Category: Employment

Posted on

Review Of Westjet Injection Pass Lawsuit, Dropped In April 2023

Countless times in the last few years, we come across announcements about lawsuits being filed to challenge so-called injection passports. There’s initially plenty of hope and optimism that meaningful results will force Governments to change their ways. And a suit filed against Westjet in the Fall of 2022 was one such example.

The suit named:

  • His Majesty The King in Right of Canada
  • Attorney General of Canada
  • Westjet Group Inc.
  • Westjet Airlines Ltd.
  • Westjet Encore
  • Westjet Vacations Inc.
  • Swoop Inc.

These announcements are typically followed up with requests for donations, or solicitations for more clients, and more fees. There’s never really “enough” money.

But all too often, there won’t be any new reporting.

This is usually because they’re quietly dropped. And that’s exactly what happened here.

Shoddy Claims Being Recycled In Federal Court

The Westjet lawsuit should look familiar. It was filed by Leighton Grey of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer. It’s one of many filed in recent years that went absolutely nowhere.

(a) Canada Post: struck in March 2024
(b) Canadian National Railway: discontinued in June 2023
(c) Purolator, discontinued in April 2023

Grey has been in the press many times since 2020, often for filing a high profile lawsuit. That said, rarely does anything ever come of it. These cases are typically struck or discontinued (dropped).

And here, “The Discontinuer” is at is again.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada. In short, there must be enough detailed information in a lawsuit that the opposing side is able to understand, and respond.

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

One of the reasons Grey’s claims are typically so short is that he rarely pleads any facts. Despite having over 100 Plaintiffs, the suit is less than 25 pages. Once again, there’s no specific information about any Plaintiff, other than they are/were employees of Westjet. There’s nothing about:

  • Who is a current employee v.s. who left?
  • Who had no shots, 1 shots, 2 shots, or more?
  • Who worked remotely v.s. who worked in person?
  • Who got any sort of severance pay?
  • Who (if anyone) was subject to any bonus or performance contract?
  • Were there different unions, and any overlapping, or different policies?
  • Who raised which specific objection to taking the injections?
  • Who attempted which type of exemption method?
  • Which specific religious objections (for those who invoked it) applied and how?
  • Who went to grieve with their union?
  • What were the results of any internal grievance?

This isn’t to defend the policy at all. However, from a due process perspective, there’s so little information contained that it’s impossible to defend against. Basic information must be pleaded for each Plaintiff. Grey includes none of it.

None of the Charter violations are pleaded properly either. While (initially) the Court is to accept everything as true, there is very specific information that must be alleged to make it possible to advance.

There’s also a lack of particulars. The suit makes all kinds of allegations of malice, bad faith, and malfeasance of public office, but doesn’t spell out any of it.

The Claim and Amended Claim include allegations which a Civil Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over, such as relying on the Criminal Code of Canada.

Looking at the: (a) Canada Post; (b) CNR; (c) Purolator; and now (d) Westjet pleadings, it’s clear that it’s the same suit just tweaked a little. Grey merely changes the names in the Style of Cause (the Parties) and refiles elsewhere.

Clients are paying (presumably) good money for recycled garbage.

Westjet Has Collective Bargaining Agreement For Employees

Westjet employees appear to be part of CUPE Local 4070, which is one of many unions. Unsurprisingly, there is a collective bargaining agreement which outlines most of the important things involved.

Article 30 lists the various steps involved, and the people who are involved. Like many unions, Arbitration and not litigation, is considered to be the final one. Article 31 then goes through the process itself.

Grey discontinued the case rather than have the jurisdiction challenged. He has done this with multiple lawsuits now.

Now, Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood showed a way around the grievance requirement in another Federal case. Specifically, they argued that the introduction of the injection pass was a new condition imposed “without meaningful consultation”. Basically, the way mandates were implemented circumvented the grievance process. They successfully stopped a Motion to Strike.

Perhaps Grey could have done the same.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

October 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed.

November 17th, 2022: Defence files Notice of Intent to Respond.

November 20th, 2022: Case management is ordered.

November 21st, 2022: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 5th, 2022: Plaintiffs (a) Erin Shannon; (b) Tara Mainland; (c) Jennifer Masterman all send in Notices of Discontinuance.

December 8th, 2022: Plaintiff’s lawyer (Grey) submits letter with proposed timetable.

February 28th, 2023: Court orders case management conference on March 13th, 2023.

March 13th, 2023: Conference discusses options of discontinuing overall, or setting timetable to file materials for Motion to Strike.

April 12th, 2023: Lawsuit is discontinued.

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

And that’s how this Westjet case concluded.

The Government (and the Westjet Defendants) threatened to bring Motions to Strike. The likely reasons were the lack of jurisdiction, and the shoddy nature of the pleadings. Rather than fight, the lawyer dropped the case. He never even tried to fight back.

Before even a single Motion could be argued, the entire lawsuit was discontinued. Plaintiffs are presumably out of luck for any retainer fees they’ve paid.

WESTJET DOCUMENTS:
(1) Westjet Statement Of Claim October 2022
(2) Westjet Amended Statement Of Claim November 2022
(3) Westjet Order Timetable December 2022
(4) Westjet Notice Of Discontinuance April 2023

UNION DOCUMENTS:
(1) https://www.cupe4070.ca/collective-agreements
(2) Westjet CUPE 4070 Collective Bargaining Agreement

Posted on

Federal Proposed Class Action (Injection Mandates) Survives: Is s.2(d) The Way Forward?

