Civil liberties lawyer Derek From, with law firm Warnock Craft Anderson in Airdrie, joined the Western Standard to discuss three decisions that ruled in favour of choice with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. .The first case involved a 12-year-old girl who objected to being vaccinated against COVID-19 despite her father demanding she be required to. .READ MORE: Court rules child can't be forcibly vaccinated.The family dispute was heard in Ontario Superior Court by Justice Christopher Corkery. The child's father asked the court to compel his ex-wife to have their daughter vaccinated before the start of the school year to keep "everyone in our community safe." .The girl submitted an email to the court stating she did not want to get vaccinated and said, "This is my final decision." .“I do not want the vaccine. I hope my wishes will be respected,” she wrote. .Justice Corkery ruled he could not mandate vaccination. “I am satisfied she is able to reasonably form her own opinions,” he wrote..From called the ruling encouraging and said he found it interesting "the judge actually took the law seriously and applied the law with regards to the child's wishes." .From discussed how BC and Ontario in particular were "outspoken" about children being able to get the COVID-19 vaccines without requiring parental consent and the lengths that both provinces went to entice children to get the vaccines, including the offer of free ice cream.."The whole idea was to push children to be vaccinated," he said. ."We don't need the parents to get involved. The state can vaccinate your children without your knowledge or your consent if we consider them mature enough to show up for some free ice cream." .Calling it a "child entrapment scheme," From said the concept of determine a child to be a mature minor has now backfired as the courts are starting to apply the law. ."When this gets to court, the court says, if a child is mature enough on their own to accept a vaccination, I wonder if they're mature enough on their own to refuse a vaccination," said From. .He said he's been frustrated over the last two years watching "our governments completely and utterly disregard the common law rights and the constitutional rights of Canadians to make their own medical choices," including Alberta Premier Jason Kenney saying he would protect employers from legal ramifications for dismissing workers for choosing to remain unvaccinated. .From was also encouraged to hear the judge, in his ruling, mention that medical facts are changing and said it's "at least a recognition that the government's narrative, the public health's narrative shifted by February" when the case was heard. .From said he suspects the judge, decided it was time to have a "reset back to the real normal, which is, the law prevails." ."We don't have these 'tin-pot dictators' throughout Canada, making political decisions and running roughshod over the rights of Canadians," said From. .The second case saw Justice Alex Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice side with a mother who did not want her two children aged 10 and 12 vaccinated against COVID-19. .READ MORE: Ontario judge sides with mom against COVID vax for children.“I reject the father’s claim that all of the mother’s concerns about COVID vaccines have already been properly considered and disproven, in a process adhering to natural justice, conducted by an appropriate judicial body,” wrote Pazaratz in his ruling. .“The mother shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the issue of administering COVID vaccines for the children.”.From said although the decision in the second ruling involved a different family and came from a different judge, a "very similar analysis took place," and he hopes it's a trend.."In this case, the judge did the same thing," said From, adding, "the judge wrote a very eloquent decision about misinformation and what judicial notice means.".He said the judge rejected the father's evidence — what From called "government propaganda" — and refused to agree to have the children forcibly vaccinated. .Calgary family lawyer Katherine Kowalchuk with Getz Collins and Associates spoke with the Western Standard in late February when the ruling came down from the courts. Although she was not involved in the case, Kowalchuk applauded the judgement. .“Finally, some reason and logic from the courts,” she said. .Kowalchuk represented a client fighting to stop his ex-wife from having their children vaccinated. The court ruled in favour of the mother in that case and barred her client from preventing his children from being vaccinated. .READ MORE: WATCH: Calgary lawyer commends ruling denying parent-forced COVID vax for kids.The third case was a ruling in an arbitration for a labour dispute between the Sudbury, Ontario Public Health Agency and the Ontario Nurses' Association. .In this case, a number of nurses who filed for religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine with their employer were denied. ."This has happened all over the place in Alberta," said From. .Even though most COVID-19 vaccination policies state there is room for accommodations for employees, most across the country were denied. ."The carrot was dangled; the religious exemption was dangled," said From. ."But was it actually ever possible to acquire one? Turns out, no." .The adjudicator ruled in favour of the nurses.."In my view, the State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma," said Arbitrator Robert J. Herman in his decision.."Accordingly, courts should avoid judicially interpreting and thus determining, either explicitly or implicitly, the content of a subjective understanding of religious requirement, 'obligation', precept, 'commandment', custom or ritual. Secular judicial determinations of theological or religious disputes, or of contentious matters of religious doctrine, unjustifiably entangle the court in the affairs of religion."."What was being offered to them was only a sham," said From. ."This to me, these sorts of religious requests that people had, provided they were sincere religious beliefs that are underpinning them, should have been granted and accommodations should have been granted. And, almost every one of them that I have heard about in this country was denied and those denials were probably illegal." ."It's too bad that it's taken this long," said From, pointing to the slow process of the Canadian court system. .From said in order to prevent this from happening again we need "politicians and leaders that actually respect the law" and suggested the "problem lies with our leadership and with us as a society." .He hopes judges currently overseeing other cases that are still in the courts will look to some of these rulings to help guide their decisions and more unions will offer "strong advocacy for their groups."
Civil liberties lawyer Derek From, with law firm Warnock Craft Anderson in Airdrie, joined the Western Standard to discuss three decisions that ruled in favour of choice with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. .The first case involved a 12-year-old girl who objected to being vaccinated against COVID-19 despite her father demanding she be required to. .READ MORE: Court rules child can't be forcibly vaccinated.The family dispute was heard in Ontario Superior Court by Justice Christopher Corkery. The child's father asked the court to compel his ex-wife to have their daughter vaccinated before the start of the school year to keep "everyone in our community safe." .The girl submitted an email to the court stating she did not want to get vaccinated and said, "This is my final decision." .“I do not want the vaccine. I hope my wishes will be respected,” she wrote. .Justice Corkery ruled he could not mandate vaccination. “I am satisfied she is able to reasonably form her own opinions,” he wrote..From called the ruling encouraging and said he found it interesting "the judge actually took the law seriously and applied the law with regards to the child's wishes." .From discussed how BC and Ontario in particular were "outspoken" about children being able to get the COVID-19 vaccines without requiring parental consent and the lengths that both provinces went to entice children to get the vaccines, including the offer of free ice cream.."The whole idea was to push children to be vaccinated," he said. ."We don't need the parents to get involved. The state can vaccinate your children without your knowledge or your consent if we consider them mature enough to show up for some free ice cream." .Calling it a "child entrapment scheme," From said the concept of determine a child to be a mature minor has now backfired as the courts are starting to apply the law. ."When this gets to court, the court says, if a child is mature enough on their own to accept a vaccination, I wonder if they're mature enough on their own to refuse a vaccination," said From. .He said he's been frustrated over the last two years watching "our governments completely and utterly disregard the common law rights and the constitutional rights of Canadians to make their own medical choices," including Alberta Premier Jason Kenney saying he would protect employers from legal ramifications for dismissing workers for choosing to remain unvaccinated. .From was also encouraged to hear the judge, in his ruling, mention that medical facts are changing and said it's "at least a recognition that the government's narrative, the public health's narrative shifted by February" when the case was heard. .From said he suspects the judge, decided it was time to have a "reset back to the real normal, which is, the law prevails." ."We don't have these 'tin-pot dictators' throughout Canada, making political decisions and running roughshod over the rights of Canadians," said From. .The second case saw Justice Alex Pazaratz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice side with a mother who did not want her two children aged 10 and 12 vaccinated against COVID-19. .READ MORE: Ontario judge sides with mom against COVID vax for children.“I reject the father’s claim that all of the mother’s concerns about COVID vaccines have already been properly considered and disproven, in a process adhering to natural justice, conducted by an appropriate judicial body,” wrote Pazaratz in his ruling. .“The mother shall have sole decision-making authority with respect to the issue of administering COVID vaccines for the children.”.From said although the decision in the second ruling involved a different family and came from a different judge, a "very similar analysis took place," and he hopes it's a trend.."In this case, the judge did the same thing," said From, adding, "the judge wrote a very eloquent decision about misinformation and what judicial notice means.".He said the judge rejected the father's evidence — what From called "government propaganda" — and refused to agree to have the children forcibly vaccinated. .Calgary family lawyer Katherine Kowalchuk with Getz Collins and Associates spoke with the Western Standard in late February when the ruling came down from the courts. Although she was not involved in the case, Kowalchuk applauded the judgement. .“Finally, some reason and logic from the courts,” she said. .Kowalchuk represented a client fighting to stop his ex-wife from having their children vaccinated. The court ruled in favour of the mother in that case and barred her client from preventing his children from being vaccinated. .READ MORE: WATCH: Calgary lawyer commends ruling denying parent-forced COVID vax for kids.The third case was a ruling in an arbitration for a labour dispute between the Sudbury, Ontario Public Health Agency and the Ontario Nurses' Association. .In this case, a number of nurses who filed for religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine with their employer were denied. ."This has happened all over the place in Alberta," said From. .Even though most COVID-19 vaccination policies state there is room for accommodations for employees, most across the country were denied. ."The carrot was dangled; the religious exemption was dangled," said From. ."But was it actually ever possible to acquire one? Turns out, no." .The adjudicator ruled in favour of the nurses.."In my view, the State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma," said Arbitrator Robert J. Herman in his decision.."Accordingly, courts should avoid judicially interpreting and thus determining, either explicitly or implicitly, the content of a subjective understanding of religious requirement, 'obligation', precept, 'commandment', custom or ritual. Secular judicial determinations of theological or religious disputes, or of contentious matters of religious doctrine, unjustifiably entangle the court in the affairs of religion."."What was being offered to them was only a sham," said From. ."This to me, these sorts of religious requests that people had, provided they were sincere religious beliefs that are underpinning them, should have been granted and accommodations should have been granted. And, almost every one of them that I have heard about in this country was denied and those denials were probably illegal." ."It's too bad that it's taken this long," said From, pointing to the slow process of the Canadian court system. .From said in order to prevent this from happening again we need "politicians and leaders that actually respect the law" and suggested the "problem lies with our leadership and with us as a society." .He hopes judges currently overseeing other cases that are still in the courts will look to some of these rulings to help guide their decisions and more unions will offer "strong advocacy for their groups."
