A federal judge on Thursday dismissed four lawsuits challenging the government’s travel vaccine mandate on the grounds of “absurdity.”
Judge Jocelyne Gagné issued a brief judgment without explaining her rationale, saying it would come at a later date.
Gagné ruled in favor of the Mootnes motion filed by the Attorney General (AG) on June 28, eight days after the federal government lifted domestic vaccine mandates for aircraft, trains, and some ships. I went down.
Millions of unvaccinated Canadians have been unable to use these modes of transportation or leave the country due to US border restrictions after October 2021.
The AG’s motion argued that because the mandate had expired, it did not exist in law, and therefore the court’s ruling on the issue “has no practical effect.”
Challengers to the mandate argued that dismissing their lawsuit would allow the government to impose controversial measures and make nonsensical claims to avoid accountability. .
Challengers have four different suits. One includes businessman Carl Harrison and Sean Ricardo, and another former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford and co-applicants. PPC leader Maxime Bernier also filed with Quebec attorney Nabil Belkacem.
Gagne heard allegations from all parties at an in-person hearing on September 21. Because of the delay in providing her decision and a court hearing scheduled to begin on her Oct. 31, some applicants wanted the hearing to be stopped. ahead.
Rickard had encouraged supporters to sign up on the federal court’s website to watch the hearings early on Oct. 20, but later changed his mind when the verdict was handed down. .
“We were completely blindsided,” Rickard told the Epoch Times.
He and Harrison released a statement later in the evening, indicating they would work to appeal the decision.
“We are disappointed with the decision and will consider starting work on an appeal immediately, given the reasons,” the statement said.
“The appeal will also allow the judiciary to challenge the way injustice is used in Canada to further poor government policies to avoid legal scrutiny. It allows us to evade and deny justice to Canadians.”
Legal proceedings in the case revealed numerous revelations of travel vaccine mandates through cross-examination of government witnesses.
Federal public health officials have never directly recommended the mandate, revealing that ethics were not considered before making the mandate, and that the risk of respiratory virus transmission on board was assessed by the government as low. rice field.
The federal government also has limited data on the impact of vaccination to deter in-flight infections and has used the order to encourage vaccination.