Category: How To

Posted on

A Little Discernment Can Go A Long Way….

Above is a photo from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. This exact image is available at my local library, and probably many others across Canada as well. It’s meant as a rough guide for filtering out information.

While it presumably is targeted at books, the same guidelines are valid for podcasts, articles, videos and other content. And there are worthwhile things to ask.

  • Are there any supporting sources to make the claims?
  • Is the title “clickbait”, or does it accurately represent the content
  • Is it satire? If the claims made are overly dramatic, the author may be trying to create humourous work.
  • Who wrote it, and why? Are there any obvious conflicts of interest?
  • Who can a person check with to verify the information?
  • Will biases be an issue in judging it objectively
  • Is the information current or outdated?

No one needs to point out how badly “ask the experts” has gone lately. Nonetheless, it can be a starting point for getting information on a topic.

Note: This isn’t meant at a specific person or group. Rather, it’s a pattern that has become a lot more noticeable over the last few years.

While many people have become proficient at spotting Government deception and propaganda, they either overlook or ignore it in the alternative media spheres. Of course, the reverse is also true for the normies. And examples?

(1) Some who dismissed Government fear mongering around this so-called “pandemic” will not look carefully into topics such as microchipping vaccines, DNA modification, gain of function, lab leaks, or bioweapons. Any dramatic claims deserve skepticism, regardless of the source.

(2) On a related note: there have been some who (rightly) question whether CV tests are accurate based on current methods. However, they will just take for granted that other viruses can be tested for using that same technology. We want authors who are logically consistent.

(3) Some of the larger political alternative voices will do a great job researching candidates and parties they don’t like, while making excuses for those they support. If they have a dog in the fight, then they can never be fully trusted.

(4) In a world where views and advertising dollars matter, catching attention is important. However, that’s not always the best option if the content doesn’t warrant sensationalism.

(5) While Government plants within the media are often easy to spot, “alternative” voices come out of nowhere and instantly gain huge followings. Such individuals do so despite addressing topics that are normally censored, or while not offering anything insightful. Similarly, if the content frequently borders on, or engages in outright Fed-posting, be wary.

(6) Lack of curiosity should always be viewed as a red flag. If a piece touches on really important issues, but only at a surface level — with no follow up — one should ask why. Rabbit holes are a fun, albeit exhausting, way to shake strongly held views.

These are just a few things that have come up in the alt-media landscape, and not just the Canadian scene. All media should be scrutinized, regardless of whether it has the slant and leanings that are preferred.

A question that comes up is who should the public be following. The answer is no one. Ideally, the best populace is one that’s full of inquisitive and resourceful people. Yes, research is time consuming, but there’s no shortcut to becoming educated. The alternative is to sit back and hopefully trust the right outlet. That seems to be a poor plan.

True, there’s no way to not view published media at all, but just realize that there will be gaps in what’s presented. If nothing else, different perspectives can at least draw attention to flaws and errors.

A little discernment can go a long way….

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

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

Posted on

A Look Into The Motion To Throw Out Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 2020 Lawsuit

The Ontario Government has filed its Notice of Motion, explaining exactly how and why it wants the July 6th, 2020 lawsuit thrown out. There are more papers to come, but here is the gist of it, according to the Attorney General:

  • The case is frivolous and vexatious
  • The Orders being challenged lapsed long ago
  • The pleadings are written so poorly, it’s impossible to respond to

For context, consider that the Claim was filed in July 2020, and then sat inactive for 2 1/2 years. The first Court appearance (of any kind) was on January 17th, 2023. This was a case conference to schedule dates for a Motion to Strike.

We are approaching the 3 year anniversary of the Statement of Claim being filed.

The case has been idle and inactive for so long that many of the issues it raises are moot, and no longer of relevance. This includes various emergency orders, which have long since expired. This site predicted last Summer that this would happen.

That’s right: the Government is trying to get the case tossed, at least in part, because the orders being challenged lapsed ages ago.

The Notice states that absent a new Declaration of Emergency, it’s impossible to issue more Orders such as under the Reopening Ontario Act.

The Statement of Claim, despite being 191 pages, is lacking in any details or specificity about the orders and regulations that are being challenged. In other words, it’s too vague for the Defendants to meaningfully respond to.

The Notice cites Rule 25.06(1) of Civil Procedure. This refers to the requirement that pleadings contain a concise set of material facts. The Claim certainly does not.

The Notice cites Rule 21.01(1)(b) of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Claim doesn’t disclose a reasonable Cause of Action. In other words, it’s not asking for things that the Ontario Superior Court (Civil) can realistically grant, even if the allegations were proven.

The Notice states: “The pleadings are replete with irrelevant, speculative and bare allegations,
including numerous allegations which are beyond belief or proof. The pleadings are filled with conspiracy theories, including allegations regarding Bill Gates, the World Health Organization, and “a declared agenda to impose global mandatory vaccination, ID chipping, testing and immunity certification on all citizens” that “has been in the works for decades.””

It’s worth mentioning that filling the Claim with non-justicible issues will very likely cause the pleadings to be struck for that reason alone. It happened with Action4Canada in August 2022, and with 600 Federal Plaintiffs in February 2023. In fact, it’s inevitable that those cases will be used as precedents here.

The Vaccine Choice lawsuit is similarly filled with issues that a Civil Court can’t preside over, and makes countless accusations against non-Parties.

Expect a Decision with the words “bad beyond argument” early in the new year.

As for sending a message to the CBC, that will never happen. The lawsuit was discontinued against them in July 2022, after they threatened to being an anti-SLAPP Motion.

Another ground for the Motion is that the Claim is scandalous (pleads evidence), frivolous and vexatious. The Government is claiming that the suit is a waste of everyone’s time, and is very poorly written. If only someone could have spoken up about that years ago.

The dates for various documents to be filed are outlined in this Requisition Form. It doesn’t appear that there will be any Affidavits or cross-examinations to be done, but those are listed anyway.

The undeniable reality is that there was never any attempt — serious or otherwise — to bring this case to Trial. This site has been warning about that since late 2020 and into 2021.

The Applications pushed by Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense Canada are apparently “moot” as well, and not being advanced. However, neither group makes that clear, and both are still soliciting donations. More on that another time.

The leadership at Vaccine Choice doesn’t deny that nothing has happened with this case. Instead, they offer nonsense justifications about why it’s no longer necessary to pursue. Probably the most common example are claims that simply filing this lawsuit led to exemptions for masks. Even if this were true, what about everything else that was alleged in the papers?

Action4Canada boasts of similar achievements, such as its filing resulting in mask exemptions on B.C. Ferries. Of course, no evidence is ever submitted.

The Motion with Vaccine Choice is scheduled to take place over 1 1/2 to 2 days. Currently, January 30th and February 1st, 2024 have been set aside. Watching via Zoom should be an option.

*A small disclaimer: this appears to have been only filed by the Ontario Defendants. It’s possible that other Notices will be coming as well. They have until June 30th. However, the issues raised will be similar, if not virtually identical.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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
(6) VCC – Notice Of Motion To Strike

Posted on

Statement Of Defence Filed In High Profile Bridle Lawsuit

Just before Christmas last year, a 73 page Statement of Claim was filed in Toronto, involving Byram Bridle and the University of Guelph. News of this development lit up the alternative media in Canada. It alleged a grand conspiracy to harass the Plaintiff and destroy his career. While an interesting read, it came across as being very difficult to prove.

It seemed very odd that Bridle was presented both as an expert developing Covid vaccines, and a conscientious objector fighting against Covid vaccine mandates. There’s also no virus, but that’s a discussion for another time.

And since then?

The Defendants responded with an 8 page Statement of Defence. It doesn’t really address the specific allegations, other than to issue a blanket denial. As an aside, it doesn’t appear that David Fisman is covered by this Statement.

To sum up the document in as few words as possible: “Oh yeah? Prove it.”

Several other defences are also raised:

  • The University of Guelph claims that the issues between Bridle, the school, and the various staff members are to be considered an employment dispute. As such, the Court would lack jurisdiction to hear the case, as it would likely be subjected to the collective bargaining rules, which mandate arbitration.
  • On a procedural note, the Defence points out that: (a) there isn’t a concise set of material facts provided; and (b) the Claim attempts to plead evidence.
  • It’s claimed that portions of the lawsuit would be barred by the Limitations Act. This sets time limits as to how long potential litigants have to file.
  • Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP), is raised concerning the online postings. While this would only apply to a portion of the case, everything would be put on hold until that’s resolved. That will take a year or 2.

Even if the Claim were struck because it’s poorly written — which is possible — that’s not a permanent solution. It can likely be redone.

The other defences, such as the Statute of Limitations and collective bargaining, can pose a much bigger problem. Those have the potential to get large portions of the Claim gutted.

Guelph and the other Defendants seem content to dig in, and force Bridle to actually prove his claims at Trial.

Now for the $3 million question: will anything happen to this case? Or will it remain in limbo for years, like so many dead-end lawsuits? We’ll have to see.

(1) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Claim.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Byram-Bridle-Statement-Of-Defence.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/byram-bridle-lawsuit-unlikely-to-ever-get-anywhere/

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