Judicial Review update: April
Note: this post is an addition to the previous Judicial Review update.
On Thursday March 24, a Special Chambers session was held in Yarmouth Supreme Court to determine whether the amendment to the Notice for Judicial Review would be granted along with the addition of a youth applicant, appointment of a Litigation guardian, and a publication ban on their names.
The Justice Centre was very quiet and only a handful of people were around. We filed upstairs and were ushered into the court room: a large, well lit room with beautiful wood furnishings. The proceedings were formal and charged with the seriousness of the issues before the court:
“The Applicant, Citizens’ Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS), comes before this court seeking to engage the Judiciary to perform a vital and rigorous ‘check’ among the ‘checks and balances’ integral to Canada’s constitutional democracy. The Applicant is asking the Judicial branch of government to take a critical look at decisions and actions taken by the Executive branch of government to determine if they are reasonable and lawful”
Justice Muise carefully considered each of CANS’ motions by applying the relevant legal tests which was very interesting to listen to for the lay person.
All motions were granted by the court; a much desired outcome for CANS and its members. The next milestone is the Respondents’ filing of the government’s record: the compilation of evidence, materials and process relied upon by the Respondents to generate the public health order and “Covid-vaccine” protocols imposed in the October 01, 2021 order and subsequent orders
To reiterate: the below statements from CANS’ affidavit to the judge encompass the core reasons for pursuing this Judicial Review in relation to the October 01, 2021 order of the Chief Medical Officer which imposed proof of vaccination requirements on the public:
- CANS has undertaken the application for judicial review because actions taken and Orders, directives and mandates issued by provincial public health officials under the Health Protection Act in response to “COVID-19”, and particularly the Order which is the subject of these proceedings, have adversely impacted CANS’ ability to fulfill its vision and mission by, among other things, requiring the organization to ask for proof vaccination from would-be participants, which CANS considers an unacceptable violation of people’s privacy and Charter rights.
- CANS has, furthermore, undertaken the application for judicial review on behalf of its members whose daily lives, family activities, mental health, physical well-being, exercise of Charter rights and freedoms, employment, and social relations, have been adversely affected by the Order under review and for whom the Order has caused or may cause harm to their health and/or violation of their privacy and Charter rights.
Some of the elements of the amendment filed with the court are:
- The Order is unreasonable because it is not based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, and because it is not defensible in light of the law and the facts, including facts clearly before the Respondents and demonstrated by the public statements and internal communication of their offices.
- The Order is unreasonable because it institutes a coercive regime, effectively forcing the vaccination of persons 12 years of age and older in order for them to participate in normal, daily pursuits vital to their physical and mental well-being, thereby harming public health and infringing on individuals’ protected Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person (s. 7) and equality rights (s. 15).
- The Order is unreasonable because it institutes Directives which require businesses and organizations to obtain from persons aged 12 and older, and in some circumstances to share without privacy safeguards, individuals’ personal health information (i.e., proof of vaccination) in contravention of the provincial Personal Health Information Act, and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.1993, c. 5, s. 1.
- The Order is unreasonable because it institutes Directives which discriminate against persons 12 and older who choose not to disclose protected personal health information and those who choose not to get vaccinated, or who cannot, need not, or should not be vaccinated, contrary to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act under the protected ground of an irrational fear of contracting an illness or disease, which is evident from provincial health data showing there has been no documented case of asymptomatic spread of “COVID-19” in Nova Scotia and that “COVID-19” can be contracted and transmitted equally by people who are vaccinated and people who are unvaccinated against “COVID-19”.
- The Order is unreasonable and is not correct in law because it institutes an immunization program which is less than voluntary and is, therefore, unsupported by HPA s. 53 (2)(a), which permits the CMOH discretion only to establish “a voluntary immunization program”. Correspondingly, the Order constitutes an excess of jurisdiction.
- The Order is unreasonable because the Respondents have not instituted an ethical and legal informed consent process, or a post-vaccination follow-up consultation process integral to the provincial “COVID-19 vaccine” program, whereby those persons aged 12 and older who get vaccinated in order to comply with the Order are systematically denied the fundamental right to exercise informed consent and to benefit from the protections of standard clinical trial procedures, notwithstanding the Respondents have known or ought to have known that all “COVID-19 vaccines” being administered by Public Health in the Province are under on-going clinical trials as to their safety and effectiveness until at least 2023.
- The Order is unreasonable and an act of bad faith because it was issued along with unqualified statements by the Respondents made to the public attesting to the “COVID-19 vaccines” being “safe and effective” in the absence of independent and reliable scientific support for unequivocal endorsement of either the safety or the effectiveness of those pharmaceutical products.
- The Order is unreasonable and exceeds jurisdiction because it imposes requirements which are not necessary to decrease or eliminate the risk to the public health presented by a communicable disease, particularly where “COVID-19” has never appeared on Public Health’s list of communicable diseases, and the Respondents’ justification for the onerous requirements lacks rigour.
- The Order is unreasonable as it is an abuse of the Chief Medical Officer of Health’s discretion in response to a risk to public health in Nova Scotia’s factual circumstances, where there is no excess mortality, and where the Order places restrictions on individuals based on their “COVID-19” vaccination status without regard to whether or not a person is infected or likely infected with a communicable disease, which is arbitrary and does not align with the values underlying the grant of discretion under the HPA.
- The Order is a high-handed abuse of discretionary power where the decision to require businesses and organizations to deny participation in events and activities to youth without proof of full vaccination serves to effectively coerce youth into getting vaccinated, notwithstanding unvaccinated youth are not at substantial risk of illness or death from “COVID-19”, and they do not pose a risk to the public health. The Order was made in spite of the fact that there exists widely available evidence that “Covid-19 vaccines” pose a greater risk of harm to youth than they do any benefit. Furthermore, the inference of the Order’s provisions that unvaccinated persons pose a public health risk to others, is unreasonable and unsubstantiated.
- The Order is unreasonable as the Chief Medical Officer of Health failed to consider or respect the affected youths’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including their s.7 right to liberty (constraint on youth’s mobility, denying them participation in society), and s.15 right to equality.
- The Order is unreasonable because the evidence available to Robert Strang and possessed by his department at the time of the Order showed that there is no appreciable danger to the health of those under 16 years of age posed by Covid-19, and that knowledge of this fact was clearly stated by him and by representatives of his department in their public statements and correspondence. Issuance of the Order, therefore, constitutes an unreasonable act under his statutory authority.
- The Order is unreasonable and issued in bad faith because on October 1st 2021 both Pfizer-Biontech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Suspension for Intramuscular Injection and Moderna mRNA-1273 Suspension for Intramuscular Injection (experimental covid 19 drugs under Emergency Use Authorization by Health Canada which the Respondents were distributing to the public) stated clearly in their product monographs that safety studies have not been completed for children under 16, that major Public Health Organizations recommend against vaccinating those persons under 16, that a solid and growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence existed on and before the date of the Order that these injections pose serious risks of adverse life threatening events that may cause permanent unknown harms in children under 16 years of age.
- The Order is unreasonable because it makes no provision to ensure minors benefit from the exercise of parental informed consent in a decision to get vaccinated and, correspondingly, the Order fails to meet accepted ethical standards which limit participation by minors in clinical trials to those who have parental consent.
- The Order is unreasonable because it does not provide a valid process for the exercise of informed consent (as opposed to mere consent), as required to constitute a voluntary immunization program, with respect to proof of submission to vaccination with experimental pharmaceutical substance(s) which are subject to ongoing clinical trials. Whether directly or indirectly, proof of vaccination under the Order is making mandatory individuals’ participation in a clinical trial about which the Order does not inform those who are subject to the Order, whereby the Order violates the Nuremberg Code.
- The Order is unreasonable because it imposes on those whom it affects a breach of privacy legislation in requiring, inter alia, those seeking to access services, facilities, participate in events and activities, and maintain or obtain employment, to disclose personal medical information in the way of their vaccination status to providers of services, facilities, events, activities, and employment.
Some of the outcomes which CANS is seeking from the court through the Judicial Review are outlined below:
- An order permitting the Applicant to tender evidence in relation to ‘holes’ in the record, should the record appear deficient.
- An order for a Stay of the Order under review.
- A declaration that the Order under review is ultra vires the Health Protection Act. (this means the Order was made without the legal authority of the Health Protection Act)
- An order of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Order under review, or at a minimum, those parts of the Order pertaining to proof of vaccination.
- A declaration that the Order under review is an unconstitutional breach of the Applicants’ Charter rights.
- A declaration that the Respondents breached their duty to the Applicants and to the public to act in good faith.
- An injunction requiring the Respondents to disclose by public statement and the provincial government’s COVID-19 webpage all material facts and pertinent information which the judicial review evinces that has not previously been shared with the public.
- An order prohibiting the vaccination of minors with “COVID-19 vaccines”.
Stay tuned for further updates!
What is a Judicial review and why do one?
A Judicial Review is a request of the Judiciary to evaluate whether the decisions of the executive branch of government were reasonable and followed process, law and fact.
A Judicial Review can be a powerful tool for the public to access justice.
i am definitely against this draconian, communistic overreach of our government
Absolutely. In a time to stand together to fight a virus we were unreasonably punished and our rights stripped
Hopefully all declaration requests will be granted.