Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Last living signatory of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms appealing decision on travel vaccine mandate

Published

3 minute read

From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Ruled “moot,” the travel vaccine mandate challenge is back before the court

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms supports former Newfoundland Premier, the Honourable Brian Peckford, People’s Party leader, the Honourable Maxime Bernier, and others in their appeal of the decision that their challenge to the federal government’s travel vaccine mandate was not worth hearing because the mandate was lifted. The case goes before the Federal Court of Appeal in Ottawa on Wednesday, October 11.

The travel vaccine mandate was brought into force in November 2021. The mandate prevented 5.2 million Canadians who chose not to be vaccinated for Covid-19 from traveling by air. Affidavits filed in the case attest that, in a country as large as Canada, prohibitions on domestic and international air travel can have significant negative impacts on Canadians. The basis for the challenge is the right to mobility guaranteed in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case was filed in February 2022, and a hearing was scheduled for later that year in October 2022. In preparation for that hearing, the parties filed over 14,000 pages of evidence. The legal challenge had attracted media attention because former Premier Peckford is the last living signatory to The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into force in 1982 as part of the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution. Adding interest, Maxime Bernier is the leader of the federal People’s Party of Canada.

Between the filing of the case in February 2022 and the hearing set for October 2022, the mandate was lifted. In June 2022, the then-Minister of Transport Omar Alghabra suspended the mandate, and threatened to bring it back if public health officials believed the circumstances warranted it.

Eleven days before the scheduled October hearing, the Federal Court dismissed the case, declaring it “moot,” or irrelevant, because the mandates were no longer in force. A declaration of “mootness” means that the court believes that continuing with the hearing would not be a good use of the justice system’s resources.

However, the appellants believe that the public interest in the case far outweighs the concern and need for judicial economy. In November 2022, they filed their Notice of Appeal, and their written arguments were filed in April 2023.

John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre, emphasizing the importance and uniqueness of the issue, stated, “There has never been a more egregious infringement of Canadians’ mobility rights than what occurred due to the unconstitutional and unlawful travel vaccine mandates. For the Federal Court to find that it is not in the public interest to determine whether the Federal Government acted lawfully in prohibiting 5 million Canadians from flying across the country and internationally to see family members is a grave injustice that the Federal Court of Appeal ought to remedy.”

Before Post

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

2025 Federal Election

Before the Vote: Ask Who’s Defending Our Health

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

The Pandemic Justice Phase Begins as Criminal Investigations Commence

Published on

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH's avatar 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.


Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Continue Reading

Trending

X