Category: Employment

Posted on

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Conclude Certification Hearings, Decision Under Reserve

A pair of Proposed Class Actions wrapped up their hearings for certification on Friday, in the B.C. Supreme Court. These groups are attempting to convince a Judge that this is the most expeditious way to process thousands of claims related to loss of employment over injection mandates from 2021.

On a related note: the Court will also consider Applications brought to throw both cases out completely. The Government is making the usual arguments about how these cases are an “abuse of process”, and an ineffective way to resolve disputes. Notes from the hearings were provided by observers who attended, and are quite detailed. For simplicity, they were compiled into a single document. The suits came from:

(1) UHCWBC – United Health Care Workers of British Columbia
(2) BCPSEF – British Columbia Public Sector Employees For Freedom

It’s unclear how many Plaintiffs would result if either case was certified, but it could be in the hundreds, if not thousands. A lot of people didn’t like being pressured to take the shots.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, and 8 in this series on s.2(d) challenges.

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Cases

CASE NAMES FEDS4F/BCPSEF FREE2FLY/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Feds For Freedom Free To Fly
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

There are actually 5 different Proposed Class Actions going on which are based on a variation of the s.2(d) argument. While similar, there are differences in the arguments being advanced.

Feds For Freedom (Payne) initially got past a Motion to Strike at the beginning of 2025, but that was overturned by the Court of Appeal. By contrast, Free To Fly (Hill) survived a preliminary challenge that the Government did not appeal. This bodes well for the health care worker cases, as the arguments are essentially the same.

Update: The case of British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 49 was mentioned after this publication. Without getting lost in the weeds, it allowed Court access in instances where collective bargaining was impacted unilaterally without good faith consultation. There isn’t the comparable “ouster” that exists Federally, over constitutional challenges. This is good news for public sector workers, hoping to avoid the fate of Payne.

The B.C. cases are having both Applications to Strike and for Certification heard at the same time. The Ontario lawsuit appears to have been pushed back to the end.

Another wildcard is that CSASPP was refused certification recently, but Justice Crerar’s decision has been appealed. There is potentially some overlap with the ones here.

Understanding The Arguments Of These s.2(d) Cases

Government Workers: It is true that unionized and Government workplaces typically have a collective bargaining agreement. This means that there’s some sort of grievance process to follow, and then arbitration. How these differed is that the Plaintiffs are arguing that injection mandates “added a term or condition” to the employment, without any meaningful consultation, negotiation or consideration. In the Payne case, that was accepted initially, then overturned.

Non-Government workers: The argument differs here, because the Government isn’t actually the employer. Instead, Plaintiffs allege the Government induced a breach of contract, by causing the employer to “add a term or condition” to the employment, without any meaningful consultation, negotiation or consideration. Another way to look at this is as third party interference.

In both variations, the Plaintiffs state that their Section 2(d) Charter rights (freedom of association) were violated. This was caused by the Government not allowing employers and employees to engage in voluntary relationships. Presumably, employers wouldn’t have fired anyone (or very few), without authorities meddling.

The UHCWBC case (and similarly, the UHCWO one) appear to be on more solid ground because they are not Government employees. The go-to tactic of claiming lack of jurisdiction does not apply to them.

We’ll have to wait for a decision, however long that takes. Assuming certification of either happens, this is only the beginning. Much more will have to be done prior to Trial. Both groups are still fundraising to cover existing costs, and CSASPP is trying to raise money for their ongoing Appeal.

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025
(9) BCPS Plaintiff Submissions Certification And Strike December 2004
(10) BCPS UHCWBC Plaintiff REPLY Submissions Cert/Strike January 2025

UHCWBC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) UHCWBC Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) UHCWBC Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) UHCWBC Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(4) UHCWBC Amended Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(5) UHCWBC Requisition For Case Management Scheduling August 2024
(6) UHCWBC Notice Of Application For Certification October 2024
(7) UHCWBC Response To Application For Certification October 2024
(8) UHCWBC Notice Of Application To Strike Claim October 2024
(9) UHCWBC Consent Order Scheduling October 2024
(10) UHCWBC Response To Application To Strike November 2024

CERTIFICATION NOTES:
(1) UHCWBC and BCPSEF Certification Notes
(2) https://x.com/uhcwbc
(3) https://unitedtogether.ca/
(4) https://x.com/bcpsef
(5) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/

Posted on

Military Veterans Injection Pass Appeal Dismissed, Hennelly Factors

The Federal Court of Appeal threw out a challenge on Monday involving hundreds of current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Another $2,340 in costs was also ordered. As of now, this appears to be the end of the road.

Many had thought that the purpose was to get the case back on track, after it was struck last year. However, that’s only partly true. This proceeding was to determine whether or not Justice Manson of the Federal Court erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to bring an initial Appeal. The filing deadline had been missed.

The Justices here ruled that no mistake had been made, and the Appeal was dismissed.

Appeals Within/Between Federal Courts

Whether it’s a Judge or Associate Judge/Prothonotary who makes a decision matters, if parties wish to challenge. It determines where the Appeal goes to, and procedure, and more importantly, the time limit.

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

The original claim was struck over (a) inadequate pleadings; and (b) a requirement to follow the grievance scheme, by an Associate Judge, back in November, 2024. This meant there was a mere 10 days to serve a Notice of Motion. However, counsel appeared to mistake it for being a 30-day limit. Justice Manson refused a request to extend time. The case was effectively time barred at that point.

Now, the case went to the Federal Court of Appeal. What should have happened was a committed effort to convince this panel that it was a mistake to not grant that extension. Instead, it was glossed over in favour of attempting to argue the case shouldn’t have been thrown out in the first place.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal ruled that no error was made in refusing to grant an extension of time.

Hennelly Factors: What Decided This Appeal

The test for whether or not to grant an extension of time is commonly referred to the Hennelly Test, or the Hennelly Factors. While not exhaustive, these are 4 considerations that need to be made.

  1. a continuing intention to pursue an appeal of the Associate Judge’s order
  2. that their proposed appeal had some merit
  3. that the respondents would not be prejudiced by the delay
  4. that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay

A number of other issues were raised, such as not following procedures, and citing incorrect rules. That said, this is what courts look to when making their decision on time extensions.

Factor #1: Was There A Continuing Intention To Appeal?

[7] In particular, the Judge held that there was no evidence supporting an intent to appeal, even when considering the Affidavit.

The Affidavit submitted surprisingly came from counsel, and not from a client. On contentious issues, lawyers are prohibited from swearing out evidence they intend to argue. Typically, a client or a clerk does this. Consequently, this one was disallowed.

It also didn’t say the magic words: “I/we always intended to appeal”.

Factor #2: Was There Some Merit To The Appeal?

[12] Second, the appellants contend that the Judge erred in concluding that their proposed appeal had no likelihood of success. In fact, the bulk of the appellants’ submissions in this appeal focuses on the merits of some aspects of the Associate Judge’s order. The appellants contend in this respect that the Associate Judge erred: (i) in treating their claim as improperly bypassing the CAF grievance system; (ii) in concluding that that system was an adequate alternative remedy; and (iii) in striking the amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

[13] One major problem with these submissions is that nothing of that sort was put to the Judge. As the Judge correctly noted, both the Affidavit and the appellants’ written submissions in support of the Motion are silent as to how the appeal of the Associate Judge’s order might be successful (Order at para. 15). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that these submissions are based, in large part, on documents, mostly directives and reports on reviews of the National Defence Act and the CAF, that were not before the Judge and that were appended, in e-versions, to the appellants’ Memorandum of Fact and Law in this appeal.

[14] As the respondents correctly point out in their written submissions, the Judge cannot be faulted for not considering documents and submissions that were not put to him.

The Motion requesting the extension of time actually didn’t get into this at all. No draft submissions were attached, nor was there a section outlining what the appeal might look like. Justice Manson denied the request, in part, not knowing he Court of Appeal saw nothing wrong with that.

Factor #3: Will The Respondents Not Be Prejudiced By The Delay?

[7] …. On prejudice, the Judge found that although the respondents did not claim to be prejudiced by the delay in bringing the Motion, they were “certainly going to be prejudiced” by the fact the appellants were seeking an additional delay – that is up to the end of January 2025 – to file a “full motion record for an Appeal” (Order at paras. 19-21). According to the Judge, the respondents, in such context, were facing “indefinite delay going forward”.

This is probably the most subjective part of the test, as it’s hard to prove that a party is prejudiced. Nonetheless Justice Manson concluded that there was already excessive delay, and that there probably would be again.

Factor #4: Was There A Reasonable Explanation For The Delay?

[7] …. Finally, the Judge determined that both the 29-day delay and the additional 6-week delay sought to create a “full motion record for an Appeal”, were not explained in any rational sense, even, again, when considering the Affidavit (Order at paras. 22-23).

The official reason for the delay was that there was a serious logistical problem coordinating over 300 clients, to determine who actually wanted to appeal. Justice Manson ruled that a Notice of Motion could still have been filed within the 10 day period. in short something could have been filed, and the client issues sorted out later.

Part of the problem with this test is that it’s discretionary, and largely subjective. What one Judge may consider a reasonable explanation, another would reject out of hand. Similarly, one may view submissions to have “at least some merit”, while a colleague would not. There’s no uniform standard.

The Court of Appeal concluded with this:

[17] One other major problem with this appeal is that the appellants, at best, only superficially address the Judge’s application of the other Hennelly criteria (intent to appeal, delay and prejudice) to the circumstances of the case. There is nothing for us, therefore, to conclude that the appellants have met the highly deferential palpable and overriding error standard on these issues.

At the Monday hearing, a considerable amount of time was spent arguing how an Appeal could have proceeded (which is the 2nd Factor). That said, none of that had been put to Justice Manson previously. The 1st, 3rd, and 4th Factors weren’t addressed in great detail. The Appeal was dismissed.

What Happens Now For The Plaintiffs?

It’s quite disappointing for Plaintiffs, especially to have it end this way. The Court of Appeal never made any meaningful or deep findings on the merits of their cases. Nor was any new ground broken over employment rights. A missed deadline is what ultimately sealed their fate.

There’s no single answer for what comes next. Many are still employed with the military, while others have left. And most have at least initiated the grievance process, and are at various stages. They have some things to figure out.

While an attempt at the Supreme Court of Canada is theoretically possible, it seems unlikely to happen.

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 Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) 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/ARGUMENTS/RESULTS (AD HOC):
(1) Qualizza Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law (June 2025)
(3) Qualizza FCA Order Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)
(4) Qualizza FCA Reasons Dismissing Appeal (December 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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress