CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[Humphrey Bogart]

Tough to say, because their legal counsel seem chronically incapable of filing a coherent and legally sound pleading. That was part of the court’s problem on this one; they didn’t articulate clear and concrete actual causes of action with regards to their employment.

I gather part of this lawsuit involved revocation of certain practitioners’ hospital privileges, but they apparently failed to address that through the proper legal mechanisms. It calls into question the quality of the legal counsel they received and how well that counsel grasped labour law.

I agree that all the "big" lawsuits have been incoherent. A big splash but there isn't much meat behind them.

I find it's the smaller issues going on in arbitration, etc that are much more interesting:

https://opseu.org/information/187823/187823/

This was a grievance related to Employee compensation for rapid antigen testing. Arbitrator ruled that COVID testing constitutes work and employees must be compensated for it. That's a lot of $$$$.

Some others:

Suspended Unvaccinated Canada Post Employees Win Grievance

Canada Post remote workers who were suspended without pay for non-compliance have triumphed in their grievance case.

www.minkenemploymentlawyers.com

City of Ottawa's largest union loses grievance over mandatory vax policy

CUPE 503 has lost a bid to win compensation for city workers who refused to abide by Ottawa's mandatory vaccination policy.

ottawacitizen.com

In the CAF at least, the people I know who didn't want the shots were never kicked out, though a bunch did leave on their own accord.

 

[brihard]

This was a grievance related to Employee compensation for rapid antigen testing. Arbitrator ruled that COVID testing constitutes work and employees must be compensated for it. That's a lot of $$$$.

See, that’s the kind of thing that I look at and I see a reasonable issue to be argued- and it’s nice to see it argued reasonably. I have no issue with stuff like that, challenged in the appropriate venues.

 

[mariomike]

Did anyone actually get fired for refusing the vaccine?

I think unionized employees got their jobs back.

Toronto ends mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for city workers

Scarlett Martyn, a longtime Toronto paramedic fired by the city for failing to get vaccinated against COVID-19, isn’t sure she wants her old job back.

www.toronto.com

the city announced that its vaccine requirement for city staff will end Dec. 1 — and it offered to to reinstate about 350 unionized employees terminated last January.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I agree that all the "big" lawsuits have been incoherent. A big splash but there isn't much meat behind them.

I find it's the smaller issues going on in arbitration, etc that are much more interesting:

https://opseu.org/information/187823/187823/

This was a grievance related to Employee compensation for rapid antigen testing. Arbitrator ruled that COVID testing constitutes work and employees must be compensated for it. That's a lot of $$$$.

We knew that was an easy win.......test me on your time no problem, order me to test on my time then you pay me. There were lots of other grievances we filed that were dismissed also, but this particular one was a breeze.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think unionized employees got their jobs back.

Toronto ends mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for city workers

Scarlett Martyn, a longtime Toronto paramedic fired by the city for failing to get vaccinated against COVID-19, isn’t sure she wants her old job back.

www.toronto.com

Yes, it seems like a case where LWoP should apply IMO.

We knew that was an easy win.......test me on your time no problem, order me to test on my time then you pay me. There were lots of other grievances we filed that were dismissed also, but this particular one was a breeze.

Yep, seems 100% to be a super easy win.

The ones involving money are always way more complicated than other grievances. I find disciplinary ones are the easiest to respond to, at least at the initial stages of appeal.

 

[mariomike]

Yes, it seems like a case where LWoP should apply IMO.

A bit of gentle arm twisting goes with it.

Members not vaccinated for COVID or influenza are required, "to wear full PPE on all respiratory illness calls."

We were on Working Quarantine during SARS.

 

[Winds]

Did anyone actually get fired for refusing the vaccine?

Yes, including several hundred CAF members who are still not welcome to re-enrol.

As well, the federal public service placed thousands of employees on "administrative LWOP", fo an indeterminate length, despite their collective agreements not allowing for LWOP to be forced upon members (LWOP must be requested by the employee, nit unilaterally imposed by the employer). Further, TBS instructed that their records of employment were to state in the notes section "treat as Code M" (dismissal) to ensure they wouldn't be denied EI.

It does appear several of these class actions have had utterly incompetent legal counsel. It confounds me they couldn't even argue a Charter violation (s. 7) for government employees when Health Canada's position (pre-pandemic) was that, “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution”(Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996, page 3).

 

[brihard]

Yes, including several hundred CAF members who are still not welcome to re-enrol.

As well, the federal public service placed thousands of employees on "administrative LWOP", fo an indeterminate length, despite their collective agreements not allowing for LWOP to be forced upon members (LWOP must be requested by the employee, nit unilaterally imposed by the employer). Further, TBS instructed that their records of employment were to state in the notes section "treat as Code M" (dismissal) to ensure they wouldn't be denied EI.

It does appear several of these class actions have had utterly incompetent legal counsel. It confounds me they couldn't even argue a Charter violation (s. 7) for government employees when Health Canada's position (pre-pandemic) was that, “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution”(Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996, page 3).

I’ve no real sympathy for CAF members who made an informed decision to 5f themselves by rendering themselves non-deployable and largely unable to travel. The rest of CAF had to pick up their slack. Same sentiment for other public safety and healthcare professions who made similar choices. Those of us in public safety and healthcare professions were on deck for a wide range of potential disaster response duties on top of the normal day to day work. The small minority made the choice - well within their rights - to turn their backs on what was at that time a reasonable and universal requirement for us to do our jobs. They chose the behaviours, so they chose the outcomes. I recognize some people here will be violently opposed to my point of view on this, and I’m fine with that. I’ve had years now to consider and to reconsider it and this is where I’ve landed.

Some of the mandate requirements, like for, say, public servants who proved an ability to work fully remotely and who were directed to, did not make sense. I would support efforts to get redress on their part. However, it seems those most morivated to seek it committed themselves to incompetently conducted legal actions.

Those who worked the problem calmly and maturely through proper grievance processes and well-articulated legal arguments have seen generally fair results, even if not always what they hoped for. Those who latched onto lawyers who themselves had slid down the COVID conspiracy rabbit hole did not. That decision was on them; any reasonably intelligent person could see from some of the early legal submissions how those were going to go. There are always good labour lawyers willing to take a case on a fee basis, and who will calmly and professionally argue actual law. Instead they flocked to the self-promoters.

I’m not sure how many major COVID legal actions are still winding through the system, but most have probably played out enough now that I doubt any big surprises are still outstanding.

 

[Winds]

I’ve no real sympathy for CAF members who made an informed decision to 5f themselves by rendering themselves non-deployable and largely unable to travel. The rest of CAF had to pick up their slack. Same sentiment for other public safety and healthcare professions who made similar choices. Those of us in public safety and healthcare professions were on deck for a wide range of potential disaster response duties on top of the normal day to day work. The small minority made the choice - well within their rights - to turn their backs on what was at that time a reasonable and universal requirement for us to do our jobs. They chose the behaviours, so they chose the outcomes. I recognize some people here will be violently opposed to my point of view on this, and I’m fine with that. I’ve had years now to consider and to reconsider it and this is where I’ve landed.

Some of the mandate requirements, like for, say, public servants who proved an ability to work fully remotely and who were directed to, did not make sense. I would support efforts to get redress on their part. However, it seems those most morivated to seek it committed themselves to incompetently conducted legal actions.

Those who worked the problem calmly and maturely through proper grievance processes and well-articulated legal arguments have seen generally fair results, even if not always what they hoped for. Those who latched onto lawyers who themselves had slid down the COVID conspiracy rabbit hole did not. That decision was on them; any reasonably intelligent person could see from some of the early legal submissions how those were going to go. There are always good labour lawyers willing to take a case on a fee basis, and who will calmly and professionally argue actual law. Instead they flocked to the self-promoters.

I’m not sure how many major COVID legal actions are still winding through the system, but most have probably played out enough now that I doubt any big surprises are still outstanding.

I'm not sure why you think CAF members who refused the COVID vaccines were unable to travel, most countries had already removed their vaccine requirements by the time the CAF mandate came into effect. Prior to that, when many countries had imposed vaccination requirements for entry, the CAF leadership had determined they would maintain voluntary vaccination.

One of the main issues I have with the mandates, which I've expressed before, is that by the time they were imposed in Fall of 2021, the scientific evidence at the time was that there was no significant difference regarding viral transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. This is what the Public Health Agency of Canada advised the government when they were contemplating imposing the mandate for public servants in summer of 2021 (See ATI request 2022-01335, at page 8).

The vaccines still demonstrated significantly reduced hospitalization rates amongst those in at risk populations (ie. those over 80, having diabetes, etc.) but didn't do much to stop viral spread. Mandates were sold as a means of protecting others in the workplace, not protecting unvaccinated employees from an increased risk of hospitalization (if they were in an at-risk population). When the public service mandate was lifted, there was no reason given on what had changed because the government didn't want to advertise that the vaccines didn't meaningfully reduce spread or how long they had known that to be the case (See ATI request A-2022-00161, at pages 76-94).

 

[mariomike]

Politics, freedom and conspiracy theories aside, although I was long since retired, 99 per cent of our members did their jobs and received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine during the mandate.

Response times were not impacted.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm not sure why you think CAF members who refused the COVID vaccines were unable to travel, most countries had already removed their vaccine requirements by the time the CAF mandate came into effect. Prior to that, when many countries had imposed vaccination requirements for entry, the CAF leadership had determined they would maintain voluntary vaccination.

One of the main issues I have with the mandates, which I've expressed before, is that by the time they were imposed in Fall of 2021, the scientific evidence at the time was that there was no significant difference regarding viral transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. This is what the Public Health Agency of Canada advised the government when they were contemplating imposing the mandate for public servants in summer of 2021 (See ATI request 2022-01335, at page 8).

The vaccines still demonstrated significantly reduced hospitalization rates amongst those in at risk populations (ie. those over 80, having diabetes, etc.) but didn't do much to stop viral spread. Mandates were sold as a means of protecting others in the workplace, not protecting unvaccinated employees from an increased risk of hospitalization (if they were in an at-risk population). When the public service mandate was lifted, there was no reason given on what had changed because the government didn't want to advertise that the vaccines didn't meaningfully reduce spread or how long they had known that to be the case (See ATI request A-2022-00161, at pages 76-94).

STAFF POST: not giving you any grief "Winds", but folks, lets not do this discussion all over again. I'm sure there are thousands of pages we could all read if we wished to on older threads.
Lets keep it to the here and now.
Thanks,
Bruce

 

[lenaitch]

It does appear several of these class actions have had utterly incompetent legal counsel. It confounds me they couldn't even argue a Charter violation (s. 7) for government employees when Health Canada's position (pre-pandemic) was that, “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution”(Canadian National Report on Immunization, 1996, page 3).

We don't know, but it is entirely possible that lawyers who are actually competent in labour and/or Charter law turned them down.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’ve no real sympathy for CAF members who made an informed decision to 5f themselves by rendering themselves non-deployable and largely unable to travel. The rest of CAF had to pick up their slack. Same sentiment for other public safety and healthcare professions who made similar choices. Those of us in public safety and healthcare professions were on deck for a wide range of potential disaster response duties on top of the normal day to day work. The small minority made the choice - well within their rights - to turn their backs on what was at that time a reasonable and universal requirement for us to do our jobs. They chose the behaviours, so they chose the outcomes. I recognize some people here will be violently opposed to my point of view on this, and I’m fine with that. I’ve had years now to consider and to reconsider it and this is where I’ve landed.

Some of the mandate requirements, like for, say, public servants who proved an ability to work fully remotely and who were directed to, did not make sense. I would support efforts to get redress on their part. However, it seems those most morivated to seek it committed themselves to incompetently conducted legal actions.

Those who worked the problem calmly and maturely through proper grievance processes and well-articulated legal arguments have seen generally fair results, even if not always what they hoped for. Those who latched onto lawyers who themselves had slid down the COVID conspiracy rabbit hole did not. That decision was on them; any reasonably intelligent person could see from some of the early legal submissions how those were going to go. There are always good labour lawyers willing to take a case on a fee basis, and who will calmly and professionally argue actual law. Instead they flocked to the self-promoters.

I’m not sure how many major COVID legal actions are still winding through the system, but most have probably played out enough now that I doubt any big surprises are still outstanding.

Meanwhile... Oximes and Atropine Autojets (or whatever the modern CBRN equivalents are) be like....

 

[brihard]

We don't know, but it is entirely possible that lawyers who are actually competent in labour and/or Charter law turned them down.

View attachment 90062

Valid point.

 

[childs56]

I think as the next year or so goes on we will see more truth to the mandates, vaccines and such. There are lots of lawsuits currently happening through out Europe and the United States. Not to mention the pay out the vaccine manufactures have already done over seas.
Funny thing in Canada is those who examine and rule on the mandates are employed by those who made the mandates. Typical nothing to see here move on.

Time will tell, the vaccines/ virus have been surprisingly linked to many health issues lately in other countries. Here in Canada magically we were immune to these conditions. Heart and lung problems being the main two.

 

[RangerRay]

Another major COVID employer vaccine mandate was tossed a few days ago; this one by a smorgasbord of plaintills against various health sectors in Ontario. The court found a host of problems including unionized employees inappropriately resorting to the court before working through their union processes; an overly broad attempt to join unrelated cases, and; absolute failure to actually argue the specific articulable causes of action in lieu of the sweeping nonsense that seems to characterize these actions. The court described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”, dismissed it entirely, but has granted a limited leave to amend and refile.

Rocco Galati for the plaintiffs again. Because of course it was.

‘Inflammatory, unfounded, and outlandish:’ Ontario court tosses case from 500 plaintiffs over workplace vaccination measures | HR Law Canada

An Ontario court has tossed out an amended statement of claim filed by nearly 500 plaintiffs against 54 health care entities alongside the Government of Ontario and several of its officials — including Premier Doug Ford — that challenged workplace vaccination measures introduced in response to...

hrlawcanada.com

Sounds like someone got “legal” advice from a sovereign citizen “judge”/guru…

 

[mariomike]

Funny thing in Canada is those who examine and rule on the mandates are employed by those who made the mandates.

Regarding mandates and the law,

COVID vaccine mass law tort?​

B

Post in thread 'COVID vaccine mass law tort?'

27 Jun 2023

A somewhat more balanced source with less editorializing: Hundreds of military personnel part of lawsuit over mandatory COVID vaccine policy

The suit is being litigated by Catherine Christensen from Valour Law. Normally she handles things like family law matters… Mass tort is well outside of her area of expertise. She’s bitten off a lot here.

This is not her first kick at the cat in COVID vaccine litigation; the represented one of the applicants in Neri v Canada, which was not exactly a success. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2021/2021fc1443/2021fc1443.html With that...

• brihard

• 
• 

11 pages.

I think "freedom" is something we all want.

The reality was, during SARS, of our 800 members, 436 of us were on quarantine.

Other than those it put in hospital, members on quarantine were ordered to report for duty at their stations under "Working Quaratine".

The city had no choice, if response times were to be maintained.

My corner of gov't: Someone on quarantine does not report to work. End.

Would have been nice if our little corner of gov't had seen it that way. But, they did not.

Yes, that was a long time ago.

But, not so long ago that when COVID came along, the mandate didn't seem so tough. YMMV

 

[lenaitch]

No matter. RFK the Younger hates them all so Darwin will sort it out.