Category: Procedural

Posted on

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

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

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

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

And what was the Order?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccine Choice was similarly criticized for their filing.

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

What has happened since then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

This raises some eyebrows in light of recent events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, the group asking for money never disclosed this.

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of major events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lamba’s relief sought incorrectly lists “all” Defendants

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

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

Claim wrongly lists all Defendants liable to BOTH Plaintiffs

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

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

What else is there?

Lamba alleges she wasn’t advised to file Affidavit

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

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

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

Lamba alleges she was neglected in favour of Gill

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

Lamba alleges she preferred to settle or discontinue

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

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

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

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

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

Lamba alleges conflict of interest with her legal representation

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

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

Lamba alleges she was never informed of the risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will happen with this lawsuit?

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

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

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

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim
(2) Lamba Notice Of Intent To Defend

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

CANS describes itself as such:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing public and private interest standing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of some of the major events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Government has since refused to admit anything)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COURT DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING):
(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023

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

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

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada’s Motion To Strike Pushed Back Until May 2025

Tuesday, January 30, 2024, Vaccine Choice Canada was in Court for what should have been a hearing on a Motion to Strike (or throw out) their July 6, 2020 lawsuit. The hearing did briefly take place, but had to be adjourned right away.

Due to a conflict of interest, Justice Dow had to recuse himself. It turns out that he had practiced law with one of the Defendants, Christine Elliott, and he knew her personally. He said that he considered her a friend. For obvious reasons, it wouldn’t be viewed as impartial if he were to hear the Motion.

As an aside, Justice Dow struck the 2022 suit against the LSO, for failing to state a cause of action, and failure to properly plead facts or particulars. He did allow a rewrite though.

New dates have been scheduled for May 1st and 2nd of 2025 for VCC.

It doesn’t help that so many Defendants were sued, with different law firms getting involved. Nor does it help that the Respondent (Plaintiff) attorney insisted on having 2 days to hear this Motion. The sheer length and incoherence of the Statement of Claim adds to the troubles. All of this makes scheduling difficult to achieve.

The Defendants filed 5 separate Motions to Strike, on the grounds that the 191 page claim was prolix, argumentative, not properly pleaded, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, sought countless remedies (even against non-parties), and was in general, impossible to respond to. They also borrowed the term “bad beyond argument”, which became infamous after the Action4Canada and Adelberg (Federal) rulings. As despicable as various Governments have been, their criticisms of the filings were spot on.

Why are we just hearing about it now? That’s because the case hasn’t gone anywhere in the 3 1/2 years since it was filed. No Application for Injunction for mask mandates was ever filed, despite promising to do so in September 2020. No Application was filed regarding “vaccine” mandates, despite their sweeping range in 2021. Donors to this case got nothing of value for their money.

Critiques from 2021 and 2022 seem to have aged very well.

Some immediate problems include:

Case could be struck or struck for lack of proper pleading

Rule 25.06 of Civil Procedure for Ontario lays out how Claims are supposed to be drafted. Pleadings have to lay out the facts alleged, they must have specifics (particulars), allegations in law have to be supported by facts, etc… Moreover, facts have to be made against each Defendant or Respondent.

Leave to amend could be denied for refusal to draft properly

Although the Responding Plaintiffs are asking for Leave (permission) to file an amended version, the written arguments deny that there are any problems with the current version. As outlined repeatedly, the Claim fails to comply with the fundamentals of Rule 25.06.

It’s not the role of the Court to repeatedly provide basic assistance to seasoned counsel. Justice Ross did so in Vancouver, but that shouldn’t be needed. Yes, self-represented lay litigants often get some help, but there is the assumption that licensed lawyers should be competent. Perhaps that is misplaced.

Case could be struck or dismissed for failure to prosecute

This case was filed on July 6, 2020, and sat idly until the first appearance on January 17, 2023. This is some 2 1/2 years later. And even that was just to set dates for a Motion to Strike. There’s no Trial in the foreseeable future. No depositions have taken place. Nothing has happened to advance the case in any way.

Just to clarify, Vaccine actually has 2 separate lawsuits filed with the Ontario Superior Court. There is a 2019 case that few people will remember since it’s dropped off the radar. Both could be thrown out for this reason.

Case could be struck or dismissed for mootness

The Defendants in this case are asking that it be thrown out for “mootness”, claiming that the orders in question have lapsed long ago, and are no longer relevant. Nearly every measure lapsed in 2022, and we are now into 2024. Of course, the lack of interest in advancing the suit connects directly.

Counsel for VCC faces disbarment over “intimidation lawsuit”

Back in December, Justice Chalmers threw out a defamation lawsuit under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. He ruled that the suit was brought to derail a complaint filed with the Law Society of Ontario, LSO, and to intimidate members of the public from bringing similar complaints. This is completely illegal.

To be clear, there are 3 separate but related suits: the Toews/CSASPP one, as well as the 2022 and 2023 ones against the LSO.

For reference: David Grant Isaac was disbarred by the LSO in November 2022. He sued more than 1 individual who had commenced LSO complaints against him. It was commented that he refuses to respect the “governing rules” of the profession. The VCC/A4C lawyer not only did this, but sued the LSO itself, twice. Ted and Tanya should be advising donors that his career is (at best) uncertain. Then again, they participated in all of this.

And that leads to the next point…

Statute of Limitations has run out on making a new filing.

Even if Vaccine Choice were to hire a competent lawyer, who wrote a proper Statement of Claim — tomorrow — Section 4 of the Limitations Act only gives a 2 year window to file. Any new Claim would presumably be time barred. This applies regardless of the strengths and merits of a new suit. In practical terms, this “venture” has run out the clock on litigants’ ability to sue.

To clarify, Vaccine Choice Canada has 2 cases pending in the ONSC:

1. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2019 Lawsuit Dormant

Back in October 2019, VCC filed a lawsuit against the Ontario Government challenging requirements to give injections to students. A response was filed, and the case garnered some attention.

But what these people don’t tell you is that the case has been idle for 4 years now. It hasn’t had a single Court appearance since then. There have been no hearings, evidence filed, or obvious attempts to move the case forward.

Ontario Court cases are typically dismissed for delay if they haven’t reached Trial within 5 years, if there isn’t a reasonable explanation. That will happen in October 2024, less than 9 months from now.

2. Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2020 Lawsuit To Get Thrown Out

This is the one which is being addressed in the article.

Before the January 30 session concluded, Justice Dow floated the idea that the Parties see if they can come to some agreement or settlement before 2025. Everyone agreed that they would try to.

However, it’s unclear what such a settlement would look like. The 191 page Claim obviously fails to meet even a basic level of professionalism. It’s incoherent and unintelligible. While getting struck is the most likely outcome, permission might be granted for a rewrite. But at this point, it seems unlikely.

The Vaccine Choice, Action4Canada, Adelberg, Take Action Canada, Police On Guard and CHDC cases are largely duplicates of each other. Action4Canada and Adelberg have already been struck as “bad beyond argument”. The POG and CHDC cases aren’t being pursued any longer.

It’s possible that a “settlement” could be reached where the VCC case is discontinued on a no-cost basis. That sort of thing does happen. Or, counsel could demand more money, and use a denial as an excuse to discontinue. It happened elsewhere. Also, the CBC was removed as a Defendant in this case when they threatened to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion.

In the meantime, expect more requests for donations.

But don’t expect any transparency. In his Affidavit for the CSASPP anti-SLAPP Motion, Kuntz makes it clear that he’s annoyed VCC was being questioned by donors and members about the anti-lockdown suit. Apparently, the plan is to do nothing for years, so that the “litigation strategy” isn’t publicly revealed. See paragraphs 20, 25, and Exhibit “C” on page 18. A cynic might view it as a scam.

Even if the VCC suit survives (mostly) intact in the Spring of 2025, what then? It will have been almost 5 years since it was filed, and still in the preliminary stages. Dismissal for unnecessary delay under Rule 24 is always a possibility.

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

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

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

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

Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000

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

Posted on

$500,000 Claim Against LSO Struck For Incoherent, Unintelligible Pleading

The Ontario Superior Court struck (threw out) a case against the Law Society of Ontario because it was so poorly written. Both the original and amended versions were struck.

In fairness, Justice Dow has permitted another rewrite, just as Justice Ross had done with the Action4Canada disaster.

What makes this Claim even more absurd was the fact that it was predicated on the actions of non-parties. Specifically, various people had made complaints to the LSO, which regulates the legal profession. To clarify, the LSO itself was sued, because other people made complaints. And it wasn’t just sued once.

The Claim also made contradictory allegations. It stated that the Law Society was “negligent” and “failed to carefully read” the complaints in question. It also accused the LSO of acting in malice, in bad faith, and with intent to harm. Either the LSO could have been negligent, or it could have acted with malice. It cannot simultaneously be both.

Moreover, Section 9 of the Law Society Act immunizes the LSO against legal action for actions taken in “good faith”. Claims for negligence are also barred.

Liability of benchers, officers and employees
9. No action or other proceedings for damages shall be instituted against the Treasurer or any bencher, official of the Society or person appointed in Convocation for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or in the intended exercise of any power under this Act, a regulation, a by-law or a rule of practice and procedure, or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of any such duty or power.

It’s baffling why anyone would plead negligence or sloppiness in such a Claim, knowing that it would lead to it being either struck or dismissed.

The July 2022 version was amended in October, but it didn’t fix the problems.

As for the Claim’s substance, 8 out of the 9 LSO complaints in question were dismissed. The one remaining came from Donna Toews, a former donor to both Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada. She contacted the LSO to inquire about what had happened with the money she gave.

If the following content sounds familiar, it should. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” filed three (3) related lawsuits designed to bury the Toews complaint once and for all. Here’s the background reading on the CSASPP case and verdict.

There Are 3 Different Lawsuits Concerning The Toews Complaint

(1) June 28, 2022: Galati v. Toews, Warner, Gandhi and CSASPP
Court File No: CV-22-00683322-0000

(2) July 12, 2022: Galati v. Law Society of Ontario (LSO) et al.
Court File No: CV-22-00683933-0000

(3) July 31, 2023: Galati v. Law Society of Ontario (LSO) et al.
Court File No: CV-23-00703697-0000

3 separate lawsuits were filed to ensure that the Law Society of Ontario would never investigate the Toews complaint. Why? An obvious explanation is the possible consequences. The LSO is the regulator, and it has the power to force open a lawyer’s books. In theory, all of these cases — not just VCC and A4C — could have been audited, leading to all kinds of problems down the road.

(1) has been dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws. An Appeal is said to already be in the works, though it will go nowhere.

(2) has now been struck in its entirety. As of the time of writing, no amended Statement of Claim has been filed, and one may not be coming.

(3) hasn’t been in Court yet, and the lawyers were likely waiting to see the outcome of (2) before deciding how to proceed.

Of course, one could argue that suing this site in September 2021 was also designed to shut down discussion over the status and financing of the anti-lockdown cases. The glaring flaws in those actions were described almost perfectly, including the various portions of Civil Procedure.

Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Case

Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved

Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

The Rules of Civil Procedure are pretty clear, and fairly basic. In order to file a lawsuit, the facts (details) must be outlined in an organized manner. Moreover “giving particulars” refers to the requirement to spell out in detail the allegations.

It’s not enough to make bare accusations. The who, what, where, when, why and how must also be laid out. Defendants can’t be left guessing about what they have to respond to. In cases where Charter or Constitutional breaches are alleged, this applies even more so.

Instead, the Statement of Claim simply states the tests for (most) of the torts, but without pleading facts or giving adequate information about how this would apply. The LSO lawyers at the hearing referred to this as a “factual vacuum”, meaning there’s no information to rebut. They’re not wrong.

It boggles the mind that a “top constitutional lawyer” with decades of experience can’t draft a Claim or Charter challenge in a coherent manner. Clients really aren’t getting their money’s worth. However, saying this publicly can lead to a defamation lawsuit.

None Of The (Alleged) Causes Of Action Properly Pleaded

[21] First, conspiracy, arose from the defendants having “jumped on a co-conspirator bandwagon” (at paragraph 61 of the Statement of Claim). With the parties in the related action, this occurred by accepting the complaints without conducting appropriate research or investigation in a fair and reasonable manner. As submitted by the defendant, such conduct, assuming it to be true, would amount to negligence. This does not meet the test for bad faith or exclude the immunity provided by Section 9 of the Law Society Act, supra. Something beyond that is required.

[22] Regarding the claim of abuse of process, the claim against these defendants is it “magnified and augmented” conduct by the complainants “by putting the plaintiff through the process of a response” (at paragraph 65 of the Statement of Claim). I cannot find that the actual complaint fulfilled the third element of the four elements of this cause of action (see Harris v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2010 ONCA 872 (at paragraph 27). That is, the Law Society “took or made a definite act or threat in furtherance of the improper purpose”. The Law Society received a complaint, advised Mr. Galati and, in six of the nine incidents, confirmed the Law Society would not be taking any action. In two of the remaining three, it advised Mr. Galati, upon receiving his response, no further action was being taken. The final complaint has been set aside pending the outcome of litigation.

[23] Regarding the interference with economic interests, I accept the Supreme Court of Canada statement of the elements requiring an intentional infliction of economic injury by the use of unlawful means against a third party (see A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12 at paragraph 23). That is, Mr. Galati suffered economic injury by the Law Society’s use of unlawful means by the defendants in the related action. Further, “unlawful means” are to be interpreted narrowly and must constitute an actionable civil wrong. That is, an actionable wrong was committed by the Law Society against the parties to the related action. Such conduct is not described in paragraphs 67 or 68 of the Statement of Claim.

[24] Regarding a breach of fiduciary duty, what is required is “an undertaking by the fiduciary, express or implied, to act in accordance with the duty of loyalty reposed on him or her” (see Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24 at paragraph 30). The cause of action arises when the alleged fiduciary, here the Law Society, forsakes the interest of the beneficiary, here Mr. Galati, in favour of others. Here, the Law Society is the regulator of Mr. Galati’s profession and owes a duty to protect the public interest. Paragraph 69 of the Statement of Claim fails to plead how that became subordinate to any fiduciary duty owed by the defendants to Mr. Galati.

[25] Regarding negligence or negligent investigation, judicial interpretation of Section 9 of the Law Society Act, supra would appear to be a full defence (see Robson v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONSC 5579 at paragraphs 40-41, affirmed 2017 ONCA 468). The pleading requires allegations that somehow remove that barrier, as what is contained in paragraph 70 of the Statement of Claim, is insufficient.

[26] Regarding intimidation, the three elements of this tort require material facts to support how informing Mr. Galati that he did not need to respond to the complaints fulfilled these elements. Paragraphs 71 to 73 of the Statement of Claim required greater particulars that set out the specific basis for not advising him of its receipt of complaints that it has concluded were so without merit that his response was not required.

[27] Regarding the Charter challenges under Sections 7 and 15, material facts are required about how or what specifically was the conduct by the defendants that resulted in deprivation of Mr. Galati’s Section 7 rights and further, that same occurred in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

[28] Similarly, it is insufficient to rely on Section 15 of the Charter by identifying one’s ethnic origin or religion. Mr. Galati must connect how these characteristics resulted in discrimination and how he did not receive the “equal benefit of the law without discrimination”.

[29] Finally, Mr. Galati’s pleading (at paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Statement of Claim) challenging Section 49.3 of the Law Society Act, supra, must address how not requiring or applying the Section 49.3 power somehow gives standing to challenge the constitutionality of that section. Further, to proceed as required, the required notice of constitutional question to the Attorney General of Ontario must be delivered.

It’s also pretty funny that at paragraph 30, Justice Dow urges that the Plaintiff “reflect on the wisdom” of filing a further amended version. He knows the suit is baseless, and tactfully suggests reconsideration.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

January 2021: CSASPP emails Dan Dicks in order to promote their proposed suit, and to pitch it as a better investment than Action4Canada.

June 2021: CSASPP puts the section up on their FAQ, supposedly to quell constant inquiries about who they are connected to, and what there role is in other cases.

January 15, 2022: the original Toews LSO complaint is put forward to the LSO, although it appears that it wasn’t immediately accepted.

May 19, 2022: The LSO finally forwards the Toews complaint and demands a response.

June 28, 2022: The $1.1 million dollar suit is filed against CSASPP and its people

June 29, 2022: A letter is sent to the LSO, informing them that Donna Toews has been sued, and that the Court will effectively be deciding the issue.

July 12, 2022: The Law Society itself is sued, and the Toews complaint makes up large part of it. One can assume this was done to further thwart any investigation into the complaint. The suit demands $500,000 in damages, and is very poorly written.

July 13, 2022: There’s an appearance on a livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada, bragging about the CSASPP and LSO suits which have just been filed. It’s plausible to view this as a publicity stunt. Supposedly, neither CSASPP nor the LSO had actually been served by this point.

October 9, 2022: An amended Statement of Claim is filed against the LSO, despite the fact the the Motion to Strike had already been initiated. This isn’t permitted.

October 12, 2022: CSASPP and the LSO appear in Court on the same day to set down dates to throw out their respective cases. CSASPP’s Motion is based on s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP). The LSO Motion is based on Rule 21 of Civil Procedure (failing to state a cause of action). Both are to be heard the next Autumn.

The next several months is a document exchange of the papers needed to carry out the both the anti-SLAPP Motion and LSO Motions. Both are attached below.

July 28, 2023: CSASPP files their Factum, or written arguments. This is a Friday, and it’s interesting to see what happens the following Monday.

July 31, 2023: The Law Society is sued for a second time, and it’s largely a rehash of the first one. Another $500,000 is sought. It’s possible this was done to “keep open” litigation against the LSO, assuming the first case is thrown out.

September 12, 2023: CSASPP’s Motion to dismiss is heard, with the ruling under reserve.

September 21, 2023: LSO’s Motion to strike is heard, the ruling under reserve.

October 11, 2023: The Claim against the LSO is struck in its entirety for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, and for inadequate pleading. However, Justice Dow does allow the pleading to be rewritten, for what is presumably the last time.

December 11, 2023: The suit against CSASPP is dismissed as a SLAPP. The Court finds that the suit was brought for the improper purposes of stifling debate, and to intimidate people from filing LSO complaints. In essence, it’s a finding of professional misconduct.

So, who’s funding the cases against CSASPP and the LSO?

A question that has been asked is whether there is some outside source financing the CSASPP and LSO lawsuits. Consider the following: at least 3 clients have submitted evidence in support of the defamation suit. Presumably, they don’t want the money to stop coming in.

Tanya Gaw of Action4Canada
Ted Kuntz of Vaccine Choice Canada
Sandra Sable of Take Action Canada

The Action4Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada and Take Action Canada cases have been critiqued at length already. They are all horribly pleaded, and none of them will ever get to Trial.

But these “activists” don’t demand accountability from their counsel. Instead, they are quite willing to aid and abet with frivolous defamation lawsuits. These are SLAPPs, designed to silence dissent and discussion on the public interest litigation they fundraise for.

In the case of Donna Toews and her LSO complaint, the objective is clearly to ensure that no investigation ever takes place. Lawyers have been disbarred for such acts before.

Are Gaw, Kuntz and Sable merely offering support (Affidavits) to go after CSASPP? Or have they provided financial backing as well? Are they going to cover the costs when these cases are thrown out?

It’s worth noting that all 3 published news about the suit against this site in 2021. Gaw and Kuntz swore Affidavits against an anti-SLAPP Motion as well. This appears to go past simply being clients.

The anti-lockdown lawsuits are a multi-million dollar industry. This is why so many are eager to silence dissent. No one wants to see the money dry up.

Will there be another attempt at suing the LSO? We’ll have to see.

CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) CanLII Posting Of Decision

1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum

2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress