Federal Court Of Appeal Partially Overturns “Bad Beyond Argument” Injection Mandate Case

The Federal Court of Appeal partially overturned a 2023 ruling on injection mandates for over 600 Plaintiffs who had sued back in May 2022. This suit covered a broad range of employers, both part of the Government, and others regulated by Ottawa.

There were additional claims pleaded related to loss of mobility rights and freedom of travel. However, these seemed to be almost an afterthought. Primarily, this was a lawsuit over workers refusing to take the injections in the Fall of 2021.

Back in February 2023, Justice Fothergill struck the Claim for most (about 400) of the Plaintiffs without leave to amend. This meant that they wouldn’t be allowed to submit a new version. The other 200 or so saw their claims struck with permission to refile. A lump sum of $5,000 in costs was also awarded.

To explain this a little better: the Court created Schedules “A” and “B”, and lumped various employers into each. The “A” employers were part of the Federal Government. By contrast, The “B” employers weren’t part of the Government, but part of Federally regulated industries. The reason for this is that there’s a distinction in how their respective claims were to be handled.

Employees who fell into Group “A” were prohibited from going to Court at all over employment. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act allow the right to grieve, but not to sue.

Employees who fell into Group “B” were not necessarily restricted from going to going to Court. However, the pleadings were so horribly written that a new version would need to be created. The Court referred to it as “bad beyond argument”, and for “substantially the same reasons” as the Action4Canada case, it had to be struck. As with the Vaccine Choice Canada case, this one failed to follow the basics of civil procedure — once again.

That said, with this Appellate ruling, all Plaintiffs will be allowed to file something.

What this means is that everyone will be able to make claims for restrictions on their movements. That can still go ahead. However, the employment claims for all Schedule “A” litigants are still barred, with the possible exception of those employed by the RCMP. They’re governed by different provisions in the FPSLRA.

One of the problems with having so many Plaintiffs is that there’s no information pleaded about any of them specifically. Instead, generalizations are made, without reference to who it applies to. As for the travel restrictions, it’s unclear which litigants are alleging it.

Hopefully, these people will retain a competent lawyer this time.

Alternatively, maybe counsel will take a remedial refresher course on how to plead documents.


  • Canada Opportunities Agency
  • Canada Border Services Agency
  • Canada Revenue Agency
  • Canada School of Public Service
  • Canadian Coast Guard (Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency*
  • Canadian Forestry Service (Department of Natural Resources)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research*
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission*
  • Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  • Canada Revenue Agency*
  • Canadian Security Intelligence Service*
  • Core Public Service
  • Canadian Space Agency
  • Correctional Service of Canada
  • Courts Administration Service
  • Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
  • Department of Canadian Heritage
  • Department of Employment and Social Development
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans
  • Department of Justice
  • Department of National Defence
  • Department of Natural Resources
  • Department of Transport
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Elections Canada (“Office of the Chief Electoral Officer” and “The portion of the federal public administration in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer in which the employees referred to in section 509.3 of the Canada Elections Act occupy their positions”)
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada (Department of the Environment)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
  • Global Affairs Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development)
  • Government of Canada
  • Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration)
  • Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs)
  • Indigenous Services Canada (Department of Indigenous Services)
  • Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
  • National Film Board of Canada (National Film Board)*
  • National Research Council Canada*
  • National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat)*
  • Office of the Auditor General of Canada*
  • Parks Canada*
  • Polar Knowledge Canada (Canadian High Arctic Research Station)*
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Safety Canada (Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
  • Public Services and Procurement Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police**
  • Service Canada (Department of Employment and Social Development)
  • Shared Services Canada
  • Staff of the Supreme Court
  • Statistics Canada
  • Treasury Board


All organizations are part of the core public administration as defined at s 11(1) of the Financial Administration Act (Schedules I and IV), except as noted.

  • Organizations that are portions of the federal public administration listed in Schedule V (Separate Agencies of the Financial Administration Act, whose employees have rights to grieve under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act).

** The RCMP is part of the core public administration and is listed in Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act; RCMP members have limited rights to grieve under s 238.24 the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, but have other grievance rights under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


  • Air Canada
  • Air Canada Jazz
  • Air Inuit
  • Bank of Canada
  • Bank of Montreal
  • BC Coast Pilots Ltd
  • BC Ferries
  • British Columbia Maritime Employers Association
  • Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions
  • Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
  • Canada Pension Plan
  • Canada Post
  • Canadian National Railway
  • Canadian Pacific Railway
  • City of Ottawa Garage Fed Regulated
  • DP World
  • Export Development Canada
  • Farm Credit Canada
  • G4S Airport Screening
  • Garda Security Screening Inc
  • Geotech Aviation
  • Global Container Terminals Canada
  • Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • House of Commons
  • Human Resources Branch, Innovation
  • Kelowna Airport Fire Fighters
  • National Arts Centre
  • NAV Canada
  • Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
  • Ontario Power Generation
  • Pacific Pilotage Authority
  • Parliamentary Protection Service
  • Public Sector Pension Investment Board
  • Purolator Inc
  • Questral Helicopters
  • RBC Royal Bank
  • Rise Air
  • Rogers Communications Inc
  • Royal Canadian Mint
  • Sasktel
  • Scotiabank
  • Seaspan Victoria Docks
  • Shaw
  • Skynorth Air Ltd
  • Telesat Canada
  • Via Rail Canada
  • Wasaya Airways
  • Waterfront Employers of British Columbia
  • Westjet
  • Westshore Terminals
  1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA?
  2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions?
  3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons?
  4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable?
  5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts?

1. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the plaintiffs employed by the RCMP were subject to the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA? YES

[42] On the first issue, I conclude that the Federal Court erred in finding that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA applies to the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP.

[43] It will be recalled that subsection 236(1) of the FPSLRA provides that the “right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute”.

[44] To recall, the relevant definition of what constitutes a grievance is set out in subsection 206(1) of the FPSLRA. That section states that a grievance is one that may be filed under either section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA. Thus, the bar in section 236 applies only to those who could seek redress via a grievance under section 208 or 238.4 of the FPSLRA.

[45] Yet, section 238.4 of the FPSLRA applies only to grievances arising under a collective agreement applicable to RCMP members who meet the statutory definition of “employee” in the FPSLRA. Based on the materials that were before the Federal Court and that are now before this Court, it is impossible to ascertain whether any collective agreement has been negotiated for RCMP members. The National Police Federation was certified as the bargaining agent for RCMP members in 2019 by the FPSLREB in National Police Federation v. Treasury Board, 2019 FPSLREB 74. However, it is unclear if a collective agreement has been achieved and, if so, whether a challenge to the TB Policy could be the subject of a grievance under any such agreement. Given this lack of information, it is not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP possessed rights to grieve the TB Policy under a grievance to which section 238.24 of the FPSLRA pertains.

The RCMP Plaintiffs may still have their employment claims struck at some point. However, with the information available on this Motion, they couldn’t be now.

2. Did the Federal Court err in determining that the bar in section 236 of the FPSLRA forecloses the right of action for claims in respect of the Interim Order and other travel related restrictions? YES

[53] The Federal Court therefore erred in finding that the plaintiffs’ claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures could have been grieved or were subject to section 236 of the FPSLRA. While these claims suffer from the lack of proper pleadings and a failure to plead the necessary material facts that characterize the Statement of Claim generally, they should not have been struck without leave to amend. If properly pleaded, it may perhaps be possible for the plaintiffs to raise a claim that could come within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Without seeing an amended pleading, however, it is impossible to discern whether or not a valid claim might be advanced. The plaintiffs therefore should have been granted leave to amend the claims related to the Interim Order and other travel-related measures on the same basis as the Federal Court allowed other claims to be amended.

All Plaintiffs should be given the right to have their travel-related claims heard.

In fairness to Justice Fothergill, it was unclear who exactly was pleading that their travel related rights were infringed. The Statement of Claim was so lacking in detail that it was impossible to tell.

3. Did the Federal Court err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons? NO

[54] On the third issue, I conclude that the Federal Court did not err in striking, without leave to amend, the claims related to the TB Policy made by the plaintiffs who were employed by the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons, other than the RCMP. However, the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy.

[55] It is not disputed that the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than the RCMP could have filed grievances under section 208 of the FPSLRA challenging the TB Policy or its application to them. As noted, the TB Policy was a term and condition of employment and thus subject to grievance under section 208 of the FPSLRA, which allows the employees of the organizations listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons other than the RCMP to file grievances relating to their terms and conditions of employment. That said, the FPSLREB recently held in Rehibi v. Deputy Head (Department of Employment and Social Development, 2024 FPSLREB 47, that a grievance challenging the application of the TB Policy could not be referred to adjudication due to the fact that only a subset of matters that may be grieved under the FPSLRA may be referred to adjudication under subsection 209(1) of the FPSLRA.

[64] Since the defendants sought to strike the Statement of Claim based on the fact that a grievance process was available, it was incumbent on the defendants to establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. However, no evidence was tendered on this issue and the statutory scheme is not sufficiently clear to definitively establish that the TB Policy could have been grieved by RCMP members. I therefore conclude that the Federal Court erred in striking the claims of RCMP members related to the TB Policy without leave to amend. The plaintiffs who were members of the RCMP should have been granted leave to amend their claims related to the TB Policy on the same basis as the plaintiffs who were employed by organizations other than those listed in Schedule “A” to the Federal Court’s Reasons were granted leave to amend.

Since the RCMP are governed by a different part of the FPSLRA, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that their employment claims shouldn’t have been struck under s.236. That’s not to say that it may not happen anyway. That said, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs are out of luck.

This is a pattern that’s become more obvious: lawyers bringing cases to Court that involve Government and/or union workers. There’s almost always some legislation or collective bargaining agreement that gets these thrown out.

See below, under the “precedents” section. Since the 2023 decision, 5 more cases have been thrown out (4 in Federal Court, and 1 in B.C. Supreme Court) citing this Adelberg ruling as precedent.

4. Did the Federal Court err in finding certain other claims to be non-justiciable? NO

[65] I see no error in the Federal Court’s determination that allegations of criminal behaviour, broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge, and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity, are not justiciable in a civil action.

[66] As for the validity of the TB Policy and the Interim Order, it would appear that those issues may now well be moot. In addition, while it might have been possible to argue that the policies at issue were invalid in the context of a justiciable claim for relief on some other basis in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585, the Federal Court did not err in holding that an order setting aside the TB Policy and the Interim Order could only be obtained by way of an application for judicial review.

[67] I accordingly see no basis for setting aside any of the foregoing rulings made by the Federal Court.

This is comical and goofy. Experienced lawyers should know what Courts can and cannot adjudicate over. It reeks of incompetence that this keeps happening over and over again.

Bad beyond argument.

5. Did the Federal Court err in striking the Statement of Claim due its being generally improper and failing to plead necessary material facts? NO

[68] Finally, I see no error in the Federal Court’s finding that the Statement of Claim was improperly pleaded and lacked the necessary material facts. As noted in Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare) 2015 FCA 227, [2015] F.C.J. No. 1245 at para. 16, a plaintiff must plead, in summary form, but with sufficient detail, the constituent facts to support the relief sought. As the Federal Court rightly noted in this case, for the claims in respect of which leave to amend is granted, the plaintiffs must set out with sufficient particularity the facts they rely on in support of their claim, including details of how they were specifically impacted by the policies they impugn and the bases for and all material facts necessary to ground the claims advanced. The Statement of Claim, as drafted, is entirely devoid of these necessary material facts.

[69] I therefore see no reviewable error in the decision to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety. However, leave to amend it should be granted to all the plaintiffs in accordance with these reasons.

This is common sense, or at least it should be. If you want to sue someone, you have to spell out the allegations with enough specific detail that they can respond to it.

Here’s he TL, DR (too long, didn’t read) version of things:

(1) Members and former members of the RCMP may still be able to bring employment related claims around their refusal to take the injections.

(2) All Plaintiffs — both Schedules “A” and “B” — can make travel related claims

(3) Other than RCMP, all other Schedule “A” Plaintiffs have their employment claims barred

(4) The Statement of Claim is filled with issues a Civil Court can’t preside over

(5) The Statement of Claim fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and doesn’t plead the facts necessary to be properly responded to.

(6) The $5,000 cost award is set aside, and no costs were awarded here.

The “bad beyond argument” findings of Justice Fothergill (here), and Justice Ross (Action4Canada) have been upheld. Neither case was pleaded in a coherent manner. And both needed to be redone. It’s still mind boggling that veteran lawyers don’t understand how to draft documents.

While all Plaintiffs can now go ahead with something, a few questions:

(a) Since the Schedule “A” employment claims are still prohibited, will there be an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? That was promised after all.

(b) Since so much time has passed, will any new allegations be barred by the Statute of Limitations? For most things, there’s a 2 year time limit.

(c) Will any more of the litigants discontinue their case? Will others try to proceed, but with more “effective” counsel?

(d) Considering that Action4Canada never bothered to file an amended Notice of Civil Claim, even 4 months after “winning” their Appeal, will this happen here too? Will these Plaintiffs call their critics “paid agitators“?

(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1752/2023fc1752.html#par24
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc137/2024fc137.html#par44

(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action

B.C. Bill 21: Legal Professions Act, Gets Royal Assent, And Law Society Sues Over It

The Province of British Columbia recently passed Bill 12, the Legal Professions Act. In short, it would take away the ability of the Law Society of B.C., or the LSBC, to self-regulate, and put it under Government control.

Many professions in Canada are “self regulated”. These include: teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, social workers, to name a few. They typically report to some sort of college, which oversees their licencing and professional development. Bill 12 would reverse this, at least for B.C. lawyers.

The LSBC responded by suing the Government in Supreme Court. And this was fast. The Bill received Royal Assent on May 16th, 2024, and the Notice of Civil Claim was filed the following day.

In short, the LSBC argues that its independence will be damaged, and the public harmed, if lawyers are not allowed to regulate themselves. Furthermore, if Government has the power to issue and revoke licences, it will result it an unwillingness to bring lawsuits for deserving clients.

The LSBC also complains that they never had any meaningful consultation before Bill 12 was brought. However, they had known for more than 2 years that this was going to happen at some point.

In addition to losing their independence, it’s argued that Bill 12 will have an impact on the health and well being of lawyers. Brook Greenberg authored a piece critical of Bill 12, and it’s quite the attention grabber. Below are sections from it.

However, the most visceral objection I have to Bill 21 is the government’s decision to include stigmatizing and discriminatory provisions to compel legal professionals to undergo forced medical treatment.

Within the 317 sections of this poorly thought-out and badly drafted bill, are harmful provisions about “health,” including in the definition of what it means for a legal professional to behave “incompetently.”

Section 68 initially defines “incompetently” with a focus on conduct that fails to meet standards. However, it goes on to define competence with specific reference to “health conditions.”

In doing so, Bill 21 makes unwarranted assumptions and creates false and stigmatizing connections between lawyers experiencing health conditions and their competency. We know from the national study on the psychological health of Canadian legal professionals that up to 50 per cent of legal professionals in Canada experience moderate-to-severe mental-health and substance use issues, at times.

That means roughly 7,000 lawyers in B.C. have had such experiences. However, only single-digit numbers of lawyers have their competency called into question in a given year.

Making and emphasizing a connection between competency and health conditions, as the government has done, is unwarranted and will inflict great harm both on individuals, and systemically.

It’s a bizarre argument to make: lawyers should be allowed to control their own profession. Otherwise health issues that can legitimately impact their ability to practice will lead to them not being able to.

We know from the national study on the psychological health of Canadian legal professionals that up to 50 per cent of legal professionals in Canada experience moderate-to-severe mental-health and substance use issues

From this, are we to determine that a significant minority — almost half — of B.C. lawyers have substance abuse and mental health issues? Should we really be letting the alcoholics, drug addicts and mentally ill be regulating themselves? If anything, Greenberg’s article makes a strong argument in favour of not letting lawyers police themselves.

We’ll have to see what becomes of this.

Other recent B.C. specific legislation includes:

  • Bill 12, the Online Harms Act
  • Bill 23, the (Anti-White) Anti-Racism Act
  • Bill 31, domestic implementation of U.N. Sendai Framework

(1) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/5th-session/bills/progress-of-bills
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/law-society-of-bc-announces-legal-action-to-challenge-legal-professions-act/
(3) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/updates-and-timeline-single-legal-regulator-legislation/
(4) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/law-society-of-bc-announces-legal-action-to-challenge-legal-professions-act/
(5) https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/comment-bc-embeds-mental-health-stigma-and-discrimination-in-legal-regulation-8719567#google_vignette
(6) LSBC v HMTK and AG Notice of Civil Claim

CSSEM Cases Thrown Out: $530,000 For Petitions That Don’t Actually Challenge Anything

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed 3 Petitions challenging a requirement that health care workers (HCW) still have to take the clot-shots to keep their jobs.

There was one small victory though. The Public Health Office is to review the requirement that remote workers have to get the shots. This would also apply to others who don’t come into any contact with patients, residents or clients. The reasons for that start on paragraph 210 of the ruling.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that remote workers or workers who don’t come into contact with others will be exempt from the injection orders. It simply means that it must be reconsidered.

[315] The petitions are dismissed, with the exception that, under JRPA s. 5(1), I remit to the PHO for reconsideration, in light of this decision, whether to consider requests under s. 43 of the PHA, for reconsideration of the vaccination requirement from healthcare workers able to perform their roles remotely, or in-person but without contact with patients, residents, clients or the frontline workers who care for them.

What percentage would this apply to?

These cases were financed by a group called CSSEM, the Canadian Society for Science & Ethics in Medicine. On their website, they take credit for raising $530,000 to date. There’s overlap with the people running this group, and those who had campaigned for Action4Canada.

Whether coincidental or by design, the name is strikingly similar to CSASPP, the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. Both groups have the same goals. Was this done to piggyback off of their fundraising?

Hsiang et al v. Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S224731

Hoogerbrug v. Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S224652

CSASPP et al v. Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the Province of British Columbia SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S2110229

Tatlock et al v. Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia et al.SCBC Vancouver Registry No. S22242

Previously, there were 4 Petitions to be heard together, but CSASPP discontinued, after advising that it would be the case.

From the looks of their website, CSSEM is still funding the other 3 cases. While they weren’t anywhere near the dumpster fire that the Action4Canada one is, there are several problems which led to them being dismissed anyway:

  1. Petitions don’t challenge the “emergency” declarations in any meaningful way
  2. Petitions don’t challenge the junk “science”
  3. Petitions don’t challenge the Public Health Act
  4. Petitions should probably have been done as Civil Claims

Instead, the Petitions largely focus on narrow exemptions under the Canadian Charter. It’s a “cookie-cutter” challenge that’s been seen many times — including from the JCCF — and never goes anywhere. Seriously, it cost over half a million dollars for this?

26. The Petitioners seek the following orders under sections 2(2) and 7 of the Judicial Review
Procedure Act, RSBC 1996, c 241:
a. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order of the Provincial Health Officer, dated November 18, 2021, entitled “Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Services) Covid-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures – November 18, 2021” (“Order”), to the extent that it requires individuals to have received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in order to work in hospital and designated community settings;
b. A declaration that the decision to continue in effect, or the failure or refusal to rescind, the November 18 Order, at any time after November 18, 2021, in response to the Petitioner’s requests or otherwise, is unreasonable and ultra vires, as there is not presently a reasonable basis for the exercise of emergency powers under the Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c 28, and the vaccination mandate is not a reasonable or effective way to address the spread of SARS-CoV-2;
c. In addition or in the alternative, a declaration that there is no reasonable basis to refuse or decline or neglect to issue notice under section 59 of the Public Health Act “that the emergency has passed”, and to follow the specified steps required under section 60 of the Public Health Act, including rescission of the November 18 Order;
d. Such other relief as the Court deems warranted and just; and
e. Costs of the Petition.

This is the Relief sought in the Hsiang Petition. As is obvious, there’s no challenge to the Public Health Act, the legislative structure that allowed this in the first place. Nor does it ask for a declaration that there was never any emergency at all — just that there currently isn’t one.

The test on a Judicial Review typically is “reasonableness”. Since all major facts are conceded, there isn’t much to argue over. In the ruling, Justice Coval simply “defers” to the expertise of Bonnie Henry and the Public Health Office.

1. Petitions Don’t Challenge Emergency Declarations

Looking at the Hsiang, Morgan and Vandergugten Petition, there are already serious problems. The Petition argues that there currently isn’t an emergency, and that there is no longer a need for restrictions on people’s liberties and livelihoods.

Instead of that taking that there never was a need, and hence the measures were overblown, the document claims that it doesn’t apply now. It tacitly admits that such regulations may have been entirely reasonable and necessary at earlier dates.

This was certainly noticed by Justice Coval.

When the starting position is that there used to be a significant risk of spreading this (alleged) virus, you’ve already lost.

2. Petitions Don’t Challenge Junk Science

Apparently, the people challenging the injection mandate also “trust the science”. By this, there’s no effort to challenge any of the extensive lies and distortion that has come out the last few years. Admittedly, Petitions aren’t designed to be deep dives. However, these ones take almost everything the B.C. Government takes at face value.

Here’s an easy one: what’s the definition of a “Covid death“?

3. Petitions Don’t Challenge Public Health Act

This is yet another area that’s mind boggling. The Petitioners didn’t challenge any (or all) of the B.C. Public Health Act. This is the legislation that made all of this possible.

Instead, the lawyers are reduced to essentially arguing for exemptions within the framework of the PHA itself. This would have been a perfect time for a full attack on the PHA, but that didn’t happen.

(A) World Health Organization Constitution legally binding on member
(B) International Health Regulations are legally binding on WHO members
(C) Canada’s Bill C-12 (2005 Quarantine Act) was written by WHO
(D) Provincial Health Acts are extension of WHO-IHR
(E) Public Health Agency of Canada a de-facto branch of World Health Organization

There’s a wealth of information available on this. Instead of pursuing exemptions within the Charter, shouldn’t lawyers be asking by the World Health Organization is drafting our laws?

4. Petitions Should Have Been Filed As Civil Claims?

Although the names vary by jurisdiction, there are different ways a person can start a Court process. This matters as it appears the CSSEM chose the wrong one.

The most well known method is by “Action”. It’s starting by filing a Statement of Claim, or a Notice of Civil Claim, as it’s called in B.C. It also has a few other names. These can be extremely simple, or they can be very complex, depending on the circumstances.

A lesser known method is by “Judicial Review”. This is when someone goes to Court to challenge an Order from some branch of Government, or Government Official, or Crown Corporation. These are meant to be a more streamlined process than Actions.

Petitions aren’t meant to be a deep dive into the science. They’re designed as reviews of whether or not decisions are reasonable. Considering what isn’t being challenged above, the outcome was inevitable.

Federal Statement Of Claim Application
Ontario Statement Of Claim Application
British Columbia Notice Of Civil Claim Petition

On the surface, a Petition appears to be the correct method. After all, these were challenges to specific orders from Bonnie Henry. However, things like discovery aren’t permitted here. They’re meant for Actions. The Hsiang and Hoogerbrug Petitioners attempted to augment (add to) their evidence the following:

  • Any and all documents relating to the incidence of COVID infections, transmission and serious illness, as well as hospitalization and death attributable to COVID, broken down by vaccination status and number of doses and age, since the emergence of the Omicron variants.
  • Any and all documents that support the comments made by the PHO in a media conference on January 21, 2022, during which the PHO stated that the provincial government’s approach to the COVID virus has shifted to be “much like how we manage other respiratory illnesses – influenza, or RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or enteroviruses that cause the common cold”, including documents from January 2022 to September 12, 2022 that support this statement.
  • Any and all documents relating to the measures put in place to prevent infection and transmission of influenza and other respiratory illnesses, other than COVID, at hospitals and community health care facilities from 2009-2019.
  • Any and all documents relating to the relative effectiveness of the primary course of vaccination: In preventing people from contracting and transmitting COVID, since emergence of the Omicron variants; and compared to infection acquired immunity without vaccination with respect to preventing infection, transmission and serious illness, BC and other jurisdictions about vaccine mandates.
  • Any and all documents relating to the prevalence or estimated prevalence of infection and/or infection-acquired immunity in the provincial population.
  • All documents related to the consideration given to the two publicly available letters to UBC President & Vice-President Chancellor, Dr. Santa Ono, from the Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Patricia Daly et al, dated February 16, 2022, and the and the UBC Faculty professors Dr. David Patrick, Dr. Sarah (Sally) Otto, and Dr. Daniel Coombs, dated February 20, 2022
  • All documents relating to the decision to permit unvaccinated individuals with a medical exemption to continue working at hospitals and community health care facilities, but not extending the same opportunity to unvaccinated persons with valid religious reasons for not being vaccinated
  • All documents relating to the measures put in place for those working at hospitals and community health care facilities with a medical exemption
  • Any and all documents relating to the effectiveness of measures other than vaccination in preventing the transmission of COVID at hospitals and community health care facilities, including, but not limited to, measures such as the use of personal protective equipment, hygiene policies, and daily or less frequent testing
  • All documents relating to the transmission of COVID by registered health professionals at hospitals and community health care facilities to patients and vice versa, including by vaccination status
  • All documents relating to the transmission of COVID at hospitals and community health care facilities by persons who are not subject to the vaccination mandate

It would have taken weeks or months to get all of this information together.

In fairness, CSASPP also tried to add evidence to their existing record. However, it was nowhere near what’s been listed above. Petitions are designed to be simple and straightforward, not the fact finding mission that’s being requested here.

CSASPP discontinued their Petition in 2023. In their status updates here and here, they blame lawyer Peter Gall (Hsiang and Hoogerbrug Petitions) for endless delays. If done in bad faith — and who knows — it would amount to hijacking the other challenges. The protracted nature of these cases merits a piece all on its own.

The Attorney General’s Office wasn’t happy about attempts to greatly expand the scope of the Petitions.

This isn’t quite as absurd as Action4Canada appealing a decision to strike their Claim, as opposed to simply rewriting it. But it’s still pretty bad.

But in the end, what was really challenged?

The (remaining) Petitioners don’t seem to have an issue with: (a) an emergency being declared at all; (b) the completely fraudulent science going unchecked; and (c) the B.C. Public Health Act. All that’s left is whether or not health care workers still have to get the shots under the current order.

If these suits were supposed to involve many procedural steps, such as discovery, then they should have been Civil Claims, not Petitions.

An interesting Twitter thread covering this case came from Peyman Askari. He breaks down other parts of the ruling quite well.

Administrative staff who work remotely, or who have no contact with patients, may get a reprieve in all of this. That said, this is nowhere near all of the health care workers in the Province.

Now, there will very likely be an Appeal. But what exactly would they argue?

(1) https://www.cssem.org/
(2) https://www.cssem.org/donate
(3) CSSEM Petition To The Court
(4) CSSEM Notice Of Assignment Justice Coval Assigned
(5) CSSEM Memorandum Justice Coval Will Hear All Petitions Together
(6) CSSEM Affidavit #3 Of Sophie Harney
(7) CSSEM Affidavit #4 of Sophie Harney
(8) CSSEM Gall’s Requisition To Set JMC For 19 Oct 2022
(9) CSSEM Peter Gall Disputes Record With Crown
(10) CSSEM Peter Gall’s Cover Letter For His Application
(11) CSSEM Gall Writes AG Regarding Further Amended Petitions
(12) CSSEM AG Writes Peter Gall To Advise His Proposed Amendments Are Convoluted
(13) CSSEM CSASPP Petitioner Advises Of Discontinuance
(14) CSSEM CSASPP Notice Of Discontinuance
(15) CSSEM Peter Gall’s Written Submissions For CPC Regarding Another Adjournment
(16) CSSEM Corrected Reasons Dismissing Peter Gall’s Application To Augment Record
(17) CSSEM CanLII Version Reasons For Decision (Augmenting Record)
(18) CSSEM Reasons For Decision (Dismissal)

(1) CSSEM Procedural Updates 01
(2) CSSEM Procedural Updates 02
(3) CSSEM Procedural Updates 03
(4) CSSEM Procedural Updates 04

(1) CSSEM Applicants For Incorporation
(2) CSSEM Certificate Of Incorporation
(3) CSSEM Constitution
(4) CSSEM Incorporation Application
(5) CSSEM Model Bylaws
(6) CSSEM Statement Of Directors And Registered Office

(1) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20221116
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20230301
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates#20230608

The Nadon Reference Case: What Really Happened (Gonzo Logic)

It’s time to put a decade long myth to rest: the Nadon Reference Case.

This was a 2013 challenge in Federal Court to the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court. The specific issue was not his abilities, but where he had worked. Under Canadian law, Quebec is entitled — rightly or wrongly — to 3 out of the 9 spots on the Supreme Court of Canada. Judges from the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal can sit on the SCC, but not take those 3 positions.

Yes, there was an Application filed by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” in October 2013. However, that’s not what decided Nadon’s fate. The Attorney General brought a Motion to stay (defer) the case, and an Order In Council (OIC) forward the matter to the Supreme Court. This was decided as a Constitutional Question. The case was deferred on consent, meaning all sides agreed to hand it over.

The original Application was eventually dismissed in 2014. However, it seems that costs were just as important — if not more so — than the principle of how SCC Justices are selected. This leads to the absurd idea that there is a “Constitutional right” to costs, even for lawyers who don’t actually win their cases. Gonzo logic!

The case was never “won on the merits”.

It was more a case of “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Ever wonder why no ruling is ever help up as a trophy? That’s because there isn’t one.

(A) Consent Order staying the 2013 Application
(B) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc21/2014scc21.html
(C) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc1088/2014fc1088.html
(D) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca39/2016fca39.html
(E) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2016/2016canlii47514/2016canlii47514.html

The above are a: consent to stay; SCC Reference, involving many Intervenors; and then three (3) subsequent dismissals. The earth shattering victory we are told about isn’t there.

Timeline Of Major Events

Now, the above is a lot to take in, so hopefully, this will clarify the details how events unfolded.

October 7th, 2013: A Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court, challenging the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada.

October 22nd, 2013: Order-In-Council (OIC) 2013-1105 is signed, referring the issue of the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court for a Reference.

October 28th, 2013: The Attorney General’s Office brings a Motion to stay (defer) the case, since it has already been sent off for reference anyway.

November 12th, 2013: Justice Zinn signs a Consent Order staying the Application, pending the outcome of the SCC Reference.

March 21st, 2014: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Justice Nadon isn’t eligible to use any of Quebec’s 3 seats on the Court. However, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t sit on the bench in any of the other 6 spots.

September 26th, 2014: “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” files a Motion for costs, and for Leave (permission) to dismiss the case. He didn’t win, and wants it dismissed, but claims he’s entitled to costs anyway.

October 31st, 2014: The Attorney General’s Office files a Cross-Motion (a Motion of their own), asking that the original Application be dismissed, since the issue of Justice Nadon’s appointment if now moot. They also ridicule the demand for costs, since the Applicants didn’t actually win.

November 7th, 2014: Reply submissions (rebuttal arguments) are filed in the Motion for costs.

November 20th, 2014: Justice Zinn hands down a ruling dismissing the original Application, and awarding a lump sum of $5,000 in costs to the Applicants. This is in spite of them not actually winning their case. The Motion was “in writing”, and as the name implies, done without an oral hearing.

January 11th, 2016: The Federal Court of Appeal hears the Appeal on costs. This is not about Justice Nadon’s appointment, but whether there’s a “Constitutional right” to costs.

February 8th, 2016: Federal Court of Appeal hands down scathing rebuke, along with $1,000 Order for bringing baseless Appeal in the first place.

July 28th, 2016: Supreme Court of Canada denies Leave (permission) to file Appeal over the demand for costs. This was the second attempt at appealing.

Now, to expand more on these….

Application Was Stayed (Deferred) On Consent

Almost immediately after the Application was filed, the Attorney General’s office brought a Motion to stay the proceedings (or defer) the case.

The Motion references Order In Council 2013-1105, an “Order referring to the Supreme of Canada for hearing and consideration the questions related to the Appointment of Supreme Court Justices From Quebec”.

Justice Russel Zinn signed a Consent Order, which stayed the Application while the subject was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in the form of a Reference Question. By consenting, it was known to all — or should have been known — that it was surrendering control to the SCC.

This wasn’t a “win on the merits” by any means. However, it was an indication that the Federal Government took the issue seriously enough to forward it onward.

Many “Intervenors” For SCC Reference Question

Although the Supreme Court Reference is very lengthy, this is the main point. Should Justice Nadon be allowed to take a “Quebec spot” on the SCC if he’s sitting on the bench for the Federal Court of Appeal?

[109] This reference stems from the appointment of the Honourable Justice Marc Nadon to fill one of the three seats on this Court allocated to the Province of Quebec. Justice Nadon is a former member of the Quebec bar of almost 20 years standing. At the time of his appointment to this Court, he was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

  • René LeBlanc and Christine Mohr, for the Attorney General of Canada
  • Patrick J. Monahan and Josh Hunter, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario
  • André Fauteux and Jean‑François Beaupré, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec
  • Sébastien Grammond, Jeffrey Haylock and Nicolas M. Rouleau, for the interveners Robert Décary, Alice Desjardins and Gilles Létourneau
  • Rocco Galati, on his own behalf
  • Sébastien Grammond, for the intervener the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges
  • Paul Slansky, for the intervener the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc

But what frequently gets overlooked is that there were many Intervenors — 3rd party participants — at the Supreme Court review over the Nadon appointment. It wasn’t just one person against the Government.

[8] After carefully considering the Attorney General’s motion for a stay (for a period of 7.6 hours, in Mr. Galati’s case), the Joint Applicants eventually consented to a stay of the Joint Application in exchange for the Attorney General’s undertaking not to oppose their application for intervener status in the Reference.

Some comments from the Federal Court of Appeal are pretty funny. If their 2016 ruling is to be taken at face value, it seems that the Attorney General didn’t even want him at the SCC Reference. It comes across as him only agreeing to the Consent Order if there was no objection to him being an Intervenor. That’s got to hurt.

What if the AG had opposed Intervenor status? Would he have held up the Motion to stay the case?

Now, if this Reference result really was a “win on the merits”, then it looks as though every Intervenor could make that same claim. All of them submitted papers, and all were allowed to speak.

The most charitable interpretation of this would be a “shared win”.

Now, the real fun begins.

Federal Court Dismisses Motion For Costs, Dismisses Application

After the Supreme Court decision, the original Application became moot. After all, Justice Nadon was gone from the bench, so there wasn’t a real issue to resolve.

However, a Motion was filed demanding costs. The “claim” was that lawyers who bring constitutional challenges are entitled to costs. Apparently, this wasn’t just about principle. There was money to be made on this.

There were obviously problems with this. The most prominent is that fact that there was no “win or success”, which is typically required to receive costs. From the Attorney General of Canada:

The Federal Government filed a Cross-Motion, asking that the original Application be dismissed, and that the Court refuse costs.

The reason for dismissing the Application is obvious: mootness. Justice Nadon is gone, so there’s nothing left to deal with. It’s unclear why “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” would seek leave (permission) to dismiss, instead of just discontinuing on his own. A cynic may think that it would be harder to claim “success” if he simply dropped the case.

Federal Court Takes Note Of Overbilling In Costs Motion

In their Cross Motion, the Attorney General argued that even if costs should be awarded (for an unsuccessful case), the amounts sought were unreasonable. They point out that for Ontario lawyers, even the most experienced ones litigation the most complex matters were only entitled to $350/hour. This Motion demanded $800/hour, more than double that.

In the 2014 reasons (dismissing the Application and the Motion for costs) the Court notes at paragraphs 5-7 that the amounts sought are “excessive and unwarranted”. They want nearly $70,000 for litigation was stayed at the very beginning stages. It’s even more absurd given the self-representation that was going on.

Almost as an aside, Justice Zinn remarks that if not for the original challenge, the SCC Reference would likely not have happened. From a certain perspective, it could be viewed as public service.

He ultimately awarded a lump sum of $5,000. This is still a fair amount of money, but less than 10% of what the Applicants had originally demanded.

Federal Court Of Appeal Dismisses Appeal For Costs

[12] Mr. Galati argued for an award of costs in his favour calculated on the basis of 56.4 hours of service at an hourly rate of $800, plus disbursements in the amount of $638, for a total award (including tax) of $51,706. The CRC claimed costs of $16,769 based on 14.55 hours of service by its counsel, Mr. Slansky, at an hourly rate of $800. In argument, Mr. Galati acknowledged that his regular hourly rate is not $800 as his clientele do not have the means to pay such an exalted rate. He advised that $800 per hour is the rate for substantial indemnity pursuant to Part 1 of Tariff A of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, for lawyers of his year of call and experience.

[13] The Attorney General opposed Mr. Galati’s and the CRC’s motions and filed a cross motion seeking the dismissal of the Joint Application. On the question of costs, the Attorney General argued that since, as of the date of the argument, no judgement had been rendered in the Joint Application, there was no successful party and therefore no basis for an order for costs. In any event, the Attorney General argued that there was no constitutional right to costs. If an order of costs were to be made, having regard to the factors mentioned in Rule 400(3) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, it should be a single award assessed on Column III of Tariff B.

[28] The difficulty confronting the Joint Applicants is that they were not successful in their application. The Federal Court found that the Joint Application “was derailed and supplanted by the Reference”: see Reasons at paragraph 12. It was therefore dismissed for mootness. Mr. Galati and the CRC take the position that because the Reference produced the result which they sought in the Joint Application, they were successful and entitled therefore to their solicitor client costs. It doesn’t work that way. The fact that their application apparently set in motion a series of events which led to the conclusion which they hoped to achieve in their application does not make them successful litigants. It may make them successful politically or in the popular press, but that is a different matter. They can only claim costs in relation to the judicial treatment of the Joint Application which, as noted, was dismissed. To hold otherwise would be to create something in the nature of a finder’s fee for constitutional litigation.

[35] To be “in bed” with someone is to collude with that person. I do not understand how one could hope to protect the right to a fair and independent judiciary by accusing courts of colluding with the government if they don’t give the applicant its solicitor client costs. The entire Court system, it seems, must be alleged to be actually or potentially acting in bad faith in order to instill public confidence in the fairness and independence of the judiciary. This is reminiscent of the gonzo logic of the Vietnam War era in which entire villages had to be destroyed in order to save them from the enemy. The fact that this argument is made in support of an unjustified monetary claim leads to the question “Whose interest is being served here?” Certainly not the administration of justice’s. This argument deserves to be condemned without reservation.

[47] Like my colleague, I agree that there are no grounds for setting aside the costs order of the Federal Court and I would dismiss the appeal with costs in the amount of $1,000. Had the respondents asked for more, I would have granted more.

The Federal Court of Appeal was pretty scathing in their review. Yes, the $5,000 award was appealed on the grounds that it wasn’t nearly enough, and the Applicants had a “right” to costs.

The FCA reiterated that there was no “win on the merits”. The parties had agreed to stay the Application in favour of letting the SCC Reference go ahead. True, it produced the outcome that was sought, but that’s not the same as actually winning.

The FCA took serious issue the implication that the Courts were “in bed with” the Government for not giving him his costs. Keep in mind, he was self represented. In the public sphere, this would have led to a defamation lawsuit.

The FCA rejected the notion that the Nadon appointment “went to the architecture of the Constitution”. Yes, it was an important question, but outside of a small amount of people, it had no impact.

The FCA also pointed out how absurd it was to use the Ontario guidelines for costs submissions when in Federal Court. Was this simply oversight? Incompetence? Or a way to justify inflated billing?

Supreme Court Denies Application For Leave (For Costs)

The applications for leave to appeal from the judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-541-14, 2016 FCA 39, dated February 8, 2016, are dismissed with costs.

Not content with losing at the Federal Court of Appeal, “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” sought Leave (permission) to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This wasn’t about Justice Nadon, but another attempt at having someone recognize “his Constitutional right to costs”. This is nonsense, and it appears that he spent more time and effort trying to get costs than in the original Application.

Serious question: Is it considered fraud to misrepresent the results of Court cases, if done for the purposes of self-promotion, and generating business? The Nadon case has been held up as a “major win on the merits”, even though that’s not the truth. This was from 2013 to 2016.

Again, a better description would be, “thank you for bringing it to our attention”.

Fast forward to 2024, and groups like Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lie about their cases in order to keep the donation money rolling in. They pretend that losses and endless delays are somehow “wins”. At what point does puffery and self-promotion cross into outright deception?

(1) Supreme Court Reference ss. 5 and 6 2014 SCC 21 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 433
(2) Federal Court On Motion For Costs 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)
(3) Federal Court Of Appeal On Costs 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)
(4) Supreme Court Of Canada On Costs 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)

(1) Nadon Reference Case Notice Of Application
(2) Nadon Reference Case AG Motion To Stay
(3) Nadon Reference Case Order Staying Application
(4) Nadon Reference Case RG Motion For Costs
(5) Nadon Reference Case AG Cross Motion Record
(6) Nadon Reference Case AG Reply Submissions On Costs

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/

A Look Into Gill’s $2 Million Professional Malpractice Claim

Kulvinder Gill’s $2 million malpractice lawsuit is out, and is it ever interesting. When previously covered, just the Notice of Action was filed, but now, there’s the Statement of Claim.

Here’s some background information on what has transpired since 2020.

It alleges incompetence, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and an overall lack of professionalism. This covers both Gill’s defamation lawsuits — there are 2 — and her dealings with the CPSO. There’s certainly a lot to break down.

The Notice listed the value at $1.85 million, but the Claim is now for $2 million. The reason is that the demand for aggravated and/or punitive damages had risen from $100,000 to $250,000. No defence has yet been filed, but it will be worthwhile to read when it is.

Disclaimer: This is just the Statement of Claim, and nothing has yet been proven. More than likely, there is some slant in Gill’s favour. However, the content is an eye opening look into how things unfolded.

Gill says (paragraph 9) that Galati represented that he, and his junior associate, Samantha Coomara, had significant experience dealing with defamation cases and the CPSO. Apparently, he talked Gill out of using other lawyers, claiming they had: (a) limited experience; (b) conflicts of interest; and (c) never litigated in Court.

As an aside: having dealt with Coomara personally, she is incompetent, and is unfit to litigate defamation Claims. She has a limited grasp of civil procedure, and would be better off working as a clerk or secretary. She doesn’t even know what documents go in Motion Records.

Gill says (paragraph 13) that she was misled into what her retainer was to cover. She relied on a verbal agreement that it would cover both her CPSO and defamation matters.

Gill says (paragraph 19) that bringing together 23 different Defendants for her defamation case with Lamba was done to leverage larger settlements. She suggests that Galati misrepresented the situation by labelling everyone “co-conspirators”, in order to make the case stronger. Considering many Defendants didn’t even know each other, this seems like a bad faith abuse of the Court process.

Gill says (paragraph 20) that Galati’s conduct was, at least in part, designed to raise is own profile as a fighter against public health measures. She implies that she was used as a pawn to advance his own professional image. He did this to the detriment of her interests. This is something she’ll repeat over and over in the Claim.

Gill says (paragraph 23) that she wasn’t promptly notified that one of the potential Defendants had threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion in response to the Notice of Libel that was sent. In other words, at least one person was quite willing to use this method. Gills states she didn’t find out until after the suit had already been thrown out. If true, it would likely mean this was withheld from her in order to prevent her from backing out of suing.

Gill says (paragraph 25) that she had no idea the Defendants would be filing anti-SLAPP Motions until they actually happened. If true, it would mean that her counsel failed to advise her of the most likely path forward. This would amount to professional malpractice. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to quickly screen out defamation cases.

Gill says (paragraph 26) that she was never given the informed choice as to whether to proceed with the case or not. She further adds that she was unaware of the potentially crippling cost consequence (full indemnity, or 100%). If she had been, she wouldn’t have pursued the case.

Gill says (paragraph 27) that she never got the opportunity to review the Statement of Claim before it was filed in December 2020.

Gill says (paragraph 29) that she didn’t get the kind of service that the fees warranted. Instead, her defamation pleading was a “template”, or a cut-and-paste version of earlier cases. Considering the money involved, she expected far more. It’s been stated here many times that Galati simply recycles his cases.

Gill says (paragraph 34) that she only found out after the fact that Amir Attaran, in a separate proceeding, had filed his own anti-SLAPP Motion. Apparently, he had been threatening to do this for some time, but it hadn’t been communicated to her.

Gill says (paragraph 38) that she wasn’t kept in the loop as to the activity surrounding the main defamation case. She had also WRONGLY been assured in February 2021 that the anti-SLAPP Motions weren’t a threat, as they wouldn’t be considered public interest expression. That turned out to be very wrong.

Gill says (paragraph 39) that Galati waited until the last minute before her CPSO deadlines that he wanted more money. Under the circumstances, and without more time, she felt forced to go along with it.

Gill says (paragraph 41) she was never consulted regarding the documents submitted for the CPSO hearings. She adds correctly that the Ontario Court threw out her Application for Judicial Review because she hadn’t exhausted internal mechanisms first. in short, it was doomed to fail since her counsel lacked a basic understanding of jurisdiction.

Gill says (paragraph 45) that the Affidavit Galati prepared for her was largely just a cut-and-paste from the Statement of Claim. It lacked the evidence within, didn’t explain why it was necessary, and didn’t lay out the harm suffered — an essential element.

And how come there was never an Affidavit for Ashinder Lamba?

Gill says (paragraph 51) that she was finally made aware of the true costs during cross-examinations. This was well into 2021. When defamation cases in Ontario are thrown out anti-SLAPP laws, or s.137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act, the default position is “full indemnity”. This is 100% of Court costs. This means that a losing Plaintiff would have to pay for everything. Gill claims she wasn’t advised of this in advance, and she should have been.

Gill says (paragraph 52 and 53) that Galati advised against making more settlement offers to other Defendants. This is nonsense, given how strong anti-SLAPP laws are. Gill states she later found out that there were offers coming in, and that Galati lied to her about it. If true, this is professional misconduct.

Gill says (paragraph 56) that Galati was drinking alcohol prior to the anti-SLAPP hearing in September 2021. She says she had to ask him not to drink at the actual hearing. Now, this is just her word, but he does drink during the livestreams with Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada, so it comes across as plausible.

The gif is clipped from the February 8th, 2023 stream with Tanya Gaw, at the 1:24:00 mark.

Gill says (paragraph 60) that at her November 2021 CPSO hearing, there were several observers in attendance. She found out afterwards that this had been done to generate publicity and business for the CRC. However, she didn’t want her matters to be a public spectacle.

The Claim goes on and on, but the general theme is that Gill got thoroughly incompetent representation, and from a lawyer who had other agendas. She was kept out out of the loop with regards to important decisions. Galati also apparently tried to bill her in ways that fell outside their retainer agreement.

A few other points are worth looking at in detail:

Wholehearted Media Is A Galati Front Operation

Gill takes issue with some content being broadcast by an outlet called Wholehearted Media, which she had believed was independent. She alleges that she only later found out that her counsel co-founded it, and profited from the income it generated. In fact, he sells an e-course on the site.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with lawyers, or any professionals expressing views publicly. They have the same right to free speech. However, if there is any direct, personal involvement with any media promoting its work, that needs to be disclosed. Gill says that it wasn’t made clear.

In a July 13, 2022 stream with Vaccine Choice Canada, Galati admitted that he ran Wholehearted Media with Rajie Kabli. See the clipped version.

The earliest version of the site the Wayback Machine saved is February 2021. So, this isn’t some ancient, long running publication. The earliest story seems to be announcing the July 2020 lawsuit with Vaccine Choice Canada. And in the earlier “about” section, it’s clear who runs it.

Here’s where things get interesting.

However, when Galati was specifically confronted about Wholehearted Media in his defamation suit with Canuck Law, he said under oath that wasn’t involved in the content. If true, it would mean that the site promotes his work — as a lawyer — but that he has no say in the matter.

Don’t worry, there’s more on that later.

Cases Being Used To “Double-Dip” For Donations

Archiving sites like the Wayback Machine are a gold mine of information for researchers and investigators. Just because content is removed or changed from a site, it doesn’t really disappear.

Gill is angry (paragraph 40) that her case was being used to generate side income for her lawyer. Despite her — and Lamba — paying retainers, their case was posted next to links soliciting donations.

And how does Gill know that donations to the Constitutional Rights Centre exceeded $1 million? Most likely, because it was published previously.

Although the CRC site has since been altered, the Wayback Machine shows that the Gill/Lamba case was published. It was next to a series of links soliciting donations. Clicking on those leads to various PayPal accounts.

Gee, who posted these?

This is from the defamation case against CSASPP.

From paragraph 47 of his Affidavit (in the anti-SLAPP Motion) the online donations are listed. The PayPal records themselves are also entered into evidence.

(a) in the first four months, September to December, 2020 it received $179,505.00;
(b) in 2021 it received $786,706.00, progressively tapering down, monthly, following the Defendants’ defamation and tortious conduct against me.
(c) in 2022 it received $43,878.00.
(d) as of to date, 2023, it has received $4,537.00 which is 53% less than 2022.

Note: this Affidavit was compiled in March 2023, hence the skewed 2023 number.

Starting on page 186 of the Transcript Brief, question 116, it gets into the income in recent years. It’s admitted that donations to the site were large, including over $786,000 in the year 2021.

During the CSASPP anti-SLAPP Motion, Galati refused to specify how much of the $1 million in PayPal donations went to him personally. He also refused to give a full accounting of what his total earnings were during that period. Refusing to disclose particulars contributed to that case being thrown out.

Now, in her malpractice suit, Gill is referencing these online donations to demonstrate a conflict of interest with her representation. Her case had been used — presumably without her permission — to solicit funds for the CRC.

Gill alleges that this amounts to a breach of contract, and a breach of fiduciary duty. Her lawyer’s obligations are to her, and not to self promote, as seems to be the case here.

The Federal Workers and Ontario First Responders (a.k.a. Ontario Health Workers) are also listed on the page soliciting donations. This is despite clients having paid retainers of $1,000 and $1,5000 respectively. So, it’s not just Gill’s case where there’s multiple incomes.

Health/Retirement Were Just Excuses To Dump Gill

Gill says in the Statement of Claim that Galati used his recent health troubles to remove himself as her lawyer. He would be unable to continue representing her, and would likely end up retiring overall.

However, Gill points out that despite this, he continued to represent other clients, and even filed new litigation. Perhaps his illness was case specific. It comes across as an excuse to dump her personally. If this turns out to be the case, he would likely be on the hook for the extra costs she incurred in obtaining new counsel.

Summary Of Incompetence/Negligence Allegations

Starting at page 15 in the Statement of Claim, the specific acts are listed. And is it ever a list. These are serious accusations, and they venture into the realm of professional misconduct.

a) He improperly commenced a claim that was doomed to fail.

b) He failed to advise Dr. Gill of the risks in commencing a defamation action in the Province of Ontario, including the very real potential for anti-SLAPP motions to be filed, the test for these motions and the likelihood for an adverse full indemnity costs award.

c) He failed to pursue any potential settlement with the Defamation Defendants, which would have mitigated damages and potentially rendered an action unnecessary.

d) He failed to advise Dr. Gill of critically important information that would have allowed her to make an informed decision regarding various steps in the litigation, including but not limited to (i) initiating an action, (ii) continuing the action, (iii) settling the action against various parties and (iv) properly responding to the anti-SLAPP motions.

e) He failed to properly and competently articulate, advance and argue a meritorious claim against some of the Defamation Defendants.

f) He employed and/or relied upon junior lawyers, staff, and other employees who lacked sufficient competency skills, and training for the tasks they were undertaking.

g) He held himself out as an expert in the field of defamation law, when he knew or ought to have known that he, in fact, lacked any such expertise.

h) He failed to provide Dr. Gill with competent advice and recommendations.

i) He failed to communicate with Dr. Gill in a regular, open, transparent, and clear manner.

j) He failed to provide Dr. Gill with notice and/or sufficient notice of deadlines in her legal proceedings.

k) He missed and failed to advise Dr. Gill that he had missed critical deadlines in the CPSO matters (including appeals to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board).

l) He failed to take instructions or solicit informed consent from Dr. Gill on important steps in the litigation.

m) He placed his own beliefs, interests and/or ideology above the interests of his client, Dr. Gill.

n) He acted for Dr. Gill even though he was in a conflict of interest, seeking to advance his own interests, political or otherwise, and to personally benefit from acting for Dr. Gill and putting his own interests ahead of hers.

o) He committed flagrant breaches of his duties owed to Dr. Gill pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

p) He drafted, prepared, and issued a grossly deficient Statement of Claim.

q) He committed numerous errors and breaches in defending the anti-SLAPP Motions.

r) He prepared and delivered deficient responding motion material to the anti-SLAPP Motions.

s) He failed to provide Dr. Gill with a copy of the Motion Decision in a timely manner.

t) He prepared and delivered deficient cost submissions.

u) He prepared and delivered a deficient Notice of Appeal.

v) He abandoned Dr. Gill’s legal cases at critical times and left her in a vulnerable position.

w) He generally acted as incompetent legal counsel in advancing and protecting Dr. Gill’s interests.

x) Such further particulars as counsel for the plaintiff will advise.

Keep in mind, this is just Gill’s Statement of Claim, so this is her version of events. Still, it comes across as believable. It boggles the mind that any truly informed person would have filed such a lawsuit. Anyone with a working knowledge of anti-SLAPP laws would have immediately seen that this case was very likely to be thrown out.

As with her interview a month ago, Gill doesn’t show any regret or remorse for the people that she waged lawfare against. Indeed, her grievance seems to be that Galati and Coomara were incompetent at doing it, not that it was a bad idea in the first place.

Another thought: given Elon Musk’s promise to cover Gill financially, how does it impact this case? Her GiveSendGo has also raised a substantial amount of money.

Frankly, this case seems unlikely to go to Trial. As a practicing lawyer, malpractice insurance is mandatory, and the case will probably be settled. Still, it’s nice to finally have this out.

As for the Maciver Defendants: Sharkawy, Polevoy, Caulfield, Cohen, Boozary, etc…. they’re presumably still out large sums of money. Gill will never fully pay, especially in light of the “settlements” she forced. However, there is another way they can recoup their losses. And the answer is pretty obvious.

(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim

(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim

(1) https://twitter.com/XNews/status/1771902773358916041
(2) https://www.givesendgo.com/kulvinder
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_La5W3PP4
(4) CanLII Version Of Ontario Anti-SLAPP Legislation

(1) https://www.givesendgo.com/kulvinder
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_La5W3PP4
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

(1) Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279 – Case dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws
(2) Gill v. Maciver, 2022 ONSC 6169 – Over $1 million in costs awarded
(3) Gill v. Maciver, 2023 ONCA 776 – Security for costs from The Pointer Group
(4) Gill v. Maciver, 2024 ONCA 126 – Appeal dismissed

(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

(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

(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

“Posties” Injection Pass Case Thrown Out For Lack Of Jurisdiction, Shoddy Pleading

The Federal Court has just thrown out a lawsuit from various Canada Post workers, which challenged the 2021 “injection mandates”. This was a change to the job requirements that applied to everyone. The union eventually forced the matter to arbitration, which the workers lost. See the archives here and here for more information.

The Claim originally had 281 Plaintiffs, but 132 of them discontinued prior to the Motion to Strike being heard. That was nearly half of them.

Like most (or all) Government workers and/or unionized workplaces, there are collective bargaining agreements. These agreements allow for grievances to be filed, and that can lead to arbitration. They typically don’t allow for litigation. Canada Post is one such employer.

Now, if the arbitration process was unfair or corrupted, in theory the workers could have gone to the Court and asked for a review. This would be analogous to filing an Appeal. If serious errors were found, the case could be sent back for a new hearing.

Instead, a few hundred of them ended up suing Canada Post, and the Federal Government. They found a lawyer who apparently convinced them that the the arbitration requirement (and result) didn’t matter. And quite predictably, the case was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction.

The lawsuit had many problems, some of which were fatal.

  • Going to Court when collective agreements require other alternatives
  • Suing after arbitration is already completed
  • Not properly pleading facts and particulars
  • Having a Claim that’s difficult to follow
  • Not understanding jurisdiction of Crown Corporations

Surprisingly, this didn’t come from “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”. It was from a firm called Grey Wowk Spencer, and its lawyer, Leighton Grey.

In fairness, the Claim was written a lot more clearly than what usually gets critiqued here. The pleading was (mostly) coherent, and it wasn’t that difficult to follow along.

However, there were still serious errors throughout the litigation process. These were the kinds of mistakes that senior lawyers should never be making. In matters such as these, no one’s work is above criticism.

Timeline of major events in case

It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

January 24th, 2022: Canada Post’s lawyer serves some 700 pages of material related to the arbitration hearings.

February 12th, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post. Colin Furness, who works for the University of Toronto, testifies.

March 21st, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

March 22nd, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

April 5th, 2022: Final arguments were to be held for arbitration process.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

Note: the following information is posted on the Federal Court of Canada website. These steps are from their notes on how things have been progressing. This lawsuit came AFTER arbitration had taken place. Instead of challenging the validity or fairness of the arbitration, it acts as though it never happened.

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

July 18th, 2022: A Notice of Intention to Respond is filed.

November 3rd, 2022: Defendants send correspondence asking for case management, and to suspend normal timelines to file a Defence.

November 23rd, 2022: Associate Judge Catherine A. Coughlan is assigned to manage the case.

January 16th, 2023: Plaintiffs provide letter for dates for case management conference.

April 6th, 2023: Case conference is delayed until May 31st.

May 31st, 2023: Plaintiffs directed to file Amended Statement of Claim by June 15th.

June 19th, 2023: Plaintiffs file Amended Statement of Claim.

July 7th, 2023: Dates are set down for Defendants’ Motions to Strike (throw out the case), and the following deadlines were established. Worth mentioning, these kinds of Motions are done in many steps.

  • August 18th: Defendants serve (but not file) Notice of Motion, and any Affidavit evidence
  • September 15th: Plaintiffs serve (but not file) any Affidavit evidence
  • October 27th: Any cross-examinations on Affidavits is to have finished. This is similar to a Court setting, where a person gets asked about evidence that they submit. Failure to attend means evidence won’t be considered.
  • November 17th: Moving Party Defendants are to submit their Motion Records, which is a collection of documents. In Federal Court, it also includes the written arguments, or submissions
  • December 8th: Responding Plaintiffs to serve and file their Motion Record(s)
  • January 23rd-25th, 2024: Court to hear the Motions

July 10th, 2023: Lawyer for Canada Post contacts the Court and advises a lack of availability for the week in January when the hearing is to take place.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 15th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

It’s disappointing that neither the lawsuit nor the grievance really challenged the pseudo-science that was going on here. Instead, it’s limited to worker rights, and the declarations of “the experts”.

Now we get to some of the problems that the case had. To be blunt, it was a gong-show, and was never going to reach Trial. And to be frank, NONE of these issues are new or novel. They’ve all been dealt with many times before.

Problems include:

Court has no jurisdiction due to collective bargaining agreement

CUPW is covered by their collective bargaining agreement. See archive. Article 9 is very long, and goes into depth about the grievance process. If disputes cannot be resolved, then the normal course is to go to arbitration. And in fact, that’s exactly what happened here.

Article 9.99 covers “declaratory relief”, which is something that so-called constitutional lawyers almost always try to claim. In fact, it’s claimed in this case. The Arbitrator is given wide range to adjudicate over nearly type of employment dispute.

But instead of challenging the fairness or adequacy of the hearings (i.e. review or appeal), the lawsuit acts as if they never happened. Consequently, this case was doomed to fail.

Federal Court has no jurisdiction over Crown Corporations

[47] As noted at the outset of these Reasons, Canada Post advances two distinct arguments asserting this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Claim.

[48] First, it argues that as a Crown Corporation, the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction over Canada Post pursuant to sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(5) of the FCA. Citing the oft-quoted decision in ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 SCR 752 (SCC), Canada Post argues that none of the three-part test for jurisdiction is met: There is no statutory grant of jurisdiction by the Federal Parliament; there is no existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes a statutory grant of jurisdiction; and this is not a case based on the “law of Canada” under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[49] Further, Canada Post relies on the recent decision of Associate Judge Horne in Van Sluytman v Canada, 2022 FC 545 at para 56, for the proposition that section 17 of the FCA only applies to the Crown, eo nomine (by its name), and not to statutory corporations acting as agent for the Crown: Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada, 2014 FC 380 at paras 87-88; affirmed 2015 FCA 20.

[50] In its responding memorandum of fact and law, the Plaintiffs do not address this argument
. Rather, they assert that the Federal Government acting under statutory and constitutional
law effectively controls Canada Post. To bolster their position, they point to section 91(5) of the Constitution Act where the Government of Canada has exclusive authority over postal services. Any arguments that suggest that Canada Post is not an agent of the Federal Government, the Plaintiffs say, amounts to “legal sophistry”.

The requirement to go through the grievance process was addressed in the previous section, but it’s not the only problem that the former workers have to deal with.

Apparently, it’s been settled law for many years that the Federal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to preside over cases involving Crown Corporations. This applies even though Ottawa does hand down some rules relating to how they can operate.

Of course, even if Canada Post were part of the Federal Government, there still wouldn’t be jurisdiction to sue. Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, allow employees to grieve but not to litigate. In other words, the Court would still lack jurisdiction.

By the way, Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v Canada (a.k.a. COMER, or the Bank of Canada case), was struck for lack of jurisdiction. It was also struck multiple times for failing to state a cause of action, by “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”.

The Attorney General of Canada was removed since the directive to mandate injections only went to the Federal Government, not to Crown Corporations. The case against Canada was also struck. However, this comes across as unfair, since Canada Post still implemented the policy anyways.

Statement of Claim so poorly written many would be blushing

[Paragraph 1] f. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation mandatory vaccination practice for covid-19 violates sections 124 & 125 of the Canada Labour Code, specifically sections (q),(s),(w) and (y), wherein the corporation demonstrated criminal negligence causing harm by not providing their employees the necessary “Informed Consent” regarding any of the potential adverse effects or dangers associated with the vaccines they provided their employees as options.

g. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated sections 124, 125 of the Canada Labour Code, specifically sections z.03, z.04, z.05, z.06, z.11, z.13 & z.19, by failing to capture within each of the national safety minutes, any discussion to either educate, review, or document any of the potential hazards or dangers associated with their vaccination options on any of the national collective bargaining agencies that operate under Canada Post.

h. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated sections 124, 125 of the Canada Labour Code, specifically sections (t), (v), (w) & (z), by implementing several different covid 19 vaccines as personal protective equipment in the work place. Not only failing to provide their employees with the knowledge and understanding necessary to properly use the corporation’s newly implemented personal protective equipment, the corporation also failed to ensure that said personal protective equipment be deemed safe under “…ALL conditions of their intended use.”

i. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219 of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated section 127.1(1) & 128 of the Canada Labour Code, by refusing to properly investigate thousands of employee health and safety concerns regarding the vaccine products mandated for use by the Canada Post Corporation, instead, deeming the employees as “non-compliant” in the process by placing them on leave without pay status.

j. A Declaration pursuant to section 217, 217.1 & 219 of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation violated all applicable clauses – (a) through (g) – within section 125.1 of the Canada Labour Code, by failing to review, document and disclose to their employees, the proprietary ingredients recognized as known dangerous goods contained within the vaccines that they were assigning their employees as personal protective equipment, and, by failing to inform their employees of the potential direct exposure to ethylene oxide as it pertains to the nasopharyngeal swabs used at Canada Post rapid testing sites, their employee home testing kits and when requiring their employees to confirm their positive or negative covid status by means of their mandatory PCR test process.

m. A Declaration pursuant to section 265.(1) of the Criminal Code, 1985, that the Canada Post Corporation mandatory vaccination practice for covid-19 violated section 122.(1) & 122.1 of the Canada Labour Code, by not only subjecting their employees to confusing and ineffective work place processes and expectations in relation to their covid 19 protocols, but also by subjecting their unvaccinated employees to regular psychological violence in the form of coercion or ridicule from their peers and management representatives at Canada Post.

n. Damages for violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights pursuant to sections 2, 122, 124, 125, 125.1, 127.1(1), and 128 of the Canada Labour Code as well as section 217(1) of the Criminal Code, in the amount of $500,000.00 per Plaintiff;

This is the kind of nonsense that “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” is famous for. Here, Grey asks for all kinds of declaratory relief that the Federal Court can’t possibly grant. He’s asking a civil Court to provide criminal remedies. For obvious reasons, there’s no jurisdiction. And it’s not just a brief mention, but is in there many times.

Thankfully, the Amended Statement of Claim removes all of these. However, the fact that they were in at all shows that this lawyer has a very poor grasp of procedure. Did he not read the Action4Canada or Adelberg cases? In both cases, the Judges said that this was improper.

And these weren’t the only problems.

k. A Declaration pursuant to section 3(1) of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, 2017, that the Canada Post Corporation Defendants violated clause (b) specifically, by requiring them the Plaintiffs to undergo PCR testing that sampled RNA genetic material (covid-19 virus) to continue their employment at Canada Post, as per the corporation’s Defendants’ mandatory vaccination practice.

Many people cite this Act, but few know what it’s really about.

The intended use of the legislation was to ensure that people with various birth defects wouldn’t be subjected to discrimination. It could also be extended to cover race and ethnicity, which are genetic. It wasn’t designed to mean various “medical” procedures.

This was also removed from the original Claim.

Facts (Rule 174) and particulars (Rule 181) need to be pleaded

The Federal Courts Rules lay out how procedure is supposed to take place in the Court. It’s complimented by the Federal Courts Act. Together, these outline how things are done.

One of the problems with having so many Plaintiffs is that it becomes difficult to plead facts for each one. And in this case, there are no specific facts for anyone. No one is named.

At paragraphs 41 and 42 of the decision, it’s noted that it isn’t clear at all which of the Plaintiffs are even invoking religious belief as a reason to refuse the injections.

At paragraph 44 of the Amended Claim, it’s stated that the “Practice provides for accommodation, “due to a medical, religious or other prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Act.” However, it’s never listed which Plaintiffs are invoking which exemption. In theory, the Claim could be rewritten like this:

Group “A” Plaintiffs refused based on religious beliefs (and list them)
Group “B” Plaintiffs refused based on medical beliefs (and list them)
Group “C” Plaintiffs refused based on conscientious objection (and spell it out)
Group “D” Plaintiffs refused based on other reasons (and list them)

Yes, the Statement of Claim would be much longer, but it least it would be clear who was refusing for what reason. In its current form, the Judge is left to guess. And it continues under “Charter violations”.

Paragraph 88: freedom of conscience under Charter s.2(a) breached
Paragraph 89: freedom of religion under Charter s.2(a) breached
Paragraph 90: right to life under Charter s.7 breached
Paragraph 91: right to liberty under Charter s.7 breached
Paragraph 92: right to security of the person under Charter s.7 breached
Paragraph 93: right to privacy of the person under Charter s.7, 8 breached
Paragraph 94: right to equality under Charter s.15 breached

While all of the “standard” Charter violations are listed, it’s unclear who is invoking which. While there will certainly be a lot of overlap, this needs to be spelled out.

There are several other torts later on, none of them properly pleaded.

Paragraph 100: tortious interference with economic relations
Paragraph 101: intention infliction of mental suffering
Paragraph 102-105: assault and battery
Paragraph 106-107: human rights violations
Paragraph 108-118: Charter violation damages, aggravated, punitive, bad faith

Yes, it’s true that the facts are to be assumed true — or at least capable of being proven — in the initial stages. But there aren’t any facts pled. There are just brief accusations, without specifics, and it’s unclear who is even alleging what. Here, it just seems like the lawyer threw in every tort he could think of, in the hopes that something would stick.

Granted, this isn’t nearly as bad as the Action4Canada or Vaccine Choice Canada pleadings. That would require real effort. But like those cases, there isn’t enough information to respond to.

And to be fair, at least this case doesn’t sue everyone in sight, exponentially driving up costs. Many others do, to their clients’ detriment.

When pleading facts, lawyers are supposed to spell out the who, what, where, when, how, etc… This is to provide enough concrete information for the Defendants to respond to. But like so many cases, there are just accusations without the detail, and they’re typically struck.

Now, if it were just the poor pleading, the Judge could have allowed the Claim to be rewritten. This often happens. In paragraph 15, it’s stated “If a pleading shows a scintilla of a cause of action, it will not be struck out if it can be cured by amendment”. It then goes on to cite Al Omani v Canada, 2017 (one of Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s cases, which was struck).

However, since there was never any jurisdiction in Federal Court, no amount of editing would fix this problem. There are some things which editing and proofreading will never solve.

Will the lawyers be issuing refund cheques? Seems doubtful.

Note: Of course, this isn’t to justify in any way what has been happening over the last few years. All of it was uncalled for and harmful. This critique is just to outline what went wrong for the “Posties”. Do not interpret it as any sort of justification for Government tyranny.

(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling, Full Text
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

(1) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim June 7 2023
(2) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par52
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par51
() https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca20/2015fca20.html
() https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc786/2017fc786.html#par32
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/FullText.html
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/