COVID contrarian lawyer appeals order to pay costs after failed libel suit
Rocco Galati appeals an order to pay $132,000 in court costs after his $1.1 million libel suit against vaccine mandate opponents fails, with critics calling his legal actions reckless and wasteful.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The video portion and previous written copy incorrectly referred to Dawna (Donna) Toews as Galati’s former client, when in fact she was merely a donor to his current clients – Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) and Action4Canada (A4C). We apologize to Mr. Galati for this error. While it should be clear that Galati is not suing his former client as incorrectly stated, he is being sued by one of his former clients for $600,000.
In February of 2024, Ontario Superior Court Justice Chalmers ordered Toronto-based notable COVID contrarian lawyer Rocco Galati to pay over $132,000 in legal costs after his $1.1 million libel suit against a group of opponents with more professionally drafted litigation of vaccine mandates was dismissed.
The defendants in that case were the British Columbia-based advocacy group, Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy (CSASPP), and namely its founders Kipling (Kip) Warner, Dee Gandhi, as well as Dawna (Donna) Toews, a former donor to Galati’s clients Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC) and Action4Canada (A4C). They successfully argued that the million-dollar suit against them infringed on their freedom of expression.
In Chalmers' initial decision from December 2023, he notes that Galati originally claimed that “defamatory comments” were made about him, which have “affected his reputation and interfered with his relationship with his clients.”
It was claimed that this affected fundraising efforts undertaken by Galati’s organization, the Constitutional Rights Centre.
Repeatedly hearing about baby deaths and the circumstances in which they died is so disturbing
— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) January 14, 2025
Officers should leave no stones unturned when looking at what exactly was happening in Ottawa when faced with a doubling, if not tripling, of infant deaths in a 9-month time span…
Chalmers relayed in the decision that the comments made by the defendants were about “the way the Plaintiff was conducting litigation regarding the government-imposed restrictions… enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The defendants argued that protecting freedom of expression outweighed any harm to Galati, and the court sided with them, acknowledging the importance of bringing issues with his court filings to the public's attention.
Galati’s appeal of Chalmers' decision on Monday, January 13, and the costs he was found to be personally responsible for, argued that his libel suit was improperly dismissed, claiming the defamatory statements were not true and mischaracterized.
Paul Slansky, Galati's lawyer, argued that Chalmers' analysis was superficial, and neglected to address both the public interest of malice by CSASPP and the severity of the defamatory claims.
The respondents argued that the appellant’s legal actions—that is, Galati—included a series of extreme and reckless allegations made in various court filings, which have raised large sums from hopeful litigants but have ultimately resulted in a waste of court resources.
There is no policy against 'unsanctioned' research, and Grus was simply gathering information as part of her job, which falls within her police discretion and duties when public safety is a concern, says counsel for Grus
— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) January 14, 2025
van den Berg points to the actions of other officers (not…
During Monday’s proceedings, Tim Gleason, counsel for the defendants, criticized Galati as both a poor lawyer and advocate, citing his use of "intemperate language" and "bizarre" claims that had been repeatedly dismissed by courts.
The most recent case was struck on December 18, 2024. It involved 473 Ontario health-care workers fired or placed on unpaid leave for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. The defendants included hospitals, government officials like Premier Doug Ford, and health ministers, but did not name Chief Medical Officer Kieran Moore, despite referencing his Directive 6 on vaccine policies.
The defendants filed a motion to strike in August 2024 resulting in the claim being dismissed and nearly $200,000 in costs awarded against the fired health-care workers, who were arguably already heavily invested into litigious efforts.
van den Berg points to previous testimony from Staff Sergeant Peter Danyluk (an expert in police ethics) who confirmed that Grus' phone call was part of her duties, as she was raising concerns about a statistical anomaly in infant deaths
— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) January 14, 2025
Danyluk noted that her actions were…
In the decision, Justice Koehnen outlined that the case lacked jurisdiction due to authority issues with unionized employees and privilege claims under the Public Hospitals Act, ultimately labelling it an "abuse of process."
The claim was dismissed as "frivolous and vexatious" with an overly complicated and improperly drafted statement, including claims that were unrelated or not supported by evidence. Koehnen concluded there was no legitimate public interest in the case, criticizing the continued pursuit of similarly worded claims after being struck down multiple times by other courts.
When questioned about the court decisions against him, Galati claimed that all COVID-related cases have been dismissed, except for his own, which he argues are the only ones still standing and with leave to amend. He expressed frustration with judicial notice being used to deem COVID-19 measures safe without testing evidence, questioning why the Supreme Court of Canada has not addressed the issue, and dismissed further inquiries as "ill-informed."
While there is a need for contrarian lawyers like Galati who continue to challenge COVID-19 policies—and he may be right in suggesting the courts are biased—it’s hard to properly test evidence when you can’t even get past the statement of claim process.


COMMENTS
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-01-14 20:08:00 -0500The courts are biased against people who dispute the COVID narrative. Even so, lawyers must ensure their case is solid with no mistakes in them.