Category: s.2(d)

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

BCPSEF And UHCWBC Certification Hearings In A Week Over s.2(d) Violations

During the week of April 28th to May 2nd, 2025, the fates of 2 Proposed Class Actions are to be determined in a Victoria Court. These are on behalf of B.C. public sector employees, and B.C. health care workers, both current and former. Their employment was threatened by injection mandates a few years ago.

The British Columbia Supreme Court will hear both: (a) Applications to Certify; and (b) Applications to Strike. The decisions will almost certainly be deferred until later.

The groups organizing and arranging funding are: (a) BCPSEF, B.C. Public Service Employees for Freedom; and (b) UHCWBC, United Health Care Workers of B.C.

Because of the overlap in the cases, they’ll be argued at the same time. This is often done to save time and money for everyone involved.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and especially 5. These cases are all very similar.

Application To Strike BCPSEF Claim Entirely

5. The plaintiff was a unionized employee of the Province within the BC Public Service. At all material times, his employment was subject to the collective agreement between his union, the B.C. General Employees’ Union (the “GEU”), and his employer, the Province.

9. On January 11, 2022, the GEU filed a grievance on behalf of the plaintiff, challenging the Province’s decision to put him on leave without pay. On August 15, 2022, the GEU notified the plaintiff that it was withdrawing his grievance because the GEU had determined the grievance did not have a reasonable chance of success.

21. Jurisdiction in this case is determined through the “essential character” framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Weber v. Ontario Hydro. The central question is whether the cause of action arises “from the interpretation, application or alleged violation of the [plaintiff’s] collective agreement”. Plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration by pleading causes of action or wrongs which are typically adjudicated outside the labour relations process. Rather, the central focus of the analysis is the facts of the complaint, not the legal form in which the complaint is advanced. Accordingly, Charter and tort claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator if their “essential character” relates to the interpretation and application of a collective agreement.

22. The connection between the dispute and collective agreement does not need to be explicit or direct. Rather, defendants need only establish that the dispute arises “inferentially” out of the collective agreement to have it struck under Rule 21-8. This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s direction to adopt “a liberal position” under which the legislative intention to grant labour arbitrators “broad exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to conditions of employment” is given effect.

The B.C Government is asking that the Baldwin case (BCPS) be thrown out on the grounds that grievance structure provides for an alternative remedy. Consequently, the Courts have no jurisdiction.

This is essentially the same arguments that Payne (Feds4Freedom) made in Federal Court, and that case survived a Motion to Strike. In fairness, it is currently under appeal. This isn’t to say that either Payne or Baldwin are hopeless, but this is something to consider.

In their response, BCPS stated that: “The Plaintiffs allege that the Impugned Order and Regulation imposed terms on the Plaintiffs’ employment that were contrary to (and indeed uncontemplated by) the relevant collective agreements.” In short, the manner in which this was handled falls far outside the scope of any grievance scheme available.

Essentially, it’s a re-argument of the Payne case. If the employer (namely, Government) unilaterally changes conditions of employment and circumvents the grievance system, are workers still expected to follow it?

Application To Strike UHCWBC Claim Entirely

17. This action is an abuse of process for two reasons.
18. First, the plaintiffs are attempting to usurp the roles of their unions. Unionized employees give up certain individual rights in exchange for certain collective powers exercisable through unions. The issues raised in this action could have been, and in some instances were, raised by unions through the mandatory grievance and arbitration processes set out in the relevant collective agreements. Many of those grievances have now been settled. To the extent that unions have settled grievances filed by the plaintiffs or putative class members, the issues raised by those grievances are res judicata and it is abusive for the plaintiffs to attempt to re-litigate them in this action. If the plaintiffs (or any putative class members) are dissatisfied with how their unions have handled or settled their grievances, their remedy is a fair representation complaint under s. 12 of the Labour Relations Code.

24. Dealing first with the inducing breach of contract claim, one element of this tort is, of course, a breach of contract. To succeed in his inducing breach of contract claim against the PHO and Province, Mr. Ferguson would have to show (among other things) that his employer, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, breached the collective agreement between the Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association and HEABC by suspending him without pay and terminating his employment. Ms. Perepolkin would have to show that her employer, the Interior Health Authority, breached the collective agreement between the Health Sciences Association and HEABC.

The B.C Government is also asking that the health care workers case be thrown out as well. It raises somewhat different issues.

The Government argues that the Representative Plaintiffs (Ferguson and Perepolkin), should have grieved through their respective unions against the employers.

But here’s where things get interesting: The Provincial Government isn’t the employer. They can’t invoke collective bargaining agreements they aren’t part of. Instead, the Claim accuses them of inducing a breach of contract of third parties. In other words, they meddled in someone ELSE’S business.

In the Hill case (FreeToFly), the Motion to Strike was dismissed because of this distinction. It was never appealed, and is soon to face its own certification hearings.

Things *might* be trickier since Ferguson and Perepolkin have already settled their cases internally. That said, it doesn’t remove the fact that their employment was messed with in the first place. And again, the Province isn’t the employer.

Certification Applications For Both BCPSEF And UHCWBC

Both BCPSEF and UHCWBC have submitted their Certification Applications. Other Affidavits were subsequently filed in support.

For most lawsuits, all of the parties are named at the start. Class Actions differ significantly because they allow many more Plaintiffs (and sometimes Defendants) to be added later. Here, a Judge must be satisfied that the Representative Plaintiff(s) speaks for a class of people, or classes. Also, it must be demonstrated that such litigation would be an effective way of dealing with all these claims at once.

These hearings aren’t to try the case. Instead, they’re to convince the Court that such a proceeding should be allowed to go ahead.

The Government raises the usual objections over abuse of process, and some new ones. Specifically, these cases might overlap with the CSASPP Proposed Class Action that has been under reserve for 2 years now. Another possible conflict is with a case called Ferguson. Hopefully, that can be resolved.

Questions are also raised about potential lack of common issues, and the feasibility of taking on such cases.

There is a joint response for both BCPSEF and UHCWEF, and an interesting read.

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

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

Given that Hill and Payne both survived initial challenges in Federal Court, this is promising. Of course, there’s no guarantee of what this Judge will do.

We’ll have to see at the end of April.

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

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

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

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

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

UHCWO COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Wolfs Draft Statement Of Claim
(2) Wolfs Statement Of Claim August 2024

Posted on

UHCWO Files Proposed Class Action Over s.2(d) Violations

Back in August, a Proposed Class Action was filed in Oshawa (Durham). This had to do with health care workers who were forced from their jobs over the injection mandates. The Representative Plaintiff, Lisa Wolfs, had been terminated, despite being medically cleared to work.

UHCWO, or United Health Care Workers of Ontario, is the group behind this case. They posted a draft version of the Statement of Claim, but the filed one is available to read.

The case centers around the idea that the Government interfered with employment relations, by inducing a breach of contract. For Wolf, she is a member of the Ontario Nurses Association, and part of their collective bargaining agreement. It’s a now familiar theme from Umar Sheikh, which has had some success in Federal Court.

Here, the labour agreement is between: (a) Wolfs, as an employee; (b) the ONA; and (c) London Health Sciences Centre, the employer. This matters as the Ontario Government is not a party to the contract. Hence, they can’t ask the Court to strike the case for lack of jurisdiction.

UHCWO Is Another s.2(d), Freedom Of Association Case

These particular arguments have been made before, with some success.

Tortious Inducement to Breach Contractual Relation
.
37. The Plaintiff and Class Members plead that the Order was issued in bad faith as:
a. The stated objectives of the Order were either known or could reasonable be known to be unachievable and therefore false;
b. The risks of adverse harm as a result of complying with the Order was either known to the CMOH or the CMOH acted with reckless indifference to the harm or willful blindness; and
c. The Order mandated vaccinations that did not prevent transmission of COVID-19 and such fact was either known to the CMOH, or the CMOH acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness resulting in foreseeable harm.

38. The Order introduced new terms and conditions for continued employment which were not negotiated nor contemplated under the Contract.

39. The Plaintiff and Class Members have either refused to share their vaccination status or are otherwise unvaccinated and thus did not conform to the Order and were placed on leave without pay, effectively a suspension, and some were subsequently terminated from employment.

40. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that the following actions taken by Provincially regulated Healthcare facilities (“the Employers”) were in breach of their contractual employment agreements and induced by the Order:
a. Disclosure of private medical information;
b. Being placed on a leave without pay; and
c. Termination of their employment.

41. Ms. Wolfs pleads that mandating COVID-19 vaccinations and terminating her employment constituted a breach of the ONA Agreement.

42. The Plaintiff and Class Members state that at all material times, their employment contracts were valid and binding upon their Employers. As their Employers have unlawfully purported to suspend or terminate the Plaintiff and Class Members’ contractual agreements and have refused to pay the sums owing to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Employers are in breach of their contractual employment agreements.

43. As the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Defendant was aware of the existence of the contractual employment agreements when he decided to issue the Order.

44. The Plaintiff and Class Members allege that the Defendants intended to and caused and/or induced the Employers to breach contractual employment agreements by their actions in relation to: the disclosure of private medical information; imposition of a leave without pay;

Section s.2(d) of the Charter is the freedom of association provision. The argument here is that the Government meddling with employment contracts of other people violated their right to do business together. Presumably, none of these hospitals would have fired anyone, except for this interference.

Currently, Sheikh and Wood have 5 Proposed Class Actions:

  • Payne (Federal)
  • Hill/Free To Fly (Federal)
  • B.C. Public Sector Employees for Freedom
  • United Health Care Workers of B.C
  • United Health Care Workers of Ontario

Payne is under appeal after surviving a Motion to Strike.
Hill survived a Motion to Strike, making minor amendments.
The 2 B.C. cases will have Applications to Strike and Certify heard together.
The Ontario case has just the Statement of Claim.

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

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

Despite the similarities, there are 2 important differences.

First is the jurisdiction. There are 2 Federal cases, 2 in B.C., and 1 in Ontario. It changes how quickly the cases can be moved along, and has considerable cost consequences for litigants. Given that Ontario is the most expensive, it makes sense to let that proceed last.

Second, there’s a divide in the arguments that are being made. Payne and BCPSEF both involve Government workers. They’re arguing that their employer breached their contracts. By contrast, Free To Fly, UHCWO and UHCWBC argue that the Government induced a breach of contract by third parties, namely their respective employers. This puts the latter group in a stronger position, since union agreements cannot be invoked by non-parties.

Payne is a wild card for another reason. Although the case survived a Motion to Strike, Ottawa has since appealed that decision. It could very easily end up at the Supreme Court of Canada.

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

Although Wolfs/UHCWO and Dorceus both revolve around vaccine passports, and the medical profession in Ontario, their set up is night-and-day different.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background information on Dorceus.

(a) UHCWO sues only the Ontario Government, and Kieran Moore, the Chief Medical Officer of Health. While health care workers are routinely unionized, it’s with a hospital or clinic. Collective bargaining agreements are between: (I) the employee; (II) the union; and (III) the employer. Since the Government presumably isn’t a party to any such contract, they have no standing to assert any arbitration requirement.

(b) UHCWO centers its case around tortious inducement to breach contractual relations, along with malfeasance and Section 2(d) of the Charter, or freedom of association. These are torts that a Civil Court can in fact address. There’s none of the: International Criminal Court; Nuremberg Code; Helsinki Declaration; crimes against humanity, etc… that plagued Dorceus.

(c) UCHWO is quite clearly structured as an employment claim. It’s primary grievance is wrongful termination, albeit, instigated by outside parties. Dorceus is just a toned down version of the Action4Canada suit, struck as “bad beyond argument”.

(d) UHCWO is set up as a Proposed Class Action. This is a much more efficient option when dealing with hundreds — or even thousands — of potential Plaintiffs. And that leads to the next point:

(e) UHCWO pleads facts about its Representative Plaintiff, Lisa Wolfs. While brief, there’s enough background information provided to understand her situation. That doesn’t happen (at all) in Dorceus, for any Plaintiff.

(f) UHCWO provides enough particulars (details) about malfeasance that the case should be okay. However, it doesn’t drift into full conspiracy mode like Dorceus does.

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

In order to be certified as a Class Action, a Judge will need to be convinced that this is a viable option. One of the considerations is whether there will be enough money set aside to see it through. That is an open question.

After years of defective cases brought forward by Galati, Grey, Christensen, and others, it may be hard to convince others to participate, or even to donate. No one wants to be involved if they think there’s gross incompetence, or deliberate sabotage. There’s understandably fatigue in all of this.

It would be nice to see at least one case get to Trial.

Yes, this site is endlessly critical of shoddy filings. However, the ones mentioned here are well written, and advance arguments that are capable of being adjudicated. Being Class Actions, there’s potential to get justice for many, many people. CSASPP, still under reserve, gets an honourable mention.

UHCWO GENERAL LINKS:
(1) https://uhcwo.ca/
(2) https://x.com/uhcwo

UHCWO COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Wolfs Draft Statement Of Claim
(2) Wolfs Statement Of Claim August 2024

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025

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

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

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

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

Posted on

BCPSEF And UHCWBC Certification Hearings To Take Place In April Over s.2(d) Violations

At the end of April, 2 groups are expected to begin their certification hearings at the British Columbia Supreme Court. These are: BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, and UHCWBC, the United Health Care Workers of BC. These are Proposed Class Action lawsuits filed in October 2023 challenging the injection mandates.

The idea behind Class Actions is simple: it can reduce a significant amount of time and expense to “bundle” related litigants into a single challenge.

The lawyer, Umar Sheikh, is trying to convince the Court that their clients’ Section 2(d) Charter Rights were infringed. This is — of course — freedom of association — and it’s become their signature tort. He’s had some success so far.

It’s worth mentioning that there’s strong parallels between these suits and the Payne and Hill cases. They were filed by the same lawyers, and make essentially the same arguments. Both of those survived an initial challenge, although Payne is currently under Appeal. All of them are Proposed Class Actions.

CASE NAMES PAYNE/BCPSEF HILL/UHCWBC
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Payne Hill
Filed in B.C.? BCPSEF UHCWBC
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

Collective bargaining agreements are typically fatal, due to the issue of whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. Usually, Arbitration is called for. But that doesn’t apply when the party being sued isn’t the employer. In the Hill and UHCWBC cases, the respective Governments are accusing of meddling with other people’s employment.

This removes the potentially strongest initial challenge.

BCPS Employees for Freedom Society, Wrongful Termination

54. The Plaintiff’s plead that the Order constitutes an improper and unjustified imposition by the Defendant of a new term and condition of employment absent collective bargaining memoranda of agreement, consideration, or consent to their existing and freely negotiated employment agreements and as such violates their protected right under s. 2d of the Charter.

It’s been a longstanding defence raised by various Governments in wrongful termination cases: there’s a grievance option available, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction. That said, the argument here is that any grievance process was circumvented by unilaterally imposing changes of employment agreements. If there’s no opportunity for meaningful consultation, how can the internal processes be used?

Up until Payne, various Governments had been entirely successful arguing that there was no way around those agreements. But the logic applied here seems so basic.

Both cases here also argue that the Plaintiffs’ freedom of association rights were violated, and it applies whether or not the Government is the employer.

United Health Care Workers, Inducement To Breach Contract

58. The Plaintiffs and Class Members allege that the Defendants intended to and caused and/or induced the Employers to breach contractual employment agreements by their actions in relation to: the disclosure of private medical information; imposition of a leave without pay; and/or unlawful termination by ordering the Employers to enforce the Orders absent justification. The breaches of contractual employment agreements are therefore a direct result of the unlawful inducement of the breach as herein before particularized and as a result of unlawful interference by the Defendants in the contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs, Class Members and their Employers.

This differs from the above case since the health care workers aren’t directly for the Government. Instead, they had their employment terminated by their employers such as hospitals, because of the injection mandates that were handed down. This is a subtle, but important distinction.

Certification Hearings To Determine Viability Of Class Action(s)

A common misconception is that these hearings are to determine the merits of the Plaintiffs’ respective cases. That’s not really accurate.

Instead, the purpose is to determine whether or not there’s an overall interest in proceeding with such a case. Essentially, the lawyers have to “sell” the idea that they have the ability and plan to see it through. It’s more about the nuts and bolts of such an undertaking, rather than trying the matter. The ability to finance and sustain a prolonged lawsuit will also be an issue.

The Representative Plaintiffs (a.k.a. Token Plaintiffs) are taking a significant risk as well. Should a Claim not be certified, they can be held personally responsible for Court costs. Those can be expensive.

Should either case be certified, it would pretty much close off opportunities to bring related claims for similar classes of people. This is partly why the Court needs to ensure these ones are serious.

Applications to Strike have also been filed in both cases, which is not a surprise. Those presumably will be heard at the same time.

BCPSEF and UHCWBC have both brought forward their Notices, and more documents are expected to be filed.

Hopefully, it goes more efficiently than the CSASPP hearings. Decisions on Certification, and an Application to Strike have been under reserve for nearly 2 years now.

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025

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

GENERAL LINKS:
(1) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/
(2) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/media-release-plaintiff-launches-class-action-lawsuit/
(3) https://x.com/bcpsef
(4) https://unitedtogether.ca/
(5) https://unitedtogether.ca/faq-classaction/
(6) https://x.com/UHCWBC

Posted on

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

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

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

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

What The Further Amended Claim Will Include

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

Torts that will be pursued in the Amended Claim:

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

Torts that will not be pursued in the Amended Claim:

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

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

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

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

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

Subtle Differences Between Hill And Payne Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s nice to report a success for once.

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

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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress