Second Anti-SLAPP Motion Commenced In University Of Guelph Lawsuit

Wednesday, February 28th, 2024, Byram Bridle, the high profile professor from the University of Guelph, was back in Court. This was a short hearing to set down another anti-SLAPP Motion to dismiss his December 2022 lawsuit.

Guelph has previously filed a Statement of Defence, on behalf of all their Defendants. But now, their lawyer, Lynn Turnbell, is asking that the case be thrown out altogether. Their stated reason is that the contents of the Claim are covered under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which is the anti-SLAPP provision.

Guelph further states that the subject matter should be tossed for a lack of jurisdiction. Bridle is a university employee, as are most Defendants. It’s argued that the matter should have gone to arbitration instead of litigation. And they’re not wrong.

The initial anti-SLAPP Motion was filed by Kate Costin, the lawyer for David Fisman. Yes, it’s that David Fisman. It’s unclear why his content (Twitter related) is being connected to this. That will be heard on November 19th, 2024.

Counsel for Bridle requested that everything be moved back to 2025. He stated that he will be taking his annual 2 month vacation to Turkey — for medical reasons.

However, Justice Dow refused that request. The Fisman anti-SLAPP Motion will still be heard in November 2024, and the Guelph Motion is now booked for October 16th, 2025.

University of Guelph Faculty covered by collective agreements

The University of Guelph publicly posts their collective bargaining agreements, which include ones with faculty members. This particular one took only seconds to find.

Article 40 of the agreement, beginning on page 131, makes it clear the steps that are to be taken in the event of a serious problem within the university.

  • Informal resolution
  • Formal grievance
  • Arbitration

This wasn’t difficult to find. Not only does Bridle presumably have a copy of this document, but it’s publicly available on the school’s website.

True, there may be the power of a Court to review the findings of an Arbitrator, depending on the rules that are set out. This would be analogous to filing an Appeal. However, what happened here was suing in Court instead of going to arbitration. These are not the same thing.

40.1 The Parties agree to attempt to resolve disputes arising from this Agreement amicably and promptly.

40.2 In order to ensure that Grievances of Members are remedied in a reasonable, just, and equitable manner, the University and the Association mutually agree that the procedure for submitting and dealing with Grievances shall be as indicated in the remainder of this Article.

Informal Resolution
40.9 The University and the Association mutually agree that it is the desire of the Parties that differences in the interpretation, application, administration, and alleged violations of this Agreement shall be dealt with as quickly as is reasonably possible. If a Member has a complaint or dispute that may give rise to a Grievance, they and/or an Association designate shall first discuss the matter at a meeting arranged for this purpose with the Dean, University Librarian, or, in the case of Veterinarians, Director, or designate, within twenty (20) days after the Member would reasonably be expected to have become aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint or dispute.

40.11 Failing informal resolution of the complaint or dispute and within ten (10) days following receipt of notification of the proposed resolution under the informal process, the Association has the right to present the written Formal Grievance to the Provost, or designate, pursuant to this Article.

Formal Grievance Procedure
40.14 Following receipt of a Formal Grievance, the Provost, or designate shall convene a meeting within ten (10) days with the Member and/or the Association designate. With reasonable notice to the other Party prior to the meeting, either Party may have others attend who have information relevant to the specific Grievance. The Provost (or designate) shall reply in writing within fifteen (15) days of that meeting.

40.19 Failing resolution of a Grievance, the University or the Association will provide notification that a matter shall be submitted to Arbitration. Such notification must be made in writing and addressed to the other party within fifteen (15) days of the date of receipt of the Formal Grievance decision.

40.22 The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties.

40.23 All arbitration expenses, including the remuneration of the Arbitrator, shall be shared equally by both Parties, subject to the award of costs by the Arbitrator as part of the remedy.

Looking at Article 40.22, it seems that the Arbitrator’s ruling is meant to be final. There’s no obvious way to challenge it further, unless the process is demonstrated to be corrupted. Since no arbitration took place, that would be difficult to prove.

The process outlined is pretty straightforward: (a) informal resolution; (b) formal grievance; and (c) arbitration, if needed. There’s no mention whatsoever about having an option to pursue litigation. This is typical in unionized and Government workplaces.

But according to the Statement of Claim, that’s not what happened.

After the grievance process went against Bridle, he didn’t pursue arbitration. Instead, he sued everyone involved. This included Nick Duley, and outside HR consultant, who was hired for an investigation. Also named is Laurie Arnott, Vice President of Faculty Relations. It’s alleged that there’s a grand conspiracy against him.

Paragraph 100, it’s stated that Guelph refused to investigate online harassment that happened outside of school grounds. It fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and hence, no ability to do anything. This comes across as reasonable.

Paragraph 136 of the Claim says that Bridle refused to participate in Duley’s investigation, calling it a “kangaroo court”. Duley is referred to as a “hired gun”. That won’t sit well without proof.

The content in the Claim comes across as being so over the top, it’s difficult to determine what’s factual, and what’s overblown.

Now, it’s possible that the Court may find that the grievance process was corrupted and unworkable, but that’s for the Plaintiff to establish. This is sometimes referred to as “residual jurisdiction”. While a major conspiracy is alleged, it seems that it would be very difficult to prove.

Contending with the anti-SLAPP Motions

Fisman appears to have nothing to do with the University of Guelph, so including him in this case seems unproductive. Even if he did interact with some of the online content, he’s not involved in essentially what is a workplace dispute at Guelph. Considering how hard it is to prove defamation, and to get damages, this will be a tough sell in November.

The Kulvinder Gill/Ashinder Lamba, Boraks and CSASPP cases are also good examples of how much bad lawyering can impact clients.

Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279
Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169
Gill v. Maciver, 2023 ONCA 776
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 4294
Boraks v. Hussen, 2023 ONSC 6420
Galati v. Toews et al, 2023 ONSC 7508
Galati v. Toews et al, 2024 ONSC 935

There’s also this gem from March 2021, with a Motion scheduled for this Fall.

The trend in recent years is to implement mechanisms designed to screen out cases as abusive. For defamation type cases, these are called anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP is of course an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Again, it’s hard to tell from this Statement of Claim what’s real, and what’s hype and distortion. Hopefully, more will come out in the pending Motions.

To survive an anti-SLAPP Motion, the Plaintiff is required to prove at least some of the damages. This means submitting Affidavit evidence, and being cross examined on it. The Plaintiff must also establish that there are no reasonable defences that could be relied upon. Will this happen?

How will all of this end?

It’s possible that there will be a negotiated settlement to discontinue the case entirely. Although s.137.1(5) “stays” the case, the parties can always agree to drop it. This sort of thing has happened many times before.

If not, it’s going to be very expensive for Bridle. He’s facing full indemnity (100% of costs) on 2 separate anti-SLAPP Motions. This could set him back $100,000 or more. Courts tend to be very harsh to Plaintiffs who bring lawsuits to silence public speech improperly.

An open question is why this case was even brought. Even a quick read through the collective bargaining agreement would have indicated that this was not the path to take. Should the Guelph Motion not succeed under anti-SLAPP provisions, it will likely still get dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reading through the Claim, it looks as though large parts of this are simply cut and pasted from earlier lawsuits. The same sorts of allegations come up over and over again. This isn’t original content.

It appears that Bridle was poorly advised both in employment law, and defamation law.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/
() https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/collective-agreements
() https://www.uoguelph.ca/facultyrelations/system/files/UGFA_CA_2022_FinalPrint_Nov20_2023.pdf

Following Anti-SLAPP Appeal, Another $1.85 Million Malpractice Lawsuit In The Works?

Last Friday, a Notice of Action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court, at their Toronto Division. A woman intends to sue her former counsel, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, for: (a) professional negligence; (b) breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount; and (c) aggravated and/or punitive damages.

A Notice of Action is not the same thing as a Statement of Claim. Instead, this document is occasionally filed when a lawsuit is in the works, but the Statute of Limitations is approaching. Justice Stewart dismissed the Gill/Lamba suit on February 24, 2022, and this Notice was filed February 23, 2024. This came just a day before the 2 year anniversary.

Once filed, a Plaintiff has 30 days under Rule 14.03 to serve all Defendants with this Notice, and the Claim itself. (Pardon the error which previously listed the time as 6 months).

Jeff Saikaley and Albert Brunet are listed as counsel for Kulvinder Gill. They also represented her at the Court of Appeal which ultimately dismissed the Maciver anti-SLAPP Appeal.

What does the Notice of Action say?

1. The Plaintiff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, claims against the Defendants, Rocco Galati and Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation as follows:
a. General and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $1,500,000;
b. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of reputation in the amount of $250,000;
c. Aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000;
d. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
e. The costs of this proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, plus all applicable taxes, and;
f. Such further and other relief as the plaintiff may advise and as this Honourable Court
may seem just.

2. The Defendants acted for the Plaintiff with respect to various litigation matters starting in late 2020, including defamation actions and disciplinary proceedings initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Their representation of the Plaintiff was negligent, constituted a breach of contract and a breach of the fiduciary duties, causing the Plaintiff significant damages.

Of course, this isn’t the entire pleading. The real Statement of Claim is presumably in the works, and it should be interesting to read. Ashvinder Lamba also has a $600,000 malpractice suit pending, alleging many of the same things as Gill.

Brief timeline of some major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill’s public opinions, which contradict the “approved” narrative, lands her in trouble with the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This is the regulator which is responsible for licensing in that Province. They’re not too happy that her views don’t toe the line.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

March 2021: Gill sues the University of Ottawa and one of its professors, Amir Attaran, for $7 million. This is over 2 rude comments on Twitter, one where he calls her an “idiot”. This is obviously a frivolous lawsuit, and mere insults aren’t actionable.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this. (CanLII version available)

February 2024: Ashvinder Lamba, Gill’s then co-Plaintiff, files a $600,000 professional malpractice lawsuit against their former counsel.

Gill’s baseless and abusive defamation suit with Attaran

Anti-SLAPP laws exist for a reason. It’s to stop people from using the legal system as a weapon to silence critics on issues of public interest. And nothing screams frivolous like attempting to bankrupt a person over some name calling. Here’s the background on this one.

SLAPP of course refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Gill has been before the CPSO several times

While the comical defamation lawsuits have made national news, Gill’s adventures with the CPSO have pretty much flown under the radar. She has attracted several complaints since 2020, over her public stances and comments. Lawsuits were brought in Court to try to resolve it there, largely on the grounds of free speech. Such litigation has been repeatedly thrown out as “premature”.

In fairness, prematurity just means there’s a lack of jurisdiction.

The problem, realistically, is that the CPSO — like many professional organizations — mandates that problems be resolved internally first. Here’s one of Gill’s decisions, from 2021. Starting at paragraph 31, it’s explained that this is a long established policy, going back decades. The rationale is that if this isn’t followed, it leads to fragmentation and splitting of cases, along with overlapping rulings.

This isn’t to justify in any way what the CPSO has been up to. They’ve shown themselves to be a willing accomplice to the Ford regime, and deserve no sympathy.

It’s to recognize that had Gill been competently advised, it seems unlikely she would have pursued this path. In the Notice of Action, she alleges that former counsel was negligent.

There is a parallel between:

  • Doctors suing the CPSO (instead of using the internal disciplinary process first); and
  • Public sector and unionized workers suing their employers (instead of filing grievances)

In both instances, lawsuits are likely to be thrown out. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that the other remedies are unworkable and/or corrupted. Now, the million dollar question in these cases is whether they were advised of this in advance.

Who will ultimately be on the hook for this?

Doctors, lawyers, and pretty much all professionals are required to have insurance. This protects against lawsuits for negligence, incompetence, malpractice, and more. It’s to ensure that there is money available for successful claims, and that it won’t bankrupt them.

One caveat: insurance providers typically refuse to pay out if there are accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation. But Gill and Lamba are just alleging negligence and of breach of contract, which should be okay.

We’ll have to see what the Statement of Claim looks like, when it’s eventually filed. But just going off of the Notice, it doesn’t look good.

Why pursue this? One possibility is that Gill really needs the money. Even “settling” with most parties in the case with Lamba, she still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Saikaley and Brunet want to get paid as well, and this may be a way to do it. Then there’s that anti-SLAPP Motion pending with Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa.

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Notice of Action

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

MOTION FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA
(15) https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22116/index.do

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

B.C. Court Of Appeal Confirms “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling In Action4Canada Case

In August 2022, Action4Canada had their Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC) struck in its entirety by the B.C. Supreme Court. Justice Ross concluded that the 391 page document was such a convoluted mess, it was impossible to respond to. There were no determinations on the merits, just the quality of the writing. The Court of Appeal has just upheld that ruling

While the Lower Court’s written reasons outlined a number of potentially serious problems, Justice Ross avoided giving a definitive answer as to what content would be allowed. It seems that the Plaintiffs’ lawyer doesn’t understand how to interpret legal findings.

  • Reasons: background information that’s necessary to support findings
  • Order: what the Court actually rules on

And what was the Order?

[74] In summary:
a) I find that the NOCC, in its current form, is prolix and must be struck in its entirety;
b) I grant the plaintiffs liberty to amend the NOCC; and
c) This action is stayed pending the filing of a fresh pleading.

[75] On the issue of costs, I note that each plaintiff is pursuing this action seeking money damages from one or more defendant. In responding to those claims each defendant has been put to the expense of answering (if not filing a response) to the NOCC. In addition, the defendants have all been required to prepare for and conduct this application. None of those steps would have been necessary if the matter was properly pleaded.

[76] On that basis, I find it appropriate to award each defendant the costs for the necessary steps of “defending a proceeding”, and for preparing for and attending an application (opposed). Those costs are payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

For reasons that were never made clear, the decision was appealed. The Plaintiffs could simply have redrafted and refiled an amended version, but didn’t.

The B.C. Court of Appeal has now said exactly that. They couldn’t understand why they were even there. It was agreed that the Claim was prolix (too long) and confusing. Therefore, the obvious answer was to rewrite it, as Justice Ross allowed it.

The other issue in the Appeal was over costs. The argument was that because success was “divided”, there should have been no costs. Apparently, since a rewrite was allowed, this amounts to a partial win. However, costs are considered discretionary, and this was predictably rejected.

Here’s what the B.C. Court of Appeal had to say.

[1] Pleadings play a central role in the conduct of civil litigation and access to justice. Their purpose is to clearly, concisely and precisely define the issues of fact and law to be determined, inform the other side of the case to be met, determine the nature and scope of pre-trial procedures, and guide the trial process: The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2012 BCCA 196 at para. 1; Sahyoun v. Ho, 2013 BCSC 1143 at paras. 16–19; Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, R. 3-1(2) [Rules].

[2] Prolix pleadings are improper. They lead to confusion, unfairness, delay and expense, and impede the litigation they are intended to facilitate: see e.g., Mercantile Office Systems Private Limited v. Worldwide Warranty Life Services Inc., 2021 BCCA 362 at paras. 22–23, 44, 58. They also occupy inordinate court resources, preventing other litigants from accessing the court services they require and deserve.

[3] Here, the appellants’ notice of civil claim is 391 pages long. Part 1 (“Statement of Facts”) is over 300 pages long, contains more than 1,000 paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, and includes hundreds of footnotes, some of which contain hyperlinks to various websites. Part 2 (“Relief Sought”) is over 40 pages long and seeks, among other things, over 200 declarations. Part 3 (“Legal Basis”) is almost 30 pages long.

[4] The notice of civil claim includes wide-ranging allegations of a global conspiracy, and challenges the scientific and constitutional foundation of the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. To give a sense of the breadth and nature of the allegations, the appellants’ “summary” of the factual basis of their claims includes (at 310–311, para. 283(d) of the notice of civil claim) the allegation that the federal and provincial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the appellants’ “statutory and constitutional rights” because:
.
… the “COVID-pandemic” was pre-planned, and executed, as a false pandemic, through the [World Health Organization], by Billionaire, Corporate, and Organizational Oligarchs the likes of Bill Gates, [Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, now Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance], the [World Health Organization], and their former and current associates such as Theresa Tam and Bonnie Henry, the [World Economic Forum], and others, in order to install a New World (Economic) Order with:
.
(i) De facto elimination of small businesses;
(ii) Concentration of wealth and the power to control economic activity in large global corporations;
(iii) To disguise a massive bank and corporate bail-out;
(iv) To effect global, mandatory vaccination with chip technology, to effect total surveillance and testing of any and all citizens, including the Plaintiffs;
(v) To shift society, in all aspects into a virtual[] world at the control of these vaccine, pharmaceutical, technological, globalized oligarchs, whereby the Plaintiffs, and all others, cannot organize [or] congregate[; and]
(vi) To effectively immobilize resistance to the agenda by neutering Parliaments and the Courts, and by extension the Constitution and Constitutional Democracy and Sovereignty, in short to obtain “global governance”.
[Emphasis in original.]

[5] In reasons indexed at 2022 BCSC 1507 (“RFJ”), the chambers judge sensibly concluded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and cannot be properly answered: RFJ at paras. 45, 74. He also concluded that it is “bad beyond argument” and “cannot be mended”: RFJ at paras. 45, 47–48. He, therefore, granted the respondents’ applications to strike the pleading in its entirety: RFJ at paras. 48, 74.

[6] Next, the chambers judge considered whether to dismiss the appellants’ claim or grant them leave to amend it. He concluded that “there may be legitimate claims that a plaintiff could advance against one or more of the defendants”: RFJ at para. 50. He, therefore, granted the appellants leave to amend and stayed the action pending the filing of a fresh pleading: RFJ at para. 74.

[7] On the issue of costs, the judge noted that “each plaintiff is seeking money damages from one or more defendant”: RFJ at para. 75. Having put the defendants to the expense of unnecessarily answering an improper pleading, the judge awarded each defendant costs “payable forthwith in any event of the cause”: RFJ at paras. 75–76.

[8] In oral submissions, the appellants conceded that the notice of civil claim is prolix and must be redrafted. Although aware of the trite principle that appeals are taken from orders and not reasons, the appellants nevertheless advance the appeal to address various statements made by the judge regarding the propriety of various of their pleadings. In particular, the appellants take issue with the judge’s statements at paras. 52–58 of the reasons for judgment that certain claims “are improper in a civil action”, including claims seeking declarations relating to alleged criminal conduct and matters of science.

[9] The appellants point to para. 73 of the reasons for judgment where, after rejecting the defendants’ arguments that the entire action be dismissed as “an abuse of process or clearly frivolous and vexatious”, the judge held that “if the next iteration of [the notice of civil claim] contains the same, or similar, problems, then the defendants’ arguments on these issues will be strengthened.” The appellants contend that, in making these statements, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and has effectively hamstrung them from advancing what they consider to be justiciable claims.

[10] I agree entirely with the respondents that the appellants have not identified a reviewable error. The passages at issue are clearly obiter. As I read the judge’s reasons, he transparently and helpfully identified a number of areas of concern within the notice of civil claim. He did not make binding determinations. In the absence of a proper pleading, how could he?

[11] It is up to the appellants to redraft their notice of civil claim within the well-known boundaries of proper pleadings established by the Rules and authorities. If they choose to pursue claims the judge identified as problematic and are faced with an application to strike or dismiss, they will have to satisfy the front-line decision-maker that they have pleaded justiciable claims. If they do not, they have had fair warning of the possible consequences.

[12] The appellants also appeal the judge’s costs order. They submit that success was divided in the sense that the judge declined to dismiss their claim. They also submit that costs are often not awarded in cases like this, which they assert to be a form of public interest litigation. In the alternative, they submit that costs should be awarded in the cause.

[13] Respectfully, the appellants have not identified a reviewable error in the judge’s handling of costs. Rather, they ask this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the chambers judge. This we cannot and will not do.

[14] For all of these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.

This critique was published on the Canuck Law website on August 31, 2021. It outlined some of the ways that the Notice of Civil Claim failed to meet the basics of Civil Procedure in British Columbia.

Vaccine Choice was similarly criticized for their filing.

A week later, Gaw and Kuntz instigated a $7 million defamation lawsuit. They dispatched their “thug” to attempt to destroy this website. And for what? For truthfully pointing out that various anti-lockdown cases — including Vaccine Choice — weren’t properly written? For accurately predicting that none of these cases would ever get to Trial? For calling it all a waste of time and money? For suggesting that these shoddy cases can’t just be the result of sloppiness?

What has happened since then?

(1) The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that it was “bad beyond argument”, and drafted so poorly that it was impossible to respond to. Although leave (permission) was granted to amend, the Claim was never accepted as valid.

(2) The Law Society of B.C. put it in their training manual for new lawyers. This case is now a teaching exercise of “wholly inadequate pleadings”, and how to avoid them. See page 15. That’s right, the LSBC is using it to train new lawyers on how not to draft lawsuits.

(3) Now, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the original Claim wasn’t drafted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. It was too long, confusing, and difficult to follow. They didn’t address the litany of other errors contained within.

Let’s not forget that both Vaccine Choice cases, from 2019 and 2020, have been allowed to sit idly for years. There’s no urgency whatsoever to advance either case.

Despite the Appeal being dismissed, it’s still being promoted as a “win”. Not surprising, considering the August 2022 striking of the Claim was also said to be a “win”. These people are delusional.

And for people who are so touchy about defamation, it seems that the new response is to refer to critics as “paid agitators”. See the February 7th and 21st Rumble videos. During the Zoom version on the 7th, moderators were apparently deleting comments from people asking questions about the cases.

Supposedly, an amended NOCC is ready to be filed for Action4Canada. The obvious question is why that wasn’t done back in 2022. Additionally, why was the original so poorly drafted? And if there really are all these Affidavits of evidence, why mess around for years with shoddy pleadings?

The Court of Appeal has found that the original NOCC wasn’t properly written, and that it has been a waste of time and money. Moreover, wasting judicial resources like this prevents litigants with valid claims from getting their day in Court.

ACTION4CANADA APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(2) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – VIHA
(3) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Defendants
(4) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Attorney General of Canada
(5) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – Peter Kwok, Translink
(6) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Appearance – BC Ferries, Brittney Sylvester
(7) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Appellant
(8) A4C Appeal – Appeal Book – Respondent VIH And PHC
(9) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone Respondents VIHA
(10) A4C Appeal – Appeal Record – Stand Alone
(11) A4C Appeal – Factum – Appellant
(12) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Attorney General Of Canada
(13) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent BC Ferries and Brittney Sylvester
(14) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent HMK -Provincial Defendants
(15) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent Peter Kwok and Translink
(16) A4C Appeal – Factum – Respondent VIHA and Providence Health
(17) A4C Appeal – Consent Order – Factum, Time Limits
(18) A4C Appeal – Change In Representation – BC Defendants
(19) A4C Appeal – Notice Of Hearing February 2024
(20) CanLII Decision In Action4Canada Appeal

ACTION4CANADA BCSC DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C BCSC – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Health Authority Defendants)
(3) A4C BCSC – Response to Civil Claim (Provincial Defendants)
(4) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 1 of Rebecca Hill
(5) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (AG and RCMP applies to strike)
(6) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Provincial Defendants applies to strike)
(7) A4C BCSC – Notice of Application (Translink applies to strike)
(8) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Health Authority Defendants consent to strike)
(9) A4C BCSC – Application Response (BC Ferries consents to strike)
(10) A4C BCSC – Application Response (AG and RCMP consent to Prov. strike application)
(11) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to HA Defendants strike application)
(12) A4C BCSC – Application Response (Translink consents to Prov. strike application)
(13) A4C BCSC – Affidavit No 2 of Rebecca Hill
(14) A4C BCSC – Application Record (to strike)
(15) A4C BCSC – Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(16) A4C BCSC – Amended Application Response (all plaintiffs)
(17) A4C BCSC – Transcript Application To Strike
(18) A4C BCSC – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(20) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(21) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(24) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)

OTHER:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01#rule3-1
(4) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(5) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/120_2022a#division_d0e3656
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca450/2022bcca450.html#par10

ACTION4CANADA FINANCIAL DOCS:
(A) A4C Docs Profits And Losses 2021-2022
(B) A4C Docs Balance Sheet 2021-2022
(C) A4C-Docs-General-Ledger-2021-2022

Another Site Taken Down? “Privacy Is Your Right” No Longer Operational

On March 27th, 2023 a group called Privacy Is Your Right appeared seemingly out of nowhere to promote a legal challenge at the Divisional Court of Ontario. There was a press conference held over Zoom. They were to appear on the 30th. The thing was: there was also a lot of begging going on for money. They were already talking about going to the Ontario Court of Appeal if this didn’t work out.

The cause seemed worthwhile enough: patients and a Dr. Sonja Kustka were taking the CPSO to Court in order to prevent them from looking at medical records during an investigation. How did things transpire?

The case was thrown out on the spot, with the reasons coming a few weeks later.

This raises some eyebrows in light of recent events.

Another site, https://fre4justice.ca/, was completely shut down shortly after the attention it received from here. Perhaps there was backlash after pointing out that it would be just a rehash of the other “bad beyond argument” Federal case.

Now, the privacy site hasn’t completely disappeared, at least not yet. However, the site isn’t working, and none of the original links seem to either. It’s been that way for at least a few weeks.

A check on the site https://privacyisyourright.ca/ shows that it was created January 19th, 2023, and that 2 years was paid for. Apparently, the last time the site was updated (in any capacity), was December 22nd, 2023.

The main site, Motion Record, and Factum are only available now via the Wayback Machine, unless they’ve been saved elsewhere. The last time it appears to have been functional — while saved — was January 19th, 2024.

Now, why was it so odd that this group was asking for money, even though they openly conceded they’d probably be appealing it? Turns out that this case, the Kustka, case, was almost identical to the Dr. Rochagné Kilian case which had been rejected for the same reasons. At the time of this fundraising, the Ontario Superior Court had already refused patients standing. See the procedural history, and this review for more information.

That’s right. The big case (Kustka) that Privacy Is Your Right was soliciting money for was a clone of the earlier (Kilian) one.

However, that wasn’t disclosed at the virtual press conference. Going through the website, or at least the archived pages of it, there’s no mention of Dr. Kilian either.

Note: This isn’t to justify what the CPSO has been doing in recent years, but to point out the futility that was obvious from the start.

How many donors would have refused to hand over any money if there had been transparency about this? Probably most of them.

Looking at the ruling, it’s obvious. The Kustka case was a complete rehash of the Kilian case, with only superficial differences. This should have been made apparent prior to soliciting donations.

[10] The issue of public and private interest standing was recently examined in detail by this Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2022 ONSC 5931 (Div. Ct.). The Patient Applicants’ applications for judicial review in this case are analogous to the patients’ applications for judicial review in Kilian. We see no basis to depart from this court’s decision in Kilian, which we find to be persuasive.

[13] In Kilian, at para. 44, this Court confirmed that patients have no private interest standing in the circumstances where the CPSO has initiated an investigation into a member’s conduct, stating as follows:
.
The Patient Applicants do not have a personal legal interest in the ICRC’s decisions to authorize an investigation of Dr. Kilian’s conduct or to place restrictions on her certificate. They have concerns that their medical records will be disclosed to College investigators, but that does not justify a grant of private interest standing, given the purpose of the regulatory regime and the subject matter of the judicial review proceeding.

[14] In Kilian, at para. 45, this Court held that a finding of private interest standing would be contrary to the statutory purpose, which is to regulate physicians’ conduct in the public interest. A finding of private interest standing would “disrupt” professional regulation because it would entitle thousands of patients to standing at the investigation stage: Kilian, at para. 47. This Court also noted that the Code grants patients standing in certain limited circumstances, further demonstrating the legislature’s intention to circumscribe patient participation in the regulatory process.

[15] Moreover, in Kilian, this Court went on to find that the patients have no direct interest in the decisions under review, which involve the regulator and the member. Similarly, the restrictions on the physician’s certificate in that case did not affect the patients’ legal interests: Kilian, at paras. 49-50. We see no reason to depart from the thorough and persuasive analysis conducted by this Court in Kilian.

[16] The Patient Applicants distinguish their applications for judicial review from those brought by the patients in Kilian on the basis that in this case, they seek to challenge s. 76 of the Code, while Kilian was limited to considering an investigation under s. 75 of the Code. In our view, this is a distinction without a difference. In Kilian, the CPSO had brought a parallel application in the Superior Court pursuant to s. 87 of the Code to compel the production of records under s. 76. While, in the circumstances, this Court did not specifically address s. 76, the underlying factual scenario was the same as in this case. The patients in Kilian argued that they had standing to bring an application for judicial review because their private medical records would be disclosed to CPSO investigators.

[17] The production of private medical records pursuant to s. 87 was subsequently addressed by Chalmers J. of the Superior Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 1654 (Sup. Ct.) [Kilian SCJ]. In that case, Chalmers J., relying on College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Bishop (1989), 1989 CanLII 2674 (BC SC), 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 175, held that the expectation of privacy in medical records is subject to the higher need to maintain appropriate standards in the profession: at para. 34. In addition, patient records are protected by the requirement that the CPSO maintain their confidentiality under s. 36 of the RHPA. As a result, courts have rejected the argument that patient-physician privilege precludes an order requiring the production of patient records: Kilian SCJ, at paras. 36 and 51.

The Court denied the patients private standing. Later in the ruling, they are denied public interest standing, again, for the same reasons outlined in the Kilian case.

Again, the group asking for money never disclosed this.

The follow up on the Dr. Kilian case isn’t encouraging either. July 2023, Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down a $16,000 cost award against Dr. Kilian, stating that adding the patient intervenors was a ploy designed to stall the original investigation.

May 8th, 2023, Dr. Kilian was finally ordered to produce the medical records the CPSO demanded. That was upheld by the Court of Appeal in January 2024. Absent a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada, this case appears to be over.

So, why did Privacy Is Your Right gut their website? One possibility is that they’ve milked the donations for all they can. Now that the ruling is out — and everyone can see that it’s just a rehash — that one will dry up as well.

But just like those anti-lockdown and union cases, the CPSO ones are recycled as well.

Lawyer In Anti-SLAPP Decision Sued For Malpractice, Incompetence & Negligence

A $600,000 lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court by an Ontario doctor who says that her former counsel was incompetent and negligent to the point that she’s suffered damages. She claims that the representation fell far below what should be considered professional. Specifically the Claim cites:

  • professional negligence
  • breach of fiduciary duty
  • breach of contract
  • incompetence
  • conflict of interest

Kulvinder Kaur Gill and Ashvinder Kaur Lamba, both Ontario doctors, made headlines in 2020, filing a $12.75 million defamation lawsuit against 23 parties. It was primarily over petty online drama, and predictably, it was thrown out. The case was appealed, to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Soon afterwards, their lawyer, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, abandoned them. This was allegedly over prolonged health issues.

Asher Honickman went on to represent Lamba in 2022. It’s interesting, since he’s also the one to commence proceedings against her former lawyer.

One of the main points of contention is that Gill and Lamba should never have joined their cases. While Gill alleged defamation from 23 parties, Lamba only had isses with 2 of them (Angus Maciver and Nadia Alam). Even then, she never really had a case against one of them. It’s argued in this malpractice suit that the asymmetry led to Lamba getting dragged into something much larger than she wanted.

Due to deficiencies in the original suit, it’s pleaded that Lamba wants damages from all 23 Defendants, even though she admittedly had nothing to do with 21 of them.

Also in this suit, Lamba claims she was never properly advised about the cost consequences — full indemnity (or 100%) — which are typical if they’re dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws.

There are many more problems to cover, and we’ll get into that. But first:

Timeline of major events

Pre-2020: Gill and Lamba have prior issues with Maciver and Alam. These predate the “pandemic” and the debate over lockdown measures.

Summer/Fall of 2020: Kulvinder Gill gets into many trivial arguments on Twitter, leading to some harsh replies. These are screenshotted to use as evidence.

December 2020: Gill and Lamba, sued 23 individuals and organizations for defamation. This was primarily (although not entirely) brought over Twitter spats that Gill had engaged in.

September 2021: Over the course of 3 days, several anti-SLAPP Motions are argued before Justice Stewart in the Superior Court. These are Motions to dismiss, based on Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This is a section of the law that allows for rapid screening of lawsuits brought to “stifle public interest speech”.

February 2022: Justice Stewart dismisses the suit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. This wasn’t at all surprising to anyone who understands defamation law. It was an extremely weak case. At this point, costs have yet to be determined.

March 2022: The lawyer for Gill and Lamba files a Notice of Appeal, despite the fact that he doesn’t intend to stick around. It also becomes apparent that counsel doesn’t fully understand the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, nor the standards applied.

May 2022: Counsel for Gill and Lamba succeeds in getting himself removed from the case for “health reasons”. This come despite him actively being involved in other litigation, and even commencing other lawsuits.

July 2022: Gill and Lamba (with new counsel) try to get new cost submissions filed. They claim that their previous lawyer didn’t do anywhere close to an adequate job.

September 2022: The Appeal is “perfected” meaning all the documents are submitted. Note: there still hasn’t been an award of costs yet for the original decision from February.

October 2022: Gill and Lamba are hit with $1.1 million in legal costs from the Defendants, who were successful in getting the case thrown out. But to be fair, Gill took the bulk of the hit. She had sued all 23 Defendants, while Lamba was only pursuing a case against 2 of them.

October 2023: One of the Respondents, the Pointer Group Inc., argues a Motion that Gill should have to pay her costs up front, given how weak the Appeal is.

November 2023: The Motion for security for costs is denied.

December 2023: After many delays, the Appeal is finally heard, but with only a few Respondents left. Most have cut some sort of deal to accept partial payment.

February 2024: The Court of Appeal for Ontario throws out the Appeal against the few remaining Respondents who hadn’t yet settled over this.

Now, what other problems are alleged in this malpractice suit?

Lamba’s relief sought incorrectly lists “all” Defendants

This is from page 7 of the Statement of Claim. Even though Lamba is pursuing defamation claims from just 2 of the Defendants (Gill from all 23), she seeks aggravated and punitive damages from everyone. This is a horribly amateurish error to make. These damages make up $2 million dollars, and it’s demanded that people who aren’t alleged to have wronged her have to pay.

This is the problem with the cut-and-paste lawsuit business. Important proofreading like this gets overlooked.

Claim wrongly lists all Defendants liable to BOTH Plaintiffs

From page 81 of the Statement of Claim, it’s alleged that all the Defendants are liable to both Gill and Lamba for: (a) libel and slander; (b) conspiracy; (c) negligence; and (d) breach of professional obligations.

But, as stated earlier, Lamba had nothing to do with 21 out of the 23 Defendants. Her only stated grievances were with Maciver and Alam. The poorly worded Claim doesn’t distinguish that though.

What else is there?

Lamba alleges she wasn’t advised to file Affidavit

Paragraph 17(d) the Claim reads that Lamba didn’t produce any evidence. By this, it means that she never submitted a sworn Affidavit against the anti-SLAPP Motions.

That matters because the 3rd branch of the anti-SLAPP test requires that the Plaintiffs submit evidence of at least some damages. While it doesn’t have to be a “fully developed brief”, there has to be something for a Judge to conclude that damages occurred.

By failing to do this, it’s guaranteed that the case would be thrown out.

Lamba alleges she was neglected in favour of Gill

Paragraph 17(f) of the Claim reads that the anti-SLAPP Motions Lamba received got nowhere near the attention that the ones targeted at Gill. As such, she felt neglected by her own representation.

Lamba alleges she preferred to settle or discontinue

Paragraphs 17(g), (h), and 33(c) of the Claim read that Lamba would have been better off to go the route of apology, settlement, or possibly discontinuance. This would substantially mitigate cost exposure. She states that her lawyer should have taken that approach.

Lamba alleges junior lawyers did work they weren’t trained for

Paragraphs 17(j) and 33(g) of the Claim read that junior lawyers and/or staff were doing parts of the work that they weren’t trained for, or competent in. There was apparently little oversight to ensure that it was done properly. Then again, it seems that senior counsel isn’t competent either.

By junior lawyers, this presumably refers to Samantha Coomara, who works at that firm. Gill and Lamba have a separate lawsuit in Brampton that names her.

As an aside: Coomara was the lawyer of record who sued this site, after sending threatening letters. She is grossly incompetent, and lacks understanding of basic procedures.

Lamba alleges conflict of interest with her legal representation

Paragraphs 17(k), 33(l) and (m) of the Claim read that Lamba’s own lawyers had their own agenda, and put their interests above their own. Presumably this refers to the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice cases which allege that there was a global conspiracy. This led to the highly publicized but poorly drafted lawsuits that kept getting thrown out.

Lamba was interested in a straightforward and (relatively) private defamation case. She apparently never wanted to get involved in any of this. She openly calls this a conflict of interest.

Lamba alleges she was never informed of the risks

Paragraph 33(b) of the Claim reads that Lamba was never properly advised about the risks of starting a defamation suit in Ontario. Between the strong anti-SLAPP laws, and the “presumptive full indemnity on costs”, this can get very messy.

The Claim mentions repeatedly that Lamba wasn’t kept in the loop about major decisions within her own case. It’s also claimed many times that the representation she got was incompetent.

Furthermore, she blames the quality of the pleadings on incompetence. It’s stated that her claims focused on the insults which aren’t actionable, versus the actual defamation.

Lamba is resentful at having her name tied to Gill, and to her lawyer’s overall agenda. She views it as very unhelpful. The $7 million suit Gill filed against Amir Attaran for calling her an “idiot” probably doesn’t help. While Lamba may have had valid grievances on her own, connecting with Gill and her lawyer seem to have caused endless headaches.

Keep in mind, all of this is written from Lamba’s perspective. We’ll have to see what the Statement of Defence says.

What are the practical consequences of suing 23 people and organizations? Well, a lot of lawyers are going to get rich billing the hours to defend against these claims.

This was another headache Lamba had to deal with. The bulk of the lawsuit had nothing to do with her, but she was claiming damages against everyone. Once the case was thrown out, she was presumptively on the hook for half of it. Part of the reason Lamba and Gill got separate counsel is that their interests diverged greatly in terms of the costs.

Gill would benefit much more from a 50/50 split
Lamba would benefit from everyone paying their own share

Anyhow, this is only a quick summary. Do read the entire Statement of Claim, as it’s quite the eye opener.

What will happen with this lawsuit?

It’s hard to say, but here’s a personal prediction:

Since it’s a lawyer being sued for negligence and malpractice, insurance will likely cover it. This means they’ll be providing a lawyer to defend it, and pay most of the bills. If it were a claim for dishonesty or misrepresentation, they probably wouldn’t.

Anyhow, insurance companies are businesses, and they don’t like losing money. They may very well force a settlement, or leave the client to fend for himself. They also don’t like insuring high risk subjects.

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

MOTION FOR SECURITY OF COSTS
(1) Gill V. Maciver Amended Notice of Motion – 26 Sept 2023
(2) Gill v Maciver – San Grewal’s appeal for support M54554.MPF.PointerGroup – October 2023.PDF
(3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PbEewt3dAKqAT5Udp6BIIqrM9Y_AhPHv/view
(4) Ruling: Motion For Security Of Costs – Denied

KULVINDER GILL/ASHVINDER LAMBA CASE:
(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(3) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(4) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html#par17
(6) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(7) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(8) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022-06-17 – Notice
(9) Motion To Recuse – Badly Redacted -2022 – Motion Record
(10) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(11) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(12) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(13) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022
(14) Gill/Lamba Appeal Dismissed As Baseless By ONCA
(15) https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22116/index.do

GILL/ATTARAN/UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA CASE:
(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent
(4) Gill-Attaran Motice To Recuse
(5) Gill-Ataran Motion To Recuse Motion Record

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS), And Their Public Interest Standing Application

An Application for “Public Interest Standing” was heard on January 24, 2024, in the Yarmouth Court in Nova Scotia. A group called the Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia, or (CANS), argued that their organization should be granted public interest standing to in addition to the private standing they already obtained.

All of this concerns an October 2021 Application for Judicial Review, or (JR), the group filed, challenging the scope of freedom restrictions that had been in place. Understandably, not everyone was happy with the dictates of Robert Strang, which eroded basic liberty.

The Court in Yarmouth was full of observers, with about another 30 who were attending virtually. Clearly, there was interest in what was going on.

On a procedural note, there were problems with 2 of the Affidavits that had been filed in support of the Application. It seems that they didn’t follow the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the attachments. One of the people was in Court, and could be questioned on its contents. The other was only attending virtually, and that Affidavit had to be struck.

CANS describes itself as such:

The Citizens’ Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) is a federally registered non-profit organization that champions public awareness of government actions, decisions and policy through advocacy, smart activism, education, awareness training and organizational change management.

We are a grassroots organization made up of professionals, educators and families with big hearts and strong community connections. We are committed to protecting the human and constitutional rights and freedoms of all Nova Scotians.

For the recent hearing, CANS went ahead without a lawyer. The case was argued by William Ray, better known as “Stormhaven” for the website he has run for years. (The site is protected for the time being). Although the hearing concluded, no decision was rendered that day. It was reserved until a later date, which was expected.

Since the initial filing, CANS made 3 amendments to the proceedings.
(a) A child co-Applicant “JM” was added, who does have counsel.
(b) A nurse co-Applicant is added to the case, raising additional issues.
(c) In 2023, written submissions are added to narrow the scope of what CANS is asking for.

As for the public interesting standing application, for their part, the Respondent lawyer is opposing the granting of that standing. It’s claimed that CANS is already allowed to proceed in private, and that this adds nothing new.

The Government also claims that since so much time has elapsed, all of the orders in question have long since expired. From that perspective, there’s no real issue to be tried. However, the mootness Motion will be heard in the future.

Ray responded to the topic of mootness being brought up. He stated that CANS members wanted to ensure that they obtained a ruling on the record. That way, if the Government ever attempted anything remotely similar, they could be at the Court “within hours”, to get it shut down.

Distinguishing public and private interest standing

To clarify, there is a difference in the types of standing.

Private Interest Standing: refers to people or organizations who are directly impacted by litigation. This could be for different reasons, whether financial or some other interest. Parties who can establish a direct impact are presumed to have private standing. CANS and its members have already established that the infringements on their liberties have impacted them personally.

Public Interest Standing: is a bit more complicated. It allows Parties who may not be directly impacted in the litigation to participate anyway. The standard is set by the case AGC v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45.

Questions to be asked:
(a) Is there a serious justiciable issue?
(b) What is the nature of the Plaintiff’s interest? Real and genuine?
(c) Is granting standing a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issue before the Court?

In short, no one can simply assert that they have a public interest in a particular issue or piece of litigation. There is a test to be met, upon which a Judge can either grant or refuse standing.

CANS believes that if public interest standing were granted, in addition to the private standing they have, they’ll be able to accomplish more.

Timeline of some of the major events

October 27, 2021: CANS files an Application for Judicial Review.

February 1, 2022: a child co-Applicant was added to bring greater strength to the case.

August 2022: The Government of Nova Scotia (the Moving Party here) decides to bring a Motion for “mootness”, which is still pending as of the publication here.

October 31, 2022: The Government sent their Record (evidence and materials for why they mandated stuff). CANS hasn’t responded to the motion yet but will once the judge sets a schedule for that

December 2022: A nurse co-Applicant and the separation of grounds for review into two issues; rights and ultra vires with submissions.

June 12, 2023: CANS decides to go with self-representation (meaning no lawyer), after endless headaches and delays from existing counsel.

December 04, 2023: CANS filed a Rule 20 form in order to compel the admittance of the following facts by the Respondents:

1) That a Vaccine is; “A substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen, typically prepared from an inactivated or weakened form of the causative agent or from its constituents or products.” CDC;

2) That “VOLUNTARY” has the following definition & legal meaning Free; without compulsion or solicitation. Without consideration; without valuable consideration; gratuitous.

3) That Robert Strang acting as CMOH had not read the detailed Safety Data contained in the manufactures monographs of any of the experiment.

(The Government has since refused to admit anything)

January 24, 2024: The Court hears the Application to grant CANS public interest standing, in addition to the private standing that it already obtained.

It’s expected that once the decision on whether or not CANS is awarded “public interest standing”, the mootness Motion will have to be addressed.

This is not the complete timeline of events, but just a few of the developments that have happened since the initial filing in October 2021. A more detailed version will follow.

The Respondent (Government) lawyer, of course, objected to the granting of public standing. A few of the issues he raised were: (a) CANS is a very informal group of people, with there being a less rigid structure than others; (b) as a private entity with private standing, this is redundant and not helpful; (c) although this wasn’t a mootness Motion, nothing good can come of the ruling, given the delay in time.

Should CANS ultimately be successful on the Application for JR, the effects could be felt nationwide. There would be precedent for limiting powers to impose “emergency orders”. This would apply regardless of whether public interest standing is granted.

CANS took issue with a CBC article covering the hearing, and put out this press release in response to it.

We’ll have to see what happens here. In either case, the Government is still expected to proceed with its mootness Motion.

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)

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

Since this case involves Nova Scotia, it might be a good time to repost these freedom of information requests from 2020 through 2022. They’re interesting, and they have significant cross-over with what’s going on in Yarmouth. Thanks again to Shelly Hipson.

NOVA SCOTIA FOI RESULTS:
(1) Nova Scotia FOI: Tactic Admission No Hospitalization Wave
(2) Nova Scotia FOI: Refusing To Turn Over Data To Justify Masks In Schools
(3) Nova Scotia FOI: More Requests To Get Answers
(4) Nova Scotia FOI: Province PREVIOUSLY Reduced ICU Capacity Recently
(5) Nova Scotia FOI: No Evidence Asymptomatic Spreading Even Exists
(6) Nova Scotia FOI: Refusal To Release Contract From CanIMMUNIZE
(7) Nova Scotia FOI: $19.1 Million Spent On Shots, Testing
(8) Nova Scotia FOI: No Real Increase In Deaths During “Pandemic”
(9) Nova Scotia FOI: More Deaths As Vaxx Numbers Climbing
(10) Nova Scotia FOI: Death Statistics By Age/Vaxx Status
(11) Nova Scotia FOI: Data Dump On Vaccination Rates
(12) Nova Scotia FOI: Miscellaneous FOI Results Released
(13) Nova Scotia FOI: Can’t Be Bothered With Pfizer Documents Released
(14) Nova Scotia FOI: AEFI And Weather Modification Data
(15) Nova Scotia FOI: Response On Adverse Effects And Reactions