Category: Employment

Posted on

Free To Fly Case Survives: How This s.2(d) Challenge Differs From Payne

Earlier this month, a Proposed Class Action lawsuit from 3 airline employees survived a Motion to Strike. They argue that the Government interfered with their employment by imposing the injection mandates (a.k.a. vaccine passports). The group running it is called Free To Fly. (See Twitter/X).

This follows on the heels of another case (Payne), from Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. Both cases: (a) are Proposed Class Actions; (b) sue the Federal Government; (c) involve injection mandates; (d) involve Plaintiffs who were employed, and (e) refused the shots. Despite these similarities, there are important differences, especially around who the employers actually are.

The Plaintiffs here have decided to voluntarily remove portions of their own suit, in order to focus on the stronger ones.

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

Originally, there were 9 separate torts pleaded. Rather than continue that way, the Plaintiffs decided that 6 of them will no longer be pursued, and the focus will be on the remaining 3. Given that there is some overlap and redundancy as well, this makes sense.

Torts that will be pursued in the Amended Claim:

  • Inducement of breach of contract
  • Malfeasance in public office
  • Violation of subsection 2(d) of the Charter

Torts that will not be pursued in the Amended Claim:

  • Negligence
  • Interfering with contractual relations
  • Breach of privacy
  • Violation of subsection 2(a) of the Charter
  • Violation of subsection 7 of the Charter
  • Violation of subsection 15 of the Charter

Additionally, several pages of proposed amendments were included by the Plaintiffs for the remaining torts. They helped persuade the Judge.

[26] At the outset of these reasons, I stated that a motion to strike is not an exercise in critiquing inelegantly drafted pleadings. Nonetheless, where as here, a party is willing to amend a pleading and has proposed specific amendments that would assist in clarifying, confirming or defining the issues for the benefit of the opposing party and the Court, such amendments should be permitted and encouraged.

[27] On this motion, I am satisfied that the currently pleaded facts in the amended statement of claim show more than a scintilla of a cause of action in respect of each of the grounds remaining in issue after the concession by the plaintiffs. However, the pleadings can be improved by some of the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments. Thus, the plaintiffs shall further amend the amended statement of claim to incorporate those paragraphs set out in Appendix A of the plaintiffs’ motion record that relate to the claims of inducement of breach of contract, misfeasance in public office and violation of subsection 2(d) of the Charter and the remedies arising therefrom.

Associate Justice Crinson agreed that at least some of the proposed changes would be beneficial in helping to redraft the case.

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

Both Hill and Payne are Proposed Class Actions against the Federal Government. They are consequences of imposing injection mandates throughout Canada. They invoke Section 2(d) of the Charter, which is Freedom of Association. On the surface, they appear identical. However, they’re not, and Hill is actually in a stronger position.

Just after the New Year, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court handed down a decision which (mostly) left intact a Proposed Class Action for Federal workers. They had been forced from their employment for refusing to take the injections.

Up until this point, such challenges had failed. The reason is that sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA) gave the right to grieve, but not to sue. This resulted in a lack of jurisdiction for the Court. Payne succeed — so far — by arguing that the way injection mandates were implemented circumvented any legitimate grievance or collective bargaining process.

Hill and Warren worked for Air Canada, and Lewis worked for WestJet. Both airlines are unionized employers, which on the surface, one would suspect similar questions around jurisdiction.

But here, the employers are not the Defendants. The Government is. Ottawa is being sued for interfering with other parties’ business relationships, namely the airlines and their workers. Instead of wrongful termination, the case is over an inducement to breach a contract. The allegation is that the mandates interfered with the free association of other people.

With this difference in mind, the typical defence raised — lack of jurisdiction — doesn’t apply in Hill. The Federal Government can’t rely on their go-to response.

Sure, they’ll likely argue that any inducement to breach a contract, or interference with business relations was necessary and justified. But that will be a lot harder to sell. For that reason, the Hill case seems to stand in a better position, for now.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

May 15th, 2023: Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court.

June 1st, 2023: It’s determined that there’s to be case management for the remainder of the proceedings, with Associate Judge Crinson and Justice Aylen assigned.

October 11th, 2023: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 10th, 2023: Government requests that requirement to file a Statement of Defence be deferred until after the issue of certification is dealt with.

April 1st, 2024: Government brings its Motion to Strike the case.

May 3rd, 2024: Plaintiffs responding with their own Motion Record, asking that the case be allowed to proceed to the next stages. It also gives several pages of proposed amendments.

May 22nd, 2024: Motion is heard orally, but with the decision reserved.

February 7th, 2025: The Motion is (mostly) dismissed, and amendments are allowed for the remaining torts.

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.

Payne is currently being appealed which is no surprise. However, given the different relationships with that one, Hill should be okay regardless of whether or not it’s overturned. The FPSLRA simply doesn’t apply in Hill.

If Ottawa wants this one tossed, completely new arguments are needed.

Of course, this is nowhere near the end of the road. Certifying the case as a Class Action is the next major hurdle, assuming this ruling is not appealed. Still, an important hurdle has been crossed.

It’s nice to report a success for once.

FREE TO FLY FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hill Proposed Class Action Statement Of Claim May 2023
(2) Hill Order Case Management June 2023
(3) Hill Amended Statement Of Claim October 2023
(4) Hill Defendant Motion Record To Strike Claim April 2024
(5) Hill Plaintiff Responding Motion Record To Strike Claim May 2024
(6) Hill Plaintiff List Of Proposed Amendments May 2024
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc242/2025fc242.html

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Related Lawsuits Filed To Bury Toews Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

The second claim was dropped last Spring.

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

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

Brief Timeline Of Major Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Reader Feedback: Focus More On The Merits Of Respective Grievances

It’s always appreciated when readers take the time to comment, regardless of whether it’s positive, negative, or more neutral. Feedback from the audience is usually very beneficial.

However, recent comments are worthy of a response.

In short, the suggestion was to spend more time going through the merits of the various suits. This was preferable to the focus of detailing how they collapse, as it doesn’t present a balanced picture. An interesting idea indeed.

For context: many of the recent postings here have focused on the injection mandates (a.k.a. “vaccine passports”) that people were pressured into taking. This was often done in order to keep their employment. The suggestion had been made to address more of the “meat” of the claims themselves, rather than procedural issues. Sounds great, but there’s a problem.

Now, countless cases have either been dropped, struck or dismissed, including many high profile ones. The suits that were thrown out were typically done with a Motion. This means that there was no adjudication on the merits, but instead, lawyers attacked something about the pleading itself.

A wise man pointed out in detail how many other cases were made substantially more difficult (if not impossible) by the concept of “Judicial Notice”. In essence, Courts will simply “defer” to previous rulings of similar findings instead of trying it themselves. While this may be an efficient way to save time and money in theory, in practice, it often leads to litigants not getting their day in Court.

Another concern is the concept of “mootness”, where a Judge can simply decline to hear a case, saying that there’s no live controversy to preside over.

The article is well worth a read.
https://chuckblack.substack.com/p/more-on-the-concept-of-judicial-notice

As much as people prefer cases to be “tried on the merits”, that too often doesn’t happen. Procedural issues, mootness, and “Judicial Notice” are all obstacles to real justice. While it’s up to the Judge to “take Judicial Notice”, or to determine a case to be “moot”, they can’t be blamed for everything. A large part of the problem is directly caused by the lawyers themselves.

And that leads to the next point.

We won’t be able to see whether or not litigants have valid grievances, since cases are routinely thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

To repeat: we won’t be able to see whether or not litigants have valid grievances, since cases are routinely thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

It’s baffling that this needs to be pointed out.

Yes, lots of people have gotten tickets and fines thrown out. Others have gotten criminal charges tossed. Many have successfully challenged EI decisions which originally refused them access. This is great, and especially commendable for those who self represent. At the individual level, it’s wonderful news.

But, for better or worse, the focus on this site has been big, high profile lawsuits.

Even major cases that have advanced beyond initial pleadings tended to focus on exemptions for lockdown restrictions, rather than challenging public policy. Broader lawsuits have basically gone nowhere.

Sure, we can read through the Statement of Claim (or Notice of Application) of various lawsuits. The Plaintiffs or Applicants will present their version of events. But until a case actually progresses along, there won’t be much to report.

There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that people were pressured into taking the shots. Often, this was in the context of travel or employment. Logically, there would be only 2 options here, and cases should proceed easily. Either they were: (a) justified; or (b) unjustified.

However, too many lawyers have come up with option (c), which is to crash their lawsuits procedurally. Strange, the Department of Justice doesn’t hire such idiots.

While covering public cases is not new, this site tries to offer something substantially different from what’s available on other platforms. This includes:

  1. Following up on cases not covered elsewhere
  2. Attaching at least some of the Court documents
  3. Honest critiques about what has been going wrong
  4. Document at least some of the wasted donation money

This should be typical, not an outlier.

1. Following Up On Cases Not Covered Elsewhere

Beginning in 2020 and well into 2023, there was an almost endless stream of announcements that lawsuits had been filed against Governments and their employees. This happened in every Province, and in the Federal Court. But what was typically lacking was any subsequent coverage. These suits died quietly.

Cases covered here include: (a) Canada Post; (b) Canadian National Railway; (c) Purolator; (d) Westjet; (e) Winnipeg Police; (f) Cornell; (g) Dorceus; (h) Katanik; (i) Adelberg; (j) Angione; (k) Qualizza, and (l) Briant, among many others.

Sure, they’ve had brief mentions elsewhere, but not this level of detail.

2. Attaching At Least Some Of The Court Documents

We’re well into the internet era. Given how easy it is to pull Court documents and obtain Judges’ findings, there’s no reason not to include some of it with an article or review. It gives readers background material to fact check and review for themselves.

A wise man pointed out that “law is about more than just reading the judgements and tracking the paperwork”.

While this is true, at least some documents are necessary anyway. In order to have any sort of intelligent discussion on a case, people have to agree on the basic facts. When was it filed? What were the Plaintiffs asking for? Was the case struck? Was it past the Statute of Limitations? What arguments did opposing counsel make?

Other sites may include a Statement of Claim when announcing the suit is launched, or a CanLII ruling afterwards. These are certainly helpful, but there’s much more.

Reasonable people can have a nuanced discussion on the overall merits of a strategy. They can have valid disagreements on the best course of action. But they still need to be grounded in the same reality.

Lawyers and their clients typically make public statements about their litigation. Problem is: what they say is often either exaggerated, or made up completely. But once you have the Court documents, their input often isn’t really necessary.

3. Honest Critiques About What Has Been Going Wrong

Going back to 2020, there’s a very strong “tribal” mentality, especially within the Freedom Movement. There seems to be the pressure to stand with “your side”, regardless of the circumstances. In the context of these lawsuits, one is expected to remain silent about the obvious problems:

  • Suing when arbitration and/or grieving required (no jurisdiction)
  • Commencing a proceeding too late (Statute of Limitations)
  • Missing other key deadlines
  • Filing the wrong paperwork to start proceeding
  • Drafting incoherent and unintelligible pleadings (“Bad Beyond Argument”)
  • Failing to properly plead torts (missing essential elements)
  • Making weak and unconvincing arguments
  • Seeking remedies Court can’t grant (also jurisdiction)
  • Taking unnecessary steps that don’t advance case (appealing v. amending)
  • Lawyers filing Motions to formally withdraw as counsel (abandoning clients)
  • Simply not advancing a case at all
  • Recycling pleadings rejected in other Courts

This isn’t the result of corrupt Judge(s). The above actions are caused by Plaintiffs’ lawyers either through: (a) incompetence; (b) negligence; or (c) intentional acts. Sure, the motivations can be debated.

There have been complaints that this site is divisive, and overly negative. While true, it’s also honest coverage about the states of these cases. Instead of blindly cheering for one side, explanations are provided about what has gone wrong. Where else is this done?

Remember: pretty hard to get into the merits of these cases when they’re thrown out due to the actions of their own lawyers.

4. Document At Least Some Of The Wasted Donation Money

It’s important to remember that many of these “freedom lawsuits” aren’t just some private matters. Plaintiffs and Applicants in many of them solicit donations in order to finance them. It comes through direct funding, and through sales of merchandise.

No one is suggesting that people cannot crowdfund or solicit donations for litigation. There’s nothing inherently wrong with doing it. That being said, it becomes a public matter. After all, such cases are being financed by the public.

If counsel isn’t doing a professional job (see above list) then it’s in the public interest to report on what’s going on. This has been done here extensively, with millions wasted just from a single lawyer.

Donations often cannot be refunded, true. That said, litigants owe it to their donors to be completely transparent, both with their money, and with updates on their cases. And it makes sense. If we are to demand accountability from elected officials, it should be practiced here as well.

So, What About The Merits Of These Cases?

It would be nice to focus on the merits on grievances, especially in the context of the injection mandates. Undoubtedly, most, if not all, are valid. No one disputes that people either lost their employment, or suffered some other hardship.

However, since the “freedom lawyers” put forward an almost endless array of shoddy and defective cases, it’s extremely rare to see a case proceed past the initial stages. If one actually does get to Trial, it can be discussed at length.

At the start, all we really have is the Statement of Claim, which anyone can access and read. Other than simply quoting it, there’s not much to go on.

Covering the “technical details” of how litigation implodes isn’t for everyone.

Sorry, not sorry.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Records Filed, Available To The Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents Of Motion Record Largely Irrelevant Or Redundant

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

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

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

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

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

Some Affidavits Sworn Out BEFORE Proceedings Commence

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

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

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

Written Submissions Only Reference “Some” Affidavits

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

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

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

Motion Record Contains “Secondary Sources” And “Appendices”

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

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

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

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

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

Christensen Sought To Convert Into Class Action, Or Individual Cases

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

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

Christensen Screwed Up First Appeal (Rule 51)

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

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

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

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

That Appeal was addressed in detail here and here.

Christensen Appears To Have Already Screwed Up Second Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could such an Appeal eventually succeed?

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

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions August 2024
(7) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(8) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(9) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time January 2025
(10) Qualizza Federal Court Notes
(11) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal January 2025

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

Government Says Case Should Have Been Struck Anyway

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

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

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

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

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

One interesting part of the Notice is paragraph 7.

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

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

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

The Respondents have served their Notice of Appearance.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Appeal should be heard later this year.

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

It included:

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

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

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

See parts 1, 2 and 3 for background information.

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

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

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

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

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

-Justice Koehnen, Ontario Superior Court Judge

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs To Be Shaken Down For More Money?

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

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

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

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

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

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