Connect with us

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October hearing, the Federal Court dismissed the case, declaring it “moot,” or irrelevant, because the mandates were no longer in force.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.”

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

COVID-19

Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A federal judge ruled that complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ending the final chapter of COVID regulations.

According to information published on January 15 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling unsafe following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable.

“The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted Covid-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to Covid-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,” wrote the court.

Masks were mandated in federal workplaces from April 20, 2020, to February 14, 2023, under the direction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, millions of Canadians were forced to mask in public settings such as grocery stores or hospitals.

After the mandate had lifted, Juzda, a “fully vaccinated” individual without any particular health issues, complained that he felt unsafe in the Gatineau headquarters.

“I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,” he wrote, referencing the Canada Labor Code that allows federally regulated staff to refuse work “that constitutes a danger to the employee.”

Juzda claimed that masking “reduces the risk of contracting Covid-19 but is of limited effectiveness if not combined with other measures, particularly during prolonged exposure to unmasked infected individuals such as being nearby in an indoor office for an entire day.”

“Covid-19 is a disease that in addition to often being extremely unpleasant during the acute period poses significant risks including death,” he continued.

“Handwashing and workplace cleaning are of minimal use in limiting the spread of Covid-19,” Juzda claimed.

Indeed, LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on overwhelming evidence showing that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission of COVID and that they come with harmful effects.

Back in 2021, 47 studies confirmed the ineffectiveness of masks for COVID, while 32 more confirmed their negative health effects.

According to another 2021 report, more than 170 studies have found that masks have been ineffective at stopping COVID and instead have been harmful, especially to children.

In fact, in 2020, before masks were widely mandated, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam admitted that masks were not effective in preventing COVID.

“There is no need to use a mask for well people,” she said in the first few weeks of the pandemic. “It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects

Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.

According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.

“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.

“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.

In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.

The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”

Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.

Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”

Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.

Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.

Continue Reading

Trending

X