Class-action lawsuit launched against arbitrary COVID-related travel restrictions

Canadian aviation professionals negatively affected by vaccine mandates have named Transport Minister Omar Alghabra and the Crown as defendants in a recently filed class-action lawsuit.

Remove Ads

The organization Free To Fly Canada has launched a class-action lawsuit against the federal transport minister and head of the monarchy for what they call arbitrary limitations on Charter-protected freedoms.

The class-action lawsuit details harms imposed on employees of various airline companies by Transport Canada’s Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 43.

That order, put forth by Transport Minister Omar Alghabra, mandated COVID-19 vaccination for the travel industry in 2021.

Greg Hill, a captain employed with Air Canada for nearly two decades with a clear record, is a listed plaintiff in the claim. A pilot with a clear record over his career, he says he was denied gainful employment due to Alghabra’s order that disregarded the established employment terms of him and thousands of others.

“This is narrowly targeted and we wanted to focus on inducement,” said Hill. “The word induce itself means to persuade or influence somebody so that was done via Transport Canada’s interim order… it induced a breach of our contracts that we had with our employers.”

The listed as plaintiffs, alongside many others, were threatened with termination if they did not comply with vaccine orders.

“We were put on a leave of absence, but there’s no such thing as an involuntary leave of absence within our contracts, nor was there this mandate or otherwise,” explains Hill.

“We’ve had our contractual agreements violated via this interim order so it targets those who suffered harm because of it. Whether it’s outright termination, suspension (often referred to as a leave of absence), or others who retired under duress. They had plans to work for 3-5 more years but the means for them having to forego having these injections was to retire early and in the process they’ve lost their full income and impacted their pensions.”

Hill elaborates that the mandate was instituted under the guise of protecting the workplace, although transmission was never an established benefit of the COVID-19 injections.

The statement of claim reads similarly for each of the seven Health Canada approved COVID-19 vaccinations:

“Prevention of viral transmission is NOT an approved indication. The word ‘transmission’ or any of its correlates indicating viral conveyance to another person, does not appear in this document and therefore the Plaintiffs plead that the Defendant cannot claim Comirnaty prevents viral transmission of COVID-19 to other people.”

“If trying to keep our colleagues safe was the justification, long before the interim order was even drafted, that was known to not be the case,” Hill said.

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads