Alberta, Canadian federal gov’ts face lawsuits filed over ‘harm’ caused by COVID shots

A law firm representing Albertans alleges in its filing that the vaccines were ‘deceptively’ promoted.

A law firm filed a class action lawsuit against the Alberta provincial government and the federal government on behalf of Albertans who were “harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines.”

“This legal action is centered around allegations of unlawful, negligent, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices by the Defendants in relation to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the Covid Vaccines,” Alberta-based Rath & Company stated in a February 29 press release regarding the lawsuit, which was filed in the Court of King’s Bench in Lethbridge, Alberta.

“This proposed class action lawsuit seeks justice for individuals who have suffered physical and psychological injuries or death due to the alleged negligence and misconduct by the Defendants in respect of the Covid Vaccines. It aims to hold the Defendants accountable and obtain compensation for those adversely affected.”

According to the law firm, the lawsuit was filed individually last year by COVID jab-harmed Alberta resident Carrie Sakamoto, who is listed as the “class representative for the proposed class action lawsuit.” She sustained “severe, permanent physical and emotional injuries” from the COVID shots.

“The lawsuit claims that the Defendants (Alberta and Federal governments) were negligent, provided information they knew to be false and incomplete, and that they censored and suppressed truthful and reliable information about vaccine injuries thereby vitiating informed consent and causing harm to Ms. Sakamoto and many others in Alberta,” the Rath & Company press release noted.

“The lawsuit goes on to allege misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to commit assault and battery on the public.”

The remedies sought by the plaintiff include “general damages in an amount to be proven at trial” as well as “special and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.”

Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath predicted that Canadians will be “shocked to learn about the rushed changes to safety standard for the Covid Vaccines which removed the requirement for the Covid Vaccines to be either ‘safe or effective’ while, at the same time, the Defendants promoted, distributed, and marketed the Covid Vaccines as ‘safe and effective’ to the public.”

Rath added that the federal and Alberta governments “didn’t stop there” when it came to the COVID shots, as “they went further by coercion the public to take the Covid Vaccines by stripping rights from them or providing financial incentives for taking the Covid Vaccines.”

The COVID shots were heavily promoted by the federal government as well as all provincial governments in Canada, with the Alberta government under former Premier Jason Kenney being no exception.

The mRNA shots themselves have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

According to co-counsel Eva Chipiuk, the Defendants “held themselves out as public health experts and gave medical advice to the public at large,” but they “intentionally set out to build a relationship of trust between themselves and the public during the pandemic at a time when they knew the public was vulnerable and afraid.”

“They knew or ought to have known that the public would be relying on their information for their health, safety and protection,” she mentioned.

Under Kenney, Albertans were heavily coerced into taking the COVID shots through a mass marketing campaign and later a COVID jab passport. Many in the public and private sectors who did not get the jabs lost their jobs.

Danielle Smith took over from Kenney as leader of the United Conservative Party (UCP) on October 11, 2022, after winning the leadership. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down as well as enacting a vaccine passport.

Under Kenney, those who did not comply with jab mandates such as thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.

Adverse effects from the first round of COVID shots have resulted in a growing number of Canadians filing for financial compensation over injuries from the jabs via the federal Vaccine Injury Program (VISP).

VISP has already paid well over $11 million to those injured by COVID injections.

Earlier this year, LifeSiteNews reported on how officials from Health Canada have admitted that there is “residual plasmid DNA” in the COVID shots after a Conservative MP asked the agency through an official information request if the DNA fragments were in the shots.

The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result of this, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them.

Lawsuit open to All COVID jab ‘impacted individuals in Alberta’

The Rath & Company class action lawsuit is open to all impacted “individuals in Alberta” who have been “injured or otherwise adversely affected by the Covid Vaccines.”

Those wanting to join the class action can click here.

Rath & Company noted that should the court grant permission for this action to proceed as a “Class Action” (also known as “Certification”), those involved “may qualify as a class member whether or not you have registered.”

“Millions of Canadians relied on the representations of the Defendants at a time when they were particularly vulnerable. We now know that many Canadians suffered physical and psychological injuries due to the misinformation and negligence of the Defendants,” Rath & Company stated.

This is the second large class action prepared by Rath & Company in recent weeks concerning COVID jabs and mandates in Alberta.

Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that a law firm is in the process of putting together a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta government on behalf of many business owners in the province who faced massive losses or permanent closures from what it says were “illegal” COVID public health orders enacted by provincial officials.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of Trudeau’s federal government, split Canadian society.

Despite the health risks associated with the COVID shots, governments across Canada all enacted strict rules, including workplace jab mandates.

Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

The Rath & Company class action is just one of many that have been filed by Canadians who chose not to get the shots, then lost their job, and want to fight back.

Late last year, LifeSiteNews reported that over 700 vaccine-free Canadians negatively affected by federal COVID jab dictates banded together to file a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against the federal government of Trudeau.

Related Topics:#AnthonyMurdoch #ClassActionCovidLawsuit #CovidLawsuit #LifeSiteNews #Rath&Company feature

Up Next

Trudeau’s AG claims Emergencies Act use was justified over ‘risk of serious violence’

Don't Miss

Danielle Smith vows to protect Albertan farmland from Trudeau’s radical ‘net zero’ push

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 10 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.