COVID vaccine mass law tort?

[ArmyRick]

How many are following this story. And yes its True North News (some here will say its fake news)

 

[brihard]

A somewhat more balanced source with less editorializing: Hundreds of military personnel part of lawsuit over mandatory COVID vaccine policy

The suit is being litigated by Catherine Christensen from Valour Law. Normally she handles things like family law matters… Mass tort is well outside of her area of expertise. She’s bitten off a lot here.

This is not her first kick at the cat in COVID vaccine litigation; the represented one of the applicants in Neri v Canada, which was not exactly a success. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html With that said, I also haven’t seen her name on any of the horrendously (comically) bad legal filings on vaccine stuff either, so there’s that.

I have yet to find a statement of claim on this particular lawsuit; I’ve tried to find one, but no success. The kind of language used and le cited in the claim will give a sense of how potentially serious this is.

There’s quite a bit of vaccine mandate litigation so far, and overwhelmingly it’s been unsuccesful. The plaintiffs have an uphill fight here.

 

[mariomike]

There’s quite a bit of vaccine mandate litigation so far, and overwhelmingly it’s been unsuccesful.

Good luck to them. I only followed the Toronto firefighter and paramedic arbitrations.

Accordingly, I declare that the Policy requiring fully vaccinated status to the level set for the end of 2021 as a condition precedent for a fire fighter’s continuing to report for work in TFS was and continues to be reasonable.

Requiring employees to become vaccinated is by a considerable measure the most effective protection against transmission and/or the serious consequences of infection. The requirement to be vaccinated attempts to protect both the unvaccinated employee and those vaccinated employees working with unvaccinated employees.

Even if the Act itself did not require that the City take every reasonable precaution to protect employees from anything other than transmission, it was still reasonable for the City to attempt through the Policy to reduce the negative health ramifications for all workers should they become infected, and reasonable for it to take steps to minimize disruption to its ability to provide services to the public. At a minimum, the City has a valid interest in reducing the likelihood that its employees might die or be absent for lengthy periods while they are seriously ill and in the hospital. As well, requiring employees to get vaccinated appears to have had the effect of incentivizing reluctant employees to become vaccinated, as reflected in the increased vaccination rate amongst City employees after the issuance of the Policy, which was also a reasonable purpose of the Policy.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I love how people love to cling to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without understanding it has checks and balances, as well as exceptions.

Not quite as funny as one of the Freedom Convoy folks saying they believe in the First Amendment, and the bail judge agreeing that Manitoba was part of Canada, but still; read the reference.

Hopefully this is on contingency; there is no way they will offer to settle, and the case is weak at best.

 

[brihard]

I love how people love to cling to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without understanding it has checks and balances, as well as exceptions.

Not quite as funny as one of the Freedom Convoy folks saying they believe in the First Amendment, and the bail judge agreeing that Manitoba was part of Canada, but still; read the reference.

Hopefully this is on contingency; there is no way they will offer to settle, and the case is weak at best.

Tough to say that without knowing what the case is. Well articulated civil actions don’t reduce conveniently to interview sound bites. I’m kinda surprised Valour Law hasn’t posted it to their website. There are a few snippets in articles, but nothing that allows for any meaningful assessment.

In any case, if the matter is allowed to proceed, it’ll take years to go anywhere. We’ll see news stories pop up on this maybe one or twice a year as procedural matters are hammered out, but it would be a very long time before any trial. Civil matters don’t have the same requirements as criminal ones for proceedings within a certain time limit.

 

[mariomike]

While civilians opting against the shot were put on leave without pay until federal mandates lifted, military personnel instead faced discipline and even removal from the service for defying vaccination rules.

My former employer fired 461 employees.

The 350 unionized members, after arbitration, were eventually offered reinstatement into unpaid leave status.

Non-union employees will not be returned to the workplace. Because they were not included in the arbitration.

Perhaps they can hire a lawyer, as in the original post.

Saw this posted by "The National Citizen's Inquiry: Canada's response to COVID-19" earlier this month.

A "dedicated paramedic lost her job due to vaccine mandates."

As union members, they were eventually offerred their jobs back.

With only one condition ( same as those unvaxxed for influenza ): "Wear full PPE on all respiratory illness calls."

Paramedic Scarlett Martyn: Impact of Vaccine Mandates | Toronto Day 3 | National Citizens Inquiry

Scarlett Martyn, a dedicated paramedic lost her job due to vaccine mandates. In this gripping interview, Scarlett opens up about the dramatic shift in attitude within her workplace following the rollo

rumble.com

 

[ArmyRick]

My former employer fired 461 employees.

The 350 unionized members, after arbitration, were eventually offered reinstatement into unpaid leave status.

Just curious, how come some are unionized and some not?

 

[QV]

Probably supervisors or management positions outside the union.

 

[mariomike]

These are the workforce statistics by union affiliation.

Quarterly Workforce Statistics – March 2023​

As of the end of March 2023, there were 41,835 active employees in the Toronto Public Service. The following charts provide a breakdown of employee counts by union affiliation and employee status.

Union Affiliation​

Workforce Statistics

Quarterly Workforce Statistics – March 2024 As of the end of March 2024, there were 40,121 active employees in the Toronto Public Service. The following charts provide a breakdown of employee counts by union affiliation and employee status. Union Affiliation Union Number of Employees Percentage...

www.toronto.ca

The information above does not capture employees working in the City’s Agencies, Boards or Commissions (TTC, Police, Library, Association of Community Centres, etc.), Accountability Offices, or elected officials.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Tough to say that without knowing what the case is. Well articulated civil actions don’t reduce conveniently to interview sound bites. I’m kinda surprised Valour Law hasn’t posted it to their website. There are a few snippets in articles, but nothing that allows for any meaningful assessment.

In any case, if the matter is allowed to proceed, it’ll take years to go anywhere. We’ll see news stories pop up on this maybe one or twice a year as procedural matters are hammered out, but it would be a very long time before any trial. Civil matters don’t have the same requirements as criminal ones for proceedings within a certain time limit.

So far all the claims have been shot down fairly hard, so not entirely sure why this would be any better.

I think the Courts and legislation recognize the unique CAF requirements, above and beyond even normal exceptions, and as we had defined it as part of the universality of service for the time period I can't see them disagreeing. I had to travel to Europe at extremely short notice during COVID where vaccination was required so I'm sure there are plenty of valid examples of it. Given that we were being randomly tasked with all sorts of things I think this is more of a crusade vice a strong case, and very public examples like random CAF members being brought into help with the old age care homes is probably a good example. Being able to respond to a global pandemic and domestic support is, I think, a very reasonable universal requirement for CAF members in the context of the time.

Which is fine, and exactly why we have a court system, but some of the general lawsuits against the government have some fairly insane demands. There is one currently on the go for discrimination against black employees in the public service, which is asking for HR documents for all public servants for something like the last 50 years as part of their disclosure to find evidence of discrimination. Aside from the fact the records don't exist, plus the massive invasion of privacy into personnel records, I really doubt anyone is going to explicitly record that someone didn't get hired/promoted etc on the file because they were black. While I don't doubt that there are plenty of examples of actual discrimination, proving is systematically against everyone is daunting, and likely means that individuals with really strong claims won't necessarily get any sort of justice/compensation.

There may be individual examples on the vaccine side here where specific CoCs were overly zealous or whatever, or individual grievances that may have merit for the exemption request, but all of that will get lost in a mass tort claim. The CAF was very slow to provide guidance and updates, and I'm sure there was a huge amount of behind the scenes work that specifically took these kinds of things into account before making the decision.

With 100k people in the reg/reserve lines, it's inevitable there were some screw ups on the CoC side here, I just really doubt they will be able to demonstrate it at the CAF level.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I love how people love to cling to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without understanding it has checks and balances, as well as exceptions.

Not quite as funny as one of the Freedom Convoy folks saying they believe in the First Amendment, and the bail judge agreeing that Manitoba was part of Canada, but still; read the reference.

Hopefully this is on contingency; there is no way they will offer to settle, and the case is weak at best.

i would like to read more about Canada's 1st Amendment? Did I miss it?

 

[dapaterson]

i would like to read more about Canada's 1st Amendment? Did I miss it?

It brought Manitoba into confederation.

 

[Navy_Pete]

i would like to read more about Canada's 1st Amendment? Did I miss it?

Our first amendment to the original Constitution was the 1870 one to recognize Manitoba as a province (with similar amendments to add other provinces).

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was another amendment in 1982, and I believe one of the last ones after the Meech lake accord went fairly horribly and not accepted.

One of the convoy leaders tried to say they were exercising their first amendment rights during a bail hearing, and the judge agreed Manitoba was part of Canada, and I believe, eventually explained the US constitution doesn't apply in Canada. A lot of Americans misquote their own constitution anyway, but people thinking it applies in other country is probably a good example of why basic civics is an important part of any education system.

 

[Quirky]

Any stats on how many, if any, CAF members had long-term negative affects from the vaccine?

 

[brihard]

So far all the claims have been shot down fairly hard, so not entirely sure why this would be any better.

I think the Courts and legislation recognize the unique CAF requirements, above and beyond even normal exceptions, and as we had defined it as part of the universality of service for the time period I can't see them disagreeing. I had to travel to Europe at extremely short notice during COVID where vaccination was required so I'm sure there are plenty of valid examples of it. Given that we were being randomly tasked with all sorts of things I think this is more of a crusade vice a strong case, and very public examples like random CAF members being brought into help with the old age care homes is probably a good example. Being able to respond to a global pandemic and domestic support is, I think, a very reasonable universal requirement for CAF members in the context of the time.

Which is fine, and exactly why we have a court system, but some of the general lawsuits against the government have some fairly insane demands. There is one currently on the go for discrimination against black employees in the public service, which is asking for HR documents for all public servants for something like the last 50 years as part of their disclosure to find evidence of discrimination. Aside from the fact the records don't exist, plus the massive invasion of privacy into personnel records, I really doubt anyone is going to explicitly record that someone didn't get hired/promoted etc on the file because they were black. While I don't doubt that there are plenty of examples of actual discrimination, proving is systematically against everyone is daunting, and likely means that individuals with really strong claims won't necessarily get any sort of justice/compensation.

There may be individual examples on the vaccine side here where specific CoCs were overly zealous or whatever, or individual grievances that may have merit for the exemption request, but all of that will get lost in a mass tort claim. The CAF was very slow to provide guidance and updates, and I'm sure there was a huge amount of behind the scenes work that specifically took these kinds of things into account before making the decision.

With 100k people in the reg/reserve lines, it's inevitable there were some screw ups on the CoC side here, I just really doubt they will be able to demonstrate it at the CAF level.

A lot of the other court actions were judicial reviews of administrative decisions at various tribunals; appeals of unfavourable grievance decisions, etc. this one is a more conventional lawsuit asserting tortious conduct and claiming damages, so a lot of the legalities will be different. That’s part of why I really want to see the statement of claim so I can wrap my head around it.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Tough to say that without knowing what the case is. Well articulated civil actions don’t reduce conveniently to interview sound bites. I’m kinda surprised Valour Law hasn’t posted it to their website. There are a few snippets in articles, but nothing that allows for any meaningful assessment.

In any case, if the matter is allowed to proceed, it’ll take years to go anywhere. We’ll see news stories pop up on this maybe one or twice a year as procedural matters are hammered out, but it would be a very long time before any trial. Civil matters don’t have the same requirements as criminal ones for proceedings within a certain time limit.

It's only just been listed on the Federal Court's files registry.

Federal Court - Court Files

www.fct-cf.gc.ca

To go to the particular case search either by name "QUALIZZA" or by file number "T-1296-23". The documents (click the link for 'more') aren't available for download but can be requested.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I've received a copy of the statement of claim. The Federal Court's registry is very quick in responding to requests. It's a bit of a slog to get through (137 pages) and (in my uneducated opinion) very poorly written.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I've received a copy of the statement of claim. The Federal Court's registry is very quick in responding to requests. It's a bit of a slog to get through (137 pages) and (in my uneducated opinion) very poorly written.

Wow, so they want the court to declare it an unlawful order, prohibit the CAF from making any additional changes to require the vaccine (ie if the situation changes), pay them a million dollars each, pay them a lot more under a number of different statutes, and a list of other demands (like directing the CDS not be the final grievance authority, as per legislation)?

Best of luck there.

I like the part where they are bringing in unrelated items to the statement of claim to muddy the waters and gain public support.

I think the court recently made some relevant decisions on MGen Fortin telling him he has to use the formal grievance process first, so all the people waiting to hear the grievance results may be SOL. It would be nice though if something resulted in that system getting fixed (although if I get posted there I would probably be polishing my resume while filing a grievance for a punitive posting).

Edit: wow, so many lols. They are trying to say it was an illegal order because the CDS didn't get direction from the Queen, that it was untested, and all sorts of other nonsense. Sounds like it was written by an angry lower deck lawyer on a drinking binge.

The individual claims for the individuals aren't proven, but again, I'm sure some of them are close to what happened, so plenty of individual CoC actions that are greasy at best, could result in charges at worst, but will now get swept under the rug and likely discredited.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm thinking a few GOFOs are going to be upset that they were not deemed important enough to be named in this trainwreck of a comedy of an absurdity.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . Sounds like it was written by an angry lower deck lawyer on a drinking binge.

I have much greater respect for the communication skills of lower deck barrack room lawyers (drunk or sober). The author of this statement of claim could probably learn a thing or two from one.