Recent Posts

Posted on

Ottawa Protest Class Action: Defendants Fail In Attempt To Move Case

This is an update to the Proposed Class Action filed in Ottawa in February 2022, against protesters demanding an end to lockdown measures. While the case has dragged on, there has been no shortage of activity.

The lawsuit was filed alleging Defendants had been involved in nuisance activity, including:

  • blocking streets and sidewalks
  • incessant honking of horns
  • flooding neighbourhoods with diesel fumes

***There is, of course, the absurd irony of the Plaintiffs filing a Class Action against others who were protesting in favour of freedom — and theirs included. Perhaps they would have preferred that martial law measures continue indefinitely.

After more than 3 years, it seems that certification hearings may soon be coming. Despite numerous attempts to get the case thrown out, it has survived so far.

Anti-SLAPP Laws Not Meant For This Type Of Case

Previously, the Defendants had attempted to strike the claim, arguing that it wasn’t something that (assuming that even if the facts were true) could proceed to Trial. The Judge rejected attempt.

Afterwards, an anti-SLAPP Motion was brought, on the basis that the protests amounted to “public expression”. If granted, it would allow the Court to dismiss the case if it was brought to silence that expression. However, that effort failed as well. The Defendants weren’t being sued for their expression, but for alleging committing a nuisance while exercising that expression.

[62] Yet, by bringing a s. 137.1 motion against the background of the Rouleau Report and taking the position that their interactions over several weeks could not amount to concerted action, the appellants (several of whom filed no evidence) are trying to use a light-touch screening mechanism to get rid of a case for which any determination on the merits patently will require a deep dive into the evidence and the making of extensive findings of credibility. In sum, the appellants are trying to use their s. 137.1 motion for purposes for which it is not designed or appropriate.

The Court of Appeal upheld to decision to allow the case to proceed. This isn’t to justify the Class Action filed, but the Court did make a valid point: anti-SLAPP laws weren’t designed for this type of case.

Interestingly, the Defendants also seemed to be denying that they were involved in causing these specific nuisances, while simultaneously justifying them as “expression”.

The Court of Appeal rejected several arguments about how the Superior Court had erred in applying the anti-SLAPP test. Bottom line: laws meant to protect expression didn’t apply to the tort of nuisance.

Motion For Change Of Venue Denied

The Defendants requested that the case be moved, arguing that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a fair Trial. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs filed a Motion Record and Factum in opposition to it.That Motion was dismissed as well.

Justice Glustein commented that this should have been brought much sooner, not the 3 years that it has been. Since the case began, the Defendants have filed: (a) filed a Motion to Strike; (b) filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion; and (c) appealed the Anti-SLAPP decision.

The judge also noted the defendants could have brought a change of venue application much earlier given that the lawsuit is now more than three years old. The court has already issued more than a dozen pre-certification decisions in the case, Glustein said, including rulings on Mareva orders, escrow funds and dismissal motions.

This was reported by the Ottawa Citizen as well. While not on CanLII, the decision is publicly available.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

It’s worth noting that there was been no movement in terms of hearing the case on the merits. The vast amounts of paperwork all have to do with administrative steps within the case.

February 4th, 2022: Statement of Claim (original version) is filed.

February 17th, 2022: The Court hears a request for a Mareva Injunction ex parte, meaning that the opposing side was not given notice, and not able to present a case on their own behalf. The purpose was to put convoy funds under control of the Court until a final outcome could be determined.

February 22nd, 2022: The Court granted the Injunction.

March 10th, 2022: The Court extends the Mareva Injunction until March 31st, 2022.

April 1st, 2022: The Court adjourns competing Motions until May 2nd. The Plaintiffs wanted to continue the Mareva Injunction, while the Defendants wanted it dissolved.

November 7th, 2022: The Motion to amend the Statement of Claim was supposed to have been heard. However, due to scheduling conflicts, it’s adjourned until January 2023.

November 15th, 2022: The Court hears a Motion from Chris Garrah and Benjamin Dichter, attempting to access $200,000 from the frozen funds. The stated purpose was to be able to finance a defence to this lawsuit.

December 6th, 2022: The Court denies the Motion to free up the money, but allows for the possibility to revisit the issue if circumstances change. Parties are told to try to settle the issue of costs themselves.

January 24, 2023: The Court hears arguments on 2 overlapping Motions. The Plaintiffs wanted to further amend the pleadings, while the Defendants wanted them struck for not having a Cause of Action. The decision is reserved until later.

March 13, 2023: The Court rules on the January 2023 Motions. In the end, it was about the same thing: is the pleading acceptable? It’s decided that the Statement of Claim may be changed to accommodate deficiencies.

June 9th, 2023: Court refuses to award any costs at all over 2 competing Motions. This stems from the earlier March 13th, 2023 ruling.

July 27th, 2023: The Ottawa Court sets dates for various steps within the proposed anti-SLAPP Motion. This is Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

August 25th, 2023: Moving Party Motion Record (document collection) is served.

September 15, 2023: Cross-Examinations of various parties happened.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file volumes I and II of their supplementary evidence.

November 30th, 2023: Defendants file their anti-SLAPP Factum (arguments).

December 7th, 2023: Responding Factum (Plaintiffs) is filed.

December 14th, 2023: Anti-SLAPP Motion is heard.

February 5th, 2024: The Ottawa Court refuses to dismiss the case under “anti-SLAPP” laws. Rather than accept the ruling, the Defendants chose to appeal it.

April 3rd, 2024: Appellants’ arguments are submitted to the ONCA.

October 15th, 2024: Respondents’ arguments are submitted.

October 28th, 2024: Ontario Court of Appeal hearing takes place, with Justices Lauwers, Brown and Coroza presiding. Defendants argue that the Superior Court should have dismissed the case under anti-SLAPP laws. The Plaintiffs counter that the correct decision was made.

March 6th, 2025: Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses anti-SLAPP Appeal.

March 18th, 2025: Court of Appeal issues a cost order of $20,000.

June 22nd, 2025: Motion for a change of venue is denied.

While Pat King was initially noted in default, that was set aside on consent. Since then, he and Joseph Janzen have filed their Statement of Defence.

This Class Action differs from most because it has yet to identify all of the Defendants who would be named, not just the Plaintiffs. After all this time, it would seem a daunting task.

It’s worth mentioning that the Plaintiffs here have put more effort into their lawsuit than virtually any of the “freedom lawyers” so far. They seem committed to see this through. Now, if only they valued their individual liberties that much.

COURT DECISIONS:
(1) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1176 (CanLII)
(2) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC 1543 (CanLII)
(3) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 2038 (CanLII)
(4) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6304 (CanLII)
(5) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2022 ONSC 6899 (CanLII)
(6) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 1679 (CanLII)
(7) Li et al. v Barber et al., 2023 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)
(8) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2023 CanLII 67728 (ON SC)
(9) Li et al. v. Barber et al., 2024 ONSC 775 (CanLII)
(10) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2025 ONCA 169 (CanLII)
(11) Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2025 ONCA 216 (CanLII)
(12) Zexi Li Reasons For Decision Change Of Venue

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Zexi Li Statement Of Claim (February, 2022)
(2) Zexi Li Horn Injection (February, 2022)
(3) Zexi Li Horn Injection (February, 2022)
(4) Zexi Li Amended Statement Of Claim (February, 2022)
(5) Zexi Li Motion To Strike Defendants Factum (January, 2023)
(6) Zexi Li Fresh As Amended Statement Of Claim (March, 2023)
(7) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol I (November, 2023)
(8) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Sup. Motion Record Vol II (November, 2023)
(9) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Moving Parties Factum (November, 2023)
(10) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Responding Factum (December, 2023)
(11) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Defendants Book Of Authorities (December, 2023)
(12) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Plaintiffs Book Of Authorities (December, 2023)
(13) Zexi Li Anti-SLAPP Signed Order Dismissing (March, 2024)
(14) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Appellants Factum (March, 2024)
(15) Zexi Li APPEAL Anti-SLAPP Respondents Factum (October, 2024)
(16) Zexi Li Responding Motion Record Change Venue (May, 2025)
(17) Zexi Li Change Of Venue Respondents Factum (April, 2025)
(18) Zexi Li Consent Set Aside Default Judgement (June, 2025)
(19) Zexi Li Statement Of Defence King Janzen (June, 2025)

Note: this is by no means all the Court documents, just a handful of them. There’s also a website supporting the lawsuit that posts more of them.

Posted on

“Frozen Bank Accounts” Lawsuit Dropped Without A Fight

A much hyped case challenging Ottawa’s decision to freeze bank accounts of peaceful protestors has come to an end. Lawyers have discontinued the claim, before a single Statement of Defence had been filed.

Clients and donors contributed at least $150,000 to a case that never even finished the pleadings.

It was all a giant nothing-burger.

While lawyers could simply have challenged the freezing of bank accounts, and probably advanced the case, they had to turn it into a giant conspiracy. They pleaded that Government officials had relied on the postings of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), doing no research whatsoever. This is the infamous #HateGate scandal. Ironically, they made the same mistake they accuse law enforcement of: not bothering to get their facts straight ahead of time.

Against CAHN, and Bernie Farber, the Plaintiffs essentially made defamation allegations, but without spelling out what they were. However, because of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, Defendants filed a Motion to dismiss. It was granted, along with nearly $50,000 in costs being awarded. What’s interesting is that once the Motion is initiated, Plaintiffs are prohibited from amending their claim to prevent this.

And the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed almost $100,000, over a pleading they bungled.

Granted, the anti-SLAPP decision only got Farber and CAHN off the hook. Theoretically, the case could still proceed against the others. However, the Statement of Claim was so poorly drafted it would have faced a Motion to Strike. Most likely, clients would have to pay tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in more costs. Instead, the suit was dropped.

This is pretty shoddy work for a major commercial litigation firm.

The Notice doesn’t specify the terms, but it’s entirely possible that the Defendants agreed not to seek any costs in return for discontinuing.

Interestingly, at least one group is still asking for money. Shouldn’t donations be returned, if Plaintiffs aren’t going ahead with their case?

LAWYER DETAILS:
(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cornell Notice Of Action
(2) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(3) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(4) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(5) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(9) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(12) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(13) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Fraser Stride Credit Union
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(18) Cornell Notice Of Discontinuance

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/justice/

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 7: CFIA Responds To Motion To Delay Culling

Ever heard the expression that there’s no cure for stupidity?

At this point, it would seem that the most intelligent beings at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C. are the birds themselves. Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely sarcasm.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the series for more information.

In this specific Motion, the farm owners are asking the Federal Court of Appeal to stay (defer) culling their animals until the overall Appeal can be ruled on. They say there’s strong grounds for appeal against the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). They state that aside from the financial costs, the proceedings become “moot”, since the animals would be dead anyway. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Part of their plea is based on the claim that they can manage and quarantine the animals effectively, and at their own cost. In essence, they take the matter seriously, and won’t endanger the public. Now, if they want the Justice (whoever decides) to be sympathetic, it stands to reason that they would act responsibly.

But the Affidavit of Cathy Furness changes things. And the arguments are harsh. See parts 1 and 2 of the full Record.

The CFIA has been putting their social media postings into evidence.

Espersen Apparently Sleeps In A Truck In Quarantined Area

121. In addition to the above, I have viewed social media posts shared by the owners of UOF indicating that Karen Espersen has been sleeping in a vehicle within the quarantined premises, which contravenes the quarantine requirements. Members of the public have also posted images on social media platforms which demonstrate that they are in very close proximity to ostriches and within the quarantined area. Attached as Exhibit “PP” is a May 14, 2025 Facebook post from Karen Esperson.

One could argue that there’s nothing inherently wrong with farmers spending time with their animals, even on this scale. That may be true in general. But when the owners are trying to convince the Federal Courts that they’re serious about respecting quarantine rules, this is moronic.

Photos Of Farm Visitors Went Into Evidence

[para 121 continued] … Attached as Exhibit “QQ” are three photographs posted to Facebook by a member of the public on May 25, 2025 showing supporters of UOF, including Karen Esperson’s daughter Katie Pasitney, standing in close proximity to the ostriches inside the quarantined area.

Thanks to Colin Bigbear’s Facebook page, the CFIA now has photographs that visitors (including children) routinely visit the farm. Again, all of this went into evidence for the Motion. It’s to show that quarantine isn’t being taken seriously.

Pasitney’s Interviews Were Downloaded By CFIA

149. Finally, although the risk of transmission of HPAI to humans is generally considered low, the information described above suggests that the farm owners are not taking the necessary precautions to prevent transmission of the virus to people. Katie Pasitney has also publicly stated that she and others have tested positive for H5N1 antibodies. I have reviewed an episode of the “Shadoe Davis Show” posted to Save Our Ostriches’ website on May 12, 2025, in which Katie Pasitney states at 00:25:16 that “we’ve all had our blood tested … and I came back positive for our strain of H5N1 … So we have antibodies”. Katie Pasitney goes on to state that “we have not fallen ill, we’re not sick, but we need to start dispelling the fear mongering because people get hospitalized all the time from just the regular flu, right?” This episode is available online https://saveourostriches.com/podcasts/25-05-12-katie-pasitney-shadoe-davis-show/. Also attached as Exhibit “VV” is an article from the Western Standard reporting that Katie Pasitney and her family tested positive for H5N1 after exposure to the UOF flock.

In Furness’ Affidavit, she states that Katie Pasitney has stated at least twice to testing positive for antibodies. Once was on the Shadoe Davis Show, and another was with Western Standard.

This is dumb for another reason. Instead of trying to challenge the validity of the tests, they just claim that they’re protected. It shuts down a potential defence.

Farm Music Festival Coming Up In July?

Farm Aid Canada? When this was first forwarded, it seemed to be a joke. This wasn’t included with the Furness Affidavit, likely because the site just went up. Still, it’s inevitable that the CFIA will bring it up with the Court at some point.

Additionally, if this Facebook post is to be believed, there’s going to be some camping in the area to help raise money for their legal costs.

While this may help raise money, it won’t help where it really matters: Court. Events such as these make everyone look clownish and unserious.

CFIA Tells Court They’ve Received Threats

100. No in person site visits have occurred since February 26, 2025 due to the risks to staff associated with entering an infected premises where robust disease control and biosecurity measures are not in place, and due to safety concerns associated with the presence of protesters. The basis for these safety concerns include numerous threats against CFIA employees made by members of the public on social media who oppose the presence of CFIA oversight at the premises and the destruction of the ostriches, including protesters currently residing on the premises. I have also reviewed emails, text messages and voice mails received by me and other CFIA employees containing threats and/or suggested threats of violence, including against CFIA employees in the Western region that have previously conducted site visits. Attached as Exhibit “KK” is a May 26, 2025 CBC News article regarding safety concerns raised by the union that represents CFIA workers, including because of online death threats.

Even worse, it makes everyone seem disingenuous. The inspectors state that they cannot return because of threats against staff. Meanwhile, members of the public come and go freely. Now, none of the threats are included, just a CBC article about it. Again, this is from Furness’ Affidavit.

Why Are They Still Asking For Donations?

Universal Ostrich Pharm – the real story – THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY – NO MATTER THE COST TO PEOPLE OR BIRDS.

500 Million JPY ($4.7 million CDN) to be paid to Tsukamoto in April 2024 by Struthio Bio… but now they need a GoFundMe to save the birds…

Where did all the investors go?
Surely, Dr. Lyle Oberg and his $3 billion investment company could pitch in to save his golden egg.

What happened to the 60 MILLION COVID MASKS (at $0.30 a mask)?

And what about the COVID nasal sprays?

What really happened to the Ostrich COVID vaccine before Immune Bio changed hands?

Where did they get antigens from?
We have seen so many places that they are saying the ‘DEAD’ COVID virus was obtained…

And Universal Ostrich Pharm had a contract to sell the eggs for $500 to Struthio – SO THAT WAS ALL THEY COULD BE WORTH TO THEM.

Yet Universal Ostrich Pharm’s expert, who had reviewed all the material, said each egg could be worth $48K to the farm… Not according to the EXCLUSIVE contract they had with Struthio Bio.

LINKED HERE:
https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UOF-APPEAL-Bilinski-Affidavit-To-Stay-Culling.pdf

Remember to donate and attend the Concert at the Bio Lab to save the lab animals.

Source: David Dickson

Some Final Thoughts

Questions posed in the previous section are worth asking. What has happened to the numerous business ventures that Universal Ostrich Farms was connected to? Why can’t those investors put up the money here?

The CFIA argues here that while Justice Battista did stay the cull order back in January, the circumstances are not the same. In particular, they were forced to respond to a Motion on less than a full day’s notice. However, they can now answer more fully.

Even if they succeed in getting another stay of the culling (which is possible) this is far from the end. Although Appeals typically don’t allow new evidence, the CFIA may try to add the social media posts anyway. It’s hard to underscore just how damaging this can be.

The responding arguments mention that the issue of “financial conflict of interest” of former counsel isn’t expanded upon in this Motion. There’s an allegation, but without details or evidence attached. It would be nice to know exactly what that was about.

There comes a point where it’s impossible to feel sympathy for someone. Keep in mind: while they have regular visitors, and shrug off supposed “infection”, these people are telling the Courts that they are serious about their animals and public safety.

And this happens all while they ask for donations.

Perhaps, once Dan returns from Bilderberg, Liberty Talk and Press For Truth can follow up.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(7) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(8) UOF APPEAL Responding Motion Record Volume 2 (June, 2025)
(9) UOF APPEAL Responding Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 6: A Look Into The Motion Staying Cull Order

We’re back to covering the ongoing saga of Universal Ostrich Farms, and the CFIA’s attempt to cull (kill) approximately 400 birds on a B.C. farm. The story keeps getting stranger. An Appeal is underway to challenge a Federal Court ruling, permitting it to go ahead.

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the series for more information.

The Appeal was initiated in late May to set aside Justice Zinn’s ruling, which upheld the Canada Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA’s) cull order as “reasonable”. The last article mentioned the sort of concerns that will be raised at the hearing.

But before that, there’s another more immediate problem. Unless otherwise halted, the current cull order is set to go into effect. A Motion was recently filed in order to prevent that, at least for the time being.

The Motion includes Affidavits from Karen Espersen and David Bilinski, in addition to the Notice, and the written arguments.

Such a Motion would likely not involve a hearing. Instead, a single Judge would consider all the filings and issue a decision behind closed doors.

Beyond simply requesting that the culling be deferred, the Motion reveals a lot about the operation that wasn’t previously public (or at least well known).

Motion To Stay Culling Is Well Written

To be more balanced, the filings submitted here are of better quality than what is usually covered on this website. At the end of January, 2025, Justice Battista did temporarily stay the killing of the ostriches. It’s reasonable to assume that the Court of Appeal may as well. While not guaranteed, it’s quite possible.

UOF’s argument to postpone the culling amounts to the following:

  • This appeal is neither frivolous nor vexatious
  • UOF will suffer irreparable harm if its ostriches are slaughtered
  • UOF will suffer the greater harm if a stay is denied

The full Motion Record is available, and includes all the documents. The Notice of Appeal outlines a number of serious errors, such as Justice Zinn not fully understanding the arguments that were before him. It’s stated that he deferred far too much to the CFIA, instead of diving more into the evidence himself. Beyond that, there are allegations (albeit not fleshed out) of financial conflicts of interest with prior counsel.

The Motion further requests that additional testing be done on the birds to see if there are illnesses that may have spread. It’s offered that the Appellants would cover such expenses.

The Motion points out the obvious: if the stay isn’t granted, and the birds are culled anyway, then the entire Appeal becomes moot. There would be no birds left to save.

In fairness though, the CFIA did appeal the Order of Justice Battista at the end of January. It was dropped for being “moot” after Justice Zinn upheld the CFIA order as reasonable. It’s fair to assume that the CFIA will be opposing such a Motion this time around as well.

Bilinski Affidavit Sheds New Light On Business Operations

The Affidavit of David Bilinski is very interesting. It outlines in considerable detail where he and Karen anticipated taking the business to, and whom they would be partnering with. Exhibit “E” is the business plan that was submitted.

An important detail is that the agreement with Breathe Medical fell through when the company declared bankruptcy. The partnership with the Quebec-based Immune Biosolutions appears to have not fared well either. However, there were apparently other options available.

19. By December 2020, UOF’s operations became entirely dedicated to scientific research through antibody production.

20. In Early 2021, Breathe Medical Manufacturing declared bankruptcy and our exclusive supply agreement and corresponding revenue expectations were not realized.

21. In 2022, Karen and I incorporated Struthio Bio Science Inc. (“Struthio”) to, in partnership with UOF, engage in manufacturing and marketing of ostrich egg IgY antibodies and related products. As of the date of this Affidavit, Struthio is wholly owned by Karen and I with each of us holding a 50% share.

22. In April 2024, Karen and I negotiated and entered into agreements which would, inter alia, implement a new ownership structure for Struthio. Under this proposed restructuring, an majority interest in Struthio would be transferred to new principals and governed by a board of directors, including Dr. Tsukamoto – in exchange for investment and the licensing of certain patents necessary for commercialization of IgY antibodies and related products.

23. Exhibit “E” to this affidavit is a true copy of the Struthio BioScience Business Plan dated December 5, 2023 (“Struthio Business Plan”) and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. The Struthio Business Plan is a detailed roadmap for Struthio’s venture to develop and commercialize biomedical products derived from ostrich eggs, and it identifies UOF as a crucial partner supplying the necessary ostrich eggs. Among other things, the plan describes Struthio’s proposed proprietary research into antibodies from ostrich egg yolks, new corporate and governance structure and projects the financial returns from this research over the next several years (in the order of millions of dollars annually). Karen and I would retain 25% each interest in Struthio BioScience Inc.

24. I do not put this forward to assert that those revenue projections will in fact be realized or that the science will succeed. Rather, I rely on the Struthio Business Plan to show the existence of Struthio’s business model and the expectations that UOF and Struthio had at the time: namely, that UOF’s ostrich flock would be used to produce a continuous supply of eggs enabling Struthio’s venture to move forward. The very inclusion of UOF as a key supplier in this plan, and the magnitude of the projected benefits, demonstrate how integral our ostrich flock is to UOF’s commercial strategy with Struthio. The plan provides important context for UOF’s anticipated growth – context which will be completely upended if the flock is destroyed. Any statements or figures in the business plan are being referenced here only to illustrate what Struthio anticipated and the scale of the opportunity UOF stood to gain, not as proof that those outcomes are guaranteed.

25. Exhibit “F” to this affidavit is a true copy of the terms of Struthio and Ostrich Pharma KK (“OPKK”) Agreement (“OPKK Agreement”) which was executed On April 11, 2024.

26. The OPKK Agreement sets out the principal terms of a proposed investment and partnership whereby OPKK agreed in principle to partner with Struthio’s egg-based biotech venture. The OPKK Agreement references anticipated investment, exclusive patent licencing, technology transfer and a revised corporate structure for Struthio. This reflects that OPKK’s confidence in Struthio’s business which was inextricably predicated on UOF’s ostrich flock and egg production.

Do read Bilinski’s Affidavit, especially the business plan which was attached as Exhibit “E”.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

  • Chairman – Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto- President of Kyoto University, Founder and Scientist of Ostrich IgY patents
  • CEO – Interm – Dave Bilinski – Presently recruiting for full time position – Production Expert for Ostrich, 31 Years experience
  • VP – IgY Egg Production – Karen Espersen -, IgY Egg Production Expert for Ostrich, Director Alberta Ostrich Association, 33 Years experience
  • VP Product Development – Dr. Stu Greenberg –, CEO Ostrich Pharma USA
  • Board Member – Dr. Lyle Oberg – Presently Chariman of Alberta Health Services
  • CF0 – Actively recruiting for position
  • CMO – Carol Epstein, M.D. .Dr. Epstein has been in the biopharmaceutical industry for over 25 years. She has served as Chief Medical Officer of IRX Therapeutics, Inc
  • Board Member – To be chosen by investor

ADVISORY BOARD:

  • Dr. Alessio Fasano- Director of Center for Celiac Research & Treatment at MassGeneral Hospital. Director of the Mucosal Immunology and Biology Research Center at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (50 scientists and staff). Founder of Zonulin
  • Dr. Meer Janjua – BioNektar Inc. Founder and Chief Medical Officer, International Distribution management through Doctors network
  • Dr. Willian Bithoney MD, FAAP – Dr. William Bithoney is an experienced healthcare professional with more than 35 years of experience in the healthcare sector having served as a physician executive in diverse academic and hospital systems
  • Dr. Elma Hawkins, Ph.D. – Dr. Hawkins’s 30-year career encompasses pioneering efforts in biotechnology and drug development, and executive roles in corporate development, strategy, fundraising, and general management
  • Hassan Hassan = Business Development – CEO of Aim-X Canada. Dedicated International Entrepreneur in Natural Resource Exploration & Sustainable Development
  • Ken Davidson , CPA, CA, CFP, ICD.D -Ken Davidson is an accomplished corporate director, consultant, entrepreneur, Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and certified Corporate Director (ICD.D) with over 30 years of experience in a diverse range of industries across Canada, the US and the Caribbean

Currently, Espersen and Bilinski co-own Struthio BioSciences, holding 50% each. The proposed new structure would see that reduced to 25% each, and a more corporate format. Bilinski would become the CEO, at least on an interim basis. Espersen would be a Vice President. This is a far cry from the “family farm” that had been portrayed by media outlets.

Wasn’t this supposed to be about protecting the food supply?

Considering the disdain that the Freedom Movement has for “public health” in general, it seems odd to be supporting the expansion of an enterprise that would see the Chairman of Alberta Health Services become one of the Directors.

In other words, donors are contributing to these legal proceedings in order to protect the expansion of a company engaged in scientific research. These ostriches are test subjects, plain and simple.

At this point, one should ask what benefit donors are getting from contributing to this case. Consider that Bilinski and Espersen were willing to give outsiders a 50% stake in the new company. What would be fair to people contributing to these legal proceedings? Should larger donations merit equity, or dividends?

Silence From “Alternative Media” Outlets

Espersen and Bilinski have every right to earn a living. However, when donations are solicited, there’s an expectation that there will be transparency. While this Motion does shed a lot of light on their business model, it seems unlikely that contributors were fully aware of it.

It’s a fair question to ask if Universal Ostrich Farms will even exist a few years from now, regardless of what the CFIA does. Espersen doesn’t own the land, and the Quigleys are trying to kick them out. Yes, it’s still being disputed in Court in B.C., but still worth asking.

Would people be protesting around the farm’s perimeter if they knew these details? Would they (or their children) feel safe around animals injected with experimental antigens? People need to know what else — if anything — these birds were exposed to.

Druthers, among others, did cover the story, and report on these birds being the solution for “natural immunity”. Covid doesn’t exist, but that’s beside the point here. While Kyoto University was mentioned, there was nothing about where the parties planned to take their relationship.

The proposed trajectory is open-ended pharmaceutical testing, where ostriches will be little more than guinea pigs. Again, this is the kind of thing many in the Freedom Movement are against.

A follow-up from Connie would also be nice.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Appearance (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (MOTION TO STAY CULL ORDER)
(1) UOF APPEAL Motion Record To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(2) UOF APPEAL Notice Of Motion To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(3) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(4) UOF APPEAL Bilinski Affidavit Exhibit E June, 2025)
(5) UOF APPEAL Espersen Affidavit To Stay Culling (June, 2025)
(6) UOF APPEAL Moving Party Submissions To Stay Culling (June, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

The Gleason Directive: Is It Time To Start Filing Malpractice Lawsuits?

This is a follow-up to the military vaccine passport case of some 330 soldiers. See parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for background on the litigation.

In the last article, Catherine Christensen was scolded by Justice Locke at the Federal Court of Appeal. She pulled the “improper and high handed” stunt of filing a Notice of Discontinuance on behalf of about 50 clients, without their knowledge or consent. Supposedly, this was over unpaid fees. This was instead of the accepted method of filing a Motion to withdraw. One Appellant, Mark Lolacher, filed a Motion on his own behalf for reinstatement, and was successful.

Rather than simply take the loss, Christensen attempted to file a Notice of Appeal to the same Court. There was also a half hearted attempt to file a Motion to withdraw.

Since the Notice of Appeal was never actually filed, it’s impossible for the average citizen to pull it, or the Motion materials. Nonetheless, we can still deduce a lot from the notes, and the ruling.

Instead of simply complaining, let’s explore a practical solution at the end.

True, the overall Appeal is still ongoing. That being said, it’s beyond obvious at this point the case will never get to Trial. Heck, the first Notice of Appeal doesn’t even challenge Justice Manson’s decision to refuse an extension of time.

Christensen Has Been A Trainwreck Since Day One

(1) Associate Justice Coughlan: Struck the case originally because the pleadings fell far, FAR below what was necessary to make out a case. Even worse, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction because s.29 of the National Defence Act mandated a grievance scheme for everyone to follow.

(2) Justice Manson: Refused an extension of time for a Rule 51 Appeal. The 10 day time limit to file was missed, with no explanation of why. The Motion to extend time also failed to explain, or even hint at, what such an Appeal would look like anyway. The rulings states that, “The interests of justice do not justify the Court allowing poorly prosecuted litigation to proceed forward when there is no likelihood of success.”

(3) Justice Rennie: Had to unnecessarily respond to a Motion to determine the contents of the Appeal Book. Christensen tried to improperly include content that the previous Judge (Manson) had not see. This is generally not allowed, and the parties should have been able to agree on their own.

(4) Justice Locke: Chewed out Christensen for unilaterally filing a Notice of Discontinuance with respect to dozens of her (ex?)-clients, rather than following protocol. Normally, counsel is supposed to file a Motion to Withdraw. Worse, she even opposed a subsequent Motion from Mark Lolacher to be reinstated.

(5) Justice Gleason: Refused attempts to both, (a) file a Notice of Appeal within the same Court, and (b) file a Motion to Withdraw that doesn’t name appropriate parties. The materials weren’t served to everyone anyway, which is another violation of procedure.

Christensen knew in advance that this lawsuit would be (or was at least very likely to be) thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. The Neri ruling of December, 2021 explained the requirement to follow the grievance scheme, and to not simply sue.

Christensen also knew in advance that failure to abide by the Statute of Limitations would likely see the Rule 51 Appeal being time barred. September, 2024, another of her cases, Tondreau, was tossed for commencing an Application well after the deadline.

Justice Gleason Rules NONE Of The Material Can Be Filed

The amended appeal book may be filed and will replace the appeal book originally filed. The appellants’ memorandum of fact and law and proofs of service, submitted May 30, 2025 may also be filed.

The Registry has also sought direction pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules) regarding a Notice of Appeal submitted on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Christensen, counsel of record for the appellants, which names the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent. This document has not been filed. The Notice of Appeal purports to appeal to this Court the Order of the Court issued by Justice Locke on May 7, 2025. In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants also seek an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for 51 of the appellants. The Notice of Appeal was signed by another solicitor, Bath-Shéba van den Berg of the firm Ergonomy Law.

The Notice of Appeal may not be filed. It is wholly irregular because this Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal from one of its orders. An appeal lies from an order of this Court, with leave, only to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Notice of Appeal is also irregular in that it substitutes someone else as solicitor of record, names one of the appellants, Mark Andrew Lolacher, as a respondent and counsel of record as an appellant without any order from the Court changing the style of cause or replacing counsel of record.

As was noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, the proper procedure when counsel wishes to get off the record is for the solicitor to bring a motion under Rule 125 of the Rules. Counsel other than the counsel of record may act on behalf of the counsel of record in such a motion. Indeed, Rule 82 of the Rules provides that a solicitor shall not depose an affidavit and present arguments to the Court in respect of their affidavit, except with leave. Thus, if Ms. Christensen wishes to bring a motion under Rule 125 and files an affidavit in support of the motion, she should either be represented by another solicitor, such as Bath-Shéba van den Berg, or seek leave of the Court under Rule 82 to file the affidavit and present the motion. Her motion record in support of any such motion must be served on all parties for whom she formerly acted, as provided in Rule 125(2). In addition, in accordance with Rule 369.2(1), such motion should be brought in writing or request an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 369.2(2).

As also noted in the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, Mr. Lolacher, on his own volition, may take steps to no longer be represented in this appeal by Ms. Christensen. He may either file a notice under Rule 124 to appoint a new solicitor (using Form 124A) if he hires new counsel or a notice to act in person (using Form 124C). These steps may also be taken by any of the appellants.

The Registry has also sought direction regarding several documents submitted subsequent to the Notice of Appeal, none of which have been filed.

The first of these is a motion record submitted on behalf of Ms. Christensen by Bath-Shéba van den Berg to remove Ms. Christensen as counsel of record on behalf of 51 of the appellants, to set aside and stay this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, and to “sever” the appellant, Mark Andrew Lolacher, from the other appellants. It is unclear who the respondents and appellants are on this motion as the style of cause in the Notice of Motion lists only one appellant and respondent and then uses “et al.”. It appears from the affidavit of service that this motion record was served only on counsel from the Department of Justice (who appeared on behalf of the governmental respondents) and Mr. Lolacher, but not on the other 50 appellants for whom Ms. Christensen no longer acts. This motion record may not be filed as it is wholly irregular. To the extent it seeks to appeal this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025, as noted, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from one of its orders. To the extent it seeks an order removing Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for Mr. Lolacher and 51 other respondents, the motion record has not been properly served. The stay application appears to be ancillary to the other relief sought.

The remaining documents in respect of which the Registry seeks direction were submitted in response to the foregoing motion or in reply to the responding motion records. None of them may be filed as there is nothing to respond or reply to given that the motion record discussed in the preceding paragraph cannot be filed.

So long as this appeal is outstanding, unless and until a motion is properly brought under Rule 125 and the Court removes Ms. Christensen as counsel of record for some of the appellants or until, one, some or all of them file notice(s) under Rule 124, Ms. Christensen continues to be the solicitor of record for all the above listed appellants unless she or they die, she is appointed to public office, incompatible with the solicitor’s profession, or is suspended or disbarred as a solicitor. To the extent that Mr. Lolacher wishes to make a complaint about Ms. Christensen, his remedy lies with the Law Society of Alberta and not with this Court. Indeed, all the foregoing should have been abundantly clear from the Reasons for this Court’s Order of May 7, 2025.

***Note: one exception is that the Court did permit an amended Appeal Book, for the overall proceeding, to be filed. Everything else was disallowed.

According to Justice Gleason, the Notice of Appeal cannot be filed because it lacks jurisdiction. The Federal Court of Appeal cannot hear an Appeal from one of its own decisions. The only path forward is the Supreme Court of Canada, and Leave (permission) is needed for that. It’s stunning that neither Christensen, nor her “counsel” know this.

The Notice of Appeal also names new counsel, and has new parties, and the Court has signed off on NONE of this.

Christensen has apparently tried to file a Motion to withdraw as counsel for some 50 or so clients. However, she needed to include everyone as named parties, and had to serve everyone. Again, shocking that these basics are not followed.

Justice Gleason was also critical of Mark Lolacher for continuing to complain about Christensen’s conduct. She says that the proper venue about misconduct is the Law Society of Alberta. While true, the LSA isn’t going to handle a complaint when the underlying litigation is still open.

A Practical Solution: Look Into Malpractice Lawsuits

While it may seem daunting, suing former counsel for professional malpractice is an option. It’s not necessary to establish any malice or dishonesty, which makes it easier. This site covered recent examples, here and here, including a Class Action. Here are a few ideas.

TORT OF NEGLIGENCE:

  • Establish duty of care exists between the parties
  • Establish that the duty of care has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of the duty of care resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:

  • Establish a fiduciary duty (obligation) exists between the parties
  • Establish that the fiduciary duty has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of fiduciary duty resulted in damages

TORT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT:

  • Establish the existence of a valid contract
  • Establish that the contract has been breached
  • Establish that the breach of contract resulted in damages

As is pretty obvious, although these torts are framed differently, the requirements are much the same. The first element can be established by filing the retainer agreements, or other contracts. The second element can be proven with the assistance of the various rulings, showing unprofessional conduct. Lastly, Plaintiffs would have to give some evidence of damages, whether financial, or otherwise.

Neri and Tondreau happened prior to the mistakes here, meaning that Christensen should have been well aware of what was going on. Whether this is intentional, or just incompetence and negligence, Plaintiffs have been let down every step of the way.

Lawyers are required to have insurance to practice. However, that doesn’t mean that the money is there to pay out victims. Commonly, money is used to hire lawyers to fight against justice. Still, it can be overcome, if there is a strong enough case.

If there is a path to justice, it’s through Christensen’s insurance money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 5: Notice Of Appeal Alleges Incompetent & Conflicted Counsel

The proceedings with Universal Ostrich Farms didn’t end when Justice Zinn ruled that the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had acted reasonably. It’s being challenged again. It’s heading back to the Federal Court of Appeal, in order to overturn that decision.

See Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the series for more information.

A Notice of Appeal has been filed with the Federal Court of Appeal, attempting to overturn the decision of Justice Zinn. It challenges a number of issues both with the ruling, and the previous representation. This isn’t to reargue the case, but to demonstrate that the findings were flawed. An initial response has been filed, although more documents are still coming in.

  • The Federal Court erred in determining the scope of the CFIA mandate
  • The Federal Court applied the test wrong in reviewing administrative decisions
  • The Federal Court erred in assessing the available evidence
  • The Federal Court misunderstood several key arguments
  • Previous counsel was ineffective at doing their job
  • Previous counsel had (presumably undisclosed) conflict of interest

Also noteworthy: there’s a Motion filed to again stay the cull order, pending resolution of the larger proceeding. At the time of writing this, the Appellants have sent in their Motion Record, but the CFIA has not yet responded.

Appeal Claims Previous Counsel Had Conflict Of Interest

13. In addition and/or in the further alternative, the Appellant submits that the order of Zinn J. be set aside given the ineffective assistance of Appellant’s counsel at the application for judicial review. The Appellant’s prior counsel’s acts and omissions at that hearing fell well outside the range of reasonable professional assistance, amounted to incompetence, and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Notably, the Appellant’s prior counsel had a financial stake in the destruction of the Appellant’s ostriches, resulting in a blatant conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s representation of the Appellant’s interests.

The Notice of Appeal alleges ineffective assistance of counsel at the previous proceeding. Worse, it claims that there were a financial conflict of interests that would work against good representation. Now, it’s not spelled out what this conflict(s) was, but hopefully it will be in later documents.

Appeal Of Justice Battista’s Stay Discontinued

January 31st, 2025, Justice Battista of the Federal Court stayed the CFIA cull order, at least until the broader challenge could be heard. The Government appealed it, although it was eventually dropped. Presumably, Justice Zinn’s ruling made it moot.

The rest of the documents are linked below.

Timeline Of Major Events In Proceedings

For clarity, this hasn’t gone ahead in a linear manner. There have been multiple, overlapping proceedings along the way. Hopefully, this helps somewhat.

January 30th, 2025: Universal Ostrich Farms filed Application to challenge the CFIA “cull order” of their ostriches.

January 30th, 2025: UOF brings Motion to temporarily block culling.

January 31st, 2025: CFIA files a Responding Motion Record to the Stay sought.

January 31st, 2025: Justice Battista issues a temporary stay of the CFIA cull order.

February 7th, 2025: UOF brings a second Application, this time challenging the refusal of the CFIA to issue an exemption for their birds.

February 10th, 2025: CFIA begins Appeal against the staying of the cull order.

February 11th, 2025: UOF files Motion Record in support of request for exemption.

February 20th, 2025: UOF files that it intends to respond at the Appeal.

March 12th, 2025: Parties send their agreement as to the contents of the Appeal Book.

April 11th, 2025: Appeal Book is filed, in challenge to Justice Battista’s ruling.

May 13th, 2025: Justice Zinn denies both Applications. Those were (a) to challenge cull order, and (b) to challenge the exemption refusal.

May 23rd, 2025: A Notice of Discontinuance is filed in the Appeal against Justice Battista’s stay. Since Justice Zinn ruled on the overall case, it would be considered moot.

May 26th, 2025: Notice of Appeal is filed against Justice Zinn’s decision.

May 28th, 2025: CFIA files a Notice of Appearance.

June 2nd, 2025: UOF files its Motion Record to stay the culling.

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.

Anyhow, readers will be updated with whatever twists and turns emerge. But it’s clear that these people won’t go down without a fight.

Regardless of what ultimately happens in Court, Universal Ostrich Farms is still operating what amounts to a bio-lab on their land. Or rather, the Quigleys’ land. Judging by the response that earlier articles have received, and the work of David Dickson, it seems many people didn’t know this.

COURT OF APPEAL (CHALLENGING JUSTICE ZINN’S ORDER)
(1) Ostrich APPEAL Notice Of Appeal (May, 2025)

COURT OF APPEAL (JUSTICE BATTISTA STAYING CULL ORDER):
(1) UOF Order To Stay Culling (January, 2025)
(2) UOF Notice Of Appeal (February, 2025)
(3) UOF Notice Of Appearance (February, 2025)
(4) UOF Agreement Appeal Book Contents (March, 2025)
(5) UOF Joint Appeal Book (April, 2025)
(6) UOF Consent To Extend Time (May, 2025)
(7) UOF Notice Of Discontinuance (May, 2025)

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS (CFIA):
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress