Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Class Action Lawsuit Against the Province of Alberta – Rath on Behalf of Ingram and Scott

Published

7 months ago

15 minute read

Sheldon Yakiwchuk

From Yakk Stack

To preface, the amount of knowledge I have in our legal system would fit into a thimble with a lot of room leftover to hold, well…a lot of other stuff that would fit into a thimble.

But I’m going to do my best to cover the certification hearing for the Class Action Lawsuit against the Province of Alberta by Rath and Company, on behalf of Rebecca Ingram and Chris Scott.

For the purposes of keeping this to a reasonable length, I’ll be hitting more along the lines of the high-notes instead of going through and summarizing the thousands of pages submitted by Rath and Co + the Province and keep to what I found most interesting throughout the 2 days I’d spent down at the courthouse viewing. The hearing was to allow both sides to submit their briefs and so that Justice Feasby could make sure that he understood the base of their cases, qualify information and take it away for judgement.

Even if Rath is successful in having this Class Action Certified, there is still a long road ahead to succeed in getting damages covered and a trial to be had and because of the specifics of the mishandling by the Province throughout the pandemic, if they are successful here, it doesn’t mean that every other province can proceed ahead, under the same criteria.

What does this mean?

The previous case against the Province with Rebecca Ingram, showed that the non-pharmaceutical interventions – lockdowns, businesses closed, capacity limits…were ruled Ultra Vires (beyond legal power or authority), by Justice Romaine…in that, these weren’t actually made by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), Deena Hinshaw, they were made by Cabinet…and Cabinet hid behind Hinshaw issuing these orders under the Public Health Act instead of working with the Emergency Management Act.

Because of “Cabinet Privilege”, information was revealed by the CMOH and Justice Romaine – in camera (private) – we can only speculate the reasons for this.

One could argue that because the province and Alberta Health Services got 100% of everything wrong during the pandemic, that this was just another link in the very weak chain…

However, it’s also possible that the Cabinet Members making these decisions wanted to hide and remain hidden for political purposes, as in…those making the decisions to close down businesses didn’t want to have to face voters in a subsequent election, knowing the damages that they’d caused in the business community.

Seeing how many small businesses were closed down, to never reopen…savings spent, jobs and homes lost, lives impacted by these decisions, arguably touching every single person in the province, would make for some bad press and a constituencies filled with voters showing up with a chip on their shoulder towards those who made these decisions and still chose to run for Legislature again.

In addition to this…If the orders were run through the Emergency Management Act, all of the businesses impacted would be entitled to compensation, whereas under the Public Healthcare Act…they weren’t.

It’s based on these specificities that Rath argued that the Province acted in ‘Bad Faith’ as the basis for their case, in that, the province made decisions that they didn’t have the authority to make and absolutely had to have known would harm businesses and made them through the PHA which restricted these businesses from being compensated.

Rath had completed his presentation of their brief before lunch on the first day, where Feasby had a couple of points that he wanted clarified…which was completed after lunch on this same day.

And then…the Province took the podium.

As I’d previously stated, this was a bloodbath for the afternoon of Day 1 and continued on throughout their presentation on Day 2, where by Feasby openly mocked each member of the Province – Dube, Chu and Flanders.

Rightfully so, if I might add, because a lot of their logic was illogical and even to those of us in the gallery, laughable both with and without comments from the Justice.

On day 2, because of the chorus of opened mouthed guffaw from the gallery, we’d all received a warning try and keep it down.

Arguments made by the province which were stunning and laughable:

  • The public does have a right to accountability and that these would be ‘Ballot Box Issues’, of course recognizing that Cabinet was the ones who made these decisions but because they were hidden behind Cabinet Confidence, we can’t actually have accountability, which of course Dube knew;
  • The Plaintiffs (Rath on behalf of Ingram and Scott) needed to name the members responsible – which were, again, hidden by cabinet confidence;
  • There is no fiduciary accountability afforded under the Public Health Act, where the interventions were deemed Ultra Vires;
  • The Province couldn’t have known that businesses would be harmed by the orders – where Feasby stated that it would be impossible for them to Not Know;
  • Businesses are not members of a vulnerable group – though were identified by the CMOH orders;
  • There is no Nexus or Proximity between the Acts (CMOH orders) and Injury – where Feasby stated causation where orders made, closed businesses, that caused injury was the connection;
  • A breach of the Bill of Rights does not necessitate compensation, where the use of the Public Health Act was engaged illegally by cabinet;
  • No common issues exist – where all businesses that were impacted were impacted financially;
  • Not all businesses that were impacted abided by the CMOH orders, though they may be able to still show financial losses during these times;
  • Abuse of Power, by Cabinet in their orders, wasn’t actually an Abuse of Power because it was done in good faith;
  • Even without the orders, during the pandemic, people still wanted to just stay home and avoid going out – they actually said this;
  • Although the Pandemic Orders were deemed Ultra Vires, they were valid at the time. This was particularly stupid as an argument made repeatedly by Chu and lost the province some large points with Feasby. Her logic is that the orders WERE Valid up until the time they were deemed Ultra Vires…where Feasby stated, a definitive ‘Nope’. Once they were deemed Ultra Vires, this extended back to when they were put in place.
  • The Plaintiffs should be suing Alberta Health Services, arguing that AHS is not the province, again another stupid point where the judge stated, “You can’t stand here with a straight face and make this as an argument”.
  • Expropriation of businesses wasn’t actually expropriation (businesses shut down or limited in capacity were essentially expropriated – partially or fully taken away from leaseholders and property owners), because there were no transfer of titles and they weren’t kept by the province on a forever hold. When I’d asked Eva Chipiuk about this, she stated that the province had effectively made this up as terms of expropriation, this isn’t what it actually means…and this was clarified to the Justice by Jeff on reply following the Province stating their case on Day 2.
  • Classes of businesses could not be identified for a Class Action Lawsuit – where, orders put out by the CMOH on behalf of Cabinet, specifically identified the types of businesses that would need to close or limit capacity. Jeff made a point on this where in the early stages, Casinos and Stripper Bars were allowed to be left open while Schools were closed. I did get a good laugh out of this recollection of events;
  • It would be more beneficial for businesses who were harmed to represent themselves individually instead of through a Class Action – where smaller businesses would pay in excess of their claim in legal fees and clog the courts for decades;
  • Businesses that lost money throughout this time would have immediately made it back once they were reopened – of which there is absolutely no way they could make this determination especially given the fact that hundreds of businesses closed forever during this time;
  • Chris Scott and the Whistle Stop Cafe isn’t a suitable representation in the class action because Scott didn’t abide by CMOH orders, crowd funded over $100k, needed to hire more staff because of the surge of business that he’d received because of publicity around his location, paid off a loan for property, all in 2021…where, Chris did actually abide by CMOH orders in 2020, did lose money, was on the verge of bankruptcy and only worked to mitigate damages following several months of losses due to the CMOH orders;
  • Chris Scott may have actually made more because of the pandemic, despite the fact that he was arrested, closed down, abided by CMOH orders in 2020, was getting death threats because of being branded negatively through media spun by his lack of compliance for the orders to keep him from losing everything;

There may be more…this is what I could get out of the 36 pages of notes that I’d taken over the course of the 2 days…but basically the Province brought in the C-Team of Lawyers making in attempts to make the case that:

AHS is not the province, acted illegally but in good faith, is not responsible for any damages because they didn’t fully expropriate businesses forever, couldn’t have known that businesses wouldn’t suffer from financial losses in being closed or restricted for months on end and even if they did, probably made their money back if not more money when they finally opened and couldn’t be lumped together because REASONS.

Whereas against the province, Rath and Company makes the claim that:

Cabinet made decisions that turned into illegal orders under the Public Healthcare Act, not using the Emergency Management Act so that they could hide the identity of the decision makers and skate on being financially liable for losses they knew would be incurred by businesses that were shut – acting in bad faith.

And again…while I don’t know a whole lot about the legal system, all of the laws and terms used throughout these 2 days, can appreciate that all requirements for a Class Action were met and responded to. The legality and relevance of these will be weighed by Justice Feasby and he’d seemed confident that he’ll be able to have a ruling on the Certification for Class Action by December 1st, 2024…and closed out with a statement that he wasn’t going to be accepting any additional documentation from either party. They’d effectively had their ‘day in court’, and had opportunity to clarify their cases.

Hope ya made it through all of this…and I hope it makes as much sense to you as does to me as in a solid – kinda. If you were watching the livestream or in the gallery and noted anything additional worthy of mention or correct me in any errors, please do so in the comments.

I’m looking forward to the next leg in this journey!

Leave a comment

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 48 mins ago

Trust but verify: Why COVID-19 And Kamloops Claims Demand Scientific Scrutiny

Business / 1 hour ago

Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Alberta

Preston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A Canada West Assembly would investigate why

The election of a minority Liberal government on Monday, and the strong showing of the Conservative party under Pierre Poilievre, cannot mask the fact that Canada remains seriously fractured on many fronts. Thus, one of the primary tasks of the Carney government will be to unite us for the sake of our own national well-being — not simply for the sake of presenting a strong front in future dealings with the United States.

But how is that to be done? When parliament meets as scheduled on May 26, will the government’s throne speech acknowledge the main sources of national disunity and propose the immediate adoption of remedial measures? Or will it ignore the problem entirely, which will serve to further alienate Quebec and the West from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, and weaken Canada’s bargaining position vis a vis the United States?

The principal tactic employed by the Liberal party to unite Canadians behind it in the recent election was to employ the politics of fear — fear of U.S. President Donald Trump trying to “break us so that America can own us,” as Liberal Leader Mark Carney has repeatedly said.

But if the only way to unite Canadians is through the promotion of anti-Americanism fostered by fear of some alleged American takeover — if reaction to the erratic musings of an American president is the only way to motivate more Canadians to vote in a federal election — then not only national unity, but Canadian democracy itself, is in critical condition.

We need to pinpoint what actually is fracturing the country, because if we can clearly define that, we can begin the process of removing those divisive elements to the largest extent possible. Carney and the Liberals will of course declare that it is separatist agitations in Quebec and now the West that is dividing us, but these are simply symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

Here, then, is a partial list of what underpins the division and disunity in this country and, more importantly, of some positive, achievable actions we can take to reduce or eliminate them.

First and foremost is the failure to recognize and accommodate the regional character of this country. Canada is the second-largest country by area on the planet and is characterized by huge geographic regions — the Atlantic, Central Canada, the Prairies, the Pacific Coast and the Northern territories.

Each of these regions — not just Quebec — has its own “distinctive” concerns and aspirations, which must be officially recognized and addressed by the federal government if the country is to be truly united. The previous Liberal government consistently failed to do this, particularly with respect to the Prairies, Pacific and Northern regions, which is the root of much of the alienation that even stimulates talk of western separation.

Second is Ottawa’s failure to recognize and treat the natural resources sector as a fundamental building block of our national economy — not as a relic from the past or an environmental liability, as it was regarded by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Will the throne speech announce another 180-degree turn for the Liberal government: the explicit recognition that the great engine of the Canadian economy and our economic recovery is not the federal government, as Carney has implied, but Canada’s agricultural, energy, mining, forestry and fishery sectors, with all the processing, servicing, manufacturing and knowledge sectors that are built upon them?

A third issue we’ve been plagued with is the division of Canadian society based on race, gender, sexual preferences and other identity traits, rather than focusing on the things that unite us as a nation, such as the equality of all under the law. Many private-sector entities are beginning to see the folly of pursuing identity initiatives such as diversity, equity and inclusion that divide rather than unite, but will the Liberal government follow suit and will that intention be made crystal clear in the upcoming throne speech?

A final issue is the federal government’s intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction — such as natural resources, health, municipal governance, along with property and civil rights — which is the principal cause of tension and conflict between the federal and provincial governments.

The solution is to pass a federal “act respecting provincial jurisdiction” to repeal or amend the statutes that authorize federal intrusions, so as to eliminate, or at least reduce, their intrusiveness. Coincidentally, this would be a legislative measure that both the Conservatives and the Bloc could unite behind if such a statute were to be one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Carney government.

Polling is currently being done to ascertain whether the election of yet another Liberal government has increased the growing estrangement of western Canada from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, notwithstanding Carney’s assurances that his minority government will change its policies on climate change, pipelines, immigration, deficit spending and other distinguishing characteristics of the discredited Trudeau government.

The first test of the truthfulness of those assurances will come via the speech from the throne and the follow-up actions of the federal government.

Meanwhile, consultations are being held on the merits and means of organizing a “Canada West Assembly” to provide a democratic forum for the presentation, analysis and debate of the options facing western Canada (not just Alberta) — from acceptance of a fairer and stronger position within the federation based on guarantees from the federal government, to various independence-oriented proposals, with votes to be taken on the various options and recommendations to be made to the affected provincial governments.

Only time will tell whether the newly elected Carney government chooses to address the root causes of national disunity. But whether it does so or not will influence the direction in which the western provinces and the proposed Canada West Assembly will point.

Preston’s Substack is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Preston’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

Pledge your support

Continue Reading

Alberta

Premier Danielle Smith hints Alberta may begin ‘path’ toward greater autonomy after Mark Carney’s win

Published on April 30, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Alberta’s premier said her government will be holding a special caucus meeting on Friday to discuss Alberta’s independence.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith hinted her province could soon consider taking serious steps toward greater autonomy from Canada in light of Mark Carney and the Liberal Party winning yesterday’s federal election.

In a statement posted to her social media channels today, Smith, who is head of Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party, warned that “In the weeks and months ahead, Albertans will have an opportunity to discuss our province’s future, assess various options for strengthening and protecting our province against future hostile acts from Ottawa, and to ultimately choose a path forward.”

“As Premier, I will facilitate and lead this discussion and process with the sincere hope of securing a prosperous future for our province within a united Canada that respects our province’s constitutional rights, facilitates rather than blocks the development and export of our abundant resources, and treats us as a valued and respected partner within confederation,” she noted.

While Smith stopped short of saying that Alberta would consider triggering a referendum on independence from Canada, she did say her government will be holding a “special caucus meeting this Friday to discuss this matter further.”

“I will have more to say after that meeting is concluded,” she noted.

Smith’s warning comes at the same time some pre-election polls have shown Alberta’s independence from Canada sentiment at just over 30 percent.

Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Mark Carney beat out Conservative rival Pierre Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.

In Alberta, almost all of the seats save two at press time went to conservatives.

Carney, like former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before him, said he is opposed to new pipeline projects that would allow Alberta oil and gas to be unleashed. Also, his green agenda, like Trudeau’s, is at odds with Alberta’s main economic driver, its oil and gas industry.

The Carney government has also pledged to mandate that all new cars and trucks by 2035 be electric, effectively banning the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-only powered vehicles after that year.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

Smith: ‘I will not permit the status quo to continue’

In her statement, Smith noted that she invited Carney to “immediately commence working with our government to reset the relationship between Ottawa and Alberta with meaningful action rather than hollow rhetoric.”

She noted that a large majority of Albertans are “deeply frustrated that the same government that overtly attacked our provincial economy almost unabated for the past 10 years has been returned to government.”

Smith then promised that she would “not permit the status quo to continue.”

“Albertans are proud Canadians that want this nation to be strong, prosperous, and united, but we will no longer tolerate having our industries threatened and our resources landlocked by Ottawa,” she said.

Smith praised Poilievre for empowering “Albertans and our energy sector as a cornerstone of his campaign.”

Smith was against forced COVID jabs, and her United Conservative government has in recent months banned men from competing in women’s sports and passed a bill banning so-called “top and bottom” surgeries for minors as well as other extreme forms of transgender ideology.

Continue Reading

Trending

X