Procedural Archives - Canuck Law

March 26, 2025March 27, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 16, 2025March 16, 2025

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Again, this is not clickbait.

On July 12th, 2023, HateGate co-author Caryma Sa’d filed a $100,000 lawsuit in Federal Court. It was against the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), and Morgan Yew, one of its reporters.

At its core, it was a defamation lawsuit, but dressed up as trademark and competition.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same stunt that co-author Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) had pulled with Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore). And likewise, Sa’d saw her case thrown out by the Judge.

The case was struck on September 25th, 2023, for failing to state a Cause of Action, or to sue over anything the Court could realistically grant. Coincidently, that’s when the “HateGate Affair” was released.

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

Why do these author lawsuits matter? It’s because they show — at a minimum — that there’s an axe to grind against Bernie Farber and CAHN. It’s difficult to view the authors as being at all unbiased when they’ve filed lawsuits about the very people they’re “doing research on”.

As an aside, Sa’d was represented by Frederick Wu. This is also Jeremy MacKenzie’s lawyer in his October 2023 defamation suit with Ezra Levant and Rebel Media. Considering that he filed this case in the wrong Court, it’s understandable why he’d have trouble with the later one. Wu seems to be an incompetent lawyer.

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

The Statement of Claim reads largely as a defamation suit, which should properly be brought in Provincial Court. Instead, it was filed in Federal Court. Allegations which may be viewed as harassment should probably have been filed Provincially as well. According to the ruling:

[7] The principal allegations in the Statement of Claim surround an event that Ms. Sa’d intended to host on July 10, 2021, in Toronto’s Chinatown district, described as a comedy night at which Ms. Sa’d would interview and roast an individual she describes as a right-wing personality. In the days leading to the event, CAHN expressed concern about the event. While both parties opposed the views of this individual, they did not agree on whether the event would be effective in countering those views or rather would serve to promote them.

[10] Ms. Sa’d pleads that, following correspondence between them, CAHN agreed to minor revisions to a handful of passages in its article. However, she alleges that, while the revised article correlated more closely with some facts, the revisions did not materially change the misleading character of the article. She alleges that, in publishing the updated article, CAHN refused to expressly specify which revisions had been made.

[11] The Statement of Claim further pleads that, from time to time, CAHN publishes materials encouraging counter-protestors to attend events and obstruct what it describes as “fake journalists”. Ms. Sa’d alleges that she has been subjected to: (a) in-person harassment at rallies by counter-protesters employing such tactics; and (b) online sexism and racism, including by online personalities she names as John and Jane Doe.

[12] Based on these allegations, Ms. Sa’d invokes subsections 7(a) and (d) of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 [TMA], and sections 36 and 52 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 [CA], and claims against the Defendants declaratory relief, injunctive relief, general damages of $50,000, aggravated and exemplary damages of $50,000, and costs. Details of these statutory provisions will be canvassed later in these Reasons. Ms. Sa’d filed her action as a simplified action under Rules 292 to 299.

Interestingly, this case is packaged as alleged violations of the Trademarks Act, and the Competition Act. There are a few possibilities why this was done:

(a) If filed in Ontario Superior Court, it’s very likely that an anti-SLAPP Motion would have been brought, and it would shut down the case.
(b) Successful anti-SLAPP Motions typically result in “full indemnity”, or 100% cost awards to Defendants. By contrast, Federal Court has much lower cost scales, and thus, is much less risky.
(c) Defamation lawsuits are typically restricted by a very short Statute of Limitations. Failure to follow may result in the case automatically being lost.

Filing in Federal Court may have ultimately have been a wise move (if she was going to sue at all), as it only led to $850 in costs.

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Unsurprisingly, CAHN brought a Motion to Strike the Statement of Claim. Several grounds were cited, but the overall theme was that the case was an abuse of the legal system.

The Notice of Motion accuses Sa’d of using litigation to silence CAHN from speaking on important topics. This strengthens the suspicion that it was filed here and not the Ontario Courts in order to avoid an anti-SLAPP Motion. It’s implied that they would have, it given the chance.

In their Affidavit, it was pointed out that this wasn’t the only such lawsuit that Sa’d had filed.

***Since then, the other 2 cases from Sa’d have been voluntarily discontinued. The case with the Broadbent Institute was dropped on February 13th, 2025. She dropped the suit against Canada Proud on January 28th. That appears to be the end of it.

The Responding Motion Record accused CAHN of bringing the Motion as it was “low risk, high reward”. This is rather ironic, considering that the case was improperly filed in Federal Court to avoid the much more expensive Ontario anti-SLAPP laws.

Sa’d also requested — as an alternative — that the Court give permission to allow the Claim to be amended, or to provide particulars (specifics). Ultimately though, the suit was thrown out completely.

While the general tone of this lawsuit seems more tepid than any of Hategan’s, it’s just as frivolous. Both HateGate authors have filed baseless suits against people they viewed as having wronged them. It doesn’t exactly scream “objective” in their later work.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Sad T-1452-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Sad T-1452-23 Notice Of Motion To Strike
(3) Sad T-1452-23 Ettienne Affidavit
(4) Sad T-1452-23 Motion Record To Strike
(5) Sad T-1452-23 Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1286/2023fc1286.html

March 4, 2025March 4, 2025

UHCWO Files Proposed Class Action Over s.2(d) Violations

Back in August, a Proposed Class Action was filed in Oshawa (Durham). This had to do with health care workers who were forced from their jobs over the injection mandates. The Representative Plaintiff, Lisa Wolfs, had been terminated, despite being medically cleared to work.

UHCWO, or United Health Care Workers of Ontario, is the group behind this case. They posted a draft version of the Statement of Claim, but the filed one is available to read.

The case centers around the idea that the Government interfered with employment relations, by inducing a breach of contract. For Wolf, she is a member of the Ontario Nurses Association, and part of their collective bargaining agreement. It’s a now familiar theme from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood, which has had some success in Federal Court.

Here, the labour agreement is between: (a) Wolfs, as an employee; (b) the ONA; and (c) London Health Sciences Centre, the employer. This matters as the Ontario Government is not a party to the contract. Hence, they can’t ask the Court to strike the case for lack of jurisdiction.

UHCWO Is Another s.2(d), Freedom Of Association Case

These particular arguments have been made before, with some success.

Tortious Inducement to Breach Contractual Relation
.
37. The Plaintiff and Class Members plead that the Order was issued in bad faith as:
a. The stated objectives of the Order were either known or could reasonable be known to be unachievable and therefore false;
b. The risks of adverse harm as a result of complying with the Order was either known to the CMOH or the CMOH acted with reckless indifference to the harm or willful blindness; and
c. The Order mandated vaccinations that did not prevent transmission of COVID-19 and such fact was either known to the CMOH, or the CMOH acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness resulting in foreseeable harm.

38. The Order introduced new terms and conditions for continued employment which were not negotiated nor contemplated under the Contract.

39. The Plaintiff and Class Members have either refused to share their vaccination status or are otherwise unvaccinated and thus did not conform to the Order and were placed on leave without pay, effectively a suspension, and some were subsequently terminated from employment.

40. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that the following actions taken by Provincially regulated Healthcare facilities (“the Employers”) were in breach of their contractual employment agreements and induced by the Order:
a. Disclosure of private medical information;
b. Being placed on a leave without pay; and
c. Termination of their employment.

41. Ms. Wolfs pleads that mandating COVID-19 vaccinations and terminating her employment constituted a breach of the ONA Agreement.

42. The Plaintiff and Class Members state that at all material times, their employment contracts were valid and binding upon their Employers. As their Employers have unlawfully purported to suspend or terminate the Plaintiff and Class Members’ contractual agreements and have refused to pay the sums owing to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Employers are in breach of their contractual employment agreements.

43. As the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Defendant was aware of the existence of the contractual employment agreements when he decided to issue the Order.

44. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that the Defendants intended to and caused and/or induced the Employers to breach contractual employment agreements by their actions in relation to: the disclosure of private medical information; imposition of a leave without pay;

Section s.2(d) of the Charter is the freedom of association provision. The argument here is that the Government meddling with employment contracts of other people violated their right to do business together. Presumably, none of these hospitals would have fired anyone, except for this interference.

Currently, Sheikh and Wood have 5 Proposed Class Actions:

Payne (Federal)
Hill/Free To Fly (Federal)
B.C. Public Sector Employees for Freedom
United Health Care Workers of B.C
United Health Care Workers of Ontario

Payne is under appeal after surviving a Motion to Strike.
Hill survived a Motion to Strike, making minor amendments.
The 2 B.C. cases will have Applications to Strike and Certify heard together.
The Ontario case has just the Statement of Claim.

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

CASE NAMES	PAYNE/BCPSEF	HILL/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers?	Yes	No
Filed Federally?	Payne	Hill
Filed in B.C.?	BCPSEF	UHCWBC
Filed in Ontario.?	n/a	UHCWO
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t?	Yes	No
Inducement to Breach Contract?	No	Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights?	Yes	Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office?	Yes	Yes

Despite the similarities, there are 2 important differences.

First is the jurisdiction. There are 2 Federal cases, 2 in B.C., and 1 in Ontario. It changes how quickly the cases can be moved along, and has considerable cost consequences for litigants. Given that Ontario is the most expensive, it makes sense to let that proceed last.

Second, there’s a divide in the arguments that are being made. Payne and BCPSEF both involve Government workers. They’re arguing that their employer breached their contracts. By contrast, Free To Fly, UHCWO and UHCWBC argue that the Government induced a breach of contract by third parties, namely their respective employers. This puts the latter group in a stronger position, since union agreements cannot be invoked by non-parties.

Payne is a wild card for another reason. Although the case survived a Motion to Strike, Ottawa has since appealed that decision. It could very easily end up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

Although Wolfs/UHCWO and Dorceus both revolve around vaccine passports, and the medical profession in Ontario, their set up is night-and-day different.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background information on Dorceus.

(a) UHCWO sues only the Ontario Government, and Kieran Moore, the Chief Medical Officer of Health. While health care workers are routinely unionized, it’s with a hospital or clinic. Collective bargaining agreements are between: (I) the employee; (II) the union; and (III) the employer. Since the Government presumably isn’t a party to any such contract, they have no standing to assert any arbitration requirement.

(b) UHCWO centers its case around tortious inducement to breach contractual relations, along with malfeasance and Section 2(d) of the Charter, or freedom of association. These are torts that a Civil Court can in fact address. There’s none of the: International Criminal Court; Nuremberg Code; Helsinki Declaration; crimes against humanity, etc… that plagued Dorceus.

(c) UCHWO is quite clearly structured as an employment claim. It’s primary grievance is wrongful termination, albeit, instigated by outside parties. Dorceus is just a toned down version of the Action4Canada suit, struck as “bad beyond argument”.

(d) UHCWO is set up as a Proposed Class Action. This is a much more efficient option when dealing with hundreds — or even thousands — of potential Plaintiffs. And that leads to the next point:

(e) UHCWO pleads facts about its Representative Plaintiff, Lisa Wolfs. While brief, there’s enough background information provided to understand her situation. That doesn’t happen (at all) in Dorceus, for any Plaintiff.

(f) UHCWO provides enough particulars (details) about malfeasance that the case should be okay. However, it doesn’t drift into full conspiracy mode like Dorceus does.

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

In order to be certified as a Class Action, a Judge will need to be convinced that this is a viable option. One of the considerations is whether there will be enough money set aside to see it through. That is an open question.

After years of defective cases brought forward by Galati, Grey, Christensen, and others, it may be hard to convince others to participate, or even to donate. No one wants to be involved if they think there’s gross incompetence, or deliberate sabotage. There’s understandably fatigue in all of this.

It would be nice to see at least one case get to Trial.

Yes, this site is endlessly critical of shoddy filings. However, the ones mentioned here are well written, and advance arguments that are capable of being adjudicated. Being Class Actions, there’s potential to get justice for many, many people. CSASPP, still under reserve, gets an honourable mention.

UHCWO GENERAL LINKS:
(1) https://uhcwo.ca/
(2) https://x.com/uhcwo

UHCWO COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Wolfs Draft Statement Of Claim
(2) Wolfs Statement Of Claim August 2024

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025

UHCWBC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) UHCWBC Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) UHCWBC Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) UHCWBC Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(4) UHCWBC Amended Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(5) UHCWBC Requisition For Case Management Scheduling August 2024
(6) UHCWBC Notice Of Application For Certification October 2024
(7) UHCWBC Response To Application For Certification October 2024
(8) UHCWBC Notice Of Application To Strike Claim October 2024
(9) UHCWBC Consent Order Scheduling October 2024
(10) UHCWBC Response To Application To Strike November 2024

FREE TO FLY FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hill Proposed Class Action Statement Of Claim May 2023
(2) Hill Order Case Management June 2023
(3) Hill Amended Statement Of Claim October 2023
(4) Hill Defendant Motion Record To Strike Claim April 2024
(5) Hill Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike Claim May 2024
(6) Hill Plaintiff List Of Proposed Amendments May 2024
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc242/2025fc242.html

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025

PAYNE FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Statement Of Claim October 2023
(2) Payne Notice Of Intent To Defend November 2023
(3) Payne Letter Intent To Strike May 2024
(4) Payne Defendant Motion Record To Strike August 2024
(5) Payne Plaintiff Responding Motion Record October 2024
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.pdf
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.html

February 22, 2025February 23, 2025

BCPSEF And UHCWBC Certification Hearings To Take Place In April Over s.2(d) Violations

At the end of April, 2 groups are expected to begin their certification hearings at the British Columbia Supreme Court. These are: BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, and UHCWBC, the United Health Care Workers of BC. These are Proposed Class Action lawsuits filed in October 2023 challenging the injection mandates.

The idea behind Class Actions is simple: it can reduce a significant amount of time and expense to “bundle” related litigants into a single challenge.

The lawyers, Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood, are trying to convince the Court that their clients’ Section 2(d) Charter Rights were infringed. This is — of course — freedom of association — and it’s become their signature tort. They’ve had some success so far.

It’s worth mentioning that there’s strong parallels between these suits and the Payne and Hill cases. They were filed by the same lawyers, and make essentially the same arguments. Both of those survived an initial challenge, although Payne is currently under Appeal. All of them are Proposed Class Actions.

CASE NAMES	PAYNE/BCPSEF	HILL/UHCWBC
Government Workers?	Yes	No
Filed Federally?	Payne	Hill
Filed in B.C.?	BCPSEF	UHCWBC
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t?	Yes	No
Inducement to Breach Contract?	No	Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights?	Yes	Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office?	Yes	Yes

Collective bargaining agreements are typically fatal, due to the issue of whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. Usually, Arbitration is called for. But that doesn’t apply when the party being sued isn’t the employer. In the Hill and UHCWBC cases, the respective Governments are accusing of meddling with other people’s employment.

This removes the potentially strongest initial challenge.

BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, Wrongful Termination

54. The Plaintiff’s plead that the Order constitutes an improper and unjustified imposition by the Defendant of a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent to their existing and freely negotiated employment agreements and as such violates their protected right under s. 2d of the Charter.

It’s been a longstanding defence raised by various Governments in wrongful termination cases: there’s a grievance option available, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction. That said, the argument here is that any grievance process was circumvented by unilaterally imposing changes of employment agreements. If there’s no opportunity for meaningful consultation, how can the internal processes be used?

Up until Payne, various Governments had been entirely successful arguing that there was no way around those agreements. But the logic applied here seems so basic.

Both cases here also argue that the Plaintiffs’ freedom of association rights were violated, and it applies whether or not the Government is the employer.

United Health Care Workers, Inducement To Breach Contract

58. The Plaintiffs and Class Members allege that the Defendants intended to and caused and/or induced the Employers to breach contractual employment agreements by their actions in relation to: the disclosure of private medical information; imposition of a leave without pay; and/or unlawful termination by ordering the Employers to enforce the Orders absent justification. The breaches of contractual employment agreements are therefore a direct result of the unlawful inducement of the breach as herein before particularized and as a result of unlawful interference by the Defendants in the contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs, Class Members and their Employers.

This differs from the above case since the health care workers aren’t directly for the Government. Instead, they had their employment terminated by their employers such as hospitals, because of the injection mandates that were handed down. This is a subtle, but important distinction.

Certification Hearings To Determine Viability Of Class Action(s)

A common misconception is that these hearings are to determine the merits of the Plaintiffs’ respective cases. That’s not really accurate.

Instead, the purpose is to determine whether or not there’s an overall interest in proceeding with such a case. Essentially, the lawyers have to “sell” the idea that they have the ability and plan to see it through. It’s more about the nuts and bolts of such an undertaking, rather than trying the matter. The ability to finance and sustain a prolonged lawsuit will also be an issue.

The Representative Plaintiffs (a.k.a. Token Plaintiffs) are taking a significant risk as well. Should a Claim not be certified, they can be held personally responsible for Court costs. Those can be expensive.

Should either case be certified, it would pretty much close off opportunities to bring related claims for similar classes of people. This is partly why the Court needs to ensure these ones are serious.

Applications to Strike have also been filed in both cases, which is not a surprise. Those presumably will be heard at the same time.

BCPSEF and UHCWBC have both brought forward their Notices, and more documents are expected to be filed.

Hopefully, it goes more efficiently than the CSASPP hearings. Decisions on Certification, and an Application to Strike have been under reserve for nearly 2 years now.

GENERAL LINKS:
(1) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/
(2) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/media-release-plaintiff-launches-class-action-lawsuit/
(3) https://x.com/bcpsef
(4) https://unitedtogether.ca/
(5) https://unitedtogether.ca/faq-classaction/
(6) https://x.com/UHCWBC

February 18, 2025February 19, 2025

Free To Fly Case Survives: How This s.2(d) Challenge Differs From Payne

Earlier this month, a Proposed Class Action lawsuit from 3 airline employees survived a Motion to Strike. They argue that the Government interfered with their employment by imposing the injection mandates (a.k.a. vaccine passports). The group running it is called Free To Fly. (See Twitter/X).

This follows on the heels of another case (Payne), from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. Both cases: (a) are Proposed Class Actions; (b) sue the Federal Government; (c) involve injection mandates; (d) involve Plaintiffs who were employed, and (e) refused the shots. Despite these similarities, there are important differences, especially around who the employers actually are.

The Plaintiffs here have decided to voluntarily remove portions of their own suit, in order to focus on the stronger ones.

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

Originally, there were 9 separate torts pleaded. Rather than continue that way, the Plaintiffs decided that 6 of them will no longer be pursued, and the focus will be on the remaining 3. Given that there is some overlap and redundancy as well, this makes sense.

Torts that will be pursued in the Amended Claim:

Inducement of breach of contract
Malfeasance in public office
Violation of subsection 2(d) of the Charter

Torts that will not be pursued in the Amended Claim:

Negligence
Interfering with contractual relations
Breach of privacy
Violation of subsection 2(a) of the Charter
Violation of subsection 7 of the Charter
Violation of subsection 15 of the Charter

Additionally, several pages of proposed amendments were included by the Plaintiffs for the remaining torts. They helped persuade the Judge.

[26] At the outset of these reasons, I stated that a motion to strike is not an exercise in critiquing inelegantly drafted pleadings. Nonetheless, where as here, a party is willing to amend a pleading and has proposed specific amendments that would assist in clarifying, confirming or defining the issues for the benefit of the opposing party and the Court, such amendments should be permitted and encouraged.

[27] On this motion, I am satisfied that the currently pleaded facts in the amended statement of claim show more than a scintilla of a cause of action in respect of each of the grounds remaining in issue after the concession by the plaintiffs. However, the pleadings can be improved by some of the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments. Thus, the plaintiffs shall further amend the amended statement of claim to incorporate those paragraphs set out in Appendix A of the plaintiffs’ motion record that relate to the claims of inducement of breach of contract, misfeasance in public office and violation of subsection 2(d) of the Charter and the remedies arising therefrom.

Associate Justice Crinson agreed that at least some of the proposed changes would be beneficial in helping to redraft the case.

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

Both Hill and Payne are Proposed Class Actions against the Federal Government. They are consequences of imposing injection mandates throughout Canada. They invoke Section 2(d) of the Charter, which is Freedom of Association. On the surface, they appear identical. However, they’re not, and Hill is actually in a stronger position.

Just after the New Year, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court handed down a decision which (mostly) left intact a Proposed Class Action for Federal workers. They had been forced from their employment for refusing to take the injections.

Up until this point, such challenges had failed. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) gave the right to grieve, but not to sue. This resulted in a lack of jurisdiction for the Court. Payne succeed — so far — by arguing that the way injection mandates were implemented circumvented any legitimate grievance or collective bargaining process.

Hill and Warren worked for Air Canada, and Lewis worked for WestJet. Both airlines are unionized employers, which on the surface, one would suspect similar questions around jurisdiction.

But here, the employers are not the Defendants. The Government is. Ottawa is being sued for interfering with other parties’ business relationships, namely the airlines and their workers. Instead of wrongful termination, the case is over an inducement to breach a contract. The allegation is that the mandates interfered with the free association of other people.

With this difference in mind, the typical defence raised — lack of jurisdiction — doesn’t apply in Hill. The Federal Government can’t rely on their go-to response.

Sure, they’ll likely argue that any inducement to breach a contract, or interference with business relations was necessary and justified. But that will be a lot harder to sell. For that reason, the Hill case seems to stand in a better position, for now.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

May 15th, 2023: Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court.

June 1st, 2023: It’s determined that there’s to be case management for the remainder of the proceedings, with Associate Judge Crinson and Justice Aylen assigned.

October 11th, 2023: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 10th, 2023: Government requests that requirement to file a Statement of Defence be deferred until after the issue of certification is dealt with.

April 1st, 2024: Government brings its Motion to Strike the case.

May 3rd, 2024: Plaintiffs responding with their own Motion Record, asking that the case be allowed to proceed to the next stages. It also gives several pages of proposed amendments.

May 22nd, 2024: Motion is heard orally, but with the decision reserved.

February 7th, 2025: The Motion is (mostly) dismissed, and amendments are allowed for the remaining torts.

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.

Payne is currently being appealed which is no surprise. However, given the different relationships with that one, Hill should be okay regardless of whether or not it’s overturned. The FPSLRA simply doesn’t apply in Hill.

If Ottawa wants this one tossed, completely new arguments are needed.

Of course, this is nowhere near the end of the road. Certifying the case as a Class Action is the next major hurdle, assuming this ruling is not appealed. Still, an important hurdle has been crossed.

It’s nice to report a success for once.

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025

February 13, 2025February 13, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

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

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

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

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

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

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

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

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

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

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

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

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

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

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category: Procedural

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

Like this:

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Like this:

UHCWO Files Proposed Class Action Over s.2(d) Violations

UHCWO Is Another s.2(d), Freedom Of Association Case

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

Like this:

BCPSEF And UHCWBC Certification Hearings To Take Place In April Over s.2(d) Violations

BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, Wrongful Termination

United Health Care Workers, Inducement To Breach Contract

Certification Hearings To Determine Viability Of Class Action(s)

Like this:

Free To Fly Case Survives: How This s.2(d) Challenge Differs From Payne

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

Like this:

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

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Share this:

Like this:

UHCWO Is Another s.2(d), Freedom Of Association Case

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

Share this:

Like this:

BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, Wrongful Termination

United Health Care Workers, Inducement To Breach Contract

Certification Hearings To Determine Viability Of Class Action(s)

Share this:

Like this:

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

Share this:

Like this:

What Is The Nature Of The Defamation Allegations?

Levant Claims Statements Taken Out Of Context

Government Agent (Or “Fed”) Allegations Appear True

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

Share this:

Like this: