Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Adelberg Amended: “Wrongful Termination” Claim Alleges Arbitrary Detainment

Today we get a 3-in-1: Adelberg, Action4Canada and Dorceus.

The infamous Adelberg Federal case has finally been amended. There’s quite the story behind it.

Readers have commented at times asking why this subject is covered to such a degree. In short: it’s a multimillion dollar grift that is still ongoing. Desperate clients and donors are still being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers. No one else reports on it.

While the main focus here is on Adelberg, the others will be briefly discussed as well.

February, 2023: the Federal Court struck the case in its entirety as “bad beyond argument”. Furthermore, the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs (members of the Government) were barred because of a grievance requirement. However, the Schedule “B” Plaintiffs (those in Federally regulated industries) could at least theoretically refile.

June, 2024: the Federal Court of Appeal did something interesting. Although the suit was primarily about employment, it ruled EVERYONE could technically bring travel claims, despite them likely being moot. It also tentatively allowed the RCMP Plaintiffs to proceed with employment claims for the time being. It did confirm that the initial filing was grossly deficient, inadequately pleaded, and “bad beyond argument”.

January, 2025: the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an Appeal that would allow the Schedule “A” Plaintiffs to file employment claims.

September, 2025: The remaining Plaintiffs file a new Statement of Claim. Aside from minor tweaks, it’s basically the same as before. That said, there is a 100 page “Schedule” attached. It includes: (a) names; (b) birthdates; (c) employment dates; (d) vaccination status; and (e) if any travel claims are being advanced. It still falls far short of the necessary information to proceed.

***Note: to prevent doxing, the personal information in the “Schedule” will not be published.

Aside from the bare-bones nature of the information, it’s now only being provided in September, 2025. The original Claim was filed in May, 2022. And it still covers less than half of the remaining Plaintiffs. Why wasn’t client information sought out 4 years ago?

But that is only the beginning of the problems here.

“Wrongful Termination” Suit Alleges Arbitrary Detention

At its core, Adelberg is a mass Tort for wrongful termination. It claimed that some 600+ Federal employees and employees of Federally regulated industries were fired or forced out for refusing vaccination. There were also vague claims about travel rights being infringed.

However, for some unknown reason, counsel has decided to plead that Plaintiffs’ Section 9 Charter rights were also violated in the process. This is the prohibition against arbitrary arrest or detention.

The Statement of Claim is very disjointed, so it’s hard to follow at times. But it appears to state that requiring the injection pass to obtain goods or services, or to travel, amounts to arbitrary detention. Apparently it violated Plaintiffs’ rights to address this by way of habeas corpus.

***Apologies for not catching it before, as it was in the earlier version. However, there were so many flaws that it got overlooked.

The pleading goes off on tangents about topics unrelated to work or travel. Despite those being the priorities, they receive little attention.

Lawsuit Fails To IDENTIFY All Plaintiffs

There are 46 “John Does” in the Statement of Claim, and another 23 “Jane Does”. Quite literally, there are dozens of Plaintiffs asking for money who refuse to identify themselves. Amusingly, it includes 17 current and former police officers who won’t give their names.

As should be obvious, this is complete nonsense.

Amended Claim Doesn’t Plead Necessary Facts Or Particulars

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
Alberta Rule 13.6 Rule 13.7
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)

Frequent readers will have seen this chart.

“Pleading facts” means laying out who said or did what, when and where. It doesn’t mean arguing caselaw, or trying to test evidence.

“Pleading particulars” is required when Plaintiffs are alleging fraud, malice, malfeasance, etc… There’s an extra burden to spell out the nature of the allegation.

No Facts Pleaded For s.2(a) Freedom Of Religion Torts

Despite the sweeping declarations, not a single Plaintiff actually pleads any detail about how their religious freedoms were violated with introduction of vaccine mandates. This tort has specific elements to plead, and it’s not optional.

(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

No Facts Pleaded For s.6, Mobility Rights Torts

Despite allegations that travel and mobility rights had been violated, no Plaintiff specifies any instance of this happening. This is regardless of whether international travel, s.6(1), or interprovincial travel, s.6(2) is considered. No one pleads either tort.

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

No Facts Pleaded For s.7, Security Of The Person Torts

No Plaintiff pleads any facts to establish that their safety was in danger from these mandates. It’s worth pointing out that Courts have consistently refused to find “practicing a specific profession” as worthy of s.7 protections. This dates back to the 1990s. Unsurprisingly, lawyers argue torts they know will be thrown out.

(1) Plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person, and
(2) the claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

No Facts Pleaded For s.9, Arbitrary Detention/Imprisonment Torts

As stated earlier, there’s no indication that any Plaintiffs are claiming that they were detained, let alone arbitrarily. This tort doesn’t apply in the context of wrongful dismissal. Supposedly it applies when dealing with people obtaining goods or services, or travelling, but it’s not explained how.

(1) Plaintiff must have been detained or imprisoned, and
(2) that detainment or imprisonment must have been arbitrary

No Facts Pleaded For s.15, Equality Rights Torts

Not a single Plaintiff pleads any facts that they were subjected to any humiliating or dehumanizing treatment from their “unvaccinated” status. Theoretically, it may be able to get it added as an “analogous ground”, but counsel makes no effort to do that.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

ENUMERATED GROUND ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter Recognized By Courts
Race Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin Marital Status
Colour Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion Citizenship
Sex –
Age –
Mental/Physical Disability –

(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

No Facts Pleaded For Miscellaneous Torts

There are several general torts included in the Statement of Claim.
(a) Malfeasance of public office
(b) Intimidation (through 3rd parties)
(c) Conspiracy
(d) Intentional infliction of mental anguish

However, there’s still the same problem. Not a single Plaintiff pleads anything that would theoretically support such claims advancing. The “Schedule” attached covers less than half the Plaintiffs, and is limited to:

  • Name
  • Employer
  • Birthdate
  • Date employment started
  • Date required to take injections
  • Date sent home without pay
  • Date fired or resigned
  • Damages (if quantifiable)
  • Travel restrictions

There’s nothing to indicate what religious beliefs any of the Plaintiffs follow, and how they were impacted. There’s nothing specific outlining any travel plans that were disrupted. No one describes how the security of their bodies was threatened if they refused. There’s no information that clearly explains how any tort is engaged.

And of course, no Plaintiff alleges details of arbitrary arrest.

The Claim still fails to include nearly all of the required information. For all the declarations of a “conspiracy”, there’s very little concrete information to go off of. From a procedural point of view, Defendants need to know what they are being accused of.

Now, let’s move on to the other cases: Action4Canada and Dorceus.

Action4Canada Faces Another Application To Strike

In August, 2022, Action4Canada’s pleading was struck as “bad beyond argument“. Then it was appealed, unsuccessfully, for no coherent reason. Now, there is a shorter version available, but the same problems remain.

(1) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike VIHA
(2) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Kwok Translink
(3) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Federal Defendants
(4) A4C Amended Claim Application To Strike Provincial Defendants

Dorceus Appeal Will Go Absolutely Nowhere

December, 2024, a massive healthcare workers case in Ontario was struck as “bad beyond argument“. All claims against the Government and unionized employers were completely struck, though the non-union ones could be sued individually.

While this is being appealed, it seems unlikely to change anything.

(1) Dorceus Appellants Factum
(2) Dorceus AG Respondents Factum

Limitation Period Expires For CSASPP Defamation Appeal

As an aside, the 60 day limitation period has lapsed to seek permission to appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada. Free speech prevails here.

Frivolous Cases Waste Donor/Client Money

These grift lawsuits date back to 2020, and continue to waste time, money and energy. Filing Claims that fail to meet any basic level of professionalism does no one any favours — except Government officials.

Appealing, instead of amending, doesn’t help clients. It only works to delay and derail opportunities to hold people accountable.

Is there merit to the Plaintiffs’ demands? Quite likely, yes. When they say they were forced out of their jobs, or prohibited from travelling, most (if not all) are telling the truth. On the surface, there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of any of them.

That said, these pleadings are so poorly written that none of these cases will ever get to Trial. It is entirely the fault of the people drafting the papers.

And groups like The Democracy Fund and JCCF are publicly silent about all this.

But there is a solution: go after lawyers’ insurance money.

(1) Adelberg Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim NO SCHEDULE

Posted on

Bill S-224: Lowering The Burden To Prosecute Human Trafficking (Died In Last Session)

Senator Salma Ataullahjan introduced Bill S-224 back in late 2021. It cleared the Senate, and Second Reading in the House of Commons. In fact, it came very close to getting passed.

Put simply, it would have amended the Criminal Code to make it easier for police to lay charges in cases of suspected human trafficking. It would have removed an element of the offence — fear for one’s safety — thus lowering the burden. There was a surprisingly vocal set of opponents fighting against it.

Broadly speaking, “trafficking” would fall into 2 major categories: (a) sex work, such as pornography or prostitution; or (b) forced labour in general. Participants in the 2023 study focused on the former.

***It’s true that this Bill died when the last session of Parliament ended. That being said, legislation that doesn’t advance is often brought back at later times. This may be one such case.

What Would Bill S-224 Actually Change?

Exploitation
279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

Factors
279.04 (2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.

The proposed Bill S-224 would remove the requirement that victims fear for their safety if they don’t comply with the demands.

Exploitation
279.‍04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.‍01 to 279.‍03, a person exploits another person if they engage in conduct that
(a) causes the other person to provide or offer to provide labour or a service; and
(b) involves, in relation to any person, the use or threatened use of force or another form of coercion, the use of deception or fraud, the abuse of a position of trust, power or authority, or any other similar act.
(2) Subsection 279.‍04(2) of the Act is repealed.

Critics claim that taking out that requirement will make it easier for police to charge third parties for the so-called “legitimate” work they may be involved with.

Opposition To S-224 Framed As “Protecting Rights”

Some of the “solutions” being proposed are:

  • Reject Bill S-224 in its entirety.
  • Decriminalize/legalize sex work.
  • Support non-carceral forms of safety, including decent and affordable housing for all, restorative and transformative justice initiatives, and community-based anti-violence programs geared toward preventing gendered violence and supporting survivors.
  • Invest in community initiatives run by and for people working in the sex industry that are non directive and based in human rights, and not focused on “exiting” sex work. Programs contingent on people stopping or “exiting” sex work or that have eligibility requirements fail to address the complexity of sex workers’ lives.
  • Invest in Indigenous community initiatives, migrant worker community initiatives, and youth based initiatives that furnish people with networks of community support that undercut the precarity and vulnerability that place people in vulnerable situations.
  • Ensure full and permanent immigration status for all in Canada, without exception.

Advocates who oppose Bill S-224 are quick to point out that sex work isn’t necessarily exploitative by nature. They then go on to demand housing for all, and immigration status for all.

Bill S-224 Opposed By Ford Government

Bizarrely, one of the strongest opponents is the Ontario Government, currently headed by Doug Ford.

Keep in mind, Ford had no problem spending endless amounts of money a few years back. He sent the police to shut down businesses, enforce stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc…. But his administration objects to changes of law that would make it easier to pursue human traffickers.

In their brief to Parliament, it’s lamented how the inevitable legal challenges would be wasteful, and a poor use of taxpayer money. It’s rationalized that because the current laws are constitutional, they don’t need to be tweaked.

Overall, this is a very strange hill to die on. One would think that special interest groups would be fighting for more aggressive laws to jail such people. Considering the focus on how much exploitation there is in immigrant and poorer communities, wouldn’t such changes be welcomed?

Sure, other groups sent in brief in support of S-224, but they’re not the concern.

It’s worth mentioning that organizations opposing this Bill receive taxpayer subsidies.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640
(5) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230612/-1/39495?gefdesc=&startposition=20230612164645
(6) Bill S-224 Brief Butterfly HIV Legal
(7) Bill S-224 Brief CASWLR
(8) Bill S-224 Brief Joint Criminologists
(9) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Government
(10) Bill S-224 Brief Ontario Native Women
(11) Bill S-224 Brief Vincent Wong
(12) Bill S-224 Brief West Coast LEAF

Private Member Bills In PREVIOUS Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19.1) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(19.2) Bill S-210: Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Restrictions
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Boulachanis: Murderer, Trafficker And Escapee Sent To Women’s Prison

It’s bad enough that male convicts can simply game the system to ensure they’re placed with women. It seems that even being a convicted murderer, a narcotics trafficker, or having a history of escaping isn’t necessarily enough to prevent it. Nor are allegations of sexual assault while in custody. Regardless of circumstances, women simply don’t have rights to assert.

This covers John Boulachanis, who now goes by Jamie Boulachanis. He had previously been involved in drug trafficking, and murdered an accomplice he feared would turn him in.

Bagnald, Blackplume and Patterson were looked at previously.

In a convoluted decision, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court allowed him to be transferred, at least until the issue was finally worked out. However, the Federal Court of Appeal stayed that decision.

Boulachanis Is Murderer With Previous Escape

[17] Upon her return to Canada, Ms. Boulachanis was charged with first‑degree murder and detained in provincial custody. In 2013, she managed to escape while being transported in a prison van, but was caught soon after. After going through a metal detector, she handed over saw blades, handcuff keys and part of a screwdriver hidden in her body cavities. In 2015, a search of her cell turned up a variety of objects and instruments that could be used to escape, including braided ropes, handmade handcuffs and tools. She was also convicted of obstructing justice for inducing witnesses to lie during her murder trial.

From Justice Grammond’s own reasons, Boulachanis had escaped custody previously, and had the tools to do so another time. He was still allowed to be in a women’s jail. Additionally, he had fled the country, and was only apprehended when he returned.

According to the Federal Court, Boulachanis lived under false identities in Greece, the United States, and elsewhere in Canada. Another reason to view him as a security risk.

Tortured Logic Coming From Federal Court

[30] To determine whether Ms. Boulachanis presented a strong prima facie case, it can be helpful to begin by reviewing the positions of the parties. Ms. Boulachanis’s position is straightforward: keeping her in a men’s institution is discriminatory, and in addition, this violates the interim policy. Since she is legally a woman, she has the strict right to be accommodated in a women’s institution.

[31] On the contrary, the Attorney General’s argument is based on the exception that appears in the interim policy. He argues that Ms. Boulachanis’s case, because of her high risk of escape, raises “overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved.” The decision to keep Ms. Boulachanis in a men’s institution would be the result of weighing her right to equality against the objectives of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [the CCRA], namely those regarding public safety. Citing the decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 [Doré], the Attorney General argues that the outcome of this weighing exercise was reasonable.

[35] In our society, certain facilities or areas are often reserved for men or for women. Reconciling these deeply entrenched practices with the right to equality of trans people often raises challenges. Nevertheless, there is prima facie discrimination when a trans person is forced to use facilities reserved for people of their anatomical sex, when they do not correspond to their gender identity or expression: see, for example, Sheridan and Kavanagh. Such an approach is consistent with a perspective based on individual autonomy in gender identity and expression.

[36] Thus, Ms. Boulachanis was subject to prima facie discrimination because of her gender identity or expression, given that she was denied a transfer to a women’s institution, even though that is what corresponds to her current gender identity and expression and the designation of sex that now appears on her act of birth. That was also the conclusion of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Kavanagh, at paragraph 141. The interim policy the Service adopted in December 2017 was also based on the idea that respecting the right to equality of trans people required that their choice to be in a men or women’s institution be respected.

[37] Ms. Boulachanis was also subject to prima facie discrimination from another perspective. While all inmates undergo a risk assessment to determine their security classification, it is only in the case of trans women inmates that the Service use this assessment to deny them the possibility of being accommodated in a women’s institution. A cisgender woman who presented just as great a risk as Ms. Boulachanis would automatically be sent to a women’s institution. That is another reason for a finding of prima facie discrimination.

[40] In this case, the Attorney General is not claiming that the simple presence of trans women in women’s institutions would cause undue hardship. It appears that the adoption of the interim policy, which clearly provides for this presence, implicitly set aside the arguments that, more than fifteen years ago, led to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s finding in Kavanagh, at paragraphs 155–160.

[41] What the Attorney General is arguing is that accommodating trans women inmates in a women’s institution must be subject to an assessment of the level of risk to health and safety. To justify this condition that would be applied only to trans women inmates, the Attorney General strongly insists on the fact that men and women’s institutions do not meet the same security requirements. In particular, the evidence clearly shows that the construction standards are different and that the use of firearms to ensure safety is prohibited in all women’s institutions, whereas it is allowed in men’s institutions, depending on their security level. These differences in the design and operation of the two categories of institution apparently reflect the fact that men are, in general, more dangerous than women, that the criminal behaviour of men and women is different, and that women may benefit from a different correctional approach based on their specific needs. In this regard, the policy adopted by the Service is largely inspired by the report of Justice Louise Arbour concerning the riot that occurred at the Kingston women’s prison in 1994 (Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).

[42] I have no difficulty accepting the fact that it is appropriate to separate men and women in a correctional environment and that it is appropriate to implement less strict security measures in response to the different situation of women. But that is not the issue. The real issue is to determine whether, in a context where it is justified to keep separate institutions for men and women, Ms. Boulachanis should be treated as a man or as a woman.

[45] I find it hard to believe that physical capability is so important in assessing the risk posed by an inmate that, for that reason alone, trans women inmates must be treated as men. Furthermore, I note that the assessment to determine Ms. Boulachanis’s security classification makes no mention of her physical capabilities.

[48] In the absence of a reliable scientific basis, we are reduced to speculation, which is fertile ground for discriminatory prejudice. At the hearing, the Attorney General made certain hypotheses about the physical and psychological effects of the various phases of the sex reassignment process on risk and dangerousness. I have serious doubts about the validity of such hypotheses. Moreover, we should also consider the social effects of this process, in particular on the ability to maintain relationships with potential accomplices or criminal networks.

It’s worth pointing out that the Attorney General isn’t challenging the policy in any way. In other words, there’s no issue in principle with men being in women’s prisons. It’s only that this specific one cause security risks.

The Judge doesn’t think that just because Boulachanis is a man, that he should be treated as such.

Another noteworthy point is that there appears to be no concern for the well being of the female inmates at the prison.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

August 9, 1997: John Boulachanis is charged with first degree murder of Robert Tanguay.

1998 to 2011: Boulachanis lives under various assumed names, and in other countries. He is eventually arrested after returning to Canada.

September 2016: Over several days, a Jordan Application is argued. The Defendant says that his rights have been violated due to the extensive delays in prosecuting him.

October 6th, 2016: The Quebec Court denies the Jordan Application to stay the case.

October 27th, 2016: Quebec Superior Court permitted the testimony of a certain witness to be admitted at Trial, but with limiting instructions to be issued when the time came.

November 29th, 2016: The Quebec Court refuses a request to get certain prosecution statements removed from the record.

December 17th, 2016: Boulachanis is convicted, receives automatic life sentence.

January 20th, 2017: Quebec Court of Appeal agrees to expedite a challenge to the sentence.

January, 2019: Now serving a life sentence, Boulachanis begins taking synthetic hormones.

April 11th, 2019: Boulachanis has a hearing Federal Court. The prison staff refused his request to be transferred to a female prison. They do however refer to him as “Jamie”.

April 15th, 2019: Federal Court orders that Boulachanis can be transferred to a women’s prison for the time being.

April 23rd, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal hears argument that Boulachanis should stay where he is, and that female prisons are not designed to hold someone like him.

April 24th, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal stays the transfer pending final determination of the original Application.

January 8th, 2020: Quebec Court of Appeal rejects an Appeal of 2016 decision that refused the Jordan Application.

January 11th 2021: Boulachanis is transferred to Joliette Women’s Institution. Despite the FCA overturning Justice Grammond’s ruling, he’s in with women. Presumably, it was settled internally.

December 16th, 2021: Supreme Court of Canada grants an extension of time to file material for an Application for Leave to Appeal, but denies the Application itself. This was over the order which refused to stay his case for delay.

September 25th, 2024: CSC conducted a reassessment of his security clearance, which was currently at a “moderate” level.

The case didn’t end in 2021. Boulachanis filed a Habeas Corpus Application, which was refused. His security classification was raised, due to an incident of him trafficking morphine within the prison. As a result, he risked being sent back to a men’s prison.

Ultimately, the Court refused to get involved in the case, stating they were not the “arbiters of the institutional day-to-day”.

In any event, he never had any business being locked up with women, regardless of the other security risks he posed.

COURT DECISIONS (TRANSFER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc456/2019fc456.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2019/2019fca100/2019fca100.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs1049/2025qccs1049.html

COURT DECISIONS (MURDER CASE):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6867/2016qccs6867.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6876/2016qccs6876.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6877/2016qccs6877.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6879/2016qccs6879.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2017/2017qcca66/2017qcca66.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2020/2020qcca4/2020qcca4.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2021/2021canlii129761/2021canlii129761.html

Posted on

Katherine Ethyl Bagnald: Transferred To Women’s Prison Despite Sexual Assault Allegation

Something that largely went ignored by the media is the case of an inmate named Katherine Ethyl Bagnald. He is a 22 year old man who was sentenced to prison time for multiple robberies, and wants to be sent to a women’s jail.

Despite his age, Bagnald already has a serious criminal record. When Corrections Canada refused to put Bagnald in with women — at least for the time being — he sued the Federal Government.

His intake assessment is disturbing, to put it mildly.

  • His first arrest (at 16) was for pulling a knife on his mother’s boyfriend.
  • He was arrested for threatening to kill his (then) girlfriend’s father.
  • He was previously in a fight at the CNSCF.
  • He was on probation when he committed these 3 robberies.
  • He claimed to have a knife when robbing these 3 gas stations.
  • He was heavily into drugs and alcohol as a minor (so he claims).
  • He was involved in prostitution as a minor (so he claims).

It’s baffling to think that putting this mentally ill biological male with female inmates wouldn’t lead to serious problems. What’s more unsettling is that the responding lawyers don’t cite this danger as the primary reason to refuse him.

Thanks to Ottawa’s new rules on “diverse gender offenders“, men can simply declare that they are women, and are allowed to be transferred. There’s little (if any) consideration for the safety and comfort of the women involved.

Bagnald Accused Of Sexually Assaulting FEMALE Inmate

Now we get to the uglier part. It’s more than just the issue of putting a male inmate in a female prison. Bagnald is also under investigation for sexual assault of another inmate. Although some details are included in these papers, they won’t be published here.

One of the reasons Bagnald cites in being allowed to go to a women’s prison is that the incident had only led to an internal investigations by the jail, and not formal criminal charges. Of course, that may very well change. He also claims the encounter was consensual.

While Bagnald is suing to force the jail to put him at a women’s federal penitentiary, it turns out that was unnecessary. He was later voluntarily transferred, despite the ongoing complaint. Corrections couldn’t be bothered to at least fight the case.

Correction: He was in fact later charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the criminal code. It occurred on September 12th, 2024. However, he wasn’t charged until May 2025.

***Author’s note: because of the publication ban of portions of the evidence, and on identifying the victim, the actual documents will not be published.***

Bagnald Objected To Portions Of Confidentiality Request

As is common in cases of sexual assault, and internal investigative matters, confidentiality requests are made. Bagnald opposed it, however, including sealing information that would have protected the identity of his victim.

Ultimately, the Court did agree to restrict some information.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 12th, 2025: Bagnald, while in custody on robbery charges, sexually assaults a female inmate at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. However, he would not be charged with this for several months.

January 3rd, 2025: Bagnald receives a Federal (over 2 year) sentence for 3 counts of robbery and breach of probation. He is incarcerated with men, given that he is one.

January 10th, 2025: Bagnald is notified that he would be sent to the Regional Reception Centre (RRC) at Springhill Institution, which is a men’s prison. This is the order that he tries to have set aside, and there is just 30 days to commence proceedings. That would be February 9th.

January 14th, 2025: Bagnald is transferred to the RRC.

February 25th, 2025: Bagnald files a Motion for an extension of Time in Federal Court. As the deadline to challenge the order has lapsed, he needs to convince the Court that he should be allowed to argue it anyway.

February 28th, 2025: Bagnald brings another Motion, this one for an order to compel Corrections Canada to transfer him to a women’s prison.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General responds, objecting to the Motion to compel Bagnald’s transfer to a women’s prison. However, it’s based primarily on procedural grounds, i.e. Statute of Limitations, and not the fact that he would be a danger to the women locked up.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General also responds to the Motion for the extension of time.

March 18th, 2025: The Attorney General brings a Motion to seek (or protect) certain information from being made publicly available. While the assessment was still ongoing, it’s alleged that Bagnald sexually assaulted a female inmate, a real woman. Although no criminal charges had been filed yet, the jail still had to investigate it. There is a PUBLIC version available with redactions, but only the Court has access to the full version.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald formally objected to most of the redactions sought by the government.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald files reply submissions in support of getting transferred.

March 24th, 2025: Federal Court agreed to withhold portions of the evidence from public view, citing the need for privacy.

March 25th, 2025: Bagnald files an Application for Judicial Review, trying to force Corrections Canada to let him be transferred to a women’s prison.

April 9th, 2025: Bagnald files an amended Application.

May 14th, 2025: Bagnald is finally charged with sexual assault. The Crown elects to proceed “by indictment”, the more serious option. By this time, he’s already at the Nova Institute for Women, a federal penitentiary.

June 17th, 2025: A publication ban is ordered to protect the sexual assault victim, and witnesses who may be involved in the case.

June 19th, 2025: The Government brings forward a Motion to Strike for the Federal case. The basis is that by now, Bagnald has already been transferred to a women’s prison, and hence, the Application is moot.

June 30th, 2025: Bagnald responds to the Motion to Strike. While he as already been moved, he wants to proceed anyway, in order to create a precedent that can be used later.

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.

There’s nothing “progressive” or “enlightened” about implementing these sorts of policies. Supporters simply hate women, and are indifferent (at best) to the harm that they cause.

MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME (25-T-23):
(1) Bagnald Risk Assessment Corrections Canada (January, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Gender Diverse Inmate Directives
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Extend Time (February, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Letter To Court Requesting Urgency (February, 2025)
(5) Bagnald Motion Record Requiring Transfer (February, 2025)
(6) Bagnald Responding Motion Record Extension Of Time (March, 2025)
(7) Bagnald PUBLIC Responding Motion Record Transfer (March, 2025)
(8) Bagnald Written Submissions Transfer (March, 2025)
(9) Bagnald Cost Agreement (March, 2025)
(10) Bagnald – Decision Granting Extension Of Time To File Application (March, 2025)

APPLICATION TO REVIEW DECISION (T-982-25):
(1) Bagnald Notice Of Application (March, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Amended Notice Of Application (April, 2025)
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Responding Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action: Defendants Fail In Attempt To Move Case

This is an update to the Proposed Class Action filed in Ottawa in February 2022, against protesters demanding an end to lockdown measures. While the case has dragged on, there has been no shortage of activity.

The lawsuit was filed alleging Defendants had been involved in nuisance activity, including:

  • blocking streets and sidewalks
  • incessant honking of horns
  • flooding neighbourhoods with diesel fumes

***There is, of course, the absurd irony of the Plaintiffs filing a Class Action against others who were protesting in favour of freedom — and theirs included. Perhaps they would have preferred that martial law measures continue indefinitely.

After more than 3 years, it seems that certification hearings may soon be coming. Despite numerous attempts to get the case thrown out, it has survived so far.

Anti-SLAPP Laws Not Meant For This Type Of Case

Previously, the Defendants had attempted to strike the claim, arguing that it wasn’t something that (assuming that even if the facts were true) could proceed to Trial. The Judge rejected attempt.

Afterwards, an anti-SLAPP Motion was brought, on the basis that the protests amounted to “public expression”. If granted, it would allow the Court to dismiss the case if it was brought to silence that expression. However, that effort failed as well. The Defendants weren’t being sued for their expression, but for alleging committing a nuisance while exercising that expression.

[62] Yet, by bringing a s. 137.1 motion against the background of the Rouleau Report and taking the position that their interactions over several weeks could not amount to concerted action, the appellants (several of whom filed no evidence) are trying to use a light-touch screening mechanism to get rid of a case for which any determination on the merits patently will require a deep dive into the evidence and the making of extensive findings of credibility. In sum, the appellants are trying to use their s. 137.1 motion for purposes for which it is not designed or appropriate.

The Court of Appeal upheld to decision to allow the case to proceed. This isn’t to justify the Class Action filed, but the Court did make a valid point: anti-SLAPP laws weren’t designed for this type of case.

Interestingly, the Defendants also seemed to be denying that they were involved in causing these specific nuisances, while simultaneously justifying them as “expression”.

The Court of Appeal rejected several arguments about how the Superior Court had erred in applying the anti-SLAPP test. Bottom line: laws meant to protect expression didn’t apply to the tort of nuisance.

Motion For Change Of Venue Denied

The Defendants requested that the case be moved, arguing that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a fair Trial. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs filed a Motion Record and Factum in opposition to it.That Motion was dismissed as well.

Justice Glustein commented that this should have been brought much sooner, not the 3 years that it has been. Since the case began, the Defendants have filed: (a) filed a Motion to Strike; (b) filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion; and (c) appealed the Anti-SLAPP decision.

The judge also noted the defendants could have brought a change of venue application much earlier given that the lawsuit is now more than three years old. The court has already issued more than a dozen pre-certification decisions in the case, Glustein said, including rulings on Mareva orders, escrow funds and dismissal motions.

This was reported by the Ottawa Citizen as well. While not on CanLII, the decision is publicly available.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

It’s worth noting that there was been no movement in terms of hearing the case on the merits. The vast amounts of paperwork all have to do with administrative steps within the case.

February 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim (original version) is filed.

February 17th, 2022: The Court hears a request for a Mareva Injunction ex parte, meaning that the opposing side was not given notice, and not able to present a case on their own behalf. The purpose was to put convoy funds under control of the Court until a final outcome could be determined.

February 22nd, 2022: The Court granted the Injunction.

March 10th, 2022: The Court extends the Mareva Injunction until March 31st, 2022.

April 1st, 2022: The Court adjourns competing Motions until May 2nd. The Plaintiffs wanted to continue the Mareva Injunction, while the Defendants wanted it dissolved.

November 7th, 2022: The Motion to amend the Statement of Claim was supposed to have been heard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, it’s adjourned until January 2023.

November 15th, 2022: The Court hears a Motion from Chris Garrah and Benjamin Dichter, attempting to access $200,000 from the frozen funds. The stated purpose was to be able to finance a defence to this lawsuit.

December 6th, 2022: The Court denies the Motion to free up the money, but allows for the possibility to revisit the issue if circumstances change. Parties are told to try to settle the issue of costs themselves.

January 24, 2023: The Court hears arguments on 2 overlapping Motions. The Plaintiffs wanted to further amend the pleadings, while the Defendants wanted them struck for not having a Cause of Action. The decision is reserved until later.

March 13, 2023: The Court rules on the January 2023 Motions. In the end, it was about the same thing: is the pleading acceptable? It’s decided that the Statement of Claim may be changed to accommodate deficiencies.

June 9th, 2023: Court refuses to award any costs at all over 2 competing Motions. This stems from the earlier March 13th, 2023 ruling.

July 27th, 2023: The Ottawa Court sets dates for various steps within the proposed anti-SLAPP Motion. This is Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

August 25th, 2023: Moving Party Motion Record (document collection) is served.

September 15, 2023: Cross-Examinations of various parties happened.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file volumes I and II of their supplementary evidence.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file their anti-SLAPP Factum (arguments).

December 7th, 2023: Responding Factum (Plaintiffs) is filed.

December 14th, 2023: Anti-SLAPP Motion is heard.

February 5th, 2024: The Ottawa Court refuses to dismiss the case under “anti-SLAPP” laws. Rather than accept the ruling, the Defendants chose to appeal it.

April 3rd, 2024: Appellants’ arguments are submitted to the ONCA.

October 15th, 2024: Respondents’ arguments are submitted.

October 28th, 2024: Ontario Court of Appeal hearing takes place, with Justices Lauwers, Brown and Coroza presiding. Defendants argue that the Superior Court should have dismissed the case under anti-SLAPP laws. The Plaintiffs counter that the correct decision was made.

March 6th, 2025: Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses anti-SLAPP Appeal.

March 18th, 2025: Court of Appeal issues a cost order of $20,000.

June 22nd, 2025: Motion for a change of venue is denied.

While Pat King was initially noted in default, that was set aside on consent. Since then, he and Joseph Janzen have filed their Statement of Defence.

This Class Action differs from most because it has yet to identify all of the Defendants who would be named, not just the Plaintiffs. After all this time, it would seem a daunting task.

It’s worth mentioning that the Plaintiffs here have put more effort into their lawsuit than virtually any of the “freedom lawyers” so far. They seem committed to see this through. Now, if only they valued their individual liberties that much.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li et al. v Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)
(10) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2025 ONCA 169 (CanLII)
(11) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2025 ONCA 216 (CanLII)
(12) Zexi Li Reasons For Decision Change Of Venue

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim (February, 2022)
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection (February, 2022)
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection (February, 2022)
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2022)
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum (January, 2023)
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2023)
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I (November, 2023)
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II (November, 2023)
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum (November, 2023)
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum (December, 2023)
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities (December, 2023)
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities (December, 2023)
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing (March, 2024)
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum (March, 2024)
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum (October, 2024)
(16) Zexi Li Responding Motion Record Change Venue (May, 2025)
(17) Zexi Li Change Of Venue Respondents Factum (April, 2025)
(18) Zexi Li Consent Set Aside Default Judgement (June, 2025)
(19) Zexi Li Statement Of Defence King Janzen (June, 2025)

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them. There’s also a website supporting the lawsuit that posts more of them.

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress