Connect with us

COVID-19

Nova Scotia judge sues chief judge, provincial court over Covid vaccine status and judicial independence

Published

2 years ago

6 minute read

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is providing for the legal representation of Judge Rickcola Brinton of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia in a lawsuit against The Honorable Pamela S. Williams, former Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, among others. Brinton was threatened by Williams with suspension and referral to the provincial Judicial Council after she chose not to disclose her Covid vaccination status in late 2021. She filed her claim in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on September 29, 2023, seeking damages for the intentional violation of her judicial independence and medical privacy.

On September 29, 2021, Brinton received an email (sent to all judges of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court) from Judge Williams, then Chief Judge, asking if they would agree to share their vaccination status with each other. Chief Judge Williams also asked whether the Court should share that information with the Nova Scotia Bar.

On October 1, 2021, Brinton replied, “I realize I may be in the minority…as I have concerns with medical privacy,” she wrote. “I also know that the vaccination mandates and passports may be disproportionately impacting racialized communities. And as an essential service, will we be creating a two-tiered society for those who already feel as though we are not all free to serve them?” She thus declined to disclose her vaccination status.

In an effort to persuade her, Chief Judge Williams met with Brinton on October 7, 2021. Brinton explained that her decision not to disclose her vaccination status was a matter of conscience and the result of prayerful contemplation. She offered to get tested for Covid as often as needed, but Chief Judge Williams rejected Brinton’s proposal.

At the end of October, Brinton went on short-term disability leave. She submitted the required Proof of Illness form completed by her doctor.

On November 1, 2021, Chief Judge Williams sent out an email to all judges stating that “only fully vaccinated judges will be assigned to sit in our courtrooms.” Four days later, on November 25, 2021, she issued a public statement announcing that “[a]ll Provincial Court judges presiding in courtrooms, both now and in the future, are fully vaccinated.”

A few months later, on February 22, 2022, Chief Judge Williams wrote to Brinton stating that she would not approve the continuation of the short-term leave unless Brinton provided evidence of her disability. She also wrote that if Brinton continued to refuse to disclose her vaccination status, she would be “considered non-vaccinated and unable to preside over in-person trial and sentencings in the Court Room,” and that she would have “no recourse other than to suspend [Brinton] and refer the matter to the Judicial Council.”

Then, on March 27, 2022, without warning or Brinton’s consent, Chief Judge Williams wrote to Brinton’s doctor requesting that he supply her with details of Brinton’s medical issues. The doctor called Brinton to ask if she consented to this disclosure of medical information. She did not consent. The Chief Judge’s office followed up by calling the doctor’s office to once again ask for disclosure consent. Again, Brinton declined. Meanwhile, Brinton had provided necessary information to her disability benefits provider and had been approved for long-term disability.

Brinton has not received any communication from Chief Judge Williams since April 2022. Williams’ term as Chief Judge ended in August 2023. She continues to sit on the bench.

Judicial independence is a crucial and ancient constitutional principle, predating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Brinton raised concerns about interference with medical privacy and the impact of disclosing her Covid vaccination status on the independence and impartiality of both herself and the Court, particularly with respect to cases where courts have been asked to rule on issues regarding Covid vaccines; for example, whether an employee who is terminated for not taking the Covid vaccine is eligible for EI benefits, or whether it was legal for post-secondary institutions to force students out of their programof study for not taking the vaccine. As a result of raising such concerns, Brinton was threatened with suspension and disciplinary action.

Brinton’s lawsuit names the Honourable Pamela S. Williams, the Office of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, as defendants.

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 / 56 seconds ago

John Kerry Lurches Back Onto Global Stage For One Final Gasp

Addictions / 3 hours ago

The Death We Manage, the Life We Forget

Crime / 3 hours ago

Vancouver police seize fentanyl and grenade launcher in opioid-overdose crisis zone

COVID-19

Canadian government seeking to destroy Freedom Convoy leader, taking Big Red from Chris Barber

Published on November 27, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Crown claimed that ‘Big Red’ is an ‘offence-related property’ relating to Chris Barber’s involvement in the 2022 protests against Canada’s COVID mandates.

The Canadian government is still going after Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber, this time hoping to seize his very livelihood.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has reported that it represented Barber during a November 26 hearing about the Crown’s attempt to take “Big Red,” Barber’s semi-truck. The Crown claimed that the vehicle is an “offence-related property” relating to Barber’s involvement in the 2022 protests against Canada’s COVID mandates.

Barber’s truck, a 2004 Kenworth long-haul, which he uses for business, was a focal point in the 2022 protests. He drove it to Ottawa, where it was parked for an extended period of time, but he complied when officials asked him to move it. 

Barber’s lawyer, Diane Magas, said the Crown’s attempt to take away Barber’s livelihood is “not” in the spirit of laws in place regarding forfeiture.

“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family, as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions,” she said as per a JCCF press release.

“Especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it.”

The Freedom Convoy leader has talked about his truck, saying that, “Big Red is how I put food on the table.”

“I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living,” Barber continued.

A ruling regarding the Crown’s wish to seize Barber’s truck is expected to appear on December 19; however, the court case could drag into the new year.

On October 7, 2025, after a long trial, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Tamara Lich and Barber to 18 months’ house arrest. They had been declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest against COVID mandates, and as social media influencers.  

Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.

Government lawyers for the Crown have filed an appeal of the acquittals of Lich and Barber on intimidation charges.

Lich and Barber were declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the protest against COVID mandates in April 2022, and as social media influencers. The conviction came after a nearly two-year trial despite the non-violent nature of the popular movement.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Crown seeks to punish peaceful protestor Chris Barber by confiscating his family work truck “Big Red”

Published on November 25, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Ontario Court of Justice will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, November 26 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, regarding the Crown’s attempt to permanently seize “Big Red,” the 2004 Kenworth long-haul truck relied upon by peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Chris Barber and his family trucking business.

Constitutional lawyer Diane Magas, who represents Mr. Barber, is opposing the forfeiture.

“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions, especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it,” she said.

Mr. Barber, a Saskatchewan trucker and central figure in the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy, depends on this vehicle for his livelihood. The Crown alleges that his truck constitutes “offence-related property.”

The November 26 hearing will address the Crown’s application to seize the truck and will include evidence regarding ownership and corporate title. The Court will also consider an application filed earlier this year by Mr. Barber’s family, who are asserting their rights as interested third parties and seeking to prevent the loss of the vehicle.

Mr. Barber was found guilty of mischief and counselling others to breach a court order following the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest, despite his consistent cooperation with law enforcement and reliance on legal advice during the events of early 2022. At sentencing, the Court acknowledged that he “came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence,” emphasizing that Mr. Barber encouraged calm and compliance.

Mr. Barber said, “‘Big Red’ is how I put food on the table. I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X