Category: Vaccines

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes From WestJet Exemption Questionnaire

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

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

Question #7. Describe the accommodation you are seeking:

Exemption from vaccination; from masks; from rapid testing

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

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

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

Over 3 years

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

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

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Argento Accepts Argument Termination Unnecessary

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

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

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

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

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

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

WestJet Plays Games With Issue Of Jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 24th, 2025: Trial begins.

May 13th, 2025: Judgement is issued.

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Happened With Justice Southcott’s Decision

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

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

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

The Statement of Claim revolved around 2 torts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottawa Claims Southcott Should Have Refused Jurisdiction

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

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

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

Respondents Say Justice Southcott Made No Errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025
(3) Payne Agreement To Contents Of Appeal Book February 2025
(4) Payne Joint Appeal Book March 2025
(5) Payne Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law April 2025
(6) Payne Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law May 2025

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

CNRL Claims Miles Was Offered His Job Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Poison Pills” Slipped Into Statement Of Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Of This CNRL Case

September 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in Calgary.

March 2023: Statement of Defence is filed.

November 2024: The case is discontinued.

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

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

CSASPP Class Action Certification Application Still Under Reserve 2 Years Later

It has been a full 2 years since the Certification hearings concluded between CSASPP (the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy), the British Columbia Government, and Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry. No ruling has been made yet.

The Government is also asking the Court to strike the case altogether. While surviving such Applications is usually straightforward, a class proceeding complicates things.

The stakes are very high. If certified, the case would potentially create millions of Plaintiffs.

The hearings began in December of 2022, and were expected to conclude in a single week. That didn’t happen, so a week in April 2023 was needed to finish them off. Then, the decision was deferred.

Unfortunately, there’s no way to make any progress until this is settled once and for all.

In fairness to Justice Crerar, he has a big workload to deal with.

That being said, people do need an answer as to whether or not this case will be certified. 2 years is a long time to make a decision, even with an undertaking of this size. Hopefully, one will come soon.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

January, 2021: The case was initially filed in January 2021 as a Proposed Class Action.

March, 2021: The B.C. Government responds to the lawsuit.

June, 2021: Plaintiffs bring their proposal for case management.

July, 2021: Defendants bring their own proposal to manage the case.

September, 2021: Notice of Civil Claim is amended.

December, 2022: Certification hearings start, but take longer than originally anticipated. They were intended to be completed over a single week.

April 2023: Certification hearings resume, taking up another week. The decision is under reserve, meaning it will be issued later. However, Justice Crerar would still make several subsequent requests for submissions based on related cases happening elsewhere.

July, 2023: Ingram, the disaster of a ruling, is brought to Justice Crerar’s attention. This is the Alberta ruling that struck down orders on a technicality (Cabinet interference), but otherwise okayed them in principle.

September, 2023: Bonnie Henry’s lawyer objects to CSASPP filing a Petition against the vaccine passport for health care workers, claiming the existing litigation amounts to a duplication, and hence, abuse of process.

April, 2024: Justice Crerar sends notice that he will likely be issuing a decision on the Certification Application within a month or so. As a result, CSASPP forwards several recent rulings on related issues. But, the ruling is further delayed.

May, 2024: Bonnie Henry’s lawyers are invited to make further written submissions.

April, 2025: Randy Hillier’s win at the Ontario Court of Appeal is forwarded.

So, When Will The Decision Be Made?

There’s no way to answer this.

Justice Crerar has since released decisions in other cases, although, they’re much simpler in scope. The ruling he issues — whatever it is — will impact millions of people. The various requests for submissions suggest that he’s trying to ward off any possibility of an appeal.

For what it’s worth, the overall quality of the filings has been very high. This is night and day different from another case in Vancouver.

It’s a game of hurry-up-and-wait.

LINKS TO REVIEW:
(1) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
(2) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/faq
(5) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/transparency
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/hearing-videos
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2108/2022bcsc2108.html

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FROM CASE
(A) CSASPP 20210126 Notice of Civil Claim
(B) CSASPP 20210321 Request for Assignment of Judge
(C) CSASPP 20210331 Response to Civil Claim
(D) CSASPP 20210531 Cease and Desist Letter to Regulators
(E) CSASPP 20210621 CSASPPs Case Plan Proposal
(F) CSASPP 20210621 Dr Bonnie Henrys availability requested
(G) CSASPP 20210731 Defendants Case Plan Proposal
(H) CSASPP 20210813 Requisition for JMC for 1 October 2021
(I) CSASPP 20210817 Demand for Particulars
(J) CSASPP 20210821 Plaintiffs Response to Demand for Particulars
(K) CSASPP 20210913 Oral Reasons for Judgment Short Leave Application Seeking Stay
(L) CSASPP 20210915 Amended Notice of Civil Claim
(M) CSASPP 20211025 Affidavit No 2 of CSASPP Executive Director
(N) CSASPP 20211028 Proceedings in Chambers Defendants Application for Further Particulars
(O) CSASPP 20221101 Affidavit No 3 of Redacted Deponent Redacted
(P) CSASPP 20221102 Dr Henry and HMTKs Application Response for Webcast Application
(Q) CSASPP 20221115 Respondents Requisition Seeking 16 Nov 2022 CPC to Be Held by MS Teams

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Case Struck With Leave To Partially Amend, And The s.15 Deception

In recent years, there has been a common pattern happening in high profile lawsuits. Specifically, litigants have a tendency to file unnecessary Appeals, in order to delay their own cases. This happens when Judges permit amended versions to go forward, but are ignored.

Readers of this site have heard of the infamous 4 “travel mandates cases”, brought in 2021 and 2022. They’re perhaps the most egregious examples.

Summer of 2022, all 4 Applications were declared “moot” by Associate Chief Justice Gagné. This was because the vaccine passports weren’t in effect anymore. There was one important caveat though: Applicants were free to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. This is clear in paragraphs 27, 41 and 46 of the decision.

Instead of filing Statement of Claims — which was expressly permitted — all of the Applicants appealed. Rickard/Harrison, Bernier, Peckford, Naoum, etc…. all filed Notice of Appeal. That’s correct, they appealed ACJ Gagné’s ruling, when they could have amended. No convincing explanation has ever been provided of why.

Lawyers for the Appellants then proceeded to crash their cases into the ground. Among other problems, they argued the wrong standard of review for mootness. Instead of properly arguing “overriding, palpable error”, 2 argued correctness, and the other 2 nothing at all.

Bernier, Peckford and Naoum all filed Applications for Leave, requesting that the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases. Again, they appealed, when they could have amended. All Applications were denied.

Interestingly, none of Bernier, Peckford or Naoum appear to have filed a Statement of Claim afterwards, despite the fact that they could have. They simply abandoned their cases.

Instead of going to the Supreme Court, Rickard and Harrison finally filed their own claim in 2023, which was the more sensible option. But that, and the amended version had serious problems, with the Attorney General brining a Motion to Strike.

When Associate Judge Trent Horne eventually ruled, something interesting happened. The Section 7 and 12 claims were struck entirely, and the Section 6 (for Rickard only) as well. But while the Section 15 claims were struck as well, he granted leave to amend.

The public is being told that the case is “moving to Trial” on the s.15 claims. This is a gross misrepresentation of what the Judge said. Getting permission for a rewrite is not the same thing as getting the green light to move forward.

Rather than filing another version, Rickard and Harrison appealed again. Once more, they appealed a decision, when they could have amended their filings. Noticing a pattern here?

Results Of November 2024 Motion To Strike

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Allowed to proceed for both Rickard and Harrison

This is what the pinned tweets of Rickard and Harrison say. But the truth is quite different.

  • Section 6 (mobility): Allowed to proceed for Harrison, struck entirely for Rickard
  • Section 7 (security): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 12 (cruel/unusual): Struck entirely for both Rickard and Harrison
  • Section 15 (equality): Struck for both Rickard and Harrison, but with leave to amend

In reality, the case was struck entirely against Rickard. Harrison (being the only Canadian citizen), could pursue s.6 at any time. The only caveat is that they have an opportunity to file — yet another — version of the Statement of Claim for s.15.

This *may* be one of the reasons behind the latest appeal. Rickard’s only pathway (currently) at continuing the case is a long-shot attempt to redraft the Statement of Claim in a way that would allow the s.15 claims to go ahead. He doesn’t have s.6 to fall back on. This may be a way of creating a “backup”.

That may not be a bad idea. However, Rickard and Harrison need to be honest about the results of the Motion.

Rickard/Harrison V.S. What Horne Actually Wrote About S.15 Claims

The tweet is very long, but it does get to the specifics about each tort. For the most part, they’re accurate.

Paragraphs 54 to 61 of A.J. Horne’s decision make it very clear what happened regarding the Section 15 claims. They are not “proceeding to Trial”. They were struck, albeit with permission to amend.

[55] Vaccination status is not an enumerated ground in section 15, nor has it been recognized as an analogous ground. Analogous grounds are those similar to the enumerated grounds that would often serve as the basis for stereotypical decisions made not on the basis of merit but on the basis of a personal characteristic that is immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity (Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203 at para 13).

[56] No material facts are specifically pleaded in respect of the section 15 claim. The plaintiffs broadly allege that the vaccine mandates, implemented through the IMOs, violate section 15.

[57] Charter actions do not trigger special rules on motions to strike; the requirement of pleading material facts still applies. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined in the case law the substantive content of each Charter right, and a plaintiff must plead sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provision in question. This is no mere technicality, “rather, it is essential to the proper presentation of Charter issues” (Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at para 21).

[61] While the chances of having vaccination status recognized as an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15 may be remote in light of the current jurisprudence, I am not satisfied that such an argument is bound to fail if the plaintiffs allege that vaccination would constitute an unacceptable cost to their personal identity, or would tear asunder immutable or even deeply held beliefs. Lewis and Costa do not foreclose this possibility, or stand for the proposition that vaccination status is incapable of constituting an analogous ground. While it may be dim, there is a “glimmer of hope” (La Rose at para 122) that vaccination status could be recognized as an analogous ground. Leave to amend to add a cause of action under section 15 is granted for both plaintiffs, however any such amendment must be fully and completely particularized.

It is possible that a new complaint would be drafted in such a way that the s.15 claims could go to Trial. However, that’s not what happened here at all. And it’s not just some technicality either.

Also, why appeal A.J. Horne’s ruling if you’re proceeding anyway?

This is the sort of thing Action4Canada did.

Rickard/Harrison Case Is PRIVATE Suit For Damages

[29] The plaintiffs submit that they are able to challenge IMOs as they relate to rail travel because an intention to travel by rail at the material time is irrelevant; they say the inability to travel by rail alone triggers the ability to advance a claim. I cannot agree. There is no indication in any version of the statement of claim that the plaintiffs ever intended to travel by rail when the IMOs were in place. There is no loss or harm, and no basis to claim damages, in this respect. A claim for damages based on railway travel would be an abstract complaint about a government restriction that had no impact or consequence on the plaintiffs. I fail to see how either of the plaintiffs have standing to advance a claim for damages based on a method of transportation they did not use, and expressed no interest in using. At the hearing, the plaintiffs directly stated that they are not advancing a claim based on public interest standing. Leave to amend in this respect is refused.

The original Statement of Claim, the amended version, and the proposed new version ask for anything other than money for themselves. No injunctive or declaratory relief is sought.

At the 2024 hearing, they make it clear that they are NOT seeking any sort of public interest standing, which would benefit many more people.

“Buyout” From Ottawa Is Always An Option

This has been stated before, but is worth repeating:

Because it’s a private lawsuit, seeking only monetary damages, Ottawa could always offer to pay it out, along with costs. This would mean no groundbreaking decision, and no precedent. And really, there’d be no practical way for the Plaintiffs to refuse such an offer.

Current Appeal Is A Somewhat Of A Gongshow

Because the ruling was from an Associate Justice, and not a full one, Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules applies. This means that there is a 10 day time limit to file Motion to have it reviewed.

However, their lawyer missed the deadline to appeal by a few weeks, then requested an extension of time to file. The Crown decided not to oppose the request.

The Court did issue new direction on refiling, and the extension has since been approved.

Instead of filing a new Statement of Claim, Rickard and Harrison are appealing the portions that struck entirely, which are s.7 and s.12. Keep in mind, the Attorney General hasn’t initiated any Appeal. They’ve come solely from the Plaintiffs/Applicants. They’ve also mentioned the possibility of this upcoming decision being appealed as well.

Should that happen, things will probably take close to a year at the Federal Court of Appeal. Then, they’ll have to refile their claim, something they could have done months ago.

Or, to be more accurate, a Statement of Claim could have been filed in the Summer of 2022, after the original Applications were declared “moot”. That was nearly 3 years ago.

Think about it: we can be well into the year 2026, or even 2027, and these people will still be asking for money to file

*checks notes*

another Statement of Claim.

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.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) Rickard T-2536-23 Decision For Motion To Strike
(11) Rickard T-2536-23 Rule 51 Motion Appealing AJ Horne Decision
(12) Rickard T-2536-23 Letter From Crown On Extending Time To Appeal
(13) Rickard T-2536-23 Order Regarding Motion To Extend Time

MISCELLANEOUS:
(1) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(2) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(3) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(4) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application To Strike BCPSEF Claim Entirely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application To Strike UHCWBC Claim Entirely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certification Applications For Both BCPSEF And UHCWBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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