Federal officials strike back: It’s the turn of a group of employees to file a lawsuit against the Canadian government to have the obligation to be vaccinated against COVID-19 canceled – and also to demand about $ 15 million, particularly in punitive damages.
This is not the only attempt in the courts to overturn measures requiring vaccination, but it would be a first from the ranks of government workers.
“They don’t want a government that is like a ‘Big Brother’ and that says to them: ‘you have to be vaccinated even if you don’t want it, and if not, here is a sanction,’” M said in an interview.e Michael N. Bergman, the Montreal lawyer leading the charge in this case, with Mr.e Daniel Romano.
In this application recently filed in Federal Court, these officials challenge Ottawa’s vaccine obligation, which they consider discriminatory and which they believe violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides for the protection of physical integrity and prescribes the inviolability of the human body.
These fundamental rights are not respected if they are forced to have a vaccine injected into their blood, they allege.
“State coercion”
“They attack the idea that they are under pressure to be vaccinated. They think they have the right to make this choice for themselves. They don’t want to be forced, ”explains Me Bergman.
If there are only 212 for now, the conclusions sought on the invalidation of the vaccine policy could benefit all federal officials affected by the policy, said the lawyer.
The consequences for these employees are serious, he argues: those who are not “fully vaccinated” will be suspended without pay, without the possibility of claiming employment insurance.
The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy applicable to the “core public administration”, including the RCMP – but not to all federal employees – came into effect on October 6 and provides that officials must disclose their vaccination status under penalty of being placed on unpaid administrative leave from November 15. The Government of Canada must “lead by example,” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said. According to Ottawa, at least 95% of employees are fully immunized. Exceptions to vaccination are however foreseen, for medical or religious reasons, for example.
But not for those who simply reject this form of “state coercion,” says Me Bergman.
The remedy will be deployed in several stages: first, a request for an interlocutory injunction so that the obligation is immediately suspended, then a trial at the end of which a judge will be asked to order that this federal policy be declared invalid. and unconstitutional.
Several judges have already had to decide urgent requests for the immediate suspension of this imposed vaccine and they refused to grant them: this was the case in particular with the request of subcontractors and suppliers of the federal government as well as that of the health workers in Quebec. These two appeals are however still active and awaiting their trial dates to examine the constitutional validity of the vaccination obligation.
Alternatives
Why would they have a different fate for them? Due to the expertises that will be submitted in evidence as well as the strength of the affidavits of the various officials, believes Mr.e Bergman.
Most are telecommuting, and others offer to be tested every day or every other day: they therefore challenge this government dogma that vaccination is necessary to adequately protect their co-workers.
“There are other alternatives. There are choices, ”argues the lawyer.
In the lawsuit obtained by The duty, we can see that there is claimed $ 60,000 in damages per employee – for the anguish experienced by those who wonder if they will be able to put food on the table for their families and pay their rent – in addition to $ 10,000 each in punitive damages. Officials reserve the right to modify their requests to add financial compensation for their lost earnings if they are suspended without pay or fired.
The federal government intends to defend its policy and will cross swords with the plaintiffs in court on November 30.