Category: Military/Police

Posted on

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case: Idiot Lawyer Sends Notice Of Appeal To Wrong Court

Just when you think a lawyer couldn’t be any dumber, you are unpleasantly surprised.

This is a follow-up on the Qualizza case, the military veterans’ injection pass lawsuit. Some 330 members and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces sued over the requirement to get the shots. The case is turning into a regular content generator, and for all the wrong reasons.

The Notice of Appeal will be explained in more detail later.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background on the case.

Perhaps even more absurdly, the lawyer, Catherine Christensen, practiced family law for much of her career. She seems horribly out of her league here.

The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. It had been struck by an Associate Judge, with a subsequent Judge refusing a request to extend time for an initial Appeal. Another Judge ordered costs over an unnecessary Motion to determine the contents of an Appeal Book. More recently, another Judge ordered costs for a Notice of Discontinuance being filed without clients’ knowledge or consent.

Now, Christensen is unhappy with the ruling that she acted in a “high handed and inappropriate” way. So, she’s set to challenge to Order, which set aside the Notice of Discontinuance.

But according to Court records, she attempted to file a Notice of Appeal. That’s right, she wants to appeal an Order of the Federal Court of Appeal, and sent the Notice …. to the same Court. She seems not to understand that you can only appeal to a higher level.

Christensen doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between:
(a) Commencing a proceeding: Claim, Application, Appeal, etc….
(b) Taking steps within the existing proceeding: typically with a Motion

Perhaps she meant to file a Motion to have that last Order reviewed, but it’s unclear. In any event, she was told that in order to appeal, she must ask for Leave (permission) from the Supreme Court of Canada.

This idiot is trying to appeal to the wrong Court.

Keep in mind, none of this helps any of her clients advance their case against the Federal Government. Nothing here helps overturn A.J. Coughlan’s decision to strike, or Justice Manson’s refusal to grant an extension.

But first, problems with the lawsuit shouldn’t be a surprise to Christensen.

The Neri Decision: Christensen Knew Claim Would Be Struck

An Application filed in late 2021 sought to prevent several members of the Canadian Armed Forces from facing consequences for refusing the injections. An Interlocutory Injunction was sought, with the plan to get a permanent one later. The case was tossed, because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specified a grievance scheme for members of the military to use.

The case was discontinued in January 2022.

The point is: Christensen knew in advance of filing the Qualizza case that it would very likely be struck for lack of jurisdiction. It seems doubtful that current clients were aware of this case.

Not only was Christensen aware of jurisdiction issues, but the Statute of Limitations should have been fresh in her mind as well. September 2024, she lost another case, Tondreau, in Federal Court. A major part of the ruling was her filed the Notice of Application well after the 30 day deadline.

Qualizza Case Struck Without Leave To Amend

Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan struck the case in November 2024, and without Leave to Amend. This meant there was no permission to fix and refile. While lengthy, the decision centered on 2 main issues.

First: The Statement of Claim lacked a lot of the necessary information. When making Charter Claims, it’s required to plead certain facts and details about each Plaintiff. While there was background information on each of them, nothing was pleaded about the specifics of the torts themselves.

Second: The Court refused to take jurisdiction of the case over s.29 of the National Defence Act This was the exact issue explained to Christensen in Neri. Not only was the grievance system required, but over 100 Plaintiffs either had or were actively grieving.

Because Coughlan was an Associate Judge (Prothonotary), and not a regular Judge, there’s a difference process to appeal. More importantly, there’s a much shorter time limit.

Christensen Missed Deadline For First Appeal (Rule 51)

The case was originally struck by Associate Justice Coughlan. Christensen filed a Motion under Federal Court Rule 51 to have it reviewed. Or at least, she was supposed to. She missed the deadline by nearly 3 weeks, and bungled an attempt to ask for an extension of time. And to clarify:

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

Because an Associate Judge (Prothonotary) struck the case initially, it could be reviewed by filing a Motion. Challenging a Judge’s decision would have required going to the Federal Court of Appeal. But Christensen screwed up the Appeal big time. Not only was she late, but:

  • The reason for prolonged inaction wasn’t really convincing
  • Christensen invoked the wrong Rule (51, instead of 8) asking for extension
  • Christensen asked for a Motion “in writing” but cited a Rule that applied to the Federal Court of Appeal
  • Christensen asked for “Leave” to appeal when it wasn’t required
  • Christensen improperly swore out her own Affidavit (breaks Rule 82)
  • Christensen didn’t clarify Plaintiffs “always intended” to appeal
  • Christensen didn’t explain how an Appeal may be successful

The specific errors were covered extensively in a previous article. An extension was refused.

Just as with Tondreau a few months earlier, Christensen missed the deadline to file, and never really offered a convincing explanation of why that was the case.

Christensen Doesn’t Understand What’s Being Appealed

After Justice Manson refused to extend time in the Federal Court, Christensen filed Notice of Appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal. But there’s already a serious problem.

The Notice asks that the original Order of A.J. Coughlan be set aside and that the case be allowed to proceed. That may be fine as additional Relief being sought.

However, the Notice doesn’t challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time. The most immediate problem is that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are time-barred into going further, unless that is overturned. In the “grounds” section, it’s shrugged off as procedural error. Again, without being challenged.

She also asks for Leave to file the Notice of Appeal. This doesn’t make any sense, as this is the Notice, and it’s already been filed. And it gets worse from here.

Determining Contents Of Appeal Book

The Federal Court of Appeal differs from its Provincial counterparts in a significant way. Specifically, it requires the Appellants to either: (a) get consent as to the contents; or (b) file a Motion to have a Judge determine it.

For a recent example of what a consent looks like, see the Payne Appeal.

Christensen chose Option “B”, while the Government responded that this was entirely unnecessary.

Justice Rennie agreed that this could have been resolved on consent.

(b) No argument is advanced by the appellants why the materials that were before the Associate Judge but not before Manson J., ought to be before this Court;

(c) Rule 343(2) requires parties to an appeal to include in an appeal book “only such documents, exhibits and transcripts as are required to dispose of the issues on appeal”. Although the Rule 343(2) test is a flexible one, a document should be included in the appeal book “only if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that it is required to dispose of an issue on appeal”

This highlights Christensen’s lack of understanding of what she’s doing. She’s appealing Justice Manson’s refusal to extend time to allow that Rule 51 Appeal. As such, only the few documents that were before him would be considered by this Court.

Christensen “Discontinued” Without Clients’ Knowledge Or Consent

Christensen’s clients were apparently unhappy with her mediocre legal services, and many refused to pay additional money to her “non-profit”. Consequently, she filed a Notice of Discontinuance of their behalf.

Procedurally though, this cannot be done.

One client, Mark Lolacher, took it upon himself to file his own Motion to set aside the Notice, and to be reinstated. He also accused Christensen of misconduct. The Government lawyer offered a suggestion allow Lolacher to remain, but as a self-represented litigant. Surprisingly, Christensen opposed the Motion.

Ultimately, Justice Locke ordered Lolacher’s reinstatement as an Appellant, and $2,000 for the “high handed” treatment he had received. The reasons were scathing, although misconduct allegations were to be deferred to the Law Society of Alberta.

The Judge also mentioned 2 practical solutions. Christensen could be replaced as counsel, under Rule 124, or she could file a Motion to withdraw as counsel, under Rule 125. Neither happened, and she apparently got her own lawyer. Keep in mind, bickering and fighting with clients doesn’t advance the vaccine passport case at all. Remember, this was supposedly the reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

As a humourous aside: Lolacher is the only Plaintiff/Appellant in this case have actually won a Motion. Christensen has racked up loss after loss, and all at her clients’ expense.

Christensen Apparently Has Her Own Counsel

The Court filings are admittedly just a small part of what’s been going on. Still, it’s fair to say that things have further deteriorated.

According to further correspondence from Mark Lolacher, Christensen isn’t following Justice Locke’s Order in good faith. She keeps misrepresenting a procedural Motion as “suing the other Appellants”. Now, she apparently has her own counsel…. while still representing all (or some?) of the clients. It’s a mess. Will clients now be billed for 2 lawyers?

Christensen is apparently unwilling to accept Justice Locke’s decision reinstating Lolacher. Instead of taking a reasonable alternative, she tries to file a Notice of Appeal…. to the same Court.

Have to wonder who came up with the idea: Christensen, or her new “counsel”? In any event, the Federal Court of Appeal refused to file the Notice, since procedurally, it would have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Actually, the SCC would have to agree to hear it first, with an Application for Leave. The staff at the Courts apparently know the Rules better than either of these lawyers.

Again, none of this helps any of their clients.

It’s hard to believe that a licenced lawyer can actually be so bad at what she does. Sure, this could all be deliberate sabotage, but it’s so poorly done that it strains all belief.

It seems that Law Societies will allow anyone to practice, even a potted plant.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions August 2024
(7) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave November 2024

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time January 2025
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book February 2025
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book March 2025
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book April 2025

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance January 2025
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record March 2025
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record March 2025
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record March 2025
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement May 2025
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement May 2025

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court May 2025
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA

Posted on

Diagolon Rat Squad: Liberate Your Neighbourhood

This is to follow up on a story that broke over 3 years ago.

It’s been long established that Jeremy MacKenzie (a.k.a. Raging Dissident) called the police on a group named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, and a member, Landon Preik. This happened while lockdowns were being enforced all over the country. It’s what he swore to under oath.

MacKenzie has repeatedly bragged — such as on Red Ice — that he contacted the RCMP because he viewed the group as a threat to public safety. It’s portrayed as civic necessity, and done to prevent violence. Rightly or wrongly, he has been labelled a “fed” and a “rat” for doing this.

Thing is, his version of events doesn’t add up. There is a much more plausible reason for MacKenzie contacting the police, namely to get himself out of his own gun charges. After all, Preik was arrested less than 2 days after he was.

The whole “HateGate” narrative never made sense in this regard either. If the authorities were looking for an excuse to invoke the Emergencies Act, MacKenzie would have given them a legitimate one. Why then would they frame him for it, if he was cooperative with police?

The Global News article on the case is dated February 3rd, 2022. It references a police investigation that began on September 14th, 2021. (See archive). The problem is that it lacks sufficient information about the case.

However, after ordering some court documents, things become a lot clearer.

MacKenzie’s Arrest/Residential Search January 26th, 2022

Inverness County District RCMP has arrested a man for firearms offences after executing a search warrant at a home in Pictou County.

On January 10, 2022, the Inverness County District RCMP began an investigation after a video was posted to social media of a man, in a business, waving a handgun around in a reckless manner and allegedly having an over capacity magazine. It was determined that this incident occurred on Whycocomagh Mountain Rd. in Whycocomagh.

On January 26, as part of the investigation, police executed a search warrant at a home on High St. in Pictou. During the search, police located and seized five restricted firearms including rifles and handguns, one unrestricted firearm, prohibited magazines, ammunition, body armour, a duty belt with attached holster and magazine pouches and cellular phones.

At the request of police, the suspect, a 35-year-old Pictou man, attended the Pictou RCMP Detachment prior to the search warrant execution and was arrested without incident. He was later released on conditions, which include that he not possess any firearms, weapons, ammunition or explosive substances. He will be facing charges of Careless Use of a Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of a Prohibited Device, Possession of a Prohibited Device Knowing It’s Possession is Unauthorized, Possession of a Firearm at an Unauthorized Place. He will appear in Port Hawkesbury Provincial Court on May 30, 2022.
File #: 2022-39074

Why does the January 26th, 2022 date matter? It’s because of what happened in the immediate aftermath.

MacKenzie was released, and headed to the convoy. Preik was picked up the next day.

Preik Picked Up January 27th, 2022 On Possession Charges

The information about the case is available, and it spells out exactly what he has been charged with. Interestingly, it lists both September and November 2021 dates.

Originally, there were 6 charges. It was later amended to 10.

  1. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: Armi Jager AP80 semi-automatic rifle
  2. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: CZ-CZ858 Tactical 2 semi-automatic rifle
  3. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 5 handgun magazines, with 15 cartridge capacity
  4. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 4 CZ magazines, with 30 cartridge capacity
  5. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 1 CZ detachable magazine, with 30 cartridge capacity
  6. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Rossi Ranch Hand Rifle
  7. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: K100 Dynamic Handgun
  8. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ VZ58 Sporster semi-automatic rifle
  9. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Mossberg shotgun
  10. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ 75 Luger semi-automatic handgun

Notice what’s missing? Preik was never charged with terrorism, treason, sedition, or any violent offence. The complaint against him is solely for possession and transport/storage offences.

That is, of course, not to say that the current charges won’t mess up his life.

Are we supposed to believe that the RCMP took MacKenzie’s information and did nothing with it for months? And is it just a coincidence that they only acted after the raid in Pictou? It strains all credulity to accept such a narrative, but here we are.

MacKenzie: Contacting RCMP Necessary To Prevent Violence

Almost everyone by now is familiar with this clip.

At his POEC testimony MacKenzie specifically named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood” as a group that he turned into police. He said there was a group of men “with masks and guns, saying ‘this is a call to arms'”. It’s portrayed as a necessary act in order to protect public safety.

He also says that this happened in the Fall of 2021.

Again, the timeline doesn’t make sense, if MacKenzie is to be believed. While it seems true that he did contact the police, the sequence of events is very different. His version is quite implausible, and we’ll go through it.

Perhaps he had “more information” to share in January 2022.

Timeline Of Major Events For Preik And MacKenzie

September 14th, 2021: RCMP begins investigating a group called “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, based on videos that had been posted online.

September 23rd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for first time.

September 29th, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for second time.

November 2nd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for third time.

To make this clear, the police are obviously aware of who Preik is, having talked to him on 3 separate occasions. However, there will be no arrest for months. One has to wonder why. MacKenzie (supposedly) telling them about the videos wasn’t enough, but something would change.

January 10th, 2022: RCMP becomes aware of a video of MacKenzie (and another man), in possession of firearms, and would later accuse them of using them carelessly.

January 13th, 2022: According to the ITO (page 5) MacKenzie admitted to police that he was intoxicated when this happened.

January 22, 2022: RCMP applies for a search warrant for MacKenzie’s Pictou home for:

  1. Smith & Wesson M&P 9 firearm
  2. Glock 17 firearm
  3. High capacity magazine
  4. Gun holster
  5. Firearms registration paperwork
  6. MacKenzie’s cell phone (unknown brand)

January 25th, 2022: This is the first day that (if authorized) the search warrant would allow the police into MacKenzie’s home.

January 26th, 2022: RCMP raid MacKenzie’s home in Pictou, N.S., and file firearms charges. From the way the press release is worded, it sounds like he was released almost right away.

January 27th, 2022: Preik is arrested in Chilliwack, B.C.

January 28th, 2022: Preik is released without bail, while facing 6 charges.

February 3rd, 2022: Global News publishes arrest of Preik. It was noted that he faced (a) five counts of careless use or storage of a firearm, and (b) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The article only specifies that an investigation had been ongoing since September 14th, 2021.

August 2nd, 2022: Preik now facing a total of 10 charges. His release conditions are modified to require that he pay $200 if he breaches them.

December 8th, 2022: Preik appears in court on a further modified complaint.

January 27th, 2023: Crown elects to proceed by indictment (the more serious option)

September 6th, 2024: After voir dire hearing, it’s ruled that Preik’s 3 interrogations (September 23rd, 29th, and November 2nd of 2021) are all admissible as evidence. See page 5.

Preik faces trial later this year, while MacKenzie had all of his charges thrown out.

Why Does Any Of This Matter?

MacKenzie has long stated that he turned in the group to avoid violent (armed) confrontation with the state. While difficult to swallow for many, it’s at least a plausible excuse to send the RCMP after someone. Regardless of one’s personal feelings, there’s a justification to do this.

That justification disappears once you look when things happened.

Preik had been interviewed at least 3 times by police in late 2021. They clearly knew who he was, but chose not to make any arrest then. In fact, they only acted just a day or so after MacKenzie was picked up in Nova Scotia.

It’s unrealistic to assume police simply ignored specific allegations about an armed militia (as MacKenzie made) for several months. But we’re supposed to believe that arrest came just after his…. and it’s entirely a coincidence.

Did MacKenzie call the RCMP to inform them about a violent threat?

Or did he do it to get himself released from prison?

And what’s the deal with his “continuous relationship” with law enforcement? Diagolon isn’t an entrapment operation, is it?