With all of the horrible cases that have been covered, it’s rare (but refreshing) to see one that’s actually well put together. Last week, Federal Court Judge Southcott dismissed (most) of a Motion to Strike, allowing the case to proceed.

A Proposed Class Action for Federal workers was filed in October 2023 by B.C. lawyers Umar Sheikh and Angela Wood. It was on behalf of 3 Representative Plaintiffs who were forced out of their positions. They had been employed by:

  • Department of National Defence (Payne)
  • Correctional Services Canada (Harvey)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (Molaro)

Many of the cases involving injection passports filed in recent years were sloppy, and didn’t properly plead any tort or Charter violations. One of the most infamous was the “bad beyond argument” Adelberg case, and Appeal. Interestingly though, since Adelberg didn’t quite result in all claims being thrown out for good, it served as leverage for this case.

But what Sheikh and Wood did was quite different. They argued just 2 torts, and at least one of them never tried in a serious way in these cases.

  • Section 2(d) of the Charter: Freedom of Association
  • Malfeasance of Public Office

The Malfeasance of Public Office tort was struck regarding the 3 Plaintiffs here. The reason being that all 3 apparently had some right to grieve under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. But the Judge did allow for the possibility of new Plaintiffs — it is a Class Action — whom might qualify.

As for the Section 2(d) allegations: they are allowed to proceed.

Sections 208/236 FPSLRA Typically Bar Workers From Court

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.

The main obstacle to Government workers suing is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA. Section 208 gives everyone the right to grieve, while Section 236 prohibits Actions (or lawsuits). This is similar to unionized private employers, and there are plenty of rulings striking such cases.

But what happened here is rather clever. By using union arguments about meaningful consultation, the Judge was persuaded that there was no valid grievance process, or at least that it was arguable.

Section 2(d) Of Canadian Charter: Freedom Of Association

44.The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that s. 2d of the Charter provides for Freedom of association which guarantees the right of employees to meaningfully associate in the pursuit of collective workplace goals, which includes a right to collective bargaining. As such Laws or state actions that prevent or deny meaningful discussion and consultation about working conditions between employees and their employer may substantially interfere with the activity of collective bargaining, as may laws that unilaterally nullify significant negotiated terms in existing collective agreements.

45. The Plaintiffs and Class Members all had freely negotiated, valid, and binding contractual employment agreements with the Treasury Board.

46. None of the Plaintiffs or Class Member contractual employment agreements called for disclosure of Covid-19 vaccination status nor mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.

47. The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that the Policy was a new term and condition placed upon their employment by the Treasury Board absent collective bargaining, memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent.

48. The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that the imposition by Treasury Board of a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining, memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent violates their protected right under s. 2d of the Charter.

49. The Plaintiffs’ and Class Members plead that the action of the Treasury Board in imposing a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining, memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent is not saved by s.1 of the Charter as the Treasury Board did not possesses the requisite justification based upon the objectives espoused by the Policy.

(This is from paragraphs 44 to 49 in the Statement of Claim.)

To understand why the Motion to Strike failed, consider what is actually being argued. No one contests that the terms of employment were changed. Instead, the challenge is brought over lack of consideration and meaningful consultation. It’s not entirely that injection mandates were introduced into Government employment. It’s that there was no proper protocol in implementing it.

Section 2(d) had been mentioned — in passing — in other injection pass cases. But Sheikh and Wood may be the first to actually have used it successfully.

If all of this sounds like a union argument, it is. Sheikh is former counsel for the British Columbia Nurses’ Union (BCNU), and for a time, was the C.E.O. This case was written from the perspective of someone who expects employers to deal in good faith with workers.

Of course, this is nowhere near the end. The case still needs certification, and even then, there are many steps before Trial. That said, at least the case is still alive.

What Tipped The Scales For The Plaintiffs?

[35] In my view, the authority that carries the day for the Plaintiffs in the context of this motion is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada [SCC] in Morin. That case considered whether a labour arbitrator’s exclusive jurisdiction granted by provincial statute applied to an argument that a collective agreement was negotiated in a discriminatory manner, so as to include a discriminatory term, and thereby contravened the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms…. The SCC found that the dispute did not concern how the relevant term in the collective agreement would be interpreted and applied but rather whether the process leading to the adoption of the alleged discriminatory clause violated the Québec Charter such that the term was unenforceable (at paras 23-24).

And that parallels what happened here. It wasn’t necessarily bringing in injection mandates themselves, but the way which it was implemented.

On some level, it’s an absurd argument, but it got past a Motion to Strike.

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.

Section 2(d) Superior To Common 2(a)/7/15 Challenges

Typically, the “freedom lawyers” have cited the standard s.2(a), s.7, and s.15 when it comes to challenging injection requirements. And predictably, they always fail. They never plead the necessary facts, and hence, these claims are routinely tossed.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) To Be Considered

(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

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) To Be Considered

(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(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

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) To Be Considered

(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

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 –

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

  • Section 2(a) – freedom of religion – may allow for individual exemptions, depending on what is actually in the specific injections. It doesn’t, in any way, permit religion to be generally used to circumvent mandates.
  • Section 7 – security of the person – fails since the Courts have repeatedly said there’s no “right” to have a certain profession. Nobody was actually forced to take these shots, although there were certainly consequences.
  • Section 15 – equality – does not apply at all, since “vaccination status” isn’t in the Charter (enumerated), and hasn’t ever been recognized (analogous).

Other injection passport challenges have included: Section 8 (search and seizure); Section 9 (arbitrary detention); and Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment). In fairness though, they have been extremely half hearted attempts.

Yes, one could plausibly conclude that the Charter is worthless, since it doesn’t protect people outside of narrow grounds. And they’re right.

However, plenty of lawyers still take large amounts of money from clients knowing that these portions offer no protection whatsoever.

The Section 2(d) method described above may be about the only way around a largely useless and defective Charter. By challenging not the mandates themselves, but how they were implemented, there’s at least one pathway. Without having meaningful consultations about retroactive changes to their contracts, people are denied their right to freely associate in the context of employment.

The Federal Government may very well try to appeal this decision. After all, it’s taxpayer money anyway. But for now, Section 2(d) challenges seem to be realistic method, at least for litigants who don’t normally have the right to sue.

Sheikh and Wood have a similar case on reserve in B.C., based on the same arguments. We’ll have to see how this ruling impacts that one.

(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

5th Galati Pleading Struck As “Abuse Of Public Resources”, $190,000 Costs Ordered In Dorceus

[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

This week, 473 Plaintiffs, who are current and former health care workers, saw their Statement of Claim struck completely. This was partly because it was so poorly crafted, but also because most had collective bargaining agreements which prohibited lawsuits. Of those litigants, 395 belonged to some sort of union, while the other 78 did not. They had been employed all across Ontario.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s yet another scam lawsuit that has come crashing down on duped litigants. And this will cost them $190,000 for doing so.

Interestingly, one Plaintiff decided to retain a real lawyer and have a proper Claim drafted. That person was given permission to file. More on that later.

Previous Critique On Galati Case Aged Very, Very Well

Back in July, this review was posted about the numerous defects in the Statement of Claim. And as predicted, jurisdiction was a fatal law, at least for the unionized Plaintiffs.

While the Statute of Limitations wasn’t really a concern of the Court here, it may be if Plaintiffs decide to try their luck elsewhere. However, every other item on this list made its way into Justice Koehnen’s ruling in some form.

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

Perhaps most notably, the Court finally called Galati out for recycling his earlier cases. It’s long overdue for this to happen.

Galati Called Out For REPEATEDLY Wasting Court Resources

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

Now we have this gem, the 5th pleading to be struck:

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

Worth noting: Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court weighed in a year ago when CSASPP was sued for defamation. He dismissed that case under anti-SLAPP laws, and awarded $132,000 in costs. He was scathing in his decision.

[74] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks dated January 29, 2022, Mr. Gandhi supported the statement with hyperlinks to support the statements. The statements made in the FAQ are also supported by hyperlinks that provides that factual support for the statements. The statements made in the e-mail to Mr. Dicks and in the FAQ, that the Plaintiff has been criticized by the courts in other cases, is supported by the following decisions: Sivak v. Canada, at para. 55, Galati v. Harper, at para. 35, Da Silva Campos v. Canada, at para. 12, Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052, at para. 31, and Al Omani v. Canada 2017 FC 786, at para. 94-95.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

[88] Here, the action commenced in Ontario by the Plaintiff is prolix and contains bizarre conspiracy theories. The action he commenced in British Columbia is similar. I am of the view that “what is really going on” in this case is an attempt by the Plaintiff to stifle public criticism about a class action claim that is not properly pleaded and improperly asserts bizarre conspiracy theories that are ineffective and have little or no chance of success.

Factoring in Justice Chalmers, 10 different Judges in 6 separate Court hearings have made determinations that this type of litigation is frivolous, an abuse of the Court system, improperly pleaded, and has little to no chance of success.

Keep in mind, this list would be a lot longer, if not for several cases that were dropped. These include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada; (b) Katanik / Take Action Canada; (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada; and (d) Sgt. Julie Evans / Police on Guard.

Arbitration/Grievance Requirement Bars Unionized Workers

[13] The plaintiffs’ core complaint is that their employment was suspended or terminated as a result of their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Suspension and termination are core elements within the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the labour relations regime. The fact that the plaintiffs also go on to characterize their claims as ones for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish and breach of the Charter does not change the analysis. All of those complaints remain rooted in the employment relationship and its suspension and termination.

Despite attempts to frame this (Dorceus) as conspiracy, intimidation, and a variety of other torts, Justice Koehnen stated that this is really about litigants having their employment conditions altered to require these vaccines. This was essentially constructive dismissal.

This finding was fatal to the unionized Plaintiffs, who were barred from the Courts.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
.
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
.
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada.

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

From the ruling, we get this information:

[49] The Amended Statement of Claim is, at best, unusually drafted. A statement of claim is supposed to contain material facts on which the action is based. The Amended Statement of Claim contains few material facts about the employment of any of the 473 plaintiffs or the circumstances of their suspension or termination. Mr. Galati explained in oral argument that if the claim contained such facts, it would run into the hundreds of pages and would be challenged as unwieldly. That perhaps speaks to the advisability of pleading this as a consolidated claim.

Galati sued on behalf of nearly 500 people. He was required to plead facts about each Plaintiff that would establish a case for everyone. He had to plead facts about all the (alleged) Charter violations for each Plaintiff. A proper suit for so many people would have been several hundred pages in length. Other than naming their specific employers, he provided no detail about any of them.

Instead, it was the Defendants who compiled a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record in preparing their Motion to Strike.

Even if this was a Class Action — which it wasn’t — sufficient facts would still have to be pleaded for every Representative Plaintiff.

Another missing part was particulars. When alleging malice, bad faith, malfeasance, or a host of other torts, they must be spelled out in detail. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what the case against them is.

Plaintiff Beth Ann Dick Goes Her Own Way

[146] The plaintiff Beth Ann Dick provides an example of the sorts of considerations at issue here when determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Ms. Dick was initially represented by Mr. Galati. She says that she was not informed about the specific claims that Mr. Galati made on her behalf, did not speak with him, and did not meet him to discuss the individual circumstances of her claim, nor was she aware of the types of legal argument that would be made on her behalf.

[147] She has since retained Mr. R. P. O’Connor who has delivered a more conventional fresh as amended statement of claim. It narrows the claim to solely that of Ms. Dick against her former employer, removes the allegations of Charter breaches, removes outlandish allegations of false pandemics and crimes against humanity, and clearly pleads the necessary facts underlying causes of action in tort, contract, and breach of statute that she advances.

[148] Mr. O’Connor’s proposed amended statement of claim is an example of a pleading that survives a challenge under Rule 21. I grant leave to Ms. Dick to file the amended pleading she proposes.

Beth Ann Dick was a Plaintiff in the original case, but bailed out and retained a real lawyer. Her new counsel, R.P. O’Connor sent in a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that actually pleaded valid Causes of Action. It is (more or less) straight breach of contract.

If other Plaintiffs had been represented by a competent lawyer, things could very well have ended differently for them.

While the non-unionized Plaintiffs were granted Leave to Amend, any who want to will likely need to hire a better lawyer.

Missed Opportunity: Bill Galati For The $190,000 In Costs

While the Plaintiffs were hit with $190,000 in Court costs, this could have ended differently. If Justice Koehnen was serious about lawyers not abusing the Court process with duplicate Claims, he could have ordered Galati himself to pay. Rest assured, such baseless litigation would virtually disappear if lawyers were personally responsible for what they file.

Instead, it’s always the clients who have to pay, regardless of how badly (or how often) their counsel screws up.

And on a final note, Action4Canada eventually submitted their Amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC), nearly a year after the Court of Appeal laughed them out of Court. While much shorter, it contains many of the same defects that Justice Ross mentioned, and adds new ones in. Expect another Application to Strike.

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) 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

ACTION4CANADA:
(1) A4C Amended Notice Of Civil Claim

Posted on

Canada Post Employees Appeal Dismissal Over Arbitration Requirements, Faulty Pleadings

Employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. the “Posties”) are trying to appeal a March 2024 ruling that saw their lawsuit struck, without an opportunity to amend. Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules allows for findings of Associate Judges to be reviewed by way of Motion. However, it wasn’t the Court that screwed them over, but their counsel.

They should have been advised from the beginning that filing the lawsuit in the first place was a dead end, with no chance of success. Or perhaps they were….

Backstory Of What’s Been Going On

For context: back in the Spring of 2022, an Arbitration Panel ruled against employees at Canada Post. The Union had challenged the new policy requirements for injections that the Federal Government had brought in. Understandably, many workers weren’t happy about it.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, or CUPW, is the group representing employees. There is, of course, a collective bargaining agreement that everyone is expected to follow. Article 9 specifies the grievance resolution process, and binding arbitration is the end. Arbitration is considered to be final, as it’s an alternative to going to Court. Although the CUPW did fight for its workers, they still lost. Arbitrator Thomas Jolliffe ruled against them.

However, if the process is unfair, there’s often a way to have it looked at. This is done by an Application for Judicial Review. It’s analogous to appealing an unfavourable ruling, if not handled properly. But that’s not what ended up happening.

Leighton Grey, an Alberta lawyer, apparently convinced a few hundred employees to ignore the decision of Arbitator Jolliffe, and the grievance process altogether. June 2022, he filed an 18 page Statement of Claim. Yes, he sued Canada Post, instead of asking the earlier decision to be reviewed.

The Claim itself was very poorly written, and lacked much of the necessary information to proceed. It pleaded no facts whatsoever about individual Plaintiffs — remember, it was only 18 pages — and didn’t provide the necessary particulars to support allegations of bad faith and malice. There was also the problem that while Canada Post was a Crown Corporation, legally, it was considered separate from the Government.

For the next year, the file was largely inactive. The Claim was later amended, and not for the better. Eventually, the Court ordered the case to advance, so the Defendants moved to have the case thrown out.

And the case was eventually struck, without Leave to Amend. Plaintiffs weren’t allowed to sue, just because they were unhappy with the Arbitration results. Moreover, the Claim wasn’t pleaded anywhere close to properly.

At least some of those clients now have a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. He’s now seeking an extension of time to file a Rule 51 Motion for Reconsideration. An included Affidavit also alleges Grey didn’t file Notice of Motion as expected.

Timeline Of Events Leading To This Point

This is a follow up to a March 2024 article on the Canada Post lawsuit. Even more background information is here, to help understand the chain of events. It’s important to note that the CUPW went through the full arbitration process — as required — prior to this lawsuit commencing.

Leighton Grey Implies Federal Court “Rigged” Outcome

In a post on Twitter, Grey comments about a case involving over 300 military veterans being struck. That too was struck for the 2 main reasons: (a) not following prescribed grievance scheme/lack of jurisdiction; and (b) failure to properly plead the Statement of Claim.

“Same judge”
“Same judgment”
“Same reasons”
“Same comments”
“Even the same costs”
“Is anyone else seeing a pattern?”

Yes, there obviously is a pattern. 2 grossly inept and incompetent lawyers — Grey and Catherine Christensen — filed claims when there was no jurisdiction to do so. Neither of them pleaded their cases with anywhere near the detail necessary to advance a suit anyway.

There’s also the issue raised that Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, is considered separate from the Government. While pedantic to many, it was raised at the hearing.

However, in the way this is presented, it looks as though Grey implies Associate Judge Coughlan has been maliciously fixing her decisions. Although careful not to state it directly, it’s the impression that his audience would be left with. He suggests that she, and perhaps the entire Federal Court, is corrupt.

Should lawyers be actively working to undermine trust and confidence in the Judiciary? That’s what it looks like Grey is intentionally doing.

Valour Legal Action Centre, the firm Christensen runs, tweeted out similar comments, implying that Associate Judge Coughlan fixed that one as well. These are very risky things to say, especially in light of the serious and legitimate errors raised in the respective cases.

Accusing the Federal Court, and Associate Judge Coughlan, of “hiding behind the grievance system”, amounts to an allegation of corruption. Is this wise to post on Twitter?

Grievance/Arbitration Requirement Bars Court Action

Canada Post is a unionized workplace, and there are systems in place to handle grievances. This is spelled out in Article 9 of the collective bargaining agreement. Most relevant is the requirement to seek arbitration if other, lesser methods fail. An Arbitrator’s ruling is to be considered final. There is no inherent right to sue.

As for the Canadian Government itself, legally, it’s distinct and separate from the Crown Corporations — yes, unfair — despite Canada Post obeying its orders to force injection mandates.

Arbitration didn’t go the way the workers wanted, so Grey sued the company anyway. Having the case struck for lack of jurisdiction was entirely predictable. However, he implies that the Federal Court had predetermined the outcome.

Grey also filed lawsuits against: (a) Canadian National Railway; and (b) Purolator in recent years. He’s well aware of this issue, as counsel in those cases have raised it as well.

As for the new lawyer, Jason Gratl, he’ll have a difficult time with his Rule 51 Motion, assuming he gets the time extension. In theory, a competent lawyer could plead a new Statement of Claim properly. That said, the lack of jurisdiction is fatal. No amount of pleading facts or detail will get around this, which makes one wonder why he’s doing this at all.

Rule 51 Motions are meant to correct errors made by the Associate Judge. They’re not a way to fix a mess created by incompetent counsel.

Statement Of Claim Not Pleaded Properly, Once Again

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Regular readers on this site will have heard of Rules 174 and 181 of the Federal Court Rules. Similar provisions exist in all Provincial Courts as well.

However, Grey doesn’t do this at all. The Statement of Claim is just 18 pages, and there’s no information pleaded about any specific Plaintiff. “Facts” are supposed to include the who, what, where, when and how of events unfolding. There has to be enough detail about each Plaintiff that the Defendants can respond.

Grey doesn’t plead any facts that would establish any Charter breaches either. There are specific requirements that have to be met for each tort that each Plaintiff is raising.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) To Be Considered

(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

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) To Be Considered

(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(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

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) To Be Considered

(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

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 –

However, “vaccination status” has never been recognized as an analogous ground.

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

General Formula For Charter Damages Under Section 24

(i) establish whether there has been a Charter breach;
(ii) show why damages are a just and appropriate remedy, having regard to the related functions of compensation, vindication of the right (in question), and/or deterrence of future breaches;
(iii) if the plaintiff is successful in meeting these two steps, the state then has the opportunity to demonstrate that damages are inappropriate or unjust; and
(iv) if the state is unsuccessful, assess the quantum of damages

https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2012/2012mbca64/2012mbca64.html#11

And again, Grey would have to plead sufficient facts about each Plaintiff who was invoking these rights. However, there’s no information provided about any of them. No wonder the case was struck. It’s impossible to establish there’s been a Charter breach (part i), when there are no facts pled to even theoretically support such a claim.

As for “pleading particulars”, Rule 181 of Federal Court Rules, Grey makes all kinds of allegations of malice, conspiracy, and malfeasance of public office. He needs to explain the who, what, where, when and how that all of this happened.

Grey includes allegations such as Criminal Code violations — which would get the Claim immediately struck — because a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear them.

In fact, there’s no shortages of torts listed, but there are no facts or particulars included that would support a claim for any of them, in favour of any Plaintiff. It’s “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument 2.0”.

A proper Statement of Claim with this many Plaintiffs would be hundreds of pages long. It’s not something that Grey — or this new lawyer — can fix with amendments.

What Happens Now?

The Plaintiffs seeking to have the decision reviewed — which is not all of them — first need to convince the Court to grant an extension of time to have their main Motion heard. The first is a procedural Motion, and in theory, is doable.

Then, they need to be persuasive that Associate Judge Coughlan shouldn’t have thrown the case out completely, that she should have at least given Leave to Amend. This will be difficult, especially with: (a) Court not having proper jurisdiction; and (b) the Statement of Claim being so deficient of necessary information. It seems extremely unlikely for a review to be successful.

Arbitator Jolliffe’s ruling is considered binding.

To be honest, Jason Gratl would have far better luck suing Grey for incompetence, negligence, and malpractice. His performance falls far short of what one should expect from a senior lawyer. At least his clients would get some of their money back.

We’ll have to see how this plays out.

LITIGATION:
(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
(9) Canada Post Notice Of Change Of Solicitor November 2024
(10) Canada Post Affidavit of Karine Solakian November 2024
(11) Canada Post Notice Of Motion November 2024

TWITTER:
(1) https://x.com/GreyMatterConvo/status/1858612823900770492
(2) https://x.com/GreyMatterConvo/status/1858635451839508580
(3) https://x.com/GreyMatterConvo/status/1858635720052584917
(4) https://x.com/ValourLegal/status/1858178030369186289

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, Full Text
(12) Wayback Machine Archive Of Arbitration Decision
(13) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont

OTHER LAWS AND DECISIONS
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html#par52
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html#par51
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2015/2015fca20/2015fca20.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc786/2017fc786.html#par32
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/FullText.html
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/

Posted on

Purolator Injection Pass Lawsuit Dropped in 2023, While Arbitration Succeeded

Purolator is one of the companies that forced employees to make the decision about getting the injections (vaccine passports) in 2021, or risking their employment. The outcome is a year old, but worth reviewing.

Being a unionized employer, there are set procedures to handle grievances. Not following those rules can cause headaches for everyone involved. While many workers objected to this new requirement for injections, they handled it in different ways.

Pathway #1: David Reynolds and Riley Kearns, counsel for the Union, Teamsters Local No. 31, took their case to Labour Arbitration. They brought in their experts to counter the narrative that the shots were necessary. They successfully persuaded Arbitrator Nicholas Glass of the validity of their concerns. In December 2023, he ordered backpay for wages, benefits, and other compensation.

Pathway #2: Leighton Grey, counsel for over 200 Plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in June 2022. It was amended in December 2022. Despite a few brief Court appearances, nothing ever happened, and opposing counsel threatened to bring a Motion to Strike. The case was discontinued in April 2023.

This article also demonstrates that having a horrible lawyer can ruin the outcome.

Reynolds and Kearns chose the correct path (Arbitration), and pursued the case diligently. They clearly put the work in. On the other hand, Grey chose a method (Court) which wasn’t allowed, and then did nothing to advance it.

The employees who the Union grieved for were compensated for their losses. The employees who went to Court ultimately got screwed over.

It’s unclear from the Arbitration ruling if the Purolator employees who sued would still be eligible for backpay given Arbitration was successful. Either way, going to Court was a complete waste of time and money.

How Canadian Government Defines “Constructive Dismissal”

This is quoted with the disclaimer that yes, the Government did mess around with EI for people who were terminated. Suddenly requiring the injections IS a retroactive change in the conditions of employment. However, this page is still helpful to read for general information.

Definition of constructive dismissal

The phrase “constructive dismissal” describes situations where the employer has not directly fired the employee. Rather the employer has:

  • failed to comply with the contract of employment in a major respect
  • unilaterally changed the terms of employment, or
  • expressed a settled intention to do either thus forcing the employee to quit

Constructive dismissal is sometimes called “disguised dismissal” or “quitting with cause”. This is because it often occurs in situations where the employer offers the employee the alternative of:

  • leaving, or
  • submitting to a unilateral and substantial alteration of a fundamental term or condition of their employment

Whether or not there has been a constructive dismissal is based on an objective view of the employer’s conduct. It is not merely on how the employee perceives the situation.

It is the employer’s failure to meet its contractual obligations that distinguishes a constructive dismissal from an ordinary resignation. The seriousness of the employer’s failure as well as the amount of deliberation apparent in its actions are also important factors.

The employer’s action must be unilateral, which means the employer must do it without the consent of the employee. If it is not unilateral, the variation is not a constructive dismissal but merely an agreed change to the contract of employment.

If the employee clearly indicates non-acceptance of the new conditions of employment to the employer, there has been a constructive dismissal. However, this is only if the employee leaves within a reasonable period (usually short). By not resigning, the employee indicates he accepts the new conditions of employment.

There have been cases where courts have held that there has been a constructive dismissal even though the complainant remains in the employ of the employer. This includes, for example, cases where the employee:

  • continues to work under the new conditions in order to mitigate damages, and
  • either protests the new conditions explicitly or makes it clear that he still reserves the right to take legal action

Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment is constructive dismissal, no matter how politicians like to frame things. And this is exactly the kind of problem that a union should be challenging.

In the case of Teamsters Local No. 31, they did just that.

Teamsters Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

Teamsters is the Union representing Purolator employees. And it includes Local No. 31, which is the branch that successfully grieved against the company at a Labour Arbitration. Article 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement very clearly spells out the grievance process. And 6.2(d) goes on to state:

6.2(d) “Should the parties fail to reach satisfactory settlement in the preceding steps, the final settlement of the grievance may be submitted to the Arbitration Board as outlined below.”

The next several pages of the document go on to outline the process involved in the grievance process, including deadlines to commencing future step. Suing the employer, or going to Court, is not mentioned anywhere.

Teamsters Union Won At Labour Arbitration

While much of the content on this site covers losses, this one was a win. And it was nice to see employees getting some justice for what had been done to them. Read the entire decision.

569. The hourly paid grievances are upheld. The group grievance is upheld. The grievors are entitled to be compensated for their losses which will include any lost wages and benefits, between July 1, 2022 and their first day of work following May 1, 2023.

570. The owner operators’ grievances are upheld. They are entitled to be compensated for their losses commencing the first date that they lost revenue from being denied the use of a vaccinated relief driver. There is no common end date for their losses at this point. The losses are yet to be determined.

571. Dan Moes’ grievance is upheld with full compensation from the first day of his dismissal, or first loss of revenue from being denied use of a relief driver, whichever came first.

572. The administrative non-attestation termination grievances, either individually or as part of the group grievance, are upheld. These grievors are entitled to the same level of compensation as the other grievors in their category.

573. The res judicata preliminary objection is dismissed.

574. I reserve jurisdiction to determine quantum with respect to all grievances.

575. I reserve jurisdiction on any other matters arising, including interpretation, or implementation with respect to this award.

Teamsters Local No. 31 went to bat for their members at a Labour Arbitration hearing and won. Not all unions backed members, but this one did. And they did it successfully. Lost income was to be paid back.

Plaintiffs In Civil Claim Got Screwed Over

This lawsuit had problems from the very beginning, and this was predictable. Here are the more obvious ones to consider:

  1. Failure to plead necessary material facts
  2. Failure to keep evidence out of the Claim
  3. Failure to properly plead necessary particulars
  4. Failure to properly plead Charter violations
  5. Seeking Relief a CIVIL Court cannot grant
  6. Failure to understand labour law and jurisdiction

These cases: (a) Canada Post; (b) Canadian National Railway; and now (c) Purolator, all came from the same lawyer. They have the same serious defects, and none of them ever went anywhere. Canada Post, a.k.a. “The Posties”, was thrown out on a Motion to Strike, while both CNR and Purolator were dropped. It doesn’t look like anyone received a refund.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Rule 174 of the Federal Court Rules is a requirement to plead facts, and it includes pleading facts about all Plaintiffs. There were over 200 (214, if counted right). Instead, there were a handful of sweeping declarations in Claim to cover everyone, and that’s it.

This is paired with Rule 181, a requirement to plead particulars. Grey is claiming that the Government conspired, acted with malice, and intentionally inflicted all kinds of mental and psychological harm. All of this needs to be spelled out in detail, but isn’t done.

And, as outlined above, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case at all. The collective bargaining agreement spells out Arbitration. The Courts typically refer to this as the “explicit ouster”, and will routinely throw them out. Grey should know this.

Grey also once again asks the Court for CRIMINAL remedies in a CIVIL Court. This is not allowed. Each type of Court is only set up to hear certain kinds of disputes. There’s also allegations that the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act was violated (despite that being about race and ethnicity).

The probable reason for pleading Criminal Code violations (and others) is to get around the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court. If Grey were to simply argue that his clients were wrongfully forced out of their job, or that they were constructively dismissed, the suit would be tossed immediately. So he tries to turn it into something else.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s” cases are filled with these same defects. Although Grey tends to “tone it down” somewhat when drafting pleadings, the similarities are striking. And both lawyers simply recycle their claims, just making minor edits.

Grey’s clients got nothing of value from his work. They (presumably) paid retainers just to have him drop the case 10 months later. They got screwed over. Had they simply allowed their union to represent them at Arbitration, all of this could have been avoided. True, there were no guarantees at Arbitration, but there was always a chance, as opposed to filing a lawsuit.

Why are all the “freedom lawyers” complete idiots?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/laws-regulations/labour/interpretations-policies/constructive-dismissal.html
(2) https://teamsters362.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UPS-2020-2025.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cala/doc/2023/2023canlii120937/2023canlii120937.html
(4) Purolator T-1267-22 Statement Of Claim
(5) Purolator T-1267-22 Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Purolator T-1267-22 Notice Of Discontinuance

Posted on

Constructive Dismissal, And Closing The File On Adelberg

Time to close the case on yet another one. The infamous 600+ Plaintiff suit, Adelberg, is before the Supreme Court of Canada with an Application for Leave. What this means is that the Applicants are asking for permission to have an Appeal heard. This will almost certainly be denied.

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 for complete coverage.

The main concern for litigants here is that they were forced out of their jobs back in 2021/2022, when the conditions of their work suddenly required multiple injections. These were the “vaccine passports” that became so notorious. Workers were rightfully angry that the rules were being retroactively changed.

What do the Courts call this? Constructive Dismissal.

By unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment, the Federal Government has effectively repudiated the employment contracts of their workers. They’re entitled to notice (at a minimum) and to be paid out fully in accordance with any other agreements they have.

As for third parties (Federally regulated employers) who’ve had to implement injection passports, they too have constructively dismissed their workers. The fact that Ottawa forced them to do it is irrelevant.

Instead of taking their problems to the appropriate forum — Arbitration for most — extremely incompetent counsel crashed all of this into the ground.

Contrary to the postings of “the marketing arms“, such as Police On Guard, this isn’t a complex case. A May 2022 lawsuit involving over 600 Plaintiffs was struck for a variety of reasons. The most embarrassing one was the completely shoddy and inadequate quality of the pleadings.

Justice Fothergill called it “bad beyond argument“.

There were a few passing mentions of Plaintiffs having their travel rights restricted, but at the heart of it, this was about employment.

To help make sense of these 600+ Plaintiffs, it’s important to note that the Court classified them into 2 groups for clarification. These are as follows.

Schedule “A” Plaintiffs, Employees Of Federal Government: These litigants had their employment claims struck in their entirety, without the chance to fix the lawsuit. The reason is that they were entitled to grieve employment claims, but not to litigate. This is explained by Sections 208 and 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA. In essence, the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction. This comprised approximately 2/3 of them.

Schedule “B” Plaintiffs, Employees Of “Federally Regulated” Employers: These litigants at least in theory would be able to sue the Government. However, the Statement of Claim was so poorly drafted that it would have to be redone anyway. This was the other 1/3 of Plaintiffs.

Schedule “A” Plaintiffs: Employees Of Federal Government

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, or FPSLRA, is the key to understanding why the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs are completely out of luck. Since they don’t have the right to sue, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear their case, even if it were competently pleaded.

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.

Application
236(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

Section 208 of the FPSLRA gives Federal employees the right to grieve, and that often ends in arbitration. This is similar to how workers in unionized environments, or ones with collective bargaining agreements. Section 236 is the prohibition on seeking remedies in the Courts via lawsuits. This is referred to as a lack of jurisdiction, or an “explicit ouster” from the Court.

Counsel takes issue with the Federal Court (and later the Court of Appeal) not considering the employment contracts of the Schedule “A” workers prior to striking their claims. But this misses the point. Section 208 FPSLRA gives all Federal employees the right to grieve, and none of them the right to sue. This is regardless of any collective agreements in place. In this sense, the entire Federal Government acts as a giant union.

It’s unclear why counsel keeps citing Weber, the 1995 Supreme Court case, when it effectively shuts down the ability to bring cases to Court if alternative resolution mechanisms are available.

For their response, the Government reiterates that this case (at its heart) is about changes to the terms of their employment agreements. Really, this is constructive dismissal.

In theory, a case could still be brought if each of the Plaintiffs had diligently tried to exercise other options to resolve their case. It would involve overhauling the Statement of Claim, with each person describing what efforts they took. They’d have to provide specifics, and be prepared to submit Affidavit evidence when jurisdiction would inevitably be challenged. They’d have to convince a Judge that there was no other option than to sue. Even then, there are no guarantees, and it could still be tossed out.

Schedule “B” Plaintiffs: Employees Of “Federally Regulated” Industries

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Pleading facts refers to spelling out the who, what, where, when and how that events have transpired. There must be sufficient detail that Defendants are able to at least address the allegations.

Pleading particulars refers to detailing any acts of malice, bad faith, conspiracy, malfeasance, etc… The events must be described in enough detail that they can be responded to.

In spite of the Statement of Claim being 50 pages long, there is stunningly little material.

  • The first 15 pages are just the Style of Cause (naming Parties)
  • The next 9 pages are the Relief Sought (what is asked of the Court)
  • There are 2 pages of background information on the defendants
  • There are 5 pages of “facts”, which are actually potential expert evidence, and don’t belong at this stage of the proceeding
  • There are 6 pages of stating torts, but without pleading necessary facts or particulars
  • The Statement of Claim then just devolves into a Factum, arguing endlessly, but without providing the information needed to respond to by the Defendants

There’s no facts or background pleaded about the Plaintiffs, and only a handful are even named at all.

The Claim also makes allegations of: (a) Criminal Code of Canada violations; (b) breaches of the Nuremberg Code; (c) crimes against humanity; (d) violations of the Helsinki Declaration; and (e) reference the International Criminal Court in the Hague. All of this helped get the case struck, since there’s no jurisdiction for a Civil Court to hear any of it.

Remember, these defects also apply to the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs.

The Schedule “B” Plaintiffs might have had a fighting chance if counsel had argued that the injection mandates amounted to an inducement to breach, or interfere with their employment. That was one path forward. But that would require a competent lawyer.

Court Of Appeal Allows Travel Claims

In a strange turn of events, the Federal Court of Appeal did allow for travel claims to still be brought forward by all Plaintiffs. This applies to both Schedules “A” and “B”. However, these claims weren’t properly pleaded (as always) and are probably moot anyway.

Over $1.2 Million Wasted For Garbage Litigation

Each of the more than 600 Plaintiffs had to pay $1,000 retainer in order for the Statement of Claim to be filed in the first place. Then, when it was struck, counsel demanded another $1,000 from everyone. This totals well over a million dollars. And for what?

Plaintiffs Likely Barred By Statute Of Limitations

Regardless of what happens at the Supreme Court, the Plaintiffs are likely out of luck anyway. It’s not just that the Statement of Claim itself has to be filed within 2 years. Any new allegations in an amended version — that occurred over 2 years ago — are typically barred as well. Since nothing was correctly pleaded in 2022, the time has run out to do it properly.

At least this time, the gross deficiencies of the pleadings themselves aren’t being questioned. This includes the lack of facts and particulars included.

While it may sound impressive to be at the Supreme Court, consider the context. This isn’t the conclusion of some long, complex case. It’s about appealing, once again, a Statement of Claim that was struck for lack of jurisdiction. It’s still at the initial stages, and we’re almost into 2025.

We’re close to the end of the “bad beyond argument” Covid cases. The only major one left is Dorceus, which is out on a Motion to Strike in Ontario. Here are 18 reasons that case will be thrown out.

FEDERAL LAXX PASS CHALLENGE (SCC LEAVE APPLICATION)
(1) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume 1
(2) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume 2
(3) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume 3
(4) Adelberg SCC Written Submissions Applicant
(5) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Volume Respondents
(6) Adelberg SCC Leave Application Reply Submissions

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE (APPEAL)
(1) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Notice Of Appeal
(2) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appeal Book
(3) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Appellants MFL
(4) FCA Adelberg V. HMTK A-67-23 Respondents MFL

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike (Archive)
(9) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(10) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/page-9.html#h-1013947
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405

PRECEDENTS CREATED
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc280/2023fc280.html#par85
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc929/2023fc929.html#par17
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc1701/2023bcsc1701.html#par30
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc1752/2023fc1752.html#par24
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc137/2024fc137.html#par44

MONEY
(1) Letter to Federal Worker Plaintiffs
(2) Federal Workers Action Donation Link For PayPal
(3) Ontario First Responders Action Donation Link For PayPal
(4) School Action Donation Link For PayPal
(5) Police Officer Action Donation Link For PayPal
(6) https://www.web.archive.org/web/20220526170932/https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/
(7) Federal Workers Retainer Agreement
(8) Ontario First Responders Retainer Agreement
(9) Donate To Public Citizens Inquiry
(10) Donations For Supposed B.C. Doctors Action