Recent Posts

Posted on

WestJet Forced To Pay Over Refusal To Accommodate Religious Objection To Injection Mandate

A Calgary Court has now ruled that WestJet improperly terminated an employee over the 2021 vaccination mandates, and didn’t adequately provide alternatives.

Justice Argento awarded Duong Yee $65,587.72, or the equivalent of 11 months of her salary. After more than 11 years of employment, she was terminated in the Fall of 2021, for refusing to take the injections. She had tried — but failed — to obtain an exemption on religious grounds.

Many lawsuits in recent years have invoked religious beliefs. However, this is a rarer one that actually details what those beliefs are. The case was pursued by Jody Wells and James Kitchen.

Yee didn’t challenge the Government policy itself, but how it was implemented. While not a repudiation to the injection pass in general, this is nonetheless a nice win showing that some exemptions can be protected.

Although many have referred to this as suing WestJet, there were in fact 3 Defendants: (a) WestJet, an Alberta Partnership; and its Partners (b) Westjet Airlines; and (c) 2222304 Alberta Corp.

The lawsuit sought $100,000 for economic and other harms:

  • $66,500 for severance pay
  • $12,000 for benefits
  • $21,500 for “moral damages” or aggravated damages
  • Costs

While Yee did get an award for severance pay, and presumably the benefits lumped in, the request for damages was denied. The Judge said that none had been proven, and there was nothing overly insensitive or egregious in how the company had acted.

WestJet further argued that Yee failed to mitigate her damages (improve her own situation), but that was rejected by the Court.

Quotes From WestJet Exemption Questionnaire

Question #6. Explain why you are requesting an accommodation:

Based on sincerely held beliefs as a bible believing Christian, the vaccine is betrayal of faith to my healer, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Question #7. Describe the accommodation you are seeking:

Exemption from vaccination; from masks; from rapid testing

Question 9. Describe how you are a practicing member of this religion:

I attend online worship and sermons with my church, I have a weekly bible study with my church group to continue understanding God’s word, as well as my own daily prayer, worship and bible readings to commune with my heavenly father.

Question #10. How long have you been a practicing member of this religion?

Over 3 years

Question #11. Explain the connection between your religious belief(s), your objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and the accommodation you are seeking:

Jesus is my healer, I do not cannot rely on the use of vaccinations or medicines created artificially in order to prevent sickness. Jesus speaks of seeking out a doctor when one is sick, not well. I have no need of a vaccine in order to maintain my health.

Question #19. Do you belong to any groups (social media or otherwise) protesting or denouncing or being critical of Covid-19 measures taken by health authorities and government bodies?

Yes

Question #20. Please describe the groups of which you are a member:

I have joined groups that are peacefully seeking a community to support our freedoms; ie. conscience, religion, beliefs; choice – Jesus came to set the captives free and that we are not to live in bondage. This can be include those being critical of the covid measures, but that is not my purpose for belonging to these groups

Question #21. Do you have any concerns about the safety of any Health Canada-approved Covid-19 vaccines?

Yes, many reports of adverse reactions and death in the last 4 months of covid vaccines alone compared to last 17 years of all vaccines according to VAERS. -Severe reactions include: Inability to conceive, heart attacks, miscarriages, strokes; bloodclots, paralysis of arms and legs, reproductive dysfunction.- No long term safety has been completed to ensure they are safe and effective.-mRNA is a new technology and side effects completely unknown – Never been licensed for human use when 0 long term studies have been competed [sic] to ensure they are safe and effective, they are still in phase 3 experiment that will not be completed until trial ends late 2022.

Interestingly, when WestJet asks a direct question about practical concerns people may have, this is used as “evidence” that their objection is a personal opinion, and not a protected ground.

WestJet has carefully reviewed your request for an accommodation, including the information listed above. For the reasons stated below, WestJet declines your request for an accommodation on the basis of religion:

• The information provided or obtained in reviewing your accommodation is insufficient to establish you require an accommodation. More specifically, the information you provided to WestJet casts doubt on religion being the grounds for your application. You have written in your application form that you consider the vaccine unsafe. It is therefore reasonable to consider that you are philosophically/personally opposed to mandatory vaccine, which means you are seeking accommodation for secular reasons, not religious. We respect your opinion, but personal preference is not a Protected Ground.

One has to wonder what kind of answer Yee was supposed to give. If she had no concerns about the shots, why wouldn’t she have just taken them?

Justice Argento Accepts Argument Termination Unnecessary

[101] First, the Plaintiff’s conduct was not insubordination or disobedience of a type where the employment relationship could not continue and the misconduct was irreconcilable with continued employment. The Plaintiff continued working after her accommodation request was denied on October 4, 2021 until she was placed on unpaid leave on November 1, 2021. She continued to meet deadlines and her manager described her performance as “professional” leading up to November 1, 2021. There was no evidence that her non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy negatively impacted the workplace, other employees or the Defendant’s trust in her ability to do her job.

[102] The Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Vaccination Policy did not impact her job performance. It did not endanger the Defendant’s employees or the public as the Plaintiff was working from home. While a future, partial return to work was anticipated, that was not yet implemented. The issue of cause must be assessed based on what was known and understood at the time of dismissal.

[104] Next, in balancing the competing interests of the parties, it is significant that dismissal was not the only option available to the Defendant. Even though the Defendant’s Vaccination Policy stipulated that anyone failing to comply would be subject to discipline up to and including termination for cause, the Defendant did not have to proceed in this fashion.

Aside from pleading the exemption issue, the Plaintiff pointed out that she had already been working remotely for several months. This presumably could continue.

Justice Argento comments that the decision to dismiss Yee was likely unnecessary in any event. This wasn’t the sort of conduct that would destroy an employment relationship, nor was it one that would result in a lost of trust.

And most importantly, it wouldn’t endanger anyone since Yee was working from home.

WestJet Plays Games With Issue Of Jurisdiction

11. While the Plaintiff references the words “wrongful dismissal” or “wrongful termination” the substance of her claim is entirely that of a human rights complaint based on allegations of discrimination; the concept of wrongful termination itself is tied to WestJet’s failure to accommodate the Plaintiff. The duty to accommodate is an obligation of employers enshrined in human rights legislation, and WestJet’s purported failure to accommodate the Plaintiff is squarely in the purview of a human rights commission. The Civil Claim even seeks general damages for the duration of the reasonable notice period, which is a remedy only available to a human rights commission as compensation for the pain and suffering caused by discrimination.

24. The Plaintiff further claims that WestJet ceded jurisdiction of this action to this Court. With all due respect, this is inaccurate. In response to the Plaintiff’s Canadian Human Rights Complaint, and prior to the Civil Claim being filed, WestJet made a preliminary objection to the complaint on the basis that it would more appropriately be addressed under the Canada Labour Code by the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”). At no point has WestJet stated that this Court, or any civil court for that matter, has, or ought to have jurisdiction of a claim entirely based on an allegation of discrimination.

These passages are from the Defendants’ written submissions. For context, it’s important to realize the Yee filed a human rights complaint before suing anyone. WestJet objected, saying it would be better placed before the Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) for Arbitration. The complaint was dropped.

WestJet now complains that this lawsuit should have been filed with the Human Rights Tribunal, raising a jurisdictional issue.

While the submissions say that the preferred venue is the CIRB, this is a bit of a red herring. WestJet initially objected to jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal, so they can’t really claim that it should be there after all.

The Defendants tried to argue that at its core, this wasn’t a case about breach of contract or wrongful termination. It was about discrimination and failure to accommodate. It was unsuccessful.

Note: While WestJet is a unionized employer, not all employees and contractors are covered. Mrs. Yee wasn’t, and hence, there was no duty to grieve and seek arbitration.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

May 17th, 2010: Yee begins her employment with WestJet. At the time, she was working part time as a sales agent.

May, 2021: Yee comes back from maternity leave, and begins working remotely.

September 8th, 2021: WestJet announces their vaccination requirements.

September 20th, 2021: Yee requests a vaccine exemption.

October 4th, 2021: The request for an exemption is refused.

October 30th, 2021: The deadline imposed by WestJet for vaccination.

November 1st, 2021: Yee is placed on a month long unpaid suspension.

December 1st, 2021: Yee’s employment is terminated by WestJet, and they claim it is “with cause”.

August 15th, 2023: Yee sues WestJet in the Calgary Branch of the Alberta Court of Justice.

February 24th, 2025: Trial begins.

May 13th, 2025: Judgement is issued.

The Court declined to make an immediate decision on costs, allowing the parties the opportunity to settle them first. This may very well happen.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Yee WestJet Statement Of Claim
(2) Yee WestJet Plaintiffs Written Submissions
(3) Yee WestJet Defendants Written Submissions
(4) Yee WestJet Reasons For Decision
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abcj/doc/2025/2025abcj87/2025abcj87.html

Posted on

The Payne Appeal: What This s.2(d) Challenge Will Look Like

The Federal Government is appealing a shocking ruling from January which allowed a Proposed Class Action to proceed. Despite expectations to the contrary, Justice Richard Southcott (mostly) dismissed a Motion to Strike.

The challenge was organized by the group, Feds For Freedom. It’s comprised of 3 Representative Plaintiffs, all from different areas of the public sector.

  • Department of National Defence (Stacey Helena Payne)
  • Correctional Services Canada (John Harvey)
  • Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (Lucas Diaz Molaro)

They had their employment threatened in late 2021 with the introduction of the vaccine passport. Unlike earlier challenges, this one survived, due to the innovative arguments raised.

This lawsuit challenged not the mandates themselves, but the manner in which they were implemented. The case argued that there effectively were no grievance options because of this.

It’s not being hyperbolic to say this will impact employment rights at the Federal level. Either freedom of association is a valid ground to challenge such mandates, or there may not be any option at all.

What Happened With Justice Southcott’s Decision

Right of employee
208 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
.
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.

No Right of Action
Marginal note: Disputes relating to employment
.
236 (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

The initial Motion to Strike was based on s.208 and s.236 of the FPSLRA, or the Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, employees have the right to grieve, but not to sue. This is similar to how unionized workplaces function in general.

The Statement of Claim revolved around 2 torts:

  1. Section 2(d) of the Charter, freedom of association, and
  2. Malfeasance of Public Office

First, the s.2(d) argument was that the injection pass was implemented in a heavy handed manner, without due process or meaningful consultation. As such, it circumvented any legitimate grievance process. The result is that it deprived workers of their right to freedom of association, within the context of voluntary employment.

Second, the way in which this was implemented amounted to an abuse of process and malfeasance of office by the politicians involved.

Justice Southcott accepted the first argument, that this was potentially a s.2(d) breach. However, he ruled that malfeasance was an issue that could be grieved. There was one caveat though: because there would likely be more Plaintiffs in this Class Action, it’s possible that one could be found who didn’t have that grievance right, such as a summer student.

The s.2(d) tort was allowed to proceed, while the malfeasance was struck, with Leave to Amend.

The implications are far reaching. If the s.2(d) argument was left standing, there would be precedent to prevent any such future infringements on employee rights. Unsurprisingly, the Crown appealed.

Ottawa Claims Southcott Should Have Refused Jurisdiction

28. The motion judge erred by taking jurisdiction over any aspect of the plaintiffs’ claim. First, he erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test. Instead of assessing whether the dispute related to a matter that could be grieved under the FPSLRA, he relied on the fact that a similar issue could not be grieved under the labour relations regime that was at issue in Morin. Had the motion judge rendered his decision based on the language of s. 208, he would have found it plain and obvious that the matter could be grieved regardless of whether it was characterized as a dispute over the terms and conditions of employment or a dispute over the process by which terms and conditions were changed.

29. Second, and in any event, the motion judge committed palpable and overriding errors in accepting that the essential nature of the plaintiffs’ s. 2(d) claim related only to process. He wrongly assumed that the essential character of the dispute would be different for each of the two causes of action pled. This approach was contrary to consistent appellate authority holding that a court’s characterization of the essential nature of a dispute must be based on the facts giving rise to the dispute, and not by the legal characterization of the wrong. Since none of the material facts pled related to the process by which the Vaccination Policy was adopted, it was a palpable and overriding error to conclude that that was the essential character of the dispute.

In their filings, the Government lawyers argue that the nature of the case involves changes to the terms and conditions of employment. Section 208 FPSLRA gives everyone grievance rights, so logically, implementing the vaccine mandates should be covered.

Respondents Say Justice Southcott Made No Errors

39. Southcott J. did not err by allowing the plaintiffs’ Charter claim to survive the motion to strike.
Next, Southcott J. did not commit palpable and overriding error in his consideration of the plaintiffs’ Charter claim. Indeed, he did not engage in any such analysis because the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ s. 2(d) claim was not even challenged by the appellant. The appellant’s motion materials include several references to the insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ misfeasance claim, but includes no such reference to the plaintiffs’ s. 2(d) claim

40. There is a “stringent” test for allowing new arguments on appeal: a new issue should only be considered “where [the Court] is able to do so without procedural prejudice to the opposing party and where the refusal to do so would risk an injustice.” The appellant has failed to identify any “exceptional circumstances” permitting it to challenge this cause of action for the first time on appeal. Nor has it explained how Southcott J. committed palpable and overriding error by not considering an argument that the appellant itself did not raise.

41. Further, any such arguments would have failed as the plaintiffs’ have pled an arguable Charter claim. The appellant here takes an unduly narrow view of the Claim contrary to the holistic and generous approach required in interpreting pleadings on a motion to strike.

47. As written by Southcott J., the plaintiffs alleged “that the Treasury Board acted with reckless indifference or willful blindness in issuing the Policy in that… it had no basis in fact to justify the Policy as a measure to prevent transmission of the virus.” Specifically, the Claim states that the Treasury Board mandated vaccination for the stated purpose of preventing transmission of COVID-19 but, in so doing, ignored the potential inefficacy of the vaccines, the potentially serious adverse effects, and the significant detriment that could have been suffered by the plaintiffs, among others. The incongruity between the Treasury Board’s knowledge and its stated intention is demonstrative of bad faith and/or dishonesty. Similar pleadings have been found to meet the standard of reasonable pleadings on a motion to strike.

50. Lastly, the appellant argues that leave to amend should not have been and cannot be granted in this case. Once again, the appellant reiterates its argument at the motion stage: the Claim ought to have been grieved. Southcott J. considered and rejected this argument. He found that it was plausible that the Federal Court had jurisdiction, at least over the Charter allegations, such that the Claim could survive this preliminary motion.

The Respondents take the position that Justice Southcott made no major errors with the ruling, and that the case ought to proceed.

Interestingly, the Appellants (Government) are now questioning whether or not the s.2(d) was pleaded with sufficient detail, an argument they didn’t raise at the initial hearing.

Keep in mind, this was just a Motion to Strike. It’s a look at the pleadings themselves. This isn’t meant to be a deep dive into the facts or the evidence.

Brief Timeline Of Major Events In Case

October 6th, 2023: Statement of Claim is filed on behalf of 3 Representative Plaintiffs.

November 9th, 2023: Government responds with their Notice of Intent.

May 31st, 2024: Government sends notice that it intends to bring Motion to have the case struck (thrown out) in its entirety.

June 6th, 2024: Prothonotary Ring gives directions that there be case management.

June 10th, 2024: Chief Justice Crampton directs (a) Justice Southcott and (b) Prothonotary Ring to be assigned manage the proceeding.

July 1st, 2024: Prothonotary Ring issues schedule for documents to be served for Motion to Strike.

August 19th, 2024: Government brings its Motion to Strike.

October 1st, 2024: Plaintiffs file responding arguments as to why case shouldn’t be struck.

December 13th, 2024: Motion to Strike is argued before Justice Southcott.

January 1st, 2025: Justice Southcott partially grants the Motion to Strike. The tort of Malfeasance of Public Office is struck, but with Leave if eligible Plaintiffs are identified. The Section 2(d) claims are allowed to proceed.

January 13th, 2025: Notice of Appeal is filed.

January 21st, 2025: Notice of Appearance is filed.

February 12th, 2025: Parties file their agreement as to what the contents of the Appeal Book will be. This is a requirement unique to the Federal Court of Appeal.

March 14th, 2025: The Appeal Book is filed.

April 14th, 2025: Appellants file their written arguments.

May 14th, 2025: Respondents file their written arguments.

Payne Part Of Series Of s.2(d) Challenges In Canada

CASE NAMES PAYNE/BCPSEF HILL/UHCWBC/UHCWO
Government Workers? Yes No
Filed Federally? Payne Hill
Filed in B.C.? BCPSEF UHCWBC
Filed in Ontario.? n/a UHCWO
Wrongful Termination by Gov’t? Yes No
Inducement to Breach Contract? No Yes
Breach s.2(d) Charter Rights? Yes Yes
Malfeasance of Public Office? Yes Yes

See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in this series.

All 5 of these cases (from Ontario, B.C. and the Federal Courts) involve the Section 2(d) tort in some way. How it applies differs somewhat between them.

Payne involves employees of the Federal Government, whereas Hill involves employees of Federally regulated industries, specifically, the airlines. While unionized, WestJet and Air Canada aren’t part of the Government. The airlines don’t use the FPSLRA, and the Government lacks standing to invoke the collective bargaining agreement of other people.

These subtle, but important differences explain why Payne was appealed, but Hill wasn’t.

There’s a similar distinction between the B.C. Government employees case and the health care workers one. Likewise in Ontario, Plaintiffs aren’t directly employed by Government there either.

We’ll have to see how Payne plays out, but this case could easily end up before the Supreme Court. It’s not an exaggeration to say that there will be long lasting implications on employment rights, at least at the Federal level.

PAYNE APPEAL DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Notice Of Appeal January 2025
(2) Payne Notice Of Appearance January 2025
(3) Payne Agreement To Contents Of Appeal Book February 2025
(4) Payne Joint Appeal Book March 2025
(5) Payne Appellants Memorandum Of Fact And Law April 2025
(6) Payne Respondents Memorandum Of Fact And Law May 2025

PAYNE FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Payne Statement Of Claim October 2023
(2) Payne Notice Of Intent To Defend November 2023
(3) Payne Letter Intent To Strike May 2024
(4) Payne Defendant Motion Record To Strike August 2024
(5) Payne Plaintiff Responding Motion Record October 2024
(6) Payne Transcript Of Southcott Hearing December 2024
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.pdf
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2025/2025fc5/2025fc5.html

Posted on

Discontinued: Client Forced To Abandon Injection Pass Case After Leighton Withdraws

A former employee at Canadian Natural Resources Limited (or CNRL) dropped his lawsuit, which had been filed in Calgary. Bradley Miles did so as a self-representing litigant, despite previously having counsel.

At least the Notice of Discontinuance was done on a “without cost” basis. That means that he won’t have to pay the lawyers for CNRL. He’s still out whatever fees he paid to his own lawyer, and the money he lost from being terminated, or at least, suspended without pay.

This brings to 10 (and counting) vaccine passport cases Grey has commenced, only to have dropped or abandoned. The search results are still coming in

CNRL Claims Miles Was Offered His Job Back

In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff states that he should be entitled to return to work in the same position he was previously in.

12. On December 2, 2021, Canadian Natural sent the Plaintiff a letter warning him that he was non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and that, effective December 1, 2021, his site access was suspended with pay. The Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to provide proof that he had received a second dose of an approved COVID-19 vaccine by December 21, 2021, he would continue to be non-compliant with the Vaccination Policy and would be suspended without pay.

13. On December 22, 2021, the Plaintiff was suspended without pay due to his continued non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy.

14. On or around March 15, 2022, in response to the reduced number of COVID-19 cases in Alberta, and the Alberta government’s easing or removing public health protocols in respect of COVID-19, Canadian Natural sent a letter to employees on unpaid suspension for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy, including the Plaintiff, advising that Canadian Natural was ending certain COVID-19 measures effective April 4, 2022, including the requirement that Workers be fully vaccinated. The Plaintiff was notified that his unpaid suspension would end effective April 4, 2022, and that he was required to return to his work location and role at Canadian Natural on that date.

15. In that letter, Canadian Natural asked employees to indicate whether they intended to return to work at Canadian Natural. Canadian Natural did not receive a response from the Plaintiff regarding his intention, or lack thereof, to return to work. Rather than return to work, the Plaintiff commenced his claim against Canadian Natural.

16. As of April 4, 2022, employees previously suspended without pay for non-compliance with the Vaccination Policy were returned to work by Canadian Natural to their same position.

In their Statement of Defence, CNRL claims that Miles was offered his position back in April 2022, but he didn’t respond. Instead, he sued the company in September 2022. But since the case was dropped, we won’t know for sure what the full truth is.

“Poison Pills” Slipped Into Statement Of Claim

E. Criminal Assault
44. Forcing a medical intervention on employees under threat of loss of livelihood is a clear violation of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) which states in part:

265(1) A person commits an assault when
(a) Without consent of another person he applies force intentionally to the person directly or indirectly..
265(3) For the purposes of this Section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of…
(d) The exercise of authority. [emphasis added]

45. Forcing employees to be vaccinated under threat of loss of livelihood is a violation of the CCC. Every member of the CNRL Board who supports the Policy supports the criminal assault of his or her fellow employees and coworkers.

Like many of Leighton’s cases, he includes content that makes explicitly criminal allegations. He knows — or ought to know — that this cannot be adjudicated in a CIVIL proceeding. In fact, the Statement of Claim would have been struck for this alone.

The claim also goes on to argue what would better be described as “expert evidence”. This doesn’t belong in the initial pleadings, and would come later.

Shouldn’t a King’s Counsel/Queen’s Counsel lawyer know better?

Timeline Of This CNRL Case

September 2022: Statement of Claim is filed in Calgary.

March 2023: Statement of Defence is filed.

November 2024: The case is discontinued.

According to the information provided by the Alberta Courts, there doesn’t seem to have been any real urgency to move the case along. It never got past the initial pleadings.

Timeline Of Leighton Grey’s Injection Passport Cases

See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for more information.

  1. March 16th, 2022: Grey discontinues lawsuit against University of Winnipeg.
  2. April 10th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against Purolator.
  3. April 12th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit on behalf of Westjest employees.
  4. April 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues lawsuit against City of Calgary
  5. May 25th, 2023: Grey discontinues Proposed Class Action suit against Winnipeg/Manitoba.
  6. June 20th, 2023: Grey discontinues the rest of the case with CNR.
  7. ***August 9th, 2023: Grey discontinues Helgeton v. FWS Holdings
  8. ***January 19th, 2024: Grey discontinues Hamonic v. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  9. January 31st, 2024: Grey discontinues Pillon lawsuit against Ducks Unlimited Canada.
  10. March 18th, 2024: Grey discontinues (Hildebrand) case with CNR.
  11. November 5th, 2024: Grey brings Motion to withdraw as counsel in Stowe/TransX case.
  12. November 29th, 2024: Grey abandons Bradley Miles in his CNR case

***Note: since the original publication, another 2 cases in Manitoba were added, bringing the total to 12. There may very well be more.

Then there’s the Canada Post (a.k.a. “Posties”) case to talk about. That wasn’t discontinued, but it was crashed into the ground. In order to challenge an arbitration ruling, Grey should have filed an Application for Judicial Review. Instead, he filed a Statement of Claim, and tried to get around it. Quite predictably, the case was thrown out.

Looking at Grey’s recent work — as a whole — he appears to target clients who are part of unionized workplaces. They inevitably have some sort of collective bargaining agreement, which makes Court action a total non-starter. This specific case doesn’t invoke an arbitration requirement as a defence, but most do.

Strange, isn’t it? The “alternative” media will announce all kinds of new lawsuits being filed. However, they very rarely will report on how they end.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Miles Statement Of Claim September 2022
(2) Miles Statement Of Defence March 2023
(3) Miles Notice Of Discontinuance November 2024

Posted on

Action4Canada Injunction Application Booked For May 26th

The British Columbia Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in 2 weeks for an Application for an (interim) Injunction in a defamation case. It’s been set for May 26th.

Last December, Action4Canada and 4 individuals (3 named, 1 unnamed) were sued in Kelowna for defamation. It was filed by a self-described “drag artist and entertainer” named Tyson Cook.

An Injunction Application is asking the Kelowna Court to order the removal of all of the posts in question, and to prohibit new ones from going up. It’s worded to imply that it would last indefinitely, with an alternative suggestion of 1 year.

The Application also seeks validation of service against Tori Olason, through regular mail, and a suspected Facebook account. The process server claims that it’s not safe to return, given a neighbour threatened to call the police to report trespassing.

Interestingly, James Kitchen has resigned as counsel for Action4Canada. He was listed as counsel for that organization, as well as Tammy Mitchell.

The Application names Graeme Flannigan and Action4Canada, but not Mitchell. One has to wonder if cooler heads have prevailed, at least for one person. Flannigan appears — for now — to be self representing.

Flannigan is also the only one so far to file any detailed response. Action4Canada and Mitchell put in their bare-bones “denial”. On the other hand, he’s making statements in support of a justification or fair comment defence. Furthermore, there’s the suggestion that lumping unrelated Defendants together into a single suit is an abuse of process.

Flannigan says that Cook has been selling buttons related to various online posts, and has used the publicity for content. The implication is that far from suffering damages, Cook may have actually profited from all of this.

One thing weighing against Cook: having waited so long to take any action, the Court may not view it as being urgent.

Note: Action4Canada supports silencing its own critics, but screams “lawfare” when the shoe is on the other foot. We’ll have to see how this turns out.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Cook Flannigan Response To Civil Claim
(3) Cook Action4Canada Response To Civil Claim
(4) Cook Mitchell Response To Civil Claim
(5) Cook Kitchen Resigns As A4C Counsel
(6) Cook Notice Of Application For Injunction

Posted on

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

  1. American Chamber of Commerce
  2. Google (which owns YouTube)
  3. Rumble
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Facebook
  6. Pinterest
  7. LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907

Posted on

Diagolon Rat Squad: Liberate Your Neighbourhood

This is to follow up on a story that broke over 3 years ago.

It’s been long established that Jeremy MacKenzie (a.k.a. Raging Dissident) called the police on a group named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, and a member, Landon Preik. This happened while lockdowns were being enforced all over the country. It’s what he swore to under oath.

MacKenzie has repeatedly bragged — such as on Red Ice — that he contacted the RCMP because he viewed the group as a threat to public safety. It’s portrayed as civic necessity, and done to prevent violence. Rightly or wrongly, he has been labelled a “fed” and a “rat” for doing this.

Thing is, his version of events doesn’t add up. There is a much more plausible reason for MacKenzie contacting the police, namely to get himself out of his own gun charges. After all, Preik was arrested less than 2 days after he was.

The whole “HateGate” narrative never made sense in this regard either. If the authorities were looking for an excuse to invoke the Emergencies Act, MacKenzie would have given them a legitimate one. Why then would they frame him for it, if he was cooperative with police?

The Global News article on the case is dated February 3rd, 2022. It references a police investigation that began on September 14th, 2021. (See archive). The problem is that it lacks sufficient information about the case.

However, after ordering some court documents, things become a lot clearer.

MacKenzie’s Arrest/Residential Search January 26th, 2022

Inverness County District RCMP has arrested a man for firearms offences after executing a search warrant at a home in Pictou County.

On January 10, 2022, the Inverness County District RCMP began an investigation after a video was posted to social media of a man, in a business, waving a handgun around in a reckless manner and allegedly having an over capacity magazine. It was determined that this incident occurred on Whycocomagh Mountain Rd. in Whycocomagh.

On January 26, as part of the investigation, police executed a search warrant at a home on High St. in Pictou. During the search, police located and seized five restricted firearms including rifles and handguns, one unrestricted firearm, prohibited magazines, ammunition, body armour, a duty belt with attached holster and magazine pouches and cellular phones.

At the request of police, the suspect, a 35-year-old Pictou man, attended the Pictou RCMP Detachment prior to the search warrant execution and was arrested without incident. He was later released on conditions, which include that he not possess any firearms, weapons, ammunition or explosive substances. He will be facing charges of Careless Use of a Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of a Prohibited Device, Possession of a Prohibited Device Knowing It’s Possession is Unauthorized, Possession of a Firearm at an Unauthorized Place. He will appear in Port Hawkesbury Provincial Court on May 30, 2022.
File #: 2022-39074

Why does the January 26th, 2022 date matter? It’s because of what happened in the immediate aftermath.

MacKenzie was released, and headed to the convoy. Preik was picked up the next day.

Preik Picked Up January 27th, 2022 On Possession Charges

The information about the case is available, and it spells out exactly what he has been charged with. Interestingly, it lists both September and November 2021 dates.

Originally, there were 6 charges. It was later amended to 10.

  1. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: Armi Jager AP80 semi-automatic rifle
  2. Section 91(1) Possession of prohibited weapon: CZ-CZ858 Tactical 2 semi-automatic rifle
  3. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 5 handgun magazines, with 15 cartridge capacity
  4. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 4 CZ magazines, with 30 cartridge capacity
  5. Section 91(2) Possession of prohibited devices: 1 CZ detachable magazine, with 30 cartridge capacity
  6. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Rossi Ranch Hand Rifle
  7. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: K100 Dynamic Handgun
  8. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ VZ58 Sporster semi-automatic rifle
  9. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: Mossberg shotgun
  10. Section 86(1) Reckless transportation/storage: CZ 75 Luger semi-automatic handgun

Notice what’s missing? Preik was never charged with terrorism, treason, sedition, or any violent offence. The complaint against him is solely for possession and transport/storage offences.

That is, of course, not to say that the current charges won’t mess up his life.

Are we supposed to believe that the RCMP took MacKenzie’s information and did nothing with it for months? And is it just a coincidence that they only acted after the raid in Pictou? It strains all credulity to accept such a narrative, but here we are.

MacKenzie: Contacting RCMP Necessary To Prevent Violence

Almost everyone by now is familiar with this clip.

At his POEC testimony MacKenzie specifically named “Liberate Your Neighbourhood” as a group that he turned into police. He said there was a group of men “with masks and guns, saying ‘this is a call to arms'”. It’s portrayed as a necessary act in order to protect public safety.

He also says that this happened in the Fall of 2021.

Again, the timeline doesn’t make sense, if MacKenzie is to be believed. While it seems true that he did contact the police, the sequence of events is very different. His version is quite implausible, and we’ll go through it.

Perhaps he had “more information” to share in January 2022.

Timeline Of Major Events For Preik And MacKenzie

September 14th, 2021: RCMP begins investigating a group called “Liberate Your Neighbourhood”, based on videos that had been posted online.

September 23rd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for first time.

September 29th, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for second time.

November 2nd, 2021: Preik interviewed by RCMP for third time.

To make this clear, the police are obviously aware of who Preik is, having talked to him on 3 separate occasions. However, there will be no arrest for months. One has to wonder why. MacKenzie (supposedly) telling them about the videos wasn’t enough, but something would change.

January 10th, 2022: RCMP becomes aware of a video of MacKenzie (and another man), in possession of firearms, and would later accuse them of using them carelessly.

January 13th, 2022: According to the ITO (page 5) MacKenzie admitted to police that he was intoxicated when this happened.

January 22, 2022: RCMP applies for a search warrant for MacKenzie’s Pictou home for:

  1. Smith & Wesson M&P 9 firearm
  2. Glock 17 firearm
  3. High capacity magazine
  4. Gun holster
  5. Firearms registration paperwork
  6. MacKenzie’s cell phone (unknown brand)

January 25th, 2022: This is the first day that (if authorized) the search warrant would allow the police into MacKenzie’s home.

January 26th, 2022: RCMP raid MacKenzie’s home in Pictou, N.S., and file firearms charges. From the way the press release is worded, it sounds like he was released almost right away.

January 27th, 2022: Preik is arrested in Chilliwack, B.C.

January 28th, 2022: Preik is released without bail, while facing 6 charges.

February 3rd, 2022: Global News publishes the arrest of Preik. It was noted that he faced (a) five counts of careless use or storage of a firearm, and (b) one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The article only specifies that an investigation had been ongoing since September 14th, 2021.

August 2nd, 2022: Preik now facing a total of 10 charges. His release conditions are modified to require that he pay $200 if he breaches them.

December 8th, 2022: Preik appears in court on a further modified complaint.

January 27th, 2023: Crown elects to proceed by indictment (the more serious option)

September 6th, 2024: After voir dire hearing, it’s ruled that Preik’s 3 interrogations (September 23rd, 29th, and November 2nd of 2021) are all admissible as evidence. See page 5.

Preik faces trial later this year, while MacKenzie had all of his charges thrown out.

Why Does Any Of This Matter?

MacKenzie has long stated that he turned in the group to avoid violent (armed) confrontation with the state. While difficult to swallow for many, it’s at least a plausible excuse to send the RCMP after someone. Regardless of one’s personal feelings, there’s a justification to do this.

That justification disappears once you look when things happened.

Preik had been interviewed at least 3 times by police in late 2021. They clearly knew who he was, but chose not to make any arrest then. In fact, they only acted just a day or so after MacKenzie was picked up in Nova Scotia.

It’s unrealistic to assume police simply ignored specific allegations about an armed militia (as MacKenzie made) for several months. But we’re supposed to believe that arrest came just after his…. and it’s entirely a coincidence.

Did MacKenzie call the RCMP to inform them about a violent threat?

Or did he do it to get himself released from prison?

And what’s the deal with his “continuous relationship” with law enforcement? Diagolon isn’t an entrapment operation, is it?

PREIK COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Preik Record Of Proceeding
(2) Preik Information
(3) Preik Release
(4) Preik Transcript January 28 2022
(5) Preik Transcript January 28 2022 Copy
(6) Preik Transcript August 2 2022
(7) Preik Transcript August 2 2022 Copy
(8) Preik Transcript January 27 2023 Elect Method
(9) Preik Transcript August 15 2024 Not Guilty Plea

MEDIA ATTENTION:
(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/8591403/rcmp-seize-firearms-in-b-c-following-probe-into-video-by-self-described-militia/
(2) Preik Arrest Global News Announcement
(3) https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2022/rcmp-arrest-man-firearms-offences
(4) RCMP arrest man for firearms offences
(5) https://www.antihate.ca/jeremy_raging_dissident_mackenzie_arrested_waving_handgun_local_business

SEARCH WARRANT FOR MACKENZIE:
(1) ITO Warrant Application For Jeremy MacKenzie January 22 2022

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress