Connect with us

COVID-19

Saskatchewan protestors ask Supreme Court to hear their challenge to gathering restrictions

Published

1 month ago

5 minute read

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Jasmin Grandel and Darrell Mills intend to take their constitutional challenge to Saskatchewan’s Covid gathering restrictions to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 15, 2024, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed their case. Today, our lawyers applied for leave to appeal their case to Canada’s highest court in a potentially precedent-setting case about the freedom of peaceful assembly.

On December 19, 2020, Ms. Grandel and Mr. Mills participated in a peaceful protest against the Government of Saskatchewan’s Covid lockdown measures at the Vimy Memorial in Saskatoon’s Kiwanis Park. Police ticketed them for attending a protest exceeding Saskatchewan’s 10-person outdoor gathering limit.

Jasmin Grandel, a young mother, attended peaceful protests to express her concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding government restrictions. She was especially concerned about the requirement that her son wear a mask in kindergarten.

Darrell Mills, certified in Mask Fit Testing and trained in supplied air breathing systems, also attended peaceful demonstrations to voice his concerns about improper mask usage and the significant burdens mask mandates placed on persons with physical or psychological conditions.

On April 7, 2021, our lawyers filed a constitutional challenge to these gathering restrictions at the Saskatoon Court of Queen’s Bench on behalf of Ms. Grandel and Mr. Mills. They argued that the gathering restrictions violated their freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association – protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That challenge was heard by the Court on June 29, 2022.

Unfortunately, while it was conceded that the gathering restrictions did limit their freedom of expression, the Court ruled that the limitation was justified. Further, the Court found that, because the limitation on freedom of expression was justified, the limitations on the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association were also justified without the need for independent analysis of those rights.

Ms. Grandel and Mr. Mills were not deterred, appealing that decision on August 14, 2023. In yet another setback, however, their appeal was dismissed on May 15, 2024, by the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan in a unanimous decision upholding the lower Court’s findings.

They are now asking the Supreme Court of Canada to hear their case. On August 14, 2024, our lawyers filed a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. If granted, they will argue that Saskatchewan’s Covid gathering restrictions were primarily an unjustifiable limitation of the freedom of peaceful assembly, which was not centrally considered. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to develop a more robust legal framework for addressing limitations to that freedom.

Our lawyers argue that, in many cases where the government has violated multiple Charter freedoms, particularly the freedoms of expression, assembly and association, courts tend to focus on limitations to freedom of expression only. In other words, courts tend to find an independent analysis of violations of other rights unnecessary. If a court finds that the government justifiably limited freedom of expression, they tend to find that the government justifiably limited the freedom of peaceful assembly if it were to have been infringed.

Canadian courts ought to develop a test for addressing violations to the freedom of peaceful assembly. Today, two Saskatchewan citizens have asked the Supreme Court to develop such a test and to apply it to gathering restrictions that impacted more than a million residents. If this case is heard by the Supreme Court, it could have a profound impact on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians.

Lawyer Andre Memauri says, “Our request for leave to appeal in this matter seeks to address concerns with how Charter violations are addressed within the section 1 analysis, when numerous Charter violations are engaged. Additionally, there exists a void in jurisprudence with respect to a test in how to address the guarantee of peaceful assembly directly, and we are hoping the Supreme Court of Canada provides guidance on this increasingly important matter to Canadians.”

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
Daily Caller / 1 hour ago

Union Bigwigs Decline To Endorse Anyone For President Despite Rank-And-File Members Overwhelmingly Backing Trump

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Biden-Harris Admin’s Multi-Billion Dollar Electric School Bus Program Is A Huge Gift To China, House Report Finds

Energy / 5 hours ago

US LNG uncertainty is a reminder of lost Canadian opportunities

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

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on September 16, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X