The Crown has rejected a $500 million class-action lawsuit by 330 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members over mandatory COVID-19 vaccines as “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.” .A statement of defence filed in federal court on September 12 stated “vaccination was safe, effective and accepted as part of a proper response to the pandemic.”.It alleged the lawsuit is “without merit,” and should be dismissed “with costs against the plaintiffs.”.The lawsuit, seeking $1 million in damages per plaintiff plus “extensive other damages” — for members serving and released — was launched in June against high-ranking CAF members by lawyer Catherine Christensen with Valour Law in St. Albert..“This is not about COVID-19, this is about a corrupt chain of command that thinks they are untouchable and above the law,” said Christensen who described actions against CAF members as “malicious and unlawful.”.The lawsuit was filed against Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) Gen. Wayne Eyre, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff Lt.-Gen. Frances Allen, former defence minister Anita Anand, former deputy defence minister Jody Thomas and others..The CAF imposed a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the fall of 2021. Hundreds of members left through voluntary release, or expulsion under code 5(f) a dishonorable discharge that deemed them “unsuitable” for further service..“The CAF shirked its own purpose and rushed an untested product onto its members, mislabeled this experimental gene therapy a ‘vaccine,’ knowingly made false statements of safety and efficacy, and facilitated its mandate with no option to refuse except for mandatory permanent removal from service,” stated the lawsuit..“The actions of the CAF and CDS has resulted in injury to the plaintiffs, who have consistently worked to prevent this abuse of power from occurring and to protect the members and their families who are experiencing coercion, discrimination and threats of loss and career and benefits in all instances.”.In August, the Military Grievances External Review Committee determined the mandatory policy violated Charter rights of Armed Forces members and recommended they seek justice in the courts..The lawsuit, drawing on sworn affidavits and 150,000 pages of evidence, claims the CAF allowed physical and/or psychological torture at the hands of CAF-commissioned officers, ignored established law on informed consent and religious belief and resulted in loss of income, retirement pension and participation in work..The defendants “deny each and every allegation,” reads the statement of defence..The CDS had the authority to issue directives “to protect the readiness, health and safety of the Force, the entire Defence Team, as well as members of the public they may be called upon to serve.” .Failure to comply could result in release..It said members “had recourse” through the grievance process in the National Defence Act (NDA). .It stated the lawsuit should be dismissed because it constitutes an abuse of process, consists of bald allegations without any material facts necessary to support the causes of the action alleged, has little or no connection between allegations and circumstances alleged in relation to the plaintiffs and provides insufficient material facts about the plaintiffs to allow the defendants to know what the allegations against them are..“A trial of this matter will be unmanageable and the pleadings are improper.”.It called the COVID-19 pandemic a “fundamental threat.” .“The CAF’s enactment of the Policy and Directives was reasonable and does not give rise to a duty of care to the Plaintiffs.”.“In addition, vaccination was safe, effective and accepted as part of a proper response to the pandemic. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs, or any of them, suffered as a result of being vaccinated or that they can be liable to the Plaintiffs for any negative effects from taking a vaccine.”.“In any event, most of the Plaintiffs refused to be vaccinated and therefore cannot have suffered any injury from taking any vaccine.”.“Further, or in the alternative, the Defendants cannot be responsible for any adverse reactions or injury to the Plaintiffs from any vaccine taken.”.It denied Charter rights were breached and members “suffered damages as alleged.”.“Alternatively, if the Plaintiffs suffered damages, those damages were not caused as a result of the acts or omissions of the Defendants.”.In a 21-page reply to the statement of defence filed on September 22, Christensen alleged the defendants “actively, knowing participated in harming” members she’s representing..It alleged the plaintiffs “experienced administrative acts, physical acts, psychological acts, financial acts, and other acts of intimidation, threat, blackmail and coercion under the guise of directives.”.“According to the CAF vaccination policy, adherence to the vaccination policy was an expected behaviour and non-compliance was considered a breach of the CAF Code of Values and Ethics.”.“Unvaccinated members, unless accommodated were to face career implications, remedial measures and release for continued non-compliance.”.The defendants and the CAF “tied the right” to refuse vaccines to the loss of their jobs “without the proper authority under the National Defence Act,” it alleged..“In a blatant misuse of authority, the CDS chose to implement directives by altering and misapplying the administrative measures process rather than use his authority under the NDA…”.Refusing the vaccine is a right protected by the Charter and existing laws and regulation..“The Crown fails to show the relevance of saying the COVID-19 injections were safe and effective to the primary claim of abusive tactics by all levels of command in the implementation of the directives.”.Christensen claimed it was established before the directives in October 2021 that the use of Moderna wasn’t “safe” or “effective in any way for the treatment of COVID-19.”.“The CAF was aware of these facts yet carried out a damaging campaign against its own members to force a medical treatment that causes harm.”.“The Plaintiffs plead that the defendants committed the tort of misfeasance in public office by deliberately conducting themselves unlawfully in the exercise of their public functions.”.They acted “knowingly and in bad faith outside the scope of their authority” by implementing the directives..It alleged the defendants failed to show the actions of the CDS and chain of command toward the plaintiffs “did not meet the definition of abuse of authority” defined in the military code..The “widespread abuse” affected every branch, trade, unit and rank of serving men and women..READ MORE: CAF’s sadistic COVID-19 policies.READ MORE: Former Snowbirds pilot forced out.READ MORE: Vaccine injured soldier shadow of former self.“The Defendants knew of the increased risks of the vaccines and intentionally censored and suppressed the information from the Plaintiffs,” it alleged..“In addition to damages for Charter violations, the Defendants are liable for further aggravated and punitive damages stemming from the unduly harsh, insensitive manner in which they carried out disciplinary procedures and release.”.“The Plaintiffs have suffered immeasurable damage including mental, distress, anxiety, and, in particular injury to dignity and self-respect.”.“The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to significant damages due to the manner in which the CAF and DND (Department of National Defence) suspended their employment including a claim for punitive aggravated damages arising from flagrant human rights and Charter violations.”.Damages suffered include severe and permanent psychological, physical and emotional trauma; loss of employment opportunities; worsening physical health because of inadequate medical support; threats and assaults; loss of income; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and other damages that will be proven at trial, it stated..A date for the trial hasn't been set.
