Category: Subversion

Posted on

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case: Idiot Lawyer Sends Notice Of Appeal To Wrong Court

Just when you think a lawyer couldn’t be any dumber, you are unpleasantly surprised.

This is a follow-up on the Qualizza case, the military veterans’ injection pass lawsuit. Some 330 members and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces sued over the requirement to get the shots. The case is turning into a regular content generator, and for all the wrong reasons.

The Notice of Appeal will be explained in more detail later.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background on the case.

Perhaps even more absurdly, the lawyer, Catherine Christensen, practiced family law for much of her career. She seems horribly out of her league here.

The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. It had been struck by an Associate Judge, with a subsequent Judge refusing a request to extend time for an initial Appeal. Another Judge ordered costs over an unnecessary Motion to determine the contents of an Appeal Book. More recently, another Judge ordered costs for a Notice of Discontinuance being filed without clients’ knowledge or consent.

Now, Christensen is unhappy with the ruling that she acted in a “high handed and inappropriate” way. So, she’s set to challenge to Order, which set aside the Notice of Discontinuance.

But according to Court records, she attempted to file a Notice of Appeal. That’s right, she wants to appeal an Order of the Federal Court of Appeal, and sent the Notice …. to the same Court. She seems not to understand that you can only appeal to a higher level.

Christensen doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between:
(a) Commencing a proceeding: Claim, Application, Appeal, etc….
(b) Taking steps within the existing proceeding: typically with a Motion

Perhaps she meant to file a Motion to have that last Order reviewed, but it’s unclear. In any event, she was told that in order to appeal, she must ask for Leave (permission) from the Supreme Court of Canada.

This idiot is trying to appeal to the wrong Court.

Keep in mind, none of this helps any of her clients advance their case against the Federal Government. Nothing here helps overturn A.J. Coughlan’s decision to strike, or Justice Manson’s refusal to grant an extension.

But first, problems with the lawsuit shouldn’t be a surprise to Christensen.

The Neri Decision: Christensen Knew Claim Would Be Struck

An Application filed in late 2021 sought to prevent several members of the Canadian Armed Forces from facing consequences for refusing the injections. An Interlocutory Injunction was sought, with the plan to get a permanent one later. The case was tossed, because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specified a grievance scheme for members of the military to use.

The case was discontinued in January 2022.

The point is: Christensen knew in advance of filing the Qualizza case that it would very likely be struck for lack of jurisdiction. It seems doubtful that current clients were aware of this case.

Not only was Christensen aware of jurisdiction issues, but the Statute of Limitations should have been fresh in her mind as well. September 2024, she lost another case, Tondreau, in Federal Court. A major part of the ruling was her filed the Notice of Application well after the 30 day deadline.

Qualizza Case Struck Without Leave To Amend

Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan struck the case in November 2024, and without Leave to Amend. This meant there was no permission to fix and refile. While lengthy, the decision centered on 2 main issues.

First: The Statement of Claim lacked a lot of the necessary information. When making Charter Claims, it’s required to plead certain facts and details about each Plaintiff. While there was background information on each of them, nothing was pleaded about the specifics of the torts themselves.

Second: The Court refused to take jurisdiction of the case over s.29 of the National Defence Act This was the exact issue explained to Christensen in Neri. Not only was the grievance system required, but over 100 Plaintiffs either had or were actively grieving.

Because Coughlan was an Associate Judge (Prothonotary), and not a regular Judge, there’s a difference process to appeal. More importantly, there’s a much shorter time limit.

Christensen Missed Deadline For First Appeal (Rule 51)

The case was originally struck by Associate Justice Coughlan. Christensen filed a Motion under Federal Court Rule 51 to have it reviewed. Or at least, she was supposed to. She missed the deadline by nearly 3 weeks, and bungled an attempt to ask for an extension of time. And to clarify:

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Because an Associate Judge (Prothonotary) struck the case initially, it could be reviewed by filing a Motion. Challenging a Judge’s decision would have required going to the Federal Court of Appeal. But Christensen screwed up the Appeal big time. Not only was she late, but:

  • The reason for prolonged inaction wasn’t really convincing
  • Christensen invoked the wrong Rule (51, instead of 8) asking for extension
  • Christensen asked for a Motion “in writing” but cited a Rule that applied to the Federal Court of Appeal
  • Christensen asked for “Leave” to appeal when it wasn’t required
  • Christensen improperly swore out her own Affidavit (breaks Rule 82)
  • Christensen didn’t clarify Plaintiffs “always intended” to appeal
  • Christensen didn’t explain how an Appeal may be successful

The specific errors were covered extensively in a previous article. An extension was refused.

Just as with Tondreau a few months earlier, Christensen missed the deadline to file, and never really offered a convincing explanation of why that was the case.

Christensen Doesn’t Understand What’s Being Appealed

After Justice Manson refused to extend time in the Federal Court, Christensen filed Notice of Appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal. But there’s already a serious problem.

The Notice asks that the original Order of A.J. Coughlan be set aside and that the case be allowed to proceed. That may be fine as additional Relief being sought.

However, the Notice doesn’t challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time. The most immediate problem is that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are time-barred into going further, unless that is overturned. In the “grounds” section, it’s shrugged off as procedural error. Again, without being challenged.

She also asks for Leave to file the Notice of Appeal. This doesn’t make any sense, as this is the Notice, and it’s already been filed. And it gets worse from here.

Determining Contents Of Appeal Book

The Federal Court of Appeal differs from its Provincial counterparts in a significant way. Specifically, it requires the Appellants to either: (a) get consent as to the contents; or (b) file a Motion to have a Judge determine it.

For a recent example of what a consent looks like, see the Payne Appeal.

Christensen chose Option “B”, while the Government responded that this was entirely unnecessary.

Justice Rennie agreed that this could have been resolved on consent.

(b) No argument is advanced by the appellants why the materials that were before the Associate Judge but not before Manson J., ought to be before this Court;

(c) Rule 343(2) requires parties to an appeal to include in an appeal book “only such documents, exhibits and transcripts as are required to dispose of the issues on appeal”. Although the Rule 343(2) test is a flexible one, a document should be included in the appeal book “only if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that it is required to dispose of an issue on appeal”

This highlights Christensen’s lack of understanding of what she’s doing. She’s appealing Justice Manson’s refusal to extend time to allow that Rule 51 Appeal. As such, only the few documents that were before him would be considered by this Court.

Christensen “Discontinued” Without Clients’ Knowledge Or Consent

Christensen’s clients were apparently unhappy with her mediocre legal services, and many refused to pay additional money to her “non-profit”. Consequently, she filed a Notice of Discontinuance of their behalf.

Procedurally though, this cannot be done.

One client, Mark Lolacher, took it upon himself to file his own Motion to set aside the Notice, and to be reinstated. He also accused Christensen of misconduct. The Government lawyer offered a suggestion allow Lolacher to remain, but as a self-represented litigant. Surprisingly, Christensen opposed the Motion.

Ultimately, Justice Locke ordered Lolacher’s reinstatement as an Appellant, and $2,000 for the “high handed” treatment he had received. The reasons were scathing, although misconduct allegations were to be deferred to the Law Society of Alberta.

The Judge also mentioned 2 practical solutions. Christensen could be replaced as counsel, under Rule 124, or she could file a Motion to withdraw as counsel, under Rule 125. Neither happened, and she apparently got her own lawyer. Keep in mind, bickering and fighting with clients doesn’t advance the vaccine passport case at all. Remember, this was supposedly the reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

As a humourous aside: Lolacher is the only Plaintiff/Appellant in this case have actually won a Motion. Christensen has racked up loss after loss, and all at her clients’ expense.

Christensen Apparently Has Her Own Counsel

The Court filings are admittedly just a small part of what’s been going on. Still, it’s fair to say that things have further deteriorated.

According to further correspondence from Mark Lolacher, Christensen isn’t following Justice Locke’s Order in good faith. She keeps misrepresenting a procedural Motion as “suing the other Appellants”. Now, she apparently has her own counsel…. while still representing all (or some?) of the clients. It’s a mess. Will clients now be billed for 2 lawyers?

Christensen is apparently unwilling to accept Justice Locke’s decision reinstating Lolacher. Instead of taking a reasonable alternative, she tries to file a Notice of Appeal…. to the same Court.

Have to wonder who came up with the idea: Christensen, or her new “counsel”? In any event, the Federal Court of Appeal refused to file the Notice, since procedurally, it would have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Actually, the SCC would have to agree to hear it first, with an Application for Leave. The staff at the Courts apparently know the Rules better than either of these lawyers.

Again, none of this helps any of their clients.

It’s hard to believe that a licenced lawyer can actually be so bad at what she does. Sure, this could all be deliberate sabotage, but it’s so poorly done that it strains all belief.

It seems that Law Societies will allow anyone to practice, even a potted plant.

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court May 2025
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA

Posted on

What Max Really Means With “The U.N. Is Dysfunctional” Sales Pitch

With the upcoming Federal election just days away, let’s dig a little bit into an old slogan.

Specifically, it’s the expression that “the United Nations is dysfunctional”. It’s something Maxime Bernier has said many times over the years, although the justifications have changed.

According to Bernier in his 2016/2017 CPC leadership race, this is the reason he stated that the United Nations was dysfunctional:

I won’t aim to please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations — a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel. Instead, I will ensure our country’s foreign policy will be refocused on the security and prosperity of Canadians.

Keep in mind, Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister from 2007 to 2008. His job was to be up to date on what was happening internationally. Sure, there are many reasons that the U.N. could be viewed as dysfunctional. However, the only one he gave was that it spent too much time criticising Israel.

And why was the United Nations regularly condemning Israel? For continued expansion in the Middle East, and of violating various ceasefire agreements, among other things. The various resolutions are publicly available.

This isn’t a “Canada first” approach to foreign policy. It’s Bernier telling the U.N. to shut up about what’s going on in the region. It’s probably a very popular position in mainstream conservative circles.

Here’s the more recent, cleaned up version from the PPC website:

Over the past several years, Canada has signed many UN treaties, accords and compacts on issues ranging from global warming to migration and sustainable development, that tie us to the globalist agenda. The United Nations is a dysfunctional organisation where non-democratic countries, because of their large numbers, have the most influence. This leads to ridiculous situations. For example, several of the member states on the UN Human Rights Council are among the worst human rights offenders in the world. As one country among almost 200, Canada has no interest in seeing the UN grow into a more powerful, quasi-world government.

It certainly is ridiculous that some of the worst human rights offenders are part of the Human Rights Council. No sensible person would dispute that. That being said, it wasn’t enough of a concern when he ran for the CPC leadership to even put in his platform.

He likely realized it would be too hard to “sell” himself as a populist with the old version, so it needed to be amended.

And as for a quasi-world government, it’s strange that he seemed to have no idea what was happening under his nose in 2007. Again, he was the Foreign Affairs Minister.

His current stance is to rail against “neocons” who see nothing wrong with engineering regime change in places such as Ukraine. On the surface, there’s nothing to disagree with here.

Economic sanctions against Russia were a geopolitical blunder on the West’s part that backfired. They destabilized the global economy, and pushed the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. There is no reason to treat Russia as our enemy. The war did not start with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but when the neoconservatives in the US and their allies in Ottawa and European capitals engineered the regime change in Ukraine in 2014. It could have been avoided if NATO had not tried to encircle Russia and had given Putin assurances that Ukraine would never join it as a member.

However, some consistency would be nice.

Bernier voted to extend Canada’s commitment to war in the Middle East in 2006, and again in 2008. Apparently, he had no issue with prolonging our role in a foreign conflict and regime change. He’s against neocons and warmongers, except when he’s acting as one of them.

He’s extremely vague about what “our values” are as Canadians, and mostly refuses to specify what kinds of groups should be excluded from this country. There is one exception, what he calls “radical Islam”.

There are also some double standards surrounding free speech and political influence. Conservatives railed against Iqra Khalid’s Motion, M-103, which resulted in money being spent to combat Islamophobia. But they were supportive of Bill C-250, which jails people for Holocaust denial. And while Trudeau (rightfully) took flack for his trip to Aga Khan’s island, those same conservatives participate in taxpayer funded trips to Israel. Sure, China is a danger, but it’s hardly the only one.

Then there’s the issue of supporting Bill C-16, compelled speech for gender pronouns.

While Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) was justifiably criticized, there’s silence on some of the foreign lobbies who are pushing for it. See here and here. If free speech is going to be gutted, there needs to be an honest and frank discussion about where it’s coming from.

Why does all of this matter? Because the whole “populist” narrative comes across as completely fake. It gives off the vibes of someone just going through the motions, for $104,000 per year.

***Edit: Bernier also voted for Tony Clement’s Motion condemning BDS (ban, divest, sanction) actions that would be directed at Israel. This hasn’t happened with any other foreign country.

There are, of course, the usual concerns about the lack of a constitution, or a genuine leadership race. Recently, Max bought a retirement home in Florida, and appears to live there. But even if PPC were a real party, who would be influencing it?

(1) Wayback Machine Link To Bernier’s Website
(2) https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/issues/foreign-policy
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/39/1/9
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/39/2/76
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/42/1/237
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/42/1/126
(7) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=610896
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=607729
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-maxime-bernier-1.5695908
(11) https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/42/1/14

Posted on

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Abandons Calgary Firefighters Injection Pass Case In 2023

This article is to follow up on a 2022 case that no one ever heard about again. Specifically, it involved the Calgary Fire Department being sued for their new requirement to take the clot-shots. Many covered the announcement at the time, but nothing ever came of it.

Turns out that the lawsuit was discontinued, see here and here, less than a year after it was filed. The primary reason appears to be pushback from Calgary itself. The Calgary Firefighters Association, Local 255, has a collective bargaining agreement with the City and employees.

It’s also (yet another) cautionary tale about the problems litigants can have when they sue too many parties. Here, there could have been a decent case against the Alberta Government. Instead, the lawyer decides to name the employer as well, causing new headaches.

Additionally, the pleading had other serious defects.

The genius behind this was Leighton Grey, K.C., or King’s Counsel.

Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

24.01
(a) If any difference concerning the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of this Agreement or any question as to whether any difference is arbitral arises between the parties or persons bound by the Collective Agreement, such parties or persons shall endeavour to resolve the difference utilizing informal dispute resolution meetings. Should the parties fail to resolve the difference either party may proceed through the grievance process as set out below.

Step Two
If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved at Step One the Association within fifteen (15) days of the decision rendered by the Deputy Fire Chief or designate may submit the grievance to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or designate shall hear the grievance within fifteen (15) days of receiving it and shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days from the date the grievance was heard. If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved the grievance may be advanced within thirty (30) days to arbitration as provided under 24.01(c). If a grievance is not advanced to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the decision in Step Two, the grievance shall be deemed abandoned.

(e) The grievance arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any Member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the grievance arbitration board, but if there is no majority the decision of the Chair governs and it shall be deemed to be the award of the board;

Article 24 of that agreement spells out the grievance process. It reads:
(a) Bring grievance to Deputy Fire Chief.
(b) If no resolution, proceed to file with Fire Chief.
(c) Proceed to arbitration, if needed.

It’s also specified that if there’s no satisfactory conclusion reached with the Chief, then there’s a 30 day time limit to seek arbitration. It’s also clear that such a hearing is meant to be final.

Now, lawyers have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that various agreements never contemplated vaccine passports. While true, this amounts to CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, where the employer unilaterally changes a term and condition of employment. This sort of thing “is” usually covered.

Of course, had Grey only sued the Government of Alberta, the union agreement wouldn’t have come into play. Think about it, they can’t invoke a contract they’re not a party to. But by suing the Fire Department as well, Grey ensures that lack of jurisdiction will be an issue.

It’s just like an Ontario lawyer, who would be okay suing just the Ford Government. But then, he decides to sues any and all employers as well. Of course, suddenly union contracts create a jurisdiction issue.

City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike

The City of Calgary Fire Department brought an Application to Strike. Predictably, they invoked the union agreement, which specified arbitration as the only option.

Grey could simply have sued the Alberta Government — who brought in Provincial mandates — and left it at that. After all, they can’t challenge jurisdiction based on a contract they didn’t sign. Suing the Calgary Fire Department was an idiotic move, and allowed this to happen.

Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

The Statement of Claim contains poison pills, ensuring that it will be struck. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear criminal allegations at all.

The document also doesn’t plead any facts or particulars about any Plaintiff. The Judge would just be left guessing what the circumstances are for everyone, and which specific arguments they intend to make. This is probably since this lawsuit is largely recycled from other ones.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  8. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  9. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter.

Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

On his website, Grey brags about his success and accomplishment in the profession, including being an Adjudicator for Law Society disciplinary hearings from 2015–2020. He also mentions being the youngest to receive the King’s Counsel designation. Alberta describes members as:

Competence, including:

  • sound intellectual ability with a thorough, comprehensive, and current knowledge of law and practice in the applicant’s field
  • distinguished legal service with demanding and challenging legal work that contributes to the development of the law and practice
  • a recognized expertise in a particular area of law and practice (which may include the general practice of law)
  • an outstanding ability as a lawyer in the applicant’s field, to a standard to be expected of King’s Counsel

One has to wonder how and why so many defective cases were filed in recent years over the “vaccine passport” issue. It appears that most involved unionized employers, making them doomed to fail. Shouldn’t more be expected?

Note: To anyone who has read this far, are you aware of any other injection pass/vaccine pass cases brought by Leighton Grey? This site covered 9 that were dropped, and 1 struck, but there may very well be more. If so, please respond with the details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
https://www.calgaryfirefighters.org/files/docs/IAFF_L255_2021-2023_Collective_Agreement_.pdf

Posted on

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Drops (At Least) 9 Vaccine Passport Cases

This site has covered many of the terribly crafted cases filed by the “freedom lawyers” in recent years. These challenges to lockdown measures — such as injection mandates — are often comically done. The suits have procedural defects built in, which ensures that they go nowhere.

However, let’s consider another angle. Does it benefit clients, or the public as a whole, when cases are simply discontinued (dropped) long before they’re ever heard?

Worse, there’s typically no media attention when lawsuits are ended like this. Certainly, high profile rulings do get published. But there are no decisions when cases are simply dropped, making it far harder to piece together what’s really going on.

While CanLII is a great tool for searching verdicts, it’s essentially useless at helping to find out when discontinuances are filed. Reporters are left having to manually search, often without complete information.

Today, let’s look at a (somewhat) more low profile lawyer, and at some of his recent work. The results are not encouraging.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  8. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  9. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Now, Grey is still soliciting money for his Proposed Class Action (Burke), which was filed in Federal Court. This is supposedly on behalf of federally regulated workers, excluding the airline industry. But considering he already dropped the Winnipeg suit, why should people have confidence in this one?

It’s worth noting that this very likely isn’t the complete list.

#1: Lawsuit Against University Of Winnipeg, Brent Roussin Et Al

This case is actually a bit confusing. While it appears that the parties agreed to having the case struck, there is still a Notice of Discontinuance on file. It’s also worth noting that the Statement of Claim filed here is essentially cut-and-pasted into future claims.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Mlodzinski Statement Of Claim
(2) Mlodzinski Notice Of Motion Uncontested
(3) Mlodzinski Order Striking Case
(4) Mlodzinski Notice Of Discontinuance

#2: Lawsuit Against Purolator, Canadian Government

June 17th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed against Purolator and Ottawa.

December 23rd, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

April 10th, 2023: Claim is discontinued against everyone.

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.

There isn’t anything noteworthy to report in the case. After it sat idle, for nearly a year, the case was dropped. Presumably, no one got refunds.

PUROLATOR COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Purolator T-1267-22 Statement Of Claim
(2) Purolator T-1267-22 Amended Statement Of Claim
(3) Purolator T-1267-22 Notice Of Discontinuance

#3: Lawsuit Against Westjet, Government Of Canada

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.

WESTJET COURT 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

#4: Firefighters V. City Of Calgary, Case Dropped

July 7th, 2022: Statement of Claim filed.

August 9th, 2022: Application brought to strike Statement of Claim.

September 9th, 2022: Hearing (to strike suit) adjourned.

September 21st, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

April 25th, 2023: Notice of Discontinuance.

Note: The Alberta Courts are a bit different. The search function allows people who order a list of the documents filed. From there, specific ones can be selected.

CALGARY FIREFIGHTER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

#5: Peters V. Winnipeg/Manitoba Class Action

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.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

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.

WINNIPEG/MANITOBA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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: Lawsuit Against Canadian National Railway Dropped

March 4th, 2022: Grey files the Statement of Claim against CNR and the Federal Government. Despite representing over 200 Plaintiffs, the entire document is just 14 pages long.

September 7th, 2022: case management is held to bring a Motion to Strike.

October 11th, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

October 28, 2022: first Notice of Discontinuance is filed. Several Plaintiffs want out.

February 1st, 2023: Statement of Claim is again amended.

February 7th, 2023: Order from the Court regarding how to proceed with the Motion to Strike the case.

May 8th, 2023: Most Plaintiffs discontinue.

May 17th, 2023: Grey files a Motion to remove himself as solicitor for the few remaining clients. This appears to be the most work he has actually performed in the case.

June 20th, 2023: Last client discontinues case.

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.

So, what actually happened in this case? The Statement of Claim was amended a few times, and there was some activity on a Motion to Strike. Then the suit was dropped without anything happening. None of the Plaintiffs ever got their day in Court. But their lawyer probably got his money.

CNR COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CNR T-553-22 Statement Of Claim (March 4, 2022)
(2) CNR T-553-22 Case Management (September 7, 2022)
(3) CNR T-553-22 Amended Statement Of Claim (October 11, 2022)
(4) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance (October 28, 2022)
(5) CNR T-553-22 Amended Amended Statement Of Claim (February 1, 2023)
(6) CNR T-553-22 Order Regarding Motion To Strike (February 7, 2023)
(7) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance (May 8, 2023)
(8) CNR T-553-22 Motion For Removal Of Solicitor (May 17, 2023)
(9) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance (June 20, 2023)

#7: Pillon V. Ducks Unlimited Canada Lawsuit

October 2023, Grey files a lawsuit in Manitoba against Ducks Unlimited Canada. The case is discontinued in January 2024, before the Statement of Claim is even served.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Pillon Statement Of Claim
(2) Pillon Notice Of Discontinuance

#8: Hildebrand V. Canadian National Railway Lawsuit

At the end of October, 2023, Grey filed a Statement of Claim on behalf of Kenton Hildebrand, against CNR in Manitoba. The case was dropped in April 2024, and had not even been served.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

HILDEBRAND COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CNR Hildebrand Statement Of Claim
(2) CNR Hildebrand Notice Of Discontinuance

#9: Grey Withdraws As Counsel For Stowe/TransX Case

Grey filed this suit in October 2023. For more than a year later, until November 2024, there had been no activity whatsoever. Then, Grey filed a Motion to get himself removed as counsel.

While technically Grey hasn’t discontinued this case, Stowe is essentially screwed. He’s now outside the Statute of Limitations to file a proper claim, and it seems very unlikely he can get help with the existing one. For him, the case is over.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Stowe TransX Statement Of Claim
(2) Stowe TransX Motion To Withdraw

Okay, So Why Should People Care About This?

These types of lawsuits typically make the news when they’re filed. That said, they almost never get any sort of attention when they’re dropped. The public wrongly believes that there are lawyers working hard to protect their rights.

People are free to spend their own money however they wish. With that in mind, most people like to view themselves as intelligent consumers. Many appreciate being more fully informed before making purchases or financial contributions.

The next time some Government comes to trample people’s rights, is there any reason to expect the “freedom lawyers” will defend the public?

Worth noting: Grey was recently successful in getting certification for a Proposed Class Action involving residential school students. He’s clearly capable of doing great work. But his injection pass cases have consistently been a complete dead end.

Do you actually think Liberty Talk would ever address something like this?

Posted on

HateGate, Part 2C: Settling The Score With The Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Again, this is not clickbait.

On July 12th, 2023, HateGate co-author Caryma Sa’d filed a $100,000 lawsuit in Federal Court. It was against the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), and Morgan Yew, one of its reporters.

At its core, it was a defamation lawsuit, but dressed up as trademark and competition.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same stunt that co-author Elisa Hategan (or Ferryman-Cohen) had pulled with Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (formerly Moore). And likewise, Sa’d saw her case thrown out by the Judge.

The case was struck on September 25th, 2023, for failing to state a Cause of Action, or to sue over anything the Court could realistically grant. Coincidently, that’s when the “HateGate Affair” was released.

Parts 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 of the HateGate scam are available as well.

Why do these author lawsuits matter? It’s because they show — at a minimum — that there’s an axe to grind against Bernie Farber and CAHN. It’s difficult to view the authors as being at all unbiased when they’ve filed lawsuits about the very people they’re “doing research on”.

As an aside, Sa’d was represented by Frederick Wu. This is also Jeremy MacKenzie’s lawyer in his October 2023 defamation suit with Ezra Levant and Rebel Media. Considering that he filed this case in the wrong Court, it’s understandable why he’d have trouble with the later one. Wu seems to be an incompetent lawyer.

Defamation Rebranded As Trademarks/Competition Act Violations

The Statement of Claim reads largely as a defamation suit, which should properly be brought in Provincial Court. Instead, it was filed in Federal Court. Allegations which may be viewed as harassment should probably have been filed Provincially as well. According to the ruling:

[7] The principal allegations in the Statement of Claim surround an event that Ms. Sa’d intended to host on July 10, 2021, in Toronto’s Chinatown district, described as a comedy night at which Ms. Sa’d would interview and roast an individual she describes as a right-wing personality. In the days leading to the event, CAHN expressed concern about the event. While both parties opposed the views of this individual, they did not agree on whether the event would be effective in countering those views or rather would serve to promote them.

[10] Ms. Sa’d pleads that, following correspondence between them, CAHN agreed to minor revisions to a handful of passages in its article. However, she alleges that, while the revised article correlated more closely with some facts, the revisions did not materially change the misleading character of the article. She alleges that, in publishing the updated article, CAHN refused to expressly specify which revisions had been made.

[11] The Statement of Claim further pleads that, from time to time, CAHN publishes materials encouraging counter-protestors to attend events and obstruct what it describes as “fake journalists”. Ms. Sa’d alleges that she has been subjected to: (a) in-person harassment at rallies by counter-protesters employing such tactics; and (b) online sexism and racism, including by online personalities she names as John and Jane Doe.

[12] Based on these allegations, Ms. Sa’d invokes subsections 7(a) and (d) of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 [TMA], and sections 36 and 52 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c C-34 [CA], and claims against the Defendants declaratory relief, injunctive relief, general damages of $50,000, aggravated and exemplary damages of $50,000, and costs. Details of these statutory provisions will be canvassed later in these Reasons. Ms. Sa’d filed her action as a simplified action under Rules 292 to 299.

Interestingly, this case is packaged as alleged violations of the Trademarks Act, and the Competition Act. There are a few possibilities why this was done:

(a) If filed in Ontario Superior Court, it’s very likely that an anti-SLAPP Motion would have been brought, and it would shut down the case.
(b) Successful anti-SLAPP Motions typically result in “full indemnity”, or 100% cost awards to Defendants. By contrast, Federal Court has much lower cost scales, and thus, is much less risky.
(c) Defamation lawsuits are typically restricted by a very short Statute of Limitations. Failure to follow may result in the case automatically being lost.

Filing in Federal Court may have ultimately have been a wise move (if she was going to sue at all), as it only led to $850 in costs.

CAHN Brings Motion To Strike Lawsuit

Unsurprisingly, CAHN brought a Motion to Strike the Statement of Claim. Several grounds were cited, but the overall theme was that the case was an abuse of the legal system.

The Notice of Motion accuses Sa’d of using litigation to silence CAHN from speaking on important topics. This strengthens the suspicion that it was filed here and not the Ontario Courts in order to avoid an anti-SLAPP Motion. It’s implied that they would have, it given the chance.

In their Affidavit, it was pointed out that this wasn’t the only such lawsuit that Sa’d had filed.

***Since then, the other 2 cases from Sa’d have been voluntarily discontinued. The case with the Broadbent Institute was dropped on February 13th, 2025. She dropped the suit against Canada Proud on January 28th. That appears to be the end of it.

The Responding Motion Record accused CAHN of bringing the Motion as it was “low risk, high reward”. This is rather ironic, considering that the case was improperly filed in Federal Court to avoid the much more expensive Ontario anti-SLAPP laws.

Sa’d also requested — as an alternative — that the Court give permission to allow the Claim to be amended, or to provide particulars (specifics). Ultimately though, the suit was thrown out completely.

While the general tone of this lawsuit seems more tepid than any of Hategan’s, it’s just as frivolous. Both HateGate authors have filed baseless suits against people they viewed as having wronged them. It doesn’t exactly scream “objective” in their later work.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Sad T-1452-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Sad T-1452-23 Notice Of Motion To Strike
(3) Sad T-1452-23 Ettienne Affidavit
(4) Sad T-1452-23 Motion Record To Strike
(5) Sad T-1452-23 Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1286/2023fc1286.html

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0) Previously Published Documents
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action Update: Several Motions And An Appeal

It’s been over 3 years since a Proposed Class Action lawsuit was filed in Ottawa. This was against the leaders of the infamous protest challenging lockdown measures. The case has essentially disappeared from the public consciousness, so it’s a good time to review it.

To summarize: the case hasn’t substantially moved forward. While several rulings have been handed down, they are primarily of a procedural nature.

***There is, of course, the absurd irony of the Plaintiffs filing a Class Action against others who were protesting in favour of freedom — and theirs included. Perhaps they would have preferred that martial law measures continue indefinitely.

Incidently, donations are still being sought.

As of now, the case is on hold pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision. The Defendants brought an anti-SLAPP Motion — which was dismissed — so they are trying again.

Mareva Injunction Against Protestors’ Asset

It wasn’t just Trudeau and Freeland who took the heavy handed approach of freezing assets. The Plaintiffs here also sought (and obtained) an ex-parte Order against the Defendants. They wanted to seize cash that could otherwise have been used to prolong the protests in Ottawa.

Justice MacLeod’s ruling was made without giving anyone the chance to make submissions on their own behalf.

Amending V.S. Striking Statement Of Claim

The Statement of Claim underwent various revisions. Successive changes typically require either consent, or a Judge to permit it. The Plaintiffs found that these were needed due to initial defects. Amending is quite common in such lawsuits.

There’s the original, amended, and fresh as amended versions.

Unsurprisingly, the Defendants moved to have the pleading struck entirely. However, Justice MacLeod had this to say about competing Motions.

[1] This motion deals with the form of the Statement of Claim in this proposed class proceeding which, for convenience, I will call the “Convoy Class Proceeding”. Technically, there are two motions, a motion by the plaintiff to amend the claim and a motion by a group of defendants to strike it. The issue is the same. Is the proposed Statement of Claim acceptable?

[35] If the parties agreed or intended that the Convoy participants would blockade the streets, disrupt the operations of the city and disrupt the normal activities of the citizens, they may be found to be joint tortfeasors. Extension of such liability to those who continued to donate funds once the nature of the activity in Ottawa became apparent may be novel but it is not impossible of success. Concerted action liability is a fact-sensitive and fact specific concept. It may be (as Ms. Belton suggests) that there are policy grounds for not extending liability to a class of donors even if the use or misuse of the funds was foreseeable. That is not an analysis that should be done at a pleadings stage.

[36] All of the necessary facts are pleaded. In some cases, they are pleaded more than once. The proposed statement of claim clearly discloses a plausible cause of action against all of the categories of defendants including the new defendants which the plaintiffs seek to name in place of the “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants.

[37] There can be no prejudice in granting the amendments and adding or substituting parties for the John Doe and Jane Doe defendants. This is because no statements of defence have yet been filed and no limitation periods have expired. No one wants to be sued. Certainly no one wants to be named as a defendant in what may turn out to be protracted litigation but that is not a factor which precludes an amendment or the addition or deletion of parties.

Typically, Proposed Class Actions name a fixed number of Defendants, but allow for the possibility of many more Plaintiffs. This case was made more difficult by the possibility of including more Defendants at later dates. In a sense, it was something of a moving target.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Brought, Claiming Free Expression An Issue

The Defendants chose an interesting strategy in the Summer of 2023. They decided to bring an anti-SLAPP Motion, on the grounds that the lawsuit infringed on their right to free expression. On the surface, it seemed to be a reasonable option.

However, a serious problem faced the Defendants: anti-SLAPP laws only protect the expression if the parties are willing to admit to doing it. Justice MacLeod stated:

[19] At the first stage of the analysis, Section 137.1 is therefore engaged at least for those defendants who acknowledge having participated in the activity. I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that the protection of s. 137.1 may not be available to a party who denies having made the expression at issue. A party cannot simultaneously claim protection for freedom of speech under anti-SLAPP legislation while denying involvement in the expression at issue.

[22] The plaintiffs represent the residents, business owners, and employees whose property rights, right to operate a business or right to pursue their livelihood were allegedly disrupted by the activities of the protesters. While the plaintiffs acknowledge the right of the protestors to make their views known to government and to seek support from the public, the plaintiffs allege that the ongoing noise, pollution, blocking of the streets and impeding use of their property and businesses was tortious or unlawful. This is a very significant issue for the exercise of rights in a free and democratic society.

Another problem the Defendants face is that many of the allegations — whether true or not — fall outside the realm of free expression, such as blocking off streets.

While the Judge agreed that the motivations behind the protest (anger of lockdown measures) was public interest, the conduct involved wasn’t necessarily protected. Ultimately, the anti-SLAPP Motion was dismissed.

Dismissal Of Anti-SLAPP Motion Appealed To ONCA

The Defendants then went to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Appellants’ and Respondents’ arguments are available.

Without getting into the weeds, the Appellants (Defendants) argued that Justice MacLeod didn’t apply the anti-SLAPP framework correctly. They stated that there was ample grounds within the law to dismiss the case altogether. The Respondents (Plaintiffs) countered that the Lower Court got it right, and that there was no reason to intervene. The hearing took place, but a ruling was deferred.

And that is where things remain today. As of now, the Court of Appeal has not yet handed down a decision. Of course, Leave to Appeal may still be sought by either side. It’s by no means over.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

It’s worth noting that there was been no movement in terms of hearing the case on the merits. The vast amounts of paperwork all have to do with administrative steps within the case.

February 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim (original version) is filed.

February 17th, 2022: The Court hears a request for a Mareva Injunction ex parte, meaning that the opposing side was not given notice, and not able to present a case on their own behalf. The purpose was to put convoy funds under control of the Court until a final outcome could be determined.

February 22nd, 2022: The Court granted the Injunction.

March 10th, 2022: The Court extends the Mareva Injunction until March 31st, 2022.

April 1st, 2022: The Court adjourns competing Motions until May 2nd. The Plaintiffs wanted to continue the Mareva Injunction, while the Defendants wanted it dissolved.

November 7th, 2022: The Motion to amend the Statement of Claim was supposed to have been heard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, it’s adjourned until January 2023.

November 15th, 2022: The Court hears a Motion from Chris Garrah and Benjamin Dichter, attempting to access $200,000 from the frozen funds. The stated purpose was to be able to finance a defence to this lawsuit.

December 6th, 2022: The Court denies the Motion to free up the money, but allows for the possibility to revisit the issue if circumstances change. Parties are told to try to settle the issue of costs themselves.

January 24, 2023: The Court hears arguments on 2 overlapping Motions. The Plaintiffs wanted to further amend the pleadings, while the Defendants wanted them struck for not having a Cause of Action. The decision is reserved until later.

March 13, 2023: The Court rules on the January 2023 Motions. In the end, it was about the same thing: is the pleading acceptable? It’s decided that the Statement of Claim may be changed to accommodate deficiencies.

June 9th, 2023: Court refuses to award any costs at all over 2 competing Motions. This stems from the earlier March 13th, 2023 ruling.

July 27th, 2023: The Ottawa Court sets dates for various steps within the proposed anti-SLAPP Motion. This is Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

August 25th, 2023: Moving Party Motion Record (document collection) is served.

September 15, 2023: Cross-Examinations of various parties happened.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file volumes I and II of their supplementary evidence.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file their anti-SLAPP Factum (arguments).

December 7th, 2023: Responding Factum (Plaintiffs) is filed.

December 14th, 2023: Anti-SLAPP Motion is heard.

February 5th, 2024: The Ottawa Court refuses to dismiss the case under “anti-SLAPP” laws. Rather than accept the ruling, the Defendants chose to appeal it.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li et al. v Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim February 2022
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 2022
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection February 16 2022
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim February 2022
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum January 2023
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim March 2023
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I November 2023
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II November 2023
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum November 2023
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum December 2023
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities December 2023
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities December 2023
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing March 2024
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum March 2024
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum October 2024

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them.


Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/canuckla/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5471