Category: Procedural

Posted on

Respondent Lawyers Accused Of Misconduct In Action4Canada Appeal

It’s interesting what people can do when motivated. October 13th, this piece went out, publishing that the Action4Canada Appeal had been listed as “inactive” due to a failure to schedule the hearing.

Less than a week later, it’s been announced that the case has been removed from the “inactive” listings, and a hearing booked for February 14th, 2024.

Further details: Action4Canada filed an appeal on Sept. 28, 2022 and the Respondents filed their response by January 2023. The appeal could have been before the Appeal Court within 6 months however, the Respondents were not cooperative in setting a timely date. Rocco’s office consistently made every effort to work with all parties involved. If a court date is not set within a year the file is automatically put on an ‘inactive’ list. This transpired on Sept. 28, 2023 and was due to the Respondents’ ongoing delays in setting a date.

The update is accurate, at least in the sense that Appeals are automatically considered inactive if a Notice of Hearing isn’t filed within a year of the Notice of Appeal. That part is true. Section 50 of the B.C. Court of Appeal Rules spells this out.

However, it’s probably not a good idea to go around accusing the Respondent/Defendant lawyers of attempting to delay and sabotage the hearing of the Appeal. It seems unlikely that this would be protected under anti-SLAPP laws.

On the off chance that this is true, some receipts would be nice.

Also, delaying the case would make no sense from their perspective. The Appeal is baseless — as has been covered here — and focuses primarily on issues that a B.C. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant. It revolves around Paragraph 52 in Justice Ross’ ruling. This would be an easy case to get thrown out.

This also isn’t the first time that Government lawyers have been accused of deliberately stalling this case. Back in late 2020, there were claims that the B.C. officials had delayed service by 2 1/2 months.

This makes little sense either, as the 391 page Notice of Civil Claim, or NOCC, was a convoluted mess that was doomed to fail from the outset.

Looking at the big picture, Action4Canada has been fundraising for about 3 1/2 years now and still hasn’t put forward a valid NOCC. This will never get to Trial.

In other news:

(1) The Federal Court of Appeals will hear the Appeal of some 600+ Plaintiffs — both Government workers and employees of Federally regulated industries — on November 8th, 2023. See the background information here.

(2) Vaccine Choice Canada will be in Court for 2 days, January 30 and February 1st, 2024. This is to finally have the hearing to strike out the July 6, 2020 Claim. For anyone wondering why it took so long, it’s because it took 2 1/2 years to have a first appearance.

Factums (arguments) are due starting in November, and will be provided.

(3) Vaccine Choice’s other case, from October 2019, hasn’t gotten past the pleading stages. This is despite being filed 4 years ago. It may very well be dismissed for delay soon.

Update: Shortly after this was published, Action4Canada made significant changes to their October 19, 2023 update. They removed references to the Respondent lawyers deliberately delaying the hearing of the Appeal. Guess someone had to explain that these kind of accusations are a bad idea. Without receipts or other proof, a defamation claim was quite possible.

Remember to donate!

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Take Action Canada: 2 Years Later, No Activity In Vaccine Mandate Case

This is an update from March 2023. More than 100 “first responders” from Ontario (police, medical, firefighters, etc….) filed a lawsuit against the Ontario Government and their respective organizations. It sought over $100 million in damages.

April 2021: For context, it’s important to know the history. Originally, there was an Application filed back in April 2021 on behalf of a number of Ontario police officers. This case was heavily promoted, and donations solicited, from a group called Police On Guard. It’s interesting that P.O.G. was never listed as a client, despite their public role.

That case sat idly for several months — as always — before the next version came out. Now, the case is still considered active, and no one bothered to tell the public that this Application wasn’t being pursued. It’s unclear if any of the donor money was ever returned.

Worth noting: there was an April 2021 Application from Children’s Health Defense (Canada). It also appears that it’s not being pursued, and nothing has been publicly announced about returning donations.

Fall 2021: The next iteration was by a group called Take Action Canada. This was more broadly to challenge the vaccine passports that were being implemented in the Fall of 2021. Apparently, prospective clients were being asked to contribute $1,500 each, despite this being (despite abandoning the April Application).

March 1, 2023: Although the clients’ livelihoods made this case urgent, nothing was actually filed until March 2023. That’s right, it took approximately a year and a half from the time the suit was being organized, until the time a Statement of Claim was filed in Ontario Superior Court. Clearly, there is no urgency whatsoever in getting this done.

And what was the product? A rehash of filings from British Columbia and the Federal Court that had already been thrown out as “bad beyond argument”. People who had been forced from their professions were paying retainer fees for copies of pleadings previously tossed, and more than once.

July 18, 2023: an Amended Statement of Claim was filed. It pleaded some specific details for 35 of the Plaintiffs. The likely reason for doing this was to address criticisms from earlier cases that the claims lacked facts and background information. Here’s the Requisition.

However, the Amended Claim also states that “particulars will be provided later”. This likely won’t sit well with the Court, as Defendants are entitled to know the case against them.

August 10, 2023: the City of Hamilton filed a Notice of Intent to Defend. Note, this not the same thing as filing a Defence. It’s just a short statement that they intend to do so.

According to a recent response from the Court Registry, no actual defences have been filed, nor are there any hearings scheduled. In other words, it’s just another dead end case.

Should things progress, there are a few major problems to contend with:

  • First: the Plaintiffs mostly (if not entirely) are/were unionized employees, which means there’s a requirement to go through the grievance process. This typically ends in arbitration. While there are limited ways to argue around this, this document falls far short of that.
  • Second: as with similar cases, this one is pleaded so poorly that it’s likely to get struck due to its incomprehensible and incoherent nature. While not fatal, it will be another significant delay.
  • Third: given that it took so long to even get a case filed, the Defendants are likely to argue that the issues are “moot” (as in no longer relevant).
  • Fourth: even if some of the Plaintiffs were to seek out a new lawyer and file a new case, the Statute of Limitations — typically 2 years — will prevent them from refiling.

This case was announced 2 years ago, and hasn’t gotten past the pleadings stage. This is comparable with Vaccine Choice Canada’s 2020 suit, which was dormant for 2 1/2 years before a Motion to Strike was brought. That will be heard January 30th February 1st, 2024.

Again, few of these cases are being tried on the merits. They are being struck or dismissed because they aren’t written in an intelligible way, or have fatal defects.

This site has covered only a relatively small number of these kinds of cases. One has to wonder how prevalent the issue really is.

Instead of criticizing this site, perhaps Take Action Canada should be trying to reimburse people who’ve paid the retainer fees. Just a thought.

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/
(2) https://twitter.com/Takeactioncan
(3) Ontario EMS Statement Of Claim
(4) Ontario EMS Amended Statement Of Claim
(5) Ontario EMS Requisition To Amend
(6) Ontario EMS Notice Of Intent To Defend
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-ems-workers-suit-recycled-from-recent/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Notice-Of-Application-Police-On-Guard.pdf
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Take-Action-Canada-Retainer-Essential-First
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par45
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par52

Posted on

Action4Canada Appeal Put On “Inactive” List, Likely To Be Dismissed As Abandoned

Remember that dumpster fire of a case that Action4Canada filed in August of 2021? Remember how it was struck — not on the merits — but because it was so poorly written? Bad beyond argument?

Heck, even the Law Society of British Columbia piled on.

While Justice Ross did allow for a rewrite, the decision was appealed instead.

This Appeal was particularly frivolous considering the content that was being challenged. Specifically, most of it centered around Paragraph 52, outlining many of the areas that there was no jurisdiction to bring to Civil Court.

[52] The defendants submit that the NOCC pleads to a number of claims that are improper in a civil action. In part, the defendants point to the following elements of the NOCC as inappropriate:

a) alleging criminal conduct;
b) seeking a declaration that the preponderance of the scientific community is of the view that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission;
c) seeking a declaration that the motive and execution of the COVID-19 prevention measures by the World Health Organization are not related to a bona fide “pandemic”;
d) seeking a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent constitutes experimental medical treatment which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration and is a crime against humanity under the Criminal Code of Canada;
e) seeking a declaration that the unjustified, irrational, and arbitrary decisions of which businesses would remain open, and which would close, as being “essential”, or not, was designed and implemented to favour mega-corporations and to de facto put most small businesses out of business; and
f) seeking a declaration that the measures of masking, social distancing, PCR testing, and lockdowns are not scientifically based, and are based on a false and fraudulent use of the PCR test.

[53] I agree with the defendants that these are improper claims.

The B.C. Court of Appeals isn’t going to overturn this. Full stop.

As for the request to revisit the costs issue, it needs to be pointed out that costs are almost entirely discretionary. Given that Justice Ross (correctly) ruled the Notice of Civil Claim wasn’t drafted properly, no one will fault him for such a finding anyway.

Unsurprisingly, there were more requests for donations.

And what a time to be alive. We are in the age where Court Services Online (C.S.O.) can be accessed by anyone. Any member of the public can search a case online, and see what exactly is going on. Yes, B.C. does paywall this content, but it’s not expensive.

As it turns out, no Appeal has yet been scheduled to be heard. This is a serious problem, as British Columbia, like most jurisdictions, don’t want files sitting dormant for months or years. The Action4Canada appeal has been classified as “inactive”, due to a failure to schedule the hearing.

Back at the beginning of 2023, there was a consent order for Translink to delay sending its Factum (arguments). However, it has since been filed.

It also appears that Mark Witten has been replaced as counsel for the B.C. Defendants for some reason.

The B.C. Court of Appeal Rules, and the Act outline the issue A4C is going to have:

[Division 3, Rule 50]
Managing inactive appeal list
50 (1)The registrar must place an appeal on the inactive appeal list if a notice of hearing of appeal is not filed in accordance with these rules by the date that is:
.
(a) one year after the notice of appeal is filed for the appeal, or
(b) 60 days after the appeal is ready for hearing.

[Division 4, Rule 51]
Appeals that are dismissed as abandoned
51(1) For the purposes of section 23 [appeals or applications for leave to appeal dismissed as abandoned] of the Act, an appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned if it remains on the inactive appeal list for 180 days.

(2) Unless a justice orders otherwise, an appeal that is dismissed as abandoned under subrule (1) may not be reinstated.

[Court of Appeal Act]
Appeals or applications for leave to appeal dismissed as abandoned
23(1) An appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed as abandoned if it remains inactive under the circumstances and to the extent set out in the rules.
.
(2) An appeal or application for leave to appeal that has been dismissed as abandoned under subsection (1) may be reinstated in accordance with the rules.

Under Rule 50, an Appeal must be placed on the “inactive” list if more than 1 calendar year has elapsed since the Notice of Appeal was filed. Under Rule 51, if it remains on that list for 6 months, it will be dismissed for being abandoned. That’s consistent with Rule 23 of the Court of Appeal Act

Interestingly, the Appellants — people launching the Appeal — can’t just fill out a form if the case gets dismissed. Instead, a Judge must approve it.

There have been allegations made that the Respondents have been deliberately delaying getting a hearing booked. This seems very unlikely, for the reasons outlined previously. The Appeal doesn’t address the elephant in the room — that the Claim wasn’t written properly — so there’s no real prospect of the decision getting overruled.

Huang v. Li, 2022 BCCA 450 outlined the test for reinstating Appeals at Paragraph 10:

(a) the length of the delay and, in particular, whether the delay has been inordinate;
(b) the reason for the delay and, in particular, whether the delay is excusable;
(c) whether the respondent has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay; and
(d) the extent of the merits of the appeal.

Ground (d) is particularly fatal. There are no merits to the Appeal. None whatsoever. Instead of rewriting an incoherent Notice of Claim, an Appeal was filed to challenge jurisdiction on a number of issues Civil Courts can’t determine. It’s clearly and obviously baseless.

Supposedly, Action4Canada has a new Notice of Civil Claim ready to go. If this is actually true, then it boggles the mind why they’re wasting time and money messing around with this Appeal.

Questions need to be asked about this.

Receipts attached below (as usual).

UPDATE TO ARTICLE: This Notice of Hearing was filed October 19, 2023. It seems that people are taking note about what gets published in this case.

