People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier and former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Brian Peckford have submitted written arguments in their appeal against the travel mandate after the Federal Court of Canada determined it was moot. .“The federal government’s threat to reinstate the travel mandate should have been the deciding factor for the Federal Court to hear this case,” said Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms-funded lawyer Allison Pejovic in a Monday press release. .“The public interest in this case is staggering.” .Federal Court Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagne axed several challenges to Canada’s former vaccine mandate for travel in October. .READ MORE: 'Logic is dead': Dire day for air travel vaccine lawsuits.The Federal Court was set to hear cases set forth by Bernier, Peckford, business executives Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard, and others. Gagne passed the attorney general's application to block the challenges about two weeks before court hearings commenced. .“The applicants' applications for judicial review are struck out as moot,” she said. .The Canadian government suspended its vaccine mandate for domestic and outbound international travellers, federally-regulated transportation employees, and government workers in June. .READ MORE: Federal government to suspend vaccine mandates for travellers, federal workers next week.“Today's announcement is possible because Canadians stepped up to protect each other,” said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc. .The change allowed unvaccinated Canadians to board planes and trains travelling within Canada or to international locations. Travellers were required to follow rules around testing and quarantine upon re-entry from international destinations..The release said the written arguments focus on the Federal Court judge’s failure to give proper weight and consideration to the transport minister threatening to make adjustments based on the latest public health advice and science. .These arguments highlight Gagne’s error in engaging in the three-part legal test she was supposed to perform as part of her analysis as to whether to exercise her discretion to hear the case. The legal test determines the court ought to consider the existence of an adversarial context, the presence of particular circumstances justifying the expenditure of limited judicial resources to resolve moot cases, and respect shown by the courts to limit themselves to their proper adjudicative role as opposed to making free-standing, legislative pronouncements. .Gagne failed to consider the third factor in her decision. .The Canadian government will file its written submissions in response, and a date will be set to have an appeal heard. .Pejovic concluded by saying Canadians “need to know whether it is lawful for their own federal government to prevent them from travelling across Canada or leaving the country based upon whether they have taken a novel medication.” .“We hope the Federal Court of Appeal grants this appeal so that this very important case can be heard,” she said.
