Category: Procedural

Posted on

Federal Court Streaming Challenges To 2020 Order In Council And Gun Grab

The Federal Court of Canada is hearing 6 challenges to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council, which instantly converted some 1,500 types of firearms to “prohibited”.

People wanting to attend virtually can. The registration link is available to all, but the usual broadcasting prohibitions apply.

(1) Cassandra Parker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-569-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(2) Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-577-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(3) John Hipwell v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-581-20
Filed May 27, 2020

(4) Michael John Doherty et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-677-20
Filed: June 29, 2020

(5) Christine Generoux et al. v. His Majesty The King et al.
Case Number:T-735-20
Filed: July 10, 2020

(6) Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-905-20
Filed: August 11, 2020

The hearings started on Tuesday, April 11th, and are expected to finish up next week. Given that these cases cover essentially the same material, they’ll all be decided together.

So far, the Applicants have been focusing on a few concepts: (a) definitions of words are vague or missing; and (b) the choices of which firearms to prohibit are not consistent or logical.

For anyone interesting in searching the case histories, or to order more documents, the information is available for Federal cases.

Expect and update soon with attached documents.

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar

Posted on

The Forgotten Grifts: Police On Guard & Children’s Health Defense Canada

Today, we’re going back to a few lesser known lawsuits against lockdown measures. Both were filed in April 2021 (a full 2 years ago), and neither have had a single Court appearance. These are: (a) a police challenge promoted by the group “Police On Guard”; and (b) a challenge for students led by Children’s Health Defense Canada.

Both groups are still soliciting donations, while giving the impression that they have cases actively moving through the system.

So, what are the problems?

1. POG/CHDC Cases Filed In Wrong Ontario Court

To understand just how deep this goes, let’s take a look into the issue of jurisdiction. Filing in the wrong one is typically fatal to a case.

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.
Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
.
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

According to Sections 2 and 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, litigation involving a mandamus (compulsion order), or a prohibition (ban), must be an Application for Judicial Review. It also needs to be filed in Divisional Court, unless leave (permission) is granted.

The Police On Guard case asks for a prohibition (page 13).

The Children’s Health Defense Canada case asks for a prohibition (page 14), and also for a mandamus (page 15).

It doesn’t appear that permission was ever obtained (or ever sought) in order to try these cases in Superior Court, as opposed to Divisional. Consequently, they would probably be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction if they were ever challenged.

Of course, it has to be asked why they haven’t yet been challenged. Perhaps there’s an agreement among the parties to just let these sit.

2. POG/CHDC Cases Haven’t Had Single Court Appearance

It’s easy to SEARCH ONLINE for the latest updates. Neither case has been in Court, and again, we must ask why. There has been no effort to advance either one.

There was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request to have the Children’s Health Defense Canada case thrown out. This is simply filing a letter asking for it to be done. Only in truly incoherent cases is this granted.

Instead, it was misrepresented in alt-media circles to mean that a formal Motion to Strike has been filed, and then dismissed. That didn’t happen. So, why hasn’t the Attorney General made any real effort to get either case tossed? Was there some kind of agreement?

3. POG/CHDC Cases Recycle Previously Struck Content

Both Applications are asking the Court to make declarations as to “what the science is”. These exact remedies have already been ruled as inappropriate both in the Action4Canada case, and the more recent Federal vaccine passport ruling. Both Judges said that these are not the types of questions that should be brought.

There’s also the problem that both Applications are pleaded very poorly, and would likely be struck for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See the Vaccine Choice critique, as the flaws are nearly identical.

Worth pointing out: the Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense pleadings are virtual clones. It’s as if one was directly cut and pasted to form the basis of the other.

4. Police On Guard Is A Lobbying/Fundraising Group

From their Certificate of Incorporation, it appears that one of the major purposes of Police on Guard is to convince officers to join the ongoing Court action. Yes, its function (at least in part), is to act as a recruitment and lobbying tool to drive potential applicants and donations.

It’s not a stretch to label Police on Guard as a fundraising arm.

5. CHD Canada Case Has Major Conflicts On Interest

Supposedly, Children’s Health Defense Canada is run by Amanda Forbes. That’s very interesting, considering that the documents from Corporations Canada don’t list her at all.

It gets weirder, as Galati, counsel for the CHD Canada lawsuit is listed as a Director. Considering that CHD Canada is listed as an Applicant, that would essentially make Galati a self-representing litigant. Was this ever disclosed?

