COVID vaccine mass law tort?

[mariomike]

By offering to reinstate only the unionized members they demonstrated arbitrary and discriminatory behavior.

That's City policy. We knew that when we hired on. YMMV

 

[McG]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686195317568421889

 

[Spencer100]

That's City policy.

The non union employees have to work their way though the courts. It will happen just will take longer.

If I was a city CAO

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686195317568421889

Way to much (like millions to much) credit to Russian trolls and foreign players.

The anti Vax movement needed zero from Russia.

Plus little history memory holing too in there it was Trump who start operation warp speed. And was still trumping (sic) the Vax as late as last year.

 

[mariomike]

The non union employees have to work their way though the courts. It will happen just will take longer.

Right.

CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

And the foresight was 0/0. Well maybe we should have attacked China and forced it out of them....this is fun.

army.ca

Former municipal employees launch $125M lawsuit over vaccine mandates

Several former municipal employees from municipalities across Ontario, including locally, have filed a $125.9M class action lawsuit in connection to the Province of Ontario’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which the plaintiffs claim were unconstitutional.

kitchener.ctvnews.ca

EMPLOYMENT LAWYER REACTS TO LAWSUIT

Toronto-based employment lawyer Howard Levitt, who is not involed in the case, said that, in his opinion, this is an ill-fated class action lawsuit.

Levitt noted that the amount the lawsuit is seeking is ‘outrageous in any event.”

Levitt pointed to a case he won in September 2022 including Seneca College in which mandatory vaccination policies are legal in this province.

“That, and a series of other cases, mostly arbitration cases, have ruled against them, so they don’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance of success in this case,” said Levitt.

“What’s going to end up happening is the court is going to toss the case for the unionized employees and award cost against them for that, and the non-union employees may have a long case against them, but at the end of the day, they are going to lose,” said Levitt.

He added: “The law makes clear that employers are obligated to have safe workplaces.”

The statement of claim does not break down if the employees are unionized or not but according to Levitt, if they are unionized they cannot sue in a class action in court, they can only grieve through a grievance procedure.

For employees that are non-union, Levitt said the law is “squarely against them” due to precedent set in other cases, and at the end of the day they will lose.

Levitt said those involved may face costs against them after the case is thrown out of court.

 

[Winds]

Did a quick scan of the linked summary and the first annex ("Constitutionality. . ."). Without commenting about the authority of the committee (or the quality of its decision making) to make such a "recommendation", I was surprised that there was no reference in either the summary or the annex of 15(1), 15(2) or 15(9) of the CHRA, nor of DAOD 5023-0 as well as no mention of "universality of service" or "bona fide occupational requirement".

I would have assumed (as always subject to being judged an ass) that a basic requirement for the universal vaccination of all active CF members against COVID 19 was to make them available (and prepared) for duty regardless of location.


Edited to add:

In the understanding that the committee reaches it conclusions solely on the written submission of the griever and any subsequent responses to that grievance without an open hearing in which parties to the process can question or challenge, I should also make clear that the "references" that I noted above as not appearing in their decision were also absent from the first two CDS directives on implementing COVID vaccination in the CAF. However, while those complete magic phrases did not appear, in the first directive the CDS's "intent" was stated.

For a standard to be a bona fide occupational requirement, an employer must establish that any accommodation or changes to that standard or rule would create an undue hardship. Universality of service requirements are essentially bona fide occupational requirements gor CAF service.

The CAF has very strict medical requirements IOT meet universality of service, and correspondingly discriminates against individuals when it comes to recruitment and retention. Develop diabetes, for example, that's a medical release. It is a major hindrance when it comes to the retention of injured members as retaining them can lead to precedent that would prevent the institution from upholding our standards for universality of service. If we could not discriminate medically, as a government institution, we would be forced to hire those who are medically handicapped in line with the Employment Equity Act.

When it came to the CAF's COVID19 vaccination requirement, the policy explicitly stated that exceptions were to be granted for medical and religious grounds... there was no mention of it because the government never tried to argue it as a bona fide occupational requirement. Instead, the policy said something along the lines of "it is required by all, or at least all who don't have a good enough reason not to" (not a real quote, obviously).

 

[brihard]

For a standard to be a bona fide occupational requirement, an employer must establish that any accommodation or changes to that standard or rule would create an undue hardship. Universality of service requirements are essentially bona fide occupational requirements gor CAF service.

The CAF has very strict medical requirements IOT meet universality of service, and correspondingly discriminates against individuals when it comes to recruitment and retention. Develop diabetes, for example, that's a medical release. It is a major hindrance when it comes to the retention of injured members as retaining them can lead to precedent that would prevent the institution from upholding our standards for universality of service. If we could not discriminate medically, as a government institution, we would be forced to hire those who are medically handicapped in line with the Employment Equity Act.

When it came to the CAF's COVID19 vaccination requirement, the policy explicitly stated that exceptions were to be granted for medical and religious grounds... there was no mention of it because the government never tried to argue it as a bona fide occupational requirement. Instead, the policy said something along the lines of "it is required by all, or at least all who don't have a good enough reason not to" (not a real quote, obviously).

Some people found religion real quick when that was listed as a potential grounds for accommodation, but generally struggled to explain or substantiate what it was about their religion that prevented them receiving this particular vaccination, but not all the other ones required for service. That was never likely to be a viable claim for many people.

 

[Winds]

Some people found religion real quick when that was listed as a potential grounds for accommodation, but generally struggled to explain or substantiate what it was about their religion that prevented them receiving this particular vaccination, but not all the other ones required for service. That was never likely to be a viable claim for many people.

The point I was making was that COVID19 vaccination could not be considered a "bona fide occupational" requirement for CAF members because the policy explicitly allowed for exemptions on different grounds, including religion.

On the topic of religious accomodations though, discrimination based on religion is defined by the government as "any adverse treatment that hinders an individual’s ability to practise a tenet of his or her belief", so it is not a question of whether the religion prevents vaccination, but if the policy in question hinders the member from practicing their religion. It is a bit of nuance, but I believe any important distinction to make.

Catholics, for example, have the principle of "therapeutic proportionality", an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods. Such judgment must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention, not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations... the question to determine accommodation then is not whether being Catholic prevents one from taking the particular vaccine, but if the vaccination policy prevents them from freely practicing the principle of therapeutic proportionality.

This is one of the reasons why the U.S. Military's Catholic Archbishop publicly stated that Catholic American soldiers could refuse vaccination on religious grounds, despite being in favour of the mandate itself.

Military archbishop says Catholic troops can refuse Covid vaccines on religious grounds

Archbishop Timothy Broglio has expressed support for President Joe Biden’s mandate for service members in the past.

www.politico.com

 

[brihard]

The point I was making was that the COVID19 vaccine could not be considered a "bona fide occupational" requirement for CAF members because the policy explicitly allowed for exemptions on different grounds, including religion.

On the topic of religious accomodations though, discrimination based on religion is defined by the government as "any adverse treatment that hinders an individual’s ability to practise a tenet of his or her belief", so it is not a question of whether the religion prevents vaccination, but if the policy in question hinders the member from practicing their religion. It is a bit of nuance, but I believe any important distinction to make.

Catholics, for example, have the principle of "therapeutic proportionality", an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods. Such judgment must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention, not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations... the question to determine accommodation then is not whether being Catholic prevents one from taking the particular vaccine, but if the vaccination policy prevents them from freely practicing the principle of therapeutic proportionality.

This is one of the reasons why the U.S. Military's Catholic Archbishop publicly stated that Catholic American soldiers could refuse vaccination on religious grounds.

Military archbishop says Catholic troops can refuse Covid vaccines on religious grounds

Archbishop Timothy Broglio has expressed support for President Joe Biden’s mandate for service members in the past.

www.politico.com

I don’t know if US Military Catholic Archbishop v The Pope was ever litigated in order to determine The Faith’s stance on COVID vaccinations. Here in Canada, I’ve not heard of many successful claims or appeals based on religious exception. What you describe sounds like quite a stretch. But I won’t pretend to have followed that closely, either.

 

[Winds]

I don’t know if US Military Catholic Archbishop v The Pope was ever litigated in order to determine The Faith’s stance on COVID vaccinations. Here in Canada, I’ve not heard of many successful claims or appeals based on religious exception. What you describe sounds like quite a stretch. But I won’t pretend to have followed that closely, either.

Not sure why you are suggesting that Archbishop Broglio's statement is somehow in disagreement with the Pope. I recommend reading the actual statements put out by the Vatican, and not relying on media interpretations.

I know of many cases where religious accommodation was granted for these vary reasons... the CAF policy itself, the topic of this thread, granted exemptions on religious grounds. They even had a formal vetting process in place.

 

[brihard]

Not sure why you are suggesting that Archbishop Broglio's statement is somehow in disagreement with the Pope. I recommend reading the actual statements put out by the Vatican, and not relying on media interpretations.

I know of many cases where religious accommodation was granted for these vary reasons... the CAF policy itself, the topic of this thread, granted exemptions on religious grounds. They even had a formal vetting process in place.

You’ve likely paid much closer than I. I’ll just wait to see how this mass tort and other matters fare in court.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Catholics, for example, have the principle of "therapeutic proportionality", an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods. Such judgment must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention, not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations... the question to determine accommodation then is not whether being Catholic prevents one from taking the particular vaccine, but if the vaccination policy prevents them from freely practicing the principle of therapeutic proportionality.

This is one of the reasons why the U.S. Military's Catholic Archbishop publicly stated that Catholic American soldiers could refuse vaccination on religious grounds, despite being in favour of the mandate itself.

I had never heard of "the principle of therapeutic proportionality" until now. I guess that says something about my Catholicism. Like a typical Irish Catholic Newfoundlander, I don't believe in god or have anything to do with churches; the last time I voluntarily attended a Catholic church, save for a wedding in the 1990s in San Francisco of a USAF type who I knew from Desert Storm, was at Cornwallis because you could stay for coffee and donuts if you actually attended the service (the non-attenders had to remain outside) - the priest at the time (he was also later the chaplain when I was in Egypt) served better coffee and snacks than the Protestant. Thankfully, we didn't have obligatory attendance when I went through BOTC in Chilliwack several years later, so I can't comment of the proportional quality of the beverage and pastry service of each faith.

Anyway.

Since you brought up the US guy with the funny hat and therapeutic proportionality, I thought I should see what he is talking about and what religious question is raised.

https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-on-covid19-vaccines-and-conscience-12oct2021.pdf?fbclid=iwar1efgfie-zsplrqfjiox8t7ms6q7znlhvknr6q2byjip2dyemtcz0zaino

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were tested using an abortion derived cell line. That type of a link has been for centuries considered remote material cooperation with evil and is never sinful. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed, tested, and is produced, with abortion-derived cell lines. That vaccine is, therefore, more problematic. If it were the only vaccine available, it would be morally permissible, but the faithful Catholic is to make known his or her preference for a more morally acceptable treatment.

https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-vaccines-14mar2021.pdf

The vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna are preferred to the others, because of their very remote link human cells derived from abortion. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is more problematic. However, if that is the only vaccine available, Catholic men and women in uniform and their families, should avail themselves of this preventative measure as an act of charity.

 

[Winds]

I had never heard of "the principle of therapeutic proportionality" until now. I guess that says something about my Catholicism. Like a typical Irish Catholic Newfoundlander, I don't believe in god or have anything to do with churches; the last time I voluntarily attended a Catholic church, save for a wedding in the 1990s in San Francisco of a USAF type who I knew from Desert Storm, was at Cornwallis because you could stay for coffee and donuts if you actually attended the service (the non-attenders had to remain outside) - the priest at the time (he was also later the chaplain when I was in Egypt) served better coffee and snacks than the Protestant. Thankfully, we didn't have obligatory attendance when I went through BOTC in Chilliwack several years later, so I can't comment of the proportional quality of the beverage and pastry service of each faith.

Anyway.

Since you brought up the US guy with the funny hat and therapeutic proportionality, I thought I should see what he is talking about and what religious question is raised.

https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-on-covid19-vaccines-and-conscience-12oct2021.pdf?fbclid=iwar1efgfie-zsplrqfjiox8t7ms6q7znlhvknr6q2byjip2dyemtcz0zaino

https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-vaccines-14mar2021.pdf

That is one of the questions raised, and which was directly answered by the Pope, as he stated. The Pope also specifically stated that vaccination cannot practically be made a moral obligation, and must therefore be voluntary... why would that be?

The concern surrounding the sanctity of conscious is a much broader concept, however, and this is the grounds that Broglio gave for religious exemption, not specifically the concern over morality regarding stem cell research. Going against any teaching of the faith could be argued as breaking the sanctity of conscience, or something that cannot be done "in good conscience".

As I mentioned the concept of therapeutic proportionality specifically (which appears to be more well known amongst Eastern rite Catholics), do you have some sort of argument as to why it should not be allowed as grounds for religious accommodation when it comes to the policy at hand? So far, you appear to be making a straw man argument, refuting something different than what I am arguing.

Also, after reading Broglio's statement, did you find any inconsistencies with the official stance from the Vatican?

 

[Winds]

About the Committee - Canada.ca

MGERC Home Page

www.canada.ca

“The Military Grievances External Review Committee, formerly the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, is an administrative tribunal with quasi-judicial powers” and those powers are: to make recommendations. This official web page seems to have a bit of an inflated description. The committee does some great work, but the terms “tribunal” and “powers” seem grandiose. I also wonder about the qualification of the committee to “rule” on what is or is not constitutional. There’s a retired CAF lawyer, a member with degrees in dispute resolution law, and the rest have educational background covering public administration, project management, and engineering.

Committee Members - Canada.ca

List of the Committee Members and links to the biographies

www.canada.ca

I find it odd that you characterized the committee Chairperson, a retired Colonel who served as Director of the OJAG's Administrative Law Division as "a retired CAF lawyer". That's kind of like calling a former army commander a "retired CAF officer". It's also a Governor in Council (Governor General) appointed position. This, along with your characterization of the other committee members, comes across as flippant.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I find it odd that you characterized the committee Chairperson, a retired Colonel who served as Director of the OJAG's Administrative Law Division as "a retired CAF lawyer". That's kind of like calling a former army commander a "retired CAF officer". It's also a Governor in Council (Governor General) appointed position. This, along with your characterization of the other committee members, comes across as flippant.

What??

 

[Winds]

What?

If you read McG's post, he appears to question the Military Grievance External Review Committee's purpose and competency. He describes the committee's official description as "inflated", and suggests that "the terms 'tribunal' and 'powers' seem grandiose". The committee has a statutory mandate to provide recommendations on grievance findings to the CDS, and as I stated the committee Chairperson is appointed by the Governor General.

My comment was about how he characterized the backgrounds of the committee members, questioning their "qualification": describing a retired OJAG Colonel who headed the Directorate of Administrative Law as "a retired CAF lawyer"; describing a former senior public service executive with a Masters of Law in Dispute Resolution as "a member with degrees in dispute resolution law"; and, stating that "the rest have educational background covering public administration, project management, and engineering." without mentioning that the other 2 members each have over 30 years CAF service... that'd be like describing a retired CWO as "a guy with a highschool diploma", would it not?

I thought his comment on their backgrounds as dismissive and disrespectful, so I said so. It's also an Ad Hominem argument, attempting to disparage the qualification of the committee rather than trying to refute any details of the findings themselves.

Which part of my comment do you have issue with?

 

[brihard]

describing a former senior public service executive with a Masters of Law in Dispute Resolution as "a member with degrees in dispute resolution law

That appears to be accurate though. A Madters in Law from York would be the Osgoode Hall professional all.M in dispute resolution. It’s a masters in law for non-lawyers. My wife’s union rep did the same program, actually.

Good education but I don’t see anything being undersold in that particular part.

 

[Winds]

That appears to be accurate though. A Madters in Law from York would be the Osgoode Hall professional all.M in dispute resolution. It’s a masters in law for non-lawyers. My wife’s union rep did the same program, actually.

Good education but I don’t see anything being undersold in that particular part.

Yes, and you too left out the part about them being a former Executive with experience across multiple government departments, that is what is being undersold.

I never said the description wasn't technically accurate, I said it came across as dismissive and disrespectful.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Our PM has almost 8 years of running a whole insanely large country.....

 

[Jarnhamar]

Once members of the CAF could avoid vaccinations because of religious reasons, high bar to reach or not, kicking people out over it became a weak argument.

My athiest ass would lose my career but you could keep yours if you could convince your CoC that Vishnu didn't approve? Silly.

 

[Winds]

Our PM has almost 8 years of running a whole insanely large country.....

... so, would it be a fair characterization of his qualifications to lead said country to simply describe him as "someone with a Bachelors of Education"?