Go Ad Free

A case involving members of the Canadian Armed Forces challenging the implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandates is being heard before the Federal Court in Edmonton on Thursday.

More than 300 CAF members are listed in the suit, which was filed in June 2023. Plaintiffs are seeking $1 million each in damages along with a declaration asserting that COVID shots violated their Charter rights. 

"This is not about COVID-19, this is about a corrupt chain of command that thinks they are untouchable and above the law," Catherine Christensen of the Valour Legal Action Centre in Edmonton previously told the National Post.

Rebel News reporter Drea Humphrey is covering the hearing virtually, and will be providing live updates on X. Follow along directly or this page below:

1) Today, I will be virtually live-tweeting for Rebel News, the Federal Court hearing in Edmonton regarding claims of abuse of power and authority against the Canadian Armed Forces over the implementation and enforcement of COVID vaccine mandates.

Case: FRANCESCO GABRIELE…

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

3) The SOC includes claims that CAF troops who opposed COVID jabs endured emotional abuse from their Chain of Command (CoC ) and that the timelines for their releases were sped up against CAF policy.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

5) Crown says “we appreciate their service.”

In response, crown is asked to clarify what was meant by its use of words such “frivolous vexation.”

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

7) crown goes after preliminary issues.

Says the court has allowed evidence re: jurisdiction

Says the plaintiffs have provided “34 affidavits consisting of over 6900, none which were sworn on the issue of jurisdiction.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

9) Crown submits that the SOC is too vague.

Says if a member was mistreated “they need to identify by who” and not give a vague description such as a reference to
to CoC.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

11) Crown continues submitting that the plaintiffs don’t appear understand the nature of the motion.

Says plaintiffs counsel is not suppose to be putting forward additional evidence to support the SOC.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

13) Crown says the claim says all of the about but “we don't know who, when, where, how or what?”

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown says we didn’t know who was involved here or what gave rise to liability and what cause of action does that disclose.

“We can guess perhaps, but the statement claim should be written in sufficient way that we don't have to guess.”

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown directs the courts to 401 of the SOC where plaintiffs claim, the defendants abused their powers due to denying members the procedural rights to be accommodated (from taking the jab) grievances and administration measures.

By redefining the term vaccine for military…

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

In response to reading that claim Crown questions how this was determined.

“How do we know that the directives are premature? What procedural rights are they talking about? How didn’t they articulate the standards properly?”

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown says “the F word” was used ( fraudulent ) and that generally when you allege fraud you would have the particulars.

Continues to pose the question how any of this would be fraudulent.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown goes through case law.

Says there isn’t a basis in law for certain allegations in the claim. Says the argument had made before, and has “been rejected by this court.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown reads from case law where the plaintiffs were seeking damages due to claims of breach of privacy.

That decision found that presently the law does not recognize a common law tort for breach of privacy. “Some provinces have enacted legislation providing a right” for a…

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown moved on to the plaintiffs SOC claims of a breach of the charter.

Says plaintiffs have alleged violations to section 2a, 2d, 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter. pic.twitter.com/gRmPpt0Own

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown says plaintiffs counsel hasn’t cited a case where someone with similar circumstances to the plaintiffs was successful with a charter claim.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024

Crown: the plaintiffs pleadings are woefully deficient. They do not disclose the cause of action. And even to the extent the causes of action are identified they’re not valid in law.

— Drea Humphrey - Prepping and Politics (@DreaHumphrey) September 19, 2024