COVID-19
Federal appeals court rejects challenge against Canada’s COVID vaccine travel mandate as ‘moot’
From LifeSiteNews
People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier, former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Brian Peckford, and eight others contended citizens’ mobility charter rights were violated, but the case was dismissed because the restrictions are no longer in place.
The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal dismissed as “moot” a legal challenge initiated against the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over its COVID jab travel mandates that banned the vaccine free from travel.
The legal challenge was initiated by People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador Brian Peckford, and eight others who said Trudeau’s mandates violated one’s mobility charter rights.
In a judgment issued November 9, Justice George R. Locke of the appeals court, on behalf of two other judges, ruled that the case was “moot for lack of live controversy” as the COVID travel jab mandates are no longer in effect.
“For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss all of the present appeals,” the judge wrote.
Bernier and Peckford’s lawyers had argued that their case had merit, despite the travel COVID jab mandates being gone, as they could be reintroduced at a moment’s notice.
The appeals court did note that while COVID travel vaccine mandates may be reintroduced in the future, this was “highly speculative.”
Bernier, who was a strong supporter of the Freedom Convoy and did not get the COVID shots, said he was “very disappointed” in the court ruling but vowed to continue the fight against the “unjust” mandates.
“I am very disappointed but not at all surprised by this decision considering the types of slanted questions and comments that the judges made during our hearing a month ago,” Bernier wrote November 9 on X (formerly Twitter).
“I will speak to my colleague Brian Peckford and the other appellants to determine our next step. I will continue to do everything I can to fight these unjust travel mandates and make sure they are never implemented again.”
In February 2022, Bernier, along with Peckford, and eight others filed a court challenge to COVID mandates in place at the time that banned the vaccine-free from air travel. Bernier and Peckford had the help of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).
The legal challenge made headlines as Peckford is the last living signatory to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into force in 1982.
In November 2021, the Trudeau government introduced COVID jab travel mandates, which remained in place until June 2022.
In October 2022, the Canadian federal court ruled Bernier and Peckford’s and the others court case as “Moot” in light of the federal government dropping COVID mandates in the same month.
Later, in April 2023, Bernier and Peckford, with the help of the JCCF, along with the others in the case filed an appeal in the “mootness” ruling.
JCCF said case was important as COVID travel jab mandates were a ‘Egregious infringement of Canadians’ mobility rights’
Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa heard Bernier and Peckford’s and the others’ court case. JCCF president John Carpay noted at the time that the case was important as well as unique.
“There has never been a more egregious infringement of Canadians’ mobility rights than what occurred due to the unconstitutional and unlawful travel vaccine mandates,” Carpay observed.
“For the Federal Court to find that it is not in the public interest to determine whether the Federal Government acted lawfully in prohibiting 5 million Canadians from flying across the country and internationally to see family members is a grave injustice that the Federal Court of Appeal ought to remedy.”
In September 2022, Bernier thanked all Canadian “freedom fighters” who protested against COVID mandates of all kinds after a federal travel jab mandate for air travel was dropped.
Bernier, who is a former MP and cabinet minister with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) before creating the PPC in 2018, was one of the most outspoken politicians against the COVID mandates. He would frequently criticize his former party for not speaking out against the mandates.
Eventually, the CPC under its new leader Pierre Poilievre, but after the mandates had been lifted, began to speak out against Trudeau’s mandates.
A recent bill championed by Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre that would have given Canadians back their “bodily autonomy” by banning future jab mandates was voted down yesterday Trudeau’s Liberals and all other parties rejected it.
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.
During the so-called COVID pandemic, Trudeau referred to those who chose not to get the experimental COVID shots as terrible people.
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 continue to “tolerate these people.”
COVID-19
Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
From LifeSiteNews
The Justice Department attorney did not mention the Trump FDA’s recent admission linking the COVID shots to at least 10 child deaths so far.
The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to dismiss a whistleblower case against Pfizer over its COVID-19 shots, even as the Trump Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is beginning to admit their culpability in children’ s deaths.
As previously covered by LifeSiteNews, in 2021 the BMJ published a report on insider information from a former regional director of the medical research company Ventavia, which Pfizer hired in 2020 to conduct research for the company’s mRNA-based COVID-19 shot.
The regional director, Brook Jackson, sent BMJ “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails,” which “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety […] We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.”
According to the report, Ventavia “falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial.” Overwhelmed by numerous problems with the trial data, Jackson filed an official complaint with the FDA.
Jackson was fired the same day, and Ventavia later claimed that Jackson did not work on the Pfizer COVID-19 shot trial; but Jackson produced documents proving she had been invited to the Pfizer trial team and given access codes to software relating to the trial. Jackson filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for violating the federal False Claims Act and other regulations in January 2021, which was sealed until February 2022. That case has been ongoing ever since.
Last August, U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale dismissed most of Jackson’s claims with prejudice, meaning they could not be refiled. Jackson challenged the decision, but the Trump DOJ has argued in court to uphold it, Just the News reports, with DOJ attorney Nicole Smith arguing that the case concerns preserving the government’s unfettered power to dismiss whistleblower cases.
The rationale echoes a recurring trend in DOJ strategy that Politico described in May as “preserving executive power and preventing courts from second-guessing agency decisions,” even in cases that involve “backing policies favored by Democrats.”
Jackson’s attorney Warner Mendenhall responded that the administration “really sort of made our case for us” in effectively admitting that DOJ is taking the Fair Claims Act’s “good cause” standard for state intervention to mean “mere desire to dismiss,” which infringes on his client’s “First Amendment right to access the courts, to vindicate what she learned.”
Mendenhall added that in a refiled case, Jackson “may be able to bring a very different case along the same lines, but with the additional information” to prove fraud, whereas rejection would send the message that “if fraud involves government complicity, don’t bother reporting it.”
That additional information would presumably include the FDA’s recent admission that at least 10 children the agency has reviewed so far “died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”
“The truth is we do not know if we saved lives on balance,” admitted FDA Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad in a recent leaked email. “It is horrifying to consider that the U.S. vaccine regulation, including our actions, may have harmed more children than we saved. This requires humility and introspection.”
The COVID shots have been highly controversial ever since the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative prepared and released them in a fraction of the time any previous vaccine had ever been developed and tested. As LifeSiteNews has extensively covered, a large body of evidence has steadily accumulated over the past five years indicating that the COVID jabs failed to prevent transmission and, more importantly, carried severe risks of their own.
Ever since, many have intently watched and hotly debated what President Donald Trump would do about the situation upon his return to office. Though he never backed mandates like former President Joe Biden did, for years Trump refused to disavow the shots to the chagrin of his base, seeing Operation Warp Speed as one of his crowning achievements. At the same time, during his latest run he embraced the “Make America Healthy Again” movement and its suspicion of the medical establishment more broadly.
So far, Trump’s second administration has rolled back several recommendations for the shots but not yet pulled them from the market, despite hiring several vocal critics of the COVID establishment and putting the Department of Health & Human Services under the leadership of America’s most prominent anti-vaccine advocate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Most recently, the administration has settled on leaving the current jabs optional but not supporting work to develop successors.
In a July interview, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary asked for patience from those unsatisfied by the administration’s handling of the shots, insisting more time was needed for comprehensive trials to get more definitive data.
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.
-
Digital ID1 day agoCanada considers creating national ID system using digital passports for domestic use
-
National2 days agoCanada’s free speech record is cracking under pressure
-
Business2 days agoAlbertans give most on average but Canadian generosity hits lowest point in 20 years
-
Fraser Institute1 day agoClaims about ‘unmarked graves’ don’t withstand scrutiny
-
Business2 days agoTaxpayers Federation calls on politicians to reject funding for new Ottawa Senators arena
-
International2 days ago100 Catholic schoolchildren rescued, Nigeria promises release of remaining hostages
-
Alberta1 day agoHere’s why city hall should save ‘blanket rezoning’ in Calgary
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoCarney Hears A Who: Here Comes The Grinch


