COVID vaccine mass law tort?

[brihard]

I've received a copy of the statement of claim. The Federal Court's registry is very quick in responding to requests. It's a bit of a slog to get through (137 pages) and (in my uneducated opinion) very poorly written.

Oof. Just finished reading it… An actual lawyer wrote that?

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. It has language echoing some of the prior COVID litigation. None of that went particularly well.

There are likely some individuals within this cohort who did face legitimate harassment due to their choices, and there should be accountability for that at individual levels where merited. But this mass tort claim is, uh… Well, it’s certainly a lot of words. Not sure what other credit it can be given. It’s clear that this lawyer is well outside her comfort zone here. I’ll watch with interest as updates drop on this.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So far all the claims have been shot down fairly hard, so not entirely sure why this would be any better.

The courts kind of have to in my mind, no matter which way the truth shows. At this point any admittance by the powers that be that they F'd up the COVID response would be detrimental to our already divided and antagonistic country.

 

[brihard]

The courts kind of have to in my mind, no matter which way the truth shows. At this point any admittance by the powers that be that they F'd up the COVID response would be detrimental to our already divided and antagonistic country.

Have you read any of the decisions? That’s not why those claims failed. They failed because the lawyers advancing them did a terrible job of arguing real law.

Our courts are perfectly happy to render decisions that strike down government policy or that are very unpopular with either the government and/or voters. The courts just don’t care. Any instances where COVID vaccine policies have been upheld have been decided on the strength of the laws that apply. It’s possible that better layers might have won those cases with better arguments, but we can only rely on the actual cases as they were decided.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Have you read any of the decisions? That’s not why those claims failed. They failed because the lawyers advancing them did a terrible job of arguing real law.

Its pretty well established that I don't put much weight in our courts or judicial system to act with out political leanings/biases at best; and downright political interference at worst.

So no, I don't read decisions. But I do read articles, from all sides, on them.

Our courts are perfectly happy to render decisions that strike down government policy or that are very unpopular with either the government and/or voters. The courts just don’t care. Any instances where COVID vaccine policies have been upheld have been decided on the strength of the laws that apply. It’s possible that better layers might have won those cases with better arguments, but we can only rely on the actual cases as they were decided.

Pretty much what I said above can fit here.

But I will add, its my opinion that it matters not how well the lawyers argued their case. The decision was made before they walked into the courtroom.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Its pretty well established that I don't put much weight in our courts or judicial system to act with out political leanings/biases at best; and downright political interference at worst.

So no, I don't read decisions. But I do read articles, from all sides, on them.

I don't really understand how you think the courts or judiciaul systems act with biases or political leanings if you don't read the submissions or findings. Any articles you read are someone else's interpretation filtered through their own biases, which can frequently be very different from what the actual judges said.

Courts can't make decisions on things that aren't put in front of them, so when it's based on terrible arguements that's not actually based on Canadian laws they aren't going to do anything with that. Do you think the CDS (or anyone else in the CAF) needs the Queen's direction to make a legal order? That's what this lawsuit's arguements include.

 

[brihard]

I don't really understand how you think the courts or judiciaul systems act with biases or political leanings if you don't read the submissions or findings. Any articles you read are someone else's interpretation filtered through their own biases, which can frequently be very different from what the actual judges said.

Courts can't make decisions on things that aren't put in front of them, so when it's based on terrible arguements that's not actually based on Canadian laws they aren't going to do anything with that. Do you think the CDS (or anyone else in the CAF) needs the Queen's direction to make a legal order? That's what this lawsuit's arguements include.

Plus the part where she argues that chains of command have to rely on s.126 NDA, which is an offense section of the Code of Service Discipline, to lawfully order troops to be vaccinated. That’s such a profound misunderstanding of how the authority to give lawful orders works. It’s just a really badly written pleading.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't really understand how you think the courts or judiciaul systems act with biases or political leanings if you don't read the submissions or findings. Any articles you read are someone else's interpretation filtered through their own biases, which can frequently be very different from what the actual judges said.

My observations and opinions are not only based on this thread. Nor is it the COVID ordeal that has pushed me to this position. Its the whole of the system and its operations/actions en masse.

I expect biases and leanings from media. So I try to read/watch from different sides of the issue.

Courts can't make decisions on things that aren't put in front of them, so when it's based on terrible arguements that's not actually based on Canadian laws they aren't going to do anything with that. Do you think the CDS (or anyone else in the CAF) needs the Queen's direction to make a legal order? That's what this lawsuit's arguements include.

Like I said, "its my opinion that it matters not how well the lawyers argued their case. The decision was made before they walked into the courtroom".

 

[Weinie]

My observations and opinions are not only based on this thread. Nor is it the COVID ordeal that has pushed me to this position. Its the whole of the system and its operations/actions en masse.

I expect biases and leanings from media. So I try to read/watch from different sides of the issue.



Like I said, "its my opinion that it matters not how well the lawyers argued their case. The decision was made before they walked into the courtroom".

Perhaps they are seeking adjudication in line with other settlements.

Heyder Beattie Final Settlement Agreement - Canada.ca

From what I have heard, class members got 5K minimum.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Like I said, "its my opinion that it matters not how well the lawyers argued their case. The decision was made before they walked into the courtroom".

So if you had to go to court for something, you wouldn't get a lawyer because the decision is predetermined? Do you think the lawyers that charge big bucks can do that because they got lucky with the cases, or because they are, in fact, very good at understanding the laws and making persuasive legal arguments in their clients favours?

You might want to give some Court Martial results a read sometimes; they do a good job at breaking down the facts of the case, and explaining how the judge reached their decision, as well as any mitigating/aggravating circumstances they take into account., and are a lot more accessible than a lot of the big cases.

But the Supreme Court judgements do the same, they just are generally dealing with much more complex rulesets and cases. I would suggest your opinion is a personal bias so you may want to read some of the actual judgements yourself and see if that changes;

Navigation by Date: 2023 - SCC Cases

 

[Navy_Pete]

Perhaps they are seeking adjudication in line with other settlements.

Heyder Beattie Final Settlement Agreement - Canada.ca

From what I have heard, class members got 5K minimum.

I think that might be a goal, the difference is they had a reasonable case, and the sexual assault issues are manifestly unlawful.

A number of different cases have already found that the vaccine mandates were lawful, under the context of the time and relevant Canadian laws, I think if they tried imposing a mandate now, where the context is very different, then someone would have a much stronger case under the Charter which has a reasonableness test.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So if you had to go to court for something, you wouldn't get a lawyer because the decision is predetermined? Do you think the lawyers that charge big bucks can do that because they got lucky with the cases, or because they are, in fact, very good at understanding the laws and making persuasive legal arguments in their clients favours?

I'm not a fool, I would get a lawyer. I just don't trust the courts to always act in the best service of the law and society.

You might want to give some Court Martial results a read sometimes; they do a good job at breaking down the facts of the case, and explaining how the judge reached their decision, as well as any mitigating/aggravating circumstances they take into account., and are a lot more accessible than a lot of the big cases.

I have. We have our own problems within the CAF courts martial and justice system. We have a thread for that on this forum.

But the Supreme Court judgements do the same, they just are generally dealing with much more complex rulesets and cases. I would suggest your opinion is a personal bias so you may want to read some of the actual judgements yourself and see if that changes;

Navigation by Date: 2023 - SCC Cases

Its pretty obvious my position is one of personal bias. I've all but said that, normally I try to admit my biases upfront mea culpa. That's said its a conclusion/bias I have come too from watching the courts in action.

 

[Weinie]

I think that might be a goal, the difference is they had a reasonable case, and the sexual assault issues are manifestly unlawful.

A number of different cases have already found that the vaccine mandates were lawful, under the context of the time and relevant Canadian laws, I think if they tried imposing a mandate now, where the context is very different, then someone would have a much stronger case under the Charter which has a reasonableness test.

Pshaw. Really.

 

[Halifax Tar]

@PMedMoe I think @Navy_Pete and I were having a descent conversation; and respectfully as well. Albeit from opposing positions.

At what point am I trolling ?

Definition for you

Definition of TROLL

a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You are welcome to disagree with me. But at least be accurate in your aim.

 

[QV]

The courts kind of have to in my mind, no matter which way the truth shows. At this point any admittance by the powers that be that they F'd up the COVID response would be detrimental to our already divided and antagonistic country.

Leaders don't even have to ask or direct this, the bureaucrats know what outcome the boss wants and work towards that end. Its why they are in those positions. And it is my view the courts are no different on these high level issues. With someone like Trudeau as PM, these bureaucrats and appointees have to work a little harder than they normally would because he is such a fuck up. It is just not possible to politically survive blackface, SNC, etc unless the entire institution (bureaucracy, media, everything) works to that end.

Of course if the PM is not part of the laurentian elite and protected, such as Harper, they will have all kinds of problems with the bureaucracy and media etc.

Could you imagine the fallout in this country in the private and public sector if a SCC decision ruled the vaccine mandates (etc) were violations of the charter that were not justified?

 

[mariomike]

There’s quite a bit of vaccine mandate litigation so far, and overwhelmingly it’s been unsuccesful.

For reference to the discussion,

Saw this legal opinion regarding the Ontario municipal employees class-action vaccine mandate lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati.

EMPLOYMENT LAWYER REACTS TO LAWSUIT​

CTV News

3 March, 2023

QUOTE

Toronto-based employment lawyer Howard Levitt, who is not involed in the case, said that, in his opinion, this is an ill-fated class action lawsuit.

“That, and a series of other cases, mostly arbitration cases, have ruled against them, so they don’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance of success in this case,” said Levitt.

“What’s going to end up happening is the court is going to toss the case for the unionized employees and award cost against them for that, and the non-union employees may have a long case against them, but at the end of the day, they are going to lose,” said Levitt.

He added: “The law makes clear that employers are obligated to have safe workplaces.”

The statement of claim does not break down if the employees are unionized or not but according to Levitt, if they are unionized they cannot sue in a class action in court, they can only grieve through a grievance procedure.

For employees that are non-union, Levitt said the law is “squarely against them” due to precedent set in other cases, and at the end of the day they will lose.

Levitt said those involved may face costs against them after the case is thrown out of court.

END QUOTE

 

[Navy_Pete]

Leaders don't even have to ask or direct this, the bureaucrats know what outcome the boss wants and work towards that end. Its why they are in those positions. And it is my view the courts are no different on these high level issues. With someone like Trudeau as PM, these bureaucrats and appointees have to work a little harder than they normally would because he is such a fuck up. It is just not possible to politically survive blackface, SNC, etc unless the entire institution (bureaucracy, media, everything) works to that end.

Of course if the PM is not part of the laurentian elite and protected, such as Harper, they will have all kinds of problems with the bureaucracy and media etc.

Could you imagine the fallout in this country in the private and public sector if a SCC decision ruled the vaccine mandates (etc) were violations of the charter that were not justified?

Judges aren't bureaucrats, and if you had read the SCC decision on the vaccine mandates it was a pretty careful consideration of what is in Canadian law, not political considerations. The SCC basically kicked the entire Justice system in the sweets with the Jordan decision, so I don't think they would have hesitated to say the vaccine mandate was a violation of the Charter if it was.

Aside from the arguements being terrible from the plaintiffs, they still took an honest look. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a number of caveats of what is reasonable, and the vaccine mandates have consistently been upheld at the provincial and federal court levels multiple times now.

@Halifax Tar fair enough, and appreciate the reasonable conversation even though we are on opposite sides of the fence here.

 

[brihard]

For reference to the discussion,

Saw this legal opinion regarding the Ontario municipal employees class-action vaccine mandate lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati.

EMPLOYMENT LAWYER REACTS TO LAWSUIT​

CTV News

3 March, 2023

QUOTE

Toronto-based employment lawyer Howard Levitt, who is not involed in the case, said that, in his opinion, this is an ill-fated class action lawsuit.

“That, and a series of other cases, mostly arbitration cases, have ruled against them, so they don’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance of success in this case,” said Levitt.

“What’s going to end up happening is the court is going to toss the case for the unionized employees and award cost against them for that, and the non-union employees may have a long case against them, but at the end of the day, they are going to lose,” said Levitt.

He added: “The law makes clear that employers are obligated to have safe workplaces.”

The statement of claim does not break down if the employees are unionized or not but according to Levitt, if they are unionized they cannot sue in a class action in court, they can only grieve through a grievance procedure.

For employees that are non-union, Levitt said the law is “squarely against them” due to precedent set in other cases, and at the end of the day they will lose.

Levitt said those involved may face costs against them after the case is thrown out of court.

END QUOTE

To the best of my knowledge, Rocco Galati is one of the most prolific counsel in vaccine mandate litigation, and is so far batting a flat 0. His involvement as counsel in a COVID related lawsuit or application seems to be one of the single best predictors that that matter is going to fail in court.

I will say that at least the counsel in the CAF mass tort doesn’t try to invoke “crimes against humanity”. She’s got a better chance than any of the matters Galati has brought so far.

Could you imagine the fallout in this country in the private and public sector if a SCC decision ruled the vaccine mandates (etc) were violations of the charter that were not justified?

So far the SCC has not decided any vaccine mandate matters. I don’t think they’ve given leave to appeal any lower decisions either. To get to the SCC there either needs to be a split decision at appeal court level, or a compelling legal question of national interest that is decided on at appeal court and which the SCC feels should be visited. Thus far nothing at lower level has resulted in such a split decision or such an unresolved question. The COVID decisions so far have either been very clear cut decisions that resolve the matter in the particular case, and/or so embarrassingly badly argued by the plaintiffs applicants that there’s just nothing for appeals courts to tackle.

You’re also erring by imaging the SCC ruling holistically on ‘the vaccine mandates’. There’s no single one mandate to rule them all. Tribunal decisions and court cases so far have dealt with mandates individual to one employer or regulated sector, and each case will differ depending on various things such as which law applies (Fed or provincial), what level of government regulates that particular employer, whether they’re unionized, etc. It also depends on whether a particular court case is something like a lawsuit alleging tort and seeking damages, such as the CAF mass tort, or if it’s a judicial review (or appeal thereof) from a tribunal or grievance committee decision. Those involve different types of law, different considerations, and can play out very differently.

A court action has to be a lot more than “this is bad and I don’t like it”. Each individual case requires very particular articulation of the alleged wrongs, or of the tribunal or court decision believed to be wrong. There are certain things a court can and will reverse, and some that they can’t and won’t.

So, a hypothetical SCC case would be unlikely to tackle vaccine mandates writ large and say they were wrong; no single fact set would let them rule that broadly. The answer may not look the same for employees of CAF vs those of Air Canada vs those of The Ottawa Hospital. It would be more likely to be something like… spitballing here… a review on whether a specific grievance decision by federal public servants arguing forced LWOP was reasonably decided at the grievance body level. Something more narrow like that. And that would only happen if the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal already heard the matter and the SCC didn’t think FCA had properly dealt with it.

Anyway, that’s my view on it. I haven’t followed COVID litigation meticulously but I’ve read many of the major ones.

 

[Halifax Tar]

@Halifax Tar fair enough, and appreciate the reasonable conversation even though we are on opposite sides of the fence here.

Good camp fire and James Ready conversation

 

[QV]

if you had read the SCC decision on the vaccine mandates it was a pretty careful consideration of what is in Canadian law, not political considerations. The SCC basically kicked the entire Justice system in the sweets with the Jordan decision, so I don't think they would have hesitated to say the vaccine mandate was a violation of the Charter if it was.

Got a link for that SCC decision on vaccine mandates? And your reference to Jordan (addressing time delays from charge to trial) is irrelevant.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Got a link for that SCC decision on vaccine mandates? And your reference to Jordan (addressing time delays from charge to trial) is irrelevant.

Sorry, was thinking of the BC Supreme court decision, the SCC has repeatedly refused to hear the cases so there isn't a decision. That's not atypical though, they refuse to hear the majority of applications.

Here's a summary of the case law so far; a few of them are in Alberta, and you would have a really hard time arguing that was a political influence to try and give the government what they wanted;

Canada: BC Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Vaccination Policy for Non-Unionized Employees

The Jordan decision is relevant as it's an example of the SCC doing something that is hugely against the GoC wishes, and is a very concrete example of them using the laws vice politics to make a decision. I'm sure they fully appreciated the implications of what that meant because of the shortages of court resources, but did it anyway because that's what the legally correct decision was after they did their analysis of the various competing laws.