COVID vaccine mass law tort?

[OldSolduer]

To your other points, I too wish/hope the RCN or CAF is doing a long term study into the effects of long term ship confinement.

Long term confinement will drive people up the wall. Just go to the local jail and look at long term segregation numbers. Even among GP too many people in too small a space for too long.....

 

[Blackadder1916]

Long term confinement will drive people up the wall. Just go to the local jail and look at long term segregation numbers. Even among GP too many people in too small a space for too long.....

Different demographic. One is a group with questionable social skills, the other . . . Never mind.

 

[brihard]

Different demographic. One is a group with questionable social skills, the other . . . Never mind.

The other got caught committing crimes.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The other got caught committing crimes.

763 people held back.....Brihard? Well he jumped in with both feet.

 

[brihard]

763 people held back.....Brihard? Well he jumped in with both feet.

Oh, is it suddenly “don’t make fun of the navy day”?

 

[QV]

“Arbitrary” CAF vaccine mandate violated Charter rights of member: grievance ruling

A recent ruling by the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Board (CAFGB) found that the Canadian Armed Force's (CAF) mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy violated the Charter rights of a member who was released for refusing to get vaccinated.

tnc.news

“Arbitrary” CAF vaccine mandate violated Charter rights of member: grievance ruling"

I wonder if this is true, the grievance ruling.

 

[Lumber]

“Arbitrary” CAF vaccine mandate violated Charter rights of member: grievance ruling

A recent ruling by the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Board (CAFGB) found that the Canadian Armed Force's (CAF) mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy violated the Charter rights of a member who was released for refusing to get vaccinated.

tnc.news

“Arbitrary” CAF vaccine mandate violated Charter rights of member: grievance ruling"

I wonder if this is true, the grievance ruling.

What the hell is the Grievance Review Board doing interpreting the constitution and applying it to CAF policies?

 

[Navy_Pete]

What the hell is the Grievance Review Board doing interpreting the constitution and applying it to CAF policies?

Massively overstepping their mandate and experience? They have 3 separate decisions they just released.

I like how it now goes to the CDS for final decision, good luck getting that agreed with.

Hopefully this at least generates a release of some of the actual advice they had at the time, as looking backwards with hindsight at it is somewhat bullshit, as you really need the contemporaneous info to for the reasonableness test.

I see this one eventually going to the SCC, but probably not via that mass tort lawsuit as it's hot garbage. But if even the unionized public service isn't complaining, bit hard to follow the logic why this wasn't a reasonable direction at the time to meet universality of service, and then not obeying a lawful order.

 

[OldSolduer]

“Arbitrary” CAF vaccine mandate violated Charter rights of member: grievance ruling

A recent ruling by the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance Board (CAFGB) found that the Canadian Armed Force's (CAF) mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy violated the Charter rights of a member who was released for refusing to get vaccinated.

tnc.news

“Arbitrary” CAF vaccine mandate violated Charter rights of member: grievance ruling"

I wonder if this is true, the grievance ruling.

If anyone remembers the Kipling case and where it went - pretty much nowhere IIRC.

 

[QV]

Massively overstepping their mandate and experience? They have 3 separate decisions they just released.

I like how it now goes to the CDS for final decision, good luck getting that agreed with.

Hopefully this at least generates a release of some of the actual advice they had at the time, as looking backwards with hindsight at it is somewhat bullshit, as you really need the contemporaneous info to for the reasonableness test.

I see this one eventually going to the SCC, but probably not via that mass tort lawsuit as it's hot garbage. But if even the unionized public service isn't complaining, bit hard to follow the logic why this wasn't a reasonable direction at the time to meet universality of service, and then not obeying a lawful order.

Sure, the Final Authority (CDS) could rule contrary to the committees recommendations. I mean, the CAF has been operating against recommended practices for so long why stop now? Why have a committee study the subject if you're just going to disregard the findings? Just disband the committee and carry on then.

 

[PuckChaser]

If anyone remembers the Kipling case and where it went - pretty much nowhere IIRC.

Nowhere for the government. He initially was acquitted, CMAC ordered a new trial and it appears that the CAF declined to prosecute. The legal question is still not answered whether it is legal to order a CAF member to be vaccinated.

I maintain the CAF had a proper, legal way to achieve a vaccination mandate but they chose (or the Government chose for them) a politically expedient way of questionable legal authority to do it by ordering everyone to divulge private medical information. Change the baseline CAF vaccination standard to include COVID-19 then order everyone to show up to a vaccination parade. Anyone not having the vaccination complete DAG's red and is put on a TCAT. Order them back in 6 months and if they refuse again, PCAT and release. Anyone refusing the COVID-19 vaccination is charged under refusing vaccination and allow the court proceedings to finally settle the issue while their medical release is processing.

Remember, during the COVID-19 hysteria, as a supervisor I was allowed to know the COVID-19 vaccination status of any of my troops, but could not legally ask why they were on MELs or the status of any other vaccination they had or had not received.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Nowhere for the government. He initially was acquitted, CMAC ordered a new trial and it appears that the CAF declined to prosecute. The legal question is still not answered whether it is legal to order a CAF member to be vaccinated.

No, he wasn't.

https://www.cmac-cacm.ca/Content/assets/pdf/Reports-1998-2004/1998-2004_6_CMAR-CACM_249_Kipling.pdf

. . . The charge was brought before a Standing Court Martial in February, 2000. Sixteen days of hearings took place but no trial was ever held. Instead, the Military Judge first heard various motions, including a plea in bar of trial with respect to the jurisdiction of the court. He then went on to consider what he regarded as another plea in bar of trial based on sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Military Judge concluded that the respondent's right to life, liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter had been infringed. He allowed the plea in bar of trial and stayed the charge under section 126.

And a couple of the headings in the CMAC decision that indicates their thinking about the way Kipling's trial (or rather lack of one) was conducted.

Not a Proper Matter for a Plea in Bar of Trial
The Decision was Wrong in Law

 

[PuckChaser]

Going off the CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/anthrax-acquittal-overturned-on-appeal-1.316712

Guess that's why they need to force Google to pay, they can't get details right.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sure, the Final Authority (CDS) could rule contrary to the committees recommendations. I mean, the CAF has been operating against recommended practices for so long why stop now? Why have a committee study the subject if you're just going to disregard the findings? Just disband the committee and carry on then.

The board hasn't released anything other than a summary of the findings, which is normal, but again, a constitutional interpretation is not really within the scope of their job.

I think findings against the particular process for the AR would be valid, or commenting on whether it's a Charter violation that isn't allowed under the exceptions is where they overstepped.

 

[brihard]

Yup, Kipling is of limited value in trying to figure how S.126 NDA would play out if litigated presently.

But, further to that, litigating S.126 would likely only only generate precedent on the establishment of refusal to vaccinate as a quasi-criminal offense for which one could be prosecuted any penalty sanctioned. What a challenge of S.126 would not do would be to strike down the concept of certain mandatory innoculations being a bonafide occupational requirement for a serving CAF member, in default of which one could be released form service as not advantageously employable.

Like many facets of law, this is something very prone to being overestimated in its reach and significance.

S to the three distinct ERC decisions, all they do is kick it back to the CDS to decide if he wishes to revisit the issue. If he declines to, no binding precedent is created. The grievors would have to pursue the matter further and take it to federal court. As it stands, nothing about the ERC decisions compel a reversal of the Final Authority grievance decisions.

 

[captloadie]

The Directive issued, and the orders given were very specifically written to allow for the splitting of hairs. No one was released for not being vaccinated. They were released for failure to follow a lawful order. This would mean that anyone challenging the final decision would first have to win the argument that the directive/order was not a legal order. (Remembering that an order can be stupid, counter productive, unpopular, or wrong, but not in itself unlawful). This brings it on par to ordering someone into combat, into a CBRN situation, or into a burning/flooding compartment where the long and short term health affects are unknown, but the operational situation dictates the requirement.

 

[QV]

Maybe the overly broad application of what is considered a "lawful" order needs to be reviewed. Just because an order isn't "manifestly unlawful" shouldn't mean it's ok to do it (times of war notwithstanding).

 

[Infanteer]

Maybe the overly broad application of what is considered a "lawful" order needs to be reviewed. Just because an order isn't "manifestly unlawful" shouldn't mean it's ok to do it (times of war notwithstanding).

Say you don't understand command and legal status of the military without saying you don't understand command and legal status of the military.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Say you don't understand command and legal status of the military without saying you don't understand command and legal status of the military.

My thoughts exactly.

Lawful authority is derived from..well...laws. As written by our elected officials and upheld by our judiciary. It matters not whether people's political leanings say otherwise.

It's the same kind of attitude that see folks upset with who won the election and tried to petition the GG to "fire" the PM.

I swear, some people must have been out smoking dope during Civics class...

 

[QV]

Say you don't understand command and legal status of the military without saying you don't understand command and legal status of the military.

My understanding is that, in the CAF, an order is considered lawful so long as it's not manifestly unlawful (KR&O Vol 1 19.015). Examples of what is manifestly unlawful are in Notes (c), such as shooting an unarmed child. Surely we can tighten up what is considered the threshold for lawful and unlawful orders.

I think its time to more narrowly define when command can do what ever the hell it wants to the troops because "lawful order".