PREIK COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Preik Record Of Proceeding
(2) Preik Information
(3) Preik Release
(4) Preik Transcript January 28 2022
(5) Preik Transcript January 28 2022 Copy
(6) Preik Transcript August 2 2022
(7) Preik Transcript August 2 2022 Copy
(8) Preik Transcript January 27 2023 Elect Method
(9) Preik Transcript August 15 2024 Not Guilty Plea

MEDIA ATTENTION:
(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/8591403/rcmp-seize-firearms-in-b-c-following-probe-into-video-by-self-described-militia/
(2) Preik Arrest Global News Announcement
(3) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2022/rcmp-arrest-man-firearms-offences
(4) RCMP arrest man for firearms offences
(5) https://www.antihate.ca/jeremy_raging_dissident_mackenzie_arrested_waving_handgun_local_business

SEARCH WARRANT FOR MACKENZIE:
(1) ITO Warrant Application For Jeremy MacKenzie January 22 2022

Posted on

HateGate, Part 2D: ApSimon V. Hategan Defamation Lawsuit

The “HateGate Affair” was released in September 2023. That was the conspiracy theory that the Emergencies Act was invoked because politicians and law enforcement used unreliable sources to conclude the public was in danger. Specifically, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (or CAHN) was heavily referenced. This has been addressed here before.

However, there’s another reason to be skeptical about its accuracy.

The primary author, Elisa Hategan (or rather, Elisa Ferryman-Cohen) has an open defamation lawsuit pending. She published allegations against a former fencing coach, Paul ApSimon, some of which crossed into criminal accusations. Supposedly, these happened when she was a student at the University of Ottawa in the 1990s. Keep in mind, this lawsuit predates the publication of the “HateGate Affair”, and was accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Perhaps some due diligence was called for.

If someone is willing to fabricate such a story once, perhaps they would again.

Parts 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3 and 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

February 21, 2023, Hategan posted an article entitled: “Truth is Stronger than a Sword – What the Canadian Fencing Federation Doesn’t Want You to Know will Shock You.” Other references to the content are available as well.

The article itself is very disjointed, and not well organized. Hategan makes all sorts of allegations of psychological and emotional abuse, alcohol abuse, favouritism, and sexual involvement with students. Given that the ages are unclear, this may have been illegal. Considering all of this supposedly happened about 25 years ago, how can any of it be verified?

As “proof”, Hategan attaches screenshots of journal entries she claims to have written at the time. There doesn’t seem to be any independent evidence included.

It was not surprising in the least that it led to a defamation lawsuit. The Statement of Claim was filed in Ottawa on March 9th, 2023. It sought $200,000 in damages, and an order that the content be taken down.

Note: it appears Hategan filed most of her documents as paper copies (not electronic), so they’re not available online. However, others are.

Although the anti-SLAPP hearing should have been concluded, things ran well behind schedule. It’s currently set to resume in June of this year.

From the lawsuit:

24. While Paul had not been identified by name in the 2008 and 2012 posts on Hategan’s “Incognito Press” blog, she has identified Paul in the Article as the subject of the serious and false allegations made in those two posts.

25. Hategan’s statements contain serious false allegations against Paul, in their plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of the surrounding circumstances, which give the words a defamatory meaning and/or innuendo, in that they falsely state and/or infer that Paul:

a. Demanded or expected sexual favours from athletes he coached;
b. Granted special advantages to athletes he coached in exchange for sexual favours;
c. Engaged in sexual behaviour with minors;
d. Provided alcohol to underage students;
e. Encouraged underage students to use and abuse alcohol;
f. Encouraged or promoted unhealthy and dangerous eating habits and/or disorders;
g. Psychologically abused athletes that he coached;
h. Was biased and/or discriminated against individuals who identify as being homosexual;
i. Was corrupt or was part of a corrupt organization;
j. Was the subject of an internal investigation;
k. Bullied athletes or others involved in the fencing community;
l. Allowed bullying of athletes by other athletes;
m. Interfered with independent investigations;
n. Engaged in or participated in a “cover-up” of the alleged inappropriate behaviour;
o. Was unethical and lacked integrity; and,
p. Exceeded or misused his authority.

Given that this happened in Ontario, Hategan filed an anti-SLAPP Motion, asking that the suit be thrown out. ApSimon responded that this was not an appropriate case for it.

That is a valid point. Ontario does have system in place to screen out frivolous suits related to expression. But when the words are clearly harmful, and not just “free speech”, Judges tend to dismiss such Motions and allow litigation to proceed. This comes across as such a case.

4. Anti-SLAPP legislation was not enacted to dismiss actions such as this, where an individual’s reputation is severely damaged without any justification. Defendants cannot make serious, baseless allegations at the expense of a person’s reputation under the guise of speaking out in the public interest. Those harmed must have the opportunity to vindicate their reputation and clear their name.

77. In this case, the serious defamatory sting, sexual abuse, and its obvious effect on Paul’s reputation is what justifies allowing the case to continue. Had Hategan’s allegations only been about Paul’s coaching style or technique, Paul concedes that his burden may not have been met. It could be argued that such harm, even if it were based on pure lies, may not be significant enough to justify allowing an action to continue under the s. 137.1 framework.

78. But the sting of the expressions is far more serious and concerns sexual abuse and manipulation, potentially against minors. It is the type of allegation that is difficult to shake off once made, no matter the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The courts have recognized the considerable public interest in allowing individuals targeted by such allegations to defend their reputation publicly in court.

The worst of Hategan’s allegations were of the nature of sexual harassment and sexual abuse, potentially against minors. ApSimon essentially is demanding his day in Court to clear his name. Unless hard evidence is put forward, this would be hard for the Judge to refuse.

Hategan has already been found by an Ontario Court Judge to have defamed someone else, invaded her privacy, interfered with her economic relations, and appropriated her likeness. This is, of course, her frivolous lawsuit with Elizabeth Frederiksen and Bernie Farber. It was just a few years ago.

Hategan also had filed a baseless lawsuit against: (a) Ontario Educational Communications Authority (TVO); (b) The Agenda With Steve Paikin; (c) Stacey Dunseath; and (d) Eric Bombicino. That was dismissed on consent.

Additionally, she’s also made threats to sue Derek Harrison for including an entry on her in his (obviously) satire publication called “Meme Kampf”.

There’s the recent lawfare from Caryma Sa’d. There were 3 claims, not just 1.

As for the HateGate story, it’s a publication that concludes — with no real evidence — that the RCMP conspired with politicians and the media (or at least, were grossly incompetent) to declare a national emergency.

Wild idea, but maybe celebrating her “HateGate Affair” publication as some sort of vindication wasn’t the best move. But then, nobody fact checks anything anymore.

APSIMON COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) ApSimon Statement Of Claim March 2023
(2) ApSimon Notice Of Intent To Defend May 2023
(3) ApSimon Defence To Counterclaim
(4) ApSimon Defendants Compendium September 2024
(5) ApSimon Defendants Larger Compendium September 2024
(6) ApSimon Plaintiff Responding Factum September 2024
(7) ApSimon Court Endorsement September 2024
(8) ApSimon Court Endorsement February 2025

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE (FREDERIKSEN/FARBER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc874/2021onsc874.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca217/2022onca217.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca715/2022onca715.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca57/2023onca57.html
(5) Hategan Farber Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Hategan Farber Affidavit Motion To Dismiss
(7) Hategan Farber Responding Factum

RETALIATORY LAWSUIT FROM ELIZABETH FREDERIKSEN:
(1) Hategan Lawsuit Frederiksen Dismissed For Delay

HATEGAN CIVIL CASE TVO/THE AGENDA:
(1) Hategan TVO The Agenda Statement Of Claim

HATEGAN CASH COW TWEETS:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1898792409078939876
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1786099430367592909
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1786210135410450822
(4) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1775117017269338296
(5) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1734059907253522839

HATEGAN THREATENS TO SUE DEREK HARRISON:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758177743265517947
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1758258494740832409
(3) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1757851798147117192

Posted on

MacKenzie/Levant Defamation Suit: $3,500 For Security Needed, No Trial Yet

Often, defamation lawsuits demand million dollar judgements, though not always.

Plaintiffs can also ask for much less. A broadcast from July 2023 has resulted in a $35,000 lawsuit from Jeremy MacKenzie in Toronto Small Claims Court. That’s the most allowed in Ontario.

Specifically, MacKenzie is suing: (a) Ezra Levant personally; (b) Rebel Media Holdings Inc.; and (c) Rebel News Network Ltd.

Worth noting, Small Claims Courts in general are a very simplified way of resolving disputes over small amounts of money. Cost awards are typically capped as well.This can be a welcome relief to the amount of paperwork that happens in Superior Court cases. The typical steps are involved:

  1. File Plaintiff’s Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim)
  2. File Defence (a.k.a. Statement of Defence)
  3. Attend Settlement Conference
  4. Book Trial (if no Settlement reached)
  5. Have the Trial

Steps #1 through #3 are complete, and a Trial needs to be booked.

Since no agreement was reached at the Settlement Conference, MacKenzie is free to request a Trial.

A complication arose, when Levant filed a Motion for Security for Costs. Essentially, he wanted MacKenzie to have to pay a deposit to the Court pending the outcome of the case. part of the issue was that MacKenzie is a Nova Scotia resident, and presumably had no assets in Ontario. An agreement was reached in the amount of $3,500.

At the time of writing this, it doesn’t appear that MacKenzie has either: (a) paid the deposit; or (b) booked a Trial date.

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

The lawsuit seems to focus around a July 25th, 2023 of the Ezra Levant Show. MacKenzie is suing over claims that he was slandered as follows:

a. That Mr. MacKenzie founded an explicitly racist organization;
b. That Mr. MacKenzie is a government agent;
c. That Mr. MacKenzie concocted a social movement to entrap the Coutts Four in a criminal offence.

In fairness, Levant has walked a tightrope before as to whether his comments cross into defamation. We’ll have to see what happens here.

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Levant claims that it’s obvious, or should be obvious, that a lot of what he covers is opinion, or commentary, and shouldn’t be taken as fact. Essentially, he’s setting up a “Fair Comment” Defence.

From page 10 in the Defence: “On the contrary, Levant clearly states during the July 25 Podcast that the Plaintiff started Diagolon as a joke or a prank, and that the Coutts 4 got into trouble because they took the joke seriously and went too far with their role playing.”

Page 9, paragraph 18, Levant says he genuinely believes that Diagolon was set up as an explicitly racist organization, but qualifies it as “I think it was done as a joke”.

From the Exhibits filed, it seems MacKenzie had his social media accounts scoured for evidence. While some was probably trolling, it may not sit well with the Court.

Should the case ever get to Trial, a Judge can make those determinations.

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

In his Defence, Levant filed MacKenzie’s POEC testimony as an Exhibit. This was the infamous time in 2022 when he admitted under oath that he reported “extremist” behaviour, and was willing to have a “continuous relationship” with law enforcement in identifying threats to public safety.

While this may not be enough to prove MacKenzie is a “fed”, it shows, at a minimum, that he was willing to work with them. His “informing” did lead to the arrest of Landon Preik, of the group, Liberate Your Neighbourhood.

It’s also unclear what damages MacKenzie suffered from the “fed” allegations. He’s been labelled one for several years, so it’s hardly new.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

October 17th, 2023: MacKenzie files the Plaintiff’s Claim (a.k.a. Statement of Claim) through his lawyer, Frank Wu. The Claim demands $35,000 (the most allowed in Ontario Small Claims), and seeks the maximum costs allowed.

November 20th, 2023: Levant files a Defence, which includes MacKenzie’s testimony before the POEC Committee, and screenshots of some of his comments.

April 22nd, 2024: Levant submits his witness list for the upcoming Settlement Conference, which is just himself.

May 3rd, 2024: Wu submits Affidavits from witnesses Jason Lavigne and Kira Decoste.

May 8th, 2024: Deputy Judge Wong certifies that there was no agreement at the Settlement Conference. Defendants are also permitted to bring a Motion for Security for Costs.

August 7th, 2024: The Defence requested the scheduling of a hearing to determine Security for Costs, and whether MacKenzie would need to post before Trial.

November 8th, 2024: Defence files Motion Record for Security for Costs. MacKenzie being an out-of-Province litigant weighed against him.

November 18th, 2024: On consent, it’s agreed MacKenzie must pay $3,500.

The deposit hasn’t yet been paid, and it’s unclear if it ever will be. But should the case ever go to Trial, transcripts will likely be published on Levant’s show.

(1) MacKenzie Plaintiffs Claim October 2023
(2) MacKenzie Defence November 2023
(3) MacKenzie Defence Affidavit Of Service November 2023
(4) MacKenzie Defence List Of Proposed Witnesses April 2024
(5) MacKenzie Defence Witnesses Affidavit Of Service April 2024
(6) MacKenzie Affidavit Of Jason Lavigne May 2024
(7) MacKenzie Affidavit Of Kira Decoste 2024
(8) MacKenzie Endorsement Of No Settlement May 2024
(9) MacKenzie Defence Request To Clerk August 2024
(10) MacKenzie Defence Motion For Security For Costs November 2024
(11) MacKenzie Defence Motion Record Affidavit Of Service November 2024
(12) MacKenzie Endorsement For Security For Costs November 2024

Posted on

“Military Propaganda” Lawsuit Thrown Out For Mootness

A high profile lawsuit filed in Federal Court last September has fizzled out. Emma Briant, an “expert in information warfare and propaganda” sued the Canadian Government for failing to adequately respond to a freedom of information request. She wanted to know what, if anything, the Canadian Forces/Department of National Defence had done with her work. She’s a professor with Monash University in Australia, with a long list of publications.

In her Notice of Application, Briant describes the frustration it has been in trying to get anything at all. It was delayed far longer than what was reasonable.

Specifically, she sought this from Canada:

I am requesting records that contain any references to myself (Dr. Emma Briant), my work or my media engagement, or discussions and analysis of it and responses to it, held by the public affairs branch of the Canadian Forces/Department of National Defence in Ottawa from the period of 24th June 2020 to 30th October 2020. This should include the details of whom any such data was shared with or received from and who holds the data. In case it helps your inquiry, I was formerly Associate Researcher at Bard College in New York State, US currently Associate Professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Considering the way this story had been hyped up by media outlets, the conclusion was disappointing. There was no smoking gun to be released.

The released records primarily relate to an article about wolves on the loose. Briant was not the main focus of the publication, though was mentioned in it. Clearly, the story had been shared among the military, but there’s no indication given here that her work was relied on.

Last year Emma Briant, a research associate at Bard College in the U.S. who specializes in examining military propaganda, revealed the Canadian Forces spent more than $1 million in training its public affairs officers on behaviour modification techniques. Those techniques were of the same sort used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, the company implicated in a 2016 data-mining scandal to help Donald Trump’s election campaign.

The records show that the military was aware that she had reported about spending related to behaviour modification.

U.S. Government Aware Of Ottawa Citizen Story

On October 15th, 2020, the United States reached out to the Canadian Forces about the above publication. The response back was that it was normal training stuff, although it could “look bad”.

Of course, there were several pages that were redacted under section 19(1)(b) of the Privacy Act. This is the requirement to refuse to disclose material “obtained on confidence” from an “international organization of states or an institution thereof”.

However, Briant had all of this prior to filing the Application. The response from Ottawa wasn’t surprising.

Attorney General Brings “Mootness” Motion

The Government brought a Motion to throw out the case for mootness, meaning there was no practical reason to continue the proceedings. The rationale was that Briant already got her records, even if it was late, and even if they weren’t what she was looking for.

Procedurally, they also took issue with what laws were used to bring the Application. Lack of disclosure was already covered by s.41 of the Privacy Act, so invoking s.18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act was unnecessary.

In her Responding Motion Record, Briant includes an Affidavit with attachments showing her various attempts to get those records. Exhibit “G” is what she did finally receive, and it consists of media stories being shared. She said it wasn’t responsive, and implied more was being withheld. She did concede the case was now moot, but asked the Court for directions on costs.

Naturally, the Government opposed the request for costs. It was stated that Briant had already gotten her records, so bringing the Application was entirely unnecessary.

Eventually, the Application was struck without the ability to amend. However, Briant did get some of the money back from the Government. The extra effort involved to get any sort of release likely resulted in this happening.

1) The Notice of Application is properly treated as being solely an application pursuant to section 41 of the Privacy Act;
2) The Respondent’s motion to strike the Notice of Application is granted;
3) The Notice of Application is struck out with leave to amend;
4) The application is dismissed; and
5) The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant her costs of the application, assessed in accordance with column III of Tariff B of Rules.

The dollar amount of the cost award doesn’t appear to be made public.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 17th, 2024: Notice of Application filed.

September 25th, 2024: Government files Notice of Appearance.

October 2nd, 2024: Applicant files Affidavit of Service.

October 2nd, 2024: Consent is filed to accept service electronically.

October 30th, 2024: Attorney General files Affidavit of Service.

November 19th, 2024: Attorney General brings Motion to strike for mootness.

December 1st, 2024: Applicant brings a Motion Record in response.

December 8th, 2024: Attorney General files Reply Submissions.

January 7th, 2025: Prothonotary Ring rules on the Motion (but there appear to be multiple Orders involved).

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

It would be nice to know a lot more about what the Canadian military says and does in terms of “using propaganda” and “behaviour modification techniques”. Hopefully, it will come out. But this case wasn’t it.

(1) T-2436-24 Briant Notice Of Application
(2) T-2436-24 Briant Electronic Service
(3) T-2436-24 Briant Motion Record Mootness
(4) T-2436-24 Briant Applicant Responding Motion Record Mootness
(5) T-2436-24 Briant Exhibit G Affidavit
(6) T-2436-24 Briant Reply Submissions
(7) T-2436-24 Briant Order From Prothonotary Ring
(8) https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/legal-action-under-way-to-force-canadian-forces-to-release-propaganda-documents

Posted on

Military Injection Pass Case: Catherine Christensen And The “Missing” Motion Record

Late last month, counsel for hundreds of military veterans appeared on the Talk Truth podcast to talk about her case, among other things. This is, of course, a notorious and high profile injection passport case that was thrown out in late 2024.

See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background on the case.

Briefly, the case was struck by Associate Judge Coughlan in November 2024 for: (a) not properly being pleaded; and (b) lack of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction, due to the military’s grievance system taking priority. After missing the deadline to appeal, and a comedy of errors, Justice Manson refused an extension of time. A Notice of Appeal has now been filed in the Federal Court of Appeal.

The full interview is available on Rumble, and most on Twitter.

Catherine Christensen, counsel for the Plaintiffs, talks about her Motion Record being deleted, an allegation that makes no sense at all. She suggested that it was done prior to AJ Coughlan’s ruling, implying that the Court is corrupt.

Worth noting: Christensen doesn’t understand the argument of why Payne succeeded. It wasn’t that “Charter Rights violations cannot be addressed in the grievance system”. It was that unilaterally imposing changes on employment contracts without meaningful consultation circumvents the grievance process.

Hopefully, she isn’t able to get a negative precedent set.

Motion Records Filed, Available To The Public

Anyone can search the case notes on Federal Court cases. It’s freely available. For the Motion to Strike, the Plaintiffs’ Motion Record was Item #68 and #70. Yes, it’s 2 volumes. As for the Motion to extend time, it’s Item #77.

The first volume of the Plaintiffs’ Motion Record contains dozens of Affidavits, and is 6,908 pages in size. It’s full of photographs, and takes up over 1 GB in data. However, a significant portion is irrelevant.

The second volume of the Plaintiff’s Motion Record contains the written submissions, and hundreds of pages of “secondary sources” and “appendices”. It’s 613 pages in length.

Now, it’s possible that she had to send (at least the first volume) more than once, given its size. But she’s implying there’s some conspiracy to rig the case. In reality, the Motion Record was so poorly crafted that it went largely ignored by AJ Coughlan.

For context, what was the Motion to Strike about?
(a) Pleadings not being drafted in a way that can be responded to
(b) Lack of jurisdiction for the Court, given the grievance system in place

To address the lack of jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs needed to focus on providing evidence that the grievance option was corrupted, or otherwise unworkable. There are parts of the evidence that addressed exemptions and grievances, but that should have been the entirety.

At the time of hearing the Motion to Strike, over 100 of the Plaintiffs had filed grievances, and they were in various stages. In fairness to AJ Coughlan, it put her in the awkward spot of being asked to confer jurisdiction to the Court. As for ongoing grievances, it would effectively hijack them.

[67] Indeed, it is noteworthy that over 100 of the Plaintiffs have filed grievances arising from the Directives. At least one grievance was allowed by the MGERC though not supported by the FA. This Court has consistently upheld the CAF grievance system and declined to exercise its exceptional jurisdiction: Veltri v Department of National Defence Canada, dated January 4, 2018, at paras 11-17 (Federal Court file no. T-1400-17); Sandiford v Canada, 2007 FC 225 at para 28‑29; Graham v Canada, 2007 FC 210 at paras 22-23. In the present circumstances, I see no basis upon which I ought to exercise my residual jurisdiction to permit this action to continue.

For reference, Christensen was told back in late 2021 not to try to circumvent the grievance system by going to Federal Court. That was also a vaccine mandate case.

To give Plaintiffs credit, there were sections of the evidence that were quite appropriate. But with these decisions in mind, it was an uphill battle getting any Court to take the case.

***Due to the large amounts of private (and irrelevant) information that was filed, the Motion Record won’t be shared. It would cross into doxing.

Contents Of Motion Record Largely Irrelevant Or Redundant

The first volume of the Motion Record consists of 34 Affidavits, and is 6,908 pages long.

The content which shows various Plaintiffs attempting to seek some alternative or exemption is great. Many refer to grievance systems in place. That’s helpful in trying to establish whether or not there were any alternatives.

There’s a lot of duplication and redundancy in the evidence. Documents such as: (a) CDS Directive 001; (b) Layered Risk Management System; and (c) Government of Canada Policy on Mandatory Vaccination appear in each Affidavit.

The Affidavits also include significant sections of personal information that seem unnecessary to hearing such a Motion.

Part of the problem of having hundreds of Plaintiffs is that filing anything becomes a tedious process. Approximately, just 10% of them gave any evidence at all, and the Motion Record was thousands of pages. A far better option would be a Class Action, something Christensen does actually suggest later.

