Category: Procedural

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 7: CFIA Responds To Motion To Delay Culling

Ever heard the expression that there’s no cure for stupidity?

At this point, it would seem that the most intelligent beings at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C. are the birds themselves. Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely sarcasm.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the series for more information.

In this specific Motion, the farm owners are asking the Federal Court of Appeal to stay (defer) culling their animals until the overall Appeal can be ruled on. They say there’s strong grounds for appeal against the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). They state that aside from the financial costs, the proceedings become “moot”, since the animals would be dead anyway. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Part of their plea is based on the claim that they can manage and quarantine the animals effectively, and at their own cost. In essence, they take the matter seriously, and won’t endanger the public. Now, if they want the Justice (whoever decides) to be sympathetic, it stands to reason that they would act responsibly.

But the Affidavit of Cathy Furness changes things. And the arguments are harsh. See parts 1 and 2 of the full Record.

The CFIA has been putting their social media postings into evidence.

Espersen Apparently Sleeps In A Truck In Quarantined Area

121. In addition to the above, I have viewed social media posts shared by the owners of UOF indicating that Karen Espersen has been sleeping in a vehicle within the quarantined premises, which contravenes the quarantine requirements. Members of the public have also posted images on social media platforms which demonstrate that they are in very close proximity to ostriches and within the quarantined area. Attached as Exhibit “PP” is a May 14, 2025 Facebook post from Karen Esperson.

One could argue that there’s nothing inherently wrong with farmers spending time with their animals, even on this scale. That may be true in general. But when the owners are trying to convince the Federal Courts that they’re serious about respecting quarantine rules, this is moronic.

Photos Of Farm Visitors Went Into Evidence

[para 121 continued] … Attached as Exhibit “QQ” are three photographs posted to Facebook by a member of the public on May 25, 2025 showing supporters of UOF, including Karen Esperson’s daughter Katie Pasitney, standing in close proximity to the ostriches inside the quarantined area.

Thanks to Colin Bigbear’s Facebook page, the CFIA now has photographs that visitors (including children) routinely visit the farm. Again, all of this went into evidence for the Motion. It’s to show that quarantine isn’t being taken seriously.

Pasitney’s Interviews Were Downloaded By CFIA

149. Finally, although the risk of transmission of HPAI to humans is generally considered low, the information described above suggests that the farm owners are not taking the necessary precautions to prevent transmission of the virus to people. Katie Pasitney has also publicly stated that she and others have tested positive for H5N1 antibodies. I have reviewed an episode of the “Shadoe Davis Show” posted to Save Our Ostriches’ website on May 12, 2025, in which Katie Pasitney states at 00:25:16 that “we’ve all had our blood tested … and I came back positive for our strain of H5N1 … So we have antibodies”. Katie Pasitney goes on to state that “we have not fallen ill, we’re not sick, but we need to start dispelling the fear mongering because people get hospitalized all the time from just the regular flu, right?” This episode is available online https://saveourostriches.com/podcasts/25-05-12-katie-pasitney-shadoe-davis-show/. Also attached as Exhibit “VV” is an article from the Western Standard reporting that Katie Pasitney and her family tested positive for H5N1 after exposure to the UOF flock.

In Furness’ Affidavit, she states that Katie Pasitney has stated at least twice to testing positive for antibodies. Once was on the Shadoe Davis Show, and another was with Western Standard.

This is dumb for another reason. Instead of trying to challenge the validity of the tests, they just claim that they’re protected. It shuts down a potential defence.

Farm Music Festival Coming Up In July?

Farm Aid Canada? When this was first forwarded, it seemed to be a joke. This wasn’t included with the Furness Affidavit, likely because the site just went up. Still, it’s inevitable that the CFIA will bring it up with the Court at some point.

Additionally, if this Facebook post is to be believed, there’s going to be some camping in the area to help raise money for their legal costs.

While this may help raise money, it won’t help where it really matters: Court. Events such as these make everyone look clownish and unserious.

CFIA Tells Court They’ve Received Threats

100. No in person site visits have occurred since February 26, 2025 due to the risks to staff associated with entering an infected premises where robust disease control and biosecurity measures are not in place, and due to safety concerns associated with the presence of protesters. The basis for these safety concerns include numerous threats against CFIA employees made by members of the public on social media who oppose the presence of CFIA oversight at the premises and the destruction of the ostriches, including protesters currently residing on the premises. I have also reviewed emails, text messages and voice mails received by me and other CFIA employees containing threats and/or suggested threats of violence, including against CFIA employees in the Western region that have previously conducted site visits. Attached as Exhibit “KK” is a May 26, 2025 CBC News article regarding safety concerns raised by the union that represents CFIA workers, including because of online death threats.

Even worse, it makes everyone seem disingenuous. The inspectors state that they cannot return because of threats against staff. Meanwhile, members of the public come and go freely. Now, none of the threats are included, just a CBC article about it. Again, this is from Furness’ Affidavit.

Why Are They Still Asking For Donations?

Universal Ostrich Pharm – the real story – THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY – NO MATTER THE COST TO PEOPLE OR BIRDS.

500 Million JPY ($4.7 million CDN) to be paid to Tsukamoto in April 2024 by Struthio Bio… but now they need a GoFundMe to save the birds…

Where did all the investors go?
Surely, Dr. Lyle Oberg and his $3 billion investment company could pitch in to save his golden egg.

What happened to the 60 MILLION COVID MASKS (at $0.30 a mask)?

And what about the COVID nasal sprays?

What really happened to the Ostrich COVID vaccine before Immune Bio changed hands?

Where did they get antigens from?
We have seen so many places that they are saying the ‘DEAD’ COVID virus was obtained…

And Universal Ostrich Pharm had a contract to sell the eggs for $500 to Struthio – SO THAT WAS ALL THEY COULD BE WORTH TO THEM.

Yet Universal Ostrich Pharm’s expert, who had reviewed all the material, said each egg could be worth $48K to the farm… Not according to the EXCLUSIVE contract they had with Struthio Bio.

LINKED HERE:
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UOF-APPEAL-Bilinski-Affidavit-To-Stay-Culling.pdf

Remember to donate and attend the Concert at the Bio Lab to save the lab animals.

Source: David Dickson

Some Final Thoughts

Questions posed in the previous section are worth asking. What has happened to the numerous business ventures that Universal Ostrich Farms was connected to? Why can’t those investors put up the money here?

The CFIA argues here that while Justice Battista did stay the cull order back in January, the circumstances are not the same. In particular, they were forced to respond to a Motion on less than a full day’s notice. However, they can now answer more fully.

Even if they succeed in getting another stay of the culling (which is possible) this is far from the end. Although Appeals typically don’t allow new evidence, the CFIA may try to add the social media posts anyway. It’s hard to underscore just how damaging this can be.

The responding arguments mention that the issue of “financial conflict of interest” of former counsel isn’t expanded upon in this Motion. There’s an allegation, but without details or evidence attached. It would be nice to know exactly what that was about.

There comes a point where it’s impossible to feel sympathy for someone. Keep in mind: while they have regular visitors, and shrug off supposed “infection”, these people are telling the Courts that they are serious about their animals and public safety.

And this happens all while they ask for donations.

Perhaps, once Dan returns from Bilderberg, Liberty Talk and Press For Truth can follow up.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

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

The Gleason Directive: Is It Time To Start Filing Malpractice Lawsuits?

This is a follow-up to the military vaccine passport case of some 330 soldiers. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for background on the litigation.

In the last article, Catherine Christensen was scolded by Justice Locke at the Federal Court of Appeal. She pulled the “improper and high handed” stunt of filing a Notice of Discontinuance on behalf of about 50 clients, without their knowledge or consent. Supposedly, this was over unpaid fees. This was instead of the accepted method of filing a Motion to withdraw. One Appellant, Mark Lolacher, filed a Motion on his own behalf for reinstatement, and was successful.

Rather than simply take the loss, Christensen attempted to file a Notice of Appeal to the same Court. There was also a half hearted attempt to file a Motion to withdraw.

Since the Notice of Appeal was never actually filed, it’s impossible for the average citizen to pull it, or the Motion materials. Nonetheless, we can still deduce a lot from the notes, and the ruling.

Instead of simply complaining, let’s explore a practical solution at the end.

True, the overall Appeal is still ongoing. That being said, it’s beyond obvious at this point the case will never get to Trial. Heck, the first Notice of Appeal doesn’t even challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time.

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

(1) Associate Justice Coughlan: Struck the case originally because the pleadings fell far, FAR below what was necessary to make out a case. Even worse, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction because s.29 of the National Defence Act mandated a grievance scheme for everyone to follow.

(2) Justice Manson: Refused an extension of time for a Rule 51 Appeal. The 10 day time limit to file was missed, with no explanation of why. The Motion to extend time also failed to explain, or even hint at, what such an Appeal would look like anyway. The rulings states that, “The interests of justice do not justify the Court allowing poorly prosecuted litigation to proceed forward when there is no likelihood of success.”

(3) Justice Rennie: Had to unnecessarily respond to a Motion to determine the contents of the Appeal Book. Christensen tried to improperly include content that the previous Judge (Manson) had not see. This is generally not allowed, and the parties should have been able to agree on their own.

(4) Justice Locke: Chewed out Christensen for unilaterally filing a Notice of Discontinuance with respect to dozens of her (ex?)-clients, rather than following protocol. Normally, counsel is supposed to file a Motion to Withdraw. Worse, she even opposed a subsequent Motion from Mark Lolacher to be reinstated.

(5) Justice Gleason: Refused attempts to both, (a) file a Notice of Appeal within the same Court, and (b) file a Motion to Withdraw that doesn’t name appropriate parties. The materials weren’t served to everyone anyway, which is another violation of procedure.

Christensen knew in advance that this lawsuit would be (or was at least very likely to be) thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. The Neri ruling of December, 2021 explained the requirement to follow the grievance scheme, and to not simply sue.

Christensen also knew in advance that failure to abide by the Statute of Limitations would likely see the Rule 51 Appeal being time barred. September, 2024, another of her cases, Tondreau, was tossed for commencing an Application well after the deadline.

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

The amended appeal book may be filed and will replace the appeal book originally filed. The appellants’ memorandum of fact and law and proofs of service, submitted May 30, 2025 may also be filed.

The Registry has also sought direction pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules) regarding a Notice of Appeal submitted on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Christensen, counsel of record for the appellants, which names the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent. This document has not been filed. The Notice of Appeal purports to appeal to this Court the Order of the Court issued by Justice Locke on May 7, 2025. In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants also seek an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for 51 of the appellants. The Notice of Appeal was signed by another solicitor, Bath-Shéba van den Berg of the firm Ergonomy Law.

The Notice of Appeal may not be filed. It is wholly irregular because this Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal from one of its orders. An appeal lies from an order of this Court, with leave, only to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Notice of Appeal is also irregular in that it substitutes someone else as solicitor of record, names one of the appellants, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent and counsel of record as an appellant without any order from the Court changing the style of cause or replacing counsel of record.

As was noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, the proper procedure when counsel wishes to get off the record is for the solicitor to bring a motion under Rule 125 of the Rules. Counsel other than the counsel of record may act on behalf of the counsel of record in such a motion. Indeed, Rule 82 of the Rules provides that a solicitor shall not depose an affidavit and present arguments to the Court in respect of their affidavit, except with leave. Thus, if Ms. Christensen wishes to bring a motion under Rule 125 and files an affidavit in support of the motion, she should either be represented by another solicitor, such as Bath-Shéba van den Berg, or seek leave of the Court under Rule 82 to file the affidavit and present the motion. Her motion record in support of any such motion must be served on all parties for whom she formerly acted, as provided in Rule 125(2). In addition, in accordance with Rule 369.2(1), such motion should be brought in writing or request an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 369.2(2).

As also noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, Mr. Lolacher, on his own volition, may take steps to no longer be represented in this appeal by Ms. Christensen. He may either file a notice under Rule 124 to appoint a new solicitor (using Form 124A) if he hires new counsel or a notice to act in person (using Form 124C). These steps may also be taken by any of the appellants.

The Registry has also sought direction regarding several documents submitted subsequent to the Notice of Appeal, none of which have been filed.

The first of these is a motion record submitted on behalf of Ms. Christensen by Bath-Shéba van den Berg to remove Ms. Christensen as counsel of record on behalf of 51 of the appellants, to set aside and stay this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, and to “sever” the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, from the other appellants. It is unclear who the respondents and appellants are on this motion as the style of cause in the Notice of Motion lists only one appellant and respondent and then uses “et al.”. It appears from the affidavit of service that this motion record was served only on counsel from the Department of Justice (who appeared on behalf of the governmental respondents) and Mr. Lolacher, but not on the other 50 appellants for whom Ms. Christensen no longer acts. This motion record may not be filed as it is wholly irregular. To the extent it seeks to appeal this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, as noted, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from one of its orders. To the extent it seeks an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for Mr. Lolacher and 51 other respondents, the motion record has not been properly served. The stay application appears to be ancillary to the other relief sought.

The remaining documents in respect of which the Registry seeks direction were submitted in response to the foregoing motion or in reply to the responding motion records. None of them may be filed as there is nothing to respond or reply to given that the motion record discussed in the preceding paragraph cannot be filed.

So long as this appeal is outstanding, unless and until a motion is properly brought under Rule 125 and the Court removes Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for some of the appellants or until, one, some or all of them file notice(s) under Rule 124, Ms. Christensen continues to be the solicitor of record for all the above listed appellants unless she or they die, she is appointed to public office, incompatible with the solicitor’s profession, or is suspended or disbarred as a solicitor. To the extent that Mr. Lolacher wishes to make a complaint about Ms. Christensen, his remedy lies with the Law Society of Alberta and not with this Court. Indeed, all the foregoing should have been abundantly clear from the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025.

***Note: one exception is that the Court did permit an amended Appeal Book, for the overall proceeding, to be filed. Everything else was disallowed.

According to Justice Gleason, the Notice of Appeal cannot be filed because it lacks jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal cannot hear an Appeal from one of its own decisions. The only path forward is the Supreme Court of Canada, and Leave (permission) is needed for that. It’s stunning that neither Christensen, nor her “counsel” know this.

The Notice of Appeal also names new counsel, and has new parties, and the Court has signed off on NONE of this.

Christensen has apparently tried to file a Motion to withdraw as counsel for some 50 or so clients. However, she needed to include everyone as named parties, and had to serve everyone. Again, shocking that these basics are not followed.

Justice Gleason was also critical of Mark Lolacher for continuing to complain about Christensen’s conduct. She says that the proper venue about misconduct is the Law Society of Alberta. While true, the LSA isn’t going to handle a complaint when the underlying litigation is still open.

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

While it may seem daunting, suing former counsel for professional malpractice is an option. It’s not necessary to establish any malice or dishonesty, which makes it easier. This site covered recent examples, here and here, including a Class Action. Here are a few ideas.

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

  • Establish duty of care exists between the parties
  • Establish that the duty of care has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of the duty of care resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

  • Establish a fiduciary duty (obligation) exists between the parties
  • Establish that the fiduciary duty has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of fiduciary duty resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

  • Establish the existence of a valid contract
  • Establish that the contract has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of contract resulted in damages

As is pretty obvious, although these torts are framed differently, the requirements are much the same. The first element can be established by filing the retainer agreements, or other contracts. The second element can be proven with the assistance of the various rulings, showing unprofessional conduct. Lastly, Plaintiffs would have to give some evidence of damages, whether financial, or otherwise.

Neri and Tondreau happened prior to the mistakes here, meaning that Christensen should have been well aware of what was going on. Whether this is intentional, or just incompetence and negligence, Plaintiffs have been let down every step of the way.

Lawyers are required to have insurance to practice. However, that doesn’t mean that the money is there to pay out victims. Commonly, money is used to hire lawyers to fight against justice. Still, it can be overcome, if there is a strong enough case.

If there is a path to justice, it’s through Christensen’s insurance money.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim (June 2023)
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim (July 2023)
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence (September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence (September 2023)
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim (July 2024)
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions (August 2024)
(7) Qualizza Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave (November 2024)

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time (January 2025)
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (February 2025)
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book (April 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/ARGUMENTS/RESULTS (AD HOC):
(1) Qualizza Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law (June 2025)
(3) Qualizza FCA Order Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)
(4) Qualizza FCA Reasons Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record (March 2025)
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement (May 2025)
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement (May 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE:
(1) Qualizza SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(2) Qualizza SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) Qualizza SCC Certificate File Access
(4) Qualizza SCC Response From AG Opposing Application
(5) Qualizza SCC Responding Certificate

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 5: Notice Of Appeal Alleges Incompetent & Conflicted Counsel

The proceedings with Universal Ostrich Farms didn’t end when Justice Zinn ruled that the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had acted reasonably. It’s being challenged again. It’s heading back to the Federal Court of Appeal, in order to overturn that decision.

See Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the series for more information.

A Notice of Appeal has been filed with the Federal Court of Appeal, attempting to overturn the decision of Justice Zinn. It challenges a number of issues both with the ruling, and the previous representation. This isn’t to reargue the case, but to demonstrate that the findings were flawed. An initial response has been filed, although more documents are still coming in.

  • The Federal Court erred in determining the scope of the CFIA mandate
  • The Federal Court applied the test wrong in reviewing administrative decisions
  • The Federal Court erred in assessing the available evidence
  • The Federal Court misunderstood several key arguments
  • Previous counsel was ineffective at doing their job
  • Previous counsel had (presumably undisclosed) conflict of interest

Also noteworthy: there’s a Motion filed to again stay the cull order, pending resolution of the larger proceeding. At the time of writing this, the Appellants have sent in their Motion Record, but the CFIA has not yet responded.

Appeal Claims Previous Counsel Had Conflict Of Interest

13. In addition and/or in the further alternative, the Appellant submits that the order of Zinn J. be set aside given the ineffective assistance of Appellant’s counsel at the application for judicial review. The Appellant’s prior counsel’s acts and omissions at that hearing fell well outside the range of reasonable professional assistance, amounted to incompetence, and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Notably, the Appellant’s prior counsel had a financial stake in the destruction of the Appellant’s ostriches, resulting in a blatant conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s representation of the Appellant’s interests.

The Notice of Appeal alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at the previous proceeding. Worse, it claims that there were a financial conflict of interests that would work against good representation. Now, it’s not spelled out what this conflict(s) was, but hopefully it will be in later documents.

Appeal Of Justice Battista’s Stay Discontinued

January 31st, 2025, Justice Battista of the Federal Court stayed the CFIA cull order, at least until the broader challenge could be heard. The Government appealed it, although it was eventually dropped. Presumably, Justice Zinn’s ruling made it moot.

The rest of the documents are linked below.

Timeline Of Major Events In Proceedings

For clarity, this hasn’t gone ahead in a linear manner. There have been multiple, overlapping proceedings along the way. Hopefully, this helps somewhat.

January 30th, 2025: Universal Ostrich Farms filed Application to challenge the CFIA “cull order” of their ostriches.

January 30th, 2025: UOF brings Motion to temporarily block culling.

January 31st, 2025: CFIA files a Responding Motion Record to the Stay sought.

January 31st, 2025: Justice Battista issues a temporary stay of the CFIA cull order.

February 7th, 2025: UOF brings a second Application, this time challenging the refusal of the CFIA to issue an exemption for their birds.

February 10th, 2025: CFIA begins Appeal against the staying of the cull order.

February 11th, 2025: UOF files Motion Record in support of request for exemption.

February 20th, 2025: UOF files that it intends to respond at the Appeal.

March 12th, 2025: Parties send their agreement as to the contents of the Appeal Book.

April 11th, 2025: Appeal Book is filed, in challenge to Justice Battista’s ruling.

May 13th, 2025: Justice Zinn denies both Applications. Those were (a) to challenge cull order, and (b) to challenge the exemption refusal.

May 23rd, 2025: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed in the Appeal against Justice Battista’s stay. Since Justice Zinn ruled on the overall case, it would be considered moot.

May 26th, 2025: Notice of Appeal is filed against Justice Zinn’s decision.

May 28th, 2025: CFIA files a Notice of Appearance.

June 2nd, 2025: UOF files its Motion Record to stay the culling.

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.

Anyhow, readers will be updated with whatever twists and turns emerge. But it’s clear that these people won’t go down without a fight.

Regardless of what ultimately happens in Court, Universal Ostrich Farms is still operating what amounts to a bio-lab on their land. Or rather, the Quigleys’ land. Judging by the response that earlier articles have received, and the work of David Dickson, it seems many people didn’t know this.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress