The Shadoe Davis Show

Conservative Party leader Pierre Pollievre is in attendance at UFC Winnipeg.

BREAKING: Ontario Court of Appeal Dismisses Lawsuit Over Teen Sean Hartman’s Death Following COVID-19 Vaccination. In a significant decision released today, the Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General) ruling was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, dismissing a lawsuit brought against the federal government over the death of a teenage boy following a COVID-19 vaccination. The court found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and agreed with a lower court decision to strike it in its entirety. The case was brought by Daniel Hartman, whose 17-year-old son, Sean Hartman, died in September 2021. Sean, who had been described as previously healthy, was found dead beside his bed 33 days after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Following the vaccination, he had been taken to hospital due to symptoms his father believes were related to the vaccine. Sean’s father, Dan Hartman, says his son chose to get vaccinated so he could continue playing hockey, as vaccination was required for participation in many sports and activities at the time. Hartman’s lawsuit alleged that federal officials, including the Minister of Health, were negligent in approving, promoting, and monitoring the vaccine, and that they acted with reckless indifference or wilful blindness to potential risks. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the devastating nature of Sean Hartman’s death, describing it as a tragic loss for his family and community. However, the judges concluded that the legal claims could not succeed. Central to the ruling was the finding that the federal government does not owe a private duty of care to individual members of the public when making broad public health decisions during a pandemic. Instead, such decisions are made in the interest of the population as a whole, often requiring difficult trade-offs that may carry risks for some individuals. The court also determined that the claim failed to establish the necessary elements for misfeasance in public office. Specifically, there were no material facts showing that government officials acted in bad faith or knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct that would likely cause harm to Sean Hartman. The judges noted that the clinical trial data referenced in the lawsuit supported the conclusion that the vaccine was highly effective, undermining the argument that officials knowingly promoted a harmful or ineffective product. In addition, the court found that the public statements cited in the claim were directed broadly at Canadians and did not create a specific relationship or obligation toward Sean Hartman as an individual. As a result, there was no legal basis to establish the proximity or duty of care required for a negligence claim. Shockingly, the court also claimed that allowing Hartman’s case to proceed could have broader consequences, including discouraging governments from making urgent public health decisions during emergencies due to fear of legal liability. The Court of Appeal further upheld the lower court’s decision to deny leave to amend the claim, finding that the proposed changes would not have addressed the fundamental legal deficiencies. The judges emphasized that lawsuits must be based on clearly pleaded facts, not on the possibility that supporting evidence might emerge later. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the circumstances surrounding Sean Hartman’s death are deeply tragic, the law does not support holding the federal government liable under the claims presented. The appeal was dismissed, bringing the case to a close, with no costs awarded to either side. The Canadian Independent spoke with Dan Hartman by phone this evening. He said he is “seriously considering” taking the case to the Supreme Court and that he and his legal team will evaluate their next steps over the coming week. Hartman noted that the cost of taking the case to the Supreme Court could exceed $20,000. He added that he does not want to ask those who have already donated to his cause to contribute further but said, “What other option do I have?” Dan believes the courts are not willing to find the government liable or hold it accountable, as doing so would amount to an admission of wrongdoing. He also argues that such a finding would make his larger lawsuit against Pfizer significantly easier to pursue. If you want to donate to Dan’s legal fund, you can do so at the link in the comments section.

The Notwithstanding Clause is integral to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an unassailable provincial constitutional right. Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed insisted it be included to protect the autonomy of provinces to uphold the values and priorities of the people they represent from decisions of activist courts. In Alberta, we have used it carefully and lawfully to stand up for the parental right to be involved in their children’s lives, to protect children so they can make important health decisions as adults, to ensure fairness in sport, and to keep students learning in the classroom. We are extremely disappointed that Minister Sean Fraser would risk national unity and a foundational principle of our constitution by attempting to attack the use of the notwithstanding clause by sovereign provincial governments.