Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

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

Published

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.”

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

COVID-19

New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility

Published on

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity

What was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” now has hard data behind it.

A new peer-reviewed study out of the Czech Republic has uncovered a disturbing trend: in 2022, women vaccinated against COVID-19 had 33% FEWER successful conceptions per 1,000 women compared to those who were unvaccinated.

A “successful conception” means a pregnancy that led to a live birth nine months later.

The study wasn’t small. It analyzed data from 1.3 million women aged 18 to 39.

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity.

First, let’s talk about the study.

It was published by Manniche and colleagues in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal respected for its focus on patient safety and pharmacovigilance.

The study was conducted from January 2021 to December 2023 and examined 1.3 million women aged 18–39. By the end of 2021, approximately 70% of them had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, with 96% of the vaccinated cohort having received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

By 2022, a stark difference was clear.

The vaccinated cohort averaged around 4 successful conceptions per 1,000 women per month.

That’s a staggering 33% LESS than the 6 per 1,000 seen in the unvaccinated group.

This means that for every 2 vaccinated women who successfully conceived and delivered a baby, 3 unvaccinated women did the same.

In 2022, unvaccinated women were 1.5 times MORE likely to have a successful conception.

Again, that’s a conception that led to a live birth nine months later.

The authors did not jump to the conclusion that their study proved causation. They cited that other factors may have played a role, such as self-selection bias

However, the researchers noted that self-selection bias does not explain the timing and scale of the observed drop in fertility.

Moreover, birth rates in the Czech Republic dropped from 1.83 per 1,000 women in 2021 to 1.37 in 2024, adding further evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines may be contributing to the decline in fertility.

That downward trend, the researchers argue, supports the hypothesis that something beyond individual decision-making may be affecting conception rates.

As such, they argue that the study’s results warrant a closer and more thorough examination of the impact of mass vaccination.

If this study holds true, and vaccinated women are really much less likely to have successful conceptions, the implications for humanity are massive.

Millions of babies could be missing each year as a result of COVID vaccination, and recent data from Europe and beyond already point to a deeply disturbing trend.

NOTE: Europe experienced a sharper decline in births than usual from 2021 to 2023.

Live births fell from 4.09 million in 2021 to 3.67 million in 2023, marking a 10.3% decline in just two years.

The new Czech study adds to growing evidence that COVID vaccines may be contributing to a dramatic decline in fertility, just as many feared all along.

As Elon Musk warns, “If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.”

Whether the shots are the cause or not, the trend is real—and it’s accelerating.

It’s time to stop dismissing the signals and start investigating the cause.


Thanks for reading. I hope this report gave you real value. This is a critically important topic that deserves attention.

If you appreciate my work and want to help keep it going, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

99% of readers get this content for free. But just $5/month from the 1% keeps it flowing for everyone else.

If this work matters to you, this is the best way to support it.

Be the 1% who makes it possible.

Catch the rest of today’s biggest headlines at VigilantFox.com.

See More Stories

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Ontario resident George Katerberg has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for banning roadside billboards with social or political messages. Mr. Katerberg believes that the Ministry’s policies go too far and undermine the freedom of expression of all Ontarians.

This case goes back to March 2024, when Mr. Katerberg, a retired HVAC technician, rented a billboard on Highway 17 near Thessalon, Ontario, that featured images of public health officials and politicians alongside a message critical of their statements about vaccines.

After the Ministry rejected his proposed billboard several times on the grounds it promoted hatred, a constitutional challenge was launched with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. Mr. Katerberg’s lawyers argued that the Ministry’s position was unreasonable, and that it did not balance Charter rights with the purposes of relevant legislation.

The Ministry later admitted that the sign did not violate hate speech guidelines and agreed to reconsider erecting the billboard.

However, in April 2025, the Ministry quietly amended its policy manual to restrict signs along “bush highways” to those only promoting goods, services, or authorized community events.

The new guidelines are sweeping and comprehensive, barring any messaging that the Ministry claims could “demean, denigrate, or disparage one or more identifiable persons, groups of persons, firms, organizations, industrial or commercial activities, professions, entities, products or services…”

Relying on this new policy, the Ministry once again denied Mr. Katerberg’s revised billboard.

Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury explains, “By amending the Highway Corridor Management Manual to effectively prohibit signage that promotes political and social causes, the Ministry of Transportation has turned Mr. Katerberg’s fight to raise his sign into a fight on behalf of all Ontarians who wish to express support for a political or social cause.”

No date has yet been assigned for a hearing on this matter.

Continue Reading

Trending

X