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.


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.

(1) 2022-182 no responsive records NSH Pfizer
(2) 2022-181 no responsive records AEFI Statistics
(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


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.


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.


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.


Nova Scotia FOI: Can’t Be Bothered With Pfizer Documents, Or Meaningful Math

With the release of the Pfizer documents (a.k.a. the document dump), it’s fair to ask how seriously Governments are taking it. One resident in Nova Scotia decided to probe exactly that subject. Here is the result that another freedom of information request revealed.

In early January 2022, a US Federal Judge, Mark Pittman ordered Pfizer to release 55,000 pages per month on the vaccine safety data in a response to a FOI request filed on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. The List of Adverse Events of Special Interest totals over eight pages in length that includes neonatal death and sudden unexplained death. I would like to request all records and correspondence that the Premier’s office has on the topic of Pfizer’s safety data that has been released since January 10, 2022. Attached is an example of Pfizer’s Safety Data. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/09/2022 To 09/06/2022)

The request is pretty straightforward. This resident wants to see all correspondence and records that have been generated as a result of this revelation.

However, there aren’t any records.

After a file search, we have located no records responsive to your application. Therefore, it is my understanding, pursuant to clause 7(2)(b) of the Act, that the Office of the Premier does not have custody or control of records which would respond to your application.
I am unaware of a department or agency which would hold such records.

Either Nova Scotia is completely unaware that Pfizer was ordered to turn over these documents (possible), or they just ignored it altogether. Both are bad options.

That same resident also asked how explanations and documents are calculated. How exactly is the math done to come to these dire predictions and warnings? A response package did come, although the answers are pretty confusing and convoluted.

Even if these numbers were to be taken at face value, there are still several serious cracks that appear in the logic:

  • The categories are “0”, “2”, and “3” doses. This means that anyone who hasn’t has at least 2 shots (with the exception of Johnson & Johnson), would be viewed as unvaccinated. What about people who took a single shot and then realized their mistake?
  • The counter doesn’t move until 14 days after a shot. Therefore, people who were injured (or died) in less than 2 weeks after that second shot would still be viewed as unvaccinated.
  • They do “age adjusting”, on the grounds that older people would be at a higher risk. However, older people are at a higher risk of dying REGARDLESS of these shots, or fake virus.
  • The BCCDC admitted in April 2020 that PCR tests can’t actually determine if someone has an infection. As such, these are useless. (See archive).
  • There’s no proof this virus exists.
  • The definition of a “Covid death” is completely fraudulent, as addressed earlier.

Given how subjective the definitions are, the data is essentially meaningless. This has been brought up a number of times.

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this is for real. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. (See archive here). Odd that the heavily subsidized mainstream press hasn’t been asking questions about that.

The “case definition” is also pretty sketchy. There’s no requirement at all that any actual virus be isolated or demonstrated to exist. WHO’s March 2020 (Page 3), and September 2020 (Page 8) explicitly state that routine virus isolation is not recommended for diagnostic testing.

Concerning, isn’t it? The Government keeps detailed statistics concerning hospitalizations and deaths, but tweaks the values to make them more frightening. There’s apparently no interest in the data that Pfizer only gave up under a Court order. Also, the Strang Regime seems not to case about cases and deaths in any meaningful way.

One might think that the Nova Scotia authorities don’t really have the public’s best interests at heart. Strange, considering it’s a registered charity.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

(1) 2022-01410-PRE Decision Letter signed
(2) 2022-01337-HEA Decision Letter
(3) 2022-01337-HEA Applicant Package


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.


%d bloggers like this: