COVID-19
Fraud and Abuse Denied EI Claims for the Unvaccinated
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Should Canadians who lost their jobs over vaccine mandates have been denied Employment Insurance? Certified financial examiner Lex Acker says no, and that $12.9 billion of EI should have been paid out.
Acker presented his findings June 2 in Regina at the National Citizens Inquiry on COVID-19. His wife, a Nanaimo, BC nurse not named in his testimony, lost her job due to non-compliance with vaccine mandates.
Late in 2021, federal Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough announced that unvaccinated employees would be denied Employment Insurance (EI), but Acker’s wife applied just the same.
According to Acker, a subsequent appeal included a reference to a Supreme Court ruling in which medical coercion was found to equate to assault. An EI agent admitted to Acker that the appeal “got everyone’s attention” at the federal agency but was denied anyway.
Acker applied for all documentation related to the decision and received 1200 pages. Included was a 12-page document entitled BE Memo 2021-10, which directed EI agents on how to administer claims for the unvaccinated.
“The memorandum is not linked to any legislative or regulatory amendments,” the memo explained.
Given the minister’s announcement all such cases would be denied, the memo seems little more than pretense, despite its apparent departure from normal practice.
The memo mandated three requirements to establish a finding of misconduct for an applicant.
- “The employer has adopted and communicated a clear mandatory vaccination policy to all affected employees;”
- “The employees are aware that the failure to comply with the policy would cause a loss of employment;”
- “The application of the policy to the employee is reasonable within the workplace context.”
According to the response to Acker’s wife, which Acker included in a sworn affadavit, the EI agent on the case asked the Vancouver Island Health Authority for the appropriate documentation. The Ei agent noted such documentation was never received, yet denied the claim with the words, “Misconduct proven.”
The EI memo explicitly stated that claimants could still bring Charter arguments forward. Then again, the memo also validated an “employer’s professional expectations,” an apparent veiled reference to vaccination. The memo explained that it was not enough for applicants to say they suffered “discrimination.” Instead, ”the client must be able to demonstrate how they were discriminated against and on what grounds.”
It’s not clear how that would happen if the minister directed all applications to be refused.
Remarkably, the EI agent in Acker’s case acknowledged stated arguments against the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, but said assessing such judgments was beyond the scope of an EI agent, as were “Charter Rights violation arguments.” The agent told Acker to turn to “the Courts, Human Rights Commission, Labour Standards” instead.
The memo said that claimants citing a religious exemption had to show “a clear link” with proof “that the client’s religion is preventing them from being vaccinated” but not use a Bible or Qu’ran.
“[T]he interpretation of sacred texts by the client themselves must not be seen as a particular practice required by their faith,” the memo explained.
The employer also had wide discretion on what medical exemptions to accept.
“In some cases, the employer can refuse to accept a medical certificate because it does not meet the conditions of the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy,” the memo explained.
“However, the client could have another credible medical reason, such as a mental illness or other condition justifying their refusal.”
If the suggestion mental illness could have contributed to vaccine refusals isn’t biased, then what is?
On Substack, Acker estimated a 9.7% termination rate from positions in B.C. Health, based on vacant positions. His analysis of employer pension contributions suggested similar termination rates of 8.6% to 11.5%.
Acker extrapolated these vaccination and employment rates, and the average EI payout of $26,000, to estimate that unvaccinated Canadians forfeited $12.9 billion in EI claims.
A lay perusal of the criminal code by the analyst suggested potential avenues for litigation, such as fraud, breach of trust by a public officer, and disobeying a statute. Tort for misfeasance in public office might also be a civil remedy.
Acker said the EI rejections were due to systemic fraud and abuse, and he has made a good case. Canadians bemoaning the failed government response to the pandemic have yet another reason to demand accountability.
Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
COVID-19
Canadian government seeking to destroy Freedom Convoy leader, taking Big Red from Chris Barber
From LifeSiteNews
The Crown claimed that ‘Big Red’ is an ‘offence-related property’ relating to Chris Barber’s involvement in the 2022 protests against Canada’s COVID mandates.
The Canadian government is still going after Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber, this time hoping to seize his very livelihood.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has reported that it represented Barber during a November 26 hearing about the Crown’s attempt to take “Big Red,” Barber’s semi-truck. The Crown claimed that the vehicle is an “offence-related property” relating to Barber’s involvement in the 2022 protests against Canada’s COVID mandates.
Barber’s truck, a 2004 Kenworth long-haul, which he uses for business, was a focal point in the 2022 protests. He drove it to Ottawa, where it was parked for an extended period of time, but he complied when officials asked him to move it.
Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, said the Crown’s attempt to take away Barber’s livelihood is “not” in the spirit of laws in place regarding forfeiture.
“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family, as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions,” she said as per a JCCF press release.
“Especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it.”
The Freedom Convoy leader has talked about his truck, saying that, “Big Red is how I put food on the table.”
“I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living,” Barber continued.
A ruling regarding the Crown’s wish to seize Barber’s truck is expected to appear on December 19; however, the court case could drag into the new year.
RELATED: Freedom Convoy organizers sentenced to 18-month house arrest for role in protests
On October 7, 2025, after a long trial, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Tamara Lich and Barber to 18 months’ house arrest. They had been declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest against COVID mandates, and as social media influencers.
Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.
Government lawyers for the Crown have filed an appeal of the acquittals of Lich and Barber on intimidation charges.
Lich and Barber were declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the protest against COVID mandates in April 2022, and as social media influencers. The conviction came after a nearly two-year trial despite the non-violent nature of the popular movement.
COVID-19
Crown seeks to punish peaceful protestor Chris Barber by confiscating his family work truck “Big Red”
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Ontario Court of Justice will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, November 26 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, regarding the Crown’s attempt to permanently seize “Big Red,” the 2004 Kenworth long-haul truck relied upon by peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Chris Barber and his family trucking business.
Constitutional lawyer Diane Magas, who represents Mr. Barber, is opposing the forfeiture.
“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions, especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it,” she said.
Mr. Barber, a Saskatchewan trucker and central figure in the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy, depends on this vehicle for his livelihood. The Crown alleges that his truck constitutes “offence-related property.”
The November 26 hearing will address the Crown’s application to seize the truck and will include evidence regarding ownership and corporate title. The Court will also consider an application filed earlier this year by Mr. Barber’s family, who are asserting their rights as interested third parties and seeking to prevent the loss of the vehicle.
Mr. Barber was found guilty of mischief and counselling others to breach a court order following the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest, despite his consistent cooperation with law enforcement and reliance on legal advice during the events of early 2022. At sentencing, the Court acknowledged that he “came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence,” emphasizing that Mr. Barber encouraged calm and compliance.
Mr. Barber said, “‘Big Red’ is how I put food on the table. I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living.”
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Poilievre says West Coast Pipeline MOU is no guarantee
Will the New West Coast Pipeline MoU Lead to Results? Almost Certainly Not According to AI
Premier Smith explains how private clinics will be introduced in Alberta
-
Alberta18 hours ago
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Energy2 days ago
Poilievre says West Coast Pipeline MOU is no guarantee
-
Energy2 days ago
Will the New West Coast Pipeline MoU Lead to Results? Almost Certainly Not According to AI
-
Alberta2 days agoWest Coast Pipeline MOU: A good first step, but project dead on arrival without Eby’s assent
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCanadian energy policies undermine a century of North American integration
-
Alberta2 days agoCarney forces Alberta to pay a steep price for the West Coast Pipeline MOU
-
Energy1 day agoOttawa and Alberta’s “MOU” a step in the right direction—but energy sector still faces high costs and weakened competitiveness
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta and Ottawa ink landmark energy agreement