Alberta, Canadian federal gov’ts face lawsuits filed over ‘harm’ caused by COVID shots

A law firm representing Albertans alleges in its filing that the vaccines were ‘deceptively’ promoted.

A law firm filed a class action lawsuit against the Alberta provincial government and the federal government on behalf of Albertans who were “harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines.”

“This legal action is centered around allegations of unlawful, negligent, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices by the Defendants in relation to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the Covid Vaccines,” Alberta-based Rath & Company stated in a February 29 press release regarding the lawsuit, which was filed in the Court of King’s Bench in Lethbridge, Alberta.

“This proposed class action lawsuit seeks justice for individuals who have suffered physical and psychological injuries or death due to the alleged negligence and misconduct by the Defendants in respect of the Covid Vaccines. It aims to hold the Defendants accountable and obtain compensation for those adversely affected.”

According to the law firm, the lawsuit was filed individually last year by COVID jab-harmed Alberta resident Carrie Sakamoto, who is listed as the “class representative for the proposed class action lawsuit.” She sustained “severe, permanent physical and emotional injuries” from the COVID shots.

“The lawsuit claims that the Defendants (Alberta and Federal governments) were negligent, provided information they knew to be false and incomplete, and that they censored and suppressed truthful and reliable information about vaccine injuries thereby vitiating informed consent and causing harm to Ms. Sakamoto and many others in Alberta,” the Rath & Company press release noted.

“The lawsuit goes on to allege misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to commit assault and battery on the public.”

The remedies sought by the plaintiff include “general damages in an amount to be proven at trial” as well as “special and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.”

Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath predicted that Canadians will be “shocked to learn about the rushed changes to safety standard for the Covid Vaccines which removed the requirement for the Covid Vaccines to be either ‘safe or effective’ while, at the same time, the Defendants promoted, distributed, and marketed the Covid Vaccines as ‘safe and effective’ to the public.”

Rath added that the federal and Alberta governments “didn’t stop there” when it came to the COVID shots, as “they went further by coercion the public to take the Covid Vaccines by stripping rights from them or providing financial incentives for taking the Covid Vaccines.”

The COVID shots were heavily promoted by the federal government as well as all provincial governments in Canada, with the Alberta government under former Premier Jason Kenney being no exception.

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

According to co-counsel Eva Chipiuk, the Defendants “held themselves out as public health experts and gave medical advice to the public at large,” but they “intentionally set out to build a relationship of trust between themselves and the public during the pandemic at a time when they knew the public was vulnerable and afraid.”

“They knew or ought to have known that the public would be relying on their information for their health, safety and protection,” she mentioned.

Under Kenney, Albertans were heavily coerced into taking the COVID shots through a mass marketing campaign and later a COVID jab passport. Many in the public and private sectors who did not get the jabs lost their jobs.

Danielle Smith took over from Kenney as leader of the United Conservative Party (UCP) on October 11, 2022, after winning the leadership. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down as well as enacting a vaccine passport.

Under Kenney, those who did not comply with jab mandates such as thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.

Adverse effects from the first round of COVID shots have resulted in a growing number of Canadians filing for financial compensation over injuries from the jabs via the federal Vaccine Injury Program (VISP).

VISP has already paid well over $11 million to those injured by COVID injections.

Earlier this year, LifeSiteNews reported on how officials from Health Canada have admitted that there is “residual plasmid DNA” in the COVID shots after a Conservative MP asked the agency through an official information request if the DNA fragments were in the shots.

The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result of this, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them.

Lawsuit open to All COVID jab ‘impacted individuals in Alberta’

The Rath & Company class action lawsuit is open to all impacted “individuals in Alberta” who have been “injured or otherwise adversely affected by the Covid Vaccines.”

Those wanting to join the class action can click here.

Rath & Company noted that should the court grant permission for this action to proceed as a “Class Action” (also known as “Certification”), those involved “may qualify as a class member whether or not you have registered.”

“Millions of Canadians relied on the representations of the Defendants at a time when they were particularly vulnerable. We now know that many Canadians suffered physical and psychological injuries due to the misinformation and negligence of the Defendants,” Rath & Company stated.

This is the second large class action prepared by Rath & Company in recent weeks concerning COVID jabs and mandates in Alberta.

Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that a law firm is in the process of putting together a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta government on behalf of many business owners in the province who faced massive losses or permanent closures from what it says were “illegal” COVID public health orders enacted by provincial officials.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of Trudeau’s federal government, split Canadian society.

Despite the health risks associated with the COVID shots, governments across Canada all enacted strict rules, including workplace jab mandates.

Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

The Rath & Company class action is just one of many that have been filed by Canadians who chose not to get the shots, then lost their job, and want to fight back.

Late last year, LifeSiteNews reported that over 700 vaccine-free Canadians negatively affected by federal COVID jab dictates banded together to file a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against the federal government of Trudeau.

Related Topics:#AnthonyMurdoch #ClassActionCovidLawsuit #CovidLawsuit #LifeSiteNews #Rath&Company

Up Next

Trudeau’s AG claims Emergencies Act use was justified over ‘risk of serious violence’

Don't Miss

Danielle Smith vows to protect Albertan farmland from Trudeau’s radical ‘net zero’ push

Todayville

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

Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project

Daily Caller / 10 hours ago

Tom Homan Predicts Deportation Of Most Third World Migrants Over Risks From Screening Docs

Artificial Intelligence / 10 hours ago

‘Trouble in Toyland’ report sounds alarm on AI toys

Alberta

Keynote address of Premier Danielle Smith at 2025 UCP AGM

Published on November 30, 2025

Todayville

From the YouTube Channel of Rebel News

Alberta

Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU

Published on November 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass.

The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal and Alberta governments lays the groundwork for substantial energy projects and infrastructure development over the next two-and-a-half decades. It is by all accounts a step forward, though, there’s debate about how large and meaningful that step actually is. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the agreement: it’s commitment to net zero in Canada by 2050.

The first point of agreement in the MOU on the first page of text states: “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” In practice, it’s incredibly difficult to offset emissions with tree planting or other projects that reduce “net” emissions, so the effect of committing to “net zero” by 2050 means that both governments agree that Canada should produce very close to zero actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consider the massive changes in energy production, home heating, transportation and agriculture that would be needed to achieve this goal.

So, what’s wrong with Canada’s net zero 2050 and the larger United Nations’ global goal for the same?

Let’s first understand the global context of GHG reductions based on a recent study by internationally-recognized scholar Vaclav Smil. Two key insights from the study. First, despite trillions being spent plus international agreements and regulatory measures starting back in 1997 with the original Kyoto agreement, global fossil fuel consumption between then and 2023 increased by 55 per cent.

Second, fossil fuels as a share of total global energy declined from 86 per cent in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2022, again, despite trillions of dollars in spending plus regulatory requirements to force a transition away from fossil fuels to zero emission energies. The idea that globally we can achieve zero emissions over the next two-and-a-half decades is pure fantasy. Even if there is an historic technological breakthrough, it will take decades to actually transition to a new energy source(s).

Let’s now understand the Canada-specific context. A recent study examined all the measures introduced over the last decade as part of the national plan to reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. The study concluded that significant economic costs would be imposed on Canadians by these measures: inflation-adjusted GDP would be 7 per cent lower, income per worker would be more than $8,000 lower and approximately 250,000 jobs would be lost. Moreover, these costs would not get Canada to net zero. The study concluded that only 70 per cent of the net zero emissions goal would be achieved despite these significant costs, which means even greater costs would be imposed on Canadians to fully achieve net zero.

It’s important to return to a global picture to fully understand why net zero makes no sense for Canada within a worldwide context. Using projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest World Energy Outlook, the current expectation is that in 2050, advanced countries including Canada and the other G7 countries will represent less than 25 per cent of global emissions. The developing world, which includes China, India, the entirety of Africa and much of South America, is estimated to represent at least 70 per cent of global emissions in 2050.

Simply put, the challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass. A globally-coordinated effort, which is really what the U.N. should be doing rather than fantasizing about net zero, would see industrial countries like Canada that are capable of increasing their energy production exporting more to these developing countries so that high-emitting energy sources are replaced by lower-emitting energy sources. This would actually reduce global GHGs while simultaneously stimulating economic growth.

Consider a recent study that calculated the implications of doubling natural gas production in Canada and exporting it to China to replace coal-fired power. The conclusion was that there would be a massive reduction in global GHGs equivalent to almost 90 per cent of Canada’s total annual emissions. In these types of substitution arrangements, the GHGs would increase in energy-producing countries like Canada but global GHGs would be reduced, which is the ultimate goal of not only the U.N. but also the Carney and Smith governments as per the MOU.

Finally, the agreement ignores a basic law of economics. The first lesson in the very first class of any economics program is that resources are limited. At any given point in time, we only have so much labour, raw materials, time, etc. In other words, when we choose to do one project, the real cost is foregoing the other projects that could have been undertaken. Economics is mostly about trying to understand how to maximize the use of limited resources.

The MOU requires massive, literally hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to create nuclear power, other zero-emitting power sources and transmission systems all in the name of being able to produce low or even zero-emitting oil and gas while also moving to towards net zero.

These resources cannot be used for other purposes and it’s impossible to imagine what alternative companies or industries would have been invested in. What we do know is that workers, entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors are not making these decisions. Rather, politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa and Edmonton are making these decisions but they won’t pay any price if they’re wrong. Canadians pay the price. Just consider the financial fiasco unfolding now with Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec’s subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) for electric vehicle batteries.

Understanding the fundamentally flawed commitment to Canadian net zero rather than understanding a larger global context of GHG emissions lays at the heart of the recent MOU and unfortunately for Canadians will continue to guide flawed and expensive policies. Until we get the net zero policies right, we’re going to continue to spend enormous resources on projects with limited returns, costing all Canadians.