COVID-19
Supreme Court declines to hear Covid vaccine travel mandate cases
From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
At the time the federal government rescinded the vaccine travel mandate, the Minister of Transport had threatened to bring back the mandate without hesitation.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear the appeals in two cases that challenged the federal Covid vaccine travel mandate. The cases are Peckford et al. v. Canada and Hon. Maxime Bernier v. Canada.
The Justice Centre supported Applicants in both cases. The Applications for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada were filed separately.
The Hon. Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was an applicant in one case, along with five others. Mr. Peckford is the last living signer of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The other case was brought by the Hon. Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada.
In both cases, the Federal Court held the issues were moot because the vaccine travel mandate had been rescinded after the cases had been filed and cross-examination had occurred, but prior to the court hearings. Dismissing a case as moot means that the court has found that its decision will not have a practical effect and that it is not worth the time and effort to decide the case otherwise.
In regard to the Covid vaccine travel mandate, however, at the time the federal government rescinded the vaccine travel mandate, the Minister of Transport had threatened to bring back the mandate without hesitation.
The Applicants argued that the doctrine of mootness ought to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court because emergency orders by their nature are evasive of review, resulting in no oversight by courts or elected legislators.
Hearing these cases would have allowed the Supreme Court to determine whether it is appropriate to allow governments to evade judicial scrutiny of their decisions made through emergency orders. Unlike legislation passed by Parliament, emergency orders are made through Cabinet orders and are protected by Cabinet privilege, meaning Canadians cannot learn the reasoning behind the decisions.
Lawyer Allison Pejovic says, “This case was of paramount importance to all Canadians, and they have been denied the right to know whether the federal government acted lawfully in preventing them from travelling and leaving the country based on their refusal to take a novel medication that failed to prevent transmission of Covid, and that has caused death and serious harm to many people worldwide. Deeming cases challenging draconian emergency orders that harmed millions of Canadians moot damages confidence in the justice system and undermines the rule of law.”
Background
On August 13, 2021, the federal government announced its intention of implementing a vaccine requirement for travelling on planes, trains or ships. The government, led by Prime Minister Justine Trudeau, did this two days before announcing a federal election, essentially making it an election promise. After winning a minority in Parliament, the Minister of Transport implemented the mandate on November 30, 2021.
Both the Peckford and Bernier cases asked the Federal Court to strike down the mandate as a breach of Charter sections 2, 6, 7, 8 and 15. The most significant breach was to Charter section 6, mobility rights. All applicants were essentially barred from travelling across Canada in any practical manner and could not leave the country. In Mr. Bernier’s case, this meant he was essentially barred from campaigning.
Of note, on cross examination a government bureaucrat admitted she did not receive any medical advice to implement such a mandate. It was done solely on the direction from the Minister of Transport and the federal Cabinet.
Just a few days after cross examinations concluded, the government ended the mandate on June 20, 2022. Both cases were dismissed by the Federal Court as moot in October 2022. The subsequent Appeals were dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal.
From the World Council for Health Canada
The health of Canadians has been compromised by government-mandated COVID-19 injections. The upcoming federal election is an opportunity to demand change and accountability. As you decide which candidate or party is most committed to defending the health of yourself and your family, please consider the following:
The Injections Were Never What They Claimed
The Canadian government successfully mandated the COVID-19 injections by labeling them “safe and effective vaccines.” These products are still being promoted and administered across the country. However, the truth is:
- They are not vaccines: Click Here
- They are not safe: Click Here
- They do not prevent infection or transmission.
- Evidence shows they increase the risk of COVID-19 disease and death: Click Here
These Products Contain Multiple Mechanisms of Harm
- They cause injury through multiple biological mechanisms: Click Here
- They have surpassed all vaccines in recorded history—for all infections, for all of the past thirty years combined—in causing deaths and injuries: Click Here
- They are chemically contaminated and adulterated with DNA: Click Here
- In Pfizer’s case, fraud is evident: the DNA contamination includes genetic engineering tools derived from the SV40 virus, associated with cancer risks: Click Here
This Election, We Must Demand Accountability
Insist that to have your vote, candidates must:
- Denounce the COVID-19 “vaccines.”
- Support a full halt to their manufacturing and administration.
- Uphold informed consent, scientific integrity, and bodily autonomy.
Your voice is important. Use it to reject censorship, harm, and medical coercion.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Hulscher interviews the two attorneys who filed criminal referrals in 7 states—triggering active criminal investigations into top COVID officials for murder, terrorism, and racketeering.
In this explosive episode of Focal Points, I sit down with two fearless attorneys from Vires Law Group—Rachel Rodriguez and Mimi Miller—who are leading a historic legal effort to hold top public health officials accountable for their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rachel, founder of the Vires Law Group in South Florida, entered the fight through early litigation against mask and vaccine mandates. Mimi, a former criminal prosecutor, joined Rachel in 2023. Together, they’ve now filed seven criminal referral requests to Attorneys General across the U.S. accusing Fauci and top COVID officials of serious crimes such as murder, racketeering, fraud, abuse, and terrorism. These efforts have already resulted in two active criminal investigations:
 |
In this interview, we dive deep into the criminal referrals:
The Accused
Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA
Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine
Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
Administrators of various hospital systems and care facilities.
Applicable Crimes
The Vires Law Group is seeking state criminal investigations into the aforementioned individuals. The charges outlined include:
Terrorism
Under many state laws, terrorism includes committing crimes to coerce or influence government policy or civilian behavior. The attorneys argue that public fear was deliberately manufactured to increase uptake of vaccines, drive compliance, and suppress dissent—via manipulated death counts, relentless fear-based media messaging, and denial of early treatment.
Murder & Involuntary Manslaughter
Patients were knowingly given lethal treatments such as remdesivir—despite it being pulled from an Ebola study for causing over 50% mortality. Families were denied the right to refuse treatment, and ventilators were used despite overwhelming evidence of fatal outcomes.
Aggravated Assault & Lack of Informed Consent
Patients were subjected to medical procedures—ventilators, remdesivir, and even COVID-19 vaccines—against their will or without informed consent. This constitutes unlawful bodily harm under most state statutes.
Racketeering (RICO)
The team alleges this was a coordinated scheme for profit—fueled by CARES Act incentives and PREP Act immunity—where hospital administrations financially benefited by complying with federal protocols at the expense of patient lives.
Abuse of Vulnerable Adults
Victims were elderly or incapacitated, often denied food, water, vitamins, and family visitation—all while being isolated and coerced into fatal treatment pathways.
Scope & Strategy
While the larger COVID response is under scrutiny, the petitions focus specifically on hospital homicides—where the legal case is strongest and where witnesses (survivors and next-of-kin) are actively seeking justice.
By targeting state-level criminal codes, the team bypasses federal hurdles and builds strategic, streamlined cases with clearly defined jurisdiction and causality.
The goal: create a roadmap for local prosecutors to pursue charges, without being overwhelmed or confused by federal overlap or civil legal complexities.
Victims, Whistleblowers & Ongoing Investigations
Two states have already opened active criminal investigations—though confidentiality laws prevent disclosure of details.
Over 200 victim cases are already included across the seven petitions, with many more expected to be added. These include next-of-kin statements, medical records, and evidence of systemic wrongdoing.
Former nurses, doctors, and hospital staff have come forward, risking their licenses and careers to expose the abuse, forced protocols, and fatal policies they witnessed firsthand.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
RCMP Whistleblowers Accuse Members of Mark Carney’s Inner Circle of Security Breaches and Surveillance
MEI-Ipsos poll: 56 per cent of Canadians support increasing access to non-governmental healthcare providers
AI-Driven Election Interference from China, Russia, and Iran Expected, Canadian Security Officials Warn
Trump Executive Orders ensure ‘Beautiful Clean’ Affordable Coal will continue to bolster US energy grid
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Trump Executive Orders ensure ‘Beautiful Clean’ Affordable Coal will continue to bolster US energy grid
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoBREAKING from THE BUREAU: Pro-Beijing Group That Pushed Erin O’Toole’s Exit Warns Chinese Canadians to “Vote Carefully”
-
Business2 days agoChina, Mexico, Canada Flagged in $1.4 Billion Fentanyl Trade by U.S. Financial Watchdog
-
COVID-192 days agoTamara Lich and Chris Barber trial update: The Longest Mischief Trial of All Time continues..
-
2025 Federal Election18 hours agoPRC-Linked Disinformation Claims Conservatives Threaten Chinese Diaspora Interests, Take Aim at PM Carney’s Debate Remark
-
Energy2 days agoStraits of Mackinac Tunnel for Line 5 Pipeline to get “accelerated review”: US Army Corps of Engineers
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoAllegations of ethical misconduct by the Prime Minister and Government of Canada during the current federal election campaign
-
Daily Caller2 days agoDOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Man’s Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties