CSASPP Class Action Certification Hearing Videos Now Available Online

An interesting development is taking place in British Columbia. The Canadian Society For The Advancement Of Science In Public Policy (CSASPP) had a weeklong hearing to determine — among other issues — if their class action would be certified. This took place all week, and was to challenge the various dictates of BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and her political handlers.

For their part, the Defense is attempting to get the case struck (thrown out) at least in part. They’ve alleged that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, among other things.

This isn’t the trial, to be clear. It’s a series of procedural issues in order to get to trial. The decision is reserved, and expected in the new year.

If certification is successful, the class action trial would begin in April 2023.

A few questions to be determined here:

  • Should the claim be certified as a class action?
  • Can additional Plaintiffs be added to the original claim?
  • Should the claim be struck, in all or in part?

As per an earlier ruling, the proceedings for certification could be posted online.

The videos (for December 12th to 15th) are now available here:


The December 16th video should be up soon.

Surprisingly, there was real contention at the beginning as to what kind of site should be hosting the videos. While YouTube was suggested, there were concerns that the Terms Of Service would make it too easy to redistribute. Ultimately, they ended up on Vimeo.

However, please do take heed of the warning. Although the hearings are being made public, the usual rules against redistribution and rebroadcasting still apply. Screenshotting, and otherwise generating new copies would breach the order. We more of this type of content available, not less.

This is a recording of judicial proceedings which may not be further broadcast, rebroadcast, transmitted, reproduced, communicated to the public by telecommunication, or otherwise made available in whole or in part in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, or stored in whole or in part in any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written authorization of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Any unauthorized use of this recording in breach of the Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall expose the person doing so to legal proceedings for contempt of court.

For the purposes of this pretrial application, the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Civil Claim are assumed to be true for the sake of argument. If this matter proceeds to trial, those allegations will be contested and may in the end be found to be false.

It’s worth noting that Action4Canada got an honourable mention on December 14th. The section is from 2h:18m:34s until 2h:19m:20s. The stellar work of their legal experts needed to be showcased.

The CSASPP provides a page for their status updates, which is in reverse chronological order. If the court documents themselves are a bit overwhelming, this will provide a “Coles Notes” version.

Below are a significant portion of those documents. It’s not exhaustive, but should provide readers with much needed background information. These can be saved or duplicated at will.

(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2108/2022bcsc2108.html

Wilfrid Laurier University Files Anti-SLAPP Motion Against Jordan Peterson

Remember the big stories in 2018 when Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson each sued Wilfrid Laurier University for millions of dollars? There was strangely little to report on for the next 4 years. That’s about to change.

Laurier recently filed an anti-SLAPP Motion.

SLAPP is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation. These are a specific type of suit, ones that are brought (or alleged to have been brought) for the purpose of shutting down public discourse. Laurier’s Motion Record can be obtained from the Ontario Superior Court, and it’s interesting.

Turns out, there’s more to the story.

Lindsay Shepherd sued Laurier in 2018 for a total of $3.6 million. Among other things, she claimed that her prospective career in academia had been ruined by her experience. The suit named: (a) the school itself; (b) Nathan Rambukkana, a professor of communications studies; (c) Herbert Pimlott, also a professor of communications studies; and (d) Adria Joel, the acting manager of gendered violence prevention and support.

June 18, 2018, Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million suit against the same Defendants as Shepherd: (a) Wilfrid Laurier; (b) Rambukkana; (c) Pimlott; and (d) Joel. He announced it online as well, making sure there was public knowledge.

Peterson did something else, which was cited in Court papers: he admitted he brought the suit for purposes other than what was filed. He said that he wanted Wilfrid Laurier to be more careful in how they talk about people, and also, that he didn’t think they learned their lesson. These statements have the potential to haunt him later on.

Given how public the suits from Shepherd and Peterson were, the school felt compelled to respond in the same manner. They announced that they thought these proceedings — in particular, Peterson’s — were being used to stifle discussion.

What the Defendants were doing was setting up a defense under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. This has been on the books since 2015.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Anti-SLAPP legislation exists in Ontario, and other jurisdictions — to prevent the Courts from being weaponized on issues of public interest. The Defendants were going for the argument that this is exactly what was happening with Peterson.

Peterson then decided to sue Wilfrid Laurier a second time.

Note: there is an error with the Court display. The second lawsuit is actually worth $1,750,000, not the $175,000 that is listed.

There is actually a second lawsuit on file for Jordan Peterson. It was filed September 11, 2018. He claims that Laurier’s defense (claiming he brought the initial suit to silence public discussion) amounts to further defamation. He sued again, but this time, it was only against the school itself.

Statements of Defense have been filed concerning both of Peterson’s lawsuits. The first was on August 31, 2018, and the second was on October 11, 2018.

Apparently, publicly raising an anti-SLAPP defense in a public case amounts to further defamation. It’s unclear what made Peterson think this was a good idea.

Anyhow, the university entered some of their correspondence into evidence, and it’s very interesting. All of this is available in the Motion Record. This anti-SLAPP Motion appears to only address the second lawsuit. A likely reason is that this would be a much easier target to get thrown out.

According to the correspondence submitted in the Motion Record, Laurier’s lawyers have found it strange that Peterson has apparently had prolonged health problems. After all, he has been keeping busy with:

  • Authoring another book
  • Hosting a podcast
  • Participating in media interviews to promote his book
  • Walking several miles a day

It was reasoned that if Peterson is able to do these, then he should be willing to make himself available to be questioned (deposed).

Depositions are routine in major lawsuits. They are also common in anti-SLAPP Motions. Peterson would have to swear out an Affidavit outlining the damages he suffered, and would then be subject to cross-examination. However, this apparently hasn’t happened.

One can speculate as to his motives, but it seems Peterson has bent over backwards to avoid having to testify under oath, or give evidence.

If he were to discontinue the case, it would be a huge blow to his pride. It would be far worse if his cases (either of them) were dismissed as SLAPPs. Having a Judge rule that Peterson commenced litigation to silence public discourse would destroy his reputation as a “free speech champion”.

Peterson can’t bring himself to admit what he did. But he knows the consequences of losing. Therefore, the only option may be to drag it out indefinitely. It’s worth noting that Ontario Superior Court typically dismisses cases that haven’t been set down for Trial after 5 years, unless good cause it shown. Both of his suits are well past the 4 year mark.

And what happened when Peterson sued Laurier the first time? This!

This 2018 tweet from Lindsay Shepherd is pretty comical. After suing her university for $3.6 million, Peterson decides to pile on with another $1.5 million claim. It never seemed to dawn on her that the school might try to defend itself.

By “suing her”, what Laurier actually did was file a 3rd Party Claim. This is a form of a defense, where a Defendant states that they are not responsible for alleged damages, but someone else is. In this case, the school takes the stance that Peterson should actually be suing Shepherd. They have a valid point.

She secretly recorded a private conversation, and turned it into an international story. Regardless of the nonsense in that meeting, she chose to make it public.

Shepherd’s $3.6 million lawsuit doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere either.

Free speech absolutism also doesn’t seem to be a factor. Peterson has shown he’s perfectly okay with de-platforming identitarians, who hold views he disapproves of. The above video was of Faith Goldy being disinvited to a free speech panel. It makes a mockery of the principles he claims to hold.

While Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel acted like clowns in 2017, Peterson shouldn’t be celebrated. He has demonstrated that he’s quite willing to use the legal system as a weapon.

In the Summer of 2021, Peterson advocated for people to suspend judgement on the lockdown measures that were being implemented across the globe. Vaccine passports were implemented shortly afterwards. Gee, it’s almost as if he knew this would happen.

Despite his reputation, he’s hardly a freedom champion.

Peterson was also denounced as a limited hangout years ago for his refusal to address more complex and controversial subjects. Search “I can’t do it” for just one example of that.

But They Compared Me To Hitler….

In various interviews, Peterson never seems to tire pointing this out. Yes, it was unprofessional, and yes, inappropriate. But there comes a point where he needs to move on.

Peterson has admitted becoming extremely wealthy in the last few years. He went from being an unknown to a household name in a very short amount of time. The incident with Shepherd and Wilfrid Laurier helped immensely.

He would be hard pressed to demonstrate how that November 2017 meeting caused him damages. And remember, it was private. It only became public after Shepherd leaked the audio.

One of the things Plaintiffs in anti-SLAPP Motions must do is prove they have suffered meaningful damages as a result of the speech or expression. If they are just nominal or non-existant, such suits are supposed to be dismissed. This is probably the reason he keeps delaying the case.

This development was covered in the National Post, but the Motion Record wasn’t included.

The Motion should be heard in 2023, to dismiss the second Peterson suit.

What will happen to his first lawsuit? If this initial anti-SLAPP Motion prevails, it seems likely that Laurier will file another to get the original case thrown out. Peterson could potentially lose 2 anti-SLAPP rulings when this is over.

That said, Peterson is now a multimillionaire, so the legal fees shouldn’t be a burden.

(1) Wilfrid Laurier University Anti-SLAPP Motion Record
(2) https://www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca/MyAccount/screens/CaseLookup/CSLKUP001.xhtml
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNv4LFpGf4
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zLcMGCedA
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjQeLn0hyI
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXYuqrO8LLo
(8) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/jordan-peterson-lawsuit-wilfrid-laurier?

CSASPP Certification Hearing Approaching For Class Action Suit Against Bonnie Henry

With all the bad news about Court challenges being thrown out, here’s one to keep an eye on. British Columbia may very well have a class-action suit against Bonnie Henry and the B.C. Government get to Trial in April 2023. This comes from the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP.

It’s nice to see regular status updates, which should be commonplace in litigation that involves public donations. People don’t want to be left in the dark.

B.C. uses a service called “Court Services Online“, which allows members of the public to search for cases in the Supreme Court, and Court of Appeal. However, it’s behind a paywall, so here are some highlights of what’s been going on.

It appears there have been Court appearances every few months (on average). This is encouraging to see, as long silences make people wonder.

Here are the notes of the decisions thus far, and it’s mostly procedural stuff.

Yes, the courts do proceed at a snail’s pace, but it’s nice to be able to see some progress being made. This is especially important for donors who have chipped in.

There is to be a certification hearing from December 12 to 16, 2022. That’s just a few weeks away. The Judge will make the decision as to whether this class action will go ahead or not.

If the case is certified, then BCPHO Bonnie Henry would be forced to testify under oath. And she does have so much to answer for.

There are a few other (smaller) cases that CSASPP is working on, but this class action is by far the largest. We will see how things turn out.

As for other B.C. news: remember that in August 2021, Action4Canada filed an incoherent 400 page Notice of Civil Claim in Vancouver. Predictably, it was struck in its entirety, although a rewrite was allowed. Instead of fixing the problem, it was appealed for some strange reason.

The CSASPP/A4C comparison is like professional baseball v.s. children’s T-ball. Guess having competent lawyers does make a difference. Then again, the T-ball players generally don’t sue spectators for pointing out glaring flaws.

In any event, the certification hearing in December will be worth watching, and hopefully it will be broadcast online. Below is just a section of the documents that are available. Many more aren’t listed.

(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency

Are Taxpayer Funded Dinners A Form Of Corporate Welfare?

A serious question to ask: is it considered a form of corporate welfare when taxpayers are forced to subsidize political dinners?

If a $250 dinner only costs a person (approximately) $120, that means that the public has to cover the rest of it. This sort of thing is completely wrong, regardless of which party is doing it. It’s wrong when it’s Trudeau involved, and not any better for others.

True, the public shouldn’t be forced to bailout companies like Bombardier, GM, Chrysler, Air Canada, or many others. That being said, how is this any different? How are laws which compel the public to finance these get togethers better?

This opinion is reflective of donations in general, not just overpriced dinners.

Of course, Bernier and PPC have much deeper structural problems than this:

  • No elected leader/leadership race
  • No policy votes
  • No internal charter or constitution
  • No governing documents
  • No elected national governing council
  • Dozens of EDAs shut down for not filing mandatory financials

These issues have been brought up before, Now, even if a proper structure were to be put in place, what are the chances of any sort of electoral success? Heck, the “leader” can’t even get a seat.

Bernier won reelection in October 2015, with 59% of the vote. In 2019, he lost with 28%, and again in 2021 with just 18%. Keep in mind, he had the riding for 4 terms, and his father for 3 terms before. It’s even more screwy because his signature issue, supply management, arguably cost him Beauce.

When the head of the party lost his own riding, a safe riding, by 30 percentage points, he needs to go.

While this dinner — and similar ones — may be viewed as cash-for-access, it’s rather amusing considering the complete lack of electoral prospects. It seems that an M.P. pension, a Privy Council pension, and $104,000 annually as a salary isn’t enough.

(1) https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/
(2) https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/1594494740053082112
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/federal-political-contributions-line-40900-total-contributions-line-41000-tax-credit.html
(4) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/
(5) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/supply-management
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Bernier
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/4-years-later-no-constitution-votes-or-governing-documents/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/ending-political-corporate-welfare/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/elections-canada-fundraising-isnt-okay-when-edas-shut-down-for-no-financials/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-maxime-bernier-1.5695908

Ottawa Files Motion To Strike Federal Vaccine Passport Suit From Galati

Another prediction seems to be playing out.

Late in 2021, Ottawa imposed “vaccine” requirements on nearly all Federal workers. In short, employees needed to have at least 2 shots of the (who-knows-what) injections to keep their jobs. Many retired, others quit, and some forced their bosses to let them go.

May 30, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court by a man who supposedly is Canada’s top Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati. But you wouldn’t know that from the quality of his work.

The Federal Government has filed a Motion to throw out the Claim brought by 600 former members of the civil service. It alleges a number of serious defects, including: mootness, irrelevant issues, defects in the pleading, lack of jurisdiction, lack of factual basis, an improper filing, among other things.

A source told this site (now confirmed) at the end of 2021 that such a suit was in the works. Allegedly, it would involve 500-600 individual Plaintiffs, with each paying $1,000 towards the proceedings. For that kind of money, one would expect a serious case to go forward.

Unfortunately, this review from September has aged very well. It contained an outline of several errors that would lead to the Statement of Claim getting struck.

The Action4Canada (BC) and Vaccine Choice Canada (ON) suits were covered in detail last year. Both were written without any consideration of the Rules of Civil Procedure in their respective Provinces. This Federal case contains most of the same errors. In many instances, it appears to be a direct cut and paste from the earlier ones.

Note: this isn’t to justify coercing people to take injections. However, it’s pretty much undeniable that this lawsuit never stood a chance. Painful as it is to admit, the Defense does have valid criticisms about the shoddy drafting. Here are some errors cited before:

  • Rule 173: Allegations aren’t set out in clearly numbered and organized paragraphs
  • Rule 174: No concise statement of material facts provided
  • Rule 181(1): Claim lacks the particulars (specifics) needed to go ahead
  • Rule 182: Nature of damages not clearly specified
  • Approximately 100 unidentified “John Does” and “Jane Does”
  • Claim contains issues that cannot be presided over: Nuremberg Code’ Helsinki Declaration; Criminal Code violations; and crimes against humanity

It was also predicted that the Defendants would file a Rule 221 Motion to Strike, for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The Federal Court Rules outline how this is done. And in an unsurprisingly turn of events, that’s what happened.

Ottawa is citing “mootness” as a ground to strike the Claim, and is using the recent decisions against Peckford, Rickards, and the other Applicants. It wouldn’t be fair to blame any Applicant for the Government pulling this stunt, but it comes up again.

There are a few other major issues that need to be addressed in the Motion.

Should This Have Been An Application For Judicial Review?

One of the grounds that the Defendants bring up in their Motion is that these proceedings really should have been done up as an Application for Judicial Review. Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act are cited, and it seems pretty clear cut.

Extraordinary remedies, federal tribunals
18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.

Remedies to be obtained on application
(3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

On the surface, this appears to be a valid point. If one is to challenge the decision of Federal bodies — namely, the requirement of the “vaccine” for employment — this might have been the way to go.

Seriously, was the wrong paperwork filled out in order to get this suit started? It seems that this would be pretty basic for expert lawyers.

Granted, there are portions of the Claim that still could proceed as a Claim, such as asking for damages. That said, challenging an order is a different procedure.

Could an extension of time be applied for to fill out the correct forms? Sure, it can be attempted, but what a waste of time this has been.

Not off to a good start.

Are The Plaintiffs Barred From Bringing Legal Action At All?

Is jurisdiction a fatal error in this case?

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act states that employees have the right to have their problems dealt with via collective bargaining, in lieu of Court action. If this holds, then presumably it would apply to everyone.

That’s one of the major arguments being advanced: that the hundreds of Plaintiffs have no right to sue at all — regardless of form — since legislation provides for other remedies.

Granted, there are allegations of acting in bad faith. That said, the Defendants argue (correctly) that there’s a lack of factual basis pleaded to support most of the conclusions. This will be a tough sell.

Action4Canada Trainwreck Is Cited In Latest Motion

The written arguments (see page 269) reference the recent Action4Canada case. It has been covered on this site before, and is making a comeback.

In August 2021, this site outlined the serious defects in the 391 page filing in Vancouver. It predicted that the case would be struck in its entirety for failing to meet even the basic requirements of a pleading. Although a rewrite was permitted, that’s exactly what ultimately happened.

In order to ward off criticism, and presumably to keep the donations coming in, a frivolous Appeal was filed. It will go nowhere as well.

The litany of defects in that B.C. case will very likely be used to support striking the Federal one. Thanks to Justice Ross in Vancouver, the precedent has been set.

These Suits Actually Harm Genuine Truth Movements

A common criticism in the Motion to Strike is that the suit makes plenty of bald assertions, without ever laying a factual foundation. In short, it makes accusations, but doesn’t provide enough detail so that a Court can seriously consider them.

Many of the allegations pleaded in the Statement of Claim are in fact true. However, without pleading a factual basis for making these claims, it just makes people look insane.

As awful as the actions of the Federal (and Provincial) Governments are, they do make a valid point: these cases are written so poorly that it’s impossible to know what the cases are that the Defendants are supposed to respond to.

Looking through the filings of Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre (see below), none of them are good. They aren’t even decent. Instead, the quality of the drafting ranges from mediocre to downright comical.

Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba are out at least $1.1 million for a failed $12.75 million defamation suit against 23 individuals and organizations. Their case was predictably dismissed as a SLAPP.

Gill and Lamba bizarrely decided to appeal that dismissal. Given how baseless the original defamation suit was, this will just lead to much larger cost awards when it’s finally thrown out. There had been talk of a second Appeal, one specific to the cost Order.

Gill has another $7 million suit pending against the University of Ottawa, and one of its professors, Amir Attaran. This is even weaker, and vulnerable to another SLAPP Motion.

Action4Canada is currently appealing an August decision to strike the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim in its entirety. Instead of simply drafting it properly, this will waste time and money.

Vaccine Choice Canada’s high profile suit from July 2020 has sat idle since the filing. It’s nearly 200 pages, and contains plenty of irrelevant information that would lead to it getting struck. It’s unclear at this point who has even been served.

Vaccine Choice Canada has an earlier lawsuit from October 2019. The last activity was March 2020, when the pleadings closed. That was 2 1/2 years ago.

Police On Guard arranged for an Application, which was filed on April 20, 2021, more than 18 months ago. It sits dormant, with no activity whatsoever. It’s disjointed and nearly impossible to understand.

Children’s Health Defense (Canada), also has an Application from April 20, 2021. It’s essentially a cut and paste of the Police of Guard version. It too has sat dormant.

These are all his cases. This is what the last 2 1/2 years or so of “fighting” in the Courts has led to.

None of these cases have gone anywhere. Either:

  • They remain idle for months or years, or
  • They are thrown out in preliminary stages

To address a concern that comes up: these are public matters.

If a person wishes to sue someone else in their private life, that is their business. However, the moment donations are asked for, it becomes a reportable case. This is especially true, given the public nature of the issues.

This site has been heavily criticized — and even sued — for reporting the truth about these “anti-lockdown” cases. They’re garbage, and none of them have any chance of getting to Trial. It’s not a matter of cheerleading for a certain side, but giving honest reviews.

On a positive note — if it can be called that — the Federal Government is only asking for $5,000 for costs to have this Claim thrown out. Certainly, it’s far cheaper than in Ontario or British Columbia.

Considering that people actually have paid money for this type of representation, it comes across as a rip off. Victims should be demanding refunds and/or talking to the Law Society of Ontario.

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) Notice_of_Discontinuance_Federico_Fuoco_Fire_Productions
(12) Notice_of_Discontinuance__Amy_Muranetz_
(13) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022
(14) A4C Dismissal Order As Entered By BCSC

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit

(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(3) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(4) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(5) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(6) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(7) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Following Up On The Recent Gill SLAPP Ruling, Appeal(s)

Given the developments since the costs decision was handed down against Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, it seems that a follow-up piece is required. Justice Stewart decided that the failed defamation lawsuit — dismissed as a SLAPP — merited full indemnity against the Plaintiffs. The price tag is about $1.1 million.

As an aside, it appears that National Post, as well as several mainstream outlets have covered the decision, and even credited this site for the research. That’s interesting. The comments pictured above are from this article.

However, it seems from the comments posted that a lot of people don’t really understand what happened, or why. Gill and Lamba weren’t in Court because someone tried to censor their speech. Instead, they sued 23 people and organisations for $12.75 million in order to silence them for their ideas, beliefs and opinions.

Gill and Lamba didn’t sue the CPSO, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, for their practices. This was aimed primarily at critics on Twitter.

Moreover, this wasn’t for some nominal amounts, designed to make a point. Gill and Lamba demanded damages to the degree that would have bankrupted people, had they been successful.

Most readers here have already gone through the Statement of Claim filed in December 2020, and the February 2022 dismissal as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. If not, they are essential for background information.

Not only were the Defendants faced with losses — roughly $500,000 each, had they lost — but they were forced to pay large sums of money to lawyers to protect themselves. The above includes the amounts that the Defendants claimed.

Gill and Lamba objected, stating that there was considerable duplication in the work done, and that the costs seem absurd. They have a point. That being said, they brought this on themselves. What exactly did they think would happen?

People in the freedom community would be outraged if some “lefty” or “commie” attempted to use the courts as a weapon to silence free speech. They would call this out as censorship and of weaponizing the legal system. It would never be tolerated.

However, Gill and Lamba did exactly the same thing — or at least tried to — and many of these freedom lovers celebrate them as heroes. The lack of awareness is amazing.

Had someone sued Gill for millions of dollars because she called them an “idiot”, many would rally to her defense. Meanwhile, she did just that to Amir Attaran, and there is complete silence. $7 million for two rude tweets is ridiculous.

According to the February ruling, some Defendants who sent rude tweets to Gill had since offered public apologies to her, and she still filed suit against them. Not at all a good look.

That’s right, apologies were made, but Gill tried to bankrupt them anyway.

The point is: if someone supports free and open discourse, regardless of how testy it can be, then it has to be done consistently. We cannot selectively censor, depending on one’s beliefs.

Gill and Lamba filed Notice of Appeal in March 2022. This was against the SLAPP decision. In a nutshell, they argue that the case should not have been dismissed, but sent to Trial instead. Costs were not factored in, as the cost ruling hadn’t happened at that point.

From the National Post:

Jeff Saikaley​, Gill’s lawyer, said neither he nor his client would comment as she is appealing both this week’s decision on costs, and the ruling in February that dismissed the lawsuit.”

Taken at face value, it implies that a second Appeal is coming, with this specific to the cost award that just came down. One has to ask what kind of advice these doctors are getting. Both Appeals are doomed, and here’s an explanation of why:

Appeal #1: Dismissal As Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

To understand why this is baseless, look up s.137.1 Courts of Justice Act for Ontario. The criteria is laid out pretty clearly.

Order to dismiss
(3) On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

No dismissal
(4) A judge shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (3) if the responding party satisfies the judge that,
(a) there are grounds to believe that,
(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and
(ii) the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
(b) the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Without going too deep, this is how it works. First, the Defendant must convince the Judge that the speech or expression is of a public interest matter. This is the “threshold burden” and it’s very low.

At that point, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff, who must show:
(a) There is substantial merit;
(b) There are no valid, reasonable defenses; and
(c) The harm outweighs public interest in allowing this expression

In the February ruling, Justice Stewart ruled that the Plaintiffs consistently failed to meet this 3-part test. Keep in mind: if any part fails, then all of it fails. Simply meeting 1 or 2 parts isn’t enough.

For most of the claims, the Plaintiffs couldn’t even meet a single branch of it.

This isn’t to agree with, or justify what the Defendants had to say. The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to keep public discourse going by filtering out just these kinds of cases.

Here is the Factum of the Medical Post and Tristan Bronca. All the Factums (arguments) follow this basic formula: (a) expression meets threshold burden; and (b) Plaintiff can’t meet test to avoid dismissal.

There’s significant case law in that Factum, and is worth a read.

The standard for review is given by Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. It describes the standards used to review: (a) errors of fact; (b) errors of law; and (c) mixed fact and law.

Prediction: this Appeal will go nowhere.

Appeal #2: Full Indemnity Costs Against Gill/Lamba

Going back to s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act:

No further steps in proceeding
(5) Once a motion under this section is made, no further steps may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the motion, including any appeal of the motion, has been finally disposed of. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

No amendment to pleadings
(6) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the responding party shall not be permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding,
(a) in order to prevent or avoid an order under this section dismissing the proceeding; or
(b) if the proceeding is dismissed under this section, in order to continue the proceeding. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

These anti-SLAPP laws are quite powerful. Once a Motion is started, then the case is stayed, and nothing else can happen. This also prohibits Plaintiffs from making necessary amendments to pleadings in order to avoid a dismissal.

It also provides guidance on costs.

Costs on dismissal
(7) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Costs if motion to dismiss denied
(8) If a judge does not dismiss a proceeding under this section, the responding party is not entitled to costs on the motion, unless the judge determines that such an award is appropriate in the circumstances. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

(9) If, in dismissing a proceeding under this section, the judge finds that the responding party brought the proceeding in bad faith or for an improper purpose, the judge may award the moving party such damages as the judge considers appropriate. 2015, c. 23, s. 3.

Full indemnity (100% of costs) is seen as the starting point in these kinds of cases. Justice Stewart is entirely within her discretion to do this.

According to Volpe v. Wong-Tam, 2022 ONSC 4071 (CanLII), paragraph 25, there’s significant, and recent history in handing down full indemnity on SLAPP cases.

(i) $164,186.76 in Canadian Thermo Workers, at para. 147,

(ii) $132,000 in Bernier v. Kinsella, 2022 ONSC 1601, at paras. 10-14,

(iii) $151,741.51 to the moving party Al Jazeera in Levant, ordered by the Court of Appeal at para. 92,

(iv) $131,076 in Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, at para. 23,

(v) $129,106.61 plus HST in Fortress Real Developments, at para. 76, and

(vi) $122,286.94 to the defendant Ms. Mohammed and $126,438.55 to the defendant Ms. Barclay in United Soils Management, at paras. 10, 17, and 43.

Granted, the $1.1 million award here is much higher than any listed above. However, with 23 people and businesses sued, it was bound to be messy.

Arguably, Gill and Lamba dodged a bullet. The Judge could easily have included damages, given how frivolous it was.

Defendants Already Going After Their Money

A source confirmed that the Defendants are already looking at ways to recoup their money. This includes attempting to seize assets, and to get Gill’s and Lamba’s wages garnished. Being public doctors, they are presumably paid through OHIP.

Apparently, the LSO, Law Society of Ontario, has also been approached. There is a compensation fund set up for victims of malpractice or misconduct committed by lawyers. If Gill goes bankrupt or otherwise refuses to pay, it may be the only recourse for some of the Defendants. Not all of them have insurance.

The current Appeal on the dismissal has little to no prospect of success. Anti-SLAPP laws were designed to weed out these kinds of cases. A separate Appeal is being considered for costs, but that would be a tough sell, considering costs are discretionary.

As for the suit with the University of Ottawa and Amir Attaran, Gill would be well advised to discontinue that before she’s faced with another anti-SLAPP Motion. The filing has zero chance of success.

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

It would be nice to know what kind of advice they’ve been getting. These decisions aren’t something that intelligent, fully informed people typically make.

And for true supporters of free speech and open discourse: be very careful about embracing Gill and Lamba as heroes. What they tried to do is downright shocking.

(1) Gill/Lamba Defamation Lawsuit December 2020
(2) Gill/Lamba Factum Of Medical Post Tristan Bronca
(3) Gill/Lamba Case Dismissed As A SLAPP
(4) Gill/Lamba Notice of Appeal and Appellants’ Certificate
(5) Gill/Lamba Appeal – Notice of Intention to Dismiss Appeal for Delay, May 12, 2022
(6) Gill/Lamba July 15 Letter To Obtain New Counsel
(7) Gill/Lamba Case Conference Brief July 29, 2022
(8) Gill/Lamba Endorsement New Counsel Cost Submissions August 3, 2022
(9) Gill/Lamba Case $1.1 Million In Costs Ordered October 31, 2022

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

%d bloggers like this: