Another prediction seems to be playing out.
Late in 2021, Ottawa imposed “vaccine” requirements on nearly all Federal workers. In short, employees needed to have at least 2 shots of the (who-knows-what) injections to keep their jobs. Many retired, others quit, and some forced their bosses to let them go.
May 30, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court by a man who supposedly is Canada’s top Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati. But you wouldn’t know that from the quality of his work.
The Federal Government has filed a Motion to throw out the Claim brought by 600 former members of the civil service. It alleges a number of serious defects, including: mootness, irrelevant issues, defects in the pleading, lack of jurisdiction, lack of factual basis, an improper filing, among other things.
A source told this site (now confirmed) at the end of 2021 that such a suit was in the works. Allegedly, it would involve 500-600 individual Plaintiffs, with each paying $1,000 towards the proceedings. For that kind of money, one would expect a serious case to go forward.
Unfortunately, this review from September has aged very well. It contained an outline of several errors that would lead to the Statement of Claim getting struck.
The Action4Canada (BC) and Vaccine Choice Canada (ON) suits were covered in detail last year. Both were written without any consideration of the Rules of Civil Procedure in their respective Provinces. This Federal case contains most of the same errors. In many instances, it appears to be a direct cut and paste from the earlier ones.
Note: this isn’t to justify coercing people to take injections. However, it’s pretty much undeniable that this lawsuit never stood a chance. Painful as it is to admit, the Defense does have valid criticisms about the shoddy drafting. Here are some errors cited before:
- Rule 173: Allegations aren’t set out in clearly numbered and organized paragraphs
- Rule 174: No concise statement of material facts provided
- Rule 181(1): Claim lacks the particulars (specifics) needed to go ahead
- Rule 182: Nature of damages not clearly specified
- Approximately 100 unidentified “John Does” and “Jane Does”
- Claim contains issues that cannot be presided over: Nuremberg Code’ Helsinki Declaration; Criminal Code violations; and crimes against humanity
It was also predicted that the Defendants would file a Rule 221 Motion to Strike, for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The Federal Court Rules outline how this is done. And in an unsurprisingly turn of events, that’s what happened.
Ottawa is citing “mootness” as a ground to strike the Claim, and is using the recent decisions against Peckford, Rickards, and the other Applicants. It wouldn’t be fair to blame any Applicant for the Government pulling this stunt, but it comes up again.
There are a few other major issues that need to be addressed in the Motion.
Should This 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.
On the surface, this appears to be a valid point. If one is to challenge the decision of Federal bodies — namely, the requirement of the “vaccine” for employment — this might have been the way to go.
Seriously, was the wrong paperwork filled out in order to get this suit started? It seems that this would be pretty basic for expert lawyers.
Granted, there are portions of the Claim that still could proceed as a Claim, such as asking for damages. That said, challenging an order is a different procedure.
Could an extension of time be applied for to fill out the correct forms? Sure, it can be attempted, but what a waste of time this has been.
Not off to a good start.
Are The Plaintiffs Barred From Bringing Legal Action At All?
Is jurisdiction a fatal error in this case?
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.
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.
That’s one of the major arguments being advanced: that the hundreds of Plaintiffs have no right to sue at all — regardless of form — since legislation provides for other remedies.
Granted, there are allegations of acting in bad faith. That said, the Defendants argue (correctly) that there’s a lack of factual basis pleaded to support most of the conclusions. This will be a tough sell.
Action4Canada Trainwreck Is Cited In Latest Motion
The written arguments (see page 269) reference the recent Action4Canada case. It has been covered on this site before, and is making a comeback.
In August 2021, this site outlined the serious defects in the 391 page filing in Vancouver. It predicted that the case would be struck in its entirety for failing to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading. Although a rewrite was permitted, that’s exactly what ultimately happened.
In order to ward off criticism, and presumably to keep the donations coming in, a frivolous Appeal was filed. It will go nowhere as well.
The litany of defects in that B.C. case will very likely be used to support striking the Federal one. Thanks to Justice Ross in Vancouver, the precedent has been set.
These Suits Actually Harm Genuine Truth Movements
A common criticism in the Motion to Strike is that the suit makes plenty of bald assertions, without ever laying a factual foundation. In short, it makes accusations, but doesn’t provide enough detail so that a Court can seriously consider them.
Many of the allegations pleaded in the Statement of Claim are in fact true. However, without pleading a factual basis for making these claims, it just makes people look insane.
As awful as the actions of the Federal (and Provincial) Governments are, they do make a valid point: these cases are written so poorly that it’s impossible to know what the cases are that the Defendants are supposed to respond to.
Looking through the filings of Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre (see below), none of them are good. They aren’t even decent. Instead, the quality of the drafting ranges from mediocre to downright comical.
Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed $12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.
Gill and Lamba bizarrely decided to appeal that dismissal. Given how baseless the original defamation suit was, this will just lead to much larger cost awards when it’s finally thrown out. There had been talk of a second Appeal, one specific to the cost Order.
Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another SLAPP Motion.
Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will waste time and money.
Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served.
Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was 2 1/2 years ago.
Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021, more than 18 months ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.
Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021. It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant.
These are all his cases. This is what the last 2 1/2 years or so of “fighting” in the Courts has led to.
None of these cases have gone anywhere. Either:
- They remain idle for months or years, or
- They are thrown out in preliminary stages
To address a concern that comes up: these are public matters.
If a person wishes to sue someone else in their private life, that is their business. However, the moment donations are asked for, it becomes a reportable case. This is especially true, given the public nature of the issues.
This site has been heavily criticized — and even sued — for reporting the truth about these “anti-lockdown” cases. They’re garbage, and none of them have any chance of getting to Trial. It’s not a matter of cheerleading for a certain side, but giving honest reviews.
On a positive note — if it can be called that — the Federal Government is only asking for $5,000 for costs to have this Claim thrown out. Certainly, it’s far cheaper than in Ontario or British Columbia.
Considering that people actually have paid money for this type of representation, it comes across as a rip off. Victims should be demanding refunds and/or talking to the Law Society of Ontario.
FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(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
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
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(14) A4C Dismissal Order As Entered By BCSC
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
VACCINE CHOICE CANADA LAWSUIT (2019):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(3) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(4) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(5) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(6) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(7) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(8) 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
POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021
(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