Shaun Rickard@ShaunRickard67
UPDATE - Some key takeaways and detailed analysis' of @KarlDHarrison and I's Vaccine Travel Mandates Lawsuit hearing at the Federal Court in Toronto yesterday, from our good friends and legal/statistical experts/analysts, Eva Chipiuk (@echipiuk) and Dr. Regina Watteel (@ReginaWatteel).
A big shout out to our very talented Lawyer, Sam Presvelos once again on an extremely concisely planned and well executed strategy. Sam did an exceptional job, and needless to say we're feeling very confident today.
Eva Chipiuk
1. "Today, the Federal Court of Appeal is hearing a case on the federal travel mandates and the government’s restrictions on movement based on a medical treatment, and whether these actions infringe on our Charter rights.
This issue has not yet been fully addressed in court, contrary to what some may believe, the courts have not ruled that such restrictions are automatically allowed.
This is an important case that must be heard. Every Canadian should understand when and how their movement can be limited, and every elected official must recognize that their decisions can have real consequences.
Holding the government accountable is essential to ensure these kinds of restrictions never happen again."
2. "Sam Presvelos presented strong and compelling arguments appealing the earlier court’s decision not to hear the Charter claims under Section 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) and Section 12 (protection from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment). He argued that the government exercised “state administrative control” through the mandates, affecting individuals’ security of the person.
It is important to note that the federal court has already approved moving forward on Section 6 (mobility rights) and Section 15 (equality rights). This is a really big deal already.
Today’s appeal focused on ensuring that all relevant Charter rights, mobility, discrimination, life, liberty, and security of the person, are examined openly and on evidence.
It is unfortunate that the government is fighting so hard not to have these arguments heard. You would think that if they were confident they did the right thing, they would welcome the opportunity to defend their decisions in an open court. Doesn’t that say something on its own?
When a government imposes measures that are sweeping, coercive, and restrict fundamental freedoms, an open and transparent court process is the only path forward, for accountability, for the truth, and for the rule of law.
Thank you again to @KarlDHarrison and @ShaunRickard67 for putting in the time, effort, and resources to fight for all Canadians and ensure this kind of overreach never happens again."
Dr. Regina Watteel
1. "In today's hearing, will the courts allow the constitutionality of federal travel restrictions (mandatory C19 vaccination) to be challenged on Charter s7 & s12 grounds, or will they play defense for the Liberals?
2. "The crown just made the dumbest argument. They are arguing that because s7 - the right to bodily autonomy (medical choice without fear of reprisal) - is always being discussed in relation to the reprisal (state-imposed penalty), it somehow means there's no s7 violation??? What a stupid argument.
Usually, the penalty isn't itself a Charter protected right. That the reprisal is itself a protected right just makes the s7 even more egregious.
So, the crown is arguing that the more egregious the s7 violation, the less likely it should be allowed to be challenged?"
3. "This logic creates a perverse incentive where the worse the reprisal (e.g., grounding millions from essential travel, jobs, family visits), the easier it is for the Crown to wave it away as "not a s. 7 issue" because it's entangled with another right. That's not how the Charter works—s. 7 is a bulwark against coerced bodily decisions.
The court appears to be having difficulty deciphering the difference between a natural consequence versus a state-reprisal."
4. There's a few obvious holes in the crown's argument:
1. "The requirement of a standalone s7 deprivation is a crown fabrication. There's no such law or rule.
2. That said, there were standalone deprivations in addition to the s6 deprivation.
A. Choosing Between Two Charter Rights = Standalone Psychological Harm. That stress is a standalone s. 7 deprivation of security of the person. B. Rickard’s s7 is literally standalone (Rickard = permanent resident). Rickard has no s.
6 mobility right to leave/return. So his only claim is s. 7 bodily autonomy. It is impossible for his s. 7 to be ‘derivative’ of s. 6 — because he doesn’t have s. 6."
5. "WOW!!! Did you watch the hearing? The crown is attempting to collapse the Charter, bypassing the entire s.7 framework to avoid accountability! They’re doing three unconstitutional things at once: 1. Re-label state reprisal as “consequence” 2. Collapse s. 7 into s. 6 3. Smuggle s. 1 into s. 7 This basically, bypasses S7 (deprivation), prevents dual-right claims (“Because the reprisal is a limitation on mobility rights (s6), it can’t also be a deprivation of security of the person (s7)") and it shifts the burden of proof to citizens while avoiding s7’s fundamental justice analysis."
6. "Crown’s Charter Schizophrenia — Two Cases, Two Lies
Public Servants Vaccine Mandate: “Employment is not a protected interest under s. 7 → no deprivation.”
Harrison/Rickard Travel Mandate: “s. 7 is not engaged because the penalty is mobility (s. 6) — a Charter right.”
Translation: You have no s7 rights!
Will courts continue to play along with this strategic nonsense or will they actually respect the law and their duty to Canadians?"
We still have a lengthy and very costly battle ahead, any support is greatly appreciated.
Donations to our litigation fund can be sent via e-transfer using this e-mail address: donations@freedomandjustice.ca
Or through the donations page on our website here: freedomandjustice.ca/donate/
@Grok, please provide a synopsis, your opinion on the potential outcome, and a full legal analysis on this update related to our ongoing Federal Vaccine Travel Mandates lawsuit.
