Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

Danielle Smith Betrays Supporters On Vaccine Passport Ban

In a move that was disappointing, but not surprising, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has backed off on a promise to enshrine “vaccination status” as a human right. This would effectively ban the passes that her predecessor, Jason Kenney, had brought in. The latest video was published on Global News, and involves Smith explaining why this isn’t going to happen. Apparently, the issue is too complex to be handled with a single piece of legislation.

However, the reasoning makes no sense. Jason Kenney brought in the passes by Ministerial Order. This was done without public consultation, a referendum, or any debate. If the Premier wields that kind of power, then surely Smith can ban the use of them in the same way. A Bill wouldn’t even be needed.

This comes despite public pressure for remaining business to drop their own requirements for patrons, clients and customers. In other words, Smith wants businesses to voluntarily do away with the QR codes, but isn’t willing to do it herself.

This was addressed in an earlier piece. If Smith were serious about protecting the freedoms of Albertans, she would come clean on exactly what is happening regarding “public health”.

Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.

1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.
2005: Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, is brought as domestic implementation of WHO-IHR.

It should be pointed out as well: the Quarantine Act was the basis for a lot of the content within the various Provincial Public Health Acts. Medical martial law is on the books, courtesy of policies that weren’t even written in Canada. That’s very undemocratic.

Of course, it’s possible that Smith knows nothing about any of this. If that’s the case, it’s scary how a person can wield this much power, without any awareness.

A cynic may wonder whether Smith never intended to introduce legislation in the first place. Perhaps this was a calculated plot to win the leadership race.

Another possibility is that this will come up again in the May 2023 election. Smith can facetiously campaign against the NDP, demanding she be elected, otherwise, face the return of QR codes. We’ll have to see what the next move is.

Just 6 weeks ago, Smith capitulated at the altar of political correctness. People were offended that she called the unvaccinated “the most discriminated group”. Instead of standing her ground, she apologized.

So, are the vaxx passes a human rights issue or not?

And when she says it’s important to have a “proper pandemic planning response for next time”, does she know something we don’t? Can we expect another psy-op like before?

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/9309856/danielle-smith-bill-protect-unvaccinated/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/what-danielle-smith-isnt-telling-her-supporters/
(3) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(4) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ihr.convention.on_.immunities.privileges.pdf
(12) https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/publications/basic-documents-constitution-of-who179f0d3d-a613-4760-8801-811dfce250af.pdf?sfvrsn=e8fb384f_1&download=true
(13) WHO Constitution Full Document

Posted on

AB Court Of Appeals Confirms HCW Are “Independent Contractors”, Can Refuse Unvaccinated Patients

The Alberta Court of Appeals had upheld a Queen’s Bench (now King’s Bench) decision that allows life saving treatments to be denied on the basis of vaccination status.

Interestingly, both Courts acknowledged, but skirted around the issue of whether these shots were actually safe. Instead, it came down to the case of doctors not actually being Government agents. As such, they can’t be forced to protect people’s Charter rights and freedoms.

This seems to be — at least in part — semantics, as Alberta Health Services gives direction on these kinds of issues all the time.

That said, the Lower Court stated that it was pointless, and in fact, unproductive, to issue Orders unless it was prepared to enforce them.

[42] In my view it is not necessary for the Treating Physicians to reconcile these differences in expert opinions rather, they must be free to decide which expert opinions they accept in exercising their clinical judgment, which informs the standard of care.

Defining the Legal Relationship Between Treating Physicians and the Applicant
[44] In Rasouli (Litigation Guardian of) v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011 ONSC 1500, the following passages are found at paragraphs 88 and 89:
.
However, as noted by Ellen I. Picard and Gerald B. Robertson in their text Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada:
.
In the great majority of cases, patients engage and pay their doctor (usually through medicare plans) and have the power to dismiss them. The hospital does not employ the physicians nor are they carrying out any of the hospital’s duties to the patient. They are granted the privilege of using personnel, facilities and equipment provided by the hospitals but this alone does not make them employees. They are independent contractors who are directly liable to their patients, and the hospital is not vicariously liable for their negligence.
.
Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients that begins upon the formation of the doctor-patient relationship. When this duty is breached, it is the individual doctors who are liable in negligence, not the hospital.
.
[45] In the result, the Treating Physicians are independent contractors who owe the applicant a duty of care.

Is the Relationship Between the Applicant and Her Treating Physicians Governed by the Alberta Bill of Rights?
[46] Since the advent of the Charter, Courts have looked to the Charter to determine if constitutionally protected rights are affected as the Charter can be interpreted more generously than Provincial Bills of Rights. There is no need to consider the claim under the Alberta Bill of Rights because if the Charter claims fail, her claim under the Alberta Bill of Rights will necessarily fail as well.

[52] The fact that the Treating Physicians, who are independent contractors, work in publicly funded hospitals under the rubric of Provincial and Federal healthcare legislation, does not mean that they are state actors subject to the Charter.

[56] In R v Dersch [1993] SCR 768, it was held at para 20, that a doctor who illegally took a blood sample at the request of the police was acting as an agent of government subjecting the action of the doctor in taking the blood sample to Charter scrutiny.
.
[57] However, at para 18, the Court observed that the actions of emergency room physicians in providing emergency treatment to the accused did not render the physicians agents of government for the purposes of the Charter.

[61] There is no evidence that at any time the Treating Physicians became agents of government in establishing preconditions for transplantation or that any governmental body was in any way involved in this process.

[69] In order for the medical system to function properly, Treating Physicians who are providing clinical advice, must be free to do so and are not governed by the Charter but rather by the standard of care which is owed to every patient.

[77] In Sweiss v Alberta Health Services, 2009 ABQB 691 at paragraph 60, the perils of the court attempting to interfere with the exercise of the clinical judgment were described:
.
The overriding theme which pervades the reasons of the English Court of Appeal in Re J. relates to its concern over the Court ordering a medical professional to treat his or her patient in a fashion which is contrary to clinical judgment. The Court in Re J. expressed its rationale as follows at 519:
.
…The Court is not, or certainly should not be, in the habit of making orders unless it is prepared to enforce them. If the Court ordered a doctor to treat a child in a manner contrary to his or her clinical judgment, it would place a conscientious doctor in an impossible position. To perform the Court’s order it could require the doctor to act in a manner which he or she generally believed not to be in the patient’s best interests; to fail to treat the child as ordered would amount to a contempt of court. Any judge would be most reluctant to punish the doctor for such a contempt, which seems to me to be a very strong indication that such an order should not be made.

Conclusion
[89] In the result, I conclude that the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions made by the Treating Physicians, and in particular has no application to the Treating Physicians establishing preconditions for XX transplantation. The Originating Application is dismissed in its entirety.

The Courts also brought up the issue of scarcity: people can be denied organs, given their relatively low supply, if they don’t meet certain criteria. Again, it’s not forcing anyone to get the shot, as long as they are fine with not getting the organs they need.

It’s difficult to view this as anything other than coercion.

IV. Conclusion
[74] This is not the first time medical judgments about allocation of scarce resources have been made in the face of competing needs. While such decisions are doubtless exceedingly difficult, they nevertheless must be made. In this case, the Charter does not apply to the respondents’ exercise of clinical judgments in formulating pre-conditions to [organ] transplant, including requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in the wake of the pandemic.

[75] In conclusion, we are not persuaded this Court can, or ought to, interfere with generalized medical judgments or individualized clinical assessments involving Ms Lewis’ standard of care. In the circumstances of this appeal, while Ms. Lewis has the right to refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the Charter cannot remediate the consequences of her choice.

[76] The appeal is dismissed.

Think about the ramifications of these rulings: a person cannot be forced to get an experimental vaccine. However, doctors have the right to withhold life saving treatments if they refuse. In other words, it’s still “take the vaccine or die”.

A cynic may wonder if doctors are going along with this since they were forced to get the shots in order to keep practicing. Perhaps they wish for everyone to suffer, instead of admitting they made a mistake.

This may (or may not) be the end of the road. At this point, the only available option is to file an Application for Leave to be heard at the Supreme Court. And although they reject cases deemed not to be “in the national interest”, it seems likely that this one would be heard at least.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb479/2022abqb479.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2022/2022abca359/2022abca359.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2022/2022abca359/2022abca359.pdf
(5) https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/court-upholds-doctors-right-to-require-covid-vaccination-for-organ-transplant-patient-saying-alternative-is-medical-chaos

Posted on

N.S. Court Of Appeals Rules On Strang’s Attack On Free Assembly

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled a week ago on a challenge to a May 2021 injunction. Previously, the Provincial Supreme Court ruled ex-parte that Robert Strang could effectively suspend freedom of assembly on an indefinite basis.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, CCLA, applied to intervene to appeal the matter. It was granted on August 31, 2021. Due to the complexity of the issues, and other delays, it took a year for the case to be heard.

While the issue of infringing on civil rights did come up in the decision, it wasn’t front and center. Instead, there were many procedural errors cited. Still, the trio did make many findings which can be used at a later date. It wasn’t a total loss.

Strang got (rightfully) rebuked for his overreaching power grab, but it could have been done in a much more forceful way.

Overall, it’s a “meh” kind of ruling.

Issues:
1. Should the Court hear an appeal of an ex parte order?
.
2. Should the Court entertain a moot appeal?
.
3. Did the judge err by:
a) Granting an injunction order without the applicants having advanced any common law cause of action, statutory authority, or other right to a remedy;
b) Applying the test for an interlocutory injunction to the applicants’ request for a permanent injunction;
c) Stating and applying the wrong test for a quia timet injunction;
d) Granting an Injunction Order against all Nova Scotians without requiring evidence that such a remedy was needed against all Nova Scotians;
e) Granting an injunction order without considering that the order infringed the Charter rights of all Nova Scotians and that this infringement may not be justified in circumstances;
f) Accepting the evidence of a named applicant as independent expert evidence, without compliance with Rule 55 or the common law requirements for independent expert evidence.

Between the 3 Justices, there was some dissent on a few issues, although they seemed to agree for the most part. The more important things they were all in agreement on:

  • The Attorney General’s application should not have been ex parte;
  • The Court should hear this moot appeal;
  • Dr. Strang’s expert opinion was not admissible;
  • The Nova Scotia Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to issue a quia timet injunction to enjoin apprehended breaches of the Public Health Order made pursuant to the Health Protection Act;
  • The motion judge erred when he employed the test for an interlocutory injunction when he actually was asked for and did issue a permanent injunction;
  • The motion judge erred by not considering the impact on Charter rights when considering if he should issue the requested injunctive relief;
  • The motion judge erred by issuing injunctive relief that was far too broad.

There was dissent on the following:

  • The AGNS failed in its duty to provide full disclosure of information in its possession on the ex parte application;
  • The motion judge erred in law in finding the prerequisites for a permanent quia timet injunction had been made out;
  • Dr. Strang’s opinion about the risk of outdoor transmission should not have been accepted because he lacked the necessary independence and impartiality as set out in White Burgess.

In contrast to a few other recent decisions, the NSCOA decided to hear the case in spite of it being moot. The issues were of such a public interest that it should go ahead. This differed significantl from other recent cases, in which there was no inclination to do so.

(Para 47) The COA disagreed that applying for an injunction without notice was appropriate. Unless: (a) it’s impossible to give notice; or (b) giving notice may cause the event, this type of procedure shouldn’t be attempted. The Government could have given notice, but simply found it more expedient not to.

(Para 54) The Government chose a method that was designed for temporary measures, but the open-ended nature of the Order sought was effectively permanent, or semi-permanent. There was no end date provided.

(Para 56-57) The Government tries to argue that it would have met the test for a permanent injunction with the information it had the time. Additionally, the Court found that the wrong test had been applied for in seeking a permanent — as opposed to temporary — injunction.

(Para 61-63) The proper quia timet test was used. This is a test used to get injunctions based “on the fear of” something happening. Problem is, this test seems to be almost entirely subjective, and open to abuse.

(Para 64-69) The question came up as to whether or not there was even a valid cause of action. The Court decided that the likelihood of these Orders being violated, combined with the fear of disease spreading, was justifiable in and of itself.

(Para 127-140) The Order applied not only to certain people wanting to attend gatherings, but to Nova Scotians as a whole. The Court also said that this was overreaching given the overstated likelihood of infection.

(Para 141-148) The Court took issue with the fact that the original Order was obtained ex-parte, and there wasn’t enough consideration given to the Charter violations that would likely result.

(Para 149-168) Robert Strang, the Medical Officer of Health, should not have been qualified as an “expert”. Given his position, there was an inherent conflict of interest. He gave evidence in support of submissions that would validate his own demands. As such, he wasn’t separate enough.

[169] The Province incorrectly applied for a permanent ex parte injunction, but argued the test for an interim injunction described in RJR. The Province should have sought an interlocutory injunction on notice to which the RJR test properly applied. The Charter rights engaged should have been considered in the balance of convenience step of the RJR test.

[170] The Province did not establish a basis for granting either an interlocutory or permanent injunction because it did not tender admissible evidence of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 on which a finding of “high probability” of serious or irreparable harm could be grounded. The Chief Medical Officer should not have been qualified as an expert. In any event, the Order granted should not have been indefinite as to time, place and person.

(Para 200-218) The issue of mootness came up. Since the Orders have been rescinded, was there an issue to even be tried? The NSCOA decided to limit its scope to questions of law, and not revisit the factual findings from the Lower Court.

(Para 220-247) Robert Strang’s role as expert witness was questioned, given his conflict of interest. The NSCOA acknowledged that sections 8, 20, 24, 32 and 37 give him the right to issue directives based on his opinions and beliefs.

(Para 248-280) The ruling went on at length as to whether the proper test had been applied for permanent injunction. This was important, as it related to the concerns of Charter breaches. The Judges agreed that the test hadn’t been met.

(Para 281-303) The Court of Appeals took issue with the fact that the injunction would apply to everyone in the Province, and was done without the means to challenge in the first place. It was an error of due process to not allow others to confront accusers. This wasn’t limited to a select group, either.

(Para 303-328) The Panel avoided the question — for the most part — about whether these Orders were violation of Charter rights. A full analysis apparently wasn’t required. Instead, there was more of an issue with the roughshod way this was done. In short, there were more procedural than substantive problems.

(Para 329-350) Is this “virus” transmissible, and was there proper disclosure? Here, the NSCOA seemed to avoid that, and simply stated that Strang was offering full disclosure with whatever available information he had. He was able to get the injunction without introducing actual evidence. The Court didn’t seem too bothered by that.

In a sense, this was academic, as there’s currently no Order in place. Still, there’s a ruling now, and the good parts may be useful later.

SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS

It was helpful to have a (somewhat) favourable ruling from Nova Scotia. However, the problems go much deeper than just the Charter, or some Officer of Health. To date, it doesn’t seem that any lawyer has brought this forward.

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s scary.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12
2004 creation of PHAC
Health Canada’s Real History

Although probably outside the scope here, it would be nice to see the Public Health Acts themselves challenged in Court. No one ever voted for this, but the W.H.O. is able to write our laws to include medical tyranny.

If laws are put in place that aren’t written in this country, shouldn’t that be grounds to have them challenged and struck down?

Also, it’d have been preferable to fully address the issue of civil rights violations. Freedom of assembly, especially when protesting Government overreach, is an important ability to have. Without it, there’s no open society.

The NSCOA acknowledged that the May 2021 Order violated Charter rights, but didn’t really dive into it. Instead, they seemed more content to focus on the many breaches of procedure that had taken place.

The panel also seemed to go out of their way to give Strang the benefit of the doubt. He took the rights of a million people away. He needs to be held to account, not given deference.

On the bright side: there are parts of this ruling which could be the basis for future actions at a later date, such as restricting the use of ex-parte injunctions. It wasn’t a complete loss. Another Judge might quote portions of this to come to favourable conclusions elsewhere.

Guess we’ll see what happens next.

(1) https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/59th_1st/1st_read/b026.htm
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/laws/stat/sns-2004-c-4/latest/sns-2004-c-4.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2021/2021nssc170/2021nssc170.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2021/2021nsca65/2021nsca65.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2021/2021nsca65/2021nsca65.html

Posted on

Four Applications To Federal Travel Mandates All Struck As “Moot”

The other day, the Federal Court released its reasons for dismissing various Applications challenging air and train vaccination mandates. The ruling came from Associate Chief Justice Gagné (2022 FC 1463). The specific challenges were:

  • T-145-22: Nabil Ben Naoum
  • T-247-22: Maxime Bernier
  • T-1991-21: Shaun Rickard, Karl Harrison
  • T-168-22: Brian Peckford, Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic, Aedan MacDonald

All of these challenges were heard together, since they cover essentially the same issues. This isn’t surprising, as it can theoretically free up other courts.

To be clear, the cases weren’t struck or dismissed based on the merits, evidence, or arguments of the case. Instead, they were struck since the orders themselves had expired. The Judge decided it wasn’t worth hearing anyway, to ward off any potential return of these restrictions.

In the ruling, it came down to 2 questions: (a) are the cases moot; and (b) if so, should they be heard anyway?

[14] The Applicants and the Respondent both agree that the applicable test on a motion for mootness is the one articulated by Justice Sopinka in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), 1989 1 SCR 342. Unsurprisingly, they take very opposite positions on both of the two key stages as set forth in Borowski. Namely, they disagree on i) whether the issue is moot, and on ii) whether the Court should exercise its discretion to nonetheless hear the case, if it is found moot.

[15] The Respondent’s motion therefore raises the following issues:
(a) Are the issues raised by these Applications for judicial review moot; is there a live controversy?
(b) If the issues are moot, should the Court nevertheless exercise its discretion to hear the merits?

“Mootness” in the legal context means that the underlying issues have already been resolved in some way, or the circumstances have changed in a way that makes it impossible to determine. In this instance, the Federal Government argued that since the travel mandates had expired, there was no remedy to seek.

The Applicants, however, were concerned that these measures — or very similar ones — could be brought back, and it could happen at any time. They wanted this issue dealt with once and for all.

In their eyes, travel mandates were hardly “theoretical”, as they had already happened. Should the Court refuse to intervene, Ottawa would be able to reimpose them at a later date.

[20] The Applicants argue that there remains a live controversy because of statements by the Government of Canada that travel restrictions have only been “suspended”, suggesting that they may be re-implemented at any time if the COVID-19 public health situation worsens. In that sense, the Respondent’s motions would be premature. The Applicants rely on a press release issued by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, statements made by Ministers at a June 14, 2022 press conference, and in an interview that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave to the CBC shortly afterwards.

[21] Firstly, the hearing of these Applications for judicial review is set for five days commencing on October 31, 2022. Since the hearing of this Motion, Transport Canada has removed the requirement to wear a mask on planes and trains and repealed the last remaining IO. In my view, the situation is as likely to improve as it is to worsen by the time the hearing of these Applications on their merits is over. The Applicants’ argument is highly speculative and does not support their position that the controversy is still ongoing.

[22] Secondly, a comment made by a Minister to a journalist, taken outside its context, does not amount to a decision by that Minister and it is no more an indication of a live controversy. Even if the Minister called what occurred in June 2022 a suspension, the reality is that all IOs/MO that had contained a vaccination mandate have legally expired and none that contain such a mandate have been reissued since June.

The ruling goes on some more, with the Judge explaining why this wasn’t worth continuing, since the orders had all lapsed.

The case was ultimately thrown out for “mootness”. The Judge declined to hear the merits anyway.

And therein lies another problem with this Court. Is there really justice when a Judge can simply pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and which ones they can decline? What exactly was the remedy that they should have sought? And where?

[48] For the above reasons, these Applications will be struck as moot. The air and rail passenger vaccine mandates were repealed, as have other related public health measures. The Applicants have substantially received the remedies sought and as such, there is no live controversy to adjudicate.

[49] There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot Applications.

[50] Finally, it is not the role of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions. If the air and rail vaccine mandates are re-introduced in the future, they can be properly challenged and should be weighed against the reality in which they are implemented.

Apparently, the inability of millions of people to fly and exercise their Section 6 Charter rights (mobility) isn’t a concern for the Court. After all, the mandates are gone — for now. If this isn’t worth spending judicial resources on, what exactly is?

Interestingly, the Judge says it’s not the place of the Court to dictate or prevent future government actions, but suggests that the cases can be brought back again if travel mandates are reinstated.

Suppose that does happen — and that the vaccine passport does return — what’s to stop Ottawa from temporarily pulling it (again) to ward off another challenge? Perhaps this is old fashioned, but it would be nice to see the issue resolved once and for all.

The Applicants who initiated these suits are now on the hook for the costs of losing this motion. While their initial filings were compelling, letting the orders expire then doing this was a dirty trick. It’s unclear what cost scale would be used, but the parties could very well settle it on their own.

Had a Prothonotary issued this ruling, it could be reviewed under Rule 51. But this came from a Justice, so the next step would be challenging this at the Federal Court of Appeals. There has been talk of doing this, especially in light of the Associate Chief Justice refusing to hear it altogether. We will have to see if that happens in the next few weeks. There is a 30 day time limit to file notice.

For reference, the standard for review is also available online. It addresses findings of fact, law, and mixed fact and law.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1463/2022fc1463.pdf
(3) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/522361/1/document.do
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-106/index.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI: Pfizer Docs; AEFI; Deaths; Weather Modification

In the last piece, it was shown how the Nova Scotia Premier’s Office apparently had no records whatsoever concerning the “document dumping” that Pfizer was forced to undertake. Now, it seems like NS Health has no records to disclose either. One would think that the revelations in that paperwork would be cause for concern.

Nova Scotia doesn’t have statistics available on the compensation of adverse reactions from the vaccine. However, there a small package for the AEFI reported thus far. There’s also an attached link to the Federal program that is being administered through a 3rd party, RCGT Consulting Inc.

As of June 2022, there were:

  • 615 non serious and 315 serious AEFI
  • 57 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis
  • 5 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome
  • 2 cases of Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

Keep in mind, this is just what has been reported. It’s possible that there are far more side effects that have thus far gone under the radar.

As of the time of writing this:

  • 774 claims have been submitted
  • 7 claims have been approved
  • 71 claims were deemed inadmissible for ineligibility and/or missing information
  • 654 claims were deemed admissible
  • 553 claims are in the process of collecting medical records
  • 23 claims are being reviewed

From the FAQ section on their website:

A serious and permanent injury is defined as a severe, life-threatening or life-altering injury that may require in-person hospitalization, or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, and results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death

The Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) is premised on the notion of no-fault. This means that financial support to eligible claimants is provided regardless of responsibility or possible fault (e.g., of the claimant, manufacturer or health professional administering the vaccine). A no-fault program ensures timely access to financial support.

The amount of financial support an individual will receive will be determined on a case by case basis. Amounts will be based on a pre-determined financial support payment framework. The framework will align with compensation provided under the Québec Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and informed by other public and private sector injury compensation practices.

It’s interesting that all of this is premised as “no-fault” when there was outright coercion to get people to take the shots in the first place. There doesn’t seem to be any posted rates of compensation.

One other point: accepting money from this program almost certainly means waiving any rights to take other actions (such as suing). True, there were indemnification agreements in place, but this would protect everyone from liability, and can’t really be challenged later. Expect non-disclosure agreements to be put in place as condition of getting any funds.

Also released is data on the total numbers of deaths in Nova Scotia, going back to 2017. In fairness, a small increase annually isn’t farfetched, given the growing population. That said, the data shows small decreases from time to time, while 2021/2022 lists increases across the board. Look at it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

Remember: WHO defines a “Covid death” as: A probable or confirmed COVID-19 case whose death resulted from a clinically compatible illness, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose). Sounds legitimate, right?

Now, this is unrelated to the above, but worth a browse. Here is the decision letter, and the results, of an FOIA request into weather modification. Remember when all of this was written off as conspiracy theories?

If you haven’t checked out the work of Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. No proper isolation has ever been done, anywhere in the world. Arguing about “mitigation” or protective measures seems pointless if there’s nothing to protect against.

DOCUMENTS/LINKS
(1) 2022-182 no responsive records NSH Pfizer
(2) 2022-181 no responsive records AEFI Statistics
(3) https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/docs/adverse-events-following-immunization-with-COVID-19-vaccines-2022-06-30.pdf
(4) https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics
(5) https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/faq
(6) FOI 2022-01565-SNSIS deaths by month since 2017 Book2 (1)
(7) A-2022-01018 – Response Letter Weather Modification
(8) A-2022-01018 – Release Weather Modification

PREVIOUS FOI RESULTS FROM NOVA SCOTIA
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-shows-province-has-no-evidence-asymptomatic
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-province-refuses-to-turn-over-contract/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-19-1-million-spent-on/
(H) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-no-real-increase-in-deaths-due-to-pandemic/
(I) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-more-deaths-as-vaccination-numbers-climb/
(J) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-govt-data-on-deaths-by-age-vaxx-status/
(K) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-another-data-dump-on-cases-vaxx-rates/
(L) https://canucklaw.ca/freedom-of-information-requests-canuck-law/
(M) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-cant-be-bothered-with-pfizer-docs/

Posted on

Supreme Court Reserves Decision On Challenge To Safe Third Country Agreement

The Supreme Court of Canada recently heard a challenge to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA), on grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights. This was based on 3 consolidated cases of people attempting to enter Canada from the U.S., and being denied.

The primary NGOs acting were: (a) Amnesty International; (b) the Canadian Council for Refugees; and (c) the Canadian Council of Churches. However, there were others who piled on, demanding open borders for people entering Canada illegally.

  • Appellant Canadian Council for Refugees et al.
  • Appellant Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
  • Intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration
  • Intervener David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights et al
  • Intervener National Council of Canadian Muslims et al
  • Intervener Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic
  • Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
  • Intervener Advocates for the Rule of Law
  • Intervener Rainbow Railroad
  • Intervener HIV AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario
  • Intervener Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights et al
  • Intervener Rainbow Refugee Society

It’s strange that virtually any special interest group can get standing as an intervenor to attack our borders. Meanwhile, actual citizens don’t have standing to demand that laws and borders be enforced.

For context, it’s important to realize that attacking the function of a border is not new. In fact, these groups have been at it for a long time. Here are some of their efforts. Note: these listings are not exclusive.

Efforts appear to have kicked off after January 1, 1989. This was based on changes to the procedures for determining whether applicants come within the definition of a Convention Refugee.

First attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

April 26, 1989, the Federal Court dismissed an application to strike from the Attorney General of Canada. This had been brought on the basis that the Canadian Council of Churches did not have standing to bring the action and had not demonstrated a cause of action.

March 12, 1990, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to hear the challenge of this idea, since no country had yet been designated a “safe country”. In other words, the Canadian Council of Churches had simply fought the concept of a safe country designation.

January 23, 1992, the Supreme Court disallowed the challenge on the grounds that the CCC lacked the necessary standing, and that there were other, more effective ways to achieve their results.

Second attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

December 2004, the Canada/U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement comes into effect. It’s worth noting that it’s really a 3-way treaty that includes the UNHCR, or United Nations High Commission on Refugees. Of course, there are also limitation and exceptions that make it largely worthless.

November 29, 2007, the Federal Court ruled that the S3CA violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter, and that they couldn’t be “saved” as reasonable limitations under Section 1. Ottawa decided to appeal that ruling.

June 27, 2008, the previous ruling was set aside on the grounds that appearing at a border port meant they could be turned away, and that it wasn’t a breach of international obligations.

Third attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 23, 2015, the Federal Court allowed reconsideration of refugee applications from people coming from Hungary and Serbia. Up until this point, those countries were considered “safe” under the Designation Country of Origin (DCO) policy. This meant that approximately 40 countries — mainly in Europe — were viewed as safe. As a result, there would be mechanisms to expedite the process (and deportations) of claimants from there.

May 17, 2019, the Trudeau Government ended the DCO practice. This meant that no source country would automatically be considered “safe”, for people coming to Canada. Considering the S3CA was still in place, that left the United States as the only country that people could be turned away from (close to automatically). The list (and dates) are still available for reference.

Fourth attempt to remove “safe country” designation:

July 22, 2020, the Federal Court ruled that Section 7 of the Charter (security of the person) was violated by the S3CA. While Section 15 (equality) was cited as well, the Judge declined to rule on that provision. Barring an appeal, or legislative changes, the treaty was effectively dead.

April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Section 7 was no violated after all. Now, there had been a cross appeal, as the initial Judge declined to address Section 15. That was dismissed as well, meaning the S3CA was restored to its original form.

October 6, 2022, the Supreme Court hears arguments on striking down the S3CA on constitutional grounds. The decision is reserved, and it’s unclear when the ruling will occur. This is where we are today.

There’s a certain hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out: Refugee groups attack the S3CA, at least partially on the grounds that the U.S. is an unsafe country, and that they need better protection. In the meantime, these same groups promote refugee resettlement into America, as it’s a safe haven. In other words, whether or not the U.S. is safe depends entirely on who the audience is.

Of course, there was never any consultation with Canadians as to whether this is what they really wanted. It’s outrageous that the citizens might want to weigh in.

There’s also another elephant in the room that needs to be addressed: having lax border policies makes it easier to smuggle (or worse, traffic) people into another country. This does nothing to address that problem, but more on that elsewhere on the site.

(1) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(2) https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39749
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1989/1989canlii9436/1989canlii9436.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1990/1990canlii8019/1990canlii8019.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii116/1992canlii116.html
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc1262/2007fc1262.html
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca229/2008fca229.html
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc892/2015fc892.html
(10) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2019/05/canada-ends-the-designated-country-of-origin-practice.html
(11) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc770/2020fc770.html
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2021/2021fca72/2021fca72.html