Category: Grifters

Posted on

Appeal Of “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Ruling Accuses Judge Of Bias

It’s probably not a good idea to throw the term “bias” around like this.

Readers of this site will likely remember the February 21, 2023 Ruling in the Federal Court that was covered here. This was a challenge to the Fall 2021 dictate for vaccine passports at the Federal level, launched by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati. A case involving some 600 Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety as being “bad beyond argument”, among other issues. Justice Simon Fothergill was extremely critical of the case.

That February Decision is now being appealed.

To understand the Appeal, here is a brief review of what happened:

Approximately 2/3 of the Plaintiffs were permanently barred from using the Court as a remedy. As members of the Federal Government, Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, requires that they seek alternate remedies for employment matters.

The other 1/3 of the Plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended lawsuit, but with other restrictions. These were either members of Crown Corporations, or employees of Federally regulated industries.

There was also the problem that the wrong paperwork had been filed. When challenging a Decision from a Federal Board, Commission or Tribunal, Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act require that a Notice of Application be filed, and not a Statement of Claim.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

As was mentioned during the January 2023 hearing, if all that the Plaintiffs were seeking was damages, then a Statement of Claim was fine.

The Decision referenced the specific portions of the Federal Court Rules that were not followed. The Rules outline the basics of how pleadings are supposed to be drafted. These were the most notable errors here as well.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

This is very common with Galati: he makes plenty of accusations, but doesn’t plead any factual basis. Consequently, the Defendants are often left with so little information that they can’t respond meaningfully. This is partly why so many of his cases get thrown out.

Simply stating: “and the fact is” doesn’t make something a fact.

As outlined in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules. Justice Fothergill apparently didn’t find it worthwhile to go through it point by point to outline the deficiencies. This has been extensively detailed by Justice Ross in Vancouver, for the Action4Canada case, and the parallels are striking.

Pleadings in the Courts of British Columbia and Ontario were plagued by the same deficiencies. Regardless of jurisdiction, there are minimum levels of organization and quality that have to be followed.

Anyhow, the Federal Decision has been appealed, and is it ever interesting. The Notice of Appeal makes a number of statements that appear to accuse (or at least imply) that Justice Fothergill sabotaged the case intentionally.

This is not a wise thing to do without evidence.

(a) It’s alleged that Justice Fothergill “blatantly ignored” Plaintiffs’ submissions regarding the standards which employment terms could be reviewed by a Court.

(b) It’s alleged that he “biasedly ignored” and “refused to address” submissions regarding the tort of public malfeasance, with respect to collective bargaining.

(c) It’s alleged that the finding of “deficient” and “bad beyond argument” was blindly applied from an unrelated case, and was completely inappropriate.

(d) It’s alleged that there was “clear (reasonable apprehension of) bias”. Really, it’s a repeat of the bias accusation, but is worded in a way to water it down.

It’s unclear who actually wrote the Notice of Appeal, but it’s already off to a bad start. Accusing a Federal Judge of bias and ignoring his responsibilities is not going to sit well. There has to be something pretty damning for this to hold water.

Granted, the Action4Canada Appeal of September 2022 is baseless, and doomed to fail, but at least BCSC Justice Alan Ross never received that kind of backlash.

The Notice of Appeal doesn’t specify what Justice Fothergill’s bias supposedly is. Is this to imply that he has certain personal views that are not appropriate? Should we interpret this to mean that he threw the case intentionally, and that the outcome was rigged?

This suggestion has been made before.

This also isn’t the only time Galati has recently claimed (or at least implied) that a Judge ruling in one of his cases was biased. Supposedly, Justice Elizabeth Stewart appeared biased when she dismissed Kulvinder Gill’s and Ashvinder Lamba’s defamation case as a SLAPP. This of course is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Clearly, we’ll have to wait and see what other documents are coming for the Federal Appeal. However, this is a dangerous path to take, and can have professional consequences.

A source told this site claimed that Galati and his staff are already soliciting more money for this “unexpected” trip to the Federal Court of Appeals. Apparently, they are at least mentally preparing to attempt to get into the Supreme Court of Canada.

It’s estimated that $400 to $700 more will be sought from each of the 600+ Plaintiffs. In total, that could bring in close to half a million more. The stated reason is that the $1,000 retainer was set aside for Trial.

This seems plausible, especially in light of the fact that Action4Canada is also asking for money, despite their case being “fully funded”.

Could the Federal ruling be successfully appealed? It seems doubtful. While a competent attorney might be able to make the case that malfeasance is grounds to bypass Section 236 FPSLRA, the entire Claim needs to be rewritten.

And this copy/pasting of pleadings from case to case deprives clients of the services that they’re paying for.

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 (UPDATED)
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL (UPDATED)
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL (UPDATED)

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

Posted on

Action4Canada Roasted By B.C. Law Society Over Horrendous Galati Filing

The Law Society of British Columbia is the organization that’s responsible for licensing lawyers in that Province. Unsurprisingly, lawyers are expected to have a certain level of competence in order to practice. This is to ensure that members of the public don’t end up with a complete moron representing them, costing lots of money.

In any event, the “Professional Legal Training Course 2023” is now available online. This is aimed primarily at articling students who want to take the last steps to be licensed.

The course is explained as follows:

“The Law Society’s PLTC has earned international recognition and has served as a model for Bar admission programs all over the world. It emphasizes practical skills training, ethics, practice management and practice and procedure to help new lawyers bridge the gap between law school and practice.”

“PLTC is a full-time, 10-week course. Classes are held three times a year at the Law Society offices in Vancouver, and once a year at Camosun College in Victoria and at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Classes are taught by full-time faculty with many years of teaching and practice experience and by practising lawyers who volunteer to share their expertise.”

Makes sense. Prospective lawyers need to prove a high degree of skill. Now, here’s where things really start to get interesting.

On page #15, (or the 27th page of the pdf), we see a new entry:

Action4Canada

Yes, that infamous dumpster fire that was struck by Justice Alan Ross is now being used as a “teaching exercise” by the Law Society of B.C. to demonstrate how pleadings shouldn’t be done.

If pleadings are inadequate the matter will typically not get as far as trial. In a recent example of wholly inadequate pleadings the plaintiff filed a 391-page notice of civil claim that was struck (see §2.06(3) below on striking pleadings) as being “prolix” and “bad beyond argument.” In Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507, the plaintiffs sued a host of politicians and crown corporations over pandemic-related measures they said were not based in science, exceeded the defendants’ authority, and breached Charter rights. The notice of civil claim was struck in its entirety. The judge said (at para. 51) it is counsel’s job to draft pleadings that do not offend the Rules. The judge also said the claim was too prolix for the defendants to be able to respond, and it was not the court’s job to interpret the claim:

To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

It turns out that the NOCC (Notice of Civil Claim) from Action4Canada was so inadequate that it never stood a chance of going to Trial. If only someone could have warned Tanya about that either in advance, or shortly after the fact. It was pretty obvious.

And what were the thanks received? A $7,000,000 defamation lawsuit.

Have to wonder if the Law Society of B.C. will now be sued as well for publishing Action4Canada’s decision in their training manual. After all, Galati sued the Law Society of Ontario for $500,000 for daring to forward complaints by the public to him for comment.

Why are all the topics mandatory?
.
When you are licensed to practise law in British Columbia, you are licensed as both a barrister and solicitor and permitted to practise in any area of the law. PLTC has therefore identified core practice areas that represent typical areas of practice for articled students and newly called lawyers. By requiring you to demonstrate entry-level competence in each of these practice areas, PLTC supports the Law Society’s mandate to set standards for lawyers and to protect the public interest.

Unsurprisingly, there is an FAQ section. It’s explained that it’s in the public interest to ensure that licensed lawyers have a basic level of competence in certain areas.

Keep in mind, this is geared towards new lawyers. Constitutional lawyers with decades of experience should probably have a handle on this sort of thing already.

And again, the Action4Canada case is being used as an example of what not to do, as it’s liable to waste large amounts of time and money, by getting it struck.

The B.C. Law Society also publishes a practice manual specifically for civil, and it’s quite informative. On page #13, (or the 25th page of the pdf), we get to the sections on pleading documents.

The fundamental purpose of pleadings is to define the issues to be tried with clarity and precision, to give the opposing parties fair notice of the case to be met, and to enable all parties to take effective steps for pre-trial preparation: Mayer v. Mayer, 2012 BCCA 77 at para. 215.

Proper Pleadings are Good Advocacy
In practice, pleading the case properly is critical. Pleadings come at an early stage of the litigation, often before all the facts are known. Some counsel fail to craft pleadings carefully, perhaps expecting to clean them up later, if necessary, through amendments. This is poor practice: pleadings are the foundation upon which a case is constructed. If you take care and exercise diligence in framing the pleadings, the rest of the case will fall into line. The pleadings also determine what is relevant at the discovery stage, so proper pleadings will ensure relevant documents are produced and examinations for discovery canvas relevant issues.

And this last part sums up the Action4Canada case well.

Good pleading will not, in my opinion, give a litigant with a bad case a victory. But bad pleading
may very well deprive a litigant with a good case of a victory that ought to be his.

This perfectly outlines what happened with the NOCC. While there certainly were valid causes of action, the NOCC was drafted so poorly that the entire document had to be struck out. While a rewrite was allowed, this was a huge waste of time and money.

And once again: these documents from the B.C. Law Society are aimed at prospective lawyers. This is designed for newbies. And the Action4Canada case is now teaching material for what not to do.

Action4Canada’s suit was struck in its entirety on August 29, 2022, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Instead of simply doing the Claim properly, it was appealed instead.

It would be interesting to see the Professional Legal Training Course in a few years. Perhaps it will updated again to include Action4Canada in how not to appeal a case. See critique.

Although their case is “fully funded”, Action4Canada is once again asking for money. Apparently, the extra costs of filing an appeal weren’t factored in. Despite promises to submit an amended Claim, it hasn’t happened in over 6 months.

Remember to donate, suckers!

LAW SOCIETY OF BC:
(1) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/
(3) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/faq-pltc/

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

Posted on

Ontario EMS Workers Suit Recycled From Recent “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Case

The grifting never ends, does it?

Monday, March 1, 2023, a lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court, on behalf of over 100 Plaintiffs. It is essentially a cut-and-paste copy of a Claim that the Federal Court threw out just 2 weeks earlier.

Yes, a lawsuit that was struck for being “bad beyond argument” was simply repackaged and refiled to initiate another one. The lawyer involved was Rocco Galati, who works out of Toronto.

In fairness, CTV did announce this case, but let’s go into it in greater detail.

As for some recent decisions:

(1) Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba filed a $12.75 million defamation case for mean words on Twitter. After it was — predictably — thrown out in February 2022 as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), Gill and Lamba were stuck with over $1 million in costs.

(2) Action4Canada brought a 391 page, rambling, incoherent Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) to the B.C. Supreme Court. After it was struck in its entirety in August 2022 for being “bad beyond argument”, the Plaintiffs decided to appeal. This was in spite of the Judge allowing a rewrite.

(3) The Federal Court struck a case by over 600 Plaintiffs for being “bad beyond argument” in February 2023. The pleadings were impossible to follow, and heavily lifted from the Action4Canada case. Plaintiffs who were part of the Federal Government were permanently barred due to Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which mandated other forms of resolution. The other Plaintiffs can still theoretically bring an amended Claim. Apparently, appeals are in the works.

(4) Vaccine Choice Canada had their case sit idly for 2 1/2 years before making a first appearance in Court. The Attorney General wants it thrown out for: (a) disclosing no reasonable cause of action; and (b) being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Of course, this doesn’t include several others that just remain dormant for years with no activity. Those have been covered extensively on this site.

Now, turning to the Ontario EMS case, how does this parallel with the Federal case, and where will this end up? In short, this Ontario one will get struck in its entirety.

1. Most (All?) Workers Subjected To Arbitration Requirements

This case may be dead on arrival for a very simple reason: the Court may not be allowed to hear it at all, if there are other agreements in place.

To Any Party on a Question of Law
.
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or

[Rule 21.01(3)(a)]
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;

As we saw in the recent Federal Court case, the majority of the Plaintiffs were actually subjected to Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Since it specifically barred litigation as a workplace solution, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their arguments.

Considering that the Plaintiffs here work for various Municipal Governments, and most are probably unionized, this lawsuit will likely get struck for the same reasons. Unions typically have a grievance process — such as arbitration — built into their collective bargaining agreements. Ontario Procedure Rules allow for cases to be dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction.

Of course, their lawyer should know this, right?

After all, this is why the majority of Plaintiffs in the Federal case were prevented from seeking remedies in Court. And that ruling was just 2 weeks ago.

2. Challenge Should Probably Be Done As Judicial Review

Another major issue with the Federal lawsuit was that the wrong paperwork was filed. If challenging a specific order, it’s routinely done by way of Application for Judicial Review, and not as a Statement of Claim. Again, their lawyer should be aware of this, correct?

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure lay out how pleadings are to be done. Similar rules exist for all Courts, although the numbering differs.

A Claim has to plead the facts that are alleged in a case. It’s not enough to simply make accusations. Instead, the person drafting the document has to lay out how they know these things to be true. There must also be sufficient particulars (a.k.a. “specifics”) so that the opposing side can understand the case they must address.

However, Galati doesn’t do that in a lot of his cases. He’ll make plenty of allegations, but won’t provide the necessary information so that they can be addressed. This is (partly) why so many of his cases get struck by the Courts.

If a pleading can’t be written in a coherent and intelligible manner, the Court will either order it to be redone, or possibly throw it out altogether.

4. Many Claims Outside Jurisdiction Of Civil Court

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:
a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

Both the Action4Canada suit and the Federal case were struck in part because they sought remedies that no Civil Court can realistically grant. This includes rulings based on international agreements, criminal allegations, and scientific declarations.

It’s worth pointing out that the pending Motion to Strike in the Vaccine Choice Canada suit is being brought partially for the same reasons.

Instead of taking these rulings to heart, Galati is attempting to reargue them in this Ontario EMS workers case. He’s filing content that has specifically been tossed, and more than once. This Claim will be struck for the same reason.

5. Ontario EMS Literally A Clone Of Federal Lawsuit

Page 26 of Ontario EMS, Page 32 of Federal:

First paragraph in both versions:

Vaccines are apparently not really vaccines:

The tort of conspiracy:

Tort of intimidation:

From looking at the 2 Claims, a rough estimate would be that about 90% of the Federal worker case has been cut and pasted into the Ontario EMS one. Changes are minimal, and mostly cosmetic. Do clients know that they’re paying for second hand work? Do they know that Judges have already ruled on these issues?

6. Plaintiffs Being Recycled In This Suit?

Most people won’t remember that Police On Guard (POG) helped initiate an Application in Ontario back in April 2021. Like many of Galati’s cases, this has remained dormant since then. However, a few names stick out.

  • Matthew Blacklaws
  • Sgt. Julie Evans
  • Len Faul

These 3 are listed both in the stale-dated POG challenge, and in this Ontario EMS case. It’s unclear why this has happened.

Also, this more recent suit contains plenty of Plaintiffs listed simply as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”. As such, it’s often unclear who is a new litigant. This is a waste of everyone’s time. If you are coming to Court and asking for money, you need to identify yourself.

7. Sheer Number Of Parties Sued A Problem

To understand how much litigation would be involved, just consider how many parties have been sued. Granted, some can be represented by the same lawyer (such as a city and its Police Chief or Fire Chief). That said, there are going to be a lot of lawyers involved, and the costs will easily get into the 6 or 7 figures. Here is the list.

  1. HIS MAJESITY THE KING
  2. Solicitor General of Ontario
  3. Town of Ajax
  4. Town of Ajax Fire Department (Fire Chief Aaron Burridge) City of Cambridge
  5. City of Cambridge Fire Department (Fire Chief Brian Arnold)
  6. City of Greater Sudbury
  7. City of Guelph, City of Guelph Fire Department (Fire Chief Dave Elloway)
  8. City of Hamilton
  9. City of Hamilton Police
  10. City of Hamilton Police Chief (Frank Bergen)
  11. City of Hamilton Fire Department (Fire Chief David Cunliffe)
  12. City of Markham
  13. City of Markham Fire Department (Fire Chief Adam J. Grant)
  14. City of Mississauga
  15. City of Mississauga Fire Department (Fire Chief Deryn Rizzi)
  16. City of Ottawa
  17. City of Ottawa Police
  18. City of Ottawa Police Chief (Eric Stubbs)
  19. City of Ottawa Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Hutt)
  20. City of Pickering
  21. City of Pickering Fire Department (Fire Chief Steve Boyd)
  22. City of Toronto
  23. City of Toronto Police
  24. City of Toronto Chief of Police (James Ramer)
  25. City of Toronto Fire Service (Fire Chief Matthew Pegg)
  26. Toronto District School Board
  27. Toronto Transit Commission
  28. Toronto Transit Commission Chair (Jon Burnside)
  29. City of Windsor
  30. City of Windsor Fire Department (Fire Chief Stephen Laforet)
  31. Town of Orangeville
  32. City of St. Catharines
  33. Regional Municipality of Durham
  34. York Region
  35. York Regional Police
  36. York Regional Police Chief (Jim MacSween)
  37. City of Niagara Falls
  38. Niagara Regional Police
  39. Niagara Regional Police Chief (Bryan MacCulloch)
  40. Town of Oakville
  41. Town of Oakville Fire Department (Fire Chief Paul Boissonneault)
  42. Peel Region
  43. Peel Regional Police
  44. Peel Regional Police Chief (Nishan Duraiappah)
  45. Town of Whitby
  46. Town of Whitby Fire Department (Fire Chief Mike Hickey)
  47. Municipality of Leamington

For (somewhat) of a reference point, consider the $12.75 million defamation lawsuit that Galati brought on behalf of Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba against 23 parties. After it was dismissed as a SLAPP, they were ordered to pay over $1.1 million in costs. This suit could potentially top that.

It’s entirely possible that there will be 15-20 lawyers who show up to defend against this lawsuit. Plaintiffs need to know that cost awards can be very steep.

8. Similar Retainer Requirements For Both Cases

There was a $1,500 retainer fee to be represented in the Ontario EMS case, if this form is for real. Also, there’s a form available listing a $1,000 retainer for the Federal case.

A source who claimed to be friends with a Federal employee claimed that Plaintiffs were actually being charged $2,000 each to be represented. If this is true, then the 600+ employees would have handed over more than $1.2 million for fees.

9. Some Final Thoughts

This has been a rudimentary review of the most recent anti-lockdown suit. The pleadings are seriously defective, and it will never make it to Trial.

And again, it’s essentially a copy and paste version of the Federal Claim that was recently struck. Clients aren’t just paying for secondhand work. Instead, they’re paying for secondhand work that has already been thrown out by the Federal Court, and the B.C. Supreme Court.

Claims that are found to be “bad beyond argument” don’t suddenly become valid simply because they are refiled in another jurisdiction.

Anyhow, most readers are probably aware by now that this site has been sued for millions of dollars, simply for exposing the anti-lockdown grifts that are going on in Canadian Courts. For some strange reason, people seem to think that it’s a “private” matter to publicly solicit donations for these lawsuits. This article will likely lead to another suit because of “muh racism”, or something.

If the Ontario EMS case ever is heard in Court, updates will be provided.

ONTARIO EMS WORKERS:
(1) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(3) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(4) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(5) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(6) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(7) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(9) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

KULVINDER GILL/ATTARAN/UOTTAWA CASE
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

Posted on

M.E.P. Christine Anderson: Cashing In On The Freedom Movement

Last year, Christine Anderson, a Member of the European Parliament for Germany, made headlines by publicly criticizing Trudeau as a dictator. While she was hailed in Canada as a freedom champion, it’s worth asking if there was something more self-serving in this condemnation.

Specifically, a Canadian speaking tour is now in the works, with the possibility of expanding to more locations. At the time of writing this, there are events scheduled for: (a) Calgary; (b) Toronto; (c) Whitby; and (d) Montreal. A merchandise line has also been started up, primarily selling T-shirts. Where have we seen this sort of thing before?

Granted this AfD (Alternative fur Deutschland) politician is likely more eloquent than the typical huckster who’s been making their way across Canada over the last 3 years. Still, one can’t help but see this as an opportunistic way to cash in on anti-Trudeau sentiments.

Sponsorship costs:

  • Bronze sponsor: $1,000
  • Silver sponsor: $5,000
  • Gold sponsor: $10,000 to $20,000

In addition to selling merchandise, this Canadian tour is also asking for sponsors to help offset costs. There are 3 tiers of sponsorship listed, along with the required amounts.

One of the major sponsors listed is the Children’s Health Defense Canada. As covered before, they are a Plaintiff in a lawsuit in Ontario that’s been sitting idle for nearly 2 years. Interesting connection.

Yes, the criticisms of Trudeau being a dictator and having no respect for Canadians is true. Few would dispute that. So, why is a speaking tour and merchandise line necessary to prove that point? And isn’t a T-shirt line with your own face more than a little narcissistic?

Is there also a book deal in the works?

Tickets to attend shows can cost hundreds of dollars each. Therefore, one has to ask what this German politician has to say that would justify such a fee. Even if it were a more reasonable amount, why would anyone be giving money for this?

Yes, Trudeau has little to no respect for Canadians. True, he has trampled on everyone’s civil rights in the last few years. While this cannot be justified, it’s not exactly news either.

What can be said that locals haven’t already said or written hundreds of times before? Seems like a way to milk celebrity status.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/european-members-parliament-attact-trudeau-1.6397579
(2) https://wwcadtour.com/
(3) https://wwcadtour.com/shop/
(4) https://wwcadtour.com/bio/
(5) https://wwcadtour.com/tour/

Posted on

21 Months Later, No Progress In Police On Guard/ Children’s Health Defense Cases

It was reported back in July 2022 that 2 high profile anti-lockdown lawsuits in Canada hadn’t seemed to go anywhere in well over a year.

(a) bodily autonomy of police officers, organized by Police on Guard
(b) children’s rights and masks in Ontario schools, organized by Children’s Health Defense (Canada)

Both were filed in April 2021. After some initial hype in the alternative media, there were no updates to report. As we enter 2023, and approach the 2 year anniversary, it appears that there’s still nothing to write back about.

Even though (most) of the Respondents now are represented by lawyers, it looks like nothing has happened to the cases themselves. There have been no Motions, evidence sworn or hearings so far.

Interestingly, while no Motion to Strike has been brought, there was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request filed in May of 2021 for the CHDC case. That seems odd, as it isn’t really the best mechanism for getting such a case thrown out.

Both organizations are still asking for donations, and it’s implied that at least portions of those funds would be used towards these Court cases.

As is shown by the Court records, there are no previous Orders that have been handed down in either case. Nor are any hearings scheduled as of now.

Of course, members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE as to the updates on such cases. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file#: (plug in the file number)

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

It’s worth noting that the POG Application and the CHDC Applications are almost identical. It’s as if one was cut-and-pasted into the other, with the facts and names changed.

Why keep reporting on this? Because they are public cases, and public donations are — still — being solicited. People have a right to know what’s happening, and what’s not happening.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Passport Case Hears Motion To Strike Claim

Thursday, January 19th was an interesting day in Federal Court. Ottawa brought a Motion to Strike a lawsuit brought by over 600 people challenging a 2021 Order which mandated experimental shots for their continued employment. This applied to: (a) Government workers; and (b) industries that were subject to Federal regulation.

For those who don’t know, this is not a Motion to decide a case on its merits. Instead, it’s designed to throw out a case — either in whole or in part — before it goes through the various stages of litigation. Typically, there’s either some serious error in law, or the case (even if the facts are assumed to be true) is still insufficient.

Originally, the Motion to Strike was to be heard in writing (which means no arguments at a hearing). However, that changed at the last moment, as the Justice decided to allow a 3 hour session. It went a bit past the allotted time, and took about 3 1/2.

If this hearing is to be any indication of where things are going, there were several main issues that needed to be addressed.

1. Are Some Plaintiffs Statute Barred From Going To Court?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) 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.

Approximately 2/3 of the more than 600 Plaintiffs were members of the Federal Government. The other 1/3 or so were part of companies that were Federally regulated. This can create a split, as only some of them may be eligible for this lawsuit.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone, at least the employees of the Federal Government.

Most union employees, especially in the public sector, are prohibited from taking their problems to Court. Instead, they have to follow a grievance process that eventually leads to arbitration. Granted, those rulings may be appealed if the process is unfair, but that’s where things start out.

This was discussed at length at the hearing: the prospect that the majority of Plaintiffs may be barred from the case. It doesn’t appear any of them ever tried to go through arbitration.

2. Are Other Plaintiffs Suing Wrong Defendants?

While the public sector workers may be barred because of arbitration requirements, the employees of Federally regulated sectors have a different issue: did they sue the wrong people?

The notion was discussed that the individual employers ought to be sued instead, or at least in addition to the Government. After all, shouldn’t a former worker at Air Canada be suing Air Canada? Shouldn’t a former bank employee be suing that bank? Of course, there is the counter-argument that these industries were simply following the rules that Ottawa mandated.

We’ll have to see how that plays out.

3. Why Aren’t All Plaintiffs In Lawsuit Named?

This should be common sense, but, if people wish to take their grievances to Court and ask for money, they need to identify themselves.

Instead, there are 40 “John Does” listed, and another 49 “Jane Does”. The Crown Counsel brought this up at the hearing, and complained that he had no idea who they were. Despite the Defendants’ attempts, these people apparently remain unidentified.

It’s unclear why they weren’t named in the Statement of Claim. One possibility was that they didn’t want their names splashed around, given the rampant fundraising that was going on. It was suggested that this was to prevent retaliation against friends and family who still held jobs. However, that makes little sense, as they’d still have to be identified as some point.

4. Should Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

At the hearing, the Judge stated that he would have no problems with a Statement of Claim, if it were only damages and/or declaratory relief. However, challenging the Order itself presented a complication, as it likely should have been an Application.

This alone may not be fatal. If it were simply a matter of the wrong form, the Judge could theoretically grant an extension of time to refile properly.

5. Is This Suit Considered “Moot”, And Does That Matter?

Ottawa is claiming the issue is “moot” and not worth wasting everyone’s time. Moot, in the legal sense means that the issues are over and done with, and cannot be fixed by the Court. Here, Crown Counsel states that since the Orders have lapsed, there’s nothing to try. That’s what happened with Brian Peckford’s case.

In fairness, this appears to be something that may be selectively employed to deny someone their day in Court. It seems underhanded to pull an Order (or let it expire) as a means of avoiding having to answer for it. There’s also the possibility that similar Orders may be imposed at some point in the future.

It should be noted that “moot” issues can still be tried, if the Court finds there to be compelling public interest in doing so. And so far, that has been applied unevenly.

6. Does Claim Follow The Basics Of Civil Procedure?

This was addressed at length in the first critique of this suit. This Claim appears to not follow even the basics of the Federal Court Rules, which could lead to it getting thrown out. At a minimum the Judge could order that a rewrite be performed.

(a) Lack of material facts pleaded
(b) Overall disorganization
(c) Claim lacks particulars (specifics) needed to proceed
(d) Nature of damages needs to be clearly specified

The Motion to Strike addressed these concerns, along with several others. Striking a pleading won’t (typically) lead to the case being thrown out. However, it does take time — and hourly billings — to amend or redraft it.

The Judge did discuss the possibility of allowing a rewrite, if the Claim weren’t barred for other reasons. This includes the arbitration requirement mentioned earlier.

7. How Much Damage Does A4C Precedent Cause Here?

Crown Counsel brought up the valid point that large sections of this Federal case are similar — and sometimes identical — to the Action4Canada case that was struck on August 29, 2022. (See Order)

Justice Alan Ross found the Action4Canada case:
(a) Prolix, or far too long
(b) Embarrassing to the Court
(c) Made non-justicable demands
(d) Was “bad beyond argument”
(e) Contained many pages of irrelevant material
(f) Was not something that could be adequately responded to
(g) Was so poorly written that mere amendments were inadequate

Now, a fair amount of the content from that NOCC, or Notice of Civil Claim, was cut and pasted into the Federal case. Not only are Plaintiffs not getting quality work, they aren’t even getting original work.

The Federal Judge would likely be obligated to strike the sections of the Claim that are identical or substantially similar to the Action4Canada case.

Despite the NOCC’s horrible quality, Justice Ross did allow Action4Canada the chance to redraft it properly. Instead, they appealed the Decision, because, reasons…

Now, the choice to let Action4Canada rewrite may very well influence this Court if it decides to allow another shot at the Federal vaxx pass case.

Predictions For The Motion Outcome?

Just a guess, but here we go:

  • The case will have to be refiled as an Application for Judicial Review
  • The (ex) Federal employees will be barred, as they should have pursued arbitration
  • The (ex) workers of Federally regulated industries will be allowed to proceed
  • All Plaintiffs will have to identify themselves
  • The pleadings will be struck in their entirety, but a rewrite will be allowed, at least for the Plaintiffs who are not barred.
  • Despite being “moot”, it will be in the public interest to proceed
  • The duplication with Action4Canada case will have to be removed
  • Expect an appeal, and more requests for donations

We’ll have to wait until the decision comes down to see how accurate all this is.

Update: a copy of the retainer agreement is now available for viewing. Turns out that Plaintiffs were paying $1,000 each for the privilege of being represented in this suit. Doesn’t look like they got their money’s worth.

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/