Category: Employment

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Of Events In Arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Of Events In Federal Court Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 4th, 2024: Motions are eventually heard.

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

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

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

Timeline Of VERY Late Motion For Appeal Extension

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

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

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

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

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

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

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

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

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim (June 2023)
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim (July 2023)
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence (September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence (September 2023)
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim (July 2024)
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions (August 2024)
(7) Qualizza Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave (November 2024)

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time (January 2025)
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (February 2025)
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book (April 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/ARGUMENTS/RESULTS (AD HOC):
(1) Qualizza Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law (June 2025)
(3) Qualizza FCA Order Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)
(4) Qualizza FCA Reasons Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record (March 2025)
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement (May 2025)
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement (May 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

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

Posted on

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case: Idiot Lawyer Sends Notice Of Appeal To Wrong Court

Just when you think a lawyer couldn’t be any dumber, you are unpleasantly surprised.

This is a follow-up on the Qualizza case, the military veterans’ injection pass lawsuit. Some 330 members and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces sued over the requirement to get the shots. The case is turning into a regular content generator, and for all the wrong reasons.

The Notice of Appeal will be explained in more detail later.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background on the case.

Perhaps even more absurdly, the lawyer, Catherine Christensen, practiced family law for much of her career. She seems horribly out of her league here.

The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. It had been struck by an Associate Judge, with a subsequent Judge refusing a request to extend time for an initial Appeal. Another Judge ordered costs over an unnecessary Motion to determine the contents of an Appeal Book. More recently, another Judge ordered costs for a Notice of Discontinuance being filed without clients’ knowledge or consent.

Now, Christensen is unhappy with the ruling that she acted in a “high handed and inappropriate” way. So, she’s set to challenge to Order, which set aside the Notice of Discontinuance.

But according to Court records, she attempted to file a Notice of Appeal. That’s right, she wants to appeal an Order of the Federal Court of Appeal, and sent the Notice …. to the same Court. She seems not to understand that you can only appeal to a higher level.

Christensen doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between:
(a) Commencing a proceeding: Claim, Application, Appeal, etc….
(b) Taking steps within the existing proceeding: typically with a Motion

Perhaps she meant to file a Motion to have that last Order reviewed, but it’s unclear. In any event, she was told that in order to appeal, she must ask for Leave (permission) from the Supreme Court of Canada.

This idiot is trying to appeal to the wrong Court.

Keep in mind, none of this helps any of her clients advance their case against the Federal Government. Nothing here helps overturn A.J. Coughlan’s decision to strike, or Justice Manson’s refusal to grant an extension.

But first, problems with the lawsuit shouldn’t be a surprise to Christensen.

The Neri Decision: Christensen Knew Claim Would Be Struck

An Application filed in late 2021 sought to prevent several members of the Canadian Armed Forces from facing consequences for refusing the injections. An Interlocutory Injunction was sought, with the plan to get a permanent one later. The case was tossed, because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specified a grievance scheme for members of the military to use.

The case was discontinued in January 2022.

The point is: Christensen knew in advance of filing the Qualizza case that it would very likely be struck for lack of jurisdiction. It seems doubtful that current clients were aware of this case.

Not only was Christensen aware of jurisdiction issues, but the Statute of Limitations should have been fresh in her mind as well. September 2024, she lost another case, Tondreau, in Federal Court. A major part of the ruling was her filed the Notice of Application well after the 30 day deadline.

Qualizza Case Struck Without Leave To Amend

Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan struck the case in November 2024, and without Leave to Amend. This meant there was no permission to fix and refile. While lengthy, the decision centered on 2 main issues.

First: The Statement of Claim lacked a lot of the necessary information. When making Charter Claims, it’s required to plead certain facts and details about each Plaintiff. While there was background information on each of them, nothing was pleaded about the specifics of the torts themselves.

Second: The Court refused to take jurisdiction of the case over s.29 of the National Defence Act This was the exact issue explained to Christensen in Neri. Not only was the grievance system required, but over 100 Plaintiffs either had or were actively grieving.

Because Coughlan was an Associate Judge (Prothonotary), and not a regular Judge, there’s a different process to appeal. More importantly, there’s a much shorter time limit.

Christensen Missed Deadline For 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

The specific errors were covered extensively in a previous article. An extension was refused.

Just as with Tondreau a few months earlier, Christensen missed the deadline to file, and never really offered a convincing explanation of why that was the case.

Christensen Doesn’t Understand What’s Being Appealed

After Justice Manson refused to extend time in the Federal Court, Christensen filed Notice of Appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal. But there’s already a serious problem.

The Notice asks that the original Order of A.J. Coughlan be set aside and that the case be allowed to proceed. That may be fine as additional Relief being sought.

However, the Notice doesn’t challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time. The most immediate problem is that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are time-barred into going further, unless that is overturned. In the “grounds” section, it’s shrugged off as procedural error. Again, without being challenged.

She also asks for Leave to file the Notice of Appeal. This doesn’t make any sense, as this is the Notice, and it’s already been filed. And it gets worse from here.

Determining Contents Of Appeal Book

The Federal Court of Appeal differs from its Provincial counterparts in a significant way. Specifically, it requires the Appellants to either: (a) get consent as to the contents; or (b) file a Motion to have a Judge determine it.

For a recent example of what a consent looks like, see the Payne Appeal.

Christensen chose Option “B”, while the Government responded that this was entirely unnecessary.

Justice Rennie agreed that this could have been resolved on consent.

(b) No argument is advanced by the appellants why the materials that were before the Associate Judge but not before Manson J., ought to be before this Court;

(c) Rule 343(2) requires parties to an appeal to include in an appeal book “only such documents, exhibits and transcripts as are required to dispose of the issues on appeal”. Although the Rule 343(2) test is a flexible one, a document should be included in the appeal book “only if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that it is required to dispose of an issue on appeal”

This highlights Christensen’s lack of understanding of what she’s doing. She’s appealing Justice Manson’s refusal to extend time to allow that Rule 51 Appeal. As such, only the few documents that were before him would be considered by this Court.

Christensen “Discontinued” Without Clients’ Knowledge Or Consent

Christensen’s clients were apparently unhappy with her mediocre legal services, and many refused to pay additional money to her “non-profit”. Consequently, she filed a Notice of Discontinuance of their behalf.

Procedurally though, this cannot be done.

One client, Mark Lolacher, took it upon himself to file his own Motion to set aside the Notice, and to be reinstated. He also accused Christensen of misconduct. The Government lawyer offered a suggestion allow Lolacher to remain, but as a self-represented litigant. Surprisingly, Christensen opposed the Motion.

Ultimately, Justice Locke ordered Lolacher’s reinstatement as an Appellant, and $2,000 for the “high handed” treatment he had received. The reasons were scathing, although misconduct allegations were to be deferred to the Law Society of Alberta.

The Judge also mentioned 2 practical solutions. Christensen could be replaced as counsel, under Rule 124, or she could file a Motion to withdraw as counsel, under Rule 125. Neither happened, and she apparently got her own lawyer. Keep in mind, bickering and fighting with clients doesn’t advance the vaccine passport case at all. Remember, this was supposedly the reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

As a humourous aside: Lolacher is the only Plaintiff/Appellant in this case have actually won a Motion. Christensen has racked up loss after loss, and all at her clients’ expense.

Christensen Apparently Has Her Own Counsel

The Court filings are admittedly just a small part of what’s been going on. Still, it’s fair to say that things have further deteriorated.

According to further correspondence from Mark Lolacher, Christensen isn’t following Justice Locke’s Order in good faith. She keeps misrepresenting a procedural Motion as “suing the other Appellants”. Now, she apparently has her own counsel…. while still representing all (or some?) of the clients. It’s a mess. Will clients now be billed for 2 lawyers?

Christensen is apparently unwilling to accept Justice Locke’s decision reinstating Lolacher. Instead of taking a reasonable alternative, she tries to file a Notice of Appeal…. to the same Court.

Have to wonder who came up with the idea: Christensen, or her new “counsel”? In any event, the Federal Court of Appeal refused to file the Notice, since procedurally, it would have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Actually, the SCC would have to agree to hear it first, with an Application for Leave. The staff at the Courts apparently know the Rules better than either of these lawyers.

Again, none of this helps any of their clients.

It’s hard to believe that a licenced lawyer can actually be so bad at what she does. Sure, this could all be deliberate sabotage, but it’s so poorly done that it strains all belief.

It seems that Law Societies will allow anyone to practice, even a potted plant.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim June 2023
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim July 2023
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence September 2023
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim July 2024
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions August 2024
(7) Qualizza Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave November 2024

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal December 2024
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time January 2025
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book February 2025
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book March 2025
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book April 2025

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance January 2025
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record March 2025
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record March 2025
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record March 2025
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement May 2025
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement May 2025

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court May 2025
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA

Posted on

WestJet Forced To Pay Over Refusal To Accommodate Religious Objection To Injection Mandate

A Calgary Court has now ruled that WestJet improperly terminated an employee over the 2021 vaccination mandates, and didn’t adequately provide alternatives.

Justice Argento awarded Duong Yee $65,587.72, or the equivalent of 11 months of her salary. After more than 11 years of employment, she was terminated in the Fall of 2021, for refusing to take the injections. She had tried — but failed — to obtain an exemption on religious grounds.

Many lawsuits in recent years have invoked religious beliefs. However, this is a rarer one that actually details what those beliefs are. The case was pursued by Jody Wells and James Kitchen.

Yee didn’t challenge the Government policy itself, but how it was implemented. While not a repudiation to the injection pass in general, this is nonetheless a nice win showing that some exemptions can be protected.

Although many have referred to this as suing WestJet, there were in fact 3 Defendants: (a) WestJet, an Alberta Partnership; and its Partners (b) Westjet Airlines; and (c) 2222304 Alberta Corp.

The lawsuit sought $100,000 for economic and other harms:

  • $66,500 for severance pay
  • $12,000 for benefits
  • $21,500 for “moral damages” or aggravated damages
  • Costs

While Yee did get an award for severance pay, and presumably the benefits lumped in, the request for damages was denied. The Judge said that none had been proven, and there was nothing overly insensitive or egregious in how the company had acted.

WestJet further argued that Yee failed to mitigate her damages (improve her own situation), but that was rejected by the Court.

Quotes From WestJet Exemption Questionnaire

Question #6. Explain why you are requesting an accommodation:

Based on sincerely held beliefs as a bible believing Christian, the vaccine is betrayal of faith to my healer, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Question #7. Describe the accommodation you are seeking:

Exemption from vaccination; from masks; from rapid testing

Question 9. Describe how you are a practicing member of this religion:

I attend online worship and sermons with my church, I have a weekly bible study with my church group to continue understanding God’s word, as well as my own daily prayer, worship and bible readings to commune with my heavenly father.

Question #10. How long have you been a practicing member of this religion?

Over 3 years

Question #11. Explain the connection between your religious belief(s), your objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and the accommodation you are seeking:

Jesus is my healer, I do not cannot rely on the use of vaccinations or medicines created artificially in order to prevent sickness. Jesus speaks of seeking out a doctor when one is sick, not well. I have no need of a vaccine in order to maintain my health.

Question #19. Do you belong to any groups (social media or otherwise) protesting or denouncing or being critical of Covid-19 measures taken by health authorities and government bodies?

Yes

Question #20. Please describe the groups of which you are a member:

I have joined groups that are peacefully seeking a community to support our freedoms; ie. conscience, religion, beliefs; choice – Jesus came to set the captives free and that we are not to live in bondage. This can be include those being critical of the covid measures, but that is not my purpose for belonging to these groups

Question #21. Do you have any concerns about the safety of any Health Canada-approved Covid-19 vaccines?

Yes, many reports of adverse reactions and death in the last 4 months of covid vaccines alone compared to last 17 years of all vaccines according to VAERS. -Severe reactions include: Inability to conceive, heart attacks, miscarriages, strokes; bloodclots, paralysis of arms and legs, reproductive dysfunction.- No long term safety has been completed to ensure they are safe and effective.-mRNA is a new technology and side effects completely unknown – Never been licensed for human use when 0 long term studies have been competed [sic] to ensure they are safe and effective, they are still in phase 3 experiment that will not be completed until trial ends late 2022.

Interestingly, when WestJet asks a direct question about practical concerns people may have, this is used as “evidence” that their objection is a personal opinion, and not a protected ground.

WestJet has carefully reviewed your request for an accommodation, including the information listed above. For the reasons stated below, WestJet declines your request for an accommodation on the basis of religion:

• The information provided or obtained in reviewing your accommodation is insufficient to establish you require an accommodation. More specifically, the information you provided to WestJet casts doubt on religion being the grounds for your application. You have written in your application form that you consider the vaccine unsafe. It is therefore reasonable to consider that you are philosophically/personally opposed to mandatory vaccine, which means you are seeking accommodation for secular reasons, not religious. We respect your opinion, but personal preference is not a Protected Ground.

One has to wonder what kind of answer Yee was supposed to give. If she had no concerns about the shots, why wouldn’t she have just taken them?

Justice Argento Accepts Argument Termination Unnecessary

[101] First, the Plaintiff’s conduct was not insubordination or disobedience of a type where the employment relationship could not continue and the misconduct was irreconcilable with continued employment. The Plaintiff continued working after her accommodation request was denied on October 4, 2021 until she was placed on unpaid leave on November 1, 2021. She continued to meet deadlines and her manager described her performance as “professional” leading up to November 1, 2021. There was no evidence that her non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy negatively impacted the workplace, other employees or the Defendant’s trust in her ability to do her job.

[102] The Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Vaccination Policy did not impact her job performance. It did not endanger the Defendant’s employees or the public as the Plaintiff was working from home. While a future, partial return to work was anticipated, that was not yet implemented. The issue of cause must be assessed based on what was known and understood at the time of dismissal.

[104] Next, in balancing the competing interests of the parties, it is significant that dismissal was not the only option available to the Defendant. Even though the Defendant’s Vaccination Policy stipulated that anyone failing to comply would be subject to discipline up to and including termination for cause, the Defendant did not have to proceed in this fashion.

Aside from pleading the exemption issue, the Plaintiff pointed out that she had already been working remotely for several months. This presumably could continue.

Justice Argento comments that the decision to dismiss Yee was likely unnecessary in any event. This wasn’t the sort of conduct that would destroy an employment relationship, nor was it one that would result in a lost of trust.

And most importantly, it wouldn’t endanger anyone since Yee was working from home.

WestJet Plays Games With Issue Of Jurisdiction

11. While the Plaintiff references the words “wrongful dismissal” or “wrongful termination” the substance of her claim is entirely that of a human rights complaint based on allegations of discrimination; the concept of wrongful termination itself is tied to WestJet’s failure to accommodate the Plaintiff. The duty to accommodate is an obligation of employers enshrined in human rights legislation, and WestJet’s purported failure to accommodate the Plaintiff is squarely in the purview of a human rights commission. The Civil Claim even seeks general damages for the duration of the reasonable notice period, which is a remedy only available to a human rights commission as compensation for the pain and suffering caused by discrimination.

24. The Plaintiff further claims that WestJet ceded jurisdiction of this action to this Court. With all due respect, this is inaccurate. In response to the Plaintiff’s Canadian Human Rights Complaint, and prior to the Civil Claim being filed, WestJet made a preliminary objection to the complaint on the basis that it would more appropriately be addressed under the Canada Labour Code by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”). At no point has WestJet stated that this Court, or any civil court for that matter, has, or ought to have jurisdiction of a claim entirely based on an allegation of discrimination.

These passages are from the Defendants’ written submissions. For context, it’s important to realize the Yee filed a human rights complaint before suing anyone. WestJet objected, saying it would be better placed before the Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) for Arbitration. The complaint was dropped.

WestJet now complains that this lawsuit should have been filed with the Human Rights Tribunal, raising a jurisdictional issue.

While the submissions say that the preferred venue is the CIRB, this is a bit of a red herring. WestJet initially objected to jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal, so they can’t really claim that it should be there after all.

The Defendants tried to argue that at its core, this wasn’t a case about breach of contract or wrongful termination. It was about discrimination and failure to accommodate. It was unsuccessful.

Note: While WestJet is a unionized employer, not all employees and contractors are covered. Mrs. Yee wasn’t, and hence, there was no duty to grieve and seek arbitration.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

May 17th, 2010: Yee begins her employment with WestJet. At the time, she was working part time as a sales agent.

May, 2021: Yee comes back from maternity leave, and begins working remotely.

September 8th, 2021: WestJet announces their vaccination requirements.

September 20th, 2021: Yee requests a vaccine exemption.

October 4th, 2021: The request for an exemption is refused.

October 30th, 2021: The deadline imposed by WestJet for vaccination.

November 1st, 2021: Yee is placed on a month long unpaid suspension.

December 1st, 2021: Yee’s employment is terminated by WestJet, and they claim it is “with cause”.

August 15th, 2023: Yee sues WestJet in the Calgary Branch of the Alberta Court of Justice.

February 24th, 2025: Trial begins.

May 13th, 2025: Judgement is issued.

The Court declined to make an immediate decision on costs, allowing the parties the opportunity to settle them first. This may very well happen.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Yee WestJet Statement Of Claim
(2) Yee WestJet Plaintiffs Written Submissions
(3) Yee WestJet Defendants Written Submissions
(4) Yee WestJet Reasons For Decision
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abcj/doc/2025/2025abcj87/2025abcj87.html

Posted on

The Payne Appeal: What This s.2(d) Challenge Will Look Like

The Federal Government is appealing a shocking ruling from January which allowed a Proposed Class Action to proceed. Despite expectations to the contrary, Justice Richard Southcott (mostly) dismissed a Motion to Strike.

The challenge was organized by the group, Feds For Freedom. It’s comprised of 3 Representative Plaintiffs, all from different areas of the public sector.

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

They had their employment threatened in late 2021 with the introduction of the vaccine passport. Unlike earlier challenges, this one survived, due to the innovative arguments raised.

This lawsuit challenged not the mandates themselves, but the manner in which they were implemented. The case argued that there effectively were no grievance options because of this.

It’s not being hyperbolic to say this will impact employment rights at the Federal level. Either freedom of association is a valid ground to challenge such mandates, or there may not be any option at all.

What Happened With Justice Southcott’s Decision

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
Marginal note: 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 initial Motion to Strike was based on s.208 and s.236 of the FPSLRA, or the Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, employees have the right to grieve, but not to sue. This is similar to how unionized workplaces function in general.

The Statement of Claim revolved around 2 torts:

  1. Section 2(d) of the Charter, freedom of association, and
  2. Malfeasance of Public Office

First, the s.2(d) argument was that the injection pass was implemented in a heavy handed manner, without due process or meaningful consultation. As such, it circumvented any legitimate grievance process. The result is that it deprived workers of their right to freedom of association, within the context of voluntary employment.

Second, the way in which this was implemented amounted to an abuse of process and malfeasance of office by the politicians involved.

Justice Southcott accepted the first argument, that this was potentially a s.2(d) breach. However, he ruled that malfeasance was an issue that could be grieved. There was one caveat though: because there would likely be more Plaintiffs in this Class Action, it’s possible that one could be found who didn’t have that grievance right, such as a summer student.

The s.2(d) tort was allowed to proceed, while the malfeasance was struck, with Leave to Amend.

The implications are far reaching. If the s.2(d) argument was left standing, there would be precedent to prevent any such future infringements on employee rights. Unsurprisingly, the Crown appealed.

Ottawa Claims Southcott Should Have Refused Jurisdiction

28. The motion judge erred by taking jurisdiction over any aspect of the plaintiffs’ claim. First, he erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test. Instead of assessing whether the dispute related to a matter that could be grieved under the FPSLRA, he relied on the fact that a similar issue could not be grieved under the labour relations regime that was at issue in Morin. Had the motion judge rendered his decision based on the language of s. 208, he would have found it plain and obvious that the matter could be grieved regardless of whether it was characterized as a dispute over the terms and conditions of employment or a dispute over the process by which terms and conditions were changed.

29. Second, and in any event, the motion judge committed palpable and overriding errors in accepting that the essential nature of the plaintiffs’ s. 2(d) claim related only to process. He wrongly assumed that the essential character of the dispute would be different for each of the two causes of action pled. This approach was contrary to consistent appellate authority holding that a court’s characterization of the essential nature of a dispute must be based on the facts giving rise to the dispute, and not by the legal characterization of the wrong. Since none of the material facts pled related to the process by which the Vaccination Policy was adopted, it was a palpable and overriding error to conclude that that was the essential character of the dispute.

In their filings, the Government lawyers argue that the nature of the case involves changes to the terms and conditions of employment. Section 208 FPSLRA gives everyone grievance rights, so logically, implementing the vaccine mandates should be covered.

Respondents Say Justice Southcott Made No Errors

39. Southcott J. did not err by allowing the plaintiffs’ Charter claim to survive the motion to strike.
Next, Southcott J. did not commit palpable and overriding error in his consideration of the plaintiffs’ Charter claim. Indeed, he did not engage in any such analysis because the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ s. 2(d) claim was not even challenged by the appellant. The appellant’s motion materials include several references to the insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ misfeasance claim, but includes no such reference to the plaintiffs’ s. 2(d) claim

40. There is a “stringent” test for allowing new arguments on appeal: a new issue should only be considered “where [the Court] is able to do so without procedural prejudice to the opposing party and where the refusal to do so would risk an injustice.” The appellant has failed to identify any “exceptional circumstances” permitting it to challenge this cause of action for the first time on appeal. Nor has it explained how Southcott J. committed palpable and overriding error by not considering an argument that the appellant itself did not raise.

41. Further, any such arguments would have failed as the plaintiffs’ have pled an arguable Charter claim. The appellant here takes an unduly narrow view of the Claim contrary to the holistic and generous approach required in interpreting pleadings on a motion to strike.

47. As written by Southcott J., the plaintiffs alleged “that the Treasury Board acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness in issuing the Policy in that… it had no basis in fact to justify the Policy as a measure to prevent transmission of the virus.” Specifically, the Claim states that the Treasury Board mandated vaccination for the stated purpose of preventing transmission of COVID-19 but, in so doing, ignored the potential inefficacy of the vaccines, the potentially serious adverse effects, and the significant detriment that could have been suffered by the plaintiffs, among others. The incongruity between the Treasury Board’s knowledge and its stated intention is demonstrative of bad faith and/or dishonesty. Similar pleadings have been found to meet the standard of reasonable pleadings on a motion to strike.

50. Lastly, the appellant argues that leave to amend should not have been and cannot be granted in this case. Once again, the appellant reiterates its argument at the motion stage: the Claim ought to have been grieved. Southcott J. considered and rejected this argument. He found that it was plausible that the Federal Court had jurisdiction, at least over the Charter allegations, such that the Claim could survive this preliminary motion.

The Respondents take the position that Justice Southcott made no major errors with the ruling, and that the case ought to proceed.

Interestingly, the Appellants (Government) are now questioning whether or not the s.2(d) was pleaded with sufficient detail, an argument they didn’t raise at the initial hearing.

Keep in mind, this was just a Motion to Strike. It’s a look at the pleadings themselves. This isn’t meant to be a deep dive into the facts or the evidence.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 13th, 2025: Notice of Appeal is filed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in this series.

All 5 of these cases (from Ontario, B.C. and the Federal Courts) involve the Section 2(d) tort in some way. How it applies differs somewhat between them.

Payne involves employees of the Federal Government, whereas Hill involves employees of Federally regulated industries, specifically, the airlines. While unionized, WestJet and Air Canada aren’t part of the Government. The airlines don’t use the FPSLRA, and the Government lacks standing to invoke the collective bargaining agreement of other people.

These subtle, but important differences explain why Payne was appealed, but Hill wasn’t.

There’s a similar distinction between the B.C. Government employees case and the health care workers one. Likewise in Ontario, Plaintiffs aren’t directly employed by Government there either.

We’ll have to see how Payne plays out, but this case could easily end up before the Supreme Court. It’s not an exaggeration to say that there will be long lasting implications on employment rights, at least at the Federal level.

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025
(3) Payne Agreement To Contents Of Appeal Book February 2025
(4) Payne Joint Appeal Book March 2025
(5) Payne Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law April 2025
(6) Payne Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law May 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) Payne Transcript Of Southcott Hearing December 2024
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.pdf
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.html

Posted on

Discontinued: Client Forced To Abandon Injection Pass Case After Leighton Withdraws

A former employee at Canadian Natural Resources Limited (or CNRL) dropped his lawsuit, which had been filed in Calgary. Bradley Miles did so as a self-representing litigant, despite previously having counsel.

At least the Notice of Discontinuance was done on a “without cost” basis. That means that he won’t have to pay the lawyers for CNRL. He’s still out whatever fees he paid to his own lawyer, and the money he lost from being terminated, or at least, suspended without pay.

This brings to 10 (and counting) vaccine passport cases Grey has commenced, only to have dropped or abandoned. The search results are still coming in

CNRL Claims Miles Was Offered His Job Back

In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff states that he should be entitled to return to work in the same position he was previously in.

12. On December 2, 2021, Canadian Natural sent the Plaintiff a letter warning him that he was non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and that, effective December 1, 2021, his site access was suspended with pay. The Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to provide proof that he had received a second dose of an approved COVID-19 vaccine by December 21, 2021, he would continue to be non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and would be suspended without pay.

13. On December 22, 2021, the Plaintiff was suspended without pay due to his continued non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy.

14. On or around March 15, 2022, in response to the reduced number of COVID-19 cases in Alberta, and the Alberta government’s easing or removing public health protocols in respect of COVID-19, Canadian Natural sent a letter to employees on unpaid suspension for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy, including the Plaintiff, advising that Canadian Natural was ending certain COVID-19 measures effective April 4, 2022, including the requirement that Workers be fully vaccinated. The Plaintiff was notified that his unpaid suspension would end effective April 4, 2022, and that he was required to return to his work location and role at Canadian Natural on that date.

15. In that letter, Canadian Natural asked employees to indicate whether they intended to return to work at Canadian Natural. Canadian Natural did not receive a response from the Plaintiff regarding his intention, or lack thereof, to return to work. Rather than return to work, the Plaintiff commenced his claim against Canadian Natural.

16. As of April 4, 2022, employees previously suspended without pay for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy were returned to work by Canadian Natural to their same position.

In their Statement of Defence, CNRL claims that Miles was offered his position back in April 2022, but he didn’t respond. Instead, he sued the company in September 2022. But since the case was dropped, we won’t know for sure what the full truth is.

“Poison Pills” Slipped Into Statement Of Claim

E. Criminal Assault
44. Forcing a medical intervention on employees under threat of loss of livelihood is a clear violation of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) which states in part:

265(1) A person commits an assault when
(a) Without consent of another person he applies force intentionally to the person directly or indirectly..
265(3) For the purposes of this Section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of…
(d) The exercise of authority. [emphasis added]

45. Forcing employees to be vaccinated under threat of loss of livelihood is a violation of the CCC. Every member of the CNRL Board who supports the Policy supports the criminal assault of his or her fellow employees and coworkers.

Like many of Leighton’s cases, he includes content that makes explicitly criminal allegations. He knows — or ought to know — that this cannot be adjudicated in a CIVIL proceeding. In fact, the Statement of Claim would have been struck for this alone.

The claim also goes on to argue what would better be described as “expert evidence”. This doesn’t belong in the initial pleadings, and would come later.

Shouldn’t a King’s Counsel/Queen’s Counsel lawyer know better?

Timeline Of This CNRL Case

September 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in Calgary.

March 2023: Statement of Defence is filed.

November 2024: The case is discontinued.

According to the information provided by the Alberta Courts, there doesn’t seem to have been any real urgency to move the case along. It never got past the initial pleadings.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. ***August 9th, 2023: Grey discontinues Helgeton v. FWS Holdings
  8. ***January 19th, 2024: Grey discontinues Hamonic v. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  9. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  10. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  11. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.
  12. November 29th, 2024: Grey abandons Bradley Miles in his CNR case

***Note: since the original publication, another 2 cases in Manitoba were added, bringing the total to 12. There may very well be more.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter. This specific case doesn’t invoke an arbitration requirement as a defence, but most do.

Strange, isn’t it? The “alternative” media will announce all kinds of new lawsuits being filed. However, they very rarely will report on how they end.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Miles Statement Of Claim September 2022
(2) Miles Statement Of Defence March 2023
(3) Miles Notice Of Discontinuance November 2024

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress