COVID-19
Court to hear Charter challenge to $5,000 ArriveCAN ticket

From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a Notice of Constitutional Question has been filed in the ticket case of Elim Sly-Hooten. Mr. Sly-Hooten’s lawyers, provided by the Justice Centre, have requested a judicial pre-trial to schedule new times, and to agree on witnesses and procedures needed to make Charter arguments. The matter is scheduled to be heard on March 1, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. ET in Courtroom M4, 950 Burnhamthorpe Road West, Mississauga, Ontario. Mr. Sly-Hooten, who lives in British Columbia, returned to Canada from the Netherlands on July 30, 2022. He landed at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. Once on the ground, he did not use the ArriveCAN app to disclose his Covid vaccination status. It is Mr. Sly-Hooten’s personal belief that this medical information should remain private. While overseas, Mr. Sly-Hooten tested positive for Covid. At Pearson International Airport, he provided Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) agents a certificate of recovery given to him by the Government of the Netherlands, proving he had natural immunity to Covid. Because he did not use the ArriveCAN app to disclose his vaccination status, however, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) personnel detained him. In custody, under pressure and without counsel, Mr. Sly-Hooten broke down and revealed his vaccination status. He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days. At issue in the upcoming trial is whether the federal government can demand personal health information from someone just because they are at the border. Also, the relevance of vaccination status is questionable since it has been shown that vaccination does not affect infections or transmission; the vaccinated and unvaccinated transmit Covid at the same rate. Another issue is whether authorities can arbitrarily order people into detention. In his defense, Mr. Sly-Hooten cites his Charter section 7 right to liberty, his section 8 right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his section 9 right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his section 10(b) right to counsel after arrest and detention. Mr. Sly-Hooten’s Notice of Constitutional Question follows the withdrawal of all charges in a similar ticket case. Scott Bennett received an ArriveCAN ticket for not using the app at the Pearson International Airport around the time Mr. Sly-Hooten received his, on July 12, 2022. Mr. Bennett joined with ten others who had been fined or ordered into quarantine for not using the ArriveCAN app to launch a legal challenge on August 24, 2022, commenced by lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. They wanted their tickets and detention declared unconstitutional. On September 30, 2022, a few weeks after the Justice Centre’s lawyers sued the federal government over the mandatory use of this app, the government discontinued the ArriveCAN app. The court then decided that the constitutional challenge, known as Yates v. Attorney General of Canada, was “moot” (no longer relevant). The court would not hear the case based on its view that, since the app had been discontinued, there was nothing for the court to decide. The court disregarded the fact that the government could bring back the policy at any time. The Federal Court upheld that decision on July 19, 2023, though the Court acknowledged that each person ticketed could raise Charter challenges when fighting their fines. In fact, the federal government itself suggested at the first court hearing that the proper place for a constitutional challenge was when individuals contested their tickets. Based on this, Mr. Bennett, with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre, filed a Notice of Constitutional Question in his case. But when his day in court came, on January 16, 2024, the federal government’s witness failed to appear, and the charges against Mr. Bennett were withdrawn. It is possible that Mr. Sly-Hooten’s trial could meet with a similar fate. Chris Fleury, lawyer for Mr. Sly-Hooten, stated, “The requirement for unvaccinated Canadians to lock themselves in their houses for 14 days following international travel was the height of the federal government’s unscientific and irrational response to Covid. By the summer of 2022, it was widely understood that the vaccines did not stop the spread of Covid, even among vaccinated individuals. Mr. Sly-Hooton’s detention in his own house was entirely arbitrary where it provided no public health or other benefit.”
2025 Federal Election
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’

From LifeSiteNews
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.”
Another officer replied with, “Agreed,” adding that “It would be a stretch to say the trucks barricading the streets and the air horns blaring at whatever decibels for however many days constitute the ‘use of force.’”
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.
COVID-19
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim

From LifeSiteNews
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.
Hartman’s family is not alone in their pursuit of justice after being injured by the COVID shot. Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.
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.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
PM Carney’s Candidate Paul Chiang Steps Down After RCMP Confirms Probe Into “Bounty” Comments
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Liberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Fight against carbon taxes not over yet
-
Automotive2 days ago
Electric cars just another poor climate policy
-
Energy2 days ago
Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?
-
2025 Federal Election11 hours ago
WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals
-
Crime1 day ago
First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl