Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Fraud and Abuse Denied EI Claims for the Unvaccinated

Published

8 months 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 / 11 mins ago

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

2025 Federal Election / 2 hours ago

Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’

2025 Federal Election / 6 hours ago

Fight against carbon taxes not over yet

2025 Federal Election

Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Mark Carney described the Freedom Convoy as an act of ‘sedition’ and advocated for the government to use its power to crush the non-violent protest movement.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney refused to elaborate on comments he made in 2022 referring to the anti-mandate Freedom Convoy protest as an act of “sedition” and advocating for the government to put an end to the movement.

“Well, look, I haven’t been a politician,” Carney said when a reporter in Windsor, Ontario, where a Freedom Convoy-linked border blockade took place in 2022, asked, “What do you say to Canadians who lost trust in the Liberal government back then and do not have trust in you now?”

“I became a politician a little more than two months ago, two and a half months ago,” he said. “I came in because I thought this country needed big change. We needed big change in the economy.”

Carney’s lack of an answer seems to be in stark contrast to the strong opinion he voiced in a February 7, 2022, column published in the Globe & Mail at the time of the convoy titled, “It’s Time To End The Sedition In Ottawa.”

In that piece, Carney wrote that the Freedom Convoy was a movement of “sedition,” adding, “That’s a word I never thought I’d use in Canada. It means incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.”

Carney went on to claim in the piece that if “left unchecked” by government authorities, the Freedom Convoy would “achieve” its “goal of undermining our democracy.”

Carney even targeted “[a]nyone sending money to the Convoy,” accusing them of “funding sedition.”

Internal emails from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) eventually showed that his definition of sedition were not in conformity with the definition under Canada’s Criminal Code, which explicitly lists the “use of force” as a necessary aspect of sedition.

“The key bit is ‘use of force,’” one RCMP officer noted in the emails. “I’m all about a resolution to this and a forceful one with us victorious but, from the facts on the ground, I don’t know we’re there except in a small number of cases.”

The reality is that the Freedom Convoy was a peaceful event of public protest against COVID mandates, and not one protestor was charged with sedition. However, the Liberal government, then under Justin Trudeau, did take an approach similar to the one advocated for by Carney, invoking the Emergencies Act to clear-out protesters. Since then, a federal judge has ruled that such action was “not justified.”

Despite this, the two most prominent leaders of the Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, still face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the non-violent assembly. LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on their trial.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim

Published on March 26, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Ontario Superior Court Justice Sandra Antoniani ruled that the Department of Health had no ‘duty of care’ to individual members of the public in its pandemic response.

An Ontario judge dismissed a liability claim from a family of a high schooler who died weeks after taking the COVID shot.

According to a published report on March 26 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Ontario Superior Court Justice Sandra Antoniani ruled that the Department of Health had no “duty of care” to a Canadian teenager who died after receiving a COVID vaccine.

“The plaintiff’s tragedy is real, but there is no private law duty of care made out,” Antoniani said.

“There is no private law duty of care to individual members of the public injured by government core policy decisions in the handling of health emergencies which impact the general population,” she continued.

In September 2021, 17-year-old Sean Hartman of Beeton, Ontario, passed away just three weeks after receiving a Pfizer-BioNtech COVID shot.

After his death, his family questioned if health officials had warned Canadians “that a possible side effect of receiving a Covid-19 vaccine was death.” The family took this petition to court but has been denied a hearing.

Antoniani alleged that “the defendants’ actions were aimed at mitigating the health impact of a global pandemic on the Canadian public. The defendants deemed that urgent action was necessary.”

“Imposition of a private duty of care would have a negative impact on the ability of the defendants to prioritize the interests of the entire public, with the distraction of fear over the possibility of harm to individual members of the public, and the risk of litigation and unlimited liability,” she ruled.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Dan Hartman, Sean’s father, filed a $35.6 million lawsuit against Pfizer after his son’s death.

However, only 103 claims of 1,859 have been approved to date, “where it has been determined by the Medical Review Board that there is a probable link between the injury and the vaccine, and that the injury is serious and permanent.”

Thus far, VISP has paid over $6 million to those injured by COVID injections, with some 2,000 claims remaining to be settled.

According to studies, post-vaccination heart conditions such as myocarditis are well documented in those, especially young males who have received the Pfizer jab.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Continue Reading

Trending

X