Category: Subversion

Posted on

Galati’s (Other) $500,000 Case Against LSO Discontinued Last May

A $500,000 suit was filed against the Law Society of Ontario at the end of July, 2023. It was discontinued the following year, without the Plaintiff making any effort whatsoever to advance it.

For context, all of this stems from a 2022 complaint to the Law Society from a former donor named Donna Toews. She had contributed to both Action4Canada (A4C) and Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) for their anti-lockdown cases. However, she became unhappy with the total lack of activity in pushing either case. To get her money back, she contacted the LSO.

This set off a chain of events, with A4C and VCC likely terrified that the Law Society might investigate. Potentially, it could force their books open, and lead to audits.

As a result, Kuntz and Gaw directed Galati to sue Toews in order to shut her up. It was a way to derail her complaint, at least for the foreseeable future. Gaw later remarked online that it had to be done to prevent disbarment.

It didn’t stop there. Galati sued the LSO a few weeks later, to future complicate any attempt to investigate Toews’ complaint. He then sued the LSO a second time to further keep things in limbo. This isn’t an editing mistake. He really started separate (but very repetitive) litigation.

Now, we know the fate of the last suit. It was dropped without a fight.

3 Related Lawsuits Filed To Bury Toews Complaint

(1) June 28th, 2022 v.s. Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (CSASPP)

(2) July 12th, 2022 v.s. Law Society of Ontario (LSO)

(3) July 31st, 2023 v.s. Law Society of Ontario (LSO)

Anyhow, the CSASPP lawsuit was dismissed under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, and an award of over $132,000 was ordered shortly afterward. It was appealed, but on very weak grounds.

The first claim against the LSO was struck for failing to state a Cause of Action, although permission was given to amend and refile. It doesn’t appear to have ever happened though. A cost award of $14,600 was handed down at the time.

The second claim was dropped last Spring.

Assuming the Appeal is dismissed against CSASPP, that pretty much ends the entire saga.

Of course, it doesn’t look good for the LSO. After all, this is supposed to be the regulatory body. If a member can sue somebody who complains — to sabotage the complaint — and then sues the LSO twice, all without consequences, what exactly is their purpose?

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

January 2021: CSASPP emails Dan Dicks in order to promote their proposed suit, and to pitch it as a better investment than Action4Canada.

June 2021: CSASPP puts the section up on their FAQ, supposedly to quell constant inquiries about who they are connected to, and what there role is in other cases.

January 15th, 2022: the original Toews LSO complaint is put forward to the LSO, although it appears that it wasn’t immediately accepted.

May 19th, 2022: The LSO finally forwards the Toews complaint and demands a response.

June 28th, 2022: The $1.1 million dollar suit is filed against CSASPP and its people

June 29th, 2022: A letter is sent to the LSO, informing them that Donna Toews has been sued, and that the Court will effectively be deciding the issue.

July 12th, 2022: The Law Society itself is sued, and the Toews complaint makes up large part of it. One can assume this was done to further thwart any investigation into the complaint. The suit demands $500,000 in damages, and is very poorly written.

July 13th, 2022: There’s an appearance on a livestream with Vaccine Choice Canada, bragging about the CSASPP and LSO suits which have just been filed. It’s plausible to view this as a publicity stunt. Supposedly, neither CSASPP nor the LSO had actually been served by this point.

October 9th, 2022: An amended Statement of Claim is filed against the LSO, despite the fact the the Motion to Strike had already been initiated. This isn’t permitted.

October 12th, 2022: CSASPP and the LSO appear in Court on the same day to set down dates to throw out their respective cases. CSASPP’s Motion is based on s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP). The LSO Motion is based on Rule 21 of Civil Procedure (failing to state a cause of action). Both are to be heard the next Autumn.

The next several months is a document exchange of the papers needed to carry out the both the anti-SLAPP Motion and LSO Motions. Both are attached below.

July 28th, 2023: CSASPP files their Factum, or written arguments. This is a Friday, and it’s interesting to see what happens the following Monday.

July 31st, 2023: The Law Society is sued for a second time, and it’s largely a rehash of the first one. Another $500,000 is sought. It’s possible this was done to “keep open” litigation against the LSO, assuming the first case is thrown out.

September 12th, 2023: CSASPP’s Motion to dismiss is heard, with the ruling under reserve.

September 21st, 2023: LSO’s Motion to strike is heard, the ruling under reserve.

October 11th, 2023: The (first) Claim against the LSO is struck in its entirety for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action, and for inadequate pleading. However, Justice Dow does allow the pleading to be rewritten, for what is presumably the last time.

December 11th, 2023: The Claim against CSASPP is dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws

February 3rd, 2024: Galati is ordered to pay $132,268.17 in costs.

March 6th, 2024: Appellant’s Factum is filed for CSASPP case.

May 13th, 2024: The second LSO suit is discontinued.

May 31st, 2024: Respondents in CSASPP Appeal file their Factum.

January 13th, 2025: CSASPP Appeal is heard, but the ruling is reserved.

However, it doesn’t look like Galati’s troubles are over yet. He still has to deal with malpractice lawsuits from Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. They’re valued at $2,000,000 and $600,000, respectively.

CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc7508/2023onsc7508.html
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc935/2024onsc935.html
(18) CSASPP RG Appellant’s Factum
(19) CSASPP RG Respondent’s Factum

1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc5617/2023onsc5617.html

2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim
(2) Notice Of Discontinuance LSO Cross

GILL PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Gill Malpractice Notice of Action
(2) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Claim
(3) Gill Malpractice Statement Of Defence
(4) Gill Malpractice Reply To Defence

LAMBA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM:
(1) Lamba Statement Of Claim
(2) Lamba Notice Of Intent To Defend
(3) Lamba Reply To Statement Of Defence

Posted on

“Military Propaganda” Lawsuit Thrown Out For Mootness

A high profile lawsuit filed in Federal Court last September has fizzled out. Emma Briant, an “expert in information warfare and propaganda” sued the Canadian Government for failing to adequately respond to a freedom of information request. She wanted to know what, if anything, the Canadian Forces/Department of National Defence had done with her work. She’s a professor with Monash University in Australia, with a long list of publications.

In her Notice of Application, Briant describes the frustration it has been in trying to get anything at all. It was delayed far longer than what was reasonable.

Specifically, she sought this from Canada:

I am requesting records that contain any references to myself (Dr. Emma Briant), my work or my media engagement, or discussions and analysis of it and responses to it, held by the public affairs branch of the Canadian Forces/Department of National Defence in Ottawa from the period of 24th June 2020 to 30th October 2020. This should include the details of whom any such data was shared with or received from and who holds the data. In case it helps your inquiry, I was formerly Associate Researcher at Bard College in New York State, US currently Associate Professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Considering the way this story had been hyped up by media outlets, the conclusion was disappointing. There was no smoking gun to be released.

The released records primarily relate to an article about wolves on the loose. Briant was not the main focus of the publication, though was mentioned in it. Clearly, the story had been shared among the military, but there’s no indication given here that her work was relied on.

Last year Emma Briant, a research associate at Bard College in the U.S. who specializes in examining military propaganda, revealed the Canadian Forces spent more than $1 million in training its public affairs officers on behaviour modification techniques. Those techniques were of the same sort used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, the company implicated in a 2016 data-mining scandal to help Donald Trump’s election campaign.

The records show that the military was aware that she had reported about spending related to behaviour modification.

U.S. Government Aware Of Ottawa Citizen Story

On October 15th, 2020, the United States reached out to the Canadian Forces about the above publication. The response back was that it was normal training stuff, although it could “look bad”.

Of course, there were several pages that were redacted under section 19(1)(b) of the Privacy Act. This is the requirement to refuse to disclose material “obtained on confidence” from an “international organization of states or an institution thereof”.

However, Briant had all of this prior to filing the Application. The response from Ottawa wasn’t surprising.

Attorney General Brings “Mootness” Motion

The Government brought a Motion to throw out the case for mootness, meaning there was no practical reason to continue the proceedings. The rationale was that Briant already got her records, even if it was late, and even if they weren’t what she was looking for.

Procedurally, they also took issue with what laws were used to bring the Application. Lack of disclosure was already covered by s.41 of the Privacy Act, so invoking s.18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act was unnecessary.

In her Responding Motion Record, Briant includes an Affidavit with attachments showing her various attempts to get those records. Exhibit “G” is what she did finally receive, and it consists of media stories being shared. She said it wasn’t responsive, and implied more was being withheld. She did concede the case was now moot, but asked the Court for directions on costs.

Naturally, the Government opposed the request for costs. It was stated that Briant had already gotten her records, so bringing the Application was entirely unnecessary.

Eventually, the Application was struck without the ability to amend. However, Briant did get some of the money back from the Government. The extra effort involved to get any sort of release likely resulted in this happening.

1) The Notice of Application is properly treated as being solely an application pursuant to section 41 of the Privacy Act;
2) The Respondent’s motion to strike the Notice of Application is granted;
3) The Notice of Application is struck out with leave to amend;
4) The application is dismissed; and
5) The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant her costs of the application, assessed in accordance with column III of Tariff B of Rules.

The dollar amount of the cost award doesn’t appear to be made public.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 17th, 2024: Notice of Application filed.

September 25th, 2024: Government files Notice of Appearance.

October 2nd, 2024: Applicant files Affidavit of Service.

October 2nd, 2024: Consent is filed to accept service electronically.

October 30th, 2024: Attorney General files Affidavit of Service.

November 19th, 2024: Attorney General brings Motion to strike for mootness.

December 1st, 2024: Applicant brings a Motion Record in response.

December 8th, 2024: Attorney General files Reply Submissions.

January 7th, 2025: Prothonotary Ring rules on the Motion (but there appear to be multiple Orders involved).

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

It would be nice to know a lot more about what the Canadian military says and does in terms of “using propaganda” and “behaviour modification techniques”. Hopefully, it will come out. But this case wasn’t it.

(1) T-2436-24 Briant Notice Of Application
(2) T-2436-24 Briant Electronic Service
(3) T-2436-24 Briant Motion Record Mootness
(4) T-2436-24 Briant Applicant Responding Motion Record Mootness
(5) T-2436-24 Briant Exhibit G Affidavit
(6) T-2436-24 Briant Reply Submissions
(7) T-2436-24 Briant Order From Prothonotary Ring
(8) https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/legal-action-under-way-to-force-canadian-forces-to-release-propaganda-documents

Posted on

EA Lawsuit: Incompetently Pleaded Claim Costs Plaintiffs Nearly $150,000 So Far

A few months ago, we looked at the Cornell decision, which resulted in CAHN (the Canadian Anti-Hate Network) and Bernie Farber being removed from 2 different lawsuits. Now, the other shoe has dropped, and Plaintiffs are required to pay out nearly $50,000 in Court fees.

This is, of course, the high profile lawsuit pushing back against the freezing of bank accounts and the invocation of the Emergencies Act in February, 2022.

Due to the gross incompetence of the Plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Statement of Claim made allegations of defamation — but without specifying the defamatory content. Quite predictably, this led to Farber and CAHN bringing forward an anti-SLAPP Motion. Since such Motions stay or “freeze” the proceedings, there’s no opportunity to amend the pleadings, and correct any deficiencies.

And to be clear, it is the incompetence of counsel that led to this.

Loberg Ector LLP does commercial litigation — just very poorly it seems.

Interestingly, counsel for Farber and CAHN cited just $50,000 in costs to bring the anti-SLAPP Motion, while the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed nearly double that amount.

One has to love the law. Where else can “professionals” mess up big time, and then bill clients extra to fix their own mistakes?

A Look Into the Decision On Costs

[2] The CAHN defendants request costs of the action and the motion in the amount of $49,319.13 on a full indemnity basis.

[3] The plaintiffs submit that an award of full indemnity costs is not appropriate in the circumstances and that the costs requested are neither fair nor reasonable. The plaintiffs submit that a costs award of $10,000 would fall within a “fair range.”[1] The plaintiffs’ bill of costs reflects full indemnity fees and disbursements in the amount of $95,881.29.

[4] For the following reasons, I conclude that the CAHN defendants are entitled to their costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $49,319.13, all-inclusive.

[11] The plaintiffs claimed a total of $44,000,000, on a joint and several basis, against the defendants, including the CAHN defendants. This litigation is, in a word, “massive.” In addition to the CAHN defendants, the named defendants include government actors, government agencies, police defendants, and various financial institutions. The motion addressed important issues. In addition to the complexity inherent in a motion brought under s. 137.1 of the CJA, the plaintiffs sought to “look past” the statement of claim to allegations set out in the affidavit of Mr. Gircys. Out of an abundance of caution, the CAHN defendants addressed those allegations in their factum. The plaintiffs cross-examined Mr. Farber and Mr. Warman on their affidavits. While the plaintiffs were entitled to do so, the CAHN defendants incurred costs as a result.

[12] The CAHN defendants offered to settle the motion on June 11, 2024, by requesting the payment of $10,000 (the costs of preparing the notice of motion and affidavits) and the dismissal of the action against them. Although the offer is not r. 49 compliant, it is an additional factor that I have considered in assessing whether the costs requested are fair and reasonable. The plaintiffs’ offer to settle (which involved the dismissal of certain aspects of the claim against the CAHN defendants but which provided that the claim in civil conspiracy would survive and that no costs would be paid by the plaintiffs) does not impact my analysis of the costs to be awarded to the CAHN defendants.

[13] The plaintiffs do not take issue with the hourly rates of legal counsel for the CAHN defendants. I find the hourly rates are reasonable, having regard to their years of experience. The plaintiffs submit that it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the fees of the CAHN defendants because the bill of costs refers to 137.5 cumulative hours spent by two lawyers, one law clerk, and one articling student. While it would have been preferable for the CAHN defendants’ bill of costs to reflect the division of work undertaken, I note that the plaintiffs’ bill of costs adopts the same “cumulative” approach. In any event, the costs incurred by the CAHN defendants would have been well within the reasonable expectation of the plaintiffs, having regard to their own costs of the motion in the amount of $95,881.29.

Plaintiffs’ counsel wasted $96,000 defending (unsuccessfully) against an anti-SLAPP Motion. The Motion is a direct result of their own failure to properly draft the Statement of Claim. Other fees amounted to another $50,000. Keep in mind, this presumably is in addition to other costs expected to pile up.

And that leads to the next problem: the Plaintiffs are now broke

Take Action Canada Soliciting More Donations For Fees

Recently, the advocacy group, Take Action Canada, posted a public call for donations to continue the lawsuit. They also mass emailed, offering to give interviews.

Justice Mosley’s findings have cleared the path to a floodgate of legal actions against those who wish to trample on our Canadian rights & freedoms.

A group of very brave Canadians, without hesitation, have picked up the gauntlet on behalf of ALL Canadians to ensure that those responsible are held to the highest standards.

The legal team at Loberg Ector LLP has played a significant role in the Superior Court review by Justice Mosley’s determination that the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act was unlawful.

Following the review, the legal team analyzed numerous documents and interviewed numerous witnesses in the determination of a remedial process before assembling a Statement of Claim and Notice of Action.

On February 14, 2024 they proceeded with a claim for 20 Plaintiffs against a number of involved defendants including the Prime Minister of Canada, and various cabinet ministers, police officers, banks and others deemed to be involved in the freezing of Canadians’ bank accounts.

All defendants have been served notice. The legal team is awaiting responses from the Defendants before proceeding with the next phase of this process.

To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.

As this was brought to our attention, we at Take Action Canada are taking action.

The plaintiffs are risking much for all of us and in turn our national support will send the strongest message.

The Canadian Trucker Convoy inspired the world and ignited a global wave carrying the message that we will never give up or give in. The time is now for us to grab the gauntlet and use the power of this decision to hold people and the government accountable.

But here’s where the other shoe drops. It’s stated that: “To date the plaintiffs have covered the legal costs of holding the Federal government et al to account.” One has to wonder if the sudden $150,000 in legal costs has depleted all of the retainer funds.

Take Action Canada posted a redacted verion (see archive) of the Notice of Action in order to attract interest. What has been redacted? Any mention of Bernie Farber or CAHN as Defendants. One has to suspect that no one would donate if the full truth of Loberg Ector LLP’s screw up was published.

Quite simply: Take Action Canada posted a “scrubbed” version that conceals the fact that Farber and CAHN were initially sued as well. There’s also no mention anywhere about the $150,000 in costs that resulted from the anti-SLAPP Motion.

When contacted about this, the group claimed not to be in the loop with how the litigation was proceeding. More importantly, they seemed uninterested.

Did they learn nothing from the Katanik disaster?

So, What’s Happening Now With The Case?

At this point, no Statements of Defence have yet been filed by anyone. However: (a) Ottawa Police; (b) Assiniboine Credit Union; (c) Canadian Tire Bank; and (d) Meridian Credit Union have all indicated that they intend to.

The Plaintiffs — as of now — haven’t yet filed an amended Claim.

Of course, the remainder of the lawsuit is so poorly drafted that Motions to Strike are likely coming anyway. All sorts of conspiracies are alleged, without pleading the necessary detail.

Anyhow, remember to donate!

(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us
(4) Cornell Notice Of Action
(5) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(6) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(12) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(13) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(16) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(17) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(18) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(19) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(20) https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_conspiracy_theory_kicked_out_of_court
(21) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html#sec137.1_smooth

Posted on

Review Of Winnipeg Class Action Lawsuit (Injection Mandates), Discontinued In May 2023

Back in December 2022, a Proposed Class Action was filed in Winnipeg against several Municipal and Provincial Defendants. This was to challenge the so-called “vaccine passport” system that was in place at the time.

These included:

  • The Government of Manitoba
  • Brent Roussin (Chief Medical Officer of Health)
  • The City of Winnipeg
  • City of Winnipeg Police Services

The Representative Plaintiff, Courtney Peters, was a civilian working as a Communications Operator with the Winnipeg Police. He had been there for 8 years at that point.

In an unsurprising move, both Manitoba and Winnipeg brought Motions to Strike the Claim. Aside from the significant pleading deficiencies, they stated that the Court had no jurisdiction, due to the collective bargaining system that was in place.

Rather than attempt to fight on for his clients, counsel discontinued the case.

Yet Another Case Discontinued By Leighton Grey

Just 6 months after it was filed, this Manitoba (Proposed) Class Action was dropped. It didn’t even get as far as having the Motion to Strike heard.

(a) Canada Post: struck in March 2024
(b) Canadian National Railway: discontinued in June 2023
(c) Purolator, discontinued in April 2023
(d) Westjet, discontinued in April 2023

Of course, there’s also this Proposed Class Action in Federal Court, with Chief Gregory Burke. Nearly 18 months after the suit was initiated, there’s been no progress beyond amending the Statement of Claim. No Motions. No Defences filed. No Certification started.

This has become a significant problem in recent years. Members of the public cheer as it *appears* someone is fighting for their rights, and they often donate. But then, those cases quietly disappear, and are never heard about again.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

December 8th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in the King’s Bench Court of Manitoba

January 5th, 2023: Municipal Defendants prepare Notice of Motion to strike lawsuit.

January 6th, 2023: Manitoba Defendants prepare Notice of Motion to strike lawsuit.

February 14th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

February 27th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

April 27th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

May 25th, 2023: Notice of Discontinuance is filed.

As an aside, the Notice of Discontinuance is dated April 3rd, 2023, but wasn’t filed until the end of May. Perhaps dropping the case had long been the intention.

There are so many examples of this happening.

(1) Winnipeg Class Action Statement Of Claim
(2) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Motion Municipal Defendants
(3) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Motion Provincial Defendants
(4) Winnipeg Class Action Affidavit Of Service
(5) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Discontinuance
(6) https://web43.gov.mb.ca/Registry/NameSearch

Posted on

Review Of Westjet Injection Pass Lawsuit, Dropped In April 2023

Countless times in the last few years, we come across announcements about lawsuits being filed to challenge so-called injection passports. There’s initially plenty of hope and optimism that meaningful results will force Governments to change their ways. And a suit filed against Westjet in the Fall of 2022 was one such example.

The suit named:

  • His Majesty The King in Right of Canada
  • Attorney General of Canada
  • Westjet Group Inc.
  • Westjet Airlines Ltd.
  • Westjet Encore
  • Westjet Vacations Inc.
  • Swoop Inc.

These announcements are typically followed up with requests for donations, or solicitations for more clients, and more fees. There’s never really “enough” money.

But all too often, there won’t be any new reporting.

This is usually because they’re quietly dropped. And that’s exactly what happened here.

Shoddy Claims Being Recycled In Federal Court

The Westjet lawsuit should look familiar. It was filed by Leighton Grey of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer. It’s one of many filed in recent years that went absolutely nowhere.

(a) Canada Post: struck in March 2024
(b) Canadian National Railway: discontinued in June 2023
(c) Purolator, discontinued in April 2023

Grey has been in the press many times since 2020, often for filing a high profile lawsuit. That said, rarely does anything ever come of it. These cases are typically struck or discontinued (dropped).

And here, “The Discontinuer” is at is again.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

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.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada. In short, there must be enough detailed information in a lawsuit that the opposing side is able to understand, and respond.

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)

One of the reasons Grey’s claims are typically so short is that he rarely pleads any facts. Despite having over 100 Plaintiffs, the suit is less than 25 pages. Once again, there’s no specific information about any Plaintiff, other than they are/were employees of Westjet. There’s nothing about:

  • Who is a current employee v.s. who left?
  • Who had no shots, 1 shots, 2 shots, or more?
  • Who worked remotely v.s. who worked in person?
  • Who got any sort of severance pay?
  • Who (if anyone) was subject to any bonus or performance contract?
  • Were there different unions, and any overlapping, or different policies?
  • Who raised which specific objection to taking the injections?
  • Who attempted which type of exemption method?
  • Which specific religious objections (for those who invoked it) applied and how?
  • Who went to grieve with their union?
  • What were the results of any internal grievance?

This isn’t to defend the policy at all. However, from a due process perspective, there’s so little information contained that it’s impossible to defend against. Basic information must be pleaded for each Plaintiff. Grey includes none of it.

None of the Charter violations are pleaded properly either. While (initially) the Court is to accept everything as true, there is very specific information that must be alleged to make it possible to advance.

There’s also a lack of particulars. The suit makes all kinds of allegations of malice, bad faith, and malfeasance of public office, but doesn’t spell out any of it.

The Claim and Amended Claim include allegations which a Civil Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over, such as relying on the Criminal Code of Canada.

Looking at the: (a) Canada Post; (b) CNR; (c) Purolator; and now (d) Westjet pleadings, it’s clear that it’s the same suit just tweaked a little. Grey merely changes the names in the Style of Cause (the Parties) and refiles elsewhere.

Clients are paying (presumably) good money for recycled garbage.

Westjet Has Collective Bargaining Agreement For Employees

Westjet employees appear to be part of CUPE Local 4070, which is one of many unions. Unsurprisingly, there is a collective bargaining agreement which outlines most of the important things involved.

Article 30 lists the various steps involved, and the people who are involved. Like many unions, Arbitration and not litigation, is considered to be the final one. Article 31 then goes through the process itself.

Grey discontinued the case rather than have the jurisdiction challenged. He has done this with multiple lawsuits now.

Now, Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood showed a way around the grievance requirement in another Federal case. Specifically, they argued that the introduction of the injection pass was a new condition imposed “without meaningful consultation”. Basically, the way mandates were implemented circumvented the grievance process. They successfully stopped a Motion to Strike.

Perhaps Grey could have done the same.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

October 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed.

November 17th, 2022: Defence files Notice of Intent to Respond.

November 20th, 2022: Case management is ordered.

November 21st, 2022: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 5th, 2022: Plaintiffs (a) Erin Shannon; (b) Tara Mainland; (c) Jennifer Masterman all send in Notices of Discontinuance.

December 8th, 2022: Plaintiff’s lawyer (Grey) submits letter with proposed timetable.

February 28th, 2023: Court orders case management conference on March 13th, 2023.

March 13th, 2023: Conference discusses options of discontinuing overall, or setting timetable to file materials for Motion to Strike.

April 12th, 2023: Lawsuit is discontinued.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

And that’s how this Westjet case concluded.

The Government (and the Westjet Defendants) threatened to bring Motions to Strike. The likely reasons were the lack of jurisdiction, and the shoddy nature of the pleadings. Rather than fight, the lawyer dropped the case. He never even tried to fight back.

Before even a single Motion could be argued, the entire lawsuit was discontinued. Plaintiffs are presumably out of luck for any retainer fees they’ve paid.

WESTJET DOCUMENTS:
(1) Westjet Statement Of Claim October 2022
(2) Westjet Amended Statement Of Claim November 2022
(3) Westjet Order Timetable December 2022
(4) Westjet Notice Of Discontinuance April 2023

UNION DOCUMENTS:
(1) https://www.cupe4070.ca/collective-agreements
(2) Westjet CUPE 4070 Collective Bargaining Agreement

Posted on

5th Galati Pleading Struck As “Abuse Of Public Resources”, $190,000 Costs Ordered In Dorceus

[53] I have the distinct impression from reading the Amended Claim as a whole that its object is not to vindicate the employment rights of the plaintiffs so much as it is to mount a political crusade in which the court will be used as a grandstand to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of vaccines and the effectiveness of government measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic by opponents of those measures.

[154] …. If this was not clear from the outset, it should have become clear by the time the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal struck out similarly drafted statements of claim prepared by the same lawyer. While the interests of a free and democratic society may warrant leeway with respect to the pursuit of unconventional claims at the outset, when such claims continue to be pursued after being struck out by four courts, they amount to an abuse of public resources.

[157] …. Plaintiffs’ counsel is a sole practitioner with a different cost structure than that of counsel for the Non-Governmental Defendants and that this is the fifth time that Plaintiffs’ counsel has litigated a motion to strike with respect to a claim of this nature. I expect having done this four times before, that there were significant cost efficiencies for Plaintiffs’ counsel, especially with respect to the factum.

-Justice Koehnen, Ontario Superior Court Judge

This week, 473 Plaintiffs, who are current and former health care workers, saw their Statement of Claim struck completely. This was partly because it was so poorly crafted, but also because most had collective bargaining agreements which prohibited lawsuits. Of those litigants, 395 belonged to some sort of union, while the other 78 did not. They had been employed all across Ontario.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s yet another scam lawsuit that has come crashing down on duped litigants. And this will cost them $190,000 for doing so.

Interestingly, one Plaintiff decided to retain a real lawyer and have a proper Claim drafted. That person was given permission to file. More on that later.

Previous Critique On Galati Case Aged Very, Very Well

Back in July, this review was posted about the numerous defects in the Statement of Claim. And as predicted, jurisdiction was a fatal law, at least for the unionized Plaintiffs.

While the Statute of Limitations wasn’t really a concern of the Court here, it may be if Plaintiffs decide to try their luck elsewhere. However, every other item on this list made its way into Justice Koehnen’s ruling in some form.

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

Perhaps most notably, the Court finally called Galati out for recycling his earlier cases. It’s long overdue for this to happen.

Galati Called Out For REPEATEDLY Wasting Court Resources

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

Now we have this gem, the 5th pleading to be struck:

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

Worth noting: Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court weighed in a year ago when CSASPP was sued for defamation. He dismissed that case under anti-SLAPP laws, and awarded $132,000 in costs. He was scathing in his decision.

[74] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks dated January 29, 2022, Mr. Gandhi supported the statement with hyperlinks to support the statements. The statements made in the FAQ are also supported by hyperlinks that provides that factual support for the statements. The statements made in the e-mail to Mr. Dicks and in the FAQ, that the Plaintiff has been criticized by the courts in other cases, is supported by the following decisions: Sivak v. Canada, at para. 55, Galati v. Harper, at para. 35, Da Silva Campos v. Canada, at para. 12, Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052, at para. 31, and Al Omani v. Canada 2017 FC 786, at para. 94-95.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

[88] Here, the action commenced in Ontario by the Plaintiff is prolix and contains bizarre conspiracy theories. The action he commenced in British Columbia is similar. I am of the view that “what is really going on” in this case is an attempt by the Plaintiff to stifle public criticism about a class action claim that is not properly pleaded and improperly asserts bizarre conspiracy theories that are ineffective and have little or no chance of success.

Factoring in Justice Chalmers, 10 different Judges in 6 separate Court hearings have made determinations that this type of litigation is frivolous, an abuse of the Court system, improperly pleaded, and has little to no chance of success.

Keep in mind, this list would be a lot longer, if not for several cases that were dropped. These include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada; (b) Katanik / Take Action Canada; (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada; and (d) Sgt. Julie Evans / Police on Guard.

Arbitration/Grievance Requirement Bars Unionized Workers

[13] The plaintiffs’ core complaint is that their employment was suspended or terminated as a result of their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Suspension and termination are core elements within the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the labour relations regime. The fact that the plaintiffs also go on to characterize their claims as ones for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish and breach of the Charter does not change the analysis. All of those complaints remain rooted in the employment relationship and its suspension and termination.

Despite attempts to frame this (Dorceus) as conspiracy, intimidation, and a variety of other torts, Justice Koehnen stated that this is really about litigants having their employment conditions altered to require these vaccines. This was essentially constructive dismissal.

This finding was fatal to the unionized Plaintiffs, who were barred from the Courts.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

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.

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
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.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada.

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)

From the ruling, we get this information:

[49] The Amended Statement of Claim is, at best, unusually drafted. A statement of claim is supposed to contain material facts on which the action is based. The Amended Statement of Claim contains few material facts about the employment of any of the 473 plaintiffs or the circumstances of their suspension or termination. Mr. Galati explained in oral argument that if the claim contained such facts, it would run into the hundreds of pages and would be challenged as unwieldly. That perhaps speaks to the advisability of pleading this as a consolidated claim.

Galati sued on behalf of nearly 500 people. He was required to plead facts about each Plaintiff that would establish a case for everyone. He had to plead facts about all the (alleged) Charter violations for each Plaintiff. A proper suit for so many people would have been several hundred pages in length. Other than naming their specific employers, he provided no detail about any of them.

Instead, it was the Defendants who compiled a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record in preparing their Motion to Strike.

Even if this was a Class Action — which it wasn’t — sufficient facts would still have to be pleaded for every Representative Plaintiff.

Another missing part was particulars. When alleging malice, bad faith, malfeasance, or a host of other torts, they must be spelled out in detail. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what the case against them is.

Plaintiff Beth Ann Dick Goes Her Own Way

[146] The plaintiff Beth Ann Dick provides an example of the sorts of considerations at issue here when determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Ms. Dick was initially represented by Mr. Galati. She says that she was not informed about the specific claims that Mr. Galati made on her behalf, did not speak with him, and did not meet him to discuss the individual circumstances of her claim, nor was she aware of the types of legal argument that would be made on her behalf.

[147] She has since retained Mr. R. P. O’Connor who has delivered a more conventional fresh as amended statement of claim. It narrows the claim to solely that of Ms. Dick against her former employer, removes the allegations of Charter breaches, removes outlandish allegations of false pandemics and crimes against humanity, and clearly pleads the necessary facts underlying causes of action in tort, contract, and breach of statute that she advances.

[148] Mr. O’Connor’s proposed amended statement of claim is an example of a pleading that survives a challenge under Rule 21. I grant leave to Ms. Dick to file the amended pleading she proposes.

Beth Ann Dick was a Plaintiff in the original case, but bailed out and retained a real lawyer. Her new counsel, R.P. O’Connor sent in a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that actually pleaded valid Causes of Action. It is (more or less) straight breach of contract.

If other Plaintiffs had been represented by a competent lawyer, things could very well have ended differently for them.

While the non-unionized Plaintiffs were granted Leave to Amend, any who want to will likely need to hire a better lawyer.

Missed Opportunity: Bill Galati For The $190,000 In Costs

While the Plaintiffs were hit with $190,000 in Court costs, this could have ended differently. If Justice Koehnen was serious about lawyers not abusing the Court process with duplicate Claims, he could have ordered Galati himself to pay. Rest assured, such baseless litigation would virtually disappear if lawyers were personally responsible for what they file.

Instead, it’s always the clients who have to pay, regardless of how badly (or how often) their counsel screws up.

And on a final note, Action4Canada eventually submitted their Amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC), nearly a year after the Court of Appeal laughed them out of Court. While much shorter, it contains many of the same defects that Justice Ross mentioned, and adds new ones in. Expect another Application to Strike.

DORCEUS DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

PREVIOUS DECISIONS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

ACTION4CANADA:
(1) A4C Amended Notice Of Civil Claim