I recognize that Galtti has had numerous victories. But he feels like controlled oppostion. In the last 1.5 years?? no injuctions? No case managemennts?
No real progress, sure the candian system is slow , but I feel he is a blowhard. Its not just him ,but alll the lawyers. I saw that Bonnie Henrys case is not being tried until April 2023.
When is Galatti's charter question 2024????
And this is the wrinkle no one is talking about- Papa Trudeau inserted at the last minute- the deadly notwithsatnding clause
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is known as the notwithstanding clause.Also known as the override clause, it is part of the Constitution of Canada.The clause allows federal, provincial or territorial governments to temporarily override, or bypass, certain Charter rights. These overrides are subject to renewal after five years.
Many emergency measures imposed in response to COVID-19 could limit Canadians’ rights as guaranteed in the Charter. For example:
orders requiring individuals to be immunized against COVID-19, if such a vaccine were developed (see, g., s. 16(1)(a) of the British Columbia’s Public Health Act; s. 38(1)(c) of Alberta’s Public Health Act), could limit the “freedom of conscience and religion” under s. 2(a) of the Charter, or “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” under s. 7, or even “the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” under s. 15(1); and
orders involving the collection and use of personal information, including through mobile apps for contact tracing or quarantine enforcement (see, g., s. 7.0.2(4)13 of Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act), could limit “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” under s. 8 of the Charter.
That said, Charter rights are not absolute; as noted above, s. 1 provides that they are guaranteed “subject … to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. If a government measure in response to COVID-19 limits a Charter right, and if that measure is challenged in court, then the government will be required to show that the limit is justified. Whether the limit is justified will be, “by its very nature[,] a fact-specific inquiry” (RJR—MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 133, per McLachlin J.).
Courts will likely accord a broad measure of deference to governments under s. 1 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly speculated that even “a violation of the right to life, liberty or security of the person which is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, might be justified under s. 1 during “national emergencies”, including “epidemics” (see R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 671, at pp. 802-803; Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (British Columbia), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 518).
Still, this is not a blank cheque. In particular, the government must “show the absence of less drastic means of achieving [its] objective in a real and substantial manner” because “the deprivation of Charter rights [must be] confined to what is reasonably necessary to achieve the state’s object” (Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, at para. 102, internal citation omitted).
TLDR- Its all bullshit , the courts have too much wriggle room , and the governmnet if backed into a corner -will use the not withstanding clause
BUY FAKE VACIINE CARDS and tell your employer your vaxxed
I'm a lawyer, this isn't true. We have to balance advocacy with the administration of justice. Where that line is drawn is highly subjective, but to say that one is "first" is patently false.
I'm a lawyer. Aside from academics, not a lot of people practice "constitutional" law since it really is a byproduct of a bunch of other areas of law, most notably, criminal, followed by employment, followed by HR. Any employment lawyer is going to have a background on the relative constitutional applications. Again though, outside of academics, one does not "practice" constitutional law, as that would be a weird hybrid of employment, criminal, and human rights.
Too much to deal with here. A couple of points: If governments make vaccines legally mandatory that type of provision can be imposed regardless of the terms of the employment contract. Additionally, it would not be illegal for an employer to add new employment conditions. It may be a breach of contract but it isn’t illegal. Plus, there is no issue of informed consent. There is an issue of consenting to or not consenting to the vaccine. The information regarding the vaccine is available. Where does uninformed consent come from? I wouldn’t engage Rocco to represent me on these matters.
If your employer terminates your employment as a result of your decision to refuse this experimental medical treatment, they could be liable for wrongful dismissal or other contract violations.
But they won't fire you. They will put you on unpaid leave until you come back with proof of vaccination, and when you do you get your job back. So it's basically firing you without legally firing you.
The problem is they say that they are giving us a "choice" but if we choose wrong, we are banned from all public spaces. They aren't forcibly injecting us yet so we still have the illusion of choice.
Lawyer here. lol, this guy isn't the top constitutional lawyer in the country. Is this what he calls himself? I've never even fucking heard of him lol. I'm not disagreeing with anything he's saying, but there's so much wrong with calling this guy the top constitutional lawyer. First of all, nobody talks like this. Nobody ranks themselves in areas of law. There are a handful of esteemed academics, with the biggest, by far, being a recently deceased man with the name of Peter Hogg. There are about 3-4 other academics that would be deemed the top guys in the field. This guy is not in that group.
Second, the SCC case you are referring to was based on completely different grounds. It didn't occur in the middle of a pandemic. Any s 7 violation must consider S 1, and this is where the pandemic changes shit.
I recognize that Galtti has had numerous victories. But he feels like controlled oppostion. In the last 1.5 years?? no injuctions? No case managemennts?
No real progress, sure the candian system is slow , but I feel he is a blowhard. Its not just him ,but alll the lawyers. I saw that Bonnie Henrys case is not being tried until April 2023.
When is Galatti's charter question 2024????
And this is the wrinkle no one is talking about- Papa Trudeau inserted at the last minute- the deadly notwithsatnding clause
Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is known as the notwithstanding clause.Also known as the override clause, it is part of the Constitution of Canada.The clause allows federal, provincial or territorial governments to temporarily override, or bypass, certain Charter rights. These overrides are subject to renewal after five years.
So they can do whatever they want!!!!!!
interesting reading https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/articles/covid-19-limits-governments-emergency-powers
Many emergency measures imposed in response to COVID-19 could limit Canadians’ rights as guaranteed in the Charter. For example:
orders requiring individuals to be immunized against COVID-19, if such a vaccine were developed (see, g., s. 16(1)(a) of the British Columbia’s Public Health Act; s. 38(1)(c) of Alberta’s Public Health Act), could limit the “freedom of conscience and religion” under s. 2(a) of the Charter, or “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” under s. 7, or even “the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” under s. 15(1); and orders involving the collection and use of personal information, including through mobile apps for contact tracing or quarantine enforcement (see, g., s. 7.0.2(4)13 of Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act), could limit “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” under s. 8 of the Charter.
That said, Charter rights are not absolute; as noted above, s. 1 provides that they are guaranteed “subject … to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. If a government measure in response to COVID-19 limits a Charter right, and if that measure is challenged in court, then the government will be required to show that the limit is justified. Whether the limit is justified will be, “by its very nature[,] a fact-specific inquiry” (RJR—MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 133, per McLachlin J.).
Courts will likely accord a broad measure of deference to governments under s. 1 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly speculated that even “a violation of the right to life, liberty or security of the person which is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, might be justified under s. 1 during “national emergencies”, including “epidemics” (see R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 671, at pp. 802-803; Reference re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (British Columbia), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 518).
Still, this is not a blank cheque. In particular, the government must “show the absence of less drastic means of achieving [its] objective in a real and substantial manner” because “the deprivation of Charter rights [must be] confined to what is reasonably necessary to achieve the state’s object” (Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, at para. 102, internal citation omitted).
TLDR- Its all bullshit , the courts have too much wriggle room , and the governmnet if backed into a corner -will use the not withstanding clause
BUY FAKE VACIINE CARDS and tell your employer your vaxxed
I'm a lawyer, this isn't true. We have to balance advocacy with the administration of justice. Where that line is drawn is highly subjective, but to say that one is "first" is patently false.
When I’m fired should I contact an employment lawyer or a constitutional rights lawyer? Is there even such a widely available thing in Canada?
I'm a lawyer. Aside from academics, not a lot of people practice "constitutional" law since it really is a byproduct of a bunch of other areas of law, most notably, criminal, followed by employment, followed by HR. Any employment lawyer is going to have a background on the relative constitutional applications. Again though, outside of academics, one does not "practice" constitutional law, as that would be a weird hybrid of employment, criminal, and human rights.
.... Go to an employment lawyer.
Too much to deal with here. A couple of points: If governments make vaccines legally mandatory that type of provision can be imposed regardless of the terms of the employment contract. Additionally, it would not be illegal for an employer to add new employment conditions. It may be a breach of contract but it isn’t illegal. Plus, there is no issue of informed consent. There is an issue of consenting to or not consenting to the vaccine. The information regarding the vaccine is available. Where does uninformed consent come from? I wouldn’t engage Rocco to represent me on these matters.
But they won't fire you. They will put you on unpaid leave until you come back with proof of vaccination, and when you do you get your job back. So it's basically firing you without legally firing you.
The problem is they say that they are giving us a "choice" but if we choose wrong, we are banned from all public spaces. They aren't forcibly injecting us yet so we still have the illusion of choice.
Lawyer here. lol, this guy isn't the top constitutional lawyer in the country. Is this what he calls himself? I've never even fucking heard of him lol. I'm not disagreeing with anything he's saying, but there's so much wrong with calling this guy the top constitutional lawyer. First of all, nobody talks like this. Nobody ranks themselves in areas of law. There are a handful of esteemed academics, with the biggest, by far, being a recently deceased man with the name of Peter Hogg. There are about 3-4 other academics that would be deemed the top guys in the field. This guy is not in that group.
Second, the SCC case you are referring to was based on completely different grounds. It didn't occur in the middle of a pandemic. Any s 7 violation must consider S 1, and this is where the pandemic changes shit.
Just trying to correct this misinformation.