Recent Posts

August 7, 2025August 7, 2025

The Truth About #HateGate: Was It All Just Paid Promotion?

Finally, we may be getting to the truth about HateGate, or at least closer to it. The report’s co-author, Elisa Hategan (currently Elisa Ferryman-Cohen) is now claiming that it was a paid publication.

Of course, it’s her new story, so take it with a grain of salt.

For people who may not know, #HateGate is the conspiracy theory that the Emergencies Act was invoked in February 2022, as a result of some major intelligence failure. Allegedly, police and politicians panicked because of content that CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network had published. These centered on the idea that Diagolon, headed by Jeremy MacKenzie, was a real militia. Then, without any real research, police acted, crushing civil rights.

Here’s the 85 page report (also on Wayback Machine)
Since the webpage and the site are down right now, here’s the Wayback Machine.

Sounds like quite the story, doesn’t it? Smaller media outlets ran with it.

Problem is: no one did any real research on the story before publishing. No one took a good look into Hategan or Caryma Sa’d or their recent bahviour. Further, no one bothered to read the 1,082 page FOIPOP package, or to request a copy from the RCMP.

Hategan Finally Admits She Had No Real Sources

I co-authored Hategate with the information given to me at the time, which came from 2 principal sources – the FOI papers, and Caryma herself. The FOI showed that at the time, Diagolon did not meet classification as a “group”, and had not committed violence.

Because Caryma had access to legal files that were not public (and there was a publication ban re the Coutts cases), I believed her when she defended JM and sought to distance him from the Coutts guys. I believed she was privy to exonerating legal information that cahn and other critics did not have.

I did not consider the conflict of interest she had in defending him, or that he might be paying her (though no money ever flowed to me). I only learned about the money when she told me that JM paid about $2K for the Cision/Newswire press release. Which makes me suspect he may have paid her for the article itself – though of course such payments would be hidden by solicitor-client privilege and will require a court order / disclosure to access.

Caryma and JM wrote the chapters about him. I edited them for grammar etc but no content was removed, even though some of it didn’t sit well with me. Even the phrase “Old stock Canadian” irked me.

Every time I asked her, “But are you REALLY SURE they’re ok” she reassured me that they were great guys. That she really liked them, they were so funny, she loved their memes, etc.

And because of how implicitly I trusted her and her promises about the future, I ignored my own misgivings about the situation. Being lovebombed that whole time didn’t help my objectivity either. Neither did the RCMP/CSIS’s overreliance on a single, flawed source (whose funding depends on identifying as much extremism as possible, which is a conflict of interest in its own right).

I still stand by the points I made about state overreach, and feedback loops, and echo chambers. Those general cautionary points are what give Hategate its value, and why it appealed to so many.

But not the parts that involve Diagolon – specifically, the segments I didn’t write that were dictated by JM and reproduced by Caryma with little change. With everything I know now, I believe that Diagolon’s appeal to extremists is fueled by members who are overtly racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, white supremacists – and who aren’t shy to spread hate or lies to achieve their objectives.

I believe that several members have crossed the line from comedy & irreverence into open hatemongering, which makes their message and activities a potential danger worth monitoring.

Hategan makes the same mistake yet again: She conflates the RCMP reading about Diagolon with them acting on such information. The 1,082 release package says NOTHING that would indicate that the publications from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network went anywhere.

Yes, members of the police have shared media stories — some of which came from CAHN — with each other. But Hategan and Sa’d don’t include proof that anything transpired from it. Nor do they do follow up research, or interview anyone “named” in the FOIPOP release. They publish as if it’s fact.

No Proof Whatsoever Police Relied On CAHN For Research

Yes, emails show that some of the work was shared among police brass. There’s no problem with stating that conclusion. However, there’s nothing there that would indicate that anything came of it. In fact, several emails tend to express doubt about CAHN’s reliability. The entire package is attached below.

A significant number of Canadians still believe that HateGate is a real thing. And why? Because Jeremy MacKenzie “said” it was?

Consider this: if there really was some “smoking gun” in the FOIPOP release that showed police acting on some media tip about Diagolon, wouldn’t it be paraded about front and centre?

Smoking Gun That “Alternative” Media Missed

From page 48 of the HateGate Affair: Bernie Farber (CAHN) and Grant Bristow (CSIS agent) were in fact good friends. Since Heritage Front turned out to be a CSIS operation, with Bristow helping found it, all kinds of questions should have been raised about it.

Given Hategan’s background as an OPP informant who helped bring down Heritage Front, wasn’t that also a sign that something might be off? Or Vriend “trolling” CAHN with fake militia photos?

Instead, we get gaslighting, and cries of “fed-jacketing”.

Paid Propaganda Disguised As Journalism?

Think about it. If someone were to do a FOIPOP request on “Canuck Law”, and send it to the RCMP or CSIS, it would likely get a few hits. It’s entirely possible (actually, quite likely) that content from here has been shared by law enforcement.

Does that mean that they have acted on it? Not at all.

This principle applies to any semi-controversial site, blog, podcast, YouTube channel, or social media account. Odds are, that some trace of it will come out in a document dump. But that doesn’t mean that the authorities are getting their marching orders from content they get on Google.

And that’s the distinction too few people understand.

Ironically, the “alternative” media does the exact same thing they accuse police and politicians of doing: not bothering to verify their information before acting. Don’t confuse the choppy editing of the above video with presenting proof.

Text Of HateGate Affair
(1) Hate Gate Report 85 Pages

RECENT HATEGAN TWEETS:
(1) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1949228318655696912
(2) https://x.com/elisahategan/status/1949171013008207951

August 4, 2025August 6, 2025

Anti-SLAPP Ruling Upheld: When “Recycling” Your Defamation Cases Goes Horribly Wrong

A long awaited Court of Appeal decision has finally been handed down. Justices Zarnett, Young and Favreau have upheld a December 2023 ruling from Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court. That initial verdict saw a $1.1 million defamation case against CSASPP thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, with $132,000 in costs awarded. Another $10,000 in costs was ordered in this subsequent ruling.

CSASPP is of course the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. In January 2021, it began a Proposed Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia. This has been covered elsewhere on this site.

See here, here and here for background information.

That said, a hilarious detail seems to have been overlooked. The case against CSASPP was almost entirely borrowed from an earlier defamation case…. against this website. To clarify, there were 2 separate actions, with overlapping allegations.

[1] This website was sued in September 2021 for detailed criticism of various anti-lockdown cases.

[2] CSASPP and its staff were sued in June 2022 over much, MUCH more mild criticism, and to silence a fomer donor from complaining to the Law Society of Ontario.

Given that this there were 2 different lawsuits, with very different circumstances, one would expect that 2 very different cases would have been prepared. Instead, it seems that the documentation for the first case was simply repackaged and reused for the second case. From the ruling:

[86] …. Finally, because of evidence in the appellant’s own materials of other extremely vitriolic and sustained criticisms of him by others, including the publication “Canuck Law”, he found that if there was damage to the appellant’s reputation, it was not shown to have been caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

[91] The difficulty with the appellant’s submission is the motion judge’s causation finding. The motion judge referred to the evidence from the appellant of a concerted campaign against him by a group known as “Canuck Law” who was not a party to his action. The motion judge stated: “the [appellant] references the group extensively in the material filed on this motion. In articles posted on the Canuck website, the [appellant] was the subject of disparaging and racist comments”. Referring to that and some judicial criticism, he concluded that there was no evidence that any damage to the appellant’s reputation was caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

As an aside, the “racist comments” referred to in the CSASPP case actually came from a site called Overdue Revolutions. It was just misrepresented that they originated here.

Not only are anti-lockdown cases being recycled, but defamation ones are as well. By filing evidence that someone else may have engaged in character assassination, it completely undermines the claims that CSASPP had been responsible.

Whatever happened to taking pride in one’s work?

CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) CanLII Posting Of Decision

CSASPP/RG APPEAL DOCUMENTS (2024)
(1) CSASPP Defamation Appellant Factum
(2) CSASPP Defamation Respondent Factum
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.scribd.com/document/768627727/2024-09-12-Notice-of-Merit-Hearing-13-January-2025
(5) https://www.scribd.com/document/758138683/2024-08-06-Defendant-Respondents-Motion-Record-to-Dismiss-for-Delay

1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum

2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim

July 12, 2025July 13, 2025

From April: Australian Court Throws Out 1,000 Page Class Action As Incoherent

A while back, an Australian Court issued a ruling that is eerily similar to what has been happening here. A Proposed Class Action was filed to obtain justice for victims who had been injured from the “Covid vaccines”.

Justice Anna Katzmann of the Federal Court in New South Wales issued a 62 page decision, see archive, explaining why the lawsuit was thrown out.

***Note: this ruling was actually from April, 2025. Due to a bunch of different delays and setbacks, including getting these documents, it’s finally being covered now. Nonetheless, it’s proof that the rampant screw-ups from the “freedom lawyers” isn’t limited to just Canada. Australian lawyers apparently can be just as bad. Here’s an earlier article on it.

The Plaintiff is also on the hook for 80% of the Defendants’ Court costs.

The third further amended statement of claim be struck out.
No other amended statement of claim be filed without the leave of the Court.
The respondents’ application for security for costs be dismissed.
The applicants pay 80% of the respondents’ costs of the interlocutory application filed on 17 June 2024.
These orders be entered forthwith.

Although the Claim was struck, it at least allows for the possibility that a proper version may be filed, if leave was granted. But it wouldn’t happen with present counsel.

While the lawyers in Canada (deservedly) get endless criticism from this site, it’s worth noting that the problem isn’t limited to just them. We have more in common than it seems.

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada are ridiculed for their absurdly long claims (391 and 191 pages, respectively). However, this one much longer than either of those.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the Statement of Claim was 1,000 pages long. Or at least, 2 of the versions were 1,000 pages. Lawyers apparently “settled” on one that was over 800. This alone would have unnecessarily driven up legal costs.

651 pages – first version
652 pages – second version
990 pages – third version
1,023 pages – fourth version
818 pages – fifth version

Excluding Notice of Filing and the back page, this totals 4,134, or 827 pages per draft. Lawyers would have to read over 4,000 pages just to cover the different versions of the Statement of Claim. Beyond that, Justice Katzmann complains that her various directions weren’t complied with, driving up costs, and wasting time.

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

[2] The proceeding was commenced in April 2023 by the filing of an originating application and a 652-page statement of claim. Since then, the statement of claim has been amended four times. Still, the pleading remains prolix. The latest version, the third further amended statement of claim (3FASOC), is 819 pages long. It is dense and extremely difficult to follow. Substantial parts of it are impenetrable.

[3] The relief sought is “compensation and/or damages” with interest plus costs. The basis of the claim for compensation, as distinct from damages, is obscure. A claim is made in the pleading, but not in the originating application, for exemplary damages but that claim is not particularised, contrary to the requirement in r 16.44(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) that, where such a claim is made, the pleading must also “state particulars of the facts on which the claim is based”. Despite the misfeasance claim, no declaration is sought that anything allegedly done by any of the Commonwealth officers was unauthorised, invalid or beyond power.

[13] The respondents’ contention is that summary judgment should be entered in their favour because the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success; the 3FASOC fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action; and the proceeding is an abuse of process.

[14] Alternatively, the respondents contend that the pleading should be struck out in full because it contains scandalous material, is embarrassing, evasive and ambiguous, and an abuse of process, and it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

[15] The respondents contend that the negligence claim is bound to fail because the applicants have no reasonable prospect of establishing the existence of the pleaded duty; the allegations of bad faith have not been adequately pleaded or properly particularised; the allegations of breach are vague, generalised, embarrassing and inappropriate; and the pleading makes no attempt to link the alleged breaches of duty to the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants. The respondents contend that the misfeasance claim is fatally flawed in a number of respects.

[37] Pleadings are covered by Pt 16 of the Rules. The key features include the following matters. First, a pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case permits: r 16.02(1)(b). Second, it must identify the issues the party wants the Court to resolve: r 16.02(1)(c). Third, it must state the material facts on which the party relies that are necessary to give the opposite party fair notice of the case against it but not the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved: r 16.02(d). Fourth, it must state the provisions of any statute relied on: r 16.02(e). In addition, a pleading must not ask for relief that is not claimed in the originating application: r 16.02(4).

[38] Importantly, not all relevant facts are “material facts”. A fact is material if it is essential to the cause of action, that is to say, if it is a fact which, in combination with other facts, gives rise to
a right to sue: Bruce v Odhams Press Limited [1936] 1 KB 697 at 710–712 (Scott LJ). In other
words, a fact is material if it is essential to prove that fact in order to make out the cause of
action or put another way, it is an element of the cause of action.

The decision is much longer, of course, but this is noteworthy. Justice Katzmann has to explain, in great detail, what pleadings are supposed to include. Despite the tedious length, most of the necessary information isn’t submitted at all. Nearly the entirety of these filings is irrelevant.

While this was in Australia, the Judge could easily be describing a filing from several Canadian cases.

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

In fairness, Plaintiffs are required to plead sufficient detail so that Defendants understand what they’re being accused of. This is necessary.

However, this goes far beyond that. It argues ad nauseum the side effects and inadequate testing of vaccines. And it goes on for hundreds of pages. The goal of pleadings is to simply lay out the allegations so they can be responded to.

The Claim does (briefly) address the classes of Plaintiffs who will be covered by it. But it gets bogged down by the minute detail. Indeed, this appears designed to be incoherent and convoluted.

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Another parallel here is that this case had significant fundraising as well. While this is certainly not the only source of crowdfunding, this took in nearly $173,000 Australian dollars. Overall, close to $1 million was raised.

And all for a case so poorly drafted it never stood a chance.

Gee, they’re not in cahoots, are they?

AUSTRALIAN COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1.1) https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0339
(1.2) Decision Of Justice Anna Katzmann
(2) Aussie Applicants Genuine Steps Statement (April 26th, 2023)
(3) Aussie Statement of Claim (April 26th, 2023)
(4) Aussie Amended Statement of Claim (April 28th, 2023)
(5) Aussie Further Amended Statement of Claim (September 18th, 2023)
(6) Aussie Second Further Amended Statement of Claim (March 4th, 2024)
(7) Aussie Third Further Amended Statement of Claim (May 6th, 2024)
(8) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (June 17th, 2024)
(9) Aussie Affidavit of Melissa McCann Redacted (July 15th, 2024)
(10) Aussie Applicants Written Submissions (November 11th, 2024)
(11) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (November 18th, 2024)
(12) Aussie Affidavit Emma Gill (November 29th, 2024)
(13) Aussie Respondents Written Submissions (December 20th, 2024)
(14) Aussie Applicants Response (December 20th, 2024)

July 12, 2025July 12, 2025

Time Barred? Was Vaccine Injury Class Action Filed Too Late?

Last Spring, news broke about a Proposed Class Action lawsuit filed on behalf of victims who had been injured or killed by Covid vaccines. Understandably, this was big news. Finally, someone would step forward and represent the members of the public, many of whom had no money for individual cases.

Who would be included in this lawsuit?

The Proposed Class
13. The members of the proposed class, hereinafter referred to as (“the Class” or “Class Members”), include:
a. All Canadians who have suffered death or serious injury due to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada;

Question #4 of the FAQ makes it clear that Quebec residents are excluded.

The Representative Plaintiff was to be Drue Taylor, an Alberta resident. She had publicly spoken out about the severe harms that had been inflicted on her. A logical choice.

However, more than a year later, there are concerns that have come up. First among them, was this case filed in time, or is it barred by the Statute of Limitations?

***To preface this article: It’s not meant to attack the victim. She is undoubtedly sincere in describing what she has gone through. The point is to ask hard questions about the lawsuit itself. There are many things that need to be answered.

Alberta Limitations Act Specifies 2 Year Time Limit

Section 3(1) of the Limitations Act of Alberta specifies that there is a 2 year timeframe from when the person knew (or ought to have known) to bring legal action, or a 10 year ultimate limit. There are a number of exceptions, but those mainly have to do with minors, or sexual assault.

Why this matters is because the Statement of Claim was filed on May 6th, 2024. Depending on when she knew (or ought to have known), this may be too late. A Judge would have to decide this. As Taylor is the only Representative Plaintiff, the suit would come to an end.

The Claim pleads virtually nothing about the Plaintiff, except this:

2. The Plaintiff, Drue Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”), is the proposed class representative.

3. Taylor suffered permanent, chronic, and significant physical, psychological, and emotional harms, and other damages, after receiving each of her two COVID-19 vaccine doses.

4. The Plaintiff is 34 years of age with a husband and two children. Prior to 24 April 2021, Taylor worked as a professional massage therapist for humans and horses in addition to being a professional yoga trainer. She resides in St. Albert, Alberta.

Although the Claim offers very little information about Taylor, she did appear before the NCI (National Citizens Inquiry). Some important points to note:

Her first shot was April 24th, 2021
She had severe reactions almost immediately
Her second shot was January 8th, 2022
She had far worse reactions immediately after this shot
She was diagnosed with POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome) in “April or May of 2022”

Why does this matter? Because any moderately competent lawyer will at least try to argue that the case is time barred, and get it dismissed. During her NCI testimony, Taylor makes it clear that she strongly suspected even in 2021 that it was the vaccines.

At a minimum, a disclaimer should have been included when asking for donations.

$2,000,000 Sought To “Take Case To Trial”

According to the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page about this case, it’s expected that it will cost approximately $2 million to take the case to Trial. It’s implied that it will cover legal costs, hiring of expert witnesses, etc…. See archive. That is a lot of money.

Of course, that raises an obvious question: what happens to any leftover funds if it’s quickly settled, or thrown out on a preliminary challenge? While the 2 year deadline is definitely a concern, it’s not the only one Taylor may face.

Or worse: what happens if the case is not pursued diligently?

Complete Lack Of Activity Since Lawsuit Filed

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on lawyers to report on what has been happening. Alberta, like all Courts, allow records of the proceedings to be accessed by members of the public. And the result is not encouraging.

May 6th, 2024: Statement of Claim is filed.

October 30th, 2024: The case officially became “managed” by the Court.

November 12th, 2024: An upcoming hearing was cancelled.

We are now into July, 2025.

That is the entire case. Even if the Statute of Limitations wasn’t a concern, nor the poor pleadings, there has been no real effort to advance the suit for 14 months. No Defences have been filed, or any sort of preliminary challenge.

***Again, this isn’t to take a swipe at Taylor. However, prospective donors and clients should be informed about what they are being asked to contribute to.

This Site Threatened Again With Litigation

In what shouldn’t be that surprising, yet another “freedom lawyer” is threatening to sue over unfavourable coverage of their anti-lockdown cases.

It wouldn’t be the first time, and probably not the last.

The main criticism appears to be that the overall impression of the articles is misleading. Supposedly, these cases weren’t abandoned, but settled. Considering that many involve unionized employers — and hence, no jurisdiction — that seems unlikely. Then there’s the issue of the defective pleadings themselves.

One of the “discontinued” cases was a Proposed Class Action filed in Manitoba. It was dropped before the Certification process even began. Another 2 were dropped before the suits were even served.

Then there’s the Canada Post disaster. Instead of filing an Application for Judicial Review, and possibly getting the Arbitration overturned, a Statement of Claim was filed. This resulted in it being struck for lack of jurisdiction.

Admittedly, Defendants can, and often do, agree to waive costs in return for having Plaintiffs discontinue their cases. That could easily have happened to at least some of the ones here. Technically, it’s considered a settlement. That being said, it hardly seems like “winning”.

In any event, if counsel want to take this approach, he knows where to serve the Statement of Claim.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Taylor Statement Of Claim
(2) Taylor Statement Of Claim Filed
(3) Taylor Frequently Asked Questions
(4) Taylor Case History July 2025

LIMITATIONS ACT:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-12/

NCI Testimony:
(1) https://rumble.com/v3p2492-drue-taylor-vaccine-injury-develops-pots-red-deer-day-2-national-citizens-i.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o

July 5, 2025July 5, 2025

A Beginner’s Guide To Pleading Charter Claims (If You Must)

Let’s do something different today.

For people who have been wronged by some level of Government, what is your recourse? Well, suing is an option, of course. But what would Statement of Claim or Notice of Application look like? How would it be presented?

While there’s no perfect way to draft documents, it’s important to understand that very specific information needs to be included. This is especially true when making allegations that Charter Rights have been violated.

The goal here is to get people thinking about what they have to submit when making constitutional challenges, as well as what to avoid. This list is not exhaustive, but includes some common torts. Even Ottawa published an interesting guide on the Charter.

***Note: Many have made the argument over the years that the Charter is worthless, especially in light of the Bill of Rights. This is not meant to address that. Instead, it’s to highlight what information is required to provide in order to bring such cases. As usual, this is INFORMATION, not advice.

With that in mind, let’s begin.

Pleading Facts And Providing Particulars Necessary

JURISDICTION	PLEAD FACTS	PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court	Rule 174	Rule 181
Alberta	Rule 13.6	Rule 13.7
British Columbia	Rule 3-1(2)(a)	Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba	Rule 25.06(1)	Rule 25.06(11)
Nova Scotia	Rule 38.02(2) and (3)	Rule 38.03(3)
Ontario	Rule 25.06(1)	Rule 25.06(8)

Material Facts
25.06(1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Pleading facts: This means laying out the sequence of events, and giving the who, what, where, when, etc… of what happened. Who said what? Who did what? In the case of alleged Charter breaches, it’s not meant to be a legal argument, or to cite case law.

Pleading particulars: Depending on the nature of the allegations, there’s an extra requirement to spell out the bad behaviour. Again, it’s not meant to devolve into argument. Admittedly though, it can be tricky to argue state of mind at the onset, but something needs to be included.

The above quotes are from the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. However, it’s virtually identical across jurisdictions. These apply regardless of whether or not there’s a Constitutional challenge.

Beyond that, Courts have explicitly ruled on what needs to be pleaded in order to bring Charter related cases. The necessary information is very specific.

Here are some common Charter torts that are brought up.

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) Pleading

In the above section, it’s explained that it’s necessary to plead a “concise statement of material facts”. Sounds great, but what do these facts need to cover? Well, for major Charter issues, the Courts have long ago ruled on what’s required. There’s no excuse for professional lawyers not to know better.

(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

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2017/2017fc1092/2017fc1092.html#22
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc54/2017scc54.html#par68

It’s not nearly enough to say “muh religion”, and leave it at that. To bring such a case, litigants must: (a) explain in detail what those beliefs are; and (b) explain how someone else’s actions or demands have imposed on those beliefs in a serious way.

Facts Required For Section 2d (Association) Pleading

This is a complicated one, although a good guide is available. While there’s much caselaw in the context of collective bargaining (unionization), association is protected under a few grounds.

The purpose of the freedom of association encompasses the protection of
(1) individuals joining with others to form associations (the constitutive approach)
(2) collective activity in support of other constitutional rights (the derivative approach), and
(3) collective activity that enables “those who would otherwise be vulnerable and ineffective to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of those with whom their interests interact and, perhaps, conflict”.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc1/2015scc1.html#par54

Essentially, litigants would have to plead that their association was somehow obstructed or prevented. It’s worth pointing out that Section 2(d) protects the right of association itself, not necessarily the activities for which people are associated.

Facts Required For Section 6 (Mobility) Pleading

For Section 6(1), Canadian citizens have the right: (a) to enter; (b) remain in; and (c) leave Canada. Litigants would have to prove that at least one of these was violated.

For Section 6(2), citizens and permanent residents have interprovincial mobility rights to obtain a livelihood in any Province they wish. They would have to claim that discrimination comes from where they reside.

(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc47/2013scc47.html#par18
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html#par51

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) Pleading

(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.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par69
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc2312/2017onsc2312.html#par30

Interestingly, Section 7 “does not describe any right of a corporation or the purely economic interest of a natural person, nor does it guarantee the right to unrestrained business activity or to practice a particular profession or occupation.” This was settled decades ago, but lawyers still take clients’ money to argue these cases.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1990/1990canlii6753/1990canlii6753.html

Facts Required For Section 12 (Cruel/Unusual) Pleading

(1) plaintiff must show that the action involves some treatment or punishment by the state, and
(2) that such treatment is cruel and unusual

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc442/2005fc442.html#par27

It’s also noted that: “A mere prohibition on certain conduct, even if it results in cruel and unusual effects, does not qualify as treatment under s. 12. Punishment means a sanction imposed by the state as a corrective measure for the commission of a particular offence.”

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) Pleading

Despite common perceptions, the Charter doesn’t really protect equality at all. Instead, it covers a limited number of grounds, and even that is subject to the politics involved.

Enumerated grounds: explicitly stated in the Charter
Analogous grounds: other ones Courts have endorsed over the years.

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	–

(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

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2732/2022onsc2732.html#par80
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca534/2021onca534.html#par133

This is why “vaccination status”, and similar arguments have failed in recent years. It’s not covered under the existing lists, and few have tried to add it as an analogous ground. This is why they fail.

Facts Required For Malfeasance Of Public Office Pleading

(1) the tortfeasor engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or her capacity as a public official; and,
(2) the tortfeasor knew his or her conduct was unlawful and that their conduct was likely to injure the plaintiff.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1112/2021fc1112.html#par27
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc69/2003scc69.html#par23

Although not a Charter issue, malfeasance is worth mentioning, as it’s commonly argued. The necessary elements are easy enough to find. Of course, particulars would have to be included as well. The elements for other torts such as conspiracy or intimidation are easy enough to look up.

Clients Routinely Screwed Over By Inadequate Pleadings

As has been demonstrated, across jurisdictions, there’s a requirement to “plead material facts” when filing a case. It’s easy enough to find out what those facts must include.

Because so many lawsuits involve malice, breach of trust, malfeasance, or a “conspiracy”, there’s an added burden to spell out what’s been going on.

But what happens when clients pay top dollar for counsel who either doesn’t know this, or who can’t be bothered to do it properly? Here are some recent examples.

Adelberg (50 pages)
Canada Post (18 pages)
Canadian National Railway (14 pages)
Dorceus (57 pages)
Katanik (45 pages)
Purolator (21 pages)
Westjet (23 pages)

The above 7 cases have a total of well over 2,000 Plaintiffs, but comprise just 228 pages. That being said, if the: Style of Cause (party names), service addresses and cover pages are removed, it’s much less than 228. So, how do you adequately plead Charter violations in a single line, or 2?

You don’t.

All of these cases demand money for Charter breaches, but don’t plead facts for any of them, for any client. And while alleging all kinds of conspiracies, none are really spelled out.

It’s disheartening that various Law Societies allow incompetent morons to practice. This is done to detriment of clients, the profession, and to society as a whole. They should all be disbarred, as there’s no benefit to letting them keep their licences.

Should prospective litigants be considering Court action, it’s necessary to think about what must be pleaded in a Statement of Claim, or Notice of Application. The Rules of Civil Procedure are available publicly, requiring facts and particulars. Similarly, specific elements of Charter torts have been established long ago.

These claims are a good way to screen out prospective lawyers. If they think such a filing is “okay”, or is “pretty good”, then you’re about to get taken advantage of. Disgust and shock are the reactions they should have.

Understanding the information above will put self-reps in a better position than many “professionals”.

***Once more, this is INFORMATION, not legal ADVICE. Please take everything here with a grain of salt, and do your own research.

July 4, 2025July 4, 2025

The Hartman Appeal, Part 1: Looking At The Notice

The Court of Appeal for Ontario will review the case of Dan Hartman, either late this year, or early next year. Back in March, the Ontario Superior Court struck the case without an opportunity to amend the pleadings.

This is a wrongful death suit filed after his son, Sean, passed away shortly after taking the injections. A similar one was filed against Pfizer.

Although there is considerable overlap in the facts pleaded, the case is argued 2 ways:

Malfeasance of public office
Negligence

The first tort implies intentional, while negligence implies carelessness.

However, Justice Antoniani threw the case out completely, despite offers to expand the pleadings. It was ruled that the proposed amendments — while they added more information — it wouldn’t help. The necessary elements for malfeasance weren’t pleaded. Nor was there “sufficient proximity” to establish a private law duty of care.

The Appeal seeks to overturn this ruling.

Malfeasance Of Public Office Explained

The Statement of Claim argues that the Defendants acted with “reckless indifference or willful blindness” when they pushed the vaccines on Canadians.

56. As a department, Health Canada is responsible for administering acts and regulations, and for implemening government-wide regulatory initatives. Health Canada was responsible for discharging the operational role of regulatory approval, monitoring, and compliance of Covid-19 vaccinations for use in Canada.

57. The Plaintiff pleads that Health Canada was recklessly indifferent or willfully blind in discharging its responsibilities of regulatory approval and oversight of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID- 19 vaccination by, inter alia:

Starting on paragraph 61, it’s specified:

Issuing a certificate of compliance to Pfizer
Failing maintain oversight and control over Health Canda in relation to their regulatory responsibility for oversight, monitoring, evaluation, and assessment
Representing to Canadians in public statements and press releases that the Covid-19 vaccination was safe and effective, despite the Minister and Minister’s Department of Health possessing data to the contrary
Failing to revoke the certificate of compliance issued

However, the Judge gave an interesting take on the malfeasance claims, stating that the following details were required:

[81] To prove misfeasance in public office, the Plaintiff must show:
a) Deliberate, unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions;
b) Awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the Plaintiff’s son;
c) Harm;
d) A legal causal link between the tortious conduct and the harm suffered; and
e) An injury that is compensable in tort law.

Presumably, the Defendants know few, if any of the people who were harmed by these injections. This seems unreasonably narrow in scope.

Negligence Claim Explained: No Private Duty Of Care

While arguing intent can be tricky, the Statement of Claim also pushed variations of “negligence” as alternative torts.

77. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants breached the standard of care and negligently misrepresented the safety of the vaccine and did not disclose the risks associated with the vaccine which include but not limited to myocarditis and pericarditis. The particulars include:
.
(a) Failed to disclose that individuals under 40 had an increased risk of myocarditis after receiving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine;
(b) Failed to disclose that rates of myocarditis were higher in adolescent males;
(c) Inadequate testing was performed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine;
(d) The Defendants failed to complete post market surveillance and inform the public of the results;
(e) The Defendants failed to accurately, candidly, promptly and truthfully disclose the issues with the COVID-19 vaccine;
(f) The Defendants failed to identify, implement, and verify that the procedures in place to address post market surveillance risks were in place to address issues, complaints, and timely notification of concerns; and,
(g) The Defendant failed to change the public recommendations of the COVID-19 vaccine being that it was safe and effective.

The Judge ruled that the duties of the Defendants are to the public at large, and not to individual members of the public. But really, who is the public, if not a collection of individuals?

[91] The necessary elements to ground an action in negligence are not present. The duties of the Defendants under the legislative scheme are to the Canadian public. Sufficient proximity is not established and there is no private law duty of care. Other policy considerations militate against finding such a duty. As such, it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.

One would think that when public officials make decisions, especially coercive ones, that there would be some duty of care to the people impacted. But it seems not.

Looking At The Notice Of Appeal

The Notice of Appeal alleges a number of serious errors made. Keep in mind, at this stage, the Court is to assume that all facts pleaded are true, or capable or being proven.

The misapplied the “plain and obvious” test applicable on a motion to strike. In particular, the judge failed to read the pleading generously and assume the facts pleaded to be true, as required.
The Appellant submits that this analysis was flawed. The Statement of Claim pleaded that the Respondents knew of specific risks (e.g. heightened myocarditis risk in adolescent males) and nonetheless targeted the youth population (including Sean) with assurances of safety. Facts, if proven, could establish a relationship of proximity despite the broad public context.
Misfeasance in public office is an intentional tort aimed at wrongful exercises of public power by officials who either intend to harm or act with knowledge that they are exceeding their lawful authority and that their conduct will likely harm the plaintiff.
On a Rule 21 motion, the court must assume the truth of the facts pleaded. Here, the facts pleaded (e.g. that the Minister knew of specific dangers and knowingly misled the public or ignored legal duties) should have been taken as true for the purposes of the motion. If so assumed, the misfeasance claim is legally tenable.
Error in Denying Leave to Amend the Pleading: The judge erred in law by denying the Appellant leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

What will happen at the Court of Appeal? It’s unclear, but there’s a chance to get this claim restored.

***Note: follow-up both with this case, and with Pfizer, are coming. This isn’t anywhere near the complete record as far as the documents go.

AGC COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman AGC Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman AGC Reasons For Decision (March, 2025)
(3) Hartman AGC Notice Of Appeal (April, 2025)

PFIZER COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Hartman Pfizer Statement Of Claim (September, 2023)
(2) Hartman Pfizer Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2025)

Anti-SLAPP Ruling Upheld: When “Recycling” Your Defamation Cases Goes Horribly Wrong

Like this:

From April: Australian Court Throws Out 1,000 Page Class Action As Incoherent

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Like this:

Time Barred? Was Vaccine Injury Class Action Filed Too Late?

Alberta Limitations Act Specifies 2 Year Time Limit

$2,000,000 Sought To “Take Case To Trial”

Complete Lack Of Activity Since Lawsuit Filed

This Site Threatened Again With Litigation

Like this:

A Beginner’s Guide To Pleading Charter Claims (If You Must)

Pleading Facts And Providing Particulars Necessary

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 2d (Association) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 6 (Mobility) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 12 (Cruel/Unusual) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) Pleading

Facts Required For Malfeasance Of Public Office Pleading

Clients Routinely Screwed Over By Inadequate Pleadings

Like this:

The Hartman Appeal, Part 1: Looking At The Notice

Malfeasance Of Public Office Explained

Negligence Claim Explained: No Private Duty Of Care

Looking At The Notice Of Appeal

Like this:

Hategan Finally Admits She Had No Real Sources

No Proof Whatsoever Police Relied On CAHN For Research

Smoking Gun That “Alternative” Media Missed

Paid Propaganda Disguised As Journalism?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1,000 Page Statement Of Claim Was Filed

Quotes From Justice Anna Katzmann In The Decision

Entire Case Argued In Statement Of Claim

Significant Fundraising For Defective Class Action

Share this:

Like this:

Alberta Limitations Act Specifies 2 Year Time Limit

$2,000,000 Sought To “Take Case To Trial”

Complete Lack Of Activity Since Lawsuit Filed

This Site Threatened Again With Litigation

Share this:

Like this:

Pleading Facts And Providing Particulars Necessary

Facts Required For Section 2a (Religion) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 2d (Association) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 6 (Mobility) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 7 (Security) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 12 (Cruel/Unusual) Pleading

Facts Required For Section 15 (Equality) Pleading

Facts Required For Malfeasance Of Public Office Pleading

Clients Routinely Screwed Over By Inadequate Pleadings

Share this:

Like this:

Malfeasance Of Public Office Explained

Negligence Claim Explained: No Private Duty Of Care

Looking At The Notice Of Appeal

Share this:

Like this: