Connect with us


COVID-19 inquiry in UK asks whether ‘terrible consequences’ could have been avoided


5 minute read


Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author


Ontario judge rules in favor of woman who refused COVID nasal swab test

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘I do decide that the nasal swab test, which the screening officer in this case required or demanded Ms. Fernando submit to, was an unlawful requirement or demand,’ wrote Ontario Court Justice Paul Monahan in his June 26 ruling.

An Ontario court has ruled in favor of a woman who was charged and convicted for refusing to submit to a COVID nasal swab test upon returning home to Canada in 2022.

In a June 26 ruling, Ontario Court Justice Paul Monahan decided in favor of Canadian woman Meththa Fernando, who was charged in 2022 for refusing a COVID nasal swab test when returning to Canada from abroad and subsequently found guilty. Monahan concluded that in Fernando’s case, requiring her to submit to such an invasive test was unlawful and ordered her conviction be overturned.

“I do decide that the nasal swab test, which the screening officer in this case required or demanded Ms. Fernando submit to, was an unlawful requirement or demand,” wrote Monahan in his ruling.   

“Ms. Fernando’s refusal to comply with the requirement or demand was lawful on her part,” he continued. “Because the requirement or demand made of her by the screening officer was not lawful, Ms. Fernando should not have been found guilty by the Justice of the Peace.”  

Fernando began her legal journey in 2022 when she refused a nasal swab at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, Ontario. Upon her return home to nearby Mississauga, a screening officer from the Canadian Public Health Agency randomly selected her to undergo the nasal test.  

However, Fernando, who told the officer she was already vaccinated against COVID, refused the test. She was charged and later convicted of failing to comply with an order under Section 58 of the Quarantine Act and fined a total of $6,255. 

Canada’s Quarantine Act was used by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to enact severe draconian COVID travel rules on all returning travelers to the country. 

Fernando chose to take her case to an appeal court following conviction, arguing that the Quarantine Act did not “authorize a screening officer to use a screening test which involved the entry into the traveller’s body of an instrument or other foreign body.”   

As LifeSiteNews previously reported there have been several instances of injuries after receiving the swabs, including leaking brain fluid due to the test puncturing the brain tissue.   

“The prosecution raised the point that perhaps the insertion into the nasal cavity did not involve the entry into the body,” Monahan stated. “I disagree. The insertion of a nasal swab into the nasal cavity is most definitely an insertion into the body.”  

“I am reversing the Justice of the Peace’s decision and entering a finding of not guilty,” he concluded. “Those are my reasons.”  

Besides potential brain tissue damage, COVID-19 nasal tests have been flagged for seriously questionable accuracy rates. One study authored by British and American scientists last year found that PCR nasal swab testing has only around 63% sensitivity. 

Severalotherstudies, as well as federalguidelines, have identified major accuracy issues with PCR tests and other means of testing for coronavirus. The most common PCR testing protocol for COVID-19 also has come under fire in December, when a coalition of scientists called for the retraction of the original article detailing the method, due to a lack of a properly peer-reviewed report. 

Pro-freedom lawyer Daniel Freiheit celebrated the decision, telling LifeSiteNews, “This ruling is a stark reminder that many laws may have been broken during COVID. I think this was caused by a collective fear of the unknown and a kind of mass panic.” 

“In times like that, it’s utmost to rely on first principles: basic freedoms that I had always been taught would act as checks and balances: freedom to speak, freedom to associate, freedom to deny novel medical treatment, right to retain counsel,” he continued.   

He explained that the ruling will give Canadians a sense of vindication since many knew the tests were invasive and unjust but complied out of fear.  

“Many people knew it was wrong and unlawful at the time but had no choice except to comply,” he said.  

“It was either that or face detainment at the border, harassment, fines, threats of more fines, threats of quarantine, etc,” Freiheit explained. “Submitting to this unlawful treatment was the easiest way out, especially for people coming into the country with medical conditions, tired children or frustrated travel partners.”  

This ruling is not the first time actions taken by the Trudeau government during COVID were found to be unlawful.

In January, the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest against COVID mandates was ruled to have violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley.  

According to the January ruling, the EA is meant to be reserved as a last resort if all other means fail. In Mosley’s judgement, this threshold was not met and thus, the Trudeau government violated the rights of Canadians.    

Shortly after the ruling, Trudeau announced that the government was appealing to the Federal Court of Appeal, a court where he has appointed 10 of the 15 judges. 

Continue Reading


Canadian AG asks court to dismiss lawsuit against gov’t for imposing COVID jab travel mandate

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Businessmen Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard are seeking damages of $1 million each, claiming that their charter rights were violated.

The Canadian attorney general’s office is looking to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by two men who said their mobility “charter rights” were violated because of COVID jab travel mandates.

On July 2, as per an Epoch Times report, the attorney general filed a motion in Canada’s Federal Court to have the $2 million lawsuit filed by businessmen Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard dismissed because it has argued some of the men’s charter rights were not violated.

Harrison and Rickard are both seeking damages of $1 million each in their second lawsuit against Canada’s minister of transportation and attorney general that was filed in November 2023.

According to Harrison and Rickard, their charter rights were violated “as a result of government decision-making and conduct that was rooted in negligence, bad faith and willfully blind to the absence of scientific evidence or disconfirming scientific evidence regarding the role, and, in particular, the unknown efficacy, of Covid-19 vaccination in reducing the risk of Covid-19 transmission and infection within the transportation sector.”

In October 2021, Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector and said the unjabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train both domestically and internationally.

This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.

In November 2021, the Trudeau government initiated the COVID jab travel mandates that remained in place until June 2022.

Despite the attorney general’s motion to stop the lawsuit, lawyers for the Trudeau government have said that they would let Harrison and Rickard make changes to their statement of claim to show whether they are Canadian citizens so that Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms might apply.

Section 6 focuses on mobility rights and notes under point 6(1) that “every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”

Lawyers claim one’s COVID jab status not grounds for discrimination under Charter of Rights

The attorney general’s motion also claims that the COVID jab travel mandate did not violate any rights that are protected in Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights.

Section 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights concerns the right of a person to “life, liberty and security of the person.” Section 15 offers protection against discrimination relating to race and sex.

According to the attorney general, Section 7 “does not confer protection for the ability to travel by federally regulated means of transportation.”

Government lawyers said that a person’s vaccination status is not enough to be seen as grounds for discrimination under Section 15.

“It is not contrary to section 15 of the Charter for individuals to be treated differently based on their choice whether or not to be vaccinated,” the lawyers wrote.

Harrison and Rickard’s second lawsuit come after they lost at the Federal Court of Appeal in their initial lawsuit against the COVID jab travel mandate, which was heard jointly with another similar one from People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier and former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford.

In this lawsuit, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal dismissed as “moot” their legal challenge initiated against the federal government over COVID jab mandates that banned the vaccine free from travel.

Bernier and Peckford have since appealed to the Supreme Court.

COVID vaccine mandates, which 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.

In 2021, Trudeau said Canadians “vehemently opposed to vaccination” do “not believe in science,” are “often misogynists, often racists,” and even questioned whether Canada should “tolerate these people.”

Continue Reading