Category: Procedural

Posted on

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

Posted on

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS) Mootness Motion To Be Heard Friday

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.

COURT DOCUMENTS (MOOTNESS MOTION):
(1) CANS Walsh Affidavit Mootness Motion
(2) CANS Milburn Affidavit Mootness Motion
(3) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion
(4) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion More Attachments
(5) CANS Government Arguments Mootness Motion
(6) CANS Applicants Arguments Mootness Motion
(7) CANS Government REPLY Arguments Mootness Motion

COURT DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING):
(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2024/2024nssc253/2024nssc253.html

ABOUT THE GROUP:
(1) https://www.thecans.ca/
(2) https://www.thecans.ca/call-to-action-letters-of-support/
(3) Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia Quick Fact Sheet (pdf)

Posted on

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.

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

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

Posted on

Review Of Canadian National Railway Case, Dropped in 2023

It’s time to review a case that slipped under the radar in 2022 and 2023. This is the CNR, or Canadian National Railway case and their injection mandate (vaccine passport) lawsuit. Yes, it’s considered old, but the information here should be worth it.

To their credit, Rebel News did cover the initial filing, but there doesn’t seem to have been any follow up. Of course, there wasn’t much to report.

The criticism that’s coming may sound like another Galati case, but it’s not. Yes, the errors are virtually identical, so it’s easy to make that mistake.

The lawyer is Leighton Grey, of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer LLP.

For some of Grey’s other work, consider his “Posties” case. He represented employees and former employees of Canada Post. They were faced with job losses in 2021/2022 as a result of the injection mandates. Now, the company has a collective bargaining agreement, which mandates arbitration as opposed to litigation to resolve disputes.

Arbitration did in fact happen, with different counsel, but it went unfavourably towards the workers. Rather than filing for a review, Grey decided to sue Canada Post instead. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out on a Motion to Strike, as there was no jurisdiction for the Courts. There was also the problem that Grey didn’t plead his case properly, and it would have been struck anyway.

Grey had another lawsuit on behalf of Purolator workers, but the same problems arose. He didn’t have jurisdiction to file the case — as arbitration was mandatory — and it wasn’t pleaded properly. It was eventually dropped. That will be covered in the future.

These are at least 3 cases: (a) Canada Post; (b) Purolator; and (c) Canadian National Railway, where a lawsuit was filed by Grey when there was no jurisdiction. These suits were doomed from the start.

As for the O.G., or Original Gangsta “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, his work includes: (a) Adelberg; (b) Dorceus; (c) Katanik; and (d) several cases with the CPSO. The Court had jurisdiction over none of them.

It’s still amazing that lawyers always get paid, regardless of how completely, or how often, they screw up their cases. It’s the clients who lose out.

Hundreds of clients are out of luck because counsel failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, and he didn’t follow basic employment law.

What Specific Errors Were Made With CNR Case?

  1. Failure to plead necessary material facts
  2. Failure to keep evidence out of the Claim
  3. Failure to properly plead necessary particulars
  4. Failure to properly plead Charter violations
  5. Seeking Relief a CIVIL Court cannot grant
  6. Failure to understand labour law and jurisdiction

Worth noting: #6 is fatal to the case. Because of the collective bargaining agreements, the Plaintiffs lack jurisdiction to sue. In theory, they could plead that they exhausted all avenues and that the employer wasn’t acting in good faith. A Judge might agree that this is the only available venue, but there are no gurantees.

In any event, lack of jurisdiction wasn’t the only serious problem.

1. Failure To Plead Necessary Material Facts

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.

By “material facts”, this means the lawyer has to plead specific information and background about everyone involved. The Statement of Claim is only 14 pages because it doesn’t plead any facts about anyone.

  • Their length of time with the company
  • Their role or position within the company
  • Their specific objection for refusing the injections (religious, health, conscience, etc…)
  • What discipline was taken, or if they quit
  • The specific steps they took to resolve it internally
  • Which union, if any, each Plaintiff belongs to
  • Who was working remotely, and who was physically present
  • Who applied for EI, who was denied, and what reason(s) given
  • What, if anything happened with regard to grievances and arbitration

These are just a few of the details that must be pleaded for each Plaintiff. It’s not optional. A properly written Claim would have been a few hundred pages. Especially with the question of jurisdiction, it must be listed in detail that these people were trying to follow the terms of their agreement, if they had one. Grey put NONE of this in the Claim.

Even if this were a Proposed Class Action (it wasn’t) the Representative Plaintiff(s) would still need to have adequate facts pleaded about their situation. Not a single person pleaded anything.

One of the more ridiculous statements from Grey is that some Plaintiffs are part of a Union — 4 are listed — but that others are not. No Plaintiffs are matched with any, nor are any of the grievance procedures outlined.

2. Failure To Keep Evidence Out Of The Claim

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.

The other part of Federal Court Rule 174 also applies. The Statement of Claim goes on at length about scientific declarations about health risks and treatment. Now, this may be appropriate expert evidence to give at a later date, but it doesn’t belong in the Claim itself. Does Grey not know this?

3. Failure To Properly Plead Necessary Particulars

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.

Rule 181 of the Federal Court Rules specifics “pleading particulars”. What this means is that actions based on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, etc…. must be spelled out. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what they have to respond to.

Grey openly accuses Government officials of conspiring to harm the Plaintiffs, but he doesn’t give any of the detail needed to even theoretically support such allegations.

4. Failure To Properly Plead Charter Violations

Grey’s lawsuit contains “cookie cutter” allegations of Charter violations, such as:

  • Section 2(a) – Freedom of Conscience
  • Section 7 – Security of the Person
  • Section 8 – Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
  • Section 15 – Equality

However, none of it is pleaded properly. To bring allegations that one’s rights have been violated, each Plaintiff must plead facts that would support these claims. As mentioned earlier, there’s no specific information provided about any of them. The Court would need to know the details of who said and did what. To do this correctly, the Statement of Claim would have been a few hundred pages.

5. Seeking Relief A CIVIL Court Cannot Grant

This is downright embarrassing. At paragraph 1(d) of the Amended Claim, Grey asks the Court for Declaratory Relief that Criminal Code violations have taken place. Yes, he asks a Civil Court to make findings of a criminal nature. That alone is enough to get the case struck.

For reference, Action4Canada and Adelberg were struck as “bad beyond argument”, in part, because they asked for remedies a Civil Court had no jurisdiction over. Grey does the same thing here.

6. Failure To Understand Labour Law And Jurisdiction

The case was dropped ultimately because the Defendants tried to bring a Motion to Strike. This Order from February, 2023 makes it clear what it was about. CNR knew full well that the Court had no jurisdiction, at least for many workers, so the obvious first step was to bring such a challenge.

Although Grey tried to argue a litany of torts, this case was essentially “constructive dismissal”. Since the terms and conditions of employment had been retroactively changed, it amounted to a repudiation of the contract by the employer. This is exactly the kind of issue that unions grieve over.

Most likely, Grey tried to dress it up to get around the lack jurisdiction.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

March 4th, 2022: Grey files the Statement of Claim against CNR and the Federal Government. Despite representing over 200 Plaintiffs, the entire document is just 14 pages long.

September 7th, 2022: case management is held to bring a Motion to Strike.

October 11th, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

October 28, 2022: first Notice of Discontinuance is filed. Several Plaintiffs want out.

February 1st, 2023: Statement of Claim is again amended.

February 7th, 2023: Order from the Court regarding how to proceed with the Motion to Strike the case.

May 8th, 2023: Most Plaintiffs discontinue.

May 17th, 2023: Grey files a Motion to remove himself as solicitor for the few remaining clients. This appears to be the most work he has actually performed in the case.

June 20th, 2023: Last client discontinues case.

So, what actually happened in this case? The Statement of Claim was amended a few times, and there was some activity on a Motion to Strike. Then the suit was dropped without anything happening. None of the Plaintiffs ever got their day in Court. But their lawyer probably got his money.

(1) CNR T-553-22 Statement Of Claim (March 4, 2022)
(2) CNR T-553-22 Case Management September 7 2022
(3) CNR T-553-22 Amended Statement Of Claim (October 11, 2022)
(4) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance October 28, 2022
(5) CNR T-553-22 Amended Amended Statement Of Claim (February 1, 2023)
(6) CNR T-553-22 Order Regarding Motion To Strike February 7 2023
(7) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance May 8, 2023
(8) CNR T-553-22 Motion For Removal Of Solicitor (May 17, 2023)
(9) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance June 20, 2023

Posted on

Stale Dated: Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Passes 5 Year Mark, Still At Pleadings

Back in May 2024, Vaccine Choice Canada discontinued their 191 page claim filed in June 2020. While a Motion to Strike had been postponed, the end result was inevitable. The pleading was so poorly drafted that it would be thrown out by the first Judge to look at it.

But what about their earlier one? Hadn’t there been one filed in October 2019? Yes there was, supposedly under the pretense of challenging mandatory immunization of Ontario students. It has effectively been abandoned. This is what the above video addresses.

  • No Trial ever took place
  • No Trial date set down
  • No Depositions taken
  • No hearings
  • No Motions brought
  • No evidence sworn
  • No case management

Under Rule 48.14 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, the Court is to dismiss a case that hasn’t been set down for Trial within 5 years. True, it would almost certainly be extended if there was significant progress being made, but that’s not the case here. VCC’s case hasn’t proceeded past the pleadings in 5 years.

What do the Rules of Court Procedure have to say about this?

Rule 48.14 outlines the situation, and what can be done about it.

Dismissal of Action for Delay
48.14(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, the registrar shall dismiss an action for delay in either of the following circumstances, subject to subrules (4) to (8):
.
1. The action has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means by the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the action.
.
2. The action was struck off a trial list and has not been restored to a trial list or otherwise terminated by any means by the second anniversary of being struck off.

Status Hearing
48.14(5) If the parties do not consent to a timetable under subrule (4), any party may, before the expiry of the applicable period referred to in subrule (1), bring a motion for a status hearing

48.14(6) For the purposes of subrule (5), the hearing of the motion shall be convened as a status hearing.

48.14(7) At a status hearing, the plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay, and the court may,
(a) dismiss the action for delay; or
.
(b) if the court is satisfied that the action should proceed,
.
(i) set deadlines for the completion of the remaining steps necessary to have the action set down for trial or restored to a trial list, as the case may be, and order that it be set down for trial or restored to a trial list within a specified time,
(ii) adjourn the status hearing on such terms as are just,
(iii) if Rule 77 may apply to the action, assign the action for case management under that Rule, subject to the direction of the regional senior judge, or
(iv) make such other order as is just

In theory, a Motion could be brought for an extension of time, but there doesn’t seem to be any arguments that would support this.

It’s also interesting to wonder why the Ontario Government never brought any Motion to Strike this whole time. Given how poorly drafted it is, why not at least try? Perhaps there was collusion between the parties. This would allow the case to remain open, but not advance.

This method allows VCC and their counsel to appear to be challenging Doug Ford, while ensuring nothing ever happens.

So what happened? It’s quite simple.

Vaccine Choice Canada brought a high profile lawsuit in October 2019 that they never intended to advance. They never planned to do anything to fight for medical autonomy in Ontario schools. The organization, and their counsel, have been lying to donors the entire time.

Neither the 2019 or 2020 cases ever went anywhere, and that was intentional.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA (2019 CLAIM)
(1) VCC – October 2019 Statement Of Claim
(2) VCC – October 2019 Statement Of Defence
(3) VCC – October 2019 Press Release

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC With Cover Letter
(4) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(5) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(6) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike
(7) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike
(8) VCC – Factum WEC Wajid Ahmed
(9) VCC – Factum Nicola Mercer
(10) VCC – Factum Federal Defendants
(11) VCC – Factum Of Respondent Plaintiffs

Remember, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file# CV-19-00629810-0000
Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

Posted on

Summary Judgement Motion To Be Heard In Injection Mandate For Hundreds Of Healthcare Workers

Next week, on Tuesday August 13th, hundreds of Ontario health care workers will hear a Motion to determine whether or not their lawsuit can proceed.

The Statement of Claim (and the amended version) are both extremely poorly written. They fail to plead the necessary information to support any of the major allegations. And what has been pleaded is largely irrelevant. Here’s the previous review of the case.

For clarity, there are actually 2 separate Motions filed. One is from the Ontario Government, and the other from the various hospitals and health care employers. It seems that the latter have banded together in an effort to mitigate their costs.

1. Vast Majority Of Plaintiffs Are/Were Union Members

Out of the 473 named Plaintiffs, some 387 of them, or more than 80%, belong to unions. These include CUPE, Unifor, OPSEU, and others. Starting at page 58 in the hospitals Factum, the Plaintiffs, Defendants and respective unions are all listed. There are additional Plaintiffs who are simply “John Doe”.

Why does this matter? It’s because unions are typically governed by collective bargaining agreements. These include the processes to grieve matters. Almost universally, grievances that cannot be resolve end up getting sent to arbitration, whereas litigation is prohibited.

There are limited exceptions to this, such as workers suing their unions for failing to represent in good faith. However, none of these exceptions are listed, nor are any facts pleaded that would allow for them.

Unfair as it may be, the Courts are consistently ruling that injection mandates are essentially relating to the terms and conditions of employment. In essence, unionized workers don’t have the right to sue.

In theory, the non-union Plaintiffs could still go ahead. However, the pleading is full of serious defects, which will make that impossible. Read the last review. And the Factums (written arguments) filed outline additional problems.

In Court proceedings, there’s an overarching principle that cases are to be conducted as swiftly and cost effectively (cheaply) as possible. That’s going to be a problem for several reasons.

2. Motion Record Of 13,000 Pages Submitted

There was apparently a 23 volume Motion Record, comprising some 13,000 pages. A Motion Record is a collection of documents (typically the Notice, and Affidavit evidence) that will be used at the hearing.

Why 13,000 pages? This is because the Statement of Claim, and the amended one, don’t plead any facts or particulars about specific Plaintiffs. Nor do they plead facts or particulars about any facts or particulars for any Defendants. Essentially, the Defendants are having to provide basic information to the Court about the parties.

This is something the Plaintiffs are typically expected to do.

While this does seem like an absurd amount of material, consider that there are 473 named Plaintiffs. That works out to an average of about 27 pages per person, including employment agreements and union documentation.

This isn’t a effort to justify injection mandates. However, it is unfair — in terms of due process — to sue on behalf of so many people, yet provide no information about their circumstances.

3. Moron Lawyer Sues 59 Separate Defendants

There are 59 separate Defendants in this case. Yes, the usual Government ones are named, such as Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, the Attorney General and the Province of Ontario. This is to be expected.

However, dozens more are listed, and they are scattered across Ontario. Various hospitals and health centres are named, and have to respond. These organizations have little to no connection with each other.

In the Katanik case, organized by Take Action Canada, counsel made the decision to sue 47 different Defendants, including 20 municipalities, as well as the Ontario Government. This resulted in over 20 lawyers being involved to defend that case.

In this case, the various non-Government Defendants have pooled their money to file a single Motion to cover everyone. This was done to reduce overall expenses. And good for them, because this could have been a lot worse in terms of costs.

4. Hundreds Of Plaintiffs With No Connection

It has been pointed out in the Factums that the vast majority of the Plaintiffs don’t even live or work in Toronto, where this case was filed.

The Defendants argue that it’s improper to lump so many Plaintiffs together.

While some do work together and know each other, the Plaintiffs are scattered across the country. Now, this case could have been commenced as a Proposed Class Action (notwithstanding the union issue), but it wasn’t. It clogs up the Courts to bring so many unrelated cases together.

5. Pleading Is “Bad Beyond Argument” In Terms Of Quality

See the previous review. It outlines the major defects in the pleading, and provides constructive criticism about how it should have been done.

6. CSASPP Gets Honourable Mention Here

Back in late 2023, Justice Chalmers dismissed a $1.1 million defamation lawsuit brought against CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. He ruled that the now infamous email and FAQ were truthful and accurate.

Now, the hospital Defendants are quoting Justice Chalmers.

4. This Action is untenable with no reasonable chance of success. To borrow Justice Chalmers’ phrasing in Galati v. Toews et al, the pleading is prolix, argumentative, advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories, and has no reasonable chance for success. Consequently, the Moving Parties seek an Order striking out the Plaintiffs’ (the “Responding Parties”) Amended Statement of Claim (the “Amended Claim”), without leave to amend, on four grounds:

76. Moreover, this Action does not exist in isolation. Similar pleadings have been filed in Ontario and British Columbia. The British Columbia pleading has since been struck. The Ontario pleading was recently described by Justice Chalmers as follows:

The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

77. Justice Chalmers further opined that the similar Ontario Action has been improperly pleaded and improperly asserts “bizarre conspiracy theories” which are ineffective and have little or no chance of success. The Moving Parties submit that the same observations equally apply to this case.

Since Vaccine Choice Canada discontinued their case — and presumably kept all the donor money — these comments from Justice Chalmers are closest there will be to a ruling. While the CSASPP case was over (alleged) defamation, the critique has made its way to this lawsuit.

It’s also amusing that the Plaintiffs’ Factum cites that CSASPP was successful in surviving a Motion to Strike back in 2022. This is a bit surreal, to attempt to bankrupt an organization, and then piggyback off of their work.

7. Lawyer Unaware Of Employment Law Precedent

As an aside, it’s baffling that counsel keeps citing the 1995 Supreme Court case of Weber v. Ontario Hydro. It went a long way towards shutting down the ability of unionized employees to go to Court. Time and time again, Judges have thrown lawsuits out for lack of jurisdiction if there’s another outlet.

8. How Much Money Have Plaintiffs Had To Pay?

Without seeing the retainer agreements, it’s impossible to know for sure, but consider that there are 473 named Plaintiffs.

The retainer in the Adelberg case — the Federal one — was $1,000 each.
The retainer in the Katanik case — run by Take Action Canada — was $1,500 each.
There have been rumours going around as well that this retainer was $2,000 per head.

  • 473 Plaintiffs * $1,000/Plaintiff = $473,000
  • 473 Plaintiffs * $1,500/Plaintiff = $709,500
  • 473 Plaintiffs * $2,000/Plaintiff = $946,000

As a rough estimate, it’s fair to say that the Plaintiffs have collectively paid between half a million dollars and a million. And all they’re getting is a cut-and-paste Statement of Claim, with no prospects of getting to Trial.

It’s the same garbage pleading over and over again.

9. Some Final Thoughts

Anyhow, the hearing is next week, assuming it doesn’t get postponed. Of course, it’s also possible that the case just gets dropped altogether. It has happened before.

What will the outcome be? It’s possible that the unionized Plaintiffs will be barred from suing completely. However, the non-unionized Plaintiffs would still have to redraft a proper Claim. This is pretty much what happened with the Adelberg (Federal) case — Government employees were barred, but the private sector workers could proceed. Such a decision could happen again.

Assuming that any of the Plaintiffs are allowed to refile, they need to retain a competent lawyer. Their current one clearly isn’t up to the task.

Pardon earlier errors that listed the hearing date as August 18th, 2024, and the number of Plaintiffs as around 300. It is actually August 13th, with 473 (named) Plaintiffs.

(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM