- Reaction score
- 6,367
- Points
- 1,310
False Statements is a NDA Section 125 offense, regardless of deployment or not.
COVID vaccine mass law tort?
- Thread starter ArmyRick
- Start date
I wasn't speaking about legality in the sense of breaking the law, ie criminal behaviour. I was talking about them doing an end around current regulations. They could have changed the regulations. Breaking your own rules when they are inconvenient is a particular trend that pisses me off with the leadership. I once had a discussion with someone about how the new rules he had written essentially made the RCAF combat ineffictive. When I pointed out how long it would take to follow all the rules in a war time scramble situation, his response was that he would probably just break the rules and ask forgiveness later. To his credit, he did see reason when I pointed it out. I think it was just long exposure to that rules are suggestions rather than hard and fast constraints. However they are constraints we have the power to change. If the old rule doesn't work, make a risk assessment, make decision and change the rules.
The problem was that no one wanted the accountability that came with a real order or that came with opening up privledged medical information to the CoC. There were a number of ways they could have gone about getting the CAF vaccinated using the lawful authority already present within the CA. They chose none of those ways and the leadership's already poor reputation suffered for it.
That presupposes that there can only be one lawful way to achieve a certain end, when in the policy/regulatory realm that’s often not the case. Doing something a different way does not necessarily mean that some other rule was broken.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,606
- Points
- 1,160
Feet and knees together...
A tribunal that is part of the military grievance process has found that the Canadian Armed Forces' COVID-19 vaccine policy violated its members' Charter rights.
The Military Grievances External Review Committee reviews grievances that are referred to it by the chief of defence staff, and provides the chief with non-binding findings and recommendations.
In all, 157 grievances have been filed with the independent tribunal over the military's vaccination policy, which took effect in the fall of 2021 and remained in place for nearly a year before being updated to apply more narrowly.
Because dozens of similar grievances are being considered at the same time, the committee took the step of releasing three annexes in mid-July that laid out its analysis in order to streamline future cases.
External review found military's COVID-19 vaccine policy violated Charter of Rights
- Policy resulted in 299 people being released and another 108 leaving the armed forces on their own
A tribunal that is part of the military grievance process has found that the Canadian Armed Forces' COVID-19 vaccine policy violated its members' Charter rights.
The Military Grievances External Review Committee reviews grievances that are referred to it by the chief of defence staff, and provides the chief with non-binding findings and recommendations.
In all, 157 grievances have been filed with the independent tribunal over the military's vaccination policy, which took effect in the fall of 2021 and remained in place for nearly a year before being updated to apply more narrowly.
Because dozens of similar grievances are being considered at the same time, the committee took the step of releasing three annexes in mid-July that laid out its analysis in order to streamline future cases.
- Reaction score
- 22,124
- Points
- 1,090
One of the cases, which includes the three annexes:
# 2022-162 Careers, COVID-19 - Canada.ca
Military Grievances External Review Committee (formerly the Canadian Forces Grievance Board) Case Summary for Case # 2022-162 Careers
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,355
- Points
- 1,160
Committee Members - Canada.ca
List of the Committee Members and links to the biographies
- Reaction score
- 13,088
- Points
- 1,010
I wondered about that, too.“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 biographieswww.canada.ca
They are not a judicial body; the Committee is not composed of judges. For them to declare a decision a charter breach seems way outside their pay grade.
“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
They aren’t a court, but there’s case law to establish that administrative tribunals have authority to consider Charter issues in the context of an individual case, without establishing binding precedent. The MGERC is such a tribunal, albeit not one that’s very highly empowered. “Administrative tribunal” is an administrative law term that broadly describes quasi-judicial bodies empowered by statute to rule on administrative matters within a relatively narrow set of arcs.
So the MGERC is able to lawfully reach the decisions it did, even if it’s a stretch, and the decisions themselves unlikely to withstand judicial review.
- Reaction score
- 13,088
- Points
- 1,010
I get that. I am just thinking that they could have reached the same decision without opening the door to a judicial review, had they tempered their language.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,141
- Points
- 1,160
One of the cases, which includes the three annexes:
# 2022-162 Careers, COVID-19 - Canada.ca
Military Grievances External Review Committee (formerly the Canadian Forces Grievance Board) Case Summary for Case # 2022-162 Careers
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.
Last edited:
Winds
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 202
- Points
- 600
As I've stated before, there was already evidence from such employer imposed mandates, including those for municipal emergency workers in places such as Toronto, that these workplaces were beginning to experience mass outbreaks not long after laying off their unvaccinated workers. And this was well before the CAF mandate came into force... why would this be?
The medical literature at the time did not give strong evidence that vaccines were highly effective at preventing spread specifically... and preventing spread to others was the main justification for imposing the mandates, not that the unvaccinated persons themselves were at higher individual risk of sever outcomes if they contracted COVID. Importantly, in my opinion, is that most of the vaccine mandates and "passport" policies were coupled with the loosening of restrictions (capacity limits, masking requirements, etc.), both formally and informally, for vaccinated individuals without hard proof that being vaccinated significantly reduced the risk of spread, only the reduced risk of symptomatic infection and severe outcomes for the individual. There was a general assumption that reducing symptomatic infections (which the vaccines did) would significantly reduce viral spread but we knew since the early days of the pandemic that one of the most difficult characteristics of COVID was its ability to spread amongst the asymptomatic. When the omicron virus was starting to spread like wildfire, many were beginning to flock back to packed sports arenas, concerts, theatres, restaurants/bars, without any restrictions... except that the undesirable "unvaccinated" were not welcome.
Several judges have stated that these infringements of rights were justified at the time, but they all seem to gloss over the actually trying to justify how such policies, targeted towards those of working age, were expected to produce better health outcomes.
COVID-19 tally from paramedics' restaurant party hits 53
The number of Ottawa paramedic staff testing positive for COVID-19 after an off-duty restaurant party climbed to 53 on Tuesday.
ottawacitizen.com
WARMINGTON: COVID cases spread like wildfire in Toronto Fire station
This spreading wildfire needing to be put out was raging inside the fire station itself.
torontosun.com
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,010
Canada is recommending COVID boosters this fall. Who really needs one?
Federal vaccine advisers are recommending a new dose of a new vaccine this fall, especially for those at highest risk of severe outcomes.
nationalpost.com
When the medical community is split on whether it is even necessary, it should never be "mandated".
- Reaction score
- 1,332
- Points
- 1,260
I just know how the union arbitation went,
Robert J. Herman
Arbitrator
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/d...UrlHash=&resultIndex=7&offset=12758.400390625
Unvaxxed union members who were fired were eventually offerred their jobs back.
With only one mandate ( same as members unvaxxed for influenza ): "Wear full PPE on all respiratory illness calls."
There was no back pay for lost wages.
Unvaxxed non-union employees were not re-hired. They are free to hire lawyers. Good luck to them.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,667
- Points
- 1,160
Always nice to have two classes of employees.
like Class A, B or C…
- Reaction score
- 5,401
- Points
- 1,140
I agree, make reservists uproot their families at the whim of an MWO/Maj every 2-5 years. Fair is fair after all. If they don't like it, they can wait six months to get out of the job too.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,611
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 5,527
- Points
- 1,360
Like Officers and NCM's??
Winds
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 202
- Points
- 600
My argument is that the first half of the arbitrator's statement is simply not true, and thus the reasoning for the decision is faulty. There was never considerable scientific literature proving that the available COVID vaccines meaningfully prevented spread, and now there is substantial evidence that they don't. This is not just looking back in hindsight but concerns that were brought up by health professionals at the time. And by stating that it is "by a considerable measure the most effective protection against transmission", he is stating that vaccination is significantly more effective than masking and other preventative measures from preventing transmission... find me a study that suggests CAOVID vaccination was more successful than masking and limiting contacts (such as through capacity limits) at preventing viral spread. The data seems pretty clear now that when we had vaccine passports and let vaccinated individuals freely mix amongst themselves (without masks or capacity limits) while keeping the unvaccinated out of public spaces, the virus (then Omicron) spread like wild fire to the point where over half the population had experienced an infection.
In April 2022, over 6 months after workplace mandates started being instituted, the following study was published and lauded widely as "proof" that unvaccinated individuals posed a significant risk to vaccinated individuals. However, the study was based solely off mathematical models that compared different levels of "baseline immunity", without ever using real data from the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 vaccines were later shown to not provide much, if any, "baseline immunity" but rather to be effective at reducing symptoms (for a time).
Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Background: The speed of vaccine development has been a singular achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic, although uptake has not been universal. Vaccine opponents often frame their opposition in terms of the rights of the unvaccinated. We sought to explore the impact of mixing of vaccinated...
www.cmaj.ca
An example of how the study was held up by much of the media as justification for vaccine passports:
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/V7SCIHDAFNNTPO326KFOQ7U6KM.JPG)
Unvaccinated disproportionately risk safety of those vaccinated against COVID-19, study shows
People who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 contribute disproportionately to the risk of infection among those who have been vaccinated, according to a new study
www.theglobeandmail.com
An example of the criticism to the study:
Critics say widely shared study on mixing with unvaccinated contain ‘massive errors’
A viral immunologist said David Fisman’s study is ‘the worst one that I have ever seen’ and that the paper is ‘thinly veiled hate speech under the guise of science.’
Similar threads
