Category: Grifters

Posted on

Defamation Lawsuit Discontinued Against David Fisman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

End Of An Era: Vaccine Choice Canada Discontinuing Anti-Lockdown Case

Does anyone remember the hype in alternative media circles about Vaccine Choice Canada taking on Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford over martial law measures? It seemed to be the beginning of something grand. This would be the big case to stop the New World Order.

But in the end, nothing ever came of it. The case sat idly for years, even as more donations were solicited. The quality of the pleadings themselves was very questionable. There weren’t even service addresses for most Defendants, despite them being freely available. No attempt was made to push the case forward, or to obtain Default Judgement. Critics who publicly asked questions were threatened, and some sued.

Now, the other shoe drops. The case is being discontinued, and will never make it to Trial. Heck, it won’t even make it to the scheduled Motion to Strike.

The litigants themselves will never see their day in Court. Given the 2 year Statute of Limitations, they probably don’t have recourse with another lawyer. Donors who paid money in good faith were ripped off.

How long before the many interviews from the Summer of 2020 get scrubbed from the internet?

Thanks for the money, suckers!

Vaccine Choice Canada’s Email To Supporters

Dear Vaccine Choice Canada Community and Donors,

After much consultation and deliberation the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada have decided to file a ‘Notice of Discontinuance’ with regards to the legal action filed on July 6, 2020 (Court File No. CV-20-00643451-0000). Discontinuance means that a party, for its own reasons, has chosen not to continue the litigation. The decision to discontinue does not take away from the importance or merit of the case.

It is the position of the Board of Directors of Vaccine Choice Canada that to continue this legal matter at this time is not advisable. Our confidence in the independence and integrity of our Courts, and their willingness to properly consider the available facts and scientific evidence has been seriously eroded, past repair or hope. We are of the opinion that to participate in a fraudulent and illegitimate process is to give legitimacy to that process. 

Our decision is based on the following considerations:

1. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to properly consider the facts as they relate to COVID-19, the evidence and lack thereof of a pandemic; the extent of harm caused by the so called “vaccine”; the extent of harm caused by measures and mandates imposed by governments including masking, social distancing, lockdowns, injection of a genetic material; lack of proper safety testing; the violation of our Charter Rights and Freedoms, and other matters related to the government’s response to the COVID-19 event.

2. The Courts have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to consider expert testimony that challenges the claims of Health Canada, the CDC, and statements made by various government officials, officers and agencies.

3. The Courts have clearly demonstrated a deference, not to facts, the scientific method, and scientific evidence, but rather to government authorities, regardless of the inability of such authorities to justify their measures and mandates.

4. The Courts have utilized “judicial notice”, “mootness”, and “motion to strike” as instruments to deny full debate and disclosure of the available evidence.

5. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by their requirement that those attending court be compelled to wear a face covering, despite compelling evidence of the ineffectiveness of coverings in preventing transmission, and the harm from prolonged use of face coverings. 

6. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court judges publicly declaring their compliance with vaccine mandates that violate bodily sovereignty and informed consent.

7. The Courts have clearly demonstrated that they are not impartial with regards to the matter of COVID and the appropriate response to COVID, as is evidenced by the Supreme Court refusing to consider the appeal of lower court decisions that violate our fundamental rights and freedoms. 

8. Our Courts are no longer committed to “justice” as understood by Canadians. Rather, our Courts have become politicized such that they serve those in power rather than justice. Our Courts have become instruments of control and coercion rather than safeguards to ensure the upholding of the rule of law and our Charter rights and freedoms. 

9. We are also fully aware that the Courts have used the legal process to delay, defer and unnecessarily increase the cost of seeking justice. We are fully aware of the punitive costs awarded to those seeking justice which punishes those seeking justice and discourages future efforts to seek justice.

10. Our Courts have failed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite it being the highest law of the land. They have refused to demand that governments “demonstrably justify” their clear and undisputed violations of our Charter rights and freedoms as required under Section 1. 

Given our current lack of confidence in the independence and commitment of the Courts to justice and to protecting our rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are of the opinion that to proceed under these circumstances would cause more harm than good, jeopardize future legal action by adding to defective case law, and further erode confidence in the integrity of our judicial system and government agents. (A brief summary of the failure of the Canadians courts to uphold our Charter rights and established rule of law is available here:

https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/news/are-courts-failing-to-protect-medical-freedom-for-children-and-youth)

We are also of the opinion that given the number of defendants included in this action, in the event of an unjust ruling where the plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs, this could present a significant financial burden. The awarding of punitive court costs would undoubtedly impair the ability of VCC to serve our mission with respect to defending informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right, responsibility and authority of parents to protect their children from harm.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/vcc-statement-of-claim-2020-redacted.pdf

We are confident that were the available facts to be properly considered, and the laws of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upheld, that our proceeding would have been successful. The failure of our law enforcement and Canadian judicial systems to properly respond to the harms caused by government measures and mandates, including permanent injury and death, and to the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms is deeply disturbing and reveals a significant betrayal that needs to be rectified if justice is to be served in Canada.

Vaccine Choice Canada will continue to inform and defend our right to informed consent, bodily sovereignty, and the right and responsibility of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Forced and coerced vaccination, and other purported medical treatments, have no place in an ethical medical system, and a free and democratic Nation. Given the present threats to our fundamental and inherent rights and freedoms, the work of Vaccine Choice Canada was never more important.

We know that justice will eventually be served, however, it would appear that this is not the time.

Sincerely,

Ted Kuntz, President
Board of Directors Vaccine Choice Canada
VaccineChoiceCanada.com

June 13, 2024

That appears to be it. 4 years later, Vaccine Choice is dropping their case, after making no effort whatsoever to push it through the Courts. Donors should be receiving refunds, at a bare minimum.

Vaccine Choice Lawsuit A Giant Bait-And-Switch

Re-read this passage from Kuntz’ email.

In initiating this legal action, the first of its kind in Canada, we consciously and intentionally drafted, with the guidance of our legal counsel, an unusually detailed Statement of Claim to ensure that those involved in this well planned and globally orchestrated event were named, and their actions exposed. By this measure, we believe we have achieved our purpose and brought awareness to a global conspiracy that is undeniable in the harm it has caused. For those who may not be aware of what we exposed in July 2020, the Statement of Claim can be viewed here:

Kuntz states that the Statement of Claim was written to “ensure that [people] were named, and their actions exposed”. He states that “we believe we have achieved our purpose”.

Why does this matter? Because he doesn’t say that going to Trial and having the Court hold people accountable would have achieved the purpose. In other words, this was for publicity. It was never about getting any sort of a ruling or decision.

Consider this quote from a July 13, 2022 livestream. Fuller video here.

“Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides. And what you’ve helped us to understand is that there’s more to educating the impact of your legal proceeding than simply what happens within the Court. It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds…. We brought awareness to a dynamic that had been hidden from the public. And I would suggest that maybe, this was the most important impact we’ve had to date.”

It’s actually illegal to commence proceedings like this. You can’t sue somebody to “make a point”, or to “fire a shot across the bow”, or any similar justification. The Courts refer to this sort of thing as bringing a suit “for improper purposes”. The only permitted reason is that the Plaintiff(s) believes that he or she has a strong case.

Does this sort of thing happen? Yes it does. But few are retarded enough to openly admit it on a public livestream. Anyone can be listening in. This alone would be grounds to throw the case out.

So, What Happened Over The Course Of 4 Years?

July 6th, 2020: Vaccine Choice Canada files a 191 page Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. In addition to its length, the Claim was incoherent, and failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure.

Summer 2020: There was a media blitz online soliciting donations for this lawsuit. It was supposed to be the great challenge to medical martial law in Canada. However, no one seems to be asking the important questions, such as what activity is going on.

September 2020: Counsel for Vaccine Choice Canada tells Rebel Media that he will do everything he can to ensure an Application for a mask injunction is heard before Christmas (2020). However, that never happens. To be clear, no Application is ever filed with the Court. It simply does not exist.

In fact, no activity whatsoever will happen with this case for a long time to come. But what does happen is lawfare directed against critics and ideological opponents.

December 2020: 23 people and organizations are sued for defamation by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, primarily over Twitter comments. It would be thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

January 2021: CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, is threatened with a defamation suit for an email to Dan Dicks (Press For Truth) from their Treasurer. The email tries to redirect attention and money to their case, and calls into question the abilities of counsel for Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice.

March 2021: Kulvinder Gill files another defamation lawsuit, this time against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. She demands $7,000,000 because he called her an “idiot” online. An anti-SLAPP Motion will be heard later this year.

Ted Kuntz later admitted that Vaccine Choice financed (or at a minimum, coordinated) the Gill defamation cases. See paragraph 20 in the main text, and Exhibit “C”, starting on page 20.

From that, it’s reasonable to suspect VCC funded other defamation lawsuits.

September 2021: This website is sued in large part for publicly questioning the horrible quality of the VCC and A4C pleadings, and for pointing out the lack of progress in any of these cases. Currently, there’s an open anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

June 2022: CSASPP is sued for the email mentioned above, and an FAQ that’s critical (in part) of the VCC case. The suit also goes after a woman named Donna Toews. She dared to contact the Law Society of Ontario, LSO, asking about money she had donated to Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada. It was thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws.

July 2022: The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) is sued for $500,000. The primary motivation appears to be an attempt to derail the complaint from Donna Toews, and to make sure it cannot be investigated. It was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action (a grievance the Court can theoretically remedy), and the incoherent pleadings.

Note: The LSO would be sued again in 2023, a virtual clone of the last one. The probable reason was to keep the Court activity going, in order to sabotage their investigative abilities.

July 2022: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed regarding the CBC, which removes them as a Defendant. Previously, the organization had threatened to file an anti-SLAPP Motion if the case against them wasn’t dropped. See cover letter.

August, 2022: A single Statement of Defence is filed, more than 2 years after the Claim is originally brought. It suggests a Motion to Strike will be coming.

December 2022: Lawsuit from Byram Bridle filed against the University of Guelph, employees, and non-employees. Currently on hold while 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions are pending.

***You’ll notice in this list so far that there’s no mention of Court activity, such as motions, hearings, witnesses testifying, or evidence being sworn. That’s because none ever took place. This case is a “paper challenge”, not going anywhere.***

January 2023: Vaccine Choice Canada had its first Court appearance. Yes, that is the correct date. It took 2 1/2 years for even this. And it was just a CPC (Civil Practice Court) session. Simply put, these are 5-10 minute hearings with a fairly full docket. What happened was that dates were set down for the Defendants to bring Motions to strike (throw out) the case.

