https:\/\/www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca\/galati-defamation-dismissal-opinion<\/a>
Gordon Watson<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Metchosin British Columbia<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n AQ <\/a>Transparency <\/a>Court Records <\/a>Court Documents <\/a>Hearing Videos <\/a>Tools & Street Kit <\/a>Social Media & Multimedia <\/a>Who We Are <\/a>Status Updates <\/a>News Coverage <\/a>Contact <\/a>General Inquiries <\/a>Media Requests <\/a>Guest Speaking Requests<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 18 January, 2024: A Brief History of BC\u2019s Anti-Lockdown Movement: The Rise and Fall of Rocco Galati and His Claim of $1.1M Against CSASPP<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Friends,<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have some wonderful news. We would like to bring to your attention another recent victory and our opinions on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I will begin where I often have, with a little history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s silverware whenever the opportunity presented itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> on his own participation, said that it was \u201cthe best ally London\u2019s crooks ever had.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> of the 2010 earthquake was another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the dust settles we now journey into the post-mortem era where the time for sober analysis<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s 14 February, 2022, invocation of the Emergencies Act<\/em>, the conspiracy theorists<\/a> within his progressive segregationist<\/a> cabinet were nevertheless forced to reconcile a number of inconvenient revelations of the Rouleau inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was no evidence of a monolithic conspiracy. What rapidly became clear was a disorganized response<\/a> to a disorganized protest<\/a> that began organically. There was no central command and control, no credible evidence<\/a> of a coup d\u2019\u00e9tat<\/em> in the works to depose the federal government, no foreign state involvement<\/a>, and the majority of the money raised originated domestically<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was no smoking gun. It was not interesting. The Russians had to sit this one out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Testimony<\/a> before Parliament was damning. We wrote off over $54 million<\/a> on sole sourced contracts to develop ArriveCAN to keep grandma safe. A mobile application assembled from mostly free off-the-shelf components<\/a>, it did not push the envelope in innovation. Time will tell whether the federal police<\/a> and the auditor general\u2019s<\/a> investigations bear fruit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other side, the John Birchers<\/a> that had come to dominate \u2013 at least by decibel \u2013 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<\/a>, predominantly balding American corporate executives focused<\/a> on their next quarterly projections<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any review of the merchant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the Berlin Wall gone since 1989, and with that the former Soviet Union, the Fox News crowd\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> and conflicts of interest<\/a>. The label of \u201ccontrolled op<\/em>\u201d was liberally applied whenever there was disagreement on even the most trivial of issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But help arrived. Like manna from heaven, Toronto-based lawyer Rocco Galati made his debut in the lockdown dissident scene\u2019s 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\u2019s top constitutional lawyer<\/a>, he was the Second Coming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> with the CBC<\/em>\u2019s Amanda Lang. \u201cA kind of legal David known for tangling with Goliath sized courtroom opponents<\/em>,\u201d she prefaced the segment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The previous year in 2014 Galati earned his crowning achievement in disqualifying Prime Minister Harper\u2019s appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, the nation\u2019s highest court. He did so on the grounds that Nadon was constitutionally ineligible to sit as a judge. \u201cMost people don\u2019t understand the seismic importance of that decision,<\/em>\u201d he told<\/a> Lang.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The protesters had found their man. There was a wave of hysterical euphoria. He was ready to execute. He just needed the financing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Surrey-based Tanya Gaw was ready to meet that calling. God fearing, she had \u2014 by her own analysis \u2014 been provided with a divine mandate<\/a> from the Almighty, a claim she would repeat<\/a>. As time moved on it would subsequently expand to meet all of society\u2019s woes, or at least as she understood them. The scimitar-swinging Mohammedan<\/a>, the sin of Sodom in our public schools<\/a>, and the John Birch Society\u2019s understanding of atmospheric physics<\/a> would eventually find their way into her campaign portfolio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Granted, there were a few obscure naysayers. Admittedly I had my own musings<\/a>, but she was adamant the critics just wanted to crash the party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who had time to dive into the minutia anyways? Humanity was confronted with an existential threat. Even progress understandably had a price tag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Police on Guard<\/a>; Take Action Canada<\/a>; Children\u2019s Health Defense (Canada)<\/a>, a Canadian branch of RFK Jr\u2019s Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>; Privacy Is Your Right<\/a>; Enable Air<\/a>; Dr. Kulvinder Gill<\/a>; and Dr. Bryan Bridle<\/a>; among others, were some of his clients that publicly stated they sought his legal services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But two of the most prominent Galati supporters were British Columbia\u2019s 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\u2019s nationally distributed ventures. Both would eventually commence similar mandate-related suits with Galati\u2019s assistance in their own respective provinces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on our research Galati\u2019s 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On 2 September, 2020, Galati was featured in a lengthy interview with an influential Canadian alt-right tabloid where the VCC venture\u2019s prospectus was lauded by entertainer Ezra Levant. When asked on timing for execution Galati pledged<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several days later on 16 September, 2020, Action4Canada enjoyed a spontaneous fundraiser<\/a> on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery to support Gaw\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former Gaw loyalists candidly described her following as parochial<\/a> who all followed a similar ideology. Admittedly I had my own musings<\/a> again when I saw a campaign that appeared to be more heat than light. But that was her business and not ours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The city passed a motion to rescind the mandate<\/a> on 9 March, 2022, with 26 of the 28 councilors voting for it. They neglected to cite Galati with the credit he apparently deserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Galati on 13 July, 2022, the filing merely needed to be a \u201cshot across the bow<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>\u201d A win<\/a> had been obtained without needing the courtroom. By 26 May, 2023, Gaw still maintained<\/a> that \u201cby filing, the mask mandates in Ontario were lifted unbeknownst to the public.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Galati\u2019s followers were by no means bad people. One of his patrons enthusiastically shared<\/a> 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But as time moved on and the money continued to pour into Kuntz and Gaws\u2019 coffers, some donors became uneasy that Gaw\u2019s proposed litigation she had sold them on was still yet to materialize in British Columbia. One donor grieved<\/a> to her on 22 June, 2021, that there was \u201ca growing number of people who are feeling very disgruntled over (\u2026) Rocco \u2018the gangster\u2019 Galatti [sic]. He seems to be holding our donations hostage until he receives his full amount.<\/em>\u201d The same donor compared Gaw\u2019s venture to ours which he claimed was \u201cactually moving forward for far less money.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Her critics were becoming increasingly vocal<\/a> on social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> on social media that she was unable to provide an answer because \u201cdonors are protected under the privacy act and it would be a violation for me to make that publicly available.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps she misunderstood their question. The critics were not asking<\/a> for the identity of the donors, but simply the amount<\/em> raised and what became of it. With merely a handwave, Gaw rewrote the legislation<\/a> governing personal information held by government institutions to now extend itself to her nonprofit\u2019s disclosure obligations<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Her finances remained opaque. Internally Gaw and Galati had come to a private agreement. He would not bill hourly. Instead, Gaw agreed<\/a> to a flat fee retainer of $400,000 to provide his services to Action4Canada. She later confirmed<\/a> she paid Galati\u2019s firm $200,000 by the end of 2020 and with the remaining $200,000 settled<\/a> on 29 April, 2022. Galati also confirmed<\/a> a flat fee arrangement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well before Galati began drafting for Gaw in January 2021 his self-valuation of $400,000 already had precedent<\/a>. According to two previous<\/a> disgruntled clients who retained him in March of 2017 seeking to have his bill taxed (reviewed) by the court, Galati\u2019s invoice listed his fax machine\u2019s usage at the rate of $2 per page for 492 of them. That was in addition to the $400,000 retainer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When his then rate of $700 an hour was applied to the time he claimed he spent on the clients\u2019 file, by his own math, he conceded that the flat fee retainer was a 40% increase<\/a> above the actual time he claimed. That was an inflation of $158,850. The invoice was carefully annotated with a disclaimer<\/a> that it might not be accurate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A flat fee retainer arrangement with Gaw ensured there was no need for Galati to be burdened with the hazards<\/a> of trust account management imposed by his regulator that were intended to protect the public. A flat fee retainer was the way to go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his defence he might not have known that the law still required him to track actual time regardless. Sometimes judges tax<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the $400,000 retainer disclosure which leaked<\/a> on 23 March, 2023, Gaw continued to insist on Manhattan Project level sensitivity regarding the figure \u2014 even months after<\/a> it had already leaked. Her own records noted she had $239,788<\/a> in cash as of 15 August, 2021, and $415,928<\/a> by 15 August, 2022. Within that same period she had raised $790,446<\/a> in donations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the time, however, the lack of visibility into her nonprofit\u2019s finances was not simply external. Those in Gaw\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But she had another card up her sleeve that was more persuasive than the Privacy Act<\/em>. 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That might have created procedural obstacles<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to convince donors of this danger she needed to rewrite more than a century\u2019s worth of case law<\/a>. Up until that time it had been clear<\/a> that no individually named plaintiff, regardless of their limited means, would have been ordered to post security. Lord Bowen declared<\/a> in 1885 that \u201cthe general rule is that poverty is no bar to a litigant, that, from time immemorial has been the rule<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She was clearly happy with Galati. From our position that was her choice and CSASPP never sought to counsel her otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But early in our own campaign Galati\u2019s 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\u2019s services, including case law. This is when the research began to depart from the carefully curated image.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He was not a \u201cconstitutional lawyer\u201d as he held himself out to be, but in his own words in interviews with The Globe and Mail<\/em><\/a> and the CBC<\/em><\/a> derived his livelihood from tax law. His work, as assessed by judges themselves, had been described as scandalous<\/a>, vexatious<\/a>, gonzo<\/a>, deserving to be condemned without reservation<\/a>, neither complete nor intelligible<\/a>, frivolous<\/a>, unintelligible<\/a>, an abuse of process<\/a>, so defective to be incurable<\/a>, and without a scintilla of a cause of action to be cured<\/a>. One of his class actions was described by a judge as incomprehensible<\/a>. More recently the term \u201cbad beyond argument<\/em>\u201d has also become fashionable from time<\/a> to time<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With respect to his fees the Federal Court provided some insight. In 2014 a judge characterized his billings as excessive and unwarranted<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But his crowning achievement, the Nadon challenge, surely he would not be deprived of. It was heralded by his fans and cited<\/a> prominently amongst his publications for years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was just one problem. He lost<\/a>, despite having taken credit for it. This had already been well known<\/a> for years in the legal community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it did not end there. The heavily publicized Bank of Canada challenge was also quietly struck<\/a> without leave to amend. He brought an appeal. That too was dismissed with costs<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> his brand image on places like Wikipedia, one of the world\u2019s most popular websites accessed daily by millions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em> but their regulator determined it was \u201cdiscourteous<\/em><\/a>.\u201d Note that the regulator\u2019s choice of language, discourteous, casts a net far wider than statements that are merely untrue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the lawyer\u2019s mind their license is worth millions. It is simply not worth the risk in extending the same courtesy to the customer with frank disclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The end result is a system that works contrary to the public interest and the administration of justice, as defined in s 1(c)<\/a> of our Justice Administration Act<\/em>. The system had been designed that way<\/a> for centuries, despite the common law already being clear that criticism of a lawyer is fair game<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And so the general public is left to try to investigate on their own. But that is not without its own perils.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our directors have always had a fiduciary duty at common law to ensure the good stewardship of our donors\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em> us. Otherwise that could have raised two serious problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first is the issue of carriage<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second issue could be some form of estoppel<\/a> raised by our defendants, like res judicata<\/em><\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was never about egos or rivalry \u2014 at least not for us. It was a bona fide<\/em> 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 na\u00efve, within his many client organizations. We supplied factums, case law, and expert reports whenever practical to assist anyone who asked to further their goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2014 albeit to a lesser degree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Preemptively our counsel called Galati on 14 December, 2020, a few weeks before we filed<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Galati was initially amicable and even requested her assistance with the litigation he advised he was preparing for Action4Canada. She politely declined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On 29 January, 2021, our counsel followed up<\/a> by letter with a courtesy copy of our then filed class proceeding\u2019s pleading:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThank 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\u2019s 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\u2019s claim. However, there may be an opportunity to collaborate at a later date.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Galati was furious. He responded<\/a> 3 February, 2021, asserting that we sought to \u201chold a monopoly over COVID-19 litigation in B.C.,<\/em>\u201d a claim he would periodically repeat later. He also noted that he was \u201cnot wholly impressed<\/em>\u201d with the quality of our counsel\u2019s pleading. But that did not appear to be the primary purpose of his correspondence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Galati demanded an apology for \u201chighly defamatory<\/em>\u201d comments that had been brought to his attention. Our treasurer Dee Gandhi had previously emailed<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Galati knew we had done our research. The door had to be bolted shut before the horses got out of the barn again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He ended his demand letter cautioning us that if he did not receive \u201ca full and unmitigated apology<\/em>\u201d he would commence a defamation suit in Ontario. The impugned statements were \u201cbeyond the pale<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We responded<\/a> 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a>. Our work began<\/a> with only around $10,000 dollars by the time we had already filed<\/a> the first revision of our proposed class action pleading on 26 January, 2021. They were also aware that we had a different understanding<\/a> of the costs of properly supervised litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over time these inquiries continued to increase as Galati\u2019s donors looked for an outlet to grieve. We were not set up as a service bureau to support his customers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In an effort to reduce the workload on our volunteers we published an FAQ<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nearly every speaking engagement, town hall, and sometimes even unprompted in interviews<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But even before our FAQ\u2019s publication, Gaw\u2019s 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<\/a>. He had forwarded<\/a> our treasurer\u2019s correspondence containing our reasons for not having engaged Galati initially to Gaw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Galati, Dicks forwarded Gandhi\u2019s notes because he was allegedly alarmed<\/a> by them. Dicks subsequently debriefed with Galati by telephone after Gaw immediately<\/a> brought Dicks\u2019 correspondence to Galati\u2019s attention. Dicks and Galati were already well acquainted with each other for more than fifteen years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gaw\u2019s inner Praetorian Guard of gospel diva<\/a> promoters were well known in the anti-lockdown activist community for their inability<\/a> to work with virtually anyone, including others<\/a> in which they had a close ideological affinity. They carefully rationed social endorsement by curating who would speak<\/a> at their rallies<\/a>, for how long, and the permitted messaging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As in many religious movements, there is often an underlying secular motivation animating it. Gaw\u2019s promoters were ultimately stakeholders financially too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of her promoters intimated<\/a> 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 \u201cpublic apology<\/em>\u201d was forthcoming. Afterall, \u201call the statements he\u2019s making can make people question whether or not they donate.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their animosity was clearly rooted in our knowledge of Galati\u2019s CV and how it might affect them. Another promoter was prolific in her promotion<\/a> of Galati. She admitted<\/a> that she had been helping herself to a 25% brokerage fee on all funds she raised for Galati\u2019s venture. Their motivation<\/a> was obvious. They had a lot to lose, even if we were not trying to undermine their work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Galati\u2019s public relations continued to spiral out of control. Gaw was under increasing pressure to justify what the public suspected was a king\u2019s 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although we would not seek atonement for our sins, we also would not retaliate. It was petty and a distraction from our actual mandate<\/a> and the substantial work we have managed to achieve. If Gaw\u2019s promoters wanted to prioritize maintaining their social relevance over simply answering their donors\u2019 questions, that was their choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gaw\u2019s 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We never identified a good reason, given our purpose<\/a>, to tether our organization to every conceivable social conservative position emanating from the Fox News\u2019 circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whistler\u2019s Pique Newsmagazine opined<\/a> that Gaw seems \u201cto long for a simpler time. A time when more of the country was white, Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether her position on any of her campaign\u2019s 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<\/a> with her about the importance of staying on topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The criticisms were coming from everywhere, including Christian institutions too. The United Church of Canada, the largest protestant denomination, eventually weighed in<\/a>. \u201cAction4Canada does not speak for all Christians and people of faith. Their distortions of theology and Biblical interpretation are dangerous and we denounce them.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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%<\/a> of our population to those self-identifying as evangelical, a minority demographic. This might create challenges when trying to obtain class certification<\/a> where we are required to demonstrate to the court our willingness to fairly<\/em> advocate on behalf of all<\/em> affected class members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There has never been a consensus on any<\/em> 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<\/em> be our purpose to resurrect it. Obviously Gaw was of a different mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em> government mandates that affected several million diverse<\/em> demographics across British Columbia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Movement leaders and revolutionaries need not be Rhodes\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> on 13 July, 2021, in extending an olive branch. It had not been the first attempt<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Had it been our purpose to destroy her organization, she did not need any assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In October of 2021 a chapter leader of one of Gaw\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cforbidden<\/em>\u201d from such an initiative. Disobedience would result in unspecified legal action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The public relations disaster was no longer merely external with several hundred<\/a> 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<\/a> in protest over Gaw. A lack of financial transparency and a long laundry list of internal grievances played a role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This would have serious operational implications, at least until she found new people, since her venture had dozens of regional chapters<\/a> or subsidiaries of its own from British Columbia to the Maritimes that generated revenue<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Galati his donations were \u201cvirtually obliterated<\/em><\/a>\u201d from the $786,706<\/a> 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<\/em> receiving<\/a> significant complaints. Donors were calling him. They left colourful voicemails and emails. They had lost confidence and were divesting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gaw left the courthouse, but not before enthusiastically entertaining an interview<\/a>. In her mind she had already won. It would have been like arguing with Captain Ahab to convince her otherwise. Galati had \u201chit a home run,<\/em>\u201d \u201cshame on those who have criticized his case,<\/em>\u201d and \u201cit was the best decision I ever made two years ago to retain Rocco as our lawyer.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several months went by. Our FAQ aged well. Their 391 page pleading met with ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/gordon-watson-protesting-3-1024x819.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/images.squarespace-cdn.com\/content\/v1\/60b9aae170bdd5339886ebd6\/1623000435686-58YAT6SFOW5C05NVUGQZ\/BG_blue.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe Blitz<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Post-Mortem Era<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Messiah<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Franchise<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Frequently Unanswered Questions<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Due Diligence<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Institutionalized Vanity<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Galati\u2019s History of Intimidation<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Preemptively Avoiding a Mess<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Galati Demands Apology<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Our FAQ<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Gaw\u2019s Inner Circle<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Merchants in the Temple<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Staying On Topic<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Olive Branch<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Mutiny<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Action4Canada Struck<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n