Recently, Associate Judge Coughlan of the Federal Court of Canada struck a lawsuit brought by over 300 current and former members of the military. This case had to do with the injection requirements that came into effect in late 2021. This is yet another one that would never be heard on its merits.
To be fair, the Statement of Claim does plead some facts and background information about each Plaintiff, including position, rank, length of service, and duties. It also listed who took the shots, and who tried to get exemptions. Information about family situations are given, and each Plaintiff states whether or not they’re still with the military.
Many cases don’t even give this data, so it’s a step up.
A variety of Charter violations are alleged, including:
- Section 2(a) – Freedom of Religion
- Section 2(d) – Freedom of Association
- Section 7 – Security of the Person
- Section 8 – Privacy, Search and Seizure
- Section 15(1) – Equality
Problem is, while a variety of Charter violations are listed, none of them are properly pleaded. The requirements for each are very specific, but it doesn’t seem to have happened — for ANY Plaintiff.
The Judge also took issue with material being filed late, and some Affidavits being sworn before the proceedings commenced.
However, the most damning problem was that counsel filed the case in the wrong venue. The military is governed by the National Defence Act, or NDA, which covers legal affairs within the Canadian Armed Forces. The process for grieving is outlined in Section 29. Notably, it gives everyone the right to grieve, but not the right to sue.
Even worse, counsel Catherine M. Christensen had been warned about all of this previously.
National Defence Act, S.29: Grievance The Required Option
Like so many “vaccine passport” lawsuits covered on this site, jurisdiction is a serious issue. Why here? It’s because Section 29 of the National Defence Act specifies that there is a grievance process that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are expected to follow. There’s nothing listed that allows for a lawsuit to be filed.
Right to grieve
29(1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.
No penalty for grievance
29(4) An officer or non-commissioned member may not be penalized for exercising the right to submit a grievance
Authorities for determination of grievances
29.1 (1) The initial authority and subsequent authorities who may consider and determine grievances are the authorities designated in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
Final authority
29.11 The Chief of the Defence Staff is the final authority in the grievance process and shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.
Decision is final
29.15 A decision of a final authority in the grievance process is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal or to review by any court.
In fairness, s.29.15 does allow for a Judicial Review to be filed if the grievance process is unsatisfactory. This would be analogous to appealing. But it’s not the same thing as filing a Statement of Claim.
Why is this important? It’s because Christensen, counsel for the Plaintiffs, didn’t follow the National Defence Act. She filed a lawsuit, instead of using the pathway available. And it’s not the first time the Federal Court has had to explain it to her.
Previous Case Saw Interlocutory Injunction Application Denied
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.
November 29th, 2021 – Notice of Application is filed in Federal Court.
December 1st, 2021 – Notice of Appearance is filed by the Government.
December 6th, 2021 – Motion is filed for Interlocutory (temporary) Injunction to prevent members of the Armed Forces from having to take the injections.
December 12, 2021 – Federal Court books hearing on the 15th.
December 15th, 2021 – Court has hearing on the Application.
December 16th, 2021 – Court denies the Application for Injunction, but does so without costs.
January 9th, 2022 – Case is discontinued altogether.
In the reasons released on December 17th, Justice Fuhrer outlines the reasons the Application was denied. He notes that this wasn’t the proper forum to bring the challenge anyway.
[40] Under the NDA s 29(1) and chapter 7 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders Volume 1 – Administration [QR&O], a CAF member can grieve the denial of an accommodation request, the initiation of a remedial measure or a release decision resulting from the application of the CAF Vaccination Policy, among other decisions, acts or omissions in the administration of the affairs of the CAF. According to the affidavit of Gordon Prieur, a senior policy analyst with DND, the grievance must be submitted within three months after the day when the grievor knew or reasonably ought to have known of the decision, act or omission for which the grievance is submitted. Grievances submitted after this period nonetheless may be considered if it is in the interests of justice to do so.
[41] The CAF grievance process consists of two levels of authority, the Initial Authority [IA] and the Final Authority [FA]. The IA can be the grievor’s commanding officer or next superior officer, while the FA is the CDS, who can delegate this role in certain circumstances. In addition, certain grievances are to be referred to the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC], an independent, arm’s-length entity that reviews grievances and makes recommendations to the CDS. The CDS is not bound, however, by MGERC’s recommendations but he must provide reasons if he does not act on them.
[42] As noted above, Charter claims can be considered in the grievance process.
While the Interlocutory Injunction Application had been denied, litigants could (in theory) go ahead trying to get a permanent one. But they decided not to. The fact that this should have been grieved in the first place likely influenced this decision.
There were also concerns that counsel didn’t plead the case properly.
This 2021 ruling is important because Christensen makes the same mistakes again, but with a much larger case. Her next one would involve over 300 Plaintiffs.
Current Lawsuit Thrown Out Over Jurisdiction, Pleadings
This case was an Action, which is initiated by filing a Statement of Claim. The procedures are different than those for filing an Application, but the same problems came up.
June 20th, 2023 – Statement of Claim is filed in Federal Court on behalf of 330 Plaintiffs.
July 28th 2023 – Amended Statement of Claim is filed.
August 7th, 2023 – Notice of Intention to Respond is filed by the Government.
September 11th, 2023 – Statement of Defence is filed by the Government.
September 22nd, 2023 – Reply to the Statement of Defence is filed.
January 30th, 2024 – Court compels Defence to file their Affidavit of Documents.
March 3rd, 2024 – Court orders case management for the lawsuit.
April 29th, 2024 – Court gives a schedule of events to unfold.
- Defendants shall serve and file their motion to strike by July 12th, 2024.
- The Plaintiffs shall serve and file their motion in response by August 9th, 2024.
- Hearing of motion to strike to be in-person at the Federal Court August 20th, 2024.
June 26th, 2024 – Plaintiffs contact Court, ask for hybrid setup so that Plaintiffs can attend the proceedings remotely.
July 11th, 2024 – Government files Motion to Strike the case.
August 12th, 2024 – Court contacted to request permission to file materials.
August 14th, 2024 – Court allows Plaintiff Motion materials to be filed, despite them not complying with the rules and procedure laid out.
August 14th, 2024 – Motion Record with 35 Affidavits filed by Plaintiffs
August 20th, 2024 – Court adjourns Motion to Strike hearing until September 19th.
September 19th, 2024 – Motion to Strike heard in Court.
November 12th, 2024 – Statement of Claim is struck without Leave to Amend. $5,040 in costs ordered.
The initial filing was covered by the National Post, but it doesn’t appear that there was any follow up done afterward.
Anyhow, the ruling was pretty brutal. It cited a variety of errors, including: (a) failure to properly plead Charter violations; (b) failing to comply with rules when submitting evidence; and (c) lack of jurisdiction, given the grievance scheme available.
[58] Given my conclusion that the action should be struck without leave to amend, there is no need for me to consider whether the Court should exercise its discretion to take jurisdiction over the proceeding. However, for the sake of completeness, I will address that issue briefly.
[59] In support of its motion, Canada filed the affidavit of Ann-Marie De Araujo Viana (the “Viana affidavit”), Manager Professional Policies–Grievances, Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Authority. The Viana affidavit sets out the statutory and regulatory framework for the CAF grievance process established by sections 29-29.15 of the National Defence Act [NDA] and regulations. That framework is supplemented by the DAOD, specifically, DAOD 2017-0 Military Grievances and DAOD 2017-1 Military Grievance Process.
[60] Pursuant to subsection 29 of the NDA, CAF members who are aggrieved by any decision, act, or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF, for which no other process for redress is provided under the NDA, may submit a grievance. As set out in the Viana affidavit, the CAF grievance process has two levels of authority, the Initial Authority [IA] and the Final Authority [FA]. The CDS is the FA. In some circumstances there may be an independent review of the grievance by the Military Grievance External Review Committee [MGERC]. However, the CDS remains the final authority and is not bound by any findings or recommendation of the MGERC.
[61] Following a decision of the FA, dissatisfied CAF members may seek judicial review of the decision in this Court, including any appeal rights deriving therefrom.
[62] As this Court has noted on a number of occasions, the grievance process available under the NDA is broadly worded and comprehensive, capturing a wide range of issues and allowing members to seek redress for virtually any issues arising during the course of their service: Jones v Canada, (1994) 87 FTR 190 at paras 9-10 (TD); Fortin v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1061 at paras 25-26; Jones v Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), 2022 FC 1106 at para 21.
Christensen had been warned by the Federal Court about exactly this issue, just a few years ago. But she filed this lawsuit anyway.
The Court noted that she hadn’t come anywhere close to convincing that the grievance scheme was corrupted or unworkable. And it would be a very tough sell indeed.
The Judge noted at paragraph 67 that over 100 of the Plaintiffs had filed grievances anyway. This is yet another problem that would derail this case. Parallel or simultaneous proceedings are not allowed. Considering the grieving was the correct option, this lawsuit would have been stayed.
The Statement of Claim had other serious errors. Specifically, none of the Charter violations were pleaded sufficiently. It’s not enough to simply list the different sections. Paragraphs 18 to 41 outlined exactly what was wrong.
Serious question: While it’s nice to see people standing up for their rights, what good is it when counsel can’t follow basic directions on how to proceed? If they can’t understand grievance rights, or how to plead a claim, how does this help anyone?
Of course, Christensen still probably got paid for her “work”.
No matter how much, or how often, a lawyer screws up a case, it’s the clients who pay.
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.
COURT DOCUMENTS:
(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
OTHER:
(1) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-3.html#h-374837
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc1801/2024fc1801.html
(6) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hundreds-of-military-part-of-lawsuit-over-mandatory-covid-vaccine
(7) https://valourlegalactioncentre.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hifDPBW4r0w
I am one of the members who served with distinction for 14.5 years. My exit from the military was so fast I couldn’t have filed a grievance, I was told my request for religious exemption would be denied before I even submitted it, it was pre determined, I submitted it anyway. The chain of command acknowledged my sincerely held beliefs but they denied the request anyway. We were told we would have a dishonourable discharge if we didn’t release right away. This case is so big and incriminates so many people they don’t want to let it see the light of day. There are 600 000 pages of documents collected through ATIPs, members text conversation with their chain of command, It’s a grave miscarriage of justice. Over 400 people paid out of pocket money they didn’t have after being fired, released or sent home without pay, hoping that the court system would give them justice, so yes our grievances will sit in a pile on somebody’s desk in a broken grievance system for 20 years while the veteran get slandered and gaslight by the media. These are People who gave up time with family for our country, people who helped sandbag flooded homes in Quebec, perform welfare checks on people stranded by flood, and snowstorms, fight forest fires in BC assisted in taking care of the elderly in Long term care homes in Toronto, served over sea’s. Only to get tossed out with trash like so many veterans before.