COVID-19
Peckford, Bernier take travel restrictions to Supreme Court of Canada
News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The Justice Centre announces that the Honourable Brian Peckford, the Honourable Maxime Bernier, and other applicants seek to appeal their vaccine mandate challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. These Applicants argue that vaccine mandates are an issue of national importance and that Canadians deserve to receive court rulings regarding any emergency orders that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In November 2021, the Government of Canada required all travelers of federally regulated transportation services (e.g., air, rail, and marine) to provide proof of Covid vaccination. These restrictions on the Charter freedom of mobility prevented approximately 5.2 million unvaccinated Canadians from traveling by air and rail.
In response to these restrictions, the Honourable Brian Peckford (last living signatory of the Charter and former Premier of Newfoundland), the Honourable Maxime Bernier (leader of the People’s Party of Canada), and other Canadians took the federal government to court in February 2022, arguing that the Charter freedoms of religion and conscience, assembly, democratic rights, mobility, security, privacy, and equality of Canadians were infringed by these restrictions. In addition, affidavits filed in this court action (e.g., the affidavit of Robert Belobaba at paragraph 19) attest that, in a country as large as Canada, prohibitions on domestic and international air travel have significant, negative impacts on Canadians.
In an affidavit (at paragraph 29), Jennifer Little, Director General of Covid Recovery at Transport Canada, provided her Covid Recovery Team’s October 2, 2021 presentation, entitled Implementing a Vaccine Mandate for the Transportation Sector. The presentation outlined options and considerations for the purposes of seeking the Minister of Transport’s approval of the travel vaccination mandate. Her presentation outlined (at pages 12 and 13) that the Canadian travel restrictions in question were “unique in the world in terms of strict vaccine mandate for domestic travel” and were coupled with “one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travelers in the world.” She admitted during cross examination (at paragraphs 162-163, PDF page 61) that she had never seen a recommendation from Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada to the Ministry of Transport to implement a mandatory vaccination policy for travel.
At the same time, Dr. Lisa Waddell, a senior epidemiologist and the knowledge synthesis team lead at the Public Health Agency of Canada, admitted during a cross examination (at paragraphs 300-305, PDF pages 91-93) that there was no recommendation from the Public Health Agency of Canada to impose vaccination requirements on travelers.
In June 2022, the Government of Canada announced that it would suspend the travel vaccine restrictions, but that it would not hesitate to reinstate the mandates if the government considered it necessary.
As a result, the federal government (the Crown) moved to have Premier Peckford’s constitutional challenge struck for mootness (irrelevance). The Crown argued that the travel restrictions were no longer a live issue because they had been lifted and should not, therefore, take up further court resources. The Crown brought this motion after each side had produced expert evidence, called on experts to testify under oath, cross-examined the other side’s experts and witnesses daily for six weeks, conducted significant legal research, and prepared substantive written arguments. Lawyers for both sides spent hundreds of hours placing all the evidence and legal arguments before the Federal Court for its consideration. The only remaining step in the trial process was the presentation of oral argument, scheduled for October 31, 2022. The Federal Court was fully and properly equipped to render a thoughtful decision as to whether the travel restrictions had been a justified violation of Charterfreedoms.
Even though the federal government can impose these same travel restrictions on Canadians again, without notice, the Federal Court granted the Crown’s motion on November 9, 2023, and dismissed this Charter challenge as moot. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed this lower court ruling on November 9, 2023. Effectively, the courts determined that a constitutional challenge to the use of unprecedented emergency powers was neither sufficiently interesting to the Canadian public nor an appropriate use of court resources.
Premier Peckford, Maxime Bernier, and other Canadians now seek to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their case. This involves a two-step process, whereby the applicants first ask whether the Court is willing to hear the appeal. If so, the appeal will then be scheduled for a hearing several months later. The applicants in this case argue that the issues raised in their case are of national importance and that Canadians deserve access to court rulings about policies that violate the Charter freedoms of millions of Canadians.
(See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Premier Peckford here. See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Maxime Bernier here.)
Further, Premier Peckford and the other applicants warn that all challenges to emergency orders risk being deemed irrelevant due to the simple fact that emergency orders are normally implemented only for short periods of time. In most cases, emergency orders will be rescinded by the time a constitutional challenge makes its way through the court process and all the relevant evidence, along with legal arguments, has been put before the judge. For this reason, the Applicants argue that the courts should provide guidance on how emergency orders should be handled in the context of the mootness doctrine.
“If courts are going to affirm and uphold emergency orders that violate our Charter rights and freedoms whenever the emergency order is no longer in force, how can the Charter protect Canadians from government abuses?” asks John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.
Emergency orders are not debated in, or approved by, federal Parliament or provincial legislatures. Rather, they are discussed confidentially in Cabinet such that ordinary Canadians are prevented from understanding the reasons for, or the legality of, emergency orders, such as mandatory vaccination policies that discriminated against Canadians who chose not to get injected. Therefore, it is only through court rulings that Canadians can learn whether a mandate or emergency order is constitutional.
“The Supreme Court of Canada has an opportunity to create an important precedent for how Canadian courts deal with all so-called ‘moot’ cases involving questions about the constitutionality of emergency orders,” stated lawyer Allison Pejovic, who represents Premier Peckford and Maxime Bernier.
“The public interest in this case is staggering. Canadians need to know whether it is lawful for the federal government to prevent them from travelling across Canada, or from leaving and re-entering their own country, based upon whether they have taken a novel medication,” continued Ms. Pejovic.
“The Court’s dismissal of constitutional challenges to Covid orders for ‘mootness’ has deprived thousands of Canadians from knowing whether their governments’ emergency orders were lawful or not. It is time for the Supreme Court of Canada to expand the legal test for mootness to account for governments’ use of emergency orders, which are devoid of transparency and accountability. Canadians have a right to know whether unprecedented mandatory vaccination policies, which turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens, were valid under our Constitution,” concluded Ms. Pejovic.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Emily Kopp
The letter, exclusively shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation, seeks more details about those deaths and the passive U.S. vaccine safety surveillance system and complacent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bureaucracy under the Biden administration that delayed their reporting for years.
“Nobody wanted to admit that these things were causing death. This is absolutely a case of willful ignorance,” Johnson said in an interview with the DCNF.
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The letter requests from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “all records referring or relating to the review of the 96 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccine … including but not limited to, any memorandum or report created following that review and the data underlying the reports.”
“I am grateful that we now have individuals at our federal health agencies who care about vaccine safety and efficacy. I am, however, disappointed that despite having subpoenaed HHS for the type of data and information described in Dr. Prasad’s memo, it does not appear to have been provided to my office,” the letter reads.
HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“This is a profound revelation. For the first time, the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children. Healthy young children who faced tremendously low risk of death were coerced, at the behest of the Biden administration, via school and work mandates, to receive a vaccine that could result in death. In many cases, such mandates were harmful. It is difficult to read cases where kids aged 7 to 16 may be dead as a result of covid vaccines,” Prasad wrote. “There is no doubt that without this FDA commissioner [Marty Makary], we would not have performed this investigation and identified this safety concern. This fact also demands serious introspection and reform.”
“One reason I’m writing this letter is that this memo needs much greater attention. This should be a blockbuster,” the Wisconsin senator told the DCNF.
Johnson, who has investigated the issue of COVID vaccine-linked adverse events since June 2021, also seeks more clarity about why FDA only examined a fraction of total reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). He noted that the 96 deaths scrutinized by FDA staff in its investigation represents a sliver of the raw VAERS reports of 9,299 deaths worldwide within two days of vaccination.
Distinguishing which VAERS reports indicate genuine fatal side effects and which represent mere coincidences requires autopsy reports, which regulators and physicians often do not request because of a ideological reluctance to acknowledge that vaccines can carry risks, Johnson told the DCNF. Johnson said he has spoken to families who suspected a vaccine injury but struggled to obtain autopsies.
“With some of these officials at federal health agencies and within the medical establishment, vaccines are religion. The do not want to muddy the water with facts,” he said.
Johnson’s letter notes that Prasad acknowledged a culture at FDA “where vaccines are exculpated rather than indicted in cases of ambiguity,” and that the true number of deaths is likely higher.
Johnson has as chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigated the Biden administration’s headlong expansion of COVID vaccines and booster shots to healthy young adults and children.
His committee uncovered internal federal documents showing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention never updated its vaccine surveillance tool “V-Safe” to include cardiac symptoms, despite naming myocarditis as a potential adverse event by October 2020, per a May report. The investigation also found that top officials at FDA obstructed a warning to pediatricians and other providers about the risk of myocarditis after the May 2021 authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds, months after Israeli health officials first detected the safety signal in February 2021.
Johnson’s letter highlights missing safety studies that the drugmakers never conducted.
Under the Biden administration, the FDA waived the responsibility of the drugmakers to conduct post-market studies that they had pledged to regulators, scientific advisors on the FDA Vaccines and Related Products Advisory Committee, and the public that they would complete. These uncompleted studies include promised research into subclinical myocarditis, undocumented rates of heart inflammation without obvious symptoms, Prasad’s memo states.
Johnson’s letter reveals the committee has not received any records from HHS about the liability shield for COVID-19 vaccines.
A public health media personality reported on Dec. 11 that FDA staff had downgraded the certainty with which it can attribute some the deaths to the vaccine in the weeks since Prasad received their top line results — echoing prior leaks from career officials aimed at undermining FDA’s new bosses.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Acting Director Tracy Beth Hoeg first concluded in a separate analysis that there were in fact deaths in children in the summer, but career staff leaked the results to reporters who “portrayed the incident as Dr. Hoeg attempting to create a false fear regarding vaccines” soon after, per Prasad’s memo.
Johnson’s letter seeks documentation of Hoeg’s meeting, including “a list of all attendees.”
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
China is escalating its legal fight with Missouri after the state secured a massive court victory earlier this year over Beijing’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the state attorney general’s office.
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced Tuesday that the People’s Government of Wuhan Municipality, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology have filed a $50 billion lawsuit against the state, claiming Missouri poses an “economic and reputational threat” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The suit comes as Missouri moves to seize Chinese-owned assets to collect on a historic federal court judgment the state won in March.
Missouri first sued China in 2020, seeking $25 billion in damages “for causing and exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic” and for hoarding critical medical supplies while the virus spread, according to the state attorney general’s office. China and several affiliated entities were ordered to pay Missouri roughly $24.49 billion, plus post-judgment interest. Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled that China and the other defendants “failed to appear or otherwise answer after being properly served,” resulting in the default judgment.
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Missouri maintained that China was attempting to shield itself from legal consequences by relying on proxy organizations to speak on its behalf — an accusation Beijing now disputes in its own lawsuit against the state.
In its lawsuit, China alleges that Missouri’s actions have had “negative effects on the soft power” of Wuhan and have “belittled the social evaluation” as well as adversely affected the “productivity and commercialization of scientific and technological achievements” of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The filing further alleges that Missouri’s “vexatious litigation” has “defamed Plaintiffs’ reputation, resulting in huge economic losses of the Plaintiffs, and deeply endangering sovereignty, security and development interests of China.”
The suit names the state of Missouri, Republican Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt and the former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as the defendants.
China’s lawsuit demands the defendants “issue public apologies on New York Times, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, YouTube and other American media or internet platforms, and People’s Daily, Xinhuanet and other Chinese media or internet platforms.”
Hanaway rejected the demand and said the state remains focused on enforcing the federal judgment.
“I find it extremely telling that the Chinese blame our great state for ‘belittling the social evaluation’ of The Wuhan Institute of Virology. This lawsuit is a stalling tactic and tells me that we have been on the right side of this issue all along,” Hanaway said in a statement. “We stand undeterred in our mission to collect on our $24 billion judgment that was lawfully handed down in federal court.”
Schmitt described China’s suit as “frivolous lawfare, attempting to absolve themselves of all wrongdoing in the early days of the pandemic.”
“This is their way of distracting from what the world already knows, China has blood on its hands. China lied about the origins of COVID virus, they tried to cover it up, and they upended the world by creating a global pandemic that resulted in immense human loss,” Schmitt added.
Missouri, Hanaway said, is continuing efforts to obtain certification that would allow the state to seize Chinese-owned assets, including real estate, financial interests, and other holdings tied to the defendants.
Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
Schools should go back to basics to mitigate effects of AI
Danielle Smith slams Skate Canada for stopping events in Alberta over ban on men in women’s sports
At Least 15 Killed In Shooting Targeting Jewish Community At Australia’s Bondi Beach, Police Say
-
Alberta2 days ago
Danielle Smith slams Skate Canada for stopping events in Alberta over ban on men in women’s sports
-
International1 day agoTOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE: Trump cuts off Venezuela’s oil lifeline
-
Crime2 days agoThe Uncomfortable Demographics of Islamist Bloodshed—and Why “Islamophobia” Deflection Increases the Threat
-
COVID-191 day ago
Senator Demands Docs After ‘Blockbuster’ FDA Memo Links Child Deaths To COVID Vaccine
-
Business21 hours agoCanada Hits the Brakes on Population
-
Daily Caller9 hours ago‘Almost Sounds Made Up’: Jeffrey Epstein Was Bill Clinton Plus-One At Moroccan King’s Wedding, Per Report
-
COVID-191 day ago
China Retaliates Against Missouri With $50 Billion Lawsuit In Escalating Covid Battle
-
Energy2 days agoLiberals Twisted Themselves Into Pretzels Over Their Own Pipeline MOU