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 difference 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 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