Connect with us

COVID-19

College’s COVID vaccine mandate for remote professor was ‘not reasonable,’ arbitrator rules

Published

10 months ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Arbitrator Larry Steinberg determined that Fanshawe College erred in mandating that Professor Andrew Wing have the shots as a condition of work despite working from home.

An Ontario arbitrator ruled in favor of a vaccine-free professor who was put on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with his college’s COVID jab policy despite working from home, concluding that the college’s jab mandate was “not reasonable.”

Arbitrator Larry Steinberg, in a ruling released February 20, determined that Fanshawe College, an applied arts college in London, Ontario, erred in mandating that Professor Andrew Wing have the shots as a condition of work despite working from home.

“This case is not about whether the vaccination Policy of the College is reasonable. This case is more narrowly focused only on whether, based on the evidence before me, it was reasonable to apply the Policy to the grievor in the context of his working conditions at the time,” Steinberg wrote in his ruling.

“I find that requiring the grievor to comply with the vaccination Policy was not reasonable and the grievance is allowed. As requested by the parties the issue of the appropriate remedy is remitted to the parties.”

Wing holds a full-time position in the Technical Systems Analysis (TSS) program within the School of Information Technology. All of its classes are remote.

Fanshawe College, like most in Ontario, in November 2021 set mandatory COVID jab policies for staff and students to comply with a provincial government dictate, which was announced a few months earlier. Those that did not comply were fired or placed on unpaid leave.

Wing told the college that he was not going to get the COVID shots and wanted an exemption under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. He was subsequently placed on a three-month leave with no pay that started January 3, 2022.

Wing was not happy with being put on unpaid leave, and with the help of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 110, filed a grievance.

The grievance read, “I grieve that Fanshawe has unreasonably applied its COVID-19 Vaccination policy and as a result has threatened an unreasonable disciplinary action under our Collective Agreement and/or any applicable statues, and in so doing, has violated Articles 4 and 31 of the Collective Agreement along with any other relevant articles and/or laws.”

Fanshawe College argued that the “policy that everyone who attended on campus had to be fully vaccinated never changed from its inception.”

The college’s human resources department had argued, as per the arbitrator’s ruling, that it was an “administrative burden for the employer to continue to have to check the vaccination status of employees who found it necessary to be on campuses,” and that, “In the grievor’s case this could include meeting with students, attending to technical matters and attending at meetings.”

Steinberg ruled that regarding the human resources department’s claim, “There was no evidence why the grievor could not continue to perform all of these functions remotely as had been since the inception of the program in 2020.”

“I reject this evidence as in any way justifying the requirement that the grievor be vaccinated on the basis of the College’s interest in carrying out its responsibilities,” he wrote.

As for Wing returning to work, in March 2022, he got an email from the college that because he was working remotely he could come back to remote work with pay.

Fanshawe College, like many universities and post-secondary institutions in the Ontario, had in place a COVID jab mandate policy for staff and students that targeted the vaccine-free.

Ontario’s government, under pro-mandate and pro-lockdown Premier Doug Ford, for a time mandated not only mask-wearing, but COVID shots for workers in healthcare and other government settings.

The mandates led to lawsuits against governments and universities and other businesses Canada-wide.

Many institutions along with governments in Canada rescinded vaccine mandates and vaccine passports last year, but not after causing much harm to the unjabbed.

LifeSiteNews has reported on many cases that Canadian arbitrators ruled in favor of the vaccine-free who lost work for not getting the shots.

When it comes to the shots themselves, there is a large body of data showing that COVID jab mandates and passports have been failed strategy for tackling COVID, not to mention the fact that the jabs have been linked to millions of injuries and thousands of deaths.

It is now understood that the COVID virus has a minimal risk of asymptomatic spread, and research indicates that natural immunity from infection of COVID is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity.

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 / 14 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 14 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 14 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X