Category: Vaccines

Posted on

CSASPP Certification Refused, Appeal Being Considered

A long overdue ruling has finally come for the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, or CSASPP. This is the Proposed Class Action filed in Vancouver, back in January, 2021.

However, it’s not what many had been hoping for, as certification was refused. Justice Crerar referred to the case as an “abuse of process”.

An obvious question is why it took 2 1/2 years to issue a decision, if the defects were so clear cut. The hearings concluded in April, 2023, and it’s now October, 2025. The case had been under reserve the entire time.

While the Judge seemed disinclined to issue costs over the unsuccessful certification, the Defendants are still able to request them anyway.

The status update on CSASPP’s website goes into detail about issues with the decision. It’s more detailed than here, and worth reading. The update concludes as follows:

“If we are to appeal the ruling, we have 30 days to do so from the date of the ruling. We have not made any decision and will continue to analyze your options. If you would like us to pursue an appeal, you can show your support in donating. As usual, we will continue to keep you apprised in the meantime.”

Here are a few points to consider.

1. Justice Crerar Critical Of Several Versions Of Pleadings

[47] To be fair to the plaintiff, to some extent the factual basis has evolved in real time: as more public health orders were issued, it was not wholly unreasonable for the plaintiff to amend its pleadings to particularise those new orders. Further, the evolving Covid jurisprudence rendered many of the plaintiff’s legal claims and arguments untenable. That said, many of the amendments could have been anticipated and pleaded at an early stage of the litigation. To give two critical and fundamental examples: as discussed below, the plaintiff was in a position to properly identify and define the subclasses at an early stage, and it was always ill-conceived to have the Society serve as the proposed representative plaintiff.

[133] The plaintiff’s constantly moving pleadings target has consumed a grossly disproportionate amount of time of the parties and the Court: it is near-impossible to respond to or adjudicate on a pleading that is so mutable. Such constant amendments constitute in themselves an abuse of process.

The Judge would go on at length how the Notice of Civil Claim had been amended several times. He said there were 8 versions in total. However, he offers a reasonable justification for most of it: Bonnie Henry issued new health orders over time, and older ones became obsolete. As such, changes would be necessary, in order to avoid mootness becoming an issue.

Yes, it was something of a “moving target”, but that was the result of a steady stream of new orders.

The case was filed in January 2021. Travel restrictions within the Province wouldn’t be introduced until April, and terminate in June. Injection passes wouldn’t become a reality until September or October for most people. It’s difficult to litigate issues prior to their existence.

And if having the Society itself was such a problem, it would have been better to know that sooner. Alternatives were offered.

2. Justice Crerar Critical Of Multiple Proceedings

[163] As a further basis for striking the claim as an abuse of process, the plaintiff Society has filed three proceedings against the same defendant—Dr. Bonnie Henry—each concerning various health orders. It is an abuse of process for the plaintiff to bring this action against these defendants when it has already brought other proceedings in relation to the same subject matter (one petition of which has now been dismissed, and the other abandoned).

The Judge would cite 2 Petitions that CSASPP had filed against Bonnie Henry. One was to challenge the limit on public gatherings, and the other was the new injection mandate for health care workers. He had a point in that they did have overlapping issues.

However, these were limited challenges, and ones that couldn’t wait years for the Court to act in the larger case.

And it’s not as if he was efficient in handing down this ruling.

3. Justice Crerar Preferred Petition Over Claim

[195] First, as set out above, the present claim is a thinly-veiled challenge to administrative decisions that would be appropriately brought as a judicial review. In Ernst, the existence of judicial review as a more appropriate remedy to address the essence of the plaintiff’s complaints weighed heavily against the continued survival of a claim based in Charter damages:

[199] Declaratory relief is a more appropriate remedy than Charter damages in a case like this one that deals with broad questions of policy, public health, and medical and epidemiological judgment. Of course, the plaintiff would prefer to avoid that administrative law remedy, as it appropriately requires deference to the expert decision maker entrusted by the legislature with those decisions, as seen in Hoogerbrug and Beaudoin, and many other Covid-related decisions.

A Petition, or Judicial Review, is a limited challenge to existing orders or decisions. Unlike a Civil Claim, this isn’t meant to be broad, or to have much of an evidence gathering process. There’s also no opportunity to pursue a Class Action.

Moreover, there’s typically a high degree of deference given to the “expert decision makers”, which often renders Petitions ineffective.

4. Justice Crerar Takes Shots At CSASPP’s Lawyer

[399] I wish to emphasise that nothing in this section should be read as casting any aspersion on the competence or ethics on plaintiff’s counsel, who has proven herself to be a skilled, eloquent, and zealous advocate in court. The plaintiff’s serial failures to meet court deadlines, and the ever-changing parameters of the proposed class proceeding, from proposed plaintiffs, to claims, to common issues, may well be the fault of the plaintiff Society and its principals rather than her law firm. The point is that a plaintiff and a law firm proposing what will be the largest and most complicated class proceeding in Canadian history must establish a commensurate degree of competence and experience, as exhibited through impeccable prosecution of the claim, to have any hope of certification.

While designed to be tactful, this comes across as insulting. And just because a case is complicated, that’s not grounds to throw it out. Such a suit would be an immense amount of work for a single lawyer, but it’s not as if more couldn’t be retained if certification was successful.

Of course, Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia have an almost inexhaustible supply of money, courtesy of taxpayers. They are forced to contribute to the defence regardless of their views.

5. Alternative Representative Plaintiffs Were Offered

[381] As set out above, Ms Leppky is cited as a representative of the religious subclass: her religious beliefs prohibit her from getting vaccinated, thus affecting her ability to work, and to access various locations. Ms Gauthier is cited as a representative of the proposed medical subclass: her surgery was cancelled, affecting her pain, stress and ability to work. In contrast to the other two, Mr Parihar is not cited as a representative of any of the subclasses, but he presumably represents the vaccination subclass: the FANCC avers that he was unable to attend certain events and locations, and was shunned due to his unvaccinated status.

In the event that the Society itself was considered unsuitable, an alternative was offered that would see 3 individuals become Representative Plaintiffs. That was refused.

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.

October, 2025: The Certification Application is dismissed.

Will This Ruling Be Appealed?

There’s a 30 day time limit to decide, and there’s no official word yet.

Justice Crerar was extremely critical of CSASPP for unnecessarily delaying the case. He then takes 2 1/2 years to hand down a ruling that should — by his own remarks — have been straightforward. The 144 page ruling is bloated, and could easily have been 30 or 40.

He seemed to imply at paragraph 14 that a Class Action would be less efficient than having Plaintiffs bring individual suits, which of course defies the wisdom of bringing one.

He dwelled about a lawsuit that Kip Warner had been involved with against Google. While minor, it was irrelevant to this case.

The Judge’s preferred avenue — a Petition — wouldn’t address many of the concerns raised in the Claim. Nor would there be an opportunity for any deep dive into the evidence. CSASPP also wouldn’t be able to challenge the declaration of emergency, which started this in the first place.

Interestingly, this proceeding was declared to be an “abuse” of the legal system. However, Action4Canada’s case, the most poorly drafted suit in B.C. history, wasn’t ruled to be one. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Appeal called it that.

RULING ON CERTIFICATION
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc2051/2025bcsc2051.pdf

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

Adelberg Amended: “Wrongful Termination” Claim Alleges Arbitrary Detainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is only the beginning of the problems here.

“Wrongful Termination” Suit Alleges Arbitrary Detention

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuit Fails To IDENTIFY All Plaintiffs

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

As should be obvious, this is complete nonsense.

Amended Claim Doesn’t Plead Necessary Facts Or Particulars

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

Frequent readers will have seen this chart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Facts Pleaded For s.6, Mobility Rights Torts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Facts Pleaded For s.15, Equality Rights Torts

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

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

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

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

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

No Facts Pleaded For Miscellaneous Torts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action4Canada Faces Another Application To Strike

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

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

Dorceus Appeal Will Go Absolutely Nowhere

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

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

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

Limitation Period Expires For CSASPP Defamation Appeal

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

Frivolous Cases Waste Donor/Client Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

From April: Australian Court Throws Out 1,000 Page Class Action As Incoherent

A while back, an Australian Court issued a ruling that is eerily similar to what has been happening here. A Proposed Class Action was filed to obtain justice for victims who had been injured from the “Covid vaccines”.

Justice Anna Katzmann of the Federal Court in New South Wales issued a 62 page decision, see archive, explaining why the lawsuit was thrown out.

***Note: this ruling was actually from April, 2025. Due to a bunch of different delays and setbacks, including getting these documents, it’s finally being covered now. Nonetheless, it’s proof that the rampant screw-ups from the “freedom lawyers” isn’t limited to just Canada. Australian lawyers apparently can be just as bad. Here’s an earlier article on it.

The Plaintiff is also on the hook for 80% of the Defendants’ Court costs.

  1. The third further amended statement of claim be struck out.
  2. No other amended statement of claim be filed without the leave of the Court.
  3. The respondents’ application for security for costs be dismissed.
  4. The applicants pay 80% of the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application filed on 17 June 2024.
  5. These orders be entered forthwith.

Although the Claim was struck, it at least allows for the possibility that a proper version may be filed, if leave was granted. But it wouldn’t happen with present counsel.

While the lawyers in Canada (deservedly) get endless criticism from this site, it’s worth noting that the problem isn’t limited to just them. We have more in common than it seems.

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada are ridiculed for their absurdly long claims (391 and 191 pages, respectively). However, this one much longer than either of those.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the Statement of Claim was 1,000 pages long. Or at least, 2 of the versions were 1,000 pages. Lawyers apparently “settled” on one that was over 800. This alone would have unnecessarily driven up legal costs.

651 pages – first version
652 pages – second version
990 pages – third version
1,023 pages – fourth version
818 pages – fifth version

Excluding Notice of Filing and the back page, this totals 4,134, or 827 pages per draft. Lawyers would have to read over 4,000 pages just to cover the different versions of the Statement of Claim. Beyond that, Justice Katzmann complains that her various directions weren’t complied with, driving up costs, and wasting time.

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

[2] The proceeding was commenced in April 2023 by the filing of an originating application and a 652-page statement of claim. Since then, the statement of claim has been amended four times. Still, the pleading remains prolix. The latest version, the third further amended statement of claim (3FASOC), is 819 pages long. It is dense and extremely difficult to follow. Substantial parts of it are impenetrable.

[3] The relief sought is “compensation and/or damages” with interest plus costs. The basis of the claim for compensation, as distinct from damages, is obscure. A claim is made in the pleading, but not in the originating application, for exemplary damages but that claim is not particularised, contrary to the requirement in r 16.44(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) that, where such a claim is made, the pleading must also “state particulars of the facts on which the claim is based”. Despite the misfeasance claim, no declaration is sought that anything allegedly done by any of the Commonwealth officers was unauthorised, invalid or beyond power.

[13] The respondents’ contention is that summary judgment should be entered in their favour because the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success; the 3FASOC fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action; and the proceeding is an abuse of process.

[14] Alternatively, the respondents contend that the pleading should be struck out in full because it contains scandalous material, is embarrassing, evasive and ambiguous, and an abuse of process, and it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

[15] The respondents contend that the negligence claim is bound to fail because the applicants have no reasonable prospect of establishing the existence of the pleaded duty; the allegations of bad faith have not been adequately pleaded or properly particularised; the allegations of breach are vague, generalised, embarrassing and inappropriate; and the pleading makes no attempt to link the alleged breaches of duty to the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants. The respondents contend that the misfeasance claim is fatally flawed in a number of respects.

[37] Pleadings are covered by Pt 16 of the Rules. The key features include the following matters. First, a pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case permits: r 16.02(1)(b). Second, it must identify the issues the party wants the Court to resolve: r 16.02(1)(c). Third, it must state the material facts on which the party relies that are necessary to give the opposite party fair notice of the case against it but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved: r 16.02(d). Fourth, it must state the provisions of any statute relied on: r 16.02(e). In addition, a pleading must not ask for relief that is not claimed in the originating application: r 16.02(4).

[38] Importantly, not all relevant facts are “material facts”. A fact is material if it is essential to the cause of action, that is to say, if it is a fact which, in combination with other facts, gives rise to
a right to sue: Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697 at 710–712 (Scott LJ). In other
words, a fact is material if it is essential to prove that fact in order to make out the cause of
action or put another way, it is an element of the cause of action.

The decision is much longer, of course, but this is noteworthy. Justice Katzmann has to explain, in great detail, what pleadings are supposed to include. Despite the tedious length, most of the necessary information isn’t submitted at all. Nearly the entirety of these filings is irrelevant.

While this was in Australia, the Judge could easily be describing a filing from several Canadian cases.

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

In fairness, Plaintiffs are required to plead sufficient detail so that Defendants understand what they’re being accused of. This is necessary.

However, this goes far beyond that. It argues ad nauseum the side effects and inadequate testing of vaccines. And it goes on for hundreds of pages. The goal of pleadings is to simply lay out the allegations so they can be responded to.

The Claim does (briefly) address the classes of Plaintiffs who will be covered by it. But it gets bogged down by the minute detail. Indeed, this appears designed to be incoherent and convoluted.

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Another parallel here is that this case had significant fundraising as well. While this is certainly not the only source of crowdfunding, this took in nearly $173,000 Australian dollars. Overall, close to $1 million was raised.

And all for a case so poorly drafted it never stood a chance.

Gee, they’re not in cahoots, are they?

AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1.1) https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0339
(1.2) Decision Of Justice Anna Katzmann
(2) Aussie Applicants Genuine Steps Statement (April 26th, 2023)
(3) Aussie Statement of Claim (April 26th, 2023)
(4) Aussie Amended Statement of Claim (April 28th, 2023)
(5) Aussie Further Amended Statement of Claim (September 18th, 2023)
(6) Aussie Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (March 4th, 2024)
(7) Aussie Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (May 6th, 2024)
(8) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (June 17th, 2024)
(9) Aussie Affidavit of Melissa McCann Redacted (July 15th, 2024)
(10) Aussie Applicants Written Submissions (November 11th, 2024)
(11) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (November 18th, 2024)
(12) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (November 29th, 2024)
(13) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (December 20th, 2024)
(14) Aussie Applicants Response (December 20th, 2024)

Posted on

Time Barred? Was Vaccine Injury Class Action Filed Too Late?

Last Spring, news broke about a Proposed Class Action lawsuit filed on behalf of victims who had been injured or killed by Covid vaccines. Understandably, this was big news. Finally, someone would step forward and represent the members of the public, many of whom had no money for individual cases.

Who would be included in this lawsuit?

The Proposed Class
13. The members of the proposed class, hereinafter referred to as (“the Class” or “Class Members”), include:
a. All Canadians who have suffered death or serious injury due to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada;

Question #4 of the FAQ makes it clear that Quebec residents are excluded.

The Representative Plaintiff was to be Drue Taylor, an Alberta resident. She had publicly spoken out about the severe harms that had been inflicted on her. A logical choice.

However, more than a year later, there are concerns that have come up. First among them, was this case filed in time, or is it barred by the Statute of Limitations?

***To preface this article: It’s not meant to attack the victim. She is undoubtedly sincere in describing what she has gone through. The point is to ask hard questions about the lawsuit itself. There are many things that need to be answered.

Alberta Limitations Act Specifies 2 Year Time Limit

Section 3(1) of the Limitations Act of Alberta specifies that there is a 2 year timeframe from when the person knew (or ought to have known) to bring legal action, or a 10 year ultimate limit. There are a number of exceptions, but those mainly have to do with minors, or sexual assault.

Why this matters is because the Statement of Claim was filed on May 6th, 2024. Depending on when she knew (or ought to have known), this may be too late. A Judge would have to decide this. As Taylor is the only Representative Plaintiff, the suit would come to an end.

The Claim pleads virtually nothing about the Plaintiff, except this:

2. The Plaintiff, Drue Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”), is the proposed class representative.

3. Taylor suffered permanent, chronic, and significant physical, psychological, and emotional harms, and other damages, after receiving each of her two COVID-19 vaccine doses.

4. The Plaintiff is 34 years of age with a husband and two children. Prior to 24 April 2021, Taylor worked as a professional massage therapist for humans and horses in addition to being a professional yoga trainer. She resides in St. Albert, Alberta.

Although the Claim offers very little information about Taylor, she did appear before the NCI (National Citizens Inquiry). Some important points to note:

  • Her first shot was April 24th, 2021
  • She had severe reactions almost immediately
  • Her second shot was January 8th, 2022
  • She had far worse reactions immediately after this shot
  • She was diagnosed with POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome) in “April or May of 2022”

Why does this matter? Because any moderately competent lawyer will at least try to argue that the case is time barred, and get it dismissed. During her NCI testimony, Taylor makes it clear that she strongly suspected even in 2021 that it was the vaccines.

At a minimum, a disclaimer should have been included when asking for donations.

$2,000,000 Sought To “Take Case To Trial”

According to the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page about this case, it’s expected that it will cost approximately $2 million to take the case to Trial. It’s implied that it will cover legal costs, hiring of expert witnesses, etc…. See archive. That is a lot of money.

Of course, that raises an obvious question: what happens to any leftover funds if it’s quickly settled, or thrown out on a preliminary challenge? While the 2 year deadline is definitely a concern, it’s not the only one Taylor may face.

Or worse: what happens if the case is not pursued diligently?

Complete Lack Of Activity Since Lawsuit Filed

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on lawyers to report on what has been happening. Alberta, like all Courts, allow records of the proceedings to be accessed by members of the public. And the result is not encouraging.

May 6th, 2024: Statement of Claim is filed.

October 30th, 2024: The case officially became “managed” by the Court.

November 12th, 2024: An upcoming hearing was cancelled.

We are now into July, 2025.

That is the entire case. Even if the Statute of Limitations wasn’t a concern, nor the poor pleadings, there has been no real effort to advance the suit for 14 months. No Defences have been filed, or any sort of preliminary challenge.

***Again, this isn’t to take a swipe at Taylor. However, prospective donors and clients should be informed about what they are being asked to contribute to.

This Site Threatened Again With Litigation

In what shouldn’t be that surprising, yet another “freedom lawyer” is threatening to sue over unfavourable coverage of their anti-lockdown cases.

It wouldn’t be the first time, and probably not the last.

The main criticism appears to be that the overall impression of the articles is misleading. Supposedly, these cases weren’t abandoned, but settled. Considering that many involve unionized employers — and hence, no jurisdiction — that seems unlikely. Then there’s the issue of the defective pleadings themselves.

One of the “discontinued” cases was a Proposed Class Action filed in Manitoba. It was dropped before the Certification process even began. Another 2 were dropped before the suits were even served.

Then there’s the Canada Post disaster. Instead of filing an Application for Judicial Review, and possibly getting the Arbitration overturned, a Statement of Claim was filed. This resulted in it being struck for lack of jurisdiction.

Admittedly, Defendants can, and often do, agree to waive costs in return for having Plaintiffs discontinue their cases. That could easily have happened to at least some of the ones here. Technically, it’s considered a settlement. That being said, it hardly seems like “winning”.

In any event, if counsel want to take this approach, he knows where to serve the Statement of Claim.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Taylor Statement Of Claim
(2) Taylor Statement Of Claim Filed
(3) Taylor Frequently Asked Questions
(4) Taylor Case History July 2025

LIMITATIONS ACT:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-12/

NCI Testimony:
(1) https://rumble.com/v3p2492-drue-taylor-vaccine-injury-develops-pots-red-deer-day-2-national-citizens-i.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o

Posted on

The Hartman Appeal, Part 1: Looking At The Notice

The Court of Appeal for Ontario will review the case of Dan Hartman, either late this year, or early next year. Back in March, the Ontario Superior Court struck the case without an opportunity to amend the pleadings.

This is a wrongful death suit filed after his son, Sean, passed away shortly after taking the injections. A similar one was filed against Pfizer.

Although there is considerable overlap in the facts pleaded, the case is argued 2 ways:

  1. Malfeasance of public office
  2. Negligence

The first tort implies intentional, while negligence implies carelessness.

However, Justice Antoniani threw the case out completely, despite offers to expand the pleadings. It was ruled that the proposed amendments — while they added more information — it wouldn’t help. The necessary elements for malfeasance weren’t pleaded. Nor was there “sufficient proximity” to establish a private law duty of care.

The Appeal seeks to overturn this ruling.

Malfeasance Of Public Office Explained

The Statement of Claim argues that the Defendants acted with “reckless indifference or willful blindness” when they pushed the vaccines on Canadians.

56. As a department, Health Canada is responsible for administering acts and regulations, and for implemening government-wide regulatory initatives. Health Canada was responsible for discharging the operational role of regulatory approval, monitoring, and compliance of Covid-19 vaccinations for use in Canada.

57. The Plaintiff pleads that Health Canada was recklessly indifferent or willfully blind in discharging its responsibilities of regulatory approval and oversight of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID- 19 vaccination by, inter alia:

Starting on paragraph 61, it’s specified:

  • Issuing a certificate of compliance to Pfizer
  • Failing maintain oversight and control over Health Canda in relation to their regulatory responsibility for oversight, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment
  • Representing to Canadians in public statements and press releases that the Covid-19 vaccination was safe and effective, despite the Minister and Minister’s Department of Health possessing data to the contrary
  • Failing to revoke the certificate of compliance issued

However, the Judge gave an interesting take on the malfeasance claims, stating that the following details were required:

[81] To prove misfeasance in public office, the Plaintiff must show:
a) Deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions;
b) Awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the Plaintiff’s son;
c) Harm;
d) A legal causal link between the tortious conduct and the harm suffered; and
e) An injury that is compensable in tort law.

Presumably, the Defendants know few, if any of the people who were harmed by these injections. This seems unreasonably narrow in scope.

Negligence Claim Explained: No Private Duty Of Care

While arguing intent can be tricky, the Statement of Claim also pushed variations of “negligence” as alternative torts.

77. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants breached the standard of care and negligently misrepresented the safety of the vaccine and did not disclose the risks associated with the vaccine which include but not limited to myocarditis and pericarditis. The particulars include:
.
(a) Failed to disclose that individuals under 40 had an increased risk of myocarditis after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine;
(b) Failed to disclose that rates of myocarditis were higher in adolescent males;
(c) Inadequate testing was performed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine;
(d) The Defendants failed to complete post market surveillance and inform the public of the results;
(e) The Defendants failed to accurately, candidly, promptly and truthfully disclose the issues with the COVID-19 vaccine;
(f) The Defendants failed to identify, implement, and verify that the procedures in place to address post market surveillance risks were in place to address issues, complaints, and timely notification of concerns; and,
(g) The Defendant failed to change the public recommendations of the COVID-19 vaccine being that it was safe and effective.

The Judge ruled that the duties of the Defendants are to the public at large, and not to individual members of the public. But really, who is the public, if not a collection of individuals?

[91] The necessary elements to ground an action in negligence are not present. The duties of the Defendants under the legislative scheme are to the Canadian public. Sufficient proximity is not established and there is no private law duty of care. Other policy considerations militate against finding such a duty. As such, it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.

One would think that when public officials make decisions, especially coercive ones, that there would be some duty of care to the people impacted. But it seems not.

Looking At The Notice Of Appeal

The Notice of Appeal alleges a number of serious errors made. Keep in mind, at this stage, the Court is to assume that all facts pleaded are true, or capable or being proven.

  • The misapplied the “plain and obvious” test applicable on a motion to strike. In particular, the judge failed to read the pleading generously and assume the facts pleaded to be true, as required.
  • The Appellant submits that this analysis was flawed. The Statement of Claim pleaded that the Respondents knew of specific risks (e.g. heightened myocarditis risk in adolescent males) and nonetheless targeted the youth population (including Sean) with assurances of safety. Facts, if proven, could establish a relationship of proximity despite the broad public context.
  • Misfeasance in public office is an intentional tort aimed at wrongful exercises of public power by officials who either intend to harm or act with knowledge that they are exceeding their lawful authority and that their conduct will likely harm the plaintiff.
  • On a Rule 21 motion, the court must assume the truth of the facts pleaded. Here, the facts pleaded (e.g. that the Minister knew of specific dangers and knowingly misled the public or ignored legal duties) should have been taken as true for the purposes of the motion. If so assumed, the misfeasance claim is legally tenable.
  • Error in Denying Leave to Amend the Pleading: The judge erred in law by denying the Appellant leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

What will happen at the Court of Appeal? It’s unclear, but there’s a chance to get this claim restored.

***Note: follow-up both with this case, and with Pfizer, are coming. This isn’t anywhere near the complete record as far as the documents go.

AGC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman AGC Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman AGC Reasons For Decision (March, 2025)
(3) Hartman AGC Notice Of Appeal (April, 2025)

PFIZER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman Pfizer Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman Pfizer Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2025)

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

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

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

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

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

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

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress