On Friday, Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) will argue against a Motion to have their case declared “moot” in a Yarmouth Court. This isn’t a determination on the merits, but to get the it thrown out regardless. This comes after the organization was denied public interest standing earlier this year.
Interestingly, CANS is doing this without formal representation. Their papers are being drafted by a few of their members, which is quite impressive. At the hearing for public interest standing, William Ray — author of the Stormhaven website — presented their case. The other co-Applicant, J.M., is a minor who does have a lawyer.
The Attorney General’s office is claiming that it’s a waste of time and money, as so long has elapsed, and there are no live issues. The usual “scarcity of judicial resources” justification has been pleaded. Unsurprisingly, CANS opposes the Motion, in part because Robert Strang is still in office. Part of CANS’ mission is to ensure this type of activity never happens again. The Briefs are well worth reading.
To support their Motion, the Government included an Affidavit from Tara Walsh, Senior Executive Director at Public Health. CANS filed Affidavits sworn by Chris Milburn and Shelly Hipson, along with her extensive research. J.M. didn’t submit one, which the lawyer is using to demonstrate that there’s no live issue to try.
In its current form, the case is an Application for Judicial Review. In theory, even if declared “moot”, it may still be okay to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. There is far more latitude with those kinds of proceedings, whereas Applications are more restrictive. That is, after all, what happened with the travel mandates cases — although the idiot lawyers appealed.
The Friday hearing is to be available virtually. Anyone wishing to watch the hearing can contact the Court, or CANS directly. Information is also in their pinned Tweet.
Previously, this site covered Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, from Liberal M.P. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. See here and here for background information on the legislation.
In essence, it amounts to domestic implementation of the proposed Pandemic Preparedness Treaty that the World Health Organization wants all countries to adopt. Just as the Quarantine Act and subsequent Provincial Health Acts came from the International Health Regulations, this is more of the same. See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
January 2022, Erskine-Smith introduced M-43, to address “vaccine equity”. If implemented, this would:
(a) donate at least 200 million doses, as promised, to vulnerable populations around the world through COVAX by the end of 2022, and ensure that all excess doses pursuant to Canada’s contracts are transferred as soon as possible;
(b) deliver an additional $1.1 billion as a net addition to the International Assistance Envelope and existing departmental resources to address global vaccine equity in Budget 2022, including:
(i) $780 million to Act-Accelerator partners to purchase vaccines, tests, treatments, PPR and oxygen in developing countries,
(ii) $290 million to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response capacity, including support for in-country delivery costs;
(c) contribute to a significant increase in global manufacturing capabilities for vaccines and other tools to fight COVID-19, including by:
(i) supporting the temporary waiver of intellectual property rights related to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19 at the World Trade Organization,
(ii) facilitating the transfer of technology to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines around the world, including financial support for regional hubs such as the South Africa Technology Transfer Hub; and
M-43 appears to create a giant slush fund that would pour billions of taxpayer dollars into “vaccine equity” arrangements around the world. It’s unclear what — if any — oversight there would be.
As with so many of these bills, some very important questions aren’t being asked: who’s actually behind it? Who are the people that are really writing them?
Here are some possible answers.
Daniel Kelter, Former Legislative Assistant, Now Lobbyist
According to his profile, from December 2015 until September 2018 — nearly 3 years — he worked for Erskine-Smith.
• Briefed the Member of Parliament on policy issues, including debates in front of the house, proposed legislation, and committee reports/issues
• Liaised and maintained relationships with Minister’s offices, constituency residents, parliamentary staff, and relevant special interest groups
• Designed and created communication products across social media and traditional media platforms, and created subsequent analytical reports on their impact
• Managed an office budget of $359,590 and provided accurate financial accounting to comply with House of Commons by-laws
If Kelter is to be believed, he essentially wrote Erskine-Smith’s speeches and various media appearances. He was a handler. The last several months, Kelter not only worked for him, but was the Director of Operations. His duties at this point were that he:
• Advised the Member on all policy issues before the House of Commons, and prepared briefs on issues and legislation when necessary
• Planned, in conjunction with the Member, legislative priorities and assisted with the development of speeches, press releases, media lines, QP card messages, key messages etc
• Managed a whole-of-organization approach to completing Member’s business, while overseeing an office team consisting of staff, interns, and volunteers
• Managed and reconciled a budget of $368,720 that included procurement, salaries, travel, and constituency or parliamentary events
Kelter then went on to take a similar role for Jane Philpott, who was Minister of Health. She also was a Treasury Board Member, and on the Cabinet Committee on Intelligence and Emergency Management.
Kelter’s current position is with a group called Carbon Removal Canada. They explain what their goals are, and why.
What does Carbon Removal Canada do?
Carbon Removal Canada collaborates with governments, local communities, Indigenous groups, innovators, advocacy organisations, and companies to grow the carbon removal sector in Canada.
Our goal is to advance responsible carbon removal solutions by educating stakeholders about using them to reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere while focusing on community well-being and social equity. We also assist in developing policies that increase the demand for and supply of carbon removal projects, ensuring that these projects are credible and impactful. Additionally, our policy research supports the growth of carbon removal by providing insights that meet the sector’s current needs and help shape effective policies.
Why Canada for carbon removal?
Canada has the right ingredients to be a global leader in the carbon removal sector, including natural resources, carbon storage infrastructure, a trained workforce, and a thriving innovation ecosystem.
Canada’s ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 reflects its climate leadership as a nation — which will require a broad suite of solutions, including carbon removal, for goal achievement. With the right policies in place, the Canadian government, technology and business leaders have all the tools they need to seize this opportunity, spearhead the global growth of a brand-new sector, and build it from the ground up.
Why does Carbon Removal Canada advocate using carbon removal alongside emission reduction efforts?
Carbon removal is essential for a global clean energy transition, but it should complement, not replace, emissions reduction efforts. Carbon removal can help address emissions that are too challenging or cost-prohibitive to reduce with current technology on the path to net-zero. Importantly, after reaching net-zero, carbon removal can be used to eliminate historical emissions, getting global temperatures back to safer levels. The potential for carbon removal to contribute to a net-negative emissions world demands that it be used in addition to emissions reduction efforts.
Although Bill C-293 is the “pandemic prevention and preparedness”, at least officially, we’ve already seen the climate change industry getting into bed it. Many will claim that there’s a “mutual solution” in adopting environmental practices and preventing more outbreaks.
Teodora Durca, Former Parliamentary Intern, Now Lobbyist
For nearly a year in 2021/2022, Teodora Durca was an intern in Erskine-Smith’s office. Since then, she’s moved on to Sussex Strategy Group, a lobbying firm with offices in Toronto and Ottawa.
A quick look through the profiles shows that these companies are interested in legislative changes around renewable energy. Several are asking about subsidies and tax changes.
2(l)(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and
include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
.
2(m)(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan
Why this matters is that changes made as a result of this legislation could easily lead to (more) money being funneled into “green energy” schemes. Durca’s clients stand to be made wealthy depending on what regulatory changes are made.
Erskine-Smith Met With ONE Global (Canada)
June 2022, Erskine-Smith introduced Bill C-293. A month later, he formally met with Elise Legault of ONE Global (Canada). This is a group that probably few have heard of. Previously, Legault had worked for UNESCO.
The ONE Campaign is a 501(c)(3) registered non-profit in the United States. Their donor lists contains many prominent names.
Aliko Dangote Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Bloomberg LP
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Iger Bay Foundation
Bono
Cargill
Cary and Katya Pinkowski
Cindy and Ryan Beedie
David Geffen Foundation
Eleanor Crook Foundation
Elvia Arguelles Trust
Ford Foundation
Ann and John Doerr
Ann and Joshua Bolten
Hobson/Lucas Family Foundation
Dr. Mo Ibrahim
Open Society Foundations
The Rockefeller Foundation
The Ron Conway Family
Sheryl Sandberg & Tom Bernthal
Skoll Foundation
Sherwood Foundation
Tableau Foundation
Coca-Cola
Theresia Gouw and Matthew McIntyre
Tom Freston
The ONE Campaign is financed, in part, by the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. This is important because of other parts of Bill C-293.
2(i) identify preparedness strategies for public health services across Canada including in respect of
.
(i) the protection of vulnerable and marginalized populations,
(ii) working conditions of essential workers across all sectors,
(iii) the availability and management of relevant stockpiles, including testing equipment and personal protective equipment,
(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and
(v) communication of risk to the public;
Both Gates and Rockefeller are heavily involved in the pharmaceutical industry. It stands to reason that these organizations would support legislation that sees more taxpayer money diverted to finance production. This site has extensively covered the lobbying connections with GAVI, Zakery Blais, Ashton Arsenault and Cameron Doherty.
Calling Lauren Chen A “Traitor” For Taking Russian Money
November 5th, 2024, Erskine-Smith trolled Lauren Chen (a.k.a. “Roaming Millennial”) for her being paid to push Russian propaganda. It’s at 11:46 in the video. He asked what would you call someone who takes outside money to push foreign interests.
By his own logic, Erskine-Smith could be viewed as a traitor for promoting legislation that subverts Canadian interests, on behalf of outside ones.
But this is what happens when lobbying is so prevalent. It’s never clear who actually writes what, and whose money made that happen.
In his online profile, Daniel Kelter claims that he “briefed [Erskine-Smith] on policy issues, including debates in front of the house, proposed legislation, and committee reports/issues”. This wouldn’t be nearly as concerning without all the lobbyist connections. It’s not a stretch to think that he’s been involved in drafting legislation as well.
So then, who wrote Bill C-293?
Was it Daniel Kelter? Teodora Durca? Bill Gates? Or some other handler?
A week ago, Ursula Haverbeck died. She was the 96 year old German woman who had gone to prison for publicly denying the Holocaust. While the major media coverage about her is overwhelmingly negative, she chose to stand for her beliefs. It’s really rare to see something like that these days.
Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative” Member of Parliament in Canada, introduced Bill C-250 back in 2022. This would put people in prison for up to 2 years for Holocaust denial. Far from being condemned, his actions were publicly lauded.
Leah Gazan, of the New Democratic Party, introduced Bill C-413 in October 2024. It was heavily modeled on Bill C-250, and would imprison people for up to 2 years for Residential School “denialism”.
At all levels of government in this country, politicians work to strip away freedom of speech under the guise of “fighting hatred”. This cuts across party lines, and isn’t limited to just a few. It also seems that outside influences appear to be guiding these efforts.
According to records from Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Waugh, and his wife, Ann, received a trip in 2018 worth $16,244.42 to Israel. This kind of travel is promoted as “fostering professional/cultural understanding, and meeting counterparts”.
Yes, this was just $16,000. The breakdown is as follows:
Transportation: $7,503.50
Accommodation: $2,928.84
Other: $5,812.09
This was sponsored by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. It’s essentially the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC. Previously, the Canada-Israel Committee organized such annual trips, and their roster is full of prominent names. Believe it or not, this sort of thing isn’t illegal at all. In fact, it appears that Members of Parliament from all parties take part in it. By comparison, Trudeau ended up getting fined for his vacation with Aga Khan.
Waugh met with CIJA on February 15th, 2022. He had introduced Bill C-250 just days earlier, on February 9th. He’d probably deny the connection, but this is extremely unlikely to be any sort of coincidence. The Bill was ultimately abandoned when the substance was embedded into a Budget Bill.
Waugh takes a free trip to Israel in 2018. A few years later, he does the bidding of CIJA to introduce criminal penalties to Holocaust denial. Coincidence?
While it’s certainly true that Canadian politicians accept paid travel to other countries, none appear to even come close to the scale that occurs with Israel.
Germany lost a woman who was willing to go to prison for her beliefs. By contrast, Canadian politicians are implementing similar laws here in return for a free vacation. These people are nothing alike.
Yves-François Blanchet (Bill C-367) and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bill C-373) of the Bloc Québécois get honourable mentions for their work in eroding religious freedoms.
Maxime “The U.N. needs to shut up” Bernier has been completely silent on these issues, despite reinventing himself as a populist and free speech champion in 2018.
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
DeBellefeuille, Claude
BQ
2007
$8,661.12
2
Dykstra, Rick
CPC
2007
$8,602.30 (USD)
3
Godin, Yvon
NDP
2007
$4,094.83 (USD)
4
Pearson, Glen
LPC
2007
$8,728.18
5
Savage, Michael
LPC
2007
$5,612.54
6
Simard, Raymond
LPC
2007
$8,188.00 (USD)
7
Smith, Joy
CPC
2007
$8,661.12
8
Stoffer, Peter
NDP
2007
$8,728.18
9
Sweet, David
CPC
2007
$7,374.72 (USD)
10
Van Kesteren, Dave
CPC
2007
$8,728.18
11
Warkentin, Chris
CPC
2007
$7,973.54
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Allison, Dean
CPC
2008
$9,411.00
2
Bennett, Carolyn
LPC
2008
$7,961.00
3
Breitkreuz, Garry
CPC
2008
$7,963.00
4
Brunelle, Paule
BQ
2008
$7,961.00
5
Crête, Paul
BQ
2008
$10,944.00
6
Dhaliwal, Sukh
LPC
2008
$8,758
7
Duceppe, Gilles
BQ
2008
$17,577.56
8
Goodyear, Gary
CPC
2008
$10,944.00
9
Guimond, Michel
BQ
2008
$8,728.18
10
Ignatieff, Michael
LPC
2008
$8,602.30
11
Kramp, Daryl
CPC
2008
$9,446.00
12
Lunney, James
CPC
2008
$7,961.00
13
Martin, Pat
LPC
2008
$7,961.00
14
McCallum, John
LPC
2008
$10,944.00
15
Ménard, Serge
BQ
2008
$7,971.00
16
Mulcair, Thomas
NDP
2008
$7,963.00
17
Nash, Peggy
NDP
2008
$9,411.00
18
Neville, Anita
LPC
2008
$7,961.00
19
Redman, Karen
LPC
2008
$11,785
20
Roy, Jean-Yves
BQ
2008
$7.961.00
21
Silva, Mario
LPC
2008
$7,992.33
22
Sweet, David
CPC
2008
$7,961.00
23
Wasylycia-Leis,
Judy
NDP
2008
$7,961.00
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Brown, Gord
CPC
2009
$6,440.00
2
Cannan, Ron
CPC
2009
$9,446.00
3
Coderre, Denis
LPC
2009
$10,239.22
4
Cotler, Irwin
LPC
2009
$1,439.30
5
Dechert, Bob
CPC
2009
$3,983.00
6
Desnoyers, Luc
BQ
2009
$5,520.00
7
Devolin, Barry
CPC
2009
$9,446.00
8
Garneau, Mar
LPC
2009
$7,843.00
9
Glover, Shelly
CPC
2009
$7,843.66
10
Hoback, Randy
CPC
2009
$7,493.62
11
Hoeppner, Candice
CPC
2009
$7,843.00
12
Holland, Mark
LPC
2009
$9,446.00
13
Laforest, Jean-Yves
BQ
2009
$9,086.22
14
Lemieux, Pierre
CPC
2009
$7,493.62
15
Marston, Wayne
NDP
2009
$7,493.62
16
Mendes, Alexandra
LPC
2009
$7,253.64
17
Oliphant, Robert
LPC
2009
$10,602.00
18
Rae, Bob
LPC
2009
$3,804.80
19
Uppal, Tim
CPC
2009
$7,843.00
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Block, Kelly
CPC
2010
$8,451.30
2
Del Mastro, Dean
CPC
2010
$7,956.22
3
Duncan, John
CPC
2010
$6,435.34
4
Fast, Ed
CPC
2010
$9,006.68
5
Laforest, Jean-Yves
BQ
2010
$9,086.22
6
Paillé, Daniel
BQ
2010
$7,904.51
7
Rathgeber, Brent
CPC
2010
$9,078.16
8
Saxton, Andrew
CPC
2010
$8,684.01
9
Simms, Scott
LPC
2010
$8,770.68
10
Thibeault, Glenn
NDP
2010
$8,906.68
11
Watson, Jeff
CPC
2010
$9,586.18
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Adler, Mark
CPC
2011
$5,920.31
2
Bezan, James
CPC
2011
$10,781.52
3
Brison, Scott
LPC
2011
$8,820.48
4
Cotler, Irwin
LPC
2011
$5,700.00
5
Cuzner, Rodger
LPC
2011
$9,397.33
6
Foote, Judy
LPC
2011
$5,030.08
7
LeBlanc, Dominic
LPC
2011
$14,680.00
8
Miller, Larry
CPC
2011
$10,525.04
9
Murray, Joyce
LPC
2011
$8,580.00
10
Ravignat, Mathieu
NDP
2011
$7,281.39
11
Shipley, Bev
CPC
2011
$5,370.04
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Ambler, Stella
CPC
2012
$10,238.84
2
Blanchette-Lamothe, Lysane
NDP
2012
$9,209.84
3
Caron, Guy
NDP
2012
$8,226.84
4
Chisholm, Robert
NDP
2012
$10,016.28
5
Cleary, Ryan
NDP
2012
$6,030.00
6
Davies, Don
NDP
2012
$10,677.68
7
James, Roxanne
CPC
2012
$7,059.14
8
Lapointe, François
NDP
2012
$11,740.46
9
Larose, Jean-François
NDP
2012
$9,031.84
10
Lunney, James
CPC
2012
$3,992
11
Nicholls, Jamie
NDP
2012
$7,808.28
12
Papillon, Annick
NDP
2012
$9,031.84
13
Rafferty, John
NDP
2012
$10,161.68
14
Trottier, Bernard
CPC
2012
$9,856.28
15
Williamson, John
CPC
2012
$9,961.96
16
Young, Terence
CPC
2012
$10,389.22
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Aspin, Jay
CPC
2013
$11,165.60
2
Bateman, Joyce
CPC
2013
$7,915.48
3
Bruinooge, Rod
CPC
2013
$9,937.98
4
Clarke, Rob
CPC
2013
$11,165.60
5
Easter, Wayne
LPC
2013
$9,786.96
6
Lamoureux, Kevin
LPC
2013
$10,053.40
7
Lunney, James
CPC
2013
$5,032.71
8
Menegakis, Costas
CPC
2013
$10,490.70
9
Michaud, Élaine
NDP
2013
$8,185.48
10
Scott, Craig
NDP
2013
$10,892.92
11
Young, Wai
CPC
2013
$12,683.80
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Bélanger, Mauril
LPC
2014
$9,537.50
2
Bennett, Carolyn
LPC
2014
$3,981.61
3
Byrne, Gerry
LPC
2014
$12,580.74
4
Falk, Ted
CPC
2014
$12,450.71
5
Hoback, Randy
CPC
2014
$5,092.21
6
Jones, Yvonne
LPC
2014
$11,935
7
Morin, Isabelle
NDP
2014
$9,782.96
8
Opitz, Ted
CPC
2014
$5,026.24
9
Sandhu, Jasbir
NDP
2014
$14,679.57
10
Sweet, David
CPC
2014
$4,915.36
11
Wilks, David
CPC
2014
$8,608.12
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Lunney, James
INDEPENDENT
2015
$3,285.89
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Albas, Dan
CPC
2016
$12,750
2
Blaney, Steven
CPC
2016
$5,616.78
3
Di Iorio, Nicola
LPC
2016
$6,930.36
4
Dubé, Matthew
NDP
2016
$12,342.24
5
Fillmore, Andy
LPC
2016
$10,294.97
6
Fuhr, Stephen
LPC
2016
$11,207.65
7
Garrison, Randall
NDP
2016
$7,800.22
8
Genuis, Garnett
CPC
2016
$12,650.80
9
Gladu, Marilyn
CPC
2016
$9,394.06
10
Godin, Joël
CPC
2016
$11,929.56
11
Grewal, Ra
LPC
2016
$9,391.15
12
Lefebvre, Paul
LPC
2016
$10,236.50
13
Levitt, Michael
LPC
2016
$9,393.35
14
Longfield, Lloyd
LPC
2016
$11,379.11
15
Mendicino, Marco
LPC
2016
$6,714.00
16
O’Regan, Seamus
LPC
2016
$11,186.79
17
Raitt, Lisa
CPC
2016
$8,643.72
18
Rankin, Murray
NDP
2016
$9,495.06
19
Rayes, Alain
CPC
2016
$10,705.65
20
Rempel, Michelle
CPC
2016
$6,296.13
21
Richards, Blake
CPC
2016
$7,880.54
22
Rioux, Jean
LPC
2016
$11,137.02
23
Ruimy, Dan
LPC
2016
$6,841.14
24
Sorbara, Francesco
LPC
2016
$10,350
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
NDP
2017
$11,705.62
2
Calkins, Blaine
CPC
2017
$11,492.23
3
Dhillon, Anju
LPC
2017
$9,550.21
4
Hardcastle, Cheryl
NPD
2017
$9,522.18
5
Harder, Rachael
CPC
2017
$7,410.21
6
Maloney, James
LPC
2017
$14,116.86
7
McCauley, Kelly
CPC
2017
$12,724/81
8
Nuttall, Alexander
CPC
2017
$10,423.31
9
O’Connell, Jennifer
LPC
2017
$11,375.14
10
Romanado, Sherry
LPC
2017
$11,840.21
11
Rusnak, Don
LPC
2017
$14,013.00
12
Sarai, Randeep
LPC
2017
$11,806.43
13
Schulte, Deborah
LPC
2017
$15,238.90
14
Zimmer, Bob
CPC
2017
$12,437.04
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Amos, William
LPC
2018
$11,245.24
2
Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
NDP
2018
$2977.22
3
Fergus, Greg
LPC
2018
$8,696.85
4
Kusie, Stephanie
CPC
2018
$13,390.91
5
McLeod, Cathy
CPC
2018
$7,721.70
6
Ng, Mary
LPC
2018
$7,355.84
7
Oliver, John
LPC
2018
$7,197.11
8
O’Toole, Erin
CPC
2018
$7,884,47
9
Schmale, Jamie
CPC
2018
$7,286.99
10
Sikand, Gagan
LPC
2018
$7,150.00
11
Stubbs, Shannon
CPC
2018
$14,212.93
12
Sweet, David
CPC
2018
$1,116.22
13
Vandal, Dan
LPC
2018
$9,282.93
14
Waugh, Kevin
CPC
2018
$16,244.42
Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec
(2018) Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
(2018) Boulerice, Alexandre
(2018) Caron, Guy
(2018) Casey, Bill
(2018) Chen, Shaun
(2018) Davies, Don
(2018) Genuis, Garnett
(2018) Johns, Gord
(2018) Mathyssen, Irene
(2018) McDonald, Ken
(2018) Ouellette, Robert-Falcon
(2018) Stetski, Wayne
(2018) Tabbara, Marwan
(2018) Tan, Geng
International Democratic Union (IDU)
(2018) Tony Clement
Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem
(2018) Sweet, David
NUMBER
NAME
PARTY
YEAR
VALUE
1
Lapointe, Linda
LPC
2019
$13,552.80
March Of Dimes
(2019) Barlow, John
(2019) Damoff, Pam
(2019) May, Bryan
Employees at Canada Post (a.k.a. the “Posties”) are trying to appeal a March 2024 ruling that saw their lawsuit struck, without an opportunity to amend. Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules allows for findings of Associate Judges to be reviewed by way of Motion. However, it wasn’t the Court that screwed them over, but their counsel.
They should have been advised from the beginning that filing the lawsuit in the first place was a dead end, with no chance of success. Or perhaps they were….
Backstory Of What’s Been Going On
For context: back in the Spring of 2022, an Arbitration Panel ruled against employees at Canada Post. The Union had challenged the new policy requirements for injections that the Federal Government had brought in. Understandably, many workers weren’t happy about it.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, or CUPW, is the group representing employees. There is, of course, a collective bargaining agreement that everyone is expected to follow. Article 9 specifies the grievance resolution process, and binding arbitration is the end. Arbitration is considered to be final, as it’s an alternative to going to Court. Although the CUPW did fight for its workers, they still lost. Arbitrator Thomas Jolliffe ruled against them.
However, if the process is unfair, there’s often a way to have it looked at. This is done by an Application for Judicial Review. It’s analogous to appealing an unfavourable ruling, if not handled properly. But that’s not what ended up happening.
Leighton Grey, an Alberta lawyer, apparently convinced a few hundred employees to ignore the decision of Arbitator Jolliffe, and the grievance process altogether. June 2022, he filed an 18 page Statement of Claim. Yes, he sued Canada Post, instead of asking the earlier decision to be reviewed.
The Claim itself was very poorly written, and lacked much of the necessary information to proceed. It pleaded no facts whatsoever about individual Plaintiffs — remember, it was only 18 pages — and didn’t provide the necessary particulars to support allegations of bad faith and malice. There was also the problem that while Canada Post was a Crown Corporation, legally, it was considered separate from the Government.
For the next year, the file was largely inactive. The Claim was later amended, and not for the better. Eventually, the Court ordered the case to advance, so the Defendants moved to have the case thrown out.
And the case was eventually struck, without Leave to Amend. Plaintiffs weren’t allowed to sue, just because they were unhappy with the Arbitration results. Moreover, the Claim wasn’t pleaded anywhere close to properly.
At least some of those clients now have a new lawyer, Jason Gratl. He’s now seeking an extension of time to file a Rule 51 Motion for Reconsideration. An included Affidavit also alleges Grey didn’t file Notice of Motion as expected.
Timeline Of Events Leading To This Point
This is a follow up to a March 2024 article on the Canada Post lawsuit. Even more background information is here, to help understand the chain of events. It’s important to note that the CUPW went through the full arbitration process — as required — prior to this lawsuit commencing.
Leighton Grey Implies Federal Court “Rigged” Outcome
In a post on Twitter, Grey comments about a case involving over 300 military veterans being struck. That too was struck for the 2 main reasons: (a) not following prescribed grievance scheme/lack of jurisdiction; and (b) failure to properly plead the Statement of Claim.
“Same judge”
“Same judgment”
“Same reasons”
“Same comments”
“Even the same costs”
“Is anyone else seeing a pattern?”
Yes, there obviously is a pattern. 2 grossly inept and incompetent lawyers — Grey and Catherine Christensen — filed claims when there was no jurisdiction to do so. Neither of them pleaded their cases with anywhere near the detail necessary to advance a suit anyway.
There’s also the issue raised that Canada Post, a Crown Corporation, is considered separate from the Government. While pedantic to many, it was raised at the hearing.
However, in the way this is presented, it looks as though Grey implies Associate Judge Coughlan has been maliciously fixing her decisions. Although careful not to state it directly, it’s the impression that his audience would be left with. He suggests that she, and perhaps the entire Federal Court, is corrupt.
Should lawyers be actively working to undermine trust and confidence in the Judiciary? That’s what it looks like Grey is intentionally doing.
Valour Legal Action Centre, the firm Christensen runs, tweeted out similar comments, implying that Associate Judge Coughlan fixed that one as well. These are very risky things to say, especially in light of the serious and legitimate errors raised in the respective cases.
Accusing the Federal Court, and Associate Judge Coughlan, of “hiding behind the grievance system”, amounts to an allegation of corruption. Is this wise to post on Twitter?
Canada Post is a unionized workplace, and there are systems in place to handle grievances. This is spelled out in Article 9 of the collective bargaining agreement. Most relevant is the requirement to seek arbitration if other, lesser methods fail. An Arbitrator’s ruling is to be considered final. There is no inherent right to sue.
As for the Canadian Government itself, legally, it’s distinct and separate from the Crown Corporations — yes, unfair — despite Canada Post obeying its orders to force injection mandates.
Arbitration didn’t go the way the workers wanted, so Grey sued the company anyway. Having the case struck for lack of jurisdiction was entirely predictable. However, he implies that the Federal Court had predetermined the outcome.
Grey also filed lawsuits against: (a) Canadian National Railway; and (b) Purolator in recent years. He’s well aware of this issue, as counsel in those cases have raised it as well.
As for the new lawyer, Jason Gratl, he’ll have a difficult time with his Rule 51 Motion, assuming he gets the time extension. In theory, a competent lawyer could plead a new Statement of Claim properly. That said, the lack of jurisdiction is fatal. No amount of pleading facts or detail will get around this, which makes one wonder why he’s doing this at all.
Rule 51 Motions are meant to correct errors made by the Associate Judge. They’re not a way to fix a mess created by incompetent counsel.
Statement Of Claim Not Pleaded Properly, Once Again
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.
Regular readers on this site will have heard of Rules 174 and 181 of the Federal Court Rules. Similar provisions exist in all Provincial Courts as well.
However, Grey doesn’t do this at all. The Statement of Claim is just 18 pages, and there’s no information pleaded about any specific Plaintiff. “Facts” are supposed to include the who, what, where, when and how of events unfolding. There has to be enough detail about each Plaintiff that the Defendants can respond.
Grey doesn’t plead any facts that would establish any Charter breaches either. There are specific requirements that have to be met for each tort that each Plaintiff is raising.
Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) To Be Considered
(1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and
(2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief
Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) To Be Considered
(1) plaintiff must plead facts to establish a deprivation of their right to life, right to liberty or right to security of the person.
(2)The claim must then set out facts to show that any deprivation of these rights was effected in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) To Be Considered
(1) on its face or in its impact, the state action creates a distinction based on a prohibited ground (either enumerated or analogous); and
(2) the state action imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating disadvantage
ENUMERATED GROUND
ANALOGOUS GROUND
Explicitly In Charter
Recognized By Courts
Race
Sexual Orientation
National/Ethnic Origin
Marital Status
Colour
Off-Reserve Band Member
Religion
Citizenship
Sex
–
Age
–
Mental/Physical Disability
–
However, “vaccination status” has never been recognized as an analogous ground.
General Formula For Charter Damages Under Section 24
(i) establish whether there has been a Charter breach;
(ii) show why damages are a just and appropriate remedy, having regard to the related functions of compensation, vindication of the right (in question), and/or deterrence of future breaches;
(iii) if the plaintiff is successful in meeting these two steps, the state then has the opportunity to demonstrate that damages are inappropriate or unjust; and
(iv) if the state is unsuccessful, assess the quantum of damages
And again, Grey would have to plead sufficient facts about each Plaintiff who was invoking these rights. However, there’s no information provided about any of them. No wonder the case was struck. It’s impossible to establish there’s been a Charter breach (part i), when there are no facts pled to even theoretically support such a claim.
As for “pleading particulars”, Rule 181 of Federal Court Rules, Grey makes all kinds of allegations of malice, conspiracy, and malfeasance of public office. He needs to explain the who, what, where, when and how that all of this happened.
Grey includes allegations such as Criminal Code violations — which would get the Claim immediately struck — because a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear them.
In fact, there’s no shortages of torts listed, but there are no facts or particulars included that would support a claim for any of them, in favour of any Plaintiff. It’s “Mr. Bad Beyond Argument 2.0”.
A proper Statement of Claim with this many Plaintiffs would be hundreds of pages long. It’s not something that Grey — or this new lawyer — can fix with amendments.
What Happens Now?
The Plaintiffs seeking to have the decision reviewed — which is not all of them — first need to convince the Court to grant an extension of time to have their main Motion heard. The first is a procedural Motion, and in theory, is doable.
Then, they need to be persuasive that Associate Judge Coughlan shouldn’t have thrown the case out completely, that she should have at least given Leave to Amend. This will be difficult, especially with: (a) Court not having proper jurisdiction; and (b) the Statement of Claim being so deficient of necessary information. It seems extremely unlikely for a review to be successful.
Arbitator Jolliffe’s ruling is considered binding.
To be honest, Jason Gratl would have far better luck suing Grey for incompetence, negligence, and malpractice. His performance falls far short of what one should expect from a senior lawyer. At least his clients would get some of their money back.
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.
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 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:
Failure to plead necessary material facts
Failure to keep evidence out of the Claim
Failure to properly plead necessary particulars
Failure to properly plead Charter violations
Seeking Relief a CIVIL Court cannot grant
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?
