HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber

This continues the series on “Diagolon”. This is a so-called “meme” organization that shows the signs of being a honeypot run by either law enforcement or intelligence.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Schill gun grab are here.
Part 1 of the HateGate Scam is available as well.

There’s a lot more to get into, all of it ignored by so-called “alternative” media.

In the last piece, we covered Elisa Hategan’s history with “Heritage Front”. This so-called white supremacist group turned out to be (at least in part) a CSIS operation. It was co-founded by Grant Bristow, who was a CSIS agent at the time.

As she co-authored the infamous “HateGate report” with Caryma Sa’d, it was strange to omit the possibility that Jeremy MacKenzie and “Diagolon” may be the next iteration. If the Government would manufacture at least one such group, what’s to stop them from doing it again? While this coincidence alone is not definitive proof, it’s not something that can be ignored either.

Now, we come across something which completely stands things on its head. Hategan went after Bernie Farber and Elizabeth Frederiksen (who still uses her maiden name, Moore) a few years ago. She lost.

Both Hategan and Moore/Frederiksen were part of Heritage Front, and both played a role in bringing down the group. As is noted by Justice Ferguson, both women’s stories have many similarities. However, their futures diverged greatly afterwards.

Farber and Moore/Frederiksen went on to lead the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, while Hategan was left in relative obscurity. Reading through the decision, it appears that she didn’t get the glory and recognition she felt was owed to her. Being able to share her story wasn’t enough, as she didn’t want others to have that same right.

Hategan went as far as to buy up many domain names with very similar names to Elizabeth Moore, so that they couldn’t be used. This behaviour is downright creepy.

Farber chose his “pet”, and it wasn’t Hategan, so she lashed out.

It’s baffling why Hategan would write the HateGate report — which is 85 pages long, and full of citations. She claims to be the main researcher and writer of the document. MacKenzie and his crew used it to claim “vindication” over Government overreach, and the invoking of the Emergencies Act. Considering Hategan now proudly shares her identity as Jewish and a lesbian, allying with them would make no sense. Ideologically, she has far more in common with Farber and Moore/Frederiksen.

However, it makes sense once the history between these people is revealed.

Put into context, the HateGate paper comes across as an act of revenge.

One has to wonder if this is why the “honeypot” narrative of Diagolon was glossed over. Sure, it would do damage to MacKenzie, Harrison and Vriend to reveal it, but not to Farber or CAHN.

Ironically, Hategan also feels sidelined by Caryma Sa’d, who has received the bulk of the publicity for the HateGate paper.

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

September 2017: Farber goes on “The Agenda”, and talks about Hategan and Frederiksen as “heroes” who helped take out the group, Heritage Front.

December 2018: Hategan files Statement of Claim against Moore/Frederiksen. It includes torts for (a) injurious falsehood; (b) civil conspiracy; (c) wrongful appropriation; (d) unlawful interference; and (e) negligence. None of it was pleaded properly, and one may say it was “bad beyond argument”.

January 2019: Statement of Defence (and a Counter-Claim) are filed by Frederiksen. She sued for (a) defamation; (b) invasion of privacy; (c) appropriation of likeness; and (d) interference with economic relations.

April 2019: Statement of Claim is amended, and Bernie Farber added as a Defendant.

July 2019: Farber filed a Statement of Defence, and also brought a Motion to Dismiss for Summary Judgement.

December 2020: Justice Ferguson hears Motions for Summary Judgement brought by Farber and Frederiksen. The decision is reserved, which is typical in these types of cases.

February, 2021: Justice Ferguson throws out Hategan’s Claim on a Summary Judgement Motion, and Frederiksen’s Counter-Claim is granted. Hategan was ordered to pay:

$100,000 for general damages;
$50,000 for aggravated damages;
$50,000 for punitive damages

March 2021: Hategan serves Notice of Appeal on Frederiksen and Farber.

March 2021: Justice Ferguson confirmed the cost award against Hategan. Also the permanent injunction for her to stop publishing content about Frederiksen, remove existing content, release all domain names, and refrain from using identifiers of her likeness.

April 2021: The Registrar gave notice to Hategan that her Appeal would be dismissed for delay since she had missed the 30 day deadline to file her paperwork. Hategan thought there was 60 days, however, that didn’t apply since there was no transcript.

May 2021: Hategan retains another lawyer, who asks for consent for an extension to file the Appeal documents. The request is denied.

July 2021: The Registrar dismisses the Appeal for delay.

August 2021: Hategan’s counsel advises that there will be a Motion brought to challenge the administrative delay. There were procedural headaches after this. January 2022 is set as a date, but delayed again.

February 2022: Justice Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario hears a Motion to set aside (invalidate) the Registrar’s dismissal of the Appeal for delay. It’s held via video conference.

March 2022: Justice Pardu dismisses Motion to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal for delay. Among the reasons given is that there is — on the surface — little or no merit to the Appeal. Frederiksen had agreed to waive costs if the Motion was dismissed, while Farber got the $5,000 he asked for.

July 2022: Justice Simmons orders Hategan to pay security for costs to Farber.

October 2022: Justices Lauwers, Roberts and Trotter dismissed a Review Motion (of Justice Simmons) requiring Hategan to pay security for costs.

January 2023: Court of Appeal hears a Review Motion from Hategan. She’s contesting the decision of the Registrar to dismiss her Appeal for unnecessary delay.

January 2023: Hategan’s Review Motion (at the Court of Appeal) is dismissed. Given her delay, prejudice to the Respondents, and the lack of merit to the Appeal, Justices Nordheimer, Miller and van Rensburg decided not to give her another chance. She was ordered to pay Frederiksen $7,500, and Farber another $5,000.

Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Ms. Hategan has invaded Ms. Moore’s privacy

[138] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts. The information about Ms. Moore’s former extra-marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality. By publishing statements about these sexual relations, and falsely claiming that this was done to advance Ms. Moore’s career, Ms. Hategan has clearly given publicity to a matter concerning the private life of Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore submits that this publication is (i) highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (ii) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Ontario courts have particularly noted the private nature of sexual relations and family quarrels, among others.

[139] Ms. Moore further submits that Ms. Hategan’s actions amount to the tort of breach of confidence. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra-marital affair was confidential, in that it was conveyed to Ms. Hategan under strict promises of confidentiality, and Ms. Hategan’s publication of that information was unauthorized and was to Ms. Moore’s detriment. This confidential and highly intimate information was used to denigrate Ms. Moore’s personal and professional reputation, imputing that Ms. Moore received professional benefits from this and other sexual relationships. Damages, sufficient to mark the wrong that has been done, are warranted.

[140] I agree that this tort has been made out. The information about Ms. Moore’s extra‑marital affair was conveyed to Ms. Hategan in confidentiality. I agree that this information is highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not a legitimate concern to the public.

Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness

[141] Ms. Moore submits that Ms. Hategan appropriated Ms. Moore’s likeness by registering multiple websites and social media handles (the “domains”) in Ms. Moore’s name. Ms. Hategan inked many of the domains directly to her own website, so that when a person searched for Ms. Moore, they were redirected to Ms. Hategan’s information. In doing so, Ms. Hategan took advantage of the name, reputation and likeness of Ms. Moore’s personality. Ms. Hategan did this for commercial purposes and to boost her own professional reputation. As a direct result, Ms. Moore cannot register many of the domains that would naturally be used for her business – including variations of her name. Instead of using her own name, Ms. Moore has to use a fictional phrase – “one moore liz” – to promote herself online.

[142] I agree with the defendant that these actions constitute an appropriation of Ms. Moore’s personality and likeness.

Interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relations

[143] On at least two separate occasions, Ms. Hategan threatened to sue Ms. Moore’s professional colleagues in an attempt to interfere with Ms. Moore’s economic relations. Ms. Moore alleges that this amounts to the tort of intimidation, and is an actionable wrong committed against a third party. In at least one instance, as admitted by Ms. Hategan, these threats led to a speaking engagement being cancelled. As a result of these actions, Ms. Moore has suffered economic harm and loss. Ms. Moore does not know how many other opportunities she may have lost out on, because Ms. Hategan has refused to produce relevant communications with third parties. Ms. Moore submits that an adverse inference should be drawn.

[144] Again, I agree with these submissions. Ms. Hategan has caused interference with Ms. Moore’s economic relation.

All of this comes from Justice Ferguson’s ruling in 2021. Hategan meddled in the business of Moore/Frederiksen to a significant degree, and damages were awarded.

Worth noting: Justice Ferguson also concluded that none of Hategan’s torts had any merit whatsoever. It was a baseless and frivolous lawsuit.

Rather than accepting the loss, Hategan managed to tie up the matter in Appellate Court for another 2 years. No Appeal was ever actually heard for Justice Ferguson’s 2021 decision.

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

In a turn of events that should surprise no one, Hategan threatened to sue Derek Harrison earlier this year. She wasn’t happy with the entry in his (sarcastic?) book called “Meme Kampf”. She was apparently also arrested in December 2023 for criminal harassment. Again, not surprising.

Justice Ferguson found (among other things) that Hategan had been buying up various domain names so that Frederiksen would be unable to do business. This goes far beyond petty bullying. All things considered, she comes across as being unhinged.

If people are going to be claiming that there’s a complete failure of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Canada, then the context of their writing is important. The FOIPIP (linked below) doesn’t really support their conclusions.

Again, Hategan claims to be the primary author of the report.

Hategan apparently had no problems being part of the “anti-hate industry”. The animosity only started after she didn’t get the credit and attention she believed she deserved. For better or worse, Farber chose Frederiksen, and gave her accolades for her work.

True, people should have their work judged on its merits. However, this case changes everything. It’s not some ancient D.U.I. from 20 years ago, but reflects directly on what’s happening now.

One final point: this isn’t to be construed that the people at CAHN are the “good guys”. They aren’t, and they’ve done considerable damage to people. In no way should this be seen as endorsing their “work”.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

CARMICHAEL ASSAULTING A PRISONER:
(1) Ernest Carmichael Disciplinary Hearing Penalty Decision 25.07.2014
(2) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/siu-lays-assault-charge-against-york-region-police-officer-1.1392108
(3) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/york-police-officer-charged-with-assault/article_d1b43f97-a077-59b4-8603-747a94b76170.html

HATEGAN STALKING CIVIL CASE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc874/2021onsc874.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca217/2022onca217.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca715/2022onca715.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca57/2023onca57.html

PEOC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) PEOC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) PEOC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) PEOC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) PEOC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) PEOC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

CASELAW ON REVOKING FIREARMS PERMITS:
(1) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] S.C.J. No. 50, at para 12, 16, 17, 18
(2) British Columbia (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343, at para 25.
(3) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189, at para 7.
(4) R. v. Bokhari, 2009 ONCJ 691, at para 10, relying on R. v. Day, [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Morgan, [1995] O.J. No. 18 (Ont.Ct.(Prov.Div.)).
(5) R. v. Peacock-McDonald, 2007 ONCA 128, at para 40
(6) R. v. Douglas, 2013 ONCJ 649, at paras 45, 57.
(7) R. v. Mourtzis, 2015 ONCJ 74, at para 25.
(8) R. v. Roman, 2018 ONCJ 344, at para 89.
(9) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2819, at para 48.
(10) R. v. Christiansen, supra, at para 7.
(11) Fahlman, supra, at para 25.
(12) R. v. Peacock-Macdonald, supra, at para 40.
(13) R. v. Roman, supra, at para 89.
(14) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

2 Replies to “HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber”

Sarah says:

August 26, 2024 at 6:46 AM

Perfect timing! Thanks for another indepth review of our illustrious political swamp.

Loading...

Moose says:

August 28, 2024 at 7:29 AM

Brilliant post! Another well-researched & well-written piece.

Loading...

HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

Like this:

Related

2 Replies to “HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Timeline Of Major Events In Hategan Lawsuit

Hategan Stalked, Doxed, Harassed And Impersonated Her Rival

Why Does Any Of This Matter In HateGate Report?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

2 Replies to “HateGate, Part 2: Settling The Score With Bernie Farber”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from Canuck Law