Connect with us

COVID-19

Fraud and Abuse Denied EI Claims for the Unvaccinated

Published

1 month ago

6 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

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.

  1. “The employer has adopted and communicated a clear mandatory vaccination policy to all affected employees;”
  2. “The employees are aware that the failure to comply with the policy would cause a loss of employment;”
  3. “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

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Feds blow $2.7 million on global film festivals

National / 2 hours ago

Liberal House Leader tells gov’t-funded media they must ‘scrutinize’ Conservatives

conflict / 3 hours ago

Second Wave Of Blasts Sweep Through Lebanon As Hezbollah Walkie-Talkies Suddenly Explode

COVID-19

Canada approves Moderna’s latest experimental COVID shot starting after 6 months old

Published on September 18, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Health Canada’s decision to approve the shots follows a bombshell study of Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots that shows “self-assembling nanostructures.”

Health Canada approved Moderna’s new MRNA COVID-19 vaccine for all Canadians over six months of age.

On September 17th, Moderna announced that its latest COVID-19 vaccine, targeting the KP.2 variant of SARS-COV-2, was approved by Health Canada, despite overwhelming evidence of the dangers of the shots.

“With vaccines ready, Moderna will begin delivery of updated doses to the Public Health Agency of Canada, ensuring supply is available in time for provincial and territorial vaccination campaigns,” the company said in a news release.

“Receiving the most recently updated COVID-19 vaccine is expected to provide a better immune response against circulating COVID-19 strains compared to earlier vaccines,” Moderna claimed. “It is especially important for those at increased risk for COVID-19 infection or severe COVID-19 illness.”

The promotion of the experimental shot comes over three years after government officially declared a COVID “pandemic” and forced Canadians to take the vaccine. Additionally, there has been no outbreak of COVID for several years.

Health Canada’s decision to approve the shots follows a bombshell study of Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots that shows “self-assembling nanostructures.”

According to the report, researchers in Korea observed what appear to be “self-assembling,” “synthetic” nanostructures such as spirals and tubes that form within the contents of the COVID Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots over the course of months.

Canada’s promotion of the vaccine also comes as Canada’s program to compensate those injured by the COVID vaccines has reached $14 million, but the vast majority of claims remain unpaid.

Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “it’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”

The federal government is also continuing to purchase COVID jabs despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection.

Some people who were successful in getting payouts from VISP have said that the compensation awarded was insufficient considering the injuries sustained from the COVID shots.

As reported by LifeSiteNews last year, 42-year-old Ross Wightman of British Columbia launched a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the federal government of Canada, the government of his province, and the pharmacy at which he was injected after receiving what he considers inadequate compensation from VISP.

He was one of the first citizens in Canada to receive federal financial compensation due to a COVID vaccine injury under VISP. Wightman received the AstraZeneca shot in April 2021 and shortly after became totally paralyzed. He was subsequently diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Wightman was given a one-time payout of $250,00 and about $90,000 per year in income replacement but noted, as per a recent True North report, that he does not even know if those dollar amounts “would ease the pain.”

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of receiving the experimental COVID mRNA jabs, which include heart damage and blood clots.

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

Continue Reading

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X