COVID-19
Court to hear Charter challenge to $5,000 ArriveCAN ticket
From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a Notice of Constitutional Question has been filed in the ticket case of Elim Sly-Hooten. Mr. Sly-Hooten’s lawyers, provided by the Justice Centre, have requested a judicial pre-trial to schedule new times, and to agree on witnesses and procedures needed to make Charter arguments. The matter is scheduled to be heard on March 1, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. ET in Courtroom M4, 950 Burnhamthorpe Road West, Mississauga, Ontario. Mr. Sly-Hooten, who lives in British Columbia, returned to Canada from the Netherlands on July 30, 2022. He landed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. Once on the ground, he did not use the ArriveCAN app to disclose his Covid vaccination status. It is Mr. Sly-Hooten’s personal belief that this medical information should remain private. While overseas, Mr. Sly-Hooten tested positive for Covid. At Pearson International Airport, he provided Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) agents a certificate of recovery given to him by the Government of the Netherlands, proving he had natural immunity to Covid. Because he did not use the ArriveCAN app to disclose his vaccination status, however, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) personnel detained him. In custody, under pressure and without counsel, Mr. Sly-Hooten broke down and revealed his vaccination status. He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days. At issue in the upcoming trial is whether the federal government can demand personal health information from someone just because they are at the border. Also, the relevance of vaccination status is questionable since it has been shown that vaccination does not affect infections or transmission; the vaccinated and unvaccinated transmit Covid at the same rate. Another issue is whether authorities can arbitrarily order people into detention. In his defense, Mr. Sly-Hooten cites his Charter section 7 right to liberty, his section 8 right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his section 9 right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his section 10(b) right to counsel after arrest and detention. Mr. Sly-Hooten’s Notice of Constitutional Question follows the withdrawal of all charges in a similar ticket case. Scott Bennett received an ArriveCAN ticket for not using the app at the Pearson International Airport around the time Mr. Sly-Hooten received his, on July 12, 2022. Mr. Bennett joined with ten others who had been fined or ordered into quarantine for not using the ArriveCAN app to launch a legal challenge on August 24, 2022, commenced by lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. They wanted their tickets and detention declared unconstitutional. On September 30, 2022, a few weeks after the Justice Centre’s lawyers sued the federal government over the mandatory use of this app, the government discontinued the ArriveCAN app. The court then decided that the constitutional challenge, known as Yates v. Attorney General of Canada, was “moot” (no longer relevant). The court would not hear the case based on its view that, since the app had been discontinued, there was nothing for the court to decide. The court disregarded the fact that the government could bring back the policy at any time. The Federal Court upheld that decision on July 19, 2023, though the Court acknowledged that each person ticketed could raise Charter challenges when fighting their fines. In fact, the federal government itself suggested at the first court hearing that the proper place for a constitutional challenge was when individuals contested their tickets. Based on this, Mr. Bennett, with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre, filed a Notice of Constitutional Question in his case. But when his day in court came, on January 16, 2024, the federal government’s witness failed to appear, and the charges against Mr. Bennett were withdrawn.It is possible that Mr. Sly-Hooten’s trial could meet with a similar fate. Chris Fleury, lawyer for Mr. Sly-Hooten, stated, “The requirement for unvaccinated Canadians to lock themselves in their houses for 14 days following international travel was the height of the federal government’s unscientific and irrational response to Covid. By the summer of 2022, it was widely understood that the vaccines did not stop the spread of Covid, even among vaccinated individuals. Mr. Sly-Hooton’s detention in his own house was entirely arbitrary where it provided no public health or other benefit.”
COVID-19
Canadian Health Department funds study to determine effects of COVID lockdowns on children
From LifeSiteNews
The commissioned study will assess the impact on kids’ mental well-being of COVID lockdowns and ‘remote’ school classes that banned outdoor play and in-person learning.
Canada’s Department of Health has commissioned research to study the impact of outdoor play on kids’ mental well-being in light of COVID lockdowns and “remote” school classes that, for a time, banned outdoor play and in-person learning throughout most of the nation.
In a notice to consultants titled “Systematic Literature Reviews And Meta Analyses Supporting Two Projects On Children’s Health And Covid-19,” the Department of Health admitted that “Exposure to green space has been consistently associated with protective effects on children’s physical and mental health.”
A final report, which is due in 2026, will provide “Health Canada with a comprehensive assessment of current evidence, identify key knowledge gaps and inform surveillance and policy planning for future pandemics and other public health emergencies.”
Bruce Squires, president of McMaster Children’s Hospital of Hamilton, Ontario, noted in 2022 that “Canada’s children and youth have borne the brunt” of COVID lockdowns.
From about March 2020 to mid-2022, most of Canada was under various COVID-19 mandates and lockdowns, including mask mandates, at the local, provincial, and federal levels. Schools were shut down, parks were closed, and most kids’ sports were cancelled.
Mandatory facemask polices were common in Canada and all over the world for years during the COVID crisis despite over 170 studies showing they were not effective in stopping the spread of COVID and were, in fact, harmful, especially to children.
In October 2021, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector, saying the un-jabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a new report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) raised alarm bells over the “harms caused” by COVID-19 lockdowns and injections imposed by various levels of government as well as a rise in unexplained deaths and bloated COVID-19 death statistics.
Indeed, a recent study showed that COVID masking policies left children less able to differentiate people’s emotions behind facial expressions.
COVID vaccine mandates and lockdowns, which came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society.
COVID-19
Ontario student appeals ruling that dismissed religious objection to abortion-tainted COVID shot
From LifeSiteNews
An Ontario Tech University student is seeking judicial review after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled his beliefs did not qualify as protected ‘creed.’
An Ontario university student who was punished for refusing the COVID shot is contesting a tribunal ruling that rejected his religious objection to the vaccine.
In a November 28 press release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced that a judicial review has been filed on behalf of former Ontario Tech University student Philip Anisimov after his religious objection to the COVID vaccine was dismissed by an Ontario court.
“Mr. Anisimov’s objection to the Covid vaccine was deeply rooted in his religious commitment to live according to biblical precepts,” Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir declared. “He hopes the Divisional Court will clarify that his religious objection was protected by the Human Rights Code and entitled to protection.”
In 2021, Ontario mandated that all students in the province show proof of vaccination unless they had an exemption or agreed to attend a COVID jab education session boasting about the shots. The third option was not available at Ontario Tech University, as schools could choose whether or not they would offer such a program to students.
Anisimov had requested an exemption from the experimental, abortion-tainted COVID shots on religious grounds but was denied and deregistered from his courses.
He was then forced to spend an entire extra year to complete his studies. According to his lawyers, Ontario Tech University’s decision to not approve his COVID jab exemption request “not only disrupted his career plans but also violated his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code.”
The university’s refusal to honor his exemption prompted Anisimov to take legal action in April with help of the JCCF. However, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario rejected his religious objection, arguing that it was not protected as a “creed” under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Now, Anisimov is appealing the ruling, hoping that his case will serve as a precedent for justice for students who were discriminated against for refusing the abortion-tainted vaccine.
“My hope is that this case helps set an important precedent and encourages Canadians to reflect on the direction our society is taking,” he explained. “My trust is that God does all things for the good of those who love Him, who are called by His purposes.”
COVID vaccine mandates, as well as lockdowns that came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the vaccines on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoSometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
-
Business2 days agoRecent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
-
MAiD15 hours agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD2 days agoHealth Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
-
Automotive1 day agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Energy1 day agoUnceded is uncertain
-
Business13 hours agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition


