The much anticipated Appeal between Dan Hartman and the Government of Canada is set to be heard on Monday, January 26th. There is a separate lawsuit against Pfizer itself, which has been delayed.
Broadly speaking, the case argued 2 alternative torts: (a) negligence; and (b) malfeasance of public office. Either Ottawa was not careful in how the vaccine policies were laid out, or people intentionally acted in ways that were contrary to their duties.
Back on March 24th, 2025 Justice Antoniani threw the case out entirely, with no option to amend the pleading.
Part of the reason for contesting this is the practice that Plaintiffs are typically given the chance to fix any defects. It’s understood that parties are supposed to “get their day in Court” whenever possible, and not have things derailed over procedural concerns.
Regarding negligence, it was ruled that there was no “duty of care” to the Hartman Family, and thus the tort could not succeed. Ottawa had acted towards the public at large, not a specific group. These actions were considered “core policy decisions”, and immune from liability.
As for malfeasance, the Judge said that the pleadings were inadequate in terms of addressing the likelihood of causing harm. Rather than allow for the Claim to be amended, it was refused.
Questions To Be Asked In Appeal
Did the learned motion judge err in law by misapplying the “plain and obvious” test for striking a pleading and failing to read the claim generously, thereby prematurely dismissing arguable claims?
Did the learned motion judge err in law in his application of the Anns/Cooper test by finding it was plain and obvious that the Respondents owed no private law duty of care to Sean Hartman?
Did the learned motion judge err in law by classifying all the impugned government conduct as immune “core policy,” thereby failing to distinguish between policy and operational acts?
Did the learned motion judge err in law by striking the claim for misfeasance in public office where the necessary elements of the tort were pleaded?
Did the learned motion judge err in principle by refusing to grant leave to amend the Statement of Claim?
Put simply, the Appeal will argue that the Judge jumped the gun in striking the case, and that it should have been heard on at least 1 of the 2 torts alleged. The Factum goes into the arguments that will be heard. The Appeal Book contains other important documents.
Unsurprisingly, the Attorney General says that the right decision was made.
Hopefully, the Court of Appeal will allow the case to proceed, even if portions of the pleading need to be rewritten. But with many of the recent decisions, who knows what will happen?
This is yet another instance of “alternative” media not telling the whole story.
Recently, the news broke that 3 Applications for Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada had been denied. These were attempts at secondary Appeals for Peckford, Bernier and Naoum, challenging the “travel mandates” and the requirement to take the shots in order to travel.
There was actually a 4th Application grouped together, but those litigants have since filed a Statement of Claim instead. The other 3 chose to take the above route.
For context, the 4 related Applications were filed in late 2021 and into 2022. Because they covered essentially the same subject matter, they would be heard together.
T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald
To make a very long story short: it didn’t have to be this way.
The Federal Court ruled in October 2022 that the 4 cases were “moot”, meaning there was no active issue to try. Since mandates were no longer in effect, all that was sought was declaratory relief. This was in spite of talk that injection mandates could return at some point.
Now the Applicants could have taken another path, and commenced Actions (and filed Claims). This was made clear to them.
Rather than do this, they all chose to appeal the mootness ruling.
They appealed, instead of taking the easier path to fix their case.
Basically, this is Action4Canada 2.0
Action4Canada Case V.S. Travel Mandates Case
Consider 2 high profile cases in recent years.
(Case #1) Back in August 2022, the Action4Canada case (filed in Vancouver) was struck as “bad beyond argument“. This 391 page monster failed to follow even the basics of Civil Procedure. It was incoherent, and asked for all kinds of remedies outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. However, Justice Alan Ross did allow an amended Notice of Civil Claim to be filed.
Instead of filing a proper Claim, the ruling was appealed instead. They lost.
(Case #2) Back in October 2022, the Federal Court struck 4 Applications to Federal injection mandates for travel for “mootness”. Justice Jocelyne Gagné made a discretionary finding that there was no live issue to try, since the mandates were no longer in effect. However, Justice Gagné, and Associate Justice Tabib, had remarked that if there were damages, then these cases could proceed as Actions. Of course, this would involve filing Statements of Claim.
Instead of filing Actions, ALL of the Applicants appealed.
Following this, they (other than Rickard and Harrison) attempted to appeal again.
The Action4Canada and travel mandate cases share a common thread. Although the circumstances differed, all were given the option to correct the flaws in their pleadings. Instead, each of them chose to appeal.
Filing Actions V.S. Filing Judicial Reviews
JURISDICTION
ACTION
JUDICIAL REVIEW
STEPS TAKEN
Federal
Statement Of Claim
Application
Motion
Ontario
Statement Of Claim
Application
Motion
British Columbia
Notice Of Civil Claim
Petition
Application
Although the names vary somewhat, there are normally a few different ways to commence legal action.
The most common way is with an Action, and it involves filing a Statement of Claim, or some similar document. These can be very simple cases, or they can be very complex and tedious.
A lesser known and understood method is by Judicial Review. In essence, it’s the challenging of some sort of decision or order made by some Government official. Despite how it’s often used, the idea is to challenge simple rulings, such as licences being denied, or funding not being received. It’s typically a much more streamlined process than Actions.
There is overlap between them, and the circumstances of each case determines which would be appropriate.
Why does this matter? Because the Federal Court left open the possibility for these litigants to refile their grievances as Actions, and ask for damages. Instead, they appealed, because …. reasons.
Rickard and Harrison were quite aware of this, as their 2022 Motion indicates. So when the Applications were struck, they could have refiled, but as Actions. They appealed, because …. reasons.
Justices Tabib & Gagné Stated That Case Could Proceed As An Action
True, at an earlier Motion, Associate Justice Tabib did dismiss a Motion that would have allowed the Rickard/Harrison Application to be converted into an Action. Yes, the original pleading wasn’t permitted to be amended to include damages.
Yes, Justice Gagné did strike the Applications as being “moot”. Since no one (apparently) sought damages in their Application, and the travel mandates were lifted, there apparently wasn’t a “live” issue to try.
[41] As stated above, these proceedings will have no practical effect on the rights of the Applicants. They have obtained the full relief available to them and a decision of the remaining declaratory relief would provide them no practical utility. If they suffered damages as a result of these IOs/MO being in force, they would have to bring an action against the Crown and have their respective rights assessed in light of all the relevant facts.
This is from the ruling, and is pretty clear. If there were damages suffered, then the case should be brought as an Action, not an Application.
Standard For Review: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33
After the 4 Applications were declared “moot” in the Fall of 2022, the Applicants could have converted them into Actions, and filed Statement of Claim for each (or one for everyone). Appealing made no sense, especially when looking at the “Standard of Review“. See highlighted version.
What this means is that different standards are applied, depending on whether someone is challenging a: (a) finding of fact; (b) application of or findings of the law; or (c) a discretionary act by a Judge.
Findings of fact: standard of review is “overriding palpable error”
Findings of law: standard of review is correctness
Exercises of discretion: standard of review is “overriding palpable error”
The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. The reasons for deferring to a trial judge’s findings of fact can be grouped into three basic principles. First, given the scarcity of judicial resources, setting limits on the scope of judicial review in turn limits the number, length and cost of appeals. Secondly, the principle of deference promotes the autonomy and integrity of the trial proceedings. Finally, this principle recognizes the expertise of trial judges and their advantageous position to make factual findings, owing to their extensive exposure to the evidence and the benefit of hearing the testimony viva voce. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference-drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.
A. Standard of Review for Questions of Law
. On a pure question of law, the basic rule with respect to the review of a trial judge’s findings is that an appellate court is free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Thus the standard of review on a question of law is that of correctness: Kerans, supra, at p. 90.
There are at least two underlying reasons for employing a correctness standard to matters of law. First, the principle of universality requires appellate courts to ensure that the same legal rules are applied in similar situations. The importance of this principle was recognized by this Court in Woods Manufacturing Co. v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 504, at p. 515:
Justice Gagné “exercised her discretion” to find that the 4 Applications were moot. In other words, she simply decided that the cases weren’t worth hearing. Now, why does it matter that she used her discretion?
As it turned out, the Appellants argued the wrong test. 2 of them thought it was “correctness”, and the other 2 didn’t specify what they wanted.
Appealing a “discretionary” order is damn near impossible. It’s not enough to say that someone can come to a different conclusion. It must be demonstrated that the Judge’s use of that discretion contained outright error. It’s a much higher standard than correctness.
The Appellants also tried arguing the merits of their cases. However, the only issue to be decided was whether Justice Gagné committed “overriding palpable error” by finding the cases to be moot. It seems that the lawyers don’t understand the purpose of appealing.
Considering that the Applicants could have simply refiled their cases as Actions, it’s baffling why they would do this.
Bernier, Peckford, Naoum Launch SECOND Appeal
The majority of these litigants apparently weren’t satisfied losing once in Appellate Court. They decided to try again with the Supreme Court of Canada. Remember, the goal here was to get the finding of “mootness” overturned. They (still) could have filed Actions — as they were advised — but appealed again, because …. reasons.
Not even “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument” attempted a second Appeal with Action4Canada.
“Applying for Leave” is a term that means asking for permission. The SCC doesn’t hear cases from all interested parties. Instead, it picks and chooses what it finds to be important. In fact, most Applications are denied.
Rickard and Harrison, to their credit, did finally make the right choice. However, their Claim has serious issues that will be addressed in a bit.
Bernier, Peckford, Naoum Likely Time Barred At This Point
Even if the above litigants wanted to refile their cases as Actions, it’s likely too late. For most things, the Statute of Limitations is 2 years. As we are now at the end of August 2024, it’s very unlikely that there would be any recent damages they could claim.
To sound like a broken record: they could have done this back in October 2022.
Rickard/Harrison Claim Not Properly Pleaded
Even though Rickard and Harrison are pursuing a Claim, they aren’t out of the woods yet. The pleading is Galati-level bad in terms of its quality.
The Claim is very bare-bones in terms of detail. A Judge might find that there aren’t sufficient facts pleaded. In fairness, the amended version fixes some of it.
Considering that there are allegations of “bad faith”, there’s a requirement to give full particulars, which hasn’t been done.
The Claim pleads breaches of s.6 (mobility), s.7 (security) and s.15 (equality) Charter Rights. However, none of them are properly pleaded. They don’t even specify that the Plaintiffs are Canadian citizens, which is required for the s.6 breach to have teeth. The Notice of Motion is actually quite a good reference point.
What Kind Of Idiot Appeals Instead Of Fixing Their Case?
Allison Pejovic, one of the lawyers involved in the SCC Leave Applications, released a video describing what had happened. She sounds very compelling and passionate. Taken at face value, there’s no reason to doubt anything she says.
However, what she fails to mention is that the Applicants (in all 4 cases) were able to proceed with the cases (as Actions) if there had been damages as a result. From the 2022 ruling:
[40] It is true that the parties, and to some extent the Court, have already invested financial and human resources in these files. However, most of the Court resources are yet to come with a five-day judicial review hearing and extensive writing time (these files comprise 23 affidavits and 15 expert reports totaling approximately 6,650 pages). That is without considering potential appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.
There were apparently: (a) 23 Affidavits; and (b) 15 expert reports, which totaled over 6,600 pages. Cross-examinations of witnesses also took place. And unlike with Action4Canada, these piles of documents actually exist. But because these lawyers appealed instead of refiling, these will never get to Trial.
And the way the Rickard/Harrison case is proceeding, it will go nowhere either.
One really has to wonder how all of the “freedom lawyers” can be so clueless and incompetent in pursuing cases against the Government.
On August 13th, 2024, a Motion to Strike will be heard in the Civil Branch of the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto. This was over injection mandates dating back to 2021. Approximately 300 healthcare workers — working in many different settings — will see if their case is thrown out.
The main reason for this Motion is that the vast majority of Plaintiffs are likely ineligible to sue. Being part of a union typically means that there’s no right to go to Court. Collective agreements usually have a grievance process that ends with arbitration, but doesn’t allow for litigation.
Beyond that, the Statement of Claim is so poorly and incoherently written that it’s likely to be struck anyway. It doesn’t plead any of the necessary information required, and most of what it does include is irrelevant. It appears to have been written by someone with no understanding at all of Civil Procedure.
All that’s missing is a tirade about Bill Gates and microchipping.
This isn’t Vaccine Choice Canada or Action4Canada or Take Action Canada. Nor is it the mess, Adelberg. This is yet another “bad beyond argument” pleading. The main defects are:
Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
Failure to plead concise set of material facts
Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
Failure to remove argument from Claim
Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
Failure to give Claim particulars
Failure to specify who should pay damages
Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
Failure to state a Cause of Action
Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
Claim just a duplicate of other cases
This is just a brief critique, but let’s get into it.
1. Failure To Establish Jurisdiction Of The Court
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01
To Defendant
(3) A defendant may move before a judge to have an action stayed or dismissed on the ground that,
.
Jurisdiction
(a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action;
Rule 21.01(3)(a) of Civil Procedure states that a Defendant may move to to have a case stayed or dismissed if there’s no jurisdiction. Why does that matter here? Because the bulk of the Plaintiffs here are from unionized workplaces. Union workers are typically governed by a collective bargaining agreement, and it usually mandates arbitration as a means of settling disputes.
Plenty of cases have already been thrown out for this.
To even (theoretically) overcome this burden, Plaintiffs would have to plead details about what steps they took to resolve this internally. They would have to demonstrate that the process was corrupt or unworkable.
2. Failure To Seek Relief Within Jurisdiction Of The Court
The Relief sought section is downright goofy, and it’s startling to see that an experienced lawyer is including content such as this. It would be bad enough to see an articling student draft such garbage. And it’s not the first time.
Allegations of criminal conduct
Allegations of crimes against humanity
Allegations of eugenics (which would be criminal)
Allegations of violations of Nuremberg Code
Allegations of violations of the Helsinki Declaration
Both the Action4Canada and Adelberg (Federal) cases were struck — in part — because they demanded remedies that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction over. Despite being criticized by multiple Courts over this, the same allegations appear here. Mostly likely, this is because this lawyer uses a template and simply cut and pastes from one case to the next.
3. Failure To Plead Concise Set Of Material Facts
Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
.
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.
In every jurisdiction, Plaintiffs are required to plead the facts. This refers to the: who, what, where, when, and how that things occurred. It is describing a series of events in enough detail that the opposing side — and the Judge — can understand what’s going on.
But that hasn’t happened here. Not a single Plaintiff is described with any detail. Only 8 are even identified in the Claim.
They objected to the injections? What was each one’s specific one?
Who was fired, and who was simply suspended?
Who was required to take the shots, and who was allowed to take the testing?
All Plaintiffs were ineligible for EI? Who applied for it?
None of this is described, nor is the conduct of any Defendant. There are no facts pleaded at all which could possibly be responded to.
4. Failure To Keep Evidence Out Of Claim
The other part of Rule 25.06(1) is that evidence shouldn’t be in a Statement of Claim. The facts are. The facts are simply the sequence of events that each Plaintiff can attest to.
All of the “facts” about the validity of testing and expert views should really be considered expert evidence. That has a place later, but not in the initial pleading.
5. Failure To Remove Argument From Claim
Not only should evidence not be in a Claim, but argument shouldn’t either. The pleading is ripe full of argument, complete with various case citations. However, this is not a Factum, nor a final submission. The original pleading is just supposed to lay out the (alleged) series of events.
How does an experienced lawyer not know this?
6. Failure To Plead Facts To Support Conclusions Of Law
Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Pleading Law
.
25.06(2) A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.
Rule 25.06(2) of Civil Procedure requires that the necessary facts be pleaded in order to support any conclusions of draw that are raised. This makes sense, as there has to be enough meat on the bones to theoretically have the Judge rule favourably. However, there are no facts pleaded about individual Plaintiffs or Defendants, just sweeping declarations without background information.
7. Failure To Give Claim Particulars
Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
.
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.
Rule 25.06(8) of Civil Procedure states that all pleadings shall have “full particulars”, which is also known as “particularizing a claim”. This is when fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged. What this means is that such accusations are made, Plaintiffs have the extra burden to spell out what has happened. All major details must be added.
Quite reasonably, Defendants cannot be left guessing what they have to respond to.
8. Failure To Specify Who Should Pay Damages
Starting on page 33, the money sought is outlined.
$50,000 for each Plaintiff for “intimidation”
$100,000 for each Plaintiff for “conspiracy”
$100,000 for each Plaintiff, by the Government Defendants, for Charter violations
$200,000 for each Plaintiff for infliction of mental distress and anguish
$100,000 for each Plaintiff for “punitive damages”
This amounts to $550,000 per Plaintiff, but who exactly is supposed to pay it? It’s specified that the Province is to pay for the Charter violations, but that’s it. If money is to be sought, what is the proposed division? Never mind that none of the torts are properly pleaded, or pleaded at all.
9. Failure To Properly Plead S.2 (Fund. Freedoms) Charter Breaches
However, the Claim doesn’t plead any facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) that would support this. The Claim doesn’t describe how any Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of conscience or belief were violated, nor does it specify which grounds apply to which person.
10. Failure To Properly Plead S.6 (Mobility Rights) Charter Breaches
There are a few mentions — although not properly pleaded — that Plaintiffs had their mobility rights infringed. But there isn’t a single instance of this described. Nor would this be relevant since the travel mandates were Federal, and this case is exclusively Provincial. Most likely, it was cut and pasted from the Adelberg case, which is Federal.
11. Failure To Properly Plead S.7 (Security Of Person) Charter Breaches
Similar to the Section 2 breaches, here, there are no facts (Rule 25.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) pleaded which would support such allegations. Not a single Plaintiff describes their circumstances. Yes, we assume it to be true initially, but there’s nothing to work with.
12. Failure To Properly Plead S.15 (Equality) Charter Breaches
Section 15 of the Charter isn’t the savior that many think it is. Specifically, “equality” is limited to a fairly small number of groups. None of which apply here, as disappointing as that is.
Enumerated grounds, which are explicitly stated in the Charter, include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.
Analogous grounds, which are additional ones the Courts have endorsed, include: sexual orientation, marital status, off-reserve Aboriginal status and income.
Even if remaining injection-free were an enumerated or analogous ground, there are no facts pleaded which would support the Charter violations anyway. Again, not a single Plaintiff’s circumstances are described in any detail.
13. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Intimidation
Because this tort would cover “nature of act or condition of mind”, Rule 25.06(8) requires that full particulars be given, in addition to pleading facts that would support it.
Instead, the Statement of Claim simply states the test, then attempts to argue caselaw in support of it. There are no facts or particulars given — even assuming them to be true — that would support this. Argument is not permitted in this document, anyway.
14. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Conspiracy
As with the “intimidation” tort, there are no facts (Rule 26.06(1)) or particulars (Rule 25.06(8)) provided that would support the claim. The document simply states the test and tries to argue.
15. Failure To Properly Plead Tort Of Malfeasance Of Public Office
There are broad, sweeping declarations that the Government Defendants have acted in ways which are contrary to holding public office. But without any facts or particulars, this tort will go nowhere.
The tort of “infliction of mental anguish” isn’t pleaded properly either.
16. Failure To State A Cause Of Action
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL
Where Available
To Any Party on a Question of Law
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
.
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
.
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
Rule 21.01(1)(b) of Civil Procedure allows Judges to strike a Claim if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. What this means, if there isn’t anything that can realistically be sought, the Court has the power to throw the case out completely, or to allow a rewrite (called granting Leave to Amend).
Here, there are no facts or particulars pleaded to support any of the allegations. The body of the text is argumentative and tries to plead evidence. None of the torts are properly pleaded. A Judge could reasonably conclude that there’s no case to try.
Of course, they tend to allow rewrites, no matter how poorly drafted a case is. Action4Canada was struck with Leave to Amend, which was quite surprising.
17. Failure To Appreciate Statute of Limitations
As many people know, there’s a time limit to file cases. This is commonly referred to as the Statute of Limitations. In Ontario, it’s 2 years for most things, although a number of exceptions exist. See the Ontario Limitations Act.
Even if these Plaintiffs were to hire a competent lawyer (and not withstanding the arbitration requirement), they’d likely be time barred. Since more than 2 years has passed, they wouldn’t be able to include additional claims beyond what’s already there.
18. Claim Just A Duplicate Of Other Cases
A major indicator that clients and donors are being ripped off is that they aren’t getting original work. Instead, it appears that counsel is using a “template” and simply duplicating cases.
Now, if these cases were successful, then it would be a good way to save time and money. But that isn’t at all the situation here.
These 4 cases alone amount to over 1,600 litigants who have gotten shoddy and mediocre representation. And all from the same lawyer. If one includes all of the donors, it’s no exaggeration to say that there have been several thousand victims who were taken advantage of.
Keep in mind, many, MANY cases have been filed since 2020.
What’s been disappointing is just how little the “independent” media has been speaking up about this. It’s not enough to simply be against lockdowns. Genuine reporters and journalists should be speaking up on behalf of victims who have been taken advantage of with these shoddy lawsuits. There are thousands of clients and donors whose goodwill and desperation have been exploited. They needed a voice.
Then of course, some asshole tried in June 2022 to bankrupt a former donor who simply wanted her money back. If this isn’t cause for concern, then what is?
True, it’s a little better now, but more should have been expected. While it’s great to support public interest litigation (overall), we shouldn’t lose track of the people who are really impacted by it.
As for Liberty Talk, perhaps the 25% commission in 2020 clouded her judgement.
“[17] I also conclude that these claims are precisely ones that are of the kind that s. 137.1 is designed to discourage and screen out. ”
“[58] For greater clarity, I view all of the expressions or statements complained of by the Plaintiffs to have been made on matters of public interest. The test required by s. 137.1 has been applied to each in order to determine the appropriate result. In each case, I should be taken to have accepted and adopted fully the submissions advanced on behalf of each of the Defendants.” – Justice Stewart
A $12.75 million defamation lawsuit filed in December 2020 has been ended. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that it fully met the criteria for being classified as a SLAPP, and was dismissed. Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba demanded millions in damages from online words. They literally tried to bankrupt people they disagreed with on platforms like Twitter.
Perhaps bragging about it in the national papers wasn’t the best idea.
The substance of this came from online postings related to restricting people’s freedoms, and what pharmaceuticals were best during a “pandemic”. (It’s fake, but that’s a discussion for another time).
In a 51 page ruling, Justice Elizabeth Stewart said that it was exactly the sort of case which anti-SLAPP laws were designed for. The sheer number of Defendants, 23, and the amount of money sought was staggering. Despite this, the Plaintiffs never produced any real evidence of damages to justify the millions they demanded.
To be blunt, this case appears to be frivolous and vexatious.
Considering how this came about, and all of the racism accusations leveled in the Statement of Claim, Gill and Lamba are very lucky they weren’t countersued for defamation. The Defendants would have had a much stronger case. Nonetheless, this lawsuit never stood a chance, if it even made it to trial.
A Quick Introduction To Civil Procedure
There are several sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure for Ontario which permit cases to be ended early. Truly meritless Claims and Applications clog up the system, and deserve to be removed.
Rule 2.1.01(6) this allows the Registrar to stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court
Rule 20: this covers Summary Judgement Applications. Either side can file for one, if it appears that either there is no case, or no valid defense. Appropriate when there are no major issues to resolve
Rule 21.01: in order to expedite a case, permits: (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or (b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defense
Rule 24: if Plaintiffs are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings, and this can happen in different stages, the Court has the discretion to dismiss it
Rule 25.11: an option to strike the pleadings — which does not amount to trying the case — if a pleading is frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process
Rule 2.1.01(6) is meant for a Registrar, or low-level official. This is restricted to the very obvious cases. The others involve higher standards, and are meant for Justices, Judges or Associate Judges.
In the case of defamation lawsuits, Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act provides another remedy. If a Plaintiff is using the Courts as a weapon to silence discourse on an important public issue, this can be stopped by filing an anti-SLAPP Motion.
SLAPP Means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
This isn’t unique to Ontario. There are other Provinces and U.S. States which have very similar laws on the books, and the principles are much the same.
Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
.
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
.
Purposes
.
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
.
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
Once a SLAPP Motion is brought forward, it freezes everything else. Nothing can happen until this is resolved, which includes possible appeals to the higher Court(s).
It’s important to note that anti-SLAPP applies to speech that’s of a public interest matter. It doesn’t apply to disputes over private issues. Once the Defendant(s) satisfy the Court that the speech is of a public matter, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff(s). To prevent dismissal, Judge or Justice must be convinced there are grounds to believe that:
the proceeding has substantial merit, and
the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding; and
the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.
If the Plaintiff cannot meet all 3 parts of this test, then the case qualifies as a SLAPP. Here, the Court found that they didn’t meet even a single prong of the test. As such, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the case. And as the Justice stated, the laws were designed for cases like this.
The Ontario Libel & Slander Act has built in provisions which allow for the protection of certain categories of speech. These include fair comment and qualified privilege, which were heavily referenced in the Decision.
Justification
.
22 In an action for libel or slander for words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges
Fair comment
.
23 In an action for libel or slander for words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are proved.
Fair comment
.
24 Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.
Communications on Public Interest Matters
Application of qualified privilege
.
25 Any qualified privilege that applies in respect of an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other persons.
It’s important to know that there are safeguards written into the Act. These are just some of them. A free society can’t function properly if speech is weaponized like this.
Could This Dismissal Be Appealed?
In theory, yes. Rule 61.04 allows 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal. However, given how badly the case went, Gill and Lamba would have to be pretty dense to even try. It’s a high burden.
Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002, sets out the standard for review of a decision. Broadly speaking, Appeals are heard because of an alleged error of fact or law.
(i) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.
(ii) By contrast, a possible error of law is treated “de novo”, and looked at as if hadn’t been ruled on before. It might be viewed as a lower standard.
The reasoning behind “giving deference” to the factual findings is that the Judge is there, and more able to assess what’s going on. Also, there has to be some presumption of competence.
The Justice stated that there was no evidence of damages, the tweets were about public interest matters, and not defamatory. These are findings of fact, and unless something obvious is missed, not easy to challenge. In short, a hypothetical appeal would go absolutely nowhere.
What About Costs For The Defendants?
In the ruling, the Justice gave the Defendants 30 days to make submissions for costs. And here’s where things get more interesting.
There are 19 lawyers listed for the Defendants in the REASONS FOR DECISION. While it’s unclear how much the total fees are, it’s likely a lot. This case involved depositions, and a SLAPP Motion. Both of these are expensive and time consuming. Estimating an average $30,000 each — which may be at the low end — this case would have cost them over half a million to defend.
It’s quite possible that the Plaintiffs could each be on the hook for well over $100,000. Although most allegations didn’t involve Ashvinder Lamba, she clearly participated in the suit.
The final ruling made it clear that there was no evidence of damages, and that the issues addressed were public matters. Despite the tone in some of the messages, they were protected speech. The suit was frivolous and vexatious, so a stiff award can be expected.
What Exactly Started All Of This?
In the case of Gill and Lamba, this case arose largely over Twitter spats. The Plaintiffs (primarily Gill), got into arguments with people on Twitter, which later ended with her blocking them. I guess there’s a little Rempel in all of us.
These other people — who they later sued — were promoting vaccines and martial law measures, for a non-existent virus. Gill, to her credit, opposed these restrictions, but promoted alternative medicines, again for a non-existent virus. However, this was Twitter nonsense, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Instead of ignoring people if there was such a disagreement, Gill, Lamba, and their representative were documenting and archiving social media posts. To a casual observer, it appears as these may have been planned as a way of generating evidence. In the end, Gill and Lamba sued 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets, over relatively harmless comments.
One has to wonder if this was just an overreaction, or a calculated way to silence differing views. Most people supporting freedom want more speech available, not less.
Even on the miniscule chance that this lawsuit had been successful, what was the goal? Suing private parties doesn’t result in changes to public policy. There’s no way that any money (besides a nominal amount) would ever have been awarded. If anything, it makes lockdown objectors appear unprincipled, despite claiming to support freedom.
After the costs are paid, this won’t really be the end. Expect this decision to be a standard for dismissing meritless defamation claims. We now have a precedent of lockdown opponents trying — and failing — to silence and bankrupt their critics. Gill and Lamba will become very well known by lawyers, but for all the wrong reasons.
This isn’t to defend people like Abdu Sharkawy, and the quackery promoted. This site has exposed many of the hacks, and media payoffs. Nonetheless, this lawsuit did an enormous disservice to real resistance in Canada. The Plaintiffs can honestly say that they fought, and won, a baseless lawsuit.
If there is something positive in all of this, it’s that the Ontario Superior Court did throw out an abusive case because of the chilling effect it would have on public discourse. Read both the Statement of Claim, and Decision for more context. As absurd as these “health measures” are, throwing the suit out really was the right decision.
Don’t you find it strange that there are no lawyers posing any serious challenge to the tyranny of Trudeau, Ford, Legault, Kenney, Horgan and the others? Ever wonder why people who (theoretically) are best placed to challenge this are sitting on the sidelines? Perhaps, this may explain some of them.
Note: several duplicate and irrelevant entries were omitted.
0914819 B.C. LTD. ( Magellan Real Estate Lawyers)
Aasara Lawyers Professional Corporation
AGB Lawyers Professional Corporation
Alam Law Firm, Professional Corporation
Alberta Lawyers’ Assistance Society (The Assist Program)
Alpert Law Firm Professional Corporation
Andre J. Boudon Professional Corporation
Antoine Mailloux Avocat Inc.
Armoured Suits Professional Corporation
Aulis Law Firm Professional Corporation
Avocats Cragmore Inc.
Avocats sans frontières Québec / Lawyers without borders Quebec
Ayoub A. Ali Professional Corporation
Bakshi Law Firm Firm Professional Corporation
Barapp Law
Barteaux Labour And Employment Lawyers Inc.
Benoit Roussy, Avocat Inc.
Blacklock Law Firm, Professional Corporation
Blouin Avocat S.A. Blouin Lawyer Corp
Borders Law Firm, Professional Corporation
Brooks Professional Corporation
Brown Lawyers Professional Corporation
Brunet Avocats Inc. / Brunet Lawyers Inc.
Bryshun Mace Law Corporation
BSS Law Firm Professional Corporation
Burrows Professional Corporation
Buzaker Law Firm Professional Corporation
Cabinet d’avocats NOVAlex Inc. / NOVAlex Law Firm Inc.
Canadian Defence Lawyers Association
Capelle Kane Immigration Lawyers Professional Corp.
Charney Lawyers Professional Corporation
Charthouse Law Corporation
Chinneck Law Professional Corporation
Cizan Suliman Professional Corporation
Corporate Immigration Law Firm Professional Corporation
Costa Law Firm Professional Corporation
Counter Tax Lawyers Professional Corporation
Cubicle Fugitive Inc.
D3B Avocats Inc.
D’Alessio Romero Law Firm Professional Corporation
David M. Piccolo Professional Corporation
Derstine Penman Professional Corporation
Di Stasio Avocats Inc.
Dietrich Professional Corporation
Disability Lawyers of Ontario
Douglas J. Lord Professional Corporation
DPJP Professional Corporation
Drayton Law Firm Law Corporation
Dube Latreille Avocats Inc.
Duford, Dion Avocats Inc.
Duncan F. Smith Law Corporation
Elkouby avocats inc. Elkouby lawyers Inc.
Étude légale N. Touma inc./ N. Touma law firm Inc.
Farley Avocats Inc.
Fife Cameron Trial Lawyers Professional Corporation
Foundation Law Corporation
Frank MacDonald Lawyer Inc.
Fresh Life Canada, Immigration Lawyers Inc.
Friedman Law Professional Corporation
Gary R. Armworthy, Lawyer Incorporated
Girones Lawyers Professional Corporation
GKS Law Corporation
Gladysz Camet Avocats Fiscalistes Inc.
Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
Gobran Law Firm Professional Corporation
Goldfinger Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
Gosselin Law Firm Professional Corporation
Grandmaitre Virgo Evans Professional Corporation
Grinhaus Law Firm Professional Corporation
Gupta Law Firm Professional Corporation
Guzun And Associates, Lawyers Inc.
H. Zhang Professional Corporation
Haber & Associates Lawyers Professional Corporation
Hadayt Nazami Professional Corporation
Hagel Law Firm Professional Corporation
Harris Law, Personal Injury Lawyers Professional Corporation
Holmberg Watson Professional Corporation
Home & Castle law Firm Professional Corporation
Hum Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
Iacobelli Law Firm Professional Corporation
Jae Park Law Professional Corporation
James Bennett Law Firm PLC Inc.
Jane Poproski Professional Corporation
Jay G. Meunier Professional Corporation
JFB Avocats Criminalistes Inc.
John A De Bakker Professional Corporation
John M. Richter Law Corporation
Jonathon Kahane-Rapport Professional Corporation
Joseph T. Santoro Professional Corporation
JP Mann Law Firm Professional Corporation
Justin James Walsh Law Professional Corporation
Kapoor Law Firm Professional Corporation
Kelly D. Jordan Professional Corporation
Kelly + Kelly Lawyers Professional Corporation
Kennedy Schofield Lutz Lawyers Inc.
Kenneth Peacocke Professional Corporation
Kinder Law Professional Corporation
KMH Lawyers Professional Corporation
KPA Lawyers Professional Corporation
KRB Avocats Inc. / KRB Lawyers Inc.
Kruse Law Firm Professional Corporation
Lak Law Firm Professional Corporation
LaLande Law Professional Corporation
Lamoureux, Avocat & Fiscaliste Inc.
Lang Lawyers Professional Corporation
Larson Lawyers Professional Corporation
Lauze, Avocate Inc.
Law Firm Of Shikha Sharda, Professional Corporation
Lawyerlocate.ca Inc.
Liang Tax Law Corporation
Lisa C. Gilvesy Professional Corporation
Lomax Law Firm Professional Corporation
Longo Lawyers Professional Corporation
M. Chuchla Law Firm Professional Corporation
Mack Professional Corporation
Mauro Palumbo Law Corporation
Mayes Law Firm Professional Corporation
Melville, Krotz Lawyers Professional Corporation
Millars Lawyers Professional Corporation
Minkin & Associates Professional Corporation
Mirian Law Firm, Professional Corporation
Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation
MPH Avocats Inc.
Mulligan Defence Lawyers Law Corporation
N3 INC.
Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers
Nanda & Associate Lawyers Professional Corporation
Natalie L. Hebert Law Corporation
Nimegeeers, Schuck, Wormsbecker & Bobbitt
NLCI Your Real Estate Lawyer Professional Corporation
NSWB Law Firm P.S. Inc.
Oldham Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
Pace Law Firm Professional Corporation
Pappas Law Firm Professional Corporation
Peter Yi Law Corporation
Petitt Schwarz Professional Corporation
Philip J. Gerler Professional Corporation
Pilkington Law Firm Professional Corporation
Pranzitelli Law Firm Professional Corporation
R C Di Bella Law Corporation
R. Farhat, Professional Corporation
R.W.J. Professional Corporation
R.Z. Skibinski Professional Corporation
Rajdeep Singh Deol Law Corporation
Rar Litigation Lawyers Professional Corporation
Renaud Lebuis Avocat d’Affaires Inc. Renaud Lebuis Business Lawyer Inc.
RH Law Professional Corporation
Roadlawyers Inc.
Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation
Roger J. Baker Professional Corporation
Ronald S. Williams Lawyer Professional Corporation
Rui Zhen Feng Law Corporation
Salina Chagpar Professional Corporation
Seif Law Firm Professional Corporation
Shaikh Law Professional Corporation
Sultan Lawyers Professional Corporation
The Kahler Personal Injury Law Firm, Professional Corporation
Top Law Firm Professional Corporation
Verraich Law Firm Professional Corporation
Wennie Lee Law Firm Professional Corporation
WN Law Firm Inc.
Y.L. Law Professional Corporation
Y. Liu Law Firm
Yixi Legal Firm Corporation
YuSheng Immigration Law Firm
Zafar Law Firm Professional Corporation
Zayouna Law Firm, Professional Corporation
Note: if you search under the heading “LEGAL”, another 300 names come up. These are not exclusively law firms, but include other companies who are involved in the industry. Looking up “BARRISTER” results in 68 more matches in the CEWS database.
Of course, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy is just one program. There’s also the rental subsidy, which countless businesses applied for. Given how these programs keep getting different names, it can be difficult to track exactly who’s getting what.
While this certainly doesn’t include every firm, it’s still a lot of them.
Considering that the industry never shut down, it’s unclear what money was lost. Sure, there was a delay in 2020, but everything seems to run virtually now. In fact, since law can be done online, it probably led to a significant decline in expenses.
Wild idea, but perhaps not everyone wants to see the gravy train end.
There have also been claims (though it’s hard to grasp the magnitude) of lawyers and law firms being retained by the Government as ghost representatives. This would be done for the sole purpose of taking them out of the game. If such a person or company takes money in this manner, they’d be prohibited from taking on cases against Trudeau or his ilk. This would apply even if the lawyers never do anything to earn that original amount.
It’s been covered ad nauseum about how the media is being subsidized to dupe and mislead Canadians into going along with the psychological warfare. Maybe that’s not the only industry that can be bought off. And on the subject:
The Canadian Bar Association, as well as its counterparts in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec have all been receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, it’s quite likely they’ve received funds under different programs as well.
There’s no real urgency within the legal community to end these martial law dictates. Strange, since few lawyers will pass up on the opportunity to grandstand. But perhaps there are other factors. No accusations are being made, just some curious observations.
Do you get it now, stupid lemmings? They’re all in it together, or, at least that’s how it looks on the surface.
(In 2019 Annual Report, the CPPIB claims that the fund is worth $392 billion as of March 31, 2019)
(2016, Chief Actuary claims CPP is sustainable)
(Ezra Levant of Rebel Media addresses CPP)
(Pension ponzi schemes explained)
Glowing 2016 Press Release
The press release regarding, the Chief Actuary’s report on the sustainability of the Canadian Pension Plan.
Middle class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they won’t have enough put away for their retirement. One in four families approaching retirement—1.1 million families—are at risk of not saving enough. That is why a stronger Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a key part of the promise that the Government of Canada made to Canadians to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Today, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau tabled the Chief Actuary’s 28th Actuarial Report on the CPP in Parliament. The report confirms that the contribution and benefit levels proposed under the CPP enhancement agreed upon by Canada’s governments on June 20, 2016 will be sustainable over the long term, ensuring that Canadian workers can count on an even stronger, secure CPP for years to come.
On October 6, 2016, the Government of Canada delivered on its commitment to a stronger CPP with the introduction of legislation in Parliament to implement the agreement reached by Canada’s governments to enhance the CPP to give Canadians a stronger public pension that will help them retire in dignity.
This can’t really be taken at face value, as it is all self serving. The notice fails to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, which we will get into.
Quotes From Actuary’s 2016 Report
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) invests base CPP funds according to its own investment policies which take into account the needs of contributors and beneficiaries, as well as financial market constraints. It is expected that a separate investment policy will be developed by the CPPIB with respect to the additional CPP assets. Since at the time of the preparation of the 28th Report there is no such separate investment policy in existence, the real rate of return assumption was developed to reflect the financing objective of the additional Plan. As the actual CPPIB investment strategy for the additional CPP assets becomes known, it will be reflected in subsequent actuarial reports by revising the real rate of return assumption
This is a bit troublesome. It will become “known” to the public, or it will become “known” to the people doing the investments? (Page 15 of report.)
(Page 30 of report.) The CPPIB estimates that the percentage of base contributions from investment profits will creep up, and that the additional CPP will eventually become mostly funded from investment income by 2075.
The future income and outgo of the additional CPP depend on many demographic and economic factors. Thus, many assumptions in respect of the future demographic and economic outlook are required to project the financial state of the additional Plan. These assumptions impact the contribution rates, cash flows, amount of assets, as well as other indicators of the financial state. This section discusses the sensitivity of the minimum first and second additional contribution rates to the use of different assumptions than the best estimate.
Can’t fault the report for admitting it has to make assumptions. However, the trends of the current government are not great. Admitting large numbers of “refugees” who are and will remain a burden will not contribute to public coffers. Nor will vast amounts of seniors or others who won’t work. Furthermore, making industrial projects more difficult (Bills C-48 and C-69), means additional Canadians not working.
The actuarial projections of the financial state of the Canada Pension Plan presented in this report reveal that if the CPP is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, the constant minimum first and second additional contribution rates that result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Canada Pension Plan would be, respectively, 1.93% for the year 2023 and thereafter and 7.72% for the year 2024 and thereafter.
This report confirms that if the Canada Pension Plan is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, a legislated first additional contribution rate of 2.0% for the year 2023 and thereafter, and a legislated second additional contribution rate of 8.0% for the year 2024 and thereafter, result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Plan over the long term. Under these rates, assets of the additional Plan would accumulate to $70 billion by 2025, and to $1,330 billion by 2050.
No real surprise. The report concludes that the changes that the Government wants to bring in are exactly what are needed to make the plan sustainable.
CPPIB Claims Plan Sustainable Past 2090
Within this strategic framework, fiscal 2017 was a good year for CPPIB. Our diversified portfolio achieved a net return of 11.8% after all costs. Assets increased by $37.8 billion, of which $33.5 billion came from the net income generated by CPPIB from investment activities, after all costs, and $4.3 billion from net contributions to the CPP. Our 10-year real rate of return of 5.1%, after all CPPIB costs, remains above the 3.9% average rate of return that the Chief Actuary of Canada assumes in assessing the sustainability of the CPP. In his latest triennial review issued in September 2016, the Chief Actuary reported that the Base CPP is sustainable until at least 2090.
CPPIB toots its own horn, stating that the plan is sustainable at least until 2090. Page 5 is a quote from the 2017 annual report.
Quotes From 2019 CPPIB Annual Report
This is a graph included at the beginning of the report (page 3). It projects that by the year 2040, the Canada Pension Plan will have over $1.5 trillion in assets. This is in comparison to the $393 billion that there currently is.
It shows that actual assets have been higher than projected assets for the last 3 years.
The most recent triennial report by the Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the CPP is sustainable over a 75-year projection period. Projections of the CPP Fund, being the combined assets of the base and additional CPP accounts, are based on the nominal projections from the 29th Actuarial Report supplementing the 27th and 28th Actuarial Reports on the Canada Pension Plan as at December 31, 2015.
The report shows a graph with projected assets. However, it doesn’t seem to address liabilities. Specifically, the pension contributions of much younger people who are paying into the system and are entitled to get it out when they retire.
This is impressive. Over the last decade, $239 billion has been added to the fund, an equivalent of 11% annual growth. Of course, one may be forgiven for asking why premiums are so high if it’s all just going into a government fund.
CPPIB Claims Fund Is Worth Billions
Note: The sources for this data is in all of the annual reports, going back a decade, which are linked up in SECTION 1.
Inv. Income refers to investment income. This is money CPPIB claims that the funds make annually. Notice the rate of return varies from 6-18%. That is money that CPPIB makes, not money that YOU will be making from the pension plan.
Year
Value of Fund
Inv Income
Rate of Return
2010
$127.6B
$22.1B
14.9%
2011
$148.2B
$20.6B
11.9%
2012
$161.6B
$9.9B
6.6%
2013
$183.3B
$16.7B
10.1%
2014
$219.1B
$30.1B
16.5%
2015
$264.6B
$40.6B
18.3%
2016
$278.9B
$9.1
6.8%
2017
$316.7B
$33.5B
11.8%
2018
$356.B
$36.7B
11.6%
2019
$392B
$32B
8.9%
The value of the pension fund is skyrocketing? Isn’t it? Looking at the values from the annual reports, it has tripled in value in just a decade. This is incredible growth.
What then is the problem?
CPPIB Has Billions In Unfunded Liabilities
Not just billions, but hundreds of billions in liabilities.
The Plan is intended to be long-term and enduring in nature, a fact that is reinforced by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ joint stewardship through the established strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing its future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future participants in the assessment of the Plan’s financial state confirms that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations over the long term1 2
What is the difference between open group basis and closed group basis?
The open group approach addresses assets and liabilities with respect to their expectations v.s. reality. The closed group approach, however, measures total assets and liabilities. And to see how much of a difference it makes, see the following two screenshots.
If you use the open group approach, everything looks fine. Reality comes very close to what you are expecting. However, the “closed group approach” takes everything into account, not just expectations.
Remember, when younger workers are paying into CPP, the organization has the money, but it isn’t theirs. It belongs to the workers, even if they won’t retire for 20, 30, or 40 years. The only way “open group approach” works is if the CPPIB had no intention of paying younger workers back.
All things considered, Canada Pension Plan is short $884.2 billion (as of 2016). This is if you don’t use selective accounting.
Paying off current obligations, by taking money from new people. Isn’t that how a ponzi scheme works? To be fair though, there is “some” investing done by CPPIB. It’s just that the bulk of the new money comes from the younger suckersworkers.
Guess this partially explains why all parties are so pro-mass-migration. Workers are needed to be shipped in to contribute deductions to fund the shortfall.
Is CPP Used To Prop Up Public Pensions?
As the federal and provincial governments continue discussing changes to the Canada Pension Plan, it is worth recalling that there are no public discussions of the most important pension issue in Canada: The unsustainable gap between the pensions of public servants and most everyone else. In fact, some critics maintain that the push to expand the CPP is driven by an unspoken need to prop up public-sector pension plans a little longer. However, doing so will only delay the inevitable overhaul of both the benefits and the funding of public-sector pensions.
The key issues surrounding public-service pension-plan benefits are mostly unspoken, both to their members and to taxpayers. Public-sector unions allow their members to believe the fiction that members contribute a fair share of their own retirement benefits, when really, the vast majority is funded by taxpayers. Few people appreciate how the CPP is folded into public-sector pension benefits: since benefits are “defined” in advance, an increase in CPP benefits reduces the amount that a public-sector pension needs to pay out to retired workers (leaving unchanged the total benefit payout to public-sector retirees). Meanwhile, taxpayers are kept in the dark about the full measure of unfunded future benefits they will have to pay, even as they shoulder more of the burden for their own retirement.
That is a theory floated over the years. Unfortunately, it gets difficult to prove given how CPPIB will not be honest about their $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. Their annual reports seem designed to conceal the truth.
An interesting argument though. If public sector union workers are retiring (or are retired), then they have likely been promised a good pension. However, if those union funds can’t cover it, would CPP be dipped into to make up the difference?
CPPIB “Invests” 85% Outside Of Canada
(From page 11 of the 2019 report)
Our 2025 strategy With two decades under our belt, CPPIB has hit its stride and truly knows its potential as a global active manager of capital. Last year, I wrote about the Board-approved strategic direction for CPPIB in 2025. Over this past year, we’ve continued to refine this 2025 strategy, and chart the course for the coming years.
Pillars of our 2025 plan include investing up to one-third of the Fund in emerging markets such as China, India and Latin America, increasing our opportunity set and pursuing the most attractive risk-adjusted returns. We have reoriented our investment departments to deliver on this growth plan, to manage a larger Fund and to achieve our desired geographic and asset diversification.
To ask the obvious question: why is the CPPIB so eager to plow its money into FOREIGN ventures? Wouldn’t putting the bulk of it into Canadian projects make more sense?
This is not just a return-on-investment issue. Plowing that money into Canadian industries would help Canadians, and help drive Canadian employment, would it not? This is supposed to be a “Canadian” pension fund.
(From page 13 of the 2019 report). The CPPIB expects that by 2050, nearly 1/2 of all income to the pension plan will be from interest and dividends on its portfolio
For reference, the fund value is calculated using this rough formula
Employee & Employer CPP Contributions + Fund Investment Returns – CPP payouts = Value
So how much of CPPIB investments are in Canada?
That’s right, just 15.5% in Canada. The other 84.5% is invested abroad. Where specifically is this money going?
(1) Midstream joint venture United States US$1.34 billion Formed a joint venture with Williams to establish midstream exposure in the U.S., with initial ownership stakes in two of Williams’ midstream systems.
(2) Grand Paris development Paris, France Formed a joint venture with CMNE, La Française’s majority shareholder, to develop real estate projects linked to the Grand Paris project, a significant infrastructure initiative in Paris.
(3) Ultimate Software United States Total value: US$11 billion Acquired a leading global provider of cloud-based human capital management solutions, alongside consortium partners Hellman & Friedman, Blackstone and GIC. (4) CPPIB Green Bond Issuance Canada and Europe C$1.5 billion/€$1.0 billion First pension fund to issue green bonds in 10-year fixed-rate notes. Our inaugural Green Bond was a Canadian dollar-denominated bond, followed by a eurodenominated bond.
(5) ChargePoint United States Total value: US$240 million Invested as part of a funding round in preferred shares of ChargePoint, the world’s leading electric vehicle charging network.
(6) European logistics facilities Europe €450 million Formed a partnership with GLP and Quadreal to develop modern logistics facilities in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium.
(7) Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP) São Paulo, Brazil R$1.9 billion Together with Votorantim Energia, acquired a controlling stake in CESP, a Brazilian hydro-generation company.
(8) Pacifico Sur Mexico C$314 million (initial) Signed an agreement alongside Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan to acquire a 49% stake in a 309-kilometre toll road in Mexico from IDEAL.
(9) WestConnex Sydney, Australia Total value: A$9.26 billion Invested in WestConnex, a 33-kilometre toll road project in Sydney, alongside consortium partners Transurban, AustralianSuper and ADIA.
(10) Logistics facilities Korea Up to US$500 million Partnered with ESR to invest in modern logistics facilities in Korea.
(11) Challenger fund Australia and New Zealand A$500 million Partnered with Challenger Investment Partners to invest in middle-market real estate loans in Australia and New Zealand.
(12) Ant Financial China US$600 million Invested in Ant Financial, a company with an integrated technology platform and an ecosystem of partners to bring more secure and transparent financial services to individuals and small businesses.
(13) Renewable power assets Canada, U.S., Germany C$2.25 billion Acquired 49% of Enbridge’s interests in a portfolio of North American onshore wind and solar assets and two German offshore wind projects, and agreed to form a joint venture to pursue future European offshore wind investment opportunities.
(14) Berlin Packaging United States US$500 million Invested US$500 million in the recapitalization of Berlin Packaging L.L.C. alongside Oak Hill Capital Partners. Berlin Packaging is a leading supplier of packaging products and services to companies in multiple industries.
That’s right. Our Canadian pension fund is being used to prop up projects in: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain and the United States.
We won’t invest in Canadian industries, but we will bail them out. Great idea.
What about item #4, those green bonds?
CPPIB Endorses Climate Change Scam
So called green bonds are now available for sale. So state the obvious, if climate change were really a threat to humanity, then this is blatantly taking advantage of it.
Support for environmental companies or projects and clean technology is a strategic priority for EDC as demand rises for goods and services that allow for a more efficient use of the planet’s resources. Opportunities to create trade are abundant in this sector and Canada possesses a large pool of both established and emerging expertise in clean technology subsectors such as water and wastewater, biofuel, and waste to energy, to name a few.
Eligible transactions will include loans that help mitigate climate change with clean technology or improved energy efficiency. They also include transactions that specifically focus on soil, or help mitigate climate change. Our rigorous due diligence requirements ensure that all projects and transactions we support are financially, environmentally and socially responsible.
What happens when it becomes politically untenable for these globalist politicians to keep wasting taxpayer money on this hoax? Will it collapse? Will we have to perpetuate the lie in order to ensure that our “investments” don’t disappear?
Another factor that is reshaping the global investment environment is climate change. As a long-term investor, understanding environmental impacts on our investments is a key consideration and we continue to chart both the risks and opportunities stemming from climate change. This year, we launched our inaugural Green Bond, becoming the first pension fund to do so. We followed that with a euro-denominated offering. These issuances provide additional funding for CPPIB as it increases its holdings in renewables and energy-efficient buildings as world demand gradually transitions in favour of such investible assets.
(From Page 10 of the 2019 report.) Perhaps no one informed them that the climate change agenda is a scam, and has become a money pit.
This is hardly the first time that green bonds have come up. It will not be the last either.
When they say “risks and opportunities”, what are the opportunities? Will it be investing in a bubble that is sure to burst? Will it be taking advantage of desperate people?
Euro-denominated offerings? Why, is it a bigger market there?
What You Aren’t Being Told
The CPPIB admits that the bulk of its fund (around 85%) is actually invested outside of the country. That’s right, Canadians’ pension contributions being used to finance foreign investments. People assume that their money will be recirculated locally, but that is not the case.
CPPIB admits that it embraces the climate change scam. It goes as far as to endorse so-called “green bonds”. Again, this isn’t something the average person would know.
There is a credible case to be made that CPP funds are being used to top of public sector accounts, which are underfunded.
The CPP Investment Board intentionally distorts the truth about the unfunded liabilities. Using the OPEN GROUP approach, they show that actual assets are very close to expected assets, and they can cover their liabilities.
However, the more honest CLOSED GROUP approach will address “all” assets and liabilities, not just current ones. As it turns out, in 2016, the Canada Pension Plan had $285.4B in assets, and $1169.5B ($1.169.5 trillion) in liabilities. This works out to a $884.2B shortfall.
CPP is grossly underfunded.
CPP is being used to top up public pensions.
CPP is being invested in “green” schemes.
CPP is mainly being “invested” out of Canada.
CPP requires ever growing populations.
In short, we are screwed.
