Galati's Litigation Vehicles

Ontario Superior Court of Justice — filed July 6, 2020

This was one of the earliest COVID-era mandate challenges filed in Canada, naming federal and provincial governments as defendants. Rather than being struck by the court, the action was ended by the plaintiff itself: Vaccine Choice Canada filed a Notice of Discontinuance, stating publicly that it no longer believed the justice system would deliver a fair hearing on the claim and that it was discontinuing "for the sake of protecting the defendants" named in the suit.

In other words, the case did not fail in court — it was voluntarily withdrawn before a substantive ruling was reached.

BC Supreme Court (S217586) → BC Court of Appeal

The original 391-page claim was struck in its entirety by the BC Supreme Court in August 2022, with the court describing it as "bad beyond argument" — legal shorthand for a pleading so disorganized and padded with argument and evidence that it cannot proceed as drafted. On appeal in February 2024, the Court of Appeal agreed the pleading could not stand but varied the order to allow an amended claim.

An amended claim was served in December 2024, with a further amended, 54-page version filed in August 2025 seeking more than 50 declarations. On September 24, 2026, the BC Supreme Court struck it in its entirety — this time 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," suffering "the same considerable defects" as the 2022 pleading; it named the wrong transit authority (conceded as an error at the hearing) and a health authority against which it made no allegations at all. The judge again found it "bad beyond argument," and ordered $10,000 in costs against the plaintiffs, payable forthwith.

Federal Court → Federal Court of Appeal (2024 FCA 106) → Supreme Court of Canada

Filed on behalf of federal employees disciplined or terminated over vaccine-mandate non-compliance, the claim was struck by the Federal Court. On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal only in part (June 7, 2024), granting leave to file a further-amended claim, but only subject to conditions — it was not a vindication of the original pleading. According to Canuck Law, the striking was mostly upheld, but because the pleading made passing mention of section 6 (mobility) travel-mandate claims, the Court of Appeal let all plaintiffs pursue those.

The plaintiffs sought further leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC dismissed that application, with costs, on January 30, 2025 — leaving the Federal Court of Appeal's conditional, partial disposition as the last word on appeal.

The Federal Court file, T-1089-22, is nonetheless still open, and Canuck Law reports that a new motion to strike is pending. Some version of the claim has therefore survived the appeals. Canuck Law reports that the Crown's motion record is filed, that the Federal Court initially refused an amended claim because the amendment did not follow the rules, and that Galati has until December 31, 2026 to respond; it expects a hearing in 2027. Canuck Law also says that, even in the amended version, no facts are pleaded for the individual plaintiffs. That last point is its assessment, not a finding of the court.

Ontario Superior Court → Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Superior Court struck the claim as an abuse of process, holding that the Charter did not apply to the 47 private-entity defendants named in the suit and that the employment consequences the plaintiffs described did not engage section 7 Charter rights. Most of the plaintiffs were unionized, meaning their disputes belonged in labour arbitration rather than the courts; leave to amend was granted only in part, for non-unionized employees without hospital privileges to bring focused individual claims against their own employers.

On May 6, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario — in a decision written by Chief Justice Michael Tulloch — dismissed the appeal, upholding the strike and finding "no basis to interfere" with the motion judge's discretionary costs decision, calling the trial court's $15,000 costs award "modest given the scope of the proceeding and the number of plaintiffs involved" (2026 ONCA 321, para. 73). The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay a further $25,000 in appeal costs — $15,000 to the healthcare respondents and $10,000 to the government respondents (para. 76).

An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (File 42443) appeared in the Court's Bulletin of Proceedings on July 31, 2026, and had not been decided as of this writing — so the case is not yet fully final.

A second SLAPP, in reverse: Galati v. CSASPP

In 2021, CSASPP — a nonprofit that had itself helped fund and organize COVID-mandate litigation, including some of Galati's own cases — publicly questioned his litigation competence and the transparency of funds raised for his lawsuits, calling some of his pleadings "poorly drafted." A donor, Donna Toews, separately filed a Law Society of Ontario complaint over donations and stalled litigation.

Galati sued CSASPP, its officers, and Toews for defamation, conspiracy, and harassment. The Court of Appeal for Ontario — in a decision by Justice Zarnett (Galati v. Toews, 2025 ONCA 568) — upheld the dismissal of the suit under Ontario's anti-SLAPP law, finding the statements addressed matters of public concern (a lawyer's competence in high-stakes litigation and the use of donated funds), that Galati's claims lacked substantial merit, and that other sources were more likely causes of any reputational harm he experienced.

It is the same statute, the same outcome, and largely the same fact pattern as Gill v. Maciver — a critic speaks, Galati sues, the suit is struck as a SLAPP.