COVID-19
Supreme Court declines to hear Covid vaccine travel mandate cases
From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
At the time the federal government rescinded the vaccine travel mandate, the Minister of Transport had threatened to bring back the mandate without hesitation.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear the appeals in two cases that challenged the federal Covid vaccine travel mandate. The cases are Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada.
The Justice Centre supported Applicants in both cases. The Applications for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada were filed separately.
The Hon. Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was an applicant in one case, along with five others. Mr. Peckford is the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The other case was brought by the Hon. Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada.
In both cases, the Federal Court held the issues were moot because the vaccine travel mandate had been rescinded after the cases had been filed and cross-examination had occurred, but prior to the court hearings. Dismissing a case as moot means that the court has found that its decision will not have a practical effect and that it is not worth the time and effort to decide the case otherwise.
In regard to the Covid vaccine travel mandate, however, at the time the federal government rescinded the vaccine travel mandate, the Minister of Transport had threatened to bring back the mandate without hesitation.
The Applicants argued that the doctrine of mootness ought to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court because emergency orders by their nature are evasive of review, resulting in no oversight by courts or elected legislators.
Hearing these cases would have allowed the Supreme Court to determine whether it is appropriate to allow governments to evade judicial scrutiny of their decisions made through emergency orders. Unlike legislation passed by Parliament, emergency orders are made through Cabinet orders and are protected by Cabinet privilege, meaning Canadians cannot learn the reasoning behind the decisions.
Lawyer Allison Pejovic says, “This case was of paramount importance to all Canadians, and they have been denied the right to know whether the federal government acted lawfully in preventing them from travelling and leaving the country based on their refusal to take a novel medication that failed to prevent transmission of Covid, and that has caused death and serious harm to many people worldwide. Deeming cases challenging draconian emergency orders that harmed millions of Canadians moot damages confidence in the justice system and undermines the rule of law.”
Background
On August 13, 2021, the federal government announced its intention of implementing a vaccine requirement for travelling on planes, trains or ships. The government, led by Prime Minister Justine Trudeau, did this two days before announcing a federal election, essentially making it an election promise. After winning a minority in Parliament, the Minister of Transport implemented the mandate on November 30, 2021.
Both the Peckford and Bernier cases asked the Federal Court to strike down the mandate as a breach of Charter sections 2, 6, 7, 8 and 15. The most significant breach was to Charter section 6, mobility rights. All applicants were essentially barred from travelling across Canada in any practical manner and could not leave the country. In Mr. Bernier’s case, this meant he was essentially barred from campaigning.
Of note, on cross examination a government bureaucrat admitted she did not receive any medical advice to implement such a mandate. It was done solely on the direction from the Minister of Transport and the federal Cabinet.
Just a few days after cross examinations concluded, the government ended the mandate on June 20, 2022. Both cases were dismissed by the Federal Court as moot in October 2022. The subsequent Appeals were dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal.
COVID-19
Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has ordered the RCMP and TD Bank to produce records relating to the freezing of Mr. Evan Blackman’s bank accounts during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest.
Mr. Blackman was arrested in downtown Ottawa on February 18, 2022, during the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act. He was charged with mischief and obstruction, but he was acquitted of these charges at trial in October 2023.
However, the Crown appealed Mr. Blackman’s acquittal in 2024, and a new trial is scheduled to begin on August 14, 2025.
Mr. Blackman is seeking the records concerning the freezing of his bank accounts to support an application under the Charter at his upcoming retrial.
His lawyers plan to argue that the freezing of his bank accounts was a serious violation of his rights, and are asking the court to stay the case accordingly.
“The freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank accounts was an extreme overreach on the part of the police and the federal government,” says constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury.
“These records will hopefully reveal exactly how and why Mr. Blackman’s accounts were frozen,” he says.
Mr. Blackman agreed, saying, “I’m delighted that we will finally get records that may reveal why my bank accounts were frozen.”
This ruling marks a significant step in what is believed to be the first criminal case in Canada involving a proposed Charter application based on the freezing of personal bank accounts under the Emergencies Act.
Chris Carbert (right) and Anthony Olienick, two of the Coutts Four were jailed for over two years for mischief and unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose.
From LifeSiteNews
The “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy
COVID protestor Chris Carbert has been granted bail pending his appeal after spending over two years in prison.
On June 30, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jo-Anne Strekaf ordered the release of Chris Carbert pending his appeal of charges of mischief and weapons offenses stemming from the Coutts border blockade, which protested COVID mandates in 2022.
“[Carbert] has demonstrated that there is no substantial likelihood that he will commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released from detention pending the hearing of his appeals,” Strekaf ruled.
“If the applicant and the Crown are able to agree upon a release plan and draft order to propose to the court, that is to be submitted by July 14,” she continued.
Carbert’s appeal is expected to be heard in September. So far, Carbert has spent over two years in prison, when he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder during the protest in Coutts, which ran parallel to but was not officially affiliated with the Freedom Convoy taking place in Ottawa.
Later, he was acquitted of the conspiracy to commit murder charge but still found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000.
In September 2024, Chris Carbert was sentenced to six and a half years for his role in the protest. However, he is not expected to serve his full sentence, as he was issued four years of credit for time already served. Carbert is also prohibited from owning firearms for life and required to provide a DNA sample.
Carbert was arrested alongside Anthony Olienick, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, with the latter two pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid trial. At the time, the “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy occurring thousands of kilometers away in Ottawa.
Under the Emergency Act (EA), the Liberal government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the Freedom Convoy. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA.
Since then, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision that the federal government is appealing.
Blind to the Left: Canada’s Counter-Extremism Failure Leaves Neo-Marxist and Islamist Threats Unchecked
Why it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
Alberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts
-
COVID-192 days ago
Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts
-
C2C Journal2 days agoCanada Desperately Needs a Baby Bump
-
conflict2 days agoUS airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?
-
Agriculture1 day agoLacombe meat processor scores $1.2 million dollar provincial tax credit to help expansion
-
Daily Caller16 hours agoTrump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Resets The Energy Policy Playing Field
-
Crime1 day agoThe Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree
-
Business1 day agoDallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’
-
Business7 hours agoThe Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”