Some Affidavits Sworn Out BEFORE Proceedings Commence

[17] The Plaintiffs filed 34 affidavits of individual Plaintiffs with their motion materials. Some of these affidavits pre-date the filing of the initial Statement of Claim yet bear the style of cause and action number of the proceeding. Further, not all of the additional affidavits were referenced in the Plaintiffs’ written representations.

There’s a principle in law that evidence cannot be changed once it’s sworn out, but that appears to have happened here. AJ Coughlan mentions that some Affidavits were completed prior to the case being filed, yet have the the number of them. Prior to the Statement of Claim being filed — here it’s June 20th, 2023 — there would be no case number at all.

And that ties back in to the earlier problem. This was just a Motion to Strike, and the focus should have been on asking the Court to “take Jurisdiction”, as there was no effective grievance option. Instead, Christensen seems to have just reused Affidavits compiled earlier. She didn’t create new ones.

Written Submissions Only Reference “Some” Affidavits

[16] The form of motion materials is precisely prescribed by the Rules. Rule 363 provides that any facts to be relied upon by a party on motion should be set out in an affidavit. Rule 365(2) provides that appropriate sources may be referenced, attached to the affidavit, and included as part of the motion record. However, only affidavits and sources that are referred to in written submissions are to be included in the motion record.

[17] The Plaintiffs filed 34 affidavits of individual Plaintiffs with their motion materials. Some of these affidavits pre-date the filing of the initial Statement of Claim yet bear the style of cause and action number of the proceeding. Further, not all of the additional affidavits were referenced in the Plaintiffs’ written representations.

This is pretty straightforward. If you want to rely on Affidavit Evidence, it needs to be referenced in the written arguments. However, only some of them were.

Motion Record Contains “Secondary Sources” And “Appendices”

[18] The Plaintiffs also attached secondary sources to their motion record. The secondary sources were styled as “Appendices” and were not attached to affidavits. Again, only some of the secondary sources included in the motion record were referenced in argument. At the hearing of this matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that this is unacceptable under Rules 363 and 365.

[19] Because of the breach of Rules 363 and 365, I conclude that the affidavits and secondary sources were not properly before the Court on this motion. Accordingly, I did not consider them in my analysis.

AJ Coughlan clearly had (and read) the Motion Record prior to making a ruling. But the Rules of Civil Procedure were flaunted to such a degree that she refused to consider the evidence within.

Keep in mind, this is just a Motion to Strike. Again, the only evidence that really mattered was evidence that showed the grievance process was unworkable.

Despite suggesting the Judge was corrupt (or at least Court officials), the Motion Record was disregarded since Christensen couldn’t be bothered to follow the Federal Court Rules. This is an ongoing problem.

Christensen Sought To Convert Into Class Action, Or Individual Cases

Interestingly, in trying to ward off a Motion to Strike, Christensen proposed that AJ Coughlan allow the case to be refiled as a Class Action, or on an individual basis.

Of course, one has to wonder why it wasn’t in the first place. She laments the burden and hassle of having to contact and consult with over 300 clients. By contrast, a Proposed Class Action could have been initiated with a few (or even a single) Representative Plaintiff.

Christensen Screwed Up First Appeal (Rule 51)

The case was originally struck by Associate Justice Coughlan. Christensen filed a Motion under Federal Court Rule 51 to have it reviewed. Or at least, she was supposed to. She missed the deadline by nearly 3 weeks, and bungled an attempt to ask for an extension of time. And to clarify:

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

Because an Associate Judge (Prothonotary) struck the case initially, it could be reviewed by filing a Motion. Challenging a Judge’s decision would have required going to the Federal Court of Appeal. But Christensen screwed up the Appeal big time. Not only was she late, but:

  • The reason for prolonged inaction wasn’t really convincing
  • Christensen invoked the wrong Rule (51, instead of 8) asking for extension
  • Christensen asked for a Motion “in writing” but cited a Rule that applied to the Federal Court of Appeal
  • Christensen asked for “Leave” to appeal when it wasn’t required
  • Christensen improperly swore out her own Affidavit (breaks Rule 82)
  • Christensen didn’t clarify Plaintiffs “always intended” to appeal
  • Christensen didn’t explain how an Appeal may be successful

That Appeal was addressed in detail here and here.

Christensen Appears To Have Already Screwed Up Second Appeal

Christensen missed the deadline to appeal the first time around, and then botched a Motion to extend time. She then files a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. Already, it’s obvious that she has no idea what she’s doing.

First, Leave (permission) to Appeal to this Court is not required for a Final Order.

Second, Christensen asks for Leave “to file the Notice of Appeal”. Problem is, that “is” the Notice of Appeal. It’s already filed, and can’t be unfiled. It would have made far more sense to bring a Motion asking to file the Notice of Appeal. And again, Leave isn’t required.

Third, she doesn’t seem to be challenging the Decision of Justice Manson not to extend time to file the Rule 51 Appeal. She says that it was an error…. but doesn’t ask that it be reversed.

Fourth, she requested permission to convert the lawsuit into a Class Action when the Motion to Strike was heard, and that would have solved a lot of logistical problems. However, there’s no mention of it here.

Fifth, on a lesser note, she requests costs on a full indemnity basis, which would be 100% of the costs. Outside of successful anti-SLAPP Motions for defamation suits, it’s almost unheard of. The Federal Courts have their own scales for lawyers to use.

Could such an Appeal eventually succeed?

Perhaps, but it’s been a gong show so far.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions August 2024
(7) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(8) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(9) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time January 2025
(10) Qualizza Federal Court Notes
(11) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(12) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book February 2025

OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w


Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/canuckla/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5471