Category: Procedural

Posted on

Katherine Ethyl Bagnald: Transferred To Women’s Prison Despite Sexual Assault Allegation

Something that largely went ignored by the media is the case of an inmate named Katherine Ethyl Bagnald. He is a 22 year old man who was sentenced to prison time for multiple robberies, and wants to be sent to a women’s jail.

Despite his age, Bagnald already has a serious criminal record. When Corrections Canada refused to put Bagnald in with women — at least for the time being — he sued the Federal Government.

His intake assessment is disturbing, to put it mildly.

  • His first arrest (at 16) was for pulling a knife on his mother’s boyfriend.
  • He was arrested for threatening to kill his (then) girlfriend’s father.
  • He was previously in a fight at the CNSCF.
  • He was on probation when he committed these 3 robberies.
  • He claimed to have a knife when robbing these 3 gas stations.
  • He was heavily into drugs and alcohol as a minor (so he claims).
  • He was involved in prostitution as a minor (so he claims).

It’s baffling to think that putting this mentally ill biological male with female inmates wouldn’t lead to serious problems. What’s more unsettling is that the responding lawyers don’t cite this danger as the primary reason to refuse him.

Thanks to Ottawa’s new rules on “diverse gender offenders“, men can simply declare that they are women, and are allowed to be transferred. There’s little (if any) consideration for the safety and comfort of the women involved.

Bagnald Accused Of Sexually Assaulting FEMALE Inmate

Now we get to the uglier part. It’s more than just the issue of putting a male inmate in a female prison. Bagnald is also under investigation for sexual assault of another inmate. Although some details are included in these papers, they won’t be published here.

One of the reasons Bagnald cites in being allowed to go to a women’s prison is that the incident had only led to an internal investigations by the jail, and not formal criminal charges. Of course, that may very well change. He also claims the encounter was consensual.

While Bagnald is suing to force the jail to put him at a women’s federal penitentiary, it turns out that was unnecessary. He was later voluntarily transferred, despite the ongoing complaint. Corrections couldn’t be bothered to at least fight the case.

Correction: He was in fact later charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the criminal code. It occurred on September 12th, 2024. However, he wasn’t charged until May 2025.

***Author’s note: because of the publication ban of portions of the evidence, and on identifying the victim, the actual documents will not be published.***

Bagnald Objected To Portions Of Confidentiality Request

As is common in cases of sexual assault, and internal investigative matters, confidentiality requests are made. Bagnald opposed it, however, including sealing information that would have protected the identity of his victim.

Ultimately, the Court did agree to restrict some information.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 12th, 2025: Bagnald, while in custody on robbery charges, sexually assaults a female inmate at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. However, he would not be charged with this for several months.

January 3rd, 2025: Bagnald receives a Federal (over 2 year) sentence for 3 counts of robbery and breach of probation. He is incarcerated with men, given that he is one.

January 10th, 2025: Bagnald is notified that he would be sent to the Regional Reception Centre (RRC) at Springhill Institution, which is a men’s prison. This is the order that he tries to have set aside, and there is just 30 days to commence proceedings. That would be February 9th.

January 14th, 2025: Bagnald is transferred to the RRC.

February 25th, 2025: Bagnald files a Motion for an extension of Time in Federal Court. As the deadline to challenge the order has lapsed, he needs to convince the Court that he should be allowed to argue it anyway.

February 28th, 2025: Bagnald brings another Motion, this one for an order to compel Corrections Canada to transfer him to a women’s prison.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General responds, objecting to the Motion to compel Bagnald’s transfer to a women’s prison. However, it’s based primarily on procedural grounds, i.e. Statute of Limitations, and not the fact that he would be a danger to the women locked up.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General also responds to the Motion for the extension of time.

March 18th, 2025: The Attorney General brings a Motion to seek (or protect) certain information from being made publicly available. While the assessment was still ongoing, it’s alleged that Bagnald sexually assaulted a female inmate, a real woman. Although no criminal charges had been filed yet, the jail still had to investigate it. There is a PUBLIC version available with redactions, but only the Court has access to the full version.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald formally objected to most of the redactions sought by the government.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald files reply submissions in support of getting transferred.

March 24th, 2025: Federal Court agreed to withhold portions of the evidence from public view, citing the need for privacy.

March 25th, 2025: Bagnald files an Application for Judicial Review, trying to force Corrections Canada to let him be transferred to a women’s prison.

April 9th, 2025: Bagnald files an amended Application.

May 14th, 2025: Bagnald is finally charged with sexual assault. The Crown elects to proceed “by indictment”, the more serious option. By this time, he’s already at the Nova Institute for Women, a federal penitentiary.

June 17th, 2025: A publication ban is ordered to protect the sexual assault victim, and witnesses who may be involved in the case.

June 19th, 2025: The Government brings forward a Motion to Strike for the Federal case. The basis is that by now, Bagnald has already been transferred to a women’s prison, and hence, the Application is moot.

June 30th, 2025: Bagnald responds to the Motion to Strike. While he as already been moved, he wants to proceed anyway, in order to create a precedent that can be used later.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

There’s nothing “progressive” or “enlightened” about implementing these sorts of policies. Supporters simply hate women, and are indifferent (at best) to the harm that they cause.

MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME (25-T-23):
(1) Bagnald Risk Assessment Corrections Canada (January, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Gender Diverse Inmate Directives
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Extend Time (February, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Letter To Court Requesting Urgency (February, 2025)
(5) Bagnald Motion Record Requiring Transfer (February, 2025)
(6) Bagnald Responding Motion Record Extension Of Time (March, 2025)
(7) Bagnald PUBLIC Responding Motion Record Transfer (March, 2025)
(8) Bagnald Written Submissions Transfer (March, 2025)
(9) Bagnald Cost Agreement (March, 2025)
(10) Bagnald – Decision Granting Extension Of Time To File Application (March, 2025)

APPLICATION TO REVIEW DECISION (T-982-25):
(1) Bagnald Notice Of Application (March, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Amended Notice Of Application (April, 2025)
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Responding Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)

Posted on

“Posties” Get Screwed Over Again By Incompetent Counsel, Part 1

Last Spring, this site covered how hundreds of employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties“) had been taken for a ride by their counsel. In the Fall of 2024, documents were filed indicating that at least some of them would be attempting to appeal.

For context, in the Fall of 2021, the workplace implemented the “vaccine mandates”. This required everyone to get multiple injections, or face the loss of their employment.

Being a unionized employer, the collective bargaining agreement specified a remedy: file a grievance. If things couldn’t get resolved, then the matter would go to arbitration, and that would be considered final. If the process was unfair or corrupted, then requesting a review may be an option.

Here, the Arbitration Panel sided with Canada Post, ruling that the mandates were a reasonable safety matter. Now, filing an Application for Judicial Review may could have worked, if they took that path.

However, the Posties retained a lawyer, Leighton Grey, who filed a Statement of Claim instead. Rather than challenging the fairness of the Arbitration, he commenced an Action. This was doomed to fail, at least with the company, as the union agreement explicitly prohibited it.

As for the Government of Canada, the Court said that there was enough of a separation between the Federal Government and Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, to hold them liable.

Furthermore, the Statement of Claim was lacking in the necessary information. As is common with Grey, he doesn’t plead the necessary facts (Rule 174) for each Plaintiff, which is required. Despite having nearly 300 Plaintiffs, the Claim was just 18 pages in length. The case was struck without an opportunity to refile.

It turns out that dozens of Plaintiffs wanted to appeal, but Leighton missed the deadline. Clients seemed to be under the impression that a challenge was coming, when none was. If the transcripts are to be believed, they were strung along for months.

In September of 2024, they get a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. While he could have brought a malpractice complaint against Grey — which would get clients some justice — he tries halfheartedly to salvage the lost cause of a case.

One would assume that Gratl would act urgently, given the nature of missing a deadline. However, he sits on a file for nearly 2 months, before bringing a Motion to extend time. It’s dismissed by Associate Justice John Cotter. He then brings another Motion, challenging the refusal.

Timeline Of Events In Arbitration

***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”.

Timeline Of Events In Federal Court Lawsuit

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 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

Timeline Of VERY Late Motion For Appeal Extension

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Associate Justice Coughlan (a.k.a. a Prothonotary) is the one who struck the case. The 10 day time limit applies, meaning something would have to be filed by March 23rd, 2024.

7. The adverse order and reasons for judgment were issued by Associate Judge Coughlin on March 13, 2024 (the “Decision”). The Decision was provided to the plaintiffs by GWS LLP on March 14, 2024. The plaintiffs then immediately, on March 14, 2024, requested legal advice from GWS LLP on the merits of an appeal.

10. As of April 10, 2024, we believed that the deadline for appealing was 30 days from the date of the decision. Although I had suspected that the deadline might be 10 days from the date of decision in late March of 2024, our legal counsel first advised me in late April of 2024 that the deadline was 1O days from the date of decision.

11. On May 13, 2024, I requested an update from GWS LLP on how the appeal was proceeding. On June 6, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. On June 19, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. I am advised by Kim Priest that she repeatedly telephoned GWS LLP to ask for updates on the progress of the appeal and to urge GWS LLP to file the application to extend the deadline.

12. On July 4, 2024, I was advised by Mr. Farquhar, an associate lawyer at GWS LLP, that Ms. Trignani, another associate lawyer at GWS LLP, was no longer working at GWS LLP and she had been working on the appeal. Mr. Farquhar assured me on July 4, 2024, that he, Mr. Farquhar, was now personally working on the application to extend the deadline for the appeal and that it would be prepared shortly.

13. On July 17, 2024, I received application materials, and on July 22, 2024, I provided comments and again instructed GWS LLP to file the application. On July 26, 2024, Mr. Grey of GWS LLP advised that he would no longer be supervising the work on the appeal and that Mr. Farquhar of GWS LLP would be working on the file alone.

14. On September 4, 2024, Mr. Grey advised that Mr. Farquhar was no longer working at GWS LLP, and that Mr. Hershey, the lawyer at GWS LLP who was initially supposed to be working on the appeal under Mr. Grey’s supervision, no longer worked at GWS LLP and that no one else at GWS LLP was able to take on the appeal.

16. We found Grall & Company, a Vancouver-based law firm, in late September of 2024. We agreed in principle to retain Grall & Company to give advice on this appeal on September 22, 2024.

In paragraph 7 of her Affidavit, page 17 in the Motion Record, Karine Solakian states that many Plaintiffs sought advice immediately on the merits of an Appeal. She also states that she found out from Grey for the first time about the 10 day deadline well after it had lapsed.

***Neither Grey nor his assistants ever filed for an extension. Nor does it seem they ever notified the Defendants that an Appeal was in the works.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

February 28th, 2025: Canada Post files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

The main concern for this latest Motion is whether or not the previous Motion (an extension of time) should have been refused. The Order cited a few major concerns: (a) lack of explanation for the delay; and (b) the length of the delay was “significant and prejudicial”. The delay was 234 days, over 7 months, of which 53 days were while Gratl was retained.

Interesting, it seems that Grey doesn’t actually do the legal work himself, he just farms it out to the hired help. More coming up in Part 2.

ARBITRATION:
(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 Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)

Posted on

The Pham Case: NGOs Pushed For Foreign Criminals Having More Rights Than Canadians

A disturbing trend has been in the news lately. Recently, a series of cases were published where foreigners received unusually low sentences for criminal convictions, in order to avoid deportation. Since the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Pham, there has been a requirement to view “immigration consequences” when handing down punishment.

What’s even more unsettling is how this came to happen. A foreign drug trafficker received a 2 year sentence on a Joint Submission (agreement), but seemed to have realized after the fact that it would mean deportation.

For context: under the rules at the time, non-citizens who received a jail sentence of 2 years (or more) were excluded from many appeal options to avoid deportation. Removal was pretty much automatic. However, those convicted and receiving lesser punishment still had more prospects of staying. This was later reduced to a 6 month limit.

Hoang Anh Pham was sentenced to 2 years in prison for drug possession, for the purposes of trafficking. On Appeal, he asked that it be reduced by a day, to avoid deportation. The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, rejected it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Leave (permission) to hear the case, and then did allow it.

What likely tipped the scales was that several Intervenors (interested parties) made submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada. These were:

  • British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Council for Refugees (Charity Page)
  • Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Various groups weighed in, asking the the Supreme Court require that Judges take immigration consequences into account when imposing sentences. How does this benefit actual Canadians? How does special consideration for foreign criminals create a better society?

Hoang Anh Pham Previously Convicted For Drug Trafficking

[2] The facts as disclosed at trial were that the appellant was involved in a three-stage marijuana grow operation consisting of 591 plants at various stages of growth. It was estimated that the value of this crop ranged from $461,718 (if sold by the pound) to $738,750 (if sold by the ounce). An additional 28 grams of marijuana was found in two freezer bags in the freezer compartment to the refrigerator on the main floor.

[3] At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the appellant’s prior criminal record was entered as an exhibit. It disclosed that on December 12, 2000 the appellant had been convicted of one count of failing to attend court (section 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code), one count of trafficking in a scheduled substance (section 5(1) of the CDSA) and one charge of possession of a scheduled substance for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the CDSA). At that time, the appellant had received a sentence of one day in gaol on the first count and a three month conditional sentence order, concurrent, on each of the other two charges.

[4] At the sentencing hearing in this case, the appellant’s then counsel and Crown counsel urged upon the sentencing judge, by way of joint submission, a sentence of imprisonment for two years. The Crown cited as aggravating factors that the appellant had benefitted financially and that he had not learned his lesson from his previous encounter with the criminal justice system.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal, we can see that Pham was already a convicted drug trafficker when this sentence was handed down.

Prosecutors Complicit With Sentence Reduction

[32] Returning to the case at bar, the appellant has previously been convicted of three offences. In 2000, he was convicted of failing to attend court, trafficking in a scheduled substance, and possession of a scheduled substance for the purposing of trafficking. For the first offence, he was sentenced to one day in jail; he received a three month conditional sentence for the other two charges. Now there is the more recent drug- related conviction, which resulted in the two year prison term he asks us to reduce. Illegal drugs are a tremendous scourge on our society. The appellant’s repeated contribution to the problem, albeit modest in the large scale of things, would normally disqualify him from leniency. However, as the prosecution has consented to this appeal, I would agree to allow it with the caveat that in future cases, this relief will not be there simply for the asking.

In a dissenting opinion with the ABCA, Justice Martin mentioned that the prosecution had consented to the appeal, which would have reduced the sentence. So, even though he was argued that he “clearly hadn’t learned his lesson”, the Crown is still okay with reducing the sentence to help prevent deportation.

1. B.C. Civil Liberties Association

2. The BCCLA submits that failure to consider the immigration consequences of a sentence would deprive the court of information required to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors, and may result in a sentence which unjustly infringes an offender’s rights and freedoms.

3. Immigration consequences must be taken into account by a sentencing judge in order to ensure that the offender is not punished more than necessary. A permanent resident convicted in Canada and sentenced to two years or more is almost certain to face deportation. For many permanent residents, deportation will be the most punitive impact of their sentence. In order to ensure that sentences are consistent with the principles of proportionality and restraint, the BCCLA submits that immigration consequences are relevant personal circumstances which should be taken into account as part of the individualized sentencing assessment.

2. Canadian Council For Refugees

4. Given that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a criminal offence may face removal from Canada, it is the CCR’s submission that the judge imposing the sentence must take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability of remedies for the retention of status in Canada. This is based on the following reasoning:

9. Non-citizens whose human rights will be infringed by removal are entitled to have their interests considered by a competent, independent and impartial decision maker prior to removal. A scheme was created for consideration of such interests under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Relevant to this appeal, this obligation is met in the equitable appeal which is available to permanent residents and Convention refugees who face removal because of a criminal conviction but who have received a sentence of less than two years.

17. It is submitted therefore that a judge, exercising a judicial discretion in relation to the imposition of an appropriate sentence for a crime committed, ought to take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability to a non-citizen of a hearing which is fully in compliance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter in relation to that person’s status in Canada.

Of course, these aren’t anywhere near all of the filed documents. However, they do illustrate what the main concerns being raised are.

The Supreme Court also has the video of the hearing posted on its website, even years later. It’s worth a watch.

51:30: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers begins, and brings up the possible ineffective assistance of counsel argument.
1:02:00: Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario begins.
1:08:00: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:13:41: Canadian Council for Refugees begins.
1:19:15: Canadian Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:38:30: Respondent (Government) begins.

While the Government (initially) asked that the case be remitted back to the Court of Appeal, at the hearing, they simply consented to the Appeal being allowed.

This should make Canadians’ blood boil. Registered “charities” are getting significant tax breaks while they try to implement caselaw to give preferential treatment to foreign criminals.

Conservative Bill A Trojan Horse?

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, consider a recent video from Michelle Rempel-Garner. She proposes a Private Member’s Bill to amended the Criminal Code. In her words, Judges “should not” be able to take immigration status into account. It’s at the 2:00 mark.

Should not?

How about cannot? Or must not? Or are prohibited from?

While this may come across as pedantic, this choice of wording would allow Judges to retain discretion as to whether or not they consider immigration status. There would merely be a recommendation against doing so, not an outright ban.

Does she not realize that every lawyer with a foreign convicted criminal for a client will be arguing that their case is exceptional?

We’ll have to see what happens.

COURT RULINGS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca203/2012abca203.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii68768/2012canlii68768.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc15/2013scc15.html

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA:
(1) https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/34897/
(2) Pham Factum Appellants Factum
(3) Pham Factum Respondents
(4) Pham Factum Appellants Reply
(5) Pham Factum BC Civil Liberties Association
(6) Pham Factum Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
(7) Pham Factum Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(8) Pham Factum Canadian Council For Refugees
(9) Pham Factum Criminal Lawyers Association Of Ontario

Posted on

Anti-SLAPP Ruling Upheld: When “Recycling” Your Defamation Cases Goes Horribly Wrong

A long awaited Court of Appeal decision has finally been handed down. Justices Zarnett, Young and Favreau have upheld a December 2023 ruling from Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court. That initial verdict saw a $1.1 million defamation case against CSASPP thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, with $132,000 in costs awarded. Another $10,000 in costs was ordered in this subsequent ruling.

CSASPP is of course the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. In January 2021, it began a Proposed Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia. This has been covered elsewhere on this site.

See here, here and here for background information.

That said, a hilarious detail seems to have been overlooked. The case against CSASPP was almost entirely borrowed from an earlier defamation case…. against this website. To clarify, there were 2 separate actions, with overlapping allegations.

[1] This website was sued in September 2021 for detailed criticism of various anti-lockdown cases.

[2] CSASPP and its staff were sued in June 2022 over much, MUCH more mild criticism, and to silence a fomer donor from complaining to the Law Society of Ontario.

Given that this there were 2 different lawsuits, with very different circumstances, one would expect that 2 very different cases would have been prepared. Instead, it seems that the documentation for the first case was simply repackaged and reused for the second case. From the ruling:

[86] …. Finally, because of evidence in the appellant’s own materials of other extremely vitriolic and sustained criticisms of him by others, including the publication “Canuck Law”, he found that if there was damage to the appellant’s reputation, it was not shown to have been caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

[91] The difficulty with the appellant’s submission is the motion judge’s causation finding. The motion judge referred to the evidence from the appellant of a concerted campaign against him by a group known as “Canuck Law” who was not a party to his action. The motion judge stated: “the [appellant] references the group extensively in the material filed on this motion. In articles posted on the Canuck website, the [appellant] was the subject of disparaging and racist comments”. Referring to that and some judicial criticism, he concluded that there was no evidence that any damage to the appellant’s reputation was caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

As an aside, the “racist comments” referred to in the CSASPP case actually came from a site called Overdue Revolutions. It was just misrepresented that they originated here.

Not only are anti-lockdown cases being recycled, but defamation ones are as well. By filing evidence that someone else may have engaged in character assassination, it completely undermines the claims that CSASPP had been responsible.

Whatever happened to taking pride in one’s work?

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

CSASPP/RG APPEAL DOCUMENTS (2024)
(1) CSASPP Defamation Appellant Factum
(2) CSASPP Defamation Respondent Factum
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.scribd.com/document/768627727/2024-09-12-Notice-of-Merit-Hearing-13-January-2025
(5) https://www.scribd.com/document/758138683/2024-08-06-Defendant-Respondents-Motion-Record-to-Dismiss-for-Delay

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

Posted on

A Beginner’s Guide To Pleading Charter Claims (If You Must)

Let’s do something different today.

For people who have been wronged by some level of Government, what is your recourse? Well, suing is an option, of course. But what would Statement of Claim or Notice of Application look like? How would it be presented?

While there’s no perfect way to draft documents, it’s important to understand that very specific information needs to be included. This is especially true when making allegations that Charter Rights have been violated.

The goal here is to get people thinking about what they have to submit when making constitutional challenges, as well as what to avoid. This list is not exhaustive, but includes some common torts. Even Ottawa published an interesting guide on the Charter.

***Note: Many have made the argument over the years that the Charter is worthless, especially in light of the Bill of Rights. This is not meant to address that. Instead, it’s to highlight what information is required to provide in order to bring such cases. As usual, this is INFORMATION, not advice.

With that in mind, let’s begin.

Pleading Facts And Providing Particulars Necessary

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

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.

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.

Pleading facts: This means laying out the sequence of events, and giving the who, what, where, when, etc… of what happened. Who said what? Who did what? In the case of alleged Charter breaches, it’s not meant to be a legal argument, or to cite case law.

Pleading particulars: Depending on the nature of the allegations, there’s an extra requirement to spell out the bad behaviour. Again, it’s not meant to devolve into argument. Admittedly though, it can be tricky to argue state of mind at the onset, but something needs to be included.

The above quotes are from the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. However, it’s virtually identical across jurisdictions. These apply regardless of whether or not there’s a Constitutional challenge.

Beyond that, Courts have explicitly ruled on what needs to be pleaded in order to bring Charter related cases. The necessary information is very specific.

Here are some common Charter torts that are brought up.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) Pleading

In the above section, it’s explained that it’s necessary to plead a “concise statement of material facts”. Sounds great, but what do these facts need to cover? Well, for major Charter issues, the Courts have long ago ruled on what’s required. There’s no excuse for professional lawyers not to know better.

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

It’s not nearly enough to say “muh religion”, and leave it at that. To bring such a case, litigants must: (a) explain in detail what those beliefs are; and (b) explain how someone else’s actions or demands have imposed on those beliefs in a serious way.

Facts Required For Section 2d (Association) Pleading

This is a complicated one, although a good guide is available. While there’s much caselaw in the context of collective bargaining (unionization), association is protected under a few grounds.

The purpose of the freedom of association encompasses the protection of
(1) individuals joining with others to form associations (the constitutive approach)
(2) collective activity in support of other constitutional rights (the derivative approach), and
(3) collective activity that enables “those who would otherwise be vulnerable and ineffective to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of those with whom their interests interact and, perhaps, conflict”.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc1/2015scc1.html#par54

Essentially, litigants would have to plead that their association was somehow obstructed or prevented. It’s worth pointing out that Section 2(d) protects the right of association itself, not necessarily the activities for which people are associated.

Facts Required For Section 6 (Mobility) Pleading

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) Pleading

(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(2)The claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

Interestingly, Section 7 “does not describe any right of a corporation or the purely economic interest of a natural person, nor does it guarantee the right to unrestrained business activity or to practice a particular profession or occupation.” This was settled decades ago, but lawyers still take clients’ money to argue these cases.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1990/1990canlii6753/1990canlii6753.html

Facts Required For Section 12 (Cruel/Unusual) Pleading

(1) plaintiff must show that the action involves some treatment or punishment by the state, and
(2) that such treatment is cruel and unusual

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc442/2005fc442.html#par27

It’s also noted that: “A mere prohibition on certain conduct, even if it results in cruel and unusual effects, does not qualify as treatment under s. 12. Punishment means a sanction imposed by the state as a corrective measure for the commission of a particular offence.”

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) Pleading

Despite common perceptions, the Charter doesn’t really protect equality at all. Instead, it covers a limited number of grounds, and even that is subject to the politics involved.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

This is why “vaccination status”, and similar arguments have failed in recent years. It’s not covered under the existing lists, and few have tried to add it as an analogous ground. This is why they fail.

Facts Required For Malfeasance Of Public Office Pleading

(1) the tortfeasor engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as a public official; and,
(2) the tortfeasor knew his or her conduct was unlawful and that their conduct was likely to injure the plaintiff.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1112/2021fc1112.html#par27
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc69/2003scc69.html#par23

Although not a Charter issue, malfeasance is worth mentioning, as it’s commonly argued. The necessary elements are easy enough to find. Of course, particulars would have to be included as well. The elements for other torts such as conspiracy or intimidation are easy enough to look up.

Clients Routinely Screwed Over By Inadequate Pleadings

As has been demonstrated, across jurisdictions, there’s a requirement to “plead material facts” when filing a case. It’s easy enough to find out what those facts must include.

Because so many lawsuits involve malice, breach of trust, malfeasance, or a “conspiracy”, there’s an added burden to spell out what’s been going on.

But what happens when clients pay top dollar for counsel who either doesn’t know this, or who can’t be bothered to do it properly? Here are some recent examples.

The above 7 cases have a total of well over 2,000 Plaintiffs, but comprise just 228 pages. That being said, if the: Style of Cause (party names), service addresses and cover pages are removed, it’s much less than 228. So, how do you adequately plead Charter violations in a single line, or 2?

You don’t.

All of these cases demand money for Charter breaches, but don’t plead facts for any of them, for any client. And while alleging all kinds of conspiracies, none are really spelled out.

It’s disheartening that various Law Societies allow incompetent morons to practice. This is done to detriment of clients, the profession, and to society as a whole. They should all be disbarred, as there’s no benefit to letting them keep their licences.

Should prospective litigants be considering Court action, it’s necessary to think about what must be pleaded in a Statement of Claim, or Notice of Application. The Rules of Civil Procedure are available publicly, requiring facts and particulars. Similarly, specific elements of Charter torts have been established long ago.

These claims are a good way to screen out prospective lawyers. If they think such a filing is “okay”, or is “pretty good”, then you’re about to get taken advantage of. Disgust and shock are the reactions they should have.

Understanding the information above will put self-reps in a better position than many “professionals”.

***Once more, this is INFORMATION, not legal ADVICE. Please take everything here with a grain of salt, and do your own research.

Posted on

The Hartman Appeal, Part 1: Looking At The Notice

The Court of Appeal for Ontario will review the case of Dan Hartman, either late this year, or early next year. Back in March, the Ontario Superior Court struck the case without an opportunity to amend the pleadings.

This is a wrongful death suit filed after his son, Sean, passed away shortly after taking the injections. A similar one was filed against Pfizer.

Although there is considerable overlap in the facts pleaded, the case is argued 2 ways:

  1. Malfeasance of public office
  2. Negligence

The first tort implies intentional, while negligence implies carelessness.

However, Justice Antoniani threw the case out completely, despite offers to expand the pleadings. It was ruled that the proposed amendments — while they added more information — it wouldn’t help. The necessary elements for malfeasance weren’t pleaded. Nor was there “sufficient proximity” to establish a private law duty of care.

The Appeal seeks to overturn this ruling.

Malfeasance Of Public Office Explained

The Statement of Claim argues that the Defendants acted with “reckless indifference or willful blindness” when they pushed the vaccines on Canadians.

56. As a department, Health Canada is responsible for administering acts and regulations, and for implemening government-wide regulatory initatives. Health Canada was responsible for discharging the operational role of regulatory approval, monitoring, and compliance of Covid-19 vaccinations for use in Canada.

57. The Plaintiff pleads that Health Canada was recklessly indifferent or willfully blind in discharging its responsibilities of regulatory approval and oversight of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID- 19 vaccination by, inter alia:

Starting on paragraph 61, it’s specified:

  • Issuing a certificate of compliance to Pfizer
  • Failing maintain oversight and control over Health Canda in relation to their regulatory responsibility for oversight, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment
  • Representing to Canadians in public statements and press releases that the Covid-19 vaccination was safe and effective, despite the Minister and Minister’s Department of Health possessing data to the contrary
  • Failing to revoke the certificate of compliance issued

However, the Judge gave an interesting take on the malfeasance claims, stating that the following details were required:

[81] To prove misfeasance in public office, the Plaintiff must show:
a) Deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions;
b) Awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the Plaintiff’s son;
c) Harm;
d) A legal causal link between the tortious conduct and the harm suffered; and
e) An injury that is compensable in tort law.

Presumably, the Defendants know few, if any of the people who were harmed by these injections. This seems unreasonably narrow in scope.

Negligence Claim Explained: No Private Duty Of Care

While arguing intent can be tricky, the Statement of Claim also pushed variations of “negligence” as alternative torts.

77. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants breached the standard of care and negligently misrepresented the safety of the vaccine and did not disclose the risks associated with the vaccine which include but not limited to myocarditis and pericarditis. The particulars include:
.
(a) Failed to disclose that individuals under 40 had an increased risk of myocarditis after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine;
(b) Failed to disclose that rates of myocarditis were higher in adolescent males;
(c) Inadequate testing was performed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine;
(d) The Defendants failed to complete post market surveillance and inform the public of the results;
(e) The Defendants failed to accurately, candidly, promptly and truthfully disclose the issues with the COVID-19 vaccine;
(f) The Defendants failed to identify, implement, and verify that the procedures in place to address post market surveillance risks were in place to address issues, complaints, and timely notification of concerns; and,
(g) The Defendant failed to change the public recommendations of the COVID-19 vaccine being that it was safe and effective.

The Judge ruled that the duties of the Defendants are to the public at large, and not to individual members of the public. But really, who is the public, if not a collection of individuals?

[91] The necessary elements to ground an action in negligence are not present. The duties of the Defendants under the legislative scheme are to the Canadian public. Sufficient proximity is not established and there is no private law duty of care. Other policy considerations militate against finding such a duty. As such, it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.

One would think that when public officials make decisions, especially coercive ones, that there would be some duty of care to the people impacted. But it seems not.

Looking At The Notice Of Appeal

The Notice of Appeal alleges a number of serious errors made. Keep in mind, at this stage, the Court is to assume that all facts pleaded are true, or capable or being proven.

  • The misapplied the “plain and obvious” test applicable on a motion to strike. In particular, the judge failed to read the pleading generously and assume the facts pleaded to be true, as required.
  • The Appellant submits that this analysis was flawed. The Statement of Claim pleaded that the Respondents knew of specific risks (e.g. heightened myocarditis risk in adolescent males) and nonetheless targeted the youth population (including Sean) with assurances of safety. Facts, if proven, could establish a relationship of proximity despite the broad public context.
  • Misfeasance in public office is an intentional tort aimed at wrongful exercises of public power by officials who either intend to harm or act with knowledge that they are exceeding their lawful authority and that their conduct will likely harm the plaintiff.
  • On a Rule 21 motion, the court must assume the truth of the facts pleaded. Here, the facts pleaded (e.g. that the Minister knew of specific dangers and knowingly misled the public or ignored legal duties) should have been taken as true for the purposes of the motion. If so assumed, the misfeasance claim is legally tenable.
  • Error in Denying Leave to Amend the Pleading: The judge erred in law by denying the Appellant leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

What will happen at the Court of Appeal? It’s unclear, but there’s a chance to get this claim restored.

***Note: follow-up both with this case, and with Pfizer, are coming. This isn’t anywhere near the complete record as far as the documents go.

AGC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman AGC Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman AGC Reasons For Decision (March, 2025)
(3) Hartman AGC Notice Of Appeal (April, 2025)

PFIZER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman Pfizer Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman Pfizer Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2025)

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress