After four months, the Honourable Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson has finally handed down his decision, or lack thereof, involving a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the province’s previously mandatory vaccine passport system and its rigid exemption regime.
The important legal battle was brought forth by The Democracy Fund charity and fuelled by generous donations from Rebel News supporters at FightVaccinePassports.com. Three plaintiffs with compelling medical reasons for not being able to receive two COVID-19 vaccinations, and thus outcast from functioning regularly in society due to the province's vaccine passport, were represented at no cost to them by amazing lawyers from JSS Barristers. This is the same law firm that recently championed a huge victory for religious freedom in Alberta following the continued persecution of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for things like feeding the homeless during life with COVID-19.
In today’s report, I interview JSS Barrister’s William Katz, who was one of the lawyers to fearlessly represent the marginalized plaintiffs. Katz discusses the decision Chief Justice Hinkson handed down today immediately after their team reviewed the ruling. “He declined to consider the petitioners' arguments for the Charter violations or the applications of Section 1,” said Katz when discussing the sum of Chief Justice Hinkson’s decision.
Despite two of the plaintiffs suffering from vaccine injuries allegedly caused by their first COVID-19 shot, and a third having a complicated medical history warranting her family doctor to advise against taking the novel injections with zero long-term studies, Chief Justice Hinkson ruled to dismiss the case without passing an in-depth judgment as to whether or not the plaintiffs Charter rights had been infringed upon by the two-tiered society created by the vaccine passport.
The chief justice cited petitioners Leigh Eliason and Dawn Slykhuis, who tried to get medical exemptions but haven’t “exhausted all of their statutory remedies” as a reason for them having “no grounds on which to claim the Orders violated his Charter rights.”
Oppositely, while the chief justice acknowledged that plaintiff William Robertson Prendiville, who eventually received a medical exemption from the province, had “successfully pursued the statutory remedies available to him,” he decided he was “unable to find that Mr. Prendiville's Charter rights have been infringed upon due to the province not being responsible for the implementation of the Orders by private businesses, nor can private businesses violate an individual’s Charter rights.”
Katz, who says the silver lining to the decision is that the matter was not ruled as moot despite vaccine passports currently not being mandated, and the essential non-ruling on what Charter rights were infringed upon if any despite the processes of pursuing a medical exemption means no negative legal precedent for medical freedoms was set.
Katz and his team are also discussing a strategy behind the possibility of appealing the decision, so please continue to support the ongoing legal costs to fight for medical freedom to be restored in Canada at FighVaccinePassports.com
This decision is one of multiple B.C. vaccine passport challenges that Chief Justice Hinkson has presided over, so please check our upcoming reports at FightVaccinePassports.com regularly for upcoming reports on those matters.