Connect with us

COVID-19

Court hearing for Canadian denied EI benefits because of vax status

Published

4 minute read

From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre announces that Thursday, November 2, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal will hear the constitutional challengeĀ of Robin Francis, who lost his job and was then denied Employment Insurance benefits after refusing to take the Covid vaccine based on his religious beliefs.Ā 

The hearing will take place in-person at the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto, Courtroom 7C, located at 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200. The hearing can also be attended via Zoom by registering here.

Dr. Francis, a father of four and a PhD engineer, had been employed at a health centre in Ontario. Throughout 2020 and 2021, Dr. Francis worked remotely. His employer had not expressed dissatisfaction with his performance, and he was considered a diligent and hardworking employee with an exceptional attendance record. Nevertheless, on September 3, 2021, Dr. Francis was informed that his employer would require all employees to show proof of being vaccinated for Covid or to provide documentation for a medical or human rights exemption.Ā 

Dr. Francis applied for a religious exemption, but, on October 5, 2021, his employer summarily denied his request for an exemption. On October 22, 2021, Dr. Francis was fired for not taking the Covid vaccine, despite the fact that Dr. Francis’ decision was based on his religious convictions.Ā 

When Dr. Francis applied for EI benefits, the Employment Insurance Commission denied his request, stating in a letter on January 11, 2022, that he had lost his employment as a result of his ā€œmisconduct.ā€Ā Ā Dr. Francis sought reconsideration, but, on March 3, 2022, the Commission confirmed its decision.Ā 

Dr. Francis appeal to the Social Security Tribunal–General Division, which dismissed his appeal on July 26, 2022. He then appealed to the Appeal Division, which issued a decision on February 17, 2023, rejecting his appeal.Ā 

On March 22, 2023, Dr. Francis filed aĀ Notice of ApplicationĀ in the Federal Court of Appeal, challenging the denial of his request for EI Benefits.

Many other Canadians have been denied EI benefits on the basis that their choice to not get vaccinated constituted ā€œmisconduct.ā€ In 2021, (then) Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough stated that Canadians who did not receive the Covid vaccine could be justifiably terminated and denied access to EI.

Counsel for Dr. Francis, James Manson, stated, ā€œIn my view, the Tribunal’s decision in this case is deeply concerning. In most cases, employee ā€˜misconduct’ (as contemplated by federal legislation) can and should result in an employee losing their entitlement to Employment Insurance benefits. This case is different, however. Our view is that an employee’s unwillingness to comply with any workplace policy that violates their fundamentalĀ CharterĀ rights cannot qualify as ā€˜misconduct,’ particularly in the free and democratic society of Canada, where an enormous value is rightly placed on the rights and freedoms of the individual.ā€

Mr. Manson continued, ā€œIn this case, the Tribunal appears to be saying that no matter what an employer’s workplace policy requires (even if it requires an employee to do something that violates his or herĀ CharterĀ rights), failure to abide by that policy means that the employee must also lose their EI benefits if they are terminated by their employer. That is far too draconian a result. It simply does not accurately reflect the state of the law in Canada on this issue, and I am confident that the Federal Court of Appeal will agree. This case could potentially set a significant precedent for many other Canadians denied EI benefits on account of their personal decision not to take the Covid vaccine.ā€

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

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leaders’ sentencing judgment delayed, Crown wants them jailed for two years

Published on

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Years after their arrests, Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are still awaiting their sentencing after being found ‘guilty’ of mischief.

The sentencing for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber has been further delayed, according to the protest organizers.

ā€œIn our trial, the longest mischief trial of all time, we set hearing dates to set hearing dates,ā€Ā quipped Lich, drawing attention to the fact that the initial sentencing date of April 16 has passed and there is still not a rescheduled date.

Earlier this month, both Lich and Barber wereĀ found guiltyĀ of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest and as social media influencers, despite the non-violent nature of the demonstration.

Barber noted earlier this month that the Crown is seeking a two-year jailĀ sentenceĀ against him and is also looking to seize the truck he used in the protest. As a result, his legal team asked for a stay of proceedings.

Barber, along with his legal team, have argued that all proceedings should be stopped because he ā€œsought advice from lawyers, police and a Superior Court Judgeā€ regarding the legality of the 2022 protest. If his application is granted, Barber would avoid any jail time.

Lich has argued that the Crown asking for a two-year jail sentence is ā€œnot about the rule of lawā€ but rather ā€œabout crushing a Canadian symbol of Hope.ā€

Lich and Barber were arrestedĀ on February 17, 2022, in Ottawa for their roles in leading the popular Freedom Convoy protest against COVID mandates. During COVID, Canadians were subjected to vaccine mandates, mask mandates, extensive lockdowns and even the closure of churches.

Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act to clear-out protesters, an action a federal judge has since said was ā€œnot justified.ā€ During the clear-out, an elderly lady was trampled by a police horse and many who donated to the cause had their bank accounts frozen.

The actions taken by the Trudeau government were publicly supported by Mark Carney at the time, who on Monday won re-election and is slated to form a minority government.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Published on

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’

The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.Ā Ā 

Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice.Ā 

There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit hasĀ announcedĀ she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on ā€œnew evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.ā€

The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to theĀ Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.Ā Ā 

The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It hasĀ emergedĀ that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice.Ā 

David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities.Ā 

Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced.Ā 

Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any ā€œkey conversations and considerationsā€ about the curfew and had not ā€œseen any specific written assessment of the requirementā€ for one.Ā 

He added: ā€œThe idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.ā€ Sutton responded with: ā€œYour assessment is correct as I understand it.ā€Ā 

The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: ā€œIf you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?ā€Ā 

It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?Ā Ā 

The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in aĀ speechĀ by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.Ā Ā 

If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of StatisticsĀ showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic.Ā 

There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: ā€œThose responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ā€˜document 34ā€˜ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.ā€

Continue Reading

Trending

X