You’ve posted this dozens of times. It’s a very basic summary and misses many key points, one of which is the intersection of public snd private law. Many public laws regulate private law - for example labor codes regulate relationships between employer and employee. There is no longer complete freedom of contract in employment or most other areas. Other public laws also regulate private laws - rental codes, consumer protection, anti-trust and minimum wage laws are common areas where governments use public law to regulate private matters. The government can by regulation or statute require vaccines in private employment. We see that now as the federal government floats vaccine mandates for all workers in federally regulated sectors. In areas subject to provincial jurisdiction provinces may have the power to mandate vaccines, regardless of the terms of employment contracts. In summary it’s a complex area and unsettled as a matter of law.
It's only a summary of this video. And I counted, 7 times now.
In terms of federal/provincial regulated sectors and mRNA vaccine mandates, the judicial branches are backlogged across the country and it will be awhile before any courts hear any cases.
I'm not sure how informed consent can be provided when that medical intervention has no long term safety data. A lack of informed consent makes a law unconstitutional and a contract unenforceable.
Consent goes to the formation of a contract. Lack of consent means no contract - so it would be void. But that isn't the issue. In this case I am referring to a governmental authority imposing on the private sector vaccine mandates. I don't see this type of mandate, if imposed by valid regulation or statute, making an otherwise existing and valid contract unenforceable as a result.
Apart from that, I don't see the majority of Canadian judges finding against vaccine mandates. It's simply not in their nature.
I don't understand the part about a lack of informed consent making a law unconstitutional. Can you explain please?
For consent to treatment to be considered valid, it must be an "informed" consent. The patient must have been given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment and its anticipated outcome as well as the significant risks involved and alternatives available.
The right to determine what shall, or shall not, be done with one's own body, and to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, is a right deeply rooted in our common law. This right underlies the doctrine of informed consent. With very limited exceptions, every person's body is considered inviolate, and, accordingly, every competent adult has the right to be free from unwanted medical treatment. The fact that serious risks or consequences may result from a refusal of medical treatment does not vitiate the right of medical self- determination. The doctrine of informed consent ensures the freedom of individuals to make choices about their medical care. It is the patient, not the doctor, who ultimately must decide if treatment -- any treatment -- is to be administered.
The Supreme Court ruled that any specific right contained in an international document or instrument is read as a minimal protection under section 7 of the charter. Therefore the rights and protections contained in The Nuremburg Code and The Helsinki Declaration are protected under and addition to section 7 of the charter.
And finally, despite all of that said, I sadly agree with you that the majority of Canadian judges still will not rule against this blatant disregard for our constitution and basic civil liberties.
Thanks. It will be an evidentiary issue. Bottom line is I think judges will hear evidence from doctors that the vaccine is fine and tested and approved and will thus say there is no basis to claim consent is not adequate. Any doctor that challenges the prevailing official view will be deemed not credible. It all goes back to how the judges will rule.
You’ve posted this dozens of times. It’s a very basic summary and misses many key points, one of which is the intersection of public snd private law. Many public laws regulate private law - for example labor codes regulate relationships between employer and employee. There is no longer complete freedom of contract in employment or most other areas. Other public laws also regulate private laws - rental codes, consumer protection, anti-trust and minimum wage laws are common areas where governments use public law to regulate private matters. The government can by regulation or statute require vaccines in private employment. We see that now as the federal government floats vaccine mandates for all workers in federally regulated sectors. In areas subject to provincial jurisdiction provinces may have the power to mandate vaccines, regardless of the terms of employment contracts. In summary it’s a complex area and unsettled as a matter of law.
It's only a summary of this video. And I counted, 7 times now.
In terms of federal/provincial regulated sectors and mRNA vaccine mandates, the judicial branches are backlogged across the country and it will be awhile before any courts hear any cases.
I'm not sure how informed consent can be provided when that medical intervention has no long term safety data. A lack of informed consent makes a law unconstitutional and a contract unenforceable.
Consent goes to the formation of a contract. Lack of consent means no contract - so it would be void. But that isn't the issue. In this case I am referring to a governmental authority imposing on the private sector vaccine mandates. I don't see this type of mandate, if imposed by valid regulation or statute, making an otherwise existing and valid contract unenforceable as a result.
Apart from that, I don't see the majority of Canadian judges finding against vaccine mandates. It's simply not in their nature.
I don't understand the part about a lack of informed consent making a law unconstitutional. Can you explain please?
Imposed by valid regulation.
Informed Consent
Fleming v. Reid, 1991 (Ontario)
R. v. Hape
The Supreme Court ruled that any specific right contained in an international document or instrument is read as a minimal protection under section 7 of the charter. Therefore the rights and protections contained in The Nuremburg Code and The Helsinki Declaration are protected under and addition to section 7 of the charter.
And finally, despite all of that said, I sadly agree with you that the majority of Canadian judges still will not rule against this blatant disregard for our constitution and basic civil liberties.
Thanks. It will be an evidentiary issue. Bottom line is I think judges will hear evidence from doctors that the vaccine is fine and tested and approved and will thus say there is no basis to claim consent is not adequate. Any doctor that challenges the prevailing official view will be deemed not credible. It all goes back to how the judges will rule.