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Federal Court Strikes Claim By Coast Guard Worker Over Pay Issues, Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction

A member of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jennifer Horsman has had her challenge thrown out of the Federal Court, and lack of jurisdiction is cited.

This isn’t a case about being forced to take the clot-shots, but it’s still interesting. In August 2022, her employer claimed that she had been overpaid nearly $9,000, the remainder of a larger amount that was supposedly owed. Horsman says she kept her own records of all dates and shifts and contested the demand. This caused financial hardship.

She also tried to seek union representation, but was denied.

Despite attempts to resolve this internally, Horsman was unsuccessful. She eventually ended up suing the Government in March 2023 to resolve this, and here’s where it takes a turn.

Ottawa brought a Rule 221 Motion to Strike (throw out) the lawsuit on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Looking at Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, FPSLRA:

Individual Grievances
Presentation
Right of employee
.
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
.
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
.
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
.
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
.
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

Section 208 then goes on to list a series of conditions and limitations.

Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

Application
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Taken together, it seems laid out that Federal workers have the rights to file grievances, but they have no real right to take their problems to Court.

This ruling confirms the Adelberg decision, a high profile ruling in February 2023 that permanently ended the cases of over 400 Federal workers. Another 200 workers of Federally regulated industries had a setback as well, since the pleading was so poorly drafted.

Adelberg was also cited by a former RCMP worker, whose case was struck because of the FPSLRA.

Lesson in here: members of the Federal Government, as well as most unionized employers, have no guaranteed right to go to Court. There’s almost always a grievance or arbitration requirement.

If there’s any consolation here, it’s that the person wasn’t ordered to pay any costs. Yes, the Attorney General asked, but the Judge declined. She also didn’t waste many thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer to get the exact same result. Still, she has guts for at least attempting this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2003-c-22-s-2/latest/sc-2003-c-22-s-2.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html

Posted on

Canadian Frontline Nurses Hit With $315,000 In Costs Over Failed Defamation Suit

In a recent decision that wasn’t very surprising, the activist group, Canadian Frontline Nurses (CFLN), has been hit with $315,000 in Court costs. This follows a December ruling that dismissed their million dollar defamation case as a SLAPP, over 2 publications. That is, of course, short for a “strategic lawsuit against public participation”.

Costs are as follows:

  • $250,000 to Canadian Nurses Association Defendants
  • $65,000 to Together News Inc. Defendants.

See previous article for more information and context.

SLAPPs are a form of weaponizing the legal system to shut down discourse over public interest issues. By filing such cases, Defendants are “chilled” into being removed from the discussion.

What’s particularly bad about this case is that the CFNL is a group that claims to have fought on behalf of the freedom of Canadians over the last few years. It seems that at least some have no issue with taking away the freedoms — specifically speech — of people they don’t like.

This differs little from Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba, who are on the hook for $1.1 million over a failed defamation suit from December 2020. Actually, it’s mostly Gill.

To be clear, this isn’t about defending the principles or character of organizations like the Canadian Nurses Association, as they were all too willing to shill for lockdown measures. Instead, it’s about the right of everyone to say their piece, even if it’s downright awful. Silencing people because they’re not “on your side” is just downright wrong.

Seeing the replies to Paul Champ, one of the lawyers, was discouraging. So many in the “freedom movement” are showing disdain that the attempt at libel-chill had backfired. While they whine about their civil liberties being trampled on by Government, they cheer private citizens doing it.

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

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

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

Now, the group tried to avoid something called “full indemnity”, which is when the winning side of a lawsuit gets 100% of their costs back. In Ontario, the default is to grant this in cases where lawsuits are dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws. This is Section 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Interestingly, if an anti-SLAPP Motion fails, the Plaintiffs are not automatically entitled to costs.

Dismissing such a case doesn’t mean that the Judge endorses or accepts the views of the Defendants. Instead, it’s a finding that the lawsuit should never have been brought at all. In a (supposedly) free society, shutting down public discourse is rarely a good idea.

In any event, the CFLN attempted to cash in by suing, and it backfired. The result was predictably very expensive.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CFLN Statement Of Claim
(2) CFLN Statement Of Defense CDN Nurses Association
(3) CFLN Statement Of Defense Together News/Comox Valley
(4) CFLN Responding Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
(5) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 1
(6) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 2
(7) CFLN Cross Examinations Volume 3
(8) CFLN Supplementary Motion Record Of Plaintiffs
(9) CFLN Freedom Rally Documentation
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc7280/2022onsc7280.pdf
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-frontline-nurses-1-million-defamation-case-dismissed-as-a-slapp/
(13) https://twitter.com/paulchamplaw/status/1671560050249170950

APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) CFLN Appeal Appellant Factum
(2) CFLN Appeal Respondent Factum
(3) CFLN Appeal Order Security For Costs
(4) CFLN Appeal Notice Of Abandonment

OTHER LINKS:
(1) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca
(2) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca/donate
(3) https://t.me/NursesAgainstLockdowns/2229
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/anti-vaxx-nurse-libel-suit-ontario-1.6698686
(5) https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/blogs/cn-content/2021/09/09/enough-is-enough-professional-nurses-stand-for-sci
(6) https://comoxvalley.news/quack-quack-these-pro-virus-nurses-have-dangerous-ideas/

Posted on

600 Plaintiffs Appeal Federal “Bad Beyond Argument” Ruling: A Look Inside

It’s been a while, but nice to be back!

Back in February, Federal Court Justice Simon Fothergill struck a lawsuit brought by over 600 Plaintiffs. This was over a 2021 requirement to take the experimental injection (a.k.a. get the vaccine passport) in order to keep their jobs.

Now, the ruling (see official version) was interesting, to be blunt.

Part of the ruling differed because of who the Plaintiffs worked for. Approximately 2/3 of them were employed by the Federal Government, while the other 1/3 were part of Federally regulated industries. This caused a split in the ruling, and they were listed as Schedules “A” and “B”.

  • Schedule “A” Plaintiffs were ones who were part of the core public administration, or members of some branch of the Government
  • Schedule “B” Plaintiffs weren’t with the Government, but instead were parts of industries — like banking, the railways, or aviation — that were regulated by Ottawa

The Claim for all Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety because it was so poorly written. The pleading failed to follow even the basics of civil procedure, and failed to lay out a basis for the suit.

From the Federal Court Rules:

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

By “particulars”, this really means “specifics”. When pleading a document, the person must give enough specific and detailed information so that the other side is able to address the allegations.

Justice Fothergill found that the Statement of Claim was so poorly crafted that it was impossible for the Defendants to file any meaningful defence. It wasn’t thrown out on its merits. He even referenced the ruling against Action4Canada, which was also found to be “bad beyond argument”.

To clarify: neither the Federal case, nor the Action4Canada case in B.C. were struck on their merits. They were struck because they were confusing, convoluted, and impossible to decipher.

While the Federally regulated employees (Schedule “B”) at least had the chance to refile, former Government workers (Schedule “A”) were not so lucky. The Judge ruled that their claims were barred by a legislative requirement that they go through arbitration. Specifically, this is Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Now we get to the appeal.

The Notice of Appeal was filed in March. The Appeal Book (collection of documents) came next, followed by the Appellants‘ and Respondents‘ written arguments.

To sum up, there were 2 major areas to cover:

First, the decision to permanently bar the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs was challenged, on the grounds that their claims lay outside what arbitration and the grievance process could offer.

Second, it was claimed that it was inappropriate to rely on the precedent set by the Action4Canada case, and that they had nothing in common.

Anyhow, read the documents for yourselves.

In response, the Government replied that while there were opportunities to get around the grievance process, the Plaintiffs never explained why they had to, or what steps they took. Furthermore, while “malfeasance of public office” was alleged, the details were never laid out.

In other words, yes, this was at least a possibility, but the Claim didn’t address any of this.

As for the Action4Canada case, Justice Alan Ross laid out in great detail how the British Columbia case was a complete mess, incomprehensible, and sought a litany of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. There was also the problem that large sections were included about non-parties. While the Federal Claim was much shorter, the same problems persisted overall.

Justice Fothergill decided not to duplicate the entire ruling, but simply to refer to it.

A competent lawyer might be able to argue around the arbitration requirement. But in any event, the entire Statement of Claim would have to be rewritten anyway. This Appeal will likely go nowhere.

And the requests for money keep coming!

Familiar with the Wayback Machine? It’s a mainstream archiving site that captures websites at certain times, even if the content is no longer available. Some of the recent business ventures include:

There were even donations sought at one point to finance a public inquiry. It’s unclear how much money came in, or whatever became of that.

Also, donations were sought a few years back for a B.C. doctor’s case that doesn’t appear to have materialized. This isn’t the Action4Canada suit.

Curiously, both the Federal workers and Ontario first responders Plaintiffs were filling out retainer agreements ($1,000 and $1,500 respectively) while donations to finance the litigation were being sought online. The end results weren’t impressive.

People are being asked to donate to cases which clients are already paying a retainer?! That’s something, to say the least.

Then, we have this from the Federal case:

Hello everyone,  

Some of you have already heard but for those who haven’t, the Judge has rendered his decision in the Government’s motion to strike our claim. In a somewhat anticipated move, the claim was struck for 2/3 of the plaintiffs and remains open for 1/3 to amend the claim and resubmit. There is a letter attached from Rocco himself that goes into greater detail about the decision. Needless to say, the decision was an absolute pile of rubbish and the Panel has decided to appeal the decision.  

Now, as you will read in Rocco’s attached letter, there are additional fees associated with launching the appeal. The additional fees are minimal in comparison to the initial retainer but an explanation is required.  

As Rocco’s letter will clarify, the retainer fee was to cover all that was required to see this matter through a trial in the Federal Court. Now that an appeal is required, it is required to go through the Federal Court of Appeals and that alone will cost in excess of $100,000. Rocco budgeted the retainer fee on doing everything to see a trial through the Federal Court which did not include appeals.  

We feel it necessary at this juncture to apologize to each and every one of you. We misinterpreted the finer details of what the retainer fee covered due, no doubt, to our limited knowledge about how the civil court process works and a misunderstanding of the information Rocco provided to us. Some of you asked specifically what all would be covered with the retainer fee and were informed it would cover this entire matter all the way through no matter what action was required and for this, we apologize.  

We wish to reinforce with you that this was not done out of an attempt to deceive or act maliciously. We are going to be out the same amount as anyone else who desires to proceed and be a part of the appeal.  

To avoid repeating the same confusion, the panel asked Rocco to outline the cost implications for every step and all the way to the Supreme Court which Rocco now outlined in his letter. We hope this will better serve all of us and it is also our hopes that you will see this effort by the panel as a way to remain fully transparent on what transpired but also on what to expect going forward. We too, do not want to see other surprises but more importantly, we do agree with Rocco that we have a strong position for an appeal. We ultimately hope for our day in Court but sadly, we did not have our day in Court here as our lawsuit was wrongly struck down as evidently explained in Rocco’s letter. 

We are planning to host another info session with Rocco via Zoom within the next few weeks to answer questions you may have and to provide more information regarding how the appeal process will work. We are not going to attempt to solicit any money from anyone prior to this information session. Our intent is to allow you to consider whether each of you as individuals wish to proceed from this point.  

We understand many of you will have questions. We will do our best to answer them or have Rocco address them in the upcoming info session.  

We have also attached a link to the decision on the Federal Court website. 

Sincerely and most humbly,  

The Federal Employee Lawsuit Panel
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do

Shortly after the decision, there was already a request for more money. Even though the Plaintiffs had paid $1,000 each (see agreement), more money was needed to appeal. See letter providing more details about the fees.

The above email was leaked by unhappy client(s), and it eventually made its way here. Unfortunately, it seems to be real.

Apparently, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs who had their pleadings struck as “bad beyond argument” should consider that a win, because at least they are allowed a rewrite.

For reference: the email and the attachment were both sent here shortly after the February ruling. Fair to say, some are unhappy with the services they’ve received.

It’s worth asking why the this isn’t being done for free, given the shoddy drafting of the Statement of Claim to begin with. And budgeting for a Trial? Does anyone seriously think this will get that far?

The Federal Court of Appeals will throw this case out, just like the B.C. Court of Appeals will throw out Action4Canada’s. And Vaccine Choice’s suit will get tossed in early 2024.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action