Category: Procedural

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Case Struck With Leave To Partially Amend, And The s.15 Deception

In recent years, there has been a common pattern happening in high profile lawsuits. Specifically, litigants have a tendency to file unnecessary Appeals, in order to delay their own cases. This happens when Judges permit amended versions to go forward, but are ignored.

Readers of this site have heard of the infamous 4 “travel mandates cases”, brought in 2021 and 2022. They’re perhaps the most egregious examples.

Summer of 2022, all 4 Applications were declared “moot” by Associate Chief Justice Gagné. This was because the vaccine passports weren’t in effect anymore. There was one important caveat though: Applicants were free to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. This is clear in paragraphs 27, 41 and 46 of the decision.

Instead of filing Statement of Claims — which was expressly permitted — all of the Applicants appealed. Rickard/Harrison, Bernier, Peckford, Naoum, etc…. all filed Notice of Appeal. That’s correct, they appealed ACJ Gagné’s ruling, when they could have amended. No convincing explanation has ever been provided of why.

Lawyers for the Appellants then proceeded to crash their cases into the ground. Among other problems, they argued the wrong standard of review for mootness. Instead of properly arguing “overriding, palpable error”, 2 argued correctness, and the other 2 nothing at all.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum all filed Applications for Leave, requesting that the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases. Again, they appealed, when they could have amended. All Applications were denied.

Interestingly, none of Bernier, Peckford or Naoum appear to have filed a Statement of Claim afterwards, despite the fact that they could have. They simply abandoned their cases.

Instead of going to the Supreme Court, Rickard and Harrison finally filed their own claim in 2023, which was the more sensible option. But that, and the amended version had serious problems, with the Attorney General brining a Motion to Strike.

When Associate Judge Trent Horne eventually ruled, something interesting happened. The Section 7 and 12 claims were struck entirely, and the Section 6 (for Rickard only) as well. But while the Section 15 claims were struck as well, he granted leave to amend.

The public is being told that the case is “moving to Trial” on the s.15 claims. This is a gross misrepresentation of what the Judge said. Getting permission for a rewrite is not the same thing as getting the green light to move forward.

Rather than filing another version, Rickard and Harrison appealed again. Once more, they appealed a decision, when they could have amended their filings. Noticing a pattern here?

Results Of November 2024 Motion To Strike

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Allowed to proceed for both Rickard and Harrison

This is what the pinned tweets of Rickard and Harrison say. But the truth is quite different.

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Struck for both Rickard and Harrison, but with leave to amend

In reality, the case was struck entirely against Rickard. Harrison (being the only Canadian citizen), could pursue s.6 at any time. The only caveat is that they have an opportunity to file — yet another — version of the Statement of Claim for s.15.

This *may* be one of the reasons behind the latest appeal. Rickard’s only pathway (currently) at continuing the case is a long-shot attempt to redraft the Statement of Claim in a way that would allow the s.15 claims to go ahead. He doesn’t have s.6 to fall back on. This may be a way of creating a “backup”.

That may not be a bad idea. However, Rickard and Harrison need to be honest about the results of the Motion.

Rickard/Harrison V.S. What Horne Actually Wrote About S.15 Claims

The tweet is very long, but it does get to the specifics about each tort. For the most part, they’re accurate.

Paragraphs 54 to 61 of A.J. Horne’s decision make it very clear what happened regarding the Section 15 claims. They are not “proceeding to Trial”. They were struck, albeit with permission to amend.

[55] Vaccination status is not an enumerated ground in section 15, nor has it been recognized as an analogous ground. Analogous grounds are those similar to the enumerated grounds that would often serve as the basis for stereotypical decisions made not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a personal characteristic that is immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity (Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203 at para 13).

[56] No material facts are specifically pleaded in respect of the section 15 claim. The plaintiffs broadly allege that the vaccine mandates, implemented through the IMOs, violate section 15.

[57] Charter actions do not trigger special rules on motions to strike; the requirement of pleading material facts still applies. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined in the case law the substantive content of each Charter right, and a plaintiff must plead sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. This is no mere technicality, “rather, it is essential to the proper presentation of Charter issues” (Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at para 21).

[61] While the chances of having vaccination status recognized as an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15 may be remote in light of the current jurisprudence, I am not satisfied that such an argument is bound to fail if the plaintiffs allege that vaccination would constitute an unacceptable cost to their personal identity, or would tear asunder immutable or even deeply held beliefs. Lewis and Costa do not foreclose this possibility, or stand for the proposition that vaccination status is incapable of constituting an analogous ground. While it may be dim, there is a “glimmer of hope” (La Rose at para 122) that vaccination status could be recognized as an analogous ground. Leave to amend to add a cause of action under section 15 is granted for both plaintiffs, however any such amendment must be fully and completely particularized.

It is possible that a new complaint would be drafted in such a way that the s.15 claims could go to Trial. However, that’s not what happened here at all. And it’s not just some technicality either.

Also, why appeal A.J. Horne’s ruling if you’re proceeding anyway?

This is the sort of thing Action4Canada did.

Rickard/Harrison Case Is PRIVATE Suit For Damages

[29] The plaintiffs submit that they are able to challenge IMOs as they relate to rail travel because an intention to travel by rail at the material time is irrelevant; they say the inability to travel by rail alone triggers the ability to advance a claim. I cannot agree. There is no indication in any version of the statement of claim that the plaintiffs ever intended to travel by rail when the IMOs were in place. There is no loss or harm, and no basis to claim damages, in this respect. A claim for damages based on railway travel would be an abstract complaint about a government restriction that had no impact or consequence on the plaintiffs. I fail to see how either of the plaintiffs have standing to advance a claim for damages based on a method of transportation they did not use, and expressed no interest in using. At the hearing, the plaintiffs directly stated that they are not advancing a claim based on public interest standing. Leave to amend in this respect is refused.

The original Statement of Claim, the amended version, and the proposed new version ask for anything other than money for themselves. No injunctive or declaratory relief is sought.

At the 2024 hearing, they make it clear that they are NOT seeking any sort of public interest standing, which would benefit many more people.

“Buyout” From Ottawa Is Always An Option

This has been stated before, but is worth repeating:

Because it’s a private lawsuit, seeking only monetary damages, Ottawa could always offer to pay it out, along with costs. This would mean no groundbreaking decision, and no precedent. And really, there’d be no practical way for the Plaintiffs to refuse such an offer.

Current Appeal Is A Somewhat Of A Gongshow

Because the ruling was from an Associate Justice, and not a full one, Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules applies. This means that there is a 10 day time limit to file Motion to have it reviewed.

However, their lawyer missed the deadline to appeal by a few weeks, then requested an extension of time to file. The Crown decided not to oppose the request.

The Court did issue new direction on refiling, and the extension has since been approved.

Instead of filing a new Statement of Claim, Rickard and Harrison are appealing the portions that struck entirely, which are s.7 and s.12. Keep in mind, the Attorney General hasn’t initiated any Appeal. They’ve come solely from the Plaintiffs/Applicants. They’ve also mentioned the possibility of this upcoming decision being appealed as well.

Should that happen, things will probably take close to a year at the Federal Court of Appeal. Then, they’ll have to refile their claim, something they could have done months ago.

Or, to be more accurate, a Statement of Claim could have been filed in the Summer of 2022, after the original Applications were declared “moot”. That was nearly 3 years ago.

Think about it: we can be well into the year 2026, or even 2027, and these people will still be asking for money to file

*checks notes*

another Statement of Claim.

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.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) Rickard T-2536-23 Decision For Motion To Strike
(11) Rickard T-2536-23 Rule 51 Motion Appealing AJ Horne Decision
(12) Rickard T-2536-23 Letter From Crown On Extending Time To Appeal
(13) Rickard T-2536-23 Order Regarding Motion To Extend Time

MISCELLANEOUS:
(1) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(2) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(3) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(4) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Abandons Calgary Firefighters Injection Pass Case In 2023

This article is to follow up on a 2022 case that no one ever heard about again. Specifically, it involved the Calgary Fire Department being sued for their new requirement to take the clot-shots. Many covered the announcement at the time, but nothing ever came of it.

Turns out that the lawsuit was discontinued, see here and here, less than a year after it was filed. The primary reason appears to be pushback from Calgary itself. The Calgary Firefighters Association, Local 255, has a collective bargaining agreement with the City and employees.

It’s also (yet another) cautionary tale about the problems litigants can have when they sue too many parties. Here, there could have been a decent case against the Alberta Government. Instead, the lawyer decides to name the employer as well, causing new headaches.

Additionally, the pleading had other serious defects.

The genius behind this was Leighton Grey, K.C., or King’s Counsel.

Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

24.01
(a) If any difference concerning the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of this Agreement or any question as to whether any difference is arbitral arises between the parties or persons bound by the Collective Agreement, such parties or persons shall endeavour to resolve the difference utilizing informal dispute resolution meetings. Should the parties fail to resolve the difference either party may proceed through the grievance process as set out below.

Step Two
If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved at Step One the Association within fifteen (15) days of the decision rendered by the Deputy Fire Chief or designate may submit the grievance to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or designate shall hear the grievance within fifteen (15) days of receiving it and shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days from the date the grievance was heard. If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved the grievance may be advanced within thirty (30) days to arbitration as provided under 24.01(c). If a grievance is not advanced to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the decision in Step Two, the grievance shall be deemed abandoned.

(e) The grievance arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any Member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the grievance arbitration board, but if there is no majority the decision of the Chair governs and it shall be deemed to be the award of the board;

Article 24 of that agreement spells out the grievance process. It reads:
(a) Bring grievance to Deputy Fire Chief.
(b) If no resolution, proceed to file with Fire Chief.
(c) Proceed to arbitration, if needed.

It’s also specified that if there’s no satisfactory conclusion reached with the Chief, then there’s a 30 day time limit to seek arbitration. It’s also clear that such a hearing is meant to be final.

Now, lawyers have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that various agreements never contemplated vaccine passports. While true, this amounts to CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, where the employer unilaterally changes a term and condition of employment. This sort of thing “is” usually covered.

Of course, had Grey only sued the Government of Alberta, the union agreement wouldn’t have come into play. Think about it, they can’t invoke a contract they’re not a party to. But by suing the Fire Department as well, Grey ensures that lack of jurisdiction will be an issue.

It’s just like an Ontario lawyer, who would be okay suing just the Ford Government. But then, he decides to sues any and all employers as well. Of course, suddenly union contracts create a jurisdiction issue.

City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike

The City of Calgary Fire Department brought an Application to Strike. Predictably, they invoked the union agreement, which specified arbitration as the only option.

Grey could simply have sued the Alberta Government — who brought in Provincial mandates — and left it at that. After all, they can’t challenge jurisdiction based on a contract they didn’t sign. Suing the Calgary Fire Department was an idiotic move, and allowed this to happen.

Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

The Statement of Claim contains poison pills, ensuring that it will be struck. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear criminal allegations at all.

The document also doesn’t plead any facts or particulars about any Plaintiff. The Judge would just be left guessing what the circumstances are for everyone, and which specific arguments they intend to make. This is probably since this lawsuit is largely recycled from other ones.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  8. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  9. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter.

Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

On his website, Grey brags about his success and accomplishment in the profession, including being an Adjudicator for Law Society disciplinary hearings from 2015–2020. He also mentions being the youngest to receive the King’s Counsel designation. Alberta describes members as:

Competence, including:

  • sound intellectual ability with a thorough, comprehensive, and current knowledge of law and practice in the applicant’s field
  • distinguished legal service with demanding and challenging legal work that contributes to the development of the law and practice
  • a recognized expertise in a particular area of law and practice (which may include the general practice of law)
  • an outstanding ability as a lawyer in the applicant’s field, to a standard to be expected of King’s Counsel

One has to wonder how and why so many defective cases were filed in recent years over the “vaccine passport” issue. It appears that most involved unionized employers, making them doomed to fail. Shouldn’t more be expected?

Note: To anyone who has read this far, are you aware of any other injection pass/vaccine pass cases brought by Leighton Grey? This site covered 9 that were dropped, and 1 struck, but there may very well be more. If so, please respond with the details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
https://www.calgaryfirefighters.org/files/docs/IAFF_L255_2021-2023_Collective_Agreement_.pdf

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0) Previously Published Documents
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

Posted on

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

Posted on

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.

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

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