Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Assisted Suicide Requests

Remember how people were warning that assisted suicide (medical assistance in dying or MAiD) wouldn’t be the limited measure that was initially laid out? Those alarmists worried that safeguards and conditions would be rolled back to further expand this “procedure”.

Well, here we go again. Senate Bill S-248 would allow people to enter into contracts that would permit the euthanasia, even if the person isn’t capable of giving that final consent.

Supporters of MAiD had always claimed that the patient would always have the option to change their mind, and to back out. This would allow for contemplation, and for cooler heads to prevail.

From the description of the Bill:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
.
(a) permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written arrangement to receive medical assistance in dying on a specified day if they lose the capacity to consent to receiving medical assistance in dying prior to that day; and
.
(b) permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving medical assistance in dying if they lose the capacity to consent to receive medical assistance in dying, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

Of course, the usual questions will come up. Did the person fully understand and support this decision? Was their undue influence? Did they ever change their mind? How do we determine whether or not they are capable of giving that final go-ahead?

There is still a provision that the person can speak or gesture to indicate that they no longer wish to go through with this. However, if they are incapacitated, that obviously won’t help.

This Bill was brought by Pamela Wallin. A decade ago, she became infamous for playing fast and loose with her expenses and got suspended, along with Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau.

In her capacity as a Senator, Wallin has had some interesting visitors recently.

Wallin brought this Bill on June 2, 2022. The day before, the Alzheimer Society of Canada had paid a visit. Among the topics listed in their lobbying profiled was: “Parliamentary review of medical assistance in dying with respect to advance requests”. In other words, go ahead, even if final consent can’t be obtained.

Field Trip Psychedelics Inc. has also been in touch with Wallin. This was concering the: “regulation of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy that would give Canadians access to medical, non-recreational, psilocybin therapy.”

The Canadian Palliative Hospice Care Assocation also has contacted Wallin. Although their profile does mention end of life care, it doesn’t specify assisted suicide.

In any event, these are probably just coincidences, right?

Shouldn’t be any surprise that Wallin brought this Bill. But seriously, how far back do we keep pushing the line, or is there a limit?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-248
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-248/first-reading
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-moving-to-suspend-pamela-wallin-mike-duffy-1.2101305
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=533156
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367664&regId=905218&blnk=1
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=533156
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=14475&regId=923718&blnk=1
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=523500
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15059&regId=917004&blnk=1

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws In Canada For Hate Speech?

Bill C-261 is a piece of legislation that will allow individual members of the public to get Court orders against other people. This can be done if they have “reasonable grounds for fearing” that someone is, or will engage in hate speech, promote hate or violence, or commit an offence that is motivated by hate.

Hate motivated crimes are already illegal, and subject to serious consequences. That being said, this Bill would permit people to seek Court orders based on what someone might do. There’s no requirement that an offense have already been committed.

And what is “hate propaganda” for these purposes? It’s unclear. Would saying that men are men and that women are women qualify?

To address the obvious: yes, this is a Private Member’s Bill. They rarely become law.

However, it’s worth covering as it gives an insight into the kinds of activities our elected officials are talking about. Moreover, the content of a Private Bill may one day be slipped into a larger Bill, receiving little to no scrutiny.

Appearances
(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Here’s where the enforcement comes in. If the person refuses to enter into the recognizance (court order) that person can be incarcerated for a year.

It’s unclear what threshold would be required for the Judge to conclude that someone has a reasonable fear. This comes across as being entirely subjective.

Conditions in recognizance
Start of inserted block
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
.
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
.
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
.
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
.
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
.
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
.
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Without having been charged or convicted of any offence, a Judge has the power to impose:
(a) electronic monitoring
(b) house arrest or a curfew
(c) an alcohol prohibition
(d) demands to provide samples for testing
(e) no contact orders, or orders to stay away from places

And it doesn’t stop there.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

A Judge can also order that a person be prohibited from possessing any weapons, and be ordered to surrender any that they do have. Again, a person doesn’t have to be criminally charged for any of this to take place.

Interestingly, the Judge would be required to provide an explanation if there is no provision to prohibit that person from owning or using firearms or other weapons.

The language here is quite similar to Bill C-21, which would allow private citizens to have guns removed if a Judge viewed someone as a threat. There was a lot wrong with that Bill, but C-261 would water down the requirement so that the target didn’t even have to be a threat.

There is the safeguard that the Attorney General has to approve such an application. But that raises the question of to what degree this process will be open to political interference. Worse, the vague wording on what qualifies leaves a lot open to interpretation.

While this particular piece may not go anywhere, it’s entirely possible that the content will be stuffed into another Bill at some point in the future. Vigilance is needed.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-261/first-reading
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-21-reintroduced-legislation-to-whittle-away-gun-rights/

Posted on

Danielle Smith Already Backpeddling On Protecting Medical Autonomy

This topic had been covered a few months ago, when the campaign had been ongoing. Unfortunately, none of the major issues from this article were addressed in any meaningful way.

Smith made headlines throughout the country recently, openly admitting that the “unvaccinated” were in fact a group that was openly discriminated against. It was refreshing to finally hear someone say this.

While this was welcomed, already, cracks were beginning to form in the persona Smith presented. This had been covered before as well. Although she presented as outraged in her remarks, Smith came across more as if she were reading a script that had been rehearsed.

However, she backpeddled the next day on that. As soon as other groups start whining about oppression, she caved in on what appeared to be a principled stance. Of course, there were the larger issues that remain unspoken.

  • Canada being a signatory to the World Health Constitution destroys any real sovereignty
  • Public Health Agency of Canada a defacto branch of W.H.O.
  • Bill C-12, 2005 Quarantine Act written by W.H.O., not elected M.P.s
  • Quarantine Act is national implementation of Int’l Health Regulations, 3rd Ed.
  • Alberta Public Health Act is local implementation of Quarantine Act

While professing her desire to protect Albertans from Government overreach, Smith says nothing about the structure in place that will make this next to impossible. She either omits (or is unaware) that both Jason Kennery and Rachel Notley are promoted by the World Economic Forum.

Additionally, Smith downplays just how rampant the deception of this “pandemic” has really been. She plays along with the narrative that there really is a virus, and that there was just overreaction.

What kind of party will she be leading anyway? The U.C.P., United Conservative Party, was either too weak — or complicit — to stop Jason Kenney, Tyler Shandro and Deena Hinshaw from imposing “medical” tyranny in the first place. Incidently, she hasn’t called for imprisoning them, either. Innocent people were fined and/or jailed for simply trying to live their lives.

There’s never been any sort of apology for accepting the CEWS money, from the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program. The U.C.P. got paid the bailout money, and touted the narrative that there was a global pandemic. Of course, they aren’t alone.

Smith suggests amending the Human Rights Act as a means to ensure there wouldn’t be discrimination against people in these circumstances again. As with many things, the devil’s in the details, and it’s unclear how this would be done. These “Codes” are commonly used as weapons for fringe minority groups to flex their muscles. Rarely, is it used to actually protect rights.

When Smith made this announcement, she was denounced for it. This was for suggesting that this group was the most seriously targetted. The entire backlash comes across as a dog-and-pony show.

Makes one wonder if she was serious about that Alberta Sovereignty Act being proposed, or whether that was just a stunt to get elected.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/what-danielle-smith-isnt-telling-her-supporters/
(2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/CleEuVnGX7D6/
(3) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1580257060465541120
(4) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1578435669286092801
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch
(6) https://daniellesmith.ca/alberta-sovereignty-act/

Posted on

University Of Western Ontario’s Vaccine Passport System Upheld

An Ontario Superior Court recently ruled that the University of Western Ontario has the right to implement its “vaccine passport” system, and to collect such information. The Judge (to summarize) said that it’s not coercion, but just a choice that people make.

[69] In seeking to justify their request for a permanent injunction, the applicants emphasize what they characterize as the “coercive” nature of the Policy in forcing disclosure of their otherwise private health information. They raise concerns about the danger of losing their academic year if they do not provide their private information by way of proof of vaccination. They raise additional concerns of the fairness of this coercion, given the late timing of Western’s announcement of the continuation of the Policy, after tuition was due and the students had made living arrangements and other financial commitments for the year.

[70] I acknowledge the applicants’ frustration; however, observe that the previous version of the Policy that applied to the 2021-2022 academic terms did notify the university community that the Policy was set to expire on September 7, 2022, and that it would be reviewed by no later than September 1, 2022. There was, in fact, a vaccine mandate and personal information collection policy in place before the ostensible “surprise” of Western’s announcement of the revised Policy on August 22, 2022.

[71] I do not agree with the applicants’ characterization of the Policy as being “coercive” in nature. I do not accept the Policy will “force” members of the university community to disclose their personal information. The Policy forces individuals to choose between two alternatives, even if they like neither option. The choice is the individual’s to make. Each choice comes with its own consequences. That is the nature of choices: Seneca College, at para. 75; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 et a. v. Toronto Transit Commission and National Organized Workers Union v. Sinai Health System, 2021 ONCA 7658 at para. 77.

[72] I am also not persuaded that a disposal order is warranted in the circumstances. Again, the relief sought is broad. The applicants did not provide any authority in support of this relief. The applicants confirmed on the hearing of the application that they want all proof of vaccine information collected by Western to be destroyed. The court does not comprehend any reasonable basis for such a broad order. Among other issues, proof of vaccine information in the 2021-2022 year was collected pursuant to the province’s mandate.

Seriously, why do people bother? Why not just leave the schools altogether? Are the tens of thousands in non-dischargeable student loan debt really worth it?

A curious bit of information about the Judge Kelly Tranquilli: apparently she’s donated to the Liberal Party of Canada several times in recent years. Or, at least there is someone in London with that same name. It’s not much, only about $1,400 in total. Still, worth a look.

As for UWO receiving money, there are many sources, including several millions in “foreign” contributions. This is according to the Federal Lobby Registry. Interesting details shown.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION AMOUNT MORE COMING?

Canada Foundation for Innovation $7,581,000.00 YES
Canada Research Chairs $7,339,000.00 YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) $28,885,000.00 YES
City of London $28,885,000.00 NO
Foreign $4,209,000.00 YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) $29,038,000.00 YES
Other Federal $35,699,000.00 YES
Other Provinces $35,699,000.00 YES
Province of Ontario $318,799,000.00 YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) $9,292,000.00 YES

UWO gets financial contributions from all areas of government. Also, there are other areas which this institution is able to profit.

Revenue Until April 2021
Receipted donations $23,391,977.00 (1.74%)
Non-receipted donations $7,913,117.00 (0.59%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,860,861.00 (0.66%)
Government funding $458,914,000.00 (34.17%)
All other revenue $844,026,000.00 (62.84%)
Total revenue: $1,343,105,955.00

Expenses Until April 2021
Charitable programs $1,068,203,541.00 (96.31%)
Management and administration $30,830,509.00 (2.78%)
Fundraising $10,090,630.00 (0.91%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,109,124,680.00

Revenue Until April 2020
Receipted donations $5,737,520.00 (0.47%)
Non-receipted donations $29,464,401.00 (2.44%)
Gifts from other registered charities $4,705,436.00 (0.39%)
Government funding $436,669,000.00 (36.14%)
All other revenue $731,737,519.00 (60.56%)
Total revenue: $1,208,313,876.00

Revenue Until April 2019
Receipted donations $11,119,427.00 (0.87%)
Non-receipted donations $17,837,610.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $5,854,513.00 (0.46%)
Government funding $467,184,000.00 (36.63%)
All other revenue $773,266,199.00 (60.64%)
Total revenue: $1,275,261,749.00

Worth pointing out: the top 10 highest paid employees receive in excess of $300,000 each. Good to know tuition dollars are being well spent.

The University of Western Ontario is also a registered charity, meaning it’s receiving all sorts of tax benefits at the expense of the public. Regular readers of this site won’t be surprised in the least.

As for CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, at least 2 groups within UWP received the benefit. Perhaps why there was little interest in protecting students from vaccine mandates. And being a “registered charity”, UWO would also have been eligible for lockdown and rental subsidies.

Things are never quite as they seem.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5243/2022onsc5243.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc5243/2022onsc5243.pdf
(3) https://elections.ca
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=6219&regId=923198&blnk=1
(5) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+western+ontario&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108162587RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

Posted on

University Of Calgary Professor Takes Action To Reinstate Mask Mandates

While most lockdown related lawsuits and human rights complaints aim at removing these infringements on human rights, others demand that they be reinstated. Here is another such case.

A Calgary man has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the federal government’s decision to lift mask requirements on airplanes.

The decision, announced Monday, is part of a bundle of changes that come into effect Oct. 1. At that point, travellers will also no longer be required to wear masks on trains, provide proof of vaccination or submit public health information with the ArriveCan app.

“I was frankly dismayed when I heard the news,” said Dr. David Keegan, a family doctor who has a cardiopulmonary condition.

Keegan said that while airplanes do have filtration systems, they don’t completely eliminate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, especially if people are unmasked.

To be clear, nothing prevents, or will prevent this man from wearing a mask when he travels. Instead, his “human rights” complaint is to demand that everyone else be forced to.

He’s also insisting that others play along with his delusions about there being a virus in the first place. Pretty scary that these people are in positions of influence.

Interestingly, the CBC article covering the story, and related reprints, don’t mention that Keegan is a University of Calgary Professor. Did they not want this connection to be made public?

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta only lists a single David Keegan as having a license in that Province. So, it seems unlikely to be a duplicate, or a coincidence. Of course, we don’t want the wrong person to get mocked.

On Keegan’s Twitter profile, it turns out that his pinned tweet is the announcement that he’s filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This guy isn’t trying to hide the fact that he’s attempting to take people’s freedoms away. Amazingly, the idiots replying are cheering him on as some kind of a hero.

Keegan’s LinkedIn profile describes him as “Family Doc and Associate Dean, Faculty Development and Performance (Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary); Academic Family Physician”. He’s much more than just an employee, but an Associate Dean as well. (Archive here).

The University of Calgary has been very active in lobbying the various levels of Government for more money, and it shows. The school is routinely getting many millions in taxpayer handouts.

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION AMOUNT MORE COMING?

Canada Foundation for Innovation $7,898,000.00 YES
Canada Research Chairs $8,126,000.00 YES
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) $50,044,000.00 YES
Foreign $34,573,000.00 YES
Health Canada (HC) $707,000.00 YES
Municipal $3,823,000.00 YES
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) $30,820,000.00 YES
Other Federal $43,087,000.00 YES
Other Provinces $10,102,000.00 YES
Provincial $692,013,000.00 YES
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) $12,616,000.00 YES

Have to wonder about that $34.5 million in “foreign” funding.

Interestingly, although the University of Calgary itself isn’t listed as having received the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, or CEWS, the Pentecostal Ministries have. It’s no surprise that UCalgary is structured as a registered charity. In fact, a search flags 3 charities connected to this school. This is just another way to get money from the public.

Revenue Until March 2021
Receipted donations $43,667,964.00 (2.93%)
Non-receipted donations $154,181,263.00 (10.34%)
Gifts from other registered charities $47,805,468.00 (3.21%)
Government funding $794,689,349.00 (53.30%)
All other revenue $450,709,554.00 (30.23%)
Total revenue: $1,491,053,598.00

Expenses Until March 2021
Charitable programs $1,252,850,843.00 (89.28%)
Management and administration $128,575,275.00 (9.16%)
Fundraising $21,825,347.00 (1.56%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,403,251,465.00

Revenue Until March 2020
Receipted donations $70,957,295.00 (4.48%)
Non-receipted donations $184,837,402.00 (11.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $36,304,564.00 (2.29%)
Government funding $806,786,736.00 (50.98%)
All other revenue $483,768,203.00 (30.57%)
Total revenue: $1,582,654,200.00

Expenses Until March 2020
Charitable programs $1,321,469,784.00 (88.08%)
Management and administration $153,149,342.00 (10.21%)
Fundraising $25,419,521.00 (1.69%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $347,506.00 (0.02%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,500,386,153.00

This “charity” has been taking in approximately $1.5 billion annually as of late. Of course, the public has to subsidize the donations made.

SCHOOL DATE AMOUNT
University of Calgary April 2011 $100,000
University of Calgary March 2012 $100,000
University of Calgary October 2017 $320,729

The school has also received some donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years. In fairness though, others have taken much more. See this from 2017.

While the CBC reports this as a “Calgary doctor”, let’s be clear: this is an Associate Dean at the University of Calgary. While he may have his own interests in doing this, can we really separate personal and professional lives?

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/david-keegan-human-rights-complaint-mask-mandate-airplane-1.6598062
(2) https://search.cpsa.ca/PhysicianProfile?e=9fd5d2c3-3bcc-43ad-9b7c-e45ba9e7c429&i=0
(3) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan
(4) https://twitter.com/drDavidKeegan/status/1574523390253477888
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-keegan-61707473/
(6) David Keegan _ LinkedIn Profile
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5009&regId=926282&blnk=1
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=university+of+calgary&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=108102864RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(10) https://gatesfoundation.org
(11) https://ucalgary.ca/news/gates-foundation-interested-one-health-research-approach-ucalgary

Posted on

Challenge To University Of Lethbridge Vaccine Policy Tossed For “Mootness”

An Alberta Judge has dismissed an Application on the grounds that the issue is “moot”, and there’s no relief that can be realistically granted.

The hearing itself took place on May 5th and 6th, with the ruling just coming out. Of course, these mandates were still in place when the Application itself was originally filed.

The case involves a challenge to the “vaccine passport” system that had been in place, and the denial of a religious exemption. The school argued that since the policy has been rescinded, there’s no issue left to be decided.

Is The Application Moot?
[7] The Respondent argues that there is no longer a tangible or concrete dispute between the parties. The vaccination program which is the subject matter of this application was repealed after being in place approximately four months. Therefore, it is the Respondent’s position that any decision made by this Court as to the impact of the program on the Applicant’s Charter or other rights will have no practical effect on her ability to attend the University.

[8] The leading case regarding the principles of mootness remains Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 [Borowski]. The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of the general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. If, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The matter will therefore not be heard unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from that general policy: Borowski, at para 15.

[9] To determine whether an application is moot, a two-step analysis must be undertaken: first, to determine whether the required tangible and concrete dispute has disappeared and the issues have become academic; and second, if the answer to the first question is yes, to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion to hear the case: Borowski, at para 16.

[10] With respect to the first stage of the analysis, there must be a consideration of whether there remains a live controversy between the parties. A live controversy, in this context, involves whether there exists, on an objective assessment, a dispute between the parties the resolution of which will actually affect the parties’ rights or interests: The Alberta Teachers’ Association v Buffalo Trail Public Schools Regional Division No 28, 2022 ABCA 13, at para 34.

[11] It may well be, from a practical perspective, that there is no remedy that can be granted by the Court to rectify or ameliorate the impact of the alleged breaches of the Applicant’s rights. The Applicant is not seeking damages or other compensatory relief. Nor can the court provide any relief from future potential harm the vaccination policy may cause Ms. Nassichuk-Dean, as that policy is no longer in place and hasn’t been since March. Again, Ms. Nassichuk-Dean is not seeking injunctive or other relief for any anticipated rights breaches against her.

[12] Rather, the Applicant is seeking declarations that the application of the University’s COVID-19 policy violated her s. 7 Charter rights, and that the rejection of her application for a religious exemption from the policy breached her rights under the Alberta Human Rights Act.

Had the Applicant been asking for money, or some additional form of relief, it’s entirely possible the case would have kept going. But since the only issue was challenging the policy itself, it was determined that there’s no longer any issue to be heard.

Of course, what’s to stop the University of Lethbridge (or any school) from re-implementing such mandates in the future? There’s no assurance they won’t at some point.

On a side note: the University of Lethbridge, like other Canadian schools, is a registered charity. This means that it receives the benefits of many tax breaks ordinary citizens cannot get.

The school receives handouts from all levels of Government, so it’s unlikely that it will do anything to rock the boat. No college or university in Canada did anything to challenge or push back on vaccine or mask mandates. As with everything, follow the money.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2022/2022abkb629/2022abkb629.pdf
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5301&regId=924907
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=lethbridge+university&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=119279248RR0001&dsrdPg=1