  • June 30th, 2023 – Moving Party Motion Record
  • July 28th, 2023 – Responding Motion Record
  • October 31th, 2023 – Cross Examinations (if Affidavits submitted)
  • November 17th, 2023 – Moving Party Factum (arguments)
  • December 8th, 2023 – Responding Factum
  • December 22nd, 2023 – Reply Factum
  • January 30th, February 1st, 2024 – 2 day Hearing

March 2023: For his work creating the article and video called “Nothing Burger Lawsuits”, Rick Thomas is threatened with a lawsuit. None have been filed yet, but anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason.

January 2024: The hearing briefly starts, headed by Justice Dow. However, he immediately recuses himself and adjourns the case. The reason being that he’s a former co-worker and personal friend of Health Minister Christine Elliott. This conflict of interest makes him unavailable to adjudicate the Motion. The hearing is rebooked — with a new Judge — for May 1st and 2nd of 2025.

February 2024: Ted Kuntz (VCC) and Tanya Gaw (A4C) host a livestream to “expose” people they call “paid agitators”. Basically, it’s just a hit piece on their critics.

June 2024: Vaccine Choice Canada announces that they’re dropping the case.

So much for being the ground-breaking challenge.

What About VCC’s 2019 Challenge For Vaxxing Students?

Few will remember this, but Vaccine Choice filed a challenge in October 2019 against Ontario’s policy of immunizing children as a requirement of attending class. In over 4 1/2 years, that case hasn’t gone past the pleadings.

Keep in mind — and this is written into the Statement of Claim forms — that a case will be dismissed for delay if it’s not resolved or set down for Trial within 5 years. Sure, it can be extended, but the Court will need to be convinced that there’s activity.

Should donors expect a refund for this case?

What About Those Thousands Of Pages Of Expert Evidence?

Once of the mantras endlessly repeated is that counsel for Vaccine Choice and Action4Canada has the best evidence from the top experts in the world.

We’ve all seen pictures or videos where all these expert reports are bandied about, attached as Affidavit evidence. Supposedly, it amounts to tens of thousands of pages. Problem is, they’ve never been filed in any Court. Any if these reports do exist, why delay cases with convoluted pleadings?

It seems more likely no such Affidavits exist, and that these are just images of stacks of blank paper. Or, they could just be random items printed from the internet. One explanation might be that it’s to divert attention from the lack of activity in the Courts. This would be done for the purpose of duping and deceiving donors and potential donors.

Why spend (presumably) hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions, on expert reports if there was never any intention to push the case forward?

It these thousands of pages of expert reports do exist, which seems unlikely, then a competent lawyer should have been responsible for drafting the pleadings.

Growing List Of Anti-Lockdown Cases Not Pursued

The Vaccine Choice cases don’t exist in isolation. Consider these:

  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (August 2021)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Action4Canada (by B.C. Court of Appeal)
  • Struck as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg, Federal injection pass case (May 2022)
  • Upheld as “bad beyond argument” – Adelberg (by Federal Court of Appeal)
  • Non-Existent?! – Federal workers vaccine injury lawsuit
  • Abandoned?! – Vaccine Choice Canada (October 2019)
  • Discontinued – Vaccine Choice Canada (July 2020)
  • Discontinued – Sgt. Julie Evans (April 2021), fundraised by Police On Guard
  • Discontinued – Children’s Health Defense Canada (April 2021), of which counsel was, at the time, a Director of the organization
  • Discontinued? – Take Action Canada (March 2023) is in an awkward spot. While it faces Motions to throw out the case as “bad beyond argument”, the group is openly considering dropping the case. More money is demanded. If only someone could have warned Sandy and Vincent that this was a bad idea

It’s worth mentioning that Action4Canada can probably be classified as “abandoned” at this point. 4 months after their nonsense Appeal was thrown out, there’s still no amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC).

Seriously: Is this a track record of good results?

Sadly, many of the “truther” media accounts promote these cases as if they’re legitimate, despite the abundance of information available. Liberty Talk is an obvious example, but hardly the only one.

Does it make sense why this website would spend so much time and effort tracking these bogus cases, and the endless money-pits that they’ve become? Does it make sense to question why millions of dollars have been funneled into this litigation? Shouldn’t everyone be held to account?

How much money has been raised? Here’s a starting point.

Okay, So What’s YOUR Solution?

A common thread most detractors have here is that the content is too negative. It’s too divisive. It needlessly weakens the Freedom Movement. No solutions are ever offered, despite endless criticism.

Well, there is a simple solution for donors at least. Demand full refunds, preferably with interest. If they say there’s no money available (since it was all spent on lawyers), start suing VCC for refunds. They’ll capitulate rather than face hundreds or thousands of angry people. Small Claims Court is dirt cheap, for example.

Deceit and/or misrepresentation would surely void any “no refunds” policy.

What About Potential Cost Consequences?

One question worth asking is how much VCC would be forced to pay for dropping the case. After all, the (successful) Defendants could ask for costs to offset the expenses incurred so far. True, the Motion to Strike wasn’t actually heard, but it had to be prepared.

This is certainly a valid point.

However, after thinking it over, it’s probably not a big deal. Government lawyers often agree to waive costs (or minimize them) if lawsuits are discontinued. This could have happened here. Or, the Defendants could have agreed to accept nominal costs (small amounts) as a symbolic victory.

Using Action4Canada as a reference, they paid out approximately $13,000 in costs after their Notice of Civil Claim was struck as “bad beyond argument”. True, Ontario has higher tariffs, but $50,000 or less would have been a reasonable order from a Judge against VCC. In any event, it would be a drop in the bucket considering the money that was fundraised.

Now that the Claim has been dropped, Kuntz, VCC, and their counsel are presumably free to spend the rest as they wish. There doesn’t appear to be a refund policy.

How long until Action4Canada announces they’re discontinuing their case?

As Trudeau would say: “Thank you for your donation.”

GRIFTERS MAIN PAGE

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs

Posted on

Federal Court Of Appeal Partially Overturns “Bad Beyond Argument” Injection Mandate Case

The Federal Court of Appeal partially overturned a 2023 ruling on injection mandates for over 600 Plaintiffs who had sued back in May 2022. This suit covered a broad range of employers, both part of the Government, and others regulated by Ottawa.

There were additional claims pleaded related to loss of mobility rights and freedom of travel. However, these seemed to be almost an afterthought. Primarily, this was a lawsuit over workers refusing to take the injections in the Fall of 2021.

Back in February 2023, Justice Fothergill struck the Claim for most (about 400) of the Plaintiffs without leave to amend. This meant that they wouldn’t be allowed to submit a new version. The other 200 or so saw their claims struck with permission to refile. A lump sum of $5,000 in costs was also awarded.

To explain this a little better: the Court created Schedules “A” and “B”, and lumped various employers into each. The “A” employers were part of the Federal Government. By contrast, The “B” employers weren’t part of the Government, but part of Federally regulated industries. The reason for this is that there’s a distinction in how their respective claims were to be handled.

Employees who fell into Group “A” were prohibited from going to Court at all over employment. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act allow the right to grieve, but not to sue.

Employees who fell into Group “B” were not necessarily restricted from going to going to Court. However, the pleadings were so horribly written that a new version would need to be created. The Court referred to it as “bad beyond argument”, and for “substantially the same reasons” as the Action4Canada case, it had to be struck. As with the Vaccine Choice Canada case, this one failed to follow the basics of civil procedure — once again.

That said, with this Appellate ruling, all Plaintiffs will be allowed to file something.

What this means is that everyone will be able to make claims for restrictions on their movements. That can still go ahead. However, the employment claims for all Schedule “A” litigants are still barred, with the possible exception of those employed by the RCMP. They’re governed by different provisions in the FPSLRA.

One of the problems with having so many Plaintiffs is that there’s no information pleaded about any of them specifically. Instead, generalizations are made, without reference to who it applies to. As for the travel restrictions, it’s unclear which litigants are alleging it.

Hopefully, these people will retain a competent lawyer this time.

Alternatively, maybe counsel will take a remedial refresher course on how to plead documents.

SCHEDULE “A”: PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

  • Canada Opportunities Agency
  • Canada Border Services Agency
  • Canada Revenue Agency
  • Canada School of Public Service
  • Canadian Coast Guard (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency*
  • Canadian Forestry Service (Department of Natural Resources)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research*
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission*
  • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  • Canada Revenue Agency*
  • Canadian Security Intelligence Service*
  • Core Public Service
  • Canadian Space Agency
  • Correctional Service of Canada
  • Courts Administration Service
  • Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
  • Department of Canadian Heritage
  • Department of Employment and Social Development
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  • Department of Justice
  • Department of National Defence
  • Department of Natural Resources
  • Department of Transport
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Elections Canada (“Office of the Chief Electoral Officer” and “The portion of the federal public administration in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer in which the employees referred to in section 509.3 of the Canada Elections Act occupy their positions”)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (Department of the Environment)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
  • Global Affairs Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development)
  • Government of Canada
  • Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration)
  • Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs)
  • Indigenous Services Canada (Department of Indigenous Services)
  • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
  • National Film Board of Canada (National Film Board)*
  • National Research Council Canada*
  • National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat)*
  • Office of the Auditor General of Canada*
  • Parks Canada*
  • Polar Knowledge Canada (Canadian High Arctic Research Station)*
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Safety Canada (Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
  • Public Services and Procurement Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police**
  • Service Canada (Department of Employment and Social Development)
  • Shared Services Canada
  • Staff of the Supreme Court
  • Statistics Canada
  • Treasury Board

NOTES:

All organizations are part of the core public administration as defined at s 11(1) of the Financial Administration Act (Schedules I and IV), except as noted.

  • Organizations that are portions of the federal public administration listed in Schedule V (Separate Agencies of the Financial Administration Act, whose employees have rights to grieve under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act).

** The RCMP is part of the core public administration and is listed in Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act; RCMP members have limited rights to grieve under s 238.24 the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, but have other grievance rights under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

SCHEDULE “B”: PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

  • Air Canada
  • Air Canada Jazz
  • Air Inuit
  • Bank of Canada
  • Bank of Montreal
  • BC Coast Pilots Ltd
  • BC Ferries
  • British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
  • Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions
  • Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
  • Canada Pension Plan
  • Canada Post
  • Canadian National Railway
  • Canadian Pacific Railway
  • City of Ottawa Garage Fed Regulated
  • DP World
  • Export Development Canada
  • Farm Credit Canada
  • G4S Airport Screening
  • Garda Security Screening Inc
  • Geotech Aviation
  • Global Container Terminals Canada
  • Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • House of Commons
  • Human Resources Branch, Innovation
  • Kelowna Airport Fire Fighters
  • National Arts Centre
  • NAV Canada
  • Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
  • Ontario Power Generation
  • Pacific Pilotage Authority
  • Parliamentary Protection Service
  • Public Sector Pension Investment Board
  • Purolator Inc
  • Questral Helicopters
  • RBC Royal Bank
  • Rise Air
  • Rogers Communications Inc
  • Royal Canadian Mint
  • Sasktel
  • Scotiabank
  • Seaspan Victoria Docks
  • Shaw
  • Skynorth Air Ltd
  • Telesat Canada
  • Via Rail Canada
  • Wasaya Airways
  • Waterfront Employers of British Columbia
  • Westjet
  • Westshore Terminals
  1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA?
  2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions?
  3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons?
  4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable?
  5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts?

1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA? YES

[42] On the first issue, I conclude that the Federal Court erred in finding that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA applies to the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP.

[43] It will be recalled that subsection 236(1) of the FPSLRA provides that the “right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute”.

[44] To recall, the relevant definition of what constitutes a grievance is set out in subsection 206(1) of the FPSLRA. That section states that a grievance is one that may be filed under either section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA. Thus, the bar in section 236 applies only to those who could seek redress via a grievance under section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA.

[45] Yet, section 238.4 of the FPSLRA applies only to grievances arising under a collective agreement applicable to RCMP members who meet the statutory definition of “employee” in the FPSLRA. Based on the materials that were before the Federal Court and that are now before this Court, it is impossible to ascertain whether any collective agreement has been negotiated for RCMP members. The National Police Federation was certified as the bargaining agent for RCMP members in 2019 by the FPSLREB in National Police Federation v. Treasury Board, 2019 FPSLREB 74. However, it is unclear if a collective agreement has been achieved and, if so, whether a challenge to the TB Policy could be the subject of a grievance under any such agreement. Given this lack of information, it is not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP possessed rights to grieve the TB Policy under a grievance to which section 238.24 of the FPSLRA pertains.

The RCMP Plaintiffs may still have their employment claims struck at some point. However, with the information available on this Motion, they couldn’t be now.

2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions? YES

[53] The Federal Court therefore erred in finding that the plaintiffs’ claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures could have been grieved or were subject to section 236 of the FPSLRA. While these claims suffer from the lack of proper pleadings and a failure to plead the necessary material facts that characterize the Statement of Claim generally, they should not have been struck without leave to amend. If properly pleaded, it may perhaps be possible for the plaintiffs to raise a claim that could come within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Without seeing an amended pleading, however, it is impossible to discern whether or not a valid claim might be advanced. The plaintiffs therefore should have been granted leave to amend the claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures on the same basis as the Federal Court allowed other claims to be amended.

All Plaintiffs should be given the right to have their travel-related claims heard.

In fairness to Justice Fothergill, it was unclear who exactly was pleading that their travel related rights were infringed. The Statement of Claim was so lacking in detail that it was impossible to tell.

3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons? NO

[54] On the third issue, I conclude that the Federal Court did not err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons, other than the RCMP. However, the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy.

[55] It is not disputed that the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than the RCMP could have filed grievances under section 208 of the FPSLRA challenging the TB Policy or its application to them. As noted, the TB Policy was a term and condition of employment and thus subject to grievance under section 208 of the FPSLRA, which allows the employees of the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons other than the RCMP to file grievances relating to their terms and conditions of employment. That said, the FPSLREB recently held in Rehibi v. Deputy Head (Department of Employment and Social Development, 2024 FPSLREB 47, that a grievance challenging the application of the TB Policy could not be referred to adjudication due to the fact that only a subset of matters that may be grieved under the FPSLRA may be referred to adjudication under subsection 209(1) of the FPSLRA.

[64] Since the defendants sought to strike the Statement of Claim based on the fact that a grievance process was available, it was incumbent on the defendants to establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. However, no evidence was tendered on this issue and the statutory scheme is not sufficiently clear to definitively establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. I therefore conclude that the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy without leave to amend. The plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP should have been granted leave to amend their claims related to the TB Policy on the same basis as the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than those listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons were granted leave to amend.

Since the RCMP are governed by a different part of the FPSLRA, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that their employment claims shouldn’t have been struck under s.236. That’s not to say that it may not happen anyway. That said, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs are out of luck.

This is a pattern that’s become more obvious: lawyers bringing cases to Court that involve Government and/or union workers. There’s almost always some legislation or collective bargaining agreement that gets these thrown out.

See below, under the “precedents” section. Since the 2023 decision, 5 more cases have been thrown out (4 in Federal Court, and 1 in B.C. Supreme Court) citing this Adelberg ruling as precedent.

4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable? NO

[65] I see no error in the Federal Court’s determination that allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity, are not justiciable in a civil action.

[66] As for the validity of the TB Policy and the Interim Order, it would appear that those issues may now well be moot. In addition, while it might have been possible to argue that the policies at issue were invalid in the context of a justiciable claim for relief on some other basis in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585, the Federal Court did not err in holding that an order setting aside the TB Policy and the Interim Order could only be obtained by way of an application for judicial review.

[67] I accordingly see no basis for setting aside any of the foregoing rulings made by the Federal Court.

This is comical and goofy. Experienced lawyers should know what Courts can and cannot adjudicate over. It reeks of incompetence that this keeps happening over and over again.

Bad beyond argument.

5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts? NO

[68] Finally, I see no error in the Federal Court’s finding that the Statement of Claim was improperly pleaded and lacked the necessary material facts. As noted in Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare) 2015 FCA 227, [2015] F.C.J. No. 1245 at para. 16, a plaintiff must plead, in summary form, but with sufficient detail, the constituent facts to support the relief sought. As the Federal Court rightly noted in this case, for the claims in respect of which leave to amend is granted, the plaintiffs must set out with sufficient particularity the facts they rely on in support of their claim, including details of how they were specifically impacted by the policies they impugn and the bases for and all material facts necessary to ground the claims advanced. The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is entirely devoid of these necessary material facts.

[69] I therefore see no reviewable error in the decision to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety. However, leave to amend it should be granted to all the plaintiffs in accordance with these reasons.

This is common sense, or at least it should be. If you want to sue someone, you have to spell out the allegations with enough specific detail that they can respond to it.

Here’s he TL, DR (too long, didn’t read) version of things:

(1) Members and former members of the RCMP may still be able to bring employment related claims around their refusal to take the injections.

(2) All Plaintiffs — both Schedules “A” and “B” — can make travel related claims

(3) Other than RCMP, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs have their employment claims barred

(4) The Statement of Claim is filled with issues a Civil Court can’t preside over

(5) The Statement of Claim fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and doesn’t plead the facts necessary to be properly responded to.

(6) The $5,000 cost award is set aside, and no costs were awarded here.

The “bad beyond argument” findings of Justice Fothergill (here), and Justice Ross (Action4Canada) have been upheld. Neither case was pleaded in a coherent manner. And both needed to be redone. It’s still mind boggling that veteran lawyers don’t understand how to draft documents.

While all Plaintiffs can now go ahead with something, a few questions:

(a) Since the Schedule “A” employment claims are still prohibited, will there be an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? That was promised after all.

(b) Since so much time has passed, will any new allegations be barred by the Statute of Limitations? For most things, there’s a 2 year time limit.

(c) Will any more of the litigants discontinue their case? Will others try to proceed, but with more “effective” counsel?

(d) Considering that Action4Canada never bothered to file an amended Notice of Civil Claim, even 4 months after “winning” their Appeal, will this happen here too? Will these Plaintiffs call their critics “paid agitators“?

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1752/2023fc1752.html#par24
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc137/2024fc137.html#par44

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

Posted on

Jordan Peterson Quietly Drops Lawsuit Against Wilfrid Laurier University

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

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

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

For background on the case, see here and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On consent, this court hereby orders:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

The Nadon Reference Case: What Really Happened (Gonzo Logic)

It’s time to put a decade long myth to rest: the Nadon Reference Case.

This was a 2013 challenge in Federal Court to the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court. The specific issue was not his abilities, but where he had worked. Under Canadian law, Quebec is entitled — rightly or wrongly — to 3 out of the 9 spots on the Supreme Court of Canada. Judges from the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal can sit on the SCC, but not take those 3 positions.

Yes, there was an Application filed by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” in October 2013. However, that’s not what decided Nadon’s fate. The Attorney General brought a Motion to stay (defer) the case, and an Order In Council (OIC) forward the matter to the Supreme Court. This was decided as a Constitutional Question. The case was deferred on consent, meaning all sides agreed to hand it over.

The original Application was eventually dismissed in 2014. However, it seems that costs were just as important — if not more so — than the principle of how SCC Justices are selected. This leads to the absurd idea that there is a “Constitutional right” to costs, even for lawyers who don’t actually win their cases. Gonzo logic!

The case was never “won on the merits”.

It was more a case of “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Ever wonder why no ruling is ever help up as a trophy? That’s because there isn’t one.

(A) Consent Order staying the 2013 Application
(B) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc21/2014scc21.html
(C) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc1088/2014fc1088.html
(D) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca39/2016fca39.html
(E) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2016/2016canlii47514/2016canlii47514.html

The above are a: consent to stay; SCC Reference, involving many Intervenors; and then three (3) subsequent dismissals. The earth shattering victory we are told about isn’t there.

Timeline Of Major Events

Now, the above is a lot to take in, so hopefully, this will clarify the details how events unfolded.

October 7th, 2013: A Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court, challenging the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada.

October 22nd, 2013: Order-In-Council (OIC) 2013-1105 is signed, referring the issue of the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court for a Reference.

October 28th, 2013: The Attorney General’s Office brings a Motion to stay (defer) the case, since it has already been sent off for reference anyway.

November 12th, 2013: Justice Zinn signs a Consent Order staying the Application, pending the outcome of the SCC Reference.

March 21st, 2014: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Justice Nadon isn’t eligible to use any of Quebec’s 3 seats on the Court. However, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t sit on the bench in any of the other 6 spots.

September 26th, 2014: “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” files a Motion for costs, and for Leave (permission) to dismiss the case. He didn’t win, and wants it dismissed, but claims he’s entitled to costs anyway.

October 31st, 2014: The Attorney General’s Office files a Cross-Motion (a Motion of their own), asking that the original Application be dismissed, since the issue of Justice Nadon’s appointment if now moot. They also ridicule the demand for costs, since the Applicants didn’t actually win.

November 7th, 2014: Reply submissions (rebuttal arguments) are filed in the Motion for costs.

November 20th, 2014: Justice Zinn hands down a ruling dismissing the original Application, and awarding a lump sum of $5,000 in costs to the Applicants. This is in spite of them not actually winning their case. The Motion was “in writing”, and as the name implies, done without an oral hearing.

January 11th, 2016: The Federal Court of Appeal hears the Appeal on costs. This is not about Justice Nadon’s appointment, but whether there’s a “Constitutional right” to costs.

February 8th, 2016: Federal Court of Appeal hands down scathing rebuke, along with $1,000 Order for bringing baseless Appeal in the first place.

July 28th, 2016: Supreme Court of Canada denies Leave (permission) to file Appeal over the demand for costs. This was the second attempt at appealing.

Now, to expand more on these….

Application Was Stayed (Deferred) On Consent

Almost immediately after the Application was filed, the Attorney General’s office brought a Motion to stay the proceedings (or defer) the case.

The Motion references Order In Council 2013-1105, an “Order referring to the Supreme of Canada for hearing and consideration the questions related to the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices From Quebec”.

Justice Russel Zinn signed a Consent Order, which stayed the Application while the subject was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the form of a Reference Question. By consenting, it was known to all — or should have been known — that it was surrendering control to the SCC.

This wasn’t a “win on the merits” by any means. However, it was an indication that the Federal Government took the issue seriously enough to forward it onward.

Many “Intervenors” For SCC Reference Question

Although the Supreme Court Reference is very lengthy, this is the main point. Should Justice Nadon be allowed to take a “Quebec spot” on the SCC if he’s sitting on the bench for the Federal Court of Appeal?

[109] This reference stems from the appointment of the Honourable Justice Marc Nadon to fill one of the three seats on this Court allocated to the Province of Quebec. Justice Nadon is a former member of the Quebec bar of almost 20 years standing. At the time of his appointment to this Court, he was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

  • René LeBlanc and Christine Mohr, for the Attorney General of Canada
  • Patrick J. Monahan and Josh Hunter, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario
  • André Fauteux and Jean‑François Beaupré, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec
  • Sébastien Grammond, Jeffrey Haylock and Nicolas M. Rouleau, for the interveners Robert Décary, Alice Desjardins and Gilles Létourneau
  • Rocco Galati, on his own behalf
  • Sébastien Grammond, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges
  • Paul Slansky, for the intervener the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc

But what frequently gets overlooked is that there were many Intervenors — 3rd party participants — at the Supreme Court review over the Nadon appointment. It wasn’t just one person against the Government.

[8] After carefully considering the Attorney General’s motion for a stay (for a period of 7.6 hours, in Mr. Galati’s case), the Joint Applicants eventually consented to a stay of the Joint Application in exchange for the Attorney General’s undertaking not to oppose their application for intervener status in the Reference.

Some comments from the Federal Court of Appeal are pretty funny. If their 2016 ruling is to be taken at face value, it seems that the Attorney General didn’t even want him at the SCC Reference. It comes across as him only agreeing to the Consent Order if there was no objection to him being an Intervenor. That’s got to hurt.

What if the AG had opposed Intervenor status? Would he have held up the Motion to stay the case?

Now, if this Reference result really was a “win on the merits”, then it looks as though every Intervenor could make that same claim. All of them submitted papers, and all were allowed to speak.

The most charitable interpretation of this would be a “shared win”.

Now, the real fun begins.

Federal Court Dismisses Motion For Costs, Dismisses Application

After the Supreme Court decision, the original Application became moot. After all, Justice Nadon was gone from the bench, so there wasn’t a real issue to resolve.

However, a Motion was filed demanding costs. The “claim” was that lawyers who bring constitutional challenges are entitled to costs. Apparently, this wasn’t just about principle. There was money to be made on this.

There were obviously problems with this. The most prominent is that fact that there was no “win or success”, which is typically required to receive costs. From the Attorney General of Canada:

The Federal Government filed a Cross-Motion, asking that the original Application be dismissed, and that the Court refuse costs.

The reason for dismissing the Application is obvious: mootness. Justice Nadon is gone, so there’s nothing left to deal with. It’s unclear why “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” would seek leave (permission) to dismiss, instead of just discontinuing on his own. A cynic may think that it would be harder to claim “success” if he simply dropped the case.

Federal Court Takes Note Of Overbilling In Costs Motion

In their Cross Motion, the Attorney General argued that even if costs should be awarded (for an unsuccessful case), the amounts sought were unreasonable. They point out that for Ontario lawyers, even the most experienced ones litigation the most complex matters were only entitled to $350/hour. This Motion demanded $800/hour, more than double that.

In the 2014 reasons (dismissing the Application and the Motion for costs) the Court notes at paragraphs 5-7 that the amounts sought are “excessive and unwarranted”. They want nearly $70,000 for litigation was stayed at the very beginning stages. It’s even more absurd given the self-representation that was going on.

Almost as an aside, Justice Zinn remarks that if not for the original challenge, the SCC Reference would likely not have happened. From a certain perspective, it could be viewed as public service.

He ultimately awarded a lump sum of $5,000. This is still a fair amount of money, but less than 10% of what the Applicants had originally demanded.

Federal Court Of Appeal Dismisses Appeal For Costs

[12] Mr. Galati argued for an award of costs in his favour calculated on the basis of 56.4 hours of service at an hourly rate of $800, plus disbursements in the amount of $638, for a total award (including tax) of $51,706. The CRC claimed costs of $16,769 based on 14.55 hours of service by its counsel, Mr. Slansky, at an hourly rate of $800. In argument, Mr. Galati acknowledged that his regular hourly rate is not $800 as his clientele do not have the means to pay such an exalted rate. He advised that $800 per hour is the rate for substantial indemnity pursuant to Part 1 of Tariff A of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, for lawyers of his year of call and experience.

[13] The Attorney General opposed Mr. Galati’s and the CRC’s motions and filed a cross motion seeking the dismissal of the Joint Application. On the question of costs, the Attorney General argued that since, as of the date of the argument, no judgement had been rendered in the Joint Application, there was no successful party and therefore no basis for an order for costs. In any event, the Attorney General argued that there was no constitutional right to costs. If an order of costs were to be made, having regard to the factors mentioned in Rule 400(3) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, it should be a single award assessed on Column III of Tariff B.

[28] The difficulty confronting the Joint Applicants is that they were not successful in their application. The Federal Court found that the Joint Application “was derailed and supplanted by the Reference”: see Reasons at paragraph 12. It was therefore dismissed for mootness. Mr. Galati and the CRC take the position that because the Reference produced the result which they sought in the Joint Application, they were successful and entitled therefore to their solicitor client costs. It doesn’t work that way. The fact that their application apparently set in motion a series of events which led to the conclusion which they hoped to achieve in their application does not make them successful litigants. It may make them successful politically or in the popular press, but that is a different matter. They can only claim costs in relation to the judicial treatment of the Joint Application which, as noted, was dismissed. To hold otherwise would be to create something in the nature of a finder’s fee for constitutional litigation.

[35] To be “in bed” with someone is to collude with that person. I do not understand how one could hope to protect the right to a fair and independent judiciary by accusing courts of colluding with the government if they don’t give the applicant its solicitor client costs. The entire Court system, it seems, must be alleged to be actually or potentially acting in bad faith in order to instill public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary. This is reminiscent of the gonzo logic of the Vietnam War era in which entire villages had to be destroyed in order to save them from the enemy. The fact that this argument is made in support of an unjustified monetary claim leads to the question “Whose interest is being served here?” Certainly not the administration of justice’s. This argument deserves to be condemned without reservation.

[47] Like my colleague, I agree that there are no grounds for setting aside the costs order of the Federal Court and I would dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $1,000. Had the respondents asked for more, I would have granted more.

The Federal Court of Appeal was pretty scathing in their review. Yes, the $5,000 award was appealed on the grounds that it wasn’t nearly enough, and the Applicants had a “right” to costs.

The FCA reiterated that there was no “win on the merits”. The parties had agreed to stay the Application in favour of letting the SCC Reference go ahead. True, it produced the outcome that was sought, but that’s not the same as actually winning.

The FCA took serious issue the implication that the Courts were “in bed with” the Government for not giving him his costs. Keep in mind, he was self represented. In the public sphere, this would have led to a defamation lawsuit.

The FCA rejected the notion that the Nadon appointment “went to the architecture of the Constitution”. Yes, it was an important question, but outside of a small amount of people, it had no impact.

The FCA also pointed out how absurd it was to use the Ontario guidelines for costs submissions when in Federal Court. Was this simply oversight? Incompetence? Or a way to justify inflated billing?

Supreme Court Denies Application For Leave (For Costs)

The applications for leave to appeal from the judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-541-14, 2016 FCA 39, dated February 8, 2016, are dismissed with costs.

Not content with losing at the Federal Court of Appeal, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” sought Leave (permission) to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This wasn’t about Justice Nadon, but another attempt at having someone recognize “his Constitutional right to costs”. This is nonsense, and it appears that he spent more time and effort trying to get costs than in the original Application.

Serious question: Is it considered fraud to misrepresent the results of Court cases, if done for the purposes of self-promotion, and generating business? The Nadon case has been held up as a “major win on the merits”, even though that’s not the truth. This was from 2013 to 2016.

Again, a better description would be, “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Fast forward to 2024, and groups like Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lie about their cases in order to keep the donation money rolling in. They pretend that losses and endless delays are somehow “wins”. At what point does puffery and self-promotion cross into outright deception?

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Supreme Court Reference ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 433
(2) Federal Court On Motion For Costs 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
(3) Federal Court Of Appeal On Costs 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
(4) Supreme Court Of Canada On Costs 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Nadon Reference Case Notice Of Application
(2) Nadon Reference Case AG Motion To Stay
(3) Nadon Reference Case Order Staying Application
(4) Nadon Reference Case RG Motion For Costs
(5) Nadon Reference Case AG Cross Motion Record
(6) Nadon Reference Case AG Reply Submissions On Costs

ORDER IN COUNCIL SEARCH:
(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few other points are worth looking at in detail:

Wholehearted Media Is A Galati Front Operation

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

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

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

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

Here’s where things get interesting.

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

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

Cases Being Used To “Double-Dip” For Donations

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

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

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

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

Gee, who posted these?

This is from the defamation case against CSASPP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health/Retirement Were Just Excuses To Dump Gill

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

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

Summary Of Incompetence/Negligence Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

t) He prepared and delivered deficient cost submissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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