A landmark hearing unfolded this afternoon at the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto, as two Canadians seek judicial clarity on whether the federal government’s COVID-era travel vaccine mandates coerced them to trade one Charter right for another.

The plaintiffs, Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard, contend that the decision by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to ban unvaccinated Canadians from planes, trains and other federally regulated travel between 2021 and 2022 was not merely a public-health measure, but a radical departure from Canadian constitutional norms.

Go Ad Free

Trudeau vilified and ostracized the unvaccinated while on the campaign trail in 2021 (& onward)

Would this kind of dangerous, dehumanizing & segregationist rhetoric constitute jail time under his new hate speech law? pic.twitter.com/HpNxTAr5aQ

— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) March 2, 2024

At the core of the challenge this morning is the question: can Canadians be forced to surrender their mobility rights under Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they declined a medical intervention — in this case, a COVID-19 vaccination — and thereby sacrifice the right to bodily autonomy and liberty guaranteed under Sections 7 and 12?

In arguments filed with the Court and publicized this morning, their counsel, Sam Presvelos, emphasized the novel nature of the restrictions.

“Never before in Canada’s history did you have to submit to a vaccine mandate or other public health measure in order to qualify to travel,” Presvelos said when questioned by Justice on his use of the word ‘novel’ when referring to the unprecedented restrictions placed on Canadians.

“Equally as novel is the choice that was hoisted upon Canadians who desired to travel but did not desire to get the vaccine, so they had to choose one [right] or the other and had to, as a precondition, succumb to vaccination to exercise their Section 6 mobility rights,” he furthered.

“If they did not want to submit, then they had to forego their ability to travel, which is novel because Canadians never had to make a choice like that… I’m not aware of any constitutional trade-off of this sort where the consequence of protecting one right or freedom was the compromise of another right or freedom.”

Their case centres on roughly 15,000 pages of internal communications and cross-examinations of federal officials, which they say reveal that neither the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) nor Health Canada formally recommended the travel-vaccine requirement. Instead, the plaintiffs argue, the mandate was a political decision imposed on Canadians by then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was trying to score political points during his 2021 snap election.

The government side emphasized today that the challenge should be seen in narrow terms: the travel regulations were made under the Aeronautics Act and applied only to air travel, not rail or marine. They argue that the choice to travel — and the consequences of refusing vaccination — was a consequence, not a Charter breach.

But the plaintiffs’ team rejects that framing. “Yes, choices have consequences,” Presvelos told the bench, “but when the consequence is you lose a right that you previously enjoyed free of any such condition — that’s a Charter violation.”

Justice Pierre Duschesne presided today and reserved his decision, telling the parties he will issue his ruling as soon as possible.

Harrison and Rickard stressed in a previous interview that their objective goes beyond compensation — they seek a legal precedent that future governments cannot replicate: “If no ruling is made,” Harrison warned, “then any government moving forward would be free to do the same thing again.”

Justin Trudeau continues to fearmonger the unvaccinated by alleging that they are the ones to be blamed for future case spikes.

Sign our petition to stop future vaccine passports at https://t.co/ZrKx5CEq6f pic.twitter.com/5WICVp1dWL

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) July 23, 2021

Rickard added, “These mandates were never revoked — only suspended. If the government wanted to, they could bring them back,” cautioning the public that this case remains relevant and of public interest.

As #TrudeauMustGo continues to trend, it appears that he will allow the Orwellian ArriveCAN app to expire on Sept 30

We're crowdfunding litigation against this Orwellian digital surveillance tool that Health Minister Duclos says "has been developed for other purposes" pic.twitter.com/RyJ9oJ7QjO

— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) September 23, 2022

Ultimately, the overarching theme is whether mobility rights can legitimately be conditioned on medical compliance. If the court finds in favour of the plaintiffs, it could force a reassessment of how public health emergencies and fundamental rights interact in Canadian law.