The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) filed its legal argument against the federal travel vaccine mandates Thursday, along with more than 14,000 pages of evidence. .The filing is part of the JCCF's ongoing legal challenge against the federal government on behalf of former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford, People's Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier and four other Canadians. .JCCF lawyers spent all of June cross examining 16 witnesses including senior federal government officials and five expert witnesses..On August 9, the JCCF filed a response to the federal government's motion that its imposed restrictions were justified. .“The Federal Government has maintained that the impacts of COVID represent a public health emergency, which justifies impositions on the rights and freedoms of Canadians at an unprecedented level," said the response. ."The COVID pandemic and restrictions have caused much division in Canada. These Applicants have applied to this Court to review the Federal Government’s actions, secure their rights and bring clarity and finality to a controversial and divisive topic that has had far reaching impacts throughout all of Canada."."It is these Applicants’ position that without a hearing on the merits of this matter, in an open and transparent court, it would erode the democratic foundation of our society.”.While being cross examined by the JCCF, Dr. Lisa Waddell, a senior epidemiologist and team lead at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), admitted PHAC did not recommend the government introduce the vaccine travel restrictions. .Another witness, Tyler Brooks, director of the Civil Aviation Medicine Branch at Transport Canada, testified the government's approach to developing its public health policy was "like riding down a mountain with a blindfold on a bicycle. We have no idea where it's going." .Jennifer Little, director general of COVID Recovery with Transport Canada said the travel restrictions in Canada were "one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travellers in the world," and said it was a deliberate decision by the federal government to refuse "exemptions for compassionate grounds." .The applicants in the case argue the decision to bring in the travel ban was not within the "authority delegated to the Minister of Transport" and was used for the "improper purpose ... to pressure Canadians into taking COVID vaccines." ."The evidence in this Application shows that this travel ban was unnecessary to maintain citizens’ well-being. The vaccines do not prevent transmission. The more fundamental the interest that is impaired by the government’s actions, the less deferential a court should be toward government," said the JCCF in a statement. ."Mobility rights are among the most fundamental of Canadians’ rights. The Respondent cannot argue two years into the pandemic that COVID is an unknown crisis that requires deference.”.The JCCF filed evidence in March on behalf of 11 witnesses, five of which are experts. .Included in the medical documents now filed is evidence about the spread of COVID-19 among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, evidence of the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines including myocarditis and possible effects on fertility, and evidence supporting the superiority of natural immunity. .“The good people of Canada relied on the federal government to be honest and transparent with them," said JCCF lawyer Eva Chipiuk. ."Public Health is an important factor that the Federal Government must consider when making decisions, but it cannot be the only factor.".A mootness hearing is scheduled for September 21, followed by a filing of the respondent's record on September 30. The hearing is scheduled for October 31 to November 4.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) filed its legal argument against the federal travel vaccine mandates Thursday, along with more than 14,000 pages of evidence. .The filing is part of the JCCF's ongoing legal challenge against the federal government on behalf of former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford, People's Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier and four other Canadians. .JCCF lawyers spent all of June cross examining 16 witnesses including senior federal government officials and five expert witnesses..On August 9, the JCCF filed a response to the federal government's motion that its imposed restrictions were justified. .“The Federal Government has maintained that the impacts of COVID represent a public health emergency, which justifies impositions on the rights and freedoms of Canadians at an unprecedented level," said the response. ."The COVID pandemic and restrictions have caused much division in Canada. These Applicants have applied to this Court to review the Federal Government’s actions, secure their rights and bring clarity and finality to a controversial and divisive topic that has had far reaching impacts throughout all of Canada."."It is these Applicants’ position that without a hearing on the merits of this matter, in an open and transparent court, it would erode the democratic foundation of our society.”.While being cross examined by the JCCF, Dr. Lisa Waddell, a senior epidemiologist and team lead at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), admitted PHAC did not recommend the government introduce the vaccine travel restrictions. .Another witness, Tyler Brooks, director of the Civil Aviation Medicine Branch at Transport Canada, testified the government's approach to developing its public health policy was "like riding down a mountain with a blindfold on a bicycle. We have no idea where it's going." .Jennifer Little, director general of COVID Recovery with Transport Canada said the travel restrictions in Canada were "one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travellers in the world," and said it was a deliberate decision by the federal government to refuse "exemptions for compassionate grounds." .The applicants in the case argue the decision to bring in the travel ban was not within the "authority delegated to the Minister of Transport" and was used for the "improper purpose ... to pressure Canadians into taking COVID vaccines." ."The evidence in this Application shows that this travel ban was unnecessary to maintain citizens’ well-being. The vaccines do not prevent transmission. The more fundamental the interest that is impaired by the government’s actions, the less deferential a court should be toward government," said the JCCF in a statement. ."Mobility rights are among the most fundamental of Canadians’ rights. The Respondent cannot argue two years into the pandemic that COVID is an unknown crisis that requires deference.”.The JCCF filed evidence in March on behalf of 11 witnesses, five of which are experts. .Included in the medical documents now filed is evidence about the spread of COVID-19 among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, evidence of the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines including myocarditis and possible effects on fertility, and evidence supporting the superiority of natural immunity. .“The good people of Canada relied on the federal government to be honest and transparent with them," said JCCF lawyer Eva Chipiuk. ."Public Health is an important factor that the Federal Government must consider when making decisions, but it cannot be the only factor.".A mootness hearing is scheduled for September 21, followed by a filing of the respondent's record on September 30. The hearing is scheduled for October 31 to November 4.
