home

Constitutional Crisis Case

Constitutional Crisis Case

Constitutional Crisis Case

Re: the Legality of the government’s ability to invoke the Covid Emergency Measures & specifically to violate the Right of Travel

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Date Filed: Jan 26, 2022
  • Location: Canada
  • Court: The Applicants request to be heard at Ottawa
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: JCCF, Brian Pickford Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic & Aedan MacDonald
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Keith Wilson
  • Defendant: Minister of Transport & AG of Canada
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Jan 27, 2022

Background

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (Jan 26, 2022) filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking to strike down the federal government’s mandatory Covid-19 vaccine requirements for air travellers. The court action is on behalf of several Canadians from across Canada whose Charter rights and freedoms have been infringed. [1]

On October 30, 2021, the federal government announced that anyone travelling by air, train, or ship, must be fully vaccinated. The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately 6 million unvaccinated Canadians (15% of Canada’s population) from travel within Canada and prevents them from flying out of Canada. Some of the Canadians involved in the lawsuit cannot travel to help sick loved ones, get to work, visit family and friends, take international vacations, and live ordinary lives. [1]

The main applicant in the case is former Newfoundland Premier, The Honourable A. Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford, is the only surviving drafter and signatory 40 years after the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted. [1]

“It is becoming more obvious that being vaccinated does not stop people from getting Covid and does not stop them from spreading it”, says the former Premier. “The government has not shown that the policy makes flying safer—it simply discriminates”, he notes. [1]

“When I heard Prime Minister Trudeau call the unvaccinated ‘racists,’ ‘misogynists, ‘anti-science’ and ‘extremist’ and his musing ‘do we tolerate these people?’ it became clear he is sowing divisions and advancing his vendetta against a specific group of Canadians—this is completely against the democratic and Canadian values I love about this country”, adds Mr. Peckford. [1]

“The federal travel ban has segregated me from other Canadians.  It’s discriminatory, violates my Charter rights and that’s why I am fighting the travel ban,” explains Mr. Peckford. [1]

“Canadians have been losing hope in the Charter and our courts.  We are going to put the best arguments and evidence forward so that the court can clarify where governments overstep,” concludes Mr. Wilson (Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge). [1]

The court will be asked to hear the case on an expedited basis given the serious infringement on Canadians’ mobility and other rights.  Canada is the only country in the developed world that has banned Covid vaccine-free travellers from air travel. [1]

  •  

In an interview with Frontier Centre for Public Policy, January 12, 2022, Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford says pandemic responses by governments and medical authorities are unconstitutional and misguided and disregard relevant facts and research. [2]

He says the threshold required to override constitutional rights has not been met during the pandemic. [2]

Section One of the Charter says, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” [2]

Lockdowns and vaccine passports exceed “reasonable limits” and have never been “demonstrably justified,” according to Peckford. He says rights to work, travel, receive equal treatment under the law, and freedoms of worship and assembly have been unduly trampled. [2]

“You have a 99 per cent recovery rate from this virus…That’s hardly a threat to the state or a war or insurrection. So I take the view that this is totally inapplicable to our present circumstance,” Peckford said in an interview. [2]

“You should have to do a cost benefit analysis or some other study. And that’s not being done right now. At all. No government in Canada has done a cost benefit analysis. There’s been independent cost benefit analysis that shows that the cure is worse than the disease.” [2]

An analysis by Simon Fraser University economist Dr. Douglas Allen published in April 2021 estimated the cost-benefit ratio of lockdowns in terms of life-years was between 3.6 and 282. His conclusion, based on econometric analysis informed by 80 studies, led him to conclude that “it is possible lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.” [2]

 

Significance

This case is significant for several reasons:

  1. It is brought to the court by a signatory and drafter of the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, former Newfoundland Premier, Brian Peckford. [1]
  2. It challenges every aspect of the federal government’s decisions as unlawful, unconstitutional and unnecessary.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Justice Centre’s legal challenge cites violations of Charter rights including mobility, life, liberty and security of the person, privacy, and discrimination. The lawsuit also challenges whether the Minister of Transportation has the jurisdiction to use aviation safety powers to enforce public health measures. [1]

In discussing effective border control measures at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak, Canada’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tam, said: “As you move further away from that epicentre, any other border measures are much less effective. Data on public health has shown that many of these are actually not effective at all… WHO advises against any kind of travel and trade restrictions, saying that they are inappropriate and could actually cause more harm than good in terms of our global effort to contain.” (Canada House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health Meeting, February 5, 2020) [1]

The World Health Organization (“WHO”) continues to maintain that position and on January 19, 2022, urged all countries to: “Lift or ease international traffic bans as they do not provide added value and continue to contribute to the economic and social stress experienced by States Parties. The failure of travel restrictions introduced after the detection and reporting of Omicron variant to limit international spread of Omicron demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such measures over time.” The WHO repeated that countries should: “not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel.” (World Health Organization, Statement on the tenth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, January 19, 2022.). [1]

“Despite the confirmed science that the vaccine does not stop people from getting or spreading the virus and the repeated warnings from the WHO, it’s clear the federal government is out of step and arbitrarily restricting Canadians fundamental rights and freedoms,” says Keith Wilson, Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge. “It is profoundly disturbing that a marginalized group in Canada—the unvaccinated—are essentially prohibited from leaving the country,” he adds. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

To be Decided

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

Further Research

Court Documents:
In the News:
From Mr. Peckford’s Website:

 

Media

Trucker Rally Speech

https://youtu.be/mI9sXdGIYhs

source: Onum The Great

Jordan Peterson Podcast S4: E78

source: Jordan Peterson Podcast

It’s Time to Live

source: Jordan Peterson Podcast

SNP Episode #237 – Brian Peckford

source: Shaun Newman

 

References

  1. The Charter’s only living signatory sues Canada over travel mandates
  2. Former premier Peckford vs pandemic narrative

 

Keyword

1982 Constitution, Airplane, Ban, Canada, Canadian Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Charter Rights, Chief Medical Officer, Crisis, Discrimination, Federal Travel, Jordan Peterson, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Liberty, Life, Mandate, Mobility, Newfoundland, Ottawa, Peckford, PM, Premier, Prime Minister, Privacy, Security of the Person, Segregation, Ship, Tam, Train, Travel, Trudeau, Vaccination, WHO, World Health Organization

Back to All Cases

 

Tenerife Child Vaccination Case

Tenerife Child Vaccination Case

Tenerife Child Vaccination Case

Re: the decision of which parent has precedence in administering or withholding a new medical prophylactic treatment to their child

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Dec 1, 2021
  • Location: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
  • Court: Court of First Instance
  • Case #: 0000482/2021
  • Plaintiff: Mother of child

  • Defendant: Father of child
  • Trial Type: Family Law Resolution
  • Judge: ??
  • Expert: Sergio Pérez Olivero- PhD Chemical Sciences
  • Status: Ruled Dec 10 2021
  • Verdict: For the Plaintiff

 

Background

This case involves adjudication of a dispute between a mother and father living on the island of Tenerife, Spain. The father wished for the vaccination of his 15-year-old son with the Covid-19 vaccine because he simply trusted that it would be good for his child. The mother, on the other hand, had done independent research into the vaccine and considered that the potential risks of vaccination to the child’s present & possible future health outweighed any potential benefits. (1 & 2)

This case was initiated by the father, who on 13th September 2021 submitted a written request for a legal judgement in a family dispute. He indicated that the mother of his minor child did not agree that the son should be inoculated with the Covid-19 vaccine. He did not share this view and considered it harmful to his child’s health. No medical report or any document in support of his request was attached to the application, only a fax document sent by the mother explaining the reasons why she objected to her son receiving the vaccine, the birth certificate of the son and the divorce decree. (1& 2)

The application was admitted to court on 2nd November 2021, a statement was taken from the minor on 30th November 2021. The case was heard on 1st December 2021.

 

Significance

This appears to be the first case in a European court of justice where a successful challenge has been made against a broad based mainstream / political imperative to vaccinate children in the absence of a detailed scientific / epidemiological rational that has broad acceptance among experts. In fact the whole policy of vaccination of children is a highly contested area.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The mother’s arguments against giving her son the covid vaccine were based upon the principle of prudence because the effects of the vaccine in the medium and long term are unknown, as the clinical trials have not been completed.

One of the documents provided by the mother was an independent scientist’s report provided by Mr. Sergio Pérez Olivero, PhD Chemical Sciences.  The judge considered this fulfilled legal requirements to be viewed as expert opinion, without it being necessary for the expert to appear at the hearing, and without prejudice to the fact that even if it were not considered an expert report, its probative value as documentary evidence may be deployed. (1)

 

Defendant’s Argument

The father’s arguments for giving the vaccine to his son were based on his understanding that this would be the best thing for his son. He considers that the Covid vaccine is good and will protect the son.

 

Relevant Prior Judgements & Considerations 

  • Judgment 377/2003 handed down by the 2nd Section of the 2nd Chamber of the Castile and León High Court of Justice on 7 October 2003 (and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court), upheld a claim for financial liability for injuries suffered by a man (born in 1971) as a result of compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1975, which caused him to suffer from post-vaccination encephalitis when he was four years old, which has degenerated over time, giving rise to the ailments he suffers today, which have meant that he is unable to work in the profession for which he was training as a Tourism Technician.
  • It is also worth highlighting the well-known case of thalidomide, a drug that was given to pregnant women in Spain in the 1960s, under the belief that it was good for them, and which more than fifty years later, given the malformations of children whose mothers ingested the drug during pregnancy, led to the publication of Royal Decree 1006/2010, of 5 August, which regulates the procedure for granting aid to people affected by thalidomide in Spain during the period 1960-1965. (Judgment no. 426/2014 of the High Court of Justice of Madrid, Litigation Section 10, handed down on 6 June 2014).

 

Decision

  • The judge dismissed the application made by the father and conferred the power to decide on the inoculation of the child to the mother. The power is conferred for a period of 2 years from the decision date (the maximum period available).

Some key excerpts from the judges statement / summation (English translation) of the case: (2)

The present controversy between two parents must be resolved in accordance with the evidence and what has been accredited in this case, leaving aside the opinions or personal considerations that each one may have regarding the controversial issue of the Covid vaccine. And in this sense, we must emphasize that the [mother] parent provided, prior to the hearing, abundant medical and scientific documentation on the vaccine, which has been passed on to the other parties, and that the father [parent] and the Public Prosecutor’s Office have not provided or proposed any evidence, except for the interrogation of both parents.

And so, let us now focus on what is at issue in this dossier, which is the vaccination of a specific 15-year-old child.

First of all, as it is a minor we are dealing with here, we are going to look at the incidence of Covid in minors. In this regard, the latest report of the Carlos III Institute (an autonomous public body attached to the Ministry of Economy and directed by the Ministry of Science and Innovation), which reveals that from 22 June 2020 to 9 June 2021, 22 children under 19 years of age have died in Spain as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 229 have been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for this age group, has been brought to the proceedings by the parent. Thus, it can be concluded from this report that the mortality rate due to COVID-19 in Spain in children under 19 years of age in the year analysed was 0.00023861% and the rate of hospitalisation in the ICU in the same period was 0.002484%.

Therefore, what we intend to highlight by pointing out this case law is that the risks and adverse effects of the Covid vaccine, like those of any medicine, drug or vaccine, can appear many years after its ingestion or inoculation and that the fact that they appear late does not mean that they will be mild effects or sequelae, as there is nothing to prevent them from being serious ailments. In addition, and although We do not know what will happen in the medium or long term, according to the documentation provided by the mother, serious adverse effects have already been documented in the short term, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, which suggests, at the very least, extreme caution in the inoculation of children with the vaccine.

Another of the points that have been dealt with in the present case is that of informed consent, which the mother claims is non-existent. In fact, the administration of a drug must be preceded by a weighing up of possible risks and expected benefits, and this weighing up must be carried out by the doctor (to determine the “prescription or therapeutic indication”), by the health administration itself and, of course, by the user of the health services (in this case, the parents of the minor). In the case at hand, such weighing is not carried out by any medical practitioner, given that there is no requirement that the Covid vaccine be prescribed or prescribed or issued as a referral or similar by any medical practitioner.

 

Aftermath

The judge has noted that the ruling may be appealed against.

 

Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

  • …More information is needed…

 

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….

 

References

  1. Summary of the hearing (in Spanish): PDF document

(The authenticity of this copy can be checked at https://sede.justiciaencanarias.es/sede/tramites-comprobacion-documentos , using the following electronic document number: A05003250- 3856938a0cb315530cdb3d37bbd1639135515269)

  1. A working English translation from the Spanish Summary (created by CoronaCases)
 

Keyword

Child, Parents, Spain, Tenerife, Vaccination, Vaccine, Vaccines, risk-benefit analysis, adverse reactions, child vaccination, precautionary principle, long-term effects, family dispute

Back to All Cases