• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
861
Points
960
Protective immunization has already been ruled a Bone fide operational requirement (BFOR). If one chooses not to obtain the required immunization, then one becomes non-deployable, and potentially non-employable, due to a circumstance wholly within the member's control.

Some may quote R v Kipling, which spoke to the constitutionality of s.126 of the NDA, but that case never reached its conclusion AFIK. It will likely take some time for there to be sufficient jurisprudence on the question of vaccine mandates vs s7 of the Charter before the CF has better ground to stand on.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
658
Points
1,260
Not gonna get into union advice to members on open means, however my understanding is that multiple federal unions have received legal advice that, at its core, a vaccine requirement for employment is legal.
I've been unemployed for well over a dozen years.
But, that is what i remember from personal past experience with mandated influenza vaccinations.

Thank-you for your insight.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
Childhood vaccinations. Decisions made by parents, not the individuals vaccinated. People keep dragging out comparisons that are invalid for a novel pandemic and novel vaccines (ones without decades of use history). Best to stick to probabilities: if your age > X, you are safer getting vaccinated (benefit > vaccine risk). If your age < X, you are safer without vaccination (benefit < vaccine risk). Figure out what X is. Also recognize natural immunity. Also take a deep breath and just accept verbal yes/no along with risk of liars.

If denial of employment extends far enough, the problem of supporting people denied employment will arise. Allowing them to starve is out of the question. Creating a loophole ("vaccine conscientious objector") for people who don't want to work is unwise. Best to head it off now and relax the panicked totalitarian response and muddle through.

Everything in this post is being irrationally ignored by the folks making the decisions.
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
47
Points
380
In reality it’s pretty easy. LWOP while being processed release under 5f. We were discussing the way forward on this today.

There is zero sympathy for those who wish to remain unvaccinated in the CAF - no grievance authority will support any redress attempts.
Provided the CoC acts is a way that is procedurally fair. I have no doubt that is the intent, but it only takes a couple dinosaurs to ruin it for the holy.
 
Last edited:

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
186
Points
580
Yes, we have rights and responsibilities. It is too early to say what is right...all the cards are not on the table. Our responses may be different, each thinking they are being responsible.
You remind me of someone who decides what information is a "fact" and others as "misinformation" to suit their purposes or someone who goes against the flow just to be noticed. As many people here have stated everyone here has rights and freedoms as defined in the Charter of Rights, but we also have an obligation to try and harmoniously live in a civilized society and this means not harming our neighbours. Please do not mention being a victim like the Jews in Nazi Germany these are not the same circumstances. I have visited the Holocaust Museum and it frankly makes me angry when some anti-vaxers compare themselves on the same level as the Jewish victims.

By the way, many people here are well informed and not "sheep" who blindly follow the crowd. I read the information concerning the vaccines and was well aware of the risks when I got vaccinated. I've read about mRNA technology and this have been around since the early 1970s. I hope that you will overcome your fears about the COVID 19 vaccines. Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

Any unvaccinated person who deliberately walks into a close and confined space while unmasked is risking spreading COVID 19 to the unsuspecting people. Please do yourself and my family a favour, distance yourself from anyone, wash your hands, wear a mask in public and go get tested on a daily basis if you don't want to get vaccinated.

Cheers
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
658
Points
1,260
By the way, many people here are well informed and not "sheep" who blindly follow the crowd.

What is happening in workplaces now reminds of something someone said to us a long time ago,

"We cannot change your beliefs. But, we can change your employment."

I didn't go to medical school, so I follow the direction of our local Medical Officer of Health. I guess that makes me a "sheeple". :)
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,160
Points
1,040
I remember standing in a long line of other kids.
I recently asked my mother about the "decision" part. She said nobody asked her opinion.

What does your union say?

My former union is on board with unpaid suspension effective 1 Nov. and termination effective 13 Dec..

Who wants to be cooped up in a station, or vehicle, 40 hours a week with an unvaccinated partner?

We went through the same thing when annual influenza vaccination was mandated.

The union would send a rep to hold your hand while they terminatated you. But, that was it.

There was rumour of a mass resignation, and rescind. But, that never happened.

I parted ideological ways with my association (and was a local branch president) when it started championing causes instead of just representing the members. They say that they respect management's right to manage, but don't really mean it when it expects to be consulted and have its position reflected on every act of management. Respect the process so that both sides act within the law and collective agreement.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
There still needs to be a sound legal basis for anything like that- members have the right to procedural fairness, even in the army. Fast path to a succesful grievance and/or judicial review if proper administrative law principles are not adhered to. If you’re going to stop someone’s pay, better have a written policy stemming from some legal authority to do so.
QR&O 208.31:
(1) Except as prescribed in paragraph (3) of this article, when no military service is rendered by an officer or non-commissioned member during any period and no forfeiture has been imposed in respect of that period, an officer commanding a command or formation may direct that a forfeiture be imposed for the whole or any part of that period.

So if you don’t come to work the CAF doesn’t need to pay you. I propose that if you can’t come to work due to reasons within your control this paragraph still applies.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,000
Points
1,110
Sure, that can potentially cover part of it. There will need to be a legal mechanism to order CAF members not to work- to effectively suspend them from duty.

I’m by no means saying these facts are show stoppers. I’m simply saying administrative law requires due process and procedural fairness. There will need to be a legal basis for any such actions that can stand up to court challenge.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,932
Points
1,160
Under what QR&O or CBI can someone be placed against thier will on LWOP?
QR&O can be published under the authority of the Governor in Council (G), Treasury Board (T), the MND (M), or the CDS (C). There is no ambiguity that the direction, to get vaccinated or go on LWOP, is coming from PM with full cabinet backing. If the barracks room lawyers believe a specific QR&O is needed, that should be achievable since the order is coming from the body that can issue the highest of QR&O.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,716
Points
1,060
Literally everything we do is backed up by a written down policy. The QR&Os are our collective bargaining agreement. It provides that legal backing to conduct administration in the CAF. If the PM is issuing this direction, the CDS should be asking for an OIC QR&O change to support it. By not pushing that QR&O, the PM abdicating any responsibility to the CDS so if it goes south he can proclaim "that's not what I meant".
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,975
Points
1,060
so think the numbers lost to anti-vaxxers is much lower than potential losses from people rendered non-employable from COVID.

A few days late with this reply; when we did our shots back in May/June, it was reported by the Wing CofC that about 96.4% of members had received both shots. Like many bases/wings/stations, all had to 'attend' the parade but the choice to get the shot was left to the mbr. 96% is a solid number, IMO. The remaining, some will go without fanfare if ordered now that their co-workers haven't turned into trolls and "walkers". Some will hold out and risk their continued service, pension etc if/when the "shall be vaccinated" order comes out (I'm on leave the past several weeks so I am not tracking from within Sqn lines....).
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,975
Points
1,060
By brutal lockdown, I mean, you can't visit anyone outside your household for 2 months at a time, can't leave your local area without an essential reason during those two months. Much of the same things we have seen just throttled up a bit more until we get a higher vaccination rate.

Your describing the 3rd wave in NS last spring, and while it was restrictive, it wasn't brutal at all. Nova Scotians were restricted to essential travel within their own counties. It was during opening of rec fishing season; some folks said "screw this" and got nailed with fines.

I have a friend who just returned this APS from an OUTCAN in Sicily; they were not allowed to leave their property for a significant time. We're going "better than ok" here in Canada IMO....
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,975
Points
1,060
It’s not just the vax mandates. It’s censorship, bought out media, firearms confiscation, cancel culture etc etc. How the vax mandates are being handled is just a part of the long march. Look at the messaging, if someone doesn‘t believe a COVID vaccine is needed for them personally, they‘re termed with venom an “anti-vaxxer” even though they may have every other possible inoculation. Things are not looking good long term. The handling of this pandemic is a part of all that.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you on those points singularly, I don't correlate the "vax mandate" to the others; some of the others are unique to our Canadian cultures and society values; COVID is borderless and a global...is threat too strong a word?

"Handling of the pandemic" in Canada so far; the fed has, for the most part, let the provincial authorities look after their own AORs and make the necessary restrictions/regs etc. I think Canada and the provinces / territories have done very well overall.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,000
Points
1,110
Literally everything we do is backed up by a written down policy. The QR&Os are our collective bargaining agreement. It provides that legal backing to conduct administration in the CAF. If the PM is issuing this direction, the CDS should be asking for an OIC QR&O change to support it. By not pushing that QR&O, the PM abdicating any responsibility to the CDS so if it goes south he can proclaim "that's not what I meant".
The collective agreement comparison is an invalid one, a CBA cannot be arbitrarily changed by the employer. The federal mandates for unionized employees are taking place outside of anything specifically in the collective. Broadly, it’s ‘management rights’. It has been enacted on the strength of a TBS policy that does not require an OIC regulatory instrument. I don’t see anything suggesting this is not within the existing legal authorities of the CDS- he just needs to be clear about which internal orders/policy instruments will authorize the various steps to effect the requirement and the consequences for not complying.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
658
Points
1,260

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
47
Points
380
Your describing the 3rd wave in NS last spring, and while it was restrictive, it wasn't brutal at all. Nova Scotians were restricted to essential travel within their own counties. It was during opening of rec fishing season; some folks said "screw this" and got nailed with fines.

I have a friend who just returned this APS from an OUTCAN in Sicily; they were not allowed to leave their property for a significant time. We're going "better than ok" here in Canada IMO....
Wasn't Nova Scotia on their second wave when Ontario and BC were on their third? Doesn't really matter I guess, may be easier to keep count with Canada rather than what happened locally.

How long can you be banned from seeing your family in the next community before it becomes a brutal restriction? Given your example of NS, look at Sackville/Amherst.

I'm with you on the fact that in short term none of what Canada has endured is brutal, but coming up on 24 months of fairly consistent lockdown, I would say it is turning towards brutal for the civilian population.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,614
Points
1,090
Wasn't Nova Scotia on their second wave when Ontario and BC were on their third? Doesn't really matter I guess, may be easier to keep count with Canada rather than what happened locally.

How long can you be banned from seeing your family in the next community before it becomes a brutal restriction? Given your example of NS, look at Sackville/Amherst.

I'm with you on the fact that in short term none of what Canada has endured is brutal, but coming up on 24 months of fairly consistent lockdown, I would say it is turning towards brutal for the civilian population.
What part of the country are you in?
 
Top