A Montreal stockbroker who likened himself to Galileo and said COVID-19 wasn’t real had his case tossed out of Federal Court, says Blacklock’s Reporter..“Courts make decisions based on evidence brought in each particular case,” wrote Justice Sébastien Grammond..“Some facts however are so obvious courts assume their existence and no evidence of them is required. This is called judicial notice.”.Lucien Khodeir filed a federal challenge of Treasury Board vaccination orders for employees..Khodeir was not personally affected by the orders issued last October 6. The court was told he works as a stock trader for CIBC World Markets..Khodeir in his submission said vaccine mandates were unnecessary since the coronavirus did not exist, and proposed to call three expert witnesses..“It is pure speculation,” said the court..“In his submissions, Mr. Khodeir compares himself to Galileo who was persecuted in the 17th century for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun, a theory unanimously accepted today. Yet unlike Mr. Khodeir, Galileo buttressed the heliocentric theory with facts, especially his discovery of Jupiter’s moons..“In contrast, Mr. Khodeir asks us to believe his assertions regarding the coronavirus without providing any tangible fact in support. The comparison is unfair to the great Italian scholar. Mr. Khodeir’s case has no scientific footing.”.Grammond explained judicial notice of obvious facts is intended to ensuring plaintiffs with pointless claims do not “bog down the judicial process” with unnecessary arguments..“Over the last two years most people on this planet have been affected in various ways by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said the court..“It has become common knowledge COVID-19 is caused by a virus..“Numerous trusted sources of information have repeated this fact to the point that it is now beyond reasonable dispute. There is a lack of debate on this issue in scientific circles.”.The Federal Court noted dismissal of the claim was unrelated to numerous cases awaiting trial in which vaccine orders are being challenged as unnecessary, intrusive and unconstitutional. None of the plaintiffs challenging vaccine orders have disputed the existence of the coronavirus.
