Governs the relationship between the state and the citizen
In the context of you being an employee of the government trying to impose mandatory vaccination (either through collective bargaining or the course of a contract), then that would be unconstitutional and you can invoke the charter.
Private Law
Governs the relationships between private citizens (i.e you and your employer)
In a private context, if you sign a contract agreeing to be vaccinated as part of your employment and you subsequently refuse, then the employer does have a basis to dismiss you.
If you are already employed under a contact in which there are no provisions for vaccinations, and subsequent to this contract the employer tries to impose vaccination, then you can lawfully decline. If you are fired for refusing vaccination in this context then that would constitute wrongful dismissal and you would have grounds to sue your employer.
The Supreme Court has held that even where the charter does not strictly apply, the values of the charter still apply. Further, the Supreme Court has held that common law that is enforced by courts is also subject to constitutional and charter scrutiny.
The same actions that would be considered a constitutional violation by public authorities would be considered an unenforceable part of a private contract. There is a doctrine of unconscionability in common law that if a proviso shocks the conscious then it is unenforceable since "it is taking undue advantage of an inequality in bargaining power." Courts in common law cannot enforce a provision of a contract demanding medical intervention without informed consent since it would violate the charter.
Therefore, mandatory vaccination in all employment contexts would be unconstitutional and/or illegal. If you are fired in a private context, then your only remedy is to sue for wrongful dismissal.
What if I reluctantly take the vaccine just to keep my job? What if the vaccine harms me?
You could sue your employer though you might not succeed since you agreed.
What you can do is to mitigate your damage by getting your employer to acknowledge that "you are agreeing to take the vaccine even though you do not wish to take it, and if there are any side effects or damages that the employer acknowledges that they will be strictly liable to compensate you for any physical or neurological damage from the vaccine."
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.
Since there are a few studies that indicate the unvaccinated are more infectious, and given an employer's duty of care for its employees, this will be headed for court for sure. I bet the courts come down on the side of caution.
Summary:
There are 2 types of law in Canada:
Public Law
Governs the relationship between the state and the citizen
In the context of you being an employee of the government trying to impose mandatory vaccination (either through collective bargaining or the course of a contract), then that would be unconstitutional and you can invoke the charter.
Private Law
Governs the relationships between private citizens (i.e you and your employer)
In a private context, if you sign a contract agreeing to be vaccinated as part of your employment and you subsequently refuse, then the employer does have a basis to dismiss you.
If you are already employed under a contact in which there are no provisions for vaccinations, and subsequent to this contract the employer tries to impose vaccination, then you can lawfully decline. If you are fired for refusing vaccination in this context then that would constitute wrongful dismissal and you would have grounds to sue your employer.
The Supreme Court has held that even where the charter does not strictly apply, the values of the charter still apply. Further, the Supreme Court has held that common law that is enforced by courts is also subject to constitutional and charter scrutiny.
The same actions that would be considered a constitutional violation by public authorities would be considered an unenforceable part of a private contract. There is a doctrine of unconscionability in common law that if a proviso shocks the conscious then it is unenforceable since "it is taking undue advantage of an inequality in bargaining power." Courts in common law cannot enforce a provision of a contract demanding medical intervention without informed consent since it would violate the charter.
Therefore, mandatory vaccination in all employment contexts would be unconstitutional and/or illegal. If you are fired in a private context, then your only remedy is to sue for wrongful dismissal.
What if I reluctantly take the vaccine just to keep my job? What if the vaccine harms me?
You could sue your employer though you might not succeed since you agreed.
What you can do is to mitigate your damage by getting your employer to acknowledge that "you are agreeing to take the vaccine even though you do not wish to take it, and if there are any side effects or damages that the employer acknowledges that they will be strictly liable to compensate you for any physical or neurological damage from the vaccine."
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.
Galati, he's all talk no action.
Brutally slow, can someone sum dis bitch up?
Fuck you r-tard :)
Since there are a few studies that indicate the unvaccinated are more infectious, and given an employer's duty of care for its employees, this will be headed for court for sure. I bet the courts come down on the side of caution.
Very unlikely any court would rule against vaccine mandates.