Fraud and Abuse Denied EI Claims for the Unvaccinated

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Should Canadians who lost their jobs over vaccine mandates have been denied Employment Insurance? Certified financial examiner Lex Acker says no, and that $12.9 billion of EI should have been paid out.

Acker presented his findings June 2 in Regina at the National Citizens Inquiry on COVID-19. His wife, a Nanaimo, BC nurse not named in his testimony, lost her job due to non-compliance with vaccine mandates.

Late in 2021, federal Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough announced that unvaccinated employees would be denied Employment Insurance (EI), but Acker’s wife applied just the same.

According to Acker, a subsequent appeal included a reference to a Supreme Court ruling in which medical coercion was found to equate to assault. An EI agent admitted to Acker that the appeal “got everyone’s attention” at the federal agency but was denied anyway.

Acker applied for all documentation related to the decision and received 1200 pages. Included was a 12-page document entitled BE Memo 2021-10, which directed EI agents on how to administer claims for the unvaccinated.

“The memorandum is not linked to any legislative or regulatory amendments,” the memo explained.

Given the minister’s announcement all such cases would be denied, the memo seems little more than pretense, despite its apparent departure from normal practice.

The memo mandated three requirements to establish a finding of misconduct for an applicant.

“The employer has adopted and communicated a clear mandatory vaccination policy to all affected employees;”
“The employees are aware that the failure to comply with the policy would cause a loss of employment;”
“The application of the policy to the employee is reasonable within the workplace context.”

According to the response to Acker’s wife, which Acker included in a sworn affadavit, the EI agent on the case asked the Vancouver Island Health Authority for the appropriate documentation. The Ei agent noted such documentation was never received, yet denied the claim with the words, “Misconduct proven.”

The EI memo explicitly stated that claimants could still bring Charter arguments forward. Then again, the memo also validated an “employer’s professional expectations,” an apparent veiled reference to vaccination. The memo explained that it was not enough for applicants to say they suffered “discrimination.” Instead, ”the client must be able to demonstrate how they were discriminated against and on what grounds.”

It’s not clear how that would happen if the minister directed all applications to be refused.

Remarkably, the EI agent in Acker’s case acknowledged stated arguments against the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, but said assessing such judgments was beyond the scope of an EI agent, as were “Charter Rights violation arguments.” The agent told Acker to turn to “the Courts, Human Rights Commission, Labour Standards” instead.

The memo said that claimants citing a religious exemption had to show “a clear link” with proof “that the client’s religion is preventing them from being vaccinated” but not use a Bible or Qu’ran.

“[T]he interpretation of sacred texts by the client themselves must not be seen as a particular practice required by their faith,” the memo explained.

The employer also had wide discretion on what medical exemptions to accept.

“In some cases, the employer can refuse to accept a medical certificate because it does not meet the conditions of the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy,” the memo explained.

“However, the client could have another credible medical reason, such as a mental illness or other condition justifying their refusal.”

If the suggestion mental illness could have contributed to vaccine refusals isn’t biased, then what is?

On Substack, Acker estimated a 9.7% termination rate from positions in B.C. Health, based on vacant positions. His analysis of employer pension contributions suggested similar termination rates of 8.6% to 11.5%.

Acker extrapolated these vaccination and employment rates, and the average EI payout of $26,000, to estimate that unvaccinated Canadians forfeited $12.9 billion in EI claims.

A lay perusal of the criminal code by the analyst suggested potential avenues for litigation, such as fraud, breach of trust by a public officer, and disobeying a statute. Tort for misfeasance in public office might also be a civil remedy.

Acker said the EI rejections were due to systemic fraud and abuse, and he has made a good case. Canadians bemoaning the failed government response to the pandemic have yet another reason to demand accountability.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Up Next

Too little too late – Former Australian Premier apologizes for implementing COVID vaccine mandates

Don't Miss

Johns Hopkins ordered to pay another $2 million to students not given refunds for COVID lockdown

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

Trump Has A Plan To Fix The Electricity Grid — Increase Supply

Crime / 5 hours ago

Mother Of Georgia Shooting Suspect Called School Warning Of ‘Extreme Emergency’: REPORT

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 17 hours ago

UBCIC Chiefs Commit A Grave Error In Labelling Authors As Racist Deniers

Alberta

Crown recommends 9 years in prison for Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protesters

Published on September 4, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Originally charged with conspiracy to commit murder, Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert were convicted of mischief and weapons offences during the Coutts blockade in 2022. They’ve already spent more than two years in prison awaiting their trial.

The Crown recommended nine years in prison for two men linked to the 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts, Alberta.

On August 29th, Crown prosecutor Steven Johnston declared that Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert, who were convicted of mischief and weapons offences at the 2022 Freedom Convoy, should receive nine years in jail despite already spending more than two years in prison awaiting their trial.

“Mr. Carbert and Mr. Olienick believed they were at war. They were prepared to die for their cause. The very real risk is that a firefight would have occurred,” Johnston claimed.

Olienick and Carbert have already spent more than two years in prison after they were charged with conspiracy to commit murder during 2022 Freedom Convoy-inspired border blockade protest in Coutts that protested COVID mandates.

Earlier in August, they were finally acquitted of that charge and instead found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000. Olienick was also found guilty of unlawful possession of an explosive device.

Olienick and Carbert have been jailed since 2022 when, at the same time the Freedom Convoy descended on Ottawa to protest COVID restrictions, they joined an anti-COVID mandate blockade protest at the Alberta-Montana border crossing near Coutts. The men were denied bail and kept in solitary confinement before their trial.

At the time, police said they had discovered firearms, 36,000 rounds of ammunition, and industrial explosives at Olienick’s home. However, the guns were legally obtained and the ammunition was typical of those used by rural Albertans. Similarly, Olienick explained that the explosives were used for mining gravel.

Now, they are being recommended to spend nine more years in prison despite their lawyer pointing out that they have already spent 929 days in jail, which equates to nearly four years given the accepted valuation of granting extra credit for time served while awaiting trial.

Justice David Labrenz is set to give his decision on September 9th.

Under the EA, the Trudeau government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA.

Recently, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Many are pointing out that the two were being unjustly held as political prisoners similar to those in communist countries.

It’s unclear why the two Alberta men are denied bail while dangerous criminals are allowed to roam free thanks to Trudeau’s catch and release policy.

Indeed, this policy has put many Canadians in danger, as was the case last month when a Brampton man charged with sexually assaulting a 3-year-old was reportedly out on bail for an October 2022 incident in which he was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon.

COVID-19

Australian Senate report ignores obvious: excess deaths began after COVID jab rollout

Published on September 3, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

It is considerably more likely that the sudden jump in excess deaths was caused by the vaccines rather than the virus. The same pattern is being repeated across heavily vaccinated countries.

When the Australian Federal Senate announced an inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, there was little hope the participants would undertake a dispassionate examination of the possible effects of vaccines on the population. The report has now been released and it did not disappoint; or, rather, it did disappoint.

The report was an exercise in misdirection and concealment by bureaucrats, industry bodies, and political parties. It did, though, settle the question of whether what the Australian authorities did was due to incompetence or darker motives. Based on the non-arguments proffered it is clear that there has been a sustained and organized exercise in lying.

The Senate committee, according to the state broadcaster, the ABC, found that “COVID-19 was the main cause of excess deaths in 2021, 2022, and up to August 2023”. It is a message that has been repeated across the mainstream media, providing an apparent reason to forget about the whole COVID problem.

Bindi Kinderman, general manager of the People and Place Division of the ABS, told the inquiry COVID-associated deaths were behind the unusual rise in death cases between 2021 and August 2023, adding that “in 2020, COVID-19 ranked as the 38th leading cause of death in Australia. In 2021, it moved up to the 34th position.”

Apart from the obvious problem that the 34^th leading cause of death is hardly likely to be responsible for extreme changes to death levels, the ABS found in its own reporting that in 2021 the mortality rate in Australia from respiratory diseases was the second lowest on record (after 2020). There were 1,122 deaths attributable to COVID-19, less than a third of the number who died from influenza in 2019.

That suggests that any attempt to blame Covid-19 for the excess mortality had to begin at 2022 – after the mass vaccination.

References to 2021 were only made to create the false impression that the excess deaths started earlier than they actually did. The reason? Because there was a desire to avoid comparisons of what happened before the mass inoculation with what happened after.

The deception becomes especially obvious after looking at the ABS’s own data on excess deaths. In 2020, when Australians were being warned that a deadly disease was ravaging the country, excess mortality was actually negative: minus 3.1 per cent. In 2021 it was a comparatively modest 1.6 per cent above average. But in 2022, after the mandating of jabs, it soared to 11.7 per cent before falling to 6.1 per cent in 2023.

Additionally, in 2022 the number of deaths from Covid increased more than nine times from the 2021 level, invalidating the claim that the “vaccines” provided protection.

It is routinely pointed out that “correlation is not causation”; that just because two things coincide does not necessarily mean one causes the other. That also works in reverse. Without some kind of correlation there is no reason to look for causation. There is no correlation between COVID infections, which the ABS said started in March 2020, and excess mortality. So why would the virus suddenly have started causing excess deaths in 2022, when by that time it had mutated and become less deadly? The timeline does not add up.

A study entitled Too Many Dead by the Australian Medical Professional’s Society (AMPS) makes this point. “Why did the official death rates attributable to COVID-19 disease only become notable after the vast majority of Australians had received allegedly ‘safe and effective’ vaccines for the infection? Furthermore, why did the much milder Omicron variant take such a toll on a heavily vaccinated population, if indeed the much-repeated therapeutic claim of protection from severe illness and death was in effect?”

It is considerably more likely that the sudden jump in excess deaths was caused by the vaccines rather than the virus. The same pattern is being repeated across heavily vaccinated countries. According to the OECD, excess mortality is still high, at levels comparable with what happens during war time. In Australia excess mortality is still running about 10 per cent above average, according to the OECD. A study in the European Society of Medicine into the effect of vaccine boosters in Australia has found there is a “strong correlation” with the excess mortality.

A dissenting report by Senator Ralph Babet, who instigated the inquiry, makes the most interesting reading. Babet notes that there was a lot of suppression of submissions, which is unusual in such an inquiry. Only half were uploaded for public viewing.

“The submissions that the committee chose to suppress by taking as ‘unpublished correspondence’ include those from professors, doctors, medical specialists, academics, actuarial and subject matter experts, as well as concerned Australian citizens,” Babet wrote. He pointed to delays and road blocks, unreliable or unavailable data, and limited investigation of vaccine-related deaths.

It is no surprise that almost no-one will come forward to take responsibility for what appears to be the greatest man-made medical catastrophe in Australian history. It is no surprise that politicians, bureaucrats, health bodies and industry groups lack collective conscience and honesty. They are only interested in lying to protect themselves.

The question that remains unanswered is: “What kind of government and health system is left once it has lost its integrity and credibility?”