COVID-19
Fraud and Abuse Denied EI Claims for the Unvaccinated
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Should Canadians who lost their jobs over vaccine mandates have been denied Employment Insurance? Certified financial examiner Lex Acker says no, and that $12.9 billion of EI should have been paid out.
Acker presented his findings June 2 in Regina at the National Citizens Inquiry on COVID-19. His wife, a Nanaimo, BC nurse not named in his testimony, lost her job due to non-compliance with vaccine mandates.
Late in 2021, federal Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough announced that unvaccinated employees would be denied Employment Insurance (EI), but Acker’s wife applied just the same.
According to Acker, a subsequent appeal included a reference to a Supreme Court ruling in which medical coercion was found to equate to assault. An EI agent admitted to Acker that the appeal “got everyone’s attention” at the federal agency but was denied anyway.
Acker applied for all documentation related to the decision and received 1200 pages. Included was a 12-page document entitled BE Memo 2021-10, which directed EI agents on how to administer claims for the unvaccinated.
“The memorandum is not linked to any legislative or regulatory amendments,” the memo explained.
Given the minister’s announcement all such cases would be denied, the memo seems little more than pretense, despite its apparent departure from normal practice.
The memo mandated three requirements to establish a finding of misconduct for an applicant.
- “The employer has adopted and communicated a clear mandatory vaccination policy to all affected employees;”
- “The employees are aware that the failure to comply with the policy would cause a loss of employment;”
- “The application of the policy to the employee is reasonable within the workplace context.”
According to the response to Acker’s wife, which Acker included in a sworn affadavit, the EI agent on the case asked the Vancouver Island Health Authority for the appropriate documentation. The Ei agent noted such documentation was never received, yet denied the claim with the words, “Misconduct proven.”
The EI memo explicitly stated that claimants could still bring Charter arguments forward. Then again, the memo also validated an “employer’s professional expectations,” an apparent veiled reference to vaccination. The memo explained that it was not enough for applicants to say they suffered “discrimination.” Instead, ”the client must be able to demonstrate how they were discriminated against and on what grounds.”
It’s not clear how that would happen if the minister directed all applications to be refused.
Remarkably, the EI agent in Acker’s case acknowledged stated arguments against the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, but said assessing such judgments was beyond the scope of an EI agent, as were “Charter Rights violation arguments.” The agent told Acker to turn to “the Courts, Human Rights Commission, Labour Standards” instead.
The memo said that claimants citing a religious exemption had to show “a clear link” with proof “that the client’s religion is preventing them from being vaccinated” but not use a Bible or Qu’ran.
“[T]he interpretation of sacred texts by the client themselves must not be seen as a particular practice required by their faith,” the memo explained.
The employer also had wide discretion on what medical exemptions to accept.
“In some cases, the employer can refuse to accept a medical certificate because it does not meet the conditions of the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy,” the memo explained.
“However, the client could have another credible medical reason, such as a mental illness or other condition justifying their refusal.”
If the suggestion mental illness could have contributed to vaccine refusals isn’t biased, then what is?
On Substack, Acker estimated a 9.7% termination rate from positions in B.C. Health, based on vacant positions. His analysis of employer pension contributions suggested similar termination rates of 8.6% to 11.5%.
Acker extrapolated these vaccination and employment rates, and the average EI payout of $26,000, to estimate that unvaccinated Canadians forfeited $12.9 billion in EI claims.
A lay perusal of the criminal code by the analyst suggested potential avenues for litigation, such as fraud, breach of trust by a public officer, and disobeying a statute. Tort for misfeasance in public office might also be a civil remedy.
Acker said the EI rejections were due to systemic fraud and abuse, and he has made a good case. Canadians bemoaning the failed government response to the pandemic have yet another reason to demand accountability.
Lee Harding is a Research Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
From LifeSiteNews
A Shoppers Drug Mart in Mississauga, Ontario, has to pay a woman $10,000 after it banned her from the store for lowering her COVID mask when asking for her asthma prescription.
A Canadian woman with breathing difficulties who was refused service at a pharmacy because she lowered her mask while asking for a prescription has been vindicated with a large payout after a human rights tribunal found the drugstore was in the wrong.
In a December 5, 2024, decision, adjudicator Karen Mason of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that a Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacy in Mississauga, Ontario, had violated the rights of a woman named Kimberly Clarke in September 2021, awarding her $10,000 in compensation. The incident unfolded when Clarke, who has asthma, had lowered her mask while asking for her prescription for a Ventolin inhaler because she was having difficulty breathing.
Customers complained about Clarke’s half-wearing of her mask, which led to store staff confronting Clarke. There was a heated exchange, with Clarke claiming she was not being treated fairly. Ultimately, she was kicked out of the store and banned from ever coming back.
Mason found that the drug store staff did not properly accommodate Clarke’s needs, which was a form of discrimination that violated Ontario’s Human Rights Code. She also referenced similar cases in making her decision.
The pharmacy has been ordered to pay Clarke within 30 days of the ruling.
While Clarke was successful in getting compensation for being discriminated against, others have not been successful.
In August, LifeSiteNews reported about a Canadian man who was not allowed to board a flight to go to a medical appointment because he was not masked despite having a doctor’s note saying he could not wear a face covering. Even with the note, the man was denied compensation for damages.
From LifeSiteNews
Biden Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra signed an extension of COVID-19 related liability shields until 2029, ahead of Joe Biden’s departure from the White House, and Donald Trump’s administration may be unable to reverse it.
U.S. Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra has signed an extension of COVID-19 related liability shields until 2029, ahead of President Joe Biden’s departure from the White House.
Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID outbreak, the first Trump administration invoked the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 to declare the virus a “public health emergency.”
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Under this “sweeping” immunity, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those “countermeasures” are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from them, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”
The protection has faced criticism for preventing Big Pharma and various medical institutions from being held accountable for measures that did more harm than good. But on December 11, Becerra issued an amendment to “extend the time period of PREP Act coverage through December 31, 2029. COVID-19 continues to present a credible risk of a future public health emergency,” he claimed.
The amendment “includes extending the time period for PREP Act coverage for licensed pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and qualified technicians, which allows for continued access by the recipient Population to Covered Countermeasures that are COVID-19 vaccines, seasonal influenza vaccines and COVID-19 tests.”
“As qualified persons, these licensed pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and qualified pharmacy technicians will be afforded liability protections in accordance with the PREP Act and the terms of this amended Declaration,” the statement adds. “To the extent that any State law would otherwise prohibit these healthcare professionals who are a ‘qualified person’ from prescribing, dispensing, or administering Covered Countermeasures that are COVID-19 vaccines, seasonal influenza vaccines or COVID-19 tests, such law is preempted.”
The Daily Mail notes that the move means pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna would be shielded from lawsuits over the harm of their mRNA-based COVID shots for another five years.
More significantly, the incoming Trump administration might be powerless to rescind the extension, according to attorney Ray Flores: “The Pfizer and Moderna [COVID shot] contracts guarantee that these manufacturers are protected by the PREP Act. If the emergency ends, then vaccines already in distribution, if administered, could trigger manufacturer liability.”
A large body of evidence identifies serious risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 jabs, and offered several theories for a causal link.
In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.” The findings of both efforts are highly anticipated.
All eyes are currently on returning President Donald Trump and his health team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services. They have given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which Trump has long taken credit, and he has nominated both critics and defenders of establishment COVID measures for a number of administration roles.
Congressional Committee Condemns (Nearly) Every Feature of the Covid Response
Province “rewiring” Alberta’s electricity grid for growth
As Trump 2.0 Scrutinizes Canadian Fentanyl Networks, British Columbia Advances Forfeiture on 14 Properties Linked to Alleged PRC Triad Associate
Saskatchewan seniors say they were offered euthanasia when faced with increased hospice costs
-
National1 day agoPaul Wells: Perhaps Freeland isn’t the victim here. Perhaps it’s Freeland who set Trudeau up
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrudeau’s Liberal Gov’t Tears Itself Apart As It Scrambles To Address Trump’s Tariff Threats
-
COVID-191 day agoAustralian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
-
National1 day agoFreeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
-
National1 day agoPaul Wells, Jen Gerson, and Justin Ling on Freeland and the Liberals’ future, if any
-
National1 day agoConservative Deputy Leader demands immediate election call
-
Business1 day agoMassive growth in federal workforce contributes to Ottawa’s red ink
-
Health2 days agoUS plastic surgeons’ group challenges ‘consensus’ on ‘gender transitions’ for minors