Category: Employment

Posted on

“Posties” Appeal Again: Hennelly Factors And Getting The Runaround

Let’s start with a thought experiment. How aggressively are litigants supposed to be following up with counsel? What separates diligence from excessiveness?

Employees of Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties”) have commenced yet another Appeal, trying to extend the deadline to challenge an earlier ruling.

To summarize: employees of Canada Post brought grievances when their company implemented the injection pass back in 2021. It eventually went to Arbitration, where it was deemed to be a “reasonable” policy in 2022.

Instead of challenging this ruling via Application for Judicial Review, they found a lawyer who convinced them to file a Statement of Claim. It was predictably tossed for lack of jurisdiction, in addition to the inadequate pleading itself.

Although Plaintiffs wanted to file an Appeal, they were given the runaround by counsel, and eventually abandoned. They found a new lawyer, but needed to file for an extension. The deadline had long expired.

See Parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

Over the last year, the focus was on getting an extension of time to Appeal. There were questions of whether or not Plaintiffs “acted diligently”, and if Defendants really were “prejudiced” by the delay.

Hennelly Factors And Deadlines To Appeal

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

Understanding the Appeal process depends on who issued a ruling. If a decision comes from a Justice, then a Notice of Appeal goes to the Federal Court of Appeal. There’s a 30 day time limit. However, if it comes from an Associate Justice (Prothonotary), then there’s just 10 days to serve a Notice of Motion. Here though, because it took months for the Plaintiffs to file anything, it didn’t seem to matter.

Obtaining an extension of time to begin a proceeding is often doable, but may not be easy. The decision comes down to the Hennelly Test, which is a “suggested” list of 4 considerations. Other factors may also be looked at.

  1. Did the moving party have a continuing intention to pursue the application?
  2. Does the moving party have a reasonable explanation for the delay?
  3. Is there some potential merit to the application?
  4. Is there prejudice to the other party from the delay?

In the original Motion to extend time to Appeal, Associate Justice Cottor acknowledged the first part of the test, that the Plaintiffs had a continuing intention to pursue it.

Cottor entertained the idea of “giving the benefit of the doubt” to the third part, that there was some potential merit to the Appeal. That’s interesting, considering no explanation was ever provided on how to challenge the lack of jurisdiction (as Arbitration was required).

That being said, Cottor ruled against the Posties on the second and fourth part of the Hennelly Test. He said there was no reasonable explanation for the day, and presumed that there was prejudice caused by its length.

The request to extend time was 234 days past the deadline, of which 53 days of which was caused by Gratl himself. He didn’t act promptly after taking the case.

In this decision, Justice Kane said there was no error in how this had been applied, and upheld the refusal to extend time.

Now, the Notice of Appeal argues that the same mistakes were made.

Were Plaintiffs Supposed To Hound Their Former Counsel?

No Motion was ever filed by this firm.

In their first and more recent Motion Records asking for more time, the Plaintiffs give substantial evidence that they tried to get an Appeal started. The above screenshots are from one of the Affidavits. They were effectively led on, and then abandoned.

However, Associate Justice Cottor (starting on paragraph 9) wasn’t convinced that the Plaintiffs had pursued this diligently enough.

[35] A delay of 53 days is significant, and there is a no reasonable explanation for it. As per Singh 2023 the question is whether the Moving Plaintiffs have a reasonable explanation for the entire delay from the March 25 Appeal Deadline to the service of the Notice of Appeal on November 14. Since they do not have a reasonable explanation for a significant portion of the period, namely 53 days, it is not possible to conclude that they have a reasonable explanation for the delay. The outcome of the analysis of the initial delay of almost six months will not change this conclusion.

[36] While it may not be necessary to also consider the initial delay of almost six months given the above conclusion, I will do so for completeness. The initial delay is the period from the Appeal Deadline of March 25 until Current Counsel was engaged on September 22. As noted above, the Moving Plaintiffs blame Former Counsel for that delay. The defendants advanced various arguments in response, the general tenor of which is that: a) clients must live with their choice of counsel and counsel’s actions (subject to limited exceptions which the defendants say do not apply), with clients and counsel being treated as one for the purposes of a motion to extend time; and b) that the Moving Plaintiffs were insufficiently diligent in following up with Former Counsel in the circumstances of this case. The Moving Plaintiffs argued in response that the cases that have held that errors or inadvertence of counsel is not a reasonable explanation for…

[37] Using the approach advocated for by the defendants, namely that errors or inadvertence of counsel is not a reasonable explanation for the delay, then there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. However, if that approach is not used, it is appropriate to consider the behavior of the Moving Plaintiffs during that period … Considering the conduct of the Moving Plaintiffs during that period of delay does not assist them. They knew that the Appeal Deadline had been missed, and that the filing of a motion for an extension of time was lagging considerably (and more so as time went on). However, despite that, there was only occasional follow-up by the Moving Plaintiffs. Having regard to what transpired during that initial period of almost six months, it is not possible to conclude that the Moving Plaintiffs diligently addressed the situation

Associate Justice Cottor saw this as 2 separate delays: (a) nearly 6 months from previous counsel, Grey; and (b) another 53 days from current counsel, Gratl. He concluded there was no reasonable explanation. In the Appeal, Justice Kane saw no problem with this reasoning.

It raises the question of what litigants need to do. Are they expected to hound their lawyers day-in and day-out to check the progress of the case? Are they supposed to involve the Law Society? If lawyers mislead clients and lie to them, are they not able to fix their case?

Of course, none of this addresses the elephant in the room: there’s no jurisdiction to sue the company, as Canada Post is unionized, with a collective bargaining agreement.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

***It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

***Despite what happened, many Plaintiffs want to pursue an Appeal. However, they’re abandoned by their lawyer, and forced to seek a new one. They eventually hire Jason Gratl

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

***Since the Notice of Motion is so late, Gratl is forced to bring another Motion, this one to extend time. However, his explanation for the months long delay falls on deaf ears.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

September 23rd, 2025: Hearing is held via video on this Motion.

October 2nd, 2025: Justice Kane refuses Appeal that would have extended time to Appeal original decision from Associate Justice Coughlan.

***Gratl tried to explain again why the Canada Post Plaintiffs should get an extension of time, despite being months late. Again, the Court rules otherwise. At this point, the options within the Federal Court are exhausted.

October 17th, 2025: Plaintiffs file Notice of Appeal with Federal Court of Appeal.

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 in T-1436-22.

We’ll have to see what happens. But it’s frustrating for litigants to be let down when they clearly were trying to advance their case.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)
(3) Canada Post Order Dismissing Appeal For Extension Of Time (October, 2025)
(4) Canada Post Federal Court Case History

LITIGATION (APPEAL TO FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post FCA Notice Of Appeal

Posted on

Court Of Appeal Overturns Payne, Tosses Case …. On The Spot?

Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a ruling of the Lower Court, which had permitted an employment case to advance. Just after the new year, Justice Southcott stunned many by allowing a lawsuit brought by Federal workers to proceed. It brought some hope.

The hearing took place on October 23rd, 2025. Normally, the Court of Appeal takes weeks, if not months to hand down a ruling. Very unusually, it issued one the same day. While Justice Southcott was willing to let the case proceed, this Panel wasn’t.

In a short ruling, the Appeal was granted, and the case struck in its entirety.

This was a Proposed Class Action brought by the group Feds4Freedom. It was on behalf of workers who had lost their jobs or otherwise had been punished for refusing the injection mandates back in 2021. Typically, lawsuits brought by Government employees don’t get far at all.

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

These challenges were based on Sections 208 and 236 of the FPSLRA, or Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Put simply, employees have the right to grieve and to arbitrate, but not to litigate. They have no access to the Courts.

This case was different in that it attacked not the “vaccine passports” themselves, but the way in which they were implemented. There was no meaningful consultation, negotiation, collective bargaining, or accommodation, as mandates were simply imposed. If this sounds like a union argument, it is.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series on s.2(d) challenges.

There are several Proposed Class Actions at various stages, and they all incorporate some version of Section 2(d), or freedom of association. This is based on the idea that employers and employees have the right to do business as they see fit, without justifiable interference.

The Free2Fly (Hill) case was also brought in Federal Court and survived a preliminary challenge. But the key distinction is that these were airline employees, who were Federally regulated, but not members of the Government. As such, the FPSLRA didn’t apply to them. It was still a s.2(d) case, but based on inducement to breach a contract.

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: Notice of Appeal is filed.

January 21st, 2025: Notice of Appearance is filed.

February 12th, 2025: Parties file their agreement as to what the contents of the Appeal Book will be. This is a requirement unique to the Federal Court of Appeal.

March 14th, 2025: The Appeal Book is filed.

April 14th, 2025: Appellants file their written arguments.

May 14th, 2025: Respondents file their written arguments.

October 23rd, 2025: Hearing takes place at Federal Court of Appeal

October 23rd, 2025: Panel immediate throws the case out.

This is extremely unusual to get a ruling out the same day. Considering the complexity and nuance of labour law, one would think they’d need more time. Also, this ruling was to overturn that of the Federal Court, not to confirm it.

More bizarrely, this is the same Appellate Court that expanded the relief available in the Adelberg case, previously ruled “bad beyond argument“. They overturned Justice Fothergill, allowing the travel claims to proceed.

Payne Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Challenges In Canada

CASE NAMES Feds4F/BCPSEF Free2Fly/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Feds4F Free2Fly
Filed in B.C.? BCPSEF UHCWBC
Filed in Ontario.? n/a UHCWO
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t? Yes No
Inducement to Breach Contract? No Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights? Yes Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office? Yes Yes

While Payne (Feds4Freedom) could theoretically be overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, it’s an uphill battle. The Court refuses the vast majority of Applications it receives. On the other hand, the consequences are potentially huge:

If jurisdiction is awarded: it means that Federal workers will have at least an opportunity to sue if the terms of employment are upended, without any negotiation or collective bargaining. There will be some sort of reprieve available.

If jurisdiction is refused: it means the last realistic path for Federal workers to take any type of employment claim litigation would be extinguished. Regardless of circumstances, there will be no option at all for relief.

[14] Therefore, we will allow the appeal with costs here and below, set aside the judgment of the Federal Court, and strike the Claim in its entirety for want of jurisdiction without leave to amend.

And just to twist the knife a little more, the Court of Appeal is permitting costs for this and for the previous decision. “and below” is presumably referring to Justice Southcott’s ruling, which forced everyone to pay their own costs. Good way to deter others from filing.

There has been no announcement yet as to whether or not they will attempt to seek Leave with the S.C.C., but there’s still time to decide.

Posted on

CSASPP Certification Refused, Appeal Being Considered

A long overdue ruling has finally come for the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP. This is the Proposed Class Action filed in Vancouver, back in January, 2021.

However, it’s not what many had been hoping for, as certification was refused. Justice Crerar referred to the case as an “abuse of process”.

An obvious question is why it took 2 1/2 years to issue a decision, if the defects were so clear cut. The hearings concluded in April, 2023, and it’s now October, 2025. The case had been under reserve the entire time.

While the Judge seemed disinclined to issue costs over the unsuccessful certification, the Defendants are still able to request them anyway.

The status update on CSASPP’s website goes into detail about issues with the decision. It’s more detailed than here, and worth reading. The update concludes as follows:

“If we are to appeal the ruling, we have 30 days to do so from the date of the ruling. We have not made any decision and will continue to analyze your options. If you would like us to pursue an appeal, you can show your support in donating. As usual, we will continue to keep you apprised in the meantime.”

Here are a few points to consider.

1. Justice Crerar Critical Of Several Versions Of Pleadings

[47] To be fair to the plaintiff, to some extent the factual basis has evolved in real time: as more public health orders were issued, it was not wholly unreasonable for the plaintiff to amend its pleadings to particularise those new orders. Further, the evolving Covid jurisprudence rendered many of the plaintiff’s legal claims and arguments untenable. That said, many of the amendments could have been anticipated and pleaded at an early stage of the litigation. To give two critical and fundamental examples: as discussed below, the plaintiff was in a position to properly identify and define the subclasses at an early stage, and it was always ill-conceived to have the Society serve as the proposed representative plaintiff.

[133] The plaintiff’s constantly moving pleadings target has consumed a grossly disproportionate amount of time of the parties and the Court: it is near-impossible to respond to or adjudicate on a pleading that is so mutable. Such constant amendments constitute in themselves an abuse of process.

The Judge would go on at length how the Notice of Civil Claim had been amended several times. He said there were 8 versions in total. However, he offers a reasonable justification for most of it: Bonnie Henry issued new health orders over time, and older ones became obsolete. As such, changes would be necessary, in order to avoid mootness becoming an issue.

Yes, it was something of a “moving target”, but that was the result of a steady stream of new orders.

The case was filed in January 2021. Travel restrictions within the Province wouldn’t be introduced until April, and terminate in June. Injection passes wouldn’t become a reality until September or October for most people. It’s difficult to litigate issues prior to their existence.

And if having the Society itself was such a problem, it would have been better to know that sooner. Alternatives were offered.

2. Justice Crerar Critical Of Multiple Proceedings

[163] As a further basis for striking the claim as an abuse of process, the plaintiff Society has filed three proceedings against the same defendant—Dr. Bonnie Henry—each concerning various health orders. It is an abuse of process for the plaintiff to bring this action against these defendants when it has already brought other proceedings in relation to the same subject matter (one petition of which has now been dismissed, and the other abandoned).

The Judge would cite 2 Petitions that CSASPP had filed against Bonnie Henry. One was to challenge the limit on public gatherings, and the other was the new injection mandate for health care workers. He had a point in that they did have overlapping issues.

However, these were limited challenges, and ones that couldn’t wait years for the Court to act in the larger case.

And it’s not as if he was efficient in handing down this ruling.

3. Justice Crerar Preferred Petition Over Claim

[195] First, as set out above, the present claim is a thinly-veiled challenge to administrative decisions that would be appropriately brought as a judicial review. In Ernst, the existence of judicial review as a more appropriate remedy to address the essence of the plaintiff’s complaints weighed heavily against the continued survival of a claim based in Charter damages:

[199] Declaratory relief is a more appropriate remedy than Charter damages in a case like this one that deals with broad questions of policy, public health, and medical and epidemiological judgment. Of course, the plaintiff would prefer to avoid that administrative law remedy, as it appropriately requires deference to the expert decision maker entrusted by the legislature with those decisions, as seen in Hoogerbrug and Beaudoin, and many other Covid-related decisions.

A Petition, or Judicial Review, is a limited challenge to existing orders or decisions. Unlike a Civil Claim, this isn’t meant to be broad, or to have much of an evidence gathering process. There’s also no opportunity to pursue a Class Action.

Moreover, there’s typically a high degree of deference given to the “expert decision makers”, which often renders Petitions ineffective.

4. Justice Crerar Takes Shots At CSASPP’s Lawyer

[399] I wish to emphasise that nothing in this section should be read as casting any aspersion on the competence or ethics on plaintiff’s counsel, who has proven herself to be a skilled, eloquent, and zealous advocate in court. The plaintiff’s serial failures to meet court deadlines, and the ever-changing parameters of the proposed class proceeding, from proposed plaintiffs, to claims, to common issues, may well be the fault of the plaintiff Society and its principals rather than her law firm. The point is that a plaintiff and a law firm proposing what will be the largest and most complicated class proceeding in Canadian history must establish a commensurate degree of competence and experience, as exhibited through impeccable prosecution of the claim, to have any hope of certification.

While designed to be tactful, this comes across as insulting. And just because a case is complicated, that’s not grounds to throw it out. Such a suit would be an immense amount of work for a single lawyer, but it’s not as if more couldn’t be retained if certification was successful.

Of course, Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia have an almost inexhaustible supply of money, courtesy of taxpayers. They are forced to contribute to the defence regardless of their views.

5. Alternative Representative Plaintiffs Were Offered

[381] As set out above, Ms Leppky is cited as a representative of the religious subclass: her religious beliefs prohibit her from getting vaccinated, thus affecting her ability to work, and to access various locations. Ms Gauthier is cited as a representative of the proposed medical subclass: her surgery was cancelled, affecting her pain, stress and ability to work. In contrast to the other two, Mr Parihar is not cited as a representative of any of the subclasses, but he presumably represents the vaccination subclass: the FANCC avers that he was unable to attend certain events and locations, and was shunned due to his unvaccinated status.

In the event that the Society itself was considered unsuitable, an alternative was offered that would see 3 individuals become Representative Plaintiffs. That was refused.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

January, 2021: The case was initially filed in January 2021 as a Proposed Class Action.

March, 2021: The B.C. Government responds to the lawsuit.

June, 2021: Plaintiffs bring their proposal for case management.

July, 2021: Defendants bring their own proposal to manage the case.

September, 2021: Notice of Civil Claim is amended.

December, 2022: Certification hearings start, but take longer than originally anticipated. They were intended to be completed over a single week.

April 2023: Certification hearings resume, taking up another week. The decision is under reserve, meaning it will be issued later. However, Justice Crerar would still make several subsequent requests for submissions based on related cases happening elsewhere.

July, 2023: Ingram, the disaster of a ruling, is brought to Justice Crerar’s attention. This is the Alberta ruling that struck down orders on a technicality (Cabinet interference), but otherwise okayed them in principle.

September, 2023: Bonnie Henry’s lawyer objects to CSASPP filing a Petition against the vaccine passport for health care workers, claiming the existing litigation amounts to a duplication, and hence, abuse of process.

April, 2024: Justice Crerar sends notice that he will likely be issuing a decision on the Certification Application within a month or so. As a result, CSASPP forwards several recent rulings on related issues. But, the ruling is further delayed.

October, 2025: The Certification Application is dismissed.

Will This Ruling Be Appealed?

There’s a 30 day time limit to decide, and there’s no official word yet.

Justice Crerar was extremely critical of CSASPP for unnecessarily delaying the case. He then takes 2 1/2 years to hand down a ruling that should — by his own remarks — have been straightforward. The 144 page ruling is bloated, and could easily have been 30 or 40.

He seemed to imply at paragraph 14 that a Class Action would be less efficient than having Plaintiffs bring individual suits, which of course defies the wisdom of bringing one.

He dwelled about a lawsuit that Kip Warner had been involved with against Google. While minor, it was irrelevant to this case.

The Judge’s preferred avenue — a Petition — wouldn’t address many of the concerns raised in the Claim. Nor would there be an opportunity for any deep dive into the evidence. CSASPP also wouldn’t be able to challenge the declaration of emergency, which started this in the first place.

Interestingly, this proceeding was declared to be an “abuse” of the legal system. However, Action4Canada’s case, the most poorly drafted suit in B.C. history, wasn’t ruled to be one. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Appeal called it that.

RULING ON CERTIFICATION
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.pdf

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

Posted on

Adelberg Amended: “Wrongful Termination” Claim Alleges Arbitrary Detainment

Today we get a 3-in-1: Adelberg, Action4Canada and Dorceus.

The infamous Adelberg Federal case has finally been amended. There’s quite the story behind it.

Readers have commented at times asking why this subject is covered to such a degree. In short: it’s a multimillion dollar grift that is still ongoing. Desperate clients and donors are still being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers. No one else reports on it.

While the main focus here is on Adelberg, the others will be briefly discussed as well.

February, 2023: the Federal Court struck the case in its entirety as “bad beyond argument”. Furthermore, the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs (members of the Government) were barred because of a grievance requirement. However, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs (those in Federally regulated industries) could at least theoretically refile.

June, 2024: the Federal Court of Appeal did something interesting. Although the suit was primarily about employment, it ruled EVERYONE could technically bring travel claims, despite them likely being moot. It also tentatively allowed the RCMP Plaintiffs to proceed with employment claims for the time being. It did confirm that the initial filing was grossly deficient, inadequately pleaded, and “bad beyond argument”.

January, 2025: the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an Appeal that would allow the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs to file employment claims.

September, 2025: The remaining Plaintiffs file a new Statement of Claim. Aside from minor tweaks, it’s basically the same as before. That said, there is a 100 page “Schedule” attached. It includes: (a) names; (b) birthdates; (c) employment dates; (d) vaccination status; and (e) if any travel claims are being advanced. It still falls far short of the necessary information to proceed.

***Note: to prevent doxing, the personal information in the “Schedule” will not be published.

Aside from the bare-bones nature of the information, it’s now only being provided in September, 2025. The original Claim was filed in May, 2022. And it still covers less than half of the remaining Plaintiffs. Why wasn’t client information sought out 4 years ago?

But that is only the beginning of the problems here.

“Wrongful Termination” Suit Alleges Arbitrary Detention

At its core, Adelberg is a mass Tort for wrongful termination. It claimed that some 600+ Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries were fired or forced out for refusing vaccination. There were also vague claims about travel rights being infringed.

However, for some unknown reason, counsel has decided to plead that Plaintiffs’ Section 9 Charter rights were also violated in the process. This is the prohibition against arbitrary arrest or detention.

The Statement of Claim is very disjointed, so it’s hard to follow at times. But it appears to state that requiring the injection pass to obtain goods or services, or to travel, amounts to arbitrary detention. Apparently it violated Plaintiffs’ rights to address this by way of habeas corpus.

***Apologies for not catching it before, as it was in the earlier version. However, there were so many flaws that it got overlooked.

The pleading goes off on tangents about topics unrelated to work or travel. Despite those being the priorities, they receive little attention.

Lawsuit Fails To IDENTIFY All Plaintiffs

There are 46 “John Does” in the Statement of Claim, and another 23 “Jane Does”. Quite literally, there are dozens of Plaintiffs asking for money who refuse to identify themselves. Amusingly, it includes 17 current and former police officers who won’t give their names.

As should be obvious, this is complete nonsense.

Amended Claim Doesn’t Plead Necessary Facts Or Particulars

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

Frequent readers will have seen this chart.

“Pleading facts” means laying out who said or did what, when and where. It doesn’t mean arguing caselaw, or trying to test evidence.

“Pleading particulars” is required when Plaintiffs are alleging fraud, malice, malfeasance, etc… There’s an extra burden to spell out the nature of the allegation.

No Facts Pleaded For s.2(a) Freedom Of Religion Torts

Despite the sweeping declarations, not a single Plaintiff actually pleads any detail about how their religious freedoms were violated with introduction of vaccine mandates. This tort has specific elements to plead, and it’s not optional.

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

No Facts Pleaded For s.6, Mobility Rights Torts

Despite allegations that travel and mobility rights had been violated, no Plaintiff specifies any instance of this happening. This is regardless of whether international travel, s.6(1), or interprovincial travel, s.6(2) is considered. No one pleads either tort.

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

No Facts Pleaded For s.7, Security Of The Person Torts

No Plaintiff pleads any facts to establish that their safety was in danger from these mandates. It’s worth pointing out that Courts have consistently refused to find “practicing a specific profession” as worthy of s.7 protections. This dates back to the 1990s. Unsurprisingly, lawyers argue torts they know will be thrown out.

(1) Plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person, and
(2) the claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

No Facts Pleaded For s.9, Arbitrary Detention/Imprisonment Torts

As stated earlier, there’s no indication that any Plaintiffs are claiming that they were detained, let alone arbitrarily. This tort doesn’t apply in the context of wrongful dismissal. Supposedly it applies when dealing with people obtaining goods or services, or travelling, but it’s not explained how.

(1) Plaintiff must have been detained or imprisoned, and
(2) that detainment or imprisonment must have been arbitrary

No Facts Pleaded For s.15, Equality Rights Torts

Not a single Plaintiff pleads any facts that they were subjected to any humiliating or dehumanizing treatment from their “unvaccinated” status. Theoretically, it may be able to get it added as an “analogous ground”, but counsel makes no effort to do that.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

No Facts Pleaded For Miscellaneous Torts

There are several general torts included in the Statement of Claim.
(a) Malfeasance of public office
(b) Intimidation (through 3rd parties)
(c) Conspiracy
(d) Intentional infliction of mental anguish

However, there’s still the same problem. Not a single Plaintiff pleads anything that would theoretically support such claims advancing. The “Schedule” attached covers less than half the Plaintiffs, and is limited to:

  • Name
  • Employer
  • Birthdate
  • Date employment started
  • Date required to take injections
  • Date sent home without pay
  • Date fired or resigned
  • Damages (if quantifiable)
  • Travel restrictions

There’s nothing to indicate what religious beliefs any of the Plaintiffs follow, and how they were impacted. There’s nothing specific outlining any travel plans that were disrupted. No one describes how the security of their bodies was threatened if they refused. There’s no information that clearly explains how any tort is engaged.

And of course, no Plaintiff alleges details of arbitrary arrest.

The Claim still fails to include nearly all of the required information. For all the declarations of a “conspiracy”, there’s very little concrete information to go off of. From a procedural point of view, Defendants need to know what they are being accused of.

Now, let’s move on to the other cases: Action4Canada and Dorceus.

Action4Canada Faces Another Application To Strike

In August, 2022, Action4Canada’s pleading was struck as “bad beyond argument“. Then it was appealed, unsuccessfully, for no coherent reason. Now, there is a shorter version available, but the same problems remain.

(1) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike VIHA
(2) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Kwok Translink
(3) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Federal Defendants
(4) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Provincial Defendants

Dorceus Appeal Will Go Absolutely Nowhere

December, 2024, a massive healthcare workers case in Ontario was struck as “bad beyond argument“. All claims against the Government and unionized employers were completely struck, though the non-union ones could be sued individually.

While this is being appealed, it seems unlikely to change anything.

(1) Dorceus Appellants Factum
(2) Dorceus AG Respondents Factum

Limitation Period Expires For CSASPP Defamation Appeal

As an aside, the 60 day limitation period has lapsed to seek permission to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Free speech prevails here.

Frivolous Cases Waste Donor/Client Money

These grift lawsuits date back to 2020, and continue to waste time, money and energy. Filing Claims that fail to meet any basic level of professionalism does no one any favours — except Government officials.

Appealing, instead of amending, doesn’t help clients. It only works to delay and derail opportunities to hold people accountable.

Is there merit to the Plaintiffs’ demands? Quite likely, yes. When they say they were forced out of their jobs, or prohibited from travelling, most (if not all) are telling the truth. On the surface, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of any of them.

That said, these pleadings are so poorly written that none of these cases will ever get to Trial. It is entirely the fault of the people drafting the papers.

And groups like The Democracy Fund and JCCF are publicly silent about all this.

But there is a solution: go after lawyers’ insurance money.

(1) Adelberg Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim NO SCHEDULE

Posted on

“Posties” Get Screwed Over Again By Incompetent Counsel, Part 1

Last Spring, this site covered how hundreds of employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. The “Posties“) had been taken for a ride by their counsel. In the Fall of 2024, documents were filed indicating that at least some of them would be attempting to appeal.

For context, in the Fall of 2021, the workplace implemented the “vaccine mandates”. This required everyone to get multiple injections, or face the loss of their employment.

Being a unionized employer, the collective bargaining agreement specified a remedy: file a grievance. If things couldn’t get resolved, then the matter would go to arbitration, and that would be considered final. If the process was unfair or corrupted, then requesting a review may be an option.

Here, the Arbitration Panel sided with Canada Post, ruling that the mandates were a reasonable safety matter. Now, filing an Application for Judicial Review may could have worked, if they took that path.

However, the Posties retained a lawyer, Leighton Grey, who filed a Statement of Claim instead. Rather than challenging the fairness of the Arbitration, he commenced an Action. This was doomed to fail, at least with the company, as the union agreement explicitly prohibited it.

As for the Government of Canada, the Court said that there was enough of a separation between the Federal Government and Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, to hold them liable.

Furthermore, the Statement of Claim was lacking in the necessary information. As is common with Grey, he doesn’t plead the necessary facts (Rule 174) for each Plaintiff, which is required. Despite having nearly 300 Plaintiffs, the Claim was just 18 pages in length. The case was struck without an opportunity to refile.

It turns out that dozens of Plaintiffs wanted to appeal, but Leighton missed the deadline. Clients seemed to be under the impression that a challenge was coming, when none was. If the transcripts are to be believed, they were strung along for months.

In September of 2024, they get a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. While he could have brought a malpractice complaint against Grey — which would get clients some justice — he tries halfheartedly to salvage the lost cause of a case.

One would assume that Gratl would act urgently, given the nature of missing a deadline. However, he sits on a file for nearly 2 months, before bringing a Motion to extend time. It’s dismissed by Associate Justice John Cotter. He then brings another Motion, challenging the refusal.

Timeline Of Events In Arbitration

***It’s important to remember that this didn’t start with a lawsuit. It began with grievances and then arbitration. This matters as it relates to the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

September 2021: Canada Post announces that it will change the “vaccination” policy, requiring that all employees (and new hires) take the shots in order to be employed. It’s to take effect on November 26th, 2021.

October 26th, 2021 mandatory injection policy is formally approved.

November 15th, 2021: CUPW, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, files grievance against Canada Post’s new policy of requiring the injections in order to stay employed.

January 18th, 2022: Arbitration hearing is held over Canada Post’s policy requiring the injections of all employees. There would be several sessions over the coming months.

January 24th, 2022: Canada Post’s lawyer serves some 700 pages of material related to the arbitration hearings.

February 12th, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post. Colin Furness, who works for the University of Toronto, testifies.

March 21st, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

March 22nd, 2022: Hearing date for arbitration related to Canada Post.

April 5th, 2022: Final arguments were to be held for arbitration process.

April 27th, 2022: Arbitrator dismisses the grievance against Canada Post, saying that the injection requirement is “reasonable”.

Timeline Of Events In Federal Court Lawsuit

July 12th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed with the Federal Court. It names: (a) Canada Post Corporation; (b) Her Majesty the Queen, as Elizabeth was Queen at the time; and (c) Attorney General of Canada.

July 18th, 2022: A Notice of Intention to Respond is filed.

November 3rd, 2022: Defendants send correspondence asking for case management, and to suspend normal timelines to file a Defence.

November 23rd, 2022: Associate Judge Catherine A. Coughlan is assigned to manage the case.

January 16th, 2023: Plaintiffs provide letter for dates for case management conference.

April 6th, 2023: Case conference is delayed until May 31st.

May 31st, 2023: Plaintiffs directed to file Amended Statement of Claim by June 15th.

June 19th, 2023: Plaintiffs file Amended Statement of Claim.

July 7th, 2023: Dates are set down for Defendants’ Motions to Strike (throw out the case), and the following deadlines were established. Worth mentioning, these kinds of Motions are done in many steps.

  • August 18th: Defendants serve (but not file) Notice of Motion, and any Affidavit evidence
  • September 15th: Plaintiffs serve (but not file) any Affidavit evidence
  • October 27th: Any cross-examinations on Affidavits is to have finished. This is similar to a Court setting, where a person gets asked about evidence that they submit. Failure to attend means evidence won’t be considered.
  • November 17th: Moving Party Defendants are to submit their Motion Records, which is a collection of documents. In Federal Court, it also includes the written arguments, or submissions
  • December 8th: Responding Plaintiffs to serve and file their Motion Record(s)
  • January 23rd-25th, 2024: Court to hear the Motions

July 10th, 2023: Lawyer for Canada Post contacts the Court and advises a lack of availability for the week in January when the hearing is to take place.

September 5, 2023: Even more Plaintiffs discontinue, or voluntarily leave the case. It worth mentioning that the Court history is filled with various Plaintiffs discontinuing. This is especially prevalent after the Motion to Strike is set out. Seems they realize that their case will go nowhere.

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

March 13th, 2024: Court releases reasons for striking the case.

March 13th, 2024: Order striking case is officially issued.

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.

Timeline Of VERY Late Motion For Appeal Extension

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

Associate Justice Coughlan (a.k.a. a Prothonotary) is the one who struck the case. The 10 day time limit applies, meaning something would have to be filed by March 23rd, 2024.

7. The adverse order and reasons for judgment were issued by Associate Judge Coughlin on March 13, 2024 (the “Decision”). The Decision was provided to the plaintiffs by GWS LLP on March 14, 2024. The plaintiffs then immediately, on March 14, 2024, requested legal advice from GWS LLP on the merits of an appeal.

10. As of April 10, 2024, we believed that the deadline for appealing was 30 days from the date of the decision. Although I had suspected that the deadline might be 10 days from the date of decision in late March of 2024, our legal counsel first advised me in late April of 2024 that the deadline was 1O days from the date of decision.

11. On May 13, 2024, I requested an update from GWS LLP on how the appeal was proceeding. On June 6, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. On June 19, 2024, I again requested an update from GWS LLP. I am advised by Kim Priest that she repeatedly telephoned GWS LLP to ask for updates on the progress of the appeal and to urge GWS LLP to file the application to extend the deadline.

12. On July 4, 2024, I was advised by Mr. Farquhar, an associate lawyer at GWS LLP, that Ms. Trignani, another associate lawyer at GWS LLP, was no longer working at GWS LLP and she had been working on the appeal. Mr. Farquhar assured me on July 4, 2024, that he, Mr. Farquhar, was now personally working on the application to extend the deadline for the appeal and that it would be prepared shortly.

13. On July 17, 2024, I received application materials, and on July 22, 2024, I provided comments and again instructed GWS LLP to file the application. On July 26, 2024, Mr. Grey of GWS LLP advised that he would no longer be supervising the work on the appeal and that Mr. Farquhar of GWS LLP would be working on the file alone.

14. On September 4, 2024, Mr. Grey advised that Mr. Farquhar was no longer working at GWS LLP, and that Mr. Hershey, the lawyer at GWS LLP who was initially supposed to be working on the appeal under Mr. Grey’s supervision, no longer worked at GWS LLP and that no one else at GWS LLP was able to take on the appeal.

16. We found Grall & Company, a Vancouver-based law firm, in late September of 2024. We agreed in principle to retain Grall & Company to give advice on this appeal on September 22, 2024.

In paragraph 7 of her Affidavit, page 17 in the Motion Record, Karine Solakian states that many Plaintiffs sought advice immediately on the merits of an Appeal. She also states that she found out from Grey for the first time about the 10 day deadline well after it had lapsed.

***Neither Grey nor his assistants ever filed for an extension. Nor does it seem they ever notified the Defendants that an Appeal was in the works.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Change of Solicitor. It’s unclear why he waited nearly 2 months to do anything.

November 15th, 2024: Gratl files a Notice of Motion, indicating Plaintiffs will be seeking an extension of time to appeal the March ruling. It’s been a full 8 months at this point. Given that it was an Associate Justice who struck the case, the deadline is a mere 10 days.

February 14th, 2025: Gratl files the Motion Record for clients.

February 27th, 2025: The Federal Government files their Responding Motion Record.

February 28th, 2025: Canada Post files their Responding Motion Record.

May 2nd, 2025: Associate Justice Cotter refuses the extension of time.

May 12th, 2025: Gratl brings another Motion, to challenge the refusal to grant an extension of time. This time, the 10 day time limit is met.

June 4th, 2025: The Attorney General of Canada files their Responding Motion Record.

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.

The main concern for this latest Motion is whether or not the previous Motion (an extension of time) should have been refused. The Order cited a few major concerns: (a) lack of explanation for the delay; and (b) the length of the delay was “significant and prejudicial”. The delay was 234 days, over 7 months, of which 53 days were while Gratl was retained.

Interesting, it seems that Grey doesn’t actually do the legal work himself, he just farms it out to the hired help. More coming up in Part 2.

ARBITRATION:
(1) https://www.cupw.ca/sites/default/files/urb-ja-31-2022-ca-en.pdf
(2) Canada Post Collective Bargaining Agreement 2022
(3) Canada Post Arbitration update, February 2022 (removed)
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) CUPW On Some Updates On Arbitration
(6) Wayback Machine Archive On Arbitration Updates
(7) https://www.cupw.ca/en/last-days-arbitration-vaccination-practice-grievance
(8) Wayback Machine Archive Of April 1st, 2022 Update
(9) https://www.cupw.ca/en/arbitrator-dismisses-grievance-against-canada-post%E2%80%99s-mandatory-vaccination-practice
(10) Arbitration Decision (Removed)
(11) Canada Post Arbitration Ruling Redacted
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

LITIGATION (CASE STRUCK):
(1) Canada Post Statement Of Claim (July, 2022)
(2) Canada Post Amended Statement Of Claim (June 7, 2023)
(3) Canada Post Order Timetable (July, 2023)
(4) Canada Post Defendants Motion Record (October, 2023)
(5) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record (January, 2024)
(6) Canada Post Plaintiff Responding Motion Record CP (February, 2024)
(7) Canada Post Further Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2024)
(8) Canada Post Decision Striking Amended Pleading (March, 2024)

LITIGATION (EXTENDING TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor (November, 2024)
(2) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian (November, 2024)
(3) Canada Post Notice Of Motion (November 2024)
(4) Canada Post Applicants Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(5) Canada Post Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(6) Canada Post HMTK Motion Record Extension Of Time (February, 2025)
(7) Canada Post Order Refusing Extension Of Time To Appeal (May, 2025)

LITIGATION (APPEAL OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL):
(1) Canada Post Motion Record Appeal Refusal To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(2) Canada Post HMTK Written Submissions Appeal Time Extension (June, 2025)

Posted on

The Gleason Directive: Is It Time To Start Filing Malpractice Lawsuits?

This is a follow-up to the military vaccine passport case of some 330 soldiers. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for background on the litigation.

In the last article, Catherine Christensen was scolded by Justice Locke at the Federal Court of Appeal. She pulled the “improper and high handed” stunt of filing a Notice of Discontinuance on behalf of about 50 clients, without their knowledge or consent. Supposedly, this was over unpaid fees. This was instead of the accepted method of filing a Motion to withdraw. One Appellant, Mark Lolacher, filed a Motion on his own behalf for reinstatement, and was successful.

Rather than simply take the loss, Christensen attempted to file a Notice of Appeal to the same Court. There was also a half hearted attempt to file a Motion to withdraw.

Since the Notice of Appeal was never actually filed, it’s impossible for the average citizen to pull it, or the Motion materials. Nonetheless, we can still deduce a lot from the notes, and the ruling.

Instead of simply complaining, let’s explore a practical solution at the end.

True, the overall Appeal is still ongoing. That being said, it’s beyond obvious at this point the case will never get to Trial. Heck, the first Notice of Appeal doesn’t even challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time.

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

(1) Associate Justice Coughlan: Struck the case originally because the pleadings fell far, FAR below what was necessary to make out a case. Even worse, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction because s.29 of the National Defence Act mandated a grievance scheme for everyone to follow.

(2) Justice Manson: Refused an extension of time for a Rule 51 Appeal. The 10 day time limit to file was missed, with no explanation of why. The Motion to extend time also failed to explain, or even hint at, what such an Appeal would look like anyway. The rulings states that, “The interests of justice do not justify the Court allowing poorly prosecuted litigation to proceed forward when there is no likelihood of success.”

(3) Justice Rennie: Had to unnecessarily respond to a Motion to determine the contents of the Appeal Book. Christensen tried to improperly include content that the previous Judge (Manson) had not see. This is generally not allowed, and the parties should have been able to agree on their own.

(4) Justice Locke: Chewed out Christensen for unilaterally filing a Notice of Discontinuance with respect to dozens of her (ex?)-clients, rather than following protocol. Normally, counsel is supposed to file a Motion to Withdraw. Worse, she even opposed a subsequent Motion from Mark Lolacher to be reinstated.

(5) Justice Gleason: Refused attempts to both, (a) file a Notice of Appeal within the same Court, and (b) file a Motion to Withdraw that doesn’t name appropriate parties. The materials weren’t served to everyone anyway, which is another violation of procedure.

Christensen knew in advance that this lawsuit would be (or was at least very likely to be) thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. The Neri ruling of December, 2021 explained the requirement to follow the grievance scheme, and to not simply sue.

Christensen also knew in advance that failure to abide by the Statute of Limitations would likely see the Rule 51 Appeal being time barred. September, 2024, another of her cases, Tondreau, was tossed for commencing an Application well after the deadline.

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

The amended appeal book may be filed and will replace the appeal book originally filed. The appellants’ memorandum of fact and law and proofs of service, submitted May 30, 2025 may also be filed.

The Registry has also sought direction pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules) regarding a Notice of Appeal submitted on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Christensen, counsel of record for the appellants, which names the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent. This document has not been filed. The Notice of Appeal purports to appeal to this Court the Order of the Court issued by Justice Locke on May 7, 2025. In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants also seek an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for 51 of the appellants. The Notice of Appeal was signed by another solicitor, Bath-Shéba van den Berg of the firm Ergonomy Law.

The Notice of Appeal may not be filed. It is wholly irregular because this Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal from one of its orders. An appeal lies from an order of this Court, with leave, only to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Notice of Appeal is also irregular in that it substitutes someone else as solicitor of record, names one of the appellants, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent and counsel of record as an appellant without any order from the Court changing the style of cause or replacing counsel of record.

As was noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, the proper procedure when counsel wishes to get off the record is for the solicitor to bring a motion under Rule 125 of the Rules. Counsel other than the counsel of record may act on behalf of the counsel of record in such a motion. Indeed, Rule 82 of the Rules provides that a solicitor shall not depose an affidavit and present arguments to the Court in respect of their affidavit, except with leave. Thus, if Ms. Christensen wishes to bring a motion under Rule 125 and files an affidavit in support of the motion, she should either be represented by another solicitor, such as Bath-Shéba van den Berg, or seek leave of the Court under Rule 82 to file the affidavit and present the motion. Her motion record in support of any such motion must be served on all parties for whom she formerly acted, as provided in Rule 125(2). In addition, in accordance with Rule 369.2(1), such motion should be brought in writing or request an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 369.2(2).

As also noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, Mr. Lolacher, on his own volition, may take steps to no longer be represented in this appeal by Ms. Christensen. He may either file a notice under Rule 124 to appoint a new solicitor (using Form 124A) if he hires new counsel or a notice to act in person (using Form 124C). These steps may also be taken by any of the appellants.

The Registry has also sought direction regarding several documents submitted subsequent to the Notice of Appeal, none of which have been filed.

The first of these is a motion record submitted on behalf of Ms. Christensen by Bath-Shéba van den Berg to remove Ms. Christensen as counsel of record on behalf of 51 of the appellants, to set aside and stay this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, and to “sever” the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, from the other appellants. It is unclear who the respondents and appellants are on this motion as the style of cause in the Notice of Motion lists only one appellant and respondent and then uses “et al.”. It appears from the affidavit of service that this motion record was served only on counsel from the Department of Justice (who appeared on behalf of the governmental respondents) and Mr. Lolacher, but not on the other 50 appellants for whom Ms. Christensen no longer acts. This motion record may not be filed as it is wholly irregular. To the extent it seeks to appeal this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, as noted, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from one of its orders. To the extent it seeks an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for Mr. Lolacher and 51 other respondents, the motion record has not been properly served. The stay application appears to be ancillary to the other relief sought.

The remaining documents in respect of which the Registry seeks direction were submitted in response to the foregoing motion or in reply to the responding motion records. None of them may be filed as there is nothing to respond or reply to given that the motion record discussed in the preceding paragraph cannot be filed.

So long as this appeal is outstanding, unless and until a motion is properly brought under Rule 125 and the Court removes Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for some of the appellants or until, one, some or all of them file notice(s) under Rule 124, Ms. Christensen continues to be the solicitor of record for all the above listed appellants unless she or they die, she is appointed to public office, incompatible with the solicitor’s profession, or is suspended or disbarred as a solicitor. To the extent that Mr. Lolacher wishes to make a complaint about Ms. Christensen, his remedy lies with the Law Society of Alberta and not with this Court. Indeed, all the foregoing should have been abundantly clear from the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025.

***Note: one exception is that the Court did permit an amended Appeal Book, for the overall proceeding, to be filed. Everything else was disallowed.

According to Justice Gleason, the Notice of Appeal cannot be filed because it lacks jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal cannot hear an Appeal from one of its own decisions. The only path forward is the Supreme Court of Canada, and Leave (permission) is needed for that. It’s stunning that neither Christensen, nor her “counsel” know this.

The Notice of Appeal also names new counsel, and has new parties, and the Court has signed off on NONE of this.

Christensen has apparently tried to file a Motion to withdraw as counsel for some 50 or so clients. However, she needed to include everyone as named parties, and had to serve everyone. Again, shocking that these basics are not followed.

Justice Gleason was also critical of Mark Lolacher for continuing to complain about Christensen’s conduct. She says that the proper venue about misconduct is the Law Society of Alberta. While true, the LSA isn’t going to handle a complaint when the underlying litigation is still open.

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

While it may seem daunting, suing former counsel for professional malpractice is an option. It’s not necessary to establish any malice or dishonesty, which makes it easier. This site covered recent examples, here and here, including a Class Action. Here are a few ideas.

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

  • Establish duty of care exists between the parties
  • Establish that the duty of care has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of the duty of care resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

  • Establish a fiduciary duty (obligation) exists between the parties
  • Establish that the fiduciary duty has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of fiduciary duty resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

  • Establish the existence of a valid contract
  • Establish that the contract has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of contract resulted in damages

As is pretty obvious, although these torts are framed differently, the requirements are much the same. The first element can be established by filing the retainer agreements, or other contracts. The second element can be proven with the assistance of the various rulings, showing unprofessional conduct. Lastly, Plaintiffs would have to give some evidence of damages, whether financial, or otherwise.

Neri and Tondreau happened prior to the mistakes here, meaning that Christensen should have been well aware of what was going on. Whether this is intentional, or just incompetence and negligence, Plaintiffs have been let down every step of the way.

Lawyers are required to have insurance to practice. However, that doesn’t mean that the money is there to pay out victims. Commonly, money is used to hire lawyers to fight against justice. Still, it can be overcome, if there is a strong enough case.

If there is a path to justice, it’s through Christensen’s insurance money.

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
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE:
(1) Qualizza SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(2) Qualizza SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) Qualizza SCC Certificate File Access
(4) Qualizza SCC Response From AG Opposing Application
(5) Qualizza SCC Responding Certificate

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress