Liberty Members Voting Survey

Good Day FFF members, thank you for your continued support!

The time has come for us to make some decisions about our possible legal actions and next steps.

Our lawyer, Umar Sheikh of Sheikh Law, has reviewed everyone’s evidence submission, assessed our position, and based on the current legal landscape has advised us on 5 possible courses of action. Below you will find an overview of each item, the legal advice we have received and options for you to vote on. 

The options presented are deemed to be the most viable path(s) forward for FFF at this juncture in time . It is possible that in the future other options may present and be possible for our membership. 

Please also note that while we have endeavoured to incorporate all of the FFF membership, there may be members who will not fall into any of the proposed options. This does not mean that there is no possible action for you – it just means that right now we have to pursue the options that are most likely to produce a positive result in the current legal landscape. 

As a paying Liberty member, you are being asked to review the following content and make a decision on each matter, voting for actions that you feel are in the best interest of our FedsForFreedom group, regardless of your personal case. Please cast your vote on all five sections below, regardless if the situation applies to you or not. 

At this point we are unable to accurately forecast the costs for any/all of the actions. That means we cannot articulate the scope of additional funds/fundraising that will be required to pursue any/all of the actions.

Definition of costs: Costs are legal expenses that accumulate during a lawsuit. Costs include hourly fees for lawyer’s work and disbursements.

What is a Cost Award? When a court action reaches its end, the judge will generally make a statement about costs, their amount, and which party has to pay them. Basically, a costs award is given to the party that won the lawsuit to help them recoup some of the money that they spent bringing their action.

In Class Actions costs are not awarded (meaning if FFF loses we would not be required to pay the opposing sides legal fees). 

In Direct Actions, costs are commonly awarded. Meaning if FFF loses, it is likely that we would have to pay the opposing sides legal fees. 

Voting instructions:

• Each member can vote once. 
• Cast your vote on each of the 5 sections
• Voting must be complete by June 23, 2023

Results will be tabulated and announced to members 24 hours after voting closes. Should you have any questions about the 5 possible courses of action please do not hesitate to reach out to the FFF executive team at contact@fedsforfreedom.ca before you vote.

– Step 1 of 5

Name *

First

Last

Raklet (FFF Membership System) Registered Email Address *

ITEM 1: Appeal the dismissed PSAC Union Members Complaint against PSAC in the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB)

In January 2021, 155 FedsForFreedom members lodged a complaint against PSAC  on the failure of their Duty of Fair Representation. As of June 02, 2023, the FPSLREB has denied our complaint. Should we choose to proceed, the next step in the process would be to submit an application for review & reconsideration, while also requesting a Federal Court of Appeals Judicial Review.

PROS

• There are no repercussions for not pursuing our complaint
• We have demonstrably done our due diligence by exhausting our internal administrative processes

CONS

• Depleting funds that could be allocated to other legal avenues
• Strong possibility, based on other labour board decisions, that we will not be successful

LEGAL ADVICE:

Abandon the complaint, focus our efforts and funds on other actions.

Are you in concurrence that we abandon the complaint & not appeal or request a Federal court of appeal review? *

• Yes, I agree that we abandon the process with the FPSLREB.
• No, I disagree and would like to pursue the application for review and reconsideration.

Vote

ITEM 2: Pursue a Charter 2(d) Class Action in the Federal Courts

This would be a Class Action lawsuit based on a complaint against 2(d) of the Charter: Freedom of Association. This would be the first of its kind and the only option for unionized Federal Public Servants to circumvent the labour board and take legal action against the employer. The class action will not argue the merits of the policy or the vaccines; the focus will be on the freedom/right to associate with our Collective Bargaining Group when a new term & condition is enacted. There have been 3 successful cases brought to the courts on this argument. Fundraising by all members would be expected and required.

PROS

• 1^st instance of FFF members/Federal Employees bringing a 2(d) challenge forward without union
• MOST of FFF Membership would qualify to participate
• Mitigates the potential for financial loss as costs are not awarded in Class Actions (we will have to pay for our lawyer, but the court cannot fine us to pay the ‘costs’ if we are unsuccessful)
• Only viable path to allow unionized employees to proceed to court
• Will have discovery and opportunity to examine government witnesses

CONS

• Lengthy process – will require FFF members long term commitment
• Significant financial cost – will require fundraising and sign-up fees

CLASS ACTION QUALIFICATION

The following criteria must be met in order to participate in the class action suit:

1. Core Federal Public Servants (employed at the time the policy was introduced)
2. Unionized
3. Unvaccinated or unwilling to disclose vaccination status
4. After the policy was announced, experienced harm as a result of the policy (Eg: Placed on administrative LWOP, took leave, resigned or retired due to the policy)

LEGAL ADVICE:

Pursue a Charter 2(d) class action.

Are you in concurrence with proceeding with a freedom of association class action lawsuit? *

• Yes, I support FFF pursuing this action
• No, I do not support FFF pursuing this action

Go BackVote

ITEM 3: Pursue a Non-Unionized Federal Wrongful Dismissal Claim in the Federal Courts

This would be a direct action against the employer for wrongful dismissal in federal court. This complaint will argue the merits of the Policy as well as the vaccines. It would allow for important discovery that may assist our other legal actions. If there is support for this item, a call-out will be issued to all non-unionized members who were terminated (or did not have their contract/term renewed) and want to be considered for a wrongful dismissal case. Our legal counsel will select the strongest case(s) to bring forward to the courts. There is a possibility that costs would arise from this action if we are not successful, and those named may be responsible for the fees. If we are successful, this case will set important precedent.

PROS

• Direct challenge against vaccine mandate in court
• Discovery will allow for evidence to be produced on how the government made its decisions relating to the policy and what information they had access to when making said decisions
• If successful, will set precedent and rules for how government can behave in the future

 

CONS

• An individual must volunteer to be named in the action
• If we lose, the individual is subject to costs. Possibility of FFF assisting with potential costs if voted on by the membership

LEGAL ADVICE:

Pursue finding at least one non-unionized employee(s) who meets the criteria for wrongful dismissal and then file a federal case.

Are you in concurrence with proceeding with a wrongful dismissal case for non-unionized employees? *

• Yes, I support FFF pursuing this action
• No, I do not support FFF pursuing this action

Go BackVote

ITEM 4: Appeal a denied Social Security Tribunal (SST) in the Federal Court of Appeals

This case would be submitted to Federal Court of Appeals, to request the SST re-hears Stacey Payne’s case. If successful, our legal counsel would then argue Stacey’s case at the SST with the intent to set case precedent. This would then allow for others to have their cases re-heard. The templates devised for Stacey’s case will be shared and the process will be clearly documented , these valuable resources will be made available to all FFF members.

PROS

• If successful, sets good case precedent for every Canadian who was arbitrarily denied EI Canadian’s
• If successful, will provide framework for FFF members to file their own claim
• A judicial review of SST will allow for discovery into how the rules were/are being applied
• Cost effective (representing one member but creating resources for all)

CONS

• Depleting funds that could be allocated to other legal avenues
• We will only be taking one member (Stacey) through the legal/court process while the rest of our membership would then have access to all the information to use independently

 

LEGAL ADVICE:

Use Stacey’s case to file an SST appeal case, in an effort to win and set precedent so that all members can then file for themselves.

Are you in concurrence with proceeding with Stacey’s SST case in the aim of setting good case precedent? *

• Yes, I support FFF pursuing this action
• No, I do not support FFF pursuing this action

Go BackVote

ITEM 5: Pursue a Human Rights Christian Religious Discrimination Class Action in the Federal Courts

This would be a Human Rights class action lawsuit focusing on religious discrimination. Based on the review of our evidence, our legal counsel has noted that predominantly Christian members had their religious accommodation request denied and may have a viable Human Rights discrimination case.

PROS

• Mitigates the potential for financial loss as costs are not awarded in Class Actions (we will have to pay for our lawyer, but the court cannot fine us to pay the ‘costs’ if we are unsuccessful)
• We will have discovery and the opportunity to examine government witnesses

 

CONS

• Lengthy process – will require FFF members long term commitment
• Significant financial cost – will require fundraising and sign-up fees

CLASS ACTION QUALIFICATION

The following criteria must be met in order to participate in the class action suit:

1. Federal Public Servants
2. Unionized
3. Unvaccinated
4. Denied Christian Religious accommodation

LEGAL ADVICE:

Pursue a religious discrimination class action lawsuit.

Are you in concurrence with proceeding with a discrimination class action lawsuit (based on religious accommodation denials)? *

• Yes, I support FFF pursuing this action
• No, I do not support FFF pursuing this action

Go Back

Finalize Votes