Moreover, the addresses for all the Directors are that of his Toronto law office. So, is CHD Canada just a shell corporation?

Does Robert Kennedy know that his name and brand are being used for this?

Anyone can search and download Police On Guard and CHD Canada corporate documents.

There’s a public interest in knowing what’s going on. These lawsuits were filed 2 years ago, challenging various lockdown measures. They were publicly advertised, and public donations have been solicited. There’s nothing private about any of this.

Also, Court documents are public records, but the point has been made.

It’s past time to ask some hard questions, isn’t it?

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/category/police-on-guard-court-case/
(2) https://policeonguard.ca/donate/
(3) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/legalcase/
(4) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/donate/
(5) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/
(6) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=13140873&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=police%20on%20guard&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(7) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12951126&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=children%27s%20health&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(9) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

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

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Federal Court To Stream Several Challenges To Emergencies Act

The Federal Court of Canada is about to hear 4 related cases concerning the invocation of the Emergencies Act a year ago. Also, the proceedings will be available to watch virtually, for people who can’t attend in person.

The hearings are set for April 3rd to 5th, which is this coming Monday to Wednesday.

The cases are:

(1) Canadian Frontline Nurses et al v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-306-22
Filed: February 18, 2022

(2) Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-316-22
Filed: February 18, 2022

(3) Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Attorney General of Canada
Case Number: T-347-22
Filed: February 23, 2022

(4) Jerimiah Jost et al v. Governor In Council et al.
Case Number: T-382-22
Filed: February 24, 2022

Because of the overlap in issues raised, all 4 will be heard together. This isn’t unusual in major cases.

From the look of things, it seems that Ottawa will be challenging these cases over: (a) mootness; and (b) standing. Mootness means that the issues are no longer live, and can’t be litigated. Standing refers to a Party’s ability to bring a case in the first place, and whether or not they have a real interest in it.

Expect a follow-up with some file documents attached.

(1) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://twitter.com/cvangeyn/status/1641796100104376321
(5) https://theccf.ca/?case=emergencies-act-challenge
(6) https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/T-347-22-NOA.pdf
(7) https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/CCF-Factum-ea-challenge.pdf
(8) https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/emergencies-act/#materials
(9) https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-response-to-federal-government-announcement-of-emergencies-act-inquiry/
(10) https://www.canadianfrontlinenurses.ca/legal-battles

Posted on

Vaccine Choice Canada’s OTHER Lawsuit: Dormant After 3 1/2 Years

Often in court cases, the information being eventually drops off. As a result, many lose track of interesting claims that they were otherwise interested in. An October 2019 suit with Vaccine Choice Canada is one such case. This is case #CV-19-00629810-0000, filed in Ontario Superior Court, in Toronto.

This isn’t to be confused with the high profile suit of July 2020. This was filed to challenge lockdown measures imposed (primarily) by the Ford Regime in Ontario. These are quite different. The 2019 suit covered vaccination policies in schools.

While there are 2 different cases, they have something in common: both have sat idly for years, without any activity to show for it.

Thankfully, we’re in an age where case status can be SEARCHED online, and documents can often be obtained for free. As there had been no announcements since 2019, an update is long overdue. And as it turns out, there’s nothing to report. Nothing has happened since the pleadings in later 2019/early 2020.

Nor does it seem like the 2019 case has had a single hearing.

So, what happened with all the donations?

And that’s interesting, considering some of the problems with the drafting.

1. Should Have Been An Application, Not A Statement Of Claim

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act lays out some circumstances which cases need to be brought as an Application for Judicial Review, as opposed to having more discretion to file a Statement of Claim.

Page 6 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that both a Mandamus (requirement to perform a duty) and a Prohibition (a restriction) are being sought. As a result, it looks like the wrong paperwork was filed to get this going.

2. Suit Should Probably Have Been Filed In Divisional Court

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.

Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

Section 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act states that an Application for Judicial Review must be brought in Divisional Court. Now, it’s possible to get permission to file in Superior Court, but it doesn’t look like that ever happened. Nor does it appear that it was attempted.

3. Rules Of Civil Procedure Not Followed In Drafting Claim

To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01(1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Pleading Law
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Documents or Conversations
25.06(7) The effect of a document or the purport of a conversation, if material, shall be pleaded as briefly as possible, but the precise words of the document or conversation need not be pleaded unless those words are themselves material.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

This is a common criticism. The Rules of Civil Procedure need to be followed when drafting lawsuits. The people being sued need to have enough specific information to understand the allegations against them. It also has to be written in a way that’s understandable.

The Ontario Government also claims that the Sections 2 and 7 Charter challenges are so vague and non-specific that they are impossible to respond to.

4. VCC Has To Plead For Public Interest Standing

Starting on page 10, the Statement of Defence argues that there is no standing here, as the organization is not a person, and not directly impacted. This is funny.

There is a way for organizations to do this, and they have to convince the Court that they meet a 3 part test. That’s how standing is granted.

(1) Does the Application raise a serious justiciable issue?
(2) Do the Organizations have a real stake or genuine interest in that issue?
(3) Is the participation of the Organizations a reasonable and effective way to litigate?

Granted, a well written document could probably have gotten them standing, but it still needs to be covered.

Then again, if the case was never intended to go forward, then maybe it’s not necessary to write a Claim or Application properly.

5. Why No Attempt To Get Claim Thrown Out?

Why keep covering these grifts? Because the truth matters.

This isn’t to suggest that there weren’t real issues to bring to Court. Obviously, there were, and they deserve considerable media attention. However, the case has just sat idly for years now.

A question worth asking is why the Ford Government has made no attempt to get this case thrown out (struck) since it was filed in October 2019. No action has been taken to bring it forward either. Was there collusion to keep everything in limbo?

It appears that the wrong paperwork was filed, and submitted to the wrong Court. The quality of the Statement of Claim is very poor as well. So, why just let it sit?

Keep in mind, Ford also let the July 6, 2020 Claim sit unchallenged for the first 2 1/2 years as well. Vaccine Choice didn’t have their first Court appearance until January 17, 2023. And that was just to set down Motion dates.

Are these just “placeholders”? Is the goal to keep them on the books as long as possible, in order to give the appearance that something is being done? Is this a way to enrich the Directors?

Remember to donate, suckers!

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2012/2012scc45/2012scc45.html

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA DOCUMENTS (2019 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim, October 2019 Lawsuit
(2) VCC – Statement Of Defence, October 2019 Lawsuit

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS (2020 CLAIM):
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service
(5) VCC – Requisition For CPC Motion To Strike

Posted on

Appeal Of “Bad Beyond Argument” Federal Ruling Accuses Judge Of Bias

It’s probably not a good idea to throw the term “bias” around like this.

Readers of this site will likely remember the February 21, 2023 Ruling in the Federal Court that was covered here. This was a challenge to the Fall 2021 dictate for vaccine passports at the Federal level, launched by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati. A case involving some 600 Plaintiffs was struck in its entirety as being “bad beyond argument”, among other issues. Justice Simon Fothergill was extremely critical of the case.

That February Decision is now being appealed.

To understand the Appeal, here is a brief review of what happened:

Approximately 2/3 of the Plaintiffs were permanently barred from using the Court as a remedy. As members of the Federal Government, Section 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, requires that they seek alternate remedies for employment matters.

The other 1/3 of the Plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended lawsuit, but with other restrictions. These were either members of Crown Corporations, or employees of Federally regulated industries.

There was also the problem that the wrong paperwork had been filed. When challenging a Decision from a Federal Board, Commission or Tribunal, Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act require that a Notice of Application be filed, and not a Statement of Claim.

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

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

As was mentioned during the January 2023 hearing, if all that the Plaintiffs were seeking was damages, then a Statement of Claim was fine.

The Decision referenced the specific portions of the Federal Court Rules that were not followed. The Rules outline the basics of how pleadings are supposed to be drafted. These were the most notable errors here as well.

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.

This is very common with Galati: he makes plenty of accusations, but doesn’t plead any factual basis. Consequently, the Defendants are often left with so little information that they can’t respond meaningfully. This is partly why so many of his cases get thrown out.

Simply stating: “and the fact is” doesn’t make something a fact.

As outlined in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules. Justice Fothergill apparently didn’t find it worthwhile to go through it point by point to outline the deficiencies. This has been extensively detailed by Justice Ross in Vancouver, for the Action4Canada case, and the parallels are striking.

Pleadings in the Courts of British Columbia and Ontario were plagued by the same deficiencies. Regardless of jurisdiction, there are minimum levels of organization and quality that have to be followed.

Anyhow, the Federal Decision has been appealed, and is it ever interesting. The Notice of Appeal makes a number of statements that appear to accuse (or at least imply) that Justice Fothergill sabotaged the case intentionally.

This is not a wise thing to do without evidence.

(a) It’s alleged that Justice Fothergill “blatantly ignored” Plaintiffs’ submissions regarding the standards which employment terms could be reviewed by a Court.

(b) It’s alleged that he “biasedly ignored” and “refused to address” submissions regarding the tort of public malfeasance, with respect to collective bargaining.

(c) It’s alleged that the finding of “deficient” and “bad beyond argument” was blindly applied from an unrelated case, and was completely inappropriate.

(d) It’s alleged that there was “clear (reasonable apprehension of) bias”. Really, it’s a repeat of the bias accusation, but is worded in a way to water it down.

It’s unclear who actually wrote the Notice of Appeal, but it’s already off to a bad start. Accusing a Federal Judge of bias and ignoring his responsibilities is not going to sit well. There has to be something pretty damning for this to hold water.

Granted, the Action4Canada Appeal of September 2022 is baseless, and doomed to fail, but at least BCSC Justice Alan Ross never received that kind of backlash.

The Notice of Appeal doesn’t specify what Justice Fothergill’s bias supposedly is. Is this to imply that he has certain personal views that are not appropriate? Should we interpret this to mean that he threw the case intentionally, and that the outcome was rigged?

This suggestion has been made before.

This also isn’t the only time Galati has recently claimed (or at least implied) that a Judge ruling in one of his cases was biased. Supposedly, Justice Elizabeth Stewart appeared biased when she dismissed Kulvinder Gill’s and Ashvinder Lamba’s defamation case as a SLAPP. This of course is a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

Clearly, we’ll have to wait and see what other documents are coming for the Federal Appeal. However, this is a dangerous path to take, and can have professional consequences.

A source told this site claimed that Galati and his staff are already soliciting more money for this “unexpected” trip to the Federal Court of Appeals. Apparently, they are at least mentally preparing to attempt to get into the Supreme Court of Canada.

It’s estimated that $400 to $700 more will be sought from each of the 600+ Plaintiffs. In total, that could bring in close to half a million more. The stated reason is that the $1,000 retainer was set aside for Trial.

This seems plausible, especially in light of the fact that Action4Canada is also asking for money, despite their case being “fully funded”.

Could the Federal ruling be successfully appealed? It seems doubtful. While a competent attorney might be able to make the case that malfeasance is grounds to bypass Section 236 FPSLRA, the entire Claim needs to be rewritten.

And this copy/pasting of pleadings from case to case deprives clients of the services that they’re paying for.

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 (UPDATED)
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL (UPDATED)
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL (UPDATED)

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) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(12) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Federico Fuoco Fire Productions
(13) A4C Notice of Discontinuance Amy Muranetz
(14) A4C Notice Of Appeal September 28 2022

Posted on

Action4Canada Roasted By B.C. Law Society Over Horrendous Galati Filing

The Law Society of British Columbia is the organization that’s responsible for licensing lawyers in that Province. Unsurprisingly, lawyers are expected to have a certain level of competence in order to practice. This is to ensure that members of the public don’t end up with a complete moron representing them, costing lots of money.

In any event, the “Professional Legal Training Course 2023” is now available online. This is aimed primarily at articling students who want to take the last steps to be licensed.

The course is explained as follows:

“The Law Society’s PLTC has earned international recognition and has served as a model for Bar admission programs all over the world. It emphasizes practical skills training, ethics, practice management and practice and procedure to help new lawyers bridge the gap between law school and practice.”

“PLTC is a full-time, 10-week course. Classes are held three times a year at the Law Society offices in Vancouver, and once a year at Camosun College in Victoria and at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. Classes are taught by full-time faculty with many years of teaching and practice experience and by practising lawyers who volunteer to share their expertise.”

Makes sense. Prospective lawyers need to prove a high degree of skill. Now, here’s where things really start to get interesting.

On page #15, (or the 27th page of the pdf), we see a new entry:

Action4Canada

Yes, that infamous dumpster fire that was struck by Justice Alan Ross is now being used as a “teaching exercise” by the Law Society of B.C. to demonstrate how pleadings shouldn’t be done.

If pleadings are inadequate the matter will typically not get as far as trial. In a recent example of wholly inadequate pleadings the plaintiff filed a 391-page notice of civil claim that was struck (see §2.06(3) below on striking pleadings) as being “prolix” and “bad beyond argument.” In Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507, the plaintiffs sued a host of politicians and crown corporations over pandemic-related measures they said were not based in science, exceeded the defendants’ authority, and breached Charter rights. The notice of civil claim was struck in its entirety. The judge said (at para. 51) it is counsel’s job to draft pleadings that do not offend the Rules. The judge also said the claim was too prolix for the defendants to be able to respond, and it was not the court’s job to interpret the claim:

To put those points another way, I have indicated above that the prolix nature of the NOCC makes it impossible for the defendants to respond to it. For the same reason, I am not able to parse the 391 pages of the improperly drafted NOCC and indicate whether paragraphs, categories or claims should remain in, or should be struck. That is not the proper role of this court. It is counsel’s obligation to draft pleadings that do not offend the mandatory requirements of the Rules.

It turns out that the NOCC (Notice of Civil Claim) from Action4Canada was so inadequate that it never stood a chance of going to Trial. If only someone could have warned Tanya about that either in advance, or shortly after the fact. It was pretty obvious.

And what were the thanks received? A $7,000,000 defamation lawsuit.

Have to wonder if the Law Society of B.C. will now be sued as well for publishing Action4Canada’s decision in their training manual. After all, Galati sued the Law Society of Ontario for $500,000 for daring to forward complaints by the public to him for comment.

Why are all the topics mandatory?
.
When you are licensed to practise law in British Columbia, you are licensed as both a barrister and solicitor and permitted to practise in any area of the law. PLTC has therefore identified core practice areas that represent typical areas of practice for articled students and newly called lawyers. By requiring you to demonstrate entry-level competence in each of these practice areas, PLTC supports the Law Society’s mandate to set standards for lawyers and to protect the public interest.

Unsurprisingly, there is an FAQ section. It’s explained that it’s in the public interest to ensure that licensed lawyers have a basic level of competence in certain areas.

Keep in mind, this is geared towards new lawyers. Constitutional lawyers with decades of experience should probably have a handle on this sort of thing already.

And again, the Action4Canada case is being used as an example of what not to do, as it’s liable to waste large amounts of time and money, by getting it struck.

The B.C. Law Society also publishes a practice manual specifically for civil, and it’s quite informative. On page #13, (or the 25th page of the pdf), we get to the sections on pleading documents.

The fundamental purpose of pleadings is to define the issues to be tried with clarity and precision, to give the opposing parties fair notice of the case to be met, and to enable all parties to take effective steps for pre-trial preparation: Mayer v. Mayer, 2012 BCCA 77 at para. 215.

Proper Pleadings are Good Advocacy
In practice, pleading the case properly is critical. Pleadings come at an early stage of the litigation, often before all the facts are known. Some counsel fail to craft pleadings carefully, perhaps expecting to clean them up later, if necessary, through amendments. This is poor practice: pleadings are the foundation upon which a case is constructed. If you take care and exercise diligence in framing the pleadings, the rest of the case will fall into line. The pleadings also determine what is relevant at the discovery stage, so proper pleadings will ensure relevant documents are produced and examinations for discovery canvas relevant issues.

And this last part sums up the Action4Canada case well.

Good pleading will not, in my opinion, give a litigant with a bad case a victory. But bad pleading
may very well deprive a litigant with a good case of a victory that ought to be his.

This perfectly outlines what happened with the NOCC. While there certainly were valid causes of action, the NOCC was drafted so poorly that the entire document had to be struck out. While a rewrite was allowed, this was a huge waste of time and money.

And once again: these documents from the B.C. Law Society are aimed at prospective lawyers. This is designed for newbies. And the Action4Canada case is now teaching material for what not to do.

Action4Canada’s suit was struck in its entirety on August 29, 2022, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Instead of simply doing the Claim properly, it was appealed instead.

It would be interesting to see the Professional Legal Training Course in a few years. Perhaps it will updated again to include Action4Canada in how not to appeal a case. See critique.

Although their case is “fully funded”, Action4Canada is once again asking for money. Apparently, the extra costs of filing an appeal weren’t factored in. Despite promises to submit an amended Claim, it hasn’t happened in over 6 months.

Remember to donate, suckers!

LAW SOCIETY OF BC:
(1) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/becoming/material/civil.pdf
(2) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/
(3) https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/professional-legal-training-course/faq-pltc/

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 – Reasons For Striking NOCC In Its Entirety
(18) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleadings
(19) A4C BCSC – Order striking pleading in its entirety with costs payable forthwith
(20) A4C BCSC – Appointment to assess bill of costs for Kwok and Translink
(21) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Kimberly Woolman & Estate of Jaqueline Woolman)
(22) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Amy Muranetz)
(23) A4C BCSC – Notice of Discontinuance (Federico Fuoco & Fire Productions Ltd.)