SLOBODIAN: Fired veterans' will fight on in Charter rights COVID challenge

A lawsuit filed by 330 former and current Canadian Armed Forces members alleging the COVID-19 2021 vaccine mandate violated their Charter rights, was rejected by an Edmonton judge.Federal Court Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan supported a government motion to strike the case.She recently ruled pleadings in the lawsuit seeking $1.3 million in damages for each plaintiff were “replete with vexatious language” and void of “evidence” and “material facts” and “bald assertions of bad faith.”The plaintiffs were ordered to collectively pay $5,040 in court costs. That works out to almost $16 each which, I believe, is almost 16 bucks too much.“It’s disappointing. The Crown basically said we’re a bunch of conspiracy theorists, that there was no validity in it. During that three-hour hearing it was like I was talking to a wall,” said their lawyer Catherine Christensen with Valour Law/Valour Legal Action Centre.“Our courts have basically said that the Canadian Armed Forces are above the law. And that it is OK for them to treat their troops in any manner they see fit and they will not be held accountable by our courts.”So that’s that? The members who allege four sections of their Charter rights — including 174 who were denied religious exception — were violated will now stand down?Well, probably not.“When you put our troops in a corner, they regroup and come back fighting. Sit back, regroup, come back out,” said Christensen. “It looks like we may be going to try for an appeal.”In fact, a GiveSendGo fund to help them in the appeal has already been launched.After a lengthy chat with the plaintiffs who signed up to serve our country, Christensen said they’re determined to keep fighting. “And seeing that they’re determined to keep fighting, then I’m determined to keep helping them.”“I’ve got to admit it has been a long three years. But the reason they came to me three years ago is still valid. So, I’m prepared to walk the path with them,” said Christensen who is volunteering her time and expertise.When the CAF imposed the mandatory vaccine, hundreds of members opted for voluntary release, or expulsion via a dishonorable discharge deemed as unsuitable to serve. Exemptions were allowed if the jab was a medical risk or interfered with religious beliefs. Those who refused faced release.This lawsuit was filed in June 2023 against former Chief of the Defence Staff 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.Last September the Crown rejected what it called a “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious” lawsuit. A statement of defence filed in federal court stated, “vaccination was safe, effective and accepted as part of a proper response to the pandemic.”“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 at the time describing actions against CAF members as “malicious and unlawful.”“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.”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.But Coughlan said the plaintiff’s claims didn’t prove reasonable cause for action.“For example, various COVID-19 vaccines are labelled an ‘experimental gene therapy’ and ‘biologics,’ without any basis for these statements established,” she wrote.“The COVID-19 pandemic is also referred to as an ‘emergency’ without any basis indicated for the use of the quotation marks. The only indications of bad faith are found when the pleadings baldly assert that, among other claims, Canada failed to carry out safety and efficacy testing for the vaccines, and that the Directives were premature and ‘promoted the fraudulent use of the biologics.’”Apparently, mounting evidence worldwide linking vaccine injuries to the allegedly experimental vaccines don’t count.She dismissed the allegation that CAF enforcement of the mandate was “criminal in nature.”“Further, none of the Plaintiffs identify how a religious belief was infringed or interfered with in a non-trivial manner by the Directives.”Meanwhile, the speed with which Coughlan tossed the case surprised Christensen.“We submitted over 6,000 pages of legal documents for this hearing. She gave us a decision in two months. I’ve done judicial reviews where I don’t have anywhere close to 100 pages and had decisions not for a year.”What didn’t surprise her is that it was tossed.“Mainly because so many of the lawsuits associated with anything mention COVID or COVID vaccine or anything like that in it, Canadian courts have been rejecting them.”“They (the plaintiffs) are beat up, but they’re more angry than disappointed. They feel that it was more of a political decision and basically being told to use a grievance system that doesn’t work for them is the wrong answer.”Members are told they “had recourse” through the grievance process in the National Defence Act (NDA). “For one thing, the justice seems to think that the grievance system is the be all and end all. And it definitely is not.”“That’s part of the reason we’re appealing. Some of her comments on the grievance system were not based on what we presented in court.”Christensen told her clients to not give up hope.“We can’t change our system unless we stand up to it.”“We need Canadians to become more involved. We need Canadians to contact their MPs or MPPs or MLAs and the candidates for the upcoming federal election. We need Canadians to get loud and tell these people that are going to run our next government what we want for our country. The only way we can change things right now is to change laws in Parliament.”“Tell Parliament that we want our rights preserved, that we don’t want exceptions to our rights and freedoms.”

SLOBODIAN: Fired veterans' will fight on in Charter rights COVID challenge

Related Stories