All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

[MilEME09]

Guess we get to see S 126 play out in court

 

[brihard]

Guess we get to see S 126 play out in court

I see nothing suggesting S.126 is in play here. I think they’re requesting an injunction against and judicial review of the CAF vaccine mandate and remedial measures. The back and forth over “should exercise grievance system” vs “order came from the CDS” suggests to me that this is a judicial review situation.

Not a chance they’ll get an injunction. If there’s a single organization in Canada with a strongest and most defensible ability to impose a vaccine mandate, it’s CAF.

 

[PuckChaser]

It's a bullshit sneaky way they did it, as is tradition in the CAF. Should have just used existing policies to show these folks the door, but they wanted a politically expedient way to do it for some news clips and sound bites.

 

[Remius]

It's a bullshit sneaky way they did it, as is tradition in the CAF. Should have just used existing policies to show these folks the door, but they wanted a politically expedient way to do it for some news clips and sound bites.

What was sneaky about it?

 

[PuckChaser]

An order that made you attest to medical data, so they can get around actually using the QR&O to order you to get vaccinated. Just needed to have the Surgeon General of the CAF make COVID vaccination a baseline requirement and let the medical system boot people who would DAG Red. That would take too long though. They've also now just lost their key justification in that unvaccinated pers are a threat to force, as we have large outbreaks within the vaccinated CAF community. The data never supported vaccine mandates/passports, clearly they're not working as Decepticon variant takes over in the "safe spaces" we created by the passports.

I had to give my doctor permission to tell the TF Comd when I hurt my knee what actually was wrong, but somehow it was legal to order everyone to fill out their status on MonitorMass? The end was justifiable, but the means was just garbage staff work designed to meet a political goal whether it was legal or not. Now the Federal Court can figure it out.

 

[McG]

An order that made you attest to medical data, so they can get around actually using the QR&O to order you to get vaccinated.

You realize that every member of the CAF has been ordered to get vaccinated, right? The attestation is not a mechanism to “circumvent” or avoid giving that order, because the order has been given. The attestation gets around our hang-up of not sharing medical file information for chain of command decisions, and enforcing an order is a chain of command (not medical) function.

 

[PuckChaser]

Really? The directive has a while lot of implied statements and references everything except NDA 126 (misidentified this as a QR&O earlier). You would think ordering everyone to get vaccinated would have referenced the NDA that makes the order lawful, but if you're being sneaky to try to keep this out of court then I guess you wouldn't.

 

[McG]

S126 of the NDA describes a service offence. I am not tracking any intent on the part of the CDS or the institution to enforce this order through the military justice system, so that would not be a relevant reference to an order that will be managed via administrative review.

 

[QV]

S126 of the NDA describes a service offence. I am not tracking any intent on the part of the CDS or the institution to enforce this order through the military justice system, so that would not be a relevant reference to an order that will be managed via administrative review.

Right. They did it this way to avoid court hearings.

They can punch an admin process through without having to consider someone's rights. "Its your choice"... which would be true if there was no coercion.

 

[McG]

No. They are going this way because disciplinary powers of punishment are an inappropriate tool to enforce an order that directs people to become compliant with a condition of employment. Fines, detention, imprisonment, extra drill & training, reprimands, etc are all inappropriate tools.

For years, we have had Admin Review as a way to end people employment over matters that do not belong in the disciplinary system. Every employer has administrative processes to end the employment of persons who have become unfit for their job. This is not some nefarious scheme to avoid Courts Martial and summary trials; this is recognition that the disciplinary system is not designed with the tools to remedy non-compliance.

Also, the administrative processes do have to consider members’ rights. Your assertion otherwise is nonsense.

 

[QV]

The mass experimental vaccine campaign, employment vax mandates, and restrictions on liberty seem to be doing the trick.

The Pfizer CEO said we should keep the jabs coming, lets do that then. We'll just redefine what is considered "vaccinated".

And nobody wants or needs any sort of tribunal on this, just defer this to a management decision and carry on. There is definitely nothing of concern here, and as for our decision makers; there is no prior history of deceit and they can all be fully trusted to act in the citizen's best interests.

Just take the jab(s), stay restricted, and shut it.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The mass experimental vaccine campaign, employment vax mandates, and restrictions on liberty seem to be doing the trick.

The Pfizer CEO said we should keep the jabs coming, lets do that then. We'll just redefine what is considered "vaccinated".

And nobody wants or needs any sort of tribunal on this, just defer this to a management decision and carry on. There is definitely nothing of concern here, and as for our decision makers; there is no prior history of deceit and they can all be fully trusted to act in the citizen's best interests.

Just take the jab(s), stay restricted, and shut it.

Ah yes! The “experimental” argument.

 

[brihard]

Right. They did it this way to avoid court hearings.

They can punch an admin process through without having to consider someone's rights. "Its your choice"... which would be true if there was no coercion.

Tel us you don’t understand the concept of “judicial review” without telling us you don’t understand the concept of “judicial review”.

 

[MilEME09]

For those legal experts here, if the case goes against the CAF, would there be wider implications to current policies, QR&O's, etc...?

 

[Weinie]

An order that made you attest to medical data, so they can get around actually using the QR&O to order you to get vaccinated. Just needed to have the Surgeon General of the CAF make COVID vaccination a baseline requirement and let the medical system boot people who would DAG Red. That would take too long though. They've also now just lost their key justification in that unvaccinated pers are a threat to force, as we have large outbreaks within the vaccinated CAF community. The data never supported vaccine mandates/passports, clearly they're not working as Decepticon variant takes over in the "safe spaces" we created by the passports.

I had to give my doctor permission to tell the TF Comd when I hurt my knee what actually was wrong, but somehow it was legal to order everyone to fill out their status on MonitorMass? The end was justifiable, but the means was just garbage staff work designed to meet a political goal whether it was legal or not. Now the Federal Court can figure it out.

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

[PMedMoe]

The mass experimental vaccine campaign, employment vax mandates, and restrictions on liberty seem to be doing the trick.

The Pfizer CEO said we should keep the jabs coming, lets do that then. We'll just redefine what is considered "vaccinated".

And nobody wants or needs any sort of tribunal on this, just defer this to a management decision and carry on. There is definitely nothing of concern here, and as for our decision makers; there is no prior history of deceit and they can all be fully trusted to act in the citizen's best interests.

Just take the jab(s), stay restricted, and shut it.

Haven't you run out of tinfoil yet?

 

[OldSolduer]

IMO this is a "dick" move. Don't want to take a vaccine? Release forthwith please.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Haven't you run out of tinfoil yet?

Hey, cmon now, you can go with the 'made in Canada' high quality aluminum foil to reduce your carbon footprint. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you can't be green.

Best of luck to these future Darwin award nominees; if the CAF can have universality of service standards, requiring a vaccine during a global pandemic (which is also a mandatory travel requirement) is a no brainer. If you want full body autonomy, go get a job that doesn't tell you what to wear, what kind of haircut you can have and if you have to shave (which eliminates a lot of employers). You can't even get on federal properties without proof of vaccination as a contractor, so not even a chance of a second career doing CAF support.

 

[FJAG]

For those legal experts here, if the case goes against the CAF, would there be wider implications to current policies, QR&O's, etc...?

I haven't seen the application so have no idea how far reaching their claims are but in short: I really see no effect on anything here other than, in the worst possible outcome, an injunction barring the CAF from taking whatever administrative actions are being taken or considered against these four individuals. That might possibly also halt similar actions against other individuals in similar circumstances.

IMHO their case will fail.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While the cases that deal with the CAF have not yet been decided, a similar action in regard to the vaccine mandate for the core Public Service including RCMP was addressed earlier this month.

Wojdan v. Canada (Attorney General) - Federal Court

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca

In the justice's analysis he refers to another decision.

[35] Second, as Justice Akbarali explained in TTC, the Applicants have mischaracterized the harm at issue. The harm the Applicants may suffer is being placed on unpaid leave, or being terminated from employment, if they remain unvaccinated. They are not being forced to get vaccinated; they are being forced to choose between getting vaccinated and continuing to have an income on the one hand, or remaining unvaccinated and losing their income on the other (TTC at para 50, citing Lachance et al c Procureur général du Québec, November 15, 2021, Court No 500-17-118565-210) at para. 144 [Lachance]). Put simply, a vaccine mandate does not cause irreparable harm because it does not force vaccination.

And the conclusion - dismissed

[39] The Applicants have not demonstrated that this Court should exercise any residual discretion it may have to stay the operation of the Vaccination Policy for all members of the core public administration. Nor have they demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted. The motion must therefore be refused on the grounds that the Applicants have not met the criteria of establishing a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

[40] As alternative relief, the Applicants ask this Court to stay the operation of the Vaccination Policy for them individually, pending the exhaustion of remedies available through the grievance process. However, the failure of the Applicants to demonstrate a serious issue or irreparable harm precludes the granting of injunctive relief, either for them as individuals or as representatives of the core public administration (Lavergne-Poitras at para 101). The alternative relief must also be denied.

[41] The Respondent does not seek costs of this motion, without prejudice to his right to seek costs in the underlying application for judicial review or the related action should either of those matters proceed.

ORDER​

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicants’ motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed without costs.