Category: Vaccines

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 Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) 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/ARGUMENTS/RESULTS (AD HOC):
(1) Qualizza Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law (June 2025)
(3) Qualizza FCA Order Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)
(4) Qualizza FCA Reasons Dismissing Appeal (December 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

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 3: The Bilinski Affidavit, And Immune Biosolutions

Universal Ostrich Farms (UOF), in British Columbia, has been in the alternative media a lot lately. Specifically, the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ordered about 400 birds to be killed after some supposedly tested positive for the H5N1 virus.

UOF filed an Application in Federal Court to challenge the order. A second Application was filed challenging the refusal to grant any sort of exemption. To date, both cases have been dismissed. Barring a successful Appeal, the culling is expected to go ahead.

See Parts 1 and 2 in the Universal Ostrich Farms series for more information.

The first two pieces have interestingly caused quite the backlash. The bulk of it is simply reading from various Court documents, including Affidavits. What people don’t seem to grasp is that when someone asks for money, it becomes public interest litigation. The have GiveSendGo and GoFundMe pages up, among other avenues, soliciting donations.

As such, their case is open to scrutiny, or at least it should be.

Now, let’s see what David Bilinski has to say.

From The Affidavit Of David Bilinski

13. One of the problems we encountered though was there was no good breeding records for ostriches. To starts a recording program, I initiated a DNA fingerprinting program for ostriches in Canada. I worked wit Dr. Kim Cheung, a director of the Avian Research Centre at the University of British Columbia, to develop this program.

14. Unfortunately, shortly after starting the program, the market for breeding ostrich collapsed, and the program was suspended.

19. The antibodies ostriches produce in response to an infection can last several years, and are found in extremely high concentrations in the yolks of their eggs. These antibodies can be used to develop neutralization anitbodies against, among other things, the H5N1 virus. I have attached as Exhibit “B” a true copy of the study published by Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto, Laboratory of Veterinary Anatomy, Graduate School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University.

34. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, it essentially shut down our business. Processing plants closed, breeder sales plummeted, and farms downsized.

35. We then became familiar with the work of Dr. Tsukamoto, who was studing the IgY Immune Globin Yolk) antibodies in ostrich eggs.

36. Based on Dr. Tsukamoto’s and others’ research, we learned that ostrich eggs are uniquely situated for developing antibodies because of the size of the yolk, and the concentration of the antibodies produced.

39. As a result, we began working with [Immune] Biosolutions Inc. (“Biosolutions”) in Quebec, which was working on protocols to produce antibodies for Covid-19, due to a $13,000,000 grant from the Government of Canada.

40. In or around 2021, Biosolutions provided antigens to the UOF, which then allowed us to produce antibodies using the ostrich eggs.

42. Then, in about 2022, UOF began a venture with Struthio BioScience Inc. (“Struthio”) and entered into a contract wherein UOF must provide Struthio with ostrich eggs, failing which UOF would be in breach of contract.

43. In summary, since 2020 UOF has been entirely dedicated to the production of antibody IgY.

44. To be clear, UOF is not a commercial poultry facility, and it does not produce any ostrich meat or eggs for human consumption.

It would be nice to know more about this DNA fingerprinting program, even if it was ultimately cancelled. Perhaps a later piece can cover that.

Bilinski tries to portray to the Court there being a “contract” between Universal Ostrich Farms and Struthio BioScience Inc. This is apparently to fulfill business obligations. However, Karen Espersen is both the owner (and president) of UOF, and a co-owner of Struthio. This connection is obvious when looking at her LinkedIn page, but isn’t clear in the Court documents.

Defenders of the farm have pointed to the fact that Immune Biosolutions is the one that got the contract from the ISED, not the farm. While true, it misses the point. Espersen and Bilinski are working with them, and using their antigens, giving it to the ostriches, and creating antibodies in return.

In turn, it then raises all kinds of questions as to what exactly these birds are infected with, and what the risks are to humans. This apparently isn’t explained in any Affidavit.

Despite howls about “protecting the food supply”, Bilinski’s Affidavit makes it clear that these animals aren’t intended for any sort of human consumption. This ostrich farm really is an open-air biolab.

The irony also seems lost on these litigants. They’re challenging the findings that some of the birds are infected with a virus, claiming that these tests are unreliable. Fair enough. But then, the birds are used to generate antibodies to fight another virus. In fact, they stand to make a fortune if they’re able to sell their work.

Oh well. Live by the shady “science”, die by the shady “science”.

Now, let’s find out a little more about their partner.

Taxpayer Money Funneled Through ISED For Grants

The Government of Canada, or more specifically, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, announced a few years ago various projects would be funded. Taxpayers would foot a $2.3 billion bill for 41 different grants, all across the country.

Immune Biosolutions, of Sherbrooke, Quebec, was just one company.

March 16, 2021: Up to $13.44 million to help through the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) to develop and advance its therapeutic candidate from pre-clinical studies up to Phase II clinical trials.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe groups it partners with as “subcontractors”.

Who Is Immune Biosolutions?

A partnership in antibody development
Our antibody discovery platform is available mainly to pharmaceutical and biotech companies seeking to develop custom novel antibodies against targets of interest with unmet needs. Whether the desired antibody is for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes, our avian platform opens up the accessibility to new antibody paratopes of great affinity against highly conserved mammal proteins or molecules.

Immune Biosolutions is a Quebec company that “partners” with other people or companies in their antibody development. This is the research and development end, while the others are the ones who receive and do the live testing.

Immunization:

  • Spatial Peptide design and synthesis for antigen presentation
  • Chicken Immunization by vaccination (Peptides, Spatial Peptides, Proteins, Nucleic Acids, Cells, other molecules)
  • Chicken Immunization by transcutaneous electroporation (Protein expression DNA plasmid)

Screening:

  • Phage-Display Antibody Candidate Screening:
  • Chicken Single B Cell Antibody Candidate Screening
  • Avian Antibody Sequence Determination
  • Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Antibody Library Analysis

Engineering and Production:

  • Avian Antibody Optimization & Humanization
  • Bi-Specific and Multi-Specific Antibody Engineering
  • Antibody Production & Purification
  • Stable Cell Line Development

Validation (Antibody Validation):

  • Affinity Assays
  • Functional Assays
  • Flow Cytometry
  • Biolayer Interferometry
  • Surface Plasmon Resonance
  • Static Light Scattering/Dynamic Light Scattering

Immune Biosolutions Has Lobbying Registry Profile

Application Form for COVID-19 Advancement of Vaccines and Therapeutics (SIF Program) Immune Biosolutions and collaborators are developing an immunotherapy based on newly identified antibodies to treat and possibly prevent the SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). This new accelerated discovery process, aiming at providing Canadians with a treatment for COVID-19 discovered and bio-manufactured in Canada, will be applied to future infections and other diseases, such as cancer.

It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that this company is set up to lobby members of the Federal Government for funding. Their name wasn’t picked randomly.

SOURCE OF FUNDING DATE AMOUNT
Canexport April, 2020 $22,754.38
Canexport April, 2021 $22,754.38
Canexport April, 2023 $22,754.38
Canexport April, 2024 $27,500.00
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada April, 2023 $5,496,072.00
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada April, 2024 $2,082,706.00
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada April, 2024 $5,496,072.00
National Research Council April, 2020 $33,108.69
National Research Council April, 2021 $33,108.69
National Research Council April, 2023 $33,108.69
National Research Council April, 2023 $212,219.00
National Research Council April, 2024 $212,219.00
National Research Council April, 2024 $222,880.00
SIF – Strategic Innovation Fund April, 2024 $5,496,072.00

Note: while there appear to be duplicate entries, the notes from the Lobbying Registry suggest that a few agencies made multiple payments in the same fiscal year.

Immune Biosolutions Received Wage Subsidies

As an aside, Immune Biosolutions received CEWS (the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy) in 2020/2021. In fairness though, it doesn’t specify the amounts.

Now, there has been a lot of noise about how it was Immune Biosolutions that got the Government grant, not Universal Ostrich Farms itself. This misses the point. While the tech company may have gotten it directly, what was UOF using to pay its bills in the meantime?

2 scenarios are possible. Either: (a) UOF got a cut of the money directly from IBio, or; (b) UOF would make money from selling the research, thus profiting from taxpayer subsidies. While the grant went to the firm, this seems to be a distinction without a difference.

People need to be asking the hard questions.

(1) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/biomanufacturing/en/biomanufacturing-projects-underway
(2) https://immunebiosolutions.com/en
(3) https://immunebiosolutions.com/en/partnerships/
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368226&regId=914362#regStart
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(6) https://unlockalberta.substack.com/p/christine-massey-david-dickson-pat

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case: Idiot Lawyer Sends Notice Of Appeal To Wrong Court

Just when you think a lawyer couldn’t be any dumber, you are unpleasantly surprised.

This is a follow-up on the Qualizza case, the military veterans’ injection pass lawsuit. Some 330 members and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces sued over the requirement to get the shots. The case is turning into a regular content generator, and for all the wrong reasons.

The Notice of Appeal will be explained in more detail later.

See parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 for background on the case.

Perhaps even more absurdly, the lawyer, Catherine Christensen, practiced family law for much of her career. She seems horribly out of her league here.

The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. It had been struck by an Associate Judge, with a subsequent Judge refusing a request to extend time for an initial Appeal. Another Judge ordered costs over an unnecessary Motion to determine the contents of an Appeal Book. More recently, another Judge ordered costs for a Notice of Discontinuance being filed without clients’ knowledge or consent.

Now, Christensen is unhappy with the ruling that she acted in a “high handed and inappropriate” way. So, she’s set to challenge to Order, which set aside the Notice of Discontinuance.

But according to Court records, she attempted to file a Notice of Appeal. That’s right, she wants to appeal an Order of the Federal Court of Appeal, and sent the Notice …. to the same Court. She seems not to understand that you can only appeal to a higher level.

Christensen doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between:
(a) Commencing a proceeding: Claim, Application, Appeal, etc….
(b) Taking steps within the existing proceeding: typically with a Motion

Perhaps she meant to file a Motion to have that last Order reviewed, but it’s unclear. In any event, she was told that in order to appeal, she must ask for Leave (permission) from the Supreme Court of Canada.

This idiot is trying to appeal to the wrong Court.

Keep in mind, none of this helps any of her clients advance their case against the Federal Government. Nothing here helps overturn A.J. Coughlan’s decision to strike, or Justice Manson’s refusal to grant an extension.

But first, problems with the lawsuit shouldn’t be a surprise to Christensen.

The Neri Decision: Christensen Knew Claim Would Be Struck

An Application filed in late 2021 sought to prevent several members of the Canadian Armed Forces from facing consequences for refusing the injections. An Interlocutory Injunction was sought, with the plan to get a permanent one later. The case was tossed, because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specified a grievance scheme for members of the military to use.

The case was discontinued in January 2022.

The point is: Christensen knew in advance of filing the Qualizza case that it would very likely be struck for lack of jurisdiction. It seems doubtful that current clients were aware of this case.

Not only was Christensen aware of jurisdiction issues, but the Statute of Limitations should have been fresh in her mind as well. September 2024, she lost another case, Tondreau, in Federal Court. A major part of the ruling was her filed the Notice of Application well after the 30 day deadline.

Qualizza Case Struck Without Leave To Amend

Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan struck the case in November 2024, and without Leave to Amend. This meant there was no permission to fix and refile. While lengthy, the decision centered on 2 main issues.

First: The Statement of Claim lacked a lot of the necessary information. When making Charter Claims, it’s required to plead certain facts and details about each Plaintiff. While there was background information on each of them, nothing was pleaded about the specifics of the torts themselves.

Second: The Court refused to take jurisdiction of the case over s.29 of the National Defence Act This was the exact issue explained to Christensen in Neri. Not only was the grievance system required, but over 100 Plaintiffs either had or were actively grieving.

Because Coughlan was an Associate Judge (Prothonotary), and not a regular Judge, there’s a different process to appeal. More importantly, there’s a much shorter time limit.

Christensen Missed Deadline For First Appeal (Rule 51)

The case was originally struck by Associate Justice Coughlan. Christensen filed a Motion under Federal Court Rule 51 to have it reviewed. Or at least, she was supposed to. She missed the deadline by nearly 3 weeks, and bungled an attempt to ask for an extension of time. And to clarify:

APPEAL RULING FROM PROTHONOTARY JUDGE
Appeal Goes Where Federal Court Federal Court Of Appeal
Appeal Ruling To Single Judge (FC) Panel of Justices (FCA)
Rules of Procedure Rule 51 Rules 335 to 357
Time Limit For Notice 10 Days 30 Days
Initial Document Notice Of Motion Notice Of Appeal
Procedure Motion Appeal
New Evidence Allowed? No With Leave, Rule 351

Because an Associate Judge (Prothonotary) struck the case initially, it could be reviewed by filing a Motion. Challenging a Judge’s decision would have required going to the Federal Court of Appeal. But Christensen screwed up the Appeal big time. Not only was she late, but:

  • The reason for prolonged inaction wasn’t really convincing
  • Christensen invoked the wrong Rule (51, instead of 8) asking for extension
  • Christensen asked for a Motion “in writing” but cited a Rule that applied to the Federal Court of Appeal
  • Christensen asked for “Leave” to appeal when it wasn’t required
  • Christensen improperly swore out her own Affidavit (breaks Rule 82)
  • Christensen didn’t clarify Plaintiffs “always intended” to appeal
  • Christensen didn’t explain how an Appeal may be successful

The specific errors were covered extensively in a previous article. An extension was refused.

Just as with Tondreau a few months earlier, Christensen missed the deadline to file, and never really offered a convincing explanation of why that was the case.

Christensen Doesn’t Understand What’s Being Appealed

After Justice Manson refused to extend time in the Federal Court, Christensen filed Notice of Appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal. But there’s already a serious problem.

The Notice asks that the original Order of A.J. Coughlan be set aside and that the case be allowed to proceed. That may be fine as additional Relief being sought.

However, the Notice doesn’t challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time. The most immediate problem is that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are time-barred into going further, unless that is overturned. In the “grounds” section, it’s shrugged off as procedural error. Again, without being challenged.

She also asks for Leave to file the Notice of Appeal. This doesn’t make any sense, as this is the Notice, and it’s already been filed. And it gets worse from here.

Determining Contents Of Appeal Book

The Federal Court of Appeal differs from its Provincial counterparts in a significant way. Specifically, it requires the Appellants to either: (a) get consent as to the contents; or (b) file a Motion to have a Judge determine it.

For a recent example of what a consent looks like, see the Payne Appeal.

Christensen chose Option “B”, while the Government responded that this was entirely unnecessary.

Justice Rennie agreed that this could have been resolved on consent.

(b) No argument is advanced by the appellants why the materials that were before the Associate Judge but not before Manson J., ought to be before this Court;

(c) Rule 343(2) requires parties to an appeal to include in an appeal book “only such documents, exhibits and transcripts as are required to dispose of the issues on appeal”. Although the Rule 343(2) test is a flexible one, a document should be included in the appeal book “only if there is a reasonable basis for concluding that it is required to dispose of an issue on appeal”

This highlights Christensen’s lack of understanding of what she’s doing. She’s appealing Justice Manson’s refusal to extend time to allow that Rule 51 Appeal. As such, only the few documents that were before him would be considered by this Court.

Christensen “Discontinued” Without Clients’ Knowledge Or Consent

Christensen’s clients were apparently unhappy with her mediocre legal services, and many refused to pay additional money to her “non-profit”. Consequently, she filed a Notice of Discontinuance of their behalf.

Procedurally though, this cannot be done.

One client, Mark Lolacher, took it upon himself to file his own Motion to set aside the Notice, and to be reinstated. He also accused Christensen of misconduct. The Government lawyer offered a suggestion allow Lolacher to remain, but as a self-represented litigant. Surprisingly, Christensen opposed the Motion.

Ultimately, Justice Locke ordered Lolacher’s reinstatement as an Appellant, and $2,000 for the “high handed” treatment he had received. The reasons were scathing, although misconduct allegations were to be deferred to the Law Society of Alberta.

The Judge also mentioned 2 practical solutions. Christensen could be replaced as counsel, under Rule 124, or she could file a Motion to withdraw as counsel, under Rule 125. Neither happened, and she apparently got her own lawyer. Keep in mind, bickering and fighting with clients doesn’t advance the vaccine passport case at all. Remember, this was supposedly the reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

As a humourous aside: Lolacher is the only Plaintiff/Appellant in this case have actually won a Motion. Christensen has racked up loss after loss, and all at her clients’ expense.

Christensen Apparently Has Her Own Counsel

The Court filings are admittedly just a small part of what’s been going on. Still, it’s fair to say that things have further deteriorated.

According to further correspondence from Mark Lolacher, Christensen isn’t following Justice Locke’s Order in good faith. She keeps misrepresenting a procedural Motion as “suing the other Appellants”. Now, she apparently has her own counsel…. while still representing all (or some?) of the clients. It’s a mess. Will clients now be billed for 2 lawyers?

Christensen is apparently unwilling to accept Justice Locke’s decision reinstating Lolacher. Instead of taking a reasonable alternative, she tries to file a Notice of Appeal…. to the same Court.

Have to wonder who came up with the idea: Christensen, or her new “counsel”? In any event, the Federal Court of Appeal refused to file the Notice, since procedurally, it would have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Actually, the SCC would have to agree to hear it first, with an Application for Leave. The staff at the Courts apparently know the Rules better than either of these lawyers.

Again, none of this helps any of their clients.

It’s hard to believe that a licenced lawyer can actually be so bad at what she does. Sure, this could all be deliberate sabotage, but it’s so poorly done that it strains all belief.

It seems that Law Societies will allow anyone to practice, even a potted plant.

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 Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) 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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress