This is a long read. Worth it, for those who were paying attention to the law-fare  during the COVID  episode.
It took years for the God damned traitors, to put in place the elements of their SCAMdemic. It will take years for us to pick up the pieces 

What comes across to me in this well written critique by Kip Warner, is : Tanya Gaw was a babe-in-the-woods, who got ‘eaten alive’  by the lawyer Rocco Galati.  Mr Galati is one of those referred-to in the Bible, as being “sent to wear out the saints” And he sure did.  No ordinary person could have done this much damage to the Freedom Movement. The devastation he wreaked took a special kind of talent. 
https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/galati-defamation-dismissal-opinion
Gordon Watson

Metchosin British Columbia

AQ Transparency Court Records Court Documents Hearing Videos Tools & Street Kit Social Media & Multimedia Who We Are Status Updates News Coverage Contact General Inquiries Media Requests Guest Speaking Requests

18 January, 2024: A Brief History of BC’s Anti-Lockdown Movement: The Rise and Fall of Rocco Galati and His Claim of $1.1M Against CSASPP

Friends,

I have some wonderful news. We would like to bring to your attention another recent victory and our opinions on it.

Let me begin with a few housekeeping matters. If you wish to share this or any other publication of ours with your peers, and you are by all means welcome to do so, we encourage sharing a direct link to this page. Otherwise when copying and pasting you might accidentally remove formatting and references.

Today’s update is inevitably going to cause as much intrigue and celebration as it might be cause for scandal. Not our own, but for a small minority who may have gone to great lengths for several years to intentionally undermine the advocacy work we undertook on your behalf.

We are not referring to your government. It actually has, generally speaking, behaved better both inside and outside the courtroom than the subjects of this update.

The background context extends over several years, with a length perhaps better expected of a Seymour Hersh article. It certainly could have been shorter if we had provided you previously with intermittent updates. You might be wondering then why you are only coming to learn about what follows now, given our tradition of transparency. I made the call. It was not an easy decision to make, but I think most will understand.

We predicted that any attempt to provide prior disclosure would have been met with the other side seeking refuge behind the comfort that the court was yet to adjudicate, and therefore their vindication was pending.

Secondarily, we believed their likely efforts to undermine us were intended to be a red herring. Even a cursory review of our status updates over the last several years makes it clear they failed to prevent us from delivering results regardless. Suffice it to say, their plan did not work out the way they may have intended.

Many of you already know where this is going and have suspected for a long time. The awkward conversations that quietly took place in private circles across the country for several years now, in our view, are ready to move further into the sunlight.

I will begin where I often have, with a little history.

The Blitz

In 1941, during The Blitz, London was being pounded by Luftwaffe aerial bombardment. The period was an especially chaotic time for the people of England. Profound hardships at a scale endured by civilian populations are difficult to fathom today. Historians recall virtuous tales of neighbours helping neighbours between air raid sirens, clearing away rubble, tending to the wounded, and eventually helping each other rebuild.

Conflict, in particular war of all kinds, historically brought out the very best and the very worst examples of human behaviour. A less well-known fact was that crime, not exclusively organized, actually proliferated during The Blitz. The unfortunate reality was that many Londoners were quite content to clear out their neighbour’s silverware whenever the opportunity presented itself.

Bandits would blend in with the rest of the population during the chaos, garbing themselves in civil defense uniforms. They moved about among the unsuspecting while looting with impunity. It was a golden period for criminals. Wally Thompson, reflecting on his own participation, said that it was “the best ally London’s crooks ever had.”

Obviously not everyone was compounding the living hell. But the ones who did flourished within the collective pandemonium. With urban centres in ruins people were less likely to pay attention to certain activities going on in broad daylight.

Grassroots crime enabled by chaos is a pattern that has repeated itself in many other events, manmade and natural. The looting that took place in the streets of Port-au-Prince in Haiti in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake was another.

The Post-Mortem Era

The majority of the COVID-19-related mandates have been rescinded. The Freedom Convoy of early 2022 has long dispersed. The general hysterics that swept across the country from social media to provincial and federal privy councils have found relative calm.

As the dust settles we now journey into the post-mortem era where the time for sober analysis on what exactly happened over the last several years has become an area of great interest for many Canadians. To that end we hope post-certification discovery in our proposed class proceeding will further that.

But in the meantime the belligerents on both sides of the conflict have already begun to learn obnoxious truths. Despite the exoneration of our Prime Minister’s 14 February, 2022, invocation of the Emergencies Act, the conspiracy theorists within his progressive segregationist cabinet were nevertheless forced to reconcile a number of inconvenient revelations of the Rouleau inquiry.

There was no evidence of a monolithic conspiracy. What rapidly became clear was a disorganized response to a disorganized protest that began organically. There was no central command and control, no credible evidence of a coup d’état in the works to depose the federal government, no foreign state involvement, and the majority of the money raised originated domestically.

There was no smoking gun. It was not interesting. The Russians had to sit this one out.

Then there was the issue of what happened to all the money we spent implementing the mandates. It was not looking good, even for those who still believed we needed them.

Testimony before Parliament was damning. We wrote off over $54 million on sole sourced contracts to develop ArriveCAN to keep grandma safe. A mobile application assembled from mostly free off-the-shelf components, it did not push the envelope in innovation. Time will tell whether the federal police and the auditor general’s investigations bear fruit.

On the other side, the John Birchers that had come to dominate – at least by decibel – the protest movement had their own reckoning as they struggled to reconcile an intransient narrative with the dearth of evidence that failed to emerge of a monolithic Sino-Communist conspiracy. The supposed Marxists were the usual suspects, predominantly balding American corporate executives focused on their next quarterly projections.

Any review of the merchant’s unbridled profit motive in the social design of their much romanticized aspirational model state, the great American republic, would remain politically incorrect and firmly denounced with claims of Communism.

With the Berlin Wall gone since 1989, and with that the former Soviet Union, the Fox News crowd’s desperate attempt to find the next best substitute, which just happens to counter American hegemony in the world, failed. Sadly Red China had to sit this one out too.

But the preferred narratives were not all that fell apart. So did many of the relationships. With juvenile demarcations drawn in the sand between activists, there was constant infighting and conflicts of interest. The label of “controlled op” was liberally applied whenever there was disagreement on even the most trivial of issues.

The Messiah

With the post-rally hangover set in, the music set over, the A/V equipment packed up, and some of the party guests unable or unwilling to recall the salient details, there still remained the outstanding question of what happened to all the money we spent on the organizers and their ventures.

During our lockdown there was a proliferation of activists that appeared on the scene in 2020 onwards, mostly from obscurity. Many of us remember passionate speeches on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery and elsewhere. Millions were desperate for hope and change across the country.

We were reminded that when people are afraid they are prepared to make concessions they might otherwise not have been willing to make in an unencumbered state.

But help arrived. Like manna from heaven, Toronto-based lawyer Rocco Galati made his debut in the lockdown dissident scene’s onset in 2020. With a reputation that preceded him, revered as a messianic figure by his patrons, he would be their saviour. Evangelized by some as no less than our nation’s top constitutional lawyer, he was the Second Coming.

Tough talking, heavy hitting, and ready to come out swinging, Galati was crass and had every right to be. He had the street credentials and was always eager to remind us.

He had brought a notorious claim everyone vaguely remembers when prompted with his name against the Bank of Canada – arguably the most important financial institution in our country. It was highly publicized, earning him a 2015 televised interview with the CBC’s Amanda Lang. “A kind of legal David known for tangling with Goliath sized courtroom opponents,” she prefaced the segment.

The previous year in 2014 Galati earned his crowning achievement in disqualifying Prime Minister Harper’s appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, the nation’s highest court. He did so on the grounds that Nadon was constitutionally ineligible to sit as a judge. “Most people don’t understand the seismic importance of that decision,” he told Lang.

The protesters had found their man. There was a wave of hysterical euphoria. He was ready to execute. He just needed the financing.

Surrey-based Tanya Gaw was ready to meet that calling. God fearing, she had — by her own analysis — been provided with a divine mandate from the Almighty, a claim she would repeat. As time moved on it would subsequently expand to meet all of society’s woes, or at least as she understood them. The scimitar-swinging Mohammedan, the sin of Sodom in our public schools, and the John Birch Society’s understanding of atmospheric physics would eventually find their way into her campaign portfolio.

Granted, there were a few obscure naysayers. Admittedly I had my own musings, but she was adamant the critics just wanted to crash the party.

Who had time to dive into the minutia anyways? Humanity was confronted with an existential threat. Even progress understandably had a price tag.

The Franchise

Various Galati marketing arms, affiliates, clients, franchises, subsidiaries, choose your nomenclature, rapidly began to emerge across the country. A few others already operational were repurposed to provide financial and logistical support to their new focus.

Police on Guard; Take Action Canada; Children’s Health Defense (Canada), a Canadian branch of RFK Jr’s Children’s Health Defense; Privacy Is Your Right; Enable Air; Dr. Kulvinder Gill; and Dr. Bryan Bridle; among others, were some of his clients that publicly stated they sought his legal services.

But two of the most prominent Galati supporters were British Columbia’s Action4Canada, Gaw being its principal. The other was Ontario-based Vaccine Choice Canada, the principal being Kelowna-based Ted Kuntz. These two organizations and their principals were instrumental in financing and promoting Galati’s nationally distributed ventures. Both would eventually commence similar mandate-related suits with Galati’s assistance in their own respective provinces.

Based on our research Galati’s total mandate-derived revenue has a conservative and unsubstantiated estimate of, at a minimum, a little over $1M. The evidence we have reviewed is strongly suggestive of at least $3.8M that we were able to trace, but there are some estimates as high as $10M.

The amounts sought from Galati for some of his cases ranged anywhere from $400,000 to $1,000,000. On occasion, based on fundraising requests, he would seek additional funds from the same clients for appeals.

On 2 September, 2020, Galati was featured in a lengthy interview with an influential Canadian alt-right tabloid where the VCC venture’s prospectus was lauded by entertainer Ezra Levant. When asked on timing for execution Galati pledged to do his best to apply for an initial injunction before Christmas 2020 on behalf of his client. VCC would challenge a City of Toronto mask mandate, or at least something to that effect before the conversation needed to move on.

Several days later on 16 September, 2020, Action4Canada enjoyed a spontaneous fundraiser on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery to support Gaw’s parallel venture. Her emotive rhetoric and theological references, reminiscent perhaps of a slightly less polished, but just as passionate Benny Hinn, had the blue, mostly blue, and white collar throng pouring seemingly endless cash into an open cardboard box in the town square in response to her call for a litigation jihad to be waged against the government.

There did not appear to be any accounting as deposits were made, nor for that matter the issuance of any receipts. The Horn of Cornucopia had been generous that day and there was no going back. The villagers were ready to mobilize under their new shepherd.

Former Gaw loyalists candidly described her following as parochial who all followed a similar ideology. Admittedly I had my own musings again when I saw a campaign that appeared to be more heat than light. But that was her business and not ours.

Meanwhile, over in Ontario, VCC did not apply for that much anticipated injunction. There had been no need. When confronted by critics Galati, Gaw, and Kuntz would allay their concerns. Galati’s clout and his filing of 6 June, 2020, had been a sufficient deterrent. He had succeeded in intimidating the city into rescinding its mask mandate without ever having to step foot in a Toronto courtroom.

The city passed a motion to rescind the mandate on 9 March, 2022, with 26 of the 28 councilors voting for it. They neglected to cite Galati with the credit he apparently deserved.

According to Galati on 13 July, 2022, the filing merely needed to be a “shot across the bow.” A win had been obtained without needing the courtroom. By 26 May, 2023, Gaw still maintained that “by filing, the mask mandates in Ontario were lifted unbeknownst to the public.”

Galati’s followers were by no means bad people. One of his patrons enthusiastically shared with her peers on social media on 21 February, 2021, the news that Galati had apparently succeeded in altering an unspecified federal law that sought to mandate injections. The post gained traction in countries around the world.

Few had any interest in checking sources, a pattern that would repeat itself among his greatest devotees. Faith was enough. Many of his clients would continue to enjoy an influx of donor revenue for a period of time.

Frequently Unanswered Questions

But as time moved on and the money continued to pour into Kuntz and Gaws’ coffers, some donors became uneasy that Gaw’s proposed litigation she had sold them on was still yet to materialize in British Columbia. One donor grieved to her on 22 June, 2021, that there was “a growing number of people who are feeling very disgruntled over (…) Rocco ‘the gangster’ Galatti [sic]. He seems to be holding our donations hostage until he receives his full amount.” The same donor compared Gaw’s venture to ours which he claimed was “actually moving forward for far less money.”

Her critics were becoming increasingly vocal on social media.

A recurring question Gaw was confronted with was how much had actually been raised. Rumours were plentiful, but the reality was nobody really knew. Gaw responded on social media that she was unable to provide an answer because “donors are protected under the privacy act and it would be a violation for me to make that publicly available.”

Perhaps she misunderstood their question. The critics were not asking for the identity of the donors, but simply the amount raised and what became of it. With merely a handwave, Gaw rewrote the legislation governing personal information held by government institutions to now extend itself to her nonprofit’s disclosure obligations.

Her finances remained opaque. Internally Gaw and Galati had come to a private agreement. He would not bill hourly. Instead, Gaw agreed to a flat fee retainer of $400,000 to provide his services to Action4Canada. She later confirmed she paid Galati’s firm $200,000 by the end of 2020 and with the remaining $200,000 settled on 29 April, 2022. Galati also confirmed a flat fee arrangement.

Well before Galati began drafting for Gaw in January 2021 his self-valuation of $400,000 already had precedent. According to two previous disgruntled clients who retained him in March of 2017 seeking to have his bill taxed (reviewed) by the court, Galati’s invoice listed his fax machine’s usage at the rate of $2 per page for 492 of them. That was in addition to the $400,000 retainer.

When his then rate of $700 an hour was applied to the time he claimed he spent on the clients’ file, by his own math, he conceded that the flat fee retainer was a 40% increase above the actual time he claimed. That was an inflation of $158,850. The invoice was carefully annotated with a disclaimer that it might not be accurate.

A flat fee retainer arrangement with Gaw ensured there was no need for Galati to be burdened with the hazards of trust account management imposed by his regulator that were intended to protect the public. A flat fee retainer was the way to go.

In his defence he might not have known that the law still required him to track actual time regardless. Sometimes judges tax legal bills at the request of their clients to validate their legitimacy. When that happens they need to know the actual time spent. He may have his memory refreshed in the future.

Despite the $400,000 retainer disclosure which leaked on 23 March, 2023, Gaw continued to insist on Manhattan Project level sensitivity regarding the figure — even months after it had already leaked. Her own records noted she had $239,788 in cash as of 15 August, 2021, and $415,928 by 15 August, 2022. Within that same period she had raised $790,446 in donations.

At the time, however, the lack of visibility into her nonprofit’s finances was not simply external. Those in Gaw’s inner circle were not privy to her books either. That included her own bookkeeper who we were advised subsequently resigned in protest. No one was getting anywhere near the Ark of the Covenant.

But she had another card up her sleeve that was more persuasive than the Privacy Act. It almost made sense. Galati had provided her with the sagely advice that her proposed government defendants might use the knowledge of what was available in her war chest to convince the court it was insufficient to indemnify them, even partially, for whatever the court thought they were entitled to if her numerous individually named plaintiffs eventually lost under the rules.

That might have created procedural obstacles to prevent her litigation from ever getting out of the gate if she was ordered to post security for costs. That is, a deposit held by the court similar to a bond, pending the outcome of the suit.

In order to convince donors of this danger she needed to rewrite more than a century’s worth of case law. Up until that time it had been clear that no individually named plaintiff, regardless of their limited means, would have been ordered to post security. Lord Bowen declared in 1885 that “the general rule is that poverty is no bar to a litigant, that, from time immemorial has been the rule”.

Her critics were still not satisfied. They suspected the real reason had nothing to do with security for costs, but that public disclosure would raise eyebrows undermining an already fragile public confidence.

She was clearly happy with Galati. From our position that was her choice and CSASPP never sought to counsel her otherwise.

Due Diligence

But early in our own campaign Galati’s name had come up in selecting one of many service providers among the many job interviews we conducted. We performed an extensive internal due diligence on the quality of Galati’s services, including case law. This is when the research began to depart from the carefully curated image.

He was not a “constitutional lawyer” as he held himself out to be, but in his own words in interviews with The Globe and Mail and the CBC derived his livelihood from tax law. His work, as assessed by judges themselves, had been described as scandalous, vexatious, gonzo, deserving to be condemned without reservation, neither complete nor intelligible, frivolous, unintelligible, an abuse of process, so defective to be incurable, and without a scintilla of a cause of action to be cured. One of his class actions was described by a judge as incomprehensible. More recently the term “bad beyond argument” has also become fashionable from time to time.

With respect to his fees the Federal Court provided some insight. In 2014 a judge characterized his billings as excessive and unwarranted.

But his crowning achievement, the Nadon challenge, surely he would not be deprived of. It was heralded by his fans and cited prominently amongst his publications for years.

There was just one problem. He lost, despite having taken credit for it. This had already been well known for years in the legal community.

But it did not end there. The heavily publicized Bank of Canada challenge was also quietly struck without leave to amend. He brought an appeal. That too was dismissed with costs.

Institutionalized Vanity

Why did the donors not know? But there might have been several very reasonable explanations. Galati, or someone on his behalf, appeared to have gone to some effort over the years to sterilize his brand image on places like Wikipedia, one of the world’s most popular websites accessed daily by millions.

But there is another far less understood reason. It is quite subtle and you will not find it in any legal textbook or academic paper.

As in any domain consulting with an expert can be a wise idea for a layperson considering any kind of investment. If you are contemplating purchasing a new car and your neighbour previously had a similar model, they are not going to feel muzzled in any way in being candid with you. General Motors is not going to sue them when they recall their transmission having broken down a week after they bought it.

That information could be just as valuable to you as anything you might have heard from an expert professional racecar driver or automotive engineer when deciding whether to make the purchase. And with there being no risk in information sharing, anyone has the option of becoming reasonably informed in that marketplace.

Being at least reasonably informed is a necessary condition of an actually functional marketplace in which individuals are expected to make rational choices, at least according to the prevailing theory.

But the subject matter experts on providers of legal services are primarily lawyers themselves. Unlike in other fields, they are the only ones who are expected to understand in any meaningful way what it is that they are actually doing. Customers are not expected to have even a rudimentary knowledge. This has been the case since Ancient Greece when most people, save paid advocates, were illiterate.

Customers of legal services have a relationship of great dependency on experts, the lawyers. They are the most important people, if not the only people, whose disclosure on the competency of another member of the bar could determine whether the customer commits to making a costly investment in a lemon lawyer. This is a unique quality of the market for legal services seldom found in others.

Your neighbour, regardless of whether they are an expert or not, can still post a bad review for a Honda Civic. But it can carry grave risks for a lawyer to criticize another lawyer. It is not simply that they might land themselves in hot water before a disciplinary tribunal for having said something that might not have been true. They could just as well be sanctioned even if it was but their regulator determined it was “discourteous.” Note that the regulator’s choice of language, discourteous, casts a net far wider than statements that are merely untrue.

In the lawyer’s mind their license is worth millions. It is simply not worth the risk in extending the same courtesy to the customer with frank disclosure.

The end result is a system that works contrary to the public interest and the administration of justice, as defined in s 1(c) of our Justice Administration Act. The system had been designed that way for centuries, despite the common law already being clear that criticism of a lawyer is fair game.

This social stigma within the bar acts as a subtle, yet profound, catalyst or disincentive that delays the distribution of information in the market for legal services. This in turn leads to less rational, less informed choices, thereby undermining how a market is allegedly supposed to work. This is one of many reasons why the market for legal services is not actually a market.

Galati’s History of Intimidation

And so the general public is left to try to investigate on their own. But that is not without its own perils.

Galati has a history of sending threatening demand letters with the purpose of intimidating or silencing those who criticize him. One such critic was advised by Galati that he would seek an order barring the critic from ever posting anything on the internet ever again unless an apology was forthcoming.

One cannot help but wonder how intimidating it might be for a layperson confronted with apparent barrister sorcery to receive legal letterhead, some irrelevant and cryptic citations in the jurisprudence, and peppered with a little Latin. It would be enough to make many capitulate.

Our directors have always had a fiduciary duty at common law to ensure the good stewardship of our donors’ resources. Galati was not a prudent investment based on our own extensive research. Since that time the endless scandals, whistleblowers that have come forward, and the evolving jurisprudence in his wake continued to validate that decision.

Preemptively Avoiding a Mess

Having said that, it was not our place to compel other organizations into who they retained or any other aspect of their administration. These were decisions they must make on their own.

We were, however, gravely concerned that if Galati filed in British Columbia it could create procedural complications for us. A bad precedent might prevent us from achieving any meaningful milestones here. If he made a mess in another jurisdiction, and that too being undesirable, it would potentially have been to a lesser degree than if he did so here.

By December 2020 while we were in the process of bootstrapping our organization we already knew Galati intended to file in British Columbia. We also knew the risk might be attenuated to some degree if he at least did not file before us. Otherwise that could have raised two serious problems.

The first is the issue of carriage, a problem arising when different lawyers attempt to prosecute similar cases at the same time in the same forum. For Galati this could constitute an obstruction of commerce. Since we suspected his career ambitions were primarily economic, there was a strong likelihood that such a problem could arise.

The problem of carriage is a serious one. Imagine two people arrive at different times at a party with two different apple pies. The first to arrive is half baked, the second fully. Guests are not forced to eat the first. But the courthouse is different. It is not a potluck. You could be forced to eat something half baked.

The second issue could be some form of estoppel raised by our defendants, like res judicata, in which the court refuses to hear our claim because it already decided a similar one. That would be fine if his case had met with success, but we were quite confident it would not. It was very important that the first to the courthouse put their best foot forward for everyone and so we needed to work quickly.

It was never about egos or rivalry — at least not for us. It was a bona fide practical reality we had to contend with. We always tried to have amicable relations with other organizations that approached us, even among many of the good, albeit naïve, within his many client organizations. We supplied factums, case law, and expert reports whenever practical to assist anyone who asked to further their goals.

While our filing was the result of our own internal decision making, we were still concerned that even if he filed after us, it could still create problems for us — albeit to a lesser degree.

Preemptively our counsel called Galati on 14 December, 2020, a few weeks before we filed. Our goal was to provide gentle notice that we intended to file shortly with the hope that his anticipated mess would be compartmentalized to Ontario, so far as possible.

Galati was initially amicable and even requested her assistance with the litigation he advised he was preparing for Action4Canada. She politely declined.

On 29 January, 2021, our counsel followed up by letter with a courtesy copy of our then filed class proceeding’s pleading:

“Thank you for speaking with me on December 14, 2020 and the invitation to participate in the constitutional challenge your client was contemplating. Since then, we were retained by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy, to advance the interests of British Columbians with respect to the provincial government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please find enclosed the filed Notice of Civil Claim in this respect. I understand that your clients have not filed any materials. Doing so at this point may cause unnecessary delay and procedural issues in advancing our client’s claim. However, there may be an opportunity to collaborate at a later date.”

The language was carefully crafted to be as polite and diplomatic as one could possibly be when attempting, without offending, to persuade someone from driving a bus into a ditch and obstructing traffic.

Galati Demands Apology

Galati was furious. He responded 3 February, 2021, asserting that we sought to “hold a monopoly over COVID-19 litigation in B.C.,” a claim he would periodically repeat later. He also noted that he was “not wholly impressed” with the quality of our counsel’s pleading. But that did not appear to be the primary purpose of his correspondence.

Galati demanded an apology for “highly defamatory” comments that had been brought to his attention. Our treasurer Dee Gandhi had previously emailed Vancouver-based Dan Dicks, an independent evangelical journalist on 27 January, 2021. Gandhi had shared with Dicks some of our thoughts on why we chose not to engage Galati.

Galati knew we had done our research. The door had to be bolted shut before the horses got out of the barn again.

He ended his demand letter cautioning us that if he did not receive “a full and unmitigated apology” he would commence a defamation suit in Ontario. The impugned statements were “beyond the pale”.

We responded promptly the following day requesting Galati advise us what specifically it was that was allegedly defamatory. The notes Gandhi had shared with Dicks eventually became the genesis for portions of our FAQ which had not been published by that time. There was still plenty of time to revise our understanding of his work had we received a reasonable response, or any response at all for that matter, but none was forthcoming.

Our FAQ

People were already comparing our work to the Galati affiliates of their own accord since we began the month prior. That was without any prompting on our part. The public was understandably interested. The amount we raised was always public. Our work began with only around $10,000 dollars by the time we had already filed the first revision of our proposed class action pleading on 26 January, 2021. They were also aware that we had a different understanding of the costs of properly supervised litigation.

We carried on with our work. But we slowly began to find ourselves increasingly inundated with inquiries about Galati. Why did we choose not to retain Galati? Can you confirm rumour X or Y about Galati? In particular, what became of the substantial funds that were raised for him through his various organizations?

Over time these inquiries continued to increase as Galati’s donors looked for an outlet to grieve. We were not set up as a service bureau to support his customers.

In an effort to reduce the workload on our volunteers we published an FAQ at some time in June of 2021. It was our hope that its publication would greatly reduce the influx of inquiries. It did not. Instead it signalled we were in possession of contraband knowledge.

Nearly every speaking engagement, town hall, and sometimes even unprompted in interviews, people would make inquiries about Galati and his various organizations to us. We would encourage people to do their own research and support whomever they felt comfortable with.

Gaw’s Inner Circle

But even before our FAQ’s publication, Gaw’s inner circle that were intimately involved in fundraising for her and other Galati affiliates were already upset with us. Dicks had been promoting Gaw early in her campaign. He was aligned with her. He had forwarded our treasurer’s correspondence containing our reasons for not having engaged Galati initially to Gaw.

According to Galati, Dicks forwarded Gandhi’s notes because he was allegedly alarmed by them. Dicks subsequently debriefed with Galati by telephone after Gaw immediately brought Dicks’ correspondence to Galati’s attention. Dicks and Galati were already well acquainted with each other for more than fifteen years.

Gaw and her associates had managed to convince themselves that there was a conspiracy to undermine Galati and, by extension, their work. They were deeply invested socially, enjoying the limelight and social relevance which had elevated them. The mandates had given their lives new meaning they had not enjoyed before and they were not prepared to lose any of it.

Gaw’s inner Praetorian Guard of gospel diva promoters were well known in the anti-lockdown activist community for their inability to work with virtually anyone, including others in which they had a close ideological affinity. They carefully rationed social endorsement by curating who would speak at their rallies, for how long, and the permitted messaging.

Merchants in the Temple

As in many religious movements, there is often an underlying secular motivation animating it. Gaw’s promoters were ultimately stakeholders financially too.

One of her promoters intimated to her colleagues on 4 February, 2021, that Gaw had been contemplating bringing a claim in defamation against our organization and myself with the assistance of Galati unless a “public apology” was forthcoming. Afterall, “all the statements he’s making can make people question whether or not they donate.”

Their animosity was clearly rooted in our knowledge of Galati’s CV and how it might affect them. Another promoter was prolific in her promotion of Galati. She admitted that she had been helping herself to a 25% brokerage fee on all funds she raised for Galati’s venture. Their motivation was obvious. They had a lot to lose, even if we were not trying to undermine their work.

Galati’s public relations continued to spiral out of control. Gaw was under increasing pressure to justify what the public suspected was a king’s ransom of a retainer poured into an endless Bermuda triangle of money. She began making acrimonious remarks at public events and in private to her stakeholders about us, at times citing scripture inviting our destruction.

Although we would not seek atonement for our sins, we also would not retaliate. It was petty and a distraction from our actual mandate and the substantial work we have managed to achieve. If Gaw’s promoters wanted to prioritize maintaining their social relevance over simply answering their donors’ questions, that was their choice.

Staying On Topic

Gaw’s organization was always fundamentally different from ours in terms of not only who ran it, but the breadth of its mandate. Ours has always been narrowly focused on challenging the mandates. We are secular and non-partisan. That does not mean our followers reject theology or any particular mainstream political framework. We do not tell them what to think. It just means the organization itself would not be a vehicle for said.

We never identified a good reason, given our purpose, to tether our organization to every conceivable social conservative position emanating from the Fox News’ circuit.

Whistler’s Pique Newsmagazine opined that Gaw seems “to long for a simpler time. A time when more of the country was white, Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian.”

Whether her position on any of her campaign’s issue portfolio is correct or not, or has anything to do with Christianity for that matter, is not the point. None of it assists us, or her for that matter, in any way in challenging COVID-19-related mandates. The court has already been clear with her about the importance of staying on topic.

The criticisms were coming from everywhere, including Christian institutions too. The United Church of Canada, the largest protestant denomination, eventually weighed in. “Action4Canada does not speak for all Christians and people of faith. Their distortions of theology and Biblical interpretation are dangerous and we denounce them.”

But even if we thought there was a strategic reason to incorporate at least some aspects of Christian theology, the 2011 census allocated only 2.9% of our population to those self-identifying as evangelical, a minority demographic. This might create challenges when trying to obtain class certification where we are required to demonstrate to the court our willingness to fairly advocate on behalf of all affected class members.

There has never been a consensus on any theological doctrine as made clear from Thomas Aquinas to Galileo. The provisional answer of the separation of church and state was the settled compromise arrived at centuries ago in the West during the Age of Enlightenment and it would never be our purpose to resurrect it. Obviously Gaw was of a different mind.

We chose not to use our organization as a vehicle for any of the aforementioned topics. It is not strategic from a political standpoint either when crowdfunding ambitious litigation activism in respect to broad government mandates that affected several million diverse demographics across British Columbia.

The Olive Branch

Movement leaders and revolutionaries need not be Rhodes’ scholars. Jesus was a carpenter. Socrates cut stones. Spartacus was a slave. Great minds can have humble origins and need not emerge from privilege. But in our opinion her ambitions clearly exceeded her capabilities in managing the substantial public investment in her venture.

At a time when we were watching her ship engulfed in flames at a safe distance from the shore, and despite the repeated warnings that no one would be able to reason with her, we nevertheless made polite overtures on 13 July, 2021, in extending an olive branch. It had not been the first attempt.

Join us for a cup of tea and good faith dialogue. Take the opportunity to provide input into our process on behalf of your demographic. But most importantly, for your own sake, seize an opportunity to become socially relevant again and for the right reasons.

The letter naturally went without a response. We carried on with our work. I instructed my team to give her a wide berth, never attempt to interfere with her organization, not to disparage her at public speaking events, nor to encourage anyone who contemplated a donation to her or any other Galati organization to redirect it elsewhere.

Had it been our purpose to destroy her organization, she did not need any assistance.

The Mutiny

In October of 2021 a chapter leader of one of Gaw’s largest regional branches reached out to us seeking to collaborate. His colleagues had been enthusiastically following our work in the headlines. It was not clear to them why we were not already collaborating. We were of course amenable, but gently encouraged him to liaise with Gaw and seek her authorization first for his own sake.

Several months passed. We received a phone call one evening sometime in the Summer of 2022 from the same. Gaw had issued a fatwa. We were informed that chapter leaders were “forbidden” from such an initiative. Disobedience would result in unspecified legal action.

The public relations disaster was no longer merely external with several hundred ideologically affiliated organizations now distancing themselves from her. There was a mutiny in the ranks. An avalanche of chapter leaders across the province tendered their resignations in protest over Gaw. A lack of financial transparency and a long laundry list of internal grievances played a role.

This would have serious operational implications, at least until she found new people, since her venture had dozens of regional chapters or subsidiaries of its own from British Columbia to the Maritimes that generated revenue.

Our FAQ remained up. We had no intention of taking it down. It was having a positive impact in our communities, even if Galati, Gaw, and Kuntz were livid.

According to Galati his donations were “virtually obliterated” from the $786,706 in revenue he claimed he enjoyed in 2021. He blamed us. The critics were not simply directing themselves to his clients, he was also personally receiving significant complaints. Donors were calling him. They left colourful voicemails and emails. They had lost confidence and were divesting.

Action4Canada Struck

In fairness to Gaw and Galati, they did eventually file in British Columbia on 17 August, 2021. It was met with the defendants bringing an application to strike that was returnable (heard) 31 May, 2022. This was after numerous requests for adjournment on Galati’s part.

At the strike application hearing and upon concluding his arguments Galati ended his virtual attendance by advising all of the lawyers present for the 24 defendants that their knowledge of constitutional law was wanting, and that they should consider signing up for his online course. Justice Ross stoically invited a reply. Counsel for the defendants remained seated with no further submissions. Justice Ross said he would reserve his judgment to be released when ready. With that the hearing concluded.

Gaw left the courthouse, but not before enthusiastically entertaining an interview. In her mind she had already won. It would have been like arguing with Captain Ahab to convince her otherwise. Galati had “hit a home run,” “shame on those who have criticized his case,” and “it was the best decision I ever made two years ago to retain Rocco as our lawyer.”

Several months went by. Our FAQ aged well. Their 391 page pleading met with disastrous consequences for all of her plaintiffs when the court struck it in its entirety when Justice Ross released his ruling on 29 August, 2022. It was not a loss on the merits, a minor technicality, or a close call. Galati was incompetent in the most basic of clerical requirements and Justice Ross made it clear.

Some plaintiffs began firing Galati. They learned of the ruling, not from either Gaw or Galati, but from the last place they should have — the media. One of the disgruntled plaintiffs had never even provided consent to Galati to be a plaintiff in the first place, let alone having executed a retainer agreement.

On 5 September, 2022, an interview was published featuring a still-hallucinating Gaw in which she reassured the public that what they understood was a loss was actually a victory. In the interview she conceded that the filing that did not comply with the rules had been intentional, on her own instructions, for the purpose of having “everything on record”.

Gaw’s pleading, like most that are struck in Canada, no matter how badly drafted, was given a second chance at life to be amended. This is in keeping with the Canadian judicial philosophy of trying to give everyone a chance to have their day in court. It merely means that sometimes a pleading that is struck and subsequently amended prevails at trial and it would be bad if the court pulled the plug on all of them prematurely. It is by no means an endorsement of a plaintiff’s claim.

But not all of Galati’s struck suits were considered salvageable by the court and given a second kick at the can. But in Action4Canada’s case Gaw was given a second chance. She had been thrown a life vest because Justice Ross took note of our work demonstrating it is possible for a suit critical of some aspects of the mandates to be credibly framed in compliance with the rules. Galati, Gaw, and their promoters were mute on that point.

Despite her reassurances to her stakeholders that she had been given a second chance, her critics informed us that they were of the view that Gaw’s venture was a publicity stunt that recklessly gambled with the lives of millions of Canadians for personal gain. Similar allegations were made against some of the more prominent Freedom Convoy participants. Even counsel for Gaw’s defendants argued that it was a publicity stunt.

After the court’s ruling made headlines Galati was unavailable for comment when his stakeholders understandably wanted answers. He was out of the country and would not be expected to return until 22 September, 2022, wrote Gaw in an email to her donors.

But the Lord’s vineyard would not bear fruit overnight. A few days later on 28 September, 2022, Galati filed an appeal. He needed more money, of course. “An appeal is always a separate cost from the original claim. We therefore request, and would appreciate, your donation and ongoing support to help keep Action4Canada’s legal war chest replete and equipped for the ongoing battle. Action4Canada’s case is the only major case proceeding in British Columbia and that is thanks to Rocco’s expertise,” she wrote on 13 November, 2022.

Again, I reminisced.

Changing the Topic

Gaw would diversify her campaign’s issue portfolio to include everything that had nothing to do with her COVID-19 donor’s actual inquiries.

Bogus legal documents developed by Galati and Gaw began being widely circulated. They were promoted by Kuntz for distribution to public officials or anyone else. Businesses on the receiving end were cautioned by their insurers to ignore them because they were phony.

Fictional legal documents and techniques of this nature are so common they are given a name in law, organized pseudolegal commercial arguments or OPCA. Also long documented on our FAQ. Despite not working, they remain popular.

Kuntz claimed Galati had been consulted in the drafting of the documents. The court has been clear that is grounds for professional misconduct and can result in having your license suspended.

But Gaw’s interest in OPCA was not merely casual. It was expensive. OPCA guru David Lindsay’s work has been discussed at length by the courts. In 2007 he was permanently banned from ever using the court again without permission of a judge. In 2008 he even did time.

“As is typical of most recent gurus, Lindsay also advertises his services on an Internet website (…). Sadly, some persons have taken up that offer,” wrote Associate Chief Justice Rooke in 2012. Gaw was one such, having invested in February 2022 at least $12,600 in cash of her donors’ funds on Lindsay.

Donors continued to ask what happened to their money. Gaw would draw their attention to purported obscenities that violated the Criminal Code that were being exposed to children in specific publications at a specific school library.

Okanagan School District superintendent Kevin Kaardal became the subject of violent threats. Part of a wall outside of his office collapsed. Gaw said it was “amazing that God chose Mr. Kaardal’s wall to come tumbling down.”

Federal police commenced a formal criminal investigation in respect to Gaw’s claim of obscene materials. On 22 February, 2023, they announced that they had found nothing.

Donors kept asking about their money. Action4Canada was now citing scripture that called for agricultural equipment to be placed around the necks of heathens before throwing them into the ocean if they did not share her understanding of it.

Action4Canada Fallout

It was bad enough that the $400,000 invested in Galati was clearly gone. But that was not the end of the donors’ liability. All of his plaintiffs were individually and severally liable to pay approximately $13,000 in costs to the defendants. That too had been predicted.

Shortly before the ruling of Justice Ross was released Gaw was asked by the media if she would indemnify her plaintiffs for any adverse cost award if her suit was dismissed. Her answer provided little comfort: “That will be something for Rocco to answer.”

Public outrage led to mounting pressure on Gaw to settle the costs on behalf of all named plaintiffs, some of which were already in financial ruin due to the mandates. She eventually did, presumably out of the donor funds.

A whistleblower recalled early in Gaw’s campaign that one of her promoters had made inquiries on her behalf while her suit was still being drafted. Gaw was seeking individual plaintiffs that had no assets, despite Gaw being personally unwilling to expose herself as one. She later went on the record confirming that had been her intent, acknowledging she was cognizant of the risks she had exposed her plaintiffs to.

In having acted preemptively in filing when we did we probably dodged a bullet. During our certification hearing on 14 December, 2022, Galati’s Action4Canada suit was brought to the attention of Justice Crerar when he asked if there was any other related litigation that sought Charter damages that he should be made aware of. He found it incredulous that a lawyer could have actually drafted such a document.

Justice Crerar: But there’s no other case in Canada to your knowledge where someone has sought Charter damages flowing from a governmental pandemic response where it has been adjudicated?

CSASPP Counsel: Where it’s been adjudicated, no. Recently there was one that was struck or granted leave to amend the 400 page notice of claim.

Justice Crerar: Maybe not drafted with the assistance of counsel?

CSASPP Counsel: Oh no there was counsel.

Justice Crerar: Oh there was counsel involved. Alright, hopefully not charging by the word.

Despite Galati’s drafting of Action4Canada having been characterized by the court as “bad beyond argument,” the public’s investment did provide at least some pedagogical value towards the improvement of the legal profession’s curriculum. The 2023 edition of a mandatory textbook in use for all lawyers seeking to practice in British Columbia was amended to feature Galati’s work as an example of an incompetently drafted pleading.

Gaw continued to generate bad headlines for over a year, sometimes daily, reflecting a never ending train wreck. Her former supporters turned whistleblowers were not letting up, but some were prepared to do more than take to social media.

Donna Toews’ Complaint to LSO

Donna Toews is a mother who was residing in Ontario at the onset of the mandates. She was upset about the effect they were having on her and her children. Since 2020 she had been following Galati’s work, initially with enthusiasm. By June of 2020 Toews had generously donated a thousand dollars to VCC and at some point Action4Canada as well.

Still not having heard anything about what became of her donation to VCC, she did what so many before and after her had done. She reached out to us, unsolicited, with her concerns in February 2021 about Galati. We encouraged her to contact VCC directly, which she did in December of 2021. A representative responded:

“Our case filed in the summer of 2020 has not had a hearing yet. The lawyer is working backstage, but he does not want to tell anything of what he is doing so that he does not give any opportunity to the enemy. If if [sic] we just said we are confident or we are not confident, it is enough to give metadata to the enemy.”

She was being given the runaround. We referred her to lawyer Gavin MacKenzie who on 15 January, 2022, submitted a formal complaint drafted on her behalf to Galati’s regulator, the Law Society of Ontario.

The LSO began to investigate. The investigator asked Galati a number of questions when it forwarded the complaint to him on 19 May, 2022. It was not the first.

There was no need to investigate according to Kuntz. Toews was not being intentionally ignored by VCC. It was merely a clerical error, wrote Kuntz in his unsolicited correspondence to the LSO on 28 June, 2022.

For decades Galati had managed to walk between the raindrops. In every complaint that had ever been brought against him since he was called to the bar in 1989 no client had ever managed to successfully hold him personally financially accountable for anything. Whenever his clients lost due to poor drafting he had never been ordered to personally pay the costs.

As the old joke goes, lawyers do not lose cases. Clients do.

But MacKenzie had formerly held the prestigious position of Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the precursor to the LSO. His letterhead carried significant weight. Galati blew a gasket. This one would not flush easily.

Galati responded to the LSO on 29 June, 2022, in which he chronicled his narrative of the events leading to Toews’ complaint. Among the irrelevant anecdotes he claimed our counsel had requested Galati collaborate with her back when she called him on 14 December, 2020, to advise of our intent to file, contradicting the record.

Toronto-based Adamson Skelly, owner of Adamson Barbeque, had famously refused to close indoor dining at his restaurant during the lockdown. Galati had initially courted Skelly for a $250,000 retainer. Skelly took a pass and hired lawyer Michael Swinwood instead to defend him from a regulator. Skelly was armed with a crowdfunded warchest of $300,000. According to Skelly, Swinwood took the money and ran to Peru where he bought himself a home.

Swinwood knew when to cash out. The arrival of MacKenzie’s letterhead at the LSO would have been as good a time as any to pull the ejection seat handle, especially with retirement on the horizon. But Galati would insist on going down swinging.

As a former adjudicator on the LSO disciplinary panel from May 2015 until his tenure ended abruptly in February 2021, days after the LSO received Toews’ complaint, he knew the process. He was also familiar with the nuclear option.

If he retaliated by suing Toews over the subject matter contained in her complaint, regardless of how the suit ended, it would stay (pause) the investigation. It had been a longstanding tradition with the regulator to wait and defer to a judge’s finding whenever there was sufficient overlap. This may have been Galati’s intention.

Galati also knew the LSO had no jurisdiction to continue its investigation if he voluntarily relinquished his license when ready to ride off into the sunset with the loot. The litigation could drag on for years without anything meaningful happening. He was an expert on that.

Galati Sues Everyone

With his response to the LSO on 29 June, 2022, he enclosed a courtesy copy of a fresh suit brought in defamation he had just filed in Toronto the day prior. In it he named his former donor Toews, a misspelled CSASPP, Gandhi, and myself as defendants.

He also brought two parallel suits against the LSO itself. The first on 12 July, 2022. The second on 31 July, 2023, just to be thorough.

As a brief aside, Galati’s first suit against the LSO faced a motion to strike on 21 September, 2023, on the grounds that it had been improperly drafted. On 11 October, 2023, Galati’s pleading and his proposed amendments were struck. Leave was granted to file a third revision, but with the court urging him to “reflect on the wisdom of so doing.” It ordered $14,600 in costs against him.

Galati’s suit against CSASPP extensively canvassed his CV. He had been featured in a very important magazine — twice. People thought highly of him. He even won an award, the first lawyer to do so. He deserved better and his critics needed to be taught a lesson.

Galati was demanding $1,100,000 from us. His pleading laid out a lengthy list of complaints, but effectively distilled itself down to three underlying sources of alleged harm. Our FAQ, Gandhi’s email to Dicks, and Toews’ complaint to the LSO were all part of an elaborate “anti-semitic” conspiracy that had apparently destroyed his livelihood.

Some weeks went by before the LSO wrote Toews, copying Galati, on 12 September, 2022, referencing Galati’s defamation suit:

“I have considered the issues raised in your complaint, the issues currently before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Law Society’s public interest mandate. Based on the information received from both you and Rocco Galati, no further action will be taken in this case at this time.”

Galati was quick to boast about the suit with Kuntz, as if the very act of filing itself was vindication. He knew the few followers he still had would not know the difference, even if it might have unintended consequences. “I’m not putting up with this shit,” said Galati. “What it tells me, Rocco, is they’re afraid of crossing you in court,” responded Kuntz.

At last we were embroiled in our own pearl-clutching worthy scandal, or at least that is what Galati’s promoters may have desired. Gaw’s in-house publicist Dennis Young was quick to mobilize. Writing to us on 11 August, 2022, with a tone only fitting for a grass roots inquiry:

“Have you publicly addressed the defamation lawsuit by Rocco Galati? Many people are wondering in the freedom movement.”

It was good that Galati had boasted, otherwise we might not have ever felt a need to respond since he appeared to not understand how to correctly serve us with his claim — unless that was intentional. The clock requiring a response starts only after that.

But this was not the first time defendants had come to learn that Galati had initiated a claim against them through online media before he followed through with any formal steps actually obliging them to respond.

In our situation there was no requirement to respond for fear of a default judgment because he had not served us. It was clearly just another publicity stunt to mitigate his declining brand image at the cost of our time, money, and reputation. It was likely never intended to actually be heard by the court. It appeared to be an idle prop, another placebo pleading, brought into existence merely to be waved in front of a camera.

But without having actually served us and with no risk of facing a default judgment in Toronto there might still have been challenges if we chose to respond anyways.

We thought about it, hit the books, and quickly came up with a plan that would cost us virtually nothing on lawyers. That was important because we did not want to spend good money chasing bad money. It would, however, cost us our time.

His regulator was evidently useless, even after having received fourteen complaints in only fifteen months, one of which was self-generated by the LSO itself. Galati claimed he wanted his day in court and we would make every effort to assist. We knew it might be the only way for his critics to see closure since his regulator had deferred to the court in which he had commenced a claim against us. What would happen next would be up to us.

The Law of Defamation

The law of defamation in Canada had its genesis in England centuries ago, in turn evolving out of the Middle Ages. It was originally intended mostly to protect the reputations of the upper social strata of British society, namely aristocrats, from being criticized by commoners.

A tort is a category of an alleged wrong in civil law. Defamation is just one kind of tort, among many others. For example conversion is another tort which refers to the act of someone taking something that does not belong to them. In criminal law we know this more commonly as theft when it does not concern itself with a lawsuit.

Because of the original problem it was designed to solve, the tort of defamation is also a strict tort. A strict tort is a tort in which the defendant’s liability was presumed. That meant that if a plaintiff satisfied the legal test then a judge would normally be required to do something favourable for the plaintiff, like award damages — even in the absence of any evidence of loss of income or other harm.

Defamation in English law is framed as a strict tort. Since only the wealthy could afford to litigate in the first place, an aristocrat’s reputation was easily serviced. That was the point.

It was not difficult for a person of means to bring a claim in defamation against someone who was not. Even if the plaintiff knew there was nothing to convince a trial judge, it did not matter because it did not need to get there to achieve the plaintiff’s intent. The traumatic experience alone for a defendant could be sufficient enough to bludgeon them into submission in settling on terms favourable to the plaintiff, such as a retraction of the critical expression, the issuance of a public apology, or whatever the plaintiff could muscle the defendant into.

The preferred defendants for such suits were, of course, those incapable of defending themselves. But if, on the other hand, the defendant actually turned out to be, the suit would survive until trial where they would prevail. But the defendant would still be out of pocket for the expense of their victory.

Under the English rules on court costs in effect around most of the world, including in Canada, as the prevailing party the plaintiff would normally be required to reimburse the defendant — but for pennies on the dollar. A successful defence that consumed $100,000 they might see a recovery of only $30,000 in costs.

In the end, even after the defendant prevailed at trial, the plaintiff’s intent might still have been realized in dissuading the defendant from ever criticizing them again. This has been a flaw in the system’s design for centuries.

If the defendant wanted to recover more they needed to prove there was something improper about the plaintiff’s intent. If the defendant was able to convince the trial judge that the plaintiff knew they did not have a case and was merely intending to shut them up then the defendant could recover more of their costs. Sometimes up to and including all of it, otherwise known as full indemnity.

But that was traditionally a very high evidentiary burden for a defendant. That is why such an award has been exceedingly rare. The defendant would need to have something that showed the state of mind of their adversary. It could not be mere speculation.

For these reasons the law of defamation for most of its history was generally favourable to plaintiffs. This pattern of abusive litigation has been so common it has been assigned its own industry term of art, strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP. The longest running defamation case in English legal history was a SLAPP. Much ink has been spilled on the subject.

Even if the parties took the matter all the way to trial where the plaintiff actually prevailed, the assessment of their damages still remained highly discretionary on the part of the judge. A courtroom win for the plaintiff might still work contrary to their interests with only a nominal award.

As an example Kyla Lee is a lawyer who evidently does not like our work. In 2017 she had a client, Hoan Nguyen, who retained her to assist with a DUI matter. Nguyen posted a negative review online for the “worstest lawyer”. Lee brought a claim in defamation. Nguyen ignored it. Lee tendered unchallenged evidence of harm. The judge was not convinced. But the comment itself met the legal test for the tort of defamation. In exercising her discretion, as well as her disapproval of having brought the suit in the first place, Lee’s reputational harm was assessed at $1. The media ensured people knew.

SLAPP Legislation

Values change. As values change, laws sometimes do too. Western liberal democratic values in the mid-20th century reduced the emphasis on Victorian-era class consciousness and social stratification. The membranes of separation were becoming increasingly semi-permeable. The privileged comforts monied interests, among them the barristocracy, had enjoyed within the law of defamation were beginning to show signs of decay in recent decades.

Canada was colonized starting mostly from the eastern Maritimes before moving westward. This is why our oldest institutional norms and traditions that originated domestically tended to originate from the east. That includes the law. When it changes in British Columbia the inspiration often comes from Ontario, the “Silicon Valley” of law where lawyers “innovate.”

The SLAPP problem was not one the courts could solve on their own. They needed new tools from the legislature. A new innovation would emerge from Ontario.

By 2015 the Ontario parliament had enough. It had stepped in after years of lobbying from civil liberties groups and prominent legal scholars to deal with the problem of SLAPPs stifling public debate on issues of public interest. It enacted new legislation which amended the rules governing how their courts would hear cases that might be SLAPPs moving forward.

By 2018 British Columbia’s then Attorney General David Eby introduced provincial legislation for the enjoyment of British Columbians with virtually identical language. It was arguably the strongest free speech law ever introduced in British Columbia.

What the new legislation did was offer a new summary procedure for defamation defendants, though the claim need not be framed in defamation. By summary that means dispensing with the traditional formalities of going to trial. The new procedure provided a tool designed to be favourable to defendants to expeditiously and economically purge SLAPPs from the system.

The philosophy behind it was to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest, promote broad participation in such debates, to heavily disincentivize the use of litigation that suppresses such expression, and of course protect the court itself from hemorrhaging ever scarce judicial resources. The latter can happen when a plaintiff uses the court for a publicity stunt.

The new legislation is a tool that is best not to be on the business end of. As soon as a defendant brings a motion under the new s 137.1(3) of Ontario’s Courts of Justice Act, the suit is immediately stayed.

Whatever the plaintiff arrived at the courthouse with, regardless of whether their original intent was sincere or they experienced a change in sentiment, was what they would be stuck with as it eventually made its way before a SLAPP motion judge per s 137.1(5-6). The plaintiff cannot discontinue (abandon) their suit or amend any of it so as to clarify that what they really meant to sue for was X and not Y in order to increase credibility.

A defendant’s SLAPP motion obliges them with only one burden. They must show that the plaintiff’s suit arose from the defendant’s expression that related to a matter of public interest. Public interest is defined liberally, our work having already been found to be by Justice Crerar. After that the burden then shifts to the plaintiff. Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada defined it in Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 as:

[106] Public interest is not confined to publications on government and political matters, as it is in Australia and New Zealand. Nor is it necessary that the plaintiff be a “public figure,” as in the American jurisprudence since Sullivan. Both qualifications cast the public interest too narrowly. The public has a genuine stake in knowing about many matters, ranging from science and the arts to the environment, religion and morality. The democratic interest in such wide-ranging public debate must be reflected in the jurisprudence.

After the defendant satisfies the public interest test, the plaintiff must then show three things to defeat a SLAPP motion. The plaintiff’s claim must have substantial merit. Second, the defendant must not have even a single defence available to them. Third, the plaintiff’s purported injury must be serious enough that it exceeds the value in protecting the defendant’s expression. It is not enough that only one is satisfied. All three must be (a “conjunctive test”).

If the defendant prevails in a SLAPP motion the plaintiff is normally required to allow the moving party, the defendant, recovery of their costs on a full indemnity basis per s 137.1(7). That is, all of their costs.

The case law that emerged since Ontario’s introduction of the new legislation has added further refinement in clarifying when the stay actually takes effect. As soon as a defendant makes formal arrangements with the court to schedule its SLAPP hearing, even before their pen has been put to paper in drafting the motion itself, it is automatically and immediately stayed.

On 29 August, 2022, without any advanced notice to Galati, we made scheduling arrangements with the court to hear a SLAPP motion.

He had evidently forgotten the SLAPP statute. Even for VCC the lethality of a SLAPP motion was not lost on him when his client voluntarily discontinued on 15 July, 2022, its claim against the CBC in response to the CBC’s threat to bring one.

That was not the only warning either. He had formerly served as counsel for plaintiff Kulvinder Gill when the tool was successfully used against her. The mandate-critical medical doctor was ordered on 31 October, 2022, to pay in the amount of $1,115,357 to the defendants who she had sued in defamation for comments made on social media.

Galati filed a notice of appeal for Gill claiming a litany of errors. This move was criticized by the defendants as a bad faith effort to circumvent the cost order by filing a baseless appeal.

The healthcare worker confronted with the possibility of finding herself homeless brought an appeal. Galati claimed he was too ill to make an appearance and would be required to terminate his retainer with Gill.

This was not the only defamation lawsuit Galati had brought on behalf of Gill. In March of 2021 he filed a $7 million claim against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa. The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to be heard 2 October, 2024.

Had the legislatures not anticipated the likelihood of plaintiffs dragging their heels upon realizing their mistake after being given notice of a pending SLAPP motion they would not have required it to be heard quickly within 60 days or the next available hearing date the court makes available.

Galati’s $2M Toronto Property

Because of the magnitude of expected SLAPP awards it is always a good idea for defendants to confirm that there is actually something to recover from. This is important because there are ancient stories going back nearly a thousand years of successful litigants having lost vast fortunes in the process of trying to recover their award.

With demand on food bank usage at record levels amidst a national housing crisis we were reassured after identifying some of the fruits of Galati’s career. We located two properties valued at $1,950,000 and $725,000 in Toronto neighbourhoods. The former was purchased in September of 2021 and with no registered mortgage.

But sometimes debtors try to conceal their assets by reassigning the title of their property to a third party in the hopes of avoiding a creditor. Thankfully this is illegal both in British Columbia and in Ontario.

Since he sued us in his personal name, as opposed to using any of his corporate entities, or those of his clients as plaintiffs, it would be difficult to evade a creditor by dissolving or relocating to another jurisdiction.

Galati found himself locked in the breach of a karmic making that was entirely of his own doing.

Scheduling SLAPP Hearing

On 12 October, 2022, we had our first appearance before Justice Black to confirm a timetable. Cross-examinations would need to be completed by 15 June, 2023. The SLAPP motion itself would be returnable in Toronto on 12 September, 2023, for a four hour duration.

As the evidence continued to accumulate it became clear that we would need additional time to deal with all of it. We made another brief appearance on 14 June, 2023, to ask Justice Shin Doi for additional time at our upcoming SLAPP hearing without seeking to move the date. Galati insisted that it would need to be adjourned (rescheduled) in order to accommodate our request. Galati also claimed he had annual Summer vacation plans in Turkey that needed to be accommodated.

Our judge was indifferent. The 12 September, 2023, hearing would proceed as scheduled, but with an additional hour to now make for five hours in length.

The additional hour was necessary because Galati went to great effort to try to find anything he could to put in evidence. At times it was not clear whether he was attempting to redeem himself before the court or his patrons.

Cross-Examinations

Cross-examinations continued as scheduled. Galati performed his cross-examination on 23 May, 2023, of all of the witnesses he called. These were Gandhi, Toews, anti-lockdown activist Vladislav Sobolev, and myself. He was unable to find a smoking gun because there was none.

He took great interest in my CV, generously annotating five pages of it with a highlighter. I was informed of the inescapable conclusion he had come to. I was apparently an agent of the World Economic Forum, an organization with a close affinity to Bill Gates. It was not immediately clear to me since having boycotted and divested from all Microsoft products nearly twenty years ago.

His argument was as follows. I have a degree in artificial intelligence, education being suspect among his few remaining loyalists. With it I sat as co-chairman on an AI-related industry working group. That working group belongs to an industry consortium’s nonprofit. That nonprofit, provided you do not read its incorporation documents, apparently operates as a legal entity under the Linux Foundation. The Linux Foundation, an organization that was founded by people seeking to divest from Bill Gates’ offerings, was apparently in turn “under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.”

“The inescapable conclusion from this is that Mr. Warner, as a self-proclaimed AI expert, works under the WEF,” Galati asserted.

The deductive gymnastics were of Cirque du Soleil proportions. He had it all figured out, carefully tracked in no less than Microsoft Word and armed with Wikipedia, again.

Galati’s cross-examination of me was not a productive experience for him. Nor did his luck fare any better with any of the other witnesses. Gandhi’s email to Dicks was exactly what it appeared to be, without a conspiracy. Toews had not been coerced under a conspiracy into submitting her complaint to the LSO.

Three days later on 26 May, 2023, it was our counsel’s turn to cross-examine Galati and his witnesses. Galati would be the first to be called.

We had previously seen what appeared to be Galati consuming alcohol followed by a chaser while dispensing with legal advice to Gaw and her donors in an interview discussing their work published February 2023. But his cross-examination that day we expected to summon the full extent of his martial spirit, the most capable version of Galati, given his career and its legacy were on the line. We were surprised then to see Galati again with what appeared to be a little liquid courage.

Galati denied being involved in Gaw’s fundraising efforts. He denied being aware Gaw was raising funds at her famous 16 September, 2020, Vancouver Art Gallery fundraiser. His memory struggled to recall the Ezra Levant interview in September 2020 in which he pledged the City of Toronto masking injunction.

He denied his Constitutional Rights Centre was a fundraising arm before contradicting himself. He was unsure if he was the sole director of it, before being reminded that the incorporation records confirmed as much.

He claimed he was only following his client’s instructions in drafting Action4Canada and VCC’s claims, despite the law saying he cannot do that.

Galati was seeking damages on behalf of the CRC, despite the CRC not being named as a plaintiff. He was questioned on the CRC’s finances and its tax returns. For 2021 he confirmed revenue of $786,706. He refused to disclose how much of that was paid to himself. Beginning in the prior year of 2020 for fifteen months he deposed he had raised close to a million dollars, but that the CRC’s fundraising was separate from Action4Canada and VCC.

Then came the Nadon challenge. Galati insisted he had prevailed. He was confronted with the actual ruling again in which his work was condemned by the Federal Court of Appeal. A vexed Galati responded that the court had made a “lunatic finding,” confirming that it had made such a finding. My mind reminisced again.

It was then put to Galati the claim that he is a “top constitutional lawyer.” He said journalists and other people have claimed that, but he has never claimed that himself. He was then taken to a publication on his own website repeating the claim. He blamed one of his clients, but humbly conceded to be “one of the top constitutional lawyers.”

After Galati, Gaw was called. Years of evading answers would prove more difficult under oath. Her testimony was counterproductive to her interests.

Gaw was confronted on her OPCA materials she had encouraged others to distribute. She still insisted it had merit.

Gaw claimed the Action4Canada suit was struck only for its length, but that Justice Ross allegedly said it had merit. She struggled to understand that the judge did not say that.

She was then asked what hourly rate had been paid to Galati. Galati refused to allow her to give that testimony. She was asked how much in total had been paid to Galati. Galati would prevent her disclosure again.

Gaw claimed we interfered with Action4Canada’s “economic interest and its legal representation.” She recalled how her grievance began in the Fall of 2020 at a rally when activists began circulating one of our flyers which upset some of her promoters. This was further aggravated with Gandhi’s email to Dicks.

She claimed the subsequent publication of our FAQ, as well as Gandhi’s email, had undermined her donors’ “faith” and “caused a great deal of significant harm.”

We then turned her mind to the wording of the FAQ itself which was presented to her. She was asked what, in her own words, was “vile, untrue and malicious” about the document as alleged in her affidavit. Her response spoke for itself as line by line she was guided through it. She eventually conceded with great reluctance she knew of nothing in it to be untrue.

Galati periodically needed to be reminded on numerous occasions to stop interjecting during Gaw’s cross-examination because he was not the witness. He had attempted to provide testimony on Gaw’s behalf many times.

Champerty and Maintenance

The picture that had emerged from everything we had listened to, seen, and read by this point was strongly suggestive Gaw, and quite possibly Kuntz, were instrumental in instigating or financing Galati in bringing his claim against us for their own benefit. Gaw, who is not named as a plaintiff, stated her understanding of the reason Galati had sued us:

“We are here because all of this has led to interference with the public’s confidence in our lawyer and the public’s confidence in our fundraising, giving to our fundraiser. All of this is tied together.”

When a third party encourages a plaintiff to bring a claim against a defendant, such as through providing financial support, this is called maintenance in the common law. When that same third party provides financial support in addition to having an agreement with the plaintiff to facilitate the third party’s benefit in some way this is called champerty.

In common law jurisdictions champerty and maintenance have been illegal since medieval England. Corrupt royal officials and aristocrats were sometimes caught financing or lending their names to bolster otherwise weak claims, sometimes against a political rival, in exchange for a share of the profits.

In Canada champerty and maintenance was a criminal offence that could land you in jail until 1953. Since then it remains a civil tort. Ontario, where Galati sued us, has had a statute since 1897 that invalidates any champertous agreement. If such an agreement had been made Galati would not be able to benefit from being indemnified with Gaw’s donor funds.

SLAPP Hearing

Eventually we completed cross-examinations of all of Galati’s witnesses on schedule on 26 May, 2023. With all of the evidence compiled into our 4,760 page motion record to be put before the SLAPP motion judge we were ready for our hearing.

As scheduled we appeared on 12 September, 2023. Justice Chalmers had been assigned as our motion judge. The parties more or less stuck to their mutually agreed upon time allocations. A transcript of the entire hearing was prepared.

We began by traversing our factum, or written arguments. Galati was generally well behaved, but did present two surprises.

A person’s religious convictions are a private affair according to a tolerant and tacit societal understanding in Canada. They generally should not be subject to overly permissive inquiry or ridicule. That understanding, in my view, is set aside when a person parades their religion, not even with consistency, for apparent economic gain.

When courting The Globe and Mail in 2014 Galati professed his Catholicism. When donors asked what became of their money he deflected the criticisms against a “Calabrian Jew” as “anti-semitic”. And when finally ready to distance himself from Gaw’s views he claimed during our hearing to have converted to Islam twenty years ago.

That would be a challenge for Gaw to reconcile. But it did not end there. We were also surprised to see Galati profess, unsolicited, his triple injected status. Given his public sentiments on injection mandates this too would be a challenge to reconcile for his clients that might need to work themselves into a pretzel.

After the parties completed their submissions and addressed any questions the court had Justice Chalmers indicated he would reserve his decision to be released at some time in the future.

Galati Sanctioned

On 11 December, 2023, his ruling was released to us and published publicly on 15 January, 2024. Galati had his clocks cleaned. His suit was thrown out with costs presumptively awarded on a full indemnity basis, exactly as predicted.

The court made no concessions to Galati. It was not a minor technical victory or a close call. It appeared to be the first time in his entire career he had ever been professionally sanctioned personally with a monetary liability for anything that we were aware of.

The court recited the history leading to the claim, including Galati’s news conference in September 2020 and his interview with Ezra Levant in September 2020 promoting his mandate related litigation on behalf of VCC. He cited Justice Ross’ having struck Action4Canada’s claim for having been “bad beyond argument”.

The court tracked the research we had conducted on Galati early in our campaign, Toews’ complaint to the LSO, Gandhi’s email to Dicks, and our FAQ. The portions of our FAQ that relate to Galati were reproduced in their entirety in the ruling, forever immortalized in the Canadian common law.

The court was satisfied that the expressions Gandhi and our FAQ made pertained to matters of public interest and that segments of the public have a genuine interest in receiving that information.

With the public interest burden met the test then shifted to Galati to establish that there were grounds to believe that his claim had merit. That meant any basis at all that is legally tenable and reasonably capable of belief. Galati was not required to demonstrate a likelihood of success had the suit gone to trial, only that he might.

The court concluded our FAQ and Gandhi’s email to Dicks stuck to known and provable facts and did not venture into defamatory speech. Toews’ LSO complaint was found by the court to be entirely factual.

The court concluded that nothing alleged by Galati had a real prospect of success in that there were zero grounds to believe that the claim had substantial merit, or any at all.

The court accepted all of our available defences, the most important of which was justification. In the law of defamation justification means we were justified in saying something. That is, what we said was true. Truth has always been a complete and total defence to a claim of defamation.

He also determined that Galati was not permitted to sue Toews for filing a complaint because a complaint to a quasi-judicial body, including the LSO, is protected. That alone is likely professional misconduct.

There was a strong public interest in the public’s freedom to evaluate a lawyer’s services, the court wrote. We had argued that the stifling of reasonable public debate as to the value of a lawyer’s services, tactics or approach to litigation negatively affects public confidence in the legal system. The court agreed.

Justice Chalmers wrote that what was really going on in this case was an attempt by Galati to stifle public criticism about his work, which he agreed was incompetent.

He also said that Toews had been named as a defendant in an attempt by Galati to intimidate members of the public who may be considering making a complaint about Galati to the LSO. And specifically, the lawsuit was filed to derail her complaint that the LSO had expressed an interest in. The harm this would cause, if Galati were permitted to do this, would obstruct the regulatory process and the LSO’s ability to receive and process complaints about lawyers.

Galati was not found to have suffered any harm by us. The only evidence of harm he was able to put before the court was the loss in revenue to his CRC. However, he refused to disclose how much of that had been paid to himself. He is not permitted to claim damages on behalf of his corporation since it was not named as a plaintiff when he drafted his suit.

The court said that persons who donated to Galati’s litigation have a right to information about Galati.

Under the new anti-SLAPP legislation a defendant is permitted to request damages on top of full indemnity under s 137.1(9). Unlike traditional common law damages, these damages do not need to be compensatory meaning a defendant need not show evidence of harm. They are there to sanction the plaintiff, not necessarily to compensate. They are highly discretionary and very rarely awarded on SLAPP motions because the costs alone are usually high enough to achieve the same effect.

The test for damages on a SLAPP motion is evidence the plaintiff had brought their claim in bad faith or for an improper purpose. You will recall this was the traditional test for increased costs in the common law predating the new SLAPP legislation. That is generally very difficult to do as discussed. We were not surprised to learn we were not awarded damages, but were very surprised to learn the court still believed we qualified for them.

Justice Chalmers agreed that Galati had brought the suit for the improper purpose of stifling debate with respect to his handling of his proposed COVID-19-related litigation that was publicly funded. He also noted that Toews was sued the day before Galati responded to her LSO complaint. That was further indicia of an improper purpose because it was intended to torpedo the LSO investigation.

We were presumptively entitled to our costs on a full indemnity basis. As of this writing these costs are $159,921. Galati must now try and convince the court to depart from the legislative intent of our full indemnity cost award.

This may sound like a substantial sum of money. But to put it in perspective Galati had sought unsuccessfully to deprive us of $1,100,000 we never had in damages, and if he had won, to recover not only that, but also his own costs on a “substantial indemnity basis”.

Galati proposed a maximum cap of $50,000 on 3 January, 2024, in his arguments on costs following Justice Chalmers’ ruling. Since the parties did not agree on costs the court would be required to determine them for the parties. That additional procedural step has the probable effect of further increasing Galati’s anticipated liability.

It would have come to no surprise to anyone if Galati appealed the dismissal or the amount of costs awarded. It would not be the first time he made a poor business decision in not knowing when to cut his losses. Indeed, during our 12 September, 2023, hearing without a ruling yet or even the conclusion of the hearing itself, Galati was already alluding to the possibility of appealing both a dismissal and a cost award — neither of which existed yet.

On 4 January, 2024, Galati provided us with formal notice that he intended to appeal the dismissal. In choosing to appeal he must move with haste under the new legislation. Further, if he loses again, and he likely will, the costs awarded to the defendants are presumed to be on a full indemnity basis again. In essence, either pay a substantial amount of money now or pay even more later.

In filing an appeal our recovery of whatever costs Justice Chalmers awards us will automatically be stayed pending the outcome of Galati’s appeal or appeals.

Takeaways

This will not be an end to the Galati saga. But at this point there is enough information to provide some hopefully useful reflections.

We often are asked why we never sued Gaw or Galati for making a multitude of defamatory remarks about us. We were lobbied many times, in particular by her own former fans. The reason is simple. It is sometimes important to allow ignorant people to say ignorant things. Otherwise people will not know they are ignorant.

With millions of dollars of the community’s money gone, and not to forget the grave harm directly caused to some of his plaintiffs, people rightfully want accountability in the wake of his seemingly endless victims. We do not propose a witch hunt.

Before Canadians try to pursue accountability from bad actors a distinction needs to be made between the innocent and the complicit. Those who promoted Galati, at least in the beginning, should not all be lumped together. The timing of their having abandoned his ventures is the key to differentiating a spectrum of complicity. The longer they waited, the more they ought to have known.

That spectrum begins with the innocent and well intended who simply did not know what was going on through ignorance alone. They eventually left as they became informed of the injury being inflicted upon their peers.

Somewhere in the middle there were those who knew what was happening, knowingly turned a blind eye, and when confronted, claimed they were only playing the piano.

At the far end there are those who were unequivocally complicit in the exploitation of their peers, personally profited, and to this day adamantly maintain not only their own innocence, but Galati’s.

When we set out with our campaign we were concerned about a lack of transparency in how our government operated, its encouragement of punitive behaviour towards those who asked critical questions, and above all accountability.

If we cannot be expected to govern ourselves with integrity then we will have no credibility in demanding the same of our government when decrying its conduct. It makes winning hearts and minds when the deck is already stacked against us all the more difficult.

What scandals the government and its sympathizers failed to find in the Freedom Convoy, Galati has supplied an embarrassment of riches. We can expect to see them leveraged whenever politically expedient in the future.

We are asked frequently if Galati is “controlled op.” The answer is probably not. I suggest instead he is “uncontrolled op.” That is someone who, like the former, works contrary to the public’s interest but entirely for their own benefit as opposed to as an agent of some conspiracy.

On the brighter side we did make history again. We succeeded in improving the framework in which future Canadian litigation activism will take place. The new case law has created more robust expectations on the conduct of future crowdfunded hired guns.

Eventually there will be another pressing need to aggregate the peoples’ money to combat some perceived great injustice in the world. They will now have greater security from those who might have come along and vacuumed up the world’s resources that could have been put to competently litigate the issue. Otherwise people might find themselves financially disarmed and pacified.

Galati is therefore the first success in our mandate that set out to hold anyone complicit in the enforcement of the mandates.

Gaw, on the other hand, and many of her demographic entered the anti-lockdown movement as activists. Like so many conservatives on the far right, this was for the first time in their lives. Despite her anachronisms, the civil rights movement that predated her, and which she evidently understood so little of, earned her the well fought and well deserved right to be a politically outspoken woman in the first place.

She would use that right to advance a message of intolerance, despite herself having become a minority during the mandates. She had experienced first hand what it was like to be persecuted, to be denied control of her own body, labelled as unclean, unsafe, publicly ridiculed, something less than human, turned away unwelcome at places of public accommodation.

It was a sobering Jim Crow experience for many of them. She did not evolve. But my personal experience has been that most did and Canada is a better country because of it.