Category: Types of Law

Posted on

Military Injection Pass Case: Catherine Christensen And The “Missing” Motion Record

Late last month, counsel for hundreds of military veterans appeared on the Talk Truth podcast to talk about her case, among other things. This is, of course, a notorious and high profile injection passport case that was thrown out in late 2024.

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

Briefly, the case was struck by Associate Judge Coughlan in November 2024 for: (a) not properly being pleaded; and (b) lack of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction, due to the military’s grievance system taking priority. After missing the deadline to appeal, and a comedy of errors, Justice Manson refused an extension of time. A Notice of Appeal has now been filed in the Federal Court of Appeal.

The full interview is available on Rumble, and most on Twitter.

Catherine Christensen, counsel for the Plaintiffs, talks about her Motion Record being deleted, an allegation that makes no sense at all. She suggested that it was done prior to AJ Coughlan’s ruling, implying that the Court is corrupt.

Worth noting: Christensen doesn’t understand the argument of why Payne succeeded. It wasn’t that “Charter Rights violations cannot be addressed in the grievance system”. It was that unilaterally imposing changes on employment contracts without meaningful consultation circumvents the grievance process.

Hopefully, she isn’t able to get a negative precedent set.

Motion Records Filed, Available To The Public

Anyone can search the case notes on Federal Court cases. It’s freely available. For the Motion to Strike, the Plaintiffs’ Motion Record was Item #68 and #70. Yes, it’s 2 volumes. As for the Motion to extend time, it’s Item #77.

The first volume of the Plaintiffs’ Motion Record contains dozens of Affidavits, and is 6,908 pages in size. It’s full of photographs, and takes up over 1 GB in data. However, a significant portion is irrelevant.

The second volume of the Plaintiff’s Motion Record contains the written submissions, and hundreds of pages of “secondary sources” and “appendices”. It’s 613 pages in length.

Now, it’s possible that she had to send (at least the first volume) more than once, given its size. But she’s implying there’s some conspiracy to rig the case. In reality, the Motion Record was so poorly crafted that it went largely ignored by AJ Coughlan.

For context, what was the Motion to Strike about?
(a) Pleadings not being drafted in a way that can be responded to
(b) Lack of jurisdiction for the Court, given the grievance system in place

To address the lack of jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs needed to focus on providing evidence that the grievance option was corrupted, or otherwise unworkable. There are parts of the evidence that addressed exemptions and grievances, but that should have been the entirety.

At the time of hearing the Motion to Strike, over 100 of the Plaintiffs had filed grievances, and they were in various stages. In fairness to AJ Coughlan, it put her in the awkward spot of being asked to confer jurisdiction to the Court. As for ongoing grievances, it would effectively hijack them.

[67] Indeed, it is noteworthy that over 100 of the Plaintiffs have filed grievances arising from the Directives. At least one grievance was allowed by the MGERC though not supported by the FA. This Court has consistently upheld the CAF grievance system and declined to exercise its exceptional jurisdiction: Veltri v Department of National Defence Canada, dated January 4, 2018, at paras 11-17 (Federal Court file no. T-1400-17); Sandiford v Canada, 2007 FC 225 at para 28‑29; Graham v Canada, 2007 FC 210 at paras 22-23. In the present circumstances, I see no basis upon which I ought to exercise my residual jurisdiction to permit this action to continue.

For reference, Christensen was told back in late 2021 not to try to circumvent the grievance system by going to Federal Court. That was also a vaccine mandate case.

To give Plaintiffs credit, there were sections of the evidence that were quite appropriate. But with these decisions in mind, it was an uphill battle getting any Court to take the case.

***Due to the large amounts of private (and irrelevant) information that was filed, the Motion Record won’t be shared. It would cross into doxing.

Contents Of Motion Record Largely Irrelevant Or Redundant

The first volume of the Motion Record consists of 34 Affidavits, and is 6,908 pages long.

The content which shows various Plaintiffs attempting to seek some alternative or exemption is great. Many refer to grievance systems in place. That’s helpful in trying to establish whether or not there were any alternatives.

There’s a lot of duplication and redundancy in the evidence. Documents such as: (a) CDS Directive 001; (b) Layered Risk Management System; and (c) Government of Canada Policy on Mandatory Vaccination appear in each Affidavit.

The Affidavits also include significant sections of personal information that seem unnecessary to hearing such a Motion.

Part of the problem of having hundreds of Plaintiffs is that filing anything becomes a tedious process. Approximately, just 10% of them gave any evidence at all, and the Motion Record was thousands of pages. A far better option would be a Class Action, something Christensen does actually suggest later.

Some Affidavits Sworn Out BEFORE Proceedings Commence

[17] The Plaintiffs filed 34 affidavits of individual Plaintiffs with their motion materials. Some of these affidavits pre-date the filing of the initial Statement of Claim yet bear the style of cause and action number of the proceeding. Further, not all of the additional affidavits were referenced in the Plaintiffs’ written representations.

There’s a principle in law that evidence cannot be changed once it’s sworn out, but that appears to have happened here. AJ Coughlan mentions that some Affidavits were completed prior to the case being filed, yet have the the number of them. Prior to the Statement of Claim being filed — here it’s June 20th, 2023 — there would be no case number at all.

And that ties back in to the earlier problem. This was just a Motion to Strike, and the focus should have been on asking the Court to “take Jurisdiction”, as there was no effective grievance option. Instead, Christensen seems to have just reused Affidavits compiled earlier. She didn’t create new ones.

Written Submissions Only Reference “Some” Affidavits

[16] The form of motion materials is precisely prescribed by the Rules. Rule 363 provides that any facts to be relied upon by a party on motion should be set out in an affidavit. Rule 365(2) provides that appropriate sources may be referenced, attached to the affidavit, and included as part of the motion record. However, only affidavits and sources that are referred to in written submissions are to be included in the motion record.

[17] The Plaintiffs filed 34 affidavits of individual Plaintiffs with their motion materials. Some of these affidavits pre-date the filing of the initial Statement of Claim yet bear the style of cause and action number of the proceeding. Further, not all of the additional affidavits were referenced in the Plaintiffs’ written representations.

This is pretty straightforward. If you want to rely on Affidavit Evidence, it needs to be referenced in the written arguments. However, only some of them were.

Motion Record Contains “Secondary Sources” And “Appendices”

[18] The Plaintiffs also attached secondary sources to their motion record. The secondary sources were styled as “Appendices” and were not attached to affidavits. Again, only some of the secondary sources included in the motion record were referenced in argument. At the hearing of this matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that this is unacceptable under Rules 363 and 365.

[19] Because of the breach of Rules 363 and 365, I conclude that the affidavits and secondary sources were not properly before the Court on this motion. Accordingly, I did not consider them in my analysis.

AJ Coughlan clearly had (and read) the Motion Record prior to making a ruling. But the Rules of Civil Procedure were flaunted to such a degree that she refused to consider the evidence within.

Keep in mind, this is just a Motion to Strike. Again, the only evidence that really mattered was evidence that showed the grievance process was unworkable.

Despite suggesting the Judge was corrupt (or at least Court officials), the Motion Record was disregarded since Christensen couldn’t be bothered to follow the Federal Court Rules. This is an ongoing problem.

Christensen Sought To Convert Into Class Action, Or Individual Cases

Interestingly, in trying to ward off a Motion to Strike, Christensen proposed that AJ Coughlan allow the case to be refiled as a Class Action, or on an individual basis.

Of course, one has to wonder why it wasn’t in the first place. She laments the burden and hassle of having to contact and consult with over 300 clients. By contrast, a Proposed Class Action could have been initiated with a few (or even a single) Representative Plaintiff.

Christensen Screwed Up 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

That Appeal was addressed in detail here and here.

Christensen Appears To Have Already Screwed Up Second Appeal

Christensen missed the deadline to appeal the first time around, and then botched a Motion to extend time. She then files a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. Already, it’s obvious that she has no idea what she’s doing.

First, Leave (permission) to Appeal to this Court is not required for a Final Order.

Second, Christensen asks for Leave “to file the Notice of Appeal”. Problem is, that “is” the Notice of Appeal. It’s already filed, and can’t be unfiled. It would have made far more sense to bring a Motion asking to file the Notice of Appeal. And again, Leave isn’t required.

Third, she doesn’t seem to be challenging the Decision of Justice Manson not to extend time to file the Rule 51 Appeal. She says that it was an error…. but doesn’t ask that it be reversed.

Fourth, she requested permission to convert the lawsuit into a Class Action when the Motion to Strike was heard, and that would have solved a lot of logistical problems. However, there’s no mention of it here.

Fifth, on a lesser note, she requests costs on a full indemnity basis, which would be 100% of the costs. Outside of successful anti-SLAPP Motions for defamation suits, it’s almost unheard of. The Federal Courts have their own scales for lawyers to use.

Could such an Appeal eventually succeed?

Perhaps, but it’s been a gong show so far.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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 Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(8) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(9) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time January 2025
(10) Qualizza Federal Court Notes
(11) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal January 2025

OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w

Posted on

Crown Appeals Payne: Class Action Under s.2(d), Which Survived Motion To Strike

No one should be surprised that a decision from earlier this month is being appealed. This is the ruling from Justice Southcott, which (mostly) dismissed a Motion to Strike. See the earlier piece for more background information.

This is one of the Proposed Class Actions from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. The main thrust is that unilaterally imposing the “vaccine pass” on workers — even if unionized — amounts to imposing a new term or condition of employment without the opportunity for “meaningful consultation”. In short, it does an end run around any sort of collective bargaining agreement. As such, it violates people’s Section 2(d) Charter Rights of freedom of association.

How this Appeal ends will have significant impact on their other cases, including BCPSEF and FreeToFly. Those are based on substantially the same arguments.

As an aside, counsel for the Qualizza Plaintiff/Appellants has gotten wind of this. That was the clown show of a suit involving 330 current and former military personnel. That Notice of Appeal references the Payne case.

Government Says Case Should Have Been Struck Anyway

In their Notice of Appeal, counsel claims that the case should have been thrown out, as have so many others, under Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. For reference, s.208 states that all Federal workers have the right to grieve, while s.236 denies the right to sue in Court.

4. The Motion Judge erred in law in taking jurisdiction over this matter and not striking the action in accordance with s. 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

However, the Plaintiffs had successfully convinced Justice Southcott that s.236 didn’t completely bar all claims for everyone, despite the case history.

(a) misunderstanding and misapplying Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, such as Adelberg v Canada, 2024 FCA 106, which determined that the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, (COVID-19 policy) was an employment policy related to terms and conditions of employment and emphasized that it matters not the way the claim is characterized, whether as a Charter breach or tort;

The Attorney General references Adelberg, which was: (a) struck for Federal workers; (b) allowed with respect to travel claims; and (c) ultimately denied Leave by the Supreme Court. This was Galati’s infamous “bad beyond argument” Federal case. But as bad as it was, the FPSLRA didn’t completely shut the door on some claims, a point made at the Payne hearing.

One interesting part of the Notice is paragraph 7.

7. The Motion Judge erred in finding that the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action in tort for casual workers, students and RCMP members as there were no representative plaintiffs for any of these categories, nor had material facts necessary been pled and was based on a misapplication of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in McMillan v Canada, 2024 FCA 199.

Justice Southcott struck the malfeasance of public office tort. This was on the basis that it was covered by s.236 FPSLRA, and could have been potentially grieved, at least with regard to the 3 Representative Plaintiffs. The possibility was left open to find new Plaintiffs that it wouldn’t apply to.

On that note, the Attorney General argues that there shouldn’t be an opportunity to amend, given that none of the current Plaintiffs qualify, and no facts are included. The Court can respond to that in several ways.

The Respondents have served their Notice of Appearance.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

October 6th, 2023: Statement of Claim is filed on behalf of 3 Representative Plaintiffs.

November 9th, 2023: Government responds with their Notice of Intent.

May 31st, 2024: Government sends notice that it intends to bring Motion to have the case struck (thrown out) in its entirety.

June 6th, 2024: Prothonotary Ring gives directions that there be case management.

June 10th, 2024: Chief Justice Crampton directs (a) Justice Southcott and (b) Prothonotary Ring to be assigned manage the proceeding.

July 1st, 2024: Prothonotary Ring issues schedule for documents to be served for Motion to Strike.

August 19th, 2024: Government brings its Motion to Strike.

October 1st, 2024: Plaintiffs file responding arguments as to why case shouldn’t be struck.

December 13th, 2024: Motion to Strike is argued before Justice Southcott.

January 1st, 2025: Justice Southcott partially grants the Motion to Strike. The tort of Malfeasance of Public Office is struck, but with Leave if eligible Plaintiffs are identified. The Section 2(d) claims are allowed to proceed.

January 13th, 2025: Government files Notice of Appeal.

January 20th, 2025: Plaintiffs (Respondents) file Notice of Appearance.

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

The Appeal should be heard later this year.

Should s.2(d) be upheld as a way around grievance requirements, this will have enormous influence on injection pass cases, at least at the Federal level. This is why they want Justice Southcott’s decision overturned. Of course, the Statutes of Limitation will make it hard to bring any new cases.

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025

PAYNE FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Statement Of Claim October 2023
(2) Payne Notice Of Intent To Defend November 2023
(3) Payne Letter Intent To Strike May 2024
(4) Payne Defendant Motion Record To Strike August 2024
(5) Payne Plaintiff Responding Motion Record October 2024
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.pdf
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.html

Posted on

“Bad Beyond Argument” Dorceus Ruling Appealed, Galati Undeterred By $190,000 Cost Order

It should be obvious by now that this is just an abuse of the Court system.

Back in December, a Toronto lawsuit involving nearly 500 health care workers across Ontario was struck by a Superior Court Judge. The Statement of Claim was extremely poorly written, and didn’t plead any of the necessary facts for any Plaintiff, or any Charter breach. It did, however, go off on many unrelated tangents. This trainwreck came from “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” himself, Rocco Galati.

Instead of the 473 Plaintiffs outlining their cases and circumstances, the Defendants had to do it. They ended up introducing a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record with their employment documents. That’s right, the Defendants had to provide the background information on the Parties.

The Claim was also littered with subjects that a Civil Court had no ability to hear.

It included:

  • Allegations of criminal conduct
  • Allegations of crimes against humanity
  • Allegations of eugenics (which would be criminal)
  • Allegations of violations of Nuremberg Code
  • Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration

Rather than simply pleading facts, the Statement of Claim tried arguing expert evidence, and caselaw, neither of which is appropriate at this stage. The purpose is to lay out the “who, what, where, when, how” of events, not make legal submissions. A competent lawyer would know this, but then, Galati isn’t a competent lawyer.

Beyond that, there was the issue of jurisdiction. The vast majority of Plaintiffs were unionized, and subject to various collective bargaining agreements. This wasn’t something that could be fixed simply by advancing a better quality pleading, unless brand new arguments were made, such as here.

See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

As an aside, the CSASPP defamation suit had gotten a mention in the Motion hearing, and Justice Chalmers’ comments about the Vaccine Choice Canada and Action4Canada cases were referenced. That Appeal should be interesting.

Justice Koehnen further ordered $190,000 in costs against the Plaintiffs, which worked out to less than $500 per Plaintiff. He ended up chewing out the Galati for “recycling” his old pleadings. Unfortunately, it’s still the clients who are stuck with the Bill. No matter how often lawyers act in frivolous and vexatious ways, they typically aren’t personally held responsible.

[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

In an unsurprising twist, the ruling has been appealed. The Notice itself is nothing new, and appears to be cut-and-pasted from other (failed) Appeals.

The Notice takes issue with the fact that the Judge found that the Court had no jurisdiction over the bulk of the Plaintiffs, even the arbitration requirement. However, Rule 21.01 (1) and (3) of Civil Procedure make it clear that it’s grounds for bringing a challenge.

The Notice takes issue with the Court not taking “facts pleaded as true”. However, counsel doesn’t know how to draft a Statement of Claim, nor does he know what’s supposed to be in one. Rehashing failed conspiracy theories hasn’t sat too well either.

The Notice takes issue with the $190,000 in costs awarded. However, costs are a discretionary matter, and almost impossible to overturn. And again, it involved 473 Plaintiffs, from all over the Province.

It’s unclear if the $190,000 in costs has actually been paid. If not, the Defendants can always seek an Order for Security for Costs prior to the hearing. Should it be granted, it would force Plaintiffs/Appellants to pay up ahead of time.

Plaintiffs To Be Shaken Down For More Money?

Now, if Adelberg (over 600 Plaintiffs) is any indication, a retainer of more than $600,000 isn’t enough. Another $600,000 was sought to appeal that “bad beyond argument” decision. That’s over $1.2 million for a lawsuit that never proceeded past the Statement of Claim. One has to assume that the Dorceus Plaintiffs are also being asked to pay more.

Similarly, although Katanik (100 Plaintiffs) was ultimately dropped, the $150,000 retainer wasn’t enough, and another $450,000 was demanded.

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada routinely hit up donors for more money.

With this in mind, it’s fair to assume that the Dorceus Plaintiffs/Appellants are also being asked to pay more. And again, when their Appeal crashes, it’s not counsel who has to pay costs.

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) Dorceus Notice Of Appeal
(10) 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

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

Looking At The Burke Federal Proposed Class Action (Injection Mandates)

Canadians were subjected to varying forms of lockdown measures from 2020 through 2022. Some restrictions still exist today in places such as health care settings.

As a result, a topic that’s come up numerous times is the idea of Class Actions. This is based on the concept that a single lawsuit — if carefully prepared — will be much more effective than individual claims. Many more people could potentially benefit. And indeed, such cases have sprung up.

With that in mind, it’s worth asking: how are these cases going?

One such suit filed in Federal Court is Chief Gregory Burke v. His Majesty the King, and the Attorney General of Canada. It commenced back in September 2023. To put it mildly, advancing the case doesn’t appear to be much of a priority.

There’s just the Statement of Claim and an amended version on file, both of which look to be horribly deficient. It will have to be further amended.

No Motion to Strike has (yet) been commenced. There’s no Statement of Defence. It doesn’t look like any steps have been taken to certify the case as a Class Action. The most recent action was in December 2024, advising of potential dates for a case conference. Donations are being sought still.

Counsel’s Recent Record On “Vaccine Passport” Cases

This Proposed Class Action is being conducted by Leighton Grey of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer. He has filed several related lawsuits (not Class Actions) in Federal Court in recent years. However, the trend seems to be to discontinue — drop — them, rather than push through.

(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

A search of other Court records — such as Manitoba — reveal other, related cases which were promptly discontinued. One has to wonder how diligently this one will be pursued.

Nothing Pleaded About Chief Gregory Burke, Representative Plaintiff

Most people are familiar with the more “traditional” lawsuits. In those, the details of each Plaintiff must be spelled out in the Statement of Claim, and then, the Defendants respond. They typically know from the onset exactly who is suing them, and for how much.

For (Proposed) Class Actions, the Claim pleads information about 1 or more “Representative Plaintiffs” only. There are “subgroups” or “classes” listed of prospective litigants. They still have to provide enough detail about their own circumstances. Beyond that, there’s a process to attempt to certify the lawsuit as a Class Action. A Judge may (or may not) certify.

Only a single Representative Plaintiff — sometimes called a “Token Plaintiff” — is required, provided he or she is able to qualify for all classes.

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.

Problem here: there’s nothing pleaded about Chief Gregory Burke. Federal Court Rules make it clear what’s required in a Statement of Claim. Neither the original nor the amended version provide any information about him.

Since Burke is the only Representative Plaintiff, he must give sufficient detail to at least theoretically support all of such Claims. True, other Plaintiffs may be added, but only if Certification is successful. It’s probably too late to amend the Style of Cause (names of Parties).

  • Section 2(a) of the Charter;
  • Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility)
  • Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
  • Section 8 of the Charter (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
  • Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)
  • Tortious interference of economic relations
  • Tortious inducement to breach contractual relations
  • Intentional infliction of mental suffering
  • Malfeasance of public office
  • Negligent representation
  • Human rights violations

These are just some of the torts alleged in the Statement of Claim. Problem is: Grey pleads no information to support any of it. Granted, it may be true, but there’s nothing explained. Many are simply listed, with no facts or particulars to support any of it.

We know Burke’s name, and that’s about it.

Yes, the Statement of Claim can usually be amended. Keep in mind though, the case was filed nearly a year and a half ago. Shouldn’t such information already be included?

The Representative Plaintiff is Chief Gregory Burke. He is a senior who lives in Nova Scotia. He was chosen for a number of reasons, including his resistance to lockdown tyranny, which is being prosecuted there. He is also a Metis hereditary Chief who fits into both of the subclasses described in the class action.

Heck, there’s more information listed on counsel’s website than there is in the Statement of Claim.

Other Nonsense Included In Statement Of Claim

The Claim bizarrely pleads product liability and breach of implied warranty. This doesn’t make any sense. If Burke were fighting lockdown tyranny, he wouldn’t have taken any of the injections. And in paragraph 5, it’s stated that the Plaintiffs hadn’t. This would only apply if someone had taken the shot(s) and been harmed. Beyond that, it would be the manufacturers who’d be potentially liable.

Starting around paragraph 57, there are allegations that the Government had breached its duty of care to the Plaintiffs. It goes on and on about the dangers posed by “experimental vaccines”. But once again, the Plaintiffs plead that none of them took the shots.

Grey pleads the Nuremberg Code among other remedies that have no jurisdiction in a Canadian Civil Court. This is a Galati favourite, and part of the reason his cases are typically struck early on.

As for the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, the purpose of that legislation had to do with race, ethnicity, and genetic disorders a person might have. It doesn’t apply here, yet lawyers routinely include it.

There are also allegations of interference with economic relations. For this tort to work, the Defendants would have to have done something improper or illegal to a third party that harmed the Plaintiffs. None of that is specified here. The employers would need to be identified, and the circumstances laid out.

The entire Claim reads as if Grey had simply cut and pasted from various other lawsuits, without paying much attention to how logical it all was.

Pleading Names The Subclasses (Groups of Plaintiffs)

Typically, a Class Action will name various “subclasses” of Plaintiffs. These are people who will still be part of the litigation, but whom have been impacted in different ways. Quote:

  1. “Employment Subclass“: members who have experienced job loss or adverse employment effects as a result of the Defendants’ actions. This subclass includes those who have been terminated, denied promotions, experienced decreased working hours or suffered any other professional hardship
  2. “Travel Subclass“: individuals who were prevented or prohibited from travelling due to their vaccination status. Members of this subclass have been adversely affected by the Defendants’ conduct and policies that either implicitly or explicitly restricted the mobility rights of unvaccinated individuals, thus causing significant disruption to both their personal and professional lives.
  3. “Dual Impact Subclass“: is unique in that it encapsulates members who fall within both the aforementioned subclasses.

As stated before, there’s no information pleaded about Burke. He may very well have valid claims both regarding employment and travel, but there’s nothing provided.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 23rd, 2023: Statement of Claim filed.

October 5th, 2023: Government sends notice that it will respond and defend.

November 1st, 2023: Associate Judge Michael D. Crinson and Justice Mandy Aylen are assigned to be case management Judges for the suit.

December 10, 2023: Defendants contact Court, asking that any Statement of Defence be deferred until after Certification Motion has been heard and determined.

June 3, 2024: Statement of Claim (Plaintiff Class) filed with the Court.

December 19th, 2024: Letter from Plaintiff’s lawyer about case management dates.

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.

That’s where things currently stand. No Statement of Defence has been filed. There’s no Motion to Strike (yet), though presumably one is coming. And the process for a Certification Motion hasn’t even been started.

“2024-10-07
Current Status: The Statement of Claim was filed on 25 September 2023. A Federal Court action with a similar fact pattern recently faced a Motion to Strike Application to amend the Statement of Claim. We await online production of the Amended Statement of Claim to better assess whether further refinements are required in our action. In the interim a Case Management Conference has been requested. Scheduling of same is pending.”

An October 2024 status update may shed some light on things. The current plan is apparently wait to see what happens in some similar case, and then further amend this suit. So… to just wait and see, and piggyback off of someone else. Shouldn’t clients be talking to that lawyer then?

The case is nearly a year and a half old, and there’s just the Statement of Claim. Could such a case be certified and advanced? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem very urgent.

(1) Burke T-2008-23 Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Burke T-2008-23 Intent To Respond (October, 2023)
(3) Burke T-2008-23 Crinson Assigned (November, 2023)
(4) Burke T-2008-23 Crinson Order (December, 2023)
(5) Burke T-2008-23 Amended Statement Of Claim, Plaintiff Class (June, 2024)

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