COVID vaccine mass law tort?

[brihard]

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).

It likely will be reviewed, by the courts, and it will likely be upheld in the context of whichever case(s) actually are heard. There’s enough litigation ongoing that I expect it will be necessary for one or more courts to examine lawful orders in arriving at their decisions, at least in the context of judicial review of administrative decisions, and probably also in the context of arriving at a verdict in a civil tort (if the pleadings don’t get tossed out for being bad). As there’s nobody charged under S.126, I don’t expect we’ll see this decided in the criminal or quasi-criminal context.

 

[Infanteer]

"What ever the hell it wants to the troops" is a straw man to support a facile argument.

 

[QV]

"What ever the hell it wants to the troops" is a straw man to support a facile argument.

Says you. I'd argue the standard for a lawful order should not just be that it is not manifestly unlawful but also morally correct and, when not in wartime, fully complies with our charter and human rights.

The fact the CAF went about the C19 vaccinations utilizing the application of admin processes when S. 126 NDA exists suggests they wanted to avoid the legality of failures to comply and be able to resort to the much lower threshold of admin processes. This was immoral and not compliant with the Charter.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

not compliant with the Charter.

Judge QV is it??

 

[QV]

Judge QV is it??

Here is a tiny sample of the loads of people who agree with me: Committee Members - Canada.ca

It is without doubt that mandated C19 vaccines under the coercion at the time was a Charter violation. The only part up for debate was whether or not they were justified under Section 1. As more time goes on and the more we learn, it turns out it wasn't justified.

 

[Infanteer]

Says you. I'd argue the standard for a lawful order should not just be that it is not manifestly unlawful but also morally correct and, when not in wartime, fully complies with our charter and human rights.

"In wartime" is a ridiculous caveat - it essentially says lawful commands are open to second guessing unless Parliament declares war. How would things work in every operation we've done since the Second World War?

As well, who gets to define "morally correct" - the disgruntled guy? Is not "obey and support lawful authority" a central CAF principle? Is not following that considered moral?

Finally, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that that the Charter is not fully applicable to the military due to its unique nature, so you're rowing upstream on that one.

Again, a facile argument as you're proposing to undermine a fundamental principle of military organization because you disagree with a single instance of its application.

 

[RangerRay]

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

What Civics class?

I had to learn everything from my parents or on my own.

 

[TCM621]

Here is a tiny sample of the loads of people who agree with me: Committee Members - Canada.ca

It is without doubt that mandated C19 vaccines under the coercion at the time was a Charter violation. The only part up for debate was whether or not they were justified under Section 1. As more time goes on and the more we learn, it turns out it wasn't justified.

My biggest complaint wasn't about getting the vaccine, I get all sorts of vaccines I probably don't need "just in case". My issue was the fact that they made it voluntary but also had an ax hanging over the head of everyone as they made their decision. That's not voluntary. Then they required everyone to attest to that fact because they couldn't access our medical records to find out. If anything was an unlawful order it was that one. The military is well within its rights to order me to take a vaccine, I don't think they can legally order me to provide medical information. If they can't ask why I'm on Tcat, or what medication I'm on, how can they ask me my specific vaccine status?
Outside of the legality, I think it was a chickenshit move by our Leadership. They should have simply ordered us to get the shot because if they had ordered us to get it and people had side effects, that a VAC claim. Right now you made personal choice (on pain of termination) and your choices aren't VACs problem. Show some leadership and conviction. That is the problem. Not the vaccine, not being told to take it, it's that they wanted to force you to take it without incurring any liability. That is a chickenshit move in my books.

 

[TCM621]

"In wartime" is a ridiculous caveat - it essentially says lawful commands are open to second guessing unless Parliament declares war. How would things work in every operation we've done since the Second World War?

As well, who gets to define "morally correct" - the disgruntled guy? Is not "obey and support lawful authority" a central CAF principle? Is not following that considered moral?

Finally, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that that the Charter is not fully applicable to the military due to its unique nature, so you're rowing upstream on that one.

Again, a facile argument as you're proposing to undermine a fundamental principle of military organization because you disagree with a single instance of its application.

I don't think it is too much to make the definition of lawful command to include following the laws of the land such as the charter and human rights law. We already follow these laws. It's why I can't call my (hypothetical) gay subordinate a fag and not send him on courses. Well, that and common decency.


I also think making morally correct decisions is a principle every leader should ascribe to. However, moral is a complex question and a changing goal post. I think I'm on my 4th or 5th set of ethics since I joined. It's enough that I get them confused sometime. So great principle but difficult to nail down. I will say that every person has the right and duty to stand up for what they think is right but they need to have the intestinal fortitude to take the punishment if they are wrong.

Edited to make it clear that I don't have a gay subordinate who is shield from my abuse by human rights law. Also I dot abuse subordinates beyond the level allowed by the NDA.

 

[QV]

My biggest complaint wasn't about getting the vaccine, I get all sorts of vaccines I probably don't need "just in case". My issue was the fact that they made it voluntary but also had an ax hanging over the head of everyone as they made their decision. That's not voluntary. Then they required everyone to attest to that fact because they couldn't access our medical records to find out. If anything was an unlawful order it was that one. The military is well within its rights to order me to take a vaccine, I don't think they can legally order me to provide medical information. If they can't ask why I'm on Tcat, or what medication I'm on, how can they ask me my specific vaccine status?
Outside of the legality, I think it was a chickenshit move by our Leadership. They should have simply ordered us to get the shot because if they had ordered us to get it and people had side effects, that a VAC claim. Right now you made personal choice (on pain of termination) and your choices aren't VACs problem. Show some leadership and conviction. That is the problem. Not the vaccine, not being told to take it, it's that they wanted to force you to take it without incurring any liability. That is a chickenshit move in my books.

Damn straight.

 

[Remius]

My biggest complaint wasn't about getting the vaccine, I get all sorts of vaccines I probably don't need "just in case". My issue was the fact that they made it voluntary but also had an ax hanging over the head of everyone as they made their decision. That's not voluntary. Then they required everyone to attest to that fact because they couldn't access our medical records to find out. If anything was an unlawful order it was that one. The military is well within its rights to order me to take a vaccine, I don't think they can legally order me to provide medical information. If they can't ask why I'm on Tcat, or what medication I'm on, how can they ask me my specific vaccine status?
Outside of the legality, I think it was a chickenshit move by our Leadership. They should have simply ordered us to get the shot because if they had ordered us to get it and people had side effects, that a VAC claim. Right now you made personal choice (on pain of termination) and your choices aren't VACs problem. Show some leadership and conviction. That is the problem. Not the vaccine, not being told to take it, it's that they wanted to force you to take it without incurring any liability. That is a chickenshit move in my books.

Under the conditions of the pandemic, an employer had every right to ask what your status is. This has been upheld. So yes they could order you to provide that info. There is no legality issues here.

 

[brihard]

Says you. I'd argue the standard for a lawful order should not just be that it is not manifestly unlawful but also morally correct and, when not in wartime, fully complies with our charter and human rights.

The fact the CAF went about the C19 vaccinations utilizing the application of admin processes when S. 126 NDA exists suggests they wanted to avoid the legality of failures to comply and be able to resort to the much lower threshold of admin processes. This was immoral and not compliant with the Charter.

Many employers imposed COVID vaccine mandates functionally equivalent to CAF, including termination of employment for noncompliance. Plenty of other cases have litigated various measures and restrictions in the context of the COVID pandemic. None of them rely on S.126 NDA or on the authority of military superiors to give orders to be lawful, and so far they have an strong record of being upheld in court, including in some cases when subjected to a S.1 Charter analysis. See Harjee v Ontario 2022 ONSC 7033 beginning at paragraph 85 for a good survey of a number of these cases.

https://canlii.ca/t/jvl9h

 

[Quirky]

My issue was the fact that they made it voluntary but also had an ax hanging over the head of everyone as they made their decision. That's not voluntary. Then they required everyone to attest to that fact because they couldn't access our medical records to find out.

Attest via a monitor mass drop down tab that's completely unverifiable. There is no way to know who actually got the vaccine and who lied on their attestations.

 

[brihard]

Attest via a monitor mass drop down tab that's completely unverifiable. There is no way to know who actually got the vaccine and who lied on their attestations.

Sure there is. Health Services just requests proof of vaccination as they get caught up, and compares it to a database of who attested what. My employer caught people lying through a similar mechanism. If someone lied about it, you utilize disciplinary measures to address that. This isn’t super complicated.

 

[Quirky]

Health Services just requests proof of vaccination as they get caught up, and compares it to a database of who attested what.

There was a 6 month gap between my second shot and attestation, I don't think, that I can remember, someone asking me directly for proof afterwards. While it doesn't anymore, cross referencing thousands of monitor mass attestations and medical file records seems doubtful.

 

[ModlrMike]

A false attestation would probably have primarily been an issue if one were to have been deployed. If you attested as being vaccinated, and then DAG red because your immunizations are not up to date, that might be problematic.

 

[TCM621]

Under the conditions of the pandemic, an employer had every right to ask what your status is. This has been upheld. So yes they could order you to provide that info. There is no legality issues here.

They why didn't they just check health records? Because they can't. They also already had a process in place to make sure I was fit to serve. They could have made being vaccinated a requirement to DAG.

And I really don't care about the legality. All sorts of shitty things are legal. Sleeping with your executive assistant is totally legal. Calling a person making a sexual harassment complaint a trouble maker is legal. So is making insensitive remarks. Those are just three high profile things military members have been dismissed, reprimanded or career action taken against them for.

If having a vaccine is a requirement for work the have the cajones to says so up front. Don't tell people it's a choice then tell them later only one choice let's you stay employed. We aren't CIBC or Loblaws, we are the Canadian Armed Forces. In the military I joined if I was supposed to something I didn't want to do an order was required. If an officer ask me if I want to assault a hill, I can say no. If an office says "Go assault that hill," , I say "Yes sir" and then I do it.

I have seen far too many examples of people not wanting to give orders because they don't want to be liable for those orders. This is what that was. As a general rule, I'll do almost anything if someone in my CoC is prepared to tell me to do it in writing. My biggest Beef is not with the vaccine, being required to vaccinate or even the concept that a lack of a vaccine could result in a release. It was the lack of leadership at the highest levels and their inability to put their money where there mouth was.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They why didn't they just check health records? Because they can't. They also already had a process in place to make sure I was fit to serve. They could have made being vaccinated a requirement to DAG.

And I really don't care about the legality. All sorts of shitty things are legal. Sleeping with your executive assistant is totally legal. Calling a person making a sexual harassment complaint a trouble maker is legal. So is making insensitive remarks. Those are just three high profile things military members have been dismissed, reprimanded or career action taken against them for.

If having a vaccine is a requirement for work the have the cajones to says so up front. Don't tell people it's a choice then tell them later only one choice let's you stay employed. We aren't CIBC or Loblaws, we are the Canadian Armed Forces. In the military I joined if I was supposed to something I didn't want to do an order was required. If an officer ask me if I want to assault a hill, I can say no. If an office says "Go assault that hill," , I say "Yes sir" and then I do it.

I have seen far too many examples of people not wanting to give orders because they don't want to be liable for those orders. This is what that was. As a general rule, I'll do almost anything if someone in my CoC is prepared to tell me to do it in writing. My biggest Beef is not with the vaccine, being required to vaccinate or even the concept that a lack of a vaccine could result in a release. It was the lack of leadership at the highest levels and their inability to put their money where there mouth was.

And they and the organization are currently paying for it.

 

[brihard]

There was a 6 month gap between my second shot and attestation, I don't think, that I can remember, someone asking me directly for proof afterwards. While it doesn't anymore, cross referencing thousands of monitor mass attestations and medical file records seems doubtful.

I was simply replying to your claim that there’s no way to know who lied. There is; it would take some work, but could absolutely be done, and has been done elsewhere even if CAF hasn’t.

 

[Remius]

They why didn't they just check health records? Because they can't. They also already had a process in place to make sure I was fit to serve. They could have made being vaccinated a requirement to DAG.

Irrelevant to my statement about the legality.

And I really don't care about the legality. All sorts of shitty things are legal. Sleeping with your executive assistant is totally legal. Calling a person making a sexual harassment complaint a trouble maker is legal. So is making insensitive remarks. Those are just three high profile things military members have been dismissed, reprimanded or career action taken against them for.

And yet one third of your post was dedicated to the legality. I was answering that. Not sure what your point is by listing things that have no bearing but you forgot « failure to follow lawful command » as a reason to be dismissed or career action taken against a member.

If having a vaccine is a requirement for work the have the cajones to says so up front. Don't tell people it's a choice then tell them later only one choice let's you stay employed. We aren't CIBC or Loblaws, we are the Canadian Armed Forces. In the military I joined if I was supposed to something I didn't want to do an order was required. If an officer ask me if I want to assault a hill, I can say no. If an office says "Go assault that hill," , I say "Yes sir" and then I do it.

It was. It’s in the order. And it was a choice with consequences. So, get the vaccine as ordered.

I have seen far too many examples of people not wanting to give orders because they don't want to be liable for those orders. This is what that was. As a general rule, I'll do almost anything if someone in my CoC is prepared to tell me to do it in writing. My biggest Beef is not with the vaccine, being required to vaccinate or even the concept that a lack of a vaccine could result in a release. It was the lack of leadership at the highest levels and their inability to put their money where there mouth was.

An order was given. By the CDS. And was in writing.