Recent Posts

Posted on

Deadline Looms To Implement Anti-SLAPP Laws Across Europe

To start the new year off on a positive note, let’s look at what’s happening in the European Union. Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the EU Parliament is approaching the 2 year anniversary, which is the deadline. Denmark has already opted out, but the other EU countries have until May 7th, 2026.

It’s encouraging sign to see more efforts to free speech from civil lawsuits. If Brussels can get this passed, can Ottawa as well?

What Are The Important Parts In The Directive?

Article 2
Scope
This Directive shall apply to matters of a civil or commercial nature with cross-border implications brought in civil proceedings, including procedures for interim and precautionary measures and counteractions, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or the liability of the state for acts and omissions in the exercise of state authority (acta iure imperii). This Directive shall not apply to criminal matters or arbitration and shall be without prejudice to criminal procedural law.

Article 3
Minimum requirements
1. Member States may introduce or maintain provisions that are more favourable to protect persons engaged in public participation against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings against public participation in civil matters, including national provisions that establish more effective procedural safeguards relating to the right to freedom of expression and information.
.
2. The implementation of this Directive shall in no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of safeguards already afforded by Member States in the matters covered by this Directive.

Article 4
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:
(2) ‘matter of public interest’ means any matter which affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it, in areas such as:
(a) fundamental rights, public health, safety, the environment or the climate;
(b) activities of a natural or legal person that is a public figure in the public or private sector;
(c) matters under consideration by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceedings;
(d) allegations of corruption, fraud, or of any other criminal offence, or of administrative offences in relation to such matters;
(e) activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, including the protection of democratic processes against undue interference, in particular by fighting disinformation;

Article 10
Security
Member States shall ensure that in court proceedings brought against natural or legal persons on account of their engagement in public participation, the court or tribunal seised may require, without prejudice to the right of access to justice, that the claimant provide security for the estimated costs of the proceedings, which may include the costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant, and, if provided for in national law, damages.

Article 12
Burden of proof and substantiation of claims
1. The burden of proving that the claim is well founded rests on the claimant who brings the action.
2. Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to substantiate the claim in order to enable the court to assess whether it is not manifestly unfounded.

Article 13
Appeal
Member States shall ensure that a decision granting early dismissal pursuant to Article 11 is subject to an appeal.

Article 14
Award of costs
1. Member States shall ensure that a claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public participation can be ordered to bear all types of costs of the proceedings that can be awarded under national law, including the full costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant unless such costs are excessive.
2. Where national law does not guarantee the award in full of the costs of legal representation beyond what is set out in statutory fee tables, Member States shall ensure that such costs are fully covered, unless they are excessive, by other means available under national law.

Article 15
Penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures
Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals seized of abusive court proceedings against public participation may impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures, including the payment of compensation for damage or the publication of the court decision, where provided for in national law, on the party who brought those proceedings.

Some key takeaways from this include:

  • “Matter of public interest” is defined very broadly
  • Presumptive full indemnity (100% of costs) to Defendants
  • Damages can be awarded to Defendants
  • Plaintiff has the burden in showing why the case should continue
  • Plaintiff can be ordered to put up a security deposit in order to continue
  • Rulings can be appealed
  • Applies to civil cases, not criminal
  • Countries can implement stronger protections if they want

Keep in mind, this is just the framework. Individual countries will come up with their own versions. At least some of this should be familiar, given the cases covered here.

Sign Of Things To Come Locally?

So, why should Canadians care? Because there’s the possibility to build on existing laws here. A national framework could be implemented here, or at least some could implement their own versions.

  • Quebec — Provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (2009)
  • Ontario — Section 137.1 in the Courts of Justice Act (2015)
  • British Columbia — Protection of Public Participation Act (2019)

Interestingly, the more “communist” provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, while the more “conservative” provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan do not. Whatever the country ends up as, or if any provinces leave, these protections are still important.

The EU Directive, much like the Canadian laws, is extremely broad in what “matters of public interest” can include. Otherwise, what would be the point? And there’s always the possibility of including topics not previously considered.

Anti-SLAPP exists in most, though not all, of the U.S. as well.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already weighed in several times in anti-SLAPP appeals, so it’s unlikely that including new provinces will contribute much in terms of precedent. Still, perhaps a visit to the local M.P. might be helpful.

(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj

Posted on

Making Some Changes….

Some significant changes will be coming in terms of content in the new year.

For context, this site started in the Spring of 2018, which was 7 1/2 years ago. It’s quite something to realize that it’s been creeping towards a decade. The question needs to be addressed: what next? Retire, or change direction?

The general sentiment is one of “returning to the roots”, or refocusing on topics that made the series stand out in the first place. A short list is included, though it’s more aspiration than a promise. Time and energy are real constraints lately.

1. Deep Dives Into Various Government Institutions

One of the most viewed articles to date remains this piece on how the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is in fact a de-facto branch of the World Health Organization. It gets into the creation of it, and the ad-hoc attempts to legitimate it.

A related pitch would be to cover historical revisions of various laws they enact. Firearm rights are always a contentious issue.

2. International Banking And Climate Change

A pair of schemes that are very much intertwined are banking and climate change. Although things seem to be on the wane, enormous sums of money have been stolen from the public and sent off, with no accountability. This has been covered to a degree, but there’s so much more exploitation to get into.

3. Back To Focusing On Open Border Agenda

Prior to 2020, the bulk of the content centered around open borders, and the true scale which things were happening at. There was a real disconnect to what information the public is fed, versus what is really going on. When this site originally reported in 2019 that about a million people annually were entering, it was laughed at. Now, it’s accepted wisdom.

With immigration, comes a host of new concerns. These include human smuggling and exploitation, importing foreign conflicts, groups demanding special treatment, and censorship.

As an aside, the floodgates didn’t “just open” in 2022. Statistics Canada finally decided to be more transparent in how they calculated the numbers.

4. Land Grabs Via The Courts

The Cowichan case made national news in August 2025, ruling that a large part of Richmond, B.C., belonged to a tribe living in the area. As has now been made public, significant parts of Canada are now being contested. Property rights as a concept is now in limbo for many people.

5. Delving Into The Limitations Of Modelling

This may be reaching, but there has been a desire to tackle directly the idea of computer modelling. This is where so-called experts plug a bunch of numbers into a computer, make assumptions, and spit out predictions. Those results — shoddy as they may be — are treated as fact. A lot of problems in the world would end if this junk science simply died off.

There are some other ideas on the backburner in terms of new content, subject to time limitations. One was getting back into the privacy/surveillance topic, but it may difficult to contribute without sounding crazy.

Separating Data And Articles More Formally

The details are still in the works, but the goal is to more completely separate source material from content which critiques it. The goal is better organization.

Creative Commons Licencing

The site is looking into licencing, which will still allow use, even in full without restriction. The only condition had been credit where it’s due. This is a bit of a formality, as the goal had always been to get the material out. And “Fair Dealing” is typically allowed for it to be reused in transformative ways.

Court filings and legislative documents are open to the public anyway.

Converting More Content Into Video Format

People have suggested over the years to turn more of the publications here into short videos, in order to reach a wider audience. This is a valid point, and worth consideration.

Retiring: Scam Lawsuits Series

Probably the most definable topic since 2021 has been the “scam lawsuits” series that shocked much of the Freedom Movement. To sum up: millions of dollars have been wasted, while thousands of litigants saw their cases (most, if not all, valid) tossed out because of shoddy lawyering.

This is of course not to say that all of them were grifts, but a lot of questions need to be asked about some of them. Hopefully, that point has been driven home.

Lockdown measures began in 2020, and largely went away in early 2022. If people are still fundraising in 2026 or 2027 to file a Statement of Claim, perhaps their cases require a closer look.

It’s also frustrating to put up with threats of lawsuits, actual lawsuits, swatting threats, and threats to get the site shut down. All of these have happened. It seems easier to go after critics than to zealously advance interests of clients and donors.

Retiring: “HateGate” Hoax

This is the nonsense about the Emergencies Act being invoked over a meme. The flaws in this were reported extensively. While the broader topic of government run operations is a good one, this specific psy-op has run its course.

Primary Sources Is The Path Forward

An interesting perspective relayed is that there’s more to covering court cases than simply going through the documents. This is certainly true, and there’s always room for nuance and discussion. But for that to happen, we need to at least agree on what has happened so far. We can always figure out the solution afterward.

The original documents are the primary sources, and everything afterwards is secondary, or lower. In every iteration of a subject being shared, information is lost.

Going to original documents also (largely) negates the need to discuss with a lawyer or client. Sorry, not sorry. If you have all the filings, that’s what should be the focus.

Where Do Things Go From Here?

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. Oddly, a similar sentiment can be shared when it comes to various outlets reporting on stories.

Back in 2021-22, it was quite revealing to see the reactions to covering the Gill-Lamba defamation case. People who identified as “freedom fighters” were angry at the lack of support they received here. It seemed that just because they spoke out against lockdowns, they should get a free pass trying to silence their critics.

A more recent example involved the situation with Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C. Interestingly, despite the near constant coverage received from “alternative” media outlets, court documents were rarely discussed. While there were cries of “an attack on the food supply”, the filings told a very different story. Had there been more honest and transparent reporting, this would never have gotten off the ground.

This has led (once again) to the conclusion that there can be no sides in reporting: either truth matters, or it doesn’t.

A question that commonly comes up is who someone should be following. In a perfect world, the answer is no one. Ideally, people should be driven to seek out truth and information on their own. Information has been provided on: (a) general searching; (b) FOIA requests; (c) CanLII searches; (d) Lobbying registries; and (e) Charity lookups to get started.

Perhaps this is a better answer: follow people who make it easier to do the fact checking yourself.

***It’s not necessary to become a publisher, but it doesn’t mean that one can’t at least look up things on their own. Here’s what one person did.

The hope here is to inspire people to get into their own deep dives. Is it tedious? It can be. But what can result from it?

(a) Untold truth about court cases finally gets covered
(b) Lobbyists and special interests behind legislation get exposed
(c) Money thought to have disappeared gets tracked
(d) “Organic” movements exposed as either initiated by, or infiltrated by authorities
(e) More complete stories are told about what’s happening in the world

It’s easy to get frustrated or burned out, and to want to give up. And there’s often the comment that “nothing will ever come of it”. Until and unless something is tried, it will always be nothing. Hopefully, this will be inspiring to some.

As always, feedback is encouraged.

Happy new year to all!

Posted on

“They Downplayed My Contributions, So I Had To Engage In Litigation”

“The Hate Network” is a Canadian documentary that is currently being screened for select audiences, presumably before being made more public. It’s effectively HateGate 2.0.

In honour of that, let’s take a look back at its predecessor, HateGate 1.0.

September 2023, the “HateGate Affair” was published by Caryma Sa’d and Elisa Hategan, who still goes by her old name. While the paper was disjointed and rambling, it tried to promote a narrative. Specifically, it attempted to convince people that the Emergencies Act (EA) was invoked in February 2022 largely over a meme and shoddy police work. It cited a 1,082 page FOIPOP release “proving” it.

So, why was the EA invoked? A shorter FOIPOP from around the same time suggests, although it does not conclude, that blockades along the Canada-U.S. border were shutting down international travel and shipments. While not definitive, it’s far more plausible than HateGate.

Going back through the 85 page paper, it’s obvious that most supporters never read the HateGate Affair, let alone the FOIPOP package, or this page. They probably just relied on this 4 1/2 minute video to tell them what to think.

The FOIPOP doesn’t prove — at all — that law enforcement relied on CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. If anything, police found little to substantiate their claims. The authors just cherrypicked quotes to suit a narrative. And most of the HateGate Affair has nothing to do with the invocation anyway.

Keep in mind, Hategan and Sa’d didn’t request a FOIPOP from the police for all information and conversations related to the invocation. That would have been tens of thousands of pages, at least. Instead, they asked for information about the group Diagolon, and simply reported that they had proof of this narrative. Nice pivot.

Hategan got her “fame” as a teenager in the 1990s, helping infiltrate and eventually take down the neo-nazi group Heritage Front. It turned out to be an operation, and its leader, Grant Bristow, a CSIS agent. However, she’s nearly 50 now, and nowhere near as relevant. But if people minimize her role in this, she’s quite willing to file a lawsuit against them.

Let’s look at some forgotten gems in this “paper”.

Grant Bristow And Bernie Farber Were Actually Friends

These are from pages 48 and 50 of HateGate Affair. Even though Grant Bristow was “supposedly” the head of the largest neo-nazi group in Canada, he and Farber remained friends. The only logical conclusion is not just that it was a CSIS operation (which it was), but that Farber knew all along that it was.

Farber must have deduced (if he wasn’t directly informed) that Diagolon was also an operation. After all, it was the O.P.P. informant, Hategan, writing this paper.

And why does Hategan have I.P. tracking software on her website?

Ferryman-Cohen Sued Bernie Farber For Clout

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.

Page 51 of HateGate Affair, Ferryman-Cohen complains that she’s been silenced from speaking out. This came after she filed a frivolous lawsuit against Farber for not giving her the credit she thought she deserved. She was also found to be harassing, threatening, stalking and defaming her “rival”, Elizabeth Moore-Frederiksen.

Caryma Sa’d went after CAHN in Federal Court, but it was struck for having no Cause of Action.

Ferryman-Cohen Sued TV Ontario For Clout

48. Bernie Farber made the false representation that both the Plaintiff and Moore were critical in the dissolution of the Heritage Front. At no point did Moore correct Farber that she had not been involved in the “shut down” of the Heritage Front. Without permission, Farber also uses the Plaintiff’s name and courageous actions as an 18-year old teenager and conflates them with Elizabeth Moore, who was a privileged, upper-middle class adult woman who did nothing to shut down the HF, was not a “hero”, and was not involved in any way whatsoever in shutting down the Heritage Front:

“By the way, [Elizabeth] was one of a couple of women that were involved in the Heritage Front, both of them actually, Elizabeth and another woman by the name of Elisa Hategan. Both of them ended up being heroes in terms of how they were able to take themselves out, how they were able to work with the system, to basically shut down the Heritage Front. And so in this particular case, it’s kind of interesting that the women were the heroes in shutting this down. There were others involved as well, the Bristow Affair, he was the mole. All of this came together as a result of the women who full timely took a stand and said, we’re not going to deal with this anymore.”

Back in 2019, Ferryman-Cohen sued TVO because it didn’t give her enough of a glowing review. She and Elizabeth Moore-Frederiksen both were credited with helping to topple Heritage Front. But sharing credit wasn’t good enough, and she filed a $150,000 lawsuit. It was settled out of Court.

Ferryman-Cohen Sued For Defamation By Paul ApSimon

Ferryman-Cohen is being sued for defamation by Paul ApSimon, a former fencing instructor. She posted ancient allegations on her website that essentially accused him of sexual abuse and pedophilia. Now, unless this turns out to be provably true, then he’s 100% justified in filing this one. As of the time of writing this, there is an anti-SLAPP Motion pending.

Bit of advice for Diagolon supporters: maybe someone who gets sued for making these kinds of accusations isn’t the best person to write for you.

Ferryman-Cohen Sues Caryma Sa’d And Toronto Police

Ferryman-Cohen has finally gone after Caryma Sa’d, her co-author, filing a $2.53 million lawsuit. There are some interesting revelations here.

She is suing the Toronto Police twice in Small Claims Court. One was on December 8th, and the other on the 16th.

There’s also one against Mitch Hancock in Small Claims for $35,000. She simply cannot allow people to forget that she’s the one who took down Heritage Front.

50. Sa’d further lied to police, claiming that she did not owe Ms. Hategan any money (despite having had extensive text and verbal discussions about splitting credit, donations, and other compensations for Ms. Hategan). Sa’d has earned thousands of dollars from work performed at least in part by Ms. Hategan, and as a result of her journalistic mentorship. Sa’d and Hategan’s co-authored article The Hategate Affair was also uploaded to a website solely under Sa’d’s control. The website (found at https://dove-herring-wfpt.squarespace.com/ and linked to the domain “hategate.ca”) was operational from September 12, 2023 until fall/winter 2024, and featured “Donation” and “Make a Donation” buttons from its inception until around January 2024. Ms. Hategan does not know the total amount of money collected by Sa’d through the website, through Sa’d’s GoFundMe journalism-related pages, or via direct e-transfers to Sa’d’s bank account and PayPal account, but strongly believes the figure is in the thousands of dollars.

77. It took Elisa many years to overcome her police phobia. Graduating Magna cum Laude from the University of Ottawa with a double major in criminology and psychology, she served as a consultant with the London, UK-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and has assisted law enforcement such as the Ontario Provincial Police with advice and training on preventing radicalization and extremism in youth. As a keynote speaker for the Probation Officers Association of Ontario (POAO), she presented workshops alongside OPP and RCMP officers. Her wrongful arrests and the high volume of false police reports Sa’d filed about her, which are still registered in CPIC, have destroyed her reputation in the law enforcement community.

96. As a result of Sa’d’s false reports, Ms. Hategan was locked out of her X account and remains suspended to the present day, unable to access her account. Ms. Hategan has never been suspended from any social media platform before. Sa’d lied to X Support by falsely claiming that the photo was a “private” image, even though Sa’d is a notorious public figure who regularly seeks media attention, stives to be famous and become an “influencer”, and has her own Wikipedia Page. As a result of Sa’d’s malicious and false reports, Ms. Hategan has lost her primary source of income – most of her public speaking and consulting requests, as well as crowdfunding donations, come from her X account.

113.(g)(ii). Her duty and loyalty to another client, Jeremy Mackenzie. Ms. Hategan believes that Mackenzie paid Sa’d for work on The HateGate Affair, the September 12, 2023 85-page longform article co-authored and written in majority by Ms. Hategan. Elisa is entitled to receive half of all earnings as per her agreement with Sa’d, but received nothing.

Ferryman-Cohen didn’t “leave behind” her life working with law enforcement. She apparently still does it, and works/worked as a consultant for the ISD? They’re arguably worse than CAHN.

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. Ferryman-Cohen believes that MacKenzie paid Sa’d to create HateGate Affair, and she wants a cut of it. She also wants compensation for whatever donations came in. There’s no objection that the document is misleading, just that she wasn’t paid.

This also explains why the paper was so shoddy, at least in part. No one will donate unless there’s a juicy story, such as the EA being invoked over a meme. This was supposed to be a cash cow.

Ferryman-Cohen apparently doesn’t work a regular job, and largely relies on pubic speaking and online donations. Gee, where have we heard that before?

There are many more allegations against Sa’d and her boyfriend that are not relevant here.

Ferryman-Cohen Works For Institute For Strategic Dialogue

According to her LinkedIn page, (see archive), Elisa Hategan is the Regional Coordinator for Central Canada and United States at Against Violent Extremism. They coordinate with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or ISD.

Not familiar with the ISD? They were covered here and here previously, but quite simply, they can be considered the “global” version of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. Their work includes:

  • Documenting activities of the far right
  • Education and digital citizenship
  • Outreach
  • Deradicalization efforts

Among the ISD’s donors is the ADL, or Anti-Defamation League. As many know, it was created in 1913 to “protect” the reputation of Leo Frank, convicted rapist and murderer of a 13 year old girl.

Ferryman-Cohen rails against CAHN and Bernie Farber, while participating in an organization that does essentially the same thing. Both CAHN and ISD get taxpayer subsidies. Did no one ask any questions about that? That takes some real mental gymnastics.

She’s also an Advisory Board Member and Social Media Manager for OVED for Human Rights, a Holocaust Survivors Non-Profit. That’s interesting, considering that HateGate was written to “exonerate” people who adamantly deny the Holocaust even happened.

Guys, They’re Totally Not Feds!

The CBC outed and doxed many nationalists at a recent meetup in B.C., while deliberately shielding a member from Second Sons Canada. Very interesting choice, considering the recent protests in Ottawa and Regina.

Heritage Front was a CSIS operation, and Ferryman-Cohen helped destroy it. She points that out every day. It’s hard to believe that she’s bright enough to do that, but too clueless to see the obvious parallels. Sa’d doesn’t mention it either.

Filing lawsuits for being called a “fed” isn’t a good look, especially when the allegation was confessed to under oath. The POEC transcripts are freely available.

It’s kind of surreal to think about. An admitted police informant (Hategan) is promised money to write a paper concluding that another admitted police informant (MacKenzie) was framed by the cops? And none of this seems abnormal?

Prospective members of Second Sons Canada are required to undergo a criminal record check, amongst other things, before being admitted. And who is it that conducts record checks? That would be the RCMP…. who apparently tried to frame MacKenzie. Applicants will be paying to hand over their details to law enforcement.

For the reasons outlined above, the HateGate Affair cannot be taken at face value. There are far too many questions that need to be answered. No amount of gaslighting will change that reality. It would be nice to know how MacKenzie got ahold of those RCMP messages (see 1:00 mark).

What will “The Hate Network” look like? The 2023 release seems designed to “legitimize” an intelligence operation, by dressing it up as state persecution against free speech. Now, this is just a prediction, but maybe the 2025 version will do much the same, but by “shoe-horning” it in with legitimate cases.

(1) Hategan LinkedIn Profile
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ps-sp%2C214-2020-2021-Q3-0023%2Ccurrent
(3) Elisa Hategan Toronto Police Lawsuit
(4) Hategan v Toronto Police 456 Pages Redacted
(5) Elisa Hategan Caryma Sad lawsuit Info Redacted
(6) Elisa Hategan Hancock Lawsuit
(7) Public Safety A-2022-00112 – Release Package Diagolon

(1) Hategan v. Farber, 2021 ONSC 874 (CanLII)
(2) Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 217 (CanLII)
(3) Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2022 ONCA 715 (CanLII)
(4) Hategan v. Frederiksen, 2023 ONCA 57 (CanLII)
(5) Sa’d v. Yew, 2023 FC 1286 (CanLII)

HATEGATE AFFAIR:
(1) HateGate Affair Original Filing
(2) HateGate Archived Version (Without Highlighting)
(3) HateGate Archive (With Highlighting)

HATEGATE FOIPOP PACKAGE (FULL RELEASE):
(0.1) Previously Published Documents
(0.2) A-2022-06987 Release Section Of 2nd Package
(1) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 1
(2) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 2
(3) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 3
(4) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 4
(5) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 5
(6) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 6
(7) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 7
(8) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 8
(9) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 9
(10) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 10
(11) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 11
(12) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 12
(13) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 13
(14) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 14
(15) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 15
(16) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 16
(17) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 17
(18) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 18
(19) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 19
(20) A-2022-06987 Release Package Part 20
(21) A-2022-06987 Release package Part 21

Posted on

Case Conference Sought In Stale Military Injection Pass Case

Parties in a 2023 case over injection passes in the military are asking the Court what to do next. The disagreement comes over how to proceed. The Defendants want to bring a Motion to Strike — to throw out the case — while the Plaintiffs want to pursue other steps first.

The lawsuit itself hasn’t progressed since the pleadings were filed in 2023.

The information about the Plaintiffs is interesting, and the paths they’ve taken are varied. The lengths of service for some exceed 25 years. They’re located all over Canada, and are involved in many occupations. Some of them were kicked out for refusing the shots, or forced to retire. Others took them, and have ongoing health problems.

From the information listed in the Statement of Defence, any preliminary challenge would most likely be based on 2 ideas:

  1. Lack of jurisdiction (a.k.a. alternative system available); and
  2. Insufficient detail pleaded in Statement of Claim

1. Government Claims “Grievance Scheme” Should Have Been Used

15. The Plaintiffs had recourse through the grievance process established under the National
Defence Act (“NDA”). The CAF grievance process is set out in sections 29 to 29.15 of the NDA and Chapter 7 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders (“QR&O”). Subsection 29(1) of the NDA provides that any officer or non-commissioned member of the CAF who has been 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 is entitled to submit a grievance.

Just as in Qualizza and Neri, the Government here claims that Plaintiffs “should” have filed grievances, similar to what unionized workers do. This is invoking the defence that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, regardless of the merits. This has gotten many related suits thrown out.

The Statement of Defence also says that current and former veterans have the option of applying for compensation, which must be exhausted prior to commencing litigation.

2. Inadequate Pleading, Considering Allegations Made

The Government also criticises the quality of the Statement of Claim itself. While over 30 declarations are sought, critical detail is missing from the pleading.

A complaint here (and common in these cases) is that necessary detail is missing to even theoretically advance. For example, while many Plaintiffs claim to have a religious objection to the shots, under Section 2(a) of the Charter, not one of them explains what the objection actually is. Here’s a primer in what should be added.

True, one could easily argue that the Charter is useless, and it largely is. But then, why makes such claims in the first place?

While the Statement of Claim makes many accusations against the military, and very serious ones, they do need to be spelled out in much greater detail.

Unfortunately, far too few people get their “day in Court”. In an ideal world, every valid case would get to Trial. However, thousands of Plaintiffs have seen their cases thrown out (often for lack of jurisdiction) prior to any ruling on the merits. And others are bogged down by drafting deficiencies.

(1) Bruce Statement Of Claim
(2) Bruce Statement Of Defence
(3) Bruce Reply Statement
(4) Bruce Notice Of Discontinuance McLaren
(5) Bruce Notice Of Discontinuance Radford
(6) Bruce Letter To The Court

Posted on

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Conclude Certification Hearings, Decision Under Reserve

A pair of Proposed Class Actions wrapped up their hearings for certification on Friday, in the B.C. Supreme Court. These groups are attempting to convince a Judge that this is the most expeditious way to process thousands of claims related to loss of employment over injection mandates from 2021.

On a related note: the Court will also consider Applications brought to throw both cases out completely. The Government is making the usual arguments about how these cases are an “abuse of process”, and an ineffective way to resolve disputes. Notes from the hearings were provided by observers who attended, and are quite detailed. For simplicity, they were compiled into a single document. The suits came from:

(1) UHCWBC – United Health Care Workers of British Columbia
(2) BCPSEF – British Columbia Public Sector Employees For Freedom

It’s unclear how many Plaintiffs would result if either case was certified, but it could be in the hundreds, if not thousands. A lot of people didn’t like being pressured to take the shots.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, and 8 in this series on s.2(d) challenges.

UHCWBC And BCPSEF Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Cases

CASE NAMES FEDS4F/BCPSEF FREE2FLY/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Feds For Freedom Free To Fly
Filed in B.C.? BCPSEF UHCWBC
Filed in Ontario.? n/a UHCWO
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t? Yes No
Inducement to Breach Contract? No Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights? Yes Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office? Yes Yes

There are actually 5 different Proposed Class Actions going on which are based on a variation of the s.2(d) argument. While similar, there are differences in the arguments being advanced.

Feds For Freedom (Payne) initially got past a Motion to Strike at the beginning of 2025, but that was overturned by the Court of Appeal. By contrast, Free To Fly (Hill) survived a preliminary challenge that the Government did not appeal. This bodes well for the health care worker cases, as the arguments are essentially the same.

Update: The case of British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 49 was mentioned after this publication. Without getting lost in the weeds, it allowed Court access in instances where collective bargaining was impacted unilaterally without good faith consultation. There isn’t the comparable “ouster” that exists Federally, over constitutional challenges. This is good news for public sector workers, hoping to avoid the fate of Payne.

The B.C. cases are having both Applications to Strike and for Certification heard at the same time. The Ontario lawsuit appears to have been pushed back to the end.

Another wildcard is that CSASPP was refused certification recently, but Justice Crerar’s decision has been appealed. There is potentially some overlap with the ones here.

Understanding The Arguments Of These s.2(d) Cases

Government Workers: It is true that unionized and Government workplaces typically have a collective bargaining agreement. This means that there’s some sort of grievance process to follow, and then arbitration. How these differed is that the Plaintiffs are arguing that injection mandates “added a term or condition” to the employment, without any meaningful consultation, negotiation or consideration. In the Payne case, that was accepted initially, then overturned.

Non-Government workers: The argument differs here, because the Government isn’t actually the employer. Instead, Plaintiffs allege the Government induced a breach of contract, by causing the employer to “add a term or condition” to the employment, without any meaningful consultation, negotiation or consideration. Another way to look at this is as third party interference.

In both variations, the Plaintiffs state that their Section 2(d) Charter rights (freedom of association) were violated. This was caused by the Government not allowing employers and employees to engage in voluntary relationships. Presumably, employers wouldn’t have fired anyone (or very few), without authorities meddling.

The UHCWBC case (and similarly, the UHCWO one) appear to be on more solid ground because they are not Government employees. The go-to tactic of claiming lack of jurisdiction does not apply to them.

We’ll have to wait for a decision, however long that takes. Assuming certification of either happens, this is only the beginning. Much more will have to be done prior to Trial. Both groups are still fundraising to cover existing costs, and CSASPP is trying to raise money for their ongoing Appeal.

BCPS EMPLOYEES FOR FREEDOM COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) BCPS Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) BCPS Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) BCPS Response To Civil Claim May 2024
(4) BCPS Requisition Case Management August 2024
(5) BCPS Notice Of Application Certification October 2024
(6) BCPS Notice Of Application To Strike October 2024
(7) BCPS Response To Application To Strike November 2024
(8) BCPS Consent Order Scheduling Of Materials January 2025
(9) BCPS Plaintiff Submissions Certification And Strike December 2004
(10) BCPS UHCWBC Plaintiff REPLY Submissions Cert/Strike January 2025

UHCWBC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) UHCWBC Notice Of Civil Claim October 2023
(2) UHCWBC Amended Notice Of Civil Claim April 2024
(3) UHCWBC Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(4) UHCWBC Amended Response To Notice Of Civil Claim May 2024
(5) UHCWBC Requisition For Case Management Scheduling August 2024
(6) UHCWBC Notice Of Application For Certification October 2024
(7) UHCWBC Response To Application For Certification October 2024
(8) UHCWBC Notice Of Application To Strike Claim October 2024
(9) UHCWBC Consent Order Scheduling October 2024
(10) UHCWBC Response To Application To Strike November 2024

CERTIFICATION NOTES:
(1) UHCWBC and BCPSEF Certification Notes
(2) https://x.com/uhcwbc
(3) https://unitedtogether.ca/
(4) https://x.com/bcpsef
(5) https://bcpsforfreedom.com/
(6) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/

Posted on

Military Veterans Injection Pass Appeal Dismissed, Hennelly Factors

The Federal Court of Appeal threw out a challenge on Monday involving hundreds of current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Another $2,340 in costs was also ordered. As of now, this appears to be the end of the road.

Many had thought that the purpose was to get the case back on track, after it was struck last year. However, that’s only partly true. This proceeding was to determine whether or not Justice Manson of the Federal Court erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to bring an initial Appeal. The filing deadline had been missed.

The Justices here ruled that no mistake had been made, and the Appeal was dismissed.

Appeals Within/Between Federal Courts

Whether it’s a Judge or Associate Judge/Prothonotary who makes a decision matters, if parties wish to challenge. It determines where the Appeal goes to, procedure, and more importantly, the time limit.

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

The original claim was struck over (a) inadequate pleadings; and (b) a requirement to follow the grievance scheme, by an Associate Judge, back in November, 2024. This meant there was a mere 10 days to serve a Notice of Motion. However, counsel appeared to mistake it for being a 30-day limit. Justice Manson refused a request to extend time. The case was effectively time barred at that point.

Now, the case went to the Federal Court of Appeal. What should have happened was a committed effort to convince this panel that it was a mistake to not grant that extension. Instead, it was glossed over in favour of attempting to argue the case shouldn’t have been thrown out in the first place.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal ruled that no error was made in refusing to grant an extension of time.

Hennelly Factors: What Decided This Appeal

The test for whether or not to grant an extension of time is commonly referred to the Hennelly Test, or the Hennelly Factors. While not exhaustive, these are 4 considerations that need to be made.

  1. a continuing intention to pursue an appeal of the Associate Judge’s order
  2. that their proposed appeal had some merit
  3. that the respondents would not be prejudiced by the delay
  4. that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay

A number of other issues were raised, such as not following procedures, and citing incorrect rules. That said, this is what courts look to when making their decision on time extensions.

Factor #1: Was There A Continuing Intention To Appeal?

[7] In particular, the Judge held that there was no evidence supporting an intent to appeal, even when considering the Affidavit.

The Affidavit submitted surprisingly came from counsel, and not from a client. On contentious issues, lawyers are prohibited from swearing out evidence they intend to argue. Typically, a client or a clerk does this. Consequently, this one was disallowed.

It also didn’t say the magic words: “I/we always intended to appeal”.

Factor #2: Was There Some Merit To The Appeal?

[12] Second, the appellants contend that the Judge erred in concluding that their proposed appeal had no likelihood of success. In fact, the bulk of the appellants’ submissions in this appeal focuses on the merits of some aspects of the Associate Judge’s order. The appellants contend in this respect that the Associate Judge erred: (i) in treating their claim as improperly bypassing the CAF grievance system; (ii) in concluding that that system was an adequate alternative remedy; and (iii) in striking the amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

[13] One major problem with these submissions is that nothing of that sort was put to the Judge. As the Judge correctly noted, both the Affidavit and the appellants’ written submissions in support of the Motion are silent as to how the appeal of the Associate Judge’s order might be successful (Order at para. 15). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that these submissions are based, in large part, on documents, mostly directives and reports on reviews of the National Defence Act and the CAF, that were not before the Judge and that were appended, in e-versions, to the appellants’ Memorandum of Fact and Law in this appeal.

[14] As the respondents correctly point out in their written submissions, the Judge cannot be faulted for not considering documents and submissions that were not put to him.

The Motion requesting the extension of time actually didn’t get into this at all. No draft submissions were attached, nor was there a section outlining what the appeal might look like. Justice Manson denied the request, in part, not knowing he Court of Appeal saw nothing wrong with that.

Factor #3: Will The Respondents Not Be Prejudiced By The Delay?

[7] …. On prejudice, the Judge found that although the respondents did not claim to be prejudiced by the delay in bringing the Motion, they were “certainly going to be prejudiced” by the fact the appellants were seeking an additional delay – that is up to the end of January 2025 – to file a “full motion record for an Appeal” (Order at paras. 19-21). According to the Judge, the respondents, in such context, were facing “indefinite delay going forward”.

This is probably the most subjective part of the test, as it’s hard to prove that a party is prejudiced. Nonetheless Justice Manson concluded that there was already excessive delay, and that there probably would be again.

Factor #4: Was There A Reasonable Explanation For The Delay?

[7] …. Finally, the Judge determined that both the 29-day delay and the additional 6-week delay sought to create a “full motion record for an Appeal”, were not explained in any rational sense, even, again, when considering the Affidavit (Order at paras. 22-23).

The official reason for the delay was that there was a serious logistical problem coordinating over 300 clients, to determine who actually wanted to appeal. Justice Manson ruled that a Notice of Motion could still have been filed within the 10 day period. in short something could have been filed, and the client issues sorted out later.

Part of the problem with this test is that it’s discretionary, and largely subjective. What one Judge may consider a reasonable explanation, another would reject out of hand. Similarly, one may view submissions to have “at least some merit”, while a colleague would not. There’s no uniform standard.

The Court of Appeal concluded with this:

[17] One other major problem with this appeal is that the appellants, at best, only superficially address the Judge’s application of the other Hennelly criteria (intent to appeal, delay and prejudice) to the circumstances of the case. There is nothing for us, therefore, to conclude that the appellants have met the highly deferential palpable and overriding error standard on these issues.

At the Monday hearing, a considerable amount of time was spent arguing how an Appeal could have proceeded (which is the 2nd Factor). That said, none of that had been put to Justice Manson previously. The 1st, 3rd, and 4th Factors weren’t addressed in great detail. The Appeal was dismissed.

What Happens Now For The Plaintiffs?

It’s quite disappointing for Plaintiffs, especially to have it end this way. The Court of Appeal never made any meaningful or deep findings on the merits of their cases. Nor was any new ground broken over employment rights. A missed deadline is what ultimately sealed their fate.

There’s no single answer for what comes next. Many are still employed with the military, while others have left. And most have at least initiated the grievance process, and are at various stages. They have some things to figure out.

While an attempt at the Supreme Court of Canada is theoretically possible, it seems unlikely to happen.

FEDERAL COURT/CLAIM STRUCK:
(1) Qualizza Statement Of Claim (June 2023)
(2) Qualizza Amended Statement Of Claim (July 2023)
(3) Qualizza Statement Of Defence (September 2023
(4) Qualizza Reply To Statement Of Defence (September 2023)
(5) Qualizza Defendants Motion To Dismiss Claim (July 2024)
(6) Qualizza Plaintiff Motion To Strike Written Submissions (August 2024)
(7) Qualizza Transcript Of Coughlan Hearing (September 2024)
(8) Qualizza Order Striking Statement Of Claim Without Leave (November 2024)

FEDERAL COURT/RULE 8 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME/RULE 51 APPEAL:
(1) Qualizza Plaintiffs Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(2) Qualizza Defendants Respond To Motion To Extend Time To Appeal (December 2024)
(3) Qualizza Order Denying Extension Of Time (January 2025)
(4) Qualizza Federal Court Notes

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/CONTENTS OF APPEAL BOOK:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Appeal (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (February 2025)
(3) Qualizza Responding Motion Record Contents Of Appeal Book (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Order Contents Of Appeal Book (April 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/ARGUMENTS/RESULTS (AD HOC):
(1) Qualizza Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law (June 2025)
(3) Qualizza FCA Order Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)
(4) Qualizza FCA Reasons Dismissing Appeal (December 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/MARK LOLACHER REINSTATEMENT:
(1) Qualizza Notice Of Discontinuance (January 2025)
(2) Qualizza Lolacher Motion Record (March 2025)
(3) Qualizza Lolacher A.G. Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(4) Qualizza Lolacher Christensen Responding Motion Record (March 2025)
(5) Qualizza Lolacher Order For Reinstatement (May 2025)
(6) Qualizza Lolacher Reasons For Reinstatement (May 2025)

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL/VENDETTA AGAINST LOLACHER:
(1) Qualizza Lolacher Letter To Court (May 2025)
(2) Qualizza Federal Court Notes FCA
(3) Qualizza Order Justice Gleason Refusing Filing Of Materials (June, 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE:
(1) Qualizza SCC Notice Of Application For Leave To Appeal
(2) Qualizza SCC Application For Leave To Appeal
(3) Qualizza SCC Certificate File Access
(4) Qualizza SCC Response From AG Opposing Application
(5) Qualizza SCC Responding Certificate

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress