Posted on

Military Veterans’ Injection Pass Case Thrown Out Over Grievance Requirement, Poor Pleadings

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

Posted on

Purolator Injection Pass Lawsuit Dropped in 2023, While Arbitration Succeeded

Purolator is one of the companies that forced employees to make the decision about getting the injections (vaccine passports) in 2021, or risking their employment. The outcome is a year old, but worth reviewing.

Being a unionized employer, there are set procedures to handle grievances. Not following those rules can cause headaches for everyone involved. While many workers objected to this new requirement for injections, they handled it in different ways.

Pathway #1: David Reynolds and Riley Kearns, counsel for the Union, Teamsters Local No. 31, took their case to Labour Arbitration. They brought in their experts to counter the narrative that the shots were necessary. They successfully persuaded Arbitrator Nicholas Glass of the validity of their concerns. In December 2023, he ordered backpay for wages, benefits, and other compensation.

Pathway #2: Leighton Grey, counsel for over 200 Plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in June 2022. It was amended in December 2022. Despite a few brief Court appearances, nothing ever happened, and opposing counsel threatened to bring a Motion to Strike. The case was discontinued in April 2023.

This article also demonstrates that having a horrible lawyer can ruin the outcome.

Reynolds and Kearns chose the correct path (Arbitration), and pursued the case diligently. They clearly put the work in. On the other hand, Grey chose a method (Court) which wasn’t allowed, and then did nothing to advance it.

The employees who the Union grieved for were compensated for their losses. The employees who went to Court ultimately got screwed over.

It’s unclear from the Arbitration ruling if the Purolator employees who sued would still be eligible for backpay given Arbitration was successful. Either way, going to Court was a complete waste of time and money.

How Canadian Government Defines “Constructive Dismissal”

This is quoted with the disclaimer that yes, the Government did mess around with EI for people who were terminated. Suddenly requiring the injections IS a retroactive change in the conditions of employment. However, this page is still helpful to read for general information.

Definition of constructive dismissal

The phrase “constructive dismissal” describes situations where the employer has not directly fired the employee. Rather the employer has:

  • failed to comply with the contract of employment in a major respect
  • unilaterally changed the terms of employment, or
  • expressed a settled intention to do either thus forcing the employee to quit

Constructive dismissal is sometimes called “disguised dismissal” or “quitting with cause”. This is because it often occurs in situations where the employer offers the employee the alternative of:

  • leaving, or
  • submitting to a unilateral and substantial alteration of a fundamental term or condition of their employment

Whether or not there has been a constructive dismissal is based on an objective view of the employer’s conduct. It is not merely on how the employee perceives the situation.

It is the employer’s failure to meet its contractual obligations that distinguishes a constructive dismissal from an ordinary resignation. The seriousness of the employer’s failure as well as the amount of deliberation apparent in its actions are also important factors.

The employer’s action must be unilateral, which means the employer must do it without the consent of the employee. If it is not unilateral, the variation is not a constructive dismissal but merely an agreed change to the contract of employment.

If the employee clearly indicates non-acceptance of the new conditions of employment to the employer, there has been a constructive dismissal. However, this is only if the employee leaves within a reasonable period (usually short). By not resigning, the employee indicates he accepts the new conditions of employment.

There have been cases where courts have held that there has been a constructive dismissal even though the complainant remains in the employ of the employer. This includes, for example, cases where the employee:

  • continues to work under the new conditions in order to mitigate damages, and
  • either protests the new conditions explicitly or makes it clear that he still reserves the right to take legal action

Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment is constructive dismissal, no matter how politicians like to frame things. And this is exactly the kind of problem that a union should be challenging.

In the case of Teamsters Local No. 31, they did just that.

Teamsters Collective Agreement Mandates Arbitration

Teamsters is the Union representing Purolator employees. And it includes Local No. 31, which is the branch that successfully grieved against the company at a Labour Arbitration. Article 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement very clearly spells out the grievance process. And 6.2(d) goes on to state:

6.2(d) “Should the parties fail to reach satisfactory settlement in the preceding steps, the final settlement of the grievance may be submitted to the Arbitration Board as outlined below.”

The next several pages of the document go on to outline the process involved in the grievance process, including deadlines to commencing future step. Suing the employer, or going to Court, is not mentioned anywhere.

Teamsters Union Won At Labour Arbitration

While much of the content on this site covers losses, this one was a win. And it was nice to see employees getting some justice for what had been done to them. Read the entire decision.

569. The hourly paid grievances are upheld. The group grievance is upheld. The grievors are entitled to be compensated for their losses which will include any lost wages and benefits, between July 1, 2022 and their first day of work following May 1, 2023.

570. The owner operators’ grievances are upheld. They are entitled to be compensated for their losses commencing the first date that they lost revenue from being denied the use of a vaccinated relief driver. There is no common end date for their losses at this point. The losses are yet to be determined.

571. Dan Moes’ grievance is upheld with full compensation from the first day of his dismissal, or first loss of revenue from being denied use of a relief driver, whichever came first.

572. The administrative non-attestation termination grievances, either individually or as part of the group grievance, are upheld. These grievors are entitled to the same level of compensation as the other grievors in their category.

573. The res judicata preliminary objection is dismissed.

574. I reserve jurisdiction to determine quantum with respect to all grievances.

575. I reserve jurisdiction on any other matters arising, including interpretation, or implementation with respect to this award.

Teamsters Local No. 31 went to bat for their members at a Labour Arbitration hearing and won. Not all unions backed members, but this one did. And they did it successfully. Lost income was to be paid back.

Plaintiffs In Civil Claim Got Screwed Over

This lawsuit had problems from the very beginning, and this was predictable. Here are the more obvious ones to consider:

  1. Failure to plead necessary material facts
  2. Failure to keep evidence out of the Claim
  3. Failure to properly plead necessary particulars
  4. Failure to properly plead Charter violations
  5. Seeking Relief a CIVIL Court cannot grant
  6. Failure to understand labour law and jurisdiction

These cases: (a) Canada Post; (b) Canadian National Railway; and now (c) Purolator, all came from the same lawyer. They have the same serious defects, and none of them ever went anywhere. Canada Post, a.k.a. “The Posties”, was thrown out on a Motion to Strike, while both CNR and Purolator were dropped. It doesn’t look like anyone received a refund.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Rule 174 of the Federal Court Rules is a requirement to plead facts, and it includes pleading facts about all Plaintiffs. There were over 200 (214, if counted right). Instead, there were a handful of sweeping declarations in Claim to cover everyone, and that’s it.

This is paired with Rule 181, a requirement to plead particulars. Grey is claiming that the Government conspired, acted with malice, and intentionally inflicted all kinds of mental and psychological harm. All of this needs to be spelled out in detail, but isn’t done.

And, as outlined above, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case at all. The collective bargaining agreement spells out Arbitration. The Courts typically refer to this as the “explicit ouster”, and will routinely throw them out. Grey should know this.

Grey also once again asks the Court for CRIMINAL remedies in a CIVIL Court. This is not allowed. Each type of Court is only set up to hear certain kinds of disputes. There’s also allegations that the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act was violated (despite that being about race and ethnicity).

The probable reason for pleading Criminal Code violations (and others) is to get around the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court. If Grey were to simply argue that his clients were wrongfully forced out of their job, or that they were constructively dismissed, the suit would be tossed immediately. So he tries to turn it into something else.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should. “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument’s” cases are filled with these same defects. Although Grey tends to “tone it down” somewhat when drafting pleadings, the similarities are striking. And both lawyers simply recycle their claims, just making minor edits.

Grey’s clients got nothing of value from his work. They (presumably) paid retainers just to have him drop the case 10 months later. They got screwed over. Had they simply allowed their union to represent them at Arbitration, all of this could have been avoided. True, there were no guarantees at Arbitration, but there was always a chance, as opposed to filing a lawsuit.

Why are all the “freedom lawyers” complete idiots?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/laws-regulations/labour/interpretations-policies/constructive-dismissal.html
(2) https://teamsters362.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UPS-2020-2025.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cala/doc/2023/2023canlii120937/2023canlii120937.html
(4) Purolator T-1267-22 Statement Of Claim
(5) Purolator T-1267-22 Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Purolator T-1267-22 Notice Of Discontinuance

Posted on

Review Of Canadian National Railway Case, Dropped in 2023

It’s time to review a case that slipped under the radar in 2022 and 2023. This is the CNR, or Canadian National Railway case and their injection mandate (vaccine passport) lawsuit. Yes, it’s considered old, but the information here should be worth it.

To their credit, Rebel News did cover the initial filing, but there doesn’t seem to have been any follow up. Of course, there wasn’t much to report.

The criticism that’s coming may sound like another Galati case, but it’s not. Yes, the errors are virtually identical, so it’s easy to make that mistake.

The lawyer is Leighton Grey, of the firm Grey Wowk Spencer LLP.

For some of Grey’s other work, consider his “Posties” case. He represented employees and former employees of Canada Post. They were faced with job losses in 2021/2022 as a result of the injection mandates. Now, the company has a collective bargaining agreement, which mandates arbitration as opposed to litigation to resolve disputes.

Arbitration did in fact happen, with different counsel, but it went unfavourably towards the workers. Rather than filing for a review, Grey decided to sue Canada Post instead. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out on a Motion to Strike, as there was no jurisdiction for the Courts. There was also the problem that Grey didn’t plead his case properly, and it would have been struck anyway.

Grey had another lawsuit on behalf of Purolator workers, but the same problems arose. He didn’t have jurisdiction to file the case — as arbitration was mandatory — and it wasn’t pleaded properly. It was eventually dropped. That will be covered in the future.

These are at least 3 cases: (a) Canada Post; (b) Purolator; and (c) Canadian National Railway, where a lawsuit was filed by Grey when there was no jurisdiction. These suits were doomed from the start.

As for the O.G., or Original Gangsta “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument”, his work includes: (a) Adelberg; (b) Dorceus; (c) Katanik; and (d) several cases with the CPSO. The Court had jurisdiction over none of them.

It’s still amazing that lawyers always get paid, regardless of how completely, or how often, they screw up their cases. It’s the clients who lose out.

Hundreds of clients are out of luck because counsel failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, and he didn’t follow basic employment law.

What Specific Errors Were Made With CNR Case?

  1. Failure to plead necessary material facts
  2. Failure to keep evidence out of the Claim
  3. Failure to properly plead necessary particulars
  4. Failure to properly plead Charter violations
  5. Seeking Relief a CIVIL Court cannot grant
  6. Failure to understand labour law and jurisdiction

Worth noting: #6 is fatal to the case. Because of the collective bargaining agreements, the Plaintiffs lack jurisdiction to sue. In theory, they could plead that they exhausted all avenues and that the employer wasn’t acting in good faith. A Judge might agree that this is the only available venue, but there are no gurantees.

In any event, lack of jurisdiction wasn’t the only serious problem.

1. Failure To Plead Necessary Material Facts

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

By “material facts”, this means the lawyer has to plead specific information and background about everyone involved. The Statement of Claim is only 14 pages because it doesn’t plead any facts about anyone.

  • Their length of time with the company
  • Their role or position within the company
  • Their specific objection for refusing the injections (religious, health, conscience, etc…)
  • What discipline was taken, or if they quit
  • The specific steps they took to resolve it internally
  • Which union, if any, each Plaintiff belongs to
  • Who was working remotely, and who was physically present
  • Who applied for EI, who was denied, and what reason(s) given
  • What, if anything happened with regard to grievances and arbitration

These are just a few of the details that must be pleaded for each Plaintiff. It’s not optional. A properly written Claim would have been a few hundred pages. Especially with the question of jurisdiction, it must be listed in detail that these people were trying to follow the terms of their agreement, if they had one. Grey put NONE of this in the Claim.

Even if this were a Proposed Class Action (it wasn’t) the Representative Plaintiff(s) would still need to have adequate facts pleaded about their situation. Not a single person pleaded anything.

One of the more ridiculous statements from Grey is that some Plaintiffs are part of a Union — 4 are listed — but that others are not. No Plaintiffs are matched with any, nor are any of the grievance procedures outlined.

2. Failure To Keep Evidence Out Of The Claim

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

The other part of Federal Court Rule 174 also applies. The Statement of Claim goes on at length about scientific declarations about health risks and treatment. Now, this may be appropriate expert evidence to give at a later date, but it doesn’t belong in the Claim itself. Does Grey not know this?

3. Failure To Properly Plead Necessary Particulars

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

Rule 181 of the Federal Court Rules specifics “pleading particulars”. What this means is that actions based on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, etc…. must be spelled out. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what they have to respond to.

Grey openly accuses Government officials of conspiring to harm the Plaintiffs, but he doesn’t give any of the detail needed to even theoretically support such allegations.

4. Failure To Properly Plead Charter Violations

Grey’s lawsuit contains “cookie cutter” allegations of Charter violations, such as:

  • Section 2(a) – Freedom of Conscience
  • Section 7 – Security of the Person
  • Section 8 – Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
  • Section 15 – Equality

However, none of it is pleaded properly. To bring allegations that one’s rights have been violated, each Plaintiff must plead facts that would support these claims. As mentioned earlier, there’s no specific information provided about any of them. The Court would need to know the details of who said and did what. To do this correctly, the Statement of Claim would have been a few hundred pages.

5. Seeking Relief A CIVIL Court Cannot Grant

This is downright embarrassing. At paragraph 1(d) of the Amended Claim, Grey asks the Court for Declaratory Relief that Criminal Code violations have taken place. Yes, he asks a Civil Court to make findings of a criminal nature. That alone is enough to get the case struck.

For reference, Action4Canada and Adelberg were struck as “bad beyond argument”, in part, because they asked for remedies a Civil Court had no jurisdiction over. Grey does the same thing here.

6. Failure To Understand Labour Law And Jurisdiction

The case was dropped ultimately because the Defendants tried to bring a Motion to Strike. This Order from February, 2023 makes it clear what it was about. CNR knew full well that the Court had no jurisdiction, at least for many workers, so the obvious first step was to bring such a challenge.

Although Grey tried to argue a litany of torts, this case was essentially “constructive dismissal”. Since the terms and conditions of employment had been retroactively changed, it amounted to a repudiation of the contract by the employer. This is exactly the kind of issue that unions grieve over.

Most likely, Grey tried to dress it up to get around the lack jurisdiction.

Timeline Of Major Events In This Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 8th, 2023: Most Plaintiffs discontinue.

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

June 20th, 2023: Last client discontinues case.

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

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

Posted on

Antisemitism Hearings Continue At Canadian Parliament

The House of Commons has resumed hearings into the concerns of the Jewish community in Canada, and to bring forward ideas on what to do about it. To date, there are 23 witnesses scheduled to testify, and 78 briefs filed with Parliament. The hearings began in May 2024.

Officially, the hearings are referred to as: “Antisemitism and Additional Measures that Could be Taken to Address the Valid Fears that are Being Expressed by Canada’s Jewish Community”.

It’s unclear what, if anything, will come as a result. Free speech absolutists will notice the general trend of recommending solutions that involve some form of “re-education” or punishment.

Interestingly, both the Jewish and Islamic lobbies support the implementation of Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. The vague wording of the text would make it a powerful weapon.

One can’t but notice that the inconsistency of the attitudes of the participants. It seems while free expression is to take a back seat here, it wouldn’t be in similar circumstances. Let’s look at one example, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA.

CIJA On Jewish “Identity”: Free Speech Must Be Curbed

When it comes to protecting the well being of Jews in Canada, nothing is off the table. Aggressive efforts must be made, even if it limits free speech and free association.

  1. Enforce existing anti-hate laws and provide training to courts, police, government employees and the legal system in antisemitism and hate crimes.
  2. Incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism into all government training on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.
  3. Ban Vancouver-based group Samidoun for its direct and open ties to terror groups.
  4. Have both Ottawa and the provinces introduce safe access (bubble) legislation around synagogues, Jewish community buildings, and centres of Jewish life.
  5. Pass the Online Harms Act.
  6. Introduce the new Anti-Racism Strategy and ensure no government funding goes to those promoting and platforming hate.
  7. Ban the display of symbols of listed terror organizations.
  8. List the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
  9. Improve the collection and reporting of hate crime data, including how the information is shared with threatened communities.
  10. The Government of Canada should direct the provinces to act clearly to prevent antisemitism in schools, both on university campuses and in K-12.

These are the points introduced by CIJA for these hearings. However, it’s interesting to note that these efforts are not encouraged for all groups. Far from it.

CIJA On Palestinian “Identity”: Free Speech Must Be Protected

Despite the seemingly heavy handed approach favoured to combat antisemitism, it seems a different path is desirable regarding Palestinians.

Ottawa, ON – November 8, 2024 – In response to the announcement made by the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia about the Prime Minister’s support of “Anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) expressed serious concerns regarding the concept that risks undermining protections for Jewish Canadians and could misuse human rights laws to advance political narratives that silence Jewish voices.

CIJA has engaged directly with the federal government on this issue, calling on the Prime Minister to reject APR and ensure that Canadian policy protects the free expression of all communities without infringing upon Jewish identity or silencing voices within Canada’s Jewish community. CIJA’s engagement has also included correspondence and meetings with key government representatives to advocate for consistent, inclusive, human rights protections.

The concerns are entirely different when it comes to recognizing Palestinians as a race or ethnicity. CIJA summarizes them concisely.

  1. It lacks debate
  2. It is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant under the Charter
  3. It risks sidetracking creation of Islamophobia guides
  4. It challenges freedom of expression
  5. It contravenes Established Government Policies
  6. It is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy
  7. It imposes divisive environment
  8. It silences victims of antisemitism
  9. It silences discussions of terrorism
  10. It invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy

Recently, CIJA published a paper called: “Ten major concerns with the concept of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR)”. The main theme is that it undermines legitimate expression, Government policies and is divisive.

It seems more likely that “Anti-Palestinian racism” is opposed as a concept to make it more difficult to declare what Israel does to them as a genocide.

Bernier On Genocide Of Palestinians: U.N. Needs To Shut Up

Maxime Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister from 2007 until 2008. This is one of the most prestigious positions there is in politics. One would think that he’d have many ideas as to where a future Government could go if he were in power.

However, when running to be the head of the Conservative Party of Canada 2016/2017, his ambitions for foreign policy were very light. He had vague statements about trade and economic growth, but this is his only definitive one:

I won’t aim to please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations — a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel. Instead, I will ensure our country’s foreign policy will be refocused on the security and prosperity of Canadians.

Bernier is no dummy. He knows exactly why the U.N. has been condemning Israel, and the resolutions are very easy to look up. However, he prefers to deflect by referring to the U.N. as “dysfunctional”.

Strange, isn’t it? Bernier was “Mr. Freedom” when it came to Canadians having their rights taken away in 2020 and 2021. But he shilled for a foreign power that did (and still does) worse to its neighbours.

In fairness, few politicians (anywhere) in the West are willing to call out Israeli occupation of Palestinians. A cynic may wonder if all those free vacations had anything to do with it.

Anyhow, this is Parliament is up to these days — hearing witnesses advocate for measures on behalf of a tiny minority — and all because of events on the other side of the world.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12632914
(2) https://www.cija.ca/government_support_of_anti_palestinian_racism_risks_undermining_canadian_jewish_rights
(3) https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cija/pages/4068/attachments/original/1719952377/2024-06-20_APR_Need_to_know.pdf?1719952377
(4) http://www.maximebernier.com/foreign_policy_must_focus_on_the_security_and_prosperity_of_canadians_not_pleasing_the_dysfunctional_united_nations
(5) Wayback Machine Archive Of Bernier

TAXPAYER FUNDED TRIPS TO ISRAEL (2007-2023):
(1) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(2) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2007%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(3) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2007
(4) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2008%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(5) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2008
(6) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2009%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(7) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2009
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2010%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(9) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2010
(10) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2011%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(11) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2012%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(12) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2012
(13) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2013%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(14) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2013
(15) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2014%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(16) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2014
(17) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2015%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(18) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2015
(19) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2016%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(20) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2016
(21) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2017%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(22) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2017
(23) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2018%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(24) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2018
(25) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/travel2019-deplacements2019.aspx
(26) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2019
(27) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2020-Deplacements2020.aspx
(28) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2021-Deplacements2021.aspx
(29) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2022-Deplacements2022.aspx
(30) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2022
(31) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2023-Deplacements2023.aspx
(32) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2023

Posted on

TikTok Ban In Canada: Not Even All-Party Lobbying Could Prevent It

Recently, it was announced that the last 2 Canadian offices of TikTok — the social media platform — would be shut down. This comes after an outright ban in the United States. The reason stated was that there were safety concerns, such as gathering intelligence, and that it was a threat to national security. The app would still be available for use, for now, but the physical presence had to be removed.

It’s unclear why the app can still be used if the offices had to be closed.

Of course, context matters. It would have been nice to know if any group or organization had publicly lobbied to have the company shut down. A quick search through the Federal Lobbying Registry has flagged some interesting results.

There weren’t public efforts by lobbyists to silence TikTok. But there were several prominent names who were advocating on its behalf. And it cut across party lines: (a) Conservative; (b) Liberal; (c) NDP; and (d) Bloc Québécois.

The stated goals of these meetings were:

  • Engage federal officials on legislation related to privacy and online safety
  • Engage federal officials on policies, legislation and regulations relevant to digital media and user-generated online content, including privacy, data security, and copyright
  • Engage federal officials on policies to support digital first content creators and foster the creation, discoverability, and exportability of Canadian cultural content online, including Indigenous and French-language content

Among recent Government initiatives were taxing and otherwise regulating social media content. This was hardly limited to just TikTok. Other platforms were getting squeezed as well. But they all had connected “strategists” to meet with political figures, and smooth things over.

However, TikTok was still deemed to be a national security threat.

Even the “Lavalin Guy” couldn’t stop it.

Who Is This All-Star Cast Of Political Lobbyists?

  • Éric Lamoureux – From December 2003 until June 2004, he was a Policy Advisor in the Ministry of Health. From then until January 2006, he was Director of Parliamentary Affairs, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, all under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. He also helped secure the DPA (or Deferred Prosecution Agreement) for SNC Lavalin.
  • Louis-Alexandre Lanthier – From June 2007 until May 2011, he was the Campaign Manager for Liberal Justin Trudeau, now sitting Prime Minister.
  • Julie Groleau – From November 2015 until November 2019, she was Parliamentary Assistant, in the Office of Simon Marcil, M.P. for the Bloc Québécois.
  • Maryanne Sheehy – From August 2010 until November 2015, she worked in the Office of the Prime Minister, who at the time, was Conservative Stephen Harper.
  • Michael von Herff – Founder & Managing Partner at PAA Advisory. His firm has “political strategists” for all different parties.
  • Matthew Larventz – From November 2015 until November 2017, he was a Legislative Assistant to Liberal M.P. Randeep Sarai.
  • James Anderson – Former Policy Director in Health, and later Foreign Affairs when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. From November 2007 until March 2009 he was Senior Director, Organization and Outreach for the Federal Liberal Party of Canada
  • Nate Little – From March 2021 until October 2021, he was a Legislative Assistant in the House of Commons for Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, New Democrat M.P. from Nunavut. He was then a Press Secretary until January 2022.
  • Stephen Yardy – From June 2008 until May 2022, he was Campaign Organizer for the New Democratic Party of Canada, and claims to have worked on over 25 political campaigns across the country.

Éric Lamoureux worked deeply in the Federal Government going back to the Paul Martin era. But perhaps his greatest achievement is securing the deferred prosecution for SNC Lavalin, allowing it to continue bidding on contracts. He did this by leaning on François Legault in Quebec, to apply pressure Federally. He’s basically the “Lavalin Guy”.

Louis-Alexandre Lanthier is another influential person who relatively few have ever heard of. He got Trudeau his start in politics as his Campaign Manager. His more recent adventures include helping to flood canada with temporary foreign workers, particularly at places like Tim Hortons.

Of course, the records from the Lobbying Registry are just what’s available publicly. There are most likely far more communications that aren’t documented here.

It’s been publicly speculated that TikTok’s ban in the United States was driven by what’s been called an “anti-Israel” bias. The counter-argument is that TikTok is actually providing more balanced coverage of Middle East issues. The concerns over security from the Chinese could just be a red herring.

One has to wonder, when Canada’s top influence peddlers, including the “Lavalin Guy”, weren’t able to prevent the forced closure of domestic offices.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tiktok-canada-review-1.7375965
(2) https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/g-s1-23194/tiktok-us-ban-appeals-court
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1731230030029
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=371137&regId=956914
(6) https://paainc.ca/
(7) https://paainc.ca/team/
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericlamoureux/
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/louis-alexandre-lanthier-75517b3b/details/experience/
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/juliegroleau/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryanne-sheehy/
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-von-herff-2aab2411/
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/mlarventz/details/experience/
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescharlesanderson/details/experience/
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/nate-little-297590133/
(16) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-yardy-b0a4a326/

Posted on

Rickard/Harrison Motion To Strike: When Concealing Lack Of Citizenship Matters

A Motion to Strike the Claim of Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison is to be heard in Federal Court later this month. The Government argues that there’s no valid Cause of Action (Issue the Court can rule in their favour on) outside of their s.6 (Mobility Rights) possibly being violated.

And to be clear, this is a private lawsuit for damages. The Plaintiffs aren’t asking for any sort of remedy that would benefit the public. They just want money for themselves. They solicit donations under the guise of “travel mandates challenge”, but it’s very misleading.

Citing significant defects in both the original Statement of Claim and the amended version, the Government has brought a Motion to Strike.

The Notice of Motion brings up a very interesting point: Rickard and Harrison don’t actually plead that they are Canadian citizens. This matters as only citizens are able to invoke s.6(1) Charter Rights. It seemed like a very basic error to make.

The Government also argues that the other Causes of Action (s.7 and s.15) have no basis, but were willing to concede that s.6 might, if properly pleaded.

Rickard and Harrison have brought their own Motion to further amend their Claim, including another version, and it has opened up a can of worms.

The Defendants point out in their response (see page 4) that Plaintiffs aren’t able to amend their pleadings when there is a Motion to Strike pending. Procedurally, this is not allowed. It would result in overlapping Motions if some errors are fixed along the way, or new ones made.

And the other shoe drops.

Rickard wasn’t a Canadian citizen at the time that the “travel mandates” were in effect. He was only a permanent resident. As such, he had no s.6 Charter right to “enter, remain in and leave Canada”. He had been concealing it from the Court, and presumably, donors for the entire time.

Why does this matter? It’s because the Claim is based on violations of 3 sections of the Charter:
-Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility Rights)
-Section 7 of the Charter (Security of the Person)
-Section 15 of the Charter (Equality)

The Section 6 path was probably the only one that stood a chance. In theory, Rickard could have argued Section 6(2), which is Interprovincial travel, and permanent residents have those protections. But he didn’t. Only s.6(1) is referred to.

In their Motion to further amend the pleadings, Plaintiffs allege 3 additional violations:
-Section 12 of the Charter (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
-Section 19(2) of IRPA (Immigration & Refugee Protection Act)
-Violations of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

However, these cause new problems. None of these new Causes of Action are properly pleaded, and would probably be barred by the Statute of Limitations. It’s also worth asking whether the last 2 weren’t used previously to hide Rickard’s true immigration status.

Why Shaun Rickard Was Ineligible To Invoke S.6 (Mobility) Rights

In the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim, see page 12, Rickard finally reveals the truth: he was a permanent resident of Canada at the time. He only became a citizen later.

An no, this isn’t some immigration bashing post. There are genuine consequences here.

Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens
6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

According to Section 6 of the Charter (Mobility Rights), every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Unlike most Charter issues, this one is specific to citizenship. Think about it. If anyone could enter, remain in and leave Canada, then there would be no borders at all.

Rickard should have been upfront about his status. But then, it would make it much harder to get anyone to donate. Even a quick glance at the Canadian Charter would have had people asking exactly these questions.

Why S.7 (Security) And S.15 (Equality) Claims Will Fail

This is unpopular to say, but neither Rickard nor Harrison was forced to take the injection. They chose not to, and the consequence was making their lives considerably more difficult. Does this amount to pressure and/or coercion? Yes it does, but various Courts have already refused this argument.

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
.
15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Enumerated Grounds:

  • Race
  • National or ethnic origin
  • Colour
  • Religion
  • Sex
  • Age
  • Mental or Physical Disability

So-called “enumerated grounds” are what’s listed in the Charter when it was originally framed. However, the Supreme Court has since recognized other protections, called “analogous grounds”.

Readers won’t want to hear it but “discrimination” based on vaccination status (and related arguments) have already been thrown out by the Courts. Rickard and Harrison offer nothing new.

Analogous Grounds:

  • Sexual Orientation
  • Marital Status
  • Off-Reserve Aboriginal Status
  • Citizenship
  • Income

Infuriating as it may be, “equality” the way the Charter is written doesn’t extend to medical treatment. It’s already been argued in Courts across Canada.

In their response to the Motion to Strike, Rickard and Harrison tacitly admit that some of these issues (such as Section 15 and equality) have been directly addressed by other Courts. See page 22. But their view is that the Federal Court shouldn’t be bound by it.

Section 6 (Mobility Rights) is still somewhat of a new ground, but again, s.6(1) only applies to citizens. Rickard finally admits he wasn’t one in 2021/2022. As such, he can’t claim damages for that, although Harrison still could.

Understanding Different Types Of Proceedings

This Statement of Claim only came about after 4 related Applications for Judicial Review were struck in 2022 for “mootness”. However, the Judge did allow Actions (Statements of Claim) to be filed for damages. Instead of refiling — as permitted — everyone appealed, and lost. 3 of the 4 (not Rickard and Harrison) sought Leave to Appeal with the Supreme Court, and lost.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the backstory.

TYPE ACTION JUDICIAL REVIEW
1st Document Statement of Claim Application or Petition (BC)
Proceeding Type Can Be Very Complex Meant To Be Simplified
Purpose Damages, Various Orders Review Existing Order

The original challenges were in the form of Applications for Judicial Reviews, which are meant to be streamlined challenges to orders from the Government. Actions, on the other hand, can take almost any form.

This Is A PRIVATE Suit For Damages, Not A Mandates Challenge

The first, second and proposed third version of the Statement of Claim only ask for monetary damages for Rickard and Harrison. The documents are filed and publicly available.

Despite their misrepresentations, there’s no Relief Sought whatsoever that would prevent future injection mandates from coming back. This is a private lawsuit.

That doesn’t stop Harrison from offering tax receipts through his corporation, actually a “charity” to partially reimburse donors. That could cause real issues with the Canada Revenue Agency

According to the Government lawyers, they are only now finding out that Rickard wasn’t a citizen at the time, and hence ineligible to claim s.6(1) damages. That was concealed from everyone.

Most likely, Rickard will be struck as a Plaintiff, but Harrison would still be able to proceed with s.6 damages. They’ll probably then ask for more money to appeal.

As an aside, Rickard has another grift going on in Pickering, Ontario. He’s set up another fundraiser to file a lawsuit to “fight wokeness”. However, there are several shortfalls:

  • No content specified in potential suit
  • No lawyer named to pursue the Claim
  • No potential Plaintiff(s) named
  • No mention of specifically which Defendants would be named
  • No mention of obtaining public or private interest standing
  • No guarantee case will actually take place
  • No timeline or deadlines mentioned
  • No mention of refunds if the case doesn’t proceed

It’s still amazing how shameless people can be doing things like this.

Deport them both.

Revoke their citizenship and send them back to the UK.

And while we’re at it, deport the lawyer too, if possible.

FEDERAL COURT APPLICATIONS STRUCK:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL RULING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2023/2023fca219/2023fca219.html
(2) Travel Mandates Appeal Bernier Memorandum
(3) Travel Mandates Appeal Peckford Memorandum
(4) Travel Mandates Appeal Rickard-Harrison Memorandum
(5) Travel Mandates Appeal Respondents Memorandum

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80713/2024canlii80713.html (Bernier)
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80711/2024canlii80711.html (Peckford)
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2024/2024canlii80702/2024canlii80702.html (Naoum)

RICKARD/HARRISON STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) Rickard T-2536-23 Statement Of Claim
(2) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Intent To Respond
(3) Rickard T-2536-23 Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Rickard T-2536-23 Notice Of Motion
(5) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion Strike Statement Of Claim
(6) Rickard T-2536-23 Plaintiff Response To Motion To Strike
(7) Rickard T-2536-23 Motion To Further Amend Claim
(8) Rickard T-2536-23 Further Amended Statement Of Claim
(9) Rickard T-2536-23 Response To Plaintiff Motion To Amend
(10) https://x.com/ShaunRickard67/status/1840070389965128046
(11) https://www.freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
(12) CRA Page Of Institute For Freedom And Justice
(13) Corporations Canada Page

STANDARD OF REVIEW:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(2) Housen (Highlighted)