Vaccines Archives - Canuck Law

April 27, 2025April 27, 2025

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

April 26, 2025April 26, 2025

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)

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)

April 18, 2025April 19, 2025

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

April 16, 2025April 16, 2025

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Abandons Calgary Firefighters Injection Pass Case In 2023

This article is to follow up on a 2022 case that no one ever heard about again. Specifically, it involved the Calgary Fire Department being sued for their new requirement to take the clot-shots. Many covered the announcement at the time, but nothing ever came of it.

Turns out that the lawsuit was discontinued, see here and here, less than a year after it was filed. The primary reason appears to be pushback from Calgary itself. The Calgary Firefighters Association, Local 255, has a collective bargaining agreement with the City and employees.

It’s also (yet another) cautionary tale about the problems litigants can have when they sue too many parties. Here, there could have been a decent case against the Alberta Government. Instead, the lawyer decides to name the employer as well, causing new headaches.

Additionally, the pleading had other serious defects.

The genius behind this was Leighton Grey, K.C., or King’s Counsel.

Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

24.01
(a) If any difference concerning the interpretation, application, operation or any alleged violation of this Agreement or any question as to whether any difference is arbitral arises between the parties or persons bound by the Collective Agreement, such parties or persons shall endeavour to resolve the difference utilizing informal dispute resolution meetings. Should the parties fail to resolve the difference either party may proceed through the grievance process as set out below.

Step Two
If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved at Step One the Association within fifteen (15) days of the decision rendered by the Deputy Fire Chief or designate may submit the grievance to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief or designate shall hear the grievance within fifteen (15) days of receiving it and shall render a decision within fifteen (15) days from the date the grievance was heard. If a satisfactory settlement is not achieved the grievance may be advanced within thirty (30) days to arbitration as provided under 24.01(c). If a grievance is not advanced to arbitration within thirty (30) days of the decision in Step Two, the grievance shall be deemed abandoned.

(e) The grievance arbitration board shall hear and determine the difference and shall issue an award in writing and the decision is final and binding upon the parties and upon any Member affected by it. The decision of a majority is the award of the grievance arbitration board, but if there is no majority the decision of the Chair governs and it shall be deemed to be the award of the board;

Article 24 of that agreement spells out the grievance process. It reads:
(a) Bring grievance to Deputy Fire Chief.
(b) If no resolution, proceed to file with Fire Chief.
(c) Proceed to arbitration, if needed.

It’s also specified that if there’s no satisfactory conclusion reached with the Chief, then there’s a 30 day time limit to seek arbitration. It’s also clear that such a hearing is meant to be final.

Now, lawyers have attempted (unsuccessfully) to argue that various agreements never contemplated vaccine passports. While true, this amounts to CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL, where the employer unilaterally changes a term and condition of employment. This sort of thing “is” usually covered.

Of course, had Grey only sued the Government of Alberta, the union agreement wouldn’t have come into play. Think about it, they can’t invoke a contract they’re not a party to. But by suing the Fire Department as well, Grey ensures that lack of jurisdiction will be an issue.

It’s just like an Ontario lawyer, who would be okay suing just the Ford Government. But then, he decides to sues any and all employers as well. Of course, suddenly union contracts create a jurisdiction issue.

City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike

The City of Calgary Fire Department brought an Application to Strike. Predictably, they invoked the union agreement, which specified arbitration as the only option.

Grey could simply have sued the Alberta Government — who brought in Provincial mandates — and left it at that. After all, they can’t challenge jurisdiction based on a contract they didn’t sign. Suing the Calgary Fire Department was an idiotic move, and allowed this to happen.

Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

The Statement of Claim contains poison pills, ensuring that it will be struck. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear criminal allegations at all.

The document also doesn’t plead any facts or particulars about any Plaintiff. The Judge would just be left guessing what the circumstances are for everyone, and which specific arguments they intend to make. This is probably since this lawsuit is largely recycled from other ones.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

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

March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX 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.

Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

On his website, Grey brags about his success and accomplishment in the profession, including being an Adjudicator for Law Society disciplinary hearings from 2015–2020. He also mentions being the youngest to receive the King’s Counsel designation. Alberta describes members as:

Competence, including:

sound intellectual ability with a thorough, comprehensive, and current knowledge of law and practice in the applicant’s field

distinguished legal service with demanding and challenging legal work that contributes to the development of the law and practice

a recognized expertise in a particular area of law and practice (which may include the general practice of law)

an outstanding ability as a lawyer in the applicant’s field, to a standard to be expected of King’s Counsel

One has to wonder how and why so many defective cases were filed in recent years over the “vaccine passport” issue. It appears that most involved unionized employers, making them doomed to fail. Shouldn’t more be expected?

Note: To anyone who has read this far, are you aware of any other injection pass/vaccine pass cases brought by Leighton Grey? This site covered 9 that were dropped, and 1 struck, but there may very well be more. If so, please respond with the details.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
https://www.calgaryfirefighters.org/files/docs/IAFF_L255_2021-2023_Collective_Agreement_.pdf

April 10, 2025April 22, 2025

Discontinued: Leighton Grey Drops (At Least) 9 Vaccine Passport Cases

This site has covered many of the terribly crafted cases filed by the “freedom lawyers” in recent years. These challenges to lockdown measures — such as injection mandates — are often comically done. The suits have procedural defects built in, which ensures that they go nowhere.

However, let’s consider another angle. Does it benefit clients, or the public as a whole, when cases are simply discontinued (dropped) long before they’re ever heard?

Worse, there’s typically no media attention when lawsuits are ended like this. Certainly, high profile rulings do get published. But there are no decisions when cases are simply dropped, making it far harder to piece together what’s really going on.

While CanLII is a great tool for searching verdicts, it’s essentially useless at helping to find out when discontinuances are filed. Reporters are left having to manually search, often without complete information.

Today, let’s look at a (somewhat) more low profile lawyer, and at some of his recent work. The results are not encouraging.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.

Now, Grey is still soliciting money for his Proposed Class Action (Burke), which was filed in Federal Court. This is supposedly on behalf of federally regulated workers, excluding the airline industry. But considering he already dropped the Winnipeg suit, why should people have confidence in this one?

It’s worth noting that this very likely isn’t the complete list.

#1: Lawsuit Against University Of Winnipeg, Brent Roussin Et Al

This case is actually a bit confusing. While it appears that the parties agreed to having the case struck, there is still a Notice of Discontinuance on file. It’s also worth noting that the Statement of Claim filed here is essentially cut-and-pasted into future claims.

Note: The Manitoba Courts have a great system, which allows members of the public to check the status of cases. Specific documents can be requested, although there’s typically a fee for doing so.

(1) Mlodzinski Statement Of Claim
(2) Mlodzinski Notice Of Motion Uncontested
(3) Mlodzinski Order Striking Case
(4) Mlodzinski Notice Of Discontinuance

#2: Lawsuit Against Purolator, Canadian Government

June 17th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed against Purolator and Ottawa.

December 23rd, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

April 10th, 2023: Claim is discontinued against everyone.

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

There isn’t anything noteworthy to report in the case. After it sat idle, for nearly a year, the case was dropped. Presumably, no one got refunds.

PUROLATOR COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Purolator T-1267-22 Statement Of Claim
(2) Purolator T-1267-22 Amended Statement Of Claim
(3) Purolator T-1267-22 Notice Of Discontinuance

#3: Lawsuit Against Westjet, Government Of Canada

October 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed.

November 17th, 2022: Defence files Notice of Intent to Respond.

November 20th, 2022: Case management is ordered.

November 21st, 2022: Amended Statement of Claim is filed.

December 5th, 2022: Plaintiffs (a) Erin Shannon; (b) Tara Mainland; (c) Jennifer Masterman all send in Notices of Discontinuance.

December 8th, 2022: Plaintiff’s lawyer (Grey) submits letter with proposed timetable.

February 28th, 2023: Court orders case management conference on March 13th, 2023.

March 13th, 2023: Conference discusses options of discontinuing overall, or setting timetable to file materials for Motion to Strike.

April 12th, 2023: Lawsuit is discontinued.

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.

WESTJET COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Westjet Statement Of Claim October 2022
(2) Westjet Amended Statement Of Claim November 2022
(3) Westjet Order Timetable December 2022
(4) Westjet Notice Of Discontinuance April 2023

#4: Firefighters V. City Of Calgary, Case Dropped

July 7th, 2022: Statement of Claim filed.

August 9th, 2022: Application brought to strike Statement of Claim.

September 9th, 2022: Hearing (to strike suit) adjourned.

September 21st, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

April 25th, 2023: Notice of Discontinuance.

Note: The Alberta Courts are a bit different. The search function allows people who order a list of the documents filed. From there, specific ones can be selected.

CALGARY FIREFIGHTER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Calgary Firefighters List Of Documents
(2) Calgary Firefighters Statement Of Claim (June 2022)
(3) Calgary Firefighters Application To Strike (August 2022)
(4) Calgary Firefighters Amended Statement Of Claim (September 2022)
(5) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (December 2022)
(6) Calgary Firefighters Discontinuance (April 2023)

#5: Peters V. Winnipeg/Manitoba Class Action

December 8th, 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in the King’s Bench Court of Manitoba

January 5th, 2023: Municipal Defendants prepare Notice of Motion to strike lawsuit.

January 6th, 2023: Manitoba Defendants prepare Notice of Motion to strike lawsuit.

February 14th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

February 27th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

April 27th, 2023: Hearing for Motion to Strike is adjourned.

May 25th, 2023: Notice of Discontinuance is filed.

As an aside, the Notice of Discontinuance is dated April 3rd, 2023, but wasn’t filed until the end of May. Perhaps dropping the case had long been the intention.

There are so many examples of this happening.

WINNIPEG/MANITOBA COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Winnipeg Class Action Statement Of Claim
(2) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Motion Municipal Defendants
(3) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Motion Provincial Defendants
(4) Winnipeg Class Action Affidavit Of Service
(5) Winnipeg Class Action Notice Of Discontinuance

#6: Lawsuit Against Canadian National Railway Dropped

March 4th, 2022: Grey files the Statement of Claim against CNR and the Federal Government. Despite representing over 200 Plaintiffs, the entire document is just 14 pages long.

September 7th, 2022: case management is held to bring a Motion to Strike.

October 11th, 2022: Statement of Claim is amended.

October 28, 2022: first Notice of Discontinuance is filed. Several Plaintiffs want out.

February 1st, 2023: Statement of Claim is again amended.

February 7th, 2023: Order from the Court regarding how to proceed with the Motion to Strike the case.

May 8th, 2023: Most Plaintiffs discontinue.

May 17th, 2023: Grey files a Motion to remove himself as solicitor for the few remaining clients. This appears to be the most work he has actually performed in the case.

June 20th, 2023: Last client discontinues case.

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.

So, what actually happened in this case? The Statement of Claim was amended a few times, and there was some activity on a Motion to Strike. Then the suit was dropped without anything happening. None of the Plaintiffs ever got their day in Court. But their lawyer probably got his money.

CNR COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CNR T-553-22 Statement Of Claim (March 4, 2022)
(2) CNR T-553-22 Case Management September 7 2022
(3) CNR T-553-22 Amended Statement Of Claim (October 11, 2022)
(4) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance October 28, 2022
(5) CNR T-553-22 Amended Amended Statement Of Claim (February 1, 2023)
(6) CNR T-553-22 Order Regarding Motion To Strike February 7 2023
(7) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance May 8, 2023
(8) CNR T-553-22 Motion For Removal Of Solicitor (May 17, 2023)
(9) CNR T-553-22 Notice Of Discontinuance June 20, 2023

#7: Pillon V. Ducks Unlimited Canada Lawsuit

October 2023, Grey files a lawsuit in Manitoba against Ducks Unlimited Canada. The case is discontinued in January 2024, before the Statement of Claim is even served.

(1) Pillon Statement Of Claim
(2) Pillon Notice Of Discontinuance

#8: Hildebrand V. Canadian National Railway Lawsuit

At the end of October, 2023, Grey filed a Statement of Claim on behalf of Kenton Hildebrand, against CNR in Manitoba. The case was dropped in April 2024, and had not even been served.

HILDEBRAND COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) CNR Hildebrand Statement Of Claim
(2) CNR Hildebrand Notice Of Discontinuance

#9: Grey Withdraws As Counsel For Stowe/TransX Case

Grey filed this suit in October 2023. For more than a year later, until November 2024, there had been no activity whatsoever. Then, Grey filed a Motion to get himself removed as counsel.

While technically Grey hasn’t discontinued this case, Stowe is essentially screwed. He’s now outside the Statute of Limitations to file a proper claim, and it seems very unlikely he can get help with the existing one. For him, the case is over.

(1) Stowe TransX Statement Of Claim
(2) Stowe TransX Motion To Withdraw

Okay, So Why Should People Care About This?

These types of lawsuits typically make the news when they’re filed. That said, they almost never get any sort of attention when they’re dropped. The public wrongly believes that there are lawyers working hard to protect their rights.

People are free to spend their own money however they wish. With that in mind, most people like to view themselves as intelligent consumers. Many appreciate being more fully informed before making purchases or financial contributions.

The next time some Government comes to trample people’s rights, is there any reason to expect the “freedom lawyers” will defend the public?

Worth noting: Grey was recently successful in getting certification for a Proposed Class Action involving residential school students. He’s clearly capable of doing great work. But his injection pass cases have consistently been a complete dead end.

Do you actually think Liberty Talk would ever address something like this?

March 4, 2025March 4, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently, Sheikh and Wood have 5 Proposed Class Actions:

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

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

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

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

Despite the similarities, there are 2 important differences.

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

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

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

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

So, When Will The Decision Be Made?

Share this:

Like this:

Results Of November 2024 Motion To Strike

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

Rickard/Harrison Case Is PRIVATE Suit For Damages

“Buyout” From Ottawa Is Always An Option

Current Appeal Is A Somewhat Of A Gongshow

Share this:

Like this:

Application To Strike BCPSEF Claim Entirely

Application To Strike UHCWBC Claim Entirely

Certification Applications For Both BCPSEF And UHCWBC

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

Share this:

Like this:

Firefighters’ Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

City Of Calgary Brings Application To Strike

Pleading Full Of Other Defects As Well

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

Shouldn’t More Be Expected From “King’s Counsel” Lawyers?

Share this:

Like this:

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

#1: Lawsuit Against University Of Winnipeg, Brent Roussin Et Al

#2: Lawsuit Against Purolator, Canadian Government

#3: Lawsuit Against Westjet, Government Of Canada

#4: Firefighters V. City Of Calgary, Case Dropped

#5: Peters V. Winnipeg/Manitoba Class Action

#6: Lawsuit Against Canadian National Railway Dropped

#7: Pillon V. Ducks Unlimited Canada Lawsuit

#8: Hildebrand V. Canadian National Railway Lawsuit

#9: Grey Withdraws As Counsel For Stowe/TransX Case

Okay, So Why Should People Care About This?

Share this:

Like this:

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

How These Various Proposed Class Actions Differ

UCHWO Sidesteps The Disaster That Dorceus Case Is

Certification Will Be Next Major Challenge

Share this:

Like this: