Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Supreme Court of Canada Fails to Defend Freedom by Refusing to Hear Travel Mandate Cases

Published

5 months ago

5 minute read

From The Opposition with Dan Knight

The Court’s Refusal to Hear Vaccine Mandate Challenges Shows a Troubling Endorsement of Government Overreach

Let’s call this what it is: a shocking abandonment of judicial duty and a blatant disregard for Canadians’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear two critical cases that challenged the federal COVID vaccine travel mandate. This isn’t just a legal technicality. It’s a clear message from the highest court in the land: “We’re not interested in defending your freedoms. We’d rather sidestep controversy and protect government overreach.”

The cases in question, Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada, were crucial tests of the limits of government power. The Honourable Brian Peckford, the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, stood up to challenge the draconian mandates that the Trudeau government imposed. These mandates effectively barred unvaccinated Canadians from traveling — a blatant violation of mobility rights under the Charter. Yet, the Supreme Court has chosen to declare these cases “moot,” arguing that since the mandates have been lifted, there’s no point in reviewing their legality.

Judicial Evasion: A Dangerous Precedent

Let’s be clear: the court’s decision to duck out of these cases isn’t just a mistake; it’s a dangerous precedent. By labeling the cases moot, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed the government to evade scrutiny of its actions. This is nothing short of judicial cowardice. The government can impose sweeping restrictions, violate Charter rights, and then simply withdraw those measures to avoid legal accountability. It’s a dirty trick, and the Supreme Court just endorsed it.

Consider this: the vaccine mandate was not based on any scientific evidence or medical advice. This isn’t speculation; it’s fact. Under cross-examination, a government bureaucrat admitted as much. The mandate was a political decision, plain and simple, driven by the whims of Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet. And now, the Supreme Court has decided that Canadians don’t deserve to know whether these actions were lawful.

A Government Out of Control

At the heart of this issue is a government that believes it is above the law. The Trudeau administration imposed these mandates without proper justification, effectively restricting the movement of millions of Canadians and trampling on their rights. The Minister of Transport even threatened to reinstate the mandates “without hesitation” — an ominous warning that should have alarmed every freedom-loving citizen.

The applicants in these cases argued that the doctrine of mootness should not apply when emergency orders are designed to evade judicial review. They were right. Emergency orders, unlike legislation, are decreed by the Cabinet and protected by Cabinet privilege. This means Canadians are kept in the dark about the real reasons behind these decisions. The Supreme Court had a duty to shine a light on this abuse of power, but it chose darkness instead.

A Call to Action

This decision isn’t just a legal defeat; it’s a moral failure. It’s a signal that in Canada, your rights can be violated, and the government won’t be held accountable. Canadians should be outraged. If the courts won’t defend our freedoms, who will? The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has been one of the few voices standing up for Canadians’ rights, but they can’t do it alone. It’s time for every Canadian to demand better — from their government, from their courts, and from their country.

We cannot allow this to stand. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases damages not just the legal system but the very fabric of Canadian democracy. This is not the end of the fight; it is only the beginning. The question remains: will Canada continue down this path of unchecked government overreach, or will the people rise up to reclaim their rights?

One thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher. We must hold our leaders and our courts accountable. Freedom is not just a word — it’s a way of life. And it’s a way of life that’s worth fighting for.

For the full experience subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight . 

Upgrade to paid

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
DEI / 6 hours ago

RIP DEI?

Daily Caller / 7 hours ago

‘This Is So Disgusting’: Joe Rogan Unloads On Gavin Newsom For ‘Creepy’ Behavior In Front Of Wildfire Wreckage

DEI / 7 hours ago

Biden FBI shut down diversity office before Trump administration could review it

COVID-19

Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous

Published on January 15, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling ‘unsafe’ following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable

A federal judge ruled that complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ending the final chapter of COVID regulations.

According to information published on January 15 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling unsafe following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable.

“The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted Covid-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to Covid-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,” wrote the court.

Masks were mandated in federal workplaces from April 20, 2020, to February 14, 2023, under the direction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, millions of Canadians were forced to mask in public settings such as grocery stores or hospitals.

After the mandate had lifted, Juzda, a “fully vaccinated” individual without any particular health issues, complained that he felt unsafe in the Gatineau headquarters.

“I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,” he wrote, referencing the Canada Labor Code that allows federally regulated staff to refuse work “that constitutes a danger to the employee.”

Juzda claimed that masking “reduces the risk of contracting Covid-19 but is of limited effectiveness if not combined with other measures, particularly during prolonged exposure to unmasked infected individuals such as being nearby in an indoor office for an entire day.”

“Covid-19 is a disease that in addition to often being extremely unpleasant during the acute period poses significant risks including death,” he continued.

“Handwashing and workplace cleaning are of minimal use in limiting the spread of Covid-19,” Juzda claimed.

Indeed, LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on overwhelming evidence showing that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission of COVID and that they come with harmful effects.

Back in 2021, 47 studies confirmed the ineffectiveness of masks for COVID, while 32 more confirmed their negative health effects.

According to another 2021 report, more than 170 studies have found that masks have been ineffective at stopping COVID and instead have been harmful, especially to children.

In fact, in 2020, before masks were widely mandated, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam admitted that masks were not effective in preventing COVID.

“There is no need to use a mask for well people,” she said in the first few weeks of the pandemic. “It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children

Published on January 14, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects

Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.

According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.

“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.

“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.

In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.

The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”

Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.

Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”

Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.

Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

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

A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.

Continue Reading

Trending

X