The Canadian anti-mandate court record — what was filed, what the judges actually said about it, and what it cost the people who signed on.
Between 2020 and 2022 a series of mass claims was filed in Canadian courts challenging COVID-19 public health measures. They were announced publicly, promoted to the people most affected by the measures, and in several instances funded by them.
This section records what happened to those claims. Not what was said about them at launch, and not what has been said about them since by either side — what the courts did with them, in reported judgments anyone can read.
The record is unusually clear. Of the four principal actions documented here, every one has been struck, discontinued, or dismissed on appeal. Three reached appellate courts. Two have gone on to the Supreme Court of Canada: it refused to hear one, and the other's leave application is pending. None has produced a trial, a ruling on the merits of any public health measure, or a dollar of recovery for anyone who joined.
Supreme Court of British Columbia, No. S-217586 · 2022 BCSC 1507 · 2024 BCCA 59 · 2026 BCSC 1974
The claim ran to 391 pages. In August 2022 the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck it in its entirety as "bad beyond argument," holding that it was prolix, that it failed to set out the material facts a pleading requires, and that it would be impossible for the defendants to respond to. The court declined to let it stand in any part.
On appeal in February 2024 the Court of Appeal agreed the pleading could not stand, but varied the order to permit an amended claim to be filed. An amended claim was served in December 2024 and a further amended version filed in August 2025. It ran to 54 pages and sought more than 50 declarations.
On 24 September 2026 the Supreme Court of British Columbia struck it in its entirety, without leave to amend, and dismissed the action (Weatherill J., 2026 BCSC 1974). The court found the rewritten claim was "in essence, a repackaged version of the Original Claim," and that it "suffers from the same considerable defects that caused this court to strike its original in 2022." It named the wrong transit authority, conceded at the hearing to be an error, and named a health authority against which it made no allegations. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's test, the judge held it was again "bad beyond argument," and that allowing it to continue "would only serve to give the plaintiffs a platform for their grievances that have no place in a Canadian courtroom." Costs of $10,000 were ordered against the plaintiffs, payable forthwith.
Struck without leave — action dismissed, Sept 2026Ontario Superior Court of Justice, CV-20-00643451-0000 · issued 6 July 2020
A 191-page claim brought by Vaccine Choice Canada and seven individuals against the federal Crown, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, two regional health units and a long list of named officials, seeking declarations that pandemic measures were unconstitutional and injunctions against future ones. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was originally a defendant, with $1 million in general and $10 million in punitive damages sought against it; that portion was later discontinued.
The federal, provincial and municipal defendants booked a motion to strike under Rule 21 on the grounds that the claim disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It was scheduled to be heard on 30 January and 1 February 2024.
The motion was never decided. In 2024, before the court ruled, Vaccine Choice Canada filed a Notice of Discontinuance ending the action. In its own public explanation the organisation said it had concluded the justice system was unlikely to produce a just decision in its case. Four years, no ruling on anything.
Discontinued by the plaintiffs, 2024Federal Court, T-1089-22 · 2023 FC 252 · Federal Court of Appeal A-67-23, 2024 FCA 106 · SCC File 41415
A mass claim on behalf of several hundred federally regulated workers and others, struck by the Federal Court in February 2023. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part on 7 June 2024, granting leave to file a further-amended claim on conditions.
An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was filed in August 2024. On 30 January 2025 the Supreme Court dismissed leave, with costs. Those costs were assessed in August 2025 at $1,083.16 and a certificate of taxation issued. The Supreme Court closed its file on 26 August 2025.
The appeal route is therefore closed. Three courts were asked about the original pleading, and none restored it as filed.
One door was left open. The 2023 order was split. For plaintiffs covered by section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, whose disputes belong in the grievance process, the claim was struck without leave to amend. For the remaining plaintiffs it was struck "in its entirety with leave to amend," on condition that any new pleading be intelligible and "confined to matters that are capable of adjudication by this Court." Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the defendants. The Federal Court file is still open under the same number, T-1089-22, and a new motion to strike is reported to be pending, so some version of the claim is still alive.
Appeals exhausted — Federal Court file still openOntario Superior Court of Justice, 2024 ONSC 7087 · Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2026 ONCA 321, 6 May 2026 · SCC File 42443
Brought for 473 current and former Ontario healthcare workers who were suspended or lost their positions after declining COVID-19 vaccination, against the province, four government officials and 54 healthcare employers. The claim alleged Charter breaches, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, intimidation and intentional infliction of mental anguish.
The Superior Court struck it in December 2024. On 6 May 2026 the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, Chief Justice Michael Tulloch upholding the finding that the claim was an abuse of process disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The appellate reasons are the most useful thing in this section for a reader trying to understand why these claims keep failing. The Charter did not apply to 47 of the respondents because they are private entities. Workplace consequences did not engage section 7. Vaccination status is not an enumerated or analogous ground under section 15. Allegations that the pandemic was fabricated and that the measures amounted to "martial law" were unsupported by material facts. And most of the plaintiffs were unionised, which meant their disputes belonged in labour arbitration — while the eight with hospital privileges had to use the process in the Public Hospitals Act first.
Leave to amend was granted in part, for non-unionised employees without hospital privileges to bring focused individual claims against their own employers. That is the shape of a case that might actually work, and it is the opposite of the one that was filed.
Leave to the Supreme Court sought. An application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision, Michelet Dorceus, et al., counsel Rocco Galati, appears in the Supreme Court of Canada's Bulletin of Proceedings of 31 July 2026 under File 42443. It had not been decided at this writing.
What it cost. The Court of Appeal upheld the $15,000 costs award below, calling it "modest given the scope of the proceeding and the number of plaintiffs involved," and ordered the appellants to pay a further $25,000 for the appeal: $15,000 to the healthcare employers and $10,000 to the government. Its summary: "Courts exist to resolve legal disputes grounded in concrete facts. They are not political forums, scientific tribunals, or commissions of inquiry into public policy."
Appeal dismissed, May 2026 — SCC leave pendingSet the four side by side and the same structure appears each time. A very long pleading, naming a great many defendants, advancing claims against parties the Charter does not reach, and asserting facts about the pandemic itself without pleading any material facts to support them. Courts do not reach the merits of such a claim, because they never get past the document.
The consequences fall on the people who signed. A costs award follows a struck claim. Unionised workers who were directed to arbitration spent years in the wrong forum while limitation periods ran in the right one. And the one route the Court of Appeal did leave open in Dorceus — an individual claim by a non-unionised employee against their own employer — was available from the beginning.
The first vehicle documented from primary records. CHD Canada was federally incorporated in April 2021 with Rocco Galati among its four first directors and his College Street address on the filings; its articles let the American parent rename it. The page traces the board changes through Galati's departure in June 2023, the Ontario school-measures application, and the livestreams and rallies where he shared the bill with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others.
Corporate records — Corporations CanadaA case-by-case rundown of all four claims above, plus a matrix tracing what is actually confirmed about Rocco Galati's own office address, Children's Health Defense Canada, Vaccine Choice Canada, Action4Canada and Police On Guard — and CSASPP, the one organisation here that wasn't a client but a critic Galati sued, and lost to, under the same anti-SLAPP law.
Corporate records, court filings & primary-source documentsHow Galati and CHD Canada used defamation suits against critics, what the courts did with them, and the malpractice claims and costs awards that followed.
Court decisions, costs awards & regulatory recordCanadian Frontline Nurses and three former Ontario nurses, Kristen Nagle, Sarah Choujounian and Kristal Pitter, sued the Canadian Nurses Association and a small B.C. news site for $1 million. The claim was dismissed under Ontario's anti-SLAPP law in December 2022, and in June 2023 the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay $315,000 in costs (Canadian Frontline Nurses v. Canadian Nurses Association, 2023 ONSC 3529). A Court of Appeal judge later ordered security for costs, calling the appeal one with "a low chance of success."
Struck under anti-SLAPP — $315,000 costsNagle and Canadian Frontline Nurses were among the first to challenge the 2022 Emergencies Act invocation. The Federal Court agreed with the civil-liberties groups that the invocation was unreasonable, but dismissed the nurses' own application: no standing, and no "clean hands" (2024 FC 42, affirmed 2026). The page also covers the $290-million Li v. Barber class action against convoy organizers and its 2022 Mareva order.
Denied standing — others wonOn the RFK Jr. running file. In August 2021 an open letter circulating on University of Waterloo servers told staff and students that a lawsuit was being prepared against every university and college that had issued a vaccine mandate. Readers were invited to join as plaintiffs, told they would be expected to contribute financially, and — as a condition of joining — instructed not to apply for a medical or religious exemption. No public record of that action being filed has been located. The page also documents the Canadian chapter of Children's Health Defense, federally incorporated in 2021.
The local case — Waterloo RegionThe American version of the same tactic, and where it has got to. Children's Health Defense has sued the American Academy of Pediatrics under the federal racketeering statute, on the theory that recommending the childhood immunisation schedule is organised fraud. The complaint, the Academy's answer, and a vaccine-law professor's element-by-element assessment of whether it states a claim at all.
The litigation tactic, exportedWhat happens after a regulator acts. Two American physicians are offered to a federal court as proof that doctors who dissent are destroyed. The orders against them describe the care of named children — a tetanus case treated with colloidal silver, a febrile infant, ninety children left without a second MMR dose, and ten exemptions written for children the doctor never examined. The mechanism by which discipline is recast as martyrdom and then recycled as evidence.
How discipline becomes evidenceWhat funded litigation looks like on a tax return. Three Form 990 filings read line by line: $10.09 million on legal fees in three years, a fifth of everything the organisation spent, and 93.5 per cent of it reported as charitable programme rather than overhead. Also the lawyer who filed the American racketeering suit, listed as a contractor paid $365,601 the year before he filed it.
Who pays for the litigationPosted 21 October 2026, updated 13 November 2026 · build 11-14-A · Sources: the reported judgments cited above, including Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (order of 21 February 2023), Dorceus v. Ontario, 2026 ONCA 321, and Action4Canada v. British Columbia, 2026 BCSC 1974 (oral reasons, 24 September 2026, corrected 15 October 2026); the City of Toronto solicitor's report to Council of 15 March 2023 on CV-20-00643451-0000; the Supreme Court of Canada docket in File 41415; the Federal Court of Appeal docket in A-67-23; Canadian HR Reporter's coverage of the Court of Appeal's decision in Dorceus, 12 May 2026; and the Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin of Proceedings, 31 July 2026 (File 42443). Corrections are welcome and will be posted.