Listen to a reading of this article:
Just when Rocco Galati thought he could put his feet up, open up a nice bottle of Chianti, and chase the blues away watching Al Pacino movies, someone had to go and wreck his week, even more than it was already wrecked.
See my last article for an update about Rocco’s week:
Dr. Ashvinder Kaur Lamba filed in Ontario Provincial Court this week. She is suing Rocco Galati for malpractice, claiming “general and special damages for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract in the amount of $500,000,” and “aggravated and/or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.” Plus court costs.
Ouch. Rocco is going to need another bottle of Chianti.
This is such a tangled web of legal muckery, it is hard to know where to start.
Dr. Lamba, was part of a defamation lawsuit, initiated by Dr. Kulvinder Gill, that sought damages of $12.75 million because of insulting remarks on Twitter, made by 23 doctors, media personalities, and media outlets. These 23 people were promoting mass vaccination and martial law, while Lamba and Gill were vocal critics of the Covid-19 restrictions.
This led to heated exchanges and derogatory statements on Twitter.
Dr. Gill argued in their joint statement of claim:
“The individual defendants, like a pack of hyenas, attempted and in fact coordinated a circling of the plaintiff to literally destroy her career and reputation.” Falsely labelling her an “anti-vaxxer,” “anti-science” and a “conspiracy theorist” she said, was untrue and had “sexist, misogynist, and racially overt overtures.”
One of the doctors, Dr. Angus Maciver, has a history of making crude comments about both Dr. Lamba and Dr. Gill. He was sanctioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2020 for professional misconduct when he described Dr. Ashvinder Lamba and Dr. Kulvinder Gill as “whining corksoakers” and “tw@ts,” in a tweet from September 2018.
He was suspended for one month and ordered to pay a $6,000 fine.
SLAPP and Anti-SLAPP
Social media is always a source of intense bickering between people. Such is human life, but insults alone do not count as defamation, slander or libel in a court of law. Under Canadian law, you are allowed to make any fair comment or opinion on a matter of public interest. Defamation is when someone shares false information about someone, especially if they know the information is false, and their intent is to harm someone’s reputation.
If someone posts something online about you that you don’t like, but there is evidence that it is true, then it isn’t defamation, even if it does hurt your reputation.
Defamation lawsuits that are designed to silence critics are called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and there is strict legislation in Canada, called anti-SLAPP laws, that are supposed to prevent the abuse or misuse of people who try to silence or intimidate others through legal action.
Drs. Lamba and Gill’s lawsuit was dismissed as a SLAPP on February 24, 2022. Justice Stewart handed down a $1.1 million award, primarily against Gill, the main plaintiff in the lawsuit. This was split up among 13 of the defendants, each receiving roughly $100k each.
The Accusations Against Rocco
To cut to the chase: Rocco and his company, Rocco Galati Corporation, is being sued under the Negligence Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Dr. Lamba, who is being represented by Asher Honickman, are accusing Rocco Galati of 20 counts of “flagrant breaches of duties,” the main ones being:
(b) They failed to advise Dr. Lamba of the risks in commencing a defamation action in the Province of Ontario, including the very real potential for an adverse full indemnity costs award and further reputational damage.
(d) They failed to properly and competently articulate, advance, and argue a meritorious claim against the First Doctor. (Dr. Maciver)
(e) They joined Dr. Lamba’s claim to Dr. Gill’s COVID-19 Claims, when they knew or ought to have known that this would taint Dr. Lamba’s claims, or adversely affected the optics of Dr. Lamba’s claim, and would also ruin the reputation of Dr. Lamba and cause her to be viewed with disrespect, hatred or contempt by members of her profession and members of the public.
(f) They caused Dr. Lamba to be potentially liable for the costs of the Gill Defendants on a joint and several basis, which required significant additional legal costs to remedy.
(h) They held themselves out as experts in the field of defamation law, when they knew or ought to have known that they, in fact, lacked any such expertise.
(i) They failed to provide Dr. Lamba with competent advice and recommendations.
(n) They committed flagrant breaches of their duties owed to Dr. Lamba pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(o) They drafted, prepared, and issued a highly deficient Statement of Claim, for the reasons set out above.
(t) They abandoned Dr. Lamba’s case at a critical time.
(u) They generally acted as incompetent legal counsel in advancing and protecting Dr. Lamba’s interests.
The Short Version:
Rocco had two separate clients, Dr. Lamba and Dr. Gill, who had similar issues. He convinced them both, with his magic bottle of snake oil, to join their cases together. This would save him time and effort. Instead of having to file two cases separately—he would get paid twice for doing half the work. A win-win for nobody except Rocco.
Dr. Lamba had to hire another lawyer after Rocco “moved to get off the record and left Dr. Lamba in the lurch. They did not provide her with names of alternative counsel with competency or expertise in defamation law, and, as a result, she was forced to scramble to obtain new counsel.”
She was able to appeal the costs decision and her cost was reduced to $161,500 payable to two of the doctors in the defamation lawsuit. Even though a GP in Ontario makes an average salary of $225,000, this is still a hefty price to pay.
Rocco, as their lawyer, should have advised them the dangers of SLAPP lawsuits. He should have also declined to take their cases because they had little chance of winning, and zero chance of winning after he joined their cases together.
This is just another example of the Galati Grift Wagon in operation. A lawyer with his 30-year experience ought to know better. Either he is completely incompetent, a malicious con man or both. This is the unstated subtext of the malpractice lawsuit.
I deal with a summary of his grift here and here.
If you really want the full analysis of all of Rocco’s lawsuits over the last 4 years, see CanuckLaw.ca.
Make sure you budget an entire weekend to catch up on all the adventures of the Galati Grift Wagon.
“For the grifter, ripping people off is seldom the point. The grifter is an artiste who invests in the long con.”
—Jacob Weisberg
Our work is entirely reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it with like-minded people. Upgrade your subscription to paid, or buy us a coffee at Paypal.me/freepolitik.
Follow us:
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Rumble, Bitchute, TikTok, YouTube, Telegram
If you want to read more, you can buy Rick Thomas’ book:
How to Defeat the New World Order
The best way to keep up to date with what we’re doing is subscribe to the mailing list at VictoryCanada.today which will get you an email notification for our social activism, and on Substack, whenever we post another article.
All works are narrated by MB Bose. Thank you for your continued support and encouragement.
Normally, I would be skeptical of such a case succeeding, but this is an extraordinary circumstance.
I really hope this leads for people to take a serious look at what accountability looks like within, and without the "freedom movement". While there are often bigger fish to fry, kicking people when they're down by taking advantage of them needs to be punished swiftly and harshly.