On September 24th 2026, Action4Canada returned to court to oppose the defendants’ second application to strike our COVID-19 claim.

Near the end of the day, Mr Galati was the last lawyer to make substantive submissions. Following a 15-minute break, the defendants were given an opportunity to briefly reply, and then Justice Gordon C Weatherill stated he was going to deliver his decision right then and there. He proceeded to give an 11½-minute ruling striking our case in its entirety. How could he prepare such a lengthy judgement in 15 minutes? Justice Weatherill’s mind was clearly made up before the hearing. It was very evident to nearly everyone attending that he did not give our submissions the full and impartial consideration they legally required. These decisions generally take judges months to deliberate on prior to providing their ruling.

In the morning, the BC and Federal government lawyers provided weak submissions with no compelling argument as to why this case shouldn’t proceed, and yet the judge said that he accepted their submissions “in their entirety.” In comparison, Rocco Galati, with nearly 40 years of constitutional and criminal law experience and an outstanding record, delivered his submissions with precision as he presented Supreme Court authorities, facts and legal arguments explaining why the case should be heard.

Regardless, in his statement, Justice Weatherill described Mr Galati’s submissions as “general, vague, and superficial protests.” Equally troubling was his statement that the claim sought to take the court into the “conspiratorial and demon-haunted shadow of Christian nationalism’s opposition to and defiance of” the COVID-19 measures introduced by the federal and BC governments in 2020. He portrayed Action4Canada’s case as a “crusade” tied to “Christian nationalism,” and said the grievances raised had no place in court. Let that sink in.

Justice Weatherill’s remarks and conduct raises serious concerns as he clearly violated multiple sections of the Canadian Judicial Council’s Ethical Principles for Judges. In response, Action4Canada filed a complaint with the Council on September 30th, asking it to examine whether his conduct was an abuse of judicial authority and violated his duty to hear the parties impartially and with an open mind.

His ruling failed to meaningfully address the Supreme Court authorities, facts and arguments Mr Galati presented. We believe his treatment of our counsel and our case was a blatant miscarriage of justice, and therefore, we are appealing his decision! 

We will not accept a ruling that ends our case without a fair hearing. Canadians have the right to bring constitutional challenges before the courts and expect their arguments to be considered impartially. We intend to pursue that right and challenge a decision we believe undermines it, especially considering a case of this magnitude and importance. The independence and integrity of our courts matter to every Canadian whose freedoms depend on them.

Action4Canada has received an overwhelming response from the public in support of an appeal, after they learned what transpired in court. This appeal will require substantial legal resources and we can’t do this without your support. Please make a financial contribution to Action4Canada’s legal fund today. Every contribution helps us continue this fight for justice and accountability.

Solution: A country cannot remain free if its courts become instruments of political control. But citizens are not powerless. Recent elections in Argentina, Italy, Chile, and Brazil’s recent first round of voting show that citizens can organize, vote and change the direction of their governments. Elections matter here in Canada, too. We must stay engaged, demand accountability from those we elect, and defend the right to a fair hearing in our courts. We cannot give up. We must press on and fight for justice, freedom and the future of our nation.

Watch the Empower Hour interview below for Rocco Galati’s full response to the ruling, his discussion of the Supreme Court decisions and legal arguments he presented, and his explanation of how this decision’s implications reach beyond our case.