September 21, 2023

VIA EMAIL <sc.civil_va@bccourts.ca>

Vancouver Law Courts

Supreme Court Scheduling
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver BC V6Z 2E1

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: CSASPP v. HMQ & PHO

BCSC Vancouver Registry File No. S210831

We are counsel for the defendants in the above-noted proposed class proceeding,
which is being case-managed by Justice Crerar.

Further to Justice Crerar’s memorandum to counsel dated August 16, 2023, we enclose
the reply submissions of the defendants.

We respectfully request that the enclosed submissions be directed to the attention of

Justice Crerar. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this regard.

Yours truly,

Chantelle Rajotte
Legal Counsel
CMR/jh
Enclosure

Cc. Polina Furtula, Counsel for the Plaintiff (Via Email).

Ministry of Attorney General Legal Services Branch Location:

Litigation Group 1301 – 865 Hornby Street
Vancouver BC V6Z 2G3

Telephone: 604 660-6793

Facsimile: 604 660-6797
Chantelle.Rajotte@gov.bc.ca
 No. S210831
Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy

PLAINTIFF

AND

His Majesty the King in right of the Province of British Columbia and Dr. Bonnie Henry in
her Capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the Province of British Columbia

DEFENDANTS

Defendants’ Reply to Supplemental Submissions

of the Plaintiff

Canadian Society for the Advancement His Majesty the King in right of the
of Science in Public Policy Province of British Columbia
Dr. Bonnie Henry in her capacity as
Polina Furtula Provincial Health Officer for the
Citadel Law Corporation Province of British Columbia
1400 – 1125 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8 Chantelle Rajotte
Emily Lapper
Trevor Bant
Ministry of Attorney General
1301 – 865 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2G3
1001 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC V8W 2C5
 1

1. The defendants file this reply to respond to the plaintiff’s submission with respect to
R. 9-8(8). Specifically, the plaintiff contends that R. 9-8(8) is an answer to the
defendants’ abuse of process application insofar as it relates to the Health Workers
Petition. 1 This submission misunderstands the effect of R. 9-8(8).

2. R. 9-8(8) provides that a discontinuance is not a defence to a subsequent

proceeding for the same or substantially the same cause of action unless the court
otherwise orders. In other words, the presumption is that a discontinuance is without
prejudice; unless a court otherwise orders, a discontinuance does not enable a
defendant to raise res judicata as a defence to any future action brought on the
same cause of action. 2

3. R. 9-8(8) has no application to the circumstances before the Court. In this case, the
plaintiff chose to proceed with both a civil action for damages and a petition for
judicial review simultaneously. This is plainly abusive. Discontinuing the Health
Workers Petition does not undo the abuse, nor does it insulate the plaintiff from the
Court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect its process by dismissing an action as an
abuse of process.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: September 21, 2023

Chantelle Rajotte

Emily Lapper

Trevor Bant

Counsel for His Majesty the King in right of the

Province of British Columbia and Dr. Bonnie Henry
in her capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the
Province of British Columbia

1 Supplemental Submissions of the Plaintiff, para. 38.

2 DLC Holdings Corp. v. Payne, 2021 BCCA 31 at para. 58.