Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Chris Scott and Rebecca Ingram attempting Class Action Lawsuit against Province for COVID restrictions

Published

17 minute read

Could open the door for business owners across the province to seek damages for financial losses

News release regarding this class action lawsuit from Rath & Company

Rath & Company has launched a class action lawsuit against the Province of Alberta on behalf of business owners in Alberta who faced operational restrictions due to, now deemed illegal, Public Health Orders. This lawsuit follows the recent Ingram Decision by the Calgary Court of King’s Bench, which declared that all of Dr. Hinshaw’s Public Health Orders were ultra vires, in other words illegal or not lawfully enacted. The Ingram Decision has opened the door for affected business owners to seek damages for the financial losses incurred due to the restrictions imposed by these unlawful Public Health Orders.

The lawsuit names Rebecca Ingram and Chris Scott as representative plaintiffs who suffered significant financial harm due to Dr. Hinshaw’s Public Health Orders. On February 7, 2024, the parties attended their first case conference with Justice Feasby of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to establish the next steps. The lawyers for the Province of Alberta made it clear that they intend to oppose the class action certification. Premier Smith has yet to comment on the government opposition to compensate individual business owners impacted by Dr. Hinshaw’s unlawful Public Health Orders.

“This marks the first of many procedural and substantive steps. This is an important case about
government actions and overreach during a time when business owners were unlawfully mandated to close their businesses at moments notice. It will give Albertans the opportunity to hold the Alberta government accountable and seek fair compensation on behalf of the many businesses impacted by Deena Hinshaw’s many unlawful decisions,” said lead counsel Jeffrey Rath.

The class action represents all impacted Alberta business owners. If you have been adversely affected and wish to join this class action lawsuit, please register by completing the online form at Business Class Action – Rath&Company (rathandcompany.com). Should the Court grant permission for this action to proceed as a “Class Action” (also known as “Certification”), you may qualify as a class member whether or not you have registered.

“In what world is it fair for small business owners to bear the financial brunt for the benefit of the entire province? Our hope is that this lawsuit brings justice to the affected business owners who suffered significant hardship and losses without justification or consideration by the province’s harsh and unilateral actions,” Mr. Rath continued.

From Rath & Company

Business Class Action Update – October 1, 2021

The Certification Hearing scheduled with Justice Feasby will be available for online viewing. Below are the details you need to join the session:

Date and Time:

  • October 2 and 3, 2024, at 10:00 AM (Mountain Time, UTC-06:00)

Join Online:

Join by Phone:

  • Dial-In Number: +1-780-851-3573 (Canada Toll – Edmonton)
  • Access Code: 277 254 26969

PLEASE NOTE – Recording or rebroadcasting of this hearing is strictly prohibited.

Documents related to this matter that have been filed to date are available for viewing online – see links BELOW.

We encourage all interested parties to observe the proceedings.

Summary of the Covid Business Restrictions Class Action Lawsuit

Rath & Company has commenced a Class Action lawsuit against the provincial government of Alberta on behalf of business owners who faced operational restrictions due to Public Health Orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. This lawsuit aims to secure financial compensation for businesses in Alberta that were either fully or partially restricted by these health orders.

The legal foundation of this case is anchored in the recent Ingram decision by the Calgary Court of King’s Bench, which determined that the Public Health Orders were not enacted lawfully.

The primary plaintiffs in this lawsuit are two Alberta business owners who suffered considerable financial losses due to the imposed Public Health Orders.

This legal action represents an opportunity for business owners who were operational in Alberta from 2020 to 2022 and were impacted by these health directives.

If you are among those affected and are interested in joining this class action lawsuit as a member of the group, we invite you to register with us. To do so, please complete our intake form.

This is an intake form for use by our legal team. Information provided in this form will be used to assist us in moving the Class Action case forward.

If the Court permits the action to proceed as a “Class Action” (this is called “Certification”), you may be a Class Member. You will receive a notice if the action is Certified that will explain your rights as a Class Member.

Please Complete this Form to the best of your ability and it will be sent directly to: [email protected]

 

To Review the Class Action Documents Click Here:

  • Notice of Application
  • Business Class Action Statement of Claim
  • Business Class Action Plaintiffs Brief
  • Business Class Action Provinces Brief
  • Business Class Action Plaintiffs Reply
  • Affidavit of Rebecca Ingram
  • Affidavit of Christopher Scott
  • Affidavit of Dana Hogemann – Senior
  • Assistant Deputy Minister, Treasury Board Secretariat
  • Affidavit of Andy Ridge – Incident Commander of the Emergency Operations Centre with the Ministry of Health
  • Affidavit and Expert Report of Randy Popik – Chartered Accountant at Kingston Ross Pasnak LLP
  • Affidavit and Expert Report of Christopher Cotton – Professor of Economics at Queen’s University
  • Scott Transcript
  • Ridge Undertaking
  • Ridge Transcript
  • Cotton Undertaking
  • Cotton Transcript
  • Popik Undertaking
  • Popik Transcript
  • Ingram Transcript
  • Eberle-Morris Transcript
  • Hogemann Transcript
  •  Ingram Decision

Covid Business Losses Class Action Intake Form

0 / 400

Thank you for your participation. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Business Class Action Update – October 1, 2024

The Certification Hearing scheduled with Justice Feasby will be available for online viewing. Below are the details you need to join the session:

Date and Time:

  • October 2 and 3, 2024, at 10:00 AM (Mountain Time, UTC-06:00)

Join Online:

Join by Phone:

  • Dial-In Number: +1-780-851-3573 (Canada Toll – Edmonton)
  • Access Code: 277 254 26969

PLEASE NOTE – Recording or rebroadcasting of this hearing is strictly prohibited.

Business Class Action Update – June 21, 2024

The government of Alberta has taken the position of opposing the certification of our proposed class action. As a result, we must go to court to get the lawsuit “certified” as a class action – this is known as the certification hearing.

The certification hearing is scheduled for October 2 and 3, 2024, before Justice Feasby. The following schedule has been agreed to leading up to the certification hearing:

We have uploaded the Plaintiffs Notice of Application and evidence in support as well as the government of Alberta’s evidence on our website. Specifically, on the website you can now find the:

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Class Action Lawsuit?
A class action lawsuit is a legal action where a group of people collectively brings a claim to court. This type of lawsuit is distinct from individual cases, as it represents the interests and seeks compensation for a class of people who have been affected by similar acts of negligence or harmful practices. Class-action suits provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing widespread issues, allowing for a collective voice in legal proceedings. These lawsuits can be instrumental in achieving justice for a larger group and can potentially set precedents for future legal and protective standards.
What is certification?

The court must first assess whether the claim should be advanced in the form of a class action. The court will consider whether the claim shows an appropriate cause of action, an identifiable class of persons, and issues that are shared in common. The court will also determine whether a class action is a preferable procedure, and whether there is an appropriate representative plaintiff. If the class action is certified by the court, the representative plaintiff or plaintiffs will advance the case on behalf of all class members.

Am I a class member?

When a class action is certified, a definition of the class is provided. If you are an individual class member meeting the class description, then you do not need to sign up to be part of the class action – you are automatically included.

If you owned or operated a business in Alberta from 2020-2022 and wish to register with us as a member of the group, please fill out the intake form.
Do I have to pay to be part of the class action?
No. This class action will proceed on a contingency fee basis.  This means that the lawyers bringing the action will only be paid if the class action succeeds. If successful, the lawyers will be paid a portion of the settlement or judgment, but only if the Court approves.

Alberta

Free Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation

Published on

 

Just over a year ago, Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner unveiled a report exploring the potential risks and benefits of an Alberta Pension Plan.

The report, prepared by pension analytics firm LifeWorks – formerly known as Morneau Shepell, the same firm once headed by former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau – used the exit formula outlined in the Canada Pension Plan Act to determine that if the province exits, it would be entitled to a large share of CPP assets.

According to LifeWorks, Alberta’s younger, predominantly working-class population, combined with higher-than-average income levels, has resulted in the province contributing disproportionately to the CPP.

The analysis pegged Alberta’s share of the CPP account at $334 billion – 53% of the CPP’s total asset pool.

We’ve explained a few times how, while that number might initially sound farfetched, once you understand that Alberta has contributed more than it’s taken out, almost every single year CPP has existed, while other provinces have consistently taken out more than they put in and technically *owe* money, it starts to make more sense.

But, predictably, the usual suspects were outraged.

Media commentators and policy analysts across the country were quick to dismiss the possibility that Alberta could claim such a significant portion. To them, the idea that Alberta workers had been subsidizing the CPP for decades seemed unthinkable.

The uproar prompted an emergency meeting of Canada’s Finance Ministers, led by now-former federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. Alberta pressed for clarity, with Horner requesting a definitive number from the federal government.

Freeland agreed to have the federal Chief Actuary provide an official calculation.

If you think Trudeau should release the pension calculation, click here.

Four months later, the Chief Actuary announced the formation of a panel to “interpret” the CPP’s asset transfer formula – a formula that remains contentious and could drastically impact Alberta’s entitlement.

(Readers will remember that how this formula is interpreted has been the matter of much debate, and could have a significant impact on the amount Alberta is entitled to.)

Once the panel completed its work, the Chief Actuary promised to deliver Alberta’s calculated share by the fall. With December 20th marking the last day of fall, Alberta has finally received a response – but not the one it was waiting for:

“We received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number,” said Justin Brattinga, Horner’s press secretary.

In other words, the Chief Actuary did the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do.

The Chief Actuary’s job is to calculate each province’s entitlement, based on the formula outlined in the CPP Act.

It is not the Chief Actuary’s job to start making up new interpretations of the formula to suit the federal government’s agenda.

In fact, the idea that the Chief Actuary spent all this time working on the issue, and didn’t even calculate a number is preposterous.

There’s just no way that that’s what happened.

Far more likely is that the Chief Actuary did run the numbers, using the formula in the CPP Act, only for them – and the federal government – to realize that Alberta’s LifeWorks calculation is actually about right.

Cue panic, a rushed attempt to “reinterpret” the formula, and a refusal to provide the number they committed to providing.

In short, we simply don’t believe that the Chief Actuary didn’t, you know, “actuarialize” anything.

For decades, Alberta has contributed disproportionately to the CPP, given its higher incomes and younger population.

Despite all the bluster in the media, this is actually common sense.

A calculation reflecting this reality would not sit well with other provinces, which have benefited from these contributions.

By withholding the actual number, Ottawa confirms the validity of Alberta’s position.

The refusal to release the calculation only adds fuel to the financial firestorm already underway in Ottawa.

Albertans deserve to know the truth about their contributions and entitlements.

We want to see that number.

If you agree, and want to see the federal government’s calculation on what Alberta is owed, sign our petition – Tell Trudeau To Release The Pension Calculation:

Once you’ve signed, send this petition to your friends, family, and all Albertans.

Thank you for your support!

Regards,

The Free Alberta Strategy Team

Continue Reading

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on

CAE Logo

 

By Dan McTeague

 

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X