Category: Procedural

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 4: Foreclosures Worth Looking Into

The memes write themselves: the Espersens are the “undocumented owners”.

The short explanation is that they previously owned the land, but lost it when RBC foreclosed for non-payment. They’ve been trying to get at least a portion of it back, but things have gotten complicated. More on that later.

Universal Ostrich Farms has been busy fundraising as of late, under the guise of fighting a Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) cull order. Among other options, the organization has GoFundMe and GiveSendGo pages up, soliciting donations. Money can also be sent via etransfer or cheque.

See Parts 1, 2 and 3 in the series for more information.

A reasonable question is this: how will donor money be spent? Keep in mind, once payment is made, it’s virtually impossible to ensure any sort of accountability for how it’s used. And there certainly are concerns here.

Looking through the British Columbia Court Services Online (BC CSO) system, there’s a lot that donors aren’t being told. For starters, the number of mortgage defaults is troubling. The topic definitely requires follow-up, but here are some notable civil cases.

Farm Foreclosure To RBC => Sold To Quigleys

November 2012, RBC filed a Petition against Karen Espersen over a default in their mortgage, located in Section 12 Township 69 of Kootenay District. They were unable to pay their bills, so the bank came for their property.

RBC refers to the property as Kootenay District. The other parties, in subsequent litigation, list it as Langille Road in Edgewood, B.C.

On October 29th, 2014, the Nelson Court certified an order which saw Catherine and Thomas (Owen) Quigley become the new owners. They paid $320,000 for it, and it was to be effective on November 8th, 2014.

Oddly, an “interested party” was seeking documents in 2023. And no, it wasn’t me.

Espersens Sue Quigleys To Regain Ownership

After the foreclosure, that wasn’t the end of it.

The Espersens made an agreement with the Quigleys. It was to see the land subdivided, and eventually, they would regain at least a piece of what they had lost. However, things didn’t work out as planned.

June 2021, the Espersens filed a Notice of Civil Claim against the Quigleys. They claim that they’ve fulfilled their obligations, and ask that a portion of the land be transferred to them. They listed in detail the expenses they had contributed overall. It’s also stated that they were paying rent on the property. From 2015 to 2018, it was $1,300 per month. Since then, the amounts were $1,200 per month.

In their Response, at paragraph 12, it’s stated that the proposed subdivision of the property was denied. Afterwards, the Espersens allegedly demanded the entire property back. In their Amended Response, their clarify that this problem with splitting the property is largely (although not entirely) why things soured.

In 2024, because so much time had lapsed, the Quigleys had to seek permission to file a Counterclaim against the Esperens. It was granted. In it, they demanded that the Court they are the sole owners. One of the problems is that the Espersens allowed the Bilinskis to move into a second house on the property, which presumably wasn’t part of the agreement.

One of the other allegations in the Counterclaim is that the ostrich farm has obstructed the ability of the Quigleys to do their own hay farming. In their Response, the Espersens invoke the Statute of Limitations, implying that it was too late anyway.

Now, the Trial was supposed to begin in April 2025. Unsurprisingly, it has been postponed until April 2026. It seems that a lot was going on with the CFIA.

Do the people donating to this farm know that they’re not the owners? Are they aware that there’s a very real possibility that they could be kicked out anyway? One has to wonder if all of this money will be used to fight the CFIA, or if some will end up going to Trial costs.

Espersen/Bilinski Have Joint Foreclosure In 2024

October 2022, Espersen and Bilinski were hit with another Petition, this time in Section 13 Township 69 of Kootenay District. The Court approved the sale in the Summer of 2024.

David Bilinski Has History Of Foreclosures

According to Court Services Online (CSO), David Michael Bilinski has been involved in dozens of lawsuits, including several other foreclosures. This doesn’t come across as being particularly responsible.

  • February 1999 in Vancouver (H990228)
  • March 2010 in Kelowna (86857)
  • May 2010 in Kamloops (44287)
  • May 2012 in Kelowna (95163)
  • January 2013 in Vernon (50615)
  • September 2013 in Vernon (51343)
  • December 2015 in Nelson (19101)
  • February 2016 in Kelowna (110087)
  • October 2022 in Nelson (22450)

Worth noting: Nelson, Kamloops, Kelowna and Vernon are all within driving distance of each other. It’s roughly the same area in B.C.

Unless this is a bizarre coincidence, and it’s some other David Bilinski, there are questions about how productively donation money will be used. And where it will be going.

Writs Against Rocky Mountain Ostrich Enterprises Ltd.

According to paragraph 6 of Karen Espersen’s Affidavit in the CFIA cases:

“In 1995 my husband and I began managing quarantines for Rocky Mountain Ostrich. Subsequent to that we operated a farm with 200 breeding ostriches. We focused on the benefits of ostrich farming, and studied the psychology and physiology of the ostrich.”

It seems the company wasn’t all that well managed, because there were 2 certificates filed in Federal Court years ago, seeking seizure of assets to pay debts.

ITA-8475-96: Writ of Fieri Facias issued to Sheriff of Alberta
ITA-12258-02: Writ of Seizure and Sale issued to Sheriff of British Columbia

For reference, a Writ of Fieri Facias is the same as an order to seize and sell a debtor’s property in order to satisfy a Court judgement for debt or damages. A request has been made to obtain the actual documents.

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.

Similarly: British Columbia also has an extensive online system, although most of it is paywalled. Still, determined sleuths can find information for minimal costs.

Now, with all the attention centered around protecting ostriches, it seems that few have bothered to look into the people asking for money. All of this is public record, and easy enough to find. But for some reason, leading figures in the “alternative media” haven’t. Why aren’t: (a) Viva Frei; (b) Juno/True North; (c) Press For Truth; (d) Rebel; (e) Liberty Talk, and others, asking such questions?

If you want hard truth, contact your local Twitter troll.

Or, perhaps David Dickson.

ESPERSEN/RBC FORECLOSURE:
(1) Espersen RBC Petition (November 2012)
(2) Espersen RBC Requisition (February 2013)
(3) Espersen RBC Notice Of Hearing (February 2013)
(4) Espersen RBC Requisition By Interested Party (August 2023)

QUIGLEY/ESPERSEN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Espersen Notice Of Civil Claim (November 2021)
(2) Espersen Response To Civil Claim (November 2021)
(3) Espersen Amended Response To Civil Claim (April 2023)
(4) Espersen Notice Of Application To Extend Time Counterclaim (February 2024)
(5) Espersen Order For Extension To File (March 2024)
(6) Espersen Counterclaim (March 2024)
(7) Espersen Response To Counterclaim (March 2024)
(8) Espersen Notice Of Trial (May 2024)
(9) Espersen Requisition To Adjourn (April 2025)
(10) Espersen Notice Of Trial (April 2025)
(11) Espersen Consent To New Trial Date (May 2025)

BILINSKI/ESPERSEN/0752063 B.C. LTD FORECLOSURE:
(1) Espersen 0752063 Petition October 2022
(2) Espersen 0752063 Consent Order For Foreclosure (June 2023)
(3) Espersen 0752063 Notice Of Application (November 2023)
(4) Espersen 0752063 Order (November 2023)
(5) Espersen 0752063 Notice Of Application (July 2024)
(6) Espersen 0752063 Application Response (August 2024)
(7) Espersen 0752063 Requisition August 2024
(8) Espersen 0752063 Requisition GENERAL August 2024

FEDERAL COURT WRITS: $61,134 in 1996 and $24,310 in 2002
(1) Rocky Mountain Ostrich AB Certificate (1996)
(2) Rocky Mountain Ostrich AB Request (1996)
(3) Rocky Mountain Ostrich AB Writ of Fieri Facias (1996)
(4) Rocky Mountain Ostrich BC Certificate (2002)
(5) Rocky Mountain Ostrich BC Requisition (2002)
(6) Rocky Mountain Ostrich BC Writ Of Seizure And Sale (2002)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

WestJet Forced To Pay Over Refusal To Accommodate Religious Objection To Injection Mandate

A Calgary Court has now ruled that WestJet improperly terminated an employee over the 2021 vaccination mandates, and didn’t adequately provide alternatives.

Justice Argento awarded Duong Yee $65,587.72, or the equivalent of 11 months of her salary. After more than 11 years of employment, she was terminated in the Fall of 2021, for refusing to take the injections. She had tried — but failed — to obtain an exemption on religious grounds.

Many lawsuits in recent years have invoked religious beliefs. However, this is a rarer one that actually details what those beliefs are. The case was pursued by Jody Wells and James Kitchen.

Yee didn’t challenge the Government policy itself, but how it was implemented. While not a repudiation to the injection pass in general, this is nonetheless a nice win showing that some exemptions can be protected.

Although many have referred to this as suing WestJet, there were in fact 3 Defendants: (a) WestJet, an Alberta Partnership; and its Partners (b) Westjet Airlines; and (c) 2222304 Alberta Corp.

The lawsuit sought $100,000 for economic and other harms:

  • $66,500 for severance pay
  • $12,000 for benefits
  • $21,500 for “moral damages” or aggravated damages
  • Costs

While Yee did get an award for severance pay, and presumably the benefits lumped in, the request for damages was denied. The Judge said that none had been proven, and there was nothing overly insensitive or egregious in how the company had acted.

WestJet further argued that Yee failed to mitigate her damages (improve her own situation), but that was rejected by the Court.

Quotes From WestJet Exemption Questionnaire

Question #6. Explain why you are requesting an accommodation:

Based on sincerely held beliefs as a bible believing Christian, the vaccine is betrayal of faith to my healer, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Question #7. Describe the accommodation you are seeking:

Exemption from vaccination; from masks; from rapid testing

Question 9. Describe how you are a practicing member of this religion:

I attend online worship and sermons with my church, I have a weekly bible study with my church group to continue understanding God’s word, as well as my own daily prayer, worship and bible readings to commune with my heavenly father.

Question #10. How long have you been a practicing member of this religion?

Over 3 years

Question #11. Explain the connection between your religious belief(s), your objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and the accommodation you are seeking:

Jesus is my healer, I do not cannot rely on the use of vaccinations or medicines created artificially in order to prevent sickness. Jesus speaks of seeking out a doctor when one is sick, not well. I have no need of a vaccine in order to maintain my health.

Question #19. Do you belong to any groups (social media or otherwise) protesting or denouncing or being critical of Covid-19 measures taken by health authorities and government bodies?

Yes

Question #20. Please describe the groups of which you are a member:

I have joined groups that are peacefully seeking a community to support our freedoms; ie. conscience, religion, beliefs; choice – Jesus came to set the captives free and that we are not to live in bondage. This can be include those being critical of the covid measures, but that is not my purpose for belonging to these groups

Question #21. Do you have any concerns about the safety of any Health Canada-approved Covid-19 vaccines?

Yes, many reports of adverse reactions and death in the last 4 months of covid vaccines alone compared to last 17 years of all vaccines according to VAERS. -Severe reactions include: Inability to conceive, heart attacks, miscarriages, strokes; bloodclots, paralysis of arms and legs, reproductive dysfunction.- No long term safety has been completed to ensure they are safe and effective.-mRNA is a new technology and side effects completely unknown – Never been licensed for human use when 0 long term studies have been competed [sic] to ensure they are safe and effective, they are still in phase 3 experiment that will not be completed until trial ends late 2022.

Interestingly, when WestJet asks a direct question about practical concerns people may have, this is used as “evidence” that their objection is a personal opinion, and not a protected ground.

WestJet has carefully reviewed your request for an accommodation, including the information listed above. For the reasons stated below, WestJet declines your request for an accommodation on the basis of religion:

• The information provided or obtained in reviewing your accommodation is insufficient to establish you require an accommodation. More specifically, the information you provided to WestJet casts doubt on religion being the grounds for your application. You have written in your application form that you consider the vaccine unsafe. It is therefore reasonable to consider that you are philosophically/personally opposed to mandatory vaccine, which means you are seeking accommodation for secular reasons, not religious. We respect your opinion, but personal preference is not a Protected Ground.

One has to wonder what kind of answer Yee was supposed to give. If she had no concerns about the shots, why wouldn’t she have just taken them?

Justice Argento Accepts Argument Termination Unnecessary

[101] First, the Plaintiff’s conduct was not insubordination or disobedience of a type where the employment relationship could not continue and the misconduct was irreconcilable with continued employment. The Plaintiff continued working after her accommodation request was denied on October 4, 2021 until she was placed on unpaid leave on November 1, 2021. She continued to meet deadlines and her manager described her performance as “professional” leading up to November 1, 2021. There was no evidence that her non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy negatively impacted the workplace, other employees or the Defendant’s trust in her ability to do her job.

[102] The Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Vaccination Policy did not impact her job performance. It did not endanger the Defendant’s employees or the public as the Plaintiff was working from home. While a future, partial return to work was anticipated, that was not yet implemented. The issue of cause must be assessed based on what was known and understood at the time of dismissal.

[104] Next, in balancing the competing interests of the parties, it is significant that dismissal was not the only option available to the Defendant. Even though the Defendant’s Vaccination Policy stipulated that anyone failing to comply would be subject to discipline up to and including termination for cause, the Defendant did not have to proceed in this fashion.

Aside from pleading the exemption issue, the Plaintiff pointed out that she had already been working remotely for several months. This presumably could continue.

Justice Argento comments that the decision to dismiss Yee was likely unnecessary in any event. This wasn’t the sort of conduct that would destroy an employment relationship, nor was it one that would result in a lost of trust.

And most importantly, it wouldn’t endanger anyone since Yee was working from home.

WestJet Plays Games With Issue Of Jurisdiction

11. While the Plaintiff references the words “wrongful dismissal” or “wrongful termination” the substance of her claim is entirely that of a human rights complaint based on allegations of discrimination; the concept of wrongful termination itself is tied to WestJet’s failure to accommodate the Plaintiff. The duty to accommodate is an obligation of employers enshrined in human rights legislation, and WestJet’s purported failure to accommodate the Plaintiff is squarely in the purview of a human rights commission. The Civil Claim even seeks general damages for the duration of the reasonable notice period, which is a remedy only available to a human rights commission as compensation for the pain and suffering caused by discrimination.

24. The Plaintiff further claims that WestJet ceded jurisdiction of this action to this Court. With all due respect, this is inaccurate. In response to the Plaintiff’s Canadian Human Rights Complaint, and prior to the Civil Claim being filed, WestJet made a preliminary objection to the complaint on the basis that it would more appropriately be addressed under the Canada Labour Code by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”). At no point has WestJet stated that this Court, or any civil court for that matter, has, or ought to have jurisdiction of a claim entirely based on an allegation of discrimination.

These passages are from the Defendants’ written submissions. For context, it’s important to realize the Yee filed a human rights complaint before suing anyone. WestJet objected, saying it would be better placed before the Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) for Arbitration. The complaint was dropped.

WestJet now complains that this lawsuit should have been filed with the Human Rights Tribunal, raising a jurisdictional issue.

While the submissions say that the preferred venue is the CIRB, this is a bit of a red herring. WestJet initially objected to jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal, so they can’t really claim that it should be there after all.

The Defendants tried to argue that at its core, this wasn’t a case about breach of contract or wrongful termination. It was about discrimination and failure to accommodate. It was unsuccessful.

Note: While WestJet is a unionized employer, not all employees and contractors are covered. Mrs. Yee wasn’t, and hence, there was no duty to grieve and seek arbitration.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

May 17th, 2010: Yee begins her employment with WestJet. At the time, she was working part time as a sales agent.

May, 2021: Yee comes back from maternity leave, and begins working remotely.

September 8th, 2021: WestJet announces their vaccination requirements.

September 20th, 2021: Yee requests a vaccine exemption.

October 4th, 2021: The request for an exemption is refused.

October 30th, 2021: The deadline imposed by WestJet for vaccination.

November 1st, 2021: Yee is placed on a month long unpaid suspension.

December 1st, 2021: Yee’s employment is terminated by WestJet, and they claim it is “with cause”.

August 15th, 2023: Yee sues WestJet in the Calgary Branch of the Alberta Court of Justice.

February 24th, 2025: Trial begins.

May 13th, 2025: Judgement is issued.

The Court declined to make an immediate decision on costs, allowing the parties the opportunity to settle them first. This may very well happen.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Yee WestJet Statement Of Claim
(2) Yee WestJet Plaintiffs Written Submissions
(3) Yee WestJet Defendants Written Submissions
(4) Yee WestJet Reasons For Decision
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abcj/doc/2025/2025abcj87/2025abcj87.html

Posted on

Discontinued: Client Forced To Abandon Injection Pass Case After Leighton Withdraws

A former employee at Canadian Natural Resources Limited (or CNRL) dropped his lawsuit, which had been filed in Calgary. Bradley Miles did so as a self-representing litigant, despite previously having counsel.

At least the Notice of Discontinuance was done on a “without cost” basis. That means that he won’t have to pay the lawyers for CNRL. He’s still out whatever fees he paid to his own lawyer, and the money he lost from being terminated, or at least, suspended without pay.

This brings to 10 (and counting) vaccine passport cases Grey has commenced, only to have dropped or abandoned. The search results are still coming in

CNRL Claims Miles Was Offered His Job Back

In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff states that he should be entitled to return to work in the same position he was previously in.

12. On December 2, 2021, Canadian Natural sent the Plaintiff a letter warning him that he was non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and that, effective December 1, 2021, his site access was suspended with pay. The Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to provide proof that he had received a second dose of an approved COVID-19 vaccine by December 21, 2021, he would continue to be non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and would be suspended without pay.

13. On December 22, 2021, the Plaintiff was suspended without pay due to his continued non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy.

14. On or around March 15, 2022, in response to the reduced number of COVID-19 cases in Alberta, and the Alberta government’s easing or removing public health protocols in respect of COVID-19, Canadian Natural sent a letter to employees on unpaid suspension for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy, including the Plaintiff, advising that Canadian Natural was ending certain COVID-19 measures effective April 4, 2022, including the requirement that Workers be fully vaccinated. The Plaintiff was notified that his unpaid suspension would end effective April 4, 2022, and that he was required to return to his work location and role at Canadian Natural on that date.

15. In that letter, Canadian Natural asked employees to indicate whether they intended to return to work at Canadian Natural. Canadian Natural did not receive a response from the Plaintiff regarding his intention, or lack thereof, to return to work. Rather than return to work, the Plaintiff commenced his claim against Canadian Natural.

16. As of April 4, 2022, employees previously suspended without pay for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy were returned to work by Canadian Natural to their same position.

In their Statement of Defence, CNRL claims that Miles was offered his position back in April 2022, but he didn’t respond. Instead, he sued the company in September 2022. But since the case was dropped, we won’t know for sure what the full truth is.

“Poison Pills” Slipped Into Statement Of Claim

E. Criminal Assault
44. Forcing a medical intervention on employees under threat of loss of livelihood is a clear violation of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) which states in part:

265(1) A person commits an assault when
(a) Without consent of another person he applies force intentionally to the person directly or indirectly..
265(3) For the purposes of this Section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of…
(d) The exercise of authority. [emphasis added]

45. Forcing employees to be vaccinated under threat of loss of livelihood is a violation of the CCC. Every member of the CNRL Board who supports the Policy supports the criminal assault of his or her fellow employees and coworkers.

Like many of Leighton’s cases, he includes content that makes explicitly criminal allegations. He knows — or ought to know — that this cannot be adjudicated in a CIVIL proceeding. In fact, the Statement of Claim would have been struck for this alone.

The claim also goes on to argue what would better be described as “expert evidence”. This doesn’t belong in the initial pleadings, and would come later.

Shouldn’t a King’s Counsel/Queen’s Counsel lawyer know better?

Timeline Of This CNRL Case

September 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in Calgary.

March 2023: Statement of Defence is filed.

November 2024: The case is discontinued.

According to the information provided by the Alberta Courts, there doesn’t seem to have been any real urgency to move the case along. It never got past the initial pleadings.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. ***August 9th, 2023: Grey discontinues Helgeton v. FWS Holdings
  8. ***January 19th, 2024: Grey discontinues Hamonic v. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  9. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  10. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  11. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.
  12. November 29th, 2024: Grey abandons Bradley Miles in his CNR case

***Note: since the original publication, another 2 cases in Manitoba were added, bringing the total to 12. There may very well be more.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter. This specific case doesn’t invoke an arbitration requirement as a defence, but most do.

Strange, isn’t it? The “alternative” media will announce all kinds of new lawsuits being filed. However, they very rarely will report on how they end.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Miles Statement Of Claim September 2022
(2) Miles Statement Of Defence March 2023
(3) Miles Notice Of Discontinuance November 2024

Posted on

Diagolon Rat Squad: Liberate Your Neighbourhood

This is to follow up on a story that broke over 3 years ago.

It’s been long established that Jeremy MacKenzie (a.k.a. Raging Dissident) called the police on a group named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, and a member, Landon Preik. This happened while lockdowns were being enforced all over the country. It’s what he swore to under oath.

MacKenzie has repeatedly bragged — such as on Red Ice — that he contacted the RCMP because he viewed the group as a threat to public safety. It’s portrayed as civic necessity, and done to prevent violence. Rightly or wrongly, he has been labelled a “fed” and a “rat” for doing this.

Thing is, his version of events doesn’t add up. There is a much more plausible reason for MacKenzie contacting the police, namely to get himself out of his own gun charges. After all, Preik was arrested less than 2 days after he was.

The whole “HateGate” narrative never made sense in this regard either. If the authorities were looking for an excuse to invoke the Emergencies Act, MacKenzie would have given them a legitimate one. Why then would they frame him for it, if he was cooperative with police?

The Global News article on the case is dated February 3rd, 2022. It references a police investigation that began on September 14th, 2021. (See archive). The problem is that it lacks sufficient information about the case.

However, after ordering some court documents, things become a lot clearer.

MacKenzie’s Arrest/Residential Search January 26th, 2022

Inverness County District RCMP has arrested a man for firearms offences after executing a search warrant at a home in Pictou County.

On January 10, 2022, the Inverness County District RCMP began an investigation after a video was posted to social media of a man, in a business, waving a handgun around in a reckless manner and allegedly having an over capacity magazine. It was determined that this incident occurred on Whycocomagh Mountain Rd. in Whycocomagh.

On January 26, as part of the investigation, police executed a search warrant at a home on High St. in Pictou. During the search, police located and seized five restricted firearms including rifles and handguns, one unrestricted firearm, prohibited magazines, ammunition, body armour, a duty belt with attached holster and magazine pouches and cellular phones.

At the request of police, the suspect, a 35-year-old Pictou man, attended the Pictou RCMP Detachment prior to the search warrant execution and was arrested without incident. He was later released on conditions, which include that he not possess any firearms, weapons, ammunition or explosive substances. He will be facing charges of Careless Use of a Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of a Prohibited Device, Possession of a Prohibited Device Knowing It’s Possession is Unauthorized, Possession of a Firearm at an Unauthorized Place. He will appear in Port Hawkesbury Provincial Court on May 30, 2022.
File #: 2022-39074

Why does the January 26th, 2022 date matter? It’s because of what happened in the immediate aftermath.

MacKenzie was released, and headed to the convoy. Preik was picked up the next day.

Preik Picked Up January 27th, 2022 On Possession Charges

The information about the case is available, and it spells out exactly what he has been charged with. Interestingly, it lists both September and November 2021 dates.

Originally, there were 6 charges. It was later amended to 10.

  1. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: Armi Jager AP80 semi-automatic rifle
  2. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: CZ-CZ858 Tactical 2 semi-automatic rifle
  3. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 5 handgun magazines, with 15 cartridge capacity
  4. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 4 CZ magazines, with 30 cartridge capacity
  5. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 1 CZ detachable magazine, with 30 cartridge capacity
  6. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Rossi Ranch Hand Rifle
  7. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: K100 Dynamic Handgun
  8. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ VZ58 Sporster semi-automatic rifle
  9. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Mossberg shotgun
  10. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ 75 Luger semi-automatic handgun

Notice what’s missing? Preik was never charged with terrorism, treason, sedition, or any violent offence. The complaint against him is solely for possession and transport/storage offences.

That is, of course, not to say that the current charges won’t mess up his life.

Are we supposed to believe that the RCMP took MacKenzie’s information and did nothing with it for months? And is it just a coincidence that they only acted after the raid in Pictou? It strains all credulity to accept such a narrative, but here we are.

MacKenzie: Contacting RCMP Necessary To Prevent Violence

Almost everyone by now is familiar with this clip.

At his POEC testimony MacKenzie specifically named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood” as a group that he turned into police. He said there was a group of men “with masks and guns, saying ‘this is a call to arms'”. It’s portrayed as a necessary act in order to protect public safety.

He also says that this happened in the Fall of 2021.

Again, the timeline doesn’t make sense, if MacKenzie is to be believed. While it seems true that he did contact the police, the sequence of events is very different. His version is quite implausible, and we’ll go through it.

Perhaps he had “more information” to share in January 2022.

Timeline Of Major Events For Preik And MacKenzie

September 14th, 2021: RCMP begins investigating a group called “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, based on videos that had been posted online.

September 23rd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for first time.

September 29th, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for second time.

November 2nd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for third time.

To make this clear, the police are obviously aware of who Preik is, having talked to him on 3 separate occasions. However, there will be no arrest for months. One has to wonder why. MacKenzie (supposedly) telling them about the videos wasn’t enough, but something would change.

January 10th, 2022: RCMP becomes aware of a video of MacKenzie (and another man), in possession of firearms, and would later accuse them of using them carelessly.

January 13th, 2022: According to the ITO (page 5) MacKenzie admitted to police that he was intoxicated when this happened.

January 22, 2022: RCMP applies for a search warrant for MacKenzie’s Pictou home for:

  1. Smith & Wesson M&P 9 firearm
  2. Glock 17 firearm
  3. High capacity magazine
  4. Gun holster
  5. Firearms registration paperwork
  6. MacKenzie’s cell phone (unknown brand)

January 25th, 2022: This is the first day that (if authorized) the search warrant would allow the police into MacKenzie’s home.

January 26th, 2022: RCMP raid MacKenzie’s home in Pictou, N.S., and file firearms charges. From the way the press release is worded, it sounds like he was released almost right away.

January 27th, 2022: Preik is arrested in Chilliwack, B.C.

January 28th, 2022: Preik is released without bail, while facing 6 charges.

February 3rd, 2022: Global News publishes the arrest of Preik. It was noted that he faced (a) five counts of careless use or storage of a firearm, and (b) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The article only specifies that an investigation had been ongoing since September 14th, 2021.

August 2nd, 2022: Preik now facing a total of 10 charges. His release conditions are modified to require that he pay $200 if he breaches them.

December 8th, 2022: Preik appears in court on a further modified complaint.

January 27th, 2023: Crown elects to proceed by indictment (the more serious option)

September 6th, 2024: After voir dire hearing, it’s ruled that Preik’s 3 interrogations (September 23rd, 29th, and November 2nd of 2021) are all admissible as evidence. See page 5.

Preik faces trial later this year, while MacKenzie had all of his charges thrown out.

Why Does Any Of This Matter?

MacKenzie has long stated that he turned in the group to avoid violent (armed) confrontation with the state. While difficult to swallow for many, it’s at least a plausible excuse to send the RCMP after someone. Regardless of one’s personal feelings, there’s a justification to do this.

That justification disappears once you look when things happened.

Preik had been interviewed at least 3 times by police in late 2021. They clearly knew who he was, but chose not to make any arrest then. In fact, they only acted just a day or so after MacKenzie was picked up in Nova Scotia.

It’s unrealistic to assume police simply ignored specific allegations about an armed militia (as MacKenzie made) for several months. But we’re supposed to believe that arrest came just after his…. and it’s entirely a coincidence.

Did MacKenzie call the RCMP to inform them about a violent threat?

Or did he do it to get himself released from prison?

And what’s the deal with his “continuous relationship” with law enforcement? Diagolon isn’t an entrapment operation, is it?

PREIK COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Preik Record Of Proceeding
(2) Preik Information
(3) Preik Release
(4) Preik Transcript January 28 2022
(5) Preik Transcript January 28 2022 Copy
(6) Preik Transcript August 2 2022
(7) Preik Transcript August 2 2022 Copy
(8) Preik Transcript January 27 2023 Elect Method
(9) Preik Transcript August 15 2024 Not Guilty Plea

MEDIA ATTENTION:
(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/8591403/rcmp-seize-firearms-in-b-c-following-probe-into-video-by-self-described-militia/
(2) Preik Arrest Global News Announcement
(3) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2022/rcmp-arrest-man-firearms-offences
(4) RCMP arrest man for firearms offences
(5) https://www.antihate.ca/jeremy_raging_dissident_mackenzie_arrested_waving_handgun_local_business

SEARCH WARRANT FOR MACKENZIE:
(1) ITO Warrant Application For Jeremy MacKenzie January 22 2022

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Case Struck With Leave To Partially Amend, And The s.15 Deception

In recent years, there has been a common pattern happening in high profile lawsuits. Specifically, litigants have a tendency to file unnecessary Appeals, in order to delay their own cases. This happens when Judges permit amended versions to go forward, but are ignored.

Readers of this site have heard of the infamous 4 “travel mandates cases”, brought in 2021 and 2022. They’re perhaps the most egregious examples.

Summer of 2022, all 4 Applications were declared “moot” by Associate Chief Justice Gagné. This was because the vaccine passports weren’t in effect anymore. There was one important caveat though: Applicants were free to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. This is clear in paragraphs 27, 41 and 46 of the decision.

Instead of filing Statement of Claims — which was expressly permitted — all of the Applicants appealed. Rickard/Harrison, Bernier, Peckford, Naoum, etc…. all filed Notice of Appeal. That’s correct, they appealed ACJ Gagné’s ruling, when they could have amended. No convincing explanation has ever been provided of why.

Lawyers for the Appellants then proceeded to crash their cases into the ground. Among other problems, they argued the wrong standard of review for mootness. Instead of properly arguing “overriding, palpable error”, 2 argued correctness, and the other 2 nothing at all.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum all filed Applications for Leave, requesting that the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases. Again, they appealed, when they could have amended. All Applications were denied.

Interestingly, none of Bernier, Peckford or Naoum appear to have filed a Statement of Claim afterwards, despite the fact that they could have. They simply abandoned their cases.

Instead of going to the Supreme Court, Rickard and Harrison finally filed their own claim in 2023, which was the more sensible option. But that, and the amended version had serious problems, with the Attorney General brining a Motion to Strike.

When Associate Judge Trent Horne eventually ruled, something interesting happened. The Section 7 and 12 claims were struck entirely, and the Section 6 (for Rickard only) as well. But while the Section 15 claims were struck as well, he granted leave to amend.

The public is being told that the case is “moving to Trial” on the s.15 claims. This is a gross misrepresentation of what the Judge said. Getting permission for a rewrite is not the same thing as getting the green light to move forward.

Rather than filing another version, Rickard and Harrison appealed again. Once more, they appealed a decision, when they could have amended their filings. Noticing a pattern here?

Results Of November 2024 Motion To Strike

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Allowed to proceed for both Rickard and Harrison

This is what the pinned tweets of Rickard and Harrison say. But the truth is quite different.

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Struck for both Rickard and Harrison, but with leave to amend

In reality, the case was struck entirely against Rickard. Harrison (being the only Canadian citizen), could pursue s.6 at any time. The only caveat is that they have an opportunity to file — yet another — version of the Statement of Claim for s.15.

This *may* be one of the reasons behind the latest appeal. Rickard’s only pathway (currently) at continuing the case is a long-shot attempt to redraft the Statement of Claim in a way that would allow the s.15 claims to go ahead. He doesn’t have s.6 to fall back on. This may be a way of creating a “backup”.

That may not be a bad idea. However, Rickard and Harrison need to be honest about the results of the Motion.

Rickard/Harrison V.S. What Horne Actually Wrote About S.15 Claims

The tweet is very long, but it does get to the specifics about each tort. For the most part, they’re accurate.

Paragraphs 54 to 61 of A.J. Horne’s decision make it very clear what happened regarding the Section 15 claims. They are not “proceeding to Trial”. They were struck, albeit with permission to amend.

[55] Vaccination status is not an enumerated ground in section 15, nor has it been recognized as an analogous ground. Analogous grounds are those similar to the enumerated grounds that would often serve as the basis for stereotypical decisions made not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a personal characteristic that is immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity (Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203 at para 13).

[56] No material facts are specifically pleaded in respect of the section 15 claim. The plaintiffs broadly allege that the vaccine mandates, implemented through the IMOs, violate section 15.

[57] Charter actions do not trigger special rules on motions to strike; the requirement of pleading material facts still applies. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined in the case law the substantive content of each Charter right, and a plaintiff must plead sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. This is no mere technicality, “rather, it is essential to the proper presentation of Charter issues” (Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at para 21).

[61] While the chances of having vaccination status recognized as an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15 may be remote in light of the current jurisprudence, I am not satisfied that such an argument is bound to fail if the plaintiffs allege that vaccination would constitute an unacceptable cost to their personal identity, or would tear asunder immutable or even deeply held beliefs. Lewis and Costa do not foreclose this possibility, or stand for the proposition that vaccination status is incapable of constituting an analogous ground. While it may be dim, there is a “glimmer of hope” (La Rose at para 122) that vaccination status could be recognized as an analogous ground. Leave to amend to add a cause of action under section 15 is granted for both plaintiffs, however any such amendment must be fully and completely particularized.

It is possible that a new complaint would be drafted in such a way that the s.15 claims could go to Trial. However, that’s not what happened here at all. And it’s not just some technicality either.

Also, why appeal A.J. Horne’s ruling if you’re proceeding anyway?

This is the sort of thing Action4Canada did.

Rickard/Harrison Case Is PRIVATE Suit For Damages

[29] The plaintiffs submit that they are able to challenge IMOs as they relate to rail travel because an intention to travel by rail at the material time is irrelevant; they say the inability to travel by rail alone triggers the ability to advance a claim. I cannot agree. There is no indication in any version of the statement of claim that the plaintiffs ever intended to travel by rail when the IMOs were in place. There is no loss or harm, and no basis to claim damages, in this respect. A claim for damages based on railway travel would be an abstract complaint about a government restriction that had no impact or consequence on the plaintiffs. I fail to see how either of the plaintiffs have standing to advance a claim for damages based on a method of transportation they did not use, and expressed no interest in using. At the hearing, the plaintiffs directly stated that they are not advancing a claim based on public interest standing. Leave to amend in this respect is refused.

The original Statement of Claim, the amended version, and the proposed new version ask for anything other than money for themselves. No injunctive or declaratory relief is sought.

At the 2024 hearing, they make it clear that they are NOT seeking any sort of public interest standing, which would benefit many more people.

“Buyout” From Ottawa Is Always An Option

This has been stated before, but is worth repeating:

Because it’s a private lawsuit, seeking only monetary damages, Ottawa could always offer to pay it out, along with costs. This would mean no groundbreaking decision, and no precedent. And really, there’d be no practical way for the Plaintiffs to refuse such an offer.

Current Appeal Is A Somewhat Of A Gongshow

Because the ruling was from an Associate Justice, and not a full one, Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules applies. This means that there is a 10 day time limit to file Motion to have it reviewed.

However, their lawyer missed the deadline to appeal by a few weeks, then requested an extension of time to file. The Crown decided not to oppose the request.

The Court did issue new direction on refiling, and the extension has since been approved.

Instead of filing a new Statement of Claim, Rickard and Harrison are appealing the portions that struck entirely, which are s.7 and s.12. Keep in mind, the Attorney General hasn’t initiated any Appeal. They’ve come solely from the Plaintiffs/Applicants. They’ve also mentioned the possibility of this upcoming decision being appealed as well.

Should that happen, things will probably take close to a year at the Federal Court of Appeal. Then, they’ll have to refile their claim, something they could have done months ago.

Or, to be more accurate, a Statement of Claim could have been filed in the Summer of 2022, after the original Applications were declared “moot”. That was nearly 3 years ago.

Think about it: we can be well into the year 2026, or even 2027, and these people will still be asking for money to file

*checks notes*

another Statement of Claim.

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.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) Rickard T-2536-23 Decision For Motion To Strike
(11) Rickard T-2536-23 Rule 51 Motion Appealing AJ Horne Decision
(12) Rickard T-2536-23 Letter From Crown On Extending Time To Appeal
(13) Rickard T-2536-23 Order Regarding Motion To Extend Time

MISCELLANEOUS:
(1) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(2) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(3) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(4) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Abandons Calgary Firefighters Injection Pass Case In 2023

This article is to follow up on a 2022 case that no one ever heard about again. Specifically, it involved the Calgary Fire Department being sued for their new requirement to take the clot-shots. Many covered the announcement at the time, but nothing ever came of it.

Turns out that the lawsuit was discontinued, see here and here, less than a year after it was filed. The primary reason appears to be pushback from Calgary itself. The Calgary Firefighters Association, Local 255, has a collective bargaining agreement with the City and employees.

It’s also (yet another) cautionary tale about the problems litigants can have when they sue too many parties. Here, there could have been a decent case against the Alberta Government. Instead, the lawyer decides to name the employer as well, causing new headaches.

Additionally, the pleading had other serious defects.

The genius behind this was Leighton Grey, K.C., or King’s Counsel.

Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

24.01
(a) If any difference concerning the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of this Agreement or any question as to whether any difference is arbitral arises between the parties or persons bound by the Collective Agreement, such parties or persons shall endeavour to resolve the difference utilizing informal dispute resolution meetings. Should the parties fail to resolve the difference either party may proceed through the grievance process as set out below.

Step Two
If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved at Step One the Association within fifteen (15) days of the decision rendered by the Deputy Fire Chief or designate may submit the grievance to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or designate shall hear the grievance within fifteen (15) days of receiving it and shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days from the date the grievance was heard. If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved the grievance may be advanced within thirty (30) days to arbitration as provided under 24.01(c). If a grievance is not advanced to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the decision in Step Two, the grievance shall be deemed abandoned.

(e) The grievance arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any Member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the grievance arbitration board, but if there is no majority the decision of the Chair governs and it shall be deemed to be the award of the board;

Article 24 of that agreement spells out the grievance process. It reads:
(a) Bring grievance to Deputy Fire Chief.
(b) If no resolution, proceed to file with Fire Chief.
(c) Proceed to arbitration, if needed.

It’s also specified that if there’s no satisfactory conclusion reached with the Chief, then there’s a 30 day time limit to seek arbitration. It’s also clear that such a hearing is meant to be final.

Now, lawyers have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that various agreements never contemplated vaccine passports. While true, this amounts to CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, where the employer unilaterally changes a term and condition of employment. This sort of thing “is” usually covered.

Of course, had Grey only sued the Government of Alberta, the union agreement wouldn’t have come into play. Think about it, they can’t invoke a contract they’re not a party to. But by suing the Fire Department as well, Grey ensures that lack of jurisdiction will be an issue.

It’s just like an Ontario lawyer, who would be okay suing just the Ford Government. But then, he decides to sues any and all employers as well. Of course, suddenly union contracts create a jurisdiction issue.

City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike

The City of Calgary Fire Department brought an Application to Strike. Predictably, they invoked the union agreement, which specified arbitration as the only option.

Grey could simply have sued the Alberta Government — who brought in Provincial mandates — and left it at that. After all, they can’t challenge jurisdiction based on a contract they didn’t sign. Suing the Calgary Fire Department was an idiotic move, and allowed this to happen.

Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

The Statement of Claim contains poison pills, ensuring that it will be struck. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear criminal allegations at all.

The document also doesn’t plead any facts or particulars about any Plaintiff. The Judge would just be left guessing what the circumstances are for everyone, and which specific arguments they intend to make. This is probably since this lawsuit is largely recycled from other ones.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  8. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  9. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter.

Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

On his website, Grey brags about his success and accomplishment in the profession, including being an Adjudicator for Law Society disciplinary hearings from 2015–2020. He also mentions being the youngest to receive the King’s Counsel designation. Alberta describes members as:

Competence, including:

  • sound intellectual ability with a thorough, comprehensive, and current knowledge of law and practice in the applicant’s field
  • distinguished legal service with demanding and challenging legal work that contributes to the development of the law and practice
  • a recognized expertise in a particular area of law and practice (which may include the general practice of law)
  • an outstanding ability as a lawyer in the applicant’s field, to a standard to be expected of King’s Counsel

One has to wonder how and why so many defective cases were filed in recent years over the “vaccine passport” issue. It appears that most involved unionized employers, making them doomed to fail. Shouldn’t more be expected?

Note: To anyone who has read this far, are you aware of any other injection pass/vaccine pass cases brought by Leighton Grey? This site covered 9 that were dropped, and 1 struck, but there may very well be more. If so, please respond with the details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
https://www.calgaryfirefighters.org/files/docs/IAFF_L255_2021-2023_Collective_Agreement_.pdf

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress