Military/Police Archives - Page 2 of 6

January 1, 2025February 4, 2025

Is The Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Appeal Already Time Barred?

Back in mid-November, this site covered the 2023 case of some 330 members of the Canadian Forces, which had been struck by Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan.

The case was full of serious problems, including: (a) Statement of Claim not pleaded properly; (b) Evidence not being properly pleaded; and (c) Section 29 of the National Defence Act, or N.D.A.

The N.D.A. specified a grievance process was to be used, as opposed to suing in Court. This is common in most unionized and Government workplaces in Canada. Even though the lawyer was trying to argue around that requirement, over 100 of her clients were concurrently trying to grieve.

Worse, the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Catherine Christensen, had been told by the Federal Court back in late 2021 that clients couldn’t bypass the N.D.A. She knew, or at least should have known, that this problem would come up again.

Since the pleading was struck by an Associate Judge, as opposed to a Judge, there is a Rule which allows a Motion to be filed to ask for a review of the decision. However, counsel’s handling of this was comically bad, and very negligent.

This “Lionel Hutz” episode would be funny, except for the real world consequences.

Christensen Missed The Deadline To File Notice Of Motion

The case notes on the Federal Court website list November 12th as the date of the ruling. CanLII gives it as November 13th. Here, it doesn’t really matter, since there was no notice for a month.

There are actually 2 different types of Appeals within the Federal Courts, and those are addressed below. The one that the Plaintiffs here wanted had a time limit of just 10 days. Counsel took 29 to respond. One has to wonder if she got them mixed up initially, and only realized the error later.

Had she sought an extension of time right away, this headache could have been avoided. Similarly, if a Notice of Motion (for the Appeal) was filed, followed by seeking an extension, it would be okay. But that’s not what ended up happening.

A Motion for an extension of time was filed on December 12th, with the Government responding on December 16th.

Granted, Courts often will allow for filings beyond the limitations period, if there are good reasons provided. However, this is far from counsel’s only error.

Appealing WITHIN Federal Courts V.S. Appealing BETWEEN Them

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

Note: Prothonotary and Associate Judge are the same thing.

Many will find this nitpicky and boring. But procedurally, there are very different rules to follow depending on who one wants to appeal to. As stated, this would be a Rule 51 Appeal, and the time limit is just 10 days to serve and file a Notice of Motion.

Had the case been struck by a Judge initially, then going to the Federal Court of Appeal would have been the only recourse. Rule 51 doesn’t allow Judges to overturn each other.

Mixing Up “Moving Parties” And “Applicants” Repeatedly

This may seem petty, but is worth mentioning:

Action: This is brought by filing a Statement of Claim. The people who initiate it are called the Plaintiffs, and the people who respond are the Defendants.

Application: This is brought by filing a Notice of Application, seeking Judicial Review of an Order or decision. The people who initiate it are called the Applicants, and the people who respond are called the Respondents.

Appeal: This is brought by filing a Notice of Appeal, seeking to challenge another Court decision. The people who initiate it are the Appellants, and the people who respond are the Respondents.

Motion: This is brought to by filing a Notice of Motion, to initiate steps within, or related to an Action, Application, or Appeal. The people who initiate them are the Moving Parties, and the people who respond are the Respondents.

Since Christensen filed a Motion seeking permission for an extension of time, her clients, at this point, would be considered MOVING PARTIES. But she repeatedly refers to them as “Applicants”, even though they never were. Even calling them “Plaintiffs” would be more accurate.

She also cites the “Federal Courts Act” at times when she really means the “Federal Court Rules”. Those are 2 completely different things. Still, the Court will know what the references are.

Motion Brought Under Wrong Rule (Should Be Rule 8, Not 51)

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicants will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 51(1) of the Federal Courts Rules.

Extension or abridgement
8(1) On motion, the Court may extend or abridge a period provided by these Rules or fixed by an order.

When motion may be brought
8(2) A motion for an extension of time may be brought before or after the end of the period sought to be extended.

This is already wrong. While the ultimate goal is to appeal the decision of Associate Judge Coughlan, first, an extension of time needs to be granted. In reality, this Motion should state Rule 8. True, the Court would still understand what she’s trying to do, but missing the deadline now means filing another Motion.

The written submissions make clear the extension is sought under Rule 8, but the Notice of Motion still needed to be fixed.

Christensen explains that the delay was caused by the difficulties of corresponding with over 300 clients. The Government responded that that the Notice of Motion could have been filed anyway, with the option to discontinue, or even just a Notice to ask for an extension. It would have cost just $20.

Motion Asks For Written Representations…. In Court Of Appeal?

leave for the Motion to be heard with written representations under Federal Courts Act Section 369.2(1);

Written representations only — Federal Court of Appeal
369.2 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court and subject to subsection (2), all motions brought in the Federal Court of Appeal shall be decided on the basis of written representations.

Christensen asks that the Judge determine the Motion with written representations, as opposed to having an oral hearing. This is common for simple Motions, and by itself, is not unreasonable.

However, Rule 369.2(1) applies to the Federal Court of Appeal. If she intends to appeal the decision of an Associate Judge, it remains within the Federal Court.

Unnecessarily Asking For Leave To Appeal?

2. leave for an extension of time to apply for Appeal of a prothonotary order;

3. leave to commence an application for Appeal under Federal Courts Act Section 51(1);

Appeals of Prothonotaries’ Orders
51 (1) An order of a prothonotary may be appealed by a motion to a judge of the Federal Court.

Service of appeal
(2) Notice of the motion shall be served and filed within 10 days after the day on which the order under appeal was made and at least four days before the day fixed for the hearing of the motion.

Items #2 and #3 don’t make any sense. Rule 51 is very short, and there’s no Leave (permission) needed to appeal a decision of a Prothonotary or Associate Judge. You just file a Notice of Motion. It’s also unclear what “apply for an appeal” means, but perhaps it’s a reference to Leave, which isn’t required.

And again, Christensen mixed up “Motion” with “Application”.

Christensen Improperly Swears Her Own Evidence

Use of solicitor’s affidavit
82 Except with leave of the Court, a solicitor shall not both depose to an affidavit and present argument to the Court based on that affidavit.

There’s a practice that lawyers aren’t suppose to argue their own evidence, as it tends to blur the lines between witness and counsel. Typically, an associate, clerk or client will swear it out. A Judge “may” allow it, but there are no guarantees.

Missing the deadline was bad enough. This is just a procedural Motion, seeking an extension of time, and it’s full of very basic mistakes.

Did Plaintiffs Always Intend To Appeal?

One thing the Government brought up is that the Motion says that the parties agreed to appeal, but not that they always intended to do so. This seemingly trivial choice in wording may sink the Motion, depending on how lenient the Judge is.

Motion Doesn’t Specify How Appeal May Be Successful

On paragraph 20 of their submissions, the Government lawyer states that the Plaintiffs offer no insight as to how an Appeal would theoretically be successful, assuming they were granted a time extension.

Paragraphs 7 through 16 of the Notice of Motion very broadly list a series of errors, but none of it is specified. Perhaps a better idea would have been to attach a draft version of the submissions they intended to use — except they weren’t done.

This could have been avoided if a request for a time extension had been filed right away. Seriously, it would have cost just $20, and their position would be a lot better.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Lawsuit

June 20th, 2023 – Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court on behalf of 330 Plaintiffs.

July 28th 2023 – Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

August 7th, 2023 – Notice of Intention to Respond is filed by the Government.

September 11th, 2023 – Statement of Defence is filed by the Government.

September 22nd, 2023 – Reply to the Statement of Defence is filed.

January 30th, 2024 – Court compels Defence to file their Affidavit of Documents.

March 3rd, 2024 – Court orders case management for the lawsuit.

April 29th, 2024 – Court gives a schedule of events to unfold.

Defendants shall serve and file their motion to strike by July 12th, 2024.
The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their motion in response by August 9th, 2024.
Hearing of motion to strike to be in-person at the Federal Court August 20th, 2024.

June 26th, 2024 – Plaintiffs contact Court, ask for hybrid setup so that Plaintiffs can attend the proceedings remotely.

July 11th, 2024 – Government files Motion to Strike the case.

August 12th, 2024 – Court contacted to request permission to file materials.

August 14th, 2024 – Court allows Plaintiff Motion materials to be filed, despite them not complying with the rules and procedure laid out.

August 14th, 2024 – Motion Record with 35 Affidavits filed by Plaintiffs

August 20th, 2024 – Court adjourns Motion to Strike hearing until September 19th.

September 19th, 2024 – Motion to Strike heard in Court.

November 12th, 2024 – Statement of Claim is struck without Leave to Amend. $5,040 in costs ordered.

December 12th, 2024 – Plaintiffs serve Notice Of Motion to extend time limits

December 17th, 2024 – Government responds, saying time extension shouldn’t be granted.

Now, the Court may very well grant an extension to file the Rule 51 Motion papers. There has been a longstanding aim of not using procedural rules unjustly to hinder litigation.

That being said, the Plaintiffs are far from guaranteed any success with this Appeal, even if it were heard. The Statement of Claim had many defects, as outlined in the last article. It’s unclear how any of it could be fixed.

For just a $20 fee, Christensen could have asked for an extension right away. She could have explained that some clients wanted to appeal, while others had not yet responded. Such a request would have been difficult to refuse.

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 Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(7) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024

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

November 16, 2024November 22, 2024

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case Thrown Out Over Grievance Requirement, Poor Pleadings

Recently, Associate Judge Coughlan of the Federal Court of Canada struck a lawsuit brought by over 300 current and former members of the military. This case had to do with the injection requirements that came into effect in late 2021. This is yet another one that would never be heard on its merits.

To be fair, the Statement of Claim does plead some facts and background information about each Plaintiff, including position, rank, length of service, and duties. It also listed who took the shots, and who tried to get exemptions. Information about family situations are given, and each Plaintiff states whether or not they’re still with the military.

Many cases don’t even give this data, so it’s a step up.

A variety of Charter violations are alleged, including:

Section 2(a) – Freedom of Religion
Section 2(d) – Freedom of Association
Section 7 – Security of the Person
Section 8 – Privacy, Search and Seizure
Section 15(1) – Equality

Problem is, while a variety of Charter violations are listed, none of them are properly pleaded. The requirements for each are very specific, but it doesn’t seem to have happened — for ANY Plaintiff.

The Judge also took issue with material being filed late, and some Affidavits being sworn before the proceedings commenced.

However, the most damning problem was that counsel filed the case in the wrong venue. The military is governed by the National Defence Act, or NDA, which covers legal affairs within the Canadian Armed Forces. The process for grieving is outlined in Section 29. Notably, it gives everyone the right to grieve, but not the right to sue.

Even worse, counsel Catherine M. Christensen had been warned about all of this previously.

National Defence Act, S.29: Grievance The Required Option

Like so many “vaccine passport” lawsuits covered on this site, jurisdiction is a serious issue. Why here? It’s because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specifies that there is a grievance process that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are expected to follow. There’s nothing listed that allows for a lawsuit to be filed.

Right to grieve
29(1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.

No penalty for grievance
29(4) An officer or non-commissioned member may not be penalized for exercising the right to submit a grievance

Authorities for determination of grievances
29.1 (1) The initial authority and subsequent authorities who may consider and determine grievances are the authorities designated in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Final authority
29.11 The Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.

Decision is final
29.15 A decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal or to review by any court.

In fairness, s.29.15 does allow for a Judicial Review to be filed if the grievance process is unsatisfactory. This would be analogous to appealing. But it’s not the same thing as filing a Statement of Claim.

Why is this important? It’s because Christensen, counsel for the Plaintiffs, didn’t follow the National Defence Act. She filed a lawsuit, instead of using the pathway available. And it’s not the first time the Federal Court has had to explain it to her.

Previous Case Saw Interlocutory Injunction Application Denied

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.

November 29th, 2021 – Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court.

December 1st, 2021 – Notice of Appearance is filed by the Government.

December 6th, 2021 – Motion is filed for Interlocutory (temporary) Injunction to prevent members of the Armed Forces from having to take the injections.

December 12, 2021 – Federal Court books hearing on the 15th.

December 15th, 2021 – Court has hearing on the Application.

December 16th, 2021 – Court denies the Application for Injunction, but does so without costs.

January 9th, 2022 – Case is discontinued altogether.

In the reasons released on December 17th, Justice Fuhrer outlines the reasons the Application was denied. He notes that this wasn’t the proper forum to bring the challenge anyway.

[40] Under the NDA s 29(1) and chapter 7 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders Volume 1 – Administration [QR&O], a CAF member can grieve the denial of an accommodation request, the initiation of a remedial measure or a release decision resulting from the application of the CAF Vaccination Policy, among other decisions, acts or omissions in the administration of the affairs of the CAF. According to the affidavit of Gordon Prieur, a senior policy analyst with DND, the grievance must be submitted within three months after the day when the grievor knew or reasonably ought to have known of the decision, act or omission for which the grievance is submitted. Grievances submitted after this period nonetheless may be considered if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

[41] The CAF grievance process consists of two levels of authority, the Initial Authority [IA] and the Final Authority [FA]. The IA can be the grievor’s commanding officer or next superior officer, while the FA is the CDS, who can delegate this role in certain circumstances. In addition, certain grievances are to be referred to the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC], an independent, arm’s-length entity that reviews grievances and makes recommendations to the CDS. The CDS is not bound, however, by MGERC’s recommendations but he must provide reasons if he does not act on them.

[42] As noted above, Charter claims can be considered in the grievance process.

While the Interlocutory Injunction Application had been denied, litigants could (in theory) go ahead trying to get a permanent one. But they decided not to. The fact that this should have been grieved in the first place likely influenced this decision.

There were also concerns that counsel didn’t plead the case properly.

This 2021 ruling is important because Christensen makes the same mistakes again, but with a much larger case. Her next one would involve over 300 Plaintiffs.

Current Lawsuit Thrown Out Over Jurisdiction, Pleadings

This case was an Action, which is initiated by filing a Statement of Claim. The procedures are different than those for filing an Application, but the same problems came up.

June 20th, 2023 – Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court on behalf of 330 Plaintiffs.

July 28th 2023 – Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

August 7th, 2023 – Notice of Intention to Respond is filed by the Government.

September 11th, 2023 – Statement of Defence is filed by the Government.

September 22nd, 2023 – Reply to the Statement of Defence is filed.

January 30th, 2024 – Court compels Defence to file their Affidavit of Documents.

March 3rd, 2024 – Court orders case management for the lawsuit.

April 29th, 2024 – Court gives a schedule of events to unfold.

Defendants shall serve and file their motion to strike by July 12th, 2024.
The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their motion in response by August 9th, 2024.
Hearing of motion to strike to be in-person at the Federal Court August 20th, 2024.

June 26th, 2024 – Plaintiffs contact Court, ask for hybrid setup so that Plaintiffs can attend the proceedings remotely.

July 11th, 2024 – Government files Motion to Strike the case.

August 12th, 2024 – Court contacted to request permission to file materials.

August 14th, 2024 – Court allows Plaintiff Motion materials to be filed, despite them not complying with the rules and procedure laid out.

August 14th, 2024 – Motion Record with 35 Affidavits filed by Plaintiffs

August 20th, 2024 – Court adjourns Motion to Strike hearing until September 19th.

September 19th, 2024 – Motion to Strike heard in Court.

November 12th, 2024 – Statement of Claim is struck without Leave to Amend. $5,040 in costs ordered.

The initial filing was covered by the National Post, but it doesn’t appear that there was any follow up done afterward.

Anyhow, the ruling was pretty brutal. It cited a variety of errors, including: (a) failure to properly plead Charter violations; (b) failing to comply with rules when submitting evidence; and (c) lack of jurisdiction, given the grievance scheme available.

[58] Given my conclusion that the action should be struck without leave to amend, there is no need for me to consider whether the Court should exercise its discretion to take jurisdiction over the proceeding. However, for the sake of completeness, I will address that issue briefly.

[59] In support of its motion, Canada filed the affidavit of Ann-Marie De Araujo Viana (the “Viana affidavit”), Manager Professional Policies–Grievances, Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Authority. The Viana affidavit sets out the statutory and regulatory framework for the CAF grievance process established by sections 29-29.15 of the National Defence Act [NDA] and regulations. That framework is supplemented by the DAOD, specifically, DAOD 2017-0 Military Grievances and DAOD 2017-1 Military Grievance Process.

[60] Pursuant to subsection 29 of the NDA, CAF members who are aggrieved by any decision, act, or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF, for which no other process for redress is provided under the NDA, may submit a grievance. As set out in the Viana affidavit, the CAF grievance process has two levels of authority, the Initial Authority [IA] and the Final Authority [FA]. The CDS is the FA. In some circumstances there may be an independent review of the grievance by the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC]. However, the CDS remains the final authority and is not bound by any findings or recommendation of the MGERC.

[61] Following a decision of the FA, dissatisfied CAF members may seek judicial review of the decision in this Court, including any appeal rights deriving therefrom.

[62] As this Court has noted on a number of occasions, the grievance process available under the NDA is broadly worded and comprehensive, capturing a wide range of issues and allowing members to seek redress for virtually any issues arising during the course of their service: Jones v Canada, (1994) 87 FTR 190 at paras 9-10 (TD); Fortin v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1061 at paras 25-26; Jones v Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), 2022 FC 1106 at para 21.

Christensen had been warned by the Federal Court about exactly this issue, just a few years ago. But she filed this lawsuit anyway.

The Court noted that she hadn’t come anywhere close to convincing that the grievance scheme was corrupted or unworkable. And it would be a very tough sell indeed.

The Judge noted at paragraph 67 that over 100 of the Plaintiffs had filed grievances anyway. This is yet another problem that would derail this case. Parallel or simultaneous proceedings are not allowed. Considering the grieving was the correct option, this lawsuit would have been stayed.

The Statement of Claim had other serious errors. Specifically, none of the Charter violations were pleaded sufficiently. It’s not enough to simply list the different sections. Paragraphs 18 to 41 outlined exactly what was wrong.

Serious question: While it’s nice to see people standing up for their rights, what good is it when counsel can’t follow basic directions on how to proceed? If they can’t understand grievance rights, or how to plead a claim, how does this help anyone?

Of course, Christensen still probably got paid for her “work”.

No matter how much, or how often, a lawyer screws up a case, it’s the clients who pay.

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.

September 16, 2024September 27, 2024

Diagolon And The Company They Keep: GDL

Sometimes, even when people say some of the right things, you have to wonder if they really have your interests at heart. In their recent “Road Rage Terror Tour”, Diagolon cross-promoted a group called the GDL, or Goyim Defense League, based in the United States.

In the above photo, Derek (Rants) Harrison sports a Goyim TV cap.

Elsewhere in the series:

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Considering that Diagolon is “just a meme” and just a joke “based around a podcast community”, it’s rather interesting to promote this group. The GDL has an online platform called Goyim TV.

The GDL’s efforts can accurately be described as “agitation”. Yes, they say a lot of truthful things about foreign influence of the West. However, they conduct themselves in such a way, it seems designed to prevent the masses from taking them seriously.

And that would fit MacKenzie, Harrison, Vriend, etc… to a “T”. Yes, they also address difficult truths on their streams. However, they also say and do a lot of idiotic things. Given how strict hate laws are in this country, it’s interesting that none of them have been charged over it. MacKenzie had all his previous charges disappear, despite being so “persecuted”.

Adam Green, who has streamed with MacKenzie and Harrison, claims to have founded the Goyim Defense League, and to be selling their merchandise.

When trying to persuade people, appearance and presentation do matter a great deal. One cannot be taken seriously if they are loud, abusive, or come across as bullies. These groups present themselves as being almost cartoonish. Is this being done intentionally?

How To Provoke A Backlash, Creating New Censorship Laws

What’s employed here is the classic strategy of: (1) problem; (2) reaction; (3) solution.

(1) Problem – Groups like Diagolon or the GDL go around harassing and/or intimidating people. In the above case, this was a “protest” outside Disney, where children frequent. Minadeo is to the left in the photo.

(2) Reaction – There’s confusion and dismay about what’s going on. Most people just trying to go about their lives probably don’t want to see this.

(3) Solution – The public demands (or is perceived to demand) stronger penalties and consequences for so-called hate crimes and intimidation.

Goyim Defense League, Florida House Bill 269

Recently, Jon Minadeo, head of Goyim TV, left California for Florida, to continue his “activism“. And what was the result of that? New legislation popped up shortly afterwards.

Considering Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ love for Israel, this cannot be surprising in the slightest. He has even gone abroad to sign legislation that limits free speech.

Public Nuisances: Prohibits person from distributing onto private property any material for purpose of intimidating or threatening owner, resident, or invitee; prohibits person from willfully & maliciously harassing, threatening, or intimidating another person based on person’s wearing or displaying of any indicia relating to any religious or ethnic heritage; requires violations be reported as hate crimes; prohibits display or projection of images onto building, structure, or property without permission; prohibits person who willfully enters campus of state university or Florida College System institution for purpose of threatening or intimidating another person from remaining on such campus after being warned to depart.

To be clear: HB 269 REQUIRES that such acts be reported as hate crimes.

Even a quick search of GDL will flag interesting results. They include protesting outside a Synagogue. While people are free to express their views, the overall conduct seems calculated to cause resentment.

Need a hate-speech Bill passed? Send in these idiots to stir up trouble. Soon enough, the public will be demanding a response. See how easy that is?

Diagolon, Canada Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act)

Recently, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, and the consequences it will have for free speech in Canada. It appears both CIJA and NCCM, the Israeli and Islamic lobbies, have been supportive of this.

This Bill would allow Courts to impose orders on people they suspect might commit harmful acts. Not charged or convicted. Suspicion would be enough to see a Judge. These restrictions may include:

(a) Wearing an electronic monitoring device
(b) Return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times, a.k.a. a curfew
(c) Abstaining from drugs and alcohol
(d) Submitting to drug and alcohol testing
(e) No contact orders
(f) Weapons prohibitions

Yes, this Bill needs to be stopped.

However, how is any of this productive? The public won’t be interested in protecting Vriend’s ability to laugh at tigers killing Indians. There’s no will to protect MacKenzie’s rape “jokes”. Seeing these clowns operate, it seems more likely the public would support some level of restricting their expression.

Above are just a few of their clips. Pretty hard for people to take them seriously when they’re making comments like these. Clownish and goofy.

And done intentionally.

For all MacKenzie and Vriend whine about their “meme” group being taken seriously in Ottawa, this is the logical outcome: using it as an excuse to crack down on free speech. Then there’s this:

The internet in Canada is under attack by the Trudeau government — again. The Online Harms Act, Bill C-63 violates our charter rights and would give the government ultimate authority to fine, silence, and criminalize Canadians for freely expressing themselves. If you want to keep your free speech in Canada, then email your members of Parliament right now and demand that they do everything in their power to STOP Bill C-63.

This site was recently set up by Greg Wycliffe, promoting the dangers of Bill C-63. Wycliffe also set up a GiveSendGo (or GSG) account, asking for $50,000. This is done under the pretext of protecting free speech rights in Canada.

By itself, this seems fine, and a good way to get the point across. And although it’s unclear what the $50,000 would be needed for, people can ask for money to finance activism.

Where things get interesting is that Wycliffe pushes the bogus narrative that the Emergencies Act was invoked because of a meme. He claims the RCMP decided to frame MacKenzie, because reasons…. He opposes Bill C-63, yet apparently supports the people who ensure that it will get passed. He’s silent on the obvious agitation.

This may be why Diagolon and the GDL are connected. They seem to have the same goals.

FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 269:
(1) https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/
(2) https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76984
(3) https://www.change.org/p/stop-house-bill-269-in-florida
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0FaUaZNt70
(5) https://x.com/jnewsgabe/status/1597348747851153409
(6) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/neo-nazi-groups-spew-hate-disney-world-orlando-officials-say-rcna103186
(7) https://www.wsmv.com/2024/07/17/nashville-synagogue-calls-police-after-neo-nazi-group-shows-up/
(8) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-signs-bill-combat-hate-crimes-israel-rcna81799

(1) https://savefreespeech.ca/
(2) https://www.givesendgo.com/savefreespeech?amp;utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=savefreespeech

September 14, 2024February 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 4: A Look At Hategan’s Book “Race Traitor”

This continues the series on “HateGate”. This is the fake scandal which supposedly showed that the Emergencies Act was invoked because of a meme. More broadly, this ongoing series covers Diagolon, the fed honeypot used as an intelligence gathering operation.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Followers of this cult repeat the talking point that the group was “vindicated” by the HateGate Report. This was the 85 page document from Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan. The short version is that the RCMP, CSIS and Government relied on speculative reporting (such as from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network), and wrongly sounded the alarm.

Aside from the fact that the “smoking gun” 1,082 page FOIPIP package doesn’t support this, there’s a lot of background information missing about the story.

Turns out that Hategan, one of the co-authors of the HateGate Report wrote a book years back called Race Traitor. She’s also posted about her desire to lock up “racists“. It’s a little bizarre that she would work to clear people who despise her for being Jewish and a lesbian.

Hategan talks at length about her time with “Heritage Front”, which was a prominent neo-Nazi group back in the 1980’s and 1990’s. She was involved with it as a teenager, even committing illegal acts. She also writes about how one of the co-founders, Grant Bristow, in fact worked for CSIS. As it turns out, CSIS was largely responsible for creating, financing and growing it.

And why? To act as a honeypot to identify and gain intelligence about whites concerned about demographic changes.

The parallels between Heritage Front and Diagolon are striking. Despite this, Sa’d and Hategan go out of their way to avoid asking the obvious question: is Diagolon just another operation?

Summary Of Hategan’s Book: Race Traitor

Hategan’s book is available online. Unsurprisingly, it’s a biography, told in first person. To avoid any frivolous claims of copyright infringement, the text won’t be included. However, here are some of the more interesting sections, with page numbers.

(Page 5) The Prologue starts. Hategan is quite open and upfront that Heritage Front was in fact created and partially funded by CSIS, and that Grant Bristow was a CSIS agent. She also testified in Court about several of the members.

(Page 48) Hategan gets into details about recruitment of Heritage Front, and about how its goals included preventing what was already underway in Europe with illegals invading.

(Page 92) Hategan has discussions about the books: (a) The Turner Diaries; and (b) Day of the Rope. Incidently, those books are also promoted by Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon.

(Page 110) Hategan talks about going to rallies with Heritage Front. She also acknowledges that media attention helped make the group a household name. Didn’t the same thing happen with MacKenzie and Diagolon?

(Page 124) Hategan talks about efforts to infiltrate the Reform Party, led by Preston Manning at the time. Interestingly, the same claim is made today about Poilievre and Bernier’s organizations. Hategan admits that had Bristow been charged then, a lot of people wouldn’t have been harassed.

(Page 131) Hategan goes into detail about surveillance and intelligence gathering methods used by Heritage Front. These included:

Cracking answering machine passwords
Using phone books and pretext phone calls to get addresses
Impersonating the targets
Impersonating journalists
Attending rallies in disguise
Using utility records and voting registries to get addresses
General stalking

Now, considering Diagolon’s “Road Rage Terror Tour” over the summer, can one see how it might be used to gather information on supporters?

(Page 161) Hategan talks about a complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission, which was designed to shut down the “Heritage Hotline” that had been in operation.

(Page 191) Hategan talks about the names and addresses of members that she’d handed over to authorities. She also laments that she picked up an additional criminal charge — s.319 (inciting hate). While rich “Nazis” would be able to delay Court matters for years, she’d have to answer for it.

(Page 210) Hategan was now gathering intelligence on international “hate groups”, all of which she would be turning over to authorities.

(Page 248) Hategan talks about being the star witness for the Canadian Human Rights Commission in their case against Heritage Front.

(Page 306) Hategan claims that the Government essentially whitewashed the operation, including the full scale of what Grant Bristow had been involved with. Bristow’s conduct amounted to harassment, intimidation, threatening and stalking of activists. He wasn’t charged with any of it.

There’s also a lot of personal backstory included, some of it relevant.

This is by no means the complete book, just some of the highlights. Hategan also comes across as very bitter that Bristow was placed in witness protection, while she was not. She reasons that her testimony directly led to people being locked up, while he didn’t.

In any event, this took up years of Hategan’s life. It’s inconceivable that she wasn’t aware (or at least very suspicious) of the rise of MacKenzie and Diagolon. There are simply too many parallels.

While it’s true that “podcast culture” wasn’t a thing in the 1990’s, the tactics used then eerily resemble what’s been going on today.

They All Had To Have Known Ahead Of Time

Back in January 2021, Hategan posted on Twitter some biographical information. An even earlier post (2017) has her bragging about “sending racists to jail”.

Even further back, in 2020, Hategan posted on Twitter that she had directly caused 3 white supremacists to go to jail. She also published that she had produced some 30 Affidavits for the police (actually, the Ontario Provincial Police) to help them with gun related crime.

Hategan had a “continuous relationship with law enforcement”.

Isn’t that what Jeremy MacKenzie stated he was interested in having?

So, why were there no questions about the HateGate Report that she co-authored? In fact, she’s claimed several times to have been the main author of it. Why then, would Diagolon members be celebrating the work of a police informant who would have them locked up for their views?

As an aside, Hategan threatened to sue Derek (Rants) Harrison over him including her in his (satire?) book called “Meme Kampf”. One would think that this would cause him to look a bit deeper into the people who supposedly “cleared” his organization. But apparently not. It takes effort to be this uninterested in the truth.

When the Report was released in September 2023, Hategan posted this online. While promoting this book, she quite openly stated that CSIS played a large role in creating Heritage Front.

One then has to ask the obvious question: why downplay or minimize the obvious connection that Diagolon could also be a Government honeypot? If it was done once, who says it couldn’t be again?

Misrepresenting Content Of 1,082 Page FOIPIP

Ever wonder why this “smoking gun” FOIPIP package is never released? Hategan bragged about how this was real investigative journalism. This was supposed to be the proof of gross police incompetence and coverup, remember?

Most likely, it’s because the full package doesn’t support their conclusions. Instead, a few cherry-picked emails are used as the basis of this conspiracy.

The FOIPIP request didn’t act for all records related “to the invocation of the Emergencies Act”. It just asked for records on Diagolon itself. From there, Sa’d and Hategan made the assumption that this was a complete record of everything that transpired.

So-called alternative media such as Viva Frei and Harrison Faulkner apparently never bothered to do any digging into the story. If they had, they’d have uncovered all kinds of holes. But it’s not just the mainstream press that can’t be trusted.

Questions for “Diagolon” members:

(1) Does it concern you at all that the primary author of the HateGate Report was a law enforcement asset? She cooperated with police over a long period of time.

(2) Does it concern you she was working for a CSIS honeypot?

(3) Are you at concerned about the reliability of your HateGate Report, considering Hategan has publicly stated that she wants to see racists jailed? And by “racists”, she means the kind of people who tune in to see the Raging Dissident.

(4) Does it concern you that Hategan would write a book outlining all this information, and people either never knew, or never cared?

(5) Do any of the parallels between Heritage Front and Diagolon alarm you?

August 26, 2024February 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 3: Why The Final Report Is Misleading

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence. Even if the members themselves aren’t connected directly, they function as “useful idiots” for the Government.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Parts 1 and 2 of the HateGate Scam are available as well.

Back in the Fall of 2023, this 85 page document was written by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan, and released by Crier Media. It supposedly proved the Emergencies Act had been invoked because of shoddy intelligence and poor research. Authorities engaged in a clownish series of acts and panicked over an edgy podcast.

This is in no way an attempt to justify the loss of freedoms that had been going on since 2020. That said, there are questions to ask about this report.

The strongest evidence is said to be the 1,802 page FOIPIP document. It’s comprised of emails, letters and memos between Government officials and law enforcement.

Interestingly, the massive FOIA released from the RCMP is quoted, but never linked. Nor was it included by any of the “media” outlets who covered the expose. Was was this receipt left out?

Here are just a few points to consider:

What Data Did FOIA Request Actually Ask For?

Any and All records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports on the subject of “Diagolon” or in relation or reference to the subject of Diagolon. Search term: Diagolon Also referred to as the Diagolon Network or Diagolon Militia.
Timeframe: January 01 2021 to August 15 2022

From this, Sa’d and Hategan went on to draw the conclusion that police are taking their information primarily from the media. After that, the police would feed this data — primarily from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network — to politicians, who (among other things) invoked the Emergencies Act. They apparently all fed off of each other, which was referred to many times as the “circle jerk”.

However, Sa’d and Hategan — in their FOIPIP request — didn’t ask for all “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” that resulted in the EA being invoked. Instead, the request was specific to the group, Diagolon. They then decided that these records were sufficient. It’s worth noting that the FOIPIP didn’t inquire about any other (alleged) extremists.

Nor did the FOIA request to obtain any “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” about how so-called violent extremists groups are defined, surveilled and dealt with.

Nor did the FOIA request to obtain any “records, files (etc), documents, memos, e-mails, communication records, and reports” about what information and evidence had been gathered on Diagolon. They didn’t ask to see anything from law enforcement directly. Granted, this would likely have been withheld, if investigations were ongoing.

The documents included here do have significant redactions, so there’s a lot of information that’s being withheld. Nonetheless, Sa’d and Hategan can apparently still piece together what was going on.

Point is, a lot of conclusions were drawn on a very incomplete record.

Authors Interviewed No Witnesses To Draw Conclusions

Pages 57 to 62 of the HateGate report quote some emails between various law enforcement and Government. From this, the authors conclude that the RCMP was working blindly to fulfill demands to dig up dirt on various extremist groups.

Problem is: going through their report, it doesn’t look like they interviewed a single witness, or even attempted to. Since the FOIPIP only asked about “Diagolon”, most likely there are many other emails not included. Given the gaps in the record (see previous section), one would think they would try to contact at least a few of the officers involved. After all, their email addresses were listed.

This isn’t to justify — in any way — the heavy handed approach that was used on peaceful protesters. Far from it. But these are very serious allegations to make, and it’s very speculative.

RCMP Expressed Doubt About Reliability Of CAHN Articles

Pages 16 through 26 of the 2nd FOIPIP package are worth a read. The RCMP does discuss Diagolon at length, and admits that a lot of the information they get came from CAHN. However, they also admit that it’s almost impossible to verify any of it, and that it’s unclear how CAHN can make these assertions with any level of confidence.

The RCMP also expresses doubts about a University of New Brunswick Professor named David Hofmann. They don’t know how he can state that Diagolon is an “American-style militia movement”.

They conclude that “operational information” would be needed to build any profile, since none of the open source claims can be verified.

Is this self serving? Maybe, but these are the same FOIPIP documents that are being used to make them look incompetent and dishonest. Yes, the RCMP does monitor the content CAHN puts out — that’s obvious — but they have doubts about its reliability.

MacKenzie’s Stream From February 15th, 2022

Starting at page 47 of the 6th FOIPIP package, MacKenzie’s video is mentioned, along with several quotes. He refers to himself (presumably sarcastically) as the Neo-Nazi Militia Commander. He mentions the patches that were found in Coutts, but suggests they were planted. He also goes on about the “country” being a meme.

It’s baffling to understand what kind of idiot would post a video with such a title. If authorities aren’t understanding what’s satire v.s. reality, why give them this kind of bait? And it’s hardly the first time he’s done something like this.

MacKenzie either doesn’t know — or pretends not to know — that posting this content can have serious consequences. Hard to claim he’s being smeared by CAHN when this is how he describes himself.

There are also remarks in various streams about “hunting circs”, which police take to mean “hunting circulons”, or people who subscribe to different ideologies. While this is likely in jest, authorities take them at their word.

Part of the reason authorities had such difficulty understanding what Diagolon was likely had to do with the endless mixed messages. MacKenzie and his friends routinely said things that would be considered fed-posting, only to follow it up with “it’s all just a joke”. Comments about “gun or rope” and the like are also just jokes.

Yeah. The majority of the content was – especially considering the time, it was very anti-COVID, anti-vaccine, anti-government material. There was a lot of conspiracy theory material in that. There was a lot of what I would define as White nationalists, White supremacy ideology existing within that space. There was also a lot of what I would define as militia-type discussions. There was a lot of talk of acquiring weaponry, body armour, ammunition, planning meet-ups, organizing community events, and then also articulating the purpose of these events beyond simply….

Going back to the Schill gun grab of May 2024, Carmichael testified that there were meet-ups in person. There were also conversations around weapons, ammnition, and body armour.

He also testified that the in-person meetings were surveilled.

One has to wonder how long this has been going on for. How extensive it the information that has been gathered? This is another reason to think that more information should have been asked for with the FOIPIP request.

Are MacKenzie, Harrison, Vriend and the others completely oblivious to what’s being set in motion? All of this talk about being a militia, going shooting, etc… is being taken at face value. And now with the hard anti-immigration push, it looks even worse.

RCMP Has Their “Talking Points” Available For The Media

Back in April 2022, the RCMP had their “talking points” ready for media inquiries. This is from the beginning of the 1st FOIPIP package. In essence, there were scripts already prepared, including what to say if pressed further.

Page 31 of the 9th FOIPIP package has a similar script, dated February 20th, 2022. No specifics can be given, but there’s a “trust us” response.

Far from being unique, it seems likely that most (or all) press conferences are structured this way. There’s the set script, and then the “extra information” to be released if there’s any pushback.

Diagolon is mentioned in the context that body armour from Coutts, AB had their markings on it. Yes, it is labelled a “militia” in this memo. Can’t figure out why.

Authors Insert Themselves Greatly Into Report

The HateGate report is 85 pages, or less, if covers, table of contents, etc… are removed. Pages 10 and 11 are about Caryma Sa’d, and 31 to 44 are about Elisa Hategan. 16 pages, or approximately 20% of the report’s content is information on the authors and their experiences. There’s about as much detail on them as there is on MacKenzie. And that leads to another concern….

Other Agendas From The Authors?

As an aside, it’s comical how the “independent” media who broke HateGate never bothered to do the slightest bit of due diligence into the people writing the report.

Part 1 of this series covered Elisa Hategan, one of the co-authors. She had been involved with a group called Heritage Front back in the 1990’s. She later acted as an “asset” for the Ontario Provincial Police, helping to bring them down. Hategan’s story is widely available, and she even published a book titled: “Race Traitor”.

Heritage Front turned out to be a CSIS operation, quite literally. It was co-founded by Grant Bristow, who was at one point the second-in-command of the group. This means the group was created, at least in part, by CSIS. Who’s to say that Diagolon isn’t the next iteration?

Part 2 covered Hategan’s lawfare against Bernie Farber, and Elizabeth (Moore) Frederiksen. Justice Ferguson found that Hategan had engaged in doxing, stalking, harassment, and invading privacy. Not content to lose in Court, she kept it going in Appellate Court for another 2 years.

Hategan’s involvement in writing the HateGate report is suspicious because: (a) she glosses over the “honeypot” possibility; and (b) given her recent history with Farber, this looks like revenge.

Thoughts On The FOIA And HateGate Report?

The claim has been going around since September 2023 that this was “proof” that an intelligence failure around Diagolon and MacKenzie led to the EA being invoked. But the request only asks for information on Diagolon, and is structured in a way that ensures such proof won’t be included. It would have been far more productive to request all records related to the declaration of emergency in the first place.

Alternatively, multiple FOIPIP requests could have been made, even if there would be overlap in the disclosure.

While the FOIA package is over 1,000 pages, there’s very little in there. Many of the emails are chains, so the same content keeps coming up. A lot of pages have little to no content on them.

Sa’d and Hategan fill in the blanks with their own assumptions. Without talking to witnesses, they speculate and give their views about what was going on. If this was clearly explained to be opinion, that would be one thing, but people interpret this as fact.

Taking the FOIA documents at face value, it’s clear that the RCMP (and presumably CSIS too) do in fact monitor the news in general. They also have looked at what CAHN has said about others, including Diagolon. However, while these articles are quoted, and shared, there’s no hard proof that it led to anything, let alone the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Yes, other countries (such as New Zealand) have been contacted about Diagolon. However, given the kinds of comments MacKenzie and his followers routinely make, this doesn’t seem outrageous.

The HateGate report comes across much more as an advocacy piece that something objective. MacKenzie’s take on things is always given deference. People like Bernie Farber are always pushing ideological agendas. The authors (in particular Hategan) use their own experiences as material and for reference points.

Overall, this is nowhere near the “breaking story” that had been portrayed.

It’s interesting, but that’s about it.

Again, this is in no way to justify the declaration of emergency, or the crackdown on protesters, or the freezing of bank accounts. None of that was called for.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE:
(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

August 25, 2024March 15, 2025

HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Part 1 of the HateGate Scam is available as well.

There’s a lot more to get into, all of it ignored by so-called “alternative” media.

In the last piece, we covered Elisa Hategan’s history with “Heritage Front”. This so-called white supremacist group turned out to be (at least in part) a CSIS operation. It was co-founded by Grant Bristow, who was a CSIS agent at the time.

As she co-authored the infamous “HateGate report” with Caryma Sa’d, it was strange to omit the possibility that Jeremy MacKenzie and “Diagolon” may be the next iteration. If the Government would manufacture at least one such group, what’s to stop them from doing it again? While this coincidence alone is not definitive proof, it’s not something that can be ignored either.

Now, we come across something which completely stands things on its head. Hategan went after Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (who still uses her maiden name, Moore) a few years ago. She lost.

Both Hategan and Moore/Frederiksen were part of Heritage Front, and both played a role in bringing down the group. As is noted by Justice Ferguson, both women’s stories have many similarities. However, their futures diverged greatly afterwards.

Farber and Moore/Frederiksen went on to lead the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, while Hategan was left in relative obscurity. Reading through the decision, it appears that she didn’t get the glory and recognition she felt was owed to her. Being able to share her story wasn’t enough, as she didn’t want others to have that same right.

Hategan went as far as to buy up many domain names with very similar names to Elizabeth Moore, so that they couldn’t be used. This behaviour is downright creepy.

Farber chose his “pet”, and it wasn’t Hategan, so she lashed out.

It’s baffling why Hategan would write the HateGate report — which is 85 pages long, and full of citations. She claims to be the main researcher and writer of the document. MacKenzie and his crew used it to claim “vindication” over Government overreach, and the invoking of the Emergencies Act. Considering Hategan now proudly shares her identity as Jewish and a lesbian, allying with them would make no sense. Ideologically, she has far more in common with Farber and Moore/Frederiksen.

However, it makes sense once the history between these people is revealed.

Put into context, the HateGate paper comes across as an act of revenge.

One has to wonder if this is why the “honeypot” narrative of Diagolon was glossed over. Sure, it would do damage to MacKenzie, Harrison and Vriend to reveal it, but not to Farber or CAHN.

Ironically, Hategan also feels sidelined by Caryma Sa’d, who has received the bulk of the publicity for the HateGate paper.

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

September 2017: Farber goes on “The Agenda”, and talks about Hategan and Frederiksen as “heroes” who helped take out the group, Heritage Front.

December 2018: Hategan files Statement of Claim against Moore/Frederiksen. It includes torts for (a) injurious falsehood; (b) civil conspiracy; (c) wrongful appropriation; (d) unlawful interference; and (e) negligence. None of it was pleaded properly, and one may say it was “bad beyond argument”.

January 2019: Statement of Defence (and a Counter-Claim) are filed by Frederiksen. She sued for (a) defamation; (b) invasion of privacy; (c) appropriation of likeness; and (d) interference with economic relations.

April 2019: Statement of Claim is amended, and Bernie Farber added as a Defendant.

July 2019: Farber filed a Statement of Defence, and also brought a Motion to Dismiss for Summary Judgement.

December 2020: Justice Ferguson hears Motions for Summary Judgement brought by Farber and Frederiksen. The decision is reserved, which is typical in these types of cases.

February, 2021: Justice Ferguson throws out Hategan’s Claim on a Summary Judgement Motion, and Frederiksen’s Counter-Claim is granted. Hategan was ordered to pay:

$100,000 for general damages;
$50,000 for aggravated damages;
$50,000 for punitive damages

March 2021: Hategan serves Notice of Appeal on Frederiksen and Farber.

March 2021: Justice Ferguson confirmed the cost award against Hategan. Also the permanent injunction for her to stop publishing content about Frederiksen, remove existing content, release all domain names, and refrain from using identifiers of her likeness.

April 2021: The Registrar gave notice to Hategan that her Appeal would be dismissed for delay since she had missed the 30 day deadline to file her paperwork. Hategan thought there was 60 days, however, that didn’t apply since there was no transcript.

May 2021: Hategan retains another lawyer, who asks for consent for an extension to file the Appeal documents. The request is denied.

July 2021: The Registrar dismisses the Appeal for delay.

August 2021: Hategan’s counsel advises that there will be a Motion brought to challenge the administrative delay. There were procedural headaches after this. January 2022 is set as a date, but delayed again.

February 2022: Justice Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario hears a Motion to set aside (invalidate) the Registrar’s dismissal of the Appeal for delay. It’s held via video conference.

March 2022: Justice Pardu dismisses Motion to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal for delay. Among the reasons given is that there is — on the surface — little or no merit to the Appeal. Frederiksen had agreed to waive costs if the Motion was dismissed, while Farber got the $5,000 he asked for.

July 2022: Justice Simmons orders Hategan to pay security for costs to Farber.

October 2022: Justices Lauwers, Roberts and Trotter dismissed a Review Motion (of Justice Simmons) requiring Hategan to pay security for costs.

January 2023: Court of Appeal hears a Review Motion from Hategan. She’s contesting the decision of the Registrar to dismiss her Appeal for unnecessary delay.

January 2023: Hategan’s Review Motion (at the Court of Appeal) is dismissed. Given her delay, prejudice to the Respondents, and the lack of merit to the Appeal, Justices Nordheimer, Miller and van Rensburg decided not to give her another chance. She was ordered to pay Frederiksen $7,500, and Farber another $5,000.

Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

[138] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts. The information about Ms. Moore’s former extra-marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality. By publishing statements about these sexual relations, and falsely claiming that this was done to advance Ms. Moore’s career, Ms. Hategan has clearly given publicity to a matter concerning the private life of Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore submits that this publication is (i) highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (ii) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Ontario courts have particularly noted the private nature of sexual relations and family quarrels, among others.

[139] Ms. Moore further submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of breach of confidence. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra-marital affair was confidential, in that it was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality, and Ms. Hategan’s publication of that information was unauthorized and was to Ms. Moore’s detriment. This confidential and highly intimate information was used to denigrate Ms. Moore’s personal and professional reputation, imputing that Ms. Moore received professional benefits from this and other sexual relationships. Damages, sufficient to mark the wrong that has been done, are warranted.

[140] I agree that this tort has been made out. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra‑marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan in confidentiality. I agree that this information is highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not a legitimate concern to the public.

Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness

[141] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s likeness by registering multiple websites and social media handles (the “domains”) in Ms. Moore’s name. Ms. Hategan inked many of the domains directly to her own website, so that when a person searched for Ms. Moore, they were redirected to Ms. Hategan’s information. In doing so, Ms. Hategan took advantage of the name, reputation and likeness of Ms. Moore’s personality. Ms. Hategan did this for commercial purposes and to boost her own professional reputation. As a direct result, Ms. Moore cannot register many of the domains that would naturally be used for her business – including variations of her name. Instead of using her own name, Ms. Moore has to use a fictional phrase – “one moore liz” – to promote herself online.

[142] I agree with the defendant that these actions constitute an appropriation of Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness.

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

[143] On at least two separate occasions, Ms. Hategan threatened to sue Ms. Moore’s professional colleagues in an attempt to interfere with Ms. Moore’s economic relations. Ms. Moore alleges that this amounts to the tort of intimidation, and is an actionable wrong committed against a third party. In at least one instance, as admitted by Ms. Hategan, these threats led to a speaking engagement being cancelled. As a result of these actions, Ms. Moore has suffered economic harm and loss. Ms. Moore does not know how many other opportunities she may have lost out on, because Ms. Hategan has refused to produce relevant communications with third parties. Ms. Moore submits that an adverse inference should be drawn.

[144] Again, I agree with these submissions. Ms. Hategan has caused interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relation.

All of this comes from Justice Ferguson’s ruling in 2021. Hategan meddled in the business of Moore/Frederiksen to a significant degree, and damages were awarded.

Worth noting: Justice Ferguson also concluded that none of Hategan’s torts had any merit whatsoever. It was a baseless and frivolous lawsuit.

Rather than accepting the loss, Hategan managed to tie up the matter in Appellate Court for another 2 years. No Appeal was ever actually heard for Justice Ferguson’s 2021 decision.

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

In a turn of events that should surprise no one, Hategan threatened to sue Derek Harrison earlier this year. She wasn’t happy with the entry in his (sarcastic?) book called “Meme Kampf”. She was apparently also arrested in December 2023 for criminal harassment. Again, not surprising.

Justice Ferguson found (among other things) that Hategan had been buying up various domain names so that Frederiksen would be unable to do business. This goes far beyond petty bullying. All things considered, she comes across as being unhinged.

If people are going to be claiming that there’s a complete failure of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Canada, then the context of their writing is important. The FOIPOP (linked below) doesn’t really support their conclusions.

Again, Hategan claims to be the primary author of the report.

Hategan apparently had no problems being part of the “anti-hate industry”. The animosity only started after she didn’t get the credit and attention she believed she deserved. For better or worse, Farber chose Frederiksen, and gave her accolades for her work.

True, people should have their work judged on its merits. However, this case changes everything. It’s not some ancient D.U.I. from 20 years ago, but reflects directly on what’s happening now.

One final point: this isn’t to be construed that the people at CAHN are the “good guys”. They aren’t, and they’ve done considerable damage to people. In no way should this be seen as endorsing their “work”.

CARMICHAEL ASSAULTING A PRISONER:
(1) Ernest Carmichael Disciplinary Hearing Penalty Decision 25.07.2014
(2) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/siu-lays-assault-charge-against-york-region-police-officer-1.1392108
(3) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/york-police-officer-charged-with-assault/article_d1b43f97-a077-59b4-8603-747a94b76170.html

Christensen Missed The Deadline To File Notice Of Motion

Appealing WITHIN Federal Courts V.S. Appealing BETWEEN Them

Mixing Up “Moving Parties” And “Applicants” Repeatedly

Motion Brought Under Wrong Rule (Should Be Rule 8, Not 51)

Motion Asks For Written Representations…. In Court Of Appeal?

Unnecessarily Asking For Leave To Appeal?

Christensen Improperly Swears Her Own Evidence

Did Plaintiffs Always Intend To Appeal?

Motion Doesn’t Specify How Appeal May Be Successful

Timeline Of Major Events In This Lawsuit

Share this:

Like this:

National Defence Act, S.29: Grievance The Required Option

Previous Case Saw Interlocutory Injunction Application Denied

Current Lawsuit Thrown Out Over Jurisdiction, Pleadings

Share this:

Like this:

How To Provoke A Backlash, Creating New Censorship Laws

Goyim Defense League, Florida House Bill 269

Diagolon, Canada Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act)

Share this:

Like this:

Summary Of Hategan’s Book: Race Traitor

They All Had To Have Known Ahead Of Time

Misrepresenting Content Of 1,082 Page FOIPIP

Share this:

Like this:

What Data Did FOIA Request Actually Ask For?

Authors Interviewed No Witnesses To Draw Conclusions

RCMP Expressed Doubt About Reliability Of CAHN Articles

MacKenzie’s Stream From February 15th, 2022

RCMP Has Their “Talking Points” Available For The Media

Authors Insert Themselves Greatly Into Report

Other Agendas From The Authors?

Thoughts On The FOIA And HateGate Report?

Share this:

Like this:

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

Share this:

Like this: