandable that many have sympathy for UOF, keep in mind that they’re not the only ones impacted by all of this.

For the time being, the CFIA, despite having custody of the birds, is prevented from killing them. How well will they be looked after?

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)
(3) UOF FCA Appeal Denied (August, 2025)
(4) UOF FCA Motion To Stay Dismissed (September, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(10) UOF APPEAL Order Staying Cullings Pending Appeal (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

“Posties” Get Screwed Over Again By Incompetent Counsel, Part 1

Last Spring, this site covered how hundreds of employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties“) had been taken for a ride by their counsel. In the Fall of 2024, documents were filed indicating that at least some of them would be attempting to appeal.

For context, in the Fall of 2021, the workplace implemented the “vaccine mandates”. This required everyone to get multiple injections, or face the loss of their employment.

Being a unionized employer, the collective bargaining agreement specified a remedy: file a grievance. If things couldn’t get resolved, then the matter would go to arbitration, and that would be considered final. If the process was unfair or corrupted, then requesting a review may be an option.

Here, the Arbitration Panel sided with Canada Post, ruling that the mandates were a reasonable safety matter. Now, filing an Application for Judicial Review may could have worked, if they took that path.

However, the Posties retained a lawyer, Leighton Grey, who filed a Statement of Claim instead. Rather than challenging the fairness of the Arbitration, he commenced an Action. This was doomed to fail, at least with the company, as the union agreement explicitly prohibited it.

As for the Government of Canada, the Court said that there was enough of a separation between the Federal Government and Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, to hold them liable.

Furthermore, the Statement of Claim was lacking in the necessary information. As is common with Grey, he doesn’t plead the necessary facts (Rule 174) for each Plaintiff, which is required. Despite having nearly 300 Plaintiffs, the Claim was just 18 pages in length. The case was struck without an opportunity to refile.

It turns out that dozens of Plaintiffs wanted to appeal, but Leighton missed the deadline. Clients seemed to be under the impression that a challenge was coming, when none was. If the transcripts are to be believed, they were strung along for months.

In September of 2024, they get a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. While he could have brought a malpractice complaint against Grey — which would get clients some justice — he tries halfheartedly to salvage the lost cause of a case.

One would assume that Gratl would act urgently, given the nature of missing a deadline. However, he sits on a file for nearly 2 months, before bringing a Motion to extend time. It’s dismissed by Associate Justice John Cotter. He then brings another Motion, challenging the refusal.

Timeline Of Events In Arbitration

***It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

January 24th, 2022: Canada Post’s lawyer serves some 700 pages of material related to the arbitration hearings.

February 12th, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post. Colin Furness, who works for the University of Toronto, testifies.

March 21st, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

March 22nd, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

April 5th, 2022: Final arguments were to be held for arbitration process.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

Timeline Of Events In Federal Court Lawsuit

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

July 18th, 2022: A Notice of Intention to Respond is filed.

November 3rd, 2022: Defendants send correspondence asking for case management, and to suspend normal timelines to file a Defence.

November 23rd, 2022: Associate Judge Catherine A. Coughlan is assigned to manage the case.

January 16th, 2023: Plaintiffs provide letter for dates for case management conference.

April 6th, 2023: Case conference is delayed until May 31st.

May 31st, 2023: Plaintiffs directed to file Amended Statement of Claim by June 15th.

June 19th, 2023: Plaintiffs file Amended Statement of Claim.

July 7th, 2023: Dates are set down for Defendants’ Motions to Strike (throw out the case), and the following deadlines were established. Worth mentioning, these kinds of Motions are done in many steps.

  • August 18th: Defendants serve (but not file) Notice of Motion, and any Affidavit evidence
  • September 15th: Plaintiffs serve (but not file) any Affidavit evidence
  • October 27th: Any cross-examinations on Affidavits is to have finished. This is similar to a Court setting, where a person gets asked about evidence that they submit. Failure to attend means evidence won’t be considered.
  • November 17th: Moving Party Defendants are to submit their Motion Records, which is a collection of documents. In Federal Court, it also includes the written arguments, or submissions
  • December 8th: Responding Plaintiffs to serve and file their Motion Record(s)
  • January 23rd-25th, 2024: Court to hear the Motions

July 10th, 2023: Lawyer for Canada Post contacts the Court and advises a lack of availability for the week in January when the hearing is to take place.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

Timeline Of VERY Late Motion For Appeal Extension

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Associate Justice Coughlan (a.k.a. a Prothonotary) is the one who struck the case. The 10 day time limit applies, meaning something would have to be filed by March 23rd, 2024.

7. The adverse order and reasons for judgment were issued by Associate Judge Coughlin on March 13, 2024 (the “Decision”). The Decision was provided to the plaintiffs by GWS LLP on March 14, 2024. The plaintiffs then immediately, on March 14, 2024, requested legal advice from GWS LLP on the merits of an appeal.

10. As of April 10, 2024, we believed that the deadline for appealing was 30 days from the date of the decision. Although I had suspected that the deadline might be 10 days from the date of decision in late March of 2024, our legal counsel first advised me in late April of 2024 that the deadline was 1O days from the date of decision.

11. On May 13, 2024, I requested an update from GWS LLP on how the appeal was proceeding. On June 6, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. On June 19, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. I am advised by Kim Priest that she repeatedly telephoned GWS LLP to ask for updates on the progress of the appeal and to urge GWS LLP to file the application to extend the deadline.

12. On July 4, 2024, I was advised by Mr. Farquhar, an associate lawyer at GWS LLP, that Ms. Trignani, another associate lawyer at GWS LLP, was no longer working at GWS LLP and she had been working on the appeal. Mr. Farquhar assured me on July 4, 2024, that he, Mr. Farquhar, was now personally working on the application to extend the deadline for the appeal and that it would be prepared shortly.

13. On July 17, 2024, I received application materials, and on July 22, 2024, I provided comments and again instructed GWS LLP to file the application. On July 26, 2024, Mr. Grey of GWS LLP advised that he would no longer be supervising the work on the appeal and that Mr. Farquhar of GWS LLP would be working on the file alone.

14. On September 4, 2024, Mr. Grey advised that Mr. Farquhar was no longer working at GWS LLP, and that Mr. Hershey, the lawyer at GWS LLP who was initially supposed to be working on the appeal under Mr. Grey’s supervision, no longer worked at GWS LLP and that no one else at GWS LLP was able to take on the appeal.

16. We found Grall & Company, a Vancouver-based law firm, in late September of 2024. We agreed in principle to retain Grall & Company to give advice on this appeal on September 22, 2024.

In paragraph 7 of her Affidavit, page 17 in the Motion Record, Karine Solakian states that many Plaintiffs sought advice immediately on the merits of an Appeal. She also states that she found out from Grey for the first time about the 10 day deadline well after it had lapsed.

***Neither Grey nor his assistants ever filed for an extension. Nor does it seem they ever notified the Defendants that an Appeal was in the works.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

February 28th, 2025: Canada Post files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

The main concern for this latest Motion is whether or not the previous Motion (an extension of time) should have been refused. The Order cited a few major concerns: (a) lack of explanation for the delay; and (b) the length of the delay was “significant and prejudicial”. The delay was 234 days, over 7 months, of which 53 days were while Gratl was retained.

Interesting, it seems that Grey doesn’t actually do the legal work himself, he just farms it out to the hired help. More coming up in Part 2.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)

Posted on

From April: Australian Court Throws Out 1,000 Page Class Action As Incoherent

A while back, an Australian Court issued a ruling that is eerily similar to what has been happening here. A Proposed Class Action was filed to obtain justice for victims who had been injured from the “Covid vaccines”.

Justice Anna Katzmann of the Federal Court in New South Wales issued a 62 page decision, see archive, explaining why the lawsuit was thrown out.

***Note: this ruling was actually from April, 2025. Due to a bunch of different delays and setbacks, including getting these documents, it’s finally being covered now. Nonetheless, it’s proof that the rampant screw-ups from the “freedom lawyers” isn’t limited to just Canada. Australian lawyers apparently can be just as bad. Here’s an earlier article on it.

The Plaintiff is also on the hook for 80% of the Defendants’ Court costs.

  1. The third further amended statement of claim be struck out.
  2. No other amended statement of claim be filed without the leave of the Court.
  3. The respondents’ application for security for costs be dismissed.
  4. The applicants pay 80% of the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application filed on 17 June 2024.
  5. These orders be entered forthwith.

Although the Claim was struck, it at least allows for the possibility that a proper version may be filed, if leave was granted. But it wouldn’t happen with present counsel.

While the lawyers in Canada (deservedly) get endless criticism from this site, it’s worth noting that the problem isn’t limited to just them. We have more in common than it seems.

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada are ridiculed for their absurdly long claims (391 and 191 pages, respectively). However, this one much longer than either of those.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the Statement of Claim was 1,000 pages long. Or at least, 2 of the versions were 1,000 pages. Lawyers apparently “settled” on one that was over 800. This alone would have unnecessarily driven up legal costs.

651 pages – first version
652 pages – second version
990 pages – third version
1,023 pages – fourth version
818 pages – fifth version

Excluding Notice of Filing and the back page, this totals 4,134, or 827 pages per draft. Lawyers would have to read over 4,000 pages just to cover the different versions of the Statement of Claim. Beyond that, Justice Katzmann complains that her various directions weren’t complied with, driving up costs, and wasting time.

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

[2] The proceeding was commenced in April 2023 by the filing of an originating application and a 652-page statement of claim. Since then, the statement of claim has been amended four times. Still, the pleading remains prolix. The latest version, the third further amended statement of claim (3FASOC), is 819 pages long. It is dense and extremely difficult to follow. Substantial parts of it are impenetrable.

[3] The relief sought is “compensation and/or damages” with interest plus costs. The basis of the claim for compensation, as distinct from damages, is obscure. A claim is made in the pleading, but not in the originating application, for exemplary damages but that claim is not particularised, contrary to the requirement in r 16.44(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) that, where such a claim is made, the pleading must also “state particulars of the facts on which the claim is based”. Despite the misfeasance claim, no declaration is sought that anything allegedly done by any of the Commonwealth officers was unauthorised, invalid or beyond power.

[13] The respondents’ contention is that summary judgment should be entered in their favour because the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success; the 3FASOC fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action; and the proceeding is an abuse of process.

[14] Alternatively, the respondents contend that the pleading should be struck out in full because it contains scandalous material, is embarrassing, evasive and ambiguous, and an abuse of process, and it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

[15] The respondents contend that the negligence claim is bound to fail because the applicants have no reasonable prospect of establishing the existence of the pleaded duty; the allegations of bad faith have not been adequately pleaded or properly particularised; the allegations of breach are vague, generalised, embarrassing and inappropriate; and the pleading makes no attempt to link the alleged breaches of duty to the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants. The respondents contend that the misfeasance claim is fatally flawed in a number of respects.

[37] Pleadings are covered by Pt 16 of the Rules. The key features include the following matters. First, a pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case permits: r 16.02(1)(b). Second, it must identify the issues the party wants the Court to resolve: r 16.02(1)(c). Third, it must state the material facts on which the party relies that are necessary to give the opposite party fair notice of the case against it but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved: r 16.02(d). Fourth, it must state the provisions of any statute relied on: r 16.02(e). In addition, a pleading must not ask for relief that is not claimed in the originating application: r 16.02(4).

[38] Importantly, not all relevant facts are “material facts”. A fact is material if it is essential to the cause of action, that is to say, if it is a fact which, in combination with other facts, gives rise to
a right to sue: Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697 at 710–712 (Scott LJ). In other
words, a fact is material if it is essential to prove that fact in order to make out the cause of
action or put another way, it is an element of the cause of action.

The decision is much longer, of course, but this is noteworthy. Justice Katzmann has to explain, in great detail, what pleadings are supposed to include. Despite the tedious length, most of the necessary information isn’t submitted at all. Nearly the entirety of these filings is irrelevant.

While this was in Australia, the Judge could easily be describing a filing from several Canadian cases.

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

In fairness, Plaintiffs are required to plead sufficient detail so that Defendants understand what they’re being accused of. This is necessary.

However, this goes far beyond that. It argues ad nauseum the side effects and inadequate testing of vaccines. And it goes on for hundreds of pages. The goal of pleadings is to simply lay out the allegations so they can be responded to.

The Claim does (briefly) address the classes of Plaintiffs who will be covered by it. But it gets bogged down by the minute detail. Indeed, this appears designed to be incoherent and convoluted.

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Another parallel here is that this case had significant fundraising as well. While this is certainly not the only source of crowdfunding, this took in nearly $173,000 Australian dollars. Overall, close to $1 million was raised.

And all for a case so poorly drafted it never stood a chance.

Gee, they’re not in cahoots, are they?

AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1.1) https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0339
(1.2) Decision Of Justice Anna Katzmann
(2) Aussie Applicants Genuine Steps Statement (April 26th, 2023)
(3) Aussie Statement of Claim (April 26th, 2023)
(4) Aussie Amended Statement of Claim (April 28th, 2023)
(5) Aussie Further Amended Statement of Claim (September 18th, 2023)
(6) Aussie Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (March 4th, 2024)
(7) Aussie Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (May 6th, 2024)
(8) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (June 17th, 2024)
(9) Aussie Affidavit of Melissa McCann Redacted (July 15th, 2024)
(10) Aussie Applicants Written Submissions (November 11th, 2024)
(11) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (November 18th, 2024)
(12) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (November 29th, 2024)
(13) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (December 20th, 2024)
(14) Aussie Applicants Response (December 20th, 2024)

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress