Legal Motion Filed to Dismiss Class-Action Lawsuit Challenging Military’s Vaccine Mandate

September 19, 2024 TruthUSA

The Crown is requesting the Federal Court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit brought by Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members who claim they suffered harm from the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The Crown argues that the claims are inadequate and that there are sufficient alternative remedies available to the plaintiffs.

“We are not focusing on the individuals or their experiences,” stated government lawyer Barry Benkendorf. “We are discussing the legal implications of their lawsuit, which we deem frivolous because it lacks a legal basis. If the case were to go to trial, it would not succeed.”

In June 2023, approximately 330 current or former CAF members initiated a lawsuit seeking $500 million in damages. They alleged that the military hastily administered an untested vaccine, misrepresented the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, and provided no choice to members other than leaving the service. The lawsuit targeted military leaders such as then-Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre, then-Minister of National Defence Anita Anand, and others.

The lawsuit claimed that the CAF’s vaccine directives violated the plaintiffs’ rights under various sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the fall of 2021, the Canadian Armed Forces enforced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all members, with non-compliance leading to the departure of hundreds of members through voluntary release or expulsion under code 5(f), deeming them “unsuitable for further service.”

Crown’s Arguments

During the Federal Court hearing in Edmonton, Benkendorf contended that the lawsuit was “frivolous” and “vexatious” because it lacked a legal basis and included unproven claims related to conspiracy theories. He mentioned that despite submitting 34 affidavits totaling 6,900 pages, the plaintiffs’ argument only referenced a few of them.

“It’s unclear why these 34 affidavits were presented, and it’s unfair to the defendants or the court to review them without understanding their purpose,” he stated.

Benkendorf expressed that many claims within the lawsuit were too vague and that each party needed to clearly outline the specifics for a valid cause of action. He highlighted the lack of uniformity among the plaintiffs, with some still employed and vaccinated, while others were released and unvaccinated.

“This lack of uniformity complicates understanding the nature of the claim,” he explained.

Regarding the lawsuit’s allegations of Charter violations, Benkendorf stated that the plaintiffs had not provided any successful cases where similar circumstances resulted in a Charter claim. He asserted that there have been no breaches of the Charter or privacy due to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

Representing the plaintiffs, lawyer Catherine Christensen of Valour Law argued that the case was not about COVID-19 policies but about the CAF’s unlawful actions and abuse of authority under the Charter. She claimed that despite efforts to ensure impartiality within the CAF’s grievance system, there was evidence suggesting inadequacy.

Christensen stated that the CAF members sought recourse through the court because the military’s grievance process did not offer an appropriate remedy, and the chief of defence staff could not provide monetary damages within the military system.

“Administrative review cannot replace these processes,” she emphasized.

While the Crown contended that the plaintiffs lacked a case and had not proven the CAF’s unconstitutional behavior, Christensen argued that such a determination should be made at trial to meet the threshold for unconstitutionality.

Source link