No one should be surprised that a decision from earlier this month is being appealed. This is the ruling from Justice Southcott, which (mostly) dismissed a Motion to Strike. See the earlier piece for more background information.
This is one of the Proposed Class Actions from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. The main thrust is that unilaterally imposing the “vaccine pass” on workers — even if unionized — amounts to imposing a new term or condition of employment without the opportunity for “meaningful consultation”. In short, it does an end run around any sort of collective bargaining agreement. As such, it violates people’s Section 2(d) Charter Rights of freedom of association.
How this Appeal ends will have significant impact on their other cases, including BCPSEF and FreeToFly. Those are based on substantially the same arguments.
As an aside, counsel for the Qualizza Plaintiff/Appellants has gotten wind of this. That was the clown show of a suit involving 330 current and former military personnel. That Notice of Appeal references the Payne case.
Government Says Case Should Have Been Struck Anyway
In their Notice of Appeal, counsel claims that the case should have been thrown out, as have so many others, under Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. For reference, s.208 states that all Federal workers have the right to grieve, while s.236 denies the right to sue in Court.
4. The Motion Judge erred in law in taking jurisdiction over this matter and not striking the action in accordance with s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act
However, the Plaintiffs had successfully convinced Justice Southcott that s.236 didn’t completely bar all claims for everyone, despite the case history.
(a) misunderstanding and misapplying Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, such as Adelberg v Canada, 2024 FCA 106, which determined that the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (COVID-19 policy) was an employment policy related to terms and conditions of employment and emphasized that it matters not the way the claim is characterized, whether as a Charter breach or tort;
The Attorney General references Adelberg, which was: (a) struck for Federal workers; (b) allowed with respect to travel claims; and (c) ultimately denied Leave by the Supreme Court. This was Galati’s infamous “bad beyond argument” Federal case. But as bad as it was, the FPSLRA didn’t completely shut the door on some claims, a point made at the Payne hearing.
One interesting part of the Notice is paragraph 7.
7. The Motion Judge erred in finding that the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action in tort for casual workers, students and RCMP members as there were no representative plaintiffs for any of these categories, nor had material facts necessary been pled and was based on a misapplication of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in McMillan v Canada, 2024 FCA 199.
Justice Southcott struck the malfeasance of public office tort. This was on the basis that it was covered by s.236 FPSLRA, and could have been potentially grieved, at least with regard to the 3 Representative Plaintiffs. The possibility was left open to find new Plaintiffs that it wouldn’t apply to.
On that note, the Attorney General argues that there shouldn’t be an opportunity to amend, given that none of the current Plaintiffs qualify, and no facts are included. The Court can respond to that in several ways.
October 1st, 2024: Plaintiffs file responding arguments as to why case shouldn’t be struck.
December 13th, 2024: Motion to Strike is argued before Justice Southcott.
January 1st, 2025: Justice Southcott partially grants the Motion to Strike. The tort of Malfeasance of Public Office is struck, but with Leave if eligible Plaintiffs are identified. The Section 2(d) claims are allowed to proceed.
Note: All of the dates cited can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.
The Appeal should be heard later this year.
Should s.2(d) be upheld as a way around grievance requirements, this will have enormous influence on injection pass cases, at least at the Federal level. This is why they want Justice Southcott’s decision overturned. Of course, the Statutes of Limitation will make it hard to bring any new cases.
The Federal Court of Canada refused a request to extend time to challenge a November decision. Because of Justice Manson’s ruling, this means that approximately 330 current and former military personnel most likely won’t get a hearing to determine whether their case was prematurely struck.
They’re also on the hook for another $1,080 in costs.
From earlier: The case was thrown out for a variety of reasons, including the poor quality of the pleadings themselves, and the lack of facts included. There was also the concern that the Court had no jurisdiction, given Section 29 of the National Defence Act, which mandates a grievance scheme. Their lawyer, Catherine Christensen, had received a similar ruling in late 2021.
From earlier: The Plaintiffs missed their deadline to appeal. Because of the nature of the Appeal, there was a 10 day time limit, not 30. Since it was an Associate Judge (and not a Judge) who struck the case, the Federal Rules require a Motion be filed to review. Christensen did eventually file a Motion requesting an extension of time, but it had all kinds of problems with it.
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.
The original ruling came out on November 13th, 2024. Christensen filed a Motion requesting an extension of time on December 11th, some 29 days later. One has to wonder if she thought she had 30 days to appeal, and simply messed it up. The responding submissions outlined a comical array of errors.
While extensions of time do happen regularly in Court proceedings, this request was so poorly and incoherently done, it was outright refused. Christensen also never explained how such an Appeal would succeed even if the extension of time were granted. The ruling was pretty harsh.
Since the Court has refused an extension of time, this is most likely the end of the road, unless this is successfully challenged at the Federal Court of Appeal.
And if the Plaintiffs want to take this route, perhaps they should get a better lawyer.
Canadians were subjected to varying forms of lockdown measures from 2020 through 2022. Some restrictions still exist today in places such as health care settings.
As a result, a topic that’s come up numerous times is the idea of Class Actions. This is based on the concept that a single lawsuit — if carefully prepared — will be much more effective than individual claims. Many more people could potentially benefit. And indeed, such cases have sprung up.
With that in mind, it’s worth asking: how are these cases going?
One such suit filed in Federal Court is Chief Gregory Burke v. His Majesty the King, and the Attorney General of Canada. It commenced back in September 2023. To put it mildly, advancing the case doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.
There’s just the Statement of Claim and an amended version on file, both of which look to be horribly deficient. It will have to be further amended.
No Motion to Strike has (yet) been commenced. There’s no Statement of Defence. It doesn’t look like any steps have been taken to certify the case as a Class Action. The most recent action was in December 2024, advising of potential dates for a case conference. Donations are being sought still.
Counsel’s Recent Record On “Vaccine Passport” Cases
This Proposed Class Action is being conducted by Leighton Grey of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer. He has filed several related lawsuits (not Class Actions) in Federal Court in recent years. However, the trend seems to be to discontinue — drop — them, rather than push through.
A search of other Court records — such as Manitoba — reveal other, related cases which were promptly discontinued. One has to wonder how diligently this one will be pursued.
Nothing Pleaded About Chief Gregory Burke, Representative Plaintiff
Most people are familiar with the more “traditional” lawsuits. In those, the details of each Plaintiff must be spelled out in the Statement of Claim, and then, the Defendants respond. They typically know from the onset exactly who is suing them, and for how much.
For (Proposed) Class Actions, the Claim pleads information about 1 or more “Representative Plaintiffs” only. There are “subgroups” or “classes” listed of prospective litigants. They still have to provide enough detail about their own circumstances. Beyond that, there’s a process to attempt to certify the lawsuit as a Class Action. A Judge may (or may not) certify.
Only a single Representative Plaintiff — sometimes called a “Token Plaintiff” — is required, provided he or she is able to qualify for all classes.
Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.
Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.
Problem here: there’s nothing pleaded about Chief Gregory Burke. Federal Court Rules make it clear what’s required in a Statement of Claim. Neither the original nor the amended version provide any information about him.
Since Burke is the only Representative Plaintiff, he must give sufficient detail to at least theoretically support all of such Claims. True, other Plaintiffs may be added, but only if Certification is successful. It’s probably too late to amend the Style of Cause (names of Parties).
Section 2(a) of the Charter;
Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility)
Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
Section 8 of the Charter (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)
Tortious interference of economic relations
Tortious inducement to breach contractual relations
Intentional infliction of mental suffering
Malfeasance of public office
Negligent representation
Human rights violations
These are just some of the torts alleged in the Statement of Claim. Problem is: Grey pleads no information to support any of it. Granted, it may be true, but there’s nothing explained. Many are simply listed, with no facts or particulars to support any of it.
We know Burke’s name, and that’s about it.
Yes, the Statement of Claim can usually be amended. Keep in mind though, the case was filed nearly a year and a half ago. Shouldn’t such information already be included?
The Representative Plaintiff is Chief Gregory Burke. He is a senior who lives in Nova Scotia. He was chosen for a number of reasons, including his resistance to lockdown tyranny, which is being prosecuted there. He is also a Metis hereditary Chief who fits into both of the subclasses described in the class action.
Heck, there’s more information listed on counsel’s website than there is in the Statement of Claim.
Other Nonsense Included In Statement Of Claim
The Claim bizarrely pleads product liability and breach of implied warranty. This doesn’t make any sense. If Burke were fighting lockdown tyranny, he wouldn’t have taken any of the injections. And in paragraph 5, it’s stated that the Plaintiffs hadn’t. This would only apply if someone had taken the shot(s) and been harmed. Beyond that, it would be the manufacturers who’d be potentially liable.
Starting around paragraph 57, there are allegations that the Government had breached its duty of care to the Plaintiffs. It goes on and on about the dangers posed by “experimental vaccines”. But once again, the Plaintiffs plead that none of them took the shots.
Grey pleads the Nuremberg Code among other remedies that have no jurisdiction in a Canadian Civil Court. This is a Galati favourite, and part of the reason his cases are typically struck early on.
As for the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, the purpose of that legislation had to do with race, ethnicity, and genetic disorders a person might have. It doesn’t apply here, yet lawyers routinely include it.
There are also allegations of interference with economic relations. For this tort to work, the Defendants would have to have done something improper or illegal to a third party that harmed the Plaintiffs. None of that is specified here. The employers would need to be identified, and the circumstances laid out.
The entire Claim reads as if Grey had simply cut and pasted from various other lawsuits, without paying much attention to how logical it all was.
Pleading Names The Subclasses (Groups of Plaintiffs)
Typically, a Class Action will name various “subclasses” of Plaintiffs. These are people who will still be part of the litigation, but whom have been impacted in different ways. Quote:
“Employment Subclass“: members who have experienced job loss or adverse employment effects as a result of the Defendants’ actions. This subclass includes those who have been terminated, denied promotions, experienced decreased working hours or suffered any other professional hardship
“Travel Subclass“: individuals who were prevented or prohibited from travelling due to their vaccination status. Members of this subclass have been adversely affected by the Defendants’ conduct and policies that either implicitly or explicitly restricted the mobility rights of unvaccinated individuals, thus causing significant disruption to both their personal and professional lives.
“Dual Impact Subclass“: is unique in that it encapsulates members who fall within both the aforementioned subclasses.
As stated before, there’s no information pleaded about Burke. He may very well have valid claims both regarding employment and travel, but there’s nothing provided.
October 5th, 2023: Government sends notice that it will respond and defend.
November 1st, 2023: Associate Judge Michael D. Crinson and Justice Mandy Aylen are assigned to be case management Judges for the suit.
December 10, 2023: Defendants contact Court, asking that any Statement of Defence be deferred until after Certification Motion has been heard and determined.
June 3, 2024: Statement of Claim (Plaintiff Class) filed with the Court.
December 19th, 2024: Letter from Plaintiff’s lawyer about case management dates.
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.
That’s where things currently stand. No Statement of Defence has been filed. There’s no Motion to Strike (yet), though presumably one is coming. And the process for a Certification Motion hasn’t even been started.
“2024-10-07
Current Status: The Statement of Claim was filed on 25 September 2023. A Federal Court action with a similar fact pattern recently faced a Motion to Strike Application to amend the Statement of Claim. We await online production of the Amended Statement of Claim to better assess whether further refinements are required in our action. In the interim a Case Management Conference has been requested. Scheduling of same is pending.”
An October 2024 status update may shed some light on things. The current plan is apparently wait to see what happens in some similar case, and then further amend this suit. So… to just wait and see, and piggyback off of someone else. Shouldn’t clients be talking to that lawyer then?
The case is nearly a year and a half old, and there’s just the Statement of Claim. Could such a case be certified and advanced? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem very urgent.
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.
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.
On Friday, Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) will argue against a Motion to have their case declared “moot” in a Yarmouth Court. This isn’t a determination on the merits, but to get the it thrown out regardless. This comes after the organization was denied public interest standing earlier this year.
Interestingly, CANS is doing this without formal representation. Their papers are being drafted by a few of their members, which is quite impressive. At the hearing for public interest standing, William Ray — author of the Stormhaven website — presented their case. The other co-Applicant, J.M., is a minor who does have a lawyer.
The Attorney General’s office is claiming that it’s a waste of time and money, as so long has elapsed, and there are no live issues. The usual “scarcity of judicial resources” justification has been pleaded. Unsurprisingly, CANS opposes the Motion, in part because Robert Strang is still in office. Part of CANS’ mission is to ensure this type of activity never happens again. The Briefs are well worth reading.
To support their Motion, the Government included an Affidavit from Tara Walsh, Senior Executive Director at Public Health. CANS filed Affidavits sworn by Chris Milburn and Shelly Hipson, along with her extensive research. J.M. didn’t submit one, which the lawyer is using to demonstrate that there’s no live issue to try.
In its current form, the case is an Application for Judicial Review. In theory, even if declared “moot”, it may still be okay to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. There is far more latitude with those kinds of proceedings, whereas Applications are more restrictive. That is, after all, what happened with the travel mandates cases — although the idiot lawyers appealed.
The Friday hearing is to be available virtually. Anyone wishing to watch the hearing can contact the Court, or CANS directly. Information is also in their pinned Tweet.
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.
