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.

Up Next

Ruling in favor of fired vaccine-free workers could end provincial jab mandates, former AG says

Don't Miss

The fundamental crisis with the WHO’s new international pandemic agreement

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

Canadian gov’t lawyers request jail for Calgary pastor who protested ‘drag queen story hour’ at library

Crime / 2 hours ago

Joe Biden pardons son Hunter for any crimes committed in the last 10 years!

Health / 3 hours ago

Fauci admitted to RFK Jr. that none of 72 mandatory vaccines for children has ever been safety tested

COVID-19

Ontario healthcare workers file $170 million class action over COVID mandates

Published on November 28, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A group of healthcare workers in Ontario who say their rights were infringed after refusing to go along with COVID workplace jab mandates have launched a $170 million class-action lawsuit against the province’s government and chief medical health officer.

The lawsuit was brought forth by the United Health Care Workers of Ontario (UHCWO) and challenges an order made in 2021 by Ontario’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Kieran Moore that mandated all hospitals in the province implement healthcare worker COVID jab mandates.

“We were witness to vast numbers of dedicated healthcare workers having their livelihoods and careers abruptly taken away, simply for making a personal medical choice,” said the UHCWO in a media statement.

Moore’s mandate, known as Directive 6, went into effect on September 7, 2021. The class action looks to help the unionized healthcare workers impacted by the directive who say their freedoms were violated by the rule.

“Other health-care workers were coerced into a medical treatment with the threat of being terminated, which stripped away the element of informed consent. Others were denied both medical and religious exemptions to this medical treatment,” said the union.

The court proceedings will be taking place in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which must certify the lawsuit before it can officially proceed. The class-action is open to all unionized Ontario healthcare workers who were impacted by Moore’s directive.

According to the UHCWO, the broadness of the class-action has the potential to include “thousands or tens of thousands of health care workers across Ontario.”

“It includes unionized healthcare workers that were fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, or unvaccinated. It includes unionized workers that remained employed, were placed on leave, terminated, resigned, or took early retirement due to the issuance of Directive 6,” says the group.

The UHCWO group has retained Sheikh Law to represent the plaintiffs in the suit, as well as any potential class action members.

Draconian COVID mandates, including those surrounding the experimental mRNA vaccines, were imposed by the provincial Progressive Conservative government of Ontario under Premier Doug Ford and the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Many recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose to not to get the shots and were fired as a result, such as an arbitrator ruling that one of the nation’s leading hospitals in Ontario must compensate 82 healthcare workers terminated after refusing to get the jabs.

The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children. The jabs also have  connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them.

Lawsuit argues ‘adverse events’ associated with COVID jabs were ‘either recklessly or willfully ignored’

In total, the damages being sought by the plaintiffs are broken down into four parts, those being $50 million for pain and suffering, $50 million for misfeasance in public office, $20 million for tortious inducement to breach contract, and another $50 million in punitive damages. The suit also looks to have the plaintiffs compensated for legal costs as well as lost income.

The main plaintiff in the lawsuit is Ontario nurse Lisa Wolfs and according to the UHCWO, it is looking to get enough funding before officially initiating the certification process. If this part fails, she will be on the hook for all costs.

Wolfs worked as a clinical nurse educator at London, Ontario health centre, and is contending that the COVID jab mandates made it so that there were unauthorized modifications made to her employment contract. These modifications made it so that she had to reveal her personal medical information.

According to the lawsuit, she was dismissed after 16 years despite having a stellar work record. Wolfs has argued that her termination was a violation of her contract, which did not mandate she have a jab as a condition of work.

“Known and unknown potential risk of adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccination were either recklessly or willfully ignored,” reads the lawsuit.

“There was no long-term safety data available to the Chief Medical Officer of Health when enacting and enforcing the Order on mandatory vaccinations and as such the Order created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff and Class Members.”

COVID-19

Judge allows B.C. government workers’ lawsuit against COVID mandates to proceed

Published on November 27, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Our legal campaigns are a critical, precedent-setting fight to ensure the preservation of all workers’ employment and Charter rights in British Columbia and Canada for generations to come,’ celebrated the British Columbia Public Servants Employees for Freedom.

A court has ruled that a class action lawsuit launched against the provincial government of British Columbia on behalf of “all unionized” public servant workers in the province who faced persecution resulting from COVID mandates can proceed.

The court case will be heard in April of 2025, noted the British Columbia Public Servants Employees for Freedom (BCPSEF), a non-profit organization that assists public service workers in the province.

“Since October 2021, BCPS Employees for Freedom (BCPSEF) has led a campaign in defense of medical privacy and bodily autonomy on behalf of all public servants and our fellow British Columbians. This has involved raising awareness about the provincial government’s harmful proof of COVID-19 vaccination policy and undertaking a series of legal actions,” said the group in a press release.

“Our legal campaigns are a critical, precedent-setting fight to ensure the preservation of all workers’ employment and Charter rights in British Columbia and Canada for generations to come.”

The class action was initially brought forth by Plaintiff Jason Baldwin’s, with the BCPSEF explaining that now the “Baldwin class action has been merged together with a separate class action claim by unionized B.C. healthcare workers that is being supported by @UHCWBC.”

“Certification of both claims will be argued at 5 days of hearings scheduled in B.C. Supreme Court in Victoria beginning on April 7, 2025,” said the group.

Both class actions made the arguments that workers who refused the COVID shots and were discriminated against had their rights violated “under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for imposing new terms and conditions of employment on existing and freely negotiated employment agreements absent collective bargaining, consideration, or consent.”

“The actions also claim breach of employees’ common law and statutory privacy rights, as well as misfeasance in public office by B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry,” said the group.

The class action was initially filed in October of 2023. According to the BCPS, some 38,000 public servants were directly impacted by the B.C. provincial government’s “coercive and unjustifiable proof of COVID-19 vaccination mandate” which it noted caused “untold suffering and harm.”

The NDP (New Democratic Party) government of British Columbia, which was just re-elected, had in place a COVID jab mandate for healthcare workers years after most provinces dropped theirs. It was not until July of this year that its chief health officer Bonnie Henry formally announced an end to the COVID jab mandate policy for those working in health care.

Many healthcare workers were fired or placed on leave for refusing to get the COVID shots.

Despite removing the mandates, the provincial government announced that it was creating “a vaccine registry,” forcing all healthcare workers to disclose vaccination status to their employer.

The class action by British Columbian public servants is just the latest in a string of lawsuits against provincial governments for enacting draconian COVID mandates which resulted in thousands of businesses going under as well as many people fired for not getting the shots.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a recent class-action lawsuit on behalf of dozens of Canadian business owners in Alberta who faced massive losses or permanent closures due to COVID mandates has been given permission to proceed